Once Again

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Posted in Questions, Unpublished    Tagged with real, unreal, Absolute, identity, perception, true nature, form, formless, forms


2 Comments

Carol - October 13th, 2012 at 9:16 AM
All that you say about the "Absolute" makes a reasonable story but what do we do to realize this beyond concept?
Reggy - June 20th, 2013 at 2:07 PM
Hello Carol,
I have struggled with this desire to "realize beyond the concept" and maybe this will make sense to you. The question arose, "who is it that wishes to realize beyond the concept?" and the answer that came to me was, "I do"...more correctly, my mind does...the "me"..."who it feels like I am"....then the thought came, "who is this "me"...this "I"?" (but I don't want to go down that path in this reply)...then "of course the mind wants to "realize beyond the concept! ...that is what minds do...they desire, they question, they try to figure things out"..excellent..good for them. So where is the problem?...the mind is doing what minds do...this too is "It"...as is being/feeling frustrated at not "realizing beyond the concept", as is feeling like "everyone else is "getting it"...why not me?"..."I must be a "spiritual idiot""...."ah, the hell with it!" and a million other thoughts that get kicked off....(BTW...these are all thoughts that I've had, I'm not ascribing these to you :-)) as Robert has helped me understand....the irritating phrase that is going around these days..."It's all good"...really does apply, with a small tweek...."It's all It"!...frustrating as it is sometimes....frustration is just a thought/feeling that is also "It"...we can't "get out of "It""....even if we try..so we're all "It"...feeling like we're not it, so we're looking for "It"...which, it seems, is what "It" (Absolute, THAT....) does (but in just a select few "people").

Leave a Comment
Search


2016 (5)
2015 (2)
2014 (6)
2013 (18)
2012 (34)
January (3)
February (3)
March (8)
April (2)
May (4)
June (4)
July (1)
August (3)
September (2)
October (1)
December (3)
2011 (41)
January (1)
February (2)
March (3)
April (1)
May (9)
June (4)
July (3)
August (6)
September (1)
October (2)
November (3)
December (6)
2010 (29)
February (3)
March (2)
May (6)
June (2)
August (7)
September (3)
October (1)
November (4)
December (1)
2009 (6)