########################
Who said non-dualistic ‘philosophy’ or non-dual ‘enlightenment’ was created to ‘serve the world?’ Who said non-dualistic ‘philosophy’ or non-dual ‘enlightenment’ has any obligation whatsoever to ‘serve the world’ or any other purpose? The question seems to infer that if something doesn’t contain some intrinsic world-serving purpose, it’s probably impractical or useless (which in itself would be an idealistic philosophy, isn’t it so?)
Non-duality is not a philosophy, any more than the wetness of water is a philosophy. Water is wet, right? You can’t separate the two. Anytime you touch water, it’s going to be wet. Water & wetness are One - nonduality :-)
If you ever “touch” supreme non-duality, there will only be One. There won’t even be a “you” touching it (or more accurately, falling/disappearing into It,) because if “you” were still there experiencing it as subject/object, you’d still be in duality, n'est-ce pas?
The instant you or anyone else tries to identify, define or describe non-duality, it’s over, and it’s just a philosophy, a concept, like ‘enlightenment’, The Absolute, Brahman, the Oneness, the Emptiness, union with God, etc. All useless.
But is actually falling into non-duality useless, purposeless? Do it, actually let go into it (for which you will have to let go of everything, even your identity,) and report back to us. Let me tell you, you will not report anything about use or practical purpose. Your report will sound something like, “It was inexorable, irresistible, it just ‘happened,’ I couldn’t stop it or stop to analyze whether it was going to be useful or practical or not. It is What I Am, my True Nature. How could I stop from becoming Who I Am, naturally…even if I could not show any apparent purpose?”
And the question about egocide is totally absurd. No one performs egocide to ‘achieve’ non-duality or any other ‘spiritual state.’ That is a myth. As long as you are alive, the ego is always present - and it’s fine that it is. Your job is never to kill it off, or even silence it. Any spiritual tradition that seems to recommend this should be re-examined or avoided altogether. You can be sure this was never the intention or teachings of any true master, from Buddha onward, no matter how much we’ve rewritten or misunderstood what they were trying to convey.
The job is simply to have your ego, all the time, but know you are not you’re ego, any more than you are your car. Your car serves a practical purpose in this imperfect world. You would never go out to the curb and firebomb it. But once your car has taken you to the market, you don’t bring your car into the store with you, or think it’s you, right?.
You have an ego. You are not your ego. And the only thing that can philosophize about non-duality or try to ‘reach’ it of its own effort is the ego:-) It is only the ego of the questioner that could ask the above question. The true non-dual Self could never/would never ask this, never try to understand this, or think it could “attain” it. It just Is. That would be like the saliva in my mouth thinking it was all of me, and thinking, if it tried and practiced hard enough, it could attain wetness:-)
##############################
OWAC
#####################
########################
Buddha always refused to answer the question “Is there a True Self”. However, on his dying day, he seemed to have put to rest the discussion. Here’s a quote from an article written by Dr. Subhash Kak that discusses this very topic. To quote the relevant section here —
“The Self (ātman) is reality (tattva), the Self is permanent (nitya), the Self is virtue (guṇa), the Self is eternal (śāśvatā), the Self is stable (dhruva), and the Self is auspiciousness (śiva).”
While I have had many discussions with Theravadins who stubbornly deny this, and will claim that the Mahayana sutras have been defiled by “brahmanical ideas” over the millennia, there are many who consider the “Tathāgata garbha” to be akin to Atman/Brahman of Vedanta.
#############################
b Like and Dislike
"If we still don’t know like and dislike as they arise, there is still some concern in our minds. If we know the truth of these things, we reflect, ‘Oh, there is nothing to this feeling of liking here. It’s just a feeling that arises and passes away.
Dislike is nothing more, just a feeling that arises and passes away. Why make anything out of them?’
If we think that pleasure and pain are personal possessions, then we’re in for trouble, we never get beyond the point of having some concern or other in an endless chain.
This is how things are for most people."
Ajahn Chah
############################
The teaching of Buddhism is about giving up evil and practising good. Then, when evil is given up and goodness is established, we must let go of both good and evil.
[...]
The Enlightened One observed that all beings are stuck in these two extremes, never seeing the Middle Way of Dhamma, so he pointed them out in order to show the penalty involved in both. Because we are still stuck, because we are still wanting, we live repeatedly under their sway. The Buddha declared that these two ways are the ways of intoxication, they are not the ways of a meditator, not the ways to peace. These ways are indulgence in pleasure and indulgence in pain, or, to put it simply, the way of slackness and the way of tension.
-- Ajahn Chah, The Middle Way Within.
##############################
Ego death is a "complete loss of subjective self-identity".[1] The term is used in various intertwined contexts, with related meanings. In Jungian psychology, the synonymous term psychic death is used, which refers to a fundamental transformation of the psyche.[2] In death and rebirth mythology, ego death is a phase of self-surrender and transition,[3][4][5][6] as described by Joseph Campbell in his research on the mythology of the Hero's Journey
###############################
No comments:
Post a Comment