Forum

Guest  

Welcome Guest, posting in this forum requires registration.

Pages: [1]
Topic: Tenthman's question
moller
Administrator
Posts: 68

Reputation: 0
Tenthman's question
on: January 20, 2011, 07:01

Hi Tenthman and weallone.


I have been following your very interesting and illuminating conversation with great enthusiasm and interest. Tenthman certainly opened up a mini pandora's box with his penetrating questions and remarks. And I must say, weallone, your input in this regard is indeed crisp, completely relevant and well described. Great stuff for this Forum!


Because weallone's thread have now somewhat changed character with the introduction of Adi Da's notion of 'Avoiding Relationship?', I hope you will pardon me for starting a new thread here, because I feel Tenthman's input calls for more specific focus onto the subjects he raises. Below I quote his forelast post:


Tenthman:

>>

My sense is that yes, Adi Da was using the words "Avoiding Relationship?", as you said as a way of "…referring to our inherent relatedness, that is prior to thinking and self, and used "avoiding relationship?" as a tool to assist in relaxing attention away from habitual and compulsive thought."


To my way of thinking, relationship always implies at least "two or more…hence division or separation. Then, as I'm sure you well know, any effort to get into relationship with "not two" based on the (false) notion taken to be a conviction is not only futile…it is unnecessary…but not until realized to be so! :-)


Maybe I'm just nitpicking or quibbling, but I don't think it's possible to experience having a relationship with oneness, unity, wholeness, etc. It's sort of like "If everything is black…then nothing is black!" :-)


(M) If I may, I will try to come in here and see if I could add anything meaningful to the above:


Tenthman:

>>

My sense is that yes, Adi Da was using the words "Avoiding Relationship?", as you said as a way of "…referring to our inherent relatedness, that is prior to thinking and self, and used "avoiding relationship?" as a tool to assist in relaxing attention away from habitual and compulsive thought."


To my way of thinking, relationship always implies at least "two or more…hence division or separation.>>


(Moller)

My sense is that it would be useful to distinguish between relatedness within an ever expanding sense of wholeness, and relatedness as perceived from the point of view of the false separate self-sense. Our 'inherent relatedness' manifests to a progressively larger extent as the ego-sense gets undermined through correct forms of ego-transcending work as I suggest in my books.


It is never an all-or-nothing affair. We start along the path of self-transcendence deeply enmeshed in the fog of the illusion of separation, and gradually begin to awaken to the truth of the falseness of this deep and binding dream. And as the sun's rays gradually shine through the morning mist (priorly only obscured by the mist) so our awakening into the relatedness of wholeness begins to shine through the mist of the presumption of separateness as our practice develops.


Now, if I may venture into this difficult subject a little further, we have to appreciate that diversity is not in conflict with unity. Our developing sense of the non-dual nature of life reveals the profound wisdom contained within the Zen statement: 'unity in diversity; diversity in unity'. It says much the same as: 'Emptiness is form and form is emptiness' Both point to the fact that although life is whole (non-dual) it is not 'one'. Nonduality does not imply oneness. That which is 'not-two'(non-dual', is not one. What remains in human experience when the false sense of separation begins to fall away by non-use, is this growing, and deepening sense of 'relatedness'.


Just as much as the tree over there does not disappear, or my wife does not morph into just a blob of undifferentiated nothingness, when I begin to wake out of the dream of ego separation,a sense of the individual remains in order to feed itself, bath themselves, find the shop around the corner and protect itself from danger when threatened. But, because this sense of individuality (that which cannot be divided) is now progressively integrated into the wholeness of life, it has a diminishing sense of fundamental separation from all aspects of present arising.


This is why it is imperative for us to appreciate and sense the truth of the above Zen statement. The true individual is as little in conflict with wholeness as any other apsect of present arising (diversity)is in conflict with wholeness. Diversity is not in conflict (here I mean 'negating wholeness') with wholeness. Wholeness is not one. It is a plastic sea of diversity. Each aspect is separate, yet whole within the separateness.


This cannot be argued. It has to be experienced and experimented with through Direct Experience as I describe in my books.


Once we grasp this principle of unity within diversity, then it becomes possible to consider that there is indeed full relationship possible without separation (where separation implies the false notion of the separate self-sense). Non-duality is not negated by diversity. It merely gets obscured by the false separate self-sense. What remains when this false actor begins to fade in the light of the gradual revelation of our true nature, is indeed a sense of free relatedness, and perhaps it was this sense of free relatedness which Adi Da was falling into when he transcended his relationships of ego-separation into the relatedness of wholenss by using 'Avoiding relationship?'.


Do I make any sense, Tenthman? Please let me know.

Warm greetings.


weallone
Member
Posts: 19

Reputation: 0
Re: Tenthman's question
on: January 22, 2011, 16:58

I know you addressed "tenth man", and as usual I talk out of turn. I feel you explained the "plastic" nature of separateness within, and as a part of wholeness clearly and beautifully.


This brought up the issue of "synchronicity" and intuitively "knowing" due to the connected nature of Life.

I feel that in the New Age movement , ego has latched on to this concept, and expanded it with Ideas,adding to the endless arsenal of "powers" to strive for if you do such and such, or chant this or that.


In daily "practice" or "remembering" over time, at the moment of interaction as "relationship" with another, the sense of individuality tends to becomes less overwhelming and dominant through self observation/awareness.

Wholeness then seems to bleed through the sense of individuality and inherent qualities of "synchronicity" etc..become a part of one's "landscape" without the striving for "powers" and goals, and they are in themselves nothing special, but rather simply attributes of the nature of wholeness.


Just another brick in the wall

TenthMan
Member
Posts: 20

Reputation: 0
Re: Tenthman's question
on: January 22, 2011, 18:07

Hi Moller,


Are you saying in your response to my and Weallone's post that "relationship" to wholeness is more like or is a sense of relatedness *as* wholeness which allows the sense of individuality to be experienced as being seamlessly intertwined with, mutually interdependent with, and co-arising with (as) wholeness much like a "wave" on the ocean is not only "water" but a modification (movingness, play) of the whole ocean inherently not separate or separable from other "waves" simply because waves don't exist independently as "nouns" (objects) but rather as expressions of a singular process(ingness) i.e., a "verb".?


I guess another way of kind of saying this is that a so-called thing/event (which is abstracted via attention and thought) is the way it is (and can only be the way it is) because everything/event is the way it is and can only be that way? :-))


moller
Administrator
Posts: 68

Reputation: 0
Re: Tenthman's question
on: January 23, 2011, 09:36

Quote from weallone on January 22, 2011, 16:58

>>I know you addressed "tenth man", and as usual I talk out of turn.>>


(M) Not at all! Your input is always very much appreciated.


>>I feel you explained the "plastic" nature of separateness within, and as a part of wholeness clearly and beautifully.>>


(M) Thanks. I am glad it made sense.Not always sure on what kind of soil my words will fall and settle.


>>This brought up the issue of "synchronicity" and intuitively "knowing" due to the connected nature of Life.

I feel that in the New Age movement , ego has latched on to this concept, and expanded it with Ideas,adding to the endless arsenal of "powers" to strive for if you do such and such, or chant this or that.>>


(M) Yes. Exactly. But then I am not sure if this ego involvement in the so-called spiritual search is true only for the New Age movement. It seems to have been the case ever since the notion of something juicy on the 'other side' (be it God, Siddhis, extraordinary experiences, inner visions etc) has been projected as the spiritual quest. In this endless search for the miraculous there is always something for the ego to look forward to. Always something new and exiting to discover. All keeping the whole enterprise neatly in the control of the ego and its self-maintenance through entertainment in the form of self-indulgence or self-escape.


>>In daily "practice" or "remembering" over time, at the moment of interaction as "relationship" with another, the sense of individuality tends to becomes less overwhelming and dominant through self observation/awareness.

Wholeness then seems to bleed through the sense of individuality and inherent qualities of "synchronicity" etc..become a part of one's "landscape" without the striving for "powers" and goals, and they are in themselves nothing special, but rather simply attributes of the nature of wholeness.


>>


(M) Yes. The sense of wholeness most certainly 'bleeds through' and outshines the projected glory of the separate self-sense. This is possible because human expression exists on a continuum from the most dull and ego-centered to the most aware and ego-less experiences. It we know how to reduce the single-minded force of the ego without giving it new energy (as I suggest in my books), we are well on our way to allow for the continuous and gradual inflow of the sense of wholeness as our immediate and direct experience. Over time, this actual experience of the undivided nature of the present moment, becomes the new base from which we operate. But this base tends to fluctuate between moments of earlier delusion and a greater, and ever-growing, sense of the non-dual as simply the most fundamental truth about human nature.


Pages: [1]
WP Forum Server by ForumPress | Lucid Crew
Version: 1.8.2 ; Page loaded in: 0.012 seconds.