A Comment on "The Illusion is You"

What I wrote pointed to the tendency that most have to deny or trivialize experience. Notice how thoughts and feelings are perceivable. They are part of what is. I do not think it is helpful to dismiss them. I do not think it is helpful to netti netti them away. What is equally evident is that "I" is not perceivable. Seek as long as you like, you will not find any "I." What is not perceivable can only be mystery. Why speak of "I" when it comes to mystery? Why speak of "my" when it come to mystery? "I" is always a separate concept.

There is an idea that most have, and most seekers have of "I am 'I am,'" but this is just a clever story. It is an assumption. "I am not this so I must be that." This is just the association of two thoughts, "I" and "That." Let's deal with what's evident. Shall we? What is evident is that thoughts feelings and experience, all that is perceivable, comes from what is neither perceivable nor conceivable. When thoughts come is evident. When feelings come is evident, but where they come from, where they emerge from is not evident. We are in the realm of mystery, bewilderment, awe.

Thoughts not being real is neither the answer nor the question. They are real. They are real thoughts. They are real feelings. Who knows this? About "That" nothing can be said. It is neither being nor non being. Both being and non being are thoughts themselves. We are in the realm of opposites. Mystery has no opposite. Everything stated about it is a concept and is not mystery.

What I wanted to point out is that the moon to which the finger is pointing is not thoughts. The moon is where thoughts come from. Who can speak about that? Is there something? Is there nothing? Everything except that of which nothing can be said, is a concept, a creation. This "I" thought as you call it, is an inference. No "I" can be found. Feelings arise and there is an association of "I" "my" and the rest. Thoughts arise and it is the same. The thoughts can be seen. The "I" cannot. Feelings can be seen, who is feeling them cannot. Becoming aware of them is proof that they are, not that you are. Try to become aware of what is aware. Try to see the Seer. No one has ever done it, which is why it remains always mystery.

My point is, why are so many concerned with silencing, witnessing or controlling thoughts, feelings and experience? There is no need to netti netti them away. There is no real gold in witnessing them even. Try to witness what witnesses. That is the gateway to silence and peace, because it is intrinsically mysterious. It is not unknown. It is unknowable. The mind cannot grasp it or communicate it, because it is not an object. If it were, it would be perceivable, neither is it an "I." If it were, it would be perceivable.

Try to find this separate "I" that is perceivable, that is an object. Thoughts are found.Feelings are found. The body is found. The world is found. Experiences are found. Try to find your self. Is there a you that is perceivable and therefore evident? Even awareness is evident, but where is this you? It is a mental trick to say, I am the awareness. Where did this "I" come from? Is it not an inference? Is it not just an association of two concepts, mainly thought and the body, in particular the "I" thought and the body? As Papaji says, "Awareness isn't it. The one aware of awareness is it." But be careful. It is not an object, not a concept, so don't turn it into one.

The body is. It cannot be denied. Thoughts and feelings also cannot be denied. What about this "I," what does it refer to? Can you affirm it in the same way as the rest? Can you say, "it is?" You can neither perceive it nor conceive of it. You perceive only a label, the label "I". If you say "my" awareness who are you talking about? If you say "my" thoughts, who are you talking about? If you say "my" feelings or "my" body, who are you talking about? If you say "my" experiences, who are you talking about? If you say "I am me," where is this I? Where is this "me?" Look for that one. Can it be found? Is it an object alongside the others? Is it a separate something alongside the others? What good is meditation, if you haven't looked for the meditator? What good is seeking, if you haven't looked for the seeker?

Always,

Prakash