Re: [Spiritual_Humanism] Non dualism?
- Dear Möller,
It is this kind manner of yours which makes me communicate with you. It is not
that I am looking for answers, since these come by themselves at this moment
of my life and maybe this is why I am not very interested in reading your book,
since what I have already read is enough to know what makes me write all
I mentioned you have a wide and open mind, I also think you are very
intelligent, and all these praises are being made by myself, just because I
want to make clear that I appreciate your insights and the way you are
exposing them. Your points of view and recommendations to seekers may
indeed bring you many followers.
And on this behalf, is why I make emphasis on your denying of some things,
because you could say the same, without the need of denying the truth some
ancient sages, some not so ancient and some actually living ones have
discovered. My experience is that what this so called sages say is always the
same. It is not about several theories saying different things about different
truths. Little intelligence, or better to say intuition, should be enough for
intuiting that there must be some universal truth, and if there is, it has to be
one, not several, for then relativity comes into play, and a radical, unic and
total truth would not be possible.
But putting aside any sage, realized, enlightened or whatever person or
being´s sayings, it is by my own experience that I talk.
I know that to say there is one and only truth sounds very bad. I don´t need to
exchange with too many people for this, what to say about interent
exchanges. It is enough to have a very close and large family of about 20
people, where only one merely understands what I try to say. Maybe another
two may doubt but respect my point of view, and the rest just may think I am
crazy (on this respect), at the least.
I found that I exist from ever and for ever, and if I do not exist, nothing could
ever exist. And this is the only thing I now for true, for absolutely true. Any
other thing I know is relative, and changes with time. At the light of reason, this
is a very difficult statement to explain, maybe better to say it is impossible.
Because to such a statement you cannot arrive by reasoning. I would never
arrive to it because any great teacher would come and tell me this, not me,
because I do not believe in anything, I have always been very suspicious
about such truths and only truths of any kind.
I use the word Consciousness, because I believe the dictionary (forgive my
naiveness) places this word as a recognized one on these issues, for people
to communicate with each other. I also have studied Vedanta Phylosopfhy as
well as Ramana Maharshi, and the use of this word has become enoughly
widely extended among people searching for the truth of themselves. I even
make a distinction between consience and consciousness, and put a capital
letter on it, because it is something on the field of intuition more than that of
reason or thought.
After arriving to this discovery, that I exist eternally and everything depends on
me, I could compare what several sages, not phylosophies, say, and they
point to the same truth. Once I have arrived to it by myself, I understand
whatever you would like about existance, being the case of mystery, not so
much mysterious, but intuitively evident... and continuing to be a mystery... for
mind, not for itself.
Since this is my own truth, which I recongnize and understand as the same
truth for every one, and being that I would spend this temporary life on
sustaining the statements derived from it, is that I feel so compelled in asking
you, with your so wide understanding of the movements of mind, not to deny
something, just because this reality has not been revealed to yourself yet.
Now, putting aside the issue of denying whatever, I am very open to share
and discuss the issues that I may be capable of working with.
Much love to you, and be well,
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "de la rouviere" <
> Dear Maria,things i have said in my posts.
> Thank you for your well considered and courteous reply to some of the
>experience' of things. You said:
> I fully respect and appreciate your position and as you say your ' first hand
> >>There is something with which I do not agree. As far as I understand, you
> to deny. You deny for example, the possibility (for me the reality) ofeastern
> Consciousness as sustained by itself. And you deny the possibility of
> phylosophies and practices as still valid tools for the enquiry on the reality ofobservation
> the Self or Existance (of ourselves)>>.
> >>By my first hand experience I may say that you deny things that cannot be
> denied. I feel you may question them untill you can, by your own
> or experience, decide the impossibility or non reality of these. But whilethere
> is a minimum possibility, it is not fair to deny anything. >>Your's is the view generally held by many of the eastern tradions - especially
> >>I say content is impermanent...Consciousness is permanent (eternally
> present). Content appears, is sutained for a while and then disappears.
> Consciousness is that from which content arises and that which sustains it.
> Content is of time and space...Consiousness is out of time, out of space.
> And some more things about this subject, but I find this enough by now.>>
> There are many theories about the creation of existence or how it arises.
the vedic/Advaitist sources. Creation is seen here as an emanation of an
underlying Substance called Brahman, Self or Consciousness. But as you
know, the Christians have a very different view on this. They believed God
made the earth and so on in seven days. Each primitive tribe has its own
understanding of how things came or come into existence. The Buddha
rejected the Upanishadic views of Substance, either personal (Jiva) or
impersonal/universal Atman/Consciousness/ Self and so on. Instead, in
Buddhism we find the notion of : Emptiness is form and form is emptiness. In
one of his books, Godman gives us a further understanding of how Ramana
once described the appaearnce of things according to a very ancient Vedic
view which seems to agree more or less with my own sense of things. Here
the explanation is one of instantaneous present arising. Reality appears as a
present process of unfolding.
>existence, it is clear that the Consciousness as Substance which exists prior
> So in view of these many diverse opinions of how things come into
to manifest existence, could be considered a view next to othwers.
>bondage within any presupposed explanation for the appearance of things,
> My own sense is that on present evidence, and if i do not hold myself
my own experience has yet to show me that any presumed separation
between being aware of something and the thing itself is not false. I have
experimented with this for many years, and as yet this has never proven not to
be the case. Consciousness is not a 'thing' to be observed. If so, what is the
nature of the observer who has come it as object? And if the reply to this
question is 'Consciousness', then it proves my position that the observer and
the observed cannot be separated into two distinct entities such as content
'which is impermanent' and consciousness 'which is permanent'. You see
here we still have a subtle dualism.
>find no such dualism. Emptiness is not necessarily projected as separate and
> In the Buddhist notion of : emptiness is form and form and emptiness, we
superior (infinite, eternally present relative to content which is impermanent))
such as what you describe. Some have indeed tried to project this notion onto
this statement, saying that 'emptiness' is a kind of Ground of being' from which
form arises. But this is most definitely not necessarilty implied in the
>But lets keep in touch and open our minds and hearts to all possibilities.
> So I am very sorry if i disappoint you. My intentions are as pure as yours.
What else can we do? If Consciousness is your reality, I am glad you have
found something true ans stable in this strange and uncertain universe of
human life. My experience has led me to a different insight. That is why I am
critical of all these conventional 'truths'. Finally they can all be pulled apart
and shown to be little else but elaborate theories. My own thing is based on
present evidence. One does not need a theory of creation to substantiate my
description of present arising. I am the first one to say I do not know how it
works, and what it is - it is all one great mystery -- but at least I can say what is
experienceintially verifyable for everyone. And this verification implies
necessarily a non-dual truth.
> >>Maybe I am not understanding correctly what you mean, so I hope you
> answer this for my better understanding. You have worked hard, and yourto
> book looks impressioning, so I would prefer to be mis understanding rather
> think that you are placing incomplete truths on the way of the seekers.>>.you feel you may in principle disagree with me if i do not project your
> If you really want to find out what i am saying, please read my book. But if
predetermined views, then it is better you stay with what you feel comfortable
with and do not concern yourself with dissenting views. My truth may indeed
be incomplete. But I have not come upon any other truth which is more
complete. And this is what I try to share in my book.
>approach and clear dedication to what you believe in.
> Not sure if i have made any sense. Again thank you for your very sincere
> Hand in hand,
> Moller de la Rouviere
> Author of : Spirituality Without God