|
Post by laughter on Feb 23, 2014 13:06:39 GMT -5
Nonduality doesn't deny appearances or experiences. In its purer form it might well say that anything that appears or is experienced is an illusion, or has no reality, or something similar. That's fine. I have no issue with non-dual pointers. Its just a context, just as personal improvement is a context.So you no longer believe that nondual pointers are deluded products of TMT that suggest some sort of escape to some nothingless something beyond or prior-to mind? If so, that's a change.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 23, 2014 13:09:22 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. 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. I experience doership because it is part of the human experience. You experience turning a key and starting a car. Its that simple. Your philosophy won't allow you to admit it, but the evidence is right there. You experienced writing a message to me there. That's the experience of doership.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 23, 2014 13:10:32 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. Precisely.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 23, 2014 13:14:56 GMT -5
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. Yes. Like I said, much self-improvement is pointing to the same thing as non-duality. Sedona Method, Ho'oponopono are two examples. Byron Katie's work is another. Faster EFT is another. Even NLP can be used in a way that is aligned to non-duality. Reiki, chakra work....its all good stuff, but also comes with its problems/limitations.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 23, 2014 13:15:04 GMT -5
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... Isn't that a doing? Um, what about that volition thingy? If the guy on the bench insists that he's a rabbit he'll refuse everything brought to nourish him that isn't a carrot.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 23, 2014 13:15:39 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. You are not the language you use. You are not the narrative. The bouncy house is only an appearance. Yes, that's the non-dual context talking.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 23, 2014 13:17:28 GMT -5
You are not the language you use. You are not the narrative. The bouncy house is only an appearance. Yes, that's the non-dual context talking. The absence of context is an absence, not a presence.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 23, 2014 13:18:29 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. Judging from what's happening on the forum, the actual silliness and agenda tends to usually show up in anti-non-duality fundamentalism (why do you actually use the term 'non-dualism'?, sounds like you want to give it a negative slant with this -ism suffix) which let's peeps that don't understand what is been talked about here concoct extra absurd stories like these.... Even the most fundamentalist nonduality teacher answers to their name when pulled over by a policeman. when your wife says 'hey Dan, can you pass me the ketchup', you don't say 'there is no Dan and there is no ketchup' ... which seem to have no other goal than purposefully discrediting non-duality pointers and just show the shallow understanding underlying these stories. Not at all. Again, transcending is about inclusion, I see your brand of non-duality as fundamentalist because it is exclusionary. Good non-duality is a cool thing.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 23, 2014 13:19:50 GMT -5
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. My guess is that Tolle wouldn't come right out and say "I'm enlightened" but he seems like a likable little gnome and he sure as hell seemed useful to me at one point in time! "Can I have my cake and eat it too?" is only a serious question for someone who'd mistake themselves for what they're not. Do you consider Adya to be useful to you these days?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 23, 2014 13:20:43 GMT -5
impersonal non-focus is the abiding mindset of the liberated ones. It's not. Impersonal does not mean indifference. And non-focus would mean non-creation. LOL!
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 23, 2014 13:21:33 GMT -5
Good non-duality is a cool thing. a classic Andrewism TM. Billy Shakes retorts ... there is no good or bad but that thinking makes it so.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 23, 2014 13:21:58 GMT -5
If the I-thought doesn't arise (and I would agree that it doesn't have to), there would still be some kind of subtle awareness or individual sense of 'I' starting the car - in contrast to my wife, or the car starting itself, or the car magically starting etc. Its the same with going to the bathroom, there is an individuated experience, an awareness that it is 'I' going to the bathroom (and not 'you'). When you wrote that message to me there would have been a sense of directing the message towards an individual that is 'not you'. It was intended for 'me' to read. I'm not saying that we have to take credit for these things, there doesn't have to be any judgment about it, its just the nature of the human experience right now to experience a sense of personal doership. ... now you're literally talking sh!t ... that was ZD funnin' ya' in case you didn't notice. You don't think ZD was sincere in his reply? I assume ZD to be sincere.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 23, 2014 13:24:29 GMT -5
... now you're literally talking sh!t ... that was ZD funnin' ya' in case you didn't notice. You don't think ZD was sincere in his reply? I assume ZD to be sincere. that he embedded something amusing in what he wrote to you and was also sincere aren't mutually exclusive
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 23, 2014 13:24:45 GMT -5
In its purer form it might well say that anything that appears or is experienced is an illusion, or has no reality, or something similar. That's fine. I have no issue with non-dual pointers. Its just a context, just as personal improvement is a context. So you no longer believe that nondual pointers are deluded products of TMT that suggest some sort of escape to some nothingless something beyond or prior-to mind? If so, that's a change. It depends whose using them and the context in which they are being used. If its a hyperminder that is dependent on the boundary between 'ineffable' and 'effable', I am likely to question the pointers.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 23, 2014 13:25:55 GMT -5
Yes, that's the non-dual context talking. The absence of context is an absence, not a presence. I have no idea what that is supposed to mean but I would agree that the absence of context is the absence of context.
|
|