From a site visitor: You talked about not being ambiguous and being impeccable and unwavering, but you imply in some writings that freedom can be gained if we lose personas. Aren’t gain and loss dualities?
F.: Thanks for your question, but instead of the word “imply,” use the verb “infer” in order to be impeccable. Say, “I have inferred from your writings certain conclusions that you neither stated nor implied.”
As recently as this month the following pointer was offered:
“Lost” is in quote marks because the duality of “loss vs. gain” is a lie.
In August, the point was made that…
there is no one to apply anything or to benefit from anything or to gain anything or to lose anything.
In July, the point was made that…
the realized certainly have no desire to gain anything.
References over the last year and a half have been made to those trying to gain control, gain power, or gain benefits, but those references alluded to persons—to the non-Realized. References have also been made to those who are subsumed in their religious or spiritual ego-states, trying to gain a reward or trying to avoid a punishment. But always the main pointer offered was, “There is no one to gain anything” and that “Gain and loss are dualistic concepts to be discarded.”
Furthermore, some describe Advaita as a philosophy that is “not about gaining anything but about losing everything.” At some point along the “path,” that pointer might be valid; however, by the end of the “journey,” it is Realized that—even as there is no “one” to gain anything—there is no “one” to lose anything either. Is that an “ambiguity,” offering one pointer to one protégé but a different pointer to another protégé? Here’s the rationale: a wise teacher will not invite students to try their hands at division and multiplication before the students have mastered addition and subtraction. So it is with the presentation of "concepts that are used to remove concepts," and so it is with seeming ambiguities among Advaitan pointers.
Your query provides an opportunity to respond to similar questions that have been raised over the years regarding certain “confusing teachings.” For example, some complain that when they read the transcripts from various satsanga sessions, a teacher may have said one thing one day and something seemingly different the next. Here’s why: the same pointer offered to one protégé at one step on the “journey” would not be offered to a second protégé that is at a different step on the “journey.” If a true contradiction exists, then of course those teachings should be ignored; on the other hand, understand that some teachings that might seem to be contradictions are instead custom-designed pointers that are taking into account whether the specific protégé being responded to is at the wet charcoal stage, the dry charcoal stage or the gunpowder stage. Please enter the silence of contemplation.
[NOTE: Use the search engine at the top of this page to search this site for more on protégés who are in the “wet charcoal stage,” the “dry charcoal stage,” or the “gunpowder stage.”]
F.: Thanks for your question, but instead of the word “imply,” use the verb “infer” in order to be impeccable. Say, “I have inferred from your writings certain conclusions that you neither stated nor implied.”
As recently as this month the following pointer was offered:
“Lost” is in quote marks because the duality of “loss vs. gain” is a lie.
In August, the point was made that…
there is no one to apply anything or to benefit from anything or to gain anything or to lose anything.
In July, the point was made that…
the realized certainly have no desire to gain anything.
References over the last year and a half have been made to those trying to gain control, gain power, or gain benefits, but those references alluded to persons—to the non-Realized. References have also been made to those who are subsumed in their religious or spiritual ego-states, trying to gain a reward or trying to avoid a punishment. But always the main pointer offered was, “There is no one to gain anything” and that “Gain and loss are dualistic concepts to be discarded.”
Furthermore, some describe Advaita as a philosophy that is “not about gaining anything but about losing everything.” At some point along the “path,” that pointer might be valid; however, by the end of the “journey,” it is Realized that—even as there is no “one” to gain anything—there is no “one” to lose anything either. Is that an “ambiguity,” offering one pointer to one protégé but a different pointer to another protégé? Here’s the rationale: a wise teacher will not invite students to try their hands at division and multiplication before the students have mastered addition and subtraction. So it is with the presentation of "concepts that are used to remove concepts," and so it is with seeming ambiguities among Advaitan pointers.
Your query provides an opportunity to respond to similar questions that have been raised over the years regarding certain “confusing teachings.” For example, some complain that when they read the transcripts from various satsanga sessions, a teacher may have said one thing one day and something seemingly different the next. Here’s why: the same pointer offered to one protégé at one step on the “journey” would not be offered to a second protégé that is at a different step on the “journey.” If a true contradiction exists, then of course those teachings should be ignored; on the other hand, understand that some teachings that might seem to be contradictions are instead custom-designed pointers that are taking into account whether the specific protégé being responded to is at the wet charcoal stage, the dry charcoal stage or the gunpowder stage. Please enter the silence of contemplation.
[NOTE: Use the search engine at the top of this page to search this site for more on protégés who are in the “wet charcoal stage,” the “dry charcoal stage,” or the “gunpowder stage.”]
