Published on www.acadun.com
4th May 2014
Discussion Linkedin: “Life is non-dual but appears dual in the mind.”
Life is non-dual but appears dual in the mind, an experience therefore is illusory and not real, and in particular the spiritual ‘That’ could only be an illusory experience if ever it is experienced. In the most ancient texts of the enlightened, the ‘Upanishads’, it is precisely documented that enlightenment is ‘neither this nor that’ (neti neti). To just say ‘all is illusory anyway’ lacks understanding and has nothing to do with enlightenment. Enlightenment is neither achieved nor realised. Enlightenment is clarity that every moment of life is non-dual but appears as dual in the mind.
4th May 2014
L1: "Enlightenment is ""clarity"" that every moment of life is non-dual but appears as dual in the mind." Clear to who? If there is Enlightenment, there is no duality anymore. Period.
L2: Life is non-dual but appears dual in the mind, to the extent and when you think so.
L16: The only proviso is that calling 'experience' or what is showing up here as labeled 'illusory' or 'not real' by some, really doesn't matter, and is just another concept (creating duality). What is here now, is what is here now, showing up, known of itself, and can't be negated.
L16: When enlightenment further flowers, life does not appear as dual even to the mind because both the knower and known have merged. Note the change in intellect below. The neti neti reference is a discrimination of Self Realization. That none of this out here is That. The That referenced by the Mahavakyas of the Upanishads (I am That, Thou art That, All this is That, That alone is.) is the recognition(s) in the shift to a later non-dual stage. This is why they are called great sayings. They are a reference to the intellect shifting from looking out and dividing to looking within and joining. Otherwise "All this is That" and neti neti would be completely contradictory. They are the realities of 2 different stages of development. That is not experienced because it is the experiencer itself. But it is also all this, so its expressions are experienced. You have to be very careful in understanding the words of something that has not been experienced (for want of a better English word). If there is no internal reference, the mind will build concepts that can become a barrier to it. Understanding is useful, but with an open mind. Enlightenment is neither achieved nor realized by the individual. But it is realized by itself. It is a clarity but not of understanding. That is a side effect.
AAU: Dear L1, It is clear to an evolved ego, who is a witnesser (sakshi). The clarity to an enlightened (sakshi) is that life is non-dual every moment, but appears as dual in the mind, albeit illusory.
AAU: L2, Correct, life is non-dual. Most importantly thinking happens to man and man does not make thinking happen to him.
L1: AAU, your answer is just as expected. you are reasoning to a solution that fits to the ego, but the ego will not survive the death of duality. The end of duality is not something that will come clear to something as an evolved ego. Even before you bring in such a thing as ego, one must question if such a thing even exists. When people are talking about an evolved ego, they are just looking for a better me, where there is no such thing as a better me. Every living entity is already fine as it is...
L16: I agree with L1, though would not word it that way. The witness is consciousness itself. It is not an evolved form of the ego. It arises when the identification with ego falls away. "ego" is defined in different ways though. The concept of a me dies with spiritual awakening but the function of ahamkara, individuating principle continues. Otherwise the form would die too. Thus some would say it is identification with ahamkara that ends, not ahamkara itself. In some traditions, the describe the end of the "I" sense. In other traditions, they describe the evolution of identification. It shifts from a personal me to the cosmic Self. It depends on how it is experienced subjectively or described traditionally.
AAU: L16, It is neither a concept nor a proviso. It is clarity that what is here now, is known and does exist. It is not denied. The clarity is the duality and existence is illusory and not real. Illusory does not mean it does not exist. The known, which is here and now exists, but its existence is not how the mind is conditioned to believe it exists.
L16: I would also note that there's some black and white thinking going on here. Human growth and development is a process. It's not an either/or. When there is a spiritual awakening, it's rare that it is total and complete immediately. There is usually a process of unfolding and purification and integration that takes place. Just like with all other stages of development. It normally takes a few years for all aspects of duality to be seen through and merged. And that's not the end of it. It can be a little hazardous to awaken with a bunch of black and white concepts. They can get in the way of the honest recognition of what the experience is and what is here. Adyashanti has some excellent books on this transition.
AAU: L16, When enlightenment further flowers and the knower, knowing and the known have merged it is Maha Samadhi, the enlightened is no more. Neti neti means that which exists is a reflection of ‘That’ and not actually ‘That’. The words in the Upanishads, ‘I am That and all this is ‘That’, is used to mean a reflection of ‘That’. The words, ‘Thou That art’ (Tat Tvam asi), and ‘That’ alone is, is used to mean light, which reflects as everything that is. ‘That’ cannot be experienced because, to experience time and duality would be required and ‘That’ is eternal meaning timeless and non-dual. The non-dual cannot be experienced, only the dual is experienced. The experiencer is always the ego which is false and the Upanishads document this so, therefore ‘That’ cannot be the experiencer itself. Everything in life is moving so it cannot have a reference point. Therefore, all reference points are relative meaning illusory. The mind does not build concepts; concepts have evolved in the mind, which have conditioned the mind to believe that which exists is real and not illusory. A mind is open when understanding happens that concepts are illusory and not real. Enlightment is neither realised by itself nor renders clarity, because enlightenment is not known entity. Clarity arises because of understanding and not without it.
L16: Hi AAU I would describe that as a good example of black and white thinking. The development is more nuanced. Maha Samadhi is the death of this form that happens after the remaining sprouted seeds have wound down. As long as the enlightened have a body, it is still subject to the rules of the world. The merging of knower and known does not result in death but rather Unity or non-duality. It is a recognition of what is already present. There is what the Vedas describe as Leisha Avidya or the "remains of ignorance". To quote the closing of the Rk Veda: "For you I make use of the integrated expression of knowledge. By virtue of unitedness and by means of that which remains to be united, I perform action to generate wholeness of life. United by your purpose, harmonious be your feelings, collected be your mind, in the same way as all the various aspects of the universe exist together in wholeness.” Actually, 'That' is a reference to Brahman. Light is not the ultimate reality. It is the third tier of creation. Even in the Bible, sound comes first. Thou is a reference to God, if you look at the phrase in it's larger context. It is a recognition that even the divine is That.
L1: Hi AAU, "The words in the Upanishads, ‘I am That and all this is ‘That’, is used to mean a reflection of ‘That’. The words, ‘Thou That art’ (Tat Tvam asi), and ‘That’ alone is, is used to mean light, which reflects as everything that is." Again you are making up these words with your own escape by using the word reflection, and a false interpretation. In these used words it there is no distinction between 'I' and 'That'. You are making 'one' as a reflection of 'other'. It is a trick of the mind wanting to proclaim his enlightenment. You possible do not know that that what 'sees' not to be his thoughts, is not what you are either. It is stil though-form and only though-form. It is the point where the snake found his own tail :-) ‘That’ cannot be experienced. You are wright. It is not an experience. It is a "be-ing". Again,, a tricky word for a thinker :-))
L18: The thinking mind is a great tool for problem solving, but when there are no problems to solve it goes back in the toolbox. When you finish chopping down the tree, you don't bring the ax to bed with you for lovemaking... Enlightenment is not a concept, or a place, or a state. It is an experience. You can't think your way to it, you cannot study your way to it, memorize, theorize, or conceptualize your way to it. This is most difficult for those who score high in intellect, for they must give up the one thing with which they most identify...their powerful "thinking mind." They lose their leverage. The Ego hates this! It can't, absolutely CAN'T accept this... It incessantly seeks a "work around" where it can shine... Concepts are restrictive. They are a vessel containing all of that which is understood, and none of that which is not, or not yet understood. The depth and level of this limited understanding is so vL1d, that it is unlikely any unambiguous concept actually exists... except to the Ego of course... Words are more limiting still. They are nothing more than pointers to concepts. In music, what is between the notes is just as important as the notes themselves, and once a note has been struck the quantum potential between the notes has been eliminated. Similarly, the infinite possible communication existing between words is diminished immeasurably once a word is spoken/written. The Ego is your story, a collection of concepts/beliefs/judgements, that are described with words, and that you believe are true. Each individual Ego is a set of glasses through which the world is viewed. Not only is information bent on the way in (motivated reasoning), but it is run through the concepts believed to be true. It is then amplified or minimized according to how well it fits the Ego's perspective... and then is spit out using a series of symbols, beeps or grunts... Enlightenment can't be experienced while wearing your Ego glasses. Take them off. BE open to a world where nothing is right or wrong. good or bad, logical or illogical. It all simply is. Go for a walk. Sit with a tree. Don't call it a tree, for it may be a bush, and even if it is a tree, by labeling it so, you shrink all of what it is down to the size necessary for it to fit into your limited concept of what it is... This is the essence. When you think about enlightenment you lessen it. When you call it "enlightenment," you further minimize it by eliminating what you could have called it and removing from consideration all of the associated concepts that might have been brought to bear, regardless of how limited they may or may not be. And when you tell someone else that your way of looking at it is the right way...well.........
L2: It is not very enlightening to brag, or even talk about, one's own enlightenment. I believe the truly enlightened ones would rather enlighten the world by what they do, or don't do, than participate in discussion forums for display of their intellect.
L16: Hi L2 I agree. However, there can be some value in clarifying misconceptions so that concepts don't become barriers to the direct experience of it. They are never more than pointers but can become like a cage, as L18 noted. AAU is very firm in his position. I have no expectation of changing his mind but it can be useful for others to see a counterpoint. But discussions like this often just become an argument about who's right. Then they have no real value and the quoted sources point to nothing. That is the dance. ;-)
L16: Ironically, while the word "non-duality" is used a lot here, most of the discussion has nothing to do with it. It's like going to a car show and everyone talking about the new style or colour. What has that to do with what makes it a car?
7 May 2014
L3: AAU - just like you - we have ALL read the same books:)
AAU: Dear L1, Firstly, it is obvious that the ego has evolved within man and man did not make the ego to happen to him. This is evident when the new born baby is observed, the ego evolves within it. Similarly the ego has evolved within primitive man as well. Secondly, it is obvious that understanding has evolved within man, and man did not make understanding happen to him, the new born child and the primitive man is an example that understanding evolves. Therefore that the ego and understanding would evolve further is to be expected. Duality will NOT come to an end; it will very much be there, as it is manifested by life. Duality will only be understood to be illusory and not real by understanding which has evolved with man. So many times it has been mentioned that illusory does not mean it does not exist, and nothing can be created or destroyed as everything is energy and energy can neither be destroyed or created, it only evolves from one form to another. Yes, the ego exists, if not philosophy would not exist; but its existence is illusory and not real. The ego is an auditory illusion of sound ‘I’. The sages hence have proclaimed that life is illusory and a play of light and sound. Only an ego looks for a better me, but not an evolved ego (sakshi). Yes, every living entity is fine as it is and is evolving.
AAU: L16, Nothing is consciousness itself; everything is a reflection of consciousness because consciousness is light. The clue that consciousness is light is indicated by science which is evolved knowledge. Life indicated that consciousness is light through knowledge which appeared as religion by attributing light to signify God or divinity by lamps, candles and belief systems. And as intellect has evolved, life indicates through science that every speck of life is light by proving that atoms are light and are not made up of the stuff that exists. Consciousness does not identify with the ego for the identification to fall away. It is only the ego that identifies, and the ego is always identified with itself. The ego evolves as a witnesser (sakshi) because consciousness evolves intellect and understanding. If the ahamkara continues, if not the form would die, it would mean that the primitive man could never have existed, as he neither knew ahamkara nor anything. Ahamkara and the ego is one and the same. It refers to thinking and not sustaining life. Ahamkara is not an entity separate from the ego, which could be identified by the ego. Ahamkara is the ego itself. The traditions, which is knowledge that describe the end of the ‘I’ sense is the description by the knowledgeable who preach what to do and what not to do, and is not a description by the enlightened. In traditions that describe the evolution of identification involves the ego, as it is only the ego that identifies. A traditional experience is subjective as well, because tradition cannot exist without a subject.
AAU: L16, A process is not something that can be controlled by the ego or ‘I’. Ponder on the primitive man and you would understand that the process of growth and development has evolved. Observe the new born child and you would recognise that growth and development is indeed a process, that is claimed by the egos of the parents, teachers etc. The process of growth and development happens every moment spontaneously, uncontrollably and unpredictably. This is the reason why man cannot premeditate the aliveness of a moment with certainty. This is the reason why man comes to know what he has done, spoken or thought only after it happens and never before they actually happen. Therefore all unfolding every moment is pure as it is, because it is a process of life and not man’s doing. And purification is a concept that depends on impurity and all concepts is duality, which have evolved in the mind and not in life. Life is non-dual as it is a timeless process. As regards time, it is to be noted that the smallest unit of time defined by an atomic clock is one attosecond, which is one billionth of a billionth of a second. It is a definition and not a measurement of time in life, as time is defined by the number of ticks a watch makes and no watch or an atomic clock defines what the unit of time within a moment is. So the number of years is an imagination and not an actuality in life. If duality were to merge (whatever that could mean), it would as a process of life and not due to man’s effort. A honest recognition would reveal that an experience would require time (which is not there as an actuality in life) and duality (which is either/or). Therefore a spiritual awakening just cannot be an experience. What is here, is here because growth and development is a process, which is pure and precise, albeit illusory, as everything is light.
AAU: L16, The merging of the knower, knowing and the known does not result in death, but is death. Unity or non-duality means that the knower realises that the known is illusory but appears dual in the mind. Ignorance too is knowledge. Wholeness means even a part of the whole is whole and this could only be light and not this or that. ‘That’ is a reference to Brahman, pure light or ultimate reality. Sound is light at a lesser speed. Light always comes first for example lighting in the sky is followed by thunder while thunder is not followed by lightning. The third tier of creation is black and white thinking. Thou is a reference to God or light. It is not recognition that even the divine is ‘That’. It is a realisation that the Divine is ‘That’ or light.
AAU: Dear L1, Firstly, please respond to the response sent to you and when it is either conceded by you or me, take up the next point. The word reflection is used because it is reflection and science has proof that it could only be a reflection. If you say it is false please prove that the logic and science is false. There cannot be a distinction between ‘I’ and ‘That’ as they are not similar and distinction can be only if they are similar. ‘I’ is an auditory reflection of ‘That’, and it is evident to the human ear that ‘I’ is just a sound. The inherent characteristic of a mirror is to reflect. Every atom of a mirror is light and not glass. Therefore reflection is an inherent characteristic of light. It is simple common sense, logic and reasoning. A thinker is one to whom understanding has happened either relatively or absolutely. ‘Be-ing’ to a thinker to who relative understanding has happened would mean he has to do to be a ‘be-ing’ and not to think. To a thinker to who absolute understanding has happened ‘be-ing’ would mean that living happens every moment and doing and thinking happen too, which are illusory and not real.
AAU: L2, The one who brags or talks about enlightenment is proof that he is not enlightened. The enlightened enlighten the world by sharing what the world, man and mind is and this is NOT what they rather do, sharing is what happens to them.
L4: The inherent characteristic of bullshit is its bad smell. Every atom of bullshit is light and not gas. Therefore bad smell is an inherent characteristic of light. It is simple common sense, logic and reasoning.
AAU: Dear L16, Non-duality is a realisation that duality is illusory and not real. That the world, man and mind is illusory and not real thought they exist, and that life is non-dual but appears dual to the mind is shared here and not discussed by acadun.com
L16: Hi AAU Everything is consciousness. That is one of the key realizations of non-duality. Light is an expression of consciousness, a quality of flow. Light is an object of perception, a creation. It is not that which creates. We experience divinity and everything else through sound and light, etc. But that is not what they are, it is only how we perceive them.. Science would agree. There are certainly subtle forms of light and sound, something languages like Sanskrit explore. But those are still effects, not reality. As long as we think experience is reality, we will be caught by it. As long as you equate light with reality (or more foolishly Brahman), you will be caught in the illusion. Light is Brahman because all is Brahman, not because light is the one reality. To the logical mind, it may make sense that wholeness would be light. But wholeness is so much more than light, more than everything, more than Atman, more than the mind of God. It is a totality beyond the mind's conception, even when it is directly known. No words can describe it as it is beyond all qualities. And yet it is inclusive of all of this. I don't know any scientist that would agree that sound is slow light. Sound is vibration of a medium. This is the origin of all things as studied by Sanskrit. Aum is the pranava, the sound of primordial creation. In the beginning was the Word. Light comes after. You reference Sanskrit terms and perspective but don't understand its basis.The language itself is the study of how vibration/ sound becomes. If it is not real then it's only logical that it has no existence. Awakening may or may not be experienced as a form of ego death. It depends on various factors. But this is NOT the same thing as the Unity shift where knower and known are merged. That may be accompanied by what Loch Kelly called a BBQ, a roasting of that which divides inner and outer. This is a completely different thing. Light moves at a constant speed. It thus cannot be the foundation of all the vL1ties of creation. Sound vL1s. But I'm not going to play logic games. Read some Sankhya if you want to understand this. You cannot discover reality through the mind. That's a fools game. Mind can only know through direct experience. You have a philosophy but it is not non-duality. It is also not consistent or logical. You may be speaking your truth but when you claim authority in another tradition, then you loose credibility. You say it's not a realization and then object that is. This is an expression of a mind wanting to be right rather than an exploration of non-duality. As usual, this discussion is not going anywhere, so I'll leave it at that.
L16: OK - I'm going to address another point. Many years ago, a reporter asked Yogananda if he was enlightened. He ignored the question several times but the reporter persisted. Finally, Yogananda said "Anyone who says they're enlightened isn't." What this means is it's not the person who becomes enlightened so anyone saying "I am enlightened" is confused. That's not it. Same with bragging about it - that makes it about an ego. But to suggest this means anyone talking about it is fake is a nasty distortion. How are we to learn about it if no one will speak of it? Are all awake teachers fake then? I've seen, in appropriate circumstances, someone describe their awakening and that triggered 2 others to wake up. Of course some of that is resonance, but such things can allow the mind to open and let go. Descriptions of awakening can be quite profound and teach us a lot about the vL1ties of it. Please have a little discrimination in your statements.
L19: L4, You make me laugh! Thanks.
AAU: L4, Bull exists in the world. It is not denied. The bull passes shit and this is not denied as well. However, every atom of the bull is not made up of bull stuff but light. If the atoms were made up of bull stuff, the bull would be real, but the atoms are made up of light, therefore the bull could be nothing other than an illusion of light. Similarly, every atom of the bullshit is not made up of shit but light. If the atoms were made up of shit, the bullshit would be real, but the atoms are made up of light, therefore the bullshit could be nothing other than an illusion of light. Likewise every atom of gas, liquid and solid no matter how they smell, feel or appear is not made up of gas, liquid or stuff. If they were, then every gas, liquid and solid would be real, but the atoms of every gas, liquid and solid is made up of light, therefore every gas, liquid and solid could be nothing other than an illusion of light. It is simple common sense, logic and reasoning. The intellect of the mind cannot comprehend the intelligence of life.
L19: But, it still smells bad.... (LOL!)
AAU: Dear L3, You might have read the interpreted books of Ramana but not the original books written by him, which is in Tamil and neither have I, and also other books which I do not know. All Ramana’s books are read by Dr.Vijai S Shankar in Tamil. I read many other books as well, and they all gave me knowledge, but I had the privilege of reading all books written by Dr.Vijai S Shankar and listened to his talks, which have given me wisdom, and have observed him for nine years till now. The books you have read have given you knowledge but not wisdom.
L16: There is a saying in Sanskrit - knowledge in books remains in books. The tendency to make this or that teacher or book special is a function of the ego. Wisdom comes from direct experience, not books or talks. And while a man may be wise, he can only impart that to those who can hear it because they have the experience. Thus the wise teachers don't just talk, they offer a means of direct experience. Otherwise, it's just concepts.
AAU: L18, The mind does not solve every problem; if it could then it would be a great tool and would solve every problem. Similarly, lovemaking may happen or may not happen whether you take the axe to bed or not. Enlightenment is not an experience either, because it is the ego which experiences and requires time and duality, and life is timeless and non-dual and the ego is false. The intellect when it renders clarity through reason and logic that life is non-dual but appears dual in the mind is enlightenment. Concepts and words are limiting because the mind is limited. Ambiguous and unambiguous concepts are nevertheless limited. The quantum potential between two notes in music is not eliminated because energy cannot be eliminated. The quantum potential between two notes is reduced but not eliminated. The same happens when two words are spoken, the quantum potential between two words are reduced. Therefore the space between two words and two musical notes contain sound which is the quantum potential of the moment. Communication is diminished or absent when the communicated is replaced by yet another communication, either spoken or written. Therefore it is wise to realise whether the ego is real or illusory. Enlightenment is not an experience even without the ego glasses, as an experience would require time and time is absent in life. A clarity that life is timeless and thoughtless is enlightenment and that the ego glasses, albeit illusory is needed to survive. Enlightenment can neither be lessened, minimized nor increased, because enlightenment is not a known entity. The way you look at anything must make sense, to logic and reason.
L4: AAU: "The intellect of the mind cannot comprehend the intelligence of life." So stop trying.
8 May 2014
AAU: Hi L16, Everything is consciousness meaning everything is light as consciousness is light. Non-duality does not realise anything, non-duality is a clarity of evolved understanding (deep understanding or absolute understanding are synonyms) that duality is illusory and not real. Light is a perception and neither an object of perception or a creation, because every atom of that which exists is not made up of the object or subject. If it did then the object or the subject would be real. Every atom is made up of light so light reflects as the object or subject. Therefore it is light that manifests (not creates) all that which exists. As everything is a manifestation of light, consciousness is light. Divinity cannot be experienced because an experience would require time and duality and divinity is timeless and non-dual. Man does not experience through light or sound. Man perceives light as colours and experiences sound as music and words, and experiences and perceives everything as thoughts. Sanskrit does not explore because it is a language and not a man, but the enlightened have realised that life is a play of light and sound. Evolved knowledge which is science reveals that light and sound exist in subtle forms. The moment it is realised that pure light or Brahman is reality that can never be known or experienced, man would be free of the real which the mind is conditioned to believe it is. To be caught in an illusion is impossible, because caught is duality which does not exist as actuality in an illusion. Pure light is Brahman as every atom that exists is light. Therefore pure light is the only reality which the limited cannot see or know, pure light appears as reflected light that manifests as everything that exists. The scriptures of the enlightened the Upanishads proclaim that the world is whole and every part of the whole is whole, and if any part is removed it would still be whole as the whole. If wholeness is inclusive of all this then a part removed from the whole would not still be whole as the remaining whole. Therefore wholeness could only be light, for any part removed from the whole would still be whole as the whole. Science too proves that everything that exists is light. God is not a man to have a mind. Scientists are not enlightened to realise that sound is slow light, as yet. Every atom of the medium is light which on vibration appears as sound which indicates that sound is light at lesser speed. Aum or Pranav is a primordial manifestation of light. A word cannot be formed without the letters and sound cannot be formed without light and aum is the proof that light comes before sound. Sound after its appearance from light, later evolved as letters, word and languages. It is only logical, that anything that exists is illusory and not real. Awakening means to be awake from a dream which is the waking state, that life is real. The knower which is the ‘I’ is always attached and identified with the known; meaning merged with the known and this leads to duality and not unity. Only visible light moves at constant speed. Science has yet not determined the speed of other forms of light, such as radio waves, microwaves, x-rays, ultraviolet rays, infrared rays, gamma rays. Light is the foundation of all forms of creation because every atom of creation is light. Reality cannot be discovered by the mind, because reality cannot be known or experienced by the limited mind, only that which exists is not real could be discovered by the mind. Non-duality is not a philosophy because philosophy includes duality. Please indicate the lack of consistency or logic. I am neither speaking the truth nor claiming authority in a tradition, because both authority and tradition is duality. I am merely pointing to the truth that life is non-dual but appears as dual in the limited mind. Realisation and clarity are synonyms. Non-duality cannot be explored because exploration would require time and duality and non-duality has neither. To realise or clarity cements that a discussion is an auditory illusion of sound needed for illusory life to go on is wisdom.
L18: @AAU "There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.” ~Shakespeare~
AAU: L4, Comprehension of life’s intelligence happens to the intellect of the enlightened but not to the intellect of man. Trying if it happens to the enlightened with comprehension of life’s intelligence, he realises that trying is illusory whereas to man to whom the intelligence of life has not happened to his intellect, trying is real and not illusory. So man or the enlightened cannot stop trying, trying happens if it is meant to happen.
AAU: L16, It is a person; man/woman who becomes enlightened, but the person; he/she cannot know that he/she is enlightened because enlightenment is not a known entity. If a person says he is enlightened it is imitation behavior of an enlightened which means enlightenment has become a known entity to the one who behaves, but enlightenment is not a known entity, but nevertheless one can behave like an enlightened but it does not mean that he is enlightened. Man learns that one who speaks about enlightenment is not enlightened if he observes that his speech is filled with duality while life is non-dual. The enlightened do not teach, they share an understanding that man is not the doer and that life is non-dual but appears dual to the illusory mind. Awakening means one who is awake from the dream of the waking state that life is real. Awakening cannot be described for the same reason why enlightened cannot be described, because awakening like enlightenment is not a known entity. VL1d descriptions of awakening indicate imitation behavior either because they have read about it or heard about awakening, it indicates the known and awakening is not a known entity. It is behaviour and not authentic. Descriptions of awakening only teach a lot about behaving like an enlightened and not what authentic enlightenment is. The statements are NOT about discrimination, the statements are about life as it is, and about what life is to the mind, which it is not.
AAU: Dear L19, The enlightened accept life as it is, and not how it should be or not be, and not what to do or not to do, and not what to speak or not to speak, and not what to think or not to think.
AAU: L16, An experience means time and duality is required. Life is however timeless and thoughtless. Therefore a direct experience involves the ego, time and duality. The ego, time and duality are false meaning illusory, therefore a direct experience is false, meaning illusory and not real. Those who offer means of direct experience are teachers and not the wise one. The wise share wisdom with those who understand wisdom and not experience wisdom.
L18: @AAU Have you ever watched a bird keep flying into a window over and over? The bird thinks he is beating down his rival, but to everyone else the bird is a sad example of stubborn obduracy. We pity the bird's inability to accept the reality reflected in the window, that it is somehow unable to understand what everyone else can clearly see, and that it's insistence can only lead to its demise...
AAU: L18 The thinking which makes it either good or bad happens to man and man does not make the thinking happen to him.
L19: Sometimes humor allows for the deepest acceptance.
L4: Not much pity here, L18, it is more of an amazement, at the stubbornness and obduracy - had to look that one up in the dictionary :-) and also respect for the uncompromising hammering onto the window this must stem from a deep love, though I'm not sure what kind of love or love for what and neither (yet) what or whom it serves…
AAU: L18, The bird has a mind but not a thinking or rationalizing mind. It is man’s thoughts about the bird but not the bird’s thoughts or feelings. The bird has none. Man thinks for the bird. That is the way life flows for the bird and man attributes his thoughts to the bird’s demise.
L19: ...and just how is it that we know that birds don't think???
L4: The bird L18 talks about does not but thinking :-)
9 May 2014
AAU: L19, What is meant to happen will happen and no force on earth or thought could stop it from happening and similarly what is meant not to happen will not happen, and no force on earth or thought could make it to happen. Hypothesizing, resolution, and advice are proof for this statement.
AAU: L19, If birds were able to think, primitive man would have been able to think and speak, and so would a new born human baby. It is therefore obvious that the bird’s brain had not evolved to the extent that it could think. The intelligence of life cannot be comprehended by the intellect of a man.
L3: AAU you say: The intelligence of life cannot be comprehended by the intellect of a man, On this, one might almost agree with you AAU. I do believe, more women intelligence would make a good deal of a difference:)
L19: Thank you, L3. I tend to agree. :-))
L20: WOW. Wow. We humans!! Thank you L4.
10 May 2014
AAU: L3, The word man is used to signify the genus homo and species sapiens which includes both male and female.
AAU: L19, Human survival instincts are more sophisticated in woman than man, because woman gives birth to life.
AAU: L20, Nature includes humans and humans are not separate from nature. Humans are evolved and sophisticated nature. The intelligence of life cannot be comprehended by the intellect of man.
L20: Let it go, dear one!
L21: What is meant to happen will happen.... I hear this a lot, can someone explain what it is that creates this meantness. Or do things just happen with no meaning? Would appreciate a headache free response.
L16: Hi L21, In the philosophies around non-duality, they indicate that all life has meaning and that the principles are simple. However, due to the vast intricacies of how those principles interplay, the complexity is "unfathomable". Essentially, you could say there are several layers to what is being experienced. There is the dynamic of life itself, seeking expression and a return to it's source. People will typically describe this as happening through them, such as a creative muse or awakening or intuition. And there is the surface dynamics of action, karma or what we'd call energy in the west. The play of action with itself. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Simple principles, complex outcomes. Mixed into this is how we're responding to what is here. What do we cling to, what do we resist, and what do we allow to be as it is? As the Serenity prayer puts it: "God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference." Part of the awakening process is disengaging from the surface dynamics and learning to be with the flow of life itself. This is an effect of discovering the underlying reality of being. Related to all this is the debate over free will vs determinism. How much of all this is choice and how much is determined? It turns out this is directly related to how we're seeing it. For example, the choices of the past are the determinism of the present. And the choices now, determinism of the future. Similarly, our stage of development will shift our perception. People in survival mode will experience a lot of determinism. Someone self actualized, a lot of choice. And someone newly awake may experience the world as predetermined and that there is no me to make a choice. At a certain point, it is seen as concurrent and essentially the same thing. When you are that from which all arises, you are that which chooses and that which determines both. There is no distinction. That would be a non-dual experience. Meaning is found in the flow of life, not in the dynamics of action. We find it first within, then through that, underlying the dynamics of the world.
L22: Hi AAU, Last week I saw you walking in the 'sprengen' woods around Ootmarsum. At that moment you were not thinking, your micro-kosmos was in synchrony with the macrocosmos but you were not aware of it? Life stays a mystery..... Greetings from a fellow citizen.
AAU: L20, The weather, which is nature comes when it is meant to come and goes when it is meant to go. Similarly, man can never premeditate with certainty when anything comes or goes in any moment. The moment with its aliveness comes when it is meant to come and goes when it is meant to go.
L22: Nature is not able to come, only the way we are nurtured.....
AAU: L21, If life were observed it would be clear that man cannot premeditate the aliveness of life within a moment with certainty. Yet the aliveness within a moment which could be action, speech or thought happens, which is recognised by the meanings they carry, only after they happen and never before they happen. If man were able to premeditate the aliveness of life within any moment with certainty, he would know the aliveness before they happen. He cannot, so obviously this means that what is meant to happen will happen.
AAU: @L21, man knows what has happened has changed what was, only after the change happens and never before. The same applies to affects and changes in the future. Man knows the affects and changes only after they happen and never before. The same applies to observation and intention man knows them only after they happen to him and never before. This proves that what is meant to happen only happens and no force on earth or thought could make it not happen. Similarly, what is meant NOT to happen does NOT happen and no force on earth or thought could make it TO happen. Non-duality cannot be a subject as a subject would have duality.
L21: It Is seen that what happens, simply happens and what does not simply doesn't. If so, then 'meant' surely is superfluous. It is often said with the flavour of: if it is 'meant' then it is okay in some way. Then over here irritation happens, unmeant and unintended, the trick (if that is allowed) is to let irritation be no big deal ( part of what is?) - regret that is not always what happens.
L4: @L21: <<What is meant to happen will happen.... I hear this a lot, can someone explain what it is that creates this meantness. Or do things just happen with no meaning? Would appreciate a headache free response.>> In addition to what L16 wrote: Thinking creates 'meantness'. Meaning is attributed by mind to what is or to what is happening. The phrase 'What is meant to happen' in itself I assume to be correct. Would we be able to fathom the unfathomable, we would see that what happened could not have been otherwise. As we can't fathom the unfathomable, the correctness of the phrase cannot be proven, this is why I call it an assumption. As for your latest comment: I also find the word to be superfluous, albeit for a different reason: it suggests will - the word 'meant' suggest there is a purpose: which introduces someone or something wanting it to happen. This is why I find it to be an a bit misleading expression. As for the irritation: the 'everything is okay as it is' may be experienced as a lack of compassion. If that is what causes your irritation, I can understand. However, from the psychospiritual didactical viewpoint, it can be an extremely valuable statement, if expressed by the right person to the right person at the right time.
L1: AAU. "Firstly, it is obvious that the ego has evolved within man and man did not make the ego to happen to him" (a reasoning by you what is one of your escapism manoeuvres ;)) So if there is an "evolved" ego, what I state ass thought-form or the thinking man: Who was there first....!
AAU: Hi L22, Man can never know that man is NOT thinking, because thinking always happens to man, as thinking is a survival instinct and man is not in control of any instincts. What do you mean by MY micro-cosmos? Also please explain why you decided that I was not aware of the synchrony, and how I was in synchrony? Yes, life is a mystery that cannot be understood by the mind.
AAU: L22, This proves that nature comes the way it is meant to come, just as nurturing happens the way it is meant to happen. Nurturing may be similar but never identical.
L21: Thanks for your comments, none of which were headache-provoking. I'm going to stick with letting things be as they are, and see what happens. It is remarkably difficult. Meant to be?
L19: Meant to be by whom?
L4: You got it, L19! :-)
L19: Beliefs are powerful. People who believe in circles create them. ;-))
L21: L19: sorry, my sign off was intended to raise a smile, no more. Maybe wrong place for smiles.
L4: I missed that one too, L21. See me smiling now? ;-)
L19: I doubt that there are many wrong places for smiles.
11 May 2014
L16: re: Meant Often the meaning this has relates to our concepts and beliefs of "must". It's supposed to be. A nice pat answer for the mind. And a barrier to seeing what is actually here. Expectations colour everything. But this does not even slightly mean the world has no meaning or intelligence. Even scientists have noticed the very precise "settings" of the universe. If any of them were even slightly different, none of it would have come to be. A great deal of emphasis is placed in current "non-duality" circles about the world as a meaningless illusion. But this perception is really just a stage, part of a process of undoing the old concepts of being. As Shankara said, it arises when Rajas guna is dominant while we burn inertia. There is a deeper layer where we find it's all intended. Everything that happens has an intention behind it. In other words, a meaning. The world is packed with life, love, and purpose. We are essentially living in a sea of it, underwater. The refinement of perception (via sattva) necessary to recognize this is a parallel but distinct process in the awakening journey. This unfolds as the rajas shifts to sattva and the perspective of the world shifts from illusion to created/intended.
AAU: To L16, who wrote to L21 Response to L16 reply to L21 If philosophies indicate life has meaning with vast and intricate principles with a complexity that is unfathomable, the philosophies are about duality and NOT Non-duality, because meaning and principles contain duality and therefore cannot be non-dual. Non-duality is neither a subject nor a philosophy, because non-duality is life and not the mind. An experience in any layer requires duality and non-duality has neither. The dynamism of life is non-duality and this means that it is not life that seeks to return to its source, but only the ego that seeks to return to its source, and the very seeking and experiencing keeps the ego alive, and prevents it from returning to its source. Action and karma contain duality and not non-duality. The west calls action and karma as energy, because the west defines energy as the ability to do work, the west have yet to define the nature of energy’s existence which is light. Light therefore appears as actions, reactions, responses, clinging, resistance and allowance, the appearance is illusory and not actual. It will happen if it is meant to happen. Why would man seek the courage from God to change the things he can, when he already has requested God the serenity to accept the things he cannot change? The serenity prayer puts God in a dilemma, whether to grant man serenity to accept the things man cannot change, or to grant man the courage to change things. The wisdom is to realise that God changes things every moment whether man likes it or not. This means that what is meant to happen will happen. Man learns to be with the flow of life when he realises that he is included in life that flows. This is an effect of discovering that what is meant to happen will happen. If the choices of the past determine the present, the past that brings about the present has to be the present made from the choices of the previous past. So it is impossible to determine the original past or the original present. The same applies to the occurrence of the future. To some a lot of choices may happen, not because of their determination, but because they were meant to happen. If determination and free will were real and in control of man, all the choices would happen and not some or a lot. An enlightened doesn’t experience, an enlightened realises that what is meant to happen will happen, albeit illusory. A non-dual experience does not exist, because an experience would require duality. ‘That’ from which all arises is pure light and does not have time, duality or an ego which is the only thing which experiences. A meaning is found in the flow of thoughts in the mind and not in life, because life is timeless and thoughtless to have meaning. Every meaning of the dynamics of the world in found in the mind within, albeit illusory.
AAU: L21, The word meant has many meanings; it is used here to mean genuine interest to express.
AAU: Dear L1, Now self-enquiry has begun spontaneously, uncontrollably and unpredictably. Who came first or what came first is a conundrum. It is not possible for Dr.Shankar to explain this via likedin. It is all explained in two books, ‘The evolution of mind’ and ‘What am I?’ If you are really interested please read them. They surely are an eye opener. Knowledge closes the eye while wisdom opens the eye.
AAU: L4, Meantness is not a word in Oxford English dictionary. Meanings to words have evolved in the mind, and a meaning is not attributed by the mind to a word. The phrase points to the fact, that man cannot premeditate ‘what is meant to happen’ in a moment with certainty. The word mean is a verb from which meant arises. The word ‘meant’ carries many meanings if it is not taken with reference to the context. The meaning should be taken in context to what is written. It would be superfluous if the context is not understood or taken into account. Irritation happens because of lack of understanding that what is meant to happen will happen and not because of lack of compassion, because compassion happens when understanding is absolute and not relative. Spirituality is not about moral values; because spirituality is a realisation that life is amoral, while psycho-spiritual didactical viewpoint is about moral values. Did you understand the last response sent to you about comprehension? Did you understand the last response sent to you, that the intellect of the mind cannot comprehend the intelligence of life?
L4: Foolishness happening to AAU?
L16: Sorry AAU, thats not what I said. The principles are simple, their expression is vast and complex. Non-duality is a philosophy called Vedanta. It is one of the 6 systems or darshanas of India. You are of course welcome to your opinions but please don't claim knowledge of something you clearly know nothing about. Duality is called dwaita and is also a philosophy and refers to a very specific perspective of reality. The world is not duality, it is multiplicity. Observer (you), process (sensing, etc), and object of observation (the world) are also not duality - there's 3 things there. And 2 of them are more than 1. Duality and non-duality are relative to how the observation process is recognized. Are the subject and object seen as one, as two, or as many? And I don't mean conceptually but in the direct experience. All are valid realities. Some of your statements are nonsense, I'm afraid. "The dynamism of life is non-duality..." Dynamism means change, evolving. Non-duality is one without a second. How can it evolve? And thats just the first part of the sentence. Again, you're confusing words that describe the subjective content of the experience with facts. A perspective is a way of seeing, not an object nor the reality. Even non-duality is not the highest perspective. Rather it is a doorway to it. Life is not a philosophy or set of concepts. It is what we live. And life does produce light directly but neither is non-duality. Non-duality is not an object of experience. It is a perspective produced by the development of depth of consciousness. That produces wisdom but is not wisdom in itself. Reading someones books may bring you insight but it will not bring you wisdom. You quoted Dr Shankar prior and he clearly had a dwaita perspective as I observed then. You're then interpreting that from a non-duality perspective and I don't think understand either.
AAU: Dear L21, You knew to stick to things as they are only after they happened to you. Similarly you will see what happens only after they happen and never before. It is difficult for the ego, because the ego always wishes to know what will happen, and what it must do. It will not be difficult when you trust life and not the mind, because it is life that makes every moment with its aliveness and not the mind. The ego trusts the mind and not life, and that is why it is difficult for the ego.
AAU: L19, Meant to be by life and not by anyone.
AAU: Dear L19, That beliefs are powerful is a sign how evolved the conditioning of the mind is. The belief in circles likewise indicates that the mind evolved to believe circles. People neither create anything nor circles, life evolves everything including creating circles. The intelligence of life cannot be comprehended by the intellect in the mind.
AAU: Dear L19, A smile could be either genuine or hypocritical. A smile therefore indicates duality. Trust in life and not the mind, is a non-dual smile.
AAU: L4, Foolishness means lacking sense or good judgment. Please indicate where both are absent in the previous or any response.