Enter the New

Wholeness Excludes Nothing

2009-04-24T11:51:00.000-07:00

I don't know what to make of this word integration. I only know what to make of the word wholeness. Wholeness is wholeness. It excludes nothing. It is augmented by nothing. It is completed by nothing. It is whole and entire. Nothing is left out. Everything has a place. It all belongs. It belongs, and yet parts feel displaced. They feel judged. This is the tension. This is the conflict. There has been no forgiveness for the self by the self. There is no possibility of loving others as you love yourself, because there is no love of self, only rejection.

So long as anything is rejected, there cannot be reconciliation of these apparent contradictions. Fear and love, light and dark, sin and grace remain polarized. Startled, even overwhelmed by the movement of energy, we innocently separate from what we have judged as "other," as not me. Opposition begins from this moment on. From judgment comes separation, from separation comes opposition, from opposition comes conflict, and from conflict comes violence. Understanding how this gets created allows the possibility for working in reverse. It allows the possibility to undo the damage.

If we set up anything as our enemy, If we begin with the belief that we have a foe, as an inner reality, we perpetuate opposition. No reconciliation is possible. No lion lying down with the lamb is possible. We have judged, separated and opposed what could have been received. We have excluded what, by nature, is included. Interior conflict is the result of our continual rejection of what belongs to the whole. The willingness to reexamine beliefs and welcome what has been rejected, the willingness to turn enemies into friends and others into oneself is the the path of wholeness. So long as we persist with the belief that there is an enemy, we postpone the return of all to wholeness.

Die Before You Die

2009-04-24T08:41:00.002-07:00

Truly birth and death are happening every moment. Each moment a thought arises is a birth, and each moment a thought subsides is a death. then the next thought comes, and so on. What we call the life story, or the life of the individual is just one thought connecting with the next and the next, and so on. Out of these thoughts, an identity is formed. It is an identity that is "time bound", because time and mind appear and disappear together. Without mind, there is no time. In between the thoughts is the I AM. The I AM is linking thoughts together. It is always, always there.

The I AM is the Source of each thought. This has to be noticed. Freedom is basing your identity, not on the thought, which appears and disappears, like time, but on the I AM. "Thou art That!" is the pointer. The stream of thought is not continuous, though some may believe so. Thoughts are linked together by the I AM. They appear, then disappear. The I AM alone remains, always. The I AM is the space between each thought as well as the consciousness that gives rise and makes up each thought. In this way we are present at creation. We are present at the birth and death of every thought. Thus, we are present at our own birth and death. This is the meaning of "Die before you die" It is an invitation to take back your identity based on events, on thoughts, feelings, sensations etc., phenomenon which come and go, and place this label "I" on something more permanent, something more substantial, something eternal. We are invited to investigate, to find out the truth, to recover our identity, from the fate of events, from the shifting sand and place it on the rock, or I AM, which always is.

There Is No Becoming

2009-04-24T08:41:00.001-07:00

You are That. There is no becoming That, and yet there is the continuous process of re-inclusion. There is realization and re-inclusion. The movement is toward re-inclusion. Whatever arises, pretending to be "unrealized," is meant to come home, so that there is peace throughout the system. "This is That" is the Truth, which underlies this process of everything returning to Oneness. Everything is Oneness, not knowing it. This is the final understanding.

What isn't re-included and redeemed by Oneness is still fallen." The mind, the content of the mind, actions, which flow from "fallen nature" are distorted and far from what is possible. The vocation of the individual is to wake up, realize who he or she is and re-include what has fallen from grace by allowing what arises to come home.

You Already Have An Identity

2009-04-24T08:40:00.001-07:00

I'm not a doctor, a counselor, or a psychiatrist. I am just one who has discovered a secret. It's not a secret, really. It's just something that many have not taken the time to notice, but if you spend the time, this secret becomes obvious. The secret has to do with your identity, in particular, how your identity gets created. One day, it became obvious just how that happens, and I am now sharing it with you and whoever will listen.

The secret is that the mind builds an identity out of events. If there are no events, there is no identity. This is significant, but few realize just how significant. The mind-made identity, which almost everyone takes to be real, which changes moment to moment, is not the Truth. The sense of I AM is your true identity. It does not depend on events and so does not change. To see that the mind builds an identity out of events, and to see what this process obscures is liberation.

To see that you don't need two identities, that you have the identity of God is the truth that ends suffering. Nevertheless, the mind builds additional identities out of events, and says "this other is the truth!" "I am depressed." "I am lost" "I am anxious" "I am hurt." "I am separate" and so on. But none of these identities endure. They are not true. Depression, feelings of being lost or confused, anxious or hurt, are events, not identities. A feeling, a thought, a sensation is an event. It is a happening, not an identity. An identity, you already have. This awareness of how a "time-bound" identity gets built up can help anyone to be free. This can help even in the worst case scenario.

So, very simply, what I am saying is that the mind, desirous to know who or what it is, takes events or happenings and turns them into an identity. True, these events happened, but an identity, you already have. "You are That!", the same as everything. Why complicate matters? Having one self and many identities is self-fragmentation, not Self-realization.

When we let the mind build an identity out of events, the identity is always changing, because events are always changing. Consequently, who you are is obscured. When this task of securing an identity is left to the unenlightened mind, the mind not knowing its true nature, it comes up with countless momentary or "fleeting" identities. None of them tell you who you are. To have many events is fine, but to have many identities is crazy. Having a single identity that does not depend on events, whether it is the arising of a thought, a feeling, or even the happening of your birth is Oneness. It is also Freedom. Enlightenment, Salvation, and so on.

Such "attainments" are not beyond you, because you are That already. Your identity doesn't become That, when you have meditated enough or when you have become worthy. Your identity is That. "You are That!" Therefore, That is your identity and not these others, which the mind builds out of events, which you inevitably outlast.

Why There Is No Separation

2009-04-24T08:38:00.000-07:00

Separation is perceiving from the point of view that God is limited. How absurd. Of course God, or Self, includes all, otherwise, God is limited. The truth is neither that God is limited nor that you are. You are one and the same Reality. How could it not be so? There cannot be two realities when one is infinite. Wholeness is, in truth, inescapable.

The counsel, "Don't become anything" is simply a warning not to confuse a limited personal expression with limited being or a limited identity. By not doing so, nothing is set apart and everything remains undifferentiated Wholeness.

When we superimpose an identity that obscures the truth of Wholeness, we mentally set ourselves apart from Wholeness and we operate under the delusion that we are finite. The counsel, "Don't become anything," and the reminder, "You are That" is to safeguard us from these tendencies the ego has to objectify itself.

If we ourselves are objects to be studied, judged and improved, then everything else will be objects to be studied, judged and improved. If we can awaken to this truth that we and everything else are unlimited, well, that's another story, or maybe, it is the death of the old story. Truly, we are bound only by who we think we are. Without thought, that person who needs to do this that and the other, in order to be whole or free, doesn't exist.

Wholeness is Perfection. Perfection is God, and You are Wholeness. Truly, there is nothing but God. The confusion comes because the concept God is often associated with ideas of moral perfection, but Reality is something else entirely. In his/her present state the person has forgotten the Source, and has lost connection with Truth. It is imagining yourself to be apart from the Whole and imagining others to be apart from you, which is the cause of needless suffering in the world.

The Problem With Methods

2009-04-24T08:36:00.002-07:00

Whether awakening is sudden or whether it comes in stages, whether it is partial or whether it is full, depends on the method. 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 beginning from 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 it's 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.

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 is 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 in 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 each moment.There is only That

All this talk of getting out of one's own way is just an invitation to die to the idea of "me" by looking to the one Reality that is causing everything. The invitation to surrender is an invitation to realize that there is only That. Statements, which deny the reality of the body, the world, the ego, the mind, the self, the person, free will, choice or "the other," are not denying the appearances of these phenomenon. They are simply pointing to one and the same truth -THERE IS ONLY THAT. Awakening brings two significant understandings. As That, you are 100% free, and you are 100% That.

"There is only That" is a pointer, which is all encompassing. It points to the fact that no matter what experience you may be having or not having, already, you are 100% That. The same is true for everything and everyone. What is implied by using the all encompassing pointer: "There is only that." is that the body, the mind and the world are also That. There are not two or three or four or many. There is That, and That is all there is.

Dreaming

2009-04-24T08:36:00.001-07:00

What is your experience of yourself when there is no thought? What survives, if anything at all? Is That not present always, whether thought is or not? Is That not eternal, unchaging and discontinuous with time, mind or any concept?

To clarify, allow me to share with you a dream. I dreamed that I was at satsang. The question arose, "What is the difference between being Being, between being Presence and being one who is present? just then, mind jumped to another question: that of whether or not one could become better at being Being. As soon as I asked it, the absurdity of what I was asking was noticed. The slightest bit of effort, and you become one who is present. This is conceptual. To be Presence itself, no effort is needed. You are not required.

From the perspective of Presence, to become better at being, or any involvement with personal evolution is a mental game, an intellectual exercise. first you imagine yourself as you believe you are then as you would like to be. The whole process begins and ends with imagination. It is a kind of dream.

Timelessness means, that the starting point is always Being. One doesn't evolve, develop, or process. One simply begins at the finish line. Any race is unnecessary. In fact, it is the block.

What the realized have realized is that the starting point has always been that of undifferentiated Wholeness. It is mind that makes the divisions. Without mind, without mentation, these are non-existent. Divisions are simply not there. These so called divisions go hand in hand with your considerations. Consider for a moment how much of the ocean is wave and how much is stillness, how much is shallow or deep? See how consideration divides what is whole.

If you project this understanding onto self, you can see the ridiculousness of this approach to reality. You might proceed in this way. Four fourths make a whole, therefore, I am 25% body, 25% mind, 25% emotions and 25% spirit. This obviously is absurd, and yet it is how a majority approach the idea of self. Maybe not exactly in that way, but one is still split in two, one is 50/50: body and soul, flesh and spirit, shadow and light. This understanding reflects a lack of understanding, even no understanding of undifferentiated wholeness.

It is mind that differentiates. It is mind that includes and excludes, and it is mind that refers qualities which become ego. This is why all of experience, except an experience of timelessness, or choicelesness has been talked about as a dream.

Satsang

2009-04-24T08:34:00.000-07:00

If I knew of any other word, I would use it, Satsang is simply an invitation to look, see, and discover grace. It is an invitation to realize that the thinking consciousness is not the same as the witnessing consciousness. Why is this such a great discovery? Because one is the mind, and the other is beyond it. One is in time; the other is beyond it. To realize that you are beyond the mind, beyond "I", beyond ego, beyond the body and the world is the awakening. It is freedom.

Satsang is just this; nothing else. It is not a platform for teaching, a place for learning, or a workshop for finding solutions to personal problems like: "What can I do to improve my life, my career, or my relationships?" There is absolutely nothing in satsang for the ego.

The "miracle" which happens is of a different nature, and is two-fold. First, there is the discovery of unconditioned, always free consciousness, second, there is clarity as regards the cause of suffering. In other words, there is profound seeing that preferring or referencing the thinking consciousness results in heavy-headedness, not light-heartedness.

The fundamental mistake is that the thinking consciousness, and not the witnessing consciousness has been labeled "I" and taken as one's true identity. This error is undone in satsang. And, that is all.

Misunderstanding

2009-04-24T08:33:00.000-07:00

There is no such thing as a conditioned self. This is language only. It is a concept only. Self is always unconditioned and free. If any, these are the proper qualities to ascribe. All the rest, conditioning, is just information that is accessible. It might be positive information or negative. Ultimately, it doesn't matter. It is not you. It is purely accidental. It may be purposeful, but it is always accidental. All of it comes, and all of it goes. This is the meaning of accidental as opposed to essential. This is what is meant by illusion instead of ultimate Reality. The ultimate Reality abides. It abides eternally.

It is not even accurate to say that a part of you which is eternal abides and the other part comes and goes. You have no parts. You are utterly simple. What comes and goes is not you. That's the whole point. All these varied experiences, and still you remain as you have always been, untouched, unchanged, unaffected, as a fish swimming through water. That is the awakening. Seeing this truth, what is known as realization, is an opportunity to call into question both what you have been calling you and what you have been referring to you.

Truth is utterly mysterious and has no self-reference. Only the known can be referenced. Only information can be referenced. You are essentially unknowable. Thus, whatever you take yourself for, you mistake yourself for. That is what the ego is, a mistaken identity. In Reality, you are not this, that or the other. You are not angry, depressed, anxious or afraid. Neither are you the opposite. None of it applies to you. That is the freedom. That is the liberation. You are and always have been, throughout the creative process and before, free of all identification with what is fixed, with what is limited, with what is affected, with what needs to be "fixed." You don't need to be fixed. Just clear up the basic misunderstanding, and don't again mix it up.

Oneness does not imply mixed up, neither is integration collecting or compiling stray information. It is not owning or reifying what is conceptual and gathering it into a unified whole. Whatever can be joined or pieced together can also fall apart. That's not it. That is neither simple nor natural. Rather, integration is abiding as That which is intrinsically simple, and as That, meeting what is not, or at least what does not appear to be, from a limited self-identified perspective.

Is It Not True?

2009-04-24T08:31:00.000-07:00

I notice that I'm... Is it not true? Is it not your experience? The truth is all the minds tricks are on the table. Nothing is under the table. Nothing escapes Awareness. This is your own experience, and yet you wait for some other experience to accompany this most fundamental and universal one. This is postponement. It is the story: "I'm not ready." "I'm not worthy?" "I haven't dissolved yet." Right? Forget about it. You don't have to. Nothing impedes awakening, or rather, nothing impedes that which is awake. It is awake despite you. Despite your desires or readiness, despite your insights or ignorance, something notices the whole drama. What is unchanging notices the changes. The problem is you want to make it happen, and it has happened already. You want to become free, and you are already That.

This is your own truth, and you've not discovered it. This has led you to search for it To investigate pilgrimages, classrooms, workshops, teachers, teachings and techniques of all kinds. But, in truth you don't need to move or go anywhere? Your efforts are not required.

No one, including avatars, buddhas, saints, or sages are any higher than you. There is no higher and lower in Oneness. There is no before and after in eternity. There is no hierarchy in awareness. There is a difference in roles, but unqualified awareness leaves no room for qualifications. It is a grace, and it is universal.

Freedom

2009-04-24T08:30:00.002-07:00

Freedom is not a state, not an achievement It is seeing from the perspective of a greater awareness. It's not that "I" achieve this greater awareness, or that "I" expand my consciousness. It really has nothing to do with me. Freedom is free of me. It doesn't need me. What a blow to the ego, to the "person" this is. But, that's just how it is. You are free and there's nothing you can do about it.

The you that wants to do something about it, that tries to do something about it, isn't free. It isn't free of the mind. It is the mind. How's that for a joke, the mind trying to go beyond the mind.

Greater awareness, or the Seer, as it is sometimes called, is free choicelessly. It is freedom itself. There isn't anything to do or not do. There isn't anything to achieve. There isn't anything to desire. It is simply at one. Any separation is seen as thought only. Without thinking, or without referencing thought, by simply noticing, one notices what, by nature, is always free: the Seer.

The Seer or Consciousness free of form is naturally free of "I" and "my" and thus always peaceful. What isn't peaceful is mind or "I." All problems are the property of "I." This is why you say, "they are "my" problems." "My" means they belong to "I" not to that which is aware of "I" or that which is aware of awareness. This is true also of desires, thoughts, feelings, fears, beliefs, opinions, judgments...the list goes on.

In the big picture, you are not the body but what sees the body. You are not thoughts but what sees the thoughts. In the big picture, you are what notices. What notices is what is free.

I Makes the Difference

2009-04-24T08:30:00.001-07:00

"I" makes the difference. Holding onto differences is holding onto "I." "I" agrees with, "I" disagrees with. That's what is called an opinion. However camouflaged, however worded: "I think, I feel, I believe, It seems to me, that sounds right," all this charade of knowing keeps the "I" going, keeps the "I" searching. In fact, The seeker's search is the search for knowledge which the ego equates with Truth. "If I could have more knowledge, then I could have more Truth. If I could have more knowledge, I could have more control over my life." That is the equation.

But, knowing, like seeking, just keeps the "I" going. It feeds the illusion. It sustains the illusion of differences, of separateness, and the illusion that "I" can have real knowledge, or true control. Freedom is free of all of it. In fact, that is the freedom. It is free from the concern of having more knowledge. It is free from the need to control. It is free of the limited perspective of "I," and it is free of autonomy. Thus, it is free of drama, free of acting, and most importantly, free of the actor that says, "I know."

To the ego, who thinks it must know, who thinks it must choose, that it must take a stand, true freedom is terrifying. For the ego, distictions and differences are absolutely necessary. Without distinctions, it asks, "Where will I stand? What will be my boundaries? How will I stand apart from the rest?" This is the ego's greatest concern, what to be for and what to be against.

To be without any opinion, to be without any conclusion, to be without any stance, is to be free of "I' and 'my." From here, one opens to the awakened perspective, where nothing can be said above and beyond the obvious. "It is as it is." That's as philosophical as Awakened Presence gets. It does not share your opinions or beliefs. It does not remark: "oh, that's terrible," or that's great, or "that's too bad" or "that's acceptable or unacceptable." "It is as it is." Nothing more can or needs to be said.

It is out of this need to say more, to clarify, to distinguish that confusion arises. As a result, positions are established, agreed with and contradicted. All of this, is just a refuge for "I". All such confusions can be avoided, when we see what confusion is. Confusion is "I" attempting to know the unknowable. Frustration is "I" unable to know the unknowable, and suffering is "I" unable to understand the unknowable. As a result, it is labeled good, bad or unsatisfactory. What then is "I?" "I" is conditioning plus reasoning.

Conditioning plus reasoning, that's not so bad, right? Wrong. There are inherent flaws in all reasoning, The ego doesn't like to hear this, because it thinks itself a god. But, any truth the mind reasons to will be a dead truth, not a live one. It will not be the living Truth. Simply connecting one thought to another is not Oneness, Mind makes it's associations, but, it's every attempt to know Reality is a failed one. The mind's methods are divisive. It kills everything it touches.

Given all of this, it is no surprise that belief plays a major role in religion. With faith, with belief, one is able to give up this conundrum and this search. Clinging to any one of a dozen mythologies fills this space and satisfies "I." The "I" is then able to rest in the belief that it has the Truth, and this ends the search. "I know the truth. Therefore "I" am free. Or more pecisely, "I" knows the Truth and therefore it is free, but free of what? "I" is still "I." Ego still is. "I," "me," and "my" all remain. What kind of freedom is this?

It is freedom from search, but it is not realization. It is not direct experience of the Living Truth. The mind can, perhaps, rest, but everything is second hand. It is believed. It is adopted. It is told. At least, this is the beginning point. It is only a seed. This seed can grow. It can take root and become a fully mature tree, and it must. But, without direct experience, this can't happen. Just as a plant needs sunshine, one needs direct experience, otherwise, he or she will cling to beliefs, as though they were, of themselves, something of value, One would grow up a Christian tree, a Moslem tree, a Buddhist tree, a Hindu tree, a Taoist tree, and so on.

One get's an image of an orchard, of a vast garden where each tree maintains its autonomy and yet shares the same nature as the other. But the reality is ego's don't share. Instead, they form collective egos. "I" becomes "we," "me" becomes "us," and "mine" becomes "ours." In fact, very little changes. Still, there are boundaries. Still there are differences. Still there is controversy. Still there are enemies and friends. This is not the awakened perspective. This is not the Truth of Awakened Presence. Nothing has been broken through. Nothing has been seen. Things are modified, but the same.

Ego boundaries have relaxed, but they remain, and when resisted, they strengthen. They defend. They argue. They fight, each ensuring it's own survival. This is not freedom, and it is certainly not freedom from self. What then has been accomplished? This may sound bleak, but it is a fact. It is a fact that when threatened, "I" reasons, rationalizes and retaliates. It does not turn the other cheek. Turning the other cheek does not hold any interest for an ego. It's interests, as disguised as they may be, are always self-serving.

This is human nature, but it is not "original nature." "Original nature" is what you were before human interest took over. Freedom is freedom from "I." The ego with all of its identities, with all of its interests cannot know such a freedom. Were it to dissolve, like the salt doll who charges into the ocean, were it to turn around and face its source, this contradiction, and all contradictions would become paradoxes.

Surrender

2009-04-24T08:24:00.000-07:00

It is useless to try to surrender. Trying of any kind is not surrender. Surrender is rest. Without an "I" this happens naturally. Without an "I," who is there to make effort? The absence of effort is rest. Contrary to popular belief, surrender doesn't happen because something is changed but because something is seen. When it is realized that there truly is no self, that there is no separate self to be enlightened, no separate self to become free, no separate self to be perfected, or return home, the joke is apparent. There is no I. There is no me. There is no you. There is no us or them, There is just Oneness.

With this realization, comes the sense that there is nothing to do and no one to do it. Where before, there was the illusion of choice, of controlling events and ideas, Now, everything just takes it natural course, without any sense of being in control or having to be. As a result there is no conflict. What passes for surrender is not surrender. Surrender is not a partial thing. It is not I surrender to the One and remain me. It is not a relationship of God and me..Me drops out, and there is just the One. I, me, and my, were all ideas. The seeing of this is what is called freedom

Because the majority of books and scriptures are written from a dualistic perspective, that it could be this way is thought to be impossible. It is inconceivable. But reality defies logic as easily as it defies your understanding of what is possible. Is it possible to be the Whole expressing as part? It is possible, and it is so. To the ego, this is not very palatable. It is frightened at the prospect of not existing. That everything is an expression of one, that everything is the One expressing is not very flattering to an idea that prides itself on being a contributor, on being a cooperator. It wants to protest. "What about me?" "What about my opinion on the matter." "What about these treasures of I, my, and mine? What about my personal perspective? My personal expertise? This is all just more thinking.

In reality, the ego never did or does anything. It is just a label that gets associated with activity. It is not the doer. It is just a thought. That's what "you are not the doer" means. It means that everything ever done was done by the One, not you.

How then does it happen? Suppose you're relaxed, and a thought spontaneously arises. The label "I" arises and attaches to the existing thought. Next, the thought "My" arises suggesting ownership and authorship, Eventually through help from the body, the action is carried out. But who performed the action?

To see the immensity of this, it helps to take it out of the abstract. While resting, the thought arises to lock the door. You respond by locking the door. Do it now. Who locked the door? If you answer "I." then, any investigation which might have led to awakening is missed. "I" is just a label, and a label always references the past. The question is who locked the door? Did a label lock the door? Of course not. A label cannot lock a door. Did the mind lock the door? No, Mind is just a faculty for thinking. It cannot lock or unlock a door. Did circumstances lock the door? No, circumstances are just conditions, and conditions cannot lock a door. Did the body lock the door? No, clearly the body is just an instrument, but an instrument of what, of whom?

What causes thoughts to arise, and what causes action to be carried out? Who decides, responds, and acts? Who or what does "I" refer to? These are all varriations of the same one and only question. The question, "who am I?" is meant to lead beyond the label to the mystery, beyond the person to the Truth. By clinging to the label, knowledge is gained but Truth is missed.

Seeking

2009-04-24T08:23:00.000-07:00

Truth can't be figured out intellectually. It can't be reasoned or argued, only intuitively sensed. The reason is that the knower through his knowledge of objects divides the world. He misses the oneness. It is the "I" in "I know" and "I think" that misses the Truth. "I know that..." is in reality "I' knows that..." The knowledge belongs to "I" not to you. The opinions likewise belong to "I" not to you. Both the knowledge "I am enlightened," and the knowledge "I'm not enlightened," both the belief "all is one," and the belief, "all is many," belong to "I" All knowledge and beliefs belong to ego.

Strictly speaking, what is ordinarily called knowledge of oneness is not knowledge. It is Being. If you are like most spiritual seekers, you are waiting for this elusive knowledge of oneness to stick, but stick to what? to whom? You haven't inquired. You have just thought about it. This thinking says, "I can't rest unless I have some final experience." The problem is, experience will not yield realization. Experience is dualistic. Who's experience is it after all? It also belongs to I. We say my experience, or the experience I had. See, it's all in time. The only reality outside of time is awareness.

What is Eternal is here now, more knowledge is not. Truth is here now, more experience is not, What is awake is here now, more insight is not What, then are you waiting for? No amount of knowledge, experience or insight will satisfy the mind. "I" always imagines something better just around the corner, and there is plenty in store. Preoccupations are plentiful. Always, there is something that hasn't been experienced, something that hasn't been thought about, something that hasn't been seen. So, the mind suggests, "why allow this, experience or insight, to be the final one, to be the one that stops the search?

This is how it keeps itself going. It keeps imagining, keeps anticipating, keeps thinking. And you let it go on. It continues with your blessing. You entrust your enlightenment, your awakening, your self-realization to reason, as if reason was the big authority on Truth, But reason always says, "this is not what I imagined."

You cannot reason to oneness. The very method prevents it. No amount of thinking can provide any insight into where thinking comes from. No intellectual pursuit ever leads to realization, It leads only to more insights, then to more ideas, and eventually to more thinking. It is a ceaseless activity which brings you no closer to Truth. That's what seeking is.

Trying to reason to enlightenment is an exercise in futility. No ability of the mind, be it thinking, reflecting, remembering or imagining, can facilitate waking up, for the simple fact that the mind is only a thought; that's the awakening. You wake up when you see that the ego, which wants to come to a nice neat conclusion, which wants to resolve the paradoxes and tie up all the loose ends, isn't real. Reasoning to the Truth is like reasoning that you've got food. You've got food, but not for the reasons you think or don't think.

Confusion

2009-04-24T08:22:00.000-07:00

To end confusion, it's good to look at how and when confusion arises. Clearly, confusion arises when you are thinking, when you are attempting to know, when you are trying to establish a personal position, when you are trying to establish a true belief. Truth will not allow it. Truth will not become the object of any belief. The Mystery will not be objectified. It will not include some things and exclude others. It extends the invitation to see that you are the whole of It not that you can know It.

Knowing takes two, a knower and some object being known. Hence, concern with knowledge, who's right and who's wrong, gives separateness a fighting chance by creating objectivity. The ego can only survive through objectivity, Objectivity means distance. It means separateness. The difference between the philosopher or scientist and the mystic is that the philosopher and scientist maintain thier objectivity, their ego. A mystic does not. Without knowledge of something separate, there is no objectivity, and without objectivity there is no knowledge of something separate.

Hence, ignorance is a confusion that arises through objectivity. The idea "my" knowledge arises and wham! You are caught in the trap of "I" "my" and "mine." You are in the trap of objectifyer. As a result, you feel apart from the whole instead of part of It. You have become distanced enough to judge It. By judging It, you exclude yourself from It. You objectify It. In your mind, the two are separate. Unity is missed.

Knowing takes two, but being is oneness. In other words: Truth does not allow for two. It does not allow for otherness. Seeing others requires a separate I. without that, all is one. All is one unified reality. This is very important because objectifying or judging will cause you also to feel separate. It will cause you to experience yourself as an outsider, as a separate entity. Being will not. Being is intimacy. Knowing is duality.

Although a distinction may be made between seer and seen, between emptiness and form, between manifested and unmanifested, realization is not objectivity. It does not create a separate observer. Rather, it disolves objectivity which creates the illusion of a separate obsever. What keeps the illusion in place is the ego's apparent ability "to know." But, the ego's knowledge is always knowledge of something other than itself. That is why Truth cannot be known by ego. How can an idea which insists on being separate know the truth of Oneness? That very idea must be seen for what it is.

Even spiritual ideas and insights are not exempt. The "I" gets great joy and satisfaction by figuring it all out. "I've got it!" or "I see it!" is another trap. Thinking leads to "knowing" and "knowing" creates the illusion of knower and known. Seeing creates the illusion of observer and observed. Just being is the only surety, the only activity that doesn't create duality. You can be knowledgeable or you can be one, but you can't be both. A scientist can have knowledge of something. A mystic cannot. He gives up knowledge for Oneness. He loses his self and gains the Whole.

The scientist and the philosopher are endlessly involved with making judgments, making observations and coming to conclusions. It is endless because no end is in sight. The mind always keeps going. Always, there is something new to consider. Always, there is another aspect, another perspective. Every ology except Selfology depends on separateness. Once you realize that knowing takes two, and being requires one, all the rest falls in place.

Naturalness

2009-04-24T08:20:00.000-07:00

Everything you think is an idea. Without thinking, you are natural. Natural means that you have not added anything mental to the utter simplicity of Presence. Complexity is not natural to you. Confusion, likewise, is not natural. It is an addition. Even knowledge is not natural to you. It is accumulated. It is acquired. Acquired knowledge is what is known as conditioning. Conditioning is the past arising in the present. It is what forms the personal experience. Without it, there is no personal point of view, just Naturalness.

Naturalness is the only Truth. Everything else is just what arises at the time. In the asleep state, whatever arises is projected onto Truth. This is the story, "it is true because it corresponds with my personal point of view." Inevitably, this clashes with the personal point of view of another, and differences result. Which point of view is correct? The answer is neither. One is what arises for you. The other is what arises for the other.

If you are attached to a personal point of view, you are said to have strong beliefs, convictions, even values. This attachment or identification with what arises, this attachment with the personal "me" is what characterizes the asleep state.

Being natural is like being an infant. Not even a child is so natural, so pristine as an infant. Even a child is complex. The "I" the "me,' the "mine." already are begining to form. Naturalness is compromised. No longer are you "That" perfectly embodied. Instead, a center begins to develop. The "I am me" idea gets established.

With the addition of knowledge, with the addition of "I," confusion enters. This confusion we call mind. Mind exists when there is an identification with conditioning. From here, it is easy to see where inferiority and superiority come in. and when they do, Naturalness is missed.

The invitation that comes to us through spiritual masters and my invitation to you is just this: stay in your Naturalness. It wasn't long after birth that separateness became your world view. The body was the first conditioning. This idea called "I" or mind was the second. As a result, a wrong association developed. The invitation, therefore, is to stay natural.

So simple. Why all the confusion? The confusion comes because of the belief in a personal self. The Truth, what is called "original nature" is prior to all such disturbance, distinction and differentiation. It is sameness. Sameness is Naturalness, and Naturalness is sameness.

Hence, returning to Naturalness is returning to sameness. It is returning to the ground of being, to primordial peace, to rest. It is not an achievement or an advancement, but a retreat. It is a retreat to the peace, purity and perfection which existed prior to striving, prior to becoming, prior to thought or the arising of any wave. The seeing of "That" as the real truth of you, instead of looking to the pretense, is what is known as awakening. Being that, which is "original," is what is meant by being natural, by being simple, by being one.

In reality, there is not even being "one with." This is an idea. There is no "one" who is separate. There is just undivided Naturalness. This is the Truth, and you are That. Everything, whether awake or unawake, whether aware or unaware, is the same Naturalness that you are.

The Reality of Ego

2009-04-08T14:39:00.000-07:00

Do you deny your own existence? Even if you did, you would have to exist to do so. So that is not what the Master's are pointing to. They are pointing to the reality of ego. The point they are making is that there is no separate existence, that the ego is also That. To know this, Self inquiry is described. Self inquiry is seeing what the ego is when it is not knowledgeable. The ego is only knowledge. But in the end, all turns out to be That and That alone. You are That. I am That, and That is all there is.

When one finds a teacher, one finds a treasure, because who can lead through all of these misunderstandings. The ultimate realization is Silence. It is not however Silence that the ego creates through effort. It is a Silence that is eternal, or always here, which is the source of thoughts, words, actions etc. Statements such as you are not the body, you are not the mind etc. point to two realities. One, that you are not limited, that you are formless and as Presence, always here, and two, that the body, the mind, the world are not as they appear. They appear to be on their own, but they are not. Reality is one unified whole. The statement: there is nothing to realize and no one to realize it is true because everything is the absolute. But this has to be seen.

In the beginning, one thinks the ego is everything. In the middle, one thinks the Absolute is everything. In the end everything is the Absolute. God is all there is, but you have to dissolve the ego to know it. The ego dissolves by seeing its true nature, that is - who the ego is without knowledge.

The Philosopher the Theist and the Gnani

2009-04-08T13:40:00.000-07:00

The Philosopher, the Theist and the Gnani

Medieval Philosophy maintained that God created ex-nihilo, literally- out of nothing. It is also held that from nothing, nothing comes. We are in the realm of philosophy, mind you. What is held is that God had nothing separate from which to create. God was all there was, and somehow, out of Nothing, God created all of this. That’s the philosophical belief. "How did it happen?" The answer comes. "God did it. Nothing is impossible for God." Here, philosophical belief jumps to faith.

The existential discovery is different. The gnani’s discovery is not philosophical. He does not begin with God, but with himself. He looks to his own separate existence and asks, "Who am I?" "Am I the body?" Thus, the inquiry begins. The first obvious question is who is asking the question? The body, of course, is not. Thus, the gnani sees, he is not the body. The one who asked the question, "Am I the body?" is who he is. So who that is, he endeavors to find out.

"Perhaps, I am the mind? What is the mind?" He sees a connection between himself and the mind. He notices a connection between the ego, the sense of a separate me, and thought. But who notices this connection? "It is I," but what is I? Here the mind stops and he enters into Mystery. The inquiry of the mind can go no further. He cannot know what That is. It is unknowable. The Truth is unknowable, and for him, it is enough. The mind surrenders to That in awe and homage.

For faith, belief that God created is very important. For the gnani, God is just a concept, similar to that of creation. It is theory. He is not satisfied with the imposition of beliefs and theories. Not beginning with anything borrowed, he wants to know his own self. This question arises as, "Who am I?" His discovery is I is just a thought, from which all other thoughts come, but I itself comes from nowhere. The difference between the gnani and the philosopher or believer is that the gnani doesn’t jump from his direct experience into knowledge based on beliefs or additional thinking. He doesn't reflect, he dissolves. He remains with the realization that I is a thought and that thoughts come out of nowhere, and that nowhere cannot be described.

Upon this discovery, he surrenders to That. He does not jump back into the idea of separation and intellectualize some more. The mind has gone as far as it can go and there is a seeing that - That is beyond anything which can be conceived. It is clear that the source of separation is I and I came from nothing knowable. The ego, or cause of separation, now endlessly adores the Mystery. It bows and is speechless. Anything else would be less.

Discovering the Being in Human Being

2009-04-08T13:37:00.000-07:00

Waking up to who you are is realizing what being human really is. It is discovering the "being" part in human being, the truth that you have no reference point. You are beyond time, beyond anything perceivable or conceivable. Realizing this, you discover who you actually are. You see what is actually here, what is actually occurring. Choicelessly, you are every reference point, exploring yourself: as the mind, the body, the world, as others, as life and as the Mystery. This is enlightenment.

In the beginning, you recognize your presence in thought. The mind becomes a focal point, then, the body. If you are fortunate to meet one who has awakened and to have awakened yourself, you now have a third reference point. This is the beginning of the spiritual ego, an almost undetectable form of arrogance. You’ve seen what you are, but you haven’t understood what you saw. It was not a third reference point, but no reference point. The fact that there is no reference point allows you to enjoy all reference points, simultaneously.

The previous preoccupation with the mind was because, to know yourself, you had no other reference point. Realizing you are That, you now know yourself as That. Knowing yourself as That, as the Disembodied, allows you to meet yourself in all bodies. That’s the trade off. You lose your fixed identity and become fluid. Not just the body and mind, you are now the neighbor, the world, and all of creation. Having no reference point, you are nothing, everything and beyond everything.

This happens, not by effort but by insight. The ego is dethroned, not by effort but by insight. You realize you are not the ego, and your identity becomes the Disembodied. If the identity is not firmly rooted in That, there will be confusion and suffering in the form of doubt. If the identity is fixed, having a reference point, and not fluid, with no reference point, one gets stuck, either in object- consciousness or Emptiness. If it is Emptiness, one misses the point of human life.

Even before birth, we begin to innocently explore ourselves in other reference points. If prevented from doing so, fixation develops. This fixation is the Divine’s determination to know Itself. That’s all that’s ever happening. The innocent attempts of the Mystery to know Itself are judged, condemned and prevented. If we are not natural, or naturally enlightened, this is the reason why. We have not been allowed to explore our totality. Having no other reference points, we were limited to the mind.

Even the body was left unexplored. The body and what connects it to every body was left unexplored. As a result, we identified with the person instead of the Presence and with the ego instead of with God.

The Timeless has no reference point. You are That! The relative is none other than the Absolute in time.

A Full-Flowering

2009-03-31T09:43:00.000-07:00

Since, I wrote The Little Book of Silence, all confusions have dissolved. There is a knowing what life is. Dare I say that understanding is in full-flowering, and the truth of what is happening and all that is ever happening, is being seen.

The paradoxes are resolving themselves and what the Masters have eluded to is being understood. Surprisingly, what was discovered is utterly simple. Nothing can take you all the way except dissolution of this idea that we were ever separated from God, or that there ever was an ego.

It has become clear that all we've ever been invited to drop is ignorance. As it turns out, knowledge, and this includes all that I learned in seminary, is ignorance. I always suspected it, but never had the courage to be free.

Now, I am. Now, I know the truth, and it is setting everything free. To this end, and for the purpose of sharing what I've seen, I have attached an article, entitled The Vocation of the Individual. It came as an answer to my one and only prayer, my one and only question. What is life, really?

As it turns out, life is not a riddle to be solved or a mystery to be lived. Life is God and God alone. God is the Mystery. The Mystery is God. There is no need to decrease, to get out of our own way, dissolve or empty ourselves, because we never were. Separate existence is only an idea. As one put it. "The unreal never lived, and the real never dies."

How wonderful of God to manifest as This!

Always,

Prakash

____________________________________________________________________

The Vocation of the Individual

There is no detachment. Freedom from I and my is Self-realization, just as Self-realization is freedom from I and my. To discover you are That and That is all there is frees you from I and my, because it is seen and understood that there is no separate I at all. There is just the movement of Life separating from Itself and returning. This is what is meant by John of the Cross, who says, "O Life not living where you live." He is simply saying that all, being Oneness, has not returned to Oneness. Thus, there is no need to do anything about thoughts and feelings that are unredeemed, except to allow them their freedom, not freedom of expression, primarily, but their final freedom of re-inclusion and rest.

All is moving toward redemption and final freedom. As St. Paul says, All of creation groans inwardly awaiting our Self-realization. What this means is that the ego, which has been excluded, which isn't actually an ego, is returning home. This is the movement of birth and death, or creation. It is Life separating from Itself and returning. It is Oneness separating from Itself and returning. It is the Divine separating from Itself and returning. This is what life is.

By truly waking up, you end "ego involvement," which only deepened the delusion of separation. The truth, "I am That, and That is all there is," is the truth, which sets you and everything else free. Through Self-realization everything is set free from its limitations and confinements and is returned to it's natural state of Oneness, or union with God. This is what is happening. Deluding ourselves by saying "I am so and so." is what continues the Divine hypnosis. To continue in this state of hypnosis is to suffer. It is being a sheep without a shepherd. It is the blind leading the blind, and it is the cause of what is commonly referred to as "the problem of evil."

There is nothing here but God. That's the truth. But God forgetting God, acts foolish. The ego, or God believing to be separate, is folly, and, from it, much pain results. The image of the lion lying down with the lamb is an image of the harmony, or rest, brought about by de-hypnosis and re-inclusion. This is the purpose of Self-realization, of meditation, of yoga etc. It is not to collect so-called spiritual achievements. “Practice” strengthens the spiritual ego. Yoga is union. It is not staying entrenched in the belief, "I am me." The purpose of yoga is to re-include what has previously excluded itself from Oneness. A yoga or practice which strengthens the sense of I, me and mine is not yoga any more than spacing out or being aware of thoughts is meditation. Meditation is far more and far less. It is the active-passive process of allowing all that has been rejected to come home.

The belief, I am me or I am set apart is what prevents coming home, or liberation. Liberation is liberation from this belief in I. It is the flip-side of faith. Liberation is freedom from ignorance. Faith is holding to the truth of God. It is the same thing. The only difference is that the ego, owing to a perceived separate identity, can do nothing but objectify. As a result, Truth, God, Love, Reality etc. become separate objects or concepts, setting the Infinite apart from Itself. This is the delusion. The main point is that without this belief, "I am me," Without this belief "I am finite," without excluding anything from Wholeness, when you have lost your life in order to save it, the truth of Oneness is no longer overshadowed. What is hidden since the foundation of the world, what is hidden from the knowledgeable is finally revealed.

Everything is God, not knowing it. There are no separate individuals. "The One became two. Two became three, and three became ten thousand things." Since this apparent separation has resulted, the shining Truth has been overshadowed by ignorance. What is called salvation consists in undoing this basic error. It is leading the ego out of bondage into the promised land, leading the soul from being lost to being saved.

Being lost is the very opposite of being saved. Whereas being saved is being saved from separation and ignorance, being lost is to continue in it. Continuing in ignorance is what creates enemies. There are no enemies. "Whatsoever you do to the least of these, you do to me." In other words, the mystical body of Christ is Christ, and Christ is God. How you treat "others" is how you treat God, because God is all there is, including what you call “you.” All that is happening is that God is making the journey home. Another way of saying this is everything is being redeemed or saved from separation.

In truth, nothing is actually separate. Holiness is anything but being “set apart.” That’s "the dream." The ego actually has it's being in God. Put another way, the ego is God. The ego isn't an ego at all. Nothing here is apart from anything else: not the body, not the mind, not the self, not others, not the world, nothing. There are no borders or boundaries, no inside or outside, no difference or distinction and no others. There is just one eternal reality. The relative is only the absolute in time.

The invitation is to recognize this through direct experience and re-include all that has been excluded. This is the vocation to which we are called. It is the vocation to Love. "To love your enemies, to do good to those who hate you, to bless those who curse you," because what is excluded is bound to distort. It is bound to become a problem. The invitation is one of re-inclusion. Ultimately, Love is not a verb, or a feeling, or a euphemism for sex. Love is a euphemism for God, and God is all there is.

As the Vedas say, “You are That.” There is no becoming That, and yet there is the continuous process of re-inclusion. There is realization and re-inclusion. The movement is toward re-inclusion. Whatever arises, pretending to be "unrealized," is meant to come home, so that there is peace throughout the system. "This is That" is the Truth, which underlies this process of everything returning to Oneness. Everything is Oneness, not knowing it. This is the final understanding.

Separating off, autonomy instead of Oneness has had drastic results. What isn't re-included, redeemed or reclaimed by Oneness is still “fallen." The mind, the content of the mind, actions, which flow from "fallen nature" are distorted and far from what is possible. The vocation of the individual is to wake up, realize who he or she is and re-include what has fallen from grace, by allowing what arises to come home.

If One Wonders

2009-02-14T12:36:00.000-08:00

Your eternal nature isn't against thoughts, it is free of them. It is unchanging, unbecoming, always still, quiet Presence. The paradox is thoughts are also this Presence. Thoughts represent the changing aspect, the creative aspect, the movement aspect that manifests the myriad ways that this Presence can and does express. It is like white light and colors. All belong to one and the same energy. Only a prism is needed and white light creates a spectrum of colors. Take away the prism and all colors are returned to white light. Add the prism, and they reappear.

So what then is the prism? What is the change factor? The prism or the change factor is time. Without time, there is no change, no creation, no movement no manifested aspect to Consciousness. The counsel, "Be still and know" is an invitation to experience this timeless state. It is an invitation to experience everything returning to rest, to Emptiness. It is an invitation to experience the "white light," from which has come all of these colors.

If one were to wonder "If all of this can come from that. What else must be possible?" One falls from here and now, into possibilities, fantasies and beliefs. When the mind is stuck in possibilities, fantasies and beliefs, this is called Maya.

Why Look Within?

2009-02-06T03:24:00.000-08:00

You don't turn away from the world, the body or the mind, because you hate the world, the body and the mind. You don't reject these because they're bad or not valuable. You are not counseled to look within, because there is nothing of value without.

The rejection of these, by going within, is so that you might know and directly encounter the Source of without. If the body is the reference point, and in the beginning it is, then the Source of what is without, lies within. To encounter the Source alone, one has to look within.

And what will one find? Leaving the manifestation, one finds the Source of the manifestation. What does it look like? It looks like the absence of the outer world. It looks like Darkness, Emptiness, Nothing. What is the felt experience? The felt experience isn't so bereft. The felt experience is Wholeness, Peace, Being, and of course the death of limitation.

Once the inner Reality is discovered, the outer reality is known. Intuitively, it is grasped that all of this has come forth from That, and without "That," there wouldn't be "this." Thus, by knowing That, this is also known, not in appearances or according to the mind's synthesis, but in Truth.

In truth, the mind cannot understand wholeness, because already its perception of itself is as something separate. Because it stands apart, it can analyze and synthesize. This is no small feat in itself, but as a limited object, it can only objectify, name, set apart and place limits on what it perceives. Because consciousness, as mind, perceives from the reference point of a single body, occupying a single space, everything likewise becomes a separate object.

To end the separation, one is counseled to go within. To momentarily withdrawal from what is perceivable and conceivable to what is neither. Before the the desire to seek the Source arises, the mind, or ego, sees this as a big waste of time, as impractical, as naval gazing etc. When, in truth one is undoing the damage of original ignorance, and making the return to original innocence.

The criticism is that one is escaping, but one is not escaping. One is losing his life in order to save it. One is losing his limited existence that he or she might know unlimited Existence. Once this is known, the outer and inner are no longer two. By knowing the Source and by knowing the appearances, you know the Truth, and you know it as one.

Because of "sin," creation has gotten a bad reputation, and rather than understand sin as ignorance, it became associated with the "world," the "flesh" and the "devil." This, of course is a misunderstanding. It is this association that is the ignorance. The world is inherently perfect, because Perfection is all there is. Without knowing this, the ego, unaware of it's truth and feeling it's incompleteness, becomes restless. The invitation to go within is the invitation to lose this limited and incomplete identity which is the cause of the ego's ignorance and restlessness.

This is also the cause of a mistaken identity. The whole mistakes itself for a part and then becomes restless about the other parts. This battle of parts persists until finally the Source is sought and its significance is grasped. When the significance goes deep enough so as to cast off all prior limitations, this is called Realization.

Just as limitations are dropped in sleep, they are dropped in the waking state. Realization, unlike a glimpse, is when the ego really starts to see that it is not an ego at all. On the contrary, it is unlimited existence, and so is everything else. This is the "rebirth" that follows the death of the ego's ignorance.

The Mistake

2009-01-30T07:46:00.000-08:00

If you have read a fair number of spiritual books, you are familiar with discriminating language such as: true self and false self. You are not the body, such and such is an illusion, and all the rest. But the illusion is just one. The illusion is that there is anything here except the Self, or God, or the Mystery. That's the illusion. The illusion is that the in-dweller and all the diverse expressions are not the one Reality. They are. Truth, or Self, or God, or the Mystery alone is. That's all there ever is.

We THINK we live separately, apart from the ultimate reality, but the truth is, we don't. We THINK we live apart from God, and have to journey back to find God. We don't. God is journeying back to Himself. The universe is playing a game with itself called diversity. If we see only the differences, then we have missed it. If we try to overlook the differences, we have missed it. Both are mistakes of equal magnitude.

God isn't hidden. As one has said, "If you ask where is God? You have asked the wrong question. If you ask, "Where God is not? You have asked the right question, because the truth is -- God, or Truth, or Being, or Self is all there is.

Seen in this light, we see how ridiculous it is to seek God. God is obvious. We see how ridiculous it is to look past forms, or disregard appearances. God isn't hiding. Whoever said, God is hidden, didn't know God, except in theory, because God is all there is. The mistake is this belief that God is hidden. This belief alone robs one of Realization.

The Difference

2009-01-16T09:04:00.000-08:00

Love is all there is, and only I am love are very different indeed. This is the problem. Some have had an awakening, but the mind still creates enemies, because it doesn't really see that there are no enemies, that there is only this empty-full presence or Love. When you see past the appearances, everything is Love. Everyone is Love. Everything is Love, Every thought and feeling is Love. Even hateful thoughts are Love. That's the shocker. Even thoughts of judgment, criticism, anger, impatience, dislike, distrust etc. All of it is Love.

When you see this, you don't have to fall for appearances any more. You don't have to fight with these undesirables. You can let them be. You can sense the Love that they truly are. As this empty-full Presence, you can be with them and welcome them back. Or you can say, "You're not fooling me. I see that you are really Love in Disguise. Welcome friend."

The claim, "Love is all there is" and "Only I am love" are very different indeed. One creates a separation, even an animosity against things, thoughts, feelings and others. The other sees no difference. The other sees only itself. The empty-full Presence looks and sees only the Love that composes all.

If you are still against things, thoughts feelings or others, if you are still in inner conflict, you are only half awake. You have realized Presence, but the mind is still protecting you from the surprising and destabilizing truth that this empty-full Presence, or Love is all there is.

No Reason to Leave

2009-01-15T19:06:00.000-08:00

If you look deeply, you find that there is no reason to leave the mind, or thought, the body or the world, because, strictly speaking, there is no mind, or body or world, and never has been. There was, is and always will be only That. Some call it Emptiness. Some call it Silence, Some call it Consciousness or Truth. I am calling it Love.

The invitation to awaken, depending on the method, excludes, for a time, these false identities (because one identifies with them solely), but not their realities, (and this is an important distinction). This is done so that one can experience what remains. Then, everything that was excluded in terms of the "realities," the world, the mind, the other etc. is re-included, because Oneness does not admit of distinctions.

In my experience, one cannot experience the empty-full Presence, or Love, without some kind of investigation. Neti Neti is one kind of investigation. Self-inquiry is another. Being present, which is perhaps less divisive, is a third. These bring the realization of what is unchanging ie. the sense of Amness, of Being, of Awareness etc.. What is missed, however, by the majority, is that the changing reality is Oneness, as well. Oneness or Love includes everything. It has not rejected anything. The ego has, particularly, the spiritual ego. Oneness does not even reject the ego.

The truth is: nothing needs to be rejected. Everything appearing as "dual" is the "non dual" pretending. This is why it is referred to as the play of consciousness. It is because, everything is this Love, this Being, this Presence. Everything is this Love, even the mind, the world, the "other," and "you." There is no need to go anywhere or transcend anything. The invitation is to see this and rest.

This is what I mean by awakening is the fist step. What I mean is this: There are many who have realized Presence, but they have not realized that there is nothing that is not this Presence. Otherwise, they could stop fighting, resisting etc.. They could finally rest. After all, what sense does it make trying to transcend a mind or leave a world that, strictly speaking, doesn't exist. What sense does it make to do battle with a mind, which is itself Oneness? There is no need to transcend anything, just see that nothing exists but this empty-full Presence manifesting as the many, or as I have said, that "Love is all there is."

Openhearted

2009-01-15T15:00:00.000-08:00

The journey towards divinity is the same as the journey towards humanity. That journey is to surrender all the reasons we have for not keeping the heart open. That openhearted being is the human person, fully alive. The rest are the casualties of life, events of life that, for a time, render us distrustful.

Pain is a reality of life. The Buddha put it this way, "Life is dukka," and dukka, suffering or unsatisfactoriness has left its mark. It has done its part to close the heart to life. All know the pain of which I speak. It is the pain of hurt and never wanting to be hurt again, but there are no guarantees. The only guarantee is that you will be hurt again. The question is: Will you keep your heart open?

Only an open heart can experience beauty, love or God. Only an open heart can experience connection instead of indifference. Only an open heart can feel, period. There is a saying, "Do not be reckless with another's heart," but I say keep an open heart no matter what happens. That alone is the key to being alive instead of dead. As it says in scripture, "You have the reputation of being alive, but you're dead."

Love is our nature. It is the greatest truth about us. Pain or hurt may be there, but someday they won't be. That's true. As for Love? Love is the only reality that is eternal. It is the only reality that is always there. We have only to discover it. We have only to realize the deepest truth of what we are and be that openhearted empty-full-Presence.

We can be like a bright light that is always switched on, always broadcasting Love or we can find reasons to close our hearts. Believe me. There are plenty. The truth is no matter what you may be feeling personally, Love or openheartedness is always available. It is there waiting for you to surrender your pain. To be an openheart, not to have an openheart, is the real invitation.

Truthfully, the heart never closes. We just lose sight of our openheartedness because, for a while, our attention goes to the hurts, the fears and the distrust. It is not unlike clouds covering the sun. The sun is neither closed nor open, just shining. You don't experience it, because of the clouds, but it is so. Similarly, openhearted empty-full presence is always so. It's your nature. The rest is true just for now.

This Empty-Full Presence

2009-01-13T10:26:00.000-08:00

Love is always the subject. Everything else can be objectified. Only this spacious empty-full Presence cannot. It is intrinsically mysterious; unknowable. As for everything else, it can be objectified. It can be objectified as God as the world, as me etc. The trick is not to separate the two, not to divide the two, not to create dichotomies, not to create hard lines between the true self and the false self, between emptiness and form.

Unity is the natural effect that Love has on everything. Love is unifying. Presence or Love doesn't resist at all. It allows everything to coexist. It is not at odds with anything. It has no adversaries. The mind has adversaries. Presence has none, not even the mind. It is no more antagonistic or adversarial than space. Whereas creating adversaries strengthens a separate identity, living as this empty-full Presence weakens it.

This Love, this empty-full Presence is a constant phenomenon. Naturally, you are aware of everything, thus, this Love shows itself to be ever-present. This aware, loving Presence is what you are. The insanity of seeking is that naturally, without effort, we are aware of everything, yet we try, with much effort, to become aware of something of which we are not yet aware. Consequently, seeking begins. We conjure up a mental idol of the Subject, then set about looking for it as an object. Seeking seems necessary because we have conjured up a mental idol of the Subject and have projected it "out there." In our ignorance, we turn the subject, which is our own self into an object of scrutiny.

This, of course, cannot be done. The body can become an object of scrutiny, thoughts and feelings can become objects of scrutiny, the senses and the world can become an object of scrutiny, but this empty-full Presence cannot. One marvels at It. One marvels at just how inscrutable It is. It is intrinsically mysterious and unknowable. Although unknowable in a rational sense, we are never not intimate with It. Seeking is, in fact overlooking what we're already aware of. It is forgetting the immediate and chasing after the transcendent, or worse an idea which we have conjured.

After awakening, if a division is maintained if enemies and dichotomies are insisted upon, it is because one is not respecting the innocence of this empty-full Presence, rather he has projected his ideas upon it, and like a screen, it holds his projections until he returns to respecting the natural innocence of Presence, which in turn respects all else.

Love, or this empty-full Presence, doesn't insists on division. It doesn't insist on separating true from false, good from bad, acceptable from unacceptable. It just loves. It just hold's space for all the supposed differences. This empty-full Presence naturally allows everything as it is. When we are aligned with Presence, when we are surrendered to it, we are in harmony with all beings. When we are not in harmony with It, that is ego. When we are in harmony with this empty-full Presence, we are Presence Itself.

In reality, Love or this empty-full Presence is all there is. Everything can be transformed or transmuted in to It, because everything is It, in the first place. Everything that exists is just this Love or empty-full Presence in disguise. If there is any process it is not the process of becoming. It is quite the opposite. It is the process of introducing everything to this Love so that all can be that which it was initially. Introducing everything to this Love is like throwing wood on a bonfire. Everything is changed into its original substance, that substance being this empty-full Presence or Love.

Who You Are

2008-12-24T15:03:00.000-08:00

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

2008-12-21T14:01:00.000-08:00

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

2008-12-12T12:31:00.000-08:00

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

2008-12-11T12:22:00.000-08:00

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

2008-12-10T11:18:00.000-08:00

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

2008-12-10T07:34:00.000-08:00

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

2008-12-09T19:20:00.000-08:00

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

2008-12-06T16:41:00.000-08:00

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

2008-11-28T20:45:00.000-08:00

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

2008-11-02T10:09:00.000-08:00

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

2008-11-02T06:24:00.000-08:00

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

2008-11-01T09:08:00.000-07:00

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?

2008-11-01T07:53:00.001-07:00

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

2008-09-20T23:08:00.000-07:00

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

2008-09-18T08:40:00.000-07:00

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"

2008-09-18T06:33:00.002-07:00

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

2008-09-18T06:33:00.001-07:00

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

2008-09-18T06:33:00.000-07:00

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

2008-09-17T08:21:00.000-07:00

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?

2008-09-12T08:12:00.000-07:00

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

2008-09-06T07:30:00.000-07:00

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

2008-09-05T21:47:00.000-07:00

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

2008-09-04T07:21:00.000-07:00

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

2008-09-02T10:05:00.000-07:00

(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"

2008-08-29T22:56:00.000-07:00

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

2008-08-27T09:37:00.000-07:00

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

2008-08-24T22:50:00.000-07:00

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

2008-08-24T11:16:00.000-07:00

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

2008-08-24T07:09:00.000-07:00

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?

2008-08-20T14:27:00.000-07:00

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

2008-08-20T14:02:00.000-07:00

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

2008-08-14T06:51:00.000-07:00

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

Enter the New

Wholeness Excludes Nothing

Die Before You Die

There Is No Becoming

You Already Have An Identity

Why There Is No Separation

The Problem With Methods

Dreaming

Satsang

Misunderstanding

Is It Not True?

Freedom

I Makes the Difference

Surrender

Seeking

Confusion

Naturalness

The Reality of Ego

The Philosopher the Theist and the Gnani

Discovering the Being in Human Being

A Full-Flowering

If One Wonders

Why Look Within?

The Mistake

The Difference

No Reason to Leave

Openhearted

This Empty-Full Presence

Who You Are

Another Trinity

The Balance of Two

The Better Deal

The Simplicity of Self Love

Selfhood

Not out of the Picture

Beyond the Contradiction

Enter the New

The Big Deal Complex

I Call it Self-realization

Feeling and Recieving

What Sends the Message?

God is the Only Truth

*The Game of Life*

"A Mindless Affair"

*There Never Was An Ego*

*You're Not the Programmer*

*Independent Existence*

What is the Truth? Who Says I?

No Discipline, No Doing; Just Here

It's Beyond You're Control

Neither Forgetting Nor Remembering; Just Here

An Existential Experiment

A Comment on "The Illusion is You"

The Illusion Is You

Unknowable

Silence

Total Surrender

Would We Now Believe It?

One Solution

The Problem with Methods

The Game of Life

There Never Was An Ego

You're Not the Programmer

Independent Existence