BEYOND THE BEINGNESS AND THE NON-BEINGNESS

FROM A SITE VISITOR: I cannot understand “beyond the beingness and the non-beingness.” Can you clarify? Thank you, David

F.: Of course, David, but understand that any discussion of beingness and non-beingness will happen on one level for seekers at one point and at a different level for seekers at another point. Since your place on the "path" is not known, an introduction to this subject matter is treated in several chapters of the book FROM THE I TO THE ABSOLUTE. The response today will be directed toward those who are at the advanced stages on the “journey” and are ready for final clarification. That point made, here are three considerations:

1. “How can that which is illusion, and therefore has never been, possibly be thought to ‘be’?”

2. “How can that which is illusion, and therefore has never been, possibly be thought to ‘have been at some time’?”

and

3. “How can that which is illusion, and therefore has never been, be thought to ‘not be’ now?”

The three keys, of course, are to understand first that everything you see is illusion...that nothing perceived with "your eyes" is as you perceive it. Next is to understand that nothing that is perceived with a programmed, conditioned, and enculturated "mind" is as the "mind" thinks it is. And third, nothing that you assume as a persona is real. Freedom from belief in images and illusions is the prerequisite for detaching from the beingness and the non-beingness and understanding that which is beyond.

For further clarification, consider this relative existence experience: when “floyd” was married, a discussion about baby names took place. It was determined that if there were a female child, she’d be named “Ashley” and if there were a male child, he’d be named “Kyle.” A daughter was born.

Now, we can talk about Ashley, if you like, but can we talk about “Kyle”? Would you take Ashley to “be” but Kyle to “not be”? To that end, the non-Realized will (mistakenly) take Ashley to be “a being” and would have to (mistakenly) take Kyle to be “a non-being,” as of now. They would also take “floyd” as “a being” now but, post-manifestation, to be a “non-being.” (That can be a starting point for those beginning the "journey," but truth is beyond even that.) As Advaitins for ages have noted, all such talk would be no different from discussing “the child of a barren woman.”

The reason that Krishna discounted the beingness and the non-beingness (ultimately making them both a moot issue) was because the Absolute is beyond any relative existence illusions about (1) something “being” or about (2) something that “had been” but is now “not being” any more. If that which “has only been imagined to have been” via the warped consciousness is and was only imagined, then why speak now of something (which never was) as “not being”? The being/non-being notions, as with all aspects of the Advaita Teachings, are not complicated once logic and reason are applied.

(Tomorrow, a discussion will begin of a person suffering tremendous misery as her assumed role of "wife" is now coming to an end. She thinks her "husband" is "not being himself" now that he's leaving her for another woman but will "come to his senses" and return. What she is not seeing is that he cannot "not be" what she only imagined he was to begin with, namely, "a loving, faithful, caring spouse who will honor his vows and me forever.")

Understand the following: that which has only been a figment of the imagination never did have any "be-ness" at all and, therefore, cannot logically be said to "not be" now. The most that can happen is for persons to awaken to reality and understand that what they thought they were seeing was not that at all.

Is there a step on the “path” when the seeker must be introduced to "being and non-being pointers"? Of course. The consciousness is manifested and this AM-ness is perceived to be happening, yet everything in consciousness is ultimately about duality and therefore not real (since to be “conscious of” implies something being consciousness of something else…even if that something else is the unicity). Eventually, the consciousness will not be manifested and any currently perceived Is-ness will not be perceived. The temporary is not the real and never was.

So why even discuss "beingness and non-beingness"? The only grounds for sharing any Advaita terms or concepts along the way is to point to the various stages by which the consciousness was warped (and thereafter to point to the steps that must be transcended in reverse order to be free of the relative effects of the warped consciousness). Post-Realization, all of the terms or concepts will be cast aside, including beingness and non-beingness as well.

Another accurate pointer could be that “post-manifestation, there is no 'self' or 'Self' that can be aware of, or conscious of, anything.” Syllogistic reasoning can then be used to uncover the facts regarding this topic:

(A) the Absolute is beyond both beingness and non-beingness;
(B) the Absolute is that which is real; therefore,
(C) neither the beingness nor the non-beingness can be real, so I (the Absolute) am beyond both.

Understand those pointers and you might understand why...

...“the world” is only in you and why

...You are not in the world and why

...the illusions of beingness and non-beingness are also in you.

Please enter the silence of contemplation.
FOR A DETAILED EXPLANATION OF BEINGNESS AND NON-BEINGNESS:

Click FROM THE I TO THE ABSOLUTE (A Seven-Step Journey to Reality)

YES, BOOKS ARE SHIPPED INTERNATIONALLY. The USPS set new rates that went into effect on 14 May 2007. You may visit http://ircalc.usps.gov/ to calculate rates and view options. (In the “weight boxes,” estimate from 1 pound for a single book to 3 pounds and 14 ounces for 5-6 books.) Add $5 to cover package preparation, the assistant's trip to the PO, the completion of international shipping forms, and postal fees.