Guest guest Posted February 26, 2000 Report Share Posted February 26, 2000 Moller: 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. Mira: And so self-inquiry remains as the continuous discovery of the unknown. There is no way to be certain about anything anybody says, nor about ones own expressions. Full confidence in ones ability to understand is a pre-requisite to certainty. With self-inquiry, even that ability is continously questioned. Moller: 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. Mira: Oh yes of course! We could quite easily mistake 'talking the talk' for 'genuine insight'. But then again.... what is it that accounts for the reality of this presumed difference? In order to make out that such difference indeed exists, one needs full certainty and confidence in ones ability to judge, as a pre-requisite. Unless one is convinced of the reality of such difference, the 'talking the talk' and the 'genuine insight' are the same one. Receiving a message from the one that was 'only talking', 'has genuine insight', 'has intellectual understanding only', what is the difference? The difference is only in the eye of the beholder. Moller: And certainty is the death of growth, because after certainty, there is nothing more to be explored, discussed or enquired into. Mira: Exactly. So don't ever be certain about anything you and I have just said, and lets continue to explore, discuss and enquire...... With love and appreciation, enormously enjoying your contributions lately, Mira l __________________________ ___ __________________________ ___ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 29, 2000 Report Share Posted February 29, 2000 Dear Mira, Thank you for your very thoughtful reply/input. You said: <And so self-inquiry remains as the continuous discovery of the unknown. There is no way to be certain about anything anybody says, nor about ones own expressions. Full confidence in ones ability to understand is a pre-requisite to certainty. With self-inquiry, even that ability is continously questioned.> ~ Please allow me the following: Self-enquiry is for me not so much a process of enquiring into the unknown. Rather it is a process of enquiring with insight and little or no pre-conditions into the mechanisms within oneself which combine to give one the sense of separation or I-consciuosness. The discovery in self-enquiry is therefore not accumulative in its effect. If it has done its work well, self-enquiry leaves one always with less rather than more. I agree that we cannot be certain about ‘anything anybody says'. But why would one want to be certain. There is absolutely nothing to be certain about, and in fact it is the ability to go with this fact of fundamental uncertainty that the correct attitude for investigation in the form of self-enquiry is established. One must literally lose faith in oneself and absolutely everything it stands for. It is the sense of self which has dominated our consciousness for so long and which is the fundamental point of departure for what has been referred to duality, fragmentation and delusion. So I find myself progressively more willing to live with the mystery, instead of trying to discover it. You said further: <Oh yes of course! We could quite easily mistake 'talking the talk' for 'genuine insight'. But then again.... what is it that accounts for the reality of this presumed difference? In order to make out that such difference indeed exists, one needs full certainty and confidence in ones ability to judge, as a pre-requisite. Unless one is convinced of the reality of such difference, the 'talking the talk' and the 'genuine insight' are the same one.> ~You are absolutely right about how you state the problem. However, the clarity which can ‘see' the difference does not depend on ‘having confidence in one's ability to judge'. On the contrary, discrimination based on such confidence is from the fragmented position. Clarity is self-evident. There is no attitudinal approach to it. Only when all attidudes, positive or negative, have been left behind in silence, can the difference between ‘talking the talk' and ‘genuine insight' be seen. I see such clarity as having little or nothing to do with being convinced. It has a sense of self-revelation which cannot be confused with an act of delusiory thinking. So you are right when you suggest that the difference is in the eye of the beholder. No objective proving is necessary. It is simply so to the eye of one who is beginning to wake up. With you I feel we can really ‘explore and' - see what happens. Love, Moller Mirror <mirror < > 26 February 2000 04:40 Re: Moller/certainty >"Mirror" <mirror > >Moller: >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. > >Mira: >And so self-inquiry remains as the continuous discovery of the unknown. >There is no way to be certain about anything anybody says, nor about ones >own expressions. Full confidence in ones ability to understand is a >pre-requisite to certainty. With self-inquiry, even that ability is >continously questioned. > >Moller: >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. > >Mira: >Oh yes of course! We could quite easily mistake 'talking the talk' for >'genuine insight'. But then again.... what is it that accounts for the >reality of this presumed difference? In order to make out that such >difference indeed exists, one needs full certainty and confidence in ones >ability to judge, as a pre-requisite. Unless one is convinced of the reality >of such difference, the 'talking the talk' and the 'genuine insight' are the >same one. >Receiving a message from the one that was 'only talking', 'has genuine >insight', 'has intellectual understanding only', what is the difference? The >difference is only in the eye of the beholder. > >Moller: >And certainty is the death of growth, because after certainty, there is >nothing more to be explored, discussed or enquired into. > >Mira: >Exactly. So don't ever be certain about anything you and I have just said, >and lets continue to explore, discuss and enquire...... > > >With love and appreciation, >enormously enjoying your contributions lately, >Mira > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >l > > >_________________________ _ >___ >_________________________ _ >___ > > > > > >------ >Shabang!com is the place to get your FREE eStore, Absolutely FREE >Forever. If you have any desires to sell your products or services >online, or you want to expand your customer base for FREE, Come check >out Shabang!com FREE eStores! >http://click./1/1299/2/_/520931/_/951575989/ >------ > >// > >All paths go somewhere. No path goes nowhere. Paths, places, sights, perceptions, and indeed all experiences arise from and exist in and subside back into the Space of Awareness. Like waves rising are not different than the ocean, all things arising from Awareness are of the nature of Awareness. Awareness does not come and go but is always Present. It is Home. Home is where the Heart Is. Jnanis know the Heart to be the Finality of Eternal Being. A true devotee relishes in the Truth of Self-Knowledge, spontaneously arising from within into It Self. Welcome all to a. > >To from this list, go to the ONElist web site, at > www., and select the User Center link from the menu bar > on the left. This menu will also let you change your subscription > between digest and normal mode. > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 1, 2000 Report Share Posted March 1, 2000 Hi Moller, >Self-enquiry is for me not so much a process of enquiring into the > unknown. Rather it is a process of enquiring with insight and little or > no pre-conditions into the mechanisms within oneself which combine > to give one the sense of separation or I-consciuosness. The "I-making" faculty is necessary to manifesting as a human being... it is part of the paraphernalia of manifestation. I doubt that enquiring into it will accomplish very much. Better to look for all the karmic junk that has accumulated over it and clear that stuff away... when it's completely clean, it will be transparent to spirit. >I agree that we cannot be certain about ‘anything anybody says'. But why > would one want to be certain. There is absolutely nothing to be certain >about, You seem to contradict yourself... later you said: > Clarity is self-evident. -snip- >I see such clarity as having little or nothing to do with being convinced. > It has a sense of self-revelation which cannot be confused with an > act of delusiory thinking. ----- >One must literally lose faith in oneself and absolutely >everything > it stands for. It is the sense of self which has dominated our >consciousness >for so long -snip- I disagree. As a teacher, I say that it can be very harmful to some people to "literally lose faith in oneself and absolutely everything it stands for." There are better and safer ways to point to the Self. Love, Dharma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.