You Have No Familiarity With This You At All
We Have No Familiarity With This You At All
ADI DA SAMRAJ: In the daily interactions wherein words are exchanged, human beings make constant use of the reference to “oneself” as “I”, and to “others” as “you”. You do this routinely, as if you actually know what you mean by it, as if there actually is a specific (quantifiable) “I” or “you”.
You act as if you have actually observed—as if you thoroughly know what you mean by—“I” and “you”, whereas (in fact) these are simply conventions of the language itself, that are routinely and programmatically used in exchanges between bodily evident whomevers.
The distinction between the apparent bodies is made by the language—and, therefore, by the mind. There is no actual experiencing of a defined “self” as “I” or a defined “self” as an “other”. You never actually experience the Reality-“I” or the Reality-“you”. These references are presumed (or used programmatically and automatically) in the language—simply meaning “this body” and “you-body”.
Yet, who is being pointed at, in either case? You immediately and automatically say “you”—but you do not have to know anybody at all in order to refer to him or her as “you”. If somebody just comes up to you on the street and asks you the time of day, you would immediately use the word “you” in referring to the person—just as you would use the word “I” in referring to yourself, simply as a matter of convention. Yet, you have no familiarity with the person at all.
The “you”-reference is a programmed automaticity of the language.
It is not based on your having encountered someone and gotten to know him or her absolutely—such that, when you say “you”, you know exactly and entirely and Really “Who” you mean. You do not employ such an exercise—and, remarkably, you have never applied such an exercise to arrive at the “I”-reference, either. . .
Can you absolutely differentiate anyone at all from the universe? How do you know that non-humans are conscious? How do you know any other human being is conscious? Nevertheless, all beings and things Are Non-conditional Consciousness Itself.
There is no place, no space in time, no “anything”-position, no “anyone”-position that is not the same Conscious Light, the same Current of Self-Evidently Divine Being.
There is no anyone or anything that is not That, and (yet) the Universal Sacrifice persists—and some kinds of life-forms are going to have to be ingested by you in order for you to live. You will not be able to entirely avoid killing and ingesting other life-forms. You are ingesting such life-forms right now, just by breathing.
You, in your turn, will also be devoured. Your apparent form will be used up and reduced to its elementals. The universe is a gigantic kind of meal—which is, in many respects, horrific.
Nevertheless, the universe is mummery. You have not actually differentiated an “I” from others. “I” is a presumption in language—and a presumption in mind—that is not inspected. You do not have an underlying direct awareness of “I”. You have not known the “I”. You make superficial references to the “I” that have to do only with an artificially (and merely conditionally) presumed identity—a mummer, a mere characterization, one-liners and shirts. “I” is not defined.
Is a breathing, ingesting, excreting body separate from the universe? Or are all events and processes evidence that the body is not separate—and not absolutely separable—from the Very Divinity in Which it is appearing? Yes, the body-mind is evidence of that Reality.
There is no absolute separation—
no absolute separation between any apparent human individual and the universe,
or between any apparent human individual
and any other human (or, otherwise, non-human) individual.
You simply do not know others in an absolutely differentiated sense—and, yet, you refer to others as if they were defined entities, and you refer to yourself as if you are one. Yet, you have not investigated even yourself. Are you the body? Or is there more to you than the body? Would you just say, “Body is me”? Aren’t you aware? Aren’t you thinking? Aren’t you feeling? Isn’t there something more than just this body moving around? It is self-evident that there is more to it.
What is that “more” that the “I” is? Have you examined it sufficiently, come to know yourself sufficiently, that when you say “I” in your next conversation you will know what you mean? Similarly, have you so thoroughly examined every other, such that, again, in your next verbal exchange with anyone at all, you will know what and who you mean when you say “you” to someone else?
No, you will not. . . These categories of “I” and “you”, and so forth—“up” and “down”, one or another identified as this or that—are simply conventions of mind, and they are not based on prior inspection of that to which the words seem to refer. The language is talking as you. The language has its own rules, its own inevitabilities. It goes on—on its own. There is no one thinking it, but there are presumptions programmed into it that govern what is said.
When there are no egoic (or limiting) presumptions, then the language manifests spontaneously—but egolessly. In that event, language is transparent to the Divine Self-Condition Itself. However, when the language is being manipulated by lesser presumptions, then the language is a manifestation of egoity, and of many and various kinds of limitations. Yet, it is still the language talking.
You do not have the slightest clue as to what you are talking about—ever.
You do not know what a single thing is.
You do not know who you are.
You do not know who anyone else is.
You do not know what anything is.
You do not know what Reality Is. You do not know what the world is. You do not know anything. You are a talking fool, you see. It is an absurdity—this mummery of language and of experiencing and of trouble. It is foolishness. It is non-Reality. It is mummery only. That mummery takes the form of the first six stages of life.
All the modes of manifestation and conversation that correspond to the sixth stage of life are modes of egoity. Therefore, even the conversations between Sages and their devotees are mummery. All is mummery, except for the sheer Self-Evidence of Reality Itself, directly Self-Manifested, without any introduction of limitation.
Avatar Adi Da Samraj