Why is this perspective so extraordinarily difficult for the mind to grasp?
This perspective is not only extraordinarily difficult, but it is impossible for the mind to grasp. However, this perspective is easy for the heart to understand: very easy, almost immediately graspable.
How do we understand anything with the heart? How do we experience that? How do we know that we aren’t simply caught in another set of concepts?
The heart is the only way to understand. Any real understanding is through the heart, in the heart. We think we understand with the brain, in the mind, but understanding is instantaneous. It comes from the timeless, not from the mind. The investigation that precedes the understanding and the formulation that follows it, may be the work of the mind as a tool, as a channel, but the timeless moment of creative intuition is in the heart.
Are you saying that the notion that we understand things with the mind is mistaken?
Yes. The mind can only grasp objects, mentations. It can’t grasp understanding. When the mind conceives understanding, the ego comes in claiming, “I have understood” but at the time the understanding occurred, the ego was not present. Real knowledge of anything occurs beyond the mind, in awareness. Awareness is understanding. This is true of any kind of understanding, even of relative understanding, the kind that is needed to solve a math problem. However, when understanding refers to understanding itself, we enter a new dimension. Intelligence becoming aware of intelligence, understanding directed toward the absolute truth, remains with us forever. It is a kind of implosion.
***
Can acts of kindness and compassion come from the ego, or do they necessarily come from somewhere else?
Real kindness, real compassion comes from the self, from our true nature, never from the ego. There might be apparent acts of compassion that arise from the ego, whenever there is a personal motivation, such as desire for fame, personal advantage, profit, or power. These are not acts of compassion. Compassion always arises from love.
Are you saying that what is ordinarily called love or altruism, the putting of another before oneself, invariably has a personal motive on the part of the person doing it?
That is not what I am saying. On the contrary, we all know beautiful acts of altruism. People sometimes risk their lives to save someone who is drowning. They spontaneously dive into icy waters without thinking twice about it. They don’t think about telling their story in front of the cameras or making money from the situation. They just do what they have to do given the circumstances. Such an action is pure compassion.
So an egoless act, a totally spontaneous act, can suddenly arise in a person who otherwise lives through the ego. Is that what you are saying?
Definitely. The ego is not permanent. What we really are, our true nature is permanent. The ego, being a concept, comes and goes.
So, with a lapse in the ego, there is the possibility for the Self to act directly?
Yes. The action accomplished in the absence of the notion of being a limited thing is harmonious and originates from the wholeness of our being.
We all know people who are generally kind and others who are unkind. Are you saying that since both behaviors come from the ego and have motives, they are different from the completely selfless acts we were discussing?
Real kindness is totally natural, spontaneous, effortless. It penetrates into us directly, instantaneously, and reaches the heart. This sort of kindness may not correspond to the image we have in our mind of what kindness should be like. Sometimes, it may look like anger. It doesn’t always come with a permanent smile and a soft voice. Real kindness comes from life itself. For this reason, it is perfectly in harmony with the situation. False kindness comes from an intention, from a purpose relating to a personal entity. This goal may be a worldly or even a spiritual one, such as the desire to be in heaven in a future life. No matter what the goal is, if there is a personal motive to it, it isn’t compassion.
Many people would agree that kindness is not a constant smile and a soft voice, but they would question your statement that kindness might also look like anger. Could you elaborate on that?
If you see a drug dealer approaching your ten-year-old child in an attempt to sell him cocaine, you may act in a way that isn’t very gentle. You may lose your smile, perhaps even your soft voice. However, this action, being devoid of personal motives, would be for the good of both your child and the drug dealer.
How would it be for the good of the drug dealer?
Facing the genuineness of your anger or whatever your action may be, he would have the opportunity to understand the nature of his act, to wake up.
Could you describe a scenario in which genuineness confronts a person who appears to be acting in a kind way, but who actually has ulterior motives? Would genuineness awaken that person, just as the drug dealer might be awakened?
Genuineness never awakens the person. It eliminates the person. Your unimpaired innocence, your non-judgmental authenticity sees or feels the motivation, the ulterior motive behind the apparent kindness. You remain non-involved, transparent. All the attempts he makes to trap you fail, and that strikes him. The natural dignity of your uncommitted attitude will bring about in him an insight about the impropriety of his own conduct. Since there is nobody in you to be affected by it, his action will be reflected back to him like by a mirror and he will have an opportunity to understand.
Then, acts that appear to be compassionate or uncompassionate can come from the ego; but true compassion is our real nature, and genuine acts of compassion can only arise from there.
Yes.
How can we help others, or can we?
As long as there are others, our conduct cannot be rooted in love. In order to help others, one should first see clearly that there are no others. One should stop projecting a “me,” an “I,” in the other, conceptualizing him as a person. To stop this projection, one must first stop conceptualizing oneself to be a person. Otherwise, there is always a motive behind our actions, a lack of purity. The first step toward helping others is to help oneself. The first step toward loving others is to love oneself. Real help originates from the understanding that we are not a personal entity.
***
Some people may be attracted to non-dualism in an attempt to deal with negative emotions which have plagued their lives. They may be beset by fear, anger, jealousy, or depression. What can you say that might help these people?
The fact that someone is looking for health is a sign that he is health itself. How could insanity know insanity, delusion know delusion? Thus, there is a certain degree of awareness, coming from his ultimate health, that commences the search for his true identity. So, it is a positive sign. He has to start from his own level, which means totally facing the current situation. There is, for instance, nothing wrong with not understanding everything that is said in the present conversation. There would be a problem if he were to fool himself, if there were a lack of sincerity with respect to himself. He has to be very simple, very humble-hearted to understand anything. He has to start with the sincerity and the absence of personal interference of a scientist conducting an experiment. We should become aware not only of our personal motives and the way we relate to others (family, friends, colleagues at work), but also of the source of our negative emotions, the person we believe we are, whose survival triggers these negative emotions. We should also become aware of the impact of these emotions as sensations in our body. We should welcome these bodily sensations as they appear, without taking pleasure in or fearing them, and face the situation, face the sensory data coming from our body and from the so-called external world.
This investigation cannot be limited to a half-hour meditation twice a day. It must become our concern at every moment. We have to discover our reactions in daily life situations, and become more and more accustomed to a welcoming attitude devoid of judgments or conclusions. If we judge ourself or others, we should simply see it, take note of it, and move on. We can see
it as a sort of recurrent bad habit. If we struggle against it, we reinforce it; if we leave it, it leaves us. The important point is to see it. In this way, a transformation, a purification takes place. Our life appears to be fragmented into various elements, such as our professional life, marital life, and individual life. Gradually, we feel the harmony that unites these fragments. We later discover that we are the unity underlying them.
If someone is angry or unhappy much of the time, why is their search to escape from these feelings evidence that somewhere in the background there is happiness, love, and health?
When one is in the middle of a depression, one is so stuck in it that the question, “How can I get rid of it?” doesn’t arise. This question can arise only if there is some awareness of the situation. One should first recognize this ability to be aware of it, so that there is some distance between the unhappy state and the witness . . .
The awareness of this unhappiness?
Yes, its witnessing. Otherwise, in a very deep depression, there is no awareness of it.
Yes, it is a psychotic state.
And there is no possibility for a therapeutic intervention at that time. But even the deepest depressions are states. Any state has a beginning and an end. It isn’t permanent. When we see our depression, our unhappiness, instead of becoming even more depressed because of it, instead of judging ourself saying, “Here we go again!” we can see the beauty of it: “I notice it, thus I am not a hundred percent unhappy. I am not totally in it. Something in me is free from depression.”
Wait a moment! A depressed person is going to have considerable difficulty in seeing the beauty of his depression!
I am not saying the beauty of his depression. I am saying the beauty of being aware of it.
The beauty of awareness?
Yes, exactly. The beauty of this something in him that is distinct from unhappiness, and without which he could not be aware of his bad mood.
So, the beauty of being able to recognize his depression as an object.
Yes. A therapist should point out this positive element to his patient, so that the latter can recognize this quality of awareness which is going to be the main, and in fact, single agent of the cure. Thus, I would say to such a person, “It is already important that there is in you this ability to see how you feel, how you think. All you need to do is to give it more room, welcome it, allow it in, and be open to it.” Once this ability has been recognized, it has a life of its own.
What you are suggesting is that the patient will no longer take his stand in the depression, but, rather, in the awareness of the depression.
Yes. There will be relapses, but there will already be a clear understanding between the relapses. In this clear understanding, the false notions, the accumulated trash will be spontaneously eliminated, just like opening a window in a dark room eliminates the darkness through the mere appearance of light. There will also be a remembrance of this quality of awareness, of this distance, of this understanding that we are not the doer of our actions . . .
Nor are we the sufferer of our depressions.
Precisely. They are like clouds in the sky. In the same way as the radiance of the sun dissolves the clouds, awareness will be the ultimate remedy.
***
Do you recommend the practice of Hatha Yoga, or any other body-oriented approach?
Regarding Hatha Yoga or any other kind of body-oriented approach, one should be very clear about one’s goals. If the approach reinforces the notion of being an individual entity, or identification with the body, I would stay out of it. One should avoid any method based on the assumption that it is possible for the ego to become a better ego; that through body-transformation, through exercises, one could get closer to the truth. Every attempt that originates from a personal entity, through effort, is bound to fail. There is, however, another answer to your question. Having understood that we are what we are looking for (there is only one thing, there is no plurality, and we are this thing—awareness), this understanding has to pervade all levels of the body-mind structure. In this case, as a result of this understanding, there is no agenda. I would recommend an approach based on the sensations: taking a closer look at this mass of sensations which we call the body, knowing that they are nothing other than awareness, being open to them, and letting them unfold in our welcoming presence. The energies that were tied up in the somatic structure are set free through this sensory awakening and the understanding that the world is in us becomes a living experience.
***
What is a sensation?
What do you have in mind when asking this question?
When I examine my experiences, I find that they are comprised of concepts and sensations. Concepts, initially at least, arise from sensations, although they can also be derived from previous concepts. The basic element in my experience, if I can put it like that, is sensation. So, it is important to know the nature of this basic element.
From a non-dual perspective, there is no such thing as a sensation.
From that position there is also no such thing as experience.
Exactly. Nobody senses and nothing is sensed. There is only sensing, a non-dual experience, reality. The concept of sensation implies a choice, a distinction. When I say, “I see this object,” I thereby imply a specific experience, distinct from touching, hearing, and so on. I also imply that this seeing starts at a certain point in time, has a certain duration, and ends at another point in time. Doing so, I define limitations, such as what it was not (seeing, touching, or hearing) and when it was not (before it began, after it ended). By superimposing these limitations after the fact onto my real experience, which is free from limitations, I create this particular object called a sensation. But these limitations have no intrinsic reality, they are concepts in the same way that the tail of the cat or the head of the cat are concepts.
If we say, “Sugar is not sweetness” we draw a distinction between the word sugar, which is a concept, and the sensation of sweetness which is not a concept. What is the nature of this thing which is not a concept?
It is reality itself, our true nature. But then, as such, it isn’t limited. Only a concept limits it.
So, when I experience the color red . . .
You are one with it.
It is a sensation, somehow not limited, but yet it is not blue.
It is only seeing, and after this experience you qualify it by saying, “It was red.”
So sensation which is objectified is a concept, but as seeing or hearing it is awareness itself.
Yes, the real nature of sensation is awareness. We are one with it.
***
From this perspective, what is the nature of feelings and emotions?
Feelings and emotions have a profound impact on our body. They are sensations triggered by more subtle mental impulses, which in turn can originate from two sources. The first type of impulses originate from the mind, from the concept that we are a limited entity. They correspond to negative emotions, such as anger, hatred, or fear. They generate stress, heaviness, pressure, constriction, or tension at the somatic level. They make us feel our body as a localized, space-limited entity of flesh and bones.
The second type of impulses originate from beyond the mind, from our ultimate ground. They correspond to positive emotions and feelings such as love, happiness, gratitude, awe, respect, and sense of beauty. They generate release, relief, and relaxation at the somatic level. They make us feel our body as a non-localized expansion of awareness.
From your description of positive emotions leading to feelings of expansion and relaxation, and feelings originating in the ego as producing constrictions and tensions, I would think that the former are likely to leave more or less long-term traces in the body, whereas the latter are less likely to do so.
The former even have the power to erase the traces of the latter. For instance, if somebody makes a joke in a tense situation, we lighten up and relax a little, because humor is a positive emotion.
I was using this example to show that we are already familiar with this mechanism and how it works. If we frequently experience psychological states that create negative emotions, a chronic condition may establish itself at the somatic level, in the muscles and even in the cells.
So, there must be some kind of ongoing change in structure and function?
Yes.
And this structure that has been changed over the years is still open to being removed or reversed by the power of positive emotions?
Yes, by the power of awareness. When awareness is allowed to penetrate into the realm of bodily sensations, in the same way as light eliminates darkness, it cleanses the whole somatic structure and eliminates the old residues. This process may take a while. If I have kept my shoulders raised for thirty years because of a permanent fear, I first have to get rid of the fear, which happens the moment I realize that I am not a personal entity. Then at some point, my body will send a signal, a sensation, to tell me that this defensive attitude isn’t required in the current circumstances, and my shoulders will relax. Eventually, new sensations will arise, from a more refined level, and if they are given the proper welcoming attention, a new letting go will take place at that level. In this way, awareness gradually pervades the whole structure and texture of the body, dissolving the somatic residues of the ego. As bodily awareness deepens, heaviness and tensions disappear. The body is felt to be transparent, empty, and at some point, “luminous.” It is no longer sensed as a material mass limited at the surface of the skin, but rather as a subtle current of awareness expanding into the surrounding space, and, at a later stage, including it.
Eternity Now Page 12
