Em-bodi-ment

Em-bodi-ment

Since my own awakening 25 years ago, I’ve had many dozens of discussions on Self-realization, one-on-one. What has been of great help to me in these discussions is that I’ve talked, written or read about this subject probably every day, for a couple of decades. In terms of the reading, it’s ranged from ancient classics to current publications. One thing that you notice, when reading enlightenment material, is that these teachings have been refined over the centuries. Look at the Vedas, and the difficulty the writers had in describing these matters. Even from a generation ago, the teachings of people like Alan Watts or Krishnamurti are being refined by spiritual teachers today. The most common concern that spiritual teachers hear—and you can hear this on CDs and DVDs, in the question-andanswer period—is: “I have an intellectual understanding of nonduality, but I don’t feel that I’m quite there yet. Is there something I’m missing?” To have an intellectual understanding is better than having no understanding at all. But, in many cases, what these persons are stumbling on is a common matter that has to do with what follows realization, and that’s what some teachers call “embodiment”—living out of the precepts, beyond merely awakening to them. The spiritual aspirant is seeking to be one with ultimate reality. Every spiritual and religious tradition has used in common a particular word to describe ultimate reality (or what is otherwise called God, the Absolute, Brahman, Tao,

etc.): omnipresent. Omni is Latin for “all”; present has both a time and a place sense to it, and the inference of “existing before being referred to.” The Latin is a combination of “before” and “essence.” So, omnipresence infers “that which is in existence in every time and place.” And there can only be one such thing, because any other would obviously occupy the same existing time and space. Thus, if you stabbed a pin, anywhere in the universe, into the air or into an object, the pin point would connect with the omnipresent. And if you reversed the pin and stuck it into your body, your brain, eye, tongue, etc., you could not avoid contact with omnipresence. Hence, the reason why omnipresence is used to indicate the ultimate reality is because there is no thing in existence which restricts the presence, or being, of ultimate reality. Not anything, material or immaterial, can be outside of the omnipresent. Therefore, the ultimate omnipresent reality must be where you (and all beings and objects) now are, outwardly as well as inwardly. This is the meaning of the Vedas’ “Tat Tvam Asi,” That (ultimate being) thou art. In other words, every human being’s utterance of the word “I” is issued from an organism totally immersed in and saturated by That. This unimpeded omnipresence inter-connects all of existence in the universe, in an unbroken, inseparable whole or one-ness. The word essence means “essential; that which anything cannot be without” or apart from; and not anything exists unimbued with this illimitable essence.

The significance of this, in terms of spirituality, is that our “essential nature” is not only the context in which we come into being, but also the context in which we act as

individuals. The word spirit means “life force,” and it is out of (or a consequence of) this ubiquitous life force that we think, speak, and do. So, when you recognize that there is only one ultimate reality and that it is the essence of all that exists, you realize that all that is thought, said, or done anywhere is attributable to this singular life force. This is exactly what is meant by the Gita’s teaching “You are not the doer of any of the deeds that are done.” Put another way: You are That; and That is what’s doing whatever it is that you suppose that you do—or say, or think, as well. When a seeker has come to recognize that, in a spiritual sense, “he” or “she” is superseded by a universal presence which eclipses our personal individuality, the seeker is said to have “awakened” to true nature. The nature of that revealed truth is that all is essentially one; while simultaneously that one is inherent in, and expressed in, all. In short, as the scriptures say, “There are no two things”— which is what “nonduality” means. With this intuited selfrealization, one’s seeking ends. However, upon this point of discovery, a concomitant insight needs to be availed. The major teachers of Advaita—such as Ramana Maharshi and Nisargadatta, and going back to Shankara—were from a different culture then we are. In the West, ours has always been Judeo-Christian. Even people who consider themselves to be atheists often don’t realize how heavily we are all conditioned by Christian concepts. Only 47 verses into Genesis, you have the idea of the tree of the knowledge of “good and evil.” The notion that something is good and something else is evil was not a common idea to every society, when this was written. We, here, have been conditioned to this premise, since our infancy.

Who, among us, does not have an imagined spectrum, or scale, in the mind, with “negative” at one end and “positive” at the other. Every experience that we have, we mentally assign a value on this scale, as somewhere toward the “good” or the “bad.” And our cultural heritage supports the idea that we should continually be moving everything from the negative end of the scale toward the positive. The consequence of this dualistic disposition is that our every aware thought is in terms of what we conclude should be happening, as opposed to what we declare shouldn’t be happening. There’s also another consequence. What “should be” and what “shouldn’t be” are prejudicial ideas concerning “what is.” This idea is what results in idealism: if we can move the what-is to what-should-be, that would be ideal personally. “I should be perfect”—somewhere off the scale, above “positive.” Even more ideal: “You should be perfect.” Where this leads us is away from the moment of being what we actually are, to some hoped-for distant moment when we—as a human—will be something no one has ever been. This is what is referred to in the spiritual teachings as “becoming,” versus being. For the spiritual seeker, this future ideal is often associated with enlightenment: “Some day, I am going to come into contact with ultimate reality, and live in an enviable state of unending bliss. Never again will I know a negative thought, a moment of anger, a lustful desire, and so on.” So, here’s where the rub comes in. Someone I am speaking with describes what they characterize as an “intellectual” understanding of the

precepts of nonduality. But what I am hearing them describing is that they have awakened to the truth of their true nature, as the teachings of Self-realization consistently portray it. Upon this discovery, whether it was dramatic or not, there was a period of relief and ease and awe. But all things change: even in enlightenment, observed phenomenon come and go. Somewhere, in the daily life, this person notices a moment of anger, a judgmental thought, or a negative reaction. And their conclusion is: “I must not have gotten the message, or I’ve lost it. This occurrence shouldn’t be happening!” This is simply a matter of not yet fully integrating the awakened perspective. These teachings are telling us to transcend the dualistic spectrum, with its right-and-wrong, better-or-worse, goodversus-bad polarities. Self-realization, when embodied, or acted from, is “to be present with what is present”—good, bad or otherwise: whether or not the what-is happens to be what you presume it should be.

And here’s the kicker. Even when you are present to your moments of not reveling in clarity, you are nevertheless continuing to be present with what is present. Enlightenment is not some idealized fixed state of perfection. One of the books of Ramana’s teachings takes its title from his admonition: Be As You Are. Not as how you imagine a saint is supposed to be. When you are free to be—and at peace in being—who you are, that’s the embodiment part.