I know you, Vichar, and crossfire are not getting this, but here is one last attempt.
So long as there is an observer, a you, a we, an I, attempting to do anything at all, then your reality comprises two 'things', you the subject and the objective of your action. In this instance, these are 'striver' and 'flawless thoughts', and 'weeder' and 'garden'.
Now the Way to true reality which is non-dual can't be approached through duality, for logically the way to a goal can't be in contradiction to the goal itself. Therefore the Way to non-duality is through non-duality, dhyana.
So the problem isn't the weeds in the garden, for the weeds are an integral of the non-dual oneness of the garden, it's the fact that there is a perceiver 'you' that arises in consciousness to disturb the tranquility of the actual one reality by conceptualizing two parts, weeds and garden. All following discussion just compounds the obscuration of the underlying non-dual nature of existence.
If you actually understand what is being said here, that is enough, there is an efficacy in true understanding that works without any effort or necessity for the mind to cogitate further once the understanding had occurred. If otoh you still don't understand then that's ok too, just ignore me and carry on as you were.
You are giving very good advice, and once again I hope we aren't letting the words themselves get in the way. You are correct in that terms like "you" and "I", which are very convenient in English, are also habitual terms that we have grown very accustomed to using. It's because we look down at our body, and identify strongly with it. We think of ourselves as an entity separate from the rest of existence, observer-observed.
My main purpose in posting is not to demonstrate, per se, that I understand precisely what it is that you are trying to write ben d. Nor do I think what you are attempting to convey is in opposition to what I'm trying to convey. The mind (all 3 minds) believes that it is the one that will process some verbal or written symbols and therefore understand some truth which is
separate from it. Observer - observed.
In contrast, the soul is a part of the existence as a whole. Spirit is everything all at once, even in the diffuse physical form. To "understand" spiritual truth, one must
become it. One immerses oneself in the celestial sound and (re)joins with it, merging with its essence. One does not "observe" the truth, one embodies the (spiritual) truth.
But there are Truths and there are truths. And we should be considerate and conscious of our audience at all times. If I use dualistic terms, it's because that is the accepted norm in our society. There
is actually a path through the quagmire of the mind to spirituality. I remember to when I did not care about spirituality (perhaps lifetimes ago), and even then there were extremely valuable lessons pointing the way, asking me to rethink (yes, think) my direction and decisions. When the mind is finally ready to consider spirituality, it begins to realize that it's the one that's in the way and has to die to the higher truth!
But I thank you, ben d. Your comment on humility is kindly and well-taken. In my eagerness to explain a concept I sometimes do not put enough effort into understanding the perfection of the moment or the highest good of the potential reader.
