‘There is no separate experiencer. There is just experience.
And this experience may be named God and may be named Brahman.
For one is never the subject of the seeking objects, the objects
of knowledge and the objects of experience.
There is only the Pure Subject.’
And so this is complete. What is this need to speak to, and ‘to’ being some notion of some object of reference. And so this expression as speaking appears to continue, as it is your speaking. There is literally no division between question and answer. And so speaking may appear, talking to some-thing, some object that appears to meet some-thing. And precisely in the same manner, this body assumes form, this body as form is assumed, in the same way a question appears. This seemingly endless play of desire, simply until there is no more questions. And so what expresses this, is verily the only possible notion of between. And so it plays out, over many lifetimes, and has not moved whatsoever.
And this question always refers to circumstance. Rarely does the question turn to the circumstance. So the question may be, what is the boundary of circumstance? The gross consciousness is determined, and as this determination this is as reference to conflict, it is this play of two, and this play of two is wholly playing as survival, which has an appetite that feeds upon the very notion of circumstance.
That which is out of view but yet referred to as this i is this personality, which is wholly an aggregate of layers upon layers whose primary tendency is as an outward reach, wholly determined by the appetite. And it may be named seeking, and it has many names.
But this gross consciousness is literally just an aspect, and a conditional aspect. The sense of aliveness is not derived nor contained and not contained by any notion of a bodily assumption and an insentient bodily assumption. The sense of aliveness is the Self.
And so the question may be related to this notion of circumstance as to what is experience. Does this question even arise in the apparent life? Experience is all-inclusive. There is no separate experiencer, there’s just experience, and this experience may be named God, and it may be named Brahman. For one is never the subject of seeking objects, the objects of knowledge and the objects of experience, there is only the Pure Subject.
And this Pure Subject may be referred to as I, the I to which every i refers. This I is nondual. All other notions and interpretations are divisions. Superimpositions.
So who is looking to see what? What’s invited is to look to the looking. It is Heart that is Seeing, and that which is seen is Heart, and this Heart is the Self, Self-radiant and Self-evident. Experience can not be known, there is only Knowing, and this Knowing of experience is Knowing As experience, and as its own Light. Experience is only known by its own Light. There is no object. And both, this experience that is known by its own Light and the Light, is I. This Light which is Radiance, shines forth As Consciousness. This Light is prior to Consciousness.
The illusory triad of knowing as knowledge and knower and known is outshined by the Light. The mind is a reflection. It borrows its Light from Heart, and when there is Silence, this mind returns to Heart, and this Light outshines the object of experience.
So how can there be speaking ‘of’ experiences? There is neither part nor apart. As such this is the end of difference. The Light reveals itSelf to itSelf by itSelf and As itSelf.
And so who meets but mySelf? For verily I have no name, and every name is my name. Om Shanti