Yes: Why Everything "has no relevance to liberation."

[Guest guest]

Words cannot tell us about a Reality that is not only beyond

dualities of subjects and objects, but also beyond names and forms.

 

Words can only point us to what we are, even though there is no "we,"

only the words.

 

To use language and its duality of subject and object to Realize what

is beyond subjects and objects is an exercise in futility, twice

over.

 

There is no doer. The seeker and its guru are imaginary, as is

everything else the mind imagines. And so, as you write below, there

can be no guru any more than there can be a seeker.

 

Everything the mind imagines and projects is an illusion or movie

called maya. In this movie called maya only the movie-screen, called

the Self, is Real.

 

The imaginary "we" are all the same Self and only thoughts can think

otherwise.

 

Thank you for reminding the imaginary "us" yet again -- and from

just another one of all the directions the imaginary Arjuna can

follow to be the imaginary Krishna -- that there is Nothing to seek

because there is no seeker. And even if there were a seeker he can

never ever find what cannot be lost.

 

So why do the imaginary "we" have to take maya seriously when the

worst thing that can happen is that "we, minds" die to wake up, and

the best thing that can happen is that the thought of death will kill

us with laughter.

 

gp

 

 

 

 

-=================================

 

advaitin, "atagrasin" <k1c2@h...> wrote:

>

> From other group posted

article

> It has recently been argued that Traditional Oneness is somehow

> better than Neo-Oneness, or even Pseudo-Oneness. The strangeness of

> this idea exposes the foolishness of trying to give title to that

> which is limitless.

>

> The cunning and manipulative guru mind inevitably objectifies verbal

> expression, and out of that objectifying arises a plethora of

> dogmatic movements all claiming supreme understanding of that which

> cannot be understood.

>

> As a consequence, so-called Traditional Advaita, for instance, is

> just another established religion with a proliferation of teachings

> and literature, all of which very successfully and consistently miss

> the mark. It stands alongside Christianity and Buddhism as one of

> the many systems of personal indoctrination promising the eventual

> spiritual fulfilment. To translate the inexpressible into the

> doctrinal is to attempt to transform a

> song of freedom into a dogma of limitation. When the bird has flown,

> the essence of its song is often mislaid and all we are left with is

> an empty cage."

>

>

> The teaching of "Traditional Advaita" has no relevance to liberation

> because it is born out of a fundamental misconception. Its logical

> and sensibly progressive recommendations include meditation, self-

> enquiry, self-restraint, and to quote "the renunciation of the ego

> and all desire". Of course there is nothing right or wrong with the

> idea of desiring to renounce desire. However, these idealistic

> recommendations and teachings are based on the fundamental

> misconception that there is such a thing as a separate individual

> with free will and the choice to become.

>

> The belief that there is a separate seeker (subject) who can choose

> to attain or become worthy of something called enlightenment

> (object) is a direct denial of abiding oneness (Advaita).

>

> Within the hypnotic dream of separation, the prevailing perception

> is that of the seeker and the sought. The ignorance of this

> perception continues in the search for enlightenment, and inevitably

> the dreamseeker is attracted to a dreamteaching which upholds and

> encourages the same premise of personal discipline and sacrifice

> (seeking) leading to the eventual goal of enlightenment (the

sought).

>

> The recommendation to cultivate understanding and refine something

> called "the mind" (?) is hugely attractive to the dreamseeker

> because it prolongs the very worthy search and thrives on logic,

> detachment, complication, endeavour, hierarchy and exclusivity.

>

> Trying to understand oneness is as futile as trying to fall in love

> with an inch.

>

> There is no possibility of teaching oneness. However, the sharing

> can bring a rediscovery of that which is already known.

>

> If we are to believe recent descriptions of something called "Neo-

> Advaita" as being "the forcing of the truth(?) on unprepared minds"

> or "advising people to stop seeking" or suggesting to people that

> they are "nothing but the mind itself", these teachings, if they

> exist, are equally as dualistic as the "traditional Advaita" they

> were born out of.

>

> This confusion is of course as much an expression of oneness as the

> clarity which exposes it.

>

> All of this silly circus is simply the eternal play of oneness

> apparently seeking itself. It is the wonderful cosmic joke oneness

> plays on itself by pretending to be an individual seeking something

> called "not being an individual".

>

> When it is suddenly and directly rediscovered by no-one that

> liberation brings with it the realisation that there is nothing to

> seek and no-one to become liberated, then there is much

> laughter . . .