In the Person of Dualism

by Robert Wolfe on December 11th, 2011

Due to our habitual experience of sectioning and parsing the present reality, in order to manipulate it for effects in the daily world of relative needs, we tend to carry this inclination over into what would be our spiritual perspective.

To be specific, this can be noticed in the concern we express regarding the presumed relationship and complicated interworkings of such selective concepts as "mind," "thought," "witness" and so on.

To one who perceives in terms of being a (separate) "self," that self's mind, thoughts, awareness et al are elements of a fragmented reality which needs to be "harmonized" with effort.

For the one for whom the image of being an isolated, separate entity has dissolved, the problematic ideas of "mind," "thoughts," "witnessing," "awareness" etcetera disappear with it.

The point of the nondual teachings has basically to do with freedom and peace. There will be neither, as long as there is a notion that the present actuality should not be what it is: "My mind should not be in this state"; "It would be better if my thoughts were absent"; "Some times I am the Witness, most times I'm not"; "My awareness does not seem to be what my guru says it should be..."

Can you see that such "better/worse" attitudes are dualism personified? The sagacious teachings urge us to transcend such designations, and to recognize that a singular, unbroken actuality is the essence of all that is occurring--good, bad or otherwise.

When you can be present with whatever seems to be appearing as mind, thought, awareness, witness and so forth, without equivocation, that is the freedom and peace that the rishis are describing. When there are not preferences for some particular state or condition over another, where can consternation arise?


Posted in Living Nonduality, Monograph, Questions    Tagged with Witness, dualism, Mind, Thoughts, Awareness


2 Comments

Diego - December 21st, 2011 at 10:01 AM
"To one who perceives in terms of being a (separate) "self," that self's mind, thoughts, awareness et al are elements of a fragmented reality which needs to be "harmonized" with effort"

Isn't that "one who perceives" by definition a separate one? If not, who is the "one" perceiving? If there is no "one", how can "one" do anything about changing the perception of the self, for example? Who would be the "one" making the effort?
Natalie - December 27th, 2011 at 1:44 PM
Hi Diego. Robert says to let you know that his most recent blog post, "I: First Person Singular?", may be relevant to your query. Here is the link to it: http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/12/27/i-first-person-singular

Leave a Comment
Search


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)