Living Nonduality

Living Nonduality http://livingnonduality.org Website and blog for Robert Wolfe, author of Living Nonduality and other books on nondual awareness. Fri, 11 May 2012 17:14:39 +0000 http://snappages.com en Science of the Sages http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/05/11/science-of-the-sages http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/05/11/science-of-the-sages Fri, 11 May 2012 17:14:39 +0000 Robert Wolfe http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/05/11/science-of-the-sages
]]> Crucial http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/05/06/crucial http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/05/06/crucial Sun, 06 May 2012 16:49:29 +0000 Robert Wolfe http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/05/06/crucial
]]> Outside the Box http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/04/15/outside-the-box http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/04/15/outside-the-box Sun, 15 Apr 2012 17:10:32 +0000 Robert Wolfe http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/04/15/outside-the-box
]]> In a Rut http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/04/02/in-a-rut http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/04/02/in-a-rut Mon, 02 Apr 2012 22:52:40 +0000 Robert Wolfe http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/04/02/in-a-rut
]]> The Real Isn't Ideal http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/03/26/the-real-isnt-ideal http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/03/26/the-real-isnt-ideal Mon, 26 Mar 2012 09:00:00 +0000 Robert Wolfe http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/03/26/the-real-isnt-ideal
]]> Presence Became Reality! http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/03/23/presence-became-reality http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/03/23/presence-became-reality Fri, 23 Mar 2012 13:53:14 +0000 Robert Wolfe http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/03/23/presence-became-reality
]]> Wherever I Go, There I Am http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/03/19/wherever-i-go-there-i-am http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/03/19/wherever-i-go-there-i-am Mon, 19 Mar 2012 14:12:11 +0000 Robert Wolfe http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/03/19/wherever-i-go-there-i-am
]]> Simple Truth, Simplified http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/03/16/simple-truth-simplified http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/03/16/simple-truth-simplified Fri, 16 Mar 2012 15:17:35 +0000 Robert Wolfe http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/03/16/simple-truth-simplified
]]> Where to Go http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/03/13/where-to-go http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/03/13/where-to-go Tue, 13 Mar 2012 17:19:00 +0000 Robert Wolfe http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/03/13/where-to-go
]]> Message Received http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/03/08/message-received http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/03/08/message-received Thu, 08 Mar 2012 15:30:00 +0000 Robert Wolfe http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/03/08/message-received
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 [...]]]>
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

]]> Harmonious Being http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/03/06/harmonious-being http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/03/06/harmonious-being Tue, 06 Mar 2012 21:36:00 +0000 Robert Wolfe http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/03/06/harmonious-being Intelligence which holds in equilibrium and harmony every iota of existence, external and internal to each of the manifest [...]]]> 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.)

]]> Not Even One http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/03/02/not-even-one http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/03/02/not-even-one Fri, 02 Mar 2012 14:06:00 +0000 Robert Wolfe http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/03/02/not-even-one
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
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."

]]> What About Love http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/02/24/what-about-love http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/02/24/what-about-love Fri, 24 Feb 2012 08:18:00 +0000 Robert Wolfe http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/02/24/what-about-love Q: Having just completed Living Nonduality there is a sense that realization is simple, but empty. Does love fit into the equation anywhere? Is the Absolute totally devoid of feeling and impersonal? Is love just another man-made illusion?

A: What you are referring to, Mary Ann, as "the Absolute totality" is also known [...]]]> Q: Having just completed Living Nonduality there is a sense that realization is simple, but empty. Does love fit into the equation anywhere? Is the Absolute totally devoid of feeling and impersonal? Is love just another man-made illusion?

A: What you are referring to, Mary Ann, as "the Absolute totality" is also known as the Void, or Emptiness, in the sutras. This is to say that it is No-thing-ness. Being no definable thing, it is devoid of definable characteristics; or in itself, as you say, it is "devoid of feeling and impersonal."

All qualities and characteristics, then, are projections of the consciousness, or mind, which manifests from this nondescript ground of Being. This includes such categorizations has "love" or "hate." To that which simply eternally and infinitely Is, "creation" and "destruction" are distinctions reserved for the mind in which they're conceived.

And yet, there is something about the aliveness in the universe, and its balance and harmony, which--though benevolent is too strong of a word--sages tend to describe as at least benign, if not charitable or perhaps indulgent. Some go so far as to give this cosmic tendency the title Love (as in "God is love": Ramana). At the very least, most think of the cosmic orderliness as at least a positive element.

The second part of your query has to do with the realization of this Emptiness, or Absolute: "Does love then fit into the equation anywhere?"

If you were to think in terms of what you might describe as loving--or benign or benevolent, even compassionate--behavior, where would you more likely expect to see this expressed: in a self-centered person or in a person whose limited self-identification has evaporated?

When a person has emptied out her conditioned conceptualizations, such as the self-image, there is something else which is operating through the organism. Looking at the lives of the enlightened sages, this appears to have a benign, or charitable, cast to it.

Krishnamurti often spoke about this development. "LOVE is the total absence of the separate 'I,' ego, or self. There is no reason for Love. To have a reason for Love is to have a motive, which comes from the separate self....IF YOU HAVE NO LOVE, do what you will, go after all the gods on earth, do all the social activities, try to reform the poor, enter politics, write books, write poems--you are a dead human being. Without Love your problems will increase, multiply endlessly. And with Love, do what you will, there is no risk, there is no conflict."

]]> Only That http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/02/20/only-that http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/02/20/only-that Mon, 20 Feb 2012 13:31:00 +0000 Robert Wolfe http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/02/20/only-that is a "you" and "me." No problem with that.

But the question that the nondual teachings are asking you to penetrate is this: What is the true nature, the ultimate Reality, that is commonly the is a "you" and "me." No problem with that.

But the question that the nondual teachings are asking you to penetrate is this: What is the true nature, the ultimate Reality, that is commonly the identity of "you" and "me"?

You and me are impermanent forms; all such forms come and go. There is a Presence in which all forms arise, and into which they will disappear; this Presence does not come and go.

Ramana has put it this way: that which does not come and go, which is eternal or everlasting, is the only thing which is "real"; all else is "unreal," merely a passing appearance.

All forms--e.g., you and me--owe their original "identity" to this ground of Being. So, from the standpoint of ultimate reality, who are you? Who am I? What difference is there, in that context?

That is what is meant by, "There is nobody," no "thing" or entity. Therefore, one comes to realize that there is no "me". And, given that realization, there are no "others."

This is not to say that the appearance of a me and others even needs to be absent. The realization involves recognizing "who," or "what," these are appearances (or manifestations) of. That (Beingness) thou art--thou applying to you, me and all others. "There is only That," the sutras say.

]]> What Is Seen http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/02/10/what-is-seen http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/02/10/what-is-seen Fri, 10 Feb 2012 15:00:00 +0000 Robert Wolfe http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/02/10/what-is-seen and seeker" have come to an end: the observer and the observed are not now two different things.

Thanks for your comments about what is now seen through the eyes: no longer conceptual [...]]]> and seeker" have come to an end: the observer and the observed are not now two different things.

Thanks for your comments about what is now seen through the eyes: no longer conceptual objectification, "so nothing is seen; at least, no-thing in particular...a seamless indivisible whole is observed--by 'nobody'...this is not a spacey, disassociated state...attention can be changed...in which case anything can be conceptually seen: some 'thing' is seen."

For an awakened person, as you described, relative objects can be viewed and identified as such by their names. But one now, as it were, sees through objects as separate entities, in the sense of recognizing that the commonality of all appearances is as manifestations of a ubiquitous, interpenetrating Beingness, or formless Presence. Thus, the observer and the observed are perceived as indistinguishable from each other: no-body is aware of no-thing.

]]> Infinite Awareness http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/01/26/infinite-awareness http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/01/26/infinite-awareness Thu, 26 Jan 2012 15:27:00 +0000 Robert Wolfe http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/01/26/infinite-awareness Q: [From a comment on the post Will It Last?]: "Are you aware of the awareness in all your experiences?"

A: If you think in terms of enlightened awareness as some particular state, then you are thinking in terms of this state as compared to that state. Any states you can conceive, all states, come and [...]]]> Q: [From a comment on the post Will It Last?]: "Are you aware of the awareness in all your experiences?"

A: If you think in terms of enlightened awareness as some particular state, then you are thinking in terms of this state as compared to that state. Any states you can conceive, all states, come and go; they are impermanent.

Enlightened awareness is not awareness of some particular state or condition as being preferable to some other state. It is awareness of the ultimate actuality which is present in every condition of form or formlessness, which recognizes all things as the same thing in transcendence of partitions. Therefore, in enlightened awareness, there are no separate states.

In other words, from the standpoint of Absolute awareness, whatever your present state or condition (if you choose to make such distinctions) at any given moment, "that too is It."

When you have an idea that enlightenment is some discrete (therefore limited) state of mind, you will notice that such a state of mind--like all states of mind--will be present at some times and not present at others.

When you've come to see that no state of awareness is excluded from the boundless presence of the Absolute, there is no state which is expected to be replaced by any other state. To suppose otherwise is to be "mired in duality."

]]> Will It Last? http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/01/19/will-it-last http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/01/19/will-it-last Thu, 19 Jan 2012 11:41:00 +0000 Robert Wolfe http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/01/19/will-it-last awakening unfolds is unique for each person. Varied experiences or observed phenomena have been described differently by a number of people. What is common to all of these noticed conditions is that they are [...]]]> awakening unfolds is unique for each person. Varied experiences or observed phenomena have been described differently by a number of people. What is common to all of these noticed conditions is that they are impermanent.

But, in particular, what is common to all experiences is that they occur within our awareness. The awareness, of what is occurring, does not itself have any particular interest in, or concern about, whatever it is which is appearing in it. While all of the experiences and phenomena come and go, the awareness of them remains constant.

Phenomenal experiences do not occur in our deepest sleep: whatever awareness is present, at such time, is empty awareness. It is that same fundamental awareness which continues to be aware of whatever appears in awareness during the waking and dreaming periods. This awareness does not come and go, as does anything which appears within it.

Whatever response or reaction is noticed concerning observed phenomenon or experience is also occurring within this condition of impartial awareness. These various developments too come and go, while the awareness of appearances remains constant and unaffected by whatever is viewed. Each night, in our deepest sleep, the slate is erased, awareness is emptied.

Therefore, whatever appears on the slate, from day to day, has no lasting importance. Present in awareness will be experiences and responses to experiences. That fundamental element of your being which is aware of every experience and response will continually be untouched by any development, day after day after day.

Spiritual awakening concerns itself with that which is lasting, rather than what is ephemeral.

]]> Pre/Post Mortem http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/01/09/prepost-mortem http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/01/09/prepost-mortem Mon, 09 Jan 2012 10:48:00 +0000 Robert Wolfe http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2012/01/09/prepost-mortem death, is there still an awareness of life?” Let us see what can be intuited.

Are we perhaps getting a daily—actually, nightly—clue as to post-consciousness? To use your [...]]]> death, is there still an awareness of life?” Let us see what can be intuited.

Are we perhaps getting a daily—actually, nightly—clue as to post-consciousness? To use your words, “being presence without awareness of any thing, because every thing disappears.” Where “self” and “body” drop away in deep sleep, can we anticipate death to be anything less?

Our fundamental state of awareness is an aspect of the Ultimate Reality, but this all-inclusive Reality would not be aware of any thing which is not “itself.” Being all things, it is not any thing in particular, so it is not subjective regarding whatever could be objectified.

So, if this Ultimate Reality is your ultimate reality, you would not be aware of life (as objectifiable, or an appearance) because you are life. And if you were aware of life, you could be aware of death. In a reality where there is no conceivable thing, there would presumably be no defined states as “existing” or “not existing.” I suppose we could say, what is it about nothingness that you don’t understand?

So, regarding the fear of death (which you identified as “the fear of nothing”), mere Presence is present as “self” now. When (limited) self falls away from (unlimited) Presence, is there no longer the actuality which we think of as Presence? That is the actuality into which the self initially appeared. Where could it go when the self disappears?

So, post hoc, you will in a sense be “more” than Lou; but in an equal sense, you’ll be entirely nothing. In neither sense, of course, will you be Lou. (Which you are not even, in deep sleep, now.)

My newly published book, One Essence, can assist you in attuning to this Absolute (“without limitation”) perspective. Meanwhile consider that, every night, you are receiving a reminder of your Ultimate Reality. And that Reality knows nothing of fear, “death” as apart from “life,” or “Lou” who conceives of either. Could this be a hint as to how we are to live our life?

******

A woman asked Ramana, “Is it possible to know the condition of an individual after death?”

Ramana: “It is possible….You are eternal….Until this truth is realized, there will always be [anxiety] due to false values arising from wrong knowledge and wrong identity.”

]]> No Matter http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/12/31/no-matter http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/12/31/no-matter Sat, 31 Dec 2011 21:02:00 +0000 Robert Wolfe http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/12/31/no-matter Question: I just reached a page [in Living Nonduality] that stated something along the lines of "that even in deep sleep, this something remains constantly present" which I'm having difficulty with. How do we know this for sure? Is it possible that EVERYTHING and NOTHING stops, that even PRESENCE is absent when we are in deep [...]]]> Question: I just reached a page [in Living Nonduality] that stated something along the lines of "that even in deep sleep, this something remains constantly present" which I'm having difficulty with. How do we know this for sure? Is it possible that EVERYTHING and NOTHING stops, that even PRESENCE is absent when we are in deep sleep?

Answer: Even as a fetus in the womb, awareness is present. The eyes are closed, and the environment is dark, but the organism still responds experientially to certain stimulus. Then the baby is born, the eyes are open, the environment is multitudinous, and the same awareness continues undiminished.

Throughout our lives, an unabated awareness monitors every activity or inactivity. Yet, the awareness itself cares naught what is seen, heard or considered.

All living things evidently share in awareness; even plants exhibit a responsive awareness to their environment. And awareness in any particular human shows no characteristics of being different from that of any other human.

As an organism, every single thing which you experience is experienced within awareness. And to the extent to which awareness itself can be experienced, it too is merely another experience.

It is not "you"--an object of awareness--which is seeing through your eyes, it is this ever-present be-ing. It is not you which is aware of thoughts--objects in awareness--it is, again, awareness. Any thing which you can think of that you are, is simply objectified in awareness. So, clearly, it is the awareness which is the you that perceives, not the objectifications in awareness identified as characteristics of your self. There is no self outside of awareness.

Whence the source of this awareness? Surely not you: it is not a "creation" which you had any control in initiating. It was in existence long before your organism was germinated, and will continue in existence far after "you" are conceived as a fixture in awareness.

So, the sages say, recognize that essence which is aware of "you"--and every movement, concept and experience--as you. And this, which is your unchanging being, is itself without partial interest in any thing which occurs in the world, indeed the universe, that can appear as an object of awareness. From the standpoint of that which is aware, not anything ultimately matters.

]]> I: First Person Singular? http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/12/27/i-first-person-singular http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/12/27/i-first-person-singular Tue, 27 Dec 2011 11:17:00 +0000 Robert Wolfe http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/12/27/i-first-person-singular Question: When you use the word "I" do you always mean the absolute or do you sometimes mean the organism?

Answer: From the standpoint of our habituated Question: When you use the word "I" do you always mean the absolute or do you sometimes mean the organism?

Answer: From the standpoint of our habituated dualistic conditioning, the self-reference “I” designates the separate entity which we presume ourself to be. And, of course, it is this I which functions more or less effectively in the relative, material world.

The point of the nondual teachings is to determine the true nature of the conscious being which we think of as I.

So, in terms of Self-realization, it is not essential that the conception of “I,” as identified with the organism, disappear from the psyche irremediably. The question is: is there an unequivocal comprehension of “who” (or “what”) this I actually re-presents?

Prior to awakening, our I is limited to an image or a personal self. When the nondual actuality of our existence is clearly perceived, this sense of “being an I” dissolves into an awareness of be-ing which transcends identification of the person.

The I which you have identified with the organism can continue to function, to meet its bodily needs, in the relative work-day world. But the thoughts, feelings, words and actions of this material form are now witnessed in awareness from a thoroughly different perspective. This I is the I AM, or simply present awareness, in which the I-am-this or I-am-so-and-so makes its ever-changing appearance. Ramana used the term I-I to refer to that being which goes beyond the limited personified I.

Once the I-I is realized as present, in other words, the activities and experiences of the relative I are seen for what they are: of no ultimate consequence.

]]> Simply Put http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/12/24/simply-put http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/12/24/simply-put Sat, 24 Dec 2011 18:12:00 +0000 Robert Wolfe http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/12/24/simply-put
I no longer know where to find the page that I typed out. But the significance of this, I [...]]]>
I no longer know where to find the page that I typed out. But the significance of this, I would say, is that a moment can arise when the truth which one is seeking is discovered to be within; it is not dependent upon externals. And the awareness that what was sought has been found, is beyond doubt. Also, when that clarity is completely present, it remains so--effortlessly.

What is discovered, in that moment, is: That which is sought is actually inescapable; it is always ever-present, whether we recognize it or not. And, too: as Nisargadatta's book is titled, I am That; the "seeker" and the "sought" cannot, in truth, be separated.

This recognition, two decades ago, is likely the substance of what I typed out, though I must have used dozens of words in the initial attempt to express it.

]]> In the Person of Dualism http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/12/11/in-the-person-of-dualism http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/12/11/in-the-person-of-dualism Sun, 11 Dec 2011 22:30:00 +0000 Robert Wolfe http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/12/11/in-the-person-of-dualism
To be specific, this can be noticed in the concern we express regarding the presumed relationship and [...]]]>
To be specific, this can be noticed in the concern we express regarding the presumed relationship and complicated interworkings of such selective concepts as "mind," "thought," "witness" and so on.

To one who perceives in terms of being a (separate) "self," that self's mind, thoughts, awareness et al are elements of a fragmented reality which needs to be "harmonized" with effort.

For the one for whom the image of being an isolated, separate entity has dissolved, the problematic ideas of "mind," "thoughts," "witnessing," "awareness" etcetera disappear with it.

The point of the nondual teachings has basically to do with freedom and peace. There will be neither, as long as there is a notion that the present actuality should not be what it is: "My mind should not be in this state"; "It would be better if my thoughts were absent"; "Some times I am the Witness, most times I'm not"; "My awareness does not seem to be what my guru says it should be..."

Can you see that such "better/worse" attitudes are dualism personified? The sagacious teachings urge us to transcend such designations, and to recognize that a singular, unbroken actuality is the essence of all that is occurring--good, bad or otherwise.

When you can be present with whatever seems to be appearing as mind, thought, awareness, witness and so forth, without equivocation, that is the freedom and peace that the rishis are describing. When there are not preferences for some particular state or condition over another, where can consternation arise?

]]> True Practice http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/12/07/true-practice http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/12/07/true-practice Wed, 07 Dec 2011 00:25:00 +0000 Robert Wolfe http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/12/07/true-practice Comment/Question: I woke up in the middle of the night with a question I wish I had asked, so much so that I was tempted to call him [Robert] back and ask it and add that segment to the interview. That is, his total rejection of techniques and practices, which all traditions and traditional teachers have advocated and which he himself [...]]]> Comment/Question: I woke up in the middle of the night with a question I wish I had asked, so much so that I was tempted to call him [Robert] back and ask it and add that segment to the interview. That is, his total rejection of techniques and practices, which all traditions and traditional teachers have advocated and which he himself practiced. Later in the interview, he suggested that people go back and read the traditional spiritual literature post-awakening. Well, if they do that, they’re going to find advocations of practices and techniques.

Answer: Prior to getting the point of the nondual teachings--still a "seeker," not a "finder"--the full truth of what the enlightened masters have written, or are saying, obviously is not yet evident to us.

When finally the "Aha!" moment has come to pass, we can now go back and re-read those same spiritual texts and a completely different, and "new," dimension of the teachings is fully revealed.

Prior to awakening, we read about or hear about some particular discipline or disciplines, and may engage in such a "practice."

Once realization is present clearly, we come to comprehend that the real "practice" the teachers are emphasizing actually has to do with how we live our life, not some superficial system or methodology.

Krishnamurti, for example, speaks of "meditation" (one of his most common words) and "choiceless awareness" in the same breath.

In my own case, from the time I wake up in the morning until I fall asleep at night, there is a constant meditation. This is not some sort of effort to maintain a certain state or to control, change, or express a particular condition. It is a matter that can most simply be stated as being present with what is present. In my post-awakening re-reading of the sages, it was clear to me that this is what is truly meant as meditation--not some artificial, contrived activity.

You'll know when this meditation is your meditation when it is noticed to be completely effortless, and entirely without any idea that it is going to "benefit" you in any way.

When you are doing what you are doing (or saying, or thinking) without any idea that it would be "better" if you were doing something else, that is a true practice.

]]> Buddha at the Gas Pump interview with Rick Archer http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/12/04/buddha-at-the-gas-pump-interview-with-rick-archer http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/12/04/buddha-at-the-gas-pump-interview-with-rick-archer Sun, 04 Dec 2011 16:09:00 +0000 Robert Wolfe http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/12/04/buddha-at-the-gas-pump-interview-with-rick-archer
]]> Nonduality Discussion Group with Robert http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/11/29/nonduality-discussion-group-with-robert http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/11/29/nonduality-discussion-group-with-robert Tue, 29 Nov 2011 00:51:00 +0000 Robert Wolfe http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/11/29/nonduality-discussion-group-with-robert

Thank you to Rafael Stoneman for posting. Also available on his nonprofit's site: www.ah-nonprofit.com.

]]> Do It Now http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/11/16/do-it-now http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/11/16/do-it-now Wed, 16 Nov 2011 15:28:00 +0000 Robert Wolfe http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/11/16/do-it-now
In the mind of most people, meditation is associated with a goal-oriented program. Contemplation generally reflects a freer focus of attention.

There is a Buddhist tradition where one sits, the night through, in a cemetery. A practical correlation of that could be to spend an entire [...]]]>
In the mind of most people, meditation is associated with a goal-oriented program. Contemplation generally reflects a freer focus of attention.

There is a Buddhist tradition where one sits, the night through, in a cemetery. A practical correlation of that could be to spend an entire waking day contemplating that it just may be the conclusion of the days you'll experience.

In truth, you do not certainly know if you will be alive tomorrow. Check a newspaper and you'll find a report, on any given day, of someone who went out their front door, not knowing that they would not again return.

One morning, contemplate that the next day you might close your eyes for the final time.

As you bathe, as you do your exercises, as you eat your breakfast, and then engage in the day's activities, be mindful that each movement you make, each sensation you experience, each encounter you have, even your every thought may never again be repeated.

The warmth of the sunshine, the blue of the sky, the bird overhead, they may not be viewed again. That child with the bright eyes, the woman with the attractive figure, the couple relaxing on the park bench, notice them carefully knowing it may not be repeatable.

When you open the mail, consider your friend's letter which you may not answer; when you set your wine glass back on its shelf, consider that you might not reach for it again.

Throughout the day, from morning till night, consider at every moment that this may be the last day you'll experience.

]]> The "Pre" is Present http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/11/04/the-pre-is-present http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/11/04/the-pre-is-present Fri, 04 Nov 2011 10:33:00 +0000 Robert Wolfe http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/11/04/the-pre-is-present doer," as the nondual sages say, does that mean that we are simply subject to fate?

Fate is defined as "the inevitable outcome of events, as predetermined by a superhuman agency, or god."

We have been [...]]]> doer," as the nondual sages say, does that mean that we are simply subject to fate?

Fate is defined as "the inevitable outcome of events, as predetermined by a superhuman agency, or god."

We have been enculturated, for centuries, with the notion of a celestial agent (or agents, before ancient religious currents reduced it to the singular) directing the affairs of humankind and worldly events so that these are pre-determined. There is a dualistic premise to this conception.

As early as the Hebrew bible (so-called Old Testament), the first verses of Genesis ("God created...") depict God hovering over—thus distanced from—the earth. His persistent activity, from thereon, is to separate this element from that element (light from darkness, ocean from land, etc.—beginning with the "formless and empty.")

Even into the New Testament, centuries later, this agent, positioned in a heaven, was described as acting upon—fatefully—the person of His own surrogate, Jesus.

The point of view of the nondual teachings is that there is not a god which exists "hovering over" the world and man.

Nor was the "world created" by such a personalized figure (Gen. 3:8, "walking in the Garden in the cool of the day"!), in the past tense.

That which is creating (and destroying) is present at every point in space and time: it is what is being created and destroyed. It need follow no particular preordained outcome, because—being unopposed by programmatic limitation—there isn't any outcome which can be wrong.

In other words, this Absolute presence is what is being done—in, by and as everything which exists (or doesn't exist). It would therefore be anything which could be predetermined, as well as anything which was not predetermined; the fated outcome and that outcome which was not fated. So, fate really has no relevance in such a context.

Even those who are relatively spiritually sophisticated have difficulty recognizing their conditioning which predicates a remote and willful instigator of particularized outcomes.

]]> A Poem of Awakening http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/10/21/a-poem-of-awakening http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/10/21/a-poem-of-awakening Fri, 21 Oct 2011 11:00:00 +0000 Robert Wolfe http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/10/21/a-poem-of-awakening
This, unfolding

Arising from the cradle of Presence,
Reality is granted to a story.
An abundance of characters manifest,
each a reflection of creation.
The embodiment of feelings and sensations
is [...]]]>
This, unfolding

Arising from the cradle of Presence,
Reality is granted to a story.
An abundance of characters manifest,
each a reflection of creation.
The embodiment of feelings and sensations
is hypnotic;
The never-ending commentary,
mesmerizing.

Suddenly, consciousness chooses to
recognize itself;
And interest in this celluloid world
is withdrawn.
Nothing is imposed on Freedom.

]]> The Neutrino Parable http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/10/15/the-neutrino-parable http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/10/15/the-neutrino-parable Sat, 15 Oct 2011 13:31:00 +0000 Robert Wolfe http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/10/15/the-neutrino-parable side and on through any other material it encounters. Though unseen, unfelt, unbeknown and unexperienced, this [...]]]> side and on through any other material it encounters. Though unseen, unfelt, unbeknown and unexperienced, this invasional radiation is your continual lifetime reality.

This can be an analogous metaphor for the penetration, of all that exists, by the infinite presence of being.

Suppose a neutrino were to cease its relentless journey, stop dead in the middle of your living room, and expand to the perimeter of the living room—and beyond. Walking into the living room, you are completely permeated by the presence of the neutrino, Ned. In fact, by its undeterrable nature, there is not anything in the living room which is not similarly inundated. In other words, not only everything within the room’s space, but the space between things, as well, is totally and fully occupied, engulfed, by Ned.

The outline of your body, your skin, “contains” Ned, on the inside; and is “contained” by Ned, on the outside: there is no filament between you and the neutrino, that is not also saturated by Ned. In fact, except for being a superimposition on Ned, there is nothing at all to set you apart from Ned.

And everything else in the room is likewise merely a form in something which—unrestrained by any obstacles—is unconfined to form. The lamp and Ned are no more apart than the lamp is separated from the space surrounding it. When you reach over to turn the lamp on, Ned’s “arm” moves through Ned’s “space” to connect with Ned’s “lamp”. When Ned’s “light” appears, it dispels Ned’s “darkness”.

But whether you connect with the lamp by touch, or not, you are already unknowingly connected to the lamp—and to everything else in the room.

In fact, unaware in the meanwhile that Ned has expanded beyond the unrestraining confines of the room and has completely filled the visible universe, you are insensibly connected with the furtherest galaxy.

But Ned, with its infinite capacity, has diffused beyond even the visible universe, to that expanse which we can but conclude disappears into infinity. So, as it happens, your own Nedness is in no way disconnected even from that which stretches eternally into the Unknown.

Now, no matter where you go, what you do, or your interconnections with other Nednesses, Ned is inescapable. You don’t have to go prospecting for Ned; Ned would be the prospector, the prospecting and the embodiment of the discovered. Your mother-in-law, coming to visit you, would be Ned passing through Ned to arrive at Ned for an indefinite stay with Ned. When your friend asks you, “What occurred while your wife’s mother visited”, you can say, “Nothing really! But remind me, sometime, to tell you about Ned.”

Your friend will be surprised (perhaps startled) to learn that she is no different from your mother-in-law (or your lamp) than the form of an ice cube is, in water. Be tactful; and don’t be surprised if your friend doubts it. But then, that’s Ned, doing what Ned does.

Forever Yours, Ned

P.S. You are not a neutrino (“neutral”), because a neutrino is also Ned. Ned is what has been characterized as the omnipresent God; or the universal Essence of Being—or other more-or-less confusing names; self/Self, for example: or “you” and “me”.

]]> Chattering Mind http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/09/05/chattering-mind http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/09/05/chattering-mind Mon, 05 Sep 2011 21:39:00 +0000 Robert Wolfe http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/09/05/chattering-mind relative, material world. The body needs to be fed, sheltered, and so on. As a consequence, on the physical level, we have to relate to the practical realities. You could be the saint most idealized, and yet this would still [...]]]> relative, material world. The body needs to be fed, sheltered, and so on. As a consequence, on the physical level, we have to relate to the practical realities. You could be the saint most idealized, and yet this would still be the case.

So, on this level, Julie, the "me" does not disappear: the awakened person still answers to her name, pays her bills (or doesn't), etc.

Thus, it is not like there is no longer ever a consciousness of being "I"; it is that the awakened person does not lose sense of "who" (or what) this is which is considered to be "I."

Therefore the I-thought will, as you say, continue to appear and disappear in your awareness. But whether conscious of the I-thought or not, there is something which is consistently present. Overlaid on this presence is the conception that I am present. We have been conditioned to this I-centered conception for many decades. Even after Self-realization, this conditioning does not dissipate overnight. However, with the presence of Absolute awareness, the recognition becomes--on the appearance of the I-thought (as isolating identification)--that the actuality is that the essential nature of the "I" is That, the Absolute (or Self, as it is also said).

Secondly. Prior to Self-realization, there is an I, on the one hand, who desires to end "mind chatter," on the other hand (subject/object: duality).

With Absolute awareness, there is observation of the appearance of mind chatter, without concern for whatever is factually present.

Where there is no I with attachment to preferences ("This mind chatter needs to stop"), what becomes of the volume of mind chatter? Dissatisfaction with what is present is what makes up the bulk of it. Much of this dissatisfaction is a consequence of (dualistic) comparisons. If you compare yourself to some presumed saint, this idealized expectation will lead to the dissatisfaction which you called "suffering."

For the awakened, there is neither "self" nor "other": dualistic comparison comes to an end.

Where, in Absolute awareness, there is "not two," preferences (aside from those practical and necessary choices to be made, as in paragraph one) also end: it makes no difference whether there is mind chatter or no chatter.

In other words, where the I is recognized to be a fictitious proposition, all of these other problems will be swept off the table with one profound realization. The I-thought is at the root of the problems.

]]> "Our Father Who Art..." http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/08/24/our-father-who-art http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/08/24/our-father-who-art Wed, 24 Aug 2011 13:07:00 +0000 Robert Wolfe http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/08/24/our-father-who-art God? Yes or no?"

No. Not in the sense that your question implies. Most everyone who uses that term conceives of a god as an entity, a form.

Yet, at the same time, most persons would say that God is [...]]]> God? Yes or no?"

No. Not in the sense that your question implies. Most everyone who uses that term conceives of a god as an entity, a form.

Yet, at the same time, most persons would say that God is omnipresent. If so, God would not be a form among other forms, but would be present in the same space in which every other form was present; in other words, would occupy every form (from the inside out).

As such there would be no form which limited It, or contained it; It would be beyond, or transcendent of, any form. Unlimited by any constraint of form, it would not itself be an entity.

The nondual teachings, therefore, call it form-less; also Absolute, which means "not limited."

"Does it exist or not exist, then?"

For those who suppose that God is an entity, they would then of course posit that this God has existence. The nondual teachings speak of the Absolute as neither existent nor non-existent. That which is omnipresent, in other words is not finite, does not come into existence (as a form) or go out of existence. From another view, being without limitation, It would be non-existent as well as existent.

As the Vedas suggest, if the question was (instead of God) "Does the Absolute exist?," the sage would have no argument with those who maintain no; yes; both; or neither.

]]> Belief and Judgement http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/08/22/belief-and-judgement http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/08/22/belief-and-judgement Mon, 22 Aug 2011 09:26:00 +0000 Robert Wolfe http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/08/22/belief-and-judgement
"I'm in a sorting-out phase. The cost of wisdom is everything you think you knew. Ignorance is the cause of all suffering. Belief systems are created to either explain or decrease one's level of suffering. Yet the belief system can produce even greater suffering [...]]]>
"I'm in a sorting-out phase. The cost of wisdom is everything you think you knew. Ignorance is the cause of all suffering. Belief systems are created to either explain or decrease one's level of suffering. Yet the belief system can produce even greater suffering still. My own chosen belief system, of these past twelve years, has not worked at all. In fact, it has never decreased my suffering, but rather has given me expectations that have only served to increase it.

"The Course was just a furtherance of a belief system. I now recognize my own incredibly painful comfort zone, from which I refused to budge, and that was one where spirituality as lofty aspirations would make a 'difference.'

"The goal should have been to see it the way it was, or is, and not the way I would have liked it. Ideology is insane: the world does not want or need to be 'fixed.' It just is what it is. So, now, I just let it be what it is. The best thing we can do for anyone is to wake up ourself! The seemingly profound questions have never been answered by me: What am I doing here? Who--or what--am I? Change what, for what? Is it really about 'nothing'?

"All the remains to be seen is that there is nothing that needs to be seen. What there is to see is that there is nothing to see. There's been lots more to write about, but no interest on my part."

Idealistic propositions, even when (or maybe particularly when) "spiritual," or religious, always involve expectations--especially concerning changing "others," as a preferred alternative to awakening ourself. Expectations (certainly regarding changing others, or the world) are bound to lead to disappointment, and increased dissatisfaction.

Sometimes, dis illusion ment can be the catalyst for attending to 'what is' in actuality, rather than what could be or should be.

You have long been concerned with "judgement" and "forgiveness." Obviously, forgiveness is not needed where judgement is absent. When you relinquish your belief as to how things should be, where is the need for judgement? Where judgement is inactive, what need is there for changing others? With no concern for changing others, what then of the reality of peace?

]]> Viewing the World http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/08/14/viewing-the-world http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/08/14/viewing-the-world Sun, 14 Aug 2011 22:04:00 +0000 Robert Wolfe http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/08/14/viewing-the-world Q: "If the world depends on you, and you die, and it thus ceases to exist, does it have any reality in any substantial sense? No.

One might say, 'But if I die, it is still an actuality for others.' No. It is still an unreality, in that it depends on the perceiver or sensor. If a plague killed every thing on earth, who or what [...]]]> Q: "If the world depends on you, and you die, and it thus ceases to exist, does it have any reality in any substantial sense? No.

One might say, 'But if I die, it is still an actuality for others.' No. It is still an unreality, in that it depends on the perceiver or sensor. If a plague killed every thing on earth, who or what would there be to say that there was a world in any respect?" [from "Present Right Now," p. 187, Living Nonduality]

Can [you] elaborate on that, please? I'd appreciate it if you could explain why it wouldn't exist even if there was no one there to perceive it?

A: The word nothing actually means "no thing; nonexistent; void of meaning." A thing is "an entity, distinguishable from all others." What creates the difference between one thing and another thing is the definition which we have assigned to each: "it is this, because it is not that." We conclude that each defined thing, having a "meaning," exists; a separate form, construction, concept or entity thus distinguishable from other things which we deem to exist. It is by this conscious intellectual process that each thing is invested with reality by us. (In fact, the word real is derivative of the Latin word res, which means "thing.")

We have a word that defines "the totality of all things that exist": universe. In other words, all of the things which we can cognitively define is what comprises the universe. Although our world is not separate from the universe, we have an exclusive distinction for it: this particular planet and every thing that accompanies it. So, the universe, world and all else "exist" as such because our cognized locutions have defined their "reality."

If our defining minds had never made their appearance, what could be said to be real? Well, no thing. Without at least one capable mind to define what is "real," existent, as contrasted to what is "unreal," or nonexistent, such designations as real or unreal have no relevance when applied to the universe (or anything it contains). In fact, the universe does not exist itself as any conceivable thing, in the absence of a mind to specially identify it.

So, from this standpoint, the world is not real, no matter how many minds conceive it to be so. The world is dependent upon our conception of it. No one to determine so, no "world" that "exists."

]]> I-dentity http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/08/09/i-dentity http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/08/09/i-dentity Tue, 09 Aug 2011 22:36:00 +0000 Robert Wolfe http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/08/09/i-dentity
The I which is observed and the I which observes it are not separate entities. Every (person's) observed I is unique. The I which observes it is [...]]]>
The I which is observed and the I which observes it are not separate entities. Every (person's) observed I is unique. The I which observes it is common to every "I"; it is not unique. This I which perceives is not bounded, though it sees through each particular set of eyes.

The I-thought which appears in consciousness can be viewed, when it appears, as a "problem." But to the ever-present I which is aware of the I-thought, there is no preference for what appears on the screen of consciousness: the I-thought; not-I thought; no thought; any thought.

Whatever appears, to this I of awareness (or awareness of I), it observes it without critiquing it.

The observed "I" is merely an appearance in consciousness, superimposed on the omnipresent awareness. Ramana would call the former self, the latter Self: one, an appearance limited to a temporary form; the other aspect, an unbounded, universal presence--the essence ("essential to") of the former.

When you've come to recognize who ultimately "I" am, then your sense of "identity" will cease to be fixated on the appearance of I and will simply rest unconcerned in the awareness of all that appears. Ramana would say you abide as the Self. As the Self, all thoughts are "your" thoughts: no problem with maverick thoughts.

]]> Nothing Gained, Nothing Lost http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/08/07/nothing-gained-nothing-lost http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/08/07/nothing-gained-nothing-lost Sun, 07 Aug 2011 22:59:00 +0000 Robert Wolfe http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/08/07/nothing-gained-nothing-lost Q: Hi Robert! Thanks for answering my question [see post "The Absolute and I"]. I appreciate that very much. I totally get the logic of it. And have seen the truth of it also. But then, later, maybe hours or days later, there is a shift back into that no longer being my experience. Duality re-presents again. There is me, obviously directly [...]]]> Q: Hi Robert! Thanks for answering my question [see post "The Absolute and I"]. I appreciate that very much. I totally get the logic of it. And have seen the truth of it also. But then, later, maybe hours or days later, there is a shift back into that no longer being my experience. Duality re-presents again. There is me, obviously directly experiencing 'me' to be much more than some socially defined identity - that is experienced to be true - but to then make the experiential shift back again to the place where my direct experience is non-duality, where I recognise the truth of what has always been and remains to be true even now, while it is not my experience - not directly realised moment to moment - that is my challenge. The logic is there, the past experience is there, but the present experience is one of subtle grasping, suffering and incompleteness. And yet I know that I am the absolute and utterly complete. There remains that disconnect, however subtle, that is an apparent barrier to recognising here and now, all that I am. You sat in a caravan for three years and at some point recognised our true nature. Before there was no 'recognition', now there is. And yet you were always the absolute regardless. What changed for you? How did it happen? Is it replicable? In the Dzogchen tradition there is the pointing out of the nature of mind from master to student. And recognition often takes place for a greater or lesser amount of time. However, it is suggested that most students then lose it, due to habit patterns of dualistic grasping, and meditation is the key to stablising the recognition; not the reality of it or the truth, which is naturally always present but not recognised, unfortunately.

A: One of the most common matters raised for teachers of nonduality is the one in your query. It represents a difficulty in grasping the fundamental thrust of the teachings.

What is the essence of the nondual teachings?: there are not two actual things. "All that is, is That"--the singular, absolute, ultimate Reality. There are not two states of existence, which come and go independently of the overarching Reality.

You have a preference for what state is present in consciousness. When the state which you deem preferable appears to be present, you say "I am in the (awakened) zone." When an alternate state of awareness is noticed, you determine "I am not now in the (awakened) zone." Is it not obvious that such a conception is the crux of dualistic thinking? Do you suppose an enlightened sage concerns herself with whatever state of awareness happens to be observed? To the jnani, there are "not two"; all that is, is That. to the ajnani, there is "this state" of awareness and "that state" of awareness--or more.

The jnani has no conception of having acquired anything--nothing has been added to what she always already has: therefore, not anything is ever lost. "Gee whiz, I was one with ultimate Reality awhile ago. Now I'm not.": if she were to say that, she would not have truly recognized her inseparability from ultimate Reality, at any time.

The subtlety of these teachings is that even when what appears to be a lack of "awareness" is what is present, that too is the ultimate Reality in its ever-present form. When the "non-me" awareness is noticed, that is It; when the "me" awareness is noticed, that is It. Every apparent "difference" is a manifestation of That.

Your present condition--whatever and whenever it is--is the condition of the ultimate Reality that the "seeker" would be in touch with. The seeker is the sought, and vice versa.

]]> The Absolute and I http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/08/04/the-absolute-and-i http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/08/04/the-absolute-and-i Thu, 04 Aug 2011 16:05:00 +0000 Robert Wolfe http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/08/04/the-absolute-and-i Q: Given your non-dual realisation, can you identify what was the essential factor, method or practice that allowed you to notice or realise your natural, non-dual state of being or realisation in a permanent way? Does remaining in non-dual awareness, for you, require effort, or is it effortlessly spontaneous? I have practiced meditation [...]]]> Q: Given your non-dual realisation, can you identify what was the essential factor, method or practice that allowed you to notice or realise your natural, non-dual state of being or realisation in a permanent way? Does remaining in non-dual awareness, for you, require effort, or is it effortlessly spontaneous? I have practiced meditation and studied in many traditions for many years. I have made good progress, with many non-dual realisations through time. However, I have not been able to realise my essential nature in a permanent, stable manner. Buddhist meditation is my main practice, however, I am very interested to [know] how I can permanently realise Self with instruction from any and all traditions and those who are awake. How to do this?

A: Of the many dozens of persons I've had one-on-one discussions with, your questions are typical. And the vast majority, like you (and I), were seekers for decades and had practiced meditation.

Most everyone who has any kind of a "practice" supposes that if they practice correctly and diligently, they will as some future time experience the Absolute presence.

Every spiritual or religious tradition asserts that the Absolute is omnipresent. Therefore, it must be here (whenever you are). The notion that sustains your practice can only lead your attention away from the Absolute presence.

If the Absolute is truly omnipresent, as the enlightened sages maintain, there is no way in which you can possibly be apart from that which is always everywhere. We do not come to "encounter" the Absolute, as if "I" and "It" are suddenly to become co-joined (despite the fact that this is your assumption). We can only recognize that the Absolute presence which we seek is utterly inescapable.

As long as you think of "I" on the one hand (a separate form) and the Absolute presence on the other hand (a form which the seeker is apart from), there will be separation. Transcend your conceptions of "this" and "that"--dualistic subject/object perception--and what remains is the non-dual awareness that is being sought.

Do not expect that Self-realization, or awakening, will be a "dramatic event." (When you awaken from sleep in the morning, it is not a dramatic event.) Phenomenal conditions or experiences come and go; what you are seeking is undramatically always ever present--it is not a "special experience."

Lastly, because Absolute presence is always ever present, abiding in awareness of it is effortless. We exert effort when we hope to gain something; you cannot gain something which you have, in actuality, never been apart from.

So, as long as you continue in the mode of "practice," you may have further "insights." But complete nondual clarity is not a matter of periodic "glimpses," it is a matter of seeing, once and for all, to the bottom of the (bottomless) well. Seeking ends, and "insights" are superfluous, because you recognize that "I" and Absolute presence are merely two ways of saying the same thing.

]]> Getting to know Ramana: http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/07/22/getting-to-know-ramana http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/07/22/getting-to-know-ramana Fri, 22 Jul 2011 15:19:00 +0000 Robert Wolfe http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/07/22/getting-to-know-ramana Be As You Are: The Teachings of Sri Ramana Maharshi (Penguin paperback). Don't skip the Introduction. Its 244 pages include a glossary and index. A good place to start.

The late Arthur Osborne was a Western student of Ramana, and edited The [...]]]> Be As You Are: The Teachings of Sri Ramana Maharshi (Penguin paperback). Don't skip the Introduction. Its 244 pages include a glossary and index. A good place to start.

The late Arthur Osborne was a Western student of Ramana, and edited The Collected Works of Ramana Maharshi (Weiser Books paperback). Not a lot was written by Ramana himself, and Osborne explains much about what was. Again, don't skip the Preface. The 192 pages include glossary and index. Ramana wrote in Tamil, and many references are to Vedanta.

These are good preparation for Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi,* some 650 brief, transcribed questions-and-answers on many topics (with students or with visitors) over about four years (late 30s). 683 pages, hardbound, with extensive glossary and index, it is best read with the above preparation. A thorough Bibliography, at the back, will lead you to choices of the many other books, of many sorts, to follow with.

The three-volume (paperback) series The Power of the Presence, compiled by David Godman, is a collection of about thirty reminiscences by various devotees of Ramana Maharshi, over a period of about fifty years.†

In a marginal way, it is a testimony to the Indians' generosity to the needy, their endurance of discomfort, their devoted service to a teacher, and their obsession with having--or wanting to have--phenomenal religious experiences (which, when they do have them, they seem to learn little from).

This (latter) is despite their guru Ramana's teachings: "What is perceived by our senses and the mind is never the truth. All 'visions' are mere mental creations. And if you believe in them, your progress ceases!

"Enquire to whom the (experiences) occur. Find out who is their witness....Don't move out of that state."

But the volumes are more directly a discovery of the aspects of Ramana's presence which one might not expect--such as the times when he chastises, cajoles or cries. There are dozens of such examples.

---------------------------
* The major source for his direct teachings.
† Available from Avadhuta Foundation, 1-877-282-3488; www.avadhuta.com.

]]> Five-Word Key http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/07/15/five-word-key http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/07/15/five-word-key Fri, 15 Jul 2011 18:44:00 +0000 Robert Wolfe http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/07/15/five-word-key
As Krishnamurti put it, “Where there is division, there is conflict.” (Sometimes he also said it this way: “Where there is conflict, there is division.”)

At the time that I read this, I was examining the conflict in my [...]]]>
As Krishnamurti put it, “Where there is division, there is conflict.” (Sometimes he also said it this way: “Where there is conflict, there is division.”)

At the time that I read this, I was examining the conflict in my life. Everywhere that I could identify conflict, I could see that some sort of divisiveness was involved.

Conversely, by being aware of the divisive nature of the thought process itself (“This is good. This is not good.”), I could see where conflict arose (“I am a good person. You are a bad person.”).

It became obvious to me that if I was to end conflict in my life, division (divisiveness) must end. I began to ask myself (almost as an on-going meditation), “What would it mean if there was no division?”; that is, if in fact the actuality of our existence was that there was no such condition as division.

I could see how the thought process created duality. The thought that “I exist”—as a “me”, a self as a separate entity—is inevitably followed by the thought that “All else, that exists in the world, is not me.” “You”, for example, are not me. So, there is “me” as opposed to “you”; there is my self and your self—a latent premise for eventual conflict.

So, if the separative dualistic notion is the basis of conflict, how could the separative perspective be transcended? According to the “spiritual” material that I was reading at the time, by non duality.

What I thought this meant, at the time, was “union”, or unity. If I think of “you” and “I” as “one” (or “God” and “I” as “One”), doesn’t this end separation? No; because it’s divisible. 1+1=2; but 2 is merely a “union” of 1+1: 2 is always convertible back to the separation of 1+1.

The Sanskrit word for nondual, I learned, is advaita (dating back 3,500 years to the Vedas): its literal meaning, “not two”. In fact, the Vedas go on to explain that the deepest teaching of nonduality is: “not two; not one”. In other words, the 2 here is not a reality; nor is the 1+1 that comprise the 2.

Pondering the message of Vedanta, it became apparent that “union” (two) is not the intended condition to be realized: not two; not “unity”.

What, then? “One”? No: “not one”. Where there is a one, a separate entity (such as “me”), there is always the implication that something exists beside (or, outside of) that one (such as “you”; or, “not me”).

The teaching is saying that not one exists as a reality (therefore, ‘two’ neither; because there are no ‘ones’ to comprise the ‘two’). The pointer “not two, not one” is saying that there is not any thing which exists—at all—as a separate, independent entity!

Wow, I realized, this is what “no division” really means: not that there is no separation between “you” and “me”, but that “you” and “me” are merely separative distinctions; “you” and “me” do not exist except as definitional ideas.

Therefore, “unity” plays no part in the enlightened realization of the truth of nonduality; there is—where division is not presumed from the beginning—not a one and another one, to be connected as a two.

It also became clear that “not one” means that there is not even some thing or entity or form that replaces “you” and “me”; that would simply be a subtle substitution. For example, if we say that “you” and “me” are the “Father”, we are merely establishing another “independent” one.

Where there is no division, no thing exists; form-less-ness. What is formless is clearly indivisible. I came to understand what Buddhists refer to as the Void; nothing-ness.

It is out of this nothingness (“not even one”) that the appearance of “separate” entities—ones—arise. Though these “ones” appear, they appear from (rather, in) the condition of no division, nonduality. Having their origination in the nondual, they never were separate, or apart, from their beginning. Thus, they need not be artificially “unified”.

What is the consequence of the realization of the actuality called nonduality? It is the disappearance of the idea of being a separate “self ”; or, more yet, their being any separate “selves”—“yours” or “mine”.

So, the key is now held: “there cannot be any separation”. Any!

Contemplate what this means. The teachings (all) tell us that the actuality of our existence is that there is no division whatsoever any where at any time. And that the awakening to the significance of this truth is the long-sought ending of conflict and confusion.

It is also the ending of seeming identity of a “you” and a “me” (or any “others”). Therefore, it is also the end of the search for “unity”, since there is no disunity in the formless actuality, to begin with.

]]> Great Expectations? http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/07/06/great-expectations http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/07/06/great-expectations Wed, 06 Jul 2011 21:48:00 +0000 Robert Wolfe http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/07/06/great-expectations
As a consequence of what one can find in much of the spiritual material, there is sometimes an exaggerated expectation as to how life will "look" after [...]]]>
As a consequence of what one can find in much of the spiritual material, there is sometimes an exaggerated expectation as to how life will "look" after Self-realization.

Twenty, thirty, forty or more years of (dualistic) societal conditioning does not necessarily disappear overnight. There are some acquired habits, especially, which may not be amenable to much change at all.

The significant change that does relate to Self-realization is the relinquishing of the tendency to hope that the real facts of life will be something other than what they resolutely are.

For those who are viewing life from a dualistic framework, there will be an effort to move away from what is perceived as negative (or un-pleasant) and to move toward the positive end of the spectrum (whatever is deemed pleasant). The teachings of nonduality assure us that it is possible to transcend such dualistic distinctions, in our general perception, as "better" or "worse." In other words, we view matters in terms of 'what is,' rather than how they could be or should be.

Therefore, in the wake of Self-realization, the world (good, bad or mediocre) has not changed; but one's perspective, concerning all that one is aware of, has changed. Put another way, the world looks no different than it ever has--but our expectation, that it ought to appear any way other than it does, is recognized to be at the root of suffering and conflict.

So, we're not talking about the elimination of worldly reality, but of accordance with all of actuality; not exclusion, but inclusion.

This would be expressed by the nondual rishis as "Being present with what's present"--as contrasted to what one wishes or hopes was instead present.

As to "the dissolution of the ego," the "ego" is one of the dualistic ideas we have been enculturated to conceive as having substance. (Try to find an "ego" before Freud was born.) Ego is Latin: it means (in English) I. Is there an ego apart from an I? Ramana would put it this way: The ego is as real as the self. If there is no such separate entity as a "self," what becomes of the ego?

The notion of an ego is the scapegoat for a person's (mainly "undesirable") behavior. What role can an "ego" play for a person who no longer critiques her behavior in terms of "better" or "worse"? When you recognize your behavioral expressions to be 'what is'--factual in occurrance, rather than some would-be ideal--you will experience them as you would experience any other element of the 'what is.' This, then, is effectually the dissolution of the ego.

The fundamental question is, what is your "real nature"? If you "reject the conventional view of the separation of objects," is there a "you", a "self", that is in actuality apart from all else that is? If you comprehend that ultimately "everything is the Absolute," is there an "I" which is separate from anything?

]]> Admit One http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/06/28/admit-one http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/06/28/admit-one Tue, 28 Jun 2011 17:23:00 +0000 Robert Wolfe http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/06/28/admit-one
This applies not only to what we can witness externally in the world, it applies equally in regard to [...]]]>
This applies not only to what we can witness externally in the world, it applies equally in regard to our inner turmoil and confusion, even to the choices we ponder.

The nondual teachings instruct us that if conflict is to end--inner or outer--divisiveness must come to an end. Put another way, as long as we remain in (separative) confusion, everything which we attempt to do will be a product of that confusion. But once (awakened) clarity is present, all that we do will be a product of that clarity. So it is important, in the balance of our life, for Self-realization to be at the top of the agenda.

A second fundamental element, of the teachings, is this: the Truth that you'll discover is the same Truth that is present this very moment. There is not anything in the future that will bring you closer to the prospect of this Truth than you are right now. You need not transit in time, in order to end the dualistic confusion.

]]> When in Doubt... http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/06/21/when-in-doubt http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/06/21/when-in-doubt Tue, 21 Jun 2011 13:52:00 +0000 Robert Wolfe http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/06/21/when-in-doubt
I am reminded of the words of Ramana: "The jnani (self-realized) has no doubts (about) himself....He has no doubts, to be cleared....

"So long as false identification persists, doubts will persist...Doubts will cease [...]]]>
I am reminded of the words of Ramana: "The jnani (self-realized) has no doubts (about) himself....He has no doubts, to be cleared....

"So long as false identification persists, doubts will persist...Doubts will cease only when the (individuated identification) is put an end to. That will result in realization of Reality. There will remain no 'other' to doubt."

Even though Self-realization is not fully present (and your conclusion that this is so, is an indication that it is so), "Lori" has had a "glimpse" of something which has already effected noticeable changes. So, it is not a matter of self-deception here.

But the decisive factor is, as Ramana says, "So long as false identification persists..." The glimpse, as you say, was of Oneness. Yet, in this case, false identification persists: there is a "person" who has had an "experience"--this is a dualistic conception, not Oneness.

There also remains a person who has definite ideas about how that experience should be developing for that person. The person concerned is the "subject" end, of subject/object duality.

Full self-realization leaves no doubt about the actuality of Oneness, of nonduality. And in Self-realization the subject/object polarization is transcended, so that the false identification of the subject self and objective "other" (material, or immaterial such as "special" experiences) no longer engenders separation, or what amounts to the denial of Oneness.

The dualistic self-identity leads to separation in our lives, and this separation can be a catalyst for full self-realization. The glimpse of Oneness (Christian mystics call it grace) can be a revelation that the condition of the jnani is realizable. "Person," "experiences," and "expectations" will be seen as empty of meaning when Self-realization is completely profound.

]]> Keeping It Simple http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/06/13/keeping-it-simple http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/06/13/keeping-it-simple Mon, 13 Jun 2011 22:01:00 +0000 Robert Wolfe http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/06/13/keeping-it-simple
They had no refrigeration, no stoves, no matches (though they knew how to start a fire). They had no frozen, canned, packaged or [...]]]>
They had no refrigeration, no stoves, no matches (though they knew how to start a fire). They had no frozen, canned, packaged or “convenience” foods. No garden vegetables or orchard fruit, no livestock or poultry, no milk or dairy products, no candy, pastry or soft drinks. When available, they had fish and game (broiled, boiled, smoked or dried), herbs, tubers, nuts, seeds, berries, acorn bread, herb tea, water and sometimes salt.

They had no alcohol, no stimulants (coffee, tea, cocoa, etc.), no recreational drugs; occasionally tobacco, when bartered from the far south.

No books, magazines, newspapers, comics, novels, videos or movies; few toys, games and amusements; occasional “music”, song, dance or storytelling. Possibly a dog; no cat, canary, goldfish, etc. Little chit-chat, gossip, debate and witticism. No notepads, signs, instruction manuals or maps. No school, church, hospital, post office or bank. No stores, markets or pharmacies.

No horse, wheeled vehicle, skateboard or pavement. No tent, canteen, compass, hatchet or bear-free campsite. No metal tools, no hardware. No gun, fishhook or steel trap.

No electric light, no flashlight, no electric blanket, answer phone, clock or calendar.

No organized sciences, technologies, professions, industries, commerce, institutions, judicial system or political parties.

And with all of that which they didn’t have, these were not a restless, disturbed, aggressive, disease-ridden people.

]]> The Nameless http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/06/01/the-nameless http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/06/01/the-nameless Wed, 01 Jun 2011 08:53:00 +0000 Robert Wolfe http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/06/01/the-nameless
You say that when aware of peace and joy, that is when your true nature is a reality. And you say that when you "have given credence to a separate me, the I-thought" (and you notice the "suffering" which is consequent), there is [...]]]>
You say that when aware of peace and joy, that is when your true nature is a reality. And you say that when you "have given credence to a separate me, the I-thought" (and you notice the "suffering" which is consequent), there is the "believing in a false reality....I have left my true nature...and need to reestablish my orientation to it."

Both perceived states--joy and suffering--are basically a false reality, in terms of Absolute awareness. The "I," of perceived positive/negative experience, is a feature of both (opposing) states.

To begin with, "joy" and "suffering" are among the myriad (dualistic) names that we have overlaid on 'what is'--on whatever happens to be a present condition. Both are ideas, or concepts, about some manner in which the Absolute is appearing. The Absolute itself has no notions of "positive" interpretations versus "negative" interpretations. It is the "I" which generates interpretations.

Your true nature is in transcendence of the dualistic (I/not-I) self-conception. As such, there is not concern for whether I experience "joy," or I experience "suffering." Whatever is being experienced will be experienced with equanimity. Put another way, the 'what is' (that is "you") is merely aware of the 'what is' (whatever happens to be present), without qualification.

Your "true nature" is another name for the ultimate Reality which none of us can ever be apart from. Therefore, you cannot "leave your true nature," nor can you "reestablish it." (You never established it to begin with.)

If you are equating "joy" with the "bliss" of which Ramana speaks, I submit that bliss is another word for the equanimity which is the characteristic of our true nature--in transcendence of both "positive" (joy) and "negative" (suffering) polarized (dualistic) conceptions. It is being at one with 'what is,' without a need to name, to evaluate, it.

]]> Lost and Found Department http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/05/23/lost-and-found-department http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/05/23/lost-and-found-department Mon, 23 May 2011 11:33:00 +0000 Robert Wolfe http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/05/23/lost-and-found-department
This sounds as if (experienced, in the past tense) “the realization,” that you speak of, is a state which comes and goes—thus a repetitive process to subsequently re-instate it.

To use an analogy, [...]]]>
This sounds as if (experienced, in the past tense) “the realization,” that you speak of, is a state which comes and goes—thus a repetitive process to subsequently re-instate it.

To use an analogy, if one goes from the state of being asleep, to the state of being awake, the awake state changes if one goes back to sleep. In other words, when one remains awake, there is no technique necessary to regularly re-awaken.

The condition of Absolute awareness, when thoroughly present, will not come and go. It is recognized that not anything has been “gained,” or added, which had not already been existent (though unrecognized). Therefore, there is not something (such as a state) which is subject to “loss,” or lack of presence.

No technique, in other words, can reinstate (get “there” from not-there) that which, by its definitional nature, is omnipresent—eternal and infinite.

So, to the extent that one experiences a “loss” of the “state” of “realization,” that is not the timeless, unwavering Realization that I am familiar with.

]]> Guru Relationship http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/05/20/guru-relationship http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/05/20/guru-relationship Fri, 20 May 2011 09:03:00 +0000 Robert Wolfe http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/05/20/guru-relationship Q: If I am not a disciple who wants something spiritual or material from you, because I have no such separative feeling or need, what is your/guru's relationship with me? Or relationship is only when one or both of us have a need, to receive or even to give? Is there an altogether different relationship, beyond needs?

A: [...]]]> Q: If I am not a disciple who wants something spiritual or material from you, because I have no such separative feeling or need, what is your/guru's relationship with me? Or relationship is only when one or both of us have a need, to receive or even to give? Is there an altogether different relationship, beyond needs?

A: From the relative standpoint, the standpoint of the seeker, there is a spiritual teacher who knows (or is aware of) something which she wishes to know.

From the standpoint of an enlightened teacher, there is this "person" (or organism) in communication (or "communion," stressing union) with an-other person. Viewing his own person as That, he regards the other person as That, indivisibly. From his standpoint, That is merely conversing (or interacting) with That. Under those circumstances, he does not think in terms of "relationship." Relationship is the viewpoint of the seeker: the disciple/guru presumption.

From the teacher's standpoint, That (as he) is aware of its true nature, while That (as she) professes not to be aware of its true nature. Aspects, or manifestations, of That (Absolute actuality) are interacting, as a jetstream of water may interact in a sea of water. The outcome of the interaction does not matter: whatever the outcome (if any), it is That doing what it does.

What it is doing in one entity is asking a question. What it is doing in the other entity is suggesting a resolution of the question.

The seeker is proposing that there is an "I" apart from the "guru." The guru is reiterating that the "I" and the "you," in ultimate reality, are the same, omnipresent essence.

When it is recognized (if it is) that you and I are an unbrioken whole--along with all other things--it is clear that, from the Absolute perspective, there are no relationships that exist.

The disciple already embodies this no-relationship condition. There is not, therefore, a condition which the guru embodies which the disciple does not. This is all that the guru can profess to "transmit," and the disciple admit to "realize."

The disciple/guru never really had a relationship, and mutually acknowledge that they never will--in fact that they never really existed as separate realities.

]]> Listen to Robert's Latest Interview http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/05/17/listen-to-roberts-latest-interview http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/05/17/listen-to-roberts-latest-interview Tue, 17 May 2011 15:19:00 +0000 Robert Wolfe http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/05/17/listen-to-roberts-latest-interview
]]> Biggies http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/05/16/biggies http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/05/16/biggies Mon, 16 May 2011 09:36:00 +0000 Robert Wolfe http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/05/16/biggies Q: Does this mean that just the Understanding or recognition of the truth of nonduality IS the dissolution of conflict? My gut says yes (however when I'm in traffic I still see 'others' and experience the vestiges of conflict!) The disassembly of the I-thought into its source IS the recognition of the truth of non-duality is it not? Is this [...]]]> Q: Does this mean that just the Understanding or recognition of the truth of nonduality IS the dissolution of conflict? My gut says yes (however when I'm in traffic I still see 'others' and experience the vestiges of conflict!) The disassembly of the I-thought into its source IS the recognition of the truth of non-duality is it not? Is this disassembly a process (i.e., time-oriented)? I realize that some people experience a radical disassembly of the I-thought, i.e., Ramana, but I've heard that for others it's a more gradual process (a dissolving if you will vs. an explosive eradication).

A: Yours are big questions. I'll try to be succinct. "The truth of nonduality" is, in two words, no division. As Krishnamurti often said, "Where there is division, there is conflict." Therefore, for conflict to come to an end, (the sense of) division must come to an end.

One could coin a phrase: no conflict with conflict. In other words, in our day-to-day relative existence, various forms of agitation or disagreement may continue to arise--but without that being a "problem," without making a conflict out of that.

"The disassembly of the I-thought into its source" results in awareness of the true identity of the Doer: That thou art. Therefore, whatever is being done (in terms of human activity, individually or collectively) is That doing what it does. So, yes, that is a "recognition of the truth of nonduality," when perceived.

Generally speaking, the recognition of one's true nature is an immediate comprehension. But this radical shift in perspective may take awhile to get acclimated, or adjusted, to. This could equate to the "process" of "dissolving" which you mention.

]]> What's To Do? http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/05/10/whats-to-do http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/05/10/whats-to-do Tue, 10 May 2011 21:08:00 +0000 Robert Wolfe http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/05/10/whats-to-do Q: I'm trying to figure something out. I keep reading in the Advaita literature that there is no "doer", but then I also read suggestions as to what to do. Isn't that a contradication?

A: If (as the sutras say) there is no doer, then understanding those words would mean to answer the question, "Then what is doing the [...]]]> Q: I'm trying to figure something out. I keep reading in the Advaita literature that there is no "doer", but then I also read suggestions as to what to do. Isn't that a contradication?

A: If (as the sutras say) there is no doer, then understanding those words would mean to answer the question, "Then what is doing the activity that appears to be done?"

So, the summary of all the "suggestions as to what to do" is this: discover "who" (really, what) is the ultimate source of whatever it is that's being done. Would what you're doing, right now, have any connection to what the galaxies are doing in the cosmos, or to what the subatomic particles are doing in that rock over there?

What is the primal source of the "individual" who asks questions about the primal source?

When the primary Doer has been recognized as the wellspring of all that's (ever) being done, you will know the source of "your" activities. And your question as to what the "individual" ought to do will be answered.

]]> Choices/Conflict http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/05/10/choicesconflict http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/05/10/choicesconflict Tue, 10 May 2011 20:46:00 +0000 Robert Wolfe http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/05/10/choicesconflict Q: This statement particularly resonates: "Stillness, utter stillness, is the antidote to the compulsion of volition, to the bondage of chronic activity." I would like to request further explanation of the following quote however: "But the dissolution of conflict is to see choice through to its ending, to be unequivocally consistent in [...]]]> Q: This statement particularly resonates: "Stillness, utter stillness, is the antidote to the compulsion of volition, to the bondage of chronic activity." I would like to request further explanation of the following quote however: "But the dissolution of conflict is to see choice through to its ending, to be unequivocally consistent in one’s interpretation of truth." I see this to mean that the dissolution of conflict is the realization that choice is truly fallacy.

A: Thanks for your comments!

Your interpretation is correct. We make comparisons: "this" (better) as opposed to "that" (worse), and desires then arise ("I want to retain this, and eliminate that."). Where choices are made, a relative (or dualistic) situation is being engaged. Where there is a sense of division--as in attachment to the outcome of a particular choice--there will be conflict.

The fundamental seat of conflict is embodied in the "I" as opposed to "not-I" perspective. Where the sense of being an individual, separate, "I" prevails, there will be conflict.

The dissolution of such conflict comes in recognizing the truth which nonduality suggests. The I-thought can disassemble into the source of its Being. Then the outcome of any choice, being made by this particular manifestation of the Source of all activity (this "person"), is seen to ultimately make no difference. "Clinging" to (the importance of) choices ceases. One observes the choices that are being made, and their outcome, without concern, without feelings of conflict.

This is what is called "choiceless awareness."

]]> The Sage and Illness http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/05/05/the-sage-and-illness http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/05/05/the-sage-and-illness Thu, 05 May 2011 16:16:00 +0000 Robert Wolfe http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/05/05/the-sage-and-illness
As Ramana says, all of the relative forms are impermanent. There is only one thing which does not come and go, which is permanent, and that is the ground of Being, or Source. He says, "Keep attention [...]]]>
As Ramana says, all of the relative forms are impermanent. There is only one thing which does not come and go, which is permanent, and that is the ground of Being, or Source. He says, "Keep attention focused on what is real, what does not come and go, not on what is unreal" (that is, impermanent).

The human body is impermanent. What it (and the entire cosmos) owes its existence to is, as the sutras say, "unchanging," ever-present. Human forms appear and disappear, in limited time and space, within it; but it does not vary in its presence, and is not limited in time or space.

So, the jnani's (realized's) attention is focused on the ultimate Reality, not the short-lived forms through which this Reality merely makes an appearance. Thus the sutras emphasize, "You are not the body."

In specific terms, the jnani (through choiceless awareness) observes changes which are taking place within the organism (and "all things change"), recognizing that a physical body will necessarily follow the course of arriving, remaining, and departing.

You used the word "illness" (as would most persons), but in the sage's mind what is noticed is "change." Change is inevitable; change which eventually leads to death is emphatically inevitable.

The usual human reaction to change, especially when life-threatening, is resistance. For one to whom the self and the Self are one indivisible whole, where is there a basis for resistance?

In Living Nonduality (p. 224: How They Died), I wrote of the "non-resistance to physical death" of four exemplary spiritual teachers: the concluding line speaks about "non-attachment to life itself," that is, to all that is impermanent.

This is--to use your phrase--how sages "look at it when living nonduality."

]]> Sharing Living Nonduality - Interview on May 10th http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/05/04/sharing-living-nonduality-interview-on-may-10th http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/05/04/sharing-living-nonduality-interview-on-may-10th Wed, 04 May 2011 14:35:00 +0000 Robert Wolfe http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/05/04/sharing-living-nonduality-interview-on-may-10th Location: Wisdom's Soft Whisper,
WCOM 103.5 FM Chapel Hill, NC

Robert will be interviewed by John Troy and Trip Overholt, hosts of WCOM's Wisdom's Soft Whisper.

Click here to [...]]]> Location: Wisdom's Soft Whisper,
WCOM 103.5 FM Chapel Hill, NC

Robert will be interviewed by John Troy and Trip Overholt, hosts of WCOM's Wisdom's Soft Whisper.

Click here to tune in live on Tuesday, May 10th at 12 p.m. (EDT).

]]> The Truth Shall Set YOU Free http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/05/03/the-truth-shall-set-you-free http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/05/03/the-truth-shall-set-you-free Tue, 03 May 2011 14:23:13 +0000 Robert Wolfe http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/05/03/the-truth-shall-set-you-free
If one affirms that “God is all there is”, and that is a truth, then one embodies this truth or else lives in untruth. To those who are sincere, such is more than a rhetorical statement: “All is One.”

If That is [...]]]>
If one affirms that “God is all there is”, and that is a truth, then one embodies this truth or else lives in untruth. To those who are sincere, such is more than a rhetorical statement: “All is One.”

If That is all that is, That is all that is real; anything perceived “other” than That is unreal—therefore, not truth.

If That is all there is, there are not two things: there is only That. Therefore, That is an indivisible whole. An indivisible whole is not subject to partition: all is That.

There is, therefore, no God (or That, for that matter) that can stand apart from anything else. This is all That (or God).

There is no “part” of it that is “greater” than any “other” part; there is no separate Entity.

To deny this obvious implication of “God is all there is” is to live in untruth, inconsistency.

The One of which you speak is a one without a two. This Oneness neither “knows” nor “cares”, as a remote knower or carer. There is no separate place in Oneness in which oneness has taken up a distinct location from which to know, care, intervene, intercede, instruct or any other privately definable action. Being in no way relative, it does not stand out somewhere in relationship to the human condition, nor any human in particular.

To affirm truth on one hand and live untruth on the other hand can only lead to confusion and (perceived) suffering.

To live the truth consistently is an end to confusion and suffering.

If God is all that is, “you” are God. If this is not true, God is not all that is.

Which shall you affirm? Which shall you live as the truth?

]]> The Needle's Eye http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/04/10/the-needles-eye http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/04/10/the-needles-eye Sun, 10 Apr 2011 09:48:00 +0000 Robert Wolfe http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/04/10/the-needles-eye
His first sight of a holy man disturbed the insulated prince, Siddhartha Gautama. Jesus was impressed with Isaiah, Elijah, the baptist John and others. Ramana Maharshi was inflamed, as a youth, by a written account of the lives of saints. Krishnamurti made occasional, admiring references to the Buddha and Jesus; et cetera.

Those whom we each refer to as “holy” were exceedingly uncommon people; that is why few people do not know at least a few details of who St. Francis was or who Mother Teresa was. It is striking, to anyone who diligently reviews the reports, not only how uncommonly these religious figures acted, but how similar their uncommon behavior has been. In other words, one need not investigate these biographical cameos very far before one senses a common “message” (but not even, necessarily, in their message)—in the way they lived their lives.

The most apparent message, which first stands out (whether verbally “preached” or nonverbally demonstrated), is that a profound spiritual awakening radically changes one’s “normal” behavior. Gautama left his fief, never again to resume it. Jesus left his home, never again to have another. Maharshi left everything behind him, except the loin cloth he frequently wore. Krishnamurti renounced his imposed, appointed position. And so on, through biographies which line many shelves.

The dramatic message seems abundantly clear: exposure to profound illumination is exposure to definite risk of radical transformation of one’s material existence or security. The willingness to risk is not separate from the openness to awakening. One who is not willing to take this risk—of possessions, career, family, security, stature, future and past—has encountered the first barrier, the eye of the needle.

The primary barrier to spiritual discovery is fear. Where it cannot be dissolved, it will be impassable. This is elemental.

Specifically, the fear which dominates is that of the future (or, conversely, the fear of not maintaining a future). Fear and any idea of future time are unmistakably wedded. This irremediable relationship has likely been the immediate insight of every saint who has come to the confrontation with risk. Fear is insurmountable, as long as the future gapes around it.

This pivotal recognition propels the adventurer into a seminal contemplation of the alleged property of time. The only prospect for surpassing the limitations of fear is to somehow transcend the bondage of time. And this is precisely what each spiritual discoverer has indicated. Fear does not die in the future, it dies with the future—as the future is laid to rest.

To pierce the heart of the dragon of time is the real function of “sitting quietly, doing nothing”. Stillness, utter stillness, is the antidote to the compulsion of volition, to the bondage of chronic activity. It is to permit one’s future to wither and die of neglect, as alarming as that may seem. A sudden unanticipated (even unintended) lurch, and the chain falls aside. Buddha arises from under the Bo tree, Jesus arrives on the shores of Galilee, Maharshi sits outside the temple, Krishnamurti lights his parting bonfire at the Order of the Star.

Not everyone finds themselves prepared to turn their face toward the immaterial and their back on the material. We each do what we do. But the dissolution of conflict is to see choice through to its ending, to be unequivocally consistent in one’s interpretation of truth. It is only in this way that truth can be interpreted. And only the firmament of truth is worthy of our exploration. In this, too, our mentors concur.

]]> You’re Not Responsible http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/03/24/you%e2%80%99re-not-responsible http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/03/24/you%e2%80%99re-not-responsible Thu, 24 Mar 2011 16:25:00 +0000 Robert Wolfe http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/03/24/you%e2%80%99re-not-responsible
A clergyman in a cathedral, in 1543 Copernicus published a treatise postulating that the sun does not appear to rise and set as a consequence of it revolving around the earth (the latter of which the Church presumed to be the center of the universe); to the contrary, he [...]]]>
A clergyman in a cathedral, in 1543 Copernicus published a treatise postulating that the sun does not appear to rise and set as a consequence of it revolving around the earth (the latter of which the Church presumed to be the center of the universe); to the contrary, he asserted, the earth revolves around the sun, which is stationary, and it is the earth’s axial rotation which provides the appearance of a rising and setting sun.

Nearly ninety years passed before Galileo’s interest in physics and telescopes resulted in publication (in 1632) of experimental verification of Copernicus’ revelation (followed by Galileo’s trial before Rome’s inquisition the following year).

Like the pre-Copernicans who were without doubt that the earth graced the hub of the universe, most people today still suppose that “cause and effect” is such a truism that it is a physical fact.

This was disproved, now more than 40 years ago!

Most people today would recognize the name of Alexander Graham Bell of the telephone, but not the name of Irish physicist John Stewart Bell. But the latter, in 1964, did for physics as much as Copernicus did for astronomy. And, as recently as 2004, Swiss physicist Nicholas Gisin established the revelation of Bell, as firmly as did Galileo that of Copernicus.

In sum, to quote physicist Nick Herbert:

“Bell’s Theorem* states, in effect, that after two [subatomic] particles interact in a conventional way, then move apart outside the range of the interaction, the particles continue to influence each other instantaneously via a real connection, which joins them together with undiminished strength no matter how far apart they may roam….

“Bell’s Theorem says not merely that superluminal connections are possible, but that they are necessary to make our kind of universe work….

“Bell’s Theorem shows that…things are hooked together by an invisible, underlying network of superluminal connections.”

Another scientist, Steve Hagen, adds:

“Though we conceive of a ‘here’ and a ‘there’, such conception is not supported…by experimental results. The ‘two’ are intimately related, and a change in ‘one’ immediately creates a change in the ‘other’…of the very fabric of time and space itself.”

Physics professor Lee Smolin:

“This means that the entangled nature of the quantum state reflects something essential in the world….This makes it one of those rare cases in which an experiment [such as Gisin demonstrated over 31 miles, likened—given the relative size of particles—to 31 light-years
across space] can be interpreted as a test of a philosophical principal [viz., nonduality]….

“We—who live in the universe, and aspire to understand it—are then inextricably part of the same entangled system.”

Physicist Shimon Malin:

“Such a connection takes place because both events [the cosmic interaction by two—or more—particles] form a single creative act, a single ‘actual entity,’ arising out of a common field of potentialities.”

And Henry Stapp:

“The important thing about Bell’s Theorem is that it puts the dilemma posed by quantum phenomena clearly into the realm of macroscopic [“visible”] phenomena…[showing] that our ordinary ideas about the world are somehow profoundly deficient even at the macroscopic level.”

Gary Zukov:

“Bell’s Theorem tells us that there is no such thing as ‘separate parts’. All of the ‘parts’ of the universe are connected in an intimate and immediate way…‘Commonsense’ ideas are inadequate even to describe macroscopic events—events of the everyday world!” [e.g., cause and effect]

Renowned physicist David Bohm:

“We can say that inseparable quantum interconnectedness of the whole universe is the fundamental reality…any attempt to assert the independent existence of a ‘part’ would deny this unbroken wholeness…This form of description cannot be closed on the large scale, any more than on the small scale…. This means that our notions of space and time will have to change in a fundamental way….

“Notion of the constitution of the world out of separately-existent parts is turned upside down....There are indivisible links of action between each object, and its environment.”

This, then, is the physical reality, the actual fact of the universe that we live in.

There is no such actuality—throughout time and space, as we know it—as cause that is apart from effect.

Most people today are basing their assumptions on pre-Bell doctrine; just as most people, before 1543, based their assumptions on pre-Copernicus doctrine.

But in terms of how you live your life, based on the assumptions you are making, the former is more important than the latter.

Will ninety years pass before you incorporate the supportive scientific evidence of what the sages have maintained for some 3,500 years: “You are not the doer”?

*A theorem is not a theory; it's been experimentally proven.

]]> Who Says 'That Thou Art?' http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/03/13/who-says-that-thou-art http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/03/13/who-says-that-thou-art Sun, 13 Mar 2011 16:48:00 +0000 Robert Wolfe http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/03/13/who-says-that-thou-art
The subject of these writings is the ultimate, universal and single underlying reality which is termed Absolute. Such wisdom teachings are referred to as Vedanta, which means “the end of knowledge”; that is, complete ultimate clarity regarding the nature of the Absolute. The Sanskrit word used to convey this sense, or “knowledge”, of the presence (“always already here”) is advaita, which means “not two”: non-dual.

The earliest teacher of advaita, of pronounced historical importance, was Shankara (788-820 A.D.). His yoga (“yoke”, or way) was jnana, “self-knowledge” or Self-awareness: being aware of one’s true nature, or identity. (An enlightened person is known, in Sanskrit, as jnani: an unawakened person as ajnani—a being “not”.) Shankara’s teaching (in Sanskrit) was “tat tvam asi”: That thou art.

The Vedanta advaita teachings of Shankara were basically not different than those of Siddhartha Gautama (563-483 B.C.), the Buddha (Sanskrit for “the awakened”). After six years of ascetic disciplines, the former prince surrendered to “not knowing” and was enlightened at 35, without recourse to a teacher (guru: “who points the way”).

Meanwhile, the teachings of the Tao (“way”, or path) were exemplified in the Tao Te Ching, reputedly written by Lao-Tsu, whose birth is given as around 600 B.C. Taoist emphasis on surrender to “what is” is relevant to the non-separative enlightenment of advaita. China’s teaching successor to Lao-Tsu was considered to be Chuang-Tzu.

When Bodhidharma brought Buddha’s teachings to China in the 5th century A.D., it wedded with the Tao as what we know today as Zen. A major figure in Chinese Zen was Hui-neng (638-713 A.D.), an illiterate woodcutter. He was followed by a lineage of Zen masters, as Zen migrated to Japan in the 14th Century, such as Hakuin. The writings of D.T. Suzuki and Alan Watts have been primary in introducing Zen to the West.

Padmasambhava was the patriarch of Buddhism in Tibet, in the 8th Century. The nondual teachings of Tibetan Buddhism are embodied as Dzochen (zo-chen); also spelled Dzogchen.

Meanwhile, the most enigmatic of Eastern teachers of the nondual presence (who may have been influenced by the earlier, historic teachings), Jesus lived and died. His perspective was at least understood by the German monk Meister Eckhart (1260-1327 A.D.), whose sermons have rarely been translated accurately. The Church regards him as a “mystic”—enlightenment being a forbidden term.

In Islam, the nondual teachings are most readily found in the poetry of Rumi and Hafiz (Persia: 1207-73 A.D. and 1325-90 A.D.); and are categorized as Sufi (rather than Muslim).

The late 1800’s saw the birth of several sages of nondualism of whose words (and existence) we can be confident; such has even been preserved in film and on tape.

Krishnamurti may be the most perplexing of these, but probably none has ever reached a wider audience.

Shankara’s true successor has been Ramana Maharshi. He is primarily the fountainhead of today’s panel of teachers in the West. He is also probably the most direct, due to the profound depth of his awakening.

Among his “lineage” are H.W.L. Poonja, who died in India recently; his American “disciple”, the woman known as Gangaji; and her follower here in Ojai, John Sherman.

A contemporary of Ramana, Nisargadatta lived in India; his primary disciple has been Ramesh Balsekar (also of India).

Today, there are a number of teachers here in the U.S. which are sharing a common message of nonduality, such as: Francis Lucille, Satyam Nadeen, Steven Harrison, Eckhart Tolle, Adyashanti, and Toni Packer (and in England, Tony Parsons)—to name a few.

The sources—old and new—are readily available…plentifully!

]]> Tiger by the Tail http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/03/01/tiger-by-the-tail http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/03/01/tiger-by-the-tail Tue, 01 Mar 2011 13:39:00 +0000 Robert Wolfe http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/03/01/tiger-by-the-tail
Tiger by the Tail [...]]]>
Tiger by the Tail

]]> Looking Anew: The Gospel of Thomas http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/02/21/looking-anew-the-gospel-of-thomas http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/02/21/looking-anew-the-gospel-of-thomas Mon, 21 Feb 2011 18:01:00 +0000 Robert Wolfe http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/02/21/looking-anew-the-gospel-of-thomas The Gospel of Thomas: The Enlightenment Teachings of Jesus]

Throughout history, spiritual traditions of all kinds have [...]]]> The Gospel of Thomas: The Enlightenment Teachings of Jesus]

Throughout history, spiritual traditions of all kinds have employed certain designations in common: principal among these are the words “relative” and “absolute.” The meanings which these words represent are fundamental to the comprehension of the spiritual message. To understand the second of these two words, one must clearly understand the implications of the first word.

That which is relative, according to a dictionary definition, “depends for its identity on some other thing,” and therefore is--as a limited form--“not absolute.” (A discussion of “absolute” follows our consideration of “relative.”)

Anything, in the entire universe, which we have named (or will someday name) derives its existence--as a separate, definable condition or form--by comparison with what it is not; we say that something is “hot” because it definitely is not “cold.” The degree of its “hotness” (e.g. boiling) is in direct relationship to the degree of its “coldness” (e.g. freezing). And the subtlety of each relative term can be dependent upon a comparison with more than just one other thing: for example, the distinctive interrelationships in the triad, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We would say that you are uniquely “you” not just because you are not “me,” but also because you are not any other person in the entire world.

The point of this is that for even one relative category to achieve being, there has to be at least two or more relative categories that “separately” (but co-dependently) also assume being. For “right” to exist as a particular condition, for example, we are dependent upon a condition which we perceive to be its opposite: “wrong.” This “either/or”--relative--bias (in our fundamental process of thinking about what we perceive as “realities”) is what is referred to in spiritual texts as “duality.” This is our customary, habitual, learned pattern of thinking: to think of all things--whether material or immaterial, general or particular--in a relative (or “dualistic”) context.

The question here is: Is it by way of this conventional, dualistic viewpoint that the verses of the Gospel of Thomas--reputed to have been uttered by Jesus--are intended to be understood? If not, what would be the alternative?

What do the particular things (any being, object, or condition), in our conceivable reality, comprise in sum? A whole; totality. For example, one particular thing is the star nearest to us, which we’ve named the “sun”; and such things that orbit around it, we have given other names--such as Venus, Earth, Mars, etc. Another of the named things, relative to this cosmology, is Earth’s galaxy, which has been designated the Milky Way. Taken together, all such classes of things--and their entire constituent elements--are subsumed in the overarching totality that we call the “universe.” The limited, relative entities--suns, planets, galaxies, etc.--are viewed by us as a subset of an all-inclusive cosmic wholeness which is unlimited by any of its comprising forms. The very meaning we’ve attached to the word “universal” is that which “occurs everywhere,” and as such is “all-inclusive.”

The word all has itself historically been used as a prefix in referent phrases depicting “supreme being”--as indicative of “god”--such as the Almighty. The word all is nuanced to mean “any whatsoever,” but also “more than,” and additionally “lone” (or “sole”).

It is this utmost, or ultimate, condition which is the focus of the awareness of the mystic whose sayings the Gospel of Thomas are the record. Jesus, here, is not speaking in the accustomed, dualistic terms of one who emphasizes the importance of the “many,” but of one whose own consciousness is immersed in--and identified with--the “all.” Throughout this Gospel, he makes it abundantly clear that his perspective is that of one who senses an immediate and direct interconnectedness with the supernal totality; and he invariably speaks of this with complete authority.

He views himself not merely as one of the “many” limited entities or forms which give the “all” its reality, but as that fully-encompassing reality itself in its wholeness. Unequivocally, he says; “It is I who am the all.” (77)"* Perceiving his own being as ultimately intrinsic with, and essential to, the universal totality, he adds: “From me did the all [every conceivable thing] come forth, and unto me did the all extend [in form].”†

He is clearly indicating that he knows this all as his own being, and that therefore not anything is absent from such an all-inclusive reality.

“If one who knows the all still feels a personal deficiency,” he remarks, “he is completely deficient.” (67)

Thus, deficient is any person whose perception of reality is limited to an awareness of the “many,” the relative aspects of the apparent universe, rather than recognizing the all- encompassing supercedence of the universal wholeness which knows of no insufficiency.

And the implication--since he is presumably speaking to interested disciples--is that not just he, Jesus, is the “I who am the all,” but that everyone (any other “I”) “who knows the all” will also no longer be personally deficient.

There is no doubt on the part of the addressed disciples, throughout the Gospel, that they clearly recognize that Jesus does indeed maintain a spiritual perspective which is different from their accustomed one. In fact, that is clearly the precise reason that they have been drawn to him as disciples. Like all such who have similarly quested, throughout world history, they desire to discover how the individuated “me” interrelates with the unlimited “all.” They each seek to be for themselves--as with Jesus--“one who knows the all,” in the same direct and immediate way that one knows oneself.

His disciples said to him, “Show us the place where you are, since it is necessary for us to seek it.” (24)

Jesus is evidently intimately familiar with the plight of the seeker and he has a reassuring attitude toward it, in more than one of his responses.

Seek and you will find. (92)

Blessed are the hungry, for the belly of him who desires will be filled. (69)

He compares what is to be found to a “pearl.” He tells of

…a merchant who had a consignment of merchandise and who discovered a pearl. That merchant was shrewd. He sold the merchandise and bought the pearl alone for himself. (76)

And, similarly, he speaks of

…a wise fisherman who cast his net into the sea and drew it up from the sea full of small fish. Among them the wise fisherman found a fine large fish. He threw all the small fish back into the sea and chose the large fish without difficulty.

Lest this point concerning the “many” and the “one” go unnoticed, he then emphasized,

Whoever has ears to hear, let him hear. (8)

Jesus, in this gospel, takes quite seriously the importance of the teachings he offers. He makes it clear that only one who clearly sees the way is in a position to point out the way:

Jesus said, ‘If a blind man leads a blind man, they will both fall into a pit.‘ (34)

And he assumes the responsibility for such guiding leadership; he says of Mary, in response to a criticism by Simon Peter,

I myself shall lead her… (114)

Even more to the point that he has the rare authority to speak firsthand of the transcendent reality, Jesus said,

‘Many times have you desired to hear these words which I am saying to you, and you had no one else to hear them from.’ (38)

He urged his listeners to seek the “unfailing and enduring treasure” (76):

Whoever finds himself is superior to the world. (111)

He holds out this promise:

Jesus said, ‘He who will drink from my mouth will become like me [who am the all]. I myself shall become he, and the things that are hidden will be revealed to him.’ (108)

* A reminder that parenthetical numeration refers to the ordering of verses as found in the Thomas O. Lambdin translation.
† Bracketed constructions are mine.

]]> The Beat Goes On http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/02/03/the-beat-goes-on http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/02/03/the-beat-goes-on Thu, 03 Feb 2011 14:38:00 +0000 Robert Wolfe http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/02/03/the-beat-goes-on
You cannot help but wonder what is the source of the direction for their ordered, cooperative and coordinated behavior. Their communal energy is directed to, and from, the cool and dark subterranean mecca, and you would like to be able to look down in there and try to possibly make sense of what is going on. But you could not, even with delicate scientific instruments, unearth and cross-section this community and expect that its organic mysterium would meanwhile remain intact. Unfortunately, when man observes, man inevitably affects that which is observed.

There is, in truth, no observer which can be apart or disconnected from that which is observed. For as long as we view the mystery of existence as a question which can be posed and answered by the questioner, as subject to object, we cannot be one with, or wholly involved in, the question. Asking “Who am I?” is to irreparably sever the “I” from the “Who”. There is no “I”, there is no “Who”, there is only being. The “Who” does not issue forth the “I”, and the “I” does not return to the “Who”. That consciousness which we know as a fragment—the personal self—can never know the consciousness which is wholly unfragmented, or “universal"…the consciousness which transcends individuated intelligence and is your true self and that of the ant.

]]> Video mention on Samaddi.com http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/01/31/video-mention-on-samaddi-com http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/01/31/video-mention-on-samaddi-com Mon, 31 Jan 2011 08:21:00 +0000 Robert Wolfe http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/01/31/video-mention-on-samaddi-com http://www.samaddi.com/spiritualvideos/2011/01/living-nonduality-interview-with-robert-wolfe/ [...]]]> http://www.samaddi.com/spiritualvideos/2011/01/living-nonduality-interview-with-robert-wolfe/

]]> New Nisargadatta website http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/01/26/new-nisargadatta-website http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/01/26/new-nisargadatta-website Wed, 26 Jan 2011 13:01:00 +0000 Robert Wolfe http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2011/01/26/new-nisargadatta-website
From the website: "Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj was an Indian spiritual teacher and philosopher of Advaita (Nondualism), and a Guru, belonging to the Navnath Sampradaya. Sri Nisargadatta, with his direct and minimalistic explanation of non-dualism, is considered the most famous teacher of Advaita since Ramana [...]]]>
From the website: "Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj was an Indian spiritual teacher and philosopher of Advaita (Nondualism), and a Guru, belonging to the Navnath Sampradaya. Sri Nisargadatta, with his direct and minimalistic explanation of non-dualism, is considered the most famous teacher of Advaita since Ramana Maharshi. In 1973, the publication of his most famous and widely-translated book, "I AM THAT", an English translation of his talks in Marathi by Maurice Frydman, brought him worldwide recognition and followers."

books listing with previews.

]]> "What is missing?" http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/12/18/what-is-missing http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/12/18/what-is-missing Sat, 18 Dec 2010 14:31:28 +0000 Robert Wolfe http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/12/18/what-is-missing
Part A: For 3,500 years of written history, the spiritual teachers have insisted that the Absolute actuality (which we claim to be [...]]]>
Part A: For 3,500 years of written history, the spiritual teachers have insisted that the Absolute actuality (which we claim to be looking for) is omnipresent, present everywhere, at all times. If that's not clear, the Vedas emphasize: "present at every point in space and time." That means here, now -- wherever here is to you, and whenever now is to you. Even more directly, the Vedas say "nowhere is it not." This tells us that it must be not only externally located, but internally as well. Therefore, the Vedas say, Tat Tvam Asi: That Thou Art, or as Nisargadatta's book is entitled, I Am That.

Part B: Part A tells us that if I am That, I am not the isolated "person" or "individual" I have been conditioned to suppose that I am. When it is fully recognized that I and That are the same inseparable reality (That being all-encompassing, all inclusive), the sense of being something apart from That dissolves. Self-identity, the self "image," evaporates.

If that hasn't happened in terms of what you call "knowing," then contemplate Parts A and B to discern what is evidently "missing."

What is it that we evidently ignore? Part A, and consequently, Part B. Why do we ignore these?

The proposition is too simple.
It means the dissolution of the self-centeredness we've known all our life; that is, the only thing we've ever "known". It means dying to our present "reality".

]]> recent highlight http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/11/19/recent-highlight http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/11/19/recent-highlight Fri, 19 Nov 2010 10:48:00 +0000 Robert Wolfe http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/11/19/recent-highlight
http://www.ourtotalawakening.com/2010/11/16/living-nonduality/ [...]]]>
http://www.ourtotalawakening.com/2010/11/16/living-nonduality/

]]> A Glimpse of Merging http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/11/13/a-glimpse-of-merging http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/11/13/a-glimpse-of-merging Sat, 13 Nov 2010 14:34:00 +0000 Robert Wolfe http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/11/13/a-glimpse-of-merging
If you listen to electronic recordings of “spiritual” workshops, satsanga, retreats etc., you will frequently hear this comment from attendees: “I had a glimpse of the ultimate state once. But it has disappeared.” The reason for this is simple: the commentator has not transcended the subject/object perspective: there has been a “glimpse” to a “glimpser”; there was a persistent “I” in relation to a “spiritual experience.” In other words, the participant hasn’t fundamentally understood and transcended the perspective which we call dualism. The seeker’s presumption was that “I can have an experience of the One.” And so there is an “I” on the one hand, and “the One” on the other hand.

Every “experience” is impermanent; it occurs within the time frame of an “experiencer.” As the time–bound experience concludes, the experiencer’s I-consciousness recurs. There remains the “I” with its “glimpse.”

With the “I” remaining central to one’s perception, there will be no radical change in one’s self-centered life matrix. Only when this I-centered perspective has irretrievably dissolved will there be the true groundswell of matrix-breaking enlightenment.

Clearly, it is not uncommon for weekend “spiritual” participants to have an experience of a “glimpse” of “merging.” But when they come away from that “training” with the dualistic I/It mindset still unconsciously in place, there will be no permanent, substantial realization of the annihilating perspective known as nonduality ─ a permanent, thorough, annihilating change of the “experiencer” perception.

****

Unpublished manuscript.

]]> A Bitter Pill http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/11/13/a-bitter-pill http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/11/13/a-bitter-pill Sat, 13 Nov 2010 14:22:00 +0000 Robert Wolfe http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/11/13/a-bitter-pill One could say that there is not now, and has never been, a thinker/doer or ‘I’. Further, the I is an illusory entity. And, without the I, no thoughts arise that are of a selfish, separative, dualistic nature.

To a Buddha (a person with nondual awareness), there are no separate beings. There is, instead, a “nature [...]]]> One could say that there is not now, and has never been, a thinker/doer or ‘I’. Further, the I is an illusory entity. And, without the I, no thoughts arise that are of a selfish, separative, dualistic nature.

To a Buddha (a person with nondual awareness), there are no separate beings. There is, instead, a “nature of mind” that is common to all beings; it has always been the only mind. As such, there is no separate mind that could substantiate an independent entity who thinks thoughts, such as those of an “individual being.” The nature of mind has no will or intention that controls or directs individual beings ─ since the nature of mind is indivisible, undivided.

A person with nondual awareness, therefore, does not conceive in terms of separate beings, separate minds, or an individual’s thoughts ─ since there has never been a separate entity which could be a thinker, doer or I. Indeed, thoughts cannot arise outside of the Ground, just as the trees, plants and animals cannot arise outside of the Ground, and nothing can be without “that.” The Ground is the background within which everything arises, and has it being ─ including every thought, emotion, feeling and experience. We are not our bodies, the aware person realizes, we are this vast field of presence.

Consequently, a Buddha views every thought (including the I-thought), emotion or feeling (including love and hate) and experience (as action of every sort) as the expression of the Ground or nature of mind ─ our real nature, the essence of what we are.

A Buddha’s realization is not merely that the construct of I does not in reality apply to himself, but it does not legitimately apply to any human being as well. When the concept of I, as a separate individual disappears, the concept of you, or “others,” disappears concomitantly. All that remains is the pure, common ground of being and awareness, indivisibly. No “you” and “I”, just “that,” no independent thinkers, doers or individuals. No illusory entities capable of creating either selfish or selfless acts.

From that perspective an aware person makes no judgments about the behavior of “others” ─ whether murderers or ministers.

But for those who are inclined to focus on the aberrant thoughts or actions of “others,” this equanimity is a bitter pill to swallow.

Nisargadatta would express this perception this way:

Q: Maybe I can come to control myself, but shall I be able to deal with the chaos in the world?
N: There is no chaos in the world, except the chaos which your mind creates. It is self-created, in the sense that at its very Centre is the false idea of oneself as a thing different and separate from other things. In reality you are not a thing, nor separate.
Q: Nevertheless, you are aware of the immense suffering of the world?
N: Of course I am, much more than you are.
Q: Then what do you do?
N: I look at it through the eyes of God and find that all is well.

Ramana would say the same, using different terms: “When ‘I’ is given up, it is jnana (realization)…Hence it is said that a jnani’s mind is Brahman; Brahman is certainly no other than the jnani’s mind…In that state, there is Being alone. There is no you, nor I, nor he…The question does not arise when the Self is realized....

“After the rising up of the I-thought, all other thoughts arise. The I-thought is therefore the root-thought. If the root is pulled out, all ‘other’ thoughts are at the same time uprooted… Then the Beyond will take care of itself; you are helpless there…

“Is the Self concerned with [our] actions?...There is no karma (result of action) without a doer. On seeking for the doer, he disappears. Where is karma then?...

“Until realization, there will be karma ─ action, reaction. After realization, there will be no karma; no ‘world’…

“That ego…is the same as the Self. So long as false self-identification persists, questions will arise; there will be no end of them. Doubts will cease only when the non-self is put to an end. That will result in realization of the Self. There will remain no ‘other’ there to doubt or to ask.”

Nor to concern itself with the “individual” thoughts and actions of perceived miscreants, who in their very essence are expressions of the same nature of mind.

]]> Part 2, Interview at Simply This http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/11/13/part-2-interview-at-simply-this http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/11/13/part-2-interview-at-simply-this Sat, 13 Nov 2010 14:18:00 +0000 Robert Wolfe http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/11/13/part-2-interview-at-simply-this
2. How is it possible to feel compassion or concern for others yet be detached from suffering?

Read at Simply [...]]]>
2. How is it possible to feel compassion or concern for others yet be detached from suffering?

Read at Simply This

]]> Simply This interview http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/10/15/simply-this-interview http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/10/15/simply-this-interview Fri, 15 Oct 2010 16:04:00 +0000 Robert Wolfe http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/10/15/simply-this-interview
http://simplythisnow.blogspot.com/2010/10/interview-with-robert-wolfe-living.html [...]]]>
http://simplythisnow.blogspot.com/2010/10/interview-with-robert-wolfe-living.html

]]> Ramana Maharshi: Padamalai http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/09/21/ramana-maharshi-padamalai http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/09/21/ramana-maharshi-padamalai Tue, 21 Sep 2010 14:27:00 +0000 Robert Wolfe http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/09/21/ramana-maharshi-padamalai
It also has a more useful subject index than the index in Talks with Ramana, and has a glossary [...]]]>
It also has a more useful subject index than the index in Talks with Ramana, and has a glossary of Tamil and Sanskrit words.

Ramana's teachings (usually Q-and-A) are interspersed with verses by poet/disciple Muruganar, but these verses are really optional reading since they merely attempt to reflect what Ramana says (much more clearly) by his own tongue. With the verses passed over, the books is basically a short version of an addenda to Talks with Ramana, though some of the material appears in both. There's also a bibliography, for those who insist on more reading!

]]> Ramana's Power of Presence http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/09/21/ramanas-power-of-presence http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/09/21/ramanas-power-of-presence Tue, 21 Sep 2010 14:18:00 +0000 Robert Wolfe http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/09/21/ramanas-power-of-presence
In a marginal way, it is also a testimony to Indians' generosity to the needy, their endurance of discomfort, their devoted service to a [...]]]>
In a marginal way, it is also a testimony to Indians' generosity to the needy, their endurance of discomfort, their devoted service to a teacher, and their obsession with having - or wanting to have - phenomenal religious experiences (which, when they do have them, they seem to learn little from.)

This latter despite their guru Ramana's teachings:

"What is perceived by our senses and the mind is never the truth. All 'visions' are mere mental creations. And if you believe in them, your progress ceases!

"Enquire to whom the [experiences] occur. Find out who is their witness...Don't move out of that state."

But the volumes are more directly a discovery of the aspects of Ramana's presence which one might not expect - such as the times when he chastises, cajoles, or cries. There are dozens of such examples.

]]> Getting to know Ramana http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/09/21/getting-to-know-ramana http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/09/21/getting-to-know-ramana Tue, 21 Sep 2010 14:07:00 +0000 Robert Wolfe http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/09/21/getting-to-know-ramana Be As You Are: The Teachings of Sri Ramana Maharshi. Don't skip the Introduction. Its 244 pages include a glossary and index. A good place to start.

The late Arthur Osborne was a western student of Ramana, and edited The Collected Works of [...]]]> Be As You Are: The Teachings of Sri Ramana Maharshi. Don't skip the Introduction. Its 244 pages include a glossary and index. A good place to start.

The late Arthur Osborne was a western student of Ramana, and edited The Collected Works of Ramana Maharshi. Not a lot was written by Ramana himself, and Osborne explains much about what was. The Preface repays reading. The 192 pages include glossary and index. Ramana wrote in Tamil, and many references are to Vedanta.

These are good preparations for Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi (the major source for his direct teachings) some 650 brief transcribed Q-and-A on many topics (with students or with visitors) over about four years (in late 1930's). 683 pages, with extensive glossary and index, it is best read after the above books. A thorough bibliography at the back will lead you to many other books, of many sorts, to follow with.

]]> Being Ordinary interview with Robert Wolfe http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/08/22/being-ordinary-interview-with-robert-wolfe http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/08/22/being-ordinary-interview-with-robert-wolfe Sun, 22 Aug 2010 08:10:00 +0000 Robert Wolfe http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/08/22/being-ordinary-interview-with-robert-wolfe Living Nonduality.

Robert Wolfe Interview

This is a quote from the 'About' page:

"Being Ordinary is a website created by two friends, Tom [...]]]> Living Nonduality.

Robert Wolfe Interview

This is a quote from the 'About' page:

"Being Ordinary is a website created by two friends, Tom and Mike, and is dedicated to the expression and exploration of what it truly means to be a human being. Ideas such as Enlightenment, Awakening or Self-Realisation, often serve to distract us from the ordinary and mundane from which we assume we must escape or transcend. Yet if seen clearly, simple and directly, the ordinary can lead us into total acceptance and end the search for something ‘extra’."

Tom is also the author of The Last Beyond.

]]> Visitors from around the world http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/08/16/visitors-from-around-the-world http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/08/16/visitors-from-around-the-world Mon, 16 Aug 2010 20:59:00 +0000 Robert Wolfe http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/08/16/visitors-from-around-the-world
]]> Have you read Deepak Chopra's book that says Jesus taught Enlightenment? http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/08/03/have-you-read-deepak-chopras-book-that-says-jesus-taught-enlightenment http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/08/03/have-you-read-deepak-chopras-book-that-says-jesus-taught-enlightenment Tue, 03 Aug 2010 14:44:00 +0000 Robert Wolfe http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/08/03/have-you-read-deepak-chopras-book-that-says-jesus-taught-enlightenment
Quotes from Jesus: A [...]]]>
Quotes from Jesus: A Story of Enlightenment:

Enlightenment has existed in every age. The path from suffering and separation to bliss and unity with God is well-marked...

Seen from the perspective of Buddha or the ancient rishis ("seers") of India, Jesus attained enlightenment.

Chopra surmises that:

Jesus wanted his followers - and us - to reach the same unity with God that he had reached...Jesus was a teacher of higher consciousness, not just a shining example of it.

He told his disciples that they would do everything he could do and more.

He called them the 'light of the world', the same term he applied to himself.

He pointed toward the Kingdom of Heaven as an eternal state of grace, not a faraway place, hidden above the clouds.

In short, the Jesus who is left out of the New Testament turns out to be, in many ways, the most important Jesus for modern times.

This Jesus is, in Chopra's view, "intensely absorbed in the question 'Who am I?'"

Chopra's Jesus and the Jesus of the Gospel of Thomas spoke the same language of nondual awareness. That is the discovery that gives foundations to Chopra's envisioning of Jesus.

As former theology professor Micael Ledwith has said of Chopra's 2008 narrative,

If you think that all that could be said about Jesus has already been said, then this book will be an eye-opener in the best sense of those words.

I would like the same to be said about my next book with Karina Library Press, that The Gospel of Thomas: The Enlightenment Teachings of Jesus is an eye-opening non-fiction exploration of the teachings of Jesus as recorded in the Gospel of Thomas. It provides in-depth background and scriptural evidence for Chopra's insightful conjecture that Jesus taught nondual awareness; the evidence has been waiting there in the Thomas for two thousand years.

More on the book can be found at Karina Library: The Gospel of Thomas: The Enlightenment Teachings of Jesus

]]> Living Nonduality: How Suffering Ends http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/08/03/living-nonduality-how-suffering-ends http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/08/03/living-nonduality-how-suffering-ends Tue, 03 Aug 2010 09:39:00 +0000 Robert Wolfe http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/08/03/living-nonduality-how-suffering-ends
Martin: "When I realize that the Absolute is in the Relative, and the Relative is in the Absolute, I have [...]]]>
An excerpt from a conversation between Robert Wolfe, author of Living Nonduality, and Martin Weiner, founder of the Explorer Training; the starting point is a quote from J. Krishnamurti: "Where there is division, there is conflict".

Martin: "When I realize that the Absolute is in the Relative, and the Relative is in the Absolute, I have the opportunity to not act..."

]]> Ramana Maharshi's Question: Who Am I? http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/08/03/ramana-maharshis-question-who-am-i http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/08/03/ramana-maharshis-question-who-am-i Tue, 03 Aug 2010 09:34:00 +0000 Robert Wolfe http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/08/03/ramana-maharshis-question-who-am-i Livng Nonduality and the upcoming Gospel of Thomas: The Enlightenment Teachings of Jesus, and Martin Weiner, sculpture and founder of the Explorer Training. They take as a starting point Ramana's question: Who Am I? [...]]]>
Excerpt from a conversation on the relationship of the Absolute & the Relative between Robert Wolfe, author of Livng Nonduality and the upcoming Gospel of Thomas: The Enlightenment Teachings of Jesus, and Martin Weiner, sculpture and founder of the Explorer Training. They take as a starting point Ramana's question: Who Am I?

]]> Robert Wolfe Radio Interview http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/08/03/robert-wolfe-radio-interview http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/08/03/robert-wolfe-radio-interview Tue, 03 Aug 2010 09:21:00 +0000 Robert Wolfe http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/08/03/robert-wolfe-radio-interview interview with Robert Wolfe on Living Nonduality. [...]]]> interview with Robert Wolfe on Living Nonduality.

]]> Mind - Thoughts - Actions http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/08/03/mind-thoughts-actions http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/08/03/mind-thoughts-actions Tue, 03 Aug 2010 09:15:00 +0000 Robert Wolfe http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/08/03/mind-thoughts-actions Robert Wolfe, author of Living Nonduality and the upcoming
Excerpt from a meeting at the Krishnamurti Library in Ojai, California with Robert Wolfe, author of Living Nonduality and the upcoming Gospel of Thomas: The Enlightenment Teachings of Jesus.

]]> Science as Spirituality http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/06/24/science-as-spirituality http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/06/24/science-as-spirituality Thu, 24 Jun 2010 11:24:00 +0000 Robert Wolfe http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/06/24/science-as-spirituality

But the evidence has not gone away; nor is it being ignored by those who recognize its significance.

Superhuman intelligence, by its definition, is not limited by human standards. Humans are constrained by such relative considerations as, for example, time and space; humans are not accorded such exalted descriptions as omniscient, omnipresent or omnipotent. But some scientists have long suspected that there is an intelligent hand-print on the canvas of reality which is other than—and far surpasses—the human alone.

Physicists speak of “locality” and “nonlocality”. A locus is a place: it has a particular relationship to space; and a location can change with time. Cause and effect, too, are related to time and space: a cue ball, which is here, “now” strikes a billiard ball, which is there, “then” deflecting it into a side pocket. The cue ball is said to be the cause of an effect on the billiard ball: a “local” event has transpired.

The best way in which to translate “nonlocality” is to say that events in this category are not confined to a relationship in time or space. Put another way, nonlocality is transcendent of locality, similar to the way that the omnipotent would have to be transcendent of cause-and-effect.

Physicist David Bohm, as a consequence of his quantum research, began to sense a nonlocal reality at the base of our physical universe. A development in physics had made it clear that an observer (experimenter) cannot be considered to be objectively isolated from the observed (experiment): in other words, an experiment is not unaffected by the experimenter. Indeed, physics had gone so far as to conclude, as a result of laboratory experiments, that the outcome of an experiment can depend upon the intent of the physicist's investigation. If the cause (physicist's intent) cannot be conclusively separated from the effect (experimental outcome), what are the broader implications for assumptions based on “locality”?

In 1959, David Bohm read his first book authored by the sage Krishnamurti. This initiated a series of dialogues between him and Krishnamurti (such as that published as The Ending of Time). By 1974, Bohm had (co-)authored a paper entitled “On the Intuitive Understanding of Nonlocality as Implied by Quantum Theory”.

“Parts”, said the theoretical physicist, “are seen to be in immediate connection...extending ultimately and in principle to the entire universe. Thus one is led to a new notion of unbroken wholeness which denies the classical idea of analyzability of the world into separately and independently-existent parts…”

Bohm's earlier writings along these lines inspired another physicist, John Bell, the author of Bell's Theorem. Bell initially set out to disprove the principle of nonlocality, but his mathematical conclusions actually supported Bohm's premise. However, though proof, it was merely on paper.
The mechanics of the calculations in Bell's Theorem lent themselves to laboratory experiments—most notably one in 1982 performed by physicists in Paris.

Because the description of such experiments can become so technical as to be opaque, the following will be so oversimplified that it may contain some omissive errors. However, various scientific reports of this material are available for you to verify at your local library (such as the article I will later quote).

Suppose that you simultaneously fired off, in different directions, “paired” photons. By paired, we mean that one of them, say, was negatively charged, while its twin was positively charged. Let us say that, mid-flight, the polarity of one of the photons was mechanically switched. This change should not affect the other photon, causally, since both are racing away in entirely different directions.

And, yet, the remaining photon will simultaneously react to the identity switch of its twin—by instantly reversing its own polarity.

Such a supernatural occurrence—as that demonstrated to be physical actuality just twenty-seven years ago—can have only one reasonable explanation, in terms of “locality” or normal causality: somehow the first photon communicated its change of state to the second photon.

However, in our known portion of the universe, anything which moves (or is transmissible)—within the confines of relative time and space—is limited to an upward speed. Not anything, in the natural world, can be “propagated” at faster than the speed of light, according to a fundament of physics. Therefore, any earthly message which is transmitted between subatomic particles could be communicated, over a distance, at no more than 186,000 miles per second.

Twelve years ago (May 1997), the experiment was repeated, this time outside of a laboratory. Given the minuscule size of a subatomic particle, any interactions over a mile or so apart are akin to “universal” distances. The experiment was conducted by a physics team at the University of Geneva, who effected the phenomenon at a distance of approximately seven miles.

"Measurements at the two sites”, says the Encyclopedia Britannica Online (Year in Review: 1997), “showed that each photon ‘knew’ its partner's state in less time than a signal traveling at light speed could have conveyed the information—a vindication of the [nonlocality] theory of quantum mechanics (but a problem, for some, for theories of causation).”

Without speculating about an omnipresent field of omniscience that is transcendent of cause-and-effect, it can at least be said that it has been proven to be a fact of life that an unearthly intelligence is present in our physical sphere.

How many people do you know (you, of course, excepted) who are aware of this scientific—not “merely” spiritual—truth? By its very nature, such information will be sequestered to the science page of the Daily Times: the copy editor is saving the 34-point red italics for the Second Coming of Christ.

There is another reason—aside from its obscuration in technical jargon—that the man-in-the-street will not be aware of paranormal discoveries (this, and more yet to come). Such powerful information is co-opted by the military. As I write this, physicists in government research facilities, of the major powers, are siphoning this research into a system for the transmission of codes (negative and positive photons can represent the zeros and ones of binary encoding, and changes in their polarity can signal a message).

But there is an even more critical reason why such information will be overlooked or dismissed, even though it can no longer be categorized as mere conjecture. If there is indeed a supernatural force or intelligence, it is not unreasonable to suppose that it forms “an immediate connection” between every particle (and antiparticle) throughout the realm of space and time, “nonlocally”: “extending”, as Bohm put it, “ultimately and in principle to the entire universe”. It would connect the observer (me) and the observed (you) in an “unbroken wholeness which denies the classical idea…of…separately and independently-existent parts”.

Do we live that way, with a recognition and acknowledgement—unequivocally—that this is the actual, physical condition of our biosphere ? Or do we ignore this truth, even when it is proven?

]]> Who Is God? http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/06/24/who-is-god http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/06/24/who-is-god Thu, 24 Jun 2010 11:13:00 +0000 Robert Wolfe http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/06/24/who-is-god

“Who sees not God everywhere”, as Meister Eckhart said, “sees God nowhere.” If the Almighty is indeed everywhere, that must include where you are standing. In other words, one who recognizes the nature of the Absolute recognizes that God is one’s own personage. But it is not to say that the Absolute is confined to any particular personage. The shrub outside of your window is no less God. The realization is not that you are God alone, but that you are—along with all else that is—God. To suppose that you were God alone would be to suppose that God is a singular entity, with the capacity to stand apart from other entities. Such is a notion which many orthodox religionists hold, which prohibits them from recognizing, and acknowledging, their own identity as God.

No one is more—or less—Godly than you.

]]> Awakening is not self-improvement http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/05/03/awakening-is-not-self-improvement http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/05/03/awakening-is-not-self-improvement Mon, 03 May 2010 16:15:00 +0000 Robert Wolfe http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/05/03/awakening-is-not-self-improvement Living Nonduality at the Krishnamurti Library in Ojai, California. [...]]]> Living Nonduality at the Krishnamurti Library in Ojai, California.

"The most misunderstood aspect of the unfolding of unitive awareness is that somehow it results in self-improvement. To the contrary, the entire thrust of spiritual awakening is toward self-erasure."

]]> Ancient and Modern Nondual Teachers http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/05/03/ancient-and-modern-nondual-teachers http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/05/03/ancient-and-modern-nondual-teachers Mon, 03 May 2010 15:55:00 +0000 Robert Wolfe http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/05/03/ancient-and-modern-nondual-teachers

Related blog post:Plain Talk

]]> Interview with Robert Wolfe on Living Nonduality http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/05/03/interview-with-robert-wolfe-on-living-nonduality http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/05/03/interview-with-robert-wolfe-on-living-nonduality Mon, 03 May 2010 15:54:00 +0000 Robert Wolfe http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/05/03/interview-with-robert-wolfe-on-living-nonduality The Absolute Enigma. [...]]]>
Related: The Absolute Enigma.

]]> Starting a Revolution http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/05/03/starting-a-revolution http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/05/03/starting-a-revolution Mon, 03 May 2010 15:13:00 +0000 Robert Wolfe http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/05/03/starting-a-revolution
It is obvious that, under this circumstance, we develop [...]]]>
It is obvious that, under this circumstance, we develop “self-interest”: primary concern for the welfare of one human being before all others. It is evident that a self-centered focus inevitably results in selfish behavior. In a world in which each person’s priority is to advance one’s own interests, it is unavoidable that conflict will result.

A world in conflict is not a stable or secure environment in which to live: it is difficult to make practical plans for the future, where unpredictable disruption is virtually certain. Therefore—even though our own selfish behavior may be contributing to the potential for destructive developments—we recognize that it is in our own self interest to encourage cooperation.

The consequence of this contradictory dilemma, for most everyone, is a form of externalizing. We look out upon the world of self-important persons, or collective groups of such persons, and conclude that “they” are at the root of the problem. In our own self-concern, we ponder how we can encourage them to cooperate rather than compete.

The contrary option requires us to embark ourselves upon the course we advocate: to dispense with self-interest as our primary concern. It is a consequence of internalizing, of “looking within” and acknowledging that we have not yet relinquished self-centeredness ourself.

Where, do you suppose, we have the greatest prospect in convincing a person to eradicate selfish behavior: ourself, who comprehends its necessity; or another person, who may or may not be thoroughly convinced?

There is only one way in which you have definite assurance that selfishness will be reduced in the world. Once you have accomplished that, for yourself, you will be best qualified to instruct others in how it can be done.

There is a clear and continuing need for such instructors. Indeed, if there were such a thing as a social duty, it would be to labor in the vineyard uprooting selfishness. Your first obligation, then, would appear to be to discontinue externalizing and—with intensified focus—internally eradicate the self who persistently operates in a vacuum.

But how can the self eradicate the self—rationally, a contradiction? Could it be possible that our earliest assumption, that we even exist as a separate self, is fundamentally a misapprehension? Some aver that our earliest condition of consciousness—before we considered our “self”—was without any perception of self or not-self. It is, further, alleged this primal consciousness is the platform upon which our subsequent sense of self arises. In the same manner in which that sense of self has arisen, it can again subside. In other words, they say, the assumption of self existence is not entirely necessary to the function of operative consciousness.

If this is so, if our consciousness can operate without the perception of a “self” or non-self (“other”), this could have a profound effect on our self-conscious behavior, couldn’t it?

To discover for oneself whether or not such an operative form of consciousness is a practical possibility, as some of sound mind have claimed, would seem to merit more of our attention than that directed toward fruitless externalizing.

Were we to discover for ourselves such a possibility, perhaps we might then have some effect on the “me” against “them” mindset among our neighbors.

]]> Substantive Enlightenment http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/05/03/substantive-enlightenment http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/05/03/substantive-enlightenment Mon, 03 May 2010 15:01:00 +0000 Robert Wolfe http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/05/03/substantive-enlightenment meaning of enlightenment? The literal meaning of the word enlighten is “to give the light of fact to; reveal truths; to free from ignorance; to make clear the nature of something: illuminate”.

And so we speak of an “enlightened scientist”, such as Galileo. Until only about 400 years ago, [...]]]> meaning of enlightenment? The literal meaning of the word enlighten is “to give the light of fact to; reveal truths; to free from ignorance; to make clear the nature of something: illuminate”.

And so we speak of an “enlightened scientist”, such as Galileo. Until only about 400 years ago, it was rational (reasonable) to suppose that the sun revolved around the earth, since it is apparent that the sun “rises” in the east and “sets” in the west. However, when it is clearly understood that the earth is a globe (which became obvious once navigators were able to sail around it), it is evident that the sun never actually “rises” from anywhere; it is, instead, the surfaces of the earth—in the globe's revolution—which rise to meet the illumination of the sun.

Now every rational person is an “enlightened scientist” (science means “to know”) today, because of Galileo; he was “enlightened” (free from ignorance) because he was aware of what the vast majority of people were not yet aware.

By the same token, there are other enlightened scientists (who are actually “investigators”) today. Although the form of light has always appeared to be that of a ray or beam, Einstein's theories predicted that light could be observed in the form of particles (“discrete packets” of energy dubbed quanta). Because Einstein's other theories had generally proven true (he had demonstrated his capacity to “reveal truths”), research scientists set about to determine whether this could possibly be true—however irrational it sounded. And, indeed, Einstein's enlightenment has been transmitted.

Subsequent experiments have even surpassed Einstein's intuition. Experimental physicists have discovered that if you set up an experiment to monitor light in its particulate form, it will appear as particles. But if you set up your experiment to observe light in its radiant form, it will appear as a vibratory wave. Such experiments have been replicated so many times that physicists now accept—and operate on—the fact that light does not only take the form of waves, or just particles, but both, depending upon the circumstances of observation.

Therefore, when we speak about light “waves” or light “particles”, we are speaking about the same thing. Prior to the enlightenment of science on this matter, no rational person would have maintained that a wave and a particle were interchangeably the same thing: merely different names, or description, for the fundamentally same phenomenon.

Another source of illumination for man’s science has been the discovery of a level of radiant heat in the galactic universe which indicates a primeval combustion or “explosion”. It suggests that there is a point to which all matter in the universe can be traced back to its original or common origin (so-called “Big Bang”). Out of the material of the stars, all substances we know on earth today—including our fleshy bodies—were formed. We could as well call every tree “stardust”, refer to every rock as “stardust”, and give every bird the generic name of “stardust”.

If a scientist these days were to make a comment that, “Everything is the same: it's all stardust”, another scientist would acknowledge the basic truth of his statement. But that statement, a hundred years ago, would not have been commonly accepted.

If we were to make a similarly unorthodox statement and say, “The observer is the observed”, this would not appear to be so. Our currently common (due to our training or conditioning) way of appraising this proposition would be to say, “If I am the observer, and I observe a tree, I am not the tree!” But if the proposition were phrased, “The stardust is the stardust”, the deeper meaning of the equation would be clearer; and by examining the content of this paraphrase, one can see that it points to the same conclusion as saying, “There is only stardust; everything is the same.”
If I were to take a wide bowl, full of water, and dip a spoon into it, then ask a science student, “What is this?”, she would logically reply, “A spoonful of liquid.” That would be the label or name for the exhibit—just as “a human being” is the label for what you are. If I were to take another teaspoon, dip out a second portion and hold it alongside the first, its label would be “a different spoonful of liquid”, or, alternately, a “separate spoonful”. I might even switch to a tablespoon and dip out a bigger spoonful. If I were to name the first one “Me”, and the second one “You”, we could call this third one (by way of illustration) “God”.

But what is the underlying common characteristic of all these spoonfuls of liquid? It is water. When these “separate” spoonfuls are released back into their common source of origination, the bowl, what was their condition prior to being labeled? They were all one—and the same—thing: undifferentiated water. In this reservoir, there could be no such distinguishing entities as “observer” and “observed”. If there were any “observing” at all going on within the water, it would have to be one portion of the water observing itself as an associated portion of the water.
Therefore, the full implication of the proposal that “the observer is the observed” is that the observer which is observing “that” is none other than “that” in another (or different) form, observing itself.

The intuitive recognition, or realization, of the fundamental rightness of this cosmic, or universal, relationship (or, more rightly, principle) “frees from ignorance” and “makes clear the nature” of the truth of our actuality. It is “enlightenment”.

However, we might say, enlightenment is as enlightenment does. Although Galileo's illumination changed him in no way except for his newly-aware perception, if he had ignored the importance of his insight, or realization, he would not have expressed himself as an enlightened scientist. If Einstein had said, “These intuitions cannot be true, because they are not entirely logical or indisputably rational”, an unknown German would one day have retired from the patent office.

Although it still appears that the sun revolves around the earth, once you have recognized that this is simply ignorance, you do not persist in referring to the earth as “the center of God's universe”. And once enlightened to the significance of the deep meaning of “the observer is the observed”, you do not revert to the myopic question, “Then why do I seem to be separate from the tree?”

Where there has been penetrating clarity, such a question will not be seriously entertained. Any “me” which has the capacity to wonder about the universe is recognized to be nothing other than an aspect and expression of the universe.

Your consciousness which asserts that it is “conscious” of “consciousness” is nothing more than absolute consciousness in awareness of its very own presence. The stardust which this consciousness identifies as “you”, standing in awe at the stardust of the galaxy, is the ineffable—embracing itself in its varied forms.

Even if we were to simply state that “You are that”, it would merely compound the matter. When you acknowledge that all is that, every sense of division is recognized to be merely misperception.

That which is, is; it has no obligation to follow man's notion of what is rational. To comprehend that the observer is the observed is to witness the disappearance of the “observer”, the “observed”, and the “observing”. That which remains is our own true nature. The “making clear” of our nature is enlightenment—“that which is” in comprehension of itself.

Once this comprehension is present, the false appearances fall away (are seen through) and thus the proposition is self-evident, similar to the way that a mathematical equation is self-proving.

]]> Your Departure Time http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/05/03/your-departure-time http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/05/03/your-departure-time Mon, 03 May 2010 14:46:00 +0000 Robert Wolfe http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/05/03/your-departure-time
The questions you ask about external [...]]]>
The questions you ask about external “realities” will not get you where you want to go.

The solution to the dilemma of spiritual confusion cannot be found in propositions of logic. “If A=B and B=C, then C must equal A” makes sense from the standpoint of the material world. But what you are seeking—every teacher has said—is beyond the confines of time, distance or causation: in other words, not limited to a question-and-answer paradigm.

All of the teachers tell you to look for what you are seeking within, not outward in terms of conceptual forms.

More specifically, the teachers tell you to discover the source of the questions, instead of pursuing answers to questions.

Questions are gate 10. The source is gate 8. Don’t ignore the departure board: “Go to gate 8. You will waste your life if you go to gate 10.”

To take just three teachers alone, Buddha, Ramana and Krishnamurti taught for a combined total of more than 150 years. None of the three retired before they died, so evidently none “finished the job early” of transmitting the Truth. That is because the Truth contains a tough message.
The tough message is that when you close your eyes for the final time, the “you” who you maintain that you are—and everyone of its questions and answers—will entirely disappear, completely evaporate. So, of what value are these things? Ultimately, none.

The only thing that is of any value to you during this lifetime is to perceive the true nature of what it is that is dreaming this dream.

The “you”, and all that you think is important, is a dream. What is real? This is the only question that you need to concern yourself with.

Could it be that there is That which is beyond time, which therefore is so permanent that there is no “arrival” and no “departure” for it? We know that every thing in the material, external realm “comes” and “goes”. What is more “real”: that which is impermanent, or That which persists when everything else has come and gone?

If the latter, is it possible that this timeless actuality is the “background” for all of the transience that is as un-real as a dream? If so, is this the source, the fountainhead, from which all that we perceive makes its “appearance?”

If this is the source of all that is impermanent, is it not the source from which “you” emerge? And, by extension, isn’t it the source from which your thoughts and questions arise?

So, what is more important, contemplating the answers to an endless stream of (ultimately useless) questions, or contemplating your innate source? The teachers urge, “Look within.” Isn’t that a clue? If they said, “Keep your attention busy with asking endless questions” that would be a different kind of clue, wouldn’t it?

That’s why the teachers find the teachings to be a tough sell. When we look within, we discover that we are not who we thought we were. And this might just change our lives, and our lifestyles. It’s possible that we may not “like” what we find behind gate 8. Buddhists, for example, call it the Void. “Void” means “nothing”: 0.

That’s where the answers to all the questions lead: ultimately no where; to the source that has no specific location, no material “reality”. It’s the One who has no questions to ask.

Find this One. That’s the answer to all questions. Head toward the proper gate: self-realization.

]]> Neti, Neti http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/03/17/neti-neti http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/03/17/neti-neti Wed, 17 Mar 2010 14:49:00 +0000 http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/03/17/neti-neti
Bear in mind that such terms as awakening are not meant to suggest a movement from one “state” to another, such as to a “higher” state.

When you awaken from sleep in the morning, you are not moving to a [...]]]>
Bear in mind that such terms as awakening are not meant to suggest a movement from one “state” to another, such as to a “higher” state.

When you awaken from sleep in the morning, you are not moving to a “higher state”: you are merely continuing your existent life in a different form; more actively. Thus, a “spiritual awakening” is a continuation of the present life—in a different form.

What is on the other side of the coin of awakening is not a “higher (or lower) state” but “a different way of living”: living from the perspective where the ego self is no longer the center of the relational universe.

In a sense, this represents the abandonment of the illusionary world, as waking represents the discontinuation of a fascinating dream. In this way, it could be said to be the ending of self-deception, similar to the way that the dream self was an illusion. In this case, the waking self is realized to be similarly an illusion, and our “belief” in this self—as a “separate entity”—a deception.

That this awakening—the ending of “self”-centered deception— has occurred for some and not for others appears to be related to how deeply one aspires to abandon the saccharine dream for the glaring reality of “awakened” life. If realization of the true nature of the self is not at the top of one’s list of priorities, the egoic self “fulfillment” will ever take precedence.

But for awakening to be the number one priority, it must be acknowledged that the pilgrim will have to be willing to confront fears of “annihilation” of the self-created person-ality, the person-al image. It is this fear of the disappearance of “self” identity which stands as a barrier, even for those for whom awakening is their fundamental priority.

What is discovered is that there is no “individual” self to be annihilated, neither in life nor in death. The self that “dies” is nothing more than an illusion that dissipates. With the dissolution of the self, goes the dis-appearance of the self’s fears —including the fear of “nothingness” or “the void”. To the question, “Why is this fearful (or blissful) experience occurring (or not occurring) for me?”, the answer is finally evident: “It’s not.” Are the experiences that “occur” for the imagined figure, in a dream, real or imaginary? In deep sleep, when the imagined figures and their activities are absent, what can be said to be the present condition—except for nothingness, or the void?

We cannot even say what this nothingness or void is “like”, as an experience. If we could come away from this condition as a knowledgeable “experiencer”, it would not truly be the condition of nothingness. So we need not fear the condition of nothingness, because there is no identifiable experiencer of it. If there is any residue—any thing at all—in (or as a part of) the “void”, it’s not the void.

Thus, all we can say about it is that there can’t be more than one actuality that could be represented as nothingness. And because it is the one thing of which there can be no “parts” or fragments, it is that which has been characterized as “oneness”, the all-encompassing essence, or Absolute.

From this nothingness, or void, arises the dream; and from the dream, awakening. And if we trace anything—whether waking occurrences or dream occurrences—back to the source, we inevitably arrive at the actuality, or presence, of the one, ineffable formlessness.

So, it is from this formless source that consciousness arises, and thus self-consciousness, or the “I-thought”. And it is to this insubstantial “I” to which all “other” appears; the embodied “seer” and the “seen” world and universe, manifestations of the same, one source—the formless, through form, seeing “its self”; embracing itself, as the all-embracing.

The formless, as the all-embracing actuality, knows nothing of exclusion. All manifested forms, whether material or immaterial, arise from—rather, as—the same essential presence. You are that, and anything that you would rid yourself of—or become—is that. You are already that which any “higher state”—which any conceivable form—could possibly be.

So, realization is not about going from one form or condition to another—both already being a manifestation of the same, one thing. It is not about moving from one form (“me” as the body) to another form of the formless (me as “pure consciousness”). Therefore, realization is not what most people think it is.

It is not about having some particular experience.
It is not about getting to be a “better” person.
It is not about making anything (such as the world) better.
It is not about maintaining a spiritual “practice”.
It is not about an entity (“me”) becoming some other entity (Buddha).
It is not about something that can be objectified, since it is formless, and thus inseparable, in essence.
It is not about something which appears (or is present) in a particular time or place, since time and space are dependent manifestations of this source.
It is not about something of which there is any subject apart from it (such as “me”), since the formless essence cannot be fragmented.
It is not about something that can be associated with any special experience, state or phenomenon, since all conditions are equally in its embrace.

What is referred to as awakening is the realization that there is no actual I apart from the formless essence; it is about the dissolution of self identification; the egoic mind’s relinquishment of the hold on its projected image; the conscious erasure of the line between “observer” and “observed”. And it’s about living life from the continual reference point of this profound realization. As the sages have assured us, it is possible to live a fulfilling life without the persistent condition of a self image.

For everyone, there is at least the occasional experience, during the day, when one does not exist as a separate entity—to one’s own consciousness; when one is so deeply engrossed, in what one’s attention is focused on, that there is no sense of “self”-awareness. And yet we do not cease to function bodily, even though we are free of the image of our identity, in these moments.

To be spiritually “re-born” is thus to again abstain from self image, as if we were a baby: to be, without the brackets of “was” or “will be”, without “did” or “will do”; the individual that would “be something” or “do something” gone, with only that which is aware and present remaining. This is the relaxation of tension, so that one is in attendance to “what is”—just as it is.

If one were to coin a phrase for the awakened perspective, it might be “proscient awareness”: that is, a “knowing before” in the sense of an operative intelligence which continually directs one’s behavior. It is merely a generally unrecognized aspect of the Absolute, of the source of even our superficial, egoic consciousness—the source, in essence, of all that is done. All that everyone says, does or thinks originates with this ever-present source. So, this essence is the only identity which any of us can rightfully claim. Recognize that this formless essence is your fundamental condition; and that proscient awareness will dictate the direction of your every act—without a “self-ish” perspective to be concerned about any outcome.

This extension of your present existence, into freedom, is “awakening”—just a different form, an inclusive form, of living.

So, while it’s not about “doing good deeds”, as a means to a desired end, being of dedicated service to others is an uncontrived consequence when personal self fulfillment has disappeared from the agenda.

]]> Mind: from the Greek "menos"; spirit, force http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/03/17/mind-from-the-greek-menos-spirit-force http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/03/17/mind-from-the-greek-menos-spirit-force Wed, 17 Mar 2010 14:04:00 +0000 Robert Wolfe http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/03/17/mind-from-the-greek-menos-spirit-force

]]> Fabled Enlightenment http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/02/06/fabled-enlightenment http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/02/06/fabled-enlightenment Sat, 06 Feb 2010 18:37:00 +0000 http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/02/06/fabled-enlightenment In My Own Way, a double-entendre to indicate that, in the quest for enlightenment, he was his own worst enemy. And so it is for most of us.

Not only does the self have a stake in doubting one’s own liberation, it has an equal stake in doubting the liberation of [...]]]> In My Own Way, a double-entendre to indicate that, in the quest for enlightenment, he was his own worst enemy. And so it is for most of us.

Not only does the self have a stake in doubting one’s own liberation, it has an equal stake in doubting the liberation of others.

But even for those who are at the point where they can see through the transparent concept of the self, and its inherent insecurity, there often remain concepts which stand as a barrier to full realization.

There is, after several millennia, a mystique which surrounds enlightenment…a folklore of mythology: for example, that there is a moment of ecstatic clarity invariably accompanied by an eerie brilliant light. Or that the person, so enlightened, will henceforth beam a sense of charismatic tranquility on all whom they encounter.

Such stereotypical generalizations lodge as images in the mind of the seeker—and actuality is then compared with these images (and thereby deemed deficient). An example of such a generalization is the oft-quoted comment, “Who knows, doesn’t say. Who says, doesn’t know.” If this implies that anyone who says that he knows, does not know, then it also implies that anyone who does not say that he knows, does know. But the inference that is drawn from this is that anyone who admits to his true identity cannot be worthy of an unbiased hearing. Someone once replied to such a person, “But aren’t you the carpenter’s son?” (To which the carpenter’s son commented, “A prophet is never recognized in his own homeland.”)

Of those whom the seeker senses has abided in the place of realization, the seeker often asks direction—and that passerby may respond to the best of his ability. But when the seeker carries to the encounter an image of the passerby’s mythical features (“the Son of David…King of the Jews”), he has no capacity to recognize the anonymous messenger.

When someone tells you that he knows, listen without judgmental thought or conditioned image. Suspend your concepts of what enlightenment is, or how the enlightened appear.
If such a person asks you for anything, question his motives. But if he is trying to give you something, ask him to tell you what he can about love.

]]> The Bottom Line http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/02/06/the-bottom-line http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/02/06/the-bottom-line Sat, 06 Feb 2010 18:35:00 +0000 http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/02/06/the-bottom-line
But if that divine recognition is your urgent priority, then the essential aspects of your daily life are—or [...]]]>
But if that divine recognition is your urgent priority, then the essential aspects of your daily life are—or are obliged to be—organized around that sustained motif. Are they? If not, then conditions are not appropriate for proceeding (whether or not one reads, or is attracted to, spiritual guidance).

What are the appropriate conditions for recognizing inseparability with the absolute? A woman, whom I know, was suddenly hospitalized. A surgeon insisted upon an immediate operation. She declined. He remarked, “Are you prepared to die today?” How would you answer? Are you ready and willing to relinquish all, today? Are you positioned to live from moment to moment in that condition? If so, where was the point of “embarkment” on the spiritual journey?

To be willing to relinquish all, from moment to moment, is to abdicate the future. When you are no longer inclined or impelled toward some future moment, you have come to a standstill (in terms of temporal reckoning). This private standstill is indicative or representative of surrender of the personal will. It is out of this emptiness which a revived spirit embraces and possesses our being.

This voluntary standstill is not a logical or rational procedure; it is founded on intuitive trust, or instinct. It is, in a sense, a matter of surrendering to one's deepest intuition. It is a matter of abiding by what one knows in one's heart is sacred—despite the supposed cost to oneself.
The appropriate condition for recognizing inseparability with the absolute is to give all that one has and is—for that is all that lingers “outside”. It is for each person to consider what he individually ‘has’ or ‘is’.

This letting go is not a one-time event; it is a letting go as long as there is anything left to which one clings. For, anything to which we can cling is not our sacred self. This includes our ideas about the urgency of life itself. Inseparability makes no conclusive distinctions.

So, it is not reading or learning, it is the resolution of fear that we are engaging. This must be underwritten internally, without regard to anything ever read or learned. It is a solitary, glamorousless endeavor, and you will not know when or if it is ended.

Therefore, for one reason or another, people generally end their reading and pursuit. For some, the trust is present to let go of all, including assurance of knowing. Only when all is gone, is there only one thing which remains.

Is that what you want?

]]> The Silencing Question http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/02/06/the-silencing-question http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/02/06/the-silencing-question Sat, 06 Feb 2010 18:30:00 +0000 http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2010/02/06/the-silencing-question source of the presumed entity which is asking the question?” (or any question, for that matter). The [...]]]> source of the presumed entity which is asking the question?” (or any question, for that matter). The immediate source of any question—of all speculation, in fact—is the thought, the idea, that there is an “I” to pose the question: the innocent question “who am I?” can open the door to the provocative question “Is there an I?” Or is the “I” simply another thought form, as are any questions in association with it?

Yet, another of Ramana’s teachings is even more instructive. He reminds us that we spend about 25 years of the average lifetime in sleep. During a portion of these sleeping hours, we are aware (cognitively) of the fantasy images which we term dreams. But we are also, for the remainder of the time, in a non-aware condition of deep sleep. And thirdly, we spend a portion of our daytime hours in what is called the waking state.

Ramana points out that during the period of deep sleep, we are “dead to the world”. Self-referenced imaging ceases: we are not aware of our self—or any self or non-self—nor any other thing, or any conceived relationship between things. Our vital condition, our immediate presence, is that of (what could be called) pure spirit. No thoughts arise, there being no conception of an entity to which to attach them. In this condition, the question “who am I?” is automatically self-resolved.

Yet, there is a being—or rather, beingness—present: were one to be shaken by another’s hand, waking consciousness would reappear as certainly as if it had never been absent.
Thus, Ramana refers to the three states, or conditions, of presence (or beingness) which we all personally experience: the waking state: the dreaming state; and the state of deep, un-conscious sleep.

The latter is our unblemished, original condition of beingness— such as experienced in the womb, of which we have no cognitive memory. It is the condition upon which the “I”-oriented dream and waking states are superimposed.

Dreams yield to it, and the waking state gives way to it (as, for example, when we are anesthetized); it is the vital, underlying screen upon which our dream and waking images are enabled. Therefore, it can be said to be the source of our I-dominated perceptions, both in dreams and waking behavior.

What “you” truly are, then, in your primal form, is that which gives rise to—or creates—all that is known to the I, including its self. “You”, in your purest beingness, are not “I”; you are the source of the I—and all else which ostensibly is perceived by that presumed entity.

Ramana would say that this “you” is a “permanent” condition, therefore ever-actual or “real”. The “I” comes and goes, dying (daily) in its dream and waking states into its persistent dreamless condition; so the I is impermanent (being recreated daily) and is therefore not real, a phantasm.
In this sense (only), it is sometimes declared that there is Waking, Dream and Deep Sleep states, and the Fourth State; the latter being like a thread which supports the three (aforementioned) beads, and merely represents the beingness upon which the previous three states depend. Were this Fourth State to not be present (as in physical death), you would not experience waking, dreaming nor deep sleep. The underlying condition of all three is the vital, I-thought-free presence that is referred to as the Fourth State—your unceasing “true nature”.
What makes this (deeper) understanding of Ramana’s teaching so important is that it is an unerring graveyard for the stubborn I-thought. Whenever a perplexity arises to the cognitive “self”, Ramana would advise reflecting: “Did this dilemma arise during deep sleep?” No. Therefore, it is a non-real, a phantasmic, dilemma.

Did the question “who am I?” arise in deep sleep? No. Therefore, if you understand “who” you are in deep sleep, you need not concern yourself about it—or any other thought-generated concern, for that matter.

So, even more fruitful than asking your “self” who-am-I?, is the one-pointed reflection “Did this thought occur in deep sleep?” This reflection will silence the I-generated conflicts.

]]> Message from Galilee http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2009/10/02/message-from-galilee http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2009/10/02/message-from-galilee Fri, 02 Oct 2009 11:20:00 +0000 http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2009/10/02/message-from-galilee
One need only review the Old Testament to recognize that by the time of Jesus’ appearance historically, the “gatekeepers” of the Temple had embalmed God.
Jesus—if [...]]]>
One need only review the Old Testament to recognize that by the time of Jesus’ appearance historically, the “gatekeepers” of the Temple had embalmed God.
Jesus—if one follows the thread which run through the accounts of the New Testament—recognized and emphasized that “God” is a living presence; and Jesus’ actions were a manifestation of this spirit. (“He [God] is not God of the dead, but of the living.”)

The accounts indicate that while Jesus was concerned that his message be understood (even by the illiterate), it became increasingly prudent—after the beheading of John the Baptist—for him to speak in metaphor (parable), to avoid being promptly constrained by the “authorities” (religious or political). The calculated risk, that nevertheless he would be understood, has proven over the centuries to have been overly optimistic.

Not even his chosen disciples managed to agree on the details of what they had heard—or, in many cases, on even what they had seen. (Which would probably be true of any typical group of people today, as well.)

He stressed that one has a personal, intimate, relationship to God, as a son has to a father; there is a “spiritual” presence in the universe which is as accessible as is one’s own father to oneself.

That expression which has been translated as the “kingdom of God”—or alternately, the “kingdom of heaven”—could also be translated literally as the “presence of God.” (See the Encyclopedia Britannica, and Asimov’s Guide to the Bible by Isaac Asimov for details.) And such references as to the “end of the world” are, in consequence, references to an ending of all that is worldly.
Jesus insisted that his followers must forsake the worldly, and, while being in this world, not be of it. He urged the giving of all one has to those who need it, and clinging not even to a concern for where one’s next meal is to come from, or where one is to lay one’s head. When dispatching his apostles, he instructed them to take only the clothing they wore, and not even one coin of money.

His message, in his view, was what was important—not the status of the messenger. His message, by example, illustrated the accessibility of a “heavenly”, tranquil presence…and, in its perception, the ending of fear—which is the release of the energy of selfless love. His message was that we are each an aspect of God—present in this presence.

His references to this presence, or kingdom of God, were from a first-hand perspective, having apparently been the culmination of a personal realization during forty days of solitude in the desert, prior to his appearance at the Sea of Galilee. This living spirit, to him, was closer than one’s hand. (“The kingdom of God is in the midst of you.”)

Anyone with the eyes to see and the ears to hear was implored by him to give every shred of their attention to the immediacy of this present spirit.

Even his disciples, however, to the very last, could not conceive of any godly presence except for a “Lord”, nor any heavenly state except for the state of Israel. Two apostles, after his death, were still remarking ruefully, “We had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel!”

But Jesus was pragmatic, not idealistic: he responded to the situations which existed before his very eyes. He was not concerned with whether the world would change, but whether there were any individuals who might immediately change. The appointed time, he reminded, is now; and the place to start is here—with your self.(“…Receive the kingdom of God like a child.”)

We need not concern ourselves with the messenger, nor—once we have heard it—the message. You need only concern yourself with whether you are actively living the spirit of that which you perceive the message of truth to be. “Redemption” is not a product of the messenger or the message, but of personal action—the kind of personal action which involves the same insight which Jesus had…the insight that nothing separates you from this presence, but your “self”.

]]> Where I am Not http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2009/10/02/where-i-am-not http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2009/10/02/where-i-am-not Fri, 02 Oct 2009 11:07:00 +0000 http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2009/10/02/where-i-am-not Mid-morning, after a light, early rainfall. It is cool, this late September day, but not at all cold. Surrounded, mostly by redwoods, sunlight scatters through in places on the ground. A few insects are on wing, in this clearing; one in particular, a moth or a butterfly in the distance, seems ecstatically happy. A sole pigeon is out of [...]]]> Mid-morning, after a light, early rainfall. It is cool, this late September day, but not at all cold. Surrounded, mostly by redwoods, sunlight scatters through in places on the ground. A few insects are on wing, in this clearing; one in particular, a moth or a butterfly in the distance, seems ecstatically happy. A sole pigeon is out of eyesight in a cascara tree, but the fluttering of wings can be heard as it browses among the thinning leaves for those favored cascara berries. A slight movement of the breeze shakes loose—from leaves and needles—those raindrops reluctant to join the earth; some of the yellowed leaves plunge, freeform, with them.

The clouds are an attraction. They were at first daubs of gray against the light blue background. They moved toward my left, nearly as slowly as the minute hand on a clock. And, throughout, they maintained their integrity, without changing forms as clouds seem usually to do. Beneath them, a slight film of wispy cloud moved, more quickly, in the contrary direction. Soon, this lower strata had disappeared. And, to my surprise, the daubs of clouds were moving now toward my right; they had become looser, cottony, and seemed to want to join with each other, as clouds so often do.

They are not under control, in any meaningful pattern as we would define it. Their movements are not to be predicted. In that, partially, is their beauty. They are not intent on any particular thing, changing their direction to meet changes in the circumstances around them.

World peace is here. I ask myself why it happens to be in this particular spot—but not, according to the newspapers, in the rest of the world. There's the same blue sky. The same stuff that all clouds are made of. Tall, silent trees doing exactly what trees do everywhere. The sounds of birds and bugs going about their daytime work as if it were their coffee break. There is the dampened brown earth, with some ants in sunlight, some not. There is a human, sitting quietly in a canvas chair in the clearing, watching a cloud that is moving in two directions, away from its center, in the same moment.

There is peace in this solitary spot on the globe because there is “no one” here. The human, who is merely part of the landscape, has no agenda, no ideas, no intent or motivation; he will not be rising from his chair in a moment to attempt to control something, to influence or change anything. Where could he begin to make any changes that would lastingly improve the situation?

]]> The Subject / Object Illusion http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2009/10/02/the-subject-object-illusion http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2009/10/02/the-subject-object-illusion Fri, 02 Oct 2009 10:52:00 +0000 http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2009/10/02/the-subject-object-illusion Because of our conditioned, dualistic thinking, the teachers ask you to divide reality into two categories, subject and object.Then they show you that our divisive thinking is a barrier to enlightenment.

In a sentence structure—“I see a [...]]]> Because of our conditioned, dualistic thinking, the teachers ask you to divide reality into two categories, subject and object.Then they show you that our divisive thinking is a barrier to enlightenment.

In a sentence structure—“I see a tree”—I, the observer, is the subject of the sentence; tree, the observed, is the object.Such a sentence presupposes that I and the tree are separate entities.

We think (in our mind) in sentences.So we habitually separate our self—I—from every object we see.“I”, the thinker, am the subject of every thought we have—what the importance of the thought relates to.The object in the thought can be any of the things in existence, whether material or immaterial.

We divide the world, in our thoughts: there is “me” (always the important subject) and there is all else in existence that is “not me” (the object of our thoughts).

In short, what the teachers are saying is that any object in the universe is—despite our giving it some separative name—a manifestation of the Absolute (or Source).They are also saying that the subject is not an exception to this truth: that everything in the universe is a manifestation of the same singular Source.

So, at the level of the most basic reality, the subject—I—and the object—tree—are the same thing: an aspect (although different in appearance) of the Absolute. This applies to every subject and every object: all are, at their essence, the same, one thing.

Thus, if we look beyond the separative names, there is only one universal thing, the Absolute. That is why it is said, “The Absolute alone is.”There is not anything that is not it, in essence.A tree is That.You are That.And that is why they also say, “You are the Absolute.”

If you are That and the tree is That, there is no “space” between you, in truth: even what we name as space between things too is That, a manifestation of the very same Source.

Time is also a manifestation of the one Source, so time too is That.

Therefore, time and space do not exist as anything other than additional “objects” (not-me) that we have named, and divided in our subject/object thinking.

The teachers are saying, “The observer (subject, which is That) is the observed (object—any not-me thing, whether formed or formless—which is also That).”

You (being as much the Absolute—100%—as anything else is the Absolute) and the tree (being the Absolute as much—100%—as anything else is the Absolute) are the same thing.

When you comprehend this, you realize that every subject and every object is That.Therefore, in truth, there is nothing but That.

The “I” and the “tree” names that we give everything are simply separate “subjects” and “objects” in the sentences that our minds create.

The teachers are saying that enlightenment is present when the seeker sees through these false labels—subject/object names—and realizes that every such name is just another name for the only thing which has true existence.

When you comprehend that (as they say) “All that is, is That,” everyone of your remaining questions will automatically be answered.

]]> Plain Talk http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2009/09/21/plain-talk http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2009/09/21/plain-talk Mon, 21 Sep 2009 11:10:00 +0000 http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2009/09/21/plain-talk Page 15, Living Nonduality: Enlightenment Teachings of Self-Realization [...]]]> Page 15, Living Nonduality: Enlightenment Teachings of Self-Realization

By their fruits shall ye know them. By the lives they lived, we know the saints of enlightenment. Standing out among these, in full stature, is Ramana Maharshi. Because he lived in recent times, we have the spiritual teachings in an accurately recorded form (as compared, for example, to those of Buddha). Also, living in India, Ramana’s (Tamil) words have been translated directly into English (as compared, for example, with those of Jesus: from Aramaic to Greek to Latin to English).

Ramana represents the fountainhead of nondual enlightenment teachings, in their directness and succinct clarity. “If you had asked,” as Jesus said, “I would have given you the water of life.” In any one of the few books recording Ramana’s commentary, the truth is there for the asking—authoritatively. “If it were not so,” again as Jesus said, “I would not have told you.”

However, as with spiritual texts in general, discernment is required if there is to be comprehension. Such texts are unavoidably paradoxical: what is said, at one time, from the relative standpoint, may be reiterated later from the standpoint of Absolute awareness. The irony is that this difference is best understood by the one who need not read any texts, the realized. Nevertheless, the subtle message can be comprehended by those who have the ears to hear.

The message of nondual actuality is not even dependent upon the word, as Ramana’s own awakening demonstrated (and as did Buddha’s). Albeit, this truth can be communicated with the aid of words, for those who are ready for it. The ones who are ready for it, have a single eye, and they prize what they see.

A recent book ( Padamalai ) is particularly useful (because of the way it is composed) for understanding the paradoxical teaching style of advaita: what you are taught at one point, you are later shown is an illusion (“There is no you to understand anything”).

A questioner said to Ramana, “I do not know how to read. How can I realize?” Ramana said,

“[A spiritual book] is like asking you to see yourself in a mirror. The mirror [book] reflects only what is on the face [in consciousness]. If you consult the mirror after washing your face [realizing Self-awareness], the face will be shown to be clean [free of confusion].

“Otherwise, the mirror will indicate, ‘There is dirt here [confusion]; come back after washing [clarity].’

“A book does the same thing. If you read the book after realizing the Self, everything will be easily understood. But if you read it before realizing the Self, it will say, ‘First, set yourself right; and then see me.’

“That is all. So: first, know the Self!”

The problem, which besets readers of spiritual texts which speak to the unrealized reader from the realized standpoint, is in comprehending when the response is given from the relative standpoint, in comparison to when it is given from the Absolute standpoint. This can be particularly perplexing when the response is intended to show that the limited (relative) can only appear within the unlimited (Absolute) and not otherwise.

[The remainder can be read in the eBook edition of Living Nonduality or in the print version.]

]]> Framing the Question http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2009/09/21/framing-the-question http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2009/09/21/framing-the-question Mon, 21 Sep 2009 11:08:00 +0000 http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2009/09/21/framing-the-question Page 12, Living Nonduality:Enlightenment Teachings of Self-Realization [...]]]> Page 12, Living Nonduality:Enlightenment Teachings of Self-Realization

I arrive at the home of John L., whom I have been told by the Hospice staff is dying of cancer, and I go into his bedroom to meet him. As I shake his bony hand, he looks up at me from the dark wells of his eyes: “I’ve seen you before.” His voice is high-pitched and nasal, and he seems to be toothless.

“Very possible,” I say. “I’ve lived here for twenty years. How long have you been in the area?”

His eyes focus on his wife, who is standing by my side. “I can't remember. How long have we lived here?”

“Nine years.”

“Yes, it's very possible that we've met,” I repeat. He and I continue to scrutinize each other. Aside from the thin, long form under the quilt, all I can see is his head and one pale arm. Thin hair, sunken eyes, an aquiline nose, a bristly beard. No, he is not someone that I recall having seen before.

Over the next few days, in a couple of brief visits, I get to know him a little better. And on the third occasion, I am alone with him for a couple of hours while his wife catches up on some grocery shopping. I sit by his bed, hold his glass of Dr. Pepper so he can drink it through a straw, and let him know that I am there to listen to him if he wishes to talk. But he is mostly monosyllabic, and gruff in a covertly amiable way. Considering his physique, appearance, and mannerisms, I would cast him (if I were directing the play) as a crusty goldminer.

Prominently on the wall of his living room are displayed framed scale drawings of a Swedish-made sailboat with beautifully flowing lines; not just a photograph of it, mind you, but a scale drawing showing even its inward detail. Next to it is an expensive sheath knife with his name engraved on the blade, the kind of thing only a skipper could wear on his belt in earnest today.

“You sailed?” I ask.

“Every weekend.”

“I've never sailed. I have no idea what it's like.”

“Nearest thing to heaven you'll ever get, my boy!”

He dozes off. I make a cup of coffee in the microwave and wander around the living room. Toward a rear corner, on one wall, is a collection of about a dozen family snapshots which have been matted and framed. A few of the pictures are of his daughter at various ages, and his son. But there are about three pictures I find myself lingering over, returning again from one to another. They are pictures of him and his wife. The first one was taken at their wedding forty-one years ago; it was a second marriage for both, and she is wearing a corsage and he is in a suit; he looks like he is in his thirties, tall, lean, sensitive, like a businessman on his way up.

The latest picture is in color, and I recognize his wife, at his side, so instantly that I suspect this picture was taken only a few years ago. The man is much taller than his wife, wearing a sports shirt and an easy smile; he looks vigorous but relaxed. I can picture this man as the skipper of a sailboat, a casual hand on the rudder, squinting confidently into the sea breeze, the wind tousling his hair.

I can picture him inviting me into their comfortable dual-wide in this mobile-home retirement park, asking me if white wine is okay, and then sitting back cross-legged in the easy chair to tell me all the things I don't know about how finely the Germans craft steel blades, his voice deep but warm.
Later, while out for my evening walk, I am struck by the fact that if I had known that man as I sense him in the photograph, there is no connection I would have made with the man I know in the deathbed. They may be the same height but that is a different body in the deathbed; and my guess is that their personal ambiance is at least as different.

What became of the man in the photograph?: it is obvious to me that he is gone, has left this earth. We like to think in terms of continuity, that the other man somehow became this man. Could this man, even if he regained his health, ever again become the other man? No.

No, somewhere moment by moment the other man disappeared. The evidence we have that he existed is a photograph, a knife, a blueprint. The man in the bed, though still alive, has already let go—even if not consciously—of the man in the frame.

I think back to what I have known of myself. If there is any continuity, it is only in my memory. Can I let go—am I letting go—of the man who only exists in my own picture frames?

]]> Know Thy Self: an owner's manual http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2009/09/21/know-thy-self-an-owners-manual http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2009/09/21/know-thy-self-an-owners-manual Mon, 21 Sep 2009 10:15:00 +0000 Robert Wolfe http://livingnonduality.org/blog/2009/09/21/know-thy-self-an-owners-manual
The teachings of nonduality (“advaita”: not two), written in the Vedas, are evidently the world’s oldest spiritual pronouncements. They were given freshened interest several centuries ago by the historic Indian sage Shankara.

Within our era, these teachings gained world-wide attention in the presence of Ramana Maharshi, who experienced spontaneous Self-realization while still in his teens—not having read the Vedas or Shankara. (“When I left home in my seventeenth year [already Self-realized]…it was only years later that I came across the term ‘Brahman’, when I happened to look into some books on Vedanta which had been brought to me. I was amused, and said to myself: ‘Is this [condition] known as ‘Brahman’?”)

Ramana, at seventeen, immersed himself in several years of the deepest meditation imaginable—death-like—as he sat silent and desireless in a mountain cave. For the balance of his life, while engaged in the role of a (reluctant) guru, he owned no personal property, had no romantic life and never traveled.

Basically, he had nothing to gain from anything he said. Yet, because he personally experienced the sweeping range of human religious discovery, his teachings make it unnecessary for spiritual seekers to reinvent the wheel. Like Buddha and Jesus before him, he speaks from the authority of first-hand realization. Unlike Buddha and Jesus, his teachings come to us unfiltered by historic doctrinal censors.

And thankfully, for the present-day seeker, his advice is brief and direct. Ramana is deservedly the fountainhead of nondual teachings in our time. From the standpoint of Self-realization, all that one needs to know can be found in a distilled form in such transcriptions as Be as You Are: The Teachings of Sri Ramana Maharshi (edited topically by David Godman, who lived in Ramana’s ashram for years and edited its magazine, Mountain Path).

It is the Absolute (our “true nature”) which gives rise to the ego (or sense of personal selfhood); it is this ego which identifies itself (I) with the body which it animates. “You” are not this impermanent body; you are not this transient ego; you are that which is the very ground of being, the eternal presence in which ephemeral occurrences appear.

Ramana refers to this essence as Self; that which is not the creation of (or affected by) thought: thought, like ego, is a creation of the Self. Anything which (separative) thought can identify, he refers to as non-Self. Also, the “I” which is the real I is the Absolute (or Self)—which he sometimes refers to as “I-I” (subject and object as one unit).

Aside from these conventions, one need only to discern when Ramana’s teachings are given from the standpoint of the relative, and when instead they are given from the standpoint of the Absolute, in references in the monographs which follow.

]]>