|
Post by enigma on Feb 23, 2014 11:17:20 GMT -5
I think the two can fit together quite nicely, but that the fitting needs a bit of care. If you worked from the position that who you really are is complete and whole right here and now just as it is, but that on a relative level you could learn a few things to go a little more lightly, then that seems like a good mix.. Eg, say you were a parent and you had difficulty relating to your kids because your own parents weren't that interested in being parents. You could learn some skills from a parenting course (eg Circle of Security) and become a "better parent", all whilst holding the view that things are complete as they are even if you don't get on with your kids. Where I think the self improvement thing ends up spiraling down into sh!t is when someone believes (knowingly or unknowingly) that there is some magic amount of "being ok" off in the distance, and that they need to do a whole lot of stuff to close the gap between here and there. Also, I think the danger is when one (non-duality) is used as a means to achieve the other (self-improvement). People like John Welwood write about this,. something called spiritual bypassing. Are you talking about rainbow chasing? The problem, of course, is that the elves keep moving the pot of gold. The latest solution is to track the infrared signature by satellite and use GPS to zero in on the coordinates. No luck so far, though.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2014 11:24:25 GMT -5
No. Theoretically non-duality is a brilliant short cut. Its the most direct route, so direct that its not a 'route' and even the word 'direct' is misapplied. Practically though, it doesn't seem to work like that. A lot seem to end up reading book after book, watching video after video, going to seminar after seminar, and usually end up doing some kind of self-improvement exercises of some sort, even if its meditation or forgiveness or non-judgement. Some of the eastern teachings (and western too) have recommended clearing/releasing conditioning, which is basically self-improvement, and I resonate with that. The other problem with the short cut is that its easy to take it, and then think we are 'home', when really its more of an imitation home. So although it is potentially brilliant, it has its problems. Of course, self-improvement has its problems too. What!? No 'figless likes this' above this post? I like it quite alot actually.
|
|
|
Post by runstill on Feb 23, 2014 11:37:44 GMT -5
Of course. Personal doership and personal pronouns go hand in hand i.e. personal doership is an aspect of our experience because of the I-thought that arises. When you start your car, that's personal doership. Transcending is inclusive not exclusive. As such it is clear that it is 'you' starting the car, it is not your wife starting the car, or the car starting the car. It is also clear that the car is not being turned on by an invisible force, it is not being turned on by God, it is not being turned on mystically. Andrew: What if the I-thought doesn't arise at all? If the mind is totally silent, how can there be anyone imagined to be doing anything? Without ideational distinctions and incessant mindtalk, are there such "things" as time, space, or even thingness? When you go to the bathroom, for example, do you think, "Now I feel the urge to go to the bathroom, now I am walking to the bathroom, now I am.....etc"? I suspect not. If you will watch throughout the day, I think you'll find that there are many times when reflectivity stops, and both the observer and the observed disappear into empty suchness. Where is there any personal doership in THAT? Most folks have a running internal dialogue going on, and they comment on everything they see or think. t's just a pernicious habit that obscures the obvious. If the moments of silence that occur randomly throughout the day were purposely extended and sustained, sooner or later major realizations would occur.The bolded is well worth contemplating, I think when you hear about people that have awaken, laughing at what is seen is precisely because of the obviousness of what is always here.........mind in its innocent ignorance creates its own prison as a mistaken act of self preservation...
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 23, 2014 11:41:32 GMT -5
Sounds like anti-advaita trap. You seem to assume that everyone who builds proper English sentences with personal pronouns HAS TO automatically assume personal doership. Of course. Personal doership and personal pronouns go hand in hand i.e. personal doership is an aspect of our experience because of the I-thought that arises. When you start your car, that's personal doership. Transcending is inclusive not exclusive. As such it is clear that it is 'you' starting the car, it is not your wife starting the car, or the car starting the car. It is also clear that the car is not being turned on by an invisible force, it is not being turned on by God, it is not being turned on mystically. You experience doership because you believe your own thoughts about what's happening and who's causing it to happen. If you believed aliens were after you, you would have the experience of running from aliens, but that doesn't prove that it's true.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2014 11:50:40 GMT -5
Of course. Personal doership and personal pronouns go hand in hand i.e. personal doership is an aspect of our experience because of the I-thought that arises. When you start your car, that's personal doership. Transcending is inclusive not exclusive. As such it is clear that it is 'you' starting the car, it is not your wife starting the car, or the car starting the car. It is also clear that the car is not being turned on by an invisible force, it is not being turned on by God, it is not being turned on mystically. Andrew: What if the I-thought doesn't arise at all? If the mind is totally silent, how can there be anyone imagined to be doing anything? Without ideational distinctions and incessant mindtalk, are there such "things" as time, space, or even thingness? When you go to the bathroom, for example, do you think, "Now I feel the urge to go to the bathroom, now I am walking to the bathroom, now I am.....etc"? I suspect not. If you will watch throughout the day, I think you'll find that there are many times when reflectivity stops, and both the observer and the observed disappear into empty suchness. Where is there any personal doership in THAT? Most folks have a running internal dialogue going on, and they comment on everything they see or think. It's just a pernicious habit that obscures the obvious. If the moments of silence that occur randomly throughout the day were purposely extended and sustained, sooner or later major realizations would occur. There's loads of lee-way between the kind of self-referential, play-by-play self talk/identity focused, mind chatter you are describing and what andrew is talking about (a sense -- however subtle, of personal doership....of being a distinct "I".) It's this seeming need to deny that 'sense' in its totality that those of us who have been talking about fundamentalism in non-dualism, are indicating. It seems very, very important for many here to drive home the point that 'there is no longer any person here' to the point of silliness; where the very 'sense' of individuation, of being an "I", itself, is being denied and declared 'absent.' There's an agenda behind that strong line....and i'd say it's important to have a look at what that agenda is. As all 'agendas' go, it's actually very indicative of the presence of a personal focus.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2014 11:58:32 GMT -5
Andrew: What if the I-thought doesn't arise at all? If the mind is totally silent, how can there be anyone imagined to be doing anything? Without ideational distinctions and incessant mindtalk, are there such "things" as time, space, or even thingness? When you go to the bathroom, for example, do you think, "Now I feel the urge to go to the bathroom, now I am walking to the bathroom, now I am.....etc"? I suspect not. If you will watch throughout the day, I think you'll find that there are many times when reflectivity stops, and both the observer and the observed disappear into empty suchness. Where is there any personal doership in THAT? Most folks have a running internal dialogue going on, and they comment on everything they see or think. It's just a pernicious habit that obscures the obvious. If the moments of silence that occur randomly throughout the day were purposely extended and sustained, sooner or later major realizations would occur. There's loads of lee-way between the kind of self-referential, play-by-play self talk/identity focused, mind chatter you are describing and what andrew is talking about (a sense -- however subtle, of personal doership....of being a distinct "I".) It's this seeming need to deny that 'sense' in its totality that those of us who have been talking about fundamentalism in non-dualism, are indicating. It seems very, very important for many here to drive home the point that 'there is no longer any person here' to the point of silliness; where the very 'sense' of individuation, of being an "I", itself, is being denied and declared 'absent.' There's an agenda behind that strong line....and i'd say it's important to have a look at what that agenda is. As all 'agendas' go, it's actually very indicative of the presence of a personal focus. impersonal non-focus is the abiding mindset of the liberated ones.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Feb 23, 2014 12:04:23 GMT -5
Andrew: What if the I-thought doesn't arise at all? If the mind is totally silent, how can there be anyone imagined to be doing anything? Without ideational distinctions and incessant mindtalk, are there such "things" as time, space, or even thingness? When you go to the bathroom, for example, do you think, "Now I feel the urge to go to the bathroom, now I am walking to the bathroom, now I am.....etc"? I suspect not. If you will watch throughout the day, I think you'll find that there are many times when reflectivity stops, and both the observer and the observed disappear into empty suchness. Where is there any personal doership in THAT? Most folks have a running internal dialogue going on, and they comment on everything they see or think. It's just a pernicious habit that obscures the obvious. If the moments of silence that occur randomly throughout the day were purposely extended and sustained, sooner or later major realizations would occur. There's loads of lee-way between the kind of self-referential, play-by-play self talk/identity focused, mind chatter you are describing and what andrew is talking about (a sense -- however subtle, of personal doership....of being a distinct "I".) It's this seeming need to deny that 'sense' in its totality that those of us who have been talking about fundamentalism in non-dualism, are indicating. It seems very, very important for many here to drive home the point that 'there is no longer any person here' to the point of silliness; where the very 'sense' of individuation, of being an "I", itself, is being denied and declared 'absent.' There's an agenda behind that strong line....and i'd say it's important to have a look at what that agenda is. As all 'agendas' go, it's actually very indicative of the presence of a personal focus. Oh yes, honey, and amen!
|
|
|
Post by silver on Feb 23, 2014 12:05:40 GMT -5
There's loads of lee-way between the kind of self-referential, play-by-play self talk/identity focused, mind chatter you are describing and what andrew is talking about (a sense -- however subtle, of personal doership....of being a distinct "I".) It's this seeming need to deny that 'sense' in its totality that those of us who have been talking about fundamentalism in non-dualism, are indicating. It seems very, very important for many here to drive home the point that 'there is no longer any person here' to the point of silliness; where the very 'sense' of individuation, of being an "I", itself, is being denied and declared 'absent.' There's an agenda behind that strong line....and i'd say it's important to have a look at what that agenda is. As all 'agendas' go, it's actually very indicative of the presence of a personal focus. impersonal non-focus is the abiding mindset of the liberated ones. what-ever that means
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2014 12:10:07 GMT -5
impersonal non-focus is the abiding mindset of the liberated ones. what-ever that means just made it up.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 23, 2014 12:14:03 GMT -5
I dunno .. but I don't think the two 'sides' can ever be reconciled, cuz I don't think the 'personal aspect' even exists .. except as a fabrication of mind. That's a pure non-dual model that you are speaking of there, and that's fine. But is there are context in which you would say that human beings do exist, or that there are individual experiences happening? Or do you only stick to the non-dual context and say that human beings don't exist and there are no individual experiences? The absence of context is not the presence of contextualessness.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 23, 2014 12:22:53 GMT -5
yeah I can see what you're saying. I see what could be described as self improvement as just learning a skill. Similar to learning to drive a car, play a sport etc. Maybe depends on the what and the whys... Do you think there are any times when it would be useful? I dunno .. but I don't think so. That kinda sounds like "having your cake and eating it too" ie. I want to be enlightened, but I want to be a rich, well liked, useful person too. Self improvement covers a wide range of goals, and many of them are about stabilizing and strengthening the payche. Improving mental and physical health, reigning in ego, and removing some struggle from one's life situation and relationships, can be helpful as preparation for exploring nonduality, and yet these things are about self improvement. In general, ego is worked with until it becomes clear that it's just a set of ideas. Also, there's a continuum of practices such that there's no clear dividing line between self help and nonduality. For example, the sedona method (as envisioned by Lester Levenson as opposed to the teachers who distorted it) may straddle the boundary between self help and nonduality. Strangely, the Hawaiian practice of Ho?oponopono, at it's core beyond the ritual, has a radically nondual message.
|
|
|
Post by silence on Feb 23, 2014 12:24:10 GMT -5
ya know, those questions are difficult to answer/talk about. even more difficult to understand with crystal clear clarity (which seems why the 'success rate' is so ridiculously low) there is a typer here typing, and a reader over there reading. so seemingly there are "two", but that's not the truth, is it? Andrew used to deny that context had any meaning, then he found a way to use it in his Andology, and now he treats contexts like alternate realities that have to be dealt with. Andrew is the word chef extraordinaire. His internal logic is more flexible that hot silly putty.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 23, 2014 12:30:33 GMT -5
Sounds like anti-advaita trap. You seem to assume that everyone who builds proper English sentences with personal pronouns HAS TO automatically assume personal doership. Of course. Personal doership and personal pronouns go hand in hand i.e. personal doership is an aspect of our experience because of the I-thought that arises. When you start your car, that's personal doership. Transcending is inclusive not exclusive. As such it is clear that it is 'you' starting the car, it is not your wife starting the car, or the car starting the car. It is also clear that the car is not being turned on by an invisible force, it is not being turned on by God, it is not being turned on mystically. You are not the language you use. You are not the narrative. The bouncy house is only an appearance.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 23, 2014 12:30:34 GMT -5
haha .. no, I would never say such a thing to her, she already has more than enough mental dramas playing out in that little noggin of hers, than for me to add any more. In American football, that's called piling on, and is a 15 yard personal foul penalty. ketchup is passed, but there is no passer ;-) Understood, but there is an understanding/awareness that she is asking you to pass the ketchup (and not the cat), and that it is you passing the ketchup to her (and not the dog passing it to her). equally its not experienced as God passing it to her, or Consciousness passing it to her. It is something I could say to my wife but normally if I want to get out of doing something lol. She doesn't buy it. I try the same tactic, and it has the same effect. Hehe.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 23, 2014 12:30:49 GMT -5
Are you talking about rainbow chasing? The problem, of course, is that the elves keep moving the pot of gold. The latest solution is to track the infrared signature by satellite and use GPS to zero in on the coordinates. No luck so far, though. IOW, disastrous success rate as usual.
|
|