Home

Books

New Pages

Comments

Letters

Email Interview

"Is psychological self-study (self-knowledge, etc.) necessary for spiritual change? Must we change the way we live and act?"

This page is an exchange of emails between Nick and the host of 'Strictly Spiritual', a website evaluating teachers. An abbreviated version of this, as well as useful information on other teachers is available on the site Spiritualteachers.org

10.11.04

Dear Sirs (sorry, don't know your name)

I have visited and enjoyed your site 'Spiritual Teachers'. Not least of all the tips on finding a teacher and avoiding a 'wrong one'.

I offer my own site to you to view and re-view if you are moved to and once read have no qualms with whatever you feel moved to write, should you write anything at all, about the contents. There is indeed a lot of confusion surrounding the subject and I don't pretend to please everyone, nor would I want to.

Feel free to respond as you wish.

Thank you for your time.

Nick Roach

Hi,

Thanks for the note about your site. I noticed these lines as I was reading:

"However, the knowledge is that all must end, as it began. There will be no 'me', no more 'you', no more 'over there' or 'over here'. There will again be just consciousness with nothing to reflect on, so no knowledge at all of anything as there is nothing."

Have you "experienced" this? Perhaps a better phrasing is, have you become this consciousness without an object?

-Spiritual Teachers

Hi Spiritual Teachers

Thank you for the contact.

I am in the experience of being the point before anything is, as a constant state. That is to say, it does not come and go according to what is going on 'around' or any other sensations that may arise.

However, I cannot claim there is no object because clearly I am corresponding on this pc and will shortly go to the toilet then go to bed. Therefore the need for existence has not been satisfied and there is still separation. The experience here is that 'I' (whatever 'I' am) am the point before the forms and as the need to be separate is being dissolved so to am 'I', as it is only because of these objects that I am. The experience of 'I' only exists in separation and this separation includes an image such as a wall, a car, another person, or even just a sensation. In fact anything that is 'there' creates an 'over here'.

I say the above as it is apparently tempting for those in the experience to claim they have finished. However, the dream is not finished until it is.

So in short, Yes, I am this consciousness without an object, and yet without it I am not (aware of anything). (Please excuse me if it sounds like playing with words and double talk. I do try to talk straight and simple).

Feel free to ask me something else or question further anything above, as you wish.

Keep well .

Nick Roach

Nick

Let me try and summarize what I hear you saying:

You have become a constant state. That state is prior to creation and the objects of creation. Nick Roach is also one of the objects of creation.

Am I hearing correctly?

I have a few more questions if you have the time:

What will happen to Nick when he dies?

Is this constant state the end of the spiritual search? Is it the true answer to all our longing and questions?

What would it mean if Nick got a brain injury that prevented him from communicating or accessing this
constant state? What if he got Alzheimer's Disease, or Mad Cow disease or some other brain damage and could not have a dialogue such as we are having now?

In other words, can an enlightened man forget he is enlightened?

Do you have any writings that discuss the methods you teach people to help themselves?

ST

Hi ST 

Yes, 'Nick Roach' is a name or label given to the impression of 'me' here which is a result of the apparent objects of creation 'over there'. With no object there is no subject.

The idea of Nick is only hanging on by a thread anyway it seems. When even the idea has gone this will leave only 'being', or consciousness, or God,  or Mind (to give a few other labels). The knowledge is that Nick cannot really die, because there is nothing to die. Just an idea or dream that has already been seen through.

Yes, though I must replace the word 'our' with 'my'. The experience is, this being 'I' am is all there is.  Hence the term 'God-Realisation'.

 Good question. The Enlightened state is of being in the moment now in the knowledge that only what is now is real. Animals are in this state too, but lack the reflective and brain capacity and ability to realise what they are (the one being creating it all).

However, for me here know, though it is said I have a brain and it is indeed reasonable to say I do, until I can see it I haven't (bear with me). Just like in a dream while asleep in bed, you dream you have a body and walk around talking to people in your dream. Where is your brain?.. Is it in your dream body? There may indeed be one there when someone looks, but it is still part of the dream.

So if this dream brain in this dream body was dreamt that it was damaged, what would the result be? The consciousness would still be here as 'I'  am still here. Whether or not this 'brain' would still be able to interpret the information out here, and more so communicate it, is another issue. Of course there is no 'out here' really' and in truth one only experiences what is. To another 'person' it could be said that 'I' would appear brain damaged, but of course that too is only dreamt.  If I don't even know they are there, then to me in truth they aren't. Of course if you see me brain damaged then you are the one here and I am only a form in your dream.

Pretty much every page on my site is teaching and people will learn different things from different pages at different times, but really every page is repeating the same thing. Be aware of where you are and of what you are feeling as much as you can, acknowledge and appreciate what is here now. By feeling what is here now and being aware of the stillness within (and behind) the thinking mind 'I' become aware that this stillness is the truth and where all apparent existence comes from. As I become more aware of it, I realise I am this. So it is said I am 'one with everything' and yet even the experience of 'I am' is also being dissolved as I become more one with whatever this is.

There are more details on the page 'Other Exercises' after the page 'The Way to Enlightenment', but the above is a good overview.

Thank you. Write again.

 
Nick Roach

Hi,

Thanks. I had not noticed the "Other Exercises" page.

How successful are you efforts to help people? Has anyone become the constant state?

Do you see yourself as a successor to Barry Long?  What would you say is a difference between his teaching and yours?

I help edit an online magazine called the TAT Forum. You may be interested in a call for papers for the Dec. issue. The topic:

Is psychological self-study (self-knowledge, etc.) necessary for spiritual change? Must we change the way we live and act?

We're soliciting opinions on this topic for next month's Forum. Please e-mail your responses, limited to 800 words, by November 21. email: forum@tatfoundation.org website: http://tatfoundation.org/forum.htm

-ST

Hi ST

Thank you.

I receive very good feedback from those present at the talks I give at holistic shows around South London and from those who contact me through the website. Some of the comments are posted on the site on the 'Contact' page. I deal a lot with problems and emotions and how to see through to the truth behind and people often experience benefits very quickly. I have also been teaching formally through the Council 'Adult & Community Learning' meeting on a Wednesday evening 7.15 - 9.15pm. After the latest meeting I received emails from 2 of the 'students' who had little or no knowledge prior to the start of the course 8 weeks ago, saying they had each received the insight of being the only one here and that all this is for their own benefit.

As I experienced and teach it this is perhaps the first big step on the 'ladder', but it is a hell of a 'biggun'. To even have just a glimpse that you are all alone and no-one else exists (you too may have had this, and more) is a big step. Once the individual sees this, the rest of life is about becoming it (as opposed to just knowing it). I had this glimpse in about 1992, sat and cried, and then forgot it. It came again in 1994, this time to stay as a knowledge. I didn't get dressed for 3 days, after all, what's the point if it's all a dream?! It wasn't until 2001 that I was given it as an experience of truly being it and this became constant some time mid 2002. When it happens really it is an absence of experience so it is impossible for me to say exactly when it became constant.

Barry stated very clearly that he would have no successor, so the answer would appear to be 'No'. How could I be if Barry stated there wouldn't be one? However, it is true that I came through Barry's teaching and can do no more than teach what I am. I do not know of any particular differences between my teaching and Barry's except it comes from me. That is to say, Nick Roach is not Barry Long and I have my own way of interacting with people. I would suggest anyone following Barry's teaching would have very little trouble, if any, picking up mine.

I would be happy to write a piece for consideration.

Thank you

Nick Roach

Hi ST

Hope you are well.

Please find attached my writing proposed for the November issue of TAT Forum.

Thank you

Nick Roach

Nick

Thanks for taking the time to write a submission. I have several points of disagreement. I'm curious as to your response, but will understand if you don't want to bother.

One's level of growth _is_ evident in their life. Life is more than the facade of briefcases or robes. Part of the path is developing the ability to see/feel the deeper aspect. Perhaps by "life" you meant only external trappings?

Your method of self observation _is_ contradictory. Since you do not bother to explain your "long" answer to the question one is left to conclude: nothing is necessary, yet Nick teaches a method, but it is not necessary. Okay, I think I'll go have a beer now.  The pile of sewage I'm standing in is just as good as any other place.

If you exclude near-death experiences, I do not find a single example of a person who never had an introspective thought, then suddenly became enlightened.

I think you are caught in a free-will versus destiny conundrum.

We must act as if we have free-will until such time as we discover there is not (or there is!).

On the other side of enlightenment it may be clear that no action ever took place, that all happened as it had to, that one did nothing. The student is still of this world, however, with a mind bound by the laws of this world. To free that illusory mind of its illusion is to work within that world.

I think you short your self with your essay. I believe you have more to say to the person "in the trenches" than platitudes such as, "All is providing what is needed."

-ST

Re: "Is psychological self-study (self-knowledge, etc.) necessary for spiritual change? Must we change the way we live and act?"

Hi ST

- In this sentence, yes. For me it is a little like the old 'Chop wood, carry water' business. I am still very much 'in the World' and living a 'normal' life to anyone looking in. For example, I am a Rent Officer for a Council and spend every day chasing people for Rent money and taking them to Court with a view to evicting them when they don't pay. Not apparently a very 'spiritual' way to live, but then I don't claim to be spiritual, I claim to be 'Self-Realised' (or whatever other term is used).

- Yes, my 'life' is a constant unfoldment of my own nature in form. I have no problems at all and this 'dream' is indeed perfect according to what is needed here.

- It is true I followed a very definite 'method' which was right for Nick and seems to help others as Nick teaches it, but I am not going to say it is the only way. I have come across and spoken with Enlightened people who state very clearly that, in their own experience, it happens when it does and there is nothing you can do to bring it about. I have also received correspondence from someone who has been institutionalised in a mental hospital on medication on several occasions due to receiving very deep insights and knowledge - apparently not sought, let alone understood - and can't help but see it as a curse or punishment and is unable to cope.

So again, I teach my own way, but acknowledge there are other possibilities here.

Also I mentioned earlier two people in my class who both had the same insight on the same evening. They are both friends and joined the class together. One has spent the last few months reading books on every teaching and teacher he can find and seems very keen and is always asking questions. The other seems to just meander in, sit/slump in the chair and say nothing all evening. It is true both are at my meeting so there is an interest present, but their attitudes and efforts are very different and yet they had the same insight at the same time in the same place.

Looking at the question again, worded as I understood it, 'Is it necessary for growth in self-knowledge/awareness that I change the way I live and act?' - Again I maintain the answer is 'No'. The way I live and act may well change, but it is not necessary. However, please do not confuse the phrase 'the way I live and act' with 'the way I am'. As I grow in self-awareness/knowledge 'I' am changing. The way I appear to live and act may or may not change to any great degree, but 'I' do.

- You presumably stepped in the sewage in the first place! (That doesn't mean you have to stay there, but you might).

- To me 'free-will' is just that; the will to be free. It has no power separate from the whole except the movement to be separate. It is through living here that the will to be separate is being 'lived out' until all need has been satisfied and again there is only 'being' (with nothing to know it). All is perfect and provided according to what is required to satisfy the need for experience. There is 'free-will', but not free choice or free action. You can only do what you do.

_____________________

- Of course I do, but that was not the question. Perhaps the idea is that I could have gone into what changes could perhaps be made if the need to make them is present, but in the end one cannot change what cannot be changed until it is time, and I don't trust the personal thinking mind with its likes and dislikes and beliefs and opinions to decide what should be changed and what shouldn't. All is indeed provided as required and things change as they do. To the 'person in the trenches' I must say, it is right to be there as long as it is, by all means look for a way out as fast as you can but you cannot leave until it's time. Even to be in the trenches (whether real or metaphorical) is part of the process. Do not judge it as being wrong.

As 'I' change, I remain conscious of anything that may be disturbing me and look to see what, if anything, can be done to address it physically. I do what seems right and continue to hold the knowledge of the situation without going into it with the imagination. With this, either the situation changes 'by itself', or I see some action I can and should take to 'fix it', or it remains as it is but by my holding the knowledge whilst denying the imagination this dissolves the emotion connected to the situation and it's no longer a problem; but that's also not what was asked.

Q) 'Is psychological self-study (self-knowledge, etc.) necessary for spiritual change? Must we change the way we live and act?'.

I simply answered stating 'spiritual change' (in the sense of growing in self-knowledge) occurs whether or not a person knows about it and can occur anywhere and doing anything. It is not a pre-requisite for inner growth that I change my external life. However, I am also not going to teach that nothing should be done because everything must be done, as it is. There is no right or wrong here. Just the need to exist being lived out in the circumstances of one's life. One must do what one must. I teach a method that works for those who use it but I am aware that just as Barry Long's method worked as I am proof, I heard others say it was not right for them. So be it. Maybe my way is not right for everybody in every place and time.

By way of summary, to me there is no separate 'spiritual life' beyond my own life here.

I will ask you, were you looking for something else? I look to be as simple, direct and down-to-earth as I can see to be. To some I imagine it may not be mysterious enough or complicated enough. Perhaps you had a different question in mind to the one asked, such as 'What can one do to improve one's life?'. Now that's a whole different area.

Thank you

Nick

And a few days later I wrote again...

Re: "Is psychological self-study (self-knowledge, etc.) necessary for spiritual change? Must we change the way we live and act?"

Hi ST

Just a quick note to ask if my reply made sense at all to you?

The issue appears to me to be with the term 'Spiritual Change'.

To me there is only consciousness (I imagine this is what is termed 'spirit') and is experienced as 'I am' (or the stillness or nothing within etc). When experienced, the experience is that this 'I am' (or consciousness) is constant, though the conscious experience of it may not be. So, as far as it is seen, 'Spirit' does not seem to change. It remains behind the scenes, in the scene, watching the scene etc. Only the images change.

However, what does seem to change is one's relationship or experience of this 'I am' (etc), leading up to realisation of being 'I' as a constant and seeing it is creating all the forms. I take it this is what is termed 'Spiritual change'?!.

So the question to me is, which part of realising the spirit or consciousness or 'I' is termed 'spiritual change' and which isn't. Before a person asks questions such as 'Who am 'I'? and 'There must be more than this?' etc... I suggest they must have been changing for some time to get to the point of even asking the questions. A person cannot look within or seriously ask the big questions until they have had enough experience of being separate to now look for the truth.

That is why my answer may have seemed strange to you, and indeed why I struggled to give it any answer at all. There is 'spirit or consciousness' dreaming it is separate and after a while starts to see it isn't. The person is growing in self-knowledge with every experience, whether it is before it looks for the truth, while it is looking for the truth, or indeed after it seems to have found the truth.

Let me know how it's going ST.

Hope you are well

Nick

Nick Roach

Hi Nick,

Frankly, your previous reply didn't make much sense. Your current reply, however, makes sense to me.

We received a lot of replies to our request for papers. The first criteria is sincerity. Second is speaking from experience rather than book knowledge.

There is, I feel, a care that must be exercised when discussing "there is nothing to be done." That lack of care has led to the propagation of numerous "enlightened" people who are masters of little more than relaxation and a limited ability to be aware of their thoughts.

I find that I care, even though ultimately there is no one and nothing to care for. I care to help others who are at the verge of looking within and asking the big questions.

"There is 'spirit or consciousness' dreaming it is separate and after a while starts to see it isn't." Exactly. Yet, for the one who does not know this, it is best to say there _may_be_ spirit. One must find this out for their self. How to speed up the process of starting to see, is what the TAT Forum is all about.

The discovery that there is nothing to be done, or nothing that was ever done, may very well be what finally allows a person to See.

Anyway, one last question regarding your teaching: I believe Barry Long once described himself as a tantric master and know he had a number of women he was in close "relationship" with. Does the tantric angle play a role in your teaching?

Thanks,

ST

Hi ST

Thank you for your reply.

'Care' & 'Sincerity' are good rules. I follow both, though possibly in a slightly different way. I do not teach 'Nothing can be done'. If anything I teach the opposite 'Everything MUST be done' (as is required). I add the last part in brackets because clearly not everybody will need to do 'everything', but everything must be done as it is needed for one's growth.

My answer was an attempt to address a couple of issues that often occur:

1) How should an Enlightened person act?.. Can you tell who is Enlightened and who isn't from what they say and do?

Here I show that it is just a state of inner being or self-knowledge, that this being 'I' am feeling is creating everything. That does not mean I will be a 'nice' person. Examples of this include: Baghwan Rajneesh with his huge wealth, conviction for tax evasion and implicated in numerous other illegal goings on. Sai Baba and others indulging in sexual practises with young boys. J.Krishnamurti claiming to be celibate whilst having an adulterous affair with his Manager's wife. Adi Da Samraj indulging in various sexual activities with some of his female students and expressing fits of rage (so I heard recently). And no doubt there are many others. In anyone's definition of the word 'Spiritual', Enlightenment I imagine would be the summit. If these Enlightened people behave like this, perhaps that is a lesson about being 'spiritual'.

2) The second is the related issue that is often looked at in my classes, and is regarding guilt and regret about what a person has said and done, and resentment and anger etc about what others have done to them. In my teaching I address both. The bottom line is, not to judge one's-self or others. All are doing their best. You are doing your best. I am doing my best. In fact I can only do what seems right at the time (ie. what IS right at the time); even if it is to teach me that it was wrong and not to do it again. All is right and necessary, or it wouldn't occur.

I cannot tell people they should behave a certain way to be spiritual (grow in self-knowledge / spiritual-change etc). That would be irresponsible to me. I must teach the Truth that lessons come as they are needed. A person can only remain as conscious as possible to see the lesson and get out of it as fast as possible through conscious knowledge. The mind with its beliefs and opinions must be carefully watched when it tries to make the changes, as the person may miss the lesson and will have to face it again sometime in another situation. But that's ok too, if it happens.

That's why I say 'All is right' as it is. It will also change as it needs to. I am the consciousness so the circumstances of my life will change as I do.

_______________________

With regards to Tantra, yes this is a big part of my teaching... Man loving woman rightly, raising her conscious awareness and releasing the past emotion in her. It seems to be occurring quickly for my partner. I am only with her. I have not been Enlightened very long (been constant since some time in 2002) and have been with my partner since late 2003.

Thanks ST

Feel free to ask something else. You ask good questions.

Nick

Nick Roach