From the Deconstructing Your self Podcast
Right here’s the unique audio recording: A Few Stray Factors about Nonduality with Jake Orthwein.
Michael Taft: Hi there and welcome to Deconstructing Your self, the podcast for meta-modern mutants fascinated with meditation, hardcore Dharma, neuroscience, the World Weirding, Tantra, nonduality, awakening, and a lot extra. My title is Michael Taft, your host on the podcast, and on this episode, I’m being interviewed by Jake Orthwein. I wished to speak about a couple of necessary and considerably random factors on the subject of nonduality. And so I felt that Jake, who type of is aware of quite a bit about it could be the right interlocutor to assist me unpack this fascinating subject. Jake Orthwein is a filmmaker primarily based in Santa Monica, California, and a Dharma pupil of mine. You could have seen his YouTube video entitled “How Politics Turned Professional-Wrestling.” And he’s at present engaged on a collection of movies surrounding meditation, psychedelics, and predictive processing. And so now with out additional ado, I provide the episode that I name “A Few Stray Factors About Nonduality,” with Jake Orthwein.
Michael Taft: Jake, welcome to the Deconstructing Your self podcast.
Jake Orthwein: Very honored to be right here, Michael, thanks.
MT: It’s nice to have you ever right here. In order you after all know, we’re gonna flip the roles, and I’m gonna have you ever asking me questions. So I’ll simply give up the ground. You’re the MC. Take it away, Jake.
JO: Okay, so with this background subject, we’ve obtained in thoughts of nonduality, I assume the primary place to start out is perhaps: when this time period nonduality will get used what two issues are being claimed to be not-two or nondual?
MT: Yeah, nice query to start out out with, as a result of really, it’s most likely crucial query. What nonduality are we speaking about? And it seems that it is a level of super confusion as a result of the time period has clout and the time period has recognizability. It’s obtained some pizzazz behind it and so folks wish to use it. Nevertheless it seems that they use it in numerous methods to imply various things. And, most basically, are speaking about really completely different nondualities. And so to begin with, let’s imagine, clearly, if there’s a duality, you want two issues. And as you stated, which two issues are apparently twin, however we’re saying are usually not twin? And I believe that that’s one thing that we’re going to be unpacking all through the course of this interview.
However some actually necessary issues that may very well be nondual are completely different than all the various issues that may very well be stated to be nondual. So if we took any checklist of mundane dualities, or mundane units of opposites; massive and small, or loud and quiet, or huge and little, or white and black, all of these, let’s imagine, Okay, these are usually not twin. However what would we get out of that? It’s like, Okay, now we’re actually all dedicated, we’re gonna have a brand new faith concerning the nonduality of salt and pepper. Properly, who cares? I imply, perhaps some cooks someplace might be inconvenienced by the mob of our followers or no matter, but it surely gained’t actually change something. So what dualities are actually necessary to see the nondualness of, precise collapse the duality of and some of them could be for instance–and these are traditionally necessary–let’s imagine the duality between purity and impurity, between God and man, between thoughts and matter, stuff like that. That’s the place it begins to get juicy, like necessary nondualities, and necessary methods to see that our fixation upon preserving issues–let’s say the duality between sacred and profane. We’re making an attempt to construct a bit wall round our sacred stuff and hold all of the profane at bay, it turns into actually necessary to see that in a technique of it, there is no such thing as a separation between sacred and profane.
So good query, and we’ll unpack this as we go alongside. However I’d declare that usually, over 1000’s of years, particularly of spiritual or religious historical past, the 2 nondualities that we’re going to most be fascinated with and that may get us essentially the most bang for our buck, when it comes to, be life-changing in a really optimistic method, there’s actually solely two which can be central. After which there’s a bit handful of others which can be attention-grabbing. So the 2 are going to be: the nonduality between self and different; and the nonduality between, we’ll simply say, vacancy and kind. Though I might simply as simply name that one between God and the world or consciousness and the world. So these are the 2.
And what will get me off the bed within the morning is that truly these two are carefully associated. And so they’re carefully associated in a hierarchy, they’re completely different. And as I stated, the difficulty is that persons are utilizing the phrase nondual to imply various things and suppose that they’re utilizing it in a method that’s comparable, they usually’re actually not. And these are the 2 that get confused on a regular basis. And the confusion is absolutely notably pernicious, as a result of the nonduality of self versus different, which I’ll, in a really Michael Taft style, simply name Nonduality 1, is required to have Nonduality 2 however doesn’t equal Nonduality 2, which is the nonduality of vacancy and kind. So that they exist in a hierarchy and the implications of the primary one are contained in the second, however after all, Nonduality 2, the implications of it go a lot, a lot additional. And in reality, they find yourself type of trying like the alternative of one another. So it’s actually attention-grabbing in there.
JO: You talked about all these different, extra mundane dualities from the very trivial like salt and pepper to the seemingly extra necessary, like pure and impure for instance, or of extra non secular significance, you possibly can say, and I assume perhaps simply to narrate these ideas in folks’s minds, is it the case that to say one thing is nondual, to say two issues are nondual, is to say that every factor on both aspect of that imagined duality is empty?
MT: Yeah, however you already stated it while you stated imagined. So the issues on both aspect of the imagined duality, and that’s it proper there. It’s that the duality is simply one thing–it’s like a class that you simply’re making in your head or two classes that you simply’re making in your head which can be completely different. So it arises within the creativeness, it arises within the thoughts, however it’s totally mentally created. And it’s a huge a part of nonduality, to see that while you drop that mentally generated two completely different classes or two completely different packing containers factor, while you drop that, immediately they aren’t in two completely different classes, immediately, the separation between them drops away. I’d say that that’s associated in necessary methods to vacancy, however not the identical factor as vacancy.
JO: Maybe we will simply begin with this expertise of what does it imply to say that topic and object are nondual? So what could be the investigation that one would undertake in meditation to find that? After which, what’s the phenomenal results of that?
MT: Certain, I imply, we might undertake dozens, a whole lot, 1000’s of various methods to note this. Nevertheless it’s really not that onerous to note as a result of once more, what we’re doing there’s dropping a set of psychological packing containers that we usually use to orient our notion. I’m over right here, different issues are over there, and there’s a distance between them, they usually exist in a relationship that’s the relationship of topic and object, proper? So I’m doing issues to an object or I’m perceiving an object and so forth. So all of these are the set of psychological packing containers that we’re producing round and inside the expertise, and once we both drop these psychological packing containers, or cease them, or see by them, one thing fairly completely different happens. And we start to note and once more by many various meditation methods, and even simply because we’d discover it sometime, if we loosen up in a sure method, or we might discover it by drug interactions, we might really even discover it in varied methods like being sick or hit on the pinnacle. We will discover, when these classes, when these packing containers are dropped, once they launch, once we let go, there’s merely expertise occurring.
So I’m now a lemon tree. Outdoors my window is a stupendous lemon tree. And in a traditional mind set of an individual off the road I, over right here am trying on the lemon lovely, shining, yellow lemon on the tree there, it’s really moist within the rain, it’s type of a virtually archetypal lemon. After which, if I loosen up these packing containers, if I relaxed the categorization, if I loosen up the system of orientation I’m imposing on this, all that begins to occur is there’s simply an arising of a lemon in imaginative and prescient, or if I am going even deeper, there’s only a yellow circle. And there’s no one seeing it. And it’s not pointing to an object, there’s simply this expertise of sunshine, proper? And in order that’s an instance of what that appears like once we drop topic and object.
JO: Okay, so there’s a relationship between this expertise of subject-object duality. And you possibly can say, like, the reification of the appearances, as a result of as you stated, like, enjoyable the fixation of lemon as lemon additionally relaxes the fixation of you recognize, I’m over right here, and the lemon is over there.
MT: Yeah. And in reality, that begins to level at several types of practices, as a result of to have a duality, because the phrase implies, we now have to have two issues. So if we loosen up, the fixation on the lemon as object that perforce relaxes the fixation on me as an object, so we might type of, in our observe, emphasize the non-objectness of the lemon. And we might type of get non-objectness of self out of that as a bonus, or we might work on the opposite finish of the stick, and actually work on non-fixation on self. And also you’d begin to discover instantly that objects of the world round appear much less separate, appear much less fixated as objects, and begin to have a powerful sense of non-separation. Both method.
JO: Okay, so I’m positive most of your listeners could have had one thing like these experiences, and so it’ll be acquainted to them. However while you say, the lemon is not a lemon, it simply turns into one thing like, within the restrict, simply mild, however you recognize, like a yellow circle, and so forth. In your expertise, that’s not translating into some type of lack of decision or smudginess, it’s like virtually within the different route. Otherwise you inform me. Is it extra vivid? Or is it much less vivid in advantage of like not having the conceptual classes imposed on it?
MT: It’s extra vivid. And we might theorize about why simply an arm-wavy type of principle is that enjoyable the classes, enjoyable the fixation frees up some, let’s say mind energy for use for decision. So really, the readability, the vividness, the brightness of the expertise, goes up. And it would solely go up just a bit bit, but it surely would possibly go up quite a bit. Both method, as a substitute of dropping decision, fairly a little bit of decision is gained.
JO: Proper. So simply to introduce this distinction between nonduality and monism. The monist declare, as I perceive it, could be one thing like: you wouldn’t be capable of inform the distinction between a lemon and your shoe should you have been to see the excellence between lemon and shoe as empty, which means this type of undifferentiation of expertise. And what you’re describing sounds extra just like the sphere of expertise is not divided from itself however every thing that’s showing in it’s rather more vividly seen.
MT: Yeah, it will get difficult as a result of monism and nondualism are completely different, and but they’ll sound the identical and moreover, you possibly can have one with out the opposite, however you possibly can even have each collectively. So there’s the potential of monist however not nondual, nondual however not monist, neither nondual nor monist, or each collectively. Proper? And so they sound type of comparable, however they’re completely different. So, monism is a metaphysical factor about what’s the elementary substance to the universe. And there’s three predominant variations you’ll be able to have the materialist or physicalist monism; every thing is simply made from matter, and nothing else, the basic substance, or you’ll be able to have idealism; the basic substance is thoughts, it’s consciousness, or you’ll be able to have impartial monism; the place it’s each. Or to place it in another way, there’s some impartial substance that’s neither psychological nor bodily, however we don’t know what it’s.
So monism is like this view that there’s one elementary substance. And nondualism isn’t metaphysical, like that. It’s philosophical or religious. And it’s about the concept issues are usually not divided into separate entities or classes, which, you possibly can see that’s subtly completely different however importantly, completely different, it’s a distinct emphasis. It doesn’t actually matter. We’re not speaking about what it’s made from, or what the basic essence of actuality is. It’s concerning the expertise of actuality.
JO: Proper. Appropriate me if I’m unsuitable, although, however I really feel like you possibly can have a monism or nondualism concerning the relationship of expertise to actuality at massive, and you may have a monism or nondualism inside expertise. You describe the monism as saying there’s really one substance and it’s all consciousness or it’s all matter or no matter and nondualism’s declare is being inside expertise, however don’t for instance, like Advaitans declare a nondualism between consciousness and the world. In different phrases, don’t they make the metaphysical model of nondualism?
MT: As I stated, you’ll be able to have these blended collectively. Yeah.
JO: Yeah, so there’s a monism metaphysical and experiential. And there’s a nondualism metaphysical and experiential. You’re solely defending nondualism within the experiential case.
MT: I’m unsure, I’m now going, hmmmm. However sometimes, folks don’t discuss monism experientially until they’re mistakenly utilizing the phrase and needs to be utilizing the phrase nondualism.
JO: Acquired it? Yeah, I assume it could be like a psychedelic expertise the place it’s all one coloration, you recognize, one thing like that? Yeah.
MT: Yeah. Early translators of Buddhist stuff, they couldn’t determine the phrase nondual so they simply use the phrase monism. And in order that elevated the confusion round this. And moreover, why do these Asian religious traditions and philosophical traditions trouble to make use of this actually clunky phrase nondualism, once they too have a wonderfully good phrase for monism? Properly, as a result of they don’t imply monism. That’s not what they’re making an attempt to say. Proper? They’re making an attempt to speak about one thing fairly completely different.
JO: Which is that this non-separateness of phenomena while you’re not imposing conceptual distinctions upon them?
MT: Sure, sure.
JO: Yeah. So perhaps I might simply have you ever type of retread a few of that floor a bit bit. Once more, as a result of there’s this relationship that you simply appear to sketch between Nondual 1 as the popularity of nonduality of topic and object as being increasingly more evident, as you see phenomena as empty. So the route of progress towards realizing nonduality of topic and object is towards increasingly more phenomena being seen as empty. Is that proper?
MT: That’s a technique of describing it. Sure, due to course, we will have nondual traditions that don’t discuss vacancy in that method.
JO: Okay, so with that image of Nondual 1 on the desk, what’s Nondual 2, and what’s the route of journey towards it?
MT: So let me simply unpack Nondual 1 in one other method that may make clear this concern of consciousness. And I’ll simply use the commonest metaphor that’s used in every single place. However I’ll replace it simply barely, though it is going to nonetheless be old-fashioned. So let’s postulate a film being proven on a film display screen. And on the film display screen, there’s a individual and a prepare. And conventionally, we might say okay, particularly if I’m the individual, I’m right here, there’s a prepare over there. And I’m it. However from the sunshine of consciousness, from the point of view of consciousness itself, the individual and the prepare are merely showing within the area of consciousness equally, proper. They’re each on the display screen, so to talk. And when it comes to being on the display screen, they’re not separate in any respect. And so seeing that individual and prepare are usually not separate in any method. They’re completely different. That is another excuse it’s not monism. The prepare and the individual aren’t the identical rattling factor. One appears to be like like an individual and the opposite one appears to be like like a prepare. So one of many predominant issues about nonduality is it retains the distinction. However we see that they’re showing on the identical display screen of consciousness, they’re arising as contents in the identical area of consciousness. And in order that’s Nonduality 1. Does that make sense to you, Jake?
JO: Yeah, yeah. And I see how that follows from this logic of, suppose you’re doing even bizarre, like dualistic Vipassana, and also you’re noticing completely different objects from this posture of seeming like a separate topic. However something you’ll be able to discover goes to be one other object. And that doesn’t imply that each one these objects are literally the identical object. It simply means they’re all objects. And if it seems like one thing to be a topic, that feeling is displaying up as yet one more object.
MT: That’s proper. That is the necessary factor is the sensation of being me, the physique sensations, and the feelings, and the ideas are simply extra quote, objects which can be showing within the area of consciousness. And so once we see it that method, every thing isn’t separate, on this area of consciousness. And in order that’s the nonduality of topic and object, very clearly. That is what most individuals are speaking about once they’re speaking about nonduality. And that’s Nonduality 1. And we will cartoonishly characterize it by its slogans like, I’m one with the universe, every thing is one, issues like that. And there’s a type of an urge to name it one which once more would possibly level in the direction of monism, but it surely’s not that it’s not completely different. We might virtually say it’s all only one class.
JO: At this stage, is the understanding nonetheless, that they’re showing in consciousness, which is to say like there’s consciousness as a context, and there’s phenomena as contents?
MT: Sure, and actually that the separation between these issues turns into a spiritual thought in this sort of Nondual 1. So then consciousness turns into basically sacred, mystical, the Eye of God, the One True Factor. It’s simply this awakeness and every thing that’s arising inside this consciousness all of the contents of consciousness–and it depends upon which custom which philosophy which faith–however all of the contents could be strongly shoved into the anti class. So, like they’re mucking up consciousness or they’re a delusion that’s in some way main us astray from our true nature as this consciousness. Proper? So, despite the fact that all of the issues of the world are one and united in consciousness, consciousness is strongly completely different than its contents. This might be typified in one thing like Advaita Vedanta, particularly unique Advaita Vedanta, the place consciousness is actually God, and your consciousness is similar as the notice of God. So we now have this god nature as wakefulness, however then all of the appearances in consciousness are like this delusory hallucination that’s drawing us out of our God nature into mucking round within the shit of the world.
JO: Proper, so I can hear echoes of the opposite dualities that you simply invoked initially of the dialog, like between sacred and profane and between pure and impure, and between transcendent and imminent, the notice is the sacred, transcendent and pure factor. And its contents are the mucky, gross, profane issues.
MT: That’s proper. It doesn’t should be that method. And there’s softer variations of all this, however that type of transcendental nondualism is quite common. And curiously, for folks raised in a Christian context, or Christian modernist context, apart from the I-Am-One-With-God half, it resonates actually strongly with like puritanism. God is sacred and the world is profane. And so it has actual resonances for Christians or different folks in like type of Judeo-Christian tradition.
JO: Proper. So within the typical type of Christian dualistic posture, you’re nonetheless feeling like a topic referring to that pure, huge, sacred, untainted, transcendental factor.
MT: So should you’re nonetheless a topic, it’s not nondual, proper? However yeah, you’re a topic referring to the transcendent deity or transcendent consciousness. After which within the heretical, nondual Judeo-Christian view, you acknowledge that you’re one with the deity. So that you get issues for instance, in Islam, Al-Hallaj saying, Ana’l-Ḥaqq, proper, I’m the reality. Now we’re going into full nondualism, the place reality right here is one other method of claiming, Allah, saying God. Within the Judeo-Christian-Muslim sphere, while you make this final transfer of, there’s no separation between something together with me and God, then then you definitely’re normally…
JO: Quickly to be murdered.
MT: Yeah, soon-to-be murdered, but it surely does occur. We do see this developing many times with mystics, as a result of it’s there to be skilled, proper? It’s not that dueling philosophers got here up with this nondual thought after which determined to see if they may have the expertise. It’s a human expertise that folks attempt to clarify in varied methods.
JO: Okay, so that is Nondual 1. And as you stated earlier than, Nondual 1 could be approached and realized in a method that doesn’t reify it as absolute. However in these non secular techniques the place it’s reified as absolute, you get this transcendental renunciative, dualistic orientation.
MT: Paradoxically dualistic orientation. Yeah, it doesn’t should be renunciative however virtually at all times is.
JO: Would now, do you suppose, be an excellent time to start out unpacking what Nondual 2 means? And what the route of journey could be for that?
MT: Yeah. And the best way that we’ve defined and gone by Nondual 1 makes it apparent, I hope, what Nondual 2 is. It units it up. It begs the query due to course, in Nondual 1, we’ve ended up creating a powerful dualism between expertise, or consciousness, and the contents of expertise. However in Nondual 2, we then collapse that duality as nicely and emphasize the nondual nature the not-two-ness of consciousness and its contents, or expertise and its contents, or if we use Buddhist language, vacancy and kind. And that is really fairly a bit deeper and in addition collapses any want for this renunciative transcendental temper as a result of we’ve simply collapsed the vertical dimension right here that the transcendent transfer was making an attempt to create.
JO: It happens to me, simply because it’ll be a great way to arrange the observe right here, we should always point out perhaps how this pertains to your stack mannequin. So the stack strikes its method all the way down to consciousness, which, as you have been saying, is one other mind-set about what it means to have this recognition of Nondual 1, however then can transfer its method again up.
MT: Yeah, we might say that happening the stack mannequin is in your option to Nondual 1, while you hit the underside of the stack mannequin, you’re at Nondual 1. And then you definitely return up the stack reintegrating all of phenomena again in. And that’s transferring within the route of Nondual 2.
JO: Is it true to say that, say you’re sitting and also you’re working down the stack till you get to consciousness, or in a Dzogchen context, like Rigpa, no less than in the intervening time, isn’t that additionally Nondual 2? It’s simply that you simply’re very susceptible to dropping out of it while you stand up off the cushion, and all kind reasserts itself or the thought contents reassert themselves?
MT: Provided that you suppose that the underside of the stack is Nondual 2, and it may very well be, however solely in a really restricted method, proper, since you’re not really coping with any contents at that time. However extra doubtless, it’s going to be simply Nondual 1. You’re going to nonetheless are likely to expertise consciousness as a factor, and all of the contents of consciousness, the world, the sense of self, as empty. However so long as consciousness remains to be type of a factor, you’re nonetheless in Nondual 1.
JO: Okay.
MT: And so that you’re proper, you possibly can doubtlessly make a Nondual 2 transfer there, however you won’t. And this is the reason, for instance, in lots of Buddhist contexts, and in addition within the nondual Shaiva Tantra context, you’re invited to note the vacancy of the notice itself, proper? You’re by no means going to reify that. However in a Nondual 1 context, you’re virtually strongly inspired to reify the notice itself.
JO: To see that it’s not tainted by its contents.
MT: Properly, and to think about it as a factor.
JO: The rationale why it could be instrumentally helpful to say reify consciousness is simply to have the ability to absolutely acknowledge the extent to which it’s untainted by its contents.
MT: There’s that but it surely won’t be the usefulness that’s essential there a lot because the type of non secular emotions of consciousness as being type of the one factor the one substance so it’s that’s the place it begins to be this idealist monism.
JO: Okay, so say I’m within the place of the practitioner who’s been doing a bunch of Vipassana and dealing my method down your stack, and have reached the extent of consciousness the place every thing that’s showing, appears very wispy and empty, and I really feel like the notice that I’m is completely freed from these contents. How would I then begin poking holes in that recognition or increasing it in a broader context?
MT: Properly, the best method is to simply invert the notice on itself, see that it’s empty. And that’s going to have a tendency to essentially subvert the power to separate it from every thing. And that’s going to immediately make the following strikes of then noticing that every thing that’s arising isn’t separate from the notice, quite simple. However both method, the following strikes are all about reintegrating expertise. So let’s say you discover a thought arising in that context. And whereas earlier than, we have been emphasizing nicely, consciousness is conscious of the thought and completely different than the thought, now you discover that the notice and the thought are composed of the identical materials. However let’s imagine they’re not separate. And that’s actually necessary.
So that you begin reintegrating all expertise. And that’s the place these different nondualities can assist. They’re not the crux of the difficulty, however they actually assist. So for instance, you probably have a sense that one thing is sacred, and one other factor is profane, however you begin noticing each are the artistic expressions of consciousness and never separate in any method from consciousness, then they can’t have completely different ranges of sacredness and profanity. They’re both equally sacred or equally profane as a result of they’re shining with the identical mild of consciousness, so to talk. That is the place you get all of the tantric stuff that seeks actually on goal and to prohibited acts and to type of revel within the profane is to note that that’s simply an thought, proper? Profanity and sacredness are one other class. And so we collapse that, and we will collapse the large one, the large Nondual 1 thought, that consciousness is sacred and the world is profane. Proper? So that individual one can actually assist, you have been mentioning that earlier.
After which we simply get right into a profusion of methods. However the level being there’s nothing in expertise that isn’t a artistic show of primordial purity, you recognize, is often how we’d say that, or an decoration of vacancy is one other method I’d say it. The thought is: its vacancy is kind and kind is vacancy. They’re by no means really separate. It’s to not say they’re the identical factor. Once more, we’re not turning all of it into one grey goo, mush oatmeal state of affairs. However they’re by no means separate.
JO: Proper. Okay, so I’m type of seeing–you and I’ve spoken about this earlier than–but when the Christian Unique Sin account is in some sense concerning the daybreak of self-consciousness, and in that exact same daybreak, the daybreak of sin as impurity, then, like the popularity of the purity of consciousness, is subverting this concept of unique sin. However then the popularity that every thing seems by no means was separate from it simply will get you off on a very completely different foot with respect to how tainted and horrible human beings are…and that sounds good to me.
MT: Yeah, it’s an totally completely different view, proper? And naturally, this is absolutely the view. And that doesn’t imply okay, which means I can rob, homicide, steal, rape my method by life. And that’s simply as sacred as the rest. There’s sturdy prohibitions towards these sorts of concepts, after all. There’s at all times a option to make one thing right into a unfavourable model of itself. And so we’re strongly suggested to not go there. However however, once we see everything of the world because the mandala, the sacred show of consciousness itself, not ever separate from consciousness itself, there’s a sense by which every thing is full, or every thing is in its proper place. I’m avoiding the phrase good as a result of issues can nonetheless, on the relative aircraft, be fairly terrible. However nonetheless, there’s a spot for awfulness within the mandala.
JO: Yeah, it’s not granting the right imperfect distinction, after which saying it simply so occurs contingently to fall on the aspect of good that we dwell in one of the best of all potential worlds. It’s saying previous to that distinction between good and imperfect, there’s a way by which all of it matches.
MT: All of it coheres. Appropriate.
JO: Yeah. Yeah. Since you talked about a bit bit earlier–and it’s acquainted to me from Dan Brown retreats–you talked about this primary step, or among the finest first steps for starting to maneuver from Nondual 1 into Nondual 2 is that this gesture of inversion, inverting consciousness upon itself, to see itself as empty. Is that the identical factor as that remaining quote, unquote, crossing-over instruction within the Dan Brown Mahamudra context?
MT: You realize, I’m not a Dan Brown instructor. So I don’t know what they might say about it in that custom. However that’s what makes it rigpa, which is Nondual 2. Earlier to that, it’s nonetheless Nondual 1 till you invert consciousness upon itself, see its vacancy. Now it’s rigpa, proper? Now it’s absolutely awake consciousness.
JO: What does leaping over that chasm really feel like? In different phrases, like, how would one acknowledge the distinction between: every thing’s actually empty, I don’t really feel like I’m separate from it, and now it’s actually rigpa?
MT: I believe it’s completely different for various folks and completely different for a similar individual on completely different days or with completely different approaches. However simply within the spirit of the query, I’ll reply and say every thing’s showing as empty, and then you definitely invert consciousness on itself and see the vacancy of that, and it’s not trippy, it’s not immediately hyper-cosmic or no matter. However any sense of any type of separation is gone. And there’s a real sense of and I’ll simply use Dan’s phrases that he appreciated to make use of of huge, spacious freedom. I believe he known as it.
JO: Sure, spacious freedom.
MT: Spacious freedom, I at all times add the huge. Yeah, it’s spacious freedom. There’s simply this sense of actual spaciousness and freedom. And likewise, as you and I talked about a short time in the past, every thing simply being a bit brighter and clearer. Not essentially quite a bit, however a bit. And so which may sound fairly mundane, however when it’s really making use of to all elements of expertise, it’s fairly profound.
JO: Is that the identical or completely different than the ultimate step that you’ll usually educate and it’s–I get that it doesn’t should be the ultimate step, but it surely helps to be this fashion–of seeing the vacancy of the doer or the meditator?
MT: I believe that’s a distinct transfer that may usually do one thing comparable. However I’d say that it’s potential that you possibly can see the vacancy of the doer and nonetheless have an thought of consciousness as a reified factor. And so we wish to actually let go of the reification of even consciousness itself.
JO: So, as this type of rising recognition of Nondual 2 develops, what does it seem like to type of more and more deliver that off the cushion and into one’s life on this planet, as that understanding begins to develop?
MT: Properly, while you take Nondual 1 off the cushion and combine it into the world, it doesn’t combine, it separates. As you stated, you progress in an asceticism route, you progress to separate your self from all of the mundane actions as a result of these are likely to embroil one within the delusion of the world. And also you’re going to are likely to wish to go be aside and type of sit there and dwell in consciousness itself. And so it has an actual signature of aloofness, which, after all, is one other method of claiming, transcendental, proper? We turn into aloof, we’re greater than all of it.
That’s to not say that these traditions don’t enable practitioners to interact in life and so forth. However to the extent that you simply cease partaking on this planet, you’re normally applauded as somebody who’s type of getting it. Whereas the Nondual 2 traditions transfer in the wrong way, proper, we’re going to interact extra powerfully, interact with extra enthusiasm, power, readability, humor, brilliance, no matter. We’re coming into the world as we see each a part of expertise as not separate from our deepest meditation expertise of consciousness itself. And so to gradual that transfer down a bit bit, sometimes, we do first expertise Nondual 2 stuff, the nonduality of vacancy and kind, nonetheless beneath a type of meditative laboratory circumstances someplace, you’re in a retreat, otherwise you’re in a quiet meditation in a quiet room, normally along with your eyes open, as a result of once more, we’re together with the world from the very starting. However nonetheless minimalist circumstances, and perhaps we will solely discover that, acknowledge this awake consciousness beneath these circumstances. And so it’s type of in an unstable method, the minute we transfer, the minute something occurs, it type of collapses.
And so as soon as we now have the slightest view of awake consciousness, which is, by the best way, an enormous deal, not when it comes to expertise, it might sound type of cool, but it surely’s not essentially one thing that blows your doorways off. Nevertheless it’s an enormous deal, since you now know what it appears to be like like, so to talk, in scare quotes, then a lot of the path turns into about simply stabilizing that. And it’s not a particular state, it’s not a particular expertise, we’re making an attempt to stabilize, in reality, the stabilization signifies that we’re capable of keep that awake consciousness view all through each type of state, all through each type of expertise, all through the six realms, to talk in that method. So it’s completely different. Typically I hear folks say, Properly, you’ll be able to’t keep rigpa, as a result of that’s only a state and states can’t be maintained. However that’s a mistake. Psychological states and experiences come up inside rigpa. So really, we will stabilize our recognition, we will stabilize our view. Or to place it in barely extra appropriate language, we will cease falling out of the view, as a result of the view of awake consciousness is definitely elementary.
JO: Possibly this might be an excellent place to herald this distinction between sudden and gradual, which frequently will get invoked when speaking about nonduality. How do you see the connection between nonduality and suddenness or gradualness of awakening?
MT: So we have to add one other idea in right here to make this work. And that’s the primacy of consciousness itself. Even in essentially the most Nondual 2 traditions, there’s the concept of the primacy of awake consciousness, or let’s say buddha nature or the tathagatagarbha or no matter, as one thing that’s earlier to our human expertise, earlier to our expertise of separateness, earlier to our sense of ourselves as a struggling, sentient being making an attempt to schlep our method by samsara. And so, that concept is central. In different phrases, everybody listening is already at their root a bodhisattva, already at their root, a completely woke up buddha in some sense, and that that simply must be revealed and even, to place it in higher language, acknowledged, not that it must be cultivated or generated or in some way created.
And so, as soon as we’re coming from that place, which is a quite common place for each Nondual 1 and Nondual 2 to level to, the primacy of consciousness, then we now have the potential of on the spot awakening. Which does really occur to some small phase of the inhabitants. Vanishingly small, extremely uncommon. However some folks upon simply listening to the concept you’re already simply this shining consciousness that’s not separate from something, simply acknowledge that in that second, after which it’s maintained stably eternally. And in order that does occur.
JO: So I assume you possibly can most likely make a distinction between sudden enlightenment, within the sense of you get it identified, and then you definitely’ve already accomplished the stabilization, and sudden awakening within the sense of like a declaring instruction that you could be however should stabilize.
MT: Yeah, these could be completely different. Thanks. That’s an attention-grabbing distinction. Nevertheless it doesn’t actually influence the purpose I’m making an attempt to make, which is, we now have, primarily based on this concept that you simply’re in some sense already absolutely awake, we now can strategy that in two other ways. We will strategy it from the view of a sentient being, from the traditional view of me as an egoic being making an attempt to work my method in the direction of that. Or we will flip it on its head and say, Geez, working from the point of view of an egoic being, a sentient being, is already unsuitable, already getting in the best way and let’s work as if we’re already a buddha, by which case, perhaps no work is required, however you simply acknowledge it, and also you’re accomplished. And so in a method that’s philosophically extra pure, since you’re simply nicely, if it’s true, that you simply’re already a buddha, then simply acknowledge that proper now. And should you can’t, then we’re nonetheless simply going to honor that chance. And our whole observe is actually sitting there till you do acknowledge it, which is perhaps very gradual, by the best way, paradoxically.
However after all, the folks doing these traditions are sensible, they usually–over the various centuries and even millennia–have seen all these little contradictions and gotchas. And sometimes, it’s a bit extra nuanced than that, such as you talked about, declaring. And declaring is a extremely fascinating factor, which is you’ll be able to take somebody off the road who’s by no means meditated a day of their life. And in about three minutes, start to point out them, even when it’s not awake consciousness, you can begin to point out them consciousness, and to separate that from expertise in a method, or to point out how that’s completely different than their day by day expertise. And so if that goes deep sufficient you possibly can even have somebody have no less than, as you introduced up, no less than a mini expertise of awakening, proper there. And what’s so cool about that, is that you may then use that second of recognition that they’ve skilled as the premise for his or her observe. For instance, in a lot of Dzogchen contexts, you get identified first, like, right here’s what awake consciousness appears to be like like, you’ve had no less than a glimpse of it irrespective of how muddy and partial and obscured, however no less than, you recognize, the route of it, so to talk. After which once we begin doing our meditation observe, if we do it from even that imperfect glimpse, we’re nonetheless miles forward, as a result of we all know the place we’re going, in a way, despite the fact that there’s nowhere to go.
JO: Yeah, okay, so perhaps this might be an excellent place to herald this query of, to what extent completely different traditions really honor the total recognition of nonduality, that you simply’re claiming the understanding of Nondual 2? The type of gradual approaches that we’ve been speaking about are usually related to Theravada, the place you’re doing Vipassana, no less than at first, from a type of dualistic posture. And there’s this complete body of purification and fetters and all this type of renunciative language. Do you suppose the total realization of say for instance, like fourth path is Nondual 2 or Nondual 1?
MT: You realize, it’s a tough query, particularly as a result of Theravada has interacted with these Nondual 2 traditions for a thousand years or fifteen hundred years. And so it, itself, has modified to react to that. And you’ll see hints, even within the phrases of the historic Buddha within the Pali Canon, that appear to trace at Nondual 2, like for nearly the entire Pali Canon the Buddha will solely discuss Nirvana in unfavourable phrases. You realize, what it’s not. It’s timeless, and it’s unborn and it’s uncreated and all that. However there are a pair spots the place he talks about it in optimistic language and says one thing prefer it’s unalloyed bliss or one thing, he says a couple of issues like that, which might nonetheless doubtlessly be Nondual 1. However there are some hints that begin to sound extra like Nondual 2. However I’d say as a degree of clarification, usually, more often than not, the best way folks work in a Theravada context goes to be both dualistic or at greatest Nondual 1.
JO: Yeah. So should you’re doing type of Vipassana with this three traits body, and also you’re utilizing anatta, the anatta being acknowledged there as this Nondual 1 perception.
MT: It’s going to result in it as I stated earlier, you’ve obtained to break down no less than one aspect of the duality and there you’re collapsing the self finish of the stick. And so that you’re going to no less than get the non-separation of self and different. And vacancy arises in later Buddhism as a much wider idea as a result of it may be utilized to issues that no one, within the early Buddhist context imagined, had a self. No one thought a rock had a self, they weren’t animists–definitely not a self in the best way an individual needed to promote. And so it could have been bizarre to speak concerning the anatta of a rock.
JO: Proper.
MT: However vacancy is the anatta of a rock, basically, it’s the not-thingness of it. And so it’s a deeper and broader idea. However we will consider it as an unpacking of the implications of anatta.
JO: I believe that is really very useful for folks as a result of one of many extraordinarily frequent misunderstandings, particularly in a Western context of even simply Nondual 1 is that it’s important to eliminate sure practical elements of your self-construct, like the truth that you’ll be able to discern the boundaries of your physique. There’s this complete body of: there’s one thing to be gotten rid of that was showing, versus seen as empty.
MT: That’s proper. And a part of that’s only a misunderstanding however a part of it’s experiential. I imply, should you do early Buddhist meditation methods, which, by the best way, I’m an enormous fan of, I don’t suppose there’s something unsuitable with them, I believe they’re highly effective, there’s simply extra to do. However should you’re doing many of those methods you’re doing a Vipassana deconstruction of the sense of self or no matter, particularly on an extended retreat, it may be the case that fairly than seeing the vacancy of self, you simply have it cease, the entire self-construct stops or falls aside, or attenuates to the purpose of completely not arising. And so there’s an anatta, or varied anattas which can be partial or full, simply stopping of the sense of self in a method, which might make it inconceivable to perform strolling round on this planet, however that are very spectacular and intense, and do enable you to to see by the development of self as a result of how am I nonetheless having an expertise when the sense of self is completely gone? is an enormous perception. Proper?
JO: Proper.
MT: So these occur, and they are often then confused with the perception of no-self that comes from simply seeing by the constructed-ness of it, whereas nonetheless having it’s absolutely practical, which after all is what we would like.
JO: Which is the excellence that the concept of vacancy was launched to make.
MT: I believe it actually helps. Yeah, but in addition the excellence is included so to see the no-self of a rock.
JO: Proper. So, vacancy is the blanket class, you’ll be able to speak concerning the vacancy of individuals, or the vacancy of phenomena, the vacancy of individuals is not-self, the vacancy of phenomena is simply their vacancy. In each instances, what’s lacking is a few imputed essence or unbiased existence.
MT: Appropriate. I imply, the concept of vacancy to me is–one of the best metaphor is the metaphor of phrases in a dictionary, which you’ve heard me use earlier than. Each phrase in a dictionary, should you attempt to outline the phrase, it’s outlined utilizing different phrases, and then you definitely go to outline these phrases, and people are outlined by different phrases, you go to outline these phrases, and people are outlined by different phrases which may even be a bunch of the unique phrases. And it’s not like that’s ineffective. That’s extremely helpful. They exist in a community of relationships. Let’s imagine they come up depending on one another. And we now have this extremely complicated community of relationships. However you’ll be able to’t, anyplace in there, discover a elementary phrase, the one that’s actual, that provides all of them their realness. This can be a community of relationships that may solely exist due to all the connection. There’s nothing that in some way breaks out of that community and finds itself embedded in a deeper floor.
JO: That gives a type of elementary ontology or like remaining floor.
MT: Sure. So it’s actually helpful. It’s not like that community is in some way–due to this fact we simply throw all of it out. However neither is it actual on this deeper ontological sense, as you stated.
JO: So that you introduced up a bit bit of those optimistic qualities of Nondual 2, particularly just like the extra you type of transfer into the popularity of Nondual 2, the much less you’re so involved to just be sure you’re not reifying something. And so I’m not saying you give up, that vigilance. However the much less of a menace there’s that the looks of phenomena will threaten your pristine vacancy and so the optimistic qualities of consciousness can begin to manifest. I assume there I’d simply have you ever communicate to these optimistic qualities and perhaps what the connection is between them and compassion or like compassionate exercise on this planet?
MT: Yeah, the compassion high quality can begin arising strongly with Nondual 1, merely since you’re not categorically separate. You’re not experiencing your self as this atomized exterior entity, however fairly deeply intertwined with every thing that’s co-arising. And so once more, this could sound so psychological and so philosophical however the expertise is poignant and intense and bare and direct–it’s not psychological in any respect–of the preciousness of residing issues, particularly as you get a style of the enjoyment and freedom of residing exterior of dualistic classes. There’s a type of desirous to share that with others, like, Hey, you’re trapped in your thoughts, you recognize, you simply take this sort of sideways step, and the issue is gone. And also you type of naturally wish to share that.
It’s not that we will get this view of compassion as some type of hyper-lofty advantage that we’re making an attempt to domesticate actually laborious. However really, it’s proper there, it’s the factor that comes bursting forth, the minute dualism drops. That is why oftentimes, consciousness is modeled, I hear lots of people modeling it as this sort of aloof neutrality that’s in some way not solely transcendent of all issues but in addition is totally impartial. And it’s actually not impartial. The knowledge of vacancy at all times comes along with compassion. They’re by no means separate. And in reality, in the event that they appear to be, then your knowledge is missing. One thing isn’t full there. Since you’re going to repeatedly be pulled increasingly more into relationship. That’s even utilizing the unsuitable verb. It’s that you simply acknowledge increasingly more that there’s nothing occurring besides relationship.
JO: Proper. You have been by no means out of relationship. Yeah.
MT: Yeah. And in order that turns into central. So compassion is the proper phrase. Nevertheless it doesn’t have all of the connotations I want it did. As a result of it could be like, as you see the knowledge of vacancy increasingly more deeply, the dance of relationship turns into increasingly more highly effective, increasingly more lovely, increasingly more central.
JO: And the compassion, as an angle, as you say, can present up very strongly as much as and together with Nondual 1 however the expression of that angle of compassion as relationship is rather more vividly realized in Nondual 2 since you’re not asserting your differentiation from the world.
MT: That’s proper, it turns into central in Nondual 2. Yeah, after all, if we go to the historical past of Buddhism, the place we get the primacy of compassion, beginning to be talked about is in Mahayana Buddhism, the place additionally they–it’s the primary time they have been emphasizing the nonduality of vacancy and kind. So these two issues appear to return collectively and experientially that’s definitely the case.
JO: Okay, so if our hypothetically completely enlightened, Nondual 2 one who’s now absolutely inhabiting the world, in some sense that’s virtually precisely the identical as they have been earlier than. And if that would have been acknowledged from the outset as a result of vacancy and kind have been by no means separate. What’s completely different about that completely realized individual’s expertise and conduct from the one that has by no means heard of any of these items in any respect?
MT: Their conduct is perhaps indistinguishable, however their expertise goes to be totally completely different, totally completely different, proper? The entire definition of what’s modified is that their expertise is totally modified. And one would hope that their conduct appears to be like fairly completely different as nicely. Nevertheless it won’t. And the rationale I’m saying it that method is as a result of there’s no specific conduct that we might level to and say, nicely, that’s Nondual 2 conduct.
JO: Proper.
MT: And if we might, then you possibly can do the factor that many individuals do, which is then simply attempt to imitate the conduct. So I’d say, Properly, you won’t be capable of, however simply once more, within the spirit of the query, I’d say, they most likely are going to look much more artistic and engaged and be in what we’d acknowledge as one thing of a circulation state extra usually. And moreover, they’re most likely going to are usually useful, that’s one of the best ways to place it. It’s not that they’re essentially a cartoon of compassion, however they’re going to are usually fairly useful in a technique or one other.
JO: And despite the fact that you couldn’t essentially acknowledge from any given motion, oh, sure, that’s Nondual 2 motion, over an extended time period, it is best to most likely count on them to be say extra spontaneous, or extra compassionate, or no matter.
MT: Yeah, if we have been to get into optimistic qualities. And I believe these are extra recognizable from inside than with out. However they might present with out. They’re going to be spontaneous, childlike, excessive power, humorous, and engaged. They are usually dynamos of power, and in addition actually fluid actually spontaneous, and typically putting, like lightning, very sudden and sudden. However there’s no temper, it’s not like, Oh, they’re at all times externally completely happy, or at all times externally this or that. It will possibly look many various methods. And the extra that somebody is type of rigidly seeming to have one specific emotional state on a regular basis, it’s most likely extra doubtless that they’re performing fairly than being.
JO: They’re taking over some fixated, recurring sample once more, that mimics the–
MT: Sure.
JO: –the spontaneity. Yeah.
MT: However nonetheless, there are paths the place we do exactly take these properties of spontaneity and compassion and flow-state kind stuff and childlike conduct and all that and simply begin making an attempt to be that method as a lot as potential. That will be, let’s say, one thing like Taoism, the place you begin working with that. And since you’re performing the qualities, with instruction and meditation, and with the proper assist, that does assist lead in that route.
JO: Yeah, a part of the rationale I ask is that within the spirit of asking, Properly, what’s all this nonduality enterprise good for? I definitely perceive why it could be good from the within. And as you say, the inner expertise of being unfixated is completely completely different in a optimistic route. However one can marvel on the premise of the misbehavior of varied folks, particularly taking over this view, proper that nothing to do precisely, and no inner authorities apart from the spontaneity of consciousness, a technique of placing it’s whether or not there’s something you possibly can say about it being a contemplative misunderstanding, fairly than an absence of simply different schools, you would possibly wish to study as a result of if someone misbehaves, very palpably, from the vantage level of their awakening, is there anyplace to face to say they weren’t really recognizing Nondual 2?
MT: I believe there’s, I believe that in the event that they have been deeply recognizing or absolutely recognizing, it could be very laborious to do any conduct that was explicitly malfeasant. It’s not that they couldn’t damage somebody. As a result of typically hurting folks is critical, for instance, some type of trolley downside or one thing. However the type of simply straight-up malfeasance, taking of actions which can be harming others merely for gratification. I believe that that straight signifies that they’re not really absolutely there. But additionally any custom that has survived, the traditions which can be nonetheless right here, explicitly say this again and again: you don’t use this philosophy to behave badly on this planet. You aren’t to try this. And it is perhaps they’re simply making an attempt to guard their reputations. However I don’t suppose so, I believe they’re saying like, similar to the rest, you’ll be able to misuse this. And the true space of misuse isn’t the people who find themselves absolutely awake or absolutely liberated, however the people who find themselves partially awake, who use this as license to behave badly, that’s an actual hazard zone. And so, traditions have put lots of guardrails in there and coaching wheels to ensure that doesn’t occur. However after all, it nonetheless occurs.
JO: In some sense should you’re taking over the mantle of the purity of consciousness to justify the ethics of your actions, that’s, in some sense, similar to not absolutely recognizing Nondual 2 since you’re claiming some place from exterior the contingent regulation or ethical code or no matter of transcendental justification. It’s typically–it’s simply an expression of that distinction. Yeah.
MT: Yeah. And it at all times finally ends up the excuse. There’s type of two excuses. However the typical one is: it was a educating, the individual I harmed I used to be making an attempt to take away their dualism about this hurt or one thing.
JO: I needed to sleep with their spouse, don’t you see?
MT: Yeah, as a way to crush their dualistic attachment. And that’s an actual apparent downside. The opposite one, which I believe is type of attention-grabbing, and virtually worse, is: my awakening was so deep. I like didn’t see the boundary I used to be crossing. To me, that’s this bizarre humblebrag the place you’re utilizing your crime to speak about how awake you’re. But additionally, it’s a deep misunderstanding. It’s the factor you have been saying earlier, Jake, we don’t lose distinction. We don’t lose decision.
JO: There’s this lovely phrase from the custom to seize that of like, view as huge because the sky, conduct as advantageous as barley flour. Yeah, all of the distinctions are nonetheless there. Yeah.
MT: Yeah. So what stuff haven’t we talked about that you simply’re excited or to speak about?
JO: I suppose there’s some stuff about–in what sense is that this, or is that this not God? However you inform me whether or not you suppose there’s extra you’d prefer to say there?
MT: It will get dicey. as a result of all of it depends upon what you imply by God.
JO: Proper.
MT: Is it a creator being? Is it the prime explanation for the universe, or what? However you’ll be able to definitely have, even Nondual 2 traditions which have, some type of relationship, perhaps even a central relationship, with no less than a stand-in for type of an final precept. Even when the final word precept is empty, it’s nonetheless the bottom layer. So even in Dzogchen you’ve obtained Samantabhadra. Proper, Kuntuzangpo, who’s the–not image of–however is the personification of awake consciousness or the bottom of being? Proper? And there it’s, and, and also you’ve obtained loads of Dzogchen practitioners praying to Kuntuzangpo to assist them to turn into liberated and so forth. And positive, within the custom, they are saying again and again, nicely, that’s not God and that’s merely a personification of awake consciousness, your personal rigpa or no matter, or dharmakaya.
Ultimately, all these distinctions between the dharmakaya, and the bottom of being, and rigpa, and all that, which lastly at one level, are all dissolved, principally in expertise. However we will, from one finish of the argument, say, Properly, clearly they’re conscious that this may very well be mistaken for a god and they also’re saying it’s not God and it’s empty and so forth. Okay, however in one other method, in what method is that not God? As type of this final awake consciousness that doesn’t die between incarnations and so forth, it’s there eternally. And identical factor is there in nondual Shaiva Tantra with Shiva and Shakti as a result of even in Dzogchen Samantabhadra has his consort, Samatabhadri. In a method, they’re very comparable personifications.
So once more, the traditions insist that these are personifications, and many others, and many others. And but, it’s fairly laborious to land on what is perhaps the necessary distinction, besides the dualistic one, which is: nicely, it’s separate for me in some elementary method. That’s, after all, what the traditions are so adamant about dissolving.
JO: Most likely no less than some variations of the supernatural one too, proper, within the sense of, like, can intervene within the legal guidelines of physics, however–
MT: However boy, in all of the traditions that declare it’s not God, and so forth, that type of intervention is complete, however you’ll be able to change something, you’ll be able to flip your physique right into a rainbow, you’ve heard of Rainbow Physique, proper?
JO: Yeah.
MT: However there’s a fair deeper type of Rainbow Physique. I believe it’s known as Nice Transcendent Rainbow Physique, you’ll be able to seem as a completely manifesting human being after which simply disappear once more after which seem over right here and disappear once more, and so forth. And so definitely any thought of the legal guidelines of physics not being transcended is blown away by these sorts of ideas. I believe what’s necessary right here is that they’re by no means saying that it’s a separate, transcendent entity that’s in some way eternally separate in the best way {that a} dualistic Western creator god is.
JO: The legal guidelines of physics are to be seen, in the identical sense as every other conceptual look.
MT: Completely.
JO: Now you’ve intrigued me by invoking Rainbow Physique and a few of these kinds of extra supernatural claims which can be made on the premise of those experiences. Okay, so this sense of it being deathless in some necessary sense, as a result of it persists throughout any obvious incarnation. That’s one definitely you’ve borne out in your expertise. Is there a spot the place you say, I am going this far and no additional with the standard supernatural claims? Or is it a wait-and-see? Or how do you concentrate on it?
MT: It’s a wait-and-see, I imply, in any other case, I’d declare to have superior information to those of us. And whereas I’m not bowing to them as the final word supply of data, I’m additionally not saying essentially I do know higher. However I’ll say this, I’m not certified to show Rainbow Physique observe, and neither am I at present making an attempt to realize that.
JO: Proper.
MT: So I’ll simply say, nicely, that’s above my pay grade. I’ll let someone else fear about it. Yeah, as a result of I don’t know.
JO: Superior, okay, the rest that you simply suppose we’ve missed, or that you’d like to cowl? Earlier than we name it?
MT: The entire goal of this dialogue, for me, is to assist folks perceive that the phrase nondual is used very in another way in numerous traditions to imply actually various things. And so once we name one thing nondual, and we name one other factor nondual, they is perhaps totally completely different. And so they would possibly discuss what they’re making an attempt to realize fairly in another way, and how you can get there fairly in another way. And so we now have to acknowledge these distinctions as a way to navigate this territory with the least quantity of issues. And in order that’s the entire level right here. Not that you simply in some way should know all this to meditate, or it’s important to know all this to have the expertise. Clearly, you don’t. As a result of lately, all these traditions are utterly out there utilizing a browser or no matter. We would mistake them for one another or suppose they’re speaking about comparable issues. And also you’re going to finish up very, very confused. Whereas hopefully this dialogue if nothing else, goes to assist no less than clear up a bit little bit of that confusion.
JO: Stunning. I hope so. It was nice enjoyable for me. Thanks a lot for having me.
Yeah, enjoyable for me too. And I actually respect you being prepared to return on the present and ask all these questions, Jake. So thanks a lot.
JO: My pleasure.
MT: All proper, man.
