The Non-conceptual Universe

The phenomenal universe is essentially temporal - time being the measure of movement in space. By "essentially" I mean that its phenomenality is due entirely to its space-time conditioning, that is to the facts that it is extended in space and serialised in duration. As such, and as perceived as an object of subject, it is what science recognises as real despite its impermanence and phenomenality. Reality is "thingness", realisation is "recognising something as a thing" or reification, and there is no reality or realisation that is other than phenomenal. Such is temporality.

Intemporality is not basically different; it is not something else. It is that same temporal universe deprived of extension in space and of seriality in time, and as such it cannot be perceived as having form or attributes; and it necessarily appears as voidness. Intemporally the intemporal universe cannot in fact be perceived at all, except as Awareness, because it is no longer a thing, an object. Therefore it is no longer "real".

In the foregoing the term "real" is correctly used, for reality and unreality are concepts as phenomenal and objective as the perceptible universe itself, and they cannot correctly be applied to the noumenal and non-objective, which is neither real nor unreal and cannot be conceived as any "thing" or as possessing any attribute which, as such, is necessarily objective.

It follows that, unlike the temporal universe, the intemporal universe cannot be perceived as an object of subject. The reason of that should be quite obvious: it is not the object of any subject. It is subject, and an eye cannot see itself. And subject is not as such - for, as such, even subject becomes an object, a concept. If it must be referred to, it may be convenient to indicate it as being Eternity.

Every sentient being may say "This-which-I-am is not a concept", for bodhisattva or beetle has no self - but there is no thing in the temporal universe which is not his self in intemporality. Intemporality, or the intemporal universe, is the potentiality of which the temporal universe is the actuality, the unmanifested of which the temporal is the manifested, the subjectivity of which the temporal is the objectivisation.

But they are not two. There is only one universe - and it is This-which-we-are.

II

This Aeternitas, or intemporality, which is all that the bodhisattva is, all that the beetle is, all that every sentient being is, both phenomenally and noumenally, has no objective existence whatever. That is why it "neither exists nor does not exist" - which means that it is purely conceptual as an object.

That is why neither bodhisattva nor beetle has a self.

The second Patriarch, Hui K'o, having been asked by Bodhidharma to bring him his mind so that he might tranquillise it, replied that he had searched for it all night and had not been able to find it. The bodhisattva and the beetle may do likewise, may search for their self, not only all through a night but all through the years, and never will they find the slightest trace of a self. The reason for that is the same as the reason for Hui K'o's failure, and the result will be the same - awakening to the truth. Provided that the bodhisattva, or the beetle, understands what Hui K'o understood, which is that the conceptual object for which he was seeking is itself, from eternity, the seeker of that object.

But just as he could not find the object sought, so he was unable to find the seeker of that object - for, in looking for the seeker, he was making an object of it and, again, that which he sought was the seeker - for the seeker was the sought.

That is the sense in which there is no self, could never be a self, for "I" could never be an object, or a concept which would automatically make it such. The bodhisattva and the beetle ARE, but not as bodhisattva and beetle: all sentient beings ARE, but not as sentient beings.

What then are we? We are no things: we are, but there is no us. Intemporally we are unmanifest, the source of phenomenality: temporally all phenomena appear to exist and so are our self.

Description of No-Time

Intemporally there is no present, for the future becomes the past before the temporal process of perception and interpretation can be completed. The "present" is a theoretical line of demarcation like the equator.

Intemporally there is no past, as Huang Po stated, simply because there is no objective event to pass, and no where for any event as such to pass to.

Intemporally there is no future, as Huang Po states also, simply because there is no objective event to become such, and no where for any event as such to come from.

After all, does it seem very difficult to see? After all, does it not even seem just a little odd or "wondrous" as Padma Sambhava would have put it - that such a notion as serial time, composed of a purely theoretical past, present and future, should ever have become a current belief?

Description of No-Space

In-formally there can be no space because there is no objective entity as such to be extended therein, and conceptualised percepts can only extend conceptually.

In-formally there is no movement because there is no objective thing as such to move, and therefore no time is required to measure its movement, movement and time being purely conceptual.

In-formally there is no shape or colour, size, dimension or separation because these are all conceptual interpretations of percepts, and percepts have no objective validity, their validity being entirely non-objective and, therefore, as such in-formal.

Believing the Buddha

There is no existence, no being, that is other than conceptual. There is no existence or being that is not phenomenal.

There are no such states as existence and being. They are only cognisable as phenomenal experiences - which are concepts in temporality.

All things appear to be, conceptually, as objects in the temporal universe; no things appear to be in the intemporal universe, wherein they are not at all as things.

All things are potentially in the intemporal universe, for herein there is only pure unconditioned subjectivity, and that is not cognisable as such. It cannot be experienced at all, for even pure unconditioned self-awareness is not aware of awareness.

If you believe the Buddha, or if you see it for yourself - in either case it must necessarily be so.

I am slowly coming to understand this, myself... my journey with ayahuasca has started to show me that I have no self... the ego is but a mask of identity... so is the soul, though closer to spirit it may be. Even spirit, the archetype of being, is a mask of identity.

They are all ripples in an endless ocean... the ego riding on the ripple of soul, and soul riding on the ripple of spirit... and spirit? Just a ripple, a peak and depth in an endless ocean...

There is no purpose but which we choose to create, on whatever level of existence.