Sin is a “big deal” in Christian societies like ours, and there is a widespread feeling, if not fear, that to take such a position, to simply forget our wrongdoings as we go along, might allow further wrongdoings that could have been avoided, had we taken a look at what we were doing. If we don’t examine our mistakes, there may be a tendency to continue to commit them.
I am not advising you to ignore faulty behavior and not try to understand it. On the contrary, I say yes, understand, but don’t attribute the action to yourself. Don’t take yourself for a sinner. Understand that you were the witness of the deed, not its doer, and forget it.
Are you saying all mistakes can be traced back to the ego, and that the ego is the original mistake, a case of mistaken identity?
This is certainly true for all ethical mistakes. If I am learning how to drive, I am going to make mistakes, and these mistakes are all right. They are part of the learning process. They won’t haunt me in the future. However, if I behave badly toward somebody, my wrongdoing will haunt me, and I will come to the understanding that I have to undo the mischief. In this case, I should immediately do my best to remedy the situation, if possible, and then forget it. But, there is no sinner, there is nobody who needs to be forgiven.
***
How can people learn to live without fear?
They should learn to live with their fear. If they try to get rid of fear, they will be caught in a vicious circle, because fear originates from the ego, from the idea of being a separate entity, and this same ego, looking for pleasurable situations and avoiding the unpleasant ones, wants to get rid of fear.
Please explain how fear arises from the ego as a separate entity. Most people’s experience is that fear arises from threatening situations, from possible physical danger, for example, and that it happens to, rather than comes from, the ego.
There are two kinds of fear. There is a fear coming from the instinct of survival, common to men and animals. This fear is perfectly natural, there is nothing wrong with the body preparing itself to face a threatening situation.
So the notion of living free from fear does not exclude experiencing fear when biological survival is in question?
No. That is a very deep conditioning that belongs to the body.
And it doesn’t cause problems . . .
It doesn’t cause problems if there is no identification with the body, because then it is seen like a cloud appearing and dissolving in the sky. It may even be useful.
If somebody doesn’t take himself for a person, are you saying that fear will arise, be seen simply like an object appearing in the body, and the person will act in the most appropriate way?
Yes. If you are under attack, this fear may trigger in your body the right supplement of adrenaline you need to run faster than your assailant.
Right!
However, psychological fear is of a different nature. You may remember situations when, as a child, you imagined monsters, and, although they were your own creations, there was a point when they took on a life of their own, bringing about real fear in you. These psychological creations trigger the same biological mechanisms of fear with adrenaline secretion, but their origin is now completely different: it is a thought created by the person.
In this case, what is threatened is the ego; its survival is in question.
Yes, psychological fear comes from the ego. If I think and feel that I am a personal entity, then everything that is not “I” is a potential threat to me. If I am everything, if there is nothing other than “I,” of what could I be afraid? The real source of psychological fear is the ego. The question was, “How can people learn to live without fear?” Let’s first understand the uselessness of trying to get rid of any specific fear. Assume I am afraid of ghosts, and that makes me frightened and depressed. I undergo a ten-year psychoanalysis, until I have the insight of some event in my early childhood being the underlying cause of my fear of ghosts. That ends the analysis. I am declared cured of my fear of ghosts, and indeed I am. Three months thereafter, I again fall into a serious depression. This time, I am no longer afraid of ghosts; I am afraid of becoming ill and dying.
Are you suggesting that the fear of ghosts was never your real fear, that all along it was the fear of dying?
I am suggesting that the ghosts were a superimposition onto an underlying fear. If a manipulation at the level of the mind removes this superimposition, its root cause has not been eliminated, and a new superimposition will soon come up.
Are you saying that it isn’t possible to live as a person without fear?
Exactly.
Because there is always fear of death . . .
Because fear is the person, and the person is fear. Fear and desire are the same thing. Fear is a negative form of desire. Fear is, “I don’t want this to happen” which is the same as, “I hope this won’t happen.” Desire or fear is the substance of the ego. The ego as such, as the pure thought “I am,” can’t last long. This thought, “I am,” soon dies in the non-experience of being, in its source, awareness. The mechanism of fear and desire has to come in to lend some appearance of continuity to the ego. Until I have avoided the dreadful event or obtained the desired object, the ego lives. Therefore, the only radical cure for fear, which is also a cure for desire, is the understanding that we are not this ego, subject to fear and desire. This understanding comes as a result of a deep inquiry. To understand this at the conceptual level is important, but this understanding has to go much deeper, because fear and desire have a profound impact on the texture and structure of the body. When we feel fear, we must face it in order to understand it deeply. We have to see its source, the notion of being a personal entity, but we also have to welcome it as a bodily sensation, as a perception. We should not be afraid of our fear. We should let it appear in us and see it for what it is, a set of bodily sensations.
***
After encountering this perspective, I feel that every notion I have of myself and of the world is wrong, and I have no idea where to start in order to put things right. Can you suggest a starting point?
The encounter with this perspective was the starting point. To question all the previous notions and to arrive at the feeling, “I don’t know” is a very good sign. This perspective does not replace false notions with new ones. It simply enables you to see the concepts you had for what they were: illusions, mere thought forms having no real connection with one another. This is enough. So, live in your innocence, live with your, “I don’t know.” Don’t assert anything. Don’t reach any final conclusion. Don’t judge. Be open, learn, and understand. Know and enjoy what you are from moment to moment.
How can I move from there toward some kind of clarification? How can I live from moment to moment, simply being open, and enjoy it? Do you have a practical suggestion?
I would say, “Live with the desire for truth. Let it be your guide.” The desire for truth comes from truth itself. It brings about higher intelligence that will, in time, clarify all questions. Enjoy the path, since there is already a joyful component in understanding. Don’t take yourself for a limited entity now that you have seen, at least in a glimpse, that you are awareness beyond mentations. Keep this understanding as a treasure. Go back to it when it invites you. Live with it and let it do the work.
***
How would you compare the difference between the views of the world held by Western science and non-dualism? Are there any fundamental similarities, or are they radically different?
They are radically different. These perspectives exclude one another. From the point of view of Western science, of physics, there is an objective world “out there” existing independently of awareness, and this alleged world (as the non-dualist would say), is the subject matter of science. The scientist starts with the study of a world the existence of which he has no proof, whereas the non-dualist, taking a radically different approach, commences from the only certainty he has, the only certainty we can have, that of being. This certainty can never be
denied. It is our moment-to-moment experience. For this reason, unlike the scientist, the non-dualist takes a firm stand in certainty and in reality. I am not ignoring the changes in modern physics that originate from the theory of relativity and from quantum mechanics. These changes lead us to question the validity of the materialistic view of an independent universe comprised of solid particles. At the extragalactic and at the subatomic scales the universe is no longer what it appeared to be at the human scale. Notions we held to be absolute truth, such as absolute space, absolute time, causality, locality, and determinism turn out to have only a relative validity. The ancient epistemological framework, atomistic materialism and strict realism, seems to be inconsistent with modern physics as demonstrated by Pr. d’Espagnat. The non-dualist perspective might, perhaps, offer a more satisfactory epistemological foundation to modern science. However, future discoveries in science will never be able to prove or disprove its validity. The immediate experience of awareness remains forever outside the field of science, a domain limited by design to objective facts and relative truths. Non-dualism has little to contribute to science. At the most, it is possible that intuitions originating from a non-fragmented view of the world might lead to new formulations or discoveries in the field of science.
Scientific breakthroughs of the twentieth century may also have a liberating effect. By questioning the world as existing independently from consciousness, they pave the way toward the ultimate understanding. They open the truth seeker to the possibility that the world might be a phenomenon that appears in, exists in, and disappears into universal consciousness. Seekers cease then to be physicists. They become philosophers, metaphysicists, poets. They cross this philosophical Rubicon when, going beyond the phenomenal order, they include within the scope of their investigation the noumenon, consciousness.
So, the difference between these two perspectives derives from their different points of departure. The point of departure of the non-dualist is the certainty of “I am,” whereas the scientist’s certainty of the existence of the external world is supported by the common experience of virtually the whole of humanity. It is a collective view, not an individual view, as is the nondualist’s. Would that be correct?
Yes. Once you grant existence to the so-called objective world, existing independently of awareness, then you grant existence to the whole of humanity. From the vantage point of the non-dualist, the undeniable subject is the subject matter. From the point of view of the scientist, the alleged object is the subject matter.
Are you saying the non-dualist takes himself to be the only subject, and that the existence of the whole of humanity, along with the rest of the objective world is in question?
It depends on what you call “himself.” What the non-dualist calls “myself” or “I” is not limited to a specific body, to a specific mind. Body and mind are limitations that are superimposed onto awareness. The non-dualist starts from experience. The scientist, although he claims to start from experience, starts, in fact, from a concept: the existence of an alleged world. He then thoroughly studies this alleged world.
Could you clarify what you mean by the word “experience” when you say that the non-dualist starts from experience, whereas the scientist starts from a concept, rather than from experience? Is the ordinary experience of the average person no more than concepts?
The essence of our being is not a concept.
For each of us?
Of course. It is life itself. It is beyond any concept. Concepts are superimpositions, such as: I am a man, I am forty years old, I am a physician. All these distinctive features are mere superimpositions onto our real nature. The substratum, which is free from limitations, doesn’t have any boundaries, doesn’t need a knower to reveal itself, and is self-evident and autonomous.
I am struck by your statement that, while each of us is life itself, the non-dualist doesn’t grant existence to the rest of humanity, in the objective world, in the way the scientist does. He puts everything in question, including the rest of humanity. Isn’t there a contradiction in that?
When we say that the non-dualist sees humanity as non-real, we mean that he doesn’t see it as an object, as something that is separate from awareness, from himself. He sees, instead, humanity as one with himself. From this vision of oneness, of non-separateness, real compassion, ethical behavior, and justice follow. We should not consider the sage as some crazy solipsist, isolated in his ivory tower, denying existence to the rest of mankind and granting existence only to himself as a person. On the contrary, the truth-lover starts by questioning his own existence as a person, as a separate entity, asking, “Who am I? Am I this body? Am I this mind? Am I this limited entity?” He isn’t interested in theories, but in reality. He starts with the only field of experience that is available to him, that is, himself. The answer to this question can never be a positive statement. It is the understanding of what we are not. When what we are not is eliminated, not by effort or by violence, but as a result of understanding, what remains is our real nature. It is an experience, but not an experience in time and space, and for this reason we could call it a non-experience, a non-event. In this non-event, we are one with mankind. It is a non-excluding, an all-comprehending perspective.
So the non-dualist does disagree with positing the existence of the rest of humanity as a group of separate conscious entities which could agree or disagree with him. He, rather, leaves open the possibility that the whole of humanity is one with him . . .
The non-dualist isn’t interested in concepts. He is only interested in his true nature. After seeing his misconceptions for what they are, what remains is a non-state, a non-event devoid of fear and desire, in which certainty and peace prevail. Because he starts from reality, he soon reaches his goal, reality. Reality reaches reality. Unity reaches unity. Because the scientist starts from a mere hypothesis, a misconception, his point of arrival is as shaky and unstable as his point of departure. He can never reach a completely satisfactory understanding. He is bound to be eternally dissatisfied, moving from object to object in an endless process.
The non-dual perspective is certainly radical and intriguing. How can I know that this isn’t just another sophisticated form of conditioning, much like others, however radically different it might appear at first sight?
You can reach a completely satisfactory answer to your question because the answer lies within you, or more precisely, the answer is you. Any other approach requires beginning with a certain degree of belief. Belief belongs to memory, to the mind, to the past. Belief can never be a solid foundation, since it is a concept you take for granted without understanding. In this perspective, we take nothing for granted, radically nothing. We could say that it is the ultimate scientific vantage point, with the difference that the subject matter in this case is not, as we have seen, an object, since we don’t even assume the existence of objects. Because we make no assumptions, the understanding we arrive at is free from the past, from conditioning. The mind, having completed its investigation, becomes still, and in this stillness our desire for truth finds its ultimate fulfillment.
This fulfillment is analogous to the satisfaction we experience when, after having thought about a problem, the solution suddenly comes to us unexpectedly, from our true nature, which is intelligence itself. In a way, the solution finds itself in us. We call that process understanding. However, in this case, since our comprehension relates to objects, this satisfaction is limited. Soon, we are again in a state of dissatisfaction. However, when this understanding, instead of bringing closure to a relative question, refers to the ultimate question, to the source of all questions, to the eternal subject, fulfillment is total.
Our True Nature Is Not an Object
What is our true nature?
It is not an object. It isn’t something that can be perceived by the five senses or that can be conceived through the mind. Our false nature is always some kind of object. The body, for example, is an object. It is a collection of perceptions
, sensations, and concepts of what our body is. The mind is also an object. However, our true nature is not an object. It is very difficult to speak about it because words and the structure of language are designed to refer to objects. We have no words to speak about something which is non-objective. We have to use metaphors or negations to that effect. So, we say that we are not our body, we are not our mind. Nevertheless, we are. Our existence is something of which we all are absolutely certain. Everything else could be a mirage, an illusion, a dream. Even if this were the case, we still would have no doubt that we are.
Our true nature is elusive. We can’t see it, touch it, conceive of it, or grasp it. On the other hand, it is the only thing the existence of which we can be sure. Thinking about it in this way, saying what it is not, unknowingly orients us toward our timeless background. We become available to it. That is all we can do, be open to it. We can’t make it reveal itself. It reveals itself at its own pleasure as truth, beauty, love, and immortality.
Do you mean that it isn’t revealed in some situations, such as non-beautiful ones? Why doesn’t it reveal itself all the time?
Maybe it does reveal itself all the time and we are just looking the other way. Quite often the best place to hide an object is to put it in full sight. Our real self, so close and so luminous that it can’t be seen with the eyes, has its hiding place in the immediacy of the now. We would like to see it all the time, as an object in front of us, but that isn’t possible, because objects come and go, are born and die. Its beauty lies in its not being an object. If it were an object we could and would lose it. Since it is what we are, we can’t lose it. What prevents us from seeing it, from being it knowingly, is our desire to see it as an object. This attitude is what we may call “looking in the wrong direction.” So the question is, what is the right direction? Even if we try to look toward the non-objective direction, we have to face the fact that the absence of any object is another kind of object. So, we have to go beyond the absence of objects. We have to reach the absence of their absence, which reveals itself as our all-pervading, all-encompassing presence.
Eternity Now Page 5
