Friday, November 26, 2010

Not-Two, Never Was

Let's not look to some future day when all the stars properly align and some mystical state is arrived at.  Let's look at this very moment, this very instant, apparently a ME living in a world.

Let's take a look at what we believe to be the case, what we take reality to be, what our concepts about this moment are.

We believe there is a ME in a body, looking out at and experiencing a world, outside of me, apart from me, other than me.

To have this idea is to automatically and irrevocably separate reality.  Can you notice that?  To have this as your template of reality is to automatically assert the separateness of reality.  AS a ME, AS some "thing", AS a part, you are opposed BY the world, automatically separate from it. 

So what method or amount of seeking can heal that split?  AS this separate part, can you ever heal that split?  Can you notice that it is this particular idea of ME vs. world which IS the separation itself?  Can you realize that in order for reality to be whole, that individual must be false?  The individual cannot find wholeness, cannot realize "oneness", for it is the individual itself which is the assertion of separation.

So we must look at WHY we take reality to be separate, WHY we take this present experience to be composed of a ME vs. a world, WHY we take this present experience to be a ME seeing a world.

We must not be stuck on waiting for some realization to come FOR that me, but immediately look upon that ME with suspicion, immediately, within this very instant, to look upon that individual entity as potentially false.

In doing so, we will naturally see the mechanism at work, the mental assertions in which this individual is created as opposed to a world.  In not waiting for our conceptual understanding to flower into some spiritual, mystical state, we will be forced to look upon this very instant and notice the construction of reality as made up of separate things. 

This ME is built in thought.  This ME is a construction, a mechanism, taking objective experiences and applying the obvious subjective presence to them. 

You can say "I AM" with conviction.  That isn't something which is constructed.  That is something innately true.  You are pointing to or referencing something unmistakable and intimately known.  But that to which the words I AM point is applied TO an objective experience - a body, thoughts, a name, a job, a title, a role. 

Notice that identification is simply applying that obvious subjective presence - I AM - to something objective, something found in experience. 

Therefore "ME" is always an experience - ME is always something you know.  ME is always something arising in one form or another - you can be aware of that ME as it arises.  You can watch that ME take shape.  You are always able to notice the ME.

And if you can notice the ME as it takes shape, can it ever be what you are?  Isn't it merely a constructed identity? Isn't reality as ME vs. World a constructed or imagined reality?  Isn't this very moment falsely asserted as a ME vs. World?  Isn't that entire paradigm a construction?

If that is clear, then right here and now, reality is whole.  ME vs. World is a story told about reality.  This present experience is an experience of wholeness, so to speak.  The idea of an objective experience breaks down along with the parallel idea of a subject.  There is no one separate from a world - there is only what IS - only present, whole reality.  There is simply wholeness, fullness, taking shape as what we call experience, requiring an experiencer.  That ME vs. World is then not a problem, not a believed-in reality but merely an innocent and natural expression.

Experience is then a concept requiring the equal assertion of a ME who experiences - there is nothing wrong with it.  Like a mirage it has lost it's weight or reality yet is a useful concept. 

If we demand that this ME disappear forever then we have missed the point.  If we demand some confirming spiritual state to arrive then we will continue to miss the message.  If we demand the mind to provide something other than a conceptual understanding then we will constantly overlook the obvious wholeness that is already the case.

Advaita means not-two - reality isn't made up of an infinite number of things that will someday be brought together into One.  Advaita is already the case, reality is already "not-two".  There is no making it so - there is the realization that it never WAS two.


dave said...

Crystal clear writing Randall.

But I find language is a bitch; there's a switching between 'getting the message' and getting caught up in apparent instructions 'we must...', 'notice that...'. Almost like those pictuers within pictures or pictures within seeming random dots, that you can only see by looking a certain way or just letting go of trying to see anything.

I'll persevere:)

With gratitude.

Anonymous said...

How many 'I Am's' are there? How many Awareness' are there? Your direct perception is if you are honest is only 'yours'. One indivisible Awareness. 'Others' appear in your awareness. When 'others' say I Am, that sound appears in your awareness and the same when 'you' think or say I Am.
So, the I AM refers back to that indivisible singularity that 'we' truly are.
This right here, right now...

Peace - Suki

Satya said...


Randall Friend said...


Hello my friend.

Language is a bitch. But there are very few other ways to express it - it's all we have. And we see that language is the very mechanism of separation. It is impossible to talk or think about it any other way, and that inherent division is taken to be true, until it's not. That construction is seen as bullshit, then that construction can carry on with no problem.

Until then we question that construction AS reality until there is no need to question it any longer. Then it is free to express without binding.

Ultimately that inclination to divide in expression is the whole's way of knowing itself - that assertion of an experience which requires an experienc-ER is the way you know you exist - without it you have no way of knowing you exist.

So that division is a useful concept - the very expression of Joy. It IS Joy when it's known as it is - it is a swinging pendulum of suffering and running from suffering as long as that expression is taken as actual reality.

No need to get caught up in any instruction - just be what you are and cease telling stories about what you are not. If that is done, then there is literally nothing else left to do.

Persevering is a story.

love to you

Randall Friend said...

Hey Suki - beautifully put.

peace back, brother

dave said...

Hi Randall,

may I ask you some questions, after a bit of rambling?

Just casually observing things, it seems that everything appears to be happening spontaneously: the sound of the car driving past outside, the clouds floating past, thoughts popping up, hand moving for tea cup, everything. This is a bit spooky, the intermittent switching between being living the life and observing the living of the life.

If everything truly is arising spontaneously, then I guess so is the seeking? And so is questioning Randall? And is Randall's response no less a spontaneous response to a spontaneous question?

What I'm trying to get at is, is this whole thing like a movie; the characters, the locations, the script, all playing out the way it plays out? Except this movie is a bit special because the characters in it appear to believe that they exist beyond the movie? But that too is also part of the movie?

Thank you Randall for taking the time to read my comment.

Best wishes.

Randall Friend said...


Hello my friend. Yes, questions are welcome.

Yes, it is all a spontaneous "happening" yet it is never divided into parts. Where would it come from? Where would it go? All there is, is THIS. This present wholeness. Expressing in infinite ways yet never dividing, never saved off somewhere, never stored to be later retrieved.

The play of Life is Life, expressing itself and also presently aware of that expression, no matter the content of the expression, the shape, size or value of that expression.

You are that Life, looking at itself - Dave is a convenient name for that perspective yet it isn't really a Dave inside looking. Dave is the story itself - Life is the knower and the known.

Therefore there is no condition upon anything - no need to make it better, no need to modify or manipulate any situation, any thought. It is the whole already and the thoughts of seeking are part of that whole, expressing.

Has this not always been the case? Isn't this "Dave" simply a convenient way of talking about the whole?


poseur said...

Hi Randall, valued Friend.

No podcasts this month?

No One In Particular said...

Great pointing Randall, apparently it really resonates with "me".

Randall Friend said...

Hi Poseur,

There are a couple podcasts recorded but no time to get them ready for the blog. They should show up soon.


Randall Friend said...

Hey Suzanne... nice avatar picture... halloween costume?

I-Robot said...

Suki, i very much like what you said. It reminds me of something from Wei Wu Wei's Ask The Awakened:

A myriad bubbles were floating on the surface of a stream.
"What are you?" I cried to them as they drifted by.
"I am a bubble, of course" nearly a myriad bubbles answered, and there was surprise and indignation in their voices as they passed.
But, here and there, a lonely bubble answered, "We are this stream," and there was neither surprise nor indignation in their voices, but just a quiet certitude.

"I am a bubble", "We are this stream" - it's all I AM.


Anonymous said...

@ I-Robot
Single molecule of water, or multitudes of molecules of water.

Single droplet of water, or multitudes of droplets of water.

Single wave of water, or multitudes of waves of water.

Single ocean of water, or multitudes of oceans of water.

Single universe of water, or multitudes of universes' of water.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _


Peace - Suki