We can play funny games in relationship to one another and the world/universe around observations associated with the illusory nature of a "separate-self". One that I find especially amusing is the decision being made by some to no longer refer to oneself as "I". Another is to say; "I do not exist" or "I am an illusion" or "all of this is an illusion".....who is speaking and acting?
Games of abstraction and dissociation avoid unqualified relationship to whole bodily being (all inclusive) which coincides with and in Consciousness Itself. Consciousness Itself (Conscious Light) is the most fundamental position and condition that lives and breaths and IS recognized as the True Divine Self (of "All-and-all").
Ego-self made myths obstruct the Reality Process of Bright Divine Self Realization if radical self-understanding is not actively Awake.
Adi Da Love Ananda 1982:
"Our reference to ourselves does involve presumptions we make on the basis of observation, but our reference to ourselves, our sense of our own Existence, precedes any observations of Nature. Even so, we can become so confounded by Nature that, like most scientists, we deny our own Existence!
On the other hand, we do have a sense of our own Existence, and we do not get it by analyzing the body. It isa spontaneous presumption, like the presumption of the relatively independent cells of their functional distinction from other cells. Likewise, the intuitive presumption of the Divine is also spontaneous and justified on the basis of direct Realization, rather than on the basis of the analysis of what is happening in Nature, even though we are associated with what is happening in Nature.
If we would examine our bodies thoroughly, we would have to say that “I” does not exist, just as the scientists who examine Nature thoroughly would have to say that “God” does not exist. But the presumption of existence is not based on such observations. Rather, the presumption of existence is qualified by such observations to such an extent that we can even make such absurd judgments as “I” does not exist, or God does not exist.
If you examine your own body and observe its sheerly mechanical nature, without any apparent reference to an overriding conscious entity or force, then you would have to make the judgment about yourself that you do not exist. Yet it is absurd to suggest that you do not exist. To paraphrase Descartes, “I am, therefore I am.” The force of mere existence is self-authenticating. What is observed apart from the reference to or presumption of “I” at most only qualifies or to one or another degree limits the force of the presumption of existence.
In fact, we do limit the presumption of existence with all our experiencing and knowing and thinking. We qualify our Native presumption of Being, which is a priori or most fundamental to Existence. Then, having mysteriously come into association with mechanical processes, we begin to think about the presumption of Being, doubt It, wonder about It. Through more and more observation, experiencing, analysis, we more and more profoundly qualify this presumption of Being, which is Free and not based on any observations whatsoever. The “I”-reference becomes associated and identified with conditional states and forms. The presumption of being becomes this body-mind and all its desires and relations. Such is the qualified version of the presumption of Being that is inherent and original to our Existence. On the same basis we make presumptions such as “I'm going to die” and “When you're dead, you're dead.” Such presumptions are the symptoms of the Dreaded Gom-Boo for which everyone is seeking a cure-or despairing of ever finding one.
I once went to a gallery to see a display of very fancy specimen shells. The woman who showed them to me exclaimed how creative the simple snails are that they can make such beautiful objects. I told her the snail had no more to do with making his shell than she did with making the bones of her body. She did not particularly like the suggestion. She preferred the animistic, creative-entity version of the snail-ego, as she preferred a similar view of herself.
Where exactly is the Source of this presumption of Being? The source of the qualifications of the presumption of Being is obvious. It is the cellular, molecular mechanical entity, which arises in the realm of Nature through all kinds of causes and effects, through a kind of patterning that demonstrates not an absolute will but the effects of all kinds of secondary motions, intentions, accommodations-a kind of magnificent structure, but not altogether benign, since it is just as much interested in changing and destroying forms as it is in originating and fulfilling them for a time.
But underneath and prior to the cellular structure is the presumption of Being with which we are directly associated. In the profundity of our research into the presumption of our own existence, rather than its mechanical associations, we realize, intuitively, directly, the Being that is to be presumed and to be ultimately associated with all of Nature.
The investigation of the mechanics of Nature may lead to the non-presumption of the Divine Being, and likewise our investigation of our own mechanical nature as an independent entity seems logically to lead to the non-presumption of our existence, but the presumption of Being is inherent and prior, and if we enter into It, we intuit the Being that is fundamental to all of Nature."
The above quote is from https://beezone.com/2main_shelf/chapter2-6.html
Adi Da Samraj: “There Is No Self Within”, 1973
Adi Da Samraj: “The Separate self ‘I’ is an illusion”
Comentarios