You are hereForums / Non-Duality / 'Happening' versus 'Doing' - a valid question?
'Happening' versus 'Doing' - a valid question?
Life is a happening. Every-thing just happens: thoughts, speech, deeds. Man is not the doer, speaker or thinker. And this is easy to understand for the mind, because it is logical. Only a few questions should be enough to make an intellectual understanding happen to man:
Does man never have unhappy thoughts? This is proof enough that man is not the thinker!
Does man never speak “unthoughtful“ words? This is proof enough that man is not the speaker!
Does man never do something which he regrets later? This is proof enough that man is not the doer.
However, this relative way to make man understand is not deep enough for him to really understand what the world is all about. Therefore the explanations about the illusoriness of doership proclaimed by the AAU (Academy of Absolute Understanding) don‘t stop here.
There is not every-thing (i.e. thoughts, speech, deeds) happening; there is only a singular movement. This movement is light and includes sound too. Sound is a delay in light, meaning: sound is not separate from light as an actuality in life. Sound is a reflection of light and appears as “every-thing“ in the mind.
“Man is not the doer“ is a beginning but not the end of understanding, because this perspective is as if the world were real, containing an illusion of doership. Look at it from a different angle: There is no-thing appearing as every-thing: thoughts, speech, deeds. The timeless ‚Now’ which is light projects itself as the singular movement of life and includes sound emitted by man which only appears as thoughts and not the other sounds of life.
There is no outside world. The mind is the world, illusory it may be. 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. Therefore the supposed subject of an action as well as 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. No action - no doer. With this understanding the question 'Happening' versus 'Doing' does not arise at all.
But the question is: Why does illusory confusion in man not stop immediately after this is understood by the mind? Understanding as knowledge leads to illusory confusion, understanding as wisdom leads to real clarity. Understanding as knowledge is the understanding of an “I“, whereas the “I“ is not present as a reality in the understanding as wisdom.
Therefore understanding or not understanding is not personal at all. Real understanding is the understanding that the mind, action, speech, thoughts and the “I“ is illusory. Real understanding happens to “nobody“. This is the reason why there will never be an “enlightened person“ as an actuality. An enlightened person is light which appears as a person with deep understanding that the world, man and mind are illusory and not real.
www.acadun.com
www.evolutionofmind.org
- 696 reads
-
Peter: "If your observations were a bonsai tree, Marcus, I'd cut every branch and twig off and leave only this trunk: "There is no-thing appearing as every-thing.""
Response: The trunk holds the branches but without the branches there would not be much of a flower! Man has a lot of knowledge in his mind. It needs to be understood with clarity. Therefore a bonsai-tree would not do it to explain the illusions of the mind (except in some rare cases perhaps).
"to explain the illusions of the mind".
You offer a revealing phrase here, Marcus. No doubt a passionately strong interest of yours. Explaining the illusions of the mind, that is. An artful dance of differentiation indeed.
But there is another dance that I would like for you to prance with your dancing shoes.
It's the dance that Kahlil Gibran alluded to when he said:
“Should you really open your eyes and see,
you would behold your image in all images.
And should you open your ears and listen,
you would hear your own voice in all voices.”
The dance of seeing your face in all faces, and hearing your voice in all voices.
The desire for differentiation unexpectedly ceases. And what remains is recognized as You.
Which includes me, of course. :)
Peter: "The desire for differentiation unexpectedly ceases. And what remains is recognized as You."
Response: As you seem to like quotations. Here is one: "When discrimination is not discriminating and yet discriminating, we have perfect enlightenment." (Suzuki, The essentials of zen-buddhism)
Meaning: To understand differences as illusory and not real without denying the existence of illusory differences is real understanding.
And this is also meant in Kahlil Gibran's quote: "you would behold your image in all images". He doesn't deny the differentiation between "all images"! Otherwise he would have written something like that: "...you would only see your image everywhere for there is just your image and not many.
...but the DOER is definitely man, and account-able.
Andreas: "Man is not the Doer, but the DOER is definitely man, and account-able."
Response: No action - no doer!
The ONE engages as time. Outside of time there is no doing of course. It goes both ways. "Non-doing" is attachment to one side only. Wherever there is agency in time, nature, and in humanity the nexus of 'Doing' is a reality, not an illusion.
It is not suitable and becoming to be engaged with something, while we think and suppose that it is an "illusion".
Both, non-action and action are complete. That is the key to integration and account-ability.
The real mystery is not non-duality, it is the involvement with time. To just dismiss that as "illusory" is the Hindu Bias of non-duality
It was not written "Non Action - No Doer", it was written "No action - no doer"!
Actions are fictions of the mind, not an actuality in life. This does not mean that there is somebody trying to avoid an action. Life flows and includes the auditary illusion of an action in the mind too. Nobody can make the illusory body-movement happen, nobody could prevent it, because there is no-body.
Oh, it is a spelling contest now? No action versus Non Action. I think we all know what it means without getting too literal?
The only thing that is not is "illusion". Everything else is. "Illusion" is the final fiction of the mind. The body is a mysterious cosmos, and is the embodied ONE engaging as time...
Where are we again with that in sophistication? Oh, self-awareness. Now, let us create as THINKERS, or un-create, if necessary. Account-ability is the key.
Andreas: "No action versus Non Action. I think we all know what it means without getting too literal?"
Response: "no action" means (in the context above) there is a singular movement which is life and actions are auditary illusions of sound as part of this singular movement. Actions are mental fictions. "Non action" would mean that man would stop to move, i.e. not even illusory actions would take place. This understanding leads to illusory confusion, the right understanding leads to real clarity.
Andreas: "The only thing that is not is "illusion". Everything else is."
Response: There is NOT real every-thing containing an illusion. "Illusion" is no-thing appearing as every-thing.
Andreas: "Where are we again with that in sophistication? Oh, self-awareness."
Response: In awareness there appears a self as an auditary illusion of sound, this is called "we" or Ego.
Andreas: "Now, let us create as THINKERS, or un-create, if necessary. Account-ability is the key."
Response: "if necessary" means that Andreas' thinker who creates and is account-able for it does make "mistakes". "mistakes" doesn't happen in life, but only in the mind through the capacity of the mind to compare what apparently is and what should be. So no real "mistake" could ever happen in life but only in the mind as illusory thoughts.
If man were the thinker, "un-creation" should never be "necessary"!
Un-thinking is very necessary for Absolute Understanding. But that is not creation; it is re-creation.
'Absolute Understanding' is only a first step. Then comes 'Relative Understanding', and with that 'Integral Understanding' - The work of humanity.
There is no escaping from that into 'non-duality' from some perceived "illusion".
Doing or no doing is not the point at all in 'integration'. It is just a hang up of the ego.
Andreas: 'Absolute Understanding' is only a first step. Then comes 'Relative Understanding', and with that 'Integral Understanding' - The work of humanity.
Response: Only the relative could be understood as relative, not the real. Understanding the relative as relative, i.e. illusory, is absolute understanding (however not "understanding the absolute"!).
Wisdompoint claims to be able to understand the "absolute". Therefore the mind is stuck in the belief that there were 1. absolute understanding, 2. relative understanding, 3. integral understanding.
This is just knowledge and not wisdom. The mind is confused!
Wisdompoint does not claim anything. It hermeneutically and heuristically examines all "claims", especially the claim of "Absolute Understanding" based on the Hindu bias of "illusion".....
Andreas: "Wisdompoint does not claim anything. It hermeneutically and heuristically examines all "claims","
Response: Wisdompoint hermeneutically and heuristically examines all "claims" based on the assumption that man were the doer. Therefore the ego interprets wisdom and this is not wisdom but knowledge.
Not quite, wisdom discerns absolute assumptions of some cultural Hindu Bias of 'non-duality' in contrast to integration. That is the point.
The ONE engages as time.
Andreas: "The ego interprets wisdom" Not quite, wisdom discerns absolute assumptions of some cultural Hindu Bias of 'non-duality' in contrast to integration. That is the point.
Response: Non-duality does not assume, it clarifies assumptions as illusory and not real. Duality assumes and insists its assumptions are real such as thinking, and this is normal and needed to maintain the illusory world, man and mind as real to the ego. That is the point to be understood if it happens.
...and it is 'Marcus' making the call on that, I assume ? ;) 'Marcus' is assuming the authority of judging assumptions? Yes?
Andreas: "Assumptions and it is 'Marcus' making the call on that, I assume ? ;) 'Marcus' is assuming the authority of judging assumptions? Yes?"
Response: The ego assumes a doer everywhere and rebels against "authority". Non-duality does not assume, it clarifies assumptions as illusory and not real.
Authority is ultimate DOING. The ONE engages as time, that IS authority. Authority equals account-ability.
Non-duality does not assume, of course, so what are all these assumptions of "clarifications" about then? Is that the 'Marcus' ego of non-duality? The blinded intention and will to "clarify" things for "deluded egos"?
Watch your backyard. Relativity is everywhere my friend.
Andreas: Authority is ultimate DOING. The ONE engages as time, that IS authority. Authority equals account-ability.
Response: Life conditions the mind and life de-conditions the mind, if it happens. This is the force of life, and the mind, assuming a "personal deed", interprets it as "authority".
Andreas: Non-duality does not assume, of course, so what are all these assumptions of "clarifications" about then? Is that the 'Marcus' ego of non-duality? The blinded intention and will to "clarify" things for "deluded egos"?
Response: Ego is illusory. Clarification happens - no real intention.
Andreas: Relativity is everywhere my friend.
Response: Relativity is in the mind.
....and so is the "Absolute", unless we start to think....Assumption = Absolute in this case?
Andreas: Relativity is in the mind....
....and so is the "Absolute", unless we start to think....Assumption = Absolute in this case?
REsponse: As long as the mind believes to be able to think, the Absolute is just a thought in the mind.
Andreas: Relativity is in the mind....
....and so is the "Absolute", unless we start to think....Assumption = Absolute in this case?
Response: The Absolute is as long just a thought in the mind as long man believes to be able to think.
Hi Marcus,
You replied one of my questions about doership a couple of months ago. Now everything is out of control. Seeking hurts and I am resting in non doing now, just being.
The whole notion of being the doer is real because of the same experiment in different forms. Such as:
-I am going to lift my hand in the air in 3 seconds.
- I am going to grab the plastic ball now
- I am going to wiggle my toe whenever I want.
Sometimes it doesn't happen that a movement occur even when there is a pre-thought. Sometimes it moves and it is I who moves it which is the after thought claiming it. So I cannot seem to see that moving or doing is happening on itself while having this pre-thoughts. So the I is the thought and maybe the initiator of the action. I am even closing the eyes and imagining the movement to happen and then the initiating force that I can do.
I watched your videolink on it by the doctor from india.
Any tips? truth even doesn't show up when I ask for truth to be shown. It is so confusing that seeking just stops.
I had glimpses that scratching the hand or a simple movement of the eye to the left or repositioning of the body are happening on itself but without these pre-thoughts, so that is why I am not sure about being the doer.
I tried to find your mail but I couldn't find it.
Have a great day
If your observations were a bonsai tree, Marcus, I'd cut every branch and twig off and leave only this trunk:
"There is no-thing appearing as every-thing."
That's it.
Emptiness appearing as Form.
The Undifferentiated appearing as Differentiated.
Neither is more or less (fill in your preferred evaluation standard here i.e. real versus illusory, enlightened versus unenlightened, etc.) than the other.
Whew! Ain't that a relief, eh?
Now go out there and enjoy The Dance of No-thing appearing as Some-thing.
Which means enjoying both the nothing AND something... that you are.