In this debate, don’t take de bait! Part 2

Right now (here comes that word) notice how effortlessly Awareness is now present. Now feel (another kind of “noticing”) how light, how un-weighed Awareness is to Pure Awareness. Notice how uncluttered and open Pure Awareness is. Feel how “soft” Awareness’ Presence is to Itself. AS THIS, is there any concern over who is “doing” this, or whether it is finite or Infinite?

What’s more, even if there were a “correct” answer that satisfied the intellect–would it in any way change this effortlessness, this indescribably soft lightness and openness?

Will the Present not be THIS until It “knows” whether It is Infinite only, or merely a finite perception? Will Awareness be less present and aware until It knows the “final answers” to these questions?

Would those answers, even if correct, be capable of somehow creating a past, one in which Awareness previously existed and didn’t have these answers? Could such answers prove there was a past and that it can be attached to Awareness?

The thought may come, “But once I know these answers, it will put the mind at rest, and stop all the churning of thoughts.” To some extent that may seem to be the case, and there is nothing whatsoever wrong with questioning, but it points to a greater fact.

Does Present Awareness need thought to stop churning before It will be presently aware? Is Awareness Itself ever mistakenly identifying Itself with, or as, thoughts?

And again, in light of the fact that the allness of the Present that is present NOW, leaves not a speck of prior time or history (not even of Itself!) has there been a past in which there even was a “my mind” to be at rest or not at rest? Has there honestly been a past in which any of this was even an issue? No!

All of that would be found only in this seeming thought trying to arise in or as, the current moment. And that thought only seems to arise thanks to some degree of “ignoring” the utter ease, lightness and simplicity with which the history-less Present is just NOW present.

For a moment, look at what appears to have been a general past trend or pattern of spirituality for “yourself” in “recent years” (but stay alert that even this, too, really would be just a thought arising in the current moment!!!).

If one were to talk about it, doesn’t this “trend” seem to be one of less ignoring of Awareness, Being, Self Itself? Doesn’t there “now” seem to be more clarity, and less of an assumed would-be secondary self or personal ego? And again, wouldn’t this really seem to be due to less “ignoring” of Self? (Put it this way—you wouldn’t be as interested in Awareness or this subject if you assumed you were a separate physical body and ego.)

Even what now appears as the discerning of these super-fine distinctions as to who or what is perceiving—the finite or the Infinite—even this can now appear to be done thanks to “less ignoring” or less “ignore-ance” of Self. And if it is said that this discerning or noticing still is in the realm of finite perception—that seems okay, because it is after all, noticeable, observable, and it takes time to occur—all of which would be what we call finite.

BUT—as far as what is finitely noticed—is there anything about it, itself that is actually conscious? Is a perception conscious—or is it thanks to Consciousness being, that a perception can seem to occur? A perception is a kind of seeing, but is not a seer.

When frozen ice is obscuring the view out the windshield, that’s one kind of seeing or perception. Then half the ice suddenly falls off the windshield and there is a very different kind of view or perception. It doesn’t mean that which is viewed (the finite) suddenly is perceiving better. It never was conscious to see or perceive in the first place. And has any of this “lessening of stuff on the windshield” changed the seer? No. Not a perfect example, but it’s trying to make a point.

For any “change in the view” or what might be called change in perception, or finite noticing—is that act of noticing itself an alive entity or intelligence? No. It just seems to be a reaction, really. When, from a finite point of view, there seems to be an intelligent “new seeing” or perception—is it because what has been seen is intelligent or conscious? Again, what seems to be this new “seeing”—is it a seer?

From the “stance” of Infinite Awareness, this same “seeing” could be said to be merely a “falling away” or a “thinning out” of ignore-ance of the Infinite. It’s like the view appearing to change when some ice has fallen away from the windshield. But there’s no “higher Awareness” in the new view—it’s still just a view.

More importantly, in, or AS, the Infinity that Present Awareness is, none of this is occurring. Infinite Present Awareness hasn’t been before—so It never accumulated nor co-existed with ignorance or a lack of Itself–thus could not then notice “more” of Itself. Not having been prior to NOW, Present Awareness could not have assumed anything either. This is Silent Un-thinking-ness, pure Infinite Being. AS THIS, there are not two possible states—although the instant it’s put into words and thoughts, it seems there are two states—but only to thinking, not to Awareness. So…while there’s certainly nothing wrong with these kind of questions or debate, it’s not altering Awareness Itself and only invites more thought-games.

Look again at parts of the debate as mentioned in question 3):

“…If it’s perceived by the Infinite, is the finite a means for the Infinite to be conscious of Itself?…there are as many answers as teachers. Some say the Absolute needs the finite (that is, a body, a brain, thoughts, images, etc.) in order to know Itself…”

Okay, suppose these guys are ultimately right. They win the debate. The Infinite, the Absolute, needs the finite to “know” Itself. (By the way, isn’t it an assumption if the first place to even say that the Infinite should need to “know” Itself? Who says so? Only a “thinking mind” that itself is full of “knowing” or concepts would try to say that the Infinite, too, must “know” Itself!)

But let’s say this view is somehow deemed “correct.” So what? Would it change anything about the never-before-ness of the Present? In fact, as nothing has existed prior to NOW—what has previously happened that could possibly be known!?

If the Infinite were without the finite’s help in “knowing,” would that mean the Infinite is dumb? To whom would it seem that way? Only to the thinking that’s speculating about all this stuff.

Go all the way. Suppose the Infinite, the Absolute, were even deemed non-existent. There is no Infinite, no Absolute. This whole thing has been one huge spiritual scam perpetuated over the centuries.

Again, so what? Would even this change anything? Would even this take away Present Awareness or make It not be present? Could this “knowledge” somehow force the Present, ALL, into somehow having a past? Could it change the fact that Present Awareness simply leaves no history—not even of Itself or of this debate?!

And of course, the same thing can be said for the other side of the debate:

“…Meanwhile, others state that we, the Infinite, know ourselves without relying on a “physical support” (body, brain)…”

Okay, let’s say this is the true or correct answer. Would this “knowledge” change anything about the only-ness, the never-before-ness of ALL THAT IS? Nope.

The simple beauty of history-less Present Awareness is that It doesn’t get entangled in this stuff nor in any kind of otherness. Present-ness-AS-ALL leaves no record of such stuff, nor any otherness! Not even any history of ALL Itself! HERE, there is no absolutely no pretense of there being any prior time, and thus all the baggage that would accompany it, IF such a thing had happened, which it hasn’t.

So why go along with the pretense of such things?– when actually, as Present Awareness, You are not going along with such a pretense!

Look at the word pretense. It means not true, a false claim. It’s related to pretend, which also means to claim falsely, or to make believe.

When you break this same word into its roots, pre-tense, it brings out a deeper meaning. Pre- means prior or before, and tense means time. So a pre-tense is also a false implication that there was a prior time in which something happened. But that’s not TRUE. And that’s why it’s a pretense, or false claim.

As not even Present Awareness Itself has been before–can there be, or have been any pre-tense (prior time) or pretense? No!

The Present’s never-before-ness simply cannot be altered, no matter what may claim to be “known.” So why try to favor or value something else in place of this indescribable Freedom, this baggage-less Spontaneity, Life’s exquisite ever-fresh-ness of being?

As THIS, You are infinitely more exciting than all the so-called “knowing” or “wisdom” supposedly accumulated down through the so-called ages—which, to This Present Awareness, “hasn’t even happened yet” because not even the Present Itself has happened before.

If you care to see some of the points in questions 1), 2) and 3), above discussed from a different angle, please see the OASG postings for the latter half of March: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OAStudyGroup/

3 thoughts on “In this debate, don’t take de bait! Part 2

  1. Sweet like peaches my brother!

    May The God of the ego I bless you.(-:

    Ah What Heck – Hymns To Everything and No-Thing – Whatever,
    Julian
    P.S. Forgive me I seem to be raving.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please complete this to submit.

*