From Ozren, at the announcement of the commencement for this series:
Maybe you could start with “Being.” What is this Being “thing?”
Initially, I was not going to include this entry into the A to Z of Being because it is generally understood. I have never really been asked about it in the past. Besides, people usually relegate being to the background in favor of Awareness, Consciousness, or other seemingly more important words.
Well, after receiving more than a few recent requests for this, I decided to drop it in.
What is Being?
We generally think of this word as the existence of something (usually, but not always, a human). Or something conceivable as existing or as actually existing.
Acolytes of the belief systems known as Subjective or Objective Realities (SR and OR, respectively) love to argue about this.
“I believe that nothing exists without my point of view!”
“No, you are wrong! I believe things exist without your point of view!”
Yawn.
(If you want to see this kind of argument in action, head over to the Steve Pavlina Forums. You’ll get all the SR and OR you can stand.)
SR and OR aside, being is thought of as simple existence. Some might say that as they turn the corner, whatever appears comes into being. I can understand that. And that is very close to what happens in liberation.
Being in Liberation
Simply put, Being is: the functioning of the organism in awareness.
Being is, in fact, what is.
If one is aware, then being is all there is. There may be one thousand things happening at any given time, but in awareness, it is all being.
In awareness, with no center or anchor, no story or prejudice, there is only what is. The “what is” in question, is being.
You might hear other speakers on non-duality or enlightenment say, “everything is being.” Or, “there is only being-ness.” I agree with that, even though I still question it.
One might ask, “If being is everything, why should it be a function of the organism?” Good question.
Because our bodies are the experience-rs of reality. Like or not, day in and day out, all of the sensory perceptions are a part of this organism. It is true to say that in awareness there is no difference between the body or a table, because there is no longer any one to make a distinction. But since being arises through this instrument of the body, it is easier for one to think of it as the functioning of the organism in awareness. (But please keep in mind through all of this, there is no MY body; just body.)
If there is no body, no sensors, no life, can awareness rise? If I die in five minutes, is there awareness here on the sixth minute? Please don’t theorize or repeat an answer given to you by another. Just sit with the question.
If one sees from their own point of view, through their own imagery, then being just becomes something that the self thinks it has; it is just me and this thing, or me and that thing. There is that eternal juxtaposition.
In awareness, through being, there is no juxtaposition. There is only what is.
There is only being.
{ 14 comments }
Takuin
I can see there is a great deal to explore here. And you have organized themes. Impressive.
But I have to ask one more question. From whence comes existence? What is before being? Its difficult to state in a small space like this, but if we were to compare the stages of becoming with chakras (as above, so below), existence arises in the gut, the 5th step. It originates in the movement of awareness, which in tern has an origin even deeper.
I feel a blog post coming on (laughs)
Thanks Davidya.
I am not sure I understand the question. Do you mean what gives life to all of us? Or do you mean what gives rise to whatever appears before us?
Only the illusion gives rise to something before and after being. This being is all there is, so if anything comes before or after, it has to be built up and designed in the mind. One can only project the idea of what has come before. The past only exists as a thought.
If there are stages of becoming, can there be what is? Or just the idea of other stages? The idea of other stages might give the illusion of something better, something to strive for, or some story of what may be. But is there a story of what may be, or is there only what is?
I am not sure I am touching your questions, though. Maybe it would be better to know what exactly you mean by existence.
Thanks for the great comments!
What I mean is from whence comes that from which all form and life arise, the very being of everything. From the standpoint of a life or object, it can exist, then cease to exist. But that which caused it to arise continues to exist.
I’m not talking about a mental concept here, I’m talking about that which is, before it is expressed. Before there is an idea, before it is form or energy. It has to exist before it can be expressed. So what gives rise to existence? This being-ness you mention.
In some ways, its a different category of question that what you asked. But your question lead me to ask it. (laughs) And on my blog i now ask is it too deep to go into. Its kind of a trick question as I know the answer. But I don’t know if the answer is useful to express.
Great comments, again!
Part of the difficulty may be the word “arise. I have used this word many times, but it may not be entirely accurate. The word implies being comes from somewhere, “to arise in being,” and so on. But if there is a “what is,” it does not arise from anything. Otherwise, it isn’t what is; it is what might be. (But this may be semantic nit-pickery.)
It is too easy to say that everything is what is. People say this all the time, but fail to really get it, deep down. It is easy to understand on the level of knowledge, but that really means nothing. Unless it is the very blood coursing through your veins, the very air you breathe, then it is meaningless.
“Arise” would seem to imply a different state, “It is this now, but will be that later,” as in arising from something. But is this the case? It may be impossible to say.
One might say that everything is already here. That would seem to be the case, as it has nothing to do with me. But others say, “It is my awareness that brings things into being.” Really? Well where is the “my” that is being aware? Where is the “you” that is bringing it all about? It is all very interesting to consider.
“…that which is, before it is expressed,” would seem to imply “what is” needs to be expressed by someone or something. It may very well be that it has to exist before it can be expressed, but where is the need to express it at all? Expression is a representation, but can “what is” be represented by something? If one says “yes,” is that merely their idea of “what is” as it is expressed by themselves? Is that what is?
It is very interesting.
Now that I have re-read your earlier reply, I think I may have completely mis-understood what you meant to say. If that is again the case, sorry for being so thick!
Takuin
Actually, this points clearly to the difficulty in communicating too abstract a subject. By being we could mean person, our aliveness, our sense of being, that fact that we psychically are, various values of existence, and several values of the abstract being-ness.
In saying its easy to say, you clearly explain the difference between an idea of it and the reality of it.
From my perspective, everything we experience exists to be experienced. Fundamental reality is unexpressed and cannot be experienced. So existence moves within itself and expresses so it can be experienced, so it can be known.
Really I raised the question as understanding the underpinnings of existence illuminates everything that follows as it all follows the same pattern. But its difficult to communicate as this illustrates.
There was no desire to confuse, simply to open to the next value of it. Apologies if I lead the discussion astray
*Sigh*…words, words, words. You are right. It can certainly be problematic. But I don’t see it as so much of a problem, but rather a matter of patience. Perhaps you see it this way as well.
I ask a lot of questions of others simply because I never want to assume what is being said. Luckily, Akiko is the height of patience. She has to field a lot of questions from me, although most of the time I keep relatively quiet.
Sometimes, a word by word exploration makes life easy to see. At least on the level of a mind that functions within order.
I think we may be saying the same thing in regard to experience. I don’t know that everything we experience exists to be experienced, but if we experience it, we experience it; if we don’t, we don’t.
It seems that my “problem” is the inability to project an image onto what is experienced. In other words, I cannot make up a story about what happens, as there is no point of reference. But I suppose no one is all that interested in “my” story.
But is that reality, or is it my story?
And you are right. The key is in explaining clearly. Then if the reader is ready, the message will be heard. If it reflects reality, it will have layers of meaning that can be grasped from where they are.
Thats a good habit not to assume. It is indeed the art of listening. Better, the art of hearing. And that is the art of knowing. If we cannot ‘hear’, what is there we can learn?
If we don’t experience it, it will wait until we do (laughs). Keep in mind that if everything exists within consciousness, it must be causal. Intention is what creates any expression, anything we might experience. Without intention, there is nothing to experience. So if we don’t intend it we won’t experience it. But if we do intend it we will. Keep in mind that the ‘we’ here refers to the us, not the individual. The individual is an illusion.
Your story is real if you perceive it to be. Perception is the feedback loop of intention, so if we perceive it, it is made real. But ‘real’ is relative. The only real that is absolute is without qualities so cannot be experienced. Thus anything we experience is a relative real. But in that moment, real.
Your ‘inability’ may simply be a missing clarity on what is taking place. You are projecting your experiences (consciously or not), then trying to project onto that projection? If you get that you are projecting it in the first place, but not the individual you but rather the deeper you, then you will begin to be able to shift what is being perceived. What gets in the way of that is the story you have about ‘how it is’, even if you think there is no story.
In essence, everything we experience is a story. A dream you might also say. This dream has several levels – an individual dream (the most illusory), a group dream, a universe dream, and the dream of God, of the one. Remember, its all intended. In other words, its all made up. As i mentioned before, its made up so that the nothing can know itself. Without intention, all we have is restful alertness, without content.
Amazing how many points your raised (laughs)
Takuin, I expanded on this a little and noticed you may have more clarity here than you realize. The Blog post “Really?” goes into that.
Apologies if it seems I’m dissecting you publicly (laughs). Its something I do to myself all the time. Expressing the experience gives people handles to relate to, just as you do so nicely in your blog posts.
No problem. I’ll go through your points one at a time and give the shortest answer possible. You hit upon the truth of the matter, although I’m not sure you meant to.
If there is no one experiencing, there is no experience. Of course, this requires far more than an intellectual understanding of the words. It must be the very blood that flows through one’s veins.
But it is the individual that intends in this way. The individual thinks it can make that difference in order to live an ideal life. It is an illusion as you say, but the idea that we will experience what we intend is also the illusion. Who will intend it, and who will experience it? This may be trouble with the language again. If Takuin sits in a chair, you might say he is experiencing sitting in the chair. But what if that organism sits in the chair and no one is there to experience it? It may be true that someone or something is sitting there, but there is no one to experience anything.
Experience is the recording of events as it effects the individual. But what if there is no one to experience it? Do you see what I mean? I am not speaking theoretically; for Takuin this is life.
It can be touchy when the words have their own subtle life. But the more we eliminate, the more the point becomes clear, I suppose.
Luckily, I was joking when I made that statement. Of course, any story one might make up has nothing to do with reality.
There is nothing missing. Not because I say so, but it happens to be so. There is no projection or reaction based on an idea. I can’t put it any clearer. If there is no image, there is no image. It is not as if, when I concentrate there is no image, or when one meditates there is no image. There is simply no imagery being created on a moment by moment basis. One might say, “That is just a story of no image,” but if there is a story of no image, that is an image. It is all so simple; so reduced, if that is the correct word.
One that lives in the image, but wants to be free, can only imagine what it means to live without it. They will never be able to meet it, because they are actively looking for it. But the idea that it is somewhere else, or it is something that needs to be sought after, is another image that they are fooling themselves with.
It is too easy, as I have said before, for people to say all of this. It isn’t an idea that one cultivates, or a state that one can create through experience, knowledge, memory, or whatever. One might ask, “How do you know?” Just look into the world. For thousands of centuries humanity has tried to free itself through all of those means. But what has happened? Nothing. Well, not nothing, because we have incredible strides in technology, and it just keeps growing and growing. But internally, in the mind, human beings are still the base creatures they were while living in the caves.
I don’t think it is overly harsh to say that humans are still using the primordial mind, if you will, in order to solve supposed problems. At one time, it may have been useful. It may have even been responsible for our survival. Or maybe it was never needed. Who knows. But it certainly is not needed now. As I have said before, it is finally time to admit the emperor has no clothes.
I have no story about what is, because there is no I that is seeing and interpreting. I guess, technically speaking, any time we are using words in any manner, we are telling a story. But that is not what we are talking about here.
Here is something you may or may not find interesting. Typing about “myself” is very surreal and kind of unsettling. Not because “I” have some idea about it, but it is kind of like lying. There is an organism sitting on a chair and typing on Akiko’s computer. Through typing, it is telling a story about someone that does not exist. It isn’t trying to convince anyone of anything, but it is telling a story of someone that is not here, as if he is actually here and real.
Uncomfortable is not the right word. It is just a tight and compressed feeling. One rarely talks about the made up person that sits here. And it probably won’t be re-visited for quite some time. It just feels like a lie. Not a lie…like a physical impossibility; like forcing my hand through a keyhole. That is as close as one can get to it.
I think that is enough for now.
@Davidya
By the way, please don’t take that as an indication that I am not interested in interacting. I didn’t intend for it to come out that way. There is just no real interest in talking about “myself.” But please go into what ever you feel like. I am happy to be involved.
Do Be Do Be Do…isn’t that Strangers in the Night?
@Takuin
For me, the individual intention is an illusion. Intention, or moving awareness moves through the individual expression but the ego takes credit for what is happening “in” or through itself. It sort of gets in the way of expression by holding on to its ideas of how it is. I’ve never put it this way before, but thats how I’d explain it in this context.
The organism cannot be sitting in the chair without being experienced. Because the experience itself is the feedback loop of expression and the organism and chair would not exist if they had not been expressed in awareness, ergo, experienced. Nothing exists in isolation, that idea that something can be isolated from anything else is the illusion of the individual. There is an individual expression, but it is not separate from the whole. Just that aspect of the one. Everything is in relationship to everything else. For me, this is life. You have what I would describe as a different perspective of the same thing.
Yes, I appreciate you were joking but its ‘real’ nonetheless to whoever may appreciate it as such (laughs)
OK – I think I see what you are saying better now. About the image or story. Not that you struggle with it but that its not there. We use different words for this and I think come from a different way in. Very interesting.
I agree with your perspective of human mind. People seek to loose the story/image, thinking that the goal, but it is really just the very beginning. We are capable of so much higher perspective.
And I understand about the no “i” and the meaningless of that. You’ve expressed it very well. I find that the “i” does return, but later as what one fellow calls the cosmic I. What Ramana Maharishi called the True I of absolute being. This is after waking from what I call the dream of God, the final Maya. Then what was unreal becomes real again, but a very different real. Then follows the intimacy of oneness with all. Even Akiko’s computer. Then cosmic I.
I suspect the tightness is from some attempt to step back into an idea of self that is mostly forgotten. Like trying to put your head into a hat 5 sizes too small.
I find it quite intriguing to discover the many facets of the face of the one. How another expression brings out another layer. So thank you for the illumination and illustration.
be do be do be…
I see what you are saying now. There are a few differences in the way the words are used. “Experience,” for example. We are saying the same thing, it seems, but we happen to use the word differently.
This is not isolation, though. That is the domain of a person that can be isolated. There may be apparent physical isolation of some kind, but even that conclusion is not quite right. But we could go on and on.
I don’t read about this stuff, so I have to use the vocabulary I already have. One cannot rely on an authority to be right. Not even the authority of one’s own mind.
There are limits, but it didn’t take too long for us to understand one another. Just a few days. Haha.
I know what you mean about the vocabulary. I picked up a bit earlier on but have largely developed my own, tacking on bits people know from elsewhere to relate with, like ‘pain body’. (laughs) I didn’t find a certainty in some terms or found them used too loosely.
Thanks for the clarity.
{ 5 trackbacks }
Comments on this entry are closed.