To Christiana -(aka Ahimsa and Western Ethics)

[Guest guest]

Hi Christiana,

 

Thanks for the nice note that gave many people a lot to think about.

 

You write:

>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.

 

and a bit later,

>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.

 

You bring up lots of good points. Sometimes, the Emperor's clothes just

need to come off. Thanks for starting the process!

 

I agree with you here about these ways of speaking. It can be bewildering

and frustrating to hear this stuff sometimes, but you don't have to believe

anyone's claims. Sometimes these claims are mimicry, based on a way of

speaking heard from a guru, read in Nisargadatta's I AM THAT, something

from Ramana Maharshi, etc. Many times these claims are based on

misunderstandings. The non-dual becomes misunderstood as personalized,

psychologized. Non-duality is not just a psychological way of looking at

the world. If it were just a psychology, then one-upsmanship WOULD be the

name of the game. It would be like an Anthony Robbins seminar, like this:

"I feel non-dual, and you don't. Come up to MY mountaintop, experience MY

way of looking at things!" This is dualism, an attempt to create a pretty

picture for ones' self, and just a certain oceanic, marshmallow-y,

cotton-candy way of experiencing.

 

But non-dualism also entails arguments about how things are, regardless of

any kinds of experience. In this way, it is a metaphysical philosophy. If

the arguments are good ones, if the pointers are good, then what's true for

"one" person is true for all. If Ramana Maharshi is the Self, then so is

everyone else, whether there are thoughts to the contrary or not. I've

heard something like this attributed to the Buddha:

 

"When I was enlightened, all beings, past, present,

and future, were enlightened."

 

So it's done, now. For everyone. It happened before the Buddha, because

it was the way things have always been. No "one" has ever been separate.

 

Other claims end up being about how a person feels or thinks. As one's

understanding and love become more global, feelings and thoughts will be

lighter, richer, sweeter. As the belief that "I am a separate entity"

diminish in strength, sweetness and lightness increase until they are there

all the time, as the source of experience. As the belief in separation

diminishes in strength, then there will be fewer and less intense

EXPERIENCES of separation. Not experiences OF one-ness or cotton candy.

But a sweetness that pervades all the time, even during unpleasant times

like when a person stubs their toe, or gets a huge phone bill or IRS audit,

or loses a loved one. These feelings are all very nice, but they don't

prove anything. All this is very nice, but no matter how bad or separate a

person FEELS, it still isn't true that this person REALLY IS separate,

hanging out in the cold, isolated, alone. If anyone is "there," everyone

is there, because according to advaita, there just ain't two.

 

>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?

 

What a great question! Later on you speak of different kinds of ahimsa,

whether they are unduly filtered or somehow inaccurate or tainted. I'd say

that all concepts of ahimsa are filtered through intellectual and cultural

screens, just as all concepts are (everything in this e-mail is a concept,

all filtered, etc.)

 

Use any interpretation of ahimsa that resonates with you. If you want to

compare concepts of ahimsa against your understanding of non-dualism, you

can ask yourself,

 

"Does this concept of ahimsa make me

feel MORE SEPARATE or LESS SEPARATE?"

 

Choose the one that lessens the feeling of separation.

 

I'd also say that ahimsa is one of the most general of all ethics, being

easily translated across cultures and to a very wide spectrum of levels of

awareness.

 

In the more orthodox forms of spirituality that lead up to non-dual

teachings, ethics function in several ways:

 

1. They purify the mind by being incentives to act less egotistically.

2. They make your life peaceful. If you don't harm others, they will

more likely leave you alone. Fewer agitations, more time to

contemplate.

3. They will make it easier to understand the non-dual teachings even

intellectually. Because the aspirant isn't acting egocentrically,

they won't interpret the intellectual understanding of the non-

dual teaching as something personal, based on an entity.

 

I value your heartfelt contributions Christiana. I'll welcome you back if

you return to the list. I'd like to keep in touch. Please write if you

feel like it.

 

Love,

 

--Greg