53. Mystery of Conceptualisation, Time and Space.

Conceptualisation, Reality, Time and Space are certain key words in spirituality. If one can get to the root of all this, then the mind will play itself out to solve or end its game in duality. However all of this can happen only intuitively and not intellectually, although there can be a intuitive knowing, that reality has its base in learnt knowledge of duality. Duality is here to stay and duality can be only known to be on the level of non-duality, as a feel in the knowing of it.

Lets take some examples. Let us say, I saw a tree or a cow.

It is 'we' who know the tree is a tree. The tree does not not that it is a tree. So the world of objects do not confirm what they are as we know them to be. They just happen to be our idea of what they are. What they are is what we cannot know, unless we are what they are. Similarly, we say that a bat cannot see with its eyes. Then why have eyes? unless we are a bat and again become human, we cannot understand how a bat could see from the reference of humans. So all that we are doing is imagining reality to be true, or reality to be real.

If our knowing about that is wrong, then the tree would lose its identity and become something else. In such a case, the 'tree' that we think it is, becomes an assumption or concept, which is believed to be true. In reality, something ‘should’ be real, whether, our knowing about is right or wrong.  Such a case is unknown to us, because, all that we know, is assumed to be right. It is impossible for us to know something wrong, because, as soon as we know, it is wrong, the rightness would also be known by the same game that proved its wrongness, as wrongness is only in comparison with the assumed rightness.

So it seems, real and unreal, are both meaningless, from the point of view of giving them meanings from one side. Giving meaning from both side, is impossibility, because , other than ‘persons’, trees and cows cannot confirm its reality, about what they should be.

Let us take space next. Do we know space? What parameters of space are perceivable to our senses? Colour, size or shape, hardness, smell etc etc. There doesn’t exist even one parameter to substantiate that space exists objectively. We say that absence of objects is space. And what would absence of space be? More space. Space itself is an absence that we somehow know. It has no objectivity. But it is known. It is a mystery to know something that we cannot know. Or is it that, not knowing is an impossibility. It will remain a mystery to know space objectively or we leave it alone without discussion. At best it helps to grasp 3D images.
Take Time next.  Apply the same theory, how do we seem to perceive Time.  Colour, size shape etc etc  and the same questions. You will land up, not knowing, how one perceives time. Time has no objectivity. It is not something. It is a measurement and all measurements are ideas of grasping to know. Change is measured in time. But time itself is not measurable, unless we interpret time as change and change as time and confuse ourself. Change we think is caused by time. So time comes into existence as a cause. Like electricity must be, to have an effect like shock, or light or torque or magnetism and when all these effects are felt, we say that electricity, what is a cause must be. Nobody knows any cause because effects cant be a pointer to causes. We are an effect as creation. The creation is already creating itself, while the effect is a trailing phenomenon. It cant access the cause. Cause is an assumption as if one could go backward.

Now, how do we explain all this direct experiences of tree, space and time. What the hell is real here anyway. We only experience our knowledge of them, as if projected on them somehow. In the absence of knowledge, we cannot any reality and all reality is only our knowledge, or mental imagination of things. So we live in  a conceptual world. 

The whole point is in the understanding of what is happening. All perceiving is the looks of ‘Now’.  All experiencing is our mental concept about them. It is Illusory and magical. The perceiving of ‘Now’ is also so fleeting and seems connected up to this magical hallucination, that, it would ‘not’ be wrong to say, that the whole perception activity seems to be on a mental realm or unreal/real only as hallucination or an illusion.

Here the mind has the biggest role or absolute role of play.  ( Mind itself is not perceivable, but we assume in a manner that we assume time and space to be perceivable) Mind has a unique nature of converting an absence of something into a presence of something else.  It makes absence of light as presence of darkness, absence of objects into presence of space, absence of sound into presence of silence. absence of an event to presence as a meaningful memory,  etc  etc. It has this capacity to make believe, virtuality into reality and concepts as objects.  Its job is to make meaningful objectivisation of creation into subject object mode. In fact, time and space is not a direct perception. They provide the basis for creating the magic of events as if a world is happening to a portion of the world called me, which is also in the happening. So perceiving is of forms and experiencing is of objects or knowledge learnt about the forms. 

This is the mystery of ‘Life”. All perception is done in memory using space and time as basis of imagination. Movement is experienced connecting past and future and the whole process is mental. 

This mystery is complex, and converts ‘nothing’ happening to meaningful events in time and space.  

All appearances appearing in frames spring from the void and disappear into the void, which are then interpreted in thought, using time, space and oneself as an independent subject to be reality.
Its a practical joke, being played by no-one to all illusory ‘someones’.

52. Character, Objectivity, and Subjectivity.

We are familiar with the terms Subject and Object. We think we are familiar. Let me confuse you so that you can check your assessment , of what you think that you are familiar with.

Lets us take a sentence – ‘I saw a flower’.

So we say, ’I’  is the subject and ‘flower’ is the object.

Slightly deeper, we try to check, what this ‘I’ means or what that ‘flower’ meant. Flower is an visual experiencing arising in the knowing that 'I am'. We may feel an entity to a body that is subject, but such a feel is illusory. Life in its play as this creation is intelligent to create the feel of a separate person ( that is not) in the experiencing of itself as apart from such an entity. However its a mystical game of life. There is no such a separation possible, to have a independently existing object to a independently existing subject. If one would 'name' the experiencing structure or the knowing structure as subject, and its contents as objects, then the subject would still exist as a potential without objects, and simultaneously claim its existence in logic, whenever there arises an object in the knowing. However an object cannot exist without the knowing of it, and therefore must be made of knowing material which is a pure intelligence.

Lets us go with this entity being the subject to the body form or body object. The reason being, ultimately, it could help, to eliminate 'that' entity or to find the truth of 'this' no-entity.

Now this entity, we can say is- the ‘person’ aspect 'of' or 'for' this body. So let us presume, that what we can see as 'body' is the object for which this 'person or entity' is  it’s subject.

So it is possible that every object so seen ( like our own body) has an entity that is subjective to its shape or form. This subjectivity has the capacity to convert that form into a complete independent  ‘ object’ or thing, as an experience.

We can say that the ‘sentience’ is the ‘subject’ of the ‘form’ is what makes the form an ‘object’. This sentience we ‘presume’ is the person to the body, or the entity to the body or the character to the body or the thingness to forms.

So character, entity, personality, person, thingness is the objectivisation of a forms as an idea only. It is a mental grasp to have an unchanging idea for a changing form. It is something like an abstract objectivisation to the subject, which when, given  to a form, makes that form -an 'object'.  What we 'actually' see or perceive is only shapes, colour and hardness, and what we 'feel' that we have perceived is a 'thing' or an 'object'. Some objects seems to move and some not. When a human form moves, we say that it has life. But when a water form moves, we imagine that it has no life and so on and so forth.

So we are used to imagining, that the form is the object and its thingness is its subject, where as, form is form and the objectivisation or thingness about it, that we imagine it to be, is purely a mental ‘objectivisation’ or  imagination which forms the 'subject' of that form.

Lets us see this subject, objectively or elaborate on the 'thingness' to the form. From where does this objectivisation set in, that we seem to 'insert' to a plain and simple 'form'.

Lets us take some examples- Person to a human form, Water to a liquid + transparency + wetness form, Tree to some form that is hard and brown at the bottom and soft + green on top like a hood etc.

What I am trying to focus is that, all that we can perceive in a so called ‘object’ is its hardness / softness, shape, colour, odor etc. or the sensations that can be known. We cannot perceive an ‘object’ called tree, even though we may assume that we seem to do so. Given our five senses, the ‘tree’ is not a 'direct' sensation. If we split each sensation and try to see if they give any indication of a tree, it wont fall in place. Does the green or brown colour indicate treeness, does the hardness or softness indicate treeness, does a 5 metre height  and 2 metre width indicate treeness, does sweetness indicate treeness etc etc. If each of the sensation felt, like the ‘five blind men’ would feel, is  properly analysed, it would never indicate any aspect of the tree. Try playing dumbcharad ( a game) with each sensation as the clue for the tree, it would never make the tree. Then what made that form into ‘the tree’. Its an ideation of the form for all its uses and knowledge that we have about the form. This happening of objectivisation to the form is a mind game called conceptualisation.

There are no ‘objects’ to any form. Not even a person to human form or a ‘pig’ to pig form or a stone to hard rock shape from. These object indicating names, to forms, which are its ‘concepts’ provide the ‘thingness’ or ‘meaning’ to forms as if they were ‘separate’ objects in space. The concepts seems to be the ‘subjects’ of the forms., making forms into objects. This includes, concept of 'person' to a human form..

So add a subject to a form and the form becomes the ‘object’. So an object = ‘subject +form’ formula.

This is true in the ‘true’ sense.

When the subject called ‘life’, appears as a form, its makes it feel like a real ‘object’ instead of a ‘just simple form’ as if giving ‘life’ to that form and converting that form to ‘object’ or thing. However,   such a thingness to a form is in imagination of ‘mind’ applied to that form. Its a mental projection of knowledge around that form, as if existence in separation is a reality.

So this mind, that makes up concepts, projects them to the form to convert them into objects. Is it one mind per person inside the head or one universal mind?.

This sentence is not so important.

But the thingness seems to be peeping out of the form or seems to hide transparently within  the form. Since thingness is only a mental concept, to a form, if this mind was inside the head, then, our heads would have had millions and millions of ‘things’ or concepts that we seem to keep in memory and keep inserting them in million and millions of forms that we see each moment.  We call this 'Ravan' aspect. He had many heads or minds.
So we a ‘mom’ concept to that form and a cow in ‘this’ form  etc etc.

It is a mind boggling game to the mind and also too complicated to imagine. But for ‘life’ it is a hobby or its  computer game. Life  is , well versed with this game and always scores 100/100 or we can say, it has no competitor and so always the best at that.

Separation is the key aspect of mind’s game. It kills the forms and gives rise to objects, by being their subject and cognising them as objects. What is more dangerous is that, there arises a judgement around that ‘thingness’ to give it “‘that beauty aspect or its 'danger” aspect. This judgement of mind at the object, has the capacity to make a reactionary ‘feel’ of pleasure or fear to ‘this’ body and this combination makes ‘that’ object beautiful or fearful etc as  mental projection. So snake may be fearful to man but a playmate to a mongoose.

So life has to take care or many aspects at a time as form and mind, to make this world. It creates forms, it also creates it thingness ( which is a magical mental aspect) and makes objects out of forms.  However all objectivisation of  all ‘forms’ are their conceptualisation or character judgements, which are mental aspects.

So chair, to that from, is its character just as a ‘me’ or a ‘he’ is the character to a human form.

What happens when conceptualisation stops?. This can only happen, when mind does not apply itself to forms. When this happens, the characters or thingness of forms seems amiss. This includes  the character in ‘our’ own body as a ‘me’ entity.  Then suddenly, Wholeness appears to  ‘no-body’ or life in its fullest spectrum as one full flow of colours and feelings without separation from each other.  It is like -seeing water flow on a screen by ‘being’ the screen. The flow is directly  ‘felt’ and not mentally imagined.

All ‘concepts’ are mental imagination. But mind is so universal, that, it makes things out of wholeness, by splitting them into separate forms and putting meaning to each of them. Firstly out of this very our own, human form, as a ‘me’, and then, to other forms as if –witnessing- the world of objects.

So the subject of an object is the life at the form, appearing as a thingness to the form, to make the form an object, which they are not, other than being a mental construct. Your ‘mind’ in not in your control, because all there is –is life-using ‘mind’ as a objectivisation capacity to forms. So every subject is a mental object to a form.

There are no subjects, only forms are seen as objects by mind which is their subject.

So, how good or bad was subject / object confusion?