Wholeness

Confusingly, although no self can be described with terms like centrlessness or having no sense of inside and outside, a centre does re-emerge, but in a very different and paradoxical way. That centre is the ground of your reality. One could say it is the subjective world looking through the eyes; the focal point of wholeness.

Whatever all this is, it appears to have folded back upon itself to look at itself. The dualistic split has totally vanished. There is no longer a noun (a person) doing a verb (looking) at an object (the world).

Here, you know what one hand clapping sounds like.

Here, you know what your oringanl face was before you were born.

The knowing of this is a direct connection with the totality or the timeless ground of being, but this is not a conceptual knowing. It is something that lives and endures underneath the eternal flux of life and humanity, whether you are aware of it or not.

It simply never changes; it does not demand anything. Yet without it, the universe could not display its manifold shapes and colours.

So, what remains cannot be qualified, but you could say it is the uniter of all things from the miniscule field of atoms, to the vast swirling galaxies, and all the things in-between, like the arising of thoughts, and the mundane reality of human life. It’s how experience itself can happen. Without this elemental uniter, nothing can be of itself.

Why it is, nobody knows and nobody can answer.

It just is.

Suchness… or is-ness - a unified fabric of reality that is neither mental nor physical.

The seer, the seeing, and the seen implode back into this ineffable reality.

Once found, all questions about it cease. It doesn’t need to be qualified, theorized, conjectured or worshipped. In a sense, it evades the changing times and it evades causality - it has been the same uniter since time immemorial.

Living within a self identity is to limit your view to a very small region of this totality. Breaking through is to see - and live - a far greater reality.

If no-self had a definition, this would come close to it, although it doesn’t hit it precisely. There are simply no words that can describe it.

It is not even no-self, because this implies that there was once a self and that is a duality. Incidently, it is not even non-duality, becouse that term is supported by its opposite: duality. It’s neither of these things. It’s also not ‘nothing,’ as this suggests there was once something to reference it by.