One of the cherished traps is to romanticise ‘seeing God’s face’ (Sufi expression). While it is the only fulfilling art of living, entertaining romantic ideas about it veils the seeing. It is best to drop romantic notions. Then, seeing (love) is not mixed with ideas. Rather, it is the perfume of being nothing and everything.
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.
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.
Many nondual messengers say that you are not the body. As far as nonduality is concerned, that seems wrong as there is no division whatsoever. With other words: Being is everything that appears.
This is a quick conclusion that may satisfy the mind’s demand for logic and consistency. However, let’s look at this issue a little closer:
I repeat the statement: ‘Being is everything that appears.’ This statement is, in itself, not clear. Being is. Being is prior to the appearance of time, it does not come or go. Therefore, it is. The same can’t be said about appearances. They come and go. Due to their ephemeral nature, we can’t claim that they are. At the most, they appear to be. The appearance lends its substance from Being. Appearance has no substance of its own.
When we say ‘we are not the body’ we are referring to the fact that we are not an appearance, as appearances can’t be at all. They can only appear to be. The mistake the mind makes is to believe that it is the body, whereas in truth, neither the mind nor the body exist as such. The belief that appearances exist is responsible for their apparent reality. There is no evidence for such a belief to be true.
First of all, beliefs are based on memory. Memory is the imagination of a past event, an attempt to replicate a past event in one’s imagination. With other words, we imagine a memory to be true. It is easy to understand that an imagination is just that – a temporary flicker in the mind about a short-lived event that appeared some apparent time ago. Can we really rely on such a flicker of imagination to prove that it is real, that it is?
When we believe that we are a body-mind, we do the same to maintain such a belief: we remember events in which our body-mind was involved. This includes events that happened a second ago, such as having typed these words with fingers. I call them ‘my fingers’ if I identify with the body-mind. Interestingly, thoughts can only claim events to exist AFTER they already happened. Thoughts can never catch an event at the very instant it happens. Thoughts can only report on events that are already gone. They are no more. In truth, events never had the characteristics of ‘isness.’ They were extremely short-lived. Appearance and disappearance of any so-called ‘moment in time’ are simultaneous. A new vibration replaces the previous vibration. If the new vibrations resembles the previous vibrations, we could call this ‘patterns of vibrations,’ and the appearing phenomena seem to last for a while. Still, they don’t have any independent nature. All vibrations and the pattern themselves appear out of the only existence there is – Being.
When we see that ‘we are not the body,’ we see that all bodies only appear to exist by virtue of vibrating patterns that emerge from the depths of unfeathomable Being. Being does not identify with any seeming boundaries. However appearing mental activities can generate a belief that constantly claims that ‘I am a separate entity.’ It seems that most humans’ mental activities claim to originate from this belief which is also just a repeated mental activity.
‘Nothing is form, and form is nothingness’ is a concession to the belief that there are things (Rupert Spira).
Then, there is the realisation that this belief, produced by consciousness, can be replaced by the realisation that colours, sounds etc are appearing out of consciousness.
Consciousness would not be be able to come up with colours, sounds, etc without employing thoughts, necessary to design the mechanics of perceiving colours, sounds etc.
Driving a car is most enjoyable without identifying with it or believing in it as a separate entity. However, the designers of the car had to invest a lot of thinking into the functioning of that car.
Realising the formless does not invalidate thinking as a tool to maintain the mechanics (vibrations) of perceiving colours and sounds for the sake of entertaining consciousness. Luckily, there is no need for consciousness to forget itself to perceive colours and sounds, but it has to forget itself as soon as it assumes beliefs in separation.