Q: I understand all the teaching intellectually, but it doesn't seem to make a difference.

View fullsize

Mesquite Flat Sand Dunes, Death Valley, CA

I understand all the teaching intellectually, but it doesn't seem to make a difference. 

I continue to read and listen to talks, but I'm not learning anything new.  It all seems to be a bit of a hoax.

Should I give up?

It is the mind that is claiming understanding. 

Do you really feel like you understand or is it more true to say that the "intellectual" understanding is a bit hollow and that it is more a rote memorization than it is a deep knowing?   I don't mean to be insulting here; I am simply offering that it is possible that in your question there is a question that is not being asked.

One plus one equals two.  Do you intellectually understand this or do you simply know it?  Do you have any doubt about it?  Can you maintain a meaningful conversation about the possibility that it is not true?  

When we know something it is very simple; We just know it.  It doesn't require faith or even trust.  It is known.  Period.

Is your understanding of the teachings as clear as your knowing of the wetness of water?  Is it the same as knowing the redness of ketchup?  Is it the same clarity as the sound of a door closing or a baby crying?

Do you understand the teachings or is it simply that your mind (thought) is making a claim, a claim that you do not experientially relate to, and thus that you do not actually believe?

These questions are important.  They can help us understand that the mind is really quite superficial (albeit, convincing at times).   When we know something, we know it.  It is simple.  It is not intellectual.  It's not of the mind.  It is simple knowing.

I know I woke this morning.  I don't know how I know it, but I know it.  It's not my mind that knows, it is simply known.  No thoughts are necessary to confirm it.

Spiritual teachings are not meant to be understood by the mind - after all (ultimately) they all point to the recognition that the mind is "not real" and that it is simply an appearance no different than any other. 

Attempting to convince the mind that it is not real is like trying to convince a monster that is under the bed that it is not big and scary.  All such efforts simply support the belief in its existence.

Let's explore a few basic non-dual concepts and let ourselves experience our mind's reaction to them. (... and yes, you may note how we are forced to talk with the monster here, a humorous concession that language demands)

"Time is not real.  Time is just a thought."

The implications of those two sentences are staggering.  When their truth is fully known, EVERY THING crumbles.  Nothing, absolutely nothing holds together any more.  Game over.

And yet… and yet the mind claims understanding.  Ridiculous!   True understanding would completely destroy the mind and any claims a "mind" might make would carry no import. 

We can say "Yes, I can only experience what is happening now.  Of course the past and the future can't be experienced in the immediacy of the now.  Everything happens now and thus time doesn't exist"... But do we actually believe those words?  If we don't believe them, then what do we believe and do we believe it for certain?

So explore your question.  What are you really wanting to ask (or to see)?   Are you curious about why you can quote your teachers and yet you feel very little understanding?   Do you feel understanding, yet somehow it is illusive?  Do you hear the non-dual phrases and something rises… yet doesn't quite sit true?  Are you wanting a deeper exploration or perhaps support in your own process?  Etc. 

For many, the questions that rise can be useful in that they can shed light into a "process" that is wanting resolution and understanding.  Ultimately, all answers are known... but quite magically, until this is seen, the answer appears external and separate from the question.  The "mind" is masterful in maintaining its inconsistent world view and it could be argued that the spiritual process is about slowly exhausting or disassembling the belief in the mind.

Let's look at another couple statements:

"You are not your mind or body.  The "I" concept is just a thought."

Everything crumbles when these sentences are understood.  The world as we know it ceases to exist (and yet, nothing changes).  How could anything survive the absence of an observer, when an "I" no longer exists?  And for that matter, how could an "I" possibly understand this? 

Without any belief in time or in a "me" (without a past or future, or anyone to experience it)  then it is not possible to maintain the experience of suffering.  Knowing this helps us understand that if there is suffering, then the belief in a "me" must still be "present".  It is not about creating a new belief (a belief in "no-time" or "no-me", etc), but instead it is to recognize and question the false beliefs (that is, all beliefs).

Non-understanding is simply an apparent maintenance of the belief in the mind. 

With understanding, it is seen that there is nothing to understand…. And yet again, the mind may seem to step in and claim understanding… or not.  The understanding that is being pointed to is not for the mind.  It is not for the monster under the bed (nor for the purple elephant on the moon).  It is simply understanding.  And there is no one to understand.  No teaching is intended for the "me" and thus trying to "intellectually" grasp it is at best an exercise in futility.

It is easy to hear teachings and to take them into the mind and to add them to our "knowledge".  This is what minds do.  It is not problem... yet when we believe in the mind, understanding is obscured. 

Being is.  How could it be otherwise?  "Ignorance" can't change this.  Knowing simply knows this.  Both are just appearances.  Neither exist is any real sense.

At some point, as seekers we begin to question the usefulness of the mind's tendencies and we may then begin to notice other ways of experiencing... and perhaps the words of the sages will become more intimate, more familiar (and also wonderfully inadequate).

When our intellectual understanding is no longer satisfying, a doorway opens.   No one walks through it.  Understand that and the mind is no longer a problem.  Nor is intellectual understanding.  Or the color of a tree. 

Insist on the mind's ability to understand and suffering is the inevitable result.  In fact, suffering is mind, mind is suffering.   But heck, we could also say: Separation is mind, Time is mind, "I" am mind, Every thing is mind.  Etc.

If mind is thought, what thought is worth holding on to?  What thought is unequivocally, unconditionally, and always true?  If your answer is "None", then isn't it a bit unconvincing to maintain a belief in thoughts?   If it's possible that no thought is true then...  

Let yourself consider that.  Let yourself know that.  Let yourself be that.

Let the door open.

What is wanting to be seen?

You already know.  Let yourself see this.

If you let go of your beliefs… Will you still exist?

Is it possible to be at ease without a belief in the mind?

Are you certain that you don't already know?

What if it was as simple as breathing?

Did you wake this morning?

Are you awake now? 

How do you know?