My initial reaction to this is "yes, but how can we know?" But then your Untruths post, "We can say..." addresses that: "because of knowing itself, being is; knowing is being, and being is knowing." And then that might tie back in with D.T. saying there is "no differentiation of subject and object" in sartori.
Diane, it's interesting to follow the thread of your thinking re these posts. My thought now goes back to the post about the 'continuum' being given 'immediately' - thus precluding the time-factor required for the "differentiation of subject and object."
I appreciate your response. That word 'immediately' does stand out. To me it implies that nothing is actually happening because that would take time, and there isn't any.However, I'm not totally convinced that "because of knowing itself, being is."I am still apparently content resting in not-knowing, yet for some reason there is great interest in knowing. I wonder if I'm kidding myself about not knowing, while seeing that that too is It. It's all good!
You're welcome, Diane. I find the crux of the pointer 'immediately' to be 'no separation.' We've been conditioned to experience time and space as media that serve to distance us from other aspects of the 'continuum,' conditioned to think that they provide us with objecivity.I would say that the pointer "because of knowing itself, being is" points to this "knowing" here and now, which is Total and so not ordinary, objective knowing, but could be called the Source of it.Yeah, EVERYTHING is "It." There's no correct name or description, so the terms can only point.In the film "Children of Paradise," one of the characters is being questioned by the police who are trying to find out her real name. After going through the names that various people call her by, the police ask, "But what do you call yourself?"She replies, "I never call myself."