The basic problem

The basic problem is belief in ‘word’ (words).

The wind does not tell lies.  The air does not tell lies.  The voice does not tell lies.   It is the believer that tells lies.  The one who knows for certain has not reason to lie and so a resonance suffuses the message.

We add ‘personal meaning’ onto words and belief in that meaning is most usually not questioned.  As soon as it is questioned the so-called personal meaning dissolves.

NO word is ever what it describes or points to.  

As Bob Adamson says “You cannot drink the word water“.   Many have heard that simple ‘pointer’ but they don’t seem to recognize what it means.  Yes, it is simple to understand that you cannot drink a word…..but the implications of what the pointer is demonstrating are far reaching, if we can put it that way.    

The story of me is composed of words and images, memories and ideas.  All of which are ephemeral in nature.  You cannot weigh an idea or concept.  You cannot measure the duration of a concept appearing.  You don’t know what concept will appear next.  It is belief in the story of me that keeps one from recognizing its non-reality.  Self-centered belief in the story of me obscures what is most clear and obvious.  

You have a name.  Are you that name?  No.  Does the name define what you truly are?  No.  Does any word or set of words define what you truly are?  No.  The word is not the thing.  The word ‘fire’ does not burn the page it is written on, unless we are talking about fairy tale stories.   The ‘story of me’ is a personal fairy tale.  A photograph does not capture the scene or the so-called objects that appear in a photograph.  A thick volume entitled ‘The Apple’ will never define what an apple is. It may be highly detailed with examples of profile drawings, cross sectioned drawings or very clear photographs. The described is never the thing.

You cannot eat the word ‘apple’.  See if you can describe the taste of an apple in 25 words or less.  See if you can describe the taste of water.  Can you describe space? What exactly do you know about ‘self’?  If there is a self, surely it must be self-knowing – no need for words or explanations.

Words are useful but if belief in words dominates the actuality, then ‘trouble’ is bound to escalate exponentially.  The actuality is always present.  A re-presentation of the actuality will always fall short.  

Someone may say ‘I believe it 100%’ but belief is nothing but not knowing for certain.  If it was ‘knowing’ you would not say ‘I believe’… would say ‘I know’.  It is the knowing for certain that does not need an ‘I’ to claim or support that knowing.

Belief is never the actual.   ‘People’ believe in all sorts of things and all kinds of crazy ass gods, idols and symbols.  Graven images in mind.  Who would pray to a golden calf, except someone who is far removed from ordinary every day ‘reasoning’?  Who?

The more you believe, the less is known for certain. True self-knowledge is not collected data.  It is the activity of knowing, the immediate activity of knowing which is ever-fresh.

I have had the opportunity to study, close hand, some extreme cases of self-centeredness.  Some examples believe that they are independent enlightened beings.  Extreme self-centeredness can imitate anything but it is nothing but a dead image.  There is no resonance in being when listening to pretenders or ‘claimants of enlightenment’.  Sentimental bullshit is sentimental bullshit.  Such ‘study’ of enslaved believers in me is highly informative and yet the ‘subjects of the study’ don’t have a clue of what they are demonstrating in clear view.  Declarations of having seen through the self-center are known instantly to be a fiction (in them).  The declaration is a void, where not even one feeble harmonic of resonance can be detected.

Self-knowledge, if we can use that word correctly is not ‘a story of me’.   It is KNOWING what I am through knowing what I am not!  I cannot know what I am, as if I am an object.  I cannot know what I am, as if I am a separate thing, a subject.   Knowing that I am not a thing cannot be contrived by mind.  Believing that I am nothing is a contrived concept.  What is real is incontestable. Reality does not need relativity.  Non duality does not need duality. Duality is merely the natural way, The Only Way, that the manifestation expresses itself.

The common realm of seekers is one of imitation.  Trying to perfect what is already perfect is a living hell.  In the scheme of things, we learn language via imitation. The way we learn to speak is via imitation.  We keep trying out the sounds until a clear acknowledgement is reflected back.  A monkey learns the language of ‘sounds’ and communication happens.  All the creatures in the forest know their own language and they also learn the language of many other creatures.  It is a symbiotic field of ‘resonance in being’.  

My accent is a learned accent, an imitated accent, taken on automatically from the environment the body-mind is born into. No one in a particular environment, say Sweden, ends up with a Scottish accent without some constant influence that is dominant and imitated.  Many ‘seekers’ imitate the lingo of the ‘teaching’ or the ‘teacher’ and the ‘student’ can be quite convincing….but it is all imitation.  

Beyond all that, self-knowledge is NOT acquired via imitation or learning.   No one can investigate the ‘personal consciousness’ for you.

Help can be provided but that help must be free of psychological baggage and without any expectation of ‘learning to believe in something’.  Reality is not a belief.  Belief is ‘fairyland’ where nothing is real.   Do you understand that?  

Where is the choice maker?  Can you find it?  Do you actually have a choice?   Yes, you do, but not as a believed in entity.  Intelligence can cut through all beliefs – but this requires a one pointed mind, a ‘pure desire’, which rises up from a ground of resonance in being, a harmonic resonance, life itself.  

Pretending to be a seeker is nothing but psychological nonsense.  Facing that and dropping the bullshit story of being a ‘spiritual person’ is necessary.  In the scheme of things, very few ever discover this simple ‘truth’.

See if you can understand the following:

We can only recognize what has already been cognized.  

Mind, what is commonly referred to and called mind, is nothing but thoughts, concepts, ideas, images and memories ‘appearing’ in the immediacy of true mind or what we can call naked cognition.  There is no mind – show me your mind!  There is no me – no one to show a mind to!

Mind is me.  Mind it time.  

In the so-called ‘moment’ of recognition, mind (time) is dissolved into pure cognition.  There is ‘knowing’.  The mind will translate it into ‘I know’, which is a fiction.  Belief in being a separate entity is the cause of all troubles, worries and concerns.  In the actuality, ‘knowing’ bares witness to all that appears to take place.

Pure cognition is always present.  

In the ‘moment’ of recognizing one’s true nature, the mind dissolves into ‘no mind’ and from that moment on, there is no going back.  

Mind reappears, naturally, but it is KNOWN for what it is.

  1. Some folks get angry at me, especially spiritual folks. They don’t like their collection of assumptions being disturbed. We all have a potential far greater than being locked into a set of erroneous beliefs. Getting free of belief brings relief beyond description. If you are unwilling to investigated the ‘cage of beliefs’, how do you expect to discover your true nature?

  2. I think you have a typo, but only you know for sure what you meant to say. “Someone may say ‘I believe it 100%’ but belief in not knowing for certain.” It seems that “in” was meant to be “is”. Either way–good stuff.
    Gilbert says: Yes. Well spotted. Blazingly obvious, of course. Will correct it. Not that anyone understands a word of it. 😉