The Little Purple Notebook On How To Escape From This Universe
Copyleft � 1998 by Maximilian J. Sandor, Ph.D.
Subscription Information: Maria Loren
[email protected]
Website:
http://transmillennium.net/pnohteftu/
Process and Results
Ideally, the result - or 'End-Phenomenon' (EP) - of certain kinds of
solo-processes should not be known before the process finished.
The reason for this lies in the ability of the human mind to 'mock up' this
result (EP) instead of working on its achievement.
In an extreme case a pseudo-EP, such as the recall of events on the time
track that are supposedly shared by all members of the human race, could
replace a genuine realization of one's own past.
If this happens, an indoctrination has taken place in which the mind
becomes burdened by an additional load that is held firmly in place by its
proper untruth, and, clearly, the opposite of 'liberation' has been
achieved.
The occurence of 'mocked up EPs' is difficult to prevent.
For one, the end results of processes need to be known to processors to
validate its general usefulness and for selecting a specific process in the
framework of a 'programme' or 'rundown' that is being designed for a
address a larger goal.
Then, for processes that can be overrun, the EP should be known in order to
finish off in time.
Further, making EP's 'secret' to only those who achieved it, is not a
viable option, either, especially not in the age of the Internet.
One could try to differentiate between mock-up and 'true' experiences. But
then another problem arises: ultimately all experiences are mock ups of
some sort: the significance of the entire Universe is in the mind of the
beholder.
But there is a substantial difference in 'reality' between the mock up of
'having a million dollars' and looking at one's balance and realizing that
one indeed 'has' a million dollars in assets.
If a guy wants to travel from LA to San Francisco and would start up
Microsoft's Flight Simulator, he could depart Burbank, fly across the
desert, make a perfect instrument approach into Oakland, even accomplish
the unheard feat of landing a plane on the simulator, but the guy would
_still_ sit in front of his computer in LA and would not _be_ there.
How can one then prevent the premature and artificial mock up of an
end-result that robs the processor/processee of the desired, 'full' EP?
The awareness of this potential problem is certainly of big help and
raising this awareness is the purpose of this chapter.
To illustrate this potential problem, here are some examples:
* Let us assume a 'guided tour' through parts of the 'Tree of Life'.
This is, of course, a facilitated process, even though it is often not
regarded as such. But 'in the process' of the tour itself, the
facilitator, through tape or through real-life narration, is putting
there already parts of the landscape that is to be experienced.
Instead of _looking_ in his or her own mind, the processee may be
tempted to just _mock up_ the landscapes as induced by the narrator.
Thus, the experience easily becomes a duplication of the pictures of
someone else, instead of getting in touch with one's own _original_
departments of the mind.
* a related example is the so-called 'Grand Tour' of Hubbard in the
'50s: in this facilitated process the processee is invited to roam the
globe in an exterior state. Here, the difference becomes even clearer:
is the experience a mock-up or is it an immediate one, independent of
the expectations of the facilitator and the processee?
* an example that has created much confusion in the past is the
so-called 'clear cog(nition)'. If the processee 'knows' the specifics
of the EP(s), s/he could mock-up this state. Perhaps, in a certain
sense, the person would be 'clear' to some extent at the time it mocks
up the EP(s). But the moment, the mock-up is fading, reality (and
bank) sets in again, unabated by its temporary break.
* a dramatic example of the problem of mocked-up EPs can be witnessed in
Buddhist circles: while Gotamo (the 'Buddha'), in the original Pali
Canon describes the results of processes in the form: "...in doing so,
the person _realizes_ that...", later generations of his disciples are
interpreting the EP as a mock-up process itself:
instead of coming to the realization that 'things are not-the-self',
they now indoctrinate themselves and others to hold the _belief_
(instead of the cognition) that 'things are not-the-self'.
The latter is known as 'not-is-ing': it is _denial_ instead of
_resolution_.
Any non-confront (of which denial is just a form) results in the
_persistence_ of the issue and not it resolution. Non-confront, after
all, is the major cause of 'case' in the first place!
In short, the issue, whatever it may be, is likely to come back like
a boomerang and usually grows _stronger_ in the process. (cp. the
chapter "Why 'Letting Go' Can Be a Bungee Cord..."
The only safeguard, it seems, is to be fully _aware_ of this potential
problem, and to exert the highest degree of honesty and integrity in one's
own judgement without going into self-criticism or self-invalidation.
The constant vigilance that is thus required represents a process in its
own right: it involves stepping out of the identity that was used during
the process and looking at the entire scene from the outside.
This vital step is sometimes approximated by self- or other-imposed
'quality control' measures. Unfortunately, more often than not, this effort
culminates in a coaxed 'success story' and thus becomes yet another tool of
indoctrination and 'brain washing' rather than a honest looking back at the
process and its results.
In the end, there is no replacement for personal integrity.
However, the latter is ultimately the main goal to be achieved, resulting
in a catch-22 situation.
In short, the process of liberation can be likened to a 'boots-trapping'
process in which integrity grows in steps of varying magnitude.
The growth of integrity - or, in other words: the resolution of
dis-integrety ('dukkha') - thus results in the liberation of the Being.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyleft � 1998 by Maximilian J. Sandor, Ph.D.
