I Can’t Understand It for You

All that I can do is offer some insight, point back to that which cannot be expressed, only indicated, because this is not something that can be handed over like information, it is not something that can be transferred from one mind to another. What was handed down here is only the pointing, only the reminder, only the gesture toward what is already present, already shining, already known before the mind begins its search. The seeing itself cannot be given, only the invitation to look.

It is up to you to do the work of self inquiry, to peel away the layers of illusion, to look directly at the one who is asking the questions, because no one can see this for you and no one can walk into the heart of this on your behalf. The most anyone can do is point, and even that is only useful if it turns your attention back to the seeing that is already happening. The pointer is not the truth, it is only the invitation, and the invitation is always to look at what is looking.

Once it is seen, all of the questions drop away, not because they were answered, but because the one who was asking them is no longer taken to be real. Until then it is understandable that there are all kinds of questions, all kinds of confusion, all kinds of attempts to grasp this with the mind, but no answer that the mind can hold onto is ever going to resonate, because the mind is not the place where this is known. The true pointer bypasses the thinking process and opens the clarity that is already there, the clarity that has always been there, the clarity that does not need to be created or improved or perfected.

You may be detecting what appears to be a contradiction, saying that only you can do this and there is no you. You may ask, if there is no one here, who is going to do the inquiry or look directly. This is only the mind trying to hold two ideas at once, the idea of a someone and the seeing that there is no someone, and the mind imagines conflict where there is none. But the invitation remains the same, because inquiry does not require a someone, it only requires the looking itself. 

The mind does not believe this, the mind believes there is a someone there doing something, a someone who must understand, a someone who must achieve, a someone who must awaken, and as long as that belief is knocking around, put it to work, let it investigate who you are, let it turn its attention back on itself, let it look for the one who is supposedly confused or seeking or trying to get somewhere. This is the only place where the illusion can unravel, because it unravels in the looking, not in the thinking, not in the believing, not in the collecting of spiritual ideas.

I am simply pointing back to the simple fact of being aware, pointing back to the recognition that the seeker is the illusion, because once the attention turns inward, once it looks for the one who is supposedly on the path, the whole structure begins to collapse. The mind cannot survive that kind of looking, because the mind depends on the assumption that there is a someone there to be improved, a someone there to be enlightened, a someone there to be liberated.

This can only come from direct inquiry and direct seeing, not from my saying this, not from anyone’s teaching, not from any philosophy or system or explanation. All this is is a jumping off point, a simple invitation, a quiet nudge toward what is already here, and you have to take the leap to see that no one is there to jump. The whole structure collapses in the seeing, and what remains is the simplicity that was never absent.

The truth is already the case, the seeing is already happening, and this points to the same thing, the same simplicity, the same undeniable presence that does not need to be earned or achieved or understood. It only needs to be noticed.

Look in your own experience, see what is already aware and present. You are, and you know that you are. Use self inquiry to peel back what you are not, and it reveals that which cannot be deconstructed.

One‑Upmanship and Trolling in Nonduality Groups

Anyone who has spent any time in nonduality groups has seen this, because the moment someone speaks from a simple, grounded place, some voice will rise up out of the shadows to correct them, to outdo them, to sound more radical, more absolute, more uncompromising, and it becomes this endless spiral of one‑upmanship where nobody is actually listening and nobody is actually seeing, they are just trying to win a game that has nothing to do with clarity at all.

The pattern is predictable, mechanical, and it goes like this. Someone asks a question, then there is a comment with some insight, and next someone jumps in with the automatic negation, the reflexive contradiction, where whatever is offered is immediately dismissed and whatever is dismissed is dismissed again, as if negation itself were the highest truth, the spiritual version of saying “I know you are but what am I.” And no matter what is said, no matter how clear the pointer is, this interloper is going to say it is not that, they will try to turn a clear pointer on its ear by back flipping into a more radical sounding position, because they are not really offering insight, they have none, they have only learned to do the verbal gymnastics of the advaita shuffle to sound as if there is some deeper understanding.

And mixed in with these one‑uppers are the flat‑out trolls, the ones who are not even pretending to offer clarity, the ones who jump into any thread only to contradict whatever is said, the ones who say things like “there is a someone there,” or “how can you say there is no one when you said it,” or “who is making the statement,” not because they are inquiring, but because their only purpose is to provoke, to stir conflict, to derail the conversation. They do not know what any of this means, they only know how to say “that is wrong,” and they offer nothing but antagonizing and confusion for the sincere seeker who is genuinely trying to understand.

It is not depth, it is not radicality, it is not truth, it is just the ego trying to stay on top of the heap by sounding more nondual than the next person. You can see the whole thing as the ego’s need for superiority dressed up in spiritual language.

The irony is thick, because the whole point of nonduality is the dissolution of the one who needs to be right, yet these groups are full of appearances acting out the identity of the one who knows, the one who corrects, the one who negates, the one who can quote the most teachers or deny the most teachings. It becomes a performance, a posturing, a stance, and the stance has to defend itself constantly, so it argues, it nitpicks, it negates, it corrects, it never rests. This is the mind turning conceptual understanding into identity and then defending that identity at all costs.

This one‑upmanship is not clarity, it is insecurity. It is not insight, it is compensation. It is not the collapse of the seeker, it is the seeker reinventing itself as the authority. Once you see that, the whole thing becomes transparent, because you can feel the difference between a pointer arising from seeing and a position arising from mind. One is simple, quiet, grounded. The other is loud, reactive, and always trying to outdo whatever came before it. This is the basic mechanics of spiritual defensiveness playing out in real time.

The tragedy is that real conversations get buried under this noise. Someone genuinely exploring gets shut down by someone performing. Someone asking an honest question gets drowned out by someone trying to sound advanced. Someone sharing something gets corrected by someone who cannot tolerate not being the center of the room. The whole thing becomes a stage for the loudest trying to win a contest they created.

The truth is, none of this has anything to do with nonduality. It is just the same old ego, the same old insecurity, the same old need to be right, wearing a spiritual vocabulary like a costume. The performance continues, the identity defends itself, and the simple clarity that nonduality points to gets lost under layers of conceptual noise.

It is clear how superiority becomes a coping mechanism, or how the mind turns teachings into identity, and how defensiveness masquerades as radicality, because all of this points to the same movement, the same pattern, the same old ego wearing a new mask.

And if there is any doubt for the sincere seeker, just look at who offered a pointer, who offered insight, and then look at who burst into the middle of the conversation only to say that it is wrong. The difference is unmistakable.

What the Mind Makes of It

When offering pointers, I’m not considering every interpretation someone might pull from them… that is always shaped by the conditioning of the reader. Pointers are only pointers, they are never the truth the mind imagines it can grasp.

I’ve seen people who follow the words of Sri Nisargadatta and others who follow Ramana Maharshi, and I’ve heard all the arguments about what their pointers mean. Some say the message is essentially the same, others insist it is not… but it can hardly be argued that either of these two lacked clarity in what they were pointing to. They simply expressed the same no‑thing in different ways, and the mind turns those differences into divisions.

I don’t mind clarifying what I’m saying, but even the best words cannot describe what is being pointed to. And I’m not debating psychology on any of this, because psychology says awareness comes from the mind or the brain, while nonduality is pointing to something entirely different… it says the mind and the brain appear within awareness. These are two different levels of seeing, so there is nothing to argue about. There is more value in a subtractive kind of pointing that shows what it is not… and even that gets pulled into the mind and turned into a belief or a stance imagined by the reader.

Speaking in person has always tended to be the clearest way to share this, because reading seldom leads to any real understanding… the mind grabs the words and runs with them, while direct conversation has a way of cutting through that. Focusing on words, any words including mine, can be misleading when they are misconstrued, because what they point toward is before thought, and once thought tries to describe it the ability to say what it is is already gone. If the words resonate, they resonate, and if they do not then someone else may come through with something that strikes a chord. In any case there is no one here saying anything to anyone there… just appearances moving as they move.

The End of "Getting It"

There’s the idea that “I’m not getting it,” and then the flip side of “I think I’m getting it.” Both are just activity in the mind. You’re never actually out of it, because you are it, and the only thing happening is attention landing on an appearance. Look at the measuring stick being used to decide whether someone is getting something. Seeking inside the dream for an awakened someone goes nowhere. Turning to thoughts, feelings, emotions… all of that is looking in the wrong direction.

It’s only the simple knowing of all of that, the awareness that cannot be thought about and cannot be felt, because every feeling is just a thought interpreting sensation. There is no thinking your way there. There is only what already is… no getting it, no becoming it, no future version of you that arrives. It’s here now, prior to seeking, prior to thought, prior to the one who thinks they’re chasing it. And no, it isn’t exciting, because excitement is just another appearance, and that’s not it.

Looking for happy thoughts and good feelings… looking for anything… is barking up the wrong tree. These are merely what show up, just as pain and misery show up. Any of it may appear at any point, and none of it signifies anything other than the mechanism moving through whatever it’s moving through. Thoughts about enlightenment may show up, a euphoric sense of universal love may wash through the mind and body… fine… but that’s not it. It’s what knows those thoughts and feelings.

If those experiences are focused on, it will seem like “it” is gone the next time life shows up with events the conditioning is set to react to. It may flow smoothly, it may not. Events and circumstances don’t tell the tale. There is only the awareness in which it all appears… the knowingness prior to knowing, the beingness prior to being, the no‑thingness prior to things.

See that, and the search ends, and there’s no need to listen to a pile of opinions about what it is. You can forget all of that and forget all of this, because it’s just words on a screen that can’t say what it is… they can only point.

Don't Follow It

Patterns show up... thoughts about needing to be something else, needing to be more, needing to fix some imagined flaw. Thoughts about unworthiness, about not being enough, about falling short of some invisible standard. They come the same way weather comes moving through without asking permission.

These thoughts and feelings can always arise. They come from conditioning that's baked deep in the system, old recordings that play in the mind without warning. Any of it can appear at any time, it is just the mind doing what the mind does. The important thing is simple… do not follow it.

When I first spoke with John Wheeler, I told him about these thoughts. I told him how convincing they felt, how they seemed to point to something wrong with me. John listened, and then he said something that cut right through the whole story… he said not to follow them. He said the thoughts are not the problem, following them is the problem… that stayed with me.

John did not get wrapped in the loop of asking who is there to follow it. He did not turn it into a puzzle. He knew the mind is just thought arising, and those thoughts create the sense of following. Yes, there is no one there to follow, but the thoughts are still followed. They are attached to, believed in, and taken as some kind of truth… that is how identification forms. It is not a person doing it, just the movement of thought being taken as real.

A thought can say anything. It can say you are broken, you are incomplete, you are unworthy, and you need to become something else. But the moment you look at the thought instead of believing it, the whole thing loses its weight. It is just a movement in mind, it has no authority on its own.

John pointed me back to the simple seeing that is already here, the open clarity that does not need improvement. The quiet presence that is not touched by the stories that pass through it. He pointed me back to what is aware of the thought, not the thought itself.

He also said that after enough time, the thoughts are still seen, but the relationship changes. They rise up and instead of pulling you in, there is a simple recognition, aquiet, almost gentle, “oh yes, that is what that is.” The thought appears, but it no longer carries the old weight. It is just another recording playing itself out.  The thought may still speak, but it no longer leads.

The Trap of Performance and the Clarity of Presence

There is a strange thing that happens around nonduality, and it happens so consistently that it almost feels built into the way the mind protects itself. People arrive with an idea of what they think it is, some imagined spiritual upgrade, some path toward becoming a calmer or wiser version of the same person they already believe themselves to be. They come as seekers, carrying the familiar tools of seeking, and they expect nonduality to fit inside that shape. They want chants, rituals, cross‑legged poses, the soft glow of spiritual identity, the vernacular that includes “om” and “namaste," the performance of serenity. They want something that feels like self improvement, something that promises a better tomorrow for the same imagined self they have always defended. Nothing is added to the person, there is nothing to get, and that to the mind seems like an enormous waste of time, because it needs to become.

But then they meet the actual pointing, the directness that cuts through the entire structure, and the mind recoils. The heart of nonduality is not a path for a person, not a method for a self, not a technique for becoming anything at all. It is the simple clarity that the one who seeks is imagined, that the one who wants to improve is imagined, that the one who fears disappearing is imagined... and for many, that is where the trouble begins.

Some arrive in nonduality spaces and immediately start arguing, not because they understand the pointing but because they feel it threatening the very thing they believe themselves to be. They take on a posture of superiority, not because they are confident, but because the idea of no self is terrifying to the mind that cannot imagine existing without its story. So they push back, they debate, they troll, they try to provoke reactions, all in an attempt to feel a sense of solidity, a sense of “me,” a sense of worth. The argument becomes a way to reassure themselves that they are still here, still someone, still important.

This is why so many misunderstand nonduality as some form of self help. They hear the words through the filter of the seeker, through the filter of the one who wants to fix something, heal something, become something. They imagine nonduality as a tool for the self, never seeing that the entire message is pointing to the absence of that self. They want comfort, but the pointing is not comforting. They want guidance, but the pointing removes the guide. They want a path, but the pointing reveals there is nowhere to go.

Nonduality is not spiritual performance. It is not a lifestyle,  not a belief system, not a technique. It is not a promise nor a refuge for the seeker. It is simply the clear seeing that the seeker is a thought, a movement of mind, a pattern appearing in the same way everything else appears.

And when that is truly heard, even for a moment, the entire structure of seeking collapses... the arguments, posturing, the need to be right, the imagined spiritual identity all collapses. What remains is this… unfiltered, unowned, unprotected, not belonging to anyone, not offering anything, not withholding anything. Just the immediacy that was here before the mind began trying to turn it into a project.

Some will continue to argue because the mind is frightened by what it cannot control. Some will continue to seek because the idea of no self feels like annihilation. Some will continue to misunderstand because they are still listening through the filter of becoming. But none of that touches what the pointing is actually pointing to.

Nonduality is not here to improve the self, it is here to reveal that the self was never here to begin with... and even all of this... every reaction, every argument, every attempt to defend a story, every movement toward or away from the message, is just another movement in the ever present awareness. It is neither good nor bad, it is simply what it is. The pattern can go in any direction, it already appearing in this, and it only takes looking in the right direction to see it… some do, many never do, yet the seeing is always here, untouched by whether it is recognized or not.

It Isn’t God, and It Isn’t Not God

Most conversations about God begin with the same quiet assumption that whatever we mean by “God” must be something outside ourselves. A being, a force, an intelligence, a presence. Something imagined as separate, something to believe in or reject. But the moment attention moves toward an external deity, the whole thing becomes a detour. It’s like imagining another “me,” just another concept wearing a different costume.

The mind keeps trying to shape it. It tries to prove, disprove, assign attributes, strip attributes, make the idea into something or into nothing. It builds a position, then defends it, it builds the opposite position, then defends that. Any interest or disinterest pulls attention back into thought, circling its own creations. It’s the same maneuver, just shifting language.

This is where the labels theism and atheism fall apart. They only make sense if the imagined object is taken as real. They depend on the idea that there is a “God‑concept” to accept or reject. But when the whole structure is seen as a mental construction, the labels don’t land anywhere. They don’t apply. They point to a stance about a concept, not to what is actually here.

What’s here doesn’t need a deity, a denial, or a position. It doesn’t need belief or disbelief, it doesn’t need a name. It’s already present before the commentary, before the mind begins sorting and labeling and arguing with itself. It’s the simple immediacy of experience, appearing as whatever is appearing… thought, sensation, breath, sound, the sense of being.

And for some this is what the word God is trying to point toward, though the moment it’s named it becomes something separate again, something imagined rather than what’s actually here. The naming pulls it back into the mind’s world, where it becomes something to hold or reject, something to argue about, something to define. But what’s here is prior to the naming, untouched by it.

It isn’t God, and it isn’t not God… it simply is.

The mind tries to turn that into a category, but it can’t. Categories belong to thought, and this is prior to thought. It doesn’t sit on one side of the argument or the other. It doesn’t validate theism, and it doesn’t validate atheism. Both depend on the same imagined object, the same imagined stance, the same imagined “me” who holds the stance.

When the imagined object dissolves, the stances dissolve with it.

What remains is this… unfiltered, unowned, unpositioned. Not supernatural, not philosophical, not theological. Just the immediacy that was here before the mind started talking about it.

Q&A

Q. If there is no separate self, who is seeking enlightenment?

A. Just thoughts appearing about seeking, no seeker.

Q. If the ego is an illusion, who wants to get rid of it?

A. “Ego” is only a concept for thoughts stitching together a story of a separate someone. There’s nothing there to get rid of, and no one who could do it... it’s just thoughts appearing.

Q. Nothing belongs to me, because everything belongs to me.

A. Even the idea of “belonging” implies a possessor and a possessed. Without that split, it’s just what’s appearing, with no owner anywhere.

Q. Why is it that when you pray for refuge from a particular vice, the desire for that vice immediately gets stronger?

A. Because the prayer assumes a someone who must resist, that assumption creates the tension that amplifies it. Asking for refuge strengthens the imagined controller, and the imagined controller strengthens the pull of what it fears.

Q. Procreating is an ego trip, sustaining the illusion of corporeality.

A. This assumes a doer choosing to procreate or not. Life unfolds the way it unfolds, and the mind’s radical claims about “not doing it” just build another ego around the idea of avoiding ego.

Q. How to decrease suffering using Non Dual teaching (not neo advaita) ?

A. Nondual teaching doesn’t reduce suffering by fixing it. It turns the attention to the one who claims to be suffering. When you look for that “self,” there’s nothing there. Without a sufferer, the suffering loses its center.

Q. How do you differentiate between what is "Ego" and what is the authentic self?

Seems a bit subjective to me unless there is an objective standard.

A. The ego is just the passing thoughts claiming to be the one who is thinking, choosing, doing, becoming. 

The “authentic self” isn’t another version of you, it’s just the awareness that’s already here before the thought says “me.”  

Ego is whatever appears as a story about you... awareness is whatever is noticing the story.

Q. What is ego? Identification with the body is ego.

A. Ego is just thoughts tied together into the sense of a “me” in a story. The body that supposedly belongs to that “me” is just another appearance. When those thoughts aren’t taken as a center, there’s no ego left to point to.

Q. Awareness requires two. The one who is aware and that which he is aware of.

A. Awareness doesn’t require two. The “one who is aware” and the “thing he’s aware of” both show up in the same seeing… whole, already complete, not divided into a knower and a known... the split is only a thought.

Q&A

Q. What was the necessity for Nonduality to create duality, especially when Nonduality is without attachment

A. Nonduality didn’t create duality. Duality is just how the mind divides what never stopped being one.

Q. Who is posting in Facebook

if not your ego?

A. The posting is just happening. There isn’t a “who” behind it. The mind wants to attach an entity with volition to actions, but life unfolds on its own.

Q. Is it possible to be aware of Awareness without any other object in awareness?

A. No... the moment you try to be aware of Awareness, you’ve already turned it into an object. Awareness can’t appear as an object to itself. It’s just the fact of knowing, with nothing to point at. 

It's like the eye trying to see itself.

Q. If there's no self,

Then what is "I am?

A. I am” isn’t a someone, it’s the bare sense of being before it gets personalized. When the idea of a self drops, “I am” doesn’t disappear... the identity layered on top of it does. “I am” is just a pointer, not what is.

Q. Can anyone tell me in an extend form and deep explanation of how I am not my thoughts..I am not my mind..also then who am I?

I just want a deeper understanding 

A. You aren’t your thoughts because you’re aware of them. You aren’t your mind because the mind is just thoughts, images, and feelings appearing. The one asking “who am I?” is another appearance. What you are is the seeing of all of it… the part that doesn’t come and go.

Q. Is money the cause of suffering?

A. Suffering comes from the sense of a separate “me” who believes it lacks something. Life still handles what needs to be handled... earning money, feeding the family, taking care of the body... but none of that requires a suffering self at the center.

Q. What's your true Identity and true Self?

A. Identity is something the mind creates, and the idea of a true self is another concept. What you are is here before any of that.

Q. How do you practice 

Detachment...?

A. You don’t practice detachment. The one who wants to practice it is the attachment.

Q. Does anyone know the originator of the idea of 'Presence?'

A. No one originated the idea of presence. Every tradition has its own word for it, but the pointing is always the same. It isn’t an invention or a teaching, it’s the simple fact of being aware, and that was here long before any label.

Q.  Words and actions of others may well affect our thoughts and feelings, but suffering from our thoughts and feelings is our choice.

A. Thoughts and feelings show up on their own, there’s no choosing any of that. The suffering only kicks in when they get taken as “mine.” If they’re left as they are, just appearances coming and going, there’s no one there to suffer them.

New Book

https://a.co/d/0hIMx4s6