You are hereForums / Non-Duality / The end of the seeker?

The end of the seeker?


15 replies [Last post]
zube's picture
User offline. Last seen 1 year 9 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 01/03/2010
Posts:

A theme which has emerged from various discussions on never not here and an issue for those on a "spiritual path" more generally is the conflict between 2 seemingly irreconcilable perspectives on seeking. On the one hand there's the idea espoused by Jeff foster, Tony Parsons, etc. that seeking is precisely the problem, its what keeps the seeker in a loop which never leads to awakening, cos the seeker is the very same substance as the false self; Tony parsons goes so far as to say there is nothing you can do to attain enlightemnet because there is no individual and hence no individual choice. ramesah balsakar says the same, that there is just what is happeneing, the doer is an illusion.

On the other hand, it seems that ramana maharshi did make a conscious choice and Sundance burke in his webcast makes the point that there is a genuine seeking its just that what most seekers call seeking is a subtle or not so subtle variation on the conventional seeeking we all have for power, sex, etc i.e. it wasn't genuine search for freedom. Eckhat tolle also seems to suggest that there's something you can do e.g. practice the power of now.

So is there a genuine conflict here between these 2 perspectives or is it just that jeff Foster Tony parsons etc. fail to adequately distinguish between "genuine" seeking and the seeking which is an egotistical mask for the nore conventional seeking for power, gratification (i.e. could call it spiritual materialism) ?

0
Your rating: None
Wim Hein's picture
User offline. Last seen 2 years 41 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 12/23/2009
Posts:
Not difficult...

Why it seems to be so difficult… this ONENESS?

It is here rite now. This is it. 


No such thing as a state or something that your body cannot handle.

A very simple example may clear up something.

There is a “me” sitting here looking at nature. What is going on than?
To see nature there has to be me, but also there must be something to see, in this case the nature.
Without me no nature, without nature no me.
The fact that seeing the totality is happening, is because it is all one movement in witch ONENESS is expressing itself.
It is simply not possible to split this all in one movement in to something separate.

That is why no me is there, but just the seeing off the totality.

The observer is the observed.

AYANOMA

n/a
User offline. Last seen 6 years 47 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 01/28/2010
Posts:
The end of the seeker

Hi Zube

---

A theme which has emerged from various discussions on never not here and an issue for those on a "spiritual path" more generally is the conflict between 2 seemingly irreconcilable perspectives on seeking.

-----

Persectives seen for what they are....the issue of inter-alia conflict/paradox stands resolved.

Akin, on waking up today morning sipping from a hot cup of tea and recalling the profound dilemma/conflict/paradox that was occupying you, between good intentions and evil intentions fashioning a course of a particular action, in the drama of your last night sleep-dream.

If the dilemma/conflict/paradox still occupies, has waking-up to the cup of tea happened as yet?

-----

On the one hand there's the idea espoused by Jeff foster, Tony Parsons, etc. that seeking is precisely the problem, its what keeps the seeker in a loop which never leads to awakening, cos the seeker is the very same substance as the false self;

------

Seeking is not the problem.

Nothing is a problem.

A series of unfolding actions(physical or in the domain of mentation), may have an accompanying sense of ownership, thus a sense of an agenda/goal/objective, thus an accompanying sense of belief that the unfolding actions will reach "oneself" to that goal/objective etc etc.

The entirety, as a play of thought.

Seeing this, which is not the thought " I see it"..

..the play of thought in it's entirety is witnessed,

irrespective of whether the unfolding actions continue to unfold, aka as some esoteric Tantric meditation, or the unfolding actions change in its content, Tantra goes to Bhakti, Bhakti goes to Advait, Advait goes to the nearest pub for a shot of Remy Martin.

Or the accompanying sense of agenda/ownership/projected goals etc etc....ceases...... while the unfolding actions continues..

...Or....the entirety ceases in totality.

No problem, at any aspect of the play of thought.

-----

Tony parsons goes so far as to say there is nothing you can do to attain enlightemnet because there is no individual and hence no individual choice.

------

Nothing can be done to attain enlightenment, because it is not a separated, distinctive state which has the quality of attainability.

And the belief that doing has to be given up and then attainability of Wa-Wa-Land is guaranteed, is the same baloney.

-----

ramesah balsakar says the same, that there is just what is happeneing, the doer is an illusion.

-----

And that happening is not part of the same illusion?

if yes, then the saying that the doer is an illusion, this very saying does it not arise within the same illusion?

If yes, then of what import is the assertion that there is doer or that there is no doer?

-----

On the other hand, it seems that ramana maharshi did make a conscious choice and Sundance burke in his webcast makes the point that there is a genuine seeking its just that what most seekers call seeking is a subtle or not so subtle variation on the conventional seeeking we all have for power, sex, etc i.e. it wasn't genuine search for freedom.

----

Through the sense of seeking of power, sex, bottle of dark Barcadi rum...is the sense of belief that the specific sought-thingy will provide, bliss, satisfaction, security whatever.

Seeing the temporal nature of what these thingies fetch, the seeking morphs for the eternal, which is clothed in the halo of the search of spirituality, Truth, Enlightenment, Self-Realization, whatever.

Is there any difference between the two seeking?

Can there ever be any thing like a genuine seeking in contrast to non-genuine seeking?

------

Eckhat tolle also seems to suggest that there's something you can do e.g. practice the power of now.

-----

LOL....the power of now.

When thought cannot even create the now, who would be there to experience the power of now?

In the very conceptualization of something as a "now"...

..it is already the past, as memory.

------

So is there a genuine conflict here between these 2 perspectives or is it just that jeff Foster Tony parsons etc. fail to adequately distinguish between "genuine" seeking and the seeking which is an egotistical mask for the nore conventional seeking for power, gratification (i.e. could call it spiritual materialism) ?

-----

The conflict arises in trying to bridge two or multiple perspectives.

Perspectives, as different thoughts ...seen for what they are......what conflict exists... to be resolved?

Is there a to-be-resolved-conflict between whether the child needs to do its homework or left to play with his crayons....

...the child of a barren woman?

User offline. Last seen 7 years 15 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 01/10/2010
Posts:
Seek and you will find

seeking you will find.call it seeking or interest You have to start somewhere.

JOHN

Payt's picture
User offline. Last seen 6 years 7 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 01/01/2010
Posts:
Dying

oops, wrong button

In the Beginning, the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.

User offline. Last seen 6 years 50 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 12/19/2009
Posts:
seeking was just

seeking was just exhaustion...

NOW
i post another real-time pesher
She picks the songs( for THIS Moment :-)
"
Forever
.
.
Love IS Love
"

do You SEE what i am doing ?
THIS is ONLY real-time data.

dont panic.. someOne do.
i will explain latter
if someOne *else hasnt already.

P.S.
i dont practice anything.
why should i... i am already looking at IT.

Thank God i have little to
say and it comes out like an arrow.
AND
i do NOT(cant) understand God.. only SEE Her.

WE misplaced the heart chakra.
.

google this exact.. "the surround is consciousness"
You are looking..with just functional senses..at Your Soul..
the least of GodCreation. JC said IT this way.. I AM the Light.
Another said.. I AM THAT.

User offline. Last seen 6 years 50 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 12/19/2009
Posts:
" practice the power of

"
practice the power of now.
"

sorry... i am making a mess in this new forum for *me.

NOW
"
Zen Pause
"
i am JUST watching the what-IS..

there is no past
AND
THIS Moment IS the future -- JK

some people run from the room
when One says THAT.
.
.
maybe i should create a folder called meL_zMess..
THAT

"flows into the ocean" -- a CNN news item NOW

Thank You God.. i didnt know what to call the destination.
:-)
.
.

google this exact.. "the surround is consciousness"
You are looking..with just functional senses..at Your Soul..
the least of GodCreation. JC said IT this way.. I AM the Light.
Another said.. I AM THAT.

RishiEd's picture
User offline. Last seen 3 years 2 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 12/19/2009
Posts:
Seeking is Happening

When you try to parse various teachings and pointers with the mind, you'll arrive at contradictions, paradoxes and confusion. In the case of the "philosophy of seeking," if seeking is occurring the pointers that say that seeking is a problem is asking you to look closely at your own seeking and see what is its source, how is the ego idea involved, and what is the imagined payoff.

For those that say seeking is fine, they are pointing to the fact that seeking is occurring, that it is happening and seeing that brings you to the present where everything occurs.

Neither statement's purpose is to proscribe a path or chastise the student.

Listen to these teachings with the heart and try to see beyond the words and ideas to what they are pointing to:
Your presence awareness and the absence of an independent entity called You.

User offline. Last seen 7 years 37 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 01/04/2010
Posts:
Via Positiva and Via Negativa

The problem lies in looking for a single definitive doctrine rather than merely many means of entering into contemplation. Quite obviously, one would never begin the spiritual path unless one is either suffering or confronted with those whom you love suffering. To talk in a positive way about a gradual progress to enlightenment is a skillful way to approach those who are initially drawn to spiritual practice.

At a certain point in one's practice, one must have the rug yanked out from under one's feet. These concepts such as "seeking", "enlightenment", "self-inquiry", etc. are an intrinsic part of our dis-ease. There is no need for antidotes in the natural state.

Without them however, one would never lay the groundwork necessary (i.e. calming the mind, quieting the kleshas) for stable recognition. I feel that it is not good for would-be spiritual teachers to be so exuberant about applying this method without due consideration of their audience.

This highlights several problems: there are many contemporary advaitins that confuse eloquence with spiritual teaching, experiences born of meditation are NOT realization, contemporary teachers are not availing themselves of a tremendous wealth of traditional pedagogical techniques for imparting understanding to their students.

Teaching is an intensely personal and interactive activity. In this post-Gutenberg world, we are quick to commit teachings to text without thinking through how they can be misunderstood. Beyond that, I am quite convinced that most who try to convey their understanding outside of traditional lineages have not thought through the karmic repercussions of provoking others to insight. For their sake I hope that their own realization is unshakeable because I think that they are in a very real way adopting many children whose spiritual succour becomes their responsibility.

Time dissipates to shining ether, the solid angularity of facts.
-Ralph Waldo Emerson

User offline. Last seen 7 years 23 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 01/03/2010
Posts:
Investigation

Tony Parsons does not say that you can't do anything, he says there is no "you" who can do anything.
In my experience, we need to investigate, to look and see what our true nature is. And from that, we can see that all concepts are false.
The root of all problem is the concept of a "me", the person, the seeker is just imagination in what we are.
With the looking comes the understanding of what's real.

User offline. Last seen 4 years 23 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 12/20/2009
Posts:
Quote: ¨So is there a genuine

Quote: ¨So is there a genuine conflict here between these 2 perspectives or is it just that jeff Foster Tony parsons etc. fail to adequately distinguish between "genuine" seeking and the seeking which is an egotistical mask for the nore conventional seeking for power, gratification (i.e. could call it spiritual materialism)?¨
---------------------------------------------------------

Well, what I notice lately, from my unenlightened perspective, that it is possible for a teacher to be fully correct in his/her explanation from a philosophical standpoint, while at the same time this is not necessarily what all seekers need to hear.

I personally like it when a teacher is flexible, so that he/she doesn´t have any problems with jumping between the absolute and the relative level. It is totally unhealthy and false to deny your body (as some advaitists tend to do), and in the same way it seems to me false to deny the relative level. Even if this finally is an illusion, just as the body. It just seems silly to me, for the absolute to have a problem with the relative. Who has a problem with what?

But finally I don´t think there is a conflict between the 2 perspectives. They depend on each other.
Although there are some teachers who who have not fully seen everything, I think most teachers are genuine.Although there methods may differ.

I find it more and more interesting to find that most teachers contradict even themselves. Especially the so-called big ones. One minute they say ´white´ to a certain student and the other minute they say ´black´ to another student. And the words are both true, as far as words can be true.

(btw: I don´t know a lot about Jeff Foster, but from what I have seen he strikes me as a fairly flexible teacher - if my memory is correct. Tony Parsons seems to me, from what I´ve seen, quite strict indeed. Perhaps that´s just what some people need to hear.)

Menno's picture
User offline. Last seen 1 year 40 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 12/30/2009
Posts:
"genuine" or seekers trade union:)?

I am happy to read your interesting post.
For me each seeking is some basis and some start point. But all our personal goals to become something finally will leave us unsatisfied. And then seeking can start so there is nothing wrong with that. There is not anybody that did not was a seeker in lost of something. (in that story)
It is more the lack or ability of some speakers that they cannot talk anymore as from their previous false roles . It seems some lack or ability to adapt to some searchers.
As if being launched to the Moon standing there and saying ah well it ‘s very easy to walk here you can do it. But they forgot their trips and all common obstacles of the mind. And are not capable to rewrite their discovery into each story. That is some difference between a speaker and known sources such as Maharshi or Menon or Maharaj or Balsekar. It is an art to make a good travel guide and not only to show the beach but all the known and unknowns obstacles and how to bypass these translated into each aspect. These false "i"s are very useful as pointers and everybody as part of the role as seeker had always needed that. The mind is useful and it’s structure in unfolding uncovering the obvious as pointer to fire up stick by stick.

In the pointers from Maharshi or S.K.Menon or N.Maharaj or R.Balsekar they also acknowledged these obstacles and advice some steps in between. But nowadays it has become more a kind of how to strip the core of it and try to sell it.
All psychological content related to the search process is being ignored or even legally disclaimed on the websites. So people pay for what they get. It seems more to the show of how to attract people for phone consults of 70$ a hour…in the name of Advaita. While in the ‘80’s u just pick up the phone and could discuss your topics without being charged.

But what has one to these kind of messages? It is something like “ok here you have a fire hold it and it is not hot”. While the more conventional seekers/teachers were capable to pinpoint on the light in the character of the seeker in the several stages towards. There is no common rule although in the process of seeking there are some steps that never can be passed to quickly. In the story timeline it cost many years to create that belief of separation, it can take long time to lose all belief in each aspect and in each feeling that we were used to experience as I.
Depending on obstinacy and courage towards a full stop to overcome our demons is not easy or bullshit as some dear to say. The ice cube in search for water.

One can say that “O wow you are that effortless being, or consciousness”. It looks so tough to be uncompromisingly. As if it is some bonus award approved by the genuine speakers trade union.
But who is their left to claim that or to write about? It would be prove of an owner.
There is nobody left or any need or desire to speak. This You that claims the watching of disappearance, this You that re-cognize this awareness is false I. Therefore I cannot say anything about Reality because Who says so? In the absence of I there is no one left to speak or say. Empty chair.
The myth is that some say “ah well I know it is not me…” Ego cannot write or talk about it’s own absence.. So finally it seems all second hands words, great-grandchildren of what we are.

wisdompoint's picture
User offline. Last seen 6 years 44 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 01/03/2010
Posts:
"genuine seeking"

I think there is a natural development of the soul towards what is understood as enlightenment or self-realization for definite reasons, which is only possible with the polar structure and flow of self-other, or self-world. There is a genuine 'seeking or need of completion' in this soul development that goes beyond our ego or personal perceptions.

As a person I may be more or less in alignment with this deeper need of my soul. Since we know about 'oneness', 'one without second', advaita, we may rationally short circuit our development and assert some "it" or "that", but we don't have the inner maturity to do so. In my spiritual group trainings I have encountered a lot of experiences and dramas unfolding around a premature claim to "beingness".

When we realize IT truly, it is never in contradiction to some world or other, because they are one and the same. Another thing to keep in mind, is the body. As long as we have a body, the ONE can actually not be realized in its full extent. I have experienced the bliss of the ONE, and my body was not able to sustain it for even one second. I would have died on the spot.

"God is an all consuming fire"

clarityBrown1's picture
User offline. Last seen 7 years 30 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 01/11/2010
Posts:
Life-Life (not Life-death)

If Now is not 100% 'full' then what is it? Now is not dependent on anything, not even the body. Now is totally independent of everything. 'As long as we have a body, the ONE can actually not be realized in its full extent.' This is a concept. To what full extent? Is right Now not 100% full? It must be 100%, otherwise it would not be. Nothing is missing. 'I have experienced the bliss of the ONE' - bliss is an experience - it is not the one. 'I would have died on the spot.' Again concepts of an imagined person. No person has ever died or ever will die. Life only knows Life. Death is illusionary.

Peace and Love to All

Payt's picture
User offline. Last seen 6 years 7 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 01/01/2010
Posts:
dying

You may indeed have 'died' on the spot.. but isn't that the point of it all? If you want to put it in biblical terms.. in Paul it's stated that it's no longer I that lives, but Christ in me. Christ being that which we as 'spiritual people' are seeking, that which we are, our true nature. When that 'you' dies, i imagine the dam breaks, and realisation happens.

Well.. that's the theory anyway. I wonder if it's really death in the sense of that 'you' stopping to exist. I guess it never existed in the first place, and that ego-death is the realisation that this is indeed the case.

In the Beginning, the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.

wisdompoint's picture
User offline. Last seen 6 years 44 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 01/03/2010
Posts:
dying

I should have been more specific. I meant to say that my body could not sustain that energy in its totality.

Which raises the interesting issue of the 'energy' of the 'state' ONENESS. It is not just anything. It is actual ABSOLUTE bliss and aliveness that blows all the relative fuses of the normal electrochemical body functions, especially of the nervous system.

People who are actually dealing with this energy are adamant about the discipline it takes to enable the body to actually handle a greater portion of it.

We can see with what merciless rigor Ramana Maharshi treated his body to reach his realization, or how the body and mind of Ramakrishna was affected by his bouts with samadhi.

SAT-CHIT-ANANDA (Being-Mind-Bliss)

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 2 guests online.