|
|
Post by topology on May 14, 2013 12:37:36 GMT -5
I haven't read a lot of UG, but it sounds like he's coming from a very anti-flowery description of what is going on. Nothing wrong with that. Peeps be full of fanciful projections of the mystical state, when in reality it is quite ordinary. The difficulty many people have is accepting the ordinariness and non-specialness of life. BR talks about the falling away of the unitive state and any kind of sense of a personal God. The impersonalness of existence is very scary to the individuated person. But its in our acceptance of the ordinary and in being just a cow that we can find release from our expectations and need to be anything other than what we are already. One of the lessons I struggled with in the Course was the concept of specialness, and how it is a sort of enemy of peace. It is indeed, though. When I view myself as special, I am seperated and doomed to upholding a seperative existence that in truth I cannot uphold at all. Like Sysyfuss pushing that rock up the mountain. So much energy to maintain an illusion, to keep the strawman thinking he is real. But what is the alternative? Is there truly another way? Another way than perpetually building the strawman of "I am special and significant"? The embrace of ordinary life, chop wood and carry water, go to work, hang out with friends afterwards, live life, but without the self-consciousness stemming from low self-esteem, without the need to be filling an emotional void. Life takes care of itself. The body takes care of itself, if we'd let it and get out of its way. Despite all the anti-woowoo on the board, I've been helping build and grow a woo-woo community here in the Bible Belt. I have anti-woowoo conversations with those who can hear it. But I also listen to and do not try to override the woo woo conversations that others have with each other. My life is hardly empty or vacant even though what I have called "me" in the past is now mostly absent and impersonal. I can frame the personal evolution in the language of "woo woo". I am working on and growing accustomed to "first chakra" work. All that banal chopping wood and carrying water is what enables the freedom to be connecting through the heart, it is what makes life stable enough to support being clear on the other dimension. Richard Rose advocated living a simple life to free the mind and body from worries about surviving in the world. Keep the house clean and organized. Take care of those basic needs. It's that orientation towards being stable, being practical, performing the banal maintenance of the basic processes of life (pushing the rock up the hill), that enables everything else that we find of value. And through recognition that doing the mundane enables everything we value, we come to appreciate and value the mundane for what it enables. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2013 14:17:04 GMT -5
One man's horrid, is another man's empty. Does this not raise any alarm bells for anyone; the fact that some people seem to find "emptiness" to be literally empty while others report it to be utter fullness? PLEASE don't bombard me with Nagarjunaesque infinite denials of definition: this is a forum where things are discussed and concepts must be used. I am trying to point out - simply - that it might just be the case that UG et al were not speaking from a non-dual perspective. (I'm not singling you out here, wren, so sorry if this seems a little reactionary...). Anyone? Is anyone going to question their assumptions on this point? Or am I simply not speaking the right language to be heard here? I actually tried to unsubscribe, but can't seem to manage it. Any help?! b I have no intention to bombard you with anything and there is no need apologise. Your years of investment in other people's language, for the fullness of emptiness can be let go of now. The truth of the matter is, that without the direct seeing of what is being described, all words are crippled in your hands. |
|
|
|
Post by berlake on May 14, 2013 15:12:36 GMT -5
Does this not raise any alarm bells for anyone; the fact that some people seem to find "emptiness" to be literally empty while others report it to be utter fullness? PLEASE don't bombard me with Nagarjunaesque infinite denials of definition: this is a forum where things are discussed and concepts must be used. I am trying to point out - simply - that it might just be the case that UG et al were not speaking from a non-dual perspective. (I'm not singling you out here, wren, so sorry if this seems a little reactionary...). Anyone? Is anyone going to question their assumptions on this point? Or am I simply not speaking the right language to be heard here? I actually tried to unsubscribe, but can't seem to manage it. Any help?! b I have no intention to bombard you with anything and there is no need apologise. Your years of investment in other people's language, for the fullness of emptiness can be let go of now. The truth of the matter is, that without the direct seeing of what is being described, all words are crippled in your hands. You're "preaching to the converted," wren. We're getting off topic here. I'm just trying to shed some light on what "Enlightenment" might NOT be and the fact that, though compelling, some people's descriptions of a kind of state (UG's for example, again) are misleading. It might even be the case that conforming to the view that thought and the mind are necessarily problematic which is another form of problem... Yes, whatever this "indefinable" thing is which we're all evidently interested in (or we wouldn't be on this forum) is beyond words and concepts: that's pretty rudimentary stuff. But is the destruction of the cognizer (as opposed to the radical disidentification from the mind and its illusory doer entity) really something to be aimed for? This is what UG and BR and SS all ended up achieving (please forgive the lack of accurate language to describe an experience which evidently cannot be experienced). I'm going to address some of topology's very perceptive questions later, but in the meantime, please try to credit me with at least the basics! You're killing me here!!! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2013 15:32:53 GMT -5
I offer you no forgiveness.
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 14, 2013 18:53:31 GMT -5
berlake ..... Sorry if you said, didn't catch it, but have you read What Is Self? by BR? I found it to be a deeply theological work. It took me several years to get through. I'd read until I got stuck, and mull it over, finally get it and move on. I've read good bits of it again....... I just recently found out about her new book, The Real Christ (found out about it here), ordered it but it hasn't come yet.....
BR is essentially not a non-dualist because OTOH there is God, and OTOH there is everything else, as far as she is concerned.
sdp
|
|
|
|
Post by topology on May 14, 2013 21:11:51 GMT -5
berlake ..... Sorry if you said, didn't catch it, but have you read What Is Self? by BR? I found it to be a deeply theological work. It took me several years to get through. I'd read until I got stuck, and mull it over, finally get it and move on. I've read good bits of it again....... I just recently found out about her new book, The Real Christ (found out about it here), ordered it but it hasn't come yet..... BR is essentially not a non-dualist because OTOH there is God, and OTOH there is everything else, as far as she is concerned. sdp Is that distinction a separation of realms or is that about where the attention and focus is within the experience? Seeing the totality vs focusing on an aspect? |
|
|
|
Post by berlake on May 15, 2013 11:24:54 GMT -5
berlake ..... Sorry if you said, didn't catch it, but have you read What Is Self? by BR? I found it to be a deeply theological work. It took me several years to get through. I'd read until I got stuck, and mull it over, finally get it and move on. I've read good bits of it again....... I just recently found out about her new book, The Real Christ (found out about it here), ordered it but it hasn't come yet..... BR is essentially not a non-dualist because OTOH there is God, and OTOH there is everything else, as far as she is concerned. sdp sdp - Sorry I didn't respond before. I DID read What Is Self, but not in as much depth as you have. However, I was put off by some of Roberts' assumptions which could easily be explained in a variety of other ways. I know this is often the case, but it struck me as particularly so with her writing. Her musings on Jung and the Hindu notion of Atman were interesting, but from what I can tell, she didn't quite grasp the difference between the two. Jung's "Self" is, I believe, an Archetype which is experienced as a kind of numinous "other"; in other words, a subtle object. Atman, however, is the Subject as Subject, which is identical with Brahman (the Ultimate or whatever you want to label it). She reduces Self to self and ultimately consciousness to the brain and its interaction with affective system; from what I remember at least. Does this ring true to you? I'm not entirely familiar with Jungian metaphysics, but I know the whole Archetype thing is quite difficult to grasp. It sounds a bit like Platonic Ideas or Kantian Categories of the Understanding; in other words, a kind of middle ground between the discrete, personal objects of the individual mind, and the more collective and a priori realm of the "generic psyche." I don't mean by the latter as something necessarily eternal, but something primal and shared in the depths of our consciousness. I believe this is what Jung meant. My personal interpretation of what she is saying is that the kind of "non-dual" she describes is a totally phenomenal type. In other words, the phenomenal universe is perceived without a subject perceiving it, which means there is no duality. However, the type of non-duality I have heard described elsewhere involves the dissolution of the distinction between the Ultimate Subject (the Noumenon, if you like, or Self or Spirit) and the Ultimate Object (the universe and / or the Divine manifestation). This latter type sounds closest to the kind most folks mean when they refer to it. Roberts seems, to me, to be describing a totally uni-polar type consciousness, rather than one which integrates both poles (subject and object). I know this all sounds rather "heady" and will most likely put people off as a result, but I believe strongly that where the intellect plays its role it needs to be as clearly discriminating as possible. I hope you don't mind my disagreement with your interpretation; it's pretty much what I'm trying to clarify. Thank you very much for your interest and your response. Roberts is a fascinating writer! Warmest wishes, Tim (berlake) |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 15, 2013 17:45:00 GMT -5
berlake ..... Sorry if you said, didn't catch it, but have you read What Is Self? by BR? I found it to be a deeply theological work. It took me several years to get through. I'd read until I got stuck, and mull it over, finally get it and move on. I've read good bits of it again....... I just recently found out about her new book, The Real Christ (found out about it here), ordered it but it hasn't come yet..... BR is essentially not a non-dualist because OTOH there is God, and OTOH there is everything else, as far as she is concerned. sdp Is that distinction a separation of realms or is that about where the attention and focus is within the experience? Seeing the totality vs focusing on an aspect? Distinct as in we are created beings. Distinct as in we are not in any sense, God. Distinct as in draw a line between us and God, we never cross that line. This is why she is adamant that she is not a non-dualist. sdp |
|
|
|
Post by berlake on May 15, 2013 18:40:14 GMT -5
Is that distinction a separation of realms or is that about where the attention and focus is within the experience? Seeing the totality vs focusing on an aspect? Distinct as in we are created beings. Distinct as in we are not in any sense, God. Distinct as in draw a line between us and God, we never cross that line. This is why she is adamant that she is not a non-dualist. sdp Sorry - misread you earlier: thought you were saying that BR is a non-dualist, hence my lengthy response. I hear you now and I agree that this is BR's stance. I maintain, though, that she still describes (unwittingly) a "uni-polar" phenomenalist state. I'm sorry for the ludicrous language, but I'm having to improvise... Tim |
|
|
|
Post by berlake on May 15, 2013 18:44:42 GMT -5
In fact, I would go so far as to say that her (BR's)tenacious adherence to her interpretation of her perspective is evidence of the fact that she is essentially not describing Enlightenment / Realisation of non-dual Consciousness, at least insofar as it seems to be described by others...
|
|
|
|
Post by silence on May 15, 2013 18:58:53 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.  What if Andrew already ascended? |
|
|
|
Post by silence on May 15, 2013 19:05:56 GMT -5
Silence - I don't understand your last question. Could you clarify, please? Who cares what these teachers say and experience anymore than someone who drops acid and tells you all about this and that? I'm asking whether the issue is about interpreting the words correctly or if the real issue is with distracting yourself by translating other people's experiences? |
|
|
|
Post by silence on May 15, 2013 19:24:41 GMT -5
You final question is warmly welcomed, however - thank you. And I would answer it thus: you're missing my point entirely if you are asking it! UGK is NOT talking from a perspective of non-duality and so people who presume he is might try to imitate the non-state he ended up not living; which would result in the worst kind of three kinds of suicide. He doesn't attempt to disguise the fact that what happened to him was not "Enlightenment." And he did not say this to be disingenuous. What happened was something else; something horrid. If people try to annihilate their deepest sense of being, then they will end up in the same place - which is to say no place. You're just having fun with your own type of interpretation in exactly the same way as the masses of people dangerously misinterpreting these teachers. I don't think you actually know anything at all about what happened to him let alone whether it was horrid. [/quote] |
|
|
|
Post by silence on May 15, 2013 19:31:46 GMT -5
One man's horrid, is another man's empty. Does this not raise any alarm bells for anyone; the fact that some people seem to find "emptiness" to be literally empty while others report it to be utter fullness? PLEASE don't bombard me with Nagarjunaesque infinite denials of definition: this is a forum where things are discussed and concepts must be used. I am trying to point out - simply - that it might just be the case that UG et al were not speaking from a non-dual perspective. (I'm not singling you out here, wren, so sorry if this seems a little reactionary...). Anyone? Is anyone going to question their assumptions on this point? Or am I simply not speaking the right language to be heard here? I actually tried to unsubscribe, but can't seem to manage it. Any help?! b What if there really was no such thing as a "non-dual perspective" and there's just people talking about their lives? As far as emptiness goes, it's no different than how some people can sit quietly internally and externally and feel full and alive while others become depressed or antsy. |
|
|
|
Post by silence on May 15, 2013 19:38:29 GMT -5
One of the lessons I struggled with in the Course was the concept of specialness, and how it is a sort of enemy of peace. It is indeed, though. When I view myself as special, I am seperated and doomed to upholding a seperative existence that in truth I cannot uphold at all. Like Sysyfuss pushing that rock up the mountain. So much energy to maintain an illusion, to keep the strawman thinking he is real. But what is the alternative? Is there truly another way? The alternative is to stop telling yourself you're special. |
|
