Is Non-Duality Dry?

I would like to know why there is such a  focus in non-duality in general, or in   your meditation, why there is such a focus  on disentanglements from experiences? On not caring about experiences from the  mind, not caring about experiences from   the body, because for me the practice practices  we have here, they all feel a little bit dry. Let me explain, because the way you formulate it, not caring  about the feeling, about the mind... What we talk about here is that what we really want, what we really desire cannot be found as an experience of the mind or of the  body. That's all. The not caring is   not something we suggest, is something that  happens as a result of our understanding. In India they call it vairagya, dispassion.  This dispassion is not the product of an   activity. But, that's why it's not suggested  here to be dispassionate, what is suggested   here is to understand that that which  you really care for, cannot be found   in the mind or in the body As a result it  creates an effortless detachment and besides I don't know whether you remember  a question that was asked yesterday   about celebration? And it is not meant here, to say   no to the senses or to the mind, but to see  the senses and the mind as a celebration. It could be said that whatever is perceived, the thoughts and the senses, celebrate the   absolute that perceives them. So the  carelessness is not a carelessness. It's   not a lack of love. It's just that the  love goes to love itself. For instance,   we don't love people. It's a mistake  to love people. If you love people,   you'll be disappointed. We love the love  in people and it's normal. For instance,   ask yourself, do I love hatred? Do you love  hatred? No. So if people hate you, do you love   that? No. It's normal. Nobody loves hatred. Love  loves love. Love doesn't love hatred. So love is careless about hatred or about the  lack of love. So what we love in   people is the love itself. The love  is in hiding in some, so we try to get in touch with it behind  the veil, behind the armour.   But nobody loves. So we don't care about the lack  of love. It would be in fact unloving to answer   hatred with love because it  would teach the wrong lesson. It would teach the wrong lesson. We  don't condone stupidity because if   we condone stupidity people remain  in their stupidity. We don't condone, I don't know, arrogance, or because we  encourage people in their ignorance. So now, you may feel dryness here because of the  approach, at some point which we use logic. So here   it's like a buffet. It's not a restaurant which  has a fixed menu. It's a buffet. So when you have   a buffet, you have a large variety of options.  And at this buffet, each of you take whatever you   like. The goal is not to be hungry. It doesn't  matter what you eat. You see? So there is for...   there are kind of... so, some people like it dry, some  people like it wet. You see? So don't complain if   I am dry with logic because some people like  it. Take the wet food, leave the dry one, you see? And you know, if it is too dry, go to a different  restaurant. Nobody forces you here. You see   what I mean? It's not the only restaurant in  town. The good restaurant is the one that when   you like the food and when you leave, you  feel satisfied. That's that's the idea. But as I have said also the dryness that  comes from the use of logic. We have to   understand why we use logic here. It's not  that with logic we can go to the truth, but   with logic we can dismantle belief systems  that have been built using logic. So we   use the same logic which has been used to  build belief systems to dismantle them,   to deconstruct  them. You see because logic is not   that important, because first of all there  are all kinds of logic - first order logic, excluded middle logic etc. Boolean logic,  quantum logic, there are all kinds of   possibility, fuzzy logic, there are all kinds of  possibilities and I am not an expert. In other words,   the choice of a logic is somehow arbitrary.  Therefore, logic is not universal. Therefore,   it's not legitimate to use logic to... one kind of  logic to go to the absolute. It's not possible.   However, it is legitimate to use the same logic  which has been used to build a belief system to   deconstruct it, so that we can be taken back  to the foundation of this belief system and   then experientially see whether this system has a  solid foundation or whether it is built on sand. So logic is a negative approach to deconstruct  to leave you to the threshold of the experience   of your true nature. What takes you there  on the other side is grace ultimately. It   may be apparently, something you hear,  something poetic, or something that makes you feel: 'Yes, that's true, yes, that's  my experience!' It can be something emotional, something poetic, a word, a gesture, a smile,  and it doesn't matter, but it's always grace   that takes you beyond the threshold. And that's  not dry. The point I'm making, it's not dry. Also, you have to take into  account your own expectations. Often we expect a physical, physically rewarding experience.   Physically, I mean in the  terms of bodily sensations, feelings. I wanted... Okay, that's the poem I talked about  by Rumi, translated by Coleman Barks. This we have now is not imagination. This  is not grief or joy. Not a judging state   or an elation or sadness. Those come and  go. This is the presence that doesn't. It's dawn, Husam, here in the splendour of coral, inside the friend in the simple truth of   what Halaj said. What else could human  beings want? When grapes turn to wine,   they are wanting this. When the night  sky pours by, it's really a crowd of   beggars, and they all want some of this.  This that we all now created. This that   we are, now created the body cell by  cell, like bees building a honeycomb.   The human body and the universe grew from this,  not this from the universe and the human body. That's not dry.