Question: “Different spiritual teachers emphasize different things. I find your clarity the most helpful. What would say are the most important teachings for the seeker?

Answer: As a consequence of my talks with dozens of persons, only two points have proven to be crucial (Latin: “cross”).

The seeker must comprehend (and when she does, the seeking is definitely finished) that what is being sought, the Absolute, is not something which we eventually come to encounter—because, due to its very nature, it is always inescapable. All spiritual traditions refer to sacred, or divine, Being as infinite, eternal, without limitation. Obviously, such an actuality has to be present where and when you are, regardless of your location in time or space. The seeker cannot, under any circumstances, be apart from what is sought.

The second element of the teachings, which instill the Awareness out of which we then live our lives in complete Oneness, relates to the major question that arises: “If the Absolute is present here now, why don’t I feel it?”

Infinite, eternal, formless Beingness is present not only where every form is, material or immaterial; it permeates all that exists: “Nowhere is it not,” as the Vedas put it. Your very Being is whatever you happen to be feeling, thinking or doing. The infinite, eternal, unbounded Absolute is the doer, the source, of all that is ever being done.

When this principle is clearly recognized, it is seen that the Absolute is the fundamental, universal identity of all that exists. In other words, as the Vedas state, “Tat tvam asi”—That thou art. You and the Ultimate Reality are not two different things. This realization of Oneness is the ending of division—duality, as one’s basic, conditioned perspective—and thus of conflict. Out of this Absolute awareness, then, one lives the balance of one’s life; confusion about the nature of life and how to live it have been utterly clarified. What is regarded as the self is no longer viewed to be anything other than ultimate Being present in material form.

Question: In reading your material...the point has been reached where it is obvious the mind must admit it no longer is of use in this "search". I can understand where a unitive perspective then requires an 'intuitive' leap. Do you have an suggestions in terms of how this intuitive perception could be nurtured, instigated, formed, switched to, enticed, facilitated, happened on, etc.? Is there anything discrete the mind might actually do that could be considered helpful in finding this alternative way of perceiving?

Response: The "intuitive leap," which is spoken of, is (as intuition is defined) immediate understanding, beyond reasoning.

You're correct in your surmise (from experience) that mere ratiocination generally has a limitation when it regards nonduality.

For you to think of something, there must be "somethingness." Can you think, in terms of objectification, of "nothingness" without conceiving of it as "some thing"?

Nonduality is (to use a favorite phrase of quantum physicists) counter-intuitive: when nonduality is clearly understood, there is no intuition apart from it that is understanding it. To put it in your terms, the mind that is searching for That, is That itself. Why? Because not anything which can be conceived (such as That) is not the same That which is doing the conceiving. To put it in Advaita terms, you are That--because all things (whether some thing or no thing) are That. And since all things are That, you (as That) cannot conceive of any thing which is not That.

See why there are Zen koans?

I'm not trying to sketch something that is more mysterious than it need by. But nonduality is the original thinking-outside-the-box. The box is the limited conception of limited forms (material or immaterial). Take away all six sides of the box ("no mind," in Zen) and what do you have? No conceivable "thing." You might say that the insight has to do with subtraction, rather than addition; or looking at this from the standpoint of a mind that is empty of notions, as to what is to be discovered.

In practical expression, if you are contemplating any two, or more, things, you are operating in the realm of duality. ("Me" outside of That.)

If you are aware that this actuality (which the sages are referring to) is thoroughly indivisible and therefore does not admit of any separate "parts," then it is intuited that there is no individual "you" which could possibly be incorporated in It. The "search" ends, with the "searcher." This, then, is nonduality: an understanding which is immediate, and transcendent of reasoning limited to dualistic conceptions. 

There is a fundamental idea which you cling to. When you cling to anything, you cannot be “free”.

You have a notion that freedom (or realization) has something to do with “betterment”. That when you “improve” to some imagined standard, that you will have reached the peak, the zenith that you imagine represents the “highest point”. This supposed improvement can represent an increase in knowledge, or “wisdom”. Or an improvement in one’s character or behavior or “outlook on life”, one’s attitude—such as learning to be kinder, trying to be more understanding, controlling impatience, etc., etc. You suppose that such improvements in one’s person is what elevates one to that zenith.

If this “ever upward” bias was merely an idea, it could cause little harm. But it is an idea, a fixation, which you cling to—and insist it must be part of “realization”. You have been told that this notion is false, but you will not abandon it.

Because you presume that realization is a process in time, an evolutionary or accretionary process which takes time, you envision this as a “path” along which you continue your improvement until the improvements pay off in realization. Perhaps you have puzzled over Krishnamurti’s statement: Truth is a pathless land. Path-less. No path. No progression.

You have heard and read that it is purely a matter of subtraction, not addition; not accumulation—of merit, knowledge, time, momentum or any other thing.

You have heard and read that what is being sought is here (no path) now (no accumulation in time is involved).

You have heard and read that what is being sought—the “zenith”—is a condition in which the separate “person” ceases to be where one’s identity resides. So, of what value is accumulation of merit, wisdom, etc., to a non-existent person?

You are telling me that you perceive an obstacle on the path. Your idea of a path is itself the obstacle. If the One is omnipresent, your path of improvement—which takes your focus out of the present —is leading you away from what can (in this moment) be seen!

[The following is part of a correspondence between Robert and a friend with whom he has been corresponding.]

Friend: I don't think my view of the Bible, especially the New Testament, has ever changed as fast as it did during this last month. It's all beginning to seem idealistic to me....There is no God that has anything to do with what we "experience". It just is "what it is", and the IS not only has nothing to do with it; the IS doesn't even know about it....I've already seen enough of this "stuff". None of it matters, except what works for you. And I've been entertaining alot of stuff that has not worked for me....The problem with all of that "stuff" is that if it isn't working for you, and you have adopted it, then you will just keep blaming yourself for what you have no control over....I do what I need to do, though it is not always easy to determine what that is. The "anger" is almost a constant; and to believe that I shouldn't be, is completely idealistic and the harbinger of "guilt".

Robert: You have been pondering these matters for the years that we have corresponded. It's good to see that finally you are beginning to recognize the idealizing which has been so much of a fixture in your relationship to the world. Not only has it not worked for you, it does not work for anyone.

To maintain the presumption that "what is" should not be as it is, or could be other than what it is, is nothing more than a contentious idea: such is the meaning of "idealization."

How many of those people that you come in contact with are resisting "what is" by clinging to the idea that "it should not be"?

How many collectives of people--i.e., countries/governments--are basing their activities/policies on ideals that have no basis in reality (security through aggression or control, for example)?

That you are beginning to notice and question your own idealism ("he shouldn't be doing what he's, in fact, doing") is the proper place to focus this practical insight.

Whenever you establish standards of behavior for yourself--and others--there is going to be disappointment; and, as you noted, either guilt, blame or anger will generally ensue.

As Byron Katie says, "Whenever I argue with what is, I lose." No ideals or standards: nothing to lose.

I will read your letter to the next of the group meetings, because there are some in the group who--now Self-realized--are reaching out to others to transmit the dharma.

As I have written to one correspondent, reported in my book, your letter makes my day!

As you indicated, when the questions have ended (or all answered themselves in nondual awareness), the seeking has ended. Presence--all that is present--is what (we now discover) we have actually been looking for. We stop excluding anything from (or adding anything onto) the Totality. It is sufficient as it is--and "as it is" is Presence, in its totality. You cannot possibly be apart from That. And so you can write, "The Presence that phenomena now appear in is home!"

As this nondual awareness becomes more customary, we can talk about any of the discoveries, if you feel the need to.

Cordially-
RW

Friend Cheyenne Bear writes to Robert, from the desert:

Wherever I go, there I am--in all the myriad forms that encompass what has become an infinite, boundary-free life.

There is a gravitation toward blessed anonymity and absorption into the natural world, where remnants of personal identity evaporate in the dry desert air.

Quiet mind teaches the exquisite perfection of the interconnected web of all animate and inanimate life. Every cactus and grain of sand is in divine temporal placement. Opposites perfectly balanced: sun-faced Buddha, moon-faced Buddha.

Letting go of the distinction and interference allows the Way of things to flow in natural harmony. All is well in this prickly, but peace-filled, world.

Q: Dear Robert, since reading your Gospel of Thomas and much of Living Nonduality, it seems obvious that priority should be given to the quest for realization by disengaging from worldly activities that tend to keep one immersed in doership. Having resolved to do so, somehow today such a course does not appear to be either obvious or necessary: Grateful for your observations on this predicament.

A: There is no right or wrong answer, Joe, to this question of non-attachment to the relative world. Some feel impelled to cut as many ties as possible, others take no such actions and find that they are not hindered. Even from a practical standpoint, much could depend on the degree of one's obligatory responsibilities and unavoidable commitments.

It would seem obvious that where one is unencumbered by practical matters, there is greater latitude for the kind of contemplative introspection that generally tends to be conducive to an exceptional insight.

However, the awakening to the nondual nature of our existence has occurred in all kinds of differing circumstances.

In other words, a change in circumstances may or may not be tangential to a shift in perspective. And non-attachment involves more than mere detachment from material matters. As has been said, the final renunciation is of the self who would renounce.

The key factor is this: that which we have come to feel that we need to seek is, the nondual teachings assert, omnipresent. If that is true, not anything could be apart from or outside of it, nor could even exclude it (thus it is even said to be "within you"). In short, one comes to realize that this which we are seeking is actually inescapable. Why else is it stated, "That thou art"?

Why, then, would it matter where you are or what you are doing (or not doing), when you recognize that any and all movements are simply "That doing what it does"?

When such a realization is perfectly clear, the sense of being a separate, individuated self disappears into an abiding awareness of the Absolute. Where, then, is the self which needs to be in some particular place or activity or circumstance in order to attain the object of its seeking? No separation. No self. No seeking.

With Self-realization, some changes in circumstances may ensue; a substantial degree of non-attachment from worldly matters, for example. But the latter is more likely to be a development of the former, than vice versa.

Hi Robert:

I've been re-reading your response to my letter.

It is clear from my letter that I am coming from a dualistic point of view.

At the end of the letter, you ask me what ought to be done, about my interpretation of what's occurring.

What needs to be done is for me to stop living in a world that is make believe. I can see, as long as I continue to bounce back and forth between the relative and the absolute, that I will have no peace.

Looking over the letter, I was surprised how caught up I was in all this stuff that was obviously judgmental and totally made up in my mind. Pure imagination!

So again, at the end of the letter you say, "So what do you think ought to be done about that?" And you underline THAT.

Nothing needs to be done about THAT, THAT is perfect! And that is what I am.

End of story.

I want this to be the end of my story. And I know that the wanting of the story to end is just another story and that's okay too, because that's just THAT, thinking that.

I know what I am.

This space that I am has always been here. It doesn't matter what comes and goes in it. It never does. And it is OK with everything.

What I need now is vigilance. Vigilance to the truth.

When the whispers of the small self try to cause me to doubt, I will welcome them here, no longer afraid.

I now see clearly, all is That and welcome. There is nothing to resist. And nothing to get.

Your words are very clear, Robert. Thank you.

When we met, you said Krishnamurti said just seeing the false as the false was enough. It's funny, but I was reading Nisargadatta recently and came across a talk where he said exactly the same thing.

All is well! I hope we get a chance to talk again soon.

Sending a heart felt thanks, Jim.

[Response from Robert]

Jim:

Yours is the kind of letter that makes my day. This represents clear seeing! In terms of vigilance, you can't lose That which never was not already present: you can only deny what has been seen.

But I understand what you mean; you'll be giving attention to what is now unfolding. Keep a copy of your statement and re-read it from time to time. Also, One Essence could be particularly meaningful to you at this time--now that you'll thoroughly understand it.

If at any time you need to talk further, that's what I'm here for.

Cordially - RW

From the farthest star in the cosmos to the tiniest subatomic particle in your body, there is a universally present Intelligence which holds in equilibrium and harmony every iota of existence, external and internal to each of the manifest forms.

If you recognize that "you" cannot possibly be apart from this all-inclusive actuality, then you must also recognize that anything "other-than-you" is likewise imbued and affected.

This is not to say that one is to ignore that we have the capability of recognizing a particular named form, or entity, as compared to a dissimilar form: thus even the enlightened (such as Buddha or Ramana) occasion the relative terms "you" and "I," and answer to their name.

The point of the teachings of Oneness is to fully acknowledge in consciousness that there is an underlying interconnection in all of these forms of appearance, which supersedes seeming distinctiveness.

Yes, there is a "me" and a "you"; but to what source do all manifested things owe their common existence?

If this underlying nature of Beingness is not clear to you, not anything else which is said in the nondual teachings will ever make any sense to the seeker of jnana.

However, if the aforesaid is clear to you, then you can surely recognize that everything which these apparent forms act out owes its existence to the ubiquitous Intelligence which informs every aspect of Being--including your being, and whatever it is that you are manifestly being.

Your "loop of thoughts and feelings" and perception "I am not good enough" are not somehow magically left out of this universal development of expressed Beingness. IT does not act out in (what you consider to be) a purely positive way: positive and negative are in existential harmony.

You and all others are expressions of this Being--as is all that is done--whether you concede that this is so, or not. (Peruse also, Natalie Gray blog post of 2-22-12.)

Thanks for sharing your letter to Sara.

You indicate that you're "not entirely clear on," and need to "have a clear idea of," a couple of assertions of Nisargadatta.

The "the world is something in consciousness," and not vice-versa, is evident when we consider that when our animated consciousness is absent (as in death; under anesthesia; indeed, even in deep sleep), the world itself is not a perceived reality. Thus, what we know as the world appears only within the framework of our animated consciousness.

As to "consciousness is not in the world" (the vice-versa part), given the complete absence of the finite world--in such conditions as death, etc.--the assumed consciousness of the world evaporates along with the perceived world itself. Note that in the condition of death, etc., even the very idea that there is such a state as consciousness disappears.

Secondly: "Consciousness is temporary; what we are is eternal." That consciousness is temporary is evident: a person's consciousness is attendant to one's life; death, in general, signifies the end of, or absence of, consciousness in the temporal organism.

The impermanent organism itself is a manifestation in, and of, an everlasting Presence. Being an expression of that Presence, the organism owes its identity to that manifesting Presence. Thus, what we are is nothing more than one of the manifold appearances of the eternal.

Your Nisargadatta quote says, "Eternal means: now and forever....That state transcends knowledge and ignorance [thus, consciousness]..." He goes on to compare the eternal state to that of an "unborn child"--no consciousness of a world, or even of consciousness itself.

And in our "un-conscious" state, there is not even such a reality as "one." So, this pertains to your pondering, "Is everything actually one?"

Therefore, Nisargadatta can say of differences, "there aren't any." Not even a "one," as opposed to "not-one."