Hello Everyone:

I have a question for Peter, but everyone is welcome to answer. I am asking because I am trying to understand.

Peter, you wrote today (in your most recent post): “the moment consciousness split into opposites… self and other.”

Hyenas, for example, chase other hyenas who cross their territory and injure or kill the “other” hyenas. So, to me, it means that they have a concept of the-other, an instinctual concept, not one that’s accompanied by the elaborate thoughts that humans, cognitively evolved, are capable of.

Being that the concept of the-other is so instinctually entrenched in nature (all animal species, I think), and we humans are still an animal species.. How can any human undo or redo pre-human nature and not have a concept of the-other?

Or is non-duality about lessening the frequency and intensity of the concept of “the other” in people whose concept of the-other is.. too much, too often?

If you choose to answer me (I’ll appreciate it 🙂), please explain it in a way you’d explain it to a 5-year-old, without big words and terms..?

🤍🌿 Anita

Hi James,

even knowing this makes one closer to realization or ego death.

Because, as much as one get closer to Truth inevatibly one dies.

And rest is pure beauty.

And most important thing to understand is, death is not something scary, it is absolutely beautiful.

I agree… the death of the ego is the goal. It’s something to strive for, because the ego keeps us in separation and duality.

You wrote a beautiful poem in September, which I believe was about your own ego death, when you let go of everything, and then something beautiful emerged: “And in that poverty, in that total collapse of “James”, something begins to shine. Not as James. Not for James. But as what always was, waiting patiently behind the veil. Poor James… Finally, what remains is rich beyond measure.”

Our true self is indeed rich beyond measure. I think where we might not understand each other is that you seem to claim that true self doesn’t exist. That even the witness should dissolve:

Just be witness, till witness dissolves.

I believe the witness, i.e. the observer, is a part of our true self. Our divine self. And I don’t think it should dissolve, at least not while we’re in embodiment.

Just life is happening now, yet You are not the player, only the watcher, not even.

Indeed, many times we can’t control what’s happening to us. Life has a way of surprising us, and not always in a good way.

The question is what we should do about it. I like your idea that we should witness it/observe it (which helps us not get overwhelmed), but eventually, you say the witness should also dissolve?

Honestly, to me, it sounds like escaping… not making any decisions, even the necessary ones. Because not making a decision is also a decision… I wonder what are your thoughts on this?

In Buddhism, the rise of the chakras can be seen as a journey of unfolding awareness. The lower chakras are rooted in survival and identity, much like the hyenas who act from instinct. But as awareness rises, so does the capacity to witness, to hold paradox, to rest in silence. The higher chakras invite us into spaciousness, into the possibility of seeing without dividing, knowing without naming.

Here I note that Jung, Buddha, and shamanism suggest that the heart center as a place to engage with life for most people. The place most of us are currently engaged at.

The rise of the chakras is a journey from survival and identity to spaciousness and unity. Each chakra a change in a relationship of ‘consciousness’. The seed James has been planting points to the seventh chakra. The seventh chakra, at the crown, is the point where the self dissolves into the whole, where duality dissolves.

Joseph Campbell uses the metaphor of the moth who doesn’t just admire the flame, but merges with it, “dies” to it. This is the image of the seventh chakra: the merging of the subjective and the objective, the end of the illusion that they were ever separate. It’s not annihilation, it’s union. The flame doesn’t destroy the moth; it completes it.

At this level, there is no longer duality, no “me” and “you,” “inside” and “outside.” There is only the dance of being, the silent knowing that all things arise from the same source and return to it. Language falls away here, not because it’s wrong, but because it’s no longer needed. What remains is presence, pure, unmeasured, whole.

Hi Everyone:

Wow, Peter, this is the best down to earth, tell it to me like I’m a five year old explanation of Duality vs Non-duality that I’ve ever read, thank you!

I asked: “Being that the concept of the-other is so instinctually entrenched in nature (all animal species, I think), and we humans are still an animal species.. How can any human undo or redo pre-human nature and not have a concept of the-other?
Or is non-duality about lessening the frequency and intensity of the concept of ‘the other’ in people whose concept of the-other is.. too much, too often?”-

From your reply, Peter, I gather that your answer is that the concept of the-other is indeed instinctually entrenched in nature (“Hyenas, like you said, act from instinct… responding from instinct protecting their space and chase away others. That’s nature doing its job.”), and that non-duality is not about undoing the natural, instinctual concept of the-other but lessening its frequency and intensity (“we can soften our judgments.”).

So, we, humans cannot not judge at all, but we can soften our judgment. Personally, I do need to judge less often, way less. I am opening to this.

“We can notice when we’re sorting the blocks too tightly”- I do need to loosen my sorting 🙂

I am taking a moment to meditate on the above.

“Imagine you’re a child playing with building blocks. At first, there’s just the blocks and the joy of playing. But then, you start sorting them: red blocks here, blue blocks there. You say, ‘This one is mine,’ and ‘That one is not.'”-

“God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.” (Genesis 1:3–4)- the beginning of sorting: light (good); darkness (bad).

Next to be sorted was water below (oceans) from water above (clouds or such): “And God said, ‘Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.’ So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it.” (Genesis 1: 6-7).

.. And the deal-breaker sorting: “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die”. (Genesis 2: 16-17).

Like you said yesterday, Peter, “The story of eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is… the birth of duality”. I would add that it was the birth of the complexity of duality in human psychology.

Thank you, Peter, for this exceptional down to earth reply, for honoring my request for one 🙏

Thank you, Tee, for your reply 🙏

“Now thinking about it, perhaps eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil refers to the state of consciousness when we start seeing ourselves as good and the other as evil? This is the first time that this interpretation has occurred to me, but perhaps it’s a feasible one?”-

In my personal story, in-the-beginning God (my mother) created the heavens and the earth (my core beliefs), darkness was over the surface of the deep, and her spirit hovering over the waters, telling me: You are bad! Shame on you..!

So, I believed (and resisted the idea) that I was bad. Never free of that darkness.

“when we see the other as a threat, as evil”- I saw myself as evil. I saw me as “the other” (self fragmentation, dissociation, alienation). And I often perceived others’ reactions to me.. others’ feedback on what I shared, others’ advice, etc., as re-accusations that I was indeed bad, and that I should be ashamed of myself.

I am making progress in this regard.

I am looking forward to reading more of your interpretation and thoughts 🙂

🤍🌿 Anita

Hi Anita

“So, we humans cannot not judge at all—but we can soften our judgment. Personally, I do need to judge less often, way less. I am opening to this.”

There’s method to the madness when the wisdom traditions warn us not to judge. The truth is, we’re really not that great at it. 🙂

James’s seed points past measurement, labeling, or even thought itself. That kind of presence is possible, which you may have touched, even if just for a moment, through meditation or contemplation. I feel its a gift, not something we grasp or will, but something we receive.

In Joseph Campbell’s view, the heart chakra represents a turning point in the journey of awareness. It’s living from a consciousness that is fully engaged with life, yet no longer ruled by fear or grasping. So I agree with Jung that living from the heart chakra is a consciousness we all should strive towards for a balanced, healthy sense of self.

If the root chakra is the will to survive, the sacral chakra the will to pleasure, and the solar plexus the will to power, then the heart chakra is the will to love, not as sentiment, but as spacious presence. It’s the place where the ego begins to loosen and the soul begins to speak. It’s where duality begins to dissolve, not by force, but through love.

Living from the heart doesn’t mean escaping life, it means embracing it with open hands. It’s where we notice our judgments and soften them. Where we remain engaged, but no longer entangled. It’s the beginning of the return to presence. And just maybe the seed James planted takes root.

Hi Dear Tee 🙂:

“Your mother probably adopted the belief that she is good and you’re bad/evil. The belief born out of duality. Probably somewhere deep down she felt inadequate too, she certainly didn’t love herself. But she suppressed that feeling and that core belief (of not being good enough) and projected all badness onto you. She labeled you as the ‘bad one’, and herself as the ‘good one'”-

Said perfectly, as if you were there, observing, witnessing..

“Yes, that’s a normal reaction! A part of you believed her, but a part of you resisted her and wanted to prove her wrong. And it so happens that when we believe we’re inherently bad, we want to prove to everyone (not just our parents) that we’re good”-

Thank you for saying this because it makes me think, go back in time, and what I remember is that I was too weak, too devastated to think that I could possibly prove her wrong. She was too dominant, too loud, dominating. It was all her, no me. I was sickeningly submissive to her.. was physically there, but no agency.

“So, there is a constant battle inside of our mind: the inner critic telling us that we’re bad, while our protector part (which is another part of the ego, also caught in duality), trying to prove to ourselves and others that we’re good.”-

The inner critic repeated her message, elaborated on it, torturing me. The protector part- don’t remember having this part. I remember that you shared that you talked back to your mother. I never did.

“Basically, we’re fighting ourselves, while also fighting others, believing that they think we’re bad.”- Yes, fighting myself. Never fought her except that one time. Fighting others.. yes, later in time.

“I think that a part of you saw yourself as bad. That part was your inner critic, which is the internalized voice of your mother. Whereas another part was trying to prove (to yourself and your mother and the world) that you’re not bad.”-

I don’t remember trying to prove her wrong.. no, wait, I did try to defend myself against her accusations but she punished me for any effort to defend myself, every defense on my part was met with escalated offense.

I wonder if this has been true to you, trying to prove.. this kind of agency was severely squashed very early on in my life.

“You were very sensitive to how people perceive you, because you didn’t want that they perceive you as bad. And so even the slightest disagreement or unfavorable feedback felt like people telling you that you’re bad. And this caused this other part (I call it “protector”) to react with anger and defend your ‘goodness.’”-

This is true later in life. I suppose the “protector” part of me died early on, and then, many years later, resurrected.

“I think this was the dynamic. Let me know whether it resonates?”- yes, it resonates except for the decades of zero, or close to zero agency, living my life with no me in it.

The first time I ever stood up to her (the fighting I mentioned above) was in my early 20s.. that’s 20 years of submission. And the way I stood up to her was to grab her hands as she ran toward me to hit me, once again.. and again.. and again. I pushed against her just enough so that she couldn’t or wouldn’t get to me so to hit me.. with passion. She hit me as if she had no choice but to .. defend herself from my .. alleged evilness. The way she presented it, she was always Victim, I was always Perpetrator.

Although I have never hit her, never shamed her, never guilt-tripped her (she did those things to me.. over and over and over.. and over again)

.. I wrote: “I am making progress in this regard.”. You responded: “I’m happy about it! ❤️”- Thank you, Tee, ❤️ back to you.

“I am looking forward to reading more of your interpretation and thoughts I hope that this was helpful and looking forward to chat some more 😊”-

Thank you. I am looking forward to some more chatting with you. I hope this is not too heavy for you..?

My above responses to your quotes, everything I wrote, that’s stream of consciousness, whatever comes to my mind, no editing.. so, there may be seeming contradictions, but none that come from deception. So much of growing up (or growing in, as in stuck- within, more exact), I don’t remember.

I am grateful that you chose to communicate with me after all that’s happened, Tee.

🤍🌿 Anita

Hi dear Anita 😊

Thank you for saying this because it makes me think, go back in time, and what I remember is that I was too weak, too devastated to think that I could possibly prove her wrong. She was too dominant, too loud, dominating. It was all her, no me. I was sickeningly submissive to her.. was physically there, but no agency.

Right, I remember you said you let her clothe you and bathe you even in your teenage years. And now you say you let her hit you till you were in your early 20s. I’d say I wasn’t that resigned/subdued/helpless physically, however I felt like that emotionally and mentally, because I believed her criticism of me, her view of me (that I was worthless, not good enough, even a creep).

My attempts to resist her qualifications of me – at least those that I am consciously aware of – only started in my early 30s, when I started working on myself and became interested in personal growth. That’s when I became aware of a voice inside of my mind that is rebellious towards my mother and wants to prove her wrong.

There was a certain spite in that voice (“I’ll show you, just you wait!”). I was dreaming of doing something big, becoming very successful – there was a lot of grandeur in that voice. I remember you too said you were dreaming of becoming a world renowned dancer or performer, right?

That part of me belonged to my ego, and it tried to compensate for my feelings of worthlessness. So it had to achieve something extraordinary, something that figuratively speaking the entire world would get to see and admire. (I guess I had that drive in me since my early 20s, after finishing school and joining the workforce, but I only became aware of it in my early 30s, after starting working on myself and understanding my psychology).

I don’t remember trying to prove her wrong.. no, wait, I did try to defend myself against her accusations but she punished me for any effort to defend myself, every defense on my part was met with escalated offense.

Right, you were punished for trying to defend yourself and prove that you didn’t mean anything bad. And so you’ve realized after a while that there is no point in trying to defend yourself, because it will only make things worse. But the anger remained in you. You said you sometimes did give her an angry stare, right? Perhaps that was the only outward expression of anger that you sometimes dared to express?

This is true later in life. I suppose the “protector” part of me died early on, and then, many years later, resurrected.

Hmm, I don’t think it died. Your anger remained in you, as well as your impulse to defend yourself, to prove that you’re not a bad person. But it was suppressed, at least in front of your mother. Perhaps later, when you moved far away from your mother, this anger got more room to be expressed? Or perhaps therapy was the first time you allowed to express it?

You did start consciously expressing your anger – giving it voice – here on the forums, in your own threads. You gave yourself permission to express anger towards your mother, and you said it felt good to do it.

But my impression is that this anger then got stuck – because a part of you (your inner child) still didn’t feel good enough. A part of you still believed your mother, even if another part – your adult self – stopped believing her. As a result, you still had the need to prove that you’re not bad, and you would get angry if you perceived that someone believes you’re bad.

In other words, your angry protector part felt the need to protect you from your mother’s unfair accusations – because a part of you still believed them. At least that’s my impression of what was going on here on the forums, in some of the exchanges.

To use your own words, in the past you went “belly up” when faced with abuse (real abuse). And now, you chose to defend yourself – but from the angry protector part – when faced with real or perceived abuse.

Let me know if this sounds true?

Thank you, Tee, ❤️ back to you.

I hope this is not too heavy for you..?

You’re welcome, Anita ❤️ And no, it’s not heavy for me at all. I like to talk about and better understand our psychological defenses (both mine and those of other people), and so I’m happy that we can have this conversation. 🙏 I hope it is not heavy for you though? If it is, let me know…