Click here to go to the next issue
Highlights Home Page | Receive the Nonduality Highlights each day
How to submit material to the Highlights
#3679 - Thursday,
October 8, 2009 - Editor: Jerry Katz
The Nonduality Highlights - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NDhighlights
http://www.kiloby.com/writings.php?offset=0&writingid=140
NEW--The Limitation of Language, An Inquiry
by Scott Kiloby
These questions aren't meant to be analyzed. They are inviting
you to see that your true identity is not found in thought. There
is a natural resting as awareness that is available when you no
longer look to thought for answers to the big questions like
"Who am I," and "What is Life all about?" In
seeing the limitation of thought, there can be a direct
recognition of awareness. All questions appear and disappear in
that awareness. In this seeing, thought is no longer seen as a
problem. It no longer creates problems. It is seen as much like a
hologram creating the appearance of duality, while there is a
deep inner knowing that, in reality, there are 'not two.'
The Questions
Is there anything outside of (prior to, or beyond) a thought?
If so, could a thought actually reveal it?
Don't most thoughts actually refer or point only to other
thoughts? For example, if the question is, "What is a
dog?," the answer is most often just another thought such
as, "a mammal." You then have to define
"mammal." Yet the dictionary will only point to other
thoughts to provide that definition. This is an endless game. Do
you see that? Even if you began to define or identify the dog by
breaking it into parts (e.g., tail, legs, fur), each of the parts
are thoughts that need to be defined.
If the thought "dog" or any other thought appears, is
it pointing to something "out there" that is not that
thought? If so, can what is "out there" be identified
without using a thought? If it cannot be identified or named, can
it be known as an independently existing object?
What is the relationship, if any, between a thought and what it
seems to be pointing to, between the thought "dog" and
the apparently separate thing barking in front of you?
The thought "dog" seems to be pointing to an
independently existing object "out there." But when the
thought "dog" is dropped, is there still an
independently existing object "out there" called dog?
Can you know that for certain?
Doesn't the thought "dog" appear simultaneously with
the object dog?
When the thought "dog" is not appearing, is there any
way to know or identity anything "out there" as a dog
that exists independently?
Can you experience, right now, this moment, without any thought
about what it is?
That experiencing, which is prior to or beyond thought, is
awareness itself. The word "awareness" is a thought. Do
you see that?
When the word "awareness" is dropped, what is left? Can
that ever be stated? Can it ever be known as on object?
Doesn't the notion that there is awareness separate from
something else (e.g., thought) appear only when awareness is made
into a thought?
Is there a knowing of any kind that is available when no thoughts
are arising?
Did you insert a thought as an answer to the previous question?
If so, then you missed the question. The question asks whether
there is a knowing that is available when no thoughts are
appearing. There is no way to describe that knowing except
through thoughts.
Did you insert a thought as an answer to the question, "What
is left when the word awareness is dropped?"
Is there any way to answer that without referring to another
thought?
Are you starting to see why people seek and never seem to find
the answer to life's bigger questions like "Who am I?"
and "What is life?" Words only point to other words.
Language is a finite set of words and each word points merely to
other words within the finite set of words.
Does awareness ever appear by itself, separate and apart from a
thought? If so, can that ever be communicated?
Take a moment again and find out what is here that is not a
thought.
Is there any thought that can capture that? Do you see that, no
matter what thought you place on that question, it places 'you'
back in the finite set of words called dualistic language?
Do you see the limitation of thought?
What do thoughts appear to provide? Only conceptual understanding
right?
Can a thought provide freedom?
Peace?
Love?
Are the thoughts "freedom," "peace," and
"love" merely more thoughts within the loop of language
or do they point to an actuality prior to or beyond themselves?
Does the word "awareness" point to something which is
not a thought?
Do you see that no matter what thought is appearing, actual
awareness is still here?
Do you see that awareness is here whether there is thinking or
not thinking?
What is a thought? Can that ever be answered without resorting to
another thought?
Again, what does that say about whether a thought exists
independently of awareness itself?
Can anything in the world be named or identified without
resorting to thought?
Do you see that, the moment a thought arises, it makes it appear
as if there is an object that exists independently of the rest of
life? For example, the moment the word "dog" appears,
the notion of an independently existing dog appears with it.
There may be a feature "out there" that has fur, and a
tongue, and wags its tail, but is that feature existing
independently of the rest of life? Do you see that only thought
provides the notion that a dog exists separately from air, or a
couch, or a banana? These are all thoughts...creating the
appearance of objects that exist independently.
So isn't thought creating duality and separation?
What does this say about the inseparability of the
"universe?"
Does the word "awareness" point to something which is
not merely a temporary idea, experience, sensation, state, or any
other temporary appearance?
As a thought is appearing, does it have any existence that is
independent of actual (non-conceptual) awareness?
Did you answer that last question with a thought?
If so, you have forgotten what has been seen in this inquiry,
which is that only thought gives the appearance of duality.
If only thought gives the appearance of separate things, what
proof do you have that there is, in fact, an actual split between
what we call awareness and what is appearing in awareness (i.e.,
thought)?
What is this revealing about the relationship between awareness
and thought...between emptiness and form...between nothingness
and everything?
The dividing line between those ideas is merely conceptual.
Does a thought ever touch the direct experience of actual life in
this moment?
What is the word "touch" referring to?
Do you see that the word "touch" presupposes
independently existing things? So, the word implies that thought
is somehow separate from awareness, that form is somehow separate
from formlessness.
Do you see how thought creates the appearance of separation and
then seeks to find out how to find non-duality? It is impossible
to recognize non-duality by merely thinking and believing that
the separation created by thinking is real.
And the strange paradox is that thought itself does not exist
independent of life. Thought is life. It is none other than the
energy of life itself. It is the energy of awareness. It does not
exist independently of awareness.
So what is there to get rid of? Who is going to get rid of it?
What is there to find? Who would find it? The moment some thought
pops up to answer those questions, the apparent dilemna is
created. Thought gives the appearance of separate things so it
cannot ever recognize non-separation. The moment it is truly
believed that there is an "I" that exists
independently, this belief brings about illusory separation. With
an "I" as subject, the object is automatically created
in relation to the subject. The object may be God, happiness,
love, nonduality, or enlightenment. The point is that only
concepts create this illusory separation between a subject and an
object. The moment you go looking for love, you have moved away
from it in the dream of thought. The moment you seek Oneness, you
buy into the fact that it is separate from what you are. So a
separate person can never realize Oneness. To even believe there
is something called a person separate from Oneness creates the
problem. So the mechanism that created the
separation--thought--will not solve the problem. It will only
solidify the belief that there is a subject who is missing or
lacking an object.
This little game gets even more subtle as there is a direct
recognition of present awareness. There is a tendency to believe
that there is an actual split between awareness and what appears
in awareness (namely thought, but it could be any appearance
including emotions, sensations etc). There is only awareness and
whatever thought is appearing inseparably in awareness right now.
Inseparably is the key word. We can certainly use all of these
concepts to point. We can say that awareness is the vast unmoving
basic cognizing space prior to thought. We can say that thought
is what appears to move within that space. But to actually
believe that anything in the universe exists totally independent
of anything else is the fundamental error. That is true for these
subtle distinctions between awareness and that which appears in
awareness.
This inquiry is revealing that there is no separation between
what we are calling non-conceptual and conceptual. Aren't those
concepts themselves creating the apparent split or duality? Is
that split actual? Is it real?
All of this may seem purely philosophical, until one looks into
his or her direct experience. Look for the actual boundary lines
between apparently separate things? Where are the boundary lines?
Don't they exist in thought only?
Is there any way to prove this without resorting to more
dualistic language?
If there is no way to prove it, then non-duality is not a
philosophy. It is not a religion. It is not just another mental
position being taken.
Is there any such thing as non-duality that can be expressed? The
moment we begin speaking about it, we have entered this illusory
realm of duality.
Wouldn't it be much simpler to just rest as awareness and enjoy
the pure love of seeing that whatever appears to awareness has no
independent nature. That really is the key to freedom, isn't?
Emphasizing thoughts about awareness (or God, or whatever you
call it) creates the appearance of two. To even emphasize God
sets God apart from what you are, which results in the false
notion that you must find some union with him. It would only be a
concept finding union with another concept. In the natural and
perfect rest of actual awareness, that duality and all other
dualities are seen to be not ultimately real. Emphasizing
thoughts even about non-duality (without a direct recognition of
actual awareness) creates the appearance that the thoughts are
real, that there is a separate person who can reach some other
separate concept called "non-dual realization," or that
there is awareness here totally independent of thought. These are
good stories but are they true?
No wonder people argue about spirituality all the time. There is
a belief that dualistic words express it or that one can own it
to the exclusion of others.
It is so tempting to use words of finality, words that appear to
sum up "truth" or "reality" in a final sense,
such as Oneness, consciousness, God, the Tao, Nirvana,
enlightenment, non-duality, peace, love, freedom, or awareness.
But the rest we have been looking for is not found in any of
those thoughts, nor is it found in any thoughts about a personal
self with a past, present, and future. This rest is already here
in the unnamable actuality to which all of those "final
words" are pointing. And that actuality does not, in any
way, exclude any of those thoughts. Nothing in the universe
opposes or sets itself apart from anything else in the universe.
There is only an appearance of opposition or separation when
thoughts are believed to be referring to independently existing
objects.
Thoughts themselves are harmless. They are the energy of
awareness itself. And so if resting as awareness is the key to
freedom, recognizing inseparability is the key to love. The
inseparability of awareness and thoughts that appear in awareness
is love. The inseparability of the universe is love. Although
duality appears everywhere, the actual boundary between apparent
things can never be found. The universe is seamlessness.
Everything is drenched in love. Only that seeing is needed. No
other effort need be applied. That seeing is the rest. It is the
finality. It is the end of the search for something more than
what is presently here. It is the realization that whatever is
presently here and happening is the truth.