When at rest the mind is ordinary perception, naked and unadorned; when you gaze directly at it there is nothing to see but light; as Awareness, it is brilliance and the relaxed vigilance of the awakened state; as nothing specific whatsoever, it is a secret fullness; it is the ultimacy of nondual radiance and emptiness.
It is not eternal, for nothing whatsoever about it has been proved to exist. It is not a void, for there is brilliance and wakefulness. It is not unity, for multiplicity is self-evident in perception. It is not multiplicity, for we know the one taste of unity. It is not an external function, for Awareness is intrinsic to immediate reality.
~ Keith Dowman, The Flight of the Garuda
.
More info about this beautiful book here.
.
this unlit light 
Mind… as Awareness, “not Eternal”. Not unborn? Granted, no positive, definite statements can be made about Awareness, but ‘eternal’ is equivalent to ‘timeless’, which (as with ‘unborn’), being a negative, is the only valid adscription that can be made with respect of the highest principles (the Self, Atma, ‘Creation’ or Manifestation. Is that not so?
Perhaps the only things that can ever be said about this ineffable Aware-ing have to be negatives like timeless, immeasurable, unborn, unlit …
But when I inquire without consideration of “highest principles” – or any conceptual framework at all, I find I cannot even say one word that is true about IT. I don’t know a single thing about IT. Yet IT is here and this and all and nothing. I cannot escape IT for one nanosecond.
And the words loosen their grip. Their beauty continues to fascinate; I love the way we play with them, but they have no authority unless it’s … needed, for a while … as part of the play.
Thanks for your thoughtful comment AM.
Love
~ ml
Not possible to disagree in any way with what you are saying, for ‘words and mind go to Him, but reach Him not an fall back’. Also, ‘when the five senses and the mind are still, and reason itself rests in silence, then begins the Path supreme’ (from the Katha Upanishad, in the book I am reading).
Language is symbolical, in the plane of duality where it functions, and, as we know, the word is not the thing. Some concepts at least are mere pointers to what is real and undefinable, but pointers they are. In themselves, being impermanent – coming and going – , concepts are objects for the mind, and thus unreal (words are unreal, poetry is unreal). Of course, you know all this very well. I think, however, that it seems fashionable nowadays to demean concepts, “conceptual thinking” (‘words, words, words’), along with reason (and logic) out of respectability, and the same goes for all things traditional. Is all religion, all tradition totally negative, a mere burden, a human error, a product of primitive thinking? Is not non-duality all inclusive, inclusive of duality, necessarily? Please, forgive me for this excursus… I could not help it; further, I do not pretend to have the last word on this. I know you understand, taken from what you have said about language, creativity, etc. With deep appreciation, A M.
I like that! Juicy “excursus” – you do love words dear AM, don’t you? I do too, as you’ve gathered by now.
Words (concepts) and traditions all have their niche and of course non-duality includes the lot – the very word implies its opposite.
Here’s to the Full Monty! (She said, raising her glass of communion wine 🙂 )
Love
~ ml