You are hereForums / Non-Duality / 'Happpening' versus 'Doing'
'Happpening' versus 'Doing'
My dear non-duality brothers and sisters,
Not for one tiniest moment inside of time is there 'just something happening' except as a receptivity or 'passive mode' of the mind.
Considering that, it may be worthwhile to understand why the ONE engages as time, and start to THINK just for one moment?
Thinking originates and creates...Let us get to an understanding of how Being and Thinking relate in non-duality, instead of ignorantly equating illusion with mind, and mind with thinking.
There is no 'non-duality' without thinking to begin with.
- 697 reads
-
Peter: “Mirages all the same.
Mirage 1 labels Subject A as real.
Mirage 2 labels Subject A as illusory.
Despite their disparate views of Subject A, and their desire to support their perceptions with mirage-speak, they are still both mirages.
Only capable of speaking to or about other mirages.“
Response:
There are words (Mirage 1) which condition the mind to believe that the world is real.
And there are words (Mirage 2) which explain the mind as illusory to de-condition the mind for a clear understanding to happen, if it happens.
Mirage 3 labels Mirage 1 and Mirage 2 as "mirages". "Mirage" is something which does not exist at all, whereas "illusory" does not mean that it does not exist, it exists but not in the manner the mind thinks it exists.
If this is not clearly understood, it further conditions the mind instead of transforming into real wisdom. Of course the whole world is illusory (a "mirage"), but man is not aware of it as yet! The illusoriness of the mind has to be understood with clarity in every aspect of man‘s daily life.
Oh, but a mirage is an appearance. And appearances do exist... as appearances.
Just as the undifferentiated (AKA nonduality) appears as the differentiated (AKA duality).
All appearances are mirages and all mirages are appearances.
And this mirage apperceives that all discussions about what is real and what is illusory... are merely mirage-based perceptions about other mirages.
For mirages can only (ap)perceive other mirages. Appearances can only (ap)perceive other appearances.
The differentiated cannot (ap)perceive the undifferentiated.
No matter how artfully you may use mirage-language to convey that you think that you do.
Peter: The differentiated cannot (ap)perceive the undifferentiated.
Response: The real ("undifferentiated") could never be perceived. Understand the illusory as illusory and matter is over. Only the illusory could be enjoyed, not the real.
"The real ("undifferentiated") could never be perceived."
Ah, thank you for revealing this particular thought-form of yours,
It is the crux of your dillema, Marcus.
Real versus not real (illusory) is a tool of differentiation.
Any form of "this, not that"... is a tool of differentiation.
So when you label the undifferentiated as "real" (which you have), you are perceiving it through the lens of differentiation.
But the undifferentiated cannot be (ap)perceived by using a tool of differentiation (i.e. real versus illusory).
I'm suspecting that you may be very attached to a certain set of differentiation tools, Marcus.
One of which I cite above.
Peter: Real versus not real (illusory) is a tool of differentiation.
Response: "Illusory" is not the opposite of "real". It is the expression of the real. Differentiation is of the mind and it is illusory. Without illusory differentiation there would not be an illusory world.
Peter: Any form of "this, not that"... is a tool of differentiation.
Response: Enlightenment is not about to become a tomato. The function of the mind to differentiate is there in man. The ego takes it to be real, the witness understands it as illusory.
Peter: So when you label the undifferentiated as "real" (which you have), you are perceiving it through the lens of differentiation.
Response: The real as such could not be perceived for it is eternal and does not change. But the real reflects itself as the illusory, in this sense, the real could be perceived.
Peter: But the undifferentiated cannot be (ap)perceived by using a tool of differentiation (i.e. real versus illusory).
Response: The undifferentiated could never be perceived for it is undifferentiated. The mind searches for something real or undifferentiated and wants to perceive it. Understand the illusory as illusory - there is no real world to be perceived, only the illusory.
Peter: I'm suspecting that you may be very attached to a certain set of differentiation tools, Marcus.
Response: The "I" is always suspicious.
The ONE engages as time. All the "mirages", "appearances", and differentiated points of reference carry this value. We create a lot of stuff in the freedom of self-awareness and thinking, "mirages" and "appearances" do not cut it.
The ONE engages - no "mirages".
Andreas: The ONE engages as time. All the "mirages", "appearances", and differentiated points of reference carry this value. We create a lot of stuff in the freedom of self-awareness and thinking, "mirages" and "appearances" do not cut it.
Response: The one appears as thoughts and time and space to the mind. "We" is also a reflection of the one, not an actuality with a real capacity to create.
Andreas:“ Not for one tiniest moment inside of time is there 'just something happening' except as a receptivity or 'passive mode' of the mind.“
Response: What is the time in the tinest moment in time? How much of mind is present in the tinest moment in time? Nothing is happening in time, time is happening in nothing. Nothing projects itself as something in the mind. Nothing happens in life, illusory thoughts happen in illusory time in illusory mind.
Andreas: “Considering that, it may be worthwhile to understand why the ONE engages as time, and start to THINK just for one moment?“
Response: But what is that? The tinest moment could be considered if it were known. Consideration of any kind is nevertheless illusory and has to be. One singular moment projects itself as time and thought and appears to the mind as many separate moments.
Andreas: “Thinking originates and creates...Let us get to an understanding of how Being and Thinking relate in non-duality, instead of ignorantly equating illusion with mind, and mind with thinking.“
Response: “us“ who wants to “get an understanding“ is a thought too, nothing but sound. So what could be this kind of understanding other be than as illusory as the one who wants to possess it. Understanding which leads to knowledge is illusory confusion, understanding which leads to wisdom is real clarity.
Andreas: “...understanding of how Being and Thinking relate in non-duality... There is no 'non-duality' without thinking to begin with.“
Response: Being and thinking don‘t relate to one another in non-duality. Non-duality means that being and thinking are one appearing as separate.
Does Andreas never have unhappy thoughts? So what could “start to THINK“ mean?
Does Andreas never speak “unthoughtful“ words? So what could “start to THINK“ mean?
Does Andreas never do something which he regrets later? So what could “start to THINK“ mean?
This happens to every man, not just to Andreas. So this is proof enough that man is not the thinker, man is not the speaker and man is not the doer.
"Nothing projects itself as something in the mind", by the master of non-duality called "Marcus".
Andreas: "Nothing" must be pretty smart doing all that out of nothing?
"Having thoughts" is not thinking, a thought is not thinking, mind is not thinking - just do it.
"A moment in time" is time. The ONE engages as time. The understanding of time is the key to non-duality as integration.
'Non-duality' is not just a cultural, traditional Hindu Bias of "illusion". It is more than that. Let us not limit 'non-duality'. The Hindu Bias is authoritative in a certain way, but not ultimately, especially when it comes to this bullshit notion of "illusion", "illusory", and "illusory it may be".
There is no illusion, but account-ability. The One engages as time.
Andreas: "Having thoughts" is not thinking, a thought is not thinking, mind is not thinking - just do it.
Response: What could be "it"?! If "it" is something, it has to be a thought, otherwise man would not know "it". Sooner or later, so to speak, there has to be a thought to know anything. Therefore "having thoughts" is "thinking".
Andreas: ""A moment in time" is time. The ONE engages as time. The understanding of time is the key to non-duality as integration."
Response: What exactly do you want to understand, what do you want to integrate in non-duality? Non-duality means "one without a second" and not "two to be made one".
Andreas: "The Hindu Bias is authoritative in a certain way..."
Response: Only an authoritative mind could project the notion of "authoritative" onto others.
Andreas: "There is no illusion, but account-ability. The One engages as time."
Response: "account-ability", the One" (=the ego) and "time" are illusions.
Really? Un-thinking? Good. The only issue is that there is no "illusion", except for the mind? It is the mind that needs the distinction of "illusion"?
Thinking creates out of light in the mean time.
Andreas: "...there is no "illusion", except for the mind? It is the mind that needs the distinction of "illusion"?
Response: There is no outside world except in the illusory mind for the illusory individual in form of illusory thoughts.
Andreas: "Thinking creates out of light in the mean time."
Response: Again: If "you" could create and un-create whatever you want: Why does Andreas have unhappy thoughts from time to time? Why does Andreas say things which he may regret later? Is Andreas always perfectly doing what he "intended" to do?
There is always relativity, suffering, and misery...
The (wisdom)point of empowerment is: Mastery, not escapism.
Andreas: "There is always relativity, suffering, and misery."
Response: There is always relativity, suffering and misery in the mind, for mind has expectations about life.
Andreas: "The (wisdom)point of empowerment is: Mastery, not escapism"
Response: Real Mastery is the understanding that man is not the doer, speaker and thinker and that individuals, actions, time and the mind are illusory and not real.
Andreas: "Mastery. Not true..."
Response: Your daily life is the hallmark of your understanding. The mind's mastery is blaming, insulting, insisting, judging, expecting...
Real mastery is the understanding that man is not the doer. Compassion naturally sets in, if understanding happens, that actions and individuals are illusory and not real.
We ought to realize by now that this is a very crude understanding of 'doing' based on the Hindu Bias of "illusion", which is cultural and NOT absolute at all.
Sure, wo/man is not the DOER in that heavy sense of ego identification, desperation, and compensation.
Yet wo/man creates and THINKS! There is account-ability to be had in self-awareness. Integration is the key.
Andreas: We ought to realize by now that this is a very crude understanding of 'doing' based on the Hindu Bias of "illusion", which is cultural and NOT absolute at all."
Response: Any form of Culture is illusory and not real.
Not quite. It is a relative, but integral reality. So is the Hindu Bias of "illusion" - it is very valuable, but relative to integration.
Andreas: Not quite. It is a relative, but integral reality. So is the Hindu Bias of "illusion" - it is very valuable, but relative to integration.
Response: The revelation that the mind is an illusory manifestation of sound is not relative to anything. It shows that everything which appears real to the ego is relative, i.e. illusory. Therefore it is no "bias" at all.
"Revelation", the ultimate claim of 'Absolute Understanding' for the mind - good THINKING! Love it. ;)
Andreas: "Revelation", the ultimate claim of 'Absolute Understanding' for the mind - good THINKING! Love it. ;)
Response: The mind interprets according to its own beliefs.
Andreas: truth
Exactly...
Response: The mind (Andreas!) interprets according to its own beliefs.
Marcus (post #21 of this thread): The revelation that the mind is an illusory manifestation of sound is not relative to anything. It shows that everything which appears real to the ego is relative, i.e. illusory. Therefore it is no "bias" at all.
Response: The Hindu bias is seeking illusion versus reality. The bias is not that mind is a manifestation of sound, but that mind is an "illusory" manifestation of sound.
Who qualifies it as "illusory"? Reality or the mind of Marcus?
Andreas: The Hindu bias is seeking illusion versus reality. (...) Who qualifies it as "illusory"? Reality or the mind of Marcus?
Response: The reality of illusion is its illusoriness. To clarify how the real appears as differentiated to the mind, life manifests an explanation, albeit illusory, with the terms illusory and real, appearing as the words of an apparent individual.
"People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion." Albert Einstein
Marcus: The reality of illusion is its illusoriness. To clarify how the real appears as differentiated to the mind, life manifests an explanation, albeit illusory, with the terms illusory and real, appearing as the words of an apparent individual.
Andreas: Excuse me, but it sounds like a dog chasing its own "tale" with all the agency of "clarifying", "manifesting", and "explaining", "albeit illusory", while maintaining the notion of 'non-doing' at the same time?
How about accepting thinking as agency in all of this?
Andreas: Excuse me, but it sounds like a dog chasing its own "tale" with all the agency of "clarifying", "manifesting", and "explaining", "albeit illusory", while maintaining the notion of 'non-doing' at the same time?
Response: Doing and non-doing are both illusory! Actions are an optical and auditary illusion of light and sound, not an actuality in life. Man is not the doer does not mean that man is a non-doer!
Marcus: Doing and non-doing are both illusory! Actions are an optical and auditary illusion of light and sound, not an actuality in life. Man is not the doer does not mean that man is a non-doer!
Response: Good. The difference got a hold of "me".
Wo/man has a circle of influence though. S/he can decide certain things within his own creation out of self-awareness. There is an involvement of wo/man with the "optical and auditory illusion of light and sound" that causes changes, or not, depending on the choices made? Mysterious it may be...
Andreas: Wo/man has a circle of influence though. S/he can decide certain things within his own creation out of self-awareness. There is an involvement of wo/man with the "optical and auditory illusion of light and sound" that causes changes, or not, depending on the choices made?
Response: Life reflects illusory choices AND changes precisely so that it appears real to the ego.
Marcus: Life reflects illusory choices AND changes precisely so that it appears real to the ego.
Response: Interesting, why would light DO such a thing? Or, maybe, it is the "ego" doing "stuff"...and it is looking at the light to take its reflection as reality? I don't think so.
Come again, please?
Andreas: Interesting, why would light DO such a thing? Or, maybe, it is the "ego" doing "stuff"...and it is looking at the light to take its reflection as reality? I don't think so.
Come again, please?"
Response: Life does not do anything, everything appears as deeds to the mind only. This is the intelligence of life to reflect itself in a manner so that it may appear as real to the ego.
Mirage 1 labels Subject A as real.
Mirage 2 labels Subject A as illusory.
Despite their disparate views of Subject A, and their desire to support their perceptions with mirage-speak, they are still both mirages.
Only capable of speaking to or about other mirages.