This question was posed to me by my friend ‘J’.
…but, I can certainly be confused as to how you see and define ‘All One’ – if you’d care to elaborate. How could I or anyone NOT be All One?
I generally do not use these words, unless they are posed to me by others. But let’s just take a look at that phrase and see what comes up…
What is the Meaning of ‘All One’?
All One would seem to imply that separation is impossible. After all, if something is All One, it cannot be divided. And yet, looking into the world, this beautiful planet we live upon, all we see is separation; the nationalistic ideas causing war, the religious activity tearing us apart, the ‘racial’ ideas that keep knives at each others throats, and so on. It is easy to see separation at every turn. So human beings are NOT All One.
We could also say, if there is no separation in this thing called All One, then humanity is not All One.
It is so easy to use these phrases, and I hear it quite frequently through talks and dialogues and so on. And whenever I question these phrases, I consistently receive puzzled looks or responses from those present. Perhaps it is because they have read that we are All One, so they find it strange that I question it at all. But I find it strange that they do not.
Those phrases are meaningless for Takuin, but even if someone brings up the phrase, one cannot just assume they are wrong. So there must be investigation at each and every turn. “Those phrases are meaningless” cannot be held like a story to be used again and again. That is just more dead living.
Effort to Conquer Oneness
The short aside post, To The Student, is an small excerpt of a talk I had with someone in Tokyo. He was a businessman working for an electronics firm. He was complaining about the stresses of his life, the severity of his position socially, politically and so on, but in the next sentence he would say, “I know I am supposed to be All One. I should be All One so that is what I will pursue. I AM All One”
The listener kept saying he knew he SHOULD be All One, and that he would pursue that end. As the two of us went further into it, his confusion became clear: he ignored the seriousness of his life and condition – which was real – in order to find the state he thought was better – which was not.
We can say it was ‘confusion arising in oneness’ or some other nonsense, and it might have been true, but he was trapped, not willing to look at his condition. He wanted what someone else told him was better, and he seemingly had no way to touch it on his own. So he built All One-ness into an idea of something to have, to pursue, and to conquer.
He was not pursuing Oneness, but his IDEA of oneness.
Approaching Oneness
I might have written things like, “Start with what you have.” This means that if you are miserable or confused or angry or greedy or whatever, you begin with that. You investigate the root of those conditions.
Those conditions are real, you see; immediate. If you are angry – not angry – if you are anger, you do not begin with a condition you think is better than the anger (better than the fact). Nothing is a better teacher than the fact.
Perhaps in your travels you have run across a strange kind of permissiveness in this area. Some people seem to think that All One, or Oneness, and so on, means that anything is permitted because it is All One. But this is dangerous and a very lazy way of living.
This limited ‘knowing’ generally follows an intellectual understanding of written/spoken material. The reader might ‘understand’ what is being said, but it does not touch them in the deepest way. And so this idea of permissiveness arises saying, “Anything I do is fine, because anything I do is ‘All One’.” And from here, investigation stops, but not because of a deeper understanding or a ‘cellular’ understanding, but because they have a new idea to hold onto. A new kind of security that solidifies the ’self’.
It is a strange game. They think they have given up themselves to pursue enlightenment, but it is no different from pursuing money, sex, power, or whatever. The quest for enlightenment might be the greediest, most selfish quest of them all.
But we could look at All One in a number of different ways. For example, there could be a person that is All One. A creature of no separation. And it is possible to live All One. But it is an understanding of what you are, and not what you think you should be, that will allow curiosity to reveal your own ‘aliveness’, if I can put it in that way.
You are No Idiot; Just Far Too Timid
Please try to understand, I am not saying that any of this is wrong or right, or that a person on a spiritual path is an idiot, because I do not mean to say that at all. It may well be true that I am less sympathetic with the guru than I am with the searcher, and less sympathetic with the searcher than I am with a layperson, but if someone chooses this path it will take strength to see themselves for what they are.
I am not going to sit by the fire of Oneness, holding the searcher’s hand, and tell them stories of, “Enlightenment is THIS or THAT.” I’d rather take them by the hand and throw them into the fire. Let them see it for themselves.
Can you let the fire completely consume all that you are and leave the ashes to the mercy of the wind?
Why not?
22 Comments
When we come to spirituality or awakening, we are confused about living. We second-guess. What would an awakened person think about this, or do in this situation? What am I supposed to do?
The trouble starts when we take fixed positions on spiritual concepts.
Good article. Thanks.
Kaushik,
Perhaps it is an inevitable event for the searcher? (Never say never though…)
It feels so natural to want to search inwardly with the same methods we use to search outwardly. The sprinter practices and trains, dedicating themselves to being the fastest; a pianist works with sound, striking those percussive keys, perfecting their technique; the painter makes millions of brush strokes, searching for that timeless vitality. And the spiritual searcher tries to use the same methods of outward force to reveal a work of art that requires nothing, DEMANDS nothing, from them.
As speakers, we have little say in what listeners will do with our words. So we must take great care with both the listener and our expression of the whole thing.
I’m not even sure I know what “All One” really means. I know what I experience, I know what I see when I look at a tree or a person or a rock or the sky or anything. Would I even call it “all one” or “Oneness?” It isn’t any of these things, to be sure. It is SOMETHING, but what words to use? I could say “that rock is what I am” but even that doesn’t do it justice.
But you know, Takuin, most people have to start somewhere. They have to have some entry point, some way for their struggling mind to come to grips with the truth that is surrounding them, filling them, moving them. So, we give them ideas to chew on, idea like “oneness” and “now” and “emptiness.” None of it is really true, but hey, they gotta get something for their money, right? Gotta tell them something! LOL So, we talk and talk and talk and give them lots of fingers pointing at the moon and hopefully something within them will decide to turn and look at the moon.
Tom,
And that is really too bad for many of us because we can’t seem to shut-up about this whole spiritual torture we put ourselves through.
They all start somewhere, and we can do nothing about that. All we can hope to do is reveal the real, in the best way we can. Like Penn and Teller …
Someone comes along and does a magic trick. The searcher watches earnestly, absorbed in the whole thing and claims, “Yes, this is the magic I have been searching for. It looks (sounds) real. It IS real.” Then perhaps they go off to tell everyone else how awesome this magic trick was.
Then we come along and say, “No, no…you don’t quite see it. Take another look.” And this time, they watch the trick, and we point out how it is done. Then they might easily see there was no real magic, but a silly trick a 6 year old could do.
Perhaps that is why some of us are here; to show how the magic trick is done. Or to show that the biggest illusion of all, might be the magic of enlightenment. Who can say?
I do like Penn and Teller, though…
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Takuin.
You touch on why I tend to hammer that there is usually a process of awakening, a series of openings. It is usually not just a switch from caught in the dream to fully awake in wholeness. Not understanding this process, people mix perspectives spoken from different stages and compare them to their concepts.
To me, it is true that “We are all One”. There is no other, just the one flowing within itself, producing apparent forms and differences. Kind of like dreaming.
But if this is not the experience, it is just a concept. Pretending or intellectualizing about oneness is meaningless as it is far beyond mind and thus it’s concepts. We have to step out of the grip of mind to step into being. And we have to step much more deeply into being before the old Upanishadic saying is real. ‘I am That, Thou art That, all This is That.’ In some ways, this also describes the 3 classic stages of unfolding oneness. If your own being has not been seen, how can it be seen in all things?
You rightly suggest “All One” has no meaning. It has nothing to do with meaning. It is curious though – that expectation of “should” which in itself is a resistance to what is. A push against what is sought yet cannot be found. In the push to be something else, we – as you suggest – move away from what is true right now.
I heard Adyashanti speak a couple of nights ago. He spoke of how we apply the desire to acquire things to our spiritual life – ideas, teachings, and experiences. We seek to collect them to show we are ‘getting somewhere” which of course comes back to the idea it’s a goal. You concur.
Yes, it does take courage to stop and look at what what is here, now. He suggested that this may cause fear but that that was a good thing. It means we’re getting close. He suggested we look at inner fear as an invitation.
That fire is an interesting thing. It burns ‘all that you are’ yet never touches who you really are. That is what is revealed when the ashes blow away.
Davidya,
Although I speak to the contrary, I do not deny what you are saying. It is true. People seem to go through all kinds of things. But I question whether it is real, or just one’s expectation of what is supposed to happen. It could be one or the other, or both.
I suppose if the searcher is truthful and honest, one might be able to see this for themselves. But it is doubtful, because they may be far too dependent upon their chosen authority, whomever that may be.
But I cannot deny that this seems to happen to so many people. It could be real, or it could be like the ‘light at the end of the tunnel’ phenomena…
We’ve been told for thousands of years that, at the point of death, there is this light and this tunnel. But I wonder if this is in any way real, or is the brain creating this final experience because it is what we’ve been taught to expect? In some way, it makes sense, as that would be the last chance for the self to assert its own reality before death removes it.
But really, we will never know.
Yes, Takuin, I know. And I’ve considered this question – does the understanding of the process determine how it unfolds? I’ve concluded it may in minor ways but because the person really has nothing to do with how awakening actually happens, it is not the best outlook. For example, someone who awoke in their mid-20’s after 3 days of meditation and someone who hasn’t awoken after 50 years practice, both having the same understanding of stages.
I have observed that those who awaken suddenly often have no teaching of stages while those who unfold in stages often do. However, this seems to be more to do with how grace unfolds than what an individual may do. Their process leads them to resonate with certain teachings.
An understanding of a process may tend to make one more aware of steps that may not be as apparent to someone not caring or noting. For example, I’ve also seen awakening descriptions from those who see no process clearly describe the typical stages. But it’s also true that the stages will only be apparent during the process. While your reality is a certain way. They are no more “real” than the illusion of being a separate person. Real at one point but not ultimately so.
Long term meditators often seem to have a smoother time with the transitions but even that is a generalization. Each of our journeys is unique. Our discussions here and with another teacher lead me to write an article observing that ‘Awakening has No Rules’.
Death is a whole ‘nother question. Brain effects is a Newtonian perspective. Death is more a steeping back into consciousness. A smaller sort of waking, in a way – waking from inside the life. But one that is highly influenced by perspective. Expectations from conditioning, culture and such have an effect I refer to as “personalization”. The best analogy is a sort of dream state. This causes certain characteristics to be ‘locally flavoured’, such as how beings appear and who shows up. Do they have wings, look like aliens or like ghosts? Or just surreal? (laughs) The film “What Dreams May Come” covered this surprisingly well. But underlying these descriptions are certain commonalities, like the white tunnel thing.
It’s pretty easy to relate to if you consider the process. (yeah, that again
As we leave the body and the gross energy fields dissipate, we step back into the soul and the soul into the group. That can have the appearance of a tunnel with light at the end. Kind of like flowing down an energy corridor. Some kundalini experiences are a little like that. But it will depend on what someone is prepared to see and how far into the soul they are willing to step. Big subject.
That is true, and that I do not dispute. I don’t dispute any of it at all. The person has nothing to do with it, as you’ve said. That is truth.
Now, when the searcher hears all of that, what can they do with it? They can accept it, reject it, do nothing with it, or even forget about it during their journeys. And all of the questions we can ask about this are not so important. Is it useful? Meaningful? Meaningless? – it is really not very important. The same with levels and steps and so on.
People will do, what people will do. And their actions (if that is the right word) will be incomplete as the separation continues.
Perhaps it is this:
Is there value in knowledge, as it relates to awakening?
As keen as you or I may seem to be, we cannot answer this for anyone. But this may be a very important question for many.
I am not saying it is right or wrong, you know. If it happens it happens, if it doesn’t it doesn’t. A good teacher will know when to reduce their own interaction with the student, and let them find out on their own.
Death is something we will never know. It does not matter what we are told; we will never know.
Even at the point of dying, when actual physical functioning ceases, we will never know death.
When we hear of the stories of the soul, of the ‘after-death’ activities, the halls of honor, the jamming with Hendrix, it is all fine and good. These are all creations of human thought; nothing wrong with that. But we are describing death with our thoughts of death, giving some sort of living meaning to a thing so far beyond our understanding.
It is none of my business, really. I am not saying it is one way or another. I am just saying there is no real way to use the ‘physical’ action of thought to ‘know’ the great beyond of death.
Besides, when Takuin dies WHO is going to leave this body?
We live, thinking we know death. And for many, this knowing is a hindrance to their living.
hmm – while I agree that much of what we hear about death is a story (mainly due to that personalization thing ), I disagree that we cannot know death.
Life and apparent death all occur within consciousness. When we step deeply enough back, the apparent boundaries of this life or that life fall away. We see a continuum. Some see this linearly, later as concurrent. When we are living a life, there are more memory impressions so it’s easier to “recall”. The transition states are not as expressed so leave fewer impressions.
Does this matter? No. At a certain point, you will have a sense of your own continuity and the fear of death will fall away.
The other stuff seems to depend somewhat on individual inclinations and the sequence in which things unfold.
As Tom wrote, the concept of we are all one is an entry point for others. I mean…many people act like they are an island without any regard to those around them and the result of that behavior is reflected in all the drama we see out in the world.
People need to realize that they are sharing this planet together and what we do has implications to the whole. So that is how I use the phrase of “we are all one”.
That said, I do think people have complicated spirituality far more than necessary. Many people want to be spiritual yet they deny their true nature. Being spiritual is very fashionable and many people struggle to fit a concept and it just does not work that way.
For example, I like some material things of the world such as skin care products and I love to drink coffee. Some may think this makes me less spiritual but I don’t think it does. I know these things do not define who I am. I enjoy them but they really mean nothing to me. If they were to disappear, I would be totally cool with it and still be happy.
I think the pressure to be spiritual is a form of attachment because it is a label for many and not a way of being.
Nadia,
That is also how I used the phrase in this case. We all have the highest responsibility, not just the elected officials, the upper levels of clergy, or the ‘enlightened’ folks. No one can ‘make’ us change or ‘make’ us see this, although it may indeed be helpful for that particular journey. A push in the right direction.
Perhaps the trouble is we do not know that we do not know. There is no awareness in the sense of seeing beyond our own little sphere of influence.
So how do we get to knowing that we do not know? That may be the real effective space for a teacher, because once we get to knowing that we know, other problems arise; it can too easily become a new dogma for us to follow.
But us talking about this may be useful. One can feel that natural compassion arise. Seeing the state of the seeker, and the general state of the world, patience becomes such a simple thing.
You know what I love? Rocky and Bullwinkle. Desperately. And those fractured fairy tales were brilliant, with the beautiful voice of Edward Everett Horton.
Frederic Chopin. Scriabin and other Russian composers. The paintings of Francis Bacon. Caravaggio. The films of Kurosawa. Kids in the Hall.
Egyptian art. Boca Burgers. Paul Reed Smith guitars. On and on….
The many creations of humanity, whether in the flesh, in wood, on film, on canvas, in stone, or whatever, are beautiful to behold. There is no reason to deny any of that, just to hopefully receive a state better than the one we are in, or for a better seat in the afterlife.
But how can you like coffee? Gross…
Davidya,
…ah, but this is what we do, isn’t it? Between us, we have very interesting discussions, just as we probably both do with most everyone else.
I wonder – and this is a personal question so you don’t have to answer if you don’t want to – what stays with you after we finish these things? When we are finished with our comments, I mean.
For Takuin, nothing carries over. For example, in one or two days, I’ll have no memory of what was said here. It is not like amnesia, though, because I will ‘know’ that we did interact with one another on this blog. In other words, I’ll have a faint knowing that you were here typing something, but the content is forgotten.
There is no emotional carry-over, and no thoughts of ‘I am right, He is worng’ or anything like that. There is just nothing here.
I can’t just assume others are the same, but I became curious by the mind’s functioning. I just began to wonder, What do others do?
In the comments, I think we can all kind of sense when a conversation has run itself out, and we just leave it at that. But I often wonder if the other contributors take anything with them.
How do you see this in yourself? (if you do at all…)
(laughs) Yes, I have quite enjoyed our discussions and the insights that may arise. Another perspective steps one into a larger vision.
I had not thought about it. I can think of 3 things that may occur.
- there is a conversation that ends.
- there is something drawn out by the conversation that is considered, then ends.
- there is something drawn out by the conversation that I explore further and write about. Occasionally these lead to further things. But at some point, the thread ends.
An example of the later was your Question post and a disconnect I had with a teacher. It lead to the Awakening is Without Rules post, then The Spiritual Ego post. Some further correspondence with the other teacher resolved where the disconnect was. And then it was complete.
But I know what you mean about nothing carries over. I write down insights, journal a bit, and save good comments. Otherwise it would just be gone. If the subject comes around again, I can look it up.
I find that even as I write, what has just been written is gone. I am surprised by what is there when I read it over.
It is when someone is building and supporting a construct that it must be held. When this ends, it is only to be experienced.
I sometimes wonder what else will fall away around this. Occasionally, I’ve found that nothing is drawn out. Nothing remains to be said. I think “ah, it’s done.” And then a new thread begins. I used to debate – is this a me or source? Finally I got that the idea of me is pointless. It simply is what it is. It arises or doesn’t.
And as I write that, I wonder why this arose. But I’ve found that if it arises, it’s usually worth writing to be read…
I have not really thought about it, but that seems to be true. If there is any difficulty at all, it is in finding the ‘right’ colors to paint the landscape.
Some days are better than others
Well, it all depends on what you mean by know, consciousness, and so on. But that is too big for this little space at this moment. I may pose this topic as a question for the teachers next month. It will probably do well for everyone.
It occurred to me later that “when Takuin dies WHO is going to leave this body?” will actually have a different answer that it has had in the past. Takuin has changed his being and there is no longer something holding on…
In that sense, one cannot look at deaths that may have occurred as a reference for what will happen then. (laughs) If Takuin is changeless, will death have any meaning?
That is the thing…these words we use are very important for transmitting this to one another. So if I do not understand, it is not because someone is wrong…I just do not understand. So in order to come closer, we try to see how these words are used.
Certainly. After all, there are a million ways one might kick the bucket, if we are simply talking about the physical death of this organism. But that outward death is all we can see.
Someone dies and we can only look at it from the outside. We are not there with them, in the sense of physical death, so our seeing is very limited when we attribute ideas to what may come next for them.
It is the limitation of the idea, which is not the actual death or dying. We may say that the soul does this, or consciousness plays this or that role, but how can we know it? Certainly, others have told us, and for whatever reason (which we might get into later), we believe them without questioning the whole thing.
We both mentioned above that nothing really carries over. So we might say that this is a kind of ‘living death,’ though not in any morbid sense. None of this has not stopped through will or force, or through a desire to change; it is just the capability (of holding on?) seems to be missing.
The most simple (and superficial) question might be, If it doesn’t carry over now, why should anything carry over at the point of death?
It is superficial because we cannot know the answer to that either. There is a tacit assumption that it will not carry over after death, and in these investigations we cannot assume even that.
The only thing we can sit with is this functional living death. It is clear and unmistakable. We could also look into the systems of thought created to protect us from the finality of death. If we go into that deeply and completely, we might find there is no real mystery about this beautiful thing we try to hide from.
Death has the same meaning as life in that there can be no separation between the two. There may be a long stretch of years before one actually dies, but even so, death cannot be separated from life.
But I guess by meaning you are speaking more of the person that feels they are losing something. That death will strip them of all they are and all they have accumulated. It is meaningless in that sense because life is meaningless in that sense.
We spend our lives wanting to finally know we’ll be alright after death. We want to know everything about it. But we never ask anything about living. We are so concerned with our inevitable dying that we cannot live in any meaningful way.
But really, it seems Takuin is always changing, but at the same time, no-one is changing.
hmmm – yes. We’re not talking of the same thing. What I mean is that because Takuin is no longer an individual self, the dynamic of death will shift. One cannot look to prior deaths before this shift as an example.
Really, this more comes back to how can one know? Consciousness itself is embedded with what we might call senses. What becomes physical senses. From what I have understood, in the evolutionary journey of awakening, everyone gets the gift of “inner sight”. There are many names for this. It shows up much like awakening – it just happens. Sometimes with awakening, sometimes before or after.
This ’sight’ usually evolves, like awakening. Deepens, broadens, etc. It can become a trap as it’s thought to be “truth” in some way. And it can get in the way of awakening. We like to think experiences tell us what awakening is but awakening is beyond experiences.
Do I actually know that everyone gets this? No. But clearly some do or there would not be stories of it. The teaching tells me it happens due to refinement of the nervous system. While that is certainly related in terms of clarity and depth, it does not point to why one person and not another. Nor why one person sees certain aspects while another sees others. I can suggest explanations, but that is just concepts.
I have not thought about it this way before. Interesting.
But I can say it is possible for some to see ones history, before the apparent boundary of birth or death. It is possible to remember a prior death. Or not forget it. It is also possible to see that the physical universe is but a coating on a much larger, richer place. It is possible to literally see life and consciousness on the surface of things, lighting up the world. That under the “veil” our world is place of astonishing beauty, something many open a bit to here and there. It is possible to see the universe from the outside. To see the vast reaches of being beyond the universe. Consciousness, That Thou Art, is bigger than all these things. They are contained in that, thus it is looking within.
The life must still be lived. But the context changes considerably. Death is no longer feared when the continuity of life is experienced. We can be humbled by the vast richness and diversity of life. We can be awed by presence, right on the surface of mundane objects, trilling to our attention and touch.
Is it important to see all these things? No. Just something else to let go of. What is important is waking to who you are, underlying all of that. That which is without death. That which is everywhere present.
If these things are not seen, perhaps it is to avoid distraction from what needs to be seen. When it is seen, then perhaps the breadth of what is can arise. But I’m guessing. (laughs)
Depth is probably a good word for this. Going deeper is probably also a good phrase to use, as long as we understand we are not actually going to a ‘different’ place in order to find something.
We could imagine the awakened person as a painter, and the action of painting – using paint, brushes, and other tools – as the natural functioning of that organism (the painter).
Let’s say the painter has five colors on his palette. With those five colors, he can do almost anything; there is no lack of any kind, and great experimentation goes on with those five colors.
Then one day he discovers by mixing other colors together he can have far more than five. So there is this added depth, although nothing has actually changed. It does not necessarily ‘enhance’ the beauty of his work, but there is a new way of expressing what is already present. I don’t want to call it a new option, because the ‘new’ color was always there. But perhaps through this experimentation, something new can take place.
Perhaps that is what we do with these conversations; we mix our paints together to experiment with a new color. And although the color might be ‘different,’ it does not change the functioning of the painter.
Yes, and one painter will paint landscapes, another portraits, another abstracts, etc. And when they speak of painting, they may speak of it quite differently. Yet it does not change the functioning of the painter.
The last three paragraphs were utterly awesome.
Thank you, Ariel.
One Trackback
[...] « The Story Seeing Death July 31, 2009 In a discussion over on Takuin’s blog on Oneness, the subject of death came up. As an example, it was suggested death was unknowable. I suggested [...]