Sunday, March 09, 2008

“This” is all relative…THAT is Absolute, Part One

FROM A SITE VISITOR: I found another non-duality pointer in the three e-mails shared yesterday-- one seemed to love you, a second one seemed he’s been ambivalent about you, and a third seemed to hate you. there really is no stability in the relative is there? But I’m really writing about the comments from the fellow in Seattle. He is not conscious of any of the suffering in the world; it seems according to you that the Realized are aware of all of the suffering. But if only the Absolute is real and if all of what you call “relative stuff” is not real, what does it matter? There’s killings on college campuses and in Iraq and Darfur. Millions died during WWII and millions were killed when Europeans took over the American continent. Millions were killed in the inquisition and millions have been killed religious wars. If I understand what you have said in the past, then for all of those killed, the manifestation ended. That’s all. The ones left behind who mourned the billions killed were the only ones to even know those billions had been killed. So Realization didn’t keep the killed alive and hasn’t seemed to changed the world for the better, so what the heck? (Sorry about the length of the e-mail.) Danny

F.: As for love, hate or vacillation expressed in e-mails, all of that is aimed at a mirage that the writers take to be real. Drive a car through a mirage and see the effect, then understand the effect here. There is none. So much for “good vs. bad” e-mails, and so much for “like vs. dislike.” So much also for “hate vs. love.” Neither lasts.

It has been suggested to site visitors over the years that another problem with belief in duality is that persons over-celebrate what they think is “good” and over-mourn the “bad.” The irony is that neither of the relative conditions that persons love or hate is long-lasting (except in the “minds” of the non-Realized).

Review these pointers offered earlier regarding the instability of the relative condition: that which gives you pleasure will eventually give you pain; that which gives you the most pleasure will eventually give you the most pain.

Some can “relate” by recalling when their use of intoxicants “turned” on them; for other persons, the course of a courtship or marriage might provide evidence; for some, their “dream home” has seemingly turned into a financial nightmare. Your conclusion is accurate: there really is no stability in the relative.

As for the suffering you reference, since neither you—nor any person—is in the world, and since the world is only in you (in your “mind”), then of course any talk about pain or suffering is only pertaining to the relative.

Next, understand that the reason that "Realization hasn't reduced killings and changed the world for the better" is because Realization is, and has been, such a rarity. Could Realization have reduced the number of instances of mass killings which you catalogued? You decide after understanding that all of those instances were rooted in the dualistic beliefs of certain key players involved in those relative happenings.

To paraphrase what one observer said, when you teach persons to hate and fear, and when you teach that "others who differ from you" are a threat to your freedom or job or family, then you also condition persons to perceive all "others" as enemies while setting mastery or suppression or conquest as justifiable, or even worthy, goals.

Certainly Advaitin pointers, if understood and accepted by the masses, could reduce the frequency of relative pain and relative suffering on the planet. But before any further discussion of global circumstances, the question must be asked: what about "your" circumstances?

You note the lack of peace recorded in the history of the planet; you have catalogued examples of the current lack of peace in “the world”; but the primary question is, has the peace that can be addressed by these teachings happened for “you”?

These Teachings will not change “the world” (a fictional concept that has been addressed thoroughly on this site) but they can change the remaining period during which the consciousness is manifested in the space labeled “Danny.” The relative instances of pain and suffering can only be changed one seeker at a time, and then only rarely.

Yes, the topics you raised can and will be addressed, but the suggestion is that the focus always return to “Danny.” What is Danny not? What is it that “Danny” really Is? Please enter the silence of contemplation.