Enter Into Unlimited Profundity-I

(or Accidental Shirts, Muhammed Wong & the Mysterious Universal Person Called “I”)

A discourse by Avatar Adi Da Samraj
October 6, 2005

Part One Chapters: “Negative Events Punishment?”, “Every Moment Is Suitable for Profundity”, & “The Profound Nature of Reality Itself”

DEVOTEE:  Beloved, thank You for allowing me to look upon Your Beautiful “Bright” Form.  Recently, I had an accident, and I heard that when You heard about the accident, You were told that it was not my fault.  In fact, on that particular day I was driving really carefully, and I was listening to You on a CD and truly Invoking You, and then suddenly—bam—this accident occurred.  You were told that it wasn’t my fault, and I heard that you said, “Yes, but it was Cheech’s karmas that brought about the accident.”  I felt through that.  And I was feeling there was something that I had to understand about that.  It really put me through it, because, as You know, I have had previous accidents in the past.  But in terms of my particular relationship to You, in feeling into that karma, I really felt…. is there something I had to understand about that?—because I felt that my relationship to You was sufficient.  My entire life has been purified and changed in a very positive way, and You are my entire life, really. 
So my question, Beloved, is: “Is there something for me to understand more relative to my practice, relative to my past karmas?”  And in this particular case, it really was not my fault personally, but yet, it was something in my past that brought it about—and is there something that I have to take into account?  Because I feel that I do have a serious impulse to Realize You, Beloved, and everything I do is really about You. So that’s what my question is.
ADI DA SAMRAJ:  In particular, when I spoke about it, when I was told the details of the accident (that it wasn’t your fault, it was the other driver’s fault), I didn’t just say it was your karmas, I said “you were driving.”  (long pause…)
DEVOTEE:  Right.
ADI DA SAMRAJ:  I specifically told you, years ago, not to drive.
DEVOTEE:  Yes You did, Beloved.
ADI DA SAMRAJ:  So who’s fault was it?
DEVOTEE:  Right.
ADI DA SAMRAJ:  You have luckily survived some past accidents, and I told you no to drive anymore. 
DEVOTEE:  That is correct.
ADI DA SAMRAJ:  That meant, you were not to drive anymore—at least according to any definition of the English language that I still comprehend.  (laughter)

Also, would you say that the shirt you’re wearing and the pants you’re wearing—would you say that those are “accidents”, that have “happened” to you? (laughter)
ADI DA SAMRAJ:  Generally, something is referred to as an accident if it has some kind of negative result that is particularly outstanding. But is there any difference between that automobile accident and the shirt you are wearing? (pause)  You were driving. 
DEVOTEE: Yes, I was.
ADI DA SAMRAJ:  You put that shirt on. (pause)  They are both incidents in the same stream of apparent happenings.  Yet, because the automobile accident caused you injury, you think maybe there was something negative you did some time ago that is the reason why it happened.  (pause)  Is there something you did a long time ago that has you wearing this shirt?  (laughter)  Something negative?
DEVOTEE:  Not that I can remember.  (laughter)

ADI DA SAMRAJ:  It is really not that bad a shirt. (laughter) But it is not arbitrary either. You’re not wearing a toaster! (laughter)   So there’s a pattern of learning, of adaptation, of noticing the reaction of other people, perhaps, to what you wear, various kinds of development of taste about what to wear, and so on.  So it is a result of things you have done in the past.  It did not just appear spontaneously.  The automobile accident and your wearing that shirt are actually virtually identical occurrences in these fundamental terms I have just been suggesting.  There is just nothing particularly calamitous about wearing that shirt, so you don’t associate it with maybe something you are guilty of having done.  You haven’t been punished with that shirt. 
I mean there are some others wearing shirts here that… (gesturing and looking around room, then more laughter)… you could think about it in these terms… (laughter, then points to someone in room).. that maybe there is some kind of punishment happening, (laughter)… of either the wearer of the shirt, or the rest of us. (laughter)  You could think in those terms. There certainly have been shirts worn that I have observed that could very seriously be thought about as some kind of punishment (continuous laughter). 
So you could think in those terms about even a shirt, but you more automatically tend to think of very negative events as having perhaps something to do with bad behaviors or whatever from the past.  It’s a way of thinking. It’s how you account for it in some way, or the incident makes you wonder.  As all negative events or happenings might make you wonder—sickness, and what about death?  What about all the varieties of difficulty and suffering that have already occurred and will occur?  Are those to be thought about as punishments, or particularly caused by negative doings?  Or are they of the same order as selecting a shirt, wearing a shirt, placing your hair in a certain fashion, putting on a certain cologne, going one place rather than another one?

The real “consideration” then, the important “consideration”, is not about negative doings producing particularly difficult events in the past or the future.  All events have fundamentally the same character.  “You” are asking Me this question. You are approaching Me in this moment.  You referred to yourself. You referred to yourself when referring to Me.  You are approaching Me.  You are sighting Me, and so on.  You spoke of that, in fact, in positive terms, not as a negative event—
DEVOTEE:  Yes, yes.
ADI DA SAMRAJ: –but it is also caused by past adaptation, choices, familiarities, and so on and on and on, bringing you into this coincidence.  Every moment of “experiencing” has fundamentally the same factors and therefore is a sufficient incident for the profoundest “consideration” of what is happening.
Every moment is an eminently suitable moment for unlimited profundity if you allow it to be so.
But if you divide “experiences” between the most calamitous & the most uncomfortable, such as your automobile accident, and comfortable ones like sitting in front of Me right now—at least it’s been comfortable for you so far– (laughter)
DEVOTEE:  Yes, Beloved.
ADI DA SAMRAJ:  –then you give yourself reason, you associate life with a disposition, in which you are not likely to (or tend not to) associate with moment to moment “experience” with unlimited profundity.  You only get really serious when things are really difficult, or somehow or other magnified in their importance “experientially” such that you, in the moment, become serious or are caused to be serious because you are prone to be serious on such occasions.
DEVOTEE:  That’s true.
ADI DA SAMRAJ:  But the rest of the time you are prone not to be serious, to be more superficial or relatively comfortable, indifferent, inattentive, as if there really wasn’t much happening, perhaps even bored… by most moments.  And you may even seek therefore to have moments coincide with less boring content—usually positive, although there may be a tendency that actually is making negative incidents occur, a mechanical pattern, which is why I told you years ago, “Do not drive anymore.”
DEVOTEE:  Yes You did, Beloved.  Yes You did.
ADI DA SAMRAJ:  I hope you will take this Instruction seriously in the future.
DEVOTEE:  Absolutely seriously, Beloved. You will never see me behind the wheel ever again.
ADI DA SAMRAJ:  However, the life of right practice in My Company is such that the reasons for not allowing, or tending not to permit moment to moment existence to be serious without limitation, are out-grown—such that, in fact, moment to moment existence is allowed to be profound without limitation, so that ultimately there is only Unlimited Profundity.  It’s not necessary, then, for some obviously negative event (or otherwise somehow stimulating event) to make you serious.  Existence itself, as it is arising, is of such a nature.  You are so sensitized, so without defense, that every moment becomes a matter of infinite profundity. 
If this availability were the case, the Divine Self-Condition would be obvious.  It is all the other introduction of psycho-physical patterning, and identification with it, that seems to eliminate the Realization of Reality.  And so you, among the various things you do, may begin to seek profundity.  But, you see the absurdity of it.
DEVOTEE:  Yes, Beloved, I do.
ADI DA SAMRAJ:  There is sufficient profundity in this moment, such that profundity need not be sought.  Suffering need not be the means…  for wisdom.  There is an ancient notion stated in the form, “Through suffering, comes wisdom.”  For one thing, this is not true.  If it were true, all of mankind would be made of wise men and wise women—because everyone suffers, and where is all the wisdom?  So mere suffering makes no difference at all, if there is no availability—availability to Reality, to Profundity Itself, to Truth, to the Divine Self-Condition, That Which Is Always Already the Case. 
So you approached Me here, minutes ago, positively enough, and apparently sincere and respectful, and so on—but, it must be said, not very profoundly.  When you first sat and began to address Me here minutes ago–
ADI DA SAMRAJ:  –you made reference to yourself.  There is some mysterious universal person called “I” apparently.  I heard on a television program before I came over here, that the most common last name in the world is “Wong”, and the most common first name in the world is “Mohammed”.  The person who mentioned this said they had never heard of anyone called “Muhammed Wong”. (laughter) 
But, actually, the most common name in the world is “I”.

Of course, it appears in different languages in different forms, but there is this reference.  In the Greek, the word for “I” is “ego” (“ay-go” or “ee-go”).  “Ego” is the Greek word for “I”, the pronoun “I”.  You referred to this person, known by the same name as the one everybody else mentions to Me.  (quiet laughter)  But… (long pause) …you’ve been in association with Me now for more than thirty-five years, and it’s clear, has always been clear, that you do not have any specific “experience” of that person.  That “I” person is no more “objectively”, straightforwardly, simply known by you than your shirt or your accident.  You have no comprehensive definition of your shirt do you?
DEVOTEE:  No I do not, Beloved.
ADI DA SAMRAJ:  Or of your accident.
DEVOTEE:  That’s true.
ADI DA SAMRAJ:  Or of anything else.  This “I”, in fact, does not even know what a single thing is—and has never known itself.  And, yet, you very readily refer to this presumed person, and to countless other “objects” or “persons” in common speech and thought, even moment to moment.  But you have never sufficiently inspected this “self”–or any “object” at all—sufficiently to know what that “self” is or any “object” is. You have never, ever done this.  No moment has ever been sufficiently profound for you, allowed sufficient profundity, for you to notice who this “I” is. What is its nature? What are you actually referring to?  Not what are you referring to, what is this reference referring to?  What do these names, that somehow or other are mentioning “objects” or “others” actually refer to?  Do they refer to anything knowable at all?  Or is it really complete nonsense, a made-up state, a manufactured state, in fact, nothing more than an uninspected presumption and not an “experince” at all.
If absolute profundity were permitted, if there were not patterning otherwise, certainly one of the noticings would have to be that this “I” is not referring to any one identifiable, known to you, actually known as you.  And there is not a single “objective” anything or anyone ever referred to you in thought or speech that you actually know.  You do not know what anything or anyone is—Is—including yourself.  That’s your actual circumstance—not the accident, not the shirt.  This circumstance is moment to moment.  Every moment, in fact, is that extraordinary circumstance in which you do not know what a single thing is.  You don’t know what you are.  And you are not sufficiently available to anything, or to self-knowing, to enter profoundly into this mysterious circumstance.  

I have said so many times:  You are sitting in this room. It appears a certain way.  If you took a photograph of it, everything appears as it does from that “point-of-view”, which you otherwise identify with yourself, in some tacit sense.  And, yet, the room itself, cannot be defined by that view.  The room otherwise exists as it would be seen from every other possible “point-of-view”.  And if you see the room in the total context of conditional existence, you must say that for the room to actually be known, As it already is—just As it Is, not some exploration of it otherwise, but just As it Really, plain-old Is—you would have to see it simultaneously as it would be viewed from absolutely every possible “point-of-view” in space, in time, in space-time. 
Every mode of position in the entire universe in all of space-time would have to be assumed as part of the total view of just this room in order to know this room As it plain-old Is, right now.
You have no such “experience”.  You are in no such position.  You presume everything from this “point-of-view speak” position, this camera, this little dark chamber with a pinhole in it.  But you do not know the room As it Is. You do not know the universe As it Is. 
What “God” do you know then?
The “point-of-view God”?
The “God” believed by “points-of-view”?
The “God” made up by “points-of-view”?
The “God” described with reference to “point-of-view”?
The “God” conveyed by language, by mind, in the mode of “subject-object” language?
Is there a deity in it?  Is Reality accounted for?
If it were, then every moment of simply existing or speaking would be coincident with Reality absolutely.  The state of Reality would be Self-Evident and Realized without limitation.  You are no more aware of Reality Itself without limitation than you are aware of yourself without limitation right now—or of your shirt, or of your accident, or of the room, or of anyone.  You live in a “point-of-view” world of language, of doings, even apparent mutual doings in which people reinforce certain notions in one another.  So this is all very ordinary primate happening.  These bodies, without all the symbols all over them now, just here without any address other than just being here—are animals, and “point-of-view” machines.  And you don’t know. You don’t know What anything Is.  You don’t know What “self” Is. 

If the word “God” can be used, then is “God” different from Reality?  Or where is “God”?  Is “God” some place?  Or is “God” everywhere?  If “God” is everywhere, then “God” is not in a position of “causing” anything, because “God” is not other than anything, is not in a position apart from anything in order to “cause” it.  “God” is simply the One Everywhere in which everything is arising.  And if you could see everything arising from every possible “point-of-view”, what would you be looking at  and who would you be?  Saying “God” or “the world” or “I” or any name, any reference, is simply a convention within the mummery of “point-of-view”, or ego-life. 
The profound nature of Reality Itself As It Is now—not even any reference to any “now” if “now” means a “happening” (some kind of thing in time)—is not inspected in all of this mummery world of doings and thinkings and presumings.  The whole habit of living, thinking, and doing must be inspected, must be transformed, must be purified, must be made available to What Is Great, What Transcends Itself, What Is Perfect, What Is Absolute, What Is Real, What Is.  That Which Is, is to be Realized. I affirm to you It Is, and can be Realized. 
However, not by merely being adjacent to Me, any more than merely being in the room, does one know the room. Merely being adjacent to Me, noticing or recognizing Me in the conventional sense of knowing the shape, the facial features, and so on, is not to Realize Me.  That is to participate in effectively a myth about Me—as you are now participating in a myth about Reality, about the so-called “world” and the myth of “self”.  You haven’t inspected any of these.  You haven’t inspected even the room.  You haven’t inspected any thing to the point of knowing it, comprehensively and As it Is—not any one at all, not “self”, not the “world”, not anything that can be called “God”, not Reality.  None of these are in your sphere of real comprehension.  You are involved in something else, the mummery of “point-of-view”, of body-mind interactions with other primates in the likeness of the body-form that you identify with.

And yet here he is.

Part Two coming soon–Chapters: “You Are the Witness-Consciousness Itself” & “The World Is Outshined”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: