Happiness appears as desire when it is veiled; desire is revealed as happiness when it is fulfilled.

The Recognition Of Being

This recognition of our own Being is not the result of a process in the mind. It is its own cause, so to speak. It is not caused by anything outside of itself.

Rupert,

Thanks for the response.

You wrote: However, knowledge of the mind doesn’t give us any knowledge of Consciousness. How could something that is limited give us any knowledge of that which unlimited?
 
Paul: Ah, okay.  See, I always thought that conscious knowledge could have a ‘steppingstone’ function that enabled a ‘launch from’  or release of conscious thought.  Something along the lines of: “I’m thinking of being without thought, just being what’s left, starting now…”

You wrote: In other words, this recognition of our own Being is not the result of a process in the mind. It is its own cause, so to speak. It is not caused by anything outside of itself.
 
Paul: Again, clear.  And again, I’d thought that thinking could take me as far as the ‘border of that country you speak of’.  Also, I’ve been operating according to the idea that it’s really difficult (or impossible) to let go of mental patterns that operate unconsciously, so I have to know a pattern of mentation in order to let go of that pattern.  The corollary of this belief is that I have to let go of afflicted mental/emotional patterns in order to allow realization to occur. What you say seems to suggest otherwise?

You wrote: That is why, at the end of my previous answer to you, I was careful to point out that self enquiry is only a process in the mind from the point of view of the dualising mind, that is, from the point of view of the separate entity. When it is clear that no such entity exists, self enquiry is felt and understood to be simply the abidance in our own being.
 
Paul: Again, this seems to bypass all of my concern with knowing my mind as a supposed requirement for ‘abidance in our own being’.  Is that right?

Best wishes,

Paul

 

Dear Paul,

Paul: I always thought that conscious knowledge could have a ‘steppingstone’ function that enabled a ‘launch from’ or release of conscious thought.  Something along the lines of: “I’m thinking of being without thought, just being what’s left, starting now…”

Rupert: It is not necessary to be without thought, because what you are is present both when thoughts are appearing and when they are not. Think of thoughts just like you think of the changing weather - they make no difference to you at all. Just let them float by while you remain your self. Changing or getting rid of thoughts makes no difference to you, just as the changing weather makes no difference to you sitting peacefully on your sofa. Consciousness (You) is always sitting peacefully on its sofa!

Is the self that is to be known different from the self that knows? No! All that is required for the self to be known is the one self that you already and always are. This self is prior to the mind. It knows the mind. It is knowing these words. No alteration of the mind could make any difference to knowing or being your self, just as no alteration in the weather could effect your knowing/being your self.

Paul: I’d thought that thinking could take me as far as the ‘border of that country you speak of’.

Rupert: There is no border to that country! Thinking alone imagines such a border!

In fact thinking takes place within that country and is made out of its soil. However, thought conceptualises that some things (including thought itself) take place outside of that country and are made out of something other than it. That very thought itself appears inside that country and is made out of its very soil!

At best thinking can take thinking to its own end. Thinking can explore experience and discover that it not only has no knowledge of the fundamental reality of experience, but that it cannot have any such knowledge. ‘I know that I know nothing’ is the best that thought can do!

However, in order to come to this understanding (if this understanding is really true of us and has not simply been adopted as just one more belief) we must first ‘go to’ the actual non-objective and timeless experience of Consciousness knowing itself, in order to know that the mind cannot know it.

In other words the line of thinking that culminates in the ending of thought, comes from the experience of reality. It does not go towards it.

(Atmanada Krishnamenon called his type of reasoning ‘higher reasoning,’ to distinguish it from reasoning that was derived from the presumption of objects).

With this understanding thinking comes naturally and effortlessly to an end, not as a result of discipline, effort, suppression, denial or belief, but through understanding. There is simply nowhere else for it to go. It just lies down quietly.

So, again, it is the timeless, non-objective experience of Consciousness knowing its own self, that dissolves thought, not thought that leads to the timeless, non-objective experience of Consciousness.

However, whether or not this cessation of thought takes place, see clearly that you are the ‘knowing/experiencing/being’ that runs unchanging throughout all appearances of the mind, body and world.

****

Paul: Also, I’ve been operating according to the idea that it’s really difficult (or impossible) to let go of mental patterns that operate unconsciously, so I have to know a pattern of mentation in order to let go of that pattern.  

Rupert: Leave all those mental habits and patterns alone. The ‘I’ that is apparently ‘operating,’ that seems to ‘know’ these patterns and that would ‘let go of them’ is itself simply one such pattern.

These patterns of thinking and feeling have taken their shape, over the years, from the belief that we are a separate entity, without our making any particular effort. In just the same way, as our experiential conviction that we are not a limited located entity deepens, so our thoughts, feelings and subsequent behaviour will slowly, effortlessly and naturally realign themselves with this new understanding.

***

Paul: The corollary of this belief is that I have to let go of afflicted mental/emotional patterns in order to allow realization to occur. What you say seems to suggest otherwise?

Rupert: Yes, again, it is the seeing that what we are is unlimited and unlocated and yet both present and knowing, that allows the patterns of thinking and feeling on behalf of a separate entiy to dissolve, not the other way round.

***
 
Paul: Again, this seems to bypass all of my concern with knowing my mind as a supposed requirement for ‘abidance in our own being’.  Is that right?

Rupert: Yes, that is right. This is the heart of the matter…In order to know your self you do not need to know the mind. No other knowledge than the knowledge that is present right now in this very moment is required for you to know yourself.

What does it mean to know our self? We ARE our self, so we are too close to our self to be able to know our self as an object. Our simply being our self is as close to knowing our self as we will ever come. We cannot get closer than that. In fact the being of our self IS the knowing of our self, but it is not the knowing of our self as an object. The only way to know oneself is to be oneself. Or, being oneself is the way we know our self.

To say ‘I am,’ (in other words to assert that we are present) we must KNOW that ‘I am.’ Being and Knowing are in fact one single non-objective experience. But we do not step outside of our self in order to know our own being. We simply ARE our self. That being of our self IS the knowing of our self. This being/knowing is shining in all experience.

This experiential understanding dissolves the idea that our self is not present here and now and that it is not known here and now.

And when our desire to know or find ourselves as an object is withdrawn, we discover that own our self was and is present all along shining quietly in the background, as it were, of all experience. As this becomes obvious we discover that it is not just the background but also the foreground. In other words, it is not just the witness but simultaneously the substance of all experience.

Paul, give yourself a break! Completely relax the desire to find yourself as an object or to change your experience in any way. Relax into this present knowing of your own being. See that it is intimate, familiar and loving.

See clearly that it is never not with you. It is shining here in this experience, knowing and loving its own being. It runs throughout all experience, closer than close, intimately one with all experience but untouched by all experience.

As this intimate oneness it is known as Love. In its untouchableness it is known as Peace and in its fullness it is known as Happiness. In its openess and willingness to give itself to any possible shape (including the apparent veiling of its own being) it is known as Freedom, as the substance of all things it is known as Beauty, but more simply it is know just as ‘I’ or ‘This.’


With love,

Rupert