Dear Rupert,
I feel a little bit confused that on one hand you said our experience is made out of the knowingness, but the other hand, we can see that experience comes and goes. Is there anything contradictory here?
Thanks so much for your time,
Nguyen Quang Ninh
Dear Nguyen,
No, there is nothing contradictory here. When we are watching a film it seems that something is coming and going – cars, people, landscapes, streets, houses, and so on. In other words, if we think that there really is a car present there, we think that it comes and goes. If we think that house is present there, it comes and goes.
However, when we understand that in fact there are no cars, houses or people but only the screen, at that moment we understand that nothing really comes and goes. The only substance of the appearance of the cars, houses and people is the screen, and that is ever-present.
In other words, it is only if we think that the cars, houses and people have a reality of their own (independent of the screen) that they seem to come and go. In reality, nothing comes and goes. There is always only the screen.
Likewise, if we think that the apparent objects in real life, such as this computer, are made out of a substance called matter or mind (not made out of awareness), they will seem to come and go. However, once we realise that the only substance of the computer is awareness, we understand at the same time that nothing ever comes and goes.
Parmenides said, ‘That which is never ceases to be. That which is not never comes into existence.’
So to come back to your question, it is only the apparently objective aspect of experience that seems to come and go, whilst in reality its substance is ever-present.
With love,
Rupert
* * *
Dear Rupert,
Thanks very much for your response. Is it correct that I interpret it as follows:
There is no world; there is nothing outside our experience. This is said in the sense that, for example, when I say there is a computer in front of my body, it means there is an experience of the computer, therefore there is no computer outside my experience. This interpretation applies to all other objects, including the body-mind. Is my understanding of this correct?
Next I take a look at experience itself. For example, seeing the computer, I ask myself the question, ‘What are the ingredients of the experience of seeing the computer?’ There is ‘knowingness’ there and there seems to be the ‘experience’ also there; the knowingness knows the experience. But if I take a deeper look and ask if there are really two things there or just one substance, I find that there is only knowingness there and no other thing. The knowingness knows itself.
There are a lot of different experiences but all the same substance, that is, the knowingness. The knowingness knows itself in different forms and so we say there are different experiences. So we move from objects to experience to the substance of all experiences, that is, the knowingness. We conclude that everything (computers, tables, blue sky, body) is made out of the knowingness. In this sense we use the term non-duality, not two. Is that correct?
Sincerely,
Nguyen Quang Ninh
Dear Nguyen,
Nguyen: There is no world; there is nothing outside our experience. This is said in the sense that, for example, when I say there is a computer in front of my body, it means there is an experience of the computer, therefore there is no computer outside my experience. This interpretation applies to all other objects, including the body-mind. Is my understanding of this correct?
Rupert:Yes, it is correct. Take any experience, however wonderful or awful, however apparently close or distant, however large or small, and ask yourself, is it not experienced? Would it be possible to know or experience something that was not experienced? Obviously not, by definition.
In other words, do we have any knowledge of the existence of anything outside of experience? We can then ask why it is that, as a culture, we have a deep conviction that there is something, for instance a world, that exists without its being known (experienced), when there is absolutely no evidence for such a world.
This same question can be presented more philosophically by asking, ‘Are knowing and existence separate?’ Normally we conceive of knowing (experiencing) taking place ‘here’, inside the body, and existence taking place, ‘over there’, outside the body, that is, in the world, separate from knowing. This apparent distinction between knowing and being (existence) is the fundamental presumption at the heart of duality.
Non-duality suggests that these apparent two are one. Love is the common name for this experiential understanding.
* * *
Next I take a look at experience itself. For example, seeing the computer, I ask myself the question, ‘What are the ingredients of the experience of seeing the computer?’ There is ‘knowingness’ there and there seems to be the ‘experience’ also there; the knowingness knows the experience. But if I take a deeper look and ask if there are really two things there or just one substance, I find that there is only knowingness there and no other thing. The knowingness knows itself.
Yes. I use the words ‘knowing’ and ‘experiencing’ synonymously here. For instance, in this moment, we know or experience these words. Normally we think that there are two things: one, an ‘experiencer’ here, inside the body, knowing or experiencing the computer, and two, the ‘experienced’ (the computer in this case) outside, separate and independent of its being known.
However, if we look carefully we find that the experienced (that is, the computer and all other apparent things, people, world) is made only of experiencing. There is no substance present in the experienced other than experiencing. They are utterly, intimately one.
Likewise, if we look at the ‘here’, the ‘me’, the ‘body’, which is normally considered to be the subject, the knower or the experiencer, we find that it just comprises a sensation that is equally made out of experiencing or knowing. In other words, both the apparent experienced (the computer, object, other or world) and the apparent experiencer (the separate person) collapse and are seen to be made out of the same substance, that is, to be made of experiencing alone.
Now if we look again and ask how close experiencing is to myself, that is, to awareness, we find again that it is utterly, intimately one. We find that ‘I’, awareness, which we intimately know our self to be, is the sole reality of all things.
* * *
There are a lot of different experiences but all the same substance, that is, the knowingness. The knowingness knows itself in different forms and so we say there are different experiences. So we move from objects to experience to the substance of all experiences, that is, the knowingness. We conclude that everything (computers, tables, blue sky, body) is made out of the knowingness. In this sense we use the term non-duality, not two. Is that correct?
Yes, exactly, it is this knowingness (also known as awareness or ‘I’) which takes the shape of all apparent things but always remains and knows only itself.
And yes, that is how we use the term non-duality. We could also say that we first reduce matter to mind and then reduce mind to awareness. For example, we understand that the ‘seen’ object (apparently made out of matter) is made only of ‘seeing’ (apparently a function of mind). And then we realise that seeing is itself made out of knowingness or awareness or ‘I’. The apparent ‘seer’ and the apparent ‘seen’ are one in seeing, and seeing is made only of awareness.
In short, all apparent things are made out of knowing or experiencing, and knowing or experiencing is made only out of myself.
With love,
Rupert
* * *
Dear Rupert,
Now, at this stage, I feel quite naturally that everything (including thoughts, sensations, body) appears and disappears in us as knowing or awareness. But it’s quite difficult to get the feeling that knowing is also the substance of all objects. How does one get the feeling that a table in front of the body is made out of knowing?
It seems to me that you suggest that first we should be certain for ourselves through experiential understanding that we are the unchanging knowing space in which things come and go. Then we can go further to experience that we are also the substance of all objects. Is that correct?
When you say that knowing is the substance of the body and the world, I usually think of it in the same way (to clarify my understanding) that modern physics says that everything is made out of particles. But even the knowing must be there to see the particle, therefore the knowing is even subtler. In this manner of reasoning, can we come to the conclusion that everything is made out of knowing or awareness? Thanks so much for your response.
Sincerely,
Nguyen Quang Ninh
Dear Nguyen Quang Ninh,
Thank you for your email.
Take two experiences, one that seems to be ‘me’ and one that seems to be ‘not me’, that is, an experience of the body and an experience of the world. For instance, take the sensation of the tingling behind the eyes, which is considered to be intimately ‘me’, and take the perception of the blue sky, which is considered to be at an infinite distance from myself and made out of something other than myself.
Ask yourself how far away from ‘sensing’ does the experience of the tingling behind the eyes take place. No distance at all.
Now ask yourself how far away from your self (awareness) does sensing take place. No distance at all. Therefore, how far away from ‘myself’ does the sensation behind the eyes take place? No distance at all.
Now take the perception of the blue sky. Ask yourself how far away from ‘perceiving’ or ‘seeing’ that experience takes place. No distance at all. Now ask yourself how far away from your self (awareness) seeing takes place. No distance at all. Therefore, how far away from ‘myself’ does the blue sky take place? No distance at all.
* * *
Now we can go more deeply into it. Is there any substance present in the experience of the tingling behind the eyes other than sensing? If there were another substance present there, then when sensing was withdrawn from the experience, that ‘something’ would remain over. However, if we withdraw sensing from the experience of the tingling behind the eyes, the experience disappears completely. Therefore, we know from experience that the tingling is made only of sensing.
Now ask yourself what substance is present in sensing other than ‘that which knows it’, that is, awareness. None! See clearly, therefore, that the tingling behind the eyes is made only out of awareness.
Now take the sky. Is there any substance present in the experience of the sky other than seeing? If there were another substance present there, then when seeing was withdrawn from the experience, that something would remain over. However, if we withdraw seeing from the experience of the sky, the sky disappears completely. Therefore, it is our experience that the sky is made only of seeing.
Now ask yourself what substance is present in seeing other than ‘that which knows it’, that is, awareness. None! See clearly, therefore, that in our actual experience, the sky is made only out of awareness.
We could simplify this and say that every appearance of the mind, body and world is made equally out of ‘experiencing’ and that experiencing itself is made out of ‘that which knows it’: knowingness, ‘myself’, awareness, ‘I’.
In this way the body loses its exclusive ‘me-ness’ and become impersonal, like the world, and the world loses its ‘not me-ness’ and becomes intimate like the body.
With warm regards,
Rupert
