Still Here, Still Thinking of You

To those few out there who've been checking in, my apologies at the light blogging of late. I've just been very busy of late. But I've been thinking of lots of things I want to write about. In particular, I want to make a response to Andy Smith's long paper on non-dualism and developmentalism over at Integral World that is in part based on ideas I've presented here and at the Wilber Forum. I'd like to write a long paper, but the more I think about it, the longer it becomes, and thus the harder to begin. So instead I think I will just begin posting a series of bits and pieces that can perhaps later be assembled into a longer paper for Integral World. Maybe it never gets that far, but at least the ideas get addressed. Smith's paper is worth a good response in any case, and the issues he brings up are menaingful to me - particularly the issue of what constitutes non-dualism. I intend to give both a rational and a "visionary" response that gives a fuller context for how I see these things. Hope I can begin this tommorrow. If not, very soon at least. Thanks for bearing with me.

The Ongoing War Between Dualism and Non-dualism

I don't know if anyone has been following my long dialog with friend about non-dualism. Most of it has been going on in the comments section of my posts, and though I've occasionally brought some of my replies to the top as a full posting, most of them have taken place down below. It's gotten pretty heated at times, and I thought it had cooled down a bit, until I got his most recent reply to my last set of comments. I decided to make a pretty lengthy reply this time, and I must admit I kind of blew off some steam in the process. Nothing Wyatt Earpish, mind you, but I did get a little strong. I thought I'd post it up here on the top, in part to show my rough side, but also because it does get into some fairly important issues in regard to non-dualism.

Because I can't easily link to individual comments, I'll post Friend's comments first, and then my own. If you want to see the thread, go to this post, and look at both the comments section and the previous links. If you just want to skip down to my reply, it's at the end of the indented paragraphs.

Friend's last comment to me:

I think this last post of yours is either a sign of a distracted mind or a slippery one, perhaps both. Perhaps its slippery because it's distracted and I wouldn't be surprised because you obviously have a lot on your plate at the moment and I think it may all be more than you can handle.

As a result, you seem to be sort of cruising in auto-pilot to a fair degree at least in this reply to me. But it's sort of interesting to see how your mind operates at the automatic level. For one thing its modus operandi is more obvious. First it denies, then it rationalizes. Usually you at least consider what has been said at a bit more depth and so the response is more sophisticated than this last, relatively thoughtless post. Here I se you as basically sidestepping my points in sort of a slippery non-substantive manner.

Secondly, your unexamined assumptions are more obvious. Some of them make me shiver.

I'll take your last one as my first example of this. You misrepresent my position and then argue against that. You have a serious misunderstanding of my position if, after all this time conversing, you actually think I'm trying to "affirm the reality of duality" or "imply that the lower notion of experience and duality is actually true and real". Far from it. I assume you must be thoughtlessly arguing with some straw man there, probably a composite of other people you have been arguing with, or you are just on auto-pilot.

My point with Ramana's quote is twofold. The first is that it demonstrates that it is not necessary to eradicate the relative world in order for realization to be the case. Ramana said that it was only necessary to point out the unreality of the conditional world to seekers who had lost sight of themselves. Once they had realized their status as conscious being they then understood their correct relationship to the world.

Ramana: “When a man forgets that he is a Brahman, who is real, permanent and omnipresent, and deludes himself into thinking that he is a body in the universe which is filled with bodies that are transitory, and labours under that delusion, you have got to remind him that the world is unreal and a delusion. Why? Because his vision which has forgotten its own Self is dwelling in the external, material universe. It will not turn inwards into introspection unless you impress on him that all this external material universe is unreal. When once he realises his own Self he will know that there is nothing other than his own Self and he will come to look upon the whole universe as Brahman.”

So it is clearly not necessary to eradicate the world to see reality. You are just using that condition as an excuse to hang on to duality yourself.

The second point is that Ramana actually does mean that he has no preferences, or there are no preferences, while you do express very clear and sharp preferences continuously, again with particular regard to the presence of what you insist on calling duality. Your avoidance of these points is another instance of what I mean by your slipperiness in this post.

I am not the one insisting on the reality of duality as you suggest. Quite the opposite. If you would just look a little more closely you'll see that it's actually you who are insisting on the reality of duality and that that is what is supposedly preventing your realization, according to your own assessment.

I am in total agreement with Ramana's endorsement of the vedantic principle of Ajata Vada, which has to do with the absence of causality regarding "Being". It is a great insight. The only real difference between us on this point is that you seem to see it as only a theory, or perhaps just a remote future attainment while I see it as present actuality. Here you leap on the word "now" and try to rationalize the whole idea away as some complicated issue while simply avoiding the actual point of my comment, another reason I refer to your replies in this post as slippery.

My point again is that you cannot claim to be pursuing such things as "...unconditional freedom, which is what desire really wants." or say, "I don't see that desire can be quenched any other way than to fall into unconditional happiness." and yet remain entirely conditional in your stance, as you do continuously. That is a dualistic position. That's the point that I am asking you to face and not simply ignore it. Can you even see that this might be a possibility? You constantly assume that what you call duality prevents or belies your enlightenment. So who believes in the reality of duality or the conditional world? Clearly it’s you and not me as you suggest. I hope you’ll stop projecting your vision onto me and then criticizing me for what you yourself espouse.

Other assumptions of yours that make me shiver are:

“Only the source, the source of the “I”-thought, is infinite. And that is not found in our present situation.”

- The notion that our source is missing, that we are separated from our source, is a typical atheistic assumption. I know this because I was once an atheist too. Even if you don’t consider yourself an atheist now, this assumption is a hangover from that period of your life. You need to allow yourself to see that this ‘missingness’ is simply a learned and arbitrary, unwarranted and unnecessary assumption. It is not true.

“We can't find ourselves in this present situation either….”

-We can only not find our subjective self objectively. No one has any problem finding themselves subjectively, and not as an entity of course, or a thought or an image, since those would still be objective, but as totally obvious conscious being (and not A conscious being, nor any entity BTW).

“Where we actually are is not known to us. This is not a good thing”

- There is no “where”. Place is a relative concept. In the absolute, Being is its own place, as well as its own time.

“When realizers talk this way, there are not talking about “our present situation”, they are talking about a transcendental present, not merely the present moment in time, but the now that is beyond time”.

- The now that is beyond time is the present moment to which I am referring. But this present moment in time is not actually separate from that, as you seem to want to insist.

“We can only experience a part of whatever there is, and we can't ever demonstrate that it is infinite at all.”

- Infinity is part of our present situation even in the conditional world. I know you know the sky never ends. That’s real infinity. The two aspects of reality infuse every aspect of existence: the unlimited and the limited, the time-bound and the eternal, the relative and the absolute, the objective and the subjective, the changeable and the unchanging, multiplicity and singularity, and so on. They are all the case at the same time. They do not deny or nullify each other as you keep wanting to insist. It’s not one or the other. This is infinity, literally.

“… desire wants what is infinite, what is real, what is transcendental. It's problem is that it cannot perceive the transcendental and infinite…”

- The transcendental, the absolute, is not objective or relative so it cannot be perceived objectively. That is the only ‘problem’. But that does not mean that what is infinite, real and transcendental is somehow missing or unavailable That is again another unwarranted assumption based on thinking that the absolute should appear in relative terms. Desire is rooted in the assumption or insistence that the real is presently missing. But the real is not missing at all. It simply is not defined, and cannot be identified in what is limited and conditional, even though people casually do assume so on an everyday basis (And please note, I do not assume that.) No one has a problem realizing reality. People generally make the mistake of thinking that the absolute should be objective or relative like everything else they know. Once one gets over that misunderstanding there is no problem.

If you understand what I am saying here you’ll see that, overall, there is actually very little difference between your position and mine. You are hardly alone in arguing for “higher notion of unity” as you say. It’s no wonder you continue to misrepresent my position if you still don’t understand this. It would help this conversation considerably if you would.

The only difference is that you are saying non-duality is not presently the case while I am pointing out that it already is. And that is the all the difference between us in a nutshell. That’s the reason I refer to your present position as one of duality and that’s what I was asking you to confront in yourself in my last post and what I consider you to have missed or sidestepped in your reply. You say this is not that. I say this is that, and not in any theoretical, conceptual sense, but actually so. I am not merely trying to make you wrong. I am just trying to demonstrate to you that nothing really stands between you and enlightenment as you seem to insist. Unless this is the non-dual, there is no non-dual. This is that. Any other fixed position is nothing but an insistence on duality.

And now my reply to Friend:


Friend,

No need to slipslide into insults and accusations - but since you have, I may get a litle direct and personal with you. If I misunderstand you, it's not intentional. Many of your statements are not clear at all, and self-contradictory, and I am limited in my ability to infer what you mean from what you say. I'm sure in your own mind you see no contradictions are inconsistencies, but that's the problem. You seem to have trouble seeing yourself from other people's point of view, and instead simply dismiss and say derogatory things about points of view, such as mine, that disagree with yours. I hardly find that a sign of your being in a state of genuine knowledge of the Self and having brought your search to an end. I'm not trying to be insulting, but you seem to have a fair number of rather ordinary social problems and are getting rather emotionally reactive here, in the way that these things often get on the internet. Not that there's anything terribly wrong there, it just doesn't seem like you actually live what you preach, or have really understood what you claim to understand. I don't mind that you haven't realized the Self, but I do mind that you put me down in a rather insipid way as being someone who is purely dualistic and who therefore couldn't possibly understand your arguments, unless of course I think the way you think, and then I will be fine.

As for my last post, I think it was fine. It doesn't misrepresent my views and it's not slippery, but quite clear. Implying that I can't handle this conversation is not the kind of thing someone who is awake to their true being would say, it's a kind of passive-aggressive insult, don't you think? Accusing me of operating on automatic, while you can deftly observe me from the position of true being, is a very sophomoric and ad hominem way of arguing, not worthy of you or the non-dual rhetoric you espouse. It's pretty dualistic if you ask me. You accuse me of not recognizing “this” as Divine and Infinite, and yet you treat me like a very finite and unenlightened nabob. How is that? Am I not part of “this”?

You accuse me of denying, and then rationalizing, but give no examples. I don't see any in my post. Please point them out to me. It's not good manners to accuse someone of such things without providing justification. You seem to be sinking into personal insults, which is a sign of a failed argument, and certainly not a sign of living the non-dual life as you claim to be. Quite honestly, I think you have simply run out of arguments, and are reduced to insults and bald assertions like “this is that” which mean nothing more than a kindergardener saying “is so”. When pressed, you merely say that unless I agree with you that “this is that”, I am just stuck in duality and defending duality. I disagree. I have put forth a lot of very sound and grounded arguments why “this” is not “that”, arguments that are found in the traditions of realizers around the world, and you simply ignore them and accuse me of ignorance and a fixation on unenlightenment. That is your presumption about me, and it has nothing to do with how I actually live or think. You don't seem to care that many non-dual teachings contradict you, I suppose you think they are all stuck in duality also.

“You misrepresent my position and then argue against that. You have a serious misunderstanding of my position if, after all this time conversing, you actually think I'm trying to "affirm the reality of duality" or "imply that the lower notion of experience and duality is actually true and real". Far from it. I assume you must be thoughtlessly arguing with some straw man there, probably a composite of other people you have been arguing with, or you are just on auto-pilot.”

If you examine my post a little more carefully, I simply said that if you were using Ramana's quote to affirm the reality of duality, then you were using it wrongly. Now you assert that you were not using it for that purpose. Fine. But later on you not only assert “this is that”, but, “This is infinity, literally” This is precisely what I mean by asserting the reality of duality, that this dualistic world, as it is, is actually infinite and non-dual. So I'm not misinterpreting you at all. You literally believe that this world is literally non-dual and infinite. You give the false rationale that the sky is infinite. But of course it isn't. As anyone with a little education knows, the universe has only been around for about 13 billion years, not an infinite length of time, and according to Einstein's theory of relativity, a beam of light shooting into the sky will curve through the entire universe and come back from the opposite direction, in about 13 billion years (or would that be 26 billion years, I'm not sure?).

In any case, the sky is very big, but not infinite. Nothing in this universe is infinite, it is all finite, every last drop of it. Give me one example of any “thing” in this universe that is infinite. You won't be able to. So then, how can this finite world be infinite? It can't be, certainly not in any sense that exists within this world. It can only be infinite in a sense that does not exist in this world itself, that sees that this world is not reality, but only a dualistic reduction of reality to a limited and finite illusion. The infinite and eternal nature of the Self is not found in this world, where everything is finite, changing, and mortal. You are mortal, my friend, even if you think you have achieved some kind of eternal consciousness. You haven't. What you have understood will die and be scattered to the winds, because it is finite knowledge, not infinite and eternal and unending knowledge. I think that ought to be obvious. That it is not obvious to you may simply be due to the same cause that you think the sky is infinite – a lack of understanding of the details of these matters.

You simply like the idea, the concept, that ”this is that”. You haven't realized it, you haven't worked it through, you simply feel some basic sense that it's true, and that's enough for you. You see no need to actually examine this idea critically. Instead you just attack anyone who suggests you might be wrong. That's how the ego responds to criticism, not how non-dual being responds. So are you the ego arguing with me, or non-dual being? Or is your view that since “this is that”, your ego is actually non-dual being, and so it's okay, that your egoic reactions are just more non-dual being doing its thing? In other words, do you have any sense of conscience that tells you when you are being an egoic ass, and when you are being self-surrendering, or do you just think its all one non-dual being? I'm being a bit facetious here, but that's where you seem to be heading with this. If you are going to make me and my personae an element of this argument, then you have to make yours an element also. So what's with you for real? Are you free of egoity and dualism or not?

“My point with Ramana's quote is twofold. The first is that it demonstrates that it is not necessary to eradicate the relative world in order for realization to be the case.”

I never claimed that it was necessary to eradicate the relative world in order for realization to be the case. I did say that it was necessary to eradicate the dualistic mind, and that if the dualistic mind was eradicated, the world would vanish also, since the world is dependent upon the dualistic mind for its existence. Without the mind, there is no world, no this or that, no identity, no difference at all. Nothing is seen, nothing is perceived, because the one who previously perceived is gone. Without a perceiving mind, how can there be a world perceived? So no effort is needed to eradicate the world. One only needs to eradicate the mind, the dualistic ego which creates worlds and places and pretends to percieve them and see them as God even, as non-dual even, all of which is just the mind playing tricks with itself. The end of such tricks ends the whole game of the ego that perceives a world.

You argue as if the world exists outside of the mind, as if there really is some infinite dimension to this world that makes it non-dual, and that when the mind is gone, then we see the world as non-dual also. I argue otherwise, that without the mind there is no world to see, and no perceiver to see it. Who is it who sees the world as infinite when the Self is realized? The Self isn't a being in the world, who perceives the world, just more clearly. When the snake is gone and the rope is seen, there is no one to see it. The snake is the world itself, the mind, the fragmentation of reality into self and world. When that fragmentation vanishes, there is no self or world. The Self is not the Witness. That, again, is just a way of understanding the direction of Self-Realization, not the actual nature of the Self. The Self witnesses nothing, experiences nothing. It is only from the point of view of dualism that we speak of things that way, because it gives us some way to relate to these matters. And similarly with Ramana's quote. He is not describing the actual state of the realizer, that is indescribable. He is only describing how the jnani relates to others within the viewpoint of the dualistic mind. As you acknowledge, the Ajata Vada is his real perspective.

“Ramana said that it was only necessary to point out the unreality of the conditional world to seekers who had lost sight of themselves. Once they had realized their status as conscious being they then understood their correct relationship to the world.”

Ramana did stress the unreality of the world to seekers, but not because they were too immature to see the world as real. He said that it was unreal because it was a creation of mind, but he cautioned that people shouldn't try to adopt that as an attitude towards life in any kind of practical sense. Instead, he said they should find out the truth of this for themselves through self-enquiry. He pointed out that the world was not the Self, and that one should direct attention to the self-position, not outwards into the world. Still, in discussing self-enquiry in the context of everything else, he would clearly point out that the world was unreal. He never said that once anyone had “realized their status as conscious being” that they would understand their true relationship to the world, and see it as real. He never spoke about any “realization of conscious being” at all. That is your concept, and your teaching, not Ramana's. He spoke of Self-realization, and clearly stated that in Self-realization the jnani transcends any notion of having a relationship to the world. The world is seen as the Self, and the Self has no relationship to the Self, it is the Self. He not only sees no differences, he sees no world. He sees that nothing is happening at all, and never has happened. I refer you to the quote I posted in this recent post from Lakshmana Swami, one of Ramana's realized devotees.

Now, the point you make that is valid is that Ramana felt it was important to seekers to know that the world was an illusion, that dualistic object-consciousness was false, and that one should direct attention to the true self, rather than to the false world. Since I am a seeker, it is of course fully appropriate for me to see the world as an illusion, and to deepen that sense through self-enquiry. Even you here admit that this is good advice. So why then do you constantly berate me for affirming this, when it is exactly what someone like me should be affirming? I understand the argument about whether the jnani sees the dualistic world as real or not is contentious, but there really should be no contentiousness about whether I, a seeker, should see the world as unreal.

As you here freely admit, Ramana felt that it was important for seekers to see the world as unreal. Well, that's me. And yet you constantly decry that I don't see that “this is that”, and tell me I am clinging to unenlightenment by doing so. This seems completely contradictory, and evidence that you are confused and disturbed by this notion, rather than living in the clear certainty of "conscious being". If you really were speaking from “conscious being” to me, wouldn't you likewise encourage me to see the world as an illusion in order to faciitate my realization of “conscious being”, so that I could then see the true, non-dual nature of the world as you do? Well, the problem is obvious. You don't really see the non-dual nature of the world or reality. You simply have a concept about it in your mind, and you cling to that concept, and defend that concept, and berate anyone who contradicts that concept. If you knew yourself to be the Self, you wouldn't feel threatened by my assertions that the world is unreal, and you would even encourage me to take that all the way to realization. But instead you do the opposite.

Let's look at a few things Ramana said about this:

M. Only that which lies beyond name and form is Reality.
____________________

Q. What is reality?

M. Reality must always be real It is not with names and forms. That which underlies these is the Reality. It underlies limitations, being itself limitless. It is not bound. It underlies unrealities, itself being real. Reality is that which is, It is as it is. It transcends speech, beyond the expressions, e.g., existence, non-existence, etc.
_____________________

Q. I understand the concept of unity in variety, but do not realize it.

M. Because you are in variety, you say you understand unity – that you have flashes, etc., remember things, etc.,; you consider this variety to be real. On the other hand, Unity is the reality, and variety is false. The variety must go before unity reveals itself – its reality. It is always real. It does not send flashes of its being in this false variety. One the contrary, variety obstructs the truth.
_____________________

Q. Is the seen world real?

M. It is true in the same degree as the seer. Subject, object and perception form the triad. There is a reality beyond these three. These appear and disappear, whereas the truth is eternal.

Q. These three are only temporal?

M. Yes, if one recognizes the Self these will be found to be non-existent even in temporal matters, inseparate from the Self; and they will be going on at the same time.
_____________________

M. Where are you, that you ask these questions? Are you in the world, or is the world within you? You must admit that the world is not perceived in your sleep although you cannot deny your existence then. The world appears when you wake up. So where is it? Clearly the world is your thoughts. Thoughts are your projections. The “I” is first created and then the world. The world is created by the “I” which in turn rises up from the Self. The riddle of the creation of the world is thus solved if you solve the creation of the “I”. So I say, find your Self.

Again, does the world come and ask you “Why do “I” exist? How was “I” created?” It is you who ask the question. The questioner must establish the relationship between the world and himself. He must admit that the world is his own imagination. Who imagines it? Let him find the “I” and then the Self.

Moreover, all the scientific and theological explanations do not harmonize. The diversities in such theories clearly show the uselessness of seeking such explanations. Such explanations are purely mental or intellectual and nothing more. Still, all of them are true according to the standpoint of the individual. There is no creation in the state of realization. When one sees the world, one does not see oneself. When one sees the Self, the world is not seen. So see the Self and realize that there has been no creation.

I think these instructions are fairly clear about the nature of the world. Yes, when the Self is realized, only Brahman is seen, but that is only a figure of speech. There is no “I” to see Brahman, and no Brahman to be seen. There is only Brahman. This paradoxical state could be said to be consistent with the statement “Brahman is the world”, but we must face up to the reality that is a statement which destroys the very concept of a “world”. And not just this world, but any world which could be seen. If the world is Brahman, it is infinite. Clearly the world we see is not infinite, nor is any world that could be seen, so it is not “this” world that is Brahman. The world that is seen in realization is a Brahman World, an infinite world, a world without any limitation or karma or aspects - clearly not “this” world. Everything about such a world is infinite. There is nothing “in” it that is finite, since every part of Brahman is also Brahman, and thus infinite. The table in front of me is not infinite. It is not a “part” of Brahman, because everything in Brahman is infinite. What I see as a table is just a projection of my dualistic mind. If I were realized, I would not see a table, I would see infinity. Though using the word “see” would of course be contradictory, because there is no seer, seeing, or seen in Brahman.

In other words, you are operating under false concepts, based on your presumption that you have resolved the issue of your Self, and that your search has come to an end. You see “this” as “that”, but who sees "this"? The ego does. Your ego has simply latched onto ideas of non-dualism and created a personal reality out of them. It holds onto those ideas in the face of all opposition. This is what the ego does. We should all be aware of this. You think you have no ego, no belief in a personal self. But who thinks this, who knows this? The ego does. You cling to the notion that the world is real because your ego needs the world to be real in order to protect itself. That is the whole point of projecting a world around us. It is a protective measure for the ego. And the ego simply will not let go of the world. Instead, it divinizes the world if it can, it eternalizes it, it says “this world is that”. This is the trap you are in. I don't think I can state it any more clearly. If you cannot begin to suspect yourself of this error, I probably can't do anything more for you.

Ramana: “When a man forgets that he is a Brahman, who is real, permanent and omnipresent, and deludes himself into thinking that he is a body in the universe which is filled with bodies that are transitory, and labours under that delusion, you have got to remind him that the world is unreal and a delusion. Why? Because his vision which has forgotten its own Self is dwelling in the external, material universe. It will not turn inwards into introspection unless you impress on him that all this external material universe is unreal. When once he realises his own Self he will know that there is nothing other than his own Self and he will come to look upon the whole universe as Brahman.”

Friend: “So it is clearly not necessary to eradicate the world to see reality. You are just using that condition as an excuse to hang on to duality yourself.”

I never said that one has to eradicate the world, only the mind. Ramana clearly states that in realization the jnani knows nothing other than the Self. But again, this view of the world as Brahman is not the Ajata Vada, it is simply a paradox of dualistic language. There is no one there to see the world as Brahman, so how can the jnani view the world at all, even as Brahman? In saying that the world is Brahman, you are stressing the “world” side of the equation. I say Ramana is stressing the “Brahman” side of the equation, such that the meaning here is that there is no world, only Brahman.

“The second point is that Ramana actually does mean that he has no preferences, or there are no preferences, while you do express very clear and sharp preferences continuously, again with particular regard to the presence of what you insist on calling duality. Your avoidance of these points is another instance of what I mean by your slipperiness in this post.”

Of course I have preferences. I'm not realized. I have no problem expressing my preferences. I don't feel the need to hide my preferences in order to pretend that I have no search, or have resolved the issue of self. I haven't avoided these points one bit. I've been very clear in stating that I see duality all the time, and yet also intuit something about the non-dual nature of reality. I just don't equate this world with non-duality, as you do, nor do I think that is an error. I actually think it is a virtue to not equate this world with non-duality. I think it is a vice of yours to do the opposite, to equate this dualistic world with non-duality. I think it not only leads you into error, it is a symptom of an even bigger error on your part – that of taking your own spiritual state to be non-dual consciousness.

“I am not the one insisting on the reality of duality as you suggest. Quite the opposite. If you would just look a little more closely you'll see that it's actually you who are insisting on the reality of duality and that that is what is supposedly preventing your realization, according to your own assessment.”

You are the one who is insisting that “this is that”. You claim that this dualistic world is, in reality, infinite and real. I do not insist that duality is real. I do not see “duality” as something “out there” which “prevents” my realization. Duality is simply the nature of non-realization. It neither causes nor is caused by non-realization. In reality, there is no duality, no self and no world, no seer, no seen, and no seeing. What is preventing my realization? My ego, that's all. My conviction that I am this “I”. This is not inflicted upon me from without. It is me. There is no cause. There is simply ignorance. I don't know where you came up with these ideas about what I think, but it wasn't from me.

“I am in total agreement with Ramana's endorsement of the vedantic principle of Ajata Vada, which has to do with the absence of causality regarding "Being".

Apparently you are not in total agreement with the Ajata Vada, which is far more than a notion that causality is absent from “Being”. It is the doctrine of no-creation, no world, no self, that only Self exists, that no world was ever created, and no jivas, no “beings” at all. As Papaji summarized it, "Nothing Ever Happened".

“It is a great insight. The only real difference between us on this point is that you seem to see it as only a theory, or perhaps just a remote future attainment while I see it as present actuality.”

But you don't actually see it as your present reality, you only conceive of it that way, and then only in an abbreviated form it seems that only negates causality. I conceive of the Ajata Vada as the nature of reality, but not something I see directly and truly. I have had glimpses of this, but I cannot say that it is what I know. I understand that it is not an attainment, but the way things are. As Ramana says, sadhana is not about attaining reality, it is about removing ignorance. So no, I don't see things the way you presume I do. Nor do you see things the way you presume you do. And frankly, that is pretty obvious from the way you are conducting yourself. It's very clear that you are egoic like all the rest of us, and are just posing as a realizer of “conscious being” for reasons that I wouldn't imagine I'll ever know the answer to.

“Here you leap on the word "now" and try to rationalize the whole idea away as some complicated issue while simply avoiding the actual point of my comment, another reason I refer to your replies in this post as slippery.”

No, I don't. I simply try to make it clear that this issue isn't so simple as you would like to make it out to be. It is you who refer to the “now” as “this”, and yet also claim that “this is that” and “this is literally infinite”, when literally it is not, but is literally finite in every observable respect. That's what I call slippery and avoiding responsibility for what you say. I also make it clear that “now” can refer to a transcendental view, but when it does, it doesn't refer to “this” at all, which exists in time and space, and is not transcendental in nature, but finite and conditional. The word I focus on is not even “now”, but your phrase “the present situation”, which I think clearly refers to this conditional appearance, since “situation” is clearly a reference to both appearances and conditions. I didn't choose that phrase, you did, and I think it accurately reflects what you mean, even if you always go back and try to redefine everything you say in transcendentalist terms, as if you are Adi Da adding capital letters to all your words. That's what I call slippery and evasive. You never actually say something that definitively reflects your views, but always find some way to weasel out of it if I call you on it. To this day, I don't even know what your real position is, because you evade responsibility for the words you use and the references you make.

“My point again is that you cannot claim to be pursuing such things as "...unconditional freedom, which is what desire really wants." or say, "I don't see that desire can be quenched any other way than to fall into unconditional happiness." and yet remain entirely conditional in your stance, as you do continuously. That is a dualistic position. That's the point that I am asking you to face and not simply ignore it.”

Is that actually the point of all your posts? Your point is that I am entirely conditional in my stance? Are you really sure about that? Entirely conditional? That's a pretty extreme statement. You might have a case if you said that I am being partially conditional in my stance, or not understanding the true nature of non-dualism and unconditional reality, but entirely conditional? You are just freaking out of your mind, friend. This is the equivalent of a Christian announcing that I am utterly possessed by the Devil, and that's the reason I don't understand how right you are. Well of course we have so much conflict. You, the guy who claims to see that “this is that”, that this is infinite, that everything is unconditional, somehow see me as entirely stuck in conditional views. What kind of bullshit is that? Am I the only aspect of “this” that is not “that”? You certainly seem to think so. Now, I'd suggest that is a dualistic position, and it's yours, not mine. What is it about me that makes it impossible for you to see me as even just a teensy weensy bit awake to the non-dual? It couldn't be your ego, could it?

“Can you even see that this might be a possibility?”

No, not really. I don't see that anyone can be entirely dualistic. I don't see you that way. I just think you are deluded to some degree. Not totally deluded, not entirely dualistic, just partially so. Like me. You just seem more attached than I am to a self-image of being free of all that.

“You constantly assume that what you call duality prevents or belies your enlightenment.”

I have never said that at all. That's your interpretation of what I say. I have never used the word “prevent” in that context that I am aware of. So you are just making things up. Dualism doesn't prevent enlightenment, it is unenlightenment. The notion that there is no such thing as unenlightenment is identical to the notion that there is no duality, that there is no world, no creation, no conditional existence at all. The world does not prevent our enlightenment, because there is no world. We are already enlightened, because there is no world, no mind, no self to prevent it. But as long as we think there is a world, a mind, and a self, we will not know this. It is not those things which prevent us from being enlightened, but only our belief in them, just as our belief in the snake prevents us from seeing the rope. The snake does not prevent us from seeing the rope, because there is no snake.

“So who believes in the reality of duality or the conditional world? Clearly it’s you and not me as you suggest.”

Wrong. We both believe in the reality of duality or the conditional world. I am questioning my beliefs, I admit that I have been enmeshed in samsara and am questioning my way out of those beliefs, but you have tried to solve the situation by pretending that you no longer believe in duality, and instead see the non-dual nature of everything. This simply doesn't work. It hasn't made you enlightened, and it never will. Its just your mind telling you your search is over so it can stay safe and unthreatened. The difference between you and me is that I question and doubt my own beliefs, but you don't. You simply affirm and defend them.

“I hope you’ll stop projecting your vision onto me and then criticizing me for what you yourself espouse.”

Practice what you preach, friend! Stop trying to slip out of what you say by claiming that you actually said something else.

“Other assumptions of yours that make me shiver are:”

First, it's very creepy that you “shiver” at what I say. And this is not egoic on your part?

BY: “Only the source, the source of the “I”-thought, is infinite. And that is not found in our present situation.”

Friend: "The notion that our source is missing, that we are separated from our source, is a typical atheistic assumption. I know this because I was once an atheist too.

That's called projecting, Friend. Just because you thought certain things when you were an athiest doesn't mean that's what I'm basing my views on. What's really weird about your analysis here is that I of course don't say in the above quote, or anywhere else in my posts, that our source is missing from this “transcendental now” if you will. I merely say that it isn't in “our present situation.” The difference is that “present situation” refers to this conditional appearance, which is devoid of the source. That doesn't mean the source is missing at all, it merely means you are looking for it in the wrong place if you look for it in the present situation. We are not in this present situation, we merely observe it. Our source is found in the witness, not in the situation we observe. So it is not missing at all, it is only that we look for it outward, in the world of objects, conditions, and situations. So when I say the Beloved is not in this world, I do not mean that the Beloved is missing, as much as you insist that I do. I have denied this at every opportunity, and you continue to assert it, in complete bad faith. I explain clearly that the Beloved is transcendentally present, but not present in the world, except as the Goddess Power, which is the Guru. Even the Guru is not in the world, but is the Self-Power in the heart.

“Even if you don’t consider yourself an atheist now, this assumption is a hangover from that period of your life. You need to allow yourself to see that this ‘missingness’ is simply a learned and arbitrary, unwarranted and unnecessary assumption. It is not true.”

To the degree that athiests see the world as lacking God, they are right, more right than religious believers. I was an athiest until I first glimpsed the transcendental nature of consciousness at the age of 12. I never became a religious believer, and doubt I ever will. The athiest is at least honest in not presuming a God that does not exist within the conditional worlds. God only exists in the transcendence of the mind, and the worlds which mind creates. That isn't an athiestic view, that's a reality view. That you seem incapable of grasping that doesn't say much for your supposed realization of conscious being.

“We can only not find our subjective self objectively. No one has any problem finding themselves subjectively, and not as an entity of course, or a thought or an image, since those would still be objective, but as totally obvious conscious being (and not A conscious being, nor any entity BTW).

Pardon me, but I think everyone who is not a completely realized jnani is having trouble finding themselves. You seem to be having more trouble than most. Yes, everyone knows they are conscious, and that seems to be the extent of your knowledge of yourself. But very few know who they are. You certainly don't, regardless of what you imagine. Most people don't delude themselves into thinking that simply being aware that they are conscious is some kind of transcendent realization of non-duality. It takes a particularly deranged kind of mind to imagine that. Most people are much humbler than that, and freely admit they don't ultimately know who they are. Hell, even I'm at least that humble.

“There is no “where”. Place is a relative concept. In the absolute, Being is its own place, as well as its own time.”

Yes there is a “where” in transcendental realization. It's called the Heart. If you don't know the Heart, you don't know where you are. Ramana always described realization as being seated in the Heart. How come you don't know this?

“The now that is beyond time is the present moment to which I am referring.”

No it isn't. You have already said that what you are referring to is this world, where the sky is. The sky exists in time and space. The world exists in time and space. And all these exist only in mind. All of that is conditional, is dualistic in nature. The sky does not exist outside of time and space. It exists within it, and in a limited fashion.

“But this present moment in time is not actually separate from that, as you seem to want to insist.”

It isn't separate from it, because it doesn't even exist. It is simply mind, concept, thought. This present moment in time can't be separate, because it can't be found. Try to nail it down as a thing. Not there. Unknown. Mystery is all one can say about it, even conditionally. And notice how now you are talking about this present moment in time, not beyond time. Are you saying that both are unconditional? How can time be unconditional? It can't, because it isn't. Time is the epitome of conditions. It keeps everything past and future separate from the now.

“- Infinity is part of our present situation even in the conditional world. I know you know the sky never ends. That’s real infinity.”

As mentioned above, this is pure blandersdash. The sky does end. It goes in circles. The universe is finite. Big, but finite. There is no real infinity in this world, just some very large numbers. But every large number is still an infinite distance away from infinity. It's all the same, in other words, from the point of view of infinity.

“The two aspects of reality infuse every aspect of existence: the unlimited and the limited, the time-bound and the eternal, the relative and the absolute, the objective and the subjective, the changeable and the unchanging, multiplicity and singularity, and so on.

Then you are saying that reality is dualistic! If there are two aspects to reality, that is a dualistic view of reality, or more properly, the view that reality is dual in nature. This is what I have been trying to point out to you since the beginning. You aren't a non-dualist at all, you are a dualist. You are Dvaitist, not Advaitist. No big deal. There's a long and respectable tradition for dualism in Vedanta and elsewhere. I don't see why you don't embrace it, since that is how you see the world. You cling to non-dualism for reasons I can't begin to fathom, but I think it has something to do with egoic pride. Dvaitists have always debated Advaitists, often with arguments similar to your own, but they don't pretend to be non-dualists, and accuse non-dualists of being dualists. That's what so fucking crazy about your arguments. You believe there are two aspects to reality, and yet you believe that this is the true non-dual view of reality. Could you be any slipperier than that? I don't think it's possible. Not even I could top that.

What you are saying is the epitome of the dualist view: that even the unlimited coexists with the limited. That both exist and are real aspects of one reality. You might as well throw in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Religion is full of dualistic views of reality, that try to combine the infinite and the finite. That's what makes them dualistic. Non-dual views don't try to make that marriage. They argue that there is only One, not two. If you don't like that approach, you should consider yourself a dualist, and stop trying to make non-dualism fit your dualistic view. Oppose non-dualism outright. At least then we would each openly know where we stand and could carry on a meaningful argument, rather being in this absurd position of having you, who do not even believe in non-dualism, but actively believe in its opposite, acting as if you are the protector of the true non-dualist view. Gives me whiplash, know what I mean?

“They are all the case at the same time. They do not deny or nullify each other as you keep wanting to insist. It’s not one or the other. This is infinity, literally.”

Yes, you are a dualist, literally. Your literal belief in all this makes you a dualist. Your literal refusal to see the contradictions in your arguments makes you a dualist. Your belief that you are not a dualist makes you a dualist. Dualism and non-dualism can't literally be the case at the same time. This is true even definitionally. You have not met the burden of proof necessary to show otherwise. You have not offered any proof at all, just assertions that it is so. If it were literally true that this is infinity, wouldn't all us literal-minded people see it? All we'd have to do is look at something, and we'd see infinity. So it must not literally be infinity.

“- The transcendental, the absolute, is not objective or relative so it cannot be perceived objectively.”

Wait, but you said this is literally infinity. If it is not objectively infinity, then in what way is it infinity? The world is full of objects, and nothing more. If you take away objectivity, you take away the entire world. What's left that is literally infinite? If only the transcendental is infinite, then what about "this"? You said this was infinite. Now you are going back on that?

“But that does not mean that what is infinite, real and transcendental is somehow missing or unavailable”

Okay, but where is it? Is it literally in this world, this world that you say is literally infinite? If so, where? If not, why not, and where is it?

“That is again another unwarranted assumption based on thinking that the absolute should appear in relative terms.”

I never said the absolute should appear in relative terms. I said the exact opposite, that it never appears in relative terms. It is you who say that this is literally infinite, is "that". Which side of this argument are you on?

“Desire is rooted in the assumption or insistence that the real is presently missing.”

I can agree with that. But as I said, the problem is that desire thinks the real is missing precisely because it is looking in the world for it, where it is not to be found. Desire must turn towards its source, the self, and find what it seeks there. That is where the infinite is finally to be located, not in the world. Desire will find that the real is present if it only looks for it in the right place.

“If you understand what I am saying here you’ll see that, overall, there is actually very little difference between your position and mine.”

What?!?!? If you can see that there is very little difference between our positions, then what the fuck was all the bullshit about me being entirely situated in a conditional stance? And what was your entire rabid argument against me about? I for one think there really is a big difference between us. You are essentially presenting a dualistic view of reality as being composed of two aspects, the dual and the non-dual, while I am saying that it is not, that the dual is an illusion, and the non-dual is reality. I think that's a major difference, and we shouldn't pretend otherwise. Nothing to spill one's tea over, to be sure, but a major discrepancy all the same.

“You are hardly alone in arguing for “higher notion of unity” as you say. It’s no wonder you continue to misrepresent my position if you still don’t understand this. It would help this conversation considerably if you would.”

I think you've done a remarkable job of misrepresenting yourself all by yourself. You hardly need my help. You are not arguing for a higher notion of unity, you are arguing for a higher notion of duality. That's where we differ. I am arguing for non-duality, and you don't seem to comprehend what it means, and how it differs from duality, even your “higher notion” of duality. You think that by including non-duality in your notion of duality, you have achieved a higher form of unity. This is false. All you have done is debauch non-duality, and make it duality's lapdog. Bugt non-duality will have no part of your efforts. Non-dualism stands Alone. It admits no second.

“The only difference is that you are saying non-duality is not presently the case while I am pointing out that it already is.”

No, I am pointing out that what is already the case is not found in what is merely the case. What is merely the case in the present, by which we mean “this”, is not non-dual. What is non-dual is not found in “this”, but only in what already is. “This” is not already here. It is only here in time and space, in this present moment. It was not here a moment ago, and it won't be here a moment later. It will have changed. What already is, does not change. It does not appear, and it does not disappear. It isn't even an “it”. It is not absent in the midst of appearances, but it is not present in them either. It is transcendental in nature.

“And that is the all the difference between us in a nutshell.”

Yes, it is. You do not comprehend the distinction between what already is, and what is merely and presently the case. You think they are the same. I don't. Viva le differance!

“That’s the reason I refer to your present position as one of duality and that’s what I was asking you to confront in yourself in my last post and what I consider you to have missed or sidestepped in your reply.”

I hope I have made myself more clear this time around. I have tried not to sidestep anything, and I hope you will not either.

“You say this is not that. I say this is that, and not in any theoretical, conceptual sense, but actually so.”

Yes, you have made that very clear. I still don't believe that you have made any convincing arguments that this is so. Nor do I see any evidence that you have actually seen or realized this spiritually, or in any but a conceptually based manner. You have simply become a fundamentalist preacher of this message, without examining or questioning yourself, and seem impervious to questioning from others. I see little difference between you and a fundamentalist Christian parading his views of the Trinity around the block. You have a quick dismissal of all arguments, and no real arguments for yourself, just assertions of personal certainty. This does not come over very well, contrary to what you may think. It comes off as very egoic in nature, and it pisses me off, as I'm sure you can tell.

“I am not merely trying to make you wrong. I am just trying to demonstrate to you that nothing really stands between you and enlightenment as you seem to insist. Unless this is the non-dual, there is no non-dual. This is that. Any other fixed position is nothing but an insistence on duality.”

You are doing a very poor job of helping me to see what you want me to see. All you are doing is preaching and proselytizing, and that doesn't work. You have to step off your pedestal of certainty and pious understanding, and get real. Stop telling me there is nothing standing between me and enlightenment until you yourself are enlightened and can demonstrate that non-separation in this conversation at the very least. All you are doing is insisting that you know reality, and I am a sinner who is insisting on living an unenlightened existence. You dress it up in pious messages, but it comes down to the same obnoxious stance that all well-meaning fundamentalists take. Your insistance that “any other fixed position is nothing but an insistence on duality” is precisely the way fumdamentalists think. They imagine that any viewpoint other than their own must be “fixed”, and it must be false. Have you no insight into how fixed and false your own views are?

I'm afraid not. Unless you can show some sliver of self-questioning, I think this dialog is virtually at an end. I can't waste my time trying to crack a fundamentalist egg. It's been good to get down to this point at least, but if you want to go further, I 'm going to need to see some sign of vulnerability on your part, some openness to the possibility that you are at least a little bit wrong, rather than my coming round to your view that I am entirely conditional in my stance. As I've said, I have plenty of dualism left in me, I make no bones about it. How about you? Can you admit the same, and explain how?

The Non-Dual Viewpoint on mind, levels, vision

The following is a quote from Sri Lakshmana Swami, a realized devotee of Ramana Maharshi, from "No Mind - I Am The Self; The Lives and Teachings of Sri Lakshmana Swamy and Mathru Sri Sarada", (p.102-3) by David Godman. It seems relavent to many of the discussions here, particularly about the viewpoint of the non-dual realizer.

Question: What are the different stages or levels of the mind that one passes through before realising the Self?

Sri Lakshmana Swami: Mind is only thoughts. The more easily you can be without thoughts, the nearer you are to a direct experience of the Self. To make the mind die you must deprive it of thoughts. The effortless thought-free state is the highest level of practice.

There are no states or degrees of realization, there are only stages of spiritual practice. The final stage of sadhana is this effortless thought-free state. If this state can be maintained, then the "I" will sink into the Self and it will experience the bliss of the Self. These experiences are only temporary; the "I" will continue to reassert itself until the moment of realization. Realization can only happen in this effortless thought-free state, for it is only in this state that the Self can destroy the "I"-thought. The "I"-thought, which is the mind, must die completely before Self-Realization occurs.

Question: How is one to make the mind die?

Sri Lakshmana Swami: The mind can never eliminate itself without the grace of the Self. The mind is afraid of its own death; it will not do anything to endanger its own existence. It is like the theif who poses as a policement in order to catch himself because he ultimately wants to escape. SImilarly with the mind. The mind will engage in sadhana, thinking it wants to destroy itself, but as soon as the mind starts to sink into the Heart, a great fear arises which prevents the mind from completely subsiding. This fear is part of the mind's self-defence mechanism, and you will never overcome it by effort alone. It is because of this that you need the grace of the Guru. When you concentrate on the name and form of the Guru, or try to be without thoughts, the grace of the Guru calms the mind and helps it to overcome the fear which would otherwise prevent it from completely subsiding.

Question: Whyis it necessary for the mind to die?

Sri Lakshmana Swami: The mind must die, there is no other way to realize the Self. Some people say that complete equanimity of mind is Self-Realization, but this is not true. Thius is only a stage one passes through on the way to Self-Realizaiton. Other people say that seeing the Self or God everywhere is Self-Realization, but this is not true either. To see the Self everywhere there must be an "I" who sees, and while that "I" exists the mind will also exist. The jnani does not see anything because the seeing entity in him has died. In the Self, there is no seeing, only being. When the mind still exists one can reach a stage where one can see the whole world as a manifestation of the Self, but when the mind dies, there is no one who sees and no world to be seen.

If you have a mind then the earth, the sky, and the stars will exist, and you will be able to see them. When the mind dies there will be no earth, no sky, no stars, and no world. The world of objects, names, and forms is only the mind, and when the mind dies, the world dies with it. Only the Self then remains.

Seeing everything as the Self gives the impression that the Self is equally distributed everywhere. This is also an idea in the mind. When the mind finally dies you realize that there is no distribution and no everywhere.

Syncrhoncity and levels

Marko posed some interesting questions in relation to my posts on synchronicity:

I have been reading your theory on synchronicity, attention and pattern wiith great interest. There seems to be some amount of thruth in in and I am still looking at it to determine how much. May be your answer will help me with this.

You say that within viewpoints or levels there is causality but in between different levels and viewpoints there is synchronicity. This stays somewhat unclear for me because of a couple of reasons. First I find there is a difference between a viewpoint and a level. So what is your definition of a viewpoint? You had the different pictures of the tree example, but there can be different levels within each viewpoint like having black and white, colour or infra-red pictures. So I would make an important difference between them.

We can also see this when the tree would be moving because of the wind. I could see the movement, hear the sound of the leafs and smell the odour of the blossom. These are all different levels within one viewpoint, won't you agree? Or are they all different viewpoints in your book? The fact is that there is causality from the wind to the smell of the blossom, sounds of the leafs and sight of movement.

And when I take it one step further, f.i. because of the nice smell and the sounds of the leafs my mind relaxes. Is this a different level or no? From your previous posts I would say yes? So you would say the relaxing of the mind is synchronicity although the wind seems to be the cause of the mind relaxing?

I would like to see some precise definitions on viewpoints and levels and some clarity on where causality ends and synchronicity begins to determine how much truth your theory contains.

Thanks,
Marko

Thanks for all the good questions, Marko. Sorry for not getting back to you sooner.

In regard to viewpoints and levels, I tend to see them as synonymous. But that only means that I consider “viewpoint” to be more than just a superficial attitude. In other words, the physical world is a viewpoint, not a “place”. It's a limited viewpoint, and within that viewpoint everything observed is on the same “level”. Physical experience thus obeys a causal pattern of relationship, whereas relations between levels do not, but obey a synchronous patterning relationship.

In the tree example, it's true one can certainly list many qualities of the tree, such as color, black and white, infrared images. But all these are physical qualities, and hence they are all on the same level. One can point to the physical causes as to why the tree looks a certain way under infrared light, and another way under sunlight. But why do some people love trees, and others chop them down for lumber? This is not “caused” by the tree. One can try to find causes, but it's very complicated, because one is then dealing with a different order of experience, this matter of love, emotion, attraction, brutality, etc. There are some causal issues mixed in there, but many which have no causal explanation. Many of them have no direct physical cause. Something about the pattern of trees attracts some people, aesthetically, while to others it is merely an object to be used for a purpose, such as firewood or furniture. It would be out of place to try to determine a purely physical cause for this difference.

But even that example is still ambiguous, because physical attraction, while having emotional qualities, is still very much related to the physical viewpoint itself. What about a more distantly related example? How about the classic concept of karma. The concept of karma attempts to explain physical phenomena, such as having a terrible car accident, as being “caused” by one's past actions. But this, if examined closely, would seem to require some force that would cause events to happen, that God or someone or something is somehow making this accident occur in accord with one's past actions, or at the very least that one has a “store” of accumulated tendencies on some subtle plane that makes things happen on the physical plane. If that were the case, one would expect to find this force operative on the physical plane. One should be able to detect it acting upon physical objects. And yet nothing of the kind has ever been found? Why? Because there is no such force acting from the subtle dimension upon the physical dimension. It is merely that events happen in patterns synchronous with one's subtle energy body, and vice-versa. The link between the subtle and the physical is not causal, but synchronous. They are each a reflection of one another. One can “read” something about one's physical life by examing the subtle, but neither actually causes one another to be a certain way. They simply reflect the same basic pattern.

Your example of the leaf, the bloom and its smell also are all physical matters that have a causal relationship. But how about this. You are thinking of someone you loved, and who died, and you then you smell their favorite perfume. Now, maybe one could find out that someone just walked by wearing that perfume, and that could account for why you smelled it. But it doesn't explain why you thought about that woman before you smelled her perfume. Did your thought “cause” the woman to walk by wearing the same perfume? No, of course not. The two merely coincided.

Wilber gives the example in Grace and Grit of a great wind striking up when his wife died. Now, did his wife's death cause the wind to blow? No, of course not. If one analyzed the wind, I'm sure one would find a perfectly fine meteorological explanation. The relationship between the two events is not causal, but physical. Ghosts would also be an example of a similar phenomena. They do no exist or act in the physical world, they simply coincide with it. Psychisms of all kinds are not really what people think. Precognition, mind-reading, etc, all these are not causal events, but examples of synchronicity. Science may be able to study the phenomena, but they won't be able to find the causal relationship they are looking for, because there is none. The mind is merely able to “coincide” with phenomena of other levels of experience, and resonate in their pattern.

I think this is in some respects a test to differentiate levels. If there is a causal connection between two things, they are on the same level. If their connection is only one of similar pattern, of synchronous coincidence, then they are on two different levels.

An example would be the physical brain. Wilber finds neuroscience to be devastating to much of mysticism and metaphysics, because he thinks that brain chemistry explains so much of how we think and what we do. In a sense, he's correct. But its not as simple as that. While the brain does indeed create a chemistry that corresponds to our inner thoughts and subjective experience, it isn't clear which comes first. Do we think a thought, and this causes the brain to produce a chemical reaction, or does the chemical reaction come first, and the thought is just a product of the chemistry? This question is not resolvable in a causal fashion, and this indicates that mind and brain are on different levels. The best we can say is that thought coincides with brain chemistry. But we cannot say that thought exists only as a brain phenomena. Some interesting NDE out-of-body experiences during induced hypothermia, where there is no brain activity, demonstrate that thinking and observing processes can occur without the brain being involved. So the brain isn't necessary to all thought and perception, but when active it does coincide with thought and mind.

Now as for the mind relaxing when the wind blows and nice smells come into the room is a mixture of the two. We conventionally say that the mind relaxed because it smelled something nice. But this is only because it liked that particular pattern. It chose to relax on cue. It uses that pattern as an excuse to relax. The wind didn't literally cause the mind to relax. It simply gave the mind an excuse to relax. The mind relaxed all on its own, really. It could have relaxed just by remembering that smell. It could have relaxed without any cause at all. Emotional responses are not generally “caused” in the same way that physical events are caused, because we can generate them without cause. Tiny “causes” can set some people off, and yet major trauma may not. Linking all these things to hormones and other brain chemistry issues is trying to mask synchronicity with causality, and often with disastrous results, in that people always like to “blame” their emotional reactions on some cause, and now the excuse is brain chemistry, when in fact these things exist on distinct planes, and hence cannot be treated simply as causal events. The effect of drugs on the brain and the mind is not a wholly causal one, because these only effect one side of the equation.

Wilber's Newer Model and Transcendentalism

A reader named timbomb wrote:

Hey BY, you're aware that Wilber makes a similar critique about his early work himself now, right? I think your criticism of the earlier stuff has a lot to it.

Wilber's recent stuff (last 8 years or so) doesn't put any of the spiritual states at the end of the developmental sequence. These days (since at least Boomeritis) he tends to arrange the structural stages and the states on this picture he refers to as the "Wilber-Combs Lattice"

I wasn't familiar with this lattice, and so went to the link provided to Wilber's intro essay "What is Integral Spirituality", published in 2005, so it represents very recent Wilber views. In it he says:

"Even transcendental knowledge is a four-quadrant affair: the quadranbts don't just go all the way up, they go all they way down as well. It's turtles all the down, and turtles all the way up."

That's clearly a dualistic viewpoint about transcendentalism, and it gives the impression that even non-dualism is not only dualistic, but quadristic in nature.

Wilber seems to be under the sway of both modernism and post-modernism. Atheism, if you will. He sees these disciplines as having swept the rug out from under even the greatest of spiritual traditions:

"We start with the simple observation that the "metaphysics" of the spiritual traditions have been thoroughly trashed by both modernist and postmodernist epistemologies, and there has as yet arisen nothing as compelling to take their place."

So this tells us where Wibler is coming from. He thinks that the great non-dual traditions need to by reworked to make them safe and acceptable to post-modernist minds. I disagree. I think post-modernism needs to get that poker out of its ass and bow its head to the floor, and recognize the greater meanings of the non-dual traditions. But that's as silly as saying that Kings and Princes and Presidents and Dictators need to bow down to non-dualism. It's not exactly going to happen.

Wilber also thinks that the postmodernists have come up with devastating critiques of non-dualism and transcendentalism that can't survive without his AQAL. That too is false. His AQAL does a disservice to both. I have nothing against postmodernism. Some of it is downright silly, but some of it is not. The problem is that it has very little application to non-dualist teachings. It doesn't arise from them, it doesn't address them, and only Wilber seems to think it must. Now, Wilber has tried to mix the two, he's done his best, but frankly it doesn't work. He treats non-dualism as if it is just one among many views. It isn't. It's a singular way of looking at reality, not a multiplex of philsophies. In WIlber's view, that's what makes it partial and in need of modification by other views, bringing it into the tent so to speak, trying to get it to talk to the other views. But this dog just won't hunt. Non-dualism isn't just another view. If non-dualism is true, then only non-dualism is true. If non-dualism is false, then why bring it into the tent at all? The non-dual truth states that all viewpoints are illusory, all philosophies are mere mind, all objects and experience are unnecessary apparitions in transcendental consciousness, and only the Singular Self is real.

The problem there is that by Wilber's AQAL model, this Self-Realization is just an extreme exclusivity of the UL quadrant. And I think that is how WIlber sees non-dualism, as "imbalanced" and in need of balance by the other quadrants. By non-dualism's teachings, the whole of AQAL ia an illusion, including the UL quadrant. I don't see how they are compatible. Putting transcendentalism into Wilber's model means changing it, modifying it using dualistic postmodern tools that make it into something that isn't non-dualism. Not that non-dual realizers much care what Wilber does, but Wilber ought to care what they teach if he is going to try to build a model that aims at non-dual realization. Which is what Wilber seems to be trying to do, ultimately, and also personally. I don't see that it works for either.

As I've said, Wilber is trying to have his cake and eat it. He believes passionately in both developmentalism and non-dualism, and the two simply don't mix, certainly not in the manner he has tried to conceive of. It might be worth a try to find commonality without changing either one in the process, but Wilber knows that won't work, so he thinks he can just change non-dualis into a new, improved, all-inclusive version and actually make things better. Sorry, this just screws up both sides of the equation.

It would be better for Wilber to keep his two passions separate. Its fine to pursue developmental growth. It's also fine to pursue non-dual realization. One won't reach the ultimate advances in either one this way, but one will at least not be greatly deluded about things. Those who become great realizers dont' do both, they just pursue non-dual realizaiton. And those who achieve great feats of development don't usually pay much heed to non-dual notions. They go for the dualistic achievements. Nothing wrong with that. We all do what we gotta do. But it's a formula for frustration to try to combine both.

Now maybe I'm missing some of the nuances of Wilber's new views. Maybe the piece I referred to was just not very complete. If anyone knows more about Wilber's views on non-dualism, let me know. For now though I can't really say I see any great change.

More on Wilber and Developmentalism

I got another comment on my criticism of Ken Wilber that I thought should come to the front, from Michael:

I enjoy your take on this. It provides me with some real food for thought. I am a Wilber fan, to be sure, but I am not particularly skilled in debating his work in any great detail. I am not gifted with that sort of intellectual kung fu, so please bear with me.

But I do feel compelled to "represent" on some level. Ken's work is based on research, as you know. Lots of it. From empiricists. It's not a pet theory, but rather the reasoned results of decades of working with tensions among various worldviews, research results, testimony of adepts, etc. I think you somewhat misrepresent this basis, kind of tacitly implying that Ken is making stuff up.

I think a more accurate way of summarizing where Ken is coming from would be along the lines of saying "development is a Kosmic habit" or something along those lines. Denying development would include denying that we grow from infants, to toddlers, to children, to teenagers, to adults, etc. No? This "Kosmic habit" of individual growth is also apparent in human history. And realizing this and working with it is not equivalent to believing this is the end all-be all. It does not discount the fact that there could be much more massive kalpas, eons, and other huge cycles of time and growth.

And (to Kang's question about SDi) Ken doesn't limit himself to spirals. He talks of spirals, circles, mandalas, waves, and all sorts of patterns and ways that systems and people develop. SDi is just a nice, easy-to-understand way of introducing people to these ideas. Those very familiar with SDi are becoming more aware of its pitfalls and shortcomings, even in light of its overall usefulness.

Ken is always making comments in the context of his simplifications that its way more dynamic, convoluted, and mutlidimensional than we can easily express, but for the sake of discourse, we need to work with simpler concepts. People often gloss over these caveats when they criticize.

You say:

"Wilber doesn't seem to have gotten to that point, and part of the reason is that his system is masking the real nature of conditional life, which is cycles of repetition rather than ongoing development in ever higher stages and levels."

To me, it would be more accurate to say that Ken's system (AQAL) represents the real nature of conditional life, and includes in its framework cycles of repetition AND ongoing development in ever higher (and deeper) stages and levels (across lines, and including states and types).

If its just "cycles of repetition" that make up condition existence, why don't we see old men becoming 6 year olds? Why don't we see society suddenly becoming medieval again? Because there *is* development and its completely obvious. And Ken's work is just an attempt to make as complete a map as possible of this conditional, developing world full of conditioned, developing beings. All the while keeping in mind that its essentially unreal and empty of permanent nature.

Dear Michael,

I have no problem with anyone being a fan of Wilber's work. If it fits with your notion of things, fine. If AQAL makes sense to you, fine. My criticism of Wilber is not based on a rejection of the existence or value of development. You said:

“People often gloss over these caveats when they criticize.”

I think you have glossed over my own caveats to some degree. My primary criticism wasn't that there is no such thing as development. Obviously as you say we all develop and grow. My primary objection is that development is only one side of the cycle of nature. We also decay and die. You say that grown men don't suddenly become six year olds. But grown men do become corpses. And corpses disintegrate. Now maybe if one excepts reincarnation - and I don't think Wilber has any real objections to that – then old men do in fact become six year olds.

My other big objection is Wilber's attempt to put non-dual enlightenment on the map, as the final stage of developmental growth. My point is that non-dual enlightenment is not achieved through developmental growth, nor is it on any map of developmental growth. Wilber seems to have a deep respect for the non-dual traditions of enlightenment, and I think that's great. Most developmentalists don't give much credence to such things. It's good that Wilber does. But he gets non-dualism wrong, in my view, by seeing it as a developmental stage of growth, even the ultimate developmental stage.

One of the primary motivations to non-dual enlightenment is the recognition that the developmental process simply doesn't lead there – or if it does in some sense, it takes eons of kalpas of time. So the non-dual traditions constantly point to the reality of death, to the message death has for us all, that all our growth and progress and attainments are vain and illusory, that death and decays wipes them all out, and that therefore we should awaken from the dream of egoity now, and not look for ways to develop ourselves. This is not an anti-developmental view, it's just a realistic rather than an idealistic view of development. When Wilber says that once a level is attained, we don't ever fall back, he is simply false. Everything that rises up also falls back. Seeing this makes us take up a transcendental view of life.

Now, Wilber does account for transcendental views, but he wrongly places them within the developmental model itself. He puts them in the “trans-rational” category of development. This is a way of constantly re-injecting the developmental system back into the picture, even when it has been essentially renounced and transcended. His “transcend and include” principle is simply a way of reifying the developmental process regardless of whether one has moved away from it or not. In some sense, this is just an intellectual trick, it has no meaning in the context of a truly transcendental approach, because the transcendental approach is precisely to “get off the wheel”. The point being that one can get off the wheel at any time, at any point in one's developmental process. Ramana got off at age 16. He didn't wait until he had fully developed some kind of centauric outlook on life. The Buddha practiced conventional spiritual developmental approaches until he saw them as unreal and pointless. He didn't continue to include them in his radical enlightenment.

As I said, the non-dual approach is essentially a negative one, not a developmental one. One relinquishes everything, rather than including everything. It is fine in my book to create developmental models of human growth. They are natural and sensible. Wilber has done no actual research himself in this area, but he has read the results of many different researcher's works, and tried to come up with a comprehensive model himself. Nothing wrong with that in general. But I do have a problem with the model he has come up with. The fact that it tries to include all models doesn't make it right, you understand. Nor does it mean that those researchers who Wilber has included in his model approve of the way he has tried to fit everything together. I seriously doubt that non-dual realizers, for example, would point to Wilber's AQAL as “the real nature of conditional life”. Nor do I think developmental experts ( of which Wilber is not, I need to remind you) would see it that way either.

Wilber has picked and chosen the developmental models that seem right to him, and fitted them into a scheme that makes sense to him. Nothing wrong with that, but there's no guarantee that his scheme is anything close to “the real nature of conditional life”. You may disagree, but where are all the experts in these fields? Are they in Wilber's camp? I think not. I'm not saying there's no value in Wilber's scheme. Clearly there is. It's just not the ultimate map. One could examine all the data Wilber has and select from it differently and come up with a very different scheme. I know that I would. Whether my scheme would be more accurate than Wilber's is hard to say. The point is that one should simply view Wilber's work as a reflection of his own views about things, and his views may not be accurate. They are certainly debatable on many fronts.

Now obviously you like Wilber's model. My guess is that you like it because it seems to promise “ever higher (and deeper) stages and levels (across lines, and including states and types)”. You don't seem to pick up on the idealism of this view of development. As said, all growth is followed by genuine decay, and there is a return to shallowness after experiencing depth. Everything in conditional nature moves in vast cycles that essentially even out in the long run. Development doesn't really go anywhere, but repeats itself, and as it repeats itself, it doesn't really get any better (or worse). The non-dualist teachings aren't about ultimate development, they are about getting off the developmental wheel. If you want to stay on the developmental wheel, fine, just be realistic about where it goes and what its limits are. Wilber makes the error of seeing development as having unlimited potential. Wiser people have always taught the opposite, that all growth is countered by decay and death, that conditional existence is about limits, not the unlimited, and that all our efforts and attainments are ultimately in vain, and return to dust. This is a sobering and tragic message not found in Wilber's writings. I suggest you consider it more deeply if you truly do want to understand the nature of conditional life.”

Essay at Integral World Website in response to some of these conversations

I got an email this morning from Frank Visser, who runs the Integral World website, devoted to critical examination of the work of Ken Wilber and related topics, letting me know that he's just published an excellent new article by Andy Smith entitled "Afternum Per Tempore: How We Develop to the Non-Dual," that responds to some of the threads of criticism I wrote about Wilber and non-dualism recently, both here on this blog and over at the "World of Ken Wilber" Forum at Lightmind.

Andy Smith's essay is very well-written and worth reading. He has a lot of good ideas about developmentalism and non-dualism, many of which I disagree with, but they are worthy of debate. I intend to write a response over the next few days, and post it both here and to the Integral World website, if Frank agrees.

Also, just to let you know, I've gotten some very good comments here from Friend, Kang, Jimsun and Marko that I want to respond to but am a little short of time. So please be patient. Also, Marko wasn't sure how to respond to these posts, so he just sent me an email. Just to let you and others know, you can simply press the little "comments" link at the end of each post, and write a comment in there. I have the software set up here so that all comments get sent to my email, so I won't miss anything even if it is a response to an older posting. It's better that way, so that others can see what I'm responding to. If it's an older topic, I may post my reply in a new posting to bring it up front, with a link to the original post and its comments. Hope that makes things simpler.

How meaningful is it to say someone is enlightened or unenlightened?

Thought I'd bring forward this reply to Kang's comments below:

As to whether it makes sense to say one person is enlightened and another isn't, it depends on the utility of the situation. Ultimately, I don't know, but in practical terms I form meaningful opinions about things in order to function. So my meaningful opinion is that Ramana and Niz are enlightened, and Saniel Bonder is not. That may not be meaningful to you, or to anyone else, but to me its just as meaningful an opinion as looking at my gas gauge and thinking I need to fill up the tank before I run out. It's a dualistic opinion, in other words, and I understand that. But living in a dualistic state of mind, I need to keep track of things to some degree. I don't want to run out of gas, and I don't want to follow the teachings of guys like Bonder. I'd like to keep my gas tank full and my mind on the teachings of people I consider genuinely enlightened. My opinions about enlightenment are formed through a trial and error process, similar but obviously more complex than reading a gas gauge, and I really don't see any problem with that.

You seem to think that a non-dual practitioner should apply principles of non-dualism to everything, including dualistic matters. I disagree, Ramana disagrees, and teaches very clearly that one should not mix the two. He said that you don't walk past a rapist assaulting a woman because both of them are non-separate in God. You step in and help out. And he also said that you don't treat the Guru as if he were an ordinary man like yourself or anyone else. You treat him sacredly. Now Ramana personally refused to be treated specially in various ways, such as being given special foods and things, and he didn't even like to be bowed down to, but he certainly did teach that people relate to him as Guru, and not relate to “everything” as one's Guru. He was practical, and pointed out that as long as you have a dualistic mind, and live in a dualistic world, you have to follow its laws and logic, and “give to Caesar what is Caesar's” so to speak. This applies to spiritual matters as well. He felt that it was important to test one's Guru and feel certain that they were enlightened and trustworthy. He didn't ask for indiscriminate surrender to himself, and he didn't even much like calling himself a Guru in the traditional sense. But he acknowledged the necessity of it.

So I think that while we have dualistic minds we have to be humble about that, and not try to apply non-dual principles to our own thinking. Thought is a dualistic square box, and you can't force it into the round hole of non-dualism. And vice-vera. So while you may not like to put people into the box of “enlightened” or “unenlightened” that doesn't stop your dualistic mind from doing its thing. You just put other labels on it, I'm sure. I gather there are some teachers you respect, and others you don't. That too is applying dualistic discrimination to teachers. If you';re going to do that, why not get more precise with it? Discrimination is a dualistic practice, but a very important one to develop. Yes, one lets it go in self-enquiry, but that doesn't mean the person practicing self-enquiry has no discrimination.

Self-enquiry is practiced in relation to the self. You don't practice it in relation to other people, You don't try to bring a non-dual “attitude” towards your relations with others. As longs as you perceive others, you are functioning from the dualistic mind, and you have to bring discrimination to your relations. So I see nothing wrong with judging others intelligently, and saying this one seems enlightened and this one doesn't. It seems even necessary if one is to discriminate between true and false teachings. Yes, true and false are dualistic concepts, but we are living with dualistic minds, and so they are very important concepts for us to get straight. Going beyond dualism doesn't mean abandoning such knowledge. It means that we simply understand that it is merely dualistic, and thus, as you say in that wonderful phrase “lacking significance”. Of course, it only lacks significance in the non-dual sense. We don't become attached to our invented meanings and perceptions, but we don't simply throw them away either. They remain in place even for the enlightened. They know not to put their hands in fire, not to eat dirt instead of vegetables, and not to believe that people are enlightened who clearly aren't.

I think you are quite wrong to say that enlightened people have no concept of unenlightenment, and don't divide people into the two camps. Yes and no. Yes, in that they see all as enlightened, but no in that they can clearly tell who know this and who doesn't. They can see that very few people actually know they are enlightened, and even many of those who say they are enlightened don't know it for real, but only say so, with some deluded notion about enlightenment fogging their minds. Ramana mentioned or acknowledged in passing a few people who had become enlightened , including his mother and several animals. Clearly he could tell this was true of them, and not true of most other people. This didn't mean that Ramana was stuck in dualistic concepts of enlightenment and unenlightenment. It simply meant that he functioned with natural intelligence about such things. He was also very good at chopping vegetables, and managed not to nip off his fingers. It's a fairly similar skill when it gets down to it.

So I think it's fine to form opinions about such things, in order not to nip off one's fingers. It's good to know if you are enlightened, which Ramana clearly knew about himself, and I think its good to know one is not enlightened, which I know about myself. It's also important to know that all this is just dualistic knowledge, and “lacking significance” in reality. But in the dream, it has meanings and value.

What's important to recognize is that while one is dreaming, one can't simply discard dualistic notions, or mix them with non-dual notions, and expect non-dual results to come about. Non-dual practice isn't about doing anything with or to one's dualistic mind. You could have the worst dualistic thoughts in the world and still practice non-dualism. When you say,

“So you are not really a practitioner of self-enquiry if you begin with such things cluttering up your brain,”

I can't help but laugh. Every practitioner of self-enquiry begins with such things cluttering up their brains, and far worse. You don't sit down to practice self-enquiry by first cleaning out your mind. If you do that, you aren't doing self-enquiry, you are putting attention on the dualistic mind. Ramana's recommendation for practice under such conditions is to simply ask, “to whom are these thoughts arising?” That approach can be made regardless of the thoughts in your mind, from the highest to the lowest.

“After all, if you are actually a devoted enquirer, the practice of self-enquiry must be founded in a state of not-knowing. Those who "already know" don't ask. And prior affirmations and/or denials contradict such a state. They have to be dispensed with first...Yes, affirmations and denials exist. Why identify with them?”

Self-enquiry is not founded in any special state at all. It's founded in this state, right now, whatever state you are in. If you are in a state of knowledge of some kind – and chances are that you are – this is the state in which you practice self-enquiry There is no preliminary practice of entering into some special state of not-knowing in order to practice self-enquiry. You practice self-enquiry because you already have presumed to know who you are – this body-mind. The practice is a questioning of that knowledge. You question whether you really are who you think you are. The more you examine yourself, the more it becomes clear that you don't know who you are at all. So this “not-knowing” is one of the results of practicing self-enquiry, it isn't something else one must do beforehand.

Self-enquiry has NO requirements. Everyone can do it, regardless of their preparation or state. That's the whole point. It's an unconditional practice. Ramana recommended it to everyone, not just advanced beings. So all our prior affirmations and denials are part of what are inspected in self-enquiry. One does inspect the presumption of unenlightenment, which is simply the presumption that we are body-minds. But it is really inspected, not shunted aside. We are truly identified with them, and simply saying that we are not our presumptions has no great meaning aside from finding out who we really are, and finding out our real enlightenment. I haven't done that, so by default it simply makes sense to say that I am unenlightened. It's not by identifying with that statement or concept that I become unenlightened, it's by identifying with the whole complex of this body-mind that I become or seem to be unenlightened. So what is important is not getting rid of such superficial concepts, but inspecting ourselves and see what really is true, and questioning all our presumptions. If you do that fully, then you can call yourself enlightened. Until then, it's no more harmful to call yourself unenlightened as it is to say you are not the President of the United States. It's even helpful in my view. One of the most important virtues to develop in this practice is humility, all these realizers talk about that. And part of being humble is knowing that one is lost in samsara, and needs the help of those who are not. That's why I read the works of enlightened beings – because they can help me. One has to be willing to bow down and put one's head on the floor, give up one's pride, and admit that we don't know what we are doing and need help. That kind of humility doesn't hurt one's chances of being enlightened. It might not be “a step up” from thinking of oneself as enlightened, but I'm not looking to step up. If anything, I'm looking to step down, to humble myself before God. God knows I'm arrogant enough already. Can you imagine what I'd be like if I thought I was enlightened? Truly unbearable.

I like what you said about duality, and that's a great take on Da's whole “pinching yourself” teaching, tying it to this view of conditionality as “not substantial”. What Ramana says about the realizer is simply that they have no volition of their own anymore, because no one is at home. They are lived by the Divine Spirit, and their actions are the actions of the Divine. As Papaji says, he has no mind at all, and hence no desires, because without a mind desire has nowhere to take root. He acts spontaneously, with no thinking at all. It turns out that his actions are for the benefit of others, but how else could it be when there is no self or mind to benefit from them?