disguise - Philipe

[Guest guest]

Hi Philipe --

 

> Hello Dan,

> It appears that you are saying that there is only Awareness, or the

I

> Am or whatever name one attaches to 'that which cannot be named'.

 

Thanks for your comment.

 

Well, one thing I am saying is that whatever name is offered

involves a namer. So you have the name given and the namer

who offers it. Even if what I, as namer, offer is

" that which can't be named " -- which is pretty good

as far as offering of a name goes.

 

So, the question isn't what name to assign, but what is

this when there is no distance whatsoever, from which

to act as a namer offering a name.

 

The question is one of " direct experience " or " direct

knowing " for want of a better description -- immediate

and total choiceless consumption might be another way to put it.

 

And

> that is true, there is nought but that which IS. But you cannot say

> that 'we' do not exist conceptually, as 'we' are conversing, 'we'

do

> exist in some manner, even though it be as dreamers in the dream.

 

It isn't that we don't exist or that we do exist.

 

It is that distance is a fictionalizing of a situation.

 

You can call that " dreaming, " that's fine, or " conceptuality "

or " conventionally-derived reality " is pretty good, too.

 

It depends what you're wanting to say about it, whether you'd

use a term like dream, or one like 'consensus-agreement

as reality.'

 

> Our appearance is phenomenal, apparent only, & that is still a form

> of existence, so 'we' can neither be said to be nor not to be.

 

We are a phenomenon. Phenomenon seemingly appear and are tangible,

but this always involves a viewer, an experiencer.

And the experiencer is itself a phenomenon.

 

So, we are left with " phenomenon appear because there is

phenomena to which they appear which appear to phenomena. "

 

It's circular, and what is taken as if an ongoing experience

of a human being is actually a circularity that never

truly takes place.

 

First,

> we are Not, & it is because 'we' are not that 'we' can 'appear' to

> be. The 'I Am' is 'Pure Awareness', that which IS, but it is also

> everything else, be it phenomenal or not. there is not 2, nor one,

> but Unity. Form is emptiness & emptiness is form, & vice versa.

 

Considering that you yourself are phenomenal, your efforts

(or mine) to define how it is that phenomena appear will always

have a limitation. It doesn't matter how many capitalizations

you (or I) use. I agree that form is emptiness is a good pointer,

and then one empties of that pointer, and empties of emptiness.

 

I

> realize that what IS is Awareness, & that is does nothing, being

the

> source of all.

 

There is no all for it to be the source of, which could

be apart from it, for it to be the source.

 

But the world of phenomena is existent 'as phenomena',

> it cannot be dispensed with as it may not be that which IS but it

> does have an 'existence'.

 

You yourself are phenomenal, as am I. It doesn't matter that you

or I can use words like " Awareness " or " nuemenon " or " being "

or whatever. Those words also are phenomenal, as are

the ideational processes associated with them.

 

It is experiencing, SEEING, the functioning

> of that which IS, & as it is all that IS it cannot see itself, all

> that can be 'seen' is Void, i.e., Subjectivity looking at itself &

> being all that is consequently seeing 'no-thing' - dreaming.

 

Subjectivity is also phenomenal. As is the person claiming

to be aware of subjectivity. As are claims made to

know " no-thing " and so on.

 

So, one either resolves this circularity within one's

own process of knowing, or one doesn't.

 

There is no other involved, no one to communicate the

resolution to, nothing to say about it -- and therefore

nothing to be said about anything.

 

Yet, here we are speaking!

 

And it's a great joy!

 

So -- what of that?

 

The so-called dream, or fiction, or consensus-derived

reality is only a fluctuation of eternity, is

the no-thing to which you refer, is the unspeakable

itself in disguise.

 

But it's only disguised as long as I assume there could

ever have been a knower apart from the known, or

a subject apart from the phenomenality, or a conceiver

apart from the conceptualized.

 

I guess you could call this running into a wall!

 

There's no way to go on, or back up, or stay where

you are.

 

It is death, and it is opening in/as timeless beauty.

 

And it already always is and has never not been all that is.

 

Peace,

Dan