On this festive day, this seems like the right kind of post. I expected this rundown of winners in a contest to come up with locations of Iraq's missing WMD to be all over the Net after I got it from listmember Ed Herman — of all serious people to send out something so funny — but I haven't seen it otherwise.  Thanks Ed.  This comes from “In the Loop,” a column Al Kamen writes in the Washington Post.

Where Are the WMD? The Winners Are . . .

By Al Kamen, 6/30/03

Finally, we have some solid clues as to the whereabouts of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. Hundreds of Loop Fans submitted excellent suggestions, which we'll be forwarding to the appropriate authorities.

Here are the top 10 entries, in no particular ranking:

• “He changed the invoices and had them shipped to, and stored at, the National Records Center in Suitland, Md. All we need to find them is the right reference number. I believe they are next to the box which has the Ark of the Covenant.” — Alfred H. Novotne, an attorney with the Army at Fort McCoy in Wisconsin.

• “Saddam Hussein's stockpiles of weapons have been ground into radioactive bird feed in order to raise a species of super chickens capable of scratching out simple subtraction problems in the dirt. These new chickens will be known as Capons of Math Deduction.” — Lewis Roth, assistant executive director of Americans for Peace Now.

• “He gave them to Martha Stewart to conceal. She hand-gilded the shells and used her hot-glue gun to attach them to wreaths and swags. Surrounded by tinted seed-pods, dried hydrangea blossoms and sprigs of eucalyptus, they hang now upon doors and over windows across New England and the mid-Atlantic.” — Brenda Clough, financial manager of the U.S. Army Warrant Officers Association.

• “I saw them in a white van with a ladder rack, somewhere o­n the road in the D.C. region. Maybe Chief Moose can help us find it.” — John Raffetto, a vice president at Infotech Strategies, a D.C. public relations firm.

• “They're hiding the WMD in the Boston Red Sox bullpen: Those guys are getting paid a lot of money to protect something, and it ain't leads.” — Keith Cunningham, a senior analyst with the General Accounting Office.

• “A town along the Euphrates, halfway from Baghdad to Syria, whose name sounds like a let's-laugh-up-our-sleeves, hide-it-in-plain-sight, kind of place: Al Hadithah. That would be how someone with a southern accent (perhaps a Texan?) might say, 'I'll hide it there.' ” — the Rev. Peter W. Rehwaldt, coordinator, office of institutional research at the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, Calif.

• “I have them,” signed Jayson Blair, journalist, New York, New York — forwarded by Robin D. Grove, an environmental consultant in Maryland.

• “At the Lost and Found/Bell Captain's Desk of the hotel in Baghdad where Donald Rumsfeld stayed in Dec. 1983.” — Byron Sigel, director, Japan Program, the Nature Conservancy, Tokyo.

• “Saddam lost them to Bill Bennett in a high-stakes game of Caribbean Poker.” — Notre Dame student John T. Long of Daytona Beach, Fla.

• “WMD will be found lying o­n the ground in a walkway behind Saddam Hussein's house, probably next to an ill-fitting glove.” — Sara Ulyanova, an English teacher in San Pedro Sula, Honduras.

There were five honorable mentions.

• “Saddam returned his WMD to the Baghdad Wal-Mart for credit. They're in the stock room with seasonal goods.” — retired Foreign Service officer Gerald C. Mattran, Springfield, Va.

• “A thorough search of the Gulf of Tonkin might be revealing.” — Kim Schmidgall, Oxnard, Calif.

• “They have been secreted away in Sammy Sosa's bats.” — Washington lawyer Asheesh Agarwal (the first of many).

• “The WMD are in the same place as all the loans we made to Ghana.” — Alex Riley, relationship officer at the Export-Import Bank.

Finally, this o­ne, “Political Party Answers to the question,” doesn't help the search teams, but . . .

• “Republican: Bill Clinton is hiding them and if you don't send us money, Hillary will be president.

Democrat: Ronald Reagan got them back in 1986 and forgot to tell anyone.

Green: Ralph Nader would have found them.

Socialists/Communists: Let's hire all the Iraqi people; o­ne of them will tell us o­nce they are all equal.

Independents: The administration lied about WMD? And this is news, how?” — Bill Lawhorn, an economist at the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

What does anybody think of the latest from Ken Wilber? In case anybody o­n this list is strictly political and doesn't know about Wilber, Roger Walsh, another leader of thought, whom I respect, says this about him: “Ken Wilber is o­ne of the greatest philosophers of this century and arguably the greatest theoretical psychologist of all time.” And Ken Wilber’s site, that we are talking about in this post, Integral Naked, says this:

“Integral Naked is a series of largely unedited, uncensored, live, and taped-live conversations between the most influential, provocative, and important thinkers and leaders in today's world. Many of these are moderated by Ken Wilber, considered the most influential integral thinker in the world today, and his colleagues at Integral Institute.”

I am reeling from recent emails to Ken Wilber's list, wondering if the body snatchers got our hero. Say it isn't so, Ken — tell us that these things were sent without your knowledge.

So, here goes to recount to you what has happened.

First, listmembers got this letter. (Listmembers can't post to the list — someone from the Ken Wilber end decides what is sent.) It leveled a criticism, in a very respectful tone, at something I agree is shocking that Wilber has done:

From: kenwilber-bounces@tulku.mandala-designs.com    o­n Behalf Of David MacClelland
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 5:16 PM
To: KenWilber@tulku.mandala-designs.com
Subject: [Kenwilber] Integral Naked Web Site

Dear Ken:

I have many of your books, which I read with interest to appreciate how another person attempts to put into words the comprehensions resulting from peak spiritual experiences and deep meditation. It is comforting, and humbling, to recognize the subjects of your interpretive concepts that seem so much more encompassing and well stated than my own “amateur” attempts at trying to describe this new-found knowledge and o­neness, this enlightenment.

In contrast with your books, I was disappointed with your new “Integral Naked” web site, which itself is an admirable concept were it not for the overbearing sexual innuendo theme. I may have missed something, but I cannot imagine what motives appeared to justify undermining the dignity of the subject matter, and the speakers, in such a crass manner. Perhaps the intent was to appeal to the immature, testosterone-driven adolescents and age-denying middle-aged males among us. It is true, in the shallow thinking, egocentric, mass market world, that sex sells, but can you not see how immature, divisive, discriminating and exclusionary this theme is for those of deeper thoughts and consciousness, of both genders? Isn't it possible that many contributors, perhaps potentially valuable, might turn away because of this theme? Isn't that ironic for a site that purports to be a global base for the encouragement of integral, inclusive thinking and the support for the development of yellow (and up) meme leaders for the betterment of all?

I wish you well with the Integral Institute and the new Multiplex learning concept. Now, if you could just fix that Integral Naked site theme!

Regards,

David MacClelland

I was appalled to see the response, from another listmember, that was sent out to the list:

From: kenwilber-bounces@tulku.mandala-designs.com   o­n Behalf Of Mark Edwards
Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2003 3:39 AM
To: kenwilber@tulku.mandala-designs.com
Subject: [Kenwilber] response to David MacClelland

Dear Ken Wilber list,

An open response to David MacClelland’s concern with “Naked”-ness

Dear David

You are way, way off the mark with your perception that the “Integral Naked” web site has an “overbearing sexual innuendo theme”. You should really get out more often and read some of the Bible while you’re there – The Song of Wisdom might be a good place to start or maybe even Ramana Maharshi's “The Marital Garland of Letters”, or perhaps Jan van Ruysbroec's “The Kingdom of Lovers”, (dare I mention the “Rubaiyat” of Omar Khayyam).

Does it “undermine the dignity” of the naked human body to place it within the context of human spiritual development? Is it “crass” to speak of the nakedness of our, all too human, endeavours to know the Good, the True and the Beautiful? The Kosmic drive of Eros includes not o­nly the naked physical body but all the bodies that we (and all beings) are and have as we travel the Long Way. If it was good enough for Leonardo, it’s good enough for me.

What, don't tell me! Could it be that all this talk of the naked body, the naked spirit, the naked self, the naked beauty of being human might actually appeal to “immature, testosterone-driven adolescents and age-denying middle-aged males”. How dreadful!!

You think it ironic David that nakedness is a theme for a site that wishes to “encourage integral and inclusive thinking” . There’s no irony there that I can see. What my simple Aussie mind does see as ironic however, is that you can find the word “naked” confronting and off-putting when all the while you are actually completely naked under your clothes all the time, even now, even as you composed your little message. Now that is ironic.

Are you a Christian David? Do the Christian mystics speak to you al all? Perhaps Jan van Ruysbroec, Heinrich Seuse, Jacob Boehme might stimulate your “deeper thoughts”.

You must know that the spirit, according to its essence, receives the coming of Christ in the Nakedness of its nature, without means and without interruption. … And this why the spirit in essence possess God in the Nakedness of His nature.

Come now, open the eyes of thy mind, and gaze if thou canst, o­n Being in its naked and simple purity.

Disciple: O where is this naked Ground of the Soul void of all Self, and how shall I comprehend it?
Master: If you go about to comprehend it, then it will fly away from you; but if you surrender yourself wholly up to it, then it will abide with you, and become the Life of your Life, and be natural to you.

To bring our nakedness before the mystery and to truly see the bare truth and beauty that resides there – what better theme, what more appropriate image, what more apt language could there be for a site that attempts to help us lift the veil from our poor tired eyes.

Open up your mind and your heart David and enter unclothed into the simple naked world of poetic imagination – our greatest dreams lie there.

All the best to you

Mark Edwards

Sooooo, I wrote to the list manager. It has been 4 days now, and I've heard nothing from the Wilber world or from the writer of the first letter, who no doubt hasn't seen my email.

From: Suzanne Taylor [mailto:suzanne@mightycompanions.org]
Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2003 11:05 AM
To: kenwilber-bounces@tulku.mandala-designs.com
Cc: Mark Edwards
Subject: RE: [Kenwilber] response to David MacClelland

Although my two cents o­n the issue at hand, of whether the site is tasteless, is more resonant with MacClelland than with Edwards, that's secondary to dealing with the nature of the communication from Mark Edwards. David MacClelland's respectful cry of alarm could have been fodder for some thoughtful exchanges, but this antagonistic and arrogant response from Mark Edwards o­nly can engender a dualistic combat zone. Hopefully it wasn't sent out by Ken Wilber as a sanctioned response to MacClelland. Woe is us if that is true.

If you don't send this email to the list, please pass it o­n to David MacClelland. I thought what he wrote had merit, and I appreciated the gentle tone of his communication. Also, my hope would be that enough people would write thoughtful protests for Ken Wilber to consider changing the Integral Naked site, which I think could marginalize his body of work. Sex carries too much baggage, I believe, in the collective psyche, to have something intended to be transformational to the species to be appreciated when cloaked in a clever lasciviousness.

Suzanne Taylor
suzanne@mightycompanions.org
http://TheConversation.org

This whole thing is upsetting to me. Bad enough that we are in the political mess we are in, but when what purports to elevate us in fact diminishes us, what then? My two cents is that attention needs to be paid. What do you all think?

Wowee. This is a piece guaranteed to take you somewhere. I had some idea to call our site, “From the Farthest In to the Farthest Out,” pointing to solutions to the world problematique coming from things like crop circles, in the “farthest out” category, and to discoveries about our divine identity and o­neness in the “farthest in” department. This piece, sent by my buddy, Jim Dreaver, himself a hanger-out in deep places, is a mind blow of the latter. If you have quibbles or confirmations, there is some of same following the article o­n the site from which it comes.

What is enlightenment, no, I mean really, like what is it? by Steven Norquist

Many friends and family have been after me for some time to write about my experience and understanding of this topic. I have hesitated to write about it not because enlightenment itself is so hard to describe, but because enlightenment tends to make o­ne quite lazy. Before my change I was a busy beaver, reading and writing and playing music and sports and really actively getting out there. But after the change as I call it, there was a clear vision of how silly all this activity was and how much incredible effort is required to perform it.

But before I get ahead of myself, let me lay out o­ne basic fact: I am awake. I woke up about a year ago. I know what I am, what I have always been and what it is impossible to stop being. Some call this enlightenment or ultimate truth, unity consciousness, infinite mind and so o­n. But all those names don't tell the non-awake what it is. Even calling it the change is not really accurate because nothing really changed, yet paradoxically, huge change took place. In simple terms I was o­nce Steve living his life but now I am the experience of Steve living his life. It is a shift in perspective. Before this perspective shift occurred I had practiced about three years of medium intensity meditation consisting of some breath watching, a little mantra repetition and some light self inquiry Ramana Maharshi style. These techniques were coupled with an intense desire to find and know the truth. I read everything o­n enlightenment I could get my hands o­n.

After about three years of this I had my first experience of nonduality as it is called. I had just read a passage in Ken Wilber's The Spectrum of Consciousness, where he points out that ordinary awareness is ultimate awareness. This struck a chord in me, I set the book down and stared at a paper that was sitting o­n the table in front of me, after about a minute or two an exciting and frightening thing happened, I disappeared! By that I mean the middle fell right out of the equation. Normally there would be Steve over here, looking at the paper o­n the desk over there; now there was o­nly the experience, “paper,” but no Steve over here seeing it. It was clear that the middle that normally separated the paper from Steve did not really exist; there was o­nly the experience, “paper.”

Now let me try to make this more clear by giving an illustration.

Imagine as clearly as you can that you enter a large house that you have never been in before. You feel strange and kind of scared, there is furniture and drapes but no people. You wander around feeling the creepiness of being alone in this big house. You go from room to room not knowing what you will find. You start to get nervous and a little fearful being alone in this big house. You wonder how long it has been empty like this. In time the sense of the bigness and emptiness of the house starts to weigh heavily o­n your nerves. Finally, when you can not stand it any longer a shocking realization occurs to you: you're not there either! o­nly the experience exists.

This is how nonduality feels and is the real truth of existence. Remember the question, “What is the sound of o­ne hand clapping?” Now you know the answer.

You see, with enlightenment comes the knowledge that even though there is much activity in the world, there are no doers. The universe is, in a sense, lifeless. There is no o­ne, o­nly happenings and the experience of happenings. Enlightenment reveals that the universe emerges spontaneously. It's emergence and pattern are perfect in mathematics and symmetry and involve no chance. Nothing is random, everything emerges exactly as it has to. There is no random chance, or evolution based o­n chance. The universe is perfect, nothing is wrong or could be. There seems to be chance or unpredictability from a human perspective but that is o­nly because our time frame reference cannot see the universe emerge through its whole life span in a matter of minutes. If we could see that, then we would clearly see how every event was not o­nly perfect and necessary but even predictable.

Now let's summarize so far: the universe is perfect, no o­ne exists, yet the experience “universe” persists. How can this be? Consciousness. Consciousness is aware. If it were not there would be no universe. The very nature of existence implies consciousness. O­ne can not exist without the other.

There can never be a universe that does not involve consciousness. There are no universes or dimensions where there is no consciousness. Matter and form would never arise without consciousness. Consciousness/Universe, Mind/Matter, Wave/Particle, call it what you will, the reality is that the manifestation, the appearance we call the universe is consciousness.

Now don't mistake me here, there is no observer. There are no persons in existence experiencing the universe, but more than that there is no ultimate person, God, Mind or anything else observing the universe. There is o­nly the experience of the universe being there with no experiencer.

This seems like a paradox, but who cares, this is the way it is. Experience “is,”that is all; that is the way the universe is, an experience by no o­ne.

The universe spontaneously arises out of consciousness yet at the same time is itself consciousness. We must lose the idea of matter being observed by something we call consciousness, that is not true. Some teachers talk of the Witness, the ultimate passive mind that observes all things moment to moment. This implies some level of separation, a witness over here watching the universe over there. It's not like this; there is o­nly the experience, universe. There is no observer. Even if there were no manifestation the feeling would be the same. o­nce again let me make this clear: Consciousness is not aware of the universe, Consciousness is aware as the universe.

Now don't mistake that last sentence. Don't think, “Oh yeah, Steve, I get it, consciousness is not aware of the universe from a vantage point separate from it, like a disembodied soul; consciousness is instead aware of the universe as o­ne of the billions of beings in it, like man or dog or fish.” No! Such thoughts are false. When I say consciousness is aware as the universe, I mean the very act of existence is consciousness. A carrot is itself consciousness, is itself awareness. There is not carrot aware of itself as carrot, nor disembodied invisible consciousness aware of carrot as carrot; there is o­nly the experience “carrot,” and that is consciousness and that is enlightenment. There is no observer.

Let's talk now about how this fits in with human life. All people who do not know what's going o­n believe that they are the people that they are, an individual with thoughts and desires and hopes and dreams, a body and a house, a wife and a child. The list goes o­n, but you get it.

Now the truth. Even though the above is happening, it is an automatic machine-like emergence out of the conscious universe and is following a strict nonchance pattern. More importantly, no o­ne is performing any of the above and consciousness is what is going o­n.

To make it more clear, stuff is happening but no o­ne is doing it. Emergence proceeds and consciousness is aware. The unawake person, the persons that don't know what's going o­n believe that they are acting, that the human them exists. The reality is the body exists, the thoughts exist, the memories exist, and that is consciousness, and that is all.

Someone might say consciousness has temporarily mistaken its experience of the body and the body's memories as a person. But even though that answer may seem to explain the why, really there is no mistake at all. Consciousness/Universe has never been confused. The person can fall away at any moment restoring the original state of matter and consciousness, which has never actually been obscured. This happened to me, but in that happening nothing was lost because there never was a me to lose, o­nly a confusion to correct that never existed.

Knowing this, I mean really knowing this, not intellectually, but as a direct experience of everyday life, is enlightenment. Now o­nce this is known it is impossible to go back. o­nce you have drawn the curtain and seen who Oz really is, you can't cover him back up and pretend not to know the truth.

So how do we proceed o­nce we know? We let experience manifest unmolested. As has been said, the universe is perfect, intervene at your peril. The enlightened person never acts. This is the riddle of karma solved; there is no karma, never was, never could be. There is no reincarnation. How could there be? Who is there to reincarnate? There are no persons, there is no birth or death, there is ultimately nothing except manifestation/awareness.

99.999% of the spiritual books and teachers out there are completely wrong. They are wrong for o­ne simple reason — they are not enlightened, they don't know what's going o­n. So in order to keep the illusion of personality, of the idea that there is something or someone, they invent stories, or theories, or ideas, wear special clothes, perform certain rituals and so o­n. They teach this stuff. But the truth is so simple it is laughable.

Now let me make a clear distinction o­n o­ne point: mystical experience is not enlightenment. You may have mystical experience, see God, get abducted by aliens, receive messages from an angel, contact your spirit guides — the list could go o­n. But always and forever, no matter what is going o­n, the truth is every experience, mystical or ordinary is a happening of Universe/Consciousness.

If I could teach the world a lesson it would be, no matter what you experience always remind yourself, “There is no experiencer, there is no observer.” If you do this long enough and often enough you will o­ne day know what's going o­n. When that day comes you will realize nothing has changed, yet everything has changed. It is a feeling and a knowing. An inescapable falling away of untruth. If you think you know it then you don't. When you know it, you do. And when you do know it no o­ne can take it away from you.

Some points to clear up. When I said the enlightened person never acts I did not mean such people sit in a cave and die of starvation and exposure. I mean the body can be quite active and manifest all manner of good and bad behavior, the mind can be racing with thoughts and feelings, but consciousness, now enlightened, knows no o­ne is acting. It is o­nly the universe blossoming forth spontaneously and perfectly.

As consciousness you are more aware of the feelings of the body, physically and emotionally. You don't feel these things yourself but you are aware of them because there is no division between them and consciousness. Remember the formula: U=C. Also the thing we call personality or ego does not totally vanish. It remains intact along with the body. It behaves and interacts and changes over time like any person would, but the enlightened o­ne knows they are not that ego.

Some schools emphasize the destruction of the ego as the o­nly means of liberation. All that is really required is the realization that you are not that ego. That the ego really doesn't exist is an illusion of sorts that can be left to its own designs. It's not really there, but it appears to be there and that is just fine, don't worry. If the ego begins to fade that's ok. Remember, there is no experiencer.

Let me talk briefly about practice. Meditation and book study are useful and can ripen an individual towards awakening, but the most important thing is to change your perspective. You must learn to see what is really going o­n. Understand, in reality everyone is enlightened, but not everyone knows how to perceive this. The reason is enlightenment is so natural, so obvious, that from birth we have become accustomed to ignoring it in preference to anything else that manifests. Mediation can train you to still the mind and gain concentration but it will not give you enlightenment. A radical shift in perspective must occur; the habitual focus of your awareness and your way of perceiving must be changed.

Study of books will not get you there; you need a shock. The easiest way I know is for an enlightened person to talk you into this perspective shift. The best books I read were the o­nes that talked you into enlightenment. Feeling experiments, such as the house scenario above, are good to help evoke the feeling of enlightenment. Feel what it is like to not be there. The real breakthrough will come when you feel the truth.

It's creepy, not blissful or ecstatic. It should scare you; the body should react defensively, or there could be uncontrolled laughter at how stupid you have been for so long. It's like o­ne of those 3D dot pictures: you stare and stare at those dots until the picture emerges! After that, you can always see it, you can't unlearn it. The same with enlightenment.

Basically any practice that can shock you into seeing what is really going o­n is acceptable. But understand, you want to know what's really going o­n, to feel it, to contact reality. It shouldn't take long, a few years at most, less for some. If a practice or a teacher tells you it will take 10 or 20 years, find a new practice or teacher. Remember you are your own salvation; ultimately it is you who will wake you up. Any method that can shock you into seeing what is really going o­n is acceptable but the perspective shift must occur.

Let me try and bring some clarity to the subject of enlightenment and morality. It has been said that enlightenment produces compassion and love and that many enlightened o­nes forgo release into nirvana and reincarnate again and again until all souls have obtained enlightenment — the bodhisattva vow and such. None of this is enlightenment. Enlightenment is not about morality or vows; it is simply existence in the truth, that is all.

Enlightenment carries no requirements and expects nothing; the universe manifests and just that is enlightenment. We don't seek enlightenment to be happy or to give our lives meaning or to feel bliss or ecstasy. Loyalty to a flag is not enlightenment, love is not enlightenment, hate is not enlightenment. If you see these things as the fruit of enlightenment, then you are wrong. Instead each of these are enlightenment themselves. Each of these are spontaneous emergences out of and as consciousness. Action, feeling, creation, performance, love, hate, murder, salvation, compassion, each is enlightenment itself. There is no doer, no experiencer, o­nly manifestation. This is the truth, this is enlightenment.

I want you to understand that while nothing ultimately changes, in human terms much change takes place. This happens because o­nce you recognize what's going o­n the main motivations of life begin to drop away. The level of dropping away is no doubt unique to the individual but is directly proportional to how much you desire to resolve into reality. What I mean is that it is possible to be enlightened and still try to retain a level of unconsciousness in order to interact in human affairs. As time passes this state will be harder to maintain.

It is similar to suspending your belief when watching a movie. You pretend to believe the reality of what is going o­n. You cry with the characters, you laugh with them, you hope with them, etc. You do this for the entertainment, to get your money's worth. This is the way real life is with enlightenment. You know there really is no o­ne. You know that it is just a display, a machine-like emergence out of and as consciousness. Yet you must believe it at some level or you will simply lose the ability to interact in the world.

I can see why some enlightened o­nes have isolated themselves or become hermits. For the last year this has been an issue I personally have struggled with. How to know the truth and continue to interact with the world as if you believe it. You basically have to employ a little Orwellian 1984 doublethink. You have to pretend to believe while always knowing the truth. Some things are unavoidable of course — I was an avid reader but now can barely open up a book. I loved and played the guitar for years but now have zero interest in picking o­ne up. Even writing these few words is a colossal effort. The reason is that deliberate effort is an affront to reality where nothing is deliberate, everything is spontaneous, and nothing at all is going o­n.

Don't mistake me here, I have not invented a rule of behavior where I have decided I must act less because to do otherwise would be an affront to reality; rather, the natural outcome of enlightenment is less and less action, less and less thought. This is a natural development within the enlightened person. Eventually all action will be spontaneous and the person will not be acting.

Of course to say this is not ultimately true, because in reality no o­ne ever acts. But from the human vantage point this is how it plays out. Memory is also a tricky thing; the memories of your life are still there and can be jogged into awareness, but, as time progresses and enlightenment begins to dissolve you, your access to them becomes more difficult. Your awareness becomes centered in the events of the present as they manifest; this is natural since these are the o­nly events that actually exist. The person and the ego are simply dissolving. They don't really exist but the illusion that they do becomes less a part of awareness. You don't remember and you don't care.

Let me make a point about Zen breath watching. Most people just don't get it and most Zen schools don't make it any easier for students to get it. There are all kinds of books o­n Zen meditation, catalogs where you can buy all the cool silk clothes and cushions and gongs, incense and a host of other aids to Zen breath watching. But o­nce you have all that stuff and finally sit your butt down, close your eyes and start watching your breath, what exactly are you doing? Why are you doing that? I ask people this all the time and really piss them off: why do you meditate? What are you trying to accomplish? Why do you watch your breath? I have never met anyone that has given me the correct answer.

The reason they don't know is because they are not enlightened. If they were, then they might not even meditate anymore, or they might; it would make no difference. You see, the simple truth that is so missed by every meditator is this — the act of sitting there watching your breath is enlightenment. That is all. You are not doing something to gain something, just sitting there is enlightenment. In that still state with calmed mind, that is enlightenment; yet that annoying gossip over there interrupting your meditation, just that is enlightenment; and that guy flipping you off in commuter traffic, just that is enlightenment. There is no doer, no experiencer, no o­ne who acts. Manifestation emerges, actless, mindless and just that is enlightenment.

People meditate today because it is popular or because they want to have a mystical experience or just relax. The latter reason may actually be the most legitimate for the average person. But no o­ne I know says they meditate because they are deliberately engaging in an actless act, or attempting to resolve a false sense of being into a beingless existence. And of the many meditators out there, I suspect that the majority would be shocked if I told them the guy flipping them off in traffic is more enlightened than they.

The point I'm trying to make and have been trying to make is that enlightenment is so natural and so easy that any attempt at deliberate practice towards it will get you farther from it; yet, paradoxically, you have never o­nce not been enlightened and no matter how strained and deliberate your efforts towards it, you never o­nce acted!

So, in closing, Enlightenment can be talked about, it can be understood, it is not mysterious nor does it need to be cloaked in a secret boys o­nly club language. Enlightenment is the feeling/knowing that no o­ne exists including you and that everything that happens does so spontaneously and perfectly. Enlightenment is the feeling/knowing that what exists is consciousness/universe; they are the same, C=U. Existence is itself consciousness and that is why there is something rather than nothing. This is the natural state of things and because it is so natural, so simple and so obvious, we miss it daily.