The Natural Wow

By Steve Warm

What had been a routine game of tennis with a close friend became something else. I didn’t have the slightest idea at the time, but decades later I realized it was an example of what countless people search for all their lives. Suddenly, all I saw was the ball and my tennis racket with my extended right arm and hand effortlessly moving the racket and hitting the ball. My body was somehow making all the right moves as the ball was pummeled toward the net, but I wasn’t doing it! It was just happening with no thought of winning or losing or trying to make the right shots. There was a feeling of lightness, but without any idea of enlightenment or spirituality. This story stays with me many years later, and in retrospect has become an early prelude to a connection with all that is. ¹, ²

The first big glimpse came in March of 2010 as I was working on the spiritual autolysis method recommended by Jed McKenna. ³ The idea was to examine one’s beliefs in order to discard whatever might be false so that one could discover the truth. After writing on numerous pages the reasons why my beliefs were false, a question suddenly occurred to me and began involuntarily repeating itself: “What if there were no ‘I’? What if there were no “I”?” Over and over the question kept asking itself until suddenly, the “I” seemed to vanish. For the next 40 minutes there was a sense of floating in a sea of nothingness with the amazing feeling that I finally understood what the saints and sages had been talking about. This had to be enlightenment or abiding non-dual awareness. Of course, it wasn’t. There are many stories of those who describe this sort of state continuing for days, weeks or months. The time period is perhaps not as significant as what the presumed landing in a temporary state of bliss does to spark the desire to seek a permanent “abiding” awareness. It can feed an intense seeking which can, and often does, last for years.

“Non-duality” (also known as “Advaita” from its Hindu origins ⁴) is often defined as “not two” or, in other words, no separation between any two supposed things, most especially between the “I” and everything else. In the realm of “uncompromising” non-duality, speakers often rush to add that there is no non-duality because the word might imply a distinct and separate entity or theory that is apart from what is. It may sound like it is being suggested there is only one thing, but that is not what is intended. Rather, it is a matter of there being nothing that would constitute a thing as distinguished from any other thing. The totality is all there is, simultaneously nothing and everything.

Traditional Non-duality

I will discuss three current approaches to non-duality, each of which seems to be motivated by those seeking peace, silence, enlightenment, liberation, freedom, or unconditional love (take your pick). ⁵ First, and probably what the overwhelming majority of current seekers look to, is what I’ll refer to as “traditional non-duality”. Its teachers, gurus, saints and sages typically provide a path toward a goal that is to be attained by asking questions, meditating or attempting to overcome perceived problems. The truth or Truth is assumed to be something that may be sought and grasped. Consciousness is generally seen as the basis of all reality and the goal of the person or “I” is to become one with consciousness and all that is. However, even though it is referred to as non-duality, traditional non-duality opens a backdoor to “two-ness” with there being something, consciousness, that is aware of whatever else is happening.

An intriguing articulation of this can be found in Jed McKenna’s Theory of Everything:

If you understand that consciousness is what consciousness is conscious of, then you know all there is to know. [Emphasis in original] ⁶Consciousness is true, but what consciousness is conscious of is not… [Emphasis in original] ⁷

In traditional non-duality, there is a belief that one can attain an abiding state or ongoing presence as consciousness which would not be subject to changing circumstances. Even when there is a feeling of progress as one follows the teacher’s instructions to reach the intended goal, most seekers on this route eventually bump up against the real/unreal feeling that whatever is going on needs to be different. If there is a blissful feeling, there can be fear of losing that feeling. If there is a sense of oneness, a question can arise as to whether the “I” is really interfering or causing the experience. Thus, the cycle of seeking begins anew as long as one believes there could be anything problematic with what is happening. And that is a process that can and does go on for years.

Apart from glimpses such as those I described above when I was playing tennis or engaged in spiritual autolysis, some report a shift, a complete and lasting change in their view of themselves and what is happening. Whether this is a function of following the prescriptive forms of traditional non-duality or a spontaneous occurrence which happens with or without them is a matter of controversy. This should become clearer as we discuss uncompromising non-duality.

Uncompromising Non-duality

A second approach to non-duality is what its proponents typically call either “radical” or “uncompromising” non-duality. ⁸ In opposition to what I have termed traditional non-duality, where the “I” or “I am” is at least initially presumed to exist in some fashion, the uncompromising non-dual presentation views the “I” as non-existent or, at most, illusory, with the totality or singularity simply appearing as what’s happening. Emptiness and nothingness, neither of which can be characterized as distinct things, are none other than whatever is appearing. If the illusory “I” seems to be the witness to what is happening, it is merely an imaginary veil that never existed in the first place. This can be recognized when a shift occurs which can happen for no apparent reason in both the seeker and non-seeker.

What is perhaps most astonishing in uncompromising non-duality is the lack of a viewpoint or position from which one could positively or negatively assess whether any particular feeling, sight, sound, or action is or is not appropriate, real or unreal. Since there is no “I”, whatever occurs is not happening to an entity who is presumed to be a person. This may leave those who still imagine they are persons feeling like they are in free fall or floating, a frightening prospect for some, a liberating one for others. ⁹

Uncompromising non-duality rejects the idea of a path, process or goal to be obtained. There is no truth to be sought. The question of what is true or false is not relevant to the totality of what is. To be meaningful, any truth would require a context, which in itself would be a limitation on the totality. The very idea of seeking runs counter to the notion that there is no seeker and nothing to seek. Regardless of how one may be thinking or feeling, the totality is already. There can, moreover, be a resonance, a kind of harmonious synchrony with what is happening in the timeless moment. Although doing or not doing anything to achieve such resonance is neither encouraged nor discouraged (after all, there is no one who would be available for doing or not doing if the “I” is illusory), the attempt to achieve resonance flies in the face of the notion that whatever is happening is the totality, and is what it is. While reactions can vary widely, there are, nevertheless, often reports during discussions of uncompromising non-duality of a resonance with the message that is being presented. Typically, this resonance can be a feeling of peace or well-being.

The conceptual framework presented as non-duality is not too complicated, but its meaning cannot be grasped. To grasp it would imply a duality—someone who understands and something to be understood. Thus, of paramount significance here (and no, there is no “here here or there there”) is that what seem to be things, whether subjects or objects, are neither real nor unreal, even if they have the appearance and feeling of substantiality and solidity. If this sounds peculiar, some reflection on what constitutes real things may be in order.

Early in our lives we learned the names for various things that surrounded us. Calling something a chair or table was simple enough. The details of having four poles or legs supporting a seat cushion with a back vs. poles or legs supporting a flat surface for placing dishes with food were crucial to the idea of learning the difference between a chair and a table. We learned increasingly greater numbers of distinctions, attributes and names that described the separation of an uncountable array of objects from one another. ¹⁰ However, this separation was merely conceptual. Like the objects in a painting which are not separate from each other or the canvas they are painted on, the same is true of what seem to be the objects of our perception.

The ability to discriminate between sights, sounds and feelings suggests there must be many things. After all, looking around the living room there are couches, a coffee table, a recliner and a chair. These presumptive objects both are and are not what they are taken to be. What a thing is depends on the distinctions we make as to the particular attributes or characteristics we associate with that thing. But distinctions can change moment to moment as we filter the array of sense data constantly impinging upon us. There is a tendency to name and objectify what is around us, separating our imaginary selves from everything else while simultaneously differentiating what we observe into separate categories of things. It is not that we shouldn’t use these observations to navigate around the room, but in the immediacy ¹¹ of what is, the solidity and hard reality of “out there vs. in here” gives way to a sea of images and impressions that reduce the hardened distinctions of self and other to irrelevance.

Instant Awakening

This brings us to a third version of non-duality, an approach introduced by Emerson Non-Duality through his many online discussions, and particularly through his YouTube streaming clips entitled, “Instant Awakening.” ¹² There has been some controversy over whether Emerson’s discussions with the individuals who have “awakenings” during his one-on-ones somehow violate an underlying assumption of non-duality—that if there are no individuals and no experiences, one cannot (and perhaps should not) attempt to induce an awakening experience in another, even if the reason some people go to countless meetings with speakers on uncompromising non-duality is the attempt to get past what obscures their resonance with the message.

In a departure from the more abstract tendencies which tend to arise in these discussions, Emerson directly addresses the listener’s feelings, beliefs and thoughts, first inquiring where they are in the moment, eliminating references to ideas of the past or future and then moving behind and beyond whatever comes up in a way that points to the immediacy of the underlying peace and silence.

There is an illustration of this in “Am I Dreaming? Instant Awakening session w/Anonymous – August 2025 “nonduality #awakening,” https://youtu.be/Kbhdm0mrm58?si=7Fx3Q8JoOLiHxg7f :

Anonymous: Not to make it, you know, like a system, like I was doing in the…radical nonduality, with the… there is no me.

Emerson: Yeah. This is taking away all the words. There’s nothing to land on, right? What’s between doing and not doing? What’s between belief and non-belief? What’s between me and no-me? So the moment that the word comes up, take away the word. The moment that the belief comes up, what are you without that belief? The difference is the radical is more of a belief system. It’s just a belief that there is no me so it becomes a bit from what I hear from a lot of people they get depressed from it. It can become a dangerous communication because it becomes nihilistic. ¹³

Anonymous: Yes.

Emerson: So go directly at this moment and take away the past or the future. There’s almost like an openness here, like a, an aliveness, right. There doesn’t have to be no me, no time. It can be warm. It can be open. It can be relatable. It can be just life….

In Unreleased Instant Awakening Volume 3 end of non-duality seeking, https://youtu.be/GpvGjpTJlJk?t=5223 , at 1:27:07, Emerson poses questions that go to the heart of the seeking dilemma:

Emerson: What do you believe at this very instant if you cannot go into the past or the future?

Anonymous: What do I believe if I can’t go into the past or the future? Nothing comes.

Emerson: Yeah. So, if nothing comes, where is the “I” or the self without the past or the future?

Anonymous: I can’t seem to find, no, no, can’t come up with anything, no.

Emerson: There you go. So without the next, without the past, is there anything missing?

Anonymous: Without the next…No.

Emerson: Yeah. So, if there’s nothing missing, what’s there to seek?

Anonymous: [Laughter] Oh my God, it’s so stupid!

[Mutual Laughter]

Anonymous: What are we even doing?

Emerson: Exactly. Since all words are made up, what’s there to know?

Anonymous: Nothing.

Emerson: Nothing, yeah.

Anonymous: Nothing needs to be known.

Emerson: That’s right. Nothing needs to be figured out. Nothing needs to be aware of. You know, it’s just all mumbo jumbo, isn’t it?

Anonymous: Wow!

Emerson identified the manifold ways in which well-meaning speakers and teachers may inadvertently have the effect of pulling us away from the very message they are conveying. There can be a feeling that a non-duality speaker is in possession of an elusive means of understanding or perceiving what is. If an individual gets caught up in trying to be like the speaker or gain something beyond what is being perceived, a new cycle of seeking can be generated.

Like uncompromising non-duality, what is sought is immediately available and not in any way apart from that which is already. The ‘’who” or the “what” can get a little tricky because the very notion there is something here runs into the wall of there not being a self and there’s nothing here. But the amazing irony is that whatever seems to be appearing is simply whatever is happening and whatever is happening can be none other than the totality in the timeless moment. It is all balanced on the fulcrum between the real and the unreal, what is and what is not, what can be seen, felt, heard or otherwise sensed in whatever way the appearance syncs with itself.

Thoughts suggest their opposites even as they appear to be solid or real. Good suggests bad, hot - cold, and night - day. Between the thought of each of these pairs, the possibility of not being able to form a thought of either arises, a blank space or emptiness which is the peace that is sought. Adding “no” or “not” to whatever concept is arising can also have the effect of dissolving the conceptual stickiness. What is between the idea of “I” and “no-I”, “self” and “no-self”, “what is” and “what’s not”? The answer or lack thereof can resonate with the underlying nature of what is.

Observations of the Ordinary

No concept, image, or feeling captures the immediacy of this timeless moment, even as each is what this timeless immediacy is. Moreover, the immediacy is always and ever available.

Words fail. The sounds and symbols comprising language are inadequate for describing what they seem to refer to. As soon as one expresses in words the essential aspects of what already is, it isn’t. Words fail because that which one attempts to point to with words is what is happening, which is impossibly both ever-changing and always the same.

How can this be? In order to explain it, one has to tell a story. And explanations are stories with more or less accuracy about what they purport to explain. For example, the explanation of what happened to cause my wrist pain a few years ago might be that I tripped and fell, landing on my right hand. It may be more medically precise to report that I was experiencing the result of a fracture of my ulnar bone, which was radiating pain to the wrist, based on an x-ray reading of an orthopedic surgeon.

Both of these explanations are stories told in the context of a fall that resulted in pain. But neither explanation is the whole story. It was also the case that I tripped while running when the toe of my running shoe caught on an upraised portion of the sidewalk, apparently the result of a tree root which had exerted pressure on the sidewalk over a number of years. Or, maybe the whole thing happened because I wasn’t paying enough attention (although the rest of the sidewalk did actually look pretty smooth)!

From comparative representations via similes, metaphors and analogies, each form of explanation relates a story in connection with an event or series of events. It’s not so much that stories are true or false, accurate or inaccurate, it’s that they are just concepts and words intended to satisfy a felt need to understand or relate what has occurred or is about to transpire. This is the case as much for the storyteller as it is for the one(s) to whom the story is told. Stories are recounted in words, whose sounds and symbols are based on other sounds and symbols.

There are innumerable reasons one might need an explanation of why something occurred or how something works. Explanations range from the historical and social causes of political events to the medical reasons for illnesses and treatments. They are typically intended to make sense out of what is happening or depict a methodology for dealing with a condition.

Stories may also be told for a variety of other reasons such as entertainment or for reassuring someone they are not alone while they are going through an emotional crisis. Bedtime stories serve to help children fall asleep. Witness accounts relate stories of how accidents or crimes were committed or perhaps why something may have looked like a crime when it was a matter of self-defense. In all of these cases an effort is expended to satisfy or alleviate a felt need of the listener, the storyteller, or both.

Words fail because they are inherently locked within a closed system which only appears to be separate from that which the words are intended to convey. Even as words are expressed to depict the totality, they are limited by what they are referring to (however, the words themselves are just as perfectly complete as that to which they are pointing). The meaning of particular words and sentences is dependent on the context in which they are spoken or written, and the context is a function of a multi-faceted set of assumptions and ideas based on hypothetical constructs and beliefs about what is happening. Those beliefs depend upon other words and the meaning attributed to those words. And so it goes, round and round, in an unending tautological circle.

Nevertheless, in the emptiness and fullness of the timeless moment, words may not only be a transition to a sense of peace and boundless freedom, they can also ironically be integral to the underlying silence of the moment in which they are spoken or heard.

When there is a pause in the naming of things or conceptualizing of situations, when the context is the field of what is, the totality, the immediacy of the pervasive timeless silence is no more than seeing what is already as both what is and what isn’t. There can be a resonance with what is left unsaid (the silence behind the words), even as the words describing it are read or spoken. If the meaning of the words can be understood, what is behind them cannot. All sense of time, the illusion of past, present and future, merge into what is and isn’t as the words are heard. It can feel like there’s a problem when a grasping, an understanding, or reification is attempted, and this can act as an obstruction to resonating with what is behind the words. But when the effort to understand disappears, in the silence and peace of the timeless moment, the illusory self falls away and all distinctions that otherwise mark the separation of things dissolve into the emptiness of the totality.

While appearing to be apart from each other, things are inherently inseparable aspects of what is and are only seemingly characterized by their attributes. They are, nevertheless, not other than the empty fullness that is beyond all understanding. The attempt to discriminate, name, understand and explain is an effort to bring about peace at the level of what is inherent in everything, even when the particular endeavor or consideration seems intended to do otherwise. If that effort and the intention behind it disclose a denial of what is really sought, underlying all is still the inescapable dissolution of the distinctions which separate self from other and everything else. And again, it is all an attempt to reach the silence, the peace, which is already.

The point is not to find the right questions or answers, but to see that behind either of them are only more words and concepts. Clarity emerges as one realizes that all of the concepts, issues and words of non-duality (and other belief systems) are fabrications, and they have no significance when one takes a further look behind them. In seeing this an opening can occur where problematic ideas and images are reduced to insignificance and irrelevance. What had been a struggle with the self/no-self can evaporate, leaving a sense of floating without boundaries.

Seeing through the conceptual/emotional veil to the immediacy of the underlying peace and silence is the essence of what this is about. In the timeless moment, where one is neither here nor there, nothing either needs to be different or remain the same. What happens is without meaning or significance.

Between belief and non-belief, self and no-self, thinking and not thinking, the silent space that emerges has always been there, and like all that is and isn’t – it’s so ordinary, but WOW!

© 2026 Steve Warm

Questions or comments may be addressed to OrdinaryCool1@yahoo.com.

Footnotes: ¹

¹ There is no intention in this article, either expressed or implied, to suggest that any of the items discussed can or s ² hould substitute for the care of a licensed psychologist, psychiatrist or other therapist.

² Some might use the term “flow” to describe this phenomenon.

³ Jed McKenna, Spiritual Enlightenment: The Damnedest Thing, Wisefool Press (2002), pp. 58-62.

⁴ Similar notions are found in many spiritual traditions.

⁵ References herein to peace, silence and other goals are merely pointers to the inexpressible.

⁶ McKenna, J. (2013) Jed McKenna’s Theory of Everything.

⁷ Ibid.

⁸ Tony Parsons (theopensecret.com) and Jim Newman (simply-this.com).

⁹ Kenneth Madden (youtube.com/@kennethmadden).

¹⁰ Ralston, Peter, The Book of Not Knowing.

¹¹ David Nassim (thisimmediacy.com).

¹² emersonnonduality.com and youtube.com/results?search_query=emerson+non+duality.

¹³ If some become nihilistic, it is not intrinsic to the message but the interpretation.