Intellectualism vs Reality consideration

[Guest guest]

Dear friends,

 

 

In a reply to Dharma a few days ago, I brought up the subject of what I called

intellectualism. For the sake of clarity I thought it might be useful to

elaborate somewhat on how I use this word as well as contrasting it with what

may be called reality consideration.

 

 

Intellectualism is fundamentally speculative. By this I mean that thought has

the ability to project aspects of its own content beyond itself and then

experience these projections as though they are both real and some’thing’ to

comment about. Thought may, for instance, create the concepts of god, heaven,

hell, enlightenment, wholeness, truth etc and project these as somethings which

exist independently of itself. Once projected as not of itself and with the

status of having actual independent existence, thought now starts to speculate

about its own creations, as though they were real.

 

 

Part of the great illusion of human life is not only this delusion of separation

which is a single process within thought, but experienced as two separately

existing things,( the observer and the observed), but more fundamentally, is the

fact that this process usually takes place unrecognised. We are generally

completely unaware that we are in fact the active participants in this subtle

(or gross) from of dualistic creations (acitivity). Being unaware of what we are

doing, we generally believe explicitly in the projections of thought presenting

itself as truth.

 

 

Our gods, metaphysical creations, assumptions about truth and non-duality, how

great or small the guru is, our own I-conscious process, and in fact just about

every aspect of such activity in daily life, all of these must be seen as part

of this delusiory process within thought. Yet we live our lives on the basis of

this delusion where thought is under the impression that it has come to

rational, reasonable and acceptable definitions of these things. We get people

going around telling people who and what god is. Others explain the origin of

the universe. The one is called science, the other metaphysics. Both have their

origin in speculative thinking. Neither is more real than the other.

 

 

So my personal uneasiness of explaining all the ‘truths’ about non-dualism and

wholeness in such detail as some of us tend to do on this forum, has been

mentioned before. But I just wonder to which extent these clear descriptions and

logically correct statements ABOUT non-duality which we so often find here, are

in fact DESCRIPTIONS of the author’s actual disposition, and to which extent

they are speculative. If the latter, then according to the above description of

intellectualism, they can only serve to prolong the illusion, simply because as

such they form in intrinsic part of, and is the very stuff of which illusion is

made. I think we must be sensitised to this possibility lest we delude ourselves

further in our generally deluded present state.

 

 

Reality consideration is the exact opposite to intellectualism in that this

process of enquiry refuses to be deluded by the apparent reality of the

projections of thought. Enquiry is made on the basis of direct personal

experience, and is fully alive to the dangers inherent in intellectualism.

Reality consideration has a further advantage. Because it concerns itself with

personal experience and present evidence, rather than thought creations mistaken

for reality, it can be applied, and is a relevant process anywhere along the way

of self-enquiry. Nothing is too low or too high to consider. In fact low or high

are seen to be further projections of thought, and as such part of that which

have to be transcended. Reality consideration is not speculative. And if thought

does operate in a speculative way, reality consideration is fully cognisant of

this and let it be, without the complications of mistaking it for truth. The

usefulness of such type of consideration in this forum, is that we have to be

able to ‘walk our talk’ lest we fall into the realm of speculative ‘truth’. And

it does not matter where we stand in our individual search or self-enquiry, we

will not be fooled if we act from that which has integrity. And that which has

integrity is of necessity always an aspect of ourselves as long as we do not

stand in the freedom of and as the wholeness of being.

 

 

This is why I said to Dan that if no-one has ever told us of the non-dual

condition of being, judged by the present evidence of our LIVING REALITY, would

we have been able to discuss this matter of wholeness so elequently? If we ONLY

had our present experience to go by, would it have been possible for us to

DESCRIBE that which has in many cases not fulfilled itself in us as non-dual

truth in each ongoing living moment in such great detail? Or are we describing

an aspect of our own thought projections, sincerely believing that we are in

fact describing non-dual reality, from the non-dual (non)-(thank you Dan)

perspective? Such ‘description’ would again amount to speculative

intellectualism, masquerading for real insight into non-dual reality. Reality

consideration cannot allow for such a mistake. And by staying genuine, with its

integrity always impeccable, the journey becomes real. And the sharing takes on

a human quality with tentativity, vulnerability and open-mindedness and

open-heartedness, whereas the most fundamental charcteristic of intellectualism

is certainty.

 

And certainty is the death of growth, because after certainty, there is nothing

more to be explored, discussed or enquired into.

 

 

In love ,

 

 

MOLLER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l

[Guest guest]

Thank you Mollerji for contrasting between Intellectualism and Reality

consideration. I think this contrast that you offer goes beyond mere

intellectual speculation to the very heart of what a meaningful dialogue

should contain. Mollerji, you make insightful and powerful comments

which need to be considered carefully. I agree with you that we need to

maintain honesty and integrity in things we say and this will make our

journey truly real.

 

Hopefully this Sangha does allow for open minded and open hearted

discussions of Self-Realization through various paths involving

Tantra,Yoga, Meditation, Buddhism, Jainism, Hinduism, Advaita Vedanta

and other non dual philosophies. I think the members of this group do

share in a very genuine way and even discussions of different teachers

and philosophies and spiritual experiences in the context of good humor,

mutual respect, and amity is welcomed. That is the intent behind it

anyway. This Sangha is truly an assembly of many remarkable and muscular

people, many of whom are accomplished teachers, masters, meditators,

yogis, mystics, poets, Self Realized saints and generally all around

warm and good guys. We even have several ascended masters here who have

recently descended just to join us. Don't you just feel it! :-).

 

Love to all

Harsha

 

J M de la Rouviere wrote:

> J M de la Rouviere <moller

> Dear friends,

>

> In a reply to Dharma a few days ago, I brought up the subject of what

> I called intellectualism. For the sake of clarity I thought it might

> be useful to elaborate somewhat on how I use this word as well as

> contrasting it with what may be called reality consideration.

>

> Intellectualism is fundamentally speculative. By this I mean that

> thought has the ability to project aspects of its own content beyond

> itself and then experience these projections as though they are both

> real and some’thing’ to comment about. Thought may, for

> instance, create the concepts of god, heaven, hell, enlightenment,

> wholeness, truth etc and project these as somethings which exist

> independently of itself. Once projected as not of itself and with the

> status of having actual independent existence, thought now starts to

> speculate about its own creations, as though they were real.

>

> Part of the great illusion of human life is not only this delusion of

> separation which is a single process within thought, but experienced

> as two separately existing things,( the observer and the observed),

> but more fundamentally, is the fact that this process usually takes

> place unrecognised. We are generally completely unaware that we are in

> fact the active participants in this subtle (or gross) from of

> dualistic creations (acitivity). Being unaware of what we are doing,

> we generally believe explicitly in the projections of thought

> presenting itself as truth.

>

> Our gods, metaphysical creations, assumptions about truth and

> non-duality, how great or small the guru is, our own I-conscious

> process, and in fact just about every aspect of such activity in daily

> life, all of these must be seen as part of this delusiory process

> within thought. Yet we live our lives on the basis of this delusion

> where thought is under the impression that it has come to rational,

> reasonable and acceptable definitions of these things. We get people

> going around telling people who and what god is. Others explain the

> origin of the universe. The one is called science, the other

> metaphysics. Both have their origin in speculative thinking. Neither

> is more real than the other.

>

> So my personal uneasiness of explaining all the ‘truths’

> about non-dualism and wholeness in such detail as some of us tend to

> do on this forum, has been mentioned before. But I just wonder to

> which extent these clear descriptions and logically correct statements

> ABOUT non-duality which we so often find here, are in fact

> DESCRIPTIONS of the author’s actual disposition, and to which

> extent they are speculative. If the latter, then according to the

> above description of intellectualism, they can only serve to prolong

> the illusion, simply because as such they form in intrinsic part of,

> and is the very stuff of which illusion is made. I think we must be

> sensitised to this possibility lest we delude ourselves further in our

> generally deluded present state.

>

> Reality consideration is the exact opposite to intellectualism in that

> this process of enquiry refuses to be deluded by the apparent reality

> of the projections of thought. Enquiry is made on the basis of direct

> personal experience, and is fully alive to the dangers inherent in

> intellectualism. Reality consideration has a further advantage.

> Because it concerns itself with personal experience and present

> evidence, rather than thought creations mistaken for reality, it can

> be applied, and is a relevant process anywhere along the way of

> self-enquiry. Nothing is too low or too high to consider. In fact low

> or high are seen to be further projections of thought, and as such

> part of that which have to be transcended. Reality consideration is

> not speculative. And if thought does operate in a speculative way,

> reality consideration is fully cognisant of this and let it be,

> without the complications of mistaking it for truth. The usefulness of

> such type of consideration in this forum, is that we have to be able

> to ‘walk our talk’ lest we fall into the realm of

> speculative ‘truth’. And it does not matter where we stand

> in our individual search or self-enquiry, we will not be fooled if we

> act from that which has integrity. And that which has integrity is of

> necessity always an aspect of ourselves as long as we do not stand in

> the freedom of and as the wholeness of being.

>

> This is why I said to Dan that if no-one has ever told us of the

> non-dual condition of being, judged by the present evidence of our

> LIVING REALITY, would we have been able to discuss this matter of

> wholeness so elequently? If we ONLY had our present experience to go

> by, would it have been possible for us to DESCRIBE that which has in

> many cases not fulfilled itself in us as non-dual truth in each

> ongoing living moment in such great detail? Or are we describing an

> aspect of our own thought projections, sincerely believing that we are

> in fact describing non-dual reality, from the non-dual (non)-(thank

> you Dan) perspective? Such ‘description’ would again

> amount to speculative intellectualism, masquerading for real insight

> into non-dual reality. Reality consideration cannot allow for such a

> mistake. And by staying genuine, with its integrity always impeccable,

> the journey becomes real. And the sharing takes on a human quality

> with tentativity, vulnerability and open-mindedness and

> open-heartedness, whereas the most fundamental charcteristic of

> intellectualism is certainty.

>

> And certainty is the death of growth, because after certainty, there

> is nothing more to be explored, discussed or enquired into.

>

> In love ,

>

> MOLLER