Being

Verbs and Nouns

Posted by de

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.

‘It is obvious’

Posted by de

Hello Freinds,

‘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.

Cheers
Dietrich

Paul Hedderman 26 May 2018

Posted by de

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

Posted by de

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.

Do Something!

Posted by de

Doing is going on. Spiritual paths usually encourage personal development. That’s doing something to get somewhere. That’s what society understands since every conventional step in a lifestream focuses almost exclusively on a better tomorrow. So what’s wrong with that?

This ‘better-tomorrow’ drive can include the idea that tomorrow is the time to wake up to the boundless energy that’s closer than any thought about it.

It may feel like a disappointment to the ethically conditioned mind that the focus on personal development can keep us identified within the boundaries of time.

The point is that doing happens anyway in all areas of living. Personal development may happen anyway, practising a musical instrument may happen, improving a health condition may happen, financial issues may be tackled etc.

It would be a mistake to think that doing stops. Thinking, doing, expressing, creating, improving, are natural movements in time and will continue to be enjoyed.

The keyword is ‘natural.’ By that, I mean that these doings will happen naturally. Our almost compulsory, mental focus on the belief that something depends on a better tomorrow is the trap.

In reality, everything depends on the timeless energy that is present in every move. If our beliefs focus with priority on ‘moving to a better tomorrow’ then stress will replace naturalness, and with that stress comes the worry about tomorrow. At the same time, worry distracts from the only reliable fulfilment there is, namely the ever-fresh boundless presence of our true nature that is closer than our next thought about it.

Good musicians express that timeless presence, they don’t worry about the next note. Even when practising a scale to improve the skill level, the exercises can be done playfully, without worry about the outcome. The outcome will present itself anyway. In fact, efficiency increases when there is no worry since worry consumes a lot of energy.

On a global scale, suffering is caused by the effects of worry and self-concern.

The last point is that this self-concern will come up again and again as long as there is a disregarding of our true nature, a conceptless presence that can’t be measured, and that is closer… than the next thought about it. 

Questions?

Posted by de

The nature of a question is that it longs for an answer. Once we find a satisfactory answer, the question has been replaced with information that we could also call ‘knowledge’. Based on that information, more in-depth questions are possible. As a rule, the more questions we ask, the more knowledge or information we obtain.

Questions will always arise, be they theoretical or practical or a combination of both. A practical question would be: Where is the closest grocery store? The answer could then give rise to further questions: Does this grocery store sell organic food? A related theoretical question with practical consequences could be: What are the advantages of natural food?

Most people who are interested in nonduality would have asked theoretical questions about it and ‘know’ that there ‘is not two’ and that there is no separation. Whether we like it or not, this framework of questions and answers shows its limitations when attempting to probe the subject of nonduality. The most useful conclusion is that nonduality answers have nothing to do with realising nonduality.

The word ‘information’ as a synonym for ‘knowledge’ makes the issue clearer. Knowledge is related to form, measurement, time and space.

Since knowledge is formed it can’t access its own formless source. The rediscovery of the formless happens when the form, the knowledge, or thought, has lost its over-rated appeal. It has not provided happiness in the past, nor will it ever provide happiness in the future. Why is it so appealing to people? Because they are hypnotised into the belief that one day it will bring happiness. The activity of reinforcing that hypnotic belief could be classified as a ‘dark force’ of the universe. We could conclude that all suffering stems from it.

When it has lost its appeal, the realisation dawns that the formless is already here as our nature. This obviousness removes that hypnotic spell instantly and completely.

 

 

 

We are everything?

Posted by de

Nice video by Tolle

Comment by someone: ‘We are everything’

De: That’s not exactly so. When we say ‘we are everything’ that can be a misunderstanding. Something that appears (everything) is not. It only appears. Therefore we could say ‘We are and appearances arise and disappear in us.’ Appearances do not have the status of ‘being.’ As soon as we see that we are not any appearance (body-mind), we have removed the belief that any appearances are. They just appear. There is nonduality since appearances appear in Being. There is nothing outside Being (such as everything) to be in union with. Only Being is (real). Appearances may appear real but are unreal.

Nonduality and I Am Not That Person

Posted by de

We are free. We are not the person that wants freedom. What we are is the freedom from identification with a person that wants freedom!

The seeing itself is the freedom. It is entirely neutral and unbound to any idea of identification.

If everything is nondual, how come, that the identification with a person is not us? One would theorise that everything is us and that we should not say that ‘the person is not us.’

Here is the answer: The identification with a person is, indeed, us. We are dreaming this identification as part of a bigger dream. Once this particularly annoying identification within the large-scale dreaming has been exposed as a dreamed image, the identification doesn’t continue.

In both cases, nonduality is a fact. In the event of continued identification, we believe to be a separate entity. In the event of seeing the mistaken identification, we see that freedom from identification with anything is what we are.

The point is that the seeing of ‘what we are not,’ namely a separate entity, is not in conflict with nonduality. It is the realising of nonduality.
What keeps going is the dreaming without identification with anything.

We see that everything appears and disappears within this freedom.

Sense perceptions can delete the imagined borderline between ‘me’ and ‘not-me’

Posted by de

Where is the borderline between ‘me’ and ‘not-me’? It’s usually pictured to be the circumference of a body.

On the other hand, we claim that we ‘have’ a body – similar to having a car, a house, etc. We also maintain that we ‘have’ a personality. Furthermore, we say that we have an ego, big or small, or that we have lost our ego. The challenging question is: who or what makes all these claims to have something or to have lost something? At closer investigation, there are merely attempts trying to encourage beliefs in borderlines, including the concept of a separate ‘me’ that has something or that doesn’t have something.

Where is the boundary between ‘me’ and ‘not-me’? Both me and not-me turn out to be just two labels, attached to appearances.
Because of constant repetition, these labels have produced feelings of and beliefs in independence and separation. Listening to music or engaging in any other sense perception – without diversions into fake worlds of believed in assumptions – can deliver a taste of the freedom that is inherent in living without the belief in boundaries.

(Further investigation shows that the belief in separation is the cause of all apparent troubles in ‘us’ and the ‘world.’)