I attended a Zoom talk this morning about Tibetan dream practices. The host mentioned exploring projections in daily life and also in dreams.
This brought up some curiosity again about different kinds of projections.
1. PROJECTIONS IN CASUAL SENSE – “THAT’S ABOUT YOU“
Although the term comes from psychology (Freud & Jung), it’s also used in daily life these days.
In casual language, projections is typically used when what we see in someone else is not there. It’s a fantasy or we are talking about ourselves.
I am infatuated by someone, and my friends see the person very differently. I am upset by someone’s actions, and others see that it really describes me.
That’s insightful enough. Although there is a fuller and more inclusive way to see it.
2. THE WORLD IS MY MIRROR – PSYCHOLOGICAL UNDERSTANDING
In a psychological context, the world is my mirror.
Whatever I see in the wider world is also here in me.
TURNING MY STORIES AROUND
I can take any story I have about someone or something, change it to be about me, and find specific and genuine examples of how it’s true. This goes for literally anyone and anything – people in my life, public people, fictional characters, dream figures, non-human beings, landscapes, and so on.
Of course, I won’t live out everything in the same way as others do. But I can find the same characteristics and dynamics here in me and my life and actions.
CHARGE
When my view of someone or something has a charge, that’s usually a sign that the projection is blind. I see it out there and not also in myself.
When I recognize it in myself, the charge tends to soften and dissipate.
The charge is like a glue, it glues my attention to what I don’t yet recognize in myself. It’s life saying “take a look at this, and see if you are that too”. It’s an invitation from life to find what I see out there also in here.
I AM AS RICH AS THE WORLD
I am already as rich as the world. The more I find in myself what I see in the world, the richer my experience of myself is. I limit myself less with exclusive identities or shoulds. I am more open and my life is richer and more fluid.
Any one identity soften and all of them have some validity for me. I live more from both/and instead of either/or.
My sense of belonging in the world deepens. I recognize myself in others and the world. The sense of WE and US widens and deepens.
I more easily recognize myself in others, which opens for a more genuine empathy. There is less room for blind judgment, and more understanding and recognition. (Which doesn’t mean harmful actions are OK.)
3. MORE FUNDAMENTAL PROJECTIONS
This psychological understanding of projections is rich and important, and there is another understanding that’s more fundamental.
We can explore this in two steps – first in the form of dreams, and then in the form of our world.
3a. DREAMS AS A PROJECTION – A HINT
We can see dreams as a projection. It’s a world created by the consciousness I am.
It’s projected similar to how a projector projects a movie onto a screen.
Of course, within this more fundamental projection is the world as a mirror projection.
Everyone and everything in the dream represents parts of me. The consciousness I am wouldn’t be able to create it if I wasn’t already it. If the dynamics and characteristics were not already here and familiar to me.
This more fundamental projection is a hint for an even more fundamental projection.
3b. MY WORLD HAPPENS WITHIN AND AS WHAT I AM
If my dreams are projected, maybe that’s the same with my world?
WHO & WHAT I AM
In one sense, I am this human self in the world. That’s how I appear to most others, and it’s what my passport says.
And yet, when I look, I find I more fundamentally am something else. I am what my world – this content of experience – happens within and as. I am what a thought may call consciousness, and the world to me happens within and as the consciousness I am.
Here, this human self becomes part of the world. He is part of the content of experience, just like anything else. He lives his own life. He happens on his own, just like everything happens on its own.
A PROJECTED WORLD
My world is, in a sense projected. We can use that word since it’s similar to how a movie is projected onto a screen.
A DREAMLIKE WORLD
This is also why my world seems dreamlike. It happens within and as what I am, just like my night dreams. It’s made of what I am made up – awake space, or what we may call consciousness.
BEING A GOOD STEWARD
This doesn’t mean that this world is not “real”. It’s definitely real to me, just like dreams are real to me as they happen. It’s not a reason to live recklessly or irresponsibly. I still need to be a good steward of my life, to the best of my ability. That’s part of the game.
ALL TOGETHER – RICHER
I enjoy all of these ways of talking about projections. Each one has some use and validity, and together, they create a richer understanding of my world and experience.
ONGOING EXPLORATION
Also, each of these is an ongoing exploration. It’s something to notice here and now, and make use of here and now.
Sometimes, I may see something in someone others don’t see, and that may be a sign I am caught up in a fantasy or talk about myself and not them.
I can use the world as my mirror. What stories do I have about others and the world? What do I find when I turn it to myself? Can I find specific and genuine examples? How is it to notice that? How is it to take it?
I can notice how my world is dreamlike. It happens within and as what I am. It happens within and as the consciousness I am. What I am forms itself into all of it. How is it to notice this? How is it to live from this noticing, here and now?
A CAVEAT
There is a caveat here, which is why I usually don’t use the word ‘projection’ in the more fundamental sense.
When we use the word ‘projection’, we usually have an image of something that’s projected by something onto something else. That doesn’t really fit here.
A dream isn’t really a projection in that sense. It happens within and as the consciousness I am. It’s the consciousness I am forming itself into a dream and all the content of the dream.
In the same way, my world isn’t projected. It’s what I am forming itself into my world. It’s all happening as one.
Still, some do use the word in this way. If I am to explore different kinds of projections – or different ways the word can be used – then it’s fine to include this as one form of projection. At least in this one article!
HOW THIS IS FOR ME
This was all undeniable within the initial oneness shift in my teens.
I could see that my world – all of existence – happens within and as the consciousness I am.
I could see that what this psyche sees in others and the world is also here. At my human level, the world is my mirror. (This is partly why I got so deeply into Jung in my teens and early twenties.)
I have continued to notice and explore those two. And I feel I am just scratching the surface.
I notice that my world happens within and as what I am, and yet I don’t fully life from and as it through all kinds of states and life circumstances and situations. Many parts of me, many subpersonalities, were formed within and still operate from separation consciousness. Even when more dormant, these color my experience and life, they sometimes surface, and I sometimes get caught up in them.
I also sometimes get caught up in blind or – more often – semi-blind projections. I see the charge and glue I have in relation to someone or something, and recognize it as a sign of projection. And I may not immediately and viscerally be able to find it in myself and deeply take it in. That takes more work and often time.
I see these kinds of articles and comments now and then.
THE MANY IMAGES OF GOD
Often, they seem to assume that everyone has the same image of God as they do, which seems odd. Even within the same religion, there are many different images of God. Sometimes, they are radically different.
THE GIFTS IN EACH IMAGE OF GOD
All images of God are images, and they each have gifts and shortcomings.
They reflect a culture, a time, a worldview. They give us a focus, sense of belonging (if they are shared with others), a sense of coherence, maybe even a sense of knowing – whether justified or not.
THE DILEMMAS INHERENT IN PARTICULAR IMAGES OF GOD
I also notice that the dilemmas many experience in relation to God often come from their particular image of God.
That’s why it makes sense to…
Make that image explicit and conscious
Look at the consequences of having that particular image, and the dilemmas that stem from it
Acknowledge that others have other images of God, even people within the same religion as you
And perhaps explore those images and see whether one or some of them make more sense to you
I notice that many of the classic dilemmas within Christianity stem from the sky-god image of God. Of God as somehow separate from this world, with a few interactions here and there. For instance, it then becomes something you have to believe in. You have to take someone’s word for it. And that, in itself, creates a lot of problems.
Of course, other images of God come with their own limitations and dilemmas. That’s fine. And it’s good for us to acknowledge and explore all of that.
REALITY IS ALWAYS MORE THAN OUR IDEAS ABOUT IT
Reality is always more than and different from our ideas about it. Our ideas are maps – imaginations – that help us orient and live in the world. They do not hold any final or absolute truth. That’s not their function.
And that’s the case with our images of God as well. Our ideas are imaginations. They help us orient and function in certain ways. They have certain effects. They are maps, not the terrain.
So why not choose one – or a set – that makes sense to us? That guide us to live as we would like to live? That are in integrity for us? (For instance, that don’t require us to pretend that something is true when we know we cannot know for certain? Or even are aligned with science and scientific methods?)
GOD = EXISTENCE AS A WHOLE
Personally, I prefer to define God as reality, as existence as a whole.
I don’t know what that entails, of course, but it means that I see this world – the world I am familiar with and my experiences – as part of the divine. It’s all God expressing, exploring, and experiencing itself in always new ways, including as what’s here right now. I am one of innumerable local and temporary organs for the divine. And that goes for all beings.
That makes sense to me. There is nothing to believe in. It’s right here now. And it keeps everything else open – the possibility of life before and after this life, reincarnation, angels, effects of prayers, and so on. Those are all possible with that image, and not required. They become something to explore.
I am not a subscriber to The Atlantic so I haven’t read the full article, But it does seem to be an example of what I am talking about here.
She starts with a particular image of God, which has problems and limitations inherent in it, and then tries to find solutions to those problems. If I were in her situation, I would question my image first, before trying to find ad hoc solutions to the problems that stem from that particular image.
I have an invisible disability, and that comes with social challenges in addition to the ones that come with the disability itself.
In my case, it’s Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS/ME). I have lived with it since my teens, although it got much worse some years ago.
WHEN IS IT INVISIBLE?
In what sense is it invisible?
It’s “invisible” to you if…
You didn’t know me from before I got it, or only from when I functioned better (my twenties and early thirties.)
You only see me on good days and after days of rest. (That’s almost everyone.)
You see me during short periods when I am able to mobilize and exert myself, often more than I should.
You don’t see me when I crash. You don’t see the consequences of mobilizing and doing more than I should, which often are severe and can last days or weeks and sometimes even longer. (Very few do, and those who do are often shocked.)
You have relatively brief interactions with me. (My ability to engage tends to fade relatively fast.)
You have seen in me in groups. (In groups, I tend to leave the active engagement and talking to others so I can rest.)
WHEN IT’S NOT INVISIBLE
To me, it’s certainly not invisible.
I have lived with it for a long time. My life has been dramatically changed because of it. Many if not most of my dreams and plans for this life had to be abandoned.
In daily life, I notice it by the fatigue, the few minutes each day when I am able to do something, poor memory, poor ability to read or take in information, all the strategies I need to use to try to compensate for this, and so on.
To those close to me, it’s also not invisible. They see the rest required before and after any activity, and how brief the periods of activity are. Even those close to me don’t always realize how serious it is. As others, they sometimes think I can function better than I do, or attribute what’s clearly (to me) caused by the illness to personality. This is one of the more painful aspects of the disease. (I had a recent statement from my doctor about my illness, and people close to me seemed a bit shocked when they read it.)
WE FILL IN THE GAPS WITH WHAT WE (THINK WE) KNOW
What’s so difficult with an invisible disability? What’s the extra layer of difficulty beyond the challenges that come with the disability itself?
It’s mainly that others fill in the gaps with what they think they know.
They see me for a few minutes on a good day and after days of rest, so I may appear to function relatively normally. Based on that, they assume that’s how I am the rest of the time.
If they don’t see me or hear from me for a while (weeks, months, years), they assume I am busy with something else. In reality, I am often wiped out and in bed and don’t have the resources to do much beyond the essentials to get through a day.
They attribute what they see to personality. By nature, I am at the high end when it comes to ambition and activity levels. During my twenties, when my health was better, I would fit in several lives into one. (University studies, art, meditation, reading, photography, etc.) These days, I can’t do much apart from resting, so some may assume it reflects my personality and don’t realize it’s because of the disability.
They notice some of the strategies I use to appear to function more normally, and attribute that also to personality. For instance, they may see me quiet in groups and assume it has to do with being shy and that I function better than I do.
In the case of CFS, the label itself can be misleading. It can sound like a lasting tiredness, which is a minor part of a much more serious, complex, and debilitating disability.
FUNDAMENTAL ATTRIBUTION ERROR
I notice the fundamental attribution error frequently when it comes to my own invisible (to some others) disability.
The fundamental attribution error is when we see a certain behavior, and think it’s about the person and not the situation and circumstances.
Of course, some does belong to the person. We are all responsible for how we relate to life, and there are some differences in how we do just that. At the same time, a lot of our behavior can be explained by our situation, circumstances, and our history and the culture we grew up in.
I notice that relatively often. People don’t know me, or don’t me well, or don’t see me flat 95% of the day or in a crash. They see a certain behavior. Maybe that I don’t talk much, or need to rest, or am not very physically active. Or even that there is fear coming up, or that I am grumpy. They attribute that to me and how I am.
They don’t know the bigger picture of the illness and it’s symptoms. The fear that comes up when you can’t function well and risk getting permanently worse through activity. How society and people don’t understand and often don’t meet you with much understanding. And so on.
If they knew, the resting would make sense. The anxiety (survival fear) that comes up in some situations makes sense. The occasional grumpiness (when my system is crashing) makes sense.
HOW TO COMMUNICATE THE SERIOUSNESS OF INVISIBLE DISABILITIES
So how can we communicate the seriousness of invisible disabilities?
One is to use the term and get it out there. The term itself invites some curiosity and, hopefully, a realization that some serious disabilities can be invisible to the casual observer.
I tend to say I have a disability without explaining more, unless they ask. That gets the point home since people know, more or less, what a disability is, but may not be familiar with CFS and how serious it is. I used to say “I have CFS”, and that often led to people dismissing it. (Including several times at university, with serious consequences for me.)
If I need to, I have learned to describe it as a serious disability. It is serious, and it hopefully gets the point home better.
On rare occasions, I may describe the experience of living with CFS. It’s like having a severe flu without the throat and nose symptoms. It’s like being underwater. It’s like living in a fog. It’s like being a laptop with a very poor batter that doesn’t charge and drains quickly.
I may also describe what I can and can’t do, and what my daily life is. I am in bed most of the time. On most days, I can do things a few minutes now and then, with hours of required rest in-between. I am unable to do anything that’s especially exerting, like reading a book, lifting something heavy, walk fast or run, and so on.
I may try to describe the brain fog. The immediate experience is of living in a fog, or having cotton in and around the head. I am unable to process information very well. I can’t read books or longer articles, or anything complex. I can watch movies in short segments, maybe 5-10 minutes at a time. I can hold a conversation for only a few minutes. I often have trouble finding words. My memory is very poor.
I may mention the Post-Exertion Malaise (PEM), which is one of the most debilitating and confusing aspects of the illness. After exertion, and in the best case, I need hours or days of rest. In the worst case, and very often, I crash. All my symptoms worsen dramatically, I lose my ability to function, and I am in bed without being able to talk. This can last for days, weeks, or sometimes months.
There are websites and brochures I can share that describes the disease. I haven’t done this very often, although it probably would have been a good idea and could have made things easier for me.
It’s not because what we are is far away, obscure, unfamiliar to us, or something very special.
After all, it’s what we are. It’s what we all already are most familiar with.
It’s really the only thing we are familiar with. It’s all we have ever known.
So why is it difficult?
THE NATURE OF LANGUAGE
It has to do with the nature of language.
Mental representations are just that, mental representations.
They are maps of the world. They are questions about the world. They are different in nature from what they point to. (Unless they happen to refer to mental representations.) They cannot hold any full, final, or absolute truth. They are always provisional. They are always only useful in a particular situation and context. They can help us orient and function in the world. In their nature, they split while reality is a seamless whole.
WHAT THE RECIPIENT IS CONSCIOUSLY FAMILIAR WITH
It also has to do with what the recipient is consciously familiar with.
If the recipient is familiar with their nature, then the conversation tends to flow naturally and easily. After all, we are both familiar with and talk about the same terrain.
If they are not consciously familiar with it, then no words can really convey it. They don’t have a conscious reference for it. They are not familiar with the terrain. (Although they are, of course, without consciously realizing it.)
IT’S NOT UNIQUE TO TALKING ABOUT OUR NATURE
This is not unique to talking about our nature.
It has to do with language and communication, and applies to everything we talk about.
If you haven’t tasted an apple, then it’s difficult to convey with words how it tastes.
ONE SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE
There is also one significant difference between talking about our nature and talking about most other things.
If you haven’t tasted an apple, but are familiar with other fruits, I can use that as a reference. I can convey something by referencing what you already know.
That’s more difficult when it comes to our nature. If you are not consciously familiar with your nature, then what you are familiar with is whatever is within the content of experience, and there isn’t anything there that’s a good or useful reference.
That is one reason why it’s actually more difficult to talk about our nature if the recipient is not already familiar with that particular terrain.
WHAT IS OUR NATURE?
So what is our nature? How would I put it into words?
Depending on the situation, I would maybe say that….
It’s not wrong that I am this human self in the world. It’s an assumption that works reasonably well, although it also comes with some inherent unease and discomfort.
In my own immediate noticing, I find I am something else. I am what this whole field of experience – which includes this human self and the wider world – happens within and as.
I am this awake space that forms itself into all content of experience, including anything related to this human self.
This is nothing special. It’s what I assume you are too.
It’s what I already am very familiar with. It’s what you already are very familiar with. It’s what I already am. It’s what you already am.
The only difference is in noticing it and getting familiar with it in a more conscious way.
NOTICING IT AND TAKING IT SERIOUSLY
Even that isn’t necessarily so difficult, especially with some guided structured noticing – AKA inquiry. I find the Big Mind process, Headless experiments, and detailed sense field explorations (Kiloby Inquiries) very helpful.
Noticing is just the first step.
Sometimes, we notice and don’t pursue it for a variety of reasons. We may think that it’s too simple and obvious so it can’t possibly be “it”. We may not see the value in it. We may not be drawn to continue to explore it.
If we are drawn to continue to explore it, then that opens up another path.
This is a path of continuing to notice, through different situations and states. We are creating a new habit of our nature noticing itself, independent of the changing content of experience.
It’s a path of clarifying and differentiating our nature from all the phenomena it forms itself into.
It’s a path of recognizing all the phenomena our nature forms itself into, and especially that which our personality doesn’t like, as our nature.
It’s a path of exploring how it is for this human self to live and function within that noticing.
It’s a path of this human self and its bodymind transforming within this noticing, and aligning more deeply and thoroughly with oneness recognizing itself.
That’s where the real work is. Noticing can be easy. Continuing to notice independent of the always changing content of experience is where the work is. Exploring how it is to live within that noticing is where the work is. Intentionally joining with the inevitable (and often challenging) transformation of this human self is where the work is.
I keep noticing the many layers of what I am in daily life. It’s always new, fresh, seamless, and lived.
And if I want to put it into words, I usually go to the distinction between who and what I am, and some distinctions within each of those.
WHAT I AM
As what I am, I am capacity for any and all of the always changing content of experience. This includes anything connected with this human self, any idea of a doer or observer, and so on.
I am this awake space that everything happens within and as – these hands, this screen, the music, the sun coming through the window, the fresh air, the sound of the birds, the marks appearing on the screen, the thoughts appearing, and so on. A thought may call this consciousness. I am consciousness and the consciousness I am takes the form of any and all content of experience.
I am all of this changing content of experience, this field of experience that’s ephemeral and always fresh and new. I don’t notice change directly, only by comparing mental representations of what just was to what is (and that too just was).
WHO I AM
This human self appears within the seamless field of experience. He lives his own life.
He is around quite often during waking hours. He is the one human being I have inside information about – what he sees, hears, senses, thinks, and so on.
He has innumerable sides and parts. He seems to be as rich as the wider world. Whatever I see in the wider world I can also find in him. Whatever story I have about someone or something, I can turn it to this human self and find genuine and specific examples of how it’s true.
He has wounds, traumas, hangups, and painful beliefs. These are all parts of him. These color his perception and life even when they are not triggered or activated.
Through working on these, I also notice that his healed and whole version is inherently and ordinarily kind and wise. Wounds, hangups, and traumas sometimes cover this up, especially when activated, and that’s part of the human experience too.
SEEING MYSELF IN OTHERS
I have explored this for a few decades now, often in some detail, and it’s always changing and it becomes visceral in always new and lived ways.
This colors how I see others.
When I see a “conscious being”, I know that they very likely are consciousness. To themselves, they are consciousness and the world, as it appears to them, happens within and as the consciousness they are.
I know they have innumerable parts and sides to them. What I see, what the world sees, and what they are aware of, are just some ideas about a tiny fraction of the richness that’s there.
If I see reactivity and trauma behavior, I know that’s on the surface. It comes from the system trying to protect itself, and I recognize it from myself. I have that in me too. Most – almost all? – trauma is intergenerational and collective. It’s passed on through generations and it’s passed on in society and through our culture and civilization.
I also know that who they “really” are, if they were healed and whole, is someone who is naturally and ordinarily kind and wise. Of course, that may just be there as a potential and it’s not something I can necessarily count on in daily life.
And, of course, my personality also operates from other conditioning – from this culture, the family I grew up in, and so on – so that too colors how I see myself and others.
I was looking at how I am far more familiar and comfortable with finding myself as consciousness. It’s what I remembered from before this life. It’s what was revealed in the oneness shift when I was sixteen. It’s what I have noticed since.
To myself, I am consciousness, and the world – as it appears to me – happens within and as the consciousness I am.
Even more fundamentally, I am capacity for all of it – consciousness and all that it forms itself into.
That’s what I know. That’s all I have ever known, even when it wasn’t consciously noticed.
I have never really known human life or the world.
I only know how it appears to me, how the consciousness I am forms itself into experiences of it.
Of course, in another sense, I know human life and the world. I know this human self who seems to be around most of the time. (Apart from when I sometimes find myself as pure consciousness in dreamless sleep, and in some dreams when there is another body here.) I know the world as it’s experienced by this human self. I even know some about how it is to take myself as fundamentally this human self in the world, and object within the field of experience.
And yet, all I know, and all I have ever known, is my nature. All I know is myself as consciousness, sometimes taking all of these always-changing forms.
I find it difficult to talk about my nature and awakening.
It’s not difficult to talk about because it’s something very special or mystical or anything else. It’s difficult to talk about because words only work when they point to something the recipient is already familiar with.
Words are pointers, and for the recipient to understand what they point to, they need some reference from their own noticing or experience.
If I talk about the taste of soursop (guanabana), it won’t make sense to someone who hasn’t tasted it. I can say it has the consistency of snot and tastes like bubble gum, and that will make a little more sense if the recipient understands and is familiar with those references.
That’s why it can be easy and fun to talk about our nature – its aspects, expressions, how it is to notice, how it is to live from this noticing, etc. – with other consciousnesses that notice themselves. We are swimming in the same water, we know the same terrain, and we may notice slightly different things.
It’s why it’s somewhat futile to talk about it to a consciousness that hasn’t yet noticed itself as that. The words don’t make so much sense and a lot of imagination can come in to try to make sense of it, or it’s set aside as delusional or for special people.
And it’s why it, for me, makes much more sense to invite people to notice for themselves. It’s not that difficult. Most can do it within a few minutes with some structured guidance from someone familiar with the terrain. I especially like the Headless experiments and the Big Mind process, and the Kiloby Inquiries can also do it relatively quickly.
Of course, a consciousness can notice its nature. It may notice itself as awake space, as capacity for the world, as what a thought may call consciousness, and that the world as it appears to itself happens within and as itself and has the same nature. And it may not be terrible interested in it. Some will let it pass as a curiosity of not much importance, and some will be fascinated and hooked.
As I mentioned in the previous post, in the Headless Way Zoom meetings, Richard Lang will often ask what we enjoy about being headless.
Just about everything people talk about, unless it’s overly conceptual which happens on rare occasions, fits my own experience.
What I enjoy about headlessness, about my nature noticing itself, is that…
It’s full and complete, nothing is missing.
It’s timeless and spaceless. It’s what forms itself into the experience of time and space.
There is no beginning or end in time. It forms itself into the experience of time.
There is no outer boundary that I can find. It forms itself into any ideas of boundaries.
There is no real center. Its center is everywhere and nowhere.
There is no distance to anything. It’s all here in this field of experience.
When this human self moves through the world, the world moves through me.
It’s endlessly creative. It’s always taking new forms.
It’s always fresh and new.
It’s home. It’s where I am at home. It’s the home that was never left.
It’s awake space that forms itself into the world as it appears to me.
Everything is this awake space. It’s this awake space taking the form of these legs, this computer, the hands and fingers, the sounds, the music, the breeze, the room, and so on.
It’s not anything I need to remember. I just need to remember to notice.
It’s already here. It’s not anything that needs to be manufactured. (Anything manufactured happens within the field of experience like anything else.)
It’s all I have ever known. This awake space is what has formed itself into anything and everything ever experienced here.
It’s capacity. It’s nothing allowing for everything. It’s nothing making itself into everything.
It has no characteristics and can take the form of any characteristic.
Everything is noticed as happening on its own. Everything is living its own life, including this human self.
It can take itself to be something within its own field of experience. It can temporarily take itself to be this human self, a doer, an observer, and so on.
This noticing can be shared with others. We can talk about it and find we are noticing the same. We can help others to notice it for themselves.
We can talk about it with simple and everyday words.
It can be noticed here and now if attention is guided. It doesn’t take lifetimes, years, or hours to notice.
It doesn’t require any belief or spirituality or religion or anything.
Noticing it doesn’t require anything apart from the noticing.
It’s prior to any thought. It’s more immediate than any thoughts, words, and mental representations.
Words can point our attention to it.
Words cannot even begin to touch it.
It’s an endless process of exploration. How is it to notice it now? How is it to live from and as it now? How is it to invite more of my human self to align with this noticing?
It can be profoundly transforming for this human self and its life in the world.
It doesn’t necessarily transform anything at first. This human self can be exactly as it is, whatever that is, and the noticing is still here.
It is mystery. It’s a complete mystery to itself. I am a complete mystery to myself.
Everything is mystery. This whole field of experience it forms itself into is mystery.
It’s possible to explore, learn about, get familiar with, talk about, create maps about, and so on. It’s possible to find maps and understandings that fit the data more or less well. It’s possible to be more or less familiar with it than someone else. And it’s still mystery.
Most likely, we are all this to ourselves. All “conscious beings”, no matter the shape of the body and no matter the psyche, is this to themselves. That opens for a profound sense of connection with all beings.
In the Headless Way Zoom calls, Richard Lang sometimes asks:
What do you enjoy about headlessness today?
Even if I haven’t been on that many Headless Way Zoom calls, I find the question lives in me. (The meetings are great, it’s more about my energy levels and brain fog.)
Today, what I notice I enjoy is the fullness and completeness of it. Nothing is missing. No matter where I look, nothing is missing. My nature is all of it, complete, whole, full, without boundaries, without beginning or end in time (that I can find), and so on.
Of course, at a human level, a lot is missing if I use a conventional mindset. My brain doesn’t work so well. My body struggles a lot. I have energy for just the essentials and not much more. I have a lot of traumas. Parts of the roof fell down. We are in an ecological crisis. And so on.
It’s endlessly fascinating to explore the different aspects of my nature, how it relates to my human self (and how my human self relates to it!), how to invite more of my human self to align with a conscious noticing of it (AKA heal, mature), how to talk about it, the many different ways to talk about it, and more.
None loves God but God, and there is no lover and no beloved but God. Lovers grasp this when they reach the point of seeing God in everything that exists.
– Ibn Arabi
This is what was revealed in the oneness shift when this human self was an angsty atheist sixteen-year-old. All is God, without exception. It’s all God expressing, exploring, and experiencing itself in myriad ways. It’s God that takes the form of the universe, the stars, the trees, the wind, this human self, and any temporary sense of being anything else than the whole of it.
If there is a lover or beloved here – one that loves God and God loves – it’s God taking that local and temporary form. It all happens within and as God.
At the time, I said that existence as a whole is God and consciousness. Existence forms itself into all there is to express, explore, and experience itself in always new ways. Since I didn’t have anyone interested in this, I wrote it in my journals in different ways, always aware that words cannot come even close to touching it.
HOW I TALK ABOUT IT TODAY
These days, almost four decades later, I don’t mind saying it in the same way, although I notice I am more drawn to another way to say it. It’s not a better way, although it’s slightly more differentiated.
To myself, I am fundamentally consciousness. I am made up of consciousness, and the consciousness I am takes the form of this whole field of experience.
It’s not wrong that I am this human self in the world. It’s how others see it, it’s what my passport says, and so on. But more fundamentally, I find I am what the world – as it appears to me – happens within and as. I am what a thought may call consciousness, and the consciousness I am takes the form of the world as it appears to me.
Even more fundamentally, I find I am capacity for all of it – for consciousness and all it forms itself into.
Any sense of lover and beloved happens within and as the consciousness I am. Any sense of God, the universe, the world, others, trees, stars, this human self, and so on, happens within and as the consciousness I am.
I still don’t really talk about this with others, apart from briefly if I happen to be with someone who notices it for themselves. Just like when I was sixteen, I mostly put it to – in this case metaphorical – paper here in my journal.
That’s a normal way to talk about it in our culture. We put the cause out there in others or the situation.
It’s also misleading and somewhat unfortunate.
I MAKE MYSELF ANGRY
If I get angry when I see my ballot, it’s not because the ballot made me angry. It’s just a piece of paper with some black scribbles on it. It doesn’t have that power. I make myself angry from the way I am thinking about it, and how I relate to those thoughts.
Where I imagine the cause reflects and influences how I relate to the anger and the situation.
In the first case, I imagine or pretend or – at the very least – talk as if the cause is out there in others or the situation. I may tell ourselves that my reaction is justified. They created it in me. They caused it. I easily go into the blame game. I may see myself as the victim of someone or something.
In the second case, I remind myself that this is something I create for myself. It’s easier to take responsibility for it. I notice there is a shift in how I relate to it. I remind myself that I have some control there. I am not a victim. It’s up to me.
LANGUAGE IS IMPORTANT
This is why language is important.
If I say “I made myself angry when I saw the ballot”, it’s a clear reminder to myself and others that I created it for myself. It’s difficult to go into the blame and victim game. It invites more reflection and a more sane and mature way to relate to it.
That goes for any reaction. I make myself sad, scared, depressed, and so on. I make myself feel overwhelmed. I make myself elated, joyful, and blissful. I even make myself fascinated, passionate, or fall in love.
Of course, this is not something I always do consciously or intentionally. Sometimes, it “just happens”. And yet, it’s created by me. It’s created by my psyche.
The stories I tell myself about something make it happen. In many cases, it’s the stories parts of my psyche tell themselves that make it happen.
CURIOSITY
This language of ownership does another thing, and that is to make me curious about what’s going on.
When I say “I made myself angry”, it brings up curiosity.
How did I make myself scared? What story did I tell myself?
Where did that story come from? (Family, culture, an experience?)
What consequences does that story have? How does it make me see the situation? What does it bring up in me? How does it make me see myself?
Is it true? What’s genuinely more true for me?
What’s the validity in the reversals of the story? Can I find genuine and specific examples of that validity?
A SIMPLE ENTRY
Just by changing my language, a lot else can shift as well.
How is it to use the “I made myself…” language in this situation? How is it to use it with myself, in how I talk with myself about it? How is it to use it with another, a witness?
What does it open up for?
What becomes easier? (Maybe to own my response and explore the stories I tell myself about it?)
What becomes more difficult? (Maybe to go into the blame and victim game?)
Does it feel vulnerable? What am I afraid would happen if I use this language? I am afraid to lose the opportunity to blame and be a victim? I am afraid to be more naked with myself and others?
A SMALL CHANGE WITH A SNOWBALL EFFECT
This is an example of a small change that can have a big cumulative effect.
If I use the blame language, it leads to a cycle of blame, victimhood, and more. It leads to feeling that I don’t have control. It distracts me from looking at myself and how I relate to situations and my thoughts.
If I use the ownership language, it leads to a cycle of owning my own reactions and exploring these. It leads me to feel there is some control here. It leads to more authenticity.
This small change is, quite literally, life changing.
HOW IT IS FOR ME
I don’t always use this language, but it is often in the back of my mind.
If I use the conventional language, I often notice and translate it to a more honest language for myself. I explore how it is to do it, at the very least for myself, and sometimes also with others.
For me, it’s easier to do it with others if I feel they are receptive, but I wish to explore doing it more in general. There is no good reason to not do it.
What is the difference between nondual Vedanta and nondual Tantra? While both are pointing to the ultimate nondual nature of consciousness, they have several key differences in their approaches and philosophies.
Advaita Vedanta views the world as an illusion (maya) without ultimate reality or Consciousness, while Tantra sees the world as real and a manifestation of Divine Consciousness. This fundamental difference in worldview leads to contrasting approaches in practice. Vedanta emphasizes detachment from the body, emotions, and worldly attachments to realize the true Self. In contrast, Tantra embraces the body and worldly experiences as sacred expressions of consciousness. Tantra helps us to “digest” worldly experiences and see them as expressions of consciousness. While Vedanta can easily lead to spiritual bypassing, Tantra, especially left-handed, can lead to indulgence.
I am sure there are nuances here, but based on this text, it seems that both approaches assume something about existence itself.
THE SMALL UNDERSTANDING OF AWAKENING
I prefer an approach that seems simpler and closer to my own experience.
In my own first-person experience, I am what the world – as it appears to me – happens within and as. I am consciousness, and the world as it appears to me, happens within and as the consciousness I am. I have and am the characteristics of consciousness.
This seems to be what mystics across traditions and through time have described.
I can say explore and something about my own nature, but I can’t say anything for certain about the nature of all of existence.
This is what I like to call the small understanding of awakening. It’s simple, and it stays close to my experience and what I can say something about (my own nature as it appears to me) and what I cannot say something for certain about (the nature of existence itself).
A FEW POSSIBILITIES ABOUT THE NATURE OF EXISTENCE ITSELF
As for existence itself, many things seem possible.
We can call existence as a whole, whatever it is, God or something similar, without assuming we know anything for certain about it.
Can assume that all of existence has the same nature as us, that it is consciousness taking all these forms. We can call that Spirit, God, Brahman, and so on. This is a relatively common assumption, especially among mystics.
It’s common because, since the world to us appears within and as the consciousness we are, it inevitably appears as consciousness. The world appears as consciousness, so if we don’t pay attention, it’s easy to assume that’s how the world really is.
We can assume that the world, in itself, doesn’t exist. That the world, as it appears to us, is like a dream or a virtual reality created for us. That’s a slightly dangerous assumption since it can lead to forms of nihilism.
We can assume that the modern materialistic view is largely correct. We are fundamentally a physical being and consciousness is somehow created by the brain. Even in this situation, we are – to ourselves – fundamentally consciousness and the world, as it appears to us, happens within and as the consciousness we are.
All of these, and I am sure many more, are possible. They all are compatible with what we find when we explore our own nature.
FINDING FLUIDITY BETWEEN THE PERSPECTIVES
My own nature is the same independent of all these assumptions of the nature of existence itself, and that’s what counts. That’s what I can continue to explore, and continue to explore living from and as.
When it comes to all the different assumptions about existence itself, I prefer to be honest with myself, and that is that I cannot know for certain.
I also see that each assumption has value, gifts, and limitations.
I stay with the small understanding of awakening, which leaves the nature of existence itself open. This is simple and honest, and it provides a language that can serve as a lowest common denominator for sharing and talking about our findings across time and traditions.
From here, I can explore the many assumptions about the nature of existence, to the extent it’s important to me, and find fluidity between them. I can find the value, gifts, and limitations within each one.
VALUE & LIMITATIONS IN A FEW PERSPECTIVES
Frist, the small understanding of awakening itself. It’s simple, close to my experience, honest. It provides a lowest common denominator language. It can be used in academic settings. It allows for most (nearly all) common assumptions about the nature of reality itself.
The downside is that it can appear a little uninspiring to some who are more inclined to devotion, big philosophies, and so on. (I happen to not see it that way myself, I find it as inspiring and fascinating as anything.)
Seeing all of existence, whatever it is, as God helps us find the sacred in everyone and everything, which is sorely missing from our Western worldview. This fits well with systems theories, holarchies, and so on.
The typical mystical worldview is of all of existence as consciousness AKA the divine, Spirit, God, and so on. This can be inspiring and give us a useful context for the life of our human self in the world. Many signs – synchronicities, distance sensing and healing, and so on – fit with this assumption. (This is how it appears to me too, and where I would put my money, but I also know I cannot know for certain.)
What if the world doesn’t exist? What if it’s all some kind of virtual reality? It is possible, although it’s an assumption with some obvious practical pitfalls. It opens for a kind of nihilism that can create a lot of problems for this human self in the world.
The modern materialistic worldview is certainly also possible. Matter comes first, and consciousness somehow is created from it. Our experience of ourselves and our nature would be the same. We are still consciousness to ourselves, and the world as it appears to us happens within and as that consciousness.
The upside of allowing for this view is that it matches the mainstream academic worldview, and that of many people in the world today. It allows for curiosity about our nature and awakening even among those who subscribe to a materialistic worldview. In a practical sense, for our life, I find it’s actually a pretty good guideline. It means we need to be good stewards of our life.
The downside is that it’s a pretty strong assumption without much to back it up, and the question of how consciousness appears from matter seems almost impossible to solve (at least as of now). It also doesn’t account for synchronicities, sensing and healing at a distance, and similar well-known phenomena.
SENSE FIELDS & INQUIRY
All of these assumptions are mental images and words. They are created by and happen within the sense fields.
In a sense, that’s more important than the content of the different assumptions. When I recognize them as mental representations, it’s easier to see them for what they are.
They are guesses about the world. They help me orient and navigate in the world. They don’t reflect any full, absolute, or final truth. Reality is different from and more than any of them.
They also have an effect. If I use them as guides, how do they influence my perception and life? If I hold them as true, what happens? How do I live my life?
I find the Kiloby Inquiries (sense field explorations) and The Work of Byron Katie (identifying and exploring assumptions) helpful for this exploration.
I also notice that all of these assumptions co-exist in me as questions about the world, and one or another comes to the foreground at different times, often according to what seems appropriate or helpful in the situation.
WHY DON’T MORE SPEAK ABOUT THIS?
To me, it seems pretty clear that I cannot say anything for certain about the nature of existence itself, and it’s also irrelevant for most – if not all – of my life. It seems far more doable and interesting to explore my own nature and how it is to live from and as that noticing.
It also seems pretty clear that all of the many perspectives about the nature of existence itself have value and limitations, and it makes sense to explore each one and find some fluidity between them.
So why isn’t this talked about more often?
Maybe it is, I just happen to not know. Because of my illness, I dropped out of this world – where people write and talk about these things – almost two decades ago.
Not knowing is central to some traditions, like Zen. We cannot know anything for certain, including the nature of all of existence. We can only explore our own nature and how it all appears to us.
Some may be familiar with it, but don’t see it as fascinating or important in a practical sense. (I find it both fascinating and practical.)
For some, it may be too obvious so it’s not interesting to talk about. That’s how it is for me if it stays at a general level, although I find it interesting to explore in my own experience.
Maybe this is a more modern view and many still like to adhere to traditions. (To me, it’s more about what seems to work for me.)
For some, it may be easier to make assumption about the nature of existence itself, although that seems at odds with what awakening reveals. In my experience, awakening reveals that I cannot know anything for certain, especially not about something I don’t have a direct experience of.
I can explore my own nature. I can notice that the world, to me, appears as consciousness since it appears within and as the consciousness I am. I know I cannot know anything for certain about the nature of existence itself.
I am from a conservative family, and I am in many ways very conservative.
WHAT DOES CONSERVATIVE MEAN?
First, what does it mean to have a conservative orientation? What’s the essence of it?
For me, it’s to preserve what’s valuable, meaningful, and essential for us collectively.
How am I conservative in that essential meaning?
MY FORM OF CONSERVATISM
I can find many things I see as important to conserve, preserve, and protect.
I wholeheartedly support preserving cultures, especially marginalized and indigenous cultures. I want to see them alive and thriving.
I am all for preserving languages, especially small or indigenous languages.
I love traditional knowledge and wisdom, especially from indigenous cultures.
I am all for taking care of nature and our local, regional, and global ecosystems. We are nature, so taking care of nature is to take care of ourselves and future generations.
I love science. I love the methods of science. (Of course, I also know that the content of science is always up for revision and always changing. What’s mainstream science today is outdated tomorrow.)
I love history. I love how history changes when we change. I love the lessons that can be learned from history. (For instance, when the pandemic happened, I was not surprised it happened, or the measures put in place, or the conspiracy theories that flourished. I knew it was roughly time for the next one. I also know the history of medicine and epidemiology and what works when we have pandemics, so I was not surprised by the common-sense measures that most governments put in place. They are what history shows us works. And pandemics and other times of crisis tend to fuel conspiracy theories. That’s how some people deal with their fear.)
I support giving a voice to the voiceless – to future generations, nature, and non-human species. I support strong laws protecting these. I support appointing people to speak for them, and who have real power and are backed by the law. This may help them in the future, and it will certainly help us now by giving us a more sound guide than many of the ones we are currently using.
I want to preserve humanity and our civilization, which is why I support a profound transformation of all aspects of our civilization. Our current civilization is ecocidal and suicidal since it assumes nature is infinite. A sustainable civilization takes the limits of nature into account so what’s easy and attractive to do is also ecologically sound. This has to happen if we are to preserve humanity and our culture.
Even if I want a profound transformation of our civilization, I want it partly so we can preserve all the beautiful and wonderful things in our civilization. I don’t want it to be lost quite yet. I want more generations to be able to enjoy it.
I also want a transformation that comes from our collective will. A good portion of us need to be on board with it for it to happen.
TRANSFORMATION IS SOMETIMES REQUIRED FOR PRESERVATION
These days, with our global ecological crisis, transformation is essential for preservation.
We have a civilization that assumes nature is infinite and disregards ecological realities. That’s an ecocidal and suicidal civilization. To preserve humanity, culture, and life as we know it, we need a profound transformation of all aspects of our civilization. We need to create a more life-centered and ecologically sound civilization.
In this case, preserving what’s most important to us means we need a thorough transformation.
IN A MORE CONVENTIONAL SENSE
In a more conventional sense, and as how most people would label it, I am not very conservative.
I am liberal and progressive in my views on society. (I love Woke and see it as essential to creating a society that works better for everyone.) Green when it comes to politics. (I am a member of the Green Party in Norway). Radical in that I see a profound transformation of our civilization as necessary for our survival. And conservative in the essential ways described above.
All of it is true and more.
ALL IS PART OF ME
In terms of my conscious orientation, and in a conventional sense, I am not conservative.
At the same time, the world is my mirror and I have what I see in conservatives in myself.
Many views and orientations are conventionally labeled conservatism. Often, it has to do with preserving privilege – white privilege, male privilege, the privilege of mainstream culture, the privilege of money and status, and so on. To me, this is a less savory expression of conservatism.
Whatever it is, it’s something I can find in myself. Whatever story I have about conservatives in the world – Trump, Thatcher, Milei – I can turn it to myself and find specific and genuine examples of how it’s true, including in the moment I have these stories about someone else.
TOUNGE-IN-CHEEK?
The initial description of how I am conservative is slightly tongue-in-cheek, and it’s also not.
I am fully aware that the list I gave above goes counter to most forms of conservatism. If conservatism often is about preserving privilege, what I listed is far more oriented toward supporting the marginalized and voiceless. (I also love to redefine common words and labels so they go more to their essence and require a second or third look.)
At the same time, I do see it as aligned with the essence of real conservatism: preserving what’s most important to us.
And I know I have it all in me, all forms of conservatism and more.
I often get a bit confused when people ask me this question.
Do they mean it sincerely? Is it just a polite phrase?
Which aspect of the immensely rich world that’s here now should I highlight and put words on?
Often, I default to “pretty good” and I may add a couple of things happening in my life. If they share from their own life and/or seem interested in what’s happening here, I may share more.
Sometimes, something in me – an old wound – may be triggered and I may share something about that.
THE DIFFERENT ASPECTS HERE
The reality is that too much is happening at once.
As what I am – as consciousness forming itself into all of it – it’s fine. It’s one taste as they say.
Unless attention is distracted by something else, a painful story, there is a quiet joy here from my nature noticing itself.
As a human self, there are innumerable parts here all experiencing this human self and the world in different ways. Just like in parts work, I can put attention on any one of these and speak from or about this part of me.
If a wound is triggered in me, then that part of me is typically more in the foreground. Sometimes, it’s tempting to put words on what’s happening, whether I speak as if I were that part (less mature) or I speak about it and what I notice (more mature).
There is an immense richness here and attention determines what has focus and comes more into the foreground.
HOW OTHERS MAY SEE IT
Others may take what I happen to put words on as (more or less) the whole, especially if they have not examined this for themselves.
If they have, they know that what’s highlighted is just one part of an immensely rich world. They may also know that it’s all very likely happening within and as consciousness for me. It’s all already one taste, whether I notice or not.
Considering that others may over-emphasize what I happen to put words on, it’s good to be somewhat conscious about what I focus on and how I frame it.
HOW I SEE OTHERS
This is similar to how I see others.
I know they are far more than whatever they happen to mention. Their life is far more rich. Their psyche is far more rich. Who and what they are – as a human and consciousness – is far more rich.
I know that there is the potential for healing and finding wholeness. I know how it may look and how they may relate to whatever they talk about from healing and wholeness.
I know they, to themselves, very likely are consciousness just as I am. I know their world happens within and as the consciousness they are, whether they notice it or not. There is one taste, even if they may not notice.
Here too, my attention determines what’s in focus for me of all of this and what comes into the foreground for me about the other. Attention is a big part of my perception.
Note: This topic came to mind and I remembered an article I wrote on this topic a while back, in 2008. I chose a slightly different angle here to mix it up and add something to it.
The image is by me and Midjourney and I am not aware of a strong connection between the image and the topic of this article, apart from that it looks a bit like a trickster and consciously playing with facets of who and what we are is a little tricksterish.
I asked ChatGPT 4o for a list of common mystical experiences. The result is pretty good, so I thought I would share it here with some comments. In the section below, the responses from ChatGPT is in regular font, and my comments are in italics.
CHAT GPT 4o ON MYSTICAL EXPERIENCES
Mystics, across different cultures and religious traditions, often share certain common experiences in their spiritual journeys. Here is a list of experiences commonly reported by mystics:
Union with the Divine: Mystics often describe a profound sense of unity or oneness with God, the universe, or the divine essence, transcending the sense of individual self.
Yes, accurate. In our own first-person experience, we are consciousness and the world, to us, happens within and as the consciousness we are.
We can understand this in two ways. We can stay with our own immediate experience and acknowledge that the nature of reality itself may not be the same as our own nature. (Small or psychological understanding.) The other option is to assume that the nature of reality is the same as our nature. (Big or spiritual understanding.)
Ineffability: Mystical experiences are frequently described as being beyond words or ordinary language, leaving mystics struggling to convey the depth of their experience.
Yes, although that’s how it is with everything. Words are pointers. The reason language works for everyday situations is that we have shared experiences and knowledge to draw on. The reason it seems more difficult to talk about awakening is because many don’t have a reference from their own experience.
Intense Inner Peace: Many mystics report a deep and abiding sense of peace, calm, and tranquility, often described as a peace that surpasses understanding.
Hm, yes sort of. Our nature is inherently still, silent, and peace, and that stillness sometimes takes the form of movement (anything that moves in our experience), the silence sometimes takes the form of sound (any sound that’s here), the peace sometimes takes the form of unrest.
Direct Revelation or Insight: Mystics often experience sudden and profound insights or revelations about the nature of reality, life, or the divine, often described as an inner knowing.
That certainly has happened for me. In the days, weeks, months, and years after the initial oneness shift – when I was sixteen – there was an enormous and continuous flood of insights and things I noticed. The essence of what I write about here, in most of the articles, is the same as what I noticed and explored then. These are insights that come from direct noticing. Our nature reveals itself to itself.
Timelessness: During mystical experiences, time may seem to stop, stretch, or become irrelevant, as mystics experience an eternal now or a moment outside of ordinary time.
I find myself as what any content of experience happens within and as, including time and space and whatever happens within time and space. My nature is timeless and sometimes takes the form of change and ideas of time and of past, future, and present. It’s all happening within the timelessness I am, within the timeless now, or however we want to talk about it.
Altered Perception of Reality: Mystics may perceive the world in a profoundly different way, seeing through illusions or experiencing the world as interconnected and sacred.
Yes, in a few different ways. The oneness we are notices itself, the world to us happens within and as the oneness we are, so it will inevitably appear as one, as a seamless whole. It also appears as consciousness, so we may call it the divine, Spirit, Brahman, or similar. (Big understanding.)
I got deeply into systems and holistic views on the world for one or two years before the initial oneness shift. Maybe I intuited the oneness, or it contributed to the shift, or both. (Two important books at that time were The Turning Point by Fritjof Capra and the Norwegian Bak Tid og Rom by Erik Damman.)
Ecstasy or Bliss: Many mystical experiences involve feelings of intense joy, bliss, or ecstasy, sometimes described as a rapturous connection with the divine.
For me, this happened for the first several years into the oneness shift. It was far better than any physical pleasure, and my psyche got a bit attached to it. It was far into the foreground at this time, and then went more into the background. These days, I still notice it although at a low volume. It seems inherent in my nature, or – at least – what happens when my nature notices itself.
I would describe it as a quiet joy independent of whatever else is going on here, although if another experience is more in the foreground, it takes a little more intention and attention to notice it.
Loss of Ego or Self: Mystics often report a dissolution or transcendence of the ego, where the sense of being a separate individual melts away, leaving only the presence of the divine.
There is a lot to differentiate here. This is the essence: This human self is still here with it’s psyche and operating system. It’s just that it’s not what I more fundamentally am.
In the same way, mental representations of an I, a me, a doer, an observer, and so on can be here, and they help this human self function and operate in the world, and they are not what I more fundamentally am.
Visions and Auditory Experiences: Some mystics report seeing visions or hearing voices that provide spiritual guidance or insight, often associated with a particular religious or spiritual tradition.
Yes, I mostly know this from reports from others. As the AI suggests, the form this takes often reflects elements from the specific religion or tradition the person – the psyche – is familiar with and invested in.
Mystical Death and Rebirth: Mystics may undergo a symbolic death and rebirth, where old aspects of the self die, and they emerge with a new sense of identity or purpose.
This can happen several times on our journey and take different forms. This includes death of identifications and maybe also familiar identities, and that what moves us shifts.
Divine Love: A profound experience of divine love is a common theme, where mystics feel enveloped by an unconditional and all-encompassing love that flows from the divine.
When the oneness we are recognizes itself, there is a sense of love. Oneness loves itself as all its many appearances. We can invite our human self to rest and soak in this and the healing and transformation that happens. The Big Mind / Big Heart process is especially helpful here.
Sense of Sacredness: Mystics often perceive the world, including ordinary things and experiences, as imbued with a sacred quality or presence.
Whether we notice or not, the world – as it appears to us – happens within and as the consciousness we are. To us, the world is consciousness. Night dreams and waking life is the same here.
When we notice that the world, to us, is consciousness taking the forms of the world, it’s easy to call is sacred or the divine. We may intuit it and sense a sacred presence. We may recognize it more directly, and say its all the play of the divine.
We may also differentiate between a small and big understanding of this, and say that it inevitably appears this way to me, and I can’t say anything for certain about the nature of reality itself. I can only speak about my own nature.
Heightened Awareness of Paradoxes: Mystics frequently become aware of the coexistence of opposites, such as unity and diversity, or immanence and transcendence, and they often embrace these paradoxes as part of the mystical experience.
There are a couple of different things here. One is that we recognize the nature of thoughts more clearly. They are questions about the world. Their function is pragmatic and to help us orient and function in the world. They cannot hold any final, full, or absolute truth. They all hold some validity, and often different kinds of validity in each case. Polarities are important since both ends of the polarity holds some validity. Acknowledging this gives us a slightly fuller picture and it helps us shift out of old positions.
That, in itself, is not a paradox. It’s just recognizing the nature of thoughts. That said, paradoxes can be experienced in the period following a oneness shift. We are shown that polar opposite thoughts each have validity, so it may appear as a paradox… if our mental field still operates from the assumption that thoughts can hold an absolute and exclusive truth. In my experience, the sense of paradox fades and goes away as the mental field reorganizes within oneness and recognizing the nature of thoughts.
Compassion and Universal Love: Following mystical experiences, many mystics develop an intense compassion for all living beings, feeling a deep connection and a sense of universal love that transcends individual differences.
We are oneness, so there is a natural love for what appears within and as this oneness. It’s a love independent of changing states and feelings. As they say in Zen, it’s the right hand removing a splinter from the left. It’s the love a healthy parent has for their child and which informs their actions even if they may not feel it in the moment.
As with our nature in general, it can be clouded over when a wound is triggered in our psyche, and if we get caught up in those dynamics for a while. That too is natural and part of the process.
Detachment from Material Concerns: Mystics often experience a detachment from material possessions, social status, or worldly concerns, finding fulfillment in the spiritual or inner life instead.
Again, it’s complex. Yes, there is a release of trying to find ultimate fulfillment in possessions, admiration, acceptance from others, and so on. Although parts of our psyche may still operate in this way and that will color our perception and life.
Also, it’s important to be a good steward of one’s own life, as Adyashanti puts it, and that includes taking care of the basics in terms of housing, food, and so on, and also set up a material life that’s comfortable and enjoyable for this human self.
Feeling of Being Guided or Led: Many mystics report a strong sense of being guided by a higher power or inner wisdom in their spiritual journey, often accompanied by a trust in the unfolding of life.
I often have a clear inner guidance on smaller and bigger things in life, a quiet voice that’s there when I check in. I haven’t always followed it, especially if deep wounds and traumas come up. And if thoughts say it’s a big decision, I may not always sense it clearly since it can get mixed up with more personal voices of hopes and fears.
I have also experienced situations where I wonder about being led in a different way. For instance, the way I met my wife has elements of prayer (I prayed for a profound shift in my life), timely coincidences (she was in Norway when I was in New York, and I commented on one of her posts on social media), and a precognitive dream (in my teens, I dreamt I lived in Northern South America and was involved with a local school, and that school from the dream is one of our closest neighbors to where we live now.)
Sacred Synchronicities: Mystics sometimes notice meaningful coincidences or synchronicities that seem to reflect the interconnectedness of all things and the divine orchestration of events.
I have had periods with an immense amount of astonishing synchronicities. I take these as a reminder of the oneness of existence, and sometimes as encouragements on specific things in life.
Spiritual Purification: Mystical experiences are often accompanied by a process of inner purification, where negative emotions, thoughts, or attachments are cleansed, leading to greater spiritual clarity.
Ah yes. I don’t like the words “negative” and “positive” here. I see it more as parts of me coming from wounds, trauma, and separation consciousness. And yes, they come to the surface. They come to be seen, felt, loved, and for them to recognize their nature – which is the same as mine.
This can be immensely challenging, especially if we have a good deal of trauma in our system and a lot of it comes up at once. I have gone through years of this and it has felt overwhelming and unbearable at times, although it is – of course – bearable, I am still here. And it is possible to learn to relate to it in a more skillful way.
Inner Silence or Stillness: Mystics often describe experiencing a profound inner silence or stillness, where the mind becomes quiet and there is a deep sense of inner peace and clarity.
Our nature is inherently silence and stillness, and that silence and stillness sometimes takes the form sound and movement. The consciousness we are is inherently silent and still, takes the form of the experience of movement and sound, and the silence and stillness is still there.
As we rest in and as our nature recognizing itself, a few things may happen. In the short term, the noise and movement of the mind quiets down. Over time, our human self and psyche reorganizes within oneness noticing itself, and may find more healing and peace. We learn to notice the silence and stillness in the different experiences, including sounds and movement. And we find more peace with what’s here, including what – on the surface – may seem very different from silence and stillness.
Awareness of a Deeper Reality: Mystics often become aware of a deeper reality beyond the physical world, sometimes described as a spiritual dimension, the divine ground of being, or the ultimate truth.
This is the metaphorical ground of my own being, which a thought may call consciousness and capacity.
No matter what being in the world I am connected with, in this case this particular human self, I am more fundamentally consciousness in my own first-person experience. I assume this is the case for all “conscious beings”. We are all fundamentally consciousness in our own experience, and the world – as it appears to us – happens within and as the consciousness we are.
Even more fundamentally, I find I am capacity for it all. My nature is capacity for consciousness and all the different forms this consciousness takes.
Whether the nature of all of existence is the same as my nature, I cannot know for certain.
Sense of Purpose or Mission: After mystical experiences, many mystics feel a strong sense of purpose or mission, often dedicated to serving others, spreading spiritual teachings, or living in alignment with divine will.
For me, this has taken the form of passion for life and sustainability. I worked full time with sustainability in Madison for a while, and am now engaged in a regeneration, reforestation, and food forest project in the Andes.
I also have a passion for healing and awakening, obviously, although I have only shared this with others at certain times in my life – giving lots of Breema sessions in Oregon for a few years, working at a clinic in California with inquiry and trauma work, and writing a bit here.
Unitive Consciousness: Mystics may experience a state of consciousness where they perceive all of existence as interconnected, with no separation between themselves, others, and the divine.
To me, the world happens within and as what I am. The consciousness I am forms itself into the experience of all of it. Any boundary comes from the mental field and is not inherent in the world.
Altered Sense of Self-Identity: Mystics often undergo a transformation in their sense of self, where their identity expands to include a greater sense of connection with the divine or the cosmos.
My long-term fascination with the Universe Story, the Great Story, Epic of Evolution, Deep Ecology, and the Practices to Reconnect comes from this. These are approaches that reflect my perception of the oneness of it all, and helps me find a language to communicate it.
Non-Dual Awareness: A common mystical experience is non-duality, where the mystic perceives reality without the usual distinctions between self and other, subject and object, or good and bad.
This has to do with the nature of thoughts. Thoughts are questions about the world, they each have some validity, they each have limited validity, they cannot hold any final or full truth, and reality is always more than and different from any thought. It’s often helpful to find the limited validity in polar opposite thoughts, and none of it is inherent in what they apparently point to.
Also, all of this – the mental representations and what they apparently point to – happens within and as what I more fundamentally am.
Experiences of Light: Many mystics report experiences of divine light, which may be perceived as an inner illumination or as a vision of radiant, transcendent light representing the divine presence.
I often have this when I invite in healing and during prayer. It’s as if this body and the world reveals itself as golden light.
Overwhelming Awe or Reverence: Mystical experiences can provoke a profound sense of awe or reverence towards the mystery and majesty of the divine or the universe, leaving the mystic deeply humbled.
Yes, again, this happened most strongly in the years following the initial oneness shift. A profound sense of awe, humility, and gratitude – for existence itself. It’s still here but more part of the landscape.
Encounter with the Numinous: Mystics often describe encounters with a powerful, mysterious presence, sometimes referred to as the numinous, which evokes a deep sense of the sacred.
For me, this happened very strongly in the years following the initial oneness shift. It’s also very palpable when I engage in more heart-centered practices like the Jesus/Heart prayer, Christ meditation, and tonglen.
Transformation of Ordinary Life: Following mystical experiences, mystics often find that their ordinary life is transformed, with everyday activities and interactions taking on new meaning and significance.
Yes, because it all happens within and as the consciousness I am. It’s all the divine expressing, exploring,and experiencing itself – through and as this human self and his life in the world, through and as what’s here and now.
Resistance and Trials: Some mystics experience spiritual trials, dark nights of the soul, or resistance as part of their journey, often seen as necessary for spiritual growth and deepening their connection with the divine.
Oh yes. I have gone through very dark periods and dark nights of the soul, and am still partly in one of them. For me, a big part of the more recent one – the one that started fifteen or so year ago – has to do with trauma. Trauma is surfacing to be seen, felt, befriended, recognized as love, and recognized as having the same nature as me.
Mystical Integration: Over time, mystics work to integrate their mystical experiences into their everyday lives, finding a balance between the transcendent and the ordinary, and living in harmony with their spiritual insights.
Yes, although I would phrase it differently. One side of it is recognizing that this human self and the world already happens within and as what I more fundamentally am. Another is inviting this human self to transform and reorganize – AKA heal and mature – within oneness recognizing itself. And yet another is living from it here and now, in this situation.
If we are to talk about integration, it’s perhaps more accurate to say that this human self and life is integrated into the oneness I am.
In my case, there is a lot further to go, especially since this human self has a lot of trauma.
These experiences can vary widely in intensity and interpretation, depending on the cultural, religious, and personal context of the mystic. However, they all point toward a profound and transformative connection with a deeper, often divine, reality.
…This is the end of the text from ChatGPT and my responses…
MYSTICISM IS A VERB
To tie this in with the quote from Stephen Fry in a recent post: Mysticism is a verb. It’s an activity. It’s our nature exploring itself. It’s something we all can do, with a little bit of guidance, curiosity, and dedication.
My nature has – or is – the characteristics of consciousness.
In the realm of stories and time, this is quite familiar to me. It’s a familiar terrain.
At the same time, it’s endlessly fascinating and only in this endless moment.
WHO AND WHAT I AM
At one level, and in a conventional sense, I am this human self in the world with identities, roles, and so on. That’s how most others see me, it’s what my passport tells me, and it’s a perspective that’s essential for me to have if I am to function in the world.
To myself, in my own first-person experience, I find something else. I find I more fundamentally am what it all – this human self, the wider world, and all states and experiences – happens within and as.
I am what a thought may call consciousness, and the world to me happens within and as the consciousness I am.
Even more fundamentally, I find I am capacity for consciousness and all the phenomena and appearances the consciousness I am forms itself into.
SOME CHARACTERISTICS OF MY NATURE
My nature has several characteristics.
It’s all I have ever known. All I have known is my nature forming itself into any and all content of experience.
This content of experience includes any sense of a me, I, doer, observer, and so on, and any tendency to take myself as fundamentally that. It all happens within and as what I am.
My nature is timeless and spaceless and forms itself any experience related to time and space.
My nature has no boundary in space, and no beginning in time, and forms itself into any experience of boundaries, beginnings, and ends.
My nature is one, it’s a oneness that all content of experience and all apparently boundaries and separations happen within and as.
My nature has an inherent awakeness, which I assume is the awakeness in all consciousnesses. It’s not special in that sense. Whether my nature notices itself or is caught up in stories, the awakeness is here and the same.
When the consciousness I am notices itself, and itself as all there is to itself, there is a quiet joy in the background.
BRINGING IN MENTAL OVERLAYS AND MY HUMAN SELF
The sense of boundaries, separation, time, a self, a me, an I, an observer, a doer and so on all comes from the mental field creating maps, images, and stories to help this human self function and orient in the world. These are very helpful. They are questions about the world. They cannot hold any final, full, or absolute truth.
When this human self operates within my nature recognizing itself, there is a love for all. It’s the love of the left hand removing a splinter from the right, and it’s independent of feelings or states. It’s also a love that can easily be clouded over by the hangups, biases, and habits of this human self.
Some parts of the psyche of this human self still operate from separation consciousness. They were formed within a global sense of separation and still operate from within that worldview. These too have the same nature. They are consciousness and awakeness forming itself into these. There seems to be a natural shift over time from being caught up in the painful stories within these parts of the psyche to more easily recognizing them as happening within and as my nature.
A FEW MORE THINGS
There are a few more characteristics of my nature recognizing itself:
When this human self moves through the world, the world moves through me, it moves through this awake space it all happens within and as.
There is no real distance to anything, apart from in a conventional sense. It’s all happening within and as what I am, and this human self can still operate with distance and function within space.
There is no real time, apart from in a conventional sense. Time happens within the timeless nature I am, and this human self still operates with and within time.
Where the physical body of this human self is, I find awake space with a few sensations, sights, and mental images.
There is an island of phenomena – this human self and his surroundings – happening within his awake space with no boundary.
DOES IT SOLVE OR RESOLVE ANYTHING?
Does it solve or resolve anything when my nature notices itself?
It’s mixed.
There is a profound sense of recognition, coming home, stillness, and rest, so – in a sense – it “solves” some things there.
It does not magically fix anything in a practical daily life sense. For this human self, there is still daily life with things to do.
It gives a completely different context for it all, which does solve something.
It invites my human self to transform within this new noticing, which is profoundly challenging and welcomed.
It does seem to help my human self relate to itself and the many different parts of the psyche with a little more kindness.
It’s what I am taking the shifting forms of all of it – any content of experience, my nature recognizing itself, my nature not recognizing itself and being caught up in stories, being on a path of noticing my nature and inviting this human self to transform itself within it and live from and as it, and so on.
NOTES
I could say “my nature HAS the characteristics of consciousness” which would be accurate enough and more aligned with how most would talk about it. I prefer to say that it IS the characteristics of consciousness since it’s more accurate. What I am is not separate from these characteristics, it IS these characteristics and everything else too.
Also, as usual when I write “I” it variously refers to who or what I am, my human self or my more fundamental nature. It’s fluid in life so it’s a bit fluid in this writing too.
The image is created by me and Midjourney, and it’s only for decorative reasons.
Some folks talk about no self, and I do too in some of these articles.
It can be a helpful shorthand, and it can also be a little misleading.
Here is a more differentiated view that fits more closely with my experience.
THIS HUMAN SELF
There is a self in a conventional sense.
To others and the world, there is a human self here.
Even here, there is a human self here. There are sensations, sounds, smells, tastes, thoughts, and so on that my mental field organizes into a human self. That organization is required for this human self to function in the world.
It’s amazing and beautiful, and remarkable that it’s even possible. It’s not something to be taken for granted at all. In the realm of time and stories, it’s here for only a short time, so let’s appreciate it while it’s here.
NOT WHAT I MORE FUNDAMENTALLY AM
It’s also not what I more fundamentally am.
In my own first-person experience, this self – and anything else within the content of experience – happens within and as what I more fundamentally am.
I find myself as what a thought may call consciousness, and the world to me happens within and as this consciousness that I am. Anything related to this human self, including any ideas of a doer or observer, happens within and as what I am.
It comes and goes as anything else the consciousness I am forms itself into.
WHEN THE NO-SELF ASPECT OF MY NATURE COMES TO THE FOREGROUND
There is a third side to this, and that is that the no-self aspect of my nature sometimes comes stronger into the foreground.
For me, that happened during the initial oneness shift in my teens. The oneness aspect of it all came very strongly into the foreground and it showed very clearly that any sense of a self – any sense of an I, me, doer, observer, and so on – is not what I more fundamentally am. This lasted, in terms of time, for years.
Another time it came strongly into the foreground, although in a different way, was in my mid-thirties. The metaphorical volume button on the no-self aspect of my nature was turned strongly up for about six months.
It has also happened many other times, although in terms of conventional time, for just days or hours or even minutes.
As I see it, these shifts – and these phases when it comes strongly into the foreground – are life’s way of showing aspects of itself to itself. When the metaphorical volume button on it is turned up, it’s a way for life to consciously get more used to it and familiar with it, and even more so when it lasts for a while.
HOW WE TALK ABOUT IT
This is, obviously, about our immediate noticing and not primarily about words or how it’s reflected in mental representations.
Still, our words and how we talk about it matter.
If we mainly talk about no-self, it can be misunderstood and create ideas telling us we should negate any sense of self, and this can get weird and out of line with our direct perception.
To me, it makes more sense to talk about self and find genuine appreciation for it, along with pointing out that it’s not what I more fundamentally am. There is this wonderful and weird and sometimes confused and troublesome human self, and it’s not what I most fundamentally am in my own immediate perception.
THIS AMAZING HUMAN SELF AND SENSE OF SELF
This human self – and any mental representations of a me, I, identities and so on – is amazing, beautiful, and wonderous. It’s a miracle just like anything is a miracle.
It’s complex and finely tuned, it has amazing feedback mechanisms. It can function in the world in amazingly complex ways.
The way any sense of self is constructed is similarly miraculous. What’s happening in the sense fields – physical sensations, sight, sound, taste, smell – is woven together by the mental field, which also adds to it a large number of identities, memories, and so on.
As is how there can be identification with these ideas or not. Sometimes, these ideas are held as true and reflecting reality, and there is identification with and as the viewpoint of these ideas. There is a sense of being an object within the context of experience, and I with an Other. Other times, there is a temporary shift out of these identifications – or a more thorough softening or release of them – and our nature recognizes itself more clearly.
All of it is a miracle of nature. And it’s not what I more fundamentally am.
That allows me to find an even deeper appreciation for it. More precisely, it allows my human self – within this context of my nature recognizing itself – to find a deeper appreciation for itself.
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.
I usually mention this in the context of something else, mainly since this side of it is quite simple, and the human side is far more complex and – in many ways – interesting.
FAMILIARITY
It’s also something quite familiar to me.
In one sense, it’s all we have ever known so it’s inevitably familiar.
It’s also what I was between lives, which stayed with me into this – and came to the foreground in strong flashbacks in my childhood.
It’s what was revealed strongly in the initial oneness shift.
It’s what I have kept noticing since.
Aspects of my nature have come strongly into the foreground in different phases of the process.
It’s also what I have explored more thoroughly through meditation and different forms of inquiry – the Big Mind process, sense field explorations, the Kiloby inquiries, and so on.
A FEW CHARACTERISTICS
As what I am in my own first-person experience, I find…
My nature is capacity for what’s here – whether it’s what a thought labels consciousness, awakeness, states, anything related to this human self (dullness, confusion, clarity, sadness, joy, etc.) and the wider world as it appears to me, or anything else.
It has an inherent awakeness, which – I assume – is the normal awakeness inherent in any consciousness.
It has no beginning or end in space. It’s what allows the experience of space to appear.
It has no beginning or end in time. It’s what allows any ideas of beginnings and ends of time and in time to appear.
What I am forms itself into any and all content of experience. It forms itself into what’s here – these hands typing, the computer, the sounds of the birds and cars in the distance, ideas of past and future and present, ideas of space and extent, ideas of this human self, and so on.
Night dreams and waking life both happen within and as what I am, so it all has a kind of dreamlike quality. It’s all made up of the consciousness I am.
THIS HUMAN SELF
This human self responds to this as it responds to anything else, and how it responds to it varies with circumstances and changes over time.
There is a kind of getting used to it and, maybe, maturing into and as it.
Also, many parts of this human self were formed from and within separation consciousness, largely through mimicking others in childhood. Many of these are still here and it’s an ongoing process for these to surface, be seen – and loved, examined, reacted to and struggled with, and so on – and eventually realign and reorganize more within my nature noticing itself.
ONGOING EXPLORATION
There is always more to explore – in my nature, in this human self, in how this human self relates to it and lives from and as it or not.
My nature explores itself by expressing and experiencing itself in always new ways, as the experience that’s here.
And it also consciously explores itself, through these explorations I write about here,
It requires a lot of mental gymnastics to talk about anything at all, and talking about who and what I am is no exception.
THE WHO & WHAT DISTINCTION
In this context, “who” and “what” refer to two different things.
“Who I am” refers to this human self.
“What I am” refers to what I more fundamentally am in my first-person experience – what my field of experience happens within and as. (A thought may call this consciousness.)
This is a sometimes useful distinction, and it’s created by my mental field as all distinctions are.
MENTAL GYMNASTICS
What are some of these mental gymnastics? What’s required to distinguish between who and what I am?
(A) There is what’s here in immediacy which is simpler than any words. If I were to put words on it, it would be a “seamless whole”, although even that’s a bit too much. This is the first mental gymnastics and the first distinction.
(B) Then there is a distinction between what I more fundamentally am (AKA consciousness) and what it forms itself into (the field of experience). In immediacy, there is no such distinction. It only appears when my mental field creates that distinction in order to communicate and explore certain things.
(C) Then, there is a distinction within this field of experience between this human self and the wider world, into me and not-me. In reality, the field of experience is seamless so it requires quite a bit to differentiate out these two.
USEFUL MENTAL GYMNASTICS
These distinctions are sometimes useful. As I mentioned above, they help me communicate with myself and others, and they help with certain types of explorations. (Although I sometimes wonder how useful some of those explorations are!)
It’s also helpful to notice that these are mental gymnastics. What they refer to is far more simple and immediate and words cannot really touch it1.
It’s also interesting to notice how much energy all of this takes! It doesn’t come for free.
A FEW MORE WORDS
There is always more to say about this.
For instance, I can imagine further distinctions: (a) Seamless whole. (b) Calling it consciousness. (c) The field of experience it forms itself into. And (d) it as capacity for all of it, capacity for itself.
Capacity is inherent in what I am, it seems, just like the rest.
NOTES
(1) Just like words cannot really touch anything they refer to. This is inherent in words, not what they point to. More accurately, it’s inherent in the difference between the mental field (mental images and words) and what they point to.
If what’s happening is divine will, why would I try to change it? Why would I pray for change?
Someone asked that question in a social media group for a healing modality I am involved in.
PRAGMATIC ANSWER
There is a simple pragmatic answer.
I am part of the world and the situations in my life, so whatever I do is inevitably changing it all1. Whether I try to do nothing or something, I am still embedded in it. So why not aim at changing something if that’s what I am drawn to? Why not aim at shifting situations in a way that seems kind, sane, and maybe even a bit wise?
Why not aim at shifting situations, even if I don’t know the outcome and even if I don’t know the full situation and have hangups and biases. That’s how life is anyway. That’s how it’s all set up. So I may as well willingly and intentionally play my role.
IN IMMEDIATE NOTICING
I can also answer the question more literally.
For me, this is easier if I bring it back to my immediate experience.
This field of experience happens within and as what I am.
The wider world, situations, this human self, anything connected with this human self – it all happens within and as what I am.
It’s all happening within and as the consciousness I am. It’s the consciousness I am forming itself into all of it. It all lives its own life.
Whatever this human self does is not more or less happening within and as what I am than anything else.
THE DIVINE INCLUDES US
It’s also possible to use the language of the question and explore it from there.
In this case, the question contains its answer. If what’s happening is divine will, all of it is divine will – including us trying to change something. Nothing is excluded.
It’s all happening within and as the divine – the situation, us, whatever we do or don’t do.
We are the divine changing something within itself. It’s all the play of the divine.
STEPPING OUTSIDE OF THE MINDSET IT’S ASKED FROM
Often, the mindset a question is asked from is what prevents us from exploring it more satisfyingly. Stepping outside of the mindset in a certain way may even allow the question to fall away. It doesn’t make sense anymore.
The question was framed as a question about reality, slightly removed from our daily life. The pragmatic answer steps out of that frame and brings it back to our daily life.
The second answer is from my immediate experience. This too steps out of the framework of the question. The question was about the nature of reality, and I brought it back to what I notice here and now.
The third answer is a more literal answer to the question. Even here, we step out of the frame of the question. The question assumes duality and the answer comes from a view of all as the divine.
THE ESSENCE
These are a lot of words, although the essence is simple:
To explore a question satisfyingly, we often need to step outside of the frame of the question, one way or another.
The pragmatic answer to the question is: I am inevitably part of the world and the situations in my life, so why not play the game willingly and intentionally and try to be a good steward of my life?
And there are two more literal answers:
To me, this field of experience – the wider world, situations, this human self – happens within and as what I am.
Said another way: It’s all the divine, including me trying to make a change – or not – in the world. It’s all the play of the divine. There is no outside.
NOTES
(1) Even if I stay in a cabin in the woods or remove myself from this life, I am still impacting the situation, others, and the world. I cannot escape it since I am part of the fabric of life.
I have written about the Buddhist emptiness before and thought I would see what comes up for me now.
EMPTY OF SUBSTANCE AND SOLIDITY
The world to me, appears as consciousness. All content of experience is similar to a night dream. It’s empty of substance. It’s ephemeral. (To myself, I am consciousness, and the world to me happens within and as the consciousness I am, so the world inevitably appears as consciousness.)
EMPTY OF A FUNDAMENTAL SELF
Then, there is a noticing that comes from comparing images of what’s here to images of what was or could be. This is a mental comparison. Here, I notice that this content of experience is empty of a separate self. This field of experience happens within and as what I am. Anything that could be taken as a self – this human self and ideas of being a victim, a doer, an observer, and so on – all happens within and as what I am. All of it comes and goes. None of it is a fundamental self. The content of experience is empty of a fundamental self.
EMPTY OF WHAT MY IDEAS TELL ME ABOUT IT
There is another noticing that could be called emptiness. The world is inherently free of what my ideas tell me about it. It’s not touched by it. It cannot be captured by it. It’s different from and more than any idea I have about it, and also less.
Of course, in a conventional sense, a thought can be more or less accurate, and it’s important to use the more accurate ideas as a guide. Still, a thought cannot capture any final, full, or absolute truth. They are questions about the world.
A NAIVE APPROACH
This is just what comes up for me from that one word. It’s a naive approach and likely has little to do with how Buddhist teachings and teachers see emptiness. (Naive is not bad, it helps me notice what’s here for me instead of what “should” be according to some ideas about it.)
Awakening has traditionally been understood in a religious or spiritual context.
All of existence is Spirit and the divine, and the awakening is Spirit becoming conscious of itself and its nature locally. It’s Spirit locally conscious of itself while operating through the vehicle of this particular human self.
These days, it makes sense to also use a more secular understanding of awakening. We live in a more secular society, so why not see it in a secular context? After all, awakening and our nature is not going away.
I have written about this several times before so I’ll make it short.
OUR MORE FUNDAMENTAL NATURE
If we “have” consciousness, then what are we to ourselves? We are not primarily anything within consciousness, we are consciousness itself. There is no way around it. It has to be that way. Whether we notice or not, and independent of whatever conscious worldview we happen to use, to ourselves, we are primarily consciousness. Since the world, to us, happens within and as consciousness, it happens within and as the consciousness we are.
To ourselves, we are primarily conciousness.1 And the world – any content of consciousness – happens within and as the consciousness we are.
THE DREAMLIKE NATURE OF THE WORLD
That means that to us, the world is not so different from a dream. A dream happens within the consciousness we are while this human self is alseep. Waking life happens within and as the consciousness we are while this human self is awake.
ONENESS
Consciousess does not have boundaries. It doesn’t begin or end anywhere. It doesn’t have inherent dividing lines. There is no outside. It’s one. What we are is one. That means that the world, to us, is one whether we notice or not.
TRAINED ITSELF TO NOT NOTICE
Most of the time, the consciousness we are doesn’t notice this. It doesn’t need to. It trains itself to not notice, in a way, since most others don’t seem to notice. It trains itself to operate based on assumptions picked up from others: I am primarily this human self. Consciousness is a kind of add-on. Others and the world are separate from me. The world is more or less as it appears to me.
This is natural and innocent, and since the perception is out of alignment with reality, it comes with some inherent friction and discomfort.
WHEN WE NOTICE OUR NATURE
Sometimes, the consciousness we are may have glimpses of what it is and how the world, to it, is. We may feel or experience a connection with all. We may go into a flow state and forget our identity as this human self and of separation. This happens to many or most in daily life, at least now and then.
Occasionally, this is even more clear.2 There may be a shift so everything is revealed as consciousness. Consciousness becomes aware of itself as everything it’s experiencing and everything it has ever experienced. It becomes aware of itself as consciousness and of its world as happening within and as itself.
A SECULAR VIEW ON AWAKENING
Nothing “spiritual” is required to understand this. We don’t need to refer to God, the divine, Spirit, Brahman, or any of that.
We can understand it in a much more simple way, and a way that fits most (nearly all) worldviews: To ourselves, we are consciousness. The world, to us, happens within and as the consciousness we are.
Sometimes, the consciousness we are doesn’t notice itself. (It’s lost in identifying primarily as this human self, as something within the content of experience).
Sometimes, it recognizes itself. When it does, we call it awakening.
It’s all a process. It’s an exploration. It’s something we can keep clarifying, deepening into, become more familiar with, and mature into and within.3
THE ESSENCE OF EACH VIEW
What’s the essence of the secular and spiritual views on awakening?
To me, it has to do with our nature and the nature of reality itself.
Both views see our fundamental nature as consciousness. That’s not in question since it makes logical sense and is something we can check out for ourselves.
The difference is that the secular view does not make assumptions about the nature of reality itself. It leaves it open. The spiritual view, on the other hand, assumes that our nature – consciousness – is also the nature of reality itself and all there is.
COMPLEMENTARY VIEWS
The spiritual and secular views on awakening are complementary. They fill in what the other is missing, and they each have upsides and drawbacks.
The secular view is compatible with just about any worldview. It’s compatible with the view of Western science. It doesn’t rely on anything mystical or magical. It doesn’t rely on belief. It’s something we can check out for ourselves. It fits with the descriptions from people (mystics) throughout history and across traditions. It helps us find the lowest common denominators of awakening. It can give us a language independent of traditions, and that can help communication across traditions. It can help us find the essence of awakening. It keeps it simple, sober and grounded. It doesn’t say anything about the nature of reality itself and leaves it open. To me, these are all upsides. The downside is that it can seem a bit uninspiring to some.4
The spiritual view has more of a tradition. It may be more familiar to many. It may be more inspiring. On the other hand, it’s often bogged down in terminology, hierarchy, and misconceptions.
Which one is more accurate? The secular view is quite accurate in terms of our own experience and what we can check out for ourselves. And I suspect the spiritual one may be more accurate in the bigger picture. Many hints suggest it.5 (Although these can also be understood in other ways.)
NOTES
(1) I left out something that we even more fundamentally are. When we find ourselves as consciousness, we may also notice something else about our nature. At some level, I am this human self in the world. That’s an assumption that works well in daily life and I have to include it to function in the world. More fundamentally, and in my own first-person experience, I am consciousness. Even more fundamentally, I find I am capacity for it all. I am capacity for any and all of the experiences that are here. I am even capacity for consciousness itself.
(2) In my case, there was a dramatic shift when I was sixteen. Everything without exception was revealed as God or the divine. This human self and anything connected with it was the temporary and local play of the divine. That language was the language this human self used to make sense of it at the time. Today, I would more likely replace “God” and “the divine” with consciousness.
(3) This process is not always easy. For instance, for most of us, our psyche is formed within separation consciousness and it has wounds that operate from separation consciousness. To align with the reality of what we are (consciousness, oneness), these have to surface and be seen, felt, loved, and recognized as consciousness. The consciousness we are has to recognize itself as it. That’s not always an easy or comfortable process. Depending on how much trauma we have, it can be overwhelming, confusing, and we may not always deal with it gracefully. (Speaking from own experience here.)
(4) What are some of these hints? Sensing and healing at a distance, relatively solid reincarnation stories, undeniable chains of extraordinary synchronicities, and so on. None of these have been examined well enough by Western science yet. Each one can also be explained in other ways. Still, together, they suggest that the spiritual view on awakening may be accurate in the bigger picture.
(5) There are definitely ways to make it inspiring while still grounding it in modern science. We can, for instance, bring in the Universe Story and the Epic of Evolution. In the words of Carl Sagan: We are the universe bringing itself into consciousness. We are the local eyes, ears, thoughts, and feelings of the universe. We can call the wholeness of all there is for God.
I sometimes hear someone say that they healed this or that.
The question that comes up for me is: how do you know?
ASSUMING SOMETHING IS HEALED
Why would we assume something in us is healed?
It may just be a way to say it, and we know we don’t really know. We don’t nuance it because we know we and others know we can’t know.
It may feel more comforting to tell ourselves something is healed. We may feel we need that comfort.
We may not have enough experience to see how something may appear healed, and then it surfaces again – often in a slightly different form since a lot has changed in us between then and now.
UPSIDES AND DOWNSIDES OF THAT ASSUMPTION
There is an upside to telling ourselves something is healed. It may give us an extra boost and encouragement to keep going. It can give us the confidence we need in that situation.
The downside is that we tell ourselves something we cannot know for certain, and a part of us knows that. It may also make it extra challenging if or when an issue resurfaces, in a way it wouldn’t have been if we held it more as a question.
A RICHER VIEW
In my experience, there are typically layers to a wound, issue, or trauma. It has aspects and wrinkles that we discover over time.
What’s wounded is a part of me. Sometimes, a particular wounded part goes into the background for a while, and other parts – free of the issue – come more into the foreground.
It may be that one aspect of an issue is healed. And there are underlying issues and painful beliefs yet to be explored.
Any issue typically exists within a network of issues. To find a more real healing, we need to explore the network.
HOLDING IT MORE LIGHTLY
I prefer to keep it as a question.
It may appear that an issue is healed. It may be tempting to tell myself it’s healed. But I cannot know for certain.
To me, it’s more honest and comfortable to hold it more lightly. I may notice that a particular issue may not come up as often as before, or it may appear less strong than before. And I don’t really know what’s going on. I cannot know if it’s healed or not, or to what extent it’s healed.
All of that is hidden from me, and that’s fine. I don’t need to know. If it comes up, I’ll explore it. If it doesn’t, that’s fine too.
Why is it difficult to put awakening into words? Or anything related to our more fundamental nature?
There are a few different reasons.
IT’S NOT BECAUSE IT’S SO SPECIAL
It’s not because it’s unfamiliar, distant, or special, or for someone special.
It’s what’s already most familiar to us, whether we recognize it or not.
THE GIFTS & LIMITS OF LANGUAGE
Mental representations serve an important function. They help us orient and function in the world, and to communicate with ourselves and others.
They are questions about the world. They can serve as pointers.
At the same time, they have limits. Words cannot properly capture anything.
It’s the nature of words that makes it difficult to put our nature – and anything else – into words.
Our nature is not a special case.
WHEN WE ALREADY ARE THERE
Words and mental representations are maps.
They help us orient and navigate in the world, and they help us communicate with ourselves and others.
Say we have a map of a place we haven’t been to. The map can give us a rough and abstract sense of the place, but not much more. We fill it in with our imagination and past experience, and that imagination is bound to get a lot wrong. It’s bound to get everything a bit wrong, and some a lot wrong.
If we are there, then the map can help us explore it more in detail and discover more about it.
That’s another reason it’s difficult to put awakening into words. If someone is not there, no words are sufficient to describe or explain it. If someone is there, then words can help them explore new aspects within it.
Here, the limitations are in where we are, and that’s the same with everything. If we are familiar with it, then words can serve as practical pointers. If not, the words remain more abstract and we imagine more into it.
WORDS DIVIDE
Words operate on distinctions, they create imaginary boundaries and divisions. That’s how they are useful.
Our nature is one. It’s what forms itself into any and all of our experience, without exception. It’s all we have ever known.
That’s another reason why it’s difficult to put it into language.
Often, the best we can do is to say what it’s not and use poetic expressions to point to it.
IT’S NOT IN OUR SHARED CULTURE
If we lived in a culture where exploring our nature was common and a part of our culture, we would have more of a shared language for it.
In the Western world, we don’t live in that kind of culture (unless we are in the Bay Area!) and we don’t have a shared language, apart from what we borrow from other cultures and a few mystics from our own.
I am trying to talk about it in a language that’s natural to me, simple, mostly free of jargon, and that reflects my direct noticing as much as possible.
FAIL WELL?
I know I am bound to fail in trying to capture any of this in words.
In the best case, it may be slightly interesting, create a frame, or serve as a pointer or reminder.
It always falls short. That’s OK. That’s how it is.
There is a gift there. It’s a blessing that we cannot capture any of this – or anything at all – in words.
It leaves us with one option, and that is to experience it for ourselves. We have to explore the terrain for ourselves.
There is no substitute. The experience of others is not a substitute. Words – no matter how beautiful or apparently insightful – are no substitute.
That’s how I can attempt to fail well: I know words cannot capture it, and I know there is a beautiful blessing and pointer in just that.
I find I am fundamentally capacity for the world as it appears to me.
CAPACITY
I am fundamentally what allows any and all content in this field of experience.
This capacity is everywhere in my experience. It’s as if it’s inherent in all experience. It’s as if it forms itself into any experience.
It’s as if it makes itself into consciousness itself, which in turn makes itself into any experience.
NOTICING IT
There isn’t much to say about it. It’s just something to notice, and not even notice but kind of touching on noticing since this is not directly content of experience.
It’s always here. Sometimes, it comes to the foreground of attention. Sometimes, it’s more in the background while attention is on something else. (And even then, it’s kind of noticed.)
Sometimes, it’s even more in the foreground and everything else goes into the background. In my case, it happens during some shifts in meditation. And it also happens when there is consciousness through dreamless sleep.
TALKING ABOUT IT
Words come short in describing it, as words come short in describing anything. (Not because it’s so unusual or mysterious or unfamiliar, but because of the nature of thoughts. Thoughts can only point to something, they cannot capture it.)
When I look for words here and now, I can say it’s absolute stillness, a kind of absolute stillness that’s in and takes the form of everything.
NOT SPECIAL
It’s not special. I assume any “conscious being”, to themselves, are consciousness, and also are capacity in this way. It’s likely universal. It’s difficult to see that it can be any other way.
Here, it’s been consciously noticed for about 37 years so this human self is used to it. It’s familiar to this human self. That too makes it not so much to talk about.
IS IT IMPORTANT?
Is it important? It’s important since there would be no experience without it. It’s what allows any experience. It’s what takes the form of any experience. It’s even what seems to allow and take the form of consciousness itself. It’s kind of a scent that permeates everything.
Is it important to notice it? Or for it to kind of notice itself? Apparently not since it doesn’t seem to be something most consciousnesses focus much on. If it was important to life and existence, it would be noticed a lot more. It seems that it’s perfectly fine for it to be in the background and not consciously noticed or recognized so much.
For this consciousness, it’s fun and interesting to notice, and here too, it’s very rarely talked about. Very occasionally, there may be some words written to reflect it, and I don’t think I have talked to anyone about it unless briefly when it’s clear we both recognize it, as a kind of nod.
A FEW MORE WORDS
Finding myself as most fundamentally capacity also means I am not most fundamentally human. That’s fine. My human layer is one of many layers, and I am most fundamentally capacity for all of it. I am what forms itself into all of it.
Is this what Buddhists call emptiness? It may be. I see how the label could fit, but I prefer the word capacity which I think Douglas Harding used. It fits a bit more.
I used “as if” and “kind of” phrases above. I am sure I could find clearer ways of saying it, but it also works. It shows that the words here are just pointers and approximations. They are trying to reflect something that’s here in immediacy but is also a bit elusive.
I hardly ever use the word non-dual even if I have been familiar with it for a few decades. I prefer to describe my experience using more ordinary words.
So what does on-dual mean? What does it refer to?
ESSENCE
Here are a couple of versions:
Reality is a seamless whole. Only thoughts divide. And reality is always more than and different from any thought or set of thoughts.
To ourselves, we are consciuosness and the world to us happens within and as this consciousness. We are oneness and the world to us happens within and as that oneness. Again, thoughts divide and cannot capture the reality of what we are, or reality as it fundamentally appears to us.
We are non-dual and reality as it appears to us – before mind gets caught up in our stories about it – is non-dual.
WHAT DOES DUALITY REFER TO?
Another approach is to focus more explicitly on our relationship with thoughts.
Duality – the experience of duality – happens when our mind assigns exclusive truth to a thought.
This thought is true, that thought is false. Buddhism is true, Christianity is not. I am right, you are wrong. I am this human self and not the wider world. I am something within the content. of experience, and not what it all happens within and as.
Non-duality involves – but is not limited to – recognizing the limited validity in a range of different perspectives and stories, and seeing the bigger picture that holds them all.
HOW THE MIND RELATES TO THOUGHT
Said another way, this has to do with how the mind relates to thoughts.
If my mind gets caught up in holding thoughts as true, then duality is created.
When I recognize my own more fundamental nature, and the nature of thoughts, the non-dual is revealed.
It’s pretty simple, and yet there are innumerable wrinkles here which makes it interesting.
HOLDING THOUGHTS AS TRUE
What happens when my mind hold a thought as true?
The obvious is that I’ll perceive and act as if it’s true, to the extent possible.
Also, when my mind gets caught up in holding a thought as true, then an experience of duality is created.
Each thought creates a view, and the mind identifies with and as that view. A sense of I is created around the view. I become that particular view.
That, in turn, creates a sense of I and Other and identification with the former.
That’s how an experience of duality is created.
RECOGNIZE THE NATURE OF THOUGHTS
So what’s the nature of thoughts?
They are here to help us orient and navigate in the world. They have a pragmatic function. Their function is not to hold or reflect any final, full, or absolute truth.
They are pointers. They hold limited validity, and the way they are valid varies.
RECOGNIZE MY MORE FUNDAMENTAL NATURE
In one sense, I am this human self in the world. And when I look more closely, I find I more fundamentally am something else.
More fundamentally, and to myself, I am what my field of experience happens within and as.
A thought may call this consciousness. To myself, I am consciousness. And the world, to me, happens within and as the consciousness I am.
This involves a release of identification with content of experience, including a human self, doer, observer, and so on. And, more precisely, it involves a release of identification with mental representations of all of these things.
Here, it’s easier to recognize the nature of thoughts. Recognizing my more fundamental nature makes it easier to recognize the nature of thoughts. It’s easier to hold them all more lightly. To see that they have a pragmatic function only.
IN REAL LIFE: A MIX
In real life, it’s of course not always so clean cut and simple.
Our nature may generally rest in recognizing itself and thoughts are generally recognized for what they are. And at the same time, parts of our psyche holds onto certain (painful) thoughts as true. These are wounded and traumatized parts of us. And they inevitably color our perception and life.
We may also generally recognize or nature and the nature of thoughts, and sometimes more obviously get hijacked by painful thoughts and identifications.
Or there may be areas of life where we hold onto limited and painful thoughts and identifications, perhaps even without recognizing because it’s so familiar to us. It may be obvious to others but not so much to us, at least for a while.
MY EXPERIENCE
As I have mentioned a few times before, there were a couple of big shifts when this human self was in his teens.
The first one was when I was fifteen. Mid-day on January 1st, it was as if the world became distant. The whole field of experience became distant – the world, this human self, emotions, thoughts, everything. Later, I understood that it was if any sense of “I” became absorbed into observing. The observing became an I and what this consciousness was temporarily identified with and as. My human self at the time had no ideas about this and just felt something had gone terribly wrong. This lasted for a year.
Almost exactly a year later, between Christmas and New Year, there was a shift into oneness. Into all as the divine, Spirit, God. This shift didn’t go away.
All of this made it unavoidable to see the general nature of thoughts. They are here to help us orient and navigate in the world, and not so much more. They cannot capture any full or absolute or final truth.
They happen within and as what I am, as anything else. They live their own life, as anything else.
As is not unusual, many parts of my psyche were formed within separation consciousness, were wounded and perhaps traumatized, and these continued to operate from separation consciousness and wounds. They color my perception and life. Some of these have found healing, and some still wait for healing.
When it comes to my mental field and mental habits, it was shocking to to this part of me when the oneness shift happened. I was a self-identified atheist since elementary school so definitely hadn’t expected – or even heard about – it. My mental field was used to operate from duality, so it took some time for it to reorganie and be more aligned with oneness. And that’s an ongoing process.
How have I supported my mental field in realigning? I read a lot of systems views and deep ecology books in my teens and early twenties. I read a lot of Taoism in my late teens and twenties. I read a lot of Buddhism in my twenties and thirties. I read a lot of general mysticism in my twenties and thirties. And equally or more importantly, I have done quite a bit of different types of inquiry – especially the Big Mind process, The Work of Byron Katie, and the Kiloby Inquiries.
BIG MIND ON NON-DUALITY
Hi Big Mind.
Hello.
Can you say something about non-duality? How does it look to you?
Non-duality is a term some humans like to use. It looks about as useful as it’s not. Some get very caught up in the idea of it, in their mental representations of it, instead of using it as a pointer for finding it for themselves.
Non-duality is what I am, what you are, what every conscious being inherently is. It’s not something mystical or distanced or weird. It’s what we already are and are most familiar with.
It’s really all we ever know.
At the same time, mind is very good at creating the experience of something else. Of creating the experience of duality.
It’s part of how I explore and experience myself. There is nothing wrong about it. It’s natural. And it can be interesting to explore.
Duality is the experience we create for ourselves when we take ourselves to fundamentally be a human self or anything else within the content of experience.
It’s just an experience. It’s a filter. It’s not inherent in what we are or reality.
What we are and reality is one. It forms itself into everything within content of experience. And that includes a temporary experience of duality.
When I form myself into an experience of duality, it creates a sense of discomfort. It’s out of alignment with my nature and reality so it’s inherently uncomfortable. It can also create a longing, and that longing is ultimately for me to recognize my nature.
I should also say that recognizing my nature and being temporarily caught up in duality are inherently equal in a certain way. The former is more peaceful and the latter is more uncomfortable and creates more challenges for this human self and other beings. And my nature is also the same in both cases.
Image by me and created with Midjourney to hint at non-duality AKA oneness. Lots of things inside a circle.
These kinds of simple statements can be fertile ground for exploration.
MENTAL & PERCEPTION
When people say these things, it can come from two places.
It can come from a mental representation, often formed by exposure to what others say and write.
And it can come from a direct noticing.
In this case, I know the person who wrote it so I assume it comes from a combination. He directly perceives it and is also guided by what he has heard others say.
WE ARE CONSCIOUSNESS
Where does that perception come from?
Rationally, we see that we are consciousness. If we “have” consciousness, then – to ourselves – we ARE consciousness. And that also means that the world, to us, happens within and as the consciousness we are.
We can also find this in direct perception. Yes, in some ways, I am this human self in the world as others see it and my passport suggests. When I take a closer look, I find something else. I find I more fundamentally am what this whole field of experience happens within and as. I am what – to me – the world and this human self and any content of experience happens within and as. And that can be called consciousness.
When the world, to me, happens within and as what I am AKA consciousness, then the world, to me, appears to be made up of consciousness. The consciousness I am forms itself into the whole field of experience, including of the wider world. The world, to me, appears as consciousness. It appears as a night dream since both night dreams and waking life happen within and as consciousness.
And from there, it’s easy to also call it the divine or Spirit. The world, to me, inevitably appears to have the characteristics of the divine. It’s one. It’s consciousness. It’s “alive” in that sense.
SMALL AND BIG INTERPRETATIONS
So what’s really going on here?
If the world, to me, inevitably APPEARS as consciousness, does that mean the world, in itself, IS consciousness? That it is what we can call Spirit or the divine?
Most mystics will say so, and many spiritual traditions say so as well. But that’s just what someone says.
There are also many hints suggesting all is Spirit. For instance, sensing at a distance, distance healing, seeing energies, amazing synchronicities, reports of near-death experiences, memories from before this life, and so on. All of this fits into seeing all as Spirit, but it can also be understood in other ways. It’s not conclusive.
So for me, it makes sense to use two different understandings of what’s going on.
One is the small interpretation. It’s based on what’s described in the previous section: to ourselves, we inevitably are consciousness, and the world, to us, inevitably appears as consciousness. That’s all we can say for certain. Anything else is speculation and assumptions, although some views may be more compatible with the data than other views.
It’s possible that the materialistic view is correct. In an outside and third-person view, we and the rest of existence may fundamentally be matter and it just appears to us as if all things are consciousness.
It’s also possible that all is Spirit, and our nature and the nature of all things is the same. We cannot know for certain. We hold the possibilities open.
The upside of this view is that it’s honest. It allows for a range of possibilities when it comes to the nature of all things. It leaves the door open for anyone to explore their own nature independent of their existing worldview. (A Marxist or materialist can do it as well as a Christian or Hindu.) The downside is that it can seem a little dry. (Although not to me, I find it fascinating.)
The other is the big interpretation. The nature of reality itself is the same as my own nature. Not only does all things appear as consciousness, it also IS consciousness. It’s all Spirit, the divine, Brahman, Allah, and so on. The upside of this view is that it’s inspiring, and it’s familiar and fits what mystics and many spiritual traditions say. The downside is that it can put some people off, and it taken as is, it may not be entirely honest.
USING BOTH VIEWS
To me, what makes the most sense is to use both of these views. They complement each other. Each one has upsides and downsides. And it just feels more comfortable and honest.
The small view is more inviting for a wider range of people, and it also fits better in an academic context. It makes it easier to study awakening and the experience of mystics in an academic setting.
The big view is more familiar to many, fits many traditions, fits more data, and is often more inspiring.
As I see it, the small view is more honest to our own experience. And the big view may be more accurate in the bigger picture.
WHY IS THIS MORE INCLUSIVE VIEW NOT MORE COMMON?
Why don’t more people differentiate between these two views? (I actually don’t know of anyone who does, although I am sure there must be many out there. This is just something that makes sense to me.)
This view seems so obvious to me and makes so much sense, so I am honestly a little baffled why others don’t seem to talk about it.
The obvious answer is that many do, I just don’t know about it. I have been out of touch with these kinds of explorations in the wider world for several years due to my health.
Also, some may talk about it outside of the public view. They may see it as a refinement not necessary for most explorers, and something that may confuse people starting out on their own exploration. (I see it as something that could clarify and guide.)
Some may use these views for themselves without speaking about it very much. (I usually don’t mention it apart from in these writings.)
Some may find comfort in using the traditional language and ways of talking about it.
And some may not have explored this very much. They may not find it interesting or useful. (I obviously find it both useful and interesting. Also, exploring the sense fields and projections has been a central part of my path since my teens so this may come more naturally to me. I am biased in this direction.)
I have seen Rupert Spira talk about “non-existent self” in a few quotes, and don’t know enough about him to know if he, in other situations, also talks about the other side(s) of it and the bigger picture.
In any case, it’s a reminder that some non-dual teachers speak in a slightly one-sided way and that some folks like and are attracted to it.
WHY DO SOME STUDENTS LIKE IT?
Why do some prefer or like that?
Likely because it’s easier to grasp mentally. It allows our mental aspect to function in a familiar (simplistic) way.
And they may, at some level, assume that grasping it intellectually is what it is about, even if many point out the contrary.
Also…
It may be just the medicine they need there and then. It may help them release out of taking themselves as most fundamentally a self, an object within the field of experience. It may be a helpful stepping stone.
Through grace – they may engage in practices and explorations that – through grace – give them a direct conscious taste of what they are in spite of the one-sided pointers.
WHY DO SOME TEACHERS APPEAR ONESIDED?
So why do some non-dual teachers talk in a one-sided way?
It may appear they do it because we have limited information. We have just a small window into how they interact with others. They may be far more fluid and explore from many more views.
They may want to make it simple for the students, although that seems misguided. (It’s far better to be honest and not make it simple where it isn’t simple. What it points to is simple. Talking about it is not.)
They may fall into a lazy habit of using familiar phrases and ways of talking about it.
They may be focused on a simple mental representation of our nature rather than trying to put words on an immediate noticing.
UPSIDES & DOWNSIDES
I have already mentioned some upsides.
It can be a useful stepping stone. And it may not get in the way of their nature recognizing itself.
I have also hinted at some downsides.
It can give the impression that this, and anything, is something that can be grasped mentally.
And that tends to reinforce a habit of holding mental representations as true.
When we hold mental representations as true, there is an identification with the viewpoint of that or those mental representations. That’s an identification with something within the field of experience, and it creates a sense of “I” and “other”.
There is nothing wrong with that. It’s natural and innocent.
And yet, if we want to explore what we more fundamentally are, it’s a side track (or a stepping stone). It’s a distraction from our nature recognizing itself, and learning to allow this human self to function in the world and live from and as that recognition.
WHEN A TEACHER IS MORE FLUID AND SINCERE
If we are more fluid and flexible in how we talk about things, we are coming at the same issue in several different ways. We look at it from many different sides and in different contexts. We adapt how we talk about something to the person, situation, and context. We use words and pointers as medicine for specific conditions, and those conditions are different depending on the person and situation. *
We are typically more focused on our immediate noticing, and finding words that – in that moment – reflect what we are noticing, rather than using habitual phrases.
We don’t use pat answers. What we talk about cannot easily be pinned down.
And that may be less attractive to students who want simple answers (they can mentally understand and memorize) rather than what the pointers point to.
NOTE
* Said another way… We know that mental representations can never capture what they point to. Life and reality is far too rich for that. There can be, and often is, validity in a mental representation, and it’s not any full, final, or absolute truth. We know it in our gut through direct noticing and lived experience.
Mental representations are about pragmatics, pointers, and navigating in the world. Their nature is not to capture any full or final truth. And that goes for anything that mental representations point to, whether it is our more fundamental nature, a human being, gravity, a rock, or an ice cream dessert.
The tragedy and comedy of the human condition is that we spend most of our lives thinking, feeling, acting, perceiving and relating on behalf of a non-existent self.
– Rupert Spira
To me, talking about a non-existent self seems a little one-sided.
THE SMALL SELF
If we experience a self, then for all practical purposes there is a self.
It may not exist the way we think it does, and it may not be what we think and assume it is, but it’s real to us.
For practical purposes, there is a human self here functioning in the world, and what the passport tells us about this self and the identities we have created for it all has some validity.
More essentially, there is also the appearance of a doer and observer. If I have the experience of a doer and observer, and perhaps even being this doer and observer, then that’s real for me.
WHAT I MORE FUNDAMENTALLY AM
At the same time, it’s not what I more fundamentally am. When I look, I find I more fundamentally am what this whole field of experience – which includes the wider world and this human self – happens within and as what I am.
For lack of a better way to talk about it, I may call that consciousness. To myself, I am more fundamentally this consciousness that any content of experience – to me – happens within and as.
WHAT I AM FORMS ITSELF INTO ITS OWN CONTENT OF EXPERIENCE
The consciousness I am forms itself into an experience of the wider world and this human self, and perhaps also a doer and an observer, and sometimes also into BEING this doer, observer, and/or human self. (It may even form itself into an experience of being the IDEA of consciousness, which then distracts from a more direct noticing.)
This is all the play of the consciousness I am. It’s some of the many ways it’s expressing, exploring, and experiencing itself and it’s apparently infinite potential.
MEDICINE FOR A CONDITION
I assume Rupert Spira talks about a non-existent self as medicine for a condition.
It’s medicine for the condition of being stuck in the idea that there is a self here and that it’s what we most fundamentally are.
I also assume that his phrasing is intentional and that he in other situations talks about it in other ways and addresses the other side(s) and the bigger picture.
STUCK?
The alternative is that he is stuck in the idea of a non-existent self.
He may be stuck out of a phrasing habit while really knowing better.
Or he may actually be stuck in the idea, which then distracts from a more direct noticing and a more fluid way of talking about it.
I don’t know him or his way of talking well enough to say. (I have never been drawn to his pointers too much, perhaps because they seem a bit one-sided?)
In any case, I prefer to take the more generous view. I’ll assume it’s intentional and that his direct noticing is more sincere and that his talking is generally more fluid and inclusive.
At one level, it doesn’t really make sense to analyze it or even put words on it. It’s just how it is in direct perception. Words move away from the simplicity of direct noticing.
And if I were to try to put it into words, I could say…
What I am allows this content of experience that’s here, and it forms itself into the content of experience that’s here. It forms itself into the visuals of this computer, the table, the room and so on, the sounds, the smell and taste, and whatever happens within the sense fields.
The consciousness I am allows any and all experience, which our mental field can call “empty”. It’s inherently empty of any form, so it can take any form.
And it forms itself into the content of experience that’s here, whatever it is.
Night dreams and waking life both happen within and as the consciousness I am.
Form is empty. It’s made up of the consciousness I am which is inherently empty of any particular form.
Emptiness is form. The consciousness I am forms itself into the content of experience that’s here.
The direct noticing is very simple. It’s beyond simple. And whenever it’s reflected in our mental field and made into words, it seems far more complicated and exotic than it really is.
There are also other ways to talk about it. For instance, any sense of “I” or “me” is not what I more fundamentally am. Yes, it’s here. The mental representation of an I or me helps this human self orient and function in the world. And it’s not what’s more fundamentally here. The consciousness I am is metaphorically empty of a fundamental I or me. It’s what allows the experience of it, and the experience of anything at all. It’s what allows the sense of I or me – in whatever forms it takes – to come and go. It’s what temporarily forms itself into innumerable versions of images of an I or me.
I was curious about a book and saw a review on Amazon that said: “Everyone is already enlightened”.
As usual, I would say “yes” and “no” and “it depends”.
There may be a few more nuances than what the simple statement suggests.
YES(ISH)
Everyone is Buddha Nature. To ourselves, we are consciousness. The world, to us, happens within and as the consciousness we are. And that consciousness is Buddha Nature.
So yes, we are Buddha Nature, although few would call that “enlightened”.
NO
In most cases, the consciousness we are doesn’t fully recognize its own nature. It tends to assume it’s something within its content, typically this human self and mental representation of an I, me, doer, observer, and so on.
For the oneness we are to recognize itself and its nature typically takes some intention, effort, sincerity, and guidance.
To keep recognizing it is the same.
Learning how to live from it requires the same dedication and engagement.
And allowing our human self and psyche to transform and align within this new context is an even longer process that requires dedication, courage, honesty, sincerity, and work.
IT DEPENDS
So it depends. It mostly depends on what we mean by the words.
For me, the simplest is to say that all beings already are Buddha Nature. To ourselves, we all are most fundamentally consciousness whether we notice or not.
The consciousness we are typically doesn’t fully recognize its nature, and may not perceive it clearly even if there are glimpses.
It typically takes work for the consciousness we are to recognize itself. And it’s a long process to keep recognizing this through situations and states, explore how to live from and as it, and allow this human self to transform within it.
It’s a process that appears to not have any finishing line.
ENLIGHTENMENT?
I don’t really know what’s meant by “enlightenment”.
Maybe it means what happens when most of our human self and psyche is on board with the awakening?
If so, it’s not something I am familiar with so I can’t say much about it.
Mostly, because I have a visceral experience of the mystery of existence. It’s all a mystery. It cannot be captured by thought. It can only be explored and lived.
And calling it that is a reminder that invites my system to shift into receptivity and curiosity.
MORE IN DETAIL
And then there is a more involved answer.
In a conventional sense, we know some things. We know we don’t know some things. And there is an infinite amount we don’t know we don’t know. In that sense, we are living the mystery.
There is always more data to be collected. Different perspectives that makes as much or more sense than the ones we are familiar with. New contexts that make as much or more sense. And different worldviews that may turn what we thought we knew inside out and upside down. Here too, there is mystery.
Then there is the nature of our mental representations. They are questions about the world. Their function is to help us orient and function in the world. They are different in kind to what they point to. (Unless what they point to happen to be mental representations.) Like any map, they highlight some things and leave a lot out. They cannot capture any full, final, or absolute truth. And reality is always more than and different from our ideas about it. (And also fundamentally less than.)
When it comes to our nature, all the same applies. We cannot capture it in thoughts, just like we cannot capture anything with thoughts. Thoughts differentiate, and reality – and our nature – is inherently undivided. Thoughts inevitably point to something within the content of experience, and not what it all happens within and as.
We cannot know anything for certain. Our experience is limited, and our mental representations are questions about the world. And that leaves mystery. The mystery we are and live, whether we notice or not.
In a previous post, I wrote “I am rested” and “I am tired” even if it’s not really accurate.
It’s more accurate to say that my body is tired, my brain is tired, my system is tired. Or even that this human self is tired.
It’s something happening within the content of experience, within the sense fields.
It’s happening within and as the consciousness I am. It’s all happening within and as what I am.
In daily life and writing, I tend to switch between a more conventional and a more accurate way of talking about it. It just depends on the situation.
The first way of talking about it eases communication since it’s more familiar, and it also tends to reflect and invite identification. If I say “I am tired” I present it as if I – what I more fundamentally am – is tired.
The second way is more accurate and it invites curiosity, exploration, and perhaps even a softening or release of identification. It’s happening to something within my content of experience. It refers to something happening within and as the consciousness I am.
I saw a post on social media about how psychologizing everything removes the magic and mystery of life.
That’s not how it is for me.
WHEN UNDERSTANDING REMOVES THE MYSTERY
Yes, if you assume that your psychological explanations are correct and true and all there is, then it does remove a sense of mystery and magic. But that’s out of alignment with reality. That is pretending that our maps are more than they are. It goes against common sense and the essence of science.
WHEN UNDERSTANDING GOES HAND-IN-HAND WITH THE MYSTERY
For me, exploring through the lens of psychology – as I do in most of my writings – goes hand-in-hand with mystery.
It’s an exploration.
What comes out of it are maps with all of the benefits and limitations inherent in maps. They are different in kind from what they are about. They highlight some things and leave in infinite amount out. They are guesses about the world. They have a practical function only, to help us navigate and function in he world. They are provisional and have temporary value only. They cannot hold any full, final, or absolute truth. Reality is always more than and different from any map.
This context is more aligned with reality.
And it keeps the mystery and magic in life.
APPLIED TO AWAKENING
I write about awakening in some of these articles. And when I do, I often create a map of some aspects of awakening.
For instance, both in direct noticing and through logic, we find we are consciousness. If we “have” consciousness, then to ourselves we have to BE consciousness. The world, to us, happens within and as consciousness. It happens within and as the consciousness we are. The world, to us, appears as consciousness. The consciousness we are is one. So we are the oneness the world, to us, happens within and as.
This fits what mystics across times and cultures describe.
It’s a psychological way to understand awakening, and it fits perfectly with a wide range of worldviews – from materialism to a spirituality that sees all of existence as the divine.
Does this remove the mystery or magic from awakening? Or from life?
It could… if I pretend I know that this is how it is and that this is all there is. But I would have to do a lot of pretending for that to be the case.
In reality, it’s a guess. It’s a map for practical and temporary use only. It opens for and fits a wide range of worldviews. And it’s compatible with a more spiritual understanding of the world.
It’s open to the mystery and magic of awakening and existence.
I have had Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS, ME) since my teens, although I had a period in my twenties and thirties where I functioned better.
Through experience, I have learned a bit about how to talk about it. If I say I have CFS/ME, it won’t mean much to most people. They think it means I am a bit tired, or – in the worst case, which I have experienced during my education – they will dismiss it or even see it as an excuse for laziness. (In my studies and work, I was anything but lazy.)
So I learned to talk about it in a different way. Now, I say I have a chronic illness, and I add whatever makes sense in the situation. I may say it causes me to need to rest a lot. Or it makes it difficult for me to think and it takes time for me to think through things. Or that it makes it difficult for me to talk coherently. (When I am extra exhausted.)
That makes more sense to people. Most people have a rough understanding of what a chronic illness means, even if there are many types of them. Most take it seriously, respect it, and don’t feel they need to question it. (Or give uninformed advice.) And that makes my life much easier.
As with so much, the way we frame it – to ourselves and others – makes a big difference.
Note: I don’t often call it a disability, even if that’s what it is. In some situations, I would probably use that term as well to bring home a point.
What comes to mind when you hear the word “oneness”? That it always refer to the same? That what it refers to is something mysterious? Something that belongs to certain religions or New Age thought? Something not grounded in reality? Something real you cannot check out for yourself?
The word oneness can refer to several different things and it’s helpful to differentiate.
THE ONENESS WE ARE TO OURSELVES
We may take ourselves to be this human being in the world, and that’s not wrong and it’s an assumption that works reasonably well.
And yet, if we look more closely in our own first-person experience, we may find something else. We may find that we more fundamentally are capacity for the world – for any content of experience – as it appears to us. And we may find that the world, to us, happens within and as what we are.
Said another way, we may find that we inevitably are consciousness and that the world, to us, happens within and as this consciousness.
We can also say that we are oneness, and the world happens within and as this oneness.
This is the oneness we are and we can explore in our own experience, especially if we are guided by a structured inquiry and someone familiar with the terrain.
ONE IN A MORE CONVENTIONAL SENSE
In mainstream culture, we sometimes say we are one – whether that comes from poetry, politics, science, religion, or something else.
We are one in an ethnic or political sense.
We are one in terms of our shared history, either as a group or as humanity.
We are one in terms of our evolution and shared ancestry, either as humanity or all Earth beings.
We are one in that the essence of what we want is the same and shared by all beings. We all wish for comfort and happiness and to avoid suffering.
In some cases, it can be a dangerous rhetoric if it sets “us” up against “them”. And it can be beautiful and healing to the extent it is inclusive.
ONE IN A SYSTEMS SENSE
We can take this one step further and find oneness in a systems sense.
We are all parts of a seamless system. All of humanity, all of this living planet, all of this evolving universe, all of existence. All of existence is part of a seamless system.
As Carl Sagan said: We are the local eyes, ears, thoughts, and feelings of the universe. We are the universe bringing itself into consciousness.
ONE IN A SPIRITUAL SENSE
It’s also possible that all of existence is God or the divine or Spirit. Spirit takes the form of all there is and all we know, including everything connected with this human self.
It’s all the play of the divine. It’s the divine expressing, exploring, and experiencing itself in always new ways, as all there is.
All of existence is divine and one.
SEVERAL DIFFERENT ONENESSES
We can find several different onenesses.
To ourselves, we are the oneness the world happens within and as.
We are one in several different social, historical, biological, and evolutionary ways.
We are parts of a seamless system.
And all can be seen as expressions and explorations of Spirit.
THE VALIDITY OF EACH
Each of these ways of talking about oneness has validity, and the validity is slightly different in each case.
I can check the first one for myself. I can find myself as that oneness.
The two next ones make sense within the realm of stories, and I include science here since science produces stories that help us function and navigate in the world.
And the last one is what mystics from all traditions describe. We can say that they found the first kind of oneness and then over-generalized and assumed that their nature is the nature of all of existence. And there are also hints beyond that suggesting that the “all as Spirit” view is valid in itself. (See articles on the small and big interpretations of awakening for more on this.)
I love the sweet spot where we find awakening. It can be talked about and studied. It cannot be proven to our satisfaction by others. And we ultimately have to find it for ourselves if we want to check it out and get a taste of it.
And that is, of course, how it is with most things in the world. It’s not unique to awakening.
IT CAN BE TALKED ABOUT AND STUDIED
We can talk about awakening and we can study it through science.
We can talk about our own experiences with it. We can talk about others’ reports on it and their lives. We can philosophize about it. We can talk about fantasies and misconceptions about it.
And we can study it through science. We can examine the reports of individuals. We can examine groups of reports for themes and patterns. We can examine biological correlates to what people report. We can try out methods for awakening and see how apparently effective they are. And so on.
And that’s how it is with most things. We can talk about it and we can do different kinds of research on it.
IT CAN NOT BE PROVEN TO OUR SATISFACTION BY OTHERS
There are many things we assume exist based on second and third-hand reports.
I assume Australia is an actual place even if I haven’t been there. I assume there are bears even if I haven’t encountered any. And so on.
And yet, if we want to be sure we cannot completely rely on the reports from others. We have to check it out for ourselves.
That especially applies to awakening since it’s not something we can take photos of and measure. And it’s not widely accepted in our culture so most people are less likely to accept second- or third-hand accounts.
WE HAVE TO FIND IT FOR OURSELVES
In terms of awakening, we can listen to what people have to say about it. We can pretend it’s true. And that, in itself, is ultimately not very satisfying.
To find satisfaction, we need to use effective pointers and find it for ourselves. That’s the only way for us to know for certain if what people talk about exists or not.
And to find deeper satisfaction, in terms of the transformation that comes with awakening, we need to keep noticing and finding it and make that noticing into a new habit. And to allow the noticing to transform our perception, identity, and live in the world and to keep working on us.
A GOOD MIX
This is a good – or even perfect – mix.
If we couldn’t talk about it at all, it would be difficult to share our experiences, learn from each other, and ignite our interest through the sharing of others.
If we couldn’t study aspects of it through science, it would mean it didn’t really touch the world that can be studied and measured which, in turn, would mean it didn’t touch our lives in this world and a significant part of its relevance would be missing.
If we couldn’t find it for ourselves, it would just remain something distant and irrelevant at – at most – something others talked about.
AWAKENING IS NOT UNIQUE IN THIS WAY
Awakening is not unique in this way. It’s similar to many or most other things.
To be certain, we have to find it for ourselves.
And for something to really do something with us, it has to be a firsthand experience and it requires a wholehearted engagement and willingness to be transformed.
Some nondual or neo-Advaita folks seem to dismiss or downplay the human aspect of what we are and say things like “I am not this human”, “there is no self”, “I don’t exist”, and so on.
I understand where they are coming from. As our nature, we are not primarily this human self. There may be a human self in a conventional sense, but there is no inherently separate self here in my own experience. As capacity for the world as it appears to me, I don’t really exist.
They may want to emphasize the capacity and oneness aspects of our nature and downplay the human aspect, perhaps to compensate for others (or themselves!) viscerally over-emphasizing the human aspect out of habit.
At the same time, it does seem one-sided and perhaps a bit like an ideology. It can be quite misleading to others not familiar with that terrain. And it’s not terribly nondual. They seem to mentally create a split where there isn’t one and where it’s not strictly necessary.
HOW IT APPEARS TO ME
I find myself as….
Capacity for the world as it appears to me. As what allows it all to happen within my experience. As what forms itself into any experience.
As oneness. As what the world, to me, happens within and as. As the oneness the world, to me, happens within and as. (And with “the world” I mean any content of experience, anything seen here, heard, smelled, tasted, sensed, and thought.)
A part of oneness is this human self, as he appears in my sense fields including my mental representations. He is as much part of it as anyone and anything else that’s here.
And there is a special connection with this human self. This oneness has inside information from this human self in the form of all his sensory input. Others take me as him. And this oneness plays the role of and as him in the world.
When I explore what I am in my own first-person experience, I notice some of the ways oneness creates an experience of separation for itself. This seems to happen through several metaphorical folds or loops.
WHAT WE ARE
In one sense, I am a human being in the world. That’s how I appear to others, and it’s not wrong.
And yet, is it what I more fundamentally am in my own first-person experience?
When I look, I find my nature more fundamentally is capacity for all of my experiences – of this human self, the wider world, and anything else. I am what the world, to me, happens within and as.
Thoughts can label this oneness, consciousness, love, or Big Mind. Or even, if we are so inclined, Spirit, the divine, Brahman, or something else.
It may not be the nature of all of reality. But it clearly seems to be what I am in my own experience.
It’s what I more fundamentally am than a human self, or a separate being, or an I or me or observer or doer or anything else. All of that happens within and as what I am.
THE REFLECTION LOOP
So how does this oneness create an experience of I and Other for and within itself?
An early loop seems to be consciousness being conscious of being conscious of something.
Consciousness is inherently low grade conscious of everything it creates itself into, and this is a loop of oneness being conscious of being conscious of something within itself.
This early loop sets the stage for several other loops.
THE LOOP CREATING THOUGHTS
One of these is a reflection of an experience in mental representations including mental images and words.
Thoughts can reflect experiences, and – as we know – consciousness can create all sorts of other mental representations that don’t directly reflect an experience.
THE SEPARATION LOOP
From the reflection and thought loop, consciousness can create a sense of separation for itself.
It can create a sense of observer and observed, of being a human self in the world, and so on.
It creates an experience for and within itself of being something within its content of experience (an I and me) and not being the rest (the wider world, the background).
THE SEPARATION-CONSCIOUSNESS LOOPS
This, in turn, sets the stage for all the dynamics created by separation consciousness.
It sets the stage for all the drama we know from our own life and from humanity in general.
It sets the stage for what we find when we ask ourselves: “What happens when I believe this (any) thought?” How do I perceive myself and the world? What emotions come up? What choices do I make? How do I live my life?
THE RETURN
And this sets the stage for a possible return.
The oneness we are creates a sense of separation for and within itself, and may then find itself in a process of rediscovering itself – and its whole world – as oneness.
This is what we call an awakening process, and it often goes through several phases: An early interest. Early glimpses. Investing in fears and hopes. Going into a more dedicated exploration. Finding itself and its whole world as oneness. Exploring how to live from this. Inviting in healing for our human self and psyche so we more easily can live from oneness in more situations and areas of life. Going through dark nights. And so on.
CAVEATS
This is a map, and any map is a simplification and highlights some things while leaving other features out.
It may also be mistaken in certain ways. I am sure others have far more detailed maps based on more detailed examinations and more familiarity with the terrain.
This is just how it appears to me right now, and it’s a very simplified version of even that.
