Author Archives: de

Two ways of experiencing

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

One way to deal with this question would be to distinguish between experiences that include the act of believing in a reference point 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.

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

Time and the Timeless

In response to a YouTube video by Rupert Spira:

A questionable conclusion would be to think that the exact novel is complete and present (5:42 onward) on a level that the mind can’t access. We cannot accurately postulate that the illusion is already complete in timelessness since timelessness is real – it doesn’t come or go. Illusion (the novel – the story) happens when timelessness releases or expresses its potential as a streaming of dream activity that includes the appearing of time. In nondual seeing, the timeless is all there is. The appearing of time is seen as well but as an illusion. It is seen that time is not. It is seen that it desperately tries to appear to be. Time, together with the appearing novel, is only taken for real by minds that are conditioned and blinded by the exact same dream activity.

 

A question of morality

In response to a YouTube video by Rupert Spira:

What we have available to verify any statement is consciousness. If we, as consciousness, identify with the belief to be a separate self, then trouble is generated as outlined in the video. If we, as consciousness, do not identify with such a hoax belief, then consciousness is aware of its formless nature, even while engaging in the dreamworlds of form and time. That’s why I can’t verify the statement that ‘infinite consciousness knows (=is aware of) only itself’ – meaning without perceptions. It continues perceiving via the senses and it perceives the flow of thoughts without sacrificing universality. In this case, the hoax of being a separate entity is absent. The dreaming is exposed to be a dreaming only, and its fleeting happenings are perceived with ‘benevolent indifference’ (Francis Lucile). Some call it universal love. Universal love is active in the middle of dreaming. The questioner’s aversion against violence is understandable but it undermines the questioner’s capacity for universal love in the name of morality. Consciousness, identified as the action figure, say the child offender, is driven by a conditioning that would have caused anyone with the same conditioning to be violent as well. Benevolent indifference is much more potent than a judgemental attitude that implies that ‘we are better than others’.

 

Paul Hedderman 26 May 2018

On Paul Hedderman’s term ‘verbing’

Dietrich: I enjoy Paul’s emphasis that everything is verbing. When statements are quoted such as ‘I am not of this world’, then this is a concession to the assumption that there is a world. What the statement really means is ‘I do not believe this assumption (that there is a world).’ Then, ‘the world’ is seen to be not objective, only an activity, a dreaming, a verbing. In a way, the statement ‘I am not of this world’ is superseded by the statement ‘I am dreaming the dreaming.’ So beautiful. Statements, such as ‘I am not that’ ‘I am not of this world’ or statements with the term ‘foreign instalment,’ ‘parasite’ are all very(!) useful. This is where the message infiltrates and undermines the illusion of being a separate entity. However, they have done their job once it is realised that ‘we are the dreaming of the dreaming.’ It’s a real blessing that Paul’s message has come up. In my opinion, the resulting insight (‘the solution’) is the only real help. Paul’s occasional claim that this message doesn’t help is only valid for people who primarily look for changes within the parameters of illusion.

ANIM  ALIBE replied:   Also, these comments are blessings, so good to read your messages too. I imagine – i can’t “do” anything else – that Paul humorous claiming about the validity or invalidity of the “solutions” (downloads, insights, observations) are just pointers to the pointless point, the gateless gate. Like saying that in a fictional place there is no real need for help and no valid solution, just a seemingly one, an apparent valid help to the action figure involved in his ‘problematic thinking, thorny questions, troubled impressions’. Without these troubled thinkings and impressions no need for any solution, answer, message, help. Let’s see them just as an entertainment: they appear here or there, but they are not indispensable… this could be applied to everything showing up in this Universe. At that point, you don’t really care about dualistic pop-ups of the dreaming. As Ramana supposedly commented on this topic: “This is so marvellous!”

ANIM ALIBE Paul: “look, is just an invitation” Conspiratorial-brain: “yes, but why!? Why do you invite me? Why do you do it to me?…”

Dietrich: The invitation is the perfume of liberation. Absolutely everyone is always invited. You’ve already accepted. The mind, conditioned by conspiracy, gets the opportunity to sense the ease of serving love (someone calls it ‘benevolent indifference’), rather than serving the stress of resistance. Paul calls it ‘travelling lighter.’

Free Will

In response to a YouTube comment:

The game is so well designed that it contains the notion of a free will of an individual and its execution. I agree that you, identified as a body-mind, will follow that belief or you see that everything is done by life itself. This is not another belief. The way to see this is to start realising that your body-mind is only an appearance, it does not have the status of Being. Again, this is not a belief, but you can allow for the possibility that it is so. Once you realise that the identification with a body-mind is based on memory (thought) and imagination and that Being is not something that thought and imagination can capture, then you will give less emphasis on focusing on and fixing the body-mind. It will then innocently express the directions of Being, without taking a mental credit that ‘you’, as an individual appearing, are in charge.