The door theme continues; scribbling scribbles on…
For some folk (yours truly included) wideawakeness seems to go with ruthless questioning of non-negotiable assumptions; beliefs and opinions we often don’t even know are lurking below the limn of consciousness. We use words and scarcely give a thought to the fact that they are nothing but signifiers.
What if a “door” turned out to be not-a-door-at-all, but a collection of contributing qualities and attributes that could be traced all the way back to what we call the Big Bang?
What if a “path” turned out to be similar? And the “gateless gate” of the Zen koan as well?
And what if you looked deeply enough at the “me” and failed to find anything that could be claimed to be “self-existent”?
And what if you went even further and found that the appearance of what any of these signifiers signified could not be claimed to exist apart from the Awareness that perceives them?
And what if you then turned your inquiry to that Awareness (which cannot be objectified, but only referenced in a ‘thought experiment’) and realized that even IT could never exist without the display it is Awareing?
And what if you realized you couldn’t extricate your sense of self from that movement of Aware-ing-ness?
Wouldn’t that send a tsunami over your little island of separate ‘me-ness’?
The waves engulf, destroy, cleanse and retreat.
If there’s been no withdrawal – if ripeness has ripened – a new vista opens up.
The Great View.
7 thoughts on “on doorless doors, gateless gates, pathless paths and the great view”
” … even IT could never exist without the display it is Awareing”
What then is ‘consciousness without an object’? Is silence not also an object (or “display”) for consciousness or awareness? Display or not display, what is is the unity of Being, or beingness (or Intelligence-being, or Intelligence-Love-Being), where there is no separation or division. Sat-chit-ananda everywhere and only.
Thanks for your comment dear AM.
I don’t know what ‘consciousness without an object’ would be, because it’s not ever been experienced here. Is it your experience?
Everything is experienced, at the bottom line, as a seamless “unity of Being” to use your phrase. I use the clumsy, but – for me – accurate “Aware-ing-ness.” Maybe that’s what you mean by “Sat-chit-ananda”?
No. It is something I have read about more than once, referring, if I remember, to what is called ‘nirvikalpa samadi’, a complete absorption in just beingness (thus ‘without an object’). My experience, related to that, is, or would be, a feeling of fullness, beingness and happiness all combined and felt, physically, as an expansion in/of the chest: sat-chit-ananda (being-consciousness-bliss) – awareingness?
This fundamental Beingness cannot be separated from the fullness and happiness you describe. It is the dissolution of duality. Beingness – or Awareingness – simply IS, and IT is all.
This is all I can say for sure about … anything!
When the self (personal experience) understands it is nothing but a self sustained loop, unfortunately it doesn’t evaporate 🙂
Next it wants to ‘know’, even realizing that any knowledge is futile, how individual awareness could lead to ‘the end of being separate’ …
The body sighs. The mouth smiles …
Individual awareness? Is awareness divided up between individuals? Only by thought.
When thought ends the “individual” becomes the “Undividual”…
There’s no need for the field of personal experience called a self/me to evaporate; on the contrary, its matrix is essential for navigating life. It’s wondrous, no?
But – falling into the mind’s quicksand, we make the mistake of imagining it’s what we are, even though we can’t find it!
Smiling back at you Bert. I love the way you’re prompting me to revisit these old posts…
… thank you, miriam louisa, for replying my simple questions …
well … the thing is that I’m not aware of other’s thoughts etc. (thank god), this ‘individual’ awareness is limited, isn’t it? The logician inside my mind is trying to work things out, relentlessly defending any ground he can stand on.
In the end the question is the same as ‘how does emptiness lead to non-duality?’ but the latter sounds very theoretical and uninteresting.