Modern Nonduality & Radical Nonduality
Modern Nonduality: The Rise & Fall of the Seeking Self
[Updated 11/11/22] In Modern Nonduality, the end of spiritual seeking is the discovery of your True Self.
Non-Medium subscribers can access this full article here.
Introduction
In the article below (⬇️), I describe 4 types of nondualism:
- Radical Nondualism — Just This
- Modern Nondualism — Letting Go of the Ego
- Traditional Nondualism — Advaita, Buddhism, & Taoism
- Qualified Nondualism — Spiritual Dimensions
Radical Nonduality and Modern Nonduality teachers/speakers are not based in a Traditional Nondualism (Advaita Vedanta in Hinduism, Mahayana Buddhism, and Chinese Taoism), although they may occasionally use terms from those traditions.
Radical Nonduality (aka Neo-Advaita) is a Westernized version of Advaita Vedanta that mostly denies the existence of a separate self-identity. In other words, no person exists as a separate entity. The only real thing that exists is the nondual absolute o everything and beyond, which is indescribable in words. Everything else (all separate things) is a dream-like illusion.
But what I have found is that Radical Nondualists vary in how “radical” they are. While they all believe that the nondual absolute (or oneness) is the only real truth, they vary in how much they engage with our relative, individual sense of self. Some speak as if that separate, dualistic self is as real as the nondual absolute.
I coined the term Modern Nonduality to distinguish between those who acknowledge the relative self from the Radical Nondualists who speak beyond the relative self. Roger Castillo (introduced below), says the Radical approach is idealist and top-down, whereas the Modern approach is realist and bottom up.
Modern Nonduality makes sense to me, but it is not a widely used concept yet.
I found the diversity of well-known nonduality speakers at the 2013 “Who’s Driving the Dreambus?” conference (released on YouTube in 2020) provided a perfect example of the distinction between Radical Nondualists and Modern Nondualists.
Radical Nonduality (quick overview)
Radical Nonduality (Neo-Advaita) is the sense that there is only oneness (Nonduality). There is absolutely no separation (duality) of any kind. Any sense of separation (like a separate self, a doer, or a witnesser) is an illusion and not real because oneness cannot be divided.
These were the Radical Nonduality speakers at the Dreambus conference:
- Tony Parsons (on YouTube) was the most radical of these speakers. He rejects any notion that we exist as something separate from nonduality. The appearance of separate things is an illusion of a ephemeral non-existent ego-self. Experiences and reactions arise, but they are illusions of that illusory self, no more real than the moving lights on a movie screen (as an analogy). The energy that we call unconditional love underlies the apparent reality around which ego-stories are created. That energy is all that we might say really exists (it is an anology for something we cannot comprehend). Many consider Parsons the “founder” of Radical Nonduality, and its most radical proponent.
- Kenneth Madden (on YouTube) had a similar message to Tony Parsons. He emphasized that there is only what is “happening now”, and it is all one thing without any separation. There is also no way to understand this. Maybe it was his Irish accent, but his message seems softer than that of Tony Parsons.
- Steve Ford (on YouTube) talked about his non-spiritual experience of “liberation” or “awakening” or “realization” into nondualism. What is different for him is that he had no spiritual background before that sudden awakening. His perspective on nonduality is similar to others Neo-Advaitists, but with a focus more on an over-thinking mind and alcohol addiction.
- Richard Sylvester (on YouTube) talked about the “apparent” individual’s “liberation”, or “collapse of the separate self”. His approach is different because he talks directly to the separate-self (ego-self) of listeners, rather than denying they exist. In that way, he seems to be acknowledging the reality of a separate self, which is a Modern Nonduality approach. But he says he only talks that way to communicate more clearly, and his message is firmly that the ego-self is not real and does not exist. The result is that he tends to contradict himself, as audience members pointed out.
See this article for more on Radical Nonduality:
Modern Nonduality
Modern Nonduality accepts nondual oneness as the ultimate reality, in line with all nondual teachings. But it engages with, or speaks to, the ego-self illusion as though it were real.
A major difference is that Modern Nondualists provide a teaching that can bring about nondual liberation (or realization). By comparison, Radical Nondualists say there is no teacher, no teaching, and no practice that can ever bring a non-existing self to liberation or realization.
Traditional Nondualism in Hinduism, Buddhism, and Taoism are teachings in the same way as Modern Nondualism. The main difference between Traditional teachers (who are often monks, nuns, swamis, and gurus) and Modern teachers is the degree to which they rely upon religious scriptures and practices.
There is another form of nondualism called Qualified Nonduality (Vishishta Advaita in Hinduism) in which relative duality (the ego-self) is as real as the nondual absolute. The individual self is a manifestation of the absolute, and is one with it, but it is also a totally real thing. Qualified Nondualism tends to focus more on faith and devotion to a level of intelligence in an alternate dimension of reality. The other 3 forms of nondualism focus more on knowledge and insights.
Hindu and Buddhist nonduality teachings often start from a Modern or Qualified Nonduality perspective, especially when speaking to a non-monastic lay (or householder) audience. But versions of those teachings can be much closer to Radical Nonduality/Neo-Advaita when focusing solely on the absolute truth of reality. We see that especially in Zen/Chan Buddhism, Taoist philosophy, and in the nonduality teachings of Ramana Maharshi.
For example, in one of Ramana’s more Qualified Nonduality moments, he taught this practice:
The method is summed up in the words ‘Be still’. What does stillness mean? It means destroy yourself. Because any form or shape is the cause for trouble. Give up the notion that ‘I am so and so’. All that is required to realize the Self is to be still. What can be easier than that?
But then, in one of his more Radical Nonduality moments, he said:
There is no greater mystery than this, that we keep seeking reality though in fact we are reality. We think that there is something hiding reality and that this must be destroyed before reality is gained. How ridiculous! A day will dawn when you will laugh at all your past efforts. That which will be the day you laugh is also here and now.
From the Dreambus conference, the Modern Nondualists were:
- Tim Freke (on YouTube) was a kind of opposite to Tony Parsons. His message was that we are oneness in our true being. And we are the dream of oneness in our temporary and separate self. But that dream and separateness is amazingly wonderful and diverse. He advocates embracing our individual separation and the diversity of our world as our full reality. His approach recognizes both nonduality and duality, which almost makes him a Qualified Nondualist.
- Richard Lang (on YouTube) took the audience through Douglas Harding’s Headless Way “experiments”. The experiments are simple and direct experiences of witnessing and the witnessed (which is a duality). But while the experiments start with duality, the ultimate goal is to know witnessing and the witnessed as one thing (nonduality), which seems to require some guided meditation. He says the Headless experiments cannot be taught through words, which is closer to Advaita Vedanta, and even Neo-Advaita.
- Roger Castillo (on YouTube) described, as mentioned above, these different approaches as Top-Down (Radical Nonduality) and Bottom-Up (Modern Nonduality). Top-Down is an idealist approach that assumes nonduality/oneness is all that exists and teaches from there. Bottom-Up is a realist approach that assumes duality/diversity is real from our human perspective and teaches from that. He says both are valuable and both accept oneness as the ultimate and absolute reality. Castillo himself comes from an Advaita Vedanta (Traditional Nondualism) background and uses a Bottom-Up psychological approach in his weekly satsangs (talks) on YouTube.
In another article, I summarized one of Roger Castillo’s satsangs in which he outlined the fundamental dualities that we face in trying to understand our phenomenal existence. I copy it here because I think it is a good example of the Modern Nonduality perspective.
- Witnessing I -vs- Small I (Witnessing I is Source/God/The Absolute/Brahman; Small I is the ego-self)
- Esoteric Perspective -vs- Practical Perspective (Esoteric is the higher-self/soul view of reality; Practical is the lower-self/ego view & experience of the world)
- Psychological Self/Response -vs- Biological Self/Response (Psychological is how others say we should be; Biological is our in-built physical reality needs)
- Thinking Mind -vs- Working Mind (Thinking is our psychological/comparing/judging mind; Working is our functional/practical mind)
- Judgment -vs- Discernment (Judgment is what my small I thinks others should do; Discernment is what others should do for the greater good of the universe)
copied from:
Philosophical Modern Nonduality
The remaining 2 speakers at the Dreambus nonduality conference were:
- Rupert Spira (on YouTube) and
- Jeff Foster (on YouTube).
I call their talks “philosophical” because their messages were more complex than the others, talking a lot about the intricacies of the human mind. Both are clearly Modern Nondualists.
Jeff Foster was closer to the Radical Nonduality speakers, but still more complicated in his explanations. He spoke the longest, which unfortunately left little time for audience Q&A (the best part of the conference, in my opinion). Rupert Spira criticized Radical Nondualists for being too extreme in their approach. I sensed he, like Tim Freke, was trying to be the anti-Tony Parsons speaker at the conference.
As Modern Nondualists, Foster and Spira acknowledge the reality of the individual self’s experience. And along with all nonduality teachers, they agree that ultimately our phenomenal existence is a temporary illusion (or story). But as long as we believe in our story, it is absolutely real for us.
Because of that dualistic approach, like Richard Sylvester, they contradict themselves (especially Spira) as they switch between the perspectives of the individual self and the absolute self. Such contradictions are far less from someone like Tony Parsons.
I took more notes on Rupert Spira’s talk than the others. Below are my understandings and interpretations of his key points. I believe Jeff Foster and Roger Castillo would easily say some version of the same things. (Additional comments and notes on Spira’s video and Q&A are at the end of this article.)
Modern Nonduality: Our Apparent Self & Our True Self
[1] Our Apparent-Self is a “Real” Thought-Form
OUR apparently separate self is a creation of thinking and thoughts. It was created as a thought or idea and only exists in that form. When the thought/idea ends, it will end.
Part of the thought/idea that created our apparent-self (or ego-self) is that it is separate from our True Self. That apparent separation is just a thought/belief. It is an illusion because nothing can be separate from our True Self.
But, as long as the thought of an apparent-self believes it is real and separate, then it is real and separate. It can superficially deny that belief, but it cannot escape it.
(Note: Radical Nondualists say that even if we believe the apparent-self is real, it is not real, and it never existed. At best, it is a fictional story around which other fictional things seem to be happening.)
Spira’s description of the self as a thought form reminded me of this teaching from Seth/Jane Roberts:
“As living cells have a structure, react to stimuli and organize according to their own classification, so do thoughts. Thoughts thrive on association. They magnetically attract others like themselves, and like some strange microscopic animals they repel their “enemies,” or other thoughts that are threatening to their own survival.” —Seth/Jane Roberts, The Nature of Personal Reality, chapter 8, session 633 on January 17, 1973
[2] Suffering Comes From Separation
WHAT we call suffering stems from the thought/belief that our apparent-self is separate from everything else. It feels lonely, unhappy, and unloved, and is forever seeking to overcome that. Because of that belief, our apparent-self rejects the “now” because it only sees separation in what is happening now.
Time and the future are thought forms created when the apparent-self rejects of the now. Time has no substance beyond our belief that it exists. But as long as we believe it exists, then time really does exist.
“The universe is being created NOW. Creation occurs in each moment, in your terms. The illusion of time itself is being created NOW. It is therefore somewhat futile to look for the origins of the universe by using a time scheme that is in itself, at the very least, highly relative.” — Seth/Jane Roberts, Dreams, Evolution and Value Fulfillment, vol. 1, session 882 on September 26, 1979
[3] Our Apparent-Self is the “Seeking” of Happiness
OUR apparent-self is always seeking in the future, where it sees the potential to overcome the suffering of separation.
Our apparent-self does not exist as an object. Instead, it is the very act of seeking. Our apparent-self is the seeking of something other than itself. That is duality. The illusion is that we think our apparent-self is a real object.
Our apparent-self is always seeking connection, security, love, and happiness outside of itself and in the future. As a thought-form, our apparent-self would not exist if its need (or belief) to seek happiness and overcome separation and suffering did not exist.
(Note: Radical Nondualists say that suffering and seeking are made-up stories. There is nothing wrong with those stories. But they suggest that a sense of liberation is reached when the story character is seen as the story that it is.)
[4] Our True Self is the Energy of Love, Happiness, and Oneness
THE energy we call love, happiness, and oneness lies within all phenomenal existence. It is what enlivens the reality of our experience. But it is also silent, unchanging, and never seeking. It is eternal (timeless) and infinite (spaceless) in its own being.
Our apparent-self may have heard about those True Self qualities, but it can never experience them because of it fundamental belief that it is separate.
“Love is the experience of not knowing another.” — Rupert Spira
[5] Seeking in the External World
OUR apparent-self initially seeks happiness in what it sees as external experiences, objects, and relationships. It seeks union with those forms to overcome separation.
But the external world of forms is forever changing, like images on a movie screen. Eventually, our apparent-self realizes that external objects and experiences (the movie) can only bring temporary happiness. The suffering of separation always returns.
(Note: I think most Radical Nondualists would have no problem with the “energy” and “movie screen” analogies.)
“In one sense, anything that you can see or feel or touch is not real. And yet in another sense it is the nature of all reality. “— Seth/Jane Roberts, The Early Sessions, book 3, session 133 on February 17, 1965
[6] Seeking in the Internal World
AFTER being disappointed at every turn, the separate self turns inward in its search for happiness (to search for the movie screen itself). That seeking includes spiritual teachings and enlightenment. But, eventually, we realize those too as temporary and separate experiences (yes, even enlightenment).
From our True Self perspective, seeking is neither good nor bad. It is just something that is happening. It apparently takes our apparent-self to the doorstep of our True Self. That can give temporary and illusory happiness to our apparent-self.
But no matter what it does, our apparent-self cannot go through the door to become the permanent happiness of our True Self. And neither can any thought-self that we can imagine, because thoughts are always separate and temporary.
[7] Our True Self
OUR True Self (who we all are) is not an object. It is not an experience. It is just being and awareness. Being “I Am” is awareness. That awareness is eternally present and beyond all notions of time. It always knows itself only as the energy of love, which is the natural condition of all reality. It never knows anything other than itself, because there is nothing other than itself. It is all that is.
The closest our apparent-self can come to our True Self is to ask the questions: “who am I?”, “what is my source?”, “where do I come from?”, “what is my true nature?”
“As the apparent separate self, the very highest thing we can do, the ultimate thing the apparently separate self can do, is to seek its source.” — Rupert Spira
(Note: Radical Nondualists say there is nothing any “self” can do to reach “liberation”. They often reject the “I Am” awareness description, as well, because the True Self is beyond human description and comprehension.)
[8] When Seeking Stops
WE are always our True Self. We are never separate from our True Self. But we will not fully know that until seeking stops — both externally and internally. When seeking stops, so does our apparent-self.
Nothing our apparent-self does can stop seeking. But our apparent-self can never fully know that, so it continues seeking. There can be a deep intellectual thought or belief in stopping. But if it is not a full realization and direct experience, then it is only superficial.
If we feel suffering, then we are still in the reality (or illusion, or story) of the apparent-self — no matter what we say, think, or write about nonduality.
Seeking only stops when it stops.
“The separate self is ultimately an illusion… But if we are unhappy, we believe the separate self is real. Whatever Advaita [nonduality] beliefs we may have, we believe in the separate self if we are suffering.” — Rupert Spira
[9] Our Apparent-Self & True Self Compared
OUR apparent-self needs a body/mind to think it is separate. — Our True Self does not need a body or mind to be aware of itself because it is pure awareness. It does not even know a body/mind separate from itself. It knows nothing as separate from itself because it is everything.
Our apparent-self’s body/mind consists of constantly changing thoughts, perceptions, sensations, and experiences. — Our True Self awareness is silent and never changes.
Our apparent-self thinks awareness and its body/mind are one thing. So when its body/mind ends, it believes its awareness will end. — Our True Self is aware it was never born, and it will never end. Thoughts and thought-forms come into its awareness and disappear from it. But it is eternal.
Our apparent-self compares and judges separate objects to keep them separate. — To our True Self, everything is the same in the always-changing apparent reality of thought forms. It has no preferences or judgments toward those changes. Nothing is distinguished from anything else.
[10] The Only 2 Options for the Body/Mind
AS noted above, our apparent-self seeks happiness in either (1) the external, relative world, or (2) in its inner self. That gives the Body/Mind 2 options to relieve its suffering…
- External Happiness: Beliefs in the reality of the temporary, separate, and limited self (suffering). We see this when people complain, brag, and otherwise share stories of their life experiences.
- Internal Happiness: Knowing we are our True Self that is eternal and unlimited awareness and love. We see this in people who always seem happy, loving, and content with life.
Many apparent-selves only express #(1), some both #(1) and #(2), and a small number express only #(2).
Comments
As I mentioned, Rupert Spira occasionally contradicts himself because he switches between speaking from the perspective of the apparent-self and from the True Self. Section [9 — the Apparent Self and True Self Compared] lists some areas where such pitfalls can occur.
The biggest contradiction was in his attempts to answer whether an apparent-self can do anything to overcome its separation. That question came up several times in different ways in the conference audience Q&A.
He says that the apparent-self cannot stop trying to overcome its separation. He says the best the apparent-self can do is seek its source (who am I?) (in section [7]), which is the basic nonduality technique of self-inquiry taught by Ramana Maharshi. He says that the apparent-self can either express duality or express the True Self (in section [10]).
Those all sound like things the apparent-self (ego-self) can do. But at the end of the Q&A he finally admits that ultimately, there is nothing that our apparent-self can do to change its situation — agreeing with the more Radical Nonduality speakers at the conference.
I felt he was trying hard to be an anti-Tony Parsons teacher of Nonduality. That, of course, would make him much less threatening to the egos of audience members. And it is probably what brings him bigger audiences, in general. And it may be why I have listened to Tony Parsons much more over the past year than Rupert Spira. But I did liked this presentation by him— especially the audience Q&A part (see this YouTube video).
“Enlightenment is an accident, but practice makes you accident prone.” — Zen teacher Robert Aitken (1917–2010)
Notes
The last section above was primarily based on Rupert Spira’s presentation. I re-organized and edited the presentation to bring it together coherently. I also replaced some of Spira’s terms with my own to be more clear (to me, at least). For example, he uses “separate self” and “apparent separate self”, whereas I prefer “apparent-self” and occasionally “seeking-self” and “ego-self”. Like many other nonduality teachers, he does not use the word “ego” because it has too many definitions, which is true.
I also use “True Self” in place of the many terms he uses for it. Those include “self”, “real self”, “awareness”, “pure awareness”, “pure knowing”, “our own being”, “knowing being”, “essential being”, “essential nature”, and “the I of I Am”. (Elsewhere, I have also called this the “absolute self” and the “soul” or the “soul-self”.)
I chose the surfer photo above for this article based on Tony Parson’s description of Nonduality as living “life in free fall”. We are unattached to anything, and we unconditionally love and allow everything that arises. That could probably reflect Tim Freke’s perspective, as well. The surfer could be the temporary apparent-self, and wave could be the True Self.
Related Resources
- (1) I call this table (⬇️) the “Duality — Nonduality Spectrum”. I would put Modern Nonduality in between categories #5 (Nonduality Zen & Advaita) and #6 (Radical Nonduality).
- I explain that table here:
- (2) For more on Nonduality (Advaita), see this collection of articles (⬇️). Note that the articles in this collection are behind the Medium paywall. For paywall-free access to my articles, go to www.AlanLew.com, linked below.
Contact
- In an earlier version of this article, I referred the Rupert Spira as a Qualified Nondualist. But I was wrong in my understanding of Qualified Nondualism at that time. I updated this article on Nov 11, 2022 to correct that.
- I am not financially affiliated with any of the people or products discussed in this article.
- I appreciate comments, questions, and typo corrections. - See the About link in my Medium profile for contact information and related articles.
- Written in collaboration with my Energy Group/Higher Self and drawing on others. This is our perspective of the truth and not the whole truth of reality.
My Medium writings are available “paywall free” at www.AlanLew.com:
- follow my Facebook page linked to my Medium writings
- subscribe to My Medium Writings
- become a Medium member to support my writings
Visit and Follow New Earth Consciousness for More Articles like this.
- subscribe New Earth Consciousness NEWS, the occasional newsletter for NEC
- …and join our New Earth Consciousness Group on Facebook