***
We assume that we are the dreamer that appears in our dreams at night. You say this is not so. Why?
When we wake up, we know for sure that we aren’t the elephant we dreamt we were. There is no doubt that the world we were dreaming was a mere illusion, and by the same token, the personality we assumed in the dream was itself part of the dream, and so, an illusion. In the dream we may have a different gender, a different shape; we may be a bird or an elephant.
That is true, but in the way you are speaking of it, “In the dream . . . we may be a bird, or an elephant,” there is the notion that we are doing the dreaming.
The so-called dreaming state and the so-called waking state share a common background. When there is a dream, this common background, the dreamer, and the dreamed are one; there is only dreaming.
Yes.
Dreaming and awareness are one.
Dreaming is a form of awareness?
Dreaming is awareness.
It is awareness of dream objects.
When there is dreaming, there is only dreaming. There is no object dreamed. The substance of the dream is actually nothing other than awareness. That is why I say dreaming is awareness. Similarly, when there is waking, waking is awareness. So, awareness is the common background that is present during waking, dreaming, deep sleep, and, also, between these states.
So, the felt continuity between the dreamer and the dream ego, the notion that I dream my dreams and am continuously existent through sleep just as through waking, is entirely mistaken.
Exactly. The dream ego is a concept. The waking ego is also a concept. Their common reality lies in the underlying background, awareness.
Then the dream ego, the person in the dream to whom all the action happens, and who perceives everything else in the dream world, has no connection with the waking ego?
Exactly.
What would you say to people who think that there is an intimate connection between these two egos, and who attempt to work out the meaning of dreams for their life situation. Is there any access to the dream state while one is in the waking state?
To these persons, I would say, “Good luck!” because there is no connection between the two states other than through consciousness. So, it is a futile attempt which is bound to fail. Coming back to your original statement, “. . . we are the dreamer who appears in our dreams at night,” I would say that we are not the dreamer in our dreams, we are the dreamer of all our dreams, including the so-called waking state which is another dream. So, we are the ultimate dreamer.
So, we dream not only each dream but the dreamer within each dream.
Exactly. We are the dreamer of all the dreamers in all the dreams.
***
You say that liberation is the death of the ego. How can we destroy the ego?
Who is going to destroy the ego? The ego? The ego sees itself as an obstacle and wants to get rid of itself as the obstacle, right?
It would seem so, but I can’t imagine that the ego can commit suicide.
Exactly! There is no way the ego can get rid of itself. So, what are we going to do about it?
That is the question.
Don’t do anything! Leave it alone! Just see it for what it is, like a cloud in the sky or a flower in the garden, an object. That is what it is, an object made out of a thought, the I-concept together with an attribute, which is a limitation, such as: I am a man, I am a father, I am young. All the qualities that have been attributed to you by your surroundings have created this so-called entity. So, simply be aware of it. See it for what it is. There is no need to kill it. On the contrary, welcome it, love it. As soon as you welcome it, it is neutralized.
***
What do you mean by non-duality?
Non-duality means there are not two things, like subject and object, man and woman, good and evil. There is no plurality. Any pair of opposites, from this perspective, is a figment of our imagination. Reality is non-dual. When we seemingly see an object, there is no object seen and there is no seer of it; there is only seeing. Seeing is awareness. Similarly, when we think, there is no thought and there is no thinker; there is only thinking. Thinking is awareness. Awareness, our real nature, is the only thing that is, if we can still speak of a thing; a thing that knows itself by itself.
If there is no plurality, then everything I know, have known, or could ever know is unreal. Do you actually mean to imply this, and, if you do, could you elaborate?
Everything we know is reality. We cannot know anything other than reality, awareness. Everything we know is awareness. Everything other than awareness is a mere hypothesis, a mere illusion . . .
Can I interject for a moment? You said, “Everything other than awareness.” Is there anything else?
No, because if you claim that there is anything else, you carry the burden of proof. You are free to claim that there is such a thing as a unicorn, but you still have to bring me one.
This is true, but many people would say that, although there is no unicorn, there are horses, and they will bring you one.
So?
What have they brought you?
When we see an object, such as a horse, at the time of seeing, even the concept of a horse doesn’t come in; even the image, the shape of the horse as a whole doesn’t come in. The shape as a whole is a sophisticated mentation that arises after many glances have been taken in succession, after visual information has been processed bit by bit.
That is true. The retina doesn’t have horse receptors.
I would even say that the retina at the time of perception is also a creation of your imagination. There is only awareness, from moment to moment. If an object is seen from this perspective, then we can say that this object is real. There is nothing wrong with objects, as long as we understand their true nature, as long as we understand them to be mere appearances on a background of awareness. They don’t have any reality of their own. That is what is meant by non-duality.
So, objects, as we ordinarily take them to be, are completely imaginary. There are no objects that exist by themselves outside of awareness.
In this regard, there is nothing wrong with the perception. What is wrong is the misconception that follows: that I was there during the perception as a person, as the perceiver of this object, and that this object exists regardless of whether or not it is perceived. This is the basic error, which we call ignorance. It is not a pejorative term. It simply qualifies this superimposition of an external world made out of objects, and of a concomitant subject as the perceiver of that world. Ignorance refers to this division into two elements, which is the origin of all diversity.
Ignorance, in fact, refers to duality.
Exactly.
So, in reality, there are not two. Non-duality refers to reality, and the fact is that there is no plurality anywhere.
Exactly.
***
What is death?
At the physical level, death is the dissolution, the disappearance of an object. It is the counterpart of birth. The interval between birth and death is called existence. The existence of the body is similar to the existence of any other physical object. It has a beginning in time, called birth, and an end in time, called death. Like the head and the tail of a cat, birth and death are inseparable. At the level of the mind, death is the end of a mentation, when it disappears in its source, the background, consciousness. This disappearance is the counterpart of an appearance. These subtle objects, these mentations are time-dependent, as are the gross objects at the physical level. The difference is that physical objects are solely made out of perceptions, whereas mentations can be perceptions or thoughts. To put it into mathematical terms, the gross world can be seen as a subset of the subtle world.
Are you saying that the physical world is embedded in the mental world?
Yes. The distinction we make between two kinds of mentations, perceptions and thoughts, creates two different worlds, the physical world and the psychological world. Both of them
are subsets, subuniverses of the subtle universe which is made out of mentations. (This perspective, that the so-called physical world is, in fact, subtle, is the foundation of the philosophical school known as idealism.) However, this understanding is still relative. We have to go beyond it and understand that between two mentations, we are, as the background. Any mentation takes birth out of, exists in, and dies into this background of awareness, our true nature.
If the background, which remains when any mentation ends, and I include within mentation sensations, is what we are, then there is no death.
Exactly! When we take our stand in the background, there is no death. At the relative levels, there is death: at the physical level, there is death at the end of the body; at the subtle level, there is death from moment to moment, at the end of a perception or a thought; at the ultimate level, there is only timeless continuity.
It seems to follow that the certainty that everyone has about their upcoming death, and the fear they have, is the consequence of having constituted themselves as a object . . .
Exactly.
. . . which necessarily has an end . . .
Exactly.
. . . and if they did not do this, they would not see death?
Yes. They would be free of fear. Fear comes from the notion of being a separate entity, either a physical entity identified with the body or a subtle entity identified with the mind. When we identify ourselves with life itself (and by life, I don’t mean existence, a span in time between birth and death, but the core of our being, the timeless background), or rather, when we stop identifying ourselves with anything limited, with an object, be it gross or subtle, there is no death. So, to understand death, one first has to understand life. Then the question about death appears in a different light.
You characterized objects as having a beginning and an end, a birth and a death, and you said these were like the head and the tail of a single cat. We have seen through what you just said that for one who takes his stand in awareness, there is no death. Would it follow that there is no birth? Is one who takes his stand there eternal and outside of time?
We are timeless. There is nobody who takes his stand there other than the awareness that has always been there. In order to take a stand there, the person has to disappear. Nobody can take a stand there. We have always been there. We have always been who we are, and this spiritual essence transcends our humanity.
***
What would you say to someone who finds it difficult to accept that happiness is his real nature, because he is unhappy much of the time?
I would say, “You know somehow that happiness exists. If you had no intuition of it, no taste or experience of it, you wouldn’t even use the word . . .”
Yes, he couldn’t ask you about it.
“. . . you wouldn’t even be able to say, ‘I am unhappy,’ because unhappiness directly refers to happiness. In order to be aware of your unhappiness, you must somehow feel happiness.”
Or, he might say, “have felt happiness.”
Well, there must still remain some residue of it, not as memory, but as reality, to enable him to experience his current dissatisfaction. Otherwise, his experience would be neutral.
Why couldn’t his current dissatisfaction arise from his comparing the difference between the memory of a happy time and an unhappy present?
Because memory relates to objects only, to events. Although the alleged reason for my dissatisfaction is the unaffordability of the red Ferrari on display at the dealership, the memory of former happy times behind the wheel could not be the primary reason for my dissatisfaction, because I have never owned a Ferrari. A deeper inquiry is, therefore, needed. Our dissatisfaction doesn’t originate from the absence of the desired object, but from another source: from a compelling sense of lack within ourselves; the lack of something unknown, yet somehow forefelt. If we totally welcome this feeling, instead of doing what we usually do, go out, see a movie, or call up a friend, in an attempt to escape the situation, we would see this lack gradually lose its dynamism and evolve into a peaceful non-experience. This peace comes directly from our true nature. It has always been available. Our sense of lack was our real being reminding us of its presence when we were seeking happiness outside, in the objective world. When we understand this, and open ourselves to our inner core, this lack, as if by magic, changes into causeless bliss.
Are you happy all of the time?
I am happiness, you are happiness, awareness is happiness.
John Doe, the Actor
I would like to know if you have seen your original nature.
Why would you like to know that?
I would like to know because I think that a person who has seen his original nature could be a teacher for me.
Your teacher has to be discovered in your heart. You have to find out by yourself. When you find out, you discover your real nature. In fact, there is no teacher. There is a teacher only for as long as one takes oneself to be a student. In the same way, as long as an infant needs breast-feeding there is a breast-feeding mother. But, from the vantage point of the so-called teacher there is no such distinction. There is only welcoming, oneness, happiness.
The student and teacher are one and the same.
Absolutely.
I just read an article in a publication on yoga. The thrust of it was that gurus and teachers are, perhaps, the biggest impediment on the planet. The author suggested that we retain our personal freedom and simply find out who we are, instead of remaining a student and following somebody around, reading books, or ceaselessly looking for another teacher.
As long as you take yourself for a personal entity, you may assume two positions: one in which you want someone to help you, or one in which you want to find the truth by yourself, and don’t want to be taught. Even if someone is helping, you need to, at least, complete the work. That is why a good teacher doesn’t give you everything already made, pre-digested. He gives you stuff to work on and understand by yourself. This universal principle applies to any kind of teaching, including spiritual teaching. If you take either of these two positions you are right. In the first case, because the desire to find a spiritual teacher comes from a deep desire to find your Self, and in the second case, because there is a desire for independence, for autonomous understanding, which emanates from your own autonomy, your own independence. As long as you don’t feel a desire for a teacher, don’t worry about it. Everything, every person, every event in your life is your teacher. At some point something you read, or hear, or a person you meet, may provide an insight which will make it clear to you that there is a possibility to live free of the notion of being a person—to live knowingly in your freedom and your happiness. In the beginning, you may be open to this possibility of a creative life, then doubts may arise. In this case, you may want to meet someone who lives in freedom. It was in this spirit that I started looking for a spiritual teacher in my early years, and I didn’t regret it. Another reason for seeking a teacher is to find answers to questions you may have. There are many good reasons to meet a teacher. But, in fact, there is only one: to meet yourself—your Self. You are looking for your Self. Your Self is not limited by, or to, this body and this mind. Your Self is immense, beautiful, and immortal. Be open to that possibility, be open to the source of all possibilities.
You spoke of the possibility of not being a person, but being free and happy. Could you please elaborate?
The actor on stage who plays Hamlet today, Macbeth tomorrow, and King Lear the next day doesn’t take himself for Hamlet, Macbeth, or King Lear. He takes himself for John Doe, the actor. But, this doesn’t prevent him from being Hamlet, Macbeth, or King Lear on stage. When you know that you are awareness, and not a man or a woman, a spouse or a parent, this knowledge doesn’t prevent you from playing all of these parts one after another. But, since these parts aren’t permanent, they aren’t you, because what you are is continuous. These various characters you play are like garments. You put them on, you take them
off, and you get a new garment. What you are is always present.
Does the playing of the roles somehow contribute to our identification with a personal entity? Is there a reason why we are playing roles?
You can play whatever role the current circumstances in your life require, but without identifying yourself with it, with the personal. Now, if you are asking if there is any reason for identifying yourself with a personal entity, the answer is no. There is no good reason. Just don’t do that. Don’t even say that there is no good reason. Just don’t do that. The second question was, “Is there a reason why we are playing roles?” Well, it would be boring otherwise. Diversity is part of beauty. It is a celebration. What we are, our true nature, is not a blank. It isn’t nothingness. It contains everything. Everything is our Self, therefore, your Self from moment to moment.
Everything you see, everything you touch, everything you think is you. Just after the thought, after the perception, after the feeling, you say, “I was there as a person and I was having this thought, this feeling, this perception.” But, that isn’t true, because at the time of the thought, feeling, or perception there was no thinker, feeler, or perceiver, and there was no object thought, felt, or perceived. There was only thinking, feeling, perceiving. So, from moment to moment there is only oneness. And this is what you are. This is the real you. As such, you are not here or there. “I am here,” is a thought. When you eliminate this thought, where are you?
I was with you up until the last part.
Are you with yourself?
What do you mean?
Are you with yourself? Or is your Self separate from you?
I am separate.
You are separate from yourself?
I am working on myself.
Eternity Now Page 7