An Existential Experiment

(This is a perfect example of the mind trying to figure it all out. Enjoy)

Having had so many extraordinary experiences, I must confess there is an initial desire that others should have them as well. The mystery unveiled itself in the story of Kevin as a shocking and shattering experience. In fact, there were many of them, and they came and went. Later, I stumbled upon self inquiry: the invitation to see what I am or whether I am, to see what thought is and to see what the source of thought is. This marked a turning point. It was my introduction to Self-realization.

After this existential experiment, whenever I looked, presence was found to be always there. It was felt as an uncreated silence or stillness. It was noticed to be the presence of everything and everyone. This was the realization: That I (not the body, not thought) was neither perceivable nor conceivable, still something was sensed. The more I brought attention to what was felt, but not perceived, the more this presence seemed to expand and deepen.

Gradually, the silence became more and more pervasive until everything was happening in a vast silence, not disturbed by noise. In fact, this silence was before the noise, during the noise and after the noise. It remained unchanged. At times, the silence is so great that listening to sounds is like listening to boats while underwater. The silence seems to assert itself and there is a great desire not to speak. I find it difficult to speak from that place. Often, words don't come, so I rest in and as silence.

For me, realization was not mundane, it was extraordinary. Had it stayed at that intensity, I don't know that I could have remained functional, but I did. I remained functional. There was the missed opportunity. Just two simple words, "I remained," blew the whole deal. There was a direct experience of God, of pure consciousness, of love, and the individual "I" managed to survive. Although this experience ripped through like a tornado, there continued to be the reference point "I". At the time, this was the understanding: "I had an experience." "It happened to me." "It was my experience."

The dismantling happened, but thought came and everything got built up again. There was a dying but no remaining dead. "How to remain dead?" I wondered. "Who want's to remain dead?" I inquired. "What is this "I"? I looked and looked, but there was nothing. I made up my mind to try again later, but try as I might, I could not find anything at all. A connection was discovered between looking and tremendous silence. Was this silence the result of something intangible being there, or was it the result of something tangible not being there? I couldn't tell. There was evidence for both.

For a long time after, I was content to know myself as this silence. I was equally content to know myself as an illusion, and that, in reality, there was only silence. Both fit the experience. However, knowing myself as silence, as presence, seemed a two step dance. There was I knowing myself as silence. Somehow, it was simpler to deny than to affirm. Seeing that I was not, and that only presence is seemed to instantly cut "me" out of the picture. Seeing that there was nothing perceivable, that there was, in reality, no "I" no "me" and no "my," created a sense of uninvolvement. There was absolutely no interference. It was seen that there was no solid "I", and therefore no "I" at all. Something was noticed, and nothing stood in the way. There was not two.

As an existential experiment, even as a realization, it was enough, but what of expression? How was this "not-two" reality going to live? Questions flooded in: What did it mean to live as grace? What was surrender? What was this dying to which so many mystics have alluded? Had I bypassed death? Had I cheated death by realizing that there was just one reality? What of embodiment? What of discernment? What of real and unreal, true and false, good and bad? Did the discovery of one reality mean the dissolution of all distinctions? Was living as truth unavoidable? Was there no possibility of living from ego, only the possibility of believing that one is living from ego? Was the ego just another equally trustworthy expression of the one reality? Was it alright to collapse the two? I felt there needed to be distinctions, some clarity, some discrimination.

I kept coming back to it. "What was this death?" Was it being present? Was it acceptance of what is? Was it realizing there is no mind? Was it not claiming doership? Was it not being identified with thought? And what about action? The indiscriminate acceptance of all actions as Divine, was that simple or sloppy? Was there a difference between actions that the mind seemed to initiate, and those which seemed to originate from silence? Was death surrender to a greater Intelligence, or was it the realization that there was no one to surrender and no one to interfere with the One?

What was enlightenment after all? Was it realizing That and letting That act? Was it acting and not accepting praise or blame? Was it not claiming doership, or was it non-doing? Was it no responsibility, or not responding? Was it not claiming ownership of thoughts and actions, or was it disregarding thoughts and allowing action to arise spontaneously? Was it non-involvement with the conscious mind or was it non involvement with action?

Was there no possibility of freewill or was liberation freedom from self will? Was ignorance simply the belief that there is a self, and enlightenment the realization that there isn't, or was there a bit more to it? Was the human being predestined to play out his or her conditioning, or was there a possibility of entirely new action that came moment to moment from the unconditioned, action that sprung from no mind, action that was nothing less than the Unconditioned acting?

Investigation continued, and a few things became clear. It became clear that being present as this awareing presence stopped the mind. It became clear that living in the now also stopped time and with it the mind. It was seen that being no one you think you are frees you from the compulsion to act from thought. It was clear that realizing you don't exist also freed one from the possibility of acting from thought, realizing "you are not the doer," had the same results.

Reflection deepened. It was seen that enlightenment was not so simple as staking a claim. It was not so simple as acting without taking responsibility. It did not follow that action was irrelevant. Because ego was an illusion, it did not exclude the possibility of acting from an illusion. Just because there was no self, it did not follow that there was no self-deception. So long as one acts impulsively from conditioned thought, as though it were him or herself, ego is involved, so is self-deception and ignorance.

One way or another, dependence on ego has to be dissolved. When "I" is dissolved, the connection between thought and action is broken, and action no longer flows from thought. It is unconditioned. If there's no "I", there is no connection between thought or action. Without "I" there is no my. All the methods are meant to bring one to this realization.