If you think the source is simply the way your mind feels when you’re relaxed, you haven’t gone far enough.
If you think you’re enlightened because you’ve looked for your sense of self and found that there wasn’t one, you haven’t gone far enough.
If you think awakening is recognizing that thoughts are objects of consciousness just like sense media, you haven’t gone far enough.
If you think you’re awake because you had a dream-like vision that revealed some paradoxical mystery of the universe, you haven’t gone far enough.
If you’ve experienced a shift in consciousness due to pondering over some non-rational koan-like riddle, don’t stop. You probably haven’t gone far enough.
If you’ve learned to quiet your mind to the point where there are seldom any thoughts for hours or even days, keep going. You haven’t gone far enough.
If you’ve reached a state in your meditation where you seem utterly absent, and yet the world continues to manifest… sorry. You haven’t gone far enough.
If it feels as though your consciousness has exploded into shimmery Oneness with all of the cosmos, you probably haven’t gone far enough.
If you’ve reached a state where there are no objects of consciousness at all, so that all experience is simply a gossamer void – not far enough.
How will you know when you’ve gone far enough?
Believe me: you’ll know!
But, if you need more than that, I’ll say this…
So long as the source is confused with objects, duality remains. When the source is fully distinguish from objects, even the most subtle projections of the most subtle mind, only then is the non-duality of the source and objects truly and directly known. Every experience described above is likely to be a case of confusing the source with some object or another. Though, the varieties of which delusion may appear are legion.
You have to take it all the way. You’ve only gone far enough when you can’t go any further. You will quite literally fall off the edge of duality if you just keep going. Jed McKenna’s one-word instruction here is quite appropriate: Further. The path is not endless. Further gets you there.

16 comments
Comments feed for this article
September 16, 2011 at 2:59 am
Duncan
Hmmm. I don’t think I’ve gone far enough…
Many thanks for these!
September 16, 2011 at 6:35 am
Sam Watts
You’re most welcome. And thank you, Duncan, for your growing list of literary contributions on the subject!
October 4, 2011 at 9:21 pm
dominic724
Excellent post. Refreshing ! Thanks. – dn
October 5, 2011 at 10:38 am
Sam Watts
Thanks for reading, dn.
November 1, 2011 at 2:10 am
Joel
You say: “You’ve only gone far enough when you can’t go any further.”
When you can’t go any further it means you are stuck. What I presume you mean is that you’ve only gone far enough when there is no further to go.
You say: “When the source is fully distinguish from objects, even the most subtle projections of the most subtle mind, only then is the non-duality of the source and objects truly and directly known.”
That’s a very interesting way of putting it, I like that. Although it seems to me if you distinguish the source and objects clearly then it doesn’t matter whether you regard it as an experience of duality or nonduality, since there is no difference any more.
November 1, 2011 at 7:54 am
Sam Watts
Great points, Joel.
“What I presume you mean is that you’ve only gone far enough when there is no further to go.”
Yes, your presumption is correct.
“Although it seems to me if you distinguish the source and objects clearly then it doesn’t matter whether you regard it as an experience of duality or nonduality, since there is no difference any more.”
On the one hand, I agree – in the sense that if the source and objects are truly seen as they are, there’s no further to go. At this point one has gone beyond labels like “duality” and “nonduality,” which become tragically inadequate to describe the indescribable (to eff the ineffable).
On the other hand, while labels are empty (i.e. meaning is context-dependent, and thus inconstant), the words we use matter. It’s all too common for those aspiring to awakening to have an experience, label it “nonduality”, and thus, bring progress to a halt. Language is powerful. It can aid in sticking and unsticking (binding and loosing).
Besides, if one really sees reality clearly – as it is – regarding that as duality is highly unlikely. Not impossible, though, due to the fluidity of meaning based on contextual cues.
This could very well lead to a post on this topic. Thanks for the inspiration!
November 1, 2011 at 9:03 am
Joel
I think it’s worth a post.
You say: “It’s all too common for those aspiring to awakening to have an experience, label it “nonduality”, and thus, bring progress to a halt.”
Yes, indeed, that’s why I’d say it’s better not to label it at all, since what does the label really mean anyway, it is too often a useless shorthand for a claim to have seen something. Even those who have understood often persuade themselves that ‘This is nonduality’ and merely fall into empty pointing, just mouthing words, while their acolytes end up on a useless quest to know what their teacher knows, which, frankly, may not be very much any more. It is one of the most thin realisations to spend years trying to get rid of duality only to finally realise that the reason you can’t do it is because there isn’t any.
Beyond the obvious bifurcation of the wuji into the taiji, and whatever may be gained by a study of that (Yijing, for instance), the terms duality and nonduality are tokens exchanged in the business of enlightenment but have no value in reality. So in that sense inherently ‘dualistic’ philosophies have as much to say as ‘nondualistic’ ones, because they are both at the relative level. All it does, often, is make people feel like they are treading on eggshells. Y’know, is my language too dualistic and other such self-critiques, as if language could be anything other than dualistic.
Not only that, the perceived need to compare what one has realised to an empty label like nonduality can result in one discarding what one has realised in order to pursue the wild goose chase of trying to see what someone else has realised, who ‘sees’ nonduality, when it may only be what one already sees, that one simply cannot easily label nonduality and preserve one’s integrity.
The bottom line is surely that if one has realised one’s true nature then duality is fine, because it is the operator that enables me to distinguish black from white, self from other, and any other division, while never regarding the division as anything more than a label for temporary discernment of separate objects, should that be of interest in any particular context. Whereas to regard what one is seeing as nonduality can be a pretense, a fearful apprehension of the bogeyman duality. I think more than a few are guilty of talking up duality into nonduality, particularly when they have had a realisation in the past but do not abide in the Self, the Unborn, or whatever you prefer to call it.
Just a few thoughts, subject to complete reversal or complete discarding.
December 13, 2011 at 5:05 pm
EIS
Why have you excluded fairly traditional conceptions of awakening, as captured in statements such as:
“If you still have needs, desires, fears, unhappiness, etc. you definitely haven’t gone far enough.”
?
December 13, 2011 at 6:18 pm
Sam Watts
Because I didn’t care to. I don’t care much about tradition.
December 13, 2011 at 6:51 pm
EIS
Well, what do you think? If one still has needs, desires, fears, unhappiness, etc., have they gone far enough?
December 13, 2011 at 7:27 pm
Sam Watts
There’s a reason why I left such statements out of my post. You’ll figure it out.
December 13, 2011 at 7:42 pm
EIS
I assume the reason you left it out is because you don’t believe that freedom from those things is a consequence of awakening, but I thought it would be better to ask than merely to assume.
Are you interested in having a conversation about this?
If so, I would start by pointing out that traditions such as Buddhism consider freedom from these things to be the fundamental feature of awakening (as per the four noble truths), and ask how (assumedly) you came to a different opinion about what final awakening is.
December 13, 2011 at 7:57 pm
Sam Watts
Honestly, I can already tell you’re not the kind of conversation partner I prefer to have. I don’t want a lesson in your idea of what real Buddhism is. Just keep practicing. Even if you’re off track, you’ll come back around if you go far enough with it. The fool who persists in his folly will eventually become wise.
December 13, 2011 at 8:03 pm
EIS
In that case, take care.
June 22, 2012 at 10:42 am
Saul
Keep persisting in your folly, Sam. You’ll get there eventually.
June 22, 2012 at 10:52 am
Sam Watts
Thanks for the encouragement, Saul <3