The Redeeming Power of just Being. No More than a Kind Human Being

To Dana
and

to Dana,                                                                                                 

with all my love and gratitude                                                                                                                            

I would begin in a “Forrest Gump”-like manner, by saying that I am not a smart man, but I know what beauty is. And I want to share with you what is beauty really about, from my viewpoint, and what is its real potential.

Of course, a distinction is necessary to be made at this point. This is not a literary essay and such splendid words like “beauty” and “beautiful” are not referred to as aesthetic concepts and categories, but as traits of the human soul, in which sense they are discussed upon extensively in Plato’s dialogues.

“Beautiful” and “beauty” are not employed in this context as references to physical traits either, nor are they meant as an absolute pointer to the gender or the age of my models. Therefore, “beautiful” means more than “pretty”, that is to say, more than a physical form, even though one doesn’t necessarily contradicts the other.

Beauty is a spiritual path, one of many ways of experiencing eternity. Beauty is the way in which our timeless dimension shines through a physical form or is reflected by it. So, beautiful, actually, can only be the soul.

Coincidentally or not, I discovered the most rich “resources” of beauty in two women who are not my girlfriends, but colleagues and friends, even though, again, in the same way in which there is no contradiction between being pretty and beautiful, the same applies, I think, to friends and lovers. However, in any given circumstance, I would call a man or a woman, a friend or a lover, “beautiful” – and only after pointing out that this is just a metaphor – in order to emphasize the degree in which they are able to act as doorways to transcendence for more than one people surrounding them and/or their family and close relatives.

Through their very presence, they fulfill a mysterious, yet obvious function, at least to those who are able to “see” it: they spontaneously and harmoniously take you to the tiny room of your heart wherein lies the colossal source of energy of everything that ever was, is and will be, which is synonymous with the mystery of life. They spring out simply and naturally, as if of the ground consciousness that is called “Cit” in the sacred Indian scriptures called the “Upanishads”.

The 20^th century Indian saint Ramana Maharshi, when addressed to as the “Master”, used to say that a master is whoever is able to teach you something. It’s quite simple, isn’t it?

My above dedication is not a typo. 
There are two actual women with the same name, whose ability at acting and being normal, that is to say, being themselves and conducting themselves in an apparently effortlessly kind and compassionate manner, has seemed to me so striking, when attached to the psychologically challenging background of their jobs and to the equally challenging family responsibilities, that I could not find a better English term to describe their general demeanor, other than “mastery”.

This is where they are great performers: they are nice persons while managing to remain experts in whatever task they fulfill. And they are also long distance runners: they treat with the same consideration the CEO and the pizza guy, even when a child is sick at home, a boss is yelling and the sleepless nights start to take their toll, leaving their marks on the faces. This is not a miracle when considered of as an infrequent behavior. It is remarkable, though, when I see it constantly and spontaneously recurring in a mad world and I can see it on a daily basis, no matter how challenging a given life experience becomes. When they say to you “Good morning!” you suddenly become aware that this is really not about social customs, that they are really wishing you a good morning, a good day and so forth. While opening the mouth and saying “Take care!” the words are uttered consciously, so that, whenever I was paying attention, I was very aware that they really care. Of course, it’s not only about me, as an individual, it’s about a constant, non-intrusive and non-judgmental care for everybody.

I’ve known them a couple of years and nobody was able to hear them, not even once, raising their voice, even when this surface of reality that we call “our jobs” or “our social functions” in general, would become so deadly serious, that everyone else would lose their temper or even experience a nervous breakdown. Because of the tight deadlines, impossible targets and general negativity of a work situation and whatnot, everybody is allowed to go mad sometimes and, to some extent, anger and resentment are commonplace and therefore easily overlooked in a very dynamic workplace, unless, of course, these sort of destructive emotions go to an extreme. But I’ve had this opportunity and privilege to become colleagues and friends with such human beings who can also feel sadness, joy, disappointment, failure and success, just like everybody else, without poisoning their own mind’s and their friends’ and colleagues’, with frustration, grievance and resentment.

The idea that one can display a general non-compulsive attitude or even say “no”, when the situation requires, in a non-reactive manner is not confined to Eastern spiritual teaching/psychological-based training that have become a cultural fashion nowadays and a special item on the agenda of any large corporation. A corporation, of course, is always eager to give a certain balance and motivation to its corporate slaves for which, ultimately, the system doesn’t care. But these two women are really beautiful, not just pretty, because they really care and no training can teach you that; their genuine beauty is, actually, the radiance of their eternal dimension from within, which is allowed to express itself as a person. Their simple acts of human kindness can redeem the human soul, since in their very simplicity and ordinariness resides the truth and the beauty that will set us free.

In some individuals, with whom I crossed my paths rarely in my life, this is a natural gift and they fulfill a real spiritual function in a desacralized world and provide, knowingly or not, spiritual guidance for their colleagues, bosses, subordinates, friends and relatives who are able to receive their unspoken teachings. These blessed individuals are, in fact, their teachings, in whatever they pursue. They are real, true and beautiful. It’s just the way they are.

There are two persons with the same name who unknowingly have acted for me as spiritual masters and will fulfill this function for others as long as they live and even more, even though unrecognized as such. They are both smart and pretty, both good mothers, good professionals etc. So what? – one might ask. They even bear the same name. Both of them have two small children, and they take care of them with a lot of dedication. But, again, nobody can stand out from the crowd with this – one can add. But this is where their share their actual, greatest quality: they are really great at being extraordinary normal, at not standing out from the crowd and not expecting to be praised as spiritual guides.

This extraordinary ordinariness and the ability of finding joy in the act of giving – giving a smile of encouragement, giving a nice word, giving a tiny deed, giving a piece of advice – in the midst of one’s daily and mundane activities is the medicine that our sick civilization needs and the truth that will set us free.

The Enlightened Fish. Humility: the Trademark of Greatness

"What is the use of a well,

 If water is there all the time,

 Having cut craving at the root,

In search of what should one wander?"

(Udapānasutta, 79)

An awakened fish gets up one morning totally transfigured and shows-up with a peacefully and radiant face among his friends and lets them know that he has simply become aware of water.

“Our most intimate aspect, our essential nature is water”, he says.

But when he tries to explain what actually could had happened to him, this awareness of a pre-existent reality becomes a doctrine of some kind. It translates to other fish as a path full of various disciplines, austerities and commandments towards a goal which is the realization of the one water which all the fish are immersed in.

To a thinking fish the enlightenment will only make sense in terms of “goals” and “achievements".

An enlightened fish is a fish aware of the all-pervading water. The nature of fish is water in the same way in which the nature of humans in self-consciousness.

However, there will always be some guru-fish who will write interesting books for water-seeking fish, some books like "How to achieve water in 7 steps". Not all of them are fake. Some of them are just using metaphors as pointers - words that are transparent to transcendence, which, paradoxically, is here and now. There is ,however, a demand on the market of awakening and that demand should be addressed properly, in accordance with the level of understanding of the seeker-fish. The always-seeking minds of fish, asking questions all the time, will get some answers like this:

“you must achieve water",

"you must acquire water",

"you must possess water",

"you must become one with water".

This is how a spiritual teaching would sound like in a language of fish.

We see the waves of the ocean in contradiction with the ocean itself and in the same way, we perceive the colors of the rainbow as contradictory with the white light.

The “fish in water” is a complex, that is, a psychological condition. Although it is just a way of putting it and a figure of speech, a pointer meant to express a common state of “normality” or “comfort”, it’s not a proper attitude in case of human beings.

We are spiritually unconscious or, in Buddhist terms, asleep and this seems to be some kind of normality, but I think the actual normality of humans is to wake up and to be aware of both their environment and the awareness itself. A fish in water is not aware of the water - this is a normal attitude in fish, but not in humans.

Ignoring water can inflict no harm to a fish. Naturally and unconsciously floating underwater is in accord with its’ intimate nature, but a “fish in water” attitude is the real danger of a battlefield of life for a human “warrior”, whose mind gets entangled in the turmoil, unaware of the battle, unaware of the still canvas on which the picture of battle is painted, unaware of the fact that he is the canvas on a deeper level and only on the surface he is the participant in a battle. He is trapped, no longer capable of being aware of his environment and incapable of evaluating the suffering he inflicts on others and on himself. Losing the witness perspective is that what defines all human suffering. 

The “fish in water” perspective prevents you from evolving, spiritually speaking. The “fish in water” perspective belongs, naturally, exclusively to fish.

But, for the sake of this simile, let’s go on supposing that there are enlightened fish and that they can talk… The enlightened fish, while remaining a fish, undergoes only a shift in consciousness. The fish that has “achieved” Enlightenment will regard it so naturally and harmoniously ordinary, that it will barely try to be convincing. In the realm of the spirituality, humility is the trademark of the greatness. When in search for a real master, you should first pay attention to how much he/she struggles to be convincing.

We can recognize an "awakened" fish in the first place by his lack of eagerness and lack of interest in being very convincing, in attracting followers. From the perspective of the awakened fish, the all-pervading water is so normal, that it will not be very eager to argue and to be convincing. An awakened fish would accept to share, somehow, his insights, out of compassion for other fish, but he will never try to thrust the teachings in their throats.

You will recognize an enlightened fish from the very fact that it will be less vocal and militant  in his approach than other “spiritual” fish, because the latter are not very sure if there is still some water left to be achieved or not:) The vocal fish are very eager to convince you that you must acquire water, at any costs and not in your own way, but with their precious help.

How the Christ Will Be Resurrected by the Buddha. Religion Is What We Make It

-A dialogue on the future of religion with Brad Radziej-

All that is gold does not glitter,

Not all those who wander are lost..

 

 The old that is strong does not wither,

Deep roots are not reached by the frost.

From the ashes a fire shall be woken,

A light from the shadows shall spring..

Renewed shall be blade that was broken,
The crownless again shall be king.(J.R.R. Tolkien)  

Brad Radziej: I have two main points to this inquiry on why humans are religious:

1) What we generally consider to be religions were all formed during different points in human history when civilizations themselves were formed.

Different geographical regions developed civilizations at different times in history, but in each occurrence a religion was developed along with that civilization.

The term "religion" has been homogenized to only refer to "civilization religions", and not to "tribal religions" and many times, in the west, it is narrowed down even further, to only refer to Abrahamic religions, negating Buddhists, Hindus, Jains and Taoists etc.

But regardless of the above, all religions were basically formed (also) as a means of adapting a cultural morality, laws and code of conduct, as well as a philosophical foundation for civilizations to adhere to. As we banded together physically in the formation of civilizations, the need arose for us to also band together mentally, philosophically and spiritually as well.
As the burden of survival was decreased by community cooperation, there was more down time to be spent philosophizing about anything & everything.

And so, religion was originally intended as a means toward forming a better lifestyle that everyone would benefit from. This flood of new ideas was highly accepted, which was why there were so many prophets, gurus etc., all offering different religious philosophies throughout these prospering civilizations.
Some were scam artists, whilst some were legitimate, which situation has never changed.
The good ones stuck, and developed into what we now know as the major religions. And throughout history they have been transformed in numerous ways, some good and some bad. But the idea that religion itself is bad, or just one thing, is overall a detriment to humanity.

In recent times we have become obsessed and fixated by disbelief, criticism, cynicism, and overall skepticism in regards to religion. This obsession with debunking religion, is just plain foolish!

Not that we should not call a fraud, "a fraud", or call corruption, "corruption", but to fixate upon this without attempting to positively reform and re-implement religion as a tool for binding us together, reforging and cultivating positive and wholesome practices and behavior is a big mistake.

These days’ people are only concerned with pointing out the wrong in religion, and very few are actively & assertively attempting to promote the right in religion.
Religion is what we make it.
And it should be used to cultivate a positive lifestyle for the benefit of all.

So, to be a stubborn critic of religion, and to identify this cynicism with being intelligent, without putting any effort towards reforming or acclimating the basic principles of all religions, is far from intelligent!

2) The Buddha never negated nor confirmed the existence of an afterlife, because he said that it was beside the point.

Regardless of your belief..
a) no afterlife..
All there is - is this "present life".

b) heavenly afterlife..
What you do in this "present life", dictates what happens to you in the afterlife (heaven or hell).

c) reincarnation..
What you do in this "present life", dictates how you will be reincarnated in the next life.

All scenarios point at the importance of this "present life", therefore regardless of your afterlife beliefs all that you should be concerned with is this "present life"!
And so, accepting & practicing the Buddha’s "eightfold path" is then mutually beneficial, regardless of what afterlife scenario you agree with.

Buddhism, then, is the "mechanism whereby human beings can feel good in the present moment".

So feeling, or being religious, is then not dependent upon an afterlife scenario at all (unless you don't consider Buddhism a religion?).
It is merely a matter of cultivating a positive lifestyle, right now, for the benefit of all, in this present life!

Lucian Dantes: I totally agree with you when you say that “religion is what we make it”, I really needed this insightful view. I must confess that I thought of you when writing about the "afterlife" perspective in religions, because I don't think that the "afterlife" expectancy is the IT thing in authentic religious life. This is not about Buddhism only; Jesus himself never mentioned the perspective of the afterlife in plain words. Expressions like “to be born again”, “to be like children”, to act like “lilies in the field”, to be “resurrected” are metaphorical in essence.

Jesus’ whole idea of the afterlife is comprised in this verse in John, 4.23:

“But the hour comes, and NOW is, when the true worshippers shall worship the father IN SPIRIT, and IN TRUTH: for the father seeks such to worship him.”

Therefore: it is not "tomorrow" and it is not "in body"..., but is "now" and it is "in spirit"

I hope that everything you said about people negating the clear religious essence of Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, Taoism etc. will become only a past, an "illiterate" stage in the history of religion studies in the Western hemisphere.

There is no excuse in the 21st century for those who still adopt a dogmatic Christian view and appropriate the idea of religion and spirituality. No one can "possess" the Christ, as no one can "possess" Buddha-consciousness, not even the Buddha himself (but on the contrary).

But when someone builds-up a sense of self-identity around an idea in the head (Jesus, the Buddha and what not), which becomes a solid, ossified structure of beliefs - this is all dogmatic truth and I can accept it until it becomes militant and aggressively intolerant and proselytizing. 

Brad Radziej: Well, you certainly hit the nail on the head, so to speak, with the term "possess"!!
From my observations, it is precisely these two key ignorance factors, pertaining to an exaggerated false-idea of, "possession & self-identity" that is at the heart of the problem.
These two factors manifest themselves in innumerable ways, and all of which are detrimental to both the individual and society. Because without thus exaggerated idea of a self-identified possession, there would be no cause to result in conflict.
For example, a self-identified possession of either belief/disbelief will inevitably result in conflict.
The thing is that neither side is open, or willing to discuss the similarities regarding behavior and conduct that bind them!
This to me is the real value in the Buddha’s teachings on the Middle Path. Because, what you believe/disbelieve is totally besides the damn point!!

If such attachments to a self-identified possession of belief/disbelief only result in a world full of conflict and turmoil, then apparently this is the problem that must be addressed and rectified!

Funny enough, the method of resolving such a problem couldn't be more simple...
The four noble truths:
(the facts of life )
1)there is a "result"..
or problem; conflict & suffering (anger, greed, envy)
2) there is a "cause"..
which results in conflict & suffering; self-identified possession.
3) there is a "result"..
or solution to this problem of conflict & suffering; virtuous thought & behavior.
4) there is a "cause"..
which results in virtuous behavior; the eightfold path to enlightenment (i.e. the Middle Path of virtue)

And so, there is a cause which results in conflict & suffering.
If you don't like the result, then deal with the cause.
The cause being an exaggerated false-idea of self-identified possession.
The remedy being the wholesome cultivation of eight aspects of life, which can be can be simplified into three categories.

The eightfold path:
Wisdom training-
the cultivation of virtuous..
1) thought, (or view)
2) intentions.

Ethics training-
the cultivation of virtuous..
3) speech.
4) action.
5) livelihood.
Meditation training-
the cultivation of virtuous..
6) effort.
7) mindfulness.
8) concentration.

No inherent belief system, no static dogma, no afterlife scenario, no deity, no commandments, no laws, no mysticism, etc..
Whether or not you have a belief pertaining to any of the above factors is totally irrelevant, in regards to implementing the Buddha’s eightfold path.
Whatever belief/disbelief you have, is totally compatible with practicing this method of cultivating wisdom, ethical conduct, & meditative awareness.

Why "the four noble truths & the eightfold path", is not already hanging in every school, business, and government building is totally beyond me, and I think that it is unfortunate that it is not.
Especially considering that it does not prescribe to any particular religious view or belief, but rather to all beliefs & views that are considered as humane & just.
And the fact that the very problem that it directly addresses, is what keeps it from being properly understood, accepted, and implemented, would be totally hilarious, if it weren't so tragic.

Lucian Dantes: Buddhism is apparently so appealing because it doesn't have static requirements, no dogmatic truths, it is some kind of therapy. The Buddha designed it this way. However, I regard it as more than that - as a non-theistic religion, with all the afferent consequences, which I don't want to discuss now, because the subject is to vast.

I have an additional comment on the apparent success of Buddhism in the West:
It doesn't strike the collective ego directly, with and opposing dogma, opposing ideology, opposing metaphysical system, with "opposing" things. So, Buddhism doesn't seem to be a great danger for “apex predators” like Christian faith. Nevertheless, it is. Furthermore, it isn’t an enemy, but an ally to the core of the Christian teaching. When you doesn't strike hard, you don't strengthen the ego, but undermine it and eventually reform the set of behaviors and beliefs revolving around the initially authentic experience of the founder.

On another level, Buddhism is very appealing to big corporations, for instance, because a practicing Buddhist is a very well balanced and disciplined person, doesn't show up late at work and doesn't get drunk. In addition, this kind of person has a positive approach and is very productive. A Zen Buddhist has no need for "time-management" training sessions, for instance. I don’t' think that your employers felt the need to send you over to the shrink, or invested money in teaching you how to react, how to negotiate, how to criticize in a constructive manner, how to work within a team etc. You need no training, you stay out of trouble because you have an untroubled mind since the very beginning and so forth.

Nevertheless, the big corporations will be very disappointed after a while, because a practicing Buddhist cannot be fooled around. It is very difficult to control a dispassionate employee who doesn't fear and keep things simple and straightforward. The employers will have to learn this lesson, soon. Delusion doesn't work on Buddhism and our ever growing economies cannot be sustained by a simple living and spiritually oriented population who doesn't buy unnecessary things.

As a conclusion, Buddhist teachings will have a some main consequences, at least in our Western cultures:

1) it is simple (i.e. not very sophisticated, not very metaphysical), the focus is put "on here" instead of "out there", in the "now" instead of the "afterwards, afterlife, past and future". very experiential and very concrete.

2) it will finally reach a very large audience because it is not a belief system and one doesn't have to miss the Sunday religious service as a catholic, whilst practicing zazen..; but as a Buddhist you will be able to thrive on less and this could be the death of our consumerist civilization.

2) willingly or not, Buddhist teaching is a real and ecological psychotherapy and our Western world is in great need of this kind of thing. If you analyze the elements of the eightfold path, you will find out that each one of them will concur in keeping you balanced, alert and calm, besides the spiritual implications. So, the "danger" is that Buddhism will end up as either: a) a psychotherapy similar to yoga school (originally a metaphysical system and an extreme asceticism, a spiritual path in essence) or b) some sort of gymnastics of the mind. I don't know if this is a good or a bad thing, but it's just the way it is. In any case, this is the worst-case scenario. Buddhism can harm no one, except for one’s ego and one’s self-esteem…

3) the best potential of Buddhism as a non-belief, non-dogmatic, non-ritualistic, non-systematically conceptual, non-static and non-theistic religion is that it has the appropriate set of tools for reforming both Christianity and Islam. If you read "Dune" by Frank Herbert, you know what I mean, because the Fremen were Zen-Sunnis, that is: Islamic Buddhists.

Christianity will have to make this big choice: either 1) to remain a religion of faith, a belief system, a system of a given truth, based on the authority of the Bible, the Churches, the whatever and eventually become extinct or 2) to become a religion of experience, which a spiritual and daily practice and, thereby, thrive.
Buddhism has the possibility to infuse Christianity with fresh blood.

Eventually, the Christ will be resurrected by the Buddha:)

I’ll give you an example on how this kind of syncretism is already at work: there is a tremendous number of practicing Christians that are aware of the Dalai Lama’s teachings and his general views and opinions and I think that the Dalai Lama will have a deep impact on those honest Christians who will be able to recognize the Christ-type of message embodied by the Dalai Lama himself.

The Dalai Lama is a Buddhist monk and in a surprising way, he is a good Christian, at least according to the way he acts!. This kind of approach will not go unnoticed: everything that the Dalai Lama did or does is what Jesus himself would do, this is too obvious. I’ve read, recently, a book in which the Dalai Lama was expressing his love for the Chinese people and his deep respect for the Chinese culture. Who does this kind of thing? Millions of Christians will be driven back to the roots of their own tradition and so, "reforged shall be the blade that was broken", just like it happened with the shards of Narsil, which became Andúril...

In regards to the idea of a "beginners mind" approach of S. Suzuki, it’s interesting to notice that Jesus advised on the exact same approach! Without this very important aspect, there is no Christian teaching!
(He said: Anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it. – Luke18, 15-17)
And I think that it's this very aspect that has the potential to "reforge" (redirect) Christianity back towards its’ original purposes.

 

 

We All Have Our Own Bodhi Tree

Under the Bodhi Tree, Prince Siddhartha Gautama was just sitting, in absolute silence. He lost any interest in any purpose whatsoever and gave up any desire of reaching awakening.

This is why we now have the Buddha.

Each of us has their own Bodhi Tree.

Any quest for understanding is a quest for liberation in disguise.
The same principle applies in the Buddha’s case. The need to understand conditioning/limitations arises in humans, not out of simple curiosity, of course, but out of the need for deconditioning. Unfortunately, we have this strange persistent determination: in our journey toward deconditioning, we create new mind patterns and so we add new layers of conditioning between us and the final liberation that we seek, always pushing it forward in a future that never comes.

We forget all the time that, by definition, the future never comes.

What actually could have happened to the Buddha?

First: A traumatic event: he crosses the threshold of the paradisiac, protective environment as he steps out of his comfort zone and acquires this straightforward visualization of illness, old age and death. These moments of despondency equate with the call to adventure, to a heroic endeavor, and with a new type of mindset, that is: a new type of conditioning.

Second: he accepts the challenge, starts questioning everything and leaves the protection of the environment, the mirage, the world of appearances and so he sets off for a seeking adventure that we all are very familiar with, because there are so many seekers around us and there is a seeker in each of us as well.

This is his philosophical and ascetical stage. During the quest, he becomes acquainted with all major philosophies of India and with all religious belief systems of his time. In addition, he gets along well in yoga practices.

Nevertheless, this is not the Buddha yet, this is only an exchange of IDs.

He just traded the illusion of a prince who is terrified by illness, old age and death for the life of renunciation. Not only did he see the appearances of suffering, but also, he found himself ensnared by the illusory powers of a monk, whose meditative demeanor would have seemed, back at the moment of his departure, as the only way out of suffering.

Illumination is now the last desire that he’s got left, an ardent desire that makes him push every spiritual practice beyond the limit. This is his new hope, his new dream and his new kind of expectation. Namely: the enlightenment that will happen sometimes, soon, in the future, as a result of renunciation and constant practice.

Henceforth, he exchanges the identity of a prince for the identity of a philosopher and a wondering monk. He is in this stage a seeker of enlightenment; he is seeking a state of mind where there is no suffering.

Now, don't get me wrong, this effort was necessary, like the training in the ballet. The movements in ballet seem effortless because there is such a great deal of effort behind, that is -all those years of hard work and exercise. Therefore, this need for understanding was a preparatory stage to both the Enlightenment and to the later doctrine of the Eightfold Path.

The last stage, under the Bodhi Tree, is that stage where the former prince Siddhartha and present mendicant leaves the vehicle behind: the seeking, the effort, the journey, the idea of a purpose, the idea of identity, the idea of idea, the need for understanding, the path itself.

He now comes to this realization:

How could there be a path, when there is no tomorrow?

I have come to realize that only when the human being that we know call the Buddha was able to give up the effort (the need to understand, to explain, to achieve awakening etc.), then and only then he actually awakened.

This supreme renunciation, which is giving up the desire to reach enlightenment, made him capable of looking at himself with an equal eye and in a state of utter equanimity. Prince Siddhartha, the monk, the philosopher, the Awakened One and "this body" and "emptiness" – they all are the same thing. In other words, he was able to assume each of these evanescent identities and, at last, to look at himself from the highest perspective, which is the radiant core of the consciousness of the entire Universe. This means that at this final stage he doesn’t care that much about any of these identities because, in essence, he comes to the realization that there is no identity whatsoever.

There is no clinging, no fear, no attachment, no duty and no identity, besides the functional-relational one. Of course, he remains fully aware that this is a human body, this is its masculine gender; this body must be fed and so forth. However, there is no subject of suffering anymore there to be found, there is no longer an "I" and no duality. The body is going to encounter pain, old age, illness and death, BUT there is a still point, a motionless place within, and he is now capable to seal off this center of pure awareness from any suffering, as the sense of the “I” has vanished. Nirvana is the pure and peaceful awareness that has remained after extinguishing the flame of the “I”.

There is no suffering anymore because there is no longer a sufferer.

This is what happened when the ego dissolved completely, as the need to reach Enlightenment was the last barrier between him and Enlightenment.

For both conventional and teaching reasons, he might have continued to act in the world in this or that way, but the sense that there is an "I" was no longer active in him, even when he would speak in first person, delivering sermons and so on.

The stage after the last stage: teaching - return journey and the necessity of a map

The Buddha did not follow and did not need the Eightfold Path for himself. He creates this kind of design in order to make this process of deconditioning accessible to others and I don't think that in creating this (let's say) therapeutic doctrine he has to struggle too much. It just pours out. He doesn't make any additional effort, the understanding is there, so complete, that the entire Universe is now speaking through his mouth. The effort is purely physiological: he just has to open up his mouth and speak.

The Buddha has ventured into uncharted waters by himself and when he later "returns" to the community, he draws up a map for the rest of the humankind. Therefore, we now think that the map is necessary, and there is a yonder shore. Nevertheless, for him, no map had been necessary and in the last stage of his quest, under the Bodhi Tree, he discovers that when the effort comes to a halt, the yonder shore is everywhere and everything. All this adventure of the Buddha was necessary maybe in order to prove that the center is everywhere.

The center is total awareness.

 We all have our own Bodhi-Tree

There is a tree of enlightenment for every one of us, waiting for us, ready for us, specially designed for us. We spend our entire lives running and running to get there and sit down under our own Bodhi Tree.

Eventually, we realize that it can’t be somewhere out there, but it’s in here and everywhere at the same time. There is no need to plan, to go or to run in order to grasp it sometimes in the future. We can give up the path altogether.

We just have to open up to the suchness of any given experience and thereby sanctify the place and the moment we are in.

Thresholds of Awareness

 “This Self is That which has been described as Not this, not this.
It is imperceptible, for It is not perceived;
Undecaying, for It never decays; unattached, for It is never attached;
Unfettered, for It never feels pain and never suffers injury.

Him who knows this, these two thoughts do not overcome: For this I did an evil deed and For this I did a good deed.
He overcomes both. Things done or not done do not afflict him.”
 (BrihadAranyaka Upanishad, 4.4.22) 

Some important questions that may arise

What is the Self (ātman) that the ancient Indian scriptures talk about?

Where and how can It be found? In other words: Who am I?

The fictions that you used to think of as real

In order to answer these questions, or at least to find out whether they can be answered at all, we first have to make an enquiry into what the Self is not.

The following enumeration, drawn-up almost randomly, is meant to illustrate the practical and psychological implications of this statement (i.e. “Neti, neti”), whose aim is to integrate human consciousness into a larger dimension that transcends all categories of thought.

Therefore: You are not the things you are able to think or believe to be you. So, do not believe everything you think and do not think everything you believe to be the true. Thinking is a tool through which one can only deny that which one isn’t.

You are not your name, nor are you your physical appearance, nor your mental image, nor your mind projections about yourself. You are neither your mind nor its functions. You're not any of the representations of your mind.

You are not your thoughts, feelings, emotions, nor your moods whatsoever. You are no thing that arises and subsides in this empty space of your consciousness.

You are neither your social nor your biological function. You are neither your physical body nor its multiple sensory organs and motor functions. You're not a child, you're not young, you're not old, and you’re neither a man nor a woman. You are not your profession; neither are you the father nor the mother, son, daughter, husband, wife. You're not the friend, the lover, the enemy, the partner. You are not the relationship with the others, with the environment, with God. You are neither your religion nor your ideas, nor your faith, nor your religious beliefs. You're not an ideology, a doctrine whatsoever. You are neither your social status nor your social and professional accomplishments, nor are you your responsibilities as a family member. You are neither your reputation nor are you the failures.

You're not one and the same with your ethnicity, race and species where you think you belong. These memberships, associations and allegiances are temporary, contingent and conventional.

You are neither your memories nor your experiences, be they pleasant or painful, nor are you your plans for the future. Neither pleasure nor pain, nor desire, nor dreams, nor despair, nor fear, nor hope.

No gain, no loss and no retribution can ever affect That who you really are.

You're not any of the comfortable things which you have surrounded with nor your daily habits, good or bad, you are none of that which is known and familiar. You are neither your material possessions nor your theoretical knowledge, nor the books you've read, nor your information, nor the languages that ​​you speak. You are not the professional qualifications that you have, nor are you the academic status that you have managed to acquire with such big efforts.

You are no thing, no knowledge, and no characteristic that can ever be acquired, possessed, learned and understood.

You haven’t been born on the date printed on your birth certificate nor will you die on the date that will be printed on your death certificate.

You are neither your physical nor moral strengths, nor weaknesses. You are not one and the same with your vices and virtues, sins or pious deeds.

All of these are but your vehicles, layers and sheaths.

You do not have any feature that can be expressed otherwise than through metaphors. Words can only render those transitional forms that are projected within the space of consciousness.

Whatever you believe or think you are, you're not.

And never will you be.

An ancient reductionist approach

Who are you, then?

An ordinary human identity revolves around the characteristics listed above. One cannot know oneself unless he/she drops off any sense of identity derived therefrom. When you no longer identify yourself with these layers, sheaths and clothes, the pure Consciousness that remains after you have dropped away all forms and concepts that come and go - that pure Consciousness with no content and shapeless - that’s you. But can you think of it? Of course not. However, these are the implications of the “neti, neti” epistemological approach quoted at the beginning of this essay. It doesn’t address the rational mind but rather the intuition.

"Neti, neti" means “not this, not this” or “neither this nor that” and represents one of the great statements of Brihad - Aranyaka – Upanishad (c.8^th century BCE). It explicitly arrives to this conclusion: the absolute can only be expressed and experienced by progressively subtracting all elements pertaining to the relative phenomenal existence. All that remains after this reductionist and apophatic operation is Atman, which is the same with the Soul, the Spirit or the Self. Everything else is more or less illusory and ultimately, the whole universe is just a thought that arises in the Supreme Consciousness of Brahman.

The mind has an enormous and at the same time subtle power to design fictitious realities, however, the “illusory” existence is not in fact synonymous with non-existence or non-reality, it is rather some kind of adjacent, accessory, dependent or relative reality, which varies according to the level of Self-awareness or Consciousness. So, the ontology of the Upanishads is entirely epistemological, meaning that Consciousness (“cit”) is one and the same with Being (“sat”) and consequently, the different worlds (gods, humans, animal and plant lives, mineral substances etc.) acquire their different levels of “reality” only to the extent to which they are informed by this transpersonal, universal Consciousness. The Sanskrit word māyā was translated as “illusion” in the western world and this is the common standard that I use, but a more precise rendering would be “non-autonomous reality” or “dependent existence”. The so-called visible existence is not entirely a creation of the mind, as it is usually understood, since “projecting” is not one and the same with “creating”. The mind is only a lens which distorts the light of the Self, or of the all-pervasive Consciousness. Even the so-called “ego” is not entirely created “from scratch” by the mind and thereby it is not purely non-existent, the ego is only the confusion between the intellect or any other “fragment” of phenomenal reality and the Self – in other words the Self, but the Self as seen through a distorting lens (i.e. the intellect) – Self as the World. These fragments of reality and mind projections represent the basic stuff out of which the apparent Self, or the Ego, is made out of. The ego is your identification with fragments of reality, waves emerging on the surface of the Ocean of Being. As an example: only the ego can state “This is my body”, “this thought and/or this knowledge is mine”, “my reputation”, “I have a headache” etc. This sense of “I do” or “I have” is in fact the ego. A correct perception of all phenomena, from the Upanishadic viewpoint, would be lacking any feeling of possession or any personal involvement: “There is pain in this head” instead of “I’ve got a headache” and so on. So, when making a careful enquiry, you will find that all of your thoughts and emotions, and the sense of “I”-ness on top of them, arise in this dimension of time and that they are impermanent. They are born and they disappear shortly thereafter.

These conclusions that I merely transcribe in the form of a short essay cannot be reached by a purely theoretical approach, but only by a thorough in-depth, introspective exercise, which is called enquiry into the nature of the Self (Skr. ātma-vicāra). Ramana Maharshi, one of the great Indian saints of the 20^th century was the one to bring to the western mainstream audience the ancient reductionist technique of self-enquiry, even authoring a short treatise called Self-Enquiry (Vichara-Samgraha). Both the method of Self-Enquiry and the spiritual magnitude of its proponent reached the western readers in 1934, when Paul Brunton published his book In Search of Secret India, which recounts the author’s meeting with R. Maharshi in 1931. The technique of self-enquiry is not a metaphysical argumentation, but an experiential intuitive vision, involving all resources, potentialities and energies of the human psyche. As an example of the deep spiritual transformation which is envisaged by this method, I reproduce below the account of Maharishi’s personal spiritual experience as quoted by a visitor in 1945. This is how Maharshi, in a vision of death, had experienced that pure essence of the human being that undergoes neither death nor decay, called Atman, Self, Soul or Spirit:

“In the vision of death, though all the senses were benumbed, the aham sphurana (Self-awareness) was clearly evident, and so I realized that it was that awareness that we call "I", and not the body. This Self-awareness never decays. It is unrelated to anything. It is Self-luminous. Even if this body is burnt, it will not be affected. Hence, I realized on that very day so clearly that that was "I" “

The method described by R. Maharshi follows the Indian tradition, being one essentially experimental and aiming to drive the awareness of the individual to his inner essence, the Self (soul, ātman), which, paradoxically, is one and the same with that very awareness.

It should be noted that although the Indian mind can feel perfectly comfortable in the area of pure metaphysical speculation, yet achieving those great truths discovered by generations of rishis within the innermost space of the human psyche is a dominant feature of Indian spirituality. The Self-knowledge, in the sense of transcending any conditioned reality, which is synonymous with the realization of the Unconditioned that is actually beyond the individual, is the ultimate goal of any philosophical school and of any religious endeavor in India.

Although the Self, like God him-(or it-)self, defies any attempt of conceptualization, we can still say, in a pretty relative and conventionalist manner, that the Self is that which never dies in the human being, that the Self is in fact the very human being, or, even more appropriate, the “being” component of the “human being”. Other synonymous concepts are in use in the western world: soul, spirit, consciousness, super-conscious, trans-conscious, transpersonal, overself, oversoul. Author and spiritual teacher Eckhart Tolle, for instance, who confessed that his teaching is a “coming together” of the teachings of R. Maharshi and J. Krishnamurti, calls the same essence (as synonymous terms) sacredness, spaciousness, being, one life, awareness, peace, stillness, formless, source, energy. So, it’s the same ancient Upanishadic truth expressed in different words, all of which are, of course, metaphors.

Since the Self is by its very essence undefinable, the Upanishads often make effective use of negation, in order to deduct, first of all, that which the Self is not. The ancient Vedāntic method promoted by R. Maharshi, the Self-enquiry, resorts to a reductionist process: the Self is "found" by preliminarily and gradually denying whatever the Self is not, starting with one’s physical body and the automatic stream of thinking.

R. Maharshi’s own words as quoted in P. Brunton’s book convey the essence of his teachings:

“Trace thought to its place of origin, watch for the real self to reveal itself, and then your thoughts will die down of their own accord.”

Freedom of thought from an Indian perspective

Form an Indian perspective, freedom as a socio-political goal only reenacts on a visible level the actual and deep truth of the spiritual freedom or “mokṣa”. To a western reader of India’s philosophies, it is this astonishing discrepancy between our freedom of thought and India’s freedom from thought that can make one reconsider almost entirely one’s life perspective. The bondage has no social sources - it is identical with psychological conditioning, having as primordial cause the nescience, avidyā. As a consequence, the inner experience of release is synonymous with experiencing on an individual and very concrete level the deconditioning of the mind, which is always seen as the device or vehicle of spiritual transformation.

The trouble with the so-called ordinary thought processes is that the thinker is thought by his/her thoughts and he/she is not a thinker, in fact, because the fluctuating attention running incessantly from past to future and from thought to thought recreates again and again one’s identity around each impermanent fragment of reality, to the extent to which the “thinker” can no longer be perceived as an active handler of mental processes, but a passive victim, a divided consciousness who dries out by repeatedly taking up the transient form of thoughts and virtually incarnating in thoughts. Very often, the mind is entirely trapped in thoughts, which can become energy leeches and ultimately, in pathological cases, mind-killers. This is how the “normal” thinking operates. So, there is no freedom of thought in our daily lives and no social uprising or reform can bring it about.

Real freedom cannot be found unless we can manage somehow to recognize, and to abide in, that state of freedom that pre-exist all thoughts and remains ever unaffected by them.

And yet, people nurture this illusion – they can think freely. This is a core statement in any bill of rights and in every constitution: freedom of thought. But in fact, no constitution can bring about or protect this freedom of thought, because people do not think, they are only being thought by their own thoughts. Freedom from thought would have to be obtained before achieving freedom of thought. Usually, the individual is driven by his/her unconscious mind patterns and imprints that emerge into the manifested, apparently conscious mind, in the shape of these unstoppable thoughts. Furthermore, these unconsciously-born thoughts determine people’s unconscious behaviors. They may seem conscious, from a psychological point of view, however, the way one acts is conditioned by billions of past conditioning imprints. There can be no freedom, unless some form of release supersedes the mind conditioning. Realizing the Unconditioned or de-programming the mind is the main goal of any of India’s philosophies and religions, for thousands of years.

The search for freedom of thought is a spiritual quest, not a political agenda. And it’s also a heroic adventure, because the old egoic self has to be sacrificed. It has to die in order to release the sacred light from within, which is called the Self of Indian philosophy and religion, ātman. Without freedom of thought there is no freedom at all, this is a universal truth, but the real freedom of thought means that you are able to think whenever and whatever it is truly beneficial, as it were, the real freedom of thought cannot be gained prior to obtaining the freedom from thought. Usual thoughts arise automatically and unconsciously and they are very often repetitive, unproductive or even toxic overflowing reverberations of your mind.

Thresholds of Awareness

A well-known mantra in Brihad Aranyaka Upanishad defines the essence of this teaching:

“Lead me from the unreal to the real.

From darkness lead me to light.

From death lead me to immortality”. (1,3,28)

One’s salvation, in India’s principal philosophies and religions, resides in simply knowing one’s true Self, one’s innermost nature. The conclusion that was reached by ancient India is that there is a consciousness that transcends all thoughts and forms and all minds and in the absence of which there is no mind, no thought, no name, no form. In India, this consciousness pre-exists thought, mind, matter and energy and at the same time, sustains them all. There is no own “light” in the human brains or in the human mind. The “light” of the brains or the mind’s reflexivity is the same with the light of the moon, which only reflects the light of the sun. So, the brain is the vehicle for the mind, which in turn is only a tiny reflection of the absolute consciousness in this space-time dimension. This view was clearly pointed out in the classical yoga system of Patañjali:

“The mind is not self-illuminating, as it can [also] be perceived [in its own right] as an object of knowledge.” (Patañjali, Yoga-Sūtra, 4,19)

This is why the space between two consecutive thoughts is sometimes indicated as one of the gateways unto one’s inner eternal dimension.

You derive your sense of identity from your thoughts. This is the “disease”, i.e. the root-problem to be solved by any Indian philosophical system. “Disease” means in fact “normal human condition”. In most cases, a metaphysical system or a religious path is purposefully designed as some kind of cure or therapy for the universal “illness” of ignorance (avidyā), which is the main cause of all human misery (duḥkha). The Buddha himself taught his method as some kind of therapy. The following sūtra is ascribed to him: “I teach one thing and one thing only: suffering and the end of suffering”, which is very consistent with his teachings, even though his authorship of this aphorism is under debate.

The “self-enquiry” therapy begins by questioning the solidity and the absolute reality of thought. Whenever the mind gets involuntary dragged into this stream of thoughts, constantly generating anxiety and unhappiness, this automatic flow is blocked by introversion, by repeatedly turning the mind inwardly, into its own source, using such queries as: "To whom does this thought, this care, this problem occur?" In other words: who is that witness (Skr. “sakṣin”), who is that still awareness that is able to experience the turmoil?   

Gradually, one becomes able to see that every thought has an ephemeral life - that is, a second-hand existence, and the mind itself is "colored" by this incessant flow of thoughts that come and go and bring about a false sense of "I"-ness, which is the source of human suffering of all kinds (from the simplest, short-lived “missing the bus” dissatisfaction to the extreme tragedies).

Thoughts come and go like tiny clouds on the sky. The trouble with “ordinary” thinking is that it automatically leads you into believing that clouds are very solid and very durable, that they are long lasting structures. But they are not. They are only appearances.

We can look upon this spiritual evolutionary process underwent by human consciousness getting the witness perspective as a series of ever ascending, spiraling thresholds of awareness. From the impersonal “IT” perception of things, going on through the personal “YOU” perspective, the human consciousness undergoes an in-depth metamorphosis and finally arrives to a “THOU” perception of reality, wherefrom it can open up to the transpersonal sacredness of each being and each thing. Each threshold is true and necessary in its’ own right and its’ system of references (even the level of consciousness that makes you believe that you are a physical body) provided that every superior stage incorporates harmoniously and creatively the previous one. So, the higher you climb on this spiritual spiraling stair-case, your vision will always integrate the lower levels, making you capable of empathy or compassion as you carry within you the deep and thorough understanding of the previous steps. This integrating witnessing perspective makes you able to teach the spiritual path to others, as you become able to understand each system of references, each “degree” of reality and each corresponding stage of self-awareness.

This transformation of consciousness begins at the lowest level, when one sees him/herself as identical with the thought processes and mental images, as this false identification leads to stress, anxiety or even terrible suffering. The suffering is the “ignition” or the triggering event in any spiritual awakening and this is why in India ignorance and suffering don’t have the usual malefic connotation of the “sin” of the Christianity. The suffering has no evil person or event in the background. The current human condition is not the result of any primeval sin or fall, but of the primeval ignorance, which is a very metaphysical and psychological approach. In Eastern terms, you are not capable of becoming aware of yourself because you are permanently dragged away by your noisy thoughts, which “cloud” your real self to the extent to which you perceive yourself as being in fact, your mind-created image of yourself.

So, this is when one crosses the first threshold of awareness, the jumping-off point: when one can step out of one’s stream of thinking and becomes able to “see” one’s own thoughts and body, as a witness, observer or a dispassionate watcher. When you find out that your thinking and your body are not who you truly are, your hidden spiritual light is ready to emerge and the transformation of your consciousness is unstoppable. By continuously returning the mind unto its own source, this avalanche of thoughts subsides and finally disappears, coming back again only when thoughts are really useful, when they are “summoned”, so to speak.

In the front of the first threshold of awareness, you are able to be aware that a thought was a mere thought only after the thought has passed away. It’s only the beginning, but it’s a realization of the uttermost importance. This first step can be called anamnestic awareness. In the next step, which I call synchronic awareness, you are able to recognize the thought for what it is as it shows up. In the following stage, which can be called anticipatory awareness, you will be able to foresee the thought that is about to emerge and you become an observer, a non-attached witness. And also you can recognize a toxic or negative thought for what it is even before it arises, and become able to stop it beforehand. By constantly cultivating such a progressive witnessing perspective one can arrive to a unified field of consciousness, which is a concept that I obviously borrowed from physics. In this step, one’s all-pervasive consciousness becomes one and the same with the Totality, with the Whole or with the One. So, the separation process of the witness-consciousness, which becomes aware of itself as a no-thought, no-thing, no-object etc., ends up as a unifying force which integrates everything, including one’s own body and mind processes. In this stage you are not a particular thought or a particular thing or a state of mind, but the Wholeness in which all things and thoughts arise and pass away. You can then act from the perspective of an unconditioned consciousness, undisturbed by that which is happening in this time-space dimension, which is only its’ surface and from that still point that is the hub of the whirling existence, where the motion (i.e. time) and the motionless (i.e. eternity) co-exist. “Things done or not done do not afflict him” means that for those to whom the self-awareness has stabilized, the space-time dimension, the visible word, is perceived only as the manifestation of the invisible, unchanging Self, which remains ever unaffected by what happens at its surface.

The illusion (māyā) has two main powers (śakti): the first power  of māyā is the obscuring and concealing power (āvaraṇa), which blocks the auto-reflexivity of consciousness whereas  the second power is the projecting power (vikpṣepa) which replaces the self-awareness with the mental images of the universe and the forms of transient states of mind or thoughts. By reflecting itself in this tiny “pond”, the absolute consciousness obscures itself. This is the so-called “obscuring”, “clouding”, “veiling” or “covering” (lit. āvaraṇa) power of māyā, which prevents you from being aware of your own awareness, followed by the projecting power of māyā, which leads you into perceiving yourself as a mental image, a thought, a transitory state of consciousness, a physical body, a social identity and so forth (as listed at the beginning of this post). In order to “reveal” yourself, your real Self, you will have to reverse the whole process. The veil that clouds the awareness of one’s real self and replaces it with the mental projections is called superimposition (adhyāsa). The spiritual “technique” of self-enquiry aims to reversing the superimposition by deconstructing and removing (apavāda) the inconsistent pseudo-reality created by thought.

When the Consciousness objectifies itself as a visible form, or, in other words, when the consciousness experiences itself as a temporal reality, only then can It be conceptualized. When the One Consciousness reveals itself as an object or a thought, it paradoxically and simultaneously obscures itself. This is why it is so hard to see beyond the world of dancing and playing forms (Skr. “rūpa”) and concepts (Skr. “nama”), the underlying reality. However, the objectified, the manifested or the visible aspect of reality, as a whole, in other words, this dance of māyā represents, for India, just a symbolic representation of the absolute Being or the Unmanifested, that vibrates both through this phenomenal existence and as this phenomenal existence.

This is in fact a vision that will be later developed in a masterpiece: The Bhagavad-Gītā, the gatherer of the core principles of all Hindu thought. The same paradoxical vision is summarized by H. Zimmer in his marvelous work “Myths and Symbols in Indian Art and Civilization”:

“Regarded from the viewpoint of the Divine itself (a position attained in the enlightenment of yoga), the apparently contradictory aspects of existence – creation, duration, dissolution –are one and the same as to origin and meaning and end. They are the changing phenomenal self-expressions of the one divine substance or energy of life, which, though revealed in a threefold way, is finally beyond, and unaffected by, all the changes that it seems to inflict upon itself. The understanding of this unity is the goal of Hindu wisdom (…) Hindu wisdom, Hindu religion, accepts the doom and forms of death as the dark-tones of a cosmic symphony, this tremendous music being the utterance, paradoxically, of the supreme quietude and silence of the Absolute”.

In other words, the relative world of māyā as a whole is a metaphorical rendering of the absolute, which is the Self.

The mind itself, as the entire contingent existence is a vibration (Skr. “spandita”) of the unmanifested consciousness. The mind is reabsorbed back into the unmanifested consciousness during deep sleep, coma or death, or during the state of rapture (the mystic trance, ecstasy or “sāmadhi”), in the same way that ripples merge with the ocean whence they sprang up. The ripples are only apparent and impermanent vibrations of the ocean and have no distinctive existence apart from the existence of the ocean. From the point of view of Advaita Vedānta, which is the official, so to speak, philosophy of the Hinduism, the ripples have only an illusory or secondary existence. "What exists in truth is the Self alone. The world, the individual soul, and God are appearances in it.” [R. Maharshi, “Who Am I?" (“Nan Yar?”)].

This simile of the waves or ripples on the surface of the water is frequent in the school of Vedānta and it is always used in order to illustrate how the “māyā” can occur in the mind. The mind grasps only fragments of reality and believes them to be true. But reality is “true” only when perceived as a whole, as the ocean, and “false” when the fragments, “ripple”, “waves”, i.e. objects or thoughts are perceived as autonomous entities and not recognized for what they are: vibrations within the unique consciousness.

Thou Art That

After the reality of all this mind-constructed order has been denied, all that remains is the space of the consciousness’ canvas on which there are painted all these physical phenomena and impermanent states of consciousness. This space is synonymous with Self-awareness, the spirit, the soul, the imperishable essence, Atman. That's you. “Tat twam Asi”, as it’s been said in Chandogya Upanishad, 6,8,7. (“Now, that which is the subtle essence—in it all that exists has its Self. That is the True. That is the Self. That thou art, Svetaketu”).

This is the road pointed out by the great sages who authored the Upanishads: from the supreme reductionist negation ("neti, neti "=”neither this nor that”) of Brihad - Aranyaka – Upanishad, to the ultimate affirmation ("tat twam asi"=”thou art that”) in Chandogya Upanishad, without them being in any way contradictory, since all this road of spiritual awakening consists of crossings of successive thresholds of awareness and layers of reality.

All these steps and thresholds reveal, one after another, new and larger dimensions of the same reality, which, although unchangeable as such, vibrates in different frequencies. Every new threshold opens you up to a fresh perspective, which encompasses also the perspectives gained in the previous stages. So, all these thresholds are true and necessary in their own way and constitute parts of an evolutionary process.

Looked upon as a part, you might appear as identical with any of the entities and characteristics listed at the beginning of this essay. They all are but mere fragmentary undulations of the one consciousness that transcends time and space, which is beyond any name and form but without which, however, there can be no form, no name, no action and no energy. Therefore you are, ultimately, all these things, too. Only, they are all, together, entirely, within you, because you are this One Life or Totality that temporarily wears a human cloth, a human body. All this big Universe stretches in you and Thou Art That. You are unstirred; you are ever still, although these raging colossal forms of existence unfold within you.  

Ignorance derives from one’ tendency to identify oneself with one or another particular component of the phenomenal universe, which generates feelings of alienation, separation and fragmentation. When you no longer identify yourself with this name, with this form, with a physical shape, a mental imprint, when you no longer consider yourself as an individual, a person, you are merged with the totality of existence. This is why, in the non-dualistic view of the Upanishads, “jīvātman” or the Self (the individual soul) is identical with Brahman, the totality or the supreme Self (“adhyātman”, “paramatman”) or God.

When you realize the illusory existence (as separate entities) of names ("nāma”) , forms (“rūpa”) and actions (“karman”), you cease to identify yourself (or your Self) with those separate and relative aspects of an absolute existence and henceforth the individual consciousness is reabsorbed in this Totality, in the same way in which the river merges with the ocean toward which it flows.
This is liberation, mokṣa.

Beyond being and non-being, where nothingness and wholeness merge

This is the great Indian paradox in which two Upanishadic statements, apparently opposite, coalesce, a standard coincidence of opposites in the sense that the supreme negation equals to the supreme affirmation if and insofar they are properly understood, as pointers to the same reality. The absolute reality reveals itself and obscures itself at the same time, as every manifested phenomena emerging from the unmanifested underlying reality represents simultaneously the coverage and the indication of the transcendent source. The veiling power of māyā is identical, from another perspective, with the revealing power of māyā. The manifested reality is the vehicle that could take us to the unmanifested. In fact, this is a function of symbols in general and Indian creation myths express the same truth, but on a larger scale, as pointed out above – this whole relative creation is only a symbolic expression of the Absolute or the dream in the absolute consciousness, which is sometimes personified by Vishnu, whose dream is this whole visible existence.

So, from the standpoint of the paradoxical and apophatic approach of the Upanishads, the boundaries between such categories as being and non-being tend to be erased. “Neither this nor that” of Brihad Aranyaka Upanisad equals to “Thou Art That” of Chandogya Upanishad, since the absolute existence transcends all categories of thought, including being and non-being. When you say you're nothing, nothingness or no-thing-ness, this might appear as the way of the Buddha, which is no coincidence at all, because Buddha’s birth some one or two hundred years after Brihad Aranyaka Upanisha is no mere accident. The “nothingness” concept is deeply rooted in the apophatic vision of the Upanishads and this is true with the Buddha’s teaching itself. The Buddha’s “emptiness” or “śūnyatā” is a way of expressing the same paradoxical merging of being and non-being.

Furthermore, in Buddhist terms, when you say that you're nothing (no-thing), when there is no subject of the drama of the existence, nor is there any sense of “I”, moreover, no “Self”, no soul, nothing can be lost, nothing can be found, yes, this can be a liberating feeling. Maybe this annoying question would yet persist: “To whom is this feeling liberating, if I am nowhere to be found, if I’m gone to the yonder shore?” The answer is that this final question is irrelevant, so long as the liberating feeling is there. A liberating feeling is the ultimate goal of any religious experience and not a conceptual truth.

This is the crossroad of two apparently opposite views: Hinduism (The Upanishads, Bhagavad Gītā, Vedanta Sūtra etc.), which posits a soul or an immortal Self, on one hand and Buddhism, on the other hand, which asserts that there is no such thing as the Self, but only an aggregate or composite structure consisting of ever fleeting but nonetheless ever interconnected thoughts, lacking any inner essence or Self. This means that there are no entities, there are only processes.

The distinction between the Upanishadic Hinduism that posits an all-integrating immortal Self and the Self-denying Buddhism is only apparent; they just use different symbols and metaphors for the same truth. The consciousness within you that rejoices at the idea that you are no-thing-ness and the feeling just as liberating that says that you are the immortal Self, is one and the same.

Probably, I’m not the only one to owe to Ramana Maharshi this intuitive, paradoxical understanding of being and non-being, which had been originally stated in the Upanishads, but which becomes evident after your read the almost obsessive references he made to the experience of deep sleep since apparently there is neither experiencer nor experience whatsoever during the state of dreamless sleep. Ramana Maharshi stated again and again that if you look a little bit closer, there is a memory of the deep sleep. His method, as I said earlier, was simple: focusing the unified flow of consciousness on the experiencer instead of the experience. This practice of refocusing on the experiencer leads you to the intuitive experience of a consciousness beyond and underneath deep sleep, coma, death, being and non-being, which in Mandukya Upanishad is called “turīya”, or “the fourth [state of consciousness]”. The “fourth state of consciousness” is the essence, the seed or the unconditioned-Consciousness manifesting as the Self in the three states of waking, dream and dreamless sleep. In other words, it takes a consciousness beyond being and non-being for one to be able to experience even the non-being or, more properly said, to be aware of the non-being, of the no-experience and no-thought. By pointing out to the thoughtless (and apparently unconscious) “experience” of the deep sleep R. Maharshi was trying to demonstrate that there is a common ground for both being and non-being, reality and illusion, that it’s possible to actually experience the non-being, as a detached observer residing in the “background” awareness which lies underneath the waking state, the dreaming and dreamless sleep, coma and even death. I know that his arguments isn’t infallible, but still, it proves, on one hand, that ancient India’s meditation techniques explored thoroughly the apparently unfathomable depth of the human psyche and that no conceptual and therefore relative truth can describe what these generations of rishis have actually discovered in themselves.

As a conclusion, this undefinable Consciousness in which the Buddhist thought that you're nothing (or no-thing) was projected is the same Consciousness on which the Hindu thought that you are everything (or every-thing or all things) was projected.

You are this Consciousness.