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 interested by 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 needed to speak about a number of necessary and considerably random factors on the subject of nonduality. And so I felt that Jake, who sort of is aware of loads about it might be the proper interlocutor to assist me unpack this fascinating matter. Jake Orthwein is a filmmaker based mostly in Santa Monica, California, and a Dharma pupil of mine. You might have seen his YouTube video entitled “How Politics Turned Professional-Wrestling.” And he’s at the moment 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 in fact 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 matter, we’ve acquired in thoughts of nonduality, I suppose the primary place to begin could be: 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 begin out with, as a result of truly, it’s in all probability a very powerful query. What nonduality are we speaking about? And it seems that this can be a level of large confusion as a result of the time period has clout and the time period has recognizability. It’s acquired some pizzazz behind it and so folks need to use it. But it surely seems that they use it in numerous methods to imply various things. And, most basically, are speaking about truly totally different nondualities. And so to start with, lets say, clearly, if there’s a duality, you want two issues. And as you mentioned, which two issues are apparently twin, however we’re saying are usually not twin? And I feel 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 might be nondual are totally different than all the various issues that might be mentioned to be nondual. So if we took any record of mundane dualities, or mundane units of opposites; giant and small, or loud and quiet, or large and little, or white and black, all of these, lets say, 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. Nicely, who cares? I imply, possibly some cooks someplace might be inconvenienced by the mob of our followers or no matter, but it surely received’t actually change something. So what dualities are actually necessary to see the nondualness of, precise collapse the duality of and some of them can be for instance–and these are traditionally necessary–lets say 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 holding issues–let’s say the duality between sacred and profane. We’re making an attempt to construct a bit of wall round our sacred stuff and maintain all of the profane at bay, it turns into actually necessary to see that in a method of taking a look at it, there isn’t a separation between sacred and profane.
So good query, and we’ll unpack this as we go alongside. However I’d declare that basically, over 1000’s of years, particularly of spiritual or religious historical past, the 2 nondualities that we’re going to most be interested by and that may get us probably the most bang for our buck, by way of, be life-changing in a really constructive approach, there’s actually solely two which might be central. After which there’s a bit of handful of others which might be fascinating. So the 2 are going to be: the nonduality between self and different; and the nonduality between, we’ll simply say, vacancy and type. Though I may 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 away from bed within the morning is that truly these two are intently associated. And so they’re intently associated in a hierarchy, they’re totally different. And as I mentioned, the difficulty is that persons are utilizing the phrase nondual to imply various things and suppose that they’re utilizing it in a approach that’s comparable, and so they’re actually not. And these are the 2 that get confused on a regular basis. And the confusion is admittedly significantly pernicious, as a result of the nonduality of self versus different, which I’ll, in a really Michael Taft trend, simply name Nonduality 1, is required to have Nonduality 2 however doesn’t equal Nonduality 2, which is the nonduality of vacancy and type. In order that they exist in a hierarchy and the implications of the primary one are contained in the second, however in fact, Nonduality 2, the implications of it go a lot, a lot additional. And in reality, they find yourself sort of wanting like the alternative of one another. So it’s actually fascinating 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 would say, and I suppose possibly 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 mentioned it while you mentioned 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 just’re making in your head or two classes that you just’re making in your head which might be totally different. So it arises within the creativeness, it arises within the thoughts, however it’s totally mentally created. And it’s a large a part of nonduality, to see that while you drop that mentally generated two totally different classes or two totally different bins factor, while you drop that, all of a sudden they aren’t in two totally different classes, all of a sudden, 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 are able to simply begin with this expertise of what does it imply to say that topic and object are nondual? So what can be the investigation that one would undertake in meditation to find that? After which, what’s the phenomenal results of that?
MT: Positive, I imply, we may undertake dozens, lots of, 1000’s of various methods to note this. But it surely’s truly not that onerous to note as a result of once more, what we’re doing there’s dropping a set of psychological bins 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, and so they 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 bins that we’re producing round and inside the expertise, and after we both drop these psychological bins, or cease them, or see by means of them, one thing fairly totally different happens. And we start to note and once more by means of many various meditation methods, and even simply because we would discover it sometime, if we chill out in a sure approach, or we may discover it by means of drug interactions, we may truly even discover it in varied methods like being ailing or hit on the top. We are able to discover, when these classes, when these bins are dropped, after they launch, after we let go, there’s merely expertise taking place.
So I’m now taking a look at a lemon tree. Outdoors my window is a fantastic lemon tree. And in a standard mind set of an individual off the road I, over right here am wanting on the lemon stunning, shining, yellow lemon on the tree there, it’s truly moist within the rain, it’s sort of a virtually archetypal lemon. After which, if I chill out these bins, if I relaxed the categorization, if I chill out 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’m going even deeper, there’s only a yellow circle. And there’s no person 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 after we drop topic and object.
JO: Okay, so there’s a relationship between this expertise of subject-object duality. And you would say, like, the reification of the appearances, as a result of as you mentioned, like, enjoyable the fixation of lemon as lemon additionally relaxes the fixation of you understand, I’m over right here, and the lemon is over there.
MT: Yeah. And in reality, that begins to level at various kinds of practices, as a result of to have a duality, because the phrase implies, now we have to have two issues. So if we chill out, the fixation on the lemon as object that perforce relaxes the fixation on me as an object, so we may sort of, in our apply, emphasize the non-objectness of the lemon. And we might sort of get non-objectness of self out of that as a bonus, or we may 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 robust sense of non-separation. Both approach.
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 understand, like a yellow circle, and so forth. In your expertise, that’s not translating into some form 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 may theorize about why simply an arm-wavy sort of concept is that enjoyable the classes, enjoyable the fixation frees up some, let’s say mind energy for use for decision. So truly, the readability, the vividness, the brightness of the expertise, goes up. And it’d solely go up just a bit bit, but it surely may go up loads. Both approach, 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, can be one thing like: you wouldn’t have the ability to inform the distinction between a lemon and your shoe should you have been to see the excellence between lemon and shoe as empty, which suggests this form of undifferentiation of expertise. And what you’re describing sounds extra just like the sphere of expertise is not divided from itself however all the things that’s showing in it’s far more vividly seen.
MT: Yeah, it will get sophisticated as a result of monism and nondualism are totally different, and but they will sound the identical and moreover, you would have one with out the opposite, however you would 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 sort of comparable, however they’re totally different. So, monism is a metaphysical factor about what’s the basic substance to the universe. And there’s three major variations you possibly can have the materialist or physicalist monism; all the things is simply manufactured from matter, and nothing else, the basic substance, or you possibly can have idealism; the basic substance is thoughts, it’s consciousness, or you possibly can have impartial monism; the place it’s each. Or to place it in a different 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 basic substance. And nondualism is just not 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 would see that’s subtly totally different however importantly, totally different, it’s a distinct emphasis. It doesn’t actually matter. We’re not speaking about what it’s manufactured from, or what the basic essence of actuality is. It’s concerning the expertise of actuality.
JO: Proper. Right me if I’m fallacious, although, however I really feel like you would have a monism or nondualism concerning the relationship of expertise to actuality at giant, and you may have a monism or nondualism inside expertise. You describe the monism as saying there’s truly 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 mentioned, you possibly can 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 usually, folks don’t discuss monism experientially except they’re mistakenly utilizing the phrase and ought to be utilizing the phrase nondualism.
JO: Obtained it? Yeah, I suppose it might be like a psychedelic expertise the place it’s all one coloration, you understand, one thing like that? Yeah.
MT: Yeah. Early translators of Buddhist stuff, they couldn’t work out the phrase nondual so they only 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, after they too have a wonderfully good phrase for monism? Nicely, 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 totally 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 possibly I may simply have you ever form of retread a few of that floor a bit of bit. Once more, as a result of there’s this relationship that you just appear to sketch between Nondual 1 as the popularity of nonduality of topic and object as being increasingly evident, as you see phenomena as empty. So the route of progress towards realizing nonduality of topic and object is towards increasingly phenomena being seen as empty. Is that proper?
MT: That’s a method of describing it. Sure, due to course, we are able to have nondual traditions that don’t discuss vacancy in that approach.
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 approach that may make clear this problem of consciousness. And I’ll simply use the commonest metaphor that’s used all over the place. However I’ll replace it simply barely, though it’ll 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 particular person and a prepare. And conventionally, we’d say okay, particularly if I’m the particular person, I’m right here, there’s a prepare over there. And I’m taking a look at it. However from the sunshine of consciousness, from the perspective of consciousness itself, the particular person and the prepare are merely showing within the subject of consciousness equally, proper. They’re each on the display screen, so to talk. And by way of being on the display screen, they’re not separate in any respect. And so seeing that particular person and prepare are usually not separate in any approach. They’re totally different. That is another excuse it’s not monism. The prepare and the particular person aren’t the identical rattling factor. One seems like an individual and the opposite one seems like a prepare. So one of many major 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 subject 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 strange, like dualistic Vipassana, and also you’re noticing totally different objects from this posture of seeming like a separate topic. However something you possibly can discover goes to be one other object. And that doesn’t imply that every 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 exhibiting up as 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 might be showing within the subject of consciousness. And so after we see it that approach, all the things is just not separate, on this subject of consciousness. And in order that’s the nonduality of topic and object, very clearly. That is what most individuals are speaking about after they’re speaking about nonduality. And that’s Nonduality 1. And we are able to cartoonishly characterize it by its slogans like, I’m one with the universe, all the things is one, issues like that. And there’s a sort of an urge to name it one which once more may level in the direction of monism, but it surely’s not that it’s not totally different. We may virtually say it’s all only one class.
JO: At this degree, 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 concept in this type 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 all the things that’s arising inside this consciousness all of the contents of consciousness–and it relies on which custom which philosophy which faith–however all of the contents might be strongly shoved into the anti class. So, like they’re mucking up consciousness or they’re a delusion that’s someway main us astray from our true nature as this consciousness. Proper? So, although all of the issues of the world are one and united in consciousness, consciousness is strongly totally different than its contents. This is able to 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 attention of God. So now we 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 just invoked in the beginning of the dialog, like between sacred and profane and between pure and impure, and between transcendent and imminent, the attention 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 approach. And there’s softer variations of all this, however that sort of transcendental nondualism is quite common. And curiously, for folks raised in a Christian context, or Christian modernist context, aside 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 form of Judeo-Christian tradition.
JO: Proper. So within the typical sort 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 fact right here is one other approach 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 often…
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 concept after which determined to see if they might 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 mentioned earlier than, Nondual 1 might be approached and realized in a approach 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 all the time is.
JO: Would now, do you suppose, be a great time to begin unpacking what Nondual 2 means? And what the route of journey can be for that?
MT: Yeah. And the best way that we’ve defined and gone by means of 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 robust 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 type. And that is truly 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 apply right here, we must always point out possibly how this pertains to your stack mannequin. So the stack strikes its approach 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 approach again up.
MT: Yeah, we’d say that happening the stack mannequin is in your solution 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, at the least in the meanwhile, isn’t that additionally Nondual 2? It’s simply that you just’re very susceptible to dropping out of it while you rise up off the cushion, and all type reasserts itself or the thought contents reassert themselves?
MT: Provided that you suppose that the underside of the stack is Nondual 2, and it might be, however solely in a really restricted approach, proper, since you’re not truly coping with any contents at that time. However extra seemingly, it’s going to be simply Nondual 1. You’re going to nonetheless are inclined 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 continues to be sort of a factor, you’re nonetheless in Nondual 1.
JO: Okay.
MT: And so that you’re proper, you would 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 attention 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 attention itself.
JO: To see that it’s not tainted by its contents.
MT: Nicely, and to think about it as a factor.
JO: The explanation why it might 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 sort of non secular emotions of consciousness as being sort 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 approach down your stack, and have reached the extent of consciousness the place all the things that’s showing, appears very wispy and empty, and I really feel like the attention 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: Nicely, the only approach is to only invert the attention on itself, see that it’s empty. And that’s going to have a tendency to essentially subvert the flexibility to separate it from all the things. And that’s going to straight away make the following strikes of then noticing that all the things that’s arising is just not separate from the attention, quite simple. However both approach, 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 totally different than the thought, now you discover that the attention and the thought are composed of the identical materials. However lets say 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 approach from consciousness, then they can’t have totally 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 function and to prohibited acts and to sort of revel within the profane is to note that that’s simply an concept, proper? Profanity and sacredness are one other class. And so we collapse that, and we are able to collapse the large one, the large Nondual 1 concept, that consciousness is sacred and the world is profane. Proper? So that exact 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 understand, is usually how we would say that, or an decoration of vacancy is one other approach I’d say it. The concept is: its vacancy is type and type is vacancy. They’re by no means truly 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 form of seeing–you and I’ve spoken about this earlier than–but when the Christian Authentic 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 all the things seems by no means was separate from it simply will get you off on a very totally different foot with respect to how tainted and horrible human beings are…and that sounds good to me.
MT: Yeah, it’s an totally totally 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 approach by means of life. And that’s simply as sacred as anything. There’s robust prohibitions towards these sorts of concepts, in fact. There’s all the time a solution to make one thing right into a destructive model of itself. And so we’re strongly suggested to not go there. However however, after 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 during which all the things is full, or all the things is in its proper place. I’m avoiding the phrase good as a result of issues can nonetheless, on the relative airplane, be fairly terrible. However nonetheless, there’s a spot for awfulness within the mandala.
JO: Yeah, it’s not granting the proper imperfect distinction, after which saying it simply so occurs contingently to fall on the aspect of good that we reside in the very best of all potential worlds. It’s saying previous to that distinction between good and imperfect, there’s a way during which all of it matches.
MT: All of it coheres. Right.
JO: Yeah. Yeah. Since you talked about a bit of bit earlier–and it’s acquainted to me from Dan Brown retreats–you talked about this primary step, or the most effective 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 closing quote, unquote, crossing-over instruction within the Dan Brown Mahamudra context?
MT: , 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: all the things’s actually empty, I don’t really feel like I’m separate from it, and now it’s actually rigpa?
MT: I feel it’s totally different for various folks and totally different for a similar particular person on totally different days or with totally different approaches. However simply within the spirit of the query, I’ll reply and say all the things’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 all of a sudden hyper-cosmic or no matter. However any sense of any sort of separation is gone. And there’s a real sense of and I’ll simply use Dan’s phrases that he favored to make use of of huge, spacious freedom. I feel he known as it.
JO: Sure, spacious freedom.
MT: Spacious freedom, I all the time 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, all the things simply being a bit of brighter and clearer. Not essentially loads, however a bit of. And so that may sound relatively mundane, however when it’s really making use of to all elements of expertise, it’s fairly profound.
JO: Is that the identical or totally different than the ultimate step that you’ll usually train 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 feel that’s a distinct transfer that may usually do one thing comparable. However I’d say that it’s potential that you would see the vacancy of the doer and nonetheless have an concept of consciousness as a reified factor. And so we need to actually let go of the reification of even consciousness itself.
JO: So, as this form of growing recognition of Nondual 2 develops, what does it appear like to form of more and more carry that off the cushion and into one’s life on this planet, as that understanding begins to develop?
MT: Nicely, while you take Nondual 1 off the cushion and combine it into the world, it doesn’t combine, it separates. As you mentioned, you progress in an asceticism route, you progress to separate your self from all of the mundane actions as a result of these are inclined to embroil one within the delusion of the world. And also you’re going to are inclined to need to go be aside and sort of sit there and dwell in consciousness itself. And so it has an actual signature of aloofness, which, in fact, is one other approach 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 permit practitioners to have interaction in life and so forth. However to the extent that you just cease partaking on this planet, you’re often applauded as somebody who’s sort of getting it. Whereas the Nondual 2 traditions transfer in the other way, proper, we’re going to have interaction extra powerfully, have interaction 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 sluggish that transfer down a bit of bit, usually, we do first expertise Nondual 2 stuff, the nonduality of vacancy and type, nonetheless underneath a sort of meditative laboratory circumstances someplace, you’re in a retreat, otherwise you’re in a quiet meditation in a quiet room, often 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 possibly we are able to solely discover that, acknowledge this awake consciousness underneath these circumstances. And so it’s sort of in an unstable approach, the minute we transfer, the minute something occurs, it sort of collapses.
And so as soon as now we have the slightest view of awake consciousness, which is, by the best way, an enormous deal, not by way of expertise, it might sound sort of cool, but it surely’s not essentially one thing that blows your doorways off. But it surely’s an enormous deal, since you now know what it seems like, so to talk, in scare quotes, then many 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 truth, the stabilization signifies that we’re in a position to preserve that awake consciousness view all through each sort of state, all through each sort of expertise, all through the six realms, to talk in that approach. So it’s totally different. Generally I hear folks say, Nicely, you possibly can’t preserve 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 truly, we are able to stabilize our recognition, we are able to stabilize our view. Or to place it in barely extra appropriate language, we are able to cease falling out of the view, as a result of the view of awake consciousness is definitely basic.
JO: Perhaps this may be a great place to usher in this distinction between sudden and gradual, which regularly 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 probably the most Nondual 2 traditions, there’s the thought 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 approach by means of samsara. And so, that concept is central. In different phrases, everybody listening is already at their root a bodhisattva, already at their root, a totally 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 someway 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 now we have the potential of immediate awakening. Which does truly occur to some small section 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 without end. And in order that does occur.
JO: So I suppose you would in all probability make a distinction between sudden enlightenment, within the sense of you get it identified, and then you definitely’ve already carried out the stabilization, and sudden awakening within the sense of like a stating instruction that you could be however should stabilize.
MT: Yeah, these can be totally different. Thanks. That’s an fascinating distinction. But it surely doesn’t actually influence the purpose I’m making an attempt to make, which is, we now have, based mostly on this concept that you just’re in some sense already absolutely awake, we now can strategy that in two other ways. We are able to strategy it from the view of a sentient being, from the conventional view of me as an egoic being making an attempt to work my approach in the direction of that. Or we are able to flip it on its head and say, Geez, working from the perspective of an egoic being, a sentient being, is already fallacious, already getting in the best way and let’s work as if we’re already a buddha, during which case, possibly no work is required, however you simply acknowledge it, and also you’re carried out. And so in a approach that’s philosophically extra pure, since you’re simply nicely, if it’s true, that you just’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 apply is actually sitting there till you do acknowledge it, which could be very gradual, by the best way, paradoxically.
However in fact, the folks doing these traditions are sensible, and so they–over the various centuries and even millennia–have observed all these little contradictions and gotchas. And usually, it’s a bit of extra nuanced than that, such as you talked about, stating. And stating is a extremely fascinating factor, which is you possibly can take somebody off the road who’s by no means meditated a day of their life. And in about three minutes, start to indicate them, even when it’s not awake consciousness, you can begin to indicate them consciousness, and to separate that from expertise in a approach, or to indicate how that’s totally different than their day by day expertise. And so if that goes deep sufficient you would even have somebody have at the least, as you introduced up, at the least a mini expertise of awakening, proper there. And what’s so cool about that, is that you could then use that second of recognition that they’ve skilled as the premise for his or her apply. For instance, in a number of Dzogchen contexts, you get identified first, like, right here’s what awake consciousness seems like, you’ve had at the least a glimpse of it regardless of how muddy and partial and obscured, however at the least, you understand, the route of it, so to talk. After which after we begin doing our meditation apply, 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, although there’s nowhere to go.
JO: Yeah, okay, so possibly this may be a great place to usher in this query of, to what extent totally different traditions truly honor the complete recognition of nonduality, that you just’re claiming the understanding of Nondual 2? The form of gradual approaches that we’ve been speaking about are usually related to Theravada, the place you’re doing Vipassana, at the least to start with, from a form of dualistic posture. And there’s this complete body of purification and fetters and all this form of renunciative language. Do you suppose the complete realization of say for instance, like fourth path is Nondual 2 or Nondual 1?
MT: , 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 may 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 destructive phrases. , 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 constructive language and says one thing prefer it’s unalloyed bliss or one thing, he says a number 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, basically, more often than not, the best way folks work in a Theravada context goes to be both dualistic or at finest Nondual 1.
JO: Yeah. So should you’re doing form 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 mentioned earlier, you’ve acquired to break down at the least one aspect of the duality and there you’re collapsing the self finish of the stick. And so that you’re going to at the least 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 person, within the early Buddhist context imagined, had a self. No person 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 might 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 are able to consider it as an unpacking of the implications of anatta.
JO: I feel that is truly 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 you need to do away with sure purposeful elements of your self-construct, like the truth that you possibly can 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 fallacious with them, I feel 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 a protracted retreat, it may be the case that relatively 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 might be partial or full, simply stopping of the sense of self in a approach, which might make it unimaginable to perform strolling round on this planet, however that are very spectacular and intense, and do make it easier to to see by means of the development of self as a result of how am I nonetheless having an expertise when the sense of self is solely 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 means of the constructed-ness of it, whereas nonetheless having it’s absolutely purposeful, which in fact is what we wish.
JO: Which is the excellence that the thought of vacancy was launched to make.
MT: I feel it actually helps. Yeah, but additionally the excellence is included so as to see the no-self of a rock.
JO: Proper. So, vacancy is the blanket class, you possibly can discuss 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 circumstances, what’s lacking is a few imputed essence or unbiased existence.
MT: Right. I imply, the thought of vacancy to me is–the very 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 that 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 now we have this extremely advanced community of relationships. However you possibly can’t, anyplace in there, discover a basic phrase, the one that’s actual, that provides all of them their realness. It is a community of relationships that may solely exist due to all the connection. There’s nothing that someway breaks out of that community and finds itself embedded in a deeper floor.
JO: That gives a form of basic ontology or like closing floor.
MT: Sure. So it’s actually helpful. It’s not like that community is someway–due to this fact we simply throw all of it out. However neither is it actual on this deeper ontological sense, as you mentioned.
JO: So that you introduced up a bit of bit of those constructive qualities of Nondual 2, particularly just like the extra you form of transfer into the popularity of Nondual 2, the much less you’re so involved to just remember to’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 constructive qualities of consciousness can begin to manifest. I suppose there I’d simply have you ever communicate to these constructive qualities and possibly 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 outdoors entity, however relatively deeply intertwined with all the things 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 dwelling issues, particularly as you get a style of the enjoyment and freedom of dwelling outdoors of dualistic classes. There’s a sort of eager to share that with others, like, Hey, you’re trapped in your thoughts, you understand, you simply take this type of sideways step, and the issue is gone. And also you form of naturally need to share that.
It’s not that we are able to get this view of compassion as some sort of hyper-lofty advantage that we’re making an attempt to domesticate actually laborious. However truly, it’s proper there, it’s the factor that comes bursting forth, the minute dualism drops. For this reason oftentimes, consciousness is modeled, I hear lots of people modeling it as this type of aloof neutrality that’s someway not solely transcendent of all issues but additionally is totally impartial. And it’s actually not impartial. The knowledge of vacancy all the time 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 is just not full there. Since you’re going to repeatedly be pulled increasingly into relationship. That’s even utilizing the fallacious verb. It’s that you just acknowledge increasingly 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 suitable phrase. But it surely doesn’t have all of the connotations I want it did. As a result of it might be like, as you see the knowledge of vacancy increasingly deeply, the dance of relationship turns into increasingly highly effective, increasingly stunning, increasingly 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 far 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, in fact, 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 in addition they–it’s the primary time they have been emphasizing the nonduality of vacancy and type. So these two issues appear to come back 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 type have been by no means separate. What’s totally different about that completely realized particular person’s expertise and habits from the one who has by no means heard of any of these items in any respect?
MT: Their habits could be indistinguishable, however their expertise goes to be totally totally different, totally totally different, proper? The entire definition of what’s modified is that their expertise is totally modified. And one would hope that their habits seems fairly totally different as nicely. But it surely won’t. And the rationale I’m saying it that approach is as a result of there’s no explicit habits that we may level to and say, nicely, that’s Nondual 2 habits.
JO: Proper.
MT: And if we may, then you would do the factor that many individuals do, which is then simply attempt to imitate the habits. So I’d say, Nicely, you won’t have the ability to, however simply once more, within the spirit of the query, I’d say, they in all probability are going to appear much more artistic and engaged and be in what we would acknowledge as one thing of a circulate state extra usually. And moreover, they’re in all probability going to are usually useful, that’s the easiest way 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 method or one other.
JO: And although you couldn’t essentially acknowledge from any given motion, oh, sure, that’s Nondual 2 motion, over a protracted time frame, you need to in all probability anticipate them to be say extra spontaneous, or extra compassionate, or no matter.
MT: Yeah, if we have been to get into constructive qualities. And I feel 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 hanging, like lightning, very sudden and sudden. However there’s no temper, it’s not like, Oh, they’re all the time externally pleased, or all the time externally this or that. It could look many various methods. And the extra that somebody is sort of rigidly seeming to have one explicit emotional state on a regular basis, it’s in all probability extra seemingly that they’re performing relatively than being.
JO: They’re taking on some fixated, routine sample once more, that mimics the–
MT: Sure.
JO: –the spontaneity. Yeah.
MT: However nonetheless, there are paths the place we just do take these properties of spontaneity and compassion and flow-state sort stuff and childlike habits and all that and simply begin making an attempt to be that approach 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 suitable assist, that does assist lead in that route.
JO: Yeah, a part of the rationale I ask is that within the spirit of asking, Nicely, what’s all this nonduality enterprise good for? I definitely perceive why it might be good from the within. And as you say, the interior expertise of being unfixated is completely totally different in a constructive route. However one can surprise on the premise of the misbehavior of assorted folks, particularly taking on this view, proper that nothing to do precisely, and no inside authorities aside from the spontaneity of consciousness, a method of placing it’s whether or not there’s something you would say about it being a contemplative misunderstanding, relatively than an absence of simply different schools, you may need 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 truly recognizing Nondual 2?
MT: I feel there’s, I feel that in the event that they have been deeply recognizing or absolutely recognizing, it might be very laborious to do any habits 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 sort of trolley drawback or one thing. However the form of simply straight-up malfeasance, taking of actions which might be harming others merely for gratification. I feel that that immediately signifies that they’re not truly absolutely there. But additionally any custom that has survived, the traditions which might be nonetheless right here, explicitly say this time and again: you don’t use this philosophy to behave badly on this planet. You aren’t to try this. And it could be they’re simply making an attempt to guard their reputations. However I don’t suppose so, I feel they’re saying like, similar to anything, you possibly can misuse this. And the actual space of misuse is just not 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 a number of guardrails in there and coaching wheels to ensure that doesn’t occur. However in fact, it nonetheless occurs.
JO: In some sense should you’re taking on 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 outdoors 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 all the time finally ends up the excuse. There’s sort of two excuses. However the typical one is: it was a instructing, the particular person 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, so as to crush their dualistic attachment. And that’s an actual apparent drawback. The opposite one, which I feel is sort of fascinating, 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 might be. 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 stunning phrase from the custom to seize that of like, view as huge because the sky, conduct as tremendous as barley flour. Yeah, all of the distinctions are nonetheless there. Yeah.
MT: Yeah. So what stuff haven’t we talked about that you just’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 wish to say there?
MT: It will get dicey. as a result of all of it relies on what you imply by God.
JO: Proper.
MT: Is it a creator being? Is it the prime reason behind the universe, or what? However you possibly can definitely have, even Nondual 2 traditions which have, some sort of relationship, possibly even a central relationship, with at the least a stand-in for form of an final precept. Even when the last word precept is empty, it’s nonetheless the bottom layer. So even in Dzogchen you’ve acquired 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 acquired 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 time and again, nicely, that’s not God and that’s merely a personification of awake consciousness, your personal rigpa or no matter, or dharmakaya.
Finally, all these distinctions between the dharmakaya, and the bottom of being, and rigpa, and all that, which lastly at one level, are all dissolved, mainly in expertise. However we are able to, from one finish of the argument, say, Nicely, clearly they’re conscious that this might 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 approach, in what approach is that not God? As form of this final awake consciousness that doesn’t die between incarnations and so forth, it’s there without end. And similar 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 approach, they’re very comparable personifications.
So once more, the traditions insist that these are personifications, and so on, and so on. And but, it’s fairly laborious to land on what could be the necessary distinction, besides the dualistic one, which is: nicely, it’s separate for me in some basic approach. That’s, in fact, what the traditions are so adamant about dissolving.
JO: Most likely at the least 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 sort of intervention is whole, however you possibly can change something, you possibly can flip your physique right into a rainbow, you’ve heard of Rainbow Physique, proper?
JO: Yeah.
MT: However there’s a good deeper type of Rainbow Physique. I feel it’s known as Nice Transcendent Rainbow Physique, you possibly can seem as a totally 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 concept of the legal guidelines of physics not being transcended is blown away by these sorts of ideas. I feel what’s necessary right here is that they’re by no means saying that it’s a separate, transcendent entity that’s someway without end separate in the best way {that a} dualistic Western creator god is.
JO: The legal guidelines of physics are to be considered, in the identical sense as some other conceptual look.
MT: Completely.
JO: Now you’ve intrigued me by invoking Rainbow Physique and a few of these types of extra supernatural claims which might 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’m going this far and no additional with the standard supernatural claims? Or is it a wait-and-see? Or how do you consider it?
MT: It’s a wait-and-see, I imply, in any other case, I’d declare to have superior data to those people. And whereas I’m not bowing to them as the last word supply of information, I’m additionally not saying essentially I do know higher. However I’ll say this, I’m not certified to show Rainbow Physique apply, and neither am I at the moment making an attempt to attain 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, anything that you just suppose we’ve missed, or that you’d like to cowl? Earlier than we name it?
MT: The entire function of this dialogue, for me, is to assist folks perceive that the phrase nondual is used very in a different way in numerous traditions to imply actually various things. And so after we name one thing nondual, and we name one other factor nondual, they could be totally totally different. And so they may discuss what they’re making an attempt to attain fairly in a different way, and how one can get there fairly in a different way. And so now we have to acknowledge these distinctions so as to navigate this territory with the least quantity of issues. And in order that’s the entire level right here. Not that you just someway should know all this to meditate, or you need to know all this to have the expertise. Clearly, you don’t. As a result of as of late, all these traditions are fully accessible utilizing a browser or no matter. We’d 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 at the least clear up a bit of 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 keen to come back on the present and ask all these questions, Jake. So thanks a lot.
JO: My pleasure.
MT: All proper, man.