by Robert Wolfe on July 2nd, 2012
Question: It makes sense that Q (or Ned) is all things, but no thing to be pointed at. How does the point of perception shift from the "me" to that of the Absolute? And if the Absolute is everyWHERE, there is no reference point to be "at". Am I confused?
R: To whatever extent there is an Absolute, there is no "me".
The me is a form: it has a beginning and an ending; it is impermanent. The Absolute, the sages concur, is without beginning or ending—infinite. Being infinite, it is without form—formless. And being infinite and eternal, it is not impermanent.
All the forms must exist within—begin and end within—the infinite, the formless. But by virtue of being free of boundaries, borders, restraints or restrictions, the ever-present, everywhere-present Absolute must—in the very same moment—be within each and every form. So, the Absolute must—by its definition—surround every form (such as "you"), while simultaneously permeating, penetrating and saturating every form (such as "you").
This being the case, your temporary “identity” is this organism which answers to your name; your permanent, everlasting identity is that of the timeless Absolute. In other words, your “true nature” is real, as Ramana puts it; your identity as the organism is unreal.
So, the answer to your query is that the “me” ceases to be a reality where the thorough-going perception of the Absolute actuality is present.
Thus, it is not a matter of uniting the “me” and the Absolute: there is only the Absolute, in terms of ultimate reality, and not anything outside of, or apart from, or beside it. No me, get it?
Posted in Questions, Unpublished Tagged with real, unreal, Absolute, identity, perception, true nature, form, formless, forms
Leave a Comment