TODAY’S CONSIDERATIONS
To review the key pointers that would be offered were the taking of mahasamadhi only hours away:
a. The source of all relative problems always involves fanaticism.
b. Fanaticism is always rooted in the agendas of personality identifications.
c. Fanaticism also works hand-in-hand with higher-than-ever levels of the Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder are manifesting around the globe.
To summarize some of the other key pointers which would be offered if the final talks were limited to what could be shared during the final three hours of the manifestation:
1. Find the simplest version of these teachings.
2. Abide naturally.
3. Seek no identity, including "good" ones.
4. Rest in the awareness of the nothingness.
5. All things relative and Absolute is much ado about nothing.
6. Settle not for instability.
7. Question.
8. Be free of the effects of your programming, conditioning, domestication and acculturation.
9. March to the beat of your inner guru.
10. Transition both religious and spiritual concepts.
11. Understand that there are hundreds of sources of pain, that there is only one source of misery and suffering, and that you must return to the mind-less "Child No-Knowing Stage" is you would be free and happy.
12. If you would abide naturally, find either a guide or a model that is abiding naturally.
13. You Really Can Just Be (Without Being Anything or Anybody).
14. Be still and know that you are and know that you are that so that you can be still and know that you are so that you can be still and know so that you can then just be still so that you can just . . . be.
And then next:
The next topic offered for consideration is excerpted from the book WHEN ONLY THREE HOURS OF MANIFESTATION REMAIN (The "Final" Talks of Floyd Henderson):
Above All: Be Love, But Then Live In an "As If" Fashion So That You Can Enjoy Love As A Relative Expression Of ABSOLUTE, REAL LOVE As Well
(Part Four: "Love is Knowing that You Are Everything; Wisdom Is Knowing That You Are Nothing")
The discussion will continue (1) in an effort to differentiate between the rarely understood Real Love and the far-more-prevalent, conceptualized false "love" and (2) in an effort to address the toll that the latter concept takes on persons (guaranteeing - as noted earlier - that, if you settle for anything false, you will lose yourself completely).
Consider this pointer: "Real Love" brings nothing that is relative and takes nothing that is relative (though the awareness of Oneness allows it to be expressed in endless ways when Reality is overlaid on the relative).
Is it possible that the concept of (false) "love" among persons is actually based in "because of's"? ("I love her because of her good looks and because of how sweet she is and because of how good she is to me" or "I love him because of the way he cares for me and because of the way he provides for my needs and because of how he accepts me and because of the way he filled the void in my life when he came to me.")
Is it possible that any notions about what love is, if the notions involve "because of's," really help to further define what love is not? If True Love happens to be unconditional in nature, then is it possible that any claims about "love" that involve conditions (or conditioning) really reveal what love is not?
[Note: What some call the “Real Self” or the “True Self” is nothing more than pure witnessing – not the “Pure Witness” which only exists during the manifestation. True Love can only be understood by the “True Self,” so if True Love can only be understood if the True Self is understood, can anyone not “realized” have even the slightest clue as to what True Love entails?]
The typical groupthink which exists worldwide will block the understanding of pointers that attempt to differentiate Real Love - which is rooted in an unabridged sense of Oneness - from the "false love" that persons believe is real. So why is "love" preferred?
As noted, Real Love brings nothing that is relative and takes nothing that is relative; false "love," on the other hand, is used to address personality-based fears and desires and is, therefore, only about giving relative things and getting or taking relative things . . . about "something" as opposed to "nothing." Thus, Real Love is Self-full but self-less; false "love" is totally selfish and self-ish, totally separated from oneself.
Settling for false "love" will, in fact, guarantee that you will become separated from your “True Self” – that is, from the ability to witness accurately - and will guarantee that you will lose yourself completely.
That is why pointers offered during a discussion of "love" vs. Real Love have been so vigorously resisted over the decades by persons defending whatever version of "love" they think they have, resisted even more than the discussions regarding their false dogma or other false beliefs.
They want their fears and desires to be addressed, right now, and if false "love" is what can most immediately address those fears and desires, so it is. Bring it on, and keep it up.
Most shut down and tune out completely when confronted with the fact that they have nothing close to Real Love, that they are playing a self-ish game, that they are using and being used.
Accurately differentiating between (a) Real Love and (b) the commonly-accepted version of "love" (that is, "false love" or the "not-Real Love" which the masses speak of) can only happen post-Realization in the Full-Awareness understanding of Maharaj's pointer: "Love is knowing that I am Everything."
When the Oneness is finally understood, then Real Love is marked by an unwavering sense of the unicity, of Everything-ness; then, it is clear as well that Real Love is Everything. Nothing else is believed to be after understanding that Real Love = Everything = Oneness. Believing nothing else - that is, having no other beliefs at all - then there is a manifestation of perfect insight and flawless perception which leads to a steadfast, unshakable understanding of the fact that "Wisdom is knowing that I am nothing."
[Meanwhile, what does the opposite look like when persons are driven by a "not-oneness," dualistic agenda? It looks like the separatist movements presently festering in the Middle East, in the U.K., in France, in Germany, and in the U.S., to name but a few examples. It looks like the politics of the separatists currently involved in the presidential election in the U.S., one key player having advised followers to "Turn on the hate." He did not mean "Turn against the hate . . . turn on it." He meant, "Turn on the hate like you would a faucet in order to let it really flow." So it is when the Ultimate Sickness manifests and thereafter determines every thought and word and deed.]
[Meanwhile, what does the opposite look like when persons are driven by a "not-oneness," dualistic agenda? It looks like the separatist movements presently festering in the Middle East, in the U.K., in France, in Germany, and in the U.S., to name but a few examples. It looks like the politics of the separatists currently involved in the presidential election in the U.S., one key player having advised followers to "Turn on the hate." He did not mean "Turn against the hate . . . turn on it." He meant, "Turn on the hate like you would a faucet in order to let it really flow." So it is when the Ultimate Sickness manifests and thereafter determines every thought and word and deed.]
In the instant that it is understood that you are everything and that you are nothing, then at that point you lose your self absolutely (that is, you lose any belief in false selves) and you know yourself absolutely. In that instant you are never more in touch with yourself as well as in touch with that which is real, namely, “the One and Same Self-ness (actually, Beingness) of All,” realizing Love Manifest and realizing the non-dualistic truth of "the Not-Two-ness."
Understand that and you understand that "ecstasy" - that perfect and total bliss - is actually the loss of your self / selves, allowing the “True Self” alone to BE and to witness purely that which Love truly is. The Absolute is at that moment overlaid upon the relative so that relative happenings then offer the opportunity for Absolute Bliss to manifest.
And that can happen whether you are "with someone" or not. "How can that be?" some ask. That point will be made clear.
Previously, it was shown that, post-“Full-Realization,” any physical expression of love is simultaneously an Expression of Real Love. Never again, after Full Realization, can such an expression be anything other than a simultaneous expression of love and an Expression of THAT . . . of Real and Absolute Love, meaning Love that is a reflection of the Absolute. You will settle for nothing less. You will choose nothing rather than settle for less.
The "characteristics" of the Absolute are then adumbrated throughout the entirety of the relative existence and become the "characteristics" of the "not-two" (Advaitin) unicity of Real Love / love. What are those "traits"? In the limitless expanse of energy called “The Absolute,” that energy is uncontaminated, unconditional, unconditioned, unqualified, unlimited, pure, unadulterated, and unambiguous.
If that energy which has the ability to be both conscious of and aware of if manifested is not blocked by the effects of programming and conditioning and domestication and acculturation, then it is uncontaminated, unconditional, unconditioned, unqualified, unlimited, pure, unadulterated, and unambiguous.
For the remainder of the post-Realization understanding of the "not-two-ness" of Everything-ness and Nothingness, then all Expressions of Love and / or expressions of Love as love will also be uncontaminated, unconditional, unconditioned, unqualified, unlimited, pure, unadulterated, and unambiguous.
Again many say, "But I still don't see how Absolute Bliss and the manifestation of phenomenal absolute bliss can manifest if you are not with someone." It's really quite simple:
When the Oneness, the Everything-ness, is understood, there might be a "Lover" and a "lover" or there might not be a "Lover" and a "lover." Either way, though, Love IS.
The Bliss of Loving and loving, therefore, never had anything to do with "two-ness" at all, did it? Consider: Is it possible that Love does not require the presence of another body but can happen even if “alone”? Is it possible that Love does not involve assumption of more false identities?
Is it possible that Maslow’s talk of love and self-esteem and self-actualization might have more accurately been said to deal with Self-Love, Self-Esteem and Self-Actualization?
Since Realization ends all subject-object duality, might True Love actually exist without an object?
Because there is really no such thing as a "relationship" - that concept based in the duality of an "A" joined with a "B" - then it should be clear now that the post-“realization” relative existence (marked not by knowing Love and / or love but marked by Being Love and being love) requires "no one else" for Love and love to be felt.
To be continued.
Please enter into the silence of contemplation.
[NOTE: The four most recent posts are below. You may access all of the posts in this series and in the previous series and several thousand other posts as well by clicking on the links in the "Recent Posts and Archives" section.]
In addition to the five non-duality books made available without charge by Andy Gugar, Jr. (see “FREEBIES” above), you can now access over 2,800 posts for any topics of interest to you.
