|
|
Post by berlake on May 12, 2013 8:56:02 GMT -5
I've already touched upon the writings of Bernadette Roberts in my intro, but I'd like to just give an overview of my take on these three fascinating and - to me, at least - troubling figures...
(I'll be using initial capitals where I feel it is appropriate, and this is intended to highlight those terms used to describe the Transcendent - this is purely for the sake of clarity.)
I'll begin by making an assertion; one which may or may not be popular, but one which I am fully convinced of: with the exception of Segal (and this is entirely dependent upon the account of the latter years of her short life), none of these three is describing Enlightenment. Indeed, I would go much further and say that they are describing the cessation of consciousness as "ontological referent," whereas Enlightenment is the Realisation of Consciousness as the ultimate "ontological referent" (it might be more accurate to say "ontological self-referent," since Consciousness Realises Itself as the indescribable and illimitable All in all).
What I would also like to say, though, is that I believe their accounts of their "experiences" to be sincere. Again, it is clear from reading their words that the living hell they inhabited (I know this is a kind of contradiction, but it's easier to speak in these terms) is hardly something one would make up just to gain some notoriety.
So, I believe the fact that these three people are featured here on this website as "teachers" - and Roberts as a 5 star rated teacher, too!!! - shows that there is a pervasive and troubling misunderstanding of their experiences.
Now, to simply call any one of them "dissociative" is not, in my opinion, seeing the matter through fully. Dissociative disorder is not something which is deemed to be permanent, and it tends to come and go. I have experienced it acutely and over many years, and while it shares many similarities with the no-self non-state as it is described by the aforementioned people, there are major differences.
Feelings, thoughts and the personal body-mind identity are withdrawn from in varying degrees during dissociation. For UG et al, it is the experiencer or knower of all of these which ceases to be. The experiencer does not dissociate from their feelings or thoughts or personal identity, but rather ceases to be conscious. There is then perception of thoughts and sensations and even feelings, it would seem, but no-one there to experience them. This is, it seems to me, the opposite of dissociation in a sense. In fact, one could even argue that dissociation is potentially a part of the process of detachment. However, it would be irresponsible of me to make such an assertion with any authority, obviously...
It may be, though, that what happened to these unfortunate three is some kind of "shutting down." UG certainly had thought his way to a place of total nihilism prior to his "calamity." He had given up on everything and considered himself "heretical to his toes." He was thoroughly convinced that there is no "psyche, soul or spirit" and that all spiritual teachings were a sham. This was in place before his "calamity" (I prefer to call it catastrophe!). Indeed, it seems to be the full and total acceptance of this fact which precipitated the falling away of the conscious entity.
Similarly, Roberts reached a place in her meditation where she went beyond her annihilation fears (again, something peculiarly self-abnegating and not at all the same as the fear of losing the mind-made sense of self (I have experienced both fears, incidentally, and many times over)) and ended up in an odd state wherein the self-reflexive mechanism of the mind (her terms) ceased to function. Shortly thereafter, she decided "with full hedonistic abandon" to turn her gaze inwards to the silence of no-self only to have an apparently mental realisation that there was now no "God" within, either. At this instant, she says, the entire self-structure collapsed, leaving nothing whatsoever in its place. Nothing.
Segal is more of a mystery. Who knows what was running through her mind as she stepped onto the bus; who knows what unconscious material may have been causing a major and then total suppression of self (something which is common in deeply shame-based or traumatised individuals). The remarkable thing with all of these people (and probably others about whom we have never heard) is that the suppression was followed through to such an extent that they ceased to experience a sense of being at all. Also, she did in later years claim to have awoken to The Vastness as the Substance of all that is and that she herself and all other beings and objects were similarly that Vastness knowing itself through its own "sense organ." She is the only one who seemed to find joy, too, however temporary it turned out to be. She also apparently claimed to have rediscovered her "existence" towards the end of her life and said that teachings which stated that there is no abiding self were wrong.
So, this is why I cannot entertain the notion that "non-dual" consciousness was being described by any of these people (with the possible exception of Segal, but it's very hard to tell), and why I believe we need to find another way to interpret their experiences. I believe, also, that they fall outside common psychological and spiritual experiences and need to be examined far more closely.
Somewhat perversely, I believe their experiences also point towards the fact the self is indeed something other than the phenomenal identity, since it is the mysterious but utterly present sense of ontological certainty which ceased for all of these people. To suggest that this sense of ontological certainty is the illusion is exactly what cognitive psychology and hardcore reductionist neuroscience tries to convince us, which is, again, the polar opposite of Enlightenment...
Your thoughts are most welcome; I remain open minded...
With thanks,
berlake
|
|
|
|
Post by silence on May 12, 2013 11:57:41 GMT -5
So, this is why I cannot entertain the notion that "non-dual" consciousness was being described by any of these people (with the possible exception of Segal, but it's very hard to tell), and why I believe we need to find another way to interpret their experiences. I believe, also, that they fall outside common psychological and spiritual experiences and need to be examined far more closely. What is non-dual consciousness and why do we need to interpret their experiences? One interpretation could be that you wrangled up three people who had mental breakdowns (this could also apply to more classicly "enlightened" people too). UG, if he was still around would tell you to get the hell away from his words as it's destined to cause only more trouble. As for Segal, "Suzanne Segal died of a brain tumor in 1997 at the age of 42". |
|
|
|
Post by berlake on May 12, 2013 12:53:18 GMT -5
Yup - and I'm trying to ensure that more people don't make the mistake of believing that what these people said was in any way "spiritual." This is precisely my point!
As for "non-dual consciousness," I'm not sure I understand why you are asking this question. I was responding in part to another member's suggestion that Roberts' "realisation" was pure non-dual consciousness; and this is apparently the view which Shawn Nevins shares; hence his rating of Roberts as 5 stars. If you're asking the question honestly, then I would point you in the direction of Franklin Merrell-Wolff's writings for a clera elucidation of what non-dual consciousness might be described as. If your question is rhetorical, then I guess I have nothing to answer :-)
You ask why we need to interpret their experiences: I am merely saying that their experiences are already being interpreted by thousands of people in a positive light, and this - in my humble though irate opinion - is potentially very harmful. Can you not see the value in this?
Thanks for your input, silence :-)
berlake
|
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 12, 2013 13:46:32 GMT -5
Yup - and I'm trying to ensure that more people don't make the mistake of believing that what these people said was in any way "spiritual." This is precisely my point! As for "non-dual consciousness," I'm not sure I understand why you are asking this question. I was responding in part to another member's suggestion that Roberts' "realisation" was pure non-dual consciousness; and this is apparently the view which Shawn Nevins shares; hence his rating of Roberts as 5 stars. If you're asking the question honestly, then I would point you in the direction of Franklin Merrell-Wolff's writings for a clera elucidation of what non-dual consciousness might be described as. If your question is rhetorical, then I guess I have nothing to answer :-) You ask why we need to interpret their experiences: I am merely saying that their experiences are already being interpreted by thousands of people in a positive light, and this - in my humble though irate opinion - is potentially very harmful. Can you not see the value in this? Thanks for your input, silence :-) berlake I'm not too familiar with Roberts and Segal, but somewhat with UG. I don't recall him talking much about experiences or giving any significance to such. Mostly, I hear him saying it's all BS and nonsense, which sounds vaguely like what you are saying. What experiences are you referring to? |
|
|
|
Post by berlake on May 12, 2013 14:13:59 GMT -5
Thanks for your post, enigma - I knew this was going to be difficult!
Something happened to UG - something profoundly awful, if you're familiar with what he explained. Yes, his entire philosophical outlook was based upon the idea that a human being's sense of self could be reduced to an illusory entity created by memory and thought, and that this illusion came to end in him, thus ending the sense of any form of experience at all.
Enlightenment is not an experience, either, but that is because it transcends sense perception and cognition, and is not "known" or "experienced" in the same way. UG slammed all Mystical "experiences" because he rightly identified that such a thing could never be permanent; but he fundamentally missed the point of Enightenment, which is that it transcends experience and does not involve our ordinary faculties as such (or is not apprehended by them, rather). So, UG's position is clear insofar as he completely and utterly rejected the possibility of Enlightenment based upon this fundamental misconception (though how he missed this after so many years of study I do not know). He then suffered his "calamity" and ceased to experience anything ever again. He would say, "I do know I am alive. If you ask me if I am alive, then that knowledge, which the accumulation of thought over millennia, comes to the foreground, but without your asking, I can never say that I am alive or dead. I do not know anything; there is no-one here who could know." I'm paraphrasing, but that's the essence of it.
Does this answer your question?
berlake
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 12, 2013 14:24:06 GMT -5
What do UGK, BR and SS have in common? Loss of self, don't know how it happened, seem to write about their state as unfavorable. If they don't know how they got there then they can't describe a path to get there.
UG's path was essentially a type of self-inquiry. BR's was essentially via Christian contemplation (and God took over at a certain point and finished the job). SS's was through TM.
So, I think it's advisable to say that any concentrated means of spiritual practice can lead to unexpected results, if one doesn't know exactly why they are practicing, what results might come. For most of us spirituality is some sort of game, a pastime, therefore there is not the intensity that takes one to such extreme results. For those that are willing to sacrifice anything and everything for release, liberation, "enlightenment", then they can't argue with unexpected results. But some people are really desperate.
Extreme dedication can take one to very high energy levels. Some have written about the perils of the path, such warnings are not to be taken lightly. Ego is not designed to contain high levels of energy, psychosis can result, or one can just burn out ego. This might be what happened to these three. .......I think there is an inbuilt mechanism that doesn't allow these high energy levels to manifest naturally, but is broken in some people. We call these people manic-depressive or bipolar. Some interior spiritual practices take one beyond what the natural "cut-off mechanism" can handle.
There is a book of aphorisms that says that there is a sequence of order on the path to higher being. "A man may be born, but in order to be born he must first die, and in order to die he must first awaken". One must first awaken, then one can die (to self/personality) and then one can begin growth on a correct foundation, essence. But it is possible for one to die before awakening, and thus he cannot be born. Not saying so, but if you are correct, maybe this is what happened to UG, BR and SS. The fact that they didn't know what happened indicates they didn't know of these three successive stages. And the fact that they didn't know that there was a next stage indicates their path was in some sense, a dead end. (And, BTW, I've read Suzanne Segal's account, I've read The Experience of No-Self, The Path to No-Self, What Is Self? and the privately published Essays on the Christian Contemplative Journey by BR and several books by UG, accounts of what he went through and his encounters with "non-disciples").
sdp
|
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 12, 2013 21:27:09 GMT -5
Thanks for your post, enigma - I knew this was going to be difficult! Something happened to UG - something profoundly awful, if you're familiar with what he explained. Yes, his entire philosophical outlook was based upon the idea that a human being's sense of self could be reduced to an illusory entity created by memory and thought, and that this illusion came to end in him, thus ending the sense of any form of experience at all. Enlightenment is not an experience, either, but that is because it transcends sense perception and cognition, and is not "known" or "experienced" in the same way. UG slammed all Mystical "experiences" because he rightly identified that such a thing could never be permanent; but he fundamentally missed the point of Enightenment, which is that it transcends experience and does not involve our ordinary faculties as such (or is not apprehended by them, rather). So, UG's position is clear insofar as he completely and utterly rejected the possibility of Enlightenment based upon this fundamental misconception (though how he missed this after so many years of study I do not know). He then suffered his "calamity" and ceased to experience anything ever again. He would say, "I do know I am alive. If you ask me if I am alive, then that knowledge, which the accumulation of thought over millennia, comes to the foreground, but without your asking, I can never say that I am alive or dead. I do not know anything; there is no-one here who could know." I'm paraphrasing, but that's the essence of it. Does this answer your question? berlake Even as UG talked to peeps about 'ceasing to experience anything ever again', I'm certain it didn't escape his notice that experience of that was happening. I don't think he missed the point of enlightenment, I think he was trying to point out that nobody gets enlightened and that enlightenment is being held as a carrot for the seeker. I don't think he saw his 'calamity' as something profoundly awful, just something that has to be seen as a calamity to the person. He also talked about how he did not cause the calamity and didn't know how it happened and therefore cannot prescribe a means to it. He somehow got 'thrown off the merry-go-round', but this is not to be viewed as an awful occurrence. He's clear that this is the end of the nonsense. To say that enlightenment transcends experience is correct, but to imply that it involves some sort of extra-ordinary faculties is not correct. This leads us back to some kind of transcendent mystical experience, which you agreed it is not. |
|
|
|
Post by silence on May 13, 2013 0:17:45 GMT -5
Yup - and I'm trying to ensure that more people don't make the mistake of believing that what these people said was in any way "spiritual." This is precisely my point! Okay, so we unearthed the agenda. I'm not sure I understand it but at least we found it. As for "non-dual consciousness," I'm not sure I understand why you are asking this question. I was responding in part to another member's suggestion that Roberts' "realisation" was pure non-dual consciousness; and this is apparently the view which Shawn Nevins shares; hence his rating of Roberts as 5 stars. If you're asking the question honestly, then I would point you in the direction of Franklin Merrell-Wolff's writings for a clera elucidation of what non-dual consciousness might be described as. If your question is rhetorical, then I guess I have nothing to answer :-) I just don't know what non-dual consciousness is. Sorry if I missed some important info. You ask why we need to interpret their experiences: I am merely saying that their experiences are already being interpreted by thousands of people in a positive light, and this - in my humble though irate opinion - is potentially very harmful. Can you not see the value in this? Thanks for your input, silence :-) berlake Are you sure it's not the interpreting itself that's causing the problems and not the light in which it happens? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 13, 2013 0:44:54 GMT -5
I just don't know what non-dual consciousness is. Sorry if I missed some important info. I don't know what non-dual consciousness is either, but lets not tell Andrew, okay? He'll just give us both a reading list.  |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 13, 2013 1:00:29 GMT -5
Yup - and I'm trying to ensure that more people don't make the mistake of believing that what these people said was in any way "spiritual." This is precisely my point! Okay, so we unearthed the agenda. I'm not sure I understand it but at least we found it. As for "non-dual consciousness," I'm not sure I understand why you are asking this question. I was responding in part to another member's suggestion that Roberts' "realisation" was pure non-dual consciousness; and this is apparently the view which Shawn Nevins shares; hence his rating of Roberts as 5 stars. If you're asking the question honestly, then I would point you in the direction of Franklin Merrell-Wolff's writings for a clera elucidation of what non-dual consciousness might be described as. If your question is rhetorical, then I guess I have nothing to answer :-) I just don't know what non-dual consciousness is. Sorry if I missed some important info. You ask why we need to interpret their experiences: I am merely saying that their experiences are already being interpreted by thousands of people in a positive light, and this - in my humble though irate opinion - is potentially very harmful. Can you not see the value in this? Thanks for your input, silence :-) berlake Are you sure it's not the interpreting itself that's causing the problems and not the light in which it happens? Dear Dude/Dudette, 'Non-dual consciousness' could be a permanent conceptual condition that can't go away as opposed to 'dual consciousness' which would be a temporary conceptual condition that can go away. Does that sound convincing?  Sincerely, The Great Blue Hole Of Belize |
|
|
|
Post by berlake on May 13, 2013 6:54:58 GMT -5
Wow. Pretty much nothing any of you has said been what I was expecting to find here! Perhaps this is good, as it will make me think again about certain things.
That said, I'm surprised that the idea of non-dual consciousness is unfamiliar here. I rather thought that on this particular website people would be oriented in this way. I'm sorry for being presumptuous. If I may be permitted an attempt at explanation, then here it is...
Consciousness is ordinarily associated with or projected onto objects, whether they be objects of the senses or more subtle objects such as thoughts. In this way, consciousness is divided into not only subject and object (an apparent perceiving subject and apparently "other" objects), but also into the word or discrete and differentiated objects. Our ability or propensity to discriminate and label (in the neutral as well as judging sense) is dependent upon this.
Non-dual consciousness is the Realisation (so far as I understand it) of the non-divisive nature of Consciousness as the essence of all things, including the apparent spatial universe and the apparent extension of time leading from "here" to "there." In reality, these are abstractions or illusions within Consciousness which Consciousness apprehends but is not dependent upon nor limited to. Non-dual Consciousness is also (when Realised to Itself by Itself) non-conceptual, since a concept would limit its nature. It is also beyond any notion of God / Divinity or self / Self - hence the Buddha's "Anatman / Nastikata" doctrine.
However, this does not at ALL mean that God / Divinity or self / Self do not "exist;" rather that they are themselves limitations within the greater comprehension of non-dual Consciousness. Meister Eckhart's surmon on "Spiritual Poverty" is a fairly good example of this. In the end, nothing can be said about non-dual reality which is why (apparently) the Buddha said nothing about it and why so little is "understood" about it. I know nothing whatever about it; I am merely trying to pass on the information I have read from others who have Realised it and tried to communicate something of it.
What it is NOT, though, is some empty or blank void or space. The terms Void and Space are used sometimes (Tibetan Buddhism, Mahayana Buddhism, Shunya Buddhism, Merrell-Wolff and others, I believe), but these are terms which describe it from the relative perspective. Thus to our ordinary consciousness it appears to be nothing whatsoever - absolute unconsciousness. When Realised as It is in Itself, however, It is known to be utterly full and complete and perfect; unsupported, uncreated and Eternal. Apparently it's amazing and no-one would turn way from it (which would mean It turning away from Itself...).
As for UG, BR and SS - and my "agenda" (thanks, silence...) - I believe their words, and particularly those of UG, are doing serious damage to many people along the path because the interpretations of their words are often (in my opinion) misguided. I simply want to try and understand them better and to help others to realise (who don't already, which many of you apparently do) that their descriptions are NOT of anything transcendent or "Spiritual." There seems to me to be a pervasive sense of nihilistic denial in the spiritual teachings of some modern writers, and I believe this is a consequence of people like UG. I believe this is incredibly damaging (potentially, to the unprepared) and I simply want to discuss the matter in order to shed more light on it.
Silence - I don't understand your last question. Could you clarify, please?
By the way, if this topic is genuinely not that interesting or relevant, then I'll quietly go away again - I don't have an axe to grind!
berlake
|
|
|
|
Post by topology on May 13, 2013 9:28:40 GMT -5
Wow. Pretty much nothing any of you has said been what I was expecting to find here! Perhaps this is good, as it will make me think again about certain things. That said, I'm surprised that the idea of non-dual consciousness is unfamiliar here. I rather thought that on this particular website people would be oriented in this way. I'm sorry for being presumptuous. If I may be permitted an attempt at explanation, then here it is... Consciousness is ordinarily associated with or projected onto objects, whether they be objects of the senses or more subtle objects such as thoughts. In this way, consciousness is divided into not only subject and object (an apparent perceiving subject and apparently "other" objects), but also into the word or discrete and differentiated objects. Our ability or propensity to discriminate and label (in the neutral as well as judging sense) is dependent upon this. Non-dual consciousness is the Realisation (so far as I understand it) of the non-divisive nature of Consciousness as the essence of all things, including the apparent spatial universe and the apparent extension of time leading from "here" to "there." In reality, these are abstractions or illusions within Consciousness which Consciousness apprehends but is not dependent upon nor limited to. Non-dual Consciousness is also (when Realised to Itself by Itself) non-conceptual, since a concept would limit its nature. It is also beyond any notion of God / Divinity or self / Self - hence the Buddha's "Anatman / Nastikata" doctrine. However, this does not at ALL mean that God / Divinity or self / Self do not "exist;" rather that they are themselves limitations within the greater comprehension of non-dual Consciousness. Meister Eckhart's surmon on "Spiritual Poverty" is a fairly good example of this. In the end, nothing can be said about non-dual reality which is why (apparently) the Buddha said nothing about it and why so little is "understood" about it. I know nothing whatever about it; I am merely trying to pass on the information I have read from others who have Realised it and tried to communicate something of it. What it is NOT, though, is some empty or blank void or space. The terms Void and Space are used sometimes (Tibetan Buddhism, Mahayana Buddhism, Shunya Buddhism, Merrell-Wolff and others, I believe), but these are terms which describe it from the relative perspective. Thus to our ordinary consciousness it appears to be nothing whatsoever - absolute unconsciousness. When Realised as It is in Itself, however, It is known to be utterly full and complete and perfect; unsupported, uncreated and Eternal. Apparently it's amazing and no-one would turn way from it (which would mean It turning away from Itself...). As for UG, BR and SS - and my "agenda" (thanks, silence...) - I believe their words, and particularly those of UG, are doing serious damage to many people along the path because the interpretations of their words are often (in my opinion) misguided. I simply want to try and understand them better and to help others to realise (who don't already, which many of you apparently do) that their descriptions are NOT of anything transcendent or "Spiritual." There seems to me to be a pervasive sense of nihilistic denial in the spiritual teachings of some modern writers, and I believe this is a consequence of people like UG. I believe this is incredibly damaging (potentially, to the unprepared) and I simply want to discuss the matter in order to shed more light on it. Silence - I don't understand your last question. Could you clarify, please? By the way, if this topic is genuinely not that interesting or relevant, then I'll quietly go away again - I don't have an axe to grind! berlake Berlake, I think some of the difficulty you're finding with the peeps here is in terms of what you apriori expected to find here, meaning you came with an expectation that is not being met. Expectations come from the mind. The people here are (As Far As I Can Tell) oriented to what is commonly called Non-Duality, the understanding that separation is not real, that individuation is an appearance within the One caused by the mind's need to split things into categories in its attempt to know the world. But what you will also find here is a deep and profound expression of the understanding that the concept is not the reality. The word is not the thing. The mind is a filter through which the world is perceived. Talking about the concept of non-duality is not living through the deep and profound understanding that non-duality is the case. There is something that happens to the mind which breaks it in multiple senses of the word. There is something beyond the mind which becomes its master and it is understood deeply that conveying/awakening that which is beyond the mind to/in another is not something that can be controlled or directed apriori. Control and direction prior to immersion in the situation comes purely from the mind. The proliferation of concepts becomes weight to anchor the mind in its dominance. Even the concept of non-dual consciousness is more serving the mind's dominance than serving that which is beyond/outside the mind. It is with that awareness that many of the peeps here relate to each other and chide each other for sounding laden with conception. Too Much Thinking (TMT). We all hear something different when we experience each of these "teachers" you have brought forward. The benefit we have from sharing our differing perspectives and understandings is to perhaps look again, read again, and perhaps see something different, revealing that what we had seen before was filtered through what our mind was capable of understanding at the time. I hear in what you express a deep concern for something going wrong on the path, damage. That is an interesting topic. If I may propose a quandary. How do you reconcile the thought that something can be damaging to growth and development with non-duality? These two ideas seem to be at odds with each other. How is UG harming people in your perception? Can you agree with the premise that the "goal" of a seeker is to become free of the mind's filters, biases, conceptions, projections, and agenda? Are you awake enough to know what is and isn't damaging or beneficial for others to experience? |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 13, 2013 10:15:41 GMT -5
Wow. Pretty much nothing any of you has said been what I was expecting to find here! Perhaps this is good, as it will make me think again about certain things. That said, I'm surprised that the idea of non-dual consciousness is unfamiliar here. I rather thought that on this particular website people would be oriented in this way. I'm sorry for being presumptuous. If I may be permitted an attempt at explanation, then here it is... Consciousness is ordinarily associated with or projected onto objects, whether they be objects of the senses or more subtle objects such as thoughts. In this way, consciousness is divided into not only subject and object (an apparent perceiving subject and apparently "other" objects), but also into the word or discrete and differentiated objects. Our ability or propensity to discriminate and label (in the neutral as well as judging sense) is dependent upon this. Non-dual consciousness is the Realisation (so far as I understand it) of the non-divisive nature of Consciousness as the essence of all things, including the apparent spatial universe and the apparent extension of time leading from "here" to "there." In reality, these are abstractions or illusions within Consciousness which Consciousness apprehends but is not dependent upon nor limited to. Non-dual Consciousness is also (when Realised to Itself by Itself) non-conceptual, since a concept would limit its nature. It is also beyond any notion of God / Divinity or self / Self - hence the Buddha's "Anatman / Nastikata" doctrine. However, this does not at ALL mean that God / Divinity or self / Self do not "exist;" rather that they are themselves limitations within the greater comprehension of non-dual Consciousness. Meister Eckhart's surmon on "Spiritual Poverty" is a fairly good example of this. In the end, nothing can be said about non-dual reality which is why (apparently) the Buddha said nothing about it and why so little is "understood" about it. I know nothing whatever about it; I am merely trying to pass on the information I have read from others who have Realised it and tried to communicate something of it. What it is NOT, though, is some empty or blank void or space. The terms Void and Space are used sometimes (Tibetan Buddhism, Mahayana Buddhism, Shunya Buddhism, Merrell-Wolff and others, I believe), but these are terms which describe it from the relative perspective. Thus to our ordinary consciousness it appears to be nothing whatsoever - absolute unconsciousness. When Realised as It is in Itself, however, It is known to be utterly full and complete and perfect; unsupported, uncreated and Eternal. Apparently it's amazing and no-one would turn way from it (which would mean It turning away from Itself...). As for UG, BR and SS - and my "agenda" (thanks, silence...) - I believe their words, and particularly those of UG, are doing serious damage to many people along the path because the interpretations of their words are often (in my opinion) misguided. I simply want to try and understand them better and to help others to realise (who don't already, which many of you apparently do) that their descriptions are NOT of anything transcendent or "Spiritual." There seems to me to be a pervasive sense of nihilistic denial in the spiritual teachings of some modern writers, and I believe this is a consequence of people like UG. I believe this is incredibly damaging (potentially, to the unprepared) and I simply want to discuss the matter in order to shed more light on it. Silence - I don't understand your last question. Could you clarify, please? By the way, if this topic is genuinely not that interesting or relevant, then I'll quietly go away again - I don't have an axe to grind! berlake Dear Dude/Dudette, Yes, I'd say that's a good thing. The idea behind it is probably not unfamiliar, it's just a funny name. Anyway, what's the point in slicing up consciousness in levels and layers and then categorizing it? That's exactly the impression I've got so far. You are comparing quotes and scriptures? Not sure abut BR, but UG and SS have no carrots to offer, yes. And that's why hippie bunnies call them nihilistic. They don't even leave hope for a 'path'. They seem to preach abject hopelessness and joylessness. What they say doesn't match the descriptions about awakening in holy spiritual books at all. No bliss talks. No tears of joy. No woo-woo. If you are only interested in expanding your bulky concepts, then count me out. If you are interested in deconstructing them to the bare bones by tossing out the nonsense then you can count me in. Sincerely, The Great Blue Hole Of Belize |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 13, 2013 11:54:16 GMT -5
Wow. Pretty much nothing any of you has said been what I was expecting to find here! Perhaps this is good, as it will make me think again about certain things. That said, I'm surprised that the idea of non-dual consciousness is unfamiliar here. I rather thought that on this particular website people would be oriented in this way. I'm sorry for being presumptuous. If I may be permitted an attempt at explanation, then here it is... Consciousness is ordinarily associated with or projected onto objects, whether they be objects of the senses or more subtle objects such as thoughts. In this way, consciousness is divided into not only subject and object (an apparent perceiving subject and apparently "other" objects), but also into the word or discrete and differentiated objects. Our ability or propensity to discriminate and label (in the neutral as well as judging sense) is dependent upon this. Non-dual consciousness is the Realisation (so far as I understand it) of the non-divisive nature of Consciousness as the essence of all things, including the apparent spatial universe and the apparent extension of time leading from "here" to "there." In reality, these are abstractions or illusions within Consciousness which Consciousness apprehends but is not dependent upon nor limited to. Non-dual Consciousness is also (when Realised to Itself by Itself) non-conceptual, since a concept would limit its nature. It is also beyond any notion of God / Divinity or self / Self - hence the Buddha's "Anatman / Nastikata" doctrine. However, this does not at ALL mean that God / Divinity or self / Self do not "exist;" rather that they are themselves limitations within the greater comprehension of non-dual Consciousness. Meister Eckhart's surmon on "Spiritual Poverty" is a fairly good example of this. In the end, nothing can be said about non-dual reality which is why (apparently) the Buddha said nothing about it and why so little is "understood" about it. I know nothing whatever about it; I am merely trying to pass on the information I have read from others who have Realised it and tried to communicate something of it. What it is NOT, though, is some empty or blank void or space. The terms Void and Space are used sometimes (Tibetan Buddhism, Mahayana Buddhism, Shunya Buddhism, Merrell-Wolff and others, I believe), but these are terms which describe it from the relative perspective. Thus to our ordinary consciousness it appears to be nothing whatsoever - absolute unconsciousness. When Realised as It is in Itself, however, It is known to be utterly full and complete and perfect; unsupported, uncreated and Eternal. Apparently it's amazing and no-one would turn way from it (which would mean It turning away from Itself...). As for UG, BR and SS - and my "agenda" (thanks, silence...) - I believe their words, and particularly those of UG, are doing serious damage to many people along the path because the interpretations of their words are often (in my opinion) misguided. I simply want to try and understand them better and to help others to realise (who don't already, which many of you apparently do) that their descriptions are NOT of anything transcendent or "Spiritual." There seems to me to be a pervasive sense of nihilistic denial in the spiritual teachings of some modern writers, and I believe this is a consequence of people like UG. I believe this is incredibly damaging (potentially, to the unprepared) and I simply want to discuss the matter in order to shed more light on it. Silence - I don't understand your last question. Could you clarify, please? By the way, if this topic is genuinely not that interesting or relevant, then I'll quietly go away again - I don't have an axe to grind! berlake I think we're all on the same non-dual page here. From my perspective, the reason 'non-dual consciousness' is being questioned is that there's reason to believe it's being subtly objectified. Essentially, UG refused to point to some nothing as the ultimate goal, and this seems to have led you to the conclusion that he missed the enlightenment boat entirely. He didn't say there's something ineffable and nondual for the non-you to non-find. He didn't put together any self contradicting tongue twisters as part of a carrot dangling teaching. He said, in effect, there is only calamity in store for the one seeking, and there is nothing to find. He said you can't hear this and aren't listening because the next question in your head is nonsense and already contains the only answer you will hear. He said 'Go away, I have nothing to offer you. No teacher has anything to offer you. This is what keeps you on the merry-go-round that I was somehow thrown off of.' This was his non-teaching to his non followers. It was so Neo-Advaita that even the anti-Neo's couldn't recognize it. You're right in that it's a very dangerous 'teaching' for the seeker, and if the seeker wants to keep seeking, he should run. |
|
|
|
Post by berlake on May 13, 2013 18:47:13 GMT -5
Wow. Pretty much nothing any of you has said been what I was expecting to find here! Perhaps this is good, as it will make me think again about certain things. That said, I'm surprised that the idea of non-dual consciousness is unfamiliar here. I rather thought that on this particular website people would be oriented in this way. I'm sorry for being presumptuous. If I may be permitted an attempt at explanation, then here it is... Consciousness is ordinarily associated with or projected onto objects, whether they be objects of the senses or more subtle objects such as thoughts. In this way, consciousness is divided into not only subject and object (an apparent perceiving subject and apparently "other" objects), but also into the word or discrete and differentiated objects. Our ability or propensity to discriminate and label (in the neutral as well as judging sense) is dependent upon this. Non-dual consciousness is the Realisation (so far as I understand it) of the non-divisive nature of Consciousness as the essence of all things, including the apparent spatial universe and the apparent extension of time leading from "here" to "there." In reality, these are abstractions or illusions within Consciousness which Consciousness apprehends but is not dependent upon nor limited to. Non-dual Consciousness is also (when Realised to Itself by Itself) non-conceptual, since a concept would limit its nature. It is also beyond any notion of God / Divinity or self / Self - hence the Buddha's "Anatman / Nastikata" doctrine. However, this does not at ALL mean that God / Divinity or self / Self do not "exist;" rather that they are themselves limitations within the greater comprehension of non-dual Consciousness. Meister Eckhart's surmon on "Spiritual Poverty" is a fairly good example of this. In the end, nothing can be said about non-dual reality which is why (apparently) the Buddha said nothing about it and why so little is "understood" about it. I know nothing whatever about it; I am merely trying to pass on the information I have read from others who have Realised it and tried to communicate something of it. What it is NOT, though, is some empty or blank void or space. The terms Void and Space are used sometimes (Tibetan Buddhism, Mahayana Buddhism, Shunya Buddhism, Merrell-Wolff and others, I believe), but these are terms which describe it from the relative perspective. Thus to our ordinary consciousness it appears to be nothing whatsoever - absolute unconsciousness. When Realised as It is in Itself, however, It is known to be utterly full and complete and perfect; unsupported, uncreated and Eternal. Apparently it's amazing and no-one would turn way from it (which would mean It turning away from Itself...). As for UG, BR and SS - and my "agenda" (thanks, silence...) - I believe their words, and particularly those of UG, are doing serious damage to many people along the path because the interpretations of their words are often (in my opinion) misguided. I simply want to try and understand them better and to help others to realise (who don't already, which many of you apparently do) that their descriptions are NOT of anything transcendent or "Spiritual." There seems to me to be a pervasive sense of nihilistic denial in the spiritual teachings of some modern writers, and I believe this is a consequence of people like UG. I believe this is incredibly damaging (potentially, to the unprepared) and I simply want to discuss the matter in order to shed more light on it. Silence - I don't understand your last question. Could you clarify, please? By the way, if this topic is genuinely not that interesting or relevant, then I'll quietly go away again - I don't have an axe to grind! berlake Berlake, I think some of the difficulty you're finding with the peeps here is in terms of what you apriori expected to find here, meaning you came with an expectation that is not being met. Expectations come from the mind. The people here are (As Far As I Can Tell) oriented to what is commonly called Non-Duality, the understanding that separation is not real, that individuation is an appearance within the One caused by the mind's need to split things into categories in its attempt to know the world. But what you will also find here is a deep and profound expression of the understanding that the concept is not the reality. The word is not the thing. The mind is a filter through which the world is perceived. Talking about the concept of non-duality is not living through the deep and profound understanding that non-duality is the case. There is something that happens to the mind which breaks it in multiple senses of the word. There is something beyond the mind which becomes its master and it is understood deeply that conveying/awakening that which is beyond the mind to/in another is not something that can be controlled or directed apriori. Control and direction prior to immersion in the situation comes purely from the mind. The proliferation of concepts becomes weight to anchor the mind in its dominance. Even the concept of non-dual consciousness is more serving the mind's dominance than serving that which is beyond/outside the mind. It is with that awareness that many of the peeps here relate to each other and chide each other for sounding laden with conception. Too Much Thinking (TMT). We all hear something different when we experience each of these "teachers" you have brought forward. The benefit we have from sharing our differing perspectives and understandings is to perhaps look again, read again, and perhaps see something different, revealing that what we had seen before was filtered through what our mind was capable of understanding at the time. I hear in what you express a deep concern for something going wrong on the path, damage. That is an interesting topic. If I may propose a quandary. How do you reconcile the thought that something can be damaging to growth and development with non-duality? These two ideas seem to be at odds with each other. How is UG harming people in your perception? Can you agree with the premise that the "goal" of a seeker is to become free of the mind's filters, biases, conceptions, projections, and agenda? Are you awake enough to know what is and isn't damaging or beneficial for others to experience? |
|
