| Consciousness as an experience junkie Some time ago I saw a book on Chuck Hillig's
website: 'Looking for God: Seeing the Whole in One'.
My attention was drawn to the fact that there's a hole in
the book. I was curious enough to get hold of the book and read
it. I've read a lot of Advaita books but never one with a
hole in it. Besides it's also very easy to read as far as
I am concerned. In the book there are a lot of things happening
in and around the hole. It sometimes looks as if the book comes
out of the hole! Who you think you are A: Before going on further about the contents of the book. I am very interested in knowing more about the person, Chuck Hillig. (Although there are many advaita supporters who would say that there is no-body there). In 'Advaita-land', we learn that 'we' are perfect just the way we are... right here and now. There are warnings from many advaita teachers who say: 'Stop! Don't change! Don't search for happiness! Stay where You are!' What do you think?
Therapy is about finding the courage to 'be-who-you-already-are.' A: So why bother about marriage or family problems? Is there some separation between the person and 'being' (or void)? Or are there some differences in the stages where some people do need therapy and some don't? Ch: Our closest relationships can be either a golden
chalice or an iron cauldron. We're all cooked in the melodramas
of our own making until we become softer and more malleable. Marriage
is an opportunity to deepen our compassion, love and forgiveness.
Since our spouse is a reflection of who we are, the guru is really
appearing to us as the Beloved. In our neurotic need to dominate
and control each other, though, (all fear-based), we often don't
appreciate the gifts that our significant relationships bring to
us. We should learn to deeply honor and respect their contribution
to our own unfoldment. Your spouse is the way that they are because
of the way that you are. And, just like it was in school, you're
not always going to like what you're being taught. Remember,
though, that none of it (no matter how crazy it might be) is happening
to you. It's all actually happening for you. A: Although this interview is going to be about your book please allow me to go a little bit further into what you said here before. You say that therapy is about telling the truth. But I think truth is the domain of what we really are and not what we think we are. The truth that we find in Satsang is that the same truth you could find in Therapy? Ch: Well, the only Truth (capital 'T')
that's really real is Absolute truth, and it'll never
change into anything else simply because it can't change.
It just 'is-what-is.' Absolute truth manifests as relative
truth within the Great Illusion, however, whenever we start telling
a story about 'what is.' Relative truth depends on
remembering a past or imagining a future. It only shows up within
the dualistic world of opposites, stratifications, values (e.g.
ethics) and, of course the five senses. Specifically, relative
truth arises when there's a point of view (i.e. an 'Observer' observing
an 'Observed'). Absolute truth, on the other hand,
doesn't have a polar opposite simply because it's incapable
of adopting a single point of view about anything. Or, more accurately,
you might say that Absolute truth holds all possible points of
view because, at the bottom line, Absolute truth is just 'what's
so.' A: Could it be possible in therapy to tell a little lie for the sake of welfare? Ch: Does the end justify the means? Lies only manifest within the dualistic world of relative truth. There are no lies within the Absolute truth of 'what is.' If you tell a relative lie, however, then that part of you that knows the real truth splits off from your psyche, goes unconscious, and often revisits you again by creating mischief in your life somewhere down the road. Seeing the Whole in One A: It is very tempting to go on and on about the above subject. But let us go on with your book. To me, it is one of the books on enlightenment that I read in one sitting. It is very easy to read. When I look at the title 'Looking for God: Seeing the Whole in One,' you could get the idea that is it a kind of religious book. Many - but not all - enlightenment teachers speak of God. Do you have a specific reason to use the word God here? Ch: Yes. The title was designed to attract those seekers who still support the belief that God (or Allah, Brahma, Yahweh, etc.) is somewhere outside of them, and that they have to follow well-established spiritual guidelines...for example, rituals and traditions...if they ever hope to reach heaven or nirvana. However, the single concept that creates the most mischief is this persistent belief that they are, essentially, separate from the Truth that they're seeking. A: Why is that such a problem? Ch: Well, when you're not fully awakened to the reality that you-already-are-who-you-are-looking-for, that misidentification then sets into (e)motion all of the various dramas of your life. The cosmic momentum of 'The Search' that's propelling you forward into seeking out the Truth, however, also serves to fill another more subtle purpose. By inference, it reinforces the notion that, even though they're arising simultaneously, the 'seeker' and the 'goal-being-sought' must be fundamentally different from each other. The subtitle of the book, (Seeing the Whole in One) hopefully reminds the reader about the ultimate futility of words, images and concepts in this area by showing Michelangelo's God the Father and Adam both pointing their fingers, not at each other, but at the empty (w)hole on the cover. 'Who is this one who wants to know life's meaning? A: This issue (of Amigo) is about 'The
Meaning of Life.' A short time ago, I read a book by U.G.
Krishnamurti, (Mind is a Myth) in which he says: 'don't
look for a meaning to life. There may not be any meaning at all.
It may have its one meaning that you can never know.' In
your book you talk about The Void, being the source of all 'nothing-ness' and,
at the very same time the source of all 'everything-ness' Ch: I consider the Void to be like a cosmic matrix from which the infinite manifestations of consciousness appear to emerge out of and, eventually, disappear back into. Everything begins and ends in silence...in the nothingness beneath the nothingness. However, when most people discuss the 'meaning of life,' they're usually talking about its 'significance' or its 'importance.' But maybe life really doesn't have any so-called 'meaning' at all other than the one that you, yourself, superimpose upon it. Life seems to mysteriously show up for you in ways that fully support your own heart's definition of how-life-actually-is...no matter how self-limiting or distorted that definition might be. For example, believing that 'Life is an incredible drag' will manifest a very different reality for you than if you believe that 'Life is an incredible dance.' So, does life have any meaning? Well, what's the 'meaning' of a rose or of a mountain? They simply are what they are. A much deeper question to ponder is: 'who is this one who wants to know life's meaning? A: Of course any idea about the meaning of life would be a concept. But still a lot of questions arise in the imagined world that appears to us. There isn't any question about who we really are. But somehow we still live our daily lives with a lot of other questions like 'What is it all about?' Isn't it a bit too easy to say: 'Well just don't worry about it.' These kinds of answers would kill any further discussion. Ch: Well, I never tell people to stop doing anything... even
worrying. (Anyway, worrying is never the problem. The real problem
begins when people 'worry-about-their-worrying.') The 'What's
it all about?' question is fundamentally problematic. Why?
Well, after first assuming that consciousness has some kind of 'meaning' behind
it, the question then encourages others to theorize about what
that meaning could be. But, in truth, consciousness doesn't
just have a single 'meaning' or a specific 'purpose.' To
the contrary, everything is always included in it. In other words,
consciousness openly embraces every possible 'meaning' and 'purpose' that
you might be assuming about it. The metaphor of the empty void: A: Perhaps we should leave this subject for now and go to your book. The first thing that comes up for me is that the book has a large number of stories...some short, some longer... a large number of quotes from a lot of 'wise' men and women and lots of nice drawings. It gave me the idea that 'you' wanted to create a lot of entrances to go into the idea of the Void. Can you tell me something about it? Ch: Yes, actually that was the idea. I especially wanted to see if I could apply the metaphor of the empty void to some of the well-known images that we're all familiar with. On one page, for example, I used the hole to represent Buddha's third eye. Later on in the book, on back-to-back pages, I used the hole to replace both of the small black and white circles in the yin-yang symbol. I also put the empty hole in the center of the famous Zen circle and, later on, even surrounded it by Uroborus (the snake that swallows its own tail). The hole was also used to represent an ovum being 'attacked' by sperm at the moment of conception. However, after turning the page, that very same hole is now seen as an empty eye socket in a human skull. However, I also wanted to show the void in more playful ways. For example, the empty hole was also used to represent the ice cream on a cone, a child's balloon, and even the pupil in the center of the human eye. Above all, I wanted to give the reader an opportunity to see that the void is the source of absolutely everything...and of nothing...at the very same time. On the one hand, it sources all love and light but, on the other hand, it also sources all evil and depravity. For example, on one page, some well-known saints (e.g. Ramana Maharshi and Gandhi) are pictured arising from the void. However, when you turn that same page, you see pictures of Hitler and Osama that are also arising from the very same void. It seems that, as an 'experience junkie' Consciousness never says 'no' to anything. Why is this? A: As you say, Consciousness never says 'no' to anything. And Consciousness is what we really are. And yet in the eyes of most people, Maharshi and Gandhi are OK, but Hitler and Osama should not have existed at all...even if we can understand that they are all from the same void. Seen from the standpoint of the Void, there cannot be any judgment. From the point of view of the mind, however, there's always judgment. How do you look at that? Is there an(y) answer to the question 'Why is this?' Ch: Our problems always arise when we look at 'what is' and then say 'no' to what we see. If we're only willing to say 'yes' to the more comfortable manifestations of Consciousness, then we're taking the position that we, (in all of our ego-based 'wisdom') magically know better than the universe about what 'should' be unfolding in it. The mind, it seems, automatically wants to prioritize whatever's being presented to it and to put it into some kind of self-created hierarchy. These arbitrary stratifications, then, become both justified and energized through the judgments that the mind makes about its own selections. But, in the great cosmic drama of life, there are plenty of parts for everyone... no matter how poorly they might be behaving. I'm quite sure, for example, that Shakespeare loved his villains just as much as he loved his heroes. Why? Because he knew that these opposites arise simultaneously and that they each secretly depended on the other like different sides of the same coin. Seen in this light, then, villains like Hitler and Osama give the rest of us a glorious opportunity to rise up and become more heroic. Plays and stories without any conflict are very boring and are quickly forgotten. This ongoing struggle between heroes and their villains, however, forms the very core of great drama... both on stage and off. Whatever you resist persists. A: In your book I read the following: 'When you resist the Void, the Void seems to resist you. If you make the Void 'wrong,' then the Void starts making you 'wrong.' Remember, this (w)hole thing is about echoes and reflections' This quote being an answer to a question in a 'cosmic conversation' as you have called it. I do not understand this at all. How is it possible that: if everything is as it is, that there is some 'you' making something wrong. Wouldn't this 'you' be the Void itself? Ch: Yes, of course this 'you' is also the Void too because there's really no separate 'you' there at all. It's all only consciousness. However, the Void apparently resists itself whenever it seems to take an egoic position that 'something shouldn't be happening.' However, as Werner Erhard pointed out, 'Whatever you resist, persists.' In other words, any ego-based resistance to 'what is' is a lot like trying to put out a fire by using gasoline. Obviously, it only exacerbates the problem. Notice too, that the word 'wrong' is in quotes because the Void favors neither 'right' nor 'wrong.' It just 'is as it is.' You become aligned with the Void when you completely give up your attachment to the fruits of your so-called efforts. In other words, any apparent conflict with the Void begins the moment that you start demanding a specific outcome, though in truth, things-will-be-the-way-that-things-will-be. Period. Remember that it's not the actions themselves that create the bondage. It's your attachment to the results of the actions (through your belief in the do-ership of them) that fuels any apparent conflict. A: Chuck, you say: 'You become aligned with the Void when you completely give up your attachment to the fruits of your so-called efforts.' Would it ever be possible for the mind not to go into conflict with the void? Ch: Words like 'ego' and 'mind' are only concepts, and, as such, are intrinsically limited in their ability to describe the true reality of 'what is.' The egoic mind will never be enlightened because it's not in its nature to be at rest. Whenever you're talking about 'mind' the question immediately arises: 'Well, whose mind are you referring to?' It appears that the concept of an egoic 'mind' only manifests whenever there's any opposition to 'what is.' On the other hand, when the so-called mind is fully aligned with 'what is,' then that's what the Zen masters call 'no-mind,' and it unfolds through what the Taoists call 'non-action.' Remember, however, that the concepts of 'ego' and 'mind' both appear within the largest context (i.e. 'what is') and, since nothing is ever rejected by Consciousness, neither of them is ever considered to be a 'problem.' The greatest obstacle to enlightenment is your belief that you're not already enlightened. A: In your book I read the following about enlightenment: 'It is only the realization that there never was any Gateway to Enlightenment to begin with nor was there ever any separate person (like an individual 'you') that was really present at all who could be walking through it.' Could you tell me something about how and when this became completely clear to you? Ch: I was referring to the 'gateless gate' as spoken of by Mumon, the famous 13th century Zen master. The gate supposedly marks the apparent boundary between the 'before' and the 'after' of awakening. Prior to realization, it appears that there really is some kind of gate that you have to walk through to become enlightened. However, after awakening, the great discovery is that this so-called 'gate' or boundary was never really there at all. As Maharshi once said, 'The greatest obstacle to enlightenment is your belief that you're not already enlightened.' Because awakening transcends both space and time, though, it's like a 'non-event.' But then, how does this 'non-event' ever actually happen at all? Well, nothing will become clear only when there's no separate one really there to realize that there's really nothing there to realize. A: A very clear answer. I also asked you if you could tell me something about how and when it became completely clear to you? Is there a 'reason' to a-void this question? Ch: Well, just like there was no separate one really 'there' for anything to have become clear to, there's also no separate one over 'here' who's now trying to avoid this question. Trying to identify the 'who-what-where-how-when' of awakening only encourages the mind to want to continue to chase its own 'tale' (deliberately misspelled). In short, it's all just more stuff to add to the ongoing story-of-your-life. Anything that's said about it only feeds the ego's delusion that there really was an 'historical event' called 'awakening' that had actually happened to someone, and that this event had occurred somewhere within linear time (i.e. on such-and-such a calendar date). In truth, though, nothing happened... and to no one!!! A: A: Well Chuck, That's an answer that leaves not much doubt (although the 'mind' is not completely satisfied). I would like to close this interview with the following quote I read in the book 'The Tenth Man' by Wei Wu Wei: 'The void must be void, also, of voidness.' Chuck I would like to invite you to have the last word on this interview. Ch: First of all, I want to acknowledge my friend
Dick de Boom for creating the space and opportunity for us to share
these dialogues together. I'm both grateful and appreciative
for his efforts to make these teachings available for all who might
be interested. Chuck's website: www.chuckhillig.com [interview: Dick de Boom} |
Ch:
Well, just because everything is perfect, that doesn't
mean that things don't appear to change. Who you really are,
of course, doesn't (and can't) ever change. Who you
think you are, however (as well as who you think you are not) appears
to change a lot. But life always unfolds from one perfect instant
into yet another perfect instant ...and, amazingly, every micro-instant
in between is also absolutely perfect, too. You can realize this
for yourself the very moment that you give up your belief about
what perfection is 'supposed' to look like. You see,
without your idea about what's perfect, then perfection always
looks exactly like 'what is.' However, whenever you
superimpose what you believe 'should be' over what
actually 'is,' the misalignment creates both the tension
and the friction that feed into your persistent illusion of separation.
Since happiness and bliss are your own true nature, however, there's
no reason to go out searching for something that you already have
(and are.) Please remember, though, that just because every moment
is always perfect, that doesn't imply that every moment is
always going to be comfortable. The body's ongoing search
to seek pleasure and avoid pain will automatically play out as
it does. But that still doesn't mean that whatever shows
up for you is going to be any more perfect than what's present
right here and right now. Life is as it is because, at this single
moment of now, it simply can't be any other way.