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’.
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.
..in response to a comment about J Krishnamurti and Schopenhauer:
Interestingly, the sense of ‘no lack’ does not cause inertia or phlematism. It’s more a truly ‘self’-less situation in which the already present ‘no-lackness’ expresses itself joyfully. Children play in a sand castle without a felt need to entertain any meaning.
JK would agree with St Francis of Assisi who said: “What we are looking for is what is looking.’
We can verify this by sensing that the ‘looking itself’ has no lack. It is the mental identification with a ‘me’ that
1. believes that it causes the seeing (how ridiculous to think this) and
2. interprets/defines/relates to the apparent objects (what is ‘seen’)
Those two mental activities result in a sense of lack and cause the striving toward no lack. Hence the yearning for meaning – in the hope that meaning will fill the sense of lack. It won’t. To realise the ever-fresh, timeless ‘looking’ (fundamental awareness) is what Krishnamurti is pointing to – and many others. Schopenhauer’s interpretations can lure the mind into dwelling on theory. Once done with it, the actual realisation of what JK is pointing to is more rewarding.
When you feel lack, your meaning is to feel no lack. When there is no sense of lack, there is no need to add meaning to life. That is only seen when the imagined ‘I’ is not imagined any longer. The absense of this imagination reveals fullness.
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.
Am not terribly interested in philosophy as such. Appearances are happening, that is not a philosophy. That activities come and go is also not a theory. The bondage, one could say, is diverting the attention from ‘whats happening’ to identifying with an action figure in imagined events in ‘the past’ or ‘future.’ Sure, such an identification can also only happen NOW, but the mistake is happening if this is not seen to be the case. There can be a common belief that we ARE the past action figure and that we are a future action figure, and with that belief comes
1. the worry about our body’s future well-being
2. the overlooking of what is happening now
3. the overlooking of what we really are, namely, the looking itself (Francis of Assisi: ‘What’s looking is what we are looking for.’) The looking itself is the natural freedom (not a philosophy 🙂 ! ) The looking is timeless, looking at the dream-like construct of time, not believing it.
(in response to Gail’s question on Facebook)
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.