#1592 - Monday, October 20, 2003 - Editor: Jerry
- Issue #1592 - Monday, October 20, 2003 - Editor: JerryThis issue features excerpts from Open Secret, by Wei Wu Wei.It may be ordered via the following link: http://tinyurl.com/rvyk
ComedyPhenomenal objects apparently desperately hunting for themselves as subject! How could an object seek its subject? All it is is subject, and all it does is done by subject, so that subject itself is desperately hunting for itself!~ ~ ~CommentThe 'subject' which they then find that they are is no entity, for subject can never be that.Once more: the subject of object is itself an object as 'subject', just as the object of 'subject' is itself nothing but subject. That is, they are one, and how they are one, two sides of a single coin, without the coin: they are subject-object alternatively and at once.Is this semantic jugglery? Perhaps, but it could never be anything else, for it can be understood but cannot be expressed as a logical proposition. It might help, but would change nothing, if the words 'object' and 'subject' were replaced by the words 'phenomena' and 'noumenon'. All phenomena are nothing but noumenon, and there is no such thing as noumenon: noumenon is 'noumenon' only as phenomena. Thought of, they appear as two things, but they are not even as dual concepts: as such they are both phenomenal. They are one whole -- and that is no thing.This understanding is, perhaps, the essential understanding -- and it cannot be syllogistically expressed.~ ~ ~Even the best writing is like taking pot-shots at the moon.~ ~ ~To Hell with it All!For GOODNESS' sake let's give up all this objectivising nonsense! It has gone on altogether too long! Wasting our apparent lives objectivising from morning to night, and from night to morning -- except for deep sleep when we go sane for a short respite.Take the absurd idea people have about there being a moon in the sky! What is a 'moon', what is a 'sky', and where is there either one or the other to be 'inside' or 'outside' the other or the one? Did you ever hear such balderdash?We know perfectly well, you who are reading this know perfectly well, where the so-called 'moon' comes from, what it is, where it belongs, and the so-called 'sky' along with it! They belong with all other phenomenal objects we objectify day and night, dreaming 'asleep' or dreaming 'awake' -- rhinos and roses, beetles and bodhisattvas, dandelions and dragons.Aren't you heartily sick of them all? No? Very well, then, admire them, love them, do what you like with them, but for Heaven's sake don't go on thinking that they 'exist' as such in some sort of way somewhere or other 'over there', 'up there', 'down there' or any other sort of 'where'!You know quite well where they 'exist', how they 'exist', and that their only 'existence' is at home where they belong, which is where you perceive them.That is living practice.~ ~ ~Seeing, Seeing, Seeing ...What is the use of looking outside? All you will see is objects! Turn round and look within.Shall I then see subject instead?If you did you would be looking at an object. An object is such in whatever direction you look.Shall I not see myself?You cannot see what is not there!What, then, shall I see?Perhaps you may see the absence of yourself, which is what is looking. It has been called 'the void'.~ ~ ~BoomerangEvery time you see an object you are beholding the subject of that object in its objective manifestation.Every object is a mirror which reflects what is looking.~ ~ ~DisillusionPerceiving a coil of rope as a snake, is delusion;Ceasing to perceive a snake, leaves the perceiving of the coil of rope what it is.Perceiving a coil of rope as a coil of rope, is still delusion.Ceasing to perceive a coil of rope as a coil of rope, leaves the perceiving of the supposed coil of rope whatever the supposed coil of rope may be.Whatever the supposed coil of rope may be is devoid of the concept of a coil of rope,Because voidness is perceiving perceiving itself,For the perceiving of the snake-perception, and of the rope-perception, must go with its objects, leaving perceiving only -- which is what is, or suchness.~ ~ ~This and ThatThat (which is 'objectivisable') cannot possibly be free.This (which is not objectivisable) cannot possibly be bound.If I am apparently identified with that which is objectivisable, that 'me' so-created is bound.If I remain unidentified with what is objectivisable, or if I am released from such apparent identification, I, eternally free, appear to recover my apparently lost freedom.For I am This which is devoid of objectivity as of identity.What I am not is That, which appears to be identified with what is objectivised.Yes, indeed, it is as simple as that.Note: The identification in question is conceptual only.What-I-am-not -- is not I only in so far as I am conceived as an entity: otherwise what is objectivisable and what is not (phenomena and noumenon) are identical.What is here stated can be said by you, whatever 'you' may be, but never of 'you', nor of 'him', 'her', or 'them', nor -- accurately -- of 'us' (all of which are objects), for only I can ever truly say it, and every sentient being can say it as 'I'.AriaIModeratoThere is only I, unconditioned, devoid of attribute or identity.A mere thought of 'me' is instantaneous bondage.Bondage has no duration apart from the persistence of the concept of 'me'; i.e., its apparent duration is coincident with such a concept.There is no 'me', there never has been, never will be, never could be any such reality.There is no need to read books, chant Sutras, recite Scriptures, perform any antics; there is nothing whatever to discuss, argue about, or explain.There is nothing whatever to teach or to be learned.Every living (sentient) being knows this and is free to become aware of it and to 'live' it.All else but this is called 'bondage' -- and that is an illusory thought conceptually inhibiting pure (non-dualist) vision.IIForteEvery volitional act of reading, chanting, listening, discussing, arguing, explaining, etc. must necessarily reinforce the thought which constitutes 'bondage'.No volitional action whatsoever is possible that could 'liberate' from 'bondage', since there is no entity to be bound or to be free.All that is possible is awareness of this which is already known, and consciously living this which is already being lived.All else is appearance, which is phenomenal dreaming.IIIFortissimoTo hell, ten thousand hells, with all phantasies based on the notions of 'self' and 'other' -- self judging other, shadow-boxing in false mind, 'I' and 'you' (I speaking as an object).I alone can speak, but what is said by me-as-an-object I do not say.I alone can look, but what is seen by me-as-an-object I do not see.I do everything, but what is done by 'a me' I do not do.I am neither entity nor non-entity, but the absence of non-entity, the source of all doing, but not the performer of any act. I am the source of all thoughts, but not the thinker of any.Once more: I am, there is not I but I -- but there is no me at all, no you, no him, her, it, no us or them.And every living being is no being, because all a being is -- is I. And I am not.What here is said every sentient being may say -- for every sentient being is I.And thee is nothing else to be said, nothing whatever -- and this is already too much.