Introduction to Interpersonal Nonduality

Most often when we go to a group, a workshop, a class, or even a meditation we are learning content through some presentation, or in the case of meditation we are being guided into directing our attention in a specific way to try and produce a specific result.

While these modes of working have much utility for too many reasons to list here, from the perspective of Nonduality they all fall within a structure that looks like something like this:

Process = Sense-of-Self + Directed Attention + Content.

Which then culminates in:

Sense-of-Self + Directed Attention + Content = Attempt Towards Intended Outcome

They all operate within a framework that tacitly assumes we need to identify with a sense-of-self and direct our attention towards some object. That is, they all operate within a framework of Subject towards Object with the intention of producing some result (e.g. learning, relaxation, insight).

Again, this does not mean these approaches do not have value, or utility. This kind of learning has been essential for all of us. Also, many different perceptions and experiences can and do arise within this framework, which can include experiences outside of the perceptual habit (e.g. during process of guided meditation, there is an experience of expansiveness of Self, or even selflessness). However, regardless of outcome the process can reinforce this underlying structure of perceptual habit.

Interpersonal Nonduality is a completely different process of interaction through which we are connecting with another or others with the primary intention of embodying Nondual Awareness.

Within the context of interactions in this intentionality, whatever we say, or don’t say, is of little importance. We aren’t trying to direct our attention in any which way, because attention is simply awareness that has been narrowed, and there is no narrowing necessary here as we are connecting with awareness as the backdrop of the entirety of any and all experience.

There is no content being presented, no concept to learn, and while one could argue that the intended outcome is to rest in the effortless experience of Nondual Awareness, we wouldn’t know if we were achieving that outcome because there would be no content of awareness to signal any achievement and nothing to compare achievement or non-achievement to.

Furthermore, the Sense-of-Self that is implicit in other processes is not necessarily a given variable in this context. Meaning, just because in the rest of our lives we assume that our Sense-of-Self may be somewhat concrete, we don’t start with the presupposition in Interpersonal Nonduality. We don’t start with any presupposition. Rather we start with an effortless non-presupposition, or what we might call innate not-knowing.

If we return to the formula I posited earlier of:

Process = Sense-of-Self + Directed Attention + Content

In Interpersonal Nonduality we might render this something like the following:

Process = Innate Not-Knowing = Sense-of-Self (None and/or No Presupposition) + Directed Attention (None and/or Awareness Itself) + Content (No Content) = Outcome-Whatever-It-Is

So in this sense we aren’t doing anything, but there is no pressure. There isn’t some suppressive silence. Rather, the shared recognition is simply that whatever words we have can not or ever capture the profundity and simplicity of awareness itself. We can talk about awareness, but our words are not themselves awareness. And yet somehow, our words are not, not awareness. Yet in this framework there is no work to be done, we simply have the opportunity to share and rest in the awe of the ground of experience itself.

Nonduality and the Psychotherapy of Transcendence

How does nonduality relate to psychotherapy? How might it be distinct? Is nonduality a method or approach to psychotherapy? What does nonduality offer psychotherapy?

In order to answer these questions we must start with how we understand who and what we are and what therapy is. In technical terms (which you can leave aside if you choose) we must try to understand the ontology behind our approach in order to understand the epistemology. That is, we must be differentiate how each approach sees itself in relationship to the process of being human or if you favor redundancy, being a human being.

Encyclopedias could be written about what psychotherapy actually is. Generally speaking, we can think of psychotherapy as an interpersonal methodology applied with the intent of helping the client develop awareness/insight and into their mental, emotional, and behavioral patterns in order to facilitate change. Some schools of therapy may frame therapy more centrally as a process of skill-building also aimed at facilitating change.

In either instance, therapy operates within a primarily secular worldview that is both individual to each therapist, and in the context of the therapeutic interaction intends to stand outside of belief (unless that is we specifically seek out a faith-based therapist) resulting in opaque or inexplicit ontology. Yet, whether or not belief is explicit it is impossible that the therapist and client would not include their respective world-views in the therapy process. Meaning, how the clients understand themselves in relationship to their world and existence must be part of the therapy process and by proxy how their therapist understands themselves in relationship to the world is impossible to eradicate from the therapy process, no matter how client-centered our values are.

Why am I making this point? Well the aim of conventional psychotherapy methods are built upon presuppositions that both client and therapist bring into the room. In the most general, structural sense some of these presuppositions are:

• the client exists as a sense-of-self

• the client is experiencing problems related to that sense-of-self

• those problems are related to one or more areas of dysfunction within the sense-of-self system

• those problems may be explained variably by different epistemological and etiological concepts (i.e. therapeutic theories and methodologies).

• emotional and relational development are emphasized as structurally formative factors in problems with the sense-of-self

• therapy seeks to ameliorate problems of the sense-of-self

These presuppositions are distinct from a nondual orientation to therapy which may respond to each point as such:

• the client sense-of-self exists as a relativity (some schools of psychotherapy may agree) and from another perspective the sense-of-self is non-existent; it is empty of self-nature

• “Problems,” or the roots of mental affliction, arise from the client’s identification with the sense-of-self as being substantial

• investment in remedying the sense-of-self reinforces the belief that the sense-of-self is ultimately existent and important

• Nonconceptual/Nondual Awareness is the ground of all experience

• the experiential revelation of Nonconceptual Awareness naturally divests energy from the identification with the sense-of-self, emphasizing experiential selfless spaciousness

• the conceptual mind may or may not naturally re-assert itself into Nonconceptual space

• The conceptual mind is divested of it’s relevance

• Resting in experiential selfless spaciousness

• Problems can not be constituted; awareness is unstructured; there is no it, there is no that, there is no I, there is no there.

The aims of conventional and nondual psychotherapy are different. Conventional therapy is a useful and important endeavor. It often implies certain presuppositions that are not explicit, however the reality is that most people who go to therapy find it helpful. In therapy we look at how we became who we are identified with today, and how certain patterns of emotion, affect, and thought serve or do not serve us— broadly speaking.

Nondual therapy is a totally transpersonal-consciousness based approach which is based on going beyond identification with the sense-of-self to an innate, experiential ground of being that has nothing to do with who we think we are. This is a psychotherapy of transcendence.

Distinguishing Two Kinds of Attachment

Attachment is an important idea in both contemporary psychology, and in the genesis of Buddhist thought. However, for folks who share an interest in each of these disciplines, it’s possible to get tripped up on the word—that is if we are trying to connect the attachment in psychology to attachment in Buddhism we may begin to scratch our heads. Despite utilizing the same word (at least in translation), these two concepts are totally different.

Attachment in psychology is based on the research of John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth. This research focused on the bond between infant and mother. In essence, the theory postulates that the child may develop different “styles,” of attachment bonds based on their relationship with their primary caretaker. The ideal attachment bond being a “secure” one. Developmentally speaking, this bond forms a kind of template that the child then brings into future relationships—even into adulthood.

Let’s zoom out a little to address the importance of security for a child. As humans we depend on our parents for a long time relative to many other species. Security in relationship to our parents quite literally could mean the difference in our survival nowadays and also in our evolution as a species.

Yet, when that security is absent from the side of the caregiver (and there are many ways this can happen… I won’t get it into all of them here) then the child has to develop other strategies to cope with this insecurity. This idea lends itself more to the more traditional psychoanalytic concept of defenses… however it is definitely relevant to attachment.

While I am taking a very broad brush stroke here, I am attempting to illuminate the connection of these ideas of attachment and security in relationship to our development as individual and relational human beings. In an ideal sense we need relational security as human beings in order to feel at ease. When we don’t get that, it’s possible we can have trouble regulating our own emotional realities, and relating to others.

However, the reality is that we live in a fundamentally insecure world. While developing security is essential to emotionally healthy relationships, there is also the idea that existentially speaking, nothing can ever be that secure. This is what Buddhist thought seeks to address.

There are many different strands of Buddhist thought, however they all seem to emerge from the idea that not only is our world fundamentally in flux, always changing, but our self is too. In fact, according to Buddhism, if we look closely what we call “the self,” is more of a conglomeration of constantly changing streams of consciousness than a static entity. If we look even more closely, we might discover that “the self,” is not able to be found.

Attachment here is when we try to concretize or fixate something that is by nature always changing. We try to hold on to that sensation of joy as long as we can only to find out that it’s replaced by a loss. Inversely, we might try to get rid of the feeling of loss by eating a whole bunch of ice cream. We might feel better momentarily, but then we might feel sick. This is sort of a game our minds play to try and somehow keep us from pain, but according to Buddhism the end result is always that we end up feeling quite sick. That is because we try to dictate to “reality,” the terms that are acceptable to us, but this is not really possible because everything is always in flux.

So attachment in Buddhism, the literal translation of which is “thirst,” is really considered to be the primary cause of dis-satisfaction in life—which is sometimes translated as suffering.

Why am I making this distinction? Well, terminology is difficult. In the US, Buddhist thought is often lumped into the psychology category and for better or worse these two traditions are associated here. The two kinds of attachment are about entirely different topics: relational development and existential malaise. Sure they may intersect, but their contexts are different.

I believe both are relevant to our understanding of psychology and mental health as a whole. We should just be careful about defining our terms clearly, understanding their appropriate contexts, and discussing how they are functionally relevant to us as human beings.