Non-dualism and daily life

Non-dualism and daily life by Philip Renard As the term ‘non-dualism’ indicates, it describes a way of thinking and being that is not dualistic. By dualistic we mean that our day to day functioning which needs to use opposites – such as heavy and light, dark and light, male and female, open and closed – is interpreted as being based on a real opposition, that is also true beyond mere functioning. Of course, it is useful for our functioning in the world to be able to differentiate between certain things, but this proves nothing about the ultimate reality of ourselves and the world as it appears to us. On further enquiry into the true nature of all that happens, we notice that we can only speak about something happening because we experience it. This experiencing or knowing is possible due to consciousness. When experiencing stops, everything stops. Whether we experience dark or light, a pleasant experience or a nasty one, it is experienced, it is perceived. By allowing all attention to go to experiencing-in-itself, you can notice that there is no multiplicity or separation. The impressions of multiplicity or separation occur within something that is ‘not two’. This is non-duality. ‘Non-dualism’ is the term for the approaches that emphasize non-duality. If this were to remain an abstract philosophy, just one of the many possible interpretations of life, then as far as I am concerned, it would not be necessary to make it the focus of attention. It deserves attention because due to its radical nature it is the only thing that truly exposes the root of all division and conflict, and because recognizing this root shows the way to bring an end to division and conflict. What I mean by non-dualism is therefore not a philosophy but actually a way of liberation. Liberation from dissatisfaction with existence, with the present moment, with the present thought. The self-tormenting voice Man’s basic-problem, as I see it, is splitting oneself in two, into ‘someone’ who behaves and has thoughts, and ‘someone’ who provides critical commentary on this behaviour and these thoughts. No matter how you try to be one with yourself, that critical voice continues to make itself heard. You appear to identify with both aspects, and the combination of these two can be called the ‘ego’, or simply the ‘I’. The 1 critical voice constantly gives commands, which are usually of a considerable ill-natured sort. It seems impossible to avoid. I believe the whole phenomenon of spiritual seeking is an attempt to escape the wrath of these commands. People start the search because they are tormented. They are tormented by themselves. The moment that the self-tormenting voice stops, happiness or peace is in fact the case. This is exactly what everyone seeks, even though it is already the case.1 The problem with all this seeking is that it actually works via the described commands. All resources at your disposal in the search appear to speak to you, advise you and impregnate you. Subsequently the part that is already so very busy giving commands is enormously strengthened; even the very best advice is internally transformed into forever more subtle new commands, demands and potential for failure. Thus, searching actually increases the energy that is already invested in this split-in-two life, instead of reducing it. For this reason despair and confusion are often part of the search. Non-duality is what remains when the seeking stops. This happens when the inner struggle is realized as being not based on reality, and in this realization the whole body-mind relaxes. I am not two. But it could be said in retort to this that it looks more like an ‘endstate’. This sounds like wishful thinking! In other words, in this way something or other is indeed being missed. Yes, that is indeed the danger. This is certainly an important issue within non-dualism: how can I prevent avoiding or skipping something? Precisely by coming in contact with the ultimate conclusion of being nottwo it is very tempting to overlook or avoid all sorts of matters. Therefore I will attempt to clarify the relationship between on the one side the truth that man really is one and undivided, and on the other the observation of still arising and therefore apparently real doubt and dilemma, at least in most people. The direct way Here we come across something that in my opinion is the essence of non-dualism, which is also sometimes referred to as ‘the direct way’. This essential element is the awareness that despite the abovementioned risk that all sorts of things are ignored, denied or skipped, it simply cannot be otherwise than that ultimate Truth is at once transmitted in its purest form now, directly. Hence, the invitation to first recognize your essential nature, and then everything else. Any other approach (a more step-by-step approach, possibly through meditation, therapy or 2 some method of ‘individuation’) is not only a postponement but also an obscuration of the main point, which can then stay out of reach forever. Not until the main point is realized as your own current experience, is there a trustworthy ground present to deal with potential personal obstacles – this prevents an unnecessarily long and loveless journey lost in the labyrinth of identification with the person that you think you are.2 In non-dualism the highest or ultimate stage is available immediately, simply because Reality can never be the case later, after having firstly fulfilled certain conditions. Reality or Truth is not dependent on any single condition. The assumption that a long path should be travelled first, with much purification and transformation, can best be compared with the proverbial donkey and carrot. No matter how fast the donkey runs, the carrot remains at a distance. The point is that on a gradual path you assume that you are a born entity, a mortal ego or perhaps a re-incarnated ‘soul’ or ‘higher self’, whilst the direct way confronts you with the fact that you still do not know what ‘I’ is, and you are encouraged to investigate what or who ‘I’ is before doing anything else. If right now for instance you momentarily interrupt reading and ask yourself: ‘Who am I?’, then you may notice that there is no mental answer possible to this question; it is as though all capability to interpret disappears for a moment. And yet this disappearing contains exactly the answer, an answer not coming from the mind. The mind falls away, resolved. For a moment there is no-thing, just the absence of any shape or form. In this moment you may see that you are timeless, dimensionless presence (to give it a name). It is true that in this presence all sorts of opinions and feelings may arise and take your attention for a moment, but with careful observation you can see that these temporary forms are not the answer to the question asked. You are not the temporarily arising thought forms with their ‘I’-structure, you are the permanently present capacity to observe these thought forms. Non-separateness In the non-dualistic traditions it is said that this permanent presence is nothing other than the Supreme Principle. Hence, you are this Supreme – you might call it ‘God’, as long as this is not interpreted as an objectified Person or Creator. If someone exclaims ‘I am God’, in nondualism this means nothing more than that there exists no Principle outside or above you, and that in fact everything is lived and thought through this Principle. All of this has to do with seeing the difference between the real Subject, that this Principle is (self-luminously illuminating the current 3 experience), and the so-called subject (the ‘I’ as person), that in reality is only an object recurring for very short moments within the timeless Subject. Twentieth-century Advaita teachers such as Sri Ramana Maharshi and Sri Atmananda (Krishna Menon) emphasized this real Subject in their teachings. They referred to this respectively as ‘I-I’ and ‘I-Principle’ , the uninterrupted self-luminous Self. Non-duality means not only non-separation of yourself and the Supreme Principle but also non-separation of subject and object, non-separation of yourself and the phenomena that appear to you. How can it be that I am not separate from phenomena? They are there and I am here, isn’t it? It seems obvious that there is ‘separation’! The answer lies in the true nature of consciousness, or Consciousness, which is none other than the true Subject just mentioned. Consciousness is that which sheds light on all that appears. Then again that which you call ‘yourself’ appears, then again an object of the senses, then a mental or emotional object. All the time the substance that constitutes the subject (‘yourself’) as well as the object, remains unchanged. Consciousness itself cannot be changed. The nonseparateness that is indicated here means that Consciousness cannot manifest in any other way than as form and content (in other words, in the form of everything that presents itself in Consciousness – all phenomena). The two levels of truth Stemming from the understanding that it is not correct to talk exclusively from the position of being non-separate (because physical and emotional pain, however temporary they may be, require and deserve attention), the classical non-dualistic schools have always sought for a way to describe the coexistence of the understanding of nonseparateness and the experience of being separate (and possibly feeling ‘bound’). For this they used the concept of ‘two levels of truth’: the first level, of non-separation, they called Absolute Truth (Paramartha Satya), and the second, of multiplicity and possibly of separation, they called relative or conventional truth (samvriti satya). On the first level everything is just as it is, with no relationship or comparison to anything else. Thinking can do no more here, there is nothing left to classify or separate. On the second level everything is dependent on all sorts of factors, including the way something is looked at. Nothing exists independently. Nagarjuna, the great second-century Buddhist teacher who developed the idea of the two truths, expressed the importance of the view on it as: 4 “Those who do not know the distinction between the two truths cannot understand the profound nature of the Buddha’s teaching. Without relying on everyday common practices (i.e. relative truths), the absolute truth cannot be expressed. Without approaching the absolute truth, nirvana cannot be attained.” 3 The Buddhist concept of the two levels was later adopted by the teachers of Advaita Vedanta, who linked it to the concept of the two levels in the Upanishads: higher knowledge and lower knowledge.4 Shankara, the eighth-century founder of the Advaita school, described Reality (the first level) as that which always is. Something can only be called ‘real’ when it is never absent, never ‘not real’. Something that comes and goes, that is present only occasionally (the second level), Shankara referred to as maya: illusion or suggestion. Through ignorance (a-jñana) of the truth that you are always, uninterruptedly one with Reality, you start to suggest a separate existence whereby you continuously project with the mind all sorts of things onto the world. Things stored in memory are held in front of your eyes like a slide show whilst you are looking at some current object. In this way you shall never know an object as it really is. Shankara did not assert that the world does not exist, but that it is in itself not the ultimate Reality. Thanks to Shankara and his disciples as well as subsequent commentators, the term maya has had great influence on the whole of Indian philosophy. The shuffle of the two levels The problem of the coexistence of an awareness of the Absolute while encountering all kinds of difficulties is of course one of all cultures and times. In Dutch literature this is illustrated in a poem by J.C. van Schagen: “You loved God and the world but then your braces snapped you opened your arms wide to embrace the All but wasn’t there a sudden resentment on your face whilst your neighbour’s phonograph began to wail? ” 5 This is the situation. You may wish that whatever is happening right now would go away but it just keeps on happening. So what do we do about this? Becoming familiar with the possibility to reduce everything that happens on the relative level to ‘illusion’ (especially in the wake of the 5 teachers of Advaita Vedanta), has tempted many seekers to use this as a method to cover their difficulties. An already present tendency to deny all sorts of inconvenient matters is now supported and strengthened with a philosophical foundation whereby the denial is given an added air of justness. Simply coming into contact with the idea of an ever-present Reality can have the effect that difficulties in life, though indeed experienced as difficult, are dismissed under the motto ‘oh, it’s just illusion’ – in other words, nothing to bother yourself about. In fact, this is usually the result of shuffling the two levels which happens quite often within circles of spiritual seekers. Purely on the level of Ultimate Reality personal aspects such as relational problems, diseases, tension etcetera are indeed without an independent reality of its own: on that level these become as it were ‘outshone’ whereby everything is recognized as light.6 However, this does not mean that on the second level, that of relative reality, these do not make up an actual part of daily life, this implies that these personal complications indeed require attention and care. The twentieth-century teacher Sri Poonjaji once told a good example of this. During a stay with his master Sri Ramana Maharshi, during the bloody Partition of India and Pakistan in 1947, the Maharshi once pointed out to him that his family, living in the western part of the Punjab that was assigned to Islamic Pakistan, was in serious danger and really needed Poonja’s help, to which Poonja answered: “Oh, that life was but a dream. I dreamed that I had a wife and a family. When I met you, my dream ended.” The Maharshi replied to this: “But if you know that your family is a dream, what difference does it make if you stay in the dream and complete your task there? Why should you be afraid to go there if it is but a dream?” 7 The confusion or shuffle of levels comes down to projecting a quality of the Absolute onto the relative.8 One of the most frequently projected qualities is that of perfection. The ever-present Absolute is perfect, but it is not manifest and therefore is not observable. This inherently present (and intuitively felt) perfection is then desired in manifest form and so all sorts of misplaced interpretations occur such as ‘holy’ (read: cramped) behaviour, sexlessness, suppression of feelings, pretentiousness and arrogance. Another quality that is often unconsciously transferred from the Absolute to the relative level is amorality. This is more or less the opposite of the projection of perfection: you could describe this amorality as strategically embracing the imperfect. On the highest level of nonduality every difference is resolved, hence also between good and evil. Regretfully however, the intellectual understanding of this penetrating truth sometimes leads people to misconduct, their misconduct condoned 6 by referring to the ‘non-existence’ of evil. Also in much lighter forms, where you can hardly speak of ‘evil’, comparable confusion may ensue. For example someone with whom you have an appointment at ten o’clock, arriving after twelve could make a comment such as: ‘Oh, time – that doesn’t even exist!’ Whatever form the confusion has, it seems very difficult to confront those who have fallen into ‘the pitfall of the Absolute’ on this point. I think that this aspect, this pitfall, is one of the most difficult points on the direct way of liberation. In Dzogchen, one of the most radical forms of Tibetan Buddhism, a very helpful approach to the two levels is offered. Kennard Lipman, an American translator of Dzogchen texts, wrote the following: “To begin with, an individual who has realized this reality must directly introduce you to your natural state. In Dzogchen the introduction to the natural state could be compared to a light being suddenly turned on to reveal our entire being – both its absolute and relative aspects. With the light on we can clearly see our natural state and how it manifests, as well as the temporary obstacles to its total manifestation. (...) But turning on the light does not automatically eliminate the obstacles inherent in our relative condition: our health; childhood development; unproductive patterns of thought, feeling, and behaviour; financial status and position in society; whatever we think we are and do. If not attended to, all these can create obstacles in any phase of the way. (...) In Dzogchen this knowledge is a means for becoming more certain about the natural state through learning how to work with the difficulties of our relative being.” 9 Only by truly recognizing your natural state (sahaja) can you become convinced that in fact all objects are empty (‘empty’ as term for absence from any own independent existence) and therefore all obstacles are empty too. So you are able to look at the obstacles one by one without being devoured by a belief that they are ultimately real. In the sequence as set out in Dzogchen the direct way is not a way of avoidance, and attention for the obstacles is not a diversion from the way itself. In the natural state it becomes evident that ‘bondage’ does not really exist, and that the temporary appearance of the suggestion of it may well be looked at from awareness of the natural state. Only in this way can both pitfalls be overcome: denial of the lower level on the one hand, and denial of the Light that I am, with the conclusion that I still have a long way to go, on the other. True non-dualism, undivided being in itself, indeed turns out to be a way to avoid nothing and to deny nothing. 7 Why would not we call this ‘mysticism’, or ‘monism’? In many western spiritual scriptures the condition in which all opposites are dissolved and in which undivided being remains, is referred to as ‘mysticism’. As this term is simpler and better known, isn’t it a better term than non-dualism? Yes, to a certain extent the term ‘mysticism’ does cover what here is refered to as ‘non-dualism’. All forms of mysticism contain in its nucleus some element of non-dualism. However, ‘mysticism’ is a very broad term. ‘Non-dualism’ is more precise. Mysticism is known in all cultures and times; it can be found in all religions, with wonderful examples of the expression of truth. But it is noticeable that in many schools of mysticism a yearning for unification is emphasized, whilst in radical non-dualism non-separation is the basic-premise of existence, the inherent, a priori element of it – hence the expression ‘the natural state’. The New Oxford Dictionary defines mysticism as: “Belief that union with or absorption into the Deity or the absolute, or the spiritual apprehension of knowledge inaccessible to the intellect, may be attained through contemplation and self-surrender.” Non-dualism is not a belief in the achievement of something, but the immediate awareness of being not separate right now. Moreover, in mysticism there is often talk of ‘mystical experiences’. Experiences have a beginning and an end and therefore in non-dualism there is not so much importance attached to experiences. Emphasis instead is on recognition of That in which all experiences occur. I still think the term ‘non-dualism’ is the best term for expressing this being not separate, despite its length and weightiness. The negative formulation aptly indicates that what you appear to be encumbered with is an inevitable fact of life, namely ‘dualism’,10 with the prefix ‘non’ indicating that this fact is not true. ‘Non-dualism’ is a literal translation of the Sanskrit terms a-dvaya and a-dvaita, both from a- ‘not-’ and dvi, ‘two’. The negative formulation seems to be the only way to indicate that it cannot really be defined: in any case it is not two, not a multiple, not a division, and yet it does not define what it actually is. Often the term ‘monism’ is used for what is referred to here as ‘nondualism’.11 The New Oxford Dictionary, which does not define nondualism, defines monism as: “The doctrine that only one supreme being exists.” Indeed, also in non-dualism it is said that there is only one supreme ‘being’: be it Consciousness or Knowledge itself. But because this ‘being’ has not any object-value it is not possible to consider this as ‘existing’, and also not as ‘one’. ‘One’ can again be assumed in a more subtle way as being an object, a ‘One’ – and that is, rightly so I believe, 8 exactly the critique of the Mahayana Buddhists on the usage of the term ‘the One’ in the Hinduistic Vedanta. ‘The One’ is often perceived as ‘High’ or ‘the All Good’, through which a certain quality is linked to the Quality-less – and this is exactly what is ultimately dualistic. The characteristic of That which can never be objectified, which is indescribable, is exactly that it is not a definable quality. An example of the misunderstanding about the emphasis on the term ‘monism’ is to be found in a statement from American psychologist William James: “It is hard to see how it is possible that evil is grounded in God while God is all good.”12 Indeed he was talking here about monism (also referring to it as ‘pantheism’), though it seems more like a statement about monotheism. Reference to ‘One’ quickly seems to create associations of an objectifiable Something or Someone. The term ‘non-dualism’ reflects that it is simply impossible to describe what Reality is and therefore a positive formulation really is not appropriate. Monism indicates that all is ‘one’ – as though you know what that is. The awareness of having no knowledge of the Incomprehensible demands the use of a negative term. For this reason you could also refer to nondualistic as ‘non-conceptual’, not to be grasped in any concept. This was expressed in the eighth century BC by a certain Yajñavalkya (speaking of the Self) with the words “neti neti”: “it is not this and it is not that.” 13 Some teachers, for example Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj, find the term nondualism itself still too restrictive, saying that Reality is beyond both dualism and non-dualism. As far as I am concerned, non-dualism indicates the end of all -isms: you then could also call this ‘non-ism’. The term ‘non-dualism’ was not introduced in the West until the midnineteenth century, and then exclusively at translating Advaita Vedanta texts. It was not known then that non-dualism also existed within Buddhism. In the 1890’s Swami Vivekananda used the term in his lectures to show the distinction from the dualistic Vedanta-schools, whilst before that time almost everyone else referred to Advaita with the term ‘monism’. The understanding that non-dualism also exists in Mahayana Buddhism only started to filter through to the West in the course of the twentieth century, partly due to the work of D.T. Suzuki. The Anglo-American writer Alan Watts has repeatedly explained the distinction between non-dualism and monism, and probably has hereby become one of the major sources responsible for ‘non-dualism’ becoming the generally accepted term.14 9 NOTES 1. Shri Atmananda (Krishna Menon) repeatedly said this concerns everybody, the so called non-searchers included; for instance: “We find that PEACE is the real goal of man’s desire.” Notes on Spiritual Discourses of Shri Atmananda. Salisbury: Non-duality Press, 2009; Note No. 10. As a matter of fact Atmananda did contribute a lot by often translating ananda by ‘peace’ instead of the usual word ‘bliss’. 2. In my article ‘Is the “person” involved in self-inquiry?’ (published in Mountain Path of July 2012), this theme of sequence is elaborated. 3. Mula-madhyamaka Karika, XXIV. 9 and 10. Translation by Kenneth Inada, Nagarjuna. Tokyo: Hokuseido Press, 1970; p. 146. 4. This occurs for instance in Mundaka Upanishad, I. 1. 4: Para vidya en apara vidya respectively. Shankara called the two levels Paramartha and vyavahara; the second term concerns our daily life, the actual happenings as well as the imagined ones. 5. J.C. van Schagen, Ik ga maar en ben. Amsterdam: G.A. van Oorschot, 1972; p. 11. 6. See for instance Atma Nirvriti. Austin, TX: Advaita Publishers, 1989; p. 4: “He is great who sees light (consciousness) alone in the manifestation of all objects.” 7. David Godman, Nothing Ever Happened. Vol. One. Boulder, CO: Avadhuta, 1998; p. 158-159. 8. The Absolute does not have any quality or characteristic. Here the word ‘quality’ is used because otherwise that which is being projected cannot be indicated. 9. Kennard Lipman, Commentary in You Are the Eyes of the World. Novato, CO: Lotsawa, 1987; p. 59-60. 10. Maybe it is in fact more proper to speak here of ‘duality’. Ramesh Balsekar, being influenced by Irish/English author Wei Wu Wei (Terence Gray), differentiated the terms like this: “Duality is the basis on which this manifestation takes place. So if duality is understood as duality, as merely polaric opposites, that one cannot exist without the other, that is understanding. (...) And that realization raises the dualism back to the level of duality” (Consciousness Speaks. Redondo Beach, CA: Advaita Press, 1992; p. 70). 11. The term ‘monism’ is originating from eighteenth-century German philosopher Christian Wolff. 12. William James, The Varieties of Religious Experience; 1902. 13. In separate words: Na iti, na iti. In Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad, III. 9. 26, and some other places in the same Upanishad. 14. Alan W. Watts, The Supreme Identity. London: Faber and Faber, 1950; p. 69 and 95; and The Way of Zen. New York: Pantheon, 1957. Pelican-edition 1976; p. 59-60. Published in Mountain Path, Vol. 49, No. 2 (April-June 2012), p. 55-67. Translated from Dutch by Jenny Wase; from Philip Renard, Non-dualisme – de directe bevrijdingsweg, chapter 1. Cothen, 2005. www.advaya.nl 10