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.
Paul addresses the ‘Angst’ that probably most people have sensed at one stage before the sense of ‘I have never left’ takes over for good. The Angst is the last attempt of a thought activity to serve the prolongation of ‘selfing‘ (Paul’s word for a cluster of thought activities that assume separation).
Having resigned from serving the prolongation of selfing, thought activity enjoys frolicking in the space of freedom that never left itself. Here, the thought activity ‘travels lighter’ (Paul).
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’.
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.
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.
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.’)
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.
Dietrich: The question I would ask is: Is the focus on the ‘about’ what is seen or on the seeing itself? The ‘about’ is never going to satisfy. To give ‘meaning’ – good or bad – is just another form of a comment (‘about’). A solution would be to let internal comments fade out by giving them less attention, simply by realising that looking for improved commentaries is not going to satisfy. In realising this, freedom and unconditional love are seen to be your nature. Frustrating self-talk doesn’t come near this. Comments can’t see this. Meaning can’t see this. It’s okay and joyful to see the impotence of meaning.
RESPONSE: the empty nothing doesn’t nourish nor satisfy. I don’t feel any qualities, no freedom nor love.
Dietrich: Thoughts assume an authority that thinks that it has to be served and filled with satisfaction. The issue is not that there is no freedom or love. The issue is that the imagined authority, demanding satisfaction, continues to demand like a 4 year old child (‘me’) that hassles mum (life) for ice cream after ice cream (satisfaction). That activity of demanding is the distraction from the freedom. However, it is not very efficient for the believed-in child to try to slap itself in an attempt to reduce demanding. It is more efficient to see that the mind recreates the demander – (the 4 year old) – from moment to moment. The demander is a believed-in thought product. By seeing this, the demander is seen through, together with the demanding, and what’s left is freedom from this tyranny. This tyranny is a blessing in disguise because the cherishing of such an imagined child is no longer seen to make sense. Once this is seen, eating ice cream will be a much more enjoyable activity as it is not polluted by the activity of demanding.