Click here to go to the next issue
Highlights Home Page | Receive the Nondual Highlights each day
Issue #1592 - Monday, October 20, 2003 - Editor: Jerry
This issue features excerpts from Open Secret, by Wei Wu Wei.
It may be ordered via the following link: http://tinyurl.com/rvyk
Comedy
Phenomenal 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!
~ ~ ~
Comment
The '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'.
~ ~ ~
Boomerang
Every 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.
~ ~ ~
Disillusion
Perceiving 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 That
That (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'.
Aria
I
Moderato
There 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.
II
Forte
Every 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.
III
Fortissimo
To 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.
