Back

Not Just a Cute Spiritual Metaphor

Cameron: I thought I should keep in touch and let you know how things have been unfolding (seemingly) for me. The past two weeks were tremendously euphoric (as I'm sure you noticed in my last correspondence). Basically the very blissful bodily experience, of course, subsided. Once it left there was some anxiety and scrambling to get it back and to try and 'do' what I did before, which is obviously a mistaken presumption based on the notion that there was someone who had done something before! Anyway, after much frustration and then a somewhat melodramatic giving up moment, everything settled down nicely and now there is just this very simple, ordinary way of being—just as I am always.

It has been interesting to watch this because there really was this belief that there was someone who needed to do something, you know, to sustain or continue it or something. So it’s been interesting to see I can actually forget about the understanding altogether—and everything still is just fine as it is. There is no need to actively think about it or anything, which as I write this I know sounds silly—but that is the classic me story "gotta be non-dual today! I am non-dual Cameron after all," but that’s all rubbish. 

It just is everything. And sometimes during the day something will happen or someone will say something and it will just pop into my head "Oh! She thinks she is someone." Or weirder stuff like the other day it dawned on me there is no difference between animate and inanimate objects—these are just words that make my is-ness seem different, to say, a rock or a tree.

And of course this really means that there can be no death, or life for that matter—it’s all this fluid sameness. Oh, yeah, and my favorite one—I used to think that 'now' was this spot where I was that somehow moved along the timeline, but its so obvious that it's all now. I know it’s been said in all the books and everything. But it’s so, well, literal. Just now, that’s all there ever was. It’s almost silly to call it 'now' because it has nothing to do with time and what people perceive as time is just this bubbling of energy called trees, and rocks and Cameron right here out of this supposed 'now'.

Well, I guess I am preaching to the choir here but its fun to write about it anyway. 

One question though: "Just watch"—does this require effort? Or is "Just watch" what we are already are, and hence it requires no effort?

Stephen: You may notice there is no such thing as effort. And there is no separate person who exerts effort. Thoughts happen and sometimes actions follow: Whose thoughts are they? Whose effort is it? Is there any separate entity there who has thoughts, and exerts effort?

Does a pine tree make an effort to produce pine cones? Does a dog make an effort to bark? Does the wind make an effort to blow?

You are awareness. Is there any effort required to be awareness, or is awareness simply happening?

The suggestion to 'just watch' is given to act as a pacifier for a busy mind that wants to know, "What do I do? What happened to my bliss? How can I get it back? How can I avoid these disturbing thoughts?" The answer is nothing needs to be done. Bliss happens. Disturbing thoughts happen. Peace happens.

Believing there is a separate entity who needs to do something about his experience, and trying to change the experience is at the root of suffering.

The suggestion to 'just watch' acts as a pacifier to the mind, and takes you out of the story of a suffering 'me' and helps you notice that you are the awareness that is watching the show—not the imaginary, suffering 'me'.

Cameron: In order to resolve some of my final doubts I have been spending the last two days trying to articulate to myself how I understand things—in the most reduced, pithy way, in order to pinpoint where these doubts are coming from. This is where I am at—perhaps by explicating it like this you can point out the doubt's source:

It’s undeniably clear to me that what we are is this uncaused peace, and this is our empty awareness. This is always available in the sense that we are it, yet suffering happens when we believe that instead of this knowing nothingness, we are a fixed person. So when I reduce it on a tangible level it’s about an uncaused peace which is indestructible and untouchable by changing conditions whether they are external or imaginary. When I am confident that I am this uncaused peace, nothing that the character does or says, or anything that happens to that character is such a big deal anymore because fundamentally this peace is certain 100%. 

On the other hand there is psychological suffering which comes down to believing that, instead of peace being the essential, irrevocable aspect of your own being, you are a separate thing that must go out and find peace in other separate things 'out there'—from this point of view peace is not what you are but something that you can get and lose, based on circumstances.

So, it seems to me the possibility of suffering comes in when the 'I' sense arises strongly enough to make you believe that, indeed, the peace you are is out there and has been tampered with—to make you believe you have lost it somehow.

My doubt is this: It seems to me that because you have no control over what happens, including the arising of the 'I' sense, your peace is contingent on whether or not the 'I' arises. Which makes me question whether I have seen through it 100%. Because although I feel a deep conviction that there is no one at all, and I feel entirely at ease at this moment, there is this nagging threat the habitual patterning of the 'I' sense will arise and then no amount of non-dual understanding will change the fact that I am suffering based on that 'I' arising strongly enough to make me think the story is true. 

It seems to me you are either buying the illusion or seeing the truth. And if there is the possibility of suffering, for whatever reason (other than basic physical pain), the ‘I’ is still lingering, then the truth has not been seen fully. 

Stephen: In your own direct experience, what's happening when psychological suffering is happening? Isn't thinking happening? Thinking about Cameron? Usually a story is playing in the head, and, of course, the central character in the story is Cameron.

Is there ever any psychological suffering when there is no story playing? Of course not! If there is no story playing in the head, there is no psychological suffering. Another name for the stories playing in the head is imagination. So, isn't it clear that all psychological suffering is based on imagination?

Sometimes the imaginary stories create an uncomfortable energy in the body, and we call this process psychological suffering. So psychological suffering is nothing more than imagination and an uncomfortable energy in the body.

What do you do when disturbing stories are playing and uncomfortable energy is flowing through the body? You watch. Nothing needs to be done.

You are the witnessing presence. You witness the pleasant stories and the unpleasant. You witness the pleasurable sensations and the unpleasant.

You may notice there really is no such thing as psychological suffering. To say you are suffering psychologically is just another story playing and you watch it.

You are the witnessing presence that is aware of the words on this screen right now. You are awareness right now. This witnessing presence that you are was never suffering, and will never be enlightened. This witnessing presence that you are right now watches the stories of Cameron and his suffering, and Cameron with his hopes of enlightenment. This witnessing presence cannot suffer, and it cannot attain enlightenment.

So, again, what do you do about the suffering stories of Cameron? You watch. And you know the stories are only imaginary. All psychological suffering is imaginary. The imaginary stories are free to come and go. You remain as the witnessing presence.

You may notice that all doubts are merely conceptual nonsense appearing in this present awareness. What to do? Nothing. Just watch.

Cameron: To be honest, I am not sure this response goes to the heart of my question. It's clear that we are this witnessing presence, and the witnessing presence essentially doesn't suffer. However, if the ego story is still able to generate enough energy to get its hooks in, then there is suffering. And since we are down to basics here—the question is, is there psychological suffering or isn't there? It seems to me that witnessing is inevitable because we are the witness, even if it witnesses suffering.

My point is, if suffering is arising in the story it's because the 'I' illusion hasn't been seen through, otherwise, what would happen is—up would come conditions that normally amount to suffering, and a simple witnessing from peace would occur, because one is certain that the story is untrue. 

If you believe in the story with the fixed, solidified self-entity then there is suffering. To say one should ‘just watch’ is all good and well, but what we are doing is watching suffering, and believe me I have been a Buddhist for many years and made it my business to watch that suffering really closely.

What I am interested in is seeing through the 'I' thought completely, so that when it arises strongly, I can stay firmly with the peace of my witnessing presence, firm in the knowledge of its fiction. If this 'I' patterning has the power to rise up and (seemingly) occlude the peace of awareness then this has not been done, has it?

Sorry, if I am getting difficult but this seems to be the axis on which all my doubts spin.

If this is getting too involved for email discussion and you would prefer to chat on the phone (and have time do so) I would be happy to make a call at a convenient time in the future—maybe hearing it from a voice will fill the missing gap.

Stephen: Yes, I am happy to talk on the phone.

Do you see that all psychological suffering is based in imagination? Do you see that even the story that I was suffering, I am suffering, or I may be suffering is also based in imagination?

Do you see that your story (and mine) describing the process of psychological suffering is based in imagination? Describing the process of suffering was helpful to this point. Now see that it was all a story, all imagination.

There is no such thing as psychological suffering outside of thought or imagination. There is no such thing as enlightenment outside of thought or imagination. There is no separate entity called Cameron outside of thought or imagination.

If you believe that psychological suffering was real in the past, then it can return and be real again in the future. But was it ever real? Or was it thought-based and imaginary? You may notice you really don't know what psychological suffering is, or if it has any reality.

If you see that suffering is all thought-based and imaginary, but still want to change the story—that is the dream character trying to control the dream.

There is no separate Cameron creating or controlling the stories. See the dream story of suffering as a dream and just watch it.

There is no such thing as psychological suffering. There is no such thing as Cameron. So how can Cameron do anything about psychological suffering? These words are literal, and are not just a cute spiritual metaphor.

All dreams are free to come and go through you including the dreams of suffering, and the dreams of freedom from suffering. They are all dreams.

Just watch. And you have no idea what you're watching! This watching that we are is absolutely clueless! It doesn't differentiate between suffering and peace. Knowing suffering from peace is mind-stuff.

Suffering and freedom from suffering are both mind-stuff, and imaginary.

This witnessing presence that we are is the only constant, the only reality.

Cameron: I have been letting this sink in, and I think I believed that in the 'occluded' state the suffering is real. What I am hearing you say is that suffering is not real, and you can’t do anything to stop it from coming and going. You see, I think that’s the thing. I was subtly expecting something that would have no suffering in the sense that the story would be free of suffering.

That’s it! I have no control over the story—even the suffering, it’s not me. I can’t stop it because it’s not my business. I am simply the seeing. I have been thinking that my 'understanding' is in the story, and that it will change the story somehow. Wow, I can’t stop the suffering, and I can’t get free its all in the story.

I think I am getting it. Let’s talk on the telephone to make sure I'm getting this straight.

[After a phone conversation]

Cameron: Thanks for the chat. I see now what you were pointing out about this presence having nothing to do with thoughts about suffering or the blissful sensations. When you said the awareness that we are has no idea about suffering or peace, it clicked that it's just a complete openness that lets anything happen and it’s always been here because things always just happen anyway.

 

Back

---