Although I don’t have much knowledge of Advaita, I do have just enough to say that this is not a real deal.
Nobody exists, and what happens, happens to no one, because there isn’t anyone… there is only a happening that happens and condensed apparitions calling themselves human.
Sham gothic at its extreme which only needs a belt of explosives “to expand” into “freedom”.
Well, although there is nothing, and there is nothing solid in reality, that doesn’t mean that he is not asking solid money for the “seminars”. And his children, of course, won’t follow “the doctrine”…
“Contained within and directly following this happening occurred a revelation so magnificent and revolutionary in its nature that I had to sit down on the grass in order to take in its consequence. What I saw was simple and obvious in one way but completely untranslatable in another. It was as if I had been given an answer that had no question. I had been shown a secret that is open secret; and that all and everything that is known or unknown contains and reflects this open secret. Nature, people, birth and death, and our struggles, our fears and our desires are all contained within and reflect unconditional love. ”
So there is an observer even at such “sublime” moments of “oneness”, after all – The “me”?! 😉
Um… But we know REALLY that there isn’t a ‘me’! This is as clear as clear could be – there couldn’t possibly be such a thing as the ‘me’! The very suggestion is ridiculous. That’s the thing isn’t it – that ‘being a me’ is an utterly compelling impression that we have but which – if we reflected – we would see very clearly that there couldn’t possibly be such a thing.
The ‘me’ is an external point of view and yet how can there be an external point of view when everything is one, when everything is a unity? The only type of external POV there could be is an IMAGINARY or PROJECTED external POV, which is precisely what the ‘me’ is.
The only moments in life that are actually worthwhile (by which I mean profound rather than vanishingly superficial) are when the imaginary external viewpoint isn’t being indulged in. The imaginary external viewpoint makes everything superficial because it relates everything to itself and it isn’t really there. It makes everything into a cheap fiction. That’s the choice really isn’t it – look at things from the POV of the ego-mind and have an unreal or virtual experience that has no depth or beauty or profundity in it or give up on this imaginary viewpoint.
There seems to be a big problem here in that we keep asking ‘what is unity when there is no imaginary external viewpoint looking at it?’ This is like a glitch or something. But its a stupid question! Only the imaginary unreal external POV wants to know. It’s only a problem to the ‘me’ anyway. We’re assuming this ‘me’ as being unquestionable, something we can never doubt, but that impression is only created because we ARE assuming it. That’s what happens when you assume a viewpoint – that’s how it works. What you have assumed becomes unquestionable.
Its like we believe reality can only be real when we have separated it into ‘reality’ plus ‘the artificial external observer of reality’ (which is the thinking mind). Then all sorts of questions arise that we use as sticking points to prove that the the observer, the thinking mind has to be there. Thinking that these objections actually count for something when really they only arise from the assumptions that we have made. We’re snagged in a tautology that we can’t see to be a tautology!
It’s kind of like saying something can only be real if it is ‘proved’. We throw the doubt on the putative reality that is to be proved to the satisfaction of the observer which is a clever ruse. Its up to reality to prove itself! But what we’re distracting attention from here is our own reality as the external viewpoint. That’s taken for granted, but actually its position is absolutely unprovable, except on its own (biased) terms. The whole argument is absurd. The whole thing is nonsense – its just the fictional mind-created reality trying to defend itself or validate itself, which is what it always does. Which is what it can’t help doing because that it all that it CAN do – that is the limit of its activities! It is a self-validating tautology.
There is a passage of Jung’s which I was just reminded of in this connection –
“You are so sterile because, without your knowledge, something like an evil spirit has stopped up the source of your fantasy, the fountain of your soul. The enemy is your own crude sulphur, which burns you with the hellish fire of desirousness. . . You would like to make gold because ’poverty is the greatest plague, wealth the highest good.’ You wish to have results that flatter your pride, you expect something useful, but there can be no question of that as you have realized with a shock. Because of this you no longer even want to be fruitful, as it would only be for God’s sake but unfortunately not for your own.”
C. G. Jung, Mysterium Coniunctionis, CW 14 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975), pp. 160-168.
In Oneness there couldn’t be any talk about “me”,”the external”,”imaginary”,”artificial”,”superficial”,”real/unreal”… the list gets pretty long here… ending with the mentioned “evil spirit” doing mischief unto “ourselves”. Everything would be real, because in oneness everything is – irrevocably.
Saša
Although I don’t have much knowledge of Advaita, I do have just enough to say that this is not a real deal.
Nobody exists, and what happens, happens to no one, because there isn’t anyone… there is only a happening that happens and condensed apparitions calling themselves human.
Sham gothic at its extreme which only needs a belt of explosives “to expand” into “freedom”.
Nick Williams
I kind of like that line about ‘condensed apparitions calling themselves human’!
Saša
Well, although there is nothing, and there is nothing solid in reality, that doesn’t mean that he is not asking solid money for the “seminars”. And his children, of course, won’t follow “the doctrine”…
Saša
“Contained within and directly following this happening occurred a revelation so magnificent and revolutionary in its nature that I had to sit down on the grass in order to take in its consequence. What I saw was simple and obvious in one way but completely untranslatable in another. It was as if I had been given an answer that had no question. I had been shown a secret that is open secret; and that all and everything that is known or unknown contains and reflects this open secret. Nature, people, birth and death, and our struggles, our fears and our desires are all contained within and reflect unconditional love. ”
So there is an observer even at such “sublime” moments of “oneness”, after all – The “me”?! 😉
Nick Williams
Um… But we know REALLY that there isn’t a ‘me’! This is as clear as clear could be – there couldn’t possibly be such a thing as the ‘me’! The very suggestion is ridiculous. That’s the thing isn’t it – that ‘being a me’ is an utterly compelling impression that we have but which – if we reflected – we would see very clearly that there couldn’t possibly be such a thing.
The ‘me’ is an external point of view and yet how can there be an external point of view when everything is one, when everything is a unity? The only type of external POV there could be is an IMAGINARY or PROJECTED external POV, which is precisely what the ‘me’ is.
The only moments in life that are actually worthwhile (by which I mean profound rather than vanishingly superficial) are when the imaginary external viewpoint isn’t being indulged in. The imaginary external viewpoint makes everything superficial because it relates everything to itself and it isn’t really there. It makes everything into a cheap fiction. That’s the choice really isn’t it – look at things from the POV of the ego-mind and have an unreal or virtual experience that has no depth or beauty or profundity in it or give up on this imaginary viewpoint.
There seems to be a big problem here in that we keep asking ‘what is unity when there is no imaginary external viewpoint looking at it?’ This is like a glitch or something. But its a stupid question! Only the imaginary unreal external POV wants to know. It’s only a problem to the ‘me’ anyway. We’re assuming this ‘me’ as being unquestionable, something we can never doubt, but that impression is only created because we ARE assuming it. That’s what happens when you assume a viewpoint – that’s how it works. What you have assumed becomes unquestionable.
Its like we believe reality can only be real when we have separated it into ‘reality’ plus ‘the artificial external observer of reality’ (which is the thinking mind). Then all sorts of questions arise that we use as sticking points to prove that the the observer, the thinking mind has to be there. Thinking that these objections actually count for something when really they only arise from the assumptions that we have made. We’re snagged in a tautology that we can’t see to be a tautology!
It’s kind of like saying something can only be real if it is ‘proved’. We throw the doubt on the putative reality that is to be proved to the satisfaction of the observer which is a clever ruse. Its up to reality to prove itself! But what we’re distracting attention from here is our own reality as the external viewpoint. That’s taken for granted, but actually its position is absolutely unprovable, except on its own (biased) terms. The whole argument is absurd. The whole thing is nonsense – its just the fictional mind-created reality trying to defend itself or validate itself, which is what it always does. Which is what it can’t help doing because that it all that it CAN do – that is the limit of its activities! It is a self-validating tautology.
Nick Williams
There is a passage of Jung’s which I was just reminded of in this connection –
“You are so sterile because, without your knowledge, something like an evil spirit has stopped up the source of your fantasy, the fountain of your soul. The enemy is your own crude sulphur, which burns you with the hellish fire of desirousness. . . You would like to make gold because ’poverty is the greatest plague, wealth the highest good.’ You wish to have results that flatter your pride, you expect something useful, but there can be no question of that as you have realized with a shock. Because of this you no longer even want to be fruitful, as it would only be for God’s sake but unfortunately not for your own.”
C. G. Jung, Mysterium Coniunctionis, CW 14 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975), pp. 160-168.
Saša
Yes, Nick, you’ve nailed it! 🙂
In Oneness there couldn’t be any talk about “me”,”the external”,”imaginary”,”artificial”,”superficial”,”real/unreal”… the list gets pretty long here… ending with the mentioned “evil spirit” doing mischief unto “ourselves”. Everything would be real, because in oneness everything is – irrevocably.