the end of the Search

[Guest guest]

i am chasing the *nothing* today it

is quite fruitful: Steven Harrison's

book Doing Nothing:

 

V: I am interested to know more about

your realization/non-realization,

as you put it. How did your search

end? What was it that enabled you to

stop doing after many years of

"searching"?

 

SH: There was never a search, only

the attempt to acquire power and control

over life. This idea, based on the

notion of separation, is unrelated

to any actuality, as such there is

no obvious beginning or end, no

point of resolution. Accounts of

sudden shifts are interesting in that

they imply a before and after, a

kind of dualism maintained as memory

in the after phase. If there is no

before or after, no time to sequence

events, then when is the end of the

search, the beginning of the search

and for that matter what is the

search and who is searching?

 

V: In your book, Doing Nothing, you

write:

 

"At a young age I was moved by the

pain and discord around me and inside

me. I sought to find a complete,

final and universal answer to this

pain. For 25 years I studied the

world's philosophies and religions. I

sought out every mystic, seer and

magician I could find throughout the

world.

 

It was all useless.

 

Somewhere in all of this, the

discovery occurred that pain and

discord were not the problem, but

the seeker was. The very grasping

for an answer, for a response, for a

solution that relieved me of the

burden of feeling, was the problem.

 

Without the grasping of the seeker;

the nature of the problem fundamentally

changes."

What I am asking is how did the discovery

occur? What enabled you to see that

the seeker was the problem?

 

SH: I have no idea. It is an oddly meaningless question ( not your

questioning which appears to be

sincere and to the point) as this

notion of the discoverer of the

absence of the discoverer then

explaining the causality of the

discoverer (who isn't) finding that

he isn't. Maybe language, since it

creates a subject-object time bound

world is a difficult medium to work

with here. The sense is more like the

the deconstruction of the ideas

surrounding "seeker" and "problem",

but also the sense that this was

always known anyway. But I wouldn't

want to imply that there is now some

altered state unlike a previous state.

 

There appears to be only one thing

occurring, which has always occurred

and is outside the mental construction

of time.

 

V:You have no idea how the discovery occurred? I find it interesting that

you feel that the "how" of the

discovery is not relevant or

"meaningless". Language does make

subjective reality hard to explain.

 

I did not follow your explanation. If

it was always known anyway, why was

there a time in your life when you

felt like you were seeking, doing, etc.?

 

When I visit Niagra Falls, I realize

it was always there whether I knew it existed or not. This realization occurs

after Niagra is discovered. Could it

not be said: When one visits the

ONE THING (Niagra), one realizes that

It (and only It) was, is and always

will be?

 

SH: Of course, this could be said

and has been said by the spiritual

all along. What is it that Niagra

Falls (the one thing)would say about

this discovery, the discoverer or

the question of what it would say?

 

V: It (Niagra/the One Thing) would

probably say something like, "Welcome

Home!"

 

SH: Here's where language is difficult,

because the narrative above comes

from the separate entity (in concept

only) which animates the one with

its idea of response. But from the

"perspective" of the one, nothing

has left, come home or done anything

in particular --since there is no

causality, separation, location,

time, rather in beingness there is

simply "as isness". In this respect,

how can we talk about a point of

change, discovery, enlightenment,

merger etc since that places us

outside of this beingness, gives a

before and after, a location,

process etc.

 

V: Could not Advaita and Dvaita

co-exist? Many examples in life could

lead one to know and believe that

both realities are true. It depends

on what perspective you want to take.

 

If you are It (Niagra), then there

is only ONE. There is no search,

searcher or searchee. But I could

argue that you and I are not IT. Identification with It, does not

necessarily make us It. We may sit

in the presence of Niagra, we may

even merge with the water of Niagra;

however, that does not make us the

biggest waterfall on Earth.

 

Therefore, would you not say that

you are ONE with IT, but not IT, ITSELF (yet)? For if you were, you could

employ all the power, character, and

creative force of IT? I can enjoy IT

and be ONE with IT, without having all

the traits of IT. Is that not duality?

 

Is that not duality co-existing with

oneness? Many of us have enjoyed

the bliss of God without being able

to wield the Power of God. Is this

not duality?

 

I can enjoy Niagra, but I cannot yet

fill a stadium with water in 15

mintues. Perhaps you can. If we

were not human, there would be no

search. There would be no discovery.

But is that not the purpose of our

existence? Is that not why we were

given Human lives? So that He could

place Himself outside of "this

beingness, to give a before and after,

a location, process etc." Is that

not the "purpose" of our time-space existence, i.e. human life, to

discover Niagra, and become more

like It?

 

SH: This is certainly how it appears,

but I would suggest that you have

it backwards.

>From the perspective of the One, it

is not about the discovery of Oneness

by the relative but rather the

expression of Oneness in the relative.

 

Since our vantage is conditioned to

be through thought (which is always

dual) we construct the search as

our meaning, much as the rat may

consider the movement through the

maze as purposed by the resulting

food. It is perfectly logical from

the though perspective. But thought

is only a mechanical process

conceptualizing life, it is not

life itself. Thought cannot access

totality, but Life (totality) has

the capacity to move through thought.

 

Although it looks like there is the

relative and the absolute (two)

there is really only singularity.

 

 

karta

[Guest guest]

> will be?

>

> SH: Of course, this could be said

> and has been said by the spiritual

> V: Could not Advaita and Dvaita

> co-exist? Many examples in life could

> lead one to know and believe that

> both realities are true. It depends

> on what perspective you want to take.

 

Namaste,

 

A dvaita and dvaita exist as levels of understanding. There is only

dvaita until realisation, but it is not the ultimate truth only a

relative one. Advaita is the ultimate truth. If one wants to win the

ballgame one has not to be distracted, and keep one's eye on the ball

only.......Advaita that it......Whom am I? Koham........ONS....Tony.