Tasting and Recognition, March 30,2010

Participant 1: You’re one of only two teachers I’ve ever heard say that with enlightenment the ego is not destroyed.

David: There are two reasons that could give rise to a person or a teacher saying that there is no destruction of the ego. Number one is that they haven’t really transcended their ego and don’t know about the trans-egoic state, which means lack of spiritual maturity. The other reason is that they have transcended and they’ve come back to relativity to affirm that there is non difference between the ego and the unconditioned. In other words, you can declare that the ego is still existent after enlightenment either because you haven’t had enough spiritual experience or because you have really realized that.

P1: It’s strange that, that you know when you talk about…. It seems so obvious though that even enlightened beings have preferences and even most basic preferences, and that they would say that everything is just coming from the Divine and that I have no free will, and everything is just pure like that. And I was talking to other people and I realized how much conflict this creates for the students.

David: Poor students, they’re trouble to begin with.

P1: Yeah, and then you end up having to rationalize all of your teacher’s strange behaviors as like divine madman and all that stuff.

David: Right, that’s right. Instead of just saying there’s a person in there, which could rectify the whole issue immediately by just saying that no matter how high you go in Consciousness there’s always a person in there even after you’ve transcended the person because you can only transcend it episodically. You can’t keep on transcending it because a transcendence by its nature has a beginning and an end.

This is not just semantics. Anything you can talk about as realization has a beginning and an ending. The only thing that’s immortal is that which is beyond all concepts, all ideas, all fluctuations, all mind movement. And that, you would not make any statement of relationship about in terms of you having a relationship with or without it. It’s simply not in the field of language what that is. So, someone who is truly wise won’t try to discuss what that is literally. Nor will they try to equate with it, suggesting they’ve permanently transcended everything.

That kind of talk is characteristic of not full realization of the Divine talk. But, since you’ve brought this up it’s best to think of the teacher as having permanently transcended the ego. Not that they have a person like you. Otherwise, what’s the point of seeing them? Because you can go sit with a person anywhere. Just stay home with your parents. Call your ignorant brother or sister on the phone for two hours rather than coming to see me if what you want to affirm is that there is a person. But, if you have a true understanding of what awakening is then when you come here you’ll see that there’s both relative and absolute functioning. That’s a different kind of viewpoint.

It’s not so much that a person is here. Only the Divine is here and in that Divine a person also appears to arise. That’s the best understanding. You can’t say literally there is a person there either. I just take on that point of view to refute the impersonalists. I just argue that point of view because they’re coming from a point of view. They’re both points of view. The real highest point of view is not just that there’s no point of view but that all points of view come up within that. And the possibility for great dialog is there among different perspectives.

Not that I’m right and you’re wrong, there’s a person or there’s not a person, but there’s the possibility for a huge understanding, which will not rest in any single spot. ‘Cuz if you’re looking to abide in some level of understanding then you’re not really a seeker. You’re not really an aspirant. You should want the invisible. You should want to be intoxicated by the invisible. You should be in love with that which can’t be formulated or conceptualized. You should have a literal love relationship with that, which means going beyond your mind into your Self, written with a big “s.”

Just do that, and watch what happens, if it’s possible. Or, realize that here with me, so to speak, you can also realize that. But you don’t need to do it on your own. If I offer you anything valuable it’s that a shortcut can be achieved. We can blast through all the years of effort that you would have to spend grappling with your own urge to self-transcend, and somehow the very state of Being that is beyond egoic consciousness will just manifest here. If this has any meaning that’s what it is. If it doesn’t have that, then we’re all wasting our time.

So, this is all about tasting the pudding. This is all about tasting and recognition, tasting and recognition.