The Dharmin

A short essay written by me to describe non-dualistic life of the Dharmin.

The Dharmin took his seat before the assemblage of those inquirers who sought liberation from samsara, the continuous round of birth, death and rebirth.

The Dharmin does not form concepts but on this occasion has agreed to speak the language of the adharmins, the language of duality, conditionality, the presumptuousness of logic, delighted in by those who live in the darkness of ignorance and have yet to attain the nirvana of the Dharmin.

Varnu arose, stood before Him and respectfully asked…

Q. What is Dharma?
A. The Dharma is referred to as the Law, the natural Law, the way of the universe, the way of nature, that which is – as it is. That from which all has arisen and into which all will subside. Dharma is the ultimate refuge of all. The law of man is adharma, the opposite of Dharma the conqueror of nature, whose mind creates and asserts the duality of self and other.

Q. Who then is the Dharmin?
A: The Dharmin is the upholder of the natural law, who dissolves within that natural law – his own true home, who does not hold the desire of otherness from what is. The Dharmin has surrendered the false identity of individuality and gains the true identity as the Dharma. The adharmin however cherishes the notion of selfhood and seeks to conquer what they think to be other than themselves. However this description is only for the adharmin, the Dharmin does not exude concepts of selfhood and universe, natural law and the law of man. Only adharmins entertain such notions.

Q. Are you a Dharmin?
A. Only adharmins (non-dharmins) assume to see the Dharmin. Those upholders of Dharma you refer to do not conceive of ‘themselves’.

Q. Who are you then?
A: No claim to be ‘me’ has been made.

Q. Why do you not claim to be the Dharmin?
A. If a claim to be the Dharmin was made then the claimant would be an adharmin, not a Dharmin.

Q. So by not claiming to be a Dharmin are you implying yourself to be the Dharmin?
A. Silence makes no claim, only words do so. It is the adharmins who claim themselves to be so and extend their error to those they conceive to be the Dharmin.

Q. We, the assemblage, seek guidance so we may attain the liberation of the Dharmin, the freedom from the seemingly never ending round of birth, death and rebirth. We have practised methods for many years taught by the masters yet the Dharmin denies this self from whom we seek liberation?
A. The Dharmin neither asserts nor denies, that which has never been asserted need never be denied. How can an asserted self remove itself thereby gaining liberation from itself? If no assertion of self has arisen then who is there to need liberation? Those who seek liberation suffer from the misery of the creation of self and other, these creations are a product of the assertion that there is a seeker who seeks liberation and an attainment called ‘liberation’. This seeker and his goal are mere products of thought, nothing more. As long as the adharmin continues to assert existence of the ‘I’ as the self and the existence of ‘other’ as not-self there will never be the nirvana of the Dharmin, though one may practice for ten thousand lifetimes.

Q. Of course the adharmins assert themselves, for we indeed exist and seek liberation from this existence.
A. Existence is of the mind only, it arises through the application of logic, nothing more. It follows the law of thought which in turn follows the laws of identity.
What exists is said to exist, that is its only existence as “I am I” or “this is this”. This is the law of identity.
What exists cannot be other than what is asserted, that “I cannot be other than I” or “this is not other than this”, this is the law of non-contradiction.
What exists must be either itself or not itself, but cannot partake of the nature of both. This is the law of the excluded middle.

Q. If the Dharmin asks us to relinquish logic, does he propose it’s alternative, that the adharmin can attain the nirvana of the Dharmin by the use of non-logic or the illogical?
A.The Dharmin would never countenance the stance of illogic for illogic still bows its head to logic because it still asserts things or entities that exist, only in the contrary stance that ‘this is that’, the cat is a dog, the house is a chariot, a person is a tree. This could not be acceptable under any circumstance.

Q. Then upon what basis does the Dharmin rest if He neither employs logic or the illogical?
A. The Dharmin rests in alogic for the Dharmin is always outside the bounds of both the logical and the illogical. The logical assertion of existents and the illogical confusion that this is that, will never find the Dharmin who is both pre-logical and post-logical in nature. The alogical arises when thought subsides and subsides when thought arises. Before a thought arises, there is Dharma, after the thought subsides, there is Dharma. The space between thoughts is Dharma, the thoughts between spaces is adharma.

Q. Does the Dharmin then rest in the space between thoughts?
A. The adharmin may say so however in the space between thoughts the concept of “the Dharmin” or “adharmin” who rests there cannot arise.

Q. How could the Dharmin sacrifice his intelligence by ceasing the thinking processes to rest in the space between thoughts?
A. Thought is not a sign of intelligence. Intelligence arises before thought. If this were not so then thought could not arise because it requires intelligence to think and create concepts. Intelligence creates thoughts, thinking never creates intelligence but is instead reliant on intelligence for thinking to operate. Thinking is the bookmarking of intelligence whereby thought-symbols are derived from perception. “Tree” is the symbol for the perceived object in the field. Both awareness and perception are required for intelligence to operate before the advent of the thought-symbol can arise.

Q. Does the Dharmin then admit the “perceived object” if he will not admit of the tree?
A. How could He? Whether the Dharmin speaks of the “perceived object” or “tree” the Dharmin only does so to explain to the adharmin. Both “tree” and “perceived object” are mere thought-symbols. The Dharmin resting in the space between thoughts neither affirms or denies the symbols “tree” and “perceived object”. Even the notion “The Dharmin resting in the space between thoughts” should not be entertained.

Q. What then is “Nirvana”?
A. Nirvana is an ancient word of Sanskrit origin, it is derived from two words ‘nir’ (no) ‘vana’ (woods or forest) Nirvana is the absence of hallmarks, characteristics or distinguishing traits. That which exudes these characteristics is thought itself. Where there are thoughts there is definition, where there is no thought there can be no definition. NirvANa is taken to mean the final extinction of those traits, the liberation from all assertions of identification from this and that.

Q. How can it be proven that nirvana is found where the characteristics are absent?
A. What do you see around you? Do you see the Dharmin surrounded by the assemblage?

Q. Yes, indeed I do.
A. Now, without raising a single thought, look around and what do you see?

… Pause …

Q. It cannot be said that I see a single thing or person. It cannot even be said that there was an “I” looking. Nor could it be said that “seeing” was functioning as all these were mere ideas, concepts or thoughts and that at this time they were absent.
A. Well said Varnu, for ‘seeing’ is distinguished from hearing, feeling, tasting and smelling. In the absence of thought they cannot be differentiated. They are neither different nor the same. In the language of delusion it may be said that for this brief moment you have attained the position of the Dharmin.

Q. Surely Varnu could not possibly attain the position of the Dharmin, it must take years or lifetimes to do so?
A. Dear Varnu, where there are thoughts there is delusion, where there are no thoughts there is no delusion. There cannot be a state of half delusion or half nirvana, neither can there be a working toward nirvana via practice, it is either one or the other. The teachers have taught that there is gradual progress by meditating at set times of the day, this is false understanding. There can be no ‘progress’ in Dharma, it is always immediate.

Q. The teachers speak of sitting meditation, focus of attention on a specific object and mindfulness practice for set times of the day. Why does the Dharmin not countenance such practice?
A. Sitting meditation is meant to silence the mind and void the senses in order to attain nirvana. Most struggle in their practice, very few arrive at the non-conceptual nirvana void of both concepts and the senses. When sitting meditation is ended nirvana is ended and the practitioner reverts to his normal state of conceptual delusion. The practitioner is then caught in the cycle of the conditions of samsara and the unconditioned nirvana, until he hopes to end that cycle of becoming at death whereby nirvana can remain permanent. The teachers call this nirvana at death “videha-mukti” or “pari-nirvana”. Because the practitioner has not the benefit of the Dharmin’s words he struggles endlessly.

Q. What is the difference between the teacher's methods and the Dharmins method?
A. The Dharmin has no method, however the teachers assert focus on things, be it watching the mind, focusing on the breath, repeating a mantra etc. The Dharmin ‘rests’ in the space between thoughts, those creators of things. This is the opposite of the teacher's instructions.

Q. How does the Dharmin void the senses?
A. The Dharmin makes no effort to void the senses. Why would he need to? The absence of thought is the absence of ‘The Dharmin’ the presence of thought is the presence of ‘The Dharmin’, when thoughts are absent and the senses surrender their cognitions the Dharmin is said to be in nirvikalpa samadhi, when the senses report their cognitions and thought is absent the Dharmin is said to be in savikalpa samadhi, however all this is meaningless to the Dharmin who ceases his existence in the non-conceptual regardless of whether cognitions are functioning or not. If no Dharmin can be found in life, there is no need to seek liberation (mukti) at death. The Dharmin has not arisen as a product of existence so the Dharmin can never cease to be, for what has never arisen cannot subside. Imagining the Dharmin to exist is the imaginings of the adharmin, nothing more.

Q. If the Dharmin does not countenance the instructions of the teachers how should the adharmin rest in the space between thoughts?
A. At all times, where the concepts are not required, the adharmin should be awake and aware of those moments when thoughts fall silent. At that moment the awareness should rest in that space. When a thought or series of thoughts arise the adharmin should not concern himself with the content of those thoughts but should instead wait for those thoughts to cease to be, then rest once again in the next space between thoughts. This should be one’s continuous ‘practice’ until it becomes firmly established. Do this now.

… Pause …

Q. Varnu’s thoughts seemed to be almost continuous with barely a space between them. What should the adharmin do to quieten his thoughts?
A. Nothing, absolutely nothing! Any attempt to quieten the mind will end in misery. If the adharmin succeeds he will simply reinforce the notion of the imaginary self who succeeds, if he fails he will lose faith in his practice. Though the thoughts in the adharmin are near continuous there are breaks, however small. The adharmin should carefully notice them. When noticed, these spaces grow larger until they become firmly established. This is the correct ‘practice’ of the adharmin. In the language of delusion a single moment in the space between thoughts is a single moment of the Dharmin, an hour spent in the space between thoughts is an hour as the Dharmin and a lifetime spent in the space between thoughts is a lifetime spent as the Dharmin.

Q. Does the Dharmin cease to be the Dharmin when thoughts arise to be used for communication?
A. The Dharmin uses thoughts as a tool of communication to those who assert themselves to be adharmins. There is no cherishing of the twin notions of selfhood and otherness. There is skill in using thought to serve the purpose of satisfying the queries of those self asserted adharmins whose delusions create the notion of ‘the Dharmin’. Even thought cannot be called ‘thought’ in the mind of the so-called ‘Dharmin’. The rain does not know of itself as ‘rain’, the mountains do not know of themselves as ‘mountains’ and the Dharmin similarly does not know of ‘himself’ as ‘the Dharmin’.

Q. Why are thoughts so continuous?
A. It is thinking that establishes and confirms identity, both of the ‘self’ and the ‘other’. If thoughts were few and far between then it would be easy for the adharmin to see through these delusions. To prevent this, thought must be almost continuous to maintain them, hence their constant assault on the mind. The adharmin’s observations of the space between thoughts merely reverses this unnatural process.

Q. Should the adharmin cease thinking permanently, never to think again?
A. The adharmin should use the thinking process like the tradesman uses his tools. Where thoughts are required they should be employed, where they are not so required they should be rested, ready for their next purpose. In the language of delusion when those thoughts are rested the adharmin ceases to be. Those other self asserted adharmins may then imagine a Dharmin in their midst.

Q. When does the adharmin become a Dharmin?
A. Never. The adharmin, whose self-defining, self-limiting thoughts come to an end simply ceases to be. Other adharmins, through their delusions based on assertion, may call this person “the Dharmin”. This ‘Dharmin’ cannot self-refer as such.

Q. We the adharmin seek to become one with the universe.
A. The adharmin can never become one with the universe for they are both a product of thought. If the existence of “self” is true then that existence is contradistinctive in nature for it implies that the assertion of “I” distinguishes itself from the vastness of not-I. If the existence of “other” is true then it implies the assertion of a “self” to whom the other refers. Either assertion of self or other implies their opposite. The adharmin seeks to be one with the universe however it is thought that creates both the notion of ‘the one’ and ‘universe’. The instant a thought arises it splits into two ‘I’ and the ‘universe’. Thought creates both duality and conditionality whereby the imagined self stands apart from its imagined universe. Both are nothing more than a fiction of the mind.

Q.The adharmin does not feel himself to be a fiction of mind. Why does the Dharmin say so?
A. It is without doubt that the claimed self of the adharmin is imaginary. The adharmin is in fact a collection of at least two imaginary selves in a single body thinking or communicating with each-other. This is why the adharmin refers to himself as “myself” – a self belonging to a self. The thinking process is a conversation between these imaginary selves. The internalised conversations from one imaginary self to the other is an encouraged form of sanity amongst the adharmins. The adharmin believes that if s/he converses with him/her self then intelligent problem solving conclusions may be arrived at. Worse still the adharmin’s use this form of self communication for recreational purposes, seeking self-opinions on virtually every aspect of the adharmin’s life. This mode of conduct is claimed to be a sane and acceptable part of an adharmin’s life. The adharmin teaches these processes to their offspring as soon as the infant is capable of forming word-concepts. How could the adharmin possibly become one with the universe if s/he is not even one with themselves? The Dharmin does not suffer from the adharmin’s notion of sanity, does not need to become one with ‘oneself’ and does not cherish the notion of ‘the universe’.

Q. Science says the universe is real, why does the Dharmin deny it?
A. The Dharmin neither confirms nor denies the universe, the Dharmin says that the universe and its viewer are products of thought. The teachers call this process ‘Maya’, the illusion of the dream of duality or conditionality. ‘Maya’ also means “to measure” and this is what the mind does every time a thought arises, this is what thought is – a measured assertion that produces differentiation and phenomena. Differentiation via measurement is the heart of science and the cause of ‘the universe’.

Q. We the adharmins experience this world as real.  What does the Dharmin say?
A. Reality and unreality also are products of thought, their ‘reality’ is maintained as long as the assertion of such is held. The senses report their impressions as common sense, or common-to-the-senses experiences. These experiences are asserted to be real as long as the involvement with them is maintained, but when the adharmin dreams or sleeps and his senses no longer function then his ‘reality’ evaporates with them. If the adharmin dreams then the dream senses report their dream reality and dissolve at the end of the dream, if the adharmin sleeps then all realities are forgotten whilst the sleep state is maintained. The adharmin cycles through the states of waking, dreaming and sleeping, imagining each one in turn to be real, whereas they are nothing more than a cycling and recycling of sensory perceptions or their absence in deep dreamless sleep. All the adharmins' so-called ‘realities’ eventually decay in time. Because the Dharmin neither asserts nor denies existents no claim to reality can be made.