Guest guest Posted March 8, 2000 Report Share Posted March 8, 2000 Dear Dan, At 09:12 AM 3/8/2000 -0500, you wrote: > " Dan Berkow, PhD " <berkowd > > >>>D: Reflecting involves twoness, the reflector and that which >>>is reflected. >> >>Tim: I'm not sure. In deep reflection, the reflector and the reflected upon >>dissolve (or are seen as the illusions they are), if there is interest -- >>and only the reflection itself remains. > >D: Tim, words can be problematic sometimes. That's an understatement if I've ever heard one :-) > The reflection to which > I referred is self-reflection, the reflection of experience toward > oneself. Which self are you referring to - the ego, the mind, the body-sense, the body/mind combination, the " personality? " When I attempt to examine " myself, " there are a multitude of things - none of which (at least individually) can be identified as " I. " " Who am I? " seems to have reached a limit here... an " I " simply cannot be located (although the feeling of " I " comes and goes, perhaps out of simple habit). There is awareness - which seems to coalesce around thought patterns, desires and memories (these are also permeated by awareness), and forms a sort of " skin " around these things which is the " I. " This separating barrier called " I " is seen as " within " and " without, " and seems to be the basis of all perceived dualities. >Separation is apparently deep-seated for we humans -- > based as much on emotional reactivity > as thought-based formulations of reality. Emotions are also a form of thought, and it seems here that it all boils down to the mind. Even the body is a projection of the mind, perceived by the mind as a constant, intricate stream of sensations and " externally " as an image seen by the eyes. >Although ultimately not " truth " , > separation is " real enough " in > its apparent effects on lives. No kidding! :-) Once a perceiver ( " individual " ) appears in awareness, the trouble starts. If/when the perceiver disappears, the trouble ceases. >Separation is the archetypal condition of the human being >perceiving self as an entity apart -- aware of life and death -- Hinduism ascribes it to simple ignorance or " incorrect view, " beginningless but eventually coming to an end. Makes sense here. Life and death are both of the body, of course, and the root trouble seems to be some variation on " I am the body. " >Intellectually grasping that " truth " is " nonseparation " still leaves >the separation of thought and living - of knower and known ... Granted... >only when the Unknown is experienced >as creating me by knowing me ... this instant... is the perceiver >fully the perceived... Nicely put... 99.9% of the time, you have a wonderful way with words :-) Time applies to the mind... space and causation to the body. In attempting to locate awareness somewhere, it appears to have no location in either time or space, it simply IS. Something has to crack the " I " dea eventually. Some say this " I " is firmly rooted, some say it's actually weak and needs be constantly renewed... infinite are the arguments of sages :-) >Thanks for sharing your observations >here, Tim... Always a pleasure, and thanks for sharing yours as well. Love, Tim ----- " Apart from thoughts, there is no independent entity called the world. " -- Ramana Maharshi Visit " The Core " Website at http://coresite.cjb.net - Music, Poetry, Writings on Non-dual Spiritual Topics. Tim's other pages are at: http://core.vdirect.net. 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.