It would be strange to say that someone moves between abidance and non-abidance. WHO would that someone be?
This may be a language/semantic issue, only, but perhaps not.
Selfhood is a powerful and deeply-entrenched structure of thought, and for people on a spiritual path it often becomes more and more subtle in its manifestation. When I read Senstan, Rinzai, Tolle, Ramana, Adya, and other well-known sages (both ancient and modern), it seems obvious that they have become free of the illusion of selfhood.
I remember knowing (intellectually) with 100% certainty that I was reality itself--THIS, and that separateness was an illusion. Yet, because I did not feel enlightened, or unified, or one-with reality, in any visceral sense, I continued to seek what I then imagined was "a permanent state of unity consciousness." Only after selfhood collapsed did it become obvious that my previous sense of selfhood had been manifesting in such a subtle way that it went unrecognized. Only then did seeking end, and along with it all imagined effort at controlling thought. Only then could there be non-abidance because, finally, it was seen that there was no separate entity who had ever been doing anything. Only then was the "me" seen to be a complete fiction in every sense.
Upon his enlightenment the Buddha supposedly said, "Lo and behold, in all the universe I am the only one." He had realized in a visceral, intimate, and embodied sense that he is THIS, and that ended his search for truth. He realized that who he is is unimaginable. The reason that discussions of self-improvement strike some of us as humorous is that THIS needs no improvement of any kind. It would be like saying, "The universe needs to be improved."
This may be a language/semantic issue, only, but perhaps not.
Selfhood is a powerful and deeply-entrenched structure of thought, and for people on a spiritual path it often becomes more and more subtle in its manifestation. When I read Senstan, Rinzai, Tolle, Ramana, Adya, and other well-known sages (both ancient and modern), it seems obvious that they have become free of the illusion of selfhood.
I remember knowing (intellectually) with 100% certainty that I was reality itself--THIS, and that separateness was an illusion. Yet, because I did not feel enlightened, or unified, or one-with reality, in any visceral sense, I continued to seek what I then imagined was "a permanent state of unity consciousness." Only after selfhood collapsed did it become obvious that my previous sense of selfhood had been manifesting in such a subtle way that it went unrecognized. Only then did seeking end, and along with it all imagined effort at controlling thought. Only then could there be non-abidance because, finally, it was seen that there was no separate entity who had ever been doing anything. Only then was the "me" seen to be a complete fiction in every sense.
Upon his enlightenment the Buddha supposedly said, "Lo and behold, in all the universe I am the only one." He had realized in a visceral, intimate, and embodied sense that he is THIS, and that ended his search for truth. He realized that who he is is unimaginable. The reason that discussions of self-improvement strike some of us as humorous is that THIS needs no improvement of any kind. It would be like saying, "The universe needs to be improved."
