The Field of Actuality

The Field of Actuality

We exist, physically, in a universe where there appears to be the difference of opposites; male and female, life versus death, hot or cold, profit and loss, etc. Each opposite, in any pair, is dependent upon its counterpart for its existence or definitive identity; for example, anything which can be said to have a beginning must be said to have an ending. These inseparable counterparts are connected by a continuum. The darkness of midnight is at one end of a gradient that has the brightness of noon at its other end. Both extremes tend to be neutralized at some median point where their definitional ranges merge. A ledger might show neither a “profit” nor a “loss” but a “break even” figure. Each of these contrasting conditions is in relation—that is, relative—to another. We say that something is “alive,” to the extent that it is not “dead.” Designating any point along the continuum of these two opposites (for example, to assert that something is “nearly dead”) is to operate within the context of what is called “duality.” Probably the most common expression of duality is the perspective of “me” in relationship to “you”; or, collectively, “we” as opposed to “they”: at one, separate pole are “these” humans, at another pole are “those” humans. The dualistic perspective can involve any two—or more— particulars: me versus you; me and god; god versus you, etc. (or me, nature and god; me and you versus nature; you, love and god, etc.)

Any proposed relationship of any two or more subjects or objects is a “dualistic” equation. So, that which is relative depends upon its connection, or comparison, to some other thing. And, because of the contrast between the two things, the relationship between presumably “separate” entities is said to be dualistic. In the physical world, the relative or dualistic framework is our usual and continual point of reference. However, if it is our only, or invariable, context for reference, it will be the source of a stupendous confusion. Notice what happens. From our normal perspective of dualism: if there is anything in this universe that is not relative, it would have no meaning or significance for us unless we contrasted or compared it to what is relative. And so we would place the “not-relative” in juxtaposition to the “relative,” in order to be in relationship to it. However, when we place the “nonrelative” in a relative position, it is inadvertently no longer—by definition— non relative.

Put another way, if there is anything (in the realm of possibility) that is not relative, it must therefore not be relative to anything that is relative! For the sake of clarification, let us substitute the word “absolute” for “non-relative.” This is the purpose for which the word absolute was intended; it means “not relative or limited; complete, whole.” However, if we unconsciously slip back into our normal dualistic perspective, even the distinction of the word

absolute will be lost in relational context. “Absolute” is not the opposite of “relative.” The meaning would, by definition, not be absolute if “absolute” were limited to a relative position to an “opposing” word. The key point here is that anything which is limited to the relative scale is not free to take a position equivalent to the absolute.

And here is where the usual context, of dualism, falls short: the absolute, not being in a position relative to anything, has no limiting position. That is why the Absolute and the Infinite (when capitalized) are traditionally utilized as synonyms for the omnipresent reality. The Absolute, maintaining no particular position, is unopposed. Being itself without limitation, it encompasses all things unto itself. This is why absolute is also defined as “complete.” So, while something that is limited to the relative cannot encompass the limitless Absolute, the Absolute—by definition—encompasses everything that is relative. Put another way, when relative limitations dissolve, the Absolute (if anything) remains. To cast this in a different light, when our usual dualistic perspective is suspended, there is the prospect of a nondual, limitless, “absolute” or unitary perception. Phrasing this graphically, each person has the freedom, at any time, to perceive from either a “horizontal,” polarized perspective or from a “vertical” unitary perspective.

But while the perspective from the absolute can accommodate the context of the relative, the relative perspective cannot accommodate the nonrelative essence of the absolute.

For the sake of discussion, let us call the “apex,” or the vertical meridian, the Universal. Our definition will include the previous designations: nonrelative, absolute. While the noun universe—Latin: “(to turn) all together”—is commonly used as a synonym for our cosmos, that is not our primary meaning here. The fundamental definition of the adjective universal is “present or occurring everywhere; unlimited, unrestricted; entirely applicable without exception.” And, so, we are stressing its sense as infinite, rather than as simply cosmic. In this sense as infinite (“everywhere present”), the Universal is the essence of all that is. Therefore, there is not anything that it is in opposition to. It is not relative to any other thing, since it universally permeates any other thing that it might be considered relative to. Since it is absolute—permeating all things throughout infinity, and is not separate from anything—we cannot even (properly) call it “oneness,” because it is not a unit or entity or element separate unto itself. While this Universal absolute is not two, neither is it one.

In other words, this Universal (or Absolute) is not a condition in which the dualities (such as polar opposites) join together and become one. The Universal—which is not limited to any relative position, and thereby is “present everywhere without restriction or exception”—already permeates the apparent dualities (such as polar opposites) before they could even be brought together into unity.

The infinite, nonrelative universal Absolute is omnipresent (“everywhere at once”). It is, by definition, anything which we could possibly describe as “relative” or “nonrelative”— or at any point on the continuum between; or even beyond. In the fullest sense of the word, the Universal is really actuality. The definition of actuality is: “not merely possible, but in fact; present existing condition.” Actuality, omnipresent, is ‘what is’. If there is something which is relative, that is what is. If there is anything which is nonrelative, that is what is. The ‘what is’ can be relative or non-relative (or any condition in between); but whatever truly is, is actuality. And, so, the perspective of the vertical meridian can be called the Nonrelative Absolute, the Infinite Universal Essence, the inseparable Omnipresent Actuality—and will likely continue to be called such things as Oneness, Unity, God, etc. The point is that as long as a person persists in adhering fixedly to the dualistic perspective (that is, on the “real” rock-bottom “plane” of the relative), the perspective of the Absolute is obscured. One sees “things,” rather than what might be called “the thing.” One looks at a basket of apples and recognizes only “many”; he chooses the most proximate apple and recognizes only “one”; he does not recognize that whether he samples one or many, they are essentially “the same.” But the person who is capable of incorporating the Absolute perspective, of “seeing beyond” the relative identity of particulars, is enabled to accommodate either dimension of reality.

To give a limited, thumbnail example of this, if my perspective is that of the relative world, I will probably consider that the pendulum of life’s possibilities fluctuates between the extremes of my “happiness” or my “unhappiness.” In order to achieve a condition of harmony, or balance, I might manage to maintain a state of equilibrium: neither happy nor unhappy. But my constrained equanimity is still nothing more than the median point on the continuum; my “being centered” depends upon not gravitating toward happiness or unhappiness.

In other words, happiness, unhappiness and equanimity are merely interchangeable manifestations, emanating from a singular source—me. But while the outward manifestations vary, that which manifests them—me—remains the same, singular source.

From the perspective of the Absolute, the perception would be that there is only “one thing” (in the sense of its inseparable omnipresence), and that it is the essence of “all that is.” Therefore, whether we choose to refer to “me,” “happiness,” “unhappiness” or “equanimity,” we are ultimately referring to one, indivisible actuality. (Nisargadatta called it That, Alan Watts alluded to it as It.)

So the realization would be that “I am It,” “happiness is It,” “unhappiness is It,” and “equilibrium is It.”

Therefore, whether there was an awareness (on the relative scale) of happiness, unhappiness or any contrasting condition, the transcendent perspective would be, “That, too, is It!”

The point is that one need not attach oneself to any inflexible position. You can operate in the world of relative “reality,” or you can operate in the universe of quintessential actuality.

The latter includes the former. But the former excludes the latter.

To the extent that there is a relinquishment of your myopic relativity, you are free to choose. But the ultimate realization is that there is not anything to choose.