Dear Rupert,
I am seeking some clarification on this so-called awakening process, sudden or gradual, that is being described here. It seems in these discussions it is accepted that there is a legitimate person or self who can understand these points of discussion and could therefore become awakened to the truth. So there is a person who suffers due to ‘ignorance’, and when there is insight or understanding, that same person awakens.
It is as though there is some goal or quest of seeking that can be attained by someone, instead of seeing that the seeker is the absolute being the seeker, and there is no relative seeker and never was one. There is really just an impression of there being a self with some degree of autonomy. That being the case, what is your prescription for your audience?
When the mind is brought to total stillness by whatever method, there cannot remain even an impression of there being a self, let alone an actual self, as both are the mind in movement. Non-dual meditation practices, such as in shikentazaof the Zen tradition, or trekchodin Dzogchen, or Mahamudra essence meditations, all result in the mind becoming not only still but utterly transparent as clear light awareness. It is then that it is seen that the essential, empty quality of the mind as being clear light is not different from the clear light of absolute being. This is like pouring clear water into clear water.
At no time is there someone who finally understands and discovers non-duality. The one who does not understand is itself only an arising or ornament of and as the absolute. Is the view of The Transparency of Thingsdifferent than this? I appreciate the time you take in clarifying all these various points for all of us.
Love,
Jax
Dear Jax,
Jax: It seems in these discussions it is accepted that there is a legitimate person or self who can understand these points of discussion and could therefore become awakened to the truth.
Rupert: I hope that my response to Anand (‘Who awakens?’) will answer at least this part of your question about the one who awakens and what is meant by awakening. There is no suggestion here that a separate entity or person can understand or awaken.
So there is a person who suffers due to ‘ignorance’
The person does not suffer. How could a thought suffer? Likewise, the person is not ignorant. The ‘person’ isignorance. That is, the person seems to appear when presence is ignored. The ‘person’, ‘ignorance’, ‘suffering’, ‘seeking’ and ‘unhappiness’ are all synonyms for the apparent veiling of consciousness that seems to take place when the thought that consciousness is limited to a specific body arises.
It is as though there is some goal or quest of seeking that can be attained by someone.
If we believe and, more importantly, feel that we are a separate entity, seeking is inevitable. The ‘person’ and ‘seeking’ are inseparable. That apparent separate entity isseeking. So if you feel that you are a separate entity, seek the reality of that apparent entity. If you know andfeel that you are unlimited consciousness, the question does not arise. If we think and feel that we are a person and tell ourself a story that there is nothing to be done and no one to do it, we are fooling ourself.
There is really just an impression of there being a self with some degree of autonomy. That being the case, what is your prescription for your audience?
There is an impression and, more importantly, a feeling of being separate and autonomous. I have no such prescription. If there is a question, this understanding is tailored with love, intelligence and sensitivity to match the question as closely as is possible, to dance with it, as it were, until it dissolves in understanding. If there is no question, there is no answer, teaching or prescription.
At no time is there someone who finally understands and discovers non-duality.
Yes, ‘understanding’ is not in the mind or of the mind. However, it may be provisionally formulated in response to a question or situation. ‘Understanding’ is the name given to consciousness when consciousness, as it were, recognises or tastes its own self.
Is the view of The Transparency of Thingsdifferent than this?
There is no view in The Transparency of Things. That is why it is transparent. A view would imply a point of reference. There is this openness, sensitivity, welcoming unknowing, ready to take any shape at any moment in response to the totality, and at times happy not to take any shape at all, and from there simply to remain open and available, resting in itself before the next invitation arises.
With love,
Rupert
