Good!

So there's an awareness of this room right now, but what about the unmanifest level?

What unmanifest level? Isn't what's appearing enough?

The appearance is merely a pointer to what is beyond Consciousness.

Why do you want to go beyond?

Because that's where all the action is, for creating this manifestation.

This manifestation isn't created - it spontaneously appears.

But ultimately there's nothing more important than what is beyond Consciousness.

When there's exclusive identification with the content of awareness, with the story of 'me' as an imagined entity, there's a tendency for the awareness aspect of Consciousness to be objectified as 'the beyond', a state or realm which once attained will offer oneness, lasting peace.

But in actuality there is no beyond, nothing to be attained 'ultimately'. There's simply this as it is: simple presence. This is already that 'realm'. Consciousness (awareness and the presently appearing content of awareness) is already one or whole, and when the story of 'me' - of identification - is seen as just a play, a movie, then all pursuit of oneness, all pursuit of the beyond or whatever, quite naturally becomes obsolete.

Are you saying that thought doesn't make a difference, that nothing makes a difference in the sense of cause and effect? Everything just arises?

Everything just arises, including the idea of cause and effect.

But doesn't that idea itself make a difference? Doesn't the idea create an effect at a local level?

Only apparently so, as part of the play or movie of life. In actuality there's no cause and effect. Everything - all of this imagery - arises entirely spontaneously, immediately. Within the movie of life, there is the impression of cause and effect, but in actuality there is no separation, so nothing that can act upon anything else.

So it all just happens to arise and it just looks as though there's relationship?

Yes, the imagery that arises merely suggests separation.

And so somebody who identifies with an 'I' or with a body -

Well, it's not that there's 'someone' who identifies - rather it's more accurately

described by saying 'Where identification arises …'.

OK, so where identification arises, that is something that nothing can be done about?

Precisely so. If anything changes it does so entirely spontaneously - because there's no one here who can affect any change. Cause and effect, action and reaction, are appearance only, the imagery of the movie of life, the cosmic entertainment.

Does thought create 'me' or do I create the thought?

Thoughts arise presently, uncreated. Thoughts appear to be saying, 'This is a brick', 'That's a mat', 'I can hear a sound over there', 'I am in this body'…

Let's look at the difference between a thought that says, 'This is a red brick' and a thought that says, 'I am in here needing release or liberation' or something of that nature. The thought that says 'This is a red brick' is what's been described, as you may have read in various literatures, as a practical or a working thought. The kind of thought that says 'I am a separate someone here

who needs liberation' appears somewhat more troublesome. They appear to be qualitatively different but in fact they're both only thoughts.

Is there really an 'I' outside of thought? Is there an 'I' as an entity, as a so-called body/mind, that could have thoughts, that can think thoughts? Or are thoughts simply arising here and suggesting that there is an 'I'?

I think thought creates 'me'.

Thoughts don't create anything. Thoughts are inert. Just as we would say 'This is an inert brick', we could say that thoughts are merely inert images that arise. So thought doesn't actually create 'me' but it can suggest it. Unlike visual images or sounds, the content of certain thoughts, the message they carry, can appear to bring them to life. All kinds of thoughts can arise, and it's only the ones that burst open with a message like 'I am a separate entity' that seem to have this capacity to apparently create a sense of someone.

And of course this story of a 'me' in thought appears to be backed up or substantiated by all of the rest of the images that appear. A foot here, for

instance, that seems to be moving, together with a thought: 'This is my foot moving'. Or there are sounds that appear here and a thought says, 'That's me hearing those sounds'. But there's no 'someone' having thoughts. That's merely an impression, that there's someone who is thinking, acting, living out this story of 'me'.

In actuality, all of these images - visual images, sounds, sensations, thoughts - are simply arising presently in awareness. They're not arising to someone. They're not being created by anyone. They are simply arising, and the commentary in thought (whether it's silent or expressed in words) is what gives the impression of a 'me' as an entity that is somehow 'inside' a body.

Are you suggesting that the drive towards spiritual realisation or enlightenment is actually no different than an all-consuming drive towards, say, one's football team? One is not necessarily higher than the other? The process is the same?

Yes, exactly.

OK, I'll go and watch the football now! But it's curious, isn't it, with this

enlightenment thing, how it can seem to be higher, to be something that is of tremendous value and significance.

Yes, but enlightenment or liberation or whatever doesn't stop the dream of being. It doesn't get 'you' out of the dream. It's merely another happening within this dream, this play of life. The idea is, of course, with this enlightenment or liberation business, that this 'me' is to be escaped. But this 'me' - it's only a dream itself! What is there to escape from? Who would escape?

And yet to the seeker that can seem such bad news, because this whole striving towards the goal and the benefits that one can apparently get from it through meditation and the feelings of enlightenment … It can seem very bad news, very bleak news, that this dream is just a dream.

You say 'to the seeker': but what constitutes that seeker? You're talking about 'the seeker' as though it's some kind of concrete entity. As soon as that assumption arises - that the seeker is an actual entity, a 'someone' who is in need of release or whatever - then the game is on, isn't it?

Oneness, or Being, although indivisible, could be said to have two aspects: awareness, and the presently appearing content of awareness.

The content of awareness is all of the various images that appear: visual images, sensations, sounds, thoughts, feelings, etc. All these images appear presently in awareness, but the thought images appear to offer an added dimension, the capacity for seeming distraction away from or out of presence into the story of 'me' as an individual, a distinct entity located in time and space.

This story of 'me' is based in thought, and as thought is only part of the whole picture, when the story appears as reality there's an accompanying sense of lack. Seeking for wholeness is the story of the attempt to fill this sense of lack.

The search for wholeness arises in myriad ways, one of which is the search for enlightenment. Here too it is inevitably focused within the personal story, the partial, psychological view of reality, and consequently it cannot result in a lasting sense of fulfilment.

Whenever the play of life is not seen from the psychological viewpoint - from the point of view of 'my' story - there is a non-personalised, unfragmented picture free of any sense of lack.

Everything is likely to appear just as it did before, but without the distorted view that makes it 'mine'.

So what can be done to disengage attention from the personal story?

Nothing can be done, because there isn't actually any entity present that could do anything. The personal story is what gives the impression of a someone that's doing things, making choices, taking decisions, etc, whereas in actuality this someone, or 'me', is simply a commentary arising along with whatever else is appearing.

In the absence of the commentary, or where the commentary is seen as such, it's quite obvious that everything is happening or appearing entirely of its own accord. No one is doing anything.

But who sees it as a commentary?

All of the images are appearing, or

being registered, in awareness. There's no one, no entity, to see it. All of this is simply happening in Being. The commentary has the effect of personalising the awareness aspect of Being, giving the impression of a someone where in fact there's no one.

This can be very frustrating, to hear that there's nothing to be done when there's still a sense of a someone that can do something.

Yes, whenever there's identification as a someone, there will be a corresponding feeling of agitation or frustration, the need to fill the sense of lack. Maybe seeking to fill that sense of lack takes the form of performing various practices such as enquiry or meditation, or maybe simply hearing a description about all of this is enough for seeking to be seen in its true light.

At those times when there's an understanding of that, there comes a real feeling of relief.

Understanding can certainly give rise to a profound sense of relief. But understanding (in the sense that I use the word) is still something integral to the story of 'me'.

But can't understanding also lead outside of the story, to enlightenment?

If the story is seen as a story then no understanding or anything else is needed to 'lead outside' of it.

So seeing through the story, or the disappearance of the story - is that enlightenment then?

'Enlightenment' only appears significant from the viewpoint of 'me'. Only the story of 'me' requires enlightenment. Your true nature is Being, and Being is already all that is (even when there is seeming ignorance of that) with no requirements whatsoever.

So even apparent ignorance of Your true nature is still the expression of Your true nature?

All ignorance and all stories about overcoming ignorance are the perfect expression of Being. It's impossible to avoid Being. How hard is it to be? It's always the case, regardless of what appears.

Various teachers prescribe methods and techniques that seem to produce

results.

Yes, and just as often they don't produce results. It's an interesting story, isn't it?

So it all just happens as it happens? The teacher prescribing a technique, and the student practising the technique, and some result happening or not - that couldn't be otherwise?

Exactly so. Everything is happening entirely of its own accord because there actually isn't anyone to make anything happen. 'I' is part of what's happening, not the cause of any of it.

Everything may be happening of its own accord, and yet it often seems as though there's a 'me' making plans, taking decisions, doing things.

It's the commentary in thought that seemingly divides what appears into something being done by someone.

But there's nothing wrong with that; it's not something that's got to go so that something else called enlightenment can take over. If there's identification, then that's what's happening, that's what appears as reality. If that

identification is seen through, then that's what's happening. Being is already the case, whatever the configuration of appearances.

A sudden total dropping of identification of any kind could also happen of course.

Yes, that could happen mid-story.

But the identification could return?

Maybe, but any coming and going is merely the play of life. As far as Your nature as Being is concerned, the absence or presence of a personal self is inconsequential. Being simply is, and all of these appearances and happenings may simply be described as the cosmic entertainment.

In actuality, nothing has ever happened.

I came to one of your talks a month or so ago, and the other day I found myself watching an apparently tragic item on the news and laughing uncontrollably.

Right, so is there maybe an assumption there that one of the outcomes of all of this is that world events aren't taken seriously anymore?

Well, yes. When you take yourself to be a separate person, then emotionally upsetting events are disturbing and unpleasant. But surely if you come to understand that everything is yourself, then there can't be any tragedy, because it's only your own self it's happening to .

So there's the understanding that everything is yourself?

Yes.

Isn't that just a story in thought, though? Because understanding is limited to thought, however sublime the nature of that understanding might be.

But you say that everything is happening of its own accord, so understanding isn't something that I'm doing - it's just happening! (laughter)

You can come and take the chair if you like! (laughter)

But spontaneously arising though it may be, understanding is just more 'stuff' that's added to the sum total of what constitutes the life of 'me'. There's nothing at all wrong with that, or with your uncontrollable laughter at a tragic event. As you point out: all of that is simply happening, no one is doing it, the tragedy isn't actually happening to anyone.

To provide a more comprehensive picture, though, I'd like to offer the possibility that - so far as the play of life is concerned - an apparent reaction of sadness or tears to tragic events is actually a very natural thing. There's nothing wrong with it at all. There's nothing wrong either with an absence of emotional reaction to a tragedy - or even an 'inappropriate' reaction such as laughter. But that's not somehow more 'spiritual' or 'enlightened'.

So as you've pointed out, sometimes there might be an 'inappropriate' response to events in life. But generally the nature of the play of life is such that tragic events will elicit sadness, even tears, whether there's no one or apparently someone, whether there's clarity, understanding or confusion.

I'm not suggesting, of course, that there actually are any entities who are perceiving or are caught up in tragedies, but whether there's a psychological sense of self playing centre stage or whether it's seen that there's no one here, in the spontaneous arising of appearances within this play of life certain patterns emerge.

It's possible either to understand or for there to be clear seeing that everything is happening spontaneously, no one is doing anything, no one is responsible, no one is being harmed. But if you find spontaneous laughter happening at a

funeral, don't be surprised if you receive a spontaneous punch in the mouth! (laughter)

This is the absolute simplicity of it: awareness and content, awareness and content, the two aspects of oneness, wholeness, presence, 'what is'. And this search for there to be a permanent remembering is the play.

And we confuse this with 'I am aware.'

Yes.

So 'I' is a natural part of the content?

Yes.

It's astounding when you read that apparently solid things are basically all space, just energy. But that's just another story, isn't it, another metaphor?

Yes, interesting, but the mesmerising quality of the play takes over again and there is involvement in a story about scientists and atoms.

But within the story, it's kind of fascinating that the ancient seers apparently saw what our scientists are discovering now. It's fascinating that knowledge is being rediscovered, within the story, thousands of years later. You think, 'How the hell did those guys see that, without any particle generators?'

Yes, it's so fascinating that it gets overlooked that this is a story arising presently; that all of this 'ancient history' is appearing presently as a story that has a mesmerising quality. There is a constant tendency to become fascinated with the play and to overlook the fact that the identification as 'I' is the basis for this wandering.

Sure, but some of the content is fascinating.

Of course, but the nature of this scene in the play of life here today is that reminding of your true nature is happening, whereby the mesmerising quality of the fascinating content of the play is seen through.

But if there is a distraction, then that is 'what is'. Is not distraction just as good as anything else?

That's right. The recognition of your true nature is not necessary, but we're talking here in the context of oneness appearing as a roomful of characters seeking oneness, so this theme of undermining the seeking is arising. At a meeting such as this, it's like a hole appearing in what we usually take to be reality. We could get involved with discussing all sorts of fascinating and distracting stuff and spend all afternoon immersed in it.

That wouldn't matter, would it?

It wouldn't matter at all but as soon as you'd snapped out of it and you found yourself on the way home, you'd probably think, 'Well, that was a swizzle.' (laughter)

I have a question. This must sound pretty insane but I don't see why wholeness should take itself off and go in search of itself. Why would it do that?

There isn't a reason. The question arises from mesmerisation with the thought story.

But it just doesn't seem to make sense

why wholeness becomes mesmerised and has to ask itself questions.

It doesn't have to ask itself questions, there's no necessity for any of it. It is simply the play of life arising in this way. It's all the cosmic entertainment.

In the thought story there is a search for meaning and a looking for a way out of it all - whereas when it's seen to be simply a story arising presently, an extension into past and future existing merely in thought, then the seriousness goes out of the quest for oneness. There is simply registering of the present content of awareness. This is all that is ever happening. This is already presence, already oneness.

There is mesmerisation, identification as the thought story, but there is no one who is mesmerised. The 'I' is only apparent, part of the happening. Everything is happening entirely spontaneously of its own accord. There is nothing that 'you' are doing. This message is not a prescription for oneness - it's a description of it.

You're just a tourist in the play.

No. 'You' are no specific thing. Your true

nature is oneness - nothing and every-thing. Oneness is the whole play.

So is it that all questions are oneness overlooking itself and jumping into identification?

There's no 'jumping into' identification. Identification is an appearance in the play, registering in awareness - the movie appearing on the screen.

So identification arises and then it's seen through.

Yes.

I very much like your analogy of a multi-dimensional screen. I had pictured a flat screen - as in the cinema - and so, until now, the analogy has never quite done it for me.

Yes, so this movie is playing on and within the screen. Another nice analogy that we can use is that all of this is the body of the one, and all the human characters are little cells circulating around in the body of the one. They are simply viewing points.

Already Awake - Nathan Gill

If you have had enough of searching for spiritual gold then you must read Nathan Gill's book 'Already Awake'.

For Gill the totality is made of the knowing and the known. The knowing is the film-screen and the content of consciousness is the film. Together they form an indivisible unity or knowingness.

'I speak of consciousness, oneness, wholeness, with its two simultaneous aspects of awareness and content of awareness. The two aspects – awareness and content of awareness – are not separate: they are one. Awareness is the registering or cognizing of all that presently appears as the content of awareness.'

Usually the knowing as part of the unity not noticed.

'Awareness is devoid of all qualities, and so it gets overlooked.'

According to Gill the content aspect of knowingness has a hypnotic effect – in the sense that it makes us forget the whole.

'Oneness is already Your true nature. 'You', oneness, are only ever seeing Yourself as all forms, but this fact is

overlooked in the mesmerisation with the thought story.'

It is namely the I-thought that makes us lose sight of the unity and causes us to feel separate.

'With the identification as 'I', all of the other thought images become 'my' thoughts, and this seeming succession of thoughts is what is referred to as 'mind' or the psychological self-sense.'

In reality there is only seeing and not someone who sees.

'There is actually only ever seeing, but at times there is the play of identification as the character –so it seems as though the character is seeing, doing, all the rest of it.'

The tension between separation and our intuitive knowing of our true nature makes seeking arise.

'When there is identification as a character, there is a sense of separation from everything else. With this sense of separation, there is simultaneously an intuition of our true nature as oneness, and this disparity is what appears in the play of life as the motivation for the search for oneness.'

However, the seeking is also only a thought that arises in consciousness,

'In the thought story there is a search for meaning and a looking for a way out of it all – whereas when it's seen to be simply a story arising presently, an extension into past and future existing merely in thought, then the seriousness goes out of the quest for oneness. There is simply the registering of the present content of awareness. This is already presence, already oneness.'

Gill discusses a number of ideas around the theme of seeking. For example, he discusses the idea that searching for unity is a special kind of seeking.

'Seeking takes many forms. It can be the search for being able to play the best game of football or for a new car or to get over a feeling of anxiety or whatever.'

He also talks about the idea that we should go outside the content.

'This idea that the content of awareness is unimportant is a misconception. It stems from the traditional idea of spirituality, which is to try to escape from the material – or the content, and that's why the material is often

negated. But if there is only Consciousness – which is awareness and content of awareness – then the content is completely and equally as important as awareness. There is nothing outside of the movie. There is only the movie and the present registering of it from 'within' the movie.'

Gill also warns about waiting for realization as a special moment in the future.

'There's a subtle waiting game for something to appear differently, for some kind of 'event' or experience as confirmation. But what confirmation is needed for presence? If it is projected as an awakening that's going to happen in the future, then something is being overlooked. There is only already awakeness, which may or may not be recognised. Without awakeness, none of this could appear.'

Searching for something special only disturbs the peace that is already there.

'The peace which is sought is covered up by the seeking for peace.'

As far as Gill is concerned very little has to be changed. Therefore, the 'I' need not go.

'It's not necessary for the 'I' to completely disappear. If there is knowing as our true nature, then it doesn't matter what appears, whether there is the appearance of 'I' or the absence of it. There is this appearance as the character, but the story of this character is no longer taken seriously. There is no longer the same investment. When it is simply recognised that 'I' is just another thought, it's not required that 'I' completely or permanently disappears, and it's perfectly OK for this 'I' to come and go.'

Separation continues to exist as a function of the game.

'There is still however, the appearance of separation, distance, perspective, as a functional aspect of the play. Although there is still appearance as this character, there's the recognition that this isn't all we are. We are not only the person but also the registering of the person – awareness and also the content of awareness. Oneness is the whole thing – including the seeming separation. It's not as though anything has to change – there is already awareness right now, presently viewing the content.'

Problems remain but without a 'someone' who assigns the problems to themselves.

'All the 'problems' are still there, but there is no longer identification with them. There is no longer the movement to escape from them. They are no longer 'my' emotions, 'my' thoughts etc. The story is no longer 'my' story. It's seen through. Agitation may still arise, but there's a tendency for it to subside fairly quickly. There is no longer the story of this 'I' that it can 'stick to'. There is presently 'what is', whether we stick a 'great' label on it or a 'mediocre' label'.

According to Gill you can't do anything to become conscious.

'The play is on automatic pilot, it's all happening automatically: apparent identification as the character, involvement with the seeking - and then maybe the permeation into the play of the recognition of oneness. 'You' can't surrender. What is going to surrender? An apparent surrender happens, but there is no one that surrenders.'

Further Gill has this to say about it:

'There is this mesmerisation whereby a story arises that 'I' need to be aware of awareness. But as the mesmerisation is seen through, the struggle to be aware as the 'I' becomes obsolete. The 'I' can't do anything about any of this; it cannot 'de-mesmerize' itself because it's part of the mesmerisation.'

Thoughts that can't be reached are also part of the game.

'The play is on autopilot, including all of these arising fears and anxiety about it not being seen. There's only already awakeness, only already oneness, and maybe a story about not getting it. With this seeing, the tension disappears from it all.'

If it is seen that there is nothing to reach then relaxation can happen.

'When the mesmerisation with the story is seen through, the contraction of tension and seeking is released. There is ease – no desire for escape. The ease is always the case: it's simply covered up by tension arising with the mesmerisation. And so, in the absence of that tension, there is still this apparent life as the character, but it's no longer 'my' life.' Once again in other words: 'When there is recognition of

this being a play, then the desire no longer appears for any of it to change at all. That agitation that is the seeking dies. The play continues but without the tension of seeking. The mesmerisation is seen through. The 'I' that would do something is seen through. An ordinary life is lived in this innate knowing. So it's not that there's necessarily bliss, but there is an ease with it all.'

oo0oo

Q: So there is this body-mind and a thought arises - for instance, ‘I am hungry’ - and the brain reacts to that thought.

Nathan Gill: No, it's simpler than that. There's no cause and effect. There is a play of images being presently registered. A body is appearing, simultaneously with a sensation of hunger, and also simultaneously with the thought, ‘I am hungry’.

Q: So what's doing the registering then?

A: No-thing is registering every-thing. This registering, or no-thing, is what the concept 'awareness' points to.

Q: It can't be the ‘I’ thought because the ‘I’ thought, the person, doesn't exist anyway.

A: The ‘I’ thought is part of the content, part of what is being registered. No-thing is registering.

Q: So are we trying to understand this with the mind?

A: There is no mind. The term 'mind' is used in a somewhat confusing way to represent the thoughts appearing and disappearing presently in awareness, and so seeming to constitute a stream of thoughts. This apparent stream of thoughts - when seen objectively as single images appearing and disappearing - is not problematic, but when labelled 'mind', it is presumed to constitute an actual entity. It is a phantom. No thought can understand anything. Thoughts are merely inert images - message balloons.

Q: Where do they arise from?

A: It's a complete mystery, as is all of the arising content. They simply appear within awareness as part of the content.

Q: The difficulty of course is that the mind shifts these thoughts together

into a time sequence and so spins its own story, doesn't it? Is that how it is?

A: There is no mind. The mind is the succession of thoughts, so there is no mind as an entity that could do anything with thoughts or spin a story. The apparent succession of thoughts is already the story.

Q: So the thoughts are doing the weaving - it's the other way around?

A: The thoughts aren't actually doing anything. They are merely images, arising in succession and so appearing to form a story.

Q: And we don't know where the thoughts come from - it's a complete mystery.

A: Yes.

Q: So we're on a hiding to nothing really! But who strings the thoughts together?

A: When the ‘I’ thought - the primary thought - has been assumed, then the succession of arising thoughts appears to form a continuous solid entity called 'mind'. It's like a propeller: when it's still, it's seen as two or three blades, but when it's whirling around - the

apparent succession of thoughts - then it appears as an entity.

Q: The story.

A: Yes. This is what we're calling 'mind', but in fact mind has no existence - it's just an apparent succession of arising thoughts. The story formed in thought is no more real than a story formed by a succession of messages strung together to form a novel. There can be involvement in a novel, but only when it's picked up and read. It could just be left on the shelf.

Q: Can you say also that there's actually no control over whether there is mesmerisation or not — it just happens?

A: That's right, yes.

Q: And the apparent unfolding - you have no control over that either.

A: No, there is simply unfolding.

Q: So to say that you’re going to do something or not do something...

A: That's the thought story. But it's not 'your' thought story - it's just the thought story presently appearing or happening.

Q: So you just let it all happen.

A: 'You' don't let it all happen - it's already happening. Maybe the ‘I’ will be undermined, maybe not.

Q: This is all heard over and over and over, but it still occurs that doing takes place. And that feels wrong.

A: All of this is the thought story - maybe it appears within this play that it seems to need to be heard over and over again. That is the nature of these talks. There is simply this continual reminding of our true nature, that there is only already awake-ness, oneness.

There has never been any personal evidence of a time other than Now. Every excursion has always been as a thought in the now. Yet we give a lot of attention to these thoughts. First priority has been that group of thoughts we call "me". Second priority are the thoughts centered around "tomorrow will be a better day". In fact, we give so much attention waiting for this better day, that the reality of now is mostly lost to us. Wow!