Being-Aware

Being-aware is not something that would first need to be reached.
It is already with itself.
Already knowing of experience.
Already not outside.

This is why speaking of “levels of awareness” is misleading.
It sounds like: levels of what is always already there.
Which is logically incoherent.

What can meaningfully be distinguished are not levels of being-aware itself, but:

• contents of experience
• modes of experiencing
• degrees of attention

Being-aware itself cannot be graded without missing it.

Being-aware is subjective — or more precisely: subject–object — but not objectifiable.
It does not belong to the things that occur.

There is everything — except being-aware.

That is to say:
Everything that exists appears.
Being-aware is not what appears,
but that within which appearing is possible.

More clearly:
It is not a something,
but that without which no something could appear.

This is not mysticism.
It is transcendental minimalism.

Being-aware is not part of the world.
It does not stand in the inventory of what exists.

Being-aware is not what exists.
It is that without which nothing would exist that exists.

Ego is not a thing.
The self is not one instance among others, but a condition.
Freedom is not lost because it was never in the inventory.
Non-duality is not a goal, but natural appearing.

Being-aware is not a reality.
It is the condition of reality.
Undivided, without levels.