Urban Guru Cafe

Discovering what you truly are

19. John Wheeler – What is the truth of who you are? – part 1

Posted on 10.24.08 11:53PM under John Wheeler, Podcast

John Wheeler tells us that the very nature of our being is that which is being pointed to – and it does not need to be found. It cannot be denied and we do not come to it with the mind, because it is prior to the mind. It is always right here, right now, in your direct experience-ing. It is perfectly whole and complete – it needs no enhancement – there is no ‘becoming’ to it.

Music from Mercan Dede‘s excellent new CD ’800′ – and some beautiful guitar pieces by Gerardo Nunez.

John Wheeler’s contact details are: johnwheeler111@yahoo.com

The UGC is a Free Podcast.

John Wheeler [ 35:53 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (5091)

Read Comments

Posted by Alan on 10.25.08 3:41 am

Very nice and clear. Thank you John and Areti and all.
Posted by Sergio on 10.25.08 7:23 am

Wheeler, the best.

Sergio
Posted by gilbert on 10.25.08 9:26 am

What is the truth of who you are? That is the key point. John clearly speaks on this point. Some may not even notice it but at no point is there a suggestion of an ‘awakening’ in the future. As Bob and John point out, it is ‘something’ that is naturally present that we have been overlooking. It is not about a future time. There is no process of ‘becoming’.
You are awake right now. Everything is contained in THAT. What needs to be recognized is already present. You don’t need anything, no book, no guru, no seminar and no ‘time’ or process to ‘get there’, because you are already HERE. One need only expand this conscious presence out – to include everything in that – and away from those old concentrated and limited concepts of a separate ‘me’. The senses open up naturally. A sense of relief may appear. You don’t have to ‘do’ anything in order that you be what you already ARE. Thanks John for this interview. I am sure many will find it useful. How ‘people’ don’t perceive a radical difference between ‘teachers’ like John or Bob and the teachers who promise an ‘awakening’ and ‘the embodiment of the teaching’ is amazing. The ‘belief system’ ‘appears’ to have a self-protective mechanism built in – yet it is easily recognized to be just that, a mechanism, if one takes a close look.
Posted by Kimo (Jim) on 10.25.08 10:57 am

Yes! Elvis is in the building (John W)! Thank you John, for speaking and also Areti (& Gilbert) for interviewing & producing. I was able to listen to this and both of the Bob installments in a public library. Will be heading back to the sandbox on Monday. John is great and Bob is just an animal! Love his stuff! Areti is a great interviewer as well. The part in Bob’s talk where he ascertains that we are awake and what did we have to do to get there? – nothing. What is there to gain – nothing. What is there to lose – my identity – got a warmhearted laugh out of that one. Thanks!
Posted by gilbert on 10.25.08 5:00 pm

Here is a thought. If anyone knows of a good local Community Radio Station in their area who may wish to broadcast this particular program, please contact me through the contact link at the top of the page underneath the coffee cup. Areti will pass on the details. I am sure that there may be a few stations ‘out there’ that may like to feature this and some of the others programs. There are many who just never get to hear this message because they have never heard of Non Duality etc. That does not mean that they would not resonate with it. (point of interest – there have been almost 3,000 downloads this month alone and the numbers grow day by day)
Posted by will on 10.26.08 2:48 am

I may well be in a minority of one, who finds these random sound interjections both misplaced and irritating. Or not. Either way I’m not making it into a campaign. It’s an opinion.
It’s your enterprise, and messing around with recording equipment is fun, I know.
I’ll listen to these otherwise excellent podcasts either way.
I sometimes still watch news on the TV; every item is introduced with dramatic drumming. Why?
My attention doesn’t wander after a few minutes if I’m not periodically slugged with random noises and flashes. I don’t need half a pound of seasoning on my food before I can taste it. Just enough’ll do it. Subtle is good. My opinion.
Posted by gilbert on 10.26.08 7:40 am

The big league game between ‘the Majority of One’ V’s ‘the Minority of one’ continues.
The ‘Individual versus the Universal’ debate also continues.
The problem is dear Will, that the boy genius who puts the sounds together is a majority of One, a bit of a ‘wizz kid’ and if anyone steps on his toes, he is likely to spit the dummy and pull the plug on the whole shebang – the whole Urban Guru Cafe thing – gone – ‘karputzsky’. It is a well known thing that continuous talk does usually induce a subtle ‘turning off’ and after a few minutes things are not heard. I actually know the guy who does the sound and I can tell you he has put a lot of hours into ‘getting this show on the road’ and he does NOT get a brass razzoo for doing it. I don’t know much but I can guess that if there are too many complaints about ‘his work’ he will pull the plug. I know his opinion of ‘seekers’ is pretty radical. “Selfish bunch of self-obsessed losers”. Anyway I will have a quite word in his ear about it. But I can tell ya now, the Majority of One always wins over the minority of one. And ‘he’ thinks he is IT. – Humorous Editorials by the Wizz Kid.
Posted by will on 10.26.08 8:56 am

You might want to put a bit of percussion behind that quiet word lest the point be, uh, missed.
A brass razzoo? I should think not!
Posted by Jay H. on 10.26.08 12:03 pm

I completely disagree with your comments Will, although who can possibly deny you your own opinion, or indeed mine?

I actually think the music segments in these interviews are perfect and fit the content remarkably well. Not only is the choice of music spot on, they are slotted into the content with real precision, allowing the listener to take stock of what is being said and allowing deep reflection and relaxation between sections.

Don’t forget that the Urban Guru Cafe is run completely Gratis for you to listen to, download AND debate without costing a single penny of your hard earned wages.

To gripe about the musical inserts instead of the content of John Wheeler’s message is a classic example of how the mind CAN NEVER be satisfied.

I think it was Ausonius who once said:

“Nothing more detestable does the earth produce than an ungrateful man.”
Posted by Mark Ellis on 10.26.08 12:37 pm

Don’t touch the music or the mixer or opinions or that thing we label gratitude.
What IS a brass razzoo… and Ausonius?
Thank you John & G & Areti and the Sound guy~!
Warm Love,
Mark
Posted by gilbert on 10.26.08 1:18 pm

A Brass Razzoo is a small irritating musical instrument usually played by the village idiot.
It is also usually out of tune and on a sliding scale from boring to down right annoying. Do a google search on Ausonius.
We do appreciate your opinion Will. You are never going to hear this stuff on the TV News Channel. Well, enough of this frivolous nonsense. Has anyone got anything worth commenting on about the program? There will be two follow up programs from John Wheeler. I will have a word with ‘the sound guy’ and see how he sits with this request. I think the music in Bob’s interviews actually flow very well and add something to the feel of it all. The thing is that plain voice over a long period has a tendency to allow us to miss some things. Periodic musical breaks do give the mind a rest from words and allow reflection. If you are sitting in a meeting those periods only come if there is a pause in the talking. Many actually like the unusual music we use. Some even go out and buy the CD’s. So a service is provided. For every one who dislikes it, there are a hundred that do.
John may come onto the comment page if some ask some decent questions regarding the points he has made on the program. – Cheers G.
Posted by Alan on 10.26.08 4:17 pm

The mix is always good from here!

John is so clear and direct what is there to ask? Looking forward to enjoying parts two and three when they arrive. Thanks again!
Posted by MARK01 on 10.26.08 5:12 pm

Strange that John didn’t once mention the consciousness/awareness distinction he usually makes. Does this mean he was now talking about being consciousness? And talks about being Awareness in the following programs? I wonder: At which ‘point’ are Bob and John talking about the same ‘thing’ concerning this subtle point Consciousness/Awareness. Where does Bob make that distinction, or where did John see him make that distinction. If you look at how much emphasis John puts on that distinction it must me terribly important. It would really be valuable to go into that and to clear it up once and for all. Also, if I tell about what this site is about to non-spiritual people the first remark they make is: How can you identify with something that disappears when you are unconscious?
Posted by gilbert on 10.26.08 8:25 pm

This program is called “What is the truth of who you are?”
This is not a chat room. Sensible comments related to the programs will not be deleted. Those that are not appropriate will be deleted so, to those who indulge in such, please don’t even bother writing them in the first place.
I myself may have inadvertently encouraged some to make unrelated comments.
Please respect this space.
There are many Non Duality chat rooms where you can vent your opinions. Let’s raise the standard here a bit please. If these pages deteriorate into flip flop and the deletion process takes up too much time, we will have to remove the pages altogether. The programs are fine on their own. The ‘comment pages’ is a bonus feature that does not have to be here. Apologies to those ‘innocents’ who had to read this note.
Posted by MARK01 on 10.27.08 1:09 am

Can anyone negate their being-ness?
No, Is it not negated in deep sleep however. Not by the mind but actually ?!
Posted by gilbert on 10.27.08 1:36 am

‘One without a second’ means that there is no separate entity that can either affirm nor negate any being-ness whatsoever. It is ONE Being. Deep sleep is a state, as is the waking state. They are both appearances, appearing on or in the BEING-NESS. All states come and go. ‘We’ take a limited view of being located in this body and do not realize the oneness of this Omniscience – this ALL inclusive BEING. At the very core of ‘our seemingly limited being’ is the unlimited expanse of One Being – which is ALL THAT – that ALL inclusive-ness. This fact can only be a mystery for the dualistic mind.
In the mind that is emptied of thought – this clear and open nature of One Being is self-evident. Yet (for a ‘person’- the persona) the restless nature of mind stirs too quickly and the insight is forgone.
And yet beyond such ‘things’ ‘we all know’ our origin is this singular knowing – PRESENCE. This direct and immediate knowing does not have words attached – it is silent and ever-present as this self-knowing presence. It always remains as not thing, nothing but this pure knowing – and it never deviates from its all encompassing ‘presence’. Yet all words and all concepts, all visions and all knowledge arise nowhere other than on this naked presence-awareness.
The story of ‘me’ is nothing but a cloud that seemingly obscures this pure knowing. The ‘knowing’ remains formless and tasteless, wordless and silent. It is the pure witness of all that there is – without ever taking on the apparent form of being ‘a witness’. However, it continues to appear as all forms none the less – none are actually separate from any other appearance. One is ALL.
In the appearance of things, billions of births and deaths appear in the realm of sentient beings. They do not taint this clear and present radiance of being. Words can only point at the true nature of ‘I am’ – the recognition of what I am is only a fleeting glimpse for the mind – yet for the true essence of this ‘I am-ness’ the SEEING of ‘what is’ is uninterrupted – All is contained in the seeing.
THIS is the actuality. Words are actually empty. It is the knowing presence that ‘brings them to life’.
‘One touch’ can and does remove the shroud of ignorance.
Posted by MARK01 on 10.27.08 2:36 am

As I am reading these words on the screen there is this sense that I’m here sitting on a chair looking at and reading those words over there. While in fact everything, this observer/person and surrounding, is an appearance. An appearance in ‘something” intangible that cannot be located, yet everything is suffused with It’s Presence? So this observer/observed is like a drawing on a paper of a man sitting in front of a monitor while the actual looking is coming from a totally different ‘location’ ?(that cannot be found?)
Posted by Steven Witt on 10.27.08 3:55 am

How grace smiled when it led this story called Steven first to John and then to Bob — and Cameron…NEVER forget the role of humor in all this!! And here your listeners get both served fresh and warm at the Cafe.

You all are doing such a grand job…Areti, the music, Gilbert’s comments..spot on.

You are not only leading horses to the still waters of Just Being, but you are pointing it out clearly to them where it is as well — in THAT infinite well within.

At times, you might even get some to taste those waters…but, alas, to drink freely they must see all on their very own that without ANY separation….

THIS IS ALL THEIR VERY OWN.

Good on all of you

much love

Steven Witt
Carmel, California
Posted by Preston on 10.27.08 4:25 am

Mark, you ask -”At which â€˜pointâ€™ are Bob and John talking about the same â€˜thingâ€™ concerning this subtle point Consciousness/Awareness.” Bob and John are always talking about the same thing. Ramesh…consciousness is; Bob…intelligence/energy; John…being/awareness; and others talking of non-duality…words like God, Brahman, the Absolute, and on and on — words and concepts, all only pointing to the same thing but never being the actual. What you are is beyond the observer/observed, subject/object duality you present. It is THAT in which consciousness arises which in turn allows the observer and the observed to arise, not at some ‘location’ you cannot find, but inseparable from what you already are, something you will never find with the mind.

John – your message is so clear. Thank you. I look forward to the next two installments.
Posted by MARK01 on 10.27.08 4:48 am

Yes Preston but take a little time to let this sink in :

“There can be nothing without consciousness, and that is why in the appearance of things, consciousness is the highest. Seeing this is already losing any sense that “I am a body, a person, an individual”, even though those may appear in consciousness”

“Conciousness is always aware of something, even if that something is an experience of complete absence”

“The absolute unconditioned reality is prior to conciousness”

It gives the impression that you have to make some salto mortale from Awareness to some higher Awareness in a ‘territory’ where there are no tools, no pole to jump to the promised land.

Why say ; It’s your ORDINARY AWARENESS , like Bob says.
but the smallprint says (by means of John Wheeler): but what you really are is the awareness beyond all states, experiences and concepts !

Round and round we go on the merry-go-round like that.
Posted by John on 10.27.08 9:14 am

All the words are pointers only and have their limits. The point is that everthing that appears – from particular perceptions, feelings or thoughts, to entire states of consciousness (like waking, dream, sleep, etc.) – all display in and on that basic aware presence that you are. Sometimes the term “consciousness” is used in the sense of a state that comes and goes (sometimes I am consciousness, sometimes not). This can be a useful perspective and conforms to common experience. But still those experiences are registered on the basic non-conceptual nature of what you are. It is not really accurate to use a word for that, because “that” is not a word and can never be grasped in a concept. Still for the sake of communication, we need to use some terms. It is the basic non-conceptual awareness or being shining without break in and through all experiences and non-experiences. That is the same as the basic, ordinary awareness Bob is speaking of. Upon that, which is your abiding nature itself, all appearances and possibilities arise, even different states of consciousness, if we want to look at it that way. None of those appearances have any independent reality or existence apart from that fundamental ground or space of knowing we are talking about. So, in essence, they are that. From that perspective, we can drop all the pointers, concepts and distinctions because there is nothing present other than “that”. There are many ways to point to this. Some of you may come up with some new and better ones. The point is not to get hung up on the pointers per se, but follow them to your own clear, present and undeniable nature. Then it is up to you to use whatever pointers and words might resonate for you when you talk about this. (John Wheeler)
Posted by gilbert on 10.27.08 11:12 am

The ‘location’ cannot be found because the ‘loca’ is ALL INCLUSIVE. There is no boundary to THIS Presence of KNOWING. This a far too obvious and vastly more subtle than any concept – and it is ever present – that is why the mind misses it.
The mind divides THIS ‘one’ into multiplicity. Into Higher and lower, Consciousness and Awareness etc. Where is the problem? “Who’ has a problem? That is the key point but everyone seems to slip past that one. Where is the problem? It is in the naming of ‘things’ – that is where the ‘problem’ enters center stage – the naming of that clear and present space of KNOWING – naming that as ‘I’ or ‘me’. If you investigate the object (any object) the ‘form’ appears to transform into ever more refined details, then (apparently) they dissolve into sub-atomic particles which all float in space. They then dissolve into particles of energy called quarks – but this is naming – all theory. The instant the fixation on the object dissolves in mind, the object and the subject vanish into Naked Seeing. ‘Mind’ is a ‘name’ just like any other named appearance in or on Awareness. SEEING remains whether you zoom in or zoom out. The change in perspective does not alter or change the pure function of SEEING. The power of cognition appears to increase or decrease. For example a pair of binoculars seems to bring things closer – (the loca appears to expand) the seeing appears to be further – yet the seeing is the same uninterrupted unbound SEEING. It is NOT some mysterious acquisition – it includes what we call ‘ordinary seeing’. Whatever insight one appears to have – the seeing remains totally available. The ‘obstacle’ of closing the eye lids may alter the view but it does not alter the ‘function’ of seeing. SEEING is not limited to the eyes. EVERYTHING is ‘in the SEEING’.
Investigate this sense of presence – see if it has a hard core label attached. In the Seeing that the ‘me’ does not exist NOW (and as Bob points us) there is (an impersonal) seeing that it never did exist at any time (in the so-called past). Even the evidence that presents itself belongs to relativity. The SEEING remains untouched and empty. There is NO entity in the SEEING. There is NO entity in pure Understanding. Anyone who claims to be ‘something’ is just a pattern appearing.
You can follow gurus or teachers, believe in all the spiritual nonsense and it remains the same. The liberation from the idea of being a ‘self’ is actually for no one – the SEEING is with Naked Awareness. All arguments fall away. Are we all actors on a stage playing roles? Is there a ‘me’ or a ‘we’?
‘The stage’ is just a feature of the ever-unfolding way it ‘appears’ to be. How can ‘word’ create a problem? Have a look – see for yourself.
Posted by Ralph on 10.27.08 12:18 pm

I’m afraid that ‘direct pointing’ alone is just not enough for most. John Wheeler is a master at pointing to the truth of who we are and I was fortunate to have met him for breakfast one day when he made a brief visit to Vancouver. There was a seeing that I was not my thoughts but sure enough I got lost back into believing in thoughts. Maybe this is because my old habits and conditioning still have a grip on me (especially the repressed ones) and perhaps one must use ‘effort’ to see that these are just ‘thoughts believed’ and this is done in so called ‘time’ . The paradox of it is that you use ‘effort’ and ‘time’ to see that ‘effort’ and ‘time’ is what stands in the way of true seeing. As the old saying “paradox and confusion are the guards to the gateless gate”.

Now, if you are one that has awakened in ‘direct pointing’ alone and there is no other work to be done, then I say you are one of the lucky few and yes , I know, no one awakens, there is just ‘awareness’ but you know what I mean.

I guess it all comes down to “how honest are you with yourself ?”

P.S. I, too, look forward to hearing the next two installments of John’s talk. Thanks again .
Posted by gilbert on 10.27.08 5:29 pm

It may not be immediately obvious to some that what is offered here, on the Urban Guru CafÃ©, is not asking anyone to believe in anything. It may be asking us to take another fresh look at our beliefs or simply to just drop them and SEE what IS.
It is quite common in the spiritual circles, that a few â€˜clever onesâ€™ play out some sort of ‘game of cleverness’ or the old â€˜one up man-shipâ€™ trip, which of course ‘appears’ to preserve the sense of separation for them. That sense of separation is woven with a fictional â€˜entityâ€™ a sense of â€˜personal identityâ€™.
This seeming â€˜personâ€™ has been attracted to the special-ness that Non-Duality appears to provide. Often a â€˜Club mentalityâ€™ or a sense of belonging to some sort of â€˜elite groupâ€™ just feeds the â€˜egoâ€™, thus making it harder to SEE through this mind game. This activity is very obvious seen from outside of it (in another).
These mind games lose their attraction in the instant of seeing through them in oneself, so to speak.
Because â€˜teachersâ€™ like Bob Adamson and John Wheeler are pointing clearly and directly at the true nature of what we are, there is, by default, a disregard for the traditional teachings of methods and practices. Little time is wasted on those details and the pointing just returns quickly to the essential nature of â€˜right nowâ€™.
The traditional teachers merely pay lip service to Non Duality. They do not dwell on this point because their whole teaching requires that the â€˜seekerâ€™ must stay â€˜trappedâ€™ in the ever-continuing search in â€˜time, method and practiceâ€™.
The fact is that it only takes one moment to SEE through the concept of being â€˜someone bound in timeâ€™. In that â€˜momentâ€™ the whole business of teacher-pupil falls apart.
The â€˜problemâ€™ for traditional teachers and gurus is that that instant of insight is completely available right now and it cannot be SOLD.
How can anyone sell that instant of seeing reality? You canâ€™t.
The only thing you can sell to seekers is some sort of delay tactics, some method to learn and some practice to do repeatedly. All of which engages the mind in a seeking mode, which enhances the belief in that â€˜someoneâ€™. It seemingly adds some sort of substance to the belief. The Urban Guru CafÃ© is here to give access to those who by pass the erroneous teachings. Some are â€˜hearingâ€™ what is on offer. Others only find fault â€“ and that â€˜finding faultâ€™ has everything to do with how they are â€“ not with what is on offer.
Posted by MARK01 on 10.27.08 5:46 pm

“It is not really accurate to use a word for that, because â€œthatâ€ is not a word ”

So that is why we have to ask, so at least at the level of communication the finger pointing to the moon is clearly seen, otherwise we look in the wrong direction. And for offering that this comment section has been great! Then you leave the raft on the shore:
“The point is not to get hung up on the pointers per se, but follow them to your own clear, present and undeniable nature”

Thank who very much John and Gilbert for that !!
Posted by Dan on 10.28.08 5:53 am

I appreciate everyone’s point. Even though it’s true that everyone is That, if they feel limited, it almost doesn’t matter if it’s true (at least for helping them). It only matters when one realizes that for themselves. Thus, I find it’s often most useful for people to identify why they’ve already been insisting they’re NOT That, and allow those programs to unwind, instead of trying to figure out how to become that because they’re told they are That right now. Without those programs, there’s nothing else to happen other than to be That. The unfoldment of Awakening is not more, it’s less.

I was always looking for an overlay when I was seeking, a way to see that extra layer or level that would unite everything, or make me feel connected to everything, or reveal the absolute in everything, etc. Wasn’t I surprised when I found that it wasn’t that there was an “connected” overlay I was missing, but it was the lack of connectedness itself that WAS the overlay!

What people think of as “base level” or “status quo” is actually loaded with tons of limiting conceptions. My experience is that is the release of those conceptions that allow people to be open enough, aware enough, and safe enough to see, understand, and accept the experience/understanding integration that is referred to as Enlightenment. Thus, it certainly can feel like there’s a “path” to realizing All This Is That – That Alone Is, even though there was never a path, or really any Relativity at all if you want to get technical about it.
Posted by John on 10.28.08 5:59 am

The notion that it takes time to see through mental habits, concepts, or “residual conditioning” is itself a presently arising concept. Also, the notion that there is some future time when all the obstacles are overcome and “we” will be “free” is itself a concept. Pause the concepts and see what is present now. Is it anything other than pure being/knowing shining in all its nakedness and immediacy? If we see this, it is full stop, here and now. This is the “mind which alights on no concept whatsoever”. It cannot be achieved, grasped in a concept or generated by some casual process unfolding in time. The concept of time itself unfolds in this. However, if we grant the reality of time, concepts, and attainments, the mind will generate more concepts and experiences based on those beliefs. That is the never ending cycle of the dualistic mind. You can hack at space for days on end with a sharp sword; but in the end, what has been achieved? You are right where you started. The space has not been altered or modified at all.

What you see in the end, and can see NOW, is that the whole production is a phantom, because — how far are you from being/knowing in this moment? The phantom of the separate, limited “I”, which is the basis of all the subsequent concepts, has never existed. Seeing this unwinds all further interest in the mind and its dualistic concepts. Your real nature is always here and now, because there is only here and now.

P.S. There are no “lucky few”, which is only a concept arising in clear and present awareness that cannot be denied. So spit that one out! (John Wheeler)
Posted by Charlie Hayes on 10.28.08 6:10 am

I love the points you make, Gilbert. These words, though insufficient always, resonate for me with an unmistakable ring, like a single chime in silence. Very potent for me in hearing directly without the translating labeler-claimer of “someone hearing”… and of course, as always, John Wheeler nails it … I think what many fail to recognize is the palpable sense of loving being that shines between and through the sounds and writings… what a gift this is to “those” ready to drop their attachments to beliefs and opinions. A treasure trove. Well … very well … DONE.
Posted by Dan on 10.28.08 7:15 am

I agree John, but I do not feel like it’s a good teaching tool unless someone is basically there (i.e. ready to hear it). I suppose the reason I bring it up is that being told that it was already there was frustrating at the time, because it wasn’t having compassion for the process.

Maya must be given her due, her respect, and she has a purpose. Even the ignorance of others has it’s purpose, and telling others that none of their rules exist has never worked for me in any permanent way, all of my success with the breakthroughs of others is by pointing them back at their own resistances, there own conceptions of how it is for them to realize for themselves that it is false. I don’t know why, but just telling people that their conceptions are limited and don’t have to be, while having value, seemed kind of inconsiderate and essentially ineffective past a point (although it’s undoubtedly true, undoubtedly my experience).

One who already doesn’t put stock in those conceptions merely needs to be told that there are no limitations. But I find that to be the exception with spiritual seekers rather than the rule.
Posted by John on 10.28.08 8:23 am

Dan, I appreciate your comments. I don’t see my role in this as debating so-called teaching processes and analyzing hypotheticals. The point is to encourage a clear looking into what is present and undeniable. It is not about teachers, tools, or students, all of which are provisional concepts. They are fine as far as it goes. Once granted as real, there are endless strategies and approaches in the appearances of things. But that is not what we are dealing with here. Some comments in line….

Dan: I agree John, but I do not feel like itâ€™s a good teaching tool unless someone is basically there (i.e. ready to hear it).

John: That is what we are talking about here, and the presumption is that we are interested and ready for the message. That is a given. In truth, there are no “others” present. You are bringing up the notion of “others”, not me. Once you have “others”, then you must have appropriate means of dealings with the so-called others.

Dan: I suppose the reason I bring it up is that being told that it was already there was frustrating at the time, because it wasnâ€™t having compassion for the process.

John: This may be your experience. To me, the pointers of “you are what you are seeking” and “all suffering is imaginary concepts with no basis” was the greatest compassion and good news that could be delivered. All else is dealing in half-measures.

Dan: Maya must be given her due, her respect, and she has a purpose.

John: Traditionally, “maya” is “that which is not”. So give that which is not its due by seeing it is not present, except as an assumption. Again, you are bringing up the concept, not me. Once you speak of Maya and grant its existence, it is up to you to deal with it.

Dan: Even the ignorance of others has itâ€™s purpose, and telling others that none of their rules exist has never worked for me in any permanent way, all of my success with the breakthroughs of others is by pointing them back at their own resistances, there own conceptions of how it is for them to realize for themselves that it is false.

John: That is all we are doing here. Your statement “all my successes with breakthroughs of others” is leaving too many persons in the equation in my view.

Dan: I donâ€™t know why, but just telling people that their conceptions are limited and donâ€™t have to be, while having value, seemed kind of inconsiderate and essentially ineffective past a point (although itâ€™s undoubtedly true, undoubtedly my experience).

John: Don’t equivacate on this. If something is true, what is wrong with getting to the point of it? The point here is not about making sensitive seekers feel good! I whole heartedly disagree with your premise here. There is nothing inconsiderate in showing someone the conceptual nature of the bondage. And there is nothing more effective or needed. Of course, not everyone is going to resonate straight off, but they will find other avenues until they are ready to hear. This is definitely not about pleasing and placating peoples’ concepts.

Dan: One who already doesnâ€™t put stock in those conceptions merely needs to be told that there are no limitations.

John: If they don’t put stock in these conceptions, they don’t need to be told anything.

Dan: But I find that to be the exception with spiritual seekers rather than the rule.

John: I try to avoid speaking in generalities like this because it just becomes armchair talk about so-called “others” and their needs, and then we are back into hypotheticals and concepts. You say you are clear on the basics of this. If so, that clarity will shine with all the directness and compassion necessary, without any thought of “me” or “others”. If you put yourself up as a special teacher or knower and others as seekers, those very concepts will bind them and you. (John Wheeler)
Posted by Ralph on 10.28.08 12:37 pm

Wow ! John, you sure know how to get your point across … Good stuff !
Posted by Mike in SF on 10.28.08 12:46 pm

There have been some great interviews lately! I was really happy to hear this latest one. Great stuff.

Does anyone know the name of the Gerardo Nunez song featured??? (Insert by Gilbert – “Yes, it is called ‘Canicula’ from a remarkable CD entitled Andando el Tiempo – he makes the guitar sing – it is on the ACT label”)
Posted by kale on 10.28.08 9:33 pm

John, your pointing is priceless; Gilbert, thank you so much….could we please request more interviews with John? His talks and your “no nonsense” writing can help demolish a mountain load of concepts. Please keep it coming….
Posted by gilbert on 10.28.08 10:30 pm

There are two more sections of the interview Areti did with John. They will appear in due course. I have not heard the material as yet but I am sure it will be excellent. The Urban Guru Cafe is now hitting 3,000 downloads this month alone. This is unprecedented in the realm of clear pointing, to my knowledge. There are umpteen other audio downloads ‘out there’ – most have an clearly biased agenda. It actually feels good to be part of this new venture and it is good to see so many giving feedback. Who knows what is next?
There may be some surprises yet. if anyone wishes, they can send a question to Areti and she will put the question to our next guest, whoever that may be. Send it to urbangurucafe AT gmail.com – Obviously replace the AT with @ – Personal messages and suggestions to the producers can be sent there also, instead of putting them on the comments pages.
Posted by Dan on 10.29.08 4:54 am

John: That is what we are talking about here, and the presumption is that we are interested and ready for the message. That is a given. In truth, there are no â€œothersâ€ present. You are bringing up the notion of â€œothersâ€, not me. Once you have â€œothersâ€, then you must have appropriate means of dealings with the so-called others.

Dan: Yeah, that’s true.

John: This may be your experience. To me, the pointers of â€œyou are what you are seekingâ€ and â€œall suffering is imaginary concepts with no basisâ€ was the greatest compassion and good news that could be delivered. All else is dealing in half-measures.

Dan: I don’t see it as half-measures, but I really appreciate what your saying. If delivered with the greatest compassion, it always comes out just right (not that anything could come out wrong – that is a silly notion I’m probably implying without meaning to).

As to everything: Eh, you’re right. What can I say? What you’re saying is exactly my experience, and everything else doesn’t matter.

I like poking experience because I learn something every time. Thanks for your responses.

All respect to you.
Posted by Dan on 10.29.08 5:06 am

Great podcast, by the way. I hadn’t listened to it earlier, and you made exactly the point I was trying to make, only I wasn’t really clear on how to phrase it and you said it very well. You’re clarity of expression is rare and so thank you for your posts and podcasts.
Posted by Ralph on 10.29.08 5:58 am

In truth, there is no ‘we’ or ‘I’ or ‘others’ or ‘few’ or ‘many’ etc.. so instead of spitting this one or that one out , swallow all of it because in awareness all is included and nothing is excluded or another way of saying it is ‘all appearances’ is included in this no”thing’ ness that we are.
If you are ‘stuck’ then stuckness is what is, investigate that. By simply dropping it without investigation will not cut it. If you are ‘clear’ then nothing to investigate, enjoy the show.
Posted by Ralph on 10.29.08 6:32 am

John, you say: “You can hack at space for days on end with a sharp sword; but in the end, what has been achieved? You are right where you started. The space has not been altered or modified at all”.

True, but did you not do ‘just that’ for many, many years before it was seen that the effort was the culprit itself. Was it not the ‘effort itself’ that made you see that effort alone was in the way of true seeing ?
Posted by Andrew Carnigan on 10.29.08 6:51 am

“What you need is to be aware of being aware. Be aware deliberately and consciously, broaden and deepen the field of awareness. You are always conscious of the mind, but you are not aware of yourself as being conscious.”

Adyashanti
Posted by gilbert on 10.29.08 10:38 am

‘Who’ is playing games? ‘Who’ is catching who out?
There is NO duality in Non duality.
The direct and immediate nature of awareness does not need to be aware of itself – it IS AWARENESS – there are NO conditions that are needed, necessary, for awareness to grow or ‘become’ more than what it IS. The mind (the mind is the ‘me’) apparently needs to PRETEND to be awareness – that is just concepts playing around – and any concept of there being a thing called ‘mind’ or even a ‘thing’ called awareness is nothing but a concept. Awareness in Non-Dual.
There is truly no one that is AWARE – All sentient beings are appearances in or on AWARENESS. There is ONLY One Awareness. I am THAT – You are THAT.
It is self-shining. Awareness is prior to all appearances. There is NO entity in it – there are only the appearances of entities – and not one of them has any independence or separate existence – so HOW can that concept of ‘you’ or ‘me’ EVER’ become or NEED to BE anything other than what is IS? It is a concept – a mere concept. All the troubles come from the erroneous belief in being a ‘person’. A ‘person’ can NEVER become Aware – it only appears to become aware in THIS moment. The WHOLE manifestation is suffused with KNOWING. It is ALL Knowing. No parts to IT. The appearance of parts or partiality is only an appearance – investigate any appearance and it will reveals its true nature in the KNOWING. Where else?
If you chase images of a ‘me’ that needs to be aware, it is just a ‘donkey race’ in the mirror like nature of awareness – it will keep that ‘you’ running around in circles forever.
But it is very profitable for the erroneous teacher, because he charges like a wounded Bull just to sit in one of his meetings. He does not want anyone to realize the game that is going on. Who is going to pay for his exceptional life style expenses? If everyone is directed to the immediate, unconditional KNOWING, they won’t be attending the seminars – the numbers will drop off and he may have to get a day job.
These quotes from ‘apparently’ clear teachers who are just so obviously misleading are not all that welcome here. Of course they suck hundreds of ‘people’ in because it keeps the mind actively engaged with the ‘self-center’ (‘me’). These teachers like Adyashanti are ‘ME teachers’ – and their teachings, by default, are all designed to keep the me alive – of course it is all in the appearance and there is no one really there doing anything.
Here is a better quote: “If you shake the tree, the monkeys will drop out.”
Watch these pages and you will see them appear.
Posted by Andrew Carnigan on 10.29.08 10:45 am

The real author of the quote above is not Adyashanti, it is the ‘holy’ Nisargadatta Maharaj. You fell right into the trap. This whole teacher worship gig is up.
Posted by Andrew Carnigan on 10.29.08 10:52 am

In the end, it apparently doesn’t matter what the pointer is, it only matters who said it. And that is all about the “me and my teacher crap.” It isn’t awareness talking at all. It’s a little me and mine.
Posted by Andrew Carnigan on 10.29.08 10:56 am

Is it possible that Adya is just Gilbert’s shadow. Perhaps a broadening or deepening into awareness, as Nisargadatta suggests, might reveal these hidden shadows. Oh gosh, should I use the embodiment word here? One dose of embodiment for Gilbert please. He is seeing shadows

It’s all in good fun. Just playing with you.
Posted by John on 10.29.08 10:57 am

Ralph, no the looking here and there was simply a matter of not having a clear sense of things. I read different books, tried different teachings, and met many teachers in California and elsewhere to get some clarification. Still, the basic point of it all was overlooked. The searching itself was not some wonderful causal factor necessary to see what is clear and ever present. Effort is NOT the problem at all.

What was the problem was an ignorance of what was being pointed to, and just how simple and near that is. We often miss the point of all this from reading books alone because we tend to view the message through whatever preconceptions we have. A time tested way around this is having a direct conversation with someone who has seen it for themselves. That is what “happened” when I met Bob Adamson and talked to him about this stuff. He had met Nisargadatta Maharaj in person and had the basics of this pointed out and confirmed. So, naturally, he was able to clarify things based on his own direct experience. I am not talking anything mystical or other-wordly here, just a clarity and confidence based on direct experience.

I had met other teachers before Bob, but none that I met were able to clarify things for me without adding additional concepts, by either a) outright misunderstanding things, or b) playing into a the role of a teacher doling out knowledge to students, or c) projecting this as some future special attainment, such as awakening or enlightenment in the future. I already had these concepts, which I didn’t realize were the problem, so the interactions with the teachers I met served to reinforce the concepts rather than expose them.

I cycled through the satsang circuit for a few years and found it largely (in hindsight) irrelevant and unhelpful. Many give lip service to non-duality, but in practice promote dualistic concepts based on some form or another of future attainments. Having pretty much exhausted that scene by about 2003, I stumbled accross Sailor Bob by a chance encounter on the web and went to have a chat with him. That straightened things out right away.

So I don’t see the search itself in any grandiose terms at all; just a case of misunderstanding (my own) and lack of clear pointing among the teachers I met.

A note about reading books. I read “I AM THAT” for several years and missed the basic message being shared by Nisargadatta because I and all the seekers and teachers I met always assumed that this was about some grand awakening event or enlightenment. To this day, that is still the common view. For example, first you get awakened, then you live the experience, and then reach liberation, etc. This is a common view in popular presentations. It is entirely conceptual and off the mark, when you get down to the basics of what this is about.
Posted by Andrew Carnigan on 10.29.08 11:00 am

amazing…
Posted by Made-up Indian Name on 10.29.08 11:27 am

Kinda like the comments page – Good stuff. Thanks!
Posted by John on 10.29.08 11:27 am

Yes, this stuff is quite amazing.

As one of the ancient non-dualists wrote:

“There is no dissolution, no origination, none in bondage, none possessed of the means of liberation, none desirous of liberation, and none liberated. This is the ultimate truth.”

Each point, of course, is entirely a concept. So pause the concepts right now and recognize what is present in that pause. That will take you entirely off the concepual track and beyond the need of anything but being what you already are. In that pause there are no teachers, no books, no quotes, and no non-dual bantering either.

If you care to speak of anything at all, speak from that seeing and perhaps we might have a worthwhile conversation. Everything else is just playing in concepts. Possibly of use for entertainment value, not much else ….
Posted by Mark Ellis on 10.29.08 11:57 am

I followed the brilliant sunset breathless~
Down to the horizon plumes of smoke~
Children bled the wars consuming hatred~
I was the sunset and the war~

Unknown Soldier~
Posted by Andrew Carnigan on 10.29.08 12:27 pm

A worthwhile conversation in nonduality usually means this:

“We have the same teacher and pointing style.”

Conditioning, even when you dress it up as the unconditioned.
Posted by Ralph on 10.29.08 12:52 pm

How can one speak from ‘that seeing’ when they are lost in thoughts and believe in some of those thoughts as who they are? In other words, how does one who is asleep , wake up ? Again I ask, is it not a process and is effort not involved. To speak from the ‘absolute’ alone will not benefit the seeker.
The one who lives in the valley cannot hear the one speaking from the mountain top . That one must come down and meet the one in the valley. Then perhaps, it can be heard.
John and Gilbert, I agree with what you are saying, but I must add that we all went through many years to get to this ‘just seeing ‘and this was all done in so-called time. Even though the ‘seeing’ was instant , it took ‘time’ to see that’ time’ is what stands in the way of seeing.

Before enlightment : we are in the world AND of it
After enlightment: we are in the world BUT not of it
Posted by gilbert on 10.29.08 2:19 pm

No one ever went though anything to get HERE.
SEEING is always immediate.
It is the falling away of believing that I am this limited creature that ‘seemingly’ brings the pure SEEING to the fore. It IS, (was and will be) always HERE and NOW.
This seeing has no words or experiences attached to it. Everything we say is just an aspect of the appearance. In the ‘state’ of not being able to find any words to express the pure knowing, the knowing remains unaffected. (It expresses itself as ‘ALL things’ without changing in Essence (Singularity). The one that ‘I believed I was’ has ‘gone’. In this knowing now, I can say ‘I know’ that it never was. That does not mean that there is a belief in an ‘I’ here. ‘I’ is just a single letter word – useful with or without belief in ‘it’. Words cannot bind anything except in the belief in the appearances of things. In seeing through the erroneous belief in ‘me’ or ‘I’, all words lose their binding nature. In SEEING this fact – in Knowing this fact, how could it ever be believed in again?
The apparent ‘journey’ through sleep and the waking state is nothing but an appearance, patterns forming and dissolving. Awareness is not a state. All states appear on awareness.
Spiritual cleverness is just entertainment for the mind. Awareness has the whole manifestation to entertain it. It contains the active and the static aspects – yet it remains neutral. Yin is Yang and Yang is Yin. The dance of dualism is CONTAINED in Non Duality and yet there is no duality in Non Duality. Even in the most rudimentary understanding of what ‘seeing’ is, isn’t it obvious that EVERYTHING is an appearance in that seeing?
Is there a ‘before’ to this SEEING? Is there and ‘after’ to this SEEING? Where is the need for a word called ‘enlightenment’? I find no use for that word at all. It is the ‘apparent cause’ of much trouble and strife. If I talk to a Buddhist, they may tell me I need to live another thousands lives before enlightenment will come. That is so obviously an erroneous concept – it is laughable – but they cannot laugh about it. The bound mind cannot SEE what is clearly evident now. It cannot SEE anything at all, especially the sad joke of the search for enlightenment. Are you not AWAKE right now?
What do you know that is not of the appearance? You cannot see what you are.
The world is contained in the SEEING. Can you truly find the perceiver of any ‘thing’?
What you are is invisible – neutral – it is Awareness – it is Wakefully present. How can you deny this fact?
Posted by Andrew Carnigan on 10.29.08 11:45 pm

It seems that when it is truly realized that these forms including the “me,” the “you,” the Adya, the John, the Gilbert are seen to be none other than the awareness, the arguments about the imaginary others die. Awareness has, built into it, love that breaks all boundaries. So the whole duality is CONTAINED in nonduality is true, yet it can also be a cop out. When I see that the very space that I am came into form over there as a building and over there as a Tony Parsons teaching and over there as a Buddhist Monk, my arguments with the others die. I am THAT. Not seeing this creates images in the mind which are believed. So, in the spiritual search, we seek out this awakening because we believe our own thoughts and it is painful. Then this awakeness is recognized as true nature but yet we start believing different thoughts. These new thoughts are that the other teachers don’t get it, don’t see it, or don’t express it clearly. Separation is back. My question is this: express WHAT? There is no such thing ultimately as nonduality except as another image in the mind. So when that image dies, there is nothing to defend. No teacher to defend. No Sailor Bob to defend. No John Wheeler. No Gilbert. No one. And yet there are these apparent forms, none other than the nothingness itself. Oneness is literal in that sense. Nothing appearing as everything.

It’s one thing to pay lip service to “the unknown” or to the notion of awareness. It’s quite another to see that the OTHER is actually YOU. When that is seen, who is left to argue with. When you see that the awareness that you are, Gilbert, is everything, you see that it is also Adya. It is all the crazy satsang teachers. It is also the heroin junkie, the axe murderer, and the middle east terrorist. Until this is seen, this whole awareness chant sounds like a new church. Follow the great leader of the Church and his true disciples: Bob and those who follow. It’s all so silly when you truly see that there are no others. Saying that there are no others over and over doesn’t make it true. This is a seeing.

Jesus said this as “love your enemy.”

Nisargadatta said it this way:

“Once you are in it [true awareness], you will find that you love what you see, whatever may be its nature. This choiceless love is the touchstone of awareness. If it is not there, you are merely interested, for some personal reasons.”

When I see you, Gilbert, telling others that you are Adya. When I see your hostilily rest, and the truth of your words really shine through in the way Nis is pointing, maybe then I can take your criticisms of Adya seriously. The discriminating mind be informed with awareness. Until then, it just feels like “personal reasons” The little me….
Posted by gilbert on 10.30.08 12:43 am

Beautifully written. Thank you. There is no one here to defend whatever comes out and is expressed here (as this I). You can call that a cop out if you want – I don’t care one way or another. What is known is that everything is an expression of the same ESSENCE. Some expressions appear as ‘sign posts’ (teachers or gurus) pointing at what is real. Some sign posts point away from what is real and yet the sign says ‘Reality this way’. Any teacher that expresses time bound methods and practices only binds the minds of their followers. This is not a fabricated knowing of that fact. I see it over and over again. I see ‘people’ who play a game of having been ‘awakened’ by some teacher or other. I see that it is all concepts playing in their minds.
How do I see this? It is just simply obvious. The ‘seeking’ is obvious, even though it may be covered by some learned behavior of “how an awakened ‘person’ should appear to be”.
What I see in so many of these western gurus is an obvious conceitedness. It oozes out of their elbows. Many ‘seekers’ are simply wanting to enhance their spiritual egos and it seems obvious to me why they are attracted to these egoic teachers.
The proof of what Bob is so simply pointing out, for me, is that after listening to him for some months, all the theories about spirituality dissolved in one instant. I had been sincerely listening (hearing) what Bob patiently points out, in so many ways. At some point when I was engulfed in an inner turmoil, out of the blue an intelligence rose up (apparently within me) and the inner turmoil was seen for what it was. It did not stay – it vanished into empty space. It left me present and aware without anything at all.
That translucent state of being was in the same instant known to have always been here. There was no attempt to rationalize it – it was as though the intelligence ‘said’ to the mind “leave it alone – this has nothing to do with you”.
From ‘that moment on’ whatever had been plaguing this body-mind, it could not return because it had been seen through.
There is no point in pretending to be a teacher – although many do.
This is not about a life style. This is about cutting through all beliefs without a single exception. It is all well and good to say that All is ONE – but the words are meaningless and even binding if it is only a learned thing. Whatever the means that are used to dislodge the ‘spiritual self image’ – they are valid. “Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me”.
I have been seen as a ruthless and cold individual and also rude and abrupt.
In fact one of Adya’s devotees wanted my head on a plate some years ago – she is probably still suffering and seeking. The whole incident was over a few words written in an email. Such is the drama of life.
However, I can also tell you that some of the ones, not few in number, that I have apparently been rude to have returned to thank me with a genuine warmth. Maybe love can appear as anything at all.
One could also say that the whole manifestation is LOVE – Love of Being. Self-love is a limited thing, and even quite destructive, when the ego has a grasp on a being. A simple and natural warmth towards oneself is a prerequisite for letting go of the limited views one has about oneself.
Thank you for your comment. I trust that this note may shine some light on these matters. Nisargadatta says: “Not one line of the body or mind touches what I am”
(or words very close to that). That expression is not some theoretical thing here.
I know what he is saying, without any ‘I’ that has any being that is in that knowing.
All there is is KNOWING. The rest is an appearance – all of it.
And……..’Gilbert’ has nothing to do with it.
Posted by Andrew Carnigan on 10.30.08 1:40 am

What is it that does not come to defend itself…

This distinction between something that is pointing to “what is real” and something that is pointing to “not real” is an illusory distinction. It’s a play, playing out in the mind of a conditioning known as Gilbert. It isn’t “out there” in the world. It’s in there, in Gilbert’s mind. Who decides this what this line is between the real and the unreal? The dualistic mind with its agenda decides this. And the agenda is always about the “me.” Thus, it comes to defend itself. For this reason, when I see the form Gilbert or the word Gilbert on a page or the expression, I see only love masquerading as a me. There is nothing wrong with that. Even that distinction is illusory. And yet, and yet, there is the possibility of allowing this awareness to inform every opinion in a way that opens up the world. Your enemies die. Your arguments die. You distinctions die. The play in your mind dies. All illusion. Then something else starts to express itself, and this is the choiceless love, the discriminating mind that doesn’t seek to separate itself from the imaginary other. It just wants to point to the truth, without a notion of needing to bring the other down, without the notion of believing that there is a certain teacher, religion, pointing style that is the truth. You are Adya in the ultimate sense. See it?
Posted by Andrew Carnigan on 10.30.08 2:01 am

What is it that speaks from no fixation. No fixation with self, no self, choice, no choice, path, no path, embodiment, no embodiment. What is it that sees that those are dualistic positions. If this post has not been written from that, then it needs to be ignored. I respect what is being done here and have great respect for all involved in keeping this site up. I wonder though, if when we become fixated with particular teachers or ways of looking at non-duality, this blinds us. We are “organizing around an idea” as Krishnamurti has warned against. What is it that isn’t trying to prop up a teaching, pointer, a teacher, or shoot down another teacher or teaching. What is it that is expressing from this place of no fixating. What is it that does not even place non-duality as a higher truth than any other ‘thing?’ Is this what Nis is pointing? Won’t that speak more clearly and lovingly than any adherence to a particular expression? I ask that totally seriously.

Thanks for the site. It’s great.
Posted by will on 10.30.08 2:39 am

It’s deep.
It’s mighty clever.
It’s tricky.

It’s still

flip

flop
Posted by Scott Kiloby (alias Andrew Carnigan) on 10.30.08 3:54 am

This is the ‘green teacher’ Scott Kiloby. There is no Andrew Carnigan. But of course there is no Scott Kiloby. And since there is no Gilbert and no Scott, I will assume that you take none of this personally Gilbert.

Perhaps a little mind game has been played here. And to the extent I trapped “you,” I apologize. But this raises questions that each mind can inquire into.

Isn’t all language dualistic?

What is it in the mind that makes one believe that just because a pointer comes from a particular teacher, it is right or wrong? Is that not identification with a teacher or a lineage? To me, this is one of the biggest problems with modern nonduality teachings.

We’ve seen the human mind do this throughout history. The Zen schools popped up, as well as various divisions in other aspects of Buddhism and every other religion precisely because the mind got apparently stuck in its dualisms, in its appearances. It believes that the truth is over here, but not over there. So this strengthens the guru mirage. It makes seekers believe that one person has it and the other doesn’t. One tradition has it, the other doesn’t. John Wheeler has it, Gilbert doesn’t, etc etc etc. This makes awakening look like its something special, passed down only in quiet meetings with special gurus holding special knowledge. It’s quite silly. As we are seeing now, awakening is possible on a much bigger scale precisely because these divisions are being put to rest.

I will take the hit on this one. And I apologize if I have ‘made you look like a fool’ Gilbert. I have no allegiance to Adyashanti. Never met the guy. he is one of many teachers I’ve read through the years. I’ve read your stuff. I’ve read John’s. It all has its place. None of it is the truth. The truth can’t be expressed. Just pointing that is all.

There is a wonderful ‘seeing’ that can come from this discussion about why the mind tends to fixate in one realm of experience or another, one conceptual understanding or another, one pointer or another, or one description of another of nonduality. We can either look ‘together’ on this page at what the mind is doing or we can stay stuck in the “personal,” in defending self-images and attacking other self-images like “Adya” “Scott Kiloby” “Gilbert” –the list goes on. Those are merely images, appearances. And yet they are coming from this nothingness which you, Gilbert and John, point to so clearly.

I am risking that I will not be invited back to put a podcast on here. That is fine. to me, saying all this is more important than book sells, website visits, or anything else associated with the image “Scott Kiloby.” There is a real interest in truth here. that is all. Hope it’s seen and taken that way.

Youre right, sometimes love moves in ways that don’t appear loving at first. They appear as mind games that reveal fixations.

Love to all, genuinely
Posted by Dan on 10.30.08 4:03 am

This conversation is turning into a big bowl of awesome.

Thank you John for your clarity. Duality, Non-Duality. Really any word that can be typed is merely a concept. Even what I just said is merely a concept. Thus, the only way it can be talked about is directly from the source of experience and brought out with openness. You’re openness is inspiring John.

It’s true that it’s always here, always available, and always complete. Gilbert, perhaps the fact that it keeps coming back to that for you means it’s not digested? This isn’t a criticism or even my opinion, just a thought that I might suggest. I don’t know if it’s true, so please don’t take offense if it isn’t (or even if it is).

It also seems that there is a digesting of one old habits after realization. It’s like my primary experience is non-duality (for lack a term to express it better), and by discussing it, I’m finding all of the old, silly misinterpretations of the past that were based on the idea of a separate self. All the old functioning can be replaced with functioning that actually matches the experience with attention, and perhaps this is what many of us are doing by talking about it all the time.

Something I got from John’s podcast is that there are an infinite number of questions that need answering, and the answer is that there is no separate self. To the point where I can be having this experience, and still have old patterns that are these implied questions. Being able to go through and answer them is quite a joy, and it’s been interesting (on a physiological level) the extreme amounts of worry, guilt, and fear that are gently and intensely releasing themselves. The body is changing as the reprogramming changes!

However, these are all concepts, but if we talk with openness we can receive more.

There’s no “we” though.

and no concepts.

And no openness..

etc, etc…..

………
Posted by Ralph on 10.30.08 5:45 am

Wow !!!! thanks Andrew… that sure hit home. I recognized the truth in the words you have just spoken. Thank you.

“I see only love masquerading as a me”.

Just beautiful !
Posted by gilbert on 10.30.08 9:35 am

The Urban Guru Cafe site says “Entertaining – Innovative – Informative and Controversial, so Controversial it must be……….I know this one real well……
“Slippery as a snake”……..So Scott is playing games with another alias (How many do you have? – have you seen a Psychologist about this yet?).
Typical, I should have recognized the same erroneous banter. You never did get over our first little ‘battle of the egos’ did you?
The whole game is in YOUR MIND Scott. Being a solicitor or lawyer, which is what your career is, I guess ‘you’ can’t afford to lose a case. Scott Kiloby is a fictional name also. Do you have an invisible friend also and a teddy bear to sleep with? Don’t take it personal Scott or should I call you something else? – the Lone Stranger?
What we are talking about is NON DUALITY. There is ONLY ONE.
One SEEING, One KNOWING, One PRESENCE, One BEING.
‘Who’ is this fictional one that tells ‘ME’ that what I SEE and what I KNOW is in error?
Why don’t you go off and play your games somewhere else Scott, if that is your name, or just go and hide behind another name. ‘Who’ are you protecting? Is it your ‘spiritual self-image’? Your ‘teaching’ has more holes in it than a fishing net. Please don’t take it personally Scott, since you BELIEVE that there is no Scott, how could you? The ‘holier than thou’ path you walk is a fictional path – but you have a lot of company on it.
Your ‘personal story’ of enlightenment, which you push so avidly is so similar to Adya.
I guess you keep missing the essential point over and over because the game would fall apart if you truly saw through it all. But ‘The world’ needs your kind, real bad. Pity it never truly liberates anyone. As ‘I say’, don’t take it personally Scott. There is no one to be liberated or to take it personally.
You can always ‘make it’ by changing your name, just like Adya did. Up the price of your ‘Satsang’ (another wanky name they all use) – Run some more Intensives and Retreats and allow more of these miserable seekers to imbibe your holy atmosphere. Sheesh. What a wonderful mind game it is. I think it is called ‘Narcissism’- Narky for short.
The words of anyone can be pulled apart and dismembered.
There is an intelligence that beats your heart – pay homage to that and stop playing guru games.
Does it always have to be ‘someone else’ that SEES through your charade – pity it isn’t you. By the way, I had reservations about your program that we published here on the Urban Guru Cafe. It is the weakest one of them all, excluding my own of course. I can’t see us doing another one with you, unless you drop the ‘personal enlightenment trip’ and that is probably not on the table. This is words, empty and yet maybe provocative for some – it is all just entertainment – enticement for the false identity to react to – giving ‘us’ a chance to SEE it. (As Krishna says to Arjuna “You are trained as a warrior – so go and fight” – and another quote: “the meek shall inherit the Earth” – six feet under)
Nothing personal Scott or is it Ralph or maybe Clarke Kent or all of them? – Warm regards and LOVE – Gilbert (that is my given name, chosen by my grandmother).
Posted by Ralph on 10.30.08 9:45 am

What just happened here at the UGC is just totaly mind blowing !

It appears the ‘mind game’ played here was necessary for the ‘seeing’ to occur.

The lord works in mysterious ways !
Posted by John on 10.30.08 10:03 am

It is nice to see some original insights and clear pointing emerging, not in conformance to a certain perspective, but just that clear expression emerging directly from its non-conceptual source. It has nothing to do with words, but the living reality behind the words that informs them with its unmistakable, timeless perfume. That is the clear and present essence shining in and through all appearances, thoughts, experiences. From here, from this seeing, which is where you are and what you are now and ever, all that appears to be is only an appearance of this. And all talk of the appearance as some real and defined thing unto itself dies a sweet and utterly welcome death. That is the full stop, the mind which alights on no thing, just this and nothing else. It is not the oneness of the perceived the perceiver, so much as the space in which they appear and even more than that. It is your own non-conceptual nature, which shines in all of its radiance and clarity as the light of pure knowing that allows you to say (right now!) with utter confidence and certitude, “I know” and “I am”. Even before those concepts appear, you are. “I know” and “I am” are the limits the mind can reach, but you stand beyond, not as a thing separate and apart but in an entirely different realm altogether. That is why you are not even the “I know” and “I am”, but that timeless source from which they emerge. From there you look out on the waters of existence and see appearances as ripples dancing on the surface of being. Yet nothing ever happens! You are both the water and the ripples, but also the inconceivable depths, forever beyond any concept the mind could frame. Heave the anchor of conceptual thought into those ancient waters and it will sink for an eternity and never find the bottom. As far as I am concerned there is nothing more to say at that point, not to mention no one to say it and no one present to hear it.
Posted by gilbert on 10.30.08 10:05 am

Yes, it ‘appears’ that the mind game has to be played out – but remember this:
The SEEING was there long before the mind game came along.
The SEEING is Non Dual. Everything is included in the SEEING – and of course the mind game is included in that SEEING – that is why it is seen, eventually. When it is truly recognized it loses its hold, vanishes. It may come back as a shadow or as a translucent appearance – but the ‘path feed’ of energy to it has been severed – thus the energy stays with the pure functioning of seeing, knowing, tasting, touching, smelling, hearing and thinking. Thinking is freed from the eddy of the ‘me’. Thoughts come and go freely.
The ‘me fixation’ has dissolved here long ago. I love it how these sensitive gurus wear their heart on their sleeve and make a grand entrance for their satsang, appearing miraculously from behind a curtain, like a well trained magician’s monkey. It is pretty pathetic, but hey, that is show business.
Posted by John on 10.30.08 10:24 am

A very key concept to heave into the waters of immediate presence is the much discussed “awakening”. That notion itself appears and disappears in what is being pointed to. Your natural being is already awake, and the seeker who dreams of, or talks of, awakening is a conceptual phantom. Either way, the concept falls — leaving just this ever-present, cognizing space of being, knowing, life itself. It is vivid, ever-fresh and clear in this moment and always. Those who peddle awakening, peddle fool’s gold, because that concept leaves intact the notions of the seeker, time and special attainments for the few. The bankruptcy of the concept is proved by the fact even those who promote it are forced to admit that even awakening is not enough. There is more living the teaching, losing the conditioning, overcoming habits, and, eventually, liberation (so they claim!) in the future for those who are certified to have attained it, complete with the appropriate sanskrit name for good measure! Happy are those who see the hamster wheel for what it is and step off into immediate freedom and happiness.
Posted by Pendragon on 10.30.08 10:46 am

I Now “SEE” how religions are created…. Off Shoots…… of a whole that cannot BE divided. Only in language are you born, seemingly a separate fragment of a larger mystery. This is really “Juicy” dialogue and immersion in it…. deliciously fragmenting.

READ

BETWEEN

THE

LINES
Posted by Scott Kiloby on 10.30.08 10:47 am

I’ll leave this wound alone for awhile. It was apparently taken personally. It wasn’t meant that way. This was an open invitation to seriously look at what it is that makes a mind fixate within a lineage, teaching, style of pointing, etc. Apparently there are no takers. No harm, no foul Gilbert. Sometimes we just have to sweep the floor in here, you know?
Posted by Scott Kiloby on 10.30.08 10:54 am

Is there anyone else here that would like to talk about fixation. Let me just say that there has been a fixating in ‘this’ mind on all sorts of appearances. Religions, teachers, teachings, nonconceptual awareness, oneness, self, no self. The mind’s desire to land somewhere is quite persistent. And it isn’t ultimately personal. As this thread shows, every mind does it. It isn’t about Gilbert, or Scott, or John, or Preston, or Mark. It is about the dualistic mind and its desire for certainty and constant movement to separate. Not a bad thing at all really. Quite entertaining when the attachment is seen.

Seems like we could really open up an honest discussion here, sort of drop the normal nonduality pointers. Drop all teacher and seeker hats and speak openly about where the mind fixates. We could drop the constant FULL STOPPING, whatever that means, and let the mind go. It wants to go, doesn’t it? Who is trying to stop the mind? Wouldn’t that be something quite unique for nonduality, to see that the mind is doing what minds do?

Or not…
Posted by Scott Kiloby on 10.30.08 11:00 am

yes, I know there is no mind, just thoughts….

and all that jazz

Does anyone still really believe there is something called nonduality? All I see are words on a page, a half glass of milk on my desk, an aching foot from working out. I can’t find nonduality. It must have gone to the grocery store.

I’m just playing guys, geez, lighten up. When did the absolute become such a serious game. What happened to play…
Posted by Scott Kiloby on 10.30.08 11:24 am

I don’t recommend Scott Kiloby’s book or website.

‘He’ hasn’t recognized true nature. He shares quite a muddy message. Stay away!
Posted by The Feral Dream on 10.30.08 12:20 pm

Hello Scott,

Why are you so fixated on talking about fixation?

FD
Posted by The Feral Dream on 10.30.08 12:46 pm

Oh and another thing – 15 years in this quest, starting with Yogananda and passed though scores of teachers, big, small, white, brown, black, yellow…. Eckhart, Ammachi, The ramana lineage…. done it all. A chance encounter with John in california 2 months ago led to a follow-up phone consult from Canada. I had serious questions I needed answered.

In the span of an hour, it was Seen, clear as the sun on a summer day in the bahamas. The questions were gone, poof….meaningless. dust in the wind. John never once spoke about Bob the True and XYZ the false – I don’t believe he has any interest in that. He just relentless SPOKE Me Back Home. Nothing Else. Absolutely. Nothing. Else.

I would not go to a ‘retreat’ with John, if he ever thought to have one (it would surprise me if he did). This is not about retreats. Its about Seeing NOW. NOW. Not at a pleasant sea-side retreat dining on organic wheat bread and listening to mellifluous chimes in the wind. Perhaps that has its place, perhaps those retreat folks, the teachers and the students, are enlightened or whatever – who knows and who cares. I don’t.

I dont personally get “I am That” at all. Can barely read it, to be honest. Seems ponderous and heavy. Not my bad at all. Never read Bob A’s stuff either. I was always a Ramana lineager. After John’s call, I was incredulous that I had deified Ramana – it was patently obvious that he was no different from me, in every way! There is no desire here to read anything on thsi anymore. I make no claims to being Awakened or anything at all – just stating the facts as they are for this one here. I am absolutely certain that at this time, I am functioning as an Identity. But whatever. Not a problem.

This meta-physical banter you seem to crave can be found on a hundred other sites. From past experience i particularly recommend the ACIM lists – out for blood messiahs you will find, will keep you busy for a while.

You seem too eager to cure him (Gilbert) of his Ego.

Personally, I find your words condescending and disrespectful to Gilbert, which i dont think is required at all. For the record i don’t know Gilbert.

In the meantime, it gets tiresome to see you talking to yourself. Though clearly you are keeping yourself entertained, its clogging up the useful posts. Perhaps its time to stay quiet for a bit. Please don’t come back at me with a “who feels gilbert is slighted etc..” I have no interest to continue this or for your teachings – my loss. I’ll survive.

thank you for your time.
S
Posted by Johnny on 10.30.08 1:56 pm

Yes, for sure!

Stay the hell away from Kiloby’s website.
Before visiting, nonduality was finally clear and there was comfortable rest as “awareness”.

After visiting kiloby.com there is no place to rest.
Now I am lost in this and peace is present in nothing.

Thanks for losing me in this, Scott and thanks for nothing,
Johnny
Posted by Pendragon on 10.30.08 2:02 pm

clogging up the useful posts……? Wait a nano…..while I look up “useful” or “lufesu”…
Wow, they’re both the same… Language Again, darn it.
How many manifestations of THIS can we fit here.
It Really Is All so beautifully choreographed and colorfully congruent~
Thank You
Posted by Johnny on 10.30.08 2:22 pm

I would love to play, especially at poking fun at a “heavy weight” like Adya.
But I need some quotes of text or url’s of video/audio clips that can be chewed on.
As far as can be seen, all the accusations here, so far, have been devoid of reference.
Posted by gilbert on 10.30.08 4:03 pm

Well, this small ‘two person’ production is breaking new ground each day. Fresh visitors are coming regularly. If we continue with it, we will ensure that only those who point clearly at the ‘essential elements’ appear here on this podcast site. We are heading up towards 4,000 downloads for this month alone. Bit of a pleasant surprise for us here. It got off to a shaky start. But it has steadily been rising since its inception. One of our wishes is that the comments page does not slide into a messy tit for tat thing that is common on another non duality podcast site. The comment page is also for genuine questions from listeners. It is good to see John come on board.
Part two of John’s interview will be published next month, so have a fresh listen to John’s part 1 or Bob’s remarkable interview in 2 parts. One gets used to his accent after awhile.
I think John may well cease to make comments since it has started to deteriorate into a crazy banter since the likes of Scott start to play silly games.
There are three parts to his interview. Some controversial bits to come. Feel free to make any suggestions regarding the program. Areti is busy doing new interviews and she has a knack of getting some good stuff out of those interviewed. Enjoy the programs and if the comments pages get too silly, just ignore them and simply listen to the programs.
Posted by tomvds on 10.30.08 6:26 pm

Hi JOHN,
How is consciousness perceived from the timeless?
Since consciousness is aware of body and mind what are It’s perceived qualities from the stateless state?
Thank you! – tom
Posted by audrey on 10.30.08 11:49 pm

Neither Gilbert nor Bob want my money or my allegiance..they are inviting me to look at the bare-boned truth of immediate experience – not to rest in or discuss. The seeing (being) is constant. Bob helped me see that and Gilbert has been nothing but helpful, his, at times bare-knuckle approach is aimed first and foremost at undercutting the mind before it has a chance to raise a glove..at least that’s my experience. It’s ruthless compassion and I thank him for it.
John, a wonderful lucid podcast and follow up comments, thank you.
great stuff all at UGC
Posted by Scott Kiloby on 10.31.08 1:19 am

You’re welcome Johnny. Nothing to offer. Nothing to get.

To quote a friend, who shall remain nameless, for fear he will also be labeled a heretic, “What is, is already being done and you won’t understand it.”

Here is what happened to ‘me’ on the ‘spiritual search.”

There was belief in a story of Scott who could find something called spiritual awakening. That story created duality, separation between Scott and ‘This.’

There was a striving towards something called “nonconceptual awareness” that could be aware of something else called “thought” or “appearances.” That story created duality. “I” kept chasing my own tail, looking for this awareness. It was what was looking.

There was a belief then that this “awareness” that was realized was who “I” am. So the mind got really fixated in that. Nothing was happening. Total peace and calmness. The world went away. Ahhhhhhh But I kept dividing life up between awareness and appearances again. I was the “witness.” I was presence, whatever the hell that means. There was “no Scott” as some sort of fixated belief. Needless to say, relationships suffered as I treated people as hollow images. Love was absent. I tried to keep concepts from arising with the “Full Stop” thing. I found there was no control. They just arose.

There was an experience when the ‘witness’ fell away, and this body was seen to be none other than the wall, the carpet, the dogs (this is the ‘personal enlightenment’ story Gilbert raves about).

There was a fixation with the concept of Oneness or Nonduality “after that” until that was seen also to be just another story of Scott. I found myself arguing with the illusory others in my head that didn’t see this thing called “nonduality.”

There was a fixation with “no self” during this time. The mind just wants to land somewhere, in some dualistic position.

All of these stories created division in the mind. I looked at the world and saw those who got it and those who didn’t. This is the ranting about all the other satsang teachers or seekers who aren’t expressing it ‘right’ that you are seeing on here.

When the mind tries to grasp “what is already being done” it tries to place it in categories, right? Don’t believe a word being said in this post. Just look (or don’t). But the looking and not looking are ‘This’ manifesting right now.

When that is realized, there is no longer a fixation with fixation, with awareness, with nonduality, with duality, with presence. The words are empty images arising and falling….

They arise and fall

Arise and fall

that is what the mind does…it thinks. It’s supposed to think.

“This” is not about denying form. It is about seeing through the heavy attachment to it, otherwise called “me.”

When it’s seen that it arises to no one, then nothing is personal. Every moment is fresh.

Some will see what I’m pointing to. Others will disagree. That is ‘This” agreeing and then ‘This’ disagreeing. Nothing personal. It’s already being done..

The world comes alive again. Things are happening again. That nothing, that nonconceptual awareness, is appearing as everything. I call it love. You can call it “toilet.” The word is not the thing. It’s not a personal achievement. This has nothing to do with Scott. It’s available to everyone here. That’s the beauty of it.

All of that is a load of crap. Yes, that is true. Don’t believe a teacher who believes his own BS, especially someone named “Scott.” Just ask yourself, in this life that is moving constantly, is there any concept you can really hang onto? In that seeing, a resting happens naturally. You don’t have to call it anything. You don’t have to find a new identity as “presence” or “the One.” Just go take out the trash, kiss your wife, and go to work. That is what is happening already. Nonduality is just pointing to that.

Love to all
Posted by tom on 10.31.08 3:10 am

Hello John,

Reading this comments-section, I wonder.
Is there anything we can agree on?
The certainty of Being; Nobody can deny this.
Consider all appearances to be downstream and the source upstream. Then we all meet at the junction called ‘certainty of being’. Then going ‘further’ upstream toward the stateless state do we part? Does disagreement start up again once beyond the common junction of ‘certainty of being’?
Beyond the certainty of Being, what is there out of which this certainty springs which can equally not be denied and which is the final and eternal understanding?

Thank you,
tom
Posted by Ralph on 10.31.08 6:10 am

In my opinion, Scott delivers some great points to ponder. Yes, playing mind games is unjust and wrong but in no way do I believe he did this as a cheap shot but instead his sole purpose was to drive a point that was ‘stubbornly’ not being seen. I think Scotts input is beneficial for many who come here at the UGC and to lose him would be a great loss. He did apologize if it was taken the wrong way so let’s forgive and move on. He definitely is a great addition to this site.
Posted by Pendragon on 10.31.08 7:48 am

Agreed Ralph… wholeheartedly~
A good storm always uncovers the “Roots”of the tree.. to some extent~
Thank you Scott~!
Posted by John on 10.31.08 10:32 am

Hi, Tom. Some comments in line ….

Tom: Reading this comments-section, I wonder. Is there anything we can agree on?

John: To me this is not really the core of what this getting to. In my view, it is about getting to the root of who/what we are and clarifying this. Why? So that life is not being filtered through a network of unexamined beliefs and assumptions of who and what we are. At a very practical level of experience, it doesn’t strike me as particularly fruitful to live a life without having some sense of who we are. Any other issues are largely irrelevant and missing the task at hand, in my view. All sense of limitation, doubt, suffering, worry, fear, etc. ultimately arises out of a wrong or unexamined view of ourselves. The spiritual jargon often becomes just another network of beliefs to embellish the unexamined sense of identity.

Tom: The certainty of Being; Nobody can deny this.

John: Exactly, and very clearly seen. In fact, there is nothing so intuitive and certain as “I am”. Even to doubt, you must be present to doubt. So you know, “you are”. Your own being is not in doubt. So you start right there. The key is to have a clear sense of this being (your own presence) without identifying this with any concept. One thing you can verify right off — your being is not a concept. That is why this has nothing to do with concepts, even spiritual concepts. This has nothing to do with teachers, teachings or particular experiences, however glorious, because this undeniable being clearly has nothing to do with any of those things. No teacher, system, path, or approach owns this, because it is already present as your own self. Once you catch the drift of where this is heading, you can pretty much drop those issues as beside the point.

Tom: Consider all appearances to be downstream and the source upstream.

John: This is certainly a reasonable way to view things. You eventually also see that the appearances do not exist as independent things apart from the source. But to get rolling, it can be very helpful to be clear about the source. The other aspects all flow from that naturally.

Tom: … Then we all meet at the junction called â€˜certainty of beingâ€™.

John: It depends on what you mean. At the level of being itself, there are no separate appearances. In other words, at the source itself, there is no “I”, “you”, etc. That comes in the downstream appearance of things, and is generated by the conceptual mind. If you are saying that at the level being itself, we all meet in and as that oneness or source, I would agree. There is no “my being” and “your being”, just being itself. Keep in mind that “being” is just a pointer, so don’t make too much of that word. Call it anything, but that refers to your own natural presence, which shines before, during, and after any concept or experience. Again, the point is not to make some metaphysical split between that and the appearance. It is just to highlight your abiding nature so that is clear. As a reminder, we already saw that THAT is already present. Nothing is being brought in at all. It is just having a good straight look at something so present, that we may have overlooked it, being more interested in other things.

Tom: Then going â€˜furtherâ€™ upstream toward the stateless state do we part?

John: This starts to get a bit hypothetical and less emphatic. In fact it is entirely conceptual! There is no going further in non-conceptual presence. Who? Where? See that the question essentially returns to the conceptual level and introduces distinctions, separation â€“ and doubt. See something very key here. The being is doubtless. The conceptual overlay brings in the sense of separation and doubt. This is why the answer is not in the conceptual mind. But pause the mind and the answer is (ever) here in all its immediacy and clarity â€“ the doubtless fact of your own being. That is not an inert void or vacuum at all. One of the ancient Zen masters called it, â€œThis pure mind the source of everythingâ€. The beauty of it is, this is what you ARE. It cannot be grasped in a concept because it (you) are not a thing to be grasped or understood by the mind. Still your presence is undeniable and cannot be denied. That is why it is called immediate, or non-conceptual, knowledge or experience.

Tom: Does disagreement start up again once beyond the common junction of â€˜certainty of beingâ€™?

John: Yes, but only by returning to the conceptual level, as I mentioned. The concepts donâ€™t have to be discarded, just seen for what they are. That is enough.

Tom: Beyond the certainty of Being, what is there out of which this certainty springs which can equally not be denied and which is the final and eternal understanding?

John: This assumes there is some further development needed. Try a full stop here and linger awhile. Realize that anywhere you move just goes back into a concept. Non-conceptual awareness is where the buck stops. You can try another spin in the mind for a lark, but see if it gets you anything more than being what you are.

Thank you,
Tom

John: Thanks for bringing up the points. You raise some good issues.
Posted by gilbert on 10.31.08 11:22 am

The benefit of any discussion, however animated it gets or however gentle it may appear to be, is in the revelation, the uncovering of this innate intelligence that we are. Yesterday’s drama is gone, if only because every trace is wiped away in deep sleep. Where are last years ‘personal issues’ and dramas? The same words spoken by one can convey something that resonates, while the very same words from another can feel very empty.
The only ‘thing’ that matters is the resonance. That is the ‘life’ shining through the cracks in the charade, the mask. ‘When’ the mask takes on a transparent nature the resonance shines unobstructed-ly. The mask does not vanish altogether – it is the pattern that appears – the apparent interface between the inner and the outer. That interface, when believed in as being something solid is the sense of separation, the ’cause’ of suffering.
When the SEEING passes through it without being drawn into ‘time’ and ‘mind’ – then the quality of life ‘appears’ to be more harmonious. LIFE is impartial.
The sense of ‘self’ is partiality. There will always be a trace of that partiality as long as the body exists. Take a look into where the seeing is truly taking place. Where the knowing is taking place. Whatever the mind brings up in such an investigation can be seen as something known – it is not the KNOWING. Follow it back and back to its origin. Emptiness. No one can go beyond that – in knowing that the search fades away automatically.
Posted by gilbert on 10.31.08 1:11 pm

This is a repeat of a note I have placed on the previous programs comment page.
A transcript of Bob’s interview is almost ready. It is being produced as a booklet in the next few days. It stands alone as a very clear document. When read through while listening to the programs, it assists those who have trouble with Bob’s accent and the fluctuating voice projection levels. You can order this booklet now by going to my website http://www.shiningthroughthemind.net and either use the donation tab to pay through paypal or by using the order CD link. The cost is $15US – add a note to the effect that it is the booklet you wish to receive. I think it is one of the clearest expressions I have heard – it covers everything. Warm regards – Gilbert.
Posted by Amanda on 10.31.08 3:11 pm

Stay Scott!! Please.

I’m a lurker and one of the anonymous downloading masses, but I really enjoyed your podcast.

And I should also say sincerely and humbly that I would like to thank Gilbert and Areti for all the time and effort they invest in crerating the UGC. I know others will howl, but I would pay to download these programs. They are that good.

For someone like me, who lives in a remote area, the resources that many wonderful teachers have put out on the web free of charge is the only contact we have with others who’ve found all that is.

Kind regards,

Amanda
Posted by gilbert on 10.31.08 4:56 pm

Don’t worry Amanda, Scott is welcome here. Whatever transpires is all valid and it can, even if by default, assist us in seeing through whatever is being held onto in the ‘mind’.
John has been very clear throughout all this little drama, pointing back to the essential elements. I am pretty sure that the next two programs from John will stir up even more ‘stuff’ for us all to enjoy or struggle with. The third one will send ripples through the ‘community’ like we have never seen before. Anticipation is an interesting phenomena, isn’t it.
Posted by Bill Tys on 10.31.08 4:57 pm

Over 80 comments…I really enjoyed reading all of them…particularly the fiesty ones!

In one way or another they all point to the very nature of our being…

I am going to roll up, mash and blend all the comments together and come out with the perfect distillation!

See below…
Posted by Truthiness on 10.31.08 5:28 pm

Here’s quote from John Wheeler:
“Thoughts, feelings, perceptions come and go; you are. Waking, sleep, dreams come and go; you are. Consciousness and unconsciousness come and go; still you are. You remain as the constant invariable factor in all states and experiences. That presence is not a body, thought or experience.”

That presence may not be a body, but it is the result of one: Because a random sperm met an egg some years back, “You are” – ie, there is biological life happening. The underlying “presence” of being here is totally dependent on this specific “aliveness” and is a product of it… The “presence” is just the background ‘steady-state’ hum of consciousness without any particular content (say, like a baby’s mind). Far from being some kind of eternal awareness, this “presence” will vanish when the organism dies.

The main problem with the material on this site, and sites like it, is that it is a closed loop of information. Most of us have seen through the obvious “guru” traps, but the “non-duality” cult is just another delusional trap too. In my view, the Advaitan “That” – the “presence” that is beyond time space, death, rebirth, blah blah etc, is just another really subtle death-avoidance self delusion. I’m really sorry my friends, you will die and there is no escape.

Please try and keep any responses civil, and if possible avoid any obvious attacks like this is “just intellectualism” etc. I’m just trying to free you from the last, final trap of “non-duality”.
Posted by gilbert on 11.01.08 1:15 am

‘Who’ is trying to free ‘whom’?
The last and final trap of Non Duality?
Wow, that is some concept. I wish I had come up with that one.
Non Duality is not a trap – it is Absolute Freedom.
There NEVER was anyone to get trapped in Non Duality – nor in Duality either.
If you perceive a trap, then be sure not to tread in it yourself. It is your creation.
Presence is not the result of a body. Presence ‘was’ here before that body (of yours) appeared.
Presence was not disturbed by that appearance and it will not flutter one iota when it disappears.
‘Who’ is it that claims the presence to have appeared out of the body?
The body and all its sensation ‘appear’ in this presence-awareness. This is obvious.
Can you find where the SEEING is happening?
Don’t intellectualize this question away.
Take a good look. If you can find a definite ‘place’ or ‘location’ where the seeing is happening, please let us know just what that is.

I trust that is NOT Scott appearing again under a NEW name.
If it is, then the pills are not working mate. Double the dose.

As Michele de Saltzmann said: “The self-righteous man is a dangerous man”

Other matters:
The spiritual ‘person’ says: “How dare you call it a ‘random sperm’. I chose my parents very carefully.”
I say, until very recently every-body was the result of some humpin’ and bumpin’.
Since some clever scientists and doctors have found a way to mix the necessary ‘defrosted’ bits in a test tube, that is no longer the case. In any case intelligence is doing the whole thing however it appears – even as the righteous man.
We can dissect a mosquito or frog into a dozen parts but we can’t put it back together again, at least not to see it fly or jump ever again – not to mention do any humpin’ and bumpin’.
We need not lose our sense of humor folks. Laughing is obviously much healthier than trying to ‘work out’ the meaning of life in your head.
Posted by Jay H. on 11.01.08 1:17 am

Truthiness, the entire basis of what you claim rests entirely on the assumption, first and foremost, on the fact that you were ever born.

How do you know for certain that a random sperm met an egg some years ago? Where is that event now? Is what you say just learned information picked up from school or your parents or the medical books in the library?

All of this is an assumption. Learned information which ‘you’ believe.

What is true right now in your experience? Where is your birth? Did it ever happen?

If you can’t find any of this in your experience right now, your argument is moot.
Posted by steve on 11.01.08 2:59 am

Worth repeating from above ‘The underlying â€œpresenceâ€ of being here is totally dependent on this specific â€œalivenessâ€ and is a product of itâ€¦ The â€œpresenceâ€ is just the background â€™steady-stateâ€™ hum of consciousness without any particular content . Far from being some kind of eternal awareness, this â€œpresenceâ€ will vanish when the organism dies.’
Isn’t that everyones direct experience?
Certainly the ‘pointers’ lead to many moments of beautiful stillness and ‘no-thought’ (awareness of the ‘steady-state hum’ above) but frankly, so what?
I did not exist (to me) before I had a sufficiently developed nervous system, that awareness of existence depends on many factors (attention, chemical balance, not being unconscious/in deep sleep, etc even when alive and its days are numbered (for us all) as death approaches.
Isn’t it ‘clear and obvious’ that everything we do is just an attempt to rationalise the brutal truth of this?
Posted by steve on 11.01.08 3:14 am

Worth repeating from above ‘The underlying â€œpresenceâ€ of being here is totally dependent on this specific â€œalivenessâ€ and is a product of itâ€¦ The â€œpresenceâ€ is just the background â€™steady-stateâ€™ hum of consciousness without any particular content . Far from being some kind of eternal awareness, this â€œpresenceâ€ will vanish when the organism dies.’
Isn’t that everyones direct experience?
Certainly the ‘pointers’ lead to many moments of beautiful stillness and ‘no-thought’ (awareness of the ‘steady-state hum’ above) but frankly, so what?
I did not exist (to me) before I had a sufficiently developed nervous system, that awareness of existence depends on many factors (attention, chemical balance, not being unconscious/in deep sleep, etc even when alive and its days are numbered (for us all) as death approaches.
Isn’t it ‘clear and obvious’ that everything we do is just an attempt to rationalise the brutal truth of this?
Posted by Johnny on 11.01.08 3:48 am

Truthyness,

Advaita is strong medicine…. we mix in that little spoonful of sugar to help it go down.

A little more seriously:
You have raised an excellent point, I hope John is still available to give his take on it.
Posted by Dan on 11.01.08 3:52 am

Hey Truthiness,

Thanks for bringing your views to the table. I appreciate your bringing up death. I’m finding that only complete surrender/death into every second of life allows me to fully live each second of life. Otherwise, it’s lived in semi-unconsciousness, and this is even while it’s completely my experience that everything, including the unconsciousness itself, is all Being. I’m not able to fully die each moment 100%, and some say that it can never be 100%, but I’m on a little quest to see if that’s true.

It does seem that the premise of random biological particles coming together is rather a complex scheme. Perhaps you’re using it as a teaching tool, but my experience is that there is no randomness. It doesn’t mean that I have any control over really any situation (none of us ever has practically speaking), but it means that there’s a rightness to everything.

Why do think the “organism” is holding the Presence? Have you had a chance to fully examine that?

Do you think that “inanimate objects” are somehow not also projections of your own awareness, or that your body isn’t?

You say you’re aware because your body exists, can you really know that your body doesn’t exist because you’re aware? Can you know the Presence isn’t you? Can you know the Presence wasn’t there before you were born?

Where are these ideas you have coming from? I’m not saying they’re wrong or right, but where are they coming from, and how do you know?

These are not rhetorical questions. And while hearing your opinion is fine I suppose, hearing your actual experience would be much more useful and interesting. Thanks.
Posted by Preston on 11.01.08 6:46 am

Truthiness-

A common misconception for the â€œmeâ€ is that it is the ground upon which the world arises. But as a foundation it is quickly seen to be false. Donâ€™t believe me. A simple examination of the â€œmeâ€ Truthiness thinks itself to be reveals it to be nothing more than a collection of thoughts â€” arising presently, which have no power or ability to do anything, the story of “Truthiness” if you will. In fact, you have nothing to do with these thoughts arising – ever, they just appear. So â€œTruthinessâ€ as a â€œmeâ€ cannot be found other than as this story. There is no independent entity with a center â€” anywhere. It just cannot be found or shown.

You cannot separate presence/awareness from being, as you try to do. Presence/awareness is being, not some state. There are different words for this, but they are just words, pointers. It is that upon which all states arise and fall away, including consciousness. It is within consciousness itself that the â€œIâ€ thought arises, â€œI amâ€, then the separation of the â€œmeâ€ begins, including thoughts like â€œThat presence may not be a body, but it is the result of one.â€ That is the â€œmeâ€, a.k.a., â€œTruthinessâ€, getting it backwards. Itâ€™s the mind believing itâ€™s own stories. Investigate for yourself. Before thought what is seeing your body, knowing you exist? What you are is that SEEING, that KNOWING. You are and you know that you are. This cannot be negated, only not seen by the â€œmeâ€.

Awareness cannot move. How could it? Into what could the absolute move that is not already itself?

Consciousness, as an appearance in awareness, appears to move with the body/mind, i.e., if you walk outside the view changes, different things appear, trees, birds, and so on. This movement appears to happen in time and space, but, in fact is only an illusion, albeit a convincing one. The movement of body/mind requires time and space and implies thought (Iâ€™m getting up, Iâ€™m going outside, etc.), so how can it be anything but illusion?

In the manifestation we have the popularized concepts of now â€” â€œhow can it be any other timeâ€â€¦â€Look aroundâ€¦itâ€™s always nowâ€. We are extolled to â€œbe here nowâ€. Unfortunately though, the seeker too often makes â€œnowâ€ into an object of obsession, inescapably present but forever just out of reach. Yet it is more than just water in the mirage when not mistaken for some-thing to attain. Truisms like â€œitâ€™s always nowâ€ donâ€™t seem to be of much help. The mind remains bound in time based thought (itâ€™s nature), or continues to entertain thoughts of â€œnowâ€ as some particular point in time.

Still, it appears that â€œnow is all there isâ€ but only to the â€œmeâ€, which can never actually get to it. Questions like â€œhow can it ever be any other time?â€ arise, but they seem to be weak pointers because they incorrectly tie â€œnowâ€ to the illusion of time. Of course the â€œmeâ€ can never be in the now because the â€œmeâ€ doesnâ€™t exist in the first place, except as thought and thought requires time. The mind can never experience â€œnowâ€ except as memory, resistance or anticipation (presently arising thoughts), yet we can never deny our being/awareness. So â€œwho is there to exist in this â€˜nowâ€™?â€ may be the wrong way of asking the question. The â€œnowâ€ does not fall into some time based continuum of past/now/future because, in essence, â€œnowâ€ is not a concept about time to begin with, it is a pointer toward being/awareness â€” what you are.

All that is perceived is appearance, awareness appearing in consciousness as the â€œmeâ€ that is Truthiness and Preston alike. But no one is there because there is no one to be there, not â€œyouâ€, not â€œmeâ€, only the appearance.

There is only now â€” the seeing, the knowing, the being and you are eternally that. In the now, being/awareness, there is no movement, no time, no thought (thought implies time), no objects (objects imply separation by thought, or no thought, no separation), no perceptions(?), there is only no-thing, awareness, the absolute itself.

Is there seeing, knowing, understanding in the fullness of this realization? I donâ€™t know â€” what can be said without thought?

Peace,
Preston
Posted by gilbert on 11.01.08 9:08 am

The so-called intellect could not function without LIFE.
The body would not BE without LIFE.
LIFE is not limited to the ‘things’ that appear in it.
LIFE is beating your heart. The intellect does not ‘do’ that beating of the heart or the breathing nor any of the pure functions that distinguish a living body from a dead body.
The dead body is STILL contained in LIFE and it is teaming with LIFE. Micro organisms are working full time, enzymes are breaking it all down into ‘food’ for ‘their own seemingly separate lives’.
The mind attempts to rationalize everything so it can hold onto the fiction that ‘it’ is the LORD of its ‘Manor’.
“In my Father’s House there are many mansions”
In Presence, there appears to be many ‘presences’.
We don’t use the word GOD often because it has so much baggage these days.
GOD is another word for PRESENCE….. or AWARENESS.
ALL ‘things’ ARE awareness. No ‘thing’ can exist outside of awareness.
The FACT that one cannot find any ‘point’ where this awareness is found to be a solid object, should tell us something extremely profound. But the resistance to actually taking a close look at that FACT is what keeps the intellect going round and round. Intellectuals get really ‘pissed off’ – steam comes out of the ears. It is rather pathetic to watch. They don’t recognize the turmoil of their struggle to hold ‘something’ together.
Things are heating up around here – and it is just the beginning, so to speak.
Round two is coming up soon. Take a break now because you will all be biting at the bit once John’s program #2 (and #3 are) is published.
Keep an eye on the levy- ‘coz when the levy breaks we may all get taken for a ride.
Posted by John on 11.01.08 11:16 am

â€œTruthinessâ€ wrote with some emphasis, â€œFar from being some kind of eternal awareness, this â€œpresenceâ€ will vanish when the organism dies.â€

There are a couple of problems with this. First of all it is stated AS factual. To be â€œtruthyâ€ about it, this is a claim not based on direct evidence at all. To verify it, you would need to bodily expire and then show in direct experience the absence of your innate presence. This is you cannot do. So you cannot assert this as â€œfactualâ€ without offering sufficient proof. My main point here is simply to highlight that far from being a certain fact, this is actually a claim delivered without sufficient evidence. So it would get down to â€œmy claim is truer than yours because I say so!â€. So, it is back to the drawing board on that one.

This reminds me of a statement made recently by someone to the effect that when a relative passed away that â€œobviously there was no presence-awareness present any longerâ€. This proof was offered with a note of â€œtriumphâ€, as if it had refuted all the non-duality pointers. But this was blatantly overlooking the fact that the actual principle of her own presence and awareness had not gone anywhere at all and had still not been denied or contradicted in the slightest. The â€œrefutationâ€ could not have been delivered outside of the presence of being/awareness, which was still present and beyond doubt. Nothing had been refuted at all. All that happened was the questioner was looking outward at a body form and, not seeing any evidence of life or functioning in that body, assumed that being was absent. It is a matter of mixing up appearances with what is being pointed to as being/awareness and assuming that the coming and going of appearances determines the fate of the greater context in which they appear. The pointing out of the obvious transiency of appearances and then making a claim that oneâ€™s essential being is thereby transient is not a clear or proved case at all. Again, technically, you would have to physically die to prove it. That being somewhat impractical, one will need to take a different course.

This highlights why it can be useful to talk in terms of consciousness as a product or transient manifestation based on causes and conditions. In this regard, I agree with â€œTâ€ that the manifestation of consciousness as an experience in duality is dependent on the body and has a beginning and end. This was a basic point made by Buddha, Nisargadatta Maharaj and others. Even in our own experience we can see or observe the coming and going of conscious experience, not as an assumption, but as a direct experience that needs no proof. So, in this sense, consciousness clearly comes and goes. I doubt that anyone can recall being conscious before the sperm and egg came together and formed the body endowed with breath, etc. When the bodies, the life/consciousness expressing in that body is history.

However, it would be a mistake to assume that consciousness, as used in this context, is necessarily the same as what is being pointed to as our abiding nature. Consciousness in this sense is conditional and is an appearance like any other. But that may not be the whole story. To claim that it is very premature. So more looking and investigation is called for before a definitive claim can be offered out of hand.

It needs to be noted that all the while, and on direct evident, your very existence, that in you which is cognizing even the fact of being conscious is not being contradicted or refuted at all. It is not a â€œhypotheticalâ€ and is not a result of conceptual proofs or disproofs. On the other hand, to speak of â€œwhat will be after deathâ€, etc. is entirely provisional and speculative. This is the difference between non-conceptual experience and conceptual thought. Notice that the former is doubtless and evident, while the latter leads to doubt and potentially unverifiable claims.
Posted by Stanley on 11.01.08 12:23 pm

John,

Thank you for your wonderful pointers. Maybe you can clear up a point of confusion.

It is obvious that the awareness is there and never leaves or changes. It is obvious that the physical body and thoughts appear to or in awareness. It is obvious that what I am is awareness where even consciousness itself comes and goes, as you say.

That’s all obvious. I am not the body or mind, the name, whatever.

What isn’t obvious is that all – is – awareness. It seems that all these “things” are appearing to awareness, but there is no seeing all as one – seeing all AS awareness.

I know that you say the separation only happens as thought, as descriptions which appear to separate but never really do. But that feels conceptual also, that feels not based on direct evidence.

Can you speak to that?

Thank you,
Stanley
Posted by Johnny on 11.01.08 1:17 pm

John

This is crystal clear. I very much appreciate your responding to this issue at the depths of a convoluted thread. As well as looking forward to forthcoming podcasts.

I also send my deepest thanks for the clarity derived from reading your books and website pointers. Though it has been a few years since reading them, my eyes tear up presently in gratitude.

Warmest regards,
Johnny
Posted by Jack o' Lantern on 11.01.08 1:34 pm

Johnny smells suspiciously like Ralphie-boy…

Anywho, diggin’ the Wheeler responses, and Truthiness (steve): keep questioning. The cats who know, feel this shit and are not BS’ers.

Gilb’, John – please keep talking when you feel it. Many quiet ‘folks’ here are way into it.

Happy All Hallows Eve’ (Stateside), as well…
Posted by tom on 11.01.08 10:07 pm

Hi JOHN,

“There is no going further in non-conceptual presence. – Who? – Where?”
I see that very clearly now !
Thank you !

Warm regards,
Tom
Posted by Johnny on 11.02.08 10:43 am

Chill mate, just Johnny here, Jack o’ Lantern.

I think you’ve got the shivers from too many recent encounters with your shadow.

Anyways, hope you had a good Halloween and am really looking forward to more of Wheeler’s podcasts!

“The cats who git this shit, know there’s no shit to git, and don’t believe their own bullshit”
Posted by Dan on 11.02.08 6:26 pm

Stanley,

I know John usually says things the best, but here’s something that helped me a lot, so maybe it will help you too.

Once I felt comfortable that I was that Awareness, I was also having trouble trying to figure out how it related to everything. How does this Awareness make everything one? I kept thinking that there would be this one thing that would somehow unify everything, but I just couldn’t see what it was.

What ended up actually happening was that I discovered I had it backwards. It wasn’t that there was a “thing” that unifies everything, it was that, on some quiet level, I was adding an overlay to reality that said “there is separation between things.” Without that concept, without that assumption, there was no separation anymore. So the unification is already present. It’s the baseline. Any idea of separation is just that: an idea.

I dunno, does that help at all?
Posted by gilbert on 11.02.08 8:16 pm

That which has never been separated cannot be unified because it ‘was never’, ‘is never’ and ‘will never be’ separated into parts.
The true Understanding is silent and wordless – impartiality – because there is no entity (part) truly there.
The mind only translates this understanding into words – however accurate they may appear to be or not be – they are only ever words.
‘We’ erroneously give words far too much value and ‘we’, due to mere belief, bind ourselves in them. Yet this binding has no substance and the one bound by them is also without substance. Is it merely a dream? All an appearance in ‘the mind’?
As Bob says often: “Watch the mind and see if it works in any other way other than in the polar opposites.” (paraphrasing)
Right now in this moment the so-called mind is stirring and thoughts are coming to the surface. Watch it. Now, where is the actual seeing taking place?
The mind will bring forth a reference point, apparently the ‘seer’ but wait – see that it is also appearing in the seeing. Drop the reference point and just BE the seeing.
Understanding is truly silent. There is nothing you can say about it. There is just KNOWING. Grasping consciousness will retreat. Just be the Knowing – the Seeing.
They are ONE.
This is One without a second.
No guru, no book, no body, can give it to you. You already ARE THAT.
Posted by Stanley on 11.03.08 3:35 am

Gilbert/Dan – let’s see if I can sum up what you said along with this understanding. The identification with the mind and body is erroneous, the awareness is always there and the primary necessity for these things to appear. The awareness is what I am but awareness is just a word too.

What appears to be obvious is that I am awareness/the seer and that the world appears in this seeing, but these are still words and concepts, even awareness. So all that is really happening is the seeing with no seer and nothing seen. Anything said to describe it still creates a subject and an object, even if that subject is “awareness.”

The world that is appearing is only describable with words. The seeing that is obvious is also only describable with words. Without words, there is no seer and nothing seen – just this immediacy, this “whatever” that is always evident, that contains the ideas of seer and seen.

It seems that what Bob says is evident and not subject to intellectualizing, that this immediate immediacy, the “present moment”, is of three “aspects” – the omnipotence (all power, intelligence energy, spinning the planets and pumping the blood), the omniscience (all knowing, the seeing aspect), and the omnipresence (present everywhere, presence, whatever “this” is, the totality). These are all conceptual aspects of this very moment.

Therefore even awareness is an identification, the only real “thing” I can be or identify with is -all- of it, all that seems to be appearing, the seer and the seen, me and the world.

I can’t say anything about what is appearing without using some sort of concept or learned knowledge – even to say that I am just the awareness is too much. But that doesn’t seem to be necessary because the evidence is always present, always here – like Gilbert and Bob say “you already ARE THAT.”

Wow.

Of course the mind comes in and says “but what about this?” The world is obviously appearing as this and that, wife, daughter, etc. There is love for them arising – is this just a detachment from that obvious love for them? How to look upon them and not see them as separate?

It feels like love is inherently separation – I love you, I love my wife, my daughter, etc. For there to be love there must be someone who loves someone else. How to see them? When I see my wife and daughter there is a definite feeling of attachment and caring of what happens to them. How to resolve that?

Thank you for the help – S.
Posted by tomvds on 11.03.08 7:31 am

Hi Stanley,

“Wisdom tells me I am nothing. Love tells me I am everything. Between the two my life flows.”- Quote from Nisargadatta

This Love has no adres. It’s like Bob says in ‘One Essence Appearing as Everything’ (Chapter: The confusion about Love):
“Well, what’s naturally there? That loving to be! Not be loving! Loving to be! That is your natural state. It is constantly there. ”
And also as someone here said:
“The very SEEING, of even â€˜emptinessâ€™, is completely full of KNOWING.
This is not a cold perception – there is a warmth in it. Do not ignore this warmth”
Posted by gilbert on 11.03.08 8:06 am

“When I see that I am Nothing – that is wisdom – when I see that I am Everything – that is love – my life flows between these two.” – Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj.
â€œThe very SEEING, of even â€˜emptinessâ€™, is completely full of KNOWING.
This is not a cold perception – there is a warmth in it. Do not ignore this warmthâ€ – Gilbert.
There is an alive stillness out of which any thought arises. You are not a thought.
There is an empty space out of which the body appears. You are not the body.
You are, what you truly are, is ‘before’ the ‘spark’ (There is awareness of the immediate life impulses of the body) – you are innately present, prior to the appearance of the finest substance perceivable – you are prior to space itself. (Space is perceived – even though it is nothing)
It is ALL contained in the Seeing-Knowing.
No word could ever encapsulate THAT silent, substance-less activity of pure knowing – this understanding without words.
When the mind is not – the peace of self-less being rests as itself. The ‘personal’ is just ripples on the surface of No Thing.
Posted by Ulrik on 11.03.08 9:14 am

Hello nobody:)

I would like to thank UGC for great non-dual “teaching”. My heart goes out to everyone involved in the making of this program.

I wrote a comment about “rest as awareness for short moments repeated many times until it becomes automatic”, and Gilbert gave me a hard time about that concept. There was still the idea of someone doing (resting) to get something. I was asleep:).

So this investigation of the presumed I has finally stopped. No more seeking. All there is, is this Seeing-Knowing.

So for anyone who is just tuning in to this website, hang around, listen and enjoy!

Love
Posted by Stanley on 11.03.08 12:00 pm

Ok – this is where the confusion comes in.

The seeing is obvious – present and unchanging while everything contained in that seeing comes and goes. That’s obvious. That seeing is what I really am, not the body or mind. That’s very clear and has brought much peace because it is clear that what I am is not touched by anything that happens. The body goes about the day, the thoughts come and go – none of it really matters and never did. I am not the doer of thoughts nor am I the mover of the body.

Yet this still comes back to the duality of seeing and objects seen. The seeing is happening and the “world” is seen. The witnessing or seeing aspect is still duality and still a creation of thoughts. There is a world or whatever we call it appearing to the seeing, even though the seeing isn’t affected.

In that “world” there is a wife and daughter – if they are sick or suffering, this body and mind suffer for them. That still never affects the seeing, yet nonetheless this body and mind suffer for them.

The Nisargadatta quote is nice but not clear here – as nothing that is wisdom – that’s clear. As everything I am love? Who loves who? Love is just another word – what is it really? The loving to be? That just doesn’t resonate.

It is clear that there is a world arising and I am just the seeing of the world, not any part of it, not the body, not the mind, nothing at all can I find of myself in the appearance of objects. Yet the appearance still appears as separate from the seeing of the appearance.

This body appears to the seeing. The thoughts appear to the seeing. The wall over there isn’t the seeing – it appears to the seeing. This is my confusion.

S.
Posted by Ralph on 11.03.08 12:32 pm

Hey Stanley…. frustrating and exhausting….. isn’t it ?
Can you ‘now’ see that the mind is trying to get it ?
If not, stay with it until that is seen.

You are all of it.. including confusion
Posted by Stanley on 11.03.08 1:19 pm

So the appearance of my wife and daughter is because of mind? The feelings and worries about them are only due to mind?

Without the mind’s input, they are only appearances – the mind gives them their “value”, the attachment, etc.

This is clear. Yet I still don’t see how they are one with the seeing, how they aren’t appearances appearing to the seeing. They appear in the seeing, I am only the seeing/looking/awareness/watching/witnessing/whatever.

Can’t seem to get past that. The rest is very clear. The identification with the body and mind and person is not there – that too was only mind and beliefs.

As John says, even the consciousness comes and goes in this seeing. When sleep comes, consciousness will fade away and there will be something remaining to be aware of the absence of consciousness. Yet it’s not clear that the appearance and consciousness are the very same thing as the seeing.

How to see that all is one and not just the seeing of the world? My wife and daughter appear – it is the mind which says they are “my” and “wife”/”daughter”. In the mind, there is a worry and attachment to their well-being. This body and mind are not what I am, but just the seeing of the body, mind, wife, daughter, etc.

S.
Posted by Dan on 11.03.08 4:50 pm

Hi Stanley,

Can you see that you’re wife and daughter are contained within the Awareness? They are made of the same thing that the individual called “Stanley” is made of. They are made of that All Encompassingness that is who you really are and have always been.

They will always be part of your Awareness. The awareness that “Stanley” has of them might change (he thinks they’re happy, or sad, or getting what they need, or not getting what they need, etc.) but that relationship to them as part of the Infiniteness you are is changeless. It will always be there.

I’ve always noticed that sadness and such comes when it feels like something is limited, is blocked. There’s a feeling in there that says “they’re not getting what they need, they’re not going to be okay.” The mind has that idea, the thoughts are there and there is emotion that goes with it, but that doesn’t have any bearing at all as to whether they are actually going to be okay or not. You see? Thus, the worry and feelings are actually within you (as the individual) because there’s this idea of separation that you are currently examining, and that old belief issue is coming up.

You can never see your wife and daughter as unimportant, nor would that be desireable. The fact is, you are opening yourself to life more when you see them and so the love is clearer and stronger. This is wonderful, but it’s also not limited to them, you are able to let your heart encompass all so that the love is constant. Thus, you will still love them the same, but that love will not feel limited by worry and fear, and so the love can be there all the time, and not feel as fragile. This is a natural process, that just takes compassion with yourself. It will come with your gentle attention, and the natural unfoldment of time.

The gentle growing of the heart to encompass all helps make the connection obvious between you, the Witness, and everything else. The heart is the great unifier, and as your heart develops, the connection will be naturally clearer and clearer. This will come. Asking questions can be helpful, because it’s a good way to put your attention on it, but really whatever helps you the most – what you are drawn to – is what you should do. You seem to be playing it just right at the moment.
Posted by Kimo (Jim) on 11.03.08 5:31 pm

There’s no object appearing “to” awareness. The flower and the fragrance are inseparable. Did you ever know a flower to say “gee, I really stink; what can I do about it?” or a lump of gold saying “wow, I wish I weren’t so yellow”. For Stanley, there seems to be an identified consciousness as a separate “somewhat absolute” witness with objects appearing to it rather than reality which is one without a second. The interesting thing about this thread is that the wife or daughter may be sick and there is a natual compassion felt and instant service to help them feel better. There’s no problem with this! It’s arising spontaneously with no “person” deciding to do it. The only “problem” I see in this thread is that there is an obvious indentification as something separate; albeit maybe not as a person or body or mind concept. Most average “people” seemingly have objective “problems” constantly to deal with. You are already seeing that actions occur spontaneously and needs are met naturally–love and compassion are naturally arising for your family–where’s the problem in that? The funny thing is that you are seeing that life naturally unfolds but the only “problem” you are dealing with now is how to define it. What a peculiar problem! You already have life mastered!
Posted by tom on 11.03.08 6:28 pm

“That just doesnâ€™t resonate” apparantly.
Just Rest. Maybe a flower will bloom in the desert; Maybe not.
Who Cares?
“make for the ‘center’ the rest need not concern you”-Douglas Harding
Posted by gilbert on 11.03.08 6:48 pm

EVERYTHING is contained in the SEEING. So the ‘seen’ cannot be separate from the SEEING. The ‘seer’ cannot exist outside of the SEEING – so it is ALL contained in the seeing and is nothing but SEEING.
The seer and the seen are contained in the seeing. The eyes themselves and the body are contained in the SEEING. It is all seeing.
There is truly ‘no one’ that sees this truth. ‘We’ merely appear in the mind as if we are separate ‘agents’ of this seeing.
If the profundity of this ‘pointing’ really strikes a note of recognition (not merely in the mind) then one may well feel the expansive nature of this ONE.
When it is said that it is ALL Knowing – ALL Potency – ALL Presence (awareness) it is not some high flying statement.
It is pointing to your own nature (not the limited ‘you’ that is merely a belief) – it is pointing at the core of your immediate existence – which ACTUALLY contains everything.
This SEEING-KNOWING cuts through all mind sets and concepts and is self-evident, even in the ordinary rudimentary ‘seeing’ that is happening ‘with you’.
It is the translating mind that suggests a ‘thinker’, a ‘seer’ and a ‘doer’.
As long as these ‘appearances’ are not recognized as appearances in the SEEING, then the mind will just continue to present old patterns of belief.
None of these patterns have any power to resist a close examination of their nature. Instead of playing mind games with these ‘pointers’ why not, even if only for a moment, take a look at the supposed ‘thinker’ or the supposed ‘seer’ and SEE if they have any substance or independence from WHAT IT IS that is SEEING.
The instant liberation from erroneous beliefs is completely available to anyone at all.
It is simply the habit of belief that seemingly obscures the OBVIOUS clarity of SEEING.
If the mind is stunned into silence by this recognition, then well and good.
The intellect may shut its virtual trap long enough for the resonance to wipe away the restless nature of the seeking mind.
The concept of separation is nowhere to be found except in the mind – and even then it remains unfindable.
You ARE this ONE without a second.
(To no one in particular) ‘Your’ feeble arguments ‘belong’ to the last frontiers of the mind, hanging on for ‘dear life’ to the very ‘thing’ that makes that ‘you suffer’.
Words. Powerless in themselves. The pure intelligence that is right there, can at any moment rise up and obliterate all beliefs – leaving you as this naked awareness – totally present and aware.
The one that fears this revelation is the ‘ME’ of belief. (What will happen to me?) – It never existed.
By what intelligence does your heart beat? Is the ‘me’ doing that? No.
It never-ever did a single thing, except divert the attention away from what is clear and obvious.
Posted by Margo on 11.04.08 12:22 am

Gilbert,
When you say ;” EVERYTHING is contained in the SEEING. So the â€™seenâ€™ cannot be separate from the SEEING. The â€™seerâ€™ cannot exist outside of the SEEING – so it is ALL contained in the seeing and is nothing but SEEING.
The seer and the seen are contained in the seeing. The eyes themselves and the body are contained in the SEEING. It is all seeing.
There is truly â€˜no oneâ€™ that sees this truth. â€˜Weâ€™ merely appear in the mind as if we are separate â€˜agentsâ€™ of this seeing.”
-Does it mean that what I see as empty space in front of my eyes is this space-like awareness that is the SEEING and the BEING,it is the real and impersonal ”I”-this space that contains all? Then the brain receives the “information” and in the translation -in sending the electric signal to the eyes,ears and other parts of the body–it becomes personal when received.Now it is “me” who sees it and hears it and experiences it? The body that was contained in the SEEING after receiving this input “becomes”the seer that sees?
Posted by Stanley on 11.04.08 12:35 am

What I’m taking away from this so far is – life is what it is, appearing as Stanley and wife and daughter. Life is seeing the body and mind “called” Stanley, the forms “called” wife and daughter, yet it is all one Life, seeing itself. All forms and even feelings or attachments “to” wife and daughter are contained in this seeing, contained in and as Life.

The feeling of love and caring for the family is also Life – yet the feelings aren’t coming from someone separate and felt for someone separate. The feelings (like the fragrance from the flower) are naturally coming up.

There is a sense of that expansiveness when the imagined boundaries of Life are seen through. No one loving no one, yet love is apparently present.

It seems that Life is what is happening in this moment – that may be a sunrise or worry about the family – when the mind takes issue then suffering ensues, yet there is still no one apart from Life who suffers. Life isn’t suffering.

The formless seeing or witnessing that I am is a function or aspect of Life? Part of the “ALL Knowing – ALL Potency – ALL Presence”?

Is the “world of form” that presence? The form aspect of Being? The functioning or power/potency aspect is obvious, the knowing aspect is obvious… Is the presence aspect the appearance itself?

S.
Posted by gilbert on 11.04.08 4:09 am

The habit is to ‘look’ at things from the point of view of being a limited creature.
All the theories we throw up are just concepts. Concepts, like “Electrical impulses passing through the brain” are concepts, meant to explain away things that puzzle the mind.
There is NO separate individual anywhere. It is ONE appearing and expressing AS Everything. The ‘thinker’ is just a thought. It does not have a body or any substance whatsoever. That is all belief. Of course the habit of taking oneself to be this limited creature will not vanish through the application of another mere belief.
KNOWING is the only ‘thing’ (non thing) that dissolves belief.
The knowing that you ARE has no substance – it contains ALL apparent substances, the universe and everything. That is why they say “One without a second”.
‘They’ are not talking about anything but THAT – and I AM THAT.
Even the most seemingly insignificant ‘view’ is the ABSOLUTE VIEW.
Totally incomprehensible when it is laden with names and limitations projected by the translating mind.
However, if the mind content is dropped, the Infinite is (seen without the aid of a seer to be) clearly present.
Everything is Clear and Obvious – Just as it is.
There is no one to be humble – yet a sense of humbleness may well up as the ‘me’ dissolves into nothingness. It passes, as George Harrison says “All things must Pass”
There is only One Reality and what you truly ARE is THAT.
The mind can play with denial and affirmations of this – to no avail.
It is all an appearance – nothing more than ‘ripples on a quiet river bank’.
‘Who’ could believe such things? All that can be ‘done’ is to ‘point’ at THAT.
Those who pretend to KNOW can only point at erroneous belief – and they are the most popular ‘teachers’ because they give support to the belief in a ‘me’. That cannot happen here, even if ‘I wanted to’.
Posted by Dan on 11.04.08 6:29 am

Stanley,

Wow, it really seems to be coming together for you. Beautifully and clearly stated.

The “things” in the Presence ARE the Presence, like you said. All feelings, reactions, etc. are fluctuations of that Presence, and who and what you actually are IS that Presence, so it is all contained within you, and cannot be separated.

Even the mind, whose job is to separate things, is made of that same wholeness. It would be like taking soft butter and drawing divisions in the butter. It’s all connected butter. The divisions themselves are MADE OUT OF butter, just as the divisions of the mind are made of that same complete Wholeness.
Posted by Dan on 11.04.08 6:40 am

Margo,

Margo: “Does it mean that what I see as empty space in front of my eyes is this space-like awareness that is the SEEING and the BEING,it is the real and impersonal â€Iâ€-this space that contains all?”

Dan: The Eternal Emptiness is the space that contains everything, and the content of the “everything” itself.

Margo: “Then the brain receives the â€œinformationâ€ and in the translation -in sending the electric signal to the eyes,ears and other parts of the bodyâ€“it becomes personal when received.”

Dan: The mind is also made of that same Infinite. That is why the separations are not binding. There is no separate person without the mind defining it as such. Just like the dream analogy: where is the separation in a dream? None of it is ever happening in anyway separate from your own Awareness. When “you” as the observer in the dream “sees” something, is that because the dream light is hitting your dream eyes and your dream brain is processing that? Of course not. It’s a dream, those distinctions are only assumptions.

Margo: Now it is â€œmeâ€ who sees it and hears it and experiences it? The body that was contained in the SEEING after receiving this input â€œbecomesâ€the seer that sees?”

Dan: It is you, but it isn’t you as a limited individual. So it’s not that you as the individual becomes that, it’s more like you were never the individual in the first place, but actually THAT instead. You are That feeling like an individual. It’s like if you spent all your time following the life of one of your fingers that went around talking to the other fingers thinking they were separate. The fingers don’t become the body, and they don’t unify into one big finger. it’s just that you realize that you never were limited to the finger and are actually the whole body (including all the fingers), simply identifying with the finger. Realizing you are the whole body gives a peace and freedom of motion that cannot exist thinking you are the limited, restricted finger.
Posted by John on 11.04.08 10:34 am

The resolution to the “awareness and objects” dilemma lies in the seeing that the supposed difference is not really present. In other words, there is an assumption that there is awareness AND objects. Then the mind gets tangled up in how they are supposed to be stitched together. This is like the person who asks â€œHow do I awaken?â€ and gets wrapped up in that concept, while overlooking that present awareness is already awake and the supposed â€œIâ€ entity is not really present, except as an assumption. In the clear seeing of this, the dilemma collapses.

The issue is similar with the awareness and objects issue. No object or experience can ever stand outside of or apart from the awareness of it. This resolves the issue directly. The objects and awareness are not separate, even now. So why talk of how to put them together or see them as one? Are they separate to start with? I say, â€œNoâ€. Then, full stop. The concept and problem drops.

Most people naturally assume there are only objects and have no real sense of something called awareness. So the pointer is brought up to distinguish objects and awareness only for the purpose of highlighting the presence of awareness, NOT to create an absolute split (because there isnâ€™t any). Once awareness and your identity as that is clear, you can look back at the apparent objects and see that they have no real substance or independent nature apart from the awareness of them. This is somewhat like the figures on a carved marble relief. The dilemma raised before would be like asking, â€œHow are the carved figures and the marble to be seen as one?â€ The real question is, â€œHave you ever seen them separate?â€

Bottom line: There can be no experience outside of awareness. So to speak of awareness and objects as if they were independent is not possible based on direct experience.

It is very important to mention a subtle point that many miss at this juncture. The appearances/objects are NOT in themselves the same as awareness, or the abiding reality. Objects are â€œappearancesâ€, but your real being remains independent of the presence or absence of the objects. In practical experience, you can see that objects are constantly changing, but your own presence remains without break. A wave is nothing but water; but water as such is not a wave as such. So it is not a one-to-one equivalence exactly. That is why when people say â€œAll is the onenessâ€ it is not a totally clear statement, really.

Gilbert tells me another interview is coming up soon. I will hold off on any additional comments until the next thread, as this one is getting a bit long!

Thanks to everyone for the good comments, questions, and observations. It looks like people are doing their “homework” and getting to the root of what needs to be seen. A lot of clear seeing is sprouting forth!(John Wheeler)
Posted by gilbert on 11.04.08 10:40 am

The perception of ‘space’ is also an appearance. So space and time (duration) are both appearances in THAT which has no dimensions.
Everything that is seen and known, every experience that appears anywhere and in any ‘time’ is ‘of the appearance’. It all appears and registers on THAT, which is Reality.
The definition of ‘reality’ is ‘That which does not change’.

The ‘seeker’ (me) is nothing but change. It can never find the changeless – so the seeking is in vain. The seeking fades away by itself and the dawn of self-less realization is only an appearance in THAT which has never changed. You are THAT changeless No Thing.
The concept that ‘people’ need to be gently awakened and taught ‘how’ to live an awakened life is just a business plan. Very profitable for some. For those who see themselves as very special beings, chosen by God or some ‘higher power’ to ‘do the work’.
The ‘direct pointing’ is to that ‘presence’ which shines through the clear and empty mind.
Every grain of sand would have a ‘personal history’ and ‘a story to tell’ of its journey.
‘Who’ has the ‘time’ to listen to them all? And what difference could it possibly make?
Posted by Jodi on 11.05.08 8:35 am

Thank you John and Gilbert. This information is extremely useful and the music is great.
Posted by Kimo (Jim) on 11.05.08 3:34 pm

“This is like the person who asks â€œHow do I awaken?â€ and gets wrapped up in that concept, while overlooking that present awareness is already awake and the supposed â€œIâ€ entity is not really present, except as an assumption. In the clear seeing of this, the dilemma collapses.”

This writing of yours is brilliant, John. Awareness is radiantly present. No entity needs to wake up; no entity can be found. Awareness is. For those who read your message, this single passage can be cause for joyful laughter!
Posted by tazzy on 11.07.08 3:24 pm

Good show kids, can’t get into the comments but,TAZZY.
Posted by Kimo (Jim) on 11.08.08 3:28 am

Blame it on my short-term memory or call me a heretic, but do the MP3′s get any clearer than this one? I like this one track even better than the two recent ones by Bob (I know; strike me from the brotherhood for that comment). Listen to this MP3 and nothing else is needed. You know that you are…The separate entity is nowhere to be found and certainly the concept of an entity cannot be identified with anymore after the pointing reveals your true nature: already fully present being. Get out of these concepts–you aren’t “the Knowing” you aren’t “the Ocean which sustains every oceanic life form and every raindrop and every wave” you aren’t any concept–yes, I know I use “awareness” all the time. There’s no benefit to learning the concepts on this website–all they are are pointers. You know that you are; that is the core of your being. That knowing that you are right now is not a separate entity that suffers. The best non-dualistic writer or person who hangs around Bob 16hours a day can never express this in its finality. I can’t put your Being into words, but you still know it right now effortlessly. And the concept of a separate entity has no life in that knowing.
Posted by gilbert on 11.09.08 8:33 am

The show ain’t over yet Kimo – not till the fat lady sings…….and she is out to lunch – could be a long wait. She went to lunch in 1976 and no one has seen her since.
The next one from John, “What is the truth of who you are – part 2″ carries on obviously from this first one and it gets better (all the time).
The brotherhood? As Groucho says: “I wouldn’t belong to a Club that would have ‘me’ as a member.” Ha……
Posted by Nagarjuna on 11.13.08 7:01 pm

Truthiness says:

Far from being some kind of eternal awareness, this â€œpresenceâ€ will vanish when the organism dies. Iâ€™m just trying to free you from the last, final trap of â€œnon-dualityâ€.
Iâ€™m really sorry my friends, you will die and there is no escape.
End quote.

We all know that there is no escape for the body from death. But then you say you are only trying to free us from the trap of non duality. Really? Why bother my friend? If we are all going to die and dissappear into the void? Why do you even care to free us? If we are all going to become absolutely nothing and void as you say. As for you I really hope you turn out into absolutely nothing and void including your presence. People like you deserve nothing better. Go into oblivion right now. Become nothing. I wish you just that.
Posted by gilbert on 11.15.08 6:29 am

And ‘pray’ tell me how the hell does truthi-ness know that this presence will disappear one day?
The ONLY thing anyone….ANYONE knows is…..’presence’.
You cannot remember ‘when it was not’……..and you cannot know ‘when it will not be’……….
It IS this knowing.
There is little ‘truth’ about our dear truthi-ness’ words. ‘He’ even has a silly name to hide behind. ‘He’ probably imagines he is resting in ‘the awareness’ like a dove in a bowl of cherries. Most probably blissed out on some tapes of Candice or some other ‘guru’.
“I am just trying to free you….” from what Final Trap? It’s the first trap you should watch out for truthi – coz ya keep putting your foot in it mate…………your own ‘gob’.
Nothing like a little ‘personal boost’ to kick the day off with. Where’s me coffee?
Posted by John West on 11.28.08 6:43 am

Well folks, This website is great and IÂ´ve recommended it to a good number of friends and acquaintances. I saw John once this year and enjoyed his approach. What I particularly enjoy about the site is the ability to listen again and again to the same talk. The repetition seems to deepen the understanding. Thanks for all the work.
Posted by Morgan on 04.26.09 12:26 am

Thank you for the direct pointing John. Our true nature has always been obvious but overlooked. We sought experiences and feelings, not noticing that which was always present. I think John would feel insulted if we called him a “teacher” but I think we could say that he’s a great pointer. I will always feel indebted to him. Love and gratitude.
Posted by evan on 07.22.09 4:12 pm

thanks john,gilbert,charlie,and bob
Posted by Louise on 08.01.09 4:28 am

A big thank you to all responsible for making this available!
And I especially want to say that I thoroughly enjoy the music and the way this whole UGCafe is presented….the music selections are perfect and also speak exactly to what ”it is” all about…:) Love to all…:)

Urban Guru Cafe

19. John Wheeler – What is the truth of who you are? – part 1

Read Comments

Categories

Archives

Sponsors

UGC Speakers

Meta