Christiana / death

[Guest guest]

Christiana,

These strike me as useful questions

to address, not "naive" in the

sense of irrelevant or superficial.

Your questions move me to

look with you at what happens when

we formulate theory. I share what

has proved useful for me - if it's

not useful for you, disregard ;-)

 

It is not that theory is

bad or wrong, it definitely has

its uses. It's just that

there is always a limitation

involved when we formulate

theory. Being aware of how this

limitation is involved in

theorizing, we then use theory

with awareness

(which is useful in day to day situations

that involve thought, memory,

language, communication).

 

In the example you provide, we might

involve ourselves in formulating at theory

"there is no one here," and then try to see what

this means in terms of dying. This theory

might have some utility, but it might also

serve as a limitation, particularly if we take

this theory about reality to be "true".

 

Taking our theory to be "truth", we then naturally

want to continue it and build upon it,

perhaps by seeing what the "true concept"

that "there is no one here while the body is alive,"

means in terms of karma and

multidimensional lifetimes.

 

Next, we elaborate our theory by seeing

death might mean return to the Void.

 

All of this is fine, except that there is limiation

involved to whatever extent there is identification

with the theory-maintaining and theory-building

process itself. There is also limitation if we

take our speculation about reality as a means

to understand what reality *is*.

 

It seems potentially useful here to assess the extent

of our identification with thought, even in

the process of pondering presumably useful constructs.

Perhaps there is a possibility here, not

just to investigate theory, but in this present moment,

to dis-identify from thought constructs as believed-in

mediators for reality-experience. If we do this,

thought opens to its own "emptiness", which as seen

here, is a very useful awareness.

 

"what is" has never, will never, be fit

into a theory, nor will a theory ever

substitute for immediate awareness *as* "what is"

(beyond the word/construct "immediate awareness").

 

If seen clearly, one will find that

words, although they have a structured

way for being presented coherently or

noncoherently, actually *refer to nothing*.

The self or "me", believed-to-be using thought to

understand reality, disappears the instant

there is disidentification with thought,

seeing the essential illusion involved

in thought, memory, and the perception linked

with thought and memory.

 

My "self" or "me" can be seen as an imaginary

reference point for the continuation of

the thought process as a developing

structure over time.

No investment in continuation = no self

to affirm or negate.

If there is an agenda of continuation, an

investment in continuity of thought, of

the self-process, it doesn't

matter whether you are affirming that

there is no self, affirming that there is

a self, or negating a self. The energy

being "attached" to the continuation

of that thought process is thus useful to

notice, regardless of the presumed

"insight" expressed in the content of the

thought process.

 

The reality "out there" to which the

theory/thought process is to be applied

(be it death, life, a building, a tree)

turns out not to be "out there" -

as "out there" turns out to be a thought

construction. I can realize this and still

use thought, still use theory, but I realize

that the question of death isn't so much

something to which the theory will be applied,

as it is involved in questioning that

very process (attempt to continue moment to

moment) itself. It is in questioning that

"tendency to want to continue" inherent in the

thought-process itself that I notice

the Reality that *is* as discontinuity (as

seen from thought's perspective - in and

of itself, it is neither continuing nor

discontinuous).

 

The important thing, as seen here,

is not the theory that "no one is

here while the body is living",

but the actual inquiry into

"who am I that believe myself

to be formulating a theory

about whether or not someone

is here while the body is

living?".

 

If there is mental activity involved

in "carrying forward" the construct

of "no one being here while the body

is alive" ... the very mental activity

is the attempt to maintain a sense of

continuity for "me" - it doesn't matter

that this sense of continuity occurs through

maintaining a theory that "no one is here".

 

This is similar to the theory that "All is

One" which, if brought forward as a

believed-to-be-true construct, becomes

continuity for the mental activity

of "bringing forward" a construct that

is applied to experiencing.

 

The reality of "nothing to bring"

and "no one to bring it"

is the reality of dying as living.

It isn't a theoretical proposition.

The Void is exactly "this", not something

to be encountered at a future piont

in time, not a subject for speculation.

One could say we return to the Void, but

that raises the question of "who left

the Void", when and how could such

leaving take place?

 

The "body" is actually a construct, a theory,

and the death of the body is the loss of

the basis for continuing that construct built

around experiences such as "feeling,breathing,"

and "eating". Certainly the "body" resists

its demise, and "we" attach to that resistance,

and attach to others' bodies in the process.

Yet, all of this activity is conceptual, not

Reality.

 

The fact that we address these constructs in day

to day life and perception tends to hide from

us the fact that they are, indeed, constructs,

and not Reality (which *is* beyond the constructs

"life" and "death,is" and "is not").

 

Love,

Dan

>At 12:50 AM 7/20/00 -0700, you wrote:

>Last night I asked Greg (and all of you) if you'd help me see how human

>death is perceived from this understanding, spoken of here, as nondual.

>I suppose that asking to explore what death means from a nondual

>perspective, appears as a bit of an oxymoron.

>

>So, I'm entering an inquiry here, with the awareness that this is tricky

>territory in terms of arriving at agreement of perspectives, as well as

>it being fundamentally a mute question, from the perspective that self

>is a bounded construct, which as David so clearly articulated, does not

>appear when the vector (nagual) shifts.

>

>As I more and more find spans of space without objects, I recognize the

>proximity of this collapse of *thingness* of self. When I underwent the

>profound shock of sitting with my mother's dead body, it was quite

>evident that no one was there. What is not as evident for me is the

>understanding that no one is here when our bodies are alive. If no one

>is here, then no one dies. Does this negate concepts of karma or

>dimentional lifetimes?

>

>So, while most traditions have some teachings about the transition of

>soul beyond the body, I don't know what an Advaitan understanding of

>this is. Is death merely a return of form to the Void? Is there any

>essential soulness of being which remains within Consciousness?

>

>I sense these are naive questions, yet they move in me to ask them.

>

>Christiana

[Guest guest]

Most excellent, Christiana.

 

"Unmediated fire" - now

that does have a ring to it ;-)

 

BTW - while you're sitting

with the responses, perhaps

you can instantly die

completely, lose all

identification, be reborn

without moving, discover

that even before the universe

was, you are -- and all questions

will be resolved.

 

Or, maybe not ;-)

 

Flame on! Mediation be

damned!!

Deconstructively yours,

Danielsan

 

 

At 04:28 AM 7/21/00 -0700, you wrote:

>Thank you *all* for such rich movement around my question.

>

>Thank you Jan for responding. It is good to hear your voice here again.

>Your words are sobering and ring clearly.

>

>I don't know, however, that I align with your assessment that

>"unconditional love" leads to enmeshment and the tolerance of

>conditions. Perhaps we speak from a different understanding of "UL". UL,

>as I know it, engenders no movement. It shows up as awareness and flow.

>By it's very nature, there is no someone being moved to tolerate. It

>shows up when the vessel is empty. I know it as unmediated fire.

>

>Thank you Dan for standing with me and for your seamless capacity for

>deconstruction. You and Gene both do this so well. The layers were

>peeled back.

>

>I have printed out all of the responses. I am sitting with their flavor.

>

>Love,

>Christiana