All Comments

So sweet a treat my friend; I heard myself say:
‘Tis easy to get what you want, just want what you get.
Easier still, to do what you love, by loving what you do.
No effort, nor con-fusion, just union in prayer –
“yes please” will always bring you there.

Loose chains, or none at all?

I’ve been thinking about this too. just how much, if any, freewill do we have? David frames a range between Mooji and Parsons – the latter claiming ‘nil’, and the former, some, with space for growth. I think both views are valid, and any in between.

Rupert says knowing one’s True Self, for most of us, appears to take time. It is gradual, in keeping with the delicate dismantling of decades of believing ourselves to be a finite bodymind .

My story is there’s a sheet of glass covered in fine dust. Awareness, my True Self, is on one side, and my bodymind identity survives apart, on the other . While the dust lies undisturbed I think and behave as a finite human being in a material world. But when the dust is disturbed, the patina broken through introspection or spiritual, philosophical (even scientific) endeavor, light of the True Self can enter and affect the bodymind.

A difference is made. There’s a palpable shift in thinking and feeling. This in turn dislodges more dust and so on…So for me yes, the bodymind can appear to help itself, with the blessing of Awareness.

On the other hand.. Is it possible that nothing, Nothing at all happens other than what must, including every word I’m writing , as independent as I wish them to be. Including the concomitant sinking feeling when the prospect of possessing no agency at all, sinks in.

Doesn’t the getting there get in the way of Being there!:-)

And why are you lecturing someone on nonduality as though you were a qualified teacher?

I don’t think that Bill posted anything “harsh” and I object to your implying that Bill thinks that the Bible is rubbish. Why are you suddenly criticizing someone in such a mean way? Am I understanding you correctly?

[…] following is a reply to Bill’s comment on my post, which was a reply to his post… […]

[…] following is a reply to Bill’s comment on my post, which was a reply to his post… […]

David, this was an interesting read for me as it made me wonder, “do I categorize these different teachers? I categorize music, novels, poetry, etc.” I really haven’t done it with the non-dual teachers.
I hadn’t visualized how I connect them until now, but the best visual image I could find is a web, with concentric circles out from the center (the Self) and lines also radiating out from the center. The interconnections link the various teachings. As I’ve mentioned, I’ve read Ramana Maharshi and Nisargadatta for years, but it never helped me find the “center.” There were too many gaps, missing links. Rupert formed many of the interconnecting lines, and now I find Nisargadatta much more accessible. Mooji and Swami Sarvapriyananda also create lines and links that reinforce the structure.
I’m sure someone who is always at the center, immersed in the Self, might say, “the structure is an unnecessary illusion.” But at least for the time being, I need it as a tool.
As always, your thoughts are insightful; they also add to the “illusory structure.”
Thank you,
Bill

Thank you, Holger, for all your comments. I agree, up to a point, that the choice of words can sometimes make a big difference.

“Seeker” has a pejorative meaning to some nonduality enthusiasts, implying that we are never satisfied with anything, so we constantly seek. But the greatest of nonduality teachers have actually used the word “seeker” to mean one who has a burning desire for self-realization, or “earnestness”, which these teachers take to be helpful or even indispensable along the path they offer.

“Practice” can mean an obsessive procedure that only reinforces our belief in ourself as a separate self, a person having consciousness only as a minor attribute. But “practice” can also refer to abiding in unbounded consciousness, which some teachers have stated is both a method to achieve self-realization and the basic description of life in self-realization.

In my article, I used “spectrum” to refer to one dimension of the multi-dimensional variety displayed by the many teachers of nonduality. Certainly you would agree that Sri Nisargadatta, for example, is dramatically different in his teachings and teaching style from, say, Magdi Badawy, just to pick two teachers almost at random.

These comments are my opinion only. No certainty of absolute truth is meant to be inferred.

I think Holger here does a good job of presenting the real issues of life. Our mind is a rich source of intellectual entertainment, but it is prone to distraction due to our tendencies, habits, conditioning, and internal stress. While there is nothing wrong with conjecturing about various concepts, we can sometimes do this in the expectation of achieving greater or more long-lasting peace and happiness. Such an expectation is rarely achieved for long, as new ideas always arise and as our opinions change from time to time.

Holger quite rightly puts the emphasis back on awareness, or consciousness, which itself never grows or changes (perhaps that is why he calls it “stateless” all the time). It is our mind and attention that have states, and that have the ability to hide that which is more important in life. States cannot be solved by other states, meaning that thoughts will never be a source of infinite bliss or even just the elimination of problems. Awareness can be such. Again, just my opinion.