Beliefs about Shifting into Nonduality

There's been a shift lately in the way I move into nonduality.

In the beginning, it seemed that I needed someone else to, as it were, thrust me there. (This is commonly called "transmission.") And once I found a someone who did that, I became attached and assumed that I needed that person to "go there."

Later, I became able to do it myself, and could initiate others in the same way others had played that role for me. But, unlike most people -- who first find nondual space inside themselves while meditating -- for me I always needed to be looking outward to gauge when the shift happened. When I could I see the emptiness, I knew I was there. 

It's only more recently -- and I mean in the past weeks at most -- that I've been able to find that same emptiness inside. There's a shift and I notice that the bodily space is "empty" -- just as I have been used to noticing that the outer world is pervaded with emptiness. The way I move into that space is simply to notice that thoughts have been filling the space! Without thought, it's empty.

But what I want to talk about here is not this process but about how hard it seems for most of us to move from our beginning point to the point where we notice that the emptiness is omnipresent. For me, and for some others I've spoken with, there was a belief that the way I was first initiated was the way it had to work. In my case, because it came through people who were in the teacher role, I believed that that person -- whoever it was at the time -- had to be in that role for me or I couldn't find what I was looking for. In a friend's case, he has had the belief that he has to go through some kind of suffering and then move into the body to find the emptiness and therefore relief from the suffering. It's a very different process from mine but it's similar in that there is a belief that there is a "way to do it," and, more important, an implicit belief that it is the ONLY way to do it. 

Of course, the way we learn in the practical world is to find some practice that works and keep repeating it. The more urgent it is to get whatever it is right, the more likely we are to follow the path that has worked before. We might be willing to try a different way of making a pie, for example, but we are less likely to experiment with another way of crossing the street.  And moving into the awake energy is certainly as important as getting across the street safely, so it makes sense that we believe that whatever way we first discovered to do that seems, maybe for a long time, to be the ONLY way.

Leaderless Meetings in Truth

 Lately, I've been flirting with the spiritual tradition I was involved with before I met Adyashanti: Quakerism. By "flirting," I mean attending Meeting through Zoom. 

It's been years since I've been drawn to Meeting. Compared to going to satsang, it seemed I couldn't go deep. 

 But last week that changed. I realized that it wasn't a matter of going to Meeting to get something from the group but to give myself the opportunity to sink into the truth of my being, as we say in nondual circles. 

And this week as well, I found it a deep experience -- a Meeting in which everyone was engaged in the question of what faith is, what being a Quaker is. 

The thing that drew me to Quakers, more than anything else, is that there is no paid clergy -- no one who is set up to know Truth while everyone else listens to what that wise person says. There may be leaders -- or elders, as Quakers sometimes call them -- those who are wiser than most of the other members of a Meeting, but they become that by common understanding that they do know more, not by any official designation. And they are the exception to the rule that everyone present is equally called upon to look inside and find God, or what is most true. 

And expectations matter. When people go to a gathering expecting to be told the truth, they often fail to realize that that truth is closer than their own nose. Going to satsang can be like that. You sit in front of the nondual teacher and listen to him/her and feel the awake energy penetrate you. Wonderful! I used to love that so much. 

But there came a time when I began to wonder if that wasn't disempowering. We need examples of embodied awakening; otherwise, how can we recognize it when we begin to experience it in ourselves? But once we do begin to experience it, is it not more helpful to our development and that of others we share the meeting space with if we recognize that each of us is a manifestation of the universal energy. If we have realized it but still look to a leader in order to experience it, we are giving away our own realization.

So, this is why I was so intent on establishing a leaderless nondual group. But my attempts haven't been very successful; maybe the hierarchical tradition in nonduality is too strong.  People don't seem to know how to be in a nondual group where there is neither teacher nor students, and maybe I myself don't know well enough how to model what I want to see. 

The result seems to be, at least for now, that I recognize how valuable the traditions of the Society of Friends (Quakers) are: there is a way to do this that is 350 years old, and it works.

Discovering (Again) that My Thoughts Aren't Me

Everyone, even his worst enemy, is publicly wishing him well. I mean POTUS of course. But I wasn't. I wished he'd catch it (COVID). Does that make me a bad person, I wondered. I mean, I should be compassionate, right?

And then it started to morph. I remembered someone saying to me recently, in a post on FB, “The self has to go.” So was having a self the problem, then? No self, no wishing he'd get COVID, right? But I didn't want to get rid of the self, if I even knew how. And there was no reason to listen to others' voices. Why not trust my own instinct: the self wants to exist and even if I knew how to kill it, I wouldn't.

No, the self needs to be welcomed and embraced. It needs compassion. After all, if I can't feel compassion for my own self, how can I feel compassion for POTUS? And that compassion isn't coming from the self, right? It has to be coming from something larger.

But what about the thoughts that wish ill on POTUS? Maybe those thoughts also need need a little space, just to be. Surely trying to banish them isn't going to work.

And then it started to come clear – what people who meditate probably figured out a long time ago: thoughts are not me. The thoughts are not the problem: it's the attachment to thoughts. That is, it's the mistaken idea that thoughts are who I am. A bad thought arises, I just it, and decide it makes me bad.

There is no realistic way to banish thoughts. They come back in another form but with the same emotional content. But thoughts, whether positive or negative, are not a judgment on me because there's no one here. The space where the thoughts appear is what I am. And everything comes into this space, whether a fictitious “I” welcomes it or not.

Which account of awakening in the previous post is more authentic?

OK, so let me identify the passages first. The first is by Somerset Maugham, from this novel, THE RAZOR'S EDGE. The awakening is reported by Larry, the character in the novel who has been seeking all his life and finally finds what he had been looking for with the Advaita gurus in India. 

The second passage is by from an interview with Annette Knopp, from the book ORDINARY WOMEN, EXTRAORDINARY WISDOM, by Rita Marie Robinson (O Books, 2007). The teacher referenced in the passage is Isaac Shapiro.

My own take on it is that the second passage is the most authentic. Although there is a place in the first passage where the self seems to fall away, most of the passage is about what happens TO the self -- rather like what someone might imagine enlightenment to be. I did research just a bit and found out that Maugham went to India in the 1930s (RAZOR was published in 1943), but according to his journal, he evidently fell into a deep sleep precipitated by the energy of the guru and didn't remember what happened to him! So perhaps he just imagined what might have happened if he'd been awake. I want to explore this more,though, and what I say here shouldn't be taken as definitive.

TWO ACCOUNTS OF NONDUAL AWAKENING: WHICH IS MORE AUTHENTIC -- AND WHY?

 First Account:

    "I have no descriptive talent, I don't know the words to paint a picture; I can't tell you, so as to make you see it, how grand the sight was that was displayed before me as the day broke in its splendor. Those mountains with their deep jungle, the mist still entangled in the treetops, and the bottomless lake far below me. The sun caught the lake through a cleft in the heights and it shone like burnished steel. I was ravished with the beauty of the world. I'd never known such exaltation and such a transcendent joy. I had a strange sensation, a tingling that arose in my feet and traveled up to my head, and I felt as though I were suddenly released from my body and as pure spirit partook of a loveliness I had never conceived. I had a sense that a knowledge more than human possessed me, so that everything that had been confused was clear and everything that had perplexed me was explained. I was so happy that it was pain and I struggled to release myself from it, for I felt that if it lasted a moment longer I should die; and yet it was such rapture that I was ready to die rather than forgo it. How can I tell you what I felt? No words can tell the ecstacy of my bliss. When I cam to myself I was exhausted and trembling."

Second Account:

    [The teacher concludes his statement, during satsang, "Just for a moment, allow yourself to directly experience, who are you?"]

    "When he said these last words, the whole world stopped. It was just complete stillness. Then suddenly, the first sound I heard was the ocean crashing against the beach, and I knew immediately, 'I am this ocean out there! I am the ocean.' I looked at the room which was me as well. 'I am the people. I am the chairs. I am the microphone. I am this body.' I wanted to say, 'I'm everything.' As soon as I wanted to utter this, it sort of popped and gave way to limitless transparency, a transparent nothingness that could not be located specifically. Yet everything was made out of that. I couldn't speak anymore."

See the following post for the answer!

"You're ALL of it"

 In the last few weeks or maybe months, the sense that something is changing here comes on. Now it's coming clearer: the resistance to being in form is melting. 

I don't think I would have put it that way before now. I don't think I would have said that that's what needs to happen. But there's been a struggle to accept all of life as it is -- to feel that it was all right to accept it -- to just be the whole thing in all its messiness.

As I was thinking about this this morning, the words of Alan, the spiritual teacher in my novel, ENLIGHTENMENT OF THE FLESH, came to me. He's giving advice to the main character, Jeannie, as she struggles with rejection in love:

"'But I don't understand,' [Jeannie persisted]. 'I mean, I already realized I am the love I was seeking. So why am I still seeking it?'

'You're all of it.'

'Huh?'

'You are the love and you are the seeking.'

'But I don't want to seek what I can't have,' she implored. Yet, just as she spoke, another thought nudged: That's a lie.

'Do you have a choice?'

'But I want to have a choice. I want freedom. Wasn't that the promise?'

'Whose promise? Not mine.'

'So I don't get freedom/'

'Not freedom from desire. And not freedom from need either. Not freedom from anything. You get freedom to be anything. And everything. Meaning, freedom to stop fighting with yourself. That's all you get.'"

Indeed. Freedom to stop fighting with myself. As though I could change the reality of what I am, of what is, by resisting it! 

And when I don't, that mysterious sense of Presence comes.

The Definition of Karma

 A nondual friend of mine doesn't believe in karma, and whenever I mention it, he looks at me like I am caught in a silly superstition.

I think he doesn't define karma the way I do. Probably he thinks of it the way most Westerners were taught: If we do good, we reap good karma in our next lives. If we do bad things, we likewise reap that. So a human being may be born to a higher status or perhaps as an angelic being if he does good, and as a dog or worse if he does bad. This definition requires belief in both reincarnation and moral behavior as the most important virtue. 

My definition is quite different. I'm not sure if it is the standard view among nondualists or if my view is just what makes sense to me. Karma is the result of thoughts believed in. As long as we believe our thoughts (including unconscious ones), our actions are governed by them and we (and others) reap the results. 

After awakening, thoughts are seen to be empty -- having no substance. We may go on believing some of the most persistent ones for a long time, so it's not like the slate is necessarily wiped clean, but the heaviness of karma is nonetheless lifted once we know our beliefs are only just that -- beliefs.

The transformative effect of our divinity being seen

I just finished listening to a recent talk by Adyashanti in which he says, "One of the most healing things that can happen for any of us is for someone to look right through our imperfections and see us and know us as completely whole -- spiritually, humanely whole and divine -- from the very beginning. When someone sees us like that . . . that is an incredibly healing presence."

And, he adds, "Ultimately, spirituality is about finding that in ourselves."

I don't know if I would have dared to voice it that way when I met my first teacher. I only know that all I needed to do was sit in front of him and healing tears would start to flow. He actually saw me that way though the words were never spoken. And so, of course I became attached -- because when you see yourself as broken and someone and not only treats you as though that isn't true but actually sees your perfection -- well, it's a miracle of sorts.

The trick is to realize the last part of what Adya said: ultimately finding that in oneself. And that means finding that unbroken, eternal spirit in oneself.  For me, that took meeting Adya and having that truth reflected to me again, but this time becoming conscious of it.

Dorothy Hunt talk recorded tomorrow for SAND

I just noticed that Dorothy Hunt, one of my teachers for several years, will be giving a recorded talk tomorrow for the on-line SAND conference.

Many years ago, a most remarkable thing happened at a retreat Dorothy was co-leading. I've told the story in the "Journey" page of this blog but I'll summarize here:

At the end of the retreat, we were eating lunch. I was telling another participant about something wise Dorothy had said and that I wanted to have said myself. (My ego wanted credit for being wise.)

Dorothy was sitting at the far end of the communal table but somehow she heard me. She said, "You DID say it."

I looked at her, puzzled, and she repeated, "You DID say it."

This time, something in me heard it. It hit my gut so hard that I felt like I was doubling over, although I think that was the just sense of it -- the way the subtle energy hit me. I went over to her and knelt down in gratitude. I couldn't believe it but I knew it was true. It came out of her mouth but I said it -- the real I, not the one limited by the body.

(Dorothy's interview is now available at batgap.com.)

"I" versus "me"

I've been feeling things sinking down lately. I mean by that that I seem to be seeing from a deeper level, not from the mind.

One way this has manifest is in my response to something I wrote maybe a year ago and came across last night. I can't find it in my computer, so I'll just summarize:

The objective self and the subjective self are two different things. I've often noticed that, for me, the resonance with the universal is in the "me," i.e., the table is "me"; you are "me," etc. But when I say "I," I don't feel this resonance even though in Hindu thought, the "I" is what is talked about as the universal one.

I've pondered this off and on. I don't know if those in cultures where there is no difference in the word for the objective and subjective self, such as Japanese, there is any difference in experiencing the limitless and the limited self or not.

In any case, being reminded of this difference, which I keep knowing and forgetting, brought a clarity to my sometimes muddled thoughts. Moving into that timeless, empty dimension, there is a true self that knows no boundaries and is made of love. The limited self, at least after awakening, can sink into that limitless dimension, too, where it disappears into the universal, but then it reemerges and often forgets what it has learned, at least in my experience. 

How Do We Embody Non-dual Reality?

Last Saturday, I came across an article – “Nondual Realization and the Personal Self,” by Judith Blackstone (2010) – that I had bookmarked some time ago. At the time, I was deeply impressed with the short, two-page description of the experience of embodied nonduality. It described the realization in language that reflected my own experiences. She writes,

“Fundamental consciousness is experienced as luminous stillness, or emptiness. For example, if we have realized this dimension and we look at a table, we will see the table with all of its weight, color and texture, and at the same time, we will be aware that the table is 'transparent.' It appears to be pervaded by-or made of–luminous space.”

I still remember my first experience of this many years ago, and taking it to Adya for confirmation. Then, when I complained that I don't experience people I have issues with this way, he responded, “That's why it starts with a table. Tables are easy.”

I don't remember the exact year of that experience, but I'd guess around 2006. And all the teachers, including Adya and Blackstone, say something to the effect that “Eventually the patterns of personality that are in the way fall away.”

In the fourteen ensuing years, there has been a gradual deepening of the realization, but still, that sense of unease when confronting certain people has not dissipated. What is in the way? Sometimes I think about this rationally; sometimes I just try to feel into it. When I do the latter, I suspect that the “personal self” that seems to get in the way is just, as Adya used to say, this luminous emptiness “in drag.” No, I know that. But in the midst of an argument, or fear that something I need will be taken from me, I never remember.

So this is what I thought Blackstone might help me with. I searched for her website – and found she was giving an on-line workshop the very next day. I signed up.

There were only 16 of us in the workshop, so she had time to observe everyone. I noticed that she was very perceptive – that she could sense people's subtle energies even through the internet connection.

She exercises she led us through were about exploring our experience of nondual reality in our bodies. When it came time to ask questions, I asked how this experience and the “personal self” fit together. She said she didn't use the term “personal self.” But, I objected, you wrote a paper about this! She didn't argue but she also didn't remember, which made explaining where my question was coming from pretty much impossible. I tried asking the question in different ways two other times and the final time, she asked what I meant by the “personal self.” I was caught up short – I realized I didn't know.

It goes without saying that it's pretty much impossible to solve a problem when you don't define it accurately. When I awoke the next morning, I pondered my confusion about just what the “personal self” is. According to Adya's teaching, as I understand it, it is the illusory self constructed out of thought. But “personal self” in Blackstone's article seemed to be something different. I re-read the article and my attention focused on this paragraph:

“At the very center of one’s body there is a subtle vertical channel, running from the base of the torso to the top of the head. This channel (called the central channel in Tibetan Buddhism and sushumna in Hinduism) is our entranceway into fundamental consciousness. This means that we can realize nonduality through deep inward contact with our own individual form.”

So this seems to be the key. It is, I think, also what Tolle meant when he said spoke of the “inner-body” as the “doorway into the unmanifested.” It's probably also the energy channel that I contacted when I was doing neo-Reichian work back in the 1970s and awoke to nondual reality for the first time.

So, given that we all must have this subtle vertical channel, what gets in the way of living as nondual reality 24/7? I think it is that that channel gets blocked, or bound up maybe is more accurate, in order to protect our form when we are children. So doing Reichian energy work would to liberate this channel.

But then the energy gets blocked again by habitual patterns of holding fear or other emotions. Clearing this channel, allowing feeling to flow through and not get stuck, seems to be the key to fully and consciously living the nondual reality that has been realized.

Notes on Rupert Spira's Satsang -- March 4, 2020

Note that this is not a summary of the evening's talk but rather jottings of what resonated with me. Also, these are not exact quotations: I tried to capture the essence.

Our pure Being doesn't share the qualities or limitations of our particular being.

When it is clear that no image can veil the screen, then nothing is any longer a distraction.

You shine in the midst of experience, no matter what the experience is.

Even when you say, “I am depressed,” the screen [awareness] is shining there. So there is no need to control experience.

Awareness + thoughts and experiences = the separate self.

You have given experience the power to veil who you really are.

Awareness is not an attribute of a “person.”

Overlooking our Being results in anxiety, agitation, etc.