Nonduality: The Varieties of Expression Home

Jerry Katz
photography & writings

Search over 5000 pages on Nonduality:

Click here to go to the next issue

Highlights Home Page | Receive the Nondual Highlights each day

#2232- Tuesday, August 16, 2005 - Editor: Jerry Katz



Hi. This issue arrives a little late. But the articles themselves couldn't be more timely. This issue features a piece by Moller de la Rouviere, who writes thoughtfully and deeply. Follow the links to his home page and his email discussion group. If you like what you read here, you might want to visit Moller's website and read excerpts from his book.


Also featured is a short piece by walker. What's cool about walker and Moller is that they are both clearly focused on what they are doing in such a way that you recognized your Self. How unplugged and present is that? The wisdom in both posts is immense.


Be sure to tell a friend about the Highlights by sending them an issue your really like, and let them know about our URL:







Moller de la Rouviere


Moller de la Rouviere, on progressively discarding levels of mind comments on 'I am That' see also
his comments on "doing" vs "non-doing"


I was reading from Nisargadatta's 'I am That' this morning and found these interesting few lines


Nisargadatta:' You are on the level of mind. When the 'I am myself' goes, the 'I am all' comes. When
the 'I am all' goes, 'I am' comes. When even 'I am' goes, reality alone is...


My sense of what Nisargadatta tries to communicate here is that the levels of 'mind' are very
subtly embedded in our being and we could very easily mistaken aspects or projections of mind for


The first level of confusion is when I am totally identified with mind. The center of everything is
me and myself and this me presents itself as the observer, the doer, the thinker, the consciousness
behind all experiences which it regards as not-self. This is the fundamental dualistic condition of
the 'I' in the I-conscious state. Here mind takes on the dualistic vision of me and myself, the
separate self-sense.


When this world of self and other (I am myself) begins to fall apart through introspection and
perhaps some kinds of insight, it becomes apparent that this dualistic proposition is no longer
sustainable. Mind then projects a vision of what it believes wholeness is and comes to the
conclusion that 'I am all'. Here the delusion of separation is not so apparent because while we are
absorbed in the mind, any projection of mind as wholeness appears to us as wholeness itself.


For instance, I have often been critical of what I have called the Advaitist Dream. Here, being
unknowingly caught in the world of thought (mind), when thought projects the notion of the
non-separation of everything in and as Consciousness, the individual truly believes that they stand
in the fullness of the Unitive nature of Consciousness. (Please I am not suggesting there is such a
'thing' as Consciousness. I am merely repeating their supposition that there is). In this, the
projection of thought about Wholeness is mistaken for reality, and the individual lives a
misunderstanding mistaken for Truth. This makes many truly feel that they are enlightened, while in
truth they are only busy with the thought about enlightenment (nonduality), which clearly is not
the living, experiential reality of this fact of non-duality. Here the delusion is very difficult
to break free from, because the individual is deeply convinced that the state they describe is the
real thing.


Now, someone comes along and taps such a person on the shoulder and says to them: 'Listen, my
friend, perhaps you are fooling yourself about your own enlightened state. If you were to stop for
one moment projecting the notion (thought) of your inherent wholeness, would you still be
enlightened, whole, nondual? So, what came first, your enlightenment, or the thought of
enlightenment? Does your enlightenment exist as a living truth when thought is not around to
confirm its own projection about 'your' (note the dualism) nondual state?'


This sets the guy thinking again, and let's say they abandon their identification with the thought
of nondualism.


Now they ask themselves, but to whom did this thought occur? After all, this thought did occur to
some inner principle, otherwise how could it have been noticed? Here the fellow moves into the
third state of delusion Nisargadatta points to: 'I am'. Now the person becomes convinced that there
is is nothing more fundamental to their life than this mere sense of 'I am'. And when they read
books about these matters, they get confirmation from many advaitist writings that this 'I am', is
the genuine article. It is the Witness, the One behind all appearances.


This makes immediate sense to such a person because it confirms the suspicion they have always had
that the observer is real and that everything appears to me as the observer. But because this
dualistic state has never been properly inspected, so that the falseness of it has been seen for
what it is, the individual now becomes totally convinced that the Witness is the final truth to
human life. They now assume the position of the objective observer, the mere Witnesser of passing
events. No longer affected by the visitudes of changing life circumstances.


Yet again we notice the subtle delusion Nisargadatta is pointing to here. This is still a state of
mind, and of no higher quality than any other projection of thought. The Witness still rests on the
subtle projection of separation between the observer and the observed. Thought may create the image
of the free person who merely looks at life as a mirror would reflect events objectively to itself,
and therefore as existing separately from its own reflective surface. Again we see the power of


Because such an individual has not investigated the binding power of identification and the inner
workings of thought and attention which hold such forms of identification in place, they completely
become identified with this new projection of thought - the Witness, 'I am'. And this notion finds
resonanace in many of the traditional teachings where consciousness is described as the Ultimate
Witness, and the need for identification between one's personal sense of the 'observer', (the Jiva
or 'I') and the Universal notion of 'Consciousness'. In this way, Nisargadatta points out, the
delusion of separateness remains intact.


Then, when this illusion of the free separate observer gets shattered by the challenges of life and
the painful realization that such objective 'Witnessing' does not resolve deep emotional and
traumatic incidents in one's life, other than as a form of resistance, avoidance or escape, it may
begin to dawn on such an individual that yet another step needs to be taken. Freedom from suffering
is not yet the case. But how?


Again, if through luck, co-incidence or the kind suggestion of a true spiritual friend, such a
person is made aware, or become aware, of the falseness of the entire project of thought projecting
some truth about things and how through identification with this 'truth' it assumes the disposition
of reality, the direct path to freedom is entered. Although still deeply conditioned by the power
of identification, projection and transference, the individual now begins to assume responsibility
for their own inner activities. They begin to observe the workings of thought, attention,
awareness, identification and so on. And with correct guidance and a dedicated heart, it may
gradually dawn on such a person that mind is the slayer of truth. That no aspect of mind could be
trusted to allow for the revelation of the natural nondual condition of the living moment. This has
to be re-cognized, understood and gradually transcended. At this point the whole thing begins to
relax and when the entire process of seeking and projection begins to fragment and starts to fall
away by non-use, and the instruments of delusion no longer function in unawareness, 'reality alone'
begins to shine through the fog of confusion and self-delusion. Here no sense of 'I' exists. 'There
is only This'.


Moller de la Rouviere






i play low limit poker for a living.  sometimes it's
easy, sometimes not, but there is no shortage of
cardrooms along the roads i travel, more all the time.

the advantages are: i can do it whenever i want, for
as long as i want; i have no bosses; it's a social
activity and i meet lots of great people from all
walks of life; casinos often have great food buffets
for cheap (i always smuggle out some steak for my
dog), and many poker rooms provide free food for
players; i can go sit in the sports room and watch
football or basketball on gigantic screens while
drinking $1 beers;  overnight parking is free for RVs
in most casinos (not in Las Vegas or larger cities
though); i can take off for a month if i want after
having a good win.

the disadvantages are:  sometimes i lose!

but it's not hard to win in the long run if you have
an understanding of the game, of human psychology, are
able to concentrate and keenly observe the other
players, and most importantly, have patience, patience
patience, and only play good cards.  it costs you
nothing to throw a hand away (and then you sit back
and figure out how your opponents play).

btw, the poker i'm talking about is nothing like the
TV poker that's now so popular.  those are no-limit
tournament style games; it's all about betting and
bluffing.  i play limit non-tournament games; it's
about waiting for and playing good hands.



top of page