without reference

There is a paradox which I would like to discuss today. The paradox is this: Ordinarily we define things in terms of other things. Everything is understood with reference to other things rather than itself.

For example, if someone were to ask you, “What is a car?” You may describe a car in terms of its components – a chassis, an engine, some wheels and so on – or in terms of its function – a vehicle to take you from one place to another – but the car cannot just stand on its own, without reference to other things. This is the ordinary way of seeing the world. Everything is understood in relation to other things or with reference to other things.

If you have an understanding of yourself, it is probably of the same nature. You might define yourself by your nationality, by your sex, by your age, by your religion, by your profession, by your marital status, by the number of children you have, and so on. There is this need, somewhere in the mind – the thinking mind – to define things. Those definitions are referential, they refer to other things. Tis the only way that words and the thinking mind can define something.

The paradox, which is in this, is that in order to define things in this referential way, we have to be feeling the things as separate in the first place. So on the one hand the thinking mind divides up the universe into separate objects; and on the other hand, it then sets about trying to define those objects with reference to each other, nothing can stand on its own.

Now I shall move on to the enlightened state of consciousness. In this state there is also a paradox but the whole paradox is reversed. Everything is seen and felt and understood to be interconnected, part of one whole process, part of one indivisible universe. The paradox here is that when looking at a part of this whole, there is no need to define it in terms of other parts. Any part is felt to be whole. In fact, every part is felt to be complete in itself and to contain the whole of existence – the whole of time, the whole of space in a single grain of sand. There is no need to define the grain of sand in terms of anything else at all. It is perceived to be whole, complete, not needing reference to anything else.

Of course, in the enlightened state, one’s sense of oneself is the same as one’s sense of the grain of sand, no more and no less. One’s own being is felt to be whole, complete. There is no need to define oneself in terms of other things. In fact there’s no need to define oneself at all. Thus we come to a state of being where we can exist, we can be, without having to define ourselves in relationship to others. Then of course, labels such as a nationality or a religion mean nothing. They drop away. They are not necessary.

So it is, in this state, we are feeling ourselves to be complete and to be including the whole of existence within that feeling of self. Whilst including all, we are no longer relating to the other parts of existence from a distance. We no longer need to refer to them obliquely. This brings an immediacy to the way one relates to others – other beings, other parts of existence. Because we are no longer dependent on the other parts to define ourselves, that holistic way of relating can be harmonious. Indeed, even the word relating is misleading, for it implies two separate things. We are all parts of one whole. In this consciousness, there is no need to refer to others to understand ourselves.

So be, be whole in yourself, without reference to anything else.