(written 1980 when I was 28]
Earlier I mentioned the basic distinction regarding awareness level and I worked with the triad: the mind, meditative state and samadhi. Now I want to introduce the basic theoretical distinction regarding the relationship between subject and object. As I mentioned before, the subject may not be identical to the ego, but must be the witness. Therefore, I use the 'witness' and not the 'subject' as words to emphasize the difference.
Let's consider theoretic theory for a single moment. The paradox here is that thinking cannot 'capture' the moment, because thinking requires time, but we try anyway.
What are the possibilities when we consider the two variable 'degree of awareness' and 'the relation between witness and object'
Degree of awareness: (the witness kan be in three different degrees of awareness.)
Witness—object—relation: (the witness can relate in 3 different ways.)
I. the witness is separated from the object.
II. the witness is in a Yin-Yang relation to the object.
III. the witness is alone or identical with the object.
Based on these analytical models, we get nine options when coupling the first 3 with the last 3. Before moving on to these 9 options, the following must be said:
ad. I. the witness is separated from the object.
As mentioned before, this relationship can only be imagined, it cannot be experienced. We think we experience this, but experience can only take place at the moment. IN at the moment, what we call time does not exist and thus does not exist separation, thinking, etc. The illusion is based on the social agreement about the ego, thinking and the absolute existence of time. This one is as described only punctual (just as II is punctual) in the state of mind.
ad. II. the witness is in a Yin-Yang relation to the object.
When this relationship is experienced in time as a continuous flow of moments, thinking, the ego, time etc. neither exist or is being experienced. You can imagine the possibility of experience, but you can not think your self INTO the experience itself. This can only be experienced.
ad. III. the witness is alone or identical with the object.
The same can be said of III, as was said of II, merely with the difference that here is the witness-object relationship and the polarity between II and III transcended. Further, space and time are transcended.
Summary of I, II and III regarding thinking and non-thinking/experience can be said, that one can imagine all three possibilities, but one can only experience II and III. The illusion of the state of the temporal mind (not I, because I does not exist in reality, only in thinking) consists in moment of the experience itself moment is processed by the thinking, which must conclude that the object is separate from 'the experiencer' (actually the witness), and thereby again is concluded that 'the experiencer' must be the ego.
Now let's consider the 9 different options. The necessary built-in contradictions are because I try to seize the moment with temporal thinking and its associated language.
I try to get as close as possible to reality, that is all, a theory can do. Maybe the theory can show, that thinking itself is the paradoxical problem, so the theory must necessarily point beyond itself, ie. towards non-thinking. And that is, what I am doing, though it was far from planned before I began the thesis. I have just tried to think as far as I could.
I.1 the witness separated from the object. — unaware.
the witness is both in the moment and in time unaware, that is no experience (I use 'experience' = perception). No recollection and the I therefore can not remember how long the condition lasted. Temporal and in practice only occurring a 'part' of the time, but in this 'part time' it always is. I think, that the not-remembered sleep and the 'falling in spells' are here.
1.2 Witness separated from the object — aware.
The witness is aware, some memory. The witness is mainly in the mind, ie. experiencing identity with the ego or the 'I'. This unfortunately illusory state is our normal state and self-understanding. The witness experiences the mind as a wall (this describes Pink Floyd particularly well on 'The Wall'), a prison, etc., which it cannot break out of. Many people experience very little contact with their bodies, themselves and the outside world and do not know how to get out of prison. Feelings of isolation, hopelessness, etc.
In time the ego is not an illusion. The ego or the mind is a good tool or 'bio-computer' to orientate itself into the physical reality. But in the moment and in theory, it is the illusion of the ego that the subject of perception is the ego. The subject of perception is the witness. Society excommunicates the meditative temporal experience where the ego and time do not exists in the time of the experience itself (only after the cessation of the experience the mind concludes that there must have been time), as un-real, because it is illogical, because time and non-time cannot exist at the same 'time'. The meditative state and the state of mind are equally real in time, but society determines (sets) the meditative state as unreal, thus affirming the ego as the subject of perception.
This is a significant point, as many critics of the wisdom of the East dismiss it as nonsense. Logically, it is nonsense or paradoxical when, for example, Bhagwan says the ego is illusion. He believes that the illusory is the epistemologically identity between the ego and the actual perceiving subject (the witness), and this holds true for the present perception. In time, the ego is real and unreal.
1.3 witness separated from object - 100% aware.
As far as I can see, this is impossible.
II.1 the witness in yin-yang relation to the object - unaware.
Temporally, the witness is in a meditative state, but experiences nothing, remembers nothing after the state has ceased.
II.2 the witness in yin-yang relation to object - aware.
At the moment experience is going on, whether the witness can recall depends on the degree of awareness. Temporally in the meditative state the same applies. Whether this takes place with closed or open eyes is secondary. Most meditation techniques attempt with eyes closed first. This state or moment is the only true form of realization. I have tried to show that theoretically it must be so. Only practice can verify this.
II.3 the witness in Yin-Yang relation to the object - 100% aware.
For the unenlightened person only possible at the last moment before samadhi. This moment is experienced as the death of the ego with 100% awareness - our culture calls this moment 'death'. If for any reason (courage or necessity) the witness can hold 100% awareness a single moment longer, the witness is alone in samadhi. Next to last moment is total darkness, last moment is total light. The moment of samadhi actually belongs to III.3.
III.1 the witness alone or identical with the object - unaware.
An example given earlier is 'to fall into spells'. In deep dreamless sleep the witness is with the Self or in a kind of 'unaware samadhi' without knowing it. Some Tibetans believe (I got the information from Jes Bertelsen) that in deep sleep we get a new 'portion' of spiritual energy, and this should explain why in the morning when we wake up we have new fresh energy at the witness's disposal. In contrast to the feeling just before sleep: 'I have no more (attentional) energy to be a witness anymore.' Further, the body and ego may also be tired of the day's struggle to maintain the notion of ego sovereignty. Then the body, the ego and the witness all fall asleep in beautiful tri-unity.
III.2 the witness alone or identical with the object - aware.
First samadhi experience, where the witness is (in) an 'empty space' (correction January 1981).
III.3 witness alone or identical with object - 100% aware.
Second samadhi experience where the witness (consciousness) is 'illuminated' by the spiritual light in a flash. The witness is the spiritual light in this glimpse. This is NOT the experience that Bhagwan calls 'Enlightenment'. The third samadhi or satori (I use 'samadhi' and 'satori' synonymously) is the experience of God, Tao or whatever we shall call the indescribable. This third satori, which Bhagwan calls 'Enlightenment', unlike the first and second satori, is NOT a momentary experience, but a prolonged one - in my case it lasted perhaps between 15 and 60 seconds. It is impossible to say how long, as time does not exist in this indescribable union with the Infinite Universe of Divine Love. (correction January 1981)
Comment on bla. III.1.
Elaboration on the Tibetans' proposal for explanation: I have now encountered three-parts countless times:
(many more can be found.)
I have never heard a satisfactory explanation of why most people who are near the polarity stage of psychic development - that is, most people - need to sleep precisely eight hours a day (1/3 of 24 hours). And why do people who are moving towards the Yin-Yang step need to sleep less?
My speculative hypothesis now is: Since the attention level is close to 0% and the developmental stage is close to the polarity stage, both body, mind and spirit (the witness) need rest every third moment of total time. Rest is similar to the meditative state. Here body, soul and spirit all relax. But almost 100% of the waking state we are in the tense state of mind, i.e. here neither body, soul nor spirit gets rest. Since the body does not rest, it must compensate by resting for eight hours. And at the same time it must be assumed that the witness is unaware, otherwise energy is used in the state of the mind - and it is tense - to look at the dreams. The person can do this by setting the witness's level of awareness to zero.
If the unconscious or the Self does not allow the witness and the soul to stay at zero, i.e. if it sends dreams so powerful that the witness finds it difficult to repress them, then energy must be used to process them and look at them. If the ego has a judgmental attitude towards the Self - and most do - the ego resists and therefore uses energy. This can cause the person to wake up and feel tired. This can be compensated for either by sleeping longer - for during energy-demanding dreams the body does not rest - or by being more aware and accepting of the Self in the waking state of consciousness.
And this should explain why people in psychic development need less sleep, for this is the experience. And it is immaterial whether they live mostly yogic or tantric. These persons try to be guided more by the Self than by the ego. They live in a waking state more 'meditatively', i.e. not fighting with the river. And since they are more aware all the time, they will also remember their dreams more than others.
Living more 'meditatively' is not, as is often said by critics, 'fatalistic' or 'apolitical' etc. It means that in those situations where it is not necessary to be in the mind (and these are many: eating, loving, physical movement, etc.), one tries to be more meditative, not thinking about a thousand other things when eating, when loving, when moving, etc. That it is difficult is something else, but it is possible to a greater extent when you practice it. And that's what meditation is about: practicing being, not doing, thinking, etc.
You train yourself to be more attentive, and you can be this way if you are in the mind despite tension. With more awareness, i.e. consciousness or intelligence, one becomes more able to choose consciously and not, as we mostly do: unconsciously. (end of comment)
Human existence - and therefore all existence, since we are part of it - seems to me to be increasingly paradoxical, but to think this way (i.e. without having experienced it in time), thinking itself must be paradoxical, i.e. transcend dialectical logic.
The more I have worked my way into paradoxes (not forgetting my experiences and Bhagwan's statements) and realised that there is no way around it, the more amusing it has become, for one ends up in the paradoxical, that there is no 'explanation' for existence: it is what it is ! It is just resting in itself.
Only when we try to think with a time-bound and thought-bound language and theories of existence, time has already passed the existence we tried to capture a moment ago. Existence is neither logical, dialectical nor paradoxical in itself, it is. It is our theory and thinking that is logical, dialectical or paradoxical.
Let's take the example of the moment and time. In itself there is only the moment. Fur sich (for us) we can conclude that the moment must exist. Now when we introduce time into thinking, we have problems. If we define time as the 'continuous flow of infinite many moments' and the moment as non-time, then in thinking we must accept both time and non-time.
The problem is the same as when one moves from I and then concludes that the matter must be viewed from II. But in II one cannot think, so one must return to I to solve the problem. And in I one concludes that it can only be solved by being in II and simultaneously thinking, but this is impossible because one cannot think in II (meditative state or a moment when the witness is in Yin-Yang relationship with the object). If one keeps trying to think one's way to the solution, one is thrown back and forth between I and II and gets nowhere unless one reconciles by accepting both.
Or with time and the moment (still in thinking): if I put myself in the position of time, then the moment cannot exist. But I can only think it, i.e. by putting myself on the standpoint of time, but when I think, time exists, etc. And to reconcile the disputants, we must say in theory that both time and non-time exist.
Or to put it briefly: existentially only the moment exists, but for us in thinking (because thinking separates) and in theory we have both the words 'non-time' and 'time'.
The interesting thing about the time-moment problem, for example, when you go deep into a theoretical derivation that follows logic, it necessarily becomes dialectical at first, and if you can't get beyond that, then you are thrown back and forth between two positions: time and moment, for example. Each time you are at one, in order to explain the whole context, you have to cross over to the other standpoint in order to do so, and when you have crossed over, you have to go back to one in order to do so, etc.
You jump back and forth until you eventually figure out that there is no way around the problem other than accepting that the separation you originally made doesn't hold, and then what? Then, in the end, there is nothing else to explain, why there is nothing to explain !
If either a scientific or a non-scientific theory wants to explain something, one tries to maintain existence at the moment, which must be the easiest. Then you get into the problem at some point that you have to put yourself in the position of time, etc. Then you introduce 'infinity' - but that necessarily means that you give up the first premise of the existence of the moment and of time - and now you try to explain something in the theory of the moment and forget that you have rejected the premise of the existence of the moment (by introducing precisely the concept of transcendence 'infinity' - and so far also the concept of 'time'), and if you do that, the theory will be false no matter how hard you try.
The problem is that on all three levels I, II and III you cannot work with logic, dialectics and paradoxes, because then you are stuck with the illusion that time exists on all levels and time does not, only on I. On II and III time does not exist, and II is the epistemologically true one for both planes I and II. For III, the subject is identical with the object.
If atomic physicists have come to the conclusion that everything is a form of light, then they just need to figure out that we are also a form of light, just spiritual light and ultimately the whole point of life here on earth is to be united with its own light, existence itself.
In our normal state of mind, which is just a state of mind (!), we are in our self-awareness both on I and II. Actually we are on II, but society has excommunicated it - otherwise it would look quite different.
(If it has been or is a little difficult to understand Plans I, II and III, it might help to look at my more concise presentation in the Appendix.)
So far we can think our way to. But is it now also true, i.e. is it possible to experience. And we can't imagine that, we have to verify it in practice. And here it does not help that others have experienced it, as it does by thinking.
Once a person has thought something long and complicated (e.g. Einstein) and has (up-)'found' e.g. the theory of relativity, we don't have to think it all through again as he did (i.e. we don't have to do the same thought research that he has done). We can sit down and read it, because thought can be externalized as writing. Expercer, however, cannot. They must be experienced by the individual. And this is the fundamental difference between science and religion !
(last paragraph corrected January 1981)
So far we can think, but neither I nor others can prove it to others (let alone 'over-prove' others). I have tried to show that the possibility must theoretically exist for the experiencing of the witness in Yin-Yang relation to the object and the witness identical with the object. Temporally I have called II the meditative state, III samadhi, although it is an instantaneous experience.
But now it seems to me that I was forced to prove theoretically that what Bhagwan has experienced and is experiencing (and all the other enlightened persons through time), that it must be possible. If I have succeeded in this, and if one would scientifically call it true, if one can show the possibility of such experiences, then my theory must be true.
The interesting and amazing thing is that the theory shows even beyond itself, showing that the only possible solution to the separation between subject and object is the meditative state in practice.
If I or someone else (Kierkegård: 'Truth is subjectivity', Hegel etc.) in the theory comes along and says that this must be so, then others can say that 'that's nonsense, don't try to make me believe that, it's not only illogical, it's paradoxical etc.' That may be all right, I'm a bit mad, but only in the head apparently, not really.
But what if a Buddha or a Christ or a Bhagwan comes along and says, 'I've seen it, I've experienced it', that's pure madness in the eyes of society. The man may be crazy, but it becomes socially dangerous if more and more people start believing what he says. If he does no social harm other than to go and shout about it, and not that many believe it, then it doesn't matter. If, on the other hand, he disturbs the social order himself or possibly together with so-called disciples, then society must defend itself against him. First in theory, and if that does not help, then it may have to kill him in the extreme, as happened with Jesus, Socrates, Mansoor and others. But I will come back to this.
It is on purpose that I have chosen the word 'experiences' as the heading for this chapter, as this word covers the coupling of experiencing (non-thinking) and thinking. It refers to both the moment in experiencing and the time in thinking (thinking can only exist in time). Thoughts are ultimately words or language about experiencer, about reality or about existence, and thoughts exist only in the mind.
'To be' thus means 'to witness'. If the witness, i.e. the person is identified with his thoughts, the person is not in these moments. The witness can be non-identified with his thoughts, i.e. be a witness to them, and in these moments the person is or exists. One of the extreme cases is the distracted professor who has directed so much attention to his thoughts and at the same time is his thoughts for a large part of the time. Not only does he pay very little attention to the outside world, but he finds that time passes very quickly because for relatively few moments he is witnessing objects in both the external and internal worlds.
The experience of the intensity of life thus depends on two variables: 1) the level of attention and 2) how many moments one is witnessing (is in II) and how many one is in the mind (is in I). If just one of these variables increases, one feels that one is living more. If both are increased, one feels that one is living even more.
One of the essential points of this paper is that you can practice this! You can practice paying more attention and being more of a witness. And that is the same thing. Doubleness arises from, as all the time, moving simultaneously in both the moment and time. The two apparent dimensions from 0-100% awareness and the movement from the state of mind to the meditative state: two sides of the same coin.
The two variables now reveal themselves in practice as the same, and that is interesting. In practice, one can only practice being more witnessing or more attentive. In practice, one cannot practice moving from the state of mind to the meditative state. In practice, you can only practice being here and now, you cannot practice being in the next moment. If you do it anyway, you think, and then you don't practice being. You cannot practice being in the past or in the future, you can only practice being in the moment or the now, i.e. right now! From the point of view of the ego, from the mind or from you, such practice is meaningless, because it is aimless, it is not goal-oriented, it is not oriented towards the future or the past. The ego exists only in the past or future, never right here and now. Now is the witness (the moment). Yesterday or tomorrow never is (to-morrow never comes).
Theoretically in the dimension of time one can show that tomorrow must come, but in practice one cannot prove it, since this presupposes that A gives B the very experiencing of 'tomorrow'. A cannot give B his own experiencer, therefore experiencer cannot be proved in practice to others.
In the meditative state no separation between witness and object is experienced, therefore it is peaceful, without tension. There is, so to speak, 'full satisfaction', no desires, no time, no ego, no mind, etc. The same is experienced by the fetus in the womb (not to be confused, as I said, with the regression of the ego to the womb state). This is man's second deepest need or longing. The deepest need or longing is permanent samadhi, enlightened consciousness, where paradoxically one is alone in the whole world, neither time nor space exists. In the meditative state, space exists, but it is not experienced as tension.
The need for the other person in love is the longing for the meditative state, here there is trust in the other person, here one can finally give up one's ego, one's mind and find peace - not 'in the mind' as is often said - but outside the mind. If one dares to be aware in the deep meditative love, just before the meditative state enters - the border between the mind and the meditative state is the death of the ego - one will experience for a short moment the darkness, the death of the ego. The same thing happens at the moment of entering the meditative state. One literally experiences or feels that one 'falls' into a new unknown space. If you dare to take the chance and keep your attention, you experience a new world, unconscious aspects of your total consciousness.
The language expresses this by 'falling' asleep, 'falling' in love, sich 'ver'-lieben, 'for'-lie sich, 'falling' into spells, etc. Symbolically, when a person or something 'goes beyond' a norm, a taboo, we express that they 'fall' out of context, 'fall' short, etc.
Society - especially in Christian culture - taboos death, equates it with the death of the ego by imagining to children that the death of the ego is the real death and after death there is nothing or a big dark nothing. The witness is identified with the ego. Other experiences of reality do not apply, they are punished with lack of love. And later, if the child should possibly begin to reflect on these things - which is very unlikely - it is somehow declared mad, falling outside, sick, etc. Society keeps on until the child is sufficiently afraid of death, because then it can be manipulated. Countless examples could be cited where the fear of death is exploited. The arms race, nuclear power stations (fear is the fall of the ego and indirectly the death of the ego) etc.
A revolutionary child education would have to include teaching the child to die in order to live. Likewise sexuality (the other great taboo), which is life itself (we are born of sexuality). The fear of sexual orgasm is the fear of death or the fear of life.
Regarding falling asleep: most people put their attention at zero here, both to be able to fall asleep and to avoid death. The West suffers from insomnia partly because of the taboo of death, and therefore the fear of the death of the ego. I remember as a child philosophising about whether I could be sure of waking up again. Experience did show that I had woken up the last few thousand times, but when I thought it through, I couldn't
The real solution to the paradox of theory, then, is practice. The two ways of entering the meditative state: love and meditation are two sides of the same coin. The 'easiest' is individual. Some find it easier to surrender totally when someone else is present, others find it easier to do so alone. But the more you can do one, the more you can do the other. From the model of stages of development it can be seen that the more one absorbs the other usually negatively charged pole in the polarity of good/bad, insecure/confident etc., the more one moves towards the meditative state, the less one divides both oneself and others into polarities. One realises more and more that one is both polarities oneself, the more meditative one is towards others, less judgmental and i.e. more loving, accepting and compassionate if the other person finds it difficult to accept an 'unpleasant' pole.
The genius of meditation, in my opinion, is that it can be done both dependently and independently of the other. And in the loving, gentle and being intercourse one can be and experience it all ! - In the anthology 'HU-meditation and cosmic orgasm' you can read the three beautiful speeches by Bhagwan, where he gives practical advice for a considerably more tender, gentle and loving intercourse than is usually practised in Western culture at the moment.
One can only be understood from the point of view of the other, and then we can no longer understand the first, etc. Our thinking and language divide, cannot express or be in both places simultaneously, for they are precisely mutually exclusive in thinking itself.
In theory and language we must transcend both opposites to describe it. So every time we say time, we must also say moment, every time we say moment, we must hasten to also say time, etc. It's like the cat running to catch its own tail. The faster it runs, the harder it is to catch the tail and eventually it falls over: the problem was not there in the first place. t was us who created the problem by dividing it into time and moment. Existence is a process. We can only express it in language by means of paradoxes: existence is both time and moment, it is neither time nor moment, it is transcendent in relation to dualities.
This is how the meditative state is experienced if we try to describe it in the dualities of language.
It must be the same problem that nuclear physics faces when it tries to describe or explain light. It is both particle and wave, it is neither particle nor wave, it is transcendent. And so you might as well say: light is light !
Existence is what it is. It cannot be understood, explained, described or anything else in language. The only thing to do is to stop trying to explain it, it must be experienced and accepted as it is. And that is what meditation is all about, in terms of 'understanding' itself. Only by accepting that I am as I am does change happen. It is not me that changes, the change happens spontaneously! And afterwards you still believe that you have changed, as the language says. But you haven't, it just happened! And that's paradoxical for us.
But since existence now turns out to be processual or transcendental in relation to the separation of theory and thought into dualities, the original premise, i.e., this very separation between thought and non-thought, moment and time, must be false. So from the point of view of the presupposition of the theory, the theory was right enough, but since the presupposition was false, the theory must be false. So the problem was or is that we made it a problem where no problem was and never has been.
The interesting thing is that if you choose the false premise of the theory of separation - you end up in the same place as assuming non-separation or process. But the point is that you have to think the whole theory through to find out that the assumption is wrong. And to think all the way through, you have to transcend social taboos and your own apparent way of experiencing, which is incredible to say the least.
An epistemology must therefore try to 'mirror' reality adequately by using only words and concepts that describe processes. And that means either in the dualistic language paradoxes or in a transcendental language process-like or transcendence-describing words and concepts. Or we must invent new words and concepts, and this must be the best solution. And if the whole world could agree on that, we might as well immediately introduce a completely new and only one language. However, I do not want to do that in this work.
The theoretical blunder can be made in several places, of course, but the apparently completely illogical conclusion that must be reached is that 'one' is not separate as an independent subject, that one is permanently in a meditative state with existence, that 'the ego' is an illusion, and so on. It is hard to believe if one comes to that conclusion oneself without having heard it from others, for it does not accord with one's apparent experience of oneself and the external and internal worlds. The 'bio-computer' keeps saying: 'You must be mad' (and it is right to that extent), 'It is simply impossible', etc.
And all words can be reduced to thoughts, thoughts can be reduced to words, etc., and finally to experiences, which do not involve any separation logically, but a dialectical relationship. Then all non-transcended dialectical theories (also Marx and Hegel) can be reduced to logical theories of cognition, which distinguish between subject and object, between thinking and experiencing, time and moment, etc., without transcending them I! And thus such theories cannot be adequate or true.
If what has been said so far is intelligible, it is only partly so - otherwise the reader would have been set free at once. As I have indicated, there are inevitable verbal difficulties even in describing the paradox we are under, let alone in describing the actual field pattern in which man lives. The problem is that we describe this difficulty with the very structure of language that gets us into trouble. It has to say, 'We describe' and 'gets us into trouble', and at every step confirms the existence of the action-giving being that is supposed to be behind the action, or to be underneath it when it is seen to come from another source. The common view is appalled at the idea of action without an initiator, ... (Watts, A.: Psychotherapy and Society, p. 42)
The last pages of epistemology have taken me the last three weeks (almost 24 hours a day) to finally figure out. I may have it all from Bhagwan, but I still tried in every possible way to get around one or more dualities in the hope that just one duality was not a dialectical relationship.
Yesterday morning - this is not to be mystical or anything like that in the 'normal' sense of the word mystical: insane, but it really is anyway - as I slowly moved from the sleep state and slowly woke up, it was as if in both states and in transition I was watching my thoughts work back and forth and suddenly there was a void and I saw a flash as if it all fit together. I couldn't really put it into words, but it was as if it stood still (all thoughts) and there was nothing to understand or explain. But I couldn't really get it into language, and then suddenly-just today-some of Bhagwan's statements came and then I could see it. To tell it as it was - whether it has any connection, I don't say - but yesterday was Bhagwan's birthday.
Before I could formulate this, I worked my way through 50 other pages, all based on at least one non-dialectical duality, and all interestingly ended in the same thing: the theory was false.
The biggest problem was time and moment, and later figuring out what light is? In my work, as I said before, I came across countless triplets in just about every context, and more and more I saw that there had to be a connection. At one point, as I was pondering what light is, the following struck me:
We can remember our dreams, we can remember from meditative states, etc., even if we are in a totally dark room and with our eyes closed. In external reality we can also see in the dark, albeit dimly. In daylight, we say that light is thrown from the object to the eye, which can therefore see it.
With regard to dreams, meditative state (if we disregard the experience of samadhi, where one experiences being light) we must necessarily ask the question: 'If we can experience something, then there must be light, but where does the light come from?' It cannot be the physical light, which has a speed of 300,000 km per second, because it must have disappeared long ago.
Then we must be a light, a light source shining on the object ! Otherwise we wouldn't be able to see it. Or rather: It must be the spiritual or spiritual light that all enlightened persons have been talking about. Spiritual light must be the highest form of energy. It expresses itself on three planes, which I have found innumerable times:
Spiritual light (III), non-physical light (II) and physical light (1).
Idea for thinking or 'thinking box'.
At one point I couldn't keep up with my own thoughts, they were moving faster than I could write them, so I wondered if it wouldn't be possible to invent a machine that could do the following:
You put electrodes on the brain that could somehow read the thoughts, the words and then transfer them to an electric typewriter and then afterwards (5 or 10 pages) you could go and 'read' what had been thought by the 'bio-computer'.
But as I have not yet heard of such a machine and do not have one, I had to try anyway ! So I lay down in bed, relaxed as much as I could and gave the computer a question, and then watched or experienced what it thought, while I deliberately helped a bit and formed the sentences. And every time I came to a problem, I asked the computer what information it had about that problem. And then I watched without prejudice the thoughts that came out of it.
And when I felt I had enough information, I sat down at my electric typewriter (I can type pretty fast) and wrote without thinking, but concentrating at first just on getting down what I could remember. And I didn't consciously try to remember it, but wrote almost with my eyes closed, so that no unnecessary thoughts came and interfered.
This is especially true of the intensive period from about November 15, 1980 to about December 15, 1980. But in principle most of this book came about in this way. So here Tantra is once again the true method:
AWARE SURRENDER
next pageVII First draft for a paradoxical logic