85. Real, Unreal and Neither.

These are more words in the readings of nonduality messages.
There is only reality in a sense that we are used to. We say virtual reality, Real image, Real mirage etc etc. So in that sense unreality is non-existence in any perceivable form and hence not subjected to discussion.
However reality has another aspect to it that it must be real, irrespective of the perceiver or one's perception or sensing of it. Since the world doesnt exist without you, it cannot come under the head of reality, as the word is meant to mean. So, our reality is bogus, or with a flaw. What we think as real is actually unreal and since, seeming reality cannot be classified as unreal in a real sense, it should only be ‘neither’. All that was seemingly real, and is being now taught to be actually unreal, which by the meaning of the word, is meaningless, it now gets classified as neither. So, can it be possible that all three attributes, the real, the unreal and neither, be true, simultaneously? Could such be the power of reality or truth?

What is the message here and what could there be an analysis that can lead to a true understanding of all this or of the real seeming world and real meaning of what we are?

Reality that we speak of, is meant to be, as that of the world. Normally, we think that the world outside of us is real and cannot doubt that such reality can be disputed. What is actually happening here is more that, we think, we also- as this individual entity, is real and do not want this to be disputed at any cost. To justify this ‘want’ of ourself being real, we use the reality of the world as a scapegoat or supporting alibi.

What is real issue here? Why this argument about reality or otherwise? Can paradoxes be true?.

We think that we are an individual separate entity and that there is a world out there, separate and outside of such an entity called ‘me’ and this gives rise to a subjective me and an objective world. This statement is taken to be true or forms the basis of the belief in a world of objects, and provides reality to the world of fiction. It also provides the basis, that if the world out there is real, then this me that knows the real world is therefore real too. Such belief is the cause of all effort, which seems to be happening to such believed subject, trying to manipulate the outside world, to maintain his reality and that too in happiness. The effort of seeking to be happy, never ends and when such seeking bears fruit, seeking jumps to more seeking that can still be sought and maintains the illusory seeker unto death as a ‘me’ sense having an effort in all activities being owned as ‘his’.

So what is the truth, or reality of ‘me’ and the world?, the Real or unreal or neither or all?

Lets us start with what seems real. What seems real is that there is a ‘me’ out here and a world out there, that is separate from ‘me’. The reality of the world is as real as the reality of ‘me’. Can the world exist without me – is an unanswered question accept that it is believed by others that it should be so, after your so called non existence or death. Also, can I exist without the world is another question that should not be raised in such analysis, if the question should be answered in affirmative.

There if no difference between a objective world and an objective ‘me’. So what or who is the subject to which such an inclusive world (of me) is objective to?  If all contents of ‘knowing’ is objective reality, then, ‘me’, as this body-mind, that I think I am, is also a case which is objective to the knowing, as any other reality of the world. So if all reality is objective, including an assumed me, that was previously seeming subjective, but is already seen to be as objective as rest of the world, then, where is the subject, or that which knows all such objective reality?

What does ‘real’ mean? Can it exist separately outside its knower? Does the collapse of its knower, collapse its objects too, does the existence of objective reality always depend on the existence of a subjective knower?, if so what knows such formula of existence that has a subject and the world inclusive of me as objective to that subject. Is there more than one subject to know the other subjects?

This questioning can to eternity, without an answer because the basis of the question lacks reality. Objective world includes this ‘me’ as an object and so, this ‘me’ as a subject as its basis is at fault or ‘unreal’ –meaning- meaningless. When such a ‘me’ is meaningless as subject, the basis on which the world is objective to such a ‘me’ is also unreal or meaningless. The only meaning that can absorb all this meaningless reality is that, subject-object pattern of the world doesn’t exist as real. Or that such assumption as its base is unreal. So reality as assumed is meaningless, or there is no objective world and no objective me, as real. Unreal, being only to mean – meaningless would then be its reality in terms of existing separate from each other. So the world is not real. Unreality cannot be. So the world being unreal also has no meaning.  So the world is neither real nor unreal and hence neither.

So what is for real? The ‘feel’ in the knowing to a particular arising in consciousness makes feel a sense of reality to its contents, by making a ‘feel’ of the contents, as if apart from itself as the context called ‘knowing’. The Kitchen seems real apart from the contents of the kitchen the bedroom seems real apart from the contents of that room. However, removal of the contents is the removal of the context and so the contents and its context are seemingly or apparently split as two but in actuality are one and the same.

So when the feel of a snake is felt as real, it comes with an additional experience of a ‘fear’ as an experience of its presence to seal its feel of such reality. However the feel by itself has nothing to do with the snake, because when the snake is seen in an anticipated place like a snake zoo, this fear sensation is felt as a thrill. So apparent visual knowing, clubbed by apparent feel of reality, keeps the object called ‘me sense’ as a subject by a mere feel, appearing to a subjective knowing. The feel of objective knowing as ‘real’ is an experience that goes down memory lane and maintains a story line of all that seems to be objective to a subjective apparent ‘me. Such memory that maintains a story, excluding a ‘me’ to the outside world is responsible for all the ‘me’ sense and also the ‘feel’ of reality to an outside world. In the absence of a story line, the me and the world loses separate reality and independent existence as subject and object drops away. This also exhibits the emptiness of anything objective to the world. The world then appears or ‘feels’ as a dream and then such ‘feeling’ then seems real, but by now not to anybody, as all such bodies become part and parcel of the objective dream.

So reality is just a feeling and can drop away. When such drop happens, the ‘me’ sense and the you sense and the ‘other’ sense, being all parts of original assumed reality, fall away too.

Unreal is not an opposite of real, but just a way to explain the meaninglessness of an assumed reality. Outside of the feel in the knowing, there isn’t anything happening to be real, unreal or otherwise. So reality as independent entity or objective world is just another arising in consciousness to bring about a real objective world as if real. All is just the feeling of it and not It.

84. Formless and Infinite

Dwelling into Nonduality for a few days or years, one gets to hear these words more often. New ideas, like spirit, arise as concepts for formless and ‘too big to be comprehended’ for the Infinite. But in the game of getting to know nonduality as a concept, these words are to be taken to mean only as their basic meanings taught in school and both will then appear to mean the same, which actually they are meant to be, as pointers of Truth or Reality.

A concept of form is not exactly like only to mean ‘a shape’. Form includes the shapeless or with no-shape ideas too. Thought, emotions, feelings etc are examples of forms that seem to be formless, but not in the actual sense, as formless is used to mean to understand ‘Reality’.

How about ‘no concept’ of form at all, as what is meant by formless. Think of all forms or objects arising in consciousness as forms, that includes pain, love, emotions, visual objects, sounds, tastes etc etc. These are all ‘concepts’ of forms. Absence of these forms, may bring new meanings as their opposites, like tasteless, painless, etc etc. So one can consider ‘presence and absence’ of objects in consciousness as akin to ‘form’ and hence formless would mean a kind of double absence of both presence and absence of any ‘mode’ of forms that ever can be imagined.

Try the same with finiteness. Finiteness can be in space or time. So all visual objects may have finite shapes and all audible, emotional, thoughtful forms may have a beginning and ending of such objective knowing and can be called finite. When not applying finite rules to any experience in consciousness, what is left out is what is a non-experience or what cannot be known objectively. Such unknown objectivity which cannot be any mental concept, is what can be called ‘Infinite’.

So formless and infinite are conceptless concepts and are just pointers to a plain and simple ‘nothing’ as absence of all forms, being present or absent.  This is the ground of our being, which has the power to bring about knowing of all objectivity, either directly as perceived  or indirectly as imagined, both of which can only be experienced in the ‘present’. Such a power of ‘Presentness’ called ‘Presence’ or a feel of aliveness that can give life to all forms and emotions and is a pointer to what Reality is ‘as ‘ us.

There is another way to conceptualise the incomprehendable.  One is to deeply understand what ‘knowing’ is. Knowing is an activity of Life. What if ‘Life’ was ONLY knowing and Knowing was all there is. Assume all visual objects were only a Visual Knowing and sounds were audible knowing and sensations were only the knowing of it and taste was a only a taste knowing etc. That leaves ONLY knowing, split up into different types of knowings, but basically only ONE knowing ability ‘Life” is. Now what if the ‘being’ of all objects like shapes and sounds and thoughts etc. were only the knowing of being and there was ‘no’ objective being, other than its knowing. This means the being of all there is -is only of its knowing, being so, and there was no ‘being’ separate from the knowing of it. This sentence is little tricky, but important. Getting this understanding is all there is to know. It means that all taste is only the knowing of it and there is no taste outside of its knowing so. So there is no objects ever, apart from the knowing that feels like an ‘objective knowing’ like sound or shape. This means, a ‘mere’ knowing is split as if, to have a knowing to a knower and an object of knowing apart from mere knowing to such a knower or an apparent subject. So the knowing has to form two apparent objective parts, seemingly outside of it, both as objects of its knowing, making  one such object as subject and other as object, while both such a subject and object are just apparent split of pure knowing, which is all there is, to no-one, as ‘we’ or to a formless or to an Infinite Knowing capacity only. It means Knowing is all there is, as the knower, knowing and the known -and there is no subject or an object, outside of knowing or apart from being such only in the ‘feel’ of such knowing. All objectivity is inside of knowing and such knowing plays a split as ‘apparent objective part of knowing to apparent subject and the rest of such apparent objective part as its apparent objects. This trick manages to maintain subjective feel of being real to such apparent  subjects and the feel is not allowed to be shaken off, unless knowing itself decides to play it so. Once such a subjective feeling of realness sets into oneself ( apparent) the rest feels apparently real in its objectness.

So reality of subjects and objects as being, is only the ‘knowing’ of it and not apart as objects that are known to a knower. The knower and the known are just objects in the knowing being played out apparently so. The ‘real’ reality is thus pure ‘knowing’ or aliveness itself, as SELF,  that brings about a ‘feel’ to an object of knowing as its subject making the rest as objective to the first object. creating a ‘magic’ called objective creation to such a subject.

So nothing to do, or not do, since all such activities, are a mere knowing of them being so and there is no-one outside of Knowing or Formless or Infinite or Reality ever to work in the direct of doing or not doing. So, who you thik you are, objectively is apparent only, and absolutely free as such, as you are just ‘not’.

83. Knowing is ‘what is’.

'Knowing' of content does not necessarily imply 'contents' to knowing, as separately existing apart from the knowing of it. Even if there is one chance, that can reveal that all objects in the knowing  (or known content) is simply the knowing of it, rather than the known, as a separate content, the truth about the 'game of objects' as an independent reality, is out of the bag. The importance of this detail, is the only fundamental thing that needs to be recognised in life. For example, knowing of a thought ( or thinking) is all there is, and there is no thought, outside of such knowing, where knowing of the thought, 'is' the thought. Similarly, knowing of pain is pain,  knowing of the world is the world, etc., meaning the objective world is simply a knowing. Visual knowing, audible knowing, knowing knowing knowing, as if such knowing has known sensations that can be imagined to make up a world of objects.

It means a lot in terms of ‘seeking’. We seek to know the truth of what we are and spend a lifetime until seeking finally stops to end the seeker in the track of seeking. Finally what is noticed is that, Knowing is ‘what is’ and 'what was' and 'what will be' and there is the only this ‘isness’ of what we think is the 'world' or 'ourselves' as separate from each other.

Awareness 'as' context is all there is but feels as if Awareness 'as' content. Even that is to say too much. Awareness is all there is. Content as separate from Awareness, is only an idea imagined to be true but not. That is the illusion or Maya, that makes feel awareness of separate contents 'in' awareness, simply by the 'aware-ing' of it. It is then taken as awareness 'of' contents, which are being assumed real and solid, separate from 'only' being aware of them. This is further interpreted as 'contents' in awareness and believed to be true and such mental conditioning becomes the basis of living as separate 'beings'.

So Awareness or ‘knowing’ is ‘what is’ and this ‘isness’ is what knowing itself is, that is eternal or not subject to time. There is nothing outside of knowing to know and so all ‘that is known’ is nothing but the ‘knowing’ of it, and it just ‘is’, not to a ‘me’ or to another, to know the knowing, as if to sentient beings.

What we are, is the capacity to know, or what 'knowing' itself is and this ‘we’ that we think we are, as separate individual entities, is some illusory knowing. Knowing cannot know itself as its content, or as known, as the activity, cannot be made an object of itself. Meaning to say, a context can be described with contents, but when the context and contents are one and the same, and cannot be separated to be judged individually and equated, context is only what is, or give it another name, contents is only what is.

A dream is just its knowing of it. There isn’t a dreamer dreaming a dream. There is just dreaming. Now dreaming is the dreamer and the story of the dream is its contents. Likewise, knower is the knowing  and also the contents of knowing as the known. To make ‘sense’ of it, one must take a place outside of it, to know it and so, it cant be it, because, It includes it. Knowing has this typical capacity of being wholeness and its contents at the same time like context being the contents. There is no other, either as knower or as known that can be said to be outside of knowing.

Presence is another word. ‘What is’ is same as to mean, what presently is. To be ‘is’, is to be present and to be present is to know it. The issue here is that, we lay stress on the contents of knowing as if there is a ‘known’ aspect to it. To do this, knowing has to objectified or given meaning to. So what is- becomes what is happening, as if the happening is a meaningful way to know what is. Happening is only an assumption of what is and any reality that is given to any objective apparent happening, is only a story line being fed to make ‘feeling’ into ‘felt. So what is, has to be ‘interpreted’ into into contents, as if separate and meaningful, outside of what is, and a story line, as if eventful, in time and space, must be built up. Such magic is the power of intelligence to convert 'what is' into 'what is happening in time, as an event'. The happening can thus have backward projection as past or memory and forward projection as imagination or plan etc and the process of breaking up what is into apparent independent parts take shape. Reality thus comes in as apparent feel of such story line and experienced as time and events in time.

The 'feel' of 'now' or looks of 'now' keep changing continually. Each content changes shape and place, as if to make feel  'movement' or 'growth'. This develops into a story line of such change, with likes and dislikes to colour the story. The story becomes the truth in imagination, and a part of such a story is referencing a 'me' story to this body.

However, all there is, is what is or pure knowing and not what is ‘happening’ as nothing ever is happening. Truth simply Is and expresses itself as an isness of what is logically happening, as if logic comes alive with cause and effect as its theme causing ‘what is’ or knowing into what is ‘happening’.

So not to worry about 'Life' as nothing is happening, other than just a knowing of it, like a happening, happening in the dream. Relax and be free.