Process and Results
Ideally, the result
- or 'End-Phenomenon' (EP) - of certain kinds of solo-processes should
not be known before the process finished.
The reason for this
lies in the ability of the human mind to 'mock up' this result (EP) instead
of working on its achievement.
In an extreme case
a pseudo-EP, such as the recall of events on the time track that are supposedly
shared by all members of the human race, could replace a genuine realization
of one's own past.
If this happens, an
indoctrination has taken place in which the mind becomes burdened by an
additional load that is held firmly in place by its proper untruth, and,
clearly, the opposite of 'liberation' has been achieved.
The occurence of 'mocked
up EPs' is difficult to prevent.
For one, the end results
of processes need to be known to processors to validate its general usefulness
and for selecting a specific process in the framework of a 'programme'
or 'rundown' that is being designed for a address a larger goal.
Then, for processes
that can be overrun, the EP should be known in order to finish off in time.
Further, making EP's
'secret' to only those who achieved it, is not a viable option, either,
especially not in the age of the Internet.
One could try to differentiate
between mock-up and 'true' experiences. But then another problem arises:
ultimately all experiences are mock ups of some sort: the significance
of the entire Universe is in the mind of the beholder.
But there is a substantial
difference in 'reality' between the mock up of 'having a million dollars'
and looking at one's balance and realizing that one indeed 'has' a million
dollars in assets.
If a guy wants to
travel from LA to San Francisco and would start up Microsoft's Flight Simulator,
he could depart Burbank, fly across the desert, make a perfect instrument
approach into Oakland, even accomplish the unheard feat of landing a plane
on the simulator, but the guy would _still_ sit in front of his computer
in LA and would not _be_ there.
How can one then prevent
the premature and artificial mock up of an end-result that robs the processor/processee
of the desired, 'full' EP?
The awareness of this
potential problem is certainly of big help and raising this awareness is
the purpose of this chapter.
To illustrate this
potential problem, here are some examples:
Let us assume a 'guided
tour' through parts of the 'Tree of Life'. This is, of course, a facilitated
process, even though it is often not regarded as such. But 'in the process'
of the tour itself, the facilitator, through tape or through real-life
narration, is putting there already parts of the landscape that is to be
Instead of _looking_
in his or her own mind, the processee may be tempted to just _mock up_
the landscapes as induced by the narrator.
Thus, the experience easily
becomes a duplication of the pictures of someone else, instead of getting
in touch with one's own _original_ departments of the mind.
a related example
is the so-called 'Grand Tour' of Hubbard in the '50s: in this facilitated
process the processee is invited to roam the globe in an exterior state.
Here, the difference becomes even clearer: is the experience a mock-up
or is it an immediate one, independent of the expectations of the facilitator
and the processee?
an example that
has created much confusion in the past is the so-called 'clear cog(nition)'.
If the processee 'knows' the specifics of the EP(s), s/he could mock-up
this state. Perhaps, in a certain sense, the person would be 'clear' to
some extent at the time it mocks up the EP(s). But the moment, the mock-up
is fading, reality (and bank) sets in again, unabated by its temporary
a dramatic example of
the problem of mocked-up EPs can be witnessed in Buddhist circles: while
Gotamo (the 'Buddha'), in the original Pali Canon describes the results
of processes in the form: "...in doing so, the person _realizes_ that...",
later generations of his disciples are interpreting the EP as a mock-up
instead of coming to the realization that 'things are not-the-self', they
now indoctrinate themselves and others to hold the _belief_ (instead of
the cognition) that 'things are not-the-self'.
The latter is known
as 'not-is-ing': it is _denial_ instead of _resolution_.
(of which denial is just a form) results in the _persistence_ of the issue
and not it resolution. Non-confront, after all, is the major cause of 'case'
in the first place!
In short, the
issue, whatever it may be, is likely to come back like a boomerang and
usually grows _stronger_ in the process. (cp. the chapter "Why 'Letting
Go' Can Be a Bungee Cord..."
The only safeguard,
it seems, is to be fully _aware_ of this potential problem, and to exert
the highest degree of honesty and integrity in one's own judgement without
going into self-criticism or self-invalidation.
The constant vigilance
that is thus required represents a process in its own right: it involves
stepping out of the identity that was used during the process and looking
at the entire scene from the outside.
This vital step is
sometimes approximated by self- or other-imposed 'quality control' measures.
Unfortunately, more often than not, this effort culminates in a coaxed
'success story' and thus becomes yet another tool of indoctrination and
'brain washing' rather than a honest looking back at the process and its
In the end, there
is no replacement for personal integrity.
However, the latter
is ultimately the main goal to be achieved, resulting in a catch-22 situation.
In short, the process
of liberation can be likened to a 'boots-trapping' process in which integrity
grows in steps of varying magnitude.
The growth of integrity
- or, in other words: the resolution of dis-integrety ('dukkha') - thus
results in the liberation of the Being.
© 1998 by Maximilian J. Sandor, Ph.D.