This blog is run by Jerry Katz. halifaxjerrykatz at gmail.com
I have listened to your interview with Gurudatta, and to the follow-up discussion with Dustin Linden-Smith. I enjoyed the discussions and agree with your challenges to his claims to ‘Absolute Status’, and to his ludicrous assertions of having ‘defeated’ Jeff Foster and other reputable non-dual teachers and advocates. As entertaining as these broadcasts and recordings are, I would caution you against publishing any future exchanges you might have with the budding Guru. In the end, I think any and all media attention to his claims and pronouncements only heightens public interest in him as an internet celebrity of sorts, and plays into his personal ambitions and deceptions. It is my belief that the most effective strategy for “defeating him” is to merely ignore him, and allow his own absurd pretensions to divine wisdom and relevance bury him in anonymity.
Les Collins (Rochester, NY)
I am new to this format. I see much written and spoken about non-duality and have yet to see something written or spoken as non-duality. I am happy to be shown differently.
Welcome to this kind of format! I hope you stumble upon someone who is speaking as nonduality itself, that is, directly from consciousness itself, rather than from ideas about consciousness. There are many good speakers, hypnotists, performers, persuaders, and poets who can do that. Stay away from the people who are stumbling through existence lost in its wonder and possibilities and who speak “about” nonduality.
Thanks. And does non-duality speak here?
No. It speaks somewhere else. It is separate from here.
Interesting, as nonduality refers to there being no separation. Please say more, especially about the use of ‘It’.
I was being facetious. The question was, “Does nonduality speak here?” My response is, “Who asks?”
Ah! I now see the facetiousness in these responses. I apologise. I was fishing to see if there was any depth here. I write and relate as a way of expanding this consciousness and be more.
I, am asking. If there is real truth to nonduality, there can only be I. Then, other personal pronouns can be misleading and may either show an identification with or a misinterpretation of duality, or an intentional conscious use.
Maybe, the current language used, could be leading to this. What if relating only used ‘I’, as is happening here. This could lead to a clearer and more intimate exploring and expanding the truth as nonduality. Of I here and the appearance of I there.
Hi Frank, I’m sorry about being facetious. Sometimes “nonduality” becomes a job and I get tired and do not respond appropriately. Can there be truth to nonduality? It’s a good question to fuel a search which can be nothing less than serious. The question has to dissolve when it is turned back to the questioner, the “I.” But I still don’t know how to respond to your original comment: “I see much written and spoken about non-duality and have yet to see something written or spoken as non-duality.” Is that comment still relevant? Does it need to be modified in some way? It’s not drawing a response from me. Thanks.
Thanks Jerry. I see a common ground possibly emerging here. I say ‘if’ because I am not definite and am open to change. At this time, I am taking nonduality as a probability. So what do I do as that? OK, when the question dissolves, what then, this is only half the process. How do I live and speak as that I AM?
This is the issue I have. If I see that I am one, yet continue to talk as if I am not, using you, us, them, they, we, etc, I feel that I am separating out into duality and not honouring the truth of that I am, that I am lying and being dishonest. As if I am still identifying as some entity that I had created while being unconscious of that truth.
Well then the question — How do I live and speak as that I AM? — hasn’t dissolved. It’s just taken a new form. Maybe I should be saying that, instead of the question dissolving, the source of the question dissolves. The questioner dissolves. Upon that dissolution, what remains is the answer: Everything. All of existence.
How, then, is it possible to not honour the truth of what you are? The idea that you’re not honouring your truth is only an idea in your head. It’s just a feeling. Try not to participate in its influence. The feeling of separation is only that. Being friendly toward it, it will be seen that the one being friendly is who you are. Then, going forward, more attention is paid to that one being friendly, the real you.
I’ve sat with this for a while. This post feels like coming as rhetoric and belief rather than experience and knowing. What is the experience there as ‘all of existence’? What is the experience there as ‘the real you’?
I can be still, feeling open and being friendly. However, as yet, don’t have the experience as everything and all of existence. I don’t really know what that is and how I would know whether that is all. What I do experience as existence is that most is unconscious, unconscious of the truth of who I am. And this is a way that I attempt to bring more consciousness to light.
Right now, I do not have the experience of I there as Jerry. So, I do not have the experience of all existence, of everything, even though I have taken this on as a possibility, a probability, and a truth. I can’t even say that I experience fully this body that I am.
Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Google+ account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Twitter account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Facebook account.
( Log Out /
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.
Notify me of new posts via email.