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.

86. Peace of Mind

Peace of mind

What 'you' are ‘as a separate character’ is your 'state of mind'.

Analyse the following sentences :

I am angry - my state of mind is in agitation. Anger is more a state of mind than a state of the body.

I am happy - happiness is more a state of mind than the state of the body.

Similarly, I am bored, I am lonely, I am depressed, I am deceived ( the belief that I had in mind was proven wrong about something or some one), etc, including the statement that I am feeling very peaceful today.

Also fear and courage is a state of mind. Also feeling guilty, not guilty etc etc is a feeling in the mind.

The peace is a state of mind, when there is no defending the fiction that a character to a body is real. What disturbs the peace are the thoughts that are storming about, trying to maintain and defend a separate self.. The thoughts move like ripples in the stillness. Some are small or subtle and some are very big and can sway the body like in 'sweating' out of fear.

There are times when there are no thoughts. One feels peaceful. The stillness of the mind is very soothing. This state of mind- we think- is very rare, as long as there is a feel of the ‘me’, but actually it is the natural state of mind, in the absence of the ‘me sense’.

Even before the thought appears that- I am an entity inside the body- this state is very peaceful. Then somewhere and somehow a thought has been believed that I am a person inside this body. With this arises that all are persons inside their bodies. So we have very many bodies with so many persons all as an impression in our mind.

When we analyse and find that -the somebody that we think we are- is actually only  a conviction of the mind about this imagination. We can analyse this understanding, that -our behavior - is simply -an expression of the state of mind. What I am 'is the mind' and my behavior is an expression of the state of mind.

The mind by itself is like the still pond. All thoughts are in their Zero state. In this stage there is no thought indicating that we exist as a body-mind entity. We in fact identify ourselves with no-body or no-thing. Also all thoughts that arise, must arise in relation to assuming that we are someone or something so that it feels like our thoughts.

Normally thoughts just happen to us and are impersonal. like - that the sound of a car passing by. etc. However some thoughts come with a prefix or postfix relating the thought to another thought that I am this body-mind, in short called 'me'. 'Me' is a short form for a thought that suggests that 'I am' this body-mind entity.

When we think that we are some- one or something, we are also forced to think the same of everybody and everything because that becomes relative.. But since all of this is only in thoughts, we surrender that this is a wrong assumption without any evidence and remain in stillness where our identity or the state of mind is still as if we were no-one or no-thing. In this state we also see others as no-one's or no-things and only as an expression of that energy that is responsible for creating the appearance of all that is seen, heard, thought etc..

Seeing ourselves as some-one or something is separation from anyone and anything. Seeing the no-one or nothing ( the 'shunya' or the zero ) in us and all the creation including ourselves, anyone and anything -is accepting the common essence of all appearance and thoughts as that same essence which has no- oneness or no-thingness. This is an energy termed as life. All that appears is this energy or so called expression of this energy or essence or life.

Such truth is experienced when the mind is still or without a thought, which is also a state where objects and time lose their 'separate independent ' reality and we experience the same no-oneness or no-thingness or tranquility within. The inside of us becomes this essence which is also seen as the outside of us. The clarity of wholeness is then revealed as that wholeness which includes all but not as some-ones and some-things. This wholeness reveals the no-oneness and no-thingness of anyone and anything as if the movement of the whole universe is one single movement or expression of life that includes all forms or objects and thoughts.    

Peace of mind is something that comes about when attachment to 'me sense' and outside objects of the world fall away and this is the realisation that there is no-one home to be realised and life just IS. You cant make it happen because there is no-one who do this making. It just happens, like all else happens, as if this world.

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.  

82. Life and You.

There is a peculiar relation between ‘life’ and ‘us’. A virtual relation that gets stronger and stronger by the day and only a miracle could pierce the virtuality to get a peek into reality. In fact all relations are like that. It starts with a binding like a thin hook and then gets more and more stronger like a ship’s anchor  and then makes reality of the  ‘you’ that seems to become the role played by ‘life’ as you. It gets impossible to ‘come out’ of this ‘becoming’ called ‘me’.

What is life. We know life as we are taught about it or in a context that we use it. If we take a broader context in viewing life, we can call ‘life’ as all that would be called ‘creation’ and its movement, moment by moment or simply the play of ‘life’. First the creation- like a flame and then its movement like a how the flame moves or a ‘dance’. The source of such a creation that ‘IS’ and moves is ‘life’. It is like the source of the flame. Call it ‘fire’ if you like. Fire is not only the source but also the appearance of the flame and has its own way of creating some sort of negative pressure within it, that allows out side air to be sucked in it, helping it to keep burning upwards and also to dance in its existence. However all of it is ‘fire’ and its play. All one source and appearance. Likewise, is ‘life energy’, Its also the appearance and also the movement. Nothing else need be. Appears because of its to be perceived, creates its own forces that keeps giving a change to cause its own dance that we ‘feel’ is its aliveness. THIS INCLUDES A ‘YOU’ IN ‘IT’. So in relation to life, ‘you’ are inclusive in it and are ‘of’ it.

Now we go about trying to relate to such ‘life’ from a place of this individual ‘me’, to get enlightened and to become that ‘life’ that we are told we actually are. Its easy at the level of understanding that we are not what we think we are but what ‘we are’ is life. Its difficult in the beginning, even to think so,  but when pondering or seeking day in and day out, that this ‘we’ is lived and the ‘what’, ‘this we’ must be, is life itself, we come to the end of the road or a place where we desperately want to let go the feel of an individual me and have the feel of ‘life’ as ‘me’. Then we don’t know whether we will be able to feel ‘me’ as life or feel the ‘whole life’ as me. This game goes on for a while, whilst  we are desperately trying to come out of the cocoon of ‘me’ into the butterfly as ‘life’. This  ‘trying’ to project ‘a me’ as not an individual self is also ‘life’ playing a limited ‘me’ trying to wear itself off as an individual. But the ‘trying’ itself maintains the ‘me’ while trying is happening, limiting this me as a try-er. The individual effort is what keeps the ‘scheme’ of ‘me’ alive. This mechanism of trying is what keeps the separation going on and on. Trying to reach what you desire is the name of the game of the individuality. Not trying is a also another way to keeping  the ‘trial’ alive or to do the ‘not trying’ and so has the same effect.

Life as you and you as life are both the same movement. As long as you make a personal effort, life becomes personal. As long as you feel personal, it is ‘life’ behaving as a personal you. ‘You’ cant feel impersonal, because there is a ‘you’ or a personal ‘you’ trying  ‘to do’ this feeling out of choice or free will. Letting go the ‘you’ or personality is already ‘life’ in its natural state. Once this is seen, the strength to hold on a ‘position’ as a person becomes weaker and weaker. As long there is a will to let go, the will itself becomes weaker which brings about the ‘letting go’ of the ego or the personal self or the ‘sense of me’.

All along we understand that it is ‘life’ projecting the ‘me’ in ‘itself’ as its content . Now this ‘me’ wants ‘me’ to somehow project ‘me’ as ‘life’. As if I can be something very big as life itself. So we try to be humble, broadminded, accommodating, saying ‘yes’ to ‘all that is’ etc etc, just we think ‘life’ should be. It is not possible for a ‘me’ to behave ‘life’ like. The absence of ‘me’ is ‘life’ already, including and excluding ‘a like’ to make it ‘life-like’. Its just that, one fine day, ‘you’ wont be there, feeling very light, not knowing, where  and how that part ‘you’ got out of ‘YOU’ or ‘all that there is’. It just gets left behind like a lizards tails, in total unawareness.

At the peak of seeking, with trust and faith that individual persons never really existed the way, ‘we’ normally saw and felt the personality in ourselves and others, the nature or heaviness of individuality begins to get lighter and lighter until there isn’t a ‘you’ to know that a ‘you’ that was, is now ‘not’. You wont know when it happened, because when it happens, the you that is supposed to always be in charge of all knowing that was, itself is gone missing. Its like a stick churning the burning coal wanting to know, when it will actually ‘stop’ churning. The stick already became the fire, with no separation left. So there comes a time when suddenly, there is no judgement, as if there is ‘no one’ left to judge, or judgement itself is ever happening or not. Then what is left is ‘life’ or simply the ‘play of life’ of simply ‘play’ or simply THIS.

So hang on, until there is no-one to hang on, and feel the funniness of ordinariness of how ‘life’ always was, and was ignorantly believed to be much the other way, being personal, because in its play, being personal is what kept running the show of this ‘is-ness’ becoming  ‘separate me’ and the ‘outside world’. No need to continue being part of the play from then on, because the play was always played, by not a you or anyone, but by no-one at all and will continue to play ‘you’ ‘as’ personal at times ‘just this’ other times, as the play demands from time to time, which was always what it did, but now, there is a knowing of it, from the side that ‘life’ wanted itself to ne known, and that too –‘effortlessly’, as knowing was always known to be.   

81. Time and Now.

Now seems to be an element of time. But that is a belief, because ‘Time’ as something in existence in itself is a belief.  All beliefs are valid because of a faith in the belief that is beyond being shaken up and also the ‘basis’ of individual lives or apparent persons ‘is’ simply this set of beliefs.

‘We’ as separate persons are hooked up to beliefs and this set of beliefs is passed on to generations to come, which is what keeps the fiction of ‘reality’ alive or ‘lively’.

There seems to a secret here that can be unlocked, as if it is possible to come out of beliefs and see the world for its true nature. However, the true nature of creation includes persons having beliefs and seeing the world through a veil of such beliefs. It’s more like apparent people are ‘lived’ with a common agreement of living with beliefs of time and space and names for forms etc which makes the working of creation an open secret, that can be seen for its exact nature, but can’t be known on a relative level of individual person and must be lived from a point of believing that relative reality is absolute reality.

The ever changing contents ‘is’ what is noticed in the ‘knowing’ that ‘we are’,  and the ever ‘constant’  capacity of this knowing is what doesn’t form the content to be known, and keeps getting missed out, as what can be known, being the obvious and taken for granted, as if not. This is purely due to ‘life’ living its contents in that way and will continue to be perceived as it is meant to be, in the game that life plays itself out.

 The term ‘Now’ has a very important role to play in our lives. Life ‘is’ this  ‘Now’ ‘being’ witness as a present time element and also ‘being’ the contents as what is perceived as the world, to its own knowing capacity.  There is actually only ‘knowing’ of perception and such knowing is this ‘Now’ knowing it so.

The term ‘now’ has many contexts in which it can be used and the meanings that seem to appear when used in such circumstances, makes it seem appropriate to complete the communication, as if the understanding about the context in which it was used, was very normal and appropriate to indicate reality of ‘time’. But most of the time, it is used to make a sense of ‘Isness’ as if the content ‘is present’ as of now and for real.

It is interesting that, we often use this term ‘Now’ or the ‘present’ as if somehow it is linked with all that is not now, or the so called past or future to make ‘time’ possible. In fact the absence of contents in the ‘now’, is imagined to be really ‘available’ ‘in’ the past or future, to make them exist that way. Such a method of perception is purely creating a mental existence of objects, from the past to the future. So we push all ‘physical’ or ‘Presently’ non existence contents category of  imaginary and real mental contents of the past and future, in order to give continuity to the contents of the ‘present’ in both directions of time. Therefore all continuity must be purely ‘mental.

What is the real issue here?. Can ‘now’ or physical reality ( as may call it) be really clubbed to make a continuum  with past and future that is more on a mental level? However, the world seems to work well this way, as we all play this game in a trance. How real is physical reality?. How real is mental reality? How real is this imagined reality anyway?. These are unanswered questions due to paradoxical answers that seem to make sense in both ways, when argued in that sense.

Whatever is ‘featured’ in creation is seen or known in the ‘now’.  In fact, it is ‘now’ that is the actual cognisor of featured creation, that we feel as ‘present now’. What is absent, is not there. It is either ‘was there’ or will be there. Meaning, we make it present at some other point in time and such point in time is only revisted via the mind, or mentally, to make time real or bring time into existence. Even when we talk, we must bring time in words that depict time, which itself is the basis to create time, as there isn’t one to go back or forward as past or future. I will go there ‘tomorrow’ is an example.

Suppose I take a set of cards and show it to child. Now suppose I take away some of them and keep it behind my back and tell the child that it has disappeared, it is very much impressed. In fact it is wonderstruck. It doesn’t make a difference to the child, if the cards actually went out of existence, because its has believed this to be true. Now if we tell the child, that all the cards were behind the back, then all the wonder is gone away. Similarly, all contents of ‘Now’ ‘that’ disappear, are mentally allowed to continue, so as to assimilate with a new set of contents are featured ‘in the now’.  Once the apparent reality is embedded in memory or imagination, the mind has the speed and capacity to revisit this apparent reality, and make logical a story of all the is present and absent, but mentally present. The contents of yesterday and day before and all the past for millions of apparent years, is actually memory, lying behind the back of ‘now’, now. Physical presence of perception, mental presence of the perceived and imagined presence of would be perceived are all happening ‘now’ to make sense in a story form, giving reality to apparent existence.  The ‘now’ features apparent reality using direct perception and also perception vide thoughts ( which are indirect but feels direct).  All of perception is happening only in the ‘now’, as if there isn’t any knowing out of now. Now is not long or short as all there is –is now. Etrnal, meaning without a relation to ‘time’. For every event, its all past and future is revisited mentally in a flash and meanings made. This happens each time for every event subject thought of. If a thought of wife or child or place comes up, its whole story in time is revisited in a flash and then understood.  Its like having to pass a flashback clip, everytime a movie clip has to show some idea of the past. Its all happening ‘now’ with no realtion to time, and time is depicted as an element in the featuring of now. This is the magic of creation. Complicated and featured simply.

 Now’ is actually eternal. It doesn’t mean that it has a every very long duration. It only means that ‘time’ is not applicable ‘to’ ‘now’. Since ‘now’ is all there is, and at the same time it is still ‘now’. The ‘focus’ or split mind dwells in contents of the ‘now’ whether present or absent ( as if kept in front of you and behind you) and converts it to a story of world of objects and ways of individual lives. All contents of what ‘is’ featured or ‘was’ featured or ‘will be’ featured is only a mechanism of ‘focus’ trying to dip into the contents of ‘now’ which are all ‘here’ in the now as direct or mental perception and mentally presents it as an event in time. The narration by thought of the featuring of presence and absence of objects makes a feel of time. Time by itself is not a ‘something’ that could be seen or heard or felt or tasted or cognised as such. It doesn’t exist. It is only made to feel that way, in a mental format or conceptual format or a magical way.  The magic of ‘life’ is its display of what ‘is’ and what ‘is not’ and make feel an event in time space, as if all of it was real and graspable.

Life moves on and on in this fashion, with no-one to claim otherwise because life is the only player, converting knowing of visual, audible, and such other knowing to make feel objects to itself, pretending to behave as individual bodies, which is not the case. But its very creative and effective. Living life from the point of view of ‘life’ is more fun, falling into the flow of nature, ever unpredictable and always spontaneous, embodying apparent objects of its contents and feeling its own self as its game of filling in time ( that is not). Now is all there is.