Language is a time-based processing, a squeezing down and reduction of inherent wholeness to a tiny object. It can feel quite limiting at times. For instance, you've just has a wonderful, deep meditation, and felt a liberation from the bounds of time, like you are floating among the stars with a big smiles on your faceless face ... then a friend says, "Hey, I heard someone broke into your car down in the parking lot!," and suddenly your eternal peace seems to flash out the window, and you are suddenly a very "local" being!

Or, conversely, language can seem to deliver a powerful awakening experience. Let' say that during a meditation (this happened to me, but I am paraphrasing and simplifying, for illustrative purposes), a teacher says, "What was your face before you were born?" and suddenly, something lets go, and the "you"is in an infinite light, with no boundaries or limitations in time and space. Released from bondage, you are totally free, because there is no "you" anymore... pure joy, and at peace.

Bewitched by Language?

... Or at least it appears that way, or can feel that way, as an experience.

But is it really so limiting, or so liberating? Is it really so terribly powerful? Or, is it a double-edged sword, and entriely dependent on the listener? In this dialogue and essay, we look inot this question, and delve in... with words!

Now, we must admit that language can feel incredibly limiting, such as when we try and describe certain "transcendent" or non-dual experiences, like a straight jacket that takes the unlimited and free and tries to squeeze it through a straw, destroying the essence of our experience. It seems "dualistic", in the way it forced things into a box: me and the them; me and world; subject and object; awareness versus the "stuff" of awareness: apparently a multitude of objects "out there", the "ten thousand things", the objects of mind: thoughts, perceptions, sensations. Thus the famous begining of the Tao Te Ching:

1
The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be named is not the eternal name.
The nameless is the beginning of heaven and Earth.
The named is the mother of the ten thousand things.
...

However, it is obviously not inherently dualistic. In other words, it's not necessarily dualistic — any more than music is inherently dualistic, just because it's linear and happens in time. But, being part of a dualistic experience, this Body Mind World ("BMW"? haha) experience, it may reflect that duality, depending on "where one is coming from" – or more specifically, where the listener is coming from.

One can have an experience of poetry for example, that is "transcendent." Another example, and more to the point: a phrase is heard from a non-dual teacher that seems to release one from bondage (at least temporarily from temporality!). And, it is all due to the subjective nature of experience, not the linguistic delivery package per se.

A Dialogue

The following dialogue from a actual session (from a spiritual retreat) of a well-known spiritual teacher (of Advaita) and a student, helps to potentially unearth and illustrate important aspects and assumptions about language and awakening.

(I am leaving out the name of the teacher and student, both to make it impersonal, and out or respect for the teacher, and for privacy purposes, of course).

T = Teacher; S = Student

S: Thank you for that that meditation, [Teacher's name] that I find experientially very helpful as far as a go-to place. I got [indistinct] on my mind. Very often you've said, on numerous occasions, words to affect that what we are, 'I', 'awareness', 'consciousness', whatever, 'Being' is 'that which is hearing your words'. And I think that's a very powerful pointer, has been for me because it kind of distracts from the mental conditioning, so to speak, momentarily. But at the same time, I'm sure you would agree that it's, provisional. It's, uh, it's dualistic. I mean it's um, there's the subject and, you know, the word, the object, so I mean that's the nature of words I mean ...

T: If I say 'that which is hearing the words' by that... usually if we say that, that refers to an object, right? To ...

S: Yes.

T: And ...

S: ... well in this case a subject

T: ...Or to a subject, but it referred to to something, but usually to something limited, you know. But in this case it's different because 'that' refers to the reality which is hearing these words. You see?

S: Ah, Okay.

T: I don't I don't say 'that which is hearing', I say 'the reality which is hearing these words', you know? In other words that which really hears, because this 'hearing', for us, is absolutely certain.

S: Yes. Yeah!

T: You see it has an absolute certainty that comes. In other it has a reality that attaches to it.

S: Yes. Yeah

T: You see that's why I use the word 'the reality which is hearing these words'.

S: Yeah. The reality. I, I like that, it's more inclusive than, you know, it's just more inclusive...

T: ... the reality which is hearing these words, and... we don't make any assumption regarding the nature of this reality.

S: Yes.

T: You see. We know there is a reality, which

S: Right, right. All the above, right.

T: ... Yeah, because the words are being heard.

S: Yes.

T: And it is the same reality that understands the world, the words also...

S: Right.

T: It is the same. There is a place of meaning. There is a place of perceiving. There is a place of understanding. And it's the same place, and that's what we call 'I', right?.

S: Right. Right. And looking at it from that perspective, the reality dissolves the subject object that I was talking about because it's just one reality. Um, um...

T: There is an element of reality that attaches to perception.

S: Yes. Um and secondly um, you've often said, and you know it's evident that um awareness, Being always knows itself simply by being what it is. Always. um

T: We know that we are aware from direct experience.

S: Yes. Period. Now, when I reflect and say I've had like some kind of um glimpse, for lack of a better term, there's never any, because it's timeless, prior to thought to thought. There's no remembering of it in a traditional sense um in a objective sense, but it's evident that something's occurred. Now, I can throw a narration at it rather quickly and come up with, you know, uh you know, I'm resting in awareness, you know, but that's just, you know, just more, you know, more language. Uh but something seems to be echoed uh almost neurologically, like in the nervous system almost. The body. Okay. um there's no remembering it because it's it's not an objective event. But yet there's um there is

T: there are no perceptions in this moment, there are no perceptions right ? At the moment of understanding for instance

S: yes in the moment of understanding yes

T: there is no phenomenal perception, it's just... but, we are very present as consciousness. Because we don't say it's somebody else who understood

S: Yes.

T: It's our the essence of our being which is the understander, if you will.

S: Yes.
It's almost hard to call it an experience. Because aside from byproducts, there's nothing objective there, right?

T: No, I mean yes, there are no perceptions in this moment and that's why that's why time doesn't elapse there.

S: Right.

T: Subjectively, right? Subjectively it doesn't. But at the same time there's a there's an acknowledgment call it maybe byproducts that something has occurred uh that comes after the fact, right? Yes. Yes. And something has occurred for two reason. For two reasons. One because immediately after that the the light of intelligence remains you see in the background of whatever Yes. has replaced the moment of the instantaneity of the perception of the our perception. Yes. So that's one thing but the other thing is that as a result of this our perception a change has occurred. Yes. Right. And uh then we can using memory in the mind refer to what the state was before the change and what the current yes status is so to speak and then we say yes something has happened. Yes. Before for instance I had no clarity. Now I have I have a clarity on this matter it has become clear. Yes.

So we by comparing before and after something has happened at the moment of understanding. Yeah. Yeah. In a way that's not chasing the byproducts so to speak it it has the transformation occurs in the body mind. Yeah.

S: Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Thanks.

Commentary:

The problem with this method that the teacher—according to his own experience, which is not necessarily universal automatically, though he is implying it is—is presenting, is that the student can interpret “reality” in different ways. For example, they may be a materialist unconsciously, or already identified with the body, such that "reality" merely means this body, this mind, to them, even though they've picked up a lot f beliefs about "consciousness".

But, any interpretation is wrong, in the sense that what they are reaching for is the absolute, or “reality”, as if it were some far of thing, or a state, somewhere else, if if what they say is about "the now". It always comes back to the interference of the mind, “the head”.

In a sense, the language, the sentence, was just a placebo. If it works, great, but if it doesn’t you are back to square one.

He is implying that it's the language which delivers this certainty, but in fact it is just a mailman, and there is no certainty unless it already exists in the "subject" (even though, I non-duality, there isn't one difference from a supposed 'object').

It's like saying you get a letter from the mailman, in the mailbox, and it says you have a million dollars in your bank account. If you in fact do already have a million dollars in your bank account, that's true, and if you don't it's not true. But in either case, it's not the letter or the mailbox or the mailman that created that million dollars. It didn't just suddenly appear. It was already existing.

In other words, where does this "absolute certainty" that he says "comes with it" come from? Is it from the words?

No. It is from the fact that awarness is aware, now. Simple as that. Nothing exotic nor difficult, nor needing meditations and years of practice, nor special sentences from a speciual teacher of a special Eastern colleciton of teachings. But it's hard to face that fact that you, as a spirtual seeker or person, are nothing special. In fact, are nothing at all. What about those years of practice? The decades of study?

Meditation Makes One More Aware?

Another example that illustrates this point: I once suggested to a very stressed office manager that they try some meditation. They immediately reacted, quite intensely, that they didn't want to because that would make them more aware! I then they suggested they take a run or something, to burn off the stress energy (I think they went for a vigorous walk), rather than try and argue something that would be too subtle a point, under the circumstances.

This illustrates the confusion between the fact of awareness, and the content of awareness, and the conflation of the two. To me, awareness obviously cannot be more or less, or increased or decreased. Therefore meditation is merely allowing on to see the contents clearly such that tone has an opportunity to not identify with them. That is all. It happens automatically as it were.

Back to Language Pointers

Back to the point about language taking one back to reality (or blocking one from it), as it were: to me this is a bit misleading to say that the absolute certainty comes from a pointer, because it implies that the "absolute certainty" comes from somewhere, be it language, or a path (e.g., Advaita), or a practice, or a teacher, or a teaching. You see? If were really certain, it would not come from anywhere (or go anywhere). That is the whole point (of non-duality, of 'the teaching', of 'language' and everything or anything else – or no thing, really).

Truth does not come from a teacher or a teaching. You are the truth.

Awareness cannot be (inherently) blocked or revealed by language, anymore than talking about gravity is gravity.

When F says "... this 'hearing', for us, is absolutely certain. " who, or what, is he referring to?

This is where the catch is. He is objectifying the relation. I'll give an example to show the exception – and the fact is, an exception, any exception, means that what he says is not absolutely true: a student will hear that sentence, "the reality which is hearing my words right now" and may feel self-doubt, because he's not "getting it", is not feeling that certainty, and so thinks there's a lack in him, and that the teacher (or other students who 'get it') has something he doesn't. You see? The exception totally disproves the notion that a bit of language delivers the goods.

The fact that it worked for the teacher (or still works), or works for some subset of students, some of the time, doesn't say anything about the vehicle (the words) in any absolute sense: it only says something about the teachers and students.

The fact is, life, and awareness, is 100% a subjective experience, and there's no way of getting around it. Meaning, it truly is non-dual. Language does not change that, nor does it deliver it.

However, the good news is that, neither does language mask it... except in a non-absolute, temporary, illusory sense.

You already are that which you are looking for.

T. goes on to say that "There is a place of perceiving. There is a place of understanding. And it's the same place and that's what we call 'I'. "

The truth it, obviously there is no "place of meaning", no "place of perceiving", no" place of understanding."

He goes on to say "And it's the same place and that's what we call 'I'."

But of course, he's using these words metaphorically.

But why objectify it in the first place?

The teacher is serving to validate the student's taking on "the teaching" so they feel confident they are 'on to something' and have 'got it'.

Paradoxically though, I feel a certain gratitude, and even a respect for this teacher. Even if they don't deserve it – I mean, the human person (who sometimes acts like an asshole) can't help it if they were somehow incidental to an awakening.

There is no person that is awake, and there is no person responsible for awake-ness.

Surrender

Some kind of surrender happened ("here"), an "awakening" they call it these days, during a meditation at a retreat.

However, I have to be careful what I say: anything I say is going to be not quite accurate, about this.

"Surrender happens," you could say.

And part of the surrender non-event event is that it is seen there was never anyone to surrender in the first place! The non-person that never existed. So to speak.

The teaching (and the teacher) are like this: a scaffolding gets you up onto the roof, and once on the roof, you look back and see you were always on the roof, and there was no scaffolding, and no one on it, really! It was all a dream.

The fact that certain notions, and language, are turned into something that appears to be more than just words and language, is indicative of a religion. In other words, it is the worshipping of a form, rather than seeing it's the formless that is being pointed to. This kind if worshipping of outer forms has a name: "idolatry". "In Abrahamic religions (namely Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) idolatry connotes the worship of something or someone other than the Abrahamic God as if it were God. (Wikipedia)." In this case however, idolatry has the meaning of worshipping any form whatsoever, given that what is being pointed to in non-duality, is the formless itself (which is part of why it is so hated, frustrating, and ignored, as far as the real meaning – beyond the fact that it pokes at the feeling of being a self-willed individual entity). In other words, the Totality: something that can't really be pointed to, because the pointer would be part of it!

Experiences are Worthless?

But what they are talking about are experiences, and ultimately experiences (plural) are worthless.

### Exercise for De-identification

Focus, for the moment, on the sensation in one of your big toes. Pick any of them, Say the left toe (for some reason the left toe stands out more now than the right).

In a similar way to how one feels that the sum of sensations and imagined appearnace, including the facial expression of one's face is "you", please try and think of the sensations in your toe as "you". Ot "me", or "I am".

Imagine saying "Hi" to someone, toe-forward.

Can you see the absurdity of our identification as some object, in this case a body part? Or if not absurdity, the playfulness or arbitrariness of it.

One could also imagine wearing a mask and being "behind" that.

Or, you can image being a robot (as I used to enjoy doing as a child, wearing a set of boxes and cardboard tubes on the arms, with a plastic faceplate on the box over the head. What fun!), and walking around interacting from the point of view of"your" current eyes

It’s interesting that both the anti-[teacher X] and the pro-[teacher X] make the same mistake.

It's like the sense in which the anti-money and the anti-materialism (or anti-capitalism, etc) folks (or the flip side, anti-"spirituality", or anti-socialism) – or way of thinking – are making the mistake of focusing on the objects, in the mental sense, which is a materialist stance. It starts from identification with the body.

What do I mean objects in the mental sense? I mean in the sense that (no pun intended) that objects don't exist, or rather, more accurately, don't pre-exist "out there". This is a whole big topic in itself, but suffice it to say for now, that creation and perception cannot ultimately be separated, and are both "mental" in the sense that the entire phenomenal experience is "mental". That is, exists within and is dependent on, the noumenal. Of course ultimately there is no "inside" and "outside", no ultimate separation, but we have to start somewhere in our attempts to talk about what can't be: "languaged" - t make a verb from a noun (or we can just remain silent, at least until asked).

But why or how did I manage to see this? It might have been during meditation in satsang, however all my efforts to communicate it, help others see, to research it, seem to show that no process or practice will lead to it.

Indeed, if you "see" it, you can also see that it's a one-way street.

For example, one way of stating that insight is to see that the phenomenal depends on noumenal, but the noumenal doesn't depend on the phenomenal (is independent). This makes sense.

The phenomenal "unfolds" from the noumenal, but the noumenal is self-existing, silent, eternal.

I seem to have a great difficulty conveying this, especially in talking. Although, I feel I have a little more success in writing, although the audience is still vanishingly small indeed.

And I don't mean the general population, whose level of ignorance is deep of course, and interest in such matters microscopic, but I mean even with those who have been around spiritual and non-duality teachers, including good ones, for decades. They mistake the form, the outer wrapping, the language forms and/or the teacher and teaching, for example, as "it", and cling to them for dear life. This is what i call "religion". And this is what creates the division, conflict, reactiveness, hatred, bickering, alienation, and so forth. And it stems from identification.

The teachers themselves (and their organizations, however loose), having a vested interest in the form as well, for obvious reasons: they make a living from it, and derive great social benefits too.

Why should I see this and not others? Is it because "I" as a person don't exist? Yes and no. While it's true the person does not exist except as a mental category, the seeing of that in and of itself is not sufficient for a full-scale "glimpse", and is more of an intellectually interesting point. Again, there is no accounting for it (despite what teachers say, selling their brand of practices and their particular spin on the Truth)

A teaching assumes something leads to This.

Once one has a glimpse of the Formless, there's no going back.

And it implies so many other truths, such as:

there is no such thing as "enlightenment" or awakening for people, for bodies.

Bodies have no consciousness; corollary: consciousness does not emerge.

How to give away, or produce this insight? I have no idea.

It seems to be a gift, thus you hear things about "surrender" and "acceptance", yet there's no technique for doing that, no procedure, practice or path.. or sentence ... per se (despite the claims).

In summary, all you need to do is stick with the Truth (or with Beauty, or with Love – since they are all the same – qualities of the divine so to speak, ultimately?) and you'll be OK.

The Teaching with a capital “t”, not the teaching. What it is pointing to in other words