Saturday, March 31, 2007

Take another look - (a repeat with new additions)

At last, someone tells me I talk too much. - Thank you. - Enjoy the silence my friend.
I guess you can find your own way home - cheers.

News on U.G. Krishnamurti - visit this site:
They say he moved on from place to place and all his possessions fitted neatly into a small case. - No baggage to load the soul.
Thank you U.G. for your many pointers.

New Note:
It is all so simple, it is all so obvious, it can never be captured by the mind.
The ‘essence of knowing’ is not going to surrender to the seeker because the seeker is just an appearance in the knowing essence.
– You must BE that which is the immediacy itself to see this - and the irony is that that is all you truly are, anyway.
Thought is slow and cumbersome. - The thought train is never catching up to the immediacy of direct cognition.
As ‘what you think you are’ can you do that?
As what you truly are, there is no need to do anything – but that subtlety is not conceptual.
The 'ground' of all concepts is non-conceptual awareness.
The 'ground' of ‘all that is known’ is ‘knowing’ – it is never caught by any ‘knower’.
The knower is always one step behind (in the mind) and its net will always fall short and be empty on examination - what SEES that - or anything?
The essence (of self and all things) is far too subtle and ‘passes through’ the grossly woven conceptual net.
The one throwing the net is gross, a concept only.
The essence of all that is known is the immediate knowing.
The ‘time’ it takes to weave the net and then throw it is just absurdly inadequate.
The essence of all that is seen is ‘seeing’.
You can catch ‘the butterfly’ with your net but the life essence will vanish as you pin the body to your trophy board.
All that frustration of ‘not finding’ will never be pacified by some fancy guru and his conceptual traps.
There is no point in my ‘hitting you on the head’ and saying “wake up”.
I get no thanks for ‘shouting in your ear’ every day.
– You just stir and tell me to ‘rack off’ before rolling over back into that hypnotic dream of separation.
Frankly speaking, I am tired of shaking you.
You must stop ‘the machine’ yourself, stop the hypnotic dream, (even) for just a moment and SEE.
The mind is a seeming space where a constant flow of concepts, ideas, images and who knows what appear – but has anything ever really stayed there?
When will you stop playing games with spirituality and address that reoccurring ‘thing’ which unsettles you constantly?
You know what it is – I am not about to tell you again.

As Bob points out: “There is NO answer in the mind”.

So it is pointless looking there. – How many times must you be told?
So, ‘the ball is in your court’.

Today's Note:

Still searching for that bright insight? - Maybe you are overlooking some very basic facts.
A direct pointing to the basics requires an openness to look closely at beliefs and many apparently are not prepared to do that, at least not without a lot of resistance.
That resistance itself must be explored thoroughly.
Many popular teachers are actually adding conceptual nonsense to those beliefs and this binds the mind into time bound notions of becoming 'something' that is going to change the world for the better - ego weaves its tentacles into the matrix of a fabricated mindscapes and fed by feelings of being very special.
Beyond all that nonsense there are a few who point directly at the timeless presence of presence awareness. - A hunger for ideas and concepts drives the seeker around and around and false teachers provide an endless parade of new and more subtle ideas and concepts, to capture the mind of the seeker.
In this direct investigation that I am speaking of regularly, all ideas about acquisition are tossed aside as a taste of true freedom arises from the potency of direct SEEING.
- Nothing is really asked of you except to look and SEE. - No big fees are required, no future time is emphasised and no 'knowledge' is held up to be sacred and in need of storage in the mind.
As 'direct insight' opens up, there is a sense of something falling away - a sense of relief and a profound 'ease of being'.
Uncluttered space 'appears' and there is a freedom from wanting to fill it up with the old habitual ideas again.
One 'begins' to see and know that this space-like awareness is actually never obscured, even though there may have been a life time dis-belief that it could be ever-present. - It is the fluctuations in the waking state that give the impression of 'coming and going' with that identified 'entity' which is the transient and unstable element, not awareness.

The looking for ‘something special’ and in feel a lack of ‘something’ is the 'seeming' problem.
Is there really a problem?
What are the obstacles?
Who is looking? - And for what?
An identified sense of self, a 'me' is only a 'phenomenal object', a pattern appearing in the mind and as an instrunment of the search, it can NEVER find its own source (awareness) because that source, for it, just like itself, is insubstantial - nothing.
Nothing that it can grasp. - An insubstantial thing cannot grasp itself and it can not grasp 'No thing'.
Now, that may appear to mean 'something' to you, or most probably not.
However, that function of 'knowing', 'understanding' or 'seeing' is actually beyond the instrument that it ‘appears’ in. - Awareness - Knowing - Seeing - Understanding are one and the same (as a way of expressing it).
Does not the instrument itself, the body/mind, 'appear' in that spaceous knowing presence?
That is clearly obvious.
- Yet it is or can be extremely subtle - have a clean look and see if what I am saying is true.
- I can asure you that if you can SEE what I am pointing out, a great deal of misunderstanding gets cleared away. - (I am not inventing this!!!)

The mind pattern called a 'seeker' can never ‘get fulfilled’ because it can never acquire what it seeks.
What is the difference between 'knowing' and 'not knowing'?

Beyond the mind's conceptual and polaric 'knowing' and the 'not knowing', is that immediate knowing essence, which has no beginning and no end.
Have a look - can you find a time when it was not right here?
Everyone predictably postulates 'deep sleep' - but you know nothing about deep sleep, so disregard that as your evidence, because it is a desperate example to use.

'Who' has a problem with this? - What is the nature of that one that has a problem?
Is it not just thought patterns? - Are you subservient to them or do you KNOW them intimately?
Do thoughts run your life or do they serve you?
Thoughts in themsleves are neither right nor wrong. - Don't they simply 'appear' as the ever changing display of mind content?
- Is that not obviously so?
All we have is the mind to investigate the mind - There is no 'separate entity' that observes this fact or anything at all but it seems that it is so.
- Seeing and know that seeing is happening in that empty space of cognition.
- We can call it pure cognition but that implies that there is something that is not pure outside of it.
Zero degrees of separation.
To perceive a problem is to take on board that there is a problem, even though it has no existence at all, except as a time/space pattern in the appearance of 'things'.
As long as you seek the company of so-called enlightened souls, you will continue to ignore the light that shines forth from the source that you ARE.
There is only One source. - which ‘appears’ as this universe and so expresses itself as everything perceivable and imaginable and at the same ‘time’ in what I call the ‘first instant’ (the only instant of now) it is empty of, and beyond, all words. - It is Oneness or the true nature of awareness.
How does one demonstrate Oneness? -How can one show, to a seeming ‘other’ it’s (this other’s) own true nature? - Or it’s own? -Isn’t it One and the same?
Where is the need to show or reveal and to whom?
The so-called ‘need’ can only be in the mind, because one’s ‘true nature’ is already true and naturally in need of nothing, nothing ‘more or less’ of anything at all.
How can a seemingly ‘different point of perception’ of another – an ‘other’, merge with ‘this’ (the explainer), a different ‘point’, and so reach agreement by eliminating the apparent separation through words? -It is ‘word’ that has seemingly brought about the separation or at least the sense of separation.
- Do ‘you’ detect the apparent paradox?
- Where is the paradox except in the mind, via conflicting concepts or paradigms?
We apparently need points of reference before any thought framework can appear.
This, as well as what is written here, is of course all conceptual by its nature.
We may feel that we can’t communicate all that well without concepts.
Is there such a thing as communication happening? -
(Good question but annoying for the intellect.)
Do ‘concepts’ limit the nature of ‘things’?
The letters ‘s-k-y’ are not engraved on that blueness above.
In fact the word ‘sky’ appeared long 'time after’(historically speaking)than the sky itself appeared, in relative terms and in the ordinary way of general consensus reality.
Reality is not confined by words at all. -Reality is neither enhanced, nor limited by words. - Thoughtless reality is obvious, yet we rarely appreciate that fact.
Oneness. - What can we say about it? - Like a ripple on the shores edge, what effect can it have on the ocean? - One must imagine it as being separate from the ocean in some way, before we can entertain the concept that that ripple could ever have an effect on the ocean. -It is the ocean – water. - Or if one wants to be scientific, one could say that the ripple is an energy pattern flowing through the water.
The pulse of life is flowing through that body of yours right now.
- Is there a separation between the apparent two?
The universe is like one molecule, which appears to contain all molecules.
- The universe is one point, which contains all points.
Am I getting through? - Is there communication? - Is there a subtle stimulation?
Or is it already known? - What knows? - Is it a form, a personality that knows?
Whatever you believe about that, there is an expression flowing out here and this may register well with you or not so well.
- Some may even think that I am waffling on about a bunch of nonsense.
- No problem here about any of it.
One thing that I am totally sure of is this: - Cognition is happening (with you) and this is actually prior to any conditioning that you may believe that you have.
- It is also prior to anything in memory or acquired mind (all you have learned – personalized knowledge).
Now, the point may not be appreciated (by you) and it most probably may be a point of contrition. - Bear with me, if you will.
All of our senses, hearing, tasting etc. are indivisible at the ‘point’ of perception (or cognition).
How do you differ from that point of cognition? - Are you not that?
If not, what could you be?
We cannot deny that hearing is different from seeing but is it true at the ‘point’ of cognition?
In that pure space of cognition, we cannot divide anything and seeing and hearing are of one essence.
Now, this is extremely significant in no uncertain way - Or is it?
- You tell me.
From the point of view of mind, it is significant, if it is not recognized clearly.
It is only in ‘mind process’ that any argument about this can take place.
Recognize this fact: - Any such argument (or agreement) is registering with the ‘point’ of cognition. - In fact, everything is registering there with equal measure (although, I imagine, few would agree).
Well, I have referred to that place of cognition as being a ‘point’.
In fact it has no known dimensions at all. - It is beyond the known (because it is the ‘knowing’).
A ‘point’ is zero dimensions. -Insubstantial.
Even though it is insubstantial and has no known dimension, it contains the whole universe. - There is no ‘time’ that can be applied to it because it contains all time.
What I am saying is so obvious, we have, most probably, not even given it a thought.
So, where does all this lead us? - Nowhere at all.
You are present and aware in That and AS That.
Recognize that it is true. - To deny this pure ‘point’ of cognition is really just divergent indulgence and that will go around and around endlessly, with no escape, for that apparent individual.
If you are drowning and someone throws you a rope, you take hold of it and so you are pulled out of the rough seas (of confused mind).
Our true identity is not limited by what the mind throws up, although it seems that it is, for the identified ‘form’ called ‘me’.
Now, I realize that what I have expressed here may well have missed the mark for many, possible, readers.
I must say without being rude, it is not my problem. - I have dealt with what we term as the ‘conditioned mind’. - Whatever condition that you believe you have, is not my doing. - You must deal with it yourself. - To say such things may appear to be rather blunt or even arrogant but that is not my intention.
- The sensitive ‘ego’ will not survive that death of the body but if the ‘ground’ that it appears to reside on is totally revealed to be non existent before that ‘death’, then death can’t touch that which remains as the natural state, presence awareness.
However you perceive or translate what I am saying, it is not my intention to add data for any conditioned mind to immerse itself in. - The impulse is to point to that open space of cognition.
A road sign may say “ London ”, “ Paris ” or “Timbucktoo”.
- The place it is pointing to is not confined to the sign.
- It merely points the direction to go in.
(If you want to go to that place).
With this ‘pointing’ you don’t even have to take one step because you are that space of cognition.
Now, this space cannot be divided by any thought, concept or state of affairs.
Thought, concepts, states and conditions can only appear in it.
This clear space is actually unchanging.
It is the nature of all that appears in it, to change.
- The content of awareness is changeful. - Awareness is timeless and unchanging. - That which appears is forever changing and that is the nature of energy – moving patterns of seeming solid, substantial or subtle matter.
Yesterday’s mood is gone. - You are not that. - Yesterday’s identified states are gone. - You are not those. - The thought that appears right now is not what you are.
You are the source of that light by which you see and know all ‘things’.
Can you say that you are anything ‘more’ than that?
‘Who’ emerges out of that ‘pure’ space of knowing and ‘who’ is it that gets lost in phenomena?
‘Who’ could answer such a question?

Fun bit: I now have a 'My Space' 'place' and it's title is patternzinspace - anyone wishing to link to it with their own 'my space' can do so - it is just a bit of fun so don't go getting all serious about it. - I may add some videos of Bob to it at some point.
I will take a few photos of visitors to Bob's meetings etc and post them up there.