very frequently asked questions

It is quite a conceptual term meaning "not two" or without division, separation or opposites. Non-duality might be described as "oneness" but the difficulty is that oneness would need to be viewed from something outside itself to be known as one, this infers dualism; a subject and an object. Non-duality could be described simply as "neutrality" being neither a nothing/ empty/ absence/ -ve or an everything/ full/ presence/ +ve. Neutrality is zero. 

Many terms like this are expressed to illuminate or describe that, what is, cannot be known. Some terms seem to be more prone to conceptualisation for the me-state which can try to work out what a term means such as non-duality, empty-fullness, unconditional- neutrality, natural-reality, nothing apparently happening or nothing being everything. Other words might seem simpler and have less conceptual possibility: Immediacy, aliveness, wonder, unknowableness, what-is, this. No word is better or worse, they all have no meaning. They are all just expressed to give voice to what is. 

Words are energy, as is everything. Words around non-duality can seem very particular because what is voicing itself can be very easily turned into something other than what is spoken of. It is clear when non-dual language expresses from immediacy, or if there is "my" intention and agenda attached to it. However, the words and specifics of language  do not matter at all as they can never put across the nature of immediacy. 

This, what is, can never be taught because it isn't anything. For something to be taught there has to be assumed knowledge about it. It has to be an object, and a subject has to learn about it. A teacher is a knower, one, a student is the one that is learning, two. Two separate aspects is dualism. So, no there is an impossibility of teaching nothing-everything. No energetic exchange of any kind occurs and no message can be understood or is passed on. This isn’t an osmotic interchange or anything like it. Here, there is just a response to a question, that undermines the questioner. This response isn’t pointing a direction out, it's just always suggesting that there is no answer to the seeking of what already is, because it already is everything. This is repeated over and over in a multitude of different ways but it's always the same thing. It's always the same because there isn't anything else but what is. The expression of this, has no intention, it isn't suggesting that anything can be done, because the point is that nothing can be done, so any kind of direction derived from the expression here is not borne out of the expression but a miss-interpretation.

As such, anyone claiming to teach non-duality or any practice that is about becoming closer to that as an idea or ideal is simply contraction ("me") attempting to turn what is into dualism. "Non-duality" in this context becomes another object for "me" to obtain which someone who seemingly claims to have obtained it can help you find. This is pure delusion yet seemingly the far greater quantity of ideas in the world of interest about non-duality  are a "non-dual"-dualism. This is not suggesting that delusion is somehow wrong or bad, it is what it is; its energy in contracted form expressing dualism, because that’s all contraction does naturally. However, there is a huge contrast in what is expressed here. This has been called "radical" non-duality, but there is nothing radical about it. Non-duality is all there is, there isn't anything but non-duality so it's not radical its extremely ordinary. What is radical is a notion of "non-duality" that it is claimed, can be taught, that is a radical and also quite niche aspect of nature. The me-state is radical and niche within "common as muck" natural reality. As such it's something that is very much a part of the human story requiring a teacher and a student and a hierarchical ideology that is a playing out of the contraction of the me-state/ dualism.

From the seeming perspective of the me-state the simple and direct responses of a speaker can seem like knowledge. It can seem like there is someone who knows, being asked questions and giving seeming answers about a subject called "non-duality". This warped picture is inevitable as the me-state will always see and assume or overlay a hierarchical picture even if there isn’t one. Instead it is a seeming conversation had between energy that is contracted and seeking, with energy that is open and not seeking. The questions will naturally come from the seeker, not that which isn't seeking. Secondly the responses will always express in numerous different ways that the tense seeker, that seemingly attempt to find a resolution is in itself what it longs for. This is a mere reflection of what is, its not coming out of knowledge its just obvious that "a dog is chasing its tail", and that is what is expressed. It might be called a description or illumination but it is not a prescription, nothing can be prescribed. The nature of the me-state can't see past itself, it never will, it might just fall away. The description or conversation is never for the me-state, it will never understand what is, no-one ever does. As such the responses aren't for anyone, they are just expressing what is. 

Yes, it may be that the me-state doesn't believe what is being said or it creates a kind of strong circumspection of the speaker, questioning their validity…"why should I believe what is being said?". This is typical of the me-state in that it thinks that it is being manipulated in some way into a belief system that is then under the speaker's control. This can and does happen in any kind of teaching or guru-ism. However, if what is being expressed has no interest in the me-state at all and is not even acknowledging the me-state and it's belief system as a real and separate entity, this then is a different response. It's not even the same language, every time instead of answering the questions in fact the speaker is undermining the question itself and so the questioner. No question from the me-state in a non-duality meeting is ever answered, it is always an undermining of the questioner and seeking itself, this happens naturally and without intention.

Another point is that the speaker has absolutely no significance or importance or, another way of saying this is that the speaker is equally as significant as absolutely everything. Nothing is more significant than anything else as everything is unconditionally neutral in natural reality. So, anything that is said in a meeting by the seeming speaker is just energy in that form and the questioner is energy in that form. If there is a seeming "me" or seeming not-me, all there is, is energy so there is no more significant aspects of one "finger" than another of the same energetic "hand". In non-duality circles the me-state very often gets stuck on a particular speaker's expression or way of communicating, but ultimately it isn't a speaker's words or personality that are the "prize" to be sought for or the trigger to liberation, it’s the sudden recognition, for nobody, that there isn't anything significant about the speaker because there isn't anything significant about "me", there ends the questioner.

The first question might be "what does real mean?", generally most people would say that "real" is something that is known to "me", it has a solid quality that can be understood or is claimed to be true, is actual or has existence. Unreal conversely is something that doesn't have a solid foundation, that is a dream or illusion and so doesn't really exist. Real things are seen to really exist and have a separate essential quality. The foundation of what is considered real is associated with a clear sense that "I am". Because there is a sense of a contracted seemingly solid thing called "me" (subject) there is immediately a sense that everything else must be similarly contracted-solid things (objects) relative to this centre. So, what is thought to be real is everything that "I" knows and claims to be part of "my reality".

Natural-reality or what is, has no sense of an "I" or a "self", so there is no centre. Without a centre there is nothing that is known. So, there is nothing that can be considered real or unreal, unreal being relative to real. There is just what is. The "I" is a contraction of energy, it isn't a separate thing called "me" which is then the centre of everything and can say "I'm real and so everything else is real, relative to me"…no, that whole thing is simply irrelevant. This isn't real or unreal, it is what is. What is, doesn't require any verification or validation.

"Me" cannot find anything, there is no real entity called a "me". The "me" is a state of contraction of energy. This is expressed here as a stateof energy, the me-state. The me-state is a distorted view of natural reality and so within this seeming view there might seem to be something called "truth". This word similar to others like enlightenment, liberation, etc are seen by the me-state as objects to be obtained, as such the contracted energy is focused on attempting to obtain them. In natural reality there is no fundamental truth as an object, there is also no enlightenment or liberation as things that can be obtained. As such it can be said that "all there is, is truth", "all there is, is liberation" or "all there is, is enlightenment". This them makes a mockery of the idea than anything can be obtained as what is sought for is already everything. When seeking seems to fall away it is recognised that what was longed for in the form or truth, liberation or enlightenment etc was always constantly everything, so the question of finding something else evaporates.

Origin suggests that everything is in time. There is no possibility of time or space. What is, has no time for time, no time for space, it is what is. This is impossible to understand, nevertheless it is what is. Therefore, all ideas of time or space are really stories, they are invented ways that humans have lived in for what seems like a long time. When talking about historical context of things is always a story. There is just immediacy, there isn't anything else but immediacy. What seems to be happening or what seems to have happened or what might happen later are all different types of story called the present, past and future. The present is always actually about the close-past so in fact its only past or future stories. What seems to be happening or what is appearing to happen at this moment isn't happen-ing, there is no time, so in natural reality: nothing is happening. 

These stories are in immediacy. It can be said that things appear to happen. From the contraction of the me-state, everything is really happening, as "I" am real (subject) so time is real (object). However, when contraction falls away nothing is happening. Time and space become just stories, things might have the appearance of happen-ing to a "me" but are not really happening. Naturally things are not continuous, there is no continuum or frames linked together, there is just this as it is: energy apparently happening for the me-state, and when contraction ends, all there is, is this.

Anything spoken about "origin" is immediately a story, normally about when and how the contraction of "me" occurred in early human development or a closer past in how it develops in humans when they are very young. All this however is irrelevant. The desire for finding an origin is to find a solution. This is what motivates the desire to find out why something seemed to happen so that one can trace it back and find how to solve the problem of "me" by perhaps reversing what seemed to happen to bring it about. However, this is simply the solution-seeking of the me-state itself. Anything where the me-state tries to latch hold of a story to find a way to resolve it's tension is just something else that will inevitable re-enforce its position as a seeker on a journey to resolution and so adds fuel to the fire of the me-state. This is an unintentional starvation of that fire in that there is no such thing as time and so no origin, this is what is. The lack of solution to the predicament of the me-state tension pattern is deeply frustrating, but the same time it's relieving for that which underlies the tension and senses there is nothing to find. There's no beginning or end and so no origin and no destination possible.

"I" is one, "me" is two. This question is from the dualism of the me-state. The tension asks "how can I make myself feel less tense, what can I do about it?" The response is that the seeking and doing is the tension and is the "me" so  "you" can't do anything, there is no-one in there. The next question goes "so if I do nothing will that help?" and the response goes …If "you" are doing nothing, then "you" are still doing something, in the form of waiting or trying not to do. It’s the same thing. There is no solution for the me-state, it is a loop that keeps going around and going between action and waiting and action and waiting etc. Always on the move trying to get somewhere, like a dog on a chain trying to break free. Ultimately it doesn't matter how much the dog pulls or waits, the chain will rust away or cold can crack it of its own accord, nothing to do with the dog's activity or lack of it. 

 There is no answer to when, because all there is, is this immediacy, there is no time. Ultimately anyone who is even interested in the nature of non-duality is in a questioning of the validity of there being some separate real thing called "me". The me-state is already getting exhausted if that is brought into question. The contractive state of me, at some point simply just runs out of energy to keep going. It can't keep up the energy to keep the contraction going which voices questions and seeks. Somehow this breaks open, either in a huge sudden split or it gradually falls away over seeming years, till it finally falls off. There is no telling how that seems to happen, every me-state is unique. In the end it isn't that something "happens" but in fact that happening stops. The end of "me" is therefore the end of a quality of contraction, there is a relaxation of energy. This doesn’t necessarily mean there is less pain in the body but less tension for sure. Less tension can increase a sense of pain if there is actual bodily damage, or it can reduce pain that is very tied up with the contraction of being a "me" in the world, which usually has a lot of tension associated with it. Instead of "my pain" it's just pain, this means it isn’t magnified by the me-state's contraction.

Seeking isn't a choice. The me-state is a contraction of energy, it is that contraction that seemingly seeks, it isn't a choice as there is no-one in the body that can make any choice. The "me" is just a state of energy, it has no choice but to contract around things, it seems to hold onto things to seemingly claim them, even the word "seeking" personifies the ideology of there being an entity called "me" but it's just an almost mechanistic contraction of energy that naturally draws inwards, like an octopus quality, attaching to what it sees as objects and people and things and ideas and stories and claiming them to be "mine". 

However, this reaction is like a knee jerk response, it isn't a choice. It is simply how energy contracts. It is a trauma response in fact, the mother of all traumas; the sense of feeling separate from everything, everything feels a potential threat. This human-condition or hallucination IS the contraction of the me-state and it has a natural behaviour to contract. All of the questioning and seeking and thoughts associated with being a "me" are borne out of this quality, they aren’t anybody's seeking or questions they are simply the expression or voice of contraction. There is no choice as there is no-one pulling the strings, there is no possibility of free-will as there is no-one to have free-will. This flies totally against all forms of religious becoming as there isn’t anyone that can become anything and there is no possibility of anyone to blame.

What can be said is that seeking seems to end by itself, there isn't an approach or process that needs to be gone through to get to something because, there is nothing to get and this would be an intentional direction there by derived from the me-state, just again adding fuel to the fire of contraction. Anything attempted by contractive energy has the same result; more contraction. However, it is possible to see the whole nature of seeking and the whole energy around trying to find something as unintentionally cathartic. The tension of the me-state irritates the body and the irritation is expressed as seeking in all its billions of forms. This carries on till it runs out of energy to carry on anymore, or physical death of the body also kills the contraction. The end of the me-state can seem to happen absolutely totally spontaneously and instantly without ever hearing non-duality spoken of, it can also seem to happen after seemingly long and arduous seeking. Why it's different for different people and situations is anyone's guess but there isn't a pattern to it, it's an utterly natural quality of contraction letting go, just as leaves fall off trees. In the end, the loop or traumatic cycle of repetition ends. The habitual looping of the me-state cycle seems to let go and that can strike like lightening or like a morning mist lifting. This, can't be known.

The me-state is always looking for ways to alleviate its tension. There are so many ways that the me-state invents it's impossible to say all of them, however there are a few routes people normally take: mental practices (including routines, meditations and other self-hypnotics), physical practices (anything from extreme sports to yoga), substances and food, sex and cathartic expressions. This covers most bases but not all. Anything can be a vehicle to try to alleviate tension though a practice or method that either calm things down or conversely something that explodes and expands things and pushes them out in order for there to be a calming down effect afterwards. Ultimately the idea is that the tension is calmed or reduced. Different people find different methods more helpful. 

No method ever can touch the actual tension of the me-state, just the surrounding or excess tension in the body. The "engine" of the contraction is what drives it to look for a solution. While some things can calm superficially, there needs to be a constant maintenance and eventually this is given up as it dissatisfies, it won't work forever. The "me-state" once it claims the practice as "my practice" turns it into something that has a goal and this will naturally create tension. So, the answer is that the tension can be seemingly eased superficially for a short time, but the me-state remains as the underlying tension, until it seemingly doesn't.

Anything that seems to ease the tension that surrounds the me-state or seems to disrupt its continuity for a short time is something that is immediately latched onto as a "way to help myself". Whatever these "ways" are they are elevated in the seeking mind and focused on. Some of these can destroy the body along with disrupting the me-state tension and are considered as "bad habits" or "addictions", other things are seen as "good habits" because they seem to make the body stronger or more flexible, however both are two sides of the same coin, they are seeking in different forms. Neither are ultimately fulfilling, be it the path of the ascetic and "virtuous" monk or the path of the drunken drug taking sinner. The me-state is that which erroneously believes one thing is fundamentally better than another, good vs. bad. Neither direction or way can help and there is no choice in anything that is latched onto because no-one does this, it is just the nature of the contraction of the me-state that is simply the drive to find a solution. 

The preference to go towards one direction verses another to alleviate suffering is a lot to do with the simple natural attributes of a person's constitutional nature or genetics. Natural reality doesn't have good or bad, or any hierarchical quality, this is illusory. There is no such thing as "an addict", who has "an addiction", there is just seeking-contractive energy and what it does to try to feel better. That goes on until ultimately it doesn't and then with that end, the need or feeling to try to scratch the itch of "me" is no longer there as the itch has vanished. So, this isn't anyone's fault, there is no possibility of blame on any level, nor responsibility or recompense. There is no-one doing any of this. This is all there is.

All there is, is energy. The me-state is energy in the form of contraction. It seems to be a contraction within the human body's natural energy field, focusing in the brain but connected to the whole body. It seems to have an effect like a resistor in a circuit. It reduces the flow of energy around the body compared to when there is no contractive quality of energy. The contraction stems from the brain and yet effects all aspects of all the senses, having a contracting effect on the senses to some degree. This holding-in quality is not a constant state. The energy can be more or less contracted at some times than others. When the body is in deep sleep the contracted energy evaporates for a while, then regains function as the body wakes, it seems. It is probable that without the me-state having a switch off in deep sleep the tension would get too much for the body, hence humans need much more sleep than other animals. Our systems are less efficient when the me-state is extremely active. The nature of the me-state is what seems to separate us from other animals in that the abstract sense of "self" that the brain seems to generate or loop-into is the foundation of what could be called the contracted world view and also contracted world culture and civilization, that are alienated from nature it seems. This is a direct reflection of how the human being generally feels about itself as separate from the world.

Everything is just energy and energy is nothing-everything. So, the me-state is nothing-everything, it can't be said that it is unnatural, it is utterly natural and the sufferance of the me-state is also utterly natural, the me-state wasn't created by anyone and isn't about anyone as there is no-one. The me-state simply is, and then it isn't. There is no reason or purpose for the me-state or anything else, it is just energy appearing to be in that form.

When there is no me-state, the body energy simply functions more efficiently. There was never a real entity called a "me" so this is exactly the same in both bodies. However, when the tension of the quality of contraction that is known as "me" relaxes, it seems to not bunch-up tension around the core of the body. There then seems more of an inner free flow of energy which previously was not noticed because me-state tension seemed "normal". It's like taking off constrictive clothing or something contracting around the senses that seems to fall away. Depending on the person, this can seem an extreme contrast to what felt normal before, or there can be hardly any difference. What seems to happen with many "individuals" is that there is a seemingly long stretch of many aspects of "my-life" that fall away before there is an eventual exhaustion and fading out of the me-state, this seeming ending then is almost unnoticeable and unnoticeably different. However, there can often be a sense of deep relief and a quality of enoughness or satiation.  There is a simple unquestioning lack of seeking and an emptiness where that me-state energy seemed to be, which seems simultaneously full of all there is. It's just this immediacy that’s left; that which was always underlying the me-state. This is never an increase or gain of something, ultimately this is about loss, or simply a loss of yourself in immediacy. A dissolving into what is.

Glimpses are a momentary lapse in the continuity of the me-state. This is something where things are felt to be real and happening to a person called "me", and then "happening" stops because the me-state contraction evaporates for a moment. Then it seems to regain momentum and continues the story where it left off. Everyone has glimpses in deep sleep where there is no me-state functioning. However, it can seem that there is an unbrokenness of the story of "me" from the moment a person wakes up. This lack of break from the me-state tension draws people towards many methods to alleviate tension. A glimpse however can be a huge point of focus in a person's life as the memory of the relief from a glimpse can then become a driver to try to find this again, so the me-state claims this memory, as is its nature. None of this matters at all. Ultimately the me-state falls away weather or not there has been glimpses or not. So, in a sense its a glimpse that seemingly stays, but since a glimpse is timeless it's hard to describe it as such. Simply a glimpse is a momentary stop of the me-state engine, the end of the me-state is a full-stop.

Unconditional love is all there is. Simply unconditional love is another way of expressing immediacy, or what is. It is perhaps another term that is provocative but instead of the cognitive function, it is the emotional energy that the me-state latches onto with unconditional love. Phrases that contain the word love often become complicated in the same way as the word god, divinity or beloved could be attached to. This is mainly because the me-state identifies the words, love, god, divinity, beloved as objects, so they can't already be everything they have to be a particular thing that the me-state wants. 

The body has natural preferences, it goes towards what is pleasurable and away from what is painful autonomically without the need of a "me" overlooking or controlling the immediate instinctive senses of the body. There is no choice there is just immediate response. The me-state then second guesses preferences and claims that "I have chosen" but this was after the instinctive response was made, so no-one chooses anything even if the me-state naturally believes otherwise. Natural preferences can be warped by the me-state to ideas of betterment which ultimately disrupts the instinctive process so leads always to more difficulties. This too is choiceless as the me-state is just naturally being what it is. Love, god, divinity and beloved are conceived by the me-state as most often likened to a religion or personal relationship. Becoming religious and being a believer can give a similar quality to the believer as "falling in love". In this case they are falling in love with an image of god verses falling in love with a person, however romantic love and religious devotion are very similar qualities and both are an attempt by me to find a solution. However, after the initial openness to something new, there becomes a closing down of the me-state and a realization that this isn't what is being looked for. What is looked for is already everything so it can't be found. This makes for the  me-state's constant seeking in relationships and in religious ideas that seems an unquenchable quality or a constant dissatisfaction. A constant not enoughness.

When there is a looking within a seeming relationship for a person to provide "me" with everythingness, there is a common realisation that this is impossible. Yet the seeker cannot help itself, it is its natural quality of being dissatisfied and moving on, or being dissatisfied and staying put. The natural preferences that draw people together energetically/ magnetically in terms of seeming attraction or repulsion are disrupted by the me-state. There can even be a clear and distinct attraction for a particular person or people, community or environment but nothing is enough, it's always ultimately dissatisfying and it isn’t what "I signed up for". This is because again the me-state's contraction prevents what is from being revealed.

The me-state claims the body's natural preferences. Instead of the body just going towards what it wants the me-state makes these preferences something "important" and "significant" that is striven for with a kind of desperate fervour. When it comes to relating, the me-state won't accept just natural energetic attraction without meaning or purpose. Instead it makes a huge deal about what this connection means and the vitalness of it, because the me-state is looking for what it longs for the "constant beloved"; unconditional love/ everythingness. "Me" associates "my" feelings of attraction/ connection, or "my" body's natural wants and desires with an ideology of finding its version of love. Love then has to look a very particular way and must fulfil all areas or it won't be enough, so never is, this is the tragedy that is always a conditional-love me-state desperation. This is a warping or confusion of the natural instincts of bodily desires, with those desires being owned and turned into a goal to get a thing called "love". This is a conditional -romantic love it's a seeking for an idealism or a warped sense of what is simply instinctive preference.

Unconditional love is everything there is including war, pain, discomfort, flowers, suffering, the me-state, marmalade, trees, hatred, bitterness, anger, bins and rice krispies. There isn't anything excluded from unconditional love or it would be conditional love. Conditional love is how the me-state functions as it naturally focusses on a thing called "love" which can be found. Love is already everything, it can never be found. As such the "love" associated with the me-state is always unsatisfactory or unrequited and never meets the full requirements of resolving the me-state's sense of separateness. When there is no more me-state contraction then there is still desire and attraction and repulsion of seeming people towards and away from each other, but there is an obviousness that there is no possible sense of "a relationship" in that relationship requires a subject and an object, two, or more, separate aspects. There is no relationship. 

What is seen is that there is just attraction and repulsion happening without the need of there being a "me" involved. So, there is no desperation, there might be a natural desire to be in social connection but not a felt belief that somehow people or a person will resolve a sense of separation from everything; loneliness. Longing, desperation and disappear is quite different to desire and need-want. The me-state is related to longing and desperateness. When there is no me, it is instinctively, simply desire and want. Longing and desperateness are tense states that cannot be fulfilled. Desire and need-want are relaxed and coming from a sense of already being fulfilled yet being drawn by instinct. There can be a sense of aloneness which can draw towards other bodies naturally so as to be seemingly together, but this is not loneliness which is associated with a desperate dependency.  Loneliness is the me-state sensing separation. So, love, for the me-state is the ideal of a resolution to being lonely. Without "me" there is the end of the lonely seeker and so the sense of everything already being what was longed for, that is unconditional love. Its only when the flight for finding love dies that love is seemingly revealed as being everything. Similar to that common phrase that "you can never find what you want, till you stop looking for it!" except that no-one ever finds anything. There's just love.

It is interesting that the me-state always looks for relationship that is either long-term and lasts forever; desperate to not be lonely but living with the resignation of "making-do" because "nothings perfect"…or it avoids the whole sense of feeling the disappointment of romantic-love not being everything, by having very short-term detached relationships. There is of course a naturalness of unconditional connection beneath the me-state tension but this can be hidden by seeking for greener grass somewhere. All there is, is green grass. Without time there is just immediacy of attraction and repulsion which is beyond intimate and yet absolutely impersonal, this is for what might seem short or long but no-one is counting.

God did not create humans, the me-state naturally created god. God is formed in the imagination of the me-state as a saviour that can resolve it's sense of separation, but like love, god is not seen as everything but as something separate that is somehow in control of everything. God is essentially hope. It is the notion that I will find what I'm looking for some day perhaps in another dimension or perhaps through the help of something unimaginable that can breach the sense of separation…god's will (heaven). Without faith in god there is a lack of hope, a possibility that all there is, is the sufferance of the me-state (hell). This can't be tolerated so interestingly it means the me-state is a constant believer, there is always a god of some kind that is being worshiped even if that god is called science or a teacher or a guru or whatever. Without hope, without faith, there is no god and there is no point to existence, no creator or destroyer, no religion. This is unimaginable for the me-state which can even assume it is an atheist while somehow finding a way to believe in something else "practical" that offers a lesser but more down-to-earth kind of hope which can keep "me" going! The me-state is a constant believer, it lives and dies believing in numerous gods of different kinds. When there is no-me there is no god required. In a way god is the me-state's security blanket. If me is real, god is real. When that seemingly let's go, both evaporate.

Neutrality. Ultimately it is another word expressing something that cannot be known, so it is an attempt to describe the indescribable which is impossible. It is immediacy or aliveness.

They have no meaning really but they indicate that there is no time and no real separate something, it indicates that there is just an appearance or a seeming happening but actually nothing is happening. All there is, is what is, without a sense of "me", so without time or space. 

It isn’t that there aren't any emotions, it's that there isn't an ownership of emotions. There isn't a claiming of emotions and a framing of emotions as part of a story of my-life. There is just energy happening through the body which express themselves as emotions. Emotions for no-one. The me-state seems to hold onto emotions and warp them into much more complex qualities associated with my life story, so anger becomes "my" anger and that can turn into jealousy and divisiveness. In natural reality when there is emotion it just comes directly through the body. There isn't anything in the way of its expression or turning that energy into a story about "me". The "my" story expression is simply an expression or voice of the contraction of the me-state, it's just the nature of the me-state, nothing wrong with that. Emotions without "me" can be more intense but often they pass more quickly. It is also emotion that isn’t derived or associated with stories but often to do with actual situations where emotions can be triggered. In this it's clear that emotion is just the voice of the body energy. Verses when there is a me-state involved the emotional energy becomes part of a story and so this can exaggerate or block emotions from be expressed and so there is often a constipation of the energy though the body and a sense of blockage and increase of tension, apparently. This is the nature of the me-state, it is prone to energetic constipation as its function is contractive. Natural emotions are very simple and have no story attached, me-state emotions are usually very complex and go along with a story.

There is a seemingly sense of relief and a boundlessness potential, which is very different to the constrained tension of "me". But life itself is often very similar especially if the "me" has seemingly faded out over a seemingly long time, then life is almost exactly the same. When there is a total loss of me-state out of the blue suddenly then this can cause a lot of changes in a person's seeming life because the contrast is so great. It depends on the body that’s being spoken of. Ultimately though, the absence of the contraction feels different and subtly more relaxed, but at the same time nothing has changed. There is a wonder that is in the simplest of most mundane of things. Essentially the enoughness of life is constantly being overlooked by the me-state's seeking process. Somehow this is connected to when people say "it’s the little things" well actually its everything, but something about the ordinary being extraordinary is about as close as you can get to expressing it. Ultimately its utterly normal and perhaps more deeply grounded and more "alive" because there's no one looking for anything, nothing getting inbetween what is. The middle-man "dies".

Who would benefit? Apart from the things mentioned, there is no specific benefit that will get "you" somewhere, there is nothing that makes "my"-life better….this is not practical for the me-state this is practical for the body. The natural human animal doesn't care about finding benefit, it just likes what it likes and goes toward that. That’s it. So apart from that being clearer, there is no benefit, and more to the point there is no one any more looking to find benefits.

No. There might seem like there might be through the idea of relaxation practices. These exercises be they meditation or qi gong or whatever seem to be ways to get close to the "me" ending or even certain psychotropic medicines or other seeming antidotes to the me-state tension or hallucination. But no, because in the end it is very obvious that any attempt to do anything by the "me", even taking medicinals, is secretly or overtly an attempt to "creep up on what is" which simply reinforces the ideology that there is something to creep up on and someone doing the creeping. No, the me-state just falls away, like everything else in nature, naturally. As its tension runs out of energy if falls away either before or with the dying away of the body itself. 

This is explored above; the response is that there is no actual entity called "me" it is simply a state of contraction which is only reinforced through its attempt to resolve itself. Nothing works and as such this stale mate loops around until in simply exhausts itself and falls away.

No, there is no inside nor outside. This is simply no longer considered. There is just what is, when there is a collapse of that me-contraction quality, the body no longer is "my body" but is just what is, so there isn’t a location inside called "my centre" there is no centre and as there is no centre the is no more a sense of "me" being inside and "others" being outside. There is just what is, there isn't an interest anymore in this kind of question, in a sense the whole notion of "am I inside or outside" becomes totally irrelevant, this is an abstraction of the me-state similarly to space and time. They are irrelevant to what is.

No not at all, in fact diligence and effort done in a very virtuous way is really the full blossoming of the me-state and is a reinforcement of the contractive energy that is "me". This doesn't matter because when it runs out of energy, no matter how much energy or effort is put in, there is a recognition that all efforting is for naught. There is no requirement of any effort at all. Ideology about effort being good and no effort or laziness being bad is again a progress-based ideology of the me-state. It is a path of becoming better and getting somewhere which is all about the hope and drive of the me-states contraction, voicing itself to continue the drive to find home and end separation or alleviate the irritation of not finding it. Again, this goes on until it doesn't. The wonder and subtly obvious, beautiful restfulness of this is there is nothing required, its already this.

All the time there is a me-state, there is a sense of contraction in the body which makes the body feel like there is something in it, something solid which it identifies as "myself". This separates "me" from "you" and so on, there is a subject and object. This contraction is what feels that "I" am alive, not just "aliveness". This is too what owns the senses and says "these are my senses, I feel this" not just, "there is a feeling". Its clear that different bodies see different things, but that doesn't mean that there has to be an entity in each body called a "me" that is separate and is owning its viewing angle. Senses happen for no-one, there is no centre, there is no owner. There is just this immediacy.

The body is more relaxed and so can be more sensitive although this is all relative to different bodies. It can be that intuition is heightened but again that is all relative. There are no special powers, there is also no need for them and once again no benefits that are looked for, there is just naturalness, a simplicity of the body and a simplicity that isn’t interested in predicting outcomes of events or seeing to the seeming future because there isn't a desire to get somewhere. But it may be that the sensitivity and intuition is heightened and certainly a sense of going towards what is more beneficial to the body is much clearer and uninterrupted than when the me-state is misting the senses. 

No, on both counts. "Science" is really a term for the complex thought processing of the human brain figuring out how to solve problems. On the level of looking into practical solutions for things, it is simply a process of increasing the muscle memory of the human problem-solving mind, it is no more or less than a continuation from the stone axe. A.I and modern ideas of faster and more complex generation of ideas, this is simply an exponential muscle-memory bank much larger in capacity than every before. Memory is what it's all about, it’s all associated with increasing memory. Humans have gone from stone and papyrus manuscripts, to books and libraries, to typing and achieves, to digital memory and now to AI memory. It's all the same; the larger the capacity and processing, the seemingly better you get at solving more complex problem,… and also of seemingly creating them!

However, while science can engage with all this it has no access to fundamental issues, it can't ever answer existential issues which are the ones that plague humans at the base. This remains ever allusive. So, it's all superficial at best and more accurately a form of avoidance. It could be seen that science is like a huge house of cards, it is founded on its fundamental questions which are a big question-mark, meanwhile the sky-scraper keeps adding higher and higher floors. The foundation of science is the religion of science, the religion at the heart of all scientists, science being the religion and belief in the questioner and knower. Spirituality on the other hand is the religion of the believer. So, there is a seeming war between the head focused scientist and the emotionally driven spiritual person.

It is in fact that both are two sides of the same coin. Science and religion are about attempting to questioning, know or believe in something. This is a attempting to turn immediacy into "something" and about trying to "find out" what is or "feel and know and claim" what is. There is an absolute similarity in the two sides. What kills both scientific progress and religious fervour is the end of the me-state that is seeking for an answer. This kills religion entirely and it kills the drive within science and all its existential aspirations. It also kills the ideas in science that separates everything into parts, which is the whole picture of science today. The nature of non-duality is not practical, it is actually undermining of anything that is about looking for productivity or progress. There is no ambition in this, no drive and determination to "get somewhere", or "make life work". This doesn't mean that ideas can be generated and different approaches seemingly created. It doesn't stop there being responses to what seems to be happening.  However, without a seeker, without a questioner or a knower at the foundation of science and religion, they lose their foothold as "humanity's steady base". There is nothing steady or knowable, this is freefall.

Some scientists seem to have recognised that their questions lead to naught, just as some philosophers have, as have many religious people lost their faith, but this zero doesn't equate to there being no-one. Conceptual clarity about there being an impossibility to know does not mean the end of the me-state. Just as in religion, faith doesn't yield liberation. The modern religion of science, or the older religions that seemed to once dominate the human world, are both actually totally impotent to help in the questions of the me-state, ultimately because they are one and the same dualism. There are no infinite multiplicity of universal dimensions or spiritual dimensions or any dimension the me-state can make up to hide and avoid what is, there is no hope here. The interesting thing is that the more the seeker looks to know, the more complex the problem is seen to be, like sinking in quicksand, as the knower seeks and struggles to know there is a realization it will never, ever, know. However, this doesn't stop the me-state which is still contracted on the path to know, even though it senses that it can never know everything, which is its only longing; to know and then to find its final rest. So, love in science is deeply unrequited. There is nothing to find, nothing to know, there has never been anything to find, all there is, is this.

It is possible to see the me-state as the dis-ease of humans, more often it's described as the "human-condition". The brain is the seat of the me-state. The me-state contraction is perhaps a product of the human's unique ability to naturally express deep abstract thinking. This ability seems to have become so strong that a sense of "me" is abstracted and a felt sense of separation ensues. This seems to happen for most humans. More than anything else this seems like a psychosomatic loop which seems to exhibit a kind of traumatic contractive-tension pattern. This over time makes the body inefficient and so it is a strain on the body much like a resistor in a circuit creating heat through energetic resistance. This is the base of many chronic physical problems. This is what is, it feels uncomfortable and is the root of sufferance. Not pain, but sufferance because it's "me" that suffers. Without "me" there's just pain or no pain, everything is neutral. So, the root of all psychosomatic dis-ease patterns seems to be the me-state. However, the me-state contraction is not separate from wholeness of energy, so it isn't something "wrong" or "right" it's just what is. 

Why the me-state falls away easily in some bodies and not easily in others is something akin to asking "what is the pattern of how leaves fall off trees?" and "what is the reason a particular leaf hits a particular piece of ground?". There is no forcing nature without damaging the body itself, and even then, it doesn't work. So, there is no cure for the me-state. Or, the "cure" is it's natural falling away as it runs out of charge, which has no specific reason, it's just what seems to happen. No matter how much persuasion there is, no energy bombardment of any kind will open that contraction. 

Whereas meditation and practices of many kinds seem more obviously part of the me-state seeking, the best attempt by humans to resolve the me-state in the seeming past has be the use of psychotropic medicine. These plants are used to disrupt the me-state patterns, but the effect is temporary. Even with constant use of these medicines over long periods the me-state still re-emerges because the state of "myself" is part of the natural body function, it's not something that can be intentionally cathartically removed. When the house of cards of the me-state is disrupted, the foundations still remain until the energy for seeking resolution is over. It’s the seeking of the cure, that is the dis-ease. So, until that whole thing falls away the me-state is still trying to get somewhere else and looking for a "permanent cure". Death of the body always "cures me" and sometimes it seems to happen before death.

No, this is utterly relative. It is clear that what is good for one body isn’t appropriate for another body. Morality is based on an individual or a group of individuals preferences then claimed by the me-state to be a universal truth which is then used normally as a weaponized deterrent to all those who disagree! This is simply domination of one set of preferences over another. No matter what the me-state has created in terms of morality and legality, natural reality is in no way aligned with that picture. It has the fundamental idea the one "me" is right and another "me" is wrong. The nature of right and wrong is to do with a forming of a virtuous path that’s going to get somewhere, that’s going towards becoming something that can find the ultimate righteousness, if taken to the nth degree. This would ultimately be god's righteousness and so without me, there is no god and no morality of god either. The anarchy of what is, is what underlies the me-state and its attempts to find the right way to live and hopefully find "betterment" of some kind. There is no possibility of betterment, nor or rightness or goodness. There are just preferences which can sometimes be the same and sometimes be different for different bodies. There can be collective agreements or arguments and unrest but none of this as anything to do with their needing a "me" to rule the roost and offer judgment for all. This is simply the nature of the contraction of the me-state attempting to control everything to make things known and stable so it can seemingly find the way to its goal. The me-state is naturally powerless and secretly knows that, so control and seeking power and more control seem like a road to achieving the goal of liberation. However, it simply reinforces its instability especially when the seeming "other people" don't listen to "my" rules.

Things can feel more comfortable and pleasurable or less so. This does not make things morally or ideologically better or worse, it is not morally "better" but it is more comfortable and people will normally use the word better to mean more comfortable or more pleasurable. What is clear is that making life more comfortable, defiantly and naturally seems to happen. Everyone goes to or attempts to go towards what feels better and away from what feels worse, even if they are deeply addicted the addiction can feel better than the pain, until it doesn't. That is utterly normal and quite natural. Ultimately for some bodies wracked with tension and pain, death is something that is sensed to be more natural a follow through. So, things can feel better or worse but cannot be ideologically better or worse. This is no better or worse way to live there is no path to follow or direction to take that will make life, as it is, better. This is what is, this is enough as it is. The road to betterment, or hierarchical ideology about a worse road is about becoming and striving and this totally overlooks what already is: the fulfilment that is sort, is hidden by the activity of the me-state in plain sight.

For things to be created or destroyed there would need to be a time and space. There is no time and space. As such there is no such thing as creation or destruction all there is, is this. There is no timeline there are things appearing to happen. There is no point of origin so this is why creation and destruction as things separate from each other do not exist, it could be said that creation-destruction is, or life-death is, or conversely there is neither creation nor destruction and neither life nor death. Somehow the negation of both terms feels better here because ultimately what is, is unknowable and cannot be categorized or named.

Knowledge is an inevitable invention of the me-state contraction. It is born of the sense of everything seeming to feel separate from a centre called "me". There is no entity called "me", what is sensed is just a state of energetic contraction that seems to happen with most humans. So, the sense of everything seeming separate from "me" naturally creates the contractive thought process that "I need to know". When there seems to be an inside and an outside, due to this contraction, then of course the outside seems distant and unknown (unsafe) from the inside (safer). Therefore, inevitably the me-state contraction attempts to contract around everything it can, in an attempt to grasp and expand beyond its sensed borders to ideally (for "me") incorporate absolutely everything into itself. This is just the mechanism of the me-state, no one is doing this. 

This seems to happen because the me-state attempts to control everything, supposed "knowledge" is one of the ways this is attempted along with other behaviours like actual physical attempts to control things and events. Knowing is the attempted mental control over things, applying parameters on a seemingly separate thing so it can be identified as being safe and under the thumb of "me"; a kind of "intellectual property". The more of this property the me-state seems to accumulate the more it feels it "knows" and understands. Beliefs are born from this knowledge and stories form about how "things are" based on a string of beliefs based in knowledge. This tries to control and make sense of the seeming infinitely confusing moving separate parts in relation to "me" that make up "my life" or "my reality". Knowledge is therefore very much associated with the one that's attempting to find it, even though the seeker of knowledge often believes that it is finding universal "truths". It can't possibly, because there is always seemingly someone looking for something, so it’s a very specific angle of subject-object dualism. However, for "me" knowledge and the pursuit of it is about pinning things down and making things "real" as it attempts to reduce the feeling of the total chaos and unknowability of everythingness breaking though. This would be the end of the me-state and all of its investment in its intellectual property. The game would be up.

In natural reality, knowledge is just another story or ideology of the me-state. It has no value or truth at all. This might seem strange. How can it be said that knowledge doesn't exist when cars are built, brain surgery is performed and computers are used? There is a huge difference between repetitive actions and so-called knowledge. Humans and many other animals use tools. Human tools have expanded exponentially with our seeming natural ability to resolve problems of changing the environment to suit requirements. Repetitive actions occur in humans and animals which allow for very complex movements that become instinctive as the body retains and actual changes physiologically to do specific movements more and more efficiently. This is exactly the same with all our tools be they as simple as a stone axe or as complex as learning multiple languages, mathematics, computer engineering or anything else. The combination of repetition and machines that increase or aid this memory-repetition processing is all that has seemed to happen. There is no "real" knowledge, without a knower. 

All there is, is just some people's bodies that seem to be better or worse at one particular set of repetitive actions than another group of bodies. In society those who are "good" or "brilliant" or "genius" at one set of repetitive actions are highly praised and those who have a smattering of many actions but no extreme specific group of repetitive actions that set them apart from the crowd are seen to be "average" or "insignificant". The social hierarchy of the me-state believes that "knowledge is power" and so the fashion at the moment is the acknowledgement of the seeker of knowledge and the retribution of the one that doesn't know or can't be bothered to find out. However as far as natural reality is concerned all of this is absolutely neutral. The dunce and the genius are utterly equal. Weather there is an ability or no ability none of this changes anything about the fact that all there is, is this. There's just immediacy. There is never a requirement for any kind of obtaining of knowledge towards an ideal betterment. There is no knowledge as there is no knower. Things seems to be massive creative action in the world, based on extreme drive towards finding something which is why we live in an exponential age of obtaining knowledge, but no-one is doing this, this is just the me-state contraction naturally trying to obtain everything, until it simply runs out of juice. Then the drive and ambition for anything that’s going to get "me" somewhere ideologically "better" totally evaporates. All there is, is this.

Without the contraction of me-state there is no sense or drive to create continuity in order to keep trying to find something and in order to keep the fear of the end-of-me at bay. The me-state naturally fear's its own dissolution because it is used to the quality of its tension as being "my life" so it seemingly protects itself through contracting more to hold anything threatening at bay. Also, because everything seems separate from it, everything seems threatening. To create continuity the ideology of time was formed out of the me-state and space at the same moment as they are conjoined as distance is about time between two points, time and space are therefore the language of dualism. As such without "me" there is no time and no space and no requirement of them. Of course, this doesn't mean that time and space concepts are not used, but they are clear recognised as stories of the me-state and not "real". Nothing is "real".

"Now" indicates an idea that there is a present and a past and future. However, none of these are to be found in natural reality, all there is, is immediacy. There is no time for time, there is no time for space there is not time for anything, there is just immediacy. "Now" is still in relative time, its relative to future and past. This may seem like semantics but in fact there can be practices like "I'm living in the now" which simply is a path of the me-state directing energetic intention towards what is seems to be happening "now". It is then the me-state doing this, so this meditation becomes a somewhat obsessive and detached way of observing everything. This once again is a reinforcement of the me-state. If "now" is meant as immediacy, then so be it, but immediacy is an unfathomable this-ness that isn't an object and cannot be describe or explained, so it is a kind of full-stop to the cognitive mind.

The end is just where the me-state ceases its battling and striving, in a way its the end of a struggle or the end of an arduous seeming journey. As such it feels like a sigh of relief. In the end there is just relief and in that relief is all there is. There is no-one that has relief and in fact that’s the relief, it's that there doesn't need to be any more running on the hamster wheel trying to get somewhere. It is end of what seems like a dream, the dream-like state of hallucination of "me" that had a life and a whole apparent journey but in fact none of that ever really happened because, there was only ever this. There was never a leaving of this, it was just that something seemed to get in the way of this and distorted things creating a mad world of time-space and seeking. Then that tension nightmare just dies back and falls away. It never happened, because nothing is happening. That end is the only "death" other than this falling away of the contraction of "me", there is no death. All there is, is this. There is no more fear of death or the end because there was never a beginning. There is no death because there was never a birth.

Meetings are simply places where there is openness to what is. This can seem a huge contrast to most other human interactions where there is often very little openness to immediacy.  Meetings can be relaxing as there is nothing to become or place to get to. Seeking-energy might find that frustrating.  This is NOT "satsang", there is nothing to be taught, gained or found by coming to a meeting. This, is already everything. Meetings are an energetic response, without a meaning or purpose. 

Meetings are like everything else, they seem to happen and there is no-one that they are happening to or for. Meetings of all kinds have a seeming magnetic draw to the energetic quality they express. The lack of intention and lack of interest in bettering or developing a "self" is a rare quality in any type of human interaction so that is what can draw that quality which is beyond the exhausted me-state. Meeting are hated by the me-state as they are a starvation of any kind of input to make the tension of "me" feel better. Somehow the lack of anything to offer in meetings is that rare refreshment (within human spheres) that actually for once "tastes" of natural reality, has the quality of what is longed for in that there is nothing that needs to happen, this is already enough. The openness to such, is a huge relief in itself. However, not for the me-state-seeker which finds it all very frustrating, boring and tiresome and wants to be somewhere else where something exciting is happening. It wants to be on the move or at least is being occupied by some kind of sensation or numbing out that means the tension of "me " is less obvious. In a sense a meeting can bring up the obvious tension of "me" as there is a direct looking at the me-state and discussion about it as being irrelevant. This can put up defences and an even create a strong urge to get out of there, or it can be a moment of rest in a seeming lifetime of trying and forcing. If there is a readiness or ripeness for energy to seeming begin to fall away or unravel then meetings are open to this, or equally open to total contraction. Anything can seem to happen and does seem to happen because there is no intention, it is just an open space without any demands at all, and without being "held" as there is nothing and no-one that can "hold space". 

As there is no "me" it's impossible for there to be a decision to set up a meeting, just like it's impossible for someone to go shopping, shopping just happens, meetings just happen. It's an instinctive response for a desire to eat that leads people to go shopping and an instinctive desire to find an oasis or resting point from the cloud of me-ing that is the instinctive response to go to non-duality meeting or sit in a room or walking in nature, or many other things. The only difference with meeting is that there is human interaction of openness to what is, which is normal outside of the human spheres, but within the adult human energy it seems rare.

So, people don't decide to come to meetings, people are drawn like magnets, there is no choice. This is what happens with everything, but with meeting its very obvious that that there is no choice because meeting have no agenda and nothing to offer so why would anyone go to them? The openness is the draw.