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.