Non-objective, non-becoming

[Machielove1]

So I figured I'd make a topic about what I think is a very great pointer to Non-duality. I got it from Nome (SAT Society for Abidance in Truth) who mentions it a lot.

There can be only one "thing" really non-objective in Non-duality. That is even beyond the subject-object duality which comes and goes. First you need to see that anything that you can observe is not really you, so if one notices the body you are not the body but the one who notices the body, same with emotions or thoughts. So you end up with the subject which is the actual ego or feeling of self, but if we look a little further one might be able to see in their own experience that this observing ego is not actually always around, your letting it go every night and *poof* it is all gone along with everything else.

So you don't stop existing in your deepest sleep but but what is this existence? So something non-objective to you and all you know which is there whether something appears or not.

So to try and add something more about his teaching, which does not differ all that much from Ramana Maharshi and Adi Shankara, is that there can be only one Real not two. If the Real would have to move to become you it would not be the One Reality, which is immutable, undivided and undifferentiated, anymore.

In short the divine Self or Brahman has not really become you who now has to try and make it back to itSelf… Your already That pretending to be separate, which is probably a quote from Alan Watts

[Miss Hepburn]

You will do very well in this section! :)

[FallingLeaves]

Originally Posted by Machielove1

so if one notices the body you are not the body but the one who notices the body, same with emotions or thoughts.

if i draw a line in the sand between two arbitrary things, am i not just reinforcing duality?

[inavalan]

Originally Posted by Machielove1

... Society for Abidance in Truth ...

Would you mind translating Abidance in Truth into plain English? Thanks.

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/di...glish/abidance

[Miss Hepburn]

Abidance -omg - who knew it comes from abide. Abide in Truth. Ok.
NEVER heard that word before.

While I'm here:
Adi Shankara, also called Adi Shankaracharya, was an 8th-century Indian Vedic scholar and teacher.
His works present a harmonizing reading of the sastras, (an authoritative religious or scientific treatise),
with liberating knowledge of the self at its core,
synthesizing the Advaita Vedanta teachings of his time.

[Ewwerrin]

Originally Posted by Machielove1

So I...
... Alan Watts

And yet the becoming somehow arises. How come? Even tho it is not us... It always comes and goes. Why that duality in the absolute?

[Machielove1]

Originally Posted by FallingLeaves

if i draw a line in the sand between two arbitrary things, am i not just reinforcing duality?

Your right, in reality there is no such line, it is more a sort of starting point. In Reality there is no seer and no seen, yet if you know your not those things and this is really seen then nothing will really bother you anymore. And I'm not saying this is always the case here.

Somehow I can see beyond the person and experience the One Reality so to speak, which is already the Truth for everyone just can only be seen or noticed or however you want to call it if you investigate in your own experience, "Do I really know what I am? And if so is it always there or is it actually not always there?" What you are should be always there right?

[Maisy]

Originally Posted by Machielove1

What you are should be always there right?

I don't think so. We are like an empty jar. If the jar is filled with something, it's not an empty jar anymore. So what we really are, an empty jar, is not present, a full jar is.

If some angry person comes up to me and starts yelling at me, I am not experiencing whatever their "true self" is. I am experiencing what that "true self" has filled itself with or identified with. The true self also is only experiencing what it has filled itself with or identified with.

In a way the jar is always there or the true self, but it is not presenting itself to be experienced in any real way by being filled with and as something else.

It's like saying the real self is an empty sponge. If the sponge is used to absorb some nasty stuff, nobody wants that sponge. It's nasty! The clean empty fresh and new sponge is not there! The one filled with nasty stuff is there! That's what it is!

If we are filled with "person", identifying with it as self, are we really there anymore in any real way?

Realistically, what I am is determined by what I am identifying with. That's probably the curse and blessing of being what we are. The trick to being a sponge is to absorb only our source, to absorb only unadulterated awareness itself. To reject anything else. Then we are always present.

[Machielove1]

Originally Posted by Maisy

I don't think so. We are like an empty jar. If the jar is filled with something, it's not an empty jar anymore. So what we really are, an empty jar, is not present, a full jar is.

If some angry person comes up to me and starts yelling at me, I am not experiencing whatever their "true self" is. I am experiencing what that "true self" has filled itself with or identified with. The true self also is only experiencing what it has filled itself with or identified with.

I did not mean there as something which exists to be seen as someB]thing[/b] more as that no-thing which cannot be described in words or pinpointed. Yet for example if one goes into deep dreamless sleep everything you normally call I is totally gone yet nobody says one did not exist when sleeping. If you would actually be what we think we are (body/mind/ego) we would always be aware of them with no breaks, so what is this we that is the crux.