What is sturdy as a wall and unstable as water?
The answer, although known, seems to be somewhere around the corner upon realization. Because to know the answer would contradict the very foundation of the one that has posed the question.
Even when an answer is found, it has to be reminded and exercised for it to be learned.
All that is required to know what is being asked is to pose it to oneself and the answer will come forward.
It is that the answer has already been embedded within and simply hasn’t been given the opportunity or reason to come forward.
Now it is known, to obtain the answer being sought no longer is a matter of time but a matter of the way in which it is presented and how it is being incited out of oneself.
This is the work at hand, to witness and see what it is in question is not by memory, but instead knowing the address to the desired product or answer.
The address to that which is sought is feeling. You feel back to the answer, the feeling transports you to the designated coordinates of where the answer has been realized.
Every product of the answer remains unchanged, but the one who stands as witness sees the different forms it may take.
To feel back into remembering the answer, that is the work of the inquisitor, your role is to feel back into having the answer, rather than thought towards.
That’s absurd! to think that memory doesn’t require thought seems strange. If feeling and sensation is all that is needed to gain the product of the answer, what need is there for the mind?
Abolish time and you abolish the need for shallow reliance on thought. You abolish time and you remove the need to strain the mind into doing.
Pose the desired question and watch what comes forward. Every answer has been visited, as observer you are watching a replay of the same scene, revisiting a previous feeling.
And how the work of the inquisitor goes, your role depends on identifying the addresses to the product or answer which is the feeling. The feeling takes you back to the part of reality where the product has been realized, it is a matter of you feeling back into place or a revisited aspect of yourself.
So then, what insight is being offered as a result of the question that’s presenting itself to the mind?
What intuitive feeling presents itself this time?
The answer to the first question is comparable to drawing a picture of something who’s existence compromises itself and yet manifests in the physical world.
You are given the task of drawing something that does not exist yet shows up in material reality. You draw the picture, adding new features, continuing to confirm what you believe it to be. Except, the more additions you add the less you can decipher what it is exactly you are drawing.
Let’s revisit the scene that has posed this contradiction.
An unresponsive or autonomous vehicle is operating on the freeway, it is still in motion but is operating hands free while maintaining a consistent but inactive motion. The time is approaching the part of the day traffic starts to pickup. Soon after, a vehicle abruptly approaches the auto-pilot vehicle, unaware of its hands free status.
At this point, this would be understood as an adherent stepping into the ring of the accompanying vehicle.
There are but a few scenarios or decisions that can follow from the following driver; they can either, move around, close the rear of the vehicle, or accompany the ring vicinity. To move around is to do so out of personal insistence eager to fulfill ones rushed schedule. To close the rear of the driver, that is staying too closely, is to have personal insistence but choose to add resistance.
Both scenarios imply personal insistence to ones needs. The third option, to accompany the vehicle, implies not challenge but discernment.
Interestingly, the most intrigued relics of history seem to come from unusually prosaic but distinct stones or monoliths.
What does a passerby do in the unexpected face of a wall seemingly come out of nowhere? The usual response is to either go around or add resistance.
At some point, someone will decide to discern what is being presented. That subject will be the first to come to its own answer, and take the first step out of the perceivable realm.
The question becomes what or who would a person need to be in order to perceive such thing as a wall? To discern is to question oneself as to what the actual wall is.
Say a foreign entity which can be considered alien which can be considered anything that is strange, placed a firm object at random in front of some unsuspecting inhabitants.
Let’s say the question that would’ve been asked before placement is; how or what would something respond to it? To be specific, the question is coming from a place of curiosity but also from a place of spectatorship.
A fork is placed in the road, what will be the response? How will something react to it?
It’s about posing the question into existence from a place of spectatorship as a free and unobstructed agent.
If a wall presents itself the question that should be asked is not what is it, but redirected to the perceiver as who? To ask who, is to employ the mind as the spectator onto the same plane as the sender of the object, freeing one of the shackles of restrained movement.
All that has to offer in the world and its wonders has been cast in a bed of obscurity along with the rest of everything that has become ordinary.
You fall into creation and you are separated from that which has become ordinary, that which holds awe and wonder of this world.
By relegating to spectatorship means to be free from transactional exchange or currency for that matter.
When life is posed into the question as to how or what, the mind becomes no longer a consequence of time or change.
Put a fork in the road, what’s the response? The fork is what is believed to be a wall, the wall is invisible, but is immutable. How does it prove its existence? The only evidence for existence is a response that says what or how, but is still nothing, it is whatever anyone makes it to be.
To be free from a consequential dynamic is to delegate evidence for one’s existence to an external subject. You are afforded the ability to pose the question and observe its answer, but only without influencing the course of the event.
What are you? Says the subject. The attributor then poses the question what or how? Whatever is created as a result of the event becomes the evidence for what it is that’s being observed, that is, the potential to be anything. As the attributor your evidence for existence is simply the ability to ask without interference, while fulfilling whatever outcome is created.
For something that does not exist, yet operates in the real world poses a contradiction.
If to make out what reality is has become a source of life, then the simple question what or how is the immutable facet of reality. It is unchanging in its answer, but yet takes an infinite potential of forms.