Rick Archer : “There are so many people in this world who are so sure of their position, their beliefs, whatever, and of course so many wars have been fought over that mentality – many of them in the name of religion.”
Mooji : “It’s actually because they are not sure. They’re not sure, that’s why they try to appear so sure. They’re not sure.” Rick Archer : “They’re desperately defending their doubt.” Mooji : “Yeh, if you’re sure about something, there’s a great relaxation in you, a very great openness. When you really can say that you are clear and certain about it, you reach a place of stillness. And you cannot be moving in some line of aggression towards any being. There’s a stillness in that.” Rick Archer : “And in that stillness, you’re very comfortable with paradox. You don’t take a polar position and adhere to it, you can actually embrace two contradictory concepts or positions." Mooji : “Of course, because ultimately you can only do this because you have transcended concepts. You see their limitations. You see their usefulness. And you know that what is, is not shaped by any concepts. The concept is secondary. Only one who is really moved beyond the dependency on any concept is free with all expressions and any concept.”
“The movement in understanding from ‘I am something’ to ‘I am nothing’ could be called the path of wisdom or discrimination. The movement in understanding from ‘I am nothing’ through ‘I am everything’ to simply ‘I’, could be called the path of love.”
Rupert Spira. “Presence, Volume II: The Intimacy of All Experience.” Non-duality Press, Salisbury, UK, 2011.
“For the West, however, the possibility of such an egoless return to a state of soul antecedent to the birth of individuality has long since passed away; and the first important stage in the branching off can be seen to have occurred in that very part of the nuclear Near East where the earliest god-kings and their courts had been for centuries ritually entombed: mainly Sumer, where a new sense of the separation of the spheres of god and man began to be represented in myth and ritual about 2350 B.C. The king, then, was no longer a god, but a servant of the god, his Tenant Farmer, supervisor of the race of human slaves created to serve the gods with unremitting toil. And no longer identity, but relationship, was the paramount concern. Man had been made not to be God but to know, honor, and serve him; so that even the king, who, according to the earlier mythological view, had been the chief embodiment of divinity on earth, was now but a priest offering sacrifice in tendance to One above – not a god returning himself in sacrifice to Himself. In the course of the following centuries, the new sense of separation led to a counter-yearning for return – not to identity, for such was no longer possible of conception (creator and creature were not the same), but to the presence and vision of the forfeited god. Hence the new mythology brought forth, in due time, a development away from the earlier static view of returning cycles. A progressive, temporally oriented mythology arose, of a creation, once and for all, at the beginning of time, a subsequent fall, and a work of restoration, still in progress. The world no longer was to be known as a mere showing in time of the paradigms of eternity, but as a field of unprecedented cosmic conflict between two powers, one light and one dark.”
Joseph Campbell. “The Masks of God: Oriental Mythology.” Viking Compass Edition, NY, 1962.
Happiness, as Rupert Spira sees it, is synonymous with peace, love, beauty and understanding. This is clearly much more refined than our common understanding. The requisite shift in consciousness may or may not occur as we age and grow more &more frustrated "looking for love in all the wrong places".
"To be enlightened is to be intimate with all things." Zen Master Dogen
How is it possible to remain as awareness in more demanding situations, without taking a step back, without separating yourself? Instead of knowing yourself as the witnessing presence of awareness in the background of experience ("2nd possibility"), you know yourself as the light of pure knowing at the heart of all experience ("3rd possibility"). In these two possibilities, I use two different metaphors. For the 2nd possibility, we describe awareness as kind of an empty space, and thoughts, feelings, sensations, all take place within this space. So awareness is slightly removed from the objects – independent, free, in the background of the object. In the 3rd possibility, when we know ourselves as the knowing that all experience is made of, forget the image of a space-like awareness in which objects appear. Go to my favorite metaphor of the aware screen. Imagine a screen, a TV screen without any borders. The screen is watching a movie taking place on it. The movie is not being watched by someone sitting on a sofa. Now before the movie starts, the screen is just empty. You can go to Netflix and choose any movie you like. All possibilities, the screen is just pure potential. And because it is colorless, all colors can appear on it. If the screen had a pinkish hue to it, then only pinkish images would be possible. But it’s because the screen is colorless, it has no color of its own, that all images are possible. So you go to Netflix and you choose a thriller, the thriller starts, the thriller is being watched by the screen. The image is not appearing on the screen. In fact screen and image are two names for the same thing. There isn’t screen plus image, like in the 2nd possibility - the space of awareness and object. In this understanding, there aren’t two things. There is not awareness plus it’s object. There is not screen plus image. To begin with, we think that the screen is behind the image. It’s not. All there is to the image is screen. Now screen is pure knowing. It is the knowing that pervades all experience. Now even that is not right. We can’t say that the screen pervades the image. Because that suggests that there is one thing called an image and another thing called a screen that pervades the image. No. It’s just a way of speaking, because language is limited. So it’s not that all experience is pervaded by knowing. It’s that all there is to experience is knowing – like all there is to the image is the screen.
Now you’re at work, surrounded by people, the phones are going, your boss is being unreasonably demanding, there’s full, demanding life going on in your office – and it consists of thoughts, feelings, sensations, sights, sounds, tastes, - this multicolored, multidimensional experience. All there is, all you know of all of that, is just the knowing of it. Is there anything there other than the knowing of it? Now you are that knowing. The same is true now. Take the sight of this room, which thought perceptualizes as an object out there, separate from me which is in here - the seer in here, and the seen out there. That’s what thought says about experience. But actually, all we know of this room is the experience of seeing. Look around – it’s just the experience of seeing. And if we touch the stuff that seeing is made of, what do we find? Just the knowing of it. You are that knowing. In other words, you find yourself everywhere. You, not you a body-mind, you this pure knowing, pure awareness are the substance, not just the background of experience, but the foreground of experience, the substance, the reality of all experience. Look around you now, at your thoughts, your feelings, your choices, your sights, do you find anything there other than the knowing of it? When your boss is yelling at you, is there anything other than the knowing of it? When you are choosing what to do, in that choice, which is a thought, is there anything other than the knowing of thinking? In other words, this knowing only ever comes in contact with itself. It can never know another, or an object. It just knows itself. And there, this knowing finds itself completely intimate with all experience – not with just this little corner of experience called my body-mind, equally intimate with all experience – totally in love. This is what William Blake meant when he said ‘Eternity is in love with the productions of time.’ This knowing is so close, to all experience. Closer than close. One with – not even one with because even when we say ‘one with’ it suggests that knowing is one thing and experience is another thing, and that knowing and experience are one. They are not one – they were not two to begin with. This complete intimacy with all experience is what is called love. That is the way you, pure knowing, lives 24/7. So we find ourselves as this pure knowing totally at the heart of all experience. Not just this little corner of experience, but all experience, totally intimate with it, but, at the same time, free of it. In just the same way that the screen is totally intimate with whatever’s playing on it – the good guys, the bad guys, the people that are right, the people that are wrong, everyone and everything, equally intimate with all appearances. At the same time, the screen is completely unaffected by what takes place in the movie. So it is this combination of absolute intimacy or love, and at the same time, total freedom. The freedom doesn’t have to be found in the background of experience – I the aloof witnessing presence of awareness and all the objects of the body-mind world over there that can’t touch me. That’s a half-way stage. This is something else. This is right in the midst of experience, at the heart experience. Even in difficult situations, at the office, at your job, as a teacher with pupils: everything’s going on, ten thousand things going on, it’s far too much for your body-mind to cope with – this kid is screaming, that kid is throttling somebody out, this one’s tipping paint everywhere etc. You’re trying to handle it, it’s far too much, you’re going crazy. At the same time, all there is to your experience, is the knowing of it, and you are that knowing. You are the substance, the reality of everything that is taking place, totally one with it. So you can just give yourself totally to the chaos, to all the kids, to the chaos. Sometimes you do the right things, sometimes you do the wrong things. In other words, you just do your best all the time. In hindsight, you would have thought ‘Oh I shouldn’t have done that, it would have been better to tell James no.’ But you did your best at the time. So you can give yourself totally to the chaos of the situation. You don’t have to practice being the witnessing presence of awareness. That’s not a good idea for someone teaching kids – you don’t have that time. And if you did, you wouldn’t be a good teacher. To be a good teacher, you have to totally be in there, in their midst, right at the heart of the children’s chaos and noise. So you can be there, totally one with, to know yourself, everything you see, you are that. The child that is behaving like an angel in that corner, the child that is behaving like a nightmare in that corner, everything that’s going on, you are the reality, the substance of all that. You give yourself totally to that. But at the same time, you are not stained by it, you are not harmed by it, you’re not hurt by it. Like the screen – the thriller is taking place; the guy is strangling his next-door neighbor; the screen is one with it, but the screen doesn’t die. The screen is not being hurt. The screen is not stained by the activity. The film ends, and the screen just remains as it always is. So you are like that. You can give yourself totally to experience. Questionner : I understand what you mean, but for me it’s a process. Rupert Spira : Yes, it’s a transition between these two possibilities, you’re right. So when you’re at home, in the peace and the privacy of your home, you are abiding as the space-like presence of awareness – the sounds are flowing through you, thoughts are flowing through you, sensations are flowing through you, you’re this open, empty, space-like presence of awareness. And then, as you do that at home, take a sound, and see that the sound is not an object that is flowing through you. All there is to the sound is the awareness with which it is known. So in that way, bring the sound closer. See that it’s not actually an object, and you are not a subject. It’s a transition between the 2nd possibility and the 3rd possibility. You are starting with ‘I am the open empty state of awareness and these objects have got nothing to do with me. They just float through me. They just pass by like the sound of the traffic.’ That’s the 2nd possibility, and it’s a valid stage. ‘I am the witnessing presence of awareness. This open, empty, borderless, space-like presence.’ But then, take a sound, and think, 'That’s not true. The object is not separate from me. All I know of this sound is the experience of hearing. And all I know of the experience of hearing is the knowing of it. In other words, the sound doesn’t just pass through awareness, it is made out of awareness.' That is the way, having separated yourself from the objects of the body-mind world, in order to establish your true nature. This is the way of bringing them close again. But this time it isn’t just the body-mind that is experienced as close, intimate, myself, it is the entire realm of experience is experienced as equally close, equally intimate. So you can first of all explore this when you are at home in peaceful circumstances, then, as circumstances begin to get a bit more demanding, your husband comes in, and things are just a little bit more difficult, a little bit of agitation starts, but again, explore that, and see that nothing that your husband does or says, however pleasant or unpleasant, harms you. You can respond appropriately, if he’s unreasonable, you can say ‘No, that’s not acceptable’, you can still say ‘No’, it doesn’t mean you have to smile at everyone and everything, it’s still possible to say ‘No, that’s not OK.’ But you don’t do it as a result of separating yourself from the other. So then you practice it on the metro on the way to work. It’s even a little bit more difficult now, a little bit more demanding. And then, it gets really difficult when the class starts. So it gets more and more difficult, more and more demanding, but at each stage you see that all you ever come in contact with is this knowing. And if you really realize that nothing can harm you. You don’t have to defend yourself against experience in order to maintain your peace. We first find peace in the background of experience, as the witnessing presence of awareness, but then we find peace in the midst of experience, in the foreground of experience. And yes, you can experiment with making this transition from the 2nd possibility to the 3rd possibility, until you just feel stable in all circumstances. Rupert Spira
First - we open to the possibility that everything is universal; two - we understand that everything is universal; and three - we experience that everything is universal. Everything is universal means nothing is personal – ‘nothing personal.’ Nothing is personal means separation is not real. There is no separate entity in the cosmos. If you prefer, what it ultimately means, and that’s the most important, is that that which is hearing these words (I’m now saying), in this moment, is not a separate individual, but is a universal consciousness. That is, for all practical purposes, what it boils down to. And most of us are not ready to accept this possibility that that which is hearing these words, in this moment, is not separate, personal, mortal. So we have first, to be ready to accept this possibility; then, to understand (or glimpse, or have the insight) that it is true; and then, to live, experience, feel, perceive that it is true at every moment. These are the three stages I was referring to.
Because of the culture we live in, we believe that there is strong evidence that consciousness is separate, that it is personal. We feel that it is an outlandish type of concept to claim that it is universal, because most people believe otherwise. So the first step is to find out where is the evidence that substantiates our beliefs that consciousness is separate, and what is the value of that evidence. And it is not until we have investigated this evidence and recognized that although before the investigation we believed that we had strong evidence, after the investigation it turns out that the evidence was bogus. Then we are open, you see? This being open to the possibility requires an investigation. We believe that that which in us perceives, because that which we call ‘I’ or ‘me’ is really that which perceives, that which thinks, that which decides, that which acts, as a result of those decisions. That’s what we call ‘I’. But basically, this ‘I’ is first of all, that which perceives. The rest comes after – the decider, the doer. The perceiver comes first. Because in order to have a decision, or to have an action, I need to perceive right? So what ‘I’ am is truly the perceiver – which means the consciousness, which I define as whatever it is which is perceiving these words, in this very moment. And that’s what we call ‘I’. We say ‘I’ perceive, right? We believe that there is a different perceiver in each body or in each mind. So as a starting point, we could as ourselves ‘What evidence do we have that there are as many consciousnesses as there are minds or as there are bodies or body-minds? Questioner : The evidence is that each person experiences different experiences. Francis Lucille : Well, let’s take the analogy of a circular tower with all kinds of windows looking at the landscape, and there is only room for one observer in the tower. The landscape that appears in each window is different. Does the fact that the six landscapes that appear in the six windows imply that there are six observers in the tower? Does the multiplicity of the windows imply multiplicity of observers? No – right? So in this metaphor, each body-mind is a window, and consciousness is the observer. The fact that that which is observed in various windows, differs from one window to the other, does not imply that that which observes, differs from one window to another. When we seem to have evidence that there are many consciousnesses, do we have facts to back it up? So if this mind and that mind have different contents, implies that they are two consciousnesses? The questioner retracts his assertion. In our culture we have not investigated this, we have zero interest in investigating this. There are no courses in consciousness; there are no courses in ‘What am I?’, in kindergarten, primary school, in high school or in college. I’ve never seen a ‘What am I?’ course, which means that there is zero interest for that. In other words, all the interest goes towards that which is perceived, but there is zero interest in investigating that which perceives. So because of this lack of interest, there is a lack of knowledge that goes with it, and (as a result) there are all kinds of childish and simplistic assumptions. So the first thing is to investigate thoroughly whatever evidence comes up in support of the multiple consciousnesses theory, and to realize, to convince oneself, that there is zero evidence. So evidence can be concepts, arguments ‘there are several consciousnesses because …’, but there are also other types of candidates for evidence which are more irrational – they are feelings in the body. And these could come up in the form of ‘Well, theoretically speaking, that’s well said, and I agree, but, at the gut-feeling level, that’s not true.’ So then we also have to investigate the validity of the gut-feeling level evidence. At a some point we also become convinced that the gut-feeling level evidence is also bogus. And then we are left in the situation where we don’t know. But then we are open! That’s a big difference. We are completely open. When I don’t know, I am open to all possibilities. And then there is a moment when we see it – the moment of understanding. Because the moment of understanding is an insight. In the beginning this insight takes place in a timeless moment, in a split second, in a timeless moment. But then, in this split second, we move beyond not knowing. Before we are in not knowing, we say ‘OK, it’s possible.’ But then, there is a kind of reversal of perspective that takes place – a shift that takes place – and then, after that we say ‘Oh, that’s the other way around! It has always been the other way around!’ That’s what I call the understanding or the glimpse. That’s really the entry on the path. Before, we are on the path to the path, on our way to the path, but we are not on the path. Then we really enter the path as we let go of the belief that we are a separate entity. And we let go of the belief that we are a separate entity the moment we have an insight of what we truly are, which is something universal. Universal is a word that doesn’t refer to this physical universe – universal is bigger than that – whatever there is in all realms, the totality. And at that point of course, deep inside, a shift has taken place in us, which is irreversible. But all the consequences of this shift have not yet trickled down to all realms of our experience. So the path is this trickling down of this understanding, which was just in a split moment, in a split second, and to allow for this understanding to transform everything in our life. In other words, to cooperate with this understanding – to allow for this understanding to change, to transform the way we live. And in order to transform the way we live, we have to allow for it first to transform the way we think, the way we perceive the world, and the way we feel – the body. As a result of that, it will also change the way we act in the world, and the way we relate to the world, and that’s all. This final stage, if you will, is a process of stabilization of our experience, to reach a true equanimity. And by the way, equanimity, in my book, doesn’t mean necessarily that we don’t get angry, or upset, because there might be things that are worth getting upset for. But equanimity means that there is no distinction between self and non-self; there is no distinction between inside and outside. It’s all equal. And it is this absence of distinction between the inside and outside that, as a result, also changes our behavior and the way we relate to our surroundings and to the people we interact with. Francis Lucille
Francis Lucille :“… to experience suffering is a trap. I agree. It’s a self-created trap into which we have fallen. But, it is at the same time, also the trap and the ladder by which we can escape the trap. Because what suffering does to us is give us a desire to get out of it, the energy to get out of it. That’s the ancient truth of the Buddha – the Four Noble Truths: #1 there is suffering; #2 there is a cause for it; and (#3) there is a way out of it – the ladder, right? If we were in the trap of ignorance, and if we weren’t experiencing suffering, there would be no incentive to liberate ourselves from the trap. So in a sense, the suffering we experience in ignorance is the beacon that indicates the exit. So from my vantage point, there is no problem with suffering ...
I define consciousness as that which is hearing these words in this moment. That has no states. That which perceives a state is not itself a state. That which perceives the states is itself not a state. That which perceives the phenomena is the noumenon, it’s not a phenomenon. [[ wiki: noumenon
is a posited object or event that is known (if at all) without the use
of ordinary sense-perception. ... generally used in contrast with, or in
relation to phenomenon, which refers to anything that can be
apprehended by, or is an object of the senses.]] So that which perceives a state is not a state. Of course if you read books on psychology, you will (read about) all kinds of states of consciousness. But here we’re talking apples and oranges then, because the way I define it is as that which perceives the states. And that which perceives the states - the perceiver-in-chief if you will - is not a state.
Questioner suggests that when you speak of a perceiver and the perceived, there is dualism. Francis Lucille : I would agree with that. The distinction between the perceiver and the perceived is, if you will, a pedagogical one. If it is your experience that there is only one reality, then you are perfectly happy, at peace, there is no suffering, there is nothing to be sought, and there is nothing to be taught. So the teaching only emerges when there is a student who emerges. And the student emerges as a separate entity. So then the teaching has to take the claim made by the student, of being a student & therefore a separate entity, at its face value, in order to be able to communicate. So then the teacher tells the student, ‘OK, you believe to be a separate self. What does it mean to be a separate self? You are that which perceives, right? Because you claim you are the body here, that perceives the world around you. Or you claim that you are the mind, this private, separate mind that perceives the thoughts. But if you look more closely, the thoughts - you are the perceiver of these thoughts; this world, this body – you are the perceiver of them. Therefore, just as you claim that that which differentiates you from the world is the fact that you are the perceiver of it, and the world is the perceived. If I take you at your logic, following your logic, it follows that you are not your thoughts, your sensations, your perceptions, but you are the consciousness – whatever that is – that perceives them. But then if you look at this consciousness, that perceives them and which defines you, which is really your centrality, this consciousness is devoid of any qualities because all qualities are perceived. Therefore you cannot any longer make the claim that it is separate, that it is limited. And then, once this is understood, this paves the way, makes possible the moment there is the understanding that that which we are - this consciousness - is devoid of any shape or form, or name, that makes possible the realization that it is universal. Because up until that moment, we were superimposing limitations onto it. At the moment we make this distinction between that which is perceived and that which perceives, that eliminates the possibility of any superimpositions, therefore of any limitations. That’s the theoretical aspect of it. But that points inwards towards an experience, which is real. Because the experience of consciousness is not a thought, it is an experience. And that’s how it gets started. Up until that moment, you are not on the way. You are on the way to the way, but you are not on the way. The point of entry in the way is through this experience of consciousness divested of any superimpositions, because then it knows its autonomy, it knows its reality. Then you are told, ‘Wait a minute, now that you know you are real – as consciousness – that you are not making it up, that you as consciousness are real, you also have another intuition, which is that there is only one reality. Because everything is interconnected, everything is part of one single reality, therefore, this consciousness you know now to be real, must be this reality. So it must be the same consciousness that shines in all beings. And it must be the same reality-consciousness that we perceive as this universe. So then that’s when really non-duality really takes all its meaning – non-duality means there are not two realities. It means there is only one reality. Therefore, whatever is perceived, is consciousness and consciousness alone – or – reality and reality alone. So my definition of consciousness, if you will, would be the reality that perceives, that which perceives reality, that which perceives in reality, that which truly perceives the reality it perceives. And there is only one reality. But what is important is the experience of this reality. And the experience of this reality is more readily accessible from within as that which perceives, than it is from without as that which is perceived. So we experience it first as that which perceives, and then we understand that everything that is perceived is nothing else than it. And therefore the words from the Koran ‘Wherever the eye falls, is the face of God.’ Everything we see is divine reality, divine presence. But we cannot readily and easily go there through the external path. The teaching in a sense is accomplished through the teacher seeing the student as God, or as this reality if you will. And that in a sense communicates itself. That awakens within the remembrance of the divinity of consciousness. There is this beautiful saying by Rumi ‘The gaze of Shams Tabrizi (Rumi’s master) has never contemplated an ephemeral mortal thing without making it eternal.’ In the Indian tradition there is also the saying ‘To see all beings in the self, and the self in all beings.’ All of that is the same and it is really the essence of the transmission - for those who are open to it, which is of course the precondition.
Francis Lucille, 2 hour, unedited dialogue, Temecula, CA, March 22, 2014
