There is an experience right here and now - a computer screen, words, keyboard. There is an assumption that there is a "someone seeing" the screen, words and keyboard. That "someone" is apparently evident because of what?
How do you know yourself?
Maybe the hands are seen on the keyboard. Is that evidence of a "someone" there? Maybe the arms are seen, attached to the hands. Is that evidence of a "someone" there?
There is a torso seen attached to the arms. Is that evidence of a "someone" there? The toes are felt to wiggle - is that evidence of a "someone" there?
Breathing is felt. Is that evidence of a "someone" there? Heartbeat is felt. Is that evidence of a "someone" there?
Who knows all these "things"?
Thoughts are known. Is that evidence of a "separate ME"? Is the coming and going of thoughts evidence of a thinker? Thoughts are evident yet where is the thinker? Thoughts appear but does the thinker appear?
This question is the EXACT point of inquiry. Does the thinker appear?
The assumption of a thinker comes because of what? Because you know you ARE. Because you know you exist. Therefore the assumption of "being the thinker" is tied or mixed up with the obviousness of existence.
I know I am so I MUST BE the thinker. Yes?
Yet there is no direct evidence of this. Thoughts are there but there is no evidence of a thinker. In direct experience, thoughts appear. You ARE. They aren't tied in together except in assumption. Thoughts are paused - you ARE. Thoughts come - you ARE. Thoughts are absent - you ARE. Is that the evidence that you are the thinker? No - it's only pointing out that you ARE whether thoughts are present or not.
So "I am the thinker" is an assumption. There is no evidence that you are the thinker.
You ARE and you know it how? Because of thoughts? No. Because of the presence of breathing or heartbeat? No. Because of the presence of wiggling foot, torso, arms and hands? No.
You KNOW you ARE because of what? Because of the idea of a ME? No. That is also appearance - more thought.
You KNOW you ARE because of what? Why are you so certain that you exist?
Isn't it because you are HERE, no matter what the experience is? Isn't it because you are HERE always even as thoughts come and go, the body changes, the experiences change? Aren't even the hands, arms, torso, foot, breathing, heartbeat and thoughts experiences TO you?
Isn't there a pure subjectivity which doesn't change as all these experiences come up and go? Isn't THAT how you know you ARE? Isn't this pure subjectivity always there yet the source or center or "space" or capacity of knowing all these experiences, even the experiences attributed to this separate "someone"?
Doesn't the idea of "ME-seeing" appear in this already-present and unchanging subjectivity?
Isn't this pure formless but ever-present subjectivity what is really meant by "I"?
Hasn't "I" been tied or mixed up with objects? Aren't thoughts objects? Isn't heartbeat or breathing objective TO "I"?
Can you find "I"? Can you describe "I"? No. Yet "I" is undeniably there through every single experience that comes and goes, every single thought that passes, every breath that comes, every heartbeat - "I" is the immediacy and presence TO WHICH these objective experiences come.
Yet "I" is not another experience. "I" is the space of experiencing. "I" is the source of registering, "I" is the cognizing itself, "I" is the pure and ever-present knowing which has no objective nature.
"I" is the Self. And "I" is always known BECAUSE experiences come and go. "I" MUST be present for experiences to come and go. Therefore "I" or Self is ALWAYS known in all experiences. "I" or Self is the very necessity or condition or principle for any experience to come, even thoughts, the body, the idea of "ME as a separate person".
"I" is the "space" IN WHICH the experiences come - the unchanging condition or container for every experience. "I" is the undeniable principle WITHIN WHICH the "ME-thought" comes and goes. "I" is the knowing in which the ideas of "knower and known" come and go. "I" is the obvious capacity for thoughts of "other I's" to come. Other "I's" is more objective content.
"I" is the Self. YourSelf. And there is no other "I". "I" is THAT which never comes or goes.
38 comments:
Beautiful!
Thank you for so much clarity.
Cool..I would say the same thing thanks so much for the clarity but the clarity happens because you ARE and I AM and those are not two.
Randall,
I was reading Nissargadatta ,and as everybody else he says;
" What a bad joke has been played on you? Now, not only do you fail to see that you are merely an actor playing a role in this farce, but you go on to assume that you have a choice of decision and action in the play, a play which must obviously unfold strictly according to the pre-written script. And when events thus take place naturally in the ordinary course, this conceptual entity takes responsibility for them and lets himself get affected, and suffers..."
What is this pre-written script,by who?
and why does awareness not have a choice of decision and action in the play?
If awareness does not then who does?
Is there really a pre-written script for this life here?
Thanks, Walter
Hello Randall
David again. You spoke of The Space. I do feel a space. Not the perfect space. It seems like it is a space of happiness which seems large and curved. hmmm.. hard to describe - seems high - like the whole world happens within my attention - which feels like it has an overarching shape. And there is all happiness in the room and i breath it and love it, and can do things for it. I simply yield to the space of happiness. And in my life i notice a need, a thought, a desire and when i notice them if i 'let them go to the back' ignore them - the space seems to be more confirmed and i feel a rush of happiness and it seems to be a deepening process. The more i ignore the happyier it becomes and at times i forget to think. I dont have to, but without intention not to.
Sometimes I feel a disinclination for something, to love or whatever or to accept death but if i also let that go again there is more happiness and less content.
Any time an I reference comes, either 'positve' or 'negative' if i let them go the space is more confirmed at at times objects seem to crackle with force and seem 'bright'. But if i even let the need for them to be Bright go it gets fuller still. whatever this way is it does go deeper. However I have been dwelling on death and pointlessness and suffering. I think in a way my story is dying. I am aware that I may just be saying that because you have said that and so am trying to identify with that. Still something rings true about that. I feel like am kind of dying whilst living. I have totally lost sympathy with my story in terms of hope and looking good and acheiving etc and i think i may be losing sympathy with my negative story. There is no happy ending for 'me'. And that is disturbing. But there is ignoring and there is the space of Happiness. Maybe i should just forget everything in the open space of Happiness.
I would appreciate your observation
on my words.
Thankyou
David
Walter,
Questions come and answers come - Nisargadatta answered questions at the level of question posed.
A pre-written script may be another way to say that whatever happens, happens not because of a doer but because of the entire Universe itself. No activity happens outside the scope of Consciousness.
It is like saying - it is in God's hands - yet what you are is even beyond God - God's domain is Consciousness - yet you simply watch as Consciousness comes and goes. All activity requires Consciousness yet you are prior to.
love
randall
David,
All that you have described is a search for an experience.
If some amazing experience were to come - indicating what you're looking for - to WHOM would it come?
THAT is what you are. THAT BY WHICH any experience is known. The condition of experience is absolutely irrelevant. It is best to remove all conditions or requirements for experience except one.
You. You are the only condition necessary.
love
randall
Hi Randall,
i read this and it didn't click or anything ....so 2 hrs later i was checking my email and i had a tab open, i just saw the title again ..."I never comes and goes" - and i started laughing. Jeezus. Consciousness arises, obviously every morning... and i am there to witness the arrival of it. I am ALREADY present. If *I* rose WITH consciousness, i would not perceive it coming and going! SO obvious! The death that i fear...is what!? Its an idea of consciousness never arising again! Will it happen? *Who* cares? Who am I!? Who cares who i am!?
thank you!
Shiva
Hi Randall,
I'm really enjoying your book, and recently found this website. Thanks for your teachings, they are so clear and full of energy!
Although you are clearly and tirelessly pointing to our true nature, I am still firmly and hopelessly entrenched in the delusion of a separate self. Still thinking that 'thinking' is reality.
So, as a remedy do you feel that if I keep reading I will 'eventually' let go of erroneous beliefs? Does meditation help in your opinion?
love
colin
Shiva,
Yes. Nicely said.
love
randall
Colin,
Hello my friend. Good to hear from you.
Who is entrenched? What is it that is appearing that makes you describe "entrenched" or "thinking" or reading or meditating or letting go?
What are these? Descriptions of experiences. What remains as these experiences come and go?
Isn't it the pure experienc-ing that is obvious as the subjectivity-"I"?
Entrenched is thought. Deluded is thought. Thinking is thought. What knows the thought?
You are not the mind, the thought, the intellect. You are prior to, witnessing these "things".
Therefore nothing needs to be done. Simply recognize that this is already the case.
love
randall
Hello Randall,
The pointing of Nisargadatta, you and others has resonated deeply and has allowed for detachment from layers of conceptions/beliefs/thoughts. Identification with the body-mind and the ‘me’ seems like a distant memory, and experiences occurring during the waking state are being seen as dream-like, very similar to experiences in the dream-state itself. There is a sense of indifference and aloofness during most situations encountered in the ‘world’.
However, there has recently been a brief, intensely stressful situation that indicated identification with the ‘me’ is still in effect. Consciousness consisted entirely of fear and negative emotion, to the exclusion of being aware of anything else. During this situation, various pointers were applied but detachment would not occur. Upon asking the questions ‘to who/what is this fear happening?’, the only answer seemed to be ‘me’. When asking the questions ‘who is this me’, ‘who am I’, there was no answer. The questions ‘where can/does this fear exist’ only had the answer ‘right here inside’.
After some ‘time’ being distanced from the situation, peace has once again returned. The experience is now realized as not ‘real’, but during the situation itself that realization could not be reached. Are there any additional pointers that could assist in breaking the identification while a situation like this is occurring?
Thanks,
Kent
Kent,
Hello my friend. Good to hear from you.
Detachment requires someone who is detached. Detachment is still duality. There is no need to reactivate detachment.
Peace is your natural state. It is not gained anew. It is revealed when the seeking falls away and covered up when seeking takes place - in search of Peace.
Anything can happen in appearance. If the appearance isn't known for what it is, then imagination is the domain of reality.
The appearance is mithya - non-existent as separate "things", not independently existent, not separate in essence.
If I hold a flower, does it exist? Yes. Of course. If I take the petals off, then the leaves, then the top - what remains? Stem. You now call it "stem".
Does "stem" exist" Yes. Of course. If I crush the stem to powder, now stem is gone and powder remains.
But what became of the flower? Did it disappear? All the elements are there yet flower is gone....
Flower NEVER existed. Flower was only name and form - flower only exists in MIND.
The entire world is mithya, even that body-mind.
love
randall
Hi Randall, you wrote "Flower NEVER existed. Flower was only name and form - flower only exists in MIND.
The entire world is mithya, even that body-mind"
Inrelation to body-mind does this mean that mind exist in mind ?
Also why is it that we are told that there is only wholeness yet teachers divide and separate everything just like the flower above and then say there is only wholeness.
Hello anonymous,
Great question.
Doesn't mind only exist in mind? What is mind? It's only a word to describe some process, thoughts, images, memory, imagination. Does mind actually exist?
Mind is only a concept.
So thoughts ARE mind. Thoughts speaking about thoughts. And what are thoughts? Appearances. Patterns. Appearing as objective content to YOU. You are aware of thoughts, no matter what they say.
See that everything you know and take yourself to be, is only known in thought, in "mind". Without this conceptualizing process, what IS? What IS, right here and now?
Can you say? The instant that something comes - it's thought. Concept.
Reality IS with or without thought. Thought is simply the commentary - yet thought cannot exist separate of or outside of reality.
How would you like the "teachers" to express this? Can communication happen without speaking in dualistic terms? Isn't that the point? But that duality that is the nature of thought or expression is taken to be reality.
Reality is just THIS, right here and now. THIS is nondual reality, only ever this and nothing else. Thoughts divide it - separate and label - only that division and separation isn't simply seen as done for communication's sake - it's taken to be the actual reality made up of separate parts.
Thought can not divide THIS - thought is a conceptualized appearance in THIS. And the "thinker" is also conceptualized.
You ARE. THIS IS. That's it. The instant it's labeled or conceptualized, there is the mirage of duality.
love
randall
Randall,
can I follow up on your response to anonymous - it means that any sort of 'understanding" is also mind only? We often use the word 'resonance' with what you say or Bob says... what is that? Is that also just a mind-game? What is "understanding", "clarity" or whatever....outside of mind? We are playing with appearances? Meaning, I thought I was "shiva" and was suffering, I may eventually become completely certain of the fact that I am not this appearance called "Shiva". This Seeing, is it also within appearnace?
Basically, without any interpretive layer, What actually IS - is that, all that is happening is that noises are coming from a so called 'randalls' mouth and a so called 'shiva' hears and interprests toward seeming 'clarity'. Nothing is really happening of any purport whatsoever...(and even 'purport" is a dulistic term, which is actually meaningless because everything has purport or nothing has purport). The moment something is said/thought, its IN duality because otherwise NOTHING is happening.
So the so called 'Seeing", "clarity", "falling away of illusion" yadda yadda - is that also just a bullshit concept? When I 'See" that I am not the created identity-persona but preceed it, is that also mind? This so called Seeing, Clarity, invariably happens IN CONSCIOUSNESS....never outside of it. So it seems to me that it is also just a different drama, a different 'story'. *I* dont really need to See that I'm not "Shiva" - it may happen as an appearance or not, but outside of Consciousness, WHO whats to See WHAT!? nobody!
Enlightemnet, Awakened beings, non-dualism...are all within Consciousness only.
Can you please comment?
thank you
Shiva
Shiva,
Nicely said.
Beyond even being and not being, duality and nonduality. You ARE.
love
randall
thank you Randall. It actually causes fear to think about what you wrote. Very grateful for your help, thanks again.
Shiva
Shiva,
That's ok. Just look at it. You mention fear so it must be an appearance TO you. You call it fear so there must be some identifying characteristic to distinguish it from other emotions or feelings, like anger or pleasure.
Therefore fear is an appearance TO you. Are you afraid or aware of fear? Aware of the thought "I am afraid"?
love
randall
Randall,
Thank you for the pointing my friend; love to you.
The nature of words being what they are (not being the actual thing they’re pointing to, that is), I would like to elucidate my initial communication and ask for your comments in relation to the actual stressful situation I was referring to:
While walking down a narrow path suspended along a high cliff edge with no protective rails, the body felt unbalanced and became involuntarily consumed with an overwhelming fear of heights. The reaction was ‘fight or flight’, and I could not ‘will’ the body to proceed further down the path. Nothing new, this phobia has manifested itself on prior occasions. A long duration was spent in the location in order to ‘desensitize’ the effect, to no avail. I’m not ‘seeking’ a method to dissolve this phobia per se, but rather to determine if I am incorrectly seeing what has been pointed to.
The ‘detachment’ I referred to attempting was in the sense of neti-neti - ‘I am not the fear/emotion/thought, or the body being affected by this fear’.
Then I also tried seeing the fear/body/surroundings as one and not separate items.
During the event, there was a complete knowing of the fear, the body, and the surroundings. Isn’t it correct that this ‘knowing’ IS what is referred to as the ‘I’?
Is it correct that the fear/body/surroundings are all contained in the space referred to as ‘consciousness’, which the ‘I’ is aware of and unchanged by?
Is the fear, which is a sensation, dependent on the body itself, which is itself a bundle of sensations? For example, if the body had died while sensing the fear, does it follow that the fear would have disappeared with it – with the ‘I’ being aware of the coming & going of all of this?
In regards to ‘If the appearance isn't known for what it is, then imagination is the domain of reality’, I acknowledge that the fear could have been caused by something imagined (as in the mirage analogy). However, I just could not see WHAT was being imagined or could have been imagined during the event, and I can't see that now for that matter. There weren’t any visualizations or expectations of falling off the cliff, or even imagined danger for that matter. The fear was seemingly just ‘on location’ and appeared in the body as it walked onto this location.
Related to the flower analogy, I can ‘pretend’ that the cliff/surroundings could be reduced to ‘dust’, and by this ‘elimination’ the fear would likely dissolve. But the cliff/surroundings were not, in actuality, ‘dust’.
All pointing is very much appreciated.
Kent
Randall,
yes!!! thank you....wow. Yes.
love to you
Shiva
Kent,
Yes. Yet one part of neti-neti was forgotten. Who is it that is attempting to apply neti-neti? That is also not-this, not that.
There is no need to desensitize - simply recognize that every bit of what is appearing, appears TO YOU. Yet YOU do not appear as another "thing". YOU are formless knowing.
The sensation appears - how does it appear without that knowing? The sensation is not what you are, the "feeler" is not what you are, the "one who is afraid" is not what you are - these are all conceptualizations and identifications with the bogus or imagined character "kent". "kent" is a totally mind-made character - a facade - a story.
And there isn't anything wrong with the story except that it's believed in - recognize the story of a "formed and separate person" appears IN THOUGHT - TO YOU. You are not the story. You are THAT TO WHICH or IN WHICH the story comes and goes.
All this struggling and effort is completely missing the point - yet it goes on. Once the simplicity of this very moment is recognized, once the looking FOR what you are is seen to be false and it is recognized that you are looking FROM your true nature already, then the search will have no point.
love
randall
Hi Randall
You said to Shiva "are you afraid, or are you aware of fear?".
I don't see that there's a difference.
The awareness of fear is so inextricably tied up with the feeling (even if it's a thought that labels a sensation 'fear') that the semantics don't really make a difference. The experience is exactly the same.
Love, Viv
Viv,
Hello again my friend.
Just because it's tied up with the feeling doesn't make it reality. Is it semantics?
This is the exact point of inquiry. How is it that this pure "I" or knowing, this absolute self-evidence of existence - is tied or mixed up with the objective content or appearance?
Fear appears somehow - it is describable - therefore it must appear TO you. Yet YOU do not appear. The knowing of fear is the same as the knowing of happiness. The content of knowing changes yet the knowing is constant - unchanging.
THAT is what you are. Fear is only passing content.
love
randall
Randall,
'Who is it that is attempting to apply neti-neti?'
That is IT - exactly! That 'who' was overlooked, because it is too obvious. The 'looker' is part of the content, along with the fear & everything else being 'looked' at. Content looking at more content. I'm not the looker, just like I'm not anything else included in 'content'.
Love to you.
Kent
But does it make any difference to know what you are … or not…. It makes no difference to the experience, to the living. It doesn’t change anything. If life is just as it is, whether or not it’s known to what it appears and whether or not it’s known that that’s what you/I/anyone is, doesn’t make an iota of difference. A nightmare is a still a dream while it’s happening. Regardless of what, or who, the dreamer is.
Love, Viv
Kent,
Yes. Beautifully said.
love
randall
Viv,
Correct. It makes no difference - you already ARE the totality - it is only mind which creates this ME-character - and these thoughts are not separable from the totality.
Nothing changes. Nothing is gained. Nothing can be added TO totality or it wouldn't be totality.
love
randall
Hi Randall
But It's not felt or known that I'm the totality.
It doesn't feel like home.
And I understand all the analogies. And all that's left is feeling like this character.
V xx
Oneness sure likes to go on and on and on about itself. Blah, blah, blah.
Viv,
How do you know of this character? By what does this character appear?
You say it's not felt or known - how does feeling or knowing manifest? You're speaking of sensations and thoughts, are you not? So what you're actually saying is that there is no special sensation and the thoughts are still applying the filter of a separate entity. Yes?
So these things are still objects to "I". Still neti-neti. Still not what you are. You're expecting a change of objective content, placing condition on experience.
There is NO condition on experience. THIS is it. THIS is all there ever is, whatever THIS is taken to be.
So if THIS is not knowing you're the totality, THAT'S IT. If THIS is not feeling like home, THAT'S IT. If this is "feeling like this character", THAT'S IT.
No conditions.
Right here and now is Oneness. Totality. Advaita. No matter what it's translated as.
love
randall
Hello No One,
Good to hear from you, my friend. Love to you.
Yes. It's quite a show - Oneness trying to find itself. Where is it hidden? It can only be hidden by already being everything.
love
randall
hi randall and everyone,
thanks for your post and great conversation. it takes me deep into the oneness of the moment. i think since reading your words and hearing you on ugc randall, i have been able to drop most of the seeking and dip back into the incredible space that is the present wholeness, just purely to return to it, nothing else.
Even whilst reading through the comments here i was starting to raise questions, moving back into that 'inquiring mind' that pops up in earnest every so often, but then towards the end when the conversation turned towards, 'whatever it is, that is it, it is fine, whatever form the moment takes' it just seemed enough to look around the room and know that everything is just the way it should be,
thank you for that,
x
Lune,
Hello my friend.
The questions come, more thoughts come, over and over - that intellect or running commentary is irrelevant.
Is the appearance of this commentary evidence of a separate ME? Is the thinking what you are?
You are THAT which is aware of the commentary. Yes? And THAT doesn't appear as some "thing".
So you are pure being/knowing - just THIS and nothing else, just THIS exactly as it is - nothing to change, nothing can be added or lost.
THIS, right here and now, is the perfection and wholeness which was the goal of the spiritual search. And it was always overlooked in seeking it.
love
randall
hi randall,
when you say the question comes and the intellect or running commentary is irrelevant, surely there are some certain questions that we can be asking that will bring us closer with 'that' which is aware of the question?
I have been 'seeking' for a while now, but only till very recently did I 'realise' that I had effectively been skirting around the issue completely, 'thinking' that I understood what this was all about, thinking that having some fleeting feelings of oneness was what I was searching for.
But then, I started to ask very specific questions about myself, (helped by annette nibley's site) and I actually realised that I had never really asked myself some very basic questions such as: does awareness reside in my body? I find this issue very difficult to explore in any great depth; there are points when I just say - I don't know and I revert back to what I have read in books - 'Oh, someone said that it doesn't, so I will have to take their word for it instead'.
I am aware that the 'i' has not changed over time, and that the world changes constantly, but I just 'feel' or maybe it is more like 'believe' that the 'I' will become extinct when the mind/body dies.
Is there a specific question I can be asking myself in order that I may sneak up on this one from behind, so to speak?
thank you,
in loving kindness,
x
Lune,
The exact point of inquiry is "what IS I?"
You know that you exist. That is unquestionable. But WHAT you are is in doubt. The body appears, the thoughts appear. But are these "things" I?
What is the nature of "I"? What is it? You have referred to it for a lifetime - yet it's in doubt, yes?
So, find out what IS I? "I" is the Self. "I" is always known.
The body is known as an object. Thoughts are known as object. But is "I" known in this way? Is "I" known as some "thing"?
Is "I" thinking?
love
randall
thank you randall,
the space is growing.
a bird is heard and received by receptors and translated into 'not me'. but if there is no 'me' to receive and translate the sound, is just space/no thing. it is not a bird, just a happening. what we perceive as individual objects are just happening.
Your post about trying to find your eyes was really helpful, where exactly is this bird sound? out there, in here? what is out there, what is in here?
sounds enter our brain and become electrical activity. where does the sound reside?
i remember my first thought (now a memory) when I was two years old. I then try to think about the time before that, of course, I have no memory of it, though I have been told my body existed. I cannot pinpoint the time when 'my' awareness began. it proceeded that first thought.
'things/happenings' arise in the space only because we can somehow perceive things that are not 'i'. where does 'i' end? where does the 'not i' start? nowhere.
thank you randall,
x
Lune,
"I" is ever-present and self-evident - it cannot be known as some "thing" - it is not objectified by you because "I" IS you.
Therefore "I" is not some "thing" yet it is the very basis by which all "things" are known - this is obviously the case, yes? So "I" IS Awareness - pure formless being/knowing - THAT is your true nature.
You don't SEE it because you ARE IT. The Self or true "I" is always the very source or capacity or presence by which the world is known.
love
randall
Post a Comment