Interview on Grok-the-Talk

Hello Everyone,

Just wanted to let you know, here is a new interview with Thomas Malone, whose popular radio show, Grok-the-Talk, is on blogtalkradio.com.

It’s a 2-part (each part about 1 hr.) conversation with Thomas that covers everything from the basic to the deeper points in CIA. Thanks to Thomas’ insightful comments and questions, it gets into some great things, especially in pt. 2. Enjoy: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/grok-the-talk/2010/12/13/interview-with-peter-dziuban-hour-1-grok-the-talk-121410

Also, just wanted to say thanks to all those who were at Santa Monica, and in a few days please look for some new audios here on the website from that wonderful weekend.

Peter

Santa Monica, CA Meeting: "Clarity Is Freedom"

Please join us on the weekend of Dec. 3-5 in Santa Monica, CA:

Theme: Clarity Is Freedom

Saturday – Sunday Dec 4 – 5, 2010

Free Lecture Friday Dec. 3, 7-9 PM

Sunset Park Church
1515 Maple St. Santa Monica, CA 90405

Two sessions each day:
Sat: 10am – noon and 1:30 – 4 pm
Sun: 10:30am – 12:30 and 1:30 – 4pm

Cost: $75 for both Sat. & Sun. $50 for either single day

Some parking available. For map/directions, please go to http://www.sunsetparkcc.org/ and click on the Map tab.

If you live outside the area, here a few hotel suggestions (many others available): Holiday Inn Exp. 310-821-4455. Marriott Courtyard 310-822-8555. Sheraton 4 Points/LAX 310-645-4600.

It would be great to see you there!

Love,
Peter

New Post on Nonduality America

If you care to have a look, I was invited to post a short article on the blog site, Nonduality America. Nonduality America was just voted the #15 “Enlightenment Website” by Spiritual Enlightenment Magazine–and the site has been up for only 3 months. Well deserved!

The post is titled, “One Presence, Many Perspectives.” It’s a bit of a summary/commentary on the recent Science and Nonduality Conference: http://www.nondualityamerica.wordpress.com/

Also, big congrats to Chris Hebard, whose website http://www.stillnessspeaks.com/ was voted the #1 “Enlightenment Website” by Spiritual Enlightenment Magazine. Also well deserved!

More coming here soon, including notices of upcoming meetings.

The Softness of Life

This is about directness—simply noticing, being aware, open, free—and not getting entangled in the thinking attached to these words.

It’s not difficult—in fact it is the absence of effort. If anything, the words used here point to a simple “feeling” and even beyond that to the absence of any feeling.

This might be called lightness.

It might be called softness.

What exactly is that? Here’s a specific example. Right here, now, it is Now. Is the Now that is present here, now, struggling to be here, now? Don’t think about this—simply relax and notice—feel—the incredible ease, the softness, with which Now is present. In fact, the presence of Now is so easy, so soft, there’s really nothing to feel.

Stop and let this indescribably soft, gentle ease really “sink in.”

Is there an end to it?

Is this ease of Now present only in the morning?…only when meditating?…is there only a week’s supply before having to get some more?

Can this delicious ease of Now ever be shut off?

Next, stop and consider—how much does this Now weigh?

Is Now heavy? Does It weigh a ton? A few pounds? Even a single ounce?

The Now that is softly, gently present now has absolutely no past. So how light, how completely without heaviness, is that which has zero history?

Again, don’t think or reason about It—simply “feel” this unspeakable “floatingness” directly.

Now cannot be said to have any qualities, let alone heaviness. Strictly speaking, Now can’t even be said to be “lightness” as opposed to “heaviness,” because Now has neither. If anything, Now might be described as the absence of any degrees or amounts of weight. It sounds funny, but it’s almost like having a feeling that there is nothing to feel.

Now touch the edge of this computer screen with a finger. It’s got some hardness or density to it—the finger doesn’t go right through it like it goes through the air.

Next, try to touch the Now that is here, now. Can it even be done? Can it be said that Now is hard, thick or dense like a screen, or a brick? Even the air has more density than Now has.

So how truly “soft” is Now?

Really check this out–because It’s the only kind of “You” there is!

Now is so soft, so utterly without hardness or density, It almost can’t be called soft!

All words used in spirituality and nonduality today never are “the thing in Itself,” as often said. Also, Now, Awareness, Presence, Being, Love, emptiness—and even lightness, softness—could be said to have an opposite: Awareness/unawareness, Presence/non-presence, Being/non-being, etc.; as well as lightness/heaviness, softness/hardness. So admittedly, while words like “lightness” and “softness” are wrong, they are meant as a valiant but flawed attempt to point to that which is “beyond” duality and degrees. As used here, they are not meant as opposites, but simply an attempt to point in a new, more direct way.

Those who appear to embrace what are called “emptiness teachings” or the “middle way” might argue (and rightly so) that emptiness is neither side of this apparent duality. For example, they would say there is neither self nor not-self, because to say there is either implies its so-called opposite. In the same way, it would be said that emptiness is neither weight, nor non-weight (light). Emptiness is neither hard nor non-hard (soft). It would be said there is only THAT which is not anything that can be said or labeled, not even as “emptiness.”

Okay. But whatever THAT is, THAT cannot be put on a scale and have any weight or amount of hardness applied to it. It is in this sense that “lightness” and “softness” are meant—not as if they were opposites to some other state.

Put it this way: the Now that is effortlessly here, now, is not as heavy as a brick, is It? Nor is It as thick or dense as a brick. It is in this sense that terms like lightness and softness are used, which is about as close as is possible to come with words.

That to which lightness or softness refer, is not the same as words such as tree, bottle, newspaper, which label what seem to be objects or things. Those involve mental forms or concepts. In using words such as lightness and softness, the point is simply to be direct; to “cut to the chase” and bypass getting into concepts—and even feelings, too—leaving only alive openness, unlimitedness, Awareness.

Notice further–can this easy, light, softness of Now ever be made to go away?

Let thinking really try to think Now out of being present now, so It goes away. Really try to get rid of Now.

Is it ever not Now? Now is now with zero effort—and It’s never not this way. It is the very essence of ease.

So here’s another direct word—ease. The key difference is that this post is not for knowing something about ease, softness, but literally being it.

Again, what does Now’s utter absence of heaviness “feel like”?

What does Now’s complete absence of hardness “feel like”?

What does Now’s zero effort “feel like”?

The “feeling” that answers those three questions is the same—there’s no heaviness, no hardness or effort to feel.

If anything, there is a light, soft, indescribably easy gentle aliveness, or what is sometimes called Presence. It never is something one is doing, but what is unavoidably, unstoppably, presently functioning.

What is of value here is not any thoughts about Now, but the actual—the “taste,” the alive direct “experiencing” or being of what Now here and now is. This easy softness and lightness is about as direct as it gets in conveying what Life Itself here, now, is being.

It is simply Awareness presently being the lightness and softness It cannot fail to be—yet gently alive, alert and “un-knowing.” It is open wondrousness being freshly alive—the wondrousness of Life Itself, as present Awareness, never being even a moment old.

The point of this “directness” of softness and lightness is to make obsolete the need to read book after book. In fact, you are already so lightly and softly present, so completely being deliciousness—you don’t want more words.

Lightness and softness are about as “direct” as words can be when it comes to pointing to the Infinite, the Unknowable. So why not simply bypass all the conceptualizing and directly “abide as” or be this lightness and softness?

In fact, to this present Awareness, is there even a choice?

Whatever “lightness” is, It is directly Itself.

Whatever “softness” is, It is directly Itself.

Clarifying "Absolute"

Since Consciousness Is All was published, the interaction with readers has brought out how different meanings are often attached to words we use (also the subject of previous posts here). It’s understandable because in spiritual literature, definitions of important terms are not always clearly specified—yet the way in which they are meant can vary widely.

One of these terms is Absolute.

This post is an attempt to clarify how Absolute is meant (and not meant) here on Reality Check and in CIA. During the writing of the book, had it been clear how many varying interpretations there are of “Absolute,” the book likely would have been written a bit differently. Please be aware that this post is only touching on the “highlights” of a sometimes sticky subject.

For what it’s worth, here’s a partial definition from the dictionary for Absolute: 1) perfect; complete; whole. 2) not mixed; pure. 3) not dependent on, or without reference to, anything else.

Sometimes in spirituality, Absolute also is taken to mean a state that is sort of “always existing” or “permanently existing.” It is said to be forever changeless, eternal or timeless, and certainly nondual. It is said to be One, Single, or “without a second.” Sometimes Absolute is taken to be the nature of Being, I AM Self, Love, or God and other terms. It also is said to be synonymous with IS—which is not co-present with, nor dependent on, another state. Nor does It have an opposite state, one of not-IS. (This use of IS is not meant in the same way as the dualistic, binary, or conceptual sense of both “is” and “is-not” experienced by the “finite thinking mind.”)

When seen as described above, the notion of there being “the Absolute” as independent, or as “forever present as an ultimate Truth” or “final position” is sometimes met with disagreement. It is argued that the very claim of there being an Absolute requires another state, a referent, against which the Absolute can be compared, in order to be considered Absolute. Thus the Absolute is not really absolute.

It also has been said that an Absolute never can be proven—and that the very attempt to claim or say there is an Absolute requires the relative—in the form of finite, relative words and concepts. Thus the very claim undermines itself.

It sometimes is said that the notion of there being an Absolute Truth, timeless Being, IS, or “God” is only ontological. This basically means that an “Absolute” is merely speculative, or an unproven attempt to imply that there is something outside of, or beyond the human mind and its experiences. Supposedly, an Absolute cannot really be “known” yet It is often accepted without question as a “given.” As this “Absolute” cannot be proven according to the standards of the mind, It is at best merely theoretical—at least according to the mind.

In contrast, much has been written which challenges the very notion that the so-called mind is even real or exists to have such standards and set itself up as an “authority.”

This type of debating points to a difference between philosophy, with its process of rational logical argument, and what might be called pure spirituality.

Even though the line between the two is often blurred, philosophy relies on word definitions and logical reasoning by way of thought and the human mind. In philosophy—the “finite mind” and its experience is king.

In spirituality—Spirit, Infinity, and “pure spiritual experience” is king—which is not any kind of physical, nor even mental experience. The finite mind is not considered to be the final authority—even though words and thoughts are used in an attempt to explain Spirit, Infinity.

Rather than getting locked into a position on one side or the other (similar to religion vs. science) it seems best “at the current time” to acknowledge the apparent usefulness of both. While spirituality is emphasized here and in CIA, it is only thanks to words, thoughts and other tools of philosophy that it apparently can be emphasized!

The terms Absolute, Being, IS, and even “God” have certainly been used on Reality Check and in Consciousness Is All. However, the meaning of Absolute as It is intended here, is in many ways different from the descriptions above.

Absolute, as used here, most emphatically does not mean some kind of divine state that “always has been and always will be present.” The terms Absolute, Being, IS, etc. while pointing to the Timeless, do not mean some kind of pre-existing, continuous state that “has been here forever, outside of time.” These terms also really do not refer to a state that is “ultimate” or “beyond the mind”—even though it may seem so.

It’s far less problematic to avoid words whenever possible, even one such as Absolute—and instead to discern what, if anything, actually is “present and functioning” (and even to say “present and functioning” is poorly put as will be shown). Better to silently discern the nature of Reality—or perhaps that there is no “discernible nature.” In fact, there really isn’t an “It” in the sense of an entity or state that has some kind of continuous, ongoing presence.

In this light, there may be two somewhat better pointers for what we are trying to say here regarding “Absolute” and which have been used here before. They are history-less and Never-before-ness.

The writing here and in CIA “speaks” from the Now, or as if NOW were the one “speaking.” This does not mean “a” NOW off somewhere else, but THIS Now that is here NOW. Of course, NOW does not really speak, so why put it this way? Because a close examination of experience (even the so-called mind’s experience) shows that none of its would-be experience or activity ever is present. Here and in CIA, the “perspective” is not from a basis of what is not present.

“Looking out from” or as NOW, all there is, is NOW. In terms of pure Now, it cannot be said there is any prior history of anything. There really has been no prior existence, not even of NOW Itself. (If this seems new, please see the free excerpt on the Writings page titled, Present Consciousness, otherwise this post will not be clear.)

There is only the Now that is NOW. Yes, there may seem to be thoughts or phenomena, but they always would be arising, coming and going, only in what is called “the current moment.” Even the notion of there having been a past isn’t really referring to a past event that occurred back there in time, because the entirety of any “event” and all its so-called background is found only in, or as, this current thought. At most, all there ever seems to be is a current thought.

There’s one more step. It’s the clarity that not even NOW has existed before. Even that notion, too, would be at most only a thought arising in the current moment. In short, nothing has any history of existing. Not even what is called “Existence” can be said to have existed before. All there is, is a fresh, clean, empty “Never-before-ness” (if one is even going to say that much).

Whatever THIS is—this is how the term “Absolute” is meant here. It is a never-before, alive indescribableness.

The term Inexperienced-ness also has been used here and in CIA, in an attempt to convey this utter history-less-ness. Where there is only history-less-ness, there cannot be said to be two of anything—for there isn’t any of anything! Strictly speaking, it can’t really be said there is even one of anything, because the moment there is that saying, that’s a thought, that’s time—and is not history-less-ness. So it is in this history-less, thought-less sense that “Absolute” is meant. Simply nothing, not even what is called Awareness, is “around long enough” to be any kind of experience, form, or to have anything known about It!

It even becomes a stretch to use words like Awareness, It, the Present, IS, Being, and of course, Absolute, because the moment there is any word or thought, there is time. There also is a tendency to associate that thought with some prior or permanently continuous state—but there isn’t one.

A word that is sometimes used at this point is emptiness. Most emptiness teachings, however, also speak of form. What appears as form is acknowledged as being “unreal” or not having its own inherent reality—thus is said to be “empty” of existence. Yet form is a product of time. Here we are primarily concerned not with time, but Never-before-ness, alive history-less-ness.

This is not an attempt to be “anti” form or time in any way, nor is this denying that form appears to come and go in time.

However, when using words here and in CIA, again, the “perspective” is that of pure Never-before-ness…In-experienced-ness…NOW’s pure “Newness” which is not the arising of any form. This is not intended to be dualistic or to create separation between what is called NOW and form—but is emphasized because it seems we still unwittingly give a lopsided amount of attention to form and are “driven” by it.

Now is not any form.

Now is not something that arises.

Is it ever not Now?

Meanwhile, time and its arising forms always seem to be moving on, passing away, not being present, not really being.

So at first glance, it seems that NOW is “where it’s really at” when it comes to Reality—because NOW is all that seems to be “permanently present.”

After all, when was the last time you noticed it was not Now?

That never happens.

So NOW is all that seems to genuinely be.

Yet NOW, Never-before-ness, is not “absolute” in the sense of being “permanently present”—because permanence means staying the same over time and NOW has no time.

On the same basis, NOW cannot really be said to be any kind of absolute place, position, or “perspective”—for to claim such a thing would require some amount of time and thought, and someone besides NOW to label NOW as such.

NOW equally cannot be said to be any kind of thought or anything said—not even something said about NOW. In another sense, NOW really cannot even be said to be Absolute for that very saying would take time, and would be an arising thought-form, which is not NOW.

So can anything be said?

Not really. But whatever this Un-said-ness, this Never-before-ness, is (or isn’t!) there aren’t two of It.

This is another way in which the word “Absolute” is meant here.

Again, can it ever be said that it is not Now? No.

Now look at time and form once more.

Time pretends to be a period when it is not-Now.

Yet to NOW, not-Now never happens.

Thus, to NOW, time never happens. So form never happens.

To NOW, not even NOW can be said to “happen.”

It is utterly devoid of describability! In fact, It doesn’t want to be described.

This, too, is an example of how “Absolute” is meant—and clearly not as some kind of permanent state that is continuous over time.

The foregoing is undeniable—yet when put into words and thoughts which take time, it sounds inherently contradictory. All kinds of words, forms and time have been involved in the very saying of it—and yet the words are saying that forms and words never happen! A better way to put it is that to say anything about NOW is apparently contradictory—meaning it seems contradictory within the apparent (mind realm), but that would be the only place it seems contradictory. NOW’S Nowness does not seem contradictory to Itself, to whatever NOW “is.” It only seems there is a contradiction when there is an arising thought about NOW.

So, philosophically it could logically be argued, “It takes time to make these very claims about NOW, or to even have a ‘cognition’ about NOW, Never-before-ness.”

That’s exactly right because they are all merely thoughts and words about NOW—and are not NOW Itself. And because we are at the moment in the realm of words, thoughts, and thus time, that logical argument will be correct. With words, one is playing on an appearing, finite, relative field, and the apparent is going to appear to win every time because it all would be within the realm of the apparent.

The “thinking mind” may even try to say that there really is no such thing as “NOW.” Why? Because it is impossible that such a thing as NOW could be known (at least according to the mind’s apparent standards of “knowing”!).

Interestingly, even from the standpoint of NOW, that’s exactly the case! Not even NOW could “know” or experience Itself, or say “only NOW is” because the very “knowing” or saying would take time—of which there is none in NOW.

Yet apart from all the intellectual wrangling, somehow there is a “higher discernment” of something (which is no-thing), or an Aliveness that is not apparent, not limited to a relative, finite, never-present mental realm of thought and time. This again points to the difference mentioned earlier between philosophy and pure spirituality.

There also are “purely spiritual experiences” of pure Consciousness, Awareness, in which there literally is no thought, no objects, no experiencing of any form—and this, too, is how “Absolute” is meant. But to later attempt to describe or speak of such always involves form and thoughts about, thus falls short and is merely conceptual, not the actual.

It becomes obvious how inadequate even the notion of “pointing” becomes, because the very notion of point implies something that is being pointed to, and that there is another to do the pointing. Where there has been absolutely no “before” could there be any such thing to point at? How—when not even Never-before-ness can be said to have existed before!?

Words and thoughts are now apparently being used here, so what is said about NOW and Never-before-ness seems to be ontological, as if it is pointing to something beyond the mind, yet which never will be able to be proven. However, what is being pointed out also shows the history-less-ness of even what is called the mind itself—thus leaving no such thing to be beyond; no such mind to consider anything as ontological, no such mind to really be the authority it claims to be—only apparently so.

While on one hand it could be said that nothing about the Absolute or NOW can be proven—it equally could be said that, in terms of NOW, that’s perfectly consistent. Pure NOW leaves nothing besides Itself (no time-thought) to be a doubting element, nothing to demand proof, and no other to prove anything to. So, yes, NOW can’t be proven—and NOW never would want to prove Itself anyway!

And so back and forth it seems to go. This kind of “debating” is reminiscent of a previous post, “In This Debate, Don’t Take De-bait!” from June 26.

Suppose one of the views regarding “Absolute” above, or any other, is somehow deemed “correct.” So what? Would it change anything about the never-before-ness of NOW? In fact, as nothing has existed prior to NOW—what has previously happened that could possibly be a view, and who/what wants such a thing!?

Go all the way. Suppose everything was deemed non-existent. There really is no Absolute, no emptiness, no spirituality, no philosophy, not even a “mind.” This whole thing has been one huge scam perpetuated over the centuries. Again, so what? Would even this change anything? Would even this take away Never-before-ness? Could this “knowledge” somehow change the fact that Never-before-ness simply leaves no history—not even of any debates?

The point is, it is wonderful (and to some extent, essential) to be clear about definitions and distinctions—so as to not suffer due to mistaken assumptions. But is it worth getting bogged down exclusively in fine points so much that Life’s Aliveness is completely overlooked or bypassed? Life Itself is not doing that. It is alive. Life is not going around comparing perspectives and worrying which is “right.”

The freshly alive, and utterly un-aged never-before-ness of “each moment” is far simpler, more exciting, and enjoyable.

Spun Gold

Just wanted to mention that our dear friend Maren Springsteen has now published a book of poetry: Spun Gold — Poetic Reflections of Pure Luminosity. Congratulations, Maren!

This is a beautifully written book of pointing-via-poetry, which can be purchased at Lulu.com: http://www.lulu.com/browse/search.php?fListingClass=7&fSearch=Spun+Gold

I had the privilege of writing the book’s Foreword, and you can see much more of Maren’s book and her writing at www.mareninthesky.com

Spun Gold is also beautiful to look at–the gorgeous cover design is from a painting by our talented friend Barb McRobbie.

Congrats again, Maren!

Science and Nonduality Conference

I am very pleased to announce that I was invited to speak at this year’s Science and Nonduality Conference. The Conference is October 20-24 in San Rafael, CA at the Embassy Suites hotel.

My talk will be on Infinity and how the nondual meaning of Infinity provides a new perspective from which some of today’s biggest scientific questions can be answered in a new way.

The Infinity talk is scheduled for Saturday Oct. 23 at 2pm. If you’re already planning to attend, it would be great to see you there…or if you live in the area, you might want to stop by.

Thanks,
Peter

Subjective? Objective? Neither?

This post is in reply to some questions from Darryl, most of which are repeated below.

“I think most of the people who have read your book are a lot older than i am they understand it easier so im sorry for all these questions. i come from a christian science background so it did help me to understand your book a lot easier. Anyway my question is basically about subjective and objective consciousness. In the first post i ever did to you, i explained how i understand how subjective idealism and George Berkeley. Ok so there is no objective reality? Do you agree with this? Objects do not exist outside of the mind? But in one of your pages in your book you said consciousness is neither in or outside the mind i was confused by this. So God is present consciousness, so is this subjective? or objective? I read a review of your book and it said you conclude their is no objective reality and the material world is an illusion. Ok i can understand all of this, but is God subjective or objective? If there is no objective reality, then God is subjective? or transcends us? So neither objective or subjective…”

The short answer is: the debate and concern over objective/subjective (which we all seem to experience at one time or another) doesn’t really matter to pure Consciousness. It may matter to thinking, but not to Present Awareness.

The big difference between what is said here and what is found in many other books/teachings, etc. is that this is not starting from a finite, human experience and its conditions, experiences and the terminology used to understand that experience. It is not starting there and then “working up to” a clear realization of what God or Reality is. This is starting from or AS un-thinking Infinite Aliveness, Pure NOW, Emptiness, (or whatever term one cares to use) but which has no history, and wherein none of this other is going on, or has gone on.

So there is no attempt to “clearly understand” other than the clarity that NOW is not something that is supposed to be understandable.

Yes, by persistently “conceding” that Awareness is all that is present, aware, and that It has no history—what seem to be the deeper questions in finite experience will inevitably clarify themselves. But the clarity is thanks to not “starting” on their level. In other words, rather than going along on the level of the “thinking mind” and what it deems to be important issues–it’s a matter of simply being the ease with which Pure Awareness is present and not taking aboard all the thoughts that the “thinking mind” seems to experience and get mired down in.

On its level they may appear to be important—but only on its level. It’s like being inside a maze and trying to figure out the maze from down on the level of a maze, which isn’t easy. Abiding as pure Awareness, it seems as if one no longer is on the level of the maze and can look down upon its seeming dead ends and detours and sort them out more easily.

If it seems there are those who are “more clear” on this…it’s not because “they” are older or doing better thinking–it’s because “they” are abiding simply as Present Awareness, which is the absence of thinking. And at this point it’s not really a “they,” but the absence of the superimposed “personal me” which leaves only pure Present Awareness being Itself.

Now to specifically address some of the questions:

“Ok so there is no objective reality? Do you agree with this?”

Yes. The “world” that the human mind seems to experience has a seeming presence as consisting of separate objects, but it can be shown that there really are no objects as stand-alone items separate from the mind. (For those who are new, this is discussed in Chap 13, free on this website, starting on mid-page 129 with the example of the “apple.”)

Objects do not exist outside of the mind?

Correct.

But in one of your pages in your book you said consciousness is neither in or outside the mind i was confused by this.

Not surprising that there’s confusion. In the book, on page 132, it says that the apple experience is neither inside nor outside the mind. It doesn’t say that Consciousness is neither inside nor outside the mind. There’s a vast difference between the two statements. (But it’s actually true that Consciousness is neither inside or outside the mind, too!).

When the term Consciousness is used in the book, It is not referring to anything sensed, anything thought, not any physical or mental form. It is not referring to anything finite. It means Infinity only, the Formless. Admittedly, this is not the normal human definition for “consciousness” and that’s why the difference is discussed in detail in chaps 4 and 5. The Infinity that pure Consciousness is, is not the same as what is typically called “human consciousness” or “the mind.” (It’s essential to be clear as to the meaning of certain words, otherwise they only lead to confusion because the definitions often vary from one spiritual book to the next.)

In contrast, the apple experience is a totally a finite or mind/mental experience—consisting of visual sensations, smells, touches, taste, etc.—which is not the same as Pure Consciousness. Close examination shows that these sensations are not coming to the mind from a separate world outside the mind—sensations literally are the mind itself in operation (see p. 133). This is a bit of an oversimplification, but there is no evidence of sensations or thoughts apart from what is called the mind—and there is no evidence of a mind apart from thoughts and sensations. They are not two different things—but one “stuff” to which we have mistakenly given two different names.

Chap. 14 goes on to show that “body” is not really an object either—so there’s no object there to begin with, and no mind which Consciousness could be either inside of or outside of.

So God is present consciousness, so is this subjective? or objective? I read a review of your book and it said you conclude their is no objective reality and the material world is an illusion. Ok i can understand all of this, but is God subjective or objective? If there is no objective reality, then God is subjective? or transcends us? So neither objective or subjective.

Notice what is going on here. All of the thoughts about what God is, or whether God is objective or subjective are just that—thoughts. While it may seem these topics are debated by academics, we are not really too concerned with such issues because an answer (one way or the other) will not change the fact that Now is NOW, that Life is alive, that Awareness is present (and nothing else ever is genuinely present). There is no thought required for this, nor can any amount of thought or “realizing” change it.

There are many theories about objective and subjective. Some say Present Consciousness is neither (agreed, see below). Sometimes it is said that Consciousness does not “see” objects as separate, thus does not consider Itself a subject. The notion of a “subject” is wholly a designation derived by human thought. Its so-called origins are from the mistaken identification with, or as, body, which is assumed to be an object. One mistakenly identifying as this object sees his/her self as separate from what are assumed to be other objects—and thus considers itself the subject when beholding other objects. But none of these “bodies” are actual objects in the first place.

This same thinking then attempts to apply its reasoning and these finite standards to the Infinite, and wonders whether the Infinite, too, is a subject. But this is all on the level of thought, not Pure Awareness.

A discussion in Chap 14 on p. 143 may serve as an “eye opener” because it shows why Consciousness, Being, is neither objective nor subjective. These terms (and they’re only terms) could be substituted for “God” and will provide the same answer.

What’s more, Consciousness, Awareness, NOW, does not wonder whether It is transcending anything, or whether anything is transcending It. Awareness, NOW, does not consider Itself one among many, thus does not consider itself to be one of an “us.”

Present Awareness is all that is present. Anything else would just be arising thoughts or sensations, and they are not you (Awareness), nor do they have any background or history behind them. It simply is impossible to make Present Awareness not be present. And It is effortless–no thought or “figuring out” is required. The Present leaves no history–thus no history of prior teachings, no history of some being “more advanced than others,” no history of wondering about a “God” or about objectivity or subjectivity.

All that this Present Awareness can be is new, new, new, new, new, and there is no other…and again, It is effortless. This is what makes such questions and issues (which at one time may have seemed very problematic) inconsequential.

How much does NOW weigh?

This post is in reply to Anonymous’ comment of 7/21 on the “Duh!” post:

“I have sampled a few good books through the years. But Spalding is the only read I have ever found where the adepts demonstrated life like nothing we know about today. Why? What do they know that makes them so different from us? Like a dog with a bone, I always make my way back to Spalding. Of course after reading you, I’m hoping you have something to help satisfy my curiosity about these people.”

Thank you for the comment, Anonymous. For any who may not be familiar, this is a reference to Baird Spalding and his inspirational book, Life and Teaching of the Masters of the Far East.

I’ve read the book and enjoyed it. If the accounts are true, it seems these masters were adept at manipulating finite phenomena of the mind. However, it should be noted that there is no evidence that Spalding actually made this expedition to the East, nor have any of the other scientists he supposedly traveled with been identified.

That being said, there are two ways this “adeptness” at manipulating phenomena can seem to occur. One is through hypnosis, which is based on the assumption that there are many separate minds, and that the minds of “others” can be controlled or manipulated within that framework. But it is all on a seeming “mental” level—one level of thought supposedly influencing another.

There is an account of a “genuine” adept in this regard, named Marbado the Magician who lived in India around 1900: http://www.wolaver.org/literature/The_Psychologist_and_the_Magician.pdf

Alfred Aiken occasionally referred to this account of Marbado to illustrate how what seems to be daily material, weighty, dense human physical experience really is not that at all, but just a would-be hypnotic state or dream.

Another, different version of “manipulating phenomena” has been described briefly here in a previous post on 12/25/09: “How many dreams or dreamers are there?”

…From the standpoint of Pure Awareness, there is nothing material or physical—and if one were to mention what appears as body, it thus sometimes is called “idea” rather than a physical object. An idea does not need food to in order to be the idea it is—nor do ideas breathe, and so on.

Right now, see the idea Mickey Mouse in thought. It’s just an idea—no breathing there, no food required, no sense of weight or material density, and no physical brain or “mind-activity” there—it’s just a mind-less idea, a thought-image. Nor does that Mickey-idea dream.

Now consider the body that appears to be sitting in front of this computer. See it in thought as it appeared to be doing something “yesterday”—perhaps eating dinner. Now see it in thought doing something “tomorrow.” In both cases it, too, is just a thought-image, exactly like Mickey. Body actually never is other than thought-image, no different—and there’s no brain there, either. To say there is, would be an assumption. A brain is supposedly a physical object—yet an idea, a mere thought-image, cannot contain a physical object. What’s more, that body as it appears to be sitting here right this instant, is the same. There really is no physical, material stuff there—it just seems so—and only to the degree one seems to be sensing, rather than being Pure Awareness.

The basis on which this is said is discussed at length in chapters 13 and 14 in Consciousness Is All. (If you do not have the book, chap. 13 is offered free on this website.)

This is NOT advocating that one should “try to see body as idea” because Awareness Itself is not doing that. It is being Pure Awareness only, with no concern over ideas. To try to de-materialize things is to mistakenly assume there are material things—and there are not! There is only Awareness—and consistently, persistently (and effortlessly!) abiding Here, the would-be physical sense of things will seem to eventually fade. To try to get rid of objects or physicality is starting with objects, not Awareness, and only making more of a “reality” out of them.

The point is, that which we call Awareness, pure Presence, Being, Spirit, is all that is present, and It does not weigh anything. In terms of Its Presence alone, there is no weight, no materiality. Now speaking relatively, to the degree one is “functioning as” this weightless Awareness-as-All, then one’s entire experience seems to be less weighty. What are called things also seem to have less and less weight—the same as ideas do not have weight.

Right now, you can see the idea Mickey Mouse in thought. Mickey can be manipulated and be made to walk on water, or walk on the ceiling, pull $100 bills out of a hat, or do whatever you want because all there is to Mickey, the water, the ceiling, the money, etc. is thought or idea.

The “body” now sitting in front of this computer really is no different from Mickey, although it seems to have a sense of weight due to mistaken identification with it, or AS it, instead of as pure Present-ness. To the extent or degree there is a functioning as pure Present Awareness, there seems to be less of this assumed sense of body. This all seems to be a matter of degree—yet in the pure Present, there really is no degree.

So…it might be said that these “masters” were functioning much more fully as pure Presence, Awareness, rather than entertaining an assumed sense of a weighty material world and body. This isn’t a matter of “knowing” some esoteric knowledge or of thinking something special—it is what one is consciously being.

However, the “way” to doing this is not by starting out on the basis of overcoming a weighty material world—but by “staying busy” as pure weightless Awareness only. From Here, the false sense or assumption that there is a material world seems to fade or dissolve. Pure NOW has no desire to overcome anything or demonstrate anything, for all It “knows” is Pure NOW.