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?