We take time and space to be real things existing apart from our thoughts, as if they are “out there” whether we are thinking about them or not. Throughout the Living Realization text, we have been pointing from various angles to show that time and space are thoughts. This chapter focuses more directly on these issues.
Before we move into the investigation in this chapter, let’s simplify this issue. If you can recognize right now, experientially (not just intellectually), that time and space are only thoughts, no further seeing is needed. Experiential knowing is no longer believing that you are a separate person living in a world of separate things and people that are moving through time. A sense of ease, lightness, subtle joy, and freedom arise with this seeing. There is no longer a need to seek something in the future. Conflict in relationships relaxes also in experiential seeing. Who are you arguing with if things (e.g., people) are only thoughts? If there is still suffering, seeking, and conflict, take another look at whether there is still a belief in separate things situated in time and space.
Notice that no matter how you divide life up into parts, each of the parts can only be known when a thought appears. For example, there is no way to know that the sun exists as a separate thing unless the thought “sun” is appearing. Warmth on your face doesn’t communicate “sun.” Light doesn’t tell you it’s coming from the “sun.” These are raw sensations. Thought plus sensations make it seem like there are separate objects. The entire universe can be accounted for through thoughts and sensations. And because all thoughts and sensations are inseparable appearances within awareness, the universe is awareness and awareness is the universe. We’ve dealt with the notion of separate objects in previous chapters so we won’t go into much more detail on that issue in this chapter.
Similar to spatially separate things, there is no way to know of a separate point in time, as in yesterday or Wednesday, without those thoughts appearing. If you can see that all points in time are really only thoughts, the belief in time has released itself.
Notice that each time life seems divided up into parts either temporally or spatially, thought is appearing. Those thoughts are appearing inseparably within awareness. Because separate objects in space and time can’t be known without thoughts, and because thoughts are inseparable from awareness, there are no gaps anywhere in life. This is the complete inseparability of life.
If there is still a persistent belief that life contains separate things situated in space and time even when thought is not arising, the investigation in this chapter might help.
In dealing with the issue of space in this chapter, we will deal with the corresponding issues of things existing in space, distance, and location. In dealing with time, we will discuss cause and effect and the notion that things exist in time.
Strictly speaking, you cannot say that an object exists in space, nor can you say that a thought-form exists in time. Because space is itself an object and time is itself a thought-form. You can never perceive two objects or two thought-forms simultaneously, and unless two or more objects are simultaneously perceived, you can never say one thing exists in another. -Sri Atmananda
What is Sri Atmananda saying here about time and space? He says, “Space is itself an object.” When he uses the word space, he is not using it in the context that Living Realization uses that word. He means space as a container of other things as in “The earth exists in space” or “The table exists in the space of the room.” In using space in this way, it is made into an object, a thought. “Space” as it is used in Living Realization is another word for featureless, no-boundary, non-locatable, objectless awareness or “that which perceives all thoughts but itself is not a thought.” Refer to Chapter One: Recognizing Present Awareness.
Let’s look more closely at this quote from Atmananda.
There is often a belief that things are happening within space. Let’s look at this containment issue more closely.
Table appears as a separate thing only because there are other thoughts that divide life into parts that relate back to the table (e.g., chair, floor, you, space). Thought makes “space” into a separate thing. Try to think the thought “table” and hold onto it while simultaneously thinking of the thought “space” as in the space around the table. Do you see how thought can only go back and forth between the thought “space” and the thought “table?” When one thought appears within awareness, the other one disappears. Even if you put them into a sentence, like “The table exists in space,” the word table appears within awareness before the word space appears. They don’t appear simultaneously. If you stand back in your room and believe you are seeing a table appearing in a space, thought is appearing. This is what Sri Atmananda means when he says, “You can never perceive two objects or two thought-forms simultaneously, and unless two or more objects are simultaneously perceived, you can never say one thing exists in another.” In looking as non-conceptual awareness, there is no way to divide your experience into parts including into things and space. Therefore, how can you say there are things within space? If there are no objects until thoughts arise, you are essentially saying that one thought, table, fits into (exists within) another thought, space.
It is only another thought that comes in later and says, “The table exists in space.” But, through the experiment above, we have no direct evidence of two things existing independently except through thought. Therefore, it is impossible to say that one thing exists in another thing, or for that matter beside or outside another thing. When you are not thinking the thought, “The table exists in space,” those objects and their relationship to one another are not appearing.
Just to be clear, space cannot exist within the table either. To the extent that you have heard pointers that say that things are made of space, or that space is within each thing, it’s just a pointer. It’s not meant to be a final truth. Buddha’s sutra that says form is emptiness and emptiness is form is important here. To even say that there is form separate from formlessness takes thought. Separation only happens through thinking. “Form is none other than formlessness” is just another way of talking about the Oneness of life and how thought always makes it appear as if there are two (i.e., many).
Notice how the notion of distance appears. It appears only through thought. You put a sentence together that says, “The chair is sitting next to the table.” The “sitting next to” is distance. But it’s only a thought. There is nothing between the so-called table or chair saying, “I’m distance!” or “Look at me, I’m three feet of distance.”
Spatial measurement is thought. If there are no separate things except in thought, how can there be distance between two separate things? Whenever you see distance, you are thinking. You are conceiving of two separate objects. Notice that when you look with nonconceptual awareness, the notion of separate things does not appear. It doesn’t appear because thought is not appearing. Distance is conceptual. Notice when you look out of your eyes as if there is a tree that is X distance from you, you are postulating objects again. In this scenario, you are one of the objects and the tree is the other. And you have imagined a line shooting from your eye to the tree. The line is measuring distance and it really feels like the distance is “out there.” But take one moment and let your thoughts of “you” and “tree” fall away gently. When the thoughts relax, distance relaxes with it. It’s all conceptual.
Location is the same as distance. Think one thought, “Table.” When you are thinking of that one thought, location does not appear. Location only appears when you are entertaining two objects. This means when you are thinking about how two things relate to one another. You have to think “table” and then another thought “chair” in order to conceive of location. Then you say the table is next to the chair. But look from nonconceptual awareness right now. With no concepts appearing, does location appear? Life is pure seamlessness. In the seamlessness there are no separate things. Therefore location is irrelevant in that moment. It’s not appearing. Here is a good question, “If things are only thoughts, how far is one thought from another thought?” “Where is one thought located in relation to another thought?” The question makes no sense because no two thoughts ever appear simultaneously.
Cause and effect could be its own chapter. In order for one thing to cause another thing, there have to be two things existing independently “out there.” But as we’ve seen in this and other chapters, separation is a product of thought. For example, take a “hand” and a “chair.” When you are looking without thought, the so-called chair is not communicating conceptual information to you. It is not saying, “Hey, I’m a chair.” “Chair” is a thought. The so-called hand is not communicating, “I’m a separate thing,” or “I’m a hand” or even “I’m your hand.” Look around your room right now in non-conceptual awareness. Nothing is communicating that there are separate objects “out there.” If there are no separate objects except in thought, then there is no way one thing can cause another thing to happen except in thought.
Cause and effect happens only in thought. There is no way to conceive or know cause and effect outside of thought. Test this out. How would you know? How would you prove it? Even if you think you can prove it, how would you express it? It takes thought to know and do all those things. This is not to say that cause and effect don’t exist. It is only to say that they are only known through thought. This changes the notion that cause and effect are “out there” governing our lives as some intelligence independent of thought. And because thought is inseparable from awareness, how can we ever say that cause and effect is operating independent of awareness? Cause and effect is conceptual only.
In Living Realization, we have investigated whether there are separate objects situated in time and space. We have seen that these objects are experienced only as thoughts and sensations. Without the thoughts and sensations, the objects don’t appear. We have seen that these thoughts and sensations are inseparable from awareness. They are awareness itself. One would have to believe in separate objects in order to believe that one object can cause another object.
We’ve also dealt with the seeing that time is thought in previous chapters. Let’s take one more look. There is an habitual tendency to assume that the self or some other object is a real entity that lives in time and space. We make this assumption with all objects. Therefore, the investigation below can be done with any object. But it's more fun to do it with “you.” To determine whether you exist as a separate object in space, do the table/chair/space experiment above but insert “you” instead.
How do you know you exist in some larger context called time? First, you have to have a thought. As Sri Atmananda says, “Time is itself a thought-form.” Test this out. Can you know that there is time without the thought, “Time” appearing within awareness? Maybe it appears a different way. Maybe time appears as, “The year 2010” or “the past.” But each of those is a thought.
Let's stick with the basic thought, “Time.” Can you know that there is a separate you without the thought, “I” or “me” appearing? Stated more plainly, you may have assumed that time is this larger thing or context and you are a smaller thing existing within it. But if “time” is only a thought and “you” are only a thought, does any of that make sense? You exist within the thought “2010?” Does that make any sense? Is the thought “Time” really bigger than the thought “Me” or “I.” Can you know that one thought is bigger than another? Are thoughts big and small? Do thoughts fit into one another? Where is the evidence for that? Wouldn’t the evidence come from thought? The notion of things existing in time is a product of thought.
There may be a tendency to squabble with those previous statements by saying, “I exist in time.” This sentence seems to place one thing, “I” inside another thing, “Time.” But drop that sentence for one second. Look around the room. Listen to the universe. What is telling you that you exist in time? Are the birds and trees telling you this? Is the sky telling you that you exist in time? You have no evidence, outside of thought, that you exist in time.
These are the stories that thought tells. Notice that each thought (space, object, distance, location, time, and cause and effect) is simply an appearance within what you are — awareness. The entire universe, as you know, no matter how you divide or measure it, is inseparable from the awareness that conceives it.
Recognize present awareness. Don’t move to manipulate appearances. See that all appearances are not separate from awareness.
This is a question about cause and effect. I was thinking about this the other night and noticing that when I click the button on the remote control, the TV comes on. How am I to understand this coincidence? Is the connection between the remote and the TV something that arises out of the collective mind? And could that collective mind just as easily come up with the idea that when I dip my spoon into my cereal the TV comes on? In other words, there is no actual physical cause and effect, it is only a matter of what “we” have decided to believe. In this Chapter, you say, “This is not to say that cause and effect don’t exist.” What do you mean by this?
To exist is to “appear.” This is the root meaning of the word. In Living Realization, we aren’t landing on solid, final mental viewpoints like, “Things exist,” or “Things don’t exist,” or “There is cause and effect,” or “There isn’t cause and effect.” The Living Realization text is not postulating final truths. We are concerned with freedom and fullness. Seeing through separation is key here.
This freedom and fullness is so radical and all-encompassing that our questions fall away. The questions are based on the notion of separately existing things like remote controls, people, and TVs that seem to act independently and cause one another. When this separation is seen through, the cause and effect questions fall away. They were coming from a belief in separation.
Rest in non-conceptual awareness for one moment. Then pick up the remote control and click the “on” button without any thought happening.
How do you know the remote control turned on the TV? Non-conceptual experiences do not convey conceptual information. Cause and effect is conceptual information. Did the TV say, “Hey, the remote control caused me to turn on?” No. Because the TV is not an object. It’s a thought. Where is this cause and effect information coming from? It’s a thought too.
In non-conceptual awareness, the question of cause and effect doesn’t arise. You aren’t trying to label your experience as if there are definitely real and solid objects in the world, acting independently of one another, causing one another. The existential dilemma of cause and effect doesn’t arise because separation doesn’t arise.
In order for cause and effect to appear, it has to seem like there are really objects doing things independently of one another in time and space rather than only thoughts and sensations. Yet the entire experience of grabbing the remote control and turning on the TV and saying one caused the other can be accounted for completely through concepts and sensations.
Look for yourself. Touch doesn’t convey, “This is a remote control.” It conveys hardness and roundness (yet even those are concepts). Vision doesn’t convey, “I’m a TV.” It conveys color (yet even that is a concept). Hardness, roundness, and color are not lying around in a separate world out there waiting for us to discover. It takes awareness for these to appear.
It is only thought that comes in later, and provides an interpretation to the raw sensations that says, “I’m an object, person, who is grabbing this other object, a remote control, and this is causing this other object, TV, to turn on.” The universe is not divided in parts. The parts are a conceptualization. And the story that one part causes another part is conceptualization. If there are no separate parts, how can one part cause another?
These concepts and sensations themselves are intimate, inseparable appearances within awareness. Therefore what you are seeing as objects out there in a play of cause and effect are thoughts and sensations inseparable from what you are — awareness.
Do you have access to the experience of a remote control outside your thoughts and sensations? How about a TV? How about cause and effect? Do you have access to the interpretation, “The remote is causing the TV to turn on?” Do you have access to the interpretation, “The spoon in my cereal is not turning the TV on?” Where are these experiences? Are they out there in some foreign, separate world? Go find out for yourself. Don’t just read this and agree or disagree.
In realizing that the entire world of separate things causing one another can be accounted for completely through thoughts and sensations, and that thoughts and sensations are inseparable from awareness, separation is seen through.
We tend to believe, even after seeing that separate objects are really just thoughts and sensations, that there is STILL something REALLY out there, existing independently of awareness. We think that there is a secret intelligence running the universe, making things cause other things, apart from awareness. Whatever that intelligence is, it has no independent existence from awareness. You could, therefore, say it is awareness.
Every time we look for separate things, we just find more concepts and sensations. Once this separation is seen through, the heavy existential questions fall away. Seeking falls away also because it takes a belief in a separate person who can take action now to cause something later to continue seeking.
In this realization, life looks more like a timeless play, full of joy and wonder. We know no longer even need to absolutize viewpoints like “Things really exist,” or “Things don’t exist,” or “Cause and effect is real,” or “Cause and effect is not real.” We see that, whatever “truth” or “reality” these statements seem to be pointing to, it can all be accounted for through thoughts and sensations.
This inseparability leaves us free to stop believing in being separate selves who have some autonomous control over other selves and objects. We let life unfold as it will. Life unfolding includes even our stories about cause and effect. This is what is meant in Living Realization by the statement, “This is not to say that cause and effect don’t exist.” We go about our lives, in a conventional sense, explaining how we caused this or that caused that, seeing the joyful irony of it.
We tell our stories. To exist is to appear. Our stories appear. So existence seems to appear. Our stories are included yet seen through. This is total freedom and fullness. It’s not about landing solidly on the idea of non-existence v. existence. All opposites are seen through as part of the play of duality. Even awareness and our stories about cause and effect are inseparable. Our stories appear seamlessly within awareness and disappear seamlessly. The world is awareness and awareness is the world. Seamless and inseparable.