Your topic will be Thought, and arrive to it in any way you think it is appropriate, but I want you to do it with diplomatic wisdom, none must suspect this switchover.
All right, I am ready.
Then, begin…
I am glad that previous lectures were of interest for you. You tell me that you want to go further, that you must go further, that you feel insatiable thirst for a specific form of drunkenness by different forms of consciousness, and that you are feeling true hunger for Change. Yes, through our first conversation about Kingdom, and the second one, you became addicted to Change. Those are sweet words, that by two conversations you changed two types of awareness.
But, my Brother, this is a completely different place, so do not attempt to predict its Nature and the nature of tasks asked from you there. What I want from you directly is your reaction and immediate experience of all the principles that I will explain to you, but in a way that you express your reaction through speech.
…
Why are you silent?
Forgive me, I was paying attention to your words so I was not thinking.
It is utterly impossible. In that case you acted in accordance with my request, what manifested as your sentence in which you claim you were focused. It seems paradoxical that immediately after my statement you started with your comments, and claimed that you were too focused on my words, and still you didn’t do what those words asked for. Is it possible to be focused without thinking?
All right, I understand now, can we continue with the lecture.
Where the idea that the lecture stopped manifested at all?
Why do you ask?
Simply to get an answer. If I didn’t want to know it, I wouldn’t ask.
Aren’t you complicating too much. We obviously departed from the topic. You criticized me for a reason, and I stated that I understood you, so there is no need to discuss it anymore.
Why do you think that we departed from the topic in the first place?
I just have an impression like that.
All right. React and act in accordance with the following part of the lecture. That is truly the topic I want to discuss, and the departure followed upon your subjective idea that there was some departure. If that was not the case, we would continue according to the nature of Knowledge you hoped to achieve.
I understand.
Then why didn’t you answer my question?
I don’t understand.
Neither do I, anymore. You either understand or do not understand. Make up your mind.
You cannot react like that. My sentence was related to a completely different part of our conversation. But I think I know what you want to achieve.
Great, then you should answer my question.
I don’t understand again! Which one?
Just the one I asked you, not more or less than that. There is no need for you to answer me the questions I didn’t ask you. It would ask for too much-exactly-almost a lot of time.
What do you mean by “too much-exactly-almost a lot of time”? How can I know what you want to ask me? I can’t read your thoughts. And finally, how can you say such a stupid thing that you know what is the exact amount of time? It includes a possibility that you know what would be my answers to questions that were not even asked. It’s nonsense. Even the way you speak is weird.
Nonsense, it is so easy. It is completely irrelevant if you knew the questions I didn’t ask. The time needed for that is simply almost exactly-a-lot.
Then, explain it to me. How could you knew for how long something would last, if you hadn’t even know what it was? How could you know, exactly, how old I am, if you do not know me first?
Very simply, and you are looking into totally different direction. Assume this: there was only one single question that I asked you, and that was THE question and no other. All other questions that I didn’t ask you, are simply all the questions that possibly could be asked in all the worlds, and therefore their number is almost infinite.
How do you mean “almost”?
Because they miss just one number. All the questions in the world, which are not asked, miss only one question which doesn’t belong to their group.
And that is?
Exactly the one that I asked you!
I think I’m starting to understand.
Let us assume that all questions in the world are an infinite factor, simply because there is an infinite number of possibilities. If you only try to question the existence of those possibilities, you already got an infinite number of questions. But, as the one was asked already, it implies the truth that the number of questions I didn’t ask you is “infinity minus one”.
It’s totally weird calculus.
On the contrary, you are an idiot, and you should not put worry about it.
All right, explain it to me completely, I won’t interrupt you, I am getting bored anyway…
That defines you as a boring idiot then, and that it the worst kind! But, to continue, we come to definition of “infinity minus one” as an infinite number. Every number is infinitely apart from infinity. You cannot count up to infinity. Simply, it is not about the time needed. You can not reach the stars by stairs. “Infinity minus one” is “infinity minus infinity”, because the number One infinitely separates that infinity from the solution of the equation, no matter what number is the result of it.
Now I got it. I think I finally understood it.
But that doesn’t give you right to interrupt me. You said you will keep silent until I finish.
All right, all right, you didn’t finish. Please go on, I won’t interrupt you anymore.
Now, you are more an idiot than just boring. You are really right when you say that you are addicted to Change.
Please, go on with your discourse, I said I won’t interrupt you. I do not have much time, I must go home soon.
And now, you are boring much more than being just an idiot. Here, the Change was faster than I expected. Please, I will continue. As the number of “infinity minus one” questions is infinite itself, than we can simply conclude that asking those questions would demand an infinite amount of time. Is that clear to you?
…
Speak freely, I am finished.
Yes, I got that. But still, there is something I do not understand.
What?
Why did you say “exactly-almost a lot of time”? Why didn’t you simply say “infinite amount of time”?
Although the term “infinite minus one” makes the same result as infinity itself, it is nevertheless different from infinity, and therefore they are not fully identical. They differentiate in one crucial point.
And, it is?
It is the “minus one”, which is a definite term. Therefore I didn’t emphasize the term “infinite amount of time”. But, there is no doubt that my words may be identified with that principle, if need be. I said “a lot of time”, and that can easily be without the infinite quantity. I didn’t say how much. A lot is a lot, and as long as you differentiate a little and a lot, then you will know what I meant.
Is that you want to explain to me the nature of infinity in an effective and specific way?
Not now, but there would be no harm to do it. Therefore, I will be very precise in my next single sentence. Understanding of this is dependent on your intelligence to grasp it, and not on alleged truthfulness or untruthfulness of this statement, which I made, my Brother, during my cross over to the Other Shore.
And that statement is?
Infinity is lesser than finite. There is only one Infinity while there are an infinite numbers of finite things.
Well said. I understand what you are pointing to all the time. It is clearer now. But, let us move a bit, I must really go, it is very late already, and I would like that we complete this discourse tonight.
All right, I agree. And what did you say, you have to go somewhere, who do you need to see?
An old friend whom I didn’t see for years. I promised him to come and see him, we had been arranging this for weeks, and I always had some unexpected things to do, so I do not want to disappoint him this time.
Completely wrong. You never said that.
Sorry, I don’t understand…
Well, simply, I asked you “what did you say, who do you need to see”, although you never mentioned anybody during the conversation. You did mention that you have to go somewhere, but nothing more than that. My question was based on a sheer assumption. It could also happen that you do not go to see anybody, so it remains mystery how would you react to my words in such a case.
You are a super cool magician, now let’s continue from where we stopped. I understood what you wanted to convey, so we can continue.
Good. Judging by your words, now it is the moment that you finally answer my question.
What are you talking about, what is the question you are talking all along?
The question with which we started this discussion. The essence I am trying to convey to you by this discourse.
There is no way I could remember. We got entangled so much into the words that I can’t remember what we spoke about half a minute ago, less what was the question posed at the beginning.
All right, nothing then.
How do you mean? You won’t stop the discussion, would you?
Of course not. If I wanted to stop the discussion, I would stop it in a simpler manner.
You are truly funny, what do you want to say by that?
With the statement “nothing then” I wanted to say NOTHING. If I wanted something, I definitely wouldn’t say “nothing”. Simply, if you can’t remember what we spoke about, then I can do NOTHING about it. Or, as I put it in a simpler way, “nothing then”.
And what if I kindly ask you to tell me what was the question I have to answer?
In that case, it would be completely different situation. Too bad you didn’t ask me earlier, you would spare us a lot of time!
All right, so what we’ll do now?
How do you mean?
Come on; tell me why did you stop?
You still didn’t ask me to tell you.
You are talking nonsense. Stop laying trips on yourself that you’re a fucking Zen teacher.
Your words were: “And what if I kindly ask you to tell me what was the question I have to answer?” I told you, very pragmatically, what would have happened IF YOU ASKED ME, what you DID NOT do, so nothing happens again.
All right, all right, for God’s sake. I kindly ask you to tell me what was the question I was supposed to answer.
“Where the idea that the lecture stopped manifested at all?” That was the question.
I must recall that part of conversation.
Of course, let me know when you do that.
Could you give me a push, I think I’m stuck. I feel dizzy.
My dear, the point is in exact location of “WHERE the idea is being manifested from”. If you remained focused on that, you would cross to the other shore and maybe we would watch the great river behind us together.
In other words, I would be Enlightened.
You would experience Enlightenment, but I cannot say if you would be Enlightened.
In any case, I would experience the Truth.
Truth about what?
At least about what I am.
Tell me then, are you that what you think you truly are, or are you what you truly think?
It really inducts me into deep meditation.
Let us even suppose that you discover that what you already are, what would you do then? How would you Act?
It is much easier. I would simply do and act according to what I discovered. I think there is not much speculation about it. I would act in accordance with that, and nothing more than that.
It is very possible it would be that way, but it is also possible that it wouldn’t be. Let us suppose this case: that you directly discover that your True Nature is not to do your True Nature, whatever it was.
That is also easy. I simply wouldn’t do it.
What is it that you wouldn’t do?
My True Nature.
But in that case, you would do EXACTLY what your True Nature is, and I told you that we assumed that your True Nature was not to do what it was. Consequently, you must not act that way.
Yes, it poses problems.
I am simply asking, what would you do?
Well, if not the first thing, then I would do something else.
But then, it wouldn’t be your True Nature. Your True Nature is not to do something else, but only not to do your True Nature. Let us assume that your True Nature is librarian. Tell me what would you do?
Well, that is a paradox. If I was a librarian, then it is not all right because I must not do my True Nature. On the other hand, if I do wall painting, that got nothing to do with my librarianship whatsoever. I simply do not know what to answer, there is no answer.
All right, let us assume that your Nature is to do nothing. Tell me what would you do then?
Well, I wouldn’t do anything. This was an easier question.
But if you do nothing, that is exactly your True Nature. Although you wouldn’t do anything mechanically, you would still be fulfilling your True Nature, which is to do nothing. So, it would be the LAST thing you should do.
Yes, but if I do anything, it is still acting of some sort, and we assumed that I dhouldn’t do anything.
Answer me, how would you act?
I admit, this is much more difficult than it seems. But these are the exceptional cases.
Isn’t each individual’s Nature unique in itself? Ponder this topic, how difficult it is to fulfill each Nature, no matter how properly you think of it. It seems as if Acting in accordance with True Nature assumes more than what we usually consider as Acting, or as Nature, or Truth.
Why do you think that the term Truth is misunderstood? I can agree for the other too, to a certain extent, but Truth is the highest, we call it by different names, but it is the same thing with all men.
Let me elaborate this observation. Truth mostly became an outward projection of the weakness of human mind to form an abstraction, and not an impartial Existence in itself. Why do you think that Truth is so distant? Why do you think it is so sacred or unspeakable? If Truth was God, it would be its name. Paradoxically, Sava river flows under each Danube bridge. The supreme projection is the projection of Enlightenment. Let us assume that in this moment of time you are not enlightened. You feel you should work more, maybe a lot, lot more, before you are allowed to taste Enlightenment. Let us simply assume that you are unenlightened right now. Would that be Truth? And that the same Truth as was the Truth that Buddha was Enlightened. Something is the way it is. The Truth is in the is-ness of that particular thing. And it IS exactly the way it IS, and not different. Unenlightened being is in Buddha, and as much as Enlightened, if he abides in the Truth of his unenlightened-ness, as it depends on one thing only – how much the Truth is manifested in his case. If he is unenlightened, it would be stupid to strive to get enlightened, the sheer truth that he is not enlightened will Act and bring about Change. It will bring Enlightenment.
It seems there are not definite concepts, there is always something that can make an exception. Your elaboration is very interesting, I will think of it.
Yes, it is always useful to develop possibilities and to create models which test the Thinking. Let us assume that the only existing Truth is that there is no Truth. Would the Truth exist then?
Whatever was the answer, if it is truthful, it means there is the Truth. But that Truth wouldn’t exist because we initially postulated that the only Truth that exists is that there is no Truth. Very interesting, I feel like achieving some specific state of mind, I think I know what is this all about.
Explain.
In all of this lecture you made me contemplate the essence of Thinking.
The essence of Buddha is in Tathagata, not in Satori. You will never get Enlightened, Enlightenment must not be a projection into future. Truth is right here and right now, spread openly. It is as it is, and always define it in this way. All right, I think we can finally stop here.
Great! You were excellent, I must admit that! I hope you are satisfied too.
Absolutely. Your progress in way of thinking is more than obvious. Since your first lecture, you progressed a lot. Obviously, this conversation taught you a lot. But, we can isolate three key things that would be good to think about.
Even three?
Yes, the first thing is that you grasped the essence of this Sphere. It is hidden in the concept of thinking, but it is so wide concept that we would need quite some time to define the truth of it. The point is in Change of thinking according to the Will, and we will discuss it later on. The other thing is that you sensed very accurately the phenomenon of shape shifting. In other words, when we changed the roles and when you started to lecture, you assumed characteristics typical of me and knowledge which I only possess, and that without any logical or rational explanation. The third thing we will discuss after we get firmly grounded in those first two, as the third one depends on understanding of the first two.
All right, explain that in more detail to me, I got tired a bit, and I feel I should listen more carefully. I will comment on your words later, but for now try to make me grasp the essence of this Knowledge by myself, as you did so far.
Then, listen to what I have to say to you and do not be distraught while you enter this hall of Consciousness. I will tell you of many things, and the full understanding of it is the condition of your Knowledge and the condition for you to move on.
Frater 273 | Reflections on Thelema 