If you read widely and analytically about enlightenment, you will find that it has been defined or described in almost as many ways as there are spiritual traditions or "enlightened" individuals. There are even claims that it doesn't exist. To a disconcerting extent, what enlightenment is seems to depend on how you define or describe it. And, however you define it, others will certainly disagree, including "enlightenment police" who claim to know who is enlightened and who is not (according to their own beliefs, of course). Unfortunately, there is no universal authority to set standards. And, contrary to popular and naive notions, spiritual traditions are, more often than not, saturated with politics, rivalries and disputes. For example, I once had a teacher (obscure then, but now very well known) who, after being declared enlightened by his own teacher, turned around and publicly declared his teacher to be unenlightened. Not even the most revered teachers, such as J. Krishnamurti and Ramana Maharshi, have escaped accusations that they were not enlightened. Ultimately, you have to decide for yourself what is true and to trust your innate spiritual wisdom to lead you in the right direction.

There is, however, a consistent recurring theme of discovery in enlightenment literature - the unity of existence. It means that everything that exists is one, regardless of appearances to the contrary. It means that the classic assertion of the poet and theologian John Donne that "no man is an island" is equally true of even the most minute sub-atomic particle. No thing is an island. No part exists separate from the whole, just as no wave on the ocean exists separate from the ocean.

A generic term for that discovery is Nonduality (see, also, Nondualism, a Wikipedia article about Nondualist traditions). And, in Nonduality teachings - whether Buddhist, Taoist, Advaitist, or other - that discovery is the most common and fundamental criterion for enlightenment. By that standard, enlightenment may be generally defined as the realization of the unity of existence.

Accordingly, enlightenment means seeing reality as it is, or seeing clearly what is already the case - all that exists is one, there is no actual separation. And, as "no actual separation" implies, any appearance or sense of separation is only an illusion, a mistake in understanding.

That means - and here is the most surprising aspect of the discovery - that there is no separate you. You and all that exists are one. Enlightenment, the realization of the unity of existence, is also automatically the realization that you are the world.

Within a given spiritual tradition, certain events, such as some form of samadhi or satori, may be expected to occur as signs of enlightenment. But these events seem to be predetermined by, and dependent on, the types of methodology adopted. Yogis, for example, typically cultivate interiorizing forms of meditation, while Zen monks cultivate exteriorizing ones. In general, the events that may occur are variable and relative, and many have no lasting effect. (Although it is sometimes claimed that all spiritual experiences are only temporary and therefore unimportant, there are exceptions. Some, by their very nature of restructuring the mind's conditioning, actually do bring about a permanent, liberating change, as in this example.)

The only reliable sign of enlightenment - one that can cross traditional boundaries - is understanding. As Nisargadatta Maharaj said, "Understanding is all." And understanding is verified when statements from sages or scriptures about enlightenment start to become clear, transparent and consistent with your own observations and experience.

Although enlightenment may indeed be accompanied by various kinds of experiences, such as bliss or a spontaneous shift in consciousness, or may be followed by a deepening release (see Liberation), none is necessary to enlightenment itself. In fact, it is possible to be enlightened without knowing it or showing it.

Nondualists disagree among themselves about this. Some claim that enlightenment is always sudden and complete, while others claim that it is usually gradual and may come about in stages of deepening. (The purpose of Buddhist Dharma Combat or Dharma Battle, for example, is to test and increase a person's depth of understanding.) Sometimes the difference in opinion is rooted in whether enlightenment is viewed only as a single specific event, with a preparation gradually leading to it, or whether it is viewed as a growing awakening or understanding, somewhat like the sun dawning through a thick mist and gradually burning it away. (Also, not making a distinction between enlightenment and liberation can add to the confusion.)

If the claim that it is a sudden and complete single event is the only accepted view, then enlightenment may be considered exceptionally rare and almost impossible to achieve. But if the gradualist opinion is also accepted, then enlightenment does not have to be rare and can be considered as a natural stage, or series of stages, in human development that is available to anyone who wants it. The majority of opinion on this matter, as well as a considerable amount of evidence, seems to favor some kind of gradualism which may also include clearly defined stages.

However, a third view - not necessarily contradictory to the others - is that enlightenment is neither sudden nor gradual, but only appears that way. It is always already the case and is always available right here, right now as your own nature - Awareness. The importance of Awareness is constantly overlooked, because our natural tendency is to use the mind to find answers to questions, or to allow ourselves to be distracted by the mind's activity and demands. But, although the mind is a marvelous instrument which is useful for many purposes, including sorting out questions and issues surrounding enlightenment, it can never find enlightenment itself. All it can do is distract you from seeing who you already are - the witness to what the mind is doing. That witness is also called Awareness. If you are looking for enlightenment, the secret answer is to just stop looking and to rest in Awareness. You will discover that enlightenment is inescapable. It is already your natural state. In short, you never discover the answer; you only discover that you already are the answer.

Here's the secret: right now, right where you are, come to a full stop. Rest in awareness, rest in being. Rest in your certainty of existing. Notice that you are existence itself, and that everything arises within you. Recognize that, under all circumstances, under all seeming change, you are unchanging existence itself in which all change arises. You are always already That in which the entire universe arises. Stay with that understanding.

For anyone who hears that message clearly, awakening is truly simple and immediate. Just be and understand that you are Being itself. That you exist is the only certainty, the only unchanging reality; everything else is change, which always takes place within you. Existence is your true nature, and if you understand that, nothing more needs to be said. Your true nature is already complete and completely obvious in every moment. To be awakened means nothing more than knowing your own true nature, here and now. The doorway to awakening is understanding, and awakening consists of nothing more than understanding. As Nisargadatta Maharaj said, "Understanding is all." Teaching understanding is all that can be done or needs to be done. When you understand and stay with understanding, other doorways, such as recognizing the full radiance of your own Being, open by themselves.

Our brain and our conditioning determine how we see things, both visually and psychologically. Most of us, for example, have seen images in which their content seems to change suddenly, or flip, if we stare at them long enough. A change in focus between what is viewed as background and foreground may result in a sudden perceptual shift. When the previously ignored background receives attention, it may suddenly move to the foreground.

The shift often referred to in Nonduality teachings, although not at all visual, is similarly a sudden perceptual change and is also brought about by a change in focus. Although it may be described in different ways and with different emphasis, it is generally a shift from a focus on the content of Awareness to a focus on Awareness itself. It can also be described as a shift in identification, from identifying with the content of Awareness to identifying with Awareness itself.

As with images, it is possible - and often necessary in the carrying out of daily routines - to shift back and forth between focusing on the content of Awareness and focusing on Awareness itself.

See also What Is Non-doership?

Although the distinctions are often ignored or blurred, it can be observed that there is more than one "I" in Awareness. While some current Nondualists point almost exclusively to the separative "I" logic which creates a sense of separation (I versus other), Nisargadatta Maharaj also speaks of the "I Am" and going beyond the "I Am," and Ramana Maharshi speaks of the "I-I."

As we grow from childhood to adulthood, it is normal to develop a strong sense of a separate self (ego) that seems to stand apart from all else. When we refer to ourselves or say "I," we unconsciously assume and include a complex set of identifications and memories (I am this), such as our name, body, family, education, career, personal history, and so on. But, through persistent self-inquiry and observation, it can be seen that the sense of a separate "I" does not exist except as a concept. It is nothing more than an illusory, fuzzy, abstract reference point in Awareness. Moreover, it is accompanied by a supporting logic which interprets all events as happening to that reference point. In other words, the "I" logic always interprets events as happening to a centralized "me" rather than just happening in the field of Awareness. That false interpretation creates a veil of separation, an illusion of "me" versus other.

In the minimalist description of enlightenment adopted by many Nondualists, enlightenment means undermining that separative "I" logic through a deep understanding of it. The undermining of it reveals that you have never been separate from the world. It reveals that you are the world and that reality, here and now, just as it is, is your own Self. The revelation can be described as a shift in consciousness from identifying with the illusion of a separate self to identifying with the all-inclusive Self.

But, as the term suggests, the "Self" is itself an "I." Although it is spacious, all-inclusive and de-centralized, the Self expresses itself assertively as "I Am." It is, in fact, the real you expressing itself through a body-mind as the self-evident certainty that it (you) exists. Some call it Presence and may describe it further as creative, intelligent energy, because the "I Am" includes both the creation and the recognition of the world as one's Self. In its creative aspect, and as expressed through a body-mind, it is an act of individualization (sometimes called "Atman"), a personal expression of Self which arises from the Heart.

The "I Am" is also an inseparable part of the "I-I" continuity that Ramana Maharshi refers to when he points out that the Self shines in the Heart as "I-I." The other part of the "I-I" is the impersonal Self, and it is also what Nisargadatta Maharaj refers to as beyond "I Am." Through further self-inquiry, observation, and reversal of the mind's exteriorization, the "I Am" dissolves back into the Heart, into nameless, indescribable, ineffable, impersonal being (Brahman), the "I" of Awareness without attributes. This impersonal "I" is the true and pure Witness, or Awareness, that is always present, shining through creation, but prior to creation.

As mentioned previously, all of these "I's" can be observed and distinguished. No part of your nature is really hidden. For example, you get a taste of the dissolution or creation of the "I Am" whenever you fall into or awaken from deep sleep (meaning dreamless sleep). When the "I Am" arises, the world appears; when it dissolves, the world disappears. You also get a taste of the impersonal bliss of Brahman when you disappear into deep sleep. But the bliss that can occur in the waking state is usually the experience of the creative energy, sometimes called shakti, which arises from the Heart.

This claim is like an urban legend - it is believed because it is repeated often, even by reputable sages, such as Ramana Maharshi. It is a good lesson in why all such claims that are contrary to experience should be verified or subjected to careful analysis, rather than accepted on mere authority.

Here's the way the argument typically goes: A Hindu sage claims that consciousness is present even in deep sleep (meaning dreamless sleep). A questioner, usually a Westerner, observes skeptically that it is contrary to experience. The sage then pulls out the stock answer that, when you wake up, you say that you slept well or badly. Then he asks triumphantly, how could you know that unless there is consciousness in deep sleep?

Well, there is a more logical answer, based on common observation. You say that you slept well, because you feel physically well-rested and mentally alert upon awakening, and because you were not awakened during your sleep period or disturbed by troubling dreams, all of which would be remembered due to conscious activity. Conversely, you say that you slept badly, because you feel physically and mentally unrested upon awakening, and because you experienced disturbances during the sleep period, which roused you into a conscious or semi-conscious state, and which left a memory imprint.

The sage's "proof" of awareness in deep sleep is based on faulty deduction, not experience. The bottom line is this: if you can honestly claim to experience awareness in deep sleep, that means that you have a memory of being in deep sleep. But, if you have such a memory, it wasn't deep sleep.

For an interesting examination of the nature of consciousness from the scientific perspective, see Why Great Minds Can't Grasp Consciousness

When people search for enlightenment, they are very rarely interested in finding truth for its own sake. What they are almost always looking for, consciously or unconsciously, is relief from pain and suffering. But, aside from the pain of any physical ailment or disability, most of their pain is spectral and unnecessary and arises from false identifications. Relief from that kind of pain is called Liberation.

Liberation, of course, means freedom. Although it is often referred to interchangeably with enlightenment, it is mainly an aftermath, a separate process of gradual release from the many kinds of social and personal conditioning and identifications that build up over a lifetime and that act as forms of resistance to the natural ease and flow of consciousness. The understanding which is called Enlightenment acts like a yeast, deepening release. But Enlightenment is not deepened; liberation is. It is a process of the mind learning to trust and relax and get out of its own way.

It is normal for the brain to develop a complex memory of likes and dislikes, including some very intense desires and fears. After all, we are biologically built to seek pleasure and avoid pain. But in the consciousness of one who is enlightened, these likes and dislikes are clearly recognized as mental tendencies or habits (samsara) which persistently arise on their own. Recognized as such, they are allowed to arise freely, without resistance or preference and without identifying with them, until, over time, they begin to lose their energy. The process has been compared to the gradual slowing down of a fan's blades after it has been unplugged, and it may continue throughout the remainder of one's life.

Ultimately, the process of dissolution results in a physical and mental sense of open-ended, free-flowing Awareness, as if the body-mind is nothing more than a vehicle through which the light of Awareness shines - which, strangely enough, it actually is.

Although this term is used often among current Nondualists, its meaning seems to vary. It may mean the Witness (pure Awareness), or the I Am, or the Heart, or the creative and intelligent energy (shakti) which arises from the Heart, or some combination of these. It is also sometimes used to mean "present" or "in the present" or "the here and now." Most often, it seems to refer to recognition of the powerful sense of I Am of consciousness.

In the simplest terms, Presence is the Self (you) assertively expressing itself in time and space as eternal, ever-present existence. In other words, Presence is you, and you are Presence.

But there is sometimes another meaning of presence, as in the presence of an "other." When presence refers to the sense of a creative or intelligent energy, it can mean that a divine presence is felt. J. Krishnamurti, for example, repeatedly mentioned sensing the presence of a powerful intelligent energy in and around him. That kind of presence may also be experienced as a warm inner life that seems to radiate blissfully from the Heart located near the center of the chest and may feel like an intense devotional relationship with a very loving person, as in this example. Depending on one's religious background, it may be interpreted as the presence of Krishna, Buddha or Jesus (note, for example, the nature of the born-again experience of some Christian sects). But, when traced back to its source by means of self-inquiry, the experience of presence as "other" is seen to arise from one's own Self.

The Heart, as described by the famous sage Ramana Maharshi, is the seat of Awareness and is located on the right side of the chest. It is the source from which the mind, the energy of creation, and the sense of I Am arise, and to which they return. He explained further that the Heart is another name for Reality and that it appears in a specific place only as long as one is identified with the body.

Since Nonduality means not-two, one-without-a-second and no-separation, it automatically means that there are no separate individuals. There is just Awareness or impersonal Self. Thus, non-doership refers to the fact that, no matter how thoroughly you observe yourself as a seemingly separate individual, you will not be able to find a separate "I" that makes decisions or initiates actions. All you will find is that tendencies and decisions arise within the body-mind and that actions are taken as a result. Even the self-observation is part of that process, as is any "letting go" of the illusion of a separate self that may happen. Similar to a computer running a program, things get done through the functioning of the body-mind, but no separate individual is doing them. You, as a seemingly separate individual, are like a character in a drama - you are lived; you happen. Like Hamlet, you don't exist outside the play.

It also means that, although enlightenment seems to happen, no one gets enlightened, because there is only Self, and Self doesn't need to be enlightened. Enlightenment only takes place in a character in a drama, as part of the drama. But, since Self knows itself through its creation (and thereby gets immense enjoyment out of itself), it experiences enlightenment as just another of its myriad experiences. And, since Self is all that there is, it is not only who you actually are - the one reading this text - it is also the text itself. That means that you're always talking to yourself - you know only yourself.

Unfortunately, when misunderstood, the statement, "things get done, but no one is doing them," is sometimes inadvertently and absurdly twisted around to mean, "since no separate individual is there, nothing can be done." Zen Buddhists have a wise saying: "Before enlightenment, chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood, carry water." It means that enlightenment doesn't change the nature of reality; whether before or after, things need to be done and things can be done. Enlightenment is not apathy or functional paralysis. It is nothing more than seeing or understanding the nature of reality clearly. The rising sun does not change the landscape; it merely reveals it.

When closely questioned about how things get done, some Nondualists will concede that the Self must be the actual "doer." Others will admit that there is a "functional I," which is another term for the functioning body-mind mechanism.

Unfortunately, this type of baiting question is commonly asked by followers of dualistic religions who require ideological conformity from others in order to feel assured that their own beliefs are correct and not threatened. If they are really interested in finding truth, they should be questioning their own beliefs, not pushing them on others.

In general, it's important to understand that Nondualism is not a system of beliefs. Although beliefs may be adopted temporarily as stepping stones to understanding, Nondualist understanding is ultimately beyond any belief. If you want to verify its claims, you have to see for yourself.

In philosophical terms, Nondualism is monism, which means that reality is one with no independent parts. By implication, God is not "other." God is just another term for nondual reality. In other words, God is existence itself, God is all that there is. And, since reality has no separate parts, you cannot be separate either. When you realize that your true identity must be that nondual reality, you will simultaneously realize that you are the God you have been looking for and the only God you will ever know.

Some do, some don't, some don't care.

Tibetan Buddhists, for example, are Nondualists who clearly believe in life after death, as attested by their use of The Tibetan Book of the Dead, and by their belief in reincarnation.

Some other Nondualists express doubt by asking what is it that could go on living? Their question, based on the inability to find an identifiable, separate "I," assumes that the individual must die with the physical body. However, there is a flaw in the reasoning, and it can be demonstrated by asking, isn't there life before death? Clearly there is, in spite of the fact that there is no identifiable, separate "I" in the physical body. And, since there is life before physical death, why couldn't there similarly be life on a parallel plane or dimension of existence after physical death? There has been, after all, much circumstantial and anecdotal evidence throughout history suggesting that some kind of energy or body pattern may carry on. Until one's own physical death occurs, how can anyone claim to know for certain what is or is not possible?

And that leads to the "don't care" view, which says: either there is life after death or there isn't, and no opinion can change whichever is true. If there is life after death, then we'll find out after the physical body dies. But, if there isn't, then there won't be anyone to know or regret the fact that there isn't. Either way, the question resolves itself.

But, of course, a common reason for asking the question is that people fear what might happen to them after death. This is especially true in "sin" cultures which believe in an authoritarian, judgmental, vindictive god who takes revenge on disobedient "sinners" by casting them into eternal hell fires. The truth about such teachings is that they reflect the authoritarian mentality of the people who formulated them. Their real purpose is not to teach spirituality, but to impose social behavioral controls over people by creating a kind of internalized, mental police state. And the truth about the god these teachings have invented is that, if he were a human being, you would immediately recognize him for what he is - a petty, malicious tyrant who rules by fear. If you would not accept such a tyrant in human form, why would you accept a "divine" one who rules only in your mind?

Nondualists who have their roots in an ancient Eastern religious tradition often teach a very rigorous and strict form of morality. Buddhists, for example, are Nondualists who offer one of the most clearly defined and admirable systems of morality ever created, all the more admirable because it is fundamentally compassionate, tolerant and free of the dual taints of judgmentalism and authoritarianism. However, most Nondualists from Eastern traditions do not teach morality as an end in itself. Rather, it is meant as a stepping stone to spiritual realization. Once realization is achieved, morality is superseded by the absolute freedom and compassion of spiritual understanding.

Among other Nondualists, morality might not be expressed in a systematic form. When it is mentioned at all, it is seldom regarded as absolute and is often expressed in terms of compassion. This site, for example, supports with the common assessment of many spiritual leaders, such as Confucius and Jesus, that genuine morality is based on empathy and compassion, on treating others the way we want to be treated (see Shared Belief in the Golden Rule from Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance). That appears to be the only universal morality, and it undoubtedly evolved as a product of humanity's evolution and interaction as a social species. A solitary animal would have no need for morality. (See What Makes Us Moral: "The deepest foundation on which morality is built is the phenomenon of empathy, the understanding that what hurts me would feel the same way to you. And human ego notwithstanding, it's a quality other species share.")

There is no evidence or proof to support religion's many different and contradictory claims of an objective or divinely enacted moral law. Morality is a human interest, not that of any divinity. It is written in our genes, not in the universe. If you have any doubts about it, ask yourself: If human beings did not exist, would morality still exist? (See Research On Human Nature Is Cause For Optimism: "...sophisticated studies within biology suggest that large-scale cooperation within the human species, including with genetically unrelated individuals within a group, was favored by group selection. There were clear evolutionary benefits in coming to grips with others.")

Actually, some of them are. But Nondualists are just like other people; not all of them are inclined to be involved in social or political causes. Whether they are or not is largely a question of temperament, personality and conditioning. There's nothing in the nature of Nondualistic understanding which either motivates activism or suppresses it.

Moreover, Nondualists from the West have usually pursued their understanding through individual motivation divorced from the social and moral community contexts usually found in the East, such as in the Buddhist tradition. As a result, many Western Nondualists tend to remain aloof from the social evils surrounding them, often under the dubious explanation that it's all relative or unreal anyway.

Occasionally, students of Nonduality will naively argue that actions taken to correct any form of social evil are pointless, because the correction is never permanent and the evil will just return in one form or another. But that claim is as silly as saying that bathing is pointless, because you will just get dirty again. They might also argue that withdrawal from social activism is proof of a true Nondualistic understanding. But that claim is equally silly. A true Nondualist understanding recognizes the flux of dualistic reality and deals with it in an ordinary way. As Zen Buddhists say, "Before enlightenment, chop wood, carry water; after enlightenment, chop wood, carry water." Nondualistic understanding only reveals the unified nature of reality - it does not change it or make it go away. Nor does it change the nature of a person's personality or temperament. Whatever kind of person you were before enlightenment, you are likely to remain so afterwards.

You may have been taught that you enter into eternity when you die. But Nondualists offer a radically different observation: you are already in eternity right now. More precisely, eternity is your own nature.

The human perception of the passage of time is an illusion. It is a trick of the brain done by measuring apparent change. When you say that time has passed, you are not actually looking at the past. Rather, you are using memory to do a comparison between what is now and what is past. You mean that something has changed from what you remember it to have been. The past is always in the form of memory (which is why J. Krishnamurti repeatedly stated that the past is dead and only the present is alive). Similarly, when you think about the future, you are not actually looking at the future. You are using imagination to do a comparison between what is now and what might be. The future is always in the form of imagination. Thus, remembrance of the past and imagination of the future are always a function of the mind.

But what is most revealing is that you can remember the past and imagine the future only while actually being in the present. In fact, just a little self-observation reveals that you can't do anything outside of the present. No matter what you do or experience, you are always in the present. The present is the only reality. (Some psychics believe that their ability to see past and future events, as well as their difficulty in separating past and future events, can be explained only if such events exist as a continuum in the present. That could mean that the brain acts somewhat like a movie projector, projecting only one image at a time, but producing the illusion of a smooth flow, and creating a seeming past-to-future narrative.)

Because you are always in the present and because you can never leave it, the present is outside of the illusion of time - it is actually eternity. Moreover, it is inseparable from your own nature - the present is the nature of the Self or the Witness. You are yourself the eternal.

When the famous philosopher Rene Descartes tried to find out what was self-evidently and absolutely certain, he came up with the now famous dictum, "I think, therefore I am." But Nondualists have found the reverse to be true: "I am, therefore I think." Nondualists point out that the only self-evident and absolute certainty is that you exist and that your true nature is existence itself. Existence is, in fact, the only reality; all the rest, including the roles seemingly separate individuals act out, is illusion, a dream called the universe. "We" don't truly exist; there is only Being or nondual existence itself, and the reason for Being is beyond explanation.

There are several reasons for the contradictions. The primary reason is that Nondualists are trying to communicate through words and concepts what is essentially beyond words and concepts. But, unfortunately, those tools of the mind are usually the only tools available to them (Zen koans are a notable exception). Although the silence of Being is the most perfect expression of Nonduality, it is seldom seen for what it is unless someone points to it by means of words and concepts.

A second reason - related to the first - is that, while Nonduality as a realization is clear and unambiguous, it is paradoxical and contradictory as expressed through the phenomenal world of multiplicity. That's why direct seeing is all-important. No verbal or conceptual communication of Nonduality is unadulterated truth. You must see the truth for yourself.

A third reason is that much of the contradiction is only apparent. As your understanding of Nonduality grows, much of what appears to be contradictory starts to resolve itself. What doesn't get resolved in the light of understanding can usually be dismissed. Understanding is its own authority.

A fourth reason is that there is wide variation in communication talents among Nondualists. They are, after all, just human beings. Some - those who understand that effective communication is the result of art and craftsmanship - express themselves very carefully and clearly. Others seem to deliver unedited whatever raw data comes to mind, a stream-of-consciousness approach which very rarely works out well. (Oddly enough, in spite of frequent and obvious flaws in the results, some seem to regard an unexamined, spontaneous flow of thought and words as a necessary and laudatory characteristic of enlightenment - would they want to live in a house built by that kind of undisciplined spontaneity?) A few should probably consider hiring a good editor or ghostwriter. Sometimes, when a teacher blames the student for being confused, it's the teacher who should be examining himself for causing the confusion.

A fifth reason, somewhat mysterious, is that the student and the teacher do not always form an appropriate match. In other words, some teachers speak to you, while others do not. That's why, in spite of the fact that so many teachers are saying the same thing, there is always room for more.

A final reason is that not everyone is actually saying the same thing. That's why - contrary to the claims of some teachers - the use of the mind through careful study, analysis and discernment is necessary and important. Although ultimate truth is outside the mind, the mind is the only tool you have for sorting out the true from the false. The search for spiritual truth should never decay into an exercise in anti-intellectualism or an absence of critical thinking. Beware, especially, of teachers who denigrate questioning students as "unenlightened" or "egotistical." No teacher or teaching is beyond criticism.

Most do not say that, and you should be skeptical of any who do. The claim can be valid if it means that enlightenment is already the case, and that all that's needed is to rest in that understanding. However, if the statement means a complete inability to do anything to arrive at that understanding, not even by listening or reading, then ask yourself: if they really believe that, why do they bother to teach or write about enlightenment? The teachers who make such claims may be well-meaning, but they are teaching a false conclusion based on a valid discovery. The valid discovery is that there is no separate you, and it may be stated simply as: "actions occur, but no separate individual is doing them." The false conclusion, however, may be stated as: "since no separate individual is there, nothing can be done." That is contrary to common sense and everyday experience.

No, it isn't. Many well-meaning nondualists are seriously misguided and blinded on this issue. Nonduality is characteristic of religions which are experience oriented, such as Advaita Vedanta, Buddhism, Taoism and some others. In those teachings, spiritual claims are verified by experience, not accepted on mere external authority, and their ultimate teaching is that All Is One. In others words, there is no god-versus-you dichotomy - in fact, there is no separate you at all. The real you is Being expressing itself as the universe and experiencing the universe through the focal point of a body-mind mechanism.

The alternative to nonduality is duality. Dualist religions, such as Christianity and Islam, are primarily belief and law oriented. In the official teachings of such religions, God is eternally separate and distinct from his creation, and all of creation owes obedience to God. For humans, this usually implies a degree of free will, as well as a divinely imposed morality, which is accompanied by a system of rewards and punishments. Because dualist religions are so concerned with obedience and conformity of belief, they tend by nature to be highly ideological and authoritarian and focus far more on behavior control than on spiritual realization. In these religions, any realization of one's true self as the divine expressing itself as the universe would be viewed as heretical and blasphemous. Moreover, they strongly tend to see all other religions in an us-versus-them light. The true ideal of dualism is to dominate and eliminate all opposing beliefs. It is no coincidence that most of history's religious wars, as well as intolerance for and extermination of alternate religious beliefs (including the Gnostic versions of Christianity), have been caused by dualist religions. Nor is it a coincidence that most of today's cultural wars over social values are being waged by and within the dualist religions.

How did so many nondualists get the idea that all of the great religions are nondualist at heart? In part, it's a result of taking certain scriptural or theological passages out of context and interpreting them as nondualist in nature, or coming across a minor sect which has adopted some nondualist beliefs. But, mainly, it's because they've found that some important mystics in dualist religions express a nondualist understanding (Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross, for example). What is overlooked, however, is that such mystics do not arrive at a nondualist understanding because of their religion, but in spite of it. Mystics who have overlooked that seemingly minor discrepancy and have overstepped how they express their innate unity with the divine have sometimes been killed for it. At the very least, they are likely to become officially ignored within the religion. In the Roman Catholic Church, for example, any mystic who would dare to express the Advaitin realization, "I am That," would be declared a heretic, not a saint.

For further information, see Compatibility Of Major Religious Groups. Also, for anyone who continues in the naive belief that there is a genuine spirit of ecumenism and dialogue towards Eastern religions in the Roman Catholic Church today, the following document from the Vatican is crucially important and revealing: Dominus Iesus. For a quick summary and background on the document, see the article, Exclusive Claim, from the National Catholic Reporter.

In general, no. But there are various opinions. Some say that reality is the best teacher. Some say that the study of Nonduality scriptures is sufficient. Others point out that the only true teacher is within, and that all other teachers are merely a reflection of the inner. Still others swear that they could never have been enlightened without having spent time in the physical presence of an enlightened teacher, often suggesting a kind of "tuning fork" transmission of understanding. But very wise teachers, such as "Sailor" Bob Adamson, point out that there is no teacher and there is no student. There is only Self talking to Self. If you really understand that, you don't need a teacher.

Not exactly. They don't believe it's a dream; they see that it's a dream. Nonduality is not about belief; it's about discovery. It's about discovering what's real and what's not real and distinguishing between them. One fundamental discovery is that the world is not real, because it is transitory (i.e., it constantly changes), and that only Being is real, because it doesn't change and remains ever-present.

Another way of saying this is: That which witnesses the transitory nature of the world is real, but that which can be witnessed is not real. A corollary to this is that the Witness, by nature, is unable to observe itself and is therefore unknowable and indescribable. In other words, the Witness does not know itself directly; it can know itself only through its creation. Another corollary: you are the Witness; all you ever know is your own creation.

Some Nondualists may actually have a transitory experience of seeing the world as transparent, while many others might not. But all eventually come to the direct realization that the world is a dream of their own making, in the same way that they realize that a dream that arises during sleep is of their own making. In other words, just as a dream during sleep symbolizes your values, your relationships, your conflicts, etc., so does the so-called real world. (You have come upon this realization if you've ever noticed that your "external" reality seems magically to reflect you, like a mirror, or if you've ever noticed that there is no actual separation between you and what you experience.) That is why, for example, it can be truly said that the guru is your own self. This is not meant as metaphor. The entire drama of your life, the history of the limited individual you imagine yourself to be, is spun out of your own Being. You don't report to anyone but yourself. Moreover, this truth is not hidden away; it's out in the open staring right at you. It's your own nature, which you unwittingly ignore.

When you see that the world is your own dream, you have awakened to your own nature as the Creator and the Witness.

Although the awakening called enlightenment is often expressed as an event or an experience, it is not itself an event. The essence of enlightenment is understanding; it displays no signs or distinguishing characteristics, in spite of romanticized views to the contrary. Although enlightenment may be defined and described in many ways, it is essentially nothing more than the arising of the clear understanding of who you really are, which is empty Being. The understanding might arise in a flash, but it can also come into focus gradually. In either case, the awakening reveals that the truth has always been obvious and present as your own nature. In other words, it reveals that there was never a real reason for the search, because you already are what you're searching for. The search can be seen as nothing more than the acting out of a cosmic game or dance. The paradox and humor of enlightenment is that it is like walking through a mirage; the illusion of the need for the search vanishes, but nothing else happens. Reality remains as it is.

Confusion over this matter can arise when teachers do not distinguish between enlightenment and liberation (also known as release). The teacher might say or merely imply subtly that something must happen before enlightenment can be said to have occurred. But, if you read or listen closely, you will find that the "something" the teacher expects is not understanding, but a liberation event. In other words, the teacher is defining enlightenment in terms of liberation.

Although liberation is closely associated with enlightenment, it is not the same. Liberation consists of one or more events which may accompany, follow, or even precede enlightenment. It is a process of release from the constraints which are linked to the illusion of a separate identity and which have been built up by a lifetime of social and personal conditioning. The process has been compared to the slowing down of the blades on a fan after the plug has been pulled (enlightenment may be compared to the pulling of the plug). What that means is that a person can be fully aware of his or her true nature and still experience periods of difficulty. And that is true of the greatest teachers of Nonduality, such as Jean Klein or even Buddha (see Jim Dreaver's article, Journey of Freedom).

We tend to think of ego as a thing, or as an object, or as an entity, but it's not. It is much more accurate and revealing to think of it as a process of consciousness identifying with whatever arises in consciousness. It is simply a case of mistaken identity, of consciousness becoming so involved with what arises in its own creation that it forgets its own nature. Ego is Self focusing its energy on false identifications. That's how the concept of a separate self arises and that's how suffering and fragmentation arise. Put another way, ego is not the source of suffering. It doesn't have any independent existence. It is just a name applied to a function of Self. And, since there is only Self, that means that Self is the source of its own suffering as a result of its mistaken identity with its own creation.

When one awakens to one's own true nature as consciousness, ego does not go away. It is simply recognized for what it is - a process arising in consciousness. As such, it is understood, accepted and absorbed as a natural function of one's Self.