22. Knower and the Knowing.

When we see an object, what actually do we see?  We see or cognise only shape and colour, and other sensations. Later, when we physically feel them, we can know its hardness or softness. So when we see a chair for example, we saw only a form and colour. We are not factually seeing a ‘chair’. We are only seeing a form that we agree to label as a chair. Similarly, all what we see are only forms. Some stationary forms  like stones, some moving forms  like cars, some animated forms like animals and some walking and talking too forms like men. What -if all forms were actually only forms -like -dream forms?. Lets assume physical reality is made of matter. What about mental reality? , can we call our beliefs of matter and things or our concepts of the world as real? they are not 'matter'. They are thought forms. Non matter or dream matter. So all mental cognition is dream like. Now we are aware that physical matter is also limited to only sensations. Only life can 'know' matter. It is a matter of knowing. Made of sensations or knowing material, which is also non matter. Example visual knowing, audible knowing, olfactory knowing etc, is non matter. All knowing is only 'one' knowing split into five knowings, but all knowing is non matter. Non matter feels 'matter'. The matter part of it, or thingness of shapes is purely a concept or thought. So all matter is non matter and non matter cannot exist in a 'finite' way. So it exists in a 'Infinite' way. A non existential way. By its absence as an object of knowing. By its presence as the knowing of perception. That's the miracle of Creation. it mages a knowing of objects, rather than make objects exist in their own right, separate from the mechanism of knowing, knowing it.

During our younger days, we are taught that -this is called mother, that is father, that is chair etc and a belief sets in accepting all these names to the form. The intelligence called 'mind' develops a memory /logic base, like a computer to compute and grasp, the objective world, thereby 'generation a 'knower' for every thing 'known'. The knower and known are both concepts, that feel 'real'. However the realness of all reality is what has already been discussed as 'Non existent' in the way, we think something can exist. This, is the game of life, playing out in separation, keeping itself engaged in 'ignorance' to have fun. So from birth, the parents teach the child, that they are separate from one another and exist independently of each other. This gives rise to separation of forms and makes the objective world. So in the first phase of seeing, we see forms, then from memory ,concepts are projected, to make the 'femoral' creation into Solid world of objects. The words become things.

At this stage, when the child learns to identify each form by a name, it is not aware that there is something more to the form, in the way, that they are only some form of 'knowing'. But when all people around him give him a sense of confirmation that his grasping of 'objects' as real, was correct. When the whole world makes the 'gag' of reality, its authority is so strong, that it sticks for life.  From then on, the name becomes the 'thingness' of forms, in separation. The chair now becomes a ‘Chair’. Thingness 'of' the form, is only the projection of our knowledge to the form. We are actually not seeing outside. We are kind of seeing in our own mind. We start to experience our knowledge of things, as if 'things' out there. The thingness is in here. So thingness is our experience, to what we perceive. We perceive forms and conceive things. Similarly, things to human forms is their 'entityness' or persona, that is simply 'our' knowledge about what is know of out there', projected on them. The ‘thingness’ in humans is called ‘a person’

The thingness, then gets an adjective category, called -good, beautiful, etc which for humans is seen as characterisation. Good character etc. Etc. All this characterisation is in the see-er. Because of this, what is known to one person is not the same as what is known to another persons due to the unique meaning made out or due to attachment of the see-er to the object..

With this the ‘Maya’ of the world gets completed and the mind plays with this as base and he as a reference point for rest of his life. This is called ‘Samsara”. With knowing of thingness a pseudo ‘knower’ also arises as the so called ‘Me’ inside the self-body and ‘you’ inside the other bodies.

When one simply goes backward into the formation of origin of things from pure shape and colour, it becomes evident that all this was a mind game. Since this was an educated progression, the new knowledge about the no-thingness in thingness, that spiritual Guru's tech us, gets noticed and the thought structure gets re-arranged to suit the new (or original) outlook on forms. Then the forms are re-seen only as forms and the universal happening is seen as a dream. Then the understanding  that the person within ones own body was also an error, happens spontaneously at a certain point of time and the clarity then persists.

This also synchronises with the collapse of meaning to time and space ,because these were also a kind of thingness that was implied to these words which actually were not.

Now the bondage of believing in thingness drops away to pave way for Nirvana, or the no-things of things. Now the attachment is seen as an ignorance of the mind to no-thingness of things. It is soon discovered that the Being, is awareness only, which is aware of the day dream and night dream fluctuating alternately. This state of full awareness to both state of dreams, is the self recognition of what we are, called realisation of our true nature. This is also our basic nature or knowing faculty, or Aliveness or God-like nature. How it feels on the level of experience to body, is that of being very 'light' and joyful and absence of a 'me -sense' to the body, when not in communication with others. It is also a state of fearless living, life absence of a person, to fear or not fear.

Knowing is a basic essence of existence that can 'know' presence and absence of all things. Unfortunately or fortunately, knowing doesn't have a opposite, even though we use a term of not knowing for a term not understanding or unable to conceptualise. So there is a term 'pure knowing' or a sense of 'I am' and a term knowing used for 'I dont know what 'it' is -meaning unable to conceptualise what is sensed. So there cannot be a state of not knowing, which would require a 'knowing' of such a state, that cannot logically be, other than knowing of the not knowing to mean 'unable to make meaning or grasp'. Now we can end this thread as - knowing is always existing and only its contents can be removed, and knowing itself is not perishable, but is always, constant or unchanging. This capacity of knowing is what we are. 'I am' is another word for 'Knowing always is' also called 'Awareness'or "Consciousness'.

21. Similarities and Differences

I asked my son, what he thought was similar between a circle and a triangle. He told me that both were ‘shapes’. And when I asked him what the difference between them, he told me – of course the ‘shape’.

Mind is a good tool, to judge objects. Mostly this is done in comparison to other objects. Such objects could be from memory as well. When we say, today, I am not feel as good as yesterday, we have noted a difference. So life has put in mind, to play the game of grasping objects and also also evaluate it based on comparison. So we live in a relative world. The relative world, becomes our real world. As soon as we 'get real' by dropping reality, for relativity, we can beat the essence of the game, that keeps us trapped in separation.
Games people play is only noting what is similar or what the difference is.  Seeing the similarity and the difference is just a method for the mind to make storage of events simpler into the memory bank.  Its like saving a word file in the computer. The similarity is that -it is a word file and the difference is -in the name of the file - and this is how the categories are made for memory. The categories are for memory only and not for the event or the file. The event or the file does not make a difference as to how it is stored for being retrieved.

So it is the shape that made them a common factor and it is the shape that made them uncommon with each other. Both the similarities and differences, have in this case, arisen from context and contents of shapes.  The context is ‘one only’ and they all united in as far as shapes and forms are concerned and divided due to this very form. It is more like - under some circumstances from outside , they are ‘seen’ as similar and in some other circumstances ( from within )they are ‘seen’ as dissimilar.  So, as the mind gets broader and broader in its seeing, the differences reduce further.

For the mind, this game is common. It makes an explanation to suit the circumstance. All leaves are leaves to the mind, until it has only has leaf itself for investigation. In this case all leaves are different. Whatever may be the case, the explanation is ready. This explanation is actually coming into our head from some sort of a software to which we are programmed. This programme is what keeps us hooked to the programme itself. This is bondage. The software structure called  ‘thought – structure’ is running on its own.  Its only activity is to comment on what is happening. If nothing is happening, then the mind  is not required. So in order to keeps its continuity, it will pick a thought, take out a particular word and comment a new thought on that word. It will then use past and future to assemble a comment and run this commentary. Picking up new storylines keeps the thought process unending and thereby maintains a pseudo thinker entity active.

Comparison, based on memory, is the ‘key’ work of the mind. It can mean similar or dis-similar. The mind knows only this game. At times, out of such comparison arises new concepts and trends. There is no ‘mind’ in a true manner of speaking, but to understand how human being works, we use this mind concept, as everyone thinks that he has his own mind. It becomes easy to assume this and move ahead.

Shapes and colours are what we see. There is nothing more to it. This set of shapes and colours are regarded as forms.  In our early age, we learn to identify forms by giving them names. No two forms are similar. Similarity and differences are not an attribute of the form. They are a method of maintaining a link between the person and the object. They are a link into memory for reuse of the data. The data itself is only a comment of similarity and dis-similarity. To know that a triangle is a triangle, one must have few more shapes. This strengthens the speed of linking up with the shape whenever that shape comes into focus .  It is only helpful in communicating with other minds as all minds are exposed to a common frame of learning called beliefs from early evolution.

By use of the approach of similarity or differences, or simply called the formation of opposites, the mind makes a concrete meaning of the forms. Actually names to forms have no actual meaning in reality. But for the ease of communication, having an agreed meaning between two minds, makes the data transfer more simpler. Like when seeing a colour, we name it red. The redness has no meaning by itself. The colour that is seen is what is. Red is only a name of common acceptance.  Now the mind has to work on it from all angles so as to make a concrete meaning of red so that red colour is a truth. It will add more meanings to the word red to give some life to the redness. It will link the colour to all that is red and make red to exist on its own. More meanings like - red means a colour of love and also hate like in case of ‘danger’ etc etc.  So these divisions then come of help to narrow down the meaning of red or bring in clarity to the colour only for ease of communication. However the use of opposites, to make meaning between minds, is by far the most effective ways developed until now. As and when it fails to make effective communication, the format may change. But, until then, this thought system is what is only available at work. So we say words like left /right, or up /down or many other words to explain an understanding and this seems to fall in place only because all accept this way of functioning. 

So similarities and differences are a tool for memorising an event rather than a truth by which the event is stored.  So when we say, he is a bad person, it only means that he is bad in comparison with another who is better and there are no ‘bad’ persons. When the habit of believing in the difference as an attribute of the event itself sets in, it also brings in beliefs  to make groups matching differences and similarities from among people. The method of uniting or dividing is a result of such mind game. If one understands the uses of similarities and differences, then one can step back a little to see a wider category, fitting the difference to find a similarity. In this way, all differences can be dissolved into the whole.

20. Will Power and Free Will

'Will' or freewill, is the independence of a separate entity to act, without the pressure created from circumstances, as if we are separate from nature and have a free will. However as long as cause and effect are inter-related, the effect will always be dependent on the cause, as if the cause unfold into an effect. As if cause and effect are one whole, without separation. It is, as if, I am writing this post because I want to write this post and not because I am being provoked or pushed to write this. However in this case, there is an urge or a desire acting as an unseen force that is causing the writing and spilling out the words and so it is not out of a free will. Thought happen to us, uncaused and lead us to act out a freewill caused in thought. Every word comes as a thought that automatically gets typed on to the keyboard. It is as if the fingers are controlled by thought, as its doer, rather than a me, sourcing the doing. 

One way to analyse our free will is to deeply look into how our actions are taking place. Culture, beliefs, society, upbringing etc, is conditioning our memory of who we think we are and in relation to this , we act. For example, if I rob a normal man, i may not be hurt. If I rob a police, he will beat me to death. So we may say, actions of this type are arising out of a condition, that Might is right. There may be rare cases of empathy from a Police to act differently, and that should allow us to include a variety to the way, how we act.
Analysing further, we may say, there would be a variety of ways in which we act and in many case, we regret the way we act. So free will, is just a word and doesnt mean that, it is applicable as simply as, ' I feel like lifting my had, and so I did'.
Let us say, for example that I smoke and also drink. Lets us say I used my will -power and stopped smoking. Now we say that I have a will power which could take me out of smoking. It also seems that as each days passes, the strength of your will power by which you stopped smoking gets increased automatically because will power is apparently subject to time. Meaning to say, that if I have avoided the temptation for 2 years, it is lesser than if I can keep avoiding it for 10 years. So my will power, becomes stronger, powered by time, and not powered by lack of urge.  Finally either the temptation gives in and your nature to dislike smoking is what rules kicking away of the habit. When the love for smoking transforms to hate for smoking, you succeed in kicking the habit of smoking. Love and hate happen to you. it is not cultivatable. In case you stopped smoking, you say that your willpower prevailed. In both cases there was explanation depending on the after effects of a certain decision. We use will power on to decide ( even this may not be right to say, but we assume) but the outcome is not a result of the decision. The outcome can only be explained in relation to the decision as to whether the decision was right or wrong and whether the circumstances relating the decision was favourable or not suitable for the decision or not. The decision to quit smoking was wrong or the friend circle were too strong for me to put the thought in practice. There are only explanations here when quitting fails.
Now when I look back, I see that I had will power to stop smoking but I require a new will power to stop drinking. It is as if each habit has a separate set of willpower requiring to be exercised. How many such will powers can we accumulate?. All of us have one or other addictions. Finding fault with others or  judging others is the biggest addiction. No matter what power you use, one cannot get out of judging addiction. Higher the status of wealth or power, the bigger is this type of addiction. Persons down the ladder of power and wealth also judge others but their judgement is not of much value. However when your boss judges you, you can lose your job. So will power seems to be different for different addictions.
Desire or attachments is the driving force behind addictions or the coming out of addictions. No body knows how a certain desire sets in. But a deep desire can result in taking one through, to succeed with his effort of achievement. The satisfaction of the result, leads to a feel of will power. If he did not succeed due to forces greater than his desire-force, there is a feeling of will power being lost. Both desire and the circumstantial external forces to cultivate the desire, are all arising from outside of the thinking mind. Desire comes in as a thought and external forces as luck or bad luck. In both cases there is no involvement of a person with a free will.
Will power and Free will are just words applied to life but all the while there is just life energy playing out through these bodies all the time making it look as if an effort was being put into the game. Effort is noticed only when there is a resistance to liking the game. A person getting good marks in maths without effort is because he loves the subject and getting good marks using will power to study is because there is no resistance to love studying maths. When there is love in what you do, effort will vanish and if you love all that do, then the person inside the body will also vanish.

19. Wholeness and Parts.

Why is that ,we appreciate a painting of black and white picture of a old women’s face or a broken chair, more than, the realistic women or new chair. 

Do we have a different set of eyes for seeing an art and other for seeing the natural reality? What is seeing these pictures with added value to reality or what is seeing nature with subtracted  values, even though the nature presents to us every 'moment', continuous and more powerful pictures than the man made into an art and has special experiences of them.
As a separate entity, when we see nature, we are only trained to see the whole 'in parts' - like mountains, rivers, roads, buildings, parks, chairs, persons etc. The 'me' that is a part of the whole feels subjective and the not me or other than me as the objective world. The mind is tuned in, to ‘focus’ on objectivity as other than itself. To do this, it is trained to 'know' the changing patterns, while it remains blind to the Unchanging Self, that knows all This. The change catches the attention or focus of the mind. To see wholeness including the 'me' as a part, is to feel complete and this normally is not the case and causes a sense of incompleteness, begging to seek its completion again in objectivity, which cannot happen. So the wholeness is always hidden and partiality is always highlighted, just to play the light game of subject -object world.
In as far as the painting is concerned, we are trained to see the 'whole' and not in parts as mountains, rivers, roads, buildings, parks, chairs, persons etc., and this somehow feels special.
For example, seeing a flower in its wholeness, is more lovely, than seeing the same in parts like an assembly of petals and stem. This is what actually takes place in the painting. One sees the wholeness including the frame and the contents and the background texture of paper or canvass, which is all pleasing to the mind as a whole.. If at all one could see the wholeness of the normal seeing in nature, the pleasure of the seeing scenes in its infinite pixels will also be satisfying. But the part 'me' comes in the way of seeing wholeness and so, the world becomes, a dreaded place being continuously negotiated to avoid pain and seek pleasure.
The reason that we do not tend to see the world in its wholeness, is because, we consider ourselves as a whole and the rest of the world as a ‘sum’ of  parts. However creation cannot be partitioned and will always remain whole as the 'knowing' and also the known, with thoughts apparently separating knowing from being, as if the two could be independent of each other.
It is the thought or our conditioning that prevents the mind from seeing the wholeness of what we see ‘as’ the world. When the thought that, we are a separate part, 'dissolves', the wholeness unfoldss itself clearly. The illusory boundary, of an inside me and an outside world, loses its power and wholeness is somehow known and experienced. The experience of being 'natural' without a 'me' sense is a self confirming experience of wholeness and has a nature of peace or tranquillity or stillness as its quality.
To know and experience the wholeness in nature - we need to understand that 'knowing' is our reality and we need to remove the ignorance, caused in thought, that make feel 'you' are only a part of the whole. Creation has two aspects, ( in fact only one that seems two) of 'Being' or as aliveness that has a self knowing capacity. We know creation as knowing itself. This knowing is alive and is the Being. So the Being is Knowing or its a Knowing Being. In the absence of the 'I' thought, or the making of a 'me' sense, the 'me' loses itself into this 'I' business or the 'Knowing Being'. This what we naturally are. We simply 'are' as a knowing being. 
So the absence of sepration paves way for presence of fullness. Until then The presence of separation, feels an absence of fullness, that causes separation to seek fullness. As long a seeking prevails, separation prevails, because the seeking creates a feel of limitation from fullness. 

18. The Teacher and the Student

We think that there is Teacher capable of teaching and a Student capable of learning.

Lets us start from here and see the reality of this statement.

To learn a language or whatever there is to learn, one must know a known language that is already in place and  is common to both the teacher and the student. Like one can learn French using English or vice versa. Or in the worst case, that a student is put into a new environment, like a child from India adopted in Japan, the child must have a sign language in place, that is common to himself and his foster parents.

How does a new born child ever learn without even a sign language in place when he is born. We say that we can condition a mind etc etc. But how does a new born learn, even when he doesn’t treat the world as separate from him, or doesnt even know that you are teaching and he is learning? Then we explain that he learns by instinct. So instinct is the source of learning and teaching, and not the capacity of a conditioned mind.

If at all a child could learn from the seeming sounds that parents make, it could also learn from the sounds that birds and animals make. But this does not happen. I am now over 50 and daily I spend 30 minutes with a crow that greets me morning and evening. We talk all the time. I tell him that you can crow away until death and I can ‘English’ away until death but we really can’t use our sounds to get across. This should have stopped our daily meetings. But it seems to continue and is very consistent. What we exchange are only feelings for one another and assume that we understand each other. Surprisingly it was a crow (not the same crow visiting me daily or even could be and I would not know) that taught me that I was not a body – mind based identity, which mankind only helped in unfolding further.

In case of humans, something happens and minds seem to communicate better than man and crows. Is has to be like in a dream or an illusion. Knowing one another verbally seems to happen all the time. Sometimes we understand and other times we misunderstand. In fact Knowledge happens to us rather than our ability to learn and teach. The best teachers still have a lot of worst students and the best students study without so called ‘not good teachers’ too. In fact google also can teach, even though not human. Then we say, self teaching and learning, as if an inner Guru and and outer disciple.  This should not have been the case if teaching and learning were our independent capacities as humans. 

Knowing a language or a subject is not a capacity of an individual because there are no individuals. If  it is true that one can learn a language, he must learn all languages. In fact there would be only one language. if it is true that one can learn a subject, he should be able to learn all subjects and facts like maths is difficult or science is difficult would not be valid. In fact all subjects are funny in a sense. We say 3 and 3 make 6. In fact 3 and 6 are only sounds. How it ever came about and how it came about to be believed to be true is, as mystifying, as its origin. Finally all would have been enlightened because so much of teaching seems to be all over the place about enlightenment.

So, knowledge happens to you and with knowledge, illusions take on reality, just like a sound 3, becomes a mathematical figure and the 'thingness' or 'objects' gets into names and forms.

So Knowledge based in dualistic language, is the basis of Ignorance of who we are and becomes the creator of reality to give rise to world of separate objects.

In the end, it is also true that this happens to you and is unavoidable so as to make an illusory world look really real. Realising this can help in de-conditioning the mind, out of the illusion of who we think we are.

17. Conciousness and Objects

I was just thinking for some concrete link between objects ( including sounds and thoughts) and consciousness. So it goes like this :

There is only the field of knowing, which feels like contents in the knowing are simply contents, as forms and objects, that includes presence and absence of content or part of content, to contrast one part from another and is merged with memory or knowledge, which also is more content in a non physical form, that is apparently superimposed on physical content, to give a sense of content, as separate  and real, rather than simply a 'kind' of knowing. Forms are 'explained' by knowledge as 'energy pattern. In a certain frequency it may appear as sound, as light, as objects etc. to put reality out there in a logical format, acceptable to mind. The intelligence knowing behaves as an energy that forms a field, as the consciousness, which is a source  that feels itself, as these energy movements or ‘senses’ or 'knows' these energy movements or changes.  

Behaviour of a pattern of ‘energy’ in space is 'known' as objects ( including sounds and thoughts). The essence of smallest material of objects which are protons and neutrons and electrons etc. are the same for all material and are not different for diamond, the hardest or for helium, the softest and such material that forms them, knows them also. In fact, when to get to the core of material, there is no material. So no material , or intelligence, behaves as 'energy and further energy behaves as material. Thus this intelligence has a 'being' capacity and also a 'knowing' and works magically such that the knowing of being appears as the being itself. Something like knowing of pain is itself pain. 

Even material of these protons neutrons etc ,are only energy patterns and there is not any matter as such inside a proton or an electron,  when we go fully deep.

So energy patterns appears to us as objects and the intelligence of energy known as 'consciousness' allows the pattern to be known i.e seen or heard or felt (like in a thought). So the question is whether material (or energy pattern ) is a perquisite for energy intelligence or are they independent of each other. 

The Field of Energy is always there and is all that there is. The only way it becomes known is by expressing itself as energy or vibration and getting known. However if energy vibration is not happening, then there is knowing of no energy or no content to this field. So nothing is actually happening accept that there is a knowing of patterns of energy movement that keeps changing to give a feel as if a animating man has stopped animating which is labeled as 'death'. it only means that now energy moves in another  pattern to show an object called 'man' as stagnated and next to show as ‘disintegrating man’ and then as worms and so on or as Co2 gas if cremated. So the gas and man are both energy patterns and the intelligence or consciousness can surely 'feel' this. The intelligence or consciousness as a field is non-matter by itself and expresses itself in the knowing as movement or matter.
So consciousness as knowing has a magical property that knowing of content can feel like there is content to knowing outside of such knowing and knowing as separate from knowing of content, knows such a content in separation. This hitch in understanding is the functional basis of the world of creation and a 'me' that can know it.

15. Glimpse of a seeking Mind

In the early days of my seeking, I was desperate to get to the bottom of spirituality. Intellectually I had to know what all these sages and guru’s had been taking about. They also said that the guru was always ‘in you’. I then made a model human who had a split mind.One that was personal and questioning ( which I called the Mind) and the other that was impersonal and answering that I called the GURU.  This was only for the purpose of analysis or for pondering. The result of this discussion in the head was fascinating and this happened all in 10 minutes from my house to office while I was driving the car. How I reached office unaware of the drive was another question. 

Discussion went on as follows :

Mind : What is it -that can remove -this sense of separateness- after I seem to have understood all the things that I have read about 

Guru : The Most genuine answer is - Whatever creates this separateness.  

Mind: This mind is always making a concept to understand things. The only last chance is -to make a concept that can transcend the mind.
Guru: What is your problem in ‘seeing’ or experiencing non- duality.

Mind : I don’t have any clear idea about what exactly it means. If I knew, I would have known it. The faintest idea that I have is that - We think the subject sees the object and the ''Realised' people ‘see’ this differently. ( I don’t know what they see).Guru : -Why do you see them separate in the first place. Where exactly do you see all these objects. Take a 'pen' for example. ( and replace it with objects, people or thoughts as required from time to time)Mind: At best, I can assume that I have a screen inside of me where this picture of the pen falls. I like to call it the mind screen.
Mind : Frankly speaking, posing this question has put me in confusion. However for sake of discussion or for practicality it may be assumed to be long screen covering head to heart.
Guru : That is not a bad idea. For a while we will work with this assumption. But do you have any faint idea of a particular spot in the body for this ‘mind –screen’-that sees the pen.Mind.: No idea of a particular spot. It could be in the head - like you say for data or the heart when attached with emotions or any other place. As long as I see it and know what I am seeing the purpose is served.Guru : Can we assume that this screen moves from head to heart automatically sensing some ‘thingness’ of the pen that can be linked to data or emotions?
Mind : It doesn’t matter, it is all the same. But Hold it a minute there. There is something fishy now. It's ok to sight the pen. But when I have to interpret this new point of view, - it seems now that the object which is the pen is simply the knowledge projected on the form and also a self projection as the subject or the  ‘see-er’. Actually ‘our’ knowledge which is the   mind screen is superimposed on the object and have become one. The mind is the object and its knowledge that is inseparable  Now wait a minute. Where is the place for a ‘me’ here? What is happening. What my role now?Guru; Analyse some moreMind : If the I assume that the mind- screen was ‘I’  and ‘I’ became superimposed onto the object and inseparable from it, 'I' and the pen becomes one because 'I' seems to be at the pen and not in the body. That means the mind is formless taking shapes of all forms which is a powerful GOD like quality. Mind is everywhere.Guru : Was it not that you were taught that GOD is everywhere and in all things that you see?Mind: Now there seems to be some clarity. Guru : 'I'  is a knowing mechanism, that is the essence of its own existence. It knows contents in the knowing, by being their knowing, and in a way that knowing is all there is, and knowing of being is the being just like knowing of pain is pain, and there cannot be a known apart from or separate from the knowing of it. So knowing of it is all there is. There are no contents, outside the knowing of the knowing of content. Mind: The last bit was easy to understand but difficult to experience. The knowing could not make into a content of knowing, because there are no contents 'as such' other than as a knowing of content. So knowing cannot be known. Its the unknown. lol

Guru : Is there is feeling of seeing this pen in your head or Is it being seen in your heart.

Mind : Now this is a new twist and funny question too.  Why is the question posed in this manner. What’s the logic behind this division at the neck.

Guru : When you see this pen with a lot of data, the screen seems to be in the head. If you  have to see this pen with a lot of emotions attached to it, the screen seems to be shifting close to the heart.

Mind: I can accept such a automated movement.

Guru : Since it seems to be a wireless screen that moves on its own, does it make any difference if the screen is shifted -a little -outside of the body -say -a little behind the body. If this be so, how would you analyse the new situation?

Mind: Makes sense because in this situation, other than the pen, my body parts also seem to be taken care on the screen as I am seeing them all. The shift in way of imagination is a seems a good and practical move.

Guru : What if the mind -screen is slowly shifted backward and around the body and put on to the pen itself so that the screen is ‘on the pen’.