From a site visitor: “You speak of persons and the Realized. Are they exact opposites, and if so, wouldn’t that be a duality?”
F.: Thanks for your inquiry. For the sake of discussion only, yes, persons are those not Realized; however, no dualities exist. What is pointed to with the term “person” and what is pointed to with the term “Realized” are all there is: consciousness. The seeming difference is in “tainted consciousness” (personas) vs. “pure consciousness,” but consciousness is consciousness either way. Persons simply haven’t a clue What They Are while the Realized know They Are That. Understand that to be Realized is to know That Which You Are: consciousness manifested, soon to return to the universal pool of pure consciousness called “the Absolute” when unmanifest. The vocabulary of persons is marred via archetypal and cultural influences, so you hear talk from persons about dualities such as “good and bad,” “heaven and hell,” “reward and punishment,” and “dark and light.” That which is real—conscious energy—cannot be split or divided. “Slice off” a portion of consciousness to manifest from the pool of consciousness and you still have…only consciousness. When that consciousness is “sliced away” from the space in which it was manifested and cycles to the pool of universal consciousness, you still have…only consciousness. Consciousness is That which is indivisible and it is That alone which is real.
In this relative existence, nothing is going on but a breeziness of play, but persons are caught up in a tornado of work, in a storm of seriousness, and in a tempest of drama. So-called “life” in this sphere of consciousness is just a process of functioning, and while the “mind” of a person will dream up notions about separation and differentitation, none exists. The process just keeps on happening. A belief or a concept, a religion or a philosophy, a state or a nation, a hero or a villian…all are just part of the process of functioning. All those are just dreamed up names, all such dreamed up labels “create” a false sense of reality, and all the concepts are thought by persons to be different; in fact, all labels and concepts are the product of contaminated consciousness only. Your question “Are they exact opposites,” however, offers the opportunity to consider an interesting take on the Functioning of the Totality.
Persons, even though they take themselves to be the roles they play, are no different from the Realized. All is consciousness. Persons believe that they and other persons "die"; the Realized know that consciousness simply cycles into manifestation and out of manifestation. The exact same providence awaits those who take themselves to be persons as well as those who know What They Really Are: the untimate fate of all manifested consciousness is that it will be re-absorbed into the pool of universal consciousness. All will once again be consciousness-at-rest at some point. (“What about reincarnation?” one visitor asked recently. Other comments in that visitor’s e-mail showed that the writer doesn’t understand that his own “birth” was a result of a simple act of friction. What need to concern oneself with the nonsense of multiple births if one doesn’t even know how one baby was “made” and that there are no births?) The guaranteed cycling of consciousness means that those who believe themselves to be persons will eventually be free of all concerns, just as the Realized will eventually be free of all concerns. When the consciousness unmanifests, it knows nothing. Ultimately, it is irrelevant if that speck of consciousness when manifested knew Itself or if it mistook itself for the roles that the corrupted consciousness leads persons to think they are. The only difference happens NOW: persons suffer chaos and emotional intoxication while the Realized witness and feel, but after the consciousness is no longer manifested, the result is the same: consciousness will be at-rest. As Szent-Gyorgyi said, “What drives life is … a little electric current, set up by the sunshine.” Know that truth, then what room remains for arrogance, for ego, or for assumed ego-states as identities? Please enter the silence of contemplation. [To be continued]
F.: Thanks for your inquiry. For the sake of discussion only, yes, persons are those not Realized; however, no dualities exist. What is pointed to with the term “person” and what is pointed to with the term “Realized” are all there is: consciousness. The seeming difference is in “tainted consciousness” (personas) vs. “pure consciousness,” but consciousness is consciousness either way. Persons simply haven’t a clue What They Are while the Realized know They Are That. Understand that to be Realized is to know That Which You Are: consciousness manifested, soon to return to the universal pool of pure consciousness called “the Absolute” when unmanifest. The vocabulary of persons is marred via archetypal and cultural influences, so you hear talk from persons about dualities such as “good and bad,” “heaven and hell,” “reward and punishment,” and “dark and light.” That which is real—conscious energy—cannot be split or divided. “Slice off” a portion of consciousness to manifest from the pool of consciousness and you still have…only consciousness. When that consciousness is “sliced away” from the space in which it was manifested and cycles to the pool of universal consciousness, you still have…only consciousness. Consciousness is That which is indivisible and it is That alone which is real.
In this relative existence, nothing is going on but a breeziness of play, but persons are caught up in a tornado of work, in a storm of seriousness, and in a tempest of drama. So-called “life” in this sphere of consciousness is just a process of functioning, and while the “mind” of a person will dream up notions about separation and differentitation, none exists. The process just keeps on happening. A belief or a concept, a religion or a philosophy, a state or a nation, a hero or a villian…all are just part of the process of functioning. All those are just dreamed up names, all such dreamed up labels “create” a false sense of reality, and all the concepts are thought by persons to be different; in fact, all labels and concepts are the product of contaminated consciousness only. Your question “Are they exact opposites,” however, offers the opportunity to consider an interesting take on the Functioning of the Totality.
Persons, even though they take themselves to be the roles they play, are no different from the Realized. All is consciousness. Persons believe that they and other persons "die"; the Realized know that consciousness simply cycles into manifestation and out of manifestation. The exact same providence awaits those who take themselves to be persons as well as those who know What They Really Are: the untimate fate of all manifested consciousness is that it will be re-absorbed into the pool of universal consciousness. All will once again be consciousness-at-rest at some point. (“What about reincarnation?” one visitor asked recently. Other comments in that visitor’s e-mail showed that the writer doesn’t understand that his own “birth” was a result of a simple act of friction. What need to concern oneself with the nonsense of multiple births if one doesn’t even know how one baby was “made” and that there are no births?) The guaranteed cycling of consciousness means that those who believe themselves to be persons will eventually be free of all concerns, just as the Realized will eventually be free of all concerns. When the consciousness unmanifests, it knows nothing. Ultimately, it is irrelevant if that speck of consciousness when manifested knew Itself or if it mistook itself for the roles that the corrupted consciousness leads persons to think they are. The only difference happens NOW: persons suffer chaos and emotional intoxication while the Realized witness and feel, but after the consciousness is no longer manifested, the result is the same: consciousness will be at-rest. As Szent-Gyorgyi said, “What drives life is … a little electric current, set up by the sunshine.” Know that truth, then what room remains for arrogance, for ego, or for assumed ego-states as identities? Please enter the silence of contemplation. [To be continued]
