Why is it difficult to talk about awakening? Or what we notice within awakening?
It’s not because it’s far away, special, or hidden behind many veils. Our nature is more close to us than anything, and more familiar to us than anything. It’s all we have ever known. It’s just that we may not notice or recognize it.
So why is it difficult to talk about?
THE LIMITATIONS IN MENTAL REPRESENTATIONS
It’s because of the limitations inherent in words and mental representations.
They are different in nature from what they point to unless they happen to point to mental representations. (A menu is made of something else than the food, and a map is made of something different than the terrain.)
They highlight some things and leave a lot out. They are interpretations.
They are embedded in a context. (Human biology, culture, subcultures, personal experiences and associations, and so on.)
Reality is always more than and different from our mental representations. It’s also less than. (In that it’s all happening within and as emptiness.)
Mental representations function as practical guides to help us orient and function in the world.
They cannot hold any full, final, or absolute truth.
They are questions about the world.
WORDS EVOKE FAMILIAR EXPERIENCES
Words are pointers. Usually, communication works because the words point to something familiar to the recipient. They evoke memories and familiar experiences. Sometimes, these largely match the intention of the one communicating, and sometimes there is a larger gap and obvious misunderstanding.
With awakening, they don’t always point to something that seems familiar to the recipient. At least, they may not recognize it is familiar to them. No amount of words may help evoke something that seems familiar, and if it does, the recipient may dismiss it and think it’s too simple and familiar and it’s not it.
WHEN OTHERS KNOW, IT’S DIFFERENT
That’s why it’s relatively easy to talk about these things with others who recognize their nature and are familiar with the terrain, and it’s mostly futile if the recipient is not aware of their familiarity with it and has not explored it consciously.
OTHER APPROACHES
That’s also why I prefer other approaches. I am not in a role as a teacher or guide, but if I was, I would spend very little time talking about it and instead invite the others to a direct noticing.
I would use the Big Mind process to help people into Big Mind and explore that terrain.
I would use Headless experiments.
I would use some forms of inquiry, especially sense field explorations using pointers from modern versions of traditional Buddhist inquiry. (Kiloby Inquiries is the one I am most familiar with.)
I would use pointers to help people (really, the consciousness they are) to recognize its nature and that it’s already familiar to them even if they may not have noticed.
WHEN TALKING CAN HELP
Of course, some talking is valuable and can be helpful. It can help set the context. It can serve as practical and useful pointers.
It can also help us explore some of the things around all of this. For instance, we can use to it share experiences around exploring our nature, how to live from and as our nature recognizing itself, and more.