[NondualitySalon] Comments (Effort-noneffort)

[Guest guest]

(Madhya responding to recent posts responding to recent posts responding

to...)

>From Petros:

 

So actually, not making

>efforts is the toughest effort of all . . . when someone just starts.

 

Petros, Good day to you! I agree. We must stop imagining Enlightenment and

DO SOMETHING

NOW! "Effort/non-effort" is just a mind-game. The journey of a thousand

miles begins with a first step. So, take the step!

>From Petros: So the non-doing teaching is not a

pescription, it's a phenomenal description of what is impersonally the case

RIGHT NOW.

 

Petros, unfortunately, your comment is based on an erroneous metaphysical

assumption. The 'nondoing teaching' is just that--a teaching. And, as

such, it is also a prescription. That an independent utterly passive

'Brahmin' or Self exists is pure metaphysical speculation. Therefore the

argument that claims that 'non-doing' is a phenomenological 'fact' and

grounds this assumption on the speculation that Ultimate Reality, Brahmin,

or whatever, is absolutely inert and independent of all Doing, is

erroneous. The attempt to divide Being from Intentionality will ALWAYS end

in dualism.

 

from Madhya's essay--

>> What does this mean? Being 'Awake' is a substantively different

>> experience

>> of consciousness. The experience of time and space are completely

>> transformed. The awakened person experiences, in the midst of the flow of

>> temporal events, utter and complete timelessness.

 

Petros writes:

>It is impossible to experience timelessness or spacelessness when you have a

>body and brain that operate in time and space. The brain is not designed to

>experience anything else. Obviously, this impossibility cannot be the basis

>of realization. For instance, I don't recall ever reading anything by

>Ramana or Nisargadatta or Ramesh or Poonjaji that speaks of timelessness as

>an experience or as the basis of realization. Almost all they ever speak of

>(making allowances for their personal styles) is the loss of the sense of

>the "doer" in the mind.

>From Madhya:

 

Here, Petros, you encounter tremendous difficulties. All possible

apprehension of Reality of any variety whatever is only possible to the

person with a body and a brain. A body and brain may sit atop a hill and

meditate for years, experience absorption in that very consciousness that

the 'house' of the body embodies, and speculate that a 'true Self' exists

that is entirely independent from all phenomenological activity, from all

will, knowledge and action. Yes, consciousness, awareness, IS the brain

and body, but the brain and body IS NOT consciousness. One cannot

experience without body and brain. This is an incontrovertible fact. What

one experiences with one's body and brain, now that's another matter.

Fortunately, the few pandits and/or sages that you mention above are a tiny

minority of

all the mystics and sages existing throughout the ages. And, Petros, the

experience of illumination will never be a static affair. Would you wish

it to be so? That would mean an end to all art, poetry, philosophy,

religion. So, my friend, how can you justify your statement that

experiencing time and space, and indeed all Being as NONDIFFERENT, as ONE'S

OWN ABSOLUTELY RECOGNIZABLE BODY, is impossible? On the strength of what

argument can base such a declaration? Remember now, all the words of all

the Sages are precisely that: THE WORDS OF SAGES, and as such, are not

facts, not absolute truths. If you choose to believe the words of this or

that Sage, fine. But do not ABSOLUTIZE the claims of that Sage to be the

ABSOLUTE TRUTH and all other words of all other persons, sages, teachers

therefore, ABSOLUTELY FALSE.

>From Greg Goode:

 

I agree with Petros that awakening is not a particular experience or kind

of experience. That would make it some kind of oceanic psychological

state, a state which came, and which can go.

 

Madhya writes:

 

Greg, I bow to your intelligence. You identify an issue that does need to

be clarified in my essay. Awakening, however, is BOTH a particular

experience AND a kind of experience. Indeed, it cannot help but be at

once, each. Particular, it will always be because only the particular

person experiences anything like enlightenment at all. And, a 'kind' of

experience because while all enlightenment experiences vary between persons

and are influenced by the paths of realization encouraged by differing

tradition and philosophies, patterns of enlightened Experience will always

bear significant similiarities. If not so, then Enlightenment would be an

utterly meaningless concept and become mired in caprice and chaos.

 

I must question, Greg, your mention of an 'oceanic psychological state',

not because I feel that the comment relates to the exposition found in my

essay, (I don't believe that it does), but because I wonder just what this

state might be. Freud, of course, made mention of just such a 'state' in

Civilization and Its Discontents. However, his description and analysis of

this 'state' has long been thoroughly critiqued and all but discarded. So,

I am not certain how your allusion may apply to the overall discussion.

 

More from Greg Goode:

 

But here's a question: are you sure that these teachers taught nothing

other than that awakening is the loss of doership? Put another way: as a

teaching tool, is lack of doership a SUFFICIENT description of what these

teachers speak of? In Western Psychology, the behaviorists have argued

that all thoughts and acts are nothing other than responses from

pre-existing stimuli. That too is lack of doer-ship. So does this make

B.F. Skinner enlightened?

 

Here's another thing about non-doership as a teaching tool. I have several

friends who have attended Satsangs in my city where non-doership is the

principal teaching. They take themselves as non-doers, so don't feel pride

or anguish or shame or other emotions related to doing. But they take

themselves as someone who RECEIVES the results of impersonally performed

actions. They complain thusly: "Well, no one did this, my dad died, and

I'm stuck with the pain!"

 

Madhya writes-

 

Greg, I entirely agree with these two paragraphs. This is an

important issue, I believe, and one that I am at present studying and

contemplating. I hope, as time passes, to also have something intelligent

to say regarding this issue of the 'ego' and the sense of doer/nondoership.

 

For the present, allow me the following. A principle of Kashmir Shaivite

self-realization is that of Pratyabhijna or Recognition. For the Realized

Self, according to Shaivism, all experience is imbued with a pervasive

'light' of familiarity. This means that all experience of every kind is

recognized as intimately familiar by the realized person. The

self-recognizing person 're-cognizes' h/her experience to 'see' that all of

Being is One and that that One is h/her own personal nature.

 

To achieve this quality of Nondual consciousness, one need only recognize

the

particulars of one's experience from the essence of all experience. The

'essence' of the ego, stripped of all particularities, is recognition of

what is innately familiar, what 'belongs'. The heart of self-recognition,

according to Kashmir Shaivism, and the quality of that realization as it

inheres in aspirants, is just this re-cognizing experience of 'familiarly

belonging.'

 

It is possible to apprehend all experience as nondual when one experiences

all experience as universally 'personal.' Thus, by dis-identifying the

'ego' of

with the particular and recognizing the universal

'belongingness' of all experience, one re-cognizes oneself as pure nondual

experience, characterized by the capacity to recognize that all experience

is equallly Same and Different, differentiated and undifferentiated.

 

Finally, Dr. Lance E. Nelson comments in, Self-Realization in Kashmir

Shaivism:

 

"Although my research focus was on Advaita Vedanta, of which I had made a

thorough study, I was becoming increasingly aware of nondual Kashmir

Shaivism as expressing a more profound mystical realization. Put briefly,

classical Advaita achieves its nonduality by denying the reality of

objective existence, which is excluded from its statically conceived

Absolute. It aims ultimately for a state of isolation (kaivalya) in pure

spirit, from which the world is obliterated. Shaivism, on the other hand,

offers a more thoroughgoing nondualism in which the universe is

accepted--and experienced--as divine Consciousness itself in dynamic

motion. This allows the Shaiva yogins to enjoy the Infinite as a vivid,

vibrant reality at the level of the senses."

 

 

 

 

 

------

ONElist: where the world talks!

 

Join a new list today.

[Guest guest]

Let me begin by saying, Madhya, that I really enjoy discussing with you.

You have exemplary electronic manners, and carry on a focused, intelligent,

scholarly discussion which is a pleasure to take part in.

 

At 02:04 PM 6/7/99 -0700, Madhya Nandi wrote:

>>From Petros: So the non-doing teaching is not a

>pescription, it's a phenomenal description of what is impersonally the case

>RIGHT NOW.

 

Madhya, the above particular comment was me (Greg), not Petros.

>Petros, unfortunately, your comment is based on an erroneous metaphysical

>assumption. The 'nondoing teaching' is just that--a teaching. And, as

>such, it is also a prescription. That an independent utterly passive

>'Brahmin' or Self exists is pure metaphysical speculation. Therefore the

>argument that claims that 'non-doing' is a phenomenological 'fact' and

>grounds this assumption on the speculation that Ultimate Reality, Brahmin,

>or whatever, is absolutely inert and independent of all Doing, is

>erroneous. The attempt to divide Being from Intentionality will ALWAYS end

>in dualism.

 

What assumption? We agree that the non-doing teaching is little more than

a teaching. The way Ramesh and Nisargadatta and Francis Lucille and others

teach it, it is a description in phenomenality (it uses words and concepts,

after all). It describes that personal doer-ship cannot exist, even though

it appears to. It doesn't exist because no do-er exists (even though

do-ers appear to exist), and also because actions are the automatic outcome

of thoughts/values/emotions, and none of these are chosen by the entity,

even if there were one.

 

And because no do-er exists, these teachers aren't making a recommendation

to seekers to actually *do* something. I've heard people ask them (not

Nisargadatta) this very question, and they say (in some words or other)

that it's not prescriptive. So in this way, it is descriptive. When

realization occurs, doership is not lost, nor does it disappear. There is

impersonal understanding that do-ership can never have existed in the first

place.

 

And you do point to a subtle point here - the non-doership teaching does

also function in a prescriptive way. When a teacher is talking about

non-doership, the ones listening seem to believe that they are do-ers.

Therefore, they want to do something to achieve non-doership! When they

"do" achieve non-doership, they realize that they never really did

anything, ever! And neither did anyone else. THEN they see how the

teaching was descriptive all along.

 

>>From Madhya:

 

(taken a bit out of context, the surrounding parts snipped off)

>Yes, consciousness, awareness, IS the brain

>and body, but the brain and body IS NOT consciousness.

 

Why isn't consciousness also the apple, the tree, and the teacup? How can

you limit where/what consciousness is? Also, if the body/brain complex is

physical and consciousness is not physical, then how can the extent of

consciousness be limited by the body/brain complex? Would you say that

consciousness is inside of or coextensive with the brain? And if you admit

the brain, then why not the body, the human energy field surrounding the

body, and so on? If something is separate from consciousness, then we're

not talking about non-dualism, but rather some kind of psychology. If

nothing is separate from consciousness, then how can consciousness BE or

HAPPEN BECAUSE OF anything?

> One cannot

>experience without body and brain. This is an incontrovertible fact.

 

Is it? Two things:

 

1. What about subtle and astral entities, devas, poltergeists, deities

etc.? Ramana Maharshi said that they are as real as you or I. They lack

bodies and brains, yet they are said to experience things.

 

2. Even if physical bodies were the only locus of experience, WHAT is it

that makes the one who owns the body/brain/mind the same as the one who

experiences things? When you add up all the descriptive factors that make

up the functioning apparatus (body/mind complex, which includes the brain),

what is left over to make it anyONE's body/mind? You see, we can't say

that someone experiences *with* the body/mind. The one we would point to

either cannot be found, or we must say that that one JUST IS the body/mind.

 

>>From Greg Goode:

>

>I agree with Petros that awakening is not a particular experience or kind

>of experience. That would make it some kind of oceanic psychological

>state, a state which came, and which can go.

>

>Madhya writes:

>

>You identify an issue that does need to be clarified in my essay.

Which are you referring to?

>Awakening, however, is BOTH a particular

>experience AND a kind of experience. Indeed, it cannot help but be at

>once, each.

 

I agree that some conventional teacher-talk sounds this way. Let's say for

a moment that it really is both a partcular experience and a kind of

experience. If it goes away, as all experiences do, what good is it? Why

is it any better than winning the lottery or a thrilling bicycle ride?

Most sages talk about it as something that is not even found, but certainly

never lost. More like the nature of reality itself. In that kind of talk,

it might have a beginning point, but no endpoint (some talk of its end when

death appears).

> Particular, it will always be because only the particular

>person experiences anything like enlightenment at all.

 

Can you cite textual examples from the non-dual traditions to support this?

 

Most non-dual teachings assert that enlightenment is the END of the person,

so that no one ever experiences it. If it were not the end of the person,

then how could the teaching be non-dual? Even Andrew Cohen, who used to

personalize and psychologize the notion of enlightenment more than anyone

else on the Satsang talk circuit, changed the name of his foundation from

FACE (Friends of Andrew Cohen Everywhere) to something like the Foundation

of Impersonal Enlightenment.

>I must question, Greg, your mention of an 'oceanic psychological state',

>not because I feel that the comment relates to the exposition found in my

>essay, (I don't believe that it does), but because I wonder just what this

>state might be.

 

Cf. Suzanne Segal's COLLISION WITH THE INFINITE or RELAXING INTO CLEAR

SEEING. There's also a book by one of Gangaji's disciples, Amber, whose

title I can't find right now. A state in which oneness and unity of

everything are experienced. But it's not non-dualism, since where there's

oneness, there's two-ness.

>Madhya writes-

>

> Greg, I entirely agree with these two paragraphs. This is an

>important issue, I believe, and one that I am at present studying and

>contemplating. I hope, as time passes, to also have something intelligent

>to say regarding this issue of the 'ego' and the sense of doer/nondoership.

>

>For the present, allow me the following. A principle of Kashmir Shaivite

>self-realization is that of Pratyabhijna or Recognition. For the Realized

>Self, according to Shaivism, all experience is imbued with a pervasive

>'light' of familiarity. This means that all experience of every kind is

>recognized as intimately familiar by the realized person. The

>self-recognizing person 're-cognizes' h/her experience to 'see' that all of

>Being is One and that that One is h/her own personal nature.

 

I like this (except for the "personal" part), because I agree that advaita

teachings can leave one attached to the absolute, and don't have an easy

antidote for that. I don't know much about Kashmir Shaivism, however.

Perhaps there is an antidote there. Zen teachings are non-dual, and are

full of warnings on just this point: attachment to the absolute.

 

>To achieve this quality of Nondual consciousness, one need only recognize

>the

>particulars of one's experience from the essence of all experience.

 

The ironic thing is, all experience is non-dual consciousness, even hate

and fear. If we say it's not, and that some experiences are special, we're

stuck back in the coming-and-going problem. If we're talking about

non-duality, then any experience will do. It's the fact of experience, not

the identity of the experienced. The "experienced" or "seen" is never

separate from the seer, even if it seems to be. The separateness or hate

or fear is just itself a non-separate experience that throws up a label

saying "this is separate, this is separate." Just another non-separate

object of consciousness...

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

Madhya Nandi wrote:

> For the present, allow me the following. A principle of Kashmir Shaivite

> self-realization is that of Pratyabhijna or Recognition. For the Realized

> Self, according to Shaivism, all experience is imbued with a pervasive

> 'light' of familiarity. This means that all experience of every kind is

> recognized as intimately familiar by the realized person. The

> self-recognizing person 're-cognizes' h/her experience to 'see' that all of

> Being is One and that that One is h/her own personal nature.

 

Jelke: This 'idea' exists also in Advaita Vedanta; it is called 'One's

natural state'.

> To achieve this quality of Nondual consciousness, one need only recognize

> the

> particulars of one's experience from the essence of all experience. The

> 'essence' of the ego, stripped of all particularities, is recognition of

> what is innately familiar, what 'belongs'. The heart of self-recognition,

> according to Kashmir Shaivism, and the quality of that realization as it

> inheres in aspirants, is just this re-cognizing experience of 'familiarly

> belonging.'

 

Jelke. We belong as members of a family because we have a father and

mother in common. We belong as members of the Universe because we have a

father (God?) and mother (Nature?) in common. The ultimate expanded

family!

> It is possible to apprehend all experience as nondual when one experiences

> all experience as universally 'personal.' Thus, by dis-identifying the

> 'ego' of

> with the particular and recognizing the universal

> 'belongingness' of all experience, one re-cognizes oneself as pure nondual

> experience, characterized by the capacity to recognize that all experience

> is equallly Same and Different, differentiated and undifferentiated.

 

Jelke: Identifying with the Universal i.s.o. the particular.

> Finally, Dr. Lance E. Nelson comments in, Self-Realization in Kashmir

> Shaivism:

>

> "Although my research focus was on Advaita Vedanta, of which I had made a

> thorough study, I was becoming increasingly aware of nondual Kashmir

> Shaivism as expressing a more profound mystical realization. Put briefly,

> classical Advaita achieves its nonduality by denying the reality of

> objective existence, which is excluded from its statically conceived

> Absolute. It aims ultimately for a state of isolation (kaivalya) in pure

> spirit, from which the world is obliterated. Shaivism, on the other hand,

> offers a more thoroughgoing nondualism in which the universe is

> accepted--and experienced--as divine Consciousness itself in dynamic

> motion. This allows the Shaiva yogins to enjoy the Infinite as a vivid,

> vibrant reality at the level of the senses."

 

Jelke: I'm afraid Mr. Nelson is mistaken in his understanding of

Advaita. Shankara wrote:

1. Brahman is real,

2. The world is unreal,

3. Brahman is the world.

 

Shankara didn't stop with 2) as Mr. Nelson apparently did.

As I see it, the 'world' is dualistic: it has an outside and an inside.

Looked at from the outside, (which is the normal way), we see all kinds

of different and separate 'entities': sun, moon, stars, plants, animals,

human beings of all kinds. This is the world that is maya, illusion,

unreal. Looked at from the inside, we see the common Reality 'behind'

all those 'entities. Seen that way, the world is real.

Somewhere in the Upanishads it says: 'Nature made the senses look

outwards. Now and then a courageous soul looks within and becomes

immortal'.(Or something to that effect!)

 

Now it may be that in classical Vedanta the emphasis was put on the

unreality of the world (which would be understandable in a country where

living conditions for the majority were very harsh to say the least).

For us, in the West, with much higher standards of living, it is much

easier to see the world as real!

 

Re. your first post:

 

Imagine being destitute, down to your last penny, bills to pay etc.

Just as you were thinking of 'ending it all', the phone rings. A

neighbourhood bank wants to know whether your name is 'John Doe'. You

answer 'yes' and the banker goes on telling you that they have been

looking for you for the last twenty yrs. At that time, a rich uncle left

his entire fortune to you without your knowledge. Now you are rich! Just

like that: one moment poor as a church mouse, the next rich beyond your

wildest dreams!

But did anything really happen? Weren't you rich all along but didn't

know about it, thinking you were poor? So what changed? Isn't it just

awareness of the way things really are as opposed to the dreamworld you

lived in?

And isn't this the way it is with all of us: living in an illusory world

identifying oneself with a mortal body whereas in reality we are the

immortal Self? (Temporarily 'encased' in a body!)

 

Regards,

Jelke.

[Guest guest]

----------

 

 

((>Jelke Wispelwey <wispj

>

>Madhya Nandi wrote:

>

>> For the present, allow me the following. A principle of Kashmir Shaivite

>> self-realization is that of Pratyabhijna or Recognition. For the Realized

>> Self, according to Shaivism, all experience is imbued with a pervasive

>> 'light' of familiarity. This means that all experience of every kind is

>> recognized as intimately familiar by the realized person. The

>> self-recognizing person 're-cognizes' h/her experience to 'see' that all of

>> Being is One and that that One is h/her own personal nature.

>

>Jelke: This 'idea' exists also in Advaita Vedanta; it is called 'One's

>natural state'.))

 

Madhya writes:

 

No, Jelke, it is not the same idea or realization at all. Did you read the

quote at the end of the original post by Lance Nelson? Jelke, my friend, it

is very easy to take a comment out of context and re-interprete that comment

using one's own preconceptions. It is best, I believe, to reach an

understanding of the message as a whole, to recognize the major theses that

comprise the 'heart' of the argument, and formulate objections based on that

quality of interpretation.

 

Now, the 'heart' of Recognition, as I attempt--preliminarily, I admit--to

explain in no way suggests that one ought to 'negate' the ego--in fact,

there is no negation at all in this variety of realization. The essence of

"recognizing" is recognizing that one's own unique identity--personal

identity-- "me-ness" is the very possibility of anything existing at all.

For Shaivism, "The absolute Citi (Consciousness) out of its own free will is

the cause of the siddhi (ongoing manifestation) of the Universe." (Sutra

One, Pratnabhijnahrdyam) Sutra Two states: "By the power of her own free

will does she (Citi-consciousness) unfold the universe upon her own screen."

Therefore, the aspirant does not seek to eliminate the 'doer' but rather to

recognize the non-difference of all doership as h/her own personal Universal

Nature.

 

This is not at all equatable to advaita vedanta's metaphysical explication

of self-realization. Furthermore, the manner in which "enlightenment" is

experienced is inextricably intwined with the context of understanding that

engenders that variety of "enlightenment." Thus, while all enlightenments

may share similar qualities and patterns, subtle but important differences

will always exist--and remain very important matters to the event of

enlightenment as such.

 

As for your differences with Dr. Nelson's comments, he is on the faculty of

Religious Studies at the University of San Diego.

 

Now, Jelke, you are guilty of making unsubstantiated pronouncements. Where

are you quoting Shankara from? Is yours an authoritative position on

Shankara? Can you back up your support of Shankara's comments with good

argumentation? Can you account for all of the other counter-threads of

Vedanta that have marked the fairly lengthy history of that tradition?

 

I am afraid that your comments regarding Shankara and Vedanta are extremely

innaccurate and not at all well-reasoned.

 

 

Madhya

[Guest guest]

Madhya Nandi wrote:

> Now, the 'heart' of Recognition, as I attempt--preliminarily, I admit--to

> explain in no way suggests that one ought to 'negate' the ego--in fact,

> there is no negation at all in this variety of realization. The essence of

> "recognizing" is recognizing that one's own unique identity--personal

> identity-- "me-ness" is the very possibility of anything existing at all.

 

Jelke: Not exactly clear what you mean here. Do you mean that the

existence of the world depends on me? What happens to the world when I

die? My personal world would disappear, yes, but isn't this what Advaita

teaches, that the object goes when the subject does? And only Reality

remains?

> For Shaivism, "The absolute Citi (Consciousness) out of its own free will is

> the cause of the siddhi (ongoing manifestation) of the Universe." (Sutra

> One, Pratnabhijnahrdyam) Sutra Two states: "By the power of her own free

> will does she (Citi-consciousness) unfold the universe upon her own screen."

 

Jelke: Not trying to be picky here, just trying to understand. Really!

Are there then three realities, the Citi, the siddhi and the screen?

> Therefore, the aspirant does not seek to eliminate the 'doer' but rather to

> recognize the non-difference of all doership as h/her own personal Universal

> Nature.

 

Yes, The Atman = Brahman. Or do I understand you wrong again? <gr>

> This is not at all equatable to advaita vedanta's metaphysical explication

> of self-realization. Furthermore, the manner in which "enlightenment" is

> experienced is inextricably intwined with the context of understanding that

> engenders that variety of "enlightenment." Thus, while all enlightenments

> may share similar qualities and patterns, subtle but important differences

> will always exist--and remain very important matters to the event of

> enlightenment as such.

 

Jelke: Why are differences important? In everyday life, yes, vive la

difference! To me, enlightenment means to see no differences, no

'others'.

> As for your differences with Dr. Nelson's comments, he is on the faculty of

> Religious Studies at the University of San Diego.

 

Jelke: Does that make him an expert in spiritual matters? How many

theologians do you know that are (were) enlightened? Remember that 12yr.

old uneducated carpenter's son asking the theologians of his day: 'But

do you UNDERSTAND what you read?' They were astounded and couldn't

answer him!

 

> Now, Jelke, you are guilty of making unsubstantiated pronouncements. Where

> are you quoting Shankara from? Is yours an authoritative position on

> Shankara? Can you back up your support of Shankara's comments with good

> argumentation? Can you account for all of the other counter-threads of

> Vedanta that have marked the fairly lengthy history of that tradition?

 

Jelke: No, on all counts! Actually I quoted from memory out of 'Talks'

by Ramana Maharshi. He is considered to be a modern day Advaitin and

somebody asked him about Sankara. His answer made sense to me (but may

very well be a misrepresentation of what Sankara actually said!). And

does it really matter who says what? As long as 'what' is true?

> I am afraid that your comments regarding Shankara and Vedanta are extremely

> innaccurate and not at all well-reasoned.

>

> Madhya

 

Jelke: Not being a scholar in the subject, that may very well be! At

least as far as accuracy goes. As for 'not well-reasoned' I didn't know

I did much reasoning. Just stated my opinion which is practically the

same as that of Ramana Maharshi. (His, however, is not opinion but based

on personal experience; that's why I trust him!)

 

Regards,

Jelke.