Direct Teaching and What It Leaves Out
La enseñanza directa y lo que deja fuera
A student asks whether non-dual teaching is now moving away from strict negation ("not this, not this") toward including the body and the whole of life. The teacher questions the historical premise, explains why direct teaching was traditionally kept for prepared students, and reflects on why awakening cannot be wanted by the one who thinks they want it.
Direct Teaching and What It Leaves Out
A student asks whether non-dual teaching is now moving away from strict negation ("not this, not this") toward including the body and the whole of life. The teacher questions the historical premise, explains why direct teaching was traditionally kept for prepared students, and reflects on why awakening cannot be wanted by the one who thinks they want it.
I was thinking about this last night while watching one of your recent videos. You said something I wrote down: "Transcending is including. You cannot disidentify from the body-mind if you're rejecting it. Rejection creates duality, and it's a common trap." I sat with that, and with what you've said about your style of teaching, which combines the human side and the non-dual side.
I've also been reading some ancient texts. Right now in our reading group we're going through a classic non-dual scripture. Have you read it?
Yes. I don't remember it well, but I did read it.
It's beautiful, but what strikes me is how purely it is neti neti. The focus is entirely on awakening. A lot of the saints seem to take a more radical, dualistic stance: you are not the body, full stop. I see the purpose of that. It's meant to snap one out of identification. But what seems to be missing is embodiment and integration, the part that says yes, you are the body too.
Now I see much more emphasis on inclusion rather than neti neti: this, and that, and everything. You mentioned in the video that the embodiment movement, and the study of it, is only in its infancy. So it seems to be a moment in time to move away from pure neti neti and include more of life. Is that what you were referring to?
I don't remember that video, so I don't know exactly what I said beyond what you've just told me. I don't remember the part about studies of embodiment either, so I'm not sure what I was referring to. Maybe it was a little different.
That said, regarding the idea of a movement in society: I don't think that's very important, what's happening in society and where it's moving. But I would say it's actually the opposite. What is very new is that spiritual communities focus so much on direct awakening. I was going to say there's a mass interest, but it's still very niche.
Why direct teaching was kept hidden
In most traditions, the direct approach was always secret, private, or niche. It was only offered when the student was seen to be ready. Only in the last few decades has it become an approach in itself.
I see what you mean, and I agree. But I was referring more to the circle of non-dual teachers.
Yes, and that is very new. If we look at the evolution of spiritual teaching, it goes back two or three thousand years. Non-duality as a direct teaching, becoming so mainstream within spiritual communities, is only a few decades old. Twenty years ago, how many non-dual teachers were there?
It was just coming to the West. But if we take India...
Even in India it was very niche.
I was thinking of the great sages of the last century. One of them sat in a cave for twenty years and let the rats eat at his body. I can see the importance of that stage. But it was a more masculine stream, somewhat denying the body, treating it as unimportant. Now the importance of the body seems to be coming back, including it all. That's what I'm seeing more of.
This is more of a philosophical debate, and I don't think it's that important or valuable. But I don't agree, because we're talking about three thousand years. The sage you mentioned has only been known in the West for the last few decades. How long has he been somewhat known here? Thirty, forty, fifty years? Compared to three thousand years of spirituality, that's very little. Looking back now, yes, he's very well known, and that kind of teaching has become more and more mainstream. But if you went back a hundred years and tried to access spirituality, even in India, you would not find direct teachings. They would be very rare. You would have to be one of the lucky ones.
Awakening is important, but it isn't everything
What I do think is happening is this: direct teaching is becoming mainstream, and along with it there is a growing awareness that it is not complete. That is what I'm doing. Awakening is very important, but it's not everything.
Yes, that's what I was pointing to.
Yes, but the order matters. Only very recently has the teaching of direct awakening become mainstream and understood in some way. Along with that comes an understanding of all the work that needs to happen in integration, alongside the waking up.
What I wouldn't say is that direct teaching was always there as the main thing, and that now there's a realization that we must go back to integration, or growing up. I think that's a misunderstanding made in hindsight. Because it's popular now, one assumes it was always that way. It was very intentionally kept for more developed students, because of the problems it could create. And it is creating those problems today. Many non-duality teachers have run into difficulties and had to change their approach once they understood how the teaching can be misunderstood and misinterpreted. But that has been known for centuries in Buddhism and Hinduism: direct teaching has to be given very skillfully, to a student who is ready.
Today it can spread everywhere. If you're not ready, too bad for you; you misunderstand it. But it's available everywhere now.
Is that what the Bible means about not casting pearls before swine?
That's a little different, I think.
I thought that was roughly the meaning. And in Buddhism, monks sit in monasteries for years and years, just preparing the mind and the body. There are the yogas. And now it's just...
Yes, all the preparation that is needed.
Why awakening cannot be wanted
I think that's also part of why awakening is still rare. People are trying to skip some of what's required. It's not easy, and ultimately it's not something one can really want. That's a tricky phrase. The wanting of it is impersonal. What we feel we want is always a projection of what we think it is. Once it's known, one sees: this is what was wanted. But it comes through the ending of what we thought we were. What we think we are cannot want it.
Once you start having glimpses, small or large, I don't think there's any going back. Something clicks inside. It's not a wanting on a personal level, but you've spoken about the seed of divine longing, and it's as if water is being poured on it.
Someone shared earlier about aloneness as a doorway, and discovering the freedom on the other side of it: seeing that we're perhaps not supposed to be satisfied, that this isn't what life is for. Nothing in this world will satisfy that longing. When you look for it in objects, in the world, there will always be something missing or lacking. That's how I felt it. You can enjoy the world and play with it, but...
It isn't deep, deep fulfillment. Yes.