This post is a response to questions and statements posed to Takuin by Shinai, on the post A Question for my Peers… Thank you very much Shinai, for taking the time to add to the conversation on that post.
The comment, and my response, follow below.
I’m coming into this conversation very late. My response is to the original post/question by Takuin.
The question about what’s beneficial to humanity only has meaning within the context of the dream of self, which is, by definition, not real. Any story generated to explain dualities of cause and effect or beneficial versus harmful (etc.) are meaningless. And yet sometimes stories are generated. Who is there to have an opinion on the matter? No one. And yet opinions seem to happen sometimes. Curious.
From outside the dream, your question is meaningless. There is no such thing as “beneficial” or “harmful”. There is no cause and effect. There is only what is. “Our” ideas about it are irrelevant. “We” are not even real. If “we” aren’t real, how can “our” ideas have any validity at all?
In response to the post above me, your response to Sass, if there are no separate individuals, how can we assign fault to them? Fault can only exist in a dualistic framework.
Cheers and namaste.
Thank you, Shinai.
The purpose of the question was to generate an interaction between writers, speakers, bloggers, and so on, of spiritual matters. Whether or not the question is meaningless is also meaningless, as each person will go into these things in their own way.
I didn’t ask the question with any hidden agenda or belief. It wasn’t, “In what way is this helpful to humanity?” because I believe it is this way or that way, and I want to see how you come up against my belief. It is just the question. Now there may be certain things implicit in the question, but these things come out during the exploration and can be taken as they arise.
Looking back on this post, I am very happy, not only with the responses, but also that so many people took it seriously and had a genuine interest in seeing this thing for themselves.
There is no such thing as “beneficial” or “harmful”. There is no cause and effect. There is only what is.
There is NO What Is. Even that is too much.
We might say it is All One, or it is only What Is, or a million other things, but to the dreamer it is only a supposition. They begin the search based on an idea of a tangible state that can be acquired. So even though we might say it IS, the dreamer approaches the thing by building a different dream. Then the dreamer goes off, looking for the thing they imagine to be true, but their journey cannot touch that which is immeasurable (if I can say it that way).
In the liberated mind (if that is the right phrase), there is no question or statement of What Is. The idea of What Is only arises from the dreamer; the one searching for it.
“We” are not even real. If “we” aren’t real, how can “our” ideas have any validity at all?
They do not have any meaning, as far as what we are discussing here. All of the products of thought are in a constant state of decay. Thought itself is decay. It has no life in the sense of a living organism; a flower, a tree, a human being, or whatever. That does not make thought good or bad; it is simply thought.
What you may want to consider is the world of humanity is asleep. Anything we say to the sleeping world (or person) can only be interpreted through their dreams as you have put it. So even to say “There is only what is,” is to further add weight to the dream.
This is not to point fingers, mind you. Not at all. Takuin has probably said such things countless times. It can be careless to just tell someone it is What Is, but depending on the interaction with another living human being, it may end up being ‘necessary’. We of course cannot know what will come up in a conversation, and we always have to take it one step at a time if we are really interested in listening and sharing.
Sometimes we have to share in the dreams of others. It is not that we deny their trials and tribulations, or tell them their pain has no meaning only because we might see it in another way. That is insensitive and not helpful to a dreamer. If you want to help another human being, you have to help them through their own landscape, and not force them into your own.
Of course, sometimes this is not necessary at all. But compassion always knows when to and when not to.
In response to the post above me, your response to Sass, if there are no separate individuals, how can we assign fault to them?
No fault was assigned. But let’s not place too much value on the words themselves. Before we make a move, we should find out from the speaker, whoever that might be, what they meant to say. But in most cases this is not necessary, as we can easily explore through the current interaction, as we are doing now…
Thank you very much, Shinai, for your wonderful questions and exploration. Please feel free to comment below if you wish. I am sure many of the regular readers here will also have much to say on this topic.
NOTE: To see the comment in its original context, click here.
{ 9 comments }
Statements like “the dreamer approaches the thing by building a different dream. Then the dreamer goes off, looking for the thing they imagine to be true” imply the existence of a dreamer who has autonomy, a process and a goal.
Sometimes “awakening” seems to happen. Sometimes belief in a separate self seems to happen. Believing in separate selves is what’s called dreaming. When belief in separate selves is happening it’s possible to believe that there is a dreamer who is dreaming the belief in self. When belief in separate selves isn’t happening, there is no possibility of believing in a dreamer. There is no dreamer.
In addition, the concept of helping people presumes that there are people… who need help… and that there’s a someone else… who can help them. Again, fraught with duality. Helping doesn’t actually happen. It just looks like it does from the perspective of the dream of self. There are no selves, no dreamers. It just looks like there are from the perspective of the dream of self.
These eyes seem to be particularly tuned to the question “How to talk about non-duality without using dualistic language and concepts” lately, regardless of where the speaking is happening. Nothing personal.
Namaste.
There is a much more in-depth discussion of this in the article “Living The Non-Existent Paradox” at Boldly Going Nowhere (http://RelaxIntoReality.wordpress.com). Check it, yo. Or not.
Thank you, Shinai.
Ah, I see. This might help clear some things up for you.
What you say is true, but it is not through any intention or effort on Takuin’s part.
I don’t use that language – the common words or phrases of non-duality – because I am not capable. I do not read books on spirituality, books on non-duality, books on enlightenment, or anything like that. So I am not sure how one is to use the language properly.
It is not that I avoid these things. It just holds no interest for me.
Even though I have not read about it, I still hear the common words and phrases, usually through meetings with others, dialogues, skype calls, or whatever. But even so, it takes some back and forth before we can meet for the first time, mostly due to my lack of understanding of the phrases.
For example, in a recent call someone used the phrase Christ Consciousness. I had absolutely no idea what that meant, so I asked. And the caller was good enough, and patient enough, to help me understand the meaning. Even so, a short time later he decided to discard the phrase, at least for the remainder of the call. He found that it ‘got in the way of his exploration’ (his words).
There are some people that might hope to find freedom through the word. Perhaps they hope to be able to see through the false with the “right” combination of words and phrases. And there are others that feel some sense of security through the knowledge they possess and the words they wield. They might like to assert the correctness of their words and position, and feel the need to correct the ‘incorrectness’ of others. But all of these arise from the frightened images they’ve built of themselves.
And while the word can build the most beautiful guitars or fantastic skyscrapers, it can never use itself to go beyond what it knows.
It is neither a blessing, or a curse.
Rarely have truer words been spoken.
I’m not a reader of books, follower of teachers, etc., either. Nothing personal, indeed. Who i am has nothing to do with me. What i do and what i say have nothing to do with me. Me trying to make things about me has nothing to do with me. My issues, patterns and limiting beliefs have nothing to do with me. Nothing personal.
Cool. Some common language between us.
Nothing ever happens through any “intention” or “effort” of “ours”. Intention and effort are stories that attribute what’s already happening to our (illusory) selves. Nothing is personal. We don’t do any of what we tell ourselves we do. We’re like an eye at the end of one of the divine’s fingertips. We have no influence on what the finger does but we make up stories that we do. We’re simply watching what’s happening as it happens from a very intimate perspective. Sometimes the illusion of self is moved to believe that it is in charge of moving the finger. Sometimes the illusion of self is moved to notice that it has nothing to do with how the finger is moved.
I don’t write or speak because i’m trying to get somewhere. I haven’t seen anywhere to get to in a while. I write what i feel moved to write when i feel moved to write it. I’m not really involved with any process around the writing. It happens and i’m along for the ride. Even when life makes me drive, it’s not me who’s driving. I’m just riding in the driver. Sure, sometimes “pretending that it’s really me driving this car of ‘my’ life” happens, but not so much anymore.
Enough for now. I appreciate your gracious inclusion of this vocal newcomer. Namaste, Takuin.
shinai
Thank you, Shinai. You have a great deal to offer, even if it is true that no one can take it from you.
Someone in my family, and I cannot remember who, used to say, “What you think about me is none of my business!” I suppose they could just have easily said, “What I think about me is none of my business!” Thoughts do seem to happen from time to time, but it is really no big deal. It is as you’ve said, Nothing Personal.
Ah, that is lovely. It is not forced, coerced, or otherwise pushed out.
We are certainly not in control. We may go back in after it is finished, correct spelling, add a line break, or whatever, but it is an expression that is really out of our hands. Quite like tending a garden…we might dig here, prune there, add some azalea, but it is not at all within our control. It is life.
You are more than welcome to visit as you wish. You have a valuable expression and I am certain the readers of this site will be quite interested in what you have to say. And if they aren’t, it is just as lovely…
Thank you!
“Sometimes we have to share in the dreams of others. It is not that we deny their trials and tribulations, or tell them their pain has no meaning only because we might see it in another way. That is insensitive and not helpful to a dreamer. If you want to help another human being, you have to help them through their own landscape, and not force them into your own.”
This is key. Another point is that these are all words, and words themselves can never be truth. That’s too much to expect of them, no matter who is giving them
Thank you, Sara.
It is so easy to build an image from the word, or word from the word, or image from the image. It is rare that one investigates the word to discover if there is really any power there, or if it is just a fantasy.
How we relate to the word, or simply the idea that there is a contrary person that can wrangle and control the word, may be the only real difficulty in this beautiful world full of humans.
What you have tackled hare is very deep. From my shallow understanding ( I apologize) everything that we perceive in life are mere interpretations of our limited minds. If we try hard to comprehend, we will end in a mirage. Perhaps being a passive observer can generate much sense than allowing our mind to find meaning.
Thank you, Walter.
You might also say, everything we interpret is our perception. But that all depends upon how one uses the word perception.
In perception there is one that perceives, or one that interprets. But that is not how everyone uses this word. I have heard some use the word to mean the physical seeing of the eye, but that is not quite it.
You might want to ask within yourself if there is such a thing as a passive observer. Or perhaps, is there a perception without the perceive-er? It very well might destroy the notion of a person capable of allowing the mind to do anything.
Or perhaps not…
Comments on this entry are closed.