to C or not to C

 

Two? Surely there must be more than that?

 

No, Pipin, I assure you there are two.

 

But, people are so very different.

 

Yes, but in terms of consciousness there are only two types.

 

Well, I find that hard to believe.

 

I’m not surprised.

 

But if there are only two types – what on earth are they?

 

Ah, it has little or nothing to do with personality.

 

Then what?

 

It’s a matter of consciousness.

 

A matter of consciousness?

 

Actually, the matter of consciousness.

 

What on earth do you mean?

 

Well, as we’ve already discussed…

 

We?

 

Well, other versions of us masquerading as different voices in the venerable hallways of g-nome portal.

 

I find it so undignified – that we’re all essentially one person.

 

Not strictly speaking one person.

 

Then what?

 

One being.

 

One being with many names and voices.

 

Correct. One, being many persons, where the person is but the skin or shell of what we truly are.

 

Hum...

 

Well, as we’ve already discussed, things in themselves cannot, do not matter.

 

Yes, you have a major issue with objective reality, V.

 

Indeed i do. It’s a wonderful platform for experiencing a multitude of things but it necessarily excludes the boundless and the infinite, which are only accessible directly through consciousness itself. In this respect, i stand by my assertion.

 

Er... which one?

 

That consciousness by definition matters.

 

So you say. And yet, I’m utterly unconvinced.

 

Good, Pipin. Let it be so. As long as you’re playing in the sandpit of consciousness, enjoying the 3D experience for all it has to offer, you have no choice but to feel and believe that things exist in and of themselves, and that you, the person, are merely an observer.

 

Whereas you – great master of consciousness, know the hidden truth that things only exist because you, the node of consciousness that you are, conjure them into physicality...

 

Yes, Pipin, it sounds absurd, does it not? Especially when you use a pronoun – I, you, he…

 

How so?

 

Because pronouns are personal, are they not – and the person is himself or herself as much an object as anything else in 3D reality.

 

Oh. So you’re not a person?

 

Of course I am, but at the same time I is.

 

You is?

 

Correct. That’s the impersonal form in which I no longer identify primarily with my personhood, but shift my attention, my energy to the consciousness that is in truth my basis, my foundation, my isness.

 

And you can do that?

 

Anyone can.

 

And what happens when you do?

 

At first nothing, which is why few people continue with this experiment.

 

Oh.

 

It’s a bit like learning to read.

 

Huh?

 

At first you learn a few squiggles called letters and you don’t really get anywhere. It’s only when you start reading fluently that reading becomes something valuable and enjoyable, when stories emerge from the squiggles.

 

So you can experience reality in a fundamentally different way? As consciousness itself?

 

Correct. We can. We do, to a limited extent without realising it, but we nearly always find ourselves drawn back into personhood, the unique, colourful, emotional, polarised perspective of me, the person that I cultivate with each day of my existence, in the hope that I can make it, my person, into something wonderful.

 

And can you?

 

Paradoxically, no – not if I give it too much attention.

 

Huh?

 

If I spend my whole time in the person, cultivating the person, identifying exclusively with the person that ostensibly I am – then instead of attaining the “I am” totality of personhood, I’m more likely than not to achieve a very one-sided, self-obsessed, egotistical version, an abject me.

 

Oh. And if you devote less time and attention to cultivating the person, and more to consciousness itself, it’ll be better? Is that what you’re saying?

 

Almost certainly, yes.

 

Why? How?

 

There just happen to be two sides. The two sides naturally balance each other like day and night, like husband and wife. That’s how things are.

 

So, you can become a better person – is that what you’re saying?

 

 

I can become a functional being as opposed to a limited person – a “me” which continually directs its gaze away from the infinite, which can not, will not question its core belief, its unwavering assumption that it is “I am”, the whole being, which is obliged to take our world of things, this 3D reality at face value or risk uncovering the simple truth which it avoids at all cost.

 

Namely?

 

That the person and things exist within a closed system which absorbs almost all our attention, whereas i straddle both.

 

 Both?

 

 The open and closed, the boundless and the bound.

 

And?

 

And if I’m a functional being – able to C as well as to me –  this should maintain the balance, keeping the two in harmony.

 

Er… able to see what?

 

No, it’s the letter C, capitalised.

 

How am I supposed to hear that, V?

 

You’re supposed to look at the screen in front of you.

 

What screen?

 

Oops, I forgot. Ok, you don’t see the screen, in which case, yes, it’s confusing. To C capitalised, as in consciousness is what I’m doing when I allow my attention to shift from the me of person back to the i is – the starting point.

 

Ok – kindly avoid ambiguity. Give it a clearer name – like Big C.

 

Ok. Big C it is.

 

So when you Big C you see things differently.

 

See, feel, experience them differently, otherly.

 

Differently, otherly?

 

Yes. Differently refers to the either or of 3D reality – cat or dog, fish or fowl.

 

Whereas otherly…

 

Refers to an entirely differently kind of experience – in which you encounter the energy of whatever it is you’re observing directly.

 

How do you mean?

 

It is – I am.

 

It is I am?

 

Yes, Big C-ing is only possibly when you are no longer stuck in the subjective mode, when you no longer deny the fundamental unity, the energetic relationship between your self, the observer, and whatever it is you’re observing or interacting with.

 

Oh. You mean to say that the tree you’re observing, or the person you’re talking to, or even the river…

 

Yes, that Big C-ing you cannot prevent or deny the infinite.

 

Er…

 

And the infinite is present equally throughout.

 

Er…

 

And so your person-me and whatever you’re observing are in a relationship which is nothing less than infinite.

 

And in practical terms?

 

In practical terms the thing or people are not really distinguishable from you. You feel them and they feel you. It is – I am. You’re constantly getting feedback from everyone and everything around you about the I am that I is.

 

The I am that I is?

 

Well yes. The I am is the totality – God itself – you might say, whereas the I is – is the experience in this moment, this locality.

 

Oh. And…

 

Yes?

 

What does that make you?

 

Humble.

 

You! Humble? Pull the other one!

 

Ok, the person-me that you know and love…

 

Love!

 

Ok – know and dislike – is like any person-me – idiosyncratic, at times annoying, far from perfect – whereas the I is aspect in order to continue Big C-ing has to melt, to merge, to melt, to accept, to feel ever deeper connections, ever deeper unities and harmonies which are superficially hidden, superficially non-existent, superficially opposed – by both sides, both parties, and that, dear Pipin, is a truly humbling and deeply mystical experience.

 

But if that’s the case, how come you’re such an aggravating asshole in your regular person-me-ness.

 

Ah, there’s the rub, dear Pipin, for here in 3D reality we are caught up in a world of obstruction and opposition – which I might refer to as duality, division or strife.

 

But why?

 

Why? Why not? No one’s stopping you from engaging Big-C and experiencing the balance and harmony just under the surface. Think of it like the sea itself. You’re free to swim on the surface and experience the passion, the waves, the wind and rain, or you can dive down into the silent depths with none of the above present.

 

Can? How can I if I’m not a fish?

 

Well there you are. You can’t if you’re not a fish, and so you have your person-me to blame for that. But ultimately your person-me is just the external shell, the vessel which you apparently operate. Your consciousness, if you bother to investigate, is not, cannot be limited or bound by it.

 

So you say. But personally I don’t like all this talk about “consciousness”. It sounds terribly learned, and abstract. I don’t trust these complicated sounding words.

 

Me neither. It’s a dreadful word, I agree wholeheartedly.

 

Then why do you advocate it?

 

Because the rose by any other name would smell just as sweet.

 

Meaning what?

 

Meaning that the beauty of I-is^ing should not be rejected or ignored  just because it’s hidden by an ugly wall.

 

You mean to say that this is deliberate?

 

Who knows? In all likelihood, yes. The matrix of things that we’re in is designed to keep your attention focussed on being me, the person, and thereby maintaining, sustaining the 3D platform your person-me is part of, integrally.

 

Oh.

 

It can’t deny the other – but it can make it look and feel less attractive – so that you’re only likely to bother with it if you really feel the need, if that’s your real intention.

 

So it’s a kind of filter.

 

Correct. And you can’t blame it, the matrix, for that as you yourself were part of the set-up programme.

 

I was?

 

Absolutely. Bear in mind that your I is ultimately infinite – so whatever you’re experiencing here in 3D reality is essentially programmed, handed to you by the greater whole that you be.

 

Oh God.

 

More or less, yes.

 

So why don’t I do what you’re doing? Why don’t I Big C?

 

Who knows. Maybe it isn’t necessary for you. Maybe you’re going to, shortly. Maybe you put in strong filters to ensure you only start Big-Cing if and when it is absolutely necessary, if and when you’ve exhausted all the potentialities of 3d reality.

 

Oh.

 

In any case, I have absolute confidence that you’ll do what is right.

 

You do?

 

Yes.

 

Why?

 

Because I have absolute confidence in…

 

In what?

 

I answered through Big C.

 

No!!! I couldn’t hear.

 

Really? Are you sure? 

 

I...

 

Try I is^ing

 

But...

 

Yes?

 

How?

 

V falls silent, gazing into the distance. Pip finds herself drawn into the same space, a tangible space that didn’t exist a moment before. Herself! The awareness that she is normally a him in 3D reality in no way shocks or upsets her, it is i am, she thinks to herself and C-s exactly what V was saying, a completeness of two sides drawing together, folding into one another like yin and yan, turning, spinning, is^ing magically.

 

Magic?

 

Yes, but not in that sense. Not in the sense of 3D.

 

I C. Yes. Infinitely.

 

Indeed.

 

 

 

 

0=1

addendum