Episode 65: Cory Allen

Yeah, I'm really excited to talk to you. I've had so many people over the last probably year or something like that, you know, message me and request you as a guest. So Okay, good. Glad to finally bring it home and and uh connect for him. That's lovely, my client.

Yeah, that that really um encouraged me to go seek out your work and um I had seen some of your work around um and wherever I looked into it and read a couple of your books, uh it was just really, really beautiful articulation. I mean I think it's something that, you know, the way that you take non duality and add such a uh kind of minimalist poetic type of approach to it and articulation of it is just done so nicely and honestly like I haven't seen anywhere else.

Okay, well thank you. I'm glad I'm glad you uh I'm glad you find it um Mm-hmm. Clear, simple, experiential, uh um could good. Yeah. Um now I've I've seen a a a rise in conversations about non duality recently and I'm not sure why that particularly is. Yes, yes. I I I've noticed the same. Um, more you know, I'm getting more um invitations from

people like yourself, I'm getting more attendees at my meetings. So I think uh the the non dual understanding is beginning to percolate uh beyond the the relatively small world of esoteric spirituality in which it used to be kind of hidden and and it's beginning to to filter out into I wouldn't go so far as to say the mainstream. But uh certainly more and more people are becoming aware of this understanding and uh are becoming interested in it. Yes. Yeah.

Yeah. No no pun intended, right? They're becoming aware. Um do you do you have any do you have any sense of why why that might be?

Uh y y yes, I I I do. Um because ultimately the non-dual uh understanding i is um is about uh the happiness for which everybody longs above all else. And if if it is spoken of in terms of enlightenment, which is the traditional way to speak of it. Then uh only a v relatively small number of people are interested in it. How how many of the eight billion of us are interested in enlightenment? Maybe a hundred thousand. But speak of it in terms of happiness.

Which is really exactly the same thing. And then how many of the eight billion of us are interested in it? in which it is expressed, is really the I I would suggest the the the ultimate answer to everybody's search for happiness and peace. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Yeah, I think that's a really uh good observation. You know, there's a um so much baggage with the word enlightenment and Exactly.

Kind of like um it feels gatekeeping or gate kept even from the get-go, you know, like it's completely un unattainable. Exactly. The I was gonna say the other issue is that there's you know, so many traditions speak about it in different ways and define it in different ways, even something as close as Zen Buddhism and Theravada Buddhism.

Where it's like, well what what is it? That's what I think a lot of people end up kind of feeling. Like, well I don't I it it seems unattainable and I can't even find a clear description. Yes, it it's it's shrouded in in mystery and complexity. Which is uh uh neither of which are necessary. What is referred to tradition traditionally as enlightenment is is is is not mysterious in the sense that it's um uh unreachable or unobtainable and n n nor is it um Complicated.

And nor does it have anything to do with subscribing to a particular uh religion, uh spiritual tradition, teacher, series of beliefs, or or anything like that. So I think I think you're right. The traditional idea of enlightenment for for most people is has become so mixed up

with the exotic nature of the cultures in which most of us first hear about it Tibet, India, Japan and so on. And but the actual The actual substance of the understanding, the understanding itself, i is not exotic, it's not mysterious, it's not something that ordinary people cannot recognise within themselves. It's simple, uh recognizable, available equally to everybody under all circumstances. It requires no affiliation to

to a particular teacher or teaching or tradition or anything like that. So yes, I I I agree with you. The I think one of the reasons why that non dual understanding is becoming more um more and more people are interested in it is because it has over the last maybe only the last decade or so it has been divested of many of these kind cultural accretions. which ha it has um uh in which it has become uh uh uh shrouded and mystified over the really over the century.

Mm-hmm. Yeah, and there's an interesting instinct that I and I'm not sh so sure if it's just kind of a weird Western religious hangover, but um there's an expectation of some type of excitement about spiritual breakthroughs or, you know, i breakthroughs in the inner life. And enlightenment is so you know, the notion how in my understanding, it's the most beautifully boring thing possible, right?

Yeah. Um c certainly. Normally w when when we normally set out in in search of happiness, we we look for marvellous experiences, heightened experiences, fantastic uh um experiences i i in the realm of um uh objects, substances, activities, relationships and so on. So when we first So a after a while th these um sooner or later they fail to provide the happiness for which we long, and then we hear about this thing called enlightenment.

which we conceive in a way that is consistent with our previous search for happiness in the realm of objective experience. So now we imagine that enlightenment is a kind of uh a kind of super duper experience it that exceeds all other experiences that we were previously uh searching for in the world. So we have this i idea as as as you say that enlightenment is a It is a marvellous experience that can be attained if we

study hard enough, practice hard enough, meditate lot hard enough, et et cetera, et cetera. And a a as you say as you imply, nothing could be Uh further from the truth, enlightenment is not an experience, let alone an extraordinary experience. It is simply the recognition of the nature of our being. Which with respect to objective experience is as you say boring. It's not quite right to say it's boring, but but it's but and I understand wh why you said it's boring in the sense that it's

It it's not a colourful objective experience. It's a transparent, um, formless, contentless experience, and yet it is that for which we long the most. Yeah, certainly. Yeah. I mean it's the the richness and complexity of clearing away everything between your perception and what is, to be able to see, you know, the true nature of reality.

Um it is you know, and I appreciate your asterisk to the notion of boring and uh I say that to kind of um shake off some of the expectation that it's supposed to be something psychedelic or whatever. But it's really like. Like oh now I'm not only I'm seeing less than I was seeing before um in a in an illustrative sense. Yeah, exactly.

Mm. So I'd love to, if you wouldn't mind, just giving a brief description of non duality for people that might not be familiar. Uh non non duality could be said to be the the understanding that uh reality is a single, um, infinite and indivisible whole. whose nature is consciousness or spirit or love, from which everyone and everything derives its apparently independent existence. So um normally we think in terms of Duality even if we don't realize. Philosophically.

uh formulate our experience in these terms. In our our culture really is is our world culture is founded on the assumption that that reality is made out of stuff called matter, dead inert stuff called matter and out of that Mm-hmm. uh consciousness is is produced. So we have this um We normally believe that there are two the these two elements, uh a consciousness or mind on the inside, and I use the word consciousness and mind here synonymously.

although later on we might distinguish between them. We normally feel that that uh our interior life i is made of mind and our exterior life, the world, objects and others, a are are made out of matter. And it it's a model of of um it's a model of separation. where everyone and everything has its own discrete and independent existence so we feel I am a I am a separate self on the inside.

I am separate from all objects, from all animals, from all others, and I am separate from the ultimate reality of the universe, whether we conceive that as God or or in whatever terms we conceive it. So the conventional point of view, which could be said Which could be called duality is a model of separation which, if we consider the implications of this model, must inevitably lead to unhappiness and ultimately despair on the inside.

and uh uh conflict on the outside conflict um between individuals, families, communities, nations and and so on. Whereas uh non duality is is Re really the the opposite of this. It it suggests that reality is whole, that it is one. It appears as many And we appear to be one of those many entities or selves, but in reality it is it is one, and as such it is whole, it is perfect, it is complete.

Its nature is happiness, or at least from a human perspective, we experience its nature as happiness on the inside, and its implications are love and beauty on the outside.

Now how would you make a distinction between non duality and the general Buddhist uh concept of emptiness or boundarylessness or the form and formless? Amen. Uh with respect to objects Reality can be said to be empty, that it is it is not an object, it is non objective, it has no objective qualities or features. So in reference to things, It is legitimate to say that The nature of reality is empty. However, the

That's that's starting with things. It's starting with a presumption of things and defining reality in reference to them. But if as the non dual under as the non dual understanding suggests, there are in the ultimate analysis no things, things are the the way reality appears from a limited perspective.

then we cannot define reality in reference to non existent things. We must try to define reality on on its own terms, starting not with something that is unreal, but starting with that which is real. From its own point of view, consciousness cannot be said to be empty. If we were to ask consciousness, what is your experience of yourself? Consciousness would never say I am empty, because the statement I am empty presumes that the existence of things which are full.

So it's legitimate as a as a compassionate concession to the mind that believes in the reality of objective things, to suggest as a as a halfway step that reality is empty. It's not really empty, it's only empty of things. It is it is f full to the brim with itself, full to the brim with consciousness or love.

So to try and you create another analogy to help people understand this more clearly, um say that The you know, existence is an ocean of let's call them atoms, where the distinction between object and perceiver and all those things are simply, of course, within the framework of human perception. And so let's look at it like that.

as just flowing kind of ocean of of happening, right? That is all one singular wave of of being. Where would an individual's awareness exist and how it exists within that ecosystem? Ca can I refine your analogy? Corey c can I just um can adapt your analogy a a little bit. I i in order to um No, it's it's nice your analogy. I don't mean to improve it. I just want to to to tweak it slightly to enable me to

uh answer to you respond to your question. So let let's consider reality reality. N not j not an ocean of atoms, but let's just consider it empty space. So v visualize empty physical space. So th th that there's nothing in it. There's just the space. consciousness be uh th this empty space represents pure consciousness, completely empty of all objective content. Now imagine so this is empty space before the appearance of any planets or suns or stars.

Uh and uh f fast forward uh billions of years, imagine now th th th th the physical space of the universe a as it is today, uh imagine the surface of the earth on which there are numerous buildings. And each of those buildings, consider for instance the room in which you are now sitting, that the single space of the universe. Which existed in our in our model before the universe was populated with any kind of form, is now temporarily contained within the room in which you are sitting. Oh, yeah.

Yeah. Now the what what we call individual consciousness is the equivalent of the space in your room. Now Thanks. Next question is what is the difference between the space in your room and the rest of the space of the universe? Are there indeed two separate spaces, let alone one? Millions of separate spaces, one for each. on the earth. No, of course not. There's always only ever one physical space in the universe. what appears to be at the limited space of your room.

i is is just an appearance. If you were to take a sample of the space in your room and a sample of the space outside your room, they would be identical. Why? Because they're the same space.

Now, it's exactly the same with so called human consciousness. There is no human consciousness. There is just consciousness infinite, universal, unbound, formless, eternal. And it is or seems to be temporarily housed within the four walls of the body, so to speak, and this produces the illusion of individual consciousness, just like

The the the space of the room in which each of us is now sitting seems to be an individual separate space, but is in fact the the same space as the space of the universe. So there is really no relationship between individual consciousness and universal consciousness, because there is no individual consciousness ultimately. There's just universal, unlimited consciousness.

That's a really great description. Now, how do whenever people think about things like personality and and identity and so forth, how do you view those things within this framework? I let's stick with our analogy of different rooms. W wh where are you where are you now, Corey? In Austin, Texas. You're in Austin, so look around imagine you were to look around your room now, and you were to describe it.

Uh for that we we don't need to actually do this, but you were to describe it for for your listeners. And I were to look around my room in Oxford in the UK and I were to describe it for your listeners. We would give two very different descriptions. Now, what if you were to describe the space in your room, and I were to describe the space in my room? They would be identical. What is called personality is the description of the content of our rooms. What is called ourself is the space in our room.

So our personalities are very different. Each one of your listeners listeners is now having a a a different collection of thoughts, images, feelings, sensations and perception perceptions. That constitutes our our personality with its history, its conditioning, its activities, its relationships and so on.

Those are all all of those personalities are different, but if each of us, each of your listeners were now too uh uh give their attention to their self, not to the content of their experience, not to thoughts, images, feelings, sensations, perceptions and so on, but were to give their attention to their self, to their being. We would all give our attention to exactly the same consciousness. So there are numerous different millions of different personalities, one self or one being.

Now that leads us in a beautiful one way to speak about awareness. Um, how would you describe awareness uh in non duality? Well first thing to say, Corey, is that the way I use language and the way most people use language in this context, uh uh awareness and consciousness are synonymous. how would I uh define awareness? I w it's what we previously in this conversation we've been referring to as reality or or ourself or being.

describe awareness or consciousness as that uh with which everything is known. It is that within which everything appears, and it is that ultimately out of which everything is made. In other words, consciousness or awareness is all there is. There is nothing else apart from awareness or consciousness. And everything that we know or experience is an appearance of that.

Now would there be any way I mean it it personally it took me a long time to make that extra leap from I mean probably ten years of meditation before, you know, of course I was able to observe my thoughts and just the information coming through the sense doors and and the arising conditioned reactions and so forth that were happening before behaviors and be able to begin to take um control of those things and capture that, you know.

more mindful way of existing and it took me about, you know, ten years of that before I then had the realization of the thing behind all of that, which was observing all of that happen. And that's even with the description of Witness Mind in my mind.

But really experiencing what you're what you've been describing now uh took quite a long it was quite a long road to really get there. Um what is a way that a person who is kind of just familiar with these terms and and some of the general practices within um this world might begin to be able to get in touch and realize their own awareness. Okay. Corey, can I just first of all um uh link your question this last question about uh the witness awareness with with my previous

uh definition of awareness. I'd just like to make a connection but but between the two. When I when I defined awareness I said awareness is that Everything appears and it is that out of which everything is made. So there are these three steps i in my definition. Your your question about How to recognize oneself as the witnessing presence of awareness refers to the first of these three steps. How to recognize the be awareness as that with which everything is known.

So having put it now in the in the context of my definition, I'll suggest how one might begin to explore this. So take the content of our experience thoughts, images, feelings, sensations, perceptions, and and so on. Experiences are unknown. We are aware of them. When we have a thought, that thought is known. Anyone who is listening to this conversation is hearing our words.

anyone whose eyes are open um is perceiving the the their environment. So the contents of experience are are known. We are aware of them. One way to begin this explan exploration is to ask oneself, what is it that knows or is aware of my experience? Whatever it is that knows our thoughts, is obviously not itself a thought. Whatever it is that is aware of our feelings and sensations is obviously not itself a feeling.

or a sensation and and likewise whatever it is that perceives an object i in the world, a physical object, is obviously not itself an an object. So w what is this? Ah that there is some perceiving or knowing element in experience. There is some element of experience which is aware, which is aware of the content of experience. Now w what is that? Whatever it is, it is what we refer to as ourself. It is what we refer to as I. We say I know my thought.

I am aware of my feelings. I perceive the world. So even Common parlance gives us a hint as to who we really are, the nature of who we really are. When we say I know my thoughts, We we we assert that we are that which knows our thoughts. We are not the thought itself. The thought is just a a a a fleeting appearance.

that comes and goes. When the thought disappears, we don't feel, oh, a little bit of myself has disappeared with the thought. No. The whole of myself remains behind and is aware of the next thought. Likewise a feeling or an emotion, when an emotion is uh arises. It it lingers for a while and then it vanishes and when the emotion vanishes again we don't feel that a part of myself has disappeared. Rather we feel the whole of myself, that is the presence of awareness, remains behind.

to be aware of whatever the next appearance is. So in this way we we so to speak we take a step back from the content. of experience, instead of believing and feeling, I am this collection of thoughts, images, feelings, sensations called the body and the mind. We take a step back and we recognise I am that which is aware Of this bundle of experience called thoughts, feelings, sensations, perceptions. In other words, normally we feel I am a person who is I I am a body mind.

Who is aware of the world? We take a step back and we recognise I am awareness that is aware of the body, mind and world. So this is the first step back to that that we take. Um Yeah. step back from the content of experience. to that which is aware of experience. And this is what is traditionally referred to, as you suggested, as the witnessing consciousness, that that which witnesses or is aware of the content of experience.

Now that's a b really beautiful description and uh something that helped me really live that experience was removing singular first person pronouns in my thinking about my own experience. So instead of thinking I am an awareness, I am etc, thinking there is an awareness here.

And that was really what helped me get through that. So even during meditation or something, you could be sitting there with your internal dialogue going I am awareness of etc. But for whatever reason to me, changing it to there is awareness here really helped r um get over that last that last gap. Yes. Okay. That that that's that's legitimate. In the end? It doesn't really matter what we call

Whatever it is that is aware of our experience. I is the common name for it, but if that represents a a stumbling block for you due to past associations, th th then it's fine to to to remove that, as you suggest, and just to to recognise there is awareness. There is the content of experience and there is the awareness of it. Right, right. Yeah. People are just obviously so

Um, because our language is so cumbersome, you know, we we're we must refer to ourselves consistently to really communicate. And I think it's so intuitive and instinctive to people that it's like really hard to d to divorce themselves from the association with INS. And that was what led me to just like removing it altogether. Yes. Well the reason I retain the words I and self is because Everybody does have a sense of being myself.

That the i i it it's a it's a common experience that everybody, all or all eight billion of us, have the sense of being myself. If we were to ask any of your listeners now, are you currently having the experience of being myself? They would all say yes, I I suspect that if I were to ask you now, Cory, are you now having the experience of being myself? I I would suggest that there is something that corresponds in your experience to to the phrase being myself.

So so so th so rather than trying to eliminate the sense of being myself, what what what I suggest is that we investigate That sense of being myself. Why? Because The sense of being myself is real. There is something real about the feeling I am myself. There is something undeniably real. We are all absolutely certain I am myself. However, it most people's sense of their self is so thoroughly mixed up with the content of their experience.

their memories, their activities, their relationships, their thoughts, their feelings and so on. That whilst everybody has a sense of being myself, not everybody knows their self clearly. the content of experience and as a result seems to be colored by or limited to the content of experience.

So that is why um that is why we start out with this approach, just making this invest we don't touch the content of experience. We don't try to change our experience in any way. We try to isolate We try to investigate and isolate exactly what it is. when we say I or myself and going back to our analogy of the space in the room. It i it the the equivalent using our analogy would be would be this. If most of us were now asked describe the space

in your room. We would say it i it is it is uh small. It is uh i it's Oxford i it's evening in time in Oxford now, so I would say it was small, it is dark, it is i i it it it it's cozy, it's uh etcetera w w We're not actually describing the space. When we say our room is small, it is dark, it is low, and so on, we're describing the objects that seem to limit the space. If we were to remove all those objects, How would we describe the space then? Would we say the space was small or dark?

Or square or rectangular. No, the space is none of those things. The space has no objective qualities. Well, it's exactly the same. If most of us were asked, describe yourself now. Most of us would would say something like I'm cold, I'm tired, I'm lonely, I'm excited, I'm in love, etcetera, I'm anxious, I'm afraid, and so on. Descriptions are descriptions of ourself. They are descriptions of the content of our experience, our emotions, our sensations, our perceptions, our feelings, and so on.

and aware. And and as such it is without limits. It does not share the qualities or the limitations of our thoughts, images, feelings and so on.

And this is the first great recognition. The first recognition is is what I essentially am is awareness. The second great recognition is the recognition of the nature of the awareness that I am. And that is the recognition that is traditionally referred to as enlightenment or awakening. So the recognition I am awareness is not yet

what is referred to as uh enlightenment or awakening. It is a step in the right direction. The real recognition that is traditionally called enlightenment or awakening is the recognition of the nature of the awareness that I now know myself to be. That that that is the n recognition that its nature is peace, fulfillment, it is ever present, unlimited, ageless, deathless, and so on.

Beautiful. Yeah. Um and it's it's interesting that we're it makes it a bit difficult to the Western mind in some degree because we're trapped in linguistic constructs, you know, applied it at the beginning, you know, trying to identify and think through these things, there isn't a word for space with nothing in it in English.

I yes, yes. We have to we have to do our best. Um yes, but but but it's not that we can we can refer to empty space and we can visualize uh um uh a an empty space without any content and and indeed without any boundary.

Yeah. I think that the the issue that I've observed, which is interesting, is that there's um Mm and maybe it's uh people I've spoken with, you know, with an American point of view is that Since our whole lives are predicated upon materialism, when you speak of emptiness there is this undertow of negativity to it almost. You know? Yes. There needs to be something there. It's missing something.

Well, i if that was so yeah, I understand exactly why you say that, Corey, but take the the experience of deep sleep. Does not everyone look forward to Sleep at night after we've had a long, busy, tiring, stressful day, do we not look forward to sleep? Mm-hmm. Why do we look forward to sleep if if sleep was an empty, negative experience? We would resist it.

On the contrary, we look forward to it. Why? Because when we go to sleep, I would suggest that we awareness don't actually fall asleep. Awareness is like the sun. It it it's on all the time. It's aware or awake all the time. What happens when we fall asleep is that the content of our experience is removed. First of all our perceptions When our perceptions are utterly Uh uh removed, we no longer experience the the um the body.

and the world. So with the waking state comes to an end. We enter the dream state. We don't actually enter a state, but we experience the dream state, which consists of thoughts and images. We are obviously still aware. If awareness were asleep, it would not be possible to be aware of our dreams. So awareness remains awake.

When we so call fall asleep, first of all our sensations and perceptions are removed. That removes our experience of the body and the world. We we experience the dream state, thoughts and images. And then in time thoughts and images are removed from awareness. Leaving awareness all alone, empty of content, without any content. That is the experience of peace in deep sleep. And far from being an unpleasant experience, we look forward to it.

Mm-hmm. Yeah, that's a great analogy. And it that's one of one of the catchphrases I use all the time is that like you experience enlightenment every night whenever you sleep. The trick is just doing that whenever you're awake.

E exactly. In in fact, we experience enlightenment every time a desire uh is fulfilled in the waking state. Why? Because uh desire is a state of agitation. It is a rejection of the now, it is a state of of of of longing, it is a state a state of becoming, it is it is a state in which the mind projects us into the future.

seeking the object that we desire. So it is uh desire is by definition a state of a state of tension, uh of agitation. Now, when we are when we achieve or acquire the desired object. Desire obviously by definition comes to an end, and the tension or the agitation that accompanied it also ends.

So in that moment, the mind, the activity of mind, the seeking resisting activity of mind comes to an end, and we briefly taste our true nature. That's what the experience of happiness is the taste of our true nature. That's enlightenment. Normally we don't give the experience of happiness the interpretation that I'm now giving it. We the mind Well Oh wrongly attributes the happiness experience to the object that was acquired, and we think it was the object, the substance, the person.

uh the activity that generated the ha th the happiness. No. The acquisition of the object, substance and so on simply brought the s resisting seeking activity of the mind to an end. And as a result of this brief ending of the mind, our innate happiness, that is the nature of awareness, shone briefly in our experience. And that's the experience we call happiness. So the mind attributes the happiness to an object, but it it does so wrongly, that the happiness is really a taste of our true nature.

Okay, beautiful. You just said what I was gonna touch on there is that in the the acquisition of a desire there is inherent Avidya, you know, in the afterglow of that experience, with the delusion that That thing is what's creating your happiness. And I love you you tagged that right at the end there, saying it's not that, it's right. Right. Yes. And of o of course this understanding is is uh r really it it's

Uh i it's not it it's not really known in our culture. Our culture the vast majority of people believe and have been condition we have been b conditioned to believe that the happiness for which we all

uh seek above all else. We've been conditioned to to believe that it it can be found by acquiring an object, a substance, an activity, a relationship and and so on. And this is really the the big That it's the fundamental um one of the one of the fundamental um assumptions on which our world culture is based, and it's a mistake, and we only need to look around us.

to see th that the the the uh results or the the effect that that this mistake has, that the the the extent of the despair and unhappiness and sorrow that people feel because they're not finding in um in the objective content of their experience, the happiness for which they long, and our culture doesn't have an answer for them.

Right, right. Now someone who begins to um study and work with these ideas, um Is there a risk, or do you think that people should understand anything to inoculate themselves against? Misinterpreting some of these ideas and leaning into detachment and depersonalization. Thank you. Rather than the uh the desired effect. Y yes, th that's why it it helps. to have a friend who one can discuss these matters with.

Uh, because it's th these these ideas are not ideas that we come across in our ordinary everyday life. That they are um It's a different it it's a different view of of of happiness and and how to find happiness. And it as you as you say, it's open to misunderstanding. The implications of it can be misunderstood and and therefore it helps. to have a friend who where one can have discussions like the kind of discussion we are having now.

So that um i if one feels that the inclination d i if if one believes that the inevitable consequence of this understanding would be to detach oneself from life, from relationship, from activity, from family. from responsibility and so on. That that would be um an understandable uh a mistake, but but but nevertheless um a mistake. And so it it it it helps to have someone that one can expose this misunderstanding to and have it cleared up so that one realizes that one can lead a very full life.

In the world and still be established in this understanding that it doesn't in any way imply um Yeah. Uh cut cutting oneself off or isolating oneself or not uh not getting a proper education or not earning a decent living or not taking taking care of one's family. None of these things are implied. Mm. It's quite possible to lead a full, active, functional life in the world and and and be rooted in this understanding. In fact, this understanding is the best.

It gives us the best possible chance of leading a full, active, harmonious, enjoyable life in the world because our life is no longer um constantly being uh thwarted. by the fears and the neuroses and the anxieties, the expectations o of the ego.

Definitely. And one of the more nuanced issues is that whenever an individual begins to understand these things particularly because there's so much letting go, you know, of the whole story that has been grasped for a person's entire life, that then lends itself to a particular kind of passivity. Yes. How how do you distinguish between living this, you know, way of living without passivity and it living an engaged ver realization of non-revolution?

Well, th th th this is why I I wanted to um put your question about witness consciousness in context, Corey, because if Uh as as in some traditional teachings, if uh we stop at the understanding I am the witnessing presence of consciousness, then there is a risk that we would simply detach ourselves From knife because in order to

to recognize I am the witness of my experience. We have to take as I suggested, we have to take a step back from our experience. I am not my thoughts, I am that which is aware of them. I'm not my activities and relationships. I am that which is aware of them. So this is the f just the first step and it does indeed involve um taking uh taking a step back, dissociating ourselves, um, separating ourselves from the content of experience. However, it's only the first step.

If we stopped there, then then you would be right. The implications of this understanding would be that we should remain detached and aloof. not be involved in in activities, in work, in family and so on. But uh certainly in the the approach that I like to share with people, it's very important having recognized, first of all,

uh that our essential nature is awareness. Then having recognized the nature of the awareness that we are, namely its inherent peace and happiness, it's then very important

to collapse the distinction between ourselves as awareness and everyone and everything else. So we go back having separated ourselves in the first step, we then it's important to go back to uh uh the content of our experience with this new understanding of ourself as the presence of awareness and to f to function in life, to to use our faculties, our mental, physical faculties such as they are.

to bring this understanding out into life and express it and share it and communicate it and celebrate it in life. And I feel that both of these aspects are very important. The first step where we withdraw from the content of experience in order to recognise ourselves, but it's then necessary to go back to experience, get involved in experience again and and express the qualities that are inherent in us uh in life, share it with others.

Mm-hmm. Absolutely. Cause then you can actually enjoy it unfettered. Y yes, yes. In order to recognize oneself. has the presence for one is it's just a halfway step. In other in fact it's not even halfway. W what I sometimes suggest is if a book were to be written in twelve chapter if this understanding were to be reckoned written in twelve chapters, the recognition of oneself as the presence of awareness would take place at the end of chapter one, the recognition of the nature of ourself.

Thus the presence of awareness would take place at the end of chapter two and the subsequent chapter ten chapters would deal with with the the realignment, the reengagement with life, the realignment of the way we think, feel, act, perceive, and relate with this new understanding. In other words, the th the the The larger part of the book would be to do with how we live this understanding fully in life.

Mm-hmm. Now your realization of I am, um did that come about for you spontaneously or gradually over time? Uh it came about it was both. It was gradual in that it was uh I've been exploring these matters for for for many years, since my mid teens. I i it it's it's like it's so your question is like saying that d d does an apple fall from the tree gradually or or or suddenly? Well it it it takes a year

uh to gradually ripen and it takes a moment to fall. It it it's both. So there's a gradual ripening and then there is this spontaneous recognition. In all cases there is a a ripening process. Now, for some people the ripening process uh takes ten minutes in in extreme cases.

Uh for some people it takes a a couple of years, for others it may take twenty or thirty years. But then the moment of recognition, the moment the apple falls from the tree, it it's oh yes, that's what I am. It takes a moment. So for you it was how how was your ripening process?

Well, I'm a I'm a a a slow developer, Corey. I started exploring these matters in my mid teens and then it was uh I was well into my three my thirties, my late thirties before it became really clear to me who I essentially am. Hmm. Does it feel like it becomes still becomes more and more clear? Y-y-y-yes, um... There is a deepening into it. Uh the the Sufi mystic Jalaluddin Rumi said this beautiful thing, he said uh flow down and down and down in ever widening rings of being.

But that that's that's a beautiful description of this process where we we we go deeper and deeper and deeper into ourself. And uh so so yes, there there is a There is a recognition of ourselves as the ever present and unlimited nature of awareness.

uh sorry, the unlimited presence of awareness, wh whose nature is peace and happiness. But there is a a sinking more and more deeply into that. And as a result of that Uh the recognition permeates our life, every aspect of our life more and more fully. Mm. Yeah, that's a great way to describe it. To me it feels like that realization continues to deepen and deepens with nuance, I then kind of lo I don't know

I feel like okay, now I'm starting to get it. And then more time goes on and says, Okay, now I'm starting to get it And and let us hope that process goes on forever. I think it's the process that in the Christian tradition is referred to as the transfiguration. It it's the It's the gradual permeation and saturation of all aspects of our life, not just the way we think, but the way we feel, the way we act, the way we relate, the way we perceive, the the gradual permeation.

of all aspects of our life with this felt understanding. And I don't think we can ever say that process, at least I hope that process never comes to an end.

Hm. Absolutely. Yeah. Um now I imagine you have a meditation practice. Yeah. Y I have a meditation practice but it's much less formal than it used to be for many years, for the first twenty or so years of my life from from the age of sixteen or so. I had quite a formal meditation practice, which was actually m using a mantra, uh, for two half hour periods every morning and evening. And then uh in time the the um The distinction between meditation and everyday life began to blur.

It became clearer and clearer that to me that meditation is not an activity that we do with our minds, like in my case repeating a mantra or focusing on the breath or so on. It it is it is the meditation is what we are. It is the nature of ourself, being or aware being is what we are. It's not something we have to practice. To consider meditation a practice is a a concession

to the separate self that most of us believe ourselves to be. To that apparently separate self, that is, to the limited space in the room. We have to say, okay, practice being the universal space. But that presumes that it is not already that space, that that it has to become that space. And as a concession to its conviction that it is a separate space, a separate individual, it is legitimate, especially to begin with, to

engage meditation as a practice, something we do with the mind, or even something we cease doing with the mind. But in time As we mature our understanding becomes more and more refined, and we realise meditation is not something we either do or cease doing with our mind. It is simply what we are. So The practice of meditation gives way to simply being knowingly ourselves. Yeah, I I totally hear what you're saying. I think to me meditation is like a a A grateful period of remembering.

Yes. And it can be done um in the midst of our everyday activities, for instance. j while you and I are having this conversation we can remain knowingly ourself as the presence of awareness and we may also choose, and as indeed I I I do. we do. We may also choose to to sometimes pause the activities of our life, sit down quietly in a in in a chair at home or on the floor, close our eyes, and just rest in being or rest as being.

So we could call this, you know, meditation with our eyes open and meditation with our eyes closed. But i in the end the distinction between life and meditation becomes more and more blurred and un until they are one's entire life is is w one one is One is centered a as as in being, as being. One remains the presence of awareness under all circumstances.

Mm-hmm. Completely with you. Yeah, beautiful description of that. Um so you you've just released a new book called Being Myself, correct? Yes, yes. Would you mind sharing a little bit about that? Yeah being myself is it's a the second book. in a series of books that I'm I I plan to um Right, over the coming years the first one was

uh being aware of being aware, which is becoming aware of oneself as the presence of awareness. And the second one called Being Myself is really it covers the same territory but in a mm explored in a slightly different way. And I alluded to it earlier when I s suggested that everyone has this sense of being myself, but in most cases

Our sense of being myself is so thoroughly mixed up with the content of experience that we don't know ourselves clearly. So the this book Being Myself is about is about this clear self knowledge. and the means by which we recognize what we essentially are after all the um elements of ourself that we derive from the content of experience have been removed. I I sometimes liken it to undressing at night. When we undress at night we we take off layers of clothing.

until our naked body remains. We don't suddenly become our naked body. We we're always our speaking, we're always our naked body, but most of the time our naked body is is veiled or covered with with layers of clothing. Well, meditation could be likened to to taking off not layers of clothing, but layers of experience. We remove our thoughts. We remove everything.

Just as we take off at night all the layers of clothing that can be taken off, so in meditation we take off all the layers of experience that can be removed from us, our thoughts, images, memories, feelings, sensations. perceptions, activities, relationships. We keep on taking off, taking off, taking off, letting go, letting go until we get to our naked being.

That's it. That's what we are. We don't suddenly become our naked being. We're always our naked being, but most of the time our naked being is clothed in experience. In fact, in the ultimate analysis, we are not really human beings. We are infinite being, clothed in human experience. A meditation is the process by which we let go of everything that is not essential to us and the subsequent revelation of our essential naked self aware being. That's what the book's about.

Mm, wonderful. So I see I feeling this theme of the the first one, uh being aware of being aware, which was a lovely book and which I read, is the the first step of the process of realizing awareness. And the second one is being myself would be understanding the nature of awareness. Well, actually both of them uh um cover both steps. So it's more it's more two different ways of slicing the same cake rather than

two different steps. They're both I think uh equally complete. It's just I take a slightly different pathway in each book. Gotcha. Gotcha. Um, well beautiful. Well, yeah, Rupert, thank you so much for coming on the show. Uh it's been really wonderful speaking with you and I know that everyone that's been asking for you to come on uh is going to be really, really happy with what what transpired here and just love the everything that you shared. Good, not at all, Corrier. Thank you for

Thank you for asking me. I think it's wonderful what you're doing, and I wish you and and all your all your listeners the very best. It's been a pleasure speaking with you.