Here's the thing: "My" true nature. Who is the "my" that owns true nature. Or even who is the "I" that was fortunate enought to have had 2 recognitions?
There is no "I" owning anything, let alone the true nature of things. I would say it is just language. I'm usually careful with it, there is a tendency to use passive language in here, but I'm not an Advaita Police. Of course, the recognitions were themselves of the inexistence of any separate "I", so there is no one to claim the recognitions. The recognitions somehow just happened through this apparent body-mind.
In one of those clear seeings, the thought came "I think I got it". Laughter immediately followed, because the sentence made no sense what so ever. There was no "I" to "get" anything called "it". There was just "IT", the pure presence of awareness, clearly "seen" or apperceived, and appearences flowing.
In essesnce, these states that passed, as powerful as they were, are only passing states.
The seeing could have been a state (there was clarity, and then it was no more), but the "object seen" (this makes no sense at all...) was not a state. Meaning, what was "seen" was awareness itself, clearly recognized as being the only subject of all experience, the only reality in all appearence. That is not a state, that is the reality in which (and as which, ultimately) all states of waking and dreaming pass.
Now, the recognition of the natural Space came and went. That could be called a state. There was unclouded wakefulness for a brief moment, followed by the usual cloud of belief in individuality or separation.
But the thought that there is an I through whom they pass, or TO WHOM they happen, is what I want you to look at. Now. Just look. Don't think about it.
Now here things get slipery... I don't subscribe that there is an I to whom stuff happen. At least, not something that could be called an I - not an individual I, not a person with characteristics, limits, form, birth, death, etc. But there seems to be "something" that registers all happenings. In those recognitions, a space was sensed as being there, independent of all objects, constantly present allowing for everything to appear and disappear.
Somehow, it seemed independent of everything else. Just a void, aware, silent, unfathomable. Now this can't be called an I (but, if called anything, why not I? A "you" is definitely not the case!). It has no form, no shape, no limits. It's not a person, it's not individual, just the pure I-ness of raw existence!
Nevertheless, in non-duality it is said that even this ultimate subject is not present. I can't get my head around this. What is left, when all input, all perception or experiencing is gone - like in deep sleep? Nothing? That would mean that reality poped in and out of existence every day and that's hard to pin down. Maybe folks call it nothingness - a nothing that does exist. It is not something, but it is not non-existence either...
So, I would say that whatever experienced the "clarity" in the past is here now. That space, that presence, that beingness. Again, it is not an I, but there is something
constant and somewhat tangible in all fleeting experiences. Experiences come and go, but experiencing itself is ever-present. The changing experiences cannot give the experiencing its continuity of presence. What is it then with this sense of ever-presence?
And then also, let me know what you don't find.
I do not find any separate self. I do not find anything individual. Everything is just an experience, made of experiencing. My own awareness is all that is ever experienced. If awareness is shut down, all is gone, so awareness is the only ground for reality. Inside the field of awareness, all is at the same level. It is thought that divides experiencing into separate objects, into diferent pieces and parts. It's like an ocean of experiencing, which thought divides into waves, currents, etc.
Still, one of the experiences is labeled as separation, as "I" being here inside apart from everything outside. That experience seems to linger, and it is still referenced to an I that seems to own that sense of "separation".
Love to you!
