Separateness to Oneness
Written on August 27, 2008 by Tom Stine
What if all suffering is born from one thought, one idea: the thought “I am separate from everyone and everything?” Then the cure for all suffering would be simply to drop this belief. Sounds so easy, doesn’t it? Drop one thought, one idea, and you are free forever.
But what does that mean, drop this one thought that I am separate from everyone and everything? That would be dropping the belief that I am me. There really isn’t any way that I can pretend to myself or others that Tom is one with everything. I mean, Tom inhabits a body, thinks thoughts about himself, spends large amounts of time fixated upon the thoughts, feelings and beliefs that seem to make him the center of the Universe. No, Tom is very much separate.
So, the only way to drop the idea of being separate is drop the belief that I am Tom. To drop the identification of Tom as the reality of that which is typing these words. Is the typist, in fact, Tom? Is there anyone actually doing the typing? It is in asking questions such as these that it is possible to get a glimpse of our true nature. When we drop the identification with our “selves” and drop the identification as the one who does things, then we can rest as that which is real. That which is true. That which is truth.
The truth is given many names: spirit, God, presence, awareness, beingness, consciousness, the Universe, etc. Awareness or Love are my two favorites. I can really connect with these terms. Awareness is that which looks out my eyes, and love is that which looks out of my heart. Both of these work for me.
Awareness is that which connects me the quickest to an experience of this sense of oneness, this existence beyond the notion of my separate self. I find that placing my focus upon awareness itself, turning my attention inward and looking at awareness as it is, creates a tremendous sense of openness. It creates a space from which lots of goodness flows. It opens “me” to greater peace. And that is a wonderful thing.
It seems to me that all problems are completely resolved in this experience. In this stillness. In this presence or awareness. Being still, resting in reality, feels like the ultimate answer. We shall see.
on August 27th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Tom, question for you. Many times when I’m fully in awareness, it feels much like a passive observer who doesn’t do anything. Afterall, awareness doesn’t do anything. Awareness just is.
At the same time, there feels to be a certain lack of human emotions, of emptiness, even a lack of Love. It’s more a feeling of oblivion than actual Love.
Many times Awareness and Love feel pretty independent, though something says they “should” be one and the same.
Is there something missing, something I have yet to realize?
on August 27th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
I am not Tom, but I may have some questions that may help.
Can YOU be aware? Is there someone that is aware, or is there just awareness? Don’t answer quickly, just sit with the question for a moment. Can you be fully aware of anything?
Is there full awareness, or just awareness? Who is deciding whether awareness is complete or partial? Who is making a distinction between an awareness that is good, and an awareness that is lacking?
The point is not to find an answer that you enjoy and then stick with it. One must see the truth in this without outer influence. And that outer influence includes anything of your own design. After all, our own designs are built from the stuff of others.
Is there a lack of emotion, or could it be a lack of your ideas about emotions? If all you have ever known about emotion is what you believe to be true, there may be this feeling of lack. But in order for there to be the feeling of lack, there needs to be someone with something to lose. Where is that person? How can one ever lose anything?
You say it may be a lack of love, but is that true? Does love have anything at all to do with you? Please don’t misunderstand the question, but what have you to do with love? One’s ideas about love are insignificant.
Can love be lost? Can it be strangled into submission? Can you do anything with it at all? Or are there merely your ideas of what love is? The ideas that one may use as a crutch in order to feel something superficial?
I am not saying this is the case, but please go into it and find out what is there. It is so beautiful and simple.
You are a complete, beautifully realized being. But it has nothing to do with wanting to have a realization. It has nothing to do with you. Whether one feels something should or should not be does not matter. It has absolutely nothing to do with what one thinks it might be.
If you are not there to see it, everything becomes clear. But please do not make a method of “removing yourself” from the thing. How can it be done?
I am not sure if you will find any of that helpful, and I hope I did not just over-step certain boundaries. But if any of this is to take place, one needs to be curious enough to see it as it comes.
And don’t forget to always greet it with a smile.
on August 27th, 2008 at 9:23 pm
Thank you for the response, Takuin.
What you brought up at the beginning about the separate “me” trying to be aware versus awareness itself happening on its own is a great point. Thank you for bringing this up. That’s probably the main issue at hand.
on August 28th, 2008 at 1:26 am
Ariel: It could be that you’re just so new at the relative calm of just being aware that the subtle undercurrents there aren’t experienced yet. Just let it ripen and a different kind of love - one without preconceptions - might just arise.
It’s called ‘the still small voice’ for a reason. Don’t shout over It with thought and interpretation.
[I think I just might be saying the same thing as Takuin here - just different words.
on August 28th, 2008 at 6:05 am
In the book “Halfway Up The Mountain,” Caplan addresses the point of ego destruction. Masters that she interviews talk about people who succeeded in completely eliminating the ego. The result? They became absolutely unable to function in the world.
In “Take Me To Truth,” (which in turn is based on ACIM) the authors actually mention the importance of keeping a thread of ego intact. You want to get rid of much of it to make space for Unity Consciousness, but you need to keep some if you’re going to be in the world.
I’m blanking on which Indian guru it was who, after enlightenment, went to live in hermitage in the mountains. He had so completely let go of his ego that he let himself become emaciated and insects were literally eating him alive. After a few years of this a thread of ego reinserted itself, and he was able to take care of himself (and even teach).
So, in short, be very careful of the goal of ego destruction. A better goal may be to make the ego subsidiary to the Cosmic Consciousness (or Beingness, or God, or whatever terminology makes your ego comfortable).
on August 28th, 2008 at 11:43 am
I agree that it’s important to recognize the difference between being aware, and thinking about being aware. This is a lot harder than it may seem to accomplish. Letting go of the need to confirm, or check up on ourselves, is difficult. But, much, if not most, of the path is (about) letting go. When you feel yourself there, in the way, work on letting go of that need.
But, I would also like to address your other questions above. Many people have a problem with this idea of “emptiness,” and the idea of losing emotions and so on. One thing to remember is that the Buddha himself is said to have said that Enlightenment is not emotional. And he is right. Where do emotions come from? What is their purpose? In the end, emotions are from our conditioned ego-selves, not our “buddha natures.” There is no “emotion” in Enlightenment, in “pure awareness.” What are we doing when we have these worries? We are clinging to our emotions. Why? Why are we afraid to let them go (the way we currently (mis)understand them)? One’s difficulties in matters such as these come from lack of understanding, as well as the clinging, the attachment. Again, we come to letting go. But, just as importantly, examining our own conditioned conceptual frameworks.
We must ask ourselves what we mean by the words/concepts we use. Especially when it comes to Happiness, Enlightenment, Awareness, and especially Love. What is love, really? Love is not an emotion. Love is not attachment. Love is not something we feel, but something we are in the absence of ego-self. Love is the absence of selfish desire. There is a lot contained within that thought. (Note I did not say “absence of emotion.” But, again, what are emotions?)
I think much of it speaks to the dilemma many face when it comes to letting go of clung-to notions and concepts. For, again, this is all about letting go. Much of what we need to let go of is our assumptions, certainties, and beliefs. I wonder if you still have such assumptions, etc., when it comes to these concepts of Love and Emptiness.
Indeed, “emptiness” is what many Buddhist masters talk about achieving. But, again, do we really understand what that means? Have we truly done enough work to understand it? For most, it’s unlikely, as it takes a great deal of work and practice (more than typically imagined), and much attention paid to where our attachments come from. One of the biggest mistakes we can make on the path is to think or act as though we are further than we actually are. Be mindful not to get attached to your understanding of Buddhist (or any) concepts.
I think the best way to think about “emptiness” is that we are working towards being empty of ego-self. What is left in the absence of ego-self? Reality. “Love.” Everything that is, just as it is. Things as they are, undistorted by our egos and selfish desires. That is not a void, but the “opposite” of a void. The absence of void, if you will. Experiencing things just as they are, without ego-self, is not the kind of “emptiness” and “void” experience to which you are referring.
When you come upon bumps in the road, or roadblocks, make sure you stop and take the time to examine those blocks, examine where they are coming from. You will always find them from within your own selfish desires, attachments, beliefs, assumptions, and fears. Don’t get too attached to the “Zen” idea that all we need to do is sit and eventually everything will magically dissolve away. Be active. Seek out the “whys” behind your roadblocks. Remember to focus on the “effort” in the Buddha’s “Right Effort.”
on August 28th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
@Ariel I’m going to answer pretending that I hadn’t already read the many wonderful comments you’ve received. So…..
Your entire difficulty lies in the following sentence:
“Many times when I’m fully in awareness….”
The key is that you ARE awareness. The “I” that says “when I’m in awareness” is just a thought, a movement of mind. It isn’t who you are.
Now, to be honest, a statement like I just made doesn’t really do one a darn bit of good. It is in the experience or knowing that you are awareness that the real gift if given. So, if I’m not mistaken, you are probably doing the “awareness watching awareness” exercise. Right?
I would add a little bit of inquiry to that exercise. When you sit and experience awareness, get curious about it. What’s awareness like? If you feel like you aren’t awareness, then inquire into that? What are you? What is different about you and awareness? Just explore it some.
The rest of the comments you got were excellent. Listen to those guys, too.
Hope that helps!
@Takuin You are excellent at doing inquiry. It comes very naturally to you. I love the questions you were suggesting about love. Especially, “does love have anything to do with you at all?” Ah, what a great question. I can almost feel the shift happening as I ask the question. You would make an excellent spiritual coach.
@Katinka Quite true about the still small voice. It is quite still. As a matter of fact, when you really stop, just stop and listen to it fully, it becomes quite “loud” without making a sound. Thanks for the reminder.
@Jim Nice to hear from you again. Good to have your comments!
The Indian guru you are referring to was Ramana Maharshi. You know, I think there is a common misunderstanding about Ramana’s experience, and I think Caplan has that same misunderstanding. Namely, they there are people who go “too far” in their awakening. I’ve heard that about Ramana before.
But awakening isn’t something that I or anyone else has any control over. It happens on ITS terms and its schedule. I can only “prepare the table” for the Guest. But when it comes, it does what it wants.
ACIM did say that if you let go of every last shred of the ego, it will be hard to remain in a body. So, it would seem that for most of us, retaining a bit of ego is the way it will be. However, the key is that there is no identity tied to this bit. It is there, we know it isn’t who we are. Adyashanti talks about this extensively.
If you asked Ramana “did you go to far?” he would have simply smiled and said, “who is asking?” There simply was no “Ramana” in him. What would have asked would have been the One speaking as Ramana. But then again, everything is just the One appearing as form.
Great comments. Feel free to leave others when you have the time. Namaste.
@Robert Nice to have your comments, too. Thanks for joining in. You nicely pointed out the attachments that contribute to so much of our inner experience. As I see it, the ultimate attachment is this one simple belief: “I”. Ramana, although not Buddhist, spent several decades focusing our attention on this simple issue.
Our ultimate problem, and one the Buddha saw clearly, was this issue of self. Hence, the Buddha’s statements about it which became the Doctrine of No Self. The Buddhas was so clear: There is no self. When you look inside, what do you find? Do you find a “me” that is separate? No.
And when you take this lack of self to its ultimate conclusion, you arrive at “emptiness.” And you begin to know yourself to be just that. Nothing. Emptiness. Or, as many have called it, spirit.
Again, thanks for the comments!
on August 28th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
Wow, amazing responses. Thank you all!
on August 28th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Here’s the story of my humble experience:
From readings I did from those more informed than I, I came to the conclusion that everything would be wonderful if I eliminated the ego. So I started using all the methods I could come up with to eliminate the ego.
This began my war and the result was that life got the harsh end of the club.
I then realized that the ego was helping me experience the reality that I believed in.
I then started working with the ego and every time I experienced something I no longer liked, I released that feeling or belief. I got no battle from the ego, I guess, because it meant one less thing the ego had to keep track of to help me experience reality the way I believed it to be.
As I released more beliefs that I didn’t like the feeling of, I became aware that what I thought were “good” beliefs were also limitations. That I could experience life in other ways and more abundantly if I also released the “good” beliefs. That I am no longer bound to experiencing life per my beliefs (except for all those beliefs that I am a little slow about getting rid of).
I’m aware that I have a ways to go but life is no longer a war in which the body also has a lot of suffering.
Its interesting reading about all the enlightened people that you all keep referring to. I just do the things that work for me. This is a good blog subject Tom,
on August 29th, 2008 at 6:28 am
I to think awareness is the best term to use when describing a way to achieve oneness. It doesn’t have too many preconceptions about it and is easily modified.
I also liked Taukin and Ariels responses.
on August 29th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Beautiful post Tom. And great responses.
I agree with the gist here. As we approach awakening, there can be that sense of experiencing awareness but not quite being it yet. After the switch, there can be a similar dry sense, where emptiness is dominant and the old ego drivers fall away.
As things get clearer, there is what Adya calls ‘emptiness dancing’ or a growing sense of fullness in emptiness. Always on bliss. Robert touches on it, but a deep sense of love tends to dawns.
The core identity, typically unseen until now, is the last to go. There ceases to be an ‘inside’ and an ‘outside’. That inner sense of Oneness of Self moves forward into the world until all of it is One.
I don’t think it’s so much that some ego is required to function in the world but that some integration may be needed. The increment of wholeness we once called “me” is drawn into the whole and then the whole can move through that point value. There can sometimes be a little lag between old drivers falling away and the new ones kicking in.
I have heard the idea of Leishya Vidya or remains of ignorance, where the highly awake retains some slight separation or subject-object relationship in order to create a flow - of knowledge or love, such as in a teacher student or personal relationship. But thats a different thing.
I would also not use Universe as a word for truth. Universe is the truth at play, the dream.
Always nice to hear the process spoken so many ways.
on August 29th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
So, here’s a (somewhat) contrarian question.
Tom, did writing this bring pain? If not, Tom, was it not Tom writing? Writing some posts I find pleasurable. Does removing Tom also mean removing pleasure? If so, Tom, this bargain gives much more pause for thought than if it were just removing pain. And, Tom, who is it that exercises this choice? If all is (undifferentiated) one then any appeal to choice is an illusion, Tom.
And who will type the reply to this. I really am trying to make a serious point. The point being that we need a concept of differentiated unity - this is an organism. Life is an exchange with the environment - ie. difference. I’m not quarreling with the value of awareness and experiences of unity only the expression of this in no-self language.
on August 29th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
@Harold You said you keep doing the things that work for you. Good! That’s the best thing to do. Whatever you read or hear can be helpful, but ultimately you are the one that must choose. You are the authority. Not the guru on the stage.
@Jarrod I, too, like the term awareness.
@Davidya Glad you like it. Great conversation, too. You may be right about the integration aspect. The old idea called “me” simply gets “merged” into the whole. As if it wasn’t already.
@Evan I’m not exactly sure where you are going with your comment. If I’m reading it correctly, let me say one thing: it really isn’t a question of removing or dropping or getting rid of. It is merely acknowledging what is. Seeing the truth. There is a body that we call Tom. There is a personality that has “Tom-ness” to it. But the real key is that neither the personality nor the body is what I am. Whatever I am, whatever it is that is perceiving these words on this screen, that’s hearing cars go by outside, is not this body and is not this personality called Tom. It is none of these things.
We say it is nothing because it doesn’t correspond to anything that we can get a grip on. It is a no-thing. It is empty. It is a Void. Another word is spirit. And it turns out that this empty no-thing is in fact the sum and substance of everything. And THAT is what is looking out of these eyes. And hence, that is why we call it awareness. That which is aware is the awareness itself. Formless, empty, awareness.
Bottom line, over and over again, is identity. What am I? What are you? Inquiry leads us quickly to realizing that we are not the body, nor the personality (the “me”), the thoughts, the feelings, the mind, none of these. Just awaken, aware, emptiness. How cool is that?!!!!!
I hope in some way I addressed your comments. Be well…..
on August 29th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
Yes, Tom. The fascinating thing is that what is does not change. What changes is our perspective. Our ‘place’ of viewing. Sometimes, it changes suddenly. Sometimes slowly. Sometimes a briefly. Sometimes completely.
The journey doesn’t really go anywhere but seems to change everything (laughs)
on August 31st, 2008 at 7:55 am
Interesting point - I like asking myself, “Who are you when you’re writing/typing something?”
Is it “Stephen” or is it my spirit/God/universe?
It helps to become the observer. Have you ever done that? It’s like this:
You sit on the couch or whatever, close your eyes and then imagine yourself watching yourself on the couch.
Then try that when you’re driving. Imagine you are on the hood of the car looking in. What would you see?
And then do it when you’re interacting with people. Imagine you are hovering in the air, watching you communicate.
It’s pretty cool once you get the hang of it!
on August 31st, 2008 at 7:16 pm
Hi Tom,
I may just be being picky about words. (Not impossible I hear you say?)
To say I am not only my body is one statement (which I agree with).
To say I am not my body is a very different statement. One I think that is totally wrong.
on August 31st, 2008 at 10:37 pm
Evan - actually, you describe 2 different realities. But both are true at some point. Just remember, it’s not wrong just because it’s not your experience.
Typically, first we associate ourselves as being the body & perhaps mind.
Then we begin to see we are more than that, which you suggest.
At a certain point, we find we are Self /source/silence within and not the body. Indeed, the body can seem to take care of itself with no doing on our part. This is known as witnessing or being the independent observer.
With time in Self, it begins to move forward and “absorb” layers of experience. At some point we find we are the body again, but as part of a much larger whole, not as separate. The mind and body are vehicles of expression, but so are the table, floor and sky. This is Unity or Oneness.
on August 31st, 2008 at 10:40 pm
What Stephen describes is an experience of that witness. At a certain point there is a “switch” and we change from experiencing it to being it.
on September 1st, 2008 at 3:48 am
Hi Davidya,
The question seems to me to be the nature of unity.
It seems to me we need a differentiated unity. As you say the sky and table are expressions of unity, but the sky is not a table.
on September 1st, 2008 at 5:07 am
I am not sure I quite understand the current conversation. But I would like to.
From Evan:
Why? Unity would seem to imply no differentiation. I am not quite sure what you mean by this. Would you please go into it a bit?
Thanks.
on September 1st, 2008 at 12:30 pm
I see where Takuin is coming from. Oftentimes, conversations about things that are ultimately impossible to describe will come down to confusion over semantics. This is why finding a common vocabulary, “defining terms” as they sometimes call it in philosophy circles, can be not only helpful, but essential, in order to move a conversation forward. Too often people shy away from “defining terms” because they feel it’s restrictive. But, it need not be restrictive. That’s a choice of how mindfully we do what do. There’s nothing wrong with using (”defining”) word-concepts, even words that contain inherent duality, if the parties are on the same page as to the word’s ultimate illusory nature, and the fact that they’re using this or that word “for the sake of discussion.” Like many illusions, words are tools, which can, and do, help us to think, consider, and work better, i.e., more clearly.
What’s more restrictive, mindfully finding common vocabulary so as to be able to move forward, or ongoing cyclical miscommunication?
I like that Takuin asked what Evan meant by what he said. This should happen more often, I think. Too often people jump to conclusions as to what someone means, which is really an indication of them not actually hearing the other person, but rather inferring what was said via their own conceptual framework and speaking to that. I call it “Forrest Gumping” — catching the ball and running the wrong way with it.
on September 1st, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Perhaps it would be useful to observe that Unity cannot be grasped with the mind. It is several steps away from what we might call typical waking reality.
Table and sky are the same thing, made of the same thing and arise the same way. The only ‘differences’ are slight variations in the quality of appearance. Even Physics has begun to see this.
You bought a brown shirt and a blue shirt. What is the difference? They reflect light slightly differently. The cut may vary slightly. But both are made of the same cloth and came to you the same way for the same purpose. Now don’t take the analogy too far - the point is that apparent differences are superficial.
Table and sky are the appearance of form in a lively field of nothing. You move through a sea of attention. You perceive otherwise because your senses are associated with the surface qualities and your mind uses that to make a construct.
As Takuin suggests, it is useful to go into it a bit. When we go into it, we find that holes or gaps where the truth resides.
on September 1st, 2008 at 6:16 pm
My concern is with what we are referring to as unity (what it’s nature is).
It seems we agree on there being some differences within unity - colours of shirt, table versus sky and so on.
Perhaps we just disagree with the importance we assign to these differences?
on September 1st, 2008 at 6:36 pm
Hi rwalker,
I quite agree. I’m trying to be clear about our perceptions (the existence of differences) and how this relates to experiences of unity.
I’m sure others are attempting to be clear and communicate the nature of experience too.
Communicating about these things can be really tricky I think. I agree with you that mindfully finding common vocabulary can be really important.
on September 1st, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Evan
you mentioned “the importance we assign to these differences” - that actually points to a key aspect. What is does not change. What shifts is our relationship to what is. What we thought to be real and important turns out to be a shadow or dream. Where differences were key, they are found to be like the seeing our breath on a cold day.
There is a period when all differences are found to be unreal, then real again. But the new real is not the real of old but instead just waves within the One. Not different. Qualities, but not differences. (word meanings get stretched here.)
Vocabulary is an issue, but deeper is context. How do you describe the taste of a star fruit to someone who has never tasted it? Only by comparing it to something else. If one has never tasted fruit, there is no comparison to offer.
Still, I agree with RWalker. Finding a common language helps communicate. As awakening becomes more common, it’s not useful if people have to guess what is being referred to while trying to understand their experience.
For many, what’s next is self-realization, not Oneness. In self-realization, there is an internal oneness so we can begin to get a sense of it. But it’s always more than the mind might expect.
on September 1st, 2008 at 11:41 pm
I think it is a bit clearer. But I cannot imagine these differences.
I can understand that the elevator is not my wife, but I have no idea of one, when I am looking at the other. I don’t see a difference; only the thing being seen.
Does that make sense? Differentiation, as it seems to be described in the comments here, is quite unnecessary. A waste of energy. (I may completely be misunderstanding everyone, so please let me know if I have not quite understood what has been said.)
If I see Akiko, I do not know her because of what she is not. She is simply seen. If I see a frog on the ground next to a t-shirt, it is a frog and a t-shirt. What is the big deal?
You might say, “You know it is a frog and a t-shirt because they are different.” Are you serious? It is a frog and a t-shirt because it is a frog and a t-shirt. That is all.
I am not saying it is right or wrong. I am not writing this out of a belief of what is right. I am just going into this to see what is happening.
Let me explain this in another way (just an example). I hold up my right hand and there is a frog. The eyes see the frog and knowledge may or may not say, “This is a frog.” I hold up my left hand and there is a t-shirt. The eyes see the t-shirt and knowledge may or may not say, “This is a t-shirt.” Everything is fine. Then you come along and say, “They are different.” I really do not understand what you mean. Where is the difference?
“Right hand frog, left hand t-shirt.” I am with you.
“They are different.” I am not with you.
You ask me to hold up both hands so I can see both objects at the same time. You say, “They are different.” But how?
You say, “Because one is a frog, and the other is a t-shirt.” NO, not because. One is a frog and one is a t-shirt. PERIOD. That is all. Not because.
This is a very subtle movement that goes on within thought. This may seem like silly semantic nit-picking, but it is not. If there is no separation, there is no separation.
One must be vigilant in seeing all of this. (And hopefully, it made some sense to you.
on September 2nd, 2008 at 12:59 am
Thanks as always for your clarity Takuin. I am reminded of a conversation between Oprah and Tolle during their broadcast series. They discussed the difference between simply observing nature and naming things. Oprah had noticed that when she began to name things (differentiate one from another) that she lost the sense of beauty and connection. If she was able to simply experience without identifying, then the clarity continued.
And I am glad you don’t confuse your wife with an elevator. One has buttons to be pushed. With the other, it is to be avoided. (laughs)
on September 2nd, 2008 at 1:09 am
Haha.
That is a classic, Davidya.
on September 2nd, 2008 at 11:13 am
I’m glad Davidya brought the issue of context. From a recent post (of mine)—
One of the reasons it’s so hard to rationally “understand” non-duality (or the “no separation” takuin is talking about) is that, well, we can’t! Our rational minds cannot even comprehend anything unless there is context, and context requires “this” not being “that” (i.e., duality). Therefore, at a certain point, we must go “beyond,” or “beneath,” (in other words: let go of) rational thought in order to experience, “be,” the reality that is non-duality. It requires letting go of the need to define, to “understand.” This is one of the things that makes “the path” so challenging, and why it does, indeed, require vigilance.
on September 5th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
@Everyone I’ve been a bit pre-occupied of late, so I apologize for being a bit slow in responding. I see you have had a wonderful discussion without. Bravo.
Let me simply add this: Oneness is One. Unity is One. There is no distinction, even if there are what appear to be differences to the eye or ear. However, this works well to provide a point of reference for us, in that if we see differences, then we can know that there is further “clarity” to be obtain. For all is One, no separation. Our experience may be of separateness, but that doesn’t make it so. And THAT’S why the world is often referred to as an illusion.
on September 5th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
The issues discussed in this thread bring to mind Spinoza’s conception of Reality/God (as he referred to it, in a decidedly non-religious way), or Nature: there is only “one” “substance,” that being Reality/God/Nature, and everything else is “in” or “of” that substance as “modes” or attributes, such as extension and thought. There are infinite attributes (a seeming “plurality”) of (the) one substance.
This accounts for both illusion (duality) and reality (non-duality), but it (rightly) acknowledges the “existence” of both. Reality (non-duality) comes from nothing but itself; illusions come from us, from our own false perceptions (the definition of “illusion”). But, we also come from Reality/Nature, and therefore our illusions must also somehow be a part of Reality.
This is why Spinoza was so utterly brilliant, because he was able to show how we can rightly perceive “differences” of something which ultimately, by its nature, is “One” (as some like to say it). As Tom intimated above in his comment, it can be unwise to deny illusions, for it is through our illusions (”awakening” from them) that we are able to see things as they really are.
on September 5th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
If you study the meaning of Maya, usually held to mean the illusion of the world, it actually has 3 ways of being perceived.
When inertia is dominant in the perceiver, it is a covering over reality. When movement is dominant, it is illusion. But when clarity becomes dominant, it becomes a ladder to truth. Thus the mask becomes the vehicle.
To say “illusions come from us” may be misleading. Illusions arise from our interpretation of perceptions - in other words, local mind. They are the story’s we invent to explain what we do not see clearly. The field of perceptions themselves is another story. Its not on the individual level.
on September 6th, 2008 at 5:02 am
Hi Tom,
I’d like to explain a little what I understand by unity. Let’s imagine a dog, call him or her “Towser” - a mongrel who happens to have lost his or her rear leg. Towser is a unity - no question. Towser consists of a great number of differences - none of his three remaining legs is the same leg and they are not identical. In a sense Towser (the unity)is these differences. The unity is not threatened by difference but consists of it.
I hope this makes sense.
on September 6th, 2008 at 5:06 am
Hi rwaler,
I like the stuff from Spinoza. It gets over many of the problems with a stict monism (how could illusion be if all is one - the illusion would have to be the (same as the) one. But then reality is illusion and the difference disappears. I think Spinoza’s approach may be very fruitful. Thanks.
on September 6th, 2008 at 9:42 am
Evan — Exactly. The interesting thing is that a lot of times, people who insist on non-duality also do a lot of insisting that “this” is not “that,” that this or that does not exist, only this. Obviously, we can see the problem with this approach. I think it is important to recognize that these issues of duality are more complicated than many would like them to be. And yes, Spinoza’s work is impressive. I’m not sure I’ve ever come across a greater mind in “Western thought.” His work (and his example as a person) helped me a great deal.
Davidya — Illusion is not on the individual level? Not sure I’m following you. So, you’re saying that illusions can exist outside of our own perceptions? The very definition of illusion is: false perception/belief. I am not sure how I can see anyone else’s illusions but my own. In fact, I don’t see how illusion can exist in any realm, or on any level, but the individual. This is the point — We all must awaken from our own illusions to (the) reality (which is the same for all—reality being the absence of illusion). This is the only way it can work, as far as I have seen. Sure, there are all sorts of “theories” out there about these or those levels of existence and illusion and reality and so forth, but the bottom line is that we should and must focus on what we actually can, which is what we see, how we see it. Ultimately, I have found that the less one focuses on theory, and the more he (or she) focuses on what’s right in front of him, the more progress he will make. (That’s not directed at you personally, Davidya.)
on September 6th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Hi Evan
You describe very well what might be called the “unity of diversity”. There is a deeper value where we could say the dominance shifts. There is diversity in unity, all change is seen within the One. Then there is a deeper value still where there is no diversity, it is simply unity, oneness.
This does not mean the person cannot function in the world, only that the world is seen as all the same thing. Any “differences” are irrelevant. It’s like the dominance of unity cranked up so much, it absorbs all sense of diversity. There is no longer a separate observer and object of observation - they collapse together. There is simply the flow of awareness. You are that and all this is that.
Yeah, I know, it doesn’t make any sense. But that’s the mind trying to sort out what is beyond it.
on September 6th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
RW - Yes, many people live in duality so perceive non-duality from duality. Eventually we see that Unity is inclusive of everything. There is nothing that is not That. Duality is complex because it is illusion and thus not consistent.
hmmm - how to explain illusion in 50 words (laughs).
Perception is not on the level of the individual which is why we see the world in roughly the same way as others. (not because it’s outside in, it’s inside out) Separation is illusion, if you recall.
For most people, the process of awakening is in a series of stages. One way of looking at that is a series of awakenings - to reality, but also from illusion. The first waking is from the illusion of being a separate individual, the story of the ego. The second ‘awakening’ is from the illusion of the world, the shared illusion, the universe. (This one is a little different process that can start before the first and extend after the last, it is of refinement of perception) Finally, we awaken from what can best be described as the dream of God, Lila, the play. All of expression is seen through. The scale of this…
To understand this another way, mind is in layers of increasing focus. Each layer of mind has its own stories and dreams. Individual mind, group/cosmic mind, One mind. You may read of things like Lokas and such. Think of them of subsets of the group.
I agree - the step you are making now is what is most important. Making that step, the key thing is knowing what is real for you. Stopping and looking. I find value in the bigger picture as we then have a sense of context, where the steps may be going. If we don’t get too caught up in the ideas, they can bring us clarity and confidence on the path. They can also become barriers as the idea is not That. So wear them loosely and know that it will change. That’s the adventure of the path.
on September 6th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
BTW - I keep talking about these layers as it’s important to see. Many teachers speak only of awakening, the death of the ego, and self-realization. While this is good - when fully established it is absolute bliss consciousness - it is not the end. If you don’t know this, your concepts of being “there” can get in the way of completion.
As humans, and in the time we are in, we have a chance to progress very far. It would be a shame to be satisfied with liberation. (laughs)
on September 6th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Less commonly in the west, you may be on the path of the heart. Rather than being seen as layers of mind, it will be felt as layers of heart and oneness. Opening from individual heart and emotions to the divine, then merging in to Unity of Love. Same process, different vehicle.
The path of the heart is more expressed, so can be more visual and personalized too.
on September 6th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Davidya — Just to be clear, I was not talking about a step I am making now, but (a part of) a process I did myself, and which anyone must do if they are to make progress from being dominated by ego-self to being free of ego-self and the selfish desires which cause our ignorance and separateness and unhappiness/dissatisfaction.
I’m not sure I see what you’re saying about perception not being of the individual. What perceives (anything) but a subject (an ego-self)? The fact that we often perceive things in similar ways does not mean that perception is collective. Now, in the sense of: “in perceiving there is only perceiving, no perceiver and nothing perceived,” I wholeheartedly agree. Perhaps this is what you are talking about. Even so, one must not mistake this for “collective perception,” or any notion of collective illusion. Even if we both agree that there is something we call “Freedom,” our (positive) notions of that concept will not be the same, because they can’t be (thanks to “karma”). The only way they can be the same is via negativa, in the absence of the illusion(s) of that concept.
The path of awakening (to use that phrasing) is the process of awakening from our illusions. I cannot awaken from your illusions, just as you cannot awaken from mine. The only way to see clearly is to free ourselves from our distorting illusions. The way to do that is to question our illusions, meaning: questioning our beliefs, assumptions, fears, and certainties (the things on which our illusions are based). We much each do this for ourselves. No one can do this for us (as I’m sure you already know, and would agree). Teachers can show us the path, but we must walk it ourselves. What is “the path?” What I just described regarding our illusions. Of course, there is much involved in this process. But the best way to see what’s involved is to do it for yourself, and thus see for yourself. This is the way it works. For everyone.
To be clear, again, I wasn’t asking you to explain illusion to me. Rather, I was asking what you meant by what you were saying. Then again, I think it’s possible that you have explained it, and we are just approaching this in different ways. And I’m all for the big picture, but one must be careful on what they base the truths which make up that big picture. As I have written elsewhere:
“We can agree on a definition of ‘truth’ that makes sense to us and chalk up truth after truth based on that definition. Just as we can set up what we agree to be reason, and base what is true on that definition and context. But all the truths we build, all the subsequent opinions and beliefs and laws and realities we build upon that original ‘truth,’ are all nothing but illusion and fantasy if that original definition of truth is bogus.”
(Perhaps we are closer to being at the point of “agreeing to agree” than it might seem, Davidya…)
on September 6th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
@Davidya and RW I love the discussion. You guys keep right on going. Good points on both sides. I suspect, though, that if Ramana were listening to the two of you discuss this one, he would keep asking you both the same question in many forms:
“Who is it that has a soul?”
“Who perceives that?”
“What is asking these questions?”
Always pointing to the Void. Relentless. I love it.
To everyone…. Namaste.
on September 6th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Hi Tom
The answer to all three questions is the same. And the answer will vary depending on where we “stand”. At first, the answer may be “I do/am”. The jiva or soul is thought to be separate. Then as we perceive our essence in relationship to other essences, we come to see soul as a wave on the ocean, a spark of the fire of love. And then soul is an increment of the One, not separate. Atman.
When you experience the silence within, you do so from your unique vantage. You remain an aspect of the whole, gradually deepening the wholeness. If there was not an aspect experiencing, we would simply experience the entirety all at once and no further deepening would be required.
Some teachers like Ramana speak of the simple truth of being. It is always good to stay on the ‘goal’ and not get caught up on sidelines. But how do you get there from here?
Yes, some observation, some meditation, some inquiry. But what of the signposts? How do we relate to the new vistas and realities that may open to us? Yes, again come back to being. But to satisfy the mind, it is much easier to move forward. Why otherwise inquiry at all?
Namaste!
on September 6th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Hi Robert -
The You I refer to there is the “royal” you, whoever may be reading. One forgets there is a person (laughs). There is no disagreeing, just sharing.
If all of the world, the universe, and everything beyond that is just a dream or illusion, what is it but perception? If we invite a friend to come to the window with us and point to a tree, will they not see the tree? If our perception were unique for each ego, why would they see the same thing at all? Remember that the ego is an illusion itself, the ‘tiny mad idea’. Why would your ego have bothered to create Quasars that you have not seen but an astronomer has? Oneness is closer than you might think.
Only the process of perception is true, but this is not the reality for someone who still perceives self and other. As long as there is a sense of a me identity, which continues after the ego goes, we perceive an inside and an outside, our thoughts and the world ‘out there’. The observer still is.
I’m not suggesting we all see the world the same way. That’s not the point of why we are here. But there is a commonality. The roads don’t change direction because we dream that individually. The sky remains blue, whatever a person might like better.
This actually pointx to the real secret of The Secret. If we want to manifest stuff, we have to place it into the common reality. We have to think in the cosmic mind. We do it all the time as there is no individual mind separate from cosmic mind. But we have to go a little deeper than the usual noise. But I digress.
Yes, we awaken from our individual illusions, as you describe. Then the group illusions, then even God’s. We cannot perceive reality fully until we have removed all coverings.
I agree with your quote. And the real juicy bit is that everything we experience is a form of illusion or dream. So all truth is bogus. (laughs)
This is the realization that allows Unity or Oneness to dawn. Everything is a story, a dream in the mind of the One. When we see that, we can use it as a stepping stone or ladder home.
It’s like what Ruiz says. Don’t believe anything I say. Its just my story, my truth. But listen and you will understand.
on September 25th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
This discussion is mostly beyond me. A sense of oneness with all is a nice feeling, but ultimately I get stuck on one part of it:
“Just awaken, aware, emptiness. How cool is that?!!!!!”
That is not cool at all, if you ask me. I don’t want to be emptiness. I like me. Awake and aware are nice, but I’m sure what you mean is not what I mean. How do you feel seeing yourself as a drop of soup in a giant bowl of soup? No disrespect intended, that’s just how it sounds to me.
on September 25th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Another naive question. When you say, “turning my attention inward,” you’re speaking of the inner part of what? It seems to me that awareness would be outward.
on September 25th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
@Dot I understand your concerns. However, it really isn’t a question of what we may or may not like or want. It really is a question of what is. The amazing thing to me is that as we come into a greater sense of harmony with the truth of what is, we become more joyous at the facts of existence. We revel in our nothingness. It isn’t that we disappear. Our false identity disappears. But what you are, what is aware, is still here. You are still looking out of your body’s eyes. But you know that the body and your thoughts are not who you are. Life is MUCH happier then.
on October 25th, 2008 at 2:19 am
Great work. I have thought about that often recently and I think you are on to something. If it is true that we are all single drops in the greater ocean, what do we need to do in order to become part of the whole again? Is this entire life our experience as a drop, or can we find unity within this lifetime?
on October 25th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
@Padma Thanks for the comments. Glad to have you as a reader. You must consider, though, that we are NOT parts of the whole. We ARE the whole thinking we are parts. As the whole, we are the ocean. We can never be anything other than the ocean. So, yes, we can know that again in this life time.
on November 5th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
Yes! We ARE the whole thinking (temporarily) that we are parts
Thanks for this!
on November 5th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
@Julie You are welcome. Thanks for your comment.
Trackbacks