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’.
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.
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.
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.
(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.