How do I discover the truth for myself? What is compassion?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Barry Richman,
Berkeley, California
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear Peter Ralston,
Here are two questions:
1. You have said you facilitate others discovering truth for themselves. However, if there is such a thing as delusion, or whatever word we might use to express a false experience as the truth, how can I distinguish between delusion and truth? (In the case of physical experience, it seems relatively simple. If I am certain I can fly through the air like a bird, I might easily persuade myself otherwise by jumping off a cliff. On the other hand, that might just be a rapidly terminated experience of flying. Ontologically, I have trouble coming up with a good test. Especially since we know that in contemplation intensives, for example, we generate some very compelling delusions to avoid whatever it is wants avoiding. So how about a little guidance in distinguishing truth from delusion.)

2. Does compassion have a place in your teaching? If so what is its place? If not, why not? Without making the slightest claim that I'm capable of it, I'll define compassion as an authentic caring for every other thing than myself that exists. Maybe myself too.
Barry


Barry,
1. Discerning between true and false is never an easy task, especially when we look for absolutes. One significant obstacle, however, is to stand behind the argument that we do not or cannot know the truth, and so make no movement in any direction at all. This, I believe, is a mistake. It is useful to make the distinction of "direction" and move in the direction of what's true as far as is discernible.
Call an apple an apple. If you're lying about something, stop. If you can speak more honestly, do. Admit when something is just a belief rather than actual experience. Practices such as these move us so far from where we would otherwise be, the question of absolute truth can become a silly abstraction. Regarding absolutes, we need to understand that we do not know what they are, and yet we must still remain open to the possibility of experiencing what they are.

In considering what is true, one danger is familiarity. We have so much background and dogma built up, upon which assumptions abound, that we reflexively call something true simply because it is familiar and has been accepted as true. (For example, it is widely accepted that the use of muscular strength is the only way to physical power, but Cheng Hsin contradicts that notion.)

Looking to our feelings to distinguish "true" may or may not be an accurate test either. It all depends on what bases the feeling. Rationality, common sense, perceptive sensitivity, can all be useful to create a starting point to discern true from false. But they can also fail us. We must continually investigate, digging up assumptions. Separating from personal bias, value or threat is always a good idea and usually furthers our efforts to make distinctions in what is true and what is not. If none of this works to clarify what's true, then I guess the question must remain open.

On the other hand, in some cases it's not a matter of something being "true" or "not true," it is a matter ofmaking a decision or taking a stand.

Lastly, sometimes the truth is simply "I don't know." This is not a defect or sign of disrepair, it is the truth.

2. Regarding your question about compassion:
I think the place to start is your definition. It may be an "ideal" or ultimate description of compassion, but it might be too selfless and too absolute for being a useful distinction. If, on the other hand, compassion shows up as a genuine commitment to another's welfare or growth (perhaps"empowerment") then to answer your question, yes. Notice how the word "commitment" implies action, not merely a wish or feelings of empathy. Without action, the sentiment of compassion is rather useless to others, isn't it? Can it be called compassion when one sits by and merely desires good things for others or simply feels sad when others fail to make realwhat's empowering for them? Am I suggesting that we make the personal growth of every other being our business, or be arrogant enough to think we know what's good for others? Not really. But when appropriate or requested, perhaps a practical compassion is to take action in relation to another'sempowerment. This is a constant principle within the Cheng Hsin work.

Peter Ralston

Attend a Seminar
More Info

Mastery and Ego

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

Glenn Smith 

Auckland, New Zealand 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

Hi Peter, 

Something I have been intrigued by in the last few months is the apparent contradiction I feel between being brutally honest and wanting to be good at certain things. The latest Cheng Hsin newsletter has brought it up again for me - by the way I laughed out loud when you talked about being a master egg poacher. 

To be brutally honest, what set me off on a conscious path of personal growth 4 years ago was a frustration at wanting to be able to attract and bring beautiful women into my life at will. I wanted to feel powerful. I wanted the ego boost that "skill" would bring me. I wanted to ensure I wouldn't be alone. I was frustrated at thinking most other people had things that I didn't. All the usual stuff, which I am sure you have seen umpteen times before.

Now for my agony: how does one reconcile pursuing mastery or even simply up skilling when the motivation for that appears to come from the ego?

For example -- let's say you Peter had events in your childhood that forced you to one day as a teenager say I want to be a black belt and more, but the motivation came from wanting to be respected and to fill a void you felt inside. Or say for your world title -- I understand the motivation for that was to get the respect needed to have people take notice when you wanted to teach what you had discovered for yourself -- but let's say you wanted the title for egotistical reasons. You may have wanted it to feel important and thought it would bring you self esteem etc. It seems to me at this stage, the place a person is coming from is important, not just the pursuit of mastery but the reasons the pursuit is taking place. Because for now anything I want to be good at has a lot of ego attached to it for me. Even pursuing what is real has ego motivation behind it for me at times. Although other times there is genuine curiosity. 

Have I explained that clearly enough? Let me know if I could expand.

Glenn 

Glenn, 

Obtaining mastery in some area doesn't mean that the whole person is changed. Usually the whole person is at least influenced, since it requires a large shift in so many ways. Someone can become very adept or masterful at something (playing the horn, a martial art, billiards), but this doesn't mean that ego has gone at all, or that they have fundamentally changed as a person. If the mastery is about mastering some aspect of themselves, for example, becoming conscious of what emotions are and mastering them so that they are no longer an unconscious force that runs daily life (which they always are) then some very central aspect of that person will no longer be the same and therefore they will be as if a different 

person. 

The motives for achieving mastery aren't all that important as far as I can tell, since the original motive, or at least the outlook and perspective one has to begin with, is likely to change as you progress. When it doesn't, people usually quit. What seems to have to happen is your "goal" or motive for achieving mastery has to change as you grow. The perceived reality you are working with will change and so the original goal becomes obsolete within the new reality. Often people get bogged down in some fixed perspective and seem to plateau, they don't appear to be progressing any longer in mind or body. This is when most people who were serious to begin with will quit. Those that go on, find a way to make a breakthrough, and then recreate their goals to match what is now apparent. 

I guess the short version is, it just doesn't matter. Just master it. If you want to overcome the ego, you need to master the ego. Mastering something else may change the ego somewhat, and alter your presentation and self-concept, but not as much as you might think. The change is rather superficial, unless you master your self and that is very hard. In any case, the experience of mastery is worth it no matter what is achieved. No matter how you cut it, it's about your experience of self and life. 

Strangely, my motivation for doing the world tournament had little to do with fame and such, since for some reason I was already quite sure of my abilities and understanding. I didn't need to prove it to anyone, it was already so for me. But I did want others to recognize it, and didn't mind getting some acknowledgment for myself. We should be clear that an achievement doesn't mean all that much about the person doing it. It only means they can do it. What the person's motives are, etc., will determine in their mind what it is they have achieved. It is self-referential. No matter what someone does, their experience of it will make it what it is for them -- they can't get outside themselves. So achievement doesn't really change anything. It only makes a point, demonstrates some ability or understanding. 

Since mastery requires that a person surrender his or her personal bias in some matter, it also requires a significant change in the person. They can no longer have things their way, their opinions don't matter, how they want things to be is irrelevant, etc. They must get what is true in some area, and surrender to that. It can be simple or complex, superficial or deep, but the direction is the same. That's why we call it mastery -- a "true" understanding, or "real" relationship is established with some aspect of life, and this can be demonstrated. 

The main thing you should hear is this: No matter what your beginning motives, in order to stay on track you will need to change them as you continue down the road toward mastery. They must reflect each new level of your newly evolving understanding. As far as I can tell, this isn't a daily thing, more like every few years or so. After significant progress has been made, a new relationship to your pursuit will confront you. At this point you may lose interest, or feel like you can't get any better, or you stop caring about that pursuit anymore, or find your motive is no longer applicable -- like you see the pursuit isn't going to work for what you wanted. Such things will either stop you (as it does most people) or you will change the

purpose for your pursuit. 

I suspect this is a bit more of a reply than you expected, but I intend to use it in the next newsletter since I think others would also benefit. 

Hope this helps some.

Peter 

Attend a Seminar
More Info

Enlightenment and Internal Martial Arts

~~~~~~~~ 

Jan Bloem 

Holland 

~~~~~~~~

Dear Peter Ralston, 

In the world of the internal martial arts I see people being busy trying to reach some kind of spiritual enlightenment. I have the impression that most of this group of people skip some very important developmental stages.

I think when you want to reach the stage of internal power and enlightenment, you have to work through three stages: You must confront yourself with 'animal like instincts'. You must fight. After that you come to a stage of reflection (human). And after that there is the stage of confronting yourself with concepts like 'emptiness'. I think when you start at the last stage, you will never reach the full monty. Because of one reason or the other, most people are not willing to go through the three stages, but start direct at where they should end.

Do you agree with this?

Jan 

Jan, 

I do respect the sentiment that much too much "spiritual" fantasizing takes place within certain spheres of internal martial arts. "Consciousness" work and martial work are not the same, nor do they necessarily find each other. Studying the internal martial arts DOES NOT lead to spiritual awakening. 

In the physical world and in the world of mind, structure exists and process occurs. Here we can speak of stages or processes, but when it comes to Consciousness itself, no such process can be defined. It is true that certain things cannot be bypassed, but it is not a linear process as you indicate (one and then another). Insight and breakthrough occur when they do. This may be related to intention, or readiness, or openness, or perhaps grace, but it does not occur as a cause and effect that can be produced by following a formula or set of rules. As is the case with all such matters, people are prone to think of "reality" as if it is some way (and it isn't really), and more to the point, that we, with our incredibly limited awareness, know or can imagine what this might be (we can't). I think the most important aspect in such things is honesty, and getting past the fantasies that surround all such work, regardless of where one 

starts or what their interests. 

I do agree, however, that the basic primal nature of being human should not be overlooked or bypassed. It is more than likely exactly where we need to look if a grounded understanding of our own being is the goal. 

One more thing, "emptiness" is not a concept. Certainly we would start with the concept -- our discussion right now is conceptual. But this can be done without any direct experience. A real experience of such matters is a real experience of such matters, the concept is unimportant. Absolutes such as Emptiness or Nothing are beyond concept. We may play around or even seriously consider ideas about such matters but the idea in no way can match the experience. 

I hope this is helpful. Thanks for bringing it up for us to look at. 

Peter 

Attend a Seminar
More Info

Incorporating Cheng Hsin Principles into daily life

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nick Favicchio
Plattsburgh, New York
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Peter,
Since I became interested in Cheng Hsin and started to incorporate its ideas and principles into my life, one problem has always troubled me. I've long tried to keep the five principles in mind,
incorporate them into all aspects of life, to feel and experience their reality... it has always felt "right" or where I wanted to be. Yet without fail, when I feel most into these things, I feel like I've abandoned
something else, other ideas, ways of thinking, of being, the paradigms that usually govern my life despite the fact that they do not bring me to where I'd like to be. I can't chalk this up to fear of change... I feel like I'm losing myself. Am I afraid to not exist? This doesn't feel true either. I've worked on this for so long and I don't feel like I've picked up any traction... its always been there. I move closer to "being" and something draws me back, it slips away. Any thoughts or ideas are appreciated.
Nick Favicchio

Nick,
People rarely appreciate the power of the five principles. I have said that if you really took on completely being in the principles 24 hours a day for two or three weeks, your reality would appear drastically different! Likely you'd be overwhelmed by it all. I can appreciate your challenge. Perhaps what you've abandoned isn't really worth hanging onto, but it is familiar, and more importantly it is "you" -- or what you have learned to identify with as key aspects of yourself. Don't underestimate the fear of not existing, it may not come as you imagine and it is not just an idea. You may not be afraid of the idea, yet when the familiar begins to be threatened, notice you all slip back into it. The mind is stronger than your mere thinking, or your cognized desires and ideas. Try not being in the familiar for longer than usual, see what happens. Perhaps over time the new way of being will become increasingly familiar and you can begin to identify yourself with that. Still something will be missing, something your self-mind holds is very important. Can you discover what that is?
Good luck,
Peter

Attend a Seminar
More Info

Mastery and Life

~~~~~~~~~~~~
James Beale
Bristol, England
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hello Peter,
I was watching a program last night which was criticizing the growing number of c-list celebrities in Britain who are famous for being famous. Kind of an easy shot to take, I know, but these people (big
brother contestants, glamour models and so on) were presented in contrast to some people who had reached the top of their profession. Most of these were in the entertainment industry, some were sports men and women.
It made me think of something you said (or wrote in the anthology, I think) about mastering things.
The gist of it was, I think, that it asked when was the reader going to choose to master something, and really, what else was there to do? I can see in some of the people I know a drive to be the best at various things, but I have never been really interested in achieving mastery of anything. I have always wanted to be pretty good, and that's enough. In fact, I have said before that my biggest complaint with life is that it takes too long to get good at anything. But this leaves me now with the impression that I am missing something. I am trying to work out what it is that makes the difference.
Of course there are countless people who attempt to be the best and fail, and I am not wondering how to become good at something. I am wondering what it is that creates that drive. You said the best
way to get good at something is to be obsessed by it, but you also said that an alternative was to be extremely disciplined. So obsession is not something which discipline instills, but something else. I think perhaps I would like to avoid being the best at a thing which would invite jealousy and competition. I know I can work hard at things when I am motivated to do so. I don't think obsession is of the same nature as inspiration. I would like to know what you think.
James

James,
Sounds like you are afraid of something. You say you want to avoid jealously and competition. Sounds good on the surface. Who wants those things? But what are you afraid of? Perhaps that is a place to investigate, or master. You could master egg poaching for all it matters. The point is to do something for yourself and also beyond yourself, something that draws your relationship to life out into its true nature. What it is hardly matters. And if you "master" something, of course it's possible that others may be jealous or compete, but you don't have to evoke either. You could master your own mind, perhaps starting with this thing you are afraid of.
When I said be disciplined or get obsessed, I meant that when you are obsessed with something,
whole heartedly into it, curious about it, pursuing it with the burning desire or single-minded intent to get to the truth of it, a sort of natural discipline arises. It isn't really discipline, since there is no application of a discipline, but what needs to get done gets done as a result of the obsession to know or achieve or discover. If you lack the motivation of obsession, but still want to achieving mastery, or want to know the truth of some matter, or want to pursue any new course of action that is not already occurring for you, then you must apply a disciplined application of regular inquiry or practice. Discipline is pursuing a possibility outside of what already befalls you. Either discipline or obsession can move you forward in some pursuit. Just remember, the pursuit itself should be rewarding, not just the final goal. So go poach an egg.
Good luck.
Peter

Attend a Seminar
More Info

Where is the Master made a student?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Michael Renovich
Devon, England
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear Peter,
My first query pertains to the relationship between the student and teacher within yourself:
In your position, how do you manage to preserve "beginners mind?" Where is the place "you" are humbled? Is there really nothing worth learning from Eastern arts and Healing techniques that you implied were really nothing more than just made up by somebody? (Spring Newsletter). Could you not benefit from a living teacher or contemporary or tradition? Or does direct experience itself eventually become the teacher?
Secondly:
I am aware of the view that tradition is merely a representation, static, not the dynamic force, the
source. However traditions, arts, techniques help reveal that source. No matter how unique, isn't that the same thing Cheng Hsin does? Or would Cheng Hsin translate as simply direct experience? Even so
there are techniques of Cheng Hsin involved in eliciting this experience. Wouldn't that technically make it a tradition (only less traditional)?
Michael

Michael,
It's hard to answer easily. But I'll start by saying that I have no problem being humbled by the very art and source of Cheng Hsin. Simply contemplating reality is humbling, and I have no problem finding"beginner's" mind all over the place. Is there something yet to learn? Yes. But what I learn will likely not come from Eastern arts or any of the traditions. Of course, I do learn from others, and this is usually in the form of free thinking and creative people discovering for themselves something that they share. I have studied many traditions for over four decades, and more than that, I have investigated what is true beyond and independent of any hearsay. I've also trained hard for decades to achieve a mastery in the things I've discovered and to prove or disprove for myself -- in an experiential way beyond mere opinion or belief -- what is true about other people's contributions, including the traditions.
I am always glad to have someone understand what I understand and experience what I experience. But in essentially every case, this only occurs as a function of teaching them.
All "arts and traditions" are only -- and will always and only be -- made up by somebody. This is simply so. Where else would they come from? A stone won't do it and the trees don't care. We might think that some such invention is somehow produced by nature itself, or by a divine source. But regardless of the inspiration or intent of a system of beliefs, it is only what some human or humans have invented.
You do lean closer to my situation, however, when you ask if direct experience becomes the teacher. It is and always has been. There is no substitute for a skillful facilitator to help in attaining insight, or
understanding principles, mastering techniques, or even having enlightenment experiences. But the facilitator can't do it for you in any case. It always comes down to one's own experience. And to tell you the truth I find no one that I am interested in studying with, or who has anything to share that truly interests me. The good news is that, at this point in my life and studies, it is unnecessary. I learn and grow simply through my own work, which is immense and continues to impress me. The commitment of Cheng Hsin is not to any belief or hearsay, but to a direct and clear consciousness of the truth. This is plenty to keep anyone busy.
Peter

Attend a Seminar
More Info

Personal Growth and Fear

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mike Thomas
Nottingham, England
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hi Peter,
Firstly, thanks for the fantastic week-long camp in Wales. As a result of the Cheng Hsin Body-Being work I've realized that the t'ai chi I've been practicing has been far from functional, although I deluded myself for long enough that it was. Now I'm at the difficult cross-roads of starting again from scratch. Any pointers on incorporating the Body-Being into the practice of the 24 step form? Also, realizing that the t'ai chi I'm being taught is not the functional art you've exposed me to, where does that place my instructor who I value as a person?
The overwhelming thing I brought back with me from Wales is a new commitment to the truth of the matter and a willingness to stop lying to myself, but I know that this can lead to conflict with those whoare used to seeing me as the old 'untruthful' self. So, a hard call but I thank you for helping me make it.
Something else I'd welcome your insight on: in my meditation practice for the last few months I've felt fear rising again and again, or rather already being present then me noticing it. I felt it too during the week in Wales, fear of not getting things 'right', of getting hurt or hurting others and anything else really. I simply try to bring mindfulness to this without getting caught up in it, but I'd like to know what your approach is to fear. When fighting, did or do you ever feel it?
A final word: it's a real testament that everyone I've met so far that's been committed to the Cheng Hsin work has been both open to learn and to helping others like myself who were exposed to the work for the first time.
Cheers,
Mike Thomas

Mike,
This is how growth goes. Learning, and letting go of what was learned before, moving in the direction of the truth. The Cheng Hsin t'ai chi set is designed with the principles in mind and is meant to be done as a means of incorporating the body-being material. In other words, the set is a training for the body-being work, without which it's pretty useless.
If your teacher is a person worth knowing, then respect him. But this doesn't mean he knows what he's doing or he may just be doing something else that in itself is useful to people but isn't this art, nor functional. Maybe he would be open to learning more. That would make him an even better instructor.
I don't feel fear fighting, by then it's too late. I sometimes felt it before, but not during. Fear is worth studying, but it takes some work. In simple, don't resist it. Allow it to be without letting it take over. We have techniques that help minimize our reactions, as well as work that assists in understanding what fear actually is, but that is stuff best done in person. You could make real progress with it in the ECW this fall, and make huge progress with more than fear in the ENB (ontology workshop at the beginning of the month-long). Come and study.
Good luck,
Peter

Attend a Seminar
More Info

What is Truth?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Charles Welborn
Ft. Collins, Colorado
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hi Peter,
I need a new question. Has anyone contemplated What Is Truth? This feels like the next
question for me.
Charlie


Charlie,
It is appropriate to tackle any question. What is truth, however, is not an enlightenment question. To
deeply grasp what truth is, or honesty, or communication, or relationship, and so forth is a very powerful thing to do. Such realizations will probably have as much or more of a profound effect on how one lives and experiences and relates as will enlightenment. But it isn't enlightenment. This is why I do the ontology. This kind of work, directed at becoming more deeply conscious of what mind and self and life are, is very important work. They are not enlightenments, however. And I've observed that people who work on enlightenment in any of the traditional ways usually fall short of grasping the dynamics and nature of what is right in front of them -- self, mind, life as it's lived. I know this sounds funny but it's true. A weird dynamic perhaps, occurring because people have a very hard time dealing with paradox, and want their "truth" to be packaged, but it cannot.

Enlightenment is about the very nature or existence of being. This centers on one's self, since the self is
the first and closest thing that we seem to be. Enlightenment is becoming directly conscious of the heart
of existence, the nature of being, or reality. What is actually there or so. Truth is an abstraction. It isn't
there. There is nothing that exists "as" the truth. Such distinctions as communication, being honest,
relationship, honor, perception, knowledge, etc., are not something that "is." They all exist only as a
function of relationship. They are "activities," not existence itself. They should be known deeply for what they truly are, but they do not exist outside of relativity. When we ask an enlightenment question, we are asking about the absolute. All of the above distinctions are relative and only exist as a function of relationship and human creation, they are not absolute in nature. This is why they can't be an
enlightenment question. Do you understand? I know it can be confusing, but once you grasp what "is"
absolute, this tends to clear up such confusion.

Instead of asking "what is truth," you could simply ask "what is" since then it can be absolute. But that
question invites your mind to be up to mischief, since you will have a hard time focusing anywhere.
Everything "is" and so your mind will jump all over. For some years I used to ask: "What is This?" "This" referring to my present consciousness of existence, what seemed to be. But I only asked such a question after having had several enlightenment experiences on the nature of self (being), another (being), and existence (the perception of reality). So I don't know what it would be like for you.
Hope this helps.
Peter

Attend a Seminar
More Info

I feel I am stuck. How do I let go?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mike Hart
Swansea, Wales
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Peter,
Myself and others constantly feel a limitation and wondered if you may be able to help. It's the restriction that the "mind set" places on us. I think we all probably feel a need to "let go" but find it very hard to do so. We realize the place we should be but have no real success in reaching that place. I know the ontological work would help this so getting to a workshop would be of obvious benefit. Also, when we train with you, this too gives us insights along this path. Ultimately I feel that we have to delve deeper into ourselves to make this breakthrough, but can you suggest a coherent path to follow until we can get to the ontology workshops? Is there a particular method(s) or area that you would recommend to focus on in our practice that would be of benefit to us with regard to "opening up" more, or "letting go" more effectively?
Best Regards,
Mike

Mike,
First, be cautious of jumping to conclusions too quickly. When you say you know where you need to be but aren't there, this may not be true. For one thing, what is true in such a case is that "where you need to be" is a concept. It has to be, since you've already admitted you aren't there. Therefore it must be a concept, an idea, a belief, a fantasy, hearsay. Now this notion will always be different in both substance and accuracy than the experience itself. This shouldn't be overlooked, since what is so is that the concept prior to the experience will always be wrong, even if it is technically correct. And this difference may prevent you from looking in the right place, so to speak. The second aspect of this is that you may be wrong, and what you need is not what you think. So the point is to stay open, even with communicationsfrom me. The only way to really get the communication is to experience it, piece by piece. Hearing is just
the beginning.

One place to look are the signals you are actually sending to your brain and nervous system. If you think you need to accomplish some result, then no matter what you say to yourself that you should do, such as"let go," your brain will direct a familiar course of action to get the job done in this moment. This will then be contradictory to the idea of letting go and so it seems like you can't let go. One thing you can do is make sure you give up trying to accomplish whatever it is you think you need to accomplish (i.e., pushing someone, throwing someone) and instead just let go of that goal and act without any concern for the result. You may well fail to accomplish what you want, but this is necessary if you want to break free of the habits and tension that are evoked when unconscious "intent" (and so neuro-signals) is sent simply by trying to accomplish something. The way you go about getting a result will be geared toward how you already do it. So when you merely consider action-result relations your brain will go down old paths. To challenge this reflexive tendency try having letting go be the result, and let the action succeed or fail as it will. Over time, as you are able to act within a different context you will be able to seek out how to make it work within this context.

Don't know if this response is aligned with our question. So let me know if any of this helps.
Peter

Attend a Seminar
More Info

What contributes to direct experience?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Coby Miller
Helena, Montana
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Peter,
How much did the CI contribute to your own Enlightenment, as compared to other self-
development practices you did such as tai-chi?
Coby


Coby,
You seem to be asking, among other things, what assisted most in having enlightenment experiences (a
direct consciousness of the nature of Being). Did practices like T'ai Chi help or not? To tell you the truth, as far as I can tell, T'ai Chi, or any such practice (ch'i kung, aikido, yoga, diet, breathing, et al), do not lead to enlightenment experiences. This is primarily because their goal and purpose is different. They are not practices geared toward open and radical consciousness of the nature of "being." They are directed toward health, physical improvement, relational mastery, mind control, or what have you. But these are not the same as enlightenment.

Such practices, however, can be valuable for improving awareness in body and mind. And then again,
such practices can be just a fantasy -- fooling oneself into thinking conscious progress is being made
when actually only beliefs are being reinforced. Yet it is possible to become suddenly conscious of any
aspect of "being" at any time. After all, what is true is always true, and so is true right now. Therefore,
realizing this directly is possible in any moment. Such enlightenment, however, doesn't commonly occur unless a great deal of open conscious attention is put directly on the matter, and usually for a lengthy period of time. This focused and open attention is best done in a direct manner, such as a CI or Zen. Yet it can also become a part of one's practice in other disciplines.

In Cheng Hsin we work toward such consciousness in many ways. Even the martial work that we do,
which focuses primarily on increasing awareness of body and relationship, and to some extent mind, has in the background a connection with such direct consciousness work. But this is not it's focus.

In the ontology work we focus directly on mind and self, and push our way towards open investigation into the nature of Being. This work empowers enlightenment but also a deeper understanding of mind, and all that stands in the way of enlightenment so to speak. In other words, what we live with every day, and will continue to live with even after any enlightenment experience but perhaps to a lesser degree, is not absolute consciousness but limited mind interpretations. To me such work is invaluable for grasping what life and our self-struggles are all about. This helps increase consciousness in what occupies our energy and attention in every moment. It is not the same as absolute consciousness. Nothing short of absolute consciousness is consciousness of the absolute, but we should note that we don't live in absolutes, we live in relative relations. And understanding this world has as much of a profound affect on our experience of life as does realizing the absolute. Contemplation work is the most direct and focused work having the sole purpose of increasing consciousness directly, but this doesn't mean that other practices aren't useful or a direct experience is not possible. But direct experience is not likely unless that is the committed goal, regardless of what you do.
Peter

Attend a Seminar
More Info

How does commitment play a role in integrity?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
James Beale
London, England
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Peter,
A hypothetical question: Suppose I am late for something I am committed to, due to some sort of
force majeur, the only way of fulfilling that commitment is to break the speed limit, which, as a law-abiding citizen, I am committed to not doing. It seems that my ability to choose a course of action in this circumstance depends on my being able to be more committed to one thing than another, yet
commitment as you talk of it seems to be an absolute.
James Beale

James,
To be committed is to be committed, but what you are committed to can vary. You may be committed to making something happen such as attending the apprentice program, or keeping your word about a promise. You could be committed to taking action, such as joining a political party or running a race. But you may also be committed to a purpose or goal and simply have a plan to achieve it. Then you are
committed to this plan unless you discover that it won't work, or a better plan will better achieve the goalor realize the purpose. In this case, you will change the plan since your commitment is not to the plan butthe goal.
If you are committed not to speed and you are committed to get somewhere on time, then you must leave earlier, or find another form of transport or something. Forces getting in the way are largely a myth, and rarely happen. This is not what keeps someone from being true to their commitments. But from time to time things can become quite difficult, still there are always options and usually a phone.
Of course, in our language we rarely take care to make distinctions about our commitments and promises. For example, I may say I'm going to a movie tonight, and what I mean is I would like to go to the movie tonight and so I'm planning on it. And yet if my brother needs to be taken to the hospital I will do that instead. If I say to you I promise to meet you at the movie tonight, then I will meet you. If I don't, and an emergency such as my brother's accident arises, I may choose to help my brother and break my promise to you, but I will have to take the consequences of breaking my promise, and if possible, do whatit takes to clean up the mess caused by breaking my word. Also, as so many people miss, if I can, I would do both, and if I can't, I would do what I can (within the commitment of helping my brother) to contact you and let you know that I am changing my plans for the night.
There used to be an argument between two schools of thought in the world of the Samurai. One school held that you should give your life to upholding your commitments and only fail if you die in the attempt. The other school held that you must realize your commitments and death was no excuse. More on this when I see you in the apprentice program.
Peter

Attend a Seminar
More Info

How can I do Cheng Hsin while still "Bringing in the Bread?"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Julian Leviston
Stanmore, Australia
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear Peter,
You talk about the relationship that the body is and has (always). Essentially all of these works
exist to make one aware of this relationship and relate that awareness to every other facet of one's life, if I've correctly understood. The problem for me is relating the mental acknowledgment (some call this knowing) with the physical experience (some call this understanding)... in other words... how do we bring this into our lives so that it touches it completely?
Of course, largely, it's a personal effort. It's specific to each of us as individuals, and it's our own
work. But perhaps you could give some guidelines? I'm thinking along the lines of "yes, but we all still have to make a living"... do you know what I'm attempting to get at here? How does one maintain anawareness while still "bringing in the bread" so to speak? Is it just a matter of practice? Of trying and failing and trying and failing until one can split one's attention and include both the body, and the thing that would ordinarily take over one's whole attention? Or am I missing the point?
Thanks
Julian

Julian,
It's not about splitting one's attention but unifying it, which is different than focusing on one aspect to the detriment of another or putting partial attention on more than one thing. But I sympathize with the dilemma. Actually it is the splitting of our attention between "function" and "body" that I was calling a problem. When it comes to the job in which we make a living, it is not really so different from the job of winning a match.
Often we focus our attention on an immediate goal and miss the whole event that is taking place. This
whole event includes many aspects, all of which need attention. One such aspect, for example, is body movement, balance, position, and so forth, and so body awareness would be beneficial to our efforts. The main difference between work and practicing an art is that work is usually taken far more seriously since the consequences of failure are more devastating than merely losing a match or failing to learn a technique today.
Yet, if you think about it, the dynamic is quite the same. We tend to focus on the immediate goal or job at hand. If this is making a throw, dodging a punch, or improving our balance, our attention goes to that
effort. But this is often done with a limited focus. A focus on making someone fall down, for example,
ignores the whole relationship that best serves that happening. Instead, we press ourselves into just getting them to fall, without concern for the space around us, how our body is balanced and moving, what the other person is doing, and many other concerns because these concerns seem not to have much todo with getting them to fall down right now.
This is much like thinking that a fist is what hurts you when you're punched. An easy conclusion to draw, since the fist is what makes contact. But without the rest of the body behind it, the punch would do no more damage than someone throwing a fish upside your head. In such a case, we see that to relate appropriately to the power of a punch we need to be aware of what the opponent's whole body is doing.
Just so, relating our actions appropriately to the demands of a match or some such we need to be awareof the whole relationship. This includes what's going on throughout our bodies from moment to moment, as well as our opponent's body, the space in which we play, what is occurring for us and them mentally, emotionally, and so forth. All this together is what determines the relationship and so also determines our ability to interact with it effectively.
Yet these things are more readily recognized in our practice than in our work. Usually our work is a no-
nonsense arena. Abstract notions and good ideas are put aside in favor of getting the job done and
putting food on the table. Still, we can train while we work. This is not so easily done, however, since the habits of work, and sometimes even the skills, become challenged.
Training as one works comes from or within your attitude and disposition. A shift in outlook seems small, but makes all the difference in how you will proceed. Such a shift is seen as an imposition, and
sometimes it is, since one's focus is changed. But it can mean the difference between developing,
improving, and becoming healthier as a person, or degrading, tearing up the body, and furthering bad
habits in favor of keeping attention solely on the immediate goal. This goal is always what is most
important to us since it is what one is doing the action for. Still, when we back off from such a narrow
focus, we realize we are actually doing that activity for much more than the immediate, albeit necessary,
stage in the whole process of living.
I've had many people with all kinds of jobs try to apply Cheng Hsin to their work. I usually recommend that they practice outside of work first to see what happens to their skills, and then to work out a
transformation in approach before asking someone to pay good money for our experimentation. For example, a chef once ended up with his crepe on the ceiling because we was trying to use his wholebody to flip it. Better to work it out at home before flipping crepes at work. I know that when we go home we don't want to do our work! But it may be a necessary sacrifice for awhile if turning work into a training ground is the goal.
What disposition can one take to help turn work into training, learning, and improving? Questioning.
Questioning can turn all endeavors around. Simply question: What are you doing? What are you doing it for? Can it be done more easily, more effectively? What is it? Any appropriate question will do, the mere asking of which will dramatically change your relationship to what you are doing. And it is always good to remember, training or questioning aren't ends in themselves, but by adopting such a disposition, life's activities become valued and enlivening, and that is an end in itself.
Good luck,
Peter

Attend a Seminar
More Info

Fear and Relaxation

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dave Bruton
Birmingham, England
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear Peter
I have recently been putting more effort into my studies of ontology and have experienced some
difficulties that I hope you may be able to help me with. I have been doing a lot of reading to gain inspiration; things such as the Tao Te Ching, The Tao of Enlightenment, and many others such as your Principles of Effortless Power (which is brilliant by the way). This reading has led me to pay more
attention in daily life of my feelings and thoughts. I am finding it difficult to truly experience what is causing me to feel fear, although I think I am becoming better at realizing when unhelpful thoughts arise. Is this the correct course of action for me --attempting to notice when my ego is at play, and making a mental note that these thoughts and feelings are an obstacle which needs to be overcome? I am worried I am approaching becoming more present in the wrong way. I understand it is not an easy task, but sometimes I feel it is almost impossible to prevent myself from being controlled by other people's expectations, or more accurately what I think they are thinking.
One last question. When I am trying to relax my body and align with gravity, my muscles
(especially in my back) often tense up and shudder. Is this a side effect of trying to go into deep relaxation when my muscles and joints are locked? It is something that I have been interested in understanding because it is a sensation that repeats often when I concentrate on my body. Any ideas?
Thank you for your time.
Dave Bruton

David,
Regarding your fears: you notice that your thoughts have a connection with your fears. This is true. Stop thinking them. Fear is generated, not stumbled upon. This is a bit hard to grasp at first since so many fears seem to jump up at the speed of light. Yet with lots of contemplation, we can actually make finer distinctions within our fears which reveal that they occur as a process, even if it is at the speed of light. Fear is always based on something you are unwilling or resistant to experiencing. This of course must then be relating to a possible event that could take place in the future. This event could be an instant away or at an indeterminate time in the future, but it is always having not yet occurred.

So, we see that some of the most basic ingredients to fear are:
1. future
2. an unwillingness to experience, and
3. the concept that an unwanted possibility may occur.
This can all happen very quickly. But in the case of fearing what others think or expect, the time frame is far more easily discerned. Either stop all notion of future or stop your imaging of unpleasant possibilities occurring in the future; or be completely willing to experience whatever comes -- and relax. Do any or all of these and you will stop the fear. When it comes to what other people think: stop imagining what they think, or, perhaps even better, notice that it is your own thought and not theirs. Really! Whether in the end you assess that your assessment was true or not, it is still only thought. Forget about it.

I highly recommend that you attend the Month-Long here in Texas this April. For you, perhaps the ENB, a week-long Ontological section, would be most appropriate (and interesting).
ENB Spring Retreat Information and Sign Up.

Regarding your muscles: It really depends, I can't tell without personal contact. It could be that the muscles are just releasing tension. Given your fear issues, one guess is that you carry a good deal of tension (via worry and such) that is "stored" in your muscle tissues. After all, the muscles will react, even subtly, to the stimulus of the nerves that govern them. When any given mental activity is taking place, such as fear, the brain tissue will send out messages to the muscles. This may be background and not easily discerned, but can happen nevertheless. The body will build up a tightness that feels normal. Whenyou start concentrating on your body and trying to relax, this tension may be attempting to release, but having difficulty doing so. If this is the case, it will stop eventually. If it is due to old injuries or some other cause, it may also pass, but could take different care. That is just a guess, mind you, but relaxing is beneficial in any case. Keep it up.
Good luck,
Peter Ralston

Attend a Seminar
More Info

Feeling of I Am

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Minh Nguyen Van
Paris, France
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Master Ralston,
You told me that the feeling of "I am" precedes memory responses about the I. In this feeling it
seems there is at the same time "perception" and "differentiation" of self/not self." Is this right?
Peter

Minh,
Actually I didn't say anything about the feeling of "I am." If we were to talk of a "feeling" regarding self, this would be a very different matter than the existence of self. I did say:
"The self certainly is identified relative to what is historical and so memory is a big part, but I don't think it is accurate to say that "I" is memory. At least one other ingredient is necessary, which is the conception that "I am." This is then followed by "I am this or that" based on identifying something that I am, which is a function of memory."

Whenever there is a self there is a not-self. They cannot exist independently. Memory can't exist until
something cognized has passed and then is re-created with a mimic of perception through
conceptualization. Without the distinction of "self" (and so not-self) there would be nothing to cognize and so remember. But it is also true that the self-"identity" is composed almost, if not completely, of memory -- which is to say, of elements cognized and then identified with. This builds a "sense" of self that is then confused with the "being" of self. If we are speaking of self as what is identified as an individual -- with a character, personality, and whatnot -- then this sense of self is "the" self. But if we speak of self as what exists as "being," or a consciousness with the potential to become attached to characteristics and behavior but is not itself these attachments, then the sense of self is not the real self.
Peter

Attend a Seminar
More Info

I am Nothing and there is no such thing as a Fight

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Howard Arensberg
Hesperia, CA
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Peter,
I wrote you a few months back and wanted to thank you for your response to my question. Now I have a few more questions if you have a few minutes. In your book The Principles of Effortless Power
there were two quotes that have been perplexing me for the six years that I have had your book. The first one was "I am nothing and everyone else is nothing". The other one was "There is no such thing as fighting, never was never will be." Could you please clarify these for me? And my other question was what move did you win the World Championship with?
Sincerely yours,
Howard Arensberg

Howard,
I didn't win with a move. I won with an understanding and making active the principles of Cheng Hsin.
About the quotes: An assertion such as "I am nothing" is absolutely worthless unless directly experienced for oneself. And what's experienced is not "nothing" but what "I am." Therefore the description is not useful, only the experience. I'm speaking here about the absolute nature of Being, and so there is no way for the mind to actually understand what is being said. So just toss it out. In your
contemplation it is important that you set out to experience the truth, not some answer or belief of yours,
mine, or anyone else's. No matter whose answer it is or how good the belief is, neither are the truth or a
direct consciousness, so they are only in the way.

As far as "There is no such thing as a fight . . . " work on it. Where does the concept "fight" exist? Who
makes it up?
Good luck.
Peter

Attend a Seminar
More Info

How are my actions aligned with the truth?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ollie Cornes
London, England
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hi Peter,
I would like to ask a question if I may. If an emotion arises which pulls us towards an action, how
can we get to a place where we know that the action is aligned with truth? To me the idea of "what comes from within must be right" is very attractive and seems like the ultimate destination, and yet this reasoning could easily be used as a justification for the most abhorrent of actions ("I felt like killing him"). I think what I am asking is how to find some sense of stability in a world where the old foundations of my self (created by my mind) are crumbling through the realization that I am not my mind.
Thanks,
Ollie

Ollie,
Good question. We shouldn't depend on that which comes from within being an indication of anything
true. Every impulse and emotion "comes from within" and they are designed to serve some purpose. This purpose is not the truth. It is actually the mind serving the mind, or to say it differently: emotions serve the self. This is a long story and so you'll just have to wait for the book I'm working on now (Now Published Titled: The Book of Not Knowing) to come out, if you want to hear more about it from me.

We can reflect, however, that what arises from feeling deeply into the "heart" seems in a different class
from most other impulses. Yet we need to acknowledge that there is heart pain, and so anger, etc. that
can cloud even this resource. If we work to clear such reactions from our hearts, we do find a sort of
measuring stick that provides a clearer sense of honesty and a fuller view on relationship. The heart
function seems to be about relationship, and so leads us to a space where our consideration isn't habitually narrowed to immediate self-concerns, and this does seem to allow a more honest or open relation to things. However, I'm not proposing this is the truth, and falling into a heart-state fantasy -- although infinitely better perhaps than our normal states -- shouldn't be mistaken for the truth. The truth is discerned through direct realization, since it is itself and no personal relationship or feeling or conjecture or belief has anything to do with it.

Regarding action: action is action, to what truth should it align? If you mean: do your actions express and represent your internal state? That depends on your level of integrity. If you mean: do your actions
express an honesty and openness? That depends on your commitment to telling the truth. The fact is
actions will relate to experience, or what is perceived inside and out. If you experience the truth in someway or in some form, then your actions will arise from and relate to this experience. This then leaves us with the task of simply experiencing the truth. And that can be a lifetime endeavor.
Thanks for your input. Hope I've added to your investigation.
Peter Ralston

Attend a Seminar
More Info

"Finding" Purpose

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Stephen Pellegrino
Arlington, VA
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Peter,
An ontological question: Do you have any suggestions of how to incorporate your ontologicalwork into "personal mission" work (or vice versa), exemplified by such books such "The Path - CreatingYour Mission Statement" by Jones and "Finding Your Purpose" by Braham? Do you feel it useful to have
and/or to know one's "personal mission?" It seems as if the anecdote of the Zen master responding to a similar question with "when I'm hungry, I eat and when I'm tired I sleep" goes against the quest of
discovering a person's "mission." Ontologically, will "knowing" "who/what" you really "are" result in understanding what you are "supposed" to do with your life? Vice versa, will developing a good "personal mission statement" likely get one closer to understanding who they really are?
Thank you very much,
Stephen

Stephen,
I'm not familiar with the books you mention. I'm sure, however, that the idea of a mission or mission
statement is one way of pointing to "creating purpose" and having objectives toward which to progress.
Getting clear on what one wants to be doing or to achieve is very useful for getting it. Purpose is what decides which actions are appropriate at any given time (i.e. What is the purpose for doing this? or What am I trying to accomplish? or How shall I go about accomplishing such and such).

Effective interaction is dependent on appropriate actions that relate to what's so. What's appropriate can
only be known by knowing the purpose or at least the objective for the interaction -- otherwise it wouldn't matter how the encounter turned out or what you did. One can be, and almost always is, motivated by hidden agendas which are acting out "incomplete" emotional self drives (trying to make life turn out sothat you feel whole and complete. By the way, it's not going to happen that way, but that's a long story I can only address at something like the ontological work of the month-long). In any case, creating clarity of purpose helps counter the tendency to be driven down old ruts.

Often missed is the fact that we don't "find" purpose. Purpose is only created. This bothers most people
for several reasons. Among these are: a sense of inauthenticity felt within themselves suggests that
anything they create will be bogus. From the place most people try to create, it often IS. Too often, instead of genuine creation, they substitute "pretend" or "make up" something, and call it being creative. Creation depends on not-you as much as it does on you. In other words, it can't be something simply fabricated by the self, it must be grounded in principles which lie outside the self, or I should say, independent of the self.

This is a another long story but a short form might be gleaned from a small example: The truth (of
anything) as itself cannot be a fabrication of one's self – in other words, we can't just make it up or have it be any way we want. If we did that, then what's true could be any way we say it is, and this has no power. Truth must be dependent on what is actually so or true. This is independent of my beliefs, opinions, knowledge, judgments, perceptions, desires, fears, and whatnot. It is itself.

Yet, my experience of the truth is the only way it will become conscious (at least for me), so I'm not
completely out of the loop. If I were to make my purpose in life to discover the truth (of life, self, a tree, or the corner store), we can see that at once my decision is created simply by an act of will (which only has power if it is an actual representation of my actions and future committed actions), and yet this act is dependent on something independent of anything I could make up (or at least should be). As such,
whatever is actually true will now direct my listening, contemplation, reading, speaking, searching,
questioning, experimentation, and so forth. I will be directed by some force over which I have no control. The control I have in the matter is the decision to do so, or not, and the degree of honesty and intelligence I apply to this pursuit. In this way my "mission" to discover the truth is directed by both me and not-me at the same time.

In regards to your other concerns: The "mission" of a Zen monk is enlightenment, but if his mission were to build a shopping mall, many activities would have to take place that would not take place in the pursuit of enlightenment. He might eat when hungry, but he also plows the field whether he's hungry at the moment or not.

Knowing who you are generally helps you create a purpose or mission statement, since it puts you in the middle of honesty, tends to free up so much mind crap, and opens your heart. Not being identified with all sorts of "false" characteristics and assumptions is very useful for creating the directions in which you want to proceed with life.

The ontological work of Cheng Hsin is applicable to far more than most people realize. I know it's not easy to grasp, especially from the books, but this is why I'm so excited about being able to do this work again at the month-long. Hope to see you there.
Peter

Attend a Seminar
More Info

A Breakdown of Ontological Terms

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mark Russell
Atlanta, Georgia
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Peter,
Long ago, I took Pleiades, two Empowering Transformation Workshops, and a couple of Contemplation Intensives. What I am trying to remember and focus on now is the "sequence of encounter."
Something like: It's quite faded in my memory. I would like to identify those distinctions again. Will you provide the missing links?
Mark Russell


Mark,
I thought it might be fun to share this in the Newsletter, mostly for those who have worked with it before, but also to provide a peek for people unfamiliar with the kind of work we do in ontological workshops.

There are two sets of the Sequence of Encounter. The first is:

EXPERIENCE --> PERCEPTION --> COGNITION--> EFFECT

As you might remember, this is not a conventional use of these terms. In our language we don't make these distinctions but blur them as pretty much the same thing, and live primarily at the effect of everything. But that's another story, best told when we're together and can work through what they are "experientially" rather than merely hear about them intellectually.

I use a "camera analogy" to introduce part one:
Experience = subject of photography
Perception = developing the picture
Cognition = see an image of your girlfriend
Effect = excitement, oh joy!

It's not very accurate but gives something for the mind to stand on. The thing to remember is that most of this happens in a place we call "unconscious" which is why we can't easily recognize it.

EXPERIENCE itself is incomprehensible to us. What we commonly call experience is the formation of the meaningless into a specific and useful "perception." But, in terms of our sequence here, Experience is so far back that we cannot even imagine it. This is direct experience at its core -- it is "Being" or Consciousness in the place of the Absolute or Nothing -- before anything is separated and becomes
distinct or known. See how useless that is?

PERCEPTION is simply the phenomena that creates the "possibility" of anything being known. Think of it like the possibility that distinctions can be made, and so something can be cognized as separate from something else. It is the possibility from which perceptive organs are created, and so sight, sound, etc. can become a reality. It doesn't mean anything, and isn't really what people call perception. It is prior to sight, sound, etc.

COGNITION is the phase that turns this perceptive possibility into what we normally call experience and perception; i.e. when something is somehow "known" in one's consciousness or awareness.

EFFECT is our reaction to whatever seems to be coming into our awareness. The operative word here is "seems," because what we are reacting to is an interpretation that's been processed through our own personal "mind factory" and is not what is actually there or true. (This is not to assume that there is some solid reality or anything prior to cognition simply waiting to be known; the knowing itself may well "create" what's known. But that's another story.) The point is that we need not be dominated by unnecessary "effects" that we ourselves create.

The second breakdown starts at Cognition above and breaks it down further into:

Interpretation --> Reaction Sensation --> Meaning --> Reaction Appearance

Reaction Appearance is basically the same as Effect. It is what appears to us as a reaction or what we commonly call our "experience," so you can see how far this is from direct experience. Reaction Sensation is too subtle to grasp here; so we have mainly Interpreting what is perceived (which is a meaningless phenomenon), and giving it the meaning and charge that determines our reaction.

The breakdown in Cognition begins with Interpretation which simply associates what is perceived with all that is remembered and finds matches, thus turning it into something that can be conceptualized and"known" in a very basic sense. But this interpretation is devoid of emotion or charge, it is meaningless and not useful in the normal sense. So we run this interpretation through another process that matches it up with a complex set of data that tells us what it means. This gives it charge, juice, lets us know it as good or bad, dangerous or useful, etc.

This is the first time in this process that something could be useful. It is when an orientation can occur. This process is called Meaning. Prior to this, everything is pretty much in a "detached" place, it ain't personal, it doesn't mean anything. Now that it means something we can react to it -- have a feeling or thought that tells us what to do: run or feed it a biscuit. This is the Effect or this whole Reaction's Appearance in the matter. All of the above takes place faster than light speed, so it's difficult for most people to discern.

How to sum it up? Let's see. The most important parts are: there is whatever is true, and then we somehow encounter it. In this encounter we turn what is true into something we can be aware of and then into something that means something to us personally. We react to this personal meaning, but we are not actually reacting to or knowing what the thing is for itself.

Now here's the good part: When we become aware to any degree of something for itself --before judgment, reaction, etc.-- our relationship to it is more accurate, more appropriate, and more REAL.

Hope this refreshes your memory.
Peter

Attend a Seminar
More Info