Non-conceptual Seeing

by Robert Wolfe on July 24th, 2014

QUESTION:I totally get that all is one and that there can be no separation. However, there is still the sense of being an individual here. What can be done beyond the intellectual acceptance of the nondual perspective that can take the seeing into the realms of the experiential rather than just a mental seeing?

 
There are teachers who would say that nothing can be done, since there is no separation in the first place so therefore there is nobody who can do anything. The seeing either happens or it doesn't and there is nothing that can be done to bring it about. If this is really the case, then interest in nonduality would be pointless and the apparent 'I' might as well just go all-out into acquiring as much pleasure and avoiding as much pain as possible and just accept the concomitant suffering that this entails, while vaguely hoping that the slim chance that enlightenment may spontaneously come about just might somehow occur.

I just don't know if there is any more point in investigating all this if I can already see, mentally, that there is no separation and that all is one but if the sense of the dissolution of the 'I' still hasn't happened and there is nothing that can be done to bring it about. Do I just give up investigating altogether and get on with a regular life or is there some other way of looking into this that can bear real fruit?

Reply

Nonconceptual Seeing

An "intellectual seeing" as you put it is a mtter of understanding that I and the Absolute are one.

The "experiential seeing" that you speak of, is the disappearance of the subtle duality in which two (supposedly different) concepts are "united." 

You need to first recognize that the 'I' is a (separative) concept. Then you need to understand that the 'I', which is unreal, seeks to complete itself by addition of (unification with) the Absolute: in this context, we have a concept-ion of the Absolute as some thing which we could possibly be apart  from, in the first place (thus, the "uniting").

When you comprehend what the enlightened masters have said—you ARE what you seek; or the observer IS the observed—the I "disappears," and the I's (false) conception of the "other" dissolves; with what remains, there are no ideas about needing, or seeking, anything.

It's alright to say, "there is an individual here"; from the relative, dualistic standpoint, that woudl appear to be so. 

But if, as you say, "there can be no separation," then in truth there can be no such reality as "individuals." 

It is the INDIVIDUAL who is seeking unity; the Absolute condition, itself, IS one of no separation: not two, not even one (nothing to conceive, or conceive being apart from). 

At present, you are insisting, at least by way of concept, that there is a separate YOU (this is the "seeker"). When it's thoroughly taken seriously that there can in actuality be no such thing as  a separate you, what "is left" is the Absolute condition. And it is impossible to unite with this, because it's already always-ever-present. If you weren't conceiving otherwise, you'd know that you can't come into union with that which no one has ever been apart from.


Posted in not categorized    Tagged with no tags


1 Comments

Sam Langberg - August 17th, 2015 at 1:58 PM
Is ness ..without a commentator as to anything. Just "knowing" ..no knower nor anything other than knowing.

Leave a Comment
Search


2017 (3)
2016 (5)
2015 (2)
2014 (6)
2013 (18)
2012 (34)
January (3)
February (3)
March (8)
April (2)
May (4)
June (4)
July (1)
August (3)
September (2)
October (1)
December (3)
2011 (41)
January (1)
February (2)
March (3)
April (1)
May (9)
June (4)
July (3)
August (6)
September (1)
October (2)
November (3)
December (6)
2010 (29)
February (3)
March (2)
May (6)
June (2)
August (7)
September (3)
October (1)
November (4)
December (1)
2009 (6)