PORTAL             HOME
 
Dialogue between a dualist and a nondualist
Edited by Roger Sheldon November 2004 to January 2007. 
 
 
Some years ago I entered into an internet conversation with one Jesse Whyte of the USA about the nature of Dualism and Nondualism.  I was at a stage of understanding where I understood the principle of duality and continuums but had not been able to make the leap towards embracing the principle of nonduality.  The following dialogue has been carefully edited for clarity, and shows the beginning of my acceptance of nonduality.  Hopefully it will help others along the path.
 
 
Roger:  You know we are living in a world where evil is rampant.  It infects and controls so many aspects of our everyday existence.
 
Jesse:  Good is also rampant Roger.  Good and evil are anti-modal – one cannot exist without the other.  Beyond that, you've lost yourself in dualistic thinking.  Good and evil are just abstract concepts - and the abstractions are entirely human and exist only within your mind.  There really isn't any such thing as good OR evil.
 
Roger:   It is my belief that there most certainly are such things as good and evil.  How can the existence of these qualities possibly be denied?
 
Jesse:  From a dualistic perspective there certainly are such things as good and evil, that is very clear to see.
 
However, from a nondualistic point of view there can be no such thing as good or evil, they just do not and cannot exist.
 
I am bound to say that 'good' and 'evil' are words - words that have a connotation (association or implication additional to the idea or object denoted) and a denotation (a limit or border).
 
Words are nothing if they don't have common experience behind them.  Culture provides common experience - culture provides a reasonable definition (again in words) for good and evil.  Good is compassion, virtue, loving-kindness.  Evil is selfishness, pain, suffering, frustration.  The problem is that once we assign good and evil to certain categories, once we relegate them to the status of words, concepts, ideals, and ideologies, we've relegated them to the abstract world of rational thought. 
 
My ultimate point here is that words are human inventions. Animals don't communicate with words, plants don't communicate with words, our internal organs don't communicate with words.  So why is it that we believe that Truth / Awareness / Understanding / Godhead has to be revealed through words?  Or is even capable of revelation through words?  The structure of your thought, the structure of your mind, is the product of teaching.  As "civilized" human beings, we learn the rigid structure with which we must conform to participate fully within "society".  If you were raised by wolves, do you think that you would ever build a mental pattern that used words?  Line one of the Tao Te Ching states, "The Way which can be spoken of is not the true Way."
 
Accepting that no discussion of the concept of God can be conducted without an agreed working definition of ‘God’, do you think God thinks like you do?  (See article entitled God which constitutes our agreed definition)
 
Roger:   In small part yes, and in large part no.  I am a part of the whole, therefore I am a part of God - therefore God unquestionably `thinks the way I do' and the way every other person thinks, but that is only a miniscule aspect of what is (or maybe) ‘God' or the way ‘he’ ‘thinks’. 
 
Jesse:  Do you think of God as a human-like figure who thinks in words, sequentially, like you as a human are taught to?  Is God just an omnipotent human-being-like figure?  Are we literally created in his image?  If so, what imagine could God have if there was no one around to perceive it?  Is God, Brahman, Atman, Parusha, Allah - just the lucky "first" who happened by miracle of birth-order to be endowed with absolute and unerring control over everything? 
 
Roger:   We cannot know until we perceive and know All, in which case we will have become equal to or perhaps even God himself.
 
Jesse:  It's possible that the universe is totally arbitrary.  It is a very arbitrary standpoint for one to suppose the universe or God (insert your pantheon of faith's preferred label here) is anything at all.  However, this train of thought may lead one to ponder the nature of an existence beyond linear, one-at-a-time thought.
 
When we attempt to bind the "God concept" with words, we limit the un-limitable, make finite the infinite.  Whatever words we choose, no matter how close to perfect they come, they always have:
 
1.  . Subtly different meanings between all human beings because no two people have identical memories or  experiences from which common perception can occur, even subtle differences manifest themselves massively when we extrapolate them to infinite bounds and limits.
 
2.     Definitions have ends, opposites.  Anti-modes don't have opposites, but other poles.  The difference is subtle, but important.  We can't limit God.
   
Have you ever contemplated the world without label, without implicitly categorizing objects and events into the groups that words imply? 
 
We have to recognize the constraints of our system of communication, and ultimately, to move past those constraints in our own personal understanding.
 
Roger:   Most certainly agreed.
 
Jesse:  Good and evil are the arbitrary inventions of a humanity trying to rationally explain the world in which we live.  To understand my point, that good and evil don't exist, one has to first admit that words are ultimately inaccurate means of describing the world just-as-it-is-really.  We couldn't communicate without them, but they are not perfect.  Understanding the nature of their imperfection helps us to understand a means of perceiving the world more truly.  Do you buy this?  Have I made my point?
 
Roger:   Well not really because we are back to the hurdle….  You may just have to put this down to my restricted/limited vision, or whatever… good and evil do not have to be arbitrary… there is a way of defining the words ‘good’ and ‘evil’, however, it occurs to me that in order to understand anything anyone says fully, we need working definitions for every word uttered in the moment, and that working definition will maybe change for every time we utter the same word.
 
I do agree though that I do not have the capacity to define here the words `good' and `evil' in a way would make me happy, given the time limitations.  Both words offer up complexities that make me hesitant to enter into any kind of definition… maybe that's just what you mean… but this doesn't mean that `good' and `evil' do not exist so much as that they are indefinable…
 
Jesse:  This is so difficult, and I apologize for my inability to communicate this well.  It is hard to use language to express the point that language is ultimately inadequate.  I only came upon this realization after many an hour of silent contemplation.
 
Roger:   Although I abhor dogma (whatever that means) I realise that what I suffer from is tantamount to dogma if I am entrenched in `it'.  Can one be dogmatic about not being dogmatic?
 
Let's take this a simple step at a time.  You might just expand upon my reflection that "maybe this doesn't mean that `good' and `evil' do not exist so much as that they are indefinable…  and I hope that is not like going back to the very beginning again for you.
 
Jesse:  Let me describe a scenario for you.
 
A man and his girlfriend were coming out of the pub one evening, when they were accosted by a mugger.  The mugger drew a weapon and threatened the girl and the man accompanying the girl struck the assailant a spontaneous blow in order to protect her, but unfortunately the act led to the death of the assailant.
 
Were the man’s actions good or evil? 
 
On the surface, it is an entirely subjective decision.  Good and evil are just words, labels, or categories.  One might suppose that their value exists only when we as entities trying to communicate agree on their common value.
 
Would one agree with Hitler's assertion that the elimination of twenty million Jews was good?  Probably not.  The word ceases to have value when we fail to relate it to the same meaning.  But what, exactly, is that meaning?  We can attempt, by hook or by crook, to define that word with more words - to provide meaning to the generalization with more generalizations. 
 
Roger:  One’s mind may want to object and rebel because it has a deep `conviction' that if we humans did not try so hard to fix definitive meanings to words, we would do much better. Everything one says, can and is, often misunderstood.
 
Jesse:  Words attempt to break reality into sub-groups that don't really have any existential meaning, only meaning within the bounds of language, within the constraints of convention and practicality.  One cannot deny that words have value in terms of communicating with each other; however, we can't just assume that words provide a complete view of the world.  We have to recognize the constraints of our system of communication, and ultimately, to move past those constraints in our own personal understanding.  Good and evil are the arbitrary inventions of a humanity trying to rationally explain the world in which we live.   To understand the nondualistic viewpoint that good and evil don't exist, one has to first admit that words are ultimately inaccurate means of describing the world just-as-it-is-really.  We couldn't communicate without them, but they are not perfect.  Understanding the nature of their imperfection helps us to understand a means of perceiving the world more truly.
 
This is so difficult to understand initially.  It is difficult to use language to express the point that language is ultimately inadequate.  Most people only come to this realization after many hours of reflection.
......................................................................................................................................................................
Roger:  So many of us try to compartmentalize and create `boxes' into which to categorise information and understanding.  Thus one’s world becomes one of simplistic models and symbols.  One’s world becomes one of always trying to play semantic games so that one won't be misunderstood.
 
Jesse: nondualism is not the middle of a continuum nor is it everything together. When you say nonduality is this or that, when you use words or thoughts or symbols, you have created a fixed position.  There's nothing wrong with that, but definitions will always be relational, not absolute.
 
Roger:  I absolutely agree with you.  So if I do not have a fixed position in my head, if nothing is fixed for me, how do I express that?  Of course the reality is that I don't.  Every word I, you or anyone else utters, fixes a point – alas maybe one will never be understood.  Absolute silence would be as bad (or good)… maybe just whisper… ;-)
 
Jesse:  It seems like this discussion looms very near the abyss at which language simply fails. nonduality, advaita in Indian, is fundamentally incapable of being expressed in language, let alone in the subject-verb-object semantics of English.  Alan Watts does a great job of describing nonduality indirectly via metaphor in his collected works, but even such an eloquent purveyor of the written/spoken word says that any language is fundamentally incapable of expressing the concept of nonduality.  Once we begin to parse the world into objects/events that are in any way different from each other or independent from each other, we have established a fundamental duality.  Duality doesn't have to be just me-them or me- it, but is also used in all the implicit comparisons of it-it.  As soon as we look at two of those (points at fruit) and see an apple and an orange, we've established a duality that doesn't necessarily exist anywhere in the existential world, only in the conventional world of rational or analytical thought.  In the stillness of Samadhi (contemplation without form) we can see the world just-as-it-is with Pure Perception untainted by the linear and entirely inaccurate consequences of thought.  Ultimately, this Pure Perception is the heart of Hinduism, Buddhism, Sufism, Tolle's Power of Now school, mystical and contemplative Christianity. Aldous Huxley's seminal work The Perennial Philosophy is a great read on identifying the common themes in these seemingly disparate religions by working past the bogus bounds of religious lexicon.
 
Roger: Talking of which, people talk of having a soul-mate – a partner with whom you are able to share totally and unconditionally, and further, have the knowledge that you were as perfectly understood as you understood the other – even without words.  This begs the question, why can't we all achieve such a state – all us humans collectively?
 
Jesse: Given the statement that consciousness is non-local, what you suggest would seem to be possible, in my opinion.
 
Jesse: I would posit, (well not exactly posit and not exactly I, since there is really no difference between us at all except memory and "to posit" would imply a belief or opinion which is the product of the flawed process of analytical thought, but digression is occurring), that all of humanity, indeed all living things, are what the New Age literature has started to call "soul mates".  We all share the same experience of life at its root.  While communication (both verbal, nonverbal, psycho-somatic, however-have-you) might be easier between you and a subset of all of humanity (your friends and family, those with whom you share cultural history or the same language, etc...) there is absolutely no difference between any two people. Indeed, the instant that you classify a person into a soul-mate/non-soul mate category, you've lost yourself in the mental abyss of dualism. At the heart of much of the New Age concept of a soul-mate, you have a wealth of very arbitrary speculations and limitations about the nature of this relationship. Can there only be one? Can we achieve the enlightenment experience without identifying them? What role would they play in the inner mental process of awakening? And then, stepping past those questions, I'm left with the real conundrum that all the major spiritual traditions (we're not talking about religions here, but spiritual traditions if you can understand my distinction) almost de-emphasize the value of any form of dependent relationship. There are, of course, a few exceptions. Most notable would be Hindu's sexual tantric practices that are designed to leverage the biological/physiological reproductive energy and harness it towards the awakening experience.  However, there is nothing within the original texts that ascribes any different or special relationship within the two "performers", just the process that each must pursue mentally to harness that energy. I guess what I'm really trying to get at is that the soul-mate concept seems arbitrary. I've had great relationships in the past, and a couple where I could really explore my spirituality. But I can't imagine a relationship within anyone or anything that doesn't eventually develop into an attachment. To feel that deeply about anything at all is to harbour tremendous duhkha when we can't control them, or more unfortunately, their mortality.
 

___________________________________________________________________________________

To edit:


Roger:

You are correct in that we haven't really built a foundation of definitions upon
which to work yet. So I'm going to move down below your very well-composed
piece on the words with which we call "God".

On God (my paper)

Do you think of God as a human-like figure who thinks in words, sequentially, like you as a human are taught to?  Is God just an omnipotent human-being-like figure?  Are we literally created in his image?

These questions are not intended to represent an overt attack upon formal Christianity, although it could be perceived that way.  Whenever scriptures of any form are interpreted strictly, we end up with contention.  

When we perceive and know All we will have become equal to God or perhaps even God himself.

This could be perceived as putting the cart before the horse in assuming that the enlightenment experience will put us on even ground with the Godhead.  However let us consider the possibility that the ascent to the Godhead is the anti-mode to a descent to utter and complete Emptiness.  At this point in our spiritual journey, we have to keep our minds open, however distressing the outcome may be.  We can't let fear of death or hope of eternal life cloud our explorations.  

However, one’s mind may want to object and rebel because it has a deep `conviction' that if we  humans did not try so hard to fix definitive meanings to words, we would do much better.

Now we need to observe the ego rebel against this idea.  The ego is tied to linear, structured thought.  It can't exist without it.  Follow this; explore it inside, run with it.  Even if one cannot agree with this concept, take the time to explore it thoroughly through serious reflection.  

We'll talk about dogma in a little bit, but right now, it's important to understand that I'm not trying to push my "view" on anyone. Until we explore it ourselves, its just abstract intellectual debate. Just sit back and watch your ego have fits trying to function without words. You'll wind up with an entirely different conception of who you really are, the thinker, the thought or neither?

Everything one says, can and is, often misunderstood.  Indeed perfect communication is fundamentally impossible.  We may reach a "functional" compromise where we understand each other well enough to operate within society, but I don't think that perfect, direct communication is possible with words.

Words attempt to break reality into subgroups that don't really have any existential meaning, only meaning within the bounds of language, within the constraints of convention and practicality.  One cannot deny that words have value in terms of communicating with each other, but I'm saying that we can't just assume that words provide a complete view of the world.

In this I fully understand where you are. It maybe is that as a teacher (and I have said this before) I am forever trying to compartmentalize and create `boxes' into which to categorise information and understanding for others. Thus my world has become one of simplistic models, symbols and the like. My world is of always trying to play semantic games so that I won't be misunderstood. Maybe `misunderstood' is the wrong word, maybe people just don't understand fully where I am – with the same difficulties I am having finding where you are.

>Explore how your mental patterns require you to categorize and group.  Discrimination and stereotyping are an eventual outcome of this kind of mental process if we aren't careful.  Even when we believe that these categorizations serve some conventional function, we've limited our true understanding by responding to the object/event/process as if it were the same as all other object/event/processes with the same label.  This discrimination may be at its most fundamentally offensive when we stereotype people, but is there really anything less intellectually offensive about it when we stereotype objects, events, processes?  When we use a label, we stereotype.  It's fundamental to the label's implicit function.  We might need these shortcuts to communicate (albeit poorly), but they are still shortcuts and they are still generalizations.  To function within any society (that is any collection of human beings attempting to interact) requires communication.  Words are the way in which we've been taught to communicate.  And that's fine.  We just need to understand that the system isn't perfect.  We should use it where it is useful, but be ready to discard it when it doesn't necessarily help us.  So we now return to the fact that words have fixed, finite definitions and cannot be used to describe the infinite and boundless.

>We have to recognize the constraints of our system of
communication, and ultimately, to move past those contraints in our
own personal understanding.

Most certainly agreed.

Good. I'm not advocating a descent into the Neanderthal days or imagining a society that functions without words (although that might be an interesting premise for a piece of fictional literature, although it would be a little difficult to pull off in novel form, more likely an intriguing film).  Let's just keep throwing out what hinders us and keeping what helps us until we get down to the bottom of it.



>Good and evil are the arbitrary inventions of a humanity trying to rationally explain the world in which we live. To understand my point, that good and evil don't exist, one has to first admit that words are ultimately innacurate means of describing the world just- as-it-is-really. We couldn't communicate without them, but they are not perfect. Understanding the nature of their imperfection helps us to understand a means of perceiving the world more truly.

>Do you buy this? Have I made my point?

Phew, we are back to the hurdle…. You see Jesse, and you may just
have to put this down to my restricted/limited vision, intellect or
whatever… good and evil do not have to be arbitrary… there is a way
of defining them LOL, however, it just occurs to me that in order to
understand anything anyone says, we need working definitions for
every word uttered in the moment, and that working definition will
maybe change for every time we utter the same word.

I do agree though that I do not have the capacity to define here the
words `good' and `evil' in a way would make me happy, given the time
limitations. Both words offer up complexities that make me hesitant
to enter into any kind of definition… maybe that's just what you
mean… but this doesn't mean that `good' and `evil' do not exist so
much as that they are indefinable…



I think that we are sort of in agreement here, but we still have some
fundamentally opposing views. So I'm going to throw out a challenge to you,
indeed to anyone within this group. Point to evil. Point to good. Don't
describe them. Point to them. Consider it an "exercise for the reader". I
don't think you can. I don't think they are tangible. I think they are just
the byproducts of labels/words. We could probably all sit around a table with a
couple of beers and come up with a working definition of good and evil. After a
few hours of interesting conversation, we might all be able to converse more
deeply because we understand exactly what we mean when we use those terms. But
the terms are still lacking in concrete reality. They are just concepts -
inventions of the mind! Artefacts of the way in which we think, process, and
communicate. If anything in this post spurs more discussion, I hope it is this
little bit. Because I think that I'm closer to It here, than I have
been previously.



>This is so difficult, and I apologize for my inability to
communicate this well. It is hard to use language to express the
point that language is ultimately inadequate. I only came upon this
realization after many an hour of silent contemplation.

LOL Jesse, I think you did pretty well. Although I abhor dogma
(whatever that means) I realise that what I suffer from is
tantamount to dogma if I am entrenched in `it'. Can one be dogmatic
about not being dogmatic?

Absolutely! But, in seriousness, that kind of debate is entirely circular. We
could debate the definition of dogma till we were dead and it wouldn't bring us
any closer to a realization of life just-as-it-is because dogma is just another
concept, just another invention of the rational mind. On a surface level, I
fundamentally agree with your assertion that dogma is pretty terrible. The
first book that I ever bought on my spiritual path was the Dalai Lama's Beyond
Dogma. I bought it because the title personified everything that I hated in the
Christian religion in which I was raised. Anything that has to be accepted
blindly and without personal exploration is, at best, fool's gold.



What questions do you have?

Well let's take this a simple step at a time. You might just expand
upon my reflection that "maybe this doesn't mean that `good'
and `evil' do not exist so much as that they are indefinable… " and
I hope that is not like going back to the very beginning again for
you.



Not at all. I'm going to steer you back to my last comments on "point out" evil
or good to continue this discussion. You may be able to point out events that
have some "evil" or "good" bend to them, but I challenge you to find real,
tangible, I can hold-it-in-my-hand good or evil. I don't intend this post to
end this discussion, but hopefully to inspire more comments. Please, try to
find these. Point them out to me. There's more to come after you go looking.
Wow, I'm exhausted. I'm not sure that I've done a good job of explaining myself
at all, but I think that's sort of a fundamental problem with the points that
I'm trying to express.

Anyways, take care all and I'll repeat what I said earlier. I've looked a lot of
places for the sangha experience, but this list is the closest that I've found
so far. Thank you all very, very much.

Jesse



>Perhaps I can address those questions better than this open-ended
topic... Anyways, I have every intention on answering John's
response to my questions, but I'm going to wait until the morning
when I have all of my mental faculties and awareness firing and I'm
not tired from a long day's work.

LOL, I know the feeling.
Stay well
Love
The student

____________________________________________________________________

 

 

 

 
___________________________________________________________________________________
 
 
 
Note:
   
Given the statement that consciousness is non-local,
   
All of humanity, indeed all living things, are what the New Age literature has started to call "soul-mates".  We all share the same experience of life at its root.  While communication (both verbal, nonverbal, psycho-somatic, etc.) might be easier between a person and a subset of all of humanity (one’s friends and family, those with whom you share cultural history or the same language, etc...) there is absolutely no difference between any two people.  Indeed, the instant that we classify a person into a soul-mate/non-soul mate category, we've lost ourselves in the mental abyss of dualism.  At the heart of much of the New Age concept of a soul-mate, we have a wealth of very arbitrary speculations and limitations about the nature of this relationship.  Can there only be one?  Can we achieve the enlightenment experience without identifying them?  What role would they play in the inner mental process of awakening?  And then, stepping past those questions, one is left with the real conundrum that all the major spiritual traditions (we're not talking about religions here, but spiritual traditions if you can understand the distinction) almost de-emphasize the value of any form of dependent relationship.  There are, of course, a few exceptions.  Most notable would be Hindu's sexual tantric practices that are designed to leverage the biological/physiological reproductive energy and harness it towards the awakening experience.  However, there is nothing within the original texts that ascribes any different or special relationship within the two "performers", just the process that each must pursue mentally to harness that energy.  The soul-mate concept seems arbitrary.  One can have wonderful relationships, and even those where one can really explore one’s spirituality.  But it is difficult to imagine a relationship within anyone or anything that doesn't eventually develop into an attachment.  To feel that deeply about anything at all is to harbour tremendous duhkha when we can't control them, or more unfortunately, their mortality.

 

Message 2216

From:  Roger 1
Date:  Sun Nov 30, 2003
Subject:  nondualism is...

 

Good evening, M...

Comments inserted below...

 the_leader <the_leader@y...> wrote:

Hi Jesse -

 --- In holism@yahoogroups.com, Roger 1
<the_Jesse@y...> wrote:
> Thanks for the kind words. On the "integration of spirituality
with the mainstream", I find the whole position to be a catch-22 of
sorts. As a participant in the mainstream culture, I'm constantly
deluding myself that this culture is important. I'm wasting precious
time pursuing ends that I don't really believe in.

OK... What can you do that is different? To discontinue pursuing the
edns that you don't believe in? Is that possible to do? What would
happen then?



Part of me sees this as a black-and-white issue, and that is probably half of my
problem. I guess I need to resummarize the quandry as I see it and maybe
that'll help me see its anti-modal nature.

The ego that is "Jesse" has family, friends, job, etc. I devote at least, at
very least, 50% of my waking hours to satisfying artificial commitments to that
"world". At previous points in my life, its been worse. I've had live-in
girlfriend, 80 hour a week job, mortgage payments, car payments, and all the
downright nasty burdens of "successful" life in this great capitalism of ours
(read this very sarcastically). I've managed to shrug alot of that burden from
my shoulders. I quit my career, broke up with my girlfriend when we were no
longer helping each other on our spiritual path. But the real quandry was that
part of me felt that it wasn't enough. That even maintaining the pretense of an
existence within the society whose values I disdain so greatly was a copout.



> On the flip side, I feel that a single-minded monastic devotion to
my own awakening is utterly selfish and ultimately futile.

There is a monastic, contemplative tradition spanning faiths and
centuries. Thomas Merton was a monastic, but also contributed to the
greater good. Gregor Mendel was a monastic, who had a deep impact on
science. Could they have been more effective out in society
physically?



I would probably argue that Mendel did much more harm than good with the way he
helped science, but that's another story and I have too many threads going as it
is! ;-) Merton, on the other hand, is one of my most trusted of guides, or
"pointers-to-the-Way" since I'd like to avoid traditional Jesse/student
relationships. I think my problem starts with the fact that I don't feel
anything near awakening. I feel like I have a tremendous amount of ground to
cover, a tremendous amount of exploring to do. I don't know how I can help
others when I have a very limited concept of how to help myself. If I can't fix
my own "monkey mind", how can I help the even more disenfranchised? Mahayana
Buddhism's boddhisattva concept addresses the role of the enlightened, however
the traditional route to being a boddhisattva first starts with study within a
monastic tradition. I can sort of fumble around with this, like an amateur
philosopher. Or, I can devote every essence of my being, every
single solitary drop of effort to achieving pure perfection, every waking
moment, every tick of the biological clock. It used to be that I considered
philosophy to be a fun pastime. An enjoyable intellectual hobby. Not anymore.
I don't have any other hobbies. I don't have any free time, anymore, because I
devote almost all of it to study. Nothing seems more serious than this quest to
understand the world as it really is. I feel like even though I've taken a
half-step forward, I've realized that it is a tiny step in comparison to the
immensity of the journey. And, to bring this full circle, we'll come back to
Merton. Merton did end up doing a great deal to shrink the gaps between the
East and the West. But he didn't do it until after he'd spent years at
 Gethsemani in Kentucky. I have lofty goals (I'd love to help every single human
being towards awakening), but in order to help you understand the nature of
reality, I have to understand it. And it seems like
contemplation, devotion, and discipline (easiest achieved in monastic
traditions) is the shortest path to that goal. With that said, it appears that
the choice is obvious. But the reality is that my grandparents are old, my
mother is sick, and I feel that secular obligations are limiting. Don't get me
wrong, helping my family may be the most virtuous and rewarding thing in my life
right now. But that life is still stuck, quite firmly, in the Round.



Do we need to first attend to our own inner-growth before we can then
be of service to others?



I have the feeling that this is going to be a point of some contention, but I'm
going to say that we do. I'm going to contend that helping other people without
being intrinsically Grounded is a fool's errand. I'm going to contend that we
teach best by example, and that I can't preach what I'm unable to practice.
Fire away, I'm sure that this is going to generate comment and probably a lot of
disagreement. But I don't think that I, me, Jesse, am capable of doing much
except spreading confusion until I awaken.



> I guess the Madyamika (Middle Way) would be to exist within the
mainstream culture, but without losing our way along the Path.
Sometimes, I'm just not exactly sure how to do this.

Yes. It seems like the Eightfold Path has a recipe for this?



Yeah, I definitely agree with you. I just think that the process of integrating
the Eightfold Path completely within my life would be easier if I didn't have to
worry about the other extraneous and unrelated parts of my life.



> It seems like an either/or proposition simply because the
mainstream culture will ultimately reject something that is so
cancerous to it.

I think I’m not quite following here, have gotten confused a bit. Can
you explain for me what you mean by "something that is so cancerous
to it?"



Ok, but in order to do this, I have to speak in the abstract. I don't want to
be hypocritical (having just made an extended argument in another post about the
fallacy of abstract, rational thought), but I'm trying to describe the wholely
intangible Western culture of success. Consider, for a moment, that capitalism
is one massive self-propagating system designed to move around arbitrary units
of currency, which we assign an arbitrary value. We then "spend" billions of
these arbitrary things that we created and gave ourselves in the first place.
Its just an elaborate game of three-card monte as we try to hide the cosmic
absurdity of what we are doing. People spend their entire lives devoted to
nothing but the accumulation of pieces of paper (or their electronic
representation) that they then convert into a more tangible increase in their
"standard-of-living". It is, I think unfortunately, the American Way, an open
competition. If you are smarter, stronger, faster, you will
acquire more of these pieces of paper and society will reward you with bigger
houses, faster cars, and... ahhh... better entertainment. Consider how much of
Western society is devoted to entertainment: food has become a form of
entertainment, literature, Hollywood, television. The vast majority of Western
life not spent making money is spent forgetting about our own mortality. It's a
self-propagating system. People are so afraid of death, so afraid of the cold
and lonely emptiness of the world, that they would rather spend their lives in
blissful ignorance. This is just my conjecture, my observations of Western
culture. Feel free to disagree with me if you think I'm wrong. But I happen to
feel that "blissful ignorance" is a state most Americans cherish. Because of
this, I feel that true spiritual reform is a cancer, albeit a good one, on
Western culture. Spiritual reform would eat away at that blissful ignorance,
tear down the walls that people have built around
themselves to forget how cold and scary a place reality is. The system would
fight that every step of the way - the system would fight because a significant
percentage of Americans think they are quite content living in samsara. But one
only has to flip on the TV for a short time to catch a Zoloft or Prozac
advertisement on the commercial breaks between hours of mindless entertainment.
Or look at college graduation rates to realize that psychiatry is a booming
profession. Americans are profoundly unhappy, and yet most would rather remain
that way than confront reality directly.



> Just like the ego rejects the nihilism of nonduality because it
ultimately points out that the ego isn't who I am.

Pesky ego...

Thanks for more thought-provoking.


I hope that I haven't upset the group dynamic with my sudden flurry of posts.
I'm not trying to dominate discussion, but it seems to take me forever to get
across my points. As these issues weigh heavier and heavier upon my identity, I
find some of these long posts to be almost like meditations in and of
themselves. I can't wait to hear from you guys. I hope this note finds all of
you well,

Jesse

_________________________________________________________________

 

 

Message 2222

 

From:  The student
Date:  Sun Nov 30, 2003
Subject:  Good and evil

 

Hi Jesse and all :-)

I hope you are all doing well :-)

Jesse, thank you for taking the trouble to follow up with a detailed
reply.

I have just returned from an exhausting class and have to prepare
for a somewhat demanding three day course starting tomorrow. So I
will be out of circulation until near the end of the week (unless I
find the energy and concentration to follow up in the meantime).

Your post deserves thought. I will come back to you on that be
assured. What you say reveals progress for us - in terms of mutual
understanding, despite some seeming "fundamentally opposing views".
In fact, I don't 'feel' them as opposing views. When people have
the same fundamental 'intent'/'aim', the same 'sense' of being,
differences in describing 'things' don't seem to represent
opposition to me (and if that makes any sense I'll be surprised).
So much of merit is coming out of these conversations - so much by
way of clarification - I am over the moon, although I am not sure
where it will all lead me ultimately. This is going to be a very
interesting ride :-)

Tomorrow, I will be remembering a very dear and close friend who
passed away one year ago at 11.55pm US East coast time. She would
have made a wonderful member of this group. A very large part of
her lives on in me, for she influenced and expanded my understanding
and sense of unconditional love immeasurably and forever.

Stay well everyone, and thanks to you all.

Love
The student

________________________________________________________________

 

Message 2223

From:  The_Leader
Date:  Sun Nov 30, 2003  5:14 pm
Subject:  Good and Evil

 

Hi Jesse, The student and All -

I am appreciating very much this thread of yours, it has real
substance and there is much to consider... And i hate to step on a
thread and just hit and run with a quick reply, but that is all that
time allows for this morning.

Your talking about the definition of God and how different belief
systems do or do not "believe" in God reminded me of something i
heard the Dalai Lama say earlier this fall. Here's the direct quote
from his talk:

"If you meet someone who makes you uncomfortable, remember that they
are the same sort of creature of God... When you have the negative
emotion, remember the image of God. As a Buddhist practitioner, when
you come across someone who angers you and negative emotion arises,
remember in that moment that he is another individual who wishes to
be happy, wishes to have a good life, too... Remember that in that
moment, the person may have been angry, but in a previous life they
may have been your family member."

His references to God, not once but twice within a very short
timeframe, felt striking to me, as my understanding has always been
that Buddhists do not believe in "God." Yes, there are many deities
that are recognized (depending on the school of Buddhism, of
course)... but the concept of an overall 'creator' God? He seems to
be referring to a Creator (who may be both Creator and Created)...
And his exhortation to "remember the image of God" also made me think.

I'm not a scholar in any way, and people here know so much more than
i about these sorts of things... What do people think? Is it possible
that the Dalai Lama *believes* in the sort of God loosely described
in the Judeo-Christian sense? Is it possible that he was using the
references to God in that context and manner in order to speak to his
audience there on their own levels, on their own terms?

Again, please forgive me for only latching onto one minuscule thought
in this wonderful thread, for the time being.

Happy Sunday to all,

love and peace,
M

_________________________________________________________________

 

Message 2226

From:  Roger 1
Date:  Mon Dec 1, 2003
Subject:  Good and Evil

 

M,

Like yourself, I'm sort of in a time crunch so I'll be quick. I've read a fair
amount of the Dalai Lama and I could probably go to my bookshelves and find 10
or 15 quotes from his past books that are pretty opposed to the concept of a
Judeo-Christian Creator - well, not necessarily opposed, but mirroring the
Buddha's "apathy"(?) to the concept. He seems in those places (not that he
couldn't have changed his mind in the interim) to really understand that any
speculation about the unknowable is just idle speculation, and not necessarily
conducive to higher understanding. I would probably say that the Dalai Lama was
using Western spiritual terms to describe the Eastern spiritual practices. That
he was just using "God" as a direct translation of Tathagata, Buddha, etc... In
fact, when I read it that way, it is very similar to material in the Dhammapada.

That's just my take. I think that he was being compassionate to his audience
and trying to translate himself in such a way as to touch his listeners in the
deepest way...

Jesse

_________________________________________________________________

 

Message 2234

From:  Roger 1
Date:  Tue Dec 2, 2003
Subject:  Good and Evil

 

M,

Here are a couple of quotes that I managed to find. When I get a little more
time, I'll go through more of my collection of the Dalai Lama's works and try to