Non-conceptual Seeing

Non-conceptual Seeing

An “intellectual seeing,” as you put it, is a matter of understanding that I and the Absolute are one. The “experiential seeing,” that you speak of, is the disappearance of the subtle duality in which two (supposedly “different”) concepts are “united.” You need to first recognize that the ‘I’ is a (separative) concept. Then you need to understand that the ‘I,’ which is unreal, seeks to complete itself by the addition of (unification with) the Absolute: in this context, we have a concept-ion of the Absolute as some thing we could possibly be apart from, in the first place (thus, the “uniting”). When you comprehend what the enlightened masters have said—you ARE what you seek; or, the observer IS the observed—the I “disappears,” and the I’s (false) conception of the “other” dissolves; with what remains, there are no ideas about seeking, anything. It’s alright to say, “there is an individual here”; from the relative, dualistic standpoint, that would appear to be so. But if, as you say, “there can be no separation,” then in truth there can be no such reality as “individuals.” It is the INDIVIDUAL who is seeking unity; the Absolute condition, itself, IS one of no separation: not two, not even one (nothing to conceive, or conceive being apart from). At present, you are insisting, at least by way of concept, that there is a separate YOU (this is the “seeker”). When it’s thoroughly taken seriously that there can in actuality be no such things as a separate you, what “is left” is the

Absolute condition. And, it is impossible to unite with this, because it’s already always ever-present. If you weren’t conceiving otherwise, you’d know that you can’t come into union with that which no one has ever been apart from.