If we want to get technical, “non-duality” isn’t the whole awakening path. It’s one very specific part of it.
It’s also one of the most misunderstood parts, because people can turn it into a philosophy or a vibe, when what I mean is a precise shift in experience: the filter that makes reality feel divided into “me in here” and “everything out there” stops operating.
And the moment you start working with that filter directly, something else becomes obvious: there’s no single order this unfolds in. For some people reactivity breaks first. For others, the subject-object construct breaks early—while reactivity is still very active.
So let’s talk about what non-duality actually refers to here, why it varies, and how you can investigate it without turning it into concepts.
Non-Duality Is One Specific Part of Awakening
If we want to get technical about it, non-duality is really one specific part of awakening—one part of the awakening process or the realization process.
The term non-duality is most likely, almost certainly, a translation from the Hindu term advaita, “not two.” And when we translate it the way we do—non-duality, not two—that refers to something very precise in my experience.
By “precise,” I don’t mean a specific concept. I mean a specific shift in experience.
For me it happened very close to initial awakening, but it’s different for everyone.
Fetter 6: The Subject-Object Construct
In Kevin Shinnalak’s (Kevin Chynoweth’s) model of fetters—at least the way we’ve talked about it—Fetter 4 and 5 are essentially reactivity: desire and aversion, or desire and ill will. Fetter 6 is the subject-object construct.
And that’s non-dual.
So when the perceptual filter that makes it appear as if reality—or the experience of self in time, self in space, self in reality—is divided into self and everything else, self and other, subject and object… when that stops occurring, when that is seen through, when that perceptual filter dissolves… that’s what I would call non-dual.
It’s a very distinct shift from what seems like duality:
“I’m here.” Everything else is out there. It’s arranged around me. I’m the center, everything else is in the periphery.
And everything has relationship.
There’s also a built-in system of importance, and I’m the most important part of that system—the subject.
That whole thing is seen to be a perceptual filter, and it kind of stops operating.
The Order Varies: Reactivity Can Clear Before or After Non-Duality
What I want to say about this is: it varies quite a bit.
Some people—Kevin described this about himself in our interview series—reactivity was intense, but from what I remember it didn’t take him an extremely long time to break through reactivity. What did take him a long time was Fetter 6: the sense of subject here and object there, the world being divided into relationship—relegated to relationality.
For him it took a long time.
I’ve seen other people where Fetter 6 breaks pretty early—not long after awakening, similar to what happened with me—and yet reactivity is not touched. People still have quite a bit of reactivity.
So the way we talk about fetters—at least in the way Kevin and I talked about them—they don’t necessarily go in order.
Fetter 6 can break before reactivity is gone. I’ve seen it several times.
And it’s much easier to address once there is less reactivity.
It’s also much more comfortable to address when there’s less reactivity or essentially no reactivity.
Why Duality Can Feel Protective When There’s Trauma
There’s an interesting nuance here.
Even though subject-object is a perceptual filter and is dissociative and inaccurate, there’s a subjective feeling of being able to relieve myself from life somehow. There can be a feeling of respite—even though the cost is higher than the benefit.
So when it’s gone, when it’s suddenly gone, it can feel like some layer of protection isn’t there anymore.
If there’s a lot of reactivity and a lot of trauma left, that can be really difficult.
Whereas if you’ve done a lot of reactivity work—and hopefully a lot of trauma work as well (they overlap, but they’re not the same)—then breaking the subject-object construct and experiencing non-dual clearly and ongoing can be much more enjoyable.
People often find it very enjoyable.
On the other hand, if there’s a lot of reactivity left, trauma keeps resurfacing and rearing its head, it can be really uncomfortable to feel like you don’t have a protective barrier anymore because there’s no relationality. Everything is interpenetrated, sort of.
“Should I Work on This Before That?”
I get questions like this a lot:
“Should I work on this before this?”
“If I want to work with body senses even though I haven’t had an awakening shift that I’m aware of, can I do it? Should I do it? Is it okay?”
Generally I tell people: whatever you feel inclined to do is okay.
If you’re authentically orienting to your deeper truth, to your true nature, in a way that’s willing to surrender to something beyond the way you take yourself to be right now—if you’ve registered that this is what it’s really about—then if you want to focus on a certain aspect of experience, or a certain kind of meditation or inquiry, I don’t tell people no.
I don’t think there’s an exact right and wrong to any of this, including going through the fetters in an exact order.
There’s no right or wrong to any of that.
I’ve seen it work really well for some people and not work at all for others. None of these models are one-size-fits-all.
How Fetter 6 Can Fall Dramatically Later
I will say: this perceptual filter will fall at some point.
It can fall late.
It can fall with the 7th fetter.
It can fall in a very dramatic shift into non-dual, formless—what I might call non-experience.
I say non-experience because the sense of the experiencer is also completely blown out into it. It’s not nothingness, but it’s no-thing-ness.
So these can come together. This can happen in a lot of different ways.
That’s why I’m pointing out variability.
And if you’re interested in working on this, it’s fascinating because in one sense it’s one of the most simple perceptual filters.
There’s nothing conceptual about it.
It’s not usually an earth-shattering shift.
It’s more like: “Oh. Yeah. Of course. That’s how it is.”
Very simple.
And yet it has remarkable implications in the long run.
Investigating the Simple Assumption “I’m In Here”
If you want to work on it very precisely, check out my playlist: Fetter 6—and/or Non-Duality.
The Non-Duality playlist is less delineated by fetter, but there are pointers there. If you want it precise, Fetter 6 is the place.
Ultimately what you’re investigating is whether this very simple, mundane, not mystical, not conceptual, not philosophical assumption is true:
“I’m in here, and everything’s out there.”
That’s what you’re challenging.
It’s simple in the way having a face is simple.
You don’t walk around all day questioning that you have a face, and yet you never really see your face unless you look in a mirror—and even then you never see it directly, only through reflection.
So you just assume it.
It has that quality: so simple you don’t question it.
Like a fish in water. Ask the fish about water, it doesn’t know what you mean, because it experiences water all the time.
Or a bird in the sky. The bird doesn’t know what the sky is. The bird kind of is the sky.
It’s like that.
Relationship as the Core Filter
So there are very precise ways to turn attention onto this and see.
You can turn attention outward and inward simultaneously.
You’re really looking into the nature of relationship itself.
Relationship meaning the most basic sense:
“I’m here.”
“That’s out there.”
“This is a subject.”
“Everything is an object.”
“All objects are relegated to a subject.”
“And the subject is the most important one.”
Not philosophically.
You might have a belief like, “Other people are just as important as I am.” That’s superficial compared to this.
This is a close perceptual filter that makes it feel like of course I’m the most important one because “this is my body,” “this is my center,” “I’m the center.”
And then there’s a whole value system built out of that.
This is what you’re questioning.
It’s a fundamental belief, and it is a belief.
When it breaks, it doesn’t mean I suddenly stop feeding myself. It’s not like that.
But the overlay that’s added on—the extra, unnecessary overlay—produces a lot of thought, conceptuality, dissociation, daydreaming, mind wandering, anxiety… all of that is built on top of this.
This is a pretty basic foundation.
The Razor’s Edge Between Thought and Experience
So I’m questioning what seems like a foundational experience, but it’s actually a foundational thought.
At this level of things, I’m looking at the razor’s edge between thought and experience.
When we see through conceptual thought, that’s one thing.
When I start seeing through thoughts that disguise themselves as actual experience, it’s a different kind of process, a different kind of release.
It’s a deeper shift.
That’s what we’re doing when we talk about the subject-object construct.
And most properly, that shift—this perceptual filter dissolving—is what I mean by non-dual.