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

Q&A

Q. During a scary dream who Is scared, the mind itself that Is dreaming or the Self?

A. Just as anything, the dream arises, the fear arises, but for no one. It’s just appearing as fear.

Q. My image about myself is a convenient trap.

A. Yes... it’s seeing that the trap is for no one that’s revealing. The image never belonged to a someone, and once that’s clear, the whole thing loses its grip.

Q. Who/what are you…? Underneath the masks (persona)…

A. Underneath the masks there isn’t a who or a what. The persona appears, but nothing sits behind it. It’s the looking for a something the mind can latch onto that keeps the search alive. See this, and the whole effort to find a someone underneath simply dissolves.

Q. If the “you” seeking freedom is imaginary, what exactly is supposed to awaken?

A. Nothing awakens because there was never a separate “someone” to begin with. What seems to fall away is only the assumption that there was a seeker at all. Nothing actually changes... the whole structure of “me becoming” is seen as part of the story. The seeker story falls away, but not for anyone... it’s simply recognized as something that never applied in the first place.

Q. If consciousness is not the mind. where does the mind come from?

A. The mind is just another appearance in consciousness. It doesn’t come from anywhere, it shows up the same way a thought shows up.

Q. Who/what are you without your personal history?

A. Without the personal history, the story, there’s no “who” or “what” left. There’s just the knowing... the simple awareness in which the idea of a someone could appear.

Q. What is the justification for the claim that awareness is non-biological in nature, that is, it precedes birth, and continues after the death of the physical body?

A. Awareness is not shown to start with birth or end with death because both birth and death appear in it. The body has a beginning and an ending, but the knowing of experience does not show up as something created or destroyed. That is why it’s described as non‑biological.

Q. So here people practice non duality with arrogance?  Duality is also ok, everything is ok. Just enjoy life.

A. What practice is there? Practice is only the mind imagining something must be done to become what you already are. Even the idea of “coming out of duality” is just another appearance. Who is there to do any of it? The whole notion of a someone practicing to reach nonduality is the very duality being questioned. When that imagined doer is seen for what it is, the rest falls away on its own.

Q. To come out of Duality one should do what?

Or what to do to know Non duality?

A. Ask who could do anything. See that there is no one to do and nothing to do. Even the asking of the question is just a conceptual appearance... a thorn used to remove a thorn and then discarded. It’s here now... the search only keeps the circle going because there’s still a belief in a “me” who will become something else.

Q.. How does “we are all one” coexist with setting a firm, no-contact boundary with a toxic person? Where does the ‘one’ end and ‘my non-negotiable well-being’ begin in your felt experience?

A. Oneness doesn’t cancel the organism’s natural intelligence. The body‑mind doesn’t step in front of a moving train just because it knows the train and the body are not-two. A boundary is simply that same non‑separate functioning avoiding harm.

Q. What is enlightenment?

A. Enlightenment is seen as something to reach only from the viewpoint of a separate person. When that separate person is seen to be imaginary, the whole idea of enlightenment falls apart. There is no one who becomes enlightened, no finish line, no state to attain, and no transformation that turns a person into something higher. What remains is simply life as it already is, without a seeker trying to complete it.

Q. What's the first question arises when seeker starts the journey?

A. The first question never needs to be “When will I wake up?” or “When will I get it?” Those come from the seeker’s imagination of a future self. The real beginning is simply “Who am I?”

Q. What does non-duality feel like? How does one know the ego has been dissolved?

A. It doesn’t feel like anything in particular. Everything is exactly as it is, but without a “me” behind it. The ego isn’t dissolved, it’s seen as something that was never there.

Q&A

Q. What happens to free will in non-duality? If everything is unfolding as it must including my choices , am I choosing? Or am I just watching choices happen?

A. The question comes from the assumption that there’s a separate chooser somewhere behind the scenes. When that assumption drops, the tension drops with it.

Q. Does it matter if there is no self when it feels real and must function in the world?

A. It doesn’t matter... the feeling of a self is just what’s appearing. It functions, it does what it does, but it’s not you. You don’t have to get rid of it or change it. Let it appear and disappear. You’re the knowing of it, not the self that seems to show up.

Q. How to get rid of what doesn’t exist?

A. There’s no need to get rid of it, it simply appears as it appears, and only the belief that you’re inside it gives it any substance.

Q. What does “awakening” actually mean to you?

A. Awakening isn’t an event or a special state, it’s simply the clear seeing that the sense of being a separate someone was never actually there. Thoughts, feelings, and life continue as before, but the imagined center falls away. What remains is just what has always been here, without a “me” at the center of it.

 Q. People are not addicted to drugs and alcohol. They are addicted to escaping reality.

A. Drugs and alcohol are just the tools that get used. The real addiction is to the idea of a separate “me” trying to get away from its own experience. When that “me” is seen for what it is, there’s no one left who needs to escape reality.

Q&A

Q. If consciousness is simply seeing clearly, what are most people refusing to look at?

A. What’s avoided isn’t anything mystical, it’s the simple fact that the “me” we take ourselves to be is just a swirl of thoughts and reactions with no owner behind it. Most people turn away from that, because seeing it clearly unravels the whole structure they’ve spent a lifetime protecting. So the resistance isn’t about reality at all, it’s the hesitation to look straight at the one who says it’s doing the looking.

Q. If I am not my ego or story then are all my worries, fears and insecurities illusions?

A. The worries, fears, and insecurities show up, but the one they seem to belong to can’t be found. They’re not illusions in the sense of being fake, they’re illusions in the sense that they’re tied to a “me” that isn’t actually there.

Q. When “I” am not the doer, then how can “I” be sad or proud?

A. The sadness and pride show up, but the “I” they seem to belong to is only a thought that appears afterward. The feeling happens on its own, just like every other movement, and then a story comes in and claims it as mine. Without that claim, the emotion is simply there, rising and falling in the same way everything else does, with no separate someone at the center of it.

Q. is instantly enlightenment possibile??

A. What’s called “enlightenment” is simply this shift. It doesn’t happen in time, so “instant” is the only way it ever shows up. It’s the clear seeing that there was never a separate someone who needed to become anything. What seems gradual is just the old sense of a seeker fading out.

Q. Both good and evils coexist within us and we have to control evils with the help of good ones.

A. The moment you say “good vs. evil,” you’ve created a duality that only exists in thought. Before that labeling, in direct experience, there’s no inner conflict at all... just whatever is appearing.

Q. I don't understand how it is possible to speak when there is no time. I know I will never understand it..

A. Speaking doesn’t require time — it only requires the appearance of time.

The words seem to unfold, the sentence seems to move from start to finish, but all of that happens in the same timeless awareness that’s noticing the question.

Understanding it isn’t the point.

The mind can’t grasp it because the mind itself is built out of time — memory, anticipation, sequence. What you are isn’t.

So the speaking happens, the hearing happens, the sense of “before and after” happens, but the awareness they appear in never moves.

Q. I think the word illusion is misleading sometimes. The world is real but it is irrelevant to what matters in life. We are all trying to reach oneness in consciousness.

A. The world feels real because it appears, that’s all “real” ever means... but calling it an illusion or calling it real doesn’t touch what you actually are. Without awareness, where is it? The moment awareness isn’t present, the entire discussion disappears with it.

Q. Interested to know why we are here

A. We’re not here for anything — we’re just here. 

The mind wants a purpose, a mission, a reason, but that question can be asked forever because it comes from the very mechanism that can’t be satisfied. 

Life isn’t happening toward something; it’s simply appearing as this moment, without a goal behind it. The “why” dissolves when you see that the question itself is just another appearance in what already is.

Q. If “you” don’t exist, who is writing your posts about how “you” don’t exist?

A. There is just writing, no "who" behind it.

Q. Is nonduality the same as the Tao?

A. No, the Tao works with harmony inside the play of opposites, nonduality points to the absence of the one who’s in the play at all.

Q. Who am I?

A. Look at the gap before a thought appears and after it fades...what you are is that.

Q. Lots of talk about what is/isn't... What is your daily spiritual practice? How do you apply theory/teaching throughout  your day?

A. There’s no practice here...practice belongs to the idea that something’s missing and needs to be added. What you are doesn’t depend on doing anything. Life goes on as it always has... work, conversations, traffic, dishes, and all of it appears in the same awareness. Nothing to apply, nothing to remember, nothing to hold onto. The seeing is already happening. The rest is just the mind trying to stay involved.

Q. How can I end my attachment to the body and all its suffering once and for all? It's driving me to despair. Ive been meditating for the best part of two decades. Still I am a self obsessed neurotic.

A. You don’t end attachment to the body, that whole project belongs to the idea that there’s a someone who could get free of something. The body, the suffering, the reactions, the despair, they all show up the same way thoughts and sounds do. They come, they move, they fade. Two decades of meditation didn’t fail you, they just kept the sense alive that there’s a “me” who needs to reach a different state. That’s the only thing that hurts. Stop looking in the mind for a way out, it only offers more of the same. What you are isn’t trapped in the body and isn’t touched by the mind’s labels. Sensations appear, stories form around them, and all of it is seen. Even the thought “I’m a self‑obsessed neurotic” is just another ripple passing through what never moves.

Q. Lately I’ve been noticing that thoughts come and go, but something is already present before they appear. I’m curious, how do you personally notice this presence in daily life?

A. You don’t notice it as something separate, that’s the whole point. It’s not a presence you tune into or a state you maintain. It’s just the simple fact that whatever shows up, a thought, a sound, a feeling, is already known the moment it appears. That knowing doesn’t come and go. Daily life doesn’t change, only the idea that you need to look for something does.

Q. If something happened in the past and isn’t happening now, why should it still cause suffering? Why keep carrying what has already passed?

A. The past and future only appear as thoughts now. They’re not places you can return to or things you can carry, just concepts the mind brings up in the present moment. What feels like “holding the past” is really a current thought about something that isn’t happening. The suffering comes from treating that thought as yours, as if there’s a someone choosing to hold or release it. Without that ownership, it’s simply another appearance that comes and goes on its own.

Q. After the clear understanding that I am not the body–mind, and that it functions on its own, according to its conditioning, with no operator, what more is truly needed?

Further seeking of scriptures or gurus now feels like a hindrance.

When seen closely, the urge to seek belongs to the body–mind, not to what I am.

If I am not the seeker, why continue seeking?

A. If it’s clear the body–mind runs on its own and there’s no one inside it steering, then what’s left to chase? The whole idea of “more” only makes sense if there’s a someone who hasn’t "arrived". When that someone is seen as a thought, the search has nothing to stand on.

The urge to keep looking may still show up, that’s just conditioning doing what it does, but it doesn’t belong to anyone. It’s not pointing anywhere, i’s just another movement appearing in the same space as everything else.

Nothing needs to be added, fixed, or deepened. What’s here is already complete.

Q. They tell you not to think of consciousness as a thing. But that's impossible.

A. It only feels impossible because the mind can only deal in things. It turns everything into an object, even consciousness. From a non‑dual view, that’s the whole point... the mind can’t do anything else. The seeing itself isn’t a thing, but the mind will always try to make it one.

Q. How ironic that many who claim to be at one, would block someone for speaking their truth as one?

A. It only looks ironic if we assume “oneness” guarantees openness. But the sense of being “at one” can still carry personal conditioning, defensiveness, and identity. Blocking someone doesn’t reveal anything about oneness, it only reveals a reaction in the programming.

Q. Do you believe in Advaita?

A. Belief has nothing to do with it. Advaita isn’t something to believe in or take a position on. It’s simply a description of what is; not two, one without second, before belief, disbelief, agreement, or rejection.

A Quick Update

Thank you for your patience as much of the blog content has been temporarily removed while I prepare my next book. It’s a simple offering, pointing back to the ease and clarity already present, and I look forward to sharing it soon. New posts will begin appearing again in the days ahead, along with more details about the book for those who feel drawn to explore it.