24. Life, dreams, logic and illogic.

All logic and meaning is not made by human 'forms'. They seems to be made by them but are happening automatically in life, by life to life.

Its life that sees, hears thinks etc and forms are just being used by life to make an impression that - that form is thinking.

Its purely dream like activity, that identification to forms seem real.

We are only analysing logic and trying to construct the day time activity to check its reality.

How is the night dream activity constructed? Out of nothing.

Lets take the day dream.

Take a process of reproduction and life as an example and see how far dreamy it is.

Reproduction happens by leaves, stems, roots, fruits, seeds, cells etc just evolving into its next forms. Animated life forms also have a variety. Apparent animated live forms have birth from eggs, are born blind or 'seeing', conversion from worms to flying objects, conversion from fishy tadpoles to grounded frogs, babies from eggs, direct drop babies, etc, No end to illogic here.

Take destruction of life : by age, starvation, accidents, sickness, wars, nature havoc, water on land, water off rivers, volcano, heat, cold etc.

Take  movements - in water, on ground, in space,

Take walking – by no legs, by two legs, by four legs, by a hundred legs!

Take sleeping: some beings sleep standing, some lying down and some hanging upside down like a bat and even some more that dont need to sleep.

Take the feel of weight. – One doesn’t feel his own weight, however, everything is supposed to be having weight. The sum of the weight of the objects, seem to the total weight that has to be experienced. But the earth is floating weightlessly, the solar system is weightless and the whole damn Universe is weightless. But all objects have weights.

Take God - We have god as formless, human shapes, single head, multiple heads, males, females, animals, birds, fish, tortoise, and mostly statues. 

How more dreamy can one dream reality to be and feel such total illogical base as logical?.

The belief is also made by life to life. Mind is also a forms, just are a front to absorb the dream as real.

Just imagine the twin towers being blown out by air planes, in which humans accept to commit suicide using a plane: looks dream stuff.

If it was a night dream, one would argue that such tall buildings cannot be built, planes could not take off the ground, moreover, humans could not dare to commit suicide, and planes would break before the building can break. Such type arguments would arise in the day to rubbish this if was a night dream.

Flowers blossoming, fading away in time etc look dreamish, A moth turning into butterfly, entirely a dream, babies from eggs, plants sprouting only from water, fishes surviving without breathing, fishes growing to be ground beings like frogs, snakes without their eating teeth, some animals surviving without food for months, seeds being alive for years, these are pure dream images that can be believed by dream objects as real inside the dream.

So, all of this is no different from the logic or illogic of a night dream.

All there is - is just the knowing of what is happening. How the knowing happens - is intuitive to the 'forms' because it is not happening to the form. What is happening in life and to life is intuitive to the level of form.

Reading alphabets and the spacing between them making meanings is as dreamish but seems real and it is all intuitive.

So all there is - is dreams and their knowing and a magic of illusion, giving a feeling of reality within the respective dream.

If we (our dream scientists) had enough explanations for night dream events, then that would have been the waking state and the day would be the dream state.

23. Analysing the Nothing.

Nothing simply means, not existing in the way, existence is supposed to mean, that something exist, in all state of our being. We can say, not perceivable as a sensation that can transpose nothing to be an objective something physically or mentally. Its not only an absence but also absence even as a thought. A double absence.

Form to Nothing is an analogy like flame to a fire. Heat is the energy itself or source that appears as a flame. So life is the source itself that appears as a 'form'. By itself, form is just a shape of 'life'. Life by itself is not perceivable or is 'nothing' as perceivable, other than as an expression in perception as appearance. it has no objective attributes or qualities except as in 'thought'. The subjective nature of all objects is life and the objective nature of all objects is life, appearing so and believed to be 'real objective' in thought. So, being nothing by itself, appears as forms and 'things or events' mentally. So source of all forms is a mental material or dream material or nothing, but has the capacity to look like or appear as real persons, plants, buffaloes etc.

For example, we experience a dream and wake up. Then we are sure that the contents of the dream, did not exist as it would mean, about existence in a matter of fact. We are not able to even have a trace of it, in factuality. So content of dreams do not exist. They are made up of non matter. We had the experience of reality in the dream, but the entire content, doesn't exist, in waking state. However its only a memory, occurring ‘now’ about the existence of a dream ‘before’ that did not exist anywhere factually.

Can we guarantee that the so called physical matters of waking state exist? What constitutes to the reality of the objects is only by our experience of it. In the deepest sense, its is only its knowing in shape and form and identifying in separation by projecting our knowledge onto the form, that brings about an apparent reality to form. We believe that objects to forms are real and thereby experience them as or knowledge of them. So we experience our own condition and not ‘it’ per say. It’s a game we play, so that this subjective appearance becomes an objective world. Or else, all would appear like to be ‘Unreal’ and dream like.

When we mean, something exist, say a tree, we imagine that firstly it is a tree and secondly, it can exist even in your absence. Did the world exist, before we were born, as our experience? No. We have no such experience. Will it exist, after our death?, at least this will not be our experience. So the world is given its existential status by our presence. Our presence is what makes the world present, or to exist. Such a presence is made of knowing material, that is not of matter, that is ‘content’ to knowing, as we know matter to be. Then what is it? Its 'nothing' capable of being the world, that apparently seems to exist. 

Nothing, is the source. Its the aliveness, that prevails, even in absence of content to our experience. We can know the absence and presence of things or matter. Every day, we can know our absence as in waking state, in the dream state and so on and One day, we will know, that the ‘we’ we think we are, isn’t an entity or a existence in separation. It ‘in’ formed, by ‘thinking’ or a product of thinking that creates a separate me in here and an objective world out there.

We think we are. God exists. We think, the is content ot knowing, but its all knowing of content. That should be the correct statement. May be Socrates had this in mind and made a grammar mistake, while he wrote, ‘I think, therefore ,I am.Isness is the property that 'Nothing' exhibits in manifestation as the world. There is an isness of the world, which is just the knowing of creation. We ‘think’ it into existence. Such isness or knowing capacity, is what ‘I’ am.

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.