Wakefulness has been real and accessible for all human beings at all times and in all cultures. People from all cultures have been able to touch into it and explore its rich and radiant experiential landscape. They have simply interpreted and conceptualized it in slightly different ways, due to the different beliefs and conventions of their cultures. In Buddhism, perhaps because of Indian culture’s belief in rebirth, wakefulness is partly conceived as a state in which a person no longer generates karma and no longer needs to be reborn. But when expressed through the more dynamic and world-embracing attitudes of early Chinese culture, wakefulness is partly conceived as a process of becoming attuned to the Dao and living in harmony with it. On the other hand, people who live in monotheistic cultures — Jewish, Sufi, and Christian cultures — see wakefulness in more transcendent terms. To them, it’s natural to interpret the all-pervading spirit-force (which the Chinese conceive as the Dao and the Indians as brahman) in terms of God. They see it as divine energy, the being of God, and they conceive the goal of their development to be union with God.

In some respects, modern-day spiritual seekers are in a better position. In our secular culture we’re less obliged to interpret wakefulness through the prism of religious or metaphysical frameworks. It’s naive to think that there’s such a thing as pure experience — some degree of interpretation will always take place. No phenomenon exists outside the culture in which it develops, and no phenomenon is free from cultural influence. But there are degrees of interpretation. When we look at wakefulness outside spiritual traditions, we’re surely looking at it in a purer form, before added layers of interpretation. You could say that we’re looking at the raw materials, before they go through the filtering and manufacturing processes of spiritual and religious traditions.

Steve Taylor, The Leap: The Psychology of Spiritual Awakening, pp.235-236

It is impossible, it seems to me, to write – or even to speak – about the contemplative life without to some extent interpreting and conceptualising it according to the conventions of our own culture. Even the language of radical nonduality – the writings of Tony Parsons or Darryl Bailey , for instance – borrows not only from Zen Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta, but from our contemporary scientific understanding of the neuroscience of consciousness, from philosophy more generally. I do myself, continually.

Yet we can to a large extent evade the worst of “the filtering and manufacturing processes of spiritual and religious traditions”. We may in many ways live in difficult times, yet most of us do have the freedom to think, even to speak and write, outside tradition. We can explore – and to a great extent we have the internet to thank for this – widely and deeply among contemplative thinkers and practitioners, and we can find encouragement to think for ourselves and to develop our own contemplative path,

No amount of reading, though, will open for us the door of what Steve Taylor refers to as wakefulness. Nor, I can’t resist saying, will making retreats, training for Zen ordination or attending Centering Prayer sessions at our local Catholic church. Wakefulness arrives of itself, in its own time. In Centering Prayer it would simply be referred to as grace, the gift of God. We cannot make wakefulness happen: it is not an achievement, a goal we could work towards. It is not something else, something different from where we are now, or what we are now. Wakefulness appears – it was never absent – when we stop trying to name and control what is.

The radical nondualists are in a sense right: practice cannot create wakefulness, and wakefulness can appear without a settled practice at all. No words can give it to us, unless perhaps we are on the brink of it ourselves anyway.

I’m often reminded of my frustration when first reading Jiddu Krishnamurti in my twenties: his words were wonderful, hinting at the very opening I’d been longing for, but there was no practice, no method, not even the suggestion of a pill one might take.

What Krishnamurti was writing about was what he called choiceless awareness, the quality of openness to what is, just as it is, in the instant that it is perceived. Taylor’s wakefulness. Wes Nisker:

Choiceless awareness allows the meditator to see how our experience creates itself; how sense impressions, thoughts, and feelings arise without our willing them; how they interact and influence each other. By engaging the quality of choiceless awareness, we can extract ourselves from the contents of what we think and feel and start to explore how we think and feel.

Choiceless awareness, wakefulness: the state appears when the mind ceases grasping after things, even spiritual things. And practice, while not the only way to refrain from grasping after spiritual goals and achievements, is for me at least the most reliable way.

That’s why I think shikantaza, or its near Christian relative Centering Prayer, is such a good practice. Nearly free from ritual and tradition in its native Zen form, shikantaza at least can be practiced without religious assumptions.

Just sitting, there is nothing to do, nothing for the mind to cling onto. There is only now: the sensation of breathing, the feel of whatever we are sitting on, the sounds from outside the room; nothing more. Even thoughts are no more than the flicker of shadows across a curtain in the sun. This condition is in itself perfectly free. It can’t be a means to anything. It is itself what all this is about; nothing more.