|
|
 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Jim and His Karma
2111 Posts |
 Posted - Mar 24 2007 : 7:10:14 PM
|
A few members have told me they're confused about the distinction Yogani's been drawing between non-duality vs duality over the past few weeks. The terms are clear, but there was a bit of mystery over what exact distinction Yogani was drawing. I was confused, too....at first thinking he was advocating a type of enlightenment characterized by duality. But I sat down and read more closely, and I'm pretty sure I see it, so I thought I'd try to explain in my own words (sometimes it's good to hear stuff in other people's words).
If I have it right, then I hope I've helped clarify. If I don't have it right, I hope Yogani or someone else will step in and set me straight.
Enlightenment is the realization of non-duality. To awaken to non-duality is to realize how things really are: utter unity (though one may backtrack into delusion...the trick is in remaining awake always!).
It's worth bearing in mind, though, that we ARE in non-duality, even right now, given that non-duality is all there actually is! Nowhere to go, nothing to learn or do...just stop fighting the feeling, let it flow, etc. We don't get holy, we realize our intrinsic holiness.
There are two basic sorts of approaches to facilitate getting there: dual and non-dual. The problem with the notion of "getting" somewhere is that, as I just said, you needn't "go" ANYWHERE. You're there! This leads to the crux of the distinction Yogani's drawing.
A practice like AYP uses a DUALIST APPROACH to awaken to non-duality. We do stuff as individual, separate entities (yes, maintaining the delusion) to prepare ourselves not to get fried when we open ourselves to the essential truth of non-duality (which entails dropping screens and letting the universe in all the way, which can be physically and energetically traumatic). We aim for smoothness and pacing. We paradoxically work within the delusion of duality to facilitate our awareness of non-duality.
Those taking a NON-DUALIST APPROACH point to the contradiction. They're leery of practices claiming to "lead" you to awakening, because, again, we're right there right now ANYWAY! So all this "spiritual path" stuff is just about being jerked around.
And there's something to that. Throughout history, the dual approach has often deepened delusion. We replace our attachments to sex, money, etc with attachments to mediation and "spiritual work". Indeed, there's always been a lucrative business in getting students addicted to "spiritual work" which turns out to be an end rather than a means. There's lots of money in sticky mats and shaktipat!
AYP is a dualist approach. But Yogani also recommends contemplation of non-dualist teachings (much as a few non-dualist teachers recommend meditation and yoga). It's like hedging your bet to read Sailor Bob, Adyashanti, the Zen guys, Nisargadatta, et al.
A lot of what I post on the forum is intended to remind all of us (including myself) not to get overly caught up in the duality of a system like AYP. If you think you're climbing an enlightenment ladder, getting good at all this spirituality stuff, you are deepening the delusion. There's no you. There's only What Is, and you are that. So....this is why I suggest that people meditate with the same attitude with which they brush their teeth. If we do our dualistic work with that attitude, there's less to get caught up in. There's less tightening of the bonds we need to untie.
Anyway, to restate (after all my rambling commentary):
Non duality is all there is. We fight it. Better not to fight it so much!
The approaches to surrendering that resistance are either dualistic (separate individuals working, paradoxically, to get exactly and precisely nowhere!), or non-dualistic (we drop the striving and doing and simply open up to the all-prevalent unity).
...and Yogani's been making interesting cases for bridging that divide (I believe he's either writing or about to write a booklet on this stuff, so we'll surely hear more as his points coalesce). |
Edited by - Jim and His Karma on Mar 24 2007 10:01:58 PM |
|
|
Manipura
USA
870 Posts |
Posted - Mar 24 2007 : 7:34:23 PM
|
| That was great, Jim. Thanks for clarifying this dual/non-dual thing, as it is a bit confusing to me. |
 |
|
|
Richard
United Kingdom
857 Posts |
Posted - Mar 24 2007 : 8:07:01 PM
|
Great post Jim thanks, 
I was getting a little confused with all the Dual/Non Dual discussions and your post has clarified things for me too  |
|
|
|
Jim and His Karma
2111 Posts |
Posted - Mar 24 2007 : 9:52:28 PM
|
| You're welcome, but my concern is that I've completely misstated his view and am just confusing things worse! :) |
|
|
|
Jim and His Karma
2111 Posts |
Posted - Mar 24 2007 : 10:15:00 PM
|
I just realized, I'm still assuming certain knowledge: that everyone knows what dualism means.
It means the notion that there's me in here and there's all that stuff out there. Separateness, boundaries, characterized by a tyranny of opposites (inside/outside, happy/unhappy, hot/cold, bla bla bla....the judgements we overlay to differentiate within a universe which is merely EXISTING - as are we as part of it). It's a slippery concept to understand, because dualism is the water in which we swim. Most people can't imagine any other way of seeing things.
All my life I've had a problem with nature. I look at it, sniff it, and aesthetically appreciate it, but pathetically fail to understand how to....be in it. I never feel myself as being in the picture. I feel quite alien to the surroundings, like an astronaut. That's a really good example of duality. A rabbit never has this problem! A reed blowing in the wind does not remark at how windy it is or notice that it's being jostled by an external force. It doesn't perceive a difference between itself and wind. There's no illusion of will or conflict. Both wind and reed are inextricable manifestations of The Way It Is. That's non-duality.
Sailor Bob is the guy who speaks most inspiringly to my modern ears on non-duality. http://members.iinet.net.au/~adamson7 (click on the quotes!)
and
http://www.amazon.com/Whats-Wrong-R...p/0954779207
"Let go, let God", one of the great mantras, is an awesome taste of non-duality...so long as it's not mistaken that God's anything other than everything :) |
Edited by - Jim and His Karma on Mar 24 2007 10:24:59 PM |
|
|
|
glagbo
USA
53 Posts |
Posted - Mar 25 2007 : 08:27:31 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jim and His Karma
You're welcome, but my concern is that I've completely misstated his view and am just confusing things worse! :)
Hi Jim and all:
This is only my second and actual introduction post.
Yes, Jim, in all fairness to Yogani, IMHO, I think you completely misstated his view on this most important matter/teaching.
Your current intuition is right and you should have referred the matter of clarifying Yogani's view on the dual/non-dual issue to Yogani. He is still around, yes? The last time I checked he was still expressing his views with the same clarity, consistency, and accessibility we all have come to appreciate from him.
We have all been closely following the discussion on the dual/non-dual issues on these forums with great interest. Your above conclusions seem to be at variance with the views expressed consistently by Yogani on these matters. I am not even trying to defend anyone here but the sanity of my own understanding of the english language as a non-native reader. IMHO, He has:
(1) decried the rather baffling statements from the so-called non-dualists teachers who often distance themselves from and belittle all matter of active practices after their own long, rigorous and apparently successful practices;
(2) stated that if nothing were needed to reach the goal, then where are all these enlightened people, who would be popping-realized all over the place from "non-doing"; after all, that is what most people do, go with the flow, the instincts, day in, day out;
(3) intimated that the non-dual practice of seeing oneness everywhere is akin to, and can be viewed as an example of, the process of self-inquiry (which as you mention, is one of Yogani's next books)
There seem to be some confusions in the self-professed agenda to enlighten us of the potential pitfalls of the "dual" approaches such as AYP. As per the above definition of the same, the enlightened are the only ones with an actual EXPERIENTIAL non-dual view of things. Thus unless one is one of such, then one's actual real view on this issue is unavoidably dualist at this stage, as in dual vs. non-dual.
"It is half-a-mind who creates half-a-universe" (MMY).
As we know, a lot of the paths and pathless paths and techniques are actually misinterpretations of experiences of Realized men and women, misconstrued as paths and techniques. The relentless, forceful appropriations of such "borrowed" enlightened viewpoints by the non-enlightened is mostly mere mood-making. Thus the destination is confused with the way to it. I can hear some saying: but that is just the problem, there no destination, and hence no way to get there, since we all are already here. But I should know this. I have done a lot of this kind of mood-making over the last 29 years of my so-called "practices" .
Such faked viewpoints often lead to CONFUSED and confusing statements like:
(1) "Let the Cosmic Barber meditate you", (How non-occult does that sound?) as opposed to "meditate like brushing your teeth”; or
(2) "Do not Judge" (no hope of realization for supreme court and other judges!); But we are told that "Non-Judging" is actually an experiential condition of a realized person (even a judge) who would see him/her-self, the process of judging, the judged, and the sentence as one;
(3) "just let go, and surrender", while resisting with all our ego might the actual surrender to the process, and referring to the AYP-highly-recommended practice of Samyama for the cultivation of stillness in action, as ego cultivating occult.
Thank you Jim.
I learned a lot from your many informative, funny and often thought provoking posts.
BRV.
|
|
|
|
Jim and His Karma
2111 Posts |
Posted - Mar 25 2007 : 10:17:18 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by glagbo
Your current intuition is right and you should have referred the matter of clarifying Yogani's view on the dual/non-dual issue to Yogani. He is still around, yes?
He is still around, yes. But this is a give-and-take forum where we all chatter at each other with a plethora of opinions. And if I've gotten it wrong, he will say so, and, meanwhile, at least I've started an interesting discussion. Thanks for adding to it.
FWIW, I have a few years on you in spiritual practices, having done, variously, zen meditation, Taoist practices, and asana work (plus a couple of art forms as spiritual practice) since 1973 (and AYP for over two years, starting, with first "I am" practice, with a kundalini awakening). And none of that gives me a smidge more right to an opinion than anyone else. Ardent disagreement and opining is great and useful in a forum like this. Pronouncing someone's opinions "fake" or declaring their spiritual attainment insufficient to offer opinions is not a great (or yogic) way to conduct a discussion. It's sufficient to simply argue the other way! :)
I could give references from Yogani's postings to back up what I said. I actually gave them a very very close study, because I was tired of feeling confused. His previous clarifications have left me equally confused until I really dug in. Hopefully this thread will be an opportunity for him to finally dispel any remaining confusion...whether I've left a lot of it or a little. |
Edited by - Jim and His Karma on Mar 25 2007 10:28:14 AM |
|
|
|
Jim and His Karma
2111 Posts |
Posted - Mar 25 2007 : 10:46:47 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by glagbo
(1) "Let the Cosmic Barber meditate you", (How non-occult does that sound?) as opposed to "meditate like brushing your teeth”; or
(2) "Do not Judge" (no hope of realization for supreme court and other judges!); But we are told that "Non-Judging" is actually an experiential condition of a realized person (even a judge) who would see him/her-self, the process of judging, the judged, and the sentence as one;
(3) "just let go, and surrender", while resisting with all our ego might the actual surrender to the process, and referring to the AYP-highly-recommended practice of Samyama for the cultivation of stillness in action, as ego cultivating occult.
1. one of the most effective things I've gotten from India has been an epigram, which I believe is something that floats around in the spiritual vernacular rather than being set much in stone by the great teachers: "Let God do your sadhana for you". it's beautiful and liberating and cuts off a ton of impulse to allow one's ego to coopt sadhana. And one of the great images from Buddhism is that we don't act, we are acted through; we don't breathe, we are breathed. We don't meditate, we are meditated. 99% of what I post here is classic thought updated in my own whacky voice (which to some people speaks a little more directly than the more old-fashioned constructions). In this case, I've melded those two thoughts together as: Let the Cosmic Barber meditate you. Works for me, and there's absolutely nothing occult about it. It's similar to "Let Go, Let God", which is a favorite mantra of many eastern teachers. We don't try to explore ourselves or heal ourselves or personally search out and destroy pockets of karma in meditation. That is all done for us by mantra. Who's wielding mantra? That's the $100,000 question. My vote's with Isvara. And I have a very strong intuition that 99.9% of my purification happens during those moments (once brief, now much longer) when I utterly give up control of my meditation, and simply let the mantra "do" me (the way a barber cuts my hair while my mind watches with dim detachment) or even BE me (mantra is Isvara is me is my pillow). Lately, this happens outside of meditation, as well. I'm doing a lot less, and letting be done a lot more. Thy will be done.
2. I don't understand your objection. Maybe there's language confusion in one direction or the other? If so, I apologize.
3. The use of spiritual practice by the ego to affect materialistic change (even materialistic change that seems noble) is a very dangerous thing, which tends to unknowingly facilitate amplification and expression of ego. Such result is certainly not inherent to the practice itself, however. This concern isn't something I dreamed up, nor ought it to be cavalierly dismissed. Masters in every tradition write about it. |
Edited by - Jim and His Karma on Mar 25 2007 11:25:26 AM |
|
|
|
Mike
United Kingdom
77 Posts |
Posted - Mar 25 2007 : 11:05:40 AM
|
Hi Glagbo - I second your position ... AYP has a clear agenda - as do other posters (and they are not always the same).
quote:
Originally posted by Jim and His Karma
A few members have told me they're confused about the distinction Yogani's been drawing between non-duality vs duality over the past few weeks. The terms are clear, but there was a bit of mystery over what exact distinction Yogani was drawing.
Jim - no disrespect here friend but are you some kind of official spokesman for AYP? Surely if folks want clarfication on Yogani's views then they are able to reply in the threads where they have found something confusing? Surely the appropriate and respectful thing is to pose the question for Yogani to answer rather than being presumptuous and presume to speak for him?
quote:
You're welcome, but my concern is that I've completely misstated his view and am just confusing things worse! :)
Well to be completely honest personally I have always found Yogani to express himself with precision and clarity and to have fully thought through his system
On the other hand that doesn't always apply to anyone else round here  [yourself and myself included  ]
Everything is "perceived" of course - but I have to say for me the title and you authoring I take (in my mistaken way no doubt) as highly impertinent  It is for Yogani to say what he wants to say and not say what he doesnt want to say ... it is not for others to start "explaining him" (which always involves adding some of their own flavour).
Mike |
Edited by - Mike on Mar 25 2007 11:12:50 AM |
|
|
|
Jim and His Karma
2111 Posts |
Posted - Mar 25 2007 : 11:13:03 AM
|
I agree that Yogani expresses himself with precision and clarity.
But on this, his precision and clarity have failed me and several other forumites with whom I've discussed the distinction he's trying to draw.
They, like I, have read through his postings and wound up confused. I sat down and made a very careful study, so that I could 1. understand, 2. frame it in my own words (which is how we understand anything, i think), and 3. share that framing in case it's helpful to anyone....and to aid Yogani in pointing out how I may have "gotten" or "missed" his point.
If it's impertinent to say that I and others find something confusing, and to try to test my understanding by restating that understanding, i guess I'm impertinent. :) |
Edited by - Jim and His Karma on Mar 25 2007 11:14:30 AM |
|
|
|
Mike
United Kingdom
77 Posts |
Posted - Mar 25 2007 : 11:17:42 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jim and His Karma
If it's impertinent to say that I and others find something confusing, and to try to test my understanding by restating that understanding, i guess I'm impertinent. :)
Well it may be a small matter of words (most things on fora are  )
I think perhaps the issue of any impertinence (real/perceived/imaginary/paranoid lol) entirely disappears if the title of this thread is changed to "My understanding of Yogani's...." 
Peace and pecans to all 
Mike |
Edited by - Mike on Mar 25 2007 11:19:09 AM |
|
|
|
Jim and His Karma
2111 Posts |
Posted - Mar 25 2007 : 11:23:38 AM
|
| Agreed, I could have titled it better. |
|
|
|
yogani
USA
5195 Posts |
Posted - Mar 25 2007 : 11:26:59 AM
|
Hi All:
To help clarify, consider a seed becoming a flower.
Is a seed a flower? Can it become a flower instantly? In potential, the seed is everything the flower is. But it is a process for the seed to become the flower -- sprout, leaves, stalk, bud, blossoming, and finally ... flower! The process can be facilitated with good fertilizer and water -- not too much and not too little. Then the flower will come. Near its end the seed can proclaim, "I am the flower!" And, poof! It can be imagined to be an instant transformation. But was it really? No. It took some time. Nature operates that way on the physical plane. Only in vain can natural process be denied, which is very frustrating. So forget all that "instant" nonsense, and let the process happen naturally. Give the poor seed a break, and have some fun along the way. Each stage is a blooming. It is divine joy in motion.
In AYP we attend to the process by facilitating with practices, and taking it out into our activity every day without thinking about it too much. We just go within and then come out and do. It is daily union by degrees, which is yoga. If our methods are good, the becoming happens. But any appearance of "instant" is illusion. Our neurobiology doesn't operate instantly, and neither will our emerging enlightenment, which is entirely dependent on our nervous sytem.
So, "crossing over" is the process we are all engaged in as we practice. Better to engage in effective methods than labor over the process itself. The process is "under the hood."
Dual and non-dual are seed and flower. It is not black and white. The journey is through much overlap and blending -- a crossing over through many shades of gray. In the end, the seed is burnt and we are the eternal flower.
It is not complicated. Natural process does not need our supervision. Only the right amount fertilizer and water. The rest will take care of itself.
Self-inquiry is part of this. But like all of our practices beyond deep meditation, it only offers significant help when we have reached a certain stage of purification and opening. Before that, self-inquiry is building castles in the air and like pushing on a string, which many who pursue self-inquiry prematurely have found. When it is time for non-dual self-inquiry, it will happen all by itself, and few pointers will be necessary. You can be sure that if it is a big deal, it is too soon, and it will be an unnecessary distraction.
Self-inquiry will happen naturally as inner silence and ecstatic conductivity rise. Then the heart and mind will be infused with the necessary prerequisites, and it will happen. First things first.
The guru is in you.
|
|
|
|
Jim and His Karma
2111 Posts |
Posted - Mar 25 2007 : 11:43:53 AM
|
Thanks for the very eloquent and beautiful posting, Yogani. But, speaking for myself, I'm not peaking under the hood so much as trying to understand the distinction you yourself have been drawing for the past few weeks (months?) with several postings mentioning the distinction between dualism and non-dualism.
Do you agree with the classic view that enlightenment is an experience of non-dualism (i.e. non-dualism is how it really is)? In other words, when you characterize AYP as a dualistic system, is it correct to say it's dualistic as an APPROACH, rather than as an ultimate understanding of the universe?
I'm sorry I got so wordy, above, but this, I guess, is the gist of what I'm trying to clarify. |
Edited by - Jim and His Karma on Mar 25 2007 11:56:19 AM |
|
|
|
Doc
USA
394 Posts |
Posted - Mar 25 2007 : 2:41:39 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jim and His Karma
"...I'm not peaking under the hood so much as trying to understand the distinction you yourself have been drawing for the past few weeks (months?) with several postings mentioning the distinction between dualism and non-dualism."
Hi Jim:
Yogani has already given you the key to understanding this when he said:
"Dual and non-dual are seed and flower. It is not black and white. The journey is through much overlap and blending -- a crossing over through many shades of gray. In the end, the seed is burnt and we are the eternal flower."
"It is not complicated. Natural process does not need our supervision." "...let the process happen naturally."
He also provided a beautiful summation here:
So, "crossing over" is the process we are all engaged in as we practice. Better to engage in effective methods than labor over the process itself. The process is "under the hood."
So, maybe you should get out of your head and into your heart a bit more by merely continuing to "peak under the hood", and allow the understanding to come as a natural by-product of your Sadhana. 
http://www.oakriversoftware.com/ved...urr/4612.jpg
Hari OM!
Doc
|
|
|
|
Jim and His Karma
2111 Posts |
Posted - Mar 25 2007 : 3:32:00 PM
|
Doc, I'm actually a lot more in my heart than in my head. But my head reads these message boards, and was seeking less an explanation of the universe as it is (I'd rather experience it than understand it!) than a clarification of postings Yogani had previously made, which seemed somewhat ambiguous (and still do).
I'm not looking for The Key to the Universe. This isn't a burning seeker's desire to KNOW. I just want to clarify what Yogani, the man, is refering to in his recent postings on non-dualism and dualism. Unusually for him, I feel he hasn't been clear re: where he's drawing that distinction. If there's no distinction to be made, fine, I can dig that, but then I understand his recent postings even less. And, again, private communications with other forumites indicate a great deal of confusion on this as well.
|
Edited by - Jim and His Karma on Mar 25 2007 3:32:42 PM |
|
|
|
Mike
United Kingdom
77 Posts |
Posted - Mar 25 2007 : 3:42:59 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jim and His Karma
And, again, private communications with other forumites indicate a great deal of confusion on this as well.
What? Many more private communications since the great seed-flower analogy above?
If you still fail to understand thats fine ... but I think less of the "there is this whole (presumably to shy to speak for themselves) group/clique" stuff ... its all way too sinister dude 
quote:
Originally posted by Jim and His Karma
Unusually for him, I feel he hasn't been clear
I am not seeing dozens of confused folks here... To my eyes nothing Yogani has said on these matters seems in the slightest bit confusing... quite the opposite... My feeling is that your problem is coming as you are trying to marry up in your head different teachings... ie its the stuff you are bringing to the party thats causing you confusion.. not what Yogani is saying.
Just in terms of what I try and do in such circs of confusion [one of which I have reported elsewhere re Vedantan/Buddhist notions of self] is to try and understand each side purely in their own terms before trying to square the circle in my head... In which case if you simply take Yogani's words (and forget temporarily anything else you have ever read/heard/believed on the subject) then maybe it will seem less confusing?
Mike |
Edited by - Mike on Mar 25 2007 3:49:53 PM |
|
|
|
Bill
USA
46 Posts |
Posted - Mar 25 2007 : 3:48:37 PM
|
I think dual and non dual are labels we give to an experience after the fact of having it. Sometimes we are motivated to give such labels because of a loyalty to a given school of thought or to a teacher who holds to one view or another. We might have the thought that one view is "higher" than another.
If I experience energy and consciousness as different in me, I don't think I need to charactorize the sadhana as dualistic. i work on two poles of one thing. |
|
|
|
Jim and His Karma
2111 Posts |
Posted - Mar 25 2007 : 3:48:53 PM
|
Sinister? What on earth are you talking about? I'm not talking about murderous thoughts or even disagreement. I just mean confusion. Is that a terrible thing?
While I'm pleased for you that you're not confused, your certainty doesn't help my confusion. Nor do your rude remarks.
And the fact that you're not "seeing" (whateve that means) confused people doesn't mean they're not there. Given the weirdly derisive remarks I've been receiving in this thread, i'd be surprised if anyone admitted confusion ever again in this forum! is it a full moon?
|
Edited by - Jim and His Karma on Mar 25 2007 3:50:36 PM |
|
|
|
Manipura
USA
870 Posts |
Posted - Mar 25 2007 : 3:52:59 PM
|
| I for one was confused on the "crossing over" bit. My initial reaction was, crossing over to what? with the assumption that this was a reference to enlightenment. |
|
|
|
Jim and His Karma
2111 Posts |
Posted - Mar 25 2007 : 4:08:27 PM
|
Ok. Let's assume:
1. I'm a spiritual idiot who persists in confusion despite clarity everyone else is completely able to grok.
2. I'm a liar; in truth, no one has expressed confusion to me privately. I've created imaginary confused friends just to....Idunno, feel less lonely or something.
3. I deserve harsh rebuke, because only a closed, sinister heart could fuel my obstinant refusal to understand what's abundantly clear. Bad, bad, bad me.
Ok, great. I'm glad we've hashed that all out. Confession is great for the soul. The Nectar drips down my tongue and Ishvara is tenderly kneading my shoulders.
Now then. Can we start from the top and work down please? Because I'm still confused about what Yogani means when he calls AYP a dualistic system. Does that mean (as I was pretty sure it does, though i'm not sure of ANYTHING at this point) that he means it's a way of reaching non-duality from within the duality (if so, great...that's my understanding of what yoga is, and I've been doing it for years). Or is he saying something else? And is "crossing over" crossing over from duality to non-duality....i.e. the point at which our dualistic yoga practice leads us to non-dualism?
If so...terrific. That's what I suggested at the top. I'm not sure why we had to go through this.
If not, I'd like to understand not how the universe works, but what Yogani means. |
|
|
|
Richard
United Kingdom
857 Posts |
Posted - Mar 25 2007 : 4:14:47 PM
|
I will admit confusion Jim/Meg mainly over the crossing over part, as you say meg crossing over to what...thinking from a non dualistic viewpoint?
Maybe I do already, I have thought that way for many moons now. Once in my life I had a fleeting experience of union and since that time it has not been possible to think in any other way. The phrase "the one is in the many and the many are in the one" became reality for me for one fleeting moment that in itself was timeless.
So perhaps crossing over means being aware of yourself as part of the source in every moment of life not just believing being aware.
If that is what crossing over is then I am not there yet
|
|
|
|
yogani
USA
5195 Posts |
Posted - Mar 25 2007 : 4:17:53 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jim and His Karma
Do you agree with the classic view that enlightenment is an experience of non-dualism (i.e. non-dualism is how it really is)? In other words, when you characterize AYP as a dualistic system, is it correct to say it's dualistic as an APPROACH, rather than as an ultimate understanding of the universe?
Hi Jim:
Yes, I agree that the destination is non-dual. But I do not agree with the over-simplified "quantum leap" way in which it is often presented. Neither do I agree that non-dualism is a static transcendental condition. That view discounts the natural processes of evolution occurring in creation, including those processes that deliver the realization of non-duality.
I see "non-dual" as a relative term. While it represents undifferentiated oneness beyond all action, it also represents stillness (oneness) in action. That's why in AYP we do our practices and then go out and live our life in a normal way. If we do that, then the rest will happen naturally.
And therein lies both the simplicity and the mystery of non-dual duality.
The guru is in you.
|
|
|
|
Richard
United Kingdom
857 Posts |
Posted - Mar 25 2007 : 4:23:28 PM
|
Jim as far as i can see any practice is duality simply because it is a practice everything in our existence is dual
Heat /cold
black/white
Up/Down
everything is opposites:- dual,
So as far as I can see you can only ever experience non duality If you were to become non dual you would cease to exist...wouldn't you? |
Edited by - Richard on Mar 25 2007 4:25:58 PM |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Mar 25 2007 : 4:29:13 PM
|
1. I'm a spiritual idiot who persists in confusion despite clarity everyone else is completely able to grok.
I'm same. I wasn't quite sure what Yogani was saying either. And I have meditated for 22 years and can pee higher on a wall than anyone here.
2. I'm a liar; in truth, no one has expressed confusion to me privately. I've created imaginary confused friends just to....Idunno, feel less lonely or something.
Same here. Did it ever occur to you that you might actually just be someone else's imaginary friend? That one scares the be-jaysus out of me.
I'm not sure what's going on here -- maybe some of you folks think that if Yogani occasionally writes in a way that is found confusing that expressing your confusion is some sort of insult to him or something. Well, it isn't, and don't worry, he's a grown man and he'll take care of himself nicely.
|
|
|
|
Richard
United Kingdom
857 Posts |
Posted - Mar 25 2007 : 4:29:39 PM
|
There Yogani has summed it up the term is non dual duality it has to be duality for us to be here at all
So that is what we are crossing over to I guess |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| AYP Public Forum |
© Contributing Authors (opinions and advice belong to the respective authors) |
|
|
|
|
Yogani's Dual/Non-Dual Distinction
