Shawn Tedrow
On a previous posting I wrote titled, "Who's on First?”, I mentioned, "Now I know what to say when someone more spiritual than I standing so tall asks me, who is the one asking or observing? I will tell him or her, “who is". That was meant to be a joke but with most jokes there is an undercurrent of honesty being expressed.
I don't play non-duality, no-"I" ping pong with people.
I first must explain that I am not opposed to this no-“I” thinking, as I have had moments of "I" melting into the vast unknown, like a drop of rain plunging into the sea. Once I heard someone call it Cosmic Sex, as the appearance of two dissolves and oneness or “not-two” is realized. No, I am not a non-believer.
But with most experiences, human beings tend to overemphasize and weight down one side of the scale of the balancing act of life. Life’s scale gets tilted and a monumental belief platform to perform from arises.
For years I have watched and was involved with Internet non-duality parlors. The center of all these blog conversations are based upon that there is no self. The separate "I" is an illusion. These blog discussions always default back to there is no-"I”, and “all is one”, and anything outside of that thinking is "missing it". Such a play on words this ping pong game can turn into! Whatever you say gets countered with a; there is no-“I” pong back.
This type of spiritual attitude and communication reminds me of a song by Paul Simon titled, “One trick pony”. I am sorry but I do not ride on a one trick pony. I don’t play non-duality, no-“I” ping pong with people.
This no "I" understanding becomes like an ego-belief-kaleidoscope-view-mechanism that is stuck on seeing through only one lens. The definition of kaleidoscope is; "an optical device composed of bits of colored glass and “several reflecting surfaces” that presents to the viewer symmetrical patterns when shaken or rotated". Instead of experiencing endless vastness of patterns and colors, the no-"I” devotee stays stuck on one surface reflection in this kaleidoscope and interprets all of life from this fixed lens in this tube.
I think it is wonderful to experience no "I" but after the self disappears, one should put on their clothes of humanity and speak from that platform as well. It is okay to discuss our human "I" experience without always defaulting back to there is no "I". If an elephant steps on my foot it is quite fine if "I" say my foot hurts. During this aching time, please do not tell me there is no “I”, as if I am a fool.
Early one morning, a few weeks ago, I began waking up to the sounds of a women weeping, sobbing, and mourning from the depths of her heart. I started shaking off the cobwebs of the dream I was in to try and somehow connect with this sadness I was hearing. As I began to awake out of my dream, and sensing the light of reality piercing through the shades of sleep, I realized these deep heartfelt sounds of despair was coming from my dear daughter-in-law. Yesterday’s pain that we were all feeling was still here this morning. Yesterday, she had a miscarriage. At this early morning moment, all I could feel was the weight of my heavy heart painfully tearing for her. This very day today, I still feel the pain of that yesterday.
Let us all put on the clothes of our humanity while speaking about Tao.
You can check out Shawn's other musings here.
If Tao is all, then all you can be is an abstracted apparent part. You can't be something separate. You can't be a human looking at Tao. This is an absurdity, a cosmic joke.
ReplyDeleteTao is non-dual. Denying No-I and wishing to be a human looking at Tao is apparently, logically, obviously the game of duality, twoism. This state is naturally unresolvable as it is the the cause and the issue.
Bless you, Shawn.
ReplyDeleteTao is a non-dual concept, but the expression of it, through yin-yang in the red dust, has a dualism built in. That's why you can't really experience Tao directly until you lose the self, usually through death or maybe successful internal alchemy, which some people have suggested they have experienced,which raises, so to speak, interesting questions of resurrection and reincarnation.
May I share your grief for your daughter-in-law's sad loss?
No one can experience it. As, by definition, when one is, there is no other. No one to experience it. No one to be reincarnated.
ReplyDeleteThank you Baroness Radon for your kind words.
ReplyDeleteIn relation to yin and yang (mentioned by the baroness above) I'd say these were never dual, never separate, never opposed. They are mutual and nothing alone, inseparable, and not a way to split a non dual Tao as the very doing so would be contrary to the entire philosophy.
ReplyDeleteTao gives birth to one
ReplyDeleteOne gives birth to two
Two gives birth to three
The three gives birth to ten thousand things.
But why all this preoccupation with dualism and non-dualism? Particles? Waves? Left brain? Right Brain? Who cares really?
Because it is the dance and I have no choice.
ReplyDeleteWho cares? What a sad cop out. What sad nihilistic woe.
ReplyDeleteThe dance is love, it is precisely for care, compassion that Tao manifests as this, drawing those bubbles dreaming they are separate to realize they are the stream.
Of course the bubbles don't need this as they are already the stream.
ReplyDeleteYet..
If we observe all of the apparent suffering around us, there is no other problem than the feeling of separation. All greed, all human failings, as illusory as they are, all war, all despair, is from the false belief on separation.
I meant who cares about philosophic quibbling over monism and dualism, which are I think very western concepts. (Early Christianity resolved them with the trinity, not so incompatible with TTC V 42.) I do not recall any of my Chinese teachers ever talking about monism or dualism; not sure there are Chinese words for the concepts.
ReplyDeleteLest I be misunderstood about the "dualism" remark, I probably should have said something like "twoism". It's yin AND yang, not yin OR yang. It's paradox.
This morning I consulted the I Ching (the third crucial text in Taoist philosophy, with the TTC and Chuang Tzu), something that doesn't ever seem to be discussed much on this blog. My hexagram was Zhun (or Chun or Tun, depending on whose romanization you use.) This is all about beginnings and sproutings (perhaps of the relationship between myself and Ta-wan?).
One commentary was particularly interesting: "In order to find one's place in the infinity of being, one must be able to both separate and to unite." I found this very apropos.
I think the divination of the I Ching will not survive scientific investigation.
ReplyDeleteScience will however fully accept an undeniable oneness. Whether this is called Tao our gwunky makes no difference.
I'm resolute that any one seeking to align with Tao is missing the core understanding that Tao is all, so can not be sought or aligned with.
For now, yes, I enjoy these chats by the river with you, speaking of what makes fish happy. The philosopher (even the armchair philosopher like me) needs opposition or he'll just fade away.
I'll (eventually) let you have the last word here...
ReplyDeleteThe I Ching can be valuable not for "divination," but for insight, it's very intuitive. It's about the movement of yin and yang in binary code. Just another tool, like meditation or qigong.