Belief

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’.

 

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.

Omnipotence

Omnipotence (3rd godly aspect) includes the power of believing in the value of its mental activity to an extent where it distracts from itself, the source. The act of distracting can be exposed as ‘foreign’ as it pretends to be other than nondual.

In response to a beautiful video by Rupert Spira:

Veiling the screen is the most common, global habit. Repeating instant unveiling is portrayed as another habit that is ‘reinforced’ by like-minded people. That was also the purpose of genuine Ashrams etc. That second habit is getting used to seeing what is already the case, whereas the ‘veiling habit’ is repeating the act of believing what is not the case. In a way, the second habit exposes the fraudulent first habit. Once thoroughly exposed, the second habit is non-functional as there is nothing to expose as fraudulent anymore. Being of no use, the second habit has turned into a love affair with what is already the case.

To watch the video go here:

Feeling Happy

In response to the coaching of Cindy Teevens:

A happy feeling, not based on circumstances, is an activity that exposes its natural, nondescribable source. It should be clear that ‘not based on circumstances’ includes any beliefs about ‘to whom these feelings occur.’ A reference point would be another ‘circumstance’. One could say that this good feeling is suffocated as soon as any reference points are associated with it. That’s why happy stories can be so misleading since ‘happy’ is associated with the story’s action figure. Having said this, I also see that a happy feeling can be triggered by circumstances and then enjoyed to its fullest by ignoring the trigger.

This can be said to be one aspect of the ‘tantric’ way. The focus on ‘feeling happy’ is central to Cindy Teevens’ coaching. 

Do Something!

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. 

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

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.’)

Virtual Reality

In response to comments on a video by Tony Parsons:

The misunderstanding in these discussions arises because the terms are not very well defined. For example ‘God’ is a word that can mean a lot of different things. I am not against the idea that there is a hierarchy in the world of appearances. The ‘top’ leader in such a hierarchy could be called ‘a Personal God.’

However, anything ‘personal’ is part of the ‘virtual’ world that is derived from memory. All these discussions are memory-based, including the citing of so-called holy scriptures. To see these virtual constructs as such is a somewhat courageous step as it dismantles any support from memory. You are truly naked, even naked of your self-concept.

Realising this is freedom from the hypnotic influences of the virtual world. It is not rejecting the virtual world. It’s only seen to be ‘virtual’, ‘made-up,’ another word for ‘created.’ It is not ‘believed’ to be virtual – it is SEEN to be so. The seeing is real. Saint Francis of Assisi: What’s looking is what we are looking for. We can’t ‘believe’ in seeing. Seeing is happening anyway.

Substance

In response to a question


I can’t confirm that the non-dual has created a substance. I agree that it appears so. The mind tends to believe it. (I don’t.) Everything is really empty but appears to be not empty, particularly if the mind continuously refers to the believed-in past to confirm that there is substance in the presence. These assumptions are projected into a non-existing present as if that present was a section out of time. In reality, the present is timeless, non-dual awareness. If anything could be termed ‘substance’ I’d say it is the timeless that is ’empty substance’. The mind will think that this statement is based on fantasy whereas nondual seeing ‘says’ that believing in matter is based on fantasy.