Log in

Big, big Nonduality jag - Guru George His Blogge
Mysticism, Magick, Philosophy, Politics and Economics
Big, big Nonduality jag
Going through this all again, checking out all the usual suspects on YouTube, etc. (Tony Parsons, Jeff Foster, Roger Linden, Mooji, Sailor Bob, Mark West, John Sherman, etc., etc., etc., as well as a new discovery, the delightful Mandi Solk -  and a rediscovery of John Greven, whose book I really want to read now.)

Particularly triggering for me recently was coming across the work of another "new kid on the block", Ciaran Healy (website Ruthless Truth).  What I particularly like about his approach is its mixture of Western philosophy (and particularly his respect for Popper) with the more traditional direct pointer (no self).  I think he's a bit controversial because of his use of bluntness, swearing, anger, etc. - his approach might be summed up as "trolling as transmission" :) - but I have no problem with that.  He's also a "man with a mission", but again, I have no problem with that (good luck to "him").  I do think his transmission is very strong, though.  The core idea is something like, "There is no you.  Is this true?  Well, look and see (usually, for him and his cronies, with the trolling addendum "you dumbass motherfucker!")  You test it in your experience, as a philosophical hypothesis (a la Popper).  I think this is a genuinely new approach and a subtly powerful discovery (and yet also traditional, in that it hearkens back to ancient understandings of "philosophy").

Looking at it in this way has clicked with me quite strongly.  Not in the sense that it has precipitated liberation just yet, but in the sense that it has enabled me to link up a lot of stuff that wasn't quite gelling in a philosophical sense, from a lot of the usual suspects above (and the many others).  They're all making much more sense in the light of the way Ciaran has put it.  Something about this is calming the mind beast, and that, I'm finding, is good. 

(I am of course also currently working with it, honestly doing what's been asked of me, looking and checking to see if it's true, and that's ongoing at the moment while I've got a bit of free time and am alone in the house for a week or so.)

But anyway, yes, philosophical coherence is important to this George entity, so being able to see a bit of a glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel after a year or so (re-)confusion, where I've been battering my head against the problem of how to reconcile many of these expressions of the Teaching - it's good.  Having had epiphanies before, I am of course wary, but I'm cautiously optimistic.

One major point is it's getting the distinction clearer between the two approaches (what one might call holistic and deconstructive), and how some shared language between them has been confusing me.  For instance, "Who Am I?" can be "used" in two distinct ways.  On the one hand, one can bathe, as it were, in present being ("stay with the I AM", as in, say Tolle, or Mooji, or Adyashanti, or John Sherman, or many others); on the other hand, this question "who am I?" can also be an invitation to deconstruct the false sense of self.  I think this is where a lot of my confusion has come from.  My self-invented technique as a child was actually deconstructive - I "sicked up" the false sense of self from "here".  For a long time I have been unable to reconcile it quite with the presence-awareness set of teachings, but now I see more clearly how "deconstruction" is a distinct approach, yet absolutely complementary, to the "bathing in being" approach.  It's also clear that that "process of deconstruction of the false self" is very much a cognitive process (the traditional Advaita as represented by Swami Dayananda Saraswati is quite right on this, as is the Gelugpa system of Tibetan Buddhism, and of course Shakyamuni's original Buddhism).  It's also clear that this is just an appearance in the One, and intrinsically unimportant, not actually effecting anything, and not in fact "being done by" anyone.  (John Greven's podcast has been particularly sharp for me on this.)

I think the "I AM" approach is simply the other side of the coin.  i.e., Deconstruction = upon discovering what one is not, what one is becomes (hopefully!) apparent.  Whereas, the Holistic approach = non-intellectual, sheer being present wakefulness, making it obvious what one is not.  But the holistic approach is more prone to the folly of philosophical Idealism when it's brought back down to earth in common language; the deconstructive approach not so much (hence the cheerful alignment of early Buddhism with materialistic-ish philosophies, the anti-Idealism of Gelugpa, the wary-of-yoga-experience approach of traditional Advaita).

Maybe at the end of the day it's as simple as this: I'm so ploddingly stupid that I just have to understand it thoroughly and clearly before seeing it, and it's just taking a long time.
view 6 comments or express yourself
From: (Anonymous) Date: January 5th, 2011 05:24 pm (UTC) (Link)

Big, big Nonduality jag

I agree with you that the two approaches are complimentary. So complimentary in fact that you can't have one without the other. As you deconstruct you also, simultaneously begin to abide or rest in what is real, in the "I Am". From the abiding approach, the more you abide in the "I AM" the more deconstruction of the false happens. It can't be other than that. Both approaches (as any approach does) have the pitfall of possibly strengthening the sense of 'me', but that all depends on the practitioner and their ability to self-observe.

gurugeorge From: gurugeorge Date: January 5th, 2011 08:37 pm (UTC) (Link)

Re: Big, big Nonduality jag

Well spoken.
From: vivster1 Date: January 8th, 2011 01:33 pm (UTC) (Link)

Ruthless Truth

How you getting on with it? It doesn't need to take any time - you just have to look.
Ciaran Healy From: Ciaran Healy Date: January 9th, 2011 07:17 pm (UTC) (Link)


Thanks, man. We've drawn a lot of fire (well, snide comments and summary dismissal) from the established new age crew, but we're on 91 liberated for six months of hitting it.

It's very refreshing to see someone look deeper into the method - you are of course correct, the fusion of Popper's work on knowledge with eastern thought, that's a very good analysis of what we do.

We're punching deeper. The prize was always mass transmission. We've demonstrated that it's possible, but we're still looking to unravel the core dynamics, purify the transmission process and mass produce it. Exciting times.

We're not looking for publicity right now as much as help in this research - the latest blog posts I've put up, especially the one on faith,

I think it's important to take the truth from both East and West while not being bound by either. I wouldn't tie my colours to any mast, even as a token thing - it's dangerous. Not for others, but for you. You have to constantly uproot your own foundations, cast aside as shallow dross yesterday's shattering insights.

As for the anger, well - it will continue, but it's not the core method. The core method is to look to the heart of what's really happening in the situation instead of getting bogged down in content.... sadly what's often happening (not always, but often) is that people are failing in issues of courage, honesty, that sort of thing.

You get people (I'm sure I don't need to tell you) who'll spend decades polishing an image of themselves as spiritual, or philosophical... or whatever. The rot is everywhere. And to address it in a way that is effective does NOT take more profound thoughts.

A slap to the face can wake a person a thousand times better than a poetry reading.

You need to get more honest about what's really happening when people evade this, and address the reality of it, that's where the action is, that's where you can liberate one, two, three people a day. My record is four liberated in one day (that was cool).

Really engaging with the reality of what's happening and addressing THAT, as opposed to the ENDLESS questions that are dishonestly put? That's how to help people.

So in that spirit, and to be honest with you mate, you're up to your neck in a whole load of fancy names and bullshit.

The traditional Advaita as represented by Swami Dayananda Saraswati is a pile of shit, because you're not free.

The Gelugpa system of Tibetan Buddhism is a pile of shit, because you're not free.

Shakyamuni's original Buddhism is a pile of shit, because you're not free.

There's no you. Grow some fucking balls, stop bleating like a fucking child, and fucking look.

Seriously. And if you think I'm saying this as a tactic to make you open your fucking eyes, yes, yes I am.

But that doesn't stop it being fucking true, mate. You are being pathetic. Do something real. For once. Look. There's no you. Fucking look.

From: (Anonymous) Date: March 10th, 2011 06:14 pm (UTC) (Link)

Utter simplicity

The seeing of our true nature, as present awareness was the key!
Aware of these words, aware of the sound of the typing, aware of the bodily sensations, aware, aware, aware.This awareness is clearly present right now!
This awareness is non conceptual, you don't have to THINK about IT, BECAUSE YOU ARE IT.That's it! In the seeing of the truth of this the false is also clearly seen, meaning everything else is mindstuff, appearing and disappearing in the awareness.Pay attention to the Awareness not the passing thoughts, feelings, sensations, etc. Every person, animal, tree, plant is aware right now.......one.....indivisible.....right now!
From: (Anonymous) Date: October 7th, 2011 04:11 pm (UTC) (Link)
Just sit still and sense/ feel that thing that is just 'there' in your head. Look at it. That 'awareness' that 'presence' that feeling of 'me' This 'sense' 'awareness' is so familiar to you. It is always there. Look at it. Just look at it. Keep looking. Physically, actually look at it. Try to see the 'me' that is looking. Look at it and look for the 'me' Keep looking. Stuff will come into your head. You will feel stiff. Just keep looking. Be patient in that looking. Allow. Just look. Stuff may come into your head, like aggravation, boredom. Let it. Just keep looking. When you see 'it' all sorts of stuff can happen. Anything from deflation to exhileration. You may 'feel/think' 'It can't be that ' That's just too simple to be 'it' Keep looking. 'It' is there. It is always there. Keep looking as long as you like. Sooner or later it just dawns. It just clicks. The penny drops. When the penny drops, just do it again. The second time is a cinch. And there you have it.
view 6 comments or express yourself