Everything's size depends on its proximity to you...

[Guest guest]

I found this out many years ago while sitting at work. I had just started

reading Douglas Harding's 'On having no head' book, but hadn't read any of his

work about the fact that objects really *are* smaller when they are further away

from you, the only observer of them.

I suddenly saw that not only were the people around me in work only that size

because they were *that* specific distance from *me* (the one knower of

everything - the ultimate subject) but that no matter who or what I thought of,

they obviously had a certain size (otherwise how would I be able to see any of

them in my thoughts) and were therefore always a certain distance from me, 'in'

the thought.

 

For example:

how big is Australia right now? (Presuming you live on the opposite side of the

earth to Australia)

It's about 3.45 WIDs away (Width-Distances).

That means it's *literally* as *big* as the box that this text appears in on

your screen (or any other object that you put 3.45 WIDs away from you, i.e. a

ten centimetre wide book 34.5cm away is the same size, *literally*, as Australia

is, right now, because of how far it is from *you*.

 

We always read that 'enlightenment' is available right now.

Now, the only way that enlightenment can be worth 'attaining' is if it is

already eternal.

The only way that enlightenment can be eternal is if the entire world that *you*

alone witness is a dream, *your* dream. Nobody else's. (how could it be?)

So, one investigates the physical world around one (as Krishna Menon recommends

in Atma Swarupam and Atma Darshan).

Jean Klein never mentions this obvious fact. Even Douglas Harding (the only

person who I've ever heard mention it) only *mentions* it- he doesn't make it

the most important point of his teaching.

 

Nobody else can see their own face.

So who sees all the faces?

 

Nobody else can exist even for a second without *you*, the light of awareness.

How do you know this? Because their eyes look outwards, not inwards. They can't

see themselves. Who hears their voices? Who *sees* them and gives them a size?

 

Which is the only body in the world that's always *here*, right in front of this

screen, at the moment? Which is the only body in the world that has any feelings

in it?

Did you know that your hands are bigger than skyscrapers?

Ever point your finger at another car while you're driving yours, and notice

that so many cars a few hundred yards away from *you* are smaller than the tip

of your finger?

That your neighbour's houses were dolls' houses, and their cars were toy cars,

smaller than your hands?

 

So any 'enlightenment' worth its salt has to be able to explain *right* now

*why* *YOU* are the one knower of everything. Why the world can't exist without

you, the knower of it, for even a split second.

 

Jean and all the other teachers I've ever come across simply don't give you the

truth as plainly as I've outlined above, and while talking about not using the

progressive approach, they hardly help the seeker to attain autonomy nor to see

that *right now* is where it's at. Jean talked about not looking into the future

for your self (because the future is a thought and obviously can't contain your

self, the knower of all thoughts) but doesn't seem to help the aspirant by

saying: Right here and now, *this* is why you are the one knower of the entire

(tiny) universe.

 

The universe is, in fact, very limited indeed.

It's down to the angle that a give object subtends from your 'eye'.

There are a finite 180 degrees to play with. No more, no less. Degrees are

finite. No object can be bigger than 180 degrees. And all objects shrink to

nothing if they go far enough away from *you*.

 

I expect that until now you've been living as a 'flat earther' - believing that

the people in Australia are right now, the same distance away from you as your

family, or the people in your office (wherever you happen to be reading this

text). In other words, you believe that Australia isn't really 7,600 miles away

from you, and *upside down* at that (i.e. directly underneath your feet, and you

may easily have your feet further apart than the *real* width of Australia, as I

type this). You believe that all of Australia is right here, you're living there

right now, and everybody in Australia is (by some miracle) at the same distance

from you!

 

i.e. imagine a person who's within ten feet of you. So you can clearly see their

face, the colour of their eyes, their facial expression, hear their voice. Can 5

*BILLION* people all be within ten feet of you, at once? A bit cramped, is it

not?

So you have to admit that even if the world were flat, and all the five billion

people on it were on a massive flat plain, and you were on the edge of that

plain looking at them all, only a tiny number would be visible as *people* to

you. The rest would just merge into the ocean of 'people' that were all too far

away to recognise as such, i.e. as tiny dots, as the unknown.

 

The unknown exists both here where your no-face is, and there, where any object

that goes far enough from you, changes from a tiny dot into nothing. The same at

both ends - there and here.

 

I'd love to hear your views on this.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta, threedrom@h... wrote:

> I found this out many years ago while sitting at work. I had just

started reading Douglas Harding's 'On having no head' book, but

hadn't read any of his work about the fact that objects really *are*

smaller when they are further away from you, the only observer of

them.

> I suddenly saw that not only were the people around me in work only

that size because they were *that* specific distance from *me* (the

one knower of everything - the ultimate subject) but that no matter

who or what I thought of, they obviously had a certain size

(otherwise how would I be able to see any of them in my thoughts) and

were therefore always a certain distance from me, 'in' the thought.

>

> For example:

> how big is Australia right now? (Presuming you live on the opposite

side of the earth to Australia)

> It's about 3.45 WIDs away (Width-Distances).

> That means it's *literally* as *big* as the box that this text

appears in on your screen (or any other object that you put 3.45 WIDs

away from you, i.e. a ten centimetre wide book 34.5cm away is the

same size, *literally*, as Australia is, right now, because of how

far it is from *you*.

>

> We always read that 'enlightenment' is available right now.

> Now, the only way that enlightenment can be worth 'attaining' is if

it is already eternal.

> The only way that enlightenment can be eternal is if the entire

world that *you* alone witness is a dream, *your* dream. Nobody

else's. (how could it be?)

> So, one investigates the physical world around one (as Krishna

Menon recommends in Atma Swarupam and Atma Darshan).

> Jean Klein never mentions this obvious fact. Even Douglas Harding

(the only person who I've ever heard mention it) only *mentions* it-

he doesn't make it the most important point of his teaching.

>

> Nobody else can see their own face.

> So who sees all the faces?

>

> Nobody else can exist even for a second without *you*, the light of

awareness. How do you know this? Because their eyes look outwards,

not inwards. They can't see themselves. Who hears their voices? Who

*sees* them and gives them a size?

>

> Which is the only body in the world that's always *here*, right in

front of this screen, at the moment? Which is the only body in the

world that has any feelings in it?

> Did you know that your hands are bigger than skyscrapers?

> Ever point your finger at another car while you're driving yours,

and notice that so many cars a few hundred yards away from *you* are

smaller than the tip of your finger?

> That your neighbour's houses were dolls' houses, and their cars

were toy cars, smaller than your hands?

>

> So any 'enlightenment' worth its salt has to be able to explain

*right* now *why* *YOU* are the one knower of everything. Why the

world can't exist without you, the knower of it, for even a split

second.

>

> Jean and all the other teachers I've ever come across simply don't

give you the truth as plainly as I've outlined above, and while

talking about not using the progressive approach, they hardly help

the seeker to attain autonomy nor to see that *right now* is where

it's at. Jean talked about not looking into the future for your self

(because the future is a thought and obviously can't contain your

self, the knower of all thoughts) but doesn't seem to help the

aspirant by saying: Right here and now, *this* is why you are the one

knower of the entire (tiny) universe.

>

> The universe is, in fact, very limited indeed.

> It's down to the angle that a give object subtends from your 'eye'.

> There are a finite 180 degrees to play with. No more, no less.

Degrees are finite. No object can be bigger than 180 degrees. And all

objects shrink to nothing if they go far enough away from *you*.

>

> I expect that until now you've been living as a 'flat earther' -

believing that the people in Australia are right now, the same

distance away from you as your family, or the people in your office

(wherever you happen to be reading this text). In other words, you

believe that Australia isn't really 7,600 miles away from you, and

*upside down* at that (i.e. directly underneath your feet, and you

may easily have your feet further apart than the *real* width of

Australia, as I type this). You believe that all of Australia is

right here, you're living there right now, and everybody in Australia

is (by some miracle) at the same distance from you!

>

> i.e. imagine a person who's within ten feet of you. So you can

clearly see their face, the colour of their eyes, their facial

expression, hear their voice. Can 5 *BILLION* people all be within

ten feet of you, at once? A bit cramped, is it not?

> So you have to admit that even if the world were flat, and all the

five billion people on it were on a massive flat plain, and you were

on the edge of that plain looking at them all, only a tiny number

would be visible as *people* to you. The rest would just merge into

the ocean of 'people' that were all too far away to recognise as

such, i.e. as tiny dots, as the unknown.

>

> The unknown exists both here where your no-face is, and there,

where any object that goes far enough from you, changes from a tiny

dot into nothing. The same at both ends - there and here.

>

> I'd love to hear your views on this.