Difficulties in Reconciling Issues

[domwatts23]

Hi,

As the title suggests, I would like to start a discussion regarding some difficulties I have had reconciling approaches to/attitudes towards spirituality or the work. Hopefully as others give their opinions I will be able to have more clarity regarding this and I feel as though others may be helped by the discussion too.

I am not sure where to start so I will just go for it.

Having read Laura's pages regarding Darkness over Tibet a few days ago (which is very interesting) I began to think about the issue of 'becoming nothing' which is discussed a lot in various traditions. The author of the book stated that he believed the last teacher mentioned in Laura's posts was providing teachings related to the 'dark side' as he was teaching that we should become 'nothing'.

I have been reading some non-dualistic teachings lately which suggest this similar approach, and I am wondering what others think about it. I believe that some traditions when they suggest this are trying to allude to the stripping away of layers of the ego, or 'programs', rather than the 'annihilation of the soul', as the author of darkness over tibet supposes.

I appreciate that the reason for this is that Illion believes this is a suggestion that we give up our own will, but I am wondering if this is really what these traditions are suggesting. I have found that often what I may believe to be my will is actually the 'will of a program', so to speak, and so perhaps this is what is meant by these teachings? I mean perhaps what they are intimating is a return to our essence, away from the 'programs', rather than the 'annihilation of our soul', which is not quite as appealing, im sure you'll agree.

I have found that some people advocate this 'becoming nothing' attitude as an approach whereby we 'let things happen' by themselves rather than trying to force outcomes one way or another or change things. This seems to be to be more of an STO approach than the STS approach of trying to make reality conform to what we 'want it' to be. It also, in my experience, has enabled me to see to what degree the 'predator's mind' is constantly trying to control outcomes to which it has attached desire and when i adopt the approach of letting things be everything is a lot clearer and free from negativity.

I have not expressed this as clearly as I would have liked to, but I hope some people can understand what I am getting at. Also, I must stress that I am not saying Illion is wrong, I am just wondering how to reconcile what he says with the positive experiences I have gained from an approach where we 'return to' our essence and away from our programs.

Additionally, I would be interested to hear others' thoughts on how this links to the issue of the microcosm and the macrocosm. What I mean by this is that various traditions have had different attitudes toward our relationship with God, some stating that we are subservient and should approach life as such, 'humbly', as it were, (not wanting to put ourselves 'on a level with God') and others stating that we are on the same 'level' as God in some sense.

I find this to be a very interesting topic and my instinct encourages me to think of it in a sense advocated by Ouspensky's 'new logic' in Tertium Organum, whereby something (us) can be a part of something (god) and all of it at the same time.

My question regarding this relates to my previous point in that - in wanting to become 'something' rather than 'nothing' (for want of better expressions) are we attempting to put ourselves on a level with God, as some traditions warn against? Whereas perhaps we should be attempting to be 'nothing' and let 'God's will' be done 'through' us? I hope you can understand what i mean. I find it difficult to be clear about things such as this with so much potential disinfo everywhere!

I hope a fruitful discussion can emerge from this which may clarify some of these issues for me and perhaps for others too.

 

[Windmill knight]

Also, I must stress that I am not saying Illion is wrong, I am just wondering how to reconcile what he says with the positive experiences I have gained from an approach where we 'return to' our essence and away from our programs.

Hi domwatts23. Maybe it would help if you told us a little about which positive experiences/traditions you are referring to here, so we can interpret them as best as possible. As they say, the devil is in the detail.

My question regarding this relates to my previous point in that - in wanting to become 'something' rather than 'nothing' (for want of better expressions) are we attempting to put ourselves on a level with God, as some traditions warn against? Whereas perhaps we should be attempting to be 'nothing' and let 'God's will' be done 'through' us? I hope you can understand what i mean. I find it difficult to be clear about things such as this with so much potential disinfo everywhere!

This is how I understand Illion's point: 'Nothing' and 'everything' are non-human absolutes. Pretending that we can be either is giving in to the temptation of escaping from the human condition and its lessons. Doing 'God's will' would be better accomplished by assuming the human condition and starting from there, which is what we got objectively and what 'God' gave us. Aiming for the extremes ends up being entirely subjective (at this level), and as it always happens when getting an overload of subjectivity, it leads to entropy.

So all these gurus who claim to have achieved union with the One, or anyone who claims humility by declaring they are less than a bug, are actually quite pretentious because they pretend to be something they are not, which is the opposite of being humble.

As for us, we are 'something' closer to nothing than to all, and we are trying to be another 'something' with more weight of being, so to speak, which is all we can do but is a lot already. Or so I think.

 

[domwatts23]

Thanks for your reply.

Regarding your point about the gurus, I totally agree (!) but this is not to what I am referring.

I guess a good example of what I mean would be certain aspects of Sufism which hold that we should 'surrender' to God and this kind of thing. In my experience sometimes 'surrendering myself', so to speak, has allowed me to relinquish attempting to 'control' my life and has also helped me to confront and let go of the illusion that I can 'do', to use 4th way terms.

Many of the times in my life I have felt the most at peace and in harmony with 'God' have been when I have put into practice certain teachings like this and had the approach of 'becoming nothing' and I have perceived it more as a kind of return to my essence, whereby my EGO becomes nothing. At times like this it was most clear to me how frantic, controlling and worried the predator's mind is regarding outcomes and reality in general.

So I guess this is my point; perhaps when teachers teach this message of nothingness it is simply referring to letting the ego evaporate so that you can simply 'be' - so rather than the annihilation of the soul it is an attempt to 'return to' the soul.

I appreciate your comment regarding aiming for the extremes being subjective and leading to entropy. I guess what I am talking about when I say an approach of 'becoming nothing' is more of a 'actively passive' approach to reality rather than actually trying to become nothing - so perhaps the issue of semantics here is the root of the problem. So what I am saying is what if teachers like the one mentioned in Darkness Over Tibet are just advocating this lack of attempt to control reality rather than, as Illion suggested, the annihilation of the soul. If they are not, and Illion is correct that it is more of a dark message, then what is the difference?

 

[Windmill knight]

... So what I am saying is what if teachers like the one mentioned in Darkness Over Tibet are just advocating this lack of attempt to control reality rather than, as Illion suggested, the annihilation of the soul. If they are not, and Illion is correct that it is more of a dark message, then what is the difference?

I think you might be mixing up concepts. The peace and harmony you describe sounds more like brief moments of detachment and non-identification. The examples that Illion provides, on the other hand, seem something quite different. Also, if someone tells you to become nothingness, aren't you giving them too much credit - or putting words in their mouths - by interpreting that as non-identification or to simply 'being' without ego attachments? If they mean something different why don't they say so?

I know too little about Sufism to comment on it.

As for the idea of 'surrendering' to God, it depends on what you understand by that! ;) I'm not sure that 'simply being' is a good idea when there are so many things to fight for on this planet - for the sake of others and our own. If 'surrendering' means letting circumstances take over while we passively observe, then we are like the guys described by Illion who would let the rats take over their house and eat their food and attack their children. We would be escaping the struggle, as he says, but nothing in nature stops fighting. For me, an appropriate way to surrender to God would be to know of Her faces and manifestations objectively, both the beautiful and the ugly. Being 'rebelious' to God would be to impose our subjectivities.

An example can be drawn with vegetarianism. It just happens that in nature human beings need food of animal origin (fatty meats). But the vegetarian doesn't like the idea of killing creatures not too different from us (as opposed to plants) to eat them. So they rebel and decide not to take part on that and eat just plants. They try to escape the fight, but they really can't because the are still killing creatures to eat, and on top of that they are damaging their own bodies. It is in this sense that they choose a subjective view and fail to 'surrender' to reality (God), and this results in entropy.

By the way, I have nothing against inner peace through detachmend and non-identification - I'm just saying that's different from becoming 'nothing' or escaping the daily struggle. As they say: Before enlightenment, carry water and chop wood. After enlightenment, carry water and chop wood.

 

[domwatts23]

Thanks for your insightful reply, it has actually clarified quite a bit for me. I will possibly post more on this once I have digested your reply.

Thanks again

 

[genero81]

I read this earlier and it sort of came up in the A.A. meeting I went to this evening. I have done a lot of thinking on how what the 12 step approach teaches compares to what I have come to understand through cass. and related material. In A.A. the root of addiction is considered to be self will run riot. We spent a lifetime trying to arrange people, places and things to suit ourselves. (manipulation) We were self centered in the extreme because we wanted to compensate for a feeling of not being good enough. (Ego maniacs with an inferiority complex) We found that alcohol gave us the feeling of confidence we lacked, which supported our self-delusional thinking. We eventually were trapped by a subjective state of mind after years of compromises and lies to ourselves. Alcohol became the means itself rather than a means to an end. And then became untenable as we self destructed. We couldn't imagine life with alcohol, or life without it. We are at a point (according to A.A.) where no human power could relieve our alcoholism.

Our only solution was to surrender to a power greater than ourselves and seek spiritual help. We stopped fighting everything and everyone.

So we were talking about prayer and the idea that we pray for God's will to be done. Which actually means that we accept living life on life's terms. Now I know that life on life's terms is really life on psychopaths in power's terms. But the idea is that we stop trying to manipulate situations to come out the way we want them to, and just do the next right thing according to circumstances and our conscience. The whole thing is about having a daily reprieve from our addictions by way of continual maintenance of a "spiritual program." And that means a continual effort to push our FRV in the direction of STO. Or so I think. Of course in the program this is where all kinds of assumptions can come into play. Like, that there is a God and and we turn our will over to him. My perspective is a little different than most in the program.

So how do we stay in a state of surrender (non-manipulation) and at the same time take a stand against an injustice? It takes knowledge and understanding. The four attributes of a warrior come to mind; control,discipline, forbearance, and timing. And "accepting with serenity odds not within our expectations."

It's been a long time since I read Darkness over Tibet so I don't know how much relevance this has. Just stuff I was thinking about.

 

[obyvatel]

I guess a good example of what I mean would be certain aspects of Sufism which hold that we should 'surrender' to God and this kind of thing. In my experience sometimes 'surrendering myself', so to speak, has allowed me to relinquish attempting to 'control' my life and has also helped me to confront and let go of the illusion that I can 'do', to use 4th way terms.

Hi domwatts23,
Can you be more specific - like what you read/heard exactly and in what context?

[quote author=domwatts23]
So I guess this is my point; perhaps when teachers teach this message of nothingness it is simply referring to letting the ego evaporate so that you can simply 'be' - so rather than the annihilation of the soul it is an attempt to 'return to' the soul.
[/quote]

The teacher and the teachings have to be considered in proper context imo. Too many people have tried to dissolve their ego by surrendering themselves to the wrong person or idea which only makes the predator smile - as threads in the New Age Cointelpro section reveal. As for sincere mystics, this thread on mysticism may be of some help.

[quote author=domwatts23]
I appreciate your comment regarding aiming for the extremes being subjective and leading to entropy. I guess what I am talking about when I say an approach of 'becoming nothing' is more of a 'actively passive' approach to reality rather than actually trying to become nothing - so perhaps the issue of semantics here is the root of the problem. So what I am saying is what if teachers like the one mentioned in Darkness Over Tibet are just advocating this lack of attempt to control reality rather than, as Illion suggested, the annihilation of the soul. If they are not, and Illion is correct that it is more of a dark message, then what is the difference?
[/quote]

It is not an issue of semantics. Semantics are often used to confuse the issue. Unless we have a properly working emotional center - which is rare - we cannot perceive the essence of a teaching directly. We have to laboriously wade through the intellectual exercise of affirming and negating, observing and collecting data while making sure we do not fall for the need to feel good in the moment.

The "lack of attempt to control reality" in the context of Illion's example is giving up the struggle between the "ascending and descending currents of spirituality" which characterizes the earth domain. Doing so simply strengthens the hand of the force which actually controls this reality - the STS.

fwiw

 

[Buddy]

As the title suggests, I would like to start a discussion regarding some difficulties I have had reconciling approaches to/attitudes towards spirituality or the work.

For purposes of the discussion, I will assume that by "spirituality" you refer to a deep inner urge that can be understood in terms of a 'will to surrender' and "work" in this context can be understood in terms of a 'will to attain self-mastery'. Is that OK?

I find this to be a very interesting topic and my instinct encourages me to think of it in a sense advocated by Ouspensky's 'new logic' in Tertium Organum, whereby something (us) can be a part of something (god) and all of it at the same time.

From the 'new logic' perspective, the two might be reconciled by seeing 'will to surrender' and 'will to attain self mastery' as two sides of the same coin where the coin is you and the quantum nature of the reality that surrounds and penetrates you is constantly pushing on you to evolve towards a better, more resistant framework or to devolve back to where you came. A possibly inept classical metaphor for "all of it at the same time" might be a sponge, fully saturated with the water it is immersed in and by which it is surrounded.

My question regarding this relates to my previous point in that - in wanting to become 'something' rather than 'nothing' (for want of better expressions) are we attempting to put ourselves on a level with God, as some traditions warn against? Whereas perhaps we should be attempting to be 'nothing' and let 'God's will' be done 'through' us? I hope you can understand what i mean.

As obyvatel said:

Too many people have tried to dissolve their ego by surrendering themselves to the wrong person or idea which only makes the predator smile - as threads in the New Age Cointelpro section reveal.

Plus, people with their own confusions and hidden agendas can push false divisions by capitalizing on existing concepts that are familiar to, but not necessarily thoroughly understood by the intellect. For example, the idea of "surrender" has been so distorted that many people believe 'surrender' is opposite to 'self mastery', when it may just be that self mastery is not possible without surrender.

Our own childhood experiences can explain some distortion. Children are often made to feel that they must "give themselves up" to their parents or whomever if they are to be loved. Even then, children can be made to feel shame, anxiety and guilt. So, for many of us the act of surrender would seem to mean the loss of autonomy. And for those unfortunates who've had their primal sense of autonomy severely impaired by an environment which stressed chronic self-defense in order to maintain their autonomy, I suppose any ability to surrender may be problematic at best and impossible at worst. At least until some psychological healing takes place and one can grok their true purpose in this life, or their 'true will', so to speak.

That is why our work begins with understanding basic psychological material and simple practices as outlined on the Cognitive Science board.

For myself, I assume that in order to know my own 'true will' (to be a self-master), to be "lit up" with spirituality, I must discover and surrender to my true will (an analogy for "what I'm here to do").

I think the importance of knowing your true will is beautifully conveyed by Sufi Master Hazrat Inayat Khan:

However unhappy a man may be, the moment he knows the purpose of his life a switch is turned and the light is on... If he has to strive after that purpose all his life, he does not mind so long as he knows what the purpose is. Ten such people have much greater power than a thousand people working from morning till evening not knowing the purpose of their life.

These are just my thoughts, FWIW.

 

[domwatts23]

Thanks Buddy and Windmill Knight, this has certainly cleared things up slightly for me.