TODAY'S CONSIDERATIONS
"You are not in the world - the world is in you."
--Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj
Meaning? Meaning that "the world" is nothing more than a concept, imagined to be a certain thing or imagined to be a certain way by "non-realized" persons.
He meant, too, that what is imagined is not real and that "the world," therefore, is in you . . . that is, in your mind.
Again, if one wants "the world" he or she is presently living in to change or wants "her or his world" to be different from the way it is, then the process for bringing that change about is simply to . . .
. . . change your perspective.
How different must one's perspective of the world be?
It must be 180-degrees opposite of the way it has been perceived to be, and that must be the case until there is no longer any remaining belief in the concept of "this world," much less a belief in an upgraded version of "this world" (a.k.a., "heaven") or a downgraded version of "this world" (a.k.a., "hell").
Regarding the cover: one definition of "perspective" is "The art and the science of so delineating all that is witnessed that all shall seem to grow smaller when receding from the eye." Such is the case via Realization, especially when combined with an understanding of the Nisarga (Natural) Yoga.
Relative events and happenings that were once blown out of proportion are seen in proper perspective.
Other definitions of "perspective" include the following:
A way of regarding situations, facts, etc, and judging their relative importance;
the proper or accurate point of view or the ability to see it;
objectivity;
a particular way of viewing things; and
one's "point of view" that is taken from a particular or unique vantage point.
If something is in perspective, it is considered as part of a complete situation so that you have an accurate and fair understanding of it.
Here are two pointers to consider:
The first: understand that I am no different from anyone that comes to visit or from anyone that reads this book.
The only possible difference is in perspective, so certain perspectives here that might differ from their perspectives or from the perspectives that are common among the non-Realized masses (or from the perspectives of some claiming realization) shall be shared for consideration;
and the second pointer:
The masses see themselves as persons when they are actually only seeing their assumed, false personas / personalities. Here, via the Realization process which results in total depersonalization, there is no "one" at all.
So, the different perspective here regarding the view of "self" or "one" vs. the perspective commonly-held among the masses has been explained thusly:
Here, there is no recognition of any who-ness at all; there is no belief in some "one" who is living "here" at all.
It was once explained this way when the question was asked if people ever have the power to "bother Floyd":
“ . . . How could persons possibly bother Me? Personas are no more bothersome than mirages, and both are exactly the same; furthermore, people do not have even the slightest clue about where I truly live. Only a few on the entire planet called “earth” have a clue. Some might enter what is called ‘floyd’s house’ or ‘floyd’s home,’ but that is not where I live; in fact, ‘where’ I live has nothing to do with a ‘where’ at all.
"In that regard, there is actually only a ‘how.’ ‘How’ I abide is as the awareness, as the Original Nature, as the natural state which has no boundaries, which has no defining traits, and which does not change. ‘How’ I abide is without limitations, without qualifications, and without conditions or conditioning. In that regard, in fact, the abidance happens not only without any influence at all from earlier conditions and conditioning but also without any influence from earlier programming or domestication or acculturation, either.
(There is, as Maharaj said, the slight, remaining influence of the original personality type that accounted for a "life-long" interest in authenticity, though the continuation of that interest is now based in the unblocked consciousness and the pure aware-of-ness rather than in any persona.)
As for "Me," abidance now happens in a whole and unadulterated and unambiguous manner, which shall be the case until the consciousness unmanifests. Abidance is happening with Reality having been overlaid on the relative.
And when the consciousness unmanifests? Then the drop shall enter the ocean of energy from which it came and will span the Absolute.
Awareness shall be, but aware of-ness shall not. Later, other universes might be spanned as well, or might not. Yet all of the above is stated, so it, too, cannot be the Truth. The invitation here has always been to find that Truth Which Can Be Known But Which Cannot Be Stated, within.
And as far as Advaita's summative statement "I AM THAT; I AM" goes?
"The AM-ness regarding "floyd" is seen as a "composite unity," consisting of an elemental plant food body that is circulating air and that is temporarily housing the manifested consciousness. The THAT-ness of "Floyd" is perceived as a field of energy from which the conscious-energy manifests and to which it will return.
As for identification with something "special" or "Special" - or with any kind of WHO-ness at all - that was discarded when identification with the Nothingness came, followed eventually by not even identifying with Nothing - or anything else."
And therein lies another perspective that is different - not only from that commonly-held among the masses but also from the perspective that is held by some now claiming to be "A Supreme Self" or "A Spiritual Self" or "One That Is At One With God" or even, in some cases, "God."
Here, no "good identities" have been assumed to replace some former "bad identities"; here, no "better roles" have replaced "former, worse roles"; and here, no hierarchical (that is, dualistic) labels are used regarding any other ego-based "Superlative Identities" such as some "Higher Level Self" or "Infinite Self" or "Highest Self" or "Utmost Self" or "Absolute Self."
Here, to abide beyond the beingness and non-beingness precludes abiding as any kind of "self" or "Self" at all.
By contrast, among
(a) the masses who desire continuity of body and mind and personality, and among
(b) some claiming full realization and claiming to be some kind of superior personage, or among
(c) some now claiming to be something superior that is beyond personage, then
pointers regarding non-self-ness and Non-Self-Ness and no levels and no "Higher Identity" as opposed to some "lower identities" are anathema. So it is. Why that statement?
Because there is no "one" here who believes anything, so there can be no "one" here who can care about what anyone (or "AnyOne") believes. All beliefs are false, so the invitation here is to discard all beliefs, not to accumulate new beliefs.
Now that is a different perspective from most, is it not?
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 nearly 2,900 posts for any topics of interest to you.
