intersubjective nondual

This is a theme I return to frequently.

One reason why I think the intersubjective must be taken up is that we are at the end of the individual path. This connects with the previous post on Hebrew in a strange way. Reading (however very little at this point) of the Hebrew Bible in Hebrew, you would never want to go back to an English translation ever again. It becomes so lifeless.

I can feel more viscerally why Muslims do not want the Qu'ran translated. In English it's a very weak text. There is no way the English can convey the depth that must exist in the text in the Arabic to cause such deep committment the worldover. No other rational explanation makes sense, as it were.

Not that it is magic (in the cheap sense), but there is a power to the original language that pervades the words, the meaning of the text that can not be captured otherwise.

Just so with English and particularly nondual spiritual realizers. In the English language, the source language of the awakening & spiritual-religious message, the heights (or depths if you prefer) belong to Adi Da.

To me Da is the best and the worst of the individual path. (and sometimes worse than the worst in his own [un]ethical dealings). There is a full-bodiedness, for lack of a better word, and immediacy to the text/teaching I don't find elsewhere.

It is still however the Absolute Teaching only. No Cause, No Conditions. Abiding and Resting as the SELF. He does that single aspect of it all better than any other I have ever seen or read.

I rarely if ever write about the Absolute because why should I? What's the point? If that is what you are seeking then read Da. Listen to his CDs, see his videos. Why re-invent the wheel?

As Nagarjuna said to see through phenomenal reality: it is Shunya. Shunya is not another term for phenomena. They are not actually empty. They are not full. They are Shunya. Empty of categories like emptiness and fullness.

But I'll commit heresy here--or at least suggest it--so what? And that is where I find myself pulled more to the intersubjective, to the evolutionary.

Ethically the traditional (Eastern) enlightenment path is very tricky because it can easily lead to a non-involvement in the Universe. Or an enforced identity un-easily merged/married with the Absolute Awakening: e.g. powerful Tantric Lord; Mahayana "nice guy", or Theravadin special separate elitist enlightened one.

All seem like too much work to me and I don't connect with them. They are dead and lifeless to me.

Where does following this individual only path really get us anymore?

And as someone who is a Christian of course, I believe in the goodness of creation. The Western Enlightenment was about political and social freedom. The betterment of the conditions, not just resting as the Source of all Conditionality.

The marriage of the Eastern spiritual and Western political awakening is the real key to the future. A truly global world will never occur without it. What Da calls the Alpha and Omega cultures respectively. Each only interested in one or the other: Eastern Source/Beginning (Alpha); Western End (Omega).

The goodness of creation, its possible final goodness and rest, the resurrection of the body, judgment, these are relative truths. Or at least purport to be as such.

I'm not saying through it all out. What I am saying is that by itself as the de facto assumed way of the spiritual life, it is problematic at best for contemporary post-industrial globalized peoples.

The Boddhisattvas must become politicians. Hence I write more about politics.

And the only such things will really change is through collectives (and here I strongly do not mean collectivities or collectivization, i.e. communism). I mean self-inspired, self-motivated, self-governed/regulating, self-congregating memberships.

Otherwise the awakening is an end in itself not the real begining of involvement.