From a site visitor: in that recent disucssion on transcendence, you spoke of allowing the ego to “die” and qualified the use of die to mean let the ego cease or disappear. Better than nothing, But why suggest that something as false as the ego can either appear or disappear? Why give credibility to something that is just a concept and talk about it didappearing when it has never appeared. It’s like “the bondage of ego.” How can one be bound by that which does not exist? Sounds pretty neo to me. I think you blew it on this one. Yes or no?
F.: First, nothing dealing with anything relative is real, including the “death” of ego, the disappearance of ego, as well as the perceived “bondage” by ego. However, each seeker’s query is addressed at the level where the seeker’s words reveal that seeker to be. Even as that approach is taken, the ultimate intent and consistent focus of these talks and writings is always for the non-dual, no-concept nature of Reality to be revealed to all seekers. In order for that truth to be seen, all lies must be seen first. For details, see www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/teachers/relevance_henderson.htm
The Teachings, therefore, must always begin with a discussion of illusion, never with a discussion of Reality. For example, in the recent series on “Transcendence” that you reference, the illusion of “Husband” was discussed. How could a discussion of the fact that “Husband” is illusory be construed as giving “credibility” to the illusion? You might ask, “Can the ‘Real You’ be bound by ego or anything else?” Of course not, but millions of persons each day, bound as they are by belief in illusions, suffer nevertheless from phobias that have no basis in reality. Yet the suffering certainly seems very real to them.
Take, for example “nephophobia,” a fear of clouds. You probably know that clouds are not even clouds. You might know that what is called “a cloud” is just a conglomeration of very fine water droplets or ice particles suspended in the atmosphere at high altitudes. You can offer that scientific truth to one suffering from nephophobia, but that alone is not likely to alleviate the misery of his/her relative existence. Until treated and released from the bondage of their illusion-based fear of “clouds,” the sufferers of nephophobia will still look at a cloud and become breathless, will sweat profusely, and will experience nausea and a dry mouth; will feel sick and will shake; will suffer from heart palpitations; will suffer an inability to speak or think clearly; will sense a fear of dying; and will develop a sensation of detachment from reality or a full blown anxiety attack. Their phobia significantly impacts the quality of their lives (all this relatively speaking) and often keeps sufferers apart from loved ones and business associates, causes loss of employment, and robs them of the ability to complete even the most basic tasks necessary for survival.
To say that such persons cannot possibly suffer from the “bondage of clouds” is to ignore the enormous effect that belief in an illusion has on those persons during their relative existence. If semantics is the issue, then it might be said more accurately that “nephophobiacs are suffering from a delusional belief in clouds, which are nothing more than an illusion which results from faulty perception and which generate fears with no basis.” Fine. The same can be said of every type of suffering that persons experience. That statement paraphrases perfectly one of the most basic of the Advaita Teachings.
Post-manifestation, there is no awareness and there is no “life” or “living.” These Teachings can have no effect other than in the relative existence. So if the Teachings do not free persons of the most palpable effects that illusions have on the relative existence of persons, then why offer the Teachings at all?
All writings here, and all talks during satsangas, focus on guiding seekers to the understanding of their true nature in order for natural “living” to happen for as long as the consciousness is manifested. That does, however, allow for a secondary consequence: namely, that Advaita’s noumenal teachings, if understood, will eliminate “personal,” phenomenal suffering during the manifestation. The “path” on the “journey” through which protégés are guided is direct, containing only seven steps that are required for the re-purification of the consciousness, allowing persons to see that they are not who they take themselves to be, inviting them to set aside body-mind-personality, and allowing abidance as the Absolute. It is all about forfeiting belief in illusions in order to be in touch with reality.
Finally, for clarification, it should be pointed out as well that no “neo-Advaita” approach is used here. How could that which guides seekers to the Original Understanding—an understanding that preceded not only certain respected “holy” writings or “special” writings or “inspired” writings but in fact preceded writing itself—be considered “neo”? If one wants to tell others what someone else said or what someone else wrote, so be it. No effort will come forth from here to dissuade their practice.
On this site, however, the invitation is never to share what someone else said, what someone else wrote, or what someone else knew. The invitation is to find that which You know. What is it that You have always known but have forgotten? No one will ever be invited to become a "devotée" or to consider “floyd” as his/her eternal guru. The invitation here is know that there is no “floyd” and that there is no “devotée.” The invitation here is to tap into that inner guru (that inner resource, that vestige of pure consciousness that has been buried via years of programming and conditioning and enculturation) and to thereby forfeit belief in all lies in order to find the truth that cannot be stated. Please enter the silence of contemplation.
F.: First, nothing dealing with anything relative is real, including the “death” of ego, the disappearance of ego, as well as the perceived “bondage” by ego. However, each seeker’s query is addressed at the level where the seeker’s words reveal that seeker to be. Even as that approach is taken, the ultimate intent and consistent focus of these talks and writings is always for the non-dual, no-concept nature of Reality to be revealed to all seekers. In order for that truth to be seen, all lies must be seen first. For details, see www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/teachers/relevance_henderson.htm
The Teachings, therefore, must always begin with a discussion of illusion, never with a discussion of Reality. For example, in the recent series on “Transcendence” that you reference, the illusion of “Husband” was discussed. How could a discussion of the fact that “Husband” is illusory be construed as giving “credibility” to the illusion? You might ask, “Can the ‘Real You’ be bound by ego or anything else?” Of course not, but millions of persons each day, bound as they are by belief in illusions, suffer nevertheless from phobias that have no basis in reality. Yet the suffering certainly seems very real to them.
Take, for example “nephophobia,” a fear of clouds. You probably know that clouds are not even clouds. You might know that what is called “a cloud” is just a conglomeration of very fine water droplets or ice particles suspended in the atmosphere at high altitudes. You can offer that scientific truth to one suffering from nephophobia, but that alone is not likely to alleviate the misery of his/her relative existence. Until treated and released from the bondage of their illusion-based fear of “clouds,” the sufferers of nephophobia will still look at a cloud and become breathless, will sweat profusely, and will experience nausea and a dry mouth; will feel sick and will shake; will suffer from heart palpitations; will suffer an inability to speak or think clearly; will sense a fear of dying; and will develop a sensation of detachment from reality or a full blown anxiety attack. Their phobia significantly impacts the quality of their lives (all this relatively speaking) and often keeps sufferers apart from loved ones and business associates, causes loss of employment, and robs them of the ability to complete even the most basic tasks necessary for survival.
To say that such persons cannot possibly suffer from the “bondage of clouds” is to ignore the enormous effect that belief in an illusion has on those persons during their relative existence. If semantics is the issue, then it might be said more accurately that “nephophobiacs are suffering from a delusional belief in clouds, which are nothing more than an illusion which results from faulty perception and which generate fears with no basis.” Fine. The same can be said of every type of suffering that persons experience. That statement paraphrases perfectly one of the most basic of the Advaita Teachings.
Post-manifestation, there is no awareness and there is no “life” or “living.” These Teachings can have no effect other than in the relative existence. So if the Teachings do not free persons of the most palpable effects that illusions have on the relative existence of persons, then why offer the Teachings at all?
All writings here, and all talks during satsangas, focus on guiding seekers to the understanding of their true nature in order for natural “living” to happen for as long as the consciousness is manifested. That does, however, allow for a secondary consequence: namely, that Advaita’s noumenal teachings, if understood, will eliminate “personal,” phenomenal suffering during the manifestation. The “path” on the “journey” through which protégés are guided is direct, containing only seven steps that are required for the re-purification of the consciousness, allowing persons to see that they are not who they take themselves to be, inviting them to set aside body-mind-personality, and allowing abidance as the Absolute. It is all about forfeiting belief in illusions in order to be in touch with reality.
Finally, for clarification, it should be pointed out as well that no “neo-Advaita” approach is used here. How could that which guides seekers to the Original Understanding—an understanding that preceded not only certain respected “holy” writings or “special” writings or “inspired” writings but in fact preceded writing itself—be considered “neo”? If one wants to tell others what someone else said or what someone else wrote, so be it. No effort will come forth from here to dissuade their practice.
On this site, however, the invitation is never to share what someone else said, what someone else wrote, or what someone else knew. The invitation is to find that which You know. What is it that You have always known but have forgotten? No one will ever be invited to become a "devotée" or to consider “floyd” as his/her eternal guru. The invitation here is know that there is no “floyd” and that there is no “devotée.” The invitation here is to tap into that inner guru (that inner resource, that vestige of pure consciousness that has been buried via years of programming and conditioning and enculturation) and to thereby forfeit belief in all lies in order to find the truth that cannot be stated. Please enter the silence of contemplation.
