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?

51. MAYA or Mithya.

How do we know, if what we know is real or illusory. All the masters have been telling us that the world is an illusion. What does that mean. Is the Illusion real? Does such a question have any answer? Its like asking, can form be formless? In fact, all forms are energy according to Einstein and Energy is form. E=MC2. E being formless and M being matter or form.  

We are aware of ‘all what is’. But all this is an illusion, when seen as separate from the see-er. Since we identify ourselves with the body, and feel all aspects of 'ourselves' as real,  the universe 'all', also feels real. The main problem is to see through the illusion of this reality that could be a 'me'. 

Let us go with an example. Imagine a pond where in a small ripple is made. if you put a piece of paper on the ripple, it is quite evident that the water is only moving up and down and not sideways. So sideways movement seems to be or we can say, actually is, an illusion. We are willing to accept that,  this movement is an illusion, since the paper doesn’t seem to move outwards as a solid proof. Now this gives rise to the next question, if side ward movement of water is an illusion, why should not be the up/down movement of water, as seen with the paper, also be an illusion, and why not the whole of water also be an illusion too. Why is that, we ‘feel’, the sideways movement of water an illusion and rest others real, within the whole illusion or whole reality. If one aspect of the water is an illusion, the whole of water and all aspects of it should be an illusion and that is what we are trying to accept or reject here. All we have are experiences. All experiences are real experiences, including an experience of an illusion in logic. There is no other reality, other than the experiencing of it. If at all there could be, then reality itself is simply an understanding. That which is real, must claim its reality as such, unchanging at all times. The water cant say that it is ice or steam, in which case, what it is, is not what it is, when circumstances change. So maintaining a changeless objectivity to form is an illusion. I keep changing from birth to death, and I am 'I' all the time. Its like saying that all that changes is a changeless constant, from a particular point of view. In that case, the changeless that consciousness is, as an intelligence in its potential, is the changing form that creation appears as the looks of 'now'. So every change has a changeless aspect, as if evolving in 'time', that is 'now'.

When we take change as 'movement', the movement becomes the change or expression of that which moves, being the constant. Like a dancer, being a constant, the dance is a continuous change, being its expression, which the dancer is the same. So the basis of creation is the same, only the looks of creation, being the expression of itself, is what appears as the change. Its like light, being the same and its brightness from maximum to nil, being its expression as the change. So the day and night belong to the same source.

Take another case of movement or change. Any movement has to have a previous position, the present position and the future position, to have a movement. Any change also, must have a previous look, present look and a future look to know of a change. Now, the previous reference to any movement or change,  has to be from memory. Memory is the same as ‘mind’ or mental or psyche. The mind is one plain and the existence or ‘Now’ or present seeing is another plain. Now we use the old reference from memory which is on one plain and then we try to connect it to reality, which is another plain and to the future imagination, back to the mental plain, to experience or see such a movement happening. However, these plains are not compatible, unless the whole of it, is mental. Since in our life time, the whole process of living is only for ‘this’ fraction seemingly real or physical, and all past and future is mental, and we think that the real can be linked to mental,  which need not be true. The truth is that, a mental plain, connects, in the mental plain only and so, it is acceptable that all movements and the whole of living is ’mental’ or what we call illusory, like in a dream.

Take another solid case of 'sound'. Let us say air vibrates at 250 hzs. This means that air particles are moving up and down or sideways at this rate per second. There is nothing more to it. Now the generation of sound or perception of sound is like a side effect of vibration. In other words, sound is an 'effect' and such an effect is non measurable and only felt. What is measurable ( if at all)  is air and its movement. Sound is a mental format and has no individual existence. its existence depends on and is a 'side effect' of air and its vibrations. The sound is not made of air at all. Its only an effect. Like light is not made of electricity. Its only an effect. In fact brightness is an effect of light, even when light cannot be said to existing objectively. So all objectivity is an experience. There is nothing tangible as light and sound etc. Its all a 'side effect' or 'mental' or illusory. So is all creation an effect. Each aspect sensed is sensed by mind as an effect and the mind has to join all effects and make a story called reality or creation. So the whole creation is an effect of something that cannot be known. What we are featured is as an 'effect' or even like a 'side effect' or a reflection etc. How can an effect find the cause?. The effects are felt on the level of MIND or cognisor. This MIND is everywhere that things are cognised as effect and 'calibrated' as things or objects by Mind itself. So all that is happening is 'mental'.  

Mental is another term for Illusory. So Life as it seems to us, movement as it seems to us, has to be completely illusory. What is seen, is in frames  and what is felt is continuous. Continuity can only be mental or  illusory. So life, seemingly continuous is mental or illusory .This is Maya or the magic of creation. All there is –is a dream and no-one is seeing it, but seeing is happening, all the same, because the intelligence that creates it, also has the capacity to see it, making a feel as if a ‘me’ is experiencing it. However, this ‘me’ is as illusory as the seeing and so it goes well within the scheme of things.

Reality as such is a matter of discussion or elaboration. There is independent reality or consciousness, there is dependent reality or 'Maya' and there could be imaginary 'unreality' or something that doesn't need to be discussed. Unreality is that which doesn't exist at all. Like son of a barren women or horn of a hare. So no sense is imagining whether it is real or unreal. Dependent reality is experiences that depend on sense organs. Meaning visual experience is dependent on seeing or audible experiences are dependent on hearing etc. To say that an object exists, there has to be the perceiving subject also in existence. But both the subject and object are dependent on reality or existence itself, which exists as a potential even without any notion of subject-object. Such experiences or so called 'real' world which is actually 'dependent reality' is just 'experiencing' or an expression of existence or Maya or Leela or the dance or movement of consciousness or the potential of independent 'Reality'. A smile is an expression of the face. Without the face the smile cannot happen. the smile comes and goes. So too existence is always. The world or expression of existence is what is assumed reality and keeps changing. Unreal doesn't exist. Real cannot be known directly. what is left is only experiencing of an expression that can be said to be real, unreal and neither all at the same time and is 'all there is'.

50. World is an Experience.

Is this objective world, really real or just an illusion?. How do we know it, Is it possible to know or understand the reality of the so called reality.

What we can know is simply the experiencing of the world, as if the world 'can' exist outside the experiencing of it. The world of perception appears to be real, as if outside of such perception. Its like saying, an object can exist, without its seeing. Its not possible. Knowing f pain is pain. How can know anything outside of any knowing of it?. We cannot. Knowing is all there is. Rest is an illusion that it can exist, apart from the knowing of it, or It has an independent existence. This cant be known. We perceive the world or experience the world as creation. This experience is thrust on us, so as to say.  We don’t create the experience, we experience the creation. We think that this world is real. The reality of this world is. in the thinking of it. But thought itself is an experience. So the world is in the thinking of it, which is a psychic experience. Whose psyche, not ours for sure, because, ‘we’ are also an experience to this psyche.

This psyche itself is a non-experience, because, being so,  it can experience an experience. So, one cannot experience a non-experience, because, the ‘one’ is firstly an experience by the psyche and secondly, it would then become an experience again to that psyche, that is, to a non-experience.  In any case, a non-experience could not become an experience to a non-experience or psyche. Its impossible combination of thoughts. Its like making a subject an object of experience, which needs a another subject to know that and this is a continuous regression.

Therefore, ‘if’ there is no experience to be experienced, there isn’t an  objective world. Also there isn’t a real objective psyche. We call the experiencing term itself, objectified, as ‘psyche’. There isn’t any objective psyche.  So such a psychic world is not a real world, when seen in separation of body minds. It’s only a psyche world, which is a 'doesn’t exist world in terms of reality'. That is all one has to know.

You existence is in 'a' psychic existence in a psychic world. There isn’t a reality or unreality to anything that is psychic.. It’s not even illusory. Illusory is also a kind of ungraspable reality, being illusive reality. The ability to grasp the absence of separation as reality, makes the world of separation illusive to be fully known for its reality. But this- is the height of heights. Not real, not illusory. Give it a new name- Psychic, meaning dreamy. Meaning nothing is really happening. So don’t live in your psyche, as there isn’t one, that is your own, because you aren’t and so your own isn't and all this is meaningless. So you are free, because you aren’t and cannot be bound.

When we see a human form, we associate a person to the form. There isn’t a ‘person’  inside any human form other than as a mental image, thats is unreal 'matter'. There is just a human form, even that in the psyche. Now the person that we associate there, is a non existing subject, given to that form, to make that form, an object or a thing, to what we imagine is the ‘subject’ within  this form that we think ‘ours’.  So the subject, of a form is the formless psychic imagination, giving the form an objectivity, to separate them from other forms or objects. But all of this is mental.  So, the psyche, creates a subject to the form, so that, that form, now becomes an object called a person, to an imaginary psychic subject called ‘me’ in this form.

So not only is the psyche making objects of other forms, but also making an object out of this form. that we think we are, as if to make it ‘the’  subject. But, the subject of all forms, including a form, that, we think is ours, is psychic experiences of objectivity in forms.

When we understand this true nature of Maya, as elusively seeing in separation, or subject -object format, then the reality of all the objectivity, of all forms fall away, including the ‘me’ in this form. Then all forms are then seem as one Being or Wholeness of all there is, since the individuality of forms or separateness of the forms are now missing. Then all there is – is wholeness, being experienced by psyche.  However, now, the experience of the world of separate objects is lost, because its meaning or subjectivity, which made the world objective or real, is lost, and what is left, is wholeness or just called ‘this’, or pure experiencing of what is happening, not in separation.

All words, for a form, is loaded with objectivity, by the psyche, and so feels real. So, if somebody is describing a story, in the world, this world and the story seems real. But the reality, is only psychic. There is no reality in words, as there is no objectivity to objects, being only shapes or forms. All seeing is psychic, and all meanings to them or objectivity is also psychic and so the world of separate objects is psychic.

Nothing ever is happening. Time and space is psychic, giving the forms a reality in the psyche and further, adding objectivity to each form, by inserting an imaginary subject to each form, so that the imaginary world, seems real, made of separate objects.

So somehow, removing the imaginary subjects of all objects or forms, makes the objective world, a ‘formy’ experience instead of a objective experience, called - All that there is or just THIS.  However such an activity, is the activity of life or the psyche which is called Maya, the play.

49. Nonduality and Duality.

Nonduality operates with an interpretation in duality. Its wholesness or 'now' that is sentient, seeing hearing etc, and interpreting as if an I sees, hears etc, even though that 'I' is also the seen and heard etc. There is no 'split' in what we see. But the mind, says, we see a chair, tree etc. We see all at a time, we hear all at a time. This type of seeing and hearing is normal for wholeness to be, for 'now' to be. But.. there seems to be separation, of a chair, a tree and a me. This is only a interpretation of mind, which is also seen in wholeness. The interpretation is taken as real language and separation is seen as real separation and 'I' of the wholeness is seen as a separate 'I' identified 'to' the body.

Duality operates only in language base and Non duality operates as a reality, non conceptual, even before language twists its meaning. Within Non-duality, the absences of all objectification, like past and future, is filled up using thoughts, happening in the ‘now’. The past and future operates as thoughts and images in the mind, to complete the process of feeling separate. One starts to feel the past and future in the now, even though it doesn’t exist. This magical experience ‘now’ of past, present and future, along with dualistic interpretation, as if all this is happen to some-one, makes a story of someone, negotiating the world.

The world and its interpretation as separate from the person, is happening automatically. Automatically meaning, consciousness or life, is talking this language through all bodies. The sensing is playing out automatically, as if to ‘no-one’ and is continuously interpreted is duality, as if ‘to’ someone. Dualistic language has been invented or discovered by wholeness, as if to create the absence of past and future, presence and absence and such other opposites, to be really experienced. One can experience presence and also absence. Moment we say, some one is dead, no matter, his relative is away from the dead guy, he seems to experience the absence of the dead guy. Such play, if we take out the story of the dead guy, is a charm being played out by wholeness, that is not understood at all and only the interpretation is taken for reality or as granted. It is like seeing a Chinese science fiction movie and getting its interpretation by children of different languages, that do not have an idea of the world of science or chinese, but enjoying the interpretation of their imagination. But once interpreted, it will seem real, because all children now reinterpret or re-cognise as per their first learning of the movie.

So, seeing the world, on the basis of language, makes the world of wholeness as a world, split into subject and objects, even while, the subject of seeing is also within the seeing, seen as an object by wholeness.  It gives an impression, that an object can see objects, which is unlikely. I am an object of you and you are an object of me, is ridicules, when both are objects in the seeing. So the power of language, instilled  from birth, makes us feel embodied, even though there isn’t a ‘we’, that is embodied and all there is, is consciousness operating bodies, speaking them and walking them. Consciousness is the seer of the seeing, hearer of the hearing and feeler of the feeling, some, seeming outside the body limits and some seeming inside the body limits, and using language to make seem that each body is a subject to the world of appearance, even though this body is also within such appearance.

So all that is required to in-see that, seeing and hearing is all there is, and not like language based, as if an ‘I’ can see and hear, separate from wholeness or consciousness or life. If the language is taken as, consciousness wanted to talk through all bodies, as if to play a game of separateness, the wholeness can come in the forefront. But if, language is to be believed as per its design of duality, then only dualistic living will take place.

In any case, since, life is living objects, it decides, what or how to play the game. All that we are as sentience or consciousness is a witness of all that is happening in wholeness.

48. Subjectivity and objectivity.

Did you know that, you are not what you think you are? Wow. That is interesting. Its always the mind or thought that keeps us trapped to think we are something this or else that or  whatever  we are.

We have many ideas of what we are. The nearest of them being- I am the sentience that can see, hear, feel etc etc and think, personal to this body. A thought says so.  Then there is what others think of us. Hindu, Lawyer, Doctor, shopkeeper  etc. This is what we think ourselves to be, by enforcing, what we want others to think about ourselves.  Of course there are a series of other aspects that we become, in front of others, automatically like master, servant, father, son, accused, hero etc.

All these names and adjectives that we give ourselves or those that we shower onto our selves, or what others shower on to us, are in a way, learnt games or imagined roles.

But what are we or am ‘I’ in a basic sense? May be sentience?. In a way, yes. This is the most close quality, that we can associate ourselves to be, other than imagined ‘persons’. How does sentience look like? Is it an entity, a capacity, or what is it.

We imagine that we are a person, with a freewill, able to see, hear, think etc.   We feel ourselves as an entity. A subject that has sentience and can detect an object, like sound, feel, etc. Like some kind of a sensing instrument. So, we make a boundary of a subject trapped within the skin, detecting the world, which is an appearance, outside the skin. Is this true analysis?.

Sentience is a capacity, to feel, the presence and absence of objects. It make be hard objects or thought objects.  It feels limited to one entity, as if each body is sentient and then, when it dies, its sentience has disappeared.  This is how it appears. But it is more than that.

Where do we hear a sound?  We hear it at the source, at the speaker and not inside our skull. That’s the catch. Similarly, where is ‘seeing’  the shape and colour of an object happening?. It happens at the object itself. Not inside our eyeball or the skull.

So this instrument of seeing, seems to be aware of seeing, outside the instrument of seeing, and likewise for hearing. Seeing and hearing is happening even  before the sound or light could reach this body, it is already heard before the ear knows it and even before light could reach the eyeball, its already seen. In any case, if the light reaches the eyeball, we would be seeing light only.  Green light from the tree, brown light from the road, red light from a flower, is not the way, that nature works. Or else, we would be having beams of green light from the tree to your eye and another beam of brown, from the road to the eye. If they crisscross, your seeing would get into trouble.

Sentience is an aspect of life. Life sees ‘at’ the object. Life hears, ‘at’ the source of sound and so on. So the sentience, that we think, we are, is a capacity of sensing and is happening at the object sensed. So sentience is at the object sensed. Sentience itself doesn’t have a body. It is life itself, which has an appearance aspect as object and sense aspect as sentience. It is also called awareness.

There isn’t a word as unaware.  There is an awareness of sensation and absence of sensation. There is awareness of objects or absence of objects, like space, The focus of awareness may seem to shift, from feel to sound, to thought, to dream etc. But awareness is always present. In fact, Awareness or sentience is what we are, that is all pervading.

So, seeing is the see-er of the shape and colour, hearing is the hear-er, of the sound etc. In short, life is the sensor or all visual, audible, and other sensations, that are felt, inside and outside the boundary of the body. In fact the body is itself an object in the seeing.

So the actual subject is ‘life’, in which our own body is an object. In fact ‘life’ sees both objects and makes feel that both are subjects to both and other as objects to both. So it is felt that seeing is from here.  But seeing is ‘at’ the object, hearing is at the sound and so on. So life is all over the place. It is one single life for all objectivity.  Moreover, this body is not doing any seeing and hearing from here. Life is doing this. So subject is life itself. It doesn’t have an objective quality and so cannot be pin pointed as here and there. It is everywhere and nowhere. The  objective quality of the subject can be defined as ‘nothing’, or else, it would be object of another subject knowing that quality. It can be imagined as time, or that which is witnessing a change, a change of shape, a movement, an appearance and disappearance etc. That quality of life, by virtue of which, object seems to appear, is the subjective aspect or subjectivity. So ‘seeing’ is subjectivity. In fact all objects appear in subjectivity. They do not exist, outside of the seeing or subjectivity. This means, the subjective nature of all objects is their knowing, happening at the object itself. There is no object outside of its knowing and there is no knowing, outside of its objectivity. So knowing is the being and being is the knowing, as if subject and object happening together. So there is one knowing of all that is sensed, and that knowing is an aspect of life and not of the body. Even the body is a known to the ‘knowing’.

This knowing, is called, life or I am-ness, which is responsible for the objective appearance of all that there is. Its more like dream, in a sense, that it has no independent existence, apart from the sensing of it. As if it is there only when sensed or else not. Its like a movie screen, on which, different objects are felt or known and cannot exist if the screen were not. Its like time, in which all change is noticed and cannot be known, if time or ‘Now’ were not.

So all existence is the knowing of it and not outside of it. But the knowing of objectivity, can only happen in the ‘now’ because, one cannot know, outside of ‘now’. If fact ‘Now’ is knower of the known, or the see-er of a seeing or a hear-er of sound. ‘Now’ is the subjective nature of  all there is. ‘Now’ has the power to sense or the sentience or life of all there is. Now itself has no objective aspect than all there is. So all there is – is the objective nature of ‘Now’ and ‘Now’ is the subjective nature of ‘all there is’.

So there is ‘now’ and ‘all there is’ and both two aspects of one life, as life spins out forms and knows then in/by the ‘Now’.

47. Time, Duration and Movement.

What is time?, Is it something that we understand?

We use time in language, as used by everybody and believe in time, for synchronising movements. But what exactly are we doing. We seem to have a feel of time. However, a little analysis of time is overdue.

Let’s start with an assumption that time is something that really exists. Like we think space exists. Starting from here, lets try to objectify time.

Firstly we need to fix, if time is something that is stationary or something that seems to have a movement. Can we agree on it being one of the two. Or is it both, like a man ?.  Sometimes standing and sometimes moving. Unlikely. They say, time and tide waits for none. So time seems to be a movement. We would have to agree around time being a movement because, time being stationary is unimaginable. It would put the whole universe in a ‘statue’ mode. So lets agree for the time being, that time is something that moves.

This brings in the set of complications. How does time move, Linear, or to the power? We would tend to think it to be linear, because we draw so many graphs, where time is linear. Unless we believe so, we should not have been practicing so. That means, time has to move, and what we have been thought so far is that, time moves, one second per second. when one second is by the clock and compared to one second by our own feel. But in sleep, time passes faster. In death, it may be the fastest. A million years to a second. 

Time in motion is tricky.It means, 10’ O’clock itself becomes 10.01 after one second and 10.02 after two seconds and so on. Actually this seems in place. But what does it mean. It means that, morning itself becomes afternoon, and day itself becomes night. One dies to birth the other. Its like saying, the clay becomes the pot and the same pot becomes a vase. So there is only, either pot or vase or clay. When one is seen, the other two are also the same one. Cant have three clay items at a time. Existence of one, is the death of the rest. Time has such a quality with itself. It is always ‘now’ appearing as morning, afternoon night, 2011, 2012 etc. and this needs to be probed more for its meaning. Objective reality of change is measured in time, but objective measurement of change of time is not measurable. So time is not measurable change. It is a changeless, in which change of other than time is sensed. Since 'we' sense change, Time must be 'we' as Life.

Take another example. Suppose you start a race. Say only one person is running. He starts the race at 10 O’clock and has run for five minutes and covered say - 1 kilometre distance. Now, in terms of time, the 10 O’clock itself has become 10.05 at the point that he has finished. So his start time itself has advanced to his finish time. So he is at the start point itself, in terms of time and has never moved even one second, because he and time are moving together in time. That is why, he is always here. He can never go there or anywhere. It’s more like, all the anywhere that he goes, becomes the ‘here’ and ‘now’ always, no matter how fast or slow he moves, he is not moving at all. Now this is a paradox. Time in motion, is a paradox and time stationary is a unimaginable. So what is happening here. It time stationary, a movement or something that is an illusion like a mirage, but never graspable. This seems more like it. It seems to be there, but on analysis, it neither moves nor is stationary. Then what can it be. It is a movement that doesn’t seem to move. This is unimaginable.

So what moves, has time a background on which movement is registered, or time is a changeless background on which, change is registered. If so, what could be time, conceptually? How can we define time?  What are its characteristics? All that we can think of is that, this is some sort of a background. It could not be something that has motion. It has to be something that registers motion or change. Could it be life itself?, could it be Self? Who is registering motion or change?. Only that, which is changeless. And that seems to be a cognising capacity, which itself has no characteristics like change or no-change.

So, time is a sense of feel of living. Life is living itself. Living is its objective nature and time is its observing nature. So time is the observer of life. Life is movement and time is cognition of movement. Time cannot move. In fact time cannot come under the category of time in a way that we imagine time to be. So time itself is timeless, even though we assume it has some sense of time. Its a tool that seems to cognise change or movement. The tool itself is timeless. Actually this is what ‘WE ARE’. Appearances take place in ‘time’ or in ‘us’ as if durable, as if - time taking. But time itself, doesn’t exist as we think it does. Its not stationary, its not movement. It is what we are, it’s what is cognising and it’s what cognising is. There is no other time that we know, other than this. 

Morning, afternoon and night are names for shades of brightness of 'Now'. There isn't 'a' Morning or 'a' afternoon or night in the sense of time. The durations are 'mind' games, translating an experience of change is a process 'in time'. All there is -is a sense of change. Within the given time, so many things changes so many ways. For example, a DAY means a lifetime to a mosquito, fraction of that to human, 10 lifetimes for a bacteria, nothing at all for a stone etc. So we are not actually seeing time, we are only sensing different experiences of change - some fast and some slow. A change is all that we experience, and all is happening to/in the 'Now'. This now doesnt have a sense of time. Its not that 'Now' is long or short. The durations felt or changes that are experienced , 'seem' long or short. Sleep seems 5 minutes, boredom seems hours etc. So all there is -is a magical experience for a change, which is translated by some thought or other mystical means as an experience of time. Time doesnt exist, Its a word for that which senses 'time' as experience of change or movement or duration.

So ticking of the clock is a movement in time or in cognition. Time, by itself just means cognising potential for change or movement, which is ‘life’ or ‘I am’ itself is.