Sunday, September 6, 2009

New Blog - Finding Common Ground

There is a new blog in the works. It's intended to show the commonality in expressions between all the differing "pointers" or paths or philosophies/religions, including the seemingly "split" messages of Nonduality.

The blog may "piss off" a few, but that's to be expected. Holding on to one viewpoint is a condition of the mind.

In the Hsin Hsin Ming, Seng Ts'an said:

"Tao is self-evident to one with no preferences.
When like and dislike are absent, the Real is obvious and clear.
Make the slightest distinction, however,
and it appears disguised as heaven and earth."

Reality has no "preferred philosophy". Truth is not subject to spiritual "market share". Many so-called paths and traditions are clear. If the message is clear, even if the so-called messenger does not fit the so-called "nonduality" mold, it will be shared.

The blog is


No One In Particular said...

The pointers seem to morph and change over "time". Lovely idea to have a place to pull them together.

Sandy Jones said...

Dear Randall,

I am not sure if we have 'spoken' before, but I am the host of the William Samuel website. I notice that many of the visitors Mr. Samuel's site have come from your blog. So, I stopped by today to see you and see what you are saying. I read this blog of yours, Sept. 4 about commonality among us ---As I am sure you know, William Samuel is a perfect example of what you are talking about. He is one of those who is not in advaita philosopy, he uses totally different words than they do, in general, and yet he is saying the same thing, clearly, beautifully, and honestly. He was writing Truth long before it became popular (1950-1990). Hiw way with words can untie so many of intellectual knots that the advaita approach can sometimes cause rather than solve (but that seems true with all concepts and ideas). You are so right, it takes a very open mind to see that there are many paths to and ways of sharing the Truth. For some, William will be using unfamiliar and sometimes even the oft dreaded 'God' word and other ‘dualistic sounding’ words in order to 'bring us Home'. Have you ever read William’s little book titled 2+2=Reality? I have put it on William’s website as free PDF download (book section). You should read it, it's not very long, but it is so full of wonderful analogies that explain this idea of ‘oneness’ stuff. He does it in such a way that many have written in appreciation for the ‘light found’ in this little booklet. Read it, and you will have yourself an excellent example of how others outside the advaita lingo can and do point to the Truth just as well. If you like that little booklet, you will love his other work; Guide To Awareness and Tranquillity is the one that the advaita folks find most compatable and a truely wise and helpful guide along the path.

Anyway, I thank you for having William Samuel on your list of reading material. It is so nice to get a few visitors here and there who take the chance to explore something outside their norm—most of them have been delighted by the treasure they find in William’s work.

Sandy Jones (literary executor for William Samuel)

If you want to write me back you can reach me through the William Samuel website

Randall Friend said...

Hi Suzanne,

Yes - the expression is different across time, culture, religion. And of course the tendency of mind is to discount those expressions which don't fit into a certain template of being clear or using the correct language. This tendency is the exact mechanism of duality itself - only now applied to so-called "ending duality". It's a big joke. If the expression is clear, it doesn't matter from which time or culture.

love to you

Randall Friend said...

Hi Sandy,

No - I don't believe we have spoken, however I agree that William Samuel's expression is dead-on - and as you say, it's not packaged or restricted to the current "language" of nonduality or advaita.

All forms of philosophy or religion eventually become dogmatic - it's the very nature of mind that this is so. The expressions like William's supersede and transcend this. The goal of this new blog will be to spotlight voices like William's, which get lost in the entertainment which has become the present "advaita" scene, without any preference to religion or philosophy or "acceptable nonduality jargon".

Love to you, my friend.

Anonymous said...


Is being perceivable?

Doesn't the knowing that "I am" make it something that is known, perceivable?

This moment of "I am" seems to always be here, but aren't I aware of the present moment of "I am?" Am I completely invisible?

Does being have a shape? I am here, but consciousness seems to manifest as a sphere with an outer limit. This is confusing me. Does being extend beyond the sphere of experience or is the sphere just an idea and being has no shape? Do I have a location or a shape?

If I am aware of ALL, then doesn't that mean that I am also aware of the "I am," the subtle sense of being, this moment?

I feel as though I am waffling back and forth between what I believe to be what is being talked about (this is it, finally... no, this is it, but it's nothing, it can't be that, etc), and the mind runs rampant out of this lack of clarity. Any helpful words?


Randall Friend said...


Hello my friend. Good to hear from you.

There are many spiritual concepts about this and they are usually intended to point to something nonconceptual, something indefinable, yet something obvious.

If we get wrapped up in the concepts, then we're just going around in circles, as you're indicating. But it's much simpler than all that.

You said "This moment of I am sees to always be here. Yes. And what's being pointed out IS that simple. How can you say what you said? How do you know? What is it that makes that statement true for you?

You know that you are always here. You are always present. Something in essence is always present. Yet the mind conceptualizes that sense of always-here-ness. It identifies it as some "thing", as something impermanent, as something separate. But that essence or presence is NOT some thing after all. It is simply the knowing presence which is always here and precedes all thought, all concept, all activity, all appearance.

That knowing presence is really what's being referred to when we say "I".

This pure "I" is not the body or mind/thoughts. This pure "I" remains and is untouched, unchanged, unaffected, unmodified, uncorrected, unaltered, no matter what goes on in the appearance of thought, or body, or the world.

It's conceptualized in the common spiritual search, as something to achieve, as some special experience. But the point is that ALL experience, to BE experience, REQUIRES that knowing presence, that true "I", that sense of always-here-ness.

Therefore it's said that you already ARE what you are seeking. The seeking is going on IN that sense of always-here-ness. The searching for enlightenment is going on WITHIN THAT which is already there, THAT TO WHICH the word enlightenment points.

Right now, seeing is happening. It isn't "bill-seeing". Bill arises as a conceptualization of that body-mind with an idea of a separate individual, which can never be found. Mind creates identification from this ever-present knowingness, this "background" of presence, with the objective content "body-mind". Therefore the concept is "I am thinking". "I am seeking". "I am seeing".

Notice that this presence, this cognizing, experienc-ing, perceiving, knowing, what we "call" awareness, is always the case, already there, the very substance of the experience, of the perception, of the "knower" and the "known."

So knowing what you are simply means - knowing that the knowing is what you are. Knowing that the "I" IS the knowing. Recognizing or realizing that what you are is NOT, in fact, limited or bound in any way. It's not a "state" to be reached. It IS your actual true nature and essence.


Anonymous said...

Thanks Randall.


Josef said...

Mmmmhhh. So relaxing to read your writings. Thanks a lot Randall for your regulary impassionate words.

Kind regards