Pnohteftu - 716. Process and Results

716. 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 experienced.

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 break.
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 process itself:
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_.

Any non-confront (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 results.

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.