Our direct experience is the only true test of Reality there is. We have nothing else to use as a test. There is only the experience of Reality.
Therefore, by contemplating what is present here, now, we can discern the intrinsic nature of Reality, for Reality is ultimately the substance of this moment.
The substance of this moment is not far away. It is no distance from the experience of this moment. Moreover, this reality-substance is no distance from our self, from that which is experiencing the moment, aware of the moment.
Being aware is evidently real. It is not an illusion in this moment that we are aware of these words. The words may be an illusion, that is, we may be hallucinating the words, but Awareness is absolutely real.
Being real, we derive our Reality from the only real presence that is here; Reality itself. Realness, presence, can only be an attribute of Reality itself. Only Reality is.
What does it mean to be ‘real’? It means to be.
We are. We are not nothing. We are that which is. As such, there is an intrinsic attribute of Reality to what we are. In this understanding, we are Reality.
Only Reality is. There is and can be only one Reality present. There is only one place where everything that exists can exist; Reality.
The ‘we’ that are aware of the presence of Reality are, in fact, Reality being aware of itself. It is the same presence of Reality everywhere, the 'here' in which every 'where' appears to exist. We are the here, where Reality is, as Reality.
So where shall we start in our contemplation of the nature of Reality? Right here? Of course.
For fun, we could start by exploring the idea of ‘where’, that is, of space. It seems to be everywhere, so it seems like a good candidate for an intrinsic attribute of Reality. Let’s see if it stands the test of experience.
What is space? From a solely conceptual perspective, space is defined by the distance between point A and point B. In this definition, we have three interdependent elements that constitute the phenomenon of space; point A, point B and the distance between them. This definition is a conceptual framework superimposed upon our experience. It is not intrinsic to the experience itself.
To verify whether space is really fundamental, we must remove all concepts, leaving the naked experience bare, to see it for what it really is.
Without thought present to conceptualise our experience, is there any evidence of space?
Without thought, there would be no objectivisation of a point A, point B and the distance between them.
So, what remains for us to be aware of?
There appears to be a perception of space.
Indeed, there appears to be. However, what remains of this perception when the concept of space is removed, that is, when the objectivising of discrete, located points and distances is removed?
There is something appearing right now, and it looks like objects, people, foliage, sky, clouds, and so on.
Right, it looks like, there is something. What if we were to remove the subtle superimposition of thought that defines this perception as a ‘something’, that is, as an object?
Then, there is just silence.
The experience has not disappeared, but we are ceasing to objectivise it, and so, there is a silence, in which the totality is experienced as Reality itself, no distance from itself, not an object to itself.
Reality cannot be an object to itself. There is no subject-object relationship possible for Reality. That which is irreducibly one, infinitely one, cannot separate itself into two parts.
Reality could only separate itself into two parts if it appeared within a medium greater or more essential than itself. But, no such medium exists. There is only one Reality.
One Reality experiencing itself as the illusion of space, and all the apparent objects that manifest within it, yet never being or becoming an object, never becoming anything other than what it innately is.
Comments