GENIUS FORUMS

Skip made a good response. You're still trying to treat the whole matter as a kind of Western academic issue, which has the effect of removing your own self, your own subjectivity, from the equation. But non-duality cannot be understood in this way. One has to bring the whole of oneself into the matter. The understanding of non-duality is a living, breathing, awesome understanding that demands everything from you. The moment you try to confine it to an objective, academic, lifeless box in the imagination, in that very moment you crush all possibility of knowing it.

These are David's words from the non-duality thread. Before I continue with this thread, I ask David, if he cares to answer, whether or not my synopsis of his philosophy of non-duality is accurate:

What I believe is the philosophy that is being put forward in the above words of David's is what I call the philosophy of 'absolute subjectivity' which is the philosophy that to be enlightened is to understand God or The Tao to be a Infinite Self that uses duality to form Itself into infinite forms, according to Its moment by moment wisdom comparison of the opposites, good vs. evil, male vs. female, etc.

David, am I 'on target?'

That would be a crude way to decribe one aspect of it. I wouldn't use the term "Infinite Self", for example, as that would imply the existence of an "Infinite Other", which is a dualistic corruption. (I wouldn't use the term "Infinite Consciousness" for the same reason).

And the Infinite doesn't "use" duality to create its countless forms; rather, the creation of countless forms is duality. The very idea of the Infinite "using" things is another dualistic corruption. The Infinite is never lacking, and consequently never has any desires or purpose. It is infinitely at peace in its own nature, and all existence, including our own, is utterly insignificant in its eyes, just another forgotten part of its infinitely peaceful nature.

-

That would be a crude way to decribe one aspect of it. I wouldn't use the term "Infinite Self", for example, as that would imply the existence of an "Infinite Other", which is a dualistic corruption. (I wouldn't use the term "Infinite Consciousness" for the same reason).

My usage of the term "Infinite Self" is not an implication of the existence of an "Infinite Other," although I can understand why you would think this. The term "Infinite Self" is a metaphor for the I am of "Before Abraham was, I am." Before naming was, I am.

And the Infinite doesn't "use" duality to create its countless forms; rather, the creation of countless forms is duality. The very idea of the Infinite "using" things is another dualistic corruption. The Infinite is never lacking, and consequently never has any desires or purpose. It is infinitely at peace in its own nature, and all existence, including our own, is utterly insignificant in its eyes, just another forgotten part of its infinitely peaceful nature.

Here is where I ask you to go deeper, into the I am that is before David [time, distance, space, matter, naming] was. ['Before' being strictly a pointer word to suggest the invisible, whole, thought world that IS before man's mind sees, tastes, touches, smells and hears these forms and names them and compares them]. When you say that the creation of countless forms is duality, this is your perspective from standing in your sense interpretation, this is your dualistic mind interpreting. Which is understandable, for this is its 'modus operandi.' I stand here also, but the difference between us is that I realize that to use dualities to try to interpret what is 'beyond' dualities is akin to throwing gasoline on a fire. Mind battling mind.

By your own words, "The goal is indeed to transcend both the male and the female. But only the male part of us can drive us to do it." How can the goal of transcending the dualities be realized, if we do not let go of our dual interpretations? I ask this in all sincerity, for it is indeed my understanding that it is the task of man to transcend every one of his dualities. This is why I say it is necessary to realize another way of thinking that can accomplish this goal. A way of thinking that allows man to stand in his understanding that this is his task, become this understanding that this is his task, be obedient to this understanding that this is his task so that this task may be fulfilled.

Can you give me your vision of this path or activity of 'the male principle driving us to transcend both the male and the female?'

I don't necessarily disagree with any of that. Transcending duality involves abandoning all things, including all views, beliefs, interpretations, forms, realms, refuges - utterly everything. Abandoning it all and resting in the pure spontaneity of our formless nature in the knowledge that nothing is real.

Success in this enterprise requires a powerful masculine drive that is ruthless and uncompromising, one that won't accept anything less than the complete elimination of all delusion.

-

I don't necessarily disagree with any of that. Transcending duality involves abandoning all things, including all views, beliefs, interpretations, forms, realms, refuges - utterly everything.

Then why the many references to personal things? This contradicts what you are saying in the above statement.

Abandoning it all and resting in the pure spontaneity of our formless nature in the knowledge that nothing is real.

When we are resting in our formless nature, there must be an obedience to not producing forms, or we are deceiving ourselves that we are resting in our formless nature. You said in a previous post: "And the Infinite doesn't "use" duality to create its countless forms; rather, the creation of countless forms is duality." How can you be doing both things, resting in your formless nature and creating countless forms of duality?

Success in this enterprise requires a powerful masculine drive that is ruthless and uncompromising, one that won't accept anything less than the complete elimination of all delusion.

From where I am standing, a powerful masculine drive is also a powerful attachment to one's femininity. The conjoined twins battling with one another. Accept this thought or reject this thought: the longer you continue to give life to your masculine-feminine civil war, the more difficult it is going to do what you say you must do, that is, "to abandon all things, including all views, beliefs, interpretations, forms, realms, refuges - utterly everything."

Believe me or not, it is your call, but it is not a powerful masculine drive that eliminates all delusion for the reasons I have stated above. What eliminates all delusion is complete humbleness before the perfect equality of the infinite Mind. A perfect equality of invisible laws, principles and patterns that is without one shred of bias or partiality. This is the Mind to which one must be obedient, which translates into a strict harshness that one puts upon oneself to be watchful of every word that comes out of one's mouth. To be watchful that every word reflect perfectly the infinite's perfect impartiality. This obedience to the infinite's perfect impartiality is a gradual unfolding of renunciation of the dualities within oneself, one duality, one thought at a time. Not a path for the lukewarm at heart, to be sure. But a path that is rewarded a thousand fold, but that is a subject for another post.

movingalways wrote:

I don't necessarily disagree with any of that. Transcending duality involves abandoning all things, including all views, beliefs, interpretations, forms, realms, refuges - utterly everything.

Then why the many references to personal things? This contradicts what you are saying in the above statement.

I'm not sure I understand the question.

movingalways wrote:

Abandoning it all and resting in the pure spontaneity of our formless nature in the knowledge that nothing is real.

When we are resting in our formless nature, there must be an obedience to not producing forms, or we are deceiving ourselves that we are resting in our formless nature. You said in a previous post: "And the Infinite doesn't "use" duality to create its countless forms; rather, the creation of countless forms is duality." How can you be doing both things, resting in your formless nature and creating countless forms of duality?

Formlessness doesn't mean a void - that too is just another form. Formlessness refers to the way Reality continually manifests itself into different forms, while not being confined to any of those forms itself.

movingalways wrote:

Success in this enterprise requires a powerful masculine drive that is ruthless and uncompromising, one that won't accept anything less than the complete elimination of all delusion.

From where I am standing, a powerful masculine drive is also a powerful attachment to one's femininity. The conjoined twins battling with one another. Accept this thought or reject this thought: the longer you continue to give life to your masculine-feminine civil war, the more difficult it is going to do what you say you must do, that is, "to abandon all things, including all views, beliefs, interpretations, forms, realms, refuges - utterly everything."

When a person tries to wake up from a dream, is he fostering his attachment to the dream or trying to break it?

Believe me or not, it is your call, but it is not a powerful masculine drive that eliminates all delusion for the reasons I have stated above. What eliminates all delusion is complete humbleness before the perfect equality of the infinite Mind.

Isn't this an attachment to your pride and arrogance? Your humility and your pride, two cojoined twins battling with one another.....

-

Pam: Then why the many references to personal things? This contradicts what you are saying in the above statement.

David: I'm not sure I understand the question.

Are you and jufa married? What do you do for a living? These are questions whose answers are purposed to produce form.

Pam: When we are resting in our formless nature, there must be an obedience to not producing forms, or we are deceiving ourselves that we are resting in our formless nature. You said in a previous post: "And the Infinite doesn't "use" duality to create its countless forms; rather, the creation of countless forms is duality." How can you be doing both things, resting in your formless nature and creating countless forms of duality?

David: Formlessness doesn't mean a void - that too is just another form.

I did not use the term 'void,' as I agree, to use the term void is to produce a form.

Formlessness refers to the way Reality continually manifests itself into different forms, while not being confined to any of those forms itself.

Yes, all forms arise from the formless, but if they are not allowed to go on about their business of being whole and undivided, taking care of business [for example, I am hungry, I eat, I am no longer hungry] they become man's manifestation of his idle imagination, which keeps the wheels of dualism turning. To be liberated from dualism is not to ponder on that which is not of our individual living thought continuum of living moment by moment. Quite simply, to mind one's own business of living, and only one's business of living.

David: Success in this enterprise requires a powerful masculine drive that is ruthless and uncompromising, one that won't accept anything less than the complete elimination of all delusion.

Pam: From where I am standing, a powerful masculine drive is also a powerful attachment to one's femininity. The conjoined twins battling with one another. Accept this thought or reject this thought: the longer you continue to give life to your masculine-feminine civil war, the more difficult it is going to do what you say you must do, that is, "to abandon all things, including all views, beliefs, interpretations, forms, realms, refuges - utterly everything."

David: When a person tries to wake up from a dream, is he fostering his attachment to the dream or trying to break it?

He may be trying to break it, but the only way to break it, is to being obedient to not manifesting the dream. The only way to quit smoking, is to quit smoking.

Pam: Believe me or not, it is your call, but it is not a powerful masculine drive that eliminates all delusion for the reasons I have stated above. What eliminates all delusion is complete humbleness before the perfect equality of the infinite Mind.

David: Isn't this an attachment to your pride and arrogance? Your humility and your pride, two cojoined twins battling with one another.....

Man's humility that is the opposite of his pride is not the same activity as his turning of his entire being toward the activity of humbleness [before the infinite or God]. Humbleness before God or the infinite is the complete collapse/silence of the ego, the ego that has realized that no matter how hard it tries to overcome duality of its own determined will, be it to use good over evil, or evil over good, or male over female, or female over male, it cannot help but fail every time. Humbleness, like renunciation is an activity of being or of conscious awareness with no opposite. To live the activity of humbleness or of renunciation is to live these activities unconditionally. I and the Father [the living God of my individual thought continuum] are one.

movingalways wrote:

Pam: Then why the many references to personal things? This contradicts what you are saying in the above statement.

David: I'm not sure I understand the question.

Are you and jufa married? What do you do for a living? These are questions whose answers are purposed to produce form.

A lot of spiritual teaching is designed to produce form. Sometimes the obvious way is not the best way! Given that both you and Jufa present personas that can best be described as "abstract", it makes one wonder what is lurking underneath. What are you protecting, or hiding from?

By rights, a free being shouldn't have any problem with personal questions. A free being is no longer bound by the distinction between personal and non-personal.

movingalways wrote:

Formlessness refers to the way Reality continually manifests itself into different forms, while not being confined to any of those forms itself.

Yes, all forms arise from the formless, but if they are not allowed to go on about their business of being whole and undivided, taking care of business [for example, I am hungry, I eat, I am no longer hungry] they become man's manifestation of his idle imagination, which keeps the wheels of dualism turning. To be liberated from dualism is not to ponder on that which is not of our individual living thought continuum of living moment by moment. Quite simply, to mind one's own business of living, and only one's business of living.

The whole univere is my business. That is what non-interference means - that of no longer being bound by the duality of self and other.

movingalways wrote:

David: Isn't this an attachment to your pride and arrogance? Your humility and your pride, two cojoined twins battling with one another.....

Man's humility that is the opposite of his pride is not the same activity as his turning of his entire being toward the activity of humbleness [before the infinite or God]. Humbleness before God or the infinite is the complete collapse/silence of the ego, the ego that has realized that no matter how hard it tries to overcome duality of its own determined will, be it to use good over evil, or evil over good, or male over female, or female over male, it cannot help but fail every time. Humbleness, like renunciation is an activity of being or of conscious awareness with no opposite. To live the activity of humbleness or of renunciation is to live these activities unconditionally. I and the Father [the living God of my individual thought continuum] are one.

One can only trigger that collapse of the ego via a supreme act of understanding, which is where the masculine comes into it. The masculine continually digs away at the foundations of the ego until the whole thing caves in, taking the masculine (and the feminine) along with it. If one tries to affect this collapse in the absence of this supreme understanding, it will never work. It will just be ordinary submission to a particular aspect of reality.

-

I will be away for a couple of weeks, Pam, so it looks like we'll have to postpone the discussion until then. Feel free to reply and I'll have a look at it when I come back.

-

David: A lot of spiritual teaching is designed to produce form. Sometimes the obvious way is not the best way!

There is a difference between a spiritual teaching and standing on spirit and speaking from that platform. A spiritual teaching is from the intellect, standing on spirit is just that, standing on spirit. The former comes from within the circle of human sense knowledge, the latter from beyond this circle.

Spirit does not design anything, because it cannot design anything; it is all things, of what need has it to design that which it [already] is? Spirit has nothing to do with human forms. Nothing. Human forms of sense are personal meaning ghosts that haunt; spirit forms leave no such residue of 'what did his person mean by saying that to my person?' Instead, they draw one into their invisible presence so that the Meaning of Word itself can be revealed, not as truth, but as an activity of consciousness of the continuum of transcendence.

David: Given that both you and Jufa present personas that can best be described as "abstract", it makes one wonder what is lurking underneath. What are you protecting, or hiding from?"

David, what you call my "abstract" presence is my obedience to standing on impersonal Spirit. My supreme understanding is that the human mind is the only 'thing' in the Godhead that takes thought to be personal, and that this taking of thought to be personal, is at the very core of its suffering of 'having an ego.' Ego = edging God out.

Logic dictates then, that that which is the cause of suffering, the appearance of the personal I, needs to eliminated. I do not deny this suffering, just as I do not deny the cause of its appearance in the Godhead. It is my understanding that this was the realization of Jesus, of Gautama and of Lao Tzu. Check out their presence as demonstrated by the words they left behind: all three used the impersonal I to teach the things of spirit. They did not blend the personal I with the impersonal I. I do not blend the two. Jufa does not blend the two.

The personal human is what 'lurks beneath' the impersonal Spirit; I acknowledge it still lives in my conscious, but when I teach things of Spirit, the personal human of Pam is silent. And of the silence of standing on the platform of Spirit, my pure awareness of 'me' becomes stronger and stronger in the ways of Spirit. And, in becoming stronger and stronger in the ways of Spirit, I am being expanded of the light of all things of the ominety that I am, and of being expanded of the light of all things of the omniety that I am, the temporal personal Pam is being swallowed up, precept by precept, line by line, here a little, there a little.

David: By rights, a free being shouldn't have any problem with personal questions. A free being is no longer bound by the distinction between personal and non-personal.

By whose rights is this so? Why are you placing a condition of 'rights' upon your being that you are living in a world of 'shoulds' and 'should nots?' This is the trap of the man who believes that the universe or God is attached to the personal as he is attached to the personal. This is the folly or ignorance of man exposed, which translates into the suffering of the man who does not distinguish between the personal and the impersonal. How can the personal, which is of the dualities, be swallowed up or gathered up of the impersonal, if it is not acknowledged to be that which needs to be swallowed or gathered up?

David: The whole univere is my business. That is what non-interference means - that of no longer being bound by the duality of self and other.

If you are blending the personal with the impersonal, then, of my understanding of Spirit, you are not practicing non-interference. Again, the personal is of the dualities, which means, that if you are taking thought to be personal, you are seeing the duality of self and other. The moment we inquire of another of their personal life, we engage the dualities within their mind and within our mind. The teacher of impersonal spirit does not consciously awaken the dualities of personality/persona in another.

David: One can only trigger that collapse of the ego via a supreme act of understanding, which is where the masculine comes into it. The masculine continually digs away at the foundations of the ego until the whole thing caves in, taking the masculine (and the feminine) along with it. If one tries to affect this collapse in the absence of this supreme understanding, it will never work. It will just be ordinary submission to a particular aspect of reality.

In order for the masculine to do what you say it can do, it would have to be that stand-alone, absolute principle that I wrote about in another thread. Only that which has supreme knowledge has power to dig away at anything; the male principle is no such power and has no such power. No one principle of the dual pairs has such power, just because it is in opposition to itself, always. This law of the opposites that cannot be broken, but which can be transcended, applies to all the dualities. For example, most new age thought is of the belief that the good principle can be severed from the evil principle, ergo, the philosophy of the God of the absolute of the human concept of 'love.'

Male is a myth, as is female a myth. Good is a myth, as is evil a myth. Why? They are figments of man's imagination and only of man's imagination. Birds have no knowledge of being male or of being female or of being good or of being evil. Nor do rocks, or trees, or sand or spiders. What we call nature does not divide Itself into dualities, or principles or patterns or laws. Only the human mind of man commits such a heinous act as to split himself in two, and set one his dual egos warring one against the other.

From where I stand, on the platform of Spirit that sees no dualities, except to teach of their deep attachment, the order of the gathering of the earth mentality unto Pure Spirit Awareness is as follows:

1. There is a supreme understanding that God is no respecter of persons.
2. There is a supreme understanding that because God is no respecter of persons, that God also is neither male or female, nor is God subjective or objective.
3. There is a supreme understanding that because God is not a respecter of persons, nor is God male or female, nor is God subjective or objective, and because I am not separate from God, that, of the God of me, I am also not a respecter of persons, nor am I male or female, nor am I subjective or objective.
4. There is the supreme understanding that because God is not a respecter of persons, nor is God male or female, nor is God subjective or objective, and because I am not separate from God, that, of the God of me, I am not a respecter of persons, nor am I male or female, nor am I subjective or objective, but that I still carry, within my inherited dna, the collective baggage of belief that God is a respecter of persons, and of this inherited belief, that it is my responsibility to bear my own cross of gathering up this baggage of belief unto my new found awareness that God is not a respecter of persons. This baggage is, in reality, but one bag, and that is the bag of the illusion or myth of the personal self.