Forum Posts

Nondual Library
Feb 06, 2022
In Poetry and Nonduality
I do not love you as if you were salt-rose, or topaz, or the arrow of carnations the fire shoots off. I love you as certain dark things are to be loved, in secret, between the shadow and the soul. I love you as the plant that never blooms but carries in itself the light of hidden flowers; thanks to your love a certain solid fragrance, risen from the earth, lives darkly in my body. I love you without knowing how, or when, or from where. I love you straightforwardly, without complexities or pride; so I love you because I know no other way than this: where I does not exist, nor you, so close that your hand on my chest is my hand, so close that your eyes close as I fall asleep.
0
0
8
Nondual Library
Feb 06, 2022
In Poetry and Nonduality
Do not stand By my grave, and weep. I am not there, I do not sleep— I am the thousand winds that blow I am the diamond glints in snow I am the sunlight on ripened grain, I am the gentle, autumn rain. As you awake with morning’s hush, I am the swift, up-flinging rush Of quiet birds in circling flight, I am the day transcending night. Do not stand By my grave, and cry— I am not there, I did not die. - Unknown Author
0
0
5
Nondual Library
Mar 24, 2021
In Unlearning Duality
It is important to understand, not intellectually but actually in your daily life, how you have built images about your wife, your husband, your neighbor, your child, your country, your leaders, your politicians, your gods –you have nothing but images. The images create the space between you and what you observe and in that space there is conflict, so what we are going to find out now together is whether it is possible to be free of the space we create, not only outside ourselves but in ourselves, the space which divides people in all their relationships. Now the very attention you give to a problem is the energy that solves that problem. When you give your complete attention–I mean with everything in you– there is no observer at all. There is only the state of attention which is total energy, and that total energy is the highest form of intelligence. Naturally that state of mind must be completely silent and that silence, that stillness, comes when there is total attention, not disciplined stillness. That total silence in which there is neither the observer nor the thing observed is the highest form of a religious mind. But what takes place in that state cannot be put into words because what is said in words is not the fact. To find out for yourself you have to go through it. excerpt from Freedom from the Known
Nothing But Images - Jiddu Krishnamurti content media
0
0
38
Nondual Library
Mar 23, 2021
In Science and Nonduality
The cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman uses evolutionary game theory to show that our perceptions of an independent reality must be illusions. As we go about our daily lives, we tend to assume that our perceptions — sights, sounds, textures, tastes — are an accurate portrayal of the real world. Sure, when we stop and think about it — or when we find ourselves fooled by a perceptual illusion — we realize with a jolt that what we perceive is never the world directly, but rather our brain’s best guess at what that world is like, a kind of internal simulation of an external reality. Still, we bank on the fact that our simulation is a reasonably decent one. If it wasn’t, wouldn’t evolution have weeded us out by now? The true reality might be forever beyond our reach, but surely our senses give us at least an inkling of what it’s really like. Not so, says Donald D. Hoffman, a professor of cognitive science at the University of California, Irvine. Hoffman has spent the past three decades studying perception, artificial intelligence, evolutionary game theory and the brain, and his conclusion is a dramatic one: The world presented to us by our perceptions is nothing like reality. What’s more, he says, we have evolution itself to thank for this magnificent illusion, as it maximizes evolutionary fitness by driving truth to extinction. Getting at questions about the nature of reality, and disentangling the observer from the observed, is an endeavor that straddles the boundaries of neuroscience and fundamental physics. On one side you’ll find researchers scratching their chins raw trying to understand how a three-pound lump of gray matter obeying nothing more than the ordinary laws of physics can give rise to first-person conscious experience. This is the aptly named “hard problem.” On the other side are quantum physicists, marveling at the strange fact that quantum systems don’t seem to be definite objects localized in space until we come along to observe them — whether we are conscious humans or inanimate measuring devices. Experiment after experiment has shown — defying common sense — that if we assume that the particles that make up ordinary objects have an objective, observer-independent existence, we get the wrong answers. The central lesson of quantum physics is clear: There are no public objects sitting out there in some preexisting space. As the physicist John Wheeler put it, “Useful as it is under ordinary circumstances to say that the world exists ‘out there’ independent of us, that view can no longer be upheld.” So while neuroscientists struggle to understand how there can be such a thing as a first-person reality, quantum physicists have to grapple with the mystery of how there can be anything but a first-person reality. In short, all roads lead back to the observer. And that’s where you can find Hoffman — straddling the boundaries, attempting a mathematical model of the observer, trying to get at the reality behind the illusion. Quanta Magazine caught up with him to find out more. An edited and condensed version of the conversation follows. QUANTA MAGAZINE: People often use Darwinian evolution as an argument that our perceptions accurately reflect reality. They say, “Obviously we must be latching onto reality in some way because otherwise we would have been wiped out a long time ago. If I think I’m seeing a palm tree but it’s really a tiger, I’m in trouble.” DONALD HOFFMAN: Right. The classic argument is that those of our ancestors who saw more accurately had a competitive advantage over those who saw less accurately and thus were more likely to pass on their genes that coded for those more accurate perceptions, so after thousands of generations we can be quite confident that we’re the offspring of those who saw accurately, and so we see accurately. That sounds very plausible. But I think it is utterly false. It misunderstands the fundamental fact about evolution, which is that it’s about fitness functions — mathematical functions that describe how well a given strategy achieves the goals of survival and reproduction. The mathematical physicist Chetan Prakash proved a theorem that I devised that says: According to evolution by natural selection, an organism that sees reality as it is will never be more fit than an organism of equal complexity that sees none of reality but is just tuned to fitness. Never. You’ve done computer simulations to show this. Can you give an example? Suppose in reality there’s a resource, like water, and you can quantify how much of it there is in an objective order — very little water, medium amount of water, a lot of water. Now suppose your fitness function is linear, so a little water gives you a little fitness, medium water gives you medium fitness, and lots of water gives you lots of fitness — in that case, the organism that sees the truth about the water in the world can win, but only because the fitness function happens to align with the true structure in reality. Generically, in the real world, that will never be the case. Something much more natural is a bell curve — say, too little water you die of thirst, but too much water you drown, and only somewhere in between is good for survival. Now the fitness function doesn’t match the structure in the real world. And that’s enough to send truth to extinction. For example, an organism tuned to fitness might see small and large quantities of some resource as, say, red, to indicate low fitness, whereas they might see intermediate quantities as green, to indicate high fitness. Its perceptions will be tuned to fitness, but not to truth. It won’t see any distinction between small and large — it only sees red — even though such a distinction exists in reality. But how can seeing a false reality be beneficial to an organism’s survival? There’s a metaphor that’s only been available to us in the past 30 or 40 years, and that’s the desktop interface. Suppose there’s a blue rectangular icon on the lower right corner of your computer’s desktop — does that mean that the file itself is blue and rectangular and lives in the lower right corner of your computer? Of course not. But those are the only things that can be asserted about anything on the desktop — it has color, position and shape. Those are the only categories available to you, and yet none of them are true about the file itself or anything in the computer. They couldn’t possibly be true. That’s an interesting thing. You could not form a true description of the innards of the computer if your entire view of reality was confined to the desktop. And yet the desktop is useful. That blue rectangular icon guides my behavior, and it hides a complex reality that I don’t need to know. That’s the key idea. Evolution has shaped us with perceptions that allow us to survive. They guide adaptive behaviors. But part of that involves hiding from us the stuff we don’t need to know. And that’s pretty much all of reality, whatever reality might be. If you had to spend all that time figuring it out, the tiger would eat you. So everything we see is one big illusion? We’ve been shaped to have perceptions that keep us alive, so we have to take them seriously. If I see something that I think of as a snake, I don’t pick it up. If I see a train, I don’t step in front of it. I’ve evolved these symbols to keep me alive, so I have to take them seriously. But it’s a logical flaw to think that if we have to take it seriously, we also have to take it literally. If snakes aren’t snakes and trains aren’t trains, what are they? Snakes and trains, like the particles of physics, have no objective, observer-independent features. The snake I see is a description created by my sensory system to inform me of the fitness consequences of my actions. Evolution shapes acceptable solutions, not optimal ones. A snake is an acceptable solution to the problem of telling me how to act in a situation. My snakes and trains are my mental representations; your snakes and trains are your mental representations. How did you first become interested in these ideas? As a teenager, I was very interested in the question “Are we machines?” My reading of the science suggested that we are. But my dad was a minister, and at church they were saying we’re not. So I decided I needed to figure it out for myself. It’s sort of an important personal question — if I’m a machine, I would like to find that out! And if I’m not, I’d like to know, what is that special magic beyond the machine? So eventually in the 1980s I went to the artificial intelligence lab at MIT and worked on machine perception. The field of vision research was enjoying a newfound success in developing mathematical models for specific visual abilities. I noticed that they seemed to share a common mathematical structure, so I thought it might be possible to write down a formal structure for observation that encompassed all of them, perhaps all possible modes of observation. I was inspired in part by Alan Turing. When he invented the Turing machine, he was trying to come up with a notion of computation, and instead of putting bells and whistles on it, he said, Let’s get the simplest, most pared down mathematical description that could possibly work. And that simple formalism is the foundation for the science of computation. So I wondered, could I provide a similarly simple formal foundation for the science of observation? A mathematical model of consciousness. That’s right. My intuition was, there are conscious experiences. I have pains, tastes, smells, all my sensory experiences, moods, emotions and so forth. So I’m just going to say: One part of this consciousness structure is a set of all possible experiences. When I’m having an experience, based on that experience I may want to change what I’m doing. So I need to have a collection of possible actions I can take and a decision strategy that, given my experiences, allows me to change how I’m acting. That’s the basic idea of the whole thing. I have a space X of experiences, a space G of actions, and an algorithm D that lets me choose a new action given my experiences. Then I posited a W for a world, which is also a probability space. Somehow the world affects my perceptions, so there’s a perception map P from the world to my experiences, and when I act, I change the world, so there’s a map A from the space of actions to the world. That’s the entire structure. Six elements. The claim is: This is the structure of consciousness. I put that out there so people have something to shoot at. But if there’s a W, are you saying there is an external world? Here’s the striking thing about that. I can pull the W out of the model and stick a conscious agent in its place and get a circuit of conscious agents. In fact, you can have whole networks of arbitrary complexity. And that’s the world. The world is just other conscious agents? I call it conscious realism: Objective reality is just conscious agents, just points of view. Interestingly, I can take two conscious agents and have them interact, and the mathematical structure of that interaction also satisfies the definition of a conscious agent. This mathematics is telling me something. I can take two minds, and they can generate a new, unified single mind. Here’s a concrete example. We have two hemispheres in our brain. But when you do a split-brain operation, a complete transection of the corpus callosum, you get clear evidence of two separate consciousnesses. Before that slicing happened, it seemed there was a single unified consciousness. So it’s not implausible that there is a single conscious agent. And yet it’s also the case that there are two conscious agents there, and you can see that when they’re split. I didn’t expect that, the mathematics forced me to recognize this. It suggests that I can take separate observers, put them together and create new observers, and keep doing this ad infinitum. It’s conscious agents all the way down. If it’s conscious agents all the way down, all first-person points of view, what happens to science? Science has always been a third-person description of the world. The idea that what we’re doing is measuring publicly accessible objects, the idea that objectivity results from the fact that you and I can measure the same object in the exact same situation and get the same results — it’s very clear from quantum mechanics that that idea has to go. Physics tells us that there are no public physical objects. So what’s going on? Here’s how I think about it. I can talk to you about my headache and believe that I am communicating effectively with you, because you’ve had your own headaches. The same thing is true as apples and the moon and the sun and the universe. Just like you have your own headache, you have your own moon. But I assume it’s relevantly similar to mine. That’s an assumption that could be false, but that’s the source of my communication, and that’s the best we can do in terms of public physical objects and objective science. It doesn’t seem like many people in neuroscience or philosophy of mind are thinking about fundamental physics. Do you think that’s been a stumbling block for those trying to understand consciousness? I think it has been. Not only are they ignoring the progress in fundamental physics, they are often explicit about it. They’ll say openly that quantum physics is not relevant to the aspects of brain function that are causally involved in consciousness. They are certain that it’s got to be classical properties of neural activity, which exist independent of any observers — spiking rates, connection strengths at synapses, perhaps dynamical properties as well. These are all very classical notions under Newtonian physics, where time is absolute and objects exist absolutely. And then [neuroscientists] are mystified as to why they don’t make progress. They don’t avail themselves of the incredible insights and breakthroughs that physics has made. Those insights are out there for us to use, and yet my field says, “We’ll stick with Newton, thank you. We’ll stay 300 years behind in our physics.” I suspect they’re reacting to things like Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff’s model, where you still have a physical brain, it’s still sitting in space, but supposedly it’s performing some quantum feat. In contrast, you’re saying, “Look, quantum mechanics is telling us that we have to question the very notions of ‘physical things’ sitting in ‘space.’” I think that’s absolutely true. The neuroscientists are saying, “We don’t need to invoke those kind of quantum processes, we don’t need quantum wave functions collapsing inside neurons, we can just use classical physics to describe processes in the brain.” I’m emphasizing the larger lesson of quantum mechanics: Neurons, brains, space … these are just symbols we use, they’re not real. It’s not that there’s a classical brain that does some quantum magic. It’s that there’s no brain! Quantum mechanics says that classical objects — including brains — don’t exist. So this is a far more radical claim about the nature of reality and does not involve the brain pulling off some tricky quantum computation. So even Penrose hasn’t taken it far enough. But most of us, you know, we’re born realists. We’re born physicalists. This is a really, really hard one to let go of. To return to the question you started with as a teenager, are we machines? The formal theory of conscious agents I’ve been developing is computationally universal — in that sense, it’s a machine theory. And it’s because the theory is computationally universal that I can get all of cognitive science and neural networks back out of it. Nevertheless, for now I don’t think we are machines — in part because I distinguish between the mathematical representation and the thing being represented. As a conscious realist, I am postulating conscious experiences as ontological primitives, the most basic ingredients of the world. I’m claiming that experiences are the real coin of the realm. The experiences of everyday life — my real feeling of a headache, my real taste of chocolate — that really is the ultimate nature of reality. Source: https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-evolutionary-argument-against-reality-20160421/ Photo: Donald Hoffman
Hoffman's Evolutionary Argument Against Reality  content media
0
0
4
Nondual Library
Feb 02, 2021
In Unlearning Duality
The essential discovery of all the great spiritual traditions, including Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Zen, Sufism, Kashmir Shaivism and Judaism, is that experience is not divided into a perceiving subject, an entity known as ‘I’, and a perceived object, world or other. The apparent separate entity and the apparent separate, independent world or other are understood to be concepts that are superimposed onto the reality of experience. If we look for this reality, for the essential ingredient in every experience of the mind, body and world, we find consciousness or awareness, a knowing presence that we intimately and directly know to be our own being, and that is experienced simply as ‘I am’. This understanding, sometimes referred to as non-duality or Advaita, lies at the core of all these traditions, and although it cannot be expressed directly, teachers, sages, mystics and poets use the language of their culture to point towards this reality. This non-conceptual or experiential reality or knowingess, although in fact always present, embedded in all experience, is veiled in most cases by beliefs. The primal belief, upon which all others are based, is that consciousness or awareness is located in or as the body. With this fundamental mistake we shrink ourself into a separate entity that resides in the body; that is, consciousness seems to contract into a tiny, vulnerable entity. As a result, the peace and happiness that are inherent in our true nature – in consciousness – are veiled and seem, therefore, to be lost. This is the beginning of the search for happiness. Consciousness seems to contract into a separate entity that we know and feel to be ‘I’ and the world (including all others) simultaneously seems to become outside, separate, other, ‘not me’. Although this division of experience never actually takes place, it is a powerful illusion that seems to divide the oneness of experience into two separate things. With this apparent division, suffering is born. In most cases a friend or teacher is required to point out this fundamental mistake, and through association with him or her, through the sharing of being in conversation, meditation, contemplation, silence, self-enquiry, investigation, exploration and simply spending time together in silence and in normal everyday activities, the dense web of beliefs and feelings that comprise the knot of separation is dissolved. This is sometimes called enlightenment or awakening. It is the awakening of presence, consciousness, awareness to its own being as the reality of all things. In my case, it was my friend and teacher Francis Lucille who pointed out the nature of experience. However, there were many others, mostly from the Advaita or non-duality tradition, who prepared the way for this meeting in the heart: Ramana Maharshi, Robert Adams, Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj, Jean Klein, Atmananda Krishna Menon, Wei Wu Wei, Rumi, Hafiz, Meister Eckhart, Irene Tweedie, Da Free John, J. Krishnamurti, Shantanada Saraswati, Francis Roles and P. D. Ouspensky. Francis introduced me to the Direct Path, which is not really a path. It is the clear seeing that consciousness is simultaneously the witness and the substance of all experience, the one reality that gives seeming existence to the mind, body and world. After this first true glimpse, however, in almost all cases the habitual tendencies of the mind and the body reappear and apparently veil this knowingness again. The subsequent establishment in this understanding, sometimes known as self-realisation, is not a process towards a goal. It is a re-orchestration of the body, mind and world that comes from understanding, rather than going towards it. Enlightenment is instantaneous. Self-realisation takes time. Enlightenment could be said to be the deep understanding that there is no separate entity located inside the body, experiencing the world and all others outside and separate from itself. Self-realisation could be said to be the re-absorption of the mind, body and world into this knowing presence from which they proceed, and from which they were in fact never for a moment separate. It is a re-alignment of the mind, body and world with our understanding that it is this knowing presence that takes the shape of thinking, sensing and perceiving and, as a result, seems to become a mind, a body and a world, but in fact never becomes anything other than it already eternally is. There is only presence taking the shape of the totality of our experience from moment to moment. Source: https://non-duality.rupertspira.com/read/an_introduction_to_non-duality
An Introduction To Nonduality - Rupert Spira content media
0
0
23
Nondual Library
Feb 02, 2021
In Unlearning Duality
Well over a hundred years ago the painter Paul Cézanne said, “A time is coming when a carrot, freshly observed, will trigger a revolution.” Has this revolution taken place, is it slowly taking place or is it about to take place? And what is the revolution to which Cézanne referred? How could something as insignificant, inconsequential and ordinary as observing a carrot trigger a revolution? Cézanne meant that if we could see even a simple everyday object such as a carrot, as it truly is, our experience would be revolutionized. But what does it mean to see an object as it truly is? The key is in the phrase ‘freshly observed,’ which means to see clearly, unobstructed by the concepts that thought superimposes on our experience. In fact, most of us are completely unaware that our experience is filtered through a fine mesh of conceptual thinking that makes it appear very different from how it actually is. As the Chinese sage Huang Po said, some 1200 years ago, “People neglect the reality of the illusory world.” The illusory world? Now that’s even more radical than Cezanne! It’s one thing to look freshly at a carrot, spade, house or world, but quite another to consider it an illusion. What did he mean? We often hear phrases in the non-dual teaching such as, ‘The world is an illusion.’ But such phrases may create a rebellion in us, for we know that our experience is very real.  So how to reconcile these two positions – one, ‘the illusory world’ and two, the undeniable reality of our experience? Anything that appears must appear in or on something. For instance, an image appears on a screen; a chair appears in the space of a room; the words of a novel appear on a page; a cloud appears in the sky. What about the mind, body and world? Our only experience of them is what currently appears to us as thoughts, images, feelings, sensations, sights, sounds, textures, tastes and smells. In other words, all we know of a mind, body or world are appearances, and all these are continually appearing and disappearing. We may have a concept of a continuously existing mind, body or world, but we never actually experience such an object. As Cezanne also said, “Everything vanishes, falls apart.” All we know of the world are perceptions that continuously appear and disappear. However, anything that appears and disappears must do so in or on something. What is that something? Start with thoughts: wherever our thoughts appear is obviously what we refer to as our ‘self,’ ‘I.’ Our thoughts don’t appear outside of our self! However, we cannot see or find that ‘something’ in which thoughts appear because it has no observable qualities. As such, it is open, empty, transparent. But that doesn’t mean it is not known. It cannot be known as an object and yet it is not unknown. If we are reading these words we are, by definition, seeing the screen on which they are written, although we may not be aware that we are seeing it. If we are reading a novel we are, likewise, seeing the paper. If we are watching a movie we are, whether we realize it or not, seeing or experiencing the screen. If we are seeing clouds, we are experiencing the sky. It is not possible to see the words, novel, movie or clouds without, at the same time, experiencing whatever it is they appear in or on. So, if we are experiencing thoughts we are necessarily experiencing whatever they appear in. Likewise, if we are experiencing a sensation or a perception – and the only experience we have of a body or world are sensations and perceptions – then we are also knowing or experiencing whatever these appear in or on. In what does our perception of the world appear? In what do bodily sensations appear? Perceptions of the world don’t appear in the world; sensations of the body don’t appear in a body. Perceptions and sensations appear in exactly the same ‘place’ as thoughts, that is, they appear in the open, emptiness of our self. However, they do not just appear in our self; they are simultaneously known byour self, for our self is not just present but also aware; not just being but also knowing. Hence it is sometimes known as Awareness – the presence of that which is aware – or the light of pure Knowing. Now, having discovered that all we know of a mind, body or world are thoughts, sensations and perceptions, and having seen that all these arise within our self, we may ask where they come from and of what they are made. What is their substance, their reality? If we leave a jar of water outside on a freezing cold night, ice will start to form in it. The opaque ice is made only of the transparent water. However, the ice appears to be something separate from and other than the water. It seems to have its own independent existence or reality. Likewise, the ice has a form and yet it is made of something that has no form. The ice gives form to something that is itself essentially formless. How is it possible for something that has no form of its own to appear as form, without anything being added to or taken away from it? The formlessness of the water has the capacity within itself to assume all possible forms. In fact, it is precisely because the water has no form of its own, that it is possible for it to appear as this multiplicity and diversity of forms. Our experience is very much like this. The multiplicity and diversity of experience – thoughts, feelings, sensations and perceptions – appears in and is made out of our self. This ‘self’, pure Awareness, in which all experience appears, with which it is known and out of which it is made, is itself empty, transparent; it cannot be named and has no form, and yet it is the substance or reality of all names and forms. All experience arises within our self, this transparent emptiness. And the only ‘stuff’ present in our self, out of which all experience can be made, is our self itself. It is our direct, intimate experience that all we know of a mind, body or world is made out of and is identical to the transparency of our own Being, the light of pure Knowing. And what is present in our own self, prior to the experience of a thought, feeling, sensation or perception? Just itself, pure Awareness! All experience – that is, all thoughts, feelings, sensations and perceptions – is a modulation of the presence our own Being, the light of pure Knowing. The entire multiplicity and diversity of names and forms is made out of one transparent, empty, indivisible substance. Just as the screen on which an image appears is usually overlooked due to our exclusive focus on the image itself, so this open, empty, transparent presence of our own Being is usually overlooked due to our exclusive focus on the objects of the mind, body and world – that is, on thoughts, feelings, sensations and perceptions. However, just as it is not possible to see an image without seeing the screen so, although this Presence is usually overlooked, it is never truly unknown. Just as all we really see when we are seeing an image is the screen, so all we ever truly experience is the transparent, open, empty presence of our own Being, the light of pure Knowing. All It ever knows or experiences is Itself. Love is the common name we give to experience when the ‘other’ is no longer experienced as ‘other;’ when the subject/object relationship collapses. It is to see the appearance of an image but to know it only as screen. It is to attribute the reality of the image to the screen. It is to know everyone and everything as one’s own self. It is this transparent, empty Presence that, refracted through the mind, appears as a multiplicity and diversity of names and forms. However, the mind is itself a modulation of that very Presence. In other words, it is pure Awareness itself which, vibrating within itself, takes the shape of mind and, from the illusory point of view of one of the selves contained within that mind, seems to see a multiplicity and diversity of separate objects and selves, each with their own independently existing reality. In other words, the separate self is only a separate self from the illusory point of view of a separate self. From the true and only real point of view of pure Awareness there is only its infinite self, refracted into an apparent multiplicity and diversity of finite forms, but never ceasing to be itself. This is what William Blake meant when he said, “If the doors of perception were cleansed everything would appear to man as it is, infinite.” This is what the Sufis mean when they say, “Wherever the eye falls, there is the face of God.” This is what Huang Po meant when he said, “People forget the reality of the illusory world.” This is what Jesus meant when he said, “The kingdom of the Father is spread out upon the earth, and men do not see it.” This is what Parmenides meant, echoing the words of the Bhagavad Gita, when he said, “That which is, never ceases to be; that which is not, never comes into existence.” This is what Cézanne meant when he said that art must “give us a taste of nature’s eternity.” All the great sages and artists from all times and all places have said or expressed this in one way or another. This is the one true revolution. At the root of all desire for change is this ultimate desire: to know only the reality of all experience; to know only love. Unless and until the problems facing humanity are traced back to their ultimate source – the ignoring of this reality – they may be temporarily alleviated but will never be truly solved. Rupert Spira January 2013 Source: https://non-duality.rupertspira.com/read/the_ultimate_revolution
The Ultimate Revolution - Rupert Spira content media
0
0
6
Nondual Library
Feb 02, 2021
In Unlearning Duality
On the subject of Traditional Advaita (Oneness) versus NeoAdvaita: It has recently been argued that Traditional Oneness is somehow better than ‘NeoOneness’, or even ‘PseudoOneness’. The strangeness of this idea exposes the foolishness of trying to give title to that which is limitless. The cunning and manipulative guru mind inevitably objectifies verbal expression, and out of that objectifying arises a plethora of dogmatic movements all claiming supreme understanding of that which cannot be understood. As a consequence, so called Traditional Advaita, for instance, is just another established religion with a proliferation of teachings and literature, all of which very successfully and consistently miss the mark. It stands alongside Christianity and Buddhism as one of the many systems of personal indoctrination promising the eventual spiritual fulfilment. To quote from The Open Secret: “To translate the inexpressible into the doctrinal is to attempt to transform a song of freedom into a dogma of limitation. When the bird has flown, the essence of its song is often mislaid and all we are left with is an empty cage.” The teaching of “Traditional Advaita” has no relevance to liberation because it is born out of a fundamental misconception. Its logical and sensibly progressive recommendations include meditation, self-enquiry, self restraint, and to quote “the renunciation of the ego and all desire”. Of course, there is nothing right or wrong with the idea of desiring to renounce desire. However, these idealistic recommendations and teachings are based on the fundamental misconception that there is such a thing as a separate individual with free will and the choice to become. The belief that there is a separate seeker (subject) who can choose to attain or become worthy of something called enlightenment (object) is a direct denial of abiding oneness (Advaita). Within the hypnotic dream of separation, the prevailing perception is that of the seeker and the sought. The ignorance of this perception continues in the search for enlightenment, and inevitably the dreamseeker is attracted to a dream teaching which upholds and encourages the same premise of personal discipline and sacrifice (seeking) leading to the eventual goal of enlightenment (the sought). The recommendation to cultivate understanding and refine something called “the mind” (?) is hugely attractive to the dreamseeker because it prolongs the very worthy search and thrives on logic, detachment, complication, endeavour, hierarchy and exclusivity. Trying to understand oneness is as futile as trying to fall in love with an inch. There is no possibility of teaching oneness. However, the sharing can bring a rediscovery of that which is already known. If we are to believe recent descriptions of something called “Neo Advaita” as being “the forcing of the truth (?) on unprepared minds” or “advising people to stop seeking” or suggesting to people that they are “nothing but the mind itself”, these teachings, if they exist, are equally as dualistic as the “traditional Advaita” they were born out of. This confusion is of course as much an expression of oneness as the clarity which exposes it. All of this silly circus is simply the eternal play of oneness apparently seeking itself. It is the wonderful cosmic joke oneness plays on itself by pretending to be an individual seeking something called “not being an individual”. When it is suddenly and directly rediscovered by no-one that liberation brings with it the realisation that there is nothing to seek and noone to become liberated, then there is much laughter. Source: https://www.theopensecret.com/divine-misconception Painting of Tony Parsons by Fred Schley Website: www.fredschley.nl
The Divine Misconception - Tony Parsons content media
0
0
16
Nondual Library
Feb 02, 2021
In Unlearning Duality
A simple, direct, but fundamental shift in perception reveals that all there is - is liberation. But oneness does not become apparent through something gained, rather through something lost. Many will come across this rare and radical message and quickly shuffle back to that which they think they can know and do. But there are those with whom this communication will resonate . . . and there will be a sudden seeing and falling away of all seeking, even for that which they have called enlightenment. All there is - is this. Oneness is being this . . . whatever is apparently happening . . . reading these words, breathing, blood coursing through the body, sounds being heard, thoughts coming and going and feelings in the body - the sense of sitting on a seat maybe. Here is oneness being aliveness as this. No effort is needed for that aliveness to be. Nobody is doing aliveness. Is anybody doing sitting on a chair? Thinking is oneness thinking "I don't get where this is going", or "this is too simple". All is simply aliveness, oneness, being. It cannot be taught or achieved. Who is apart from being to achieve being? Who can lose or gain this when this is all there is? Resisting oneness is oneness resisting. Seeking oneness is oneness seeking itself. Aliveness is oneness apparently happening. Aliveness is being alive. There is only being and the nature of that being is emptiness and fullness, nothing and everything, movement and repose. In that wholeness arises the idea "I am a separate individual". This seems to be the beginning of a dream called "me being someone in a world with which I have to negotiate". Here in this separation is the root of all fear and feeling of disquiet coming out of a sense of loss. Again it is the appearance of oneness, and in that appearance we embark on a journey in which we meet parents, teachers, maybe priests, bosses and lovers, and learn how to get what we think we want seemingly through personal choice and effort. The pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain generate transient experiences of gratification and disappointment. The whole manifestation that we call life is simply the drama of oneness looking for itself, for all desire is the longing for oneness. For some the idea of enlightenment seems to offer the promise of fulfilment. However, the separate individual can only dream individuality. That is its function. Inevitably in the search for enlightenment, the dream seeker is attracted to a dream teaching that promotes and reinforces the idea of individual choice and effort, which, through discipline and sacrifice, can lead to the promised ultimate experience of enlightenment. But this teaching reinforces the illusion that there is such a thing as an individual who has free will and the choice to become. What is inseparable from the dream of individuality is the idea of ownership. "What is happening is happening to me. I have a life called me and I can, or even should, do something with my life in the time allotted; I have to succeed; I am an individual and personal endeavour can bring me what I need." This misconception promotes the continuation of the dream of personal enlightenment. The idea that presumes the possibility that dualistic practices can lead the apparent seeker to the non­dualistic perception is similar to the idea that with sufficient effort and determination you can teach a blind man to see. To quote "Doctrines, processes and progressive paths which seek enlightenment only exacerbate the problem they address by reinforcing the idea that the apparent self can find something it presumes it has lost. It is that very effort, that investment in self­identity that continuously recreates the illusion of separation from oneness. This is the veil which we believe exists. It is the dream of individuality." (The Open Secret) Out of all the many awakenings that have been described to me, it is continuously confirmed that one of the first realisations that arises is the seeing that no­one awakens. And yet we see that the majority of teachings, both traditional and contemporary, are constantly speaking to an apparent separate seeker (subject) and recommending that in order to attain enlightenment (object) they should choose to meditate, self­enquire, purify, cultivate understanding, still the mind and the ego, surrender, be honest, seek earnestly , give up seeking, do therapy, do nothing, be here now, and so on . . . the ideas are as endless and as complicated as the mind from where they are generated. These recommendations arise from the belief that the "enlightenment" of the "teacher" has been attained or earned through the application of choice, effort, acceptance or surrender, an d that other seekers can be taught to do the same. Of course there can be nothing right or wrong with earnest seeking, meditation, self enquiry, understanding and so on. They are simply what they appear to be. But who is it that is going to choose to make the effort? Where is the effort going to take the apparent chooser to? ­ where is there to go if there is only oneness? If there is no separate individual there is no volition, and so how can an illusion dispel itself? There is no person that becomes enlightened. No­one awakens. Awakening is the absence of the illusion of individuality. Already there is only awakeness, oneness, timeless being, radical aliveness. When the dream seeker is no more it is seen (by no­one) that there is nothing to seek and no­one to become liberated. Here is oneness, the realisation of wholeness that cannot be attained or owned. This is the awakening in which the awareness of what is arises together with the dreaming of that which cannot be known. There can be a dance between dreaming and being, and in that dance there can be a return to the fascination of personal ownership. However, the realisation that the dream seeker is also oneness is liberation, the uncaused, impersonal, silent stillness which is the celebration of unconditional love. This is all there is. There is no me or you , no seeker, no enlightenment, no disciple and no guru . There is no better or worse, no path or purpose, and nothing that has to be achieved. All appearance is source. All that apparently manifests in the hypnotic dream of separation ­ the world, the life story, the search for home, is one appearing as two the nothing appearing as everything, the absolute appearing as the particular. There is no separate intelligence weaving a destiny and no choice functioning at any level. Nothing is happening but this, as it is, invites the apparent seeker to rediscover that which is . . . the abiding, uncaused, unchanging, impersonal silence from which unconditional love overflows and celebrates. It is the wonderful mystery. Source: https://www.theopensecret.com/seeing-and-not-seeing Painting of Tony Parsons by Fred Schley Website: www.fredschley.nl
Seeing And Not Seeing - Tony Parsons content media
0
0
10
Nondual Library
Feb 02, 2021
In Unlearning Duality
All there is, is No-thing Being Everything and what appears as part of that everything is the belief and experience of being a separate self — an apparent individual with its own free will, choice and ability to act. This happening is uniquely human and is called self-consciousness. To most people it is the reality. That apparent feeling of being separate is at the root of the suffering, inadequacy and sense of loss that drives people to search for escape or resolution. It is Being dreaming that it is apart from itself, looking all over the place for that which is already Everything. It is the hypnotic dream of separation which, for the dreamer, is very real. The dilemma for the dream seeker is that the feeling of separation drives the seeking for resolution, which further fuels the sense of separation. The development of an intelligent understanding 'mind' apparently brings with it the ability to make choices and take actions in an attempt to negotiate with 'the world' lived in. These negotiations are not always successful and the individual seems to experience its own pain and pleasure. It also develops a great respect for the guidance and control apparently emanating from the understanding 'mind'. However, as long as there is a sense of separation, there is a sense of disquiet or loss and there is a seeking to dispel that sense. It seems logical that the much respected understanding 'mind' must be capable of investigating the cause of this disquiet and discovering ways of dispelling it. The separate entity can only try to imagine or project an idea of what it must be like not to be separate. What is sought is the possibility of a future goal or state that can be realised and therefore, logically, must be approachable. Consequently, the function of seeking and the teaching of becoming locks the seeker into a state of continuously approaching something that it cannot comprehend. All of this is the expression of Being, arising as the good, old, dependable and reliable understanding ‘mind’ functioning as it can only function . . . in continual movement and anticipation. It is this activity of becoming which very effectively keeps the seeker in the hypnotic dream of reaching out for something it cannot grasp. Of course, Liberation can apparently happen despite all of this effort. The only other hope for the dream seeker is to believe that another benevolent energy (say God, Consciousness or a so-called enlightened teacher) would be motivated to guide and influence the seeker along a path which would eventually lead them to fulfilment. All of these ideas of becoming, purpose and destiny arise in the dream. But the paradox is that although Being appears as the dream seeker, Being is not a state that can be imagined, conceived of, attained or even realised by the seeking of it. Being requires absolutely nothing … it is the Nothing and Everything that is already immaculate fulfilment and wholeness. Nothing needs to be changed or attained, lost or found, for Being to simply Be. The appearance of separation is simply the expression of Being. The very idea of something needing to approach that which it already is, is wonderfully futile. Being is a comedian with an audience which never laughs. The dream seeker feels a sense of loss and unworthiness, and so is very attracted to dream teachings which involve purification, hard committed effort, surrender, devotion and the development of renunciation and detachment. There is a kind of logical inevitability and worthiness about these ideas which resonates with the sense of lack. The almost endless path of striving happily ensures the continuation of the individual experience. These ideas seem to arise out of a very substantial and reliable history of traditional wisdom which surely must be respected, even though it is only available as words on bits of paper. Two traditional ways which seek resolution, or escape, from the sense of separation are meditation and self-enquiry. In meditation it seems possible, through apparent choice and guidance, to reach certain states of stillness or bliss which seem better than feeling separate. The belief is that continuous effort with meditation will solidify the state and eventually make it permanent. But these states are only refined personal experiences happening within the dream-story. So like all other time-based activities they come and go away. Self-enquiry is a similar process in that the goal is for the individual to choose to take action or make the effort to reach a place called awareness which, its teachers promise, will bring personal peace of mind, happiness and the end of all suffering (?). There is a great emphasis on the need for properly carried out investigation of thought processes etc, and the necessity for vigilance from “being distracted by self-centred thoughts”. All of this activity is based on the principle of the enquirer “getting oneness” and maintaining personal possession of it. The effect of the state of awareness is apparent movement into a place of detachment which at first feels very freeing, powerful and safe . . . rather like being in a glass box from which life can be watched without the watcher being affected. It is still a subtly dual personal experience within the dream-story of separation and so it is transitory. Awareness of life happening is not 'Being life'. Predictably the state of awareness (Buddhist mindfulness) is easily forgotten or mislaid, or it can be overwhelmed by dream thinking or any powerful emotional situation, for instance. The glass box shatters and the place you seemed to be in seems lost again. The dream seeker either starts selfenquiring again, for another boost, or it is realised that awareness is just another refuge from within the dream of separation. All of this is simply the expression of Being. Another way for the dream seeker to avoid simply Being is to try to understand or develop clarity about its own nature. It is very easy to get stuck in ‘Advaita’ or ‘non-dual’ concepts. The singular and unrelenting reiteration of such ideas as “all there is is Being", “everything is the expression of Being” or “there is no one” are an arid and simplistic form of communication. It doesn't address or illuminate the dream seeker’s apparent dilemma and it obviously ignores the primary energetic essence of the implicit aliveness of simply Being. To continuously say that being awake or being asleep is not relevant because “Being is all there is” is like telling a blind person that it’s OK to be blind because “seeing is all there is”. This is pure idealism. Of course, there is no such thing as being asleep or being awake, but this is not seen until there is no one looking. The Open Secret communication is not dependent on clear concepts, however much they may expose confused concepts. Speaking happens and words can only point to another possibility which is beyond verbal expression. It is the eternally new message which is hidden within the scriptures and either overlooked or rejected in the ‘mind’. The idea of prescriptive teaching, guidance or the offer of any kind of help simply does not arise. This is a message without hope or comfort of any kind for the individual, but invariably the dream seeker will still believe that something is on offer … this is the function of seeking. It is also possible that all that will be left is nothing, and then another possibility could arise. However, there is no agenda or motive because nothing is for sale. It is possible that clarity could arise, but absolute understanding is not liberation. Nevertheless, all of this conceptual communication is secondary to the primary element that is most illuminating. That primary element is energetic, impersonal aliveness … the implicit, vibrant wonder of simply Being. It is an energetic shift, apparently out of contraction into boundlessness. This boundlessness cannot be owned and so cannot be given. Its simplicity utterly confounds the ‘mind’, but what arises is an impersonal recognition that there is no-one and nothing to be liberated. All ideas of separation, individual suffering, free will, choice, meaning and purpose, destiny, hierarchy and tradition, are simply seen by no-one as the dream-play of Being. It seems that the seeking ‘mind’ is fascinated by struggle and complexity. The whole fabric of seeking is full of stories of great edifices, seemingly arising out of simple beginnings. Buddhism, Christianity and so many other dogmas, arise and grow and fight each other over having better gods. Catechisms of sin and worthiness, degrees of awareness and levels of enlightenment are investigated, dissected and struggled over. The mind loves the idea of enlightenment being some kind of distant, virtually unobtainable, perfect place of permanent bliss, free from suffering and full of omniscience, omnipresence and lots of other important ‘omni’s’ stomping around, shouting the odds and saving the world. And of course, because all this glory and specialness has to be attained, it seems there has to be a long haul through the dark night of the soul, endless past karmas, original sin, right-thinking, right action and preparation for the bardos. “It is a tale told by a fool, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” Yet Natural Being is such an ordinary and gentle constant. When it is seen it is. When it is avoided it is. It requires no effort and demands no standards. Being timeless there is no path to tread, no debt to pay. When this is heard and confusion collapses, when the contraction of struggling to get something falls away and the vibrant energy of being aliveness becomes apparent, something else is seen, very naturally of course, because it is already all that is. Source: https://www.theopensecret.com/dream-of-separation Painting of Tony Parsons by Fred Schley Website: www.fredschley.nl
The Dream Of Separation - Tony Parsons content media
0
0
15
Nondual Library
Feb 01, 2021
In Unlearning Duality
It seems that Dennis Waite and his fellow Traditional Advaitists have been challenging the validity of something they have decided to call “Neo Advaita” or, it has to be said, their particular interpretation of it! I have been asked to comment because The Open Secret communication seems to have been their main target and so, of course, there can only be a response from this apparent “perception”. So right away I am puzzled at any attempt to make a comparison between two perspectives which simply do not meet. Dennis Waite’s works are an excellent expression of the fundamental principles that generate the majority of traditional and contemporary dualistic teachings. They are, in simple terms, rooted in the belief that there is something called a seeker (one) that can attain something else called enlightenment (two). The Open Secret recognises the relative as the absolute appearing and form as formlessness . . . there is not two! And so, everything is already the unconditional expression of wholeness, including the belief that it isn’t. Traditional Advaita is a teaching of becoming, The Open Secret is not, but it exposes the one primary misconception that is the mother of many others. It also attempts to describe the nature of “what is” rather than teach what should be. It seems that Dennis Waite does not recognise the difference and continuously confirms his belief that there is an individual who can attain enlightenment. So, I will not respond to these criticisms with any counter arguments, but will only try to demonstrate the futility of comparison. Presuming that Dennis Waite accurately represents something he calls Traditional Advaita, he confirms his belief and experience in the reality of the constant existence of an individual with free will and the ability to choose and bring about consequence. The Open Secret recognises that the belief and experience of a central “I” or a “me” or a “self” is an assumed inconstant state. Out of this one adopted belief in individuality arises many other beliefs, including self-autonomy, the story, time, purpose, destiny, deity and karma. Individuality is the transient appearance of wholeness seeming to be part of itself that feels separate from wholeness and can only apparently seek to be whole. But a part can never know the whole. It is a metaphor. Dennis Waite believes and recommends that, in order to resolve the real and constant sense of separation and become enlightened, the individual should choose to follow a progressive spiritual path. This path involves practice, meditation, self-enquiry and the eradication of ego and ignorance through a clear understanding of the scriptures and the guidance of a teacher. The Open Secret recognises that the above beliefs and recommendations are generated out of an assumed and inconstant sense of being a separate individual who needs to attain something called enlightenment. It is also recognised that an investment in the above recommendations can reinforce and maintain the assumed sense of being an individual who can resolve its sense of being separate. Dennis Waite confirms that enlightenment is something that can be described in words, and attained and known by the individual mind when it acquires the knowledge that there is only a non-dual reality. The Open Secret recognises that there is no such thing as enlightenment or liberation, or an individual that can become enlightened or liberated. These are all ideas that come and go within the individual story. When the assumed sense of being separate seems to collapse, already there is only the constant and unknowable wonder of being. The Open Secret perception is that there is no such thing as a “mind”. Thinking seems to happen and sometimes thoughts formulate into belief systems which are still experienced sporadically by the apparent individual in what seems to be a story in time. Absolute clarity also arises within the story and is transient. Traditional Advaita appears to make proper use of logic, reason, belief and experience, rational explanation, truth, and traditional wisdom, all directed towards helping the seeker along the path to their enlightenment. The Open Secret’s apparent communication is illogical, unreasonable, unbelievable, paradoxical, non-prescriptive, non-spiritual and uncompromising. There is no agenda or intention to help or change apparent individuality. Its resonance is shared energetically, not through the exchange of ideas. It is prior to all teachings and yet eternally new. Belief is seen as married to doubt, and experience as a fluctuating personal state. The Open Secret does not recognise anything as being “the truth” nor does it see how something called Traditional Advaita could be anything other than a complex collection of ideas. Traditional Advaita is a teaching about that which can be known. The Open Secret illuminates the myth of separation and points to that which can’t be known. Surely an unbiased view of these two “perspectives” would immediately recognise that they do not meet. However, it seems obvious that Dennis does not recognise the difference, and is also unable to comprehend, even intellectually, the principle and implication of individual absence. One of his recommendations is that the aspiring so-called spiritual teacher should ask themselves if they are truly enlightened?! How can he see any possible connection between this idea and The Open Secret communication? He probably still believes that these differing perspectives are “ours” and that Tony Parsons is an individual who tells other individuals that they are enlightened, and so there is nothing to do. Either there is resonance or not and, because the ineffable cannot be understood and therefore controlled, it can seem threatening to the apparent seeker. Consequently any attempt at expression of the indefinable has to be rejected or misinterpreted. What often emerges is a reconfiguring which can be believed, and is safe, and which offers hope and purpose to the seeker. Dogmas, doctrines and progressive paths which promise eventual enlightenment, or Nirvana, or the Kingdom of Heaven, through sacrifice, discipline, refinement and purification of the self, appeal tremendously to that within the seeker which feels unworthy. Hence, the power of classic religion and teachings of becoming. Traditional Advaita is just another one of these. Of course, for any apparent seeker who believes in self-autonomy and the seeming reality of needing to climb a spiritual mountain, Dennis Waite’s work seems a logical, sound and reassuringly complicated instruction manual to follow. However, what does devalue this apparent testimony to “the truth” is its seemingly prejudiced portrayal of so-called “neo Advaitans” which appears to be mainly based on hearsay, wishful thinking and the misinterpretation of quotations taken out of context. Of course there is a lot of dualistic nonsense broadcast under the non-dual Advaita banner. A relentless regurgitation of the idea that there is “no-one”, or that everything is fine because it is only arising as “all there is”, is nothing more than a replacement of one set of beliefs for another. Words can only ever point to the inexpressible, and anyone who is concept-bound can nit and pick and tut their way through every word of this response with the sole purpose of seeing nothing more than that which they believe to be “right or wrong”. It is what happens . . . apparently. Isn’t it wonderful that all of this is already only the unconditional expression of wholeness appearing as much ado about nothing. Final Response: Most of the recent "traditionalist" responses to my TA versus NA essay clearly confirm again that there is no recognition of the one fundamental difference between these two perspectives, and this renders any further debate futile. The relentless need to set right against wrong very successfully demonstrates the incomprehension of a message that points to that which is beyond both. Source: https://www.theopensecret.com/traditional-not-two-ness ​ Painting of Tony Parsons by Fred Schley Website: www.fredschley.nl
Traditional Advaita Is Better Than Neo Advaita? - Tony Parsons content media
0
0
5
Nondual Library
Feb 01, 2021
In Poetry and Nonduality
I was looking for that shop where the shopkeeper would say, “There is nothing of value in here.” I found it and did not leave. The richness of not wanting wrote these poems. Kabir, Love Poems from God
Where The Shopkeeper Would Say - Kabir content media
0
0
37
Nondual Library
Feb 01, 2021
In Poetry and Nonduality
Absurdity: my absence is required The savage unrelenting fearful me Desirous and desiring, not desired Forever seeking what I cannot see Being not what I can never be Knowing not what I will never know Greedy to reclaim the bliss of nought Absurdity: bliss is the death of me. Though I, of course, resist my own demise, Yet what is seen is seen through no one’s eyes; And what is loved is love, and only love, And not received from any god above. Words here are written, no one prints them out. The bliss and sorrow rise, they are not mine. All there is, is this. It is enough. No one has seen this; being is divine. Source: https://www.theopensecret.com/poetry
Absurdity - Suzanne Foxton content media
0
0
13
Nondual Library
Feb 01, 2021
In Unlearning Duality
The Open Secret communication can only point to the simple wonder of being, and attempt to illuminate the futility of seeking for it. It does not accept or reject the teachings of spiritual path or process but it will expose, without compromise, the singular and fundamental misconception that drives the belief that there is something called a seeker that needs to find something else called enlightenment. The Open Secret does not compromise with the needs and expectations of the seeker. Neither does it attempt to attract or please with promises of an easy and pleasant experience of liberation. Who could promise that and who would experience it? Because the idea of individual free will and choice is seen as an illusory dream, there is no agenda or intention to help or change individuality. As far as the apparent individual is concerned, there is nothing for sale here. The sense of being a separate individual feels very real and affects every part of that apparent experience. It is a state of contracted energy which becomes embodied and which brings with it a feeling of disquiet and longing. There can be a held sense of feeling unworthy and of having lost something indescribable. It is as though the “me” resides within the boundaries of the body and sees everything outside as something else with which it has to negotiate. Out of these experiences is generated a compulsion to continuously seek comfort or release. This is the dream of individuality which seems real until it doesn’t. The “me” searches for peace and fulfilment, the “me” searches for selfimprovement or purity, presence or detachment. The “me” seeks clarity or any formula which will give the “me” what it thinks it wants or needs. But the “me” not getting what it wants is not the dilemma. The dilemma is “me”. No amount of effort, process, clarity or belief can ever bring anything other than more “me” searching for that which the “me” cannot have or know. The suggestion that separation is only a thought or an understanding that comes or goes in presence is an initially attractive idea for the seeker who dreams of an easy answer which isn’t personally challenging and will bring permanent happiness. Thoughts of separation are only individual stories about an already held state of feeling restricted and apart. If separation was only a thought or a belief, it could be seen through or changed to its opposite, and then “BINGO” there would be liberation . . . you would think! Such idealistic communications often go hand in hand with a relentless reiteration of the idea that separation is “fine” because there is only ever oneness. This is like telling a blind person that blindness is “fine” because all there is is seeing. Of course there is only oneness. But what apparently arises in oneness is a deep sense of separation which doesn’t feel “fine”. These conceptual notions speak only of symptoms and do not recognise the source of the apparent dilemma that can fill every part of feeling separate. In essence what is sought is love. But it is the love that is absolute, all-embracing and eternal. It is this overwhelming love that many have glimpsed, and which I attempted to describe in The Open Secret when I seemed to be walking across a park and then was no more anyone. It wasn’t experienced because there was suddenly no experiencer. It was a glimpse that no-one glimpsed. I then returned as “a someone” and tried again and again to re-discover that unconditional love which I could not know. It is that love which is alluded to in literature, music and art. The most fascinating love stories are about unrequited love, because they point to that absolute love which the individual cannot possess. The powerful fascination of falling in love comes out of a primal sense that in that love you could be lost. It is that overwhelming love which is in all of our longing and is the fullness in the emptiness, the everything in the nothing. It is unconditional love which also appears as its opposite. Wonderfully, it is also that very love which constantly sings to us through our senses and in every part of the aliveness that is happening. Liberation is a word used to describe an apparent release from the illusion of feeling imprisoned and apart from love, or wholeness. That shift is essentially an energetic release out of contraction into boundlessness. Whenever and wherever there is a deep and uncompromising sharing together of the very real paradox of being, a palpable resonance can emerge. Out of that openness there can be a release of that contraction into boundlessness and what arises is the wonder of simply being. Source: https://www.theopensecret.com/nothing-for-sale Painting of Tony Parsons by Fred Schley Website: www.fredschley.nl
Nothing For Sale - Tony Parsons content media
0
0
29
Nondual Library
Feb 01, 2021
In Unlearning Duality
The story of Adam and Eve is an allegory describing the loss of “paradise” through the arising of self-knowing. So, it seems, there is wholeness (paradise) and within that boundless, free-floating, causeless energy, something appears which experiences itself as being separate from that wholeness (paradise). Here is a metaphor pointing to what seems like “the story” of self-consciousness, out of which is apparently born the knowing and experience of free will, choice, time and space, purpose and direction. As “the story” unfolds, so the self learns to know “the world out there” and attempts to negotiate the best deal possible for itself . . . it apparently takes action to find pleasure and avoid pain. The greater the knowledge the more effective the action, the results and the apparent sense of personal control . . . or so it seems. All of these efforts bring varying results, and so the individual comes to know fluctuating states of gratification and disappointment. However, it can be noticed that there seems to be an underlying sense of dissatisfaction which drives the self to find a deeper meaning. Because the apparent self can only exist through its own knowing, its search for a deeper meaning will be limited to that which it can know and experience for itself. Within these limitations there are a multitude of doctrines, therapies, ideologies, spiritual teachings and belief systems that the seeker can come to know. There can also be the knowing and experiencing of states of silence, stillness, bliss, awareness and detachment, all of which seem to come and go like night and day. All of these teachings, recommendations and prescriptions are attempting to provide the seeker with answers to that which is unknowable, and ways to find that which has never been lost. So the self is the separate seeker that pursues everything that it thinks it can know and do, excepting the absence of itself. That absence is the emptiness which is unknowable, but paradoxically is also the very fullness, the wholeness (paradise) that is longed for. Should the apparent seeker meet with a perception which reveals in great depth the real nature of separation and also exposes, without compromise, the sublime futility of seeking, there can be a collapse of the construct of the separate self. That totally impersonal message carries with it a boundless energy into which the seemingly contracted energy of self unfolds. A resonance can arise which is beyond self awareness . . . something ineffable can be sensed . . . a fragrance and an opening to the wonder of unknowing can emerge. Suddenly, there seems to be a shift and an impersonal realisation that this is already wholeness. The boundless, naked, innocent, free-floating and wonderful simplicity of beingness is already all there is . . . it is extraordinary in its ordinariness and yet it cannot be described. Source: https://www.theopensecret.com/knowing-and-unknowing Painting of Tony Parsons by Fred Schley Website: www.fredschley.nl
Knowing And Unknowing - Tony Parsons content media
0
0
5
Nondual Library
Feb 01, 2021
In Unlearning Duality
What is sought remains hidden from the seeker by already being everything. It is so obvious and simple that the grasping of it obscures it. Never found, never knowable, being is the consummate absence that is beyond measure. Looking for being is believing it is lost. Has anything been lost, or is it simply that the looking keeps it away? Does the beloved always dance constantly just beyond our serious focus? The very intention to seek for a mythical treasure within life inevitably obscures the reality that life is already the treasure. By seeking the myth it dreams it can attain, the seeker effectively avoids that which it most fears … its absence. Liberation is like a fuse that suddenly blows, and all the little lights go out and there is only light. This is not a message about you or me or anyone getting anything. This is about the realisation that there’s nothing to get … that what has been sought has never been lost. This isn’t about seeking or not seeking; it’s beyond the concepts of Advaita and non-dualism and beyond the idea of reaching states of awareness or mindfulness. There’s no goal. There’s nothing on offer. This is totally beyond knowing. This is really a description – a sharing together of a description of something that is beyond attainment, something that can’t be lost and also can’t be grasped or gained. All the time there’s separation there’s a sense of loss, there’s a sense of a feeling that there’s something that isn’t whole. And so the seeker attempts to fill that void, fill it with something – whatever. And some look to something called “enlightenment” because it is felt that enlightenment might be the thing that will fill this sense of loss; it could be the answer to some secret that we don’t quite get. And it sounds, when we read about enlightenment, as though somebody else has found the secret. But nobody’s found the secret. There’s no such thing as an enlightened person. It’s a complete misconception. But the difficulty is that being seekers, the energy of seeking pushes us into being attracted to the idea that somebody else has found something that we can find, because we grow up believing that effort brings results. So, if effort brings results, and we’ve heard of something called enlightenment or liberation, we can make the effort and then we can become liberated or enlightened … like this guy up the road we’ve heard about, or that woman that’s giving satsangs. They have got something that I want. If I go there I will learn how to get it. In the dream there’s still an idea that enlightenment or liberation is something that’s attainable. And so there are teachings that reinforce the idea that you are an individual that has choice, so now you, as an individual, can choose to self-enquire or to meditate, or whatever else, and eventually you could become enlightened. You can go all over the world and find teachings offering something to get. It is rare, however, to find an uncompromising communication that offers nothing at all to the seeker. This aliveness is nothing being everything. It’s just life happening. It’s not happening to anyone. There’s a whole set of experiences happening here and they’re happening in emptiness … they’re happening in free fall. They’re just what’s happening. All there is is life. All there is is beingness. There isn’t anyone that ever has or does not have it. There’s nobody that has life and somebody else doesn’t have life. There just is life being life. This message is so simple it totally confounds the mind. This message is too simple. Already your mind’s saying, “Yes, but come on … what about the levels of enlightenment and what about my emotional blocks, and what about my chakras, they’re not all fully open? What about my stillness – I’m not really still yet, and what about my ego? Somebody told me I still have an ego … it’s a bit reduced but it’s still there.” But all of that, all of those ideas are adopted lessons about how it should be. The ego is what’s happening. The ego is just being ego. Thinking is just being thinking. There is only being. There is just being. There’s nothing else. There’s nobody that’s running that. There’s no destiny, there’s no God, there’s no plan, there’s no script, there’s nowhere to go because there is only timeless being. Being is totally whole just being. And it is alive and fleshy and sexy and juicy and immediately this; it’s not some concept about ‘there’s no-one here’. It’s not some concept about ‘there’s nowhere to go’. It is the aliveness that’s in that body right now. There is pure beingness, pure aliveness. That’s it. End of story. Really it is simply that. So there is no-one, there is no choice. There is no choice at any level. Oneness didn’t choose to become two. There is just oneness. All there is, is oneness being alive with nobody doing it. Is anybody doing breathing? Is anybody doing blood circulation? Is anybody really doing anything? No. There is just apparent doing. Apparent life in freefall. There is no answer to life because life is its own answer. It’s happening already. It’s this. You never lost it. That’s the amazing thing about liberation. When liberation apparently happens people say, “It’s amazing because the thing I was looking for has never left me. It’s the one thing that never comes and never goes – the one constant that can’t be known or held onto.” And the one constant is being. Source: https://www.theopensecret.com/already-being Painting of Tony Parsons by Fred Schley Website: www.fredschley.nl
Already Being - Tony Parsons content media
0
0
17
Nondual Library
Feb 01, 2021
In Unlearning Duality
The titles non-dual and Advaita attempt to describe the principle of wholeness, unicity or that which is already at one. During the last decade there seems to have been a growing interest in what is known as “Advaita” or “non-dual” communication about enlightenment. The recent “Conscious TV” interviews and the beautifully crafted DVD “Who’s Driving the Dreambus” represent a fair cross-section of people of so-called “non-dual” persuasion but whose perceptions seem to vary considerably. There are millions of books published on the same subject with wildly differing views. These days the term “non-dual” is being used for all kinds of seeking activities. You can go to non-dual conferences or indulge in a “12-month course on non-dual enlightenment”. Non-dual therapy is available, and there is even an on-line “non-dual” speak club which “no-one” can join! For anyone interested or newly investigating this subject, it can all be very confusing. However, the perception here is that there are two distinctly different kinds of communication about the nature of enlightenment. One is personal and the other is impersonal. The first offers the seeking “person” help and direction to find something called enlightenment. The second offers the “person” nothing. The first comes in many forms and has a wide following because it seems to respond to the “person’s” needs. The second is unfamiliar and energetically confronting. The personal message is based on the belief that there is something called a separate seeker that can attain something else called enlightenment. The impersonal sees the embodied sense of seeming to be separate and unfulfilled as an illusory state which drives the apparent seeker to search for another illusion called personal enlightenment. Any communication that supports and encourages the seeker’s belief or idea that it can find something it feels it has lost is only reinforcing and perpetuating a dualistic illusion. It’s not right or wrong . . . it’s what apparently happens. The impersonal perception is that all concepts, ideas, beliefs or thoughts about separation or enlightenment can only ever be a reflection of their opposite, and so they are only ever pointers towards, or away from, that which cannot be expressed or known. Apparent separation is seen essentially as an embodied contracted energy which can simply and suddenly release into that boundless aliveness which is unknowable and impersonal. The circumstances are totally irrelevant. No amount of clear or confused concepts can ever touch or influence that energetically held sense of being apart. A deeply felt “spiritual experience” can, to some people, seem to be an event of personal enlightenment. There can arise a wish to help or teach other people to have a similar experience. That communication can sometimes seem to be “non-dual” when the teacher describes the nature of oneness, but it contradicts itself by recommending a process which can help the seeker attain that oneness through self-enquiry, meditation or purification, etc. There can be the encouragement to “live in the moment” or “be here now” or “embrace the fear” in order that the person can find “their own true nature”. These kind of personal prescriptions are often accompanied by a repetition of inspiring but only ever positive ideals which can lift the seeker’s feelings and give them renewed hope and purpose. It seems that this kind of exchange between two people is, by its very nature, happening within the story in time, and so its influence is transitory. It fulfils a need . . . for a while. An impersonal communication recognises and illuminates the apparent dilemma for the seeker of seeming to be imprisoned in the embodied experience of separation. It will inadequately describe the nature of unbounded aliveness and the feeling of dissatisfaction and longing that can arise out of seeming to be apart from that. It will also expose, without any kind of compromise, the absolute inevitability and hopelessness of seeking and the gift of freedom that is hidden within that hopelessness. No-one can claim ownership of this impersonal message and so there would be no motivation to sing it's praises. Neither would there be any personal agenda to please, help or change the “person”. There is nothing here for the “person” except the awful possibility that everything that they dream is themselves could be lost. Whenever the personal identity, its seeking, its hopes and dreams seem threatened, there can be a rejection of this message and a return to that which seems to serve and support the uniquely human illusion of self-autonomy leading to self-fulfilment. The impersonal message can then be seen as judgemental or nihilistic and may even be felt to be “unloving” because it leaves the “person” with nothing. Certainly there can be something personally confronting about the singular constancy that arises only out of that unconditional compassion which reveals the illusion of personal imprisonment. Out of that revelation, can arise a resonance which is no-ones. How can the “person” hear the impersonal? How can there be a knowing of the unknowable? How is it possible for a “person” to “confront their own absence”? How can the seeker grasp that which is already everything? It isn’t difficult . . . it’s impossible . . . and wonderfully irrelevant because there is nothing separate to grasp. Wholeness is already all there is! It is the unbounded, impersonal, unconditional freedom which is complete . . . nothing is needed by that which is everything! However, and this is the paradox, wholeness, being everything, can also appear as anything: Wholeness can appear as the story of self on a meaningful journey. Wholeness can appear as a separate person with free will and choice. Wholeness can appear as a person who seems to be enlightened and helps other people to become enlightened. Wholeness can appear as a communication which divides and calls itself non-dual. So, in the play of appearance, wholeness can pretend to be something apart which is rushing around all over the place looking for that which already is. It is an amazing and unfulfilling dream-like story which is uniquely human and is also sublimely without purpose. For the apparent seeker, however, the pain and longing of separation seems very real. So, should the seeker climb the spiritual mountain or simply let go and surrender to life? . . . is that the question? Or is it possible that there is no question and no answer. Maybe what is sought is all there is. Perhaps the beloved that is longed for is already constantly happening . . . it never went away . . . the seeker did, to look for it. Perhaps, when the seeking dream dissolves into that unbounded energy, which sees no separation and has no agenda or expectation, then suddenly that longing is embraced in that unconditional love that is no-ones. Source: https://www.theopensecret.com/personal-or-impersonal Painting of Tony Parsons by Fred Schley Website: www.fredschley.nl
Personal or Impersonal - Tony Parsons content media
0
0
15
Nondual Library
Feb 01, 2021
In Unlearning Duality
The open secret communication can only point to the simple wonder of being and attempt to illuminate the futility of seeking for it. It does not accept or reject the teachings of spiritual path or process but it will expose, without compromise, the singular and fundamental misconception that drives the belief that there is something called a seeker that is able to find something else called enlightenment. Life is not a task. There is absolutely nothing to attain except the realisation that there is absolutely nothing to attain. What is sought remains hidden from the seeker by already being everything. A unified reality in which there are "not two" or there is "no other" surely confirms the illusory nature of separation. If separation is illusory, then any attempt to not be separate is rooted in a dualistic perspective. So the basic principle of any teaching which attempts to transform an illusory state of being separate into a state of at-oneness is based on the belief in a divided reality and cannot therefore claim to be non-dual. So, should the seeker climb the spiritual mountain or simply let go and surrender to life . . . Is that the question? Or is it possible that there is no question and no answer? Maybe what is sought is already all there is. Perhaps that which is longed for is already constantly happening . . . it never went away . . . the seeker did to look for it. Looking for being is believing that it is lost. Has anything been lost, or is it simply that the looking keeps it away? Does the beloved always dance constantly just beyond our focus? The very intention to seek for a treasure within life inevitably obscures the reality that life is already the treasure. The “me” searches for peace and fulfilment; the “me” searches for self-improvement, purity, presence or detachment. The “me” seeks clarity or any formula which will give the “me” what it thinks it wants or need. But the “me” not getting what it wants is not the dilemma. The dilemma is the apparent “me”. How can the seeker “Directly Approach” that which is already everything? As we move from one formula to another, we seem unable to see that freedom does not reside here or there, simply because freedom, by its very nature, cannot be excluded or exclusive. We seem not to see that, as we march towards the next anticipated spiritual high, the treasure that we seek is to be discovered, not in where we are going, but within the simple nature of the very footsteps that we take. Many will reject this message and return to the comforting story of knowing and doing. But there can be a resonance within which the illusion of separation collapses and leaves nothing being everything. Progressive teachings of enlightenment which recommend methods such as meditation, self-enquiry, or the idea of recognition or surrender, are based on the belief of there being a self who can choose to do these things. This assumption is invalidated by the recent discovery of neuroscientists that the existence of an individual with free will and choice is illusory. Life is simply life, and is not trying to prove anything at all. This springtime will not try to be better than last springtime, and neither will an ash tree try to become an oak. Source: https://www.theopensecret.com/apparently Painting of Tony Parsons by Fred Schley Website: www.fredschley.nl
Apparently - Tony Parsons content media
0
0
16
Nondual Library
Feb 01, 2021
In Unlearning Duality
All there is is wholeness . . . boundless energy appearing as everything . . . the sky, trees, feelings, thoughts, whatever. It is the mystery of no thing simultaneously being everything. There is nothing apart from the boundless everything and yet, because it is free, it can appear to be separate from itself . . . it can appear to be the story of me. There is nothing right or wrong in that appearance which is wholeness apparently happening. Contracted energy seems to arise in the human being and create a sense of separation out of which arises a unique sense of identity . . . a self consciousness. The me is born and the story of me seems to begin. Me is the story and the story is me and one cannot exist without the other. They both only appear and function in a dualistic subject object reality. Everything seems to be personally experienced as a series of events in real time happening to a real me. Within that story time, journey, purpose and free will and choice seem to be real. This sense of separation is not just an idea, a thought or a belief. It is a contracted energy embodied in the whole organism which influences every experience. As a consequence the me experiences a tree, the sky, another person, a thought or a feeling through a veil of separation. It is as though me is a something and everything else is lots of other separate somethings happening to me. What arises from this once removed sense is a subtle feeling of dissatisfaction. A feeling that something is lost or hidden. For most people this sense of dissatisfaction is not that apparent, and because they believe they are individuals with free will and choice they seem motivated to try and create a successful story . . . good relationships, good health, wealth, personal power or whatever else. However, for some there is a greater sensitivity about something else that seems to be missing. This feeling generates a longing for a deeper sense of fulfilment. There can be an investigation into religion, therapy or the meaning of enlightenment. Because the me has become convinced that it has the means to influence its story, it also assumes that it can find deeper fulfilment through its own choice, determination and action. The me may, for instance, go to a priest or a therapist or a teacher of enlightenment in order to find what it thinks it needs. Often because the me feels it has lost something, there can be a sense of inadequacy and so what is pursued is a teaching that satisfies the need to do something which will bring about a personal transformation and make the me worthy of fulfilment. All of this activity is apparently happening within the story of me which is functioning in an artificially dualistic reality. So me is searching in the finite for that which is infinite. It is a something looking for another something, and what it really longs for remains unobtainable by already being everything. It is rather like trying to catch air with a butterfly net. It isn’t difficult, it is wonderfully impossible. The essential futility of that searching inevitably fuels the sense of a me who feels even more unworthy and separate. However, in the seeking activity there can be experiences along the way that encourage the me to search further and try harder. Personal therapy can bring a transient sense of personal balance in the story. Practices like meditation can bring a state of peace or silence. Self enquiry can bring an apparently progressive experience of understanding and strengthened awareness. But for awareness to function it needs something apart for it to be aware of. Awareness simply feeds separation, and a state of detachment can arise and be mistaken for enlightenment. All of these states come and go within the story of me. The basis of all teaching of becoming enlightened is the idea that a change of belief or experience can lead to a personal knowing of oneness, self realisation or of discovering your own true nature. The whole investment in a progressive path goes on feeding the story of me attaining something. Even the suggestion of personal surrender or acceptance can be initially attractive and bring a satisfying state . . . for a while. There are many so-called non-dual 'teachings' which feed the story of me becoming liberated. However, the oneness that is longed for is boundless and free. It cannot be grasped or even approached. Nor is there anything that would need to be done or changed or made better than that which is already everything. The me experience can be very convincing because “the world” it lives in seems to be dominated by lots of me’s in lots of stories. But the me construct is inconstant and has no foundation. All of the me story is only a dance of wholeness which is without significance or purpose. A deep and uncompromising exposure of the artificial construct of separation and the story of me can loosen the constraints that keep it locked in place and reveal the way in which seeking can only reinforce the dilemma. The apparent sense of separation, however, is at its essence an energetically contracted energy which no amount of conceptual clarity will ever undo. When there is an openness to the possibility of that which is beyond self-seeking, then it seems that the contracted energy can evaporate into the boundless freedom which it already is. And still this is only another story which attempts to point to and describe a total paradox . . . the apparent end of something that was never real . . . the story of me. All there is, is boundless freedom. Source: https://www.theopensecret.com/the-story-of-me Painting of Tony Parsons by Fred Schley Website: www.fredschley.nl
The Story Of Me - Tony Parsons content media
0
0
8
Nondual Library
Feb 01, 2021
In Unlearning Duality
What is What is? All there is is what is . . . but what is what is? Well, there is no real answer to that question. However, it seems that what is could be just what is happening . . . reading these words, sitting on a seat, trees growing, sounds, feelings, clouds or thoughts passing by and so on. In simple terms these events just seem to be what is happening. But the perspective here is that the essence of what is happening is an open secret. It is suggested that what is is oneness appearing as twoness, the absolute being relative. It is the treasure that is longed for and feared most . . . the perfect lover and the grim reaper. It is of course the ultimate paradox, being simultaneously nothing and everything. There is no possibility of the essence of what is being described, grasped or known. The seeker attempts to be aware of or conscious of what is and immediately that function separates and objectifies and makes solid that which is wonderfully floating, effervescent and ungraspable. The essence of what is can’t be seen by me and so me never feels fulfilled because its experiences seem to have something missing. In what is is also what isn’t. This is the wonder of wholeness because it appears as both simultaneously. Everything that is something is also already nothing . . . there are not two! Everything is therefore real and unreal, but me experiences everything as only real. Within this illusion me attempts to transform this dualistic and unsatisfactory experience into processes such as “living in the moment” or “being here now” or accepting everything as “consciousness”. However, and again, the wonderful paradox of the play of wholeness is that the story of me is also what is. All of the dreams and hopes, processes and religious aspirations are only wholeness appearing as a separate entity rushing around looking for itself and also hiding from itself by already being everything. And in being everything, even the avoidance or rejection of what is is what is. So what is longed for constantly sings the only song of freedom that can never be lost or found because it is already all there is. Source: https://www.theopensecret.com/what-is-what-is Painting of Tony Parsons by Fred Schley Website: www.fredschley.nl
What Is What Is? - Tony Parsons content media
0
0
5
Nondual Library
Feb 01, 2021
In Unlearning Duality
In this apparent world, the state of individuality is accepted as normal. For the individual, self-awareness is a constant confirmation of individual existence. “I am aware that I am, and I am aware that you are, together with everything else that is happening. I am also aware that I am in a story in which I have free will and choice”. This seems to be the individual’s established reality. However, it seems that, at this time, long established beliefs about reality are beginning to unravel. Hidden within what appears to be the history of spiritual seeking can be found reference to the possibility of the separate self being illusory. More recently, research by neuroscientists and others has established that the idea of there being a separate individual with free will and choice is illusory, but is maintained by the function of self-awareness. There has been much communication about these radical and surprising discoveries through the media, but with hardly any interest or reaction from the general public. In what is seen in the story as part of the evolutionary process, the brain has generated a sense of self to bring about a partnership which can apparently create a primary animal, powerful and intelligent enough to control and dominate what is assumed to be a dualistic and threatening world. For the process of a dominant self to emerge, the accumulation of knowledge seems very important, and so personal awareness would be a built-in function. For awareness to function it needs something apart to be aware of, i.e. “I know I am sitting on a chair” or “I know I am splitting the atom”. This individual capacity to be aware of and know apparently brings with it the opportunity to manipulate and dominate the world it lives in and also, perhaps, to satisfy its needs. However, none of these individual activities and efforts to make life better seem to bring self-satisfaction or a contentment that is constant. Consequently, seeking for some deeper meaning to life arises and finds expression in a multitude of ways. Again, the false assumption that personal knowing must be the approach to everything, including the attainment of constant fulfilment, inevitably confines the seeker to the limitation of its own experience. Personal awareness initiates a subject-object experience in which everything that is happening seems real. This experience generates a profound sense of something missing or lost. The self, the individual, is a divided energy brought about by its apparent separation from unity. There are attempts to seek unity which are futile because the separate seeker is the very dualism from which it is trying to escape. However, the idea of non-duality arises and, although there is no such thing, the seeker inevitably hopes that it is a something that they can be aware of and attain. Teachings arise to satisfy this hope, and there are even conferences organised to discuss and discover how “non-duality” can be understood and realised. It is interesting that the major part of these conferences are concentrated on the investigation of awareness and consciousness, because these functions are believed to be the means by which self-realisation can be achieved. Unknowing is hardly ever mentioned. Scientists are also involved in these conferences and attempt to describe what they have discovered about what they call “the nature of reality”. But whose reality are they talking about? If it is a reality which they personally experience, then it would surely be dualistic. Is that why their conclusions seem to be complex and contradictory, because they are attempting to find unity within a polarised experience? An intrinsic part of the individual’s need to survive is its investment in meaning and purpose which reinforces the story of past and future, hence its assurance of continuation and progress. Personal awareness or consciousness is a knowing of apparent meaning and purpose within the story of me. It is this personal awareness that constantly maintains the sense of self, but also reinforces a sense of separation from that which has never been lost but can never be known. Source: https://www.theopensecret.com/awareness-the-accomplice Painting of Tony Parsons by Fred Schley Website: www.fredschley.nl
Awareness: The Accomplice of Separation - Tony Parsons content media
0
0
12

Nondual Library

Admin
More actions