From this meeting the text is available:
| Germany, Chiemsee, September 6, 2002. | |
|
At some point I asked Isaac if I could ask something about what he just said to someone. |
|
| < | Isaac, can I ask something about this? |
| > | Sure. |
| < | What you do now, about that you can not change something that’s already changing, I have heard you do this before and now again my mind is kind of fighting it and now I have an example and I want you to ask to react. For instance nature, everything, is always changing. Yet we have this Holland, that’s nature changed. Otherwise it would be completely different. Is this not a matter of playing with tempo or speed. This (my mind) gets mixed up. |
| > | What is it that says something is changing? When you look at a tree, every second it is different. But we say tree. But we know that that tree is not separate from the water, it’s not separate from the sun. We can say the tree is transpiring, but that’s still from the conseptual framework that there is a tree there. We are seeing through our filter in term of seeing as objects. We are not experiencing the fullness of life. We’re saying ‘me’, ‘the tree’. And the same thing happens within experience when we have the idea that we can change something: Then it appears as if something is there, we are not living in the mystery of everchangingness. We are living in our projection of what we think is there. And in that, we become something that seems separate from the experience and the experience seems separate from us and it looks like there’s something there. |
| < | Mmmm. |
| > | We all have that capacity. And we know in those moments where, if we have a moment where the mind just stops, everything is living and breathing and moving and changing; you are watching life, god, live itself. |
| < | Ja, the point is |
| > | The point is that you can see it through the framework of your consepts. You can take clay and you can turn it into a pot. But it is still clay. For the clay it doesn’t matter if it’s clay or a pot. After it’s a pot it becomes dirt again. The clay is not concerned. With our thinking we like to lock in realty. We say ‘mother’, we have an idea of who that is or what that is. We say ‘lover’ and we have an idea of who that is and we’re busy trying to change them. And we don’t even see them! All we see is our idea. We have an idea that there is a ‘me’ here that’s separate from our experience and that can actually change something. We believe that that is a possibility. When we really look for the ‘me’, which I know you have done, what do you find? Is there somebody there? |
| < | Less and less |
| > | Even that. Can you find anyone there? Right now. |
| < | I am so bloody mixed up by this at the moment. |
| > | The mixed-upness, you are aware of. There is awareness. This awareness, right now, right here, where is it? |
| < | It has no place. It just is. |
| > | It just is. Okay. Is there a beginning or an end to it? |
| < | No. And |
| > | So then: what’s you? The mixed up you can see. What is it that is seeing the mixed-upness? You say there is a me and the mixed-upness. But the mixed-upness isn’t something. It is an acticity. There is no object there: ‘mixed-up’. |
| < | Actually it’s |
| > | It’s an experience that gets interpreted. |
| < | Ja, eh |
| > | And if you don’t want to experience what you call mixed up, then it feels like there is a you there, that does not want the mixed-upness. But the mixed-upness, what is it? It’s just a bunch of sensations. And the harder you try to get rid of the mixed-upness, the more it seems like there is a you and the more mixed up it seems. Isn’t it? |
| < | Another point is that just knowing that I’m mixed up (I know that I find nothing, that there is only conscousness). But knowing that I am mixed up is already a judgement! |
| > |
Yes, it is a projection. |
| < | And it is as if this, let’s say, limitless consciousness and this invisible layer of judging is glued together. I cann’t seperate it. Grrrr. |
| > | And yet, right now, you can see it. |
| < | Hang on. [I laugh. Silence] Yeah, must be. |
| > | In your own experience, what you call mixed-upness is sensations, that’s all it is. And then a labelling. And a relationship: I don’t want it, I can do something about it. All of these are just movements in consciousness, that’s what it is. And it makes it seem there is a you and that mixed-upness actually exists. And that something can be done about it. But you look for the you: you cann’t find it. You look for the mixed-upness and you find some sensations that are constantly changing, that you cann’t find a beginning or an end to. And you find taht the not wanting is simply a movement to try to get rid of something that doesn’t actually exist and that wat that does: it produces an experience as an overlay. |
| < | Can you say that again? |
| > | In your own experience: When you don’t want to have an experience, what does the not wanting add to the experience? Does it make it easyer, does it make it harder? |
| < | What I say is that just knowing that it is mixed-upness, just knowing how you feel, implies this judgement. |
| > | Yes. We take it for granted that we actually know that it is mixed up. You say ‘mixed up’, ‘I am mixed up’. What do we actually mean? |
| < | I don’t want this feeling. |
| > | And when you don’t want a feeling, in your own experience, what happens? |
| < | [joking] You might get tight in your belly and go for instance to an accupuncturist. |
