Presence is no thing: Absence is all.
Presence is appearance: Absence is the source of everything.
Presence is what is not: Absence is what is.
For phenomenal absence is noumenal presence.What I am is phenomenally absent: it is the phenomenal absence of My presence.
Every time I say 'I' Absence is speaking via presence.
I am Absolute Absence - absence of presence and of positivity.
Absolute Absence is absence of me - of all my phenomenality.
So I am the absence of my self, and the presence of Absence.So what I am is the absence of everything I appear to be and can think that I am.
What I am is the absence of all presence.
As absence, I am always 'the Tenth Man'.The Tenth Man
What I am is the Absence of my presence.
My presence is a dualistic mechanism of subject-object, of negative-positive, like the escapement of a clock, manifested phenomenally and dominated by a positive I-concept - the whole purely conceptual, composed of concepts arising as a result of sense-perception.
The noumenal absence of my phenomenal presence, which is also the noumenal presence of my phenomenal absence, is what I am, and of every pair of interdependent counterparts it is neither (the one) nor (the other), and the total negation of each and every concept of which phenomena are constituted.
In this phenomenal absence which I am, there is no time, either positive (temporality) or negative (intemporality), for there is no thing therein to be extended or not-extended in space-time. And I am only awareness of NOW.
Being unmanifested as what I am, my Absence knows neither affectivity nor intellectuality, which are manifested by my presence. This absence is Void, and it has also been called sat-chit-ananda.
It is my Absence which is meant when I say 'I Am This I Am'.
* * *
We must BE our own Absence in order to manifest a spontaneous non-volitional Presence. (We must be 'absent' in order that 'present' may be.) Effectively in order to be 'present' we must be 'Absent'. But where we are and when we are is neither present nor absent, and what we are is neither presence nor absence, but the mutual negation of both. That is to say that neither concept is applicable, nor is any pronoun. Why? Because all words signify what is objective - and what we are has no objective quality and so cannot be objectified at all.
Our cognisable presence or absence can only be an objectve, and so phenomenal, presence or absence - and therefore cannot be what we are. Noumenally, then, what we are is neither, but phenomenally regarded it can be conceived as the one or the other, but not both. By definition it must be absent, but it can be presence as appearance.
