HOW SHOULD "I" KNOW?
The limits of action of mind or "the I" are realized early on in my story. I heard an Alan Watts broadcast titled: "Conversations with Myself :" "It [ego] is simply the tension we are aware of in the body when one thinks of himself... and thus it really does not exist. Since it does not exist, it cannot do anything. If we think we can solve the ego problem with ego, it will take to the end of time..."
The lesson: there is no answer to my question: "What should I do?" Unless perhaps the obvious, silent and rhetorical answer: "Nothing!" "I" is not the doer. As for what I learned by way of the "reality-shift: the universe "breaths" me and indeed there is only one and no other doing it. I learned to let go of doing and simply let it be done, being already accomplished. That is my current practice, not always the result.
Most significant are those adjustments that I made over time based on auspicious and timely hearing of teachings, like that quote from Alan Watts and adepts who speak directly to the spiritual journey. The adept that I recognize most profoundly says: "The Nature of the world is inherently obvious, if you remain in a state of pleasurable oneness with whatever and all that presently arises."
My story is not unlike a "Who done it" novel. Of course, mine is not a novel, but there is a literary "hook." Of the characters introduced thus far, "one" stands out as the necessary modifier of the idea of "reality." The mystery is what is or who is that "one"? Although the phrase "The Divine" is often used in psychedelic and mystical writing, I hesitate because of that word's theological baggage.
I am guessing that using the word "divine" in a non-theological way as a descriptor of "who" or "what" is that "one" would communicate the mystery contained in the question but would not give us a consensual premise to move forward. Instead, I mean to use and have been using the phrase "what is" as the statement or name for ultimate reality. And it should be consensual that there is in reality only what is .
Although my Judeo-Christian "set" (imprinting), did not directly influence the content of my LSD session, I do recall (weeks later) in the "surrender" episode, calling the presence: "Lord." Raised Catholic from 6 to 15, I was never voluntarily an advocate of any particular religion, ism, or brand of faith. In fact early on, they all seemed to be saying the same thing and warring over the details.
But, with a feudal "set" (ancestry) the idea of "Lord" is the word that expressed my reflexive intuition of an apparent mediator present (in the surrender) between the trepidation of being overwhelmed by an "awe-full" force and my resistance to that force. I felt that if resistance continued to escalate, it would destroy (me) its observer. Then, somehow, an obligatory bridging appeared.
The mediator was received as a presence, "who," apparently was very familiar with the ocean of reality, crossing me over to a most consoling feeling of safe-harbor and "bliss." That "surrender" was not something within my volition, nor was the original "shattering" or "shift in reality." In the nearest months to these events, phasing between surrender and shattering had been a daily experience.
As unexpectedly as they arrived, the shattering as well as the surrender reseeded. Over the years, details and relevance faded. Metasphereic persepective was all that remained. Phasing took a shape between denial and realization. Even up to the time of publishing the book (15 years later), episodes of Kundalinic bliss occurred regularly, confirming in my mind that surrender is a spontaneous not strategic act.
It also became apparent over the years that preoccupation with surrender is not surrender and preoccupation with oneness is not oneness. You may ask, why now after describing the pain of being the only one, would anyone want to develop a practice toward oneness. It turns out: "I" did not experience oneness, rather oneness experienced me, the presumed ego. It was godhood breaking through egohood.
To use a clumsy metaphor, any "action" toward or even away from "oneness" is like swimming with your clothes on. Whereas, we come to find out that the traditional way is stark naked, not actually having anything to do with clothes, rather simply removed of all difference, number, and all reaction to "what is." Realizing "I" am or is the only one is indeed an agonizing reaction to being one with a presumed "I".
Semantics make it difficult to follow the subject of that last sentence. However, it makes sense if one relaxes presumption having to do with "who is" and turns instead to "what is. " Presume "the I" is a position , a sphere of the apparent "action" we call "observation." Further: presume no separate entity behind the action, rather simply the arising of action or arising of the awareness we call "observation."
Next Appendix (#11)