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 (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.
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.
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.
Directionless attention is devoid of thought, directed attention is ‘looking through’ defining concepts (thoughts). The attention is the same in both cases, as light is the same, no matter what medium it shines through, and no matter what it shines upon.
The issue is if the light has temporarily identified with concepts while passing through them or if it remains unidentified while passing through concepts. If it stays unidentified then there is ‘freedom from identification.’ The other scenario is a seeming imprisonment in the maze of conceptual enclosures.
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.
‘Now’ cannot have meaning as Now as it is more fundamental than any thought construct. Any meaning is involves thought. However, the Now (Presence) as source of all is able to produce and attach meaning to what it projects as seemingly other than itself. Ultimately, all apparent meaning is dreamt by Now. One could say that from the perspective of the dreamt object there appears to be a meaning in realising this.
Meaning is the same as ‘what matters’.
I like the quote of Jordan Peterson “The world is not made of Matter, the world is made of ‘What-Matters’. It contains a lot of truth. When strictly nothing matters at all, the worlds cease. Having said this, I see that there is the possibility that ‘what matters’ can have an optional, playful flair. To build a sand castle at the beach – does it matter to the children? It doesn’t matter to the extent where the children get worried about the next big wave. However, they may still give the castle some meaning within the scope of playfulness while it lasts, and they may even enjoy the drama of the wave eventually flattening everything.