all

all that were born will die

all that die will be born

all that appeared will disappear

all that disappeared will appear

all that expanded will contract

all that contracted will expand

all that is perceived will be forgotten

all that is forgotten will be perceived

all that came together will separate

all that separated will come together

all that was delighted will turn disgusting

all that was disgusting will turn delightful

all these you know, still you are born birth after birth

you killed all and all that killed you

you ate all, and all that ate you

you bore all and all that bore you

you cherished all and all that cherished you

you exalted in prosperity, wept in poverty

you rejoiced in pleasure, suffered in pain

you experienced all impermanence and still consider this body bubble as your permanent abode

all that is, will not be

all that is not, will be

oneness

Oneness is born when the divisions subside may be the saying... but are the divisions true? Do they exist in reality? you will know better when your perception is free from divisions and inhibitions, filters, assumptions so on.

You can say it is non obstructive state of seeing, otherwise you only see thru filters of time, with the burden of past memories and other divisions follow and make the perception further limited

Now from this non obstructive state you can see without filters, attachments, expectations, anxieties and with a deeper true perception which is real for once, once we know the insignificance, impermanence and uselessness of the sense objects bound within time, we get to see the real....

I know this is tricky, ‘cuz I can simply get lost in this!

What moves?

The way mind communicates and expresses is bound to be misinterpreted. To the mind the rivers and ocean are separate as the frame of reference is within time and at that place rivers are far away from the ocean. If they are not two, can Ganges flow up stream?:-)

There are not two: we would know they are not two when we see it from the ocean.

Expression and communication will need division and discrimination of intellect and mind. Sun cannot move from west to east, and you cannot hold sun responsible for its movement from east to west. You move away from earth and you will know that the sun doesn't move at all.

Again... move further away and lo! you find the sun along with its planets move around a point in the galaxy.

The path of intellect

Human intellect is helpless when it tries to perceive absolute self through vibrations of mind, body and actions. Through mind, the intellect is powerful to discriminate and create a complex world for itself, and the same intellect can work through towards the absolute self by the same forces of discrimination if applied beyond mind. But this is where there seems to be a catch:

When intellect is applied through mind, the objects of knowledge come and go. The mind can entertain objects that come within the scope of limited time, space and ego. But when the intellect is surrendered to the ideation of the absolute self, it takes you beyond the triple states of physical, psychical and spiritual realms and then the divine merger happens.

Cause and Effect

Can there be an effect without a cause?

Can there be grace through effort?

Can there be happiness without grace?

Can there be true perception with out happiness?

Can there be be enlightenment without true perception?

yes!... anything is possible if there are no dependencies

Beginning of Timelessness...

Absurd?

How the hell can there be a beginning to timelessness?

What’s the message?

That question is raised in time, but the statement does not anticipate this question, because it’s timelessness J Since it’s got a beginning its not timelessness and tendency is to get trapped in time with anticipation and get out of timelessness! This signifies beginning of time. If there is just timelessness where is the question of anticipation etc, it is just what it is now.  So there is no beginning then why the statement "beginning of timelessness"?

But when did I know that there is no beginning? Yes timelessness cannot have a question, when? But when did I know that? Simple ... as soon as I’m in time I should have 'known' timelessness, of course I can I’m in time when I perceive change I don’t need any proof.

But to perceive time I have to be out of time.

I’m perceiving time and I’m out of it and so is that the beginning of timelessness then, I can’t say perceiving of timelessness is its beginning because timelessness seems to be there always! If perceiving of time can begin time why not perceiving of timelessness begin timelessness. If I perceiving has got nothing to do with beginning... then time and timelessness should coexist! That’s not beginning for timelessness... in time?

Perceiving timelessness in time?

Do I want to prove there is no beginning?! “when I perceive" is itself in time as WHEN signifies time. Yes as long as I perceive it is in time and then it will have a beginning...and not until I come out of timelessness J If perceiving of time can begin time why not perceiving of timelessness begin timelessness. If me perceiving has got nothing to do with beginning... then time and timelessness should coexist!

So both time and timelessness are coexisting same time and I can perceive anything anytime!

And hence it’s beginning of timelessness ... 'cuz its time already. So time is just a speck of timelessness, it’s like a small unit of infinity. Well logically it seems to make sense, but again timelessness can also go the other side negative infinity which seems it’s in time when this happens its beginning of timelessness, ... back to square one!, yeah tough to comprehend!

But then if there could be beginning of timelessness there should be end of timelessness which is beginning of time itself... besides did time give birth to timelessness or timelessness give birth to time?.....Or do both coexist all time, if they coexist then nothing gave birth to anything, if nothing gave birth to anything, there is no beginning. But end of timelessness is beginning of time and end of time is beginning of timelessness

There can be no end as they coexist? If there is no end to time then there is timelessness and as the same time, there is no time. Again, if there is no end to timelessness then there is time then there is no timelessness. And that’s why they coexist!

Both cannot be different when they coexist same time in timelessness Also, without time there can be no timelessness and vice versa. But then how did perception fail to perceive timelessness? And when it does, is it not beginning of timelessness? By which “PERCEPTION IS TIMELESS” and hence the absurd statement "beginning of timelessness" triumphs

And both time and timelessness are absurd, they have no meaning.

In the statement, “beginning” signifies time and timelessness is opposite of time.... how can this begin that, this cannot begin that and that cannot begin this and both have no relation?This is why the dispute was raised in the first place. But end of this is beginning of that.

So both have relation and also have no relation, both are interdependent and independent, both are mutually exclusive and inclusive

And so IT’S TIME FOR TIMELESSNESS?