These pieces are called 'posthumous',
Not because I am 'dead';
Unborn that is forever impossible,
But because they are,
Which is inevitable.
They are tombstones,
A record of living intuitions
Which, embalmed in relative terminology,
Are well and truly dead.
If we clearly apperceive the difference
Between direct apprehension in Whole-mind
And relative comprehension by reasoning
In mind divided into subject-and-object,
All the apparent mysteries will disappear.
For that will be found to be the key
Which unlocks the doors of incomprehension.
Who could there be to be born, to be lived, to be killed?
What could there be to be brought into existence or to be taken out of existence?
Where could there be a 'space' in which objective existence could be extended?
When could there be a 'time' during which objective existence could have duration?
These notions, so queried, belong to whoever has never profoundly considered these facile and conditioned assumptions, for all are conceptual images in mind, the supposed factuality of which is as imaginary as any mirage, hallucination, or dream, and all of which are experienced as both factual and actual.
But the supreme illusion is not that of the incidence of 'birth', 'life', and 'death' as such, but that of there being any objective entity to experience these conceptual occurrences.
The accessory illusion is that of spatial and temporal extension subject to which the supreme illusion of entity is rendered possible and without which no 'entity' could appear to suffer any experience whatever.
In the absence of the related and interdependent concepts of 'space' and of 'time' no element of the apparent universe could be conceived, could be cognised or apparently experienced, and no 'entity' could be imagined in order to cognise or experience any such element.
Therefore there cannot be any factual entity to be born, to be 'lived', or to be 'killed', nor any factual object to be brought into existence or taken out of existence.
And it follows that all phenomena are only such, i.e. appearance in mind, perceived and cognised by mind itself, by means of the dichotomy of division into subject and object, and the resulting process of reasoning by the comparison of mutually dependent and opposing counterparts which constitutes the process of conceptualisation.
The implied Unicity, the totality of undivided mind, is itself a concept of its own division or duality, for relatively - relativity being relative to what itself is - it cannot be conceived or known at all.
All that could ever be known about it is simply that, being Absolute, it must necessarily be devoid of any kind of objective existence whatever, other than that of the totality of all possible phenomena which constitute its relative appearance.
During the two-and-a-half millennia of recorded history none of the sages has been able to transmit further or other representation of what apparent sentient-beings are in relation to the apparent universe in which they appear to be spatially and temporally extended. Religious elaboration of its own metaphysical basis, however comforting it may be, factually can only confuse the issue; but this does not mean that such elaboration is in any degree more or less false or more or less true in itself, relatively regarded, than any other speculation, but only that it must necessarily belong, however apparently spiritual, to the conceptual universe in which it inheres.
On the basis of this understanding the way should be clear for direct apperceiving of what each of us is and what all of us are as apparent sentient-beings; for without such necessary clearance, which is the negation of all the positive nonsense which holds us in supposed 'bondage', we are like lost children in a conceptual forest of our own imagining.
Few people are likely to read these lines who are not seeking fulfilment, but fulfilment needs no seeking, and seeking will always maintain the apparent absence of fulfilment. If the imaginary forest has been cleared we have only to look in order to apperceive what, when, and where we are, that it is not what we know, but what 'I AM', and that unborn, unliving, undying, it is here and now and forever.
* * *
Unextended conceptually in 'space',
Unprotracted conceptually in 'time',
Formless, therefore, and without duration,
Unborn, therefore, and undying,
Eternally we are as I.
* * * * *