Roger/nonduality and the Unknowable

[Guest guest]

>>Dan said: One can't still the mind sufficiently. It's not possible.

> > Only Original Stillness will do :-)

>

>R:

>Dan's statement makes sense from a 'Zen' perspective, and I'm probably

>taking his comments out of context. :-) :-)

 

D: Hi Roger. Yes, your way of discussing this seems to involve

"Roger's interpretation," but then "my" statement seems to involve

"Dan's" interpretation. Can't be helped, I suppose. :-)

>For me, the interesting angle is not to competitively pit NonDuality against

>Yoga/effort, but to ask when is subtle effort appropriate and when is

>NonDuality appropriate? And which style of subtle effort should one use and

>I think this varies by individual.

 

D: Roger, the way you discuss this, nonduality becomes something that is

used at one time, and yoga something that is used at another time.

One uses effortlessness, and the other uses effort. However, this

very way of discussing "pits" one against the other, therefore

making nonduality into something dualistic. Nonduality can't be

something that is used. It can't be employed at one time and not

at another. Nonduality is what every moment of space-time-experience

arises from and returns to. It is never absent from any moment of

space-time-experience. It has no use, no value, from the usual

perspectives of forming meaning and value.

>Both are absolutely essential, Yoga/subtle effort does not lead directly to

>the goal, but it is an essential intermediate step in stilling the mind.

>Without the intermediate preparation the final step most likely won't

>happen.

 

D: How can a final step be nonduality, if it is distinuished from

a previous step that is not nonduality? There can only be one step,

and that one step is the beginningless beginning, and endless

end. Its end is in its beginning.

 

If there is nonduality

and less than nonduality, then the nonduality being discussed

is dualistic. It can't be a step-wise process. It can't be gained,

hence has never been lost. Thus, words can never provide its

essence. The only point that I can see to discussing nonduality

is simply to express, and to allow that expression to have

whatever resonance it has wherever it is received. There is no

competition of nonduality with anything. It's not against anything.

It can't be against yoga, or stilling the mind. It can't even

be against nonyoga or movement of the mind. If it could be

against anything, or for anything, it wouldn't be nonduality.

My expression of This is admittedly short of the mark. But

then, so was Lao Tzu's. :-)

>Egoic attachment is such a clever, cunning, deceptive thing. The brain is so

>skillful at acquiring security & advancing the biological agenda of the

>individual, that this physical brain and it's seeking mechanisms can hold

>onto thoughts about NonDuality, just as with other prejudices, and fail to

>have the direct experience of NonDuality.

 

D: I agree very much. Any time "mind" believes it has it, or is it,

something happens that questions this. If "mind" is careful, and

doesn't jump to conclusions, it sees these kinds of questions

of its own nature, beliefs, and reality - constantly.

>>Even advanced seekers (Xan posted an example about students of Papaji) are

>known to mistake an intellectual enlightenment for completion, or to mistake

>psychic/mystical experiences as completion. Flashy mystical experiences or

>genuine psychic powers can co-exist with egoic attachment!

 

D: Only a person who is fully not-a-person is able to directly

"know" the Unknowable (nonduality). Who is the person

who is fully not-a-person? What is it like

to be this, how would one know if one encounters this?

These are unanswerable questions. I offer these questions

only to suggest that this Unknowable is not to be found

in any person's experiences, in anyone's statements,

nor in negations of anyone's statements.

>I appreciate your comment "it seems each person is attracted to that

>practice which is useful for them". This style of expansive loving

>positivity, complete in itself, is a natural complement to the style of

>leaving no stone unturned in passionate questioning.

 

D: Good point. Everything complements everything else.

As Kurt Vonnegut said, "so it goes..."

 

Much love,

Dan