This is no way attempting to downplay the obvious wonderful and insightful revelations that appeared to unfold during last weekend’s retreat. And, as I wasn’t in attendance, I am only adding my perspective to the excellent overview given by David. How about a fourth option? Referencing one of K’s favourite quotes: A “Choiceless-Awareness” Inquiry. Or, It could even be called, a pure, nondual Self-inquiry. It may sound similar to the first inquiry that Scott teaches as far as remaining as Awareness without any doing etc. However, abiding as the Self, this inquiry is Awareness “choicelessly” inquiring as to what is true of Itself ALONE. As is sometimes said, if one is Self-consciousness, one cannot simultaneously be self-conscious. If one is abiding as Being, Awareness only, no thoughts arise. Only when one seems or appears to ignore Being, Self (and there is no other!) do thoughts and emotions appear to arise. And further to last weekend’s theme of addictions and desires, this is a question posted during the “Stillness Speaks” forum on the nature of Awareness, which was also hosted by Scott Kiloby, Peter Dziuban and Greg Goode: “Ven: What is your take on desire – both ‘before’ and ‘after’? ‘After’ realization, presumably even if desire arises, it is quickly seen through, since desire implies separation – an ‘I’ wanting to get a separate object, wealth, fame, etc. But then why do some teachers seem to have acted in desire-driven ways? Was their realization incomplete? And ‘before’ realization, should a sadhaka strive to ignore desire/thoughts and focus attention on consciousness, on ‘I am’, as Ramana and Nisargadatta taught? It seems that one can understand quite readily what is being pointed to, but then one also needs to be/live the understanding; to see that the ‘I’ is illusory. And there seems to be a point at which the ‘I thought’ is permanently destroyed – which perhaps is the difference between a Ramana / Nisargadatta and the teachers referred to above. Rupert Spira said: “The first true glimpse of this is sometimes known as Enlightenment or Awakening, although in almost all cases the habitual tendencies of the mind and the body reappear and apparently veil this Knowingness again. The subsequent establishment in this understanding, sometimes known as Self-realization, is not a process towards a goal. It is a re-orchestration of the body, mind and world that comes from understanding, rather than going towards it. Enlightenment is instantaneous. Self-Realization takes time. Is continuously coming back to the intellectual understanding enough or does one need to focus attention for as much time as possible on the ‘I am’ and ignore other thoughts?” Peter D. answers: “This point illustrates the “value” of consistently “starting from” or AS, history-less Awareness. This may be a matter of simply silently abiding or resting as Awareness, and it also can be a matter of inquiry as to what is true of history-less Awareness, as we’ll see. As said repeatedly, after all, Awareness is “starting as” Itself exclusively, and there is no other. The answer to the individual questions above will vary, depending on where one’s stance is taken. And again, the only real, true stance is that of Awareness being Itself. Intellectual understanding of Awareness is not necessary to pure Awareness. It implies another who could understand or not understand. The ease of simple, clear Presence to Itself is not a matter of better thinking—it is the absence of thinking. Yet at times, on the apparent level, intellectual understanding seems a useful, necessary step. The very questions imply a secondary, less-than-Awareness-Itself state has occurred, and it really hasn’t. If one starts from the would-be apparent (which Awareness is not doing) it seems as if a dualistic prior state has happened, and which must be let go of, dissolved, risen out of, etc. etc. if one wants to be free or “realized.” There usually appears to be work involved in this, a discipline, a striving, and of course it implies otherness. Starting directly as history-less Awareness (which, admittedly, may seem to require some “seeing” but not too much), it’s a different ballgame. It is entirely a matter of what freely present Awareness is to Itself—no past in which a prior experience occurred, and which now must be let go of, or risen out of, and no need to gain anything. This is light, free, openness—an effortless but gently alive abiding as that which cannot fail to be, as opposed to striving to bring something about. It may take some alertness, especially “at first”—but it’s only a noticing that Awareness Itself never fails—it’s not a matter of having to accomplish. It’s like the difference between coasting down a hill, or struggling to climb it. In the first one, there is no work to do, even though one still is alert. This does not mean to imply that habits and tendencies will instantly cease because they still may continue. Even after the history-less-ness of present Awareness is clear, such things may try to assert themselves. But there is no claiming of them as “my” habit or “my” weakness. Equally, if one is honest, there will be no “going along with them” either—such as an inclination to excessively or unnaturally indulge in alcohol, sex, etc. In other words, sometimes we’ll readily agree Awareness never has experienced the pains of the body, but it’s not always as quickly agreed that Awareness never has experienced the pleasures of the body either! This is not a judgment of these things. There is no one to judge either good or bad. It’s just that as long as these are indulged (or opposed) the attention is on them, and it seems there is an avoiding of Awareness. Yet even at that, Awareness cannot really avoid Its very Presence. In Advaita, these tendencies are called vasanas, supposedly due to karma. In the light of history-less Awareness, the notion of karma, too, would be just a thought. That’s all well and good to see this intellectually, but it doesn’t necessarily leave one free. It seems one has to go “deeper” than mere intellectual muttering of truisms. So, what to “do”? Right here, now, “start” or abide as Awareness Itself. Just rest and be still. Is Awareness making any effort as It silently is being? Now, as this effortless Awareness, ask how much Awareness weighs to Awareness. Of course, don’t answer intellectually with, “It doesn’t weigh anything.” Rather, feel, be, this absence of weight. What is this to Itself? It’s the same as asking, How much does NOW, the Present, weigh? You never will tire of asking this question. The nondual thought-police might come back with an intellectual quip such as, “Who is doing this? There is no other to experience Awareness. To Awareness there is no experience…there is nothing that can be known.” Wouldn’t that in itself be a “knowing”—to know that nothing can be known? And who says it’s another that’s doing this? This lightness that Awareness IS certainly isn’t something that a Ven or Peter or any body can cause to be present. To continue with or AS this lightness…Is this lightness a desire? Is It desiring Its already present Presence? Is It seeking Itself, or trying to get away from a bad habit or some kind of baggage—or is It simply, freely being Itself? How “far” does this exquisite lightness extend—is there an end to it—does it go only so far? Really try to find an end. Can this delicious ease be shut off, or restrain Itself from Itself? Being without a border, is It containable? Is it possible for this lightness to EVER escape Its very Presence? Is there an end to how “deeply” this delicious lightness can “go” within Itself (even though there’s no distance to go!). How deep is “infinitely, endlessly deep”? This never feels like “work”—unless there’s a mistaken assumption of having to overcome something. On the other hand, when done for Its own sake, It is joyous and exciting—and one doesn’t want to stop. There simply is nothing else that is more “enjoyable” or “feels better” than THIS, because actually there is only This! The point is, this utterly free openness, this delicious, gently alive softness is the “natural state” of Life, Awareness. It just naturally, normally, inherently “feels good” to be Itself. There’s no feeling of restriction, pressure, or opposition (or attraction) Here because THIS is “without a second.” It would require a second for there to be restriction, opposition or attraction. As there is only this ONE, there honestly, truly is nothing else to be overcome. So to not “work this way” would be to try to oppose the way Life Itself, Awareness Itself is already present functioning and operating (being). And Awareness Itself really cannot even do that. In other words, if at one “time” a habit or tendency seemed to “feel better” “more delicious” or was pursued instead of being One’s Self–this richer Self-interest will out-delicious, outlast the seeming habit or tendency. One’s Self just inherently “feels” better, easier, simpler. So this Self-fascination (which Awareness has no choice but to be!) means that what seem to be habits, tendencies, desires will stop dinging, stop arising—because they have no history, no one to cling to, no place from which to come. This Self-Deliciousness inherently feels so much better and easier (if one is going to contrast), that the “other” eventually dissolves into its native state of never having begun—there being only Self Itself.”
