Taygetan and "Swaruunian" Team Forum

JimiPickle

Member

Re: THE LIVING WORD

@CHARCOtranquilo

“But now we will go one step further:”

“If the VISION does not see ITSELF, what does the VISION SEE when this "with me" is also not?”

Everything.

“How is this VISION that SEES that nothing is now with me, when this "with me" is also not there?....”

VISION IS always SEEING everything

“From where does this VISION SEE itself, which SEES that nothing is now with me when this "with me" is also not?....”

VISION sees from everything and from everywhere. So, the VISION of a cat, dog, mouse, human (EXSITIR) is the same, it SEES. Even from plants and microbes, VISION SEES. CONSCIOUSNESS would then SEE everything, not from the perspective of the animal, but from the perspective of SEEING.

“How does this VISION become VISION when absolutely nothing is now with me, when this "with me" is also not there?....”

VISION was always there and Is always there NOW.

Once this is known, it cannot be unknown.

Last edited by JimiPickle (2022-02-14 18:16:26)

JimiPickle

Member

Re: THE LIVING WORD

Question to you my friend,

If VISION Sees what is not with me, then, it also SEES what is WITH ME, correct?

Is there LIGHT in the DARKNESS? Is DARKNESS SEEN?

VISION=CONSCIOUSNESS KNOWS, KNOWING IS UNDERSTANDING, IT IS EVERYTHING that is WITH ME, correct?

LOVE, even in the pursuit of KNOWING this, LOVE WITH ME, correct?

CHARCOtranquilo

Member

Re: THE LIVING WORD

There are not two consciousnesses.

CONSCIOUSNESS =VISION, it has always been there without name, without form. It does not do anything more and it cannot be divided.

Correct.

This statement is verified by the following interrogative propositions:

When I am in the state of deep sleep, by what name does deep sleep name me when absolutely nothing is now with me?

With what form, is it formed, in the deep sleep when it SEES that absolutely nothing is now with me?

Can I separate from me in deep sleep, when absolutely nothing is now with me?

How many separations from deep sleep, does deep sleep have when absolutely nothing was now, in deep sleep?

The I, which exists in a container of the very Consciousness of CONSCIOUSNESS, exists within an illusion that is the reflected illusion of itself in both inner and outer illusionary space.

Let's verify this statement....

First, let's look for this "I":

Where in your body is this "I"? in your toes? in your leg? in your liver? in your kidneys? in the nervous system that runs throughout your body? in your brain? in what part of the brain is the "I"? in what part of any neuron is the "I"? No neurosurgeon in dissecting the brain has found that homunculus called "I". Therefore, it becomes evident that no part of the body reflects or contains the "I". If no part of the body contains the "I", what is the body, has the body said "I am your I"? More importantly, what part of the body that contains no trace of the "I" contains the Consciousness? And more importantly, what container contains the Consciousness that contains no "I"? Therefore, which non-container, which does not contain the Consciousness contains the CONSCIOUSNESS... How many "Consciousnesses that do not contain any "I" exist within an illusion "I" that does not exist? And... How many consciousnesses know themselves to be consciousnesses of another consciousness?

There is no Consciousness of any other CONSCIOUSNESS. THERE IS ONLY ONE CONSCIOUSNESS.

It is not enormously contradictory to affirm that the "I", which is a non-existent illusion, exists in a container where it does not exist in any part of a container, of any Consciousness that contains the "I" of another CONSCIOUSNESS that also does not contain any existing "I" that is also inside a non-existent illusion.
How many non-existent illusions are there...? 

Within those illusions, exists real CONSCIOUSNESS that SEES the illusion because it too is CONSCIOUSNESS.

"Within illusions there are ONLY illusions.  The CONSCIOUSNESS, DOES NOT SEE the illusion because to "see" it THE CONSCIOUSNESS, would have to be part of the illusion. This NEVER happened, happens, nor will happen.

Real CONSCIOUSNESS knows that it is beyond the body, beyond the I and beyond the reflected illusion from other CONSCIOUSNESSES, therefore it SEES the nothingness of the illusion.

Notice that here you express it correctly and yet in the above statement you are contradicting what you assert here. That is, If you say that CONSCIOUSNESS, SEES the nothingness of illusion, by definition that which is nothing, DOES NOT exist. Therefore, CONSCIOUSNESS SEES CONSCIOUSNESS; that is, it IS only VISION.

Division begins with the formation of an I.

Correct. And the formation of the "I" arises from the idea that the "I" can create itself; here we can say that there is a problem of authorship. That is, an "illusion" has NO capacity for creation since, it cannot "create" anything REAL. Ergo, REAILITY can only "create" REALITY (we must remember that when we speak of "creation" of REALITY, it has nothing to do with subjects or objects, be these universes, multiverses or any name that defines it) Nevertheless, the "I" in its "fantasies, falsely believes that it is a creator" and in its arrogance affirms that it created itself.

The point of attention of the conscious being, either from the illusionary “I” or of REAL CONSCIOUSNESS, is a choice. One should be aware of which one it is consciously operating in before they continue down any path. This choice is deceptive to find and cannot be fully considered from the perspective of an I because it is an illusion. Both are present, yet only one is real.

This is correct, always from the level of illusion. But on the level of ABSOLUTE CONSCIOUSNESS the choice never occurred because CONSCIOUSNESS, does not contain the illusion and NEVER got immersed in any dream.  That is, when you are dreaming during the night, all the choices that the "character" of the dream makes within the events that occur during the dream, are all per se the fruit of the dream itself and all are illusory. Every decision you make is always implicit in the question, what do I want? You answer it every minute, every second, and every decision you make is a choice that always has only two consequences: to wake up or to continue dreaming.   Both choices being made within the dream are illusory as well. Illusory ideas are not real decisions in themselves but only one choice, even if it is illusory, is the correct one and it is the one that leads you to the GREAT AWAKENING. Once you wake up, the great paradox is understood. It was never necessary to awaken from any dream, because the dream NEVER happened. You never stopped being in the ETERNAL SANCTUARY OF LOVE AND NEVER LEFT HOME IN SEARCH OF A DREAM.

---

I opened the door
and your Presence entered
like a sword,
without asking.

CHARCOtranquilo

Member

Re: THE LIVING WORD

@CHARCOtranquilo

“But now we will go one step further:”

“If the VISION does not see ITSELF, what does the VISION SEE when this "with me" is also not?”

Everything.

“How is this VISION that SEES that nothing is now with me, when this "with me" is also not there?....”

VISION IS always SEEING everything

“From where does this VISION SEE itself, which SEES that nothing is now with me when this "with me" is also not?....”

VISION sees from everything and from everywhere. So, the VISION of a cat, dog, mouse, human (EXSITIR) is the same, it SEES. Even from plants and microbes, VISION SEES. CONSCIOUSNESS would then SEE everything, not from the perspective of the animal, but from the perspective of SEEING.

“How does this VISION become VISION when absolutely nothing is now with me, when this "with me" is also not there?....”

VISION was always there and Is always there NOW.

Once this is known, it cannot be unknown.

You correctly infer the answer to the proposition within the realm of logic. But realize that this "ALL" is an answer that is a product of the mind. This "ALL" you are still seeing as a "thought" of that which represents to the "I" ALL". In other words, it is the mind "I"-JimiPickle that is responding to these propositions.
This does not mean that didactically your answers are wrong. It does mean that you are still asking the question from the wrong place, which is the "I" seeking an intellectual answer that coherently satisfies the question.
Don't worry, this is completely normal. We have all gone through this stage. It is practically unavoidable.
Remember what I am pointing out to you now: "When the answer comes" this answer will come only from a NON-ANSWER.

PRATICA
Okay, now let's go to that "ALL", that you think it, but in reality you are NOT SEEING it yet.
Who says you "see" this ALL?
What was there BEFORE this ALL?
Who was there BEFORE this ALL?
But, above all, contemplate this I am going to tell you: If you are BEFORE this "ALL", from what place in your mind are you placing yourself to ask the question? And above all, from what place in your mind can you receive the answer? 

Last edited by CHARCOtranquilo (2022-02-14 20:31:25)

---

I opened the door
and your Presence entered
like a sword,
without asking.

CHARCOtranquilo

Member

Re: THE LIVING WORD

Question to you my friend,

If VISION Sees what is not with me, then, it also SEES what is WITH ME, correct?

That's right, congratulations on this deduction.

The VISION SEES both the absence of what was not "with me", and both its "presence" of what was with me.  But, both its "presence and its absence" WERE NOT "WITH ME".

  Is there LIGHT in the DARKNESS? Is DARKNESS SEEN?

Neither one nor the other.

VISION=CONSCIOUSNESS KNOWS, KNOWING IS UNDERSTANDING, IT IS EVERYTHING that is WITH ME, correct?

Correct.

LOVE, even in the pursuit of KNOWING this, LOVE WITH ME, correct?

Correct.

---

I opened the door
and your Presence entered
like a sword,
without asking.

JimiPickle

Member

Re: THE LIVING WORD

PRATICA
, questions asked in “”

“Okay, now let's go to that "ALL", that you think it, but in reality you are NOT SEEING it yet.
Who says you "see" this ALL?”

The I/mind

“
What was there BEFORE this ALL?”

CONSCIOUSNESS

“
Who was there BEFORE this ALL?”

THERE IS NO WAY TO ASK THIS QUESTION. Additionally, there is now way to answer this question, for the question and answer would only divide CONSCIOUSNESS and IT cannot be divided. The proof is in the “I” that is formed to seek this imposition. The I tries to divide what cannot be divided and what is formed is duality, illusion.

“
But, above all, contemplate this I am going to tell you: If you are BEFORE this "ALL", from what place in your mind are you placing yourself to ask the question? And above all, from what place in your mind can you receive the answer?”

The I/mind, which is not, and CONSCIOUSNESS cannot divide itself. IT SEES this too; but this is not a problem…because CONSCIOUSNESS IS.

Last edited by JimiPickle (2022-02-15 21:57:32)

JimiPickle

Member

Re: THE LIVING WORD

@CHARCOtranquillo,

JimiPickle wrote:
  Is there LIGHT in the DARKNESS? Is DARKNESS SEEN?

CHARCOtranquillo wrote,

Neither one nor the other.

Jimipickle wrote,

Light/dark=division, duality. The I’s divided. illusion.

CHARCOtranquilo

Member

Re: THE LIVING WORD

So when I sees this, what shall it do? End the experience? Modify the experience, or continue the experience unabated to experience the journey of the illusion for the sake of the experience of the experience.

Doesn’t the illusion continue? Will CONSCIOUSNESS not see/SEE/see/SEE it if it is always SEEING?

In this link, I developed a series of items that succinctly describe some of the characteristic "symptoms" that occur when the Great Awakening occurs.

As you will see, there are 10 items divided in "two planes". The relative one that refers to the worldly plane or let's say the "dream" and the "plane of the ABSOLUTE, which refers to that which represents Reality.

To clarify that I have developed 10 items, not because they are exclusively 10 in each plane, but because they are the most representative. However, it is important to keep in mind that this is not intended to be established as a decalogue in which all those who complete the Great Awakening, have to be reflected in all items. It only fulfills a descriptive function and is fundamentally orientative.

So, take it only as one more description within this dream. Therefore, its value is only valid within the dream. Because the ABSOLUTE CONSCIOUSNESS is beyond these descriptions which are only shadows of what they are trying to point out.

On the other hand, when the Understanding of this Great Awakening takes place, in your personal case, I cannot know how it will later influence how you will manage the vicissitudes of life from that moment on. What I can assure you is that your "life will be simplified and this will be reflected in your personal and social relationships. You will see that on the outside everything will remain exactly the same, that is, this dream will continue to be as deeply dysfunctional and neurotic as it has always been, is, and will be. But "inwardly" only you will notice this change of perception that involves seeing "that the "I" was only an illusion.  This means that everything that up to that moment were the pillars where all your beliefs were based will be razed to their deepest foundations. In spite of this image may induce a certain fear, on the contrary, your "life" will be vivified in a fullness that will oceanically flood your whole being and this will mean with inescapable certainty that you have returned to the HOME from which you NEVER left.

I respond to your expressions of gratitude by simply expressing that in this journey, we are both pilgrims whose paths have crossed so that Love can reveal itself in all its dimension.

https://forum.swaruu.org/viewtopic.php?id=1513

https://forum.swaruu.org/viewtopic.php?id=1514

---

I opened the door
and your Presence entered
like a sword,
without asking.

JimiPickle

Member

Re: THE LIVING WORD

@CHARCOtranquillo

I once told his wife about the world he saw while walking his paths and how it was not as it appears.
I thought he could find the right path to navigate to the right world.
I could not find the path, for each one found was not as it appeared.
I was on a path…

The journey HOME that was never left. Beautiful.

Post 1513/1514 are very interesting…see you there?

JimiPickle

Member

Re: THE LIVING WORD

Post 1513… These symptoms of awakening are appearing now. The illusion is still there, too, but it is seen, known and understood as an illusion. The reason this is SEEN exists in the dialog of THE LIVING WORD.

Last edited by JimiPickle (2022-02-17 00:49:06)

CHARCOtranquilo

Member

Re: THE LIVING WORD

“Who was there BEFORE this ALL?”

THERE IS NO WAY TO ASK THIS QUESTION. Additionally, there is now way to answer this question, for the question and answer would only divide CONSCIOUSNESS and IT cannot be divided. The proof is in the “I” that is formed to seek this imposition. The I tries to divide what cannot be divided and what is formed is duality, illusion.

Your insight, in the face of this question, has honestly exceeded my expectations. Few are those who realize that the proposition leaves the "mind" without an answer. And few others realize that in trying to give an answer from the "mind" one can only get an answer by viewing the question and the answer as a linear process in time where first the question is asked and then in a process in time the answer is received. The "I" when contemplating itself divided, this fractionation, generates the idea of time. This is the reason why this fragmented condition of the "I" that could not see that the question and the answer are in ABOSLUTE UNITY and operates outside of time.

What does this mean? That one has to realize:

1. that the "mind" could NOT get the answer.
2. That the question was NEVER, EVER formulated BEFORE that "ALL".
3. That the answer has already been given BEFORE that "ALL" and the answer was NEVER needed.

In the face of these three premises, the only thing left to do is to give up in the face of the impossibility of finding a logical answer to the question. That is why, although logic becomes necessary to establish a logic within each propositional exercise that requires the exercise of inference. It is also true that logic finds its limits as the proposition becomes contemplatively more abstract in its timelessness. In other words, logic is the immaturity that weaves its spider's web to trap the "monster" of knowledge. But the spider's web cannot trap within its own webs, the space over which it is immersed. And this metaphor literally describes what happens to the "mind" (the spider's web) when it tries to trap within the spider webs of its thoughts that which is BEFORE that "ALL".

But this claudication should not be confused with the abandonment of the practice, in the face of the impossibility of not being able to give an answer that ultimately DOES NOT DEPEND ON THE MIND. And this is where DEVOTION comes into play. That is to say, one realizes that the "mind" could not offer an answer to such a propositional enigma, so that, in such a circumstance, it becomes evident that the answer does NOT depend on us, that is to say, on the "I". This NOT knowing is what activates the devotion where it is humbly recognized that this "I" does NOT know. 

This is why in the practice of this exercise I made the following point: 

What was there BEFORE this "ALL" and... from what place in your mind are you placing yourself to ask the question? And above all, from what place in your mind can you receive the answer?"
What has to cease altogether is to seek a mental answer to the proposition. It has to cease also any imagination of what it might be like to SEE, before it is "ALL". That BEFORE that "ALL" is where one must settle down and let the very devotion one LOVES, that BEFORE that ALL, flood into that BEFORE, where "you" are NOT.

---

I opened the door
and your Presence entered
like a sword,
without asking.

JimiPickle

Member

Re: THE LIVING WORD

Well, this exceeded my expectations, also.

“I do not know” what a interesting statement that is seen/Seen, What to do when it is understood…to run from the world the I created, which would be division, or stay and find a way forward, which is, now? Facing division and formulating a question in the face of division from other I’s will create further division…what does CONSCIOUSNESS do, when IT is found by an illusion that IT does not see with IT because it is from an illusion? Understanding that IT does not do anything. Why does the EXISTIR REMAIN?

The division of all is an illusion; and continues…CONSCIOUSNESS KNOWS it is an illusion of division and duality formed from division, upon division, upon division…is still an illusion where something is existing.? There is that EXISTIR fellow, again. 

What shall be done? 1513?

1514, then is something else…

Last edited by JimiPickle (2022-02-18 19:18:35)

JimiPickle

Member

Re: THE LIVING WORD

@quietpuddle, one of our original conversations was a about real vs illusion. This starts with the Existir, if the Existir is under the illusion that the mind owns consciousness and therefore the ruler over the Existir, then that Existir is not real, illusion. How can this be known? Post 89. If the mind is incapable of answering the question, even forming the question, and something was before this mind, then the mind/I are not real, illusion. The minds division from CONSCIOUSNESS is SEEN.

If the Existir recognizes the true act of CONSCIOUSNESS as with him and Unites with CONSCIOUSNESS through Love, then that Existir is real but still part of the illusion and illusionary by the aspect of being separated from CONSCIOUSNESS, yet CONSCIOUSNESS is still with Him.

Unity and Love, too, are living words, correct?
If you divide either, they are not living, the division will form duality, illusion.

CHARCOtranquilo

Member

Re: THE LIVING WORD

@quietpuddle, one of our original conversations was a about real vs illusion. This starts with the Existir, if the Existir is under the illusion that the mind owns consciousness and therefore the ruler over the Existir, then that Existir is not real, illusion. How can this be known?

Let's differentiate "EXIST" with "eseity". Remember that these are only rhetorical references where we establish definitions of a terminology necessary to be able to understand each other, but that they do not represent by themselves the reality towards which they point or try to explain. Therefore, the meaning of their meaning is mainly context.

EXISTIR: represents the level of the UNCONDITIONED ABSOLUTE, "THE SOURCE", "CONSCIOUSNESS". This EXISTIR, is what we could determine as Pure Abstract Consciousness, ABSENT of all thought. But this EXISTING does not refer to the sense of existing, such as the "I" or "sensation of existing" as a self-conscious identity, (i.e. thinking and reflective), that it exists because it is alive and APPEARS, having a volition and own choice of its own acts that give a sense of continuity within time. That is to say, the idea of "existence" from birth to death, which belongs to the world of dream or illusion. This is what we may call "eseidad". Note: (I do not know if the automatic translator will correctly establish the difference between these two terms: "EXISTIR" and "eseidad").

So, yes, the illusion or the "dream" begins with the sensation of eseity ("I") and this sensation of "eseity" is thought by the "mind" that says: "I exist" and this is what in psychology is called "self-consciousness". Now your question is how can I know that this "Existing" is not real?..... When you make real the "understanding" that the "I" does not exist as a real entity, but as a psychological construct and this is not simply an intellectual understanding, but a "direct experience" that does not pass through the filters of thought, the discernment that this selfhood is illusory will emerge. But there is more. Something that is unspeakable will emerge, which is the absolute certainty that EXISTIR does not need the "I" to EXIST. And here there is no middle ground. It is not a progressive SEEING of an accumulation of glimpses. It is a revelation, instantaneous and radically absolute in its completeness and fullness. That is to say, THAT is either SEEN or it is not seen.

Post 89. If the mind is incapable of answering the question, even forming the question, and something was before this mind, then the mind/I are not real, illusion. The minds division from CONSCIOUSNESS is SEEN.

Yes, it is correct in the first statement of the paragraph. But, keep in mind, that which is BEFORE, of that ALL, does not SEE division into NOTHING. This SEEING, is not a "seeing" of something/someone that "sees". This SEEING, has no observer. IT IS ONLY UNCONDITIONED VISION.

Who else was "with me", BEFORE, of this everything?.....

How do you make you find yourself BEFORE this ALL?....

Is any division of "yourself" "seen", BEFORE, this ALL?....

How does the VISION see the VISION if there is no division in this SEEING?

Realize, that every interrogative proposition that points you to this BEFORE this ALL, summons you DIRECTLY, to the TRUE VISION of what you ARE. This proposition is not saying that nothingness exists and that you are nothingness. NO. This proposition points you to everything that was not there when absolutely nothing was/is. If when you try to "contemplate" yourself BEFORE this ALL, and you still see "nothing" it is because still the "I" is seen through the idea of death. The proposition does not deny THE EXISTING, what it denies, is that the illusion or illusory world is NEVER with you. But this with you is ALWAYS is NOW. It is always SEEN. It doesn't matter, whether you are in the waking state, dreaming dreams, or in deep sleep.

PS:. I apologize for not being able to respond more quickly, as personal situations require my full attention. Now I have been able to find a space, to be able to answer you. This is why my interventions are being delayed in time.

---

I opened the door
and your Presence entered
like a sword,
without asking.

JimiPickle

Member

Re: THE LIVING WORD

“ PS:. I apologize for not being able to respond more quickly, as personal situations require my full attention. Now I have been able to find a space, to be able to answer you. This is why my interventions are being delayed in time.”

Me too.

The terms, eseity, eseidad, and Existir are agreeable as rhetorical references.

“CHARCOtranquilo stated, Realize, that every interrogative proposition that points you to this BEFORE this ALL, summons you DIRECTLY, to the TRUE VISION of what you ARE. This proposition is not saying that nothingness exists and that you are nothingness. NO. This proposition points you to everything that was not there when absolutely nothing was/is. If when you try to "contemplate" yourself BEFORE this ALL, and you still see "nothing" it is because still the "I" is seen through the idea of death. The proposition does not deny THE EXISTING, what it denies, is that the illusion or illusory world is NEVER with you. But this with you is ALWAYS is NOW.”

The Existir not needing the I to exist is agreeable, however how this is Seen as remarkable. Seeing no need for the “I” by seeing the division that separates the eseity/ eseidad from Existir. This includes the body the eseity thinks is existence. Seeing this does not mean anything as VISION is still with me, seeing the eseidad, which is not with me.

TRUE VISION of what you ARE…this, too, is sought.

Apologies for my delay, which is fluid and changes often…

CHARCOtranquilo

Member

Re: THE LIVING WORD

@JimiPickle

How is it to SEE itself when nothing is, before this "ALL".

Exactly, as the present absence of witnessing that SEES that nothing of the world/universe was/is; that which SEES itself without birth or death.

It is an Oceanness where no water witnesses no water. Where no water ever wonders what its form would be if it were a sea or a river, or rain, or snow. That knows of itself that there was/is no beginning nor an end of that which is SEEN before this "ALL".
What is it like to see oneself without an "I"?

Exactly it is SEEN as VISION of oneself seeing oneself from no outside or from no inside. That is there is no "I" seeing Self from outside or from within the VISION itself.

Is there anything in your VISION of yourself that prevents you from seeing yourself? This proposition is not telling you to look for a someone who "sees" in the VISION or from the VISION. This proposition is telling you that you ARE ONLY VISION that does not need to be found in any "from" or in any "where". How are you going to find that which is always perfectly found if you have never left or entered this VISION ON VISION? If you yourself are not THAT, you cannot see yourself. In VISION upon VISION only THAT is SEEN.

How could the VISION turn back on ITSELF, and say that it has found another "different vision" other than just the VISION itself?

This is the answer to the question, "How...?"

PRACTICE:

Throughout the day in the course of your daily activities stop for a moment and observe everything around you and locate any object in your environment that catches your attention.

If it is a tree, for example, make the following propositions:

Do "you" see "you" me? What are "you" of "me" when "I" do not witness you? How is it looking that you were not there?

Choose one of the three interrogatives. You do not need to apply all three interrogations to the same object. However, if you think it is necessary, for whatever reason, that you need to make all three questions or two questions for the same object, do not hesitate to do so. It is important that the practice does not become a ritual.

Do not make any distinction between people and objects or animals. For bodies are in the same rank as objects, since what you consider as your body as well as a tree cannot "see" you either.

Try as much as possible, to perform this practice as many times as possible throughout the day so that your mind is as long as possible being aware of everything around you when something catches your attention.

---

I opened the door
and your Presence entered
like a sword,
without asking.

JimiPickle

Member

Re: THE LIVING WORD

CONSCIOUSNESS SEES. This is Seen. Yet there is a disconnection between object seen and the Knowing that it is CONSCIOUSNESS. There is no difference between eseities; only division of consciousness can create classes of sub-consciousnesses; which is done to great extent.

This still does not explain the “How”…how does CONSCIOUSNESS SEE, yet the eseity does not see this SEEING from other eseities? How is it that we see this SEEING yet cannot SEE each other? What divides us? How is that so? From the ABSOLUTE their is no division, yet from the eseity perspective, we are all different and even seen as trash, junk, clutter, food…etc. These perspectives change when one asks these practice questions from KNOWING CONSCIOUSNESS IS.

Thank you for the excellent questions.

JimiPickle

Member

Re: THE LIVING WORD

@CHARCOtranquilo,
When considering the oneness of The Absolute and It sees you as you as me, as one, then every experience, every act by the eseity is a reflection of what is to be experienced. The eseidad, then, is not random. CONSCIOUSNESS/ABSOLUTE SEES, KNOWS and UNDERSTANDS and IT KNOWS this before it is experienced in the eseidad. Knowing this, from the eseity perspective, from duality, is both terrifying and liberating. The terrifying part is the death of the mind/I, yet the liberating part reveals that my perspective as an eseity IS. However, if the eseity remains under the influence of mind/I/ego, that experience will not been seen as “with” the ABSOLUTE.

Great questions

CHARCOtranquilo

Member

Re: THE LIVING WORD

@CHARCOtranquilo,
When considering the oneness of The Absolute and It sees you as you as me, as one, then every experience, every act by the eseity is a reflection of what is to be experienced. The eseidad, then, is not random. CONSCIOUSNESS/ABSOLUTE SEES, KNOWS and UNDERSTANDS and IT KNOWS this before it is experienced in the eseidad.

The ABSOLUTE, never knows Itself for another, that is why It does NOT see "you", nor "me". Paradoxically, this "knowing" is the absence of all "knowledge".  The CONSCIOUSNESS does not need to "know" itself in order to refer to itself as CONSCIOUSNESS. Why does the CONSCIOUSNESS not need to refer to itself? Because it does NOT seek itself from any "where", "when", "why", "how" and from any "who" because the idea "I" does not exist.  That is to say, using an analogy when you try to understand how is this seeing without "I" it is as if the "eye" tries to see itself "from outside of itself" to recognize itself as "eye" that "is seeing". But this is impossible for the eye.  But, nevertheless, if the "eye" could perform this operation of going "outside itself" to see itself as an eye, it would not see a physical eye, it would SEE ONLY TOTAL VISION WITHOUT THE EYE. 

When you see your two eyes reflected in the mirror, do they see you? Does your vision that sees your two eyes reflected in the mirror, have any vision of you? It is evident, that those eyes that "you see reflected in the mirror", they, have no vision of you. It is only a mirror image absent of vision, absent of all consciousness. But if those eyes reflected in the mirror could see you, they could not see themselves. That is, they would be only "vision of seeing". Just as you, when you see the mirror returns the reflection of your eyes, it is the vision that sees, it is never the eye that "sees".  Likewise, the CONSCIOUSNESS never "sees" outside of itself. That is to say, VISION, has never gone outside of "Itself".

We can also use the sensation of eseity, as a self-reference to exemplify what was said above, (keeping in mind the difference between "EXISTING", and "eseity"):

That is, now that you are conscious of this eseity or sensation of being, without using the idea "I exist" or "I am", that is, this sensation of self-consciousness "I", if you try to search for its origin, its beginning, its genesis, you cannot determine from any place of that eseity without using the idea "I" where its genesis is. And you cannot determine its genesis, that is, where it arises from, because, the selfhood, it cannot see itself. That is, it is not self-referential.  But, however, that does not determine that it is not self-conscious.

In reality, it is not that it exists in itself, a "how to see itself" absent from this "I". It is that the "how" is never from any "someone" who sees it from a "how".

---

I opened the door
and your Presence entered
like a sword,
without asking.

JimiPickle

Member

Re: THE LIVING WORD

Why does the CONSCIOUSNESS not need to refer to itself? Because it does NOT seek itself from any "where", "when", "why", "how" and from any "who" because the idea "I" does not exist.

So, then, does CONSCIOUSNESS seek anything?

Or, if CONSCIOUSNESS is potential, what should determine what is sought? If CONSCIOUSNESS is not seeking itself from any descriptor, then why should we? Instead, we should be seeking what? When the eseity stops seeking the neurotic desires of I and the illusion created by the I, what then shall the eseity do? What would happen to the illusion?

Thank you for this insight.

JimiPickle

Member

Re: THE LIVING WORD

There is no separation from me to the objects seen and to question wether or not they see me only separates me from them. While everything feels solid to the touch or has a shape seen by the eyes or makes sounds heard by the ear does not mean those shapes, sounds or touch is separate from me. Realizing this is a wonderful sensation and frees oneself to enjoy the experience of being…just being and accepting what arises as if in a video game to be played. Questioning this or that will only create separation, duality and suffering, which is available to experience if one chooses. We are seeing our characters in a play…play! If one wishes to play the game of conspiracy, politics, finance, esoteric wonders, spiritual journeys or just to ride a bike, it is all possible.

Sorry for the delay…got caught up in some self imposed suffering

CHARCOtranquilo

Member

Re: THE LIVING WORD

There is no separation from me to the objects seen and to question wether or not they see me only separates me from them. While everything feels solid to the touch or has a shape seen by the eyes or makes sounds heard by the ear does not mean those shapes, sounds or touch is separate from me.

Hi Jim
I am not forgetting our work. 

Certainly, "there is no separation between the seer and the seen". But this "looking" with which you still "see" that says that "there is no separation between "seen objects", is still conditioned, by "someone who says he "sees". This is still a deception of the mind. Therefore, today we will go one step further in VISION.

Vision is NEVER "seen" through objects. Vision to be VISION is not contained by any object. Nor can any object see VISION because no object is VISION of "itself". In other words; VISION is ALWAYS EMPTY of objects, because no object is the cause of VISION. Likewise, VISION never merges with any object/subject because ultimately no object has ever submerged or emerged from VISION. Its emptiness is unalterable.

The fact that "you" are still NOT "seeing" it is the following:
"you" still "include yourself IN VISION" because you "understand yourself" as an object-idea that believes it sees and this idea is what "prevents" you from "understanding yourself" as what really IS: VISION UPON VISION ABSENT OF ANY OBJECT/SUBJECT.

Only THAT sees. Nothing else ever SEES anything. Only THAT sees THAT. It never intervenes no "how? There is absolutely nothing but THAT seeing. And what THAT SEES is always only THAT. THAT always sees only THAT.

VISION cannot turn on itself and see.  LOVE cannot turn upon itself and see.  But if they could turn upon themselves, they would see only THAT.

The question "What is that "with me" that remains when absolutely nothing IS?  CANNOT see us. But if it could turn in on itself it would see only THAT.

The senses cannot see us. The mind cannot see us. The soul cannot see us. The intellect cannot see us. But if they could turn back upon themselves they would SEE only THAT.  That alone IS visible, only, from THAT.

Last edited by CHARCOtranquilo (2022-03-30 18:56:15)

---

I opened the door
and your Presence entered
like a sword,
without asking.

JimiPickle

Member

Re: THE LIVING WORD

So, what is Seen by this eseity. We, eseities, are eating ourselves and fighting for every bite. What was naturally living is consumed and the ground in which life stood is pounded by the will of what consumed that space in an attempt to build back something that it created for the space…in vain. Vision has no need to see this. Vision over Vision would not see this ignorance, the ignorance of destroying what lives to make room for the one that dominates what once lived.

Where this eseity lives was once beautiful, self sustaining yet ever changing from season to season. Everything had balance, that is, until the greed of one species, to include this eseity, chose, chose! to destroy what was living there to place upon that very space something that is unnatural and cannot sustain itself without constant effort to fight back the life that once previously lived there. More and more destructive forces are applied to the totality of the space available to continue this madness. The lives, beliefs and efforts of this species, to include this eseity, should not be seen as it has separated itself from the totality of life in an attempt to create its on space to which it cannot.

The life of this eseity spent in pursuit of the belief that it could create it own way forward while destroying what was living should not be seen by this Vision. To continue this way should not be seen by Vision. To communicate this, to suffer this separation should not be seen by Vision.  To live…with the consciousness of everything that shares this space should be Seen by Vision.

Is this SEEING WITH VISION OVER VISION? Or at least with VISION over vision?

At the same time, there is the seeing that there is no me. None of what was said above IS. The knowledge, once held by the eseity no longer matters. The comments made on other post no longer make any sense because they never were. There is no seeking for enlightenment, no seeking of making sense of of anything, yet there is a seeking to see, know and understand what you have shown me.

The ones closest to me think there is something wrong with me…they are not wrong, but they do not see why…

Last edited by JimiPickle (2022-03-30 17:24:52)

JimiPickle

Member

Re: THE LIVING WORD

Whoa, wait a minute. There is no me to do anything. So, to seek this or that cannot be because there is no doer to seek anything, to think there is a me to do something is the illusion. The mind/I thinking it does this or that is an illusion.

To ask the question of “why” this happens is the mind/I seeking to understand what it cannot understand; if there is no doer then to believe “I” can do anything is an illusion.

This is THAT, correct? Even to seek this validation does not exist.

CHARCOtranquilo

Member

Re: THE LIVING WORD

@JimiPickle

... And we keep silent...

---

I opened the door
and your Presence entered
like a sword,
without asking.