Peter
I have read this over and over. I don’t think I understand:
The Book of Not Knowing 25:39:

We’ve seen that distinction doesn’t mean separation. That’s true even of Being and self. Simply because we’re conscious of what “being” is doesn’t mean it is separate from self or somewhere else other than the self. If our true nature is an absolute and isn’t located, then it is also not elsewhere, since “elsewhere” refers to some other location. This means that Being is also self; they are not separate. This doesn’t mean, however, that as a self we are conscious of the nature of Being, or that our experience is a reflection of this nature. Self is a distinction of mind, not a direct experience of the truth.

Can you help?

Darrell


 

Darrell,

Since it is stated pretty clearly the problem undoubtedly exists in the fact that this really can’t be “understood.” After all, the title of the section where this paragraph came from is The Paradox of Being. In order to grasp that communication you must embrace paradox— that two inconsistent and incompatible “facts” are occurring at the same time, and they appear mutually exclusive.

In this case, we see that self is not Being, and vice versa; but what is also true is self is Being and they really aren’t two separate things. Being refers to your true nature, and this nature is not reflected in or known within the experience of self, but that isn’t to say your true nature is somewhere else or other than you or your self. It is your true nature, even if your experience of yourself is ignorant of this nature. Being doesn’t exist in another “place” than self, the self just isn’t conscious of its own nature.

So it seems that I’m starting to repeat myself. Hear what’s said and let it be. The best thing to do is contemplate what’s true and become conscious of your true nature. That will answer your question better than anything I can say.

Good luck,

Peter

Sign up for the Newsletter HERE

Advertisements