Travis Bickle And The Mirror
summary in haiku JC 2809
Travis Bickle And The Mirror
Travis Bickle And The Mirror
summary in haiku JC 2809
note: Talks above 3000 or so are generally not public simply because the audio is so hard to listen to - you might can get it if you ask, but not to share openly,
Jan Cox Talk 3191 August 25, 2004
Copyright Jan Cox, Jan’s Legacy 2018
Notes by Cfish May 2018
Suggested Title: After the Fact Awareness
Begin: Thinking back to early childhood (ex. six or seven years of age) can you get that feeling of being alive and maybe the carefree feeling of running out the door during the summer just to play? And it’s not necessarily about the details.
The point is there was a time when you did not have the critical/fault finding voice of what is normally called a conscious conscience. Remember one kingdom and two princes, with the first prince, authoritarian and the second prince represents this conscious conscience.
05: 00 Tonight something that you may find even more useful is the description that there may as well be two different consciousnesses and throughout history there has never been a plural for conscious. (ex. Consciousnesses)
The two consciousnesses can appear at the same time. The authoritarian voice/first prince when asked by the host “can I pour you another drink?” usually prevails over the weaker and infrequent voice that may find fault with drinking too much.
10:00 Simply, if you look, the dominant/authoritarian voice is almost always without self criticism. Why did consciousness come up with the idea you have a conscience and that it’s discreet? Why does man have a name for conscience? (ex. a mass murderer has no conscience)
Does conscience hold civilization together? The last few nights we have been looking at the perspective of the brain having two consciousnesses. A authoritarian voice that has no interest in “waking up” and a weaker voice that has the interest.
15:00 Maybe someone noticed the infrequent/weaker voice ten thousand years ago. Ordinary people have a second prince/weaker voice that is almost entirely critical of the first prince/dominant voice. But something the second prince may be able to use is that there is something “not right” with that view.
We were once carefree and had no second voice. The ordinary may blame their parents, religion, or society for instilling guilt. It seems to fit but that is not it. It’s as though another voice started in your head and took away the carefree days.
20:00 The weaker/infrequent voice did not screw up your outer life. It can still bitch but if you are ordinary you will still eat too much. The point: The voice mainly screws up your inner life. Mainly, people like us. The ordinary suffer over it, but not enough to do anything about it.
25:00 Folks like us suffer so much we try to do something about it. Ordinary people, in essence, have the same two voices and live with it. It’s like the old story about Southern Baptists, it doesn’t stop the sinning - it just stops you from enjoying it.
30:00 After a lifetime of observation, there is no adequate description of Awakening/Enlightenment. We have nothing to compare the descriptions of the two states to. So you can’t say if your description or my description is adequate.
I say we have two states. One is the weak/second prince and wants to awaken and the other one/dominant whose power is irrepressible and when it wants to take over, the weaker prince, the more awake consciousness, never gets a knock on the door.
35:00 The weaker prince never gets an advance warning that the conventional/mechanical consciousness is taking over. All there is is “after the fact awareness.” When the dominant/mechanical consciousness wants to take over it never asks for permission.
And maybe in five minutes or five hours the weaker consciousness/ the younger prince in a sense, takes over the kingdom again, momentarily, after the fact. (ex. I was asleep/distracted) The second prince being asleep for the last several hours is a highly useful description. But there is something “not right” about the description. And there is no way to know how substantial the description really is.
40:00 The working model of having two consciousnesses and that there is no such word as consciousnesses - well, doesn’t that make your head tingle? And is that someone’s idea of a sick joke? Life, The Universe,(?) but the universe has no sense of humor.
I’ve spent most of my life trying to understand what it is I’ve been doing. But there is no way to know. If the description of having two consciousnesses is useful, maybe it pushes you up a notch. Maybe thinking you’ve seen something about what’s going on in your brain.
summary in haiku JC 2766
by Wrench Tuttle
They say lost are we
Destroying nature itself
How life wants us, this
Some portion feeling
Of humanity always
Out of sync with it
Cannot understand murders
Based on wrong color
Obvious it is
Natural tempo out of sync
What life wants is this
Only one creature
With no explanation kills
That should wake one up
And if you wake up
You can never understand
That people are this
At the heart of all
The chosen few are
Those capable of seeing
The consciousness plan
2765 notes in Haiku by Wrench Tuttle
Like Fat in the Wind
summary in haiku JC 2765
Because of my weight
Because of my family
Because of my job
Because of because
Finding blame is food
Look what we have done
The past was more fulfilling
People like us act
Disappointed with our state
As if mind can change
People cannot stand
To be upset, not know why
Our complaint is not
With our state of consciousness
But with consciousness
Sticks in the machine
A noble and worthy goal
Fuck up consciousness
Jan Cox Talk 3190 - 23 August 2004
Copyright Jan Cox, Jan’s Legacy 2018
Notes by Cfish April 2018
Suggested Title: One kingdom, Two Princes, Continued
Begin: I thought of another way of putting, what I was talking about last time. It’s an allegory about a kingdom ruled by two princes who were born at the same time. One of the princes seems older and makes almost all the decisions. The second prince seems younger and doesn’t seem to do much.
The seemingly younger prince criticizes the seemingly older prince, who for the most part ignores the criticism. That is what I spent most of last Friday night’s talk trying to describe. This allegory, this shorter version, seems more substantial than the attempt at a straight and longer version.
For one reason, in the allegory, it is easier to highlight the juxtaposition of the two consciousnesses. Passing Interest: In one decent dictionary I have there is no plural for consciousness. And maybe that is all you need to know, “that man’s consciousness never allowed it to say consciousness in the plural.”
05:00 We have a kingdom with two princes (two consciousnesses) and although they were born at the same time, one seems older (the conventional/automatic consciousness) and seems to be the stage for ninety eight percent of your thoughts. It’s the first consciousness you remember.
And then you have the second prince/consciousness (though it clearly serves a crucial purpose) that seems younger, weaker, and shows up rarely. The first remembrance of the second prince/consciousness maybe when you hit your baby sister and felt bad/guilty. It’s not the “bad boy” comment by parents.
10:00 Though the allegory may not seem scientific (two princes born at the exact same time) if you can get a feel for the allegory it’s a good description. Maybe the second prince hid in a corner for the first year or two and never said a word. But in a year or two after the first prince can speak in coherent sentences, the second prince consciousness shows up at the throne and makes a comment.
You can observe it in children. The first couple of years the older/conventional prince/consciousness has free rein. I’m not sure I can remember the first year of consciousness but I can feel what it is. Maybe a giggle, maybe life as one big adventure, stumbling, knocking stuff over, breaking stuff.
And parents say “no, bad boy, bad girl.” But a human child with two princes/consciousnesses, but only one of them speaking in his brain, then no amount of outside hectoring (ex. bad boy) has any effect for that year or so. Some parents worry if the child is ok. (ex. he keeps knocking stuff over)
15:00 Then one day the kid reaches for some food and stops and thats the day the child experiences what the parents call consciousness. It’s vague but I bring it up because that is the day the second prince/consciousness criticized the one normally in charge. (ex. first prince/consciousness)
It is not the end of the giggling, great adventure but it made the older/conventional/normally in charge consciousness/first prince stop for a moment. It’s never discussed. And even those who heard it and understood it, it is hard to hold. The second prince/consciousness does little more than criticize the first prince.
By the way you do not have three consciousnesses and you don’t have one consciousness. You have two. The first one is the constant talking, daydreaming, one hears in their head. It hears itself. From the ordinary view the first prince/consciousness replays scenes from the past, things that don’t ever matter.
20:00 And the first one takes up all the room available, almost all of the time. And it tries to take up all the room available in folks like us. Under ordinary conditions, the second prince/consciousness, when it briefly takes over, it is infrequent, unless it’s frequently showing up to apologize for defending yourself for something you said.
The point being a man in apology mode is being as sincere as a man can be. In the country music sense a man in apology mode is pleading for his life. But it’s just for split seconds and then it is back to the conventional consciousness.
25:00 Having two consciousnesses is at the heart of people like us wanting to Awaken. And it is at the heart of ordinary people wanting to improve themselves. But under ordinary conditions, ordinary people don’t mind all that much if they succeed or not. Folks trying to Awaken take it seriously.
Every time you remember your aim (ex. one brain here and there are two of us) that is the second prince, the second consciousness talking and seeing the aim. First consciousness, the first prince, does not care if there are two consciousnesses and why should it? It literally runs roughshod over the second prince/consciousness.
30:00 There are exceptions to everything in life. (ex. insanity, phobias) First consciousness/first prince is absolute. The second consciousness/prince is real and has different views. And it shows up for only moments and says its piece. But first consciousness/prince does not even bother to refute it.
That is what is known as power. Despots don’t argue. It is striking once you see and think about it this way. The second consciousness/prince almost does nothing - but offer criticism of first consciousness/first prince. And the first prince does not even respond.
35:00 That is the way consciousness operates. Maybe you are overweight and second consciousness comments when reaching for an eclair “what about your diet?” but first consciousness does not respond. It may hesitate, like a child getting ready to stick his hand in the mashed potatoes, but it will still eat the eclair.
A better example concerns alcohol. Maybe a doctor saying you need to cut down on the drinking. The second consciousness hears it and agrees with it. But one of the reasons people drink is it will silence the voice of the second prince.
40:00 In people like us, it’s clear. Second prince/consciousness appears every time you think “I’m trying to wake up” etc. That is a distinct other consciousness. When I realized that, it meant more to me in a practical sense, up to that point, well, it is still a benchmark, that took decades, and it was useful.
If you can see the story of the two princes as being useful to you, and see that the story is about two distinct consciousnesses, and that anything to do with wanting to awaken - well that is the second prince/second consciousness. The first consciousness, the conventional consciousness, has no interest in awakening.
I looked for another word to describe the first consciousness, other than power. But I think you will know what I mean. There are two consciousnesses. Not three, not one. One consciousness wants to awaken and the other one has almost all the authority and runs everyone’s ordinary life.
45:00 Ordinary people can’t put up with people talking about consciousness. In folks like us second consciousness is not so easily pushed around. But what if trying to “wake up” is just second consciousness’s excuse for something to do? (ex. the second prince saying, “listen, don’t just push me out of the way, I got something important to say.”)
I planned to never say that out loud. But I have almost said it a dozen times. But second consciousness decided in private that I wouldn’t do it. Tonight I either changed my mind or I misspoke. Right? To be continued.
2784 Notes Haiku by Wrench Tuttle
The situation is the situation
If self you think you
Then unsuccessful study
And worlds cheapest laugh
Attempt to make it stable
Practices of all
Never ending stream
Thought and thought and thought and thought
Mind, not stable thing
Mind is not a noun
One more part of the joke, is
Trying to awake
Mind is a verb, yes
Just try and imagine that
Better word - minding
Tendency to say
I think, as if there is I
Producing the thoughts
Better not to say
We are trying to wake up
Consider - make up
A clue for you all
Try creating consciousness
Better to say that
Try to be cured, but
There is no situation
Jan Cox Talk # 3189 - 20 August 2004
Copyright Jan Cox, Jan’s Legacy 2018
Notes Cfish - March 2018
Suggested Title: A Pleasure Based on an Annoyance
Begin: If someone asked me about this stuff (ex. awakening, enlightenment, etc.) and after asking them what they have heard about awakening, etc., I would tell them that they did not understand what it is. And that the person who wrote about it did not understand it either.
And if they did not walk away , maybe thinking I had insulted their teacher, I would tell them the same way I keep trying to tell you guys. (Not knowing if it has meaning to you) And that is to continually try to come up with a better and better explanation to yourself of what it is you are trying to do.
And if you get on this path (ex. observing what your consciousness is up to day and night, and not just taking my words) you are not trying to answer some great metaphysical question. I’m thinking that it may have been hard for any of you to think about this without thinking about it thru my words.
That is the nature of consciousness. The first decade or more that I thought I was involved with this, I could only think about it and see it thru another man’s words. Some of you involved with this in longer terms, there are some simple ways of just looking at your consciousness, maybe driving home tonight.
05:00 And assuming you are alone, just you and your consciousness in your head, and you just look at consciousness. (You are suppose to be looking as much as you can, at least since you have known me. I still do it.) And ask, based on what consciousness does naturally, what is it I am trying to do?
Never mind “I’m trying to wake up” though that is OK but the term “trying to wake up” does not answer the question “what is it I am trying to do?” There are better explanations than “I am trying to wake up” and when you get there on your own, it makes the other efforts seem like kindergarten.
The “method of methods” is finding a better description than “trying to awaken, achieve enlightenment, etc. (assuming that is the method chosen) There is a better explanation/description than the conventional “trying to wake up/achieve enlightenment.” And only “you” can find it.
10:00 The fastest way to achieve the reality of waking up/enlightenment is for “you” to find a better description. It’s not like a task. It’s a pleasure based on an annoyance. The last few weeks, a primo description/method for the struggle to awaken is a sentence in quotation marks.
“There is one brain here and there are two of us.” You have to find your own description but that one made me run my car into a ditch. Metaphorically, because I was sitting in the garage at the time. The sentence is a description of what we are trying to do in some way.
15:00 It could not be cruder. It’s consciousness trying to do something with consciousness. Consciousness is not trying to do anything with my muscles, my feelings, or my fears. All the thought of awakening is, is a man’s consciousness wanting to do something to and with itself.
And it’s nearly impossible, because “there is one brain and two of us.” Whatever description you have had access to, (ex Buddhism, Tantric disciplines, Awakening, etc.) and spending your entire life doing the practices and then, never getting close enough to personally understanding it.
It’s consciousness (my consciousness) looking at the situation (I’m asleep, trying to awaken) and the best description I have come up with, personally, these last several weeks is “There is one brain here and two of us.” That is the situation that gave rise to a few man thinking I’m living in a dream.
20:00 It’s part of every human being. And it is what makes most humans want to improve themselves. (ex religion, psychology) You can find the situation in you and it is manifested in sane and normal people everywhere. No one is satisfied with themselves.
Waking up is becoming aware of “one brain here and there are two of us.” That’s the situation and in a few people like us, one consciousness does not like the other consciousness. Ordinary people may say stuff like “I’m working on my anger issues.” But you know that’s just bullshit.
No ordinary person, including you when you are ordinary is trying to improve themselves consciously. Ordinary people can do easy stuff like lose weight but not so much personality stuff like looking on the brighter side. Ordinary people have two consciousnesses.
One consciousness’s main job is not liking the features of the second consciousness. And it only shows up for a split second and it has no power. (ex. I am sorry I am late again. It will not happen again.) The one consciousness whose main job is not liking the features of the second is the basis of guilt.
25:00 And internally, the one consciousness that does not like the other consciousness (“One brain here, and there are two of us.”) the only time it will show up is when it has to excuse “what’s going on.” (ex. I’m sorry about my anger issues, I will get a counselor.)
Ordinarily, the one consciousness’s job of disapproving of the other consciousness internally, mentally, rarely shows up and when it does it’s only for a moment and it has no power. Because ordinary consciousness/the main consciousness comes stomping back in.
People trying to awaken have the same situation but slightly different. It’s one consciousness saying, "Ok, We got one brain here, and there are two of us.”
If you work on it, and you see it, even if I were dead and gone - you run to the cemetery and dance on my grave, with a party hat, and confetti, and I will try to get up and join you.
Jan typed these in all caps. If anyone knows of a Mac program that will automate the process of upper/lower case with proper capitalization -- twould be nice to learn how.
This is the format I wish to use throughout the website;
with the talk number and item number on one line as separator.
and the poetic indents as spaces. ( no formatting codes allowed )
jcap is short for Jan Cox Aphorism
Any votes for using " jcap 2500-01 " as the separator ?
This would help people track it down if posted by itself somewhere.
jcap 2500 ALL CAPS
COPYRIGHT 2000: JAN COX
set 2020 ( FORMERLY NEWS2020.TXT AND JCAP 2020.PDF ) ( NOT IN DAILY NEWS )
A SPEAKER ON THE MATTER OF MENTAL ALTERATION SO SAID TO AN AUDIENCE:
"THE TRICK IS TO NEITHER REJECT THOUGHT, NOR EMBRACE IT.", AND SOMEONE ASKED:
"WHAT IS IT IN US THAT CAN EITHER REJECT OR EMBRACE THOUGHT?",
AND THE SPEAKER REPLIED: "THE SAME THING IN YOU THAT PRESENTLY ASKS ME
THE QUESTION.", AND THE MAN THEN SAID: "BUT IT IS ONLY A THOUGHT IN ME
THAT MADE MY MOUTH SPEAK THE QUESTION, SO IT IS A CIRCLE WITHOUT BEGINNING,
OR END, AND YOUR DIRECTIVE, (AS FINE AS IT MAY SOUND), IS MEANINGLESS,
IS IT NOT?!", AND THE SPEAKER REPLIED: "MOST ASSUREDLY, AND IN THAT YOU
REALIZE IT: I AM GLAD I COULD BE OF SERVICE.".
EVEN THOUGH THE EPISODE MAKES ANOTHER PRIMARY POINT
THERE IS NONETHELESS POTENTIAL USEFULNESS,(IF YOU NEED IT), IN THE IDEA OF NEITHER REJECTING NOR EMBRACING THOUGHT.
IT'S ALWAYS GOOD ADVICE TO GET OUT OF THE WAY OF A MAN EITHER:
SEEKING THE TRUTH -- OR
FLEEING FROM IT;
FOR EITHER WAY: A MAN ON A FRANTIC MERRY GO ROUND
CAN RUN YOU DOWN.
...I CAN'T LET US LEAVE THIS AREA WITHOUT FINALLY MENTIONING THAT LEGENDARY FIGURE WHO STOOD ATOP THE CANYON'S HIGHEST BRIDGE, TIED SECURELY TO THE ILLUSIONARY BOOMADARY-BUNGEE-CORD, WHO MIGHTILY CRIED, AS HE PREPARED TO JUMP:
"I REJECT ALL THOUGHT -- AND UNCONDITIONALLY EMBRACE MY REJECTION."
A MAN ASKED A PURPORTED MYSTIC:
"How CAN I BE OF AN ENLIGHTENED MIND?", AND THE MYSTIC REPLIED:
"Do NOT HAVE DARK CLOUDS IN YOUR MIND.", AND THE MA REFLECTED ON THIS
REPLY FOR A BIT, THEN SAID: "THAT SOUNDS GOOD, BUT I HAVE COME TO REALIZE
THAT THE DARK CLOUDS I FIND IN MY MIND DO NOT ORIGINATE THERE -- SO:
WHERE DO THEY COME FROM AND HOW CAN I STOP THEM BEFORE THEY ENTER MY MIND?",
AND THE ALLEGED MYSTIC'S FACE FELL IN APPARENT EMBARRASSMENT, AND THE MAN SAID:
"YOU DON'T KNOW, DO YOU?", AND SHAME-FACED, THE MYSTIC NODDED THAT HE DIDN'T --
-- BUT THEN HIS FACE SUDDENLY BRIGHTENED AND HE EXCLAIMED(SOMEWHAT RHETORICALLY
"WELL, YOU COULD WATCH WHAT YOU EAT?!?"
WHEN WORKING ON THE MIND, YOU COULD BE ON THE RIGHT BATTLEFIELD, BUT BATTLIN' THE WRONG FOE.
(THOSE THUGS IN THE TRENCHES WEREN'T BORN THERE YOU KNOW.)
AND ANOTHER GUY ASKED A MAN, (WHO IT TURNS OUT PROBABLY WAS A MYSTIC): "DOES ANYONE ACTUALLY -- KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING?", AND THE GUY REPLIED: "ONLY THOSE WHO SAY THEY DO."
....THE MAN CHEWED ON THIS FOR A MOMENT, THEN SAID:
"IT'S A JOKE -- RIGHT?!"
...(YOU KNOW, THE JOKES YOU FIND OUT THERE IN THE FOXHOLES DIDN'T GET THERE ALL BY THEMSELVES.)
THERE WAS ONCE A MAN WHO BECAME TRAPPED IN A HOUSE OF VAPORS;
THE VAPORS CAME FROM HIS OWN BREATHING.
ONCE UPON A TIME THERE WAS A MAN WHOSE SOLUTION TO BEING ASLEEP & DELUDED WAS:
"NEITHER REJECT NOR EMBRACE YOUR BREATHING."
...(AND I WILL NOT INSULT YOU BY NOTING THAT HE MAY HAVE USED THE WORD,
"BREATHING" AS A METAPHOR FOR SOMETHING ELSE ENTIRELY.)
A MAN TOLD A FRIEND:
"As FAR AS SEEING WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON;
EVERYONE LOOKS EVERY WHERE EXCEPT IN THE RIGHT PLACE.", AND HIS FRIEND ASKED:
"How CAN YOU TELL THAT YOU'RE LOOKING IN THE WRONG PLACE?",
AND THE MAN SAID: "IF YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT WHERE YOU'RE LOOKING --
-- IT'S THE WRONG PLACE."
THERE WAS ONCE A BIRD SPOTTER WHOSE SUPREME AIM WAS TO SEE THIS ONE EXOTIC BIRD THAT HAD ALWAYS ELUDED HIM.
IT TURNED OUT THAT IT FLEW TOO FAST TO BE SEEN BY NORMAL SIGHT,
AND IT FURTHER TURNED OUT THAT IT ONLY FLEW WHEN HE THOUGHT ABOUT IT.
...WHICH SUDDENLY REMINDS ME OF THE LEGENDARY QUESTION THAT SOME SAY WAS
THE VERY BEGINNING OF ALL ATTEMPTS TO CHANGE ONE'S STATE OF MIND, (AND IT WAS): "WHAT IS IT THAT DOESN'T EXIST UNLESS YOU THINK ABOUT IT,
AND IS IMPOSSIBLE TO SEE AS LONG AS IT IS IN AN ACTIVE STATE OF EXISTENCE?"
...WHICH I GUESS BRINGS US BACK TO THE BEGINNING OF THIS VERBAL EPISODE THAT SAID:
"TO SEE WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON;
EVERYONE LOOKS EVERY WHERE EXCEPT IN THE RIGHT PLACE."
....(LEAST WE CAN'T SEE WE WASN'T WARNED.)
...OH YEAH, AND THAT STORY ABOUT A GUY WHO'S INVENTED BINOCULARS THAT LOOK BACK AT YA WHEN YOU LOOK THROUGH THEM -- TURNS OUT IT WAS A HOAX.
A SON ASKED HIS FATHER:
"ARE WE AFTER A PURE MIND, AN EMPTY MIND, OR A STILL MIND?",
AND HIS DEAR PA PA REPLIED: "HOW ABOUT A --"HARD-OF-HEARING"ONE?!"
BELOW THE CORTICAL LEVEL:' ALL IS TIMELESS,
ABOVE IT EVERYTHING IS CHIPMONKS.., ï
"SOMEBODY PICKUP' THAT PHONE!"
"SOMEBODY PUT DOWN THAT PHONE!"
"I DIDN'T WANT THAT CALL!"
"DON'T BQTHER ME, I'M WAITING ON THAT OTHER CALL!"
"LEAVE ME ALONE, `CAN'T YOU SEE THAT I'M - ON-THE-PHONE!"
A MAN WHO FOR YEARS HAD STUDIED WITH AN ENLIGHTENED MASTER
ONE DAY RUSHED TO HIM, EXCLAIMING: "I'VE FINALLY GOT IT -- ALL FIGURED OUT!",
AND THE MASTER CALMLY SAID: "NO YOU DON'T."
....THE MAN THOUGHT ABOUT THIS FOR A WHILE, THEN SOFTLY SAID "OH."
(I WILL NOT INSULT YOU BY VERBALLY NOTING THE POINT OF THIS STORY,
FOR ANYONE STILL UNABLE TO DECIDE WHETHER TO REJECT OR EMBRACE THOUGHT CAN EASILY FIGURE IT OUT FOR THEMSELF.)
MAN TALKING ABOUT THE MATERIAL WORLD OUTSIDE OF HIM IS SCIENCE;
MAN TALKING ABOUT HIMSELF IS MEANINGLESS SPECULATION.
You CAN MEASURE A TREE'S HEIGHT, BUT ONLY GUESS AT THE MIND'S WIDTH.
AFTER STUDYING FOR MANY YEARS WITH A CERTAIN MYSTIC, AND ONE DAY
UPON SUDDENLY DECIDING THAT HE HAD BEEN MISLEAD ALL ALONG,
A MAN RUSHED INTO THE MYSTIC'S ROOM AND EXCLAIMED: "I AM -- OUTRAGED!!",
TO WHICH THE MYSTIC CALMLY REPLIED:
"No YOU'RE NOT, --- YOU'RE ASLEEP,"
AFTER FINDING HIMSELF UNABLE TO SATISFACTORILY COMPLETE THE
METAPHYSICAL JOURNEY FROM PARIS TO ISTANBUL
ONE MAN HEADED OFF TOWARD NEW ZEALAND.
ALL MEN ARE MENTAL GODS MADE;
FOR WITH EACH BREATH WE
THE SECONDARY REALITY IN WHICH WE SO PREDOMINATELY SWIM.
AND ALL THE FISH IN THE COMMON SCHOOL SANG:
"WE EMBRACE THE WATER;
WE REJECT THE WATER.",
IT IS SO THAT THEY MUST SING
TO REMAIN A PART OF THE SCHOOL.
FOR A FEW,
FROM A PARTICULAR VIEW,
THERE IS A "SOMETHING" THAT:
PUTS YOU AWAKE -- THEN,
MAKES YOU ASLEEP.
AND "THE-FISH-WHO-KNOWS" IS THE
ONE REALIZES THE IMPOTENT FOOLISHNESS OF REJECTING OR EMBRACING
THE WATER IN THAT IT AND HE ARE INSEPARABLE.
THE MENTAL WORLDS WE CREATE & DESTROY WITH EACH BREATH COME FROM NO WHERE, AND GO TO NO WHERE INTHAT ALL WORLDS ARE AN UNRECOGNIZED SINGULARITY.
AFTER YEARS OF ATTEMPTING TO FOLLOW THE SCHOOL'S CENTRAL DICTUM OF:
ONE MONK WAS FINALLY TAKEN ASIDE BY THE HEAD MASTER AND TOLD:
"IT'S NOT ACTUALLY A MATTER OF KNOWING YOURSELF,
BUT OF KNOWING THE MECHANISM THAT "KNOWS YOURSELF"."
...AND AFTER A MOMENTARILY REFLECTION OF THIS THE NEOPHYTE THOUGHT: "NOW YOU TELL ME!", TO WHICH THE MASTER REPLIED: "YES, AND JUST AT THE RIGHT TIME, HUH?!"
QUESTION: WHAT'S IT LIKE TO WANT TO AWAKEN DURING THE TIME THAT YOU DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT IT'S ABOUT?
ANSWER: IT'S LIKE A SHADOW TRYING TO SUSTAIN A DISLIKE OF ITSELF.
ONE MAN NOTES: "THE EVER-CHANGING, DIFFERENT ELEMENTS THAT SEEM TO MAKE UP "ME"
COME AND GO AS REGULARLY AS THE MINUTES TICK AWAY.
WHERE DOES THIS "ME" COME FROM, AND WHERE DOES IT GO?!
... No, BETTER I SHOULD ASK:
WHAT IS THE SOLE SOURCE OF THIS SENSATION-OF A "ME"?",
...AND AFTER A BRIEF REFLECTION ON HIS OWN QUESTION, HE REPEATED HIS OPENING:
"THE EVER-CHANGING, DIFFERENT ELEMENTS THAT SEEM TO MAKE UP "ME"
COME AND GO AS REGULARLY AS THE MINUTES OF MY LIFE TICK AWAY
BELOW THE CORTICAL LEVEL OF THOUGHT; ALL IS TIMELESS;
ABOVE IT PREVAILS THE LAW OF APPARENT CHAOS."
AND FROM HIS OVER HEAD PLANE, ONE PILOT SUGGESTED:
"FOR SMOOTH FLYING THE TRICK IS TO NEITHER REJECT NOR EMBRACE THE:
RE THAT POPULAR SUBJECT: THE SO-CALLED, "ILLUSIONS OF THE WORLD":
IT'S CERTAINLY EASY TO OVERLOOK BUT --
THE "ILLUSIONS OF THE WORLD" DO NOT EXIST
OUT IN THE WORLD,
BUT IN YOUR MIND.
A GUY STOOD UP AT A RECENT GATHERING AND MADE THIS,DECLARATION:
"THIS, "I'M-GONNA-WAKE-MYSELF-UP-AND-BE-ENLIGHTENED" THING THAT EVERYBODY'S TALKIN' BOUT IS TANTAMOUNT TO SAYIN', "I'M GONNA KISS MY OWN LIPS."."
HE THEN LOOKED AROUND AS THOUGH INVITING QUESTIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE, BUT EVERYONE WAS TOO INVOLVED IN PUCKERING THEIR LIPS AND ROLLING THEIR ROLLING THEIR EYES UPWARD.
... (I DUNNO, MAYBE IT WAS A CONVENTION OF, "HOPERS & DREAMERS"?
ONE MAN SAID:
"WHAT I LIKE ABOUT IMPENDING, UNPLEASANT EVENTS IS THAT THEY
TAKE MY MIND OFF OF ME.", AND HIS BROTHER RESPONDED:
"BUT HOW CAN THAT BE? -- YOUR MIND IS YOU?!,
THUS NO MATTER THE SUBJECT OF YOUR PRESENT THOUGHTS
YOUR MIND IS ALWAYS ---
STILL ON YOU."
A LOOK AT THAT CERTAIN MATTER FROM A TEMPORAL VIEW.
NEITHER REJECT NOR EMBRACE THE INSTANT MOMENT.
AND SOMEONE ASKS:
"IS THE TRICK TO BEING ENLIGHTENED
TO BE -- "INDIFFERENT"?",
AND I REPLY:
BEING INDIFFERENT IS THE SAME AS BEING ENLIGHTENED,
BUT THIS INDIFFERENCE IS NOT THE SAME AS USUALLY UNDERSTOOD;
THIS ENLIGHTENED INDIFFERENCE IS NOT OF A MENTAL NATURE, (NOT CORTICAL),
BUT IS LIKE THE TYPE NATURAL TO OUR SUB CORTICAL EXISTENCE.
IT MIGHT IN FACT BE BETTER LABELED, "IMPERSONAL"
FOR IT IS ONLY IN OUR CORTICAL REALM THAT WE TAKE LIFE "PERSONALLY",
WHILE SUB-CORTICALLY WE HAVE NOT EVEN THE MECHANISM TO TAKE LIFE PERSONALLY,
THUS A MAN WHO'S CAUGHT ON TO WHAT'S GOING ON NEITHER REJECTS NOR EMBRACES
THE LIFE THAT SEEMS TO HAPPEN TO HIM,
FOR WHATEVER IT MAY BE --
HE DOES NOT TAKE IT PERSONALLY,
AND IS THUS INDIFFERENT TO COME-WHAT-MENTALLY-MAY.
ONE MAN'S ODE TO THAT CERTAIN MATTER:
THE BEST THING ABOUT
THE VOICE IN MY HEAD
IS IT LEADS THE LIFE
I WISH THAT I LEAD.
IF 'TIS TRUE,
AS OFTEN SAID,
THAT POVERTY'S REQUIRED TO AWAKEN,
THEN THE POVERTY NEEDED IS IN BEING WITHOUT EITHER
REJECTION OR EMBRACE OF THOUGHT.
...SO THAT A MAN CAN SAY:
"I HAVE NOTHING TO GIVE,
I HAVE NOTHING TO WITHHOLD.",
AT WHICH TIME A MAN HAS -- SAID IT ALL,
AND IS NOW
...(AND I CAN'T RESIST MENTIONING, [FOR THE SAKE OF THOSE ALREADY IN
AN ADVANCED STAGE OF SUITABLE VERBAL/MENTAL POVERTY), THAT --
--- IN ALL OF THIS TALK ABOUT NEITHER "REJECTING, NOR EMBRACING" THIS-OR-THAT,
IT WOULD BE MORE ON HIDDEN POINT TO SAY IT AS EITHER:
"NOT REJECTING, AND NOT, 'NOT' REJECTING", OR
"NOT EMBRACING, AND NOT, 'NOT' EMBRACING."
...IS YOUR INNER SIGHT CLEANED OUT ENOUGH TO RECOGNIZE WHY THIS WOULD BE
AN IMPROVED TELLING OF THIS MATTER?)
WHEN YOUR MIND DOES NOT KNOW THE TRUTH, LIFE OUTSIDE OF YOU IS ONE WAY;
WHEN YOUR MIND DOES KNOW THE TRUTH, LIFE OUTSIDE OF YOU IS THE SAME AS IT WAS.
WHEN IT'S DARK, IT'S DARK, AND
WHEN IT'S LIGHT, IT'S LIGHT.
...AND THAT'S ALL THERE IS TO IT ALL.
Jan Cox Talk 3188 - August 18, 2004
Copyright Jan Cox, Jan’s Legacy 2018
Notes by cFish January 2018
Suggested Title: Waking Up The Storyteller
Begin: Last time I presented “consciousness” as a storyteller and that when consciousness is doing something useful it is telling stories about the physical world and how the physical world could be. (ex. science and technology)
And when consciousness is not telling stories about the physical world it is telling stories about intangibles (ex. religion, art), things lumped into culture versus the natural environment. But lets be more specific. Consciousness is not so much a storyteller as it is a scene screener.
And only in people like us, in an attempt to “wake up,” does consciousness actually tell a story. The rest of the time it’s not so much storytelling but brief scene presentations, almost entirely about “you and it” (consciousness) to be precise.
Consider the ordinary view of consciousness, internally, “How many scenes does consciousness show in the theater of the brain about someone else?” It is like the old joke where the guy talks about himself the entire time on a date, and realizes it, and then asks the date, “Well, enough about me. What do you think of me?”
These brief scenes of ordinary consciousness may be replaying something from earlier in the day. (ex. an encounter with a sales clerk) But the encounter is still about you. The basic scenes of consciousness are brief and followed by another scene.
05:00 It is just like an in house theater at a Hollywood studio. They have what is known as screening rooms where directors and producers go in to look at the scenes for a movie they are working on. And there is a projectionist that is hired to sit in there all day, on call, for any producer and plays these small scenes that last seconds.
They are either showing material objects (car or garden) or the scenes are mostly about you. But the area that interests us is when consciousness is not dealing with the material world, but with scenes about you and it. (consciousness)
10:00 “Consciousness and you” is tricky to see. The scene could be about you and your girlfriend. But if you keep looking, the scenes about “you” are about you and consciousness.
The second thing to investigate is the ordinary complaints about specific scenes. It is the hobby of ordinary people and it drives them to counseling. Speaking for you folks, people like us are not bothered by specific scenes. We are bothered by the scenes being replayed endlessly. And it is not that we want particular scenes to stop - we want them all to stop.
15:00 After years of looking at what consciousness does thru man naturally, just for myself, if nothing else, all the descriptions I have used for consciousness fit perfectly with the description of consciousness as a storyteller. Even the physical stuff works. (ex. agriculture, inventing the wheel.)
16:41 But one day a refinement hit me of the storyteller description. And this description was “being asleep” was “ordinary consciousness” never telling a complete story. “Being asleep” is fragmented consciousness. It is just flashes of seeing things in bits and pieces, never seeing the full picture.
So even though it was delightful to see consciousness as a “storyteller,” the only time “ordinary consciousness” gets close to anything resembling a real story is a moment in time (speaking crudely) “when you awaken.” The rest of the time it’s a scene screener.
20:00 When some feature about life/man is forever changed in your understanding, that is a form of awakening. That is when consciousness tells a complete story. It happens in a split second. You never again have questions about that scene anymore. Your consciousness does not play scenes about it anymore because the scenes that consciousness plays are like question marks. Like “ What the hell is this? “
22:00 The scenes are limited, shown over and over, and to ordinary consciousness are like question marks. They are soundbites, trailers, that come and go. The scenes are predominately of a disturbing nature, annoying, maybe frightening, but never a satisfying conclusion. It presents bits, pieces, soundbites, scenes, trailers, excerpts.
30:00 Consciousness is in charge of showing scenes, and without extraordinary effort, will never get beyond scene screening. In conclusion; when looking at or studying the scenes, it’s not you looking. It is you making consciousness look at and examine itself.
You did not make consciousness examine the scene. It is consciousness “by its nature” showing the scenes and asking “whats up?” Ordinary consciousness may say I shouldn’t be looking at the dark side, but with ordinary consciousness the good news scene does not last long. It is like consciousness shoving an 85 pound weakling out of the way.
35:00 . Your consciousness, ordinary consciousness shows disturbing and frightening scenes. What gives? What can you find out by making consciousness look at itself? Insights. They are there. Almost everyday I see something. But I’m not saying I know the difference between the worthwhile and the entertaining. I don’t really see much of a difference. That’s my “urging” for the night.
Jan Cox Talk 3187 16 August 2004
Copyright Jan Cox, Jan’s Legacy 2017
Notes by cfish December 2017
Suggested Title: The Raconteur (Consciousness)
(Note: Raconteur is defined as: person who tells anecdotes in a skillful and amusing way)
Begin: Surely, the hardest thing in the universe is consciousness trying to study itself. Consciousness, by its nature is a “raconteur.” That’s the reason it is extremely difficult for consciousness to study itself.
Consciousness is a story teller. It weaves tales about the material objects on the planet, and how and by what arrangement the material objects could be. (ex. science, technology )
When consciousness is not doing that, it is weaving tales about how “people” could be. (ex. religion, philosophy) When consciousness tries to study itself, it can not stay focused enough, long enough, for it to actually be a study.
When consciousness remembers its aim, remembers to study itself, when it catches itself running automatically, it looks at the last thought that was going thru it, and it begins to tell a story about the last thought.
05:00 Maybe the last thought was about Uncle Charlie, and remembering the time Uncle Charlie did something. Consciousness is a story teller. It explains everything consciousness does. It covers science, tech and, in a sense, the rise of civilization itself.
10:00 Consciousness imagines certain aspects of material life, the physical environment, and how they could be, and that is the origin of scientific discoveries. And what does consciousness do when it is not creating and inventing?
Not being offensive, thinking only a handful of folks invent and create. Maybe a few of you folks are programmers. But what does consciousness do when it’s not creating and inventing aspects of physical life?
When consciousness is not telling stories about the physical aspects of life (ex. the planets, the wind the rain, animals and plants) it is telling stories/weaving tales about things intangible. (ex. soul essence, spirit)
15:00 Consciousness by nature is a story teller. When not weaving tales about the physical world (ex. even rearranging the furniture) its weaving tales about the intangible worlds. (ex. psychology, religion, politics)
20:00 Maybe it is a story about the fall of ancient civilizations. (ex. Athens) It is interesting, it appears scientific or academic, and the story does no damage, But it is just story telling. Religious or atheist, it does not matter.
You get “caught up” and it is not a weakness on you part. It is the nature of consciousness (raconteur) and it makes no distinction between the physical world and entertainment. Gossip or TV, it does not matter, consciousness loves stories.
25:00 You folks that have been around me know I am not anti religious. I am not anti anything. The beauty of God, etc. and consciousness gets “caught up” and simply forgets its the same thing as telling kids about Hansel and Gretel.
I am encouraging you folks to continue to look. You folks have a treat, it will make you laugh out loud, but not sarcastically, when you just realize that all consciousness is, is a story teller. I did not see it this way originally.
If consciousness is not telling stories about what physical objects could be, and which make life more survivable, it is weaving stories about religion, history, psychology, political commentary, observations regarding morality, etc.
30:00 Stories are all ordinary consciousness wants to hear. Ordinary consciousness does not want to hear “that all it is, is a story teller.” There is nothing you need to do other than getting consciousness to study itself. And that is assuming that consciousness, in a good moment, can study itself.
But just try telling someone else. What’s there to study? It’s the last thing I remember. I remember the aim, I go from automatic running of consciousness to remembering to study consciousness. (study mode)
For example the last thing I was thinking, I was mad about being cut off in traffic. Then consciousness starts story telling about how it was not as bad as the guy who cut me off yesterday.
Everybody who got a good hearty laugh damn near got it. Those with the aim, those remembering the aim, those remembering to study consciousness, those remembering the study mode, its a big deal to remember to do it.
And in a sense its the main thing. Once consciousness remembers the study mode, consciousness takes a step to get right on it, and steps right back into it. That’s how strong the nature of consciousness’s story telling is.
Jan Cox Talk 3172 - July 2004
Copyright Jan Cox, Jan’s Legacy 2017
Notes by cfish November 2017
Suggested Title: Why does Innate Wisdom have to be put into Words?)
Begin: What I am trying to point to tonight really has no description. But knowing the human mind (because I got one) and knowing what it’s prone to latch on to, its a prime example of how consciousness works.
It’s an example of how consciousness keeps looking in certain directions, at certain tilts, and how the human mind is fooling itself. It’s not “you” fooling human consciousness, and its not consciousness fooling “you.” It is it fooling itself.
If I can get you to look around at where I am pointing, you will realize that the “consciousness fooling itself” description is totally invalid. But you can’t say why. Ordinary consciousness may say human experience is idiocy.
But I am not pointing out the idiocy. What seems to be going on is not what’s going on. Consciousness works. Consciousness is not idiocy. I am not trying to get you to smirk. There are no words to say what I am trying to get you to do.
Here is the example. Consider the phrase “words to live by.” (ex. honesty is the best policy) There is more than one book, maybe a recent book, with proverbs, wise sayings, etc. that are in the public domain. (ex. no copyright)
05:00 Maybe the editor of the book will write an introduction about the great significance of the time honored proverbs, tracking them back three thousand years, and how they are just as valid today.
But if these “words to live by” are inherent/innate knowledge, and if there are versions of these phrases (ex. honesty is the best policy) thru out all the cultures, even illiterate people know them, why does it have to be put into words?
10:00 Ordinary humanity, no matter how honest, sincerely agree with the phrase “honesty is the best policy.” It appears to be an instinctive world wide truism. People will write it down and buy it in a bookstore, and then recommend the book to friends.
15:00 “Words to live by” (ex. honesty the best policy) seem to be an instinctive truism on the surface. Instinctive truisms speak to you. But why do they have to be put into words? Humanity’s collective consciousness’s head is full of them.
A lot of truisms are restatements but I say there are twenty five to fifty truisms you will find all over the world. But why do they have to be put into words? I want to stop there. The point of it is the question, “Why is it necessary to put into words?”
20:00 What our previous forerunner mystics called “being asleep” is right here. Ask yourself if truisms are instinctive, why do folks feel the need to share, hear, and write them down? Those actions seem to help validate the truism.
Trying to get you folks to turn your head, think about, human collective consciousness is filled with these truisms. Sometimes the ‘words to live by’ are attributed to a religion, sometimes to an individual.
25:00 But if no ordinary person disagrees with a truism, why do you want to write it down and tell someone else? How come consciousness doesn’t say “Huh, I thought dishonesty was the best policy”?
Anytime when considering something that seems ironic (synonymous with moronic) maybe a smirk, it will at the very least blind you, literally. I have spent some effort here trying to knock the legs out from under that smirk. It is not profitable to laugh at it. Without words, what would consciousness have been?
In a sense for consciousness, to be operational, requires input, a form of learning. (ex. learning language from a teacher) Yet it seems consciousness instinctively recognizes a truism. ( ex. honesty best policy)
Something in everyone’s consciousness, its not the body saying it, says don’t jump off a hundred foot cliff. But if consciousness recognizes something as soon as it hears it (ex. honesty best policy) why does it have to be put into words? If we already know it in consciousness, why don’t we just live accordingly?
That is the condition under which consciousness operates. Without words there is no active consciousness. And that is what produces in people like us a state we find annoying, a state we call being distracted, being asleep.
ends abruptly 32:48
Jan Cox Talk 3171 = July 9, 2004
Copyright Jan Cox, Jan’s Legacy 2017
Notes by Fish October 2017
Suggested Title: Unscripted Music (Ordinary Consciousness is not Aware of Consciousness)
Begin: The origins of improvisational music and the desire to awaken have a common source. It is when a player dropped his music, kept on playing and discovered it made no difference.
For a while I thought it was just funny to be alive (I never said it out loud, because I thought there was something not right with that sentence) but it’s not just funny to be alive, it’s funny to be “conscious” that you are alive.
And the funny thing to me about all of this, and being alive, and being conscious that you’re alive, is that as long as “you” are “in place,” in the spot, where the unscripted music is being played, and listening, you can’t be aware of it.
Consciousness is not a physical place, it is an internal place. And in this internal place, where the unscripted music is being played, and thinking it’s “you” playing the unscripted music, you can never be aware of it. You are asleep.
05:00 “You” did not compose the music. It’s just there. An ordinary person may say, “but I interpret the music.” (ex. from education, reading Buddha, etc.) But “you” are playing from no music. Ordinary commentary is not original.
10:00 An ordinary person may say otherwise. But it’s like last time, “people do not really listen to themselves.” Check with your own “ordinary running of consciousness.” Ordinary consciousness thinks this is “me” talking.
And if consciousness is in the midst of itself, of it’s unscripted playing, it’s not possible to realize “what’s going on.” Is there anything else in life equal to this? Can you be in the midst of physically dancing or running and not be aware of it?
Can you be in the midst of emotions (ex. sadness, anger) and not be aware of it? Is there any experience outside of the ordinary state of consciousness you can participate in and not be aware of it?
15:00 Ordinary Consciousness is the epitome of what it is to be human. It is singular to humanity. It operates without any attention. You can interfere with ordinary consciousness, and become aware it’s operating without attention.
20:00 Life produces in man this second party, “you” and it protects ordinary consciousness from having to see what is going on. So that ordinary consciousness could talk about “you” not paying attention.
But your consciousness has got to know when it is stopped and that ordinary consciousness is not aware of consciousness. Ordinary thought thinks it is responsible for the automatic running of consciousness, and that is the one thing that consciousness can know for certain - that ordinary thought is not responsible for anything.
25:00 Asking ordinary consciousness “what are you going to say next,” stops consciousness. Just remembering “I’m where the music is playing” for all practical purposes, stops the mind.
And then you realize consciousness is totally out of your control. But how can you forget all that? How can men not realize that? All you have to do is be where the music is playing and it is not possible to be aware of “what’s going on.”
30:00 And when the mind stops, it’s no longer where the music is playing. Life furnishes the unscripted music and thoughts “you” hear. The unscripted music and thoughts are just there, like walking into a night club.
And as long as you “believe” “you” are playing/writing the unscripted music/thoughts, you can’t be aware it’s not “you” playing/writing the music. Consciousness did not compose the music. Life provides the music.
35:00 I assume I speak for all of you, when you first heard the idea that “man’s asleep, living in a dream” though he thinks he is conscious, and that with certain efforts, (ex. self remember, still the mind) he can awaken, that it’s not easy.
But I say after forty or fifty years, that it is even more unbelievable, that I can fall back into ordinary consciousness and take ordinary consciousness/unscripted music seriously for a couple of minutes. (not inferring we don’t fall back into it)
You have got to trust me. You may fully agree with all this, but you may not have fully experienced it. Maybe you get identified, seriously birddogging something, but when you see ordinary mind birddogging, it has the tendency to snap you out of it.
And whatever it was is no longer of any significance. Not even worth looking at. All you have got to know, all consciousness has to realize is:
“it was back in the midst of ordinary consciousness;
End - 36:45
Jan Cox Talk 3177 - July 27, 2004
Copyright Jan Cox. Jan’s Legacy 2017
Notes by Cfish October 2017
Suggested Title: The Three Positions of Consciousness (Sort Of)
Begin: Last time I was talking about the two positions of consciousness. (automatic mode/sleeping mode and the other mode/the awake mode) I was getting to the description of a sort of third mode or position.
But before I go there, there is another idea connected to it. The idea is that you cannot get gradually better at this. (waking up/the other position) And like any good statement, about any immaterial object, the opposite could be said.
So I could also say that waking up/enlightenment is a gradual process. But tonight, preferring to be truthful, you don’t gradually get better at this. You folks know you feel better after a few years of effort. (ex. self remembering)
And you feel like you are getting somewhere. But if you can look in a certain way, consciousness either naturally runs in automatic mode or it’s remembering to investigate consciousness running in automatic mode.
05:00 And by remembering to investigate the automatic running of consciousness, it immediately takes you out of the automatic mode into the other mode/empty box mode. So you are either in automatic mode or not.
Thinking that most/maybe all of you have yet to see it completely. Reads: “That everything that goes on in your consciousness under all ordinary conditions is totally automatic.” And it has nothing to do with you individually.
The automatic running of consciousness is just there. And with automatic consciousness, the unquestioned sensation is “this is me”, doing all this thinking, and the feelings that go along with the thinking.
10:00 Another way to look at the ordinary running of consciousness, is to look back at the memories of your internal life, (ex. intangible hatreds, prejudices, political beliefs,) and that it really hasn’t changed to any noticeable degree.
15:00 It’s shocking and discouraging, if you have the determination to keep looking, that your PHD educated, worldly and sophisticated mind is the same automatic running consciousness you had when you were a know nothing fifteen year old.
20:00 What goes on internally, who you are internally, (physically and hormonally you have changed) those beliefs and prejudices are still there. Seeing and realizing this is liberating and it spurs you on.
So you don’t gradually get better at this other mode/waking up. You feel like you do and I would not tell anyone after years of effort, they were not making progress. What happens is you develop three positions of consciousness:
The automatic/asleep mode, the other mode/awake mode, and then yet another mode/the third position. Not so much a third position, but a gradual shift in the relationship between the automatic/asleep mode and the other/awake mode.
25:00 It is not that you are partially in automatic mode or partially in the other mode, but something does happen and it gets harder to stay in automatic mode. Maybe its the idea that being a conservative is important in life. It becomes a ‘et tu Brutus’ moment. Enough of you chuckled at that that it makes me want to believe I made it clear. Automatic consciousness is just running as is proper for you genetically.
But it’s not personal. Over the years when you initially discovered the ideas of man is asleep and can awaken and the methods (ex. self observation, self remembering, counting breaths, etc.) all of these indirectly take you out of the automatic/asleep mode.
30:00 And put you into the other mode/awake mode. And it seems to be a running battle. You may even forget the other mode for days, weeks, or even months. But with the third position, its harder to go for even a day and not remember the goal.
35:00 The third position operates so that you go into automatic mode only briefly. The things your consciousness thinks about in automatic mode (ex. pontificating bullshit) are the very things that jolt you out of automatic mode.
Falling back into automatic is no longer the big deal it use to be because within a few seconds something in ordinary consciousness, something preachy, something judgmental, something dogmatic, jolts you out of it.
40:00 But not only does this sort of third position make “being asleep/automatic consciousness less annoying, it makes it more annoying. But it’s only worse for a split second. If you keep on with this, you don’t worry about being permanently awake. And I am not sure I would want that.
Jan Cox Talk 3176 - 21 July 2004
Copyright Jan Cox, Jan’s Legacy 2017
Notes by cfish September 2017
Suggested Title: The Empty Box
Begin: What are folks listening with and reading with when they listen and read? (me and my thoughts) The thing that makes us human is simply “what’s going on” in consciousness. It’s a non ending stream of words and pictures.
05:00 And if you sit and listen, this non ending stream of words and pictures, the talking part of the brain, consciousness is fully automatic. It’s tricky to see and understand.
Consciousness has two running positions. The automatic mechanical mode and the other one. I’ve been looking at this for a lifetime and have named the other position/mode other things but that is pretty much it.
You can produce a third one I will get to in a minute, but in the beginning there are only two modes. When in the automatic mode of consciousness (ex. being asleep, distracted) for ordinary people, there is no way to realize it.
10:00 Think back to when you were fifteen years old, and the hormones and neurons were percolating. That was consciousness not having awareness of its state. That is the ordinary state of consciousness.
If you hear that ordinary consciousness runs automatically and make an effort to investigate it - you meet with a hundred percent failure. Ordinary consciousness/your consciousness cannot see its automatic for one reason.
15:00 When your consciousness asks “am I in automatic mode?,” you go out of automatic mode. And with nothing going on in the other mode you are back in the normal, ordinary consciousness of automatic mode within seconds.
It could be months, years, before memory feeds consciousness the idea it is automatic again. Consciousness can’t see it is running automatically in the other mode/empty box mode because it is no longer running automatically.
Even you folks, when in the other mode can feel like the pacific ocean is at your back. When you try to look at consciousness, it goes into the other mode. That’s what I call it personally, and what most of the mystics call “waking up.”
20:00 And something I can’t explain, the other position “almost locks in.” That’s the paradigm for every mystical experience. But consciousness never “locks in” to the other position. You would be unconscious.
Since I am making up the third position I can tell you how it comes about. It comes about from bringing on “the other position.” When I try to look/investigate the words and pictures of the inner world, consciousness goes into the other position.
And for an instant nothing is going on. And for an instant you are suddenly more conscious than you have ever been. Your hearing and sight improve. In the beginning it looks useless, maybe like wasting time.
25:00 But that is probably just the amazon river of ordinary automatic consciousness taking back over. Consciousness has to be talking about why it is doing the looking at itself. Ordinary consciousness needs a verbal description.
Ordinary consciousness has to hear itself. (ex the religious praying for improving health) As far as we can tell, off the subject, there is nothing in the universe that can compare with the power and know how of consciousness.
Does consciousness run unconditionally in an automatic mode? Consciousness understands that sentence and consciousness looks and by looking it switches itself from automatic mode to that other mode. (ex. being awake)
30:00 Let me give you a simple description of “the other mode.” The other mode is mostly an empty box. And when you are in the “empty box mode” you are more alert than normal, but you are left with nothing.
And without supernatural effort, within a few seconds, you are back in the normal, ordinary, automatic mode and you are not aware of it because you are back in the automatic running mode of ordinary consciousness.
Once you start switching modes from the ordinary/automatic mode to the other/empty box mode, and you do it for a while you start developing the third mode/position. Which is a combination of the two modes.
The third mode is delightful and irritating. You can feel the amazon river of ordinary/automatic consciousness coming and when you look, the first thought is about being out of automatic/ordinary mode.
It could take years to develop the third mode. But maybe you can get good at it and you can take yourself out of the automatic/ordinary mode just by looking. Just remember “my consciousness is not watching consciousness.”
So you immediately look and you never look in automatic/ordinary mode. That’s why ordinary people wonder what the hell are you talking about. Consciousness in automatic mode can’t look.
35:00 Is remembering to look completely mechanical? Figuratively, its a devilish affair. Because you don’t gradually return to the automatic mode. (ex. running a mile you start out slowly and then pick up the pace.)
Consciousness switches from the automatic mode to the other/empty box mode in an instant. Even if you can’t remember the exact thoughts when it switched, you can probably remember they were thoughts about nothing to think about.
40:00 It is probably from this last observation (thoughts about nothing to think about) that civilians came up with the rinky dink notion of irony. Nothing puts you back into automatic consciousness. Except being human.
Until it hits you “that everything that goes on in ordinary consciousness, unless you are willfully standing there at every moment, everything else is totally automatic”, you can’t see what to do, with the other position.
45:00 Ordinary consciousness can’t stop and look even for a second. (thinking that’s not literally true but it’s operationally true.) Keep looking until it hits you that consciousness has two positions. (totally automatic and the other position)
If you are not in the other position/the empty box position (there is no doubt when you are) the rest of the time your inner life (beliefs, aspirations, plans, etc.) is absolutely mechanical. There is nothing more fun than tracking that down.
50:00 I will get around to the third position next time. The third position makes remembering that there is another position easier. Automatic consciousness is so normal I don’t see how we get out of it. But just trying to is the most fun in the world.
Automatic consciousness is like an endless train and when you look at the endless train of thoughts and pictures, it’s not there. It’s the other mode/the empty box mode. But the third position smooches the two modes together.
Just figured out that there was not an easy way to discover The Story of the Ants.
So I put a link to it on the home page.
Jan Cox Talk 3170 - 7 July 2004
Copyright Jan Cox, Jan’s Legacy 2017
Notes by Fish July 2017
Suggested Title: Willfully Conscious (Listen to Yourself Talk)
Begin: Something that came to me in a news story and something you can use to keep you willfully conscious. The news story was about one of the benefits of not being “willfully conscious.” You don’t have to listen to yourself.
Another benefit of not being willfully conscious is the idea of the partnership. When people talk, they say things like “I think”, that if you listen, it’s like a partnership, something is talking in your head and something hears it talk.
Normally, nobody really thinks about it. But a distinct manifestation of ordinary consciousness, one in which it is not truly aware, simply, ordinary consciousness does not listen to itself. Ordinarily, people say they do listen to themselves.
05:00 it’s fairly easy to listen to yourself. It may take a few minutes. But after a few tries, you can realize the way in which you can listen to yourself, you ordinarily do not listen to yourself. It’s along the lines of a certain investigation.
You “listen to yourself talk” then you forget to listen, by going back to the ordinary running of consciousness, then you remember what you were trying to investigate, and you’ve got a second or two window, and then its gone.
Maybe the last scenes of what my consciousness was showing, or the words that were going on. But I am aware of more than the last few seconds of what was going on in consciousness, when I remember to listen myself.
The last few seconds of running consciousness, when I look and listen, I can realize that there are major scenes that play over and over. And you don’t have to rewind the scene much to know what the scene was about.
10:00 Tonights point: Remembering your new investigation (listening to your self). remembering you’re back asleep. remembering you are back in ordinary consciousness, simply remembering you are asleep takes you out of it.
But you only have a few seconds to latch on to the last few seconds of what was going on, of the scenes of ordinary consciousness. And compare that with the state you have willfully produced right now.
And its clear, that you were not really listening. In a sense, you were listening, or you could not be aware of the last few seconds of ordinary consciousness. (being asleep) Ordinary people say they do listen to themselves.
But if you look around at folks, if they’re not reading from a script, people continually misspeak, Its the nature of ordinary consciousness. People do not listen to themselves, ordinarily, because it’s not required. They never think about it.
15:00 In a sense, people do listen themselves talk, but it’s not with the same awareness, that can be used. If ordinary consciousness is challenged, it can remember something from a minute ago but sometimes it’s seriously not listening.
20:00 If ordinary consciousness is not planning, it’s talking, it is not really listening. If you want to listen to yourself talk all you have to do is make yourself willfully conscious. Maybe you can listen to yourself talk already.
But if you become willfully conscious while you talk you will become aware in a way no one can describe verbally. Through the years folks have tried to describe this (ex being asleep, being awake). You can still enjoy the terms but you don’t need them.
25:00 It’s a feeling when you make yourself “willfully conscious.” Even if the brain, by all accounts, has no feelings. And even after the fact of making yourself willfully conscious, you can hear what you were thinking the last few seconds.
And you realize when you compare the ordinary state of consciousness, to the feeling of “willfully conscious”, that in the ordinary state you were not really listening. It’s as though the ordinary state is not fully operative.
The ordinary state is spending energy talking and listening. If you unify the talking and listening (the partnership, Smith and Jones, etc.) into a one man operation (ex. willfully conscious) its like pulling the cotton out of your ears.
30:00 I propose “listen to yourself talk,” and when quiet “attentive to your thinking” as a tool, as a new specific investigation. Use it to monitor the poor quality of your hearing when you are in your ordinary state of consciousness.
35:00 Compare the momentary “willfully conscious” state to the ordinary state of thinking and talking. Ordinarily, there is a minimal vague awareness of what you’re thinking and talking. And it doesn’t matter.
And don’t you find that spooky?
Jan Cox Talk 3169 - July 5, 2004
Copyright Jan Cox, Jan’s Legacy 2017
Notes by Fish July 2017
Suggested Title: Can a Heartbeat Wander Away from the Heart?
Begin: The last couple of weeks I have been describing things, that refer to the conscious areas of the brain, (where everything, not only the answers, but also the questions, exist.) in a physical way.
But I was again considering the metaphorical picture of the dog of consciousness/attention as being really yummy. Personally, I like my descriptions as literally as possible, but that is not always shared by everyone.
Several years ago I mentioned that attention was like a dog, and it was continually chasing carsthat drove by the house. Metaphorically, the cars the dog chased was the everyday stuff we see, hear, and read. (ex. TV news, etc.)
05:00 Ordinary consciousness could exaggerate their understanding of the dog in the yard, as their everyday attention. The ordinary could see the dog leaving the yard to chase cars as a metaphor for their attention.
But when ordinary attention is asked “what is their yard” (metaphorical dog’s yard) and if ordinary thought is still interested, I speculate the ordinary would say their brain. But is that the best description of “what’s going on?”
10:00 Can consciousness get out of your brain and go somewhere? Some mystics may bring up an “out of the body experience.” And to consciousness that picture does not cost anymore money than the question.
Consciousness at its most unruly doesn’t get out of your brain. Consciousness can picture earth from above but that’s because it has seen pictures taken from spacecraft. Consciousness can conjure up pictures from memory.
15:00 It’s not an analog or digital memory, it’s electrical and chemical energy. When ordinary consciousness says something is true, no matter how outlandish, who is in the brain to say “Hey wait a minute?” Nobody.
20:00 Don’t worry. I haven’t lost the subject. We are talking about the dog in the yard. Saying “this is what I think” is the same thing as saying they experience “out of the body” consciousness. But it’s just “out of the brain” consciousness.
Just like South American drug money is laundered, the brain launders the “out of the body” (ex. flying over a South American city) experience. The point: You better know what “your consciousness” is doing all the time.
25:00 Is there a difference between a spiritual dream you have, and thinking and saying it’s Cinderella, but the guy you are telling the dream to is thinking that sounds like Snow White? You can’t go wrong.
Back to the dog in the yard. The dog in the yard is not conscious consciousness. The dog in the yard is the consciousness people are used to. But it’s not your consciousness, anymore than its your dog, your thoughts.
Nothing in your brain is controlling consciousness under ordinary conditions. Your immediate response could be that maybe that’s not true. But if you keep looking (maybe with a wink) as often as you can, that alone will make a man realize everything.
It sounds correct, that the dog (attention) chases after sights and sounds continually, that it continually leaves the yard while chasing sights and sounds, and that if you keep it in your yard it is more or less under your control.
30:00 But it’s faulty symbolism. Your consciousness, your thoughts, never leave your brain. Your thoughts and consciousness can conjure up conversations, both real and imaginary, and it can picture places it has seen.
But consciousness never left the brain. The dog never leaves the yard. Even the ordinary may be able to see that ordinary thought is like an unruly dog (ex. “my mind wanders’) but it does not, cannot wander from the brain, the yard.
35:00 Consciousness cannot wander from the brain anymore than a heartbeat can wander from the heart. But something happens. So if consciousness/attention is not leaving a place, what’s going on?
I will tell you next time. I just wanted you folks to hear the question. If ordinary consciousness is out of control, (few folks admit it, ex. my mind wanders occasionally) and it’s man’s normal state, what does out of control mean?
40:00 If consciousness is needed for a physical problem, it is suddenly there. But when the mind wanders, it does something spatially somewhere. I hope I can come up with an answer next time.
The talks from 1000 to 1999 WERE on jancox2.com
But we decided to move the website to Wordpress
so that we did not need a Jancox2 at all,
and will announce in What's new when more available...
Jan Cox Talk 3168 - 02 July 2004
Copyright Jan Cox, Jan’s Legacy 2017
Notes by Cfish June 2017
Suggested Title: The Grand Distraction
Begin: If you find the way - in your position - to do what I have been trying to describe - you free yourself from “the grand distraction.” That is the feeling that consciousness in us, in everybody, has produced in us that there is an internal opposition.
The internal opposition could be religious (ex. evil v. good), psychological (ex. subconscious trauma), historically (ex. demons), and at the very least that there could be a “you” and your thoughts.
Ordinary thoughts may not agree until the feeling, the realization, hits you of what an overwhelming “grand distraction” and illusion it has been for you and everyone. Once you see it, you can see it in everyone.
It’s as though people are translating their thoughts into words. The “grand distraction” keeps you from realizing that there is only one thing you are conscious of - and that is consciousness.
05:00 There are two states of consciousness. The ordinary, non conscious consciousness. (the grand distraction) where one is submerged in “my thoughts” and ”my opinions” and the other state “conscious of consciousness.”
In the non conscious consciousness (ex. my thoughts) you can understand nothing. Everyone is full of things they think they know. (Last time I mentioned “consciousness spends most of its time not knowing what to do.”)
09:00 Your consciousness is full of threats (ex. climate change based on science, terrorism, etc.) It gives consciousness something to be concerned about. But your consciousness is full of worries and threats it can do nothing about.
Assuming you are not at work, figuring out an intellectual problem, “your consciousness” spends most of its time not knowing what to do. So what does consciousness do? It looks outside itself to other people’s ideas.
13:00 Consciousness shares the same instinct as the rest of the body, so consciousness wants to do something about “climate change” for example, but climate change is not the direct physical threat a rabid dog or flood waters could be. You can for example google climate change.
15:00 Your consciousness is aware of indirect threats that from an individual’s view “it does not know what to do.” There is the basis for human culture. There is the basis of all writing. There is the basis of all literature, art, painting, movies, songs and religion and whatever I am leaving out.
Climate change is an example of a problem only human consciousness or culture is aware of. That’s why a few years ago I started splitting technology and culture. When consciousness sees an external problem it often finds a cure.
20:00 If not a permanent cure, then a remedial treatment, or it could be the circular route of the X-ray machine. (ex. discovering radiation, X-rays, seeing a tumor) I hope you are enjoying this picture. Consciousness figured something out the rest of the body couldn’t.
25:00 But if you look at any problem that is not physical, not technological, that is intangible, something that has no physical cure, (ex. religion, etc.) consciousness doesn’t know what to do about it. ( no exceptions )
30:00 But does consciousness give up just because “it does not know what to do about it,” No, it looks to others. It can get kind of vague but looking to others, that is what religion, culture, literature, movies, etc., is.
35:00 Some folks may say they know what to do about these intangible problems, (ex. priests, psychologists) but they don’t know and they can’t cure an intangible problem. Here is the point.
You have got to see it to enjoy it fully. Ordinary consciousness, the part of the brain you call “you” what it is doing almost full time in civilized people, spends most of it’s time “not knowing what to do.”
And then it does everything it can to keep from having to face it. (ex. talk to people, read, watch TV, Google, etc.) If you are ordinary, under ordinary conditions, alone, and looking up at consciousness, consciousness is doing anything other than “simply being conscious.”
40:00 If consciousness were “simply being conscious” it could be aware of what I am describing. Consciousness is filled with problems, dangers, and threats that only consciousness knows about and does not know what to do.
Maybe the problem is that your wife is falling out of love with you. And consciousness cannot call upon any resource in the body to cure the problem. And consciousness does not know what to do.
And it will do almost anything to keep from facing that.
It is so obvious that it is almost impossible to see. Your ordinary consciousness is so busy keeping yourself distracted from facing it that it becomes impossible to discover.
Enlightenment is promised by many, but few dare work for it. You may have heard of zen, sufi, 4th way or The Work of Gurdjieff, but if what they promise is what you must have - then you are going to have to insist on it. Jan Cox recorded 3,300 talks, and we have archived them as well as all of his writings.
Use this Search bar to find terms from any talk. To go to a talk #, type the word 'Talk' and 4 digits, i.e. Talk 0444