Author Archives: de

Memory Patterns

The apparent moment is not continuous, it just appears to be continuous because the ‘moment’, meaning ‘momentum’, or movement, replicates itself very often. Say, a stone looks the same as ‘a minute’ ago because the momentary energy waves that result in the appearing of a stone repeat the same wave pattern. There are questions regarding the memory of these patterns. For example: if waves ‘follow’ a certain pattern (say, the stone pattern), is that pattern prior to time? In Eastern esoteric science, the field of memories/patterns is called ‘Akasha’. It is the field of all possible patterns. It is ‘between’ the Absolute/Freedom/No-one and its appearances. Most modern nondual messengers do not touch that subject. Anyway, the message that there is ‘no-one’ still applies. No one (no separate entity) appears as ‘whatever is happening’ or the expressing of patterns.

(in response to a comment on YouTube)

Existential ‘Angst’

Commenting on a video with Paul Hedderman:

Paul addresses the ‘Angst’ that probably most people have sensed at one stage before the sense of ‘I have never left’ takes over for good. The Angst is the last attempt of a thought activity to serve the prolongation of ‘selfing‘ (Paul’s word for a cluster of thought activities that assume separation).

Having resigned from serving the prolongation of selfing, thought activity enjoys frolicking in the space of freedom that never left itself. Here, the thought activity ‘travels lighter’ (Paul).

The Reality of Awareness

In response to a video with Richard Sylvester

The term ‘real’ when applied to ‘what’s happening’ explains that we can’t deny the appearing and disappearing of specific phenomena. They are as real as mirages. We can’t grasp any phenomena. But the perceiving of mirages cannot be denied. If we apply the term ‘real’ to the capacity of perceiving, rather than to the fluctuating colours, sounds etc, then we give credence to the fact that there has to be a capacity to perceive so that perceiving can happen. Perceiving requires alertness. Alertness is just another word for awareness.

I understand that a term such as awareness can be a trap by triggering the belief that there is a separation between awareness and the perceived phenomena. Nevertheless, awareness is fundamental for any descriptions, statements, claims, perceptions. There is no harm in realising that what’s happening is fluctuant (subject to coming and going) and that the capacity to perceive is neither coming nor going. There is no harm in realising that the sense of ‘no-me’ is that undefinable space without measure in which phenomena arise and disappear. Let’s call it awareness. It is the capacity of perceiving.

The ‘Born-Apparent’ Nisargadatta

Hello Friends,

Here is another small sequence of comments, should it be of some interest.

Comments in response to a YouTube audio with quotes from Nisargadatta:

Dietrich
The ‘born apparent’ cannot be led to its True Unborn Self. However, the recognition of the True Unborn Self reveals that the born is only apparent and therefore is not. Something that is not will never see what is.

daisilui
Dietrich, The ‘born apparent’, let’s call it the body-mind is the starting point that believes it can do something to arrive at the Self. Whether led by grace or by own persistence [or both], it must start from somewhere to get nowhere and to disappear at arrival in the realisation that it never actually moved. The mind is the only tool that leads one to the realisation that it doesn’t exist.

Dietrich
The term ‘mind’ is a broad term. The ‘born apparent’ is a specific application of mental activity that miraculously convinces awareness to believe that it is a separate entity. That believed-in, fake, separate entity is unable to see that it does not exist, that it is imagination only. The questioning of this belief is a mental act, guided by intuition. Thoughts can point in the right direction but the waking up from the illusion is a non-mental realisation. The same applies to creation as a whole. It does not exist; it only appears to exist. It only seems real to the believed-in ‘born apparent’. Both are unreal. They continue as Lila (light-hearted play) once Maya has been exposed as being an appearance only without any independent substance.

Two ways of experiencing

In response to a question in a video with Rupert Spira:

Dietrich
One way to deal with this question would be to distinguish between experiences that include the act of believing in a reference point (‘me’) and experiences without such a reference. Without such a thought-based, believed-in reference point, it would be clear that the knowing happens happily in a referenceless, centreless field of awareness. That’s why most ‘teachings’ question this reference point first. The recognised absurdity of such a believed-in separate entity naturally reveals the boundless nature of awareness in which all appearances come and go. The ocean is aware of itself – with and without waves. Thinking that we are a separate wave is obviously silly. In that case, God plays being silly.?

mrnibelheim
An insightul observation, thank you Dietrich! How would you distinguish between experiences which have and do not have a reference point? Could you maybe give me some examples to inquire into for myself??

Dietrich
Experiences with and without a reference point (me) are perceived by the same consciousness that everyone is. However, the (self-imposed) identification with the action figure ‘me’ distracts from this fact. Once the distraction has lost its attraction, this fact is clear. So the difference is clear seeing versus blindness. The experiences may be similar in both cases (say washing dishes). In the first instance, it is seen that boundlessness expresses itself in the act of washing dishes whereas in the second scenario an independent entity is believed to wash the dishes. In the first case, there is fulfilment, both regarding the sensing of boundlessness and regarding the perceiving of a playful expression as a fleeting flavour of boundlessness. In the first case, everything is fused with love, in the second case, experiences contain domineering elements of desire and resistance (I’d rather go to the movies) because of the inherent frustration of relating everything to a limited, seemingly disconnected me.

mrnibelheim
Yes, thanks Dietrich, this makes very good sense, and I would say that in imagination I have been able to see this mind-body “me” as an expression washing the dishes – another expression – and those moments have felt “genuine” in the sense that I did not have to make too many concessions to conventional reality. But if pressed too far, the experience can become somewhat threatening to me because it becomes non-conceptual and “things,” including “me,” feel as if they are falling apart, which I suppose is not a bad thing, according to teachings such as Rupert’s, but I can’t say I find it rewarding just yet, though I can see how it could grow on me. Does this ring a bell for you? And if so, have you found that you were gradually more able and willing to go along with the apparent meaninglessness of events??

Dietrich
There may be an element of fear in the sense of ‘falling apart’. Falling apart is not rewarding for what falls apart. It knows that it’s doomed to expose itself as being non-existent. It just appears to exist. The activity of believing in it keeps its momentum. It’s not a question of ‘I should allow the falling apart’. It is more an issue of seeing what is truly the case. Allow resistance – to the sense of falling apart – to show up as much as it likes. Just see it when it shows its scary face (like a clown) without doing anything about it. It can’t stand the light of truthful exposure so it will go away by itself. Consequently, me’s absence reveals your authentic presence that is not scary at all. (Only the idea of ‘no me’ is scary to me – for obvious reasons.)?

mrnibelheim
A most helpful response, thank you very much! I find your sentence “It knows that it’s doomed to expose itself as being non-existent” comforting in a weird way, I suppose because in that view there is no “me doing or allowing” anything – a welcome relief from all the mental gymnastics which so many meditation teachers suggest.?

Dietrich
The sense of relief is a reliable indicator. It confirms a clear seeing that mental gymnastics are performed by ‘what you are not.’ Therefore, there is a natural letting go of interest in mental gymnastics. In that relaxation (relief) is the presence of what does not need to be acquired. It is already so. (It will never be acquired via gymnastics. Any attempted movement towards it is actually another misleading strategy of blindness to perpetuate itself.)?

mrnibelheim
Thanks for that confirmation, Dietrich. I have of late been able to see, as you say, that any movement towards relaxation pushes it into the future, and that turns it into an endless mission – the dangling carrot tied to a stick above the donkey’s head!?

Dietrich
The relief realises that the chase after the carrot keeps the donkey appear real.?

mrnibelheim
Yesss!!!

Suffering

In response to a video by Rupert Spyra:

It’s a vicious circle. The fake identity’s (‘separate self’) main ingredient is resistance (suffering). That resistance, by definition, doesn’t know unconditional allowing. Therefore, the imagined separate self is unable to solve the issue since it constructed by the issue. If resistance tries to surrender, that surrender will be as fake as the resisting, imagined entity and this won’t yield the desired outcome. There is merit in admitting that I, as the imagined entity, can’t solve the issue. This hopeless admittance is surrender and reveals the ever-present solution by showing clearly that the problem doesn’t exist at all, and that there is no chance that it will ever exist or that it has ever existed. This admittance is an alternative to ‘facing the suffering so completely that we can truly say that suffering is welcome forever’ (19:12). The separate self is not able to face suffering this way. Only the recognition that the suffering (fake) entity is not what we are can face anything so fearlessly.

No-one and someone

Knowing this brought me so much relief. I feel like a massive load just got off my shoulders.
Yes, beliefs are heavy. That’s why Paul (Paul Hedderman) calls it ‘travelling lighter.’

Timeless Principles and Fulfillment

From a discussion related to a video by Francis Lucille:

Question:

What about universal principles, which are timeless and nonlocal, are they aspects of consciousness, and appear in consciousness, like the platonic realm of ideas? They penetrate all that appears to exist but are not dependent on existence or creation. For example the principle of expansion or reduction, the principle of centeredness, the principle of balance, harmony or the principle of motion. They are not even in a “realm” and they are not dependent on concepts. The laws of the universe seem to derive from them, but they do not need a universe. Are they prior to all expressions, and are they an underlying reality of all ideas and expressions?
Reply:
Timeless, non-local principles, appearing in consciousness, are still subject to consciousness. (Whatever can be perceived cannot do the perceiving.) Even timeless principles are secondary to the perceiving consciousness, not the other way round. I agree that these principles are not usually discussed as part of a nonduality class. The reason is probably that the focus is usually on realising consciousness, rather than on realising the mechanics of universes on all their potential and actual levels.
This usual focus is based on an urge to rediscover reliable contentment. Whilst considering universal principles can be so fascinating, contentment is only re-established by realising universal consciousness. (In my case, I used to be very much drawn into the areas you speak of but that did not lead to reliable fulfilment.)

Dreaming to be the dreamt

In response to a video by Paul Hedderman:

‘The dreaming can’t be perceived; the dreamt is what can be perceived.’ The dreaming is an activity of seeing. That activity is the same as what Paul calls ‘conscious contact.’ Seeing is like the open sky, and conscious contact or dreaming happens when seeing releases the activity of ‘clouding’ – when clouds playfully arise and disappear out of the sky and without affecting its sense of ‘skyness’. There is no question regarding the nondual nature of this.
‘You are not going to meet the dreaming as the dreamt.’ Once identified as a cloud through a particular act of ‘clouding’ the playfulness becomes seemingly serious and the believing in duality is considered accurate, but it isn’t. That activity of believing can’t ‘unbelieve’ itself. Rather, it will fade away altogether by the sky seeing its error in relation to a particular identification with a cloud. That’s why Paul recommends seeing what we (the sky) are not. We are not what the activity of believing tries to manufacture, an independent identity. (from 44:00)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2R8S4MoHvfY