Guest guest Posted July 18, 2001 Report Share Posted July 18, 2001 Very clearly articulated, Tim. Thanks! It seems difficulties arise when the Self comes to believe that its best shot at being well is to reject part of Itself. I guess you could call such self-rejection a distortion of love. Seeing the "larger picture" is how the contradictory nature of self-rejection is revealed and Wholeness, which actually never departed, is "restored" ... Love, Dan OH Dan!!! Thank you for that bit.... for some time now, I've felt for those who wish to deny their ego.... The I loves the ego.... The ego merely needs to remember to love the I..... We are a complete circle within ourselves... Beauty personified... Its all in the remembering... Thank you so much for voicing that so well, as you did above.. With Delight @`--,--Lynette--,--`@ (the heart of a poet) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 18, 2001 Report Share Posted July 18, 2001 Very clearly articulated, Tim. Thanks! It seems difficulties arise when the Self comes to believe that its best shot at being well is to reject part of Itself. I guess you could call such self-rejection a distortion of love. Seeing the "larger picture" is how the contradictory nature of self-rejection is revealed and Wholeness, which actually never departed, is "restored" ... Love, Dan Thanks, Harsha. The underlying "motivation" for every action (from the most loving to the most apparently heinous) must be Love. As humans, we often can't see the larger picture. We all wish ourselves well. What else can this be but the reflection of Self -- Unfailing devotion of Self to Self. The Self can only wish the Self well. i wish you well... Love, Tim / Omkara Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 18, 2001 Report Share Posted July 18, 2001 Hi Dan, , Daniel Berkow <berkowd@u...> wrote: > Very clearly articulated, Tim. > Thanks! A pleasure... > It seems difficulties arise > when the Self comes to believe > that its best shot at being well > is to reject part of Itself. In order to "reject part of Itself," 'parts' must be perceived... a split into "me" and "you" must already be 'perceived'. It seems that when such a split is perceived, the next "natural" step is to "accept/reject" ('I accept you', or 'I reject you'). The "way back" may involve seeing the duality of acceptance/rejection clearly (thus "transcending" this duality). If that's seen, then the split into "me" and "you" might be seen (as unreal). > I guess you could call such self-rejection > a distortion of love. Works as well as any other definition, i suppose :-). > Seeing the "larger picture" is how the > contradictory nature of self-rejection > is revealed and Wholeness, which actually > never departed, is "restored" ... Yes... there may be an appearance of 'steps' involved... if first 'acceptance/rejection' is known, then the natural inquiry might be "who is accepting/rejecting?' Love, Tim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 18, 2001 Report Share Posted July 18, 2001 Hi Tim! It seems difficulties arise > when the Self comes to believe > that its best shot at being well > is to reject part of Itself. In order to "reject part of Itself," 'parts' must be perceived... a split into "me" and "you" must already be 'perceived'. Yes! It's "right at this juncture" that "all the trouble starts" Also, it's how thinking, feeling, perceiving develops in which an "I" and an "it/you" are continually reasserted ... Right here, in this very body, construed as mine, and "I" and an "it" are trying to coexist, as if there were possible ... It seems that when such a split is perceived, the next "natural" step is to "accept/reject" ('I accept you', or 'I reject you'). Yes. It's all automatic, once started. And the "transcendence" is automatic, too. Was the outside taken in, as "me", or was the inside projected out as "the world" -- impossible to say for sure ... it's the same activity ... And it couldn't be said that "I" made it take place, or the "world" is responsible ... It spontaneously is like that, until it spontaneously isn't ... The "way back" may involve seeing the duality of acceptance/rejection clearly (thus "transcending" this duality). If that's seen, then the split into "me" and "you" might be seen (as unreal). Yes. One could say, it's simply being where and who one already is. It's only the attempt to be somewhere and someone else (I and it) that distorts ... > Seeing the "larger picture" is how the > contradictory nature of self-rejection > is revealed and Wholeness, which actually > never departed, is "restored" ... Yes... there may be an appearance of 'steps' involved... if first 'acceptance/rejection' is known, then the natural inquiry might be "who is accepting/rejecting?' Yes. And then, no inquiry or non-inquiry. Love, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 18, 2001 Report Share Posted July 18, 2001 Dear Dan, , Daniel Berkow <berkowd@u...> wrote: > Right here, in this very body, construed > as mine, and "I" and an "it" are trying > to coexist, as if there were possible ... The really puzzling aspect is the construal of the body as "mine." For some reason, Hinduism often puts emphasis on "I am not the body." Yet, how often do we think "I am a body" or "I am a body/mind?" The common usage (at least in English) is to take the body as "mine." For example, to talk of "my body" and "my mind." Who/what is this mysterious "me" ('my') in the above sentence, which "owns" the body or the 'mind'? Even a very cursory examination shows that there could be nothing of the sort -- although that isn't necessarily the full extent of the 'confusion'. <snip> > Was the outside taken in, as "me", > or was the inside projected out > as "the world" -- impossible to say > for sure ... it's the same activity ... It seems that for purposes of explanation, Hinduism often states the latter ('inside projected out as the world') -- but you're right, it's basically the same activity. > And it couldn't be said that "I" made > it take place, or the "world" is responsible ... > > It spontaneously is like that, until it > spontaneously isn't ... Nicely stated :-). > One could say, it's simply being where and who > one already is. It's only the attempt to > be somewhere and someone else (I and it) > that distorts ... That's where thought appears to fail. For example, how to "communicate with others" when there are no others? The ideas "I" and "you" come into the picture to some degree whenever "interaction" occurs. A great paradox! Yet to simply recognize these ideas *as* ideas is 'enough' -- to attempt to resolve the paradox appears to 'miss the point' entirely. > Yes. > > And then, no inquiry or non-inquiry. Or... if there is 'inquiry', it's just a spontaneous thing like breathing -- no attention is given to it. This has been called "unbroken meditation" in some traditions. Love, Tim 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.