Joan Tollifson on the Imaginary Vantage Point. Brilliant observations.

Joan Tollifson reminds me a lot of the best of Alan Watts.

Meaning, she communicates profound spiritual insights in a direct, down to earth, and often humorous fashion, but without the sometimes annoying tendency of Watts to make more of himself to an audience than he deserves. Tollifson has more humility.

I absolutely loved her chapter, "The Imaginary Vantage Point," in Painting the Sidewalk with Water: Talks and Dialogues About Non-Duality. The best part was a dialog with someone at her talk who had some questions/opinions about it.

This was the central thesis in Tollifson's talk, the absence of a "me" as such is commonly visualized.

There is an idea and maybe a mental picture that there's "me" encapsulated inside the bodymind looking out at everything else through the windows of my senses and manipulating this outside world as best I can.

Relatively speaking, within the movie of waking life, this makes a certain amount of sense: "I' can apparently seek dinner outside myself and find it "over there" in the refrigerator. "I" can seemingly manipulate various ingredients and turn them into a cake. Relatively speaking, this makes sense.

But can I find enlightenment or love or happiness "out there" somewhere? Can I manipulate my thoughts or my desires in the same way I can manipulate the ingredients of a cake? Or has this way of thinking that seems to make sense for survival tasks (like food-gathering and shelter-building) suddenly become totally incoherent when the thinking mind tries to apply it to finding happiness or freedom "out there" somewhere?

And in fact, even with those survival tasks, is there actually a "me" who chooses to do them and who could have done something else instead? Or did everything in the whole universe come together at that moment as the baking of a cake or the building of a house?

Maybe if we get spiritually advanced and sophisticated enough, we think that the experiencer is "awareness" or "consciousness" or "the witness." But is there any such thing as "awareness" or "consciousness" or "the witness" that can be isolated out from everything else?

Tollifson answers no, appealing to the Buddhist notion of emptiness. This is decidedly different from nothingness or a void, even though that's often how people who don't understand what Buddhism means by emptiness misconstrue the term. She says:

Yes, the whole universe is involved in everything that happens. Everything is caused by, and everything affects, everything else. Everything is inseparable from everything else. In Buddhism they call it interdependent origination. That's what they mean by emptiness.

Everything is impermanent, constantly changing, and interconnected with everything else. There is no inherent, independent, autonomous existence. No "thing" actually ever forms to even be impermanent. There is only seamless wholeness.

However, a member of the group Tollifson was speaking with considered that they were capable of occupying a vantage point where they weren't caught up in the goings-on of the world. That feeling of detachment gave them a certain distance from happenings which they considered to be a positive thing.

The dialog between this person and Tollifson went on for quite a few pages. Here's my attempt to share the gist of what the dialog consisted of. I've focused on what Tollifson said, since she made the most sense in my opinion. 

(J is Joan Tollifson; P is the person)

J: What is the perspective?

P: Well, it's not a thing. It's an empty point -- a timeless, spaceless, dimensionless point.

J: Okay, we could call it awareness, right [participant nods] Is there an actual boundary between awareness and the content of awareness? We draw dividing lines with words, but is the separation really there? In your own experience right now, can you actually find this boundary?

P: Yes, there are two things.

J: Conceptually, there are two things. But when you actually investigate your own direct experience in this present moment, can you find a dividing line between awareness and what is being seen and heard right now? Is "awareness" actually a separate thing? Is there really this "empty point" apart from what is appearing?

P: It's not a thing; it's a vantage point.

...J: Right, I understand what you're pointing to. We might also call this vantage point "impersonal awareness" or "the witness," right? And I'm not denying the reality of awareness, but as soon as the mind turns it into some thing that is separate from everything else, something that must be remembered and maintained, then it has become a subtle mental object, a concept, an idea. Can you see that? As you say, you remember to think it. It's a thought. 

What is aware of the vantage point?

There is an awareness of both the imaginary vantage point and the objects within it. So there is something prior to any vantage point that you can imagine or conceptualize or perceive or experience or think about or remember or describe.

And actually, this awareness that is prior to everything is not separate from everything. It is everything. It is the common factor in every experience, the formlessness that is forming as every form. It is not something you can objectify and then have to keep remembering. Awareness cannot be separated out from everything else and made into a separate object. 

...P: It's like those pictures which can be seen two different ways. You know, where it can be either a picture of a lady or a vase and you can flip back and forth. It's like a painting in a frame. So there's that form of the rug appearing in a frame.

J: What sees the frame? What is aware of awareness? What is witnessing the witness? What is conscious of consciousness? Can you see that any answer that might arise, anything perceivable or conceivable, would be another appearance, another object? Is the seeing really divided up into seer and seen, or is your actual experience simply seeing?

...P: The frame is emptiness.

J: This is emptiness. The rug is emptiness. You are emptiness. Everything is emptiness. There is only emptiness. Form is emptiness. 

P: I don't see that.

J: Actually you do, but you're overlooking it. Thought is overlaying it with a conceptual story, and the focus is on the story. You're trying to see something special. You imagine that emptiness should look different than this present appearance. You think that if you were seeing emptiness, it wouldn't look like this. It wouldn't look like people and chairs and rugs.

P: True. When I really see it, it doesn't look like this. It's vibrant and it's a different experience.

J: Well, every second is a different experience. And every experience is emptiness, whether it's a vibrant experience or a dull experience, an expanded experience or a contracted experience. It's all emptiness. You can't not see emptiness. 

Emptiness is all there is. The seeing is emptiness. And everything you see is empty. But if you imagine that some particular experience is emptiness and not every other experience, then you've got an idea of emptiness that's only an idea. 

...J: I'm pointing out the difference between awareness itself, which is ever-present and all-inclusive, and a concept of awareness as something that must be remembered and maintained (some idea of "formless emptiness," "a dimensionless point," "the witness," whatever it is). Something that is separate from the supposedly unspiritual and dangerous world of form.

I'm pointing out the absurdity of working very hard at this spiritual task of remembering the vantage point and making sure that "me" is identified as emptiness and not as form.

Being aware is actually effortless. You can't not be aware, so it's always already the case. But instead, it gets turned into an imaginary project for the "me" to accomplish, an imaginary "thing" that must be remembered and maintained.

Comments

[sant64]

High-sounding gibberish.

[Jim]

Neville Goddard has the answer that RS or any group never found. Listen to his ,Out of the world , audio on youtube.

[Ron E.]

The concept of emptiness can seem very involved. The simplest explanation being that ultimately everything is empty of inherent, independent existence. Common sense tells us that we have an independent, enduring self and are convinced that this self within us has been present through childhood, adult-hood and now. The reality is though that no such thing as a self can be found, all we can ever experience is the idea of a self, purely a thought construct.

I believe (think) that Toliffson’s is correct about awareness. We give objects of perception a name, an identity, isolating them from each other and ourselves thereby dividing everything into this and that. Such is the function of thought and consciousness and necessary for day-to-day survival. It is only awareness that comprehends the whole and sees through the delusion. Dogen pointed to such delusions saying: - “Those who totally realize delusion are buddhas. Those who are totally deluded about realization are ordinary people.”

I reckon that the human mind reacts against such simplicity as it’s always searching for something more, going from one teaching, teacher, book or whatever for explanations. It can be exhilarating and temporarily fulfilling, but never totally satisfying. Toliffson in her latest substack points to the pursuits of enlightenment as an ever-going habit or desire we exhibit where she says: - “I’m a classic ex-ample of that punch-drunk boxer, that spiritual addict, forever doubting and grasping and trying to pin down the one right way. Yes, I have deeply, experientially known the truth (and I’ll get to what I mean by that) for a very, very long time (decades). But then, in spite of knowing better, "I drag my-self up and set out again on my search, determined to find more proof."

Joan further quotes "What Will It Take?" by John Astin:

Do we really need more proof?
Another taste of joy,
another glimpse of truth,
another experience of this, that
or the other thing?
What will it take before
we finally stop and accept
that it is over, that this empty cup
has always been full?
How many more experiences
before we realize
that we could never have more
of what we already are?
In a flash of insight
I wake to this knowing...
this simple knowing that
I could never really add anything
to This that is already everything.
But then, like a punch-drunk boxer,
I drag myself up and
set out again on my search,
determined to find more proof,
More evidence, I cry,
That is what I need,
never quite believing
it could be so simple.

[Jim Sutherland]

I asked AI this important question:
“ Describe what type of personalities members of the Church of the Churchless led by Pastor Brian Hines pastors?”

AI offered this quick answer:
“ The Church of the Churchless, led by Pastor Brian Hines, is a non-denominational, online community that attracts individuals who share certain personality traits and spiritual inclinations. Based on Pastor Brian's teachings and the community's dynamics, members tend to be:

1. _Spiritual seekers_: They question traditional religious dogma and seek a more personal, direct experience of the divine.
2. _Critical thinkers_: They encourage inquiry, analysis, and evidence-based reasoning, often challenging established beliefs.
3. _Independent-minded_: Members value autonomy and individuality, preferring a more personal, self-directed spiritual path.
4. _Open-minded_: They embrace diverse perspectives and explore various spiritual traditions, philosophies, and scientific theories.
5. _Seekers of truth_: They prioritize authenticity, honesty, and transparency in their spiritual pursuits.
6. _Disillusioned with organized religion_: Many members have become disenchanted with traditional religious institutions and seek a more inclusive, accepting community.
7. _Intellectually curious_: They enjoy exploring complex ideas, philosophical discussions, and scientific inquiry.
8. _Supportive and inclusive_: Members foster a sense of community, encouraging mutual support, respect, and acceptance.

By embracing these qualities, the Church of the Churchless creates a unique space for individuals to explore spirituality, question assumptions, and cultivate personal growth.‘