A statement, made in a comment by a person with the name ‘Tantra tcc’ (on a video by Rupert Spira): ‘All experience requires an experiencer and that folk’s “is” duality :)’
De’s Response: That’s what our minds believe. That belief is also an appearance of undivided Being. In the tantric tradition, you find many beautiful hints regarding this, particularly in the Vijnana Bhairava Tantra (Shivaism). Practically speaking, loving can trigger the insight that there is no-one perceiving what’s happening. Let’s stick to verbs, not nouns. As soon as we divide the act of experiencing into nouns – ‘experience’ and ‘experiencer’ – then, yes, with believing in nouns comes the illusion of duality. The noun ‘no-one’ is the only real noun. All appearing is expressing this.
‘Existence’ is a term that tries to consolidate the activity of appearing into a noun. The activity of ‘happening’, ‘appearing’ never ends up as a genuine noun. The term ‘existence’ is, so to speak, a fake term. Form is, as an appearing phenomenon, in that category if it claims to be real via a mental activity of believing that it is real.
The inherent substance in appearing and disappearing forms is emptiness. (The term ’emptiness’ implies that phenomena do not have an independent substance.) The only substance there is is unboundedness. Some call it ‘freedom’, Jim Newman may call it ’empty space’, Tony Parsons may call it ‘unbounded energy’. They don’t want to call it ‘awareness’ but they say ‘it is obvious’.
That sense of obviousness is only possible when the facts a ‘lit up,’ enlightened. ‘Enlightened or Enlightening awareness’ are terms they reject because there is no one to own such an awareness. Nevertheless, unboundedness is ‘obvious’ (quoting). That claim (that unboundedness is obvious) can only arise within the universal light of clarity – that could be called enlightened awareness.
These terms do not point to something special. They point to the obviousness of timeless ordinariness. These terms are only misconstrued by concepts that arise from a time-bound view. To prevent such misinterpretation, Tony et al. avoid them. At least, that is my explanation of why they avoid these traditional terms like poison.
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.
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.
Here is another small sequence of comments, should it be of some interest.
Comments in response to a YouTube audio with quotes from Nisargadatta:
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.
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.
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.
From a discussion related to a video by Francis Lucille:
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?
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.)
‘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)
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.
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.