Guest guest Posted February 2, 2001 Report Share Posted February 2, 2001 Dear Omkara, Indeed -- Simpicity itself. With no separate observer, to whom would the categories of "illusion" and "reality" be related? Who could be concerned with such questions. As only the beginningless is, where would something called "reality" stop, or "illusion" intrude? -- D. >(snip) Exactly. What the f**k? :-). What difference does it make, if the >attachment is not there, if the entity who thinks it possesses is not >there? > >When the need for the 'illusion vs. Reality' concepts is over, it is >over. "Illusion" and "Reality" are conceptual modes, useful if there >is attachment. If there is not attachment, these words mean nothing. > >Advice to all readers: It may be unwise to switch attachments >from 'the material' to 'the spiritual'. It may not be wise to merely >change concepts from "the world is real" to "the world is illusion." >This is simply replacing one set of concepts with another. > >Love, > >Omkara Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.