A little further towards a non-dual understanding of the self and therapy
Nisargadatta, amongst a host of others, affirm that it is knowing ourselves, seeing and understanding the reality of ourselves, that changes us. This ties in with Gestalt Therapy’s “paradoxical nature of change” which says that we change by becoming what we are rather than trying to become some improved version of ourselves. Change flows naturally from seeing, facing and understanding ourselves. In seeing this anew it has helped me to loosen my attachment to the idea that choice and self-responsibility are of central importance to the process of change.
But Nisargadatta, again with many others, talks about the “earnestness”, “honesty”, “tenacity” and “remembering” needed to facilitate the shift into the non-separate consciousness that is called “enlightenment”. This corresponds with my experience of bringing my attention into the here and now which I feel moves me towards this as far as I am able. But what in us is being earnest? What is focusing the attention? Every addict (i.e. practically all of us), needs to want to recover, so, what is going on if this is not about choice and responsibility for our choices?
Essentially I think this does come down to what is wanted, which is more about seeing and opening and understanding, than it is about choosing. Obviously this is a fine distinction, but following and listening to that within us that sees, knows, or intuits, the truth, has different flavour from the doing implied in choosing. Glimpsing what we really want is more powerful and practical than deciding. Deciding often fails because we are usually so fragmented, with different parts of us wanting different things, that we cannot keep to any decision we make.
Yet, trying to consistently do something, whether it be to breaking an old habit, or building a new one, can be so helpful in building some integration. This feels creative and towards freedom to me. It is needs us to remember what is more important to us and to honour our deeper wishes. But how is this not about choice and self-responsibility?
Again I think the answer lies in how seeing and understanding what we really want, and how this comes from a non-egoic place in ourselves, a place that recognises “Goodness, Beauty and Truth” as our deepest need and desire.
Those who refuse to look, see, and face the truth of themselves do not actually choose that path, it is just that it is too difficult for them, the habits of avoidance too strong, the pain too unbearable to face. That such people dump their negativity on others is still just compulsiveness unfolding. In my experience the truth has often poked its nose tentatively and uninvited into the background of my consciousness and often this was unwelcomed and resisted to start with. I can remember both heeding it and rejecting at different times, but there is no doubt that accepting the truth always leads to an increase in freedom and humility and self-compassion. So in the end this seems to me more about following than choosing. Certainly turning our back on the truth is about compulsion not choice. This is why I have previously ended up talking about “choiceless choice”.
This all points to there being a deeper non-egoic level, or levels, to the self that is there waiting and trying to unfold into consciousness. It helps me to allow the idea of there being no ”I” doing, being me, and move closer to the idea that the universe is simply unfolding as it can, at every scale. This seeing, facing and knowing of ourselves must surely then come from a part of us, or the universe, that is prior to, or behind, or in some way outside of our illusory egoic sense of “I”.
Nisargadatta talks about how, “You need not get at it, for you are it. It will get at you”. Most descriptions of enlightenment describe it as being a process that happens, something that the ego’s illusory sense of being a separate self cannot do. This again implies that a non-personal force is always present within us searching for a way to come into conscious. Perceptions and sensations happen, thoughts occur, feelings reveal their meaning, understanding happens, all without choice or ego direction. There is at best an allowing, an intuitive agreement to follow what is true. This comes with the perception that Consciousness / God / the Absolute is manifesting unfolding the world / universe and that our consciousness is somehow an integral part of this.
This also fits with my understanding around how our ego is largely our self’s compulsive defensive structure that we created to protect us from being overwhelmed. I starts to emerge at a very early age, with the infant’s developing sense of being a separate self. The ego then develops various degrees of pathology depending on the degree of trauma experienced. I don’t think any us escape being cursed by this to some degree. It is clear to me that self-knowledge and then “enlightenment” (for want of a better word!) with its stages of unfolding, are the stages of our liberation from our ego and our return to direct experience with a new level of freedom.
This letting go of the centrality of choice and self-responsibility is leading to a re-framing of my understanding of therapy. But there is still this conundrum around intention, and the wish to look and see. My wish, commitment and intention to shift my attention into the presence of this here and now moment is paradoxical. I understand that this is not about our conceptual, self-chattering, mind mediated experience. It is about opening to now, to the utter simplicity of direct experience which is always right in front of our noses, continuously happening.
In the meantime I am still left relating to life through my sense of being a separate “I”, whilst hoping that this small change in how I see the self will help me approach a little closer to the shift into the perspective of non-separateness that I recognise is possible. It is my deep wish, but how much ego is there still in it, is indeed the question?
Jim Robinson – Oct 2025