From a site visitor: “Advaitans warn against roles, but aren’t you playing the role of teacher or jnani or guru?”
F.: First, Advaitans offer pointers suggesting that proteges not mistake a “role” as “a real identity.” That always leads to emotional intoxication and misery; on the other hand, an Advaitan might “play the role” of a jnani, but the playing of that role would never be mistaken for a true identity. The consciousness can witness the space playing such a role, but the purified consciousness would never assume that role to be What It Is. By seeing all that merely happens, the consciousness does not become attached to a false identity/role and does not experience the emotional intoxication or the egotism that accompanies roles that are incorrectly taken to be a true identity.
Next, the 14 September 2005 entry made clear a further distinction between (1) playing a role while watching the functioning of that role as it merely happens as opposed to (2) assuming that role to be “who you are”:
If one accepts the role of “Teacher” as an identity, then the next progression of an ego-state identity is to elevate that "self" immediately to the status of “Super Teacher.” And what does “Super Teacher” need to exist? Super Students. Let a few students mess with the wonderful lesson so diligently prepared by Super Teacher—let them interfere with what The Teacher is trying to do to exist—and a war will break out in the classroom. But if one is not working at teaching but merely shows up and allows teaching to happen, then from that state of beingness, peace prevails. One is not coming at tasks from a state-of-being-something that is intent on doing something. And on the days when hundreds of interruptions come at a job site, if one is merely being, then frustration does not manifest. Being content with “letting happen what happens...or not,” the realized feel fine if teaching happens or even if teaching doesn’t happen as a result of things that cannot be controlled. Wouldn't more peace have to result when all functioning happens from a position of beingness rather than doingness?
F.: First, Advaitans offer pointers suggesting that proteges not mistake a “role” as “a real identity.” That always leads to emotional intoxication and misery; on the other hand, an Advaitan might “play the role” of a jnani, but the playing of that role would never be mistaken for a true identity. The consciousness can witness the space playing such a role, but the purified consciousness would never assume that role to be What It Is. By seeing all that merely happens, the consciousness does not become attached to a false identity/role and does not experience the emotional intoxication or the egotism that accompanies roles that are incorrectly taken to be a true identity.
Next, the 14 September 2005 entry made clear a further distinction between (1) playing a role while watching the functioning of that role as it merely happens as opposed to (2) assuming that role to be “who you are”:
If one accepts the role of “Teacher” as an identity, then the next progression of an ego-state identity is to elevate that "self" immediately to the status of “Super Teacher.” And what does “Super Teacher” need to exist? Super Students. Let a few students mess with the wonderful lesson so diligently prepared by Super Teacher—let them interfere with what The Teacher is trying to do to exist—and a war will break out in the classroom. But if one is not working at teaching but merely shows up and allows teaching to happen, then from that state of beingness, peace prevails. One is not coming at tasks from a state-of-being-something that is intent on doing something. And on the days when hundreds of interruptions come at a job site, if one is merely being, then frustration does not manifest. Being content with “letting happen what happens...or not,” the realized feel fine if teaching happens or even if teaching doesn’t happen as a result of things that cannot be controlled. Wouldn't more peace have to result when all functioning happens from a position of beingness rather than doingness?
So an Advaitan might seem to be playing certain roles such as “teacher,” but in truth the functioning is merely happening and that happening is merely being witnessed from the stance of the “I Am” only, not from the posture of “I am...a teacher.” No desires, wishes, hopes or expectations are involved with anything offered on this site. The optional “site visitor counter” was not purchased for the site because no desire have ever existed to know if a large number of visitors come to the site per day or if none visit the site per day. Only from the state of pure witnessing can the bliss be known. So, are you witnessing the playing of roles, or are you assuming the roles being played as false identities? Please enter into the silence of contemplation.
Tomorrow: "How about elaborating on the deep sleep, the dream state, and the waking state to help me understand what point Advaitans are trying to make with those terms."
