87. Knowing and IT’s contents

We know ourselves and the world. At least we believe that we know. It’s actually a funny statement. To know ourselves, there must two of us. A subject know-er and an object known, just like we know the world, as if ‘we’ is the knower and world is the known. So ‘me’ becomes an object of a seemingly ‘I’ as subject.

Knowing plays its role in very subtle way. Knowing is the knower, it does the knowing, as if there were contents of knowing, but actually it’s just its knowing, and nothing more to it.

This leaves very little or no role at all for any object in the knowing, to be ‘a knower’, and this includes such an object, as ‘we’, as to who we think we are. Since an object in the knowing cannot be the knower, ‘we’ as objects cannot know. Then what knows?

Seems a trick question. Any answer would be wrong to this question, because the question lacks logic or reality, to be a fair question. It already assumes that something, as an object ( in the knowing, as there cannot be ‘one’ outside of knowing to be known) can know. What if there were not any ‘objects’ in the knowing at all and there was a possibility for such knowing of objects to happen, without any such ‘real’ objects, unless ‘mental’ ones. Bit confusing?

Take two statements – 1. Knowing of contents and      2. Contents of knowing.

These two statements may seem to mean the same but may be totally different from each other.

Knowing of contents, is a phrase we use. There is a visual knowing, audible knowing etc. The whole scene is one visual. The whole lot of sounds heard is one hearing etc. There is one content only,  Like a flower, even though seemingly made of petals, sepals etc, which is such a ‘whole’. Nobody understands or will never ever understand how such wholeness gets split. One beam of light, lighting up a movie screen produces an array of sub boundaries to one seeing, which is interpreted as people, trees, houses and not as ‘light’. Similarly, one seeing, perceived in consciousness, gets split up as roads, houses and cars and ‘we’. When the feel of ‘we’ gets to seem ‘real and separate’ from the rest of the seeing, it brings about ‘pieces’ of one seeing as separate contents of seeing.

There is ‘seeing’ which feels contents of seeing or we say, there is visual knowing and feels objects, separate from each other to such knowing. Knowing of contents seem factual and cannot be disputed, like putting finger in hot water and feeling it hot cannot be disputed. But, that there needs to be ‘real’ contents ‘to’ the knowing, apart and separate from it, is very tricky, even though it seems so. That is where ‘life’ is good at its job. Its pure magical or miraculous. The magician shows that there are contents seen and then there isn’t anything. In such a case, there was only seeing of contents magically, without contents being really there. It can be explained as hallucination, dreaming etc etc and in more of a way that an object of knowing ( as ‘we’) cannot anticipate, such knowing can make believe that ‘things’ exists ‘separately’ or outside of it. So knowing of contents is all that can be true than ‘contents  of knowing’,   as separate things, apart from the knowing of it, which, need not necessarily be. So knowing of contents is ‘what is’ and contents of knowing is ‘what is not’ ‘but’ feels so.

A visual of a snake in the TV, can make feel, fear at the body, without a ‘real’ snake there. So if the visual is accompanied by an emotion, the feel of reality to the apparent contents, make a feel of reality to ‘apparent’ contents.

So all there is, is knowing of contents ( split into many sensations like visual, audible, emotional, fearful, delightful, painful, boring, stomach-full, tasty, etc. Etc.) and such knowing happening as split into many types of knowing, separates wholeness into ‘parts’ of knowing. However all knowing is just ONE. Contents of knowing is only the play of the mind  ( which is another knowing too), as if there could be ‘such’ separate contents, separate from each other and also separate from knowing. There is a ‘focus’ which is filtering ‘parts’ of knowing as if to memory, and such memory is only the experience of ‘such focus’ as if others were not part of it. This is possible, only when a ‘story’ is applied to such  focus, as if there was a centre or ‘me’ to whom such story made sense. This is the ‘Game’ of life.

All earthly sounds are arising in the knowing, but focus is only on sounds, as if conversation of two people, which is experienced as their meanings of these sounds, for purpose of memory, giving rise to time, making feel ‘memory’ contents are of a time element called ‘past’ and anticipation through imagination are contents of a time element called future, and the play keeps arising as if, continuing in ‘Time’.

So, all there is knowing, seemingly of contents, as if contents of knowing were reality, and separate from the knowing of it, itself.

So reality of objects, arising in the ‘knowing’ or the so called ‘world’, apart from a ‘mere’ knowing of it, cannot be, as there isn’t anything  really there 'to be objective' or real. Unreal also cannot be, as this attribute is also to something that is. So it calls for a new word called ‘neither’ which basically means ‘apparent’ or ‘as if’ but ‘not’. Just a feel, about as if things were. So relax. Take it easy. Nothing is happening. All just IS.