Beyond the illusion of a separate sense of self

[dduport]

LU is focused guiding for seeing there is no real, inherent 'self' - what do you understand by this?
Following non-dual writings, I understand that the sense of self is illusory. I still haven't been able to get a real sense of our true nature, beyond theoretical understanding.

What are you looking for at LU?
I'm looking to get direct access to our true non-dual nature. I've tried to be a serious student of non-duality for a while, but it seems that I need some help to go through the gateless gate / pahtless path.

What do you expect from a guided conversation?
Liberation, no less! I expect to be kindly exposed to pointers that are unavoidably effective. So far I've been exposed to many pointers in the literature, but my mind has been able to render all of them useless.

What is your experience in terms of spiritual practices, seeking and inquiry?
I tried some meditation and relaxation techniques with various (relatively low) degrees of effectiveness. I haven't been super consistent (busy life with kids, etc).

On a scale from 1 to 10, how willing are you to question any currently held beliefs about 'self?
10

[Bassui]

Hey dduport,

I'm familiar with non-dual literature so perhaps I may be able to help guide you if you're interested in approaching it from that path.

Regards,
Bassui

[dduport]

Hello Bassui,

Thanks a lot for your offer. I'm definitely interested in approaching awakening from a non-dual perspective.
Regards,

David

[Bassui]

Excellent.

Can you give me a little information on your understanding of non-duality, who you've read, and some of the sticking points you're having trouble with?

[dduport]

Bassui,

I tried to reply your three questions as concisely as I could:

1. My understanding of non-duality
Our waking/everyday reality is an illusion based on duality (subject/object, left/right, hot/cold, etc). Non-dual traditions (e.g., classical advaita vedanta, neo-advaita, etc) tells us "real" reality is non-dual (not two). There's no separation between subject and object, to put it briefly.

2. Influential authors within the non-dual / advaita tradition:
I started this path when a friend suggested Nisargadatta's _I'm That_. Then I read Tony Parsons, Leo Hartong, Moller de la Rouviere, EckhartTolle, Alan Watts, Lao Tzu, Rupert Spira, Ramana Maharshi, etc.

3. Sticking points I'm having trouble with
I haven't been able to *realize" the insights offered by the non-dual tradition. Maybe my mind (my self) has erected a formidable resistance to this kids of realization. Maybe non-duality is another illusion. I'd like to check it for myself, though.

For some reason, I believe that the non-dual approach is correct. But I also think that effective empirical knowledge is superior to belief. And that's basically why I am participating in this forum.

Thank you!

david

[Bassui]

Hey David,

Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. It seems like you have a good grasp on what the non-dual teachers are pointing to. Anything by Nisargardatta, Ramana, Krishnamurti, or any of the old Zen texts are right up my alley (hence the name Bassui) and I consider those sages to be the amongst the highest.

Maybe my mind (my self) has erected a formidable resistance to this kids of realization.

It may seem that way, but the way things seem and the way they really are tend to be entirely different. Throw this concept right out the window as it does nothing but reinforce a superfluous barrier to your own liberation.

Maybe non-duality is another illusion.

Non-duality is merely another concept which, when it's meaning is truly understood, will be discarded like all other concepts. We use language to communicate so we are bound by it's limitations which is why we can only point to the truth, but not actually address it directly, and those are the nuts and bolts of zen and advaita teachings.

But I also think that effective empirical knowledge is superior to belief.

Agreed, and as you must be aware your own direct experience is all that matters. The sages never ask you to believe anything, only see it for yourself.

With all that said I do have a few rules for fair play:
1) No expectations. These only create more obstacles. Go with the flow without wanting or expecting a single thing.
2) Honesty at all times. There are no wrong answers. Your answers to my questions only tell me where I need to go next, so make sure to answer with the truth (and not what you think I want to hear).
3) Your direct experience is the only thing that matters and the only thing we're interested in.

Sound good?

[dduport]

Thanks, Bassui.

I like your rules for fair play. I'll try to follow them.

I'm not sure how we continue from here. I guess that we can just focus on the awakening process. I just started reading Jed McKenna's Spiritual Enlightenment: The Damnedest Thing. One important insight I found in McKenna's book and in other non-dual teachings is that being awake (into "abiding nondual awareness") is not the blissful state that many spiritual seekers believe it to be. Moreover, the process of awakening is a psychologically/emotionally/spiritually difficult process that leads, if and when it's completed, to a state where the awakened person looses interest in ordinary human affairs, including our relationships, passions, proclivities, etc. In other words, you realize that you're living a dream and to some extent you just stop caring about participating in it.

My intuition is that this view correct, that awakening into non-dual awareness is not a pleasant state, to say the least. And nonetheless people knowing this keep pushing in that direction, in what looks like an attempt to hack the system having the intuition that you won't get any rewards beyond knowing how the system really works, while the costs (maybe not so much for the awakened individual, but for their loved ones) are far from trivial.

As a husband and parent of two little kids, I'm worried about the consequences of being so interested in knowing true reality, but I just keep seeking truth no matter what. Why isn't that irresponsible?

david

[Bassui]

One important insight I found in McKenna's book and in other non-dual teachings is that being awake (into "abiding nondual awareness") is not the blissful state that many spiritual seekers believe it to be.

This is true. The term "enlightenment" has been perverted to mean something other than it's original definition.
Realizing your true nature does not give you magical powers to avoid pain and only experience pleasure. Suffering it its myriad forms are still a part of this relative existence. It is said that the Buddha died of either food poisoning or some internal infection caused by bacteria in food. Ramana died of painful cancer in the arm. J. Krishnamurti died of pancreatic cancer. Jesus...well we know what happened to him. These sages all experienced tremendous physical pain and suffering in that regard. What they understood was that there is no sufferer to be found.

Moreover, the process of awakening is a psychologically/emotionally/spiritually difficult process

There are no rules for awakening. It can be easy, it can be difficult. It can be a long arduous process or sudden.

when it's completed, to a state where the awakened person looses interest in ordinary human affairs, including our relationships, passions, proclivities, etc. In other words, you realize that you're living a dream and to some extent you just stop caring about participating in it.

You have no choice but to participate in it :)
This is true for some people, not for others. Some realize their true nature and find meaning in all things. Relationships become deeper, they travel lighter. Things are taken less seriously and never personally. You realize this is all a dream and then make the most of it.
Some people go the other way. There are no rules. It's a risk you should think about.

awakening into non-dual awareness is not a pleasant state

It is not a state. It's a shift in perception - an added viewpoint, so to speak. Nothing more.

As a husband and parent of two little kids, I'm worried about the consequences of being so interested in knowing true reality, but I just keep seeking truth no matter what. Why isn't that irresponsible?

Perhaps it is! Your intuition is right on point. This is a question you must seriously consider for yourself. Personally. Some people will stop at nothing to know the truth, even if that means destroying their own world. Some balk at the idea and drift back to the dream. Neither is wrong. It's a personal choice we all must deeply ponder.

I will say that for me, when I saw my face before my parents were born, this entire "thing" became much more enjoyable. I travel much lighter and enjoy all my relationships on a much more deeper and meaningful level than I did before. The whole thing made sense. But that may not be true for you.

Think about it! If you would like to inquire further please let me know.

[dduport]

Hello Bassui,

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I took some time to reflect about this.

I realized that it will also be irresponsible not to seek the truth when the impulse is so... overwhelming.

Where do I start?

david

[Bassui]

Hey David,
Good to hear from you. No problem with the delay!

I took some time to reflect about this.

Good on you. It's not a decision made lightly so I'm glad you considered it deeply.

Where do I start?

What does relative mean to you?
What are some examples of relativity in your own experience?
Can you name a few things that aren't relative?

[dduport]

Thank you, Bassui.

My answers to your questions:

What does relative mean to you?

Relative means in relationship to something else.

What are some examples of relativity in your own experience?

Example #1: Prices are an example of a "relativity". For instance, a coat is worth two hats or x currency units.
Example #2: The perception of temperatures for different people. I've seen locals in the Caribbean use jackets and even scarf when outside temperature goes below 20 Celsius, while people from cold weathers don't change their beach clothing.
Example #3: Time flowing faster (slower) while performing pleasurable (not pleasurable) activities.

Can you name a few things that aren't relative?

I suspect that the correct answer is no, since we live in a relative reality of transient forms (as opposed to the absolute, which for me is only theoretical). But in a different context I'd say that mathematical constants like Pi or Phi or directly and easily observable natural regularities like moon phases are not relative (by definition).

Thank you!

[Bassui]

Relative means in relationship to something else.

To expand on that definition: relative is that which depends upon another for its identity or purpose.

But in a different context I'd say that mathematical constants like Pi or Phi or directly and easily observable natural regularities like moon phases are not relative (by definition).

There is no context in which these things are not relative. Pi (the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter) exists because of the causes and conditions that allow it to exist. No circles, no Pi. No diameter, no circumference. Ad nauseum. And circles are circles because they're not squares, and so forth and so on. Even the numbers in Pi are relative. 3.14~ exists in relation to all other numbers, constant or not. A 3 is a 3 precisely because it is not a 1 or a 2.

In exactly the same way that the condition we call warm depends upon not being hot nor cold.

Moon phases are the same. They exist because of the causes and conditions that allow them to exist. They depend on there being gravitational forces, other objects to interact with, etc. The moon is the moon because it is not the earth, or the sun, so forth an so on.

I suspect that the correct answer is no

I don't want you to suspect. I want you to look for yourself! Don't take my word for it. Trust your own direct experience. Can you find something that is not relative? Something that does not depend upon another for its identity or purpose?

[dduport]

You're right. I was trying to answer your questions assuming that I hadn't read any non-dualist, zen or philosophical literature. I (kind of) know the theory, but I wanted to take this opportunity to get a clear rebuttal or correction by someone more advanced than me. I'm not playing tricks; I'm just trying to effectively incorporate notions that are (merely) theoretical at the moment. Your answers game another opportunity to look at our relative world with new eyes. Thank you.

Responding to your latest question: no, I cannot find anything in this world that is not relative.

What do we do with this knowledge?

[Bassui]

Understanding the concept of all things being relative is, in my experience, one of the biggest (if not the biggest) obstacles to self-realization. Delving into this understanding on a personal level is paramount.

What do we do with this knowledge?

It begs two questions. The first of which we can explore a little now:

If all things are interconnected, in constant flux, and impermanent (relative) -- do any of them have their own intrinsic nature?

[dduport]

Thank you for stressing the critical importance of understanding the concept of all things being relative. I find it extremely hard to transition from theoretical knowledge to practical understanding.

If all things are interconnected, in constant flux, and impermanent (relative) -- do any of them have their own intrinsic nature?

No, it follows they don't have their own intrinsic nature. But how do we know if things as they appear in our relative reality are not a manifestation of how they appear when you're out of Plato's cave? How do we know that the (relative) rose we are contemplating is not a form of expression of a rose in absolute reality? This is in line, I think, with the argument presented in this book (theoretical knowledge again!): https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/855 ... f_Illusion

Thank you again.