All right then, Hanneke, let's say that there 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.

It is good to hear from you that "seeking 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.

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."

The way in which a spiritual 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.

Yours is the Sixty-Four-Dollar Question, Lou: “In 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.”

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.

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.

I have spoken about this: one evening, I typed out a page of what was presenting itself to my consciousness, in so many words. When I read it back, it was clear to me that seeking the meaning of the nondual enigma had come to an end: I understood.

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.

Due to our habitual experience of sectioning and parsing the present reality, in order to manipulate it for effects in the daily world of relative needs, we tend to carry this inclination over into what would be our spiritual perspective.

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?

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.

The following are two videos of Robert Wolfe and participants at the first 20 minutes or so of a monthly non-duality discussion group. Please be aware that the audio for the first video does not come in until about 1:30.

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