Sapius wrote:David to average: Okay, now we're just having a semantic debate. What you call "Enlightenment" is what I call "true nature". What I call "enlightenment" (i.e. consciousness of true nature) is something you don't want to acknowledge, or even think about.
No, average is beyond the dualistic realm as in actually acknowledging or denying anything at all, or identifying with any dualistic mental projections, making your objections merely your own dualistic mental projections.
And what’s really wrong with one identifying ones Self in a non-dualistic sense rather than a dualistic one? Is that so hard to imagine? Average is pointing to the moon without really indulging in the nitpicking over the finger. If one cannot comprehend that, then that points to a lack of understanding, or mental blocks, or Ego perhaps; similar to that ‘mine is bigger than yours’ thing, and average does not actually indulge in that because that holds no inherent meaning.
It’s simply, carry water chop wood, without necessarily acknowledging or denying or even identifying with any particular thing at all. In other words, it’s simply God’s will; hence what exactly does or can an individual really do except whatever happens, fundamentally speaking?
BTW, that’s a God’s will driven point, not average’s point. If one thinks average is saying something, then that’s his problem.
That’s how I comprehend it.
Chuang Tzu once said something that applies here:
He who knows the part which the Heavenly in him plays, and knows also that which the Human in him ought to play, has reached the perfection of knowledge.
There is no question that Average has some insight into the nature of Reality, but his knowledge of how to deal with this insight is still immature. I'm not saying this just to put him down, but to articulate a very important point. There are many blind alleys peeling away on all sides as one advances towards wisdom, and if a person is not extremely alert it is easy for him to slide into of these alleys without him even knowing it.
Wisdom means knowing when to apply non-duality to a situation and when to apply duality. It all depends on what the situation is and who one is dealing with. If you go to a store and ask for a pint of milk, it would be of no use to you if the shop-keeper were to say, "Here, have a candle instead. After all, candles and milk are no different from another, as they are both dualistic illusions. The candle will be just as effective for your needs".
The shop-keeper might think he is being wise in pointing the customer's mind to non-duality, but in truth he is dogmatically applying his own insight indiscriminately and ignoring the realities of the situation at hand. He isn't really "chopping wood and carrying water". On the contrary, his dogmatism is actually interfering with this Zennish flow.
Simply pointing to non-duality all of the time, irrespective of the situation, is unintelligent and largely a waste of time. There needs to be the right conditions in place before such pointing can be effective. It is similar to the way in which a comedian needs to first set up the joke before delivering the punchline. If he did nothing else but deliver punchlines, the audience would only be confused and have no reason to laugh. He would be a failed comedian.
Similarly, if a Zen master were to do nothing else but hit people with a stick and constantly twitter, "Three pounds of flax!", it would have very little effect. A quality Zen master knows that he first has to create the right conditions so that the effectiveness of his "punchlines" can be maximized. Thus, sometimes he affirms dualistic realities, sometimes he takes them away again; sometimes he treats things as real, sometimes he treats them as unreal; sometimes he reasons at length, sometimes he cuts to the heart with a single Zennish arrow, etc - all done with great intelligence and skill, perfectly matching what the situation calls for.
Average is in danger of turning into a harmless one-trick pony, unless he takes these things on board and progresses to the next level.
-
