A Few Stray Factors about Nonduality, with Jake Orthwein – [updated 2023] – Meditation – Your personal help resource updated daily

From the Deconstructing Your self Podcast

Right here’s the unique audio recording: A Few Stray Factors about Nonduality with Jake Orthwein. 

Michael Taft: Whats up and welcome to Deconstructing Your self, the podcast for meta-modern mutants excited about meditation, hardcore Dharma, neuroscience, the World Weirding, Tantra, nonduality, awakening, and a lot extra. My identify is Michael Taft, your host on the podcast, and on this episode, I’m being interviewed by Jake Orthwein. I wished to speak about a couple of essential and considerably random factors on the subject of nonduality. And so I felt that Jake, who sort of is aware of lots about it could 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 after all know, we’re gonna flip the roles, and I’m gonna have you ever asking me questions. So I’ll simply give up the ground. You’re the MC. Take it away, Jake.

JO: Okay, so with this background matter, we’ve acquired in thoughts of nonduality, I suppose the primary place to begin is likely to 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 it is 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 individuals need to use it. However it seems that they use it in numerous methods to imply various things. And, most essentially, are speaking about truly completely different nondualities. And so to begin 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 usually are not twin? And I believe that that’s one thing that we’re going to be unpacking all through the course of this interview. 

However some actually essential issues that might be nondual are completely different than all the numerous issues that might be mentioned to be nondual. So if we took any checklist of mundane dualities, or mundane units of opposites; massive and small, or loud and quiet, or huge and little, or white and black, all of these, lets say, Okay, these usually are not twin. However what would we get out of that? It’s like, Okay, now we’re actually all dedicated, we’re gonna have a brand new faith concerning the nonduality of salt and pepper. Properly, who cares? I imply, perhaps some cooks someplace might be inconvenienced by the mob of our followers or no matter, however it gained’t actually change something. So what dualities are actually essential to see the nondualness of, precise collapse the duality of and some of them could be for instance–and these are traditionally essential–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 essential nondualities, and essential methods to see that our fixation upon holding issues–let’s say the duality between sacred and profane. We’re attempting to construct a little bit wall round our sacred stuff and maintain all of the profane at bay, it turns into actually essential to see that in a technique of taking a look at it, there is no such thing as a separation between sacred and profane. 

So good query, and we’ll unpack this as we go alongside. However I’d declare that usually, over hundreds of years, particularly of spiritual or non secular historical past, the 2 nondualities that we’re going to most be excited about and that can get us essentially the most bang for our buck, by way of, be life-changing in a really constructive approach, there’s actually solely two which can be central. After which there’s a little bit handful of others which can 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 really these two are carefully associated. And so they’re carefully associated in a hierarchy, they’re completely different. And as I mentioned, the difficulty is that persons are utilizing the phrase nondual to imply various things and assume that they’re utilizing it in a approach that’s related, they usually’re actually not. And these are the 2 that get confused on a regular basis. And the confusion is de facto notably 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 after all, Nonduality 2, the implications of it go a lot, a lot additional. And actually, they find yourself sort of trying like the other 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 essential, like pure and impure for instance, or of extra spiritual significance, you can say, and I suppose perhaps simply to narrate these ideas in individuals’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 simply’re making in your head or two classes that you simply’re making in your head which can be completely different. So it arises within the creativeness, it arises within the thoughts, however it’s totally mentally created. And it’s a huge a part of nonduality, to see that while you drop that mentally generated two completely different classes or two completely different bins factor, while you drop that, immediately they aren’t in two completely different classes, immediately, the separation between them drops away. I’d say that that’s associated in essential 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 could 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, a whole lot, hundreds of various methods to note this. However it’s truly not that onerous to note as a result of once more, what we’re doing there may be dropping a set of psychological bins that we typically use to orient our notion. I’m over right here, different issues are over there, and there’s a distance between them, they usually exist in a relationship that’s the relationship of topic and object, proper? So I’m doing issues to an object or I’m perceiving an object and so forth. So all of these are the set of psychological bins that we’re producing round and inside the expertise, and after we both drop these psychological bins, or cease them, or see by way of them, one thing fairly completely different happens. And we start to note and once more by way of many alternative meditation methods, and even simply because we’d discover it sometime, if we chill out in a sure approach, or we may discover it by way of drug interactions, we may truly even discover it in numerous methods like being unwell 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 wonderful lemon tree. And in a standard state of mind of an individual off the road I, over right here am trying on the lemon lovely, shining, yellow lemon on the tree there, it’s truly moist within the rain, it’s sort of a nearly 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 am 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 can say, like, the reification of the appearances, as a result of as you mentioned, like, stress-free 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 actually, that begins to level at several types 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 observe, emphasize the non-objectness of the lemon. And we’d 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 powerful 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 now not a lemon, it simply turns into one thing like, within the restrict, simply gentle, 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 nearly 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 stress-free the classes, stress-free 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, however it would possibly go up lots. 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, could be one thing like: you wouldn’t be capable to inform the distinction between a lemon and your shoe for those who have been to see the excellence between lemon and shoe as empty, which means this form of undifferentiation of expertise. And what you’re describing sounds extra just like the sphere of expertise is now not divided from itself however all the pieces that’s showing in it’s far more vividly seen.

MT: Yeah, it will get difficult as a result of monism and nondualism are completely different, and but they’ll sound the identical and moreover, you can have one with out the opposite, however you can even have each collectively. So there’s the potential of monist however not nondual, nondual however not monist, neither nondual nor monist, or each collectively. Proper? And so they sound sort of related, however they’re completely different. So, monism is a metaphysical factor about what’s the elementary substance to the universe. And there’s three predominant variations you may have the materialist or physicalist monism; all the pieces is simply fabricated from matter, and nothing else, the elemental substance, or you may have idealism; the elemental substance is thoughts, it’s consciousness, or you may 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 elementary substance. And nondualism will not be metaphysical, like that. It’s philosophical or non secular. And it’s about the concept issues usually are not divided into separate entities or classes, which, you can see that’s subtly completely different however importantly, completely different, it’s a unique emphasis. It doesn’t actually matter. We’re not speaking about what it’s fabricated from, or what the elemental essence of actuality is. It’s concerning the expertise of actuality.

JO:  Proper. Appropriate me if I’m incorrect, although, however I really feel like you can have a monism or nondualism concerning the relationship of expertise to actuality at massive, and you’ll 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 may have these combined 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, individuals don’t speak about monism experientially except they’re mistakenly utilizing the phrase and needs to be utilizing the phrase nondualism.

JO: Obtained it? Yeah, I suppose it could 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 determine the phrase nondual so they simply use the phrase monism. And in order that elevated the confusion round this. And moreover, why do these Asian non secular traditions and philosophical traditions trouble to make use of this actually clunky phrase nondualism, after they too have a superbly good phrase for monism? Properly, as a result of they don’t imply monism. That’s not what they’re attempting to say. Proper? They’re attempting to speak about one thing fairly completely different.

JO: Which is that this non-separateness of phenomena while you’re not imposing conceptual distinctions upon them? 

MT: Sure, sure.

JO: Yeah. So perhaps I may simply have you ever form of retread a few of that floor a little bit bit. Once more, as a result of there’s this relationship that you simply appear to sketch between Nondual 1 as the popularity of nonduality of topic and object as being an increasing number of evident, as you see phenomena as empty. So the route of progress towards realizing nonduality of topic and object is towards an increasing number of phenomena being seen as empty. Is that proper?

MT: That’s a technique of describing it. Sure, due to course, we are able to have nondual traditions that don’t speak about 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 can make clear this concern of consciousness. And I’ll simply use the most typical metaphor that’s used all over the place. However I’ll replace it simply barely, though it is going to nonetheless be outdated. 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 area 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 usually are not separate in any approach. They’re completely different. That is another excuse it’s not monism. The prepare and the particular person aren’t the identical rattling factor. One appears like an individual and the opposite one appears like a prepare. So one of many predominant issues about nonduality is it retains the distinction. However we see that they’re showing on the identical display screen of consciousness, they’re arising as contents in the identical area of consciousness. And in order that’s Nonduality 1. Does that make sense to you, Jake? 

JO: Yeah, yeah. And I see how that follows from this logic of, suppose you’re doing even unusual, like dualistic Vipassana, and also you’re noticing completely different objects from this posture of seeming like a separate topic. However something you may discover goes to be one other object. And that doesn’t imply that each one these objects are literally the identical object. It simply means they’re all objects. And if it seems like one thing to be a topic, that feeling is exhibiting up as yet one more object.

MT: That’s proper. That is the essential factor is the sensation of being me, the physique sensations, and the feelings, and the ideas are simply extra quote, objects which can be showing within the area of consciousness. And so after we see it that approach, all the pieces will not be separate, on this area of consciousness. And in order that’s the nonduality of topic and object, very clearly. That is what most individuals are speaking about 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 pieces is one, issues like that. And there’s a sort of an urge to name it one which once more would possibly level in direction of monism, however it’s not that it’s not completely different. We may nearly 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 non secular thought in this type of Nondual 1. So then consciousness turns into primarily sacred, mystical, the Eye of God, the One True Factor. It’s simply this awakeness and all the pieces that’s arising inside this consciousness all of the contents of consciousness–and it will depend on which custom which philosophy which faith–however all of the contents could be strongly shoved into the anti class. So, like they’re mucking up consciousness or they’re a delusion that’s in some way main us astray from our true nature as this consciousness. Proper? So, despite the fact that all of the issues of the world are one and united in consciousness, consciousness is strongly completely different than its contents. This may be typified in one thing like Advaita Vedanta, particularly unique Advaita Vedanta, the place consciousness is basically God, and your consciousness is identical as the notice 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 simply invoked originally of the dialog, like between sacred and profane and between pure and impure, and between transcendent and imminent, the notice is the sacred, transcendent and pure factor. And its contents are the mucky, gross, profane issues. 

MT: That’s proper. It doesn’t should be that approach. And there’s softer variations of all this, however that sort of transcendental nondualism is quite common. And apparently, for individuals raised in a Christian context, or Christian modernist context, apart from the I-Am-One-With-God half, it resonates actually strongly with like puritanism. God is sacred and the world is profane. And so it has actual resonances for Christians or different individuals 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 for those who’re nonetheless a topic, it’s not nondual, proper? However yeah, you’re a topic referring to the transcendent deity or transcendent consciousness. After which within the heretical, nondual Judeo-Christian view, you acknowledge that you’re one with the deity. So that you get issues for instance, in Islam, Al-Hallaj saying, Ana’l-Ḥaqq, proper, I’m the reality. Now we’re going into full nondualism, the place reality right here is one other 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, however it does occur. We do see this developing many times with mystics, as a result of it’s there to be skilled, proper? It’s not that dueling philosophers got here up with this nondual thought after which determined to see if they might have the expertise. It’s a human expertise that folks attempt to clarify in numerous methods.

JO: Okay, so that is Nondual 1. And as you mentioned earlier than, Nondual 1 could be approached and realized in a approach that doesn’t reify it as absolute. However in these spiritual programs 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 nearly all the time is.

JO: Would now, do you assume, be a superb time to begin unpacking what Nondual 2 means? And what the route of journey could be for that?

MT:  Yeah. And the way in which that we’ve defined and gone by way 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 powerful dualism between expertise, or consciousness, and the contents of expertise. However in Nondual 2, we then collapse that duality as nicely and emphasize the nondual nature the not-two-ness of consciousness and its contents, or expertise and its contents, or if we use Buddhist language, vacancy and 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 attempting to create.

JO: It happens to me, simply because it’ll be a great way to arrange the observe right here, we should always point out perhaps how this pertains to your stack mannequin. So the stack strikes its 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 method 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 interim, isn’t that additionally Nondual 2? It’s simply that you simply’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 assume 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 probably, it’s going to be simply Nondual 1. You’re going to nonetheless are likely to expertise consciousness as a factor, and all of the contents of consciousness, the world, the sense of self, as empty. However so long as consciousness continues to be sort of a factor, you’re nonetheless in Nondual 1. 

JO: Okay. 

MT: And so that you’re proper, you can doubtlessly make a Nondual 2 transfer there, however you won’t. And for this reason, for instance, in lots of Buddhist contexts, and in addition within the nondual Shaiva Tantra context, you’re invited to note the vacancy of the notice itself, proper? You’re by no means going to reify that. However in a Nondual 1 context, you’re nearly strongly inspired to reify the notice itself.

JO: To see that it’s not tainted by its contents.

MT:  Properly, and to consider it as a factor. 

JO: The rationale why it could be instrumentally helpful to say reify consciousness is simply to have the ability to absolutely acknowledge the extent to which it’s untainted by its contents.

MT: There’s that however it won’t be the usefulness that’s essential there a lot because the sort of spiritual 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 pieces that’s showing, appears very wispy and empty, and I really feel like the notice that I’m is completely freed from these contents. How would I then begin poking holes in that recognition or increasing it in a broader context?

MT: Properly, the only approach is to simply invert the notice on itself, see that it’s empty. And that’s going to have a tendency to actually subvert the power to separate it from all the pieces. And that’s going to immediately make the subsequent strikes of then noticing that all the pieces that’s arising will not be separate from the notice, quite simple. However both approach, the subsequent strikes are all about reintegrating expertise. So let’s say you discover a thought arising in that context. And whereas earlier than, we have been emphasizing nicely, consciousness is conscious of the thought and completely different than the thought, now you discover that the notice and the thought are composed of the identical materials. However lets say they’re not separate. And that’s actually essential. 

So that you begin reintegrating all expertise. And that’s the place these different nondualities may also help. They’re not the crux of the problem, however they actually assist. So for instance, when you’ve got 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 not have completely different ranges of sacredness and profanity. They’re both equally sacred or equally profane as a result of they’re shining with the identical gentle of consciousness, so to talk. That is the place you get all of the tantric stuff that seeks actually on goal and to prohibited acts and to sort of revel within the profane is to note that that’s simply an thought, proper? Profanity and sacredness are one other class. And so we collapse that, and we are able to collapse the large one, the large Nondual 1 thought, that consciousness is sacred and the world is profane. Proper? So that individual one can actually assist, you have been mentioning that earlier. 

After which we simply get right into a profusion of methods. However the level being there’s nothing in expertise that isn’t a artistic show of primordial purity, you understand, is often how we’d 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 Unique Sin account is in some sense concerning the daybreak of self-consciousness, and in that exact same daybreak, the daybreak of sin as impurity, then, like the popularity of the purity of consciousness, is subverting this concept of unique sin. However then the popularity that all the pieces seems by no means was separate from it simply will get you off on a very completely different foot with respect to how tainted and horrible human beings are…and that sounds good to me.

MT: Yeah, it’s an totally completely different view, proper? And naturally, this is absolutely the view. And that doesn’t imply okay, meaning I can rob, homicide, steal, rape my approach by way of life. And that’s simply as sacred as the rest. There’s robust prohibitions in opposition to these sorts of concepts, after all. There’s all the time a method to make one thing right into a unfavourable model of itself. And so we’re strongly suggested to not go there. However alternatively, after we see the whole lot 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 pieces is full, or all the pieces is in its proper place. I’m avoiding the phrase excellent as a result of issues can nonetheless, on the relative aircraft, be fairly terrible. However nonetheless, there’s a spot for awfulness within the mandala.

JO: Yeah, it’s not granting the proper imperfect distinction, after which saying it simply so occurs contingently to fall on the aspect of excellent that we dwell in the most effective of all doable worlds. It’s saying previous to that distinction between excellent and imperfect, there’s a way during which all of it suits. 

MT: All of it coheres. Appropriate. 

JO: Yeah. Yeah. Since you talked about a little bit 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: You recognize, 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 pieces’s actually empty, I don’t really feel like I’m separate from it, and now it’s actually rigpa?

MT: I believe it’s completely different for various individuals and completely different for a similar particular person on completely different days or with completely different approaches. However simply within the spirit of the query, I’ll reply and say all the pieces’s showing as empty, and then you definitely invert consciousness on itself and see the vacancy of that, and it’s not trippy, it’s not immediately hyper-cosmic or no matter. However any sense of any sort of separation is gone. And there’s a real sense of and I’ll simply use Dan’s phrases that he preferred to make use of of huge, spacious freedom. I believe he referred to 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 while in the past, all the pieces simply being a little bit brighter and clearer. Not essentially lots, however a little bit. And so which may sound moderately mundane, however when it’s really making use of to all components of expertise, it’s fairly profound. 

JO: Is that the identical or completely different than the ultimate step that you’ll usually train and it’s–I get that it doesn’t should be the ultimate step, however it helps to be this fashion–of seeing the vacancy of the doer or the meditator?

MT: I believe that’s a unique transfer that may usually do one thing related. However I’d say that it’s potential that you can see the vacancy of the doer and nonetheless have an thought 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 to be to form of more and more convey that off the cushion and into one’s life on the planet, as that understanding begins to develop?

MT: Properly, while you take Nondual 1 off the cushion and combine it into the world, it doesn’t combine, it separates. As you 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 likely to embroil one within the delusion of the world. And also you’re going to are likely 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, after all, is one other approach of claiming, transcendental, proper? We change into aloof, we’re greater than all of it. 

That’s to not say that these traditions don’t permit practitioners to interact in life and so forth. However to the extent that you simply cease participating on the 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 interact extra powerfully, have interaction with extra enthusiasm, vitality, 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 little bit bit, usually, we do first expertise Nondual 2 stuff, the nonduality of vacancy and type, nonetheless underneath a sort of meditative laboratory situations someplace, you’re in a retreat, otherwise you’re in a quiet meditation in a quiet room, often together with your eyes open, as a result of once more, we’re together with the world from the very starting. However nonetheless minimalist situations, and perhaps we are able to solely discover that, acknowledge this awake consciousness underneath these situations. 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 way in which, a giant deal, not by way of expertise, it may appear sort of cool, however it’s not essentially one thing that blows your doorways off. However it’s a giant deal, since you now know what it appears 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 attempting to stabilize, in reality, the stabilization implies that we’re capable of keep 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 completely different. Generally I hear individuals say, Properly, you may’t keep rigpa, as a result of that’s only a state and states can’t be maintained. However that’s a mistake. Psychological states and experiences come up inside rigpa. So 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 elementary.

JO: Possibly this may be a superb place to usher in this distinction between sudden and gradual, which frequently will get invoked when speaking about nonduality. How do you see the connection between nonduality and suddenness or gradualness of awakening?

MT: So we have to add one other idea in right here to make this work. And that’s the primacy of consciousness itself. Even in essentially the most Nondual 2 traditions, there may be 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 attempting to schlep our approach by way 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 in some way created. 

And so, as soon as we’re coming from that place, which is a quite common place for each Nondual 1 and Nondual 2 to level to, the primacy of consciousness, then now we have the potential of prompt awakening. Which does truly occur to some small section of the inhabitants. Vanishingly small, extremely uncommon. However some individuals 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 ceaselessly. And in order that does occur.

JO: So I suppose you can in all probability make a distinction between sudden enlightenment, within the sense of you get it identified, and then you definitely’ve already executed the stabilization, and sudden awakening within the sense of like a declaring instruction that you could be nonetheless should stabilize.

MT: Yeah, these could be completely different. Thanks. That’s an fascinating distinction. However it doesn’t actually impression the purpose I’m attempting to make, which is, we now have, based mostly on this concept that you simply’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 traditional view of me as an egoic being attempting to work my approach in 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 incorrect, already getting in the way in which and let’s work as if we’re already a buddha, during which case, perhaps no work is required, however you simply acknowledge it, and also you’re executed. And so in a approach that’s philosophically extra pure, since you’re simply nicely, if it’s true, that you simply’re already a buddha, then simply acknowledge that proper now. And for those who can’t, then we’re nonetheless simply going to honor that risk. And our whole observe is basically sitting there till you do acknowledge it, which is likely to be very gradual, by the way in which, paradoxically.

However after all, the individuals doing these traditions are sensible, they usually–over the numerous centuries and even millennia–have seen all these little contradictions and gotchas. And usually, it’s a little bit extra nuanced than that, such as you talked about, declaring. And declaring is a extremely fascinating factor, which is you may 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 completely different than their each day expertise. And so if that goes deep sufficient you can 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 may then use that second of recognition that they’ve skilled as the premise for his or her observe. For instance, in plenty of Dzogchen contexts, you get identified first, like, right here’s what awake consciousness appears 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 observe, if we do it from even that imperfect glimpse, we’re nonetheless miles forward, as a result of we all know the place we’re going, in a way, despite the fact that there’s nowhere to go.

JO: Yeah, okay, so perhaps this may be a superb place to usher in this query of, to what extent completely different traditions truly honor the complete recognition of nonduality, that you simply’re claiming the understanding of Nondual 2? The form of gradual approaches that we’ve been speaking about are typically related to Theravada, the place you’re doing Vipassana, at the least at first, 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 assume the complete realization of say for instance, like fourth path is Nondual 2 or Nondual 1?

MT: You recognize, 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 all the Pali Canon the Buddha will solely speak about Nirvana in unfavourable phrases. You recognize, 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 couple of issues like that, which might nonetheless doubtlessly be Nondual 1. However there are some hints that begin to sound extra like Nondual 2. However I’d say as some extent of clarification, usually, more often than not, the way in which individuals work in a Theravada context goes to be both dualistic or at greatest Nondual 1.

JO: Yeah. So for those who’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–actually not a self in the way in which an individual needed to promote. And so it could have been bizarre to speak concerning the anatta of a rock. 

JO: Proper.

MT: However vacancy is the anatta of a rock, primarily, 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 believe that is truly very useful for individuals 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 eliminate sure purposeful points of your self-construct, like the truth that you may 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, for those who do early Buddhist meditation methods, which, by the way in which, I’m a giant fan of, I don’t assume there’s something incorrect with them, I believe they’re highly effective, there’s simply extra to do. However for those who’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 moderately 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 may be an anatta, or numerous anattas which can be partial or full, simply stopping of the sense of self in a approach, which might make it unimaginable to perform strolling round on the planet, however that are very spectacular and intense, and do enable you to to see by way of the development of self as a result of how am I nonetheless having an expertise when the sense of self is totally gone? is a giant 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 way of the constructed-ness of it, whereas nonetheless having it’s absolutely purposeful, which after all is what we wish.

JO: Which is the excellence that the thought of vacancy was launched to make.

MT: I believe it actually helps. Yeah, but in addition the excellence is included so that you could see the no-self of a rock.

JO: Proper. So, vacancy is the blanket class, you may 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: Appropriate. I imply, the thought of vacancy to me is–the most effective metaphor is the metaphor of phrases in a dictionary, which you’ve heard me use earlier than. Each phrase in a dictionary, for those who attempt to outline the phrase, it’s outlined utilizing different phrases, and then you definitely go to outline these phrases, and people are outlined by different phrases, you go to outline these phrases, and people are outlined by different phrases which may even be a bunch of the unique phrases. And it’s not like that’s ineffective. That’s extremely helpful. They exist in a community of relationships. Lets say they come up depending on one another. And now we have this extremely advanced community of relationships. However you may’t, anyplace in there, discover a elementary 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 in some way breaks out of that community and finds itself embedded in a deeper floor.

JO: That gives a form of elementary ontology or like closing floor.

MT: Sure. So it’s actually helpful. It’s not like that community is in some way–subsequently 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 little bit 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 be sure you’re not reifying something. And so I’m not saying you give up, that vigilance. However the much less of a menace there may be 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 converse to these constructive qualities and perhaps what the connection is between them and compassion or like compassionate exercise on the planet?

MT: Yeah, the compassion high quality can begin arising strongly with Nondual 1, merely since you’re not categorically separate. You’re not experiencing your self as this atomized exterior entity, however moderately deeply intertwined with all the pieces that’s co-arising. And so once more, this could sound so psychological and so philosophical however the expertise is poignant and intense and bare and direct–it’s not psychological in any respect–of the preciousness of residing issues, particularly as you get a style of the enjoyment and freedom of residing exterior of dualistic classes. There’s a 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 attempting to domesticate actually onerous. 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 in some way not solely transcendent of all issues but in addition is totally impartial. And it’s actually not impartial. The knowledge of vacancy all the time comes along with compassion. They’re by no means separate. And actually, in the event that they appear to be, then your knowledge is missing. One thing will not be full there. Since you’re going to repeatedly be pulled an increasing number of into relationship. That’s even utilizing the incorrect verb. It’s that you simply acknowledge an increasing number of that there’s nothing happening 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 precise phrase. However it doesn’t have all of the connotations I want it did. As a result of it could be like, as you see the knowledge of vacancy an increasing number of deeply, the dance of relationship turns into an increasing number of highly effective, an increasing number of lovely, an increasing number of central.

JO: And the compassion, as an perspective, as you say, can present up very strongly as much as and together with Nondual 1 however the expression of that perspective 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, after all, if we go to the historical past of Buddhism, the place we get the primacy of compassion, beginning to be talked about is in Mahayana Buddhism, the place 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 actually 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 nearly 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 completely different about that completely realized particular person’s expertise and conduct from the one who has by no means heard of any of these items in any respect?

MT: Their conduct is likely to be indistinguishable, however their expertise goes to be totally completely different, totally completely different, proper? The entire definition of what’s modified is that their expertise is totally modified. And one would hope that their conduct appears fairly completely different as nicely. However it won’t. And the rationale I’m saying it that approach is as a result of there’s no specific conduct that we may level to and say, nicely, that’s Nondual 2 conduct.

JO: Proper.

MT: And if we may, then you can do the factor that many individuals do, which is then simply attempt to imitate the conduct. So I’d say, Properly, you won’t be capable 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’d acknowledge as one thing of a move state extra usually. And moreover, they’re in all probability going to are typically useful, that’s one of the best ways to place it. It’s not that they’re essentially a cartoon of compassion, however they’re going to are typically fairly useful in a technique or one other.

JO: And despite the fact that you couldn’t essentially acknowledge from any given motion, oh, sure, that’s Nondual 2 motion, over a protracted time frame, you must 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 believe these are extra recognizable from inside than with out. However they might present with out. They’re going to be spontaneous, childlike, excessive vitality, humorous, and engaged. They are typically dynamos of vitality, and in addition actually fluid actually spontaneous, and generally putting, like lightning, very sudden and sudden. However there’s no temper, it’s not like, Oh, they’re all the time externally blissful, or all the time externally this or that. It may look many alternative methods. And the extra that somebody is sort of rigidly seeming to have one specific emotional state on a regular basis, it’s in all probability extra probably that they’re performing moderately 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 do exactly take these properties of spontaneity and compassion and flow-state kind stuff and childlike conduct and all that and simply begin attempting to be that approach as a lot as doable. That may 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 precise assist, that does assist lead in that route.

JO: Yeah, a part of the rationale I ask is that within the spirit of asking, Properly, what’s all this nonduality enterprise good for? I actually perceive why it could be good from the within. And as you say, the inner expertise of being unfixated is completely completely different in a constructive route. However one can surprise on the premise of the misbehavior of assorted individuals, particularly taking on this view, proper that nothing to do precisely, and no inner authorities apart from the spontaneity of consciousness, a technique of placing it’s whether or not there’s something you can say about it being a contemplative misunderstanding, moderately than an absence of simply different colleges, you would possibly need to study as a result of if any individual 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 believe there may be, I believe that in the event that they have been deeply recognizing or absolutely recognizing, it could be very onerous to do any conduct that was explicitly malfeasant. It’s not that they couldn’t damage somebody. As a result of generally hurting individuals is critical, for instance, some sort of trolley drawback or one thing. However the form of simply straight-up malfeasance, taking of actions which can be harming others merely for gratification. I believe that that instantly signifies that they’re not truly absolutely there. But additionally any custom that has survived, the traditions which can be nonetheless right here, explicitly say this time and again: you don’t use this philosophy to behave badly on the planet. You aren’t to try this. And it is likely to be they’re simply attempting to guard their reputations. However I don’t assume so, I believe they’re saying like, similar to the rest, you may misuse this. And the true space of misuse will not be 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 loads of guardrails in there and coaching wheels to be sure that doesn’t occur. However after all, it nonetheless occurs.

JO: In some sense for those who’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 exterior the contingent legislation or ethical code or no matter of transcendental justification. It’s generally–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 attempting 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, to be able to crush their dualistic attachment. And that’s an actual apparent drawback. The opposite one, which I believe is sort of fascinating, and nearly worse, is: my awakening was so deep. I like didn’t see the boundary I used to be crossing. To me, that’s this bizarre humblebrag the place you’re utilizing your crime to speak about how awake you’re. But additionally, it’s a deep misunderstanding. It’s the factor you have been saying earlier, Jake, we don’t lose distinction. We don’t lose decision.

JO: There’s this lovely phrase from the custom to seize that of like, view as huge because the sky, conduct as high quality as barley flour. Yeah, all of the distinctions are nonetheless there. Yeah.

MT: Yeah. So what stuff haven’t we talked about that you simply’re excited or to speak about?

JO: I suppose there’s some stuff about–in what sense is that this, or is that this not God? However you inform me whether or not you assume there’s extra you’d wish to say there?

MT: It will get dicey. as a result of all of it will depend on what you imply by God. 

JO: Proper.

MT: Is it a creator being? Is it the prime reason for the universe, or what? However you may actually have, even Nondual 2 traditions which have, some sort of relationship, perhaps even a central relationship, with at the least a stand-in for form of an final precept. Even when the final 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 change 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 individual 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, Properly, 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 ceaselessly. 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 related personifications. 

So once more, the traditions insist that these are personifications, and many others, and many others. And but, it’s fairly onerous to land on what is likely to be the essential distinction, besides the dualistic one, which is: nicely, it’s separate for me in some elementary approach. That’s, after all, what the traditions are so adamant about dissolving.

JO: In all probability 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 complete, however you may change something, you may flip your physique right into a rainbow, you’ve heard of Rainbow Physique, proper? 

JO: Yeah.

MT: However there’s an excellent deeper type of Rainbow Physique. I believe it’s referred to as Nice Transcendent Rainbow Physique, you may 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 actually any thought of the legal guidelines of physics not being transcended is blown away by these sorts of ideas. I believe what’s essential right here is that they’re by no means saying that it’s a separate, transcendent entity that’s in some way ceaselessly separate in the way in which {that a} dualistic Western creator god is.

JO: The legal guidelines of physics are to be seen, 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 can be made on the premise of those experiences. Okay, so this sense of it being deathless in some essential sense, as a result of it persists throughout any obvious incarnation. That’s one actually you’ve borne out in your expertise. Is there a spot the place you say, I am going this far and no additional with the normal 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 information to those of us. And whereas I’m not bowing to them as the final word supply of data, I’m additionally not saying essentially I do know higher. However I’ll say this, I’m not certified to show Rainbow Physique observe, and neither am I at the moment attempting to attain that. 

JO: Proper. 

MT: So I’ll simply say, nicely, that’s above my pay grade. I’ll let any individual else fear about it. Yeah, as a result of I don’t know.

JO: Superior, okay, the rest that you simply assume we’ve missed, or that you’d like to cowl? Earlier than we name it?

MT: The entire goal of this dialogue, for me, is to assist individuals 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 is likely to be totally completely different. And so they would possibly speak about what they’re attempting to attain fairly in a different way, and easy methods to get there fairly in a different way. And so now we have to acknowledge these distinctions to be able to navigate this territory with the least quantity of issues. And in order that’s the entire level right here. Not that you simply in some way should know all this to meditate, or you need to know all this to have the expertise. Clearly, you don’t. As a result of lately, all these traditions are utterly out there utilizing a browser or no matter. We’d mistake them for one another or assume they’re speaking about related 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 little bit little bit of that confusion.

JO: Lovely. 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.

Associated