The point of contact between
What sees and what is seen
what smells and what is smelled,
what tastes and what is tasted,
what hears and what is hear,
what touches and what is touched,
what thinks and what is thought…
…Appears as a single fleeting crystallization of the same energy in motion, waiting to be invested,
When it is thus present to our wider consciousness,
What is this latent energy before it takes the form of I see, I think, I feel...
Can we see it leap, before it leaps?
When it rushes towards the seen, the heard…?
And what is the nature of the thing seen, if what sees is intercepted by a wider consciousness before the encounter takes place ?
Thus defused, does the encounter really take place?
Doesn’t it provide great rest if what can be seen is seen without it calling the whole being to see it?
Without it obscuring the whole being while we see, hear, sense, touch, taste, think…
Phenomena tasted and thought without the being in which we reside being veiled by the thousands of incarnations of consciousness required by what sees and hears within.
This point of contact is also a fractal representation of the place where we constantly get born.
Each experience of the senses and of thought is a new incarnation.
Each is an automatic unconscious unfolding.
Liberation from the cycle of existence is then the fruit of the investigation of this contact point where we incarnate, where we crystallize.
Is this all?
Is this the key to an entry point, to the defusing of entangled cycles ?
©FJ April 2025
Recueils / Participation/

I am the observer. I am the observed. All is one. In the dreams of the timeless, all is encompassed.
J’aimeAimé par 1 personne
On a certain level I ‘agree’ with you..
But, ultimately wouldn’t that mean there is no wrongdoing ?
No disconnection from the truth (I know you re at odds with the term)?
No division whatsoever?
J’aimeAimé par 1 personne
A thought that occurred to me as I typed that, and which I parked because it is a problem that is intractable in any economy other than mindless, mechanistic theories.
The consistent answer to you is: « Yes. So what? All experiences are equally part of the universal dream. »
I agree that seems inadequate, as it makes joy and the depths of suffering equal.
Maybe they are, and that is why « non-attachment » is prescribed.
I do not know.
J’aimeAimé par 1 personne
This makes me think of the mystery of iniquity
A quick search gives « The phrase the mystery of iniquity occurs in the KJV of 2 Thessalonians 2:7, “For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.” Other translations render the phrase as “the secret power of lawlessness” (NIV) or “the mystery of lawlessness” (ESV).
Would qualifying phenomena as ‘good’ or ‘evil’ correspond to an intermediary station between sheer ignorance and perfect wisdom
(Prajna paramita, again)?
J’aimeAimé par 1 personne
I wonder if « good » and « evil » are, ultimately, meaningless terms, more akin to ignorance. Again, I do not know. These are essentially dualistic concepts, though – and it is difficult to see how they can survive a non dualistic approach.
J’aimeAimé par 1 personne