This is the ‘Basis’ of Non –Duality. If you crack this
statement, you would have ‘cracked ‘ yourself. That’s a shrewd statement, but
true.
What do they mean by that statement and more than that, what
is the “IT” that is spoken about.
This problem arises due to the complexity or simplicity by
which ‘creation’ works. We know we are
but ‘we’ cant know ‘what’ or ‘who’ we are, simply because the “IT’’ that
we are, does not fit into these categories, that we look seek, to ‘know’ this .
Where does the fault lie. Firstly, we have been conditioned
not to look into ‘how we function’, by a hypnosis. Life plays out, in making a personal feel to
the form, as if the ‘person’ could be the ‘It’ to the body. Taken for granted
that ‘It’ , would make a meaning of all that should be ‘known’ about a form, which is simply ‘the knowledge’ of the
form, takes the ‘being’ of an ‘It’ of that form. So we say, knowledge of the form,
helps conceptualise the objectivity to the form, as if objectivity is more
primary than form. So we start looking at the form’s objectivity, as our projected
knowledge, or the ‘conceptualisation’ of that form, and also of ourselves and
play out the game. So we don’t look at ‘THAT”, but we simply look at our own
‘idea’ of what that is. Nothing wrong there, as long as we are always aware
about the reality or unreality of taking our projection to be ‘matter’ or
objectivity or thingness of that form, and deal with it as its final beingness.
You will get into trouble, more often than not and isolate yourself, more and
more, for not being capable of dealing with the ‘It’ in a way you thought, you
could control etc. and feel unhappy. It could extended to our own selves or to
what we think we are, and find that, we have less and less control over what we
think we are, as an ‘object’.
‘IT’ is the essence of ‘form’. For example, water is the essence of an ocean,
or clay is the essence of a pot. We have been taught to capture the knowledge
around the forms, as if in separation and to deal with our knowledge of it, as
if ‘that’ was its essence. The whole ‘world’ is tuned into the same frequency of
this ‘hide and seek game’and so the whole game looks ‘normal’. But what is
normal, is not the reality and in imagining that as its reality, the game of
‘objectivity’ plays out with its own rules of ‘might’ is right and beauty is
better and my ‘thingness’ is more superior etc. However, going back to the
example that ‘IT’ is the essence of ‘forms’, we are put into a perpetual
confusion, that ‘a piece of the whole’ could be what these examples point out
to. The limitation of such pointers prevent them to ‘make the point’ because we
are trying to use the example without taking into account that the example,
cannot be 100% correct. We try to use an example, a pointer, a concept, to
point out even beyond the point. So we
can say there are two ‘Its’. One what we can conceptualise, as the ‘itness’ to
forms and the other, as we think them to be, and the other which is the absolute
essence, or its reality, that is beyond the formation of the form, even
though it’s the basis of giving rise of all forms. Its
like the ‘light’ making images on TV, as if people. We can say that there are
no people and there is only light there, but we enjoy the TV, as if we felt the
images as forms or people themselves, and they made the meanings that was
expected of them, like real people. IT
is simply the basis of perception. The thinking mind, which is our only tool to
grasp objectivity, using ‘our’ knowledge of form, as if matter or essence of
form, cannot do justice in finding its own essence. Its like using ‘form’ to known its ‘matter’
or the TV image, to know its source as ‘light’. The behaviour of ‘form’ is the
behaviour of ‘matter’ and not vice- versa. The method of using logic fails,
when we want to go beyond ‘mind’ and its projections, and there can be no other
logic, because there is only one logic which is the creation of mind, which in
turn is the play of the ‘source’ to look outward, as if all knowledge and logic
are the basis of understanding the world, in a true and absolute way.
Game of “life” is based in ‘Knowing’. The ‘knowing’ property
is aliveness. We all know whatever we
know, but we don’t know, how is it, that we know!. We just know, even without any knowledge of
how is it that we know. Because that is ‘what’
we are. The ‘field of knowing’ is what we are. This ‘knowing’ is perfectly
alive. IT is life and Life is This. It does itself and knows itself, as if in
separation. It has a clever way to make believe with thought that ‘knowing of
content’ should have ‘content’ to knowing, as if ‘of’ their own ‘existence’ or
as if ‘outside’ of such Knowing. Contents exists, by virtue of their ‘knowing’.
Like ‘knowing of pain’ is ‘pain’. So we say, pain exists, as a knowing of it.
Not as an ‘it’. So is the world. Its simply the knowing of the world. No’ world’
as such, separate from its knowing. So knowing is all there is. That is the IT,
that can magically behave, as if, we all have ‘thing-ness’ to ourselves and to
others. So it seems that there could be a ‘world of objects’ separate from us,
and independent of us. This seems so, but not so. We all know this, but have
been hypnotised by life, to behave in separation, like a movie actor, who
assumes to be the king, within and without the movie.
Until the hypnosis of Life, is unveiled by grace of Life,
this activity, being the ‘play’ of life, to behave in separation will continue.
IT loves the game and is here to stay. But, once the game starts to ‘rot, or to
have a doubt that we have no control on what is happening, there is a intense
seeking to get back ‘home’, meaning, to get back to your true nature as Life,
other than as ‘ separate entities’ . Its
not something we do, but the doubt about the reality of our ‘Being’ that takes
us out of the hypnotism. Its like a patient that is not co-operating being hypnotised,
when he knows it. Only that could bring us to ‘be’ IT.