PRIME POST! No Practice, No Problem
So far as I can recall, I’ve never “assigned” a practice for any student unless I was asked to do so. I do dispense general practice advice and recommendations here on the website, on YouTube, in podcasts, in Sunday Satsang and in private meetings. I recently wrote a column about some of them — The Practice Menu. It’s a piece worthy of your reading time.
And now let me take all of that away.
The practices I suggest are designed to help You notice that You are always already awake and always already clear. Awakeness doesn’t actually need our human assistance in getting its act together. There is, however, the issue of the tool that Awakeness is using to look through. It uses animal bodies in the same way that we use eyeglasses.
Now, you and I never confuse ourselves with being our glasses. We are the living, breathing observers and our glasses are lifeless objects that we wear. Well, it turns out that Awakeness is wearing the unit that’s reading this sentence in much that same way. Notice that in the absence of Awakess to animate them, these units are also lifeless, insentient objects.
However, while our eyeglasses are sometimes clean and sometimes dirty, it turns out that Awakeness’ “looking tools” are always dirty — it’s just a matter of degree. The “dirt” I’m speaking of comes in the way of “characters.” Some characters are held to be clearer than others, but let me hasten to add the definition of what “clearer” means. It means “less.”
Wherever there is less character present, we say that the character is “clearer.” This is like saying that one character in a dream is smarter than another character in a dream. It’s nonsense. Let me explain.
Fredness, for instance, exists as a character-unit combination, a complex web of mental and physical patterns with an apparent past and an apparent future. This existing-in-apparent-time character-unit (think personality-plus-body) is a compilation of what’s been inherited, and what’s been acquired since the “inheritance” arrived on our planet.
This compilation-without-a-center arises and appears to live as a separate entity from mother’s womb to final tomb. (I could use the word “apparent about a hundred times in this article, but you would find it obnoxious and I would find it dull, so let’s not go there.
The really fascinating part of this, however, is that these traces and traits are neither inherited nor acquired by anyone. It is a machine in search of a soul that it will never find. Thus it makes stuff up.
Characters are merely astonishingly convincing patterns, who at heart are akin to rainbows. Rainbows appear in the sky and are not really other than the sky, yet they appear to be both different and separate, which is completely illusory. The illusion, like a rainbow, is entirely dependent on a specific view.
You are That which exists prior to patterns, and after patterns. Now, just like rainbows to the sky, patterns are not other than You, and cannot exist without You, but they do not equal You. You show up as a zillion different patterns, but patterns never show up as You. All patterns exist in space-time. You are well beyond patterns, well beyond space-time. All of these things appear upon You.
Since You have little to nothing to do with illusory characters, it only stands to reason that illusory characters have little to nothing to do with You. Thus whether a character is completely cloudy or totally clear does not, in the end, affect You. If I dream about a thief picking my pocket, I don’t call the police the next morning. A dream is a dream is a dream.
However, when you dream that you are a human being, that dream will entail suffering. Furthermore, just like everything else in this dream-cum-nightmare, that suffering will be experienced as reality. It’s fun until it isn’t, and then it isn’t fun in a big way. The character gets more and more self-involved until it becomes a snake with its tail in its mouth, and no way to get straight
So, what is my core point with all of this? An illusory character cannot practice its way into enlightenment — that is my core point. No matter how many doves the magician pulls out of his hat, there were never any birds nesting in it. There is no direct relationship between practice and Realization. Period.
We are never actually making progress toward awakening, because there’s nothing progressive about awakening. You see it or You don’t. You see it right now or You don’t. But of course the character never sees “its True Nature,” because the character is merely an appearance upon True Nature. It’s sort of like a man developing a rash that he then finds himself strangely fond of.
Just as a character cannot practice its way into clarity, neither can it earn it, or fail to earn it. Yes, karma is a phenomenon, but only in the phenomenal world. It’s a dream mechanism for dream characters. It has nothing to do with Truth. Maya is a whole lot more sophisticated than any human can imagine. I have seen her in her full splendor.
One cannot imagine the Truth of the Whole upon which one is appearing. One cannot see True Nature. No character can wake up. All that can happen is that Truth can notice Itself. We erroneously call that “waking up” because that’s how it feels to Oneness. It’s Truth that wakes up to illusion, not illusion that wakes up to Truth.
A character does not abandon itself to Truth. It can’t–it’s not real. Upon noticing Itself, Truth abandons illusion. However, this abandonment is rarely if ever permanent. Oneness has been so charmed by its belief in an all-compelling separate character that it comes back again and again to the story and reinhabits it. Looking through the dirty glasses has become addictive.
It is our breaking of this habitual drunkenness stemming from the belief in separation that we call “stabilizing.” The character never “stabilizes in Oneness.” It is the character which slowly disappears, thus leaving only Truth in its wake.
Other than a bhakti-style surrender, where Oneness foregoes belief in boundaries for the experience of Love, self-inquiry is, without a doubt, the most skillful and direct method for awakening. Period. Every other path I know will end up with a much, much higher ratio of spiritual casualties versus awakened beings. And most characters will not be able to inquire their way to dissolution. Layer after layer of confusion and assumption must patiently be peeled away.
This is why contact with an authentically awakened teacher has throughout thousands of years of history proven to be critical. It is the only “practice” that has a direct relationship to awakening, and it is far and away the most effective method of countering Oneness’ addiction to story. Only Awakeness can reel itself in. A character cannot give itself directions to someplace it’s never been.
When Oneness really, really wants to wake up, Oneness generally gets Itself a teacher of direct inquiry. However, most of the time Oneness uses another path, and on that path Oneness is simply going to a costume party with no real result on the agenda. This is, perhaps, hard news, and unpopular news, but it is the truth as I know it.
January 21, 2016 @ 8:48 am
Thank you, for writing with such clarity, Fred. Much appreciated.
January 21, 2016 @ 9:13 am
Thank you for taking the time to both read it and comment on it.
January 21, 2016 @ 10:12 am
Truth wakes up to illusion. Not the other way round. Beautiful.
Got my nose buried in Nissargadartha’s “The Ultimate Medicine” at the moment. What I do get of it is due to this teaching. Looking forward to Sunday! Thanks for a great post.
Robbin
January 21, 2016 @ 10:12 am
Dear Fred: Really enjoy your writings. I have been a big fan of Dennis Waite and his many books on Vedanta over the years. Your musings on direct path teachings, the essence of Vedanta, it seems, are certainly on a par with his work in terms of clarity. And no sanskrit! Great work!
My question has to do with the concept of “certainty”. Once upon a time you knew with absolute certainty that the body-mind-ego called Fred was real, inhabited space/time and was stuck in a maelstrom of challenging change. Then that absolute certainty was demolished and replaced with a new absolute certainty that awareness is all that is and “thou art that”.
What is this certainty? How do you know you have not simply replaced one artificial model of reality (body/mind/ego in time/space) with another artificial model (non-duality). At what point did this absolute certainty which replaced the other absolute certainty become absolutely absolutely certain, finally, forever known to be true.
It seems to me that if non-duality is true that the experience of certainty is just another illusion in the larger duality illusion. Awakening is an illusion, not awakening is an illusion, the apparent observation that awareness somehow is creating, inhabiting and looking out from this body is an illusion.
It seems to me only one thing can be declared to be known and that is that awareness IS. Here it is!
100% of everything else is suspect.
In fact, if non-duality is true, nothing at all can be happening, by definition. For me in my ignorance, the experience of certainty least of all. Since you seem to have “certainty” I am wondering what that is!!
Looking forward to discussing this at a workshop. Thanks again for your fascinating work. -John D
January 21, 2016 @ 11:25 am
Thanks, John. You’re trying to figure this out with the mind. No can do. It’s a paradox, and this paradox must be known to be understood. You’re assuming I’m Fred Davis. That’s this unit’s name, not mine. 🙂
Who is it that’s looking forward to discussing this? That one is not real, but it must be seen for Yourself.
Come to Sunday Satsang. That’s the place for questions. 🙂
January 21, 2016 @ 11:54 am
_()_
January 21, 2016 @ 10:29 am
Great post, Fred! It’s amazing that although Truth is One, there are a million ways one can express it, and you’re always coming up with new ones. There is a whole book’s worth of meaning in this one sentence:
“You show up as a zillion different patterns, but patterns never show up as You.” Wow!
January 21, 2016 @ 11:16 am
Thank you, John! I look forward to seeing you at satsang this Sunday!
January 21, 2016 @ 11:49 am
That is a very fine truth Fred! The Lila of the Absolute 🙂
I’m looking forward to Satsang on Sunday!
January 21, 2016 @ 5:58 pm
Me too! 🙂
January 21, 2016 @ 2:17 pm
Love the analogy to animated eyeglasses!!!
January 21, 2016 @ 5:57 pm
Thanks, Keiren!
January 24, 2016 @ 11:06 am
Fred(ness). Loved reading this piece. My session with you this week gave me a huge insight in this area. The article re-enforces what you were pointing at, so clearly.
My confusion has been with the ‘I’ thing. What is THAT? My AHA moment was with the realisation that ‘I’ am the next thought.
Every argument(thought) I have as to how this must look/feel/seem/ is another THOUGHT. And that thought is believed immediately. Its so subtle as to keep fooling me as some kind of picture/feeling thing arises that looks utterly real. THOUGHT!
To figure that I kept trying to figure it out and was just not looking in the right place suddenly created the perfect realisation of OH!
If anything, I figure this is all a paradigm change. Going from flat earth to round earth perception. A different understanding. Nothing to get, only something to see. Very very strange.
Grateful to have you available for the next phone call with the next question that asks the fictional ‘me’ what its up to next, and whether it can find a single true thought.
January 25, 2016 @ 9:04 pm
Hey, Julee! Thank you for your note. Our last meeting was really terrific. When we go that deep, I always get a lot out of it too.
You are on it, Julee. We can’t figure it out. At long last Oneness comes out of denial and unveils Itself to Itself. It’s a strip tease, you know? 🙂 It’s completely unnecessary, but always fascinating. I’m grateful to have you as a client, I really am. Good magic.
January 26, 2016 @ 1:22 pm
Hi Fred, Since I read what you said very directly–as Adya did–that the only place one can experience awakening from is now, I have been like a fish, sometimes wriggling on the hook, sometimes grateful to be reeled in. I like how that cuts to the chase. Below is something I wrote on Monday. I’m sharing it just to show you the lens I’m looking through right now, without the “need” or expectation that you share it here:
Everything is happening in the Perfect timing of the Divine for our highest good–It cannot be otherwise. The restoration of our (only seemingly damaged) souls, bodies and lives is assured–patiently awaiting our acknowledgement of the Truth. Disclaimer: This is an insight that showed up clearly on my radar screen this morning. I make no claim to the constant embodiment of what I beheld earlier with great clarity. It is an initiation that invites me to notice it in various contexts–peaceful or challenging, before I can own it–and when I do, it invites me to dance with whatever comes next…What came next was my first taste of nobody being there. Even though I had often heard it said, quite a relief to experience that nobody. If I “did anything” to invite that perspective, it was to allow intense fear with far less resistance than I usually put up. Whooda Thunkit! So my question is about your take on The Practice Menu contrasted with No Practice No Problem. Maybe how you contrasted them was so subtle and inferential that I wasn’t getting it. Even though there is “nothing that one can do” it seems that there are practices that deconstruct the attachment to the ego perspective, which clarifies that perspective and renders it a progressively more useful tool for spirit to speak through. It’s not necessary–nor possible–to destroy it. I think our participation is usually required to rewire the software we’ve identified with.
February 2, 2016 @ 3:35 pm
Both are true. What’s confusing you is that the first article is written to a relative view and the second is written to an absolute view.
The key thing to remember is that if ewe’re doing any practice to wake up or clear up later, then we’re missing the point. There is no later.
From the absolute view it is seen that the character that doesn’t exist cannot possibly influence the Absolute. What I’ve seen is that they “shouldn’t” work, but I notice they do. But they are only effective in the PRESENT.
Hope that helps. I never know.
February 14, 2016 @ 1:17 pm
Fred, I just loved the way you write with such clarity. The words just flow from …..with ease it seems.
February 16, 2016 @ 3:51 pm
Hey, Barb! They’re not MY words, and when they come, yes, it is with great ease. 🙂