In short, there are two views one can take here. One is a 3rd person view, where I look at my practice through time and notice that there have been significant milestones where certain things shifted in my understanding of reality. Sure that reveals a deeper and deeper abiding in reality, just as it is, but that is the 1st person view of it (seeing from within). When I see from within, I ask the same questions you are asking, employ all sorts of techniques to see the nature of things, and employ all sorts of non-techniques as well. I’m quite familiar with the spiritual path and it’s fruits in the here and the now.

So, what I’m “defending” is the need to hold these two views as distinct and different views on the path. And there are many more as well… But if all we do is sit around taking an extreme 1st person, non-dual view, as you seem to be doing here, then we start missing huge portions of reality. We have a mind for a reason, language for a reason, and rationality for a reason. They help us “make sense” of the world in a particular way, that non-duality simply doesn’t. Non-duality doesn’t really tell me anything about anything. It just is. The mind, body, etc. is what allows me to speak to others about it, to look at how the process unfolded from a 3rd-person time point of view, and that information is very helpful in helping guide and inspire others (as I’ve seen time and again). This view doesn’t need to be a trap, anymore than your view does. Reality, as you say, is waiting to reveal itself too us. All it takes is a sincere effort and willingness to be with what is. Right?

Furthermore, no spiritual tradition, including the non-dual ones, can avoid talking about development through time, just as they can’t avoid speaking about some ineffable mystery that is to be known right here, right now. Both of these things come up again and again, because they are both deeply embedded features of our experience as humans. To try and avoid either one, I think, is folly. That’s my point.

As many masters have said, there may be levels of ignorance or non-awakening, but not awakening. Shades of unenlightenment are perhaps conceivable, but shades of enlightenment are not. So it doesn’t matter how many shades of ignorance we demarcate.

What’s confused about my understanding? I missed that.

My point about language is that we’re kidding ourselves if we think that we won’t have to leave it behind eventually. Yes, grapple away – as one master once said “The mind has to battle it out with the mind” – which I believe wholeheartedly. But at some juncture, it becomes clear that the mind cannot pass the threshold into that which paradox indicates. What is watching the mind grapple? Surely you’ve stumbled across the fact that mystery and paradox appears through all traditions, especially as one enters deeper realms of the mind. But the mind can’t step beyond that – at some point, something else must be trusted that transcends the mind. So put my “language is useless” comment back into context – language is ULTIMATELY useless to that which is actually awakening. You don’t need to defend the point that words/language/rationality is of use within its own realm.

I suppose my real question to you is what are you defending? And especially with the issue of degrees – what are you defending in taking that stance? How does that serve you in your search? I have a hard time seeing how it serves your yearning for Absolute Truth. But I can see, for the reasons I originally named, how holding on to the idea of degrees can be a trap that’s linked to a whole network of traps. It seems to be a symptom of a generally tepid stance toward the Search – and of wanting to take on the “spiritual” identity. Of course, if one is destined to find Reality, none of that will stop them anyway.

No, his degrees are 1) no realization of non-duality, 2) non-abiding, and then 3) abiding. It’s a very clear 3 level system and those are 3 very clear degrees.

And no, language is not useless. Language is part of the way we grapple with the path, and is one of the primary ways we use to express ourselves. Even saying, “Finding foot-holds in language are, of course, ultimately useless” is a statement that relies on language and mutual understanding to have any meaning.

Sorry, I don’t buy your confused understanding of the non-dual traditions.

Best,

-Vince

And of course, ultimately, Adyashanti is just a reference. The idea of abiding versus non-abiding is paradoxical because they both imply time, whereas nothing abides in “abiding non-dual realization”, especially not time. On the other hand, there’s no such thing as “non-abiding non-dual realization”. What does that even mean, really? Adyashanti has to use words, just like everyone else.

So the real point comes back to the seeker, the one who thinks he’s on a path to Truth. What does one want? What does that which seeks in and through us want? Finding foot-holds in language are, of course, ultimately useless.

Thanks for the thoughts.

Just a small couterpoint to the statement that, “Adyashanti (and others) do not speak of degrees.” That isn’t true. Adyashanti speaks of abiding and non-abiding non-dual realization all the time–and those are degrees. Read “The End of Your World” where he discusses in detail.

Are there degrees of “enlightenment”? That seems to be a fundamental question – and one rarely asked. I think that, intuitively, we can sense that identity within the relative – within time and space – is itself only ever relative. That is, “I am this” or “I am that” are slippery and elusive endeavors, for “this” and “that” are slippery and elusive “things”. But what would the removal of ALL identity disclose? What then would be exhumed? And would “it” be a “what” at all? Could That be construed as a matter of degree? Can empty space be defined in terms of spectrum? If so, what “holds” the spectrum?

Adyashanti (and others) do not speak of degrees. How could you be partially convinced of your totally illusory nature? How could you be somewhat convicted that you do not exist and that there is only All?

It’s probably true that if no one you know is enlightened, then you haven’t looked hard enough. But is this due to an epidemic of realized beings? Are the enlightened a dime a dozen? Well, I’m not so sure. History leaves much room for doubt, and to hastily take hold of the notion that enlightenment is commonplace seems to dispose one to a watered-down spirit of seeking, and a diluted (deluded?) sense of that which is we know in our heart of hearts to be ab-solute, or purity itself – Essence. It might do us a great deal of good to admit that deep in our souls we long for that which the logicians have long since sought in their (futile and disingenuous) verbal alchemy: total all-or-nothing truth, abiding reality. Such an all-or-nothing approach may appeal to our modern and scientific sentiments, but to no avail; for we also know in our heart of hearts that the one who wants such “knowledge absolute” won’t be there as a witness to it. On the other hand, such an all-or-nothing approach may threaten our postmodern and conciliatory sentiments; but surely this is much ado about nothing, for what is more insincere than a stance that hides within itself its own standing?

So why do I say that it probably is true that if you don’t know anyone who’s enlightened then you haven’t looked hard enough? I agree on this point because it is my experience and sense that the Sadguru is a living principle. Those who yearn for Truth will find it. The universe, God, or whatever you want to call it, will deliver one into the circumstances that best foster and keep our deepest intention. We are in good hands, truly. But we have to want it, Truth that is – but how can we want that which already is the case? How can we want the Space in which all else arises? I’m not asking rhetorically! Really – how can we WANT that? We find ourselves yearning in the midst of that for which we yearn. It yearns for Itself. Practically speaking, the only way to want Truth is to admit and discard all of the other stuff that we want. Again, our Heart of hearts knows this.

Regarding the “success rate” of spiritual teachers – this seems to be a tricky one. On the one hand, it is completely reasonable to inquire into whether or not a teacher’s students are waking up; in fact, to not do so seems largely unreasonable, if one is serious. On the other hand, one may very well fall into the same trap as mentioned before, that of rashly seizing the idea that enlightenment is commonplace and even easy. Since Adyashanti seems to be peripherally adjoined to this conversation, I’ll quote him again: “enlightenment may be simple, but it’s not easy”. Ramana Maharshi and Nisargadatta Maharaj – two individuals whom I believe were enlightened – had no students who have had realizations. Now, this could easily be contested, I know; but, that’s my stance on the issue. There have been hordes of devotees who continue to wave their banners and who even all but flat-out say that they are enlightened, but none are the genuine article.

Discernment is everything when you’re seeking that which discerns. Perhaps our standards are too low, or just too vague and nebulous – not that we can construct a touchstone that suits our proclivity for categorical mentation. But if that touchstone is ultimately one’s Self – which, of course, is the only thing it could be – while at the same time being a guide TO the Self, then the game is suddenly a vastly different one, and one of much higher stakes – the Stake of stakes, truly. Our only guide, our own self, can only feel its way along this often (and ultimately) lonely road.

It is my opinion that there are one or two very common confusions that subconsciously frustrate the seeker and scramble his or her guidance system.

The first is the hang-up on the experience of mystical union or oneness. While definitely nothing to scoff at or minimize, oneness is not the Goal – and (yet again) we all know this. Oneness is an experience, the greatest and holiest experience, the experience of Everything at its innermost exteriority. It is the witnessing of color withdrawing back into unrefracted light. It is the penetration into the solid obscurity of the manifest at its deepest, most embracing edge. But it is still on THAT side of what I am. Adyashanti: “I knew with my whole being that who I really was wasn’t even the oneness, it was the emptiness prior to the oneness, forever awake to itself.” Non-duality does not mean oneness – it just means not-two. The mind likes to equate obverses, but they don’t apply in this field. An anti-war rally is entirely different from a pro-peace march. Not-two means not two, not one – not multiple, not unitary. The mind can grasp “one”, no problem – it is no less relative than “two” or “multiple”. On the practical level, experiences of oneness are probably very useful and beneficial in the game of waking up – indeed, they may help loosen the identity. Or do they? Perhaps they merely reinforce the identity with the greatest imaginable identity. I don’t know – I suppose it goes back to what you really want. But to experience oneness, even frequently, is still just an experience; it seems that it is like dipping one’s self again and again into the ocean, without ever allowing one’s self to drown and become water, or wetness itself.

In my opinion, the second common hang-up centers on the issue of what some call the Witness. I believe that many genuinely realized teachers refer to this experience as “waking up” – Adyashanti certainly seems to do so. But as he makes clear, “waking up” (if this is what is meant by those words) is not the end. It is not merely about the recognition of emptiness or essence as containment, the experience of not being the mind, the body, perceptions, etc. It seems that truly waking up, or enlightenment, must be about seeing “who” or “what” is the field in which all arises, right now. Is the empty space separate from all that appears in it? Is the featureless capacity for all phenomena itself reducible to the consciousness of an individuality – or is it one-for-all? It seems clear, if one delves deeply into the literature and into one’s own experience, that one can have an experience or taste of “waking up” without the total death that I believe we all know is ultimately demanded. As I’ve heard it said before, “It’s one thing to know that you’re nothing; it’s another thing BE nothing.” To drink from the fountain beyond the mind, to taste that sweet relief, to even abide in that current of freedom frequently, deeply, and/or for extended lengths of time is far different from crossing the final chasm from which there is no return because there is no one to return.

Is all of this my belief, my opinion? Well, of course it is. But I humbly submit that I’m harping on a chord that resonates with that in all of us which yearns for utter and irrevocable finality: what kind of truth would it be otherwise? We may as well admit to ourselves that we want an answer that is literally indubitable – the very ground of dubitability – and that requires nothing less than our own total death. Indeed, in this way, we want to die – and once and for all. Zen master Bunan: “Die while you’re alive, and be absolutely dead. Then do whatever you want: it’s all good.”

As honest seekers, as honest people, we must accept that it may very well be the case that individuals who have come to abide in and as this reality are very rare indeed. But, that which seeks in and through us cannot and will not yield to statistics, no matter how hopeless; nor will it bite at half-baked truths, as much as the monkey before our eye (our one eye) clings to things. Surely, even the seeker must be doubted. One who seeks in earnest – or rather, the One, who does seek in earnest – must proceed as if the goal is assured as itself, trusting that a way will be made in this mysterious and paradoxical journey of arriving at one’s own being. This is bigger than the consensus of acclaimed figureheads and holders of lineage and title; and it’s certainly bigger than our own best efforts.

Truth is Truth, absolutely – why settle for tepid meanderings? As Rumi wrote, “Half-heartedness doesn’t reach into majesty. You set out to find God, but then you keep stopping for long periods at meanspirited roadhouses.”

anyway, a corollary to this issue is that “enlightenment” is no longer pursued as a “goal” of practice (makes sense if you don’t believe that anyone nowadays is enlightened). to me this is a fundamental misunderstanding of Buddhist teaching. heck, the 4 Noble Truths are step by step injunctions to enlightenment!

i think some people confuses the “sudden” nature of awakening (which can happen to some without even a spiritual practice) and its gradual (or developmental) nature.

in any case, glad that you blogged your heart out on this.

here’s to enlightenment and awakening of all.

~C