Matter is a Way of Seeing

I have a problem which I'd like to share with you, which is in the answer you gave Norman Windsor, that the infinite does not comprehend the finite. If I consider that the essential nature of everything is that chit-ananda with its omniscient love everywhere, I can't reconcile that with the infinite not comprehending the finite. Would you like to go over that again? Imagine an infinite space, an infinite physical space, that is an empty space in which there are no limits. You could imagine the universe before there are any planets in it. Now imagine the appearance of an object, let's say a planet, in this infinite space. That object, that solid object, the planet, displaces a little bit of the infinite space. In other words, there is a tiny little part of the infinite space that is no longer infinite space, it is a finite planet. And therefore the infinite space is no longer infinite. There is a little part of itself that has been displaced by the finite. And at that moment the infinite space becomes finite. It's the same thing. In order for God's infinite being to know a finite object, such as a person or a world, it must seem to overlook the knowing of its own being and become a temporary subject. It is only as that temporary subject that it can know a finite object. Is not that object equally suffused with consciousness? The object is not suffused with consciousness because from the point of view of consciousness there is no such thing as an object. There is only an object from the point of view of a subject. From the point of view of that knowing subject, the object is something separate from itself and therefore not suffused with itself. That sounds like an example of duality. No, it's the knowledge of an object that is duality. You said, is not the object suffused with consciousness? If there is an object, you're in duality. The object is not suffused with consciousness. From the point of view of consciousness, there is no such thing as an object. It's only from the illusory point of view of a separate subject that there is something called a separate object made of matter. As an attempt to reconcile the situation, the illusory subject then tries to imagine that the finite object is suffused with consciousness. It is not. From the point of view of the temporary subject, the object is something separate from itself and the name we give to that separate object is matter. Matter is the name that the Greeks invented to account for everything that takes place outside consciousness. There is no such stuff. We cannot say matter is suffused with consciousness. There is no such stuff as matter. There is only stuff called matter or an object made of matter from the point of view of the separate self. In other words, if we're talking about objects, we're talking about duality. If we're talking about objects being permeated by consciousness, then we're trying to superimpose non-duality on duality. It's not the object that is suffused with consciousness. It is that from the point of view of consciousness, there are no objects. Can you point to an object that is separate from consciousness now? Can you point to something, to an object made out of matter now? There's a rather nice image of a bird. One wing is materiality, the other wing is spiritual. And it's like this one takes place and we need the two wings. This was said as a compassionate concession to someone who wasn't able to understand what we're talking about here. It's true. It's relatively true. But I'm speaking at a higher level from which that comment was made. Now, I'm not suggesting that the person who made that comment didn't know what we're speaking of here. He most certainly did. But the person he was talking to at that time probably didn't. So as a concession to that person, the teacher in question gave this image to help his student take a step towards the absolute truth. On another occasion, the same teacher said, All creation is knowledge manifested. All there is in creation is knowledge, pure consciousness. Nothing about materiality. It's all the same. Being, consciousness and peace are the same. They're all the same. Consciousness is. Consciousness means that consciousness, the being of. So consciousness means being, conscious. Being, the experience of being aware, which is peace itself. There are three different substances that reality is created out of. Three different ways of talking about the same reality, depending on the context. Can you bring back your question to me about seeing objects? I do see objects. Where? In this room. Where? Can you point to one? Your experience of him is the experience of seeing. That's all you know of the chap sitting in front of you is the experience of seeing. It's an experience of the mind. It's not an experience of matter. No, it's an experience of mind. It's an experience of seeing. Close your eyes. What happens to the chap in front of you? All that was there was seeing. Now put your hand on his shoulder. Sensing, experience of the mind. What is the experience? What is the mind? What is seeing and sensing and hearing and tasting made of? All that's there is knowing. All that's there, as the Shankaracharya said, is knowledge, pure consciousness. You've never experienced anything other than pure consciousness. And you are the pure consciousness that experiences it. It's not just in you. It's not just a tiny little part of you. It's the totality of you. And not even the totality of you. It is the totality of your experience. The entirety of Jane's experience, walking the streets of London, is made out of Mary's mind. It's all there is there, Mary's mind. Nothing else. All that is here is consciousness. Yes. Yes, yes. Consciousness has localized itself as your finite mind in order to experience something that seems to be other than itself, called a world made out of matter. But in fact, the world made out of apparent matter that it is experiencing through your finite mind, both your finite mind, the subject, and the object that it experiences is made out of the same consciousness. They're only two separate substances from the point of view of the separate self, the finite mind. In other words, duality only comes into apparent existence when consciousness overlooks the knowing of its own being and localizes itself in and as a body. That's what the finite mind is, a mixture of consciousness plus the body. The knowing element of the finite mind belongs to consciousness. The finiteness of the finite mind comes from the body. The mixture of the body's limitations and the infinite nature of consciousness produce what's called the finite mind. The mind with which that seems to know duality. That then would be the image of the person's life. Yes. As a concession to the separate self, you could say that there is the consciousness with which the self is knowing its experience. And what it experiences is made out of matter, made out of material stuff. But it's not really true. From a practical point of view, yes, of course. The apparently separate self lives in the world as if all these objects were made out of matter. And it's important to respect that and to live appropriately. But to imagine that that is a description of reality is a mistake. Matter is a way of seeing, not something that is seen. To see infinity in a grain of sand. Yes. There you're making use then of the material world. How you view the material world. Exactly. In other words, to see infinity in a grain of sand, you no longer see an object called a grain of sand. You're seeing infinity. William Blake was describing far more eloquently and succinctly what I'm trying to describe. You've now prompted me to say one of my favorite Blake quotations. Apologies. But I never tire of hearing this quotation. I think it's so profoundly beautiful and such a beautiful expression of non-duality in the Western tradition. William Blake was having a conversation like this with one of his friends. And his friends couldn't understand, not suggesting that you don't understand what I'm saying, but his friend couldn't understand what he was saying and he began to get a little upset with Blake. And Blake had said to him, I do not see the outward creation. To me it is all hindrance and not action. And then his friend got very upset and said, What? Do you mean to say that when you see the sunset you do not see a round disk of fire somewhat like a guinea? And William Blake replied, Oh no, no. I see an innumerable company of the heavenly host crying glory, glory, glory is the Lord God Almighty. All he saw was God's infinite being. And it was God's infinite being that saw God's infinite being. I think that's the more important approach. To me it would be, the infinite eye in the ultimate sense of the word would be the infinite eye. And the infinite eye. No, on the contrary, I didn't mean to say that there was a movement between these two eyes. There are not two eyes. There isn't an infinite eye and a finite eye. There is one eye. There is one self. There is one consciousness. It is that one consciousness that has the ability to assume the forms of limitation and appear as such as a limited eye. But the eye of the limited eye is God's infinite eye. There is no separate self. There is just an imaginary self-imposed limit upon the infinite eye of consciousness. There is no path from eye to eye. No. The limitations don't need to be overcome. All you need to do is ask yourself. This is one way. You could ask yourself the question, am I aware? What's the answer? It's just two tick boxes, yes or no. No room for discussion. Are you aware or not? No, I didn't ask you if you're aware of the room. I asked you, are you aware? Yes. Yes, okay. What is it that knows you are aware? No, come down to earth. Speak just in your experience. What would be the quality needed by whatever it is that knows that you are aware? What must its first quality be? The quality of that which knows I am aware. It is here. Perfect. It is present. It is being. What is its second quality? You're absolutely right. The first quality, it must be present. Its second quality? It only requires two qualities. Knowledge, exactly. It must be aware. So when we ask ourselves the question, am I aware, there is a pause. We go to the experience of being aware. And as a result of that experience, we answer yes, it is my experience that I am aware. But who is having the experience of being aware? Whatever that is, is aware. It is awareness itself that is having the experience that there is awareness. Now, what did you have to do to access the experience of being aware? Did you have to overcome any limitations? Did you struggle with your thoughts in the head when I asked you the question, are you aware? Or did you just go directly to the experience of being aware? It was immediate. You just went straight there. Irrespective of thoughts in the head, you might have a headache, or you might be cold, you might be tired. Irrespective, you might be unwell. Irrespective of the condition of the mind, the body or the world, when you hear the question, am I aware? You just go straight to the experience of being aware. That is, being aware becomes aware of being aware. It ceases giving its attention to an object and its attention falls back to itself and it touches, as it were, it touches itself. And it says, yes, I am aware that I am aware. Which is a long-hand version of I am that I am. This experience of being aware, of being aware, is everybody's primary experience. When I say everybody, I don't just mean those of us that are interested in non-duality. All seven billion of us have the same access to the experience of being aware. Ramana Maharshi had no more access to the experience of being aware than you or I do. It is just there, freely available, 24-7. The only reason that most of us don't notice it is because our attention is given exclusively to objects. But as soon as our attention is led away from objects to ourself, in this case by a question, are you aware? It's just right there, totally available, accessible. That very awareness that you are aware of as the experience of being aware, that is the only consciousness there is to which thought has superimposed a limit. All that's necessary is to contemplate the nature of the experience of being aware. And in that contemplation, the experience of being aware is gradually divested of its limitations and stands revealed as infinite consciousness. That is what Ramana Maharshi meant when he said, when the I is divested of the I, only I remains. When the separate self is divested of all its apparently separate limitations, the true self, which it in fact always is, remains. Before Abraham was, I am.