SCOTT KILOBY

NDM: Can you please tell me how you came to this realization? Was it sudden, or gradual? Did you use a method or practice of any kind?

Scott Kiloby: Both gradual and sudden. My first teachers were Eckhart Tolle, J. Krishnamurti. I didn't meet them. I only read their books. Through these teachers, I began to relax without thought for periods throughout the day. I did this very often, simply looking without thought. As thoughts would appear, I would notice them in the way one notices a fly buzzing by. I wouldn't engage the content (i.e., I wouldn't reach for the fly). I would simply notice that thought was appearing and disappearing.

This became very natural and effortless over time. This is the gradual part of it. I noticed that I was experiencing more and more peace, freedom, and joy.

There were two big experiences. This is where the sudden part comes in. Without going into detail, the first experience was a seeing of the total impermanence of everything, leaving me with a very quiet mind. The second was a Oneness experience where I could find no distinction between myself and the wall, the carpet, the streetlight, etc. I saw that time is an illusion and that death is not what we think it is. The sense of being a separate self just vanished.

There has been another kind of gradual deepening after these big experiences, where all thoughts, emotions, states, sensations, and experiences that make up the "world" are seen to be inseparable from awareness. This stage is less like a "Big Bang" experience and more like a settling into or stabilizing in a sense of permanent well-being, peace, and freedom. There have certainly been challenging situations and this or that self-centered thought or negative emotion or defense arising during this deepening process, but it all ends up looking like love or the "one essence" at this point.

DM: When you say that you began to relax "without thoughts", do you mean with some kind of deliberate meditation or just whenever? For how long do you mean exactly?

Scott Kiloby: Yes, a deliberate meditation but not meditation as it is traditionally known. I'm speaking of resting in thought-free presence in all situations in my life, whenever possible, using the mind only for practical purposes. Letting all "story thoughts" arise and fall without engaging them. And when I found myself engaging them, I would take another moment and let that thought come to rest and then relax again into thought-free presence.

I did not want to limit meditation to a method I did only in the morning or only under certain circumstances. I looked around at the Buddhist Sanghas, and nondual satsangs and saw a lot of people doing that and seeking for years. So I would call what I did more like "living meditation" where, throughout the day, whenever I remembered to do so, I would take a moment and drop all conceptual labels about the moment and just rest there, letting the body relax into the stillness of the present moment. As thoughts would arise, I would let them be as they are, little temporary movements that don't last unless you engage the content of them. In not emphasizing the thoughts, they became less important to my existence. The space of the present moment became more apparent. In making this a repeated practice that happened many times throughout the day, it became automatic and natural, not like a practice at all. More like home!

NDM: Have you ever practiced meditation, yoga, tai chi or anything at all like this where you have to concentrate and focus your mind on a single point of some kind. Such as when you go into the flow with jogging, martial arts, archery, exercise, or work of some kind?

Scott Kiloby: These are all wonderful practices, all of them. I dabbled very lightly in some of that stuff. I mostly focused on the "method" I've already explained.

When I worked out, however, like on a treadmill or lifting weights, I would focus on a single point sometimes. That seemed to help calm a lot of the stories that arose while working out like, "Can't wait for this to be over."

Also, in the middle of a busy day, while working as an attorney, that kind of one-pointed focus was helpful. But the focus was more on resting without thought instead of focusing in on one particular object. What I mean is, during the day, walking to the courthouse or working on some case, I would simply look around the room at colors and shapes, without conceptualizing them into objects. I would use the conceptualizing aspect of mind only when needed for work.

Scott Kiloby: I assume you mean when did I start this method? Around 2005. The gradual aspect happening from that point until early 2007. The big experience happened July 2007.

NDM: When you say that you began to relax "without thoughts"...For how long do you mean exactly? Seconds, minutes or longer?

Scott Kiloby: The first time, it was probably milliseconds or a second. Then, as I did it more often, the moments got longer, until eventually over a several month period, there was an automatic return there. The moments got longer and longer and there was a tipping point where the mind got permanently quiet.

NDM: Would you say after a several month period it went from milliseconds to where the mind got permanently quiet? Do you mean perfectly still, more or less? For example how many minutes can you go with out a thought appearing on the screen so to speak?

Scott Kiloby: It never occurs to me to count how long the periods are without thought. The point of my message is not to end thought but to see thought as none other than awareness. Just as silence and sound are inseparably one, awareness and all movements of thoughts are inseparably one. I have found that any other formulation is dualistic, including trying to privilege silence over sound or not thinking over thinking.

NDM: Before this shift, how would you have described the activity in your mind. Was it mostly calm, clear, active, energetic or dull? Or would it fluctuate between all three? Does it still fluctuate in terms of its energy or speed of thoughts and so on?

Before the shift, very active. Lots of thought. But through the gradual period, it became more and more quiet, fluctuating between periods of activity and some quietness. The first experience where the mind quieted was a big change. Very quiet at that point.

Once the Oneness experience happened, and the stabilization after that, I began to see the line between thought and no thought as still dualistic. I saw that the one who would choose one over the other was the separate self sense, which doesn't exist. So thought happens a lot today, but it is like a movement of the quietness itself. Not two things happening or fluctuating or oscillating back and forth, like before. In my message, realization is not measured by how quiet one's mind is. Quieting the mind is only a tool. The realization is in seeing through the need to measure how quiet it is v. how noisy it is. ALL is. One definition of the separate self sense is the controller or measurer who is measuring experience, trying to get somewhere else in the future, to a quieter state, etc. That was seen through.

NDM: What do you mean in the "seeing" How is this "seen” How can you see awareness? Do you mean known?

Scott Kiloby: It's not seen in the way one says, "I see a bird" or other object. To say that it's seen that there is no self is to go looking and to not find this self. The one who is looking is not a self and the one who is looking finds no self. There are thoughts. Both are thoughts, the subject and the object. Thoughts SEEM to be found. These thoughts create the appearance of "two" as if one can find or know or see the other.

But only another thought would call them "thoughts." If you sat in a room and did not have the thought, "furniture" or any other thought, you would not see furniture differentiated and separate from "floor" or "ceiling." In the same way, in the so-called subtle realm of thoughts and emotions, it is only labeling that creates the appearance that thoughts are separate from emotions or awareness, etc. It's all labeling. Mind is dualism. So one doesn't even find thoughts "in the end." So-called "thoughts" have no independent existence as something apart from something else called "awareness." Similarly, self doesn't find no self. Subject doesn't find object. One doesn't know or see anything. This is all a mind game, teaching tools at best.

So it is in the not finding of any separate thing that this seeing happens. You could call it knowing. But the same question would arise: "How is this known?" "How can you know awareness?" Then we are back in a maze of dualism that doesn't exist except in mind, creating non-existent problems and questions. The questions come from the assumption that there are two here. So to answer them from the knowing that there aren't two here is a funny game, isn't it? Yet, dualistic thought is what it is (or appears to be). ;) The best statement I've heard about all this is, ALL is. It captures the simplicity of being. The mind complicates it, but that is part of the fun, isn't it?

Scott Kiloby: The point of my message is to put people in a position where they are awake to what is happening within them at the time it is happening, rather than lazily thinking about themselves and what they think about awakening or about traditions or methods they've studied before and rather than engaging their stories of past and future endlessly. To notice a thought is different than to engage the content of a thought. In my message, I encourage people to simply notice thought coming and going, without emphasizing the content of it i.e., what it means, what its conclusions are, where it is leading.

NDM: For example what would you say to some one that had bad habits like drinking, gambling and so on?

Scott Kiloby: If someone came to me, I would then invite him to take very brief moments at first, throughout the day, on a repeated basis, where he simply relaxes his body and mind completely, letting all thoughts come to rest. At first, the moments might be very short. But in repeatedly doing this, the moments would get longer, and at some point there would be a natural and automatic return to this thought-free awareness. In addition, I would help him notice all the appearances coming and going through this thought-free awareness. I would have him notice what is happening in his body throughout the day, each sensation as it arises. I would have him notice emotions as soon as they appear, without placing conceptual labels or stories on those emotions. This kind of noticing, coupled with resting in thought-free presence, gives him a taste of the fact that there is no doer. Things are merely happening on their own. This gives him a direct taste that he is that which is aware of all these things, not a "person" who brings about or controls these things.

I would invite him to let all appearances be as they are, without trying to change, overcome, neutralize, or get rid of them. Appearances include thoughts, emotions, sensations, states, and experiences as well as "people and events and seeming objects" happening out there, outside the body. But as the message continues and one looks more deeply, one begins to see that the objects outside the body are actually thoughts and sensations. In letting all appearances be as they are, this person gets a taste of everything arising spontaneously and involuntarily. It takes the sense of personal will away.

If he continued asserting certain beliefs, positions, or points of view that made it difficult for him to rest in thought-free presence, I would present any number of methods to help unravel and relax those points of view (not emphasize them for a sense of self, to say it another way). What those methods are is beyond the scope of this article. I can't even share some of them because they are in the Natural Rest: Finding Recovery Through Presence book. The publisher is asking me not to reveal those methods until the book is released. I do reveal them on a private basis to anyone I meet with.

My text, Living Realization, is a book that contains a method of recognizing awareness in all situations. It can be found at www.living-realization.blogspot.com. It's already been released.

NDM: Ok, understood, from your description, this sounds a little like the "Forth Way". Self remembering by Gurdjieff.

Also step 7 and 8, Buddhist mindful-ness and concentration from the eightfold path.

What is it about "Scott's way" that is any more clearer or is going to give someone any other benefits than these traditional methods?

Scott Kiloby: My “method” is really simple and in plain English. Some of the traditions are difficult for people to understand because of language differences. English-speaking people might resonate more with what I’m doing.

Would it give you other benefits than the methods you listed? My message is different than those traditions in a lot of ways. It may provide exactly what you need. It may not. One has to try and see. I didn't get involved with heavy reading of traditions. I just took up these practices and it wasn't a "hard road" at all. No guarantees for you. If one is interested, they find their way to my message. If not, they don't. Either way, all is well.

NDM: When you say that the big sudden experience left you with a very quiet mind. Seeing of the total impermanence of everything.

What do you think triggered this. Was there anything unusual going on at the time? Health issue, death of a loved one, accident, shock, let down, dark night of the soul, depression of some kind, or anything else?

Scott Kiloby: No, just this practice. Oh, let me add that I got clean off drugs in 2004, which triggered a spiritual search, but by the time these big events happening, there was no trauma, health issue, etc.

NDM: What kind of drugs exactly. Was it recreational, medicinal or for something else?

Scott Kiloby: I used for 20 years, mainly painkillers but also meth, cocaine, alcohol, and pot.

NDM: Yes. What kind of physical and psychological withdrawals did you have? Can you please tell me how you felt exactly while going through this?

Scott Kiloby: Painful, flu-like symptoms. Stopping drugs was very scary. I didn't know how I was going to live without medicating feelings. Without drugs, the mind began looking for something else. This is when seeking enlightenment came in. It was the next "drug chase." Emotionally, I felt a lot of fear and experienced anger and resentment that I had been medicating for a long time.

NDM: When you say there were some challenging situations and the self-centered thought or negative emotion or defense arising during this deepening process. How intense was this and last for and do these thoughts, feelings, emotions still arise at all?

Scott Kiloby: After the big experiences, these things would not last long at all. They haven't been that intense at all. They would be more like sudden bursts of energy, emotional energy in the body (like a heat swell), accompanied sometimes by thought, but many times with no thought at all.

These days, I don't normally experience negative feelings or a slew of self-centered story-of-me type thoughts. Every now and then, something will very briefly arise, but it causes no suffering because it isn't carried over into the next moment. It feels like everything that arises, good or bad, is already on its way out when it arises.

But as an attorney, for example, I might get really involved with a case, making my argument to a judge or responding to other attorneys in litigation (meeting energy with energy in a heated talk about something that is really important to my client, for example) but whatever energies arise, they fall away very soon, leaving no trace. No matter what happens, it leaves no trace. It's like it falls back into quiet space. Even when thought and emotion are happening, the quiet space underneath it all is still there. And the thoughts and emotions feel like movements of the space itself, not like things that arise IN or WITHIN it (not something separate from the quietness).

NDM: When you say they would be more like sudden bursts of energy, emotional energy in the body (like a heat swell), Did you notice this in any particular region of your body. Where would it begin and where would it end. Was it uncomfortable, pleasant? How would you describe it?

Scott Kiloby: As far as the region in the body, the chest or stomach area, sometimes the throat. It can be uncomfortable if there is resistance to it, which there isn't 98% percent of the time, so it passes right through immediately. It's like there is a gate within me, always open, always allowing everything to be.

NDM: Do these thoughts and emotions still have a charge? Do they pack any punch so to speak?

Also do you have any triggers someone can push? Something that still sets you off? For example can a judge or another attorney in heated battle unsettle you in any way?

It is difficult to upset me. There have been a few times, here and there, where something gives me a charge. For example, recently my life was threatened in litigation by a father on the other side who lost custody. My client was awarded custody. He made death threats and when I heard that, a rush of fear went through my body but there was very little story about that. When thoughts just pass by very quickly, the emotion has nothing to "sink its teeth into" so to speak.

Even when self-centered thoughts or emotions arise, there is no sense that I brought them about. They arise involuntarily and spontaneously, so there is no ownership of them.

NDM: When you had these experiences, had you read any traditional scripture on non duality at any point prior to this? Western or Eastern?

Scott Kiloby: Very little traditional scripture. If you mean any of the traditional Buddhist schools or Traditional Advaita or even Direct Path Advaita, no--not in the beginning. But, as you know, most of the modern teachings carry some of those elements in them.

My teachers after the big experiences were people like John Astin, Greg Goode, and the Great Freedom Teaching. I became interested in Dzogchen at some point, which really helped me see that nothing that arises has an independent nature from space. Since the experiences, I have studied with Greg Goode, on an informal basis, in Direct Path Advaita and Tibetan Middle Way emptiness teachings.

Scott Kiloby: Greg has really been clear on showing me how language determines how we talk about non-duality. One teaching might render this whole discussion one way, by using terms like "no self." Another teaching might never use the term no self and instead might talk about awareness and points of view of awareness (without ever mentioning whether there is a self).

NDM: When you say nothingness, do you mean this in a Buddhist sense, like shunyata or Brahman in advaita? What do you see is the difference?

Scott Kiloby: Good point, because the traditions render it differently. I mean the absence of what I TOOK myself to be, which is a central, separate self who has control and is acting autonomously within a self-centered story of time. If I were to pick one or the other, I like the Buddhist description better. The Advaita awareness lends itself to some weird interpretations and even fundamentalism in some cases. But it's a good teaching that helps many. For me, this is more like an absence of that assumption that there is a separate self behind it all and then a sense of seamlessness or inseparability of life that became apparent when that absence was realized (ha ha) by no one.

NDM: Can you give me an example of these weird interpretations and fundamentalism?

Scott Kiloby: Anyone can be fundamentalist or absolutistic about anything. For example, let's say I'm a raw food eater. I only eat raw foods because I've come to see the health benefits of that. If I identify heavily with that mental label and believe "I have found the truth above and beyond all other truths about food" I'm not going to be a person others want to be around. I'm a self-righteous know-it-all. The same thing can happen in spirituality. A little bit of intellectual knowing or even experiential knowing about nondual awareness easily becomes self-righteousness. In those instances, other teachings, methods, traditions, and paths are seen as lower forms. It's no different than a Christian Fundamentalist standing at the front of the church condemning to hell everyone who does not follow his religion. The mind will attach to any content to strengthen a sense of self, so that it can feel better than, more knowledgeable, more enlightened, more--anything than others.

With Advaita awareness, which gives one a sense of having "transcended the world," it is especially ripe for self-righteousness. The "world" gets made into a lesser form, as if the people in it who have not realized their true nature are something below or lower than those who have realized their true nature. Although the world is illusion, there is a way to realize that and maintain complete humility without arrogance and self-righteousness about it. I'm not condemning everyone in Advaita. Not at all. Only a select few that use it to bolster a sense of self.

There is nothing inherently wrong with absolutism or fundamentalism, except that it closes off the mind. The mind gets lazy, reverting back to "what I already know" instead of relying on awareness and being open to what arises.

NDM: Also what do you mean by "person" underneath? Do you mean character, personality, vasanas? Inclinations?

Scott Kiloby Who is driving me to type comes from the assumption that there must be a who or a what. The mind thinks in terms of objects. Thoughts are believed and we think they are pointing to objects. But they don't point outside themselves. The self behind the typing only seems there when we emphasize the thought that there must be a separate object behind the typing. When that thought is not operating, there is just typing .

By person, I mean the sense of a separate self behind the doing, the sense that we are separate objects, somehow cut off from each other and from life, acting on personal will.

NDM: Also on your website it says "NEW-Non-Duality in a Nutshell' What do you mean by 'new" exactly? How does it differ from Advaita Vedanta for example?

NDM: Ok, sorry misunderstood. Thought it meant some new non dual movement.

What do you mean by this "The appearances are inseparable from awareness. You don't even privilege awareness over appearances or vice versa."

Who is the 'you" that is not making this privilege or this choice? Are you saying there is still a Scott floating about in there somewhere and Awareness? What or who is doing this?

Scott Kiloby: I speak in conventional language. Without conventional language, our communications would be very awkward. It would look like this, "Hey Oneness, please pass the salt to Oneness," during dinner. In a conventional sense, there is a Scott and a John. Otherwise, we could not have this email discussion. And we would be deathly boring at parties, wouldn't you say? :)

The "you" in the pointing is our true nature as nothingness. To say that there is no privileging of form v. formlessness or appearances v. awareness is to say that there is no person underneath all that who could manage or control or privilege these things.

NDM: So do you still have a sense of a separate self behind the doing. Is this what you are saying? Are you still the doer, experiencer, thinker?

Scott Kiloby: No, no sense of doership or personal entity behind the doing, thinking or experiencing.

NDM: By vasana, what I meant was an ingrained habit that gets illuminated by awareness and energy that manifests as typing, talking and so on. I was asking you, do you see yourself as the action taking place. The typer?

Scott Kiloby: I don't see myself. The mind wants to place identity somewhere, like a grounding point. It normally puts it in the sense of self that is somehow "behind" it all. When that falls away, the question falls away. One could say, there is only typing. I don't look for or see any identity or object behind the typing.

NDM: Also on the subject of habits, inclinations, dispositions, like and dislikes aversions and so on. Do you still have these?

Scott Kiloby: I still like the same foods I've always like. I still love the Beatles. I still like to play and write music. I still love dogs. You could say these are likes and dislikes. Some part of the conditioning continues on. It's the sense of a separate self behind it all that has been seen through. So these preferences are not a problem. They are just happenings, like the way a lion might prefer sleeping by a certain tree. There is no suffering in any of it.

NDM: What about worldly ambitions of any kind, hopes dreams, aspirations for fame, attention and so on?

Scott Kiloby: As for hopes, dreams, and aspirations, no. I don't see a future. Even if a thought were to arise about it, it has no pull, as if something is missing that must be found in the future. It's just a thought, with no energetic or emotional pull. I no longer live with any sense of lack. When that is gone, life is just lived in the here and now, like I say, loving dogs or eating prime rib or whatever--not to reach a later goal.

Scott Kiloby: These are terms relevant only to certain traditions. I never use them. I would say it this way. There is never a moment when the sense of peace and well-being is missing. I don't fear death. I don't see a past or a future that has any objective reality. Therefore, life feels totally free in this moment. Certain conditioning, like appearing to choose to listen to the Beatles over something else, arises but contains to suffering.

Scott Kiloby: When we place identity in time, as if we are thought-based, time-bound selves who live from past to future, we believe we are making choices to bring about other things. We believe we are in control, and we believe we must be very careful to avoid certain consequences or bring about other, positive results. When that is seen through, the question of karma disappears. Life is simply lived presently, without a notion that actions are leading somewhere that can be known or ascertained or controlled on a personal level. The mystery lives itself through us, unfolding as it will.

NDM: So, are you saying that just by "seeing through this", the question of karma disappears. That there are no more binding vasanas. Advaita sees this differently so does Buddhism. They both say that if certain steps are not taken, the karma, (Action) which creates samskaras which in turn create and form vasanas. They say you can change your name and call your self Mr. Awareness all day long and it will make no difference because its superficial. See here

Scott Kiloby: I don't call myself enlightened or Mr. Awareness or any of that stuff. There has been a seeing here beyond the personal self. I consider a lifetime, even after awakening to the Absolute, an ever deepening adventure where one should remain open to see any ignorance that arises. This keeps humility in place and any egoing that wants to arise in check. To say one is enlightened would be to act as if that word has one meaning. It depends on context. What tradition, language, culture, teaching is talking about enlightenment. That determines what enlightenment is. And to claim one is enlightened then would be to say that he is enlightened within a particular conceptual framework, like Advaita. In that case, in my opinion, he would not be enlightened at all. It would be necessary to wake up out of that framework, or perhaps transcend and include it as one of many frameworks that create objects including objects called "enlightenment" which have no fixed definition without reference to culture, language, lineages, tradition, history, etc. The word "enlightenment" spoken by itself, without reference to these things, is completely meaningless. It conveys nothing.

NDM: When you say "The appearances are inseparable from awareness. You don't even privilege awareness over appearances or vice versa."

Does this fluctuate at all. Do you shift from going from one to the other. From being the witness to getting engrossed or sucked into a thought?

Scott Kiloby: No fluctuation. Thought is none other than awareness. They aren't states in time, one appearing after the other. Awareness is like air and thought is like a breeze moving through the air. The breeze does not and cannot destroy the air because it is air itself. The notion of recognizing awareness, not recognizing awareness, being lost in thought, being "clear," or "getting sucked in" are all thoughts--movements of awareness itself, not something separate that interrupts awareness.

NDM: Which one would you say you are? The subject being awareness or the objects, what are arising in awareness? Or both?

Scott Kiloby There aren't two. For pointing purposes, we talk of two, as you know. We say there is a subject and an object. Then we might try to say there is both. But where is the line? When you really look for it, it is not there.

NDM: Also would you say that the objects that are arising are also "in" awareness at all times. Or on its surface? In other words what's the difference with an object that arises and the subject being awareness?

Scott Kiloby: These are subtle questions and good ones. I know that people first have the experience of thoughts, emotions, and other "objects" arising in awareness, as if they are witnessing them. In that sense, the pointer "everything arises in awareness" can be helpful.

But there can be a collapse, if one doesn't leave this in the dualism of the witness, such that the question cannot be answered because there is no visible or knowable line between the cognizing space and that which appears within the space. To speak of them as two is to make a division where there isn't one. So to talk about inside, outside, as if something contains something else doesn't match the experience. The mind thinks of things in or out or within or without. But, ultimately, all that is seen through. To divide them would only be for teaching purposes, to help someone stabilize as the witness. But that is not the final seeing. The witness is seen as not separate from what is witnessed.

NDM: Yes, however according to traditional advaita Vedanta, the question is answered because the teaching says that "Brahman" is without attributes. Please see here

Scott Kiloby: I would agree about the levels, but one has to be very careful when they are "evaluating phenomena" if one thinks they are doing that from an objective "view from nowhere." Our conditioning, beliefs, influences, language, culture, and history determines the actual objects we see, as that link stated that you sent me. So evaluating phenomena would have to take into account what conceptual framework one is looking from. In other words, what is right in Idado, USA is not necessarily right in Munich, Germany. It's a careful rope one walks across when using terms like "evaluating phenomena."

NDM: When you talked about awareness earlier, when this shift took place, what happened after that. Did it become permanent? Are you always awareness, no matter what is going on?

Scott Kiloby: Yes, but it isn't thought about. There is no reminding myself of this mentally. It's just being that, effortlessly. Yes, totally permanent

NDM: I ask this because in traditional advaita, there is what is known as Sahaja Samadhi, or turiya. In this "state" they say that one is permanently the non dual witness. One "is" Awareness itself. There is no wavering, going back and forth anymore. In this "state" they say there is also a underlying bliss, silence, equanimity, unconditional love, a mental. emotional and physical calmness, composure, evenness of temper, no matter what is going on?

Scott Kiloby: Exactly. Very nice description. No wavering. I use the word "oscillation" where one experiences periods of the clarity of awareness followed by periods of being "lost in egoic thought" or "in ignorance." There is no oscillation. Thought is experienced as an inseparable movement of the awareness, but there remains an openness to see any ignorance or self-centeredness when it arises. And in that seeing, one is freed from it immediately. It doesn't carry over into a story, in time. It has nothing to "sink into." There is only clear, spacious, empty awareness.

If vasanas is not referring to this kind of shadow, but more to general habits of mind and emotion that can survive beyond awakening, I had a few of those too. But confirming and re-confirming my identity as awareness, and letting all thoughts and emotions be as they are, without trying to manipulate them in any way, worked to see through those. In addition, I saw through the idea of objects out there, lying around somehow independent of thought. Once

this is seen through, the habits of judging, blaming, obsessing on, and otherwise objectifying "things" fall away. Middle Way teachings were helpful in this regard.

It's the more deeply rooted, repressed aspects of ourselves that are the real killers. For that I needed shadow work. I see shadow boxing happening a lot in many teachers who cannot see it. They keep going back to their traditions looking for the answers, not being able to find it. A little investigation would reveal that Western Psychology has already spotted it.

NDM: Can you please tell me, what is your definition of enlightenment?

Scott Kiloby: It would include a recognition of non-dual awareness as one's true identity and the seeing that the world, as you see it, is illusion.

But it would also include waking up out of the idea that Advaita Vedanta or one's path, whatever that is or was, is the right and only path. It would be to wake up out of one's conceptual framework into a larger frame of reference that is open to all views, paths, traditions, teachings, worldviews, etc. Something more akin to Integral than anything else.

What is so beautiful about Advaita is how well it works and how accessible it is for people, when taught clearly. It's limitation is that it is just another object like all other objects. It's often thought of as more than an object, like some ultimate truth by the ones selling it to seekers (and I don't just mean "charging" money...I mean selling it as truth).

But when one wakes up from the teaching itself and looks around, one sees that there were Buddhists over here talking about emptiness and dependent arisings, Sufis over there talking about something else, and Christians over there talking

about Christ.

At that point, the tendency might be to try and reduce all other paths, traditions, and worldviews INTO the Advaita framework. This is a massive act of reductionism, a kind of violence we do towards other each other, other teachings, views, etc. I found myself fighting with other teachings because of this ethnocentric tendency within me to absolutize my own concepts about awakening. Not very fun at a dinner party and really arrogant actually! :)

When that tendency to be right, to really, really believe "My path is the right and only path," is seen through, there is a new kind of openness that is available. It's like waking up out of waking up, being free from your own liberation, seeing your own teaching that helped you wake up as one of many objects that can be transcended and included. Not dismissed, denied, argued against, etc, but totally included along with everything else no matter what perspective or frame of reference it comes from.

I say, if you take non-duality all the way, you are free of it. This means you don't even absolutize your conceptual viewpoints about your path or about Advaita or any of that. There becomes this sweet, very exploratory, compassionate, inclusive, non-marginalizing energy or knowing that arises that wants to take other perspectives, appreciate all forms as they appear, in whatever frame of reference they appear.

And yes, a discriminating mind is important and included. But, from this view, any discrimination that happens would only make sense by understanding what the frame of reference is. You would see at this point that what an object is, what it means, and whether it is right or wrong, or clear or unclear, depends on the culture, teaching, conditioning, and conceptual framework that "creates" or frames the object. The photographer is not independent from the photograph. Whatever you see depends on what conceptual framework (i.e., "lens") you are looking from. In my definition, waking up would include knowing and seeing this. It would include knowing what your conceptual framework is when you are speaking. This avoids the embarrassment of opening your mouth believing that somehow you are speaking truth that is somehow true across all cultural, regional, national, religious lines.

For example, the framework from which this answer is written is what I call Integral or the Open View. So there is a seeing that it is the lens through which I'm speaking, not any kind of ultimate bedrock, final seeing. A Taoist might read this and be put off or not understand what I'm saying or may think it's nonsense. And so my definition of enlightenment would not be a landing point or arrival. It would not be an attitude of "I already know." It is an ongoing, fluid, openness to what arises, open to see ignorance arise even after one believes he or she has recognized nonduality or whatever.

Any other definition, for me, locks one into an awkward place. For example, if I sit back claiming to be Mr. Advaita, or Mr. Non-Dual ever present abiding in the Absolute, I am not seeing that THAT is a conceptual framework. I will find myself in a funny place when I meet someone from a Tibetan Middle Way teaching, just for example, who says that awareness is just a dependent arising and that one should not essentialize awareness or even emptiness itself. There are those in certain Middle Way schools who would not say that emptiness is the same as non-dual awareness. That can rub someone in Advaita the wrong way if there is Advaita-ethno-centric thinking going on. Or Advaita talk can rub someone from the Tibetan teaching the wrong way if there is a "closing off" or absolutizing of a viewpoint in the one who holds the Tibetan view.

Here is another example: If I am stuck in my view about formless awareness being the ultimate and final seeing, I might find that an Integralist has a different view altogether, which does not include ONLY timeless and formless awareness but also the world of form, time, phenomena. An integralist or even a pluralist does not follow or appreciate only formlessness. In Integral, one is not enlightened if they see themselves only as pure awareness "free from objects, experience, time and form," they must also be at one with form, time, objects, etc. This too can rub someone the wrong way if they are entrenched in the view that it's all about being "free of..."

Can you see where the conflict arises?

It is tempting to want to stand back and try to decide which view is the right and correct view. But the one who stands back is just another perspective. We can definitely have a talk about whether these paths and teachings include a similar realization or whether one might be better for some people and the other better for other people. But until we get over this hump of defending one's own view, making absolute claims as if there is a "view from nowhere," no real conversation takes place. It's all about being right, which, for me, is just ego 101. The recent "discussion" between Neo and Traditional Advaita is a good example of this nonsense.

We find division and separation by the way in which we frame objects, from plants, animals, humans, to science, teachings, religions, countries. And we frame objects based on our conditioning, language, culture, teaching, religions, philosophies, etc. We hunker down within conceptual views that are only real when we emphasize them. So I say, find a view that is really open. Be free of this separation. If not, we take our thoughts to be pointing to real objects in the world, as if Advaita or Tibetan Middle Way is a real object, totally divorced from conditioning. Hmmmmm.

Can you see how ethnocentric thinking could lead someone to be so entrenched in their view that they cannot see beyond it? They only keep seeing objects that take to be real, something called Traditional v Neo Advaita, Advaita v. Buddism, the Tao v. God, Atoms v. Brahman. These are cultural objects. If one cannot see beyond a cultural object, would that be enlightenment? Some say yes. I say, "Don't be so sure."

So the point of my message is to wake up beyond ego, and then to wake up out of the teaching or any other ethnocentric thinking, into an open view, held very ironically and lightly (not essentialized or absolutized) so that all views, all form, time, all teachings, all disciplines are welcomed. Obviously, in my message, the path to that is first and foremost the recognition of one's true nature as non-dual awareness.

Once one has recognized non-dual awareness, I encourage an openness to continue seeing where one's framework is limited, where shadows are arising, where ignorance and separation is still coming up. I found in myself, a few years back, that there was a tendency to say that one has seen through separation, but then ACTING AS IF separation is real. This, I think, is why some teachers have fallen from grace. They say there are no others, but then molest, hurt, ridicule, obsess on the others that apparently don't exist. If one takes non-duality all the way, a very deep love and compassion for all arises. You aren't a perfect human being. The perfection of life is realized, which allows all imperfections to be seen, illuminated.

And you are free to "play" a character in the relative world, knowing that there is no one, but still obeying the basic ethics and laws and common decency within the cultural framework you find yourself (e.g., Midwest America, or Beirut).

NDM: Do you see we are living in a time of the end of the traditional guru. That we are now in the age of the "cyber guru', giving email satsangs, or the universal guru that speaks one language only. English.

Greg Goode says: No longer can people believe that liberation speaks only Tibetan, or that the world was created from holy Sanskrit syllables. People are saying, "If it can't be said in my language, then it isn't so universal after all." Even as recently as thirty years ago, seekers of self-awareness had to trek to India or the Himalayas to see someone who could impart a message of liberation. These days there are many routes: Barnes & Noble, Borders, Amazon, Yahoo, Google, mobile phones and BlackBerries"

NDM: What is your take on this? www.heartofnow.com/files/other.writings.html

Scott Kiloby: I feel as Greg does. Centuries ago, it was possible to have a teaching very regionalized in one place where certain concepts were passed around as truth, as the only truth. Nothing else was getting in to challenge or influence that from the other end of the earth. As the internet age is sweeping us into mass communication, we are waking up to what we've been doing, mistaking regional, cultural frameworks for absolute truths. These paths and traditions like Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism are true treasures. But they are being reinvented today. The point Greg seems to be making is that awakening is not found

NDM: What about this money issue. Charging for teachings or for guru-ship?

Scott Kiloby: Most of the content, except books, on my site is free. But that is not coming from some high moral ground or from some belief that gurus shouldn't charge money. It comes from wanting to make the message accessible. But it has limitations because, up until now, I've done no marketing. Therefore, many who might benefit from my message just don't hear it. There are a lot of good teachers out there who are not getting their message out because of some idea that they shouldn't charge or market or sell books or whatever. Well then...no one will hear it . . . or only a few will. Whatever we think tends to to become our reality.

If I remain closed to getting my message out, that's probably what is going to happen--nothing. If I remain open, perhaps more people would hear it. And the marketplace takes care of itself. An unclear message will, eventually, fail in the marketplace of teachings

NDM: Is it right or wrong to charge?

Scott Kiloby: The question, like most, cannot be answered in an absolutistic way. In the East, perhaps it was wrong to do this in some areas or in some teachings. In the West, the free market system is thriving. It's a cultural difference. Personally, I don't mind charging at the door if people ask me to come and give a talk. It pays for travel expenses.

I'm thankful that people paid my teachers to talk or else I would never have seen their books or benefited from their messages. I am certainly glad I didn't have to go to India...

If there is a good teacher out there anywhere who can help the realization of freedom, I certainly wouldn't want him working in a factory. If I were suffering, I would pay for him not to work so he could give me guidance.

To me, this is a non-issue. It really only becomes an issue when the hunger for money overrides the heart of the message--the intention to help others. When that happens, the ego of the guru has crept back in. But you can't always tell if that is the case from the "outside." Many people have made the claim that so and so teacher is money hungry because he charges. But then I've gotten to know that teacher and see that it is just false. The intention of the teacher is authentic.

What is dying, more and more, is the idea of the guru itself, the notion that there is someone who has something special that others don't. As this thing blossoms more and more, there will be more and more books and websites, and so many teachers that the idea of enlightenment being a special thing reserved for special gurus will die out. I don't know this for sure. I just suspect this, given what has happened in the last ten years.

There is plenty of room for abuse in the guru/student relationship. That's when gurus start feeling like Gods. And it keeps people trapped in projecting all sorts of personal stuff onto the guru, as if he is superhuman. That, I think, is on its way out.

Perhaps as this idea of the exalted guru goes away more and more, this issue of charging money will clear itself up. The guru just sells water by the river until people see that they can take a drink themselves and become the river. At that point, they aren't going to pay for it anymore, so the issue is dead. The best nondual teachings are the ones where no one returns.

Whatever way that message gets to people, I'm all for it, whether someone charges or not...ultimately.