This reminds me of Sperber & Mercier's psychological work on what they called "the argumentative theory of reasoning," where they claimed that we didn't evolve to examine our own views but those of our fellow humans, as a form of self-defense against in-group manipulation.
When asking these questions, you can come to the conclusion that there is nothing to know about the Subject (Self) because everything you seem to know is an Object. Every quality is an objective description and not the Subject/Self. If it becomes obvious then, that such a Self doesn't exist in any shape or form, isn't guaranteed and my not be an effect of the questioning. Most non-duality teachers still hold on the concept of a "true self", awareness or another concept of what I call "the first illusion".
The most popular ones, while calling themselves "Non-duality teachers" are holding onto the concept of "I am" and are teaching duality. If there is an "I am" AND a world appearing in it, you got duality. Even when you say that awareness is one with the world, it remains a dual concept. Only when the "I am" illusion dissappears it's non-duality.
This isn't popular and it can't be reached, because it's already the case.
Nisargadatta actually thought "I am" at the beginning as a gate to what he called the Absolute. Later when he saw that this was obsolete and you can't use an illusion to go beyond it, he changed his teaching - and also hated the "I am" books that were released with his earlier talks. At least that's what I heard from close disciples of him and when being with Stephen Wolinsky in the late 90ies. Stephen's books and seminars I did really shaped my early years.
One of the most gripping pieces I've read on the nature of philosophy as genuine transformation rather then therapy or debate training. The parallel between Callard's untimely question and Carse's dangerous question is fasinating - it suggests East and West are circling the same drain, so to speak, just with different vocabulary. I've spent years avoiding exactly this kind of self-dismantling inquiry and reading this made that evasion suddenly visible.
This reminds me of Sperber & Mercier's psychological work on what they called "the argumentative theory of reasoning," where they claimed that we didn't evolve to examine our own views but those of our fellow humans, as a form of self-defense against in-group manipulation.
https://sites.google.com/site/hugomercier/?pli=1
Fascinating. Thank you for the tip and the link!
When asking these questions, you can come to the conclusion that there is nothing to know about the Subject (Self) because everything you seem to know is an Object. Every quality is an objective description and not the Subject/Self. If it becomes obvious then, that such a Self doesn't exist in any shape or form, isn't guaranteed and my not be an effect of the questioning. Most non-duality teachers still hold on the concept of a "true self", awareness or another concept of what I call "the first illusion".
The most popular ones, while calling themselves "Non-duality teachers" are holding onto the concept of "I am" and are teaching duality. If there is an "I am" AND a world appearing in it, you got duality. Even when you say that awareness is one with the world, it remains a dual concept. Only when the "I am" illusion dissappears it's non-duality.
This isn't popular and it can't be reached, because it's already the case.
Excellent. Reminds me of Nisargadatta. Nicely laid out
Nisargadatta actually thought "I am" at the beginning as a gate to what he called the Absolute. Later when he saw that this was obsolete and you can't use an illusion to go beyond it, he changed his teaching - and also hated the "I am" books that were released with his earlier talks. At least that's what I heard from close disciples of him and when being with Stephen Wolinsky in the late 90ies. Stephen's books and seminars I did really shaped my early years.
If the place I want to reach could only be climbed up to by a ladder, I would give up trying to get there,"
Wittgenstein
Love this.
the rest of it is important and I should have included it:
"For the place to which I really have to go is one that I must actually be at already.
Anything that can be reached with a ladder does not interest me.]"
One of the most gripping pieces I've read on the nature of philosophy as genuine transformation rather then therapy or debate training. The parallel between Callard's untimely question and Carse's dangerous question is fasinating - it suggests East and West are circling the same drain, so to speak, just with different vocabulary. I've spent years avoiding exactly this kind of self-dismantling inquiry and reading this made that evasion suddenly visible.