You are hereForums / Parenting / “The non-dual way to raise children“?

“The non-dual way to raise children“?


14 replies [Last post]
marcus's picture
User offline. Last seen 1 year 4 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 02/14/2010
Posts:

The parents mind, if it is not deeply understood, normally reacts to the child‘s actions, speech and thoughts as if the child were the doer, speaker and thinker. Therefore the illusion of being able to educate children arises. And parents take themselves to be responsible for how they children grow up.

In the name of love children are shaped according to the beliefs of unhappy parent's minds to discipline them and then they are told to "Be happy!" First be happy yourself then your "education" will be more likely to make your child also happy!

Happiness is the understanding that children are life's children and not man's.
Happiness is trust in Life which raises its children in the way it is meant to be.
Happiness is to understand that man is not the doer, speaker and thinker and that this is also true for children.
Happiness is to live Life as it is and not what the mind takes to be life which is just illusory thoughts.
Happiness is to live with alive little beings in Life and not with ghosts in the parent‘s mind.
Happiness is to understand that behaviour is nothing but a thought in the parent's mind and not an actuality in life.

Only a clear understanding of one‘s own mind will lead to a better understanding of children! But is there a “non-dual way to raise children“? How does this understanding of non-duality deal with the child/parent relationship? Can you just say "there is no me"? (so no child)?

No, there is not a non-dual way to raise children. Non-duality is not about “How to do?“ but about understanding the function of the mind as illusory and not real. This understanding will spontaneously, uncontrollably and unpredictably express itself in the apparent individual‘s actions, speech and thoughts, illusory it may be.

So to answer the question above: Who would be the parent who says: “There is no me“? It would be a “somebody“. This would be a superficial understanding. Just be aware, that it is the ego who claims to be nobody and you will probably not say such nonsense to your children! Real understanding that the “Me meaning the parent“ is illusory and not real means the child too is illusory and not real and words too are illusory and not real for they are just sounds and not real words with real meanings in Life.

If this is clearly understood, the question would not arise, who is there to be a parent or a child. There would be just witnessing sounds made by life in the apparent body of the parent and in the apparent body of the child: Oneness in form of the parent talking to Oneness in form of the child. In Oneness it is seen, that the separation between parents and their children is illusory as is every other thought too.

Then, spontaneously, unpredictably and uncontrollably, Life as the parent will respond to Life as the child free of the beliefs of the conditioned mind about how to raise children to make them “good and happy“.

But nevertheless the question remains: How to raise children if you are a parent whose understanding of the mind is not complete yet?

To be good parents to children, it is commonly believed that parents should love their children. Trying to be loving is not wrong, even if man is not the doer! Don‘t be confused by the message that doership is illusory! Understand the message: Illusory does not mean that it does not exist, it exists but not in the manner the mind thinks it exists. That‘s all! So if you believe to be the doer, you could try - if it happens to you - to love your children, but try it in the right manner, illusory it may be.

What is meant by trying to love in the right manner? It means: Try to love your children, as everybody else, unconditionally! Even if this will not happen only because you want it to happen, your sincere attempt - if it happens - will make you aware of the mind‘s false beliefs about love and you will come to understand that the love which your mind believes to be love is just illusory and not real.

The mind is based on comparing, judging, blaming, guilt, insisting, demanding, expecting and is therefore not capable to really love unconditionally. This is the mind‘s illusory function and nothing is wrong with it at all. Sincerity is needed! There has to be the imperturbable intention to really want to find out what real Love is. If this happens to you, you could ask yourself for example:

Is it love, if parents compare their children with other‘s?
Is it love, if parents want their children to be different than what they appear to be?
Is it love, if parents praise their children expecting them to do the “right“ thing again?
Is it love, if parents scold their children expecting them to behave better?
Is it love, if parents reward their children for achivements expecting them to improve further?
Is it love, if parents punish their children?

Parents, be compassionate with your children AND with yourself always! It is paramount to always accept one‘s own capability or incapability to really love the child. If there is a feeling of guilt involved, it will be very difficult to just watch the ego‘s reaction. So watch the self-blaming too and always be compassionate with yourself, come what may!

Always keep in mind that you are not the doer, speaker and thinker and that you are not able to do anything about the mind‘s reactions to its conditioned beliefs about parenting which keep “you“ reacting. And this should be proof enough that parents are not at all in control of parenting.

Parents should be happy that Life gives them the opportunity to understand their own mind through their children. Enjoy every experience with your children, painful it may appear, albeit illusory. Understand: The apparent difficulties in daily life with your children are illusory thoughts in the mind and not in life, and look at it as an opportunity to grow into Life instead of remaining stuck in the mind.

Understand that mind and life are not synonymous; the mind is a delay in life. Life flows continuosly, spontaneously, uncontrollably and unpredictably. Mind unfolds intermittently, spontaneously, uncontrollably and unpredictably.

If this happens, parenting will become the door to enlightenment which is being true, unconditional Love itself. But can you imagine how difficult it might be for parents who are beginning to understand that Life is not a matter of doing but a matter of happening (which is a singular flow without a beginning and an ending or cause and effect) and that parenting is not a matter of controlling children but a matter of trust in Life? Understand that Life will flow in only one way and the way cannot be stopped by the mind.

If parents begin to realize that all their beliefs about raising children are illusory, they will begin to stop shaping, commanding and criticizing their children, at least they won‘t take it so seriously any more, and this too will be a happening, albeit illusory.

Teachers, neighbors, grandparents, husband, wife and the whole illusory society will probably jump on them with slogans of responsibility and will even attack their beginning understanding by calling it madness and egoistic. Such is the Power of Illusion! And this too happens, if it is meant to happen. The depth of understanding reflects the quality of speech and action, albeit illusory. Understand this and compassion naturally sets in.

So the intention - if it happens - to really become free of all illusory beliefs about parenting has to be very strong to overcome those illusory obstacles! However, enlightenment should not be made into a goal to be reached in the future, for Life is the enlightened, toughtless Here and timeless Now which is unconditional Love itself. It reveals itself through the understanding that the mind whose concepts of “love“ are based on conditions is illusory.

It is highly recommendable to meet a true master as a guide through the illusions of parenting as well as all other illusions of life. His trust in Life is contagious to those who are open to it and shows parents in themselves the power to overcome all resistance against a true understanding of parenting and Life as it really is. The authors have met such a master in Dr. Vijai S Shankar who trusts life and realizes what life is and what the mind is not!

© Marcus Stegmaier, M.A., and Yvonne Machacek-Stegmaier, parents of Mara (8), Anna-Lea (5) and Lou (1)

www.acadun.com
www.evolutionofmind.org

0
Your rating: None

Marcus Stegmaier

melanie's picture
User offline. Last seen 1 year 5 days ago. Offline
Joined: 05/19/2014
Posts:
Your real concern should be

Your real concern should be to remove all dangers but don't interfere with the child; let him go on his way. ~Osho

From belief to clarity.

char826ste (not verified)
Children need strict

Children need strict dicipline

User offline. Last seen 6 years 8 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 04/09/2010
Posts:
...

Marcus: “Always keep in mind that you are not the doer, speaker and thinker and that you are not able to do anything about the mind‘s reactions…”

It would make sense to remain true to ourselves. To deny a felt sense of being the doer would not make sense. But to try to change the mind’s reactions would be senseless too. I cannot remove the shadow of my body while I’m walking in the sun. Similarly, it is useless to try to remove any reaction of my mind as long as the belief that I am the doer is taken for granted. And when man’s doership begins to look illusory the tendency to change or improve ourselves or others will begin to look futile and needless too.

Marcus: “Understand that mind and life are not synonymous; the mind is a delay in life.
Life flows continuously, spontaneously, uncontrollably and unpredictably. Mind unfolds
intermittently, spontaneously, uncontrollably and unpredictably.”

How is the mind a delay in life if life is timeless? I mean, how could a delay exist where time is absent?

If mind is a reflection of life, how could life flow continuously while the mind unfolds intermittently?

Randy Breuer

marcus's picture
User offline. Last seen 1 year 4 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 02/14/2010
Posts:
Timeless life projects itself as illusory time.

Randy: “Marcus: “Always keep in mind that you are not the doer, speaker and thinker and that you are not able to do anything about the mind‘s reactions…” It would make sense to remain true to ourselves. To deny a felt sense of being the doer would not make sense.“

Response: This paragraph is in the context of the paragraph before: “Parents, be compassionate with your children AND with yourself always! (...)“ In this context it means the reason for why parents should never blaim themthelves meaning watch the blaiming too if it happens. Unconditional .ove is not about loving the other and blaming oneself if it doesn‘t work, unconditional love is also about loving oneself. Then the illusory separation between “me“ and “other“ will subside.

Randy: “Similarly, it is useless to try to remove any reaction of my mind as long as the belief that I am the doer is taken for granted.“

Response: Never try to remove any reaction even if the belief that you are the doer subsides being taken for granted. The conditioned reaction of the mind will happen if it is meant to happen and it will not happen if it is not meant to happen. After an understanding of the mind, the reaction to the conditioned beliefs is more unlikely to happen, but nothing could be done about it either if it is meant to happen.

Randy: “How is the mind a delay in life if life is timeless? I mean, how could a delay exist where time is absent?“

Response: Life is timeless projecting itself as light and sound which is light too but at a lesser speed. Time is a thought too. Illusory time does exist. „Mind is a delay in life“ is meant relatively from the point of view of the ego. For the ego there are apparent actions, but these actions are in fact sound appearing as the thought of a certain action. The body is light, the mind is sound. Light moves as the body and the mind moves as sound which is a delay. Only after the certain action has yet begun the mind thinks about it. It might not appear like that, but as life, the manifestation of life as its own projection, is one singular movement of the one singular moment, every “action“ has always begun before sound transforms into the word of the action.

Randy: “ If mind is a reflection of life, how could life flow continuously while the mind unfolds intermittently?“

Response: It is about your direct experience: movement is always present, but thoughts are there with interruptions. So the mind could never “describe“ the whole singular movement of life. In fact the mind is contained in the singualar movement which is proof enough that mind cannot conduct life. If mind could conduct life it should be always there, but it isn‘t. Yet it seems to the ego like the mind were always present, because the ego is not aware of the interruptions in the intermittent flow of mind. The focus of the ego is on thoughts and therefore it believes them to be real. The focus could not be put on the „silence“ between the thoughts deliberately, this would also just be the thought of no-thought. But a shift could happen that thoughts are perceived as sound by no-one. This is a change in perspective. Then it is obvious that life is a continuous flow and mind is an intermittent flow.

www.acadun.com
www.evolutionofmind.org

Marcus Stegmaier

User offline. Last seen 6 years 8 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 04/09/2010
Posts:
Can man know his children and know what's best for them?

As for the mind being a delay in life:
I understand that light/life is not conducted by sound/thoughts - light produces sound. Light is followed by sound. Life happens even before thinking of making it happen happens to the ego in the mind. Man comes to know events, situation, actions etc. after they have happened to him. Another way of how I understand the mind as a delay in life is that life is not even for an attosecond (a billionth of a billionth of a second) the same while recognition/thinking requires illusory time.

The recognition of an action would be the illusory interpretation of a singular movement of light. To "see" somebody sitting would require the thought of "sitting" in the mind, superimposed onto life at a precise moment - not even as a "real-time" label but more like a "post" declaration - to project the illusory act of sitting in the mind in the present.

But are events/actions/situations which man thinks he sees in the present not illusory "happenings" in the past? Meaning, what man thinks is (in) the present is (in) the illusory past? And the real present is the now where he and his children are alive which man can never know because time and thinking are absent "there"? If so, how real could thinking be? How valid could any thought be?

If life is a singular movement, what is movement? If everything is moving, is there any movement at all?

If light is all there is and the mind is life's reflection and if thoughts in the mind happen with interruptions, what do we mean by "interruptions"? I mean, what is in between the interruptions?

Why did you write the word "silence" between inverted commas? Is that to point out that the "silence" between the thoughts is sound too which we cannot hear? It would only underline the illusoriness of meaningful thoughts because there would be just sound, either as "meaningful" thoughts or as a gap of "silence" between them. It would mean that the end of a thought and the beginning of a gap does not exist, meaning - thinking is totally illusory.

And man relies on thoughts to "raise", "love" and "correct" his children?!

Randy Breuer

marcus's picture
User offline. Last seen 1 year 4 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 02/14/2010
Posts:
The capacity of the mind to imagine is unimaginable!

The mind interprets wisdom and thinks it is wisdom. Randy, your explanations are valid from a relative point of view - nothing wrong with it. However they do not include a clear view from beyond the mind.

Randy: “As for the mind being a delay in life: I understand that light/life is not conducted by sound/thoughts - light produces sound.“

Response: Light appears to produce sound to the mind. Understand light reflects as sound. Sound is an illusion of light.

Randy: “Light is followed by sound.“

Response: Light appears to be followed by sound to the mind. Understand sound is a delay in light.

Randy: “To "see" somebody sitting would require the thought of "sitting" in the mind, superimposed onto life at a precise moment...“

Response: There is not somebody sitting which could only be seen sitting if there is a thought in the mind. The thought “somebody is sitting there“ is all there is. There is no outside reality, everything is just light. Therefore there is also no precise moment to which the thought could be superimposed. There is the timeless Now which projects the singular movement of life and which includes sound appearing as thoughts too. There is no outside world. The mind is the world, illusory it may be.

Randy: “But are events/actions/situations which man thinks he sees in the present not illusory "happenings" in the past?“

Response: From a relative point of view, yes. But in fact there is no past, present and future as such. Every thought is a projection of the timeless Now in form of sound. With this understanding the question does not arise about when something happens. Nothing happens in Life, illusory thoughts happen in the mind and past, present and future are thoughts too. But yes, relatively speaking, for explanation‘s sake, the mind is a delay in life. And that the thought of the action comes after the action itself is also not really the reason that man is not the doer. In fact the action itself is an illusory thought only and not an actuality in life. No word could ever denote the whole singular movement of life, albeit illusory. With this understanding the question of doership or non-doership does not even arise: no action - no doer.

Randy: “And the real present is the now where he and his children are alive which man can never know because time and thinking are absent "there"?“

Response: Man and his children are not alive in the Now. The Now is aliveness itself projecting itself as man and his children. Man is not making a spiritual experience in the Now, but the spiritual Now makes the illusory experience of itself as the thought of man and his children.

Randy: “If life is a singular movement, what is movement? If everything is moving, is there any movement at all?“

Response: There is not every-thing moving, there is only singular movement. This movement is light and includes sound too. Sound appears as “everything“ to the mind. Randy‘s perspective is as if the world were real containing an illusion. Look at it from a different angle: There is no-thing appearing as every-thing.

www.acadun.com
www.evolutionofmind.org

Marcus Stegmaier

marcus's picture
User offline. Last seen 1 year 4 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 02/14/2010
Posts:
Comment: "The mind's capacity to imagine is unimaginable!"

Marcus: "The capacity of the mind to imagine is unimaginable!
The mind interprets wisdom and thinks it is wisdom. Randy, your explanations are valid from a relative point of view - nothing wrong with it. However they do not include a clear view from beyond the mind."

Response: Whether "Randy's mind" really thought that what was written as Randy were wisdom - who knows? It could never really be known what "others" intend. With "mind" was not meant a person. There is no real person. Man is not the thinker, speaker or doer anyway. So the post is about "anybody's mind" who could possibly misunderstand "Randy's post".

Explanations about the function of the mind are never meant "personally". So nothing should be taken personally at all. Only then it becomes really possible to watch the mind - if it is not claimed "my mind" any more. And maybe this happens to Randy, for a further post did not happen to the above one.

Love to all!

www.acadun.com
www.evolutionofmind.org

Marcus Stegmaier

User offline. Last seen 6 years 8 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 04/09/2010
Posts:
Who raises children?

Generally, children come to know more than their parents. It makes me wonder how a society could sophisticate if children were raised by their parents. If a certain generation were the teacher of a younger one, how could the younger generation go beyond the older one? The older generation can't teach what it does not know to a younger one. But the younger generation does leave the older one “behind” because it comes to know more than the older one, which seems to be an indication that children are raised by life and merely seemingly by their parents.

Randy Breuer

marcus's picture
User offline. Last seen 1 year 4 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 02/14/2010
Posts:
Who raises children?

Randy:“ The older generation can't teach what it does not know to a younger one.“

Response: The teaching of knowledge is an illusion. It means that life sophisticates the movements of an apparent child relatively higher than its parent‘s movements AND the sounds also sophisticate simultaneously. This means that the knowledge about what the child has seemingly learned is also manifested by life and not dependent on a phenomenon of cause and effect i.e.“learning“ and“teaching“ knowledge. All knowledge is illusory, meaning life unfolds without being depending on knowledge.

And yes, Randy, relatively speaking, children are raised by life and not by the parents. This understanding is trust in life and leads to "real“ parenting: To care for the children without being worried about them. This is also a happening and part of the sophistication process of life and not done by the mind. The depth of understanding reflects the quality of speech and action in parents, albeit illusory.

www.acadun.com
www.evolutionofmind.org

Marcus Stegmaier

lucy's picture
User offline. Last seen 5 years 40 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 01/14/2010
Posts:
Children

Great thread.

What I have discovered is that that most parents worry about thier children, but worry although we are condtitioned to believe otherwise is not very useful for anything. Worrying about your childred does not help one to stay clear and alert to respond to your children. The ego convinces us that if we do not worry about our children, we are not good parents and maybe we do not love them enough, but the opposite is true. Loving your children means as Marcus said, accepting them uncondtionally, not trying to change or mould them into what we think would be best for them. Usually what we believe is best for our children is what we believe is best for us; what is going to cause us the least pain. For example, we do not want anything bad to happen to our children because the truth is that we have a deep seated fear that we could not bear the pain. The truth is that we have absolutely no way of knowing what is best for our children, because the Truth is alive in the moment. We are always trying to apply old solutions (all known is outdated) to solve new "problems". It cannot be done. Once we really understand this, a trust in life starts to develop.

There is a story about a child who brings home his report card and shows it to his parents. The report card shows that the child has earned an "A" in the soccer unit and a mere "C-" in Math. The parent looks at the report card and says "Perhaps we need to get you a tutor in Math". If we are really open and present to our children, we can see that the child does not need a tutor in math but a coach in soccer.

marcus's picture
User offline. Last seen 1 year 4 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 02/14/2010
Posts:
Not-knowing does not know advices for parenting!

Lucy: "The truth is that we have absolutely no way of knowing what is best for our children, because the Truth is alive in the moment."

Response: Yes. The truth is the not-knowing. Life responds to itself out of the not-knowing so to speak.

Lucy: "If we are really open and present to our children, we can see that the child does not need a tutor in math but a coach in soccer."

Response: Not knowing will watch what happens and not interpret what would be wise for the future of the child. Not knowing is aware that the child "needs" what ever happens and not the opposite of what the parent's conditioned "knowing" thinks it needs. There are many possibilities: Perhaps it is meant to be that the child gets a tutor in Math AND a coach in sports.

Your point is taken, Lucy. But in addition the point to be made here is that there here are no advices how to "handle" a practical situation of parenting and this thread wants to avoid to make this impression by all means, even though Lucy might not have meant it like that.

www.acadun.com
www.evolutionofmind.org

Marcus Stegmaier

lucy's picture
User offline. Last seen 5 years 40 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 01/14/2010
Posts:
Using practical examples may further understanding

Marcus said: Your point is taken, Lucy. But in addition the point to be made here is that there here are no advices how to "handle" a practical situation of parenting and this thread wants to avoid to make this impression by all means, even though Lucy might not have meant it like that.

Lucy's response: I do not see anything wrong with giving practical advice as long as it is made clear that it cannot be tailored or applied ready made to anything that is Alive (the moment). Much of the understanding that took place here has been a result of people sharing their everyday practical experiences. The notion of doership will continue till it doesn't, even trying to avoid giving advice is ego.

marcus's picture
User offline. Last seen 1 year 4 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 02/14/2010
Posts:
It was not meant to avoid advices.

Lucy: "I do not see anything wrong with giving practical advice as long as it is made clear that it cannot be tailored or applied ready made to anything that is Alive (the moment). Much of the understanding that took place here has been a result of people sharing their everyday practical experiences. The notion of doership will continue till it doesn't, even trying to avoid giving advice is ego."

Response: It was written: "...here are no advices how to "handle" a practical situation of parenting and this thread wants to avoid to make this impression by all means..." So it was not meant that the advice should be tried to be avoided, but it was meant that posts written by Marcus are not really understood if they get interpreted as practical advices. This to be avoided on behalf of the reader, if it happens.

The sentence in Lucy's post "children": "If we are really open and present to our children, we can see that the child does not need a tutor in math but a coach in soccer." has been explained. "Not knowing" is being free of all interpretations of what it means to "really be open and present to our children". This would not be "not knowing" but just spiritual knowledge that it is good to "see" that "the child does not need a tutor in math but a coach in soccer."

It is good to understand that the child will get what it is meant to get, not something in particular. Understanding is not about what one should do or not do. This was meant that here are no practical advices. And if practical advices happen to anybody, it could not be avoided, of course. "Here are no practical advices" does not mean that an ego tries to avoid them, it means that wisdom is not understood as long as it is interpreted by the mind as knowledge of what to do.

www.acadun.com
www.evolutionofmind.org

Marcus Stegmaier

User offline. Last seen 1 year 35 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 01/25/2010
Posts:
This makes sense to me.

This makes sense to me.

Part of the Action

We remain committed to be on the forefront of what will support life, both in your family and on planet earth. 

 

My interaction with you is an Experiment to further enable this vision to be true, and up to the rhythm that you are a part of the action.  

 

Please contribute to make this vision real.  

With Heart Felt Thanks, Richard Miller.

  

 

Who's online

There are currently 0 users and 6 guests online.