This project roughly planned to be a kind of modern day normal persons non-stigmatized, non-religious and no-beliefs affiliated "Bhagavad Gita" - a simple dialogue between Justin Allen (the prince Arjuna) and his guide Andreas Müller (Krishna). However, it turned out that Justin is not a prince and Andreas is not a guide. In that sense, this is just a collection of talks about so-called "non-duality" (No-Point Perspective) with no spiritual, religious or scientific intentions. However, amazingly, it turned out to be an apparent "deep" exploration on this topic. The talks took place from October 23rd, 2019 to March 23rd, 2020.
Justin Allen is an architect in Berlin, Germany. Justin has a background in philosophy and he is originally from upstate New York.
Allen / Müller
No-Point Perspective jetzt bestellen!
Weitere Infos & Material
TEACHERS AND GURUS
| Justin Allen: | So, one thing is that I’ve started reading this Ramana Maharshi book called . |
| 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? |
| 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. |
| Justin Allen: | But it creates the image as if something’s happening, but nothing can happen without the screen. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| Justin Allen: | And so, when I hear that, it all seems logical ... |
| 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 ... |
| 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.” |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| 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.” |
| 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... |
