5th June 2003



Hi G


The affirmation "Consciousness is All".


Wondering, how would this be affirmed, observed?


To affirm, observe would need the 'affirmer", the "observer", to be apart from that "allness" wouldn't it?


And thus would it not negate the statement?





Is  Consciousness conceptual? and what is prior to conceptualizing?



Would not any answer be a concept?

We live in two worlds at the same time, the world of actuality and
the world of conceiving, knowing and understanding.


A conception, a knowing, an understanding, finally is a thought or a series of thoughts.


And if thought or thoughts have arisen, they are part of that actuality of the moment, is it not?




 Together this makes up our reality. It thus becomes clear that many realities are
possible because knowing is different for different people at different ages. The child and old man have different realities
combined of their own unique set of conceptions of actuality.


Indeed, there appears to be a multitude of realities and thus a multitude of worlds, all reflecting the uniquely differentiated conditionings of the observer of these worlds.


The child and the old man have different worlds.


The child and the old man in the same body-mind complex, have different worlds, at different points of time.


Yet, the child and the old man and the infinite variety in between, would they not all be reflections of one?


Imagine yourself standing in a huge hall where there are thousands of mirrors.


Each mirror has a different curvature, is placed at a different angle, is made up of slightly different chemical compositions, such that each of your images are different in each of the mirrors.


And imagine you had the power to and you did bestow the quality of sentience to each of the images, whereby each "image" assumed it was the subject, cognizing, noting all the other images.

That except itself, all other images were objects, of which it, was the subject.


Each image "thinks" this and believes it is observing all the other characters, out of its free will, out of its choice.



And you start dancing.




And thus are there really multiple realities, multiple worlds?


Conversely would not one reality also be another concept?


As a "danced image" in that hall of mirrors, any speculation by "me" about the dancer, would it not be a concept?


So `reality' is not a fixed thing it is fluid. Even in science it is only the most useful theory that is considered `real' and the
fundamental `substance' of life and basis of theory is constantly being revised.

However, we all also collectively inherit the tradition of our culture and so we are stuck in our general world view, our reality,
which becomes slightly modified by experience as time goes on. In our world we have therefore a story of ourselves and our relationships  and a memory of how this all happened over time. Our world view and our place in it is reinforced by others in our culture, of family, friends and peers. The view is further solidified by the need to cooperate and so survive. This consensus view we have can be termed a `paradigm' our set of functional relationships.





"Impacts" on that original DNA-gene structure, which is constantly evolving, changing, altering, moment to moment to moment,  to form what can be termed as the "conditioning-in-the-moment.


It is this "conditioning-in-the-moment" which "fashions" the response of the moment, whether that response be of the nature of a thought or an action.


Thus in any relationship, it is a "conditioning-in-the-moment" relating to "another" conditioning-in-the-moment, moment to moment, with really no individual self involved in any relationship.


Its clear then that once the `paradigm' develops it becomes very difficult to change to a radical new one and in fact there is
generally not even an awareness of a possibility to do so given that we have accepted it as true and vital.



Indeed, the mask has become the assumed face.



 The problem comes with actuality which is not the fixed reality that our concepts are meant to represent. If conceptual thinking is itself limited then the ability to solve the problem of limitation will not be found through concepts and further answers. So no sooner is one personal problem solved then there is another and life is this struggle augmented by escape and the final limitation of death. If this is not to be an inevitable scenario and end to our story we will have to take a fresh look at the basis of our paradigm.



Who is to look G and would not the fresh look, throw up a "fresh" concept?


Is the issue with the problem, or the way one is looking at the problem?

Is the issue with the solution, any solution?


Or is the issue, really, as to whom, is the problem a problem?


No paradigm, will dissolve the question.

The end of questioning can only be consequential to the end of the "questioner".


And this paradigm itself is a concept.


For the "questioner" never "was", for the term 'end" to be applicable.


The wonder of awakening where that awakens which never was asleep and that put to rest which never was.


All the conceptualizing we have now is our reality, at the heart of this is the notion of  a fixed independent self,  but are we that
identity, or is this `me' only conceptual, something held onto?


Wonder, is the "me" holding on, or is the sense of holding on (no matter of what), the very "me", itself?



 To get an answer to this we can't speculate but must again taste actuality, life just as it is, prior to conceptualization.



The "taster" would be a concept, wouldn't it G?


And back to the quagmire of the "taster"- "tasted" duality.


What we have is only conceptualization, in the moment.

The assertion that what-is prior to conceptualization can be tasted, is also conceptualizing.


Conceptualization, moment to moment to moment, is a direct consequence of the manner in which the "entity" is wired up.

The 'wiring" being the entity.


Wondering how the wiring can be unwired, is again conceptualization.


For the "wiring" and its consequential issues revolving around how to "unwire", is a mere notion.




actuality the differentiation between self and other, between subject and object can be seen not to have validity. There is in actuality no breaking up of the whole.



Or to put it in another manner, the notional subject, cognizing its cognized world of objects, is itself a cognized object, in that hall of mirrors.




 Further, `self' is not abstracted in actuality and there is no division of subject and object, mind and
matter. There is nothing and no one outside of Consciousness and that there ever was, was a conceptual abstraction.


Come again G.Something is not kosher. Did you mean that 'ever" to be "never"?


I suggest for your consideration G, Consciousness itself is a conceptual abstraction .


Useful tool no doubt, as a long thorn to pluck out another deeply embedded thorn.


And then to keep both the thorns aside.

A new paradigm which defies conceptualization is perhaps not what we expect and how do we communicate `unbroken wholeness' or `non duality' in a language devised for analysis. This is a challenge ahead. For the time being a word has been used for this new vision and it is Consciousness with a  capital C. This is meant to indicate actuality, as it is, prior to conceptualization and to redefine our previous understanding of consciousness (small c).



That is indeed so.

That is all, that is possible within phenomenality.


Conceptualization, replacing a previous conceptualization.

Paradigms replacing  previous paradigms.


Round and round the mulberry bush.

Appropriate fun and games, no doubt.


The new view is that `we' have been abstracted from Consciousness, not as previously understood that consciousness was an abstraction, something we had like other things. Consciousness is thus primary and universal, in which all `things' arise and fall and evolve undivided.



As concepts go, may I suggest, that it is Consciousness itself which arises and falls as the "10,000 things" through a process of entitification of itself, by itself, for its own sport.


A "wave", appears to arise and fall in an Ocean.

But pick up a "wave" in your hand and, all that will be in the palm of your hand is the Ocean.

The "wave" never was, either to arise or to fall.


Just the illusion of rising and falling and phenomenality appears, which includes the pondering about what is prior to phenomenality.


A dialogue on Consciousness then is not  abstract and  intellectual  but  an encounter with truth, as it is. Nor is it idealistic, but a
surrendering of idealism for actuality.


G, can the need for a dialogue arise in that oneness of Consciousness?( A mere conceptual term being used for the purpose of this dialogue).


Dialogue, any dialogue, about anything, is only by a concept, with a concept through the medium of concepts, in a conceptual framework of duality.


Truth being Truth has no need to seek Truth, define Truth, discover Truth, affirm Truth, or deny Truth.



And yet if that is what is happening in the moment, can "G" do otherwise, in that moment?


So the question, what to do, now ?


Do whatsoever, you wish to do in the moment.


"You" cannot do otherwise anyway.




content page