Ted was right misinterpretation of objects, time, words and now it seems punctuation

If you can accept the following changes in puctuation, we basically agree.

If Reality is what those enlightened few have reportedly glimpsed then the human race in the main does not perceive Reality. I am suggesting that entropy, impermanence, death is a built in escape mechanism from our dream world of objects and time to Reality (oneness of the collective consciousness). The gurus will tell us it does not require death to perceive Reality but if we fail in life it seems we surely succeed in death and no matter how we learn to cheat death with science, entropy will always catch us in the end because it is built into the fabric of the universe itself.

Escape from what? Reality?

Quite the opposite. If reality is what those enlightened few have reportedly glimpsed then the human race in the main does not perceive reality. I am suggesting that entropy, impermanence, death is a built in escape mechanism from our dream world of Objects and Time to reality (oneness of the collective consciousness). The gurus will tell us it does not require death to perceive reality but if we fail in life it seems we surely succeed in death and no matter how we learn to cheat death with science, entropy will always catch us in the end because it is built into the fabric of the Universe itself.

If you read the works of the determinists, (and some of them, like Daniel Dennet, are very persuasive) they would have you believe that mind and consciousness are a manifestation of the brain – that somehow matter (albeit very complex matter) is the source of mind – and therefore consciousness.

I can’t believe that. My belief, essentially, is that the real stuff of the universe is mind, and that consequently, matter is actually a manifestation of consciousness.

When I read about quantum theory, I learn that, certainly at the level of the quanta nothing can exist in any concrete way without the presence of an observer. Without such a presence, such phenomena are smeared across the universe in a probabilistic way. Thus it seems to me, that for there ever to have been a concrete world with distinct phenomena, there must have always have been consciousness (acting as an observer).

This initial, continuing and all-encompassing consciousness is the “Ground of Being”. Some might call it God. But, I believe, there is only one consciousness. For whatever reason, this Consciousness has manifested itself in the universe also as matter. But it also has distributed itself among sentient beings such that the consciousness that you and I have is but a spark of that all-encompassing consciousness. The more enlightened of us have somehow gained greater access to it than the rest of us.

There can be no question of enhancing this consciousness because when all is said and done it is complete in itself and is, as I said above “the Ground of all Being”. The more enlightened of us, I suspect, as mentioned above, access more of it than the rest of us.

Those that are most enlightened therefore, don’t raise the level of consciousness, as you suggested, but demonstrate to the rest of us ways of accessing more of it.

My good friend, Dr Phil Harker, has raised the possibility that the physical universe is analagous to a dream or a thought that the collective consciousness is having. (Some quantum theorists have likened the universe more to a thought than something substantial in physical terms.)This reverses our normal perception about what is real. We normally give greater credence to physical reality over thoughts or dreams!

So reading between the lines of your question, those that gain enlightenment (whatever that might mean) don’t augment the collective consciousness but blaze the trails that enable the rest of us to access it more easily.

Your concern about the sacrifice of Ryonen raises some interesting questions. In a perfect world, and indeed with enlightened masters, such a sacrifice should never have been necessary. Her greatness is underpinned by her willingness to make such a sacrifice thus affirming that superficial beauty is not of great worth.

You rightly suggest that the reponse of her prospective teachers was not very enlightened and this is certainly true. There is a lot of literature supporting the thesis that so-called gurus have many weaknesses. Some teachers I am sure are, and were, well-intentioned and quite ethical in how they dealt with their pupils. On the other hand those that seek to promote themselves as gurus inevitably have problems with ego and this colours their judgment in many areas.

Ryonen lived in 19th century Japan. This was a male dominated misogynist society and we should applaud her for succeeding in the face of that. Probably she would not have received a more welcoming response in any of the contemporary western societies either.

Our modern egalitarian ideals are certainly more moral and more supportive of women, as they should be. But she lived at a time when even western women hadn’t achieved suffrage and eastern women were treated like chattels.

Despite all this she must have made strong impression for there are few references to women as role models in traditional Buddhist writings.

On her death bed she was reputed to have written the following poem:

Sixty-six times have these eyes beheld the changing

scene of autumn

I have said enough about moonlight,

Ask no more.

Only listen to the voice of pines and cedars when no

wind stirs.

Your point is well made – but if you accept that human behaviour is greatly influenced by socialisation, we are all victims of our culture. It is only when we can be secure enough to challenge the concepts of our peers that we can overcome this deficiency – and such courage and self-confidence is indeed rare – even among gurus!

I mention this to highlight the fact that while many traditional spiritual writings espouse “oneness”, it often seems they are written from a male point of view that seems unable to overcome an attitude of “other” towards the feminine half of our race.

Sorry to focus on such an obscure point in your wonderful text. It is simply a topic of interest to me, though admittedly quite irrelevant to the main point you were making by quoting this parable.

The comment I would like to make relates only obliquely to the topic of impermanence, but I hope you will see a relevance.

I often wonder if the enlightment many achieve in various forms as individuals is somehow building in our collective consciousness. Can we – considering our “oneness” – deepen this pool. By this I do not mean by sharing knowledge in this life or collecting it in manuscripts etc that can be passed on. I mean more like an underlying spiritual stream that deepens and builds in power.

It is a fancy I have. Although I feel that many of the things you have written about re time and impermanence point against such a phenomenon.

Does even those most shining level of spiritual insight blink out like a spark with the mortal who reached it, leaving only a small phosphorescent trail (their writings, remembered teachings) in an otherwise murky ocean. Or does it somehow live on in the common consciousness – what do you think?

Is enlightment/spirituality/universal love something we can deepen, or is it more an unchanging sort of “energy” that the wise can tap into at will?

Impermanence though seems a little more complex. I see no immediately obvious reason why increasing entropy (randomness) and associated decay of all objects and death of all organisms should be part of our perceived universe. It would again though be a pretty dull place without it. Imagine a world that was not decaying.

One additional possibility as to why we have impermanence could be an escape route for consciousness. If we perceive a world of time, objects and entropy created by our collective consciousness and as a result have become fearful in this world would it not be smart for the collective consciousness to build in an escape route. Perhaps impermanence or entropy is that escape route.

Ira Gershwin.