30
Speaking about reality appears difficult.
Speaking about reality or non duality appears to be difficult due to the nature of words and language. At any moment the mind can add extra details from memory, thus deviating off the line of expression, in what is being read or heard. The mind has associations with everything. When it comes to reality or No Thing, it is in poverty, so it seems. The immediate intelligence is present before any words form. Communicating that pure intelligence in any certain way is impossible and yet it appears to suffuse the expression with something beyond all qualifications. Life is present.
The implication of intent suggests an entity that intends something. It is ALL Life and the intent, if there is such a thing must be the intent of the One Life. All things appear out of that ‘intent’ or movement. Nothing moves without the life force.
When you trace the source of the ‘ego’ (which means you investigate the me) you find that it does not exist. This IN SEEING is potentially present ‘outside of time bound concepts’ and a recognition happens spontaneously. You could say that we use the me (mind) to investigate the me (mind).
The ‘insight’ has a quality of timelessness (infinity) and one knows that one has always been this (bliss) stateless state of pure being.
As Ramana Maharshi says: “You are the infinite being – then you take yourself to be a limited creature”… (limited by the concept of yourself).
and….”You use one thorn to remove another, then you throw them both away” (paraphrasing).
In other words, you use the me to remove the me and then ‘they’ are discarded. It all happens naturally and without any convoluted or contrived activity from the mind.
The word ‘Self’ is just a simple word for pure being or consciousness. Words are simply words. They are vibrations in mind. Take away the meaning and they are simple, life itself, vibrating, as it does into the entire appearance of things. There is NO separation. Mind cannot truly divide this singular awareness.
What we talk about (Non-duality) is not something new. It has been pointed at down through all the ages. There are always some who are direct and clear, simply because they live as the knowing. I AM THAT is the expression from that immediate knowing. There is no separation.
Many however, point with a conditional framework to their teaching, simply because that is where they are coming from – conditioned mind.
The teaching that asks anyone to do practice of any method is not a clear and direct teaching. All obstacles of the mind can be cut through in one instant of clear seeing. The investigation of the ‘me’ sense is the key investigation. Those who say it isn’t are the proof of their own ignorance.
As the American Philosopher Herbert Spencer says: “There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance-that principle is contempt prior to investigation”.
There is one factor that is quite obvious about clear pointers, irrespective of who says them, they do not ask you to believe in anything – they simply ask you to see what is, just as it is. In that clear seeing a recognition arises. It arises BECAUSE it is nothing other than what you ARE. The habitual impulse to claim this seeing or insight is naturally dispensed with instantly. If it is claimed, well that is another story…..
What you are is clear and empty presence awareness. In that, space and time appear as space-time patterns and these are ever fresh AS the appearance of this One Essence expressing itself. Some call it LIFE. Where would you be without it?
I would like to say…that this all sounds great but is all based on belief. Based on the notion of no one present. Based on concept I am awareness or life or presence. All just beliefs. All based on thoughts. All these arguments from non dualists are based on thought to come to this conclusion. Thought is limited. No wonder no one gets it. It is just another form of religion. Sorry to sound hard but I have really checked this out carefully. It’s very simple to see.
(Editor – Take another look Alan, because what you say is also wrong, Alan. It is actually your belief you are talking about. But I see you miss that…….What is expressed in the note is not from a belief at all – it is from immediate knowing, which is expressed in words. All words are just pointers. It is not in the words themselves. Everything is concept – but that upon which the concepts appear is non-conceptual. There is nothing that can deny THAT. You can deny everything that is said or written but you cannot negate that knowing presence.)
I would like to say…thank you for your kind response. As I said however I have studied this thoroughly. My words like yours were just pointers and perhaps my meaning was mis understood. Anyway we can argue for ever I know so I will keep to your last point that you cannot deny that knowing presence. I can and do. To me its another belief an idea a theory based on thought. This immediate knowing you talk about is all based on thought. Sorry but as I said I have studied this totally. Most non dualists and philosopher follow the line my words are just pointers when they are lost for answers. I know the patter. Sorry about this .
Gilbert,
Two steps back this week maybe….
Ramana Maharshi urges self-inquiry, to inquire within, again and again, “What am I?” or “I-I” until it is seen not to be real. Krishnamurti et al says the mind must be undone by the same mind that creates the fictitious self. The first person to turn me on to non-duality – the late Robert Adams (Silence of the Heart) similarly urged the seeker to look within, to locate the “I” and in discovering its non-existence at last shed that which kept “him” or “her” trapped in duality.
But more current non-duality teachers (many of whom I’ve enjoyed on UGC) declare that there’s nothing to be done because there’s nobody to do any thing. This apparent contradiction between older and newer teachers is confusing. Obviously Ramana et al was similarly pointing to the non-existence of the seeker but nevertheless urged the seeker to exhaust himself chasing the tail. Even the likes of Jesus could be argued to have urged a similar search. Which makes me wonder why so many of the newer teachers (I just listened to the wonderfully affable Tony Parsons again) more or less pronounce that there is no rhyme or reason to it, nothing to do, no one to do it, to seek is to keep the Truth receding into the distance and also, you can’t help but seek.
As always, some elucidation would be appreciated.