Nondual Healing: follow-up

[Guest guest]

Fred Wilkey, who submitted the inquiry about nondual

healing, has sent the following letter and allowed use of

his name and email. Right now he's in the same position many

of us were in not very long ago: getting used to email and

cyberspace, and his computer. I hope he'll join us on-list

when the time is right. This is the letter. Thank you, Fred.

 

--Jerry

 

-------------

 

Thank you very much for your responses to my query on

healing from a nondualism perspective. Also, thank you for

putting my question out there. I am quite new to

cyberspace; I have a lot to learn and am taking it slow. I

have an i-opener, which is an internet access device

without a computer, and my capabilities are limited.

 

I was grateful and awed by the responses which came back.

There were certainly some good leads to follow, especially

the one on Robert Adams. A friend who was with him for

years is researching her old transcripts for the

information on healing that Jessica referred to.

 

Almost all descriptions of what is called spiritual healing

these days, and in the past, are dualistic in conception.

There is one person fixing another person of a specific

condition. Regardless of how the healing process is

languaged, there are clear elements of separation built

into the process. In the West, only Joel Goldsmith and

perhaps Emmet Fox speak of eliminating one's sense of self

and one's sense of other and one's sense of condition

(wrong or right). At least, that's all I've been able to

find so far.

 

Ramana Maharshi made a response to a question from Mercedes

de Acosta (see her article on realization.org) about

praying for others. The gist was that at the level of

(true) prayer, there are no others and no self. "There is

no need for prayer for yourself or any person other than to

abide within the Self." There are also stories about him

denying any healing ability or intent, but acknowledging

that healings often took place around him. Also, Carl Jung,

in Mysterium Coniunctionis (p. 419-20, in a footnote)

relates a story from Richard Wilhelm about a Taoist

rainmaker, who said he didn't make the rain, he got himself

"back in Tao and then naturally the rain came."

 

Nowadays, we have the language of advaita, so many things

are now being put into nonduality wording, but it seems no

one is yet doing that with "healing." However, I can make a

few conjectures. Nondual healing presupposes a profoundly

realized grasp of Truth, or God, or the Divine. Next, it

presupposes that the nondual healer is already past

Awakening or Enlightenment. Then, the nondual healer can

"get back in Tao" or "abide in the Self" or "go into

Silence" or some other inadequate phrase. There also needs

to be an advanced degree of liberation from the beliefs one

has about the body, the mind, the world; it's necessary but

not sufficient to realize the illusory nature of the

individual self. After Awakening, there still remains a

whole lot of junk lying around. It doesn't automatically

vanish; this is probaby why Nisargadatta reportedly said

that Enlightenment was "of no earthly good whatsoever."

This stuff gradually goes in its own good time; I think the

disposal can be expedited by nonjudging attention. There

also needs to be some sort of openness or willingness or

receptivity on the part of the individual who is the

non-object of the non-healing.

 

As you can see, this whole thing is in a formative stage

for me. I certainly appreciate and can use all the help

that can come my way. Please feel free to post this reply

where you first posted the question, and include my name

and e-mail address. I will look into joining your

discussion group as I grow more knowledgeable and

comfortable in this brave new world.

 

Thank you all very much.

 

Fred Wilkey fredheart

 

--

We are the Nonduality Generation.

http://www.nonduality.com