Transcendence and Immanence

 

I am the dreamer of myself in the dream in which I appear, but as such
what I am is not the objective (dreamed) appearance, and so I am no
entity.

 

I am all the entities, all the illusory images, I am the gestalt in which these entities dance, these illusory images sway, while simultaneously I am none of all that.

It is not the object that awakens, but it is the identification of the
dreamer with his object that causes the illusion of bondage, which ends.

That ending is also in a manner of speaking, for it is not that the identification had an existential reality and in time is now no more.
The wonder of awakening, the awakening of that which was never asleep, and that put to rest which never was.

 

Awakening is disappearing, dissolving, vanishing as an object. Awakening is the dissolution of appearance, the evaporation of a dream or an illusion.

Awakening is the dis-appearance of phenomenality (of the objective, of all objectivity as such). Awakening is the dis-covery that the apparently objective is in fact 'subjective', and the apparent entity has dis-appeared with the total appearance.

 

As much as awakening can be conceptualized.

 

Non-Conceptuality

What-we-are cannot be comprehended because there cannot be any comprehender apart from what-we-are to comprehend what-we-are. If a comprehender could comprehend itself there would be a subject comprehender and its object comprehended, and the comprehending subject would again become an object, the object of a comprehender. A perpetual regression is
then reached, as always.

Yes.
That is why awakening is not an experience in duration.

 

Must not what-we-are, then, be that perpetual regression, the perpetual regression of subject becoming the object of a subject ad infinitum? Dialectically, dualistically, phenomenally, it must surely be so, for phenomenon is the appearance of noumenon which thereby itself becomes a conceptual appearance, or phenomenon, of noumenon, ad infinitum. Zenith
has a Nadir which must have a Zenith, and so with all opposites and all complementaries for ever and ever.

And thus "that",......

...... from which arises the gestalt of duality, aka the phenomenal context, in which all referencing of "that" is taking place.....

......cannot be bound, defined, conceptualized, termed, describe or experienced within the gestalt in which all experiences exist.

"That" has no need to bind, define, conceptualize, term, describe, comprehend, realize, experience, know.......

....."itself".

To "itself"..................it's own self has no meaning.

And thus the conceptual pointing "Awareness-not-aware-of-itself".

That is surely why Shen Hui proclaimed the double negative, the absence of the absence of presence-and-absence, the absence of that (kind of) absence which is neither presence nor absence.

Yes.

The absence of presence..............AND..............the absence of the absence of presence.

That is only a dialectical wheeze to get out of duality by means of
duality? Perhaps it is. But out we must be got, for duality is the
mechanism of bondage. Surely, however, it is not the concept that matters,
but the fact that there always remains the conceiver of the concept,
whatever it may be? And he it is who is bound. He, also, it is who is not,
never has been and never could be, to be bound or anything else.

 

 

That is only a dialectical wheeze to get out of duality by means of
duality? Perhaps it is. But out we must be got, for duality is the
mechanism of bondage. Surely, however, it is not the concept that matters,
but the fact that there always remains the conceiver of the concept,
whatever it may be? And he it is who is bound. He, also, it is who is not,
never has been and never could be, to be bound or anything else.

But he cannot even say 'I am not' for in saying it he demonstrates that he
is. Nor can he get out of himself by saying that he is everything, for
everything is as much a thing as nothing, and he is still a conceiver
conceiving himself as one or the other or both or neither. Yet again he
cannot be rid of himself by claiming transcendence, for then something
transcends something else, and that remains as the transcender.

 

That is why the apperception of immanence and the simultaneous transcendence....

....is the very cessation of the very concept of "immanence" and "transcendence".

In the absence of the presence of conceptualizing............AND the absence of the absence of the presence of conceptualizing........who remains to claim ( or not to claim)?

The apperception of Advaita........is the end of Advaita.

The apperception of Buddha........can never result in a Buddhist

The apperception of Jesus.......can never end in a Christian

 

 

Can he disappear by means of immanence? Something remains immanent, some
thing however tenuous and vague that dwells within something more solid,
an absence within a presence.
Even the most impersonal immanence as such
is an objective concept, and that objective concept has a subject, which
thereby becomes an object - and so on ad infinitum.

 

Awakening is not an objective experience.

Does this demonstrate that it is dialectically, conceptually impossible to
comprehend what-we-are? Having apperceived that the absence of the absence
of nothing is the clearest indication of what non-conceptually we are, we
can only abandon the search, and that, if it be an abandonment also of the
seeker, is finding. It is finding that the seeker is the sought, the
sought is the seeker, and neither is, was, ever could be, or is not, was
not, or ever could not be, for each is the conceptual half of THIS which
cannot be conceived, since THIS can never conceive itself without
splitting into subject and object.

Yes.

And none to say that Yes, either.

 

This conceptual not-ness is commonly regarded as some kind of catastrophe!
But whyever should that be so? Surely it is no calamity not be a concept?
Is it not ridiculous, rather, to imagine that what-we-are could ever be a
fugitive imponderability?

Is it not the conceivable that is negligible, dream-stuff, whereas the
voidness, conceptually, which we are is necessarily plenitude in
non-conceptuality?

The distinction between the conceivable and the voidness...........being no more,.....

......since the entity for which this distinction existed is no more....

..the very question of which is negligible and which is plenitude.....

.....becomes moot.




That is not conceptual darkness, but in non-conceptuality is light, light which darkness can never know, since
darkness is nothing but absence of light.

Not a single of the dreamt-up-characters of your last night sleep-dream......

......whether deeply beloved or deeply hated......

....can sit next to you and sip from the same cup of tea, when you are awake in the morning.

What we are phenomenally, what we appear to be, is conceptual, therefore
what are non-conceptually is non-conceptuality as such, and if
conceptually that is forever unknowable within the apparent confines of
space and time, non-conceptually it is the not-knowing of knowing,
non-finite and intemporal, neither anything nor nothing.

It's like saying "Nothing can be said about Truth".

In saying that very saying, something got said about Truth, aka that nothing can be said about Truth.

And thus negates itself.

The nothingness of nothingness, is a defining and thus becomes somethingness.

Awareness being all that is..........cannot admit even awareness.

When I am all that there is......I cannot be objectivised and referenced.

It cannot be cognised, precisely because what-we-are is we who are
cognising, and 'cognising' cannot cognise 'cognising'.

 

The eye can see everything, except itself.

Yes it can see an image of itself in a mirror.

The phenomenal gestalt is the mirror, and all the dancing nuances in that mirror,..... the imaging,.... by which I see I-self.

I am Saddam/Bush.....and simultaneously......I am Cindy Sheehan.

 

That I Am

When I have looked at a jug I have supposed that eye-subject was looking
at jug-object. But eye-subject is itself an object, and one object cannot
be the subject of another object. Both eye-supposed-subject and the jug
are objects of I-subject. That is apparent transcendence of
subject-object.

But only when we realise that, in split-mind, I-as-subject must always be
itself an object while it also has its own supposed-object, do we
understand that this constitutes an infinite regression, and that final
transcendence is the understanding that I am not-subject, for, since in
reality there are no objects, there cannot be a subject.

 

Awareness-not-aware-of-itself,......... which does not admit the very concept of "Awareness-not-aware-of-itself".

No-objects and no-subject constitute impersonality, the resultant of the
negation of each member of every pair of opposites, or No-Entity.

 

 

Only whole mind can know this, and that is 'that I am'.

I only am as all beings,
I only exist as all appearances.
I am only experienced as all sentience,
I am only cognised as all knowing.
Only visible as all that is seen,
Every concept is a concept of what I am.
All that seems to be is my being,
For what I am is not any thing.

Being whatever is phenomenal,
Whatever can be conceived as appearing,
I who am conceiving cannot be conceived,
Since only I conceive,
How could I conceive what is conceiving?
What I am is what I conceive;
Is that not enough for me to be?

When could I have been born,
I who am the conceiver of time itself?
Where could I live,
I who conceive the space wherein all things extend?
How could I die,
I who conceive the birth, life, and death of all things,
I who, conceiving, cannot be conceived?

I am being, unaware of being,
But my being is all being,
I neither think nor feel nor do,
But your thinking, feeling, doing, is mine only.
I am life, but it is my objects that live,
For your living is my living.
Transcending all appearance,
I am immanent therein,
For all that is - I am,
And I am no thing.

 

A bow to the bowing.

 

 

Sections