Reflections
advaitism.com

Some personal reflections on existence.

It was in 1968 that it first occured to me that the concept of "I" might only be an illusion. I was in high school and the original Star Trek series was in its final year of airing. It was all because of the paradoxes created by the "Transporter"!

Though we may be hundreds to thousands of years away from building such a device, there are no rules of physics broken by the function of the transporter. Thus, it is truly an article of the "future science" variety of science fiction rather than of "fantasy" where activity actually violates the known laws of physics.

(Please don't bring up the quantum impossiblility of ever knowing the exact location and momentum of any particle such that it would be impossible to record that information. Life is messy. We don't need to be so exact in recording the location and momentum of every particle in the human body to be close enough. Quantum uncertainty rarely has a significant damaging impact at the macroscopic level at which living processes operate. If we are off by a billionth of one percent in the exact reading or placement of each atom, it isn't going to matter at all. The composition of living cells is just so macroscopic relative to the quantum level.)

My high school buddy, Peter Bradley, and I would hang out at the bus stop across from our high school on many a cold New England night waiting for my bus to take me home. Peter didn't live far from the school so he would just walk home. We'd get so involved in conversations about things like this that we'd just let a number of the buses pass by that ran every 30 minutes. Though we were both freezing standing at the bus stop, we'd often wait until the very last bus at 1 AM before I'd finally board and head home.

We both agreed that the Star Trek concept of dematerialization and rematerialization being based on having your actual molecules disassembled, transmitted, and then reassembled was flawed. To transmit the actual molecules of which you are made seemed both inefficient and unnecessary. The amount of energy in molecules is so huge that this would probably be an extremely high energy dangerous operation. On the other hand, the technology to transmit just information via radio waves already exists and has existed for over a century. It would seem much simpler to just scan the location and momentum of every atom of the person at the source location, transmit that "information" to the destination, and then re-create the person at the destination location just using atoms already available at the destination location.

But wait! Then you won't be building "me" out of the same atoms of which I was composed! That was the start of the paradox.

One atom of carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, etc. is pretty much the same as the next. There is no difference. Do you really think that "you" are "you" because of the particular carbon atoms of which you are made? That somehow "you" would not still be "you" if you were made out of different carbon atoms than you are made now? If so, then I have news for you. Between the processes of eating, drinking, breathing, and elimination, every carbon atom is swapped out of your body and replaced with a new one at least every eight years. There are very few atoms in your body today that were there a decade ago and pretty much none of the atoms that you are made of now will still be part of you a decade from now. So do you really think what makes "you" who "you are" are the particular unique atoms of which you are composed?

If you see things the way we did, then you can see that who "we are" is not the specific atoms of which we are composed. If we exchange our existing carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, etc., atoms for other carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, etc. atoms, then we are still who we are. After all, we are making that exchange all the time every day as we eat, drink, breath, and eliminate.

So when tranporting a person to a destination, why not just use the needed atoms already located at the destination for the reassembly process? If you can substitute one carbon atom for another, then "you" should still be "you"!

So, just what are "you"? Are you the pattern of all the atoms in your body? When it comes to the pattern of your atoms, you are pretty unique. The start of your pattern began at conception when the DNA of your mother and father came together to create your DNA combination. That itself might not be unique if you have a identical twin sibling as that twin would have a DNA pattern identical to you. But from the moment of conception, there is no one that has the same vantage point in the universe as you. Everything that starts happening to you affects the pattern of your atoms, especially in your brain, your memories, but also elsewhere. You end up with a pattern of atoms that is uniquely you. So is this what you are? Are you this pattern of atoms? If so, then we'll go ahead and record that pattern of atoms that define just who "you are" and reassemble that pattern of atoms at the transport destination. That should surely be "you" at the destination!

But now we have another problem. We've "reassembled" you at the destination, but we haven't "disassembled" you at the source yet! You are still just standing there waiting to get transported. What are we going to do with you? We could take you out and have you shot, but that would be a little too obvious. I've got it! As soon as we've recorded the location of all your atoms, we'll vaporize you! That will certainly provide for a good illusion that you have vanished from one location and appeared in another location. You've been transported! Nobody will know the difference. Not even the "you" that has vanished from the source location, nor the "you" that has appeared at the destination location.

For the sake of compassion, let's say we don't vaporize you after the location of all your atoms have been recorded and a new "you" has been assembled at the destination. Exactly what is it that we have done?

Both the "you" at the transporter source and the "you" at the transporter destination have the exact same pattern of atoms right up to the moment of tele-portation. After that, you each have your own unique vantage point in the universe and start having new perceptions and making new memories that are quite different. But which one is "you"? Obviously if there is a "you" at all, the one at the transporter source must be you. That "you" is going about its life as it always had just as if it had never entered the transporter. But why isn't the "you" at the destination also "you"? We already concluded that one atom of carbon is as good as the next and that it was really the pattern of the atoms that defines you. At one point at the completion of the tele-portation process, both of "you" had the exact same pattern of atoms. Your unique patterns did not diverge until that point. Both of "you" will certainly consider yourselves to be "you". One will view the world as having been transported from source to destination. The other will perceive the world as having entered a broken transporter and then having stepped out without having been transported.

For me that was enough to start questioning just what is this thing that we call "I"?

I accidentally stumbled upon the illusion of "I" backwards. Many people like the approach of non-duality, but have a real hard time logically trying to understand the illusion of the "I". For most of my life, my problem has been the reverse of that. It felt like an "I" existed, but logically, I could figure out where to find the "I". Logically it seemed to me that the "I" was nothing more than a self-defining illusion.

For decades I assumed there was just something wrong with my facts or my logic. I just assumed that I would eventually figure out this feeling that "I" exist despite the facts and logic showing me that "I" was nothing more than an illusion.

It mas movies like "The Matrix" (just the first one) and "The Thirteenth Floor" that reawakend my interest in this topic. "The Matrix" provided some really good concepts to think about regarding reality, illusion and delusion. For me, the weakness of the plot of "The Matrix" was that escape was sort of possible, and that escape was just into another world much like the original world, only less comfortable. I guess there are many ways that can be taken as a model of non-duality and awakening, but it went off track for me. I thought "The Thirteenth Floor" had a much more consistent plot about reality and illusion. The punch line was at the very end, actually beyond the end, but I'm not sure how many noticed it. At the end of the movie, I asked myself: "Are they actually in reality now, or is this just another level of illusion?" Then the screen faded out into a bright dot, just like the old tube television sets used to do when you turned them off. It wasn't until then that the obvious hit me. Of course the final scene of the movie was also just an illusion! And I'm in that next level up watching the illusion of that movie! So then the final question becomes obvious: "Am I too just the next level of the illusion of reality and there are still levels above this?" To the viewers that got the end of "The Thirteenth Floor" (probably just those of us that predate instant on tube TVs), I think this movie ended with a much more provocative question than the ending of "The Matrix".

When I started reading books like Tony Parsons' "The Open Secret", Nathan Gill's "Already Awake", and Alan Watts "The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are", they struck a cord. From the perspective of these writers, it was no surprise why I could never find the "I". The "I" is an illusion that really does not exist. That came as a relief to me. Up until then, I didn't know there were others who gave any thought to "I" being an illusion. Mostly it was my reading of works by Alan Watts that lead me into Buddhism and then into Advaitism and the discovery that there are major historic world religions, mostly in the east, and growing schools of philosophy and spirituality with the illusion of the existence of "I" at the core. To me, the concept of non-duality just flows naturally from the illusion of the "I".

Without the concept of the "I" existing the way it is normally thought of, all that is left is to think of the "I" as either everything, nothing, or both at the same time. Actually, I don't see how the "I" can be viewed as anything other than BOTH everything and nothing all the time.

That which I learn is for my entertainment.
It is not for telling you how you should live your life.
If you are interested in what I see I will try my best to explain.

You are not it, but in truth it is you.

Do you believe in God? I believe only in God.
There is nothing but God; God is all that exists.

We are not God; God is us.
I am not God; God is me.

I can't judge anyone for I am everyone.

Any benefit that I bring to you, I bring to myself
Any harm that I bring to you, I bring to myself
For there are not two; we are all one essence.

It is also true,
Any benefit that I bring to myself, I bring to you
Any harm that I bring to myself, I bring to you
but that brings little peace without your agreement on this fact.

Thus it is better that I view
what I do for you, I do for myself.

You can ignore the following section, but you can see that I was on the right track. Tony Parsons himself explained in a later book that the "Invitation to Awaken" is like the "Gateless Gate". Once you take up the "Invitation" you will find there never was an Invitation and never was anyone to take up the Invitation.

I don't quite see the "Invitation" that Tony Parsons speaks of in his book: "Invitation to Awaken, Embracing Our Natural State of Presence". The closest I come to understanding that is it being like receiving an invitation while you are already at the party! Maybe it takes receiving an actual invitation to remind you that you are already at the party, but you are at the party regardless of whether or not you receive the invitation or even whether or not you comprehend or respond to the invitation.

Another reason why I don't personally like the "invitation" interpretation of being is that, to me, an invitation implies a call to action. Receiving an invitation usually means you have been given a choice of action: to accept, to decline, or to ignore the invitation. But in Tony Parsons' own words he says that there are no choices and no actions to be taken.

The book seems to imply a purpose to life, to answer the invitation to return home to our true one self that is all. It seems that Tony Parsons' other words conflict with this as he explains that there is no one, no purpose, no choices, no time and no space. The concept of "As It Is", no duality, no purpose, no choices, no time and no space seem to rule out the implication of existence being an "invitation" to any one, or to no one.

Existence just is "as it is" without any implication of an invitation to do or see any thing. There is no need to awaken as there is no one to awaken, which Tony Parsons points out numerous times in the book.

The illusory Ego or Mind can play with the concepts of Awakening and Enlightenment, which may seem to be enjoyable or to be torture. But it is not the purpose of the existence of any one to become enlightened. There is no one to become enlightened. Enlightenment just is.

Maybe I had an advantage in seeing through all this over the seekers of enlightenment. I was never a seeker of enlightenment. I began from the point of a scientific quest. I never thought it was about me to start with. As I walked along a path and saw lizards, birds, insects and even trees, I knew I was like them. I knew we were all part of the universe, but I also knew the purpose of the universe wasn't about any one of us in particular. I never thought my purpose in life was to become enlightened or to "awaken" any more than the purpose in life of the lizard, the bird, the insect or even the tree was to "awaken". My only quest was to find what the purpose of the universe itself was.

I knew the universe had been here for billions of years before I came along, would be here for billions of years after I was gone, and thus the purpose of the universe, if there was one, had little to do with my own limited life (or that of the lizard, bird, insect or tree).

When I realized there already IS enlightenment just AS IT IS, that is the first time it all made sense to me. All the teachings about there being nothing that I needed to do on my part to be "awakened" made total sense to me. There JUST IS enlightenment. There JUST IS being awake. I didn't need to do anything to be a part of this enlightenment any more than did the lizard, the bird, the insect, the tree, or even a rock! That is also how it made sense to me that there always was, is, and always will be enlightenment. There was enlightenment even before there was any intelligence or even any life in this universe, and will still be even after life vanishes from the universe. Life is an interesting part of the universe. Life, intelligence, humans, and even I myself, are just a part of WHAT IS. An interesting aspect of AS IT AS, but not a prerequisite for enlightenment to be.

There is a river with people standing on the near shore of the river. As with all rivers, there are two shores: the near shore and the far shore. The people on the near shore see people on a raft in the middle of the river and also see other people on the other shore of the river. They don't see how the people on the raft in the middle of the river got there. They also don't see how people got over to the other side of the river. The people on the raft in the middle of the river are seekers. The people on the other shore of the river are Advaitists.

But is there really any difference between one shore and the other shore? Will the seeker find what he is looking for if what he is looking for is something different?

A Buddhist may be a seeker or a non-seeker but only a non-seeker can be an Advaitist and an Advaitist can only be a non-seeker. However, Enlightenment is always there.

Non-duality is not something you need to do.
Non-duality is the way things are.

No matter what you do or don't do, all of existence is still non-dual. You may live a life more at peace if you perceive and understand the non-dual nature of existence. Or you can chose to view existence from the play of duality and suffer the consequences of the world never being quite the way you want or expected.

Non-duality contains everything, including duality. You can live with the peace of understanding the entire non-dual nature of existence, or you can struggle within the duality view of existence. But either way, there is nothing that you HAVE TO DO with your life.

Advaitism and Buddhism both have the concept of non-duality at their core. Buddhism, however, seems to approach non-duality in a confusing round about manner teaching that there are things "you" need to do to see the dellusion of duality. Advaitism takes a more straight forward direct approach pointing out that there is NO "you". Therefore, there is no one that needs to do anything since NO "you" exists that CAN DO anything. Buddhism discusses much about what one needs to do to "awaken" though does imply that a personal awakening does not exist. Advaitism has the concept that "there is awakening", but not in the context of a specific individual being awakened or enlightened since no separate "You" exists in Advaitism. In the context of non-duality, everything that exists is awakened or enlightened. Nothing needs to be done or can be done to awaken since there is no separate individual to take any action. Just being is to be "already awake". Starting with this concept is more likely to bring an individual mind to see the concept of non-duality. But there is no need for an individual mind to see this since the real "you" is not an individual mind and "being" is just "as it is". Thus there is no need for any struggle to awaken or achieve enlightenment. It is not necessary or possible to become what you already are.

You are a red blood cell. I am a red blood cell. The entire body is "Reality". I am as much of that Reality as you or any other cell of the body. There is nothing to the body or "Reality" other than millions of cells just like us. It seem like our individual life has a purpose and meaning all to itself, but it really doesn't. We function and exist in terms of the whole, though it is difficult for us to see it that way.

Main Menu:
Some Initial Questions And Answers
Advaitism In A Nutshell
Observations / Comments / Reflections / Quotes / Notes
Books, Video, Audio, Podcasts / On Being Adopted

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, spiritual, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.