Lucille argues that the only sustainable form of meditation is the natural state — awareness itself — and traces how the belief in ignorance requires a subtle effort that can be recognized and released.
Transcript
If by meditating all the time we mean sitting in Padmasana all the time, that's not possible because we need to go to Costco to buy some food and we cannot do that in Padmasana, right? So this form of meditation we cannot do it all the time. The second form of meditation we cannot do all the time. There is too much sound here so if you can... The other form of meditation which we cannot do all the time, yes that's good now, is any form of meditation which involves an effort. Because any form of effort cannot be sustained. So in other words, the form of meditation which is sustainable is the one which is natural. So we believe that the condition of ignorance is our natural condition. We are not aware that ignorance requires a constant effort, albeit subconscious, subtle, not very obvious, and as a result we believe ignorance is our natural state. But because ignorance requires an effort and it is not natural, so the only form of meditation which is sustainable and natural is called our natural state, which is whatever happens in the absence of ignorance. So the first thing we have to understand is that ignorance is an effort and for those who are new to this, what I mean by ignorance is a belief. It is a belief that awareness, the reality which is here in these words right now, is limited, dependent on the human body-mind or dependent on a separate human entity which we call I. And the first thing to realize is that there is no evidence that supports this belief. So we may believe there is such evidence but in fact there is no evidence. Now any form of belief requires an effort. A belief is not natural. A fact is natural. The fact that there is gravity is natural. Whether we want it or not, there is gravity. But if we believe that there are unicorns somewhere in the universe in the absence of such evidence, that's an effort because we could do very well without this belief. So carrying a belief is like carrying a useless weight. As a result, it's not natural. Carrying weight on our back, useless weight, is burdensome. But even more burdensome is to carry the belief that we are separate because it is the origin of all psychological misery. So the other thing we have to realize is this, is that every time we experience psychological suffering it's because of ignorance. That's simple. And then we have to question ignorance. And once ignorance has been questioned, ignorance being a belief, we can remain in a suspended state not to believe the opposite but simply to live in a condition with no belief. In the beginning it's difficult because we desperately want to hold on to some belief. So it feels this freedom of not being dependent upon a unilaterally created unicorn. To let go of this is very, very, very painful to us. It's like we are losing our foundation and we are in freefall into the abyss. But we were already in freefall anyway. The fact that we were sitting on a solid platform of belief was just bogus. We were already in freefall. So the moment we accept the fact that we are in freefall, meaning without belief, nothing really changes. But over time we get used to our freefall condition and we discover that in fact it is freedom. And then in this freefall, we are meditating all the time to answer your question. What was the other question? When the background becomes the foreground. In this process, in ignorance, we believe to be separate, to be limited. But only an object can be separate and limited. An object is distinguishable from other objects. So we believe to be this body with the limits limited by the surface of the skin, for instance. Or we believe to be this mind limited by whatever is accessible through the senses, an object. But the moment there is an object, a limited object, there are other objects. If you have limits, it means there is something beyond the limits. There is me as this object and there is other than me, other objects. So we see everything, including ourselves, as objects. And the object that we see is what, in this metaphor of the foreground and the background, I call the foreground. That we see many objects, we believe to be one of the objects we see, we perceive. And then, all of a sudden, we realize the background, we realize that there is something which is not an object. That the very awareness that perceives all the objects is itself not an object. And also, by the same token, that it is real. Because if it wasn't real, how could it possibly perceive anything real? So in ignorance, we believe awareness to be not real. In that sense, almost non-existent. We put it under the rug, so to speak. We have forgotten its reality. We have attributed the reality to objects we perceive. All of a sudden, we realize the reality of awareness. That's the shift, if you will, that takes place. In that sense, there is more to reality than the set of all objects, including this object we call me, or body, or mind. But there is this background which is imminently real, of awareness. So then, at that point, we alternate, because we are still subjected to the illusion of ignorance, we alternate between two perspectives. One in which the old perspective, in which the objects are real. The new perspective, we have had an insight of, which is awareness is real. Gradually, it's like alternating between two, commuting between two places, if you will. Gradually, one being our newly discovered home. And gradually, in this commute, we telecommute more and more, in that sense that we stay home more and more. But even that metaphor is limited, because the truth of the matter is that we have always been home. We have always been telecommuting from the as far as we know. So then, that's what is meant, because then, that which used to be the background in the glimpse, now becomes a foreground, because everything, in fact, is an expression or made of this, the background. So, the background then is everywhere. The distinction between background and foreground ceases to exist. It was a temporary distinction that enabled us to de-hypnotize ourselves from the objects and have a glimpse of the reality. But then, everything which is perceived is made out of this reality. And it is the only perspective which is really sustainable, again, to put together the answer to your two questions.