*** Go to Part 1 ***

The Discussion

1. You say: “But the message asks – what reality does this person have in the first place? This isn’t about DENYING that person, or REJECTING that person.”

So are you saying that the person exists or not?

– I see this as a false dichotomy. The mind believes that something has to “exist or not”. But who would know whether a person existed or not? A person?

Without Consciousness, nothing exists. But it seems that this is the usual absolute versus empirical reality problem. Since we are using language and having a dialog, both of us are implicitly assuming the existence of separate persons. You cannot deny this without making nonsense of your position as a teacher and writer. So the answer to your question ‘what reality does the person have’ is that he has an empirical reality. This has to be accepted as a given at the level of the world appearance. The question as to whether this person has an absolute and separate existence is another question entirely.

2. Your answer seems to be that:“ that person only ever appears as a presently arising thought ”. I would have to ask: to whom or in what does this thought arise? How do you define ‘person’ in such a way that it can arise as a thought in something other than a person?

–  EXACTLY, Dennis! The moment we say “something arises”… it implies that this thing arises in something… and then how do we define that in which this thing arises? The words “the person arises…” point to something that is so utterly obvious – the idea of “me” arises now. But then, to WHOM or WHAT does that arise? Any answer would just be something else that arises.

No. You are still confusing levels. At the absolute non-dual level, you can say everything arises in Consciousness, if you like. But clearly at the empirical level, what arises for me does not arise for you and vice versa. There are effectively separate minds and each has its own (usually mistaken) ideas. These need to be resolved before the concept of everything arising in Consciousness can be appreciated.

3. You say that:“ This message is about the simple and obvious appearance of life ”. Again, I would ask: appearance to whom?

– EXACTLY! Dennis, can’t you see that we’re saying the same thing in different ways?

No. You are denying that, at the empirical level, things appear to people. Appearances have to be to an observer for the word to have any meaning. Things cannot appear if you are talking about absolute reality because the non-dual reality simply is. Appearance and duality come and go together.

4. You go on to say that: “our whole lives, our pasts and futures, are just stories appearing now.” Appearing to whom? Written by whom, for whom?

EXACTLY! There is the ASSUMPTION that everything appears to an entity. And indeed, language implies this entity. Using words implies a person there who uses words. A lot of non-dual folks say things like “everything appears … to no-one”. But isn’t “no-one” just another idea?

‘Appearing to no one’ is simply meaningless. But I have already clarified this above. Appearances belong to the empirical realm where there are definitely people, doing things, including seeking and teaching!

5. I disagree that: “ the entire spiritual search rests on the assumption of an entity there, a “self” who does the seeking.” I suggest that the seeker begins with the assumption that there is a Self (capital ‘s’) to be found. I agree that he also starts out with the mistaken belief that he is a separate entity but this is not an assumption; it is a firm belief. The spiritual search is the belief that there is a small self seeking a big Self. The spiritual finding is that there is no separate small self and ‘I am the big Self’.

– Yes of course the seeker believes there is something to be found, that he is a separate entity. That’s what the seeking is all about! But isn’t “I am the big Self” just another belief? Just another way to imply separation? “I am the Big Self!” It seems just another way to bolster the ego, another attainment. It seems like it’s just the ego dressed up in fancy clothes. And I would say the same for an ego that claims “I am no-one!” or “I have ended the search” or a billion different things. What reality does this ego have in the FIRST place, BEFORE it can claim any of these things?

‘I am the Self’ remains a belief until it is realized to be the truth, yes. And this has nothing to do with ego. The search may begin with an ego wanting enlightenment but it ends with realization that the ego was a fiction. If ‘you’ claim that you are not a person (small self) and not the ‘big Self’, who do you think you are?

6. You ask: “what is wrong with THIS moment?” Because of identification with the body-mind, there is the belief that in this moment ‘I’ am suffering, unhappy etc. From the vantage point of the person, there is a future when things may be better.

– Of course!  Why else would we seek!!!!!!!!

Yes? What point are you making? Your question ‘what is wrong with this moment?’ implied that nothing was wrong with it but now you seem to be agreeing that there is something wrong, which is why we are seeking.

7. You also ask: “What if THIS is all we have?” The answer for some might be suicide! Especially if you convince them that this really is so!

– Yes, of course!

And this is acceptable? You seem to be happily admitting to a completely amoral attitude.

8. You say that: “This is about the possibility of absolute freedom, absolute ‘happiness’ as you put it, right here, right now.” This is not possible while there is self-ignorance.

– Of course! I am not denying that.

So where is the knowledge coming from in your teaching to remove this self-ignorance?

9. You say: “This is about seeing that the miracle that we are searching for is always fully present…” Yes – it IS always present but, and this is a very big but, it is not known to be present.

– Of course. It cannot be known as long as there is the striving for it to be known. The striving, the desiring obscures the obvious present actuality. The striving implies that this is not it! And with the striving, with the search, with the promise of a brighter tomorrow comes the inevitable dulling of the present.

No. It cannot be known in the present because it is covered over by self-ignorance. The striving is irrelevant as far as that is concerned. Seekers constitute a very small minority in the population. Are you suggesting that all non-seekers are ‘fully present’/’enlightened’ or however you would prefer to put it? The striving is for the appropriate knowledge to remove the self-ignorance and, when it arrives, the striving ceases.

10. You also say that: “enlightenment is already the case…” Enlightenment is not already the case. We are already free but we do not know it. Enlightenment comes when we discover that to be true. This is confusion of terminology.

Of course. But it will never be discovered in the future. Enlightenment is THIS. This moment is the miracle. Sitting here, everything happening – thoughts, sensations, the sound of the birds outside, the hum of the television. What a miracle this is – that anything is happening at all. Why would we want anything else? The absolute perfection of this, beyond anything words could ever capture. The search for something MORE would imply that THIS wasn’t enough.

This is to use a word in a meaningless way. ‘Enlightenment’ literally implies bringing light into the situation. We are currently in the dark (self-ignorance) and light (knowledge) is needed to enable us to see how things really are in this moment. People are searching, not because the moment is not REALLY enough but because it is mistakenly believed to be inadequate. Simply telling someone that it IS adequate achieves nothing.

11. You ask: “why do we have to endlessly classify teachings?” Because all teachings are not equally likely to lead a seeker to the truth.

– And that’s the spiritual game we play. The endless search for clearer and clearer teachings. And I’m not denying any of it. I’m not condemning any of it. It’s one way to pass the time.

Seekers are not looking for the teaching. The teaching is the means to knowledge. If they could find one that provides that knowledge, they would stop looking. What would be the point in then looking for another teaching?

12. On the subject of knowledge, you say: “we can build it up over time, and become authorities on every topic under the sun”. You are talking here about relative knowledge, not self-knowledge – these are totally different things.

– By knowledge I mean thoughts, concepts. Are you saying there is a knowledge beyond concepts? And if there was, how could we know that? On what basis? Wouldn’t that just be another concept?

The knowledge that ‘I exist’ is beyond concepts. And you know that! Your knowing that you know – that, too, is beyond concepts. Your knowing that you do not know Mandarin (assuming you don’t!) is beyond concepts.

*** Go to concluding part ***