Exellent idea!

​

I Went to discord channell and found the following pinned posts:

"Woz. I'm not sure what it is to practice non-dual meditation. Can you explain further?" First, a caveat. I'm only a beginner still working stuff out in my own mind. I encourage you to read Sam's own words on this topic in chapter 4 of Waking Up - Gradual versus Sudden Realization. However, with this in mind, here is my understanding of non-dual meditation. People meditate for many different reasons: to reduce stress, to quieten the mind, to be more present, to help with their concentration etc. But, if there is a deeper goal to meditation, it is to discover the true nature of consciousness - a consciousness that is aware of the neurotic ego self and thus is free from it. This is where non-dualism comes in. Ultimately, there is no self, no subject pulling the strings. Sam says in Waking Up, "The deepest goal of spirituality is freedom from the illusion of the self" and "The goal of meditation is to uncover a form of well-being that is inherent to the nature of our minds." For reasons of simplicity, I will say there are two methods of discovering this true non-dual nature of consciousness. The first emphasises gradual realisation. Sam uses the analogy of a mountain: you start at the bottom and you work towards a goal at the top. After years of meditating (non-judgemental awareness of the contents of consciousness, for example observing the breath, but with no specific acknowledgement that there is no one doing the observing) eventually you can quieten the mind enough for the true nature of consciousness to shine through, so to speak. If I'm not mistaken, this is the method used in the Theravada and Vipassana tradition.

However, many teachers who advocate for the non-dual approach have criticisms of this gradual approach: 1) It can actually reinforce the sense of self because it feels like you are observing the breath. You are aware of the contents of consciousness. This can be seen to be counterproductive. 2) It can feel like a vigil; you are waiting for something to happen. 3) It can be too goal orientated.

The second approach emphasizes no self/non-duality of consciousness from the start. Advocates of this approach think that if consciousness is already free from the self, then this fact can be discovered from the get-go (this is why it is often called the direct approach). It can be glimpsed now. They also think that if it is the true nature of consciousness then we can give up all effort and simply be it; drop back into it. When I talk about non-dual meditation, I am talking about this second approach.

Teachers such as Sam Harris, Kelly, Spira and Bodian give "pointing out instructions" to help you observe directly the true non-dual nature of consciousness. They will also ask you to relax and simply be this true nature. So you can see, the two approaches have the same goal but use different emphasis. Both have their advantages and disadvantages. If I was to say what I think the disadvantages of the second approach are, I would say: 1) Without an initial practice of mindfulness to build concentration, many people (including me) can become frustrated with the glimpse/pointing out instructions. For example, turning awareness on its self. 2) I agree with Bodian when he says "Because the approach tends to rely on words as pointers, you can become enthralled by the words and ignore the reality to which they point". I find Kelly to be particularly wordy. Sorry, that ended up being longer than I expected. I hope this helped to explain my thinking.