taotiger - musings 2

	an example of human frailty & response: empathy vs formal a-formalism
	Zen masters, Taoist sages, self-realised Yogis & Advaitin gurus... tricky & slippery buggers the lot of em... ^^ the "crazy-wise" of India, for example, embody direct and simple realisation of the profound non-duality that is fundamental to existence... anyone who would seek to live the central truths of the wisdom traditions of the East, best keep in mind that, while simultaneously manifesting experiential understanding of the "ultimate" nature of that which declares by anihilation of heirarchy that "ultimate" as no more than "ordinary", a secondary "provisional" aspect of the entirity of "Whatever" is in fact honoured by the great Realisers, Masters, Bhogis, Siddhis, Gurus, etc. that is to say, that while for the Zenists realisation of "Emptiness" is attained, and for the Advaitins "Brahman" is experienced unmistakably first-hand as the ground of being (& non-being), and for the Taoists the "Way/Wu" is palpably manifest to the accomplished adept, every Realiser to function practically, short of living the "crazy-wise" path of some non-dualists in more spiritually tolerant societies, relies for day-to-day harmony, upon connection with a "secondary, co-existent-with--so-called-ultimate" aspect of manifestation. to illustrate, "Tat Tvam Asi", the statement "I Am That" implies That is Brahman. which may be extended (allowing cross-discipline generosity) to "I Am Tao", "I Am Emptiness", etc. yet, it may also be applied to the "provisional" level such that the truths for non-purists can be stated as "I Am Shiva", "I Am Guru", "I Am Buddha-nature", etc. and no statement of this kind is "more ultimate" than another, so like Russian dolls using an "Advaitin-Saivite" as example, "I Am Shiva", "Shiva is Brahman", "I Am Brahman"... yet Brahman is formless, and so realisation of Brahman (like Tao, or Emptiness) is in no way related to the manifestation being a pariticular way, or that it takes any particular form, yet is not distinct from it. the crazy-wise with no "co-extensive-with-form" subset of the so-called "formless-ultimate" live what may be termed an "ontological anarchy", with no gods or masters, in the service of formless Tao/Brahman/Emptiness itself. though most realisers, if they are honest, place the wellbeing of themselves & their charges/associates/peers in the hands of the "secondary" exemplars of non-duality, which as Shankara has written are a very real & authentic facet of life, albeit "illusion" when taken out of context, and which while actual illusion, are not more or less ultimate than anything else, functioning as an integral part of the whole show nonetheless. to be clear, a Zenist is still a Buddist, and a Taoist is still part "of the world" (provisionally, upon this world being "Tao"), and an honest Advaitin resides one step away from ontological anarchy by virtue of connection with whatever embodiment of the ultimate they align themselves with (some Shiva, some Vishnu in whatever manifestation, others the Guru). --------------------------- the reaction to the exact same question from two different "Masters" to (greatly) varying degrees "authenticated" by the traditions they spring from, are illuminating concerning this matter. Q: for me, although the embodying of the [Tao/non-duality of it all] is strong, and complete as it has been for years, in the last couple of months all gods and masters have disintegrated, leaving a direct living of the [Tao/non-dual nature of it all], yet with no connection to the way represented by the Gods and living Masters remaining, a terrible experience has been resulting, emotionally and relationally - a downslope on the rollercoaster of life, not an "ultimate" concern but still a very difficult and dark time for me. while [Tao/non-dual nature of it all] is perpetually realised as much as ever, the guiding principles of Shiva, Buddha, Master XXX, and Master XXX, have lost credence with me as justifiably "more" or "higher" than any other part of manifestation, and so having no orientation to an unchanging "representation" of the Self/Way/etc., an uncomfortable and destructive anarchy has been realised... A: (neo-Advaitin "Guru") "you are clinging to concepts. it is non-dual, and that means no room for this and that. it is "Intelligence-Energy", and not just "intelligence". [the picture of my guru, in response to your secondary question as to whether this connection with a guru provides everyday guidance] is just a picture. ultimately it's non-conceptual awareness [and anything secondary is non-existent]." this went on for some time, the "Guru's" emotional composure disintegrating as his untenable position is defended of "partial" explanations/descriptions/aspects of the "non-duality" are talked of as "nothing", are "negated" by him repeatedly, as opposed to the progenitor of his tradition, who theorised about his experience over and again that these "secondary" levels are very much truly existent yet as merely "illusion". so wheras the founder of the school may have said "yes, indeed if the illusion helps, then as long as it is recognised as illusion, there is no harm being devoted for guidance to a lesser divinity (with form) such as Shiva, Guru, etc." whereas, the modern-day descendent, "neo-Advaitin" guru, very clearly negates the very existence of anything but (as implied) his own concepts in spoken form of the nature of non-duality, and the non-dual experience itself... poor man, while he helps a lot of people, it is either "all or nothing" for him. apparantly this questioner didn't fit into his idea of what is "non-duality" and thus is "not correct". and whether the details are conveyed here adequately (because it rests upon some subtle nuances of meaning), in belligerently defending his position which runs contrary to the formulations of his spiritual ancestors, and also very straight-forwardly belittles by negation the role of his own guru, it is only natural that to me, at that very instant when the old man was shooting at me from the battlements of his tower of conceptual definition of non-duality, that all remaining connection with him and belief in his credibility disappeared. he has helped a lot of people, and yet at heart his "concept of no-concept" leaves him a shell saying "there is no shell". yet he's a lovely old man, and means so well. it's just his way - from day one i noticed that he has about 50 stock phrases that he varies as response to any question put to him, and combines. it is a top-down way of dealing with people, authoritarian and heirarchical, while in speech (though not in practice) denying heirarchies altogether. to not allow the poetry of life to overturn our certainties and theoretical formulations, meeting variety with complementary variety, but to come out again and again with the same theories in response to widely divergent questions, indicates an inflexibility of idea. everything i say is rubbish ultimately, on this website and elsewhere, because it is based not on cherished beliefs, but on the ever-changing product of fluid circumstance meeting and mixing with an inner self in constant revolution, as if it were any other way. yet when someone feels the need to so violently defend his position as did this old man, you have to wonder... as opposed to, the next day the same question being directed at another, with the response: A: (Taoist GrandMaster of ancient lineage) "ah yes yes, i see. now we fix".

taotigerhq@gmail.com