Click here to go to the next issue
Highlights Home Page | Receive the Nonduality Highlights each day
How to submit material to the Highlights
#3790 - Thursday, January 28, 2010 - Editor: Gloria Lee
The Nonduality Highlights - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NDhighlights
In a sense, this is beyond illusion v.
reality, real v. unreal, existence v. nonexistence, self v. no
self, and beyond v. not beyond. These are all points of view that
are important at various parts of the investigation. They all get
their meaning in relation to their opposites.
One could say that the word non-duality is pointing to the
unlearning of the idea that language is delivering truth.
-Scott Kiloby
______________________________
From the mailer:
Hi Scott: I've enjoyed your writings this month, good job!
I would ask you to look at a couple of questions; if you think
they might be interesting to anyone feel free to post to the OAS
group site.
1. The Advaita
"greats" like Ramana Maharshi, H.L. Poonja,
Nisargadatta and Robert Adams all say that ultimately awareness
itself is non-existent; that which arises is illusion and the
consciousness/awareness from which it arises is also an
illusion. NOTHING exists! (I of course have no idea
what that means, but..) So in your view does
"consciousness/awareness" in some sense
"exist"?
2. All of these individuals
and countless others have had that moment in time when their
apparent self was annihilated once and for all, their unity state
fully revealed and their entire path in life on earth utterly
transformed. (an "awakening"
experience) What happened at that moment? Was that
event a body/mind/brain event accessible by "practice"
and measurable by MRI scans, or was it a random
"something" no one understands yet? Is this
important?
3. All of the individuals
above say the same thing: there is nothing to do, nowhere to go,
no practice, no teaching, etc. They all say the key thing
is to be quiet! The mind is an impediment. Thus
(apparently) my thinking about this/asking these questions is not
a good idea. Is that true?
4. Of course, they are saying
"there is nothing to do" AFTER they have had the
"awakening" experience. Apparently one needs the
awakening experience to realize there is nothing to do.
Thus a "realized" person trying to tell a non-realized
person "there is nothing to do" is really spinning his
wheels, I would think.
I have been living with this simple conundrum for many decades;
it seems to me realization of truth is all a matter of luck/karma
and is not to be pursued. So I just live, be quiet as best
I can, stay in the present, etc. Is that not the best
one can do?
I appreciate your time and effort this month. John D.
From Scott
Yes, that is about it. Stay in the present. Or
realize that there is always and already present awareness within
which everything appears, including thoughts of past and
future. There is, in a real sense, no way to not be
present. There is only presence. However, I know that
this is not always recognized. The invitation, and this is
really the only invitation, that I give to people is to recognize
present awareness in all situations and, without moving to
manipulate appearances, see that the appearances are not separate
from awareness. I won't go into great detail again about
this invitation but if you go and look at my many posts
throughout this forum, you will see that I have explained this
from many different angles.
Let's go back to your first question. You asked:
1. The Advaita
"greats" like Ramana Maharshi, H.L. Poonja,
Nisargadatta and Robert Adams all say that ultimately awareness
itself is non-existent; that which arises is illusion and the
consciousness/awareness from which it arises is also an
illusion. NOTHING exists! (I of course have no idea
what that means, but..) So in your view does
"consciousness/awareness" in some sense
"exist"?
I don't know what "nothing exists" means either,
because, although that insight arose and arises, there is no
sense here that language is delivering truth or that there is
some last and final word that we land on and BOOM we are
there. "Nothing exists" to me is simply a
description of a seeing that what was taken to be real--objects,
things--are really just appearances within awareness. They
are thoughts really. And so nothing exists is a phrase
describing the "end result" of having started with the
idea that things exist in and of themselves, and through the
recognition of awareness, having come to see that
"things" are really thoughts and so they are not things
in and of themselves at all. They are conceptual
perceptions. There is no way to know what a tree is without
concepts. In nonconceptual awareness, there is no
tree. One could describe features like brown and green
seamlessly bleeding into each other as one looks at a tree, but
even that is saying too much. In non-conceptual awareness,
there are no separate objects. Objects appear as apparently
separate things only as concepts appear. So even saying
"brown" and "green" relies on concepts.
Nothing exists is a phrase describing the inability to know an
object as a thing in and of itself, outside of the concept used
to describe and know it, and outside of awareness, so to
speak.
But nothing exists is not a final truth. Language doesn't
deliver final truths (including any truth in that last
sentence). In fact, "nothing" is itself just
another concept. And it gets its meaning in our language in
part by what it is not. It is not
"something." "Nothing" does not exist
in and of itself as anything we can know in the universe.
It's an idea. A symbol. And it has absolutely no
meaning to the mind without reference to other concepts, other
symbols, namely "something" or
"everything." So although it is a good enough
pointer to say "nothing exists," if taken to be bedrock
truth (which it's not) it can lead to nilihism and
arrogance. The so-called ego loves to latch onto an
idea, pretending that because it has landed somewhere, it has
somehow captured truth. It hasn't. It only has
another idea. And none of these words here are intended to
convey bedrock truth either. Pretending that some words are
delivering ultimate truth over other words is like pitting space
against space. It's futile. A game of mind.
Words are merely pointing. So to the extent that
"Nothing exists" is merely being used as a pointer to a
seeing that happens along the way, it is fine. As truth,
it's half the story at best. There is the fullness of
everything also. The fullness of appearances and of
relationship. There is the fullness of watching your kids
play in the yard. Yes, your kids, those individual,
separate little creatures with the big smiles and warm
hearts. What fullness there is in that. And this line
between nothing and everything is merely conceptual anyway.
There is a seamlessness in life that words never convey. So this
line between non-duality and duality is still a mind play.
I would agree that awareness does not exist in and of itself
either. That is really what I'm saying above as I deconstruct the
concept of "nothing."
Nothing=awareness. Again, awareness is yet another
symbol. It is great as a pointer. But the word itself
is empty of inherent existence or meaning. The word
"awareness" does not stand alone in the universe
conveying some bedrock truth in and of itself. It belongs
to a vast web of language. It gets its meaning in relation to
other words. That which the word awareness is pointing to
is essentially indescribable. It isn't a thing. It is
more like a seeing or a realization. And I've never heard a
single word capture that. In a sense, every word is
that. Every word is perfection. Only the self likes
to claim that truth is only in a certain word. When the
self is seen to be toast, its insights vanish. There is
nothing to hold onto, no point of reference, so everything is
allowed.
In a sense, this is beyond illusion v. reality, real v. unreal,
existence v. nonexistence, self v. no self, and beyond v. not
beyond. These are all points of view that are important at
various parts of the investigation. They all get their meaning in
relation to their opposites.
One could say that the word non-duality is pointing to the
unlearning of the idea that language is delivering truth.
There is inherent freedom, play, and joy in that. There is
also peace because conflict comes from clinging to one of a pair
of opposites and making an enemy out of the opposite and anyone
who stands for that opposite. If I believe my insights are
true, what are my insights? They can only be known and
expressed as individual insights in thought. And words
always appear within a dualistic language. And all words
have opposites.
So non-duality, in a way, is no longer looking to thought for a
sense of self or reality. And that includes all thought,
including the thought "nothing exists." Yet it
doesn't exclude thought. This is the collapse of all
opposites, even the line between non-conceptual and
conceptual.
Simple presence, as you say, is a good enough word. I don't
want to write in a way that confuses, but sometimes it is good to
hear a pointing like this so that, if there is any sense in you
that one word or phrase conveys bedrock truth, you can notice
that word or phrase slip away. Then you find yourself
eating a twinkie in the next moment and that is just as much
truth as a fancy non-dual insight. I'm being serious.
IF there is such a thing as freedom, it is freedom even from
one's own insights. That is a kind of bondage in and of
itself, to believe "I" have the truth and others
don't. It's an ego game, through and through.
This is why sages have these greater than thou images. We
project those images upon them, believing that they carried
something special. We can honor these teachers and
teachings without projecting ego stuff on them. After all,
the greatest teacher will only desire to point you to what you
are. What you are is what the teacher is. There is no
one who stands separate and apart from that, who can claim it to
the exclusion of others. So those who play with this line
of nothing v. everything can very easily fall into the trap of
trying to own something by landing on one opposite over the
other. I've seen it in myself. I've seen a swell of
arrogance in me as I proclaim some dualistic conclusion to be the
final truth. It's silly. It's language. And
language is beautiful. Stories and thoughts are
great. I love them!!! But with the dawning of the
recognition of awareness, these kinds of ego games easily
appear.
Here is your second question:
2. All of these individuals
and countless others have had that moment in time when their
apparent self was annihilated once and for all, their unity state
fully revealed and their entire path in life on earth utterly
transformed. (an "awakening"
experience) What happened at that moment? Was that
event a body/mind/brain event accessible by "practice"
and measurable by MRI scans, or was it a random
"something" no one understands yet? Is this
important?
Again, there is truth in what they are saying. It certainly
is a transformation to recognize timeless awareness. But it
is only a transformation when compared to being a separate self
that lives in time. There is another duality. You
see, it is only transformation within the story. There is
no way to know that something is transformed without looking to
how that appeared in an earlier time. And to do that,
thought, and therefore story, is necessary. We must consult
the past in which we lived as a separate self in order to feel
that our current state is transformed--moved in form. When
the story of transformation is not being told, non-duality is
very simple and ordinary, like eating an apple during
lunch. Nothing more.
And although spiritual experiences can appear to bring that
about, many report it happening in a not so sudden way, like
waking up one morning and realizing that the seeking is
gone. No bells and whistles just a sense of well-being that
doesn't leave. What happens is the seeing through of
separation. An MRI might be able to measure something in
the brain. But this is really an interior awareness
thing. I don't believe in the random enlightenment
model. That is a perfect way to distance ourselves from the
very awareness that is looking from our eyes right now.
It's like telling a drop of water that it is rare and random that
it will never know wetness.
Your next question:
3. All of the individuals
above say the same thing: there is nothing to do, nowhere to go,
no practice, no teaching, etc. They all say the key thing
is to be quiet! The mind is an impediment. Thus
(apparently) my thinking about this/asking these questions is not
a good idea. Is that true?
They are speaking from the recognition of timeless
awareness. If your experience right now is as a separate
self living in time with choice, then utilize that choice.
Find teachings that give clear injunctions to investigate your
present experience. Use whatever works. Heck, if what
works is to listen to a teacher just say, "All there is, is
this," then use that. It's a pointer too. Yes,
it can appear, especially to a noisy mind, that this is about
quietness. But quietness is just another state.
Awareness is like nothing in that it is featureless. It is
what you are regardless of whether there is extreme quietness or
an atomic bomb going off. However, yes, noticing the
quietness and stillness can be a kind of portal to recognizing
awareness. Again, use it if it works. And the mind is
not an impediment in any ultimate sense. Again, words
aren't delivering truth. The mind is only an impediment
when thought is believed. When thought is seen to be empty,
mind (i.e., thought) is great. It's fun. Harmless. It
is none other than awareness. Thought is the energy of
awareness.
Last question:
4. Of course, they are saying
"there is nothing to do" AFTER they have had the
"awakening" experience. Apparently one needs the
awakening experience to realize there is nothing to do.
Thus a "realized" person trying to tell a non-realized
person "there is nothing to do" is really spinning his
wheels, I would think.
Yes, that was what I was saying. :)
Scott
posted to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OAStudyGroup/