098. Natalie Gray

Natalie GrayNatalie Gray is an ordinary person who spent the first 25 years of her adult life searching for meaning and answers. In her search, she looked for those answers in several places, including: trying to find a calling (as an actress, teacher and life coach), through self-help and awareness seminars, through study and initiation with various spiritual teachers and teachings and through the use of drugs. After coming to the realization that no one or no thing outside of herself was going to be able to give Natalie what she wanted, she began an intense personal and internal search for the truth. In the fall of 2010, Natalie experienced what she refers to as “…the end of seeking. I was done,” she says. “I had no more questions. I needed no more answers. What was sought had been found.”

Since then, Natalie has shared her experience and insights through her blog, and in videos on YouTube. She communicates regularly and freely with individuals who have questions or are interested in talking about nonduality. You can reach her by email.

Interview recorded 11/26/2011

Video and audio below. Audio also available as a Podcast.

77 thoughts on “098. Natalie Gray

  1. Yes, abstract thoughts, ideas, will arise. Without them, and the naming of them, or translating of them into these visible or audible symbols called words, this conceptual communication would be meaningless, not to mention impossible. Now I would ask: what, in your opinion, is the source of these thoughts … if any?


  2. I don’t know, snow. And candidly speaking, I have no interest in speculating what their origin might be.

    There is functional thinking, and there is conceptual thinking. I’m inclined to participate more in the former than the latter.

    Naked observation/awareness of a thought is speculation-free.

    I encourage all to done on it.

  3. “belief in a thought, and the identification with a thought, not the same?”

    That is my experience.

  4. “I don’t know” ~ Peter

    Ah, we’re back to the Mystery ;-)

    Suffice to say, that whatever IT (yet another name) may or may not be, or IT is believed to be, IT exists. IT doesn’t rely on beliefs to exist. IT is both prior to and beyond belief. Believe IT or not, IT nonetheless exists.

    But I remain open to empirical proof to the contrary. ;-)

  5. Interesting that you should choose the word “empirical”. It relies on observation and experience.

    March on, then. Observe, without speculation and interpretation, the thoughts that come across your screen.

    You will receive the evidence that you seek.


    adj \im-ˈpir-i-kəl\

    Definition of EMPIRICAL

    1: originating in or based on observation or experience

    2: relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory

    3: capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment

  6. Yes, I’m well aware of the definition of empirical. I’m not ‘seeking’ evidence of that IT exists. As stated, that is a given. Even if ‘nothing’ exists, IT, being nothing, still exists.

  7. Natalie said that her awakening occurred after Richard asked her three questions. What were those three questions?

  8. Im curious as to the 3 questions she was asked as she eluded to earlier in the interview that caused her shift…wonderful interview love your work rick, i litterally check your website daily for updates

  9. @Peter: “Live interviews… where viewers are invited to call in and ask their questions or offer their comments… is my preferred entree.”

    I could experiment with that. Richard Miller does it, but it’s usually pretty chaotic. Half the time is spent with technical glitches. Another thing he’s doing these days is interviewing two people at once, and letting them interact. Haven’t listened to any of those yet, but I’ll check out that possibility.

  10. @Marty K. Your point about me talking too much is well-taken. Sometimes, I’m in a deeper, more intuitive state, and the interview flows. There seems to be the right balance. Other times I get jazzed by the energy and become too talkative. Some professional interviewers do talk a lot, and I find it annoying (e.g., Piers Morgan). Larry King’s philosophy was “If I’m talking, I’m not learning anything”, and he was good at sticking to that. Keep in mind that folks like that, and Terri Gross, do this full time, and so have more preparation time. They also have staff members who help them. I work full time and pretty much have to wing it. But still, by my own admission, I should talk less. I was just with Amma in Michigan, and a woman who has listened to all of the interviews introduced herself and with great kindness and appreciation, gave me the same feedback. So I have no defense. It’s probably my most important area for improvement, and I promise to work on it. Thanks for the feedback.

  11. @Touvino. I agree with you, which is why I’m always prodding guests about what further progress they have undergone or see themselves undergoing. I’m of the opinion that the range of human evolution is vast, and that those who think they are finished after having had some awakening, however profound, are in the big scheme of things, just getting started.

  12. Hey Rick, welcome ‘home.’ It appears the Amma event went well. Did you get your darshan dance with her?

    On the business of talking too much, who knows, perhaps there’s room for improvement, though IMO it’s a bit of an absurd myth to think that there is some ‘better’ or ‘proper’ way of expressing that which is ultimately inexpressible. So keeping it in that relative perspective, at the very best, it can be seen as a pleasant diversion, like chitchat, or color commentary, or poetry, or dancing with the ineffable mystery, all of which is equally valid, or invalid, as the case may be. So talk away to your heart’s content. In any case, you’re never going to keep everyone happy, no matter what you do. There will always be those who disagree with either what you’re saying or how you’re saying it, or both — ‘somebody’ who is rubbed the wrong way, whose preconceived notion of the way it ‘should’ be is not matching ‘what is’. Most especially those who have allowed it to morph into fundamentalist propaganda, i.e. some fixated, dogmatic belief system. So be it.

    One supposes that this deconstruction of the language serves a useful function, insofar that it may help to expose the inherent limitations of language. But let’s face it, when it comes to talking or writing about this, the moment we try to translate it into language, ‘one’ is lost. The moment we even give it a name, or try to define it, or describe it in any way, an illusory boundary is created, as it is instantly divided into that which it is, vs. that which it is not. One can’t help break out in laughter at this hilarious notion :]]

  13. I have a genuine question I would like to hear comments on,..this is not only related to this interview but when she mentions, like so many others, that nothing really changes..an goes on to say she still eats meat and so on…I wonder…what is truly the difference between that and another “person” “waking up” but still are enjoying child porn or similar things? Isn’t the realisation of the divine nature of us all also very intimately connected to REAL change from being a part of violence in different forms living a more peaceful life? In my reality, change is emediate in the moment one awakens…when you really see, how can you not change, even the seemingly smallest habits if it’s creating so much suffering for other creatures??

    with love

  14. Interesting questions Lolita …

    Again, with the usual concessions to the inherent limitations of language, this experience is that ‘what changes’ is that there is no longer any confusion or conflict between ‘what it should be’ and ‘what it should not be.’ Any such confusion is a function of a fixated attachment to the belief in the imaginary separate and independent self — from which all conflict and boundary creation arises. There is truly nothing it can not potentially be, or become, as the possibilities of its expression are truly infinite — curiously enough, it can even be expressed as unchanging awareness. However, being Infinite, it ‘contains’ all that is, and all that ever will be. As such, one is never ‘fully’ awakened. One is ever-awakening. As being infinite implies, It doesn’t end — or begin for that matter.

    To use a simple analogy — not to be taken too seriously — it is as if one were to suddenly wake up in a strange land, in some distant galaxy, where nothing is as you expect it to be, or what you are used to experiencing. So it takes some ‘time’ to integrate this, to learn the lingo, to become acclimatized, to become accustomed to a new way of being, so to speak. So yes, theoretically, one can be addicted to child porn when this apparent ‘awakening’ happens. But the notion that that habit will not change, along with any number of other habits one is used to ‘doing,’ is naive to say the least — most especially those habits that only make sense within the context of separation and boundary creation. So, for whatever unknowable reason, once one realizes that there is no separation or boundaries between that which I am, and that which I am not, it does seem to be increasingly difficult to inflict perceived harm on any other equally valid expressions of ‘That Which Is’ expressing.

    But don’t just ‘believe’ what I, or anyone else, says is so. Trust your own experience. And be ready to ‘wake up’ and be surprised again and again and again … etc.

  15. Amma ~ “Boredom occurs only when there is no love”

    just returned from 5 days in Amma’s presence… inspirational, challenging, insightful etc… definitely not boring…

Leave a Reply