Rules of the non-duality club

I think this guy has nailed non-duality, in a Fight Club sense. Sure seems like he's been following the non-dual comment conversations on this blog. See if you agree.

Comments

[tucson]

I think they missed it. There is no next round, nor this round either (remember..no-thing), and you can't fight yourself because there isn't one. So I think they missed it, but the 'zen motivational poster' was right on. I was very surprised to learn that I have about 25 of them stacked in my printer tray. I'm selling them cheap. $5 each or 10 for $45 + shipping of course.

[tAo]

I agree... they all missed it. (all those folks at that site, and also the sites that that site had links to.

tAo will politely explain why...

First and last 'rule': When it comes to non-duality... there AIN'T NO RULES.

I agree... they all missed it. (all those folks at that site, and also the sites that that site had links to, like Suzanne's site.

Now for a few comments on "Suzanne's rules of nonduality":

http://nothingexistsdespiteappearances.blogspot.com/2009/06/i-am-not-so-nice-to-change-true-rules.html

Suzanne's so-called "rules of nonduality" (followed by my comments):

1) Nothing exists. -- Nope. Nothing is nothing. So "nothing" does NOT exist. Every "thing" is what exists.

2) Everything that seems to exist is illusory. -- Nope. "Illusory" is just an idea. If something "seems" to exist, then for all intent and purposes, it exists.

3) This appearance is meaningless, yet miraculous, and is its own purpose. -- Nope. The meaning of something all depends upon the one who ascribes meaning to it, as does "purpose" as well.

4) All apparent dual reality is oneness. -- Nope. "Oneness" is just an idea. Whereas "reality" is whatever IS the case.

5) Any thought, feeling, sensation, or action that seems to occur is perfect. -- Nope. "Perfect" is just an idea. Thoughts, feelings, sensations, and actions simply happen.

6) No matter how paradoxical the happening, it is perfect, i.e., fear-based ego reactions "after" oneness has been "seen" or apprehended. -- Nope. There is no "oneness"except as an idea and a word.

7) There is no time. All there is, is this, this ever present "moment". -- Nope. Time is motion, and vibration, and growth, and decay, and... and... and... and... and... and... and... and...

8) There is no space. Space is part of the illusion; what is perceived is an appearance only. -- Nope. Space is the universe. Space is the very things that occupy space, as well as their absence (such as created by a window or a door).

9) Everything is allowed, as everything is one, including rejecting oneness. -- Nope. There are no rules.

10) There are no separate individuals; this is the dream. The mind/body organism is lived. -- Nope. For Suzanne, its a dream. For me, its not a dream. I am awake.

11) The sense of separation is the longing for oneness. -- Nope. The search for "oneness" is itself the separation.

12) As oneness is everything, there is no true separation; everything the seeker looks for has never left, as it is everything. -- Nope. There is no "oneness" except as an idea.

13) When writing about oneness, simply dropping the personal pronoun doesn't mean the apparent writer has "awakened". There is no one, so no one can "awaken". -- Nope. I definitely exist, and I am definitely awake, and so therefore Suzanne is wrong.

14) Oneness (or enlightenment, liberation, consciousness, as variously referred to by different writers) cannot be described, as it is not a concept, a feeling, or an experience. -- Nope. It most certainly IS "a concept" and a "feeling". And thats all it is.

15) Paradoxically, the story in time seems to continue whether oneness is apprehended (by no one) or not. Often, the story seems to go more smoothly, and seems much more informed by compassion and unconditional love, but there is no guarantee. -- Nope. The "story" is whatever you think it is.

16) The overriding quality of oneness is unconditional love. Unconditional love is just that, unconditional, and accepts everything, as it is everything. -- Nope. Love is just a word, and so is "unconditional".

17) What the seeker is seeking is life, just exactly as it is, in all its imperfection and multifariousness; thus, "awakening" can seem to be a bit of an anticlimax! -- Nope. There is no "awakening". It's just an idea. Life is, as it always was.

18) The intense feeling of aloneness is exactly the same for every apparent individual, so is actually all-one-ness.

19) Clever wordplay like "aloneness/all-one-ness" is entirely optional. -- [not even worth commenting upon]

20) There is absolutely no way to teach this, as it is already what every apparent thing and individual is. -- Nope. There is no "this".

21) There is absolutely no point in writing about oneness. There is absolutely no point in any apparent activity, except in its intrinsic value. -- Nope. There is a point and a value in everything. If there was no point, no value, then it would not exist.

22) There is no right or wrong; all is unconditional love, in endless guises. -- Nope. There are no "guises". Everything is as it appears. And "unconditional love" is just words.

23) There are no goals, not even the loftiest ones, i.e., ending suffering, stopping war, saving the planet. Who is it that would do these things? There is no one. Whatever is meant to happen, happens. -- NOPE. NOPE. NOPE. There are billions of human beings here, doing all sorts of things. And there is no "meant to happen". Fatalism is BS.

24) This message is exceedingly unpopular. It means that everything the separate individual ever valued is valueless, yet wondrous; meaningless, yet extraordinary. -- Nope. "This message" (Suzanne's message) is absurd. And people DO feel value and meaning. Because meaning and value is what life is all about.

25) There is no one, so no one reads writings about oneness; reading arises. -- Nope. Total BS. I am reading this, and YOU are reading this.

26) No one writes about oneness; words are written. -- Nope. More BS. Many people DO write about "oneness"... including Suzanne who is writng about it right here.

27) The best part of spiritual practice is that the seeker may get fed up and give up. However, there is nothing wrong with spiritual practice; there is nothing wrong with anything. -- Yes there is. There is alot wrong in the world. Just wait until someone does something shitty to you... then you will see.

28) There is no one, so there is no personal responsibility or volition; every choice made, chooses oneness in another guise. -- Nope. Total BS. Suzanne is living in la-la-land. There is definitely "personal responsibility". Just go ask any Court of Law.

29) When life is a miracle, life-affirming actions usually seem to be the story; yet there is no guarantee; in duality, there must be dark for there to be light. -- Nope. This is elementary. "there must be dark" is nonsense. Darkness is not a 'something'. Darkness is simply an absence of light. Any idiot knows that.

30) There is nothing, despite appearances, including these rules. -- Nope. This "nothing" is just more nonsense BS.

[Suzanne]

Perhaps, just perhaps, you are a bit stuck in the story, my love. It seems a nerve was hit! Nothing wrong with that. Apparently, contrariness arises in your story! STRONGLY. That's cool too. Paradoxically, what you point out as "wrong" in the "rules" (which, although it hardly matters, were meant to be tongue-in-cheek and to get people thinking) is the point of the rules: there is a lot wrong in the story, and stories, of life, yet it is all the same thing- oneness, or whatever we're calling it on a Friday afternoon. It would be unusual if no one, in the apparent story of my life, had never done anything "shitty" to me, and in fact, my story is full of trauma, abuse and PTSD. As it happens, that all seems a gift, as does every apparent thing. The duality can be taken seriously, (courts of law, etc,) or not. Words are written, no one prints them out; it's either happening to you, or it's just happening; whichever one seems true is true. Darkness is, indeed, the absence of light; if that doesn't float your boat, then how about there must be suffering for there to be bliss. The wonder and miraculousness of all of this, is its value and meaning, so indeed, life is all about value and meaning. However, I absolutely love the kind of contrary, confrontational character you certainly seem to be, and would only say that words are malleable, labels are loose and in the end, what we're attempting to speak about is not a concept that can be pinned down. Yet it sure is fun to try! -In absurdity, absolutely full of BS, and loving greetings from La-La Land, Suzanne.

[the elephant]

Interesting! Suzanne is like Tucson but to the power 4. Same naive narratives ... same psycho-babbles instead of addressing the issues: "my love. It seems a nerve was hit! " Same story of no-story ... same inability to recognize that they drive and skew the narratives into specific directions, which are beyond's reality own recognition, just so that they can heir themselves tell the story of no-story ...

Life is good ...

[Suzanne]

Interesting. The elephant never forgets, and never forgets to stir it up with his trunk. Oneness does indeed like to talk about itself, whether through Suzanne or through the elephant. Addressing issues sometimes arises, but more "often" does cracking wise. Whatever words and stories come into play, blasting them to smithereens is always an option! What else could you do? In duality, there is affection and resonance, along with pride and orneriness. One balances the other. Life is good, and busy busy busy. Lots of fun arises.

[Roger]

Suzanne,

I enjoyed your webpage. The nondual rules were interesting and fun to read. However, "Neo-Advaita Subsection" term, I found distracting. No big deal. No harm. Could there be a "belief system" of nonduality, referenced and labeled as Neo-Advaita?

Best wishes,
Roger

[Suzanne]

Just finding the labeling, for which I'm not responsible, (nor, according to the rules, am I responsible for anything,) amusing. Tongue firmly in dream-cheek; toujour jouet les mots. Irony. Paradox. Humour. Ha ha? All that stuff. "I" am unaccustomed to being taken so seriously! As followers and believers of the rule of questioning everything, the apparent hallmark of this Churchless Church blog, taking nothing at face value must be second nature. Or perhaps even first nature. Or perhaps our true nature. Or perhaps, who cares?

[Roger]

lol......suzanne.....you're KOOL....

Nothing wrong with "face" value. Face value can be fun. However, I may need to know, who determined the value of a particular face.

True, I have been accused of being an inquisitive devil, but then ....who cares.

Best wishes,
Roger

[Roger]

Tucson,

You stated,

"So I think they missed it, but the 'zen motivational poster' was right on. I was very surprised to learn that I have about 25 of them stacked in my printer tray."

---But, but the Zen "motivational" poster has a blank space in it!!!!! All one can see is emptiness, and voidness, and dang-it a whole bunch of no-thingness!!!!!!
---I need one with a pic of a gal holding a beer, or giving a haircut. Then, I shall be motivated.

Roger

[tAo]

Suzanne writes:

"perhaps, you are a bit stuck in the story, my love."

-- Thinking that I am "stuck in the story"... well thats YOUR "story", not mine. As others here will no doubt tell you, I myself am not much into stories or myths.

"It seems a nerve was hit!"

-- Not me. You can take that up with Brian, as he was the one who referenced his readers to a site that had a link to your site. And my comments about your so-called "rules" of non-duality were actually directed to him and readers, not you.

"Apparently, contrariness arises in your story!"

-- Nope. I hold no so-called "story"... I just call em as I see em.

"That's cool too."

-- Thanks, but I am not in need of any approval. As I said, the formeost point is: there are no rules. Anyone who posits or touts rules, is full of BS.

"the "rules" (which, although it hardly matters, were meant to be tongue-in-cheek and to get people thinking)"

-- So what? You wrote them and you posted them. But, as is typical of others like you (and as The Elephant accurately pointed out, and I agree), you don't want to take any responsibility for what you say and do. Your game is a cop-out game.

"is the point of the rules: there is a lot wrong in the story, and stories, of life, yet it is all the same thing- oneness"

-- That (namely "oneness") is only your own personal opinion and concept.

"in fact, my story is full of trauma, abuse and PTSD."

-- I am so sorry to hear that. But thats all in the past, so why not let that "story" go.

"that all seems a gift, as does every apparent thing."

-- A "gift" you say? Well then, who is the giver, and who is the receiver?

"The duality can be taken seriously, (courts of law, etc,) or not."

-- If you don't take such things seriously (such as "courts of law, etc"), then you may be forced to do so anyway. So your attitude of non-responsibility won't fly in the end. Sooner or later, one way or the other, you will learn that.

"it's either happening to you, or it's just happening; whichever one seems true is true."

-- Its not one or the other. The truth is always: Yes, No, Both, & Neither.

"how about there must be suffering for there to be bliss."

-- Nope. Thats a false idea. Because if that were true, then you could also say that there must be bliss for there to be suffering. \However, very few people (if any) ever experience bliss, but a great many DO suffer. So suffering still exists regardless of bliss. It is not necessary to experience bliss in order to know or experience suffering.

"I absolutely love the kind of contrary, confrontational character you certainly seem to be"

-- Well, I don't love me. I think I am a mean hard-ass. Also btw, I am not some "character" or some "illusion". I am a REAL LIVE sob.... not to mention being a GIHF too.

"what we're attempting to speak about is not a concept that can be pinned down."

-- Nope. "Non-duality" is clearly a concept, and it is a concept that can be definitely pinned down.

"In absurdity, absolutely full of BS, and loving greetings from La-La Land"

-- Glad to hear that you recognize that you hail from La-La Land. However, I hear that the babes in La-La Land are ususally pretty darn hot, so maybe we can work something out.

[Suzanne]

tAo, maybe you just need a hug!

[MonkMojo]

@Brian – Thanks for the link. You got a great thing going here, with a lively community!

@tAo – Dude, I’m pretty much high all the time, so whatever.

[tAo]

MonkMojo,

Huh? Not much substance to your comment.

I am not sure what you are trying to say or what you may be referring to. Perhaps you could explain?

You say that you are "high" all the time... but "high" on what, or in what way? What do you mean? And also, what exactly does your claim of being "high" have to do with my comments???

[Suzanne]

tAo, my sweet, perhaps you're taking just about everything that seems to be just a l-i-i-i-tle bit seriously.

[+Ao]

Dear Suzanne,

Was that a hug from you? If so, thanks. Old hard-ass biker dudes like me appreciate those hugs too.... and especially from sexy And biker babes in bikinis. *wink*

And Roger likes em too... along with a beer in the back of his Ford truck.

Now then... in case you don't know, I'm really quite familiar with Tony Parsons. I've read all his books some years back, and have seen/heard all his talks. Ditto for the others of his ilk.

I also have an excellent and very deep and comprehensive knowledge and deep experience in the teaching of Sri Ramana Maharshi, having lived at Arunachala for awhile some decades ago. So all in all, I'm very well acquainted with where you seem to be coming from.

But like my friend and our blog author/founder Brian, I'm just not impressed by any of the words or the concepts anymore. In some ways, I sort of tend to go more along the lines of a dzogchen kinda guy.... which has a very slight similarity, but without all the attached effort and conceptualization that pervades the advaita and the neo-advaita trip.

Yours truly,

[Suzanne]

Entirely unaccountably, the urge to write arises, the concepts fly, there is seeing or not, it matters not. What is, is, and that's what it is! The concepts, words, etc., as you know, can only point. For your amusement, whatever it is nonduality/advaita/oneness etc. "people" go on about, seemed to happen to me, and I had no words, just assumed I was going mad! Then I ran into T. Parsons - apparently - and those words seemed as good as any. The "advaita and neo-advaita trip" are just apparent people trying to point to something that's wonderful, unaccountably so. And it all seems to loop back around to just exactly what's happening, whatever the hell that seems to be. Commenting, and delivering an electronic hug! Just love those biker dudes.