Imprint

Impressum

Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek: Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im internet über www.dnb.de abrufbar.

Bibliographic information from the German National Library: The German National Library lists this publication in the German National Bibliography; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at www.dnb.de.

COPYRIGHT: 2020 Andreas Müller and Justin Allen

Cover: © Justin Allen

Illustrations: © Justin Allen

Herstellung und Verlag: BoD - Books on Demand GmbH, Norderstedt

ISBN: 9783752650617

Acknowledgements from Andreas Müller:

Thanks to Nadine and Soham, Tony and Claire Parsons and Dorothea

Acknowledgements from Justin Allen:

Thanks to my family, close and far friends, Andreas and Dorothea

CONTENTS

June 21, 2020 JUSTIN ALLEN
PREFACE

This is at most a collection of talks between a self-confirmed apparent person and an unconfirmed non-person, which ultimately offers nothing of value to any persons. It is not a book which you will read and then be able to do something afterwards with some newly acquired knowledge, like understand the equation E = mc2 or bake a cake or know what is right or wrong, and it won’t provide any helpful or useful information on how to live life better or worse.

Yet there are illustrations, and it is possible that the reader relates to and identifies with myself as an apparent person trying to figure something out unsuccessfully. Maybe reading these talks triggers an apparent clarity regarding the absurdity of seeking in which ever form it comes, through teachers, gurus, jobs, family, relationships, location, rebellion, diet, meditation, therapy, drugs, partying, sport, a combination of things or giving up or “letting go.” At least, this book captures the absurdity of my seeking.

I consider myself to be average. I am of an average age (40), an average upbringing, an average social status and a sort of well-rounded every-person of sorts. I have dabbled in several paths to fulfillment as mentioned above, and I am unconvinced of every path I have tried. I was even unconvinced while trying them and unconvinced of my “unconvincement.” By “fulfillment” I mean that search for the thing or things, in whichever form or forms they may come, that you think will end the search for fulfillment and leave you contented. For example, when I finally find the right place to live, with the right partner and a good job, I will have it all (and be done searching). And even though I am confessing that I am unconvinced of the search for fulfillment in whatever form it comes, I still can’t stop searching.

This project that I have undertaken with Andreas Müller was a setup to share this dilemma of seeking, which you can’t seem to stop and doesn’t seem possible for you to end, even when you know it’s basically futile. I use the word “basically” because it softens the seeming fact that there is no point. In our talks, in this sense, I am the experimental lab rat or the average Joe, and I wanted to share my dilemma in the form of a chronologically ordered series of talks between myself as a self-confirmed person or a “me” and Andreas Müller as a non-person or a “no me,” to see what happens. In a sense we have put the dilemma on display with me as the mannequin.

Originally, before we started our talks, I thought of this project as a modern-day, normal-people, non-stigmatized Bhagavad Gita in that it follows a similar framework of the Gita, which is that of a dialogue between the prince Arjuna (Justin Allen) and his guide Krishna (Andreas Müller). But I am not a prince and Andreas is not a guide, and this is just a collection of talks between two apparent people with no spiritual, religious or scientific intentions, which took place from October 23, 2019 to March 23, 2020.

June 21, 2020 ANDREAS MÜLLER
INTRODUCTION

This book is a collection of talks between Justin Allen and myself. To suggest that we had a goal or purpose was not my intention, although there might have been one originally for Justin. In the end, we talked about the nature of apparent separation in an undefined outline beginning broadly with teachers and gurus to “getting down to the point,” even though there is not really a point.

When Justin contacted me with his proposal, which was to start a dialogue and possibly turn it into a book to share, I was surprised and curious. We had never met before, so I only heard his voice on the telephone. On the one hand, there was this instantaneous “yes,” but on the other hand, there was a bit of skepticism. To me, Justin seemed to have had some kind of picture and idea of what he wanted to achieve or what he was hoping may or may not happen. Usually, I am open for having a conversation on this “topic,” especially when it comes from a genuine and sincere interest, but there seemed to be a potentially disingenuous aspect as well – a personal goal maybe or the “making a of book.”

However, as the conversations started, I liked them right away. And as they continued, so did my own interest and enjoyment. In the early talks, we addressed deceased and current spiritual teachers as a place of reference and in order to compare apparent differences to the “no-point perspective.” Looking back, there seemed to have been an apparent movement from rather superficial aspects (like comparing teachings and gurus) to a rather distinct examination of this apparent topic. Now, having the text in my hands, I am very happy with it.

October 23, 2019 Talk 01
TEACHERS AND GURUS
Justin Allen: So, one thing is that I’ve started reading this Ramana Maharshi book called Be As You Are.
Andreas Müller: All right.
Justin Allen: I haven’t read that much of it yet, but what I notice is that it’s almost verbatim what Rupert Spira is talking about.
Andreas Müller: All right.
Justin Allen: So, last time we talked, kind of an interesting thing that we came upon was that if there is only “oneness,” then it seems logical that there would only be one message.
Andreas Müller: So to speak, yes.
Justin Allen: Yeah, and one of the things that Ramana Maharshi has already talked about and also Rupert Spira talks about a lot and probably they all do in some sense is this analogy of the “screen.” Have you heard this?
Andreas Müller: Yes.
Justin Allen: So, it’s more or less like you watch a movie, and there’s the screen and there’s really nothing on the screen. It’s just light.
Andreas Müller: Yes.
Justin Allen: But it creates the image as if something’s happening, but nothing can happen without the screen.
Andreas Müller: Yes.
Justin Allen: And there, the message is that we are consciousness – “me” as myself and “you” as yourself, you’re just a screen, and I’m a screen –, and as consciousness we somehow create our physical body and this idea of being separate and there being objects and that there’s things happening.
Andreas Müller: Yes.
Justin Allen: And that’s what I’ve always understood. That the illusion is not realizing that “you” are the “screen,” even though that’s all that you are and that’s all that you can be. Somehow you’re not aware that “you’re” the “screen,” you’re only aware of the objects and things appearing on the screen.
Andreas Müller: Yes.
Justin Allen: And so, when I hear that, it all seems logical ...
Andreas Müller: Yes.
Justin Allen: And then I think, “Okay, how do I realize that ‘I’m’ the screen?” And then that’s where it all gets ... I don’t know if it gets illogical, but that’s where the kind of practice comes in, in a sense of ...
Andreas Müller: Yes.
Justin Allen: Somehow trying to abide as that, like abide as the awareness and somehow deny the ...
Andreas Müller: Whatever the technique is, “to bring the awareness back,” “to abide as awareness,” “to bring awareness to awareness,” “to just be,” or “to learn how to consciously be awareness.”
Justin Allen: Right.
Andreas Müller: All that stuff, yes.
Justin Allen: Right, and then that’s where I see that even that seems so convincing in a way, but at the same time you realize that you’re still ... There’s still somebody that’s doing all that.
Andreas Müller: Oh, of course, and as far as I would see it it’s a complete personal teaching. Because in a way, they state, or the statement in that picture is that there is something which you are and something which you are not. So, they give a solution and a promise and say, “If you learn to be how you are or if you recognize who you actually are, then you are free.” What I’m actually saying is that there is no screen either. I would say exactly that’s the illusion: that there is something which you are, namely awareness, and that there is something which you are not, the options in awareness or the appearance in awareness, all that stuff. And I would say, that’s the reason why it’s logical and understandable because it perfectly reflects and describes the personal experience.
Justin Allen: Yeah, that’s true.
Andreas Müller: All that comes out of that again is another teaching (laughing). There is no other possibility, because it’s a personal teaching right from the start. The whole picture is personal.
Justin Allen: Well, but at the same time it still seems kind of ... It still does seem possible. Of course, it’s possible because there’s no formula and there’s no real way to recognize when it’s equally … In a sense, it’s possible that you might follow these teachings and somehow come to a recognition, and you might attribute it to the teachings then and say, “Ah, I can’t say for sure that it’s because of this teaching,” but you would think that there was a correlation, possibly.
Andreas Müller: I wouldn’t really say so, to be honest. Not if the apparent recognition happened that it’s an illusion. For me, it’s rather impossible to come to the conclusion that it happened because of the teaching.
Justin Allen: Right, but if you were following Ramana Maharshi for ten years, and then all of a sudden you had this enlightenment experience or this recognition or whatever, some part of you would have to think it had something to do with your meditating or with your inquiring, no?
Andreas Müller: Not really, it’s a story, but when the “me” dies, it’s ... No, it’s not possible to entertain that idea in the end.
Justin Allen: So, would you want to say, not that you can make these conclusive statements, but would you say that if someone like Ramana Maharshi is giving this kind of personal teaching, and his and Rupert Spira’s message is that they haven’t really recognized the absence of the “me”? Or is it possible that they’ve understood or recognized the absence of the “me,” but they’re just somehow flawed in their teaching?
Andreas Müller: Well, it’s really in a way hard to talk about it because there are no “persons” doing that either. But yes, my impression is that whenever that statement was made, it wasn’t really coming from a “no me” position, so to speak.
Justin Allen: And then I’ve heard of the necklace analogy where there’s a woman that can’t find her necklace, and she goes all around her house looking for it. Then she starts to ask her friends, and then at some point somebody comes along and says, “Hey, have you tried feeling for the necklace around your neck?” And then she reaches for her neck and finds it and goes, “Oh, I found it,” and then she’s happy. And then if somebody later on says, “Hey, did you ever find your necklace?” she again replies, “Yeah, I found it.” And then they use this analogy to explain how she didn’t actually find it, right? Because it was always there. It wasn’t lost in the first place. It was around her neck all the time.
Andreas Müller: Yes. I mean the dilemma with all those stories is that they’re fine, but in the end you’re just left with “someone” seeing something.
Justin Allen: Yeah.
Andreas Müller: And that’s just what remains for the seeker: That there is something to be seen and something to be found, and that there is “someone” who can see or find something.
Justin Allen: Okay.
Andreas Müller: In a way, that’s the dream. I mean, one could say, “Yes, it’s already there.” Me too, I sometimes say, “What you are looking for is already what happens.”
Justin Allen: Right.
Andreas Müller: So, maybe this part would fit the analogy, but this can’t be found and it’s not to be seen for “someone,” and that’s where the analogy doesn’t fit anymore.
Justin Allen: Okay, and that’s why I wanted to bring up that analogy.
Andreas Müller: The dilemma for the seeker is that the only thing he or she can do is process that analogy. That’s totally fine, but of course, the seeker will always be left with the assumption that there is another circumstance to be seen. Namely, “Oh, I have the necklace already around my throat.”
Justin Allen: Or to realize that I am already the thing that I’m seeking.
Andreas Müller: Exactly. Seen by the seeker, this would just be another circumstance that “I” have to realize, probably beating up himself because it sounds so easy (laughing).
Justin Allen: Right, yeah, it’s making it worse.
Andreas Müller: Yeah, exactly (laughing).
Justin Allen: But that’s the thing they point out in this book ... That’s what’s so confusing to me, because they also point out the exact same thing, always. There’s even this, “Hence I say no; you are really the infinite peer being the self,” and by self he means consciousness. “You are always that self and nothing but that self. Therefore, you can never be really ignorant of the self. Your ignorance is merely an imaginary ignorance, like the ignorance of the ten fools about the lost tenth man. It’s this ignorance that caused them grief.” Do you know that analogy about the ten men?
Andreas Müller: No, I don’t know that.
Justin Allen: That’s where ten men cross a river, and when they get to the other side, one of them counts off how many there are to make sure nobody was lost in the river, but he forgets to count himself, so he only counts nine men.
Andreas Müller: Alright.
Justin Allen: And so, he says, “We’re only nine,” and then somebody else does the counting and makes the same mistake. It’s only until they meet a passerby that lines them all up and says ...
Andreas Müller: “You are ten.”
Justin Allen: “State your name and then count ‘one’, and then the next ‘two’ and so on,” and then they realize. Then they go, “Oh, we didn’t lose somebody.” Throughout this book, so far it’s saying that the whole point of trying to find yourself or realize that this is the ignorance is already the misstep. And that’s what causes all the suffering and all the pain because you’re just kind of inflating the problem the whole time by trying to figure it out, but there’s essentially nothing to figure out. You’re already that which you’re seeking.
Andreas Müller: Yes.
Justin Allen: And that’s where there’s a correlation. That’s why I think people can read this and then also find similarities with your message or Tony Parsons’s message.
Andreas Müller: Yes, yes.
Justin Allen: And that’s why sometimes I’m not sure if maybe this teaching is the same as yours in a way, but it’s ... Or not that yours is a teaching, but that the message is the same as your message, just maybe that the strategy there is to try to ...
Andreas Müller: I think it’s hard to say, and this is only referring to Ramana Maharshi. It’s really hard to say because all we have
from him are those few books. And he was sitting there for, I don’t know, thirty, forty years?
Justin Allen: Yeah.
Andreas Müller: Speaking, talking to people every day?
Justin Allen: Yeah.
Andreas Müller: Talking to people about all kinds of stuff and all kinds of concepts during these forty years. And it’s possible that at the beginning he said something completely ... Not completely, but he said something different than twenty years later. Maybe there was a subtle movement away from an awareness teaching to what I would call non-duality, and that’s what I mean. You have those few books extracted from those forty years, from someone who chose exactly those dialogues, maybe from someone who felt much more attracted to this awareness thing. But maybe Ramana was just pointing out the concept.
I do that too in my talks. Not the concept, but I describe the personal experience. That’s why I think it’s very hard to talk about Ramana and every statement of his because it’s the same for me. I see statements which would exactly fit that, and then there is this awareness stuff mixed in, to which, if I just got the statement, I would definitely say, “No, that’s not what I would say.”
Justin Allen: Yeah, and another topic that’s running like a thread throughout this whole thing is the continuity through the waking state, the dream state and the sleep state, yes?
Andreas Müller: Yes.
Justin Allen: So, this is being talked about a lot, and the point is that you ... Or at least the point is that in the wake state you feel like you are yourself. And in the sleep state you could be sleeping in your bed in your home or wherever, but you’re dreaming that you’re in London, right?
Andreas Müller: Yes.
Justin Allen: And in the dream, you think that you’re in London, and it’s all real to you until you wake up in your bed and then you think, “Oh, it was just a dream.” So that’s one of the analogies they use to try to explain this. And then when you’re in deep sleep, supposedly there’s no objects that exist. There’s no ...
Andreas Müller: Subject?
Justin Allen: Yeah, but you still know that while you’re sleeping that’s you.
Andreas Müller: Well, I think no.
Justin Allen: I mean like you do in the sense that somebody from the outside still says, “That’s you sleeping,” even though you can’t relate to them while you’re sleeping. And then when you wake up, you don’t feel like you’re a new person. You feel like, “Oh, I was sleeping,” or like, “I had a good night’s sleep.” To be able to say that, their argument is that it’s because somehow there was an awareness while you were sleeping ...
Andreas Müller: Yeah, which is utterly (laughing) ... I think that’s just made up. That’s assumptions. It’s logic. It’s thinking how it could be. It’s philosophy, in the end. It’s thinking about, “Hmm, which story would fit my experience? Which story would explain that? Which story would explain that I was there in the night, too?” (laughing) It’s inventing a story to prove that I am.
Justin Allen: But I don’t think that they’re saying that “you” as a physical body are there in the sleep, but that “you” as an individual are there in the sleep.
Andreas Müller: Yeah, just as something.
Justin Allen: As “being”. That’s like Ramana saying, “There is continuity of being in all three states, but no continuity of the individual and the objects in all three states.”
Andreas Müller: Yes.
Justin Allen: So, the individual and the objects are continuous in the waking state, so I feel like I can touch things and see objects. But in deep sleep, all objects have disappeared, or apparently there’s nothing there, and there’s no way I can even know what happened in deep sleep because there’s no memory. There’s no time, because time and memory only exist in the waking state.
Andreas Müller: I would say there is no experience.
Justin Allen: Yeah, they also say there’s no experience, but they still might say that there’s the awareness of no experience or something like that.
Andreas Müller: Mm-hmm (affirmative), yes. But yeah, I wouldn’t say so.
Justin Allen: But still, wouldn’t you say that there’s a continuity of being or the continuity of ...?
Andreas Müller: No, I wouldn’t even buy into that idea of continuity, because in order to know continuity you would already need someone to experience continuity. For me, change and continuity are two sides of the same coin. Something is constantly changing and moving, and something is going on continuously. Both would, for me, imply time. That’s why I sometimes say it’s timeless, but there isn’t really something going on. Again, that’s another thing. Maybe continuity was meant to be timeless. Maybe … You know, that’s what I mean. Again, it’s hard with Ramana. It’s seventy years ago. It’s translated. I don’t know how he actually used the words. But for me, continuity is definitely an experience. And again, it’s an experience that the seeker is looking for to find something that’s always there as a conscious experience.
Justin Allen: But even “oneness,” if you take it as a message, is also ...
Andreas Müller: Yes.
Justin Allen: It can be seen as continuity of “oneness”?
Andreas Müller: That’s how the “person” would understand it, yes. That
there is something called “oneness.” Meanwhile, I actually say “noneness.”
Justin Allen: “Noneness” …
Andreas Müller: But yes, the “person” will always turn it into something which is in time and space. Always.
Justin Allen: And even if the “person” isn’t there, we say that without the “person” there’s nothing, or without the “person” there’s just “oneness” or “noneness.”
Andreas Müller: Oh, but in the end, nothing can be said when there is no “person.”
Justin Allen: Right, but then even in that case there’s no waking state, dream state or sleep state. There’s just ...
Andreas Müller: Yes, exactly. The waking state is the illusion. And when something wakes up in the morning, when the illusion wakes up in the morning, that’s the only thing which makes a break. That’s the only thing which has the experience that, “Oh, now something else is happening,” or, “Now something is happening.” And then all the ideas start, of continuity, of what really is, et cetera ...
Justin Allen: But they have to because that’s the ... But even that’s a change. So, it’s saying that before that, let’s say, there’s no experience.
Andreas Müller: Yes.
Justin Allen: And then the illusion is the experience?
Andreas Müller: Yes.
Justin Allen: So, there’s a change from no experience to experience.
Andreas Müller: But I would say that’s the illusion; that waking up in the morning or having the experience of waking up in the morning makes for a real change. No, it doesn’t.
Justin Allen: But the illusion is a change?
Andreas Müller: Yeah, but it’s not a real change. It’s not real. “Me” isn’t real, so the illusion isn’t real either (laughing).
Justin Allen: But it’s apparently different. It’s an apparent change, or it’s an apparent experience even though it’s also not an experience.
Andreas Müller: Exactly, and it’s not a change. And it’s a bit conceptual now, but it’s not a change for wholeness. But to experience oneself as “I’m here now” is the apparent experience of the change. Nothing else experiences that change. Nothing else does experience a change in “me” waking up. It’s only the “me” that believes itself to have woken up which makes the difference. “Oh, I’m here.” But there’s nothing else that experiences a “me” waking up.
Justin Allen: Right, unless you’re in the illusion; then there is (laughing).
Andreas Müller: One could say it’s only the illusion itself that experiences itself as “I’m here.” Nothing does that. Nothing knows about the existence of “me,” except the “me.”
Justin Allen: Yeah, except that’s also … It’s so absurd.
Andreas Müller: Yes, it’s wonderful (laughing).
Justin Allen: Because it doesn’t make any sense either, right? Because it doesn’t make sense that an illusion which isn’t real could even have ...
Andreas Müller: Yes.
Justin Allen: I mean, it makes sense, and it doesn’t make sense.
Andreas Müller: Yes.
Justin Allen: Because an illusion can do whatever it wants because it’s an illusion. But logically you’d think that something that’s not real could never be real or never think that it’s real.
Andreas Müller: Yes, that’s the thing. It can’t even do that. It’s what apparently
happens. It can’t do. It can’t think it’s real. That’s just what happens. And it’s interesting what you just said because that’s when we come to that message: It’s not logical. Seen from the separate perspective, it’s totally without sense. It can’t be comprehended. It has nothing to do with these logical awareness teachings where everybody who can follow it a bit can say, “Yeah, true, true. That’s right, mm-hmm (affirmative). I understand. I get it. Yes, mm-hmm (affirmative), right.” All that stuff, that’s all within the person. But what this is pointing to, apparently, is really beyond. It’s almost difficult to say, but it’s not within that setup. Because exactly that question is the impossible thing for the person: How can I experience myself to be here and hearing this message that I’m not here? Eh? How is that?
Justin Allen: I mean, even that ... But I think there’s even something more subtle that ... It’s like when you watch a movie on a screen: From the audience’s perspective you know that nothing is real. You know totally that this is all an illusion.
Andreas Müller: Yes, but there is someone who really knows that.
Justin Allen: Yeah, right. But I’m just saying, you know that it’s an illusion, so you know that when you’re looking at a mountain in a movie. Even though sometimes you might forget for a second and really think that the mountain is real. Or with this new 3D technology: Sometimes I’ve been in those 3D movies where you see people trying to grab something (laughing).
Andreas Müller: Yes, yes.
Justin Allen: And so when they’re trying to grab something, they’re at least momentarily convinced that there’s something floating one meter in front of them.
Andreas Müller: Yeah, yeah.
Justin Allen: So, when you look at them, you think, “That’s crazy that they’re reaching out for something. Don’t they know?” And it’s the same thing here. Even though you know
that it’s an illusion or a fake – something that doesn’t really exist, so it doesn’t make any sense to try to grab it or touch it –, it still seems to be there. And it’s the same with this: How can an illusion create anything, in a sense, because it’s just ... It’s not real.
Andreas Müller: Exactly. That’s why I would say, in that sense, there isn’t an autonomous illusion. That would again be the dream; that there is something autonomous at all.
Justin Allen: But then in the same way, would you say that there’s only illusion?
Andreas Müller: No, not at all.
Justin Allen: So, you’d say there’s only not … I mean, you can’t say that there’s only not illusion.
Andreas Müller: Well, the word “illusion” in a way only applies to the illusion. I would say that everything just is what apparently happens. There is no real illusion anywhere, so if people think they’re someone, that’s not an illusion in the end. That’s just what apparently happens. And it would be the apparent illusion to think that there is someone who is in an illusion and could or should wake up from that.
Justin Allen: Right.
Andreas Müller: In that sense, there is no illusion at all. Or if you go into the story, you have to say the only illusion is that there are separate people; that there is something autonomous. Call it people, call it an autonomous illusion, call it “I” – whatever. That would be the only illusion. This conversation is not an illusion. It’s “wholeness” or “noneness” or “oneness” or whatever you want to call it.
Justin Allen: But the illusion is also “wholeness” or “oneness,” yeah?
Andreas Müller: Yes, and one of us would believe, “Yeah, but I’m a separate person.”
Justin Allen: Which would also be an illusion.
Andreas Müller: Yeah, but as you said, it would be an apparent illusion.
In the end, it would just be what apparently happens.
Justin Allen: Right.
Andreas Müller: It would be “noneness” or “wholeness” or “oneness.” It would be what is.
Justin Allen: Yeah, but that ... I mean, that applies to everything.
Andreas Müller: Oh, yes, exactly.
Justin Allen: I mean, you can say whatever’s happening, that’s what’s happening. You can apply that to everything.
Andreas Müller: Yes.
Justin Allen: And you can apply the “whatever.”
Andreas Müller: Oh, yes. This is what this message does. It addresses everything, but seen from the “person,” it’s just a dead concept.
Justin Allen: Right.
Andreas Müller: Because the “person” says, “Yeah, but ...” Like you did. Sorry, I’m not mocking, but the “person” said, “Yeah, but you can say that to everything.”
Justin Allen: Right. That’s what I was trying to point out: For the “person” hearing that it’s just the same as how I hear about God, or when you hear a Christian talk about something. They say, “Everything’s God,” or, “Why do children die of starvation if God’s real?” And then they answer, “Because that’s part of God’s plan.” “But why is there a God’s plan?” And they can just keep on, and so it’s not satisfying. That’s why I never was interested in religion because I was like, “Well, I don’t see God. None of this makes sense.”
Andreas Müller: Yes, it’s the same here, but the thing is that this doesn’t try to answer your seeking with this concept.
Justin Allen: Right.
Andreas Müller: The “person” can only understand that as a concept,
and religions, for example, do that. They try to answer the “person’s” needs. They see a “person” and try to provide an answer. I mean, in Christianity they say, “You have to believe it.” That’s their method.
Justin Allen: Yeah, you have to have faith.
Andreas Müller: Yeah, “Just have faith. Believe that it’s like that,” which is very elegant, I think, to be honest.
Justin Allen: But that’s also the same as Adyashanti’s and Rupert Spira’s message. This notion of grace or faith, like you said, is their elegant escape maybe, or a concession in a sense ...
Andreas Müller: Yes.
Justin Allen: Because they also kind of say that you can’t do it; you’re not going to figure it out, because they also say that there’s “no one” there to figure it out. But they also say that nothing’s going to happen if you don’t do anything, so you have to do something in order to somehow “prepare.” But at the same time, you have to do nothing, and then it’s like a matter of grace. Either the grace comes down upon you and awakens you, or you have to have some kind of faith.
Andreas Müller: Yeah, yeah.
Justin Allen: So ...
Andreas Müller: So, this doesn’t try to ... There is no answer to anything.
Justin Allen: But still, I don’t think that the difference is only that. Because there’s plenty of people that also say, “There’s nothing ‘I’ can do,” right?
Andreas Müller: But this is not what I’m saying.
Justin Allen: Yeah, but I think a lot of people would like to hear this message, actually. I think some of the spiritual people, like the seekers that have been meditating for ten or twenty years or going to these retreats, definitely don’t want to hear this message. But I could imagine my father
hearing this and saying, “Oh, cool. So, my whole life I haven’t been trying to do anything, and I’ve never thought that there was an enlightenment to be attained. I also thought that life’s just chaos; just whatever happens is what’s happening, and there’s nothing we can do about it.”
Andreas Müller: Yes, but it won’t really work. That person or your father would maybe just hear those two or three sentences and try to use them to confirm his theory.
Justin Allen: Exactly.
Andreas Müller: That’s fine, but it has nothing to do with what I say, because he just uses his theory as a method for him as a “person” to make his way through this illusory life. So, that’s possible, and of course, that’s what the seeker does, or that’s what the “person” does. At first, it tries to confirm its concept, maybe in spirituality or with this message or with science or whatever. But it wouldn’t be what this message is saying or what I would be saying.
Justin Allen: Right.
Andreas Müller: He would immediately take sides. He would immediately think that I say something, and he would go to his wife and say, “See? I always said that it doesn’t make sense. I knew it all my life.” (laughing)
Justin Allen: Yeah.
Andreas Müller: Like that, yeah.
Justin Allen: “I knew nothing mattered.” (laughing)
Andreas Müller: Exactly, it would be coming as a conclusion and knowledge from a personal standpoint.
Justin Allen: But also, somebody could think they could proclaim this message. Because if I read enough ... Actually, I might have read all your books already. So, if I read or listened to everything that you said, if I listened to Tony Parsons, if I listened to as many of these people as possible, I
could easily conduct a talk where I just keep on telling everybody the message that you’re saying.
Andreas Müller: Yes, that’s true, but ...
Justin Allen: Because it’s a little ... Not that it’s formulaic, but it’s a clear message, and one of not taking a stance, kind of not taking a side.
Andreas Müller: Yes, but then it’s understood as a state of clarity. It looks clear from the “person’s” perspective. But in the story, one could say that the clarity comes from the apparent death of “me.” It’s not repeating those words. It’s not coming from a person providing a concept of non-duality. It’s not coming from someone trying to be a guru or trying to save poor people. No, that’s just what apparently happens; that this message or these talks with me or with Tony come out of this apparent death of the “person.” And yes, that’s apparently different than just repeating the concepts.
Justin Allen: Yeah, because you’re saying that there’s no continuity, for example.
Andreas Müller: Yes.
Justin Allen: So, if there’s no continuity, there is also no repetition in a sense. Even though it’s repetitive?
Andreas Müller: Yes.
Justin Allen: And ...
Andreas Müller: Like almost everything.
Justin Allen: Right, so no repetition even though your message is the same over and over again, so far.
Andreas Müller: Yeah, well said (laughing).
Justin Allen: Right? I’m good at qualifying everything (laughing). So like you’re saying, if there is no continuity and only “oneness” or “noneness” ...
Andreas Müller: “Timelessness,” yeah.
Justin Allen: And if there’s no “me” constantly ... Well, no, you can’t even say “constantly.” There’s the death of the “me,” kind of, but you wouldn’t say there’s the death of “me” constantly happening, would you?
Andreas Müller: Exactly, because the only thing that lives in the illusion of happening is the “me,” so you can’t take an opposite. You can’t turn the end of “me” into another happening. The end of “me” itself is a story, you know?
Justin Allen: Yeah, but do you feel like the end of “you” happened? I don’t know if “feel” is the right word. It’s not happening constantly, or is it?
Andreas Müller: Well, you know, that’s all a story. But in the story, that’s what seemed to have happened.
Justin Allen: One time.
Andreas Müller: So to speak, yes.
Justin Allen: Yeah, okay. So then from that time on ...
Andreas Müller: Yes.
Justin Allen: There’s no more … There’s just no relationship with the “me” anymore. It just isn’t there.
Andreas Müller: Exactly, it turned out that there is no one ... This is all in the story, but yes, it vanished. This experience to be something that’s now here ...
Justin Allen: Just isn’t there anymore?
Andreas Müller: Isn’t there anymore.
Justin Allen: But you don’t ...
Andreas Müller: Yes.
Justin Allen: There’s some kind of recognition that ...
Andreas Müller: It’s an apparent recognition.
Justin Allen: Okay.
Andreas Müller: That happens when we talk about it, but it’s not that something recognizes that, and that it’s a continuous state, and that recognition is liberation, no. One could say when we speak about it, it’s apparently recognized.
Justin Allen: Okay, so, not that it has to, but that does mean in a sense that every conversation that you have … Or let’s say we take all your talks and somehow re-record them from whenever you started giving talks, and I would be watching it, from my perspective I would be like, “Oh, look. That talk, he’s just doing the same message in this talk one year later, and one year later it’s the same, and this goes on.” And then I would also kind of think, “Doesn’t he get bored doing that?” And isn’t it boring for the other people that you see in the talks again and again? I might ask myself, “Why does this person go and get the same message ten times in a row?” But from what you’re saying, if there’s no continuity and no “me,” then what’s kind of happening is that it’s new and fresh every single time?
Andreas Müller: Yes.
Justin Allen: Even though from the outside it might apparently be the same message over and over again?
Andreas Müller: Yes, exactly. It still could end at some point. Apparent boredom could come up, in ten or in five years, for example, and I would ... I don’t know, but there being boredom about saying it again and again would be fresh and new as well.
Justin Allen: Yeah, or it’s also possible that it could apparently evolve or change or something.
Andreas Müller: Kind of.
Justin Allen: I mean, in theory it could.
Andreas Müller: Yeah, exactly. In theory, yeah. Not really. The message hasn’t really changed. The words and the concepts have
changed a bit, apparently, but the message has never changed, basically because there is no real message (laughing). And in a way, even though that’s a bit in the story now, it’s always the same. Sun goes up, sun goes down, breakfast in the morning and dinner in the evening (laughing). In the story, everything is kind of always the same.
Justin Allen: Yeah, except that ...
Andreas Müller: But that’s in the story.
Justin Allen: Yeah, that’s in the story. But there’s still something about that because that’s the reason why people come: That they seek enlightenment or an escape from the apparent “self” is because everything does seem to repeat itself; the same routine every day, and they hate it. The “me” hates it because it thinks that life shouldn’t be this way or something like that.
Andreas Müller: Well, it loves it and it hates it.
Justin Allen: Yeah, but kind of the advertisements of non-duality and spirituality are that life will still be repetitive, but you won’t be there to care anymore, either way.
Andreas Müller: Yeah, but that’s not really what non-duality is about. I would make an apparent difference. Spirituality provides or at least promises a way out. It tries to provide that “thing” which makes the real difference: enlightenment. Or finding yourself or losing yourself or whatever. In the end, non-duality doesn’t do that, even though it may sound like that.
Justin Allen: So what do you say it does?
Andreas Müller: Non-duality is apparently ... You know, it’s all in the story because there is no such thing as non-duality. It’s not the answer. See, I’m speechless here (laughing) because it doesn’t do anything in the end.
Justin Allen: But that ...
Andreas Müller: It’s a ...