levels and translations (aka Ahimsa and Western Ethics)

[Guest guest]

Greg.. I've extracted the following pieces from your recent post..

 

"It has perplexed many Western commentators that non-dualist teachings

don't have strong ethical teachings. Along the same lines as Tim and

Harsha said, Ethics, the need for Ethics, go along with the belief that

we are separate. If this is truly not believed, then ahimsa is the

spontaneous outcome. Ahimsa and other precepts become a DESCRIPTION of

the functioning of phenomenality rather than a proscriptive/prescriptive

set of guidelines.

 

"But ethics also function prescriptively in all non-dual traditions in

earlier stages. Most non-dual traditions usually require long

"apprenticeships" in the more formal branches of the religions. In

Buddhism, there are sets of precepts that one takes. In formal

advaita-vedanta, there are the traditions of the karma-kanda (karma yoga

and bhakti yoga and following the letter of the Vedic scriptures) that

must be internalized BEFORE the aspirant is accepted to learn the

non-dual Vedanta. In Judaism one must "swallow the Torah" before being

taught the Kabbala. In Christianity one learns this same stuff in

Sunday school. And by the time one starts the contemplative mystic path

such as St. Theresa's or St. John of the Cross's or the anonymous author

of the Cloud of Unknowing, these commandments and ethical teachings are

usually quite well internalized. In all these more formal traditions,

one usually must satisfy one's teacher that these preliminary aspects

are not still an issue. Then, by the time one is practicing non-dual

inquiry/contemplation, just the inquiry is what takes place."

.o00o.

 

Christiana: Greg, I really appreciated the wisdom of your overview

regarding the enormity of the spectrum of consciousness and perhaps,

even in honoring the various stages we often need to (ethically)

traverse before we might fully embody the unity inherent in Ahimsa

(beyond the lenses of translation). As these lists are not 'formal' but

informal, I wonder how we might fully honor where we each are, in

background imprinting and within our own integration of Awareness.

 

On these lists, I've observed many who seem to claim that they embody a

state of non-separate awareness, who therefore, seem to assume they are

operating from the 'phenomenology' of Ahimsa. Within certain moments,

their light truly points to what is Known.

>From the, albeit perhaps, limited platform of my observatory... I have

also, however, witnessed judgement, one-upmanship, dismissal,

intellectualization, and an assumed adherence to (what appears to be)

formula even while speaking of no self, or no boundaries. These are

swords which wound until we know no-thing. I still, alas, largely reside

in a world of things and selves.. in spite of my Self. I have wondered

at the ground of Ahimsa within the appearance of these wounds. Is there

an ethic which traverses levels of Awareness?

 

The reason I mention this is that there are many people on lists who

read and post rarely. It seems that the essence of the predominance of

posts is of the 'top of the mountain' (so to speak.. likely a very non

non-dual image). What I mean by this is that the 'wisdom' of the

transcendance is spoken of often here and while it has *enormous* value

as instruction and inspiration, it is, as yet, not quite where many of

us likely live our daily lives.

 

In a dialogue with a friend who is a Zen priest, this topic of levels

and translation came up. He was amused by how most Westerners

approaching Buddhism coming from Judeo-Christian backgrounds, thinking

that they have eschewed their history, are nonetheless attempting to

morph Buddhism into the very patterns of ritual and rules and social

matrices which they think they have left behind. In the book _The Monk

and the Philosopher_, Jean Francois Revel states that perhaps, in years

to come, the greatest significance of this period in history will be the

infusion of the Eastern practice of meditation into the Western practice

of Logic. We may, indeed, be participating in a soup pot large enough

to include and dissolve all idea strucures.

 

So, it might be with this leaning into (or relaxing into) non-dual

Awareness or the facets of understanding related to the phenomenology of

Ahimsa. We each approach each moment from within the lens of our Present

and likely the imprint of our past. In Essence, this linearity is

nonexistant; in the appearance of *now*, it is, however, where I find I

am, and is absolutely perfect.

 

I approach Ahimsa.. clearly from within the matrix of my imprinting

related to the compassionate heart. This is not precept, but a direct

Knowing of the Essence which flows through me and within which I

dissolve. When I dissolve, I taste the fire of Love. More often than

not, however, I need re-minders (practice) as the fear-imprints of

acculturated self are pervasive. The question might be, is my

orientation within Ahimsa 'pure' or a translation? If the end result is

the same.. does it matter?

 

To another's translation, I may appear to be mired in the the duality

which *needs* separation for one to be in relation to other... or for

intellect to be in relation with compassion .. or for male to be in

relation to female. I say... "just so" ... in tandem with "not so".

Just so.. in my daily bread of grist... not so when the bread has become

com-union. This, for me, is the trajectory of personal ethics.

 

One enormous value for me about these lists is that I am continuously

given the opportunity to catch "myself" contracted around an idea or an

emotion.. to Witness the release of the binding and the increased

spaciousness.

 

I wonder, however, if there might be a reticence to speak about the

ideas and emotions we still catch ourselves within (from the spectrum of

our individual templates), due to the appearance of the contraction

around the "top of the mountain". In other words.. if it doesn't sound

like it fits within the matrix of acceptable nondual tenets, it might be

withheld or slapped down.

 

There may be 'no there there'.. but I reside *here*.

 

Submitted with respect for the spectrum of the illusion of the many

within the One (and hoping Greg, that I have not strayed too far from

the intent of your post.. or Harsha from the intent of your list).

 

with love,

Christiana

[Guest guest]

"Christiana P. Duranczyk" wrote:

> Is there an ethic which traverses levels of Awareness?

 

Good only seeks to destroy that which it peceives/judges as evil. Evil only

seekd to destroy that which is perceives/judges as evil. Neither good nor

evil seek to destroy that which they consider good. Be Good.

 

Thou shall have no other Gods before 'goodness'. God is Good.

 

Thou shall not take the name of the Lord, your 'good', in vain.

(do not do evil in the name of good for there is no good in evil)

 

Gentle Peace.

 

Tim Harris

[Guest guest]

>Tim Harris <harris

>

>"Christiana P. Duranczyk" wrote:

>

>> Is there an ethic which traverses levels of Awareness?

>

>Good only seeks to destroy that which it peceives/judges as evil.

 

"Do not judge, lest you be judged."

[Guest guest]

Dharma wrote:

>

> Dharma <fisher1

>

> >Tim Harris <harris

> >

>

> >"Christiana P. Duranczyk" wrote:

> >

> >> Is there an ethic which traverses levels of Awareness?

> >

> >Good only seeks to destroy that which it peceives/judges as evil.

>

> "Do not judge, lest you be judged."

 

Someone, something, please judge me, judge me... I wonder how long i may

go around to lest myself be judged.

 

Is there a level of awareness where there is no lest to be judged? If

so, how can ethic _lead_ me towards it?

 

Antoine