Archive for June, 2009

The spiritual learning process is comparable to walking on a razor’s edge (Otto Duintjer)
June 30, 2009

Advaita Post, Volume 10, Number 11

Also stay universally aware this summer

The text below

Some parts of the presentation of the book Non Duality – the groundless openness have already been used in earlier Advaita Posts. Here below is the fully developed speech from Otto Duintjer. He has raised, with great affinity, some counter points and questions about various aspects of the advaita teaching. Those objections and questions are worth while for everyone who finds the advaita approach important. They evoke  a critical awareness of what’s really important. For this reason Otto’s text has been integrally presented here. Because the text is rather long, Douwe’s response which was given during the presentation will appear in the following Advaita Post. During the summer interval everyone has the chance to examine for themselves what meaning Otto’s questions have for their own orientation.


From the presentation of the book Non-Duality, November 21, 2008 at Boekhandel Donner, Rotterdam.

Otto Duintjer

Otto: To begin with: Douwe, congratulations on the publication of yet another book. There have been many indications for several years now that Gouda sparkles with energy, energy which has not decreased since ending your active teaching period at the Erasmus University of Rotterdam.  I’ll hold off from other compliments now, because I’ve heard that I have a limited time for speaking.

I will speak freely and rather dualistically on the subject of ‘non duality’ by making restrictions and objections. I am grateful that Douwe has asked me to say something here today as we frequently speak together on other occasions. I certainly have a few objections to the things which Douwe sets forth. I suppose that’s because I have a different feeling for life than he does, and to bring that up at a book presentation didn’t seem appropriate to me. But Douwe held fast and, non-dual as he is, said that’s exactly how it should be. Thus I feel myself now especially free in my contribution.

At the same time, the invitation was a challenge, because I would like, for myself, to look once again more precisely. What is the kind of spirituality in which Douwe is so involved?  Which he represents and expresses at such a high level? I would not argue with the quality of the expression, but content wise I frequently see points which call for a reaction. And that doesn’t concern just a fragment. Where does that red thread lead, when I would rather have seen a thread of a different color? I must say: he’s not one to catch in a hole. Sometimes I had the feeling that I’ve found a main point of contention, up until last night. But this morning I thought: “Yes, but he also says that and that.” So then the criticism didn’t entirely fit. Nevertheless I’d like to point out a few possible areas of differences. I can’t fully develop them here because there’s not the time for it, so let it be that I can only explain how I see it.

Preference for the undifferentiated

It starts with the main point which has already been delineated by three other speakers: the kind of emphasis which Douwe lays – differently than I would tend to do – on a certain type of experience, namely the experience of what he calls “the great empty space”, or “the nothing in which all things merge and fall away”. It’s called an experience of total openness without forms, without separations and without qualities. Which refers pre-eminently to what he means by the term ‘non duality’.

Now I don’t dispute that such an experience can appear and he is such a good teacher that he can summon it now and again. I do, however, have a question mark with presenting such an experience as the highest (whereby then it would appear to be optimal to always find oneself in that state) and that the experienced reality would then be the reality.

One of his descriptions of that experience is for example that the state is before every creation, therefore also before all differences. I don’t deny that such experiences occur. I don’t deny that they can be valuable and instructive, but that they are the highest, are the most important and in fact the standard by which the quality and the importance of all other experiences can be measured, — that I doubt. You can call that dispute, but more discreetly it’s to ask the question: why should that state which precedes all creation be far more important to us than the great and precarious creation which has then just begun (for example evolution, and the whole history of mankind), more important than all the beautiful and all the difficult things which appear over the course of time, which teach us lessons and in each situation deserve our respectful attention? Why should all of that be less important than that state of a Nothing without distinctions which has always existed? Of course, Douwe himself is subtle enough to make nuances in each case, when you come to him with objections. But his emphasis can be taken in the sense that there is at least the risk in concluding that duality, and therefore separations, are found to be less important. His fixed reference for that experience also begins with a negation: ‘non duality’; a traditional expression, but not a very fortunate one, since it sounds as if duality is something to be denied or ignored. For myself, I try to use words for the ‘non-dual’ dimension which indicate its characteristic feature, but then in such a way so that the importance of the dual enters into the expression. I call it, for example, a boundless manifestation space where each and every part of consciousness has a place and within which all phenomena and dualities can manifest. Not a quality-less emptiness, but rather a manifestation space, which grants all phenomena the possibility to appear and with that guarantees their importance as phenomena. Notion of that open manifestation space reinforces and illuminates the attention for that which appears within it, for what manifests itself, therefore for what we get to see, hear and feel.

In connection with the previous I also have an objection to a certain phraseology that Douwe frequently uses, I refer to the expression ‘let go’, to the sense in which he uses that word and the primary emphasis he lays upon it. Everyone here knows that it’s important to learn to let go of things, in the sense of: not to cling, not to be addicted. It seems to me just as important to first learn to let in what we see, hear and feel into our consciousness, to let it pervade you, to set itself forth into you. Then release can consciously come in order. The word release Douwe uses especially in the sense of ‘letting dissolve’ (such as certain substances dissolving in water), let flow, flow away. He gives somewhere an example of an amoeba which lets its own plasma flow out. ‘Dissolve in the Openness’ – the naturalness with which this medicine is always recommended would also point to a so called preference for undifferentiated reality, in which dualities and differences don’t have a role to play, so that problems and tensions which arise with and between different manifestations can in this way be removed and flow away. But have such manifestations even had the chance to deliver their message first?

I wouldn’t do right by Douwe, if I were to say that he had no interest in differentiation. There are, for example, great passages in the third and sixth chapter which mention it. In the third chapter he writes about the many ‘viewpoints’: each animal type observes the world in its own manner and that applies even more so to people with their changing points of view and perspectives through the course of time and in differing situations. Therefore difference certainly plays a role with him didactically. But even then still, the point and full emphasis lies with that within which all points of view ‘dissolve’.

‘Inclination’ towards the positive

When Douwe speaks about various matters and different phenomena, his attention and interest seems to go out towards the rose colored aspects of life. To my feeling, he often seems to minimize the troublesome. The state without form and qualities seems to steadily lead him to freedom, peace, joy, harmony, and that is, thank god, an important side of reality. When we become somewhat more open, we will experience from time to time that there is enough to bring us delight, or at least to make us satisfied and to give us a freer feeling. But becoming more open – I would use the word just as easily and as often as Douwe does – means in my opinion becoming more open for what happens to appear and that always has another side to it, therefore duality (a word that ordinary means twoness and distinction; dualism’ is something else). Duality of summer and winter, of day and night, of luck and suffering, which can create relaxation and effort, or tenderness and cruelty, honesty and fraud, gallantry and cowardice etc., around us or within us. Learning to live with that and to communicate within it seems to me to be at least as important as that of a reality in which all distinction has disappeared.

On a particular point I certainly have had a criticism of the Christian mystic John of the Cross, who repeatedly says that we must learn ‘to incline’, according to him, more to the difficult than to the easy, to the heavy than to the light, more towards the unpleasant than to the pleasant. On the other hand, it seems to me that the spiritual learning process is a sort of balancing act, a tightrope, walking on a razor’s edge, where your consciousness maintains a contact with both sides with both extremes and without leaning too much. It is already quite a lot to keep one’s balance between both poles, to do what’s right without letting yourself become overwhelmed, yet nevertheless allowing things into your consciousness when they manifest themselves. With Douwe I see a tendency somewhat to lean, but then only to the rosy, idyllic side, ‘the wind in the dunes’ and such.


I would like to conclude with a more specific point of difference between him and me, or actually a point where I have a question because it could be that I have misunderstood. If that’s the case, then let’s resolve it immediately today in the openness, but it can also be that what he says is simply not correct. This question seems to me to lead to a yes or no answer. Sometimes that’s also very nice.

The subject lies coincidentally on the terrain for which I have accepted for years that we are most compatible, namely that of the connection of spirituality with physicality, the body.  That has been a discovery in my life. After having lived many long years especially intellectually, I had my first explicit spiritual opening as a sort of ‘out of body experience’ as if person and body had died.  Bodily feeling (feeling your whole body from the inside out) was for me at that time not strongly developed. At the same time (the end of the 60’s and beginning of the ’70s) serious changes took place in my practical situation: socially, in my family, my position and work at the university. While still full of the ‘vertical’ experiences of the infinite openness, I was immediately faced with all kinds of turbulences in my ‘horizontal’ surroundings. Luckily I then received clear signs and possibilities for learning to stay more connected with both dimensions. More development of bodily feeling (‘from head to foot’) proved thereby to be an important component (in addition to contact with repressed feelings etc.), in short learning ‘earthing’ or ‘grounding’. So I had learned via tai-chi teachers, a teacher of hatha yoga and a couple years with the hard hand of Nadine Scott, an American psychotherapist (from Lowen’s school) who worked with Gestalt and bio-energetic exercises, to feel my body from the inside out. When I came into contact with Douwe later, I thought: however much I have a question mark about his emphasis on extreme openness, at least we have in common that we both take physicality seriously.  That is, as it were, a complementary counterpoint. Then everything remains in balance and you continue to feel the ground and follow your breath which takes place in the here and now. Therefore when you wander here and there with your thoughts, you always return by means of your body feelings to the ground and the situation in which you physically exist. For me that also means: feeling keeps you in contact with your finitude, encompassed by the infinite.

But now I gradually see – and in this book I feel it explicitly – that Douwe is particularly interested in physicality as something `energetic’. And that means that physicality is partially associated with the fluid and the contour-less. Bodily feeling would, according to him, be the fastest way to experience borderlessness. In my life experience however my body is just there – except as a contact point with the infinite openness – as a mortal body occupying a certain spot in concrete situations. Now in this book he says it literally – and concerning this I think I can get a yes or no answer – that the fastest way to that infinite openness is by means of feeling with the physical senses. Thus, with your physical senses you can feel the infinitude of the universe. With the help of directed exercises he leads you to feel your body from the inside-out and then asks: “Where do you feel a border?” Someone then says: “With the skin”. “That’s not really a border”, Douwe then says. And so it continues. “Feel now to the left and notice that there is no border; and to the right, forward and back”, and three sentences further we are already at the end of the universe! No, not the end, of course, but at the borderlessness of the universe. You feel each time ‘there are no boundaries’ and so with large steps you rapidly come home (a medieval proof of god shrinks to insignificance in comparison with this!). Now I had certainly noticed, since I had learned to feel somewhat more with the body, that the bodily feeling can reach further then the physical skin. I can feel if there are people in the neighborhood, or if an animal runs by this way. I can have physical perceptions if I come into a house where a strained environment dominates, and physically sense the difference between the environment in a hospital, a factory or a church. But in my opinion physical perception rapidly halts in space. How far can you feel with your bodily sense? I cannot physically feel if my neighbors are at home, let alone can I feel the inside of the houses on the other side of the street or through all walls and autos that pass by. And then I am still here on the west side of Amsterdam. But perhaps I am mistaken. Hence my question now: Douwe, do you really mean that you can physically feel and touch through such distances and then can go borderless sensing away through everything? Or is this in fact not about feeling but rather an exercise in imagination?

This concerns then a few differences I have with what Douwe says. But we know we are connected.


It’s about the independence of the student. The sooner that autonomy develops, the better.
June 18, 2009

Advaita Post, Volume 10 No. 10

Good paths dissolve by themselves into openness.


Interview with Douwe Tiemersma – by Pia de Blok. In: Inzicht 11 n.2 (May 2009), p. 24-26

The relationship between teacher and student

The September issue of Inzicht last year had the theme of sexuality and relationships, which included an interview with Douwe Tiemersma where that theme was extensively discussed. A section of that original interview revolved around the special relationship between teacher and pupil. That part was not placed into the article, but fits perfectly into the theme of this issue of Inzicht about Satsang.

InZicht: On the level of the ‘I’-person there is a general alignment towards the other. The authentic teacher is Openness. If people don’t understand the teacher, or even feel themselves attacked, they might sometimes say: “That teacher doesn’t speak to me.”
Douwe: From the openness, there is no teacher, no person who is in tune with someone else. In true openness there is a universal alignment, if you want to use that word. So the ‘teacher’ is open and does nothing. The student feels affected somehow; ‘the teacher’ does nothing. Another student also feels affected, but in a totally different way; ‘the teacher’ does nothing. This comes from being open with a universal alignment. Through this, people end up learning what they need from the teacher.  With everyone that something is different.

People can say, “That’s not a good teacher because he doesn’t understand me.”
That can be. Then that is a situation in which the student no longer finds the relationship liberating. Let’s assume that the teacher is authentic, that he is totally open. When the student says: “That teacher doesn’t speak to me”, then you must look to the student for the cause. Apparently he did not open himself up to that great space in which the things can happen that are necessary for him. That was very evident with Nisargadatta Maharaj. All sorts of people came to him and said: “Oh, this is not a real teacher, he doesn’t understand me” and went their way. But if they had been more open, they would have noticed that they had to give up their own defenses, and that then the realization could proceed.

Liberating insight and surrender

A teacher who isn’t completely open can also say this.
That’s true. So seekers thus need to be very clear and must stay within their own highest sense of openness. Then an understanding will arise that that particular teacher is not the teacher.  Then they will need to face the implications of this understanding.  Everything appears to go by itself as long as there is clarity.

Also in a positive case that highest sense is crucial, even though the seeker’s understanding is not yet completely correct. That insight goes in the right direction. He can recognize something in the teacher through which it becomes confirmed.  He can discover in the teacher an even wider realm which makes his own highest aspirations completely clear. That is the basis upon which the seeker’s resistance and self defense mechanisms can be released.

So then remaining alert is the most important thing.
Absolutely. Through it comes the surrender to this lucidity.

Is a teacher-student relationship always necessary?
For most people getting stuck on the level of the individual ‘I’-person is a very persistent condition. The problem of the desire for unity and the maintenance of separation coexist. Then it’s a question of whether the liberating insight and surrender can breakthrough very easily. This is where you can see the importance of the role of the teacher. When the student experiences something of the unlimited nature of the teacher, then it becomes the basis on which he can surrender his old position. Then there is a trust in and a surrender to the open realm of the teacher, which also becomes his own open realm. In practice you see retrospectively that this relationship is almost always necessary for the ultimate surrender.

Are there names that can be mentioned of earlier teachers who didn’t need a teacher?
Ramana Maharshi to be sure had no clear teacher, but he was in an atmosphere of living spirituality.  There are very few examples in which you don’t see a clear teacher-student relationship.

Some people think: “I get it now” and don’t go to a teacher any more, yet they haven’t really experienced the final realization.
Apparently the time isn’t ripe for a real breakthrough. The limited and problematic situation continues to persist. Hopefully for them, not for very long. You can see it nowadays even in people who are giving satsang, that they are lacking the radicality of surrender that they could have learned with an authentic teacher.

What is the value of the advaita tradition now?
To the extent that you experience the value of the teacher, you experience the value of the tradition in which he stands. The advaita tradition goes back to the earliest times. There continue to be apparent breakthroughs in students who then become teachers and who then receive students themselves. There is a continuous line from the oldest times up to the present. Someone who knows himself to be received within it is unbelievably grateful.

Liberating realizations

Shouldn’t you be careful with ‘the tradition’?
You needn’t make the tradition that important. It’s only through the perspective of time that there is a tradition. The beauty of the advaita approach is that it transcends every culture and every tradition. The cultural separations of men and women, and of the castes in India for example, are rejected by the real advaita teachers. There is no institute of an advaita-‘church ‘, of a priest or monk class and of a “lineage” that must be continued. There are only the four Shankarâchârya’s with their monks, which were established in the past under the influence of Buddhism. They have only a limited meaning within the advaita tradition. Somewhere in space and time, advaita teachers just arise, without a clear cause. They offer an ageless teaching, because there are people who come asking for it. After their death there is nothing left of them where they taught, but once again in a different location another teacher arises. Thus, the liberating realizations continue.

The ability of the teacher to see through the student seems very important to me. Previously you had the master’s favorite in the class who was actually a smartass, but the master didn’t see it. The master saw only the beautiful side. Do you see the other side too?
The limitations of people are so clear, even in people who put their best foot forward. Then there’s still something artificial. Usually very little happens from the teacher’s side, because that’s how the situation is, except for that moment when it makes sense to pierce the bubble.  Frequently it’s more useful to encourage the positive that’s already present in the experience of others in order to strengthen it. Look there’s a person there with different aspects. You can attack the less attractive aspects, so that the other might possibly see what he is not. It’s simply more obvious to strengthen the positive, the insight into what he really is. From there, the other can look back at their less beautiful aspects. Then you can hear them say to themselves: “That was really ridiculous.”

Sometimes that can take a long time.
Yes, that’s true. But the other must also be ripe for a hard confrontation. Still, the hard confrontation comes by itself anyway, even when the teacher doesn’t specifically focus on it. Because the other feels the penetrating awareness of the teacher and it creates a discomfort wherever anything is still tightly held. A teacher does nothing, even when speaking. The effect is automatic.

Love and dependence

As a teacher you are open. When, in the relationship with the teacher, the pupil enters into that openness, not only Light and Silence but also being in love can emerge. For the student who then shoots back into duality that can cause dependency and suffering. How do you handle that?
I don’t do anything. The love is understandable. As the student comes closer to the openness of the teacher, and so experiences more unity with the teacher, there is a great intimacy. This is easily translated to the level of romantic love and eroticism by the ego. If the insight doesn’t go any further the duality that it contains will lead to suffering. The non-dual openness of the teacher goes beyond romantic love and other dualistic situations. The idea is for the student to realize this also.  Being in love is dependency and this dependency should enter into the light and resolve in the clear openness.

Apart from being in love there certainly exists dependency if the student continues to think: “I don’t know it but he does.” This dependence can last for a long time. At some point if the child is to achieve independence, a father and mother have to let the child go. I saw that in our garden recently when a titmouse wouldn’t give any food to her young any more. Then they had to exit the nest.
It happens as it happens. A ‘teacher’ is not dependent on ‘students’. From the side of the teacher at the appropriate moment there will be something that breaks through the dependency. It’s about the independence of the student. The sooner that autonomy develops the better. A period in which someone thinks he needs someone else can be useful, but it should be as short as possible.

Do you think the teacher-student relationship can be changed by the Internet? Will there ever be a virtual Douwe?
An internet-satsang?  This nonsense of advaita-chatting?  Of course, images and texts can have an effect. They can be effective, in the sensitive world of imagination. How far does that go? Yes, we can only wait and see. If you see the effect of the image of Jesus on Christian mystics, you see that ‘belief’ can have a great effect.  For the time being it seems that direct contact with a living teacher contains the greatest possibilities. There is not much more to say. Questions about a possible future make little sense. It’s about your own situation – now.

Spirituality: conscious expansion and transformation that proceed until the non-duality becomes clearly recognized.
June 1, 2009

Advaita Post, Volume 10 No 9

In sensitive seeing: non-duality


In: “Koorddanser” 26 No. 263 (May 2009), p. 13

Spirituality: conscious expansion and transformation

Koorddanser is a magazine for the spirituality of our time and for spirituality, as the front-page of the magazine states. But what is spirituality?

People who read the articles and the agenda of coming events for the first time , are amazed by the diversity of topics. On any given page the words massage, dance, aromatherapy, psychic perception, sculpting, emotion, healing, sexuality, art of living, yoga, meditation, God, justice, and much, much more appear. In the ‘KD-kompass’, the countless topics are listed alphabetically. What is spiritual in all these things? It’s useful to take a look at it, since a firm awareness seems necessary in order to not drown in the large sea of offerings and also to see clearly for oneself what really matters.

The word spirituality is seemingly applied to all different kinds of things and yet a clear definition is missing. The word comes from the Latin ‘spiritus’, which means the flow of air, breath, life and spirit. The meaning has essentially become ‘spirit’. In spirituality you devote yourself to this ‘spirit’. This means in any case an expansion and a transformation of your own existence. In the expansion, your own sphere expands beyond its borders. There is also a transformation: you become freer, purer and more rarified, less heavy in a material sense. And you experience that as you move in a spiritual direction. There are apparently several states each with a different sense of space, freedom, purity and lightness/weight. Additionally you have a sense of something that is more spacious and pure than the existing situation. The ‘spirit’ pulls you and there is a need to go in that direction, so as to attain expansion and spiritual transformation. In any case it receives a form.

The many paths – one essence

In religious spirituality there is the experience of a divine reality, for example, the Biblical God, Jesus and Mary, Vishnu, Ganesha, Krishna. You let this reality work through you, so you knowingly participate in it. This means that your life becomes expanded and is lighter, purer. This applies also to a spirituality that doesn’t focus on a personal God, but rather on Nature, the Cosmos, the Absolute, the Source without images and myths.

The ‘spirit’ can manifest itself in all aspects of life and coexistence. A few important aspects are the cosmically open breath, the arena of free movement, the realm of free-flowing emotions in contrast to a mental rigidity, the area of creativity, the world of the spirit, imagination, thinking, mathematics, the saintly life and holy family, the open relationship with the other (I and Thou), sexual union (including Tantra, the mystic marriage), the meaningful world with significant depth and flexibility in contrast to the world of fixed rules and forms (letter and spirit), the world where justice is and peace prevails.

The expansive and light reality can be recognized in nature. Then you can participate in it or even be absorbed into it. Some people have that experience with pets (e.g. horse whisperer), other wild animals such as wolves, bisons, eagles (shamanism), but also with dolphins. The landscape can be experienced as sacred; absorption into it experienced as a mystical union. Participation in the expanded, pure and rarefied atmosphere of the world of scent in the blossom and aroma therapy can function in a healing way. Also in alchemy, the ‘spirit’ is of a finer state than the material substance  in which you originally participate. Hydrochloric acid (HCl) used to be called the ‘spirit of salt (NaCl)’, because it is volatile. In general, there is the spiritualizing line from the various aggregate states of matter: earth (solid), water (liquid), fire (energy), air (gas) and ether. Different traditions offer different ways to participate in this line towards a more spacious and freer sphere. It always involves a transition towards a wider and lighter reality. This spiritualization can express itself up through the levels, on the mental level (imagination, thinking), insight and cosmic consciousness. In mysticism it can involve a transition to a dimension which we call divine. The experienced reality becomes ‘cleaner’ and ‘more rarefied’, that is to say, less mixed with heavy materiality. It becomes increasingly spacious and the sense of freedom grows. Therefore, it’s understandable that mystics talk of a total freedom in God as a great sphere in which you are absorbed and in which you aren’t bound by the restrictions commonly associated with matter.

 Clarity of mind

Apparently all so-called spiritual activities are about expansion and transformation towards a lighter more rarefied sphere of being. As you recognize the core of spirituality and as it receives the highest value for you, you will increasingly focus on expansion and refinement, on opening yourself up. This requires a clarity of consciousness, a presence of mind, because only then can the orientation remain good. Then it’s clear what the proper orientation is and what deviations are. Then the tendency to enter into a limited situation can be recognized, its illusory attraction penetrated; the proper orientation can continue to function while the deviation no longer does. Clarity of mind, where you remain constantly aware of your own situation, is also a part of spirituality.

Probably you become more and more convinced that clarity, your own space of openness and light, is the essence of spirituality. Your concentration on spirituality then means to promote clarity as much as possible by remaining within it. It’s your own being sphere of lucidity. In the expansion you continually experience fewer separations between yourself and others and everything else. The duality merges into a non-duality. The transformation means becoming freer of everything that had originally limited you. These restrictions appear to have arisen mainly because you followed patterns of thought and feeling that cause duality and closure. The spiritual path of expansion and transformation means a breaking open, a liberation. The essence of spirituality is openness without duality (non-duality).

Non-duality of ‘spirit’ and everyday world

When yogis and mystics come back into everyday consciousness, they often experience that the world is harder than ever. As long as there is a material body, there is a material world and there are physical and mental processes. The breaking open is not only the realization of a spiritual reality, but also the acceptance of a material world. The expansion and transformation continue up to a complete disappearance of all duality, including that of matter and spirit. It’s wonderful when you experience the spiritual or conscious world. You’re free within it, without the limitations of the physical body and world. But as long as there is a body, you still have to deal with material existence. As long as a contrast remains, that duality lets conflict and suffering persist. The problems can only disappear when the two merge into a non-duality. The spiritual process has no limits. The whole of reality receives a dimensional depth that is spiritual and non-dual.

This is already found in the oldest writings that humanity has: the Vedic literature of ancient India. Especially in the last parts of it (the Vedanta: the Upanishads) the core is increasingly posited as the non-duality of all (Brahman) and the self (Atman). There is one infinite sphere of being, consciousness and bliss. This can be recognized as something that you have always already been. It is usually not seen, because people are imprisoned by limited things. It can be seen and therefore it is useful to learn about the different spiritual options. In your actual situation a distinction can always be made between the possibilities that offer more or less space. When you make good use of this capacity for discrimination your spiritual development will continue in a good way. The expansion and transformation will continue and you will remain aware of them. Being and knowledge merge in this process, until the original and always existing non-duality is clearly recognized.

Spiritualization exists only as long as you walk down a path as a person. When you become truly awake, you see that it was a dream. In that wakefulness, you’re free, free from your limited self, free for everything and everyone. That is Love.