The Seer

When you read a novel, and you read about various characters, you may like some and not like others. Or when you watch a movie, think about your relationship with the characters. You might like them; you might not like them — but you’re not finding your sense of self in them. You’re not referencing your self-worth by the characters in a novel or when you turn on the TV. You just have your thoughts about them.

But imagine if you turned on your TV or you read a novel and you actually completely derived your sense of being and your sense of self from one of the characters. Immediately your perspective is very different, isn’t it? Now your perspective has gone from something that’s very vast to something that’s very limited, seen only through the eyes of the character. Sadly, that’s how most human beings spend their lives. They have this little character in their mind called “me,” and they’re actually viewing that “me” as personal when it’s not.

The “me” is very impersonal, not meaning cold or distant, but just meaning without inherent self nature, in the same way that when you read a book, the characters are without self nature. They actually don’t exist outside of your imagination. They don’t even exist in the book, because the book is just words. And without someone reading the words and bringing it all alive within imagination, nothing even exists on the printed page. It’s all within the reader, all the life.

When the Buddha talked about the realization of no-self, he was talking about the self that’s an image in the mind being completely seen through. And when there is no image of self, experience has nothing to bounce off of. Everything just is as it is, because there’s no secondary interpretation. The one that’s interpreting is the one that’s in pain. And that’s the one who suffers. That’s the one who causes others to suffer.

The false self, the self that’s an image in the mind, uses every experience to measure itself: “How am I in relationship to what’s happening? Am I wise? Am I stupid? Am I clumsy? Am I courageous? Am I enlightened about this?” That’s the movement of consciousness reflecting on an image of itself that doesn’t actually exist. It’s always measuring each and every experience, and then believing in the interpretation of the experience rather than seeing “Everything just is.”

Everything actually just is. From the perspective of consciousness, even resistance just is. And if you resist resistance, that’s just what is. You can’t get away from it. You start to see that the only thing that goes into resistance, a story, or an interpretation of what is — whatever it is — is this mind-created persona.

It’s like a character in a novel. When you read a novel, every character has a point of view. It has beliefs. It has opinions. There’s something that makes it distinct from other characters. Our persona is literally this mind-created character that’s always making itself distinct.

So it always needs to evaluate everything against its preconceived idea.

There’s another vantage point. The other vantage point is not only outside the character, it’s also inside the character. It’s the ultimate vantage point that’s outside, and it’s also playing all the parts from the inside.

That’s basically what it means to really wake up: we’re waking up from the character. You don’t have to destroy the character called “me” to wake up from it. In fact, trying to destroy the character makes it very hard to wake up. Because what’s trying to destroy the character? The character. What’s judging the character? The character.

So you leave the character alone. The character called you, just leave it alone. Then it’s much easier for the awakening out of that perspective to happen.

You don’t lose the character; you just gain the whole novel of life. It’s not like you lose anything. You just gain the whole book. You gain the whole universe. As Buddha would say, “Lose yourself, gain the universe.” It’s not a bad deal.

Or Dogen: “To know yourself is to forget yourself, and to forget yourself is to be enlightened by the 10,000 things,” which means to see yourself everywhere. Wake up from your character, and then you see your self nature in all characters — not just one, but all of them.

So we don’t lose anything. We gain all characters. We just lose the fixation, that’s all.

~ Adyashanti, 2005. www.adyashanti.org

~ BTW Adya is among the 100 Most Spiritually Influential Living People — a list recently published by Watkins Review. (see below)

Through the years, I’ve met many people (teachers, students, seekers of all kinds) who experience non-dual awareness yet still buy into separation in one form or another. This separation often shows up in relationships. It shows up when we repeatedly find ourselves in old ego patterns in relationship (e.g., control, resentment, victimization, conflict, fear of abandonment, defend/attack energy, jealousy, obsession, etc).

All of these issues stem from a sense of separation in which it appears that an “other” is in control of your contentment. Certainly, non-duality is not a self-improvement plan. However, the root of suffering in relationships is the belief in separation. Therefore, the seeing through of that belief, in whatever way it appears for you, releases these deeply rooted patterns. This naturally harmonizes relationships ….

What the Boomerang Inquiry Is

The Boomerang Inquiry is a set of questions that I take you through. I first ask you to get a real sense of the separation between you and an other in relationship. The “other” can be a person, place, or other thing. It can be the government, a loved one, a disease, an object of obsession. It can be any object whatsoever.

I then ask you to find the other through looking at individual arisings of thought, emotion, and sensation. In not finding the other, the other appears “empty” or lacking a separate nature. The other is seen to be thought, emotion, and sensation arising inseparably within awareness.

I also ask you to look at the particular self that gets created (and reflected back) in this relationship with the other. For example, if the other is a victimizer, the self is a victim. Once the self that is created in this relationship is identified, I invite you to find that self by looking at individual arisings of thought, emotion, and sensation. In not finding the self, the sense of separation between self and other falls away, leaving a recognition of inseparability, love, awareness, Oneness, or nonduality (whatever you like to call it).

We believe we see others the way they really are. We fail to see the filter of thought and emotion through which we view others. Seeing this filter for what it is helps tremendously in seeing through the sense of separation in our relationships.

This is why the Boomerang Inquiry has been so powerful in one-on-one sessions with people. The inquiry is content-specific. In other words, it’s not a dry, one-size fits all teaching that has no relevance to your relationships. Its strength lies in the fact that it’s directed precisely towards the relationships in your own life.

It starts out with the assumption that there are two separate things — you and an other (i.e., person, place, thing). It asks you to picture and characterize the “other” in your life. And through picturing that other, the inquiry invites you to see who you think you are in relationship to the other. And then the inquiry cuts through the belief in objectivity (the idea that you see the other objectively). It cuts through the notion of separation itself, the belief that you are looking at a separate object.

Once you see how the inquiry works, you can do it on your own or with others. If you are interested in doing this Boomerang Inquiry, email me at Scottkiloby@aol.com. I also highly recommend you read the Living Realization text at www.livingrealization.org before meeting with me. That text helps tremendously in giving you context for the Boomerang Inquiry. You can also join the Living Realization online meetings, coming soon, to enjoy the inquiry in a small group setting.

~ by Scott Kiloby

~ You can see and hear Scott via YouTube HERE

It’s interesting to note that Eckhart Tolle made the #1 spot on the 100 Most Spiritually Influential Living People, published recently by Watkins Review. The Watkins Review hopes that its planned annual list will nurture the debates surrounding contemporary spirituality.

Apparently, there are several factors that were taken into account when compiling the list. Here are the main three:

1) The person has to be alive.

2) The person has to have made a unique and spiritual contribution on a global scale.

3) The person is frequently googled, appears in Nielsen Data, and is highlighted throughout the blogosphere. In a sense, being googled is a form of digital voting, and illustrates just how often someone is being sought out.

Of course the words spiritually and spirituality are given the wides possible interpretation by the Watkins Review and in many cases, those on the list have nothing to do with humanity’s great Nondual Wisdom Tradition, which is the focus of The Seer.

The list represents a plethora of spiritual practices and advocates, from the sublime to the bizarre and dangerous, ranked in the order of their global popularity. The first ten on the list are:

Eckhart Tolle, Dalai Lama, Dr Wayne W. Dyer, Thich Nhat Hanh, Deepak Chopra, Louise Hay, Paolo Coelho, Oprah Winfrey, Ken Wilber, Rhonda Byrne!!! … Byron Katie, Jeff Foster and Adyashanti are further down the list. You can see the whole list >>>Here

Q: If we’re all one, why do we feel drawn toward certain individuals in an expression of ‘personal love’?

ET: True love is transcendental. Without recognition of the formless within yourself, there can be no true transcendental love. If you cannot recognize the formless in yourself, you cannot recognize yourself in the other. The recognition of the other as yourself in essence — not the form — is true love.

As long as the conditioned mind operates and you’re completely identified with it, there’s no true love. There may be substitutes, things that are called ‘love’ but are not true love. For example, ‘falling in love’ … perhaps most of us have experienced it. Maybe one or two at this moment are ‘in love’, and those who have experienced it have also experienced ‘falling out of love’. We need to remember to understand (the difference between) true love and other forms of so-called love.

We are in the relative as form, and in the absolute as formless consciousness. The two dimensions that the human being embodies are the ‘human’ and the ‘being’. The human is the form, the being is the formless, the timeless consciousness itself. It sometimes happens that the form has an affinity with other forms.

It could happen for a number of reasons. One being that this form has come out of another form — called your mother — and so there is an affinity of f this form with that other form. You have a love toward your mother that might be called ‘personal’.

Another aspect of affinity with another form is male/female. You can be drawn to another body in a sexual way, and it’s sometimes called ‘love’. Especially if the sexual act is denied long enough, it’s more likely to develop into obsessive love … so much so, that in cultures where you could not have sex until you were married, falling in love could be a huge thing and could lead to suicide.

Naturally, there is an affinity of the male/female, the incompleteness of this form. The primary incompleteness of this form is that you are either a man or a woman. The oneness has become the duality of male/female.The pull towards the other is an attempt to find wholeness, completeness, fulfillment through the opposite polarity, in an attempt to find the Oneness.

That lies at the basis of the attraction. It’s to do with form, because on the level of form you are not whole — you are one half of the whole. One half of humanity is male, one half is female, roughly. You have the attraction for the other, then there may be finding certain qualities in another human being that resonate with certain qualities in yourself. Or, if they don’t resonate, it may be the opposite that you feel drawn to.

If you are a very peaceful person, maybe you feel drawn toward a dramatic person, or vice-versa. And again, you’re hoping for some completion there. You can have an affinity with another form, which can be called ‘personal love’.

If personal love is all that there is, then what is missing is the transcendental dimension of the formless — which is where true love arises. Is that part of the personal love, or is the personal level all that there is? That determines whether that so-called ‘love’ is going to turn into something painful eventually, and frustrating, or if there is a deepening.

There may be an attraction that is initially sexual between two humans. If they start living together, this cannot endure for that long and be the fulfillment of the relationship. At some point, sexual/emotional (attraction) needs to deepen and the transcendental dimension needs to come in, to some extent, for it to deepen. Then true love shines through the personal.

The important thing is that true love emanates from the timeless, non-formal dimension of who you are. Is that shining through the personal love that is to do with affinity of forms? If it isn’t, there is complete identification with form, and complete identification with form is ego. Many times you may think ‘that’s it!’ and after living together for a little while you realize ‘that was a mistake’, or ‘I was completely deluded’.

Even in parent-children relationships, which is a very close bond on the level of form, if the transcendental dimension doesn’t shine through, eventually the love between children and parents turns into something else. This is why so many people have very problematic relationships with their parents.

Some relationships may start as purely form-based, and then the other dimension comes in after a while. Perhaps only after a lot of problems, and perhaps you get close to a breakup, when suddenly there is a deepening and then you are able to bring in space. The key is to ask, ‘Is there space in this relationship?’ Or are there only thoughts and emotions? It’s a dreadful prison to inhabit if you live with a person and all you have are thoughts and emotions. Occasionally you are okay, but there is disagreement, friction.

We need to acknowledge that there are personal affinities. But in themselves, they are never ultimately fulfilling. More often than not, they are a source of suffering. Love becomes a source of suffering when the transcendental is missing. How does the transcendent come in? By being spacious with the other. Which essentially means that you access the Stillness in yourself while you look at the other. Not mental noise, not emotional waves.

That doesn’t mean that there cannot be emotions or thoughts, but there is something else present in the relationship. That applies not only to close personal relationships, but also to more superficial relationships at work.With any human relationship, the question is, ‘Is there space?’ It’s a pointer.

Space is when thought becomes unimportant — even an emotion becomes unimportant. When people live together, sometimes the other is no longer acknowledged in daily life because there is so much to do. If you wake up in the morning, is there a moment when you acknowledge the presence of the other? It’s the most wonderful thing if you can be there for the other as space, rather than as a person. At this very moment, you can either be here as a person, or you can be here as the space.

~ Eckhart Tolle www.eckharttolle.com

Question: What are you?

Answer …
Phase 1: “The question never occurred to me.”
Phase 2: “I hear that it’s relevant, but I don’t see the relevance myself.”
Phase 3: “Intellectually I see its importance, but it’s not a burning issue.”
Phase 4: “I see it’s the only hope.”
Phase 5: Period of hopelessness.
Phase 6: Self-realization.
Phase 7: “It’s no longer an issue.”

~ TAT Forum

I was rushing at work, my ‘mind’ wanted to get to the future more than it wanted to be in the now.

I didn’t notice my mind’s wanting, and so anxiety was born.

I noticed the anxiety. I then noticed that it was born from not noticing my mind’s wanting.

Thank you anxiety for showing up.

Without you, I would never know Who I am. I love you anxiety and I’ll understand if you have to go, now that you have reminded me to notice you. Thanks again for reminding me of Who I am.

The next day a work, my boss criticized me unfairly.

My ‘mind’ produced a judgment of the criticism. I didn’t notice the judgment. Upset was born from the unnoticed judgment.

Then I noticed the upset. I noticed it was born from not noticing my mind’s judgment.

Thank you upset for showing up.

Without you, I would never know Who I am. I love you upset and I’ll understand if you have to go, now that you have reminded me to notice you. Thanks again for reminding me of Who I am.

On the way home I got a flat tyre. My ‘mind’ produced a resistance to the flat tyre.

I didn’t notice the resistance. Frustration was born from the unnoticed resistance.

Then I noticed the frustration. I noticed it was born from not noticing my mind’s resistance.

Thank you frustration for showing up.

Without you, I would never know Who I am. I love you frustration and I’ll understand if you have to go, now that you have reminded me to notice you. Thanks again for reminding me of Who I am.

The next day I went to work early and got a lot done before the other staff arrived. My boss did not commend me for getting the job completed on time.

I noticed that my ‘mind’ produced no judgments this time, and no upset was experienced.

I could see now that my boss’ criticism or lack of praise was not the real cause of the past work-upsets I’d felt.

My boss noticed my changed demenor and his attitude toward me began to change — it seemed lighter and more relaxed.

My boss thanked me for showing up.

Thank you ‘mind’ for all your past showing ups.

Without observing my mind, I’d never have known Who I really am. I love you ‘mind’ and I’ll understand if you don’t produce any more judgments and resistances, now that I’ve been reminded to notice what you do both in me and for me.

~ by Peter Dimitriou, From his forthcoming book: Awareness I Am … Identifications I Am Not … For Pete’s Sake!.

An Aussie mate of mine was invited by a Canadian cousin to join himself and a few friends on a grizzly bear hunt in the Rocky Mountains. The Aussie jumped at the opportunity and took the first flight he could get to Canada’s rugged west coast.

When he arrived, his cousin found to his dismay that the only weapon the Aussie had brought was a boomerang. His cousin tried to tell him a boomerang would be quite useless for hunting big grizzly bears, but the Aussie just grinned and replied, “She’ll be right, mate!”

The hunting party trekked deep into the woods, and spent the first night in a log cabin.

The next morning, the rest of the party awoke to find the Australian missing. Suddenly, they heard shouts some distance off. Peering out the window they saw the Australian racing across a clearing toward the cabin pursued by the biggest, blackest, meanest looking grizzly they had ever seen … with a big bump on its head.

“Help! Open the bloody door!” he bawled, “Hurry! Get the bloody door open!”

The Canadians sprang to the door as one man and held it open for him. The bear was almost on the Aussie when he got to the threshold.

Then, in a quick manoeuvre, he jumped to one side, the grizzly rushed into the cabin, he reached in after it, pulled the door shut and yelled, “You blokes skin that one while I go and get ya another!”