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.
Tuesday, June 9, 2020
Sunday, May 10, 2020
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.)
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.)
Sunday, April 12, 2020
"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.
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.
Saturday, March 28, 2020
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.
Saturday, March 7, 2020
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.
Friday, December 20, 2019
The Universal Truth of God's Immanence
I went caroling this evening with a few people in my neighborhood. We sang the second verse of "Hark the Herald Angels Sing," which I didn't remember singing before. And there it was:
"Veiled in flesh, the Godhead see;
Hail, th'incarnate Deity"
I teared up in surprise. This revelation, so central to Eastern religion -- the realization that we all are manifestations of spirit -- here it is in Christianity as well.
Of course, most Christians would probably say that it was only true of Jesus: that's what made him special. And I would disagree on that -- because once you see it, you know it's true of everyone and everything.
"Veiled in flesh, the Godhead see;
Hail, th'incarnate Deity"
I teared up in surprise. This revelation, so central to Eastern religion -- the realization that we all are manifestations of spirit -- here it is in Christianity as well.
Of course, most Christians would probably say that it was only true of Jesus: that's what made him special. And I would disagree on that -- because once you see it, you know it's true of everyone and everything.
Tuesday, May 28, 2019
Is Hasidism nondual?
Those like myself who don't have any contact with Hasidic Judaism have only a superficial idea of what it is. We may have seen movies which take place in that community, but the movies seem to emphasize the idiosyncratic aspects of the sect: the insular culture, the quaint dress, etc. We don't often get an in-depth view of the teachings.
So, I was rather surprised to read in THE NEW YORK REVIEW OF BOOKS the following summary of the theology:
", , , God's essence dwells in the here and now, and the encounter with God consists of the conscious realization of his veiled immediate pressence. . . .[E]very particular entity draws its vitality and existence from the essence of God that dwells at its core."
--- from "The Dance Goes On,"May 24, 2018, p. 32, by Moshe Halbertal, summarizing from HASIDISM: A NEW HISTORY, by David Biale, et all.
I expect some experts may define Hasidism differently and I also expect that some might say that nonduality comes from a certain Indian tradition and those who are not in that lineage can't be said to be nondual. It's all about labels, isn't it, though? I consider a line of thinking nondual if it leads to the understanding that nothing is separate, that that which animates all things is also their essence and not separate from them. The implication of that, of course, is also that no manifestation is ultimately separate from any other since all are of the same essence.
So, I was rather surprised to read in THE NEW YORK REVIEW OF BOOKS the following summary of the theology:
", , , God's essence dwells in the here and now, and the encounter with God consists of the conscious realization of his veiled immediate pressence. . . .[E]very particular entity draws its vitality and existence from the essence of God that dwells at its core."
--- from "The Dance Goes On,"May 24, 2018, p. 32, by Moshe Halbertal, summarizing from HASIDISM: A NEW HISTORY, by David Biale, et all.
I expect some experts may define Hasidism differently and I also expect that some might say that nonduality comes from a certain Indian tradition and those who are not in that lineage can't be said to be nondual. It's all about labels, isn't it, though? I consider a line of thinking nondual if it leads to the understanding that nothing is separate, that that which animates all things is also their essence and not separate from them. The implication of that, of course, is also that no manifestation is ultimately separate from any other since all are of the same essence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)