One-ness and the reality of the beyond within

1. I have no doubt, that the world of reality is something other than it appears. My view is that what I experience is mostly wrong in that it is misleadingly portrayed by the world of appearance, or that I get it wrong irrespective of what the world portrays to me. I have, as yet, found no reason to alter my view on this.

2. I believe reality exists. Because it exists, knowledge of it, at some point in time, in some way, must be possible. I am not altogether sure that this is possible in the span of a single life or even that the living act allows such knowledge to be possible.

3. There is something of this reality which may be accessible, but in our perception of it, it may not reflect the nature of reality in any genuine way, and may be more to do with a more fundamental or real sense of being in life (which may or may not be real) than with a greater realty.

4. That which may be accessible in life, though, is probably very great, indeed, we may find that what is accessible in life is more than we could ever expect, although it may be small compared to what is accessible beyond a life span.

5. This compares to my 'three-fold way' — more three different views, or perspectives, all of which are available to us and possibly confused together in our experience. They are: one-ness - the ultimate realisation, being in a state of complete knowledge of reality; me-ness - the world according to me which is in some way part of the real world the nature of which remains mostly or entirely inaccessible. This is the world I can affect by my actions. This world is created by my existence and will not exist in my absence (A sort of 'sub-level' of both these can be invoked to be in respect of others: ‘one-ness with others’ and their reality (encompassing their world as they encompass mine), ‘me-ness with others’ (where they only form part of the world of my creation but they remain partitioned from me and my creative being); alone-ness - isolation of being which makes no contact with others or (and which may be partly the same thing) something of that which is real. In this state I do nothing to meaningfully affect my world. I am not creative or reflective about the nature of the misleading world of appearance, and I do not account in my world for others and their existence. Me-ness is both my experience and the world of my experience - I am both it and am reliant on it, and there is nothing separate from it. One-ness is a world in which I exist (whether I know the reality of it or not) and within which I hope, or imagine, I can be at different levels of harmony - that I can, however, seems to me unlikely. In me-ness there is no question that there is at least the potential of additional harmony for this world is necessarily a world of harmony. The 'objective' world of one-ness remains, in the world of me-ness, the inaccessible world of reality. Only one-ness at the sub-level is available to me in the world of me-ness.

6. The greatest opportunity for change can be found in enhanced freedom within the 'sub-level'. It may be that change here can afford glimpses of reality but I feel constrained by my belief that realty would still be unknowable.

7. I can imagine one-ness with others - a harmony - as complete as a life could embody, but I cannot imagine one-ness with reality which I believe is beyond embodiment in a life. For me, 'transcendence' may well show me a different world, but it will be part of the living world of me-ness. Although the idea of knowing something of true reality is more than tantalising, for me it remains soberingly improbable. However, the sub-level of one-ness has more than enough to offer without the confusions associated with (that is our unavoidably confused view of) the possible nature of reality. For me, it seems, the only realistic 'beyond' is 'within'.