93. Objective existence – a Concept.

It is interesting to know how we conceptualise a real world. It is also interesting to know who it is that is behind this game of making the world feel real. Furthermore it is surrendering to the fact that we as a ‘concept’ cannot pull off the veil to get out of the conceptual world and to get into a non-conceptual world, because both the ‘we’ and the ‘world’ simply do not exist other than as each other’s concept.

What is existence or non existence?. This begs a question that such a ‘term’ exists. The same is the case with what an object is.

An object is an ‘appearance’ in the ‘mind’ about what is perceived. It has no other factual existence. What is perceived is – shapes and colours and the ‘mental’ objectification makes the perceiving into an object and is called ‘conceiving’ it so. So there cannot be such a ‘thing’ as an object, in its own right, to exist or not to exist. The objectification is the conceptualisation that takes place out of splitting part of the perceiving, comparing with memory based data and mentally making an object here, to a perception, imagined there. So the object of the form, is a mental existence of reality. Its not physically real. So its non-existence may be real. Again, non-existence cannot exist at all as neither real or unreal. So neither existence or non-existence is real. Such the only reality of the world is its unreality as an objective bundle of objects.
So there can be no objects at all. There can be no ‘Subject” either, in absence of an ‘object” because such a ‘subject’ is another concept about what is perceiving and trying to objectifying what perceiving could be, into an object, which now cannot be ever there, for real. Its simply is a name given to an ‘object’ that seems to objectify objects. Subjects and objects are as such mental imaging of making meaning ‘in a prescribed manner’ to make seem perception as objective reality.

So it is inevitable that the appearance of all that is objective, is necessarily an objectivisation of whatever is perceiving it and this whole game is being played out by the ‘perceiving itself’ or the cognising itself or the ‘being aware of’ itself or ‘being conscious of’ itself, which, as such, can be termed THIS or ‘I’.

Now, how can one apperceive that there cannot be such a ‘thing’ as an object? The answer to this question can makes volumes of writing and cannot be specify to the query. It can only be ‘just apperceived’ for it is an inseeing, when such inseeing is presented in consciousness, becomes too laborious when elaborated dialectically in an objective medium that language is designed to be.  The process involving language would then have to prove the inexistence of ‘what is functioning’, because, it has already kept in place that, what is functioning, is an objective subject, that simply is a term for the functioning aspect of ‘life’ that is always playing out dualistically even though, it is simply not as such.

The question ‘what is an object’, can have no answer, dialectically speaking, for it cannot be a question at all and ‘objectivity’ is just taken as a ‘given’ factor in ‘phenomenal living’ , as it has been ‘always’ taken as the basis of science and philosophical thinking.

Metaphysics alone ‘seeks’ to transcend conceptuality, being as such, in its function. So –functioning, seeking dualistically to conceive non-conceptually, can only record ‘inseeing’ symbolically or by indication. So object, therefore, can be understood, only as an objectification of its subject – subject making an object of what it is- or objectivisation, or Subject perceiving what it is, as an object, and can have no other being, what so ever. In other words, objectivisation of what is, is a functioning happening at the psyche, and not what is there, existing in its own right.

To regard the ‘subject’ as an ‘entity’ is more nonsense as it is a functioning trying to conceive itself as an object of itself, making these words, and trying to understand itself. It is like ‘understanding’ trying to understand what understanding is, while such understanding is a functioning and not an object of understanding.

Further more, an object, in order to be ‘apparent’ must be conceptually extended in space and time and any being of such an object must lie in the inherent subjectivity, that is causing such illusion, much like the substance of the shadow must necessarily ‘lie’  in the substance that is causing such a shadow and not in the shadow itself.

We are conditioned to regard the ‘phenomenal’ as existent. However to ‘know’ our own reality, such conditioning must be discarded. What happens then is that, what is ‘sensorially perceived is then seen as purely conceptual structure in mind, which is all that it can be. ‘Existence’ as such is conceptual and cannot be otherwise, and noumenaility, not having an objective quality, cannot be conceived, being conceiving functionality by itself. What is conceiving cannot conceive what is conceiving while conceiving.

So what is ‘conceptually extended’ in space time, cannot be said to have, other than, conceptual existence, and its noumenon cannot be conceived at all, so that no concept such as ‘existence’ can  be applied to perception.

So it has been said “ from the beginning nothing exists”.

92. Understanding of ‘What we are’.

Life is a paradox being played out. We are, are not and neither, all at the same time true. This is what makes life a paradox in the ‘understanding’ of it. Apperceiving ‘this’ understanding brings in a possibility of not misunderstanding, the previously accepted normal understanding to be true.

We try to seek ‘what we are’, while what we are is playing out as’ what we are not’, to be understood as that, what we are. Normally, the mind is not applied to understand ‘what we are not’ as this kind of analysis is simply a ‘not done thing’. So what ‘we are not’ as a ‘feel’ in terms of 'what we are' in thought, survives unto death or till such time, such apperceiving about this understanding sinks in.

Life is ‘functioning’. Understanding THIS  is the key to ‘Life’,. This functioning, has a interwoven sense to give us a glimpse of ‘what we actually are’ being the 'absolute' feel of ourselves, before understanding of what is sensed and interpreted, to make a feel, into what 'relatively' are as the only way to feel 'what we are'. In other words, what we are, can come about through understanding of what we are not. However, we are being ‘lived’ and there is little chance of such happening, unless intuition has mercy, to dwell 180 degree reverse into its normal working process to enable a subtle glimpse into how LIFE, plays itself out..

Life plays out in parts. It functions as sensing, understanding or conceptualising as if in thought and finally ‘feeling’ of such thoughtful understanding. This is the sequence. All of this happens automatically or without a body referenced coordinator. Sensing happens, like seeing and hearing, sensing happens of thoughts that interpret direct sensing into subject object related stories  etc,. The interpretation about such direct sensing, as if to make a story of time, in which, events continue in time with a feel of logic or science, is also a automatic happening. Such thought process makes a 'feel' of a logical separate individual with freewill and choice with body, as its center of operation. So finally, we feel ourselves as separate individuals, inside and the world outside to be negotiated to make a meaningful living. This completes the 'living' for that moment. So what goes un-noticed is that fact no understanding can happen, unless such interpretation in thought, which is what understanding is, comes about and is sensed and felt as experience at the body. Such is the complexity of ‘Life’ playing out itself as if separate entities involved in co-ordinating each aspect in time.

So the direct sensing is never understood immediately until interpreted in thought, into a world of objects and a feel of such understanding becomes a feeling or experiencing at the body level. This final interpreted sensing, seems to register in memory as the only feel of whatever is sensed. It works as a close loop, sensing, interpreting as objects, believing it so, by the feel of such understanding and so on and on.

For example, we don’t and cannot sense a tree. Interpretation of the wholeness sensed, includes whatever that tree is and also whatever we are as ‘one’ seeing, interpreted in its understanding by thought process as separate objects, out of which, one such object, separate from the rest, is made to feel like ‘me’ or ‘subject seer’ and the rest of such seeing as ‘objects seen’, which was never the original ‘seeing or sensing’ but only ‘felt’ after such understanding of such single seeing, was broken up into part seeing and explained or interpreted to be a subject- object world. So the creation of an objective world with a subject ‘me’ is more on the basis of interpreted story about such seeing. Understood?.  Again, only thoughts are understood or we can say, understanding is in thought and percolates to the body level as a feel of such thought.

So, thoughts are streaming down in the mind, continuously interpreting every sensation, combining all direct perceiving and interpreting as a  bundle of thoughts, also finally sensed and felt 'real'. However most of it is mental process, after direct sensing.

So generally, you feel your thoughts, about what is sensed, rather than a direct feeling of ‘what is’ that is sensed. If one could see this, then the game is over, at least the basis of play that includes   ‘suffering’ as a feel created by thought, about such a story, deserving suffering, as a subject sufferer. But such seeing is an in-seeing, before thought can work on the subject of what is sensed.

When you see a snake, for example, the colour is very colourful. It is theme to enjoy. Its movement is like a dance, a theme to enjoy, its feel is the feel of a skin, very soothing and also a theme to enjoy, but all said and done, what one finally feels, what he thinks is a snake, is the thought that snakes are  ‘ughh’ and then what is felt is repulsion and fear. So in its practical finality, the sensing of the snake of such was beauty, was turned ‘down’ give rise to repulsion and fear as associated appeal coming from the snake, rather than being a process at the mind. The ‘feel’ of repulsion and fear, is a feel based in thought, as if such feel was true and belonged to the snake.

Thoughts have a way to make its feel true, because the understanding, which is the intelligence that life is, has given preference that such understanding should be felt, rather than life in its direct form. All understanding in terms of thought, is linked with the theme that life ‘as’ a a subject person -is real- and events, in time and space, and is sequential with cause and effect, being the basis for such reality.  Such understanding, about life is nothing but an assumption, ‘agreed upon’ to feel as REAL.

The ‘agreed upon’, is also a process, that life passes on down te ‘years’ so to speak, which we call as   conditioning of mind. This is nothing but a belief that thoughts about the sensing, by a conditioned mind, must be believed, as understood. It seems that such understanding uses logic, based on continuity of ‘sensing’  as a set of object, linked to each other making them into ‘events of all the changes’ that are happening, to be converted into a ‘story-line’ in time and lived from that point of view. Such conditioning gets strengthened in times to comes, as all that is happening fro this point of view, is accepted as logical, in the understanding of it.

However, life uses ‘cause and effect’ or logic, without getting deeper into the logic of such assumption, digesting all conditioned thoughts, to prove a world of objects ‘real’ to a subject that is ‘real’ and apart from or independent of such a real world. Its feels genuine from birth to death and also to everyone, as the marketing of such theme to process thinking, starts from birth. So ‘life’ robs life out of all objects, converting them simply to objects without life, to go about the story making, from a unreal world to a world of assumed reality.

There also is - what seems to be - a focus. An attention to what is happening. Sensing is sensed and thoughts are sensed. Now what is felt, is what is thought, about what is sensed. So thoughts have to form around what is sensed at such speed and this focus, has to move faster, to know sensing and also the thoughts and remain in thought, so that, the feeling of sensing, is not focused as it happens, but is skipped until, the feel of thought about such sensing happens.

If attention is put on focus of what is happening, like putting attention on attention, one can see that, what ‘moves’ is what focus clings to. Focus is only what changes. Without change, attention cannot be sought. So what is focused on, is what changes fastest, which are thoughts, as if there is juice in the story about what is sensed. Finally, one is at the mercy of such focus, to come about to rest, on the movement of thoughts, which is the ‘understanding’ of ‘what is’ that is sensed, as an event, with objects in the world, having their real stories, make the final feel, to make oneself also, real, as if party to such story.

If and when such focus becomes weak.  attention does not wait on thoughts. So, seeing is felt before, the feel of a thought of such seeing.  In absence of focus, what is not focused is not registered to mind or memory. So, when you are seeing a tree, if the focus, is on thoughts, the tree is not registered. Only the story in thought is registered. Even so, if the focus is not on thoughts, thoughts cannot be registered, and gives a chance for the ‘feel’ of direct sensing to take place prior to any conceptualising about such seeing can take place. This is the place of Direct living. Once this is tasted, the taste of interpreted living becomes ‘stale’ or unreal.

This feel of life, in absence of thought, is not concerned with time and space. Time and space is not felt, as such feel is an act created in thought. The feel of absence of time and space and story about such logic, depending on time and space, cause and effect, subject ‘me’ and an objective world, is the feel of direct living, where in, being lived is plainly noticed rather than ‘living a life’. It’s a feel when focus dies out on individual sensing, through interpreted thoughts. All that is sensed is now in focus.

Once this focusing process, selecting what next to focus and interpret - drops, the sense of a center from which such focusing was operating also drops. Then all that is happening is, only ‘WHAT IS’ without a story line in time, as if nothing ever happened. All ‘stories’ with logic about what is sensed, goes into background or goes unfocused, to reveal a world, devoid of story line, as if no world ever was happening and never happened.

This is direct living, or a sensing of life directly, as it show up in the now, changing its looks, and dancing its play, with no-one to watch, as a separate entity,  as if to make some meaning to ‘life’ that is so playing out. This show is the dance of life, as creation, in its nascent form, before being adulterated, by agreed upon method of conceptualising, or meaning making, to bring in time, space, cause, effects, me’s and you’s into the process and depicting a real world to take on day after day.

So forcing ourselves to understand life, within the parameters of our conditioning beliefs,  is the root of changing the feel of ‘what we truly are’, to a ‘feel of what we think we are’ as separate individuals, that causes our world of suffering to be real, even when not. 

91. Life, a functioning.

The manifestation that is seen, is a functioning ‘of’ life.

There is always a ‘catch’ in words. Especially words like ‘of’. This creates a meaning of duality instantaneously. It is meant for being used, to project meaning to the functioning ‘of’ life, as if an ‘objective world of creatures’. Functioning ‘is’ life, rather than being understood as ‘an aspect’ - ‘of’ life.

When we function we feel alive. It is more so, we think so, of others. If they don’t function, they are not alive. All thinking process, is functioning ‘of’ life itself. But the thinking is ‘required’ to convert such functioning or ‘manifestation’ into a story ‘of’  manifestation or ‘theme’ about the manner in which functioning happens( using space and time as mental reality, being physical).

Functioning is a term used for change. Change is interpreted in the ‘functioning’ aspect as ‘growth’, decay, movement, brightening, darkening, etc etc, to make some meaning within the theme,  that seems to be played out in manifestation. The comedy, is that, the theme plays out, in reverse also and new meanings are given, to take it ‘forward’ in time. For example, change to body is growth and decay, both as ‘functioning’ of life. In both cases, it is a process of aging and even if it is so, after death, as if the dead body also continues to age, as we use them while noting details for fossils. However, it is termed as growth, when body was apparently alive and thereafter, left to archaeologists, to make new words about these bodies. It is not considered as ‘growth’ any more. So words have the strength to make a meaning, that enforces the story of manifestation in time.  However such words happening is also the functioning or expression of life.

Life ‘is’ functioning. The word ‘is’ makes life and functioning as ‘one’ unit. That is how it is. Functioning ‘of  life, makes life as one unit and an ‘aspect ‘of it, makes it as if another, without the first. Words are very tricky. At the most, we can say, change or functioning is an ‘expression’ of life. But ‘expression’ ‘is’ life, in fact expressions bring about aliveness ‘as’ what is expressed. All there is -is expressing- is life. So we must replace all words that point to ‘change’ or ‘expression’ as ‘life’ itself (in action). There is nothing, that doesn’t change, and so, nothing other than ‘life’. However change that is felt, is an aspect of time, and time is an aspect of change, without one, there is no other. Both are same, Time and Life, giving a ‘feel’ of change or expression, which brings about a ‘notion’ of a solid world of objects.

Shape is expression. We change the shape of our face, to expresses. We swing our body to express. You might swing your hand hard to express anger. So all shapes, are meant to bring about an expression, that life ‘feels’. Actually all there is –is ‘feeling’ only, as if moving, as if hearing, as if living etc, but that is another topic.

When we say, flame is the shape of fire, what is meant is that, the functioning of fire, looks as if a ‘flame’. So also, the functioning of ‘life’, looks as if creation. Its like in a dream, the functioning of life, looks as if a dream world. It is magically felt by ‘life’, as an aliveness of itself. So is the seemingly real world.

What is important to know, is that ‘life’ is creation and all functioning of all shapes, meaning all humans, animals, trees etc, is one functioning, which when happens, is manifested to seem ‘as’ world of different objects. So don’t be misled by ‘different’ people, functioning differently. There are no people and no different individual behaviour. It is the mind, that has some ‘memories’ to compare past an future, to bring about the ‘feel’ of change and thus make the difference, seem apparently meaningful. But even that is the ‘functioning of life’ ‘or’ what ‘Life’ is. Is-ness is ‘life’ felt as the changing world. Meaning to say, only change can be felt.

It is life that lives, life that hears, sees, understands, and all this, apparently as ‘from’ individual reference points, which makes a feel of individuality, called ‘me’. But since all this is a movement or functioning of life, meaning, life itself behaves or understands so, as if from a particular reference point.

So next time, when your wife or anybody expresses, note that, your feeling about such expression is also an expression, along with those expressions, that seemed to be of your wife, as one ‘functioning’ or ‘expression’ –which ‘Life’ is.