Completely agree! I find it almost surprising that people think nothingness is the ultimate reality- it is probabaly the state our ego wants to get to to feel 'liberated', but it completely negates the existence of a God who is the bieng from which everything emanates. That bieng is soooooo much more intelligent than we can even begin to comprehend (as is evident in the complexity in nature/ universe). So to see God as nothingness is really fooling ourselves. I believe it is us projecting a shadow onto God because we can't see them clearly.
It is acceptable to note any 'God' as both nothingness and non-nothingness (all things arise from contradiction). It would be just as spurious to claim that 'God' is non-nothingness. We could remark that a conception of God would entail the 'mystery within mystery' or the 'darkness behind darkness' from various spiritual works. These are just my observations, though. I think even the term 'God' obscures God as Source or Path. All is a projection; therefore, the projection also must be Source. This is why 'modes' may be an unhelpful framing for the various means of contending with reality and experience.
Modes can be helpful to give the mind a container and point the way toward direct experience of THIS, especially in beginning stages. My experience is conceptual models can be extremely useful until they are no longer necessary. I have stopped "following a way" because I realized I "am" my own way.
This discussion is very advanced, and as I noted in my comment, it is important perhaps to recognize the critical help that was given to get us here. There is context. You would not find these kinds of discussions plentiful at the mass, popular level 10 years ago
What you say does not contradict Vedanta, especially Advaita, but is an elegant way of kind of saying the same thing. Your approach is non dual because you are seeing the one reality (Brahman) in everything. I think it is astute to realize reality itself can have various, nearly unlimited lenses in which to view or express itself,
I agree language can be limiting but theology and philosophy can be extremely important. if one believes Jesus died for our sins, is the only way to God and hell exists for sinners, then one will lead a very different life and impact others differently than if one releases that dogma.
You might say that was kind of the point expanded but my reply is you are coming from a very advanced pov, one that would not exist if through Gurus you kind of say don't matter were the conduits and anchors through transmission for advanced realizations of reality now available to us. it kind of astonishes me the lack of context, understanding of history of how we got here, and frankly gratitude for "God" in those forms. Krishna said"It is very difficult to overcome Maya without my help."
My orientation was not the result of one iota of conscious thought or belief but was built by the massive consistent intervention of reality of the "Ishvara aspect"(Controller and focus of devotion" (what religions mostly think of as"God")b ut we must remember all is one, the form and formless. It was Ramana Maharshi and other great teachers who said "whatever road you go by is fine to get you to the destination. there is no one true way."
For me, whether this is an"appearance" (Advaita) or relative reality (Vishishtadvaita) at this level is irrelevant and you have a beautiful way of expressing the wonder of all of this and its limitlessness. I would just be mindful as to how and why the source of all of this graced us (or we are part of a n unusual unfolding) with this insight at this time. Who is the doer here?
Thanks for the rich comments, Ken. I did not intend any disrespect to Grace or to the many who have transmitted Grace to this world. I am deeply grateful for many sages who have been lights on my path. And still I also find it vitally important to illuminate subtle traps, shadows, and blindspots that may have evaded the notice of even highly realized beings & great traditions. Take care 🙏🏼💙
I happen to agree with that but have seen a kind of elitism arise to disparage that which I think you said was a form of fundamentalism. So I just wanted to clarify .
I find it interesting sometimes thoughts about language. I found your piece beautifully eloquent, I have a friend who is really amazingly poetic gift around all of this. It's why Shakespeare, Bob Dylan and others similarly gifted move us so much. Language carries energy and done right it can not only inspire but carry us into the domain of touching the vastness, of stirring something.
i may be mistaken but would that not be a form of Jnana yoga? Is not inquiry built on a platform of elegantly pointing the way? When Ram Dass told stories, he strikingly made the reality of the Guru visceral in ways dry philosophy could not.
Thanks for sharing, Ken. I love those words from Kabir. And yes I believe contemplating words (and experientially investigating what they point to) can be a very potent form of jnana yoga. It’s one of my favorites. In recent times some of my favorites are Peter Brown, John Astin, and Joan Tollifson 🙏🏼
One question: If no one ever experiences the substratum, how do you know it's there?
For me it seems like all we ever know is what we experience
And I'd say I've had many experiences of dissolving into what could be called the 'formless substratum' of reality -- and my experience suggests that the so-called 'substratum' is just another word for the ALL. It doesn't seem possible to find anything other than THIS-HERE-NOW -- and this-here-now is fully inclusive of all the ways it might seem to be. The dissolution experiences are another mode -- another way THIS can be with itself -- yet THIS does not depart from itself or become other than itself when it is exploring modes of duality
This was an interesting piece for me as someone who has passively followed your work since about 2018. I encountered High Existence as a young man and there found a lot of ideas that supported my foray into Daoism and Zen practices. I stopped following the content of that site throughout the early '20s because I felt it more often leaned in the direction of spiritual bypassing than genuine practice or insight. The tendency towards psychotropic engagement in 'spiritual' communities concerned me as it seemed no more than an excess in materialism (a finger wagging at the moon).
I think non-duality as a sustainable practice must be one that forsakes nothing. As you assert here, one cannot fall blindly to the side of emptiness or non-emptiness but rest easy in the abundant and inherent contradictions the offer definition to our experiences. For most people, it is far easier to follow and insist upon a tidy narrative than to rest in the discomfort of holistic chaos. A lot of the philosophy in our various spiritual teachings seems (to me) to encourage an effort to sit honestly and openly with the inherent contradictions and complexities abundant in our natural and social worlds. Instead, we have used these ideas to blockade ourselves from these complexities (these mysteries, a Daoist might offer). It is easier to use idealism and materialism to frame everything in orderly and digestible narratives than to let those narratives dissolve into the dialectical monism inherent in all matter.
Regarding the use of the term 'modes,' I think it is ultimately unhelpful to frame anything with additional jargon. It only creates another excuse to deny the holistic interbeing of experience and existence. I have just noticed another comment here by "Jerry" and I identify well with his assertion that 'true non-duality' is 'the substratum from which all modes appear.' If we are to use terminology like 'modes,' then we would do well to have it framed this way: The ten-thousand become One.
Hey Orthonym, good to meet you! Cool to hear that you were aware of my work back in the HE days <3
I love a lot of what you say here, such as "holistic chaos" and "rest easy in the abundant and inherent contradictions"...
It is kinda ironic that you are saying "modes" is too jargon-y while also speaking of the "dialectical monism inherent in all matter" 😅
Different people will find different vocabularies valuable. For me this notion of 'modes' is super helpful for illuminating that there are infinite modes or *ways reality can explore itself* -- *ways reality can seem to be*... and *all these modes/ways/expressions are FULLY IT*...
For me this can help cut through so much contemporary spiritual gobbledygook that is rooted in trying to play various modes/states off of each other or create hierarchies or dichotomies of 'this mode' over 'that mode' -- thereby creating 'carrots on sticks' keeping us on the hamster wheel of trying to reach some 'ultimate state/mode' when really all modes/ways/expressions have always been THAT
For me it's very helpful to see that all modes are fully real/valid ways THIS is exploring THIS
For me I do not find any substratum that is apart from or other than the numberless modes themselves -- the numberless ways THIS expresses/explores THIS
All modes fully ARE the 'substratum' -- and the 'substratum' cannot be limited or pinned down as being 'dual' or 'nondual' -- though indeed there does seem to be an inherent wholeness / interbeing
I guess if the word 'nonduality' is used to point to the inherent wholeness / oneness / interbeing then I can pretty much get onboard with that -- though so often nowadays 'nonduality' connotes a new fundamentalism that often espouses dogmatic truisms such as "consciousness is all there is," or "there's no one here," or "this is nothing," etc
"though so often nowadays 'nonduality' connotes a new fundamentalism that often espouses dogmatic truisms such as "consciousness is all there is," or "there's no one here," or "this is nothing," etc"
Hear, hear. On the money. Dogma appears in many forms.
Yes, I am tongue-in-cheek sometimes. I think contradiction is darling, and so referring to the crisis of jargon while also using heady terms like 'dialectical monism' is just a pleasure in hypocrisy. Thank you for noticing and 'calling me out'.
There is always a tension between the formal definition, the lived definition, and the colloquial definition of terms. I think 'communism,' 'anarchism,' or even 'Christianity' are good examples of this. We all have our modes through which meaning arises. Dogmatic truisms are an opiate for those whose pain outweighs their pleasure, perhaps. "Only a Sith deals in absolutes," and so on.
Nonetheless, thank you for responding. I value your insight and understand where you're coming from. I look forward to your next piece. — Much love.
right on, thanks for the good humor. and yes that's a good insight about formal / lived / colloquial definitions of terms -- and love that line about only Sith dealing in absolutes
i've been publishing quite a bit more on my other substack lately -- have daily posts scheduled for the next 8 days: https://simplefreedom.substack.com/
Many Gurus said humans often need forms. I have spoken in public about the illusion of subtle form (angels masters, etc), much less the illusion of separation of physical form. Whatever is apparently created devotion as a mechanism. ButI do agree whatever lens one uses, bypasing uncertainty and not knowing seems not to be helpful. Because there is no separation, this vey discussion is THAT exploring and expressing itself, and perhaps guiding itself as well. These illuminations did not arise in a vacuum. As I have commented, a discussion like this at a mass level would have been impossible in 1970.
Completely agree! I find it almost surprising that people think nothingness is the ultimate reality- it is probabaly the state our ego wants to get to to feel 'liberated', but it completely negates the existence of a God who is the bieng from which everything emanates. That bieng is soooooo much more intelligent than we can even begin to comprehend (as is evident in the complexity in nature/ universe). So to see God as nothingness is really fooling ourselves. I believe it is us projecting a shadow onto God because we can't see them clearly.
It is acceptable to note any 'God' as both nothingness and non-nothingness (all things arise from contradiction). It would be just as spurious to claim that 'God' is non-nothingness. We could remark that a conception of God would entail the 'mystery within mystery' or the 'darkness behind darkness' from various spiritual works. These are just my observations, though. I think even the term 'God' obscures God as Source or Path. All is a projection; therefore, the projection also must be Source. This is why 'modes' may be an unhelpful framing for the various means of contending with reality and experience.
Modes can be helpful to give the mind a container and point the way toward direct experience of THIS, especially in beginning stages. My experience is conceptual models can be extremely useful until they are no longer necessary. I have stopped "following a way" because I realized I "am" my own way.
This discussion is very advanced, and as I noted in my comment, it is important perhaps to recognize the critical help that was given to get us here. There is context. You would not find these kinds of discussions plentiful at the mass, popular level 10 years ago
What you say does not contradict Vedanta, especially Advaita, but is an elegant way of kind of saying the same thing. Your approach is non dual because you are seeing the one reality (Brahman) in everything. I think it is astute to realize reality itself can have various, nearly unlimited lenses in which to view or express itself,
I agree language can be limiting but theology and philosophy can be extremely important. if one believes Jesus died for our sins, is the only way to God and hell exists for sinners, then one will lead a very different life and impact others differently than if one releases that dogma.
You might say that was kind of the point expanded but my reply is you are coming from a very advanced pov, one that would not exist if through Gurus you kind of say don't matter were the conduits and anchors through transmission for advanced realizations of reality now available to us. it kind of astonishes me the lack of context, understanding of history of how we got here, and frankly gratitude for "God" in those forms. Krishna said"It is very difficult to overcome Maya without my help."
My orientation was not the result of one iota of conscious thought or belief but was built by the massive consistent intervention of reality of the "Ishvara aspect"(Controller and focus of devotion" (what religions mostly think of as"God")b ut we must remember all is one, the form and formless. It was Ramana Maharshi and other great teachers who said "whatever road you go by is fine to get you to the destination. there is no one true way."
For me, whether this is an"appearance" (Advaita) or relative reality (Vishishtadvaita) at this level is irrelevant and you have a beautiful way of expressing the wonder of all of this and its limitlessness. I would just be mindful as to how and why the source of all of this graced us (or we are part of a n unusual unfolding) with this insight at this time. Who is the doer here?
Thanks for the rich comments, Ken. I did not intend any disrespect to Grace or to the many who have transmitted Grace to this world. I am deeply grateful for many sages who have been lights on my path. And still I also find it vitally important to illuminate subtle traps, shadows, and blindspots that may have evaded the notice of even highly realized beings & great traditions. Take care 🙏🏼💙
I happen to agree with that but have seen a kind of elitism arise to disparage that which I think you said was a form of fundamentalism. So I just wanted to clarify .
I find it interesting sometimes thoughts about language. I found your piece beautifully eloquent, I have a friend who is really amazingly poetic gift around all of this. It's why Shakespeare, Bob Dylan and others similarly gifted move us so much. Language carries energy and done right it can not only inspire but carry us into the domain of touching the vastness, of stirring something.
i may be mistaken but would that not be a form of Jnana yoga? Is not inquiry built on a platform of elegantly pointing the way? When Ram Dass told stories, he strikingly made the reality of the Guru visceral in ways dry philosophy could not.
Thanks for responding.
Thanks for sharing, Ken. I love those words from Kabir. And yes I believe contemplating words (and experientially investigating what they point to) can be a very potent form of jnana yoga. It’s one of my favorites. In recent times some of my favorites are Peter Brown, John Astin, and Joan Tollifson 🙏🏼
P.S. Did not wan t to leave out greats like Rumi and Kabir. This always blows me away.
"When He Himself reveals Himself, Brahma brings into manifestation
That which can never be seen.
As the seed is in the plant, as the shade is in the tree, as the
void is in the sky, as infinite forms are in the void--
So from beyond the Infinite, the Infinite comes; and from the
Infinite the finite extends.
The creature is in Brahma, and Brahma is in the creature: they
are ever distinct, yet ever united.
He Himself is the tree, the seed, and the germ.
He Himself is the flower, the fruit, and the shade.
He Himself is the sun, the light, and the lighted.
He Himself is Brahma, creature, and Maya.
He Himself is the manifold form, the infinite space;
He is the breath, the word, and the meaning.
He Himself is the limit and the limitless: and beyond both the
limited and the limitless is He, the Pure Being.
He is the Immanent Mind in Brahma and in the creature.
The Supreme Soul is seen within the soul,
The Point is seen within the Supreme Soul,
And within the Point, the reflection is seen again.
Kabîr is blest because he has this supreme vision!
Beloved Jordan! Thank you for all you offer here.
I am pleased to leave a comment....
True non-duality is not an experiential mode.
It is the substratum from which all modes appear.
No one 'experiences' non-duality... but all experience proceeds from it.
Perhaps some of the confusion arises when we try to compare:
"non-duality vs. duality"... There is no non-duality present there, only duality.
:)
Thanks for sharing your perspective, Jerry <3
One question: If no one ever experiences the substratum, how do you know it's there?
For me it seems like all we ever know is what we experience
And I'd say I've had many experiences of dissolving into what could be called the 'formless substratum' of reality -- and my experience suggests that the so-called 'substratum' is just another word for the ALL. It doesn't seem possible to find anything other than THIS-HERE-NOW -- and this-here-now is fully inclusive of all the ways it might seem to be. The dissolution experiences are another mode -- another way THIS can be with itself -- yet THIS does not depart from itself or become other than itself when it is exploring modes of duality
'Nonduality' IS fully present in/as 'duality'
Thanks again - take care <3
"'Nonduality' IS fully present in/as 'duality'
I think this is the heart of most Vedanta but not the Abrahamic religions. And I agree at some point all conceptual models must be released,.
Many Christian, Sufi, and Jewish mystics have understood that God is all
Hear, hear!
This was an interesting piece for me as someone who has passively followed your work since about 2018. I encountered High Existence as a young man and there found a lot of ideas that supported my foray into Daoism and Zen practices. I stopped following the content of that site throughout the early '20s because I felt it more often leaned in the direction of spiritual bypassing than genuine practice or insight. The tendency towards psychotropic engagement in 'spiritual' communities concerned me as it seemed no more than an excess in materialism (a finger wagging at the moon).
I think non-duality as a sustainable practice must be one that forsakes nothing. As you assert here, one cannot fall blindly to the side of emptiness or non-emptiness but rest easy in the abundant and inherent contradictions the offer definition to our experiences. For most people, it is far easier to follow and insist upon a tidy narrative than to rest in the discomfort of holistic chaos. A lot of the philosophy in our various spiritual teachings seems (to me) to encourage an effort to sit honestly and openly with the inherent contradictions and complexities abundant in our natural and social worlds. Instead, we have used these ideas to blockade ourselves from these complexities (these mysteries, a Daoist might offer). It is easier to use idealism and materialism to frame everything in orderly and digestible narratives than to let those narratives dissolve into the dialectical monism inherent in all matter.
Regarding the use of the term 'modes,' I think it is ultimately unhelpful to frame anything with additional jargon. It only creates another excuse to deny the holistic interbeing of experience and existence. I have just noticed another comment here by "Jerry" and I identify well with his assertion that 'true non-duality' is 'the substratum from which all modes appear.' If we are to use terminology like 'modes,' then we would do well to have it framed this way: The ten-thousand become One.
Hey Orthonym, good to meet you! Cool to hear that you were aware of my work back in the HE days <3
I love a lot of what you say here, such as "holistic chaos" and "rest easy in the abundant and inherent contradictions"...
It is kinda ironic that you are saying "modes" is too jargon-y while also speaking of the "dialectical monism inherent in all matter" 😅
Different people will find different vocabularies valuable. For me this notion of 'modes' is super helpful for illuminating that there are infinite modes or *ways reality can explore itself* -- *ways reality can seem to be*... and *all these modes/ways/expressions are FULLY IT*...
For me this can help cut through so much contemporary spiritual gobbledygook that is rooted in trying to play various modes/states off of each other or create hierarchies or dichotomies of 'this mode' over 'that mode' -- thereby creating 'carrots on sticks' keeping us on the hamster wheel of trying to reach some 'ultimate state/mode' when really all modes/ways/expressions have always been THAT
For me it's very helpful to see that all modes are fully real/valid ways THIS is exploring THIS
For me I do not find any substratum that is apart from or other than the numberless modes themselves -- the numberless ways THIS expresses/explores THIS
All modes fully ARE the 'substratum' -- and the 'substratum' cannot be limited or pinned down as being 'dual' or 'nondual' -- though indeed there does seem to be an inherent wholeness / interbeing
I guess if the word 'nonduality' is used to point to the inherent wholeness / oneness / interbeing then I can pretty much get onboard with that -- though so often nowadays 'nonduality' connotes a new fundamentalism that often espouses dogmatic truisms such as "consciousness is all there is," or "there's no one here," or "this is nothing," etc
Thank you for your rich reflections! Take care <3
"though so often nowadays 'nonduality' connotes a new fundamentalism that often espouses dogmatic truisms such as "consciousness is all there is," or "there's no one here," or "this is nothing," etc"
Hear, hear. On the money. Dogma appears in many forms.
Yes, I am tongue-in-cheek sometimes. I think contradiction is darling, and so referring to the crisis of jargon while also using heady terms like 'dialectical monism' is just a pleasure in hypocrisy. Thank you for noticing and 'calling me out'.
There is always a tension between the formal definition, the lived definition, and the colloquial definition of terms. I think 'communism,' 'anarchism,' or even 'Christianity' are good examples of this. We all have our modes through which meaning arises. Dogmatic truisms are an opiate for those whose pain outweighs their pleasure, perhaps. "Only a Sith deals in absolutes," and so on.
Nonetheless, thank you for responding. I value your insight and understand where you're coming from. I look forward to your next piece. — Much love.
right on, thanks for the good humor. and yes that's a good insight about formal / lived / colloquial definitions of terms -- and love that line about only Sith dealing in absolutes
i've been publishing quite a bit more on my other substack lately -- have daily posts scheduled for the next 8 days: https://simplefreedom.substack.com/
take care & much Love <3
Many Gurus said humans often need forms. I have spoken in public about the illusion of subtle form (angels masters, etc), much less the illusion of separation of physical form. Whatever is apparently created devotion as a mechanism. ButI do agree whatever lens one uses, bypasing uncertainty and not knowing seems not to be helpful. Because there is no separation, this vey discussion is THAT exploring and expressing itself, and perhaps guiding itself as well. These illuminations did not arise in a vacuum. As I have commented, a discussion like this at a mass level would have been impossible in 1970.