"to apperceive what, when, and where we are"

To be here,

all you have to do

is let go of

who you think you are.

That's all!

---Adyashanti

"All there IS is THIS"

What IS (Enlightenment)

is All that IS,

Already-Always;

there IS no time.

experienc-ING is un-divided

When the mind finally stops,

Whether briefly or for a long period,

Oneness is

The only possible experience.

---James Braha

"all-embracing and inter-penetrating"

Whole-seeing (apperceiving)

can be said to include

both

the "body-mind" and its "objects"

as aspects of

an overarching Presence.

no extending

All IS!

"embraced in obliterating Unity"

"Enlightenment" (or "What IS")

Indicates the Totality of Apperceiving

"wherein"

There is neither anyone to perceive,

Nor anything to be perceived.

"the Source and substance of all seeing"

Figuratively speaking, whole-seeing can be said to "underlie" divided-seeing.

"whole-seeing"

Seeing is enough---from the source!

But what does one see?

"One" does not see. There is neither "one" nor "two", neither "self" nor "other", neither "subject" nor "object". Just a seeing of suchness as such.

Just a seeing which is both see-er and seen?

Which is neither see-er nor seen.

Which is...?

Pure non-objective relation.

Non-objective relation between what?

The "relation" is between phenomena, between mutually-dreamed objects, but the seeing is noumenal.

But what can mutually-dreamed objects do?

Nothing, their mutuality is also dreamed.

Then...

That is why it is true seeing: there is neither subject nor object, self nor other.

You mean because false or inferential seeing is excluded?

"False or inferential seeing" being conceptual interference.

I think I almost understand! Tell me more.

That is enough. Telling, even when it is possible, only hinders essential apprehension.

Because the essential apprehension is in-seeing?

In-seeing is cut off by out-seeing. In the absence of out-seeing it is present.

But what is present?

The source of all seeing. That alone is presence. In-seeing does not mean looking in one direction instead of in another, "in" instead of "out", from the same center, as is commonly supposed, but seeing FROM within instead of FROM without, seeing from the source, which is noumenon, not from manifestation, which is phenomenon.

So it really should be not "in-seeing" and "out-seeing", but "inside-seeing" and "outside-seeing"?

Inelegant and still inaccurate, but certainly less misleading! The one is whole-seeing, the other divided-seeing: that is the essential, for a spatial discrimination could not be correct.

This sounds important?

How could it not be? Perceiving is everything, "Seeing, seeing, seeing", as Rumi cried---and he was not referring to the phenomenally-based observation of objects by subjects, but to the noumenally-based in-seeing that is devoid of both!

---Wei Wu Wei

partial vision

"subject" and "object"

are the "edges"

of a conceptual "divide"

that gets superimposed

onto "Undivided Mind."

What we are is not an entity extended in space and in duration.

Non-extension and extension

is THE ONLY DIFFERENCE

Between Absolute and relative.

---Wei Wu Wei

"non-extension"

There is no "Enlightened" perspective or point of view.

A "point of view" means the point of view of an "object".

"Direct-perceivING" is perspective-less, not a view "extended from a point."

pointing!

What is, is.

Is it not so?

---Elke von der Osten

"direct, non-volitional apperceiving"

Zen explains nothing.

It just sees.

Sees what?

Not an Absolute Object

but Absolute Seeing.

---Thomas Merton

"That"

The reason why "that" is the most mischievous word, metaphysically, in our language, is that it points to what-we-are as an object of what-we-are-not, whereas the reverse is the precise truth.

It is nefaste in that its use necessarily obliges the user to be speaking as a phenomenal object envisaging its own noumenality objectively.

Whereas the relative truth he is seeking is that PHENOMENA are just the objectification of noumenon, and therefore are "that" whose SUBJECT is "this".

---Wei Wu Wei

"THIS"

What you are looking for is what is looking.

Why?

Because there IS

Nothing OTHER than that

(which is THIS).

"fact" derived from L facere, to make

The most amazing "fact" is that there aren't any!

hidden in plain sight

ACTUAL as-it-is-ness is UBIQUITOUS!

the voidness of apperceiving

"You" don't "get some thing";


"NO THING" "gets you"


(and "every thing else").

"I am this which I am."

"I am that I am", said Jahweh

---which no doubt means "this which I am".

We too are "this which we are",

for THIS is everything

that ever was, is, or ever could be.

---Wei Wu Wei

"We" don't have to look in order to "see" that "this" is wherever "we" happen to be.

An object is always over there;

The whereabouts of "this" is very precisely here.

An object is only in one place,

Whereas the situation of "this" is ubiquitous.

True, "this" is objectively absent,

But non-objectively "this" is eternally present.

---Wei Wu Wei

I, who am no thing---am every thing.

The world is illusory;


Brahman alone is Real;


Brahman is the world.


---Shankara

"One, without a second"

Everything, absolutely EVERYTHING

IS the SAME

Awareness.


There can be

NOTHING OTHER than THIS

(no matter "what you do").

"beyond knowledge and ignorance"

Q: How can one know the Self?

A: The Self always is. There is no knowing It.

It is not some new knowledge to be acquired.

What is new and not here and now

Cannot be permanent.

---Ramana Maharshi

"this which I am"

Enlightenment is not a goal to achieve or an idea to grasp.

It is the timeless presence that you already are...

---Scott Kiloby

castles made of mind

Whole-mind or Total-awareness

Transcends and includes

the body-mind's "point of perception

and conception."