Who You Are

What do I want? What do I believe? Who am I? These are probing and important questions if we are ever going to realize more than ultimate truth. There is within us an individual blueprint, a homing device that leads to happiness and fulfillment. For the Buddha it was to be the Buddha, for Christ it was to be Christ. But for you, it is different. You have a unique path.

It's great to return to innocence. It is great to be like an infant before it can smile, but life demands more of you. It demands that you find out who you are, not just that you are, or that you are Existence itself. This Existence wants to express. It is not in competition with you. It wants to express as you. You are unique in what you bring to the world.

It is no great accomplishment to collapse all into oneness, to fall out of existence as an individual. It is no great accomplishment to fall into silence and never find your voice, your expression. Resting is the beginning, not the end. Wake up, and more awaits you. What awaits you is the life- long journey of being who you are.

Another Trinity

If I am truly honest, what has been missing in my life is the inability to trust myself. Always, there is an authority. Always, there is someone to become like, something to change, something to control, and always, there is the comparative mind, the mind that says this is better than that, this is preferable to that. In a word, there is judgment. Judgment, and nothing more, prevents the possibility of radical acceptance. It prevents the possibility of being comfortable in your own skin. It prevents feeling connected to others. It creates adversity, polarity and the world of black and white.

The very thing spirituality is meant to effect, judgment prevents, and religion and spirituality are often crippled by it. There is judgment about presence, judgment about absence, judgment about the seen and unseen, and of course there is the wish to become something other than we are. This non-acceptance is by nature combative. It is war. It is an out and out rejection of what is. Judgment and non-acceptance are two sides of the same coin. Non-acceptance feeds judgment. Judgment feeds becoming, and becoming continues the non-acceptance. Where are we running to? What are we running from? Have we looked at this relationship, the interconnectedness of this other trinity? Have we looked at the trinity of judgment, non-acceptance and the wish to "become"?

Beneath it all is this belief: I'm not Ok as I am. You're not Ok as you are. Let's be different. Perhaps you could become like me, or I could become like you. Nothing is every loved, just rejected. This is what perpetuates the self-help machine. This is what creates the combativeness and the conflict, both within and without, and religion and spirituality have become part of this machine. They have crippled love. The idea of God, saints and sinners, believers and unbelievers, enlightened and unenlightened, awake and asleep have crippled the free mind.

If we read between the lines there is superiority and inferiority. There is chosen and not-chosen. There is God loves you, but... God loves you, if... or God loves you, when... Likewise. there is I love you, but... I love you, if... I love you, when... Neither human relationships, nor our projection of divine relationships measure up to this radical acceptance of a free mind.

The Balance of Two

Terror comes with the territory. To not have a different perspective other then the little me is terrifying. Always, the possibility of invasion is there. To secure our well-being is a life long endeavor, but at any time, something could invade our personal space and threaten our sense of well-being. At any time, we can be shaken. The human house is indeed built on sand.

To be at peace in the world, to survive the unforeseen, one must acquire a dual perspective. One must acquire the ability to look "from" the little me, ie. the sand, as well as the ability to look "at" the little me from the greater perspective of solid rock. To look from the greater perspective is to not be subject to insecurities and threats.

To have only one perspective is not balanced. To have only the greater perspective is to be out of touch with what it means to be human, to have only the lesser perspective is to be out of touch with what it means to be divine. Neither, alone, is true self-knowledge. If the local perspective is missing, the human perspective is missing. If the grander perspective is missing, the perspective of the inner being is missing.

The inner being is the perspective of the deathless. It is not subject to insecurities and invasions that threaten the person. The inner being has a different perspective. It's perspective is timeless. If the body-mind mechanism is trying to protect it, it need not. The inner being is indestructible.

To know the inner being is to have eternal life. To know only the local perspective is to find oneself at the mercy of life without an "out" or "in", depending on how one looks at it.

When we speak of a shift in consciousness, we are speaking of a shift out of one perspective into another. We are speaking of a shift from the dominating local point of view to the grander timeless point of view, which is the perspective of the inner being. If this were to happen on a large scale, we would speak of a planetary shift in consciousness.

There is no great mystery as to what this shift is or how it comes about. It is not so mysterious or elusive as "shift happens." I find that it is a power possessed by all human beings, as body and soul composites. The best thing to do, to discover this dual perspective, is to get with a teacher. Then, you will have the balance of two.

The Better Deal

What I realized through my own experience is that there is the possibility for two contrary perspectives. One is interested (passionate); One is disinterested (dispassionate). One is involved the other uninvolved. In the work that I have begun, I see this time and time again. It is particularly evident in couples. A partner gets infected by spiritual principles, either one or both, and there is a palpable disconnect, usually it is accompanied by condescension and a complaint that my partner doesn’t "get it" and is in the way of my spiritual progress. There is the attempt to wake them up, take them to satsang and share spiritual insights out of books. All is an attempt to remain nobody and to turn the partner into another nobody.

But, if you are lucky, the partner, usually the woman, will pull you back into involvement with life, and you will feel alive again. You will feel connected. You will feel here. You will see that beneath the complaint that "my partner doesn’t get me", is another complaint, much more true. It is the complaint that “I have not lived. I have not loved. I have not been loved. It wasn’t safe to come out, so I hid. I wasn’t welcome, so I left. I left ordinary life in search of the true life, eternal life.” Meanwhile resentment, criticism, and judgmentalism mounted. Tension came pouring in. There seemed to be a judgment about everyone who did not want to die, psychologically. There was a judgment that one who was uninvolved was much more evolved. A line from Nisargadatta Maharaj comes to mind. “I don’t even need my own self.” That’s this spiritual attitude in a nutshell. That’s the freedom from suffering, the freedom from desire, the freedom from I and my, but at what cost, absolute aloneness and complete disregard for one’s self, as an individual.

My experience and what I’ve noticed in others is that, while there is a connection to a universal, a sort of spaciness that keeps the mind quiet, the individual is not regarded, not cherished, not seen. Rather, it is seen through. The individual is dismissed and collapsed into oneness. What has dependent existence is collapsed into existence itself. “There is no other.”

Humanly, this is unsatisfying. It is not enough. The prospect of not suffering, of non- involvement is not enough. There is a complaint. “I’ve not been allowed to be me.” “I’ve not been allowed to be loved. I wanted to be liberated. As it turns out, I have liberated myself from the possibility of being loved, of being cherished, of being seen rather than seen through.

There is a felt sense of freedom, but it is a freedom from. It is freedom from the person, from the individual and all its concerns. The line from John of the Cross, “leaving my cares forgotten among the lilies,” comes to mind.” Yes, the cares are gone, but so is your investment and interest in you. The secret, as Krishnamurti put it, is - "I don't mind what happens to me."

There is something to be said for not being bogged down by self-concern. That is, in itself, liberating. The problem comes when you are complacent regarding your own self, when you are at enmity with your own "me." The dichotomy of true and false gets created, and discrimination begins. Discrimination then leads to elimination, and something or someone gets intellectualized out of the picture or "dissolved."

How is this wholeness? To say it was an illusion, so it doesn’t matter, to say nothing is lost because it wasn't "eternal" is not to deal honestly. Something is definitely lost. Selfhood is lost. Ownership is lost. Responsibility is lost. Ego is lost. Personal identity is lost. Ambition is lost. Choice is lost. Relationship is lost. Oneness in exchange for all of that. I can’t say that you got the better deal. Maybe “either or” is not the way to go. Perhaps, “both and” is better.

Man is neither an angel nor a beast, but if he tries to become an angel, he will become a beast.

The Simplicity of Self Love

I have learned much since we last worked together. The key to it all seems very simple. Addiction is just the way it gets expressed. The tremendous human angst is - "no one want's me here," or I'm not welcome. Once this message is received, we find ways to make ourselves pleasing. We involve ourselves in all kinds of compromises and try to strike a bargain. If you love me, then I'll behave. I'll change. I'll become someone else, someone more suited to your tastes. No matter what we do, it is never enough.

The discovery of God, or Being, or Love, if it offers anything, it is space to be as we are. If we realize ourselves to be this space, then naturally we allow everything space to be as it is, at least on a certain level, first for ourselves then for others. The original sin is not pride but judgment, rejection, and this causes hurt.

We are all deeply hurting, not because we are separate, or because of individuality, but because we weren't loved. Somehow the message was sent. I'm not OK as I am. I must change. I must become perfect, more like Jesus, more like Buddha, more like saint so and so. I must become holy, pleasing or some other future dream.

There is a beautiful truth in this counsel, "Don't become anything." Why? Because, becoming is a movement away from acceptance, and it will not counter the original sin of rejection. It only continues the momentum away from acceptance, which began long ago. Unfortunately, this message is reinforced by religious and spiritual teachings as well as moral imperatives.

"I am not welcome" must be reversed to "I am welcome." Existence is not refusing me; others are refusing me, and I am refusing me. "I have to get rid of me." This is the message: "I must decrease, He (the ideal) must decrease." I practiced this for a long time and have not found it helpful. I was pacified by this message, and I pacified myself with this message. The results were extreme. There came a point were I could no longer be passive. I became livid. I became furious, enraged, diabolical, even evil.

I don't blame myself, I was created to be, and suddenly, the message is sent that it would be better if I weren't, or if I were different, perhaps if I were more intelligent, more interested, more like Jesus, more like "you" whoever "you" happens to be. This is a subtle form of hatred, and love cannot flower in the soil of hatred. There is no greater hatred or self-hatred that the message, "you, or I should not be," And yet, this is what we do to ourselves and others and allow to be done to ourselves and others all the time.

Parents may send this message. Teachers may send this message. Spouses may send this message. Priests may send this message. Our concept of God may send this message. As a result we do not feel welcome here. We do not feel comfortable in our own skin, so we play roles. We bargain. We rebel or act out. Addiction is part of this acting out. It is a refuge from the pain of rejection, the pain of you're not welcome. Perhaps this is why Lucifer is so pissed off.

In my personal experience with possession and disassociation I have realized the power of hatred. Truthfully, there is a little Lucifer in all of us. We are all created to be light-bearers, but our contribution is not welcome. We try to change, try to become pleasing. When it isn't enough, we become resentful, bitter, enraged, demonic. The real sage will notice this for what it is and reverse the curse. He or she will say Existence is allowing you space to be exactly as you are. Why don't you drop all of this becoming business and allow yourself space to be as well. Why don't you welcome yourself back. Tell yourself that it is OK to be here. Existence is welcoming you. Nothing is in contradiction with you but ideas and others who are controlled by them, but Life is giving you space to be as you are, right now in this moment. If you can do the same, then you are Life. If you can be this for yourself, then you can be it for others.

Peace and Love, Kevin

Selfhood

Selfhood is a tricky thing. While it's true that if there is no self, then there is no identification and no suffering. It is also true that if there is no self, there is no one there to love and be loved. You can't love an illusion. You can neither love nor hurt a non-existent being. The comforting belief that God loves me or that so and so loves me or hurt me is a non-issue.

There is no separation, but also no individuation. The childhood mantra, "Jesus loves me this I know for the Bible tells me so" is not a reality. If there is no self, there is no me. There is only extinction, and really there is not even that. Extinction requires a prior existence. There is no one. No one to save, no one to save others, and no others. There is just oneness, no one was, no one is and no one will be, and all of this is based on the fact that no peceivable self can be found. Everything is causeless.

What if the separate self is also intangible? What if there is an individual intangible self, that allows for both the experience of oneness and individuality, something like a spiritual form? Self inquiry is a wonderful method to discover silence or the peace that's always here, It is a wonderful opportunity to know the nada, the nobody factor of the human being, but who says there is no individual? Just because there is no tangible individual, it doesn't follow that there is no individual. Just because there is a sense of an empty house, doesn't mean that there is an empty house. Perhaps the house isn't empty, but still. As John of the Cross writes, "When the house was all still, I went out unseen."

Not out of the Picture

I receive a lot of thanks for the work done through Enter the New, but something that many remark about is that the ego is still in the picture. Immediately, the response comes, "What is the ego?

There are many different concepts regarding this word ego. Etymologically, ego means "I". Some teachers go directly to the doership aspect of I and invite investigation into whether there is any "I" there during the activity or whether "I" comes later. This is significant. If it comes later than all activity is egoless. is it not?

Another understanding of ego is mind. But just as in the case of a doer, no objective I or mind can be found. Only thoughts are found. We don't find any mind. Still, the investigation as to whether this separate objective "I" exists goes on.

When we look into it, it seems that ego, more than just the letter "I", is a tendency to objectify oneself, Through self-referencing ego comes into existence. If we stop self-referencing then self or ego is a non-reality. Right?

There is also the question of thinking and the ego being the first thought. Before the first thought, no ego exists. There is no separation. this can be realized. This is not a suggestion to keep thought from arising, that takes effort, and effort implies ego. So, ego cannot be gotten rid of by effort. Effort implies ego.

With all of these, the invitation is to look for the ego, and of course none can be found. However, the belief in ego remains, despite the experience of no mind, no I, no self, no object or whatever. There are many different ways to realize the truth of no I, but even after such realizations the belief in "I" often remains.

The assumption is that "I" is objective. No object of course can be found, but the belief that "I" is objective persists even after investigation, even after self-inquiry. The belief persists because there is a sense of "I", though no objective or perceivable "I".

My guess is that this sense remains because "I" is not a mistake after all. "I" is the result of the wish to diversify. Why the ego is so reluctant to die is, perhaps, the wrong question. Perhaps another question is why are we so eager to be rid of the personal. Why are we so eager to get rid of separation?

Oneness is great. Don't get me wrong, but it is just one perspective, relative from where one is looking. What's wrong with having both? What's wrong with individuality? What's wrong with differences, or a personal point of view?

What's wrong with self referencing? Is it really arrogant to say "I" did it. Is it delusional or just a different perspective? If nothing can be gained or lost, why do we insist on losing or dissolving the ego or the belief in a separate self?

A Christian mystic by the name of Thomas Merton once said. "If you give up everything, you gain everything." My question is have you given up everything and gained nothing or have you given up everything and gained everything? Did you merely give it up, or did you get it all back? Perhaps it's not the "nada" factor but the "everything" factor that is missing.

Beyond the Contradiction

I have been asked to write about addictions. I, myself, am hesitant to approach this matter because so many programs, rather than identifying the addictive behavior, want to define you by it. My experience is different. I cannot say, "I am an addict" because I don't experience myself as a unified whole. My experience of myself is more akin to a bunch of fragments floating in space. Sometimes a particular fragment is present, and sometimes another is present. There really is no continuity. There is no continuity in what is ordinarily called myself.

In my case, addictive thoughts, or addictive chemistry or the addictive process, can vanish without a trace and weeks even months later, return in spades, complete with an entire repertoire of attitudes, perspectives and desires that simply were not there. They were absent, then they returned. They depart again, and I am left feeling not even like the same person. It is literally hard to convince myself that I'm an addict. I don't, then, feel like an addict. I feel as unencumbered as the sky once the clouds have gone. It's as if the addict has left the building. Who knows if it will return? But it always does. The clouds always return. The replacement consciousness can't believe this. Even the believer and beliefs are not consistent with the previous one.

If memory serves, I could come to some assessment as to what percentage of the time the addictive process is present. But it is difficult to identify myself in any way. Truthfully, I have no consistent identity. My name is consistent. People call me and I respond, but so much about what is called the personality abruptly changes. I'm not talking about growth or development. I'm talking about major shifts. It's like waking up with a different quality of consciousness. Sometimes the consciousness has a playful quality, sometimes an ugly quality, and sometimes a sage quality. Sometimes craving is present, sometimes distortion is present. Sometimes perception has shifted in such a way that it's as if I crawled into a different skin, and sometimes there are many at once.

I don't know if that matches any one else's experience, but it is my experience. It is complex, and surreal, and perhaps I should be the subject of a scientific study. All of it can be doubted completely, but this doubt doesn't deny the occurrence. It denies association of the remaining identity with the departed consciousness. The felt sense is that the addict came and went. The distortion came and went, the confusion came and went. The perspective is totally new and isn't experienced to be the same person.

Unless, there is guilt, remorse or some emotion that creates some sense of continuity, I am convinced that whoever remains, once the addict had gone, has no association with it whatsoever. Perhaps this is why denial is so hard to break through. And why psychopathic behavior is possible. Unless there is some emotional tie that creates an association, some identity as a sinner or as an addict, or a psychopath, the remaining identity is discontinuous with the past.

Most people, I assume, don't experience it in this way. For most people there is a continuity in personality. For me personality is not unified enough to be on one side or the other. It is not unified enough to say it is for this and against that. It is not unified enough to say it is a sinner. It needs memory for this. It is not unified enough to say it is a saint, history proves otherwise. It is not unified enough to say it is an addict. It is not unified enough to say I believe X.

Honestly, there is very little agreement or unity in this personality. Maybe, there is a dominant trait, but different traits dominate at different times that are completely contradictory. One dominant trait is the willingness to help wherever possible, and many have said this, but there are other traits that show up that are malicious.

Most don't experience Kevin or Prakash as malicious, but I and others have experienced myself in this way. Would it then be accurate to say that I am a selfless openhearted sadist. This makes no sense. Would I say that I am a sadistic kind-hearted man. This also makes no sense. Here, we can speak about what is authentic and inauthentic, what are the core values? But the core values for which? The fact remains. I experience both, sometimes equally and sometimes simultaneously. Faced with this perplexing scenario, I throw my hands up and say, beyond the conflicts, beyond the opposition, beyond the contradiction or addiction who am I?

There is no denying what happens. History keeps a record of events, but my experience is that there is no identity unified enough to say I did that, or I am that. There is no denying of events, but there is not always this association with a "me" who has lived the events. They happened to a me, but which one? Who am I? There is no unified sense of a personality. For me it is like fragments floating in space.

What is consistent is space, so the attention more often goes to that. The fragments play a part, but they are not cohesive. They exist together but don't work together. I mostly experience them as a collection of contradictions. Am I all of them or none of them? Perhaps, we can discuss it.

In the interest of clarity, I have added the following: Please don't misunderstand me. I am only speaking of my experience. My experience of the personality is that it has no unified direction. It wants opposite and conflicting things. My experience is that only space, silence presence, what have you, is continuous. For me, no other identity is continuous. Everything else changes. The addict comes. The addict leaves. The sadist comes. The sadist leaves. Only the sense of space is there all the time. For this reason, this spaciousness, the only reality that is not discontinuous, is called the self.

Because this is so, the former consciousness, or set of beliefs, is not continuous or consistent with the present consciousness, or set of beliefs, and there is nothing that links them. The only similarity is that they arise in the same space. What is ordinarily referred to as the personality or personal identity has disintegrated. There is no harmony or agreement within the personality. What is wanted at any given moment depends on which is present. All of this happens within a field. That field is the only thing that's continuous. This is my experience. It has not happened that the same consciousness is present always, so I have gone beyond to this uncontaminated field. If you ask, who am I? It is That, the only consistent reality.

Perhaps, as this space, I can harmonize these personalities, these energies. I cannot do it as one or the other, because my experience is that I am no more one than the other. One may be more frequent at times, but the other is sure to make its presence felt. Who am I? I am the only thing that I could be, the reality continuous enough to deserve the title "I", the vast field in which everything comes and goes. Only as That, is it even conceivable that I could harmonize all other energies and contradictions, only as That could I bring the lion to lie down with the lamb, or welcome the unwelcome.

Enter the New

Enter the New has undergone a change. Reason being, because many found self-inquiry to be too abstract. Many were disturbed by this idea of freedom "from." Though certain people had glimpses, they still remained separate. There was still an attachment to the belief "I am me." It didn't matter that I, apart from being one letter, couldn't be found. It didn't matter that a thinker couldn't be found. It didn't matter that when no thoughts were present nothing remained to say what I am." It didn't matter that there was no tangible self to reference. It didn't matter that this elusive I showed up to claim activities only after the activities had taken place It didn't matter that no objective mind could be found in addition to thinking. It didn't matter that there was never a time when there wasn't awareness. It didn't matter that everything, even sleep, could be noticed. It didn't help to say you are part of the illusion, or that nobody's home or that there is nothing in it for the ego. It didn't help to say that I is just an idea or to speak of this moment free of content, or to speak of objects appearing and disappearing in space. For many, none of these things helped long-term.

Pointing facilitated an experience of no I, or no mind, but as an experience, it was short lived. Things seemed to always return to business as usual, and nothing remained of the former peace. I couldn't understand it. Why were so many having a glimpse and losing it? Why were they not able to see or understand that Awareness was never gained and never lost, that this peace always, always is, that there is always something undisturbed about us. People seemed to be confused, conflicted, desperate, frustrated and hurt.

Seeing this, made me want to investigate deeper. What were people really after? What were they searching for? What did they want? Did they want to be free of a separate self, free of choice, free of I and my, the person and relationship? My guess is no. They didn't want to not be. They weren't thrilled with the idea of being the space that contains each moment. They wanted something else. They were seeking something else. If I had to articulate it, I would say, theirs was a wish for a better "me."

I am not in the business of granting this wish, but I will say that because of needs not being addressed, Enter the New has undergone change. To sum it up as to what's new about the Enter the New Gatherings, It is this - The emphasis is no longer on what isn't here but what is.

The Big Deal Complex

Both in my own experience and that of others, I find what I call "the big deal complex." There is a recognition of a broader perspective. We may call it the source of thought. We may call it presence. We may call it the capacity to witness or oversee, the space between thoughts or breaths. We may call it by a thousand different names. It doesn't matter. What matters is that we recognize it and are not impressed. The response is "big deal."

This big deal complex comes about because, at the moment, there isn't a full stop that allows for a deeper look. At best, it is a pragmatic pause. It's as if you are traveling through a desert, and you come upon an oasis. Before you know that the oasis can quench your thirst, you have no interest. You respond, big deal. It's exactly like that. The role of a teacher is to bring you from a pragmatic pause to a full stop, so that you don't overlook or walk past the oasis. "Drink," he says, "lest you die of thirst." "Stop, lest you drive yourself crazy." To continue without water in a desert can cause you to see things that aren't there, to lose perspective. It's exactly like that.

Before you stumble upon this capacity to oversee and discard it with "big deal", see what it is. See if this capacity to oversee has the capacity to give you rest. See if it can quench your thirst. If you can get out of your pragmatic pause, you might just see that there is rest, that while investigating this capacity to oversee and what it really is, there is no chattering. While investigating the source of mind, there is absolute rest.

The Guru or teacher is only ever calling you back to that. That is what is meant by this moment. That is what is meant by the source of thought. That is what is meant by presence, silence, being, the unknown or your own self. To direct your attention to these is to take a deeper look at this capacity to oversee, rather than continually overlooking it, as one might overlook an oasis in the desert, as one might mistake a pearl for a stone and toss it back into the ocean.

In the Gospels, there is mention that the mustard seed, though one of the smallest seeds, it becomes one of the largest trees. Here again, the same invitation is given, Don't skip over the space between breaths, the space between thoughts. Don't skip over the Seer. Don't skip over Presence, Stillness. Don't skip over the gentle breeze that made Elijah stand at attention. God was not in the earthquake, the terrible storm, but the gentle breeze.

The message is not that the earthquake isn't godly, not that the terrible storm isn't an awesome expression of Divinity. The message is that there is something more fundamental. It is the source of all. It is the origin of all. That can be known directly, Truth can be met directly, but we miss this opportunity when we dismiss the reality that is the most subtle, the most quiet. yet without it, nothing would be.

Everything has an origin except that. The origin of the body is the source of the body, the origin of the mind is the source of the mind. The origin of you is the source of "I". At a basic level, the origin of the tree is a seed. Were it not for the seed, it would not be.

That is what wisdom is. It is to lover the giver, without whom the gifts would not be. It is to love the source, without whom, nothing would be. Everything is here because Being is. Without Being, nothing is. That is all awakened teachers are saying. The world is real, but so is the source of the world, and if you like the artwork, why not meet the artist face to face.

Prejudice, sometimes called ignorance consists in believing that what is visible is more important than what is invisible, that what is seen is more important than what is unseen. The belief that if I cannot see it, touch it, taste it, smell it or hear it, it is not worthwhile, is our collective ignorance. In a very real sense, we pass up the oasis in the desert, every moment. We are like fish in the ocean crying, "were thirsty." It is exactly like that.

The teacher's hope is just one, that you meet the artist face to face.

I Call it Self-realization

I have seen many many confusions regarding this invitation who am I? If one inquires and the honest answer is "I don't know," then there is resting in "I don't know". But as it is, I sense that very few experience rest, especially among seekers. I can only guess that it is because a great many have misunderstood Who am I?

Beginning from the belief that all is one is not realizing that all is one. Having a belief that I am not myself is not realizing that "I am not myself." Where is the peace? Where is the absence of turmoil? Where are the undisturbed faces? I don't see them, especially among seekers. There is a facade of rest but it doesn't go very deep.

The reason for this, I believe, is this question of who am I? Many have asked it, but who has allowed it to burn everything away? It seems we are too concerned with safeguarding the oneness to lose anything.

In ancient times, there was the idea of renunciation. Today the popular idea is accumulation. There is a prejudice that everything I have accumulated is me that it's all part of the oneness. Then what is the point of asking who am I? The point is missed entirely.

Who am I is a discriminating question. To ask the question who am I is to light a match and allow the whole forest of concepts, of knowledge, of the known, to burn into ashes. Then out of the ashes, there is a new you, an unknown you, an unknowable you. Then this unknowable you returns to ordinary life. Life is the same, and yet totally different. Because there is no knowable you, everything can be experienced without you dividing it up. You don't interfere. You are out of your own way.

This has the effect of oneness, but oneness is just a word. Life simply is as it is, with one difference. There is a wisdom that knows you are the source of it all. There is an understanding that all that is seen has come from the unseen, and you are That. In my experience, this is why nothing is experienced as separate from you. It is because you are the source of all, you are the unseen from which everything arises, or the screen upon which the objects of life appear. Were it not for that, there would be none of this.

This I find in my own experience. I don't find that I am the body, or that I am the mind, or that I am your body or that I am your mind. My experience of my self is as That from which all of This arises. Call it oneness if you like. I cal it self-realization. I call it finding out who am I.

The body came from you, not you from it. Like bees to a honeycomb, you made it. Cell by cell, you formed it. For what it's worth, that is my understanding and my experience.

Feeling and Recieving

For most, the body and the mind are limited. The body ages and dies and the mind is limited by what it thinks. When most speak of the body, they speak of the physical. When most speak of the mind they speak of the mental, the intellectual. It is important to note that these are classifications of the mind itself. What else could be engaged in this work of classifying?

That being said, there are others who have different understandings and classifications. There are those who perceive differently. In addition to the physical body, they may perceive the subtle body, the energy body, the pain body, the bliss body the no body and so on. To those who have different understandings of the mind, there may be the classification of the working mind, the thinking mind, the free mind, the no mind etc. Prior to these classifying function of mind, no classifications, of course, exist? There is just experiencing. There is just the simplicity of being, of sharing varied, rich and wondrous experiences. But something enters and says, "Hey, your classifications aren't the same as mine. They don't match my experience. That's ego. Ego is the comparative mind.

Classifications belong to the ego. They would not be, were it not for the minds function to label and organize what it perceives into a hierarchy of knowledge. Because it doesn't perceive as a whole but only in parts, it selects its parts as one would select stones to build a house. The sturdy stones comprise the foundation and so on. When the edifice is finished, there is a worldview, a self-concept and a belief system. This self-defining, acquired knowledge is then protected and defended as true.

Arrogance then shows up as the story "my beliefs are better than your beliefs" and so on. The personal self then argues, agrees and disagrees instead of seeing or mutually exploring. The problem arises because human experience is so varied that few will accept life on any ego's terms. Those who do, we classify as believers. Those who don't as infidels. A kind of "majority rule", or collective ego, takes over and the unbelievers are classified as lost souls. They are lost because their experience and perception doesn't match the others.

Worldviews and belief systems are personal. If enough individuals agree, a collective or shared belief system evolves. This is a collective ego. "I see myself in them, they are Ok" is the accompanying story. All of this is after the fact. It is a post-mind affair. It is post-classification, post-organization and post-hierarchy. Prior to these functions, there is just experiencing.

It is the need to share one's inner experience with another that creates this interpersonal play. Relationship and dialogue are born out of this desire to share one's inner experience. The challenge is that no two inner experiences are exactly alike, nor are they expressed the same. When we move from sharing and hearing to "understanding", difficulty arises. To feel you is possible, but in order to understand, in order to make sense of another, we have to translate what is being expressed or emoted into our own language. If the languages are dissimilar, the attempt to translate or interpret may be frustrating for either party. Reassurances such as "I understand you perfectly" are not always possible. What is possible is feeling. What is possible is receiving the person in openness.

What Sends the Message?

The body doesn't know the difference between dream stress and real stress. It simply responds to information that is input. Upon waking from a nightmare, there is an increase in pulse, heartbeat, even perspiration. This can only be because the system can't tell the difference between a dream and reality. If the system can't tell the difference, what can? What sends the message that it was only a dream? Upon waking, the body receives a clear message that it was only a dream, and it takes a while for the level of stress to decline. It is like a bicycle rolling downhill. So long as the downhill slope remains, it gains momentum. The waking up moment is where the downhill slope changes to an uphill slope, or to level ground. The dream is no longer occurring, that which was the source of the stress is gone.

So the question remains. What sends the message, or how is the message sent that it was all a dream? The system that responds, and is still responding even after the eyes have opened has somehow gotten the message that it was a dream, that dreaming caused the stress. Seeing this, we find that something had the ability to trigger stress and something had the ability to send a message of well being. What is that? What sent the message that returned the system to the harmonious state it enjoyed prior? The system may not be discriminating, but something does discriminate between dreaming and reality. What is that which alone has this power?

If this discriminator can be discovered then it is possible to awaken from daydreams as well, even the most subtle and protected. It is possible to discern between what the seer knows and what the system experiences.

God is the Only Truth

We are so careful not to put words to things and perhaps for good reason, but awakening is not simply being unknowledgeable. There is an understanding that underlies awakened living, that understanding is that name and form hide reality, and the only truth is God: not me and God, not me as God, it's more like God as me. The name and form don't just hide reality, they hide True reality, the Greater Reality. They hide the Absolute.

The Truth is that God is the only Truth, manifesting as all of this. Without God, Without this Love, nothing would be at all. All of the manifested world, including the ego, has dependent existence. Anything that is born and dies, anything created has dependent existence. The only reality with independent existence is the source of all. All may be the expression of Being, but without Being nothing is. Nothing would exist at all.

It is almost common place to speak of true nature, your true nature, my true nature. True nature has independent existence, but not this you and me. Make no mistake. Both are concepts. It is far more accurate to say that True Nature possesses you, True Nature possesses me than to say, we possess it. It can't be possessed, not by you, not by me. This idea that God or Truth can be possessed is just foolish.

Reality can't be possessed, especially not by one with dependent existence. This is the arrogance or believing that you can possess Truth. It is not yours and never will be. It will never be a thing to be possessed. You are claiming to possess what can only possess you. You can't have it. You can only be it. Seeking to possess what can only possess you, you fail time and again.

*The Game of Life*

Freedom is seeing that "I" doesn't determine anything. Almost everyone is under the impression that it does, so there is suffering. It doesn't; that is the illusion. This misunderstanding is refered to as the dream. It say's "I'm here in the present moment," but in the moment no one is actually there. This sounds crazy, but that's what the present moment is.

What is common knowledge is the misunderstanding. The belief that the present moment is sandwiched between "my" past and "my" future is the misunderstanding. There is no "I"and no my. Always, this can be seen, because that's the way it is. That's the way it is. That's the way it always was and always will be.

The illustration of riding on a train with luggage on their head instead of setting it down, illustrates a simple fact. You are not mobilizing the train. You do not determine anything. The belief that you do is illustrated by carrying luggage on your head instead of putting it under the seat.

Self is the illusion. Self-importance, self-reliance, self-sufficiency, these are the illusions. Life lives and a thought arises, "I am doing it therefore I can do something about it." But you are not doing it, nor can you do anything about it. That's the illusion. That's the self-importance.

Consciousness is all there is, all there ever was and all there will be. The idea that you exist apart from That is just the way it appears. Discovering this is like discovering the great and powerful Wizard of Oz behind the curtain. The thought arises. I knew it, and laughter begins. The joke is apparent. Things aren't as they appear, that's the joke.

Once this is seen, just seeing what the "I" thought takes praise and blame for is a source of endless amusement. Of course, there isn't any ego there, but whatever sees, it seems to enjoy self-amusement.

Then life becomes light. It becomes amusing. It continues with all the paradoxes, all the apparent contradictions with one difference, there is an understanding that you have absolutely no control, and never did. Actions will arise but there is a seeing that they are not yours. Thoughts arise but there is a knowing that you are not responsible. All is part of one incomprehensible game, the game of life.

"A Mindless Affair"

Living is a mindless affair, and it's a good thing, because there is no mind. Mind is that to which the possessive pronoun "I" refers. I refers to me, me refers to myself and myself refers to nothing. That's it. There is no "my" self. There is no mind. They are one and the same.

Thoughts arise and this capacity for thinking is called mind. So there can be thoughts or there can be mind, but there can never be both simultaneously. They are just words for the same thing. Mind, self, ego, I, you are all words for the same illusion created by the single thought "I".

Trying to live mindlessly is unnecessary, because living is a mindless affair. There is no mind, there is no center, there is no you apart from me. That is the illusion created by words, and before words thoughts.

*There Never Was An Ego*

There are many spiritual teachings that seem to advocate passivity. There are many teachings that seem to be saying, go with the flow. This is neither. It is not a counsel to change anything, nor is it an invitation to accept what is. This is the way the ego hears everything. When I gets into it, the question is always, "What can I do to make it so?"

What is being suggested here is altogether different. What is suggested here is that everything can be done without the sense, or burden, that comes if you were doing it. Ask, "How can I know this or see it?", and the point is missed.

What is being hinted at is not in the realm of personal experience, personal practice or the personal achievement of any state. All of these involve the individual. What is suggested is action being done without the sense of doership, that ordinarily accompanies action - action being done without belief in I. That is the rest.

What is being pointed to is the end of "two". It is the end of me versus you, us versus them. It is the end of God and me, Life and me, Existence and me. It is end of the inner dialogue: "I did", "I didn't", "I should", "I shouldn't", "I can", "I can't", "I will", "I won't" etc., not as a personal discipline but from a greater discovery, the discovery that contrary to how it seemed in retrospect, that you never did anything.

The invitation offered here is not an invitation to accept or reject that fact. It is not an invitation to agree or disagree. It is not an invitation to meditate, to be present or become more aware or effective in your daily life.

What is being suggested here is absolutely radical. It is the outrageous invitation to see that the Universe, God, Awareness etc., since the beginning of time, has conspired to perform every one of your so called "individual actions." It is the absolute seeing through of the delusion "me".

What we are talking about is not a state. It is not an achievement or shift in personal perception. It is not so insignificant as maintaining a state in which no thoughts arise, nor is it an effort to detach or become more present. All effort strengthens this idea "I am doing." This is not about doing anything, and it's not about not doing anything.

What is offered here is simply an opportunity to see through the lie of I, and live life free from belief in this idea. What we are talking about is a shocking and shattering discovery. It is the discovery of life as it's always been, without "me." This means, you're not there to act nor to stop action from arising.

How can the direct seeing that there's no "I", no ego, no individual, be a personal achievement? What we are talking about is seeing that there never was an ego and all the implications that, that realization carries.

*You're Not the Programmer*

Acceptance of what is, and the belief that this is possible by you is a great confusion. You are told to accept what is, and simultaneously you are told that you can do nothing because you don't exist. Well, which is it? The answer both-and only creates more confusion. To the mind, paradox is confusion, confusion because understanding is incomplete.

Acceptance or rest is not an accomplishment. It is simply seeing that the "I" which naturally involves itself is not anything real. The discovery is "I" is not involved. That's the rest. It's as simple and organic as that. It is not a discipline, the practice of reminding yourself to rest, and it is not chastising yourself when you can't rest. This is a misunderstanding. Rest has nothing to do with what the body or mind are doing. They will do as they do. They may be rested, resting, or restless. That's not rest. Rest is no ego involvement with what happens. That is true rest. All else is just the way a particular body or mind functions. There may be ways to change the function, there is yoga, exercise, diet, medication, and pain relief, but that is not rest, as it's used here.

Rest is freedom from involvement with what's happening. You are already free of involvement, because there truly is no ego. All action is naturally egoless. There is no "I". There is just language. Belief in this "I" is what causes suffering. Without "I" suffering is impossible. This is what is meant by the end of suffering. The end of suffering is the end of belief in this "I". The end of suffering is the end of ego involvement. That's it!

There may be great pain or confusion, but without "I" there is no suffering. This sounds like a paradox. It is not. Pain and suffering are two entirely different things. Pain can be relieved. Pain can be healed. Suffering can drop. It drops when there is no ego involvement. It drops when there is a seeing that all actions are fundamentally free of "I'. The end of suffering is not the end of pain. It's just this.

When it comes to spiritual writing, there is a good reason to say all that can be said in the passive voice. It is far more accurate to say, suffering drops, suffering falls away, than "I" did it. The involvement of "I" is suffering. That is what is being clarified here. If this is heard and a practice is begun to stop involvement with "I", the point is missed. There is no "I", this has to be seen by that which sees. That which see is not "I". Only "I" is "I". Neither is the body "I". Thought isn't "I". Only "I" is "I".

A lot of spiritual teachings, helpful as they are, are misleading. They teach that non-acceptance is suffering, and acceptance is the way to end suffering. Then, you suffer because you can't accept. That's the problem. You're not supposed to accept, you're supposed to notice. You're supposed to see. You're supposed to see that non-acceptance is not the problem. It's "my" non-acceptance that's the problem. Where did this "my" come from? It came from "I'.

Without "I" there is no "my", and in reality, there is no "I". That's what the teachers are saying.
It's as if you bought a table, and your spouse didn't like it. She truly doesn't like it. She has been given different tastes. She likes what she likes, and you like what you like, and that's that. Right?

That's the programing. That's the conditioning. That's not the problem. The problem is "I". Her suffering doesn't bother you, because it's hers. Your suffering doesn't bother her, because it's yours. If her conditioning were accepted, and if your conditioning were accepted, not by any personal effort, but by seeing that there is no choice in it, that although "I" tries to take credit, it wasn't anything you chose, then there is freedom.

Non-acceptance can be part of the programing, and is. There is no shame in it. "My" non-acceptance suggests you had something to do with the program. It suggests that you are the programmer. That's the illusion. That's the suffering.

The is a right way and a wrong way to hear this. If you hear that I am not supposed to have suffering, or I am supposed to be free of suffering, and you try to get rid of it, that's the wrong way. If you hear it as it's meant here. that all actions are basically done without your choice, that all actions are basically egoless, then something has been understood.

*Independent Existence*

A great while ago, I read something that has stuck with me since. "Whoever is free of 'I' and 'my' attains peace." How simple, how beautiful, how exactly correct. There's just one problem, language. How can one free of "I" or "my" be a who? It would be a who with out attainments, without possessions. a who without the most basic possessions of "my" body, "my" mind, an "my" life, and yet the words seem to suggest that there is one who attains peace if not anything else.

This is where everyone gets stuck. The deep rooted prejudice, the ignorance is believing that the ego is real. That "I" "my," and "mine" are not just a dream. This sounds dismissive so allow me to explain. All spiritual traditions agree on at least three things: that what can be seen does not have independent existence, that the "I" or ego does not have independent existence, and that enlightenment or freedom is attained by giving up "I", by dying. This is not physical death of course, but the realization that there is no death. There is no death for the ego because the ego isn't real. It's an illusion.

Why all of the confusion over an illusion? It's mostly the fault of language, of definitions, of assumptions. Almost universally, there is a belief in some pie in the sky egoless experience or state that resembles deep sleep where no one is there. There is just That upon which everything that does not have independent existence depends. That is called That. But there is a huge misunderstanding. The huge misunderstanding is that there is a special egoless experience. The truth is every experience is egoless. There simply is no ego! There simply is no separate self. The arising thought "I" gives the illusion that there is.

Sleep happens and upon waking the "I" arises. "I" says "I' slept well." That is the beginning of the dream. No "I" was present in sleep, that is why it was peaceful, and now "I" arises and claims to be the sleeper. It isn't so. "I" is just perjuring itself. Every experience is in fact egoless. Independence, individuality in reality is an illusion, a wonderful illusion, a beautiful play, but if it is taken as ultimately real, it can cause a great deal of suffering.

The ego doesn't have independent existence. This is an agreed upon reality. What is not agreed upon, what is not known is that there is no ego. There is just the possessive pronoun "I". The possessive pronoun is not the problem. The misunderstanding is the problem. If "I" indicates something real, then "my" and "mine" are also real. If "I" is not real then "my" and "mine" also are not real. They are an illusion, the same as "I".

If this is seen, all personal attainments, including so called spiritual attainments, lose their meaning. Words like surrender, death, enlightenment, liberation, dissolution, attainment, becoming, all lose their meaning. Since no ego is there to claim them.

At that point, all words are misleading. They have to be used, but the hearer believing him or herself to be separate can only misunderstand them. They hear enlightenment, salvation, liberation, as something that has to be done, even more so as something you can do. That is why it takes years to see this truth. The truth could have been seen all along, if the words were heard correctly. That is why the pretend teacher, gives the pretend teaching to the pretend student at precisely the right time, when he or she can hear it.

Since the beginning, there is talk of grace, but as a concept, it is misunderstood. Grace is not doing but seeing. Who sees it? For this there are no words. What can be said is that it does not have dependent existence, all else does.

Always,

Prakash

What is the Truth? Who Says I?

There is no action that you can call mine. Life as you know it is a response to thoughts that you did not choose. You are just an instrument, deluded or not deluded, as the case may be. Believing that I am the doer is the delusion.

God does all things. God is responsible for all things. God is also responsible for the ego. God is responsible for the delusion. God is responsible for waking from the dream. The dream is the dream of separation, of independence, of individuality, of personal power. There is no person, no personal power. There is no self or self-help. Those are the delusions. There is just oneness.

Where do desires come from? Ever wondered? Where do dreams come from? Ever wondered about it? Have you ever honestly wondered where your thoughts come from, where your feelings come from? What is this thought "I"? These questions are rarely asked. In the dream, actions, thoughts words and deeds become yours? Ever wondered how? They are carried out bodily. That is not disputed. What is questioned is who is doing them. What is the truth of this "I" that says 'mine'?"

This is the question seers and mystics have dared to ask. What am I essentially? is essentially the wrong question. The right question is, "Who says 'I'?" What is the truth of the individual self? What is the "I", the ego? When is it there? When is it not? What is its function or dysfunction?

Inquire, and you just might find that there is nothing you can do about anything. As a separate individual, you don't exist. How's that for rest?

No Discipline, No Doing; Just Here

Confusion happened when achieving a thoughtless state became more important than just being. Especially where meditation is concerned, thoughtlessness became the end all be all. This is a huge misunderstanding. Some teachers, and I was one, have prescribed "dissolution of mind," which the ego hears as, "stop thoughts." How is there to be any realization, ie. the realization that you are not, if you are under the impression that you are stopping something. Stopping may happen, but it is this idea, "I am doing it" that keeps the illusion going.

Practice may be useful for achieving a thoughtless state, but as far as waking up is concerned, it is a postponement. The truth is: even if you achieve a thoughtless state through discipline, you are still under the impression that you did something, and that you were successful. Then the story begins, "If I was reasonably successful at this, what other things can I achieve?" "How about enlightenment?" Consequently, striving and seeking begin.

It was so simple that it was missed. The zen cane, the koans, all of it, were not trying to create a thoughtless state, but were pointing to here and now. It is here and now that is the jewel. It is here and now, that you are seen to not be separate. The mind cannot do anything with here now. It can only do something with future. Here and now, there is no ego. Ego is an afterthought. No dissolution is required. See for yourself.

When a thoughtless state becomes more important than here, The ego undertakes a spiritual practices to get there, which is a fantasy. Simple teachings, like those given by a gong, a bird, raindrops, a rose, are all misunderstood. They all are pointing to the same thing, "here and now." The problem is that teachings like the eightfold path, the ten commandments, etc. become more important than waking up. At best, the mind simplifies the teaching into one command that it can follow. "Be here." Then the individual struggles to be more here. The simplicity of hereness is missed. It has become about "me" being here. It was never about you.

The masters point to just here. They do not point to you're ego being here. They don't point to your practicing being here. They fully understand that "I" is the illusion. They just point to here.

It's Beyond You're Control

Realizing that there isn't a separate self, and that everything is spontaneously happening is the end of second guessing. It's the end of anxiety: "Did I make the right choice?" "I could have this, I could have that." It's the end of personal success and failure. It's the beginning of Life living itself. How else can surrender happen unless it is seen that Life is in control? It is in control of actions, thoughts, feelings, sensations, even moments of silence, so called seeings and a ha moments.

How can one take credit for intuition, inspiration or anything at all. The very idea of taking credit is insane. Ideas come out of thin air, and something want's to take credit. Actions follow the ideas that come out of thin air, and someone wants to take credit. "That was my idea." or "I did that." is how it usually goes. Ask, "whose idea?" And the response is, "mine of course." "Who are you talking about?

If there is an investigation, there can be a noticing of this dynamic and a questioning of these assumptions, but that also you cannot take credit for. It is not in your control, and yet upon reading this, the idea to investigate may arise, and this idea may lead to a seeing. So be it. If that's the way Life moves, then that is the way it moves. All that can be said is,"The wind blows where it will. From whence it comes and whence it goes nobody knows." The same could be said for thoughts, feelings, actions, and anything else that appears and disappears.

Neither Forgetting Nor Remembering; Just Here

Freedom is neither forgetting nor remembering; Just here. Just here doesn't need that extra step of forgetting, nor that retrieval of remembering. This invitation, to remember who you are is misleading. The invitation to forget who you are not is also misleading. The idea that you have to locate something or throw out something is just wrong. This is too many steps. Just here is no steps. Just here is no rejecting, no reclaiming.

For a long time there was this misunderstanding that although I had woken up, I had to reclaim hereness, moment to moment. Simple moment to moment living, seeing, being became moment to moment remembering. It became a moment to moment inquiring, a moment to moment efforting or sensing within.

There was within and without. Through a preference to remain within, the outer was rejected. Just as previously the preference to remain without rejected the inner. There has since been a re-examination of the usefulness of these words inner and outer. The very word inner creates outer, and the very word outer creates inner. Through use of these reference points separation of inner and outer begins.

Here doesn't need reference points. There is nowhere that is not here. For a long time, I thought the teachers were saying, "This inner vastness is what you are." But that inner reality only became separate from outer reality, because prior to awakening the body was the only reference point. After awakening, inner vastness became the reference point. The reference point was the exact opposite, but it is the same mistake.

Holding to "I am inner vastness" is no more free that holding to "I am the body." It is still inner versus outer. This is the mistake. "Just here" doesn't create the distinctions inner and outer, or emptiness and form, matter and spirit. Just here doesn't try to forget or remember. Just here doesn't say, "I am not this but I am that." Just here is truly non-dual.

An Existential Experiment

(This is a perfect example of the mind trying to figure it all out. Enjoy)

Having had so many extraordinary experiences, I must confess there is an initial desire that others should have them as well. The mystery unveiled itself in the story of Kevin as a shocking and shattering experience. In fact, there were many of them, and they came and went. Later, I stumbled upon self inquiry: the invitation to see what I am or whether I am, to see what thought is and to see what the source of thought is. This marked a turning point. It was my introduction to Self-realization.

After this existential experiment, whenever I looked, presence was found to be always there. It was felt as an uncreated silence or stillness. It was noticed to be the presence of everything and everyone. This was the realization: That I (not the body, not thought) was neither perceivable nor conceivable, still something was sensed. The more I brought attention to what was felt, but not perceived, the more this presence seemed to expand and deepen.

Gradually, the silence became more and more pervasive until everything was happening in a vast silence, not disturbed by noise. In fact, this silence was before the noise, during the noise and after the noise. It remained unchanged. At times, the silence is so great that listening to sounds is like listening to boats while underwater. The silence seems to assert itself and there is a great desire not to speak. I find it difficult to speak from that place. Often, words don't come, so I rest in and as silence.

For me, realization was not mundane, it was extraordinary. Had it stayed at that intensity, I don't know that I could have remained functional, but I did. I remained functional. There was the missed opportunity. Just two simple words, "I remained," blew the whole deal. There was a direct experience of God, of pure consciousness, of love, and the individual "I" managed to survive. Although this experience ripped through like a tornado, there continued to be the reference point "I". At the time, this was the understanding: "I had an experience." "It happened to me." "It was my experience."

The dismantling happened, but thought came and everything got built up again. There was a dying but no remaining dead. "How to remain dead?" I wondered. "Who want's to remain dead?" I inquired. "What is this "I"? I looked and looked, but there was nothing. I made up my mind to try again later, but try as I might, I could not find anything at all. A connection was discovered between looking and tremendous silence. Was this silence the result of something intangible being there, or was it the result of something tangible not being there? I couldn't tell. There was evidence for both.

For a long time after, I was content to know myself as this silence. I was equally content to know myself as an illusion, and that, in reality, there was only silence. Both fit the experience. However, knowing myself as silence, as presence, seemed a two step dance. There was I knowing myself as silence. Somehow, it was simpler to deny than to affirm. Seeing that I was not, and that only presence is seemed to instantly cut "me" out of the picture. Seeing that there was nothing perceivable, that there was, in reality, no "I" no "me" and no "my," created a sense of uninvolvement. There was absolutely no interference. It was seen that there was no solid "I", and therefore no "I" at all. Something was noticed, and nothing stood in the way. There was not two.

As an existential experiment, even as a realization, it was enough, but what of expression? How was this "not-two" reality going to live? Questions flooded in: What did it mean to live as grace? What was surrender? What was this dying to which so many mystics have alluded? Had I bypassed death? Had I cheated death by realizing that there was just one reality? What of embodiment? What of discernment? What of real and unreal, true and false, good and bad? Did the discovery of one reality mean the dissolution of all distinctions? Was living as truth unavoidable? Was there no possibility of living from ego, only the possibility of believing that one is living from ego? Was the ego just another equally trustworthy expression of the one reality? Was it alright to collapse the two? I felt there needed to be distinctions, some clarity, some discrimination.

I kept coming back to it. "What was this death?" Was it being present? Was it acceptance of what is? Was it realizing there is no mind? Was it not claiming doership? Was it not being identified with thought? And what about action? The indiscriminate acceptance of all actions as Divine, was that simple or sloppy? Was there a difference between actions that the mind seemed to initiate, and those which seemed to originate from silence? Was death surrender to a greater Intelligence, or was it the realization that there was no one to surrender and no one to interfere with the One?

What was enlightenment after all? Was it realizing That and letting That act? Was it acting and not accepting praise or blame? Was it not claiming doership, or was it non-doing? Was it no responsibility, or not responding? Was it not claiming ownership of thoughts and actions, or was it disregarding thoughts and allowing action to arise spontaneously? Was it non-involvement with the conscious mind or was it non involvement with action?

Was there no possibility of freewill or was liberation freedom from self will? Was ignorance simply the belief that there is a self, and enlightenment the realization that there isn't, or was there a bit more to it? Was the human being predestined to play out his or her conditioning, or was there a possibility of entirely new action that came moment to moment from the unconditioned, action that sprung from no mind, action that was nothing less than the Unconditioned acting?

Investigation continued, and a few things became clear. It became clear that being present as this awareing presence stopped the mind. It became clear that living in the now also stopped time and with it the mind. It was seen that being no one you think you are frees you from the compulsion to act from thought. It was clear that realizing you don't exist also freed one from the possibility of acting from thought, realizing "you are not the doer," had the same results.

Reflection deepened. It was seen that enlightenment was not so simple as staking a claim. It was not so simple as acting without taking responsibility. It did not follow that action was irrelevant. Because ego was an illusion, it did not exclude the possibility of acting from an illusion. Just because there was no self, it did not follow that there was no self-deception. So long as one acts impulsively from conditioned thought, as though it were him or herself, ego is involved, so is self-deception and ignorance.

One way or another, dependence on ego has to be dissolved. When "I" is dissolved, the connection between thought and action is broken, and action no longer flows from thought. It is unconditioned. If there's no "I", there is no connection between thought or action. Without "I" there is no my. All the methods are meant to bring one to this realization.

A Comment on "The Illusion is You"

What I wrote pointed to the tendency that most have to deny or trivialize experience. Notice how thoughts and feelings are perceivable. They are part of what is. I do not think it is helpful to dismiss them. I do not think it is helpful to netti netti them away. What is equally evident is that "I" is not perceivable. Seek as long as you like, you will not find any "I." What is not perceivable can only be mystery. Why speak of "I" when it comes to mystery? Why speak of "my" when it come to mystery? "I" is always a separate concept.

There is an idea that most have, and most seekers have of "I am 'I am,'" but this is just a clever story. It is an assumption. "I am not this so I must be that." This is just the association of two thoughts, "I" and "That." Let's deal with what's evident. Shall we? What is evident is that thoughts feelings and experience, all that is perceivable, comes from what is neither perceivable nor conceivable. When thoughts come is evident. When feelings come is evident, but where they come from, where they emerge from is not evident. We are in the realm of mystery, bewilderment, awe.

Thoughts not being real is neither the answer nor the question. They are real. They are real thoughts. They are real feelings. Who knows this? About "That" nothing can be said. It is neither being nor non being. Both being and non being are thoughts themselves. We are in the realm of opposites. Mystery has no opposite. Everything stated about it is a concept and is not mystery.

What I wanted to point out is that the moon to which the finger is pointing is not thoughts. The moon is where thoughts come from. Who can speak about that? Is there something? Is there nothing? Everything except that of which nothing can be said, is a concept, a creation. This "I" thought as you call it, is an inference. No "I" can be found. Feelings arise and there is an association of "I" "my" and the rest. Thoughts arise and it is the same. The thoughts can be seen. The "I" cannot. Feelings can be seen, who is feeling them cannot. Becoming aware of them is proof that they are, not that you are. Try to become aware of what is aware. Try to see the Seer. No one has ever done it, which is why it remains always mystery.

My point is, why are so many concerned with silencing, witnessing or controlling thoughts, feelings and experience? There is no need to netti netti them away. There is no real gold in witnessing them even. Try to witness what witnesses. That is the gateway to silence and peace, because it is intrinsically mysterious. It is not unknown. It is unknowable. The mind cannot grasp it or communicate it, because it is not an object. If it were, it would be perceivable, neither is it an "I." If it were, it would be perceivable.

Try to find this separate "I" that is perceivable, that is an object. Thoughts are found.Feelings are found. The body is found. The world is found. Experiences are found. Try to find your self. Is there a you that is perceivable and therefore evident? Even awareness is evident, but where is this you? It is a mental trick to say, I am the awareness. Where did this "I" come from? Is it not an inference? Is it not just an association of two concepts, mainly thought and the body, in particular the "I" thought and the body? As Papaji says, "Awareness isn't it. The one aware of awareness is it." But be careful. It is not an object, not a concept, so don't turn it into one.

The body is. It cannot be denied. Thoughts and feelings also cannot be denied. What about this "I," what does it refer to? Can you affirm it in the same way as the rest? Can you say, "it is?" You can neither perceive it nor conceive of it. You perceive only a label, the label "I". If you say "my" awareness who are you talking about? If you say "my" thoughts, who are you talking about? If you say "my" feelings or "my" body, who are you talking about? If you say "my" experiences, who are you talking about? If you say "I am me," where is this I? Where is this "me?" Look for that one. Can it be found? Is it an object alongside the others? Is it a separate something alongside the others? What good is meditation, if you haven't looked for the meditator? What good is seeking, if you haven't looked for the seeker?

Always,

Prakash

The Illusion Is You

If I look back, I must concede that netti netti wasn't ultimately helpful. The underlying story was thoughts were not real. This meant that I was real and thoughts were unreal. Hence, the task was left to me to discriminate between real and unreal. I had to keep on guard. What an exhausting work this is. I'm not this. I'm not that.

As I said, the underlying story was thoughts aren't real; I am real. The truth I found to be the opposite. Thoughts were in fact real. Thoughts were real. Feelings were real. Experiences were real. They were there and undeniably so. They were what was. The truth was that I wasn't real. Thoughts were, the thinker was not.

Having seen that, I saw that thoughts naturally diminished. Not having any self to feed on, the thoughts gradually diminished until there was effortless silence. Nothing was done, and nothing was left undone. It didn't happen by exclusion or discrimination. It happened because there was a seeing that there was no self to put energy into them. That is how thoughts diminish. There is no self there to provide them with a point of reference.

It's not about you diminishing thoughts. You are and have always been part of the illusion. In fact, the separate me is the illusion. It's not about not letting thoughts land, or not identifying with thoughts, or trying not to think thoughts. Why had I not seen this before? Practically everything I was reading in order to understand awakening was wrong.

The awakening had happened, but what I was reading was all pre-awakening advice not post awakening rest. Even teachers couldn't clarify what was missing. It was as if I was climbing down from the mountain and they were giving instructions on how to climb up. But I just came from there, and now I was climbing back down. Their advice was exactly wrong. It was the exact opposite of what was required.

What I needed to hear, was not, don't give rise to a single thought or don't identify, it was not, "who are you without that thought?" What I needed to hear was what realization actually was. Everyone was giving methods how to realize truth. But few were saying what realization was. So I will say it now. Realization is not an experience. It is not an event. It doesn't take time. It is not a process. It is not even a death, nor an attainment of any kind. It is not that there is an unchanging you aware of the changes. It's that there is no you, no separate self to be bothered at all, no separate self to be identified or unidentified, no separate self to control experience or refrain from controlling experience.

Most spiritual practitioners are inventing a mind in order to control thinking. They invent a control center in order to create a silence. Eventually, their invention disappears in the silence, but this is not even necessary. Thoughts diminish naturally when there isn't a self involved in the laborious task of acceptance and rejection, but even if they don't, what is it to you. After all, you are the illusion.

Unknowable

There is a connection between thinking and seeing form and not thinking and seeing the formless. When you are not thinking, what ever you look at, you are seeing the formless, and when you are seeing the formless, you are not thinking. That's the connection. That part is not so mysterious. The mind simply cannot wrap itself around an objectless experience. Such an experience is unknowable. That is the experience of reality without thought. It is both objectless and unknowable. No thought, no-thing; no thing no thought. That is the equation.

This is why reality is spoken of not as unknown but as unknowable. Reality, as it is, is unknowable. It is not accessible to the thinking mind. So long as thought is present, so long as you look from the thinking mind, reality eludes you.

What then is the option? What else is there besides looking from the thinking mind? Simple, there is looking at the thinking mind. When you look at the thinking mind, you are not looking from the thinking mind. In fact, you are looking from somewhere else, somewhere other than the thinking mind. In looking at the thinking mind, the mind is turned into an object. The paradox is, by doing so, the thinking mind dissolves. another way of saying this is that the mind reveals its objectless nature.

The reason is simple, even logical. When looking at the mind, you are looking from somewhere other than mind. This nether region is called no mind, Looking from no mind, or looking from objectless mind, there is no knowledge of objects. Thus, reality is unknowable.

Silence

Silence

Inquiry is not an intellectual endeavor. It is using your awareness to get out of your head. It does not provoke thinking. It arrests thinking. Rest is the result because something is arrested. For a brief moment, thinking is arrested. In that moment, the concept we normally hold of our self is not there. It is dependent on thought. Because it is dependent on thought, it is thought.

See for yourself. Whenever you look for an "I" there isn't one. The reason is: for the brief moment you are looking, you are not thinking. There is no thought. This vacancy, this absence is what is referred to as original nature, the true nature of the mind. The true nature of the mind is vastness. This vastness is so expansive, so empty, that thought perishes without a reference point.

The realization that you are no one that you think you are is not an idea. It is a direct experience of what remains when there are no ideas. The absence of all ideas, the absence of all "shoulds" such as: it should be like this, or it shouldn't be like that, you should be like this or you shouldn't be like that, I should be like this or I shouldn't be like that, the absence of all such ideas is called silence.

Does this mean that ideas must never return? Not at all, that would fall into the category of shoulds. It simply means, as ideas, they are welcome, but they are ideas; they are not you. You are what remains. The ideas can change, and will, but see for yourself, the silence has never changed. Silence is the unchanging eternal Truth. That is the moon to which the finger is pointing.

Since it is unchanging and eternal, silence cannot be acquired in the usual sense. In its fullness, it is here now. What, then, will you do? Will you let this silence have you, or will you continue clutching at passing ideas. So long as you believe there is choice, this invitation will be offered you. However, if it is seen that silence is, in fact, choiceless, and all else are ideas, if that is seen, then silence has, in truth, already dissolved you.

Total Surrender

Total Surrender

Trusting, acceptance, faith or self-realization; any true path, even a pathless one, includes one of these. A spiritual awakening that does not bring about one of these cannot be called an awakening. Unless there is either a seeing or a willingness to see that you are not in control, (the only realization that warrants surrender), the awakening has not happened or is not mature.

If there is a measuring stick of spiritual maturity, it is surrender. Trust is the way it has been talked about in the west. Trusting, or having faith, is their way of getting out of the way. Acceptance is an expression common to the east. Being synonyms, both achieve the same results and the same complaints.

If achieved, the result is rest, if not, the complaint is 'I can't." "I can't surrender." "I can't accept." "I can't trust." "I can't believe." When that is the case, when nothing else works, self realization or self-inquiry, is like the card up your sleeve. It strikes at the very heart of the dilemma. It asks, "who is this 'I' that cannot accept?" "Who is this 'I' that cannot trust?" "Is that what I am?"

Rarely, does one ask such a question. One who succeeds at trusting, surrendering or accepting will not ask such a question. He or she is satisfied, not curious. Either one is satisfied with being a separate someone who is surrendered, or one is satisfied with being a failure who cannot.

Self-realization is an altogether different approach. It challenges, it questions a very basic assumption. "Is it so? Is it true that I exist as a separate somebody?" "Is it true that this verbal 'I' is what I am?"

If the realization is deep enough, this belief in "I", along with the inner dialog, such as: "I have to trust." "I must trust." "I should trust." is vanquished altogether. The thoughts, "I have to accept." "I must accept." "I should accept." are seen for what they are.

To see that there is no individual controller, but only an illusion of control, is the freedom of self-realization. Their is neither one in the way, nor is there one to get out of the way. The surrender is total and irreversible.

Would We Now Believe It?

For a long time awakening has been kept secret. The simplicity of it was obscured by poetic language which was further obscured by prose. Add to that: cultural prejudice, gender bias, philosophical differences between east and west, spiritual and material polarities. We are not on any one side of this dialogue. What we point to is a universal experience.

All of us at some time have sensed something more. We have not only contemplated something more, we have experienced something more. We have realized something more. We have directly encountered the "something more," Call it the universe, call it God, call it Awareness, Consciousness, Presence. Call it what you like.

The point is, had we not been told, we are separate, that we are fallen, that we are apart from the totality of Life, would we now believe it? Would we look at "so and so" or "such and such" and say, "You are other than me?" Would we not have intuitively sensed on a very basic level, that we are all one, not just we but everything, the whole of existence?

Have we really had a chance to be natural? From the time we reached the age of reason, others were telling us who we were and how the world is. It's time to unmask this notion. It's time to return to our own wisdom, our own intuitive sense, that we are not separate and that nothing is.

Peace

Prakash

One Solution

Consider a solution that is the solution to every problem. What is it? Is it religion? Is it more money, more friends, more influence, more time? I assure you, it is much more intimate, much more radical. It is what the mystics have been saying for ages, but they are neither heard nor understood. This ignorance extends even to the authorities themselves. 

Whatever the problem, there is just one solution, not one solution for one problem and one solution for another but one solution for every problem. As my good friend Richard Miller beautifully put it, "the solution is dissolution."       

The seekers question that inevitably follows is how to effect or allow this dissolution? In my own experience, disillusionment is a good place to begin. To not be so quick to accept other's solutions which have proved dissatisfactory is the mark of wisdom. Not being satisfied with half measures, you are on the way to a true solution that doesn't involve better coping skills, more knowledge or more ways of how to best manage this moment. 

Even how to best let go of control is just another half-measure. It is just another coping skill, a way for the ego to adjust. When this is seen, when  there is a deep recognition that pseudo solutions are not enough, there is the possibility of a more radical solution.

Prakash

The Problem with Methods

The Problem With Methods

Whether awakening is sudden or whether it comes in stages, whether it is partial or whether it is full, depends entirely on Grace, but since Grace makes use of methods, let's explore a few of them. For the good of all, I have chosen four primary methods. If we go into them, perhaps we can deepen our understanding of what they are and where they fall short. The first is meditation. The second is witnessing, the third is self-inquiry, and the fourth I call investigating wholeness.

The goal of meditation being a thoughtless state, the concern is diminishing thought. Here, some are more successful than others. Regardless of one's success or failure, when the practice is through, although there is a glimpse, there remains a separate someone who has meditated, be it poorly or successfully. Here, one may suffer under the delusion that they are a separate somebody trying to get to where they already are.

The second is witnessing. In witnessing the concern is diminishing identification. Netti netti, "not this not that," is part of the method. The objective is to achieve or experience a kind of aloneness, a kind of pure space that is not identified with any of its arising forms. It is a type of discrimination. However, even if witnessing is successful, one is left not only with the thought or the belief, "I am the Witness," but he or she is left with the mistaken understanding that one is solely the Witness. Due to the diminishment of identification, what arises has nothing to do with what witnesses. This method often results in an experience that is transcendent, divisive, disassociative or dualistic.

The third is self-inquiry. Self-inquiry is the invitation to investigate the basic assumption of who or what you are. It is subtle and often misunderstood. If confirmed by one who has realized, it is the most direct path. It is so direct that it has been called the pathless path. The discovery that comes out of self inquiry is not what you are but what you are not, mainly: you are nothing perceivable or conceivable. Not being able to perceive a mind, a separate entity or individual is the immediate result of the method. It takes but a glance, and its significance, if understood, is irreversible and total. If it is not, self inquiry becomes just another practice and its greater purpose is missed. (In order to prevent this, the teacher waits for the right time, when the mind is silent, and truth can go in without ego defenses.)

When something becomes a practice, there is the goal of practicing and improving. The belief is that one is becoming better at meditating, witnessing or inquiring. With this understanding, the drive to better oneself continues indefinitely. There is a striving to achieve some exalted state. There is a projected future where there will be less thoughts, less identification or a truer seeing. There is a projection of some event when, for the "individual," things will be more peaceful. If meditation, witnessing, and inquiry were not turned into a practice, there might be the realization that there is no separate someone divorced from Being. Then, meditation, witnessing or inquiring could be enjoyed for themselves without a goal. This would put an end to the individual's search.

If self-inquiry were understood correctly, if the full shock of realization were felt, neither meditation, witnessing, nor inquiry could become a practice. They could not become a practice whereby an individual hoped to gain something that is not here now, whether it be a thoughtless state, a break in identification, or a grasp of who or what you are. If self inquiry were understood correctly, the seeker's search would end. However, even self-inquiry falls short. Even if it fulfills its purpose, the importance of the body or personality are often denied, undervalued or left out.

Because these methods come out of a tradition which challenges assumptions: mainly that you are only the body, that you are only the mind, that you are solely the person or individual, they begin from the perspective of overturning a prejudice. Since nothing can be said of what is discovered, what is seen upon inquiry, the focus is turned to what is not seen, mainly, there is no perceivable I or individual controller, and yet, there is the experience of I, the experience of ego, the experience of control and the experience of choice. I arises, I individuates and expresses as personal. This is the human experience.

Upon investigation, we find that Truth is all encompassing. It includes the human and the divine. There is not only the One, but the many. We can attach any number of stories or theories to this, but for whatever reason, it is the way Consciousness is expressing. It is personal, impersonal and neither. It is individual, alone and neither. It does not exclude. It diversifies. It does not separate; it includes. We may say, "not this not that," but the truth is: there is only That and That is all there is. Consciousness encompasses all that is. It is fully the One and the many. We may experience it as "not two." We may experience it as many. We may experience it as either, neither or both. That is the paradox.

Those who have woken up, as a device, have often underemphasized what was overemphasized, and overemphasized what was underemphasized. They skillfully tried to point to what was not being seen. If the majority were looking at the finger, that would say, "look at the moon." If the majority were looking at the moon, they would say, "don't forget about the finger." They were unpredictable. They could speak of freedom as freedom from, be it freedom from mind, self, ego, individuality or illusion, and in the next breath they could speak of freedom as nothing to choose between, as choicelessness, that Truth has no preferences and no need to be free. Those who have truly woken up, close the gap between the one and the many. They do not dichotomize. They are all encompassing and truly non-dual. For them, realizing that you are not the body is realizing that you are all bodies. Realizing that you are not the person is realizing that you are all persons, all places, all things.

Because the seeker begins with the idea that he or she is separate or cut off from the One, he or she commences the return to wholeness. The seeker doesn't see that he or she is part of wholeness, that seeking arises in wholeness and is an expression of wholeness. The whole is not considered. Only parts are considered, the seeker and the sought, and the dilemma arises how to make the two one. The truth is they are already one. If we start from wholeness, there is no need to deconstruct. Will we deconstruct only to reassemble what can never be separate? Will we try to heal the gap between two realities that can never be separate? The reality of the part and the whole cannot be separate nor can they really be two. That there is nothing to choose between is the realization of oneness, that there is no chooser, but just the appearance of choice, is self-realization.

There are, however, methods for realizing the big picture that don't begin with exclusion or disassociation, they don't suggest rejection death or turning away. They are in no way divisive or exclusionary. They leave everything in tact. The don't consider the mind and the body as obstacles. They don't see thought as something to be gotten rid of. They don't see the need to throw anything out, even initially. They are not deconstuctionist in nature. They simply point to what is subtle, what has been overlooked. Rather then clearing away the false to get to the true, they start from wholeness and look deeply into the total organic expression of consciousness as a whole.

You are not this moment, free of content. You are this moment and its content. You are the totality. 

Thou are That and That is all there is.

Peace,

Prakash