Existence is One Without Any Second - 8th June 2016

So being like space is actually not a doing. Not the doing. I'm just being like space, you see? You are like space unless you have belief. Otherwise, regardless of what appears in it, yes, so whatever appears, whatever comes, it moves. If you don't say 'me' or 'mine,' we don't give it meaning. 'This should not be, this should be more like this.' You're not judging it, you're not interpreting it, giving the interpretation. Then automatically this... so that further you see, space is known by you. But it's like how I experience would be active, like visions of, you see, the thoughts coming. And if you don't believe, there is the resistance coming. Why this? That's also thought, you see. But it could be active or it could be actively being in a different place where nothing is just coming back. And that means I'm kind of actively doing that in a way because which something is not very apparent because you know what respect is. Go back to thought and identify. So they're trying to actively be the presence, by trying to be space. He also speaks about that a little later.

'Existence is one without the second.' But then we are not using, when we are taking the interpretations of these thoughts, then there is only one. We cannot separate something without first labeling or interpreting it. 'Only in becoming apparent, it is obliged to divide into an apparent seer and an apparent seen. In that way, being is the beginning of duality, space and time.' Duality, comma, space and time, limited and temporary. 'Only in becoming apparent, it is obliged to divide into an apparent seer and an apparently seen. In that way, being is the beginning of duality, space and time.' You will take that. What does it mean, 'only in becoming apparent'?

Like a shortcut. After Maharaj, he said, and for a contact of unity to exist, first must be duality. I would say it. So it's like as it is, was. So the idea of coming on hasn't even formed even right below me, in me, being rising out of awareness as if what we are. Only then can this concept of unity be. But in truth, there's no unity because there's no separation. That's I think he's saying. The second point is the main one.

Yes, it says your default state is natural openness, and into something you have assigned value that can subjugate it. And out of this openness, you need to create something. I could create a bit from by assigning value on... I think what was this one? Yes, let me say that again. 'Only in becoming apparent, it is obliged to divide into an apparent seer and an apparent seen. In that way, being is the beginning of duality, space and time, limited and temporary.' Yeah, so when we assign our human anatomy, something said 'no' and sides out without what is this. It is not negative, it is not lingering as two separate. That is like, oh, I actually don't know what we're doing. You're reading things for interpreting.

I interpret one small... like out of the Absolute, then what suddenly becomes apparent on it? Like the presence, and then the presence comes to observe the observable objects. And actually, so in that case, because something, when what is missing hasn't come, it needs to witness something. So just the appearance of this, the presence itself is the first... it's the beginning of duality.

It's very good. As I said, being is the beginning of duality. It chooses space and time, limited and temporary, compared to the reality of what you are. Well, then he says: 'To see that everything simply arises in consciousness is a liberating disposition.' To see that everything simply arises in consciousness. And so I will check, what are the boundaries of our being? And it says everything experienced within this being. Is anything outside of you as consciousness? See, to see that everything is in this one consciousness, one being. It says to see that everything simply arises in consciousness is a liberating disposition because then the sense of separation is not there. Then the interpretation is not believed. Also share more about this. To see that everything simply arises in consciousness is a liberating disposition. It's clear.

Then he says: 'You identify with the body, its problems become yours. The further one moves away from the self-referential point of view, the closer one comes to reality. Differences in appearances and expression may be here, may be there, but they do not matter.' Then you identify with the body, its problems become yours. Very clear. The further one moves away from the self-referential point of view, the closer one comes to reality. Now terminology there could be a bit confusing because in traditional Vedanta, we'll refer to the Self as reality, but in Buddhism, maybe even in Zen, they say self-referential in this way they are referring to some appearance as myself. Then we move away from this perspective, either the body or the mind is no longer referred to as self, the closer one we become to the reality of differences in appearance and expression may be there, but they do not matter. Finally, it is just that one sentence: the difference in the expression, the self is referred to differently, which automatically that does not matter. Also at another level, you could mean that you could have different appearances, expressions appearing and disappearing, but they do not matter.

Finally, it is discerned that one is always knowing, never the known. There is only the greatness appearing as everything. Finally, it is discerned that one is always knowing, never the known. There is only the greatness appearing as everything. It's like even this entire universe and this realm in which it expresses itself, then any other realm which could express in uniform consciousness, and any dimension, any other level of expression or experience is absolutely non-existent unless we know. But actually, the only thing which we can really say exists is the knowing of it. Because if we're not here to know it, then it doesn't exist, no matter how grand or spectacular it is.

So, 'always knowing, never the known.' It's very important. Just the other day we had a Satsang where we said, 'Look at it. If it can be known, that means it is not you.' So it is the knowingness itself that knows even presence. Because only on that point can we say something like being is the beginning of duality? Not from a personal perspective, not even from the perspective of being itself, but even as God, 'I am that I am.' Then we say that being is the beginning of duality from the perspective of this knowingness itself. Never the object that is known, including the knowing of being itself. This discerned that that one is always knowing, that I am always this knowing. Or even to 'I am,' I am the knowing, never the known. There is only the greatness appearing as everything. This knowingness itself, so appearing as everything including consciousness. This is enlightenment: the realization of knowingness of what is aware, of what is aware of what is. Say nicely, knowing sentence of... he said it also be interpreted as: no object can ever be truly you. Can you ever be truly touched? It's only the knowing that can touch. Yes, that could be it. That might mean... just look at it like this. Yes. But even if it is not this line, I feel very grateful for what you say because everything is known as the knowing itself, can never be truly touched. Always knowing, never the known.