Post by Moller de la Rouviere

Welcome to the main forum. When you are ready to start a conversation, register and once your application is processed a guide will come to talk to you.
This is one-on-one style forum, one thread per green member.
User avatar
Damon Kamda
Site Admin
Posts: 1292
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2011 10:09 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Post by Moller de la Rouviere

Postby Damon Kamda » Tue Apr 03, 2012 6:34 pm

Moved this post from somewhere else.
Dear friends,

Allow me to introduce myself as Moller de la Rouviere from South Africa. I notice that you remind seekers that this is not a place for general spiritual discussions. This to me seems quite acceptable. However, may I ask if this forum would accept critical views of the methods for ego-transcending suggested on LU for seekers to apply to themselves in order to liberate them from the spell of the false ego-sense?
I very sincerely beileve that that although your general approach is useful and without doubt presented with great integrity and clarity, the method itself may require not inconsiderable modifications and deeper enquiry into the human situation as a whole than the kind of messages i read presenting the liberated views of many of those who follow your instructions.
Kindly let me know your response.
warm greetings,
Moller de la Rouviere

User avatar
dkelso
Posts: 161
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 10:49 pm
Location: San Jose, CA
Contact:

Re: Post by Moller de la Rouviere

Postby dkelso » Tue Apr 03, 2012 7:00 pm

Glad you posted this Damon as it's good to critique ourselves periodically.

When Moller says:
the method itself may require not inconsiderable modifications and deeper enquiry into the human situation as a whole than the kind of messages i read presenting the liberated views of many of those who follow your instructions.
I'm not sure what he means exactly, can you clarify, or maybe I can ask him if that is cool?

best,
Dan

User avatar
Chris
Posts: 165
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 5:05 pm

Re: Post by Moller de la Rouviere

Postby Chris » Tue Apr 03, 2012 7:04 pm

Must admit I am intrigued...fire away!

User avatar
Damon Kamda
Site Admin
Posts: 1292
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2011 10:09 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Post by Moller de la Rouviere

Postby Damon Kamda » Tue Apr 03, 2012 7:11 pm

I'm not sure what he means exactly, can you clarify, or maybe I can ask him if that is cool?
He originally posted this in the Posting Rights section, which should be locked, so I moved it from there and PM-ed him that the thread is now here. He should be on the forum.

I agree with Dan and Chris.

Welcome to the Forum, Moller. We'd be more than interested in hearing your take on all of this.

User avatar
Ilona
Site Admin
Posts: 7971
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 1:57 pm
Location: Lithuania
Contact:

Re: Post by Moller de la Rouviere

Postby Ilona » Tue Apr 03, 2012 7:20 pm

Hello Moller,
it's a pleasure to welcome you here. Looking forward to hear how we can improve. Very curious.
Let's see what you got.

User avatar
mollerdlr
Posts: 4
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2012 8:37 am

Re: Post by Moller de la Rouviere

Postby mollerdlr » Fri Apr 06, 2012 5:21 pm

Must admit I am intrigued...fire away!
Friends,
Thanks for asking me to elaborate somewhat on what I have mentioned in my first posting.

If I understand correctly (and please correct me if I am missing a few cards in the deck) the principle on which the enlightenment as suggested by LU is founded pivots on the deep understanding that the I-state is nothing but an illusion as something real to be noticed within oneselfor a simple delusion of mind. I really like the analogy used on these forums which makes the point that to look for the 'I' (as Maharshi suggests) or to believe in the 'I' as is the case with most 'unenlightened' folks in general is not unlike searching for a unicorn in the front room. It is simply a futile exercise from the very beginning.

In my view, the arguments proposed by the LU-method with regard to the process of arriving at this insight of no 'I', are all very sound. The mind is simply required to look into the truth of the absurdity of the whole 'I'-thought enterprise and to cognise the fact that 'I' is a fiction of the mind itself, and then to relax into that which is beyond mind and therefore the presumption of the 'I'-conscious state. No further enquiry is necessary. Go directly beyond the 'I'-thought whenever the 'I'-thought appears and takes hold as the center of one's being. I am not sure if this description gives the whole picture of the LU-method, but I believe that in some ways it touch on the fundamental problem to be solved and how to go about it. Naturally I may be missing a lot here as i am new to this forum and may still lack of depth of understanding the wole picture. So kindly bear with me.

I my view, the 'I' is not just a thought. I have described it as the 'I'-sense rather that the 'I' ,as this sense of 'I'-ness encompasses a much wider field of human experience than just the thought-aspect of it. In my book: 'The Only Awakening', I discuss this matter in considerable detail. I wish i could go into the whole thing here in detail, but if anyone is interested, I would be happy to forward this part of the book to this forum for perusal.

Briefly I have devided the separate self-sense into three main categories:
1) Primal recoil: This happens very early in life when the person is very vulnerable to the perceived lack of love, care, physical contact and other forms of emotional deprivation. This profound recoil from the wide open space in which early awareness operates could be seen as the very first gesture of 'I'-consciousness. This early separation remains with us for the rest of our life until properly investigated and transcended through correct practice or perhaps psychological assistance.
2) Because we tend to experience everything indirectly through the mediation of thought (me and the not-me), and are completely identified with the content of thought, thought assumes that because we are separate perceivers of our world (both inner and outer) we have a separate existence to everything which appears in our field of awareness in any moment. This is the second component which constitutes the separate self-sense. We have extended this 'I'-thought into our language where we say 'I think', 'Ifeel, 'I feel guilty', 'enlightened', 'sad', etc. And few of us realise the profound fragmentary effect language has on the integrity of our being.
3) The ego is a comparatively based creature. It always measures its own position in relation to the 'outside' world in just about everything we do and in every challenge we meet. Without this constant self-measuring, the ego simply would not exist. Yet, the alienation and fundamental bewilderment inherent in the ego-state creates in us the inevitable disposition of separateness from our world.

Naturally there are other componets of the separate self-sense, but suffice to mention that even if we only take these factors together in consideration, it would be difficult to describe the 'I' as a mere thought arising in consciousness every so often. The separate self-sense is the foundation of Samsara (bondage to the false separatae self-sense). Many deep and sincere students of life have considered this problem over the ages and few have managed to break truly, and sustainably free from this imposition on our being. The net of the 'i'-conscious state is subtly woven into our being, and to me, we are not going to break free from this sickness by just learning a few methods of relaxing beyond the appearance of the presumed 'I'-state. It will come back to haunt us every time we have a misunderstanding with our loved ones, or have done something really stupid, or feel threatened in our job, or are rediculed by someone, or feel depressed, or stand up for one's rights, or have pain, or argue with someone, or cheer on one's favorite sporst star or baseball or soccer team, or believe strongly in an issue, or feel hurt by someone, or neglegted, or lonely etc., etc. These are all fertile situations for the 'I'-state to present itself. And few of us can claim we are not generally affected by the things mentioned above, whether we believe in the 'I' or not.

To have the thought of no-'I' is yet to have another thought. It is still a question of (to quote J.Krishnamurti) ' one thought tyranizing another thought'. No- 'I' is a state or condition of Being, which does not happen within the categories of thought at all. It is a direct experience, not another subtle thought. And integrating the non-I state into ones daily living is not an easy task. There is no such state as perpetual enlightenment other than as a thought. Only thought can give apparent continuity to an original experience of non-'I'. We are always vulnerable to the imposition of the 'I'. This is why vigilance is so important. Enlightenment is an ongoing affair. Permanent enlightenment is a myth. This is why I prefer not to regard, or describe, myself as enlightened. The problem of the 'I'-conscious state is the problem of our present human situation. Never be fooled by appearances.

Not sure if this has any relevance to your enquiry on this forum. I hope it was woth sharing.
Hand in hand,
Moller de la Rouviere
www.spiritualhumanism.co.za

User avatar
Chris
Posts: 165
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 5:05 pm

Re: Post by Moller de la Rouviere

Postby Chris » Sat Apr 07, 2012 2:19 pm

To have the thought of no-'I' is yet to have another thought. It is still a question of (to quote J.Krishnamurti) ' one thought tyranizing another thought'.
You are correct and this is not what we are pointing to here.
No- 'I' is a state or condition of Being, which does not happen within the categories of thought at all. It is a direct experience, not another subtle thought.
Exactly what we point to here.
And integrating the non-I state into ones daily living is not an easy task. There is no such state as perpetual enlightenment other than as a thought. Only thought can give apparent continuity to an original experience of non-'I'. We are always vulnerable to the imposition of the 'I'. This is why vigilance is so important. Enlightenment is an ongoing affair. Permanent enlightenment is a myth. This is why I prefer not to regard, or describe, myself as enlightened. The problem of the 'I'-conscious state is the problem of our present human situation. Never be fooled by appearances.
There is no one, no controller to do what you state above. If someone reads your book, it may or may not happen that the method of self improvement you suggested above will be undertaken because they have been exposed to the ideas that you present. The belief in the need for vigilance and that enlightenment is an ongoing affair causes seeking and suffering. Why do you say that our present human state is a problem?

User avatar
Ilona
Site Admin
Posts: 7971
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 1:57 pm
Location: Lithuania
Contact:

Re: Post by Moller de la Rouviere

Postby Ilona » Sun Apr 08, 2012 9:33 am

Dear moller. Thank you very much for your post.
You say that I is more than a thought.
We say that I is a thought as all others- a label, that points to other thoughts about i. The feeling of aliveness, being, amness, isness, etc. is not I. Its not something that any label could define.
I-ness as you call it is another concept, like no-self.

Please share the bit of your book where you talk more about it. I'd love to read it.

Sending love.

User avatar
mollerdlr
Posts: 4
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2012 8:37 am

Re: Post by Moller de la Rouviere

Postby mollerdlr » Mon Apr 09, 2012 10:58 am

Dear moller. Thank you very much for your post.
You say that I is more than a thought.
We say that I is a thought as all others- a label, that points to other thoughts about i. The feeling of aliveness, being, amness, isness, etc. is not I. Its not something that any label could define.
I-ness as you call it is another concept, like no-self.

Please share the bit of your book where you talk more about it. I'd love to read it.

Sending love.
Dear Ilona,
Thanks in return for your kind and considerate response.

I fully agree that the 'I'-thought is a thougth next to others. What I am trying to point to is that when we are depressed, lonely, feel abused, hurt, contracted into some or other psychological state (inferiority, emotional deprivation, phobic response, sense of inadequacy, fear of failure etc), experiencing thought - created fear, being caught in materialism, religion, some grand philosophical set of ideas, have a fierce disagreement with one's partner, experience the loss of a loved one, or a marital/relational break-up, or a sense of existential vacuum-ness etc., etc., - all these states are states of the separate self. However, in very few instances can we immediately discern the ego-thought as part of such states. These are all very painful experiences and constitute the suffering we bring upon ourselves as human beings, yet, although they all may have the false self-sense behind them as the presumed experiencer of these states, they do not exist, and do not control us the way they do because of the presumed self which form part of them.
The depressed person is depressed, not because of their ego, but because many subtle factors have come into play in the moment which trgigger a state of emotional disturbance we call depression. Depression is certainly part of the condition of the separate self-sense. But depression is not necessarily caused by it. To point to the non-existence of the 'I' when interviewing a depressed person, may just make things worse. The sense of depression is many layered, and whilst it is part of the separate self-sense, it has to be approached in many other creative ways which may relieve the person of their chronic depression.

So is the case with all the mental-emotional states I referred to above. When they are present, any one such state forms in and of itself the totality of the separate self-sense while such a state lasts. The inferior person, IS their inferiority while it lasts. Pointing out the separation between their sense of inferiority and the presumed 'I' experiencing this inferiority would most probably be completely counter-productive. For the person experiencing a bout of inferiority their inferiority is absolutely real and solid. The fact that it may be a mere projection of thought, is a mere technicality. Such a person requires assistance to gain a sense of self-understanding, self-worth and insight into their inner confused functioning which create this ego-state before they may be ready to consider the possibility of letting go of their 'precious' ego of which they have such a low esteem at that moment. So again, although the ego is part of the condition of inferiority, it not the only factor driving it. The ego is a many-layered series of complications, both mentally and emotionally, and cannot rightfully be called to be only of the nature of thought.

My sense is that we should first fully understand the problem before we give it a label and discard it as a mere artifact of thought. In a previous letter i enumurated some of the salient aspects of the separate self-sense as awhole. No one, but yourself, has cared to explore this matter with me. Perhaps they are so 100% convinced of their storyline that the ego is just a thought and as such a non-existent falacy, that they have temporarily lost the urgency to look deeper into this matter of the presumed existence of the ego.

My interest in these matters is to look into the nature of human-created suffering. The ego is indeed at the root of much of this. But unless we investigate the ego as such, we may never discover for ourselves that it is not a thought next to other thoughts, but perhaps much deeper based within our psyche. My suggestion is that we re-open the book on the statement and apparent truth that the ego is just a thought and that relieving ourselves of this thought, we would be free from all human-created suffering. The quest for freedom is much deeper and much more beautiful than coming to simple conclusions too early in our enquiry.

Lastly, you asked about some material from my book. I know i mentioned this in another submission. But in retrospect, I feel my book follows a certain order and to present one chapter on its own, may present it out of context. If however, you are still interested, I would be very happy to email you the chapter I was referring to out of respect for your integrity and clear sincerity to be of help to others. Please let me know privately if this would be of interes.
Warm greetings,
Moller.

User avatar
Ilona
Site Admin
Posts: 7971
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 1:57 pm
Location: Lithuania
Contact:

Re: Post by Moller de la Rouviere

Postby Ilona » Mon Apr 09, 2012 1:50 pm

Thank you for answer.
My sense is that we should first fully understand the problem before we give it a label and discard it as a mere artifact of thought.
hm, we are not here to discard anything, nor analyze. the only thing that works is 'the gate'. that is looking at reality, as it is. mind is used to complicated ideas and it always seeks to make everything even more complicated. pure simplicity cuts through all that without mercy. truth is simple. illusion is complicated. to see the simplicity one needs to drop all he knows and take a fresh look.

when i work with people who are depressed and in a lot of suffering, of course it is not possible to get them see the truth without a lot of clearing first. but it is not useful to analyze anything, all this is mind stuff. what i point to is how to deal with feelings, how to allow everything to be ok.
My interest in these matters is to look into the nature of human-created suffering. The ego is indeed at the root of much of this.
the root of all suffering is the assuption that there is this i that owns the ego. remove the i and ego has no more solidity, it's a costume, not a person. and if word ego is replaced with word character it has no more negative flavour and it's much easier to investigate.

as you may have noticed, we are only pointing where to look, the inquiry is done by the seeker. all we can help with is 'holding a hand' and asking questions. unless the seeing happens, no amount of persuasion or convincing makes any change.
But unless we investigate the ego as such, we may never discover for ourselves that it is not a thought next to other thoughts, but perhaps much deeper based within our psyche.
interesting, what is it that you see that ego is? can we talk about it?

the quest for freedom is on until the simple truth is faced head on. there is no self. and this is precisely what we do here- point to this, so those who are ready take that look.

yes, please, email me that chapter.

sending love.

User avatar
Chris
Posts: 165
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 5:05 pm

Re: Post by Moller de la Rouviere

Postby Chris » Mon Apr 09, 2012 3:17 pm

No- 'I' is a state or condition of Being, which does not happen within the categories of thought at all. It is a direct experience, not another subtle thought.
Exactly what we point to here.
After reading more of your posts, I do not think you have seen what we point to at LU. I would like to clarify what I said above. I understood what you said above to mean no I is the state or condition of being as in there is no I in actuality. You said "a" state not "the" state, big difference. That is NOT what we point to here, just wanted to clarify.


Return to “THE GATE”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests