Another email to the EC group:

Don't really have morsel from the edge today, though the inquiry is still strong.  I've been contemplating the chant for the end of practice that the EE practitioners do:
 
The stability of our transformation depends entirely upon remaining rooted in the empty ground of all Being.  That means ever abiding in that mysterious place where the mind has no foothold whatsoever.  It means always wanting to be nobody more than we want to be somebody.  And most importantly, it means surrendering our every breath to the Self Absolute, and the evolutionary impulse that emerges from that self, with a miraculous power to do what can't be done, and to say what can't be said, for a purpose that cannot be imagined.
 
 
It just struck me this morning that there is always an option to look back into the sense of "I."  The moment we become aware of any content in awareness: any feeling, thought, sensation, we can see that those things are not the sense of "I" or "I am."  The arbitrariness of thought and emotion is striking when we see that these habits typically serve to inform what we take to be ourselves. 
 
It really is possible to break the flow of the assumed "me" through acitve contemplation and observation. 

How does EC relate here?   
 

an email to our group here in Raleigh thought I'd post as it felt right

I was conversing, actually debating, with a friend about what the relationship between enlightened consciousness and authentic engagement is.  My question was: What would collective engagement look like between individuals where one or, perhaps, all of those individuals were completely Self Realized.  Would there be nothing to do, nowhere to go?  Does Realization have anything to do with collective inquiry?  Would they just sit there bored, or would they lean in passionately, completely engaged on the creative cusp of an infinite, and infinitely timeless unfolding? 
 
I know the whole hypothetical nature of the question is ridiculous--there are a lot assumed in terms of positing an individual being Self Realized or not (because how can you really know what that means unless you're are Realized), but the question was an authentic one at the time, and it seemed to yield an authentic insight, one that becomes rather apparent in most of our meetings a priori:
 
While I realized I would not categorically know how a Self Realized person would respond to an experiment in collective inquiry (as personality, character development, and all the rest are still operative functions for purportedly Realized individuals), I did realize that there wouldn't necessarily be anything preventing a Realized individual from diving deep into discovering/creating new flavors and layers, new scaffolding, new terrain, in the spectrum of an ever-evolving Self discovery.  In truth, there would be nothing that could prevent authentic engagement/collective inquiry other than ego.  Any theory of realization or any assumed position stemming from self concept could never authentically stymie or stifle an authentic inquiry-- it could only nuance it and serve to blast our inquiry into deeper layers. 
 
While we're learning that authentic communication/inquiry alone is not enough in bringing about radical transformation, we are learning there is nothing that could viably prevent the emergence of authentic engagement.  It's an ever-new, ever-open channel.  In this sense, it is Grace itself.  There is always an Authentic Edge to any situation--always.  And no degree of realization or self knowledge could ever change that fact.
 
 
*It's funny how silly our problematic questions seem when they engender an insight.   ) I'm looking back and thinking "Anybody that's been doing EC regularly would say 'Well Duh!'"  But I realize that what's cool is to keep throwing these things out-- no matter how many "Well, Duhs" there may be. Because as long as we have the heart to authentically ask and authentically listen-- something new will emerge. 

Last night (Sept. 6th) EnlightenNext Raleigh conducted another new “experiment” in collective consciousness in which each and every individual was simultaneously the scientist and the test subject. Twenty individuals attended; about half were familiar faces, half new.

Though we didn’t specifically know what we were prospecting for (we all had our separate ideas), we knew we were looking, at least in theory, for something outside of ego. It was this intention to meet beyond ego that would ultimately yield an authentic expression between us.

At first we experienced what any large group of individuals who don’t know each other, and don’t know what the group is about, naturally experience: a tension or perhaps self consciousness. In many other group settings, this initial ambiguity is lifted as folks get the feel for what the group is about. You know things are a little different though, when the facilitator says at the outset “We don’t know what we’re doing here.” Twenty people, a gathering which had never happened before in the universe, were now staring, some confusedly, some eagerly, some skeptically, across the circle at one another with no sense of what to say, what to do, what was happening, and no ground to stand on. So, the tension, rather than subsiding in a re-cognition of “Oh, I get it, this is what goes on here!,” was actually magnified.

There were many attempts to understand the “rules of engagement.” We spent a while trying to fall into a groove. Every groove we tried to define or make happen just didn’t hold and actually made the discomfort of not knowing more palpable. The tension built, and built, and continued to build. And finally the break. One person, exposing their vulnerability to total strangers, said what most everyone was feeling. “I’m nervous. I can feel my body shaking...” That was all it took; one person sharing truth and vulnerability in a pure, authentic way. One individual’s raw expression of freedom that liberated any reactive recognition of separation, and something shifted; we were all in.

It’s amazing, almost miraculous, how a group, even a new group of people, can sense and participate in the authenticity of any statement. The vulnerability that was expressed was palpable, we were all recognizing it. There was a great “Yes!” that was generated by one expression. There was a sense of collective relief that was a spring board for everyone to engage in a deeper context; a context where one person’s liberation is liberating for the entire group.

We recognized that we were asking each other to have the courage to step into a space that opens into unknown territory—and not only to step into the unknown, but to take it even one step further… And so we continued; not knowing. And still, somehow realizing that there was a directional element in our inquiry. However, this direction had no agenda, and no form, no template in order to replicate.

Our engagement was simply propelled through each person’s willingness to choose to look and listen with new eyes and ears, resisting the limitations of the known. This choice engendered a natural and subtle care for what was occurring between us. The shifts in individuals, and the group, were seen and felt as we embodied this care. It soon became apparent that integrity is an active function in our engagement with the unknown, forming an integrated voice.

In two hours, a group of twenty people, most of whom didn’t know each other, or what was happening, witnessed, wrestled with, and responded to what was truly authentic. In doing so, we created a context that allowed us to go deeper into something new. Wow! How did that happen? And what will happen next as we meet again, continuing the inquiry and authenticity that develops when people come together to meet outside of ego?



Chris, Jenny, and Alex

What a meeting!

I could tell it was going to be deep- I could feel the current stabilizing even before we officially started. 

So much happened in that meeting, and there is a very small chance that I was able to record it all in any fashion that captures the sheer subtlety and mystery that unfolded-and unfolded us.  I invite you all to post your thoughts and perceptions if the impulse guides you to do so

I was very struck by the comment Laura made about the knower no longer being afraid of the known... 

I'll try to explain:

As we have experienced, one function in EC is to guide your attention into the edge of the known- to allow yourself to unknow.  To the structures of knowledge and sequentialization this is quite a subversive move.  It is, in a way a deconstruction, or better yet, a simple releasing, of the known.  (Deconstruction sounds way too complex and is a world war of thought  vs thought.)   What seems to happen is a letting go of the story and stories of our "lives."    It is recognized that what we usually take "our lives" to be is an elaborate story that has no actual presence- has no reality- and, if identified with habitually, can make for a pretty painful, if not hellish existence.  When the story falls, we are left with what is.  And we don't know what is, but we are interested in what is.  What is, becomes naturally interesting.  Whodya thunk it? 

(Brad got real excited tonight about the fact that what we were engaging in was actually interesting.  It's kinda sad, but unfortunately so true- that when we're not interested in what new can emerge, in what we don't already know about the given situation, but are instead only interested in what the given situation has to offer or not offer us, then we're left with a pasteboard excuse for interest; a fained smile under glazed-over, tired and bored eyes.) 

So, this unknowing function has this particular flavor, and once engaged with, has a particular magnetism.  It is something that can be "learned" in a sense, although its application is ever new.  The moment we think we've one-upped it, is the moment it's one-upped us...  Unkowing is the fuel of EC, and I think we all would agree on that.

In my own experience I've noticed a tendency to push for (which often means disengaging and not truly listening) a "bigger" unknowing.  There is a vigilance whose function is to subvert even even the most authentic comment to steer our attention and intention into something deeper.

Or so I thought.

Laura's statement threw into question this vigilance.  "...when the knower is no longer afraid of the known" drew my attention to the fact that while this vigilance is in a way an essential component of EC, there are layers of it that are informed by a fascistic desire for things to stay the same.  There is a fear of simply letting ourselves know something, because we think if we know something, then we will not be authentic because authenticity is supposed to be unkowning.  This is protection, and only the ego has something, a self, to protect. 

When the baseline for what informs EC shifts from the novelty of temporarily cracking the ego's shell to the novelty of engaging as the mystery of life itself (this "universe" itself) it seems there is no longer a fear of not being authentic.  The desire to subvert is no longer fueled by the need to blow our minds, but by a desire to become an expression of greater telos, greater meaning and depth, now.

Something sacred (and I use sacred with all the weight it implies) happens when the intention shifts- when the informatics of authenticity shift to a Kosmos oriented perspective.  I don't know what this is, but it comes from deep in our bones- deep in our being.  It comes from before we were born and is imbued with the knowledge of  impermanence.   Perhaps this is awakening to the "holy life."   

Maybe there is something holy to all this after all :)