Conceiving and Perceiving?

This post is a reply to Anonymous’ comments and questions on the previous posts. They are repeated here:

Question about this part of your writing:“To combine the two words perception and Infinity in the same sentence or to say they are related, is really asking for trouble, because in their deepest meaning each one precludes the possibility of the other.”

I have always found comfort in Alfred Aiken’s writing about Intelligence perceiving and conceiving ad infinitum. Aiken said that the Individual-One-I-Am, the I-Identity that is Soul, Self-Awareness, the Single Perceiving Mind was Infinitely Imaginative and conceives or “thinks” ideas-things and includes all ideas-things ever conceived by Itself. He also said that an idea is not an “object” that can be labored for, or possessed on a finite plane.

Are you referring to “human perception” in your writing? Do you appreciate (agree with) Aiken’s writings on perception and conception?

Hi Anonymous,
Always nice to hear from someone familiar with Alfred Aiken’s work.

As far as Aiken’s statements about the Infinite conceiving/perceiving, and ideas—I wouldn’t say I agree or disagree. What seems best to say is, “I honestly don’t know.”

It’s impossible with a thinking mind to “know” what the Infinite is, or what It is “doing.” We can use thoughts and words to point and say what seems to be consistent with Infinity as we define It—but that’s about as far as it goes.

For many reasons, it seems hard to just blindly agree that the Infinite, the Absolute, perceives or conceives. The very notion of conceiving or perceiving usually is tied to ideas. And the very notion of there being such things as ideas, or conceiving/perceiving, seems to be totally derived from human finite thought. Even referring to the Infinite as “Infinite Mind” or “Infinite Intelligence” is using terms derived from would-be human finite thought, not the Infinite Itself, which really doesn’t call Itself anything, not even “the Infinite.”

The would-be finite human mind (if it were a reality!) definitely seems to conceive and perceive ideas. And because it seems to conceive (use concepts) and perceive, its concept of the Infinite is that the Infinite, too, necessarily should be a conceiver/perceiver of ideas. Yet is that really true of the Infinite, or is it just another concept or idea that human thought is attempting project upon the Infinite?

In the Infinite, the Absolute, or Emptiness, there is no sense of time, no change, no differentiation. Where there is no time whatsoever, where is there a need for ideas? Who says so? If there’s no differentiation, how is it possible for one idea to be different from other ideas? Notice that whenever anything comes up regarding conceiving, perceiving, or ideas, virtually always it involves human finite thought—not Infinite Aliveness, un-thinking Alive Being.

Alfred Aiken used to say that Infinite Mind must be a conceiver/perceiver because It would be incomplete without the capacity to conceive/perceive ideas. In one way, that makes a lot of sense. But—if you don’t start out by placing that kind of concept or label on the Infinite, such as calling It an “Infinite Mind,” then you don’t have that problem.

Alfred Aiken based some of what he said about ideas on this: He had formerly been a Christian Science practitioner, where there was a lot of emphasis on healing. He asked the question, “When it seems there is a healing of a problem, the problem or disease seems to vanish because it was unreal and had no basis in Divine Reality. But the body of the one who needed help didn’t vanish…so the ‘body’ must have some basis in Reality as an ‘idea.’ If the body were unreal like the disease, the body, too, would have vanished with the disease.”

In one way that makes a lot of sense, too. It’s also possible that this appears to be just a matter of degree. Where there is only Formless Infinite Consciousness, the Timeless NOW—there isn’t even time for a finite body-form to appear. So it would seem that the “body-form” too, must eventually seem to dissolve or disappear as one functions more and more AS the Infinite Itself.

On the other hand, to take a hard, fast stand that the Infinite does not conceive/perceive ideas would be trying to place a limit on the Unlimited—and that, too, would be merely a human concept. So, again, who’s to say?

Aiken emphatically said, “Leave what appear to be ideas alone. Don’t attempt to decide one way or the other as to whether the things that appear in daily experience are real ideas or not. IF there are such things as ideas, they would be conceived/perceived perfectly by the Infinite alone (the only One Conscious), so leave them as such. And if they aren’t real ideas, then they don’t really exist, so there’s no need to be concerned over them. Certainly the Infinite is not concerned over ideas that don’t exist. If things appear to be there in daily experience, so what? The Infinite is concerned wholly with being Infinite-Aliveness-NOW.”

In light of what was said in the most recent posts…

Suppose one even were to say or realize, “The Infinite conceives and perceives ideas in the Timeless NOW.” Okay, but then the moment it seems there’s that realization, it has to be said that realization is just a thought seeming to arise in the current moment. It’s a thought it seems one has just “had.” Then you have to admit, “Wait a minute. The Present Awareness that’s present NOW hasn’t been before NOW—so was It present before in order to even have had that “realization”? No! Present Awareness, ALL, is far too “new” to have even done that!

In this debate, don’t take de bait! Part 1

The following two posts (Parts 1 and 2) are in response to some excellent questions from Roger, who commented on the previous post. As said before, these posts never are in reply to anyone personally, nor is it assumed that the questioner “needs” any answers—the post is just made in general terms for “all readers.” The questions are repeated here:

“…Obviously all the spiritual paths imply the need of a finite “I” who should get somewhere else. That’s something that your teaching avoids when you state we’re the Infinite, with no personal story or space/time limit whatsoever. From that standpoint, any perceived “something”(a sense of presence, a thought, etc.) that could claim to be the real “I” is nothing else than a finite perception, that is, not our true nature. Correct?

My questions are:

1/ Is the “finite”(objects, sensations, the sense of presence, the waking state consciousness, etc.) perceived by the “finite” or is it perceived by the Infinite?

2/What´s the relationship between the Infinite and the finite? I mean, when I wake up in the morning, before I translate that certainty of being awake into words, there’s the feeling of existence, that was not there during deep sleep. Is that waking state consciousness (prior to words or thoughts) perceived by the Infinite?

3/If it’s perceived by the Infinite, is the finite a means for the Infinite to be conscious of Itself? This last question is very important, since 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. Meanwhile, others state that we, the Infinite, know ourselves without relying on a “physical support” (body, brain).

What’s your take on this? Thank you very much in advance. If this topic has already been discussed, please, just tell me where could I find your thoughts on it.”

These are great questions, and are often the subject of heated debate, as Roger indicated in 3). The points are getting down to such a fine distinction, it becomes very difficult to “say” one way or the other. So much depends on semantics and what is meant by perception, Infinite, etc.

We’ll deal with the questions as best as possible, but one definitely should ask, and emphasize, one more question: “Does it really make that much difference to ‘know’ who perceives what? Is it Awareness that wants to know this?”

First, just to clarify from the 1st paragraph. Not meaning to be nit-picky, but this is not a teaching, nor is it “mine.” Sometimes we use certain words because we have little choice, as Roger did, but some words imply certain things, and the longer they’re used, the longer they perpetuate the implication. We just try to avoid any implication that Awareness is coming from a person or that there are people to be taught.

Right here, now, “Something” which we call “Presence” is alive, aware, present. Is the saying of this, or the “noticing” of Presence, really thanks to Presence Itself, or is it merely a finite perception of Presence?

If it is assumed Presence is something supposedly being perceived or noticed by another, by a “me” that is experiencing an “IT”—and that this perceiving occurs over a period of time—then yes, that would be finite.

But who is to say whether this very present Aliveness as Presence, here, now, is not Its own Alive-ing or Presence-ing? Where could a line be drawn, as to where Infinite Presence seems to end, and a finite perception of It seems to begin? Is there any way to measure such a thing to arrive at an irrefutable answer? No.

To combine the two words perception and Infinity in the same sentence or to say they are related, is really asking for trouble, because in their deepest meaning each one precludes the possibility of the other. Perception implies something objective, or duality: subject and object. Meanwhile Infinity is not-two.

Certainly, if there were no Life, no Presence, nothing would be—not even these seeming questions. So as best we can with words and thoughts, it seems consistent to say that it is thanks to Presence being present that this can seem to be done—whether one calls it a finite perceiving of Presence, or Presence’s own “Self-knowing.”

In the strict, absolute sense, Infinity is Infinity alone, and does not allow for any seeming, nor any finity, thus no finite perception of Infinity. Because Presence is being, It is not something ongoing in time, and It leaves no other to perceive It.

The above is an explanation or answer on the basis of logic, or logically. What’s more, even experientially in “deeper” states of Pure Consciousness (such as nirvikalpa samadhi in eastern terminology, meaning Consciousness without an object) there is nothing objective, thus in a sense nothing perceived–and really no “experience”–only Self-Aliveness.

In response, some might argue or debate, “Nothhing objective? Prove it.” This can’t be “proven” but only “experienced” because at this point the would-be superimposed secondary self or mind wanting proof would have totally dissolved into Pure Consciousness.

This could go on and on endlessly.

That’s the seeming paradox when it comes to reducing this to words and thoughts. As long as there’s thought about this, there always will be two possible ways it can be; the duality is unavoidable. Yet, abiding as Pure Consciousness, or not-two, it doesn’t seem consistent to say there are two ways It can be. Consciousness Itself isn’t saying there are two ways—only thought would try to say that.

Right now, look at the very notion of perceiving or “noticing” itself. If you look very closely, it’s clear that the instant there is that very noticing—whether of a thing, or even a noticing of Presence—that noticing seems to take time. It would be time itself. A “noticing” is like a super-fine thought arising. It seems the noticing wasn’t there before, and now it is.

What’s more, the instant there is the noticing, “Yes, Presence is here,” that noticing seems to simultaneously be “leaving”… It’s not a static thing. The instant a noticing has seemed to arise or occur, it’s already a past event, and is being replaced by another seeming “new” noticing of Presence. Yet all of this noticing seems as if it is once-removed from the Actual, and it’s “old news” the very instant it has arisen.

Then you take it a step further.

You see that the very notion of there having been any prior noticing of Presence before, at a previous time a few seconds earlier—NONE of that is prior at all. All of what are assumed to be previous “noticings” aren’t back there in a past—they would be found only in this current arising thought or “noticing.” What’s more, even the thought that Presence Itself had been present before, and could have been noticed before—not even that is true, because all of that, too, is found only in this current thought or noticing.

What this means is that to this Present Awareness, ALL “always” is at the standpoint of nothing having existed or occurred before—not even ALL Itself! Thus “always” there is nothing about which anything could legitimately be noticed, known, or said to have been perceived!

If there’s a doubt about this, work it through for yourself. The only “evidence” of any thing, any perception, or even Present Awareness Itself, having existed before, is found only in, or as, a current thought. See if this can be changed. It can’t. And the moment there is an attempt to think about this, it will sound impossible, crazy, because that very thinking would be the antithesis of this.

What’s more, for any such thought or noticing of Presence to have arisen, it’s as if there first had to be an “ignoring” of Utter Presence. It’s as if Utter Presence has to somehow separate from Itself so It can then look upon or notice Itself as an object to Itself. This is how it seems to play out in time.

Yet the fact is that Utter Presence Itself is 100% being Itself, and It, Itself is not an arising. And as Its Presence, Its Un-arising-ness, is ALL, without a second, then AS THIS, arising, noticing, does not occur. HERE there is no time in which noticing or arising could occur.

Again however, even to say in words that Utter Presence is the absence of thought or arising, is itself an arising thought, a concept—so on the level of words and saying, this kind of finite/Infinite discussion never ends.

But the greater issue is, would this “knowing” of whether or not there is finite perceiving change anything as far as AWARENESS is concerned? No. It might cause a shift to different kinds of thoughts—but they’re still thoughts.

Yes, some kind of answer can be given, but it never would be completely satisfactory. The bottom line is, the real “all-purpose answer” to the questions is to not answer them on the terms on which they were asked. In other words, don’t go there. Don’t take the bait.

All of these questions (and in one sense, they’re great ones) come from thought, not history-less Awareness, never-before-Present-ness. They all mistakenly imply a past in which some uncertainty supposedly occurred, some “need to know” arose, and thought now wants to “know.”

All of the questions subtly imply a past in which finity supposedly occurred, in order to have all the questions asked about finity. They also imply that Present Awareness, too, was present prior to NOW to witness or notice finity. It wasn’t.

In all sincerity, this is not some philosophical sleight of hand, or some slick attempt to avoid dealing with the so-called “tough” questions, such as 2) and 3), over which there seems to be endless debate. Rather, this is saying, “Hey, just look super-closely at what’s actually HERE. All there is, is history-less-ness, and THIS can’t possibly be changed.

So why continue along a seemingly age-old line of questioning when, to this Present Awareness, there honestly hasn’t been any age in which such questions could have arisen in the first place.”

In other words, nip ‘em in their would-be bud.

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:

Direct experience—Cornerstone of nondual inquiry, or a house of cards?

This is primarily in response to Anonymous’ latest comments from the previous post, “Is Infinity the same as possibility?”

Hello again Anonymous. It’s very clear how you meant your “present.”

Yes, agreed that there is a hesitation or unwillingness to say anything about Awareness. I always try to end such posts (I forgot on the previous post) by emphasizing that, after all the talk about Awareness—Awareness Itself isn’t saying any of this. It simply “awares.” Awareness never is saying there is only Awareness. Nor is Awareness ever saying there is no time, or that Awareness IS, etc.

On the same basis of “no saying,” then can it be said that Awareness is experiencing or co-existing with time, thus appearances and possibility? Hmm.

You made another comment about words being dualistic and always having an opposite. So it seems your point is that, on the level of saying (words, thought), there have got to be both, or neither. Meaning, if we’re going to talk, it has to be said there are both Timelessness and time, both Infinity and finity, etc. Or else nothing at all can be said, as in the statement, “Not even Being IS!”

On the level of saying, or words, totally agreed. But “experientially,” Awareness simply “awares” without any saying one way or the other. And this “aware-ing” is not dual when taken experientially instead of conceptually (and, yes, I know, It already has been “polluted” by saying that much!)

So we’ll try to go at this more via “direct experience” instead (but only up to a point, because even that falls short). That’s the seeming difficulty here—having to use words (realm of opposites) to convey that which has no opposite, or is not-two.

It was not clear what was meant by your statements:

“The Dreamer may seem all-important, but there is no reason, and may even be counter-productive, to dismiss the dreams…The so-called awakening is often understood as awakening FROM the dream. But by “the collapse of the witnessing awareness” it is also awakening TO the dream, in which (fortunately!) there seems to be no lack of time and space.”

If, by capitalizing Dreamer, you mean it as synonymous with Awareness, and also mean that Awareness is the one dreaming, or is the “cause” of dream–then we are coming from VERY different places!

By “collapse or dissolving of the witnessing awareness” we really do not mean either awakening from a dream, nor awakening to the dream as dream (if that’s how you meant it). Rather it is the clarity that awakening is impossible because no dream ever occurred to awaken from or to!

Typing these exchanges is extremely difficult (and time-consuming!) because it’s being done without my even being certain as to what you mean by what you’re saying (and vice-versa, I’m sure!) With all the discussion, isn’t it great that silent Aliveness can’t disagree with Itself!

We’ll make one more attempt here to convey “where this is coming from” as far as how and why Infinity, Timelessness, is meant as “precluding.” If this isn’t satisfactory, many of these same points were discussed in depth last March on the Open Awareness Study Group on yahoo, but the posts are far too extensive to put here. If anyone cares to read more:

The site is not currently active, but you can read the archives by “joining” the group with a user ID and password. Thanks to our wonderful friend Ramesam, who also participated in the OASG, he very generously compiled the posts into a manuscript and when I have time to complete the editing, it will be available on this site. Some excerpts appear below in this post.

Now back to this post, which involves looking closely at “direct experience” itself, a widely used technique in nondual inquiry.

(While some of Anonymous’ comments mentioned direct experience, this post of course is not directed only to Anonymous, but for all who are reading. Also, one might ask why some of these posts are as long as they are; or it may seem they contain unnecessary explanation, as in, “I already get that—why bring it up or keep talking about it?” It seems there are “new” visitors here constantly, and to some, the points discussed may not be as clear as to others—hence the explanations, but which we still try to keep to a minimum.)

Surprisingly, while direct experience is so popular for inquiry, and is the cornerstone on which many so-called nondual “truisms” are based—it seems direct experience is rarely used to examine itself, the very nature of direct experience itself. What happens when it is examined?

One use of direct experience in inquiring about the nature of Awareness, the “world,” and other forms of phenomena shows indisputably that there really is no objective, physical world separate from Awareness. (Due to space considerations, only the highlights are given here. This is discussed in more detail in chap 13, free on this site).

If one were to refer to “the world” at all, a thorough inquiry shows that, at most the “world” would be only “mental” or “made out of” thought. There is nothing material or separate from thought or the “thinking, sensing mind.” This is why what appears as daily human experience is called dream.

What this means is that never has there been a physical or material world in which there was a “past”—because there is no material world in which to have had a past. There simply is no such thing as a pre-existing physical world that has been around prior to the “mind’s” sensing or thought of it in the current moment. The very sensing or thought of it seems to create “the world” on the instant–and always, it would be only “mental.”

What this also means is that any notion that there has been a past, any prior time whatsoever–isn’t really past at all, but would be merely a thought or “dream-like appearance” trying to arise in what seems to be the current moment. This obviously was mentioned in the previous post, but we’ll try saying it in a different way because it is essential to the point being made here.

From CIA, p. 231:

The would-be ignorant “sense-mind” doesn’t realize that its “world” never is a separate physical world, but just its own dream-like thought. So, all that the entire so-called past ever could have been “made out of” is thought. And when you examine it closely, you see the shocking truth—that dream-thought never is something that occurred “way back then”—for the entirety of it is being mentally projected just now!

Go ahead, try as hard as you can to come up with a little bit of a “past,” or a whole lot of it, in some place other than the current thought of it. It’s impossible.

No matter how far one tries to mentally shove a “past” back there—it actually has had no prior existence. The only place all of it would appear to be found is in the very thinking-dreaming of it starting now. That’s all there would be to all of the so-called “past”—just that one big mental “panorama” or “thought-collage”—all of which begins now.

Sometimes we will be clear on this, but will unwittingly continue to assume that, “Well, yes, thoughts (the world) seems to arise just now—but Awareness Itself—well, It has been here forever.” Not true.

Even the notion that Awareness Itself has been around forever, or present and aware before—this, too, at most would be just a thought trying to arise now. Absolutely no evidence can be found for Awareness Itself being before. This means that, as Present Awareness, You have no history whatsoever! There is no history, period! All there is, is “freshly present” never-been-before Life-As-All! How new, how pure, how unlimited is This?!

What does all this have to do with direct experience?

Direct experience seems to be a very useful tool. Do you realize even the notion that you’ve had prior experience in using direct experience, and have arrived at conclusions based on it—even all that, too, would be a mere thought arising now! As pure Awareness, you’ve done no such thing because there’s really no need for it.

That doesn’t mean one won’t continue to use it, but the “ultimate” use of direct experience is to see there has been absolutely no prior use of direct experience! It basically makes itself obsolete.

The notion that there have been all these prior times in which direct experience has been used to come up with “truisms” about Awareness (even this one!) actually never happened—because this Present Awareness hasn’t been around long enough for even that to have occurred! Yet here Awareness “is.” THIS is how truly unspeakable, un-thinkable, inconceivable Awareness is.

It seems this is very much like saying, “Not even Being IS!” as Anonymous put it.

Life, All That Is, “always” is at this standpoint of having zero history—not so much as a nanosecond! HERE, there is no history of not only things or thoughts or appearances, but no history of Awareness Itself.

And this does not change!

This is where One “stays” for there’s no choice…This is the only “place” Life is. THIS is “where” these posts are coming from.

From “Here,” or AS This, there cannot be said to be so much as a moment’s awareness of, or experiencing of thought, appearances, dream, or even any possibilities—all of which would require time—which THIS does not experience. HERE, as history-less-ness, there is absolutely no evidence of such a thing.

And if a thought comes, “But that’s negating or denying everything!” please keep reading.

“Always,” at most all there seems to be is a single thought arising in the current moment. BUT one then has to turn around and admit, pure Awareness Itself, for which there is no evidence of even the slightest history, can’t have been before in order to even have had or experienced that thought. Awareness equally cannot be said to extend into a future, for that, too, would at most be just a thought, not Awareness.

Again, to even say or cognize that Awareness Itself is history-less would be a thought arising in time—one which history-less Awareness simply cannot have just had! So in pure Awareness, not even these very points can have just been made! That’s the “wildest” part—as history-less Awareness, You always are at the standpoint of never having had the experience or thought it is assumed has just been had! Yet, somehow, all of this is perfectly consistent with history-less Awareness.

Now if all that doesn’t sound like double-talk, what does?! But we are doing the best we can here with words to express this.

What these posts and this blog are pointing to is this “never-before instant” that is “pre” what seems to be the arising or witnessing of thought, appearances, or other phenomena. (And the moment Awareness is said to have been “pre,” it is seen that Awareness can’t even be “pre”!)

There is no evidence that Awareness Itself is a thought or appearance. Awareness is “ever-too-new” to be a thought or appearance. At best, the thought always would be “old news”—even the thought, “Ah, there is only history-less Awareness.”!

Yes, anything said about Awareness is not Awareness Itself, and anything said would need thought, or is thought in order to be the very “saying” it is. But Awareness Itself doesn’t need thought or saying in order to be Awareness.

To say there are, have been, or could be, thoughts and appearances is to be in thought, not Awareness. Here, the concern is only with Awareness, not thought.

Admittedly, the very claim that Awareness is not an appearance or is not experiencing appearances, also would be a thought, or something “said.” But Awareness “awares” even without anything being said. The saying doesn’t alter or influence the present-only-ness of Awareness.

There’s no denial that thought or phenomena and time still may seem or appear to arise—there’s no sense of trying to stop them or negate them (Awareness isn’t “around long enough” to do that). Again, the “sole interest” is Awareness’ this-instant-only-ness, because this is what Awareness Itself, the only One aware is “doing” or “being.” (And even words like “this instant” are horribly inadequate).

While Awareness Itself is impossible to pin down time-wise, it seems most accurate (as best as can be done with words) to refer to Its present-only-ness as actuality rather than possibility. Possibility seems to imply a prior time in which something wasn’t the case, and a later time in which it might be the case. Because Awareness (All That Is) doesn’t change from Its present-only-ness, and there’s no evidence of anything else “present”–this is why it is said that Awareness “precludes” there being possibility in Itself, Its Present-ness (which is all that is present).

Again, yes, it certainly seems or appears as if there is such a thing as “possibility” but not IN or AS Present Awareness Itself. Any reference to possibility occurs on the seeming level of thought, not history-less, future-less Awareness.

The thought may come (and notice, it’s a thought, not Awareness!)… “Not so fast. Don’t tell me there’s no time. I’m having this thought that is arising now, and the next thought a moment later, and now this one.” First of all, who’s talking? Not Awareness—just more thought. What that thought doesn’t realize (because it’s not aware) is that all the prior thoughts (what thinking assumes is a time-sequence) seem to be arising in, or AS, the one current thought.

What’s more, that current thought is simultaneously leaving just as it seems to be arriving. Never is it present. Never does it stop coming or going, or not-being, to stop and genuinely be.

Notice also when a thought is “gone” it’s not as if it’s hanging around somewhere with its own presence, waiting until it is thought of again. It literally doesn’t exist. No thought has its own independent permanent presence.

The “stance” of this finite thinking (not Infinite Awareness) implies thoughts are arising “in” Awareness. On this basis, Awareness would have to have “already been there” for arisings to arise in It. Awareness would have to be prior to the arising in order to witness the arising—but there is absolutely no evidence of Awareness being prior.

There may be a feeling that, “This is separating Awareness and thought, when there really is no separation…thoughts are just Awareness.” (By the way, this is not implying that Anonymous or anyone in particular is thinking this, but is speaking generally.)

To say “thoughts are just awareness” seems problematic because:

–If thoughts are Awareness, why even use a separate word called “thought”?

–If thoughts are Awareness, why aren’t thoughts aware?

–A thought is an arising. Awareness doesn’t arise. Thoughts are arisings, and arisings change, come and go. Awareness doesn’t change, or come and go.

–Thought, that which appears to be witnessed, seems to be super-imposed on Awareness, thus in this sense, would be a “second.” Awareness is not anything super-imposed.

–Awareness is not noticing Itself as an arising—and when there is a noticing, that very noticing then seems to be a second “something” that is superimposed.

It also is sometimes claimed that Awareness is the source of arisings. That implies Awareness, as the source or cause, has to be present first, for the arisings to come from It. But how could Awareness be a source of arisings that “have occurred,” when there is no evidence of Awareness Itself, as the so-called cause, having existed before? Awareness would have to have had some prior existence in order to have been a cause—but It hasn’t!

Now notice if thought tries to say, “But to say there is only Infinity is duality, too…it is a negating of thought or arisings…and if there’s something to be negated, that’s dual.” This, too, is yet another assumption made by thought. Thought keeps trying to come up with these objections because it is desperate to explain itself to itself. Yet the entire time, Infinite Awareness (Stillness, Emptiness) knows nothing of it.

To history-less Infinite Awareness, wherein there is only THIS, Infinity, and nothing finite, no thought, no arising, no form or change—it’s not like these things have occurred and now they’re being done away with, or negated. No! They’ve not previously occurred, because not even Infinite Awareness has “previously occurred”! If, to Infinity, nothing besides Itself has occurred, then Infinity can’t possibly negate anything. How is it possible to negate or deny something that hasn’t happened yet? It isn’t.

Admittedly, when it comes to putting this into words (which involve thought) this seems like a negating—but only to thought—not to Infinity, Awareness. This again is why such explanations always have to be followed up by saying that Awareness Itself, Infinity, actually never is having any such discussion as this. In other words, to Awareness, none of this “saying” or this post has really occurred! And that is perfectly consistent with Awareness only.

Awareness, Infinity, is silent all-out Life, un-withhold-able Ease, Peace, and AS THIS, nowhere is there a negation or denial going on.

As I’m sure Anonymous would agree, this wordless, history-less, baggage-less Freedom is “where It’s at.” As this Freedom, to then engage in fine-point verbal discussions about no possibility or possibility—even on as seemingly “high” a level as this—feels burdened and limiting.

Rather, “taste” and live this ever-fresh Freedom that Life is.

Is Infinity the same as possibility?

This post is in reply to Anonymous’ comment of 6-6-10 on the previous post, “The ‘best finity’ is Infinity ONLY.” The comment is repeated below:

“…You say: ‘Infinity (from Its “perspective”) is All, Absolute, Alone, Not-two, and actually precludes the possibility of there being an illusion–even as illusion.’

Let´s say that dreams happen in so-called dream-consciousness. Obviously dreams are not separate from dream-consciousness. But from the “perspective” of dream-consciousness there are other “perspectives”, f.ex. the “perspectives” of the dreamed characters. And dream-consciousness doesn´t precludes these “perspectives”, it includes them. It doesn´t matter if, from the “perspective” dream-consciousness, these “perspectives” are seen as illusion or not-illusion. What matters is that these “perspectives” and the “perspective” of dream-consciousness are not-two.

And now I ask you: Is it really so that Infinity precludes the possibility of anything?

My concept is: Infinity includes the possibility of everything “and” nothing (every thing as no thing), even the possibility of so-called illusion being and not being at all!”

Thanks for your comments, Anonymous. Very good points—and this really exemplifies the need to be specific as to what is meant by the terms/words being used. Yes, all words at best are mere pointers as said so often, but if, in discussions such as these, there are different meanings attached to a word, then we’re all pointing in different directions—and may not even realize it!

If I’m clear about what you’re saying, it sounds like you’re drawing an analogy between dream-consciousness, in which illusion and not-illusion seem to be not-two—and then asking why Infinity and possibility can’t also be not-two, in a similar way.

In this analogy, so-called dream-consciousness involves time, and the infinity you’re referring to also involves time. Notice that the very notion of “possibility” implies a future, potential, or time. Also, the mere observation or witnessing of illusion (whether seen as illusion or “real”) also would involve time.

Here, in Reality Check, we mean a very different kind of Infinity.

In the Infinity spoken of here, there is no time. Nor does Infinity co-exist with time—though admittedly It seems or appears as if It does.

Infinity, as the term is used here, is not the same as the traditional or generally accepted (dualistic, finite) definition of infinity. The traditional definition is that infinity is a vast or endlessly extending finity…a sort of indefinitely ongoing finity.

Just one of many simple examples is found with counting: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5…and so on; one could count endlessly to “infinity.” We also hear of “infinite space” and “infinite time” which would be said to extend endlessly, too. The hero Buzz Lightyear of the Disney film Toy Story, is famous for his quote, “To infinity and beyond!” Even though we know that was a joke (because there’s nothing beyond infinity), it still implies that infinity is some kind of endless extension.

BUT, this “infinity” really is a matter of having started out with finity and saying infinity is an endless version of that.

It really would be just an endless finity.

There is another, entirely different “meaning” of Infinity.

The prefix “in” literally means “no” or “not.” On this basis, in-finity does not mean vast or endless finity.

It means no finity at all! None.

In-finity or no-finity, means no counting, no amount, no form, no measurement, no observing or witnessing, no time, no space or location. None at all. It’s almost another way of saying “emptiness”—yet It is an emptiness which is not deadness—but is presently ALIVE as undimensional, timeless, formless, measureless, unobservable pure Awareness as It is being.

One cannot even TRY to think what This is—it’s impossible. But this Present Awareness is inescapably, un-thinkingly being It.

The difference between these two meanings of infinity is huge…the importance of this distinction cannot be emphasized too much. (This “new” Infinity has been mentioned here on Reality Check previously—please don’t ask me where!—and the full discussion is too long to go into in this post, so these are just highlights.) It also is discussed a bit in Chap 4 “Consciousness Is The Infinite Itself” (free on this site in the Writings section). A full discussion can be found in the e-book, “The New, True Infinity” also on this site for $9.95.

One of the key distinctions of this Infinity is that there is no time. Where there’s no time, there can be no “possibilities” because again, possibility implies a future, potential, in other words, time. Be clear that this Infinity means the absence of time altogether, not “endless” time.

The Infinity spoken of here is one that, strictly speaking, is not beyond or outside of finity—but which precludes finity ever occurring, because all finity would require or be one-with time.

Bottom line is, rather than saying, “Infinity includes the possibility of everything ‘and’ nothing…” as Anonymous put it, we’d prefer to say: “It appears as if Infinity includes the possibility of everything ‘and’ nothing…”

We’ll come back to why this is so in a moment, but first some of the other comments from above:

“…But from the “perspective” of dream-consciousness there are other “perspectives”, f.ex. the “perspectives” of the dreamed characters. And dream-consciousness doesn´t precludes these “perspectives”, it includes them.”

In one sense, yes. From within the framework of the dream, it appears as if there are other perspectives. It seems best to qualify it by saying “appears as if” because there’s still another way of looking at it. Even when still speaking of dream, it also can be said that all those “other” seeming perspectives really aren’t other perspectives at all. In what appears to be the finite-Peter-mind, or dream-consciousness, it may seem as if there are many bodies, each having its own separate mind or consciousness, hence its own perspective, which seems to be “other” than the Peter-mind-perspective.

But in another sense, ALL OF IT actually depends on the one Peter-mind-perspective as its seeming source. Take away the finite-Peter-mind and the whole scene vanishes—even all those others and their “perspectives”…so were they really separate to begin with? When you awaken from a dream, all the other bodies (and perspectives) that appeared in that dream do not awaken with you.

Put it another way. When watching a movie on a screen, all the characters appear to be separate selves or identities…they all appear to act and talk as if they have their own independent perspectives, one for each of those character-bodies. But from another perspective, it’s clear that all the characters actually are puppets of, and manipulated by the ONE movie. The characters don’t really control anything; there really aren’t separate lives or perspectives there…it all would be a product of, and controlled by the movie. No character really says or does anything on its own, independent of the one movie…so, in this case, the only so-called “perspective” would be that of the one movie. And yet the movie is not really a conscious identity or intelligence at all—the movie is just a series of reactions.

“…And dream-consciousness doesn´t precludes these “perspectives”, it includes them.”

Yes. In fact, just to be very specific and crystal clear, dream-consciousness would be the perspectives, which seems a bit more accurate than saying it includes them. And it’s really only one perspective (dream’s) not many that are included. It’s like looking at a painting…in one sense there may appear to be many…many objects painted in many colors—but in another sense, it’s all one “stuff”—paint. It seems clearest to say it as Anonymous put it later:

“…What matters is that these “perspectives” and the “perspective” of dream-consciousness are not-two…”

Now back to Infinity as meaning no-finity. One might ask, “Well, why this new definition…what’s wrong with the old one?” Nothing—and the traditional “infinity” appears to be very useful in everyday mathematics and science.

This “new” Infinity seems more consistent with what nonduality, Being, and Awareness actually IS. This is not referring to a thinking mind’s conceptual nonduality, Being, Awareness, but ACTUAL nonduality, Being, Awareness.

Infinity as used here is pointing to the IS-ness that pure Awareness, Being, is. It is the present-only-ness of Awareness, which cannot vacate being present only. In pure Awareness, Being, IS, or NOW, there is no time. There is no space and no measurement. Pure Awareness, Being, NOW, is not observable, not countable—all of which is exactly true of Infinity.

IS is not a possibility—It IS—and nothing besides IS can be. NOW is not a possibility—and It NEVER is not-NOW. It is in this sense that it’s said that Infinity (NOW) does not really include possibility, even though it seems or appears to the “finite mind” as if It does.

To say Infinity includes possibility is like saying NOW includes time, and that is not what is meant here by NOW. If there’s a claim to the contrary, it would seem to be coming only from thought, not Infinite Awareness (which is what NOW is). Here we are concerned primarily with the Infinity, the NOW-only, that Awareness is, although the seeming nature of finite thought is often mentioned for purposes of explanation.

What COUNTS is not these terms or words about Infinity, but the un-verbal, un-thinking Alive Now-only-ness that THIS Awareness presently, alive-ly, is and does not fail to be, which is Infinity timelessly being.
This is the “stance” taken here—and though it may appear as if there is a sense of time, of space, of observation, and of wonderful possibilities, even as illusion, they are not denied or negated—we just stay clear as to what really IS.

It has been shown in previous posts why the Present Awareness aware here, now, is absolutely history-less, time-less. Whatever would try to say any thing, any form, even “illusion” was present before, and is now past, even a few seconds ago, would be mere thought, not Awareness. And that thought of a “past” actually seems to be arising ONLY in the current moment—it’s not “back there” or past at all.

In fact, the entirety of what seems to be past isn’t past at all. It just seems to arise currently. Even the thought that Present Awareness “has been present eternally” (for a long time) is just a mere thought arising now for the “first time ever.” So not even Present Awareness, All That Is, can be said to have been before, or be a moment “old.”

Just stop to consider—absolutely ALL THAT IS has zero prior history of existing!

This Self-evident Truth means that nowhere is there any accumulation from a past, because there hasn’t been a past! Nowhere is there a prior pattern of any type that could limit YOU, this Present Awareness, for there has been absolutely nothing prior.

Now that’s “new”!

(These, too, are mere highlights on the Present-only-ness of Awareness. For a more complete discussion see “Present Consciousness” in the Writings section on this site.)

So, yes, in one sense it does seem as if this never-before Unlimitedness opens infinitely wide the door of “possibilities” because Present Awareness, All, always is at this standpoint of being utterly “fresh” and “un-aged.” Absolutely nothing has occurred before that could tell Awareness how things must be or will be—because there has been no before!

But Present Awareness (which is the subject of this blog), Itself is not a possibility—It IS. And It is Present Awareness Itself that really is all that is present, and does not change. When is the Present not present? That simply doesn’t happen.

Whatever there may seem to be in the way of phenomena, seems to be arising only in the current moment as thought. But it simultaneously also is “leaving,” passing on, not-being-present the moment it seems to arise—thus never changelessly IS—thus is not considered real, eternal or present.

So, strictly speaking, to Infinity (THIS unchangingly Present Awareness) there is only Its timeless, changeless BEING—and no time for possibility. That means no possibility of “illusion being and not being at all” because there’s no possibility at all, and no illusion at all, both of which would involve time.

If the foregoing might seem logical but feels overly conceptual, then see for yourself via “direct experience.” Investigate. Is Awareness aware now? (Hopefully the answer is yes!) Is this presently aware Awareness merely a possibility, or is It actually, actively aware now? Can Awareness ever be taken out of being present tense only and be put in time? Notice if there’s a doubt or claim to the contrary about time, possibility, or a witnessing of illusion—what is that? It’s mere thought trying to talk—not Awareness being.

While it may be clear this is Truth, it “seems” as if “we” are still a quite a ways from LIVING, BEING, 100% on this basis. It still seems as if there is a phenomenal world in which possibilities seem to, well, be possible.

As said above, what’s of value is not the theorizing about Infinity or the Timelessness that Awareness is, not the discussion of It—but the “acting” or “abiding” AS IT. After all, Awareness is purely “abiding as” Awareness and not thinking about Itself—and there is no other being aware here, now.

“Where It’s at” is not in intellectually agreeing with all this, but in being consciously alive as Present Awareness which IS Unlimitedness Itself. It is, pattern-less Life, infinitely open Being. And in what still seems to be finite experience, this will “seem” or “appear” as more and more new “possibilities” because there is no longer the seeming clinging to mere repeating mental patterns.

The “best finity” is Infinity ONLY

Apologies for the delay in posting here—it’s been due to traveling, and computer issues which finally seem to be fixed.

The above title might seem odd at first—especially in light of how often it is emphasized here that there is only Infinity. It is in response to Zack’s comment of 5/29 on the previous post, “Infinity does not cross over to Itself.” Zack’s comment is repeated below.

First, the title is a bit of a spin-off from a phrase sometimes used in sports, particularly football: “The best defense is a good offense.” It means the more your team controls the ball on offense, you are also “defending” well, because you’re giving the opponent less of a chance to score against you.
The title is another way of saying, “To the degree one is being Infinity, one cannot simultaneously experience finity.” And, paradoxically, this is what seems to “appear” as better finity.

Of course, the title and example are wholly dualistic, and involve opposites. This is NOT meant to imply there really are two opposing states, both Infinity and finity, or that there can be degrees (partial states) of Infinity. Awareness, Reality, does not “see” or experience in that way, but is Infinity only—and this analogy is used only because it offers an opportunity to make a point.

Reality Check: The only One presently aware is Infinity Itself, as Immeasurable Awareness. It’s not that Infinite Awareness is immeasurable to another, to a “me” or a “you.” There is only Immeasurableness-As-All. As Infinity truly IS Infinity, there are no degrees of Itself (that’s what Infinity means) and no others who might also function only partially as Infinity. Only Infinity, being all-out infinite, incomparable, inconceivable, is all that exists or IS.

Now for Zack’s new comment:

“…There is no limit to what Consciousness can seem to be aware of. This means that as Consciousness, I could seem to be aware of things that the human mind cannot even begin to comprehend.

Instead of adding too much text, here is a link that gives one example of what I mean: seems the “goal” is to be 100% Absolute without any trace of anything finite, correct? But, won’t I be missing out on incredible experiences? Even if the experiences are finite, they can be astounding and wonderful.

As humans we are in the tiny, stuffy, warm grey box. Consciousness is capable of experiencing anything, and it seems like a waste to not explore and create and express. Appearing as a human is but one of infinite possibilities.

I don’t disagree that Consciousness is All and that nothing finite really exists. This has just been nagging at me lately.”

Last comment first: “…This has just been nagging at me lately.” The “spiritual instincts” are right on. The nagging thought is due to the fact that this Present Awareness (not Zack, Peter, or any body), as Infinity Itself, is utterly without limitation. So this Unlimitedness is incapable of accepting, or settling for being stuck in a “tiny stuffy, warm grey box.” No matter how long things may appear to the contrary, it’s not true, or Truth. Awareness definitely is “uncomfortable” with the notion of limitation, because it’s an implication of something that is untrue, impossible, to Itself.

Yes, if one starts from the seeming finite, or assumes such is present in Infinite Awareness, then by abiding as Infinite Awareness, the finite seems to dissolve, fade, into ever-new forms of experience. But don’t be fooled. Right now, to Infinite Awareness, there is only Its Infinity, and NO finity to fade or dissolve into new forms. Most emphatically, this is not being “anti” finity or new experiences—but is simply Infinite Awareness “being consistent” with, or AS, Its changelessness, Its Allness.

As It is Infinity Itself that is THIS One being presently aware, One cannot start on the basis that One is, or has been, limited, and must work out of such seeming limitation. Nor is it assumed that, “By abiding as Infinite Awareness, limitations will seem to fall away.” Even though that may be what seems to occur—it’s never been true. It’s the other way around.

Starting AS Infinity (which is what this Present Awareness is “doing” or being) not only has Awareness never been in limitation—Infinite Awareness leaves no limitation that It could be in or not be in! Again, this is where One “stands” because this is what this Present Awareness, All, inescapably IS.

This also is why it is emphasized that this Present Awareness (All That Is), is absolutely history-less. It means not only has there been no history of finity to which One could be limited—not even Infinite Awareness, All Itself, has any history of existing. So there has been absolutely no “before” in which any kind of prior limitation could have developed or been experienced. There is nothing that must be worked out of, and no prior patterns of limitation that could continue to present themselves because “they’ve been around so long.” Who says so?!

It is flat-out impossible to cling to a “limitation” that never has existed! Only history-less “new” Awareness is.

Again, however, THIS Awareness has no sense of being “anti” limitations or anti the “tiny warm grey box” of humanity—because there is only Itself, and actually no limitation with which It could co-exist. What’s more, how could NOW be anti or “missing out on” something that hasn’t even happened yet, and isn’t really going to happen? And not even NOW Itself has existed for as much as a nanosecond before NOW, thus leaves no time in which to have become anti anything, or miss out on anything.

Back to the point made earlier. One is unlimited thanks to the fact that THIS Awareness IS Infinity Itself. It’s important to be clear that Awareness is not aware of Infinity, but IS Infinity Itself. It is the immeasurable Aliveness that Awareness presently IS. It is Openness as “alive Stuff”; It is Emptiness, as THIS presently alive Being. It is the Alive Lightness that Pure Awareness is, which Itself has no weight. Abiding or “consciously functioning” Here—one cannot simultaneously function as, or cling to, finity. And this is what seems to cause the finite appearance to shift and change to “newer” and less limited forms of experience.

Just stop and ask, “Of what does finity (or the tiny, stuffy warm box) seem to consist?” It seems to involve forms which are observable, measurable, limited. Finity also seems to involve a sense or feeling of weight (whether physical, emotional or mental). It seems to involve density. It seems to involve opposites. It seems to involve time.

Starting from or “looking out as” Pure Awareness, It has no form. Awareness has no weight. It has no density. It has no opposite. Present Awareness cannot be put in time. HERE, AS THIS, there is no finity, and no one clinging to finity. So…abiding Here, even in what still may appear as finite experience, it has to appear with lighter, more “ethereal” form, with less weight, less density, less opposition and limits, less time, etc. Why? Because the only reason those seemed to be occurring was thanks to an “ignoring” of weightless, formless, timeless Awareness—and that “ignoring” no longer is going on.

Zack also said, “…It seems the “goal” is to be 100% Absolute without any trace of anything finite, correct?”

Note Zack’s use of quotes around “goal” which indicate that Awareness IS this, and there really isn’t a goal in Absolute Awareness. It’s important to be clear that all statements made here concerning Awareness are made only because Awareness already IS Infinity “without any trace of anything finite”—but not with the slightest sense of trying to overcome or “do away with” finity.

It’s simply because Awareness already is Infinity only—so why oppose It, why try to pretend otherwise?—when it never can actually occur that there is something or someone other than Infinite Awareness Itself. And who else is aware besides Awareness Itself to put off fully being Awareness?

As said above, it is inevitable that “what still appears to remain of finite experience” will seem to appear in newer, less limited and “more wonderful” forms—but this is not because Awareness has a feeling of “missing out on incredible experiences” but is because It knows no finity. Again, Awareness “can’t help Itself” in being Infinity-As-All only. There is nothing, nothing wrong with such wondrous experiences, of course. But to get hung up on them is like “slamming on the brakes of finity” or “taking the foot off the gas” of One’s very Infinity.

For any readers who may not have the book, the following passage says the same thing in a different way. (You can substitute the term “Mind” with Infinite Awareness). From Consc. Is All, chap 29, You Cannot Be Limited, page 312:

Infinite Awareness, or Mind, is incapable of being restricted. Mind is absolutely Unlimited. This Unlimitedness always is all that is present—only Unlimitedness is present. One thus is Unlimited even in the capacity to be aware of what may appear as thought-forms. What does this mean for what still appears as daily experience? It also must be unlimited—for it, too, would consist merely of such thought-forms. The Unlimited Awareness You are simply cannot be limited to only one tiny body thought-form, on one tiny planet thought-form, of a relatively microscopic galaxy thought-form. The Infinity You are cannot be focalized or localized.

Suppose however, that you ignored the Infinity You are, and identified not as the Unlimited One, but with only the limited thought-forms or appearances. Suppose you assumed you were on that same level, or actually were one of those thought-forms, such as a “body” or “mind.” Since you would be clinging to that level of thought, you would be limited to only that extent of experience. You are the only one that could seem to cling to it, for you are the only One there is.

To behold that You truly are Pure Infinity and to be It alone, as Pure Alive Presence, leaves no mental clinging to anything finite. It leaves no secondary mentality attached to just one body, or one limited state of thought or experience. To the extent one is Infinity-conscious and not finite-conscious, of course it seems one is conscious of less and less finiteness and limitations in one’s experience. Why? Because being conscious is all there is to existing.

What is important is “staying busy as” or being Mind’s Infinite Alive Presence, the Unlimited Aliveness You are, to Whom there is absolutely no limitation. Otherwise, to mentally attach to any thought-form, to finity, and favor it over One’s Pure Infinity, would be to mentally “slam on the brakes.” It would be to leave Unlimitedness, Un-attachedness, and attach to, or settle for, a tiny limited fraction.

Rather, by being the Unlimitedness that Pure Infinity is, leaves One “un-attached” to any particular state of thought. This is what allows the thought or experience to appear to shift, change, or “expand” to a greater extent and variety of thoughts—for there is no limit to the universe of thought-forms one can appear to be aware of. What’s more, not only the extent, but also the variety of your universe is absolutely unlimited. How unlimited is Infinity?

Even what might appear as advanced extra-terrestrial spacecraft would be like the horse and buggy stage, compared to the infinitude of what Awareness can appear to be aware of. It is inevitable that what now appear as the thought-forms called a “stellar universe” will continue to change to ever-new forms of thought. It will appear to expand at an ever-faster rate. Why? Because being Infinity-conscious, or taking attention off of finite limitations, is like “taking off the mental brakes,” or “expanding.”

Again, it’s never really a universe that seems to be expanding—but a state of thought that’s expanding, which is the “universe.” Even though it all would be only “mental,” this universal expansion still may appear to require “physical” spacecraft or other seeming material means at the moment—but what difference does it make? It’s the best, highest form available “at this stage of the game,” and may continue that way for a while. What’s more, the technologies developed from these efforts have led to countless other advances for all areas of daily living.

This refers only to how things may appear. Infinite Awareness Itself never is caught up in, or in awe of anything that may appear on a finite basis. Nor are there really two states—the Infinite and a finite appearance to which It could cling.

In Reality, Total Infinity always is One’s only status.

To Your Infinite Self, there is only Unlimitedness. The finite is mentioned only for purposes of explanation. The point of this book is that there is only Infinity being Infinity-conscious. Always. Infinity is consistently, persistently “staying with” the allness of Infinity’s Alive Presence.

It is thanks to Your Self being Pure Infinity that the universe of thought-forms will appear to operate like a self-expanding prophecy. The “more” You behold of the Unlimitedness You are, the more Unlimited You are in Your Ability to behold!