Thought divides knowing into a knower and the known, loving into a lover and the beloved, and perceiving into a perceiver and the perceived. As such, it is thought alone that abstracts a subject and an object from the seamless, unnamable intimacy of pure Knowing or Experiencing.

Who Dies?

As no individual entity whatsoever exists to be reborn, then death would mean the same final release for all pseudo-individuals whether 'liberated in this life' ["enlightened"] or not?

Hi Rupert,

As no individual entity whatsoever exists to be reborn, then death would mean the same final release for all pseudo-individuals whether ‘liberated in this life’  [“enlightened”] or not. Both ‘liberation in this life’ and a ‘life of ignorance’ are as illusory as the individual they are supposed to apply to and so the one is as meaningless as the other. Therefore whether “liberation in this life” happens or not is irrelevant as both are only preludes to the same final destination, the eternal sleep of Mahasamadhi.
 
Following on from that: If the non-dual sleep that prevailed before “I” was born is the same as Mahasamadhi, then it appears to be subject to interruption. New organisms continue to be born and die as the wheel of birth and death carries on relentlessly.  Therefore wouldn’t it be more than possible that after death, out of the same Nothingness in which ‘this me’ once arose unbidden, there could arise spontaneously, in the same way, the experience of a brand-new individual, another ‘me’ which again has to start afresh a life of ignorance and (possibly) horrendous suffering. Death may be the end of  ‘this’ particular false identification but something resembling the process of reincarnation still seems likely to follow it - which appears to call into question the whole idea of liberation in this or any other life.                                                                              

Regards,                                                                                          

Roger
 

 

Dear Roger,

Roger: As no individual entity whatsoever exists to be reborn, then death would mean the same final release for all pseudo-individuals whether ‘liberated in this life’ [“enlightened”] or not.

Rupert: As you say, ‘no individual entity whatsoever exists to be reborn.’ By the same token, there is no individual entity that has been born in the first place. The ideas of death, final release, liberation and enlightenment, pertain only to the apparent individual. Once it becomes clear that this individual is utterly non-existent, the ideas of death, final release, liberation and enlightenment no longer have any meaning.

You have understood that there is no individual entity, but continue to ask about the death, final release, liberation and enlightenment of that entity!

Once it becomes clear that there is no individual entity, by the same token it is clear that Consciousness was not born and therefore never dies, was never in bondage and is therefore never released or liberated, and is already that light that would enlighten all apparent things.

Roger: Both ‘liberation in this life’ and a ‘life of ignorance’ are as illusory as the individual they are supposed to apply to and so the one is as meaningless as the other.

Rupert: From the point of view of Consciousness (if such can be said to have a point of view) it is true that there was never any ignorance and therefore there cannot be any liberation. Both, as you say, are meaningless.

However, from the point of view of the apparent individual entity, there is ignorance and therefore, from that point of view, liberation is very real. Both, at this level, are meaningful.

Roger: Therefore whether “liberation in this life” happens or not is irrelevant as both are only preludes to the same final destination, the eternal sleep of Mahasamadhi.

Rupert: Yes, irrelevant to Consciousness. But if we consider ourselves to be an individual entity, our dream life of searching in the world for happiness, will continue. Of course, as such, we do not know it is a dream and therefore it feels very real.

Mahasamadhi is a final destination only for the apparent entity. For Consciousness, it is already the case.

If ‘liberation in this life’ doesn’t happen, that is, if the separate entity is not completely seen through, there is nothing to suggest that on death of the body, the mind may not continue to create further dreams of a separate entities moving around in the world in search of happiness.

*****

Roger: If the non-dual sleep that prevailed before “I” was born is the same as Mahasamadhi, then it appears to be subject to interruption.

Rupert: Non-dual sleep, Mahsamadhi and the Presence of Consciousness knowingbeing itself, is ever-present, prior to the birth of the appearance of the mind, body and world, during their appearance and after their disappearance.

It is not interrupted any more than the TV screen is interrupted when the movie starts.

‘I’ is simply a modulation of Consciousness, just as the film is a modulation of the screen.

Non-dual sleep, Mahsamadhi and the Presence of Consciousness only seem to be interrupted from the point of view of the individual entity.

Roger: New organisms continue to be born and die as the wheel of birth and death carries on relentlessly. Therefore wouldn’t it be more than possible that after death, out of the same Nothingness in which ‘this me’ once arose
unbidden, there could arise spontaneously, in the same way, the experience of a brand-new individual, another ‘me’ which again has to start afresh a life of ignorance and (possibly) horrendous suffering.

Rupert: Yes. When we fall asleep the waking ‘I’ and its corollary the waking world vanish. After a timeless moment (timeless because the mind was not present there) a new dreamed ‘I’ and its new dreamed world appear.

What is interesting to notice is that what was on the inside of the waking ‘I’ - that is, its thoughts and feelings - tend to become the outside, the world of the dreaming ‘I.’

It is not the ‘I’ that passes from the waking state to the dreaming state, it’s rather that the thoughts and feelings of the former tend to be carried over and create the world of the latter.

I see no reason to suppose that this will not continue after the death of the body. That is, what was on the inside in this life will be on the outside in the next life, which simply means, the next dreamlike appearance in Consciousness.

Roger: Death may be the end of  ‘this’ particular false identification but something resembling the process of reincarnation still seems likely to follow it - which appears to call into question the whole idea of liberation in this or any other life.

Rupert: Yes, there is nothing to suggest that if the desires and fears of the imaginary ‘I’ are still alive when the apparent entity dies, they be taken up again as it were, by another apparent entity, just as they are in dreams.

So yes, there is no real entity to be reincarnated, but that doesn’t mean that mind will not continue to create new apparent entities and worlds. After all this is what is happening night after night in this life. In fact it is happening moment by moment.

However, even if this is the case, the problem is not the recurrence of the mind, it is our identification with it. The only thing that perpetuates the appearance of the separate entity is our belief in it. Once that belief has ceased, the separate entity’s days days are numbered. It will wind down in its own time.

Liberation is only for the one who is bound. If that one is seen to be non-existent, liberation ceases to have any meaning.

Only Presence remains, knowing and being itself.

Please come back to me in person or in writing if I have not fully understood or addressed your questions.

With kind regards,

Rupert