--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradhatu@...> wrote:
>
>
> On Apr 2, 2011, at 11:45 AM, tartbrain wrote:
>
> > I would venture that caring about labels to assign to the degree of the
> > unfoldment of Awareness is also a trap. One could argue that without such
> > labels, how does one know if they are on the path and advancing.
>
>
> But then you still "remain in doubt", as you would have gained no certainty.
> Nonduality remains a "mysterious object".
>
The quest for certainty appears to me to be a hindrance. When are we ever
certain? As Empty Bill pointed out (I am probably botching his thought, just
giving credit), the state of "I know nothing" preceds unfoldment. Though I get
it you are not talking about certainty of things but of a state.
> It's really not at all about labels, but having an authentic View of reality,
> rather than some half-baked or deluded one. And so yes, some Batgappers might
> want to go back to remaining in doubt until they uncover, more authentically,
> the "mysterious object" that is their true nature.
>
> The metaphor of the mysterious object is about how after a direct
> introduction into our true nature, that experience is like a mysterious
> object kept in a dark room. Someone turns on the light and you see it for a
> moment. Later you don't remember 'was it green', 'was it round', etc.? So you
> need to go back, unlock the door and re-experience the mysterious object.
> Eventually, you're so familiar with the mysterious object, that you no longer
> remain in doubt as to it's nature. It's as if you carry it in the palm of
> your hand wherever you go. You no longer remain in doubt as to the nature of
> the mysterious object, which symbolizes your enlightened, natural state.
>
> The comment wasn't about questioning everything or testing everything, which
> of course, we should -- like we would test gold.
>
I see your point about coming to know the mysterious object more clearly now.
And it sounds good. However, how is one certain that they are receiving the
full an accurate transmission? How are they sure that the transmitter is whole
thing, the real thing. What many of us once took with certainty, turned out to
be half truths
(Not arguing just exploring), further, concepts are not Unfoldment. Indeed they
can be a hindrance. States of consciousness are conceptual frameworks. And that
there is a single end point of unfoldment is a concept. Unfoldment is beyond
concepts. Perhaps beyond certainty because there absolutely nothing to hang on
to.
And some say Unfoldment is self-validating. No question of "is this it" because
there is no possibility of other, no "is this it" or "that it". Both those are
relative. Full unfoldment is One without another. If so, then one would not
always be in doubt. Doubt would be gone. Just Self validating Oneness.
And self-validation will always be a higher mark of clarity than validation
from another. Teachers can be wrong in assessing the progress of their
students. One particular recent case comes to mind from BatGap, (And sometimes
there is a teaching ego -- "look at how well my students have done" and like
grade creep (everyone is above average and all get A's or B's)
Yet self-validation can be deceiving also, as recent examples illustrate.
And seeking to me appears to be a joke. Seeking unfoldment and seeking
certainty about the degree of unfoldment are hindrances not aids, IMO. Thats
not coming from reading some neo-advaita books but rather a personal insight
some time ago (which also may be delusion.) The seed thought behind my insight
was that desiring the desireless state is folly. And seeking certainty about
unfoldment is counter to the a grand mahavakya "I don't know".
And the process and result of mahavakyas are not the teacher saying "you are
there" but rather a tool for the student to realize that this is Unfoldment.
Which may be missed. For example, f Twain was really experience what he was
writing 9see adjacent posts), a whispered mahavakaya may have flipped him. He
had right perception and appreciation of things, but did not understand it.
That simple understanding may have flipped him -- not changing his experience
but simply the clearer understanding and insight as to what the experience is.
Peter mentioned intention is more powerful than prayer. Of course my first
response is "Where is the f*cking double blind, large randomized sample, peer
reviewed studies on that?" .. and proceed echoing his rants that this is crap
science and speculation. With a friendly smile. And as strong as intention
appears to be, intending Unfoldment is in the same leaky boat as desiring
Unfoldment. How can doing, much less intense and focused doing, bring about the
state of total non-doing, silence and stillness?
Inquiry is a non-doing in that there is no effort, no intent, no end state in
mind. Just a natural flow of questions, understanding nad unfoldment.
