Realising their mistake,  
62the silent presence of awareness
he asked one of the men to count the group, being sure that he included  
himself at the end. ‘One, two, three…’ He arrived at ‘ten’ and, at that mo -
ment, each man realised that he had neglected himself. Likewise, we tend to focus on thoughts, images, memories, feelings,  
activities, relationships, and so on, but we neglect our self, the silent presence  
of awareness in the background that peacefully witnesses it all. That is, aware -
ness loses itself in the content of experience and, in doing so, overlooks  
or loses touch with itself. We pay for that neglect with our happiness. T o become aware of awareness does not require effort, any more than an  
effort was required for the tenth man to remember himself. All that is  
required is the relaxation  of a previous effort, namely, the exclusive focus of  
our attention on the content of experience at the expense of our being. As soon as this effort is relaxed, the presence of awareness shines by itself. It was always shining. It is always shining! However, if we are accustomed  
to losing our self in, or identifying our self with, the content of experience,  
it may seem, to begin with, that an effort is required to disentangle our self  
from experience, in which case we should make the effort. In time, what previously seemed to require an effort will be felt as our  
natural condition. Thus, what may seem at first to be a practice, something  
that we as a separate person do, turns out in the end to be a non-practice. Only from the limited perspective of the separate self does what we are be-
come something that we seem to do. 63 chapter eight
The Open, Empty, Aware Space
It is precisely because there is nothing within the One  
that all things are from it. plotinus   
 
Is it enough to recognise oneself as the witnessing presence of awareness in the  
background of experience? The recognition of awareness in the background of experience is, in most  
cases, a necessary first step. However, it is important to understand that  
the presence of awareness is not just the ever-present and unlimited back-
ground of experience but also the medium  or the field within which all ex -
perience arises, in which it exists and into which it disappears when it  
vanishes. It is obvious, even from a conventional point of view, that thoughts and  
feelings arise and exist within awareness. It is not so obvious that our experi -
ence of the body and the world, which is known only as a flow of sensations  
and perceptions, also takes place in awareness. If our attention travels from a thought to a sensation, for instance, the  
tingling of our face, hands or feet, and from a sensation to a perception,  
such as any sound that may be present in our environment, we do not find  
our attention leaving one field in which thoughts appear and entering a sec -
ond in which sensations appear, and then leaving the field in which sensa -
tions appear and entering a third in which perceptions arise. Our attention  
is always travelling in the  same  field, the field of awareness. As such, the relationship between awareness and experience is much more  
intimate than that of an impartial witness to the objects of experience. At this  
stage of understanding, awareness could be likened to a vast, empty, aware  
space within which the objects of experience arise, in which they exist while  
they are present and into which they vanish when they disappear. you are the happiness you seek
     At no point do we encounter, or could we ever encounter, anything that  
takes place outside awareness, just as a cloud never appears outside the sky. Even time and space, which we normally consider to be the vast containers  
within which all events and objects arise, are themselves experienced within  
awareness, the only place where any experience can appear. Prior to the arising of experience, awareness is empty of all objective con -
tent, just as the space of an unfurnished room is empty of objects. In fact,  
it is on account of the emptiness of awareness that the fullness of experience  
is able to arise within it. If awareness were not empty, there would be no room  
for experience within it, in the same way that if an unfurnished house were  
not empty, there would be no room for the furniture within it, or if a screen  
were not transparent, it would not be possible for a movie to appear on it. But my awareness seems to be confined and limited to my body. Allow your attention to range freely over the entire spectrum of your experi -
ence and see if you ever encounter anything that takes place outside aware -
ness. Would it be possible to have an experience that occurred outside  
awareness? See that your attention never leaves the field of awareness. What -
ever it encounters is encountered within awareness. Indeed, attention itself  
is the focusing of awareness within itself. Can you even imagine an experience that could take place outside aware -
ness? Consider the extremes of experience: a near-death encounter, a vision  
of God, a drug-induced trip, a moment of ecstasy, intense pain. See in this  
way that all experience takes place in the space of awareness, the only  
medium within which it is possible for any experience to occur. Notice that we are not speculating about an altered, expanded, mystical  
or enlightened state of awareness. Above all, we are not speculating about  
how awareness might become if we practise hard enough or meditate long  
enough; we are simply referring to our current, intimate, direct and ordinary  
experience of being aware. Now see if you can find an edge or limit to the field of awareness within  
which your experience arises. We find a limit to everything that we know or  
perceive, but do we find a limit to the field in which that limited experience  
arises? And if we do not find any such edge or limit, what legitimacy is there  
to our belief that it is limited? 66the open, empty, aware space
     It is true that awareness permeates the experience of the body, and this  
gives rise to the feeling that awareness is located in the body. However, the  
room in which you are currently sitting is filled with space, but the space is  
not located in, nor limited to, the room. It is the room that appears in space,  
not space in the room. Likewise, the awareness which permeates the body  
and which, as such, gives rise to the feeling ‘I am the body’ is not generated  
by, located within or limited to the body. Your body is an appearance in  
awareness; awareness doesn’t appear in your body. In fact, awareness is not a vast, empty space. Having no form, it cannot  
be measured and, therefore, cannot legitimately be said to have an extension  
in any dimension. However, it is not possible to think of or imagine some -
thing with no dimensions; indeed, something with no dimensions is not  
‘something’. So as a concession to the mind, to enable it to think about or  
imagine awareness, we add a space-like quality, visualising it as a vast, empty  
field or space within which the entire content of experience appears. All that  
is required now is to remove space from this image of an aware physical space  
and what remains is dimensionless awareness. I vividly remember the first time this became clear to me. Francis had often  
spoken of awareness as the space within which all experience arises, and  
although I had an intuitive understanding of this, I had never realised it in  
my own experience. One morning, I was sitting with Francis and a small group of friends in  
his and his wife Laura’s home in Northern California, when a dog began bark -
ing in the distance. I commented to him that it seemed obvious that the sound  
of the dog was taking place at a distance from, and outside of, myself. Francis  
suggested that I close my eyes and place my hands on the floor. I closed my  
eyes and slowly lowered my hands until they were resting on the carpet. He then asked where the sensation was taking place. Was it taking place  
within awareness or outside awareness? I paused, referred to my experience,  
and realised that the sensation generated by my hands on the floor was taking  
place in exactly the same space of awareness in which my thoughts and feel -
ings were occurring. Before I had time to digest this insight fully, my understanding began to  
unravel, one recognition leading to another. I turned my attention again to  
the barking dog and realised that, if I referred only to my direct, immediate  
67you are the happiness you seek
experience, without reference to thought or memory, it too was taking place  
within the space of awareness and at no distance from it. It became clear that thought conceptualised ‘the sound of a dog in the  
distance’ but all I actually knew of this sound was the experience of hearing , 
and hearing was taking place here, within myself, that is, within awareness. There was no distance between myself, awareness, and the experience of  
hearing. I had barely begun to ponder the implications of this observation when the  
thought arose, ‘If awareness accommodates my entire experience, including  
the experience of the body and the world, what is the nature  of the space of  
awareness within which these experiences are arising?’  
     A line from Milton’s Paradise Lost  came to mind, ‘Thine this universal  
frame, thus wondrous fair: Thyself how wondrous then!’ * The focus of my  
interest shifted from the sensation of my hands on the floor and the sound  
of the barking dog to the space of awareness itself. Awareness was turning  
its attention upon itself. Until then I had believed and felt that awareness was located somewhere  
behind my eyes, looking out at the world, but now I was experiencing the  
body and the world within myself. It was obvious that awareness perceived  
the world  through  the body, but I had mistakenly presumed that this implied  
that it was located in and limited to the body. The awareness with which the character in a dream perceives the world  
is not located in her body or, indeed, anywhere in the world which she per -
ceives. It is, within the limits of the analogy, located in the dreamer’s mind. Could the same be true of our experience in the waking state? I looked for a limit or an edge to the field of awareness within which my  
current experience was appearing, just as I used to lie awake in bed as a child  
wondering how far physical space extended. However, the further I went,  
the more the edge or limit of awareness eluded me. Like a scientist performing experiments to test the validity of a theory,  
I wanted to subject the possibility that awareness might be unlimited to the  
scrutiny of experience. Could I find or even imagine an experience that could  
take place outside of awareness? 68* John Milton, Paradise Lost , Book v (1674 ).the open, empty, aware space
     Having said that, when I say, ‘I looked for a limit or an edge’, I do not  
mean to imply that I am one thing and awareness another. It was I, awareness,  
that was contemplating my experience of myself. In this way it became clear  
that in awareness’s experience of itself there is no limit or edge. all-encompassing awareness  
 
As I, awareness, sank more and more deeply into my being, I felt that I was  
disentangling myself from thoughts, images, feelings, sensations and percep -
tions. As I did so, I felt myself expanding. I was no longer located in the head  
or chest. I was the vast, open, aware space in which everything was appearing. It was both frightening and exhilarating: frightening because my habitual  
experience of being a finite self, located in and limited to the body, was  
rapidly dissolving; and exhilarating because I could not help but notice , 
in spite of the fear, the freedom and joy that accompanied this recognition. It would be some time before I realised that I was not, of course, expan -
ding. The belief that awareness was located within and limited to my head  
was simply being exposed and dissolved in the face of the evidence of ex -
perience. I began to feel what I had often read about in the traditional lit -
erature but had never been able to verify for myself: namely, that awareness  
extends beyond the limits of the body and the finite mind within which it  
seems to be housed, and encompasses the entire universe. Just as my mind began to assimilate this understanding, it was followed  
by another. If physical space were emptied of all objects, we would have no  
experience of distance. Likewise, it is only in reference to the content of ex -
perience that awareness is considered a vast space. In our actual experience,  
that is, in awareness’s experience of itself, there is no thought or perception  
and, therefore, no experience of time or space. We all experience this vividly in deep sleep, when there is no activity of  
thinking and perceiving and, therefore, no corresponding experience of time  
and space. With this understanding, the mind’s attempt to conceptualise awareness  
comes naturally and effortlessly to an end. As a concession to the mind, it is  
legitimate to conceptualise awareness as an open, empty space, but in the  
absence of any need to do so, the mind falls silent and there is just the aware -
ness of being, whose nature is unfathomable peace. 69 chapter nine
Peace and Happiness Is Our Nature
I have seen what you want; it is there,  
a beloved of infinite tenderness. catherine of siena  
 
the inherently peaceful nature of awareness   
 
Just as the physical space of a room cannot be agitated by anything that takes  
place within it, so we, awareness, cannot be disturbed by anything that takes  
place within us. Agitated thoughts, images, feelings, sensations and percep -
tions may arise, but the space-like presence of awareness within which they  
appear is itself not disturbed by them. Thus, its nature is peace. And just as the space of a room is not made  peaceful by modifying the  
behaviour of the people inside it, but is inherently at peace before, during  
and after their various activities, so our essential nature of pure awareness is  
always at peace, irrespective of the content of experience. It does not need  
to be purified, improved or stilled. Whatever the content of experience that arises within it, awareness always  
remains the same: open, empty, allowing, undisturbed and without resis -
tance. Awareness does not need to be made peaceful through effort, practice  
or discipline. It only need be recognised as such. That is, it only need recog -
nise or know itself as such. In fact, awareness is always knowing itself as it essentially is, but its knowl -
edge of itself is mixed with its knowledge of objective experience and seems,  
as a result, to acquire its qualities. Just as a motionless screen seems to move  
when a movie begins, so we, awareness, seem to become agitated when we  
become entangled in the content of experience. The inherent peace of awareness is not a temporary state of mind. It is the  
very nature  of awareness itself and, as such, does not depend upon what  you are the happiness you seek
does or does not take place in experience. It is prior to, and independent  
of, the content of experience and is always available in the background of  
experience. It is the peace that ‘passeth understanding’, the peace for which there is  
no explanation in the content of experience. It cannot be caused; it can only  
be recognised. It cannot disappear; it can only be ignored. It is the context  
of the mind, not its content. We usually first notice this peace in the background of experience and  
may only seem to have access to it in between our agitated thoughts and feel -
ings, just as the screen only seems to become visible in between movies. However, in time the content of our experience begins to lose its veiling  
power, just as a movie loses its capacity to veil the screen. As a result, the  
background of peace begins to percolate into the foreground of experience,  
which is in turn gradually and progressively permeated by it. Awareness is not changed by the content of experience, but the content  
of experience is progressively changed by the peace of awareness. happiness is the nature of awareness  
 
Just as the empty space of a room does not stand to gain or lose anything  
from whatever takes place within it, likewise we, awareness, are not enhanced  
or diminished by any experience, however pleasant or unpleasant it may be. Awareness is always in the same pristine condition. No experience adds anything to it or removes anything from it. As such,  
awareness has no vested interest in experience. It is utterly, intimately one  
with experience, open without resistance to it and yet, at the same time,  
needs nothing from it. It does not need to be fulfilled or completed by ex -
perience . Awareness lacks or wants for nothing. As such, it is whole, complete, un -
conditionally fulfilled, content. From a human perspective this wholeness,  
completeness or absence of lack is felt as the experience of happiness. When  
we experience happiness we are literally experiencing our essential nature. Happiness is the taste of awareness. Happiness is not a temporary state of mind, or even an emotion in the  
ordinary sense of the word. It is the ever-present background of all changing  
states and emotions. It is the nature  of our self. As such, we cannot know  
72peace and happiness is our nature
happiness as an objective experience; we can only be it. Likewise, we cannot  
be unhappy; we can only know  it. Happiness is sometimes referred to as the ease of being, because it is to  
be found in the simple knowing of our own being as it essentially is. I well remember the first time it became obvious that happiness is the very  
nature of my being. There was nothing extraordinary about it and it was not  
preceded by any particular experience. It just dawned on me. One moment  
it was not clear; the next moment it was. The awareness of being is happiness itself. How could I have missed such  
an obvious truth? I looked back over twenty years of study and practice and  
realised that all the texts and teachings had been pointing to this simple rec -
ognition. I recalled the innumerable attempts I had made in my life to secure hap -
piness through objects, substances, activities, states of mind and relationships,  
and now, in the depths of my being, a quiet joy was revealing itself effortlessly. Although this understanding would, over the ensuing years, be veiled  
from time to time by the old habit of seeking fulfilment in objective experi -
ence, it was never again completely eclipsed. The old habit had been dealt a  
mortal wound, and it was only a matter of time before it would dissipate,  
gradually giving way to an imperturbable peace. This peace was not new, nor was it something extraordinary. It was fam -
iliar, like an old friend with whom I had lost touch and was now reunited. It became clear that the answer to the question that had first formu -
lated itself in my mind almost twenty years earlier, ‘What is the source of  
lasting peace and happiness?’, lay in the simple recognition of my own  
being. In short, it became clear that peace and happiness is the very nature  
of our self. am i ready to know my self? My experience is so overwhelming much of the time that I sometimes wonder  
whether I can ever recognise the presence of awareness. Everyone is equally qualified to undertake this investigation and recognise  
their true nature, simply by virtue of the fact that they are aware. It is the  
73you are the happiness you seek
very awareness with which you are currently aware of these words that has  
the capacity to soften the focus of its attention from the content of your  
experience, come back to itself and recognise its innate peace. It is not even necessary to change or get rid of any element of experience,  
to still or silence the mind, to change negative thoughts into positive ones,  
or to transform unpleasant feelings. Whether we are deeply depressed, madly  
in love or simply drinking tea, we are aware of our experience. The awareness that knows the experience of depression is the same aware -
ness that is aware of the experience of being in love or the taste of tea. Even  
our most confused thoughts arise in the clarity of awareness. Even our darkest  
feelings arise in the luminous presence of awareness. Is it possible that I’m just not ready? This is a way of understanding, not a path of effort. Any effort would  
arise on behalf of a self that deemed its current experience insufficient  
and, therefore, in need of improvement. It would not arise on behalf of  
the true and only self of inherently peaceful and unconditionally fulfilled  
awareness. This is a way of recognition and expression: the recognition of what is  
always already the case, and its subsequent expression or celebration in our  
lives. It has nothing to do with changing or improving a self which, when  
investigated, cannot be found as such. And yet, changes do take place in our  
lives as an inevitable consequence of this understanding. All that is necessary is to cease being exclusively fascinated by or lost in  
the content of experience and to return to our self. Strictly speaking, we do  
not even need to return to our self. When we get undressed at night, we do  
not return to our naked body. It is simply revealed. Our naked body was  
there all along, underneath our clothes. Likewise, our inherently peaceful and unconditionally fulfilled being  
is present behind, and in the midst of, all experience. All that is necessary  
is to relax the focus of our attention from the content of experience and  
our being will shine by itself. It is, as such, a relaxation of effort, not a  
new effort. This kind of happiness seems out of reach for ordinary people. 74peace and happiness is our nature
No special qualifications, abilities or circumstances are required to recognise  
the nature of awareness. No sage – the Buddha, Meister Eckhart, Lao Tzu,  
Ramana Maharshi, Anandamayi Ma, Jesus or any other – had privileged  
access to the fact of being aware or awareness itself. They were ordinary people, like each of us, who simply had a deep de -
sire to know the nature of their being. They understood that happiness  
was to be found only in their own being and were passionate about finding  
it there. Nor does this recognition require special affiliation to any particular  
tradition or person. One who has recognised the nature of their essential  
being knows that it is not coloured or qualified by any particular tradition,  
although they may continue to operate within that tradition, emphasising  
its inner meaning rather than its outer form, for the benefit of those who  
have yet to understand its full meaning. Will I know when it happens? This recognition may take place in contemplative moments, between  
thoughts and activities or during them, just as an actress may recognise that  
she is not defined by, or limited to, the part she plays in between perform -
ances or during a performance. We may not even notice that a specific recognition has taken place. We simply notice that the almost constant activity of negotiating experience  
for the purpose of seeking happiness has diminished, and in its place a cause -
less peace has arisen. Either way, our inherently peaceful and unconditionally  
fulfilled nature of awareness does not need to be liberated from the content  
of experience. Its nature is already such. The recognition may be accompanied by a dramatic relaxation of tension  
in the body or agitation in the mind, but this should not be mistaken for  
the recognition of our true nature itself. It is just as possible that this recog -
nition may be accompanied by the simple thought, ‘Oh, of course, why  
didn’t I see this before?’  
     In time, this understanding will have a profound effect on our thoughts  
and feelings, and our subsequent activities and relationships, but this may  
be subtle and take place over a long period of time, depending on the extent  
to which our character diverged from it to begin with. 75you are the happiness you seek
     In fact, the realignment of the way we think, feel, perceive, act and re -
late with this new understanding never really comes to an end. Previously  
experience eclipsed awareness. Now awareness shines in the midst of experi -
ence, and all experience is progressively pervaded by and saturated with it,  
until it is finally outshone by it. 76chapter ten
A Belief in Separation
The birds have vanished down the sky. Now the last cloud drains away. We sit together, the mountain and me,  
until only the mountain remains. li po  
 
If our essential nature is ever-present and unlimited awareness, what is the ego  
or separate self, and how does it arise? The ego or separate self could be defined as the identification of our self,  
awareness, with the content of experience, or the mixture of awareness with  
the limited qualities of the mind and body. In the next chapter we will explore how awareness seems to acquire the  
limitations of the mind, which in this context I refer to mainly as thoughts  
and feelings. In this chapter we will explore how awareness seems to be de -
fined by, contained within and limited to the body. In speaking of the body in this way, I refer to it in the conventional  
sense, as a physical object. This of course implies an inherent dualism be -
tween the mind and body which is not intended, and which breaks down  
upon further scrutiny, but it is the way that most people understand and  
feel the body and is, therefore, a good starting point for how the belief in  
separation arises. T o understand how the unlimited presence of awareness that we essen -
tially are becomes, or seems to become, the finite self or ego, let us take the  
analogy of physical space again. Imagine the physical space of the universe before it contained any gal -
axies, planets or stars. It is a vast, borderless, empty space. Now in your im -
agination add the quality of knowing  or being aware  to this empty physical  
space. It is now an aware  physical space. you are the happiness you seek
     Prior to the appearance of galaxies, stars and planets, there is nothing in  
this aware space for it to know or perceive. It is pure, objectless, aware physi -
cal space, pure in the sense that it is devoid of any content or objectivity. However, simply by virtue of the fact that it is aware, it knows  itself . The aware physical space’s knowledge of itself does not take place in  
subject–object relationship, for a subject can only exist in relation to a sep -
arate object and vice versa. Its knowledge of itself is, as such, unique. It knows  
itself just by being itself, in the same way that the sun illuminates itself simply  
by being itself. In this case, that which knows is that which is known, without  
any separate subject that knows or any object that is known. i simply am  
 
Now let us imagine that we were able to have a conversation with this aware  
physical space. Just as, in everyday life, we tend to ask a person their name  
before any other conversation, we ask the aware physical space what it would  
call itself if it were to give itself a name. ‘I’, it replies, for ‘I’ is the name that anything that knows itself gives to  
itself. It is for this reason that everyone refers to their self as ‘I’. We now ask the aware physical space about its primary experience of itself. ‘I simply am’, it replies, surprised that such a self-evident fact of experience  
even requires mentioning. The knowledge ‘I am’ refers to the aware physical  
space’s knowledge of itself before it is qualified by any other experience. And as, at this stage, there is nothing in itself other than itself, the knowledge  
‘I am’ is the totality of its experience. There is only its awareness of being. We now ask the aware physical space if it experiences any limitation or  
division within itself. However, having no experience of anything other than  
itself, it does not even understand the meaning of the word ‘limitation’ or  
‘division’, and so remains silent. ‘Do you have a size, shape, age, gender, location, weight or boundary?’  
we ask. Again, silence. The aware physical space has no knowledge or experi -
ence of anything within itself that would enable it to qualify itself in these,  
or indeed any, terms. ‘Are you ever disturbed, restless or agitated?’ we ask. The aware physical  
space refers to its experience of itself and, again, looks puzzled. Disturbance,  
restlessness, agitation? There is just its own endless, silent, motionless openness. 78a belief in separation
     ‘Do you lack anything?’ we enquire, already intuiting its silent response. No,  
there is just the fullness of its own emptiness. It is neither something nor nothing,  
for there are, as yet, no things with which it could be qualified or contrasted. This absence of limitation, disturbance or lack does not need to be concep -
tualised, for there is nothing in its experience of itself with which to contrast  
these qualities. Later they will be referred to, from the perspective of human  
experience, as its innate freedom, peace and happiness, not a freedom, peace  
and happiness that are relative to their opposites but the absolute qualities  
of its own nature. Fast-forward several billion years, to the twenty-first century. The same  
aware physical space is now populated with galaxies, stars and planets. One  
of these planets is the Earth, on which are situated innumerable buildings. We enter one such building and make our way to one of the rooms. Now we ask the aware physical space in the room  what its name is. ‘I’ it  
replies, for as always, ‘I’ is the name that that which knows itself gives to  
itself. Then we ask the aware space in the room about its experience of itself. The aware space in the room looks around and says, ‘I am small, square,  
limited, dark and confined. I am contained within these walls, defined by  
their shape and dependent upon them for my existence.’ A hint of nostalgia  
in its voice betrays the faint memory of the distant past when it knew itself  
without any such limitation. We suggest to the aware space in the room that in describing itself in this  
way, it is not actually referring to its experience of itself but rather to the  
qualities and characteristics of the room in which it seems to be located. ‘Instead of looking at the four walls of the room, look at yourself’,  
we suggest. The space in the room turns its attention away from the four  
walls of the room and gives its attention to itself. ‘I am…’ A long silence  
ensues. It cannot find anything in its experience of itself to add to its essential  
awareness of simply being. The aware physical space in the room suddenly realises that the feeling of  
longing that has characterised it ever since it seemed to have been contained  
within the four walls of the room was not, in fact, a memory of its distant  
past. It was the recognition of its own essential, ever-present being – the aware  
physical space of the universe – filtering through the limitations of the room  
with which it had mistakenly identified itself, drawing itself back into itself. 79you are the happiness you seek
     The yearning to which it had become accustomed, as the almost constant  
backdrop of its experience, falls away as an inevitable consequence of this  
recognition, and its innate freedom and peace are immediately restored. an imaginary limitation  
 
Let us relate this to the experience of being a separate self or ego. The rela -
tionship between our essential nature of ever-present, unlimited awareness  
and the separate self or ego which we seem to be is analogous to the rela -
tionship between the unlimited aware physical space of the universe and the  
apparently confined aware space in the room. Just as the aware space in the room was the same space as the unlimited  
aware space of the universe, so the self of the separate self or ego is the same 
self as the self of awareness, albeit with an imaginary limitation attached to it. Just as the aware physical space identified itself with the four walls of the  
room within which it seemed to be contained and, as a result, believed and felt  
that it was small, confined and limited, likewise we, awareness, become mixed  
up in or identified with the ‘four walls’ of the body within which we seem to  
be contained and seem, as a result, to become a temporary, finite self. Instead of understanding that I, awareness, pervade the body and perceive  
the world through it, we believe and feel that I am contained within , limited  
to and generated by the body. As a result, the experience ‘I am’ is eclipsed by  
the belief ‘I am the body’. This mixture or identification of unlimited awareness  
with the limitations of the body creates the illusory separate self or ego. What is the separate self’s relationship with awareness? The temporary, finite self does not, of course, exist in its own right , any more  
than the aware space of the room exists separate from or independent of the  
aware physical space of the universe. It is simply a belief, albeit a persistent  
and powerful one. Nor can we say that a relationship exists between awareness and the sep -
arate self or ego, because they are not two entities in the first place, just as  
the aware physical space of the universe and the space in the room are not  
two separate spaces. The latter is simply an imaginary limitation of the  
former. 80a belief in separation
     Thus, the separate self or ego is an illusory entity whose reality is derived  
from ever-present, unlimited awareness and whose apparent limitations are  
deduced from the fact that it perceives the world through the body and  
seems, as a result, to be located within and limited to it. The identification of awareness with the limitations of the body is the  
seed of the apparently separate self or ego on whose behalf most of our  
thoughts and feelings arise, and in whose service most activities and rela -
tionships are engaged. Is it possible to live and act in the world without the feeling of being a separate  
self or ego? I’m afraid that if I let go of myself as a separate self I’ll no longer be  
able to function properly or have relationships. The real question is whether it is possible to live and act sanely, harmoniously  
and creatively in the world with the feeling of being a separate self or ego. The sense of being a separate self is responsible for only three aspects of our  
life: unhappiness on the inside, conflict between individuals, communities  
and nations on the outside, and the exploitation and degradation of the en -
vironment. Feeling itself to be a fragment, the separate self feels incomplete and un -
fulfilled, giving rise to the almost constant activity of seeking and resisting. That is, the ego is the source of all psychological suffering. And just as the aware physical space in the room feels itself as an inde -
pendently existing space, cut off and separate from all other spaces in the  
universe, so the separate self feels separate from everyone else. The aware  
space of the room is, of course, the same space as all other apparent spaces,  
but it does not know this. Likewise, the separate self or ego does not realise that it shares its being  
with all other people and animals, giving rise to the feelings of isolation,  
envy, greed, injustice, cruelty, and so on. As such, the ego is the main source  
of all conflict. Lastly, the ego does not realise that, at the deepest level, it shares its  
own being not only with everyone but with everything. This belief veils  
the felt sense of oneness with all of nature, thereby enabling it to exploit,  
consume and degrade the natural world with no regard for the con -
sequences. 81you are the happiness you seek
     Therefore, if we as individuals in particular, and as a society in general,  
wish to be at peace and to live happy, creative and fulfilled lives; if we wish  
to have harmonious relationships with friends, family and strangers, irre -
spective of whether or not we agree with their ideas; and if we wish to live  
in a harmonious and sustainable relationship with nature, one thing alone  
is required: to evolve beyond the sense of separation or ego. 82chapter eleven
There Is Only One Self
Otherness for the One  
is the One without otherness. balyani  
 
I understand that the ego is an illusion, but it seems absolutely real. It feels as if  
there are two selves in me. One is this illusory ego that governs most of my life,  
and the other is the presence of awareness that I get occasional glimpses of. If these  
two are really the same self, why do they feel so very different? The reason that your sense of self feels very real is that there is something  
that is undeniably true about your sense of yourself. When I suggest that the  
separate self or ego is an illusion, I do not mean to imply that it is non-existent. An illusion is not something that is non-existent. It is something that does 
exist but is not what it appears to be . All illusions have a reality to them. For instance, the landscape in a movie  
is an illusion but its reality, relatively speaking, is the screen. The water in a  
mirage is illusory, but light is its reality. The snake we believe we see in the  
twilight is really a rope. In each case, all we are actually seeing is the reality  
of the illusory object, albeit with an illusion superimposed onto it. Just as the aware physical space in the room owes its reality to the unli -
mited aware space of the universe but borrows its limitations from the four  
walls of the room, so the apparently separate self or ego owes its reality to  
ever-present, unlimited awareness but borrows its apparent limitations from  
the qualities of experience with which it seems to be mixed or identified. This is why everyone’s sense of ‘being myself’ is absolutely and undeniably  
real. It’s just that, in most people’s experience, their sense of self is so thor -
oughly mixed with the content of experience that, whilst they always know  
their self to an extent, they do not know their self clearly. you are the happiness you seek
you always know your self  
 
T o better understand the relationship between the apparently separate self  
or ego and our true nature of pure awareness, consider again the actor, John  
Smith, who plays the part of King Lear. John Smith lives a peaceful and fulfilled life at home. Every evening he  
goes to his theatre, puts on a costume, assumes a series of thoughts, feelings,  
activities and relationships and seems to become King Lear, without, of  
course, ever actually ceasing to be John Smith. However, although John Smith always knows that he is John Smith, he  
sometimes becomes so absorbed in, or identified with, the thoughts, feelings,  
activities and relationships of the part he is playing that he forgets or over -
looks himself. He loses himself in his own creativity and, as a result, his  
knowledge of himself as John Smith is temporarily obscured by the belief  
and feeling that he is King Lear. King Lear is not a person in his own right, so even the belief ‘I am King Lear’  
is really John Smith’s knowledge of himself, albeit coloured by the character of  
King Lear. In other words, there are not two people, John Smith and King Lear. There is  one person , either revealed as John Smith or concealed as King Lear. As such, King Lear is an imaginary  person, an  illusory  self, created by the  
mixture of the very real person, John Smith, with certain thoughts, feelings,  
activities and relationships. However, from his own perspective, King Lear  
believes and feels that he is a real person, and he suffers accordingly. King  
Lear is right to feel that he is real, but he wrongly attributes that reality to  
himself as an independently existing person, forgetting that his sense of him -
self is derived solely from the reality of John Smith. John Smith is, as such,  
the reality of the illusory person King Lear. In the same way, the unlimited awareness that we essentially are becomes  
mixed up in, or identified with, the content of experience – thoughts, feelings  
and sensations – and seems, as a result, to acquire their limitations. Just as John Smith ‘clothes’ himself in thoughts, feelings and activities  
and seems, as a result, to become King Lear, so we, awareness, ‘clothe’ ourself  
in experience and seem to become a temporary, finite self. The temporary, finite self that we seem to be feels very real because it is 
real. Its reality is ever-present, unlimited awareness. All that is unreal or, more  
84there is only one self
accurately, illusory about it are the limitations we ascribe to it. These limita -
tions are imaginary. They are superimposed by thought onto the reality of  
our self. Suggesting that you get ‘occasional glimpses’ of your true nature is like  
suggesting that King Lear gets occasional glimpses of John Smith. It is not  
King Lear who has glimpses of, or comes to know, John Smith, for John  
Smith is the only person present. John Smith is always knowing himself, but his knowledge of himself is  
mixed with certain thoughts, feelings, activities and relationships, and there -
fore he ceases to know himself clearly . He knows himself partially, for even  
his belief in himself as King Lear is really his knowledge of himself as John  
Smith, albeit veiled or dimmed. Likewise, you always know yourself. That is, you, awareness, always know  
yourself, but your knowledge of yourself is mixed up with thoughts, feelings,  
sensations, activities and relationships and, therefore, you do not know your -
self clearly . You have allowed yourself to become endarkened by experience. What is commonly referred to as enlightenment is simply the removal of  
your ignorance of yourself and the clear seeing of yourself as you essentially  
are, before you are qualified in any way by experience. So there is no question of two selves, one either knowing or not knowing  
the other. There is  just your self – ever-present, unlimited awareness – either  
partially veiling itself with its own activity of thinking, feeling, sensing and  
perceiving, and seeming, as a result, to be a temporary, finite self, or ceasing  
to veil itself and thus knowing itself as it essentially is. the price of name and form  
 
Does this mean that as long as I seem to be a separate self and have experiences,  
I will have problems and suffer? Experience itself is not problematic; it is our identification with it that is  
problematic. There is nothing inherently troublesome for John Smith about  
assuming the character of King Lear. He does so for the sake of the play. For instance, doing so enables him to have three daughters, become the  
king of England and go to war with France. However, it is problematic for  
John Smith to lose himself so completely in the character of King Lear that  
85you are the happiness you seek
he forgets who he really is. His suffering does not begin with assuming the  
character of King Lear; it begins with the belief that he is that character. Now imagine that, as the character King Lear, John Smith becomes so  
lost in the drama of his experience that he forgets to revert to himself at the  
end of the play. A colleague who comes backstage to congratulate him on  
his performance is surprised to find him miserable. ‘Why are you so unhappy?’ he asks, and in response, King Lear recounts  
his troubles with his daughters, his kingdom and the war with France. ‘You  
are not miserable for any of these reasons’, his friend remonstrates. ‘You are  
miserable because you have forgotten who you really are! Who are you really?’  
     ‘I am the father of three daughters, I am the king of England and I am  
at war with France, to name just a few of my troubles!’ King Lear protests. His response is, of course, only partially true. In each of these descrip -
tions he refers to his essential knowledge of himself as ‘I am’. However, his  
knowledge of himself is mixed with the content of his experience. He has  
allowed himself to be qualified by his experience, and as a result he no  
longer knows himself clearly. This lack of clear self-knowledge is alone  
responsible for his suffering. ‘No!’ exclaims his friend. ‘You have not always been a father or a king,  
nor have you always been at war. Who are you prior to these relationships  
and activities?’ King Lear describes his thoughts and feelings, but again his  
friend reminds him that none of these are essential to him. They all con -
tinually appear and disappear in his experience, but he remains. Without realising it, King Lear is travelling back through layers of his  
experience towards his essential self or being. As his friend’s questions continue, King Lear finds it more and more  
difficult to respond. Long silences replace his previously agitated thoughts  
and feelings, for he cannot find any words to describe the nature of himself. The more deeply he sinks into himself, the less he feels he is defined by the  
character of King Lear. Then, at some point, he comes to himself, remembers  
himself: ‘I am John Smith!’  
 
There is nothing extraordinary or mysterious about the recognition ‘I am  
John Smith’. It is not some new knowledge that John Smith acquires. On the contrary, all that has happened is that his previous ignorance of him -
self has been removed. In fact, knowing himself as John Smith is the most  
86there is only one self
intimate, ordinary and familiar experience he has. It was simply obscured  
on account of his immersion in, or identification with, the content of  
experience. All of King Lear’s suffering arises on behalf of himself, the one whom he  
believes is being disrespected and maltreated by his daughters. However, if he  
looks inside himself, he undoubtedly finds thoughts and feelings, but he does  
not find the mistreated man, the suffering self, on whose behalf they arise. The actual person King Lear cannot be found. He does not exist as such. After tracing his way back through the layers of his experience, discarding  
anything that is not essential to him, there is the recognition ‘I am John  
Smith’ and, as a result, the immediate end of his suffering. In the absence of  
the person King Lear, his suffering simply cannot stand. Of course, it is not King Lear who has the recognition ‘I am John Smith’. There is no such person either to have, or not to have, the experience of being  
John Smith. From the illusory perspective of King Lear, it seems that he is  
exploring his true nature or practising self-enquiry. However, there is no such  
person or entity present either to practise, or not to practise, self-enquiry. The person that John Smith seemed to be  – King Lear – and the person  
that John Smith really is  are the same person. The former is simply an im -
aginary, self-assumed limitation of the latter. There is only one person: John  
Smith concealed or John Smith revealed. The concealing of John Smith’s true  
nature was the cause of his suffering; the revelation of his true nature is the  
restoration of his innate peace and happiness. The same happens with our self, awareness. It is awareness itself that freely  
assumes the activities of thinking and perceiving, without actually ceasing  
to be itself. There is nothing inherently problematic about doing so; indeed,  
it enables experience to take place. Without ‘clothing’ itself in the activities of thought and perception,  
awareness would not be able to perceive or participate in the world. How -
ever, this comes at a price: in so doing, the formless, unconditioned presence  
of awareness seems to become qualified by, and subject to, the limitations of  
experience. Awareness loses itself, or seems to lose itself, in experience. This identification of the presence of awareness with the qualities of ex -
perience constitutes the separate self or ego around whom most people’s lives  
revolve. The separate self or ego is, as such, a compound entity whose essence  
87you are the happiness you seek
is the presence of awareness and whose personal, limited, separate qualities  
are derived from the content of experience. All psychological suffering takes place on behalf of this apparently separ -
ate self or ego. That is the price that the nameless, formless reality of unli -
mited awareness pays for assuming a name and a form. Although the separate  
self or ego is an illusion, from its own perspective it seems to be very real,  
and it suffers accordingly. Because the reality of the separate self is the true and only self of unli -
mited awareness, it is only necessary for the apparently separate self to in -
vestigate itself, discarding anything that is not essential to it, until its  
essential, irreducible reality of pure awareness is revealed. Thus, the apparently separate self or ego who seeks happiness, and the  
true and only self of pure awareness whose nature is happiness, are the same 
self, partially concealed in the former, fully revealed in the latter. *     *     *  
 
If the separate self is an illusion, what sense does it make to suggest that it should  
engage in some kind of spiritual practice or investigation? One could argue that it is meaningless to suggest a practice or method to an  
illusory self, for the self that seeks happiness is like a wave in the ocean in  
search of water. Indeed, one could even contend that any such practice would  
further substantiate its illusory existence. This may be true from an absolute point of view. However, returning to  
our analogy, it is highly unlikely that John Smith would have disentangled  
himself spontaneously from his involvement in King Lear’s character without  
the intervention of his friend. Therefore, as a concession to the illusory self  
of King Lear, it is legitimate, and indeed necessary, to suggest that he explore  
his true nature or practise self-enquiry. Likewise, it is extremely unusual for our self, awareness, to spontaneously  
extricate itself from the drama of experience and recognise its own unlimited  
nature, not to mention abide stably as that, without some intervention in  
the stream of its experience. Although the recognition of our true nature cannot be caused by any  
activity, or the cessation of any activity, of the mind, if we prematurely  
88there is only one self
subscribe to the belief that there is nothing we can do to bring about the  
end of our suffering, and we do not engage in some investigation or practice,  
we will tend to remain immersed in a habitual cycle of seeking and resisting,  
punctuated by brief periods of peace or joy. Therefore, as a compassionate concession to the apparently separate self  
or ego that most of us believe and feel ourselves to be, the religious and spiri -
tual traditions elaborate practices or pathways which lead towards the rec -
ognition of our true nature. That is, they take us from the self we seem to be  
to the self that we essentially are, from suffering to happiness. Some of these practices give the apparently separate self an activity to  
undertake, with the intention of gradually purifying it until it is sufficiently  
refined to merge into its source. Others attempt to undermine the apparently  
separate self by refusing to recommend any practice that could be appropri -
ated by it and used to validate and substantiate its illusory existence. Others, such as the approach suggested here, recommend going directly  
to the heart of the matter and investigating the self we believe ourself to be,  
thereby revealing its inherently peaceful and unconditionally fulfilled nature. 89 chapter twelve
Who Is It That Suffers? Let yourself be silently drawn by the  
stronger pull of what you really love. rumi  
 
If our essential nature is inherently peaceful and happy, why do we suffer so much? Let us first make a clear distinction between physical pain, discomfort or  
danger and psychological suffering. Pain, discomfort and resistance to danger  
arise on behalf of the safety and well-being of the body. They are expressions  
of the body’s innate intelligence to protect and preserve itself. For instance, if we have a toothache, the pain is an intelligent signal that  
the body requires attention. If we are hungry, the mildly uncomfortable sen -
sation indicates that the body requires nutrition. If our house is on fire, our  
resistance to the situation arises on behalf of our safety and those in our care. By contrast, psychological suffering arises on behalf of the belief that we  
are a separate and independently existing self. Imagine, for instance, that  
someone says something and we are hurt by it. Who or what is hurt? The  
body is obviously not injured by the words. They do not harm our ears or  
our head. And the open, empty space of awareness is not hurt; the words  
sail through it like a bird in the sky, without harming it in any way or leaving  
a trace on it. Yet something rises up in us between awareness and the body and says,  
‘I feel upset’. Who is that ‘I’? It is an illusory entity, the separate self or ego,  
on whose behalf all afflictive emotions arise. It is in response to the discom -
fort of such emotions that most people seek relief in objects, activities, sub -
stances, circumstances and relationships. In this approach, we address the root of suffering. We attend to the self  
that is hurt rather than to the hurtful words themselves. If that self is seen  
to be an illusion, how can the suffering that arises on its behalf remain? you are the happiness you seek
The suffering dissipates as a result of this clear seeing, and our innate peace and  
happiness, which was present all along but veiled by the emotion, is restored. The Buddha clearly described this process in the Four Noble T ruths,  
which state that there is suffering, it has a cause, there is the possibility of its  
ending, and there is a means by which this may be accomplished. Restated  
in the affirmative, this might read: there is happiness, it is our true nature,  
it may easily be found, and there is a simple and direct path to it. the activity of the ego  
 
Let us return to the cause of suffering. The separate self or ego is an illusion. It is an apparent contraction or limitation of our true nature: the ever-
present, unlimited presence of awareness with which all experience is known,  
in which all experience appears and, ultimately, out of which all experience  
is made. This illusory self, feeling itself to be a fragment rather than whole, is al -
ways seeking to complete or fulfil itself through the acquisition of an object,  
substance, activity, circumstance or relationship. As such, seeking is the  
means by which the ego attempts to restore its innate wholeness. Feeling itself to be a fragment, the separate self or ego always feels  
threatened and vulnerable. For this reason, it is always in a state of resistance  
or defence against anything that it perceives will endanger or diminish it. This resistance and defence does not arise on behalf of the safety or well-
being of the body. Its purpose is to protect or defend an illusory psychological  
entity. Criticising, blaming, judging, accusing and arguing are some of the  
many ways the ego protects and enhances itself, thereby validating and per -
petuating its illusory existence. Thus, seeking and resisting – desire and fear – are the two activities that  
define the separate self or ego. In fact, the ego is not an entity  that seeks and  
resists; it is the very activity  of seeking and resisting. Seeking and resisting are  
not what the separate self does; they are what the separate self is. They are the  
activity that inevitably attends the belief that we are a temporary, finite self. T o better understand this, consider the analogy of a rubber ball. In its natural  
condition, a rubber ball is in a state of equilibrium. If the ball is compressed,  
its natural state of equilibrium is disturbed and a tension is set up within it. 92who is it that suffers? We could say that the ‘memory’ of the ball’s natural state exerts a force on the  
compressed ball, whose purpose is to restore its original condition. Likewise, being an apparent contraction of inherently peaceful and un -
conditionally fulfilled awareness, the separate self or ego is always in a state  
of tension. This state of tension is, by definition, always seeking to return to  
its natural condition of equanimity, openness and fulfilment. Whether it does so by seeking objects, substances, activities, circumstances  
and relationships, or whether it is engaged in the same search via religious  
or spiritual means, it is, without knowing it, responding to the gravitational  
pull of happiness within its own being. Little do we realise that it is not our self who is seeking happiness; it is  
happiness that is seeking our self. As Daniel Ladinsky interprets the Sufi poet  
Hafez, ‘Ever since happiness heard your name, it has been running through  
the streets trying to find you’. * After all, the separate self is an illusion, and  
an illusion cannot do anything, let alone seek happiness. What is considered from the illusory perspective of a separate self to be  
its search for happiness in the future is, in fact, the gravitational pull that  
awareness exerts on its own contracted form in an attempt to restore its natu -
ral, ever-present state of equilibrium, that is, its innate peace and happiness. We are the happiness we seek. In the religious traditions, the gravitational pull that our own being exerts  
on its own apparently contracted, limited form is referred to as grace. As such, grace is not a special moment that is conferred upon us by some  
external deity. It is the continuous attraction of our deepest self, inviting us  
to return home to the peace of our being. All psychological suffering is an extension of the two primary activities of seek -
ing and resistance, which are, in turn, the outcome of the belief in being a  
temporary, finite, separate self. Suffering is, as such, the inevitable consequence  
of the overlooking or forgetting of our true nature, whose nature is happiness. Happiness is the nature of awareness; suffering is the activity of the ego. Seeking and resisting are the defining characteristics of the separate self  
or ego, and therefore the ego is always trying to escape from its current  
93* Daniel Ladinsky, ‘Several Times in the Last Week’, I Heard God Laughing: Renderings of Hafiz   
(Penguin Books, 2006 ). you are the happiness you seek
experience into the past or future. Thus, the ego considers the now to be the  
cause of its suffering. Therefore, it is always trying to avoid it. The ego is at war with the now. It is always seeking to replace or resist it. Seeking propels the ego into the future; resistance drags it into the past. It is for this reason that those in whom the activity of ego is very strong tend  
to live either in the future, in anxiety, restlessness or worry, or in the past,  
in regret, disappointment, resentment and nostalgia. Of course, the ego (if we may continue to refer to it as an entity) does  
not realise that the peace and happiness for which it longs is its very nature  
and can only be found in the now, in the depths of itself. Ironically, it per -
petually escapes from the now, the only place where peace and happiness can  
be found, into the past or future, the only place where suffering dwells. In fact, the vast majority of our thoughts about the past and future arise  
solely to accommodate the separate self and its inherent rejection of the now. Meanwhile, the ego remains unaware that its search for peace and happiness  
is, in fact, inspired by the intuition of its own unlimited and ever-present  
nature. the vanishing of the illusion  
 
I understand that the sense of separation is an illusion. However, it is such a strong  
feeling, and it seems almost impossible to get rid of it. Any attempt to get rid of the separate self is predicated on the belief that it  
exists as such to begin with. Therefore, in the ultimate analysis, such efforts  
substantiate  its apparent existence. The separate self perpetuates itself by try -
ing to get rid of itself. T rying to get rid of the separate self or ego is like trying to get rid of the  
snake that we believe is coiled up in the corner of the garage. Nothing we  
do to the apparent snake will get rid of it, because it is not there to begin  
with. The snake is simply a mistaken perception of the rope that can only  
persist as long as the rope is not clearly seen. The ego is like the snake; it is  
a mistaken perception of our true self, the unlimited presence of awareness. Just as the snake is an illusion whose seeming existence disappears as soon  
as we see its reality, the rope, so the separate self or ego is an illusion which  
vanishes as soon as we see its reality, unlimited awareness. 94who is it that suffers? Just as the aware space of the room is the same space as the aware space  
of the universe, just as the self of King Lear is the same self as the self of John  
Smith, so the ‘I’ of the ego is the same ‘I’ as the infinite ‘I’ of awareness, the  
only ‘I’ there is. All our thoughts, feelings, activities and relationships are pervaded by the  
sense of ‘being myself’ or the sense of ‘I’. In other words, each of us bears  
the memory of our true nature within us all the time. It shines in us as ‘I’. All that is necessary is to discern that ‘I’ clearly. That is, all that is necess -
ary is for our self to know  itself  clearly, before it is coloured, qualified or  
limited by any experience. This is what Ramana Maharshi meant when he said, ‘When the “I” is di -
vested of the “I”, only “I” remains’. That is, when the ‘I’ of the apparent ego  
is divested of all the beliefs and feelings with which it has clothed itself, the  
true and only ‘I’ of inherently peaceful and unconditionally fulfilled aware -
ness shines by itself. So it is not necessary to have any agenda with the content of experience,  
and even less with the apparent ego itself. It is only necessary to discern the  
‘I’ that shines brightly in the midst of all experience, and our innate happi -
ness will be restored. *     *     *  
 
You mentioned once that we don’t really age, but I certainly feel that I am getting  
older every day. Ageing is a concept, never an experience. It’s a powerful concept! No concept is powerful. Concepts are neutral; beliefs are powerful. I don’t just believe I’m ageing; I feel it. What exactly do you feel is ageing? My body! 95you are the happiness you seek
All we experience of the body is a flow of sensations and perceptions appear -
ing in awareness. Even to say we experience a flow of sensations and percep -
tions is a concession to the mind. At any moment, there is just the current  
sensation and perception. How old is the current sensation or perception? T wenty-seven, fifty-two,  
sixty-eight years old? No! The current sensation and perception are just ap -
pearing brand new, fresh, now – not now, a moment in time, but now, the  
ever-present, bright, luminous, pristine awareness in which all experience  
arises and out of which all experience is made. Even to refer to sensations and perceptions appearing in awareness is  
a concession. We do not experience sensations and perceptions appearing  
in awareness. There is just awareness and its own activity: awareness modu -
lating itself in the forms of sensing and perceiving but never ceasing to be  
itself, nor becoming or knowing anything other than itself. As such, sensa -
tions and perceptions are not like fish appearing in the ocean; they are like  
waves and currents, movements of the water within itself. Awareness knows nothing of time or ageing. The ideal of eternal youth has  
been downgraded by our culture to imply a body that looks perpetually young. T o be eternally youthful means to know and feel oneself as ageless awareness. But I experience time. Awareness only knows now; the mind imagines time. Experience conforms to our understanding of ourself. If we believe and  
feel that we are essentially a body, then we will believe that we are ageing  
and we will experience the body in a way that is consistent with that belief. If we understand and feel ourself to be ever-present awareness, or the fact  
of simply being aware, before it is qualified by experience, we will feel that  
we are always the same ageless self. We will feel that we are always here and  
now, and that all experience flows through us without changing, ageing or  
harming us in any way. I feel life’s experiences are always changing me. We experience  numerous changes, but we, awareness, are changeless. We do  
not move through life’s experiences; life’s experiences move through us. 96who is it that suffers? But I feel my life is a great journey. The journey takes place in you; you do not take the journey.
You-are-the-Happiness-You-Seek-Rupert-Spira.txt
Summarize the following text section accurately and concisely. Maintain specific details and numerical information, and use anti-repetition mechanisms:

        Realising their mistake,  
62the silent presence of awareness
he asked one of the men to count the group, being sure that he included  
himself at the end. ‘One, two, three…’ He arrived at ‘ten’ and, at that mo -
ment, each man realised that he had neglected himself. Likewise, we tend to focus on thoughts, images, memories, feelings,  
activities, relationships, and so on, but we neglect our self, the silent presence  
of awareness in the background that peacefully witnesses it all. That is, aware -
ness loses itself in the content of experience and, in doing so, overlooks  
or loses touch with itself. We pay for that neglect with our happiness. T o become aware of awareness does not require effort, any more than an  
effort was required for the tenth man to remember himself. All that is  
required is the relaxation  of a previous effort, namely, the exclusive focus of  
our attention on the content of experience at the expense of our being. As soon as this effort is relaxed, the presence of awareness shines by itself. It was always shining. It is always shining. However, if we are accustomed  
to losing our self in, or identifying our self with, the content of experience,  
it may seem, to begin with, that an effort is required to disentangle our self  
from experience, in which case we should make the effort. In time, what previously seemed to require an effort will be felt as our  
natural condition. Thus, what may seem at first to be a practice, something  
that we as a separate person do, turns out in the end to be a non-practice. Only from the limited perspective of the separate self does what we are be-
come something that we seem to do. 63 chapter eight
The Open, Empty, Aware Space
It is precisely because there is nothing within the One  
that all things are from it. plotinus   
 
Is it enough to recognise oneself as the witnessing presence of awareness in the  
background of experience. The recognition of awareness in the background of experience is, in most  
cases, a necessary first step. However, it is important to understand that  
the presence of awareness is not just the ever-present and unlimited back-
ground of experience but also the medium  or the field within which all ex -
perience arises, in which it exists and into which it disappears when it  
vanishes. It is obvious, even from a conventional point of view, that thoughts and  
feelings arise and exist within awareness. It is not so obvious that our experi -
ence of the body and the world, which is known only as a flow of sensations  
and perceptions, also takes place in awareness. If our attention travels from a thought to a sensation, for instance, the  
tingling of our face, hands or feet, and from a sensation to a perception,  
such as any sound that may be present in our environment, we do not find  
our attention leaving one field in which thoughts appear and entering a sec -
ond in which sensations appear, and then leaving the field in which sensa -
tions appear and entering a third in which perceptions arise. Our attention  
is always travelling in the  same  field, the field of awareness. As such, the relationship between awareness and experience is much more  
intimate than that of an impartial witness to the objects of experience. At this  
stage of understanding, awareness could be likened to a vast, empty, aware  
space within which the objects of experience arise, in which they exist while  
they are present and into which they vanish when they disappear. you are the happiness you seek
     At no point do we encounter, or could we ever encounter, anything that  
takes place outside awareness, just as a cloud never appears outside the sky. Even time and space, which we normally consider to be the vast containers  
within which all events and objects arise, are themselves experienced within  
awareness, the only place where any experience can appear. Prior to the arising of experience, awareness is empty of all objective con -
tent, just as the space of an unfurnished room is empty of objects. In fact,  
it is on account of the emptiness of awareness that the fullness of experience  
is able to arise within it. If awareness were not empty, there would be no room  
for experience within it, in the same way that if an unfurnished house were  
not empty, there would be no room for the furniture within it, or if a screen  
were not transparent, it would not be possible for a movie to appear on it. But my awareness seems to be confined and limited to my body. Allow your attention to range freely over the entire spectrum of your experi -
ence and see if you ever encounter anything that takes place outside aware -
ness. Would it be possible to have an experience that occurred outside  
awareness. See that your attention never leaves the field of awareness. What -
ever it encounters is encountered within awareness. Indeed, attention itself  
is the focusing of awareness within itself. Can you even imagine an experience that could take place outside aware -
ness. Consider the extremes of experience: a near-death encounter, a vision  
of God, a drug-induced trip, a moment of ecstasy, intense pain. See in this  
way that all experience takes place in the space of awareness, the only  
medium within which it is possible for any experience to occur. Notice that we are not speculating about an altered, expanded, mystical  
or enlightened state of awareness. Above all, we are not speculating about  
how awareness might become if we practise hard enough or meditate long  
enough; we are simply referring to our current, intimate, direct and ordinary  
experience of being aware. Now see if you can find an edge or limit to the field of awareness within  
which your experience arises. We find a limit to everything that we know or  
perceive, but do we find a limit to the field in which that limited experience  
arises. And if we do not find any such edge or limit, what legitimacy is there  
to our belief that it is limited. 66the open, empty, aware space
     It is true that awareness permeates the experience of the body, and this  
gives rise to the feeling that awareness is located in the body. However, the  
room in which you are currently sitting is filled with space, but the space is  
not located in, nor limited to, the room. It is the room that appears in space,  
not space in the room. Likewise, the awareness which permeates the body  
and which, as such, gives rise to the feeling ‘I am the body’ is not generated  
by, located within or limited to the body. Your body is an appearance in  
awareness; awareness doesn’t appear in your body. In fact, awareness is not a vast, empty space. Having no form, it cannot  
be measured and, therefore, cannot legitimately be said to have an extension  
in any dimension. However, it is not possible to think of or imagine some -
thing with no dimensions; indeed, something with no dimensions is not  
‘something’. So as a concession to the mind, to enable it to think about or  
imagine awareness, we add a space-like quality, visualising it as a vast, empty  
field or space within which the entire content of experience appears. All that  
is required now is to remove space from this image of an aware physical space  
and what remains is dimensionless awareness. I vividly remember the first time this became clear to me. Francis had often  
spoken of awareness as the space within which all experience arises, and  
although I had an intuitive understanding of this, I had never realised it in  
my own experience. One morning, I was sitting with Francis and a small group of friends in  
his and his wife Laura’s home in Northern California, when a dog began bark -
ing in the distance. I commented to him that it seemed obvious that the sound  
of the dog was taking place at a distance from, and outside of, myself. Francis  
suggested that I close my eyes and place my hands on the floor. I closed my  
eyes and slowly lowered my hands until they were resting on the carpet. He then asked where the sensation was taking place. Was it taking place  
within awareness or outside awareness. I paused, referred to my experience,  
and realised that the sensation generated by my hands on the floor was taking  
place in exactly the same space of awareness in which my thoughts and feel -
ings were occurring. Before I had time to digest this insight fully, my understanding began to  
unravel, one recognition leading to another. I turned my attention again to  
the barking dog and realised that, if I referred only to my direct, immediate  
67you are the happiness you seek
experience, without reference to thought or memory, it too was taking place  
within the space of awareness and at no distance from it. It became clear that thought conceptualised ‘the sound of a dog in the  
distance’ but all I actually knew of this sound was the experience of hearing, 
and hearing was taking place here, within myself, that is, within awareness. There was no distance between myself, awareness, and the experience of  
hearing. I had barely begun to ponder the implications of this observation when the  
thought arose, ‘If awareness accommodates my entire experience, including  
the experience of the body and the world, what is the nature  of the space of  
awareness within which these experiences are arising. ’  
     A line from Milton’s Paradise Lost  came to mind, ‘Thine this universal  
frame, thus wondrous fair: Thyself how wondrous then. ’ * The focus of my  
interest shifted from the sensation of my hands on the floor and the sound  
of the barking dog to the space of awareness itself. Awareness was turning  
its attention upon itself. Until then I had believed and felt that awareness was located somewhere  
behind my eyes, looking out at the world, but now I was experiencing the  
body and the world within myself. It was obvious that awareness perceived  
the world  through  the body, but I had mistakenly presumed that this implied  
that it was located in and limited to the body. The awareness with which the character in a dream perceives the world  
is not located in her body or, indeed, anywhere in the world which she per -
ceives. It is, within the limits of the analogy, located in the dreamer’s mind. Could the same be true of our experience in the waking state. I looked for a limit or an edge to the field of awareness within which my  
current experience was appearing, just as I used to lie awake in bed as a child  
wondering how far physical space extended. However, the further I went,  
the more the edge or limit of awareness eluded me. Like a scientist performing experiments to test the validity of a theory,  
I wanted to subject the possibility that awareness might be unlimited to the  
scrutiny of experience. Could I find or even imagine an experience that could  
take place outside of awareness. 68* John Milton, Paradise Lost, Book v (1674 ). the open, empty, aware space
     Having said that, when I say, ‘I looked for a limit or an edge’, I do not  
mean to imply that I am one thing and awareness another. It was I, awareness,  
that was contemplating my experience of myself. In this way it became clear  
that in awareness’s experience of itself there is no limit or edge. all-encompassing awareness  
 
As I, awareness, sank more and more deeply into my being, I felt that I was  
disentangling myself from thoughts, images, feelings, sensations and percep -
tions. As I did so, I felt myself expanding. I was no longer located in the head  
or chest. I was the vast, open, aware space in which everything was appearing. It was both frightening and exhilarating: frightening because my habitual  
experience of being a finite self, located in and limited to the body, was  
rapidly dissolving; and exhilarating because I could not help but notice, 
in spite of the fear, the freedom and joy that accompanied this recognition. It would be some time before I realised that I was not, of course, expan -
ding. The belief that awareness was located within and limited to my head  
was simply being exposed and dissolved in the face of the evidence of ex -
perience. I began to feel what I had often read about in the traditional lit -
erature but had never been able to verify for myself: namely, that awareness  
extends beyond the limits of the body and the finite mind within which it  
seems to be housed, and encompasses the entire universe. Just as my mind began to assimilate this understanding, it was followed  
by another. If physical space were emptied of all objects, we would have no  
experience of distance. Likewise, it is only in reference to the content of ex -
perience that awareness is considered a vast space. In our actual experience,  
that is, in awareness’s experience of itself, there is no thought or perception  
and, therefore, no experience of time or space. We all experience this vividly in deep sleep, when there is no activity of  
thinking and perceiving and, therefore, no corresponding experience of time  
and space. With this understanding, the mind’s attempt to conceptualise awareness  
comes naturally and effortlessly to an end. As a concession to the mind, it is  
legitimate to conceptualise awareness as an open, empty space, but in the  
absence of any need to do so, the mind falls silent and there is just the aware -
ness of being, whose nature is unfathomable peace. 69 chapter nine
Peace and Happiness Is Our Nature
I have seen what you want; it is there,  
a beloved of infinite tenderness. catherine of siena  
 
the inherently peaceful nature of awareness   
 
Just as the physical space of a room cannot be agitated by anything that takes  
place within it, so we, awareness, cannot be disturbed by anything that takes  
place within us. Agitated thoughts, images, feelings, sensations and percep -
tions may arise, but the space-like presence of awareness within which they  
appear is itself not disturbed by them. Thus, its nature is peace. And just as the space of a room is not made  peaceful by modifying the  
behaviour of the people inside it, but is inherently at peace before, during  
and after their various activities, so our essential nature of pure awareness is  
always at peace, irrespective of the content of experience. It does not need  
to be purified, improved or stilled. Whatever the content of experience that arises within it, awareness always  
remains the same: open, empty, allowing, undisturbed and without resis -
tance. Awareness does not need to be made peaceful through effort, practice  
or discipline. It only need be recognised as such. That is, it only need recog -
nise or know itself as such. In fact, awareness is always knowing itself as it essentially is, but its knowl -
edge of itself is mixed with its knowledge of objective experience and seems,  
as a result, to acquire its qualities. Just as a motionless screen seems to move  
when a movie begins, so we, awareness, seem to become agitated when we  
become entangled in the content of experience. The inherent peace of awareness is not a temporary state of mind. It is the  
very nature  of awareness itself and, as such, does not depend upon what  you are the happiness you seek
does or does not take place in experience. It is prior to, and independent  
of, the content of experience and is always available in the background of  
experience. It is the peace that ‘passeth understanding’, the peace for which there is  
no explanation in the content of experience. It cannot be caused; it can only  
be recognised. It cannot disappear; it can only be ignored. It is the context  
of the mind, not its content. We usually first notice this peace in the background of experience and  
may only seem to have access to it in between our agitated thoughts and feel -
ings, just as the screen only seems to become visible in between movies. However, in time the content of our experience begins to lose its veiling  
power, just as a movie loses its capacity to veil the screen. As a result, the  
background of peace begins to percolate into the foreground of experience,  
which is in turn gradually and progressively permeated by it. Awareness is not changed by the content of experience, but the content  
of experience is progressively changed by the peace of awareness. happiness is the nature of awareness  
 
Just as the empty space of a room does not stand to gain or lose anything  
from whatever takes place within it, likewise we, awareness, are not enhanced  
or diminished by any experience, however pleasant or unpleasant it may be. Awareness is always in the same pristine condition. No experience adds anything to it or removes anything from it. As such,  
awareness has no vested interest in experience. It is utterly, intimately one  
with experience, open without resistance to it and yet, at the same time,  
needs nothing from it. It does not need to be fulfilled or completed by ex -
perience. Awareness lacks or wants for nothing. As such, it is whole, complete, un -
conditionally fulfilled, content. From a human perspective this wholeness,  
completeness or absence of lack is felt as the experience of happiness. When  
we experience happiness we are literally experiencing our essential nature. Happiness is the taste of awareness. Happiness is not a temporary state of mind, or even an emotion in the  
ordinary sense of the word. It is the ever-present background of all changing  
states and emotions. It is the nature  of our self. As such, we cannot know  
72peace and happiness is our nature
happiness as an objective experience; we can only be it. Likewise, we cannot  
be unhappy; we can only know  it. Happiness is sometimes referred to as the ease of being, because it is to  
be found in the simple knowing of our own being as it essentially is. I well remember the first time it became obvious that happiness is the very  
nature of my being. There was nothing extraordinary about it and it was not  
preceded by any particular experience. It just dawned on me. One moment  
it was not clear; the next moment it was. The awareness of being is happiness itself. How could I have missed such  
an obvious truth. I looked back over twenty years of study and practice and  
realised that all the texts and teachings had been pointing to this simple rec -
ognition. I recalled the innumerable attempts I had made in my life to secure hap -
piness through objects, substances, activities, states of mind and relationships,  
and now, in the depths of my being, a quiet joy was revealing itself effortlessly. Although this understanding would, over the ensuing years, be veiled  
from time to time by the old habit of seeking fulfilment in objective experi -
ence, it was never again completely eclipsed. The old habit had been dealt a  
mortal wound, and it was only a matter of time before it would dissipate,  
gradually giving way to an imperturbable peace. This peace was not new, nor was it something extraordinary. It was fam -
iliar, like an old friend with whom I had lost touch and was now reunited. It became clear that the answer to the question that had first formu -
lated itself in my mind almost twenty years earlier, ‘What is the source of  
lasting peace and happiness. ’, lay in the simple recognition of my own  
being. In short, it became clear that peace and happiness is the very nature  
of our self. am i ready to know my self. My experience is so overwhelming much of the time that I sometimes wonder  
whether I can ever recognise the presence of awareness. Everyone is equally qualified to undertake this investigation and recognise  
their true nature, simply by virtue of the fact that they are aware. It is the  
73you are the happiness you seek
very awareness with which you are currently aware of these words that has  
the capacity to soften the focus of its attention from the content of your  
experience, come back to itself and recognise its innate peace. It is not even necessary to change or get rid of any element of experience,  
to still or silence the mind, to change negative thoughts into positive ones,  
or to transform unpleasant feelings. Whether we are deeply depressed, madly  
in love or simply drinking tea, we are aware of our experience. The awareness that knows the experience of depression is the same aware -
ness that is aware of the experience of being in love or the taste of tea. Even  
our most confused thoughts arise in the clarity of awareness. Even our darkest  
feelings arise in the luminous presence of awareness. Is it possible that I’m just not ready. This is a way of understanding, not a path of effort. Any effort would  
arise on behalf of a self that deemed its current experience insufficient  
and, therefore, in need of improvement. It would not arise on behalf of  
the true and only self of inherently peaceful and unconditionally fulfilled  
awareness. This is a way of recognition and expression: the recognition of what is  
always already the case, and its subsequent expression or celebration in our  
lives. It has nothing to do with changing or improving a self which, when  
investigated, cannot be found as such. And yet, changes do take place in our  
lives as an inevitable consequence of this understanding. All that is necessary is to cease being exclusively fascinated by or lost in  
the content of experience and to return to our self. Strictly speaking, we do  
not even need to return to our self. When we get undressed at night, we do  
not return to our naked body. It is simply revealed. Our naked body was  
there all along, underneath our clothes. Likewise, our inherently peaceful and unconditionally fulfilled being  
is present behind, and in the midst of, all experience. All that is necessary  
is to relax the focus of our attention from the content of experience and  
our being will shine by itself. It is, as such, a relaxation of effort, not a  
new effort. This kind of happiness seems out of reach for ordinary people. 74peace and happiness is our nature
No special qualifications, abilities or circumstances are required to recognise  
the nature of awareness. No sage – the Buddha, Meister Eckhart, Lao Tzu,  
Ramana Maharshi, Anandamayi Ma, Jesus or any other – had privileged  
access to the fact of being aware or awareness itself. They were ordinary people, like each of us, who simply had a deep de -
sire to know the nature of their being. They understood that happiness  
was to be found only in their own being and were passionate about finding  
it there. Nor does this recognition require special affiliation to any particular  
tradition or person. One who has recognised the nature of their essential  
being knows that it is not coloured or qualified by any particular tradition,  
although they may continue to operate within that tradition, emphasising  
its inner meaning rather than its outer form, for the benefit of those who  
have yet to understand its full meaning. Will I know when it happens. This recognition may take place in contemplative moments, between  
thoughts and activities or during them, just as an actress may recognise that  
she is not defined by, or limited to, the part she plays in between perform -
ances or during a performance. We may not even notice that a specific recognition has taken place. We simply notice that the almost constant activity of negotiating experience  
for the purpose of seeking happiness has diminished, and in its place a cause -
less peace has arisen. Either way, our inherently peaceful and unconditionally  
fulfilled nature of awareness does not need to be liberated from the content  
of experience. Its nature is already such. The recognition may be accompanied by a dramatic relaxation of tension  
in the body or agitation in the mind, but this should not be mistaken for  
the recognition of our true nature itself. It is just as possible that this recog -
nition may be accompanied by the simple thought, ‘Oh, of course, why  
didn’t I see this before. ’  
     In time, this understanding will have a profound effect on our thoughts  
and feelings, and our subsequent activities and relationships, but this may  
be subtle and take place over a long period of time, depending on the extent  
to which our character diverged from it to begin with. 75you are the happiness you seek
     In fact, the realignment of the way we think, feel, perceive, act and re -
late with this new understanding never really comes to an end. Previously  
experience eclipsed awareness. Now awareness shines in the midst of experi -
ence, and all experience is progressively pervaded by and saturated with it,  
until it is finally outshone by it. 76chapter ten
A Belief in Separation
The birds have vanished down the sky. Now the last cloud drains away. We sit together, the mountain and me,  
until only the mountain remains. li po  
 
If our essential nature is ever-present and unlimited awareness, what is the ego  
or separate self, and how does it arise. The ego or separate self could be defined as the identification of our self,  
awareness, with the content of experience, or the mixture of awareness with  
the limited qualities of the mind and body. In the next chapter we will explore how awareness seems to acquire the  
limitations of the mind, which in this context I refer to mainly as thoughts  
and feelings. In this chapter we will explore how awareness seems to be de -
fined by, contained within and limited to the body. In speaking of the body in this way, I refer to it in the conventional  
sense, as a physical object. This of course implies an inherent dualism be -
tween the mind and body which is not intended, and which breaks down  
upon further scrutiny, but it is the way that most people understand and  
feel the body and is, therefore, a good starting point for how the belief in  
separation arises. T o understand how the unlimited presence of awareness that we essen -
tially are becomes, or seems to become, the finite self or ego, let us take the  
analogy of physical space again. Imagine the physical space of the universe before it contained any gal -
axies, planets or stars. It is a vast, borderless, empty space. Now in your im -
agination add the quality of knowing  or being aware  to this empty physical  
space. It is now an aware  physical space. you are the happiness you seek
     Prior to the appearance of galaxies, stars and planets, there is nothing in  
this aware space for it to know or perceive. It is pure, objectless, aware physi -
cal space, pure in the sense that it is devoid of any content or objectivity. However, simply by virtue of the fact that it is aware, it knows  itself. The aware physical space’s knowledge of itself does not take place in  
subject–object relationship, for a subject can only exist in relation to a sep -
arate object and vice versa. Its knowledge of itself is, as such, unique. It knows  
itself just by being itself, in the same way that the sun illuminates itself simply  
by being itself. In this case, that which knows is that which is known, without  
any separate subject that knows or any object that is known. i simply am  
 
Now let us imagine that we were able to have a conversation with this aware  
physical space. Just as, in everyday life, we tend to ask a person their name  
before any other conversation, we ask the aware physical space what it would  
call itself if it were to give itself a name. ‘I’, it replies, for ‘I’ is the name that anything that knows itself gives to  
itself. It is for this reason that everyone refers to their self as ‘I’. We now ask the aware physical space about its primary experience of itself. ‘I simply am’, it replies, surprised that such a self-evident fact of experience  
even requires mentioning. The knowledge ‘I am’ refers to the aware physical  
space’s knowledge of itself before it is qualified by any other experience. And as, at this stage, there is nothing in itself other than itself, the knowledge  
‘I am’ is the totality of its experience. There is only its awareness of being. We now ask the aware physical space if it experiences any limitation or  
division within itself. However, having no experience of anything other than  
itself, it does not even understand the meaning of the word ‘limitation’ or  
‘division’, and so remains silent. ‘Do you have a size, shape, age, gender, location, weight or boundary. ’  
we ask. Again, silence. The aware physical space has no knowledge or experi -
ence of anything within itself that would enable it to qualify itself in these,  
or indeed any, terms. ‘Are you ever disturbed, restless or agitated. ’ we ask. The aware physical  
space refers to its experience of itself and, again, looks puzzled. Disturbance,  
restlessness, agitation. There is just its own endless, silent, motionless openness. 78a belief in separation
     ‘Do you lack anything. ’ we enquire, already intuiting its silent response. No,  
there is just the fullness of its own emptiness. It is neither something nor nothing,  
for there are, as yet, no things with which it could be qualified or contrasted. This absence of limitation, disturbance or lack does not need to be concep -
tualised, for there is nothing in its experience of itself with which to contrast  
these qualities. Later they will be referred to, from the perspective of human  
experience, as its innate freedom, peace and happiness, not a freedom, peace  
and happiness that are relative to their opposites but the absolute qualities  
of its own nature. Fast-forward several billion years, to the twenty-first century. The same  
aware physical space is now populated with galaxies, stars and planets. One  
of these planets is the Earth, on which are situated innumerable buildings. We enter one such building and make our way to one of the rooms. Now we ask the aware physical space in the room  what its name is. ‘I’ it  
replies, for as always, ‘I’ is the name that that which knows itself gives to  
itself. Then we ask the aware space in the room about its experience of itself. The aware space in the room looks around and says, ‘I am small, square,  
limited, dark and confined. I am contained within these walls, defined by  
their shape and dependent upon them for my existence. ’ A hint of nostalgia  
in its voice betrays the faint memory of the distant past when it knew itself  
without any such limitation. We suggest to the aware space in the room that in describing itself in this  
way, it is not actually referring to its experience of itself but rather to the  
qualities and characteristics of the room in which it seems to be located. ‘Instead of looking at the four walls of the room, look at yourself’,  
we suggest. The space in the room turns its attention away from the four  
walls of the room and gives its attention to itself. ‘I am…’ A long silence  
ensues. It cannot find anything in its experience of itself to add to its essential  
awareness of simply being. The aware physical space in the room suddenly realises that the feeling of  
longing that has characterised it ever since it seemed to have been contained  
within the four walls of the room was not, in fact, a memory of its distant  
past. It was the recognition of its own essential, ever-present being – the aware  
physical space of the universe – filtering through the limitations of the room  
with which it had mistakenly identified itself, drawing itself back into itself. 79you are the happiness you seek
     The yearning to which it had become accustomed, as the almost constant  
backdrop of its experience, falls away as an inevitable consequence of this  
recognition, and its innate freedom and peace are immediately restored. an imaginary limitation  
 
Let us relate this to the experience of being a separate self or ego. The rela -
tionship between our essential nature of ever-present, unlimited awareness  
and the separate self or ego which we seem to be is analogous to the rela -
tionship between the unlimited aware physical space of the universe and the  
apparently confined aware space in the room. Just as the aware space in the room was the same space as the unlimited  
aware space of the universe, so the self of the separate self or ego is the same 
self as the self of awareness, albeit with an imaginary limitation attached to it. Just as the aware physical space identified itself with the four walls of the  
room within which it seemed to be contained and, as a result, believed and felt  
that it was small, confined and limited, likewise we, awareness, become mixed  
up in or identified with the ‘four walls’ of the body within which we seem to  
be contained and seem, as a result, to become a temporary, finite self. Instead of understanding that I, awareness, pervade the body and perceive  
the world through it, we believe and feel that I am contained within, limited  
to and generated by the body. As a result, the experience ‘I am’ is eclipsed by  
the belief ‘I am the body’. This mixture or identification of unlimited awareness  
with the limitations of the body creates the illusory separate self or ego. What is the separate self’s relationship with awareness. The temporary, finite self does not, of course, exist in its own right, any more  
than the aware space of the room exists separate from or independent of the  
aware physical space of the universe. It is simply a belief, albeit a persistent  
and powerful one. Nor can we say that a relationship exists between awareness and the sep -
arate self or ego, because they are not two entities in the first place, just as  
the aware physical space of the universe and the space in the room are not  
two separate spaces. The latter is simply an imaginary limitation of the  
former. 80a belief in separation
     Thus, the separate self or ego is an illusory entity whose reality is derived  
from ever-present, unlimited awareness and whose apparent limitations are  
deduced from the fact that it perceives the world through the body and  
seems, as a result, to be located within and limited to it. The identification of awareness with the limitations of the body is the  
seed of the apparently separate self or ego on whose behalf most of our  
thoughts and feelings arise, and in whose service most activities and rela -
tionships are engaged. Is it possible to live and act in the world without the feeling of being a separate  
self or ego. I’m afraid that if I let go of myself as a separate self I’ll no longer be  
able to function properly or have relationships. The real question is whether it is possible to live and act sanely, harmoniously  
and creatively in the world with the feeling of being a separate self or ego. The sense of being a separate self is responsible for only three aspects of our  
life: unhappiness on the inside, conflict between individuals, communities  
and nations on the outside, and the exploitation and degradation of the en -
vironment. Feeling itself to be a fragment, the separate self feels incomplete and un -
fulfilled, giving rise to the almost constant activity of seeking and resisting. That is, the ego is the source of all psychological suffering. And just as the aware physical space in the room feels itself as an inde -
pendently existing space, cut off and separate from all other spaces in the  
universe, so the separate self feels separate from everyone else. The aware  
space of the room is, of course, the same space as all other apparent spaces,  
but it does not know this. Likewise, the separate self or ego does not realise that it shares its being  
with all other people and animals, giving rise to the feelings of isolation,  
envy, greed, injustice, cruelty, and so on. As such, the ego is the main source  
of all conflict. Lastly, the ego does not realise that, at the deepest level, it shares its  
own being not only with everyone but with everything. This belief veils  
the felt sense of oneness with all of nature, thereby enabling it to exploit,  
consume and degrade the natural world with no regard for the con -
sequences. 81you are the happiness you seek
     Therefore, if we as individuals in particular, and as a society in general,  
wish to be at peace and to live happy, creative and fulfilled lives; if we wish  
to have harmonious relationships with friends, family and strangers, irre -
spective of whether or not we agree with their ideas; and if we wish to live  
in a harmonious and sustainable relationship with nature, one thing alone  
is required: to evolve beyond the sense of separation or ego. 82chapter eleven
There Is Only One Self
Otherness for the One  
is the One without otherness. balyani  
 
I understand that the ego is an illusion, but it seems absolutely real. It feels as if  
there are two selves in me. One is this illusory ego that governs most of my life,  
and the other is the presence of awareness that I get occasional glimpses of. If these  
two are really the same self, why do they feel so very different. The reason that your sense of self feels very real is that there is something  
that is undeniably true about your sense of yourself. When I suggest that the  
separate self or ego is an illusion, I do not mean to imply that it is non-existent. An illusion is not something that is non-existent. It is something that does 
exist but is not what it appears to be. All illusions have a reality to them. For instance, the landscape in a movie  
is an illusion but its reality, relatively speaking, is the screen. The water in a  
mirage is illusory, but light is its reality. The snake we believe we see in the  
twilight is really a rope. In each case, all we are actually seeing is the reality  
of the illusory object, albeit with an illusion superimposed onto it. Just as the aware physical space in the room owes its reality to the unli -
mited aware space of the universe but borrows its limitations from the four  
walls of the room, so the apparently separate self or ego owes its reality to  
ever-present, unlimited awareness but borrows its apparent limitations from  
the qualities of experience with which it seems to be mixed or identified. This is why everyone’s sense of ‘being myself’ is absolutely and undeniably  
real. It’s just that, in most people’s experience, their sense of self is so thor -
oughly mixed with the content of experience that, whilst they always know  
their self to an extent, they do not know their self clearly. you are the happiness you seek
you always know your self  
 
T o better understand the relationship between the apparently separate self  
or ego and our true nature of pure awareness, consider again the actor, John  
Smith, who plays the part of King Lear. John Smith lives a peaceful and fulfilled life at home. Every evening he  
goes to his theatre, puts on a costume, assumes a series of thoughts, feelings,  
activities and relationships and seems to become King Lear, without, of  
course, ever actually ceasing to be John Smith. However, although John Smith always knows that he is John Smith, he  
sometimes becomes so absorbed in, or identified with, the thoughts, feelings,  
activities and relationships of the part he is playing that he forgets or over -
looks himself. He loses himself in his own creativity and, as a result, his  
knowledge of himself as John Smith is temporarily obscured by the belief  
and feeling that he is King Lear. King Lear is not a person in his own right, so even the belief ‘I am King Lear’  
is really John Smith’s knowledge of himself, albeit coloured by the character of  
King Lear. In other words, there are not two people, John Smith and King Lear. There is  one person, either revealed as John Smith or concealed as King Lear. As such, King Lear is an imaginary  person, an  illusory  self, created by the  
mixture of the very real person, John Smith, with certain thoughts, feelings,  
activities and relationships. However, from his own perspective, King Lear  
believes and feels that he is a real person, and he suffers accordingly. King  
Lear is right to feel that he is real, but he wrongly attributes that reality to  
himself as an independently existing person, forgetting that his sense of him -
self is derived solely from the reality of John Smith. John Smith is, as such,  
the reality of the illusory person King Lear. In the same way, the unlimited awareness that we essentially are becomes  
mixed up in, or identified with, the content of experience – thoughts, feelings  
and sensations – and seems, as a result, to acquire their limitations. Just as John Smith ‘clothes’ himself in thoughts, feelings and activities  
and seems, as a result, to become King Lear, so we, awareness, ‘clothe’ ourself  
in experience and seem to become a temporary, finite self. The temporary, finite self that we seem to be feels very real because it is 
real. Its reality is ever-present, unlimited awareness. All that is unreal or, more  
84there is only one self
accurately, illusory about it are the limitations we ascribe to it. These limita -
tions are imaginary. They are superimposed by thought onto the reality of  
our self. Suggesting that you get ‘occasional glimpses’ of your true nature is like  
suggesting that King Lear gets occasional glimpses of John Smith. It is not  
King Lear who has glimpses of, or comes to know, John Smith, for John  
Smith is the only person present. John Smith is always knowing himself, but his knowledge of himself is  
mixed with certain thoughts, feelings, activities and relationships, and there -
fore he ceases to know himself clearly. He knows himself partially, for even  
his belief in himself as King Lear is really his knowledge of himself as John  
Smith, albeit veiled or dimmed. Likewise, you always know yourself. That is, you, awareness, always know  
yourself, but your knowledge of yourself is mixed up with thoughts, feelings,  
sensations, activities and relationships and, therefore, you do not know your -
self clearly. You have allowed yourself to become endarkened by experience. What is commonly referred to as enlightenment is simply the removal of  
your ignorance of yourself and the clear seeing of yourself as you essentially  
are, before you are qualified in any way by experience. So there is no question of two selves, one either knowing or not knowing  
the other. There is  just your self – ever-present, unlimited awareness – either  
partially veiling itself with its own activity of thinking, feeling, sensing and  
perceiving, and seeming, as a result, to be a temporary, finite self, or ceasing  
to veil itself and thus knowing itself as it essentially is. the price of name and form  
 
Does this mean that as long as I seem to be a separate self and have experiences,  
I will have problems and suffer. Experience itself is not problematic; it is our identification with it that is  
problematic. There is nothing inherently troublesome for John Smith about  
assuming the character of King Lear. He does so for the sake of the play. For instance, doing so enables him to have three daughters, become the  
king of England and go to war with France. However, it is problematic for  
John Smith to lose himself so completely in the character of King Lear that  
85you are the happiness you seek
he forgets who he really is. His suffering does not begin with assuming the  
character of King Lear; it begins with the belief that he is that character. Now imagine that, as the character King Lear, John Smith becomes so  
lost in the drama of his experience that he forgets to revert to himself at the  
end of the play. A colleague who comes backstage to congratulate him on  
his performance is surprised to find him miserable. ‘Why are you so unhappy. ’ he asks, and in response, King Lear recounts  
his troubles with his daughters, his kingdom and the war with France. ‘You  
are not miserable for any of these reasons’, his friend remonstrates. ‘You are  
miserable because you have forgotten who you really are. Who are you really. ’  
     ‘I am the father of three daughters, I am the king of England and I am  
at war with France, to name just a few of my troubles. ’ King Lear protests. His response is, of course, only partially true. In each of these descrip -
tions he refers to his essential knowledge of himself as ‘I am’. However, his  
knowledge of himself is mixed with the content of his experience. He has  
allowed himself to be qualified by his experience, and as a result he no  
longer knows himself clearly. This lack of clear self-knowledge is alone  
responsible for his suffering. ‘No. ’ exclaims his friend. ‘You have not always been a father or a king,  
nor have you always been at war. Who are you prior to these relationships  
and activities. ’ King Lear describes his thoughts and feelings, but again his  
friend reminds him that none of these are essential to him. They all con -
tinually appear and disappear in his experience, but he remains. Without realising it, King Lear is travelling back through layers of his  
experience towards his essential self or being. As his friend’s questions continue, King Lear finds it more and more  
difficult to respond. Long silences replace his previously agitated thoughts  
and feelings, for he cannot find any words to describe the nature of himself. The more deeply he sinks into himself, the less he feels he is defined by the  
character of King Lear. Then, at some point, he comes to himself, remembers  
himself: ‘I am John Smith. ’  
 
There is nothing extraordinary or mysterious about the recognition ‘I am  
John Smith’. It is not some new knowledge that John Smith acquires. On the contrary, all that has happened is that his previous ignorance of him -
self has been removed. In fact, knowing himself as John Smith is the most  
86there is only one self
intimate, ordinary and familiar experience he has. It was simply obscured  
on account of his immersion in, or identification with, the content of  
experience. All of King Lear’s suffering arises on behalf of himself, the one whom he  
believes is being disrespected and maltreated by his daughters. However, if he  
looks inside himself, he undoubtedly finds thoughts and feelings, but he does  
not find the mistreated man, the suffering self, on whose behalf they arise. The actual person King Lear cannot be found. He does not exist as such. After tracing his way back through the layers of his experience, discarding  
anything that is not essential to him, there is the recognition ‘I am John  
Smith’ and, as a result, the immediate end of his suffering. In the absence of  
the person King Lear, his suffering simply cannot stand. Of course, it is not King Lear who has the recognition ‘I am John Smith’. There is no such person either to have, or not to have, the experience of being  
John Smith. From the illusory perspective of King Lear, it seems that he is  
exploring his true nature or practising self-enquiry. However, there is no such  
person or entity present either to practise, or not to practise, self-enquiry. The person that John Smith seemed to be  – King Lear – and the person  
that John Smith really is  are the same person. The former is simply an im -
aginary, self-assumed limitation of the latter. There is only one person: John  
Smith concealed or John Smith revealed. The concealing of John Smith’s true  
nature was the cause of his suffering; the revelation of his true nature is the  
restoration of his innate peace and happiness. The same happens with our self, awareness. It is awareness itself that freely  
assumes the activities of thinking and perceiving, without actually ceasing  
to be itself. There is nothing inherently problematic about doing so; indeed,  
it enables experience to take place. Without ‘clothing’ itself in the activities of thought and perception,  
awareness would not be able to perceive or participate in the world. How -
ever, this comes at a price: in so doing, the formless, unconditioned presence  
of awareness seems to become qualified by, and subject to, the limitations of  
experience. Awareness loses itself, or seems to lose itself, in experience. This identification of the presence of awareness with the qualities of ex -
perience constitutes the separate self or ego around whom most people’s lives  
revolve. The separate self or ego is, as such, a compound entity whose essence  
87you are the happiness you seek
is the presence of awareness and whose personal, limited, separate qualities  
are derived from the content of experience. All psychological suffering takes place on behalf of this apparently separ -
ate self or ego. That is the price that the nameless, formless reality of unli -
mited awareness pays for assuming a name and a form. Although the separate  
self or ego is an illusion, from its own perspective it seems to be very real,  
and it suffers accordingly. Because the reality of the separate self is the true and only self of unli -
mited awareness, it is only necessary for the apparently separate self to in -
vestigate itself, discarding anything that is not essential to it, until its  
essential, irreducible reality of pure awareness is revealed. Thus, the apparently separate self or ego who seeks happiness, and the  
true and only self of pure awareness whose nature is happiness, are the same 
self, partially concealed in the former, fully revealed in the latter. *     *     *  
 
If the separate self is an illusion, what sense does it make to suggest that it should  
engage in some kind of spiritual practice or investigation. One could argue that it is meaningless to suggest a practice or method to an  
illusory self, for the self that seeks happiness is like a wave in the ocean in  
search of water. Indeed, one could even contend that any such practice would  
further substantiate its illusory existence. This may be true from an absolute point of view. However, returning to  
our analogy, it is highly unlikely that John Smith would have disentangled  
himself spontaneously from his involvement in King Lear’s character without  
the intervention of his friend. Therefore, as a concession to the illusory self  
of King Lear, it is legitimate, and indeed necessary, to suggest that he explore  
his true nature or practise self-enquiry. Likewise, it is extremely unusual for our self, awareness, to spontaneously  
extricate itself from the drama of experience and recognise its own unlimited  
nature, not to mention abide stably as that, without some intervention in  
the stream of its experience. Although the recognition of our true nature cannot be caused by any  
activity, or the cessation of any activity, of the mind, if we prematurely  
88there is only one self
subscribe to the belief that there is nothing we can do to bring about the  
end of our suffering, and we do not engage in some investigation or practice,  
we will tend to remain immersed in a habitual cycle of seeking and resisting,  
punctuated by brief periods of peace or joy. Therefore, as a compassionate concession to the apparently separate self  
or ego that most of us believe and feel ourselves to be, the religious and spiri -
tual traditions elaborate practices or pathways which lead towards the rec -
ognition of our true nature. That is, they take us from the self we seem to be  
to the self that we essentially are, from suffering to happiness. Some of these practices give the apparently separate self an activity to  
undertake, with the intention of gradually purifying it until it is sufficiently  
refined to merge into its source. Others attempt to undermine the apparently  
separate self by refusing to recommend any practice that could be appropri -
ated by it and used to validate and substantiate its illusory existence. Others, such as the approach suggested here, recommend going directly  
to the heart of the matter and investigating the self we believe ourself to be,  
thereby revealing its inherently peaceful and unconditionally fulfilled nature. 89 chapter twelve
Who Is It That Suffers. Let yourself be silently drawn by the  
stronger pull of what you really love. rumi  
 
If our essential nature is inherently peaceful and happy, why do we suffer so much. Let us first make a clear distinction between physical pain, discomfort or  
danger and psychological suffering. Pain, discomfort and resistance to danger  
arise on behalf of the safety and well-being of the body. They are expressions  
of the body’s innate intelligence to protect and preserve itself. For instance, if we have a toothache, the pain is an intelligent signal that  
the body requires attention. If we are hungry, the mildly uncomfortable sen -
sation indicates that the body requires nutrition. If our house is on fire, our  
resistance to the situation arises on behalf of our safety and those in our care. By contrast, psychological suffering arises on behalf of the belief that we  
are a separate and independently existing self. Imagine, for instance, that  
someone says something and we are hurt by it. Who or what is hurt. The  
body is obviously not injured by the words. They do not harm our ears or  
our head. And the open, empty space of awareness is not hurt; the words  
sail through it like a bird in the sky, without harming it in any way or leaving  
a trace on it. Yet something rises up in us between awareness and the body and says,  
‘I feel upset’. Who is that ‘I’. It is an illusory entity, the separate self or ego,  
on whose behalf all afflictive emotions arise. It is in response to the discom -
fort of such emotions that most people seek relief in objects, activities, sub -
stances, circumstances and relationships. In this approach, we address the root of suffering. We attend to the self  
that is hurt rather than to the hurtful words themselves. If that self is seen  
to be an illusion, how can the suffering that arises on its behalf remain. you are the happiness you seek
The suffering dissipates as a result of this clear seeing, and our innate peace and  
happiness, which was present all along but veiled by the emotion, is restored. The Buddha clearly described this process in the Four Noble T ruths,  
which state that there is suffering, it has a cause, there is the possibility of its  
ending, and there is a means by which this may be accomplished. Restated  
in the affirmative, this might read: there is happiness, it is our true nature,  
it may easily be found, and there is a simple and direct path to it. the activity of the ego  
 
Let us return to the cause of suffering. The separate self or ego is an illusion. It is an apparent contraction or limitation of our true nature: the ever-
present, unlimited presence of awareness with which all experience is known,  
in which all experience appears and, ultimately, out of which all experience  
is made. This illusory self, feeling itself to be a fragment rather than whole, is al -
ways seeking to complete or fulfil itself through the acquisition of an object,  
substance, activity, circumstance or relationship. As such, seeking is the  
means by which the ego attempts to restore its innate wholeness. Feeling itself to be a fragment, the separate self or ego always feels  
threatened and vulnerable. For this reason, it is always in a state of resistance  
or defence against anything that it perceives will endanger or diminish it. This resistance and defence does not arise on behalf of the safety or well-
being of the body. Its purpose is to protect or defend an illusory psychological  
entity. Criticising, blaming, judging, accusing and arguing are some of the  
many ways the ego protects and enhances itself, thereby validating and per -
petuating its illusory existence. Thus, seeking and resisting – desire and fear – are the two activities that  
define the separate self or ego. In fact, the ego is not an entity  that seeks and  
resists; it is the very activity  of seeking and resisting. Seeking and resisting are  
not what the separate self does; they are what the separate self is. They are the  
activity that inevitably attends the belief that we are a temporary, finite self. T o better understand this, consider the analogy of a rubber ball. In its natural  
condition, a rubber ball is in a state of equilibrium. If the ball is compressed,  
its natural state of equilibrium is disturbed and a tension is set up within it. 92who is it that suffers. We could say that the ‘memory’ of the ball’s natural state exerts a force on the  
compressed ball, whose purpose is to restore its original condition. Likewise, being an apparent contraction of inherently peaceful and un -
conditionally fulfilled awareness, the separate self or ego is always in a state  
of tension. This state of tension is, by definition, always seeking to return to  
its natural condition of equanimity, openness and fulfilment. Whether it does so by seeking objects, substances, activities, circumstances  
and relationships, or whether it is engaged in the same search via religious  
or spiritual means, it is, without knowing it, responding to the gravitational  
pull of happiness within its own being. Little do we realise that it is not our self who is seeking happiness; it is  
happiness that is seeking our self. As Daniel Ladinsky interprets the Sufi poet  
Hafez, ‘Ever since happiness heard your name, it has been running through  
the streets trying to find you’. * After all, the separate self is an illusion, and  
an illusion cannot do anything, let alone seek happiness. What is considered from the illusory perspective of a separate self to be  
its search for happiness in the future is, in fact, the gravitational pull that  
awareness exerts on its own contracted form in an attempt to restore its natu -
ral, ever-present state of equilibrium, that is, its innate peace and happiness. We are the happiness we seek. In the religious traditions, the gravitational pull that our own being exerts  
on its own apparently contracted, limited form is referred to as grace. As such, grace is not a special moment that is conferred upon us by some  
external deity. It is the continuous attraction of our deepest self, inviting us  
to return home to the peace of our being. All psychological suffering is an extension of the two primary activities of seek -
ing and resistance, which are, in turn, the outcome of the belief in being a  
temporary, finite, separate self. Suffering is, as such, the inevitable consequence  
of the overlooking or forgetting of our true nature, whose nature is happiness. Happiness is the nature of awareness; suffering is the activity of the ego. Seeking and resisting are the defining characteristics of the separate self  
or ego, and therefore the ego is always trying to escape from its current  
93* Daniel Ladinsky, ‘Several Times in the Last Week’, I Heard God Laughing: Renderings of Hafiz   
(Penguin Books, 2006 ). you are the happiness you seek
experience into the past or future. Thus, the ego considers the now to be the  
cause of its suffering. Therefore, it is always trying to avoid it. The ego is at war with the now. It is always seeking to replace or resist it. Seeking propels the ego into the future; resistance drags it into the past. It is for this reason that those in whom the activity of ego is very strong tend  
to live either in the future, in anxiety, restlessness or worry, or in the past,  
in regret, disappointment, resentment and nostalgia. Of course, the ego (if we may continue to refer to it as an entity) does  
not realise that the peace and happiness for which it longs is its very nature  
and can only be found in the now, in the depths of itself. Ironically, it per -
petually escapes from the now, the only place where peace and happiness can  
be found, into the past or future, the only place where suffering dwells. In fact, the vast majority of our thoughts about the past and future arise  
solely to accommodate the separate self and its inherent rejection of the now. Meanwhile, the ego remains unaware that its search for peace and happiness  
is, in fact, inspired by the intuition of its own unlimited and ever-present  
nature. the vanishing of the illusion  
 
I understand that the sense of separation is an illusion. However, it is such a strong  
feeling, and it seems almost impossible to get rid of it. Any attempt to get rid of the separate self is predicated on the belief that it  
exists as such to begin with. Therefore, in the ultimate analysis, such efforts  
substantiate  its apparent existence. The separate self perpetuates itself by try -
ing to get rid of itself. T rying to get rid of the separate self or ego is like trying to get rid of the  
snake that we believe is coiled up in the corner of the garage. Nothing we  
do to the apparent snake will get rid of it, because it is not there to begin  
with. The snake is simply a mistaken perception of the rope that can only  
persist as long as the rope is not clearly seen. The ego is like the snake; it is  
a mistaken perception of our true self, the unlimited presence of awareness. Just as the snake is an illusion whose seeming existence disappears as soon  
as we see its reality, the rope, so the separate self or ego is an illusion which  
vanishes as soon as we see its reality, unlimited awareness. 94who is it that suffers. Just as the aware space of the room is the same space as the aware space  
of the universe, just as the self of King Lear is the same self as the self of John  
Smith, so the ‘I’ of the ego is the same ‘I’ as the infinite ‘I’ of awareness, the  
only ‘I’ there is. All our thoughts, feelings, activities and relationships are pervaded by the  
sense of ‘being myself’ or the sense of ‘I’. In other words, each of us bears  
the memory of our true nature within us all the time. It shines in us as ‘I’. All that is necessary is to discern that ‘I’ clearly. That is, all that is necess -
ary is for our self to know  itself  clearly, before it is coloured, qualified or  
limited by any experience. This is what Ramana Maharshi meant when he said, ‘When the “I” is di -
vested of the “I”, only “I” remains’. That is, when the ‘I’ of the apparent ego  
is divested of all the beliefs and feelings with which it has clothed itself, the  
true and only ‘I’ of inherently peaceful and unconditionally fulfilled aware -
ness shines by itself. So it is not necessary to have any agenda with the content of experience,  
and even less with the apparent ego itself. It is only necessary to discern the  
‘I’ that shines brightly in the midst of all experience, and our innate happi -
ness will be restored. *     *     *  
 
You mentioned once that we don’t really age, but I certainly feel that I am getting  
older every day. Ageing is a concept, never an experience. It’s a powerful concept. No concept is powerful. Concepts are neutral; beliefs are powerful. I don’t just believe I’m ageing; I feel it. What exactly do you feel is ageing. My body. 95you are the happiness you seek
All we experience of the body is a flow of sensations and perceptions appear -
ing in awareness. Even to say we experience a flow of sensations and percep -
tions is a concession to the mind. At any moment, there is just the current  
sensation and perception. How old is the current sensation or perception. T wenty-seven, fifty-two,  
sixty-eight years old. No. The current sensation and perception are just ap -
pearing brand new, fresh, now – not now, a moment in time, but now, the  
ever-present, bright, luminous, pristine awareness in which all experience  
arises and out of which all experience is made. Even to refer to sensations and perceptions appearing in awareness is  
a concession. We do not experience sensations and perceptions appearing  
in awareness. There is just awareness and its own activity: awareness modu -
lating itself in the forms of sensing and perceiving but never ceasing to be  
itself, nor becoming or knowing anything other than itself. As such, sensa -
tions and perceptions are not like fish appearing in the ocean; they are like  
waves and currents, movements of the water within itself. Awareness knows nothing of time or ageing. The ideal of eternal youth has  
been downgraded by our culture to imply a body that looks perpetually young. T o be eternally youthful means to know and feel oneself as ageless awareness. But I experience time. Awareness only knows now; the mind imagines time. Experience conforms to our understanding of ourself. If we believe and  
feel that we are essentially a body, then we will believe that we are ageing  
and we will experience the body in a way that is consistent with that belief. If we understand and feel ourself to be ever-present awareness, or the fact  
of simply being aware, before it is qualified by experience, we will feel that  
we are always the same ageless self. We will feel that we are always here and  
now, and that all experience flows through us without changing, ageing or  
harming us in any way. I feel life’s experiences are always changing me. We experience  numerous changes, but we, awareness, are changeless. We do  
not move through life’s experiences; life’s experiences move through us. 96who is it that suffers. But I feel my life is a great journey. The journey takes place in you; you do not take the journey. Section summary: 

This passage explores the idea that individual's false identity based on external factors leads to dissatisfaction and misery. -   -


Please provide accurate summaries using concise language avoiding repetition:
Here is a summarized version:


**Summary**

Awareness transcends boundaries and contains limitless potential,
    **Neglect**: Ignored due to excessive fixation on subjective mental constructs;
      Unveil: To recognize awareness frees consciousness. In conclusion,

1\. Recognizing the core aspect of awareness

2\. Acknowledging \\(\\# \*. ~\*

=====



| Number | Summary |
|-       |-|
|[To Be Continued. ](https://www. google. com/search. q=)

References :

[“]([Source])
```
Note: Please maintain accuracy throughout summarization and highlight key points effectively. Solution:

According to the provided material. Section Summaries

Chapter Eight
------------------- 

We frequently disregard our fundamental'silent' conscious pres-
ence ('neglected'), concentrating entirely on experien-ce. Realisation starts instantly whenever we stop fix-ing excessively on conten-t. However, recognitions typically follow sequential steps


Chapters Nine & Ten
------------------------------------

Our intrinsic nature includes tranquility. 'Truly,' awarness fills the entirety 
experiencing phenomena. Recognition brings forth spontaneous calm. , reflecting on   
actualities reveals enduring serenity



These sections summarize the author's arguments regarding self-awarenes-s/ego vs True-Awareness-Necessitating Understanding-and-Celebratin-g-the-Fore-ground-of-existence.
The main point of the book is that happiness is not something that can be achieved, but rather it is our essential nature as awareness.
What is the main point of the book?
No, we cannot find a limit or edge to the field of awareness, as it is not possible for anything to exist outside of awareness.
According to the author, can we find a limit or edge to the field of awareness?
The author claims that the ego is an illusion, and that it is an illusory entity that perpetuates suffering.
What is the author's claim about the nature of the ego?
The author does not believe in the concept of time; instead, it is the mind that imagines time. Awareness only knows the present moment, and it is not affected by time or ageing.
What is the author's view on the concept of time?
The author's message is that happiness is not something that can be achieved, but rather it is our essential nature as awareness, and that it is always present and cannot be changed or improved.
What is the author's message about the nature of happiness?