MEDITATION GUIDE II, #82

“But back to the common element that is All. Modern physicists at first called that smallest building block ‘strings’ until some decided that an even more basic element exists which they call a ‘sparticle.’ Names notwithstanding, there is only one single ingredient to what we call ‘everything’ or ‘the diversity’ or ‘the entire universe.’ I call it ‘That,’ That which is the one and only whatever that is Real, typically Unmanifest, occasionally manifested, or not. ‘Everything’ is really one thing. The term ‘unicity’ is accurate. ” [Excerpt, from The Twice-Stolen Necklace Murders, p. 191]

CONSIDERATION: The scientist invites you to look around this planet for things that are supposedly very different and then realize that everything began as a single atom. Everything can be traced back to one common element. Could there be a beneficial impact (relatively speaking) on your life if you sensed the unity of All? Please enter the silence of contemplation.
THE FEATURED ITEM FOR THIS WEEK’S SALE IS THE MEDITATION SET: Daily Meditation Guides, Volumes One and Two (15% off the price of the set through June 24th.)

Click THE MEDITATION SET

EGO-STATES: Either The Invisible Drivers or The Former Hijackers or The Eventual Destroyers, Part Four

FROM A SITE VISITOR: So the whole problem really begins with ego, right? Sam (PS Thanks for the blog site.)

F.: Henry David Thoreau suggested that most persons live “lives of quiet desperation.” An example of that is being observed in the case cited earlier in this series in which a woman is considering suicide because she is losing her “wife” label. Among the Realized, the quiet does often mark the relative existence but desperation mars none of it. The Realized merely see all exactly as it is yet still live in a contented, AS IF fashion that allows peace to happen whether “in relationship” or not, whether “in love” or not, or whether “married” or not. That is never the case with persons (the non-Realized).

Most persons move in and out of what they think are “personal relationships,” often settling into one that they think will be forever. That concept of “personal relationship” amounts to “duality to the second power,” so to speak, because “personal” is rooted in personas and because “relationship” requires a belief that there are two persons who are relating to each other (as opposed to the unicity being known). Were the unicity to be known, there would be nothing happening that could be taken “personally,” there would be no need to work on trying to “relate,” and there would be no ego or egotism driving all “interactions.”

However, since persons cannot witness objectively and see all exactly as it is, they operate in denial, claiming that “all is going along quite well, actually” and that “things in my life are as good as—or far better than—can be expected.” (If that were the case, why is it that as of January 2007, substance abuse rates are at an all-time high as persons try to escape the relative circumstances which they cannot cope with? Why is it that in the U.S., doctors are prescribing anti-depressants to over 10,000,000 women each year? And why is it that 25% of men and women are now abusing alcohol at a level that indicates a need for some level of treatment?)

Can Advaita lead to Realization which could provide a means by which "two" could function in a natural, "not-two" manner? Of course. Since few will ever Realize, though, is it likely that the relative problems that persons are experiencing in “personal relationships” will be reduced? Of course not. How could "two" who do not know the “not-two” possibly have any clue about what the term “love” is trying to point to?

How can persons who do not have the slightest clue about Who/What They Truly Are have any clear understanding of what “love”—or anything else—is? Since their “world” is nothing more than a distorted image of their own “I-consciousness,” and since that warped consciousness traps them in the false I / ego, and since that entrapment will motivate them to seek a perfect clone of themselves to “love,” all persons end up in love with self only. Several previous pointers are relevant in that regard:

Persons desiring to know what love is might benefit more (relatively speaking, of course) if they were able to understand what love is not.

What persons call "love" is the most magnificent experience of all; it is also the most horrendous experience of all. With such duality, how can that possibly be taken for the real? As for feeling or emotion, if love happens as a feeling, take the ride and watch the feelings rise and fall; if love happens as an emotion—that is, if it is being "experienced" by a person in an ego-state—prepare for war.

If such a discussion makes “you” feel uncomfortable to even consider the subject matter, find WHO is it that feels uncomfortable. And even if the discussion does make “you” feel uncomfortable, can you nevertheless relate to any part of the above?

For example, have you ever been convinced that you have really known someone—a friend, an employer, a spouse, a lover, whatever—only to find later that your impression or image of them was totally wrong and that maybe you had been totally fooled? When “the wife” becoming the “not-wife” was asked if her story could be shared anonymously on this site, she said, “If it might keep others from making the mistakes I made, then it’s fine with me.”

That supposes that, trapped as she was in a false identity, she chose to do what she did. It also supposes that if you are trapped in a false persona, you can have freedom of choice, if you can learn from her mistakes (which is not likely to happen either). Would anyone seriously believe that she chose the life she has lived for the last twenty years? Trapped as a result of assuming the false identity of “The Insecure and Dutiful Wife,” she acquiesced to a man’s demand that she abandon her natural instinct to have a child; that she work but never receive any of the pay for her work; that she assent to his daily demands for sex; and that she stand by in denial as he took another woman on trips and as he set up an apartment for the two of them. Now she claims that "he fooled her and didn’t love her," though "she loved him."

She loved him, or she entered into a co-dependent/dependent "relationship" and assumed multiple identities that required his presence to sustain them? Was that love that drove her to behave as she did in her relationship with him? Would love require the abandonment of natural instincts? Would love require that she forfeit the hope of having a child? Would love require the abandonment of Self? Would love require the forfeiture of all that is earned from one’s employment? Would love require that one place one’s head in the sand in order to maintain the status quo and status? Was that love she was showing, or was desire and fear being displayed as an ego-state was driving her and forcing her to place her relative existence on hold to please another and to prevent her from ever seeking the True and Authentic Self? Did she love him, or did she love the roles and the perks that came from sharing a house and a bed with a man she described as being "very handsome and very rich"?

Now, she wants to die without realizing that she has already been dead for 20 years to the degree that she lived a relative existence for someone else and without being true to Self. He had two lives; she had none. For her, the opportunity has finally come for the first time in two decades to actually Realize and then live a contented AS IF existence rather than to end the manifestation. But she would have to find the truth that these earlier considerations (based in non-duality) are pointing to:

“I want to know if you can be alone with yourself and if you truly like the company you keep in the empty moments.” Oriah Mountain Dreamer

“It appears that where marriage is solemnized by the church and blessed by the priest, it may at the same time be surrounded with customs and ideas of a frivolous, superficial, and even prurient character. Love between a man and a woman is founded on the mating instinct and is not free from desire and self-seeking.” Charles Eastman

“I want to know if you can disappoint another to be true to Your Self; if you can bear the accusation of betrayal and not betray your own soul.” Oriah Mountain Dreamer
Please enter the silence of contemplation. (To be continued)
THE FULL TREATMENT OF THE SUBJECT OF “RELATIONSHIP PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS” IS AVAILABLE

Click CASTING LIGHT ON THE DARK SIDE OF RELATIONSHIPS

THERE IS NO DUALITY--THE UNICITY IS ALL THERE IS

FROM A SITE VISITOR: Thanx for sharing the story by Dennis Waite. That approach was effective.

F.: Agreed. The experiential approach is a highly-effective means by which the Teachings can be tranmitted. To reinforce the pointers, review the August ’06 entry, part of which included the following:

Understanding the unicity reveals that a pile of ashes, a pile of dust, you, a dog, a tree, a piano, and a plant are no different. All of those “seemingly different things” are one thing. Supposed differences perceived by the human eye and misunderstood as a result of warped “minds” are the result of varying vibrational frequencies only. Humanity’s (post-programming) propensity for misperceiving everything makes persons believe that differences are real rather than grasping the truth of the unity beyond the wrongly-perceived multiplicity.

H20 might temporarily manifest in the shape of this or that. Is a so-called cube really a cube because some humans labeled it as such, or is it just H20? Is a cloud a cloud because some humans labeled it as such, or is it just H20? Is a river really a river because some human labeled it as such, or is it just H20? Now, take that one step farther: are you “a man” or “a woman” because some human labeled you as such, or are You a quantity of energy that has as one attribute the ability to be aware of while temporarily manifested? Are you “a husband” or “a wife” because some human labeled you as such, or are You a quantity of energy that has as one attribute the ability to be aware of while temporarily manifested? Are you “an employer” or “an employee” because some human labeled you as such, or are You a quantity of energy that has as one attribute the ability to be aware of while temporarily manifested? Are you the elements that have temporarily combined into a space, or are You a quantity of energy that has as one attribute the ability to be aware of while temporarily manifested? Are you “bad” or “good” because some parent or some religious or spiritual expert labeled you as such, or are You a quantity of energy that has as one attribute the ability to be aware of while temporarily manifested? And ultimately, are You the consciousness that has manifested temporarily, or are You the Absolute? The book FROM THE I TO THE ABSOLUTE expands upon that explication. Please enter the silence of contemplation.
NOTE: Several months ago, after a five-year hiatus from receiving visitors and from accepting invitations to meet with groups and offer the non-duality teachings, the consciousness was moved to accept requests from several groups. In nearby cities, satsanga was arranged and nonduality sessions were offered which focused primarily on the nisarga yoga approach. That has led to inquiries into whether “the advaita vedanta retreats with floyd” will also be offered again. Information regarding the nonduality, Advaita Vedanta retreat opportunites that are available may now be found at http://advaitavedantaretreats.blogspot.com/ or by clicking on the link to the upper right.