96. Minding ‘within’ and ‘without’.

Normally it is said that the mind is always engaged in projecting itself outwards and that it should ‘somehow’ be turned inward. So we need to use the mind like ‘an eye’ to look within. The mind is similar to an eye. The eye is used to choose the area of looking or seeing and the mind is used to choose the area onto which attention can seem to be focused. So when we meditate, we put awareness or focus of awareness on hands, legs, frontside, backside, centre of the chest, head etc.

For a while, like breathing on purpose, it feels like, such focus is with a freewill. But such a governing force, soon escapes, leaving the mind wandering on its own. It’s not possible to keep control on the mind, as there is a controller and there isn’t a mind. It only seems probably possible to have control on mind.

The looking within is specifically interesting. For a year or two, we are trying to put our attention inside the body, as if within and without are addressed to the frame of the body. In any case, one fine day, you would know, how mind keeps playing its tricks.

To focus anywhere, inside the body, or at the right of the heart or between your eyes or at the far off landscape, is called without. Its opposite is ‘within’. The word ‘within’ seems to refer as related to the body, but in this case, it is pointing to look within the mind, as if the other sense awareness were as if happening outside of the mind. You cant look outside of the mind, because one does not know much about the boundaries of the mind. So to know what is being pointed, we have to use the nature of ‘projection’ of the mind.

The outside world is termed to be the projection of the mind. The world or Universe includes our body frame, so that the whole featured world, with the ’we’ as a body based entity in it, is actually the outside world or just World. However, the mind interprets the world as different from what we are, so as to make an outside world vs an inside ‘me’. This is the world as we normally know it or the world of ‘duality’. The mind knows the world with the sense of non-duality, but interprets it with a sense of duality. So sensing the world as a bundle of sensations and interpreting the world in terms of ‘me’ here and a world of objects out there, making sense to such a ‘me, is totally mental work or the work of the mind, which is said to be a projection.

The difficulty is to use the projector to project light on itself. Like a torch trying to shine on itself. It requires a lot of circus, to the extent of turning the mind / torch inside out to make this happen. So, many years pass away, trying to hang around to get a hang of how to hang this upside down or inside out or both.

The mind is a ‘looker’. It has to keep looking. Presence, absence, changes, beauty, ugliness etc etc are its contents. The day it stops looking, it is dead. It cannot dye because, it is still looks at death and conveys the emptiness that is sensed as the ‘dead’ or conveying a sense of emptiness all around.. So looking has no limitations of time, precisely because it is ‘time’ that so looking everywhere and featuring contents. So stopping to project, reveals an un-projected perception or the emptiness of the contents featured in sensation.. We cant call it the world anymore, because world is a sensible story. When the projection, as learnt is taken away, what remains is ‘raw’ staring at itself. Its like saying that sound is sound, until you can recognise what the sound is, and when so recognised, its called words or English or French, but no more as sound. Sound is not what English is, even though English is sound. Similarly, world is not what perceiving is, even though, the world is a perception.

So to look within, only means to look without conditioning or interpreting or judging. To look within is to perceive and to look ‘without’ is to conceive. The purpose of mind is twofold. It is sentience or whole mind and is knowing wholeness as featured and then has to convert the knowing into the feel of a knower as one part of such perceiving and ‘known’ as the rest of the perception. The only way it can be memorised is make a story of such subject object world in time-space and interpretation of such inseeing is outseeing.

So looking within, is to ‘just be’ or still the mind or relax to the fullest etc. This opens up the sense of focus until the focus from a point, becomes wholeness itself. It starts with the game of focusing on chest and shoulder etc and slowly trying to go over to focus, what coming up in the mind. Then you start seeing your thoughts more loudly as they come up. The game continues to subtly focus in the field from where these thoughts arise or its source. Now you are inseeing mind itself as a field. The focus will learn how to rest in the field until the focus gets absorbed as that field itself. Its like the focal centre becoming the circle itself. This suddenly becomes the open field of sensations and thoughts. Thoughts don’t come so much now. The external sensations cant be stopped. But all the while, the thoughts were pulling the attention and the outside sensations and inside sensation were kept at bay. Now all sensations starts to dance in the field. Keeping eyes shut can help. But not allowing the ‘focus’ to focus on visuals, but be focused into the mind, is as good. The sensation now that come up are more like ‘sounds’ happening, feeling happening, movements happening etc, as if, whole of perception is just a happening in the mind and such field where it occurs would be the ‘I am’  field that you are. Even the body is a sensation in that field, just like external sensations. So all sensations, external and internal will be named sensations and the focus of attention dissolving into becoming the ‘mind’ or field in which such sensation appear, would be whole mind. The thoughts are now ’not’ interpreting the sensations, and so you are in touch with ‘life’ directly`. Here the you is just a impersonal mind. All sensations in its raw direct feel is 100 times powerful in clarity and is a good feeling. You start loving it and become one with it, as if Love was you, embracing all sensations.

Personally, I realised, while focusing within, that I was hearing sounds like a Tinnitus problem, until the problem was used as a tool to jump into inseeing any time of the day, for every little space of time that I could accumulate for this purpose. It was a 24 x 7 hobby.  So look and look and look, until all is within and there isn’t a in or out, because you as a body boundary is  myth. That is real meditation.

95. Freedom from desire.

The word ‘desire’ is a tricky word. The sentence –‘to be free from desire’ also is tricky, because the mind makes a target of freedom, believes in the target and works towards the target, as if freedom from desire is taken to be ‘desire to be free’. It may work or not, like all desires that are sought.
Desire is a sense of wanting more or desperately wanting. However it is a functioning aspect of sentience. Its unique for human forms, the desperateness about the wanting more, or the continuous pursuit of wanting, as compared to other forms of sentience. So the basis of human function as an individual or a group is based on this theme. Alternatively, functioning with this theme, is what is making  the feel  of individuality (or separateness) or belonging to group, as if human nature supports this theme to maintain itself as a unique  human race.
Desires are of various kinds. Desire to know, desire to become, desire of acquire, desire to comfort, desire to more security, health, wealth, prosperity, status, power, knowledge etc etc. Its all coming under one method of functioning, which is ‘mind’s exclusivity in its nature of functioning.  Then there is a desire to solve problems, to achieve perfection, so on and so forth. There is nothing right or wrong with this aspect of functioning of mind, as it is its ‘skilled’ nature or expertise. Its evolution aspect to be more skilled, creatively or destructively. Unfortunately,  the mind functions largely in a   desirous way, to maintain a commonality in functioning of the human race. The entire human race, is conditioned to acknowledge, maintain and pass on this basis of mental behaviour for the whole of human race. However the whole of such mental functioning is thought based or thought ‘provoked’ and has little chance of falling out, as long as thinking process is maintained, by sentience.
In a matter of basic survival, this functioning supports the cause. Desire for food, shelter etc, when dealt with and maintained, becomes basic essentially  However desire has an inbuilt aspect to raise the requirement of such basic necessity in order to change for the better. To understand what better is, a sense of judgement has to fall in place and this becomes a mechanism of original perceiving mechanism to make up certain conditions within perception.  So desire, includes use of mind to check out probabilities and deal with them to evolve some result, that is regarded effective. The effectiveness so judged, lies in the condition the result, which must then offer more pleasure and less pain. So, ideas regarding pleasure and pain must take form and be deeply embedded in the psyche, so as to fall back each time onto that, to make the basis of choice and thus make the choice effectively progressive. The choice so made, being personalised will affect the surroundings also,  as all forms are in the end, connected  as one single form, that we call creation or Universe. The choices focused as ones personal target will be automatically bound to have consequences on wholeness, as such choice is a movement of wholeness, even though seemingly personal. Some other ‘parts’ of wholeness will ‘suffer’ consequences of the first part, as it has to be sacrificed to some extent to support such a single ended choice. Impersonal choices are more of a statement and 'impersonality', doesn't need to choose to have a particular end.  
Sentience by itself, being singularity, should find a way to balance its functioning as plurality of individual minds, by finding a method to see success in comparison and not as an absolute, so that the game of mind is kept alive. So success become a progressive game of mind, to that individual and may be at a cost of the rest of the seeming world. Desire then takes on a complex process of dividing all that is, into many brackets of opposites so that there is space for the mind to make progress in terms of achieving more and more pleasure and less and less pain, be it individually or as individual groups.
Desire thus has to be the cause from making of individuals or groups and maintain such separation. In order to achieve the said desire, mind must uses a method of ‘hook or by crook’ to get over with the desires in shorter and shorter span of time. So to desire peace, wars may be raged and to desire wealth, health may be sacrificed and so on and so forth. When these become the primary nature of the conditioned mind, and gets established and settles down, it starts to show that the basic ‘desire’ is getting to be the root cause, having to keep its own game plan active, and that this maintains  separation in the cross section of all creation. This gives hope that there could be a method for such discriminating mind to transcend mind, to overcome ‘desire’ which was by now, seen as the basis of all progress and also regress, to be used for bringing an end to desire, which normally is achieved at a cost of rest of the creation.
Considering that the mind has to function in its own sphere, this problem is now taken head on to have  this ‘new’ desire, which is - to be free of desire. The thinking mind or human mind or split-mind cant work without this principle. Being a desire in itself, its still bound in the original mind game. It is then seen that it becomes difficult to transcend mind, using mind, as keeping the mind active is still its own normal behavior  However, when the mind seeks to use mind to challenge its own functioning abilities, as not to desire, which is not what it is original designed nature, it is possible that the mind may go into a spin and collapse (or not, for that matter, depending on its conditioning ). Such a state where thinking gets out of way, in terms of being fully functional, in its desirous aspect, there is a lot of rest and freedom. Freedom is then seen to be an absence of a desiring mind or thinking mind, in terms of judgement.  However, other than this function, that consumed most of its energy, the mind suddenly gets exposed to a its basic nature of only perceiving, prior of conceiving, for the purpose of maintaining itself expertise in being judgmental  Then it is seen that ‘desiring’ or mind function, comes to ease.
So freedom from desire, must come as a easing of the functioning of the mind, in filling up time, continuously, being judgmental about all perception.  Until then, mind behaves, as the separate individual, desiring or else called suffering a ‘lack’.

94. Time and Me.

What is time?  This is a difficult question, which assumes that there is an answer.  It’s the assumption of a positive answer that 'objectivises' time. This assumption is also is what, is enabling ‘time’ to exist as, an independent thing. Time is thus a concept or agreed upon term, used in communicating one’s idea with another; as if such a ‘thing’ called objective time exists. If you ask someone to define time, he could not make it tangible.
Time is an idea to 'grasp' change or movement. So you choose a frame of a second or hour or a day, mentally. This frame can take a story of an event to fill that frame. The frame of time is purely mind made or imagined, as physically other than now, nothing is 'sensable' directly. Its the sense of duration that makes a feel of time through knowledge, that 'change is with respect to time'. So change gives rise to time rather than time gives rise to change. A sense of space make three dimensional objects ‘seem’ to exist and a sense of time seems to make 'change or movement or event' as a 'story' of change to exist. 
Duration is memory dependent and arises with a ‘sense of perception’ wherein, what is already perceived seems to overlap with what is now being perceived as if, the previous existence continues into the present.  So we have persistence of vision, sound, smell, feel, etc, from the previous moments into the present moment. This drag smoothens each frame that is perceived, to make continuity to what is perceived  seemingly increasing the present frame of time from past to future. The perceiver ( sense instrument or body) within the frame of time is also appearing to change, even though the fact is that its the unchanging element that can perceive change.
If you take a movie film, and run it at slow speed, it is all frames. At a certain speed, it feels like a movie and at full speed it may just be white light. So the existence of a movie to the film is a matter of resonance between the perceiver’s persistence of vision and the speed of at which perception is displayed. So the experience of movement or duration in the movie is purely a type of synchronicity of perception and display. In case something happens, to change your sense of perception, the whole world may crumble on itself! So the existence of the world is magically maintained through a sense of ‘duration’ to what is perceived using a magical memory, that is somehow maintaining the ‘reality’ of ‘things’.
It doesn’t take much to see through this ‘fact’ that all there is -is -a magical operation happening, what we call life, wherein a world is maintained on a mental screen, magically through the use of direct perceiving, memory and a time lag of the perceived sensations, that gives continuity to the world having ourselves also as perceived.
What is eternal is not recognised as such, because the process of recognition, being the intelligence of what eternal is,  is purposely designed to make feel one content of cognition as a cogniser of the rest to create reality of an illusory separation in the content of display. The concept of time, being real or feeling real, ignores the possibility of timelessness or that there can be something as absence of time or something beyond the concept of time as intemporal or eternal. When the basis of existence is accepted vide a time concept being real, the unreality of time is sacrificed for good. Thus the ignorance of the eternal sets in due to the strong belief in the concept of time, or a bondage to concept of time.
Such an ignorance that time could simply be a concept with no independent reality, is the obstruction in seeing the factual reality of existence ( of objects or world).  This ignorance is identical with the ‘me’ thought. Seeking the source of such ignorance will automatically result in the vanishing of time and ‘me’ concept, as both are realised as illusory concepts that make up the illusory reality.
The absolute cogniser or the ‘I” concept is purely and entirely a ‘temporal product’. The ‘sense’ of continuity of the ‘me-sense’ is subject to the feel of temporal extension of perception. If you apperceive what ‘time’ is, it must simultaneously dis-appear as an object in the mind.  It is then revealed that the essential element that constitutes a me-concept and objectifies it, also dis-appears, for the simple reason that neither ‘time’ nor the ‘me’-concept can have any objective quality to sustain. They only have a mental strength that holds their reality.
The ‘me’ concept and ‘time-concept’ are inseparable from the intelligence that creates it, like light creates brightness. The intelligence or the Absolute or 'I' principle plays out the mind to create both me and time. However 'me' and 'time' which are expressional aspects of the absolute create a feeling of reality to me and time and thus all objective seeing sets into the subjective creation. Magically me and time are believed to have independent objective existence, even though there is nothing objective about them.  The concept of ‘sequential happening’ in time believed to be sensible or logical or real, mentally, is the foundation of the ‘notion’ of bondage. As long as the concept of ‘time’ is left untouched, with objective existence, its subject, as the perceiver, is precisely the ‘me’ concept that remains unquestioned. That is why the nature of time must be investigated into.
Trying to remove the me-concept, and retaining the time concept implies that the mechanism of functioning of perception is not recognised. On the other hand, if duration is ‘seen’ or felt as invalid, as an objective existence to which we seem to be bound, but as an essential part of appearance, then removal of duration would necessarily remove all that seems to be ‘existing’ in time. Then the supposed objectification of time and me ceases, leaving ‘us’ as what ‘in- temporally’ we are. As long as we regard space-time to be objectively factual, we are bound and tethered.
The term ‘absolute’ is just a symbol for the functioning of mind as a ‘split’ into relative duality, consisting of conceiving ‘other than self’ as a space- time entity or the world and its interdependent counterpart ‘self’ also as another space-time entity. This dual or divided functioning of mind , referred as merely ‘mind’ by Maharshi, appears as the conceiver or the functioning ‘I’, temporally extended in duration. So ‘I’ thought is really the Mind.
The only way to subjugate the concept of time as an objective reality, external to ourselves, is by identifying ourselves with it, which is apperceiving that, it is what we are., not objectively but subjectively. When we recognise ourselves as temporality, we have only to apperceive that temporality and in-temporality and inseparable, each being aspect of the other, one appearing in movement and the other static. They are twin modes of cognition, temporality accompanying and making all phenomenal existence possible and intemporality remaining noumenally ‘eternal’.
As ‘time,’ we are Intemporal and as ‘intemporality’, we are time. So we all can say, Intemporal, I am Time;  temporal, I am eternal.

93. Objective existence – a Concept.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

92. Understanding of ‘What we are’.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

91. Life, a functioning.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

90. The Person That We Think We Are:

What would be the idea when we say that there is a person to a body. A character, that may be good or bad or unknown? 

There is definitely a difference between a dead body and a live body. The person that we think we are also seems to die with the body or disappear somewhere. But that is ‘life force’ to a body, rather than the person to a body. The person seems to be there, playing out, as a felt character, day after day, as if such a character to the body is real. Its like a ‘real’ story of ‘a character’ to a body. But is there no evidence of one, even though all bodies behave, like individual ‘persons’ with likes and dislikes inside of each body. When we try to see with our own experience, we cannot experience such a ‘person’ at a particular point in the body, but we somehow, accept, that ‘we are’ such a person that is always there and afraid of whatever we don’t like, as a person.

Life plays out bodies as different real characters, other than just as a ‘life force’ animating bodies. The life play out as if protecting its individuality, by socialising, loving, hating etc etc, as if to make sense, as individual entities, even though, all bodies, have the same ‘life’ as animating principle. Also there is an effect to believe others as ‘people’ and ourselves as dealing with them, in this world of people. The character that we make to our body and other bodies, gives an effect of a person inside the body who seems to take responsibility for what he does or does not do.

If we try to analyse what this person in the body, we see that, this ‘person’ that we are, is more like a capacity to cognise. So the body has life which is nothing but the intelligence to cognise. So the intelligence of the body to cognise is the basic 'me' or 'he' that basically makes ‘a person’. Thoughts that arise in perception, give reality, to ‘react’ to a story, which mind spins out as thoughts, as if all such people are real, and have to be dealt with.

There is also an intelligence that grasps knowledge. We say the person is intelligent or dumb. This intelligence seems to grasp knowledge by dividing all sensation into parts and reassembling to form a concept which is then seen as the whole. For example it  'divides 'what is seen outside as a splash of colours and cuts out bits of the scenery to make them into separate objects, puts concepts onto them that are taken out of the baggage of knowledge and converts them to make them real things. It then assembles these 'things' to form the world that is seen. Like for example, it can isolate certain pattern of sounds to make them into music or language or words etc. In other words, it is an intelligence that can make meaning from the basic cognising after separation into so called things or concepts about what is being cognised.

Depending on the efficiency of this second set of intelligence that seem to be in use, the 'person' has the capacity to cognise data and recognise as ‘concepts’. The 'person'  is then regarded as more intelligent or not, depending on the capacity and  if the concepts thus made are agreeable to other 'persons', it is regarded as intelligent or else the capacity is regarded dumb.
.
So there is basic cognising intelligence and a recognising intelligence or conceptualising intelligence. The re- cognised concepts are then stored in memory 'God knows where' for a 'future' use of 're-experience'. Actually the re-cognising is the 'experience'

There is another intelligence used to operate the body, like giving out the right impulses to move the hand and legs and the neck etc. Or for that matter move the lungs or digest food or pump blood etc.

So these three segments of intelligence or energy act in various ways which is responsible for the creation of the unseen ‘person’ in the ‘seen’ body.

So, the unseen 'person' is basically a ‘set of intelligence’.

We can see the body and feel the ‘person’ even though we cannot see the person. This is like cutting out a circle in a paper and feeling the circle even though it is cut off and not there. Or seeing the presence of intelligence as the 'absence' of the 'person' and conceptualising as the ‘person’ that seems to be present.

Meaning to say that even though there are only animated bodies; the intelligence that seems to be ‘in’ the body is taken as an image and converted to being a ‘person’. The conversion of the 'intelligence' of 'other' bodies 'seems' to be happening in 'our' body. Meaning - all the 'persons' are  only concepts .

This is also extended to things. We see a shape and convert this shape and colour in our head to read as table, chair. However the names of the things are given more to the shape and colour and believed to the 'things' itself as if existing on its own even if the shape and colour wasn't.

For example, if we take a 'flower', we see a flower or experience a flower. But if we stick all the parts of the flower like petals and sepals and stem etc, we see it as parts of the flower. Where did the flower disappear now?. The imagination of the whole flower was different from the imagination of the flower assembled out of parts. It is like seeing a ‘person’ is much different from seeing an assembly of or addition of hands and legs and head etc. All these activities happen on its own without interference of a central controlling authority because that control is the intelligence itself and acts on its own without a controller.
 

What is the difference between seeing people as animated bodies and seeing animated bodies as 'persons' and giving reality like father, friend, enemy etc. How is it that we are able to recognising the person that can't be seen?.

Firstly we need to understand that all appearances are itself an interpretation of a basic energy or intelligence. Meaning, if there is vibration of energy at 20 hz to 20000 hz, this appears as sound. Factually there is only vibration and the 'sentience' or intelligence, that feels personal, converts this vibration to appear as sound which is only heard by us but it does not exist other than as vibrations. So there is an appearance thrown upon by the vibrations appearing as sound.

 We can accept similar behaviour with colours because colours are nothing but 'appearances' of vibrations.

 Since the vibrations are converted to and appearance of 'sound' at the source of vibrations itself, and similarly colours at the source of 'colour vibrations', the intelligence that acts as the convertor of vibrations to appearances, is basically 'available' at the 'source'. This intelligence of cognising is available at the source of vibrations rather than happening after it came in contact with the body or rather than happening inside the head. So 'life' or that intelligence that we say as cognising capacity, seems to be in space in the vicinity of sound and colours to make them appear from its basic format of vibrations to its appearing or final format as sound or colours. Similarly is the hardness or softness. So, all sensations are basically cognising capacity of different types of vibrations.

 Going in the same direction, we can attribute cognising power of 'life' to cognise tastes and smell which also seem to appear in the space of awareness. However since cognising is happening both inside and outside the body, and some of the cognition appear close to the body or inside the body (and rest outside the body), we discount what is happening outside and think that all cognition is happening ‘inside’ which is not true..

 The person that we think we are is only this cognising capacity (and the recognising capacity as things through use of knowledge). There is no other individual person that is hiding inside the body and carrying out these duties of cognising. So when we say -I see or I hear, we are not putting an effort to see or hear, but is happening on its own because the intelligence is already doing the needful. So the 'I' has no role as a separate activator of converting vibrations to appearances.

The worst part for all of us is that this three set of intelligence bundles (cognising, recognising, and causing movements of the body)  are all arising out of a single set of intelligence bundle which is the basic energy that is vibrating also.

This means that the source of the vibration is that intelligence, that is also doing the cognising, and playing out bodies.

So,  there is only this energy and we can give it any name from GOD to consciousness to awareness to whatever you want to name it, because, naming it is conceptualising it and becomes the objective appearance of the subjective energy.

So where is the person? Only an non-objective appearance that exists as a concept of the ‘presence’ of the absence of the person that is not.