Swami Satchidananda, the founder of Integral Yoga, says, "It is advisable to get the mantra [for meditation] through adepts who have already created that vibration in themselves, because they won’t give you just a mantra. When they give the mantra, they, also, infuse a little of the vibration into you. That is what you call ‘initiation.’ It is a completely different experience from what you read in a book. From a book, you get only the word; you won’t get the vibration."
Is that true? Well, I have a lot of respect for Swami Satchidananda. He is one of my main teachers (he died in 2002). Maharishi Mahesh Yogi was the other of my main teachers (he died in 2008), and he says basically the same thing. Even though I respect these two teachers very much, I am the skeptical, scientific sort, so I am not sure.
I do know that when I was initiated into Transcendental Meditation in 1973, it sure felt like there was a transmission of energy, as I immediately entered (what seemed like) a very deep state of meditation, but that could be attributed to my expectations. I suspect expectations are the main causal factor, and perhaps that is why Indian gurus propagate the story of "spiritual transmission" in initiation, to build up those expectations.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
The Science of Mind
I imagine a large transparent sphere. All the spiritual and religious traditions are on the surface of the sphere looking in toward the center. There is a tiny little black ball in the center called “The Truth”, and everybody has a different view of “The Truth”, but they are all seeing the same Truth. I have visited the site of the Science of Mind (a certain spiritual tradition that I have studied) observatory on the surface of that sphere and peered toward that little black ball, and the Vedantic site and the Buddhist site and the Taoist site and the Christian site, and even the Sufi site. I am certain that they are all looking at the same little black ball, but it looks a bit different when you look at it from those different angles. I have also discovered that there are lots of people at each site, a few of which are highly intelligent and many who are idiots. The descriptions of the intelligent ones all sound roughly the same, no matter what site they are at, while the idiots fight, defending their misunderstandings of their own religions.
It seems to me that most people think spirituality is about being good, moral, pure, kind, gentle and helpful. I don't believe that at all, because all of those qualities exist as one pole of a duality, and I don't believe that spirit lives in the world of duality. Rather, I believe that if there is spirit, then spirit has to transcend duality.
So Kali (a Hindu goddess who hangs around graveyards and adorns herself with a necklace of human skulls) and Lucifer (one of God's nastier angels) are portrayed as fearsome and even evil, yet they are divine beings. If God created the world, then God must have been the creator of evil, and what was there laying around to create it out of but himself? God is the source of duality, but transcends duality.
It is obvious that nothing in the world of duality can be infinite, omnipotent or omniscient, so a belief in spirit (or God) who has all of these qualities is inconsistent with a belief that "God is good". I don't believe that God is good. God must transcend the good-bad duality.
If God is transcendental, then any conception of God's nature will be a wrong conception. So the first line of the Tao Teh Ching says, "That Tao which can be spoken of is not the true Tao". And the Muslims forbid images of God and the Jews forbid speaking God's name and Moses got pretty pissed off about that golden calf, if I remember correctly. They all warn against the conceptualization of God.
A false belief that my essential nature (my Godness) is "of the world" of duality is the core essential mistake from which all of my suffering springs. The belief in the primacy of duality is the original sin. Remember that Adam and Eve "ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" (they fell into the duality trap), and that right there was the end of the good times.
Therefore, in my opinion, the job of a spiritual practitioner is to negate the false belief that duality is the fundamental fabric of existence. And that negation is the spiritual practitioner's only job. We should forget about saving the world... that's a mission dreamed up by a mind caught in the duality trap. I think that when we fix our false belief, our world will fix itself, or perhaps we will finally realize that there was never anything wrong with the world, only our perception of it.
I think the exoteric message (for the new students) of the Science of Mind is, “you can get what you want by praying in this scientific manner that we teach”. The esoteric message (for the mature students) is that this technique of meditation and prayer has as its purpose the negation of the false belief that duality is the fundamental fabric of existence.
It seems to me that most people think spirituality is about being good, moral, pure, kind, gentle and helpful. I don't believe that at all, because all of those qualities exist as one pole of a duality, and I don't believe that spirit lives in the world of duality. Rather, I believe that if there is spirit, then spirit has to transcend duality.
So Kali (a Hindu goddess who hangs around graveyards and adorns herself with a necklace of human skulls) and Lucifer (one of God's nastier angels) are portrayed as fearsome and even evil, yet they are divine beings. If God created the world, then God must have been the creator of evil, and what was there laying around to create it out of but himself? God is the source of duality, but transcends duality.
It is obvious that nothing in the world of duality can be infinite, omnipotent or omniscient, so a belief in spirit (or God) who has all of these qualities is inconsistent with a belief that "God is good". I don't believe that God is good. God must transcend the good-bad duality.
If God is transcendental, then any conception of God's nature will be a wrong conception. So the first line of the Tao Teh Ching says, "That Tao which can be spoken of is not the true Tao". And the Muslims forbid images of God and the Jews forbid speaking God's name and Moses got pretty pissed off about that golden calf, if I remember correctly. They all warn against the conceptualization of God.
A false belief that my essential nature (my Godness) is "of the world" of duality is the core essential mistake from which all of my suffering springs. The belief in the primacy of duality is the original sin. Remember that Adam and Eve "ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" (they fell into the duality trap), and that right there was the end of the good times.
Therefore, in my opinion, the job of a spiritual practitioner is to negate the false belief that duality is the fundamental fabric of existence. And that negation is the spiritual practitioner's only job. We should forget about saving the world... that's a mission dreamed up by a mind caught in the duality trap. I think that when we fix our false belief, our world will fix itself, or perhaps we will finally realize that there was never anything wrong with the world, only our perception of it.
I think the exoteric message (for the new students) of the Science of Mind is, “you can get what you want by praying in this scientific manner that we teach”. The esoteric message (for the mature students) is that this technique of meditation and prayer has as its purpose the negation of the false belief that duality is the fundamental fabric of existence.
False Self Concept
I got started thinking about the transgendered thing when a (male) friend of mine called me up a few years ago from Florida to tell me that he was becoming a woman. It suddenly struck me during that conversation how fundamental of a transition that is.
Spiritual practice (in my opinion) is about realization of my true self. My true self is not my body, not my mind, not my personality. (In Sanskrit they call this, "Neti, neti"... "not this, not that"). They don't really talk much about what the self IS, just what it is NOT, since if you try to put the self into words, you'll get it wrong, since it is beyond conceptualization, yet it is real. The Tao Teh Ching says, "The Tao that can be spoken of is not the true Tao."
One of the things we mis-identify with most strongly is our gender. So when someone becomes the opposite sex, they are going through such a fundamental breaking of that false identification. Probably in most cases they are just switching from one illusion (I am a man) to another (I am a woman), so it has no spiritual benefit. But a few might use the experience to break through to "I am not man, not woman. I am that I am."
Another fundamental transition in identity is when somebody who is overweight loses a lot of weight. I started dieting at the age of about thirteen, as a wrestler in high school (all wrestlers lose weight so that they can compete with smaller people, and thereby gain advantage). Then I continued ever since, whenever I get too fat. So, several times I have lost 20 or 30 pounds or so, and have noticed how huge an impact it has on my notion of identity. If you identify with your body, when your body changes so dramatically, it affects EVERYTHING. But I'm sure that's nowhere near the magnitude of a sex change.
Of course, one of the biggest false-identification destroyers (agents of Siva) is aging and the physical/mental changes that come with it. Then death is, of course, the ultimate teacher.
All of these obstacle destroyers are moving us inexorably toward enlightenment... which is the giving up of false identities.
Jesus said something like, "You must turn around and become like little children". Little children do not have notions of self. They are just here to play.
Spiritual practice (in my opinion) is about realization of my true self. My true self is not my body, not my mind, not my personality. (In Sanskrit they call this, "Neti, neti"... "not this, not that"). They don't really talk much about what the self IS, just what it is NOT, since if you try to put the self into words, you'll get it wrong, since it is beyond conceptualization, yet it is real. The Tao Teh Ching says, "The Tao that can be spoken of is not the true Tao."
One of the things we mis-identify with most strongly is our gender. So when someone becomes the opposite sex, they are going through such a fundamental breaking of that false identification. Probably in most cases they are just switching from one illusion (I am a man) to another (I am a woman), so it has no spiritual benefit. But a few might use the experience to break through to "I am not man, not woman. I am that I am."
Another fundamental transition in identity is when somebody who is overweight loses a lot of weight. I started dieting at the age of about thirteen, as a wrestler in high school (all wrestlers lose weight so that they can compete with smaller people, and thereby gain advantage). Then I continued ever since, whenever I get too fat. So, several times I have lost 20 or 30 pounds or so, and have noticed how huge an impact it has on my notion of identity. If you identify with your body, when your body changes so dramatically, it affects EVERYTHING. But I'm sure that's nowhere near the magnitude of a sex change.
Of course, one of the biggest false-identification destroyers (agents of Siva) is aging and the physical/mental changes that come with it. Then death is, of course, the ultimate teacher.
All of these obstacle destroyers are moving us inexorably toward enlightenment... which is the giving up of false identities.
Jesus said something like, "You must turn around and become like little children". Little children do not have notions of self. They are just here to play.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Spiritual Practice
It seems so simple to me. If suffering is due to attachment and aversion, then spiritual practice should consist of refraining from attachment and aversion. I think that's all the spirituality that I need to know. I don't need 10 commandments. I don't need four noble truths or an eightfold path or eight limbs of yoga or 14 mindfulness practices or 108 repetitions of a mantra. I only need to stop entertaining emotional attachment and aversion. When I catch myself in a state of attachment or a state of aversion, I just need to stop doing that. Incredibly simple. That's probably why people don't get it. It's too simple, so the mind tries to complicate it.
Okay, I know what you are going to ask. "How?". I contend that there is no "how". If you are holding a pebble in your hand, tightly grasping it, and I were to ask you to let it go, would you ask, "how?". No, you would just let it go. In the same way, you can let go of attachment and aversion when you detect yourself engaging in those processes. I think that asking the "how?" question is merely a way of avoiding the instinctual spiritual practice of letting go.
Asking "how?" is a valid thing to do for any action. But letting go is not an action. It is a refrain from action. In this case, I am refraining from attachment and aversion. Letting go of that pebble is a refrain from grasping.
Attachment and aversion come uninvited. I cannot prevent them from coming into my mind. But once they come, and once I recognize that I am occupied with one of them, I can let go of that occupation. Then, some time later they come again. Once I realize that I am doing them again, I let them go again, and again and again. It's a continual practice. It's my practice.
Okay, I know what you are going to ask. "How?". I contend that there is no "how". If you are holding a pebble in your hand, tightly grasping it, and I were to ask you to let it go, would you ask, "how?". No, you would just let it go. In the same way, you can let go of attachment and aversion when you detect yourself engaging in those processes. I think that asking the "how?" question is merely a way of avoiding the instinctual spiritual practice of letting go.
Asking "how?" is a valid thing to do for any action. But letting go is not an action. It is a refrain from action. In this case, I am refraining from attachment and aversion. Letting go of that pebble is a refrain from grasping.
Attachment and aversion come uninvited. I cannot prevent them from coming into my mind. But once they come, and once I recognize that I am occupied with one of them, I can let go of that occupation. Then, some time later they come again. Once I realize that I am doing them again, I let them go again, and again and again. It's a continual practice. It's my practice.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
How I Became Wealthy
My definition of wealth: "financial assets sufficient to allow one to spend their time as they see fit, without concern for survival". Notice that my definition is about time, not about the acquisition of objects (houses, boats, etc.).
I "retired" at 50 years of age. I put that word, "retired" in quotes because what I really did was quit my job and become self employed. I am now 52. I work about 25 hours per week, from home, and earn about the same as I did when I was in that job, working about 50 hours per week.
I have virtually no stress now, and no long commute on traffic-congested highways. I have plenty of time to do what I want to do, when I want to do it, and I enjoy the work that I am doing. I have achieved wealth (according to my "time-centered" definition of wealth). But I have not acquired expensive objects. My house is not the house of a rich person, neither is my car. I don't have any expensive hobbies. Rather, I have achieved my freedom from the rat race in large part by avoiding the purchase of expensive things.
My work now consists of me working on a laptop computer. My desk is the wooden TV tray that my laptop sits on. My office is wherever in the house I decide to put the TV tray on any given day. I do "signal processing" research and development in the field of wireless communications. I guess you could say that it is applied mathematics, or engineering, but it is not like "normal" engineering because it involves no hardware. Anyway, it has trained my mind to be more rigorous and logical than the average citizen.
My retirement from the rat race has freed up time for study of stock market investing. There are a very large number of systems for making money in the stock market. Various stock screens filter all the stocks in the U.S.A. markets, winnowing them down to the few that you should invest in. These systems are described in various books and articles.
Remember that my R&D experience involves rigorous analysis. So in the last couple of years, I read many of these investing schemes, but felt uneasy that the authors' analyses of their performance was unconvincing. You see, when one develops an investing strategy, a method of evaluating it involves "back testing". Back testing applies the strategy retrospectively to prior years to measure the returns that would have been gained if one had used that strategy. The problem is, there are a large number of ways to wittingly or unwittingly screw up the back testing. Some of those mistakes can be quite subtle.
As a skeptical engineer, I did not trust these authors' results. I needed to do the back testing myself, so that I could evaluate all the strategies on an equal footing and avoid biasing the results. A friend of mine turned me on to a suitable back testing program, which came with 12 years of historical data and a subscription for daily updating of the database as well. This was about 2 months ago. I purchased the program and did back testing of about a dozen of the most promising strategies, and about 3 of the 12 gave excellent results.
I tested the strategies over 1 year time periods. The first trial started January 1, 1997 and ended December 31, 1997. The second trial was also 1 year long, but started one month later. There were 115 trials altogether, with the last one-year period ending yesterday. These strategies did not involve the use of margin (investing with borrowed money). They did involve shorting stocks (a strategy that benefits when a stock's price declines) during bear market periods, as well as buying stocks long (the normal method of investing that benefits when a stock's price increases) during bull market periods.
The program I use is pretty sophisticated. It has numerous features that allow one to avoid most of the simplifying assumptions that typically lead to back testing errors. For instance, it simulates buying a stock at the average price of the stock during the next trading day after the buy decision is made, and it accounts for commissions. If you are interested, you can find out more at www.vectorvest.com. Of course, I have no financial interest in the company.
I just discovered today another subtle way in which one can fool oneself with back testing. I found out that my back-testing program uses a database that omits the history of any stocks that are no longer in existence. That makes the back-testing results look better than they should, since in the simulation, only the survivors are purchased. I found out that this is called the "survivor bias".
I "retired" at 50 years of age. I put that word, "retired" in quotes because what I really did was quit my job and become self employed. I am now 52. I work about 25 hours per week, from home, and earn about the same as I did when I was in that job, working about 50 hours per week.
I have virtually no stress now, and no long commute on traffic-congested highways. I have plenty of time to do what I want to do, when I want to do it, and I enjoy the work that I am doing. I have achieved wealth (according to my "time-centered" definition of wealth). But I have not acquired expensive objects. My house is not the house of a rich person, neither is my car. I don't have any expensive hobbies. Rather, I have achieved my freedom from the rat race in large part by avoiding the purchase of expensive things.
My work now consists of me working on a laptop computer. My desk is the wooden TV tray that my laptop sits on. My office is wherever in the house I decide to put the TV tray on any given day. I do "signal processing" research and development in the field of wireless communications. I guess you could say that it is applied mathematics, or engineering, but it is not like "normal" engineering because it involves no hardware. Anyway, it has trained my mind to be more rigorous and logical than the average citizen.
My retirement from the rat race has freed up time for study of stock market investing. There are a very large number of systems for making money in the stock market. Various stock screens filter all the stocks in the U.S.A. markets, winnowing them down to the few that you should invest in. These systems are described in various books and articles.
Remember that my R&D experience involves rigorous analysis. So in the last couple of years, I read many of these investing schemes, but felt uneasy that the authors' analyses of their performance was unconvincing. You see, when one develops an investing strategy, a method of evaluating it involves "back testing". Back testing applies the strategy retrospectively to prior years to measure the returns that would have been gained if one had used that strategy. The problem is, there are a large number of ways to wittingly or unwittingly screw up the back testing. Some of those mistakes can be quite subtle.
As a skeptical engineer, I did not trust these authors' results. I needed to do the back testing myself, so that I could evaluate all the strategies on an equal footing and avoid biasing the results. A friend of mine turned me on to a suitable back testing program, which came with 12 years of historical data and a subscription for daily updating of the database as well. This was about 2 months ago. I purchased the program and did back testing of about a dozen of the most promising strategies, and about 3 of the 12 gave excellent results.
I tested the strategies over 1 year time periods. The first trial started January 1, 1997 and ended December 31, 1997. The second trial was also 1 year long, but started one month later. There were 115 trials altogether, with the last one-year period ending yesterday. These strategies did not involve the use of margin (investing with borrowed money). They did involve shorting stocks (a strategy that benefits when a stock's price declines) during bear market periods, as well as buying stocks long (the normal method of investing that benefits when a stock's price increases) during bull market periods.
The program I use is pretty sophisticated. It has numerous features that allow one to avoid most of the simplifying assumptions that typically lead to back testing errors. For instance, it simulates buying a stock at the average price of the stock during the next trading day after the buy decision is made, and it accounts for commissions. If you are interested, you can find out more at www.vectorvest.com. Of course, I have no financial interest in the company.
I just discovered today another subtle way in which one can fool oneself with back testing. I found out that my back-testing program uses a database that omits the history of any stocks that are no longer in existence. That makes the back-testing results look better than they should, since in the simulation, only the survivors are purchased. I found out that this is called the "survivor bias".
Sunday, July 22, 2007
Violence
It seems to me that most people who feel themselves to be "spiritual" reject violence. But in my opinion, this rejection of violence is not well thought out.
Does their rejection of violence mean that they would, if they had their way, take the guns away from their policemen and soldiers? Do they propose to shower violent criminals with love and flowers?
Most people who consider themselves to be "spiritual" people are omnivores. How do they rationalize that? Do they not consider killing and eating a pig to be violent (I do!)? One way to avoid acknowledgement of our violent eating habits is to call various types of meat by names other than the animal names. We don't call the meat "baby cow", we call it "veal".
Some people are vegetarians, but they wear leather belts and shoes (but would NEVER consider wearing a mink coat). Peoples' ideas on the issue of violence seem filled with inconsistencies.
Violence exists throughout the natural world and throughout human civilization. In an effort to minimize violence and create civil societies, governments evolved. Here is my definition: "a government is an organization which has a monopoly on violence within a region". To the degree that an organization actually demonstrates a monopoly on violence, that is the degree to which it is recognized as the government of a region. When other actors do violence within that region, we call those people criminals and expect the government to make them cease, employing violence as a means to that end, if necessary. We shield our consciousness from the violence of the world by sub-contracting the violent jobs out to cattle, pig and poultry ranchers, butchers, fishermen, policemen, prison officers and soldiers. This allows us to pretend that we are non-violent.
Here is a quote from Mahatma Gandhi's autobiography.
"I felt that Indians residing in England ought to do their bit in the war... As soon as the news reached South Africa that I ... had offered my services in the war, I received two cables. One of these was from Mr. Polak who questioned the consistency of my action with my profession of ahimsa [non-violence]....
We are helpless mortals caught in the conflagration of himsa [violence].... Man cannot for a moment live without consciously or unconsciously committing outward himsa. The very fact of his living - eating, drinking and moving about - necessarily involves some himsa, destruction of life, be it ever so minute. A votary of ahimsa therefore remains true to his faith if the spring of all his actions is compassion... but he can never become entirely free from outward himsa...
Whilst in England I was enjoying the protection of the British Fleet, and taking shelter as I did under its armed might, I was directly participating in its potential violence. Therefore, If I desired to retain my connection with the Empire and to live under its banner, ... I thought there was nothing for it but to serve in the war."
In my opinion, spiritual practitioners should not spend their time trying to bring "peace on earth". Violence and peace are merely the two ends of the same stick. To try to bring peace on earth is to get caught in the duality trap. These dualities are not the fundamental fabric of life. The fundamental fabric of life transcends duality. A spiritual practitioner should constantly be letting go of the illusion that the fundamental essence of life is duality.
Does their rejection of violence mean that they would, if they had their way, take the guns away from their policemen and soldiers? Do they propose to shower violent criminals with love and flowers?
Most people who consider themselves to be "spiritual" people are omnivores. How do they rationalize that? Do they not consider killing and eating a pig to be violent (I do!)? One way to avoid acknowledgement of our violent eating habits is to call various types of meat by names other than the animal names. We don't call the meat "baby cow", we call it "veal".
Some people are vegetarians, but they wear leather belts and shoes (but would NEVER consider wearing a mink coat). Peoples' ideas on the issue of violence seem filled with inconsistencies.
Violence exists throughout the natural world and throughout human civilization. In an effort to minimize violence and create civil societies, governments evolved. Here is my definition: "a government is an organization which has a monopoly on violence within a region". To the degree that an organization actually demonstrates a monopoly on violence, that is the degree to which it is recognized as the government of a region. When other actors do violence within that region, we call those people criminals and expect the government to make them cease, employing violence as a means to that end, if necessary. We shield our consciousness from the violence of the world by sub-contracting the violent jobs out to cattle, pig and poultry ranchers, butchers, fishermen, policemen, prison officers and soldiers. This allows us to pretend that we are non-violent.
Here is a quote from Mahatma Gandhi's autobiography.
"I felt that Indians residing in England ought to do their bit in the war... As soon as the news reached South Africa that I ... had offered my services in the war, I received two cables. One of these was from Mr. Polak who questioned the consistency of my action with my profession of ahimsa [non-violence]....
We are helpless mortals caught in the conflagration of himsa [violence].... Man cannot for a moment live without consciously or unconsciously committing outward himsa. The very fact of his living - eating, drinking and moving about - necessarily involves some himsa, destruction of life, be it ever so minute. A votary of ahimsa therefore remains true to his faith if the spring of all his actions is compassion... but he can never become entirely free from outward himsa...
Whilst in England I was enjoying the protection of the British Fleet, and taking shelter as I did under its armed might, I was directly participating in its potential violence. Therefore, If I desired to retain my connection with the Empire and to live under its banner, ... I thought there was nothing for it but to serve in the war."
In my opinion, spiritual practitioners should not spend their time trying to bring "peace on earth". Violence and peace are merely the two ends of the same stick. To try to bring peace on earth is to get caught in the duality trap. These dualities are not the fundamental fabric of life. The fundamental fabric of life transcends duality. A spiritual practitioner should constantly be letting go of the illusion that the fundamental essence of life is duality.
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Avoid the Duality Trap!
It seems to me that most people think spirituality is about being good, moral, pure, kind, gentle and helpful. I don't believe that at all, because all of those qualities exist as one pole of a duality, and I don't believe that spirit lives in the world of duality. Rather, I believe that if there is spirit, then spirit has to be transcendent.
It is obvious that nothing in the world of duality can be infinite, omnipotent or omniscient, so a belief in spirit (or God) who has all of these qualities is inconsistent with a belief that "God is good". I don't believe that God is good. God must transcend the good-bad duality.
If God is transcendental, then any conception of God's nature will be a wrong conception. So the first line of the Tao Teh Ching says, "That Tao which can be spoken of is not the true Tao". And the Muslims forbid images of God and the Jews forbid speaking God's name and Moses got pretty pissed off about that golden calf, if I remember correctly.
A false belief that my essential nature is "in the world" of duality is the core essential mistake from which all of my suffering springs. The belief in the primacy of duality is the original sin. Remember that Adam and Eve "ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" (they fell into the duality trap), and that right there was the end of the good times.
Therefore, the job of a spiritual practitioner is to negate the false belief that duality is the fundamental fabric of existence. And that negation is the spiritual practitioner's only job. Forget about saving the world... that's a mission dreamed up by a mind caught in the duality trap.
It is obvious that nothing in the world of duality can be infinite, omnipotent or omniscient, so a belief in spirit (or God) who has all of these qualities is inconsistent with a belief that "God is good". I don't believe that God is good. God must transcend the good-bad duality.
If God is transcendental, then any conception of God's nature will be a wrong conception. So the first line of the Tao Teh Ching says, "That Tao which can be spoken of is not the true Tao". And the Muslims forbid images of God and the Jews forbid speaking God's name and Moses got pretty pissed off about that golden calf, if I remember correctly.
A false belief that my essential nature is "in the world" of duality is the core essential mistake from which all of my suffering springs. The belief in the primacy of duality is the original sin. Remember that Adam and Eve "ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" (they fell into the duality trap), and that right there was the end of the good times.
Therefore, the job of a spiritual practitioner is to negate the false belief that duality is the fundamental fabric of existence. And that negation is the spiritual practitioner's only job. Forget about saving the world... that's a mission dreamed up by a mind caught in the duality trap.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)