55. Jason Swanson – Seeing Oneness – part one
Posted October 3, 2009
By gilbert
Areti interviews Jason Swanson a relatively unknown speaker on Non Duality. Jason runs the meetings in Second Life at the Urban Guru (Virtual) Cafe. (Note: Those Meetings are planned to have various ’speakers’, Randall, Gilbert and maybe even Bob – so go along and get accustomed to the environment – it is easier than one may imagine once you get the hang of it)
Jason’s site is You Are Seeing Oneness.
Music includes: Normie Rowe (Australian), The Beatles, Ben Harper, Lemonjelly and Andreas Vollenweider (harp).
The Urban Guru Cafe is a free podcast – please make a small donation to keep this site alive, if you are able. Enjoy the 55 free programs.
I want to express some honorable, positive constructive criticism. A bit against my generally polite nature. There will be no Advaita-speak.
Firstly, I LOVE the UGC and have been hanging around since the beginning. I have had five or six Skype conversations with Gilbert, which has been incredibly helpful. And I have donated here more than once [ hint, hint ].
I was not able to listen to the entirety of the interview with Jason. The sense for me is that he is a really, really, really good student. He has clearly immersed himself in non-duality and also sounds like he has spent [understandably], a lot of time with Randall. [Randall is VERY amazing]. And there was not one word that Jason spoke that did not sound true. He certainly speaks it better than me and most likely could be more integrated with it also. I just didn’t feel it at the depth that I feel from most of the other teachers.
Hi, Jason. My generally polite nature is being challenged as I write. Thank you for your courage for being fully out here with your direct expression of truth.
I am actually bringing all of this up in order to make another point. Where are the women?
My concern is that because Gilbert is so leaning toward the side of the Jnani and away from Bhakti [ his own words poorly paraphrased], that he will choose a not-quite-ripe Jnani over a fully ripe Bhakti. And although this is clearly a generalization, women are going to tend to introduce more of the Bhakti element.
Now, if it slides even slightly too much into the Bhakti, the directness is lost. And what is needed is direct pointing at all times.
I just feel that with Areti’s clarity and her fabulous interviewing skills, you could certainly come up with one or two or more high quality programs with women. I think we need the balance here.
It is all about the the Jnani here, but I also have a Bhakti calling.
Thanks Gilbert and Areti for all that you do.
Popular post!
+26
Is it my imagination? imagination? Or is there a stutter in the recording? in the recording?
Rate it!
-4
Yes Stephen, i think the ratio is now about 14:1 in favour of the male perspective on the UGC. I know what the non-dual answer to this concern will be.. There is no male or female, there is just this.. .. etc ‘I’ would like to hear more pointers towards ‘just this’ from a female body-mind. One person springs to mind.. Ananta – based in Thailand I think.
Rate it!
-1
How bout Jijijijijiji. Anette Nibley*.
Rate it!
+13
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Voted off!
-27
What’s a ripe Bhakti? Is that some kind of banana? Seriously though, Stephen, did I misunderstand you…. are you saying you’ve been called to be a Bhakti? If so, who/what called you & who/what has been called?
Rate it!
0
In my original post I wish I had said ” sounds like ” a really, really good student. His words, unlike those of Bob, Gilbert, John, Randal, Peter and Paul just did not resonate with me. Did not sink in. My experience only.
I will clarify what I meant by ripe Bhakti which I described very poorly. What I meant was someone who has the clear understanding but might have some bhakti in the message. So it was ” ripe ” meaning having the understanding and ” bhakti ” meaning delivering that message with some bhakti expresions.
Gilbert, I clearly said near the end of my post: ” Now, if it slides even slightly too much into the Bhakti, the directness is lost. And what is needed is direct pointing at all times”. Was that not clear enought for you ???
Jackson, hope I have cleared up the ripe? Your who/what question goes into advaita speak. No problem of course. Let me try this: In the appearence, what arises for this mind/body expression is enjoying 90% Jnani and 10% Bhakti.
Gilbert, what does: Maybe what colors to tones Mike is your own ‘reactions’mean. I don’t understand the words.
And finally, I thought I went overboard to share in an honest positive way. The intention was not to judge, just share my experience. It came out fast and spontaneously. Obviously, it only relates to me anyway.
Rate it!
+13
Stephen, thanks for the reply….I guess all that stuff is just way above my head. I don’t know what Jnani & Bhakti mean….I should have found out what those words mean before making my comments.
Editor: Jnana means basically the way of knowledge (knowing) and Bhakta means the way of devotion (surrender). Both ‘lead’ to the same, in the appearance of ‘time’. KNOWING is instantly present at ALL times. Devotion implies a process of purification. The way of Jnana is like a swift bird and the way of the bhakta is like the snail, slow and ponderous.
Rate it!
-2
Jason said, “any sort of attainment is something that a person gets, thats immediately referencing a person.
Seeking is something a person does.”
Rate it!
0
Hi Linda,
See clearly that conventional day-to-day conversation serves a purpose, but there is an underlying assumption that this “Linda” character is always here. Recognize that “Linda” is just another ephemeral thought. What evidence can we even find that a “Linda” is ever-present? Just more thoughts that are referencing and assuming there is a person there to “do” them–drop them.
If we pause thoughts…where is this “Linda”? Aren’t you fully present and aware as this “Linda” thought is absent? Who is this appearing to?
Yet SEEING is here (as it ALWAYS IS).
Drop the concept of SEEING.
Rate it!
-5
Thanks Gilbert,
After reading your definition of Jnana & Bhakta. It’s very clear. I’m glad to to know “a process of purification” has nothing to do with nonduality & that it is just another mind game in the appearance of time.
Jackson
Rate it!
+1
Why is my display picture unhappy
, Anyway I think this guy is right on the money, not sure what that Stephen guy is complaining about but Jason hasn’t said anything but ‘you are awareness.’ He even said screw the witness attitude you are already the seeing or witnessING.
Rate it!
-4
There is nothing more simple than non duality.
The mind is always in a state of ‘becoming’.
BEING is BEING.
Therefore, even logically, the mind will continue to flow ‘outwards’ and away from simple being. The simplicity of being is wordless – AS IS – while the mind divides and sustains the sense of separation.
There is NO answer in the mind. If ‘you’ continue to believe in what the mind ‘does’ then ‘you’ will remain lost in an ever unfolding state of becoming – a state that NEVER reaches its goal.
Like a fractal pattern appears to MOVE and UNFOLD – the ACTUALITY is that nothing is actually moving – BEING is silent and restful – AS IS.
‘Who’ could believe it? Who has the ‘presence of mind’ to abide in BEING, without racing off with the first thought that comes along? No one. There is no one in the pure experiencing of BEING. That is why ‘everyone’ misses it.
Be quiet and SEE.
Rate it!
+8
Desire is the way of mind. It seeks happiness through the acquisition of objects and situations. Yet these things are always temporary – only fresh once and then the staleness steals that happiness. The mind is never happy – it always wants more.
The spiritual search turns the mind upon itself. It has nothing to search for – because there is no answer to “what am I?” Nothing can be found. So the mind comes to the end of it’s capability – wrestling with paradox in futility.
Desire for objects is replaced with a desire to know your Self. But you cannot desire that which you already have, that which you already ARE.
So desire for Truth or Reality is resolved in the recognition that what you are is in fact the looking itself, the seeing, the pure cognizing. Your being is obviously not objectifiable, not desireable, because it was never gone, never lost, never in need of a search.
It was, after all, the very principle by which you know that you exist.
Rate it!
+14
My mind writhes in confusion and fantasy, often getting annoyed at all the nonsense of future troubles or inept grasping at shadows. Always wanting to know what should I do. Occasionally it is noticed that doing is happening despite all the mind stories, what needs to be done is done without the minds input or even inspite of it. Yet the focus on the mind often conceals what is happening like the identification with a fictional character in a story conceals the fact of reading a book or watching a film. This noticing leaves my mind feeling impotent and lost in not knowing so that the confusion seems preferable, the idea of being able to do something holds sway even in the face of evidence to the contrary. The evidence is over looked in favour of wanting to do something to try and help or make things better for me and everyone else. I love this so much and not trying to do something seems almost cruel to my mind.
I could say I know this is still the same mind story but then the idea of trying to do something to help the mind get out of its confusion starts the whole thing up again. I don’t know and it kills me.
Rate it!
+1
Doing or not doing is the same concept in mind – this concept is that of the “doer”. It is the suggestion that there is someone, some entity, some “thing”, which is doing or not doing, which could do or not do.
All we know, on contact – is that there is appearance (objectivity) and the knowing of the appearance (subjectivity). First discern what is objectivity and what is subjectivity.
The world is obviously objectivity. But the body is also part of the physical world – we objectify another body but somehow place this body within the realm of subjectivity, when it too appears – it is also within the physical world. We conceptually say that all outside my skin is other, and I am within the skin boundary. Therefore body is “I”. But this is false.
Body is objectifiable, as are thoughts. Thoughts are objects of your knowledge, describable. We spend much time talking about or suffering over the states of mind – they are obviously of the objective world.
Also in this objectivity is emotions, sensations, perceptions, memories, imagination. All is objectified – but where are you in this equation?
So all is experience – perception or sensation or concepts.
You are the subjectivity – THAT which is presently knowing all experience yet, because it is subjective, it cannot be objectified.
So can we describe the subjectivity? No – to do so would necessarily objectify it. But isn’t that what we try to do? Aren’t we looking for ourselves to appear? Aren’t we conceptualizing our true Self?
All we can say about the subjectivity is that it is necessarily present – otherwise no experience could be – and we can say it is aware – we make an abstraction of it by saying it is “aware-ness”. It is always here – always aware. Discarding all that is objective, we come to know the subjectivity, NOT through more experience but BECAUSE experience is there we know intuitively that subjectivity. Yes?
Now isn’t that what “I” really means? Isn’t that what the word “I” or Self or “ME” really refers to? Isn’t it that intuitive (not experiential) sense of presence, of always-here-ness? Isn’t it like a background? Isn’t it like an open space or capacity? Don’t all appearances, experiences, appear WITHIN this open “space” of subjectivity or always-here-always-aware-ness?
Isn’t this, in fact, the very way you know that you exist?
So looking FOR something, we’re lost in conceptual spirituality. When we recognize that we’re not looking FOR something, that what we are cannot be lost but only incorrectly translated as some “thing” or some experience, something objective – then we immediately revert to the “natural state” – the LOOKING or “aware-ness” itself.
And then even subjectivity and objectivity are discarded as only a way to discern, an unnecessary conceptual description of THIS.
Popular post!
+20
Randall is crystal clear!!
Rate it!
+3
Drop the K in seeking
Rate it!
-1
There is only ONE Subjectivity.
Then, when I have a headache, ¿who, or what suffers?
Subjectivity, by means of this body – the instrument of sensing.
When I hear a sound, ¿who, or what hears?
Subjectivity, by means of these ears – the instruments of hearing.
Rate it!
0
Thank you for your reply Randall.
I don’t know, maybe I’m missing something, but it seems very depressing. I’m reminded of the poem ‘Ozymandias’ and the futility of any endeavour. I’m just left with what’s the point, all this world of fleeting pleasure and pain just to know that I am. It hardly seems worth it.
Rate it!
+1
Yes. Subjectivity is called “I” – there is only one “I” – no other “I” do you ever objectify.
“I” has so much added on to it in terms of personality, feelings, roles in life, etc. The chattering intellect is added on, mixed up with this pure intuitive sense of presence. Then “I” becomes personal, it becomes one among many. These qualifying conditions do not belong to “I” or subjectivity. These are all describable, objective content. The slightest feeling or most subtle thought is somehow an object of your knowledge, therefore it is objectified by you.
This “I” is not findable by any means, not describable except by virtue of that which it objectifies. The totality of objectivity is the universe or appearance. And the means by which you objectify the universe is Consciousness, yes?
Yet even Consciousness is objectified by you. You are aware of the beginning and ending of Consciousness. You can say it came today and will go tonight. It is Consciousness which lights up the senses – you are beyond even Consciousness.
Therefore “I” can not be described at all – it cannot be quantified, qualified, measured – it has no shape or size – no limitations in time or space. Therefore “I” is timeless and limitless – it cannot be found yet it is the most intimate knowledge, the most obvious aspect of all experience.
That is why we need no special experience to know the Self – the Self or “I” is evident in ALL experience, intuitively known as THAT which is the seeing or knowing beyond all experience. Therefore there is no condition placed on experience – any experience is fine – like the mirror which reflects all without placing any conditions on it’s reflection, without rejecting any reflection. The mirror neither rejects the reflection nor is ever changed by it.
That is you. So we say we are searching for what we are, we are searching to know what we are. Yet we are never, for one second, without the true knowledge of Self. We only misplace it on appearances.
Split decision...
-14
Ste Gunn,
Even depression is objectified by you, by “I”. Please understand that anything you can speak of, anything you can describe, even the process of describing or speaking or thinking about it, is necessarily objective content.
What is not to like? What is to be depressed about it? If timelessness and limitlessness do not satisfy, tell me what can ever be found which will?
Depression comes because there is still an attempt to objectify it, to make it an object of knowledge, to grab hold of it and put it in your pocket, forever there just in case it’s needed in times of sadness, to fill that hole. But I tell you the sadness and sense of lack is only due to falsely identifying your Self. Once the Self is discovered to be already there, roaring and eternal laughter will be always just under the surface in all that comes.
Happiness is not found due to the acquisition of objects or situations or even spiritual states. Happiness is revealed as your true nature when the seeking or wanting self is gone, either satisfied for the moment or discovered to be only a false and conceptual limitation.
In this discovery it is found that each object of knowledge is inseparable from what you are – each object of knowledge – a blade of grass, a sunrise, a bird flying through the sky – all objective content absolutely carries the imprint of your Self – the very unfolding of this appearance in space and time absolutely depends on you.
When we come to know what is the true meaning of “I” or Self, nowhere can we look and not find it. All is a brilliant, beautiful expression of this Self – perfect already.
Contentment, as an objective of the search, is never found – why? Because it’s always for the individual, that which is the false limitation placed on the Self or “I”. But when “I” is correctly known as that intuitive beingness beyond all relative content, then contentment can no longer be washed away – peace is known to be what you are, not just a temporary condition of mind.
Know these depressing states as symptoms of ignorance of your Self only – remain with that BY WHICH the states are known, without the slightest hinge upon any thought, feeling or condition. That “I” you already know so well – that stillness and vastness from which the content comes.
Love to you
Rate it!
+16
Thanks Randall I appreciate your clear answers to the questions arising here.
Rate it!
+1
I appreciate your words, Randall.
¡Salud!
Rate it!
+1
Very clear, well done all…
Rate it!
-1
I like the new look of urbangurucafé. Light and clear.
Randall’s spot on description of what depression is, has brought much clarification! Thanks for this!
And listening to Jason made it clear once again, that I have absolutely no evidence for the existence of anybody apart from this knowing. It is impossible to track down the existence of anything independent from my own beeing…
As for the Jnana-Bhakta polemic: while reading through, an old fear showed up: “So women have less chance to become enlightened than men? Maybe no chance at all?” Hahaha, what a huge relief!
Rate it!
0
Hi again everyone. I would like to encourage everyone to try and start attending the meetings in the Urban Guru Cafe site on Second Life. It is easy for computer wizz types. Once you manage to get in and sit down, there is nothing to do except press a key when you wish to speak, ask a question etc. Once you get the hang of it, it can be like a regular meeting. You need to download the software for SL and learn how to use it. It isn’t too difficult.
There is a link to the SL UGC on this site. It may turn out to be an excellent forum for new programs also.
Warm regards – Gilbert
Rate it!
-12
My broadband isn’t really fast enough, but I will try and have another look at it. Can you tell me what time it is in Australian eastern standard time that I need to be there?
Rate it!
+2
There is only THIS IMMEDIACY.
There is no thing in THIS IMMEDIACY. There is no thing other than THIS IMMEDIACY.
There is no one in THIS IMMEDIACY. There is no ‘others’ in THIS IMMEDIACY.
THIS IMMEDIACY is everything. THIS IMMEDIACY is everyone.
Rate it!
+1
Even that last Thumb down is THIS IMMEDIACY !!!
Rate it!
+2
The Knowing is not veiled.There is nothing more transparent and immediate
than this Knowing.Easily overlooked,for nothing perceived can contrast with it.Yet it is the all encompassing background matrix for all experience.
YOU ARE THAT.
Rate it!
+8
It is not all in the words. In fact any words or no words can appear to ‘do the trick’ – in the appearance of things. You are NOT in the appearance of things. Everything registers in the immediacy, in the light of knowing. Even this light shines ‘out’ of what you are.
The experiencing is unceasing. ‘When’ the predominance of ‘mind translations’ abate briefly the naked knowing reveals that it is always here. Many speak about having an intellectual understanding and that they are waiting for a final understanding. Some gurus appear to feed such conceptual beliefs in a final understanding. Some gurus are experts in laying the bait ‘just out of reach’ (eg: “Beyond the I am” – Mooji) To keep the seeker in a perpetual mode of seeking is the easiest task for a guru. ‘When’ you truly see through their facade of compassion it is a relief. Everything registers cleanly and precisely prior to the habits of mind. The ‘you’ that you believe you are is in the mind translations and there is NO ‘me’ in the immediate registering (pure cognition). That revelation dismantles all beliefs in one instant. It may ‘appear’ to take some time to ’settle in’.
It all registers without the NEED for words.
“What is wrong with right now? if you don’t think about it”.
Rate it!
+10
Thank You” – Susan.
Gilbert:
Susan, the story about understanding is not (the) ‘understanding’.
What you call ‘intellectual understanding’ is nothing but the minds translation, words…..a story told ‘after’ some insight or whenever. To speak of the source is to objectify what you are and thus duality ‘comes into play’ with more beliefs to obscure – it is only a mind game.
‘When’ we lump the words intellectual understanding onto it, it is just a label.
There is no where to go and nothing to get. Your whole life may have been spent on gathering knowledge and yet the ONLY value any knowledge has is the KNOWING. The knowing has always been ‘with you’ because it is what you ARE. You are nothing but the knowing.
The understanding is silent, wordless and forever present AS the Seeing-Knowing.
The story that ‘I need to get understanding’ is just a story – a habit.
The longing is natural – and we look for peace in the very place that peace is not – the mind. The mind is restless – that is how it keeps the seeking going – by dividing and separating, naming and story telling. You have to see it in action and know that you are not in it – it is appearing in what you are.
You may laugh so loud ‘when’ the fence (the sense of separation) falls over……..because it (was) is only made of beliefs.
As soon as the belief in it is cut off, it immediately starts to fall apart. However, if the believed in ‘identity’ is still being believed in, a sense of vulnerability may ‘attempt’ to deflect the penetrating investigation or insight. Be vigilant and don’t be put off by a little vulnerability popping up.
The angry head of ‘Hydra’ is just a fictional character.
The only ‘reason’ anyone would give this a thumbs down is because some words touch a sore point somewhere. I say, investigate that sore point and SEE what it is. It has to be a reference point, a ‘me’ (the judge) and that ‘point’ is the ’cause’ of all the dramas of life. The invitation is to investigate it thoroughly.
It isn’t about anything real because there is no me here or there. There is some clear pointing – made to assist no one in particular.
Those who get all ruffled about Gilbert and his ‘personality’ miss the point completely – and the funny thing is that Gilbert doesn’t give a twig one way or another. Yet some pointing APPEARS to come via that ‘form’. And ‘holy’ forms that speak holy words appear extremely shallow compared to uncompromising direct pointing. Enhancing a spiritual self-image is definitely NOT what this site is about.
Split decision...
+1
The migrating bird
leaves no trace behind
and does not need a guide.
~~Dogen
Rate it!
+5
“I know”, “I don’t know” -between these two pretensions the mind swings back and forth. Who knows this?
Rate it!
+2
Gilbert, when you said “I need to get understanding” is a habit is it the case that this habit is what is leaving me with the thought-feeling that “something is still missing”. I find it amazing that even though I am experienceing such peace, relief etc. from the end of seeking I also experience a thought/feeling something like “is this all there is?”, “what is the point of exsisting?” and other similar kinds of thoughts. I am wondering why these thoughts even occur when seeing knowing is so complete?
Rate it!
+1
The formulation ‘I need to get understanding’ is a self-locking trap. It needs to be dismantled. It is all conceptual. No one is bound by any concepts, no matter how clever they are.
What point of existence and for whom would the point have any meaning? ALL points of existence are EQUAL AS the ONE – (this) non dual existence that you cannot negate. You cannot stop BEING. Thought only APPEARS to divide THAT. It is all THAT.
The mind translates events into experiences and it uses words to construct a story – all words have been learned and they are accompanied by memory along with associations, experiences and habit.
As Bob says “leave it unaltered, uncorrected and unmodified” – in other words, whatever ‘arises’, don’t resist it, want to change it and don’t run off with it in the mind.
The naked KNOWING does NOT have any permanent ‘entity’ lodged in its expansive and unlimited nature. This is easily ascertained or witnessed. Witness the disappearance of (any) thought and Observe the absence of a witness.
Follow the disappearance of any phenomena and be introduced to your own true nature.
I will not spell it out in exact details – you must do some of the ‘work’. If I treat ‘you’ like an imbecile ‘you’ will be offended.
If I lead you by the hand, you will associate me with the ‘discovery’. YOU must re-discover the clear and obvious yourself.
All anyone can do is give direct pointing and informed hints.
There is no one here trying to mislead anyone. There is nothing in this for me. Some trace of ‘me’ here gets tired of seeing so much resistance ‘out there’ – but it is a passing ’state’ that lasts about one second.
Rate it!
+9
Thanks Gilbert, I definitly appreciate not being treated like an imbecile and know from my own investigation that this has to be done by “me” or it will only be “someone else’s experience”. I have heard you say that in the appearance it appears to take time to drop the story of “me”, I suppose these thoughts/feelings are an example of that.
Rate it!
0