Metaphysical cosmology and nonduality

[question]

Hey guys, I have a fundamental question about nonduality. Many spiritual teachers developed metaphysical systems of stages of existence. Such systems can represent stages of evolutionary, cosmological, cultural, and most importantly spiritual development. I'm having trouble reconciling nonduality with these systems.



Ken Wilber talks of ten stages: various levels within the prepersonal, personal, and then the transpersonal consist of the psychic, subtle and causal.

Sri Aurobindo also has a complex cosmology that starts at the physical level and reaches up to the logical mind, then the higher mind, illumined mind, intuitive mind/overmind and finally to Satchitananda/Supermind/Godhead.

These are the two examples of such step-by-step comsmologies that I'm most familiar with, but there are many more out there. Jean Gebser, Rudolf Steiner, Theosophy, Kaballah, Neoplatonism etc.



My question is two-part:
1) Where exactly is nondual realisation located in such systems?
2) Did you go through these stages yourself? Is it necessary or even unavoidable to go through the whole thing?

[karen]

Personally, I'm slightly curious about those things, but I figure if there is anything to them, I will see the clarity (or lack thereof) of such systems after realization, and get busy not knowing now.

[vacant]

Karen, I'm with you there for sticking to not knowing now!

Question, ok, I feel funny responding to this because you obviously are looking for replies coming from more realised expertise on non-duality than what I qualify for. But I read/receive enough messages to sense that “Where exactly is nondual realisation located in such systems?” is a misplaced inquiry…
As far as I can find, all convincing accounts of witnessing non-dual reality clearly state that the stuff they are on about cannot in any way be located in any system, compared, contained or even approached in the same mind. Stages of existence, evolutionary, cosmological, cultural, AND spiritual development, are all stuff, manifestations like all the rest –thoughts, feelings, emotions, aspirations, cars, computers, personalities, spirituality, universes, etc– within the Unmanifested. In other words, as much as some so called experts might equal the quest for non-duality as spiritual evolution or progress, and as such comparable to existing systems to better understanding, it is not part of that.

Needless to say, I have ziltch to reply to the second question.

Please do forgive my verbal diarrhea, I can assure you that’s all this is! To balance it some, I quote David Carse (but he claims the thoughts and concepts expressed are not his):
Stop, please, just stop. Stop talking, stop objecting. Just for a moment let quietness happen. Notice how you cannot do that, you cannot bring that about. Notice how objections and judgements and resistance continue to arise as long as they continue to arise. Let it be. Let quietness, stillness be.[…]
When you are given the unspeakable grace, the unbeleivable, undeserved, unearned gift of being able to see, to notice that what you are thinking is an opinion, or is something by which you identify yourself; the gift of being able to listen to yourself; then stop. Honor the gift by stopping. And let it drop. The opinion. Let it drop.

[question]

Karen: I just want to get the fundamental theory right. I'm too curious and impatient to wait for the moment when I won't even care about it anymore.


Vacant: It sounds like a misplaced inquiry, you're right. Ok let me elaborate more on the question. You made it sound like the nondual is the highest possible realisation and at the same time you made it sound like even the highest stage of the metaphysical cosmologies is still not 'it'. I do suspect that stages exist only for as long as one is trying to get somewhere, but does that mean that teachers who present such charts haven't realized what Eric, Zendancer etc have realized and that the chart-makers are still stuck?

There seem to be two kinds of spiritual 'systems'. Step-by-step cosmologies and the no-path of nonduality. I can't reconcile them. Both claim absolute authority and both seem to be incomatible with each other.

[vacant]

I don't know if non duality is the highest possible realisation and I don't care about that. I am hungry for truth, I kinda feel that i did not have a clue of what i was biting into when i embarked on that hunger. I think anything we can call "the highest stage of the metaphysical cosmologies" or any other name is not "it". I too sometimes suspect, against most seemingly informed statements, that stages exist, and even our dear LM here often refers to "the process", but I also consider that we tend to flatter ourselves in thinking there are degrees and steps to Understanding just so we can think that we are "close", or closer than average!

I certainly did not mean that the teachers you mentioned or chart makers were any more or less on it than Eric, ZD etc. We probably have to thank any genuine teacher for ingenuously coming up with ways to trick our false selves into stalling, one way or another, but by their own admission everything said is automatically false. How many around us everyday understand ALL and don't say a thing because ALL is well as it is, and there is no need for "unenlighted" to awake, point being that ALL is well as it is? Now that puts another wack in the seeker's work doesn't it?

Finally, I cannot reconcile things either but I have a hunch that it's ok like that, it's another state of affairs I shouldn't have the arrogance to want to change!

Oh, I think you can find a few witnesses of What Is who do not claim absolute authority. Claims of absolute authority are for me an immediate turn off.

[karen]

I don't think there is a fundamental theory. More like a fundamental direction - away from mind knowing into body knowing.

But I wanted to know with my mind all the same just like you. I converted "I AM THAT" into mp3s and listened to it while I exercised walking on a local hiking trail and even while sleeping for well over a year.

You might want to check out Richard Rose's "Psychology of the Observer" <-- free. Specifically Figure 1 – Jacobs Ladder:

[enigma]

I would say pointers can be useful (the simpler, the better), but the complex cosmology seems to have a different motivation, possibly selling books and seminars.

Everything one can do with the mind is a distraction from noticing what one already IS, and it's all being seen by that which is being looked for, which is too absurdly simple to say much about, so the idea is to end the 'deer in the headlights' entrancement with mind and it's ideas. Anything that serves to dispense with this complexity such that it holds no particular interest anymore, is helpful, but complex multi-stage cosmologies, aside from being obviously untrue, just take mind deeper into it's concepts.

BTW, nothing at all needs to be 'understood', except perhaps that there is nothing to understand.

[question]

Thanks for your replies. Karen, thank you for the link.

The deeper background of my question is that I'm madly in love with Sri Aurobindo. No other Guru feels more like Home to me. I've read many of his books but couldn't connect much. Inuitively I felt much more drawn to the simplicity and immediacy of advaita than to the complexity of his integral yoga. So there is for some years now a subtle conflict in me of not being able to reconcile my admiration for Sri Aurobindo with my inability to connect to his written works.

[zendancer]

Question: There is nothing wrong with making distinctions as long as we don't get attached to them and thereby overlook the underlying reality. Maslow's heirarchy of needs is valid within a certain context. Some people are driven by material needs, others by security needs, others by esteem needs, etc. I think his highest stage was self-actualization. In the same way, Perry's stages of moral development reflects what's going on with lots of people. Some people cannot grasp the relativity of belief systems, for one example, and they are ranked at a certain level within his system. As soon as someone can put themselves in another's shoes and see the validity of other belief systems, this is represented as a "higher" stage. I don;t remember what Perry's highest stage is, but it probably approximates the Bodhisattva ideal--someone who lives in service to both man and God.

In the same way, the ten Ox-Herding Pictures of Zen roughly represent the path from total ignorance of the truth to a Christ-like state of selflessness, service, oneness, compassion, and love. All of these various stages are simply ways of imagining an imaginary progression of development from ignorance to understanding. They all presuppose the existence of a separate individual making progress toward some ultimate state of understanding and being.

After one internalizes the fact that no separate individual exists, and sees that there is only oneness, then everything that was once thought to have happened along the way is seen in a totally different way. What was once thought to be progression is then seen as a unified play of consciousness. From a conventional perspective, we could say that the final realization is that God, alone, IS.

When someone has an experience of cosmic-consciousness and then returns to an ordinary state of mind, there is usually a desire to understand, intellectually, what happened to him/her. All kinds of questions appear. How did that happen? What caused it? Why did I fall back into an ordinary state of mind after experiencing such an incredible thing? How can I get back to that state of unity and bliss? Ironically, perhaps, many non-dual traditions regard this situation as the real start of the search. Why? Because for the first time, an individual has directly glimpsed what lies behind the illusion of the ordinary world.

Does this answer any aspect of your question?

[zendancer]

Question: One further note of explanation. Most of us, prior to hearing about non-duality and unity-consciousness, have spent many years being indoctrinated into perceiving and understanding the world dualistically. We don't even realize that we have another way of interacting with the world. We are so used to thinking and understanding the world intellectually that that's all we know how to do. For this reason, we are not simple-minded enough to grasp where the truth lies.

Nisargadatta was a very rare individual. He was told by his teacher to single-mindedly stay in the I am. Nisargadatta was so trusting, that he did exactly what his teacher told him to do, and he woke up three years later.

Hui Neng was an illiterate woodcutter who also had a simple mind. One day he overheard one line of the Diamond Sutra being recited by a priest ("without hindrance let the mind function freely"), and he woke up.

This is very rare. By contrast, imagine a normal person going to a teacher and asking how to find the truth. The teacher might say, "Be still. Become silent. Abide in pure awareness. The truth is shining right in front of your eyes." The normal reaction would be, "But I don't understand. I'm looking at you and the world in front of my eyes, and I don't see anything special. What should I be looking for? What does the truth look like?" The teacher would reply, "Stop thinking and imagining, and stay in silent awareness. If you do this persistently, you will see through the illusion of the ordinary world." The normal reaction to this would be, "But I don't understand. How can silence change what I see?" Etc.

IOW, the living truth is the one thing that cannot be found or understood with the mind. Finding it requires direct perception through the body. Because all of our other learning occurs through the mind, it is very hard to accept the admonition, "Stop and be still," or "Be still and know that I am God." We are not in the habit of being still. Ordinarily our minds are almost frenetically filled with incessant thoughts. The challenge is to become sufficiently still so that we can see what lies beyond the realm of thoughts.

[Portto]

Excellent posts, Zendancer.

How would you describe that which perceives through the body (or through the mind)?

[someNOTHING!]

Apr 14, 2010 15:59:37 GMT -5 zendancer said:

IOW, the living truth is the one thing that cannot be found or understood with the mind. Finding it requires direct perception through the body. Because all of our other learning occurs through the mind, it is very hard to accept the admonition, "Stop and be still," or "Be still and know that I am God." We are not in the habit of being still. Ordinarily our minds are almost frenetically filled with incessant thoughts. The challenge is to become sufficiently still so that we can see what lies beyond the realm of thoughts.

Yea, it kind of reminds me of watching a fly caught in a perfectly clear and opened bottle. Plenty of analogies there to work and play with, if anyone wants.

[zendancer]

Apr 14, 2010 17:47:32 GMT -5 someNOTHING! said:

Apr 14, 2010 15:59:37 GMT -5 zendancer said:

IOW, the living truth is the one thing that cannot be found or understood with the mind. Finding it requires direct perception through the body. Because all of our other learning occurs through the mind, it is very hard to accept the admonition, "Stop and be still," or "Be still and know that I am God." We are not in the habit of being still. Ordinarily our minds are almost frenetically filled with incessant thoughts. The challenge is to become sufficiently still so that we can see what lies beyond the realm of thoughts.

Yea, it kind of reminds me of watching a fly caught in a perfectly clear and opened bottle. Plenty of analogies there to work and play with, if anyone wants.

Ha ha! It is more like a fly that is outside of any bottle imagining that it is inside a bottle and needing to find a way out. LOL

[someNOTHING!]

ZD- THAT'S the perfectly flipped analogy! Isn't life just that simple and grand? Indeed, very very funny world.

For some reason, it kind of reminds me of a video test on attention I watched recently. In this video you try to count how many times the team in white passes the basketball. The task is made more difficult by the other three players dressed in black. Gotta pay attention!!

Be sure to let the video download completely before starting the viewing to really test yourself.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo&feature=player_embedded

[elduderino]

I'll try to present my current opinion on the subject.

There is a brilliant definition of "consciousness" given by Francis Lucille. In his terms consciousness is whatever now reads these words. Therefore consciousness is never an object to be experienced. That is the consciousness that Advaita is speaking about. It is not moving, but it is not not moving. It is something which is totally transcendent to experience yet it makes all experience possible. The non-experiential understanding of Advaita, as I see it, is a point when a mind of the person understands that he/she is always aware of experiences that arise in the moment yet this awareness is not his/her doing. This understanding can deepen in time and it causes a liberating effect on a life of a person. Consciousness is thus discovered by the individual.

Now there is really no conflict between the teaching of Sri Aurobindo and Advaita. My statement is based on a chapter "The Pure Existent" which is part of "The Life Divine". In the beginning of the chapter SA talks about the totality of Divine Movement or Energy which creates the universe and sustains it on all levels. It is the infinite All. Later on he speaks about the Stability which is colourless, limitless, unborn etc. Well, it is quite obvious that he states two aspects of the Divine: the permanent and dynamic or Purusha and Prakriti in sanskrit terms. The silent witness of the activity (consciousness in Lucille's definition) and the activity itself.

It is simply impossible to experience the Divine Stability. Therefore all spiritual experiences that people have are experiences to some extent of the infinite All. In Advaita we learn to see this Stability which is always here. We also can approach this infinite All through the path of contemplation (for example) and surrender ourselves to It completely. And it seems to be the path Sri Aurobindo suggests. The yogi surrenders himself totally to this divine Force and It does everything for him, perfects his whole being.

As Sri Aurobindo states the dynamic aspect of the Divine can lead us to Its static aspect and vice versa.

Now a few last words about the "steps". Let's call consciousness (in Lucille's terms) our inner nature. And the experiences of our body, heart and mind we will call outer nature. It is obvious that we can ever perfect only our outer nature. Even the realisation of Advaita has everything to do with our outer nature because our consciousness was always here and our interest in Advaita is transitory, experiential. The realisation comes when outer nature recognizes the inner, so to say.

Therefore there are many realisations and each realisation is a moment of some important recognition in our outer nature.

Sri Aurobindo talks about an integral perfection of our outer nature. He even uses the term "consciousness" quite differently. He speaks about mental consciousness, vital consciousness etc. and also about levels of this consciousness. Therefore there is no conflict between Advaita and his teaching rather Advaita is an important aid on the path he explored and opened for others.

Sorry for the length of this post, folks. It is very difficult to speak on these matters. I think something very beautiful is going on today. So many people are interested in spirituality and Advaita specifically. But we are not very experienced and language is very limited so terminological and experiential clarity will probably take time. But as Sri Aurobindo said:

Our early approaches to the Infinite
Are sunrise splendours on a marvellous verge
While lingers yet unseen the glorious sun.

Cheers.