Guest guest Posted September 23, 2001 Report Share Posted September 23, 2001 Dear Wim, Opinions about others, inferences about what they're doing, mistaken suppositions about someone else, analyses about what supposedly is going on with "another", are not in any way subtitutes for the truth that *is*, which "you are" ... Dropping away of time-consuming analyses of the projections of one's own mind... Peace... "What is" takes no time at all, and has no mind. When there is investment into projecting onto a supposed "other", and then responding to the projections, the game can indeed go "on and on" ... If mentation drops, opening remains as "what is". Very simple. Not wordy at all. Only "openness" itself. This is love. Peace, Dan > Dear Dan, > > I wrote: > > > It is about time that you responded, Dan. > > > Did you notice how the word 'correctly' > triggered you? > > You wrote: > > Did you notice how my response > > elicited the concept of "triggered"? > > And did you notice that the word "triggered" > elicited your response? > And on and on we can go... > > This is an example of a common 'avoidance' maneuver, > so tiring for the > person who keeps doing it. > Instead of dealing with content, the respondent > starts dealing with process, > in an attempt to deviate from the issue at hand. > > I wrote the word "correct" which prompted you to > write about "correcting", > which is not the word I used at all and which word > is different in meaning > as well as function. In a subsequent post to you, I > gently attempted to > guide you back, urging you to understand what I said > by prompting you not to > "think that I meant what you understood..." > That is my right and duty...and... yours as well. If > we want to communicate, > we will have to make sure that we don't deviate, > unless we decide to do so > together. > > Instead of responding to my urge to revisit my > words, you decided to > sidestep to a neighboring word, luring me away from > an issue that you > apparently felt the need to avoid. > > What's the use of me saying something and you > hearing something else? > > > Interesting that responses > > are evaluated by "the mind of Wim" > > as triggered or not triggered, is it not? > > This was not about "'triggering," nor was this about > "the mind of Wim", this > was about the word "correct" in a sentence that that > you did not get the > meaning of. > You are very clever in your sidestepping maneuver as > you are not only moving > the target, you are also changing it. But hey, to no > avail...! > > > What do you make of the phrase > > "it's about time" arising? > > It IS about "time", it is not about triggering. I > know what I write, that's > why I write it. You apparently have a problem with > time, that makes you lift > it out and capitalize on it... not realizing that > your cleverness shows your > weakness. > As you may have noticed, later on in my response to > you, I dealt with time > as well as I noticed that you displayed a difficulty > with it. (Your remarks > were: "Being timeless, there is no first step, > second step, etc.") > > You see Dan, years ago I already went through > deliberations similar to > yours, and found them to be philosophically > flawed... A wise lady and life > prompted me, and...I could not afford to beat around > the bush any longer... > reality called... > > Not only do you find 'time' problematic, you also > have an issue with > 'space'. You have a difficulty with steps, simple > walking, one foot after > the other... traversing the earth... > > > Perhaps some kind of schedule of expectations? > > I did not 'expect or hope' that you would respond, I > 'knew' that you would > respond... and you did... because it was that time > for you... > > I wrote: > > > What I say is true, > > > but that does not at all lead to your conclusion > > > that I am "El and Paul." > > You wrote: > > Nothing leads to it. > > You seem a poor reader, it is you who lead yourself > to the conclusion, "If > what you say is true, then you are El and Paul." > That is what you wrote... > not me. > > > It's not a conclusion. > > It's the apriori reality of being. > > That "I am El and Paul" (your conclusion) is not the > a priori reality of > being. You are messy in expressing yourself. > > > > That we, in full reality of love, feel > at-oneness > > > - no distinction - > > > does not at all mean that I 'am' the one I love. > > > It's not a feeling, Wim. > > Why don't you find out what "feeling" is exactly... > you may then agree with > me... > > I wrote: > > > No matter how we love and how much... > > > we cannot physically be what we love, except > ourselves... > > > Now you've interjected the conceptual > > filter of physical and nonphysical. > > I used the word "physically." I did not use the word > "nonphysical", it is > not in my active vocabulary. As I stated before, > opposites have no value in > reality. > > You've got a mixed up philosophy here. > > The 'physical' is real and perceivable through the > faculties of the senses > and their extensions in science and research. > The physical is measurable, is matter, has mass, can > be 'hand'led, > 'mani'pulated. > Words like 'meter', 'matter', 'measure', > 'mani-pulate' all derive from the > Sanskrit 'maya' which stems from the Aryan root MA > 'to measure by hand'. > (Nothing illusive there!!!) > > The word 'physical' (as well as the word 'be') comes > from the Greek 'phyein' > = to bring forth. The word 'nature' comes from the > Latin 'nasci' = to be > born. Energy from the Greek 'energos' = energy, > work, labour which leads to > birth. 'Res natura', 'the nature of things'). > > Anything that is not that, is purely conceptual and > carries no weight, has > no value in reality, is not real (real from the > Latin 'res' = 'thing') > > No duality here. Opposites do not exist...except in > the conceptual mind. > > > To think that your being of El and Paul > > would be some kind of physical fusion, > > seems quite off-target. > > No it is not, I am simply not El or Paul, nor you... > IN ANY WHICH WAY... Why > would you be conversing with me if I, one way or > another, in any which way, > were you? > > I wrote: > > > That is why in love there is play > > > between the lover and the beloved, > > > the play of reciprocal mutuality. > > You wrote: > > There is love > > prior to any manifestation > > of one playing with another. > > Before anything is manifested it cannot be > perceived... > Your statement is purely conceptual... it has no > value in reality. > Love cannot be without the manifestation of energy, > the play of reciprocal > mutuality, interference patterns. As soon as there > is === message truncated === Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Messenger. http://im. 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.