Click here to go to the next issue
Highlights Home Page | Receive the Nondual Highlights each day
#2440 - Friday, April 7, 2006 - Editor:
Gloria Lee
This issue is devoted to an interview of Roy Whenary by Ben
Hassine.
Roy's book, The Texture of Being is featured on
www.nonduality.com
Reviewed/recommended
THE TEXTURE OF BEING by Roy Whenary
The book explains the basis of spiritual seeking in simple terms
and may lead the reader to a more intensive quest. --Ramesh
Balsekar
DISCUSSION/INTERVIEW BETWEEN
‘Q’ = Question (Ben Hassine) And ‘A’ = Answer
(Roy Whenary)
(January-March 2005)
Q1:
Can you give us a short biographical sketch with emphasis on the
spiritual aspect of your life? For example which teachers and
teachings inspired you and can you recount some of your
encounters with them?
A1:
I don’t know if it’s possible to do this without
over-emphasizing the ‘personal’, so briefly I will
mention my main influences as J.Krishnamurti, Nisargadatta
Maharaj and Jean Klein. I came across Krishnamurti when I was 20,
and reading his books and attending his talks had a profound
affect on me. After reading a lot of varied spiritual literature
before that, Krishnamurti was like a breath of fresh air …
uncomplicated, obvious and clear from the start. At Brockwood
Park and Saanen, I met many new friends, with whom there would be
endless discussions about things, albeit adopting
Krishnamurti-like terminology. Then, in the mid-70s I was made
aware of an Indian publication, which was not easily available in
London at the time. It was called ‘I Am That’ and was
by Nisargadatta Maharaj. I had previously read Advaita books by
Ramana Maharshi, but somehow ‘I Am That’ had more of an
effect on me. What that was, I don’t know. Maybe it was
because it was more contemporary to the time, whereas Ramana’s
works were from another era. Although I had met a few people who
had sat with Ramana, I was often meeting people who had been to
see Nisargadatta. However, I was never tempted to go to India in
person, understanding from the start that there was nothing that
was available there which was not already available here. In the
early 70s, I also met Vimala Thakar, who was very popular in
Holland. I first met her in 1972, then 1974 and in 1976 spent a
week on retreat with her in England. Many of the people I met on
that retreat I am still in contact with. I found Vimala to be
very attentive to my sensitivity, and awake to my need for
personal contact with her, and we had several helpful chats about
what now would seem to be very basic questions I had at the time,
but her response to me was very warm and open. In 1980, the lady
who organized Vimala’s visits to the UK, informed me that
there was another teacher who was very much worth going to see,
called Jean Klein. It turned out that she was organizing his
visits too. I went along to a talk he gave at Friends Meeting
House, Hampstead, in London, and was immediately impressed by his
calm presence and clarity of mind. There was a lot of silence in
his talks, and at the time his English was not so brilliant,
although it improved over the next few years, as he came to
England more frequently. At one time I offered to drive him
around when he was here, which was accepted – so I would
take him to and pick him up from the airport and drive him to
restaurants for meals, etc - a job that I did for a couple of
years, quite willingly – although we never talked about
spiritual philosophy at all during these times. I found that in
his presence there were no questions, and all was self-evident. I
really feel that he had no agenda at all. He wasn’t out to
convince anyone of anything … it was a case of here it is
… take it or leave it. I couldn’t help contrast this
approach, and his calm presence, with that of Krishnamurti, who
was much more passionate and lively in every sense, and maybe a
little angry at times. This was the complete opposite to Jean
Klein, and yet Jean, who had spent some time travelling with
Krishnamurti many years earlier in India, always heaped the
highest praise on Krishnamurti, and Vimala Thakar for that
matter. I remember him describing Vimala Thakar as “a
beautiful Being”.
Q2: You spent a longer period of time with Jean Klein. Can you go
a little bit deeper into the affect this teacher had on your
outlook on life and spirituality at that time? [Please note I am
referring to the affect Jean had at the time you met him, so we
are going into history and are not yet covering your current
outlook]
A2: Well, I spent just as long listening to Krishnamurti, and
they both had a profound affect, maybe in different ways. I don’t
know even if it is the words that had the greatest affect on me
… because the presence of these two teachers had at least an
equal affect. With Krishnamurti one could not ignore how
seriously he took the spiritual life and how passionate he was
about everything he said. His presence was over-powering in that
sense. With Jean, it was his quiet, calm, simple and direct
clarity of expression that impressed. He showed, by his own
example, how utterly available and effortless ‘realization’
is. He was not a man of ideas, he was a man of wisdom, and there
is a great difference between the two. When you have met a true
man of wisdom, you are never again fooled by men of ideas.
Q3: Yes I think I can understand what you are saying. I would
like to go into it later on. Still you didn’t answer my
question. What exactly was this affect you are speaking about?
How did Krishnamurti and Klein change the way you saw life and
spirituality?
A3: Sorry to sound so evasive, but I was 19 or 20 when I first
came across Krishnamurti, and there wasn’t much to change, I
suppose. I had not formed any fixed view or attitude by then, so
I sort of grew up with Krishnamurti in that sense. It is not like
someone suddenly coming across this approach when they are 40 or
50 years old, having lived a life and made mistakes, etc. At 16
or 17, I started reading Kahlil Gibran and some Buddhist and
Hindu literature, just out of interest. I came across them in my
local bookstore, and began exploring different ideas. I also
started reading Plato and the Socratian dialogues … and when
I first came across Krishnamurti I noticed a distinct similarity
between his philosophy and that of Socrates. But the effect that
it had on me? I suppose it gave me a clear direction, when many
of my contemporaries were getting into heavy rock music,
relationships, carving out a career, etc. I always preferred a
quiet life, and especially walking in nature, to experimentation
or planning too much for the future. Krishnamurti clearly helped
me in that direction, and Jean Klein deepened that tendency. I
suppose that what these teachers were giving was a route into the
deeper layers of mind and feeling, which gives rise to conscious
awareness.
Q4: Yes. The deep layers of mind and feeling. I feel that at a
certain point one will face not only the deeper layers of mind
and feeling but also the deep layers of the body. Jean Klein’s
approach also included ‘body-work’. Did this part of
his teaching appeal to you? Can you expand a little on this
aspect?
A4: Yes, it did appeal very much, and I did a number of
residential Seminars with him, in the UK and France, in which
Yoga/Bodywork was a major part. There are others who are better
qualified to comment on this aspect of his teaching than myself,
so I will offer my own personal take on it. In my book ‘The
Texture Of Being’ I often refer to “going into the
feeling” of something. There is a tendency, in a
mind-dominated culture, to always think things through. This is
fine when dealing with practical, mechanical things. But when
dealing with personal issues and philosophical subjects, it is
helpful if you can not only ‘think’ things through, but
also ‘feel’ them through. This takes one into the realm
of what is usually referred to as ‘intuition’ or ‘gut
feeling’. But, in order to access this kind of intelligence,
which is what it is, it is necessary to be able to go into the
body-feeling, which is deeper than just ‘thinking’
about something. In Jean’s Yoga and other bodywork
practices, conscious awareness of the ‘feeling’ was
cultivated through gentle exercises. Being in the ‘feeling’
at each moment, in the body, was encouraged. This was done in a
very casual, non-competitive way. Each participant in the
bodywork was encouraged to work within whatever limitations their
body dictated. Emphasis was always on being consciously aware of
the movement and the space around the body, but also in the
expansion of what we felt our physical limits were. He encouraged
a stretching of the body and expansion of the limits of the body,
in the creative imagination. This had the affect that one did not
have the feeling of being confined within the body – there
was a feeling of lightness and openness. Others could express
this particular aspect more clearly, I am sure. But, it made me
very aware that bodywork of some kind – be it tai chi, yoga,
free-movement, or whatever, is a good counter-balance to what can
become an intellectually dominant philosophy such as Advaita. If
one is living in the world of ideas, and not grounding those
ideas, not embodying them, then it can be like living in a kind
of dream-world, where you may think that you have all the
answers, even though you haven’t yet explored all the
questions.
Q5: I have the feeling that the grounding or embodiment you speak
about is all about facing and understanding ‘what is,’
is that right? I feel this is the stage where the shift from the
verbal, conceptual level of understanding to the energetic level
of non-verbal recognition, understanding and realization of
reality takes place. As I see it, the body is also part of ‘what
is’ and it is not just an illusion or a bag of bones. How do
you see the role of the body in the non-duality you write about?
A5: Without the body, where are you? Any answer that is given to
this question is the product of a mind which is connected to a
particular body ... which we may call a ‘bodymind mechanism’
or some such similar term. This bodymind mechanism also contains
‘personality’ and ‘ego’. There is a constant
feedback and updating going on between body and mind, from second
to second. In facing ‘what is’, if there is fear at
that moment, it will be mirrored in the body. If ‘what is’
is a poisonous snake, then the body will be prepared, via
perception, memory and various chemical changes to respond
instantly. In normal everyday life, we are not always facing
poisonous snakes, but the memory is so full of conditioned
influences that conditioned responses are continuously taking
place without our conscious awareness. When I meet someone I have
decided I don’t like, there is an inner response which
relays itself into my body. I may smile and be polite to that
person, but my body knows the truth, and in some way, healthwise,
I will almost certainly pay for such dislikes. Over the course of
many years and millions of such reactions, my body will bear the
scars of such unseen reactions. Maybe my joints will seize up, or
I will develop an illness related to some other part of my body.
There are some very good books which go into this subject more
deeply than I could attempt here.
But, back to your question: how do I see the role of the body in
the non-duality I write about? The bodymind mechanism is a part
of the play ... one of the actors. The phenomenal world is the
world in which the bodymind mechanism has its apparent existence.
Without that phenomenal world, there would be no question, or
anything else. For the sage, everything appears out of nothing
(including himself) and has no real substance, but he is happy to
act out his part in the play of life, responding to whatever
arises as appropriate. He knows that ‘what is’ is a
temporary arising in perception, in the moment. Life flows
through him, as if he were not there. Ultimately, all is One, but
in the phenomenal world it appears otherwise. Identification and
attachment within the phenomenal world will create suffering for
the identified and attached, but of course this suffering is only
apparent. In reality there is no permanent entity to suffer.
Suffering arises and subsides, as do all other phenomena. In the
sage, there is liberation from suffering because there is no
identification or attachment. Ultimately, because he is not a
fixed, permanent entity, this absence of suffering could also be
viewed as something which arises and subsides within the bodymind
mechanism. Ultimately, nothing ever happens, and there is neither
duality nor non-duality, which are merely concepts. But in this
life, this phenomenal life, the actor does appear to suffer, and
a fine-tuning of the gap between body and mind will reduce the
experience of suffering in the actor. In this sense, the
traditional approaches, such as yoga, that work to refine the
bodymind, are very appropriate. They make the life, the
phenomenal life, more joyful ... bringing us back to our natural
state, before the mind began impeding the free-flow of energy.
Emptying the mind of its ‘stuff’, its psychological
hang-ups, likes and dislikes, resistances, attractions and
aversions, is important work in the life of a bodymind mechanism
- it will lead to freedom and joy, in this life, here and now.
But, if it is entered into with an acquisitive spirit, as a way
in which the ego is going to show how clever or powerful it is,
then we are not talking about the same thing. The ego is a key
part of the problem in the first place. An essential quality of
freedom is humility ... a complete letting go, or surrendering,
of the egoistic impulse.
Many seekers believe that they have ‘got it’ when they
first understand the basic principles of advaita, or non-duality.
But understanding and accepting the concepts and living them, are
two different things. For the living of them, there needs to be
an emptying of the old conditioned thought patterns. Simply
believing that ‘I Am That’, for instance, is not
enough, if the memory keeps pushing up, in every moment of every
day, ‘I Am Not That’. Saying “all is one”,
then behaving as if all is not one by concentrating all one’s
energies in self-centered activities, is merely self-delusion.
The memories and patterns are not just in the mind - they also
appear in the body, in the muscles, the joints and so on. I would
say that ‘Inner Work’, which is essential for a clear
understanding, necessarily involves some kind of bodywork that
allows for the letting go of dysfunctional thought and
behavioural patterns, which get in the way of clear seeing and
living in one’s true nature. Liberation is not just a flip
in one’s thinking process, from the belief in the ego to the
belief in no-ego. If you believe in no-ego yet still act from
ego, then there is an immense conflict in your life, which needs
to be addressed.
Q6: What is thought?
A6: I would say that thought is simply a function of the mind,
which allows the bodymind mechanism to survive in the phenomenal
world of duality. It allows the bodymind to interact with the
outside world in such a way that it builds up a memory bank of
experience and knowledge, which should help it to function more
successfully in the future. Of course this is not always the
case, because if you feed rubbish in, then you will usually get
rubbish out. So it is important to encourage the right thoughts
and experiences, otherwise the memory bank will contain material
that may contribute towards its own downfall. But thought always
operates within the field of the known, because it must always
refer to the past, to memory. But, it can become modified through
its interaction with others, such that specific limiting patterns
of thought may be completely undermined to the extent that
'realization' may occur.
Now, when we understand the limitations of thought, we can also
utilize its incredible ability to explore its own environment, by
exploring the subtleties of our 'inner' and 'outer' worlds. The
mind can easily get fixed into certain patterns of thinking and
behaving, but it can also create strategies for disentangling
itself from these fixed patterns. Whilst the mind may be burdened
with negative thoughts, which may weigh heavy on the heart, it is
also possible for the mind to express the most beautiful poetic
descriptions of the world we know, and beyond. Thought can be our
downfall and source of suffering, or it can take on all the
lightness and beauty that there is. When we realize the
incredible power of the mind, we will maybe treat it with more
respect, and feed it well, so that our thoughts become an
expression of the inner beauty that we essentially are.
Q7: What is the thinker, the observer, the controller? How do you
see the thinker, or the ‘me’ comes to an end?
A7: First there is consciousness, then the thinker, the
controller, is created in the mind. We are not automatically born
with the ability to think. This is taught to us, as we are
gradually conditioned into living in the world as a separate
bodymind. Always, underlying thought, there is ‘consciousness’,
which is our fundamental aspect. But the thinker is the product
of the past. The past is a synthesis of many strands of social
evolution. What strands we become conditioned with will depend on
what kind of family we are born into.
When you ask somebody “who are you?”, they will
automatically reply with their name. If you ask them to define it
even further, they may say that they are a man or a woman, etc -
but all the time they are describing the ‘clothing’
that consciousness has taken on in expressing itself through
their particular bodymind. To think that this expression is a
permanent entity in time is a mistake that nearly every bodymind
makes. In this life, there is a great effort to accumulate more
and more, to reinforce the notion that I am a somebody. But then,
a great wave comes along, and suddenly there is nobody there.
What you are and what you appear to be are two different things.
One is real and the other is an illusion, created within your own
imagination. This trick has been taught to almost everyone,
because it is tradition not to look at who or what you really
are. You are not your name, your occupation, your body, your bank
account - these are just tools for consciousness to express
itself to itself. It is all a play, a great universal play of
consciousness. Fundamentally, you are nothing but consciousness.
But consciousness is not an object. You are conscious, you are
receptive, but when you begin to think, you then begin also to
think you are a separate entity. You then start to get involved
and identified with the images that pass through your brain, and
you believe that you are a controller, a doer. But who is there
to control or do anything? It can be, and will be, wiped out
suddenly. All it needs is one great wave, then where is the doer?
Then, the doer is itself done. At any moment, we are solely
reliant that our next breath comes - and one day it won’t
come.
So, finally, to answer your question as to how I see that the
thinker comes to an end. When the thinker comes to an end is of
no interest. The thinking process is a natural part of life as a
human being. When we see that this is how it is, we can be at
ease in the understanding that all this play of the mind will
come to an end. It doesn’t have to be ended as a deliberate
act. Its end is already clear and will certainly happen when it
is due to happen. Our true nature lies in consciousness, which is
non-specific. When a life is born, it is naturally and
automatically imbued with consciousness, because consciousness
permeates all. When all this is known, there is naturally no more
attraction for the mind to identify itself with what is going on
in the play. It knows that it itself is a temporary blip on the
all-encompassing background consciousness, so the mind naturally
stands back from involvement. There is an awareness of the play,
and the actor in the play, and it is never forgotten who or what
it is that stands behind the actor.
Q8: You seem to suggest consciousness is a kind of screen on
which thought moves. As I see it, thought itself is
consciousness. Consciousness is dependent on the body and mind.
Without memory and thought there is hardly any consistent notion
of existence, which is what consciousness is after all. So
consciousness is limited, relative and temporary.
When consciousness understands its own nature it is also emptied
of the false sense of self or separation constructed and imagined
by thought. Consciousness is transformed and empty. This
emptiness is not an entity. It is without sense of self. This
empty consciousness is like the dew drop in which the moon is
reflected; the moon being absolute reality. This reality is
beyond being or non-being. It is not an entity and is not a state
which can be experienced. It is beyond consciousness and
experience. What would you say to this view?
A8: Consciousness is the substratum of all existence. It
underlies everything in the physical world. At least, this is one
use of the word. I am not attached to any particular concept
regarding Consciousness. As far as I am concerned, consciousness
is not an object. What we point to in our discussion can never be
it, because ‘it’ is not an ‘it’ at all. It
has no separate existence. Now, I know that one of Krishnamurti’s
favourite phrases was “consciousness is its content”.
This is a totally different concept, and use of the word. If you
are saying that thought, mind is consciousness, then I can accept
that, but we are not talking about the same thing. We are
attributing different meanings to different words. Maybe you use
different words to describe what I am trying to describe?
From my starting position, consciousness is not dependent on the
body and mind - in fact, quite the opposite. But I am also happy
to use your concept of consciousness. Both are valid. These are
not opposing views. We are merely using different concepts in
different ways. In the sense that I am using it, consciousness
cannot be tranformed, because it is beyond time-space and
causation. It is not an object. If we say that consciousness is
its content (i.e. memory and thought) then we maybe call what I
call consciousness “God”. I am happy to do that. Or we
can call one ‘Consciousness with form’ and the other
‘Consciousness without form’ - as you wish. There is
black and there is white. Without black there is no white, and
vice versa. Without the relative there would be no absolute,
without me there would be no you, and so on. But is there
something beyond this? Or do we simply need to accept that there
is existence and there is non-existence? Today we converse ...
and tommorrow we are not here. Today we read Rumi, Hui Neng,
Buddha, Jesus ... where are they now? Are they not merely
concepts in our minds? Tommorrow ... in ten thousand years, maybe
someone will read our dialogue, and it will be relevant then, as
it is now, but neither Ben nor Roy will be around any more. Where
have we gone? Who in fact are we? Or is what we take ourselves to
be merely a wave arising in the great ocean of consciousness?
Q9: In all schools of traditional Buddhism and Vedanta precepts
for moral and ethical conduct are the cornerstone on which the
more advanced teachings are founded. In popular Advaita these
basic teachings are often frowned upon. What is your view on
this?
A9: The precepts are there for good reason. The mind, the ego, is
very adept at deluding itself into thinking it has grasped the
ultimate truth, when in fact it has only grasped the basics of
the philosophy. I would not suggest that everyone practice
traditional spirituality as it has been laid down through the
ages. It may be appropriate for some, but is not necessary for
everyone. However, I have become aware of a number of people who
consider that once it is realized that the ultimate nature of
reality is non-dualistic, that there is then no need to question
one’s behaviour or attitudes at all - that, basically, any
kind of behaviour is acceptable, as there is no one there in
ultimate terms. So, such people become unwilling to question
their anger, their fear, their sexual behaviour maybe, or their
offensive use of language. As all is One and as this ‘person’
here really doesn’t exist in ultimate terms, anything goes,
according to this view. Whilst there may be a certain amount of
philosophical truth in this view, in terms of helpfulness for
daily life, I would say it is a way of burying the head in the
sand, whilst at the same time claiming to be able to see beyond
the stars. If there truly is ‘realization’, in the
traditional sense, there is also transformation on every level.
It doesn’t just affect one’s ideas and concepts. If
there really is selfless awareness, then where is the room for
selfish behaviour? The mind and emotions are automatically
transformed by ‘realization’. Otherwise, it is a new
meaning that is being attributed to the word ‘realization’,
to suit a less demanding group of people. Realization, in the
traditional sense, changes the centricity of the ‘person’
entirely. Yes, his behaviour may then be unpredictable, but how
can it ever be ego-centric again? This is the difference. There
is freedom to do anything (the new approach), and there is also
freedom from the need to do anything (the old approach).
Q10: What is the nature of reality? Can it be experienced?
A10: It may sound like an evasive answer, but I would say that
the nature of reality cannot be accurately described. It can be
experienced, but not by 'you' and not by 'me'. When there is
mindfulness, but no sense of me or you, there is a meeting with
reality. It can be hinted at in poetry or art, but not directly,
not by way of trying to pin it down, describe it or somehow grasp
the meaning of it. It has no meaning, as we know it, and it is
not fixed in such a way that any philosophy can accurately
represent it in words. Anything that we say that reality is is
merely a concept, a poor representation. When we truly have been
touched by reality, we will completely let go of trying to pin it
down.
from:
www.awakenedawareness.be/roy.html
top of page