Warning: this is a long text—a decent attention span will come in handy here (meaning: it’s slightly more than 140 characters, grins!)
Thesis: It is either non-dual, or it isn’t…
It happens more often than many think: all sorts of random people, teachers, or writers claiming to give non-dual teachings or adhere to non-duality nevertheless turn out to persist in their belief in souls (a personal essence or the true self). They believe in past and future lives, free will, a benevolent (and temptable) universe, and some form of an afterlife…
Well, you will believe whatever you can’t help believing to soothe yourself or feel good, but know one thing: that kind of belief is simply not non-dual.
Non-duality is at its core quite simple: everything is consciousness and resides in consciousness. There is no separation or duality; reality is not-two (a-dvaita = not-two). Everything is indeed experienced personally or made personal, but it isn’t. There is no true ‘identity’, at most a ‘self-image’ (ego)—but that is a construct and not something real. There is only what-is: one unbroken experience of and in consciousness, every moment anew.
Despite this, various supposedly non-dual texts are full of phrases like ‘awakening in this life’. As if there is another life, or perhaps could be, than this-what-is-here-now. In this way, otherwise intelligent-seeming people try to sneak in all kinds of things that would then magically ‘live as something special within us’ or remain after death—and more of that kind of dualistic, religious-feeling clutter.
Once again: believe and wish whatever you can’t help believing and wishing, because you simply have no say in it. With that un-free will of yours, you can’t do otherwise. But it has no foundation, and absolutely no relation to non-duality—nor to modern scientific insights, by the way. Perhaps you will come to see this one day when everything is ripe for it (and you therefore cannot help but see it), but perhaps not… (Don’t ask me where I’d place my bet, hihi).
Soul?
Nisargadatta once put it nicely: “If you want to believe in a soul, then believe in ‘I-Am’, just view that as the soul”. Witty, of course, because I Am is the impersonal awareness of being-there—in other words, consciousness—and everyone ‘has’ that (or better put: is that). There is nothing particular, special, or personal about it! In short: if you insist on having a soul, fine, but there is only ONE and it is called Consciousness (Consciousness at large). And that is impersonal, undivided, and unfragmented.
So: there is no my or your (piece of) consciousness—there is only its temporary, one-time functioning via ‘swirls’ (or body-mind organizational patterns). There is nothing to reincarnate. After all, there are currently no small, personal, separate, specific, and characterful pieces that could possibly remain after death (there’s nobody home). The personal, identifying self-image ‘I’ (ahamkara) is the powerful illusion through which people believe in separation, free will, and souls. That state has a name: it’s called un-awakened, ignorance, or ‘normal’. But in fact: YOU are Being in action, not a separate someone who is…
In short: ‘you’ are simply a temporary swirl of consciousness, like a whirlpool in the river (as I have described it since the year 1999). Or like a swirl of ‘energy’. But no ‘I’ or soul lives in it; it is simply swirling consciousness (or water, in the metaphor—wherein I do not claim to be the first to use this metaphor, for the record). As an organism, technically speaking, you are merely a one-time phenomenon consisting of countless interactive, intimately connected bio-neural sub-systems, to put it romantically. Nothing remains of that after death except dust and molecules. Anyway. When the aforementioned swirl or whirlpool stops, well… it is simply gone! And not off to somewhere. It was never a separate entity with some dwelling creature inside. It is and was a temporary phenomenon of consciousness—or water in the metaphor. Nothing is or was ‘inside’. The river remains, but it remembers no specific, ceased whirlpool. And that ceased whirlpool has simply dissolved—done. Get it? Gone is gone.
It Is Not About Opinions
It doesn’t matter, by the way, whether you agree with this or not, or a little bit. Reality—that-which-is before ‘you’ think something about it or interpret it—simply doesn’t care whether you agree with it. Reality is what it is, with or without your permission. Nor does it care whether you believe it or not, by the way. It is simply what it is, and believing in it doesn’t help. Awakening is simply the realization of this; it is not a belief or a matter of agreeing. Non-dual truth is not an opinion, philosophy, belief system, or dogmatic framework.
That is the core of advaita—take it or leave it… Realizing that is called awakening (when it is in the process of unfolding) or being awakened (when it has become permanent).
Unfortunately, it occurs less often than one would think that people or teachers calling themselves non-dual are consistently non-dual. That is sometimes quite strange or even suspicious. It often simply points to being un-awakened, or being very incompletely awakened—if we assume that is possible, as some traditions allow. Sometimes it is even shoddier than that. The bottom line, however, is: non-duality is what it is, and not something else! Almost or partially non-dual is therefore not non-dual. Almost pregnant isn’t pregnant either… Partially pregnant is impossible, and being briefly pregnant and then not is called a miscarriage. In this situation, it is very dualistic (meaning completely clear): it is non-dual, or it isn’t!
Examples of Inconsistency and Contamination
Even someone like McKenna—whose first three books I appreciate to a considerable extent—suggests multiple lives. He claims that the universe wanted him to write a book, that he wouldn’t die during a thrilling episode because he had a deal with the universe to finish the book, and that you can indeed manifest ‘sincere desires’. All that kind of magical thinking and vagueness. That is extra astonishing because on many other points he comes across as so sharp and fiercely non-dual.
A thinker like Kastrup also airs all kinds of spiri- and reli-residues and hopeful fantasies. That is sometimes less disastrous, but sometimes quite serious—at least for anyone who sees or truly grasps what non-duality entails. But well, he calls himself an ‘idealist’ and apparently uses non-dual concepts mostly when it suits him.
Most people care very little, of course, or they find it terribly nice: acting, sounding, or seeming a bit non-dual, while simultaneously protecting your ‘little soul’ and your free-will illusion. Manifesting something here and there, plus finding some comfort in vague life-after-death fantasies sanctioned by this or that teacher or author… Yeah, sure: they want to have their cake and eat it too. McKenna is dead, but during his life (not anymore, hihi, because except for his books nothing of that ‘swirl’ remains) he loved to fiercely attack what he called ‘non-duality light’. He debunked various spiri-clichés, just as I have long been accustomed to doing. But… his own work is unfortunately full of precisely the same for the critical reader! Hm. Pity.
Wallis has also dismantled a lot of nonsense in his well-written, generally well-substantiated, and reasonably clear book Truth is for those who dare (Waarheid is voor wie het aandurft). That is precisely why I brought it to Samsara’s attention at the time (nearly two years ago now) in the hope that the book would become available in Dutch, and I wrote a largely positive foreword for it. But in his book, I unfortunately still note a number of residues that are definitely not non-dual. That’s why I also mentioned in that foreword that he sometimes doesn’t go far enough for me—without specifying it there.
Now for a few of those striking things in his otherwise excellent book. In his work too, we see those ‘in this life’ phrases, various ‘divine’ and teleological terminology, and magical-sounding interpretations. For example, that a teacher is not ‘better or more divine’ than you. No, indeed: nobody is divine. We are all human, all too human, as Nietzsche would say. Wallis lets slip things about ‘harmony with the larger, structured plan of which your life is an expression.’ What? What plan?
On the one hand, he very thoroughly and extensively dismantles all kinds of clichés and misconceptions around ‘purpose-thinking’ (teleology) and the imagined ‘magical universe’. The universe is simply not a person and therefore wants nothing, as he correctly states elsewhere. But he still wrote down that mentioned (non)sense about the ‘plan of life’ anyway. Just like other similar suggestions: ’the stream of life’ supposedly wants to ‘support something in an intelligent manner’ somewhere and ’tends toward harmony.’ Yeah, right. Or that awakening is a purpose (of life), instead of a purely human potentiality. Just like learning to play chess, becoming a painter, being a loving parent, a benevolent shopkeeper, or a criminal. Pity.
Awakening Is a Human Capacity
Let me be clear and repeat myself: awakening is a human capacity and comes from within, not from above or anywhere else. It is not a purpose of ‘life’, because ‘life’ is not a person with a will or intention. That applies no more to ’the universe’. Awakening is simply one of an almost infinite number of human possibilities. A possibility that may or may not come to fruition, or to a certain extent, if circumstances permit—nothing more. It doesn’t have to happen, it is not the purpose of existence, ‘life’ (or whatever) is not driving toward it, and it is not the pinnacle of being human.
Every human being is always and at every moment already completely human. Irrespective of their behavior, values and norms, age, socio-economic circumstances, orientation, political preference, fears, desires, and the like. Awakening can simply happen, just like countless other things. Thus every human being at every moment is also an excellent manifestation of and in Consciousness, however he/she/+ is… in the current life circumstances of that moment.
Confusion of Terms and More Dubious Moves
What also often occurs is pure confusion—sometimes even in types who otherwise seem quite clear. For example, confusion between personal awareness (being aware of something as an organism) and Consciousness itself (Consciousness at large). Anyone who confuses the two, as Kastrup for instance likes to do or simply doesn’t realize (???), inevitably gets into trouble and quickly generates a false teaching. His book, Brief Peeks Beyond, is full of these kinds of misconceptions and sometimes strained-looking Christian residues, purely in the hope of still squeezing an afterlife and free will out of it. A shame, because he approaches various other topics very clearly. In the beginning of his book, he even uses the familiar whirlpool metaphor (and other sharp pointers), but seems to lose the non-dual essence of his own argument further on. He simply seems not to grasp the implications, or…
Consciousness at large (as he calls pure Consciousness) magically transforms into Mind at large in a metaphysical way after much speculation as his book progresses. And that suddenly possesses a subconsciousness, in which that whirlpool from the beginning apparently leaves something behind after all, so that in one way or another something still lives on after death. And through that Mind at large, ‘you’ would suddenly have free will after all, right. That free will isn’t really yours as a whirlpool—and of course you have no say in it—but because you are actually that Mind at large, you do have it after all, because that obviously has free will (?), or so we are told. Well… through a lot of ‘metaphysical’ juggling of concepts, a kind of God-light is created under the line. Including ‘free’ will, intentions, a kind of magical memory, and what not. Old wine in new (postmodern, intellectualistic, plastic) waterskins! Thus all this metaphysical, quasi-non-dual fuss—which starts out fairly non-dual to the untrained eye—quickly becomes a huge (and not even so) Near Enemy of the Truth.
Logical that I smelled, felt, and saw this. After a quick internet search, it became even clearer to me (I wanted to double-check if it was seen correctly). And what is seen there? Well, that Mr. Kastrup now flatly states in videos that the universe is simply God’s Mind. Ah! The universe is God’s mind, sure—we’ve heard that stuff before. This is just the old God as a ‘cosmic dreamer with intentions’—all over again. Well, that kind of metaphysical ‘idealism’ was what I feared, recognized, and smelled while reading…
Simply a closet Christian, who, just like thinkers in the 17th and 18th centuries, desperately tries to present intellectual ‘proofs of God’. Which naturally prove nothing at all, but assume everything, project wildly, and fantasize things together. Very cool for folks who want to keep something after death, want to remain a little ‘I’, and want to believe that a subtle magical being (imaginary friend) is benevolently at the controls. For people, in short, who don’t really like non-duality and are seeking old-fashioned, transcendent comfort and meaning, but simply don’t want to go to church anymore.
(Has Rupert Spira slowly gone blind and deaf, by the way??? How on earth could he have become a Kastrup fan and, above all, apparently remain one? Or does he also have critical notes? I haven’t looked into that further).
Hard?
And if you think I am being particularly hard in this regard? I also read another short work by Kastrup—and in it he attacks philosophical materialists (and empiricists and determinists) quite fiercely. Sometimes very justified, by the way, and sometimes… significantly less so. The point is: he comes out swinging quite strongly and firmly himself. And… he who bowls must expect the ball back, shall we say. Well, here it is. (If I were less lazy, or more motivated or irritated, I’d write a little book titled Why Analytic Idealism is Baloney, but alas, I have no free will…)
Okay, God was always an enlargement (or externalization) of conflicted man on a cosmic scale, and thus equipped with human traits. So too here. We humans have intentions, inclinations, and purposes, a mind, an (un)conscious, and so forth, so God, the universe, Consciousness/Mind at large, or the Great Green Woensel must have them too. Project much?
I am not saying he isn’t allowed to air his metaphysical speculations. Merely that it is glaringly obvious it is not advaita (non-duality), even though it may look like it to the more uncritical reader, or because he seems to make selective use of it.
Anyway! It gets even wilder when it is assumed that because everything is consciousness (or in consciousness), all that is must automatically be conscious as well. Like stones, electrons, wheelchair wheels, dead bodies, algae, stars, and molecules, so to speak. That kind of people obviously understands nothing about it. A Chopra is often guilty of this, but well, that causes no surprise here anymore—he’ll say and sell anything. (A video interaction I watched between him and hardcore evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins is quite embarrassing on this point, but not only on this point…). We’ll leave this over-the-top nonsense for what it is, though I already spotted the seeds of it in Kastrup’s books.
It Takes Time and Courage to Purify
It is true, by the way, that two or three spiri-elements or residues still appeared in my first books. Or better put: they hadn’t been fully dismantled and sifted out yet, which is why medieval terms like ‘grace’ or ‘divine’ can still occasionally be found there. One must remain honest, right? But fortunately you won’t find insecure blather about souls, an afterlife, free will, or a magical universe. That saves something.
It apparently takes some time after the initial awakening before all implications become clear, all impurities or inconsistencies are weeded out, and the spiri-reli indoctrination evaporates. In some people, that apparently never happens… unfortunately. In some non-dual teachers and authors, these kinds of ideas (like past lives or karma) rarely occur; in their case, they are perhaps simply residues from the long prior teachings received or read before awakening. In others, however, you’d almost suspect these concepts are deliberately kept in. But well, you must never simply assume others are acting in bad faith, are secretly believers, or have an agenda… (uh… right? Hihi).
In still others, however, it seems very clear that they are running a ‘conscious’ campaign. They want to attach all kinds of magical, romantic fuss and (fear-driven) fantasies to non-duality, under the guise of: ‘yes, but if you look and twist this way and that, maybe it could be possible after all. Wouldn’t it be nice if… I hope, I think…’ Or they simply do it to attract more new-age followers. Who naturally prefer to keep a vague soul, and find a benevolent cosmos with cool intentions reassuring. So it feels nice or something, and something can be manifested. And a metaphysical chance at life after death remains. (Quite apart from the rather childish nonsense of all this, I’d think one had better care for life before death, but yeah… what do I know…).
And so non-duality unfortunately continues to be (or increasingly becomes) actively mixed or polluted with incompatible spiri-reli elements and new-age stuff from the spiritual grab bag… things that simply don’t belong. Either through lack of clarity or carelessness, or more or less intentionally.
(It is interesting to note, by the way, that the word soul in the Bible does not refer to a floating, immortal little ghost, but to the human being as a whole, to life or the self (psyche). Ancient Greek ideas were only used by later Church Fathers to change the concept into something separate from the body. They also invented the heaven and hell business, and even later purgatory. A long struggle ensued over that separate, ethereal ‘soul’, which was ultimately won by Augustine and his club in the 4th century).
That ancient Eastern texts and all sorts of Eastern teachers—including non-dual ones—also often spoke of divinity, reincarnation, and the like is, in my view, primarily a cultural phenomenon. It was partly dependent on the audience present, plus it stemmed from an inclination not to alienate the general public too much. To prevent trouble, too. Religious people can become quite dangerous if their dogmas and assumptions aren’t taken seriously enough, or when someone can be accused of blasphemy. To this day, hordes of worked-up or offended believers are capable of lynchings. That used to be common practice here as well, but in ‘spiritual’ countries like India and in the religious Muslim world it remains a frequently occurring phenomenon. (Which is because religion leads to moral and merciful behavior, full of brotherly love, of course).
Ramana Maharshi said all kinds of things that aren’t non-dual. Partly because people didn’t understand him when he did, partly because one must speak in the language and concepts available, partly because (in India and surroundings) you simply have to be careful, and partly to avoid alienating visitors too much. Different times and different circumstances. (I probably wouldn’t survive long if I spoke or wrote there as I am allowed to do here effortlessly and unthreatened).
In his most crucial statements, however, he resolutely sweeps all dual reli-stuff off the table—and that is what one should pay attention to with those kinds of folks. Not to the B- and C-level teachings, to which even Ramana regularly defaulted. ‘Go honor God and do puja, that is good for you too.’ Or: ‘If twenty people come for instruction and I tell them they must meditate or honor God, they are usually satisfied and leave. But sometimes one turns around and says: that’s all fine and well, but now tell me how it really is!’ He said something like that once. And that single individual, that’s who he truly appreciated. The rest preferred to be fobbed off with a pacifier or sent away empty-handed.
Thank u!
_____________________________________________________________________
One more thing about why I seem to be—or am—such a know-it-all: if you want to travel from Maastricht to a house in Amsterdam, how you drive at the beginning doesn’t matter so much; you just head roughly northwest. But as you approach Amsterdam, it becomes much more precise, and if you want to find the exact house, the details matter enormously, otherwise you try very hard but never arrive. That’s why I am such a nitpicker. Misconceptions, half-truths, platitudes, and incorrect assumptions prevent and delay arrival… and sometimes people don’t move forward at all, but keep spinning in circles.
Moreover, in practice I turn out to be much more patient than when writing. Now you know.
I also like to keep the ‘idiots’ away by being sharp and clear, even though it would financially be smarter to lure them in by mixing in some floaty talk. I know very well how to get 60 people into a hall; for that I would only need to sacrifice my integrity (which some call my arrogance). But fortunately I have no free will, as I said, so that’s not going to happen. My accountant finds that a real pity, hihi… besides, I am just like everyone else: Consciousness + this one-time, specific swirling organism + changing circumstances, so, well, I Happen to happen this way, shall we say.
B well, Hans Laurentius – august 2026, The Netherlands
