|
|
Post by Figgles on May 26, 2024 19:43:41 GMT
This idea that "in the wrong hands" and for someone who is "not ready," Nonduality pointers/teachings can somehow be dangerous is an interesting one.
If the answer one arrives at is an emphatic "yes"!...then what is the proposed "solution"?
It's rather ludicrous to believe that a simple, blanket warning against persuing an interest in Nonduality is going to be all it takes for a seeker to somehow quell that interest and thus, stop seeking...stop perusing such material.
Couldn't that be said about any philosophy, religion, new age belief system? And what really does it mean for Nonduality to be taught "out of context" or to "the wrong people"....what does it mean for a seeker who is interested in Nondual writings, to be "not ready yet"?
Ultimately, waking up is acausal...there is no path....no dyed in wool predictors re: who will wake up and when.
I would say so long as the pointers inherent to Nonduality garner interest, there is some degree of "readiness" there. Consider SDP and Tenka. We cannot ignore the fact that although they both deeply scoff at Nonduality and the pointers offered on forum, they both continue to come back to a forum that is (at least in theory) supposedly dedicated to Nonduality/Truth. I'd say that behavior alone demonstrates an interest in Nonduality pointers, beyond merely attempting to condemn and scoff.
The very premise that says one who offers Nondual pointers and one who is interested in those, each must be "qualified" flies directly in the face of the most basic Truths that Nonduality points to.
Interest itself is the qualifier. We cannot argue with arising interest. It is what it is. Just try to get in the way of a sincere and earnest interest, to try to quell it.
Alan Watts was a mystic. All of his poetic, very beautifully shared insights, were still very much through the eyes of a person.....I've seen nothing of his writings/talks that demonstrate a seeing from fully/truly "beyond/prior to" the realm of appearance.
Alan Watts is a stellar example of awake to the consensus trance but not awake to Oneness/absence of separation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 26, 2024 20:00:08 GMT
How specifically do you define "spiritual growth"?
What is it that "grows spiritually"?
It's true, so long as there's a me character and experience arising, part and parcel of the unfolding story/dream, includes all sorts of "emotional/mental" shifts and changes that can be experienced as "growing/maturing/becoming" into something that is more expansive, better, of greater clarity, etc.
But the entirety of that, fall under the umbrella of appearance only....experiential content....perceivable realm, which means, it's all transient, empty and devoid of inherent existence/Truth.
Nonduality does not "negate/deny" anything that actually arises within experience, only those things that you mistakingly believe are arising in experience, that are actually only being erroneously imagined. Those erroneously imagined delusions/illusions, ride along with the erroneously imagined separate entity, the volitional, separate some-one/some-thing that the unawakened, erroneously mis-take themselves to be.
The vantage point by which the abidingly SR see from, is such that muddy-mind type, 'stinkin thinkin' outs itself very quickly, if it should ever arise.
Any pattern of thought/ideation that has the propensity to drag mind deeply into the muddy waters, absent of clarity of judgment and condemnation, it illuminated and in that dissolves, pretty much the very moment it rears up.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 27, 2024 20:37:11 GMT
I can very much relate to that, but also find that while an opportunity for overtly and specifically talking about "Nonduality" per se, does not often arise, the opportunity to gently point, does, quite often arise, usually in the face of a friend or family member expressing angst/concern over 'what is.'
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 25, 2024 16:55:32 GMT
Complete with the idea that certain spiritual teachings that focus upon hard Truths can be dangerous is also the idea that they can be unkind/callous.
It's undeniable that the seeker will not 'like/enjoy' hearing that his most beloved of experiential facets and conditions are all temporal and cannot be guaranteed to continue to appear within his experience. The sooner one makes peace with the fact that anything at all that appears within experience that he is enjoying, loving, needing, is ephemeral and temporal in nature and thus, subject to change or even disappearing completely from experience. Peace can only prevail when there is an absence of needing/grasping for appearances (and yes, people we love are part and parcel of that!) to remain unchanging.
One who accepts and allows the up/down roller-coaster of appearing/disappearing.....(relative, temporal change) and is prepared in mind and spirit to perhaps say goodbye to even those most beloved of relationships, knows a freedom that the grasping/needy seeker, does not.
That's quite the assertion Ina. I think you've gotta look deeper than a mere teaching that says we all feel a sense of loss when our loved ones die, although, that too is important to see. Victimhood seems to be a full time occupation for many these days and it would do those folks some good to once in a while look beyond their own personal circumstance, personal feelings and sense of helplessness to acknowledge that usually what they are experiencing pales in comparison to other stories of hardship. To grieve is not become a victim...am not saying that at all, but there are some who add an extra layer of "me/self" upon that....and in that, they become mired within a woe is me story.
No one rejoices when someone beloved dies, but in understanding that this type of loss is universal in terms of human experience and that perhaps that in focusing on the losses and pain of others, (as would be what happened if one went door to door to ask if any family's experience was devoid of death) there's a lessening of one's own, personal pain.
It's important not to take this little stories of gurus too literally, of course and to try to look deeper...there are often several different messages/pointers all wrapped up in one.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 25, 2024 17:08:08 GMT
Yes. Precisely. Unless and until one engages with others in a way that informs him that they too have experienced loss in the death of loved ones, to see and know it first hand, the idea that loss is universal will remain but an idea and won't take root...that taking root, informs in a way that takes a bit of the weight out of "my personal/singular" sense of loss. I think too if we look deeper into that story, the fact that the woman would be engaging others, asking about their pain/loss and then, coming home empty handed, no bowl of rice, is significant--a symbol for coming home a little lighter....her bowl 'empty.'
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 26, 2024 17:25:33 GMT
Nailed it. Nice. Those ongoing rituals are so meaningful in my own life. As a family, we continue to celebrate birthdays and special occasions related to specific loved ones, and personally, I've established some very specific 'signs' that I associate with each friend/loved one. All of this means, the relationship, although different now, very much continues on, even though physically, they've died. An all around beauty of a post Lolly.  |
|
Esponja
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Esponja on Nov 8, 2024 8:25:09 GMT
This idea that "in the wrong hands" and for someone who is "not ready," Nonduality pointers/teachings can somehow be dangerous is an interesting one. If the answer one arrives at is an emphatic "yes"!...then what is the proposed "solution"? It's rather ludicrous to believe that a simple, blanket warning against persuing an interest in Nonduality is going to be all it takes for a seeker to somehow quell that interest and thus, stop seeking...stop perusing such material. Couldn't that be said about any philosophy, religion, new age belief system? And what really does it mean for Nonduality to be taught "out of context" or to "the wrong people"....what does it mean for a seeker who is interested in Nondual writings, to be "not ready yet"? Ultimately, waking up is acausal...there is no path....no dyed in wool predictors re: who will wake up and when. I would say so long as the pointers inherent to Nonduality garner interest, there is some degree of "readiness" there. Consider SDP and Tenka. We cannot ignore the fact that although they both deeply scoff at Nonduality and the pointers offered on forum, they both continue to come back to a forum that is (at least in theory) supposedly dedicated to Nonduality/Truth. I'd say that behavior alone demonstrates an interest in Nonduality pointers, beyond merely attempting to condemn and scoff. The very premise that says one who offers Nondual pointers and one who is interested in those, each must be "qualified" flies directly in the face of the most basic Truths that Nonduality points to. Interest itself is the qualifier. We cannot argue with arising interest. It is what it is. Just try to get in the way of a sincere and earnest interest, to try to quell it. Alan Watts was a mystic. All of his poetic, very beautifully shared insights, were still very much through the eyes of a person.....I've seen nothing of his writings/talks that demonstrate a seeing from fully/truly "beyond/prior to" the realm of appearance. Alan Watts is a stellar example of awake to the consensus trance but not awake to Oneness/absence of separation. Edit: This was my reply, and then I realized it was basically the same as what you wrote 😅 Mmmm this is an interesting one. Again, it comes back to, Nothing is inherently wrong, However, I do believe teachers have a certain responsibility (within the dream). I think it’s great that so many are available to talk to now face-to-face. Can the same said about LOA teachings? They, too could lead to disassociation or depression somehow… Everything also can become like a cult. There are certainly non-duality teachers out there with a cult like following too. So yes, it is possible. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Nov 8, 2024 18:09:05 GMT
This idea that "in the wrong hands" and for someone who is "not ready," Nonduality pointers/teachings can somehow be dangerous is an interesting one. If the answer one arrives at is an emphatic "yes"!...then what is the proposed "solution"? It's rather ludicrous to believe that a simple, blanket warning against persuing an interest in Nonduality is going to be all it takes for a seeker to somehow quell that interest and thus, stop seeking...stop perusing such material. Couldn't that be said about any philosophy, religion, new age belief system? And what really does it mean for Nonduality to be taught "out of context" or to "the wrong people"....what does it mean for a seeker who is interested in Nondual writings, to be "not ready yet"? Ultimately, waking up is acausal...there is no path....no dyed in wool predictors re: who will wake up and when. I would say so long as the pointers inherent to Nonduality garner interest, there is some degree of "readiness" there. Consider SDP and Tenka. We cannot ignore the fact that although they both deeply scoff at Nonduality and the pointers offered on forum, they both continue to come back to a forum that is (at least in theory) supposedly dedicated to Nonduality/Truth. I'd say that behavior alone demonstrates an interest in Nonduality pointers, beyond merely attempting to condemn and scoff. The very premise that says one who offers Nondual pointers and one who is interested in those, each must be "qualified" flies directly in the face of the most basic Truths that Nonduality points to. Interest itself is the qualifier. We cannot argue with arising interest. It is what it is. Just try to get in the way of a sincere and earnest interest, to try to quell it. Alan Watts was a mystic. All of his poetic, very beautifully shared insights, were still very much through the eyes of a person.....I've seen nothing of his writings/talks that demonstrate a seeing from fully/truly "beyond/prior to" the realm of appearance. Alan Watts is a stellar example of awake to the consensus trance but not awake to Oneness/absence of separation. Edit: This was my reply, and then I realized it was basically the same as what you wrote 😅 Mmmm this is an interesting one. Again, it comes back to, Nothing is inherently wrong, However, I do believe teachers have a certain responsibility (within the dream). I think it’s great that so many are available to talk to now face-to-face. Can the same said about LOA teachings? They two could lead to disassociation or depression somehow… Everything also can become like a cult. There are certainly non-teachers out there with a cult like following too. So yes, it is possible. Yes, agreed, from the personal vantage point, (which does not dissolve in SR, but is rather, not in the back-seat vs. driving the bus) the idea that anyone who presents and upholds themselves as a teacher (of any kind) best be caring and considerate of 'students' and behave in a responsible manner, is still valid. But as you very eloquently stated there, the 'beware' sign that Reef's has applied specifically to Nonduality teachings, could be and really should be applied straight across the board to ALL spiritual teachers/teachings. It's the very fact that an interest in spirituality, be it in new age teachings or be it in what the seeker 'thinks' is Nonduality/Truth, is based upon a drive answer existential questions, that could be said to put the seeker in a rather precarious position. As one opens up to seeing anew and as the present 'self' is challenged in any way, mental health/psychological ramifications come into play. It's not uncommon re: LOA to hear folks tell a story of having fallen into a sort of 'guilt-trap' whereby they began to blame themselves or others, for arising unwanted conditions...ranging from health issues to psychological issues, to poverty, etc. A great example of that kind of 'blaming/shaming' is how some on these forums look to another's bodily condition to determine realization status, etc. |
|
Mostly I talk about it with my wife, and in real time, what can happen is that I think I'm telling the truth, but if I hear her hearing it as a lie, I stop talking about it. 
