Yes, the key to all of this discussion is self, the I that isn’t. When you take him out of the picture, everything gets very clear and very unclear at the same time. The very clear part is that which is, what we are calling awareness, the formless, whatever you want to call it. What becomes unclear is everything else. Well, I should say unclear to the mind.

Actually, it isn’t that it is unclear, it just becomes quite unknown. The “me”, ego, mind, whatever, as you spoke of in your comment, can generate a lot of information about the world of form, about what is seen, heard, etc. But what you are knows it just isn’t so.

I have to say, in a sort of full disclosure, that the realization that has happened to “me” isn’t complete. A big part came recently, but it is not full. I can feel that, sense that. There’s a part missing. Adyashanti talks about the two parts to realization: the “no me” part and the “it’s all one” part. (Again, these are just words to explain…. you get the picture.) The “oneness” part is the missing piece. I think.

So it is interesting watching the “me” rise and fall, almost like a wave. At moments I will be very much me again, talking with someone, saying things with utter conviction. And then the wave shifts and, oh, yeah, right, and there’s no one here, no doer, no talker, no writer. And the funny part is, when the wave shifts, I’m completely clear that even when I was “me” I wasn’t. Nothing was there the whole time. It’s a fun ride.

And, yes, there may not be such a thing as partial realization, but funny thing is how very entrenched certain ideas get in certain schools of thought, and yet experience will just shred those ideas. I would have told you a year ago that people “wake-up” fully in a spontaneous flash of light. Kind of like your experience. But then, here I sit, experiencing what I’m experiencing, and attempting to put words to it. Ain’t life just a trip?

I’m enjoying your blog, Takuin. I will keep reading and hopefully contributing. I can relate to your comment about coming out of the cave. I’ve made some nice connections thus far.

I’ll go into this as it happens:

Little “r” reality is, in this schema, the projection or expression of Big “R” Reality. It is what I see with my eyes, hear with me ears, touch, taste and smell. For all intents and purposes, reality is the only reality they pay any attention to. It is what I called the world of form.

So, as you said in your comment, awareness is equivalent to Reality. Awareness, as I use the term, is seeing without a seer. Or if you like, lack of a self or center that interprets or identifies with what it sees. (I am just trying to get a handle on the words so we can meet.)

Ah, I think I get it now. You said:

It is what I see with my eyes, hear with me ears, touch, taste and smell.

If I were to write the same sentence, it would read:

It is what is seen with eyes, heard with ears, touched, tasted, and smelled, BUT, no one is there to see, hear, touch, taste, or smell anything.

I think my problem might have been a lack of ability to create someone that is seeing. That might be why I didn’t understand what you meant.

It might sound circuitous or just plain nutty, but when I look about, there is absolutely no way of knowing what I am seeing. I may have the knowledge; I may understand that I am looking at a flower, but having the knowledge has nothing to do with seeing the flower. Perhaps more than most anyone, you probably know what I am trying to express here.

If I look in the mirror (I and not “I”) someone is seen. Previous knowledge says what or who it might be. But I really have no way of knowing any of that. Sure, there is a name attributed to this organism for the purposes of identification. But it doesn’t really matter unless someone uses that name.

Ah, I think we are in the same room now…

While the formless is always here, always exactly the same as what I see and hear, and simple appearing as what I see and hear, it is also simultaneously beyond the form, beyond what I see and hear.

I have said the same with different words:

If “I” see it, it is nothing. But if it is seen, it is everything.

Of course, it is not possible to know the formless, because if it is known, it is not formless. Besides, who is going to know it? But that is a limitation of the language.

I’m not really sure where I’m going with this (as I said before, I’m having a touch of difficultly lately keeping involved in discussions like this), but I think I simply wanted to make clear that playing around with the world that we see, hear and touch and treating it as the entirety of Reality is off the mark. There’s more to Reality than meets the human eye.

There certainly is more to Reality than meets the eye (the “I”). And the more is Reality.

This is certainly great. I am having a most comfortable time through this interaction with you. I appreciate all of your participation and look forward to whatever replies you might have.

I have difficulty with these discussions on other people’s blogs as well. I am absolutely terrible about leaving comments. Even with my strongest cyber-relations. But it is probably time for me to poke my head around out there and meet some new folks. If not for fun or for new contacts, just to get out of the cave and stretch one’s legs.

Thanks again.

As for Reality vs reality: of course, I’m using words, discussing duality where none exists, etc. Disclaimer, etc, there are not 2 realities. So, that said, Reality to me is a term to be used for God. Alternates are awareness, presence, Now (Eckhart Tolle), Truth, the Formless, the Unborn, you name it.

Little “r” reality is, in this schema, the projection or expression of Big “R” Reality. It is what I see with my eyes, hear with me ears, touch, taste and smell. For all intents and purposes, reality is the only reality they pay any attention to. It is what I called the world of form.

As I read your article and comments, it seemed to me that you were discussing reality as little r reality. The world of form. That is the world Fred Wolf and all scientists deal with. Except, in the case of Wolf and others, they are trying to get a handle on the totality of existence via investigating the expression of Reality. They are trying to get outside of their experience by investigating the experience. And in my experience, that is not possible.

To know the formless is to step outside of our normal sensory experience. While the formless is always here, always exactly the same as what I see and hear, and simple appearing as what I see and hear, it is also simultaneously beyond the form, beyond what I see and hear. To look at a car or a cup and say “that is reality” without seeing Reality and knowing i as one with the seer, that is not seeing the totality of things. There’s more to the story, as you know.

I’m not really sure where I’m going with this (as I said before, I’m having a touch of difficultly lately keeping involved in discussions like this), but I think I simply wanted to make clear that playing around with the world that we see, hear and touch and treating it as the entirety of Reality is off the mark. There’s more to Reality than meets the human eye.

Thanks for your input of the posting frequency. I have been thinking more or less the same thing these days.

I finally see what you are calling reality. I was reading your post as if you were talking about Reality. Small r reality in this context is the world of form, of appearance.

I am not sure what you mean. When you say Reality vs. reality, what exactly is the difference? I am sure there are various definitions out there, but I really don’t read any of that. I assume that one is as I described it, and the other is a projected image of some sort, but I’d rather not assume anything.

I liked your recent bipolar article, by the way. I think many people will receive great benefit from your future articles.

After reading all the comments, I finally see what you are calling reality. I was reading your post as if you were talking about Reality. Small r reality in this context is the world of form, of appearance. The stuff that Fred Wolf & Dr Quantum play around with. I know Wolf gets quite metaphysical, but ultimately physics and science will always being looking “out” from reality trying to see Reality. And that, to my way of seeing, will never work. The world of form can never see out to the formless.

Well, so I say. You know, funny thing. Lately I’ve been finding myself able to engage in discussions and debates, but then finally just admitting that “I don’t know” and leaving it at that. So, maybe I should just stop now, huh?

As for comments on my blog: I see no patterns whatsoever. I really have only been writing for about 2 months (well, on this blog, which has comments), and no trends are discernible. The “wisdom” in the blog community is give space between postings for people to comment. I think I need a bigger audience to see what happens. I have noticed, though, that I post and then there seems to be a 2-3 day “lag” of sorts. I’ve noticed that I might get stumbled and then my traffic builds for 2 days and then drops.

So, Takuin, with regard to frequency of posting, I would have to vote for 2-4 posts per week. You have long, dense posts. If you are writing more than 500 words per post, 2-4 per week is probably enough. Of course, I don’t really know. )

Life is found in the experiencing. Why not explore this area and share your experience.

I have thought about this for some time, actually. Not in these exact words, but I have been thinking of changing the way I present the content here.

I write almost constantly, even though I do not post it here. And for the most part, the way I write at home (or Journal, if you like that phrase) is almost the same as how it shows up on this site. But after Mayumi died earlier this month, there was a shift in how I was writing. This wasn’t a conscious decision on my part, but for whatever reason, everything came out as a pure expression. There was no questioning, no in-depth probing of reality; it was all expression. Words flowed as things happened.

That may be more in-line with what you mentioned in your comment, Hampton. I have hesitated writing that way here, but I think it is probably for the best. So, I’ll slowly make the shift from one to the other. That is not to say that I will no longer answer questions and go into things that others pose to me, but the majority of the posts will be of a different expression.

As I sit here now, I am unsure how to do it, but answers usually come through doing. I think, once I sit down to do it, the writing will take care of itself.

There can be no observer without the observed, no observed without the observer. Does awareness give rise to the universe, or the universe gives rise to awareness?

Great comments as always, Hampton.

The observer and the observed are one and the same. But what happens when the observer ceases to be? Great things to meditate on.

I like the questions about awareness and the universe. I would add a question to those two: Is one dependent on the other in any way at all?

There still seems to be an idea that the universe somehow needs us in order to function, but I can see no evidence of this anywhere in nature. It is certainly hard for some people to consider that the universe does not revolve around what they believe. (I am not saying this about YOU, by the way.)

I cannot shape reality. I can shape circumstances, I can make changes in the environment through physical action, but all of my thinking is not going to turn a tree into an aardvark.

Ah, maybe it is necessary to understand what each of us means by the word “reality.” When I use that word I simply mean the world as it is beyond our thoughts and beliefs. It cannot be known in the way we might construct an idea and adopt it as solidified knowledge. We can take the tree, cut it down, and build a chair out of it, but this action is still dependent upon thought. My interest in reality has only to do with what is here outside of what one believes.

Krishnamurti used that word to mean the world of thought, or the world of the image. Byron Katie uses it in a way similar to how I described it. I think for her, reality is the world as it is regardless of the story one tells about it. I love her use of the word, “story.” She is absolutely wonderful, and so funny.

It is a bit of mistake to lump in the gurus with the people that are fighting! I doubt you’d see Esther Hicks or Tony Robbins fighting with anyone. Look at their lives, aren’t they filled with joy and love?

You inadvertently gave me quite a laugh. My first thought was seeing those two duking it out in a boxing ring. Haha. My money is on Robbins, all the way!

But I quite understand what you mean. The whole guru-student problem may be unsolvable. That is, there always seems to be an interpretation of what is said.

A student hears a talk, and will agree or disagree, but they don’t listen. Listening has nothing to do with agreeing and disagreeing. Only listening is listening. If you speak to me, and all the while I am formulating my own replies, I am not listening. I am merely referencing what I believe in contrast to what you believe and am preparing the best weapon to fire at you. And I don’t want to fire a weapon at you. I want to hear you in all of your wonderful expression.

Then we can go to Madison Square Garden and see the revenge grudge match between Robbins and Hicks. I’ll buy the popcorn.

I am curious why you examine these ideas about beliefs but never test them. You question what impact beliefs have, but questioning is the nature of the mind. Life is found in the experiencing. Why not explore this area and share your experience.

I hear you, but I am not sure that I understand completely. (My limitation; not yours.) Questioning is the nature of the mind, as there are no questions independent of thought; i.e. they do not exist in nature. So if one questions something, it must be done with at least some assistance of the brain.

It isn’t necessary to experience a snake bite to understand the danger. Besides, it isn’t as if I am “doing” something to be free of belief. I don’t have to treat someone badly to know how it might affect them. I don’t have to follow a certain religion (or any thought system) to understand how those ideas anchor me in such a way as to limit my perception of reality. All of these things are in the world. All one needs to do is see these things as they are.

But that seems to be the difficulty, doesn’t it.

Thanks again Hampton. If I had a Best Comment award, it would easily go to you. But don’t let that go to your head.

Beliefs and thoughts can create ______? I’m tempted to say more illusion, or more thoughts, but that would imply that beliefs can create! And they can’t, can they?

Perhaps indirectly. It is not as if one has the belief and then it suddenly appears, as if by magic. There is always a person that is doing based on the belief. It is the action that creates. One might ask, “Would the action be taken if the belief wasn’t there?” Probably not. Probably so. We can only say based on what is likely to happen. Or based what is already happening in the world. (I am not really interested in what is likely, anyway.)

If we look into the world, see what kinds of things are happening, it is easy to see where the majority of beliefs lean. We can see this by observing the actions that others take, but there is more to it that just that. It is not your direct thought or belief that causes the suicide bomber to push the button, but it is your thoughts that create the idea of an enemy, or an idea of right retaliation based on our personal hurt, or an idea that somehow destroying others can bring freedom. On some level, your thoughts are the same as the terrorist. (I don’t mean YOU personally, by the way. And I am not saying that you will take the action of destroying others in such a way.)

It is in this way we have the same consciousness. Our beliefs, though they may seem different on the outside, are all the same. There may be different words, different languages, different gods, different societal concerns, but in the end, what it gives to the self is the same. This may or may not be a direct concern of the self. It could also easily be a reactive mechanism that is designed to bring security. But if one sees that there is really no security, if that fact seethes through every pore and flows with the beating of the heart, then the whole thing explodes.

We also share suffering in an interesting way. Our consciousness also contains, more or less, all the knowledge of what has come before. It contains all of the horrors of what we have done to one another, but also, the suffering of loss. The suffering of a widowed husband or wife, mothers that have lost their children to war (or anything else, for that matter), lovers losing their lovers, etc. We can all understand this kind of suffering, but it is not necessarily dependent upon direct experience.

Human beings are connected by this common yet uncommon set of experiences.

One might ask, “If there is all of this suffering from the beginning of time, and we have that within our consciousness, what about all of the wonderful things we experience? That surely must be there as well.” They are, certainly. But it seems, for some reason, we do not take happiness personally. It is always the suffering, the hate, the injustices inflicted upon us that we remember. Happiness is natural, and therefore, too easy to take for granted.

Hmm…that might be a good experiment for some people. For the next 21 days forget about your personal suffering and replace it with only good experiences. I can hear it already, “That is not practical!” Well, neither is doing it the other way around, but we have no problem doing that, now do we?

On a personal note, Tom, have you noticed a relationship on your blog between posting frequency and the amount of comments you receive?

Thanks for commenting.