Sweetwater,
Kenton

We aspirants, in my opinion, move regularly between non-dualism and dualism in our minds. At least this is very much true for me. It is an effort to stay on track. I constantly catch myself forgetting about seeing the world and universe through a non-dualistic mode.

How do we train our minds not to become immeshed in the conflict we seek to escape? To help us to allow the Awakeing process to blossom?
Sometimes I feel like I just don’t get it. Like I can think and write lofty things but inside I am a fraud because I cannot actually live, for any truly significant period, the modality I espouse.

Inner turmoil, anguish, doubt and frustration are all part of this human experience. But, from your posts I see hope that one can really be something else altogether - a being at peace with himself and others.

I have to be honest and say that I am not in that place. But, I sure want to be.

Thanks!

Jerry

Thanks for the comment! I’ll go totally ‘dual’ here, and try to explain this in the most practical terms possible. As you might imagine, we could espouse a variety of ‘theories’ regarding how our inner conflict creates outer conflict. But let’s look at this process at its most basic level, and we should be able to see it functioning in our lives.

If I wake up with conflict (let’s say I’m angry or anxious about some event which is due to happen today), imagine how my wife’s morning might go. Conversely, if I wake up excited about the day and joyful to be alive, imagine how my wife’s morning might go.

We can see the same thing in the checkout line at, say, the grocery. If I’m in conflict (let’s say in this case I’m rushed) and I treat the checkout person like they’re just a machine, imagine what affect that might have. Conversely, if I am open, observant, and not immersed in my own conflict, I might see that he isn’t smiling, and try to say something bright or perhaps even go and buy him a chocolate bar.

These might sound like superficial examples (basically manipulations to swing someone toward the ‘top of the wheel of samsara’), but the key is that humans don’t function as isolated entities. Pretty much everyone out there can have their attitudes swayed by a nice gesture or a harsh word.

Also important is to realize how much energy it takes to suffer. When we are suffering on any level (engaged in self-conflict), it can be difficult for us to pay attention to anything except our own pain. Thus, it can be nearly impossible to see that our loved one is feeling ignored, or the checkout person is suffering in boredom.

In effect, then, our inner conflict not only spreads ‘negativity’, but when we’re in the midst of our own conflict, it also makes us unaware of the immediate suffering of others.

If we extend this, we’ll find that our every connection with another person, or the world in general, is affected by our inner state. When we take this all the way to the consideration of ‘distant’ suffering (starving people in a far-off country, the suffering of people unknown to us, etc.), it becomes much more difficult to rationalize a causal connection according to our current model of the world.

But if we simply consider that we are an integral part of this mass of humanity, we can see that the world’s suffering is largely caused by each individual’s active participation. If you imagine the world’s population reduced – let’s say to three people – it would be much easier for you to initiate change. Heck, if you negate conflict in yourself, you’re one-third of the way there! The entire human race comprises a slightly larger number, but the effect is not completely insignificant, and it’s certainly better than just giving up and being an active contributor to the world’s conflict.

To briefly go non-dual, we can come to experience directly what makes this whole process of ‘my conflict creates the world’s conflict’ difficult to understand. Here, we see that all the issues which create our feelings of impotence to initiate change (massive numbers of people, vast distances, the momentum of the collective human drive toward destruction) are issues of our current dualistic model, and have very little bearing on the reality of our situation. So in the end, what we’re really doing battle with is the ideas we’re creating in our heads – our model of the world which simultaneously creates the problems and then tells us that we’re nearly powerless to correct them.

Sweetwater,
Kenton

Your concern is among the most common (and thus pressing and important) questions that I get. I’m always encouraged to get the question, because it shows that the questioner is engaged in self-honesty in regards to their state of mind. As you can imagine, dwelling in a state where you are convinced that you are already enlightened isn’t very productive when we are moving toward non-dualism.

The funny twist is that though we might hesitate to consider ourselves enlightened, we’re usually quite comfortable considering ourselves as dualists. Now, just because everyone is doing it (dualism) doesn’t mean it’s easy, and really, dualism is a much more impressive state of being, if we’re impressed with complexity, genius, and sheer amount of work. In other words, being a dualist is pretty tough.

The reason I say this is because it can get us in touch with what we feel non-dualism ‘is’. If I am loathe to claim that I am awakened, it’s a good sign that I consider being awakened as a special sort of thing. (You’ll see where I’m going with this in a moment). If I consider this awakened state as special (and if we are honest with ourselves, we’ll often consider it ‘better’ in some way than dualism), we’re actively engaged in creating dualism. Dualism stands over here, non-dualism stands over there, and how can I move more toward one than the other? Neither of these are independent realities. We’re creating the whole thing in our minds, and bringing each polar opposite (and thereby the quest to reach one of them) into reality by our very thinking.

If we possess humility, and are loathe to admit to being awakened, then perhaps we might take things the opposite direction and just become awesome dualists. Since being a dualist isn’t ’special’, we’re more apt to really sink ourselves into being ‘good at it’.

If we really get to know the ins and outs of the dualistic mind-set, we’ll soon find that dualism undoes itself under observation – indeed, if we just look at it directly, it is precisely the same as non-dualism. This is when we can discover that we’ve been perfectly non-dual all along.

Usually, what we’re really saying when we say we are ‘moving between dualism and non-dualism’ is that we are ‘moving between awareness of our mind’s activity, and the sensation of “zoning out”, or allowing our mind to careen off in auto-pilot’. In other words, we’re putting certain expectations on ourselves, and on some level telling ourselves ‘good’ when we’re succeeding, and ‘bad’ when we’re failing.

The key here is to just see what we’re doing. This very act of choosing one state over the other is an active creation process – whereby we create the very state we’re attempting to get out of.

This is why I so often suggest non-doing as the most direct means of awakening. I realize that this is easily misunderstood as an excuse not to meditate or search, but I attempt to point out that this is a different sort of non-doing than our usual laziness. This very non-doing is synonymous with awakening.

The way way to ‘get there’ is simply to uncover all the layers of delusion we’ve put over our perceptions. When we find ourselves thinking ‘I am not doing it right’, it’s easy to get swept away into that thought. But what if we look at the thought itself?

What is that very thought?

I must add, Jerry, that in no way are you being a fraud. Indeed, you are in an unique position. The reason enlightenment is so difficult to ‘achieve’ is that many of those who consider themselves enlightened (or at least far enough along to ‘teach’ it), have forgotten how to speak the dualistic language. Much of what we read regarding non-dualism leaves all but the most devoted seekers tangled in frustrating webs of nonsense.

Right now, you are in the position of seeing both methods of language, and if you see dualism for what it Is, perhaps you could be one of the rare voices able to understand and communicate in both languages. This sort of understanding creates the sort of compassion that can gently and successfully guide people from their suffering, and perhaps will be the seed to creating entirely new methods of pointing toward awakening.

Sweetwater,
Kenton

We are making you work hard! Thanks for being willing to spend your time
helping others to take significant steps toward the understanding of non-dualism. You are counseling myself and others to move into realms of awareness which helps us to shed the layers of delusions we are under. Your efforts are very much appreciated.

Let me see, I get from your response that we should:
Allow the one who is doing the thinking and creating (yourself) to be observed from a distance by ones own awareness of this process. Thus seeing what it is we are doing and not becomming caught up in the web of dualism we are witnessing.

I know you have stated this over and over in one fashion or another, but is is something we can easily forget and then move back into the place where we again become a part of the delusion and hyperactivity we seek to escape from.

Thanks again, my friend, for all your help in this journey of discovery and, if you will, ‘uncovery’.

Best,

Jerry

Sweetwater,

Kenton

Thank you for your words. =)

I loved what you wrote, and wanted to add some thoughts that may benefit other readers.

This ‘watching’ of yourself is a wonderful tool — as long as we remember the parable of using the boat to cross the river. If we can truly observe the process we call ‘me’, we’ll start to see some amazing things. If we follow naturally what we see, it will lead us on to a discovery of what this ‘watching’ really is.

The tough part about it is that we can get caught in the watching — creating yet another division as we think of our ‘real self’ watching the strange, tragic, and wonderful actions of our ‘ego-self’.

Your wording was significant, in that you said ‘Allow’. If we’re truly ‘allowing’ (in other words, letting awareness be aware, instead of attempting to force awareness into certain areas), we will find ourselves in the ‘natural following’ I mentioned above. When we try to force that awareness, we can easily find ourselves creating new and subtle versions of ‘me’, which only complicates matters.

I’ve found that what you describe is a very powerful ‘method’ for many people. A method of coming to observe our actions, our emotions, and our thoughts almost as if we are seeing them from afar. If this isn’t springing someone into awareness, it’s often quite interesting to attempt to turn that awareness onto the ‘watcher’, and see what we find there. It is then, when we’ve discovered that the ‘watcher’ is all there is, and then we can’t seem to ‘find’ the watcher who’s watching . . . well, that’s when we can sometimes see how ludicrous the whole thing is, and that can bring us a marvelous sort of clarity! =)

I appreciate you sharing what you glean from these writings — your observations will help many people to see new aspects of what I’ve written. Again, I give my thanks.

Sweetwater,
Kenton

Thanks for bringing up some extremely relevant questions. Indeed, each question you pose is, in essence (as you noted), asking the same thing – if we approach the world in any manner (be it with compassion, love, through a certain model, via conflict), do we not create the dual opposite of our approach?
Interestingly, I’d have to say both ‘yes’, and ‘no’.
The ‘yes’ part is easily observable, for instance, in this hypothetical situation –

Peace activists rally outside a government building, which a) puts out the message the people are concerned about peace and willing to work for it, and b) gets the politicians inside the building even more angry and disgusted with the ‘idealistic’ peace activists, reinforcing (and strengthening) the politician’s emotional need to continue to support the war.

We can see this process working on both massive and extremely subtle levels – where our actions both support the cause and ‘bring into being’ opposition to the cause. Wars, arguments, polite exchanges, and indeed all of our daily interactions are dominated by this process. Even our attempt to ‘change’ the inner workings of our minds, as you noted, is a part of this process. This is the ‘trick’ to waking up – it’s not something we can actively achieve, because the process of attempting to achieve it creates the very process we’re trying to move away from.

This process is what I call ‘dualism’, and you are absolutely right in saying that our dualistic model creates our conflict-filled world.

However, it’s also important to understand that (if I may further sub-divide reality) this process is only ‘real’ in the sense that something in our imagination is real, such as the pink flying elephant I’m currently visualizing.

There is, available to us all, a direct perception of the ‘reality’ existing outside our beliefs, our models, and our dualism. This is, of course, difficult to believe, but that’s precisely because it’s not something we can believe. It’s something we must experience directly, and though we’re all naturally very good at this, we’re quite out of the habit, and it can thus be very difficult for us to live in any other manner except through our beliefs.

As I write this, I’m creating another division in order to point out that there is something beyond our usual method of encountering the world, but it’s also important to note that even this division is born of the dualistic model, and doesn’t exist as any sort of ‘reality’ outside our imagination. But since we’re dealing with the realm of imagination, it can benefit us, temporarily, to make this division.

So, ‘yes’, we create the opposite of our compassion when we approach the world with compassion. This is why dualism has lasted so long and is so pervasive. (Because it’s obvious to this mind-set that a compassionate world is created by endorsing compassion and eradicating violence.) However, ‘compassion’ (and I might use any word here, such as ‘love’, ‘awareness’, ‘emptiness’) as I’m using it is actually referring to what happens when we can see past all of our models and beliefs.

This new state literally has no opposites, and even the entire idea of ‘creating’ no longer holds any relevance. Indeed, everything we take to be real, such as ‘movement’, ‘creation’, ‘relationship’, ‘existence’, ‘death’, ‘time’, ‘opposites’, ‘cause/effect’ – all of these things are seen to be nothing but the inner workings of a model – the dualistic model, which is neither necessary nor effective for living in this world.

Up until the very moment of our awakening, much of this will seem like nonsense, simply because the state being pointed toward is literally unconceivable. Though it is at once familiar when we encounter it, it is profoundly alien to our dualistic minds. This is why we might say equally ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to the questions you posed – yes, according to our model (which is effectively our current reality), and no once we discard the model (or rather, see the model for what it truly is).

Sweetwater,
Kenton

Thanks for the excellent response.

Is “awakening” merely getting a brief glimpse of the experience of the “no-model” because if we “discard the model” entirely, do we not then cease to exist as body-mind? If I ‘remain’ non-dualistic, I would essentially cease to exist as body-mind, since that is the chief component of a dualistic mind state or model.

You state that the dualistic model is neither necessary not effective for living in this world. Actually, isn’t it true that the dualistic model is the ONLY way of living in THIS “world,” because without it, this world could not be experienced at all. To live in this world non-dualistically is not to live…in this world…

I suppose my point is that I seriously question the concepts of awakening, realization, enlightenment, etc, that many proclaim to having achieved because to be awakened is to cease to exist as body-mind based on the concepts of non-dualism. However, I do believe we can “touch” it, if only briefly. But once its ‘touched’ the need to embrace is overpowering and that in itself is a trap. Thus, there is fear (losing self) and desire (losing self).

However, in regard to non-dualism, I do recognize that ‘words’ fail in the endeavor to teach (since your teaching a concept that is essentially not a concept), nonetheless your teaching words are very effective.

Really, I should hire you to ask questions on this site, because you’re hitting some very important topics =)

We hear often enough that non-dualism involves the dissolving of the ego (the body-mind), as well as a dissolution of all the ‘things’ of the world. But now I’ll say that non-dualism is actually the creation of the ego and all the ‘things’ of the world.

Let me explain:

It’s important to realize that ‘everything we say about enlightenment is a lie’, as I’ve written in an article elsewhere on this site. We use words as pointers only to move a person’s mind away from latching on to a certain concept – not as enticement to accept a new concept.

Most people are fixed on the idea that the world is made of things, and that each individual is a separate unit looking out and interacting with that external reality. Thus, an effective pointer is to urge their minds away from that belief by speaking about ‘dissolving egos’ and ‘non-dual reality’. But there is no ego to dissolve, no multiplicity to merge into oneness. When we ‘go non-dual’, absolutely nothing is lost. The ego doesn’t actually dissolve. We just see the body-mind for what it is.

To make this more clear, imagine that everyone harbored deep-held beliefs that the world was ‘Oneness’, and that they were not separate from anything in this world. Then you might paradoxically hear non-dualists telling people that they are actually individual units in a world of multiplicity.

The reason? To come to non-dualism, we don’t have to accept any set of new beliefs. We simply have to point to the experience of Just This. Words always invoke concepts, so if we’re going to use them to point toward non-dualism, we can only deal in concept-creation. If we do it skillfully, the mind will come to see the concept-creation process in action, and this can lead us to ‘waking up’ to what dualism (and thus non-dualism) is all about.

Non-dualism is not a destruction of dualism. It is simply seeing it for what it is. The dualistic model is ‘neither necessary or effective for living in this world’ because when I say ‘dualistic model’, I might better refer to it as ‘our belief in the dualistic model’. In With non-dualism we do not lose our ability to utilize the dualistic model.

I’ll say it again, because it is so important. Non-dualism does not eradicate dualism. It just sees it for what it is.

Here’s another way to shock our mind into awakening:

Look around you, and realize that everything and everyone you see is perfectly non-dualistic. Only you (and this should be read as a strictly personal message to each person reading this) are dualistic.

What does this statement mean? It gives us a hint regarding what dualism really is. Not an actual external reality that can exist or not exist. It’s something else entirely, and awakening is simply the process of seeing just what that dualism really is.

By the way – questioning this whole ‘awakening’ or ‘enlightenment’ thing is just what you should be doing. When people don’t question, they tend to accept someone else’s version (or their own cobbled-together one) of what awakening ‘is’. The result is that they spend their energies trying to achieve some new state of being. If you think you’ve grasped enlightenment, you’re way off base. If you don’t believe in awakening, you’re on the right track. If you doubt that anyone is enlightened, that’s perfect! These questions you are posing are just what is needed. Doubt, doubt, doubt!

Sweetwater,
Kenton

Kenton