A while back, I received a communication, via Facebook, that included an emoticon of an angry face that was posted in response to a short article that I wrote on the nature of consciousness and the consequences of separating the world into subject and object. This led to a reflection that I am presenting here. It seems to me that if I were to read an article that did not align with the truth, as I know it to be, then I would move onto something else and not give it space in the limitation of my brain, to leave more room for more agreeable material. And that would be that.

It is only reasonable to be aware that we owe greater respect, on our part, to the view of debunkers of the Ancient Wisdom, otherwise we become guilty of the same disdain that many materialistic, positivistic and scientific ideologues show towards those presenting this perpetual knowledge. The Ancient Wisdom includes all; whether they wish to be included or not. There need be no protection from outside challenge, because challenge is no threat to reality. It is most important to remember that the critical thinking of our contemporary naysayers does not preclude clear thinking on the part of those who claim more. The Ancient Wisdom simply presents that there is more and this is naturally very irritating for those who claim less than this more. Claiming more by actually claiming less is an uncomfortable place to be and produces a tension that needs to let off steam occasionally.

And perhaps you may ask, "What about a balanced viewpoint"? A balanced viewpoint is often presented as the way to be fair, consistent and rational. Really, of course, on deeper reflection, it is simply sitting on the fence with the wind blowing in the direction of the current paradigm of so-called rational thought. This position is not one of relaxation, but does satisfy a comfort of professional standing in some circles of life. This predicament is not open awareness at all: It is a shutting down of the very power to really know. And to really know can never take the position of sitting on the fence of not knowing. Ultimately, we have to let go of conventional knowing to really know what we truly know. There is no paradox presented here, no confusion in understanding: A paradox is not a conflict with reality but rather a conflict with your ideas about how reality should be.   In other words, a paradox only exists when your version of reality differs from reality itself. Paradox requires duality born of separation and in true knowing there is no room for separation.

The problem with setting ourselves up as "neutral judges" is that we are still in judgement and that is inescapably a reaction in itself. In everything that we think, speak and do, we align with an energy of consciousness: This is inescapable  also. There is no neutral position. There is no objectivity; that was the meaning and purpose of the article that was so disapproved of with the angry emoticon and what sparked this response. We are all one single subject within the realm of distinction and the objectification of things outside of ourselves is the root of our very separation.

Darkness is the absence of light. Light is not the absence of darkness. One can never have the situation that "the light is on, but there is no-one home".  If there is light, there is also always the One (and if you cannot see the truth of that, you will know what is missing from your vision). As the saying goes, you are either in the light or in the dark about things, . I am not saying who is in the light or who is in the dark. I am not approving nor disapproving of another, simply aligning or not with the consciousness behind what the other has said, written or shown. If we react to another, because they do not share in what we share, we deny them their equality in expression. It is simple to allow them to occupy their space in the world, just as they are. If you know all to be who they truly are, how could it be otherwise? You will get no unhappy emoticons from me.