Mind. What is the mind? It is the mind which understands. What is understanding? Knowing something defined. What is definition? Setting something into a precise category, a fixed concept with a list of defining characteristics. It is in this way that the human mind knows the world, breaks it into pieces based on what it knows. After all, all recognition is comparison to memory, something comes into awareness, patterns are recognized, conclusions are drawn. But, the mind may be mislead, or may not have anything with which to compare-- what does this mean? The mind is limited, and the mind guesses. There is always something outside of the known, and all recognitions are effectively approximations-- Good guesses, but not always good. Is this true? What does it mean for the mind to be limited? Anything known is defined--a limit is drawn, it is clear what is an object and what isn't. In this way, the mind can only ever think or recognize or perceive dualistically, or by setting things apart and comparing recognized patterns. For example, you know shoes are shoes because they've got laces and soles and tongues, but you also know that flip flops are also shoes, even though they lack laces and tongues. What does this mean? The known being partial, it is always subjective. This means how anything is known can change through change in perspective. So, you know what a shoe is, but a shoe is also not a shoe, because there is just a collection of materials arranged in a way such as you compare it to memory and recognize a pattern. “Shoe” is nothing concrete, it is a generalization, it is a list of characteristics which loosely fit perceived objects into a category. So, a shoe is a shoe and is not a shoe, depending on how you look at it. “Shoe” is an abstract concept. In art, a few painted lines may represent a shoe-- it is close enough for the association to be made. What is different with perception, “reality”, as you know it? How is it different from recognizing an image in a painted picture? You see something and it is close enough to be defined as a shoe-- but there are all kinds of shoes with different characteristics, different materials, different shapes, different colors. “shoe” is a general idea. There maybe be objects which you question whether you know if they are a shoe or not, there is a blurred line (the shoe has become risqué. All ideas are general, all known is generalizations, recognizing something similar enough to see a pattern. When you know something, when your mind has defined something, it is only similar enough. The lines of definition are blurred. An easy example is your skin-- widely thought of as the barrier between yourself and the outside world. But, with every interaction your skin has with the world, that theory is proven wrong-- your skin is also the most intimate connection with the world, you are totally encased in the world and its materials-- and further still, all kinds of materials may enter your skin, and materials are always leaving your skin, like sweat or oxygen. So, there isn't really even an intimate connection, your body and the world can be seen as only a single movement of materials, there is no barrier. Your skin grows and dies and sheds and is replenished by your food which comes from the world. Any definition or barrier or boundary is in idea only, in point of view only, it's just how you think of it. Consider the different scales from which we view the body--en grosse, it is considered a single object-- but, increase the magnification some, and we consider the body to be parts-- top and bottom, right and left, arms, legs, torso, head. Already what was considered one thing, the individual body, is shown to be in perspective only. Further still, we consider it to be separate organs-- skin, muscles, bones, connective tissues, sensory organs and other internal organs. Further still, we consider organs to be trillions of different cells. Further still, we consider cells to be made up of many many molecules of different chemicals. Further still, the molecules are made up of atoms. Further still, the atoms are made up of particles. At each level the recognized patterns are apparent only, the forms seen are like a mirage, but upon closer inspection each level gives way to another reality, the previous understanding becomes in a way false, but in a way each is true. It's not cells, it's molecules. It's not molecules, it's atoms. All defined has its dualistic counterpart-- it is and it isn't. Every point of view has an opposing view. Even the thoughts of the body and the world as separate or as one are counterparts, both are valid and yet they negate each other. The body cannot be one with the world and simultaneously separate from it. So what is happening here?

The mind is taking as real imaginary lines which it draws. The mind knows and understands things by abstraction, definition, and comparison-- take a stick, for example. You may think of the stick as having two sides-- but there is no real division, you're holding one stick-- any division of right and left is in idea only, a particular way of thinking of it. Even thinking of it as one stick without a separate right and left connotes a dualistic way of thinking, a point of view in opposition to thinking of the stick as having two separate sides. So, the way we think and know is an attempt to define, but the known being subjective, it can only ever be partial and false. From a certain perspective, the stick does have two sides, you can recognize what is further right and what is further left. But, from another perspective, there is just the one stick, and any further division into sides or whatever is in idea only. From yet another perspective, there is no such thing as “stick”, stick being an abstract concept and all objects being extensions of each other in one material reality-- at a certain level of magnification, you cannot see the boundary between the atoms or particles of the stick and of the surrounding matter-- it's all matter, there are no separate objects. All of these perspectives are both true and false, as in their own right they are true, but they also have an opposing perspective which is also true. This is the nature of thought, of intellectual understanding-- It is abstract and subjective. It is dualistic.

And so, then, where do these abstractions come from? Something comes into awareness and an association to a known pattern is drawn, taking into consideration a particular perspective. Something is broken into dualistic, limited pieces which may be understood-- And that thing broken is the “unlimited”, or infinite. Before considering the stick as having two sides, there is no limit, no boundary, there is just one stick. Before intellectual understanding, reality is boundless, infinite, without measure. Knowledge is nothing but a conventional set of measures, a practical tool for breaking the world into understandable patterns-- And so by definition you cannot know the infinite. If the limited is the known, the unlimited is the unknown, the undefined. This boundary, too, is blurry. We as humans would like to believe or way of thinking is concrete, absolute and real-- we strive for objective understanding. We want to know who we are and how everything works and we believe it all to be perfectly real, not a matter of ideation, abstraction, perspective only. We want our understanding to be absolute, to be absolutely true, but no knowledge ever can be, as the tool of knowledge only divides and defines, can only consider partial truths, make statements which are true and false, which are illogical, not concrete and confusing. That objective reality, the infinite unknown is the only thing solid, but it is solid because it is nothing in particular-- all particulars are defined, the infinite is undefined. All particulars, all understandings and definitions occur within the infinite.

This is where confusion starts. The human mind prefers to have everything known, because the known can be dealt with. But the known fluctuates with perspectives and passing time, the known borders with and flows into and out of the unknown-- much like the boundary between your skin and the world or between the right and left sides of the stick.

Logic is defined and thus cannot contain Truth; therefore it is illogical to use logic as the primary tool in the path of Truth. But, the main drive in the use of logic is to ascertain truth, which is contradictory to its capacities.

This conclusion itself is reached by logic, rendering it illogical. Yet simultaneously it is perfectly logical.

Your body is a whole.

Your body is comprised of parts.

Both are in a way true, but in a way these statements negate each other, rendering each other false.

Knowledge is defining, duality, this vs that. Therefore, for every perspective there is an opposing perspective which is equally true. What is defined has a boundary drawn, but objective reality is boundless. It contains and surpasses all perspectives.

What if I don't choose skepticism or virtuous learning? What if I choose to transcend reason?

Logic, being defined and occurring within infinite objective reality, cannot grasp infinite objective reality, but infinitely approach.

Therefore, a logical approach is illogical to ascertain Truth.

Partial truths are not True, because there is more unconsidered. It is true, but it is not, because it's not the whole story. It only becomes Truth if you simultaneously understand every possible aspect of its reality, conceivable or not.

Reality escapes definition, because it itself is indefinite.

That logic is illogical would only be an issue if I was attached to logical interpretations.

I am not attached to the belief that all beliefs are wrong. I can acknowledge that they are also in a way true. Thus is the nature of knowledge, which is perspective based.

Holding no interpretation, I can entertain any interpretation. The point is, they are not absolute, but only a representative symbol.

Therefore, I dwell in Reality and may use knowledge as a tool, rather than believing and being controlled by my beliefs.

Isn't that utter peace, understanding, and harmony?

The only cause for suffering or lack is attachment to ideas. Beyond ideas, reality is infinite perfection, objective absolution.

Thus, spirituality. Setting aside the lens of the mind, the fractured, distorting filter, and Seeing.

On reasonableness. One assumes that a correct knowledge of truth leads to right action in one's life; objective morality. What is the qualification to coherently understand something? Isn't a partial understanding incomplete, somewhat incoherent? Therefore, without knowing every infinite aspect of a thing, you cannot say you coherently understand it. Therefore, while some partial truths appear reasonable, at some point it must necessarily become a guess, moving further with the distinction and identification of the infinite aspects is itself unreasonable.

If one is to base their philosophy of truth in their subjective perceptions, it cannot be said to be absolutely true, as the truth will be different amongst different subjective perceptions. Based on one's faculties and conditioning, two people may perceive very different things. For example, someone who is colorblind vs another who is not. Their subjective perceptions would be different, but equally true. This again cannot constitute Truth, as these are partial, subjective truths.

That there is subjective experience is itself a subjection. It constitutes the same error in "I think therefore I am": there is some preconstructed concept of what's what, "what is perceived" appears close enough to the concept, and that particular interpretation is then used to justify the interpretation itself. It's no different than saying "the rope appears to me to be a snake, therefore it is a snake". "I have a concept of "exists", that I am perceiving something, and I recognize that interpretation, therefore it is true." This is faulty logic.

What is reasonable is what can be discerned in the moment. From a certain perspective, thought itself is unreasonable, as it only distracts from what's happening or what you're doing, here, now. Even considering it to be what's happening or what you're doing here now is subjective and a distraction. We act when our understanding is associated with "Good enough for action." Sometimes we lack confidence or are uncertain. This is anxiety, undue skepticism, overthinking. One's understanding is based on what is apparently perceived. Therefore, concentration on awareness is the best route to the "most accurate" understanding, not thought. Clear, present, and alert. Clear, present, and alert, one's natural distinction and discernment increases. It is through clear awareness that intelligence is increased, not indulgence in thought; at a certain point if you are too obsessed with thought it will cloud your awareness and prevent right action; this is daydreaming, delusion, anxiety.

Thoughts create illusions, they "manifest" because you believe in them. Hence Buddha says, you become what you think, and as long as you think anything you are in samsara. "Ugh, I did such a terrible thing." Your beliefs become your reality, your beliefs control you, distracting from present truth. Belief that All is one is a unity of parts, and not True oneness, where there are no parts. Striving for a better, more beautiful world is fundamentally violence, desire, attachment. Belief.

Interconnectedness is a perspective from which the ego weakens, volitional activities come to be part of the whole play, not individually willed action.

In the end, the teaching must be dropped. Any interpretation must be dropped. Once you've crossed the river, leave the boat. Once you've gotten out the thorn, remove from the wound the implement used to remove it...

At root all this is still interpretation and not Truth. Clear awareness is not thought, and thus necessarily it is not clear awareness; clarity is absent of identification, the only obscuration is obsession with thought itself, emotional attachment to a particular set of ideas. Attachment to ideas draws thoughts back into the mind, obscuring the "present moment".

Objective reality is beyond subjectivity, therefore to achieve objective truth, surpass the mind which can only comprehend subjectively. Sense consciousness is only subjective because of interpretation. From a certain perspective, there is no realistic boundary between what is within and without our perception, it is only an apparent, conceptual boundary, therefore our sense consciousness itself is direct perception of the infinite objective reality: it only becomes finite and dualistic upon cognition. Therefore truth is not an experience, as identifying something as experienced or perceived is already a cognition.

This itself is why logic is logically illogical-- There is no truth and there is truth are both true and false statements, and neither. Due to the primary feature of thought and understanding, duality, partiality.

"Consciousness" is an abstract pattern, only conceptually discerned from something else; it exists in a dualistic relation. Therefore, there both is something which is consciousness which is identified and indicated and recognizable, and there is not because any identification is subjective, approximate, definitive, and cannot hold objective truth, infinity.

Consider: consistency is an illusion: that anything stay the same on any level is an illusion born of ignorance of accuracy of definition at finer levels of detail. Same with comparison of objects: we say so many things are the same, like people or trees, they're all trees and people but each is unique, to say they're the same is ignorance of definition at a finer level of detail. "People" and "tree" are abstract categories, no such thing exists in reality, every "object" is unique. Everything is different and everything is the same, it is only a matter of subjective interpretation, perspective. These cannot exist simultaneously-- and yet logically, they do. Logically, there is truth. But whatever truth is is beyond duality, it is perfect objectivity, with no perspective whatsoever. That there is the truth is a perspective, and truth cannot be contained in definitive ideas, and so there is no truth. Whatever truth is is beyond the dualistic notion of existence or non existence.

Enlightenment is pure awareness, without subjectivity. Dissolving into the non-dual self. Infinity. Beyond thing and nothing. Utter transcendence, surpassing life and death. And it is none of these things, because words and definitions can only indicate, and never hold.

Consider: emptiness is your true self. No subjectivity, no objects to view, no attributes, nothing beyond nothing. Totally indistinct, indefinite, infinite. This is truly identical to the differentiated world. That the meaning in the thoughts is true and real is the veil of illusion, hiding this truth of emptiness.

Mathematics is interesting. It appears objective and absolute in its most basic form, but at such and abstract and theoretical level, it cannot possibly correlate to reality.

Consider applied mathematics: every answer is approximate. We must use constants like pi, which we don't understand to the infinite, we must approximate.

Even in measurement, we increase and increase accuracy, increase magnification and distinguishability. But, any measurement cannot be perfect, it would have to be infinitely distinguished and defined. Perfect accuracy.

Even the best engineers, while able to reach the highest levels of accuracy, must deal with margin of error. Even with the best calculations, there is margin for error, the variables, constants and measurements already are only approximate. All we can say is: "idk, should work."

2+2=4 is incorrect, because the quantities indicate nothing. 2(0)+2(0)=0. As soon as you introduce an object measured, such as bags of grain, it is approximate and subjective. We can say 2 bags of grain plus another 2 would be 4 bags total, but it is also untrue, because the bags will have slightly different weights, etc. What is considered "one bag" is a subjective interpretation, an approximation. It is only approximately four.

Same goes with what is and isn't experience.

What logic indicates, what symbols represent are not the thing themselves. We have a subjective interpretation, which itself is not the "object" interpreted. It's a partial approximation-- like pi. We use 3.14 to represent pi, but truly, this is not the whole story. To truly accurately use pi and know it objectively would be to know every decimal into infinity. The representation for our purposes is usually close enough, but not always, as it is not the absolute objective truth, just a representative symbol. Same follows with any knowledge whatsoever-- it is partial and subjective. Fingers pointing at the moon, but not the moon itself.

Partial truth does not follow from Truth, just as our conceptualization of pi does not touch the infinite truth of pi.

It is like the fragrance of a flower. There is the fragrance, but it is wrong to say "this is the flower."

Working with the fragrance does us no good to learn anything about the flower's looks, we must go to the source itself.

The concept of truth may logically be an emanation of the underlying reality, but it is not Truth itself.

Further, it cannot be an emanation, because the only Truth is the underlying reality, all distinct appearances are subjective interpretation only.

It is like the reflection of the moon in the surface of the water-- the reflecting surface is the mind, the moon and sky is objective reality. The image of the moon in the water is not the real moon. Further, the surface of the water is disturbed by attachment to preconceived notions.

This is why we seek clarity of mind. Perfectly clear, the image on the water is a perfect copy of the objective reality.

Totally empty, the mind itself becomes infinite.

To say that truth exists is necessarily partial knowledge: reality necessarily contains all possibility, therefore it contains the duality of existence and non existence.

It cannot have any attributes itself, because it is the source of all attributes and distinctions.

The attributes and distinctions themselves are essentially non existent, just as everything defined is at heart infinite. That anything is actually defined is illusory, it's only a matter of perspective, a mirage. The only reality is infinite, unity beyond unity.

That the appearance of something can change just with perspective says a lot. One person currently entertains the perspective that it is whole, another that it is parts. They may argue, but both are right. If both are right, both are wrong. Thus is the nature of dualistic, perspective based knowledge.

But then what is the proper method to ascertain knowledge? Consistency is an illusion based on similarity-- you're only not looking deeply enough to see the difference. Knowledge is defined and fixed, reality is undefined and perpetual flux. It's like trying to put the wind in a box.

That we have the subjective is already considerably true and false; it is an opposable perspective, a subjective interpretation.

Certainly, distinction and pattern recognition is apparently useful, but it is also not. Attachment to ideas functionally equates to blindness; you are inconsiderate of the innate indefinability and flux of objective reality.

It comes down to this: whatever we do, we don't know totally, it's a best guess, and we may be right or wrong. Practical philosophy is identical to spirituality: the pursuit of clarity of mind, transcendence of attachment to perspectives-- primarily of self and other, concentration on the present moment. Whatever we are going to do is going to be happening in the present moment. Even if we are to work towards something in the future, it necessarily stems from what the apparent conditions are, moment to moment. To clearly apprehend those conditions is to detach from preconceived notions. Then intuition and natural intellect may flow freely, rather than being dammed up by attachment to a particular conceptual interpretation. Attachment to particular ideas draws thoughts into the mind unrelated to what is relevant in the moment, further damaging your capacity to respond and live fully.

Isn't that there is observer and observed already a subjective interpretation, a duality? Being an abstract duality, it is perspective only and holds no objective reality. In whatever way it might contain objective reality is unfathomable and incommunicable-- to reach objective truth is to know infinitely, a logical impossibility. It is essentially irrelevant to any logical point, for itself is beyond logic, that infinite reality contains the abstraction, "logic", and cannot be contained by it.

Subjective knowledge can never conform to objective reality, because objective reality is infinite-- and subjective, dualistic knowledge is definite, finite.

The finite cannot truly grasp the infinite.

From a certain perspective, nothing exists except in how you view it, and therefore "existence" is an arbitrary subjective interpretation which does not fully communicate reality.

The foundation of non contradiction already contradicts itself: it is circular logic.

I think therefore I am:

This only means that there is the perception/conception of thought, the perception/conception of self.

You take these to be objective realities, and then see them, and use your seeing them as proof that the abstracted interpretation is objective.

Being based in itself, isn't it effectively based in nothing?

If you say reality must exist because it cannot simultaneously not exist, aren't you already assuming reality, existence?

Can a duality, a definition ever hold the nondual, the infinite?

I think no.

I think largely the subject is irrelevant because thought is an automatic process. The outcome of a philosophy is something to live by-- if knowledge cannot truly, fully describe reality, what are you to do?

Can you rationally explain even what is perceived? What about it can you say that is infinitely, objectively true? Isn't the collection of interpretations effectively closing the mind to potentialities outside your particular interpretation?

To begin, it is assumed logic and deliberation is the proper method to ascertain truth. Only being capable of being based on preconceived knowledge, it will always be subjective, partial, and distorted.

To ascertain truth, you must discard whatever ideas you have about it so you may clearly look and see, without obstruction by preconceived interpretations.

When you reach what is familiar and recognizable, you assume identity. This cuts short true awareness of the objective.

Like pi: we get close enough, and decide it is good enough. What decent engineer would use just the few digits 3.14 for a delicate calculation? The appearance is similar enough to make an identity, but the pattern is false, what is similar is not the same, 3.14 is not the objective truth of pi, we cannot even say it is pi-- it is merely an approximate representation. No matter what level of accuracy we achieve, whatever decimal we are capable of reaching in pi, there will infinitely be an infinity left to discern, what we know can only ever be an approximate representation of the Truth, and not the truth itself.

Knowledge is apparently useful, but the nature of incompleteness of knowledge necessitates a leap of faith.

The nature of the human condition being that the primary conceptual interpretation is observer and observed, perceiver and perceived, the correct method to right action is simply awareness. From this perspective, the basis of the conceptual professional identity is consciousness-- Whatever is perceived is something "you" are conscious of. Therefore, you do not control anything, you are passive pure consciousness, set apart from perceived reality-- you don't do anything, the human apparatus merely moves based on what appears before consciousness and what conditioned associations are made.

Therefore, with increased awareness, the body mind will function more fully and smoothly. Alert, the natural intelligence and faculties of pattern recognition may perform at their best. To get stuck to thoughts is effectively to daydream, to be distracted. Perpetually returning to quiet now (without the distinction of quiet now) is to move smoothly with the moment, rather than getting lost in a particular interpretation. Knowledge is fixed, reality is flux. To become fixed to an idea is to obstruct natural flow. In this way, each moment is a leap of faith, each moment, you just sit back and see; the body mind will do its work in the world by itself, without need of your interference, so long as there is awareness.

Finally, this leads to the extinguishing of the ego. Everything is automatic. There is no doer. Whatever receives all the perceptions is itself incapable of being perceived or defined-- for all perceptions and definitions appear to it, in it. It is functionally nothingness. Void, empty of emptiness.

This is why eastern philosophy supports the path of seeking the real absolute Self: you are identical to objective reality, for nothing is separate from objective reality, the only separation is in looking through a particular perspective. Without perspective, Truth shines by itself, unlimited and perfect, untouched by fractured knowledge.

The distinctions of definite and indefinite necessarily exist within and are composed of something greater. True reality is not definite or indefinite, thus it is True infinity beyond infinity.

I sometimes refer to it as the "blank slate", that out of which all infinite possibility arises. Every distinction or attribute is of it, and it itself is nothing beyond nothing, emptiness without emptiness. We cannot say it exists or it doesn't, we cannot say it is infinite or definite. It is the substratum of all duality-- indistinct, objective, nondual, infinite.

Knowledge itself is definition. To say it is anything is definition. Thus, knowledge cannot reach the truly indefinite, but point to it. Much like the defined 3.14 indicates an infinite string of decimals. It indicates, but is not the truth it indicates.

Do you know fully how you even do something like thinking?

Explain to me in detail: how do you move from thought to thought?

Thus the Zen masters say:

"I don't know!"

Logic has some fundamental issues-- it's all rooted in non contradiction, the assumption of the necessary existence of an ordered reality.

You say, "this exists". From there, you rationalize that it cannot simultaneously not exist.

Existence is assumed.

It could be said that existence is really non existence, because that's just a partial interpretation and whatever the real objective existence is is beyond existence and non existence.

Our subjective experience seems real, but it is appearance only, interpretation only.

You have a particular interpretation, employ it, and use your application of it to prove it itself is true.

This is the same error in "I think therefore I am".

Whatever is precognitive sense cannot be defined, because definition is cognition.

Consider: there are no separate senses, just the one field of consciousness. Where are the lines drawn?

Isn't "what is real" always subjective interpretation? An appearance based on perspective only.

Based in objective reality, too, but the point is knowledge and definition can only fracture and distort its appearance, not grasp and define its reality.

That the sense consciousness is real is a subjective interpretation, a dualistic and opposable perspective.

That something, subjectivity, is caused and the cause must be some underlying reality is not only an idea, but circular logic. The reality of subjectivity is assumed.

Anything defined cannot hold the indefinite.

Anything finite cannot hold the infinite.

Even the greatest engineers and scientists accept the infinite possibility of margin for error; all applied mathematics is approximate only, not an infinitely perfect calculation.

Perfect knowledge in this way would require infinite definition, knowledge of every variable and perspective possibly conceivable in an object, into infinity, at every possible level of magnification.

Infinite accuracy.

It is impossible to reach, knowledge may infinitely approach but never reach infinity, perfect objectivity.

So, simple. Drop knowledge and See.

All thoughts should be discarded. One's mind is not thought free because of attachment to the thoughts. You cannot move the mind. Spiritual practice is distancing from the mind, losing doing for being. Then the rest unfolds automatically.

Some adhere to a philosophy of unity, all one.

Isn't a dualistic single, a unity of parts just another duality? It is just United as opposed to separate.

It's perspective, subjective interpretation.

"From so far, you look so small!"

Are they really small? No, that's just how it looks.

There is no truth to relative notions in this way.

All communicable is partial.

All partial has an opposing counterpart.

Both counterparts render the other both true and false.

What's the sense in that?

I agree there is some “objective reality”, but that it is beyond our comprehension, as all knowledge is defining, and reality is infinite. It is because of this that there is -always- a margin of error, infinite accuracy is a non concept, there is always room for more. We cannot say it exists or doesn't exist. Even to say it is infinite is untrue, because infinite is distinct from finite; objective reality must necessarily contain all possibilities and perspectives of existence or non existence. Subjective knowledge is warding off an abstract piece based on perspective; while the objective reality contains the full truth of that piece and everything outside the conceptual boundary that was drawn-- all boundaries are conceptual only, perspective only, approximate theory only-- There is no real boundary.

This isn't to say knowledge isn't apparently useful, it's also important to consider that it is not useful, and whatever it is, is not absolute.

This basically means everyone's running off faith in their own understanding, but what's wrong with that?

If you have a best guess, might as well take it.

That's how it's always been.

Isn't it basic to accept that you're not always right?

While knowledge is useful, it is not absolute. This renders every logical statement simultaneously true and untrue. What does this mean? There is always room for expansion, refinement of measurement or distinction of variables. There is always an imperfection, room for improvement: objective reality is infinite; ergo there is infinite room for improvement.

In a way, knowledge is not always useful to achieve goals. At a certain point you must somehow move beyond your ideas to a place of awareness and intuition. If you get too attached to some particular ideas, you may unintentionally ignore some obvious appearance not considered. Further, knowledge is finite and inaccurate. Even the most accurate applied mathematics is approximate only, close enough only; and not always enough, otherwise we'd never have mechanical failure.

It can be confirmed and it cannot be confirmed. It appears that there are other people and you can share language with them, creating some conventional symbolism. But, in reality, it is only close enough, not infinitely shared; each has their own subjective interpretation which may vary in any aspect or degree.

Even logic can be found to be illogical, as objective reality is infinitely complex, and therefore finite defining knowledge cannot apprehend it. Logic in this case is illogical.

So how do we approach that objective reality?

By dropping our interpretations and dwelling in present moment awareness. Even drop that it is present moment awareness. A clear mind is poised and ready, a mind too attached to ideas is clouded and distracted. It is useful to entertain perspectives, but also useful to acknowledge that they hold no absolute truth.

If any goal is to be achieved, you have to pay attention to what is real. Even if your mind is stuck on "I must pay attention to the moment" it will be a distraction from the moment. You're already occupied, not poised and ready.

It may be cliche, but let the thoughts come and go, remain present, internally quiet and aware. Then you'll be at your best and can work with anything. You can see what's happening and respond, rather than associate an appearance with a preconceived idea that illicits a cold and mechanical reaction; rather than continuing to use your natural distinguishing faculty of mind, you cut it short for an interpretation you already hold and effectively become blind.

There is a rope lying in the road, and from a distance it looks like a snake basking. To continue to believe it's a snake is to be a fool, to let interpretations come and pass in present awareness is to be open to new distinctions.

Whatever you happen to associate with something comes once you recognize it in your awareness, automatically, spontaneously.

Someone asks you your name. How do you bring it about in your mind? It just happens. Even if you have to stop and ask yourself, “what is my name?” Or anything else, you don't know the thought until it's in your mind, there is no precognition.

Therefore, watching the mind or any other meditation dissociates the “I” from any “action”, which has truly been all spontaneous action, your whole life.

If you are going to think anything, it comes automatically.

If you are going to do anything, it comes automatically.

If you are going to feel something, it comes automatically.

This body mind operates on spontaneous association with what it is aware of.

Everything which happens, is something you are aware of.

The basic fact is, you are.

Who are you?

Seeking this eliminates false ideas, peels the identity back to the core.

Transcending the mind is diving into infinite tranquility, peace, and wholeness.

To settle the mind, concentrate on its source:

I.

All perceptions are ideas, even that you are an individual. It might seem obvious, but only because you are attached to and familiar with that interpretation...

The issue isn't finding if we are separate or one.

It's going beyond notions of separate or one.

Beyond all subjective interpretations, to infinite objective reality.

Subjective views are only appearances which arise with a certain perspective, a certain interpretation. At any time someone may exchange their interpretation for another. That means that any appearance is purely subjective, purely relative to the perspective, it holds no objective reality, it is an illusion. Just move and it appears to be something totally different.

To reach objectivity is only to set aside the mind.

Bring its attention to its source, and wait for intuition.

This clarifies the mind instead of always seeing in terms of its already held ideas.

This is pure seeing,

No mind.

Suffering is contrary to joy. Suffering arises because of expectations. Living without expectations is pure joy ????

Knowledge is perspective based. Even what is bad is good: it teaches you what to avoid and how to overcome.

Expecting it to be bad is wrong. Expecting it to be good is wrong.

Whatever the objective truth is, it is beyond dualistic, defining knowledge, subjective interpretation.

Hold no perspective, and you can entertain any perspective.

Attachment to a particular idea is the very definition of ignorance; you are stuck in that box. Objective reality is within and without that box. Knowledge boundaries do not divide, it's only a change in perspective, a different lens.

That is the nature of duality... it's all perspective, subjective... Everything is at least subject to your senses and then your understanding of it... the only way to true objectivity is to go beyond this duality of me and my perception... What does the mind do? How do you move the thoughts? Do you know what you are about to think before you are thinking it? Thoughts come as relations, associations... Because of the associated identity, one considers it to be one's own thoughts, likes and dislikes, actions and reactions, acceptions and rejections... but really all this is an automatic process... tell me, how do I do it? Say I want to think the word, "the". Please direct me, how is it done?

You are consciousness which does not know itself. Everything known, everything “real” must be something you observe, you are aware of. Therefore the body and mind are external to you; they are your body and mind, you see them and are aware of them outside you.

Spiritual practice is finding and holding this "I", the you that has this body.

All knowledge is relative to this "I".

My body.
My thoughts, mind.
My world.
My perception.
My understanding.
My preference.
My acceptance.
My actions.
Etc.

Find this I and keep it.

Duality is illusion, Maya.

The ego is the snake seen before the rope.

To realize it is only a rope, keep looking, look closer and concentrate.

To realize the true nature of the self, keep looking.

This basic fact: here you are. This present moment.

You are.

Concentrate on "I".

The primary illusory duality is self and other.

Concentrate on I to realize the truth.

Concentrate on I to realize that duality is really nonduality.

There never was any duality.

Just as there never was any snake, only a rope.

There never was any person or world, only the nondual Self.

This is the primary illusory duality, self and other, knower and known. In the mind the feeling of being is split, subjected, fractured through the ideas and becomes self and other.

Concentration on the quiet feeling of own presence clears the mind and causes it to transcend duality, to recognize self love, ego love as universal love. Boundaries dissolve, the mind still operates and the bodies move but boundaries and understandings are flimsy and ethereal.

You are apart from all this, it is all external to you, effectively you are utter nothing.

But simultaneously, you are the soul and substratum of everything, the underlying potential, the infinity. Everything and nothing.

The coming and going of objects is only the illusory subjective reflection of nondual self in the apparatus that is the human.

Before the appearance filtered through the human apparatus: the distorted, partial reflection. Before distortion, that is truth.

Utter unknown beyond unknown.

Surpassing self and other, life and death.

Detaching completely from worldly karma: dualistic preferences and beliefs, attachment to some particular interpretations or ideas.

Toppling the wall of self and other.

Losing the drop in the sea.

I posit contradictions are natural and logical! Important to observe.

Being partial, knowledge is inherently contradictory.

That knowledge defines something is truly incorrect, isn't it?

You hold a symbol, such as the concept of pi, but the utter absolute objective truth, with accuracy to the infinite degree is ever receding, unreachable. So that it is definition is already contradictory... you've pointed out something you don't know anything about, there is an infinity left to learn.

Reality is indefinite, nondual-- which is not the full truth, as it is a definition.

Anything defined is at its heart indefinite.

This makes perfect sense, and yet none at all.

Feeling is involved in thought because of the associations with ideas. Otherwise, feeling is beyond thought. What is "feeling" is limited interpretation, not absolute objective truth. Without conceptual limitation, "feeling" may expand to universal love, compassion.

One is only all knowing if one is no knowing.
Our feelings drive our lives, yes, but to actually blossom to the natural state, you must break down your walls.

Without selective ego based love, all that's left is unlimited love to be, without distinction. This person, that person, that rock, doesn't matter. All is one in truth.

All being is one presence in one consciousness.

The consciousness is the presence, the presence is the consciousness.

Concentrate silently on "I", here and now.

Settle the internal conflict in order to bring peace to the world.

Open, loving, you may dispense with love as you see fit, and meet everything with love.

This does not mean that nothing gets done.

No one knows who does it, but the primal motivation is love.

Whatever comes and goes does not alter your quality of lovingness.

Without limits in the mind, one is free to dispense with an open heart and a clear mind, and one sees rightly.

Taoists call this "no fuss".

It is mental detachment.

But, this does not mean apathy... love is even more love without the ideas.

Egoic love is quantity, only the other side of pain, loss, distance.

Spirituality is closeness to your own heart, forgotten. The innate quality of lovingness.

Think "I".

Be still, quiet. Present.

Here nature can truly take its natural course.

Present and aware, you've got your tools and you're ready.

Here, you are.

Here is your own love.

What other joy is there?

It's all love, there is a beautiful sadness, from the heart. Its common name is compassion. ?

To transcend the feelings is not to have them disappear, it's to merge them all in love, being, trust.

Being detached does not mean that we do not feel, rather, without too much attachments to ideas the heart will be deeper, trusting, open.

Natural. Humans have feelings, they have hearts, run by love. Love to live, and live well. The only trouble comes with ego and attachment.

Then there is preference and violence, desire to change something and keep something...

But life itself is change. Impermanent.

The real security, stability, is inside...

The only constant in your life is that you are conscious of it, you are aware of it. Everything else changes.

People always want things from what is outside them, objects or identities or whatever success, but that is only the beginning of disappointment, for all things change, come and go.

All this at its heart is seeking love, fullness.

At your core is love, fullness.

The very basis of the identity, the ego, is the love to live.

The most basic part of any person's identity: they are alive; here you are. That is the first love.

Dwell there-- rather, here. Within yourself.

Then external conditions won't bother you. Not that you won't move in the world, the basis of everything will simply be unwavering love.

Nothing will sway you from your self love, truly not separate from universal love, no matter how it expresses.

People who commit the greatest acts of hatred are only moving to preserve their idea, their own skewed self love, distorted in ideas. Protect their own ego.

They are seeking fulfillment, because they are lost.

Turning within, you are found and fulfilled.

It's all love.

To go beyond the confusion, go within.

Think "I", and be quiet. Remain internally quiet with whatever comes.

Don't lose touch with this:

You are.

What a miracle.

Concentrate here, quietly.

The beauty unfolds from here...

The lotus blooms in the heart...

Different times call for different approaches. Sometimes it's appropriate to elaborate to the max.

Sometimes it's appropriate to be short and sweet.

Mind is definition, this vs that, duality; broken by abstract recognition of distinction.
Truth is unbroken.

The primary illusory duality is self and other.
That the conceptual boundaries realistically divide is the illusion.

To realize the unbroken, go to the source of the ego...

You mistake a rope for a snake.

To realize the truth, keep looking, pay attention.

You've fallen for the idea that duality is real, separation is real.

To realize the truth, concentrate on own presence.

Simply, quietly, here you are.

Thoughts come and go of their own volition. Internally silently observe.

Who is aware of the thoughts?

If you are aware of them, they can't be you.

Who are you?

Think "I", concentrate quietly.

You may take any one of these and dwell on it like a koan, a meditative mantra.

They do not hold the truth, no knowledge really can.

They are fingers pointing at the moon.

The purpose of holding "I" is to see that it is unreal, as in the parable of the rope and the snake.

There never was any snake, and to realize that keep looking, concentrate.

There never was any ego, to learn the substratum keep looking, concentrate.

Keeping the mind at its source renders it stable and quiet..

Then it is an adequate platform from which to leap into the beyond...

Or, for the beyond to leap in you...

Words are duality, truth is nonduality. Meditation is abidance in truth.

Loss of subjectivity-- the fractured, filtered consciousness.

Pure mind,

Without attribute,

Empty of emptiness.

Unborn.

What is factual is opinion,

What is real and unreal is truth.

Truth contains all,

Knowledge divides.

This vs that.

Knowledge can never touch truth,

So find the quiet between thoughts.

Here.

Here is transcendence.

Here is mindfulness.

Clarity is unfiltered, mind is a filter.

Look for the quiet.

Presence.

I.