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.
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.
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.’)
Since listening to Krishnamurti in the 70’s, a lot has shifted, and the essence of his message is available through many living people. There is less of an aura of ‘specialness’ these days – representatives for this would be Paul Hedderman, Sailor Bob Adamson and Tony Parsons, for example, and there are so many more, including very young ones, such as Paul Smit, Lisa Cairns and others. You will find that the pointers to freedom have become even more radical and direct. For a more gentle guidance, Francis Lucille and Rupert Spira may be preferred by some who have not recognized the fact that their identification with a separate person is maintained by a mental activity, called ‘believing.’
Today I was thinking about the question if awakening is a process or not. Awakening reveals timelessness, with no beginning and no end. And it reveals that this is what we are.
Some people sense this fact and others don’t. Some get frequently a taste of it in varying degrees of clarity, depending the degree of identification with a conceptual, separate entity. ‘Process’ is not applicable to the term ‘awakening’ itself, only to the reducing degrees of identification with a limited, apparently separate me.
If the identification drops suddenly, then the process is instant. In most cases, clarity and frequency of ‘no identification’ increases over apparent time until it is seen to be totally normal.
(in response to a statement about the possibility of being complacently ‘full with yourself’):
in Sanaskit they have a saying ‘Purnamadah Purnamidam,’ meaning ‘That (the absolute) is fullness and This (its expression – still the absolute but appearing as if relative) is fullness.” The assumption that here is lack – caused by a seemingly independent and frustrated mind – needs to be questioned. In my opinion, fullness (greatness) has nothing to do with particular actions. The recognition that the ocean appears as waves restores the sense of this ‘double’-fullness which is none other than Love, the love of being and living from being. The absolute is full of itself. You can’t be full with other than yourself as other doesn’t exist. Only if thought claims this fullness it becomes what you call ‘full of itself’ in a complacent way, thereby preventing further investigation into the actuality of purnamidah-purnamidam.
The beauty of what is being said is radically unconditional to the extent where it is being rejected by the conditioned mind. It is easy for the conditioned mind to relate to apparently pleasant events as divine expressions. The challenge for the unexamined, conditioned mind is that unpleasant events are divine expressions as well. Realising this activates pleasant events and reduces unpleasant events, whereas ignoring this (or resisting this invitation to realize this) activates more unpleasant events – all happening within the same, undivided life. It’s one of the rules, set by consciousness. To ‘contribute’ means to live from this realisation as it warrants both absence of lack and occurrence of more pleasantness. The focus is neither on ‘contributing’ nor on ‘pleasantness.’ The focus is simply on ‘what is happening’ rather than what should happen.
The nature of any belief is blind. Seeing truth does not involve thought. T… is a seeker and is, like all of us, entitled to express what is felt to be relevant. I have no issues with people whose thoughts suggest to them that they are right. Thoughts are very powerful in the dreamworld of beliefs. Nonduality can’t be discovered by applying beliefs, no matter how ‘deep’ they seem to go. All beliefs are old. The old can never see what is untouched by memory. Thought doesn’t want to know about this because it would mean that it admits its impotence in any of its attempts to see truth. They are just ephemeral noise in the clear sky of timelessness.
(Reply to a YouTube comment)