Intellectualism/ Reality consideration

February 26, 2000

Love these posts - Im going to have another bash at insisting that while

"Intellectualism" ( and here I had to go get out my dictionary - the word

can be boiled down to "thought") and Reality consideration (which as I think

on it if theres "consideration" there also has to be thought) are besides

being the same thing, thought - are not "other" than expressions of

Non-duality. We are innate wisdom/ awareness/true nature of mind/this

bright empty field, the Unborn, basic ground, primordial Bodhicitta, our

face before our mother was born, etc. But simple ordinary awareness/innate

wisdom will do, and then we also are activity arising in basic awareness

such as thought, or hearing, or seeing, or feeling, etc.

It is said that this innate wisdom, this presence of awareness is always

present, has always been present, will always be present - but the

recognition of innate wisdom is not always present and some have said this

is because it is too simple and obvious. This ever present innate wisdom

is the true nature of the mind and therefore the nature of whatever arises

within the mind; whatever thoughts and even mental afflictions arise in the

mind are not other in nature than innate wisdom. If something is the nature

of everything in a certain sphere then everything that occurs within that

sphere must partake of that nature.

So - all thought, all arisings such as hearing, seeing, feeling etc (when

recognized as) are the expression of innate wisdom - there can't be any

place in the sphere of Non-duality where something other to it - such as

intellectualisms or anything else - can be other or separate from it. Only

the play of mind in the moment can create a belief system where there is

Reality and some place other called delusion. So - if there is a paradign

shift a way from judgments and subject/object linguistic expression - into

just allowing all that arises in the present without exceptions created by

judgment (as any thing pure or impure, evil of good) and recognize these

arising to be expressions of Reality - children of the Mother - then things

get rather relaxed and there is nothing at all left to do but get used to

it, get to know this deeply. I think it as Shri Ramana that said something

to the effect that all one needed to be in Awareness/Non-duality was to drop

the idea that one wasn't - someone can correct me here.

Innate wisdom is always expressing its true nature - Presence of awareness

is recognition without judgment - sometimes the ocean of awareness is calm -

sometimes thought arises - a metaphor used here is like a fish leaping - the

contemplation isnt supposed to get involved with these fish, but sometimes

one can join the school of leaping fish, like this chat group - and play

for awhile. When "intellectualisms" arise from innate wisdom one enjoys and

appreciates, especially when the thoughts celebrate and manifest the truth

clearly.

Suffering arises when mind clings to whatever arises in the moment - when

one gets so involved with surfing that one forgets to pay attention to the

ocean and clings to the small impermanent little waves.

Joyce

"Harsha (Dr. Harsh K. Luthar)" <hluthar

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

----------

Enter Ht: ft. in. Enter Wt: lbs.

----------

//

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.

February 27, 2000

Dear Joyce,

Thank you again. Allow me the following. I will quote parts of your long and

passionate posting - hope I do so in context.

You said:

It is said that this innate wisdom, this presence of awareness is always

present, has always been present, will always be present - but the recognition

of innate wisdom is not always present and some have said this is because it is

too simple and obvious.

I feel that despite your protestations about the notion that in Oneness there

can be no Intellectualism as the two are fundamentally one, the fact is that

Intellectualism is exactly part of the lack of the "recognition of innate wisdom

(which) is not always present". So here , in your own words, you are already

drawing a line between wisdom (wholeness) and the lack of it. I feel on this

one we are in total agreement.

You also said:

So - all thought, all arisings such as hearing, seeing, feeling etc (when

recognized as) are the expression of innate wisdom - there can't be any place in

the sphere of Non-duality where something other to it - such as intellectualisms

or anything else - can be other or separate from it. Only the play of mind in

the moment can create a belief system where there is Reality and some place

other called delusion.

~ My sense of what you saying here is that you are still contradicting the very

position you are trying to defend (explain). You come to the conclusion that

everything is part of the whole. Yet, in the very next sentense you mention

that by the "play of the mind" a "belief system where there is Reality and some

other place called delusion" can be created.

Now again, the point I was trying to explain still seems to hold here. That is,

Intellectualism (which in this case has projected a particular belief system

and then experiences this belief as the genuine article) is integraly part of

the play of the mind. This belief system can be absolutely anything, or

anywhere. It is all false or to use your word 'delusion'. Delusion is when one

thing gets mistaken for another. That is why I maintain that well neigh our

entire state is one of delusion. And this delusion is absolutely true and real

while we are mesmerised by it. In the same way as a dream is absolutely real to

the dream-state and no argumentation, description or presumed clarity from

within the dream state can ever give the dreamer even the remotest sense that

there is another state called waking. For waking to be the case, the dream must

be abandoned. And only THEN can the dream be seen for what it was. Only from

the non-state of non-duality can evrything be seen to be non -dual. Prior to

that all our very prescious descriptions of this non-dual disposition is nothing

but Intellectualism. Thought mistaking itself for reality, instead of it being

recognised as an attempt to describe this non-duality to others in words and

logic.

Hope I have said something meaningful.

Love,

Moller

Joyce Short <insight

< >;

< >

26 February 2000 09:50

Re: Intellectualism/ Reality consideration

"Joyce Short" <insight

Love these posts - Im going to have another bash at insisting that while

"Intellectualism" ( and here I had to go get out my dictionary - the word can be

boiled down to "thought") and Reality consideration (which as I think on it if

theres "consideration" there also has to be thought) are besides being the same

thing, thought - are not "other" than expressions of Non-duality. We are innate

wisdom/ awareness/true nature of mind/this bright empty field, the Unborn, basic

ground, primordial Bodhicitta, our face before our mother was born, etc. But

simple ordinary awareness/innate wisdom will do, and then we also are activity

arising in basic awareness such as thought, or hearing, or seeing, or feeling,

etc.

This ever present innate wisdom is the true nature of the mind and therefore the

nature of whatever arises within the mind; whatever thoughts and even mental

afflictions arise in the mind are not other in nature than innate wisdom. If

something is the nature of everything in a certain sphere then everything that

occurs within that sphere must partake of that nature.

So - if there is a paradign shift a way from judgments and subject/object

linguistic expression - into just allowing all that arises in the present

without exceptions created by judgment (as any thing pure or impure, evil of

good) and recognize these arising to be expressions of Reality - children of the

Mother - then things get rather relaxed and there is nothing at all left to do

but get used to it, get to know this deeply. I think it as Shri Ramana that said

something to the effect that all one needed to be in Awareness/Non-duality was

to drop the idea that one wasn't - someone can

Innate wisdom is always expressing its true nature - Presence of awareness is

recognition without judgment - sometimes the ocean of awareness is calm -

sometimes thought arises - a metaphor used here is like a fish leaping - the

contemplation isnt supposed to get involved with these fish, but sometimes one

can join the school of leaping fish, like this chat group - and play for

awhile. When "intellectualisms" arise from innate wisdom one enjoys and

appreciates, especially when the thoughts celebrate and manifest the truth

clearly.

Suffering arises when mind clings to whatever arises in the moment - when one

gets so involved with surfing that one forgets to pay attention to the ocean and

clings to the small impermanent little waves.

Joyce

"Harsha (Dr. Harsh K. Luthar)" <hluthar

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, i

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 a

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

nothing more to be explored, discussed or enquired into.

In love ,

MOLLER

------

Enter Ht: ft. in. Enter Wt: lbs.

----------

//

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.

--

Enter Ht: ft. in.

Enter Wt: lbs.

--

//

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.

February 27, 2000

yes, yes,yes....Im sure your right......

Where was I reading....."paths, places, sights, perceptions and indeed all

experiences arises from and exist in and subside back into the Space of

Awareness."

I am not drawing a line "between wisdom (wholeness) and the lack of it". I

see no lack - but obviously theres no dialogue here. I suppose you can know

that you, "Moller" are projecting a belief in a particular belief system and

then you, Moller, can notice that you experience this belief system as the

genuine article and decide you are in mind of confusion or delusion or

whatever you want to label it - this would be your insight. But, I fail to

see how you can say that "others", "we", do this or that, that you know what

the experience of these "others" is, what they should do and shouldnt do.

If you own this projection as yours and welcome it, you could then share the

mechanics of your own self-inquiry of how you project a particular belief

system etc. etc. how that works, what it feels like, any consequences, and

then share the process of personal investigation and insights gained. Then

others might see this as a model and follow your process if they also felt

they were in the same situation of clinging to belief systems. This might

only be your situation - others might be preoccupied with something else -

who knows.

Of course, if you recognized your projection of belief system or anything

else as perception arising and self-liberating from innate wisdom -then

you would have something different.

Or perhaps you are saying that you do not have this delusion of belief in

particular belief systems etc. etc. but others do. "They" are dreaming but

"you" are not? All this business about "dreamers" and so on sounds to me

like a belief system - sounds familar - one of my favorites, too. But,

demonstrate to me how YOU wake up - I don't know who these "we" are. If it

works for you - I might just give it a try.

Cheers,

Joyce

You said:

It is said that this innate wisdom, this presence of awareness is always

present, has always been present, will always be present - but the

recognition of innate wisdom is not always present and some have said this

is because it is too simple and obvious.

I feel that despite your protestations about the notion that in Oneness

there can be no Intellectualism as the two are fundamentally one, the fact

is that Intellectualism is exactly part of the lack of the "recognition of

innate wisdom (which) is not always present". So here , in your own words,

you are already drawing a line between wisdom (wholeness) and the lack of

it. I feel on this one we are in total agreement.

You also said:

So - all thought, all arisings such as hearing, seeing, feeling etc (when

recognized as) are the expression of innate wisdom - there can't be any

place in the sphere of Non-duality where something other to it - such as

intellectualisms or anything else - can be other or separate from it. Only

the play of mind in the moment can create a belief system where there is

Reality and some place other called delusion.

~ My sense of what you saying here is that you are still contradicting the

very position you are trying to defend (explain). You come to the

conclusion that everything is part of the whole. Yet, in the very next

sentense you mention that by the "play of the mind" a "belief system where

there is Reality and some other place called delusion" can be created.

Now again, the point I was trying to explain still seems to hold here. That

is, Intellectualism (which in this case has projected a particular belief

system and then experiences this belief as the genuine article) is integraly

part of the play of the mind. This belief system can be absolutely

anything, or anywhere. It is all false or to use your word 'delusion'.

Delusion is when one thing gets mistaken for another. That is why I

maintain that well neigh our entire state is one of delusion. And this

delusion is absolutely true and real while we are mesmerised by it. In the

same way as a dream is absolutely real to the dream-state and no

argumentation, description or presumed clarity from within the dream state

can ever give the dreamer even the remotest sense that there is another

state called waking. For waking to be the case, the dream must be

abandoned. And only THEN can the dream be seen for what it was. Only from

the non-state of non-duality can evrything be seen to be non -dual. Prior

to that all our very prescious descriptions of this non-dual disposition is

nothing but Intellectualism. Thought mistaking itself for reality, instead

of it being recognised as an attempt to describe this non-duality to others

in words and logic.

Hope I have said something meaningful.

Love,

Moller

Joyce Short <insight <insight >

< >

< < > >;

< >

< < > >

26 February 2000 09:50

Re: Intellectualism/ Reality consideration

"Joyce Short" <insight <insight >