That Which Is Aware of Perceptions: Who Is Aware of That?

[Reading from the chat] You say (just to expand a little) I notice in myself rejection of the changeful. Then, when I look for the reality of the changeful, this rejection is not there, and it feels more like it is embraced. It can happen like this. This is one of the spiritual things. That is why I have often said recently that in the neti-neti, when we are saying “not this, not this, not this”, many times we can make a position of “not, not, no, no, I am resisting,” like that. So, that is why mostly these days I have changed the question to say, “What else? What else is there?” Okay, the world is there. What else is there? Okay, the body is there. What else is there? My thoughts are there, my emotions are there. Okay, what else is there? We ask “what else?” so that that aspect of you which seems to not have got this focus which the rest of the manifest aspect has got. The point of neti-neti is not to come to an aversion towards the world finally — although initially some sages may say like that because they want us to really look beyond, to see what else is there. But nobody has said that ultimately you must treat the world as cockroach or something like that.’ [Smiles] Even that distinction of manifest and un-manifest goes away. Even that distinction of real and un-real goes away. So, these are just provisional pointings so that we can focus on an aspect of our own Self which seems to have been neglected — never really, but only seems to happen. But I want to caution you against the last statement you made which is that “it is now more of an embrace”. It does not have to be aversion or embrace. [Smiles] Because even in your embrace, you are pointing to yourself as something which you cannot find, just in the same way as your aversion. This is what I am saying — I am constantly pointing out the boundaries of our intellect, which can only say either “no, no, no”, or “come, come hug me”. [Smiles] What about just neutrality? It is what it is. Empty of either position. By the way, this does not mean an opposition to either of those two positions. It’s just like ‘not applicable’ to everything. Because the tricky mind can say, “But, I am embracing. That is wrong.” That is not what I am saying. I’m saying: Is that position truly representative of your reality? Like, if this entire manifest creation is just an aspect of you, is that, in its being an aspect of you, is it not already embraced? Do we have to take an additional position of embracing it? And, in that position, what is the limitation we are placing on to our own representation? So, we do not need to push away or pull towards. Because in either position, we are taking our Self to be something it is not. I mean, do I have to embrace my head [Smiles] or my foot? If it is a part of me, then what is the pull towards or push against? That is what we are saying. So, change the perspective of the neti-neti from “not, not, not” like the résistance not-not, to a looking at “what else”, “what also” — I say “what also” — and, from this limited perceptive of pushing away or aversion, or pulling towards or embracing, just what is, is naturally enough.