What is true needs no agreement

Whatever conceptual point of view you accept or take on board will determine what you perceive.  The naked seeing is translated by mind (past experience) and we call that perceiving.  Is it true?

What is true needs no agreement and disagreement doesn’t alter what is true.

The false cannot stand up to being investigated.  It falls apart without the ‘energy of belief’.

The naked seeing has no point of view.

There is no centre and no boundary to seeing.

Look at a distant star or galaxy and realize it is all contained in the seeing.

No separation.  (There is NO separation.  There is NO duality in Non-duality.  There cannot be any duality in reality.  There is only the appearance of duality.  Nature expresses as dualism but it is one Nature, not two)

The limits we (unconsciously) put upon the appearance of phenomena are conceptual, ideas, opinions, beliefs and apparent projections of mind.

Everything registers exactly where it is, so even the concept of projecting concepts or labels onto phenomena is false.

Leave it as it is and everything is as it is, clear and obvious, just as it is.

The so-called personal point of view along with the so-called person are fictional.

Agreement or disagreement do not alter the factual.

Contempt, prior to investigation is an apparent blockage to clear seeing-knowing but even that is a fiction.  

From a much early posted comment, with added points cleared up:  

“What you truly are is not an ‘event’ (in time or non time) and you are not in ‘the realm of events’. 

Everything ‘appears’ in the SEEING.   You are the non conceptual – non object – non subject natural clarity, which some call emptiness – upon which all sensations, including what you conceive of as the universe, appears and disappears”.

Though all Appearance is and can only be this ‘That-ness’, there are no actual separate (solid or gaseous) forms, it just appears that way.  


  1. In the scheme of things, from time to time, I have the pleasure of listening to some folk who really believe that they ‘have the understanding’ and via that, insights happen (here) into how the mind can imitate true knowledge. One gets an impression of a clever parrot. Learning by rote. They never say anything that is fresh and new. They regurgitate ‘stuff’ they have taken on board as a belief. It is obvious they speak from belief, not from immediate being. You can usually predict what they are going to say because they always say the same ‘stuff’ and what is remarkable about it all is that there is no resonance in being. It is all on the surface. It is more like psychology and theories pushed onto some unfortunate ‘listener’. The self-pride reveals itself over and over. These specimens of contrived knowledge have a smugness that they are obviously not aware off themselves. They worship ‘heroes’ (dead gurus) and try to emulate their version of a ‘true teaching’ but it fails miserably. Networking and building a business from it all is one of their main features. Desire to be accepted as a ‘teacher’ features as a predominant underlying insecurity in their ‘persona’. It is all so full of imagination and so obviously off beam. Even so, someone may hear something through their ranting and raving. Intelligence in the message can still, against all odds, shine through all the shit that is put upon it.

  2. There is no sensation of Totality or No Thing or Wholeness. All sensations are of the appearance. The pre-sense nature of reality cannot be grasped by the mind – because the mind is nothing but sensation. If you find some disagreement with this, try and conceive of anything that is not a sensation.

  3. “What you see comes out of what you don’t see; what you do see interprets what you don’t see; what you do see is what you don’t see in the form of what you do see. It cannot be something else. The universe has to be an undivided and indivisible totality, whose whole essence appears at any and every point within it simultaneously and evenly distributed.”
    Ernest Holmes

    • Everything appears in the seeing. There is no distinct see-er. The apparent local activity of seeing forms a conceptual ‘see-er’ (me or self-centre) but that see-er cannot ‘see’ because it is a concept. How can a concept see? Investigate. There cannot be a see-er that can see without the activity of seeing. There cannot be a seen that can appear without the activity of seeing. So the see-er and the seen are secondary to the seeing. Holmes, the author of ‘The science of mind’ (was it?), appears to be expressing something profound. What he actually meant to express may well be clearer than how it comes across. The second half is clearer than the first half of the quote. The ‘hook’ that everyone appears to get hooked on is they don’t include themselves (body-mind) in the appearance (the seen). The body-mind is an appearance of sensations. Investigate the apparent subject of the sensations and keep investigating until there is no thing left.

  4. Using the words “contempt, prior to investigation” etc…. brought me back to Bob Adamson’s website, where that quote at the beginning appears, from Herbert Spencer.
    “There is a principal which is a…” and so on.
    Sure, it took some time to understand what is said there in. But time failed simply from the insight that it has nothing to do with time, as such.
    That what you are has nothing to do with an event or whatever.
    In the meantime it can be invaluable that you encounter ‘people’ who inexhaustible reflect the actual reality.
    And there you have not even asked – like almost every thing in life – this in itself, is something to investigate?

    • The entire universe is ‘Expressing’ without a centre or reference point. To imply ‘I am a teacher’ is a deviation from what is true. Where are you seeing from? There is not a single concept that can ACTUALLY obscure the seeing. Who is being obscured by what? In the scheme of things most of the reaction to my posts is ‘negative’….not because of anything other than the fact that most folk are coming from denial of the actuality. It is their shit, not mine.