What is the difference between the scientist, the sage and the seeker?

Answer – The scientist finds the nothingness from which the universe exploded from, The sage finds the nothingness to be who he and everybody else is, the seeker imagines he is a separate being who needs to do something or please someone. Hint: he has only to stop imagining he is a separate being.

The Scientist . . .





Stephen Hawking  At the subatomic level, conjuring something out of nothing is possible. . . . . Since we know the universe was once very small, smaller than a proton, it means the universe could have popped into existence without violating the known laws of nature. Nothing caused the BIG BANG.




Time and matter came into existence after the Big Bang. This does away with a grand design and reveals how this universe created itself. The question,’ did God create a universe?’, the question itself does not make sense, time didn’t exist before the Big Bang so there was no time for God to make the universe in. No one directs our future.Stephen Hawking



The Sage . . .

Sages such as Ramana Maharshi, Nisargadatta Maharaj and the Buddha turned the quantumscope on themselves . . .



Both the sage and the quantum scientist have discovered the nothingness as well as the units of nothingness (at the quantum level) that make up the phenomena we call the cosmos. The sage also discovers that there is no localised “I” to be found in individuals, just the presence of consciousness. There is no “I” who can be enlightened and there are no other “I’s” to enlighten. There is just the nothingness or the underlying consciousness (made out of nothing) from which the mirage of life unfolds spontaneously as a whole.



The Seeker . . .

The seeker (and we’ve all been there)  imagines a God outside of both himself and the world and by projecting a parental authority figure seeks to please the external God by doing practices, penances, praying, bargaining, begging and taking on a spiritual purpose.



Sometimes the seeker finds a god substitute in human form with whom to merge, seek approval and acceptance. Seekers then tend to divide people, places, objects and activities into spiritual and non- spiritual and form groups and work hard to perfect themselves according to their group’s rules. (Having a teacher or guru who points to enlightenment and then looking to where they point is different from obeying a teacher.)



But all spirituality exists as part of the mirage and while enticing and sometimes helpful it is like a maze or a trance spiral taking us deeper and deeper into the mirage.



If we turn the quantumscope onto all spiritual concepts (even the good ones) we discover the same Nothingness from which the whole arises.


Many seekers (and we’ve all done it) drag their self or their “I” to Enlightenment Courses hoping their “I” will become a new and enlightened “I”


But stop and investigate the “I” and see that it is always a new “I” rising up from the nervous system and contained within every new thought. A fresh “I”arises with every thought so no matter what we do there is no real “I” to enlighten.  The only thing that stays the same and is always present is the empty consciousness in which the “I’s” appear. The empty consciousness is present wherever you are.



Some seekers think enlightenment means having high standards. They search for a perfect person to worship and also work to become the perfect person themselves. The aim is to reach the stage where their “I” or their self is free from responding to all external and internal stimuli in any way other than those deemed spiritual. This is an exhaustive and futile effort that only prolongs the belief that there is a constantly present “I” which needs to be perfected.


While it’s true that there is much that can put us into a trance, we don’t have to obsessively change all our responses as a means to become enlightened.


Waking up is seeing that any response is as illusory as any other. We can stop checking or judging our responses (or anyone else’s) because there is no localised “I” belonging to an individual human being. (There is only the nothingness and the mirage.) All responses occur within the mirage so we can forget all about responses and look to the nothingness instead.


When we (as Consciousness and not an individual) discover there is no localised “I”, who is there to change?


It doesn’t matter how nice a guru is (and there are some wonderful one’s), they are still part of the illusion.



Seekers seem to be a sentimental lot, holding onto the notion that a loving ghost of a guru is hovering over them. Even when past teachers have pointed to the void as who they are and pointed away from their personal form, people still want to imagine their guru is a holy individual who still exists in form. In other words, they want their mirage to be a spiritual one. This imagining though, keeps the belief alive that they too are an individual who must wake up and be like their guru. When Ramana Maharshi commented about death he said, “Where will I go? And where can I go?” Yet people still want to imagine his ghostly individual presence hovering over a “you” as an individual so “you” can wake up.

girlromanticnotionsoptiMany devotees become seduced by the cosy feelings generated by being a part of a spiritual community and having a spiritual purpose. What they like (and it’s understandable) is to have their ‘love’ buttons pressed, their oxytocin raised. Nothing wrong with love, it’s just that it has nothing to do with waking up. Many fall in love with their teacher and then become teachers themselves. Then instead of pointing to the nothingness and the mirage they point to their love and gratitude for a teacher and approve only those who become devotees of the same teacher. Being in love with a teacher or community or being loyal to a teacher or a teaching (while it feels nice) is being loyal to a mirage and missing out on seeing where Nisargadatta and Ramana and Buddha were pointing. They pointed to the nothingness as to who they were, who you are, who everyone is. So no matter how amazingly spiritual someone appears or how ordinary, it is the same mirage material.

Many wait for or work towards a feeling that they imagine goes along with enlightenment. When a low self esteem response, or a fearful or negative response is seen as illusory (or as made of the same energy) as an enlightened response do you need to work on changing them?

Seekers are usually looking in the mirror and checking to see if their responses and actions have become enlightened one’s or not. They make decisions to change themselves until they have all the appropriate feelings, actions and reactions. Teachers add to the confusion by approving and disapproving of students depending upon their actions and responses. This creates a false idea that the devotee is an individual with an “I” who must become an enlightened “I”. But with no real “I” present and all responses found to be illusory, it’s a relief to put the mirror down and never again be concerned about what one’s responses are.


It’s a relief to discover that no particular action is required, no approval from someone else is needed. There is no servile or holy action to do. There is no one you have to be with or devoted to to receive anything. Anything you do receive belongs to the mirage. Any role you play is as illusory as any other role. You don’t need to become an amazing person with a holy story. Regardless of what seems to be your life story, when you see that it is all illusion (arising out of Nothing and made out of Nothing) you’ll see there is absolutely nothing that needs to be done.


Wake up to the void and be free of all spiritual activity as a means to enlightenment.



When we cannot tell the difference between the theatre of being at home and the theatre of being in a temple, or meditating or being with a teacher it’s because we see the underlying unity wherever we are and that everyone is really our own Self.



Until then seekers continue to think spirituality exists in someone else or someplace else.


Nisargadatta said 8 days only in his company or else it becomes a guru’s game. Ramana Maharshi likened enlightening others to a jail sentence and neither he nor Nisargadatta encouraged devotees.

 It’s only natural that if a devotee believes enlightenment exists within an individual they begin to seek approval, love or a special transmission from that individual. But Nisargadatta said he wasn’t interested in pacifying people’s lives with a spiritual community or letting people play the guru game with him.

Nisargadatta  said to wake up and to continue with one’s vocation or interests.

Stephen Jourdain (french teacher) had his own unique way of saying the same thing. –

Jourdain – “A chap is in direct contact with infinity and he has a realization, he is the realization. What is he going to do? Try to speak of what he lives and write a lot of books and convince people? Be a missionary? Not at all. He will go out and smoke a cigarette, perhaps at a cafe, and order a good coffee and drink it.


None of the above is an instruction on how to live, (for that would only be a mirage instruction). Only use that which inspires you, as Consciousness, to enjoy yourself as Consciousness or, you as Nothing, to enjoy your nature as Nothing. If anything sounded like a rule to follow, or a judgment, jettison it immediately. No characters above portray real people other than Stephen Jourdain, Ramana Maharshi and Nisargadatta Maharaj.