A Dialog with Charlie Hayes

The following is a dialog that I had with Charlie in Sept 2007, following on from his article posted the previous week on 'Experience and Enlightenment'.

Buy Charlie's book from Amazon.com or Amazon.co.uk

Visit Charlie 's website;
or his blog.

In the discussion below, my words are in blue (Dennis Waite) and Charlie's are in red (Charlie Hayes).

Basically I agree with the overall essence of your response in this dialog, namely that experiences are dualistic and therefore should be regarded as pointers to the truth and not as something to be looked for or repeated.

 It was really the very first sentence that triggered my 'objection response'! You say that: 'Many seekers have had such misleading occurrences happen and they are then really fooled into believing there are such “things” as “enlightenment” and “Liberation".' Since you say 'enlightenment' AND 'liberation', you presumably differentiate these. Could you define them?

Sure. They are both concepts, words. That's all. But interimly, perhaps useful to point a "seeker" to the absolute freedom of NON-conceptual Being-Awareness ... the absence of either the presence OR the absence of the "person."  Perhaps! Who knows? As Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj pointed out (paraphrasing Him,) hearing about the possibility off freedom from suffering ... a "thing" that one might label "awakening, liberation or enlightenment", may make a suffering "individual" perk up his ears, and begin the investigation into what is real ... and what is unreal. The concept certainly got my attention in 1974, when the suffering was very intense and I felt I HAD to get to the root cause of it. And then I was led, first to books by Ramana Maharshi and others, then finally to John Wheeler and "Sailor" Bob Adamson.

So: In a story, which many tell and many more believe, awakening is the sudden seeing that all "I think I know" is untrue, and "liberation" is the dropping away of anyone who gives a hoot about what is true and what is false and is a "final freedom" from the belief in a person who was seeking. BUT these are only stories. As I see it, when a seeker hears a concept like this he or she grabs it and sets it up as a goal to attain (someday!) That's what happened to "me." BUT: There is no goal, no someday, no seeker and no liberation or awakening except in the story, the "tale told by an idiot, signifying nothing." BUT that pointer (and it's only a pointer) may not be useful to the seeker who is convinced of his or her separate existence. In my view, any concept that is taken on as some sort of "holy grail" will ultimately need to be seen to be unattainable through the challenging of the assumption that there is a "me" who can "attain" some object called awakening or liberation.

 What the words try (unsuccessfully, ultimately!) to point a seeker to is the non-conceptual stateless state, that which never changes and is free and clear of self-identification, that which registers language and interpretations of all these inherently meaningless vibrations of energy appearing and dissolving in naked empty awareness which alone (all one) is Real as That which Never Changes. That is of course NO Thing. Yet that No Thing is alive as the appearance and loving to be as everything. To paraphrase Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj, this "Emptiness is Full." This "Silence Sings." 

 So: That sentence can be misleading (as all concepts can!) because there SEEMS to be a distinction between "awakening" and "liberation." That distinction is unreal, or to put that another way, all distinctions are linguistic and ultimately false, or ONLY "notional." In the appearance, "Heathrow" is distinct from "Gatwick." They are different in the appearance, for sure. But both are "Airports." Or "Airportness". Like that, both words, "awakening" and liberation," are pointing to the One-Essence, Naked Awareness, as our True Nature. One can say "Awakening To The Dream," or "Self-liberation Through Seeing With Naked Awareness. Both are pointing to "Airportness." Both are pointing BEYOND the word.

 So in a final stab at this, let's say that NEITHER "liberation" or "awakening" have any substance in fact. The FACT is, you might point out to the seeker, You Are the One that IS. Or, Isness Is. That Isness that IS stands outside of creation, outside of language, outside of story, outside of all conceptual experiences which appear real only due to lack of investigation. The question, who am I, or what am I, and the willingness to forego any and all "answers" and keep looking until there is no one left to look is the time tested approach. Adi Shankara's Discriminate and Discard. The ancient pointer, "Neti Neti". Not this not that not any THING whatsoever. What never changes, the natural eternal state, is not an object that a subject can possess.  The Real is beyond both subject and object. As Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj says, "The I Am alone is certain. The I am this or that is not". And, "Give up all questions except one: Who Am I?"

 I am reminded of the classic "Is there free will or is everything determined?" Two answers. 1. Yes. 2. No. The point is, of course, these philosophical constructs, conceptual edifices built on nothing, are neither true nor false. They are concepts. Is the image and appearance of a battleship made of clouds appearing in the sky real? It LOOKS real but close up is seen to be merely wisps of cloud. Like the mirage, which has no water. So the question a seeker might be led finally to ask is, What is real? What never changes? So when these questions arise one might well ask, who is asking the question? Who am I? What am I? And seeing through awareness itself that no answer will ever satisfy. Only seeing with naked being that all concepts are as dreams and no story is the actual Reality of timeless Absolute Freedom can satisfy the yearning for Home. "The menu ain't the meal."

 In my direct experience, not theory, when all is finally clear, it is clear that there is no word that can capture the wordless Being-Awareness that we are. And that we never needed to awaken or get liberated. We already always are that; the seeking merely seemed to obfuscate that being-awareness that we truly are.

 Freedom's just another word for no one left to choose. :-)

 Wow. So many words to talk about that which is clear and present and beyond words! Where's my coffee?

Hey, I only asked for a definition! :-)

 Seriously, though, I think this is one of the major problems that a seeker faces these days with lots of teachers. The seeker asks what they think is a simple question, requiring a straightforward, reasonable and immediately understandable response. And then the teacher responds with a long, circuitous monologue, addressing tangential questions and things that weren't asked for, introducing whole new subjects that are also not understood. So instead of narrowing down and focusing on the point of misunderstanding and clearing that up, the teacher ends up confusing the seeker even more. The seeker may initially think that something has been explained but, once he has gone away, he realizes that he is no wiser at all. Not that I'm accusing you of doing this of course!

So, let me suggest a distinction between 'enlightenment' and 'liberation' and see what you think of that: The ‘person’ does not exist in reality but obviously does at the empirical level. The ‘Self’, if that is what we call the non-dual reality, is already free so it is meaningless to talk about it being ‘liberated’. It is also meaningless to talk about the Self becoming (or being) enlightened. However, at the empirical level (which is what the seeker believes to be reality), the person’s mind believes him or herself to be bound and capable of being liberated. ‘Enlightenment’ then is the event in time, in the mind, when the realization dawns that there is no person and that the Self is already free.

Damn. That's GOOD! I like it much better than my long-winded dissertation. :-)

Brevity ... the Soul (or is that Sole) of Wisdom... Much appreciate that.

That’s very good of you to say so but it seems like a bit of a cop out! But never mind. So we can agree on these definitions. You then go on to say: ‘When awareness of the nature of reality dawns in the mind of the seeker, that there is no such thing as permanent “enlightenment” and that any experience, of oneness or any other “state,” must necessarily pass away, the seeking begins to fade away.’

On the contrary, I would have to say that, when Self-knowledge has completely removed the Self-ignorance in the mind of the seeker, there IS permanent enlightenment. It is then known directly that there is only the Self. That knowledge never fades. It is not an experience and not a state. The seeking ceases because it is now known, in the mind, that ‘I am That’.

Okay, (to provide a definition of terms) I would say “awakening” is an experience that happens to a dreamed character wherein he or she sees that “life is but a dream” as the children’s song goes, and liberation is the complete dissolution of the belief in a person or character who is awake or asleep. The whole false paradigm goes. And "The Self " or "Awareness-Being" is known to be all there is.

 Mind you, to my sensibilities these are both stories and can only (as you well know) point to the actuality of egoless being, or Awareness … “one-without-a-second.

When I point out that there is no such “thing” as “enlightenment” I am attempting to "de-objective-ize" this clear seeing that all there is, is The Self. Because the subject-object paradigm is false, as you well know. And yes, it is known in the mind that “I Am That,” but it is also known that when the one who says or “knows” as a subject that knows an object called That is false is the ego-mind and NOT the "Buddha-mind." The infamous "enlightened ego."

The Self, the THAT, in I AM THAT, is non-conceptual and is only known directly as the know-ING-Being-Awareness. And of course it is “permanent …” it was always what IS. Ha! But all these words might obfuscate. It is, to me, real simple. I Am That is KNOWN but not in a way the mind usually comprehends. It is direct, as you know, and non-conceptual. It’s clarity itself. Yes the mind knows it is endless … we get caught in trying to get the words “right” (at least I do.) 

I like what Bankei called it … The Unborn Buddha-Mind. I suspect that is what you are saying here and I find absolutely no disagreement there. It’s all good. And I completely agree that as you point out, That knowledge never fades. It is not an experience and not a state. The seeking ceases because it is now known, in the mind, that ‘I am That’. That is the "experience" here <smile>.

The difficulty in expressing what is happening is the result of failing openly to acknowledge the two ‘levels’. Absolute reality is non-dual but cannot be spoken of directly – obviously because language itself is dualistic. So we have to recognize the apparent level of duality – a ‘manifest’ world with separate people and objects. We do this whilst simultaneously acknowledging that this is not how it ‘really is’. But this is precisely the point when it comes to seekers and teachers. The seeker believes that the world is real and that he/she is a limited person within it. This is the level the teacher must address. It is pointless simply to reiterate that the ‘person is only a story’ or similar statements. On the contrary, seekers know irrevocably that they DO exist – they are NOT a story. What needs to be taught is that the essential ‘I’ that they know themselves to be IS the non-dual reality.

So, when we speak about ‘awakening’ or ‘enlightenment’, we are speaking of a person – not a ‘dreamed character’. After enlightenment (or liberation if you prefer), the person remains at the empirical level – the enlightened teacher still goes about his daily activities, making tea and talking to seekers. The ‘false’ paradigm’ continues as before – just as we still see the sun rising and setting but know that ‘in reality’ the earth orbits the sun.

The teacher who admits that ‘I am enlightened’ is not maintaining any ‘ego fiction’; he is simply saying that the mind has realized the truth about the Self and the world – that ‘I am That’ and ‘That is all there is’.

My first reaction is you are quite adept at teaching how to teach. I am still a rank novice at this. John Wheeler has mentioned that Bob said that after the Understanding is complete and irrevocable that the expression was really clumsy but got far better as talking went on. I find that each meeting it gets clearer, and you are helping a lot in getting some of this in perspective. I must agree that a teacher needs to speak to the seeker in a way that meets him or her where they are and not from some "lofty heights." So I am given pause by what you are sharing here and I can find no reason to argue. I firmly believe that taking any position and making that position "right" and others "wrong" is a trap and admit that I have been there done that no joy in mudville. :-)

 And yes, I do know I Am That and all there is, is That, so it's curious how we sidestep that simple self-knowing declaration! ...  

This will affect my expression in a positive way. In yesterday's meeting I did notice that as I shared the actuality of "my life" and how there is still an ‘I’, but it's seen that the ‘I’ is unlimited while appearing limited, it seemed to resonate.

 I appreciate this more than you know. Embracing the paradox of I as both dual and non-dual ... not two?

"I do know," I Am That and You Are That. Can't deny That; there must first be being before there can be the denial of being! Anyway, I do resonate with this and it's giving me more to look at with respect to how I express this stuff.

I think you are right that it is essential to respect where the seeker is and not speak from ‘lofty heights’ as you put it. In your original dialog, you said: “Correcting the error is simple; a little investigation is all it takes.” I had the following response from a reader: “These are the kinds of statements that have made my life HELL for so many years...because, if this is TRUE, then there is something SERIOUSLY flawed with ‘me’.”

Presumably this is not the message that a genuine teacher wants to convey (unless there is some misguided notion of ‘destroying an ego’)? I seem to recall that a well-known neo-teacher once implied that this was precisely the intention (but it would take me some time to locate the actual quotation).

I would respond to that reader with this: What is this ME that you claim some words "make your life hell?"

 I would ask you, dear reader: Have you really looked into that sense of being a "me" whose "life is hell?"

 I assert that in clear seeing, all suffering is seen to be imagination. But that ain't "the truth." So in answer I would add, "This is NOT "the truth." It's a pointer that YOU might use to actually DO the investigation rather than judge and evaluate some words appearing in your awareness. As a wise man said, argue for your limitations and sure enough, they're YOURS."

 You limit yourself in language, the mind; therefore the investigation has to happen in the mind. I would say, as I recently said to a seeker who was indulging in this brand of self-pity, CUT THE CRAP.

 That's how John Wheeler and "Sailor" Bob Adamson attacked MY false beliefs and my assertions of limitations. I spent a year so depressed and in that Hell, seeking on the Internet for some painless sure fire way to kill myself, because I did what you are doing, dear reader: Ignoring the pointers and refusing to really cut the crap and LOOK.

 Thank That I Am for John and Bob being totally straight with me. The suffering can end. I stand by what I share from my direct experience: That with no kidding cut-the-crap investigation it will end. Full stop.

 I AM That and you ARE That. I now beyond doubt that there is no ACTUAL separate entity in you or anyone else that can suffer. As Nisargadatta put it all that can trouble you is you own imagination. Why don't you look where the pointers are pointing rather than pass judgment and remain in the ignorance of your own self-limiting conversation with yourself?

 What have you got to lose? Hell. What have you got to gain? Freedom, your Eternal Natural State.

That's all I can say about this except for one last pointer: It's an essay I wrote some time ago that has helped some set themselves free from their delusion. Whether it sets YOU free is entirely up to YOU. The ball is where it always was, in YOUR court.

 The Essay:

 The Basics: Cutting Through The story of "me" 

       1. YOU are Awareness, simply being. No one can say they do not exist. That existence, the sense of "I" as in "I Am," is undeniable and inescapable. Try to NOT BE. Cannot be done. So the simple pointer is, what you are is That Presence or Awareness that YOU ARE. Being. Just That! This True You ... BE-ING... is POINTED TO in language with concepts like Impersonal Consciousness; Awareness, Being ... YOU are just THAT, prior to the mind's translation into the thought I Am and I am this or that.

       2. You are NOT an "individual." There are NO "individuals" anywhere except in unreal stories. The idea of a separate person is a fiction, a mind-construction, a house of cards, as the story tries to say, "I'm ME!" Unsuccessfully!) This idea of a "me" is ... on investigation ... seen to be a false claim by the thinking machinery to it's own separate existence. This ever-changing idea of a person is simply unreal. WHO says, "I'm me?" The mind.

       To be blunt, it's bullshit. The whole fabricated story of me is pure bullshit: all stories of “individuals” are actually pure fiction. As Shakespeare said, it’s a tale told by an idiot, filled with sound and fury, signifying … NOTHING.

       Look right now! Seeing with naked Awareness, where is any person … unless you (as a mind-identity) think about it? Thoughts come and go. What you ARE NEVER comes and goes anywhere. It is (You Are) fully Here Now and Eternally Free and Clear, Eternally Presence, Shining before the mind.

       YOU are not a thought, not a concept, not a feeling, not a time bound entity. You are Awakeness, Aliveness, Presence-Awareness. Just THAT and NOTHING else. The story of “me” … ANY “me” … is irrelevant. Let's cut through that crap right now! Okay?

       Let's bring this back to the basics: What in YOU never changes? Being-Awareness, just That. That is your True Nature. Where is a separate entity when you are in deep dreamless sleep? Or under anesthesia? There is none. Obviously! But some Presence beats the heart, breathes air in and out, flows the blood, grows new cells and disintegrates other cells, grows hair and fingernails, ages the body etc etc! Who or what is "doing" all that? Not an "individual," "amazing" or otherwise.

       Look and see that you are present and aware right now. That is the "Eternal," The Natural State; there is no other, no attainment, no flashy enlightened state, no carrot on a stick. There is NO someday when “you” will “get enlightened.” It's what you are right now. There is no other than NOW. Wherever you are you are ... Here. That's IT. Big Casino. You already got it in total and there's nothing more to this Nonduality stuff than that simple seeing, that you ARE. Awareness, Simply That. Period. Full Stop.

       In our meetings, there's just friends, sharing what works to end any suffering and recognize that you are already free and clear. Really. There’s nothing to get and no one to get it. Drop the belief in “individuality” and there you are, Present and Alive, the Light of loving being, just that, nothing else.

Re "destroying the ego:"

 The ego does not exist. It's a phantom. This exact point came up yesterday. The pointer is, "the ego does not exist. How can you destroy what does not exist"? To paraphrase Nisargadatta, just see the false AS false.

 That's what I try to point the seeker to do. (I don't merely suggest there is no doer so there's nothing that one can do ... I used to, before that got seen through as a mind justification for avoiding the tough get-down looking for the nonexistent doer. (Paradoxical as hell!) And recognizing the ABSENCE of such a thing. Finding thoughts like clouds, insubstantial and ephemeral. But no actual "entity." That's all.

 In my experience, by looking for the ego and not finding one, it dawns on the seeker-mind that there is no such actual thing as an "ego" so the whole paradigm collapses and there is often a good long laugh. That happened here yesterday for a couple of seekers, and this is kind of how it happened for me.        

I don't really care whether we get    this right conceptually. To me that's impossible. It's not about me.  All that I care about (and I care deeply) is that I reach as many as possible with a straightforward message that helps THEM end their suffering once and for good. If suffering could end for me (the utter asshole that I was) it can end for anyone. No shit!

But don’t you see that all that you are doing is stating the conclusion and saying that the seeker just has to ‘do the investigation’ in order to reach the same conclusion? It is no use simply saying: ‘You are awareness; you are not an individual.’ This is simply denying the present experience and understanding of the seeker rather than “ meeting him or her where they are and not from some ‘lofty heights’” as you just agreed was necessary. It is necessary to start from that experience of separation and lead them by the hand to those lofty heights, using proven techniques.

To return to the beginning, you are still saying that a) there is no such thing as a ‘person’ and b) there is no such thing as ‘enlightenment’. This is only the case in absolute reality. And that is not where the seeker believes herself to be.  At the empirical level, ‘enlightenment’ means knowing all of this in the mind. Minds are associated with people. Consequently there are enlightened people.

Knowing that there is no separate entity is the result of the seeking. One seeks in order to discover this. No one is likely to find it out accidentally. It has to be explained gradually by someone who has the appropriate skills. No one is going to ‘simply wake up’ to this and no one can believe it simply by being told that it is the case.

You asked: “But don’t you see that all that you are doing is stating the conclusion and saying that the seeker just has to ‘do the investigation’ in order to reach the same conclusion?” That's what worked for me! So that is what I share.

You then said that: “It is necessary to start from that experience of separation and lead them by the hand to those lofty heights, using proven techniques.”

  But don't YOU see that this is EXACTLY what is happening? (Listen to the rough cut of my meeting CD at http://charliehayes36.tripod.com/090907cd1.mp3 before you assert that I am not doing exactly that.)

NOW: I absolutely honor and respect your point of view on all this. That said I have a statement and a question for you personally: “Dennis, I am free. Whether I say ‘I am free’ or ‘There Is Freedom’ or ‘I am that’ or ‘I am enlightened’ or ‘I am not enlightened’ doesn't REALLY matter in the long run. I know what I am. That is beyond doubt. I'm fully cooked (inasmuch as there is 'anyone' to be fully cooked!)

 The way it came up to share a moment ago in this dialogue is: “I Am That. So What?”

 Dennis, will you answer this for me? Are YOU (Dennis, the person there) suffering? Are YOU free? Really and truly FREE of all psychological suffering? Please tell me your REAL experience of being Dennis. Will you do that? Thanks!

Now let me finish by saying, I stand    by what I wrote in the essay "The Basics: Cutting Through The story of 'me'."

I’m really just going off the material that we are discussing here. I was simply pointing out a valid response to your original dialog. It is simply not possible that you are doing what I suggest if it can be contained in a single meeting. The sort of teaching I am talking about takes years (if not lifetimes!) I don’t want to argue this point. Clearly you believe that it is possible (but do you actually know of anyone who has been enlightened by such teaching who has not previously been a seeker for many years before?)

I really wanted to clarify the points regarding ‘enlightenment’ and ‘persons’ since that is where we began and the title I gave to your original dialog. Do you agree that you are still saying that a) there is no such thing as a ‘person’ and b) there is no such thing as ‘enlightenment’?

If you do, then what exactly are you asking me now? (And what relevance does it have to the discussion anyway?) For you to ask me anything, it means that you believe that I AM a separate person and for you to ask me whether or not I am enlightened implies that you accept that a person CAN be enlightened. Thus, it seems that your very question contradicts your claimed position.

Let me stop here ... by reiterating the essence of my expression of all this:

 The Basics: Cutting Through The story of "me"…

…        In our meetings, there's just friends, sharing what works to end any suffering and recognize that you are already free and clear. Really. There’s nothing to get and no one to get it. Drop the belief in “individuality” and there you are, Present and Alive, the Light of loving being, just that, nothing else.

I STAND BY THAT. Full stop.

Return to list of essays on Traditional vs Neo-Advaita.
See the list sorted by Topic.
See the list sorted by Author.