Yesterday's Bay Area Self Inquiry Group discussion was inspiring but provocative. The upstart was probably me,
who fired on a member who wouldn't answer our questions directly. Not a good idea for the group organizer, but gave me a challenge and an opportunity to learn from. Hopefully not at the expense of some members dropping out!
The topic was "believing in unity is not the same as realization. How do we know the difference?" Introduced by Shawn. There were good shares, including mine (I thought) and then it came to new member Kamal, who was invited by Shawn, who knew ahead how Kamal interacts. "I don't exist," was his core expression, there is no self, nothing is here to discuss, etc, etc. Mostly he answered questions with questions: why do you think you exist? who is talking? on and on. I found it maddening to be refused a single direct answer, and waved my hands, asserting that he wasn't following the group format. Shawn was quietly amused. I suspect that Shawn knew what might happen., because he shared that he had watched Kamal have an 8 hour talk with a friend on similar subjects.
"You can't negate everything!" I said. "Buddha didn't teach this - he taught from the heart.
Then Kamal had the audacity to start quoting Nisargadatta to back himself up! Normally that would have been my opportunity to slay an enemy of truth.
"Nisargadatta had a self! He described himself in many ways - "I am peace, I am love." He talked much about the heart. Where is the heart??" I know Nisargadatta, and you're just picking the parts that fit your view. Nisargadatta didn't negate everything. The Buddha didn't teach neti, neti...." I carried on, and someone nudged me to shut up. By then it didn't matter who was right. There was calm, cool Kalam asserting that nothing including absolute reality itself was any more than false imagination, and me shouting out my heartful but upset banter.
2 comments:
I have to agree. To negate everything is a great place to start and that's what I did a few months ago - but a conclusion that nothing exists seems a bit lacking to say the least. The man did say false imagination exists though -that's something -quite a broad thing actually!
But I found only perception exists for sure -what that perception percieves and who is perceiving could be held as conjecture - but there is perception.
That perception exists might be said to be subjective on the part of te perceiver. Are any of our experiences or perceptions consistent with one another? It seems to me by contemplating and intellectualizing taht perception is transient and non-constant - what is perceived is constantly changing, therefore it cannot be said to be real. In utter silence, in the unfathomable direct experience of stillness, perception ceases, everything seems to disappear, but does it? A question for deeper contemplation...
Post a Comment