CosmicTrekker

I've been seeking some ephemeral notion of a truth for as long as I can remember. But all I have observed is the changing, adjustment and recalibration of an amorphous truth. Even when truth smacked me in the face, another re-framing question arose, just in a different guise and the search continued, alas. Let's imagine that one day we get there and all the truth is laid bare in front of us; what do you think we'll do 'next'? Will that be the day we/i/me disappears back into the nothing, or will it just be the beginning of a new process to repeat this cycle of forgetting, new beginning, discovering, searching and finding? For that which is truth, there's no linear path to it, all that is possible are cycles, like the changing of seasons; the waning and waxing of the moon; and the coming and go of tides. Then why does 'IT' do it? This question is a bit of a trap, because there's no 'IT', or even an 'it'; then who's the one on this journey? Whose footprints can I see when I glance back in the field of soft snow under this dark wintery sky? It probably has been said that: True power is not control over the external world; it is sovereignty over your internal world, and when you realise there's no one home, then the quest begins...

"The most dangerous lie is not the one imposed by force, but the one a population repeats to itself in order to avoid the effort of seeing it clearly." Orwell Why is this fiction even a manifestation in our reality? Where has our courage gone? Why have we forgotten the hard learned insights of our forefathers?

Below is an AI transcription of my audio recording, since they can't be directed posted here. It'd be interested in any comments anyone can make about the accuracy of what's presented, especially stuff I might be misunderstanding or misconstruing. Many thanks. --- To say that I’ve been doing anything like reflecting or investigating would just be bullshit. All I am basically doing—and again, "doing" is not the right word—is witnessing. "Doing" implies that I have some sort of autonomy in the decision-making in terms of what actually flows. In reality, there is no autonomy that I can speak of with any degree of confidence. I just feel like I’m being pushed into a corner that I can't escape from, and it’s not my doing. If it were based on my own free will and choice, I certainly wouldn't be pushing myself into a corner. This has nothing to do with my doing, and that is the whole truth. I know teachers like Robert Adams say, "Okay, fine, you're not in charge, you're not the doer, but you have to act in the world as if you were the doer." I don't know about that. Because when you seem to act, all you come across is just another wall—a big sign saying "No Entrance" or "Private Property." I woke up this morning with that idea as well: everything is unfolding as it has to. There is something bigger at play here. If you look at our experiences in terms of what we experience in the moment, we don’t really have a choice. We are just presented with situations and circumstances. In a particular situation, it may appear that you have a choice, but that choice is just going to be another arising. Something happened earlier today that was quite distinct from previous observations. It was this idea of "I-amness." I probably won't do it justice in my description, but I’ll try my best. This "I-amness" is always there. No matter what situation arises, the "I-amness" is the background. Whether it is observing a particular thought or a sensory experience, the "I-amness" is the thing that is always there. That is the thing that is unchanging and always present. I suppose this is what they mean by "resting in I am." There are a million and one different ways that teachers describe this, but essentially it boils down to: what is the background of all experiences? Speaking of experiences, we tend to have a very dualistic view of what they are. We think there is a thing behind the experience that is observing the experience, which creates duality. In essence, however, reality forms into that experience. When you are worrying about something, there is a collection of thoughts and feelings in the body. That whole thing—including the sense of someone seeing those things—is all one. It comes as one complete package. When we shift from one experience to the next, that "thing" simply reconfigures itself as a different experience. Irrespective of what the experience is about, there is this sense of "I-amness." You can’t really pinpoint it because when you first attempt to do so, you take the attributes of the things being observed and attribute them to the "I-amness." But "I-amness" is attribute-less; it doesn't have any attributes of its own. It is the background or the screen, so to speak. The insight was simply this: all of the teachings are about filtering out as much of "not you" as possible and disidentifying from the sense of "I" to see what remains. Once you strip everything away, you can't really "look" at this "I-amness." It isn't even a feeling. To call it a feeling is a misnomer because it is there before the feeling. It has to be there before the feeling can be experienced. This "I-amness" is the essence of who we are. Do things open up if you rest in this "I-amness" and keep going back to it over and over again? Does realizing that every experience is just a transitory phenomenon—a reconfiguration of this space—open up new ways of understanding? I don't know. But certainly, "I-amness" seems to be the ground of reality and the root of everything, as far as I can tell. Perhaps even "I-amness" eventually dissolves into nothingness, which is what people like Nisargadatta Maharaj talk about—that even consciousness is a product of nothingness. My gut instinct is that "I-amness" is inherent in that nothingness. The attribute-less emptiness of your true being seems to be the base. Perhaps there is a deeper layer where even "I-amness" disappears into nothingness, which is amazing to think about—that out of nothingness first comes a sense of self, an "I." That "I" is then entangled. But to say it is "entangled" implies it is separate from the thing it is entangled with. I don't think that's the case. I think both the "I am" and the thing that "I am" is observing—the witness aspect—are one and same. It’s like a shape-shifting thing where the center is always "I am." There is a common locus around which thoughts and sensory experiences shape-shift. That’s the best I can do in terms of articulating my experiences and the conclusions that arise from them. What reality actually is, I don't know. I’ve only been able to condense it down to these few things. "I-amness" seems to be the prerequisite for any sort of experience. It can also exist in the absence of experience, other than the experience of itself—the "knowingness" that I am. Recognizing this permanent background is the first step. Perhaps if one were to rest there, deeper insights would arise. For the time being, at this level, it seems to be the base. I had an experience many years ago where I saw what pure "I-amness" is, bereft of any experience. It was like a uniform, self-illuminating white light. It seemed to be the substrate, though God knows how many other layers are hidden behind that. For now, I'm just going to keep coming back to this "I-amness." In thought, it's easy to get caught up in a virtual world and forget. It is important to keep returning to the "I-amness" and try to experience it in the absence of thought. If the absence of thought cannot be achieved, then at least acknowledge that it is always there in the background. From there, maybe something will open up. For now, it is sufficient to keep returning to the "I" and understanding that it is the common denominator. Let’s leave it at that.

This is also true, sadly 'I'm' in that twilight zone. Neither aspect makes sense and now I'm just trying to let go of making any sense. I hope that this dilly dallying comes to an end soon, and if not then at least the one caring comes to an end. That Zen qoan: if a tree falling in the forest - whether it makes a noise or not - is seemingly apt in this state of affairs. Whether it makes a noise or not, or whether there's someone there or not to hear, it just doesn't matter any more. It is what it is.

Thank you. That is exactly my point too, apologies if I was being cryptic, I was trying to convey in essence, that perspectives and points of view ultimately don't matter, because that which is unfolding is already what it is. We can argue whether it's the right or wrong thing that's unfolding, but that itself is the trap, because as soon as you take a position of any sort, then you're cut-off from that which 'is', which then 'IS' the illusory 'YOU' that is then pondering these things.

Craziness leads to this: But craziness, is the zeitgeist flavour at the moment.

Just an addendum to explain further: Chinese and Taiwanese are the same. We can say that they are cousins, or brothers, but what we're saying is that they share the same roots as one another. All, I'm, saying is that whatever political differences exist between these brothers/cousins/people, could easily have been sorted, if there was not the geopolitical machinations of external entities that seek to maintain their own influences. I hope that one day that the people of China/Taiwan can sort out their political differences without the undue influences of external vested interests, that would just unneccessarily prolong the suffering of average man on the street in either political division.

The tapestry of the evolution of human understanding is present here, as it it everywhere else. I'm no political analyst, but it should be self evident to any non-partisan external observer that there is no underlying fundamental truth to a particular political perspective. However, in the case of Taiwan, the only reason that it sustains continued existence as a separate political entity from the rest of China is purely due to the political machinations of the west. It is not for the protection of a politicallyl proclaimed democratic ideal, but rather a mechanism to maintain western self-interests.

I watched this and a lot of it resonated with me, but there was one particular thing that the old man said that really resonated: He said that, "I often ask myself, what is the point of it all?". This really hit me! This is coming from a man that is no different from myself, that has spent his life searching for the truth, at in his blessed aged twilight, he's still in an state of ignorance. This is our state, this is the state for the majority of us, we are born ignorant and we die ignorant, and to the best of what we know, all of our [conceptualized] endeavours, self-righteous fights, rebellions and passions, eventually amounted to nothing. I don't want to sound pessimistic, but that is the state for the vast majority of us. Then i ask myself, why is that so bad? What is wrong with living in ignorance? What is it in me that says that I need to fulfilled, and that fulfilment is my need 'that gives meaning to my (otherwise futile and wasteful) life?'

If there was nowhere to go (From the perspective of the alone). If there was nowhere to go, No path to traverse, no destination to know, I would find myself in the present, you see, For the present moment is where I would be. No forward motion, no backward glance, Just a stillness, a timeless dance. In the here and now, I would reside, With no need to seek or to hide. No past regrets, no future fears, No longing for what’s not yet here. I would be free from the pull of time, Immersed in the eternal, sublime. In the absence of a journey’s quest, I would find peace, in this moment’s nest. For the beauty of existence would unfold, In the timeless space, where I am whole. So, if there was nowhere to go, you see, I would simply be, in the here and now, free. Embracing the present, without a care, For in the now, true presence I would share.

I'm on board But seriously, every perspective appears to be correct from that vantage point. When all perspectives are taken into consideration, then nothing is left, like mixed colours fading into white, or in inverse throwing white light at a prism and seeing colours analogous to this post. Thanks

And also the ending?

Words can only convey an approximation of meaning, not the meaning itself. It that vain, I've had a few 'awakening' experience in a dream/sleep state; these experiences of awakening were unsolicited and completely distinct from dreaming - including 'lucid' dreams. There was a deep intuitive understanding of the true nature of self, it was like a peek behind the curtains so to speak - a bit like Dorothy, peeling back the curtains in the 'Wizard of Oz'.

Perfectly put, thank you

I hear and agree with you on this. The contrasting aspect is particularly useful. What also helps is the negating aspect, where someone who knows can clearly tell you that it's 'NOT that'. Thank you.

Thank you, there's so much you've articulated clearly, that it feels like seeing water after being in the desert, but not yet taken a sip. This is beautifully put, thank for you this - I think I have wasted so much time concentrating on the knowing aspect at the expense of alignment of this human structure with the essence. If you've got some tips on how to do this, I'd appreciate them very much. Thank you.

Thank you so much! 🙏 It's difficult to precisely say if it was just an idea or some inherent knowledge arising from observation. It felt more like the latter then an idea constructed within thought alone. I've been blessed with some unsolicited observations of that pure void state where I amness is the only thing. But it's one thing finding yourself in that state, and another when you come upon the realisation that very same state is there, but now cloaked in a world and universe being seen from a particular perspective and location.

Thanks for taking time to respond. I think I get the gist of what you're saying. I think what you're saying is that, the idea or perception of the self as a conscious being at its root is also just another idea, that it is the reduced down to a minimum possible essence of what a human being is. And if I understood what you're saying, no matter how reduced down this essence is, it's still not the absolute. Reading between the lines, you seen to be implying that there is something even beyond 'i-amness/being/existence'. Would be grateful if you could point out if I've misunderstood what you're actually saying, and talk a little more about what is beyond the purest form of 'I amness' Many years ago, I had an experience of what I thought was the base substrate of reality, but even though there was no forms of an eye, there was still an alive presence. It was like discovering that nothingness was not nothingness but rather aliveness without a centre.

I had a unsolicited experience many years ago, when the realisation dawned that I was the unborn eternity, and that I was completely and utterly alone for eternity. I was terrified by that realisation, no horror is even comparable. Today (after 27 years from the previous experience), another insight arose, and with it the realisation, that "I am", is a child, a secondary level thought, and that "I am" is not the absolute, but a derivative, that has taken an attribute of that which is. This means that off course it's going to feel terrified when faced with its own existence, because it is just a fragment of the nameless infinity that is. As soon you separate from it, there's no peace. Peace is to absolutely desolve into the nothing that precedes everything, including the idea that "I am".

Can you describe the difference between now and before you got it?

I've been confused by the idea that there is some sort of substrate to reality (such as ousia/conciousness/being etc). I have found all these definitions problematic, because they all assume that there is a pure state of some sort, But more recently, I have begun thinking that reality cannot really be reduced to a base pure state, because that would then exclude everything else, including the normal day to day experiences most of us are having. Infinity/infinite would in my humble opinion would a more accurate description; it is paradoxically nothing and everything.

Real death of what? That which was never even born?

I agree with you, thank you. I imagine that the 'I' that saw that was from the perspective of this egoic self conditioned by its experiences as a human-being, and off-course it would shatter into a billion pieces when faced with the absolute. The irony is that it is only that which can truly know itself and we as human-being egos can never even come close to ever knowing it.

You've described this beautifully! Thanks for the insights. I'm glad that others have also come across this 'experience'. Funny thing is that, I also have vague recollections of the state you described when you took the extra doses of 5-MeO, but I can't quite put my finger on it. From what I can recollect, it was like being in a completely white boundless space and the light that was everything was completely diffused and shadowless.

Hi, I described the how this happen in these old posts: 1. 2.