..in response to a comment about J Krishnamurti and Schopenhauer:
Interestingly, the sense of ‘no lack’ does not cause inertia or phlematism. It’s more a truly ‘self’-less situation in which the already present ‘no-lackness’ expresses itself joyfully. Children play in a sand castle without a felt need to entertain any meaning.
JK would agree with St Francis of Assisi who said: “What we are looking for is what is looking.’
We can verify this by sensing that the ‘looking itself’ has no lack. It is the mental identification with a ‘me’ that
1. believes that it causes the seeing (how ridiculous to think this) and
2. interprets/defines/relates to the apparent objects (what is ‘seen’)
Those two mental activities result in a sense of lack and cause the striving toward no lack. Hence the yearning for meaning – in the hope that meaning will fill the sense of lack. It won’t. To realise the ever-fresh, timeless ‘looking’ (fundamental awareness) is what Krishnamurti is pointing to – and many others. Schopenhauer’s interpretations can lure the mind into dwelling on theory. Once done with it, the actual realisation of what JK is pointing to is more rewarding.
When you feel lack, your meaning is to feel no lack. When there is no sense of lack, there is no need to add meaning to life. That is only seen when the imagined ‘I’ is not imagined any longer. The absense of this imagination reveals fullness.
I can’t confirm that the non-dual has created a substance. I agree that it appears so. The mind tends to believe it. (I don’t.) Everything is really empty but appears to be not empty, particularly if the mind continuously refers to the believed-in past to confirm that there is substance in the presence. These assumptions are projected into a non-existing present as if that present was a section out of time. In reality, the present is timeless, non-dual awareness. If anything could be termed ‘substance’ I’d say it is the timeless that is ’empty substance’. The mind will think that this statement is based on fantasy whereas nondual seeing ‘says’ that believing in matter is based on fantasy.
In other ‘teachings’ the attempt is made to adjust to the ignorance of the listener’s minds so that the said can be related to. In Paul’s case, there is this uncompromising, unpretentious directness that is not going to guide the conditioned mind to a loftier place. He undermines it. How beautiful is that!
The ‘selfing’ can’t ‘unself’ itself, in the same way as it is impossible to get out of the mud by trying to pull one’s own leg. However, to honestly see the activity of selfing may relax that activity, and then attention may be freed from its hypnotic involvement with that activity, and it could more easily return to the realization that it is not confined by selfing. I don’t know of anyone explaining this as clearly as Paul Hedderman
To improve skills and to make homes look better is not in opposition to our subject of realizing freedom. Skills are tools, and we can enjoy these skills and improve them without compromising freedom. The identification with a ‘me’ that believes it is not good enough is the problem. You don’t identify with your hammer, and in the same way you don’t identify yourself with any skill, no matter how advanced they are. They are beautiful tools in the hands of the infinite. In fact your hammer will hit the nail more precisely if the identification with the ‘me’ has been dropped by just observing it when it pops up without judgement.
In response to a comment by Gavin.
One could call this a ‘method,’ the most shunned word in the world of advaita. Pausing, facing whatever is perceived could be called ‘the recipe.’ ‘Pausing’ is another word for ‘not doing anything.’ Therefore, the words ‘method’ and ‘recipe’ are inadequate as they usually imply some doing such as favoring, rejecting, changing, achieving, avoiding.