Guest guest Posted April 13, 2001 Report Share Posted April 13, 2001 At 06:53 PM 4/13/01 -0300, you wrote: Right on Dan. love, andrew Hey, Andrew, right on yourself. Thanks for an enjoyable dialogue. By the way, working as a therapist, I have a bias that excessive smoking represents detachment/dissociation from the body -- dissociating from evidence that " this isn't healthy " . Smoking, excessive use of alcohol and other drugs, overuse of food, restriction of food, excessive fondness for piercing and tatooing, cutting the body, excessive risk-taking, deprivation from stimuli, avoidance of pleasure, not caring about sexual activities of the body -- many ways that dissociation shows up -- Which raises an interesting question -- can a body-mind appear to be functioning dissociatively, but actually be integrated with/as totality that simply flows through all body/minds simultaneously? If so, how can a " sage " who functions with apparent self-deprivation or apparent excess, be differentiated from a dissociative personality or a manic personality? Is it a matter of whether there are disciples to validate the teacher, and whether those disciples have or gain enough social status for the claim to hold? There were many other " Jesus's " around the time of Jesus, who didn't gain the social status of an ongoing religious movement -- also true of Gautama and others ... Sages such as Ramana, Jesus, Buddha, I'm sure numerous " saints " from various religions, the recommended practices of certain religious orders -- represent commitment to activities that would be negatively classifiable according to " social norms " of " healthy functioning " .... Another question: Do these very commitments to unusual lifestyles, and the presence of disciples and/or devotees, guarantee being noticed by society and respected as sages or holy persons, if not repudiated as sinners? Are there unnoticed sages who never caught anyone's attention because their lifestyle was so " normal " ? Are there others who were profound, but never teaching in a way that attracted attention of influential devotees, simply unknown to the average person through organization, text or poem? Are there " sinners " who are mistaken to be " sages " simply because their lifestyle is unusual, self-depriving, or grandiosely affirmative? Are there " sages " who are mistaken to be " sinners " simply because their lifestyle is unusual, self-depriving, or grandiosely affirmative? So many questions, so little time... what's a poor mind to do ;-) Be the question, the uncertainty, and be silence ;-) Namaste, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 13, 2001 Report Share Posted April 13, 2001 Nisargadatta, Daniel Berkow <berkowd@u...> wrote: > At 06:53 PM 4/13/01 -0300, you wrote: > >Right on Dan. > > > >love, > >andrew > > Hey, Andrew, right on yourself. > Thanks for an enjoyable > dialogue. > > By the way, working as a > therapist, I have a bias > that excessive smoking > represents detachment/dissociation > from the body -- dissociating > from evidence that > " this isn't healthy " . > > Smoking, excessive use of > alcohol and other drugs, > overuse of food, restriction > of food, excessive fondness > for piercing and tatooing, > cutting the body, excessive > risk-taking, deprivation from > stimuli, avoidance > of pleasure, not caring > about sexual activities of > the body -- many ways > that dissociation shows up -- > > Which raises an interesting > question -- can a body-mind > appear to be functioning > dissociatively, but actually > be integrated with/as totality > that simply flows through all > body/minds simultaneously? > > If so, how can a " sage " who > functions with apparent self-deprivation > or apparent excess, be differentiated > from a dissociative personality or > a manic personality? > > Is it a matter of whether there are > disciples to validate the teacher, > and whether those disciples have > or gain enough social status for > the claim to hold? > > There were many other " Jesus's " around > the time of Jesus, who didn't gain > the social status of an ongoing > religious movement -- also true > of Gautama and others ... > > Sages such as Ramana, Jesus, Buddha, > I'm sure numerous " saints " from > various religions, the recommended > practices of certain religious orders -- > represent commitment to activities that > would be negatively classifiable according > to " social norms " of " healthy functioning " ... > > Another question: Do these very > commitments to unusual lifestyles, > and the presence of disciples > and/or devotees, guarantee being > noticed by society and respected > as sages or holy persons, if > not repudiated as sinners? > > Are there unnoticed sages who never > caught anyone's attention because > their lifestyle was so " normal " ? > Are there others who were profound, > but never teaching in a way that > attracted attention of influential devotees, > simply unknown to the average person > through organization, text or poem? > Are there " sinners " who are mistaken > to be " sages " simply because their > lifestyle is unusual, self-depriving, > or grandiosely affirmative? > Are there " sages " who are mistaken > to be " sinners " simply because > their lifestyle is unusual, > self-depriving, or grandiosely affirmative? > > So many questions, so little time... > what's a poor mind to do ;-) > > Be the question, the uncertainty, > and be silence ;-) > > Namaste, > Dan Dan, You raise some very interesting questions and I think they bear looking at because much of how we declare our " unenlightenment " is based on behaviours and manifestations. I do not know if in Maharaj's case, he became physically addicted to cigarette smoking, really bidi smoking, before it was known to have such deletrious effects. Maharaj's smoking in some ways was a more intense breaker of spiritual concepts than his words. Was he disassociated from his body? This is a question I think about my self because I have spent much time dissassociated from my body and I am a carbohydrate addict and overweight. And from time to time I allow myself to be conscious of what my body is like and it blows my mind. So was my disidentification from the body healthy or is the dissociation an altogether different thing from disidentification. I think this discussion is very interesting, because we spend an awful lot of time proving how different the enlightened is when they spend so much time showing how there are not two states. Hmmm... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 13, 2001 Report Share Posted April 13, 2001 In regard to Tony's, Dan's and Cathy's posts: Many years ago, when first introduced to I Am That, I remember a dialogue that STOOD OUT from all others; a student remarking something to the effect (paraphrased) "I see that you are smoking" and Maharaj's "that is how it appears to you." I was highly reactive at the time and because of it, did not go back to the book for several years. The mind went wild with it because of my conditioning at that point. Years later, prior to any real interest in Advaita, I rather arrogantly made a comment (about the bidi smoking and dying of throat cancer and how could an enlightened sage smoke...etc....?) to a Swami, who was talking about Maharaj and Advaita. The Swami's calm response was, "Perhaps that is why he smoked. It was his destiny to die of throat cancer". I couldn't fathom it! I now see that the turmoil it created in my mind, was catalytic for me in eventually accepting and understanding Advaita. I feel that ONE response from Maharaj "that is how it appears to you" is extremely PROFOUND! I'm going to continue in a second post so as not to make this too long. Love, ~jessica ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Tony O'Cleary wrote: Maharaj also smoked, and said it was something the body was doing. snip> Dan Berkow wrote:snip> If so, how can a "sage" who functions with apparent self-deprivation or apparent excess, be differentiated from a dissociative personality or a manic personality?Is it a matter of whether there are disciples to validate the teacher, and whether those disciples have or gain enough social status for the claim to hold?snip> Dan, You raise some very interesting questions and I think they bear looking at snip> I do not know if in Maharaj's case, he became physically addicted to cigarette smoking, really bidi smoking, before it was known to have such deletrious effects. Maharaj's smoking in some ways was a more intense breaker of spiritual concepts than his words. Was he disassociated from his body? snip> I think this discussion is very interesting, because we spend an awful lot of time proving how different the enlightened is when they spend so much time showing how there are not two states. Hmmm... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 14, 2001 Report Share Posted April 14, 2001 Hi List, The body makes no demands that it 'live a long time' or 'live a short time'. Has anyone ever noticed a " physical craving " to live long, similar to a craving for water when thirsty, or a craving for food when hungry? " Dissassociation from evidence that 'this isn't healthy'? " Oh, please. How can " evidence be dissociated from?? " Whose evidence? The so-called " scientific evidence " is " smoking shortens lifespan. " The fact is, the body doesn't care how long it lives -- rather, thought cares how long the body lives. **Thought wants a long life, because it fears the idea of the body dying, the " me " dying**. Why should the body live some particular length of time, short or long... ? There's no innate tendency toward that. Sure, there's a tendency toward what could be called 'balance in all things' at some point. That's natural. Namaste, Tim Nisargadatta, cathywb@p... wrote: > Nisargadatta, Daniel Berkow <berkowd@u...> wrote: > > At 06:53 PM 4/13/01 -0300, you wrote: > > >Right on Dan. > > > > > >love, > > >andrew > > > > Hey, Andrew, right on yourself. > > Thanks for an enjoyable > > dialogue. > > > > By the way, working as a > > therapist, I have a bias > > that excessive smoking > > represents detachment/dissociation > > from the body -- dissociating > > from evidence that > > " this isn't healthy " . > > > > Smoking, excessive use of > > alcohol and other drugs, > > overuse of food, restriction > > of food, excessive fondness > > for piercing and tatooing, > > cutting the body, excessive > > risk-taking, deprivation from > > stimuli, avoidance > > of pleasure, not caring > > about sexual activities of > > the body -- many ways > > that dissociation shows up -- > > > > Which raises an interesting > > question -- can a body-mind > > appear to be functioning > > dissociatively, but actually > > be integrated with/as totality > > that simply flows through all > > body/minds simultaneously? > > > > If so, how can a " sage " who > > functions with apparent self-deprivation > > or apparent excess, be differentiated > > from a dissociative personality or > > a manic personality? > > > > Is it a matter of whether there are > > disciples to validate the teacher, > > and whether those disciples have > > or gain enough social status for > > the claim to hold? > > > > There were many other " Jesus's " around > > the time of Jesus, who didn't gain > > the social status of an ongoing > > religious movement -- also true > > of Gautama and others ... > > > > Sages such as Ramana, Jesus, Buddha, > > I'm sure numerous " saints " from > > various religions, the recommended > > practices of certain religious orders -- > > represent commitment to activities that > > would be negatively classifiable according > > to " social norms " of " healthy functioning " ... > > > > Another question: Do these very > > commitments to unusual lifestyles, > > and the presence of disciples > > and/or devotees, guarantee being > > noticed by society and respected > > as sages or holy persons, if > > not repudiated as sinners? > > > > Are there unnoticed sages who never > > caught anyone's attention because > > their lifestyle was so " normal " ? > > Are there others who were profound, > > but never teaching in a way that > > attracted attention of influential devotees, > > simply unknown to the average person > > through organization, text or poem? > > Are there " sinners " who are mistaken > > to be " sages " simply because their > > lifestyle is unusual, self-depriving, > > or grandiosely affirmative? > > Are there " sages " who are mistaken > > to be " sinners " simply because > > their lifestyle is unusual, > > self-depriving, or grandiosely affirmative? > > > > So many questions, so little time... > > what's a poor mind to do ;-) > > > > Be the question, the uncertainty, > > and be silence ;-) > > > > Namaste, > > Dan > Dan, > You raise some very interesting questions and I think they bear looking > at because much of how we declare our " unenlightenment " is based on > behaviours and manifestations. > I do not know if in Maharaj's case, he became physically addicted to > cigarette smoking, really bidi smoking, before it was known to have > such deletrious effects. Maharaj's smoking in some ways was a more > intense breaker of spiritual concepts than his words. Was he > disassociated from his body? This is a question I think about my self > because I have spent much time dissassociated from my body and I am a > carbohydrate addict and overweight. And from time to time I allow > myself to be conscious of what my body is like and it blows my mind. > So was my disidentification from the body healthy or is the > dissociation an altogether different thing from disidentification. > I think this discussion is very interesting, because we spend an awful > lot of time proving how different the enlightened is when they spend so > much time showing how there are not two states. > Hmmm... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 14, 2001 Report Share Posted April 14, 2001 Cathy wrote: I think this discussion is very interesting, because we spend an awful lot of time proving how different the enlightened is when they spend so much time showing how there are not two states. snip> in continuing from last nite ... An impactful dialogue ensued between Robert Adams and a devotee regarding Nisargadatta. The devotee had run into Jean Dunn several weeks before in a motel and was quite impressed with her and related to Robert that he had told her, "I really get the impression that you understand" He then related that she got angry with him and told him, "You really didn't get it! People would tell this to Maharaj all the time (as she waved her finger in my face), and he would get upset and say, "You don't understand! "You created me! You created this body. You created these teachings that you're understanding from me!" It was wonderful! I went around for a week owning everything. I created the walls.I created the sky, I created the war, I created the teachings. Robert's remark was "She's right"... So back to Maharaj's smoking... after being exposed to Robert... who is it that is seeing this? A dreamer seeing a dreamed character, who happens to be awake in the dream. Love, ~jess ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Tony O'Cleary wrote: Maharaj also smoked, and said it was something the body was doing. snip> Dan Berkow wrote:snip> If so, how can a "sage" who functions with apparent self-deprivation or apparent excess, be differentiated from a dissociative personality or a manic personality?Is it a matter of whether there are disciples to validate the teacher, and whether those disciples have or gain enough social status for the claim to hold?snip> Dan, You raise some very interesting questions and I think they bear looking at snip> I do not know if in Maharaj's case, he became physically addicted to cigarette smoking, really bidi smoking, before it was known to have such deletrious effects. Maharaj's smoking in some ways was a more intense breaker of spiritual concepts than his words. Was he disassociated from his body? snip> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 14, 2001 Report Share Posted April 14, 2001 Hi Tim, you asked, in part, > " Dissassociation from evidence that 'this isn't healthy'? " Oh, > please. How can " evidence be dissociated from?? " Whose evidence? The body's evidence, of course! What I hear Dan saying is that the body can be 'offering evidence' that it rejects certain types of foods or chemicals, and that evidence can, and often is, disregarded by mind/emotion. In that disregarding, mind is dissociating from body. Otherwise, when the body says " no " , the mind would be saying " no " , too.....automatically. Any of us who have engaged in compulsive behaviours can testify to this dissociation, and that by 'paying attention' once again to the body.....really being present to its cues......the distance between 'the two' begins to shrink more and more. Melody Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 14, 2001 Report Share Posted April 14, 2001 Hi Cathy -- Yes, indeed! Nice to be resonating with you on this. The enlightened says " the only difference between you and me, is that I know that there is no difference between you and me. " The unenlightened says " that's incredible that you see that, it's so different from how I see things. " And so the dance goes round and round. Did reality shift to show itself as totality, or is perceiving and discussing such a shift an illusion given appearance by memory and comparison, of a before and a now? No " I-it " , then " I-it " (in which enlightened and unenlightened can be differentiated) then no " I-it " -- and yet just " unsplit now " all the time ... The " enlightened " who says " I am you " , yet implies in the saying a statement being made for someone -- a difference between us two -- as 'I know this' " and say this, so you will know that I know ... " Now " , the " enlightened " is done away with ... " If you see Buddha on the road, kill him " ... Do away with the one who says " I am the Way " and there/here is the Way that cannot be declared ... Does this Way, this " knowing " depend upon establishing psychological health, nondissociation, balance -- or is this " knowing " itself prior to any forming, regardless of appearances as dissociated, healthy, ill, happy ... (?) It is only with " forming " that " enlightened " appears as the " enlightened " in contrast with the " unenlightened " who knows not ... The shift for a " being " formerly taken as a " being " seems like a movement from unconsciousness of reality as reality, to consciousness of reality as reality -- yet in that consciousness there is nothing of which to be conscious nor which can be taken as " consciousness " -- nor as " a former state of consciousness " -- thus no sense of a " being " formerly taken as a " being " -- No dissociation or nondissociation actually makes any difference in the knowing in which no knower is -- for either dissociation or nondissociation implies a knower who could be or not be " with what is " ... " Now I see as if through a glass, darkly -- then shall I be known as I know, face to face " ... only no separation to even be able to say " face to face " ... There is no first instant of manifestation, so any instant includes all others with it, any " act of knowing " is " all-knowing " itself ... Well, yes, there's something intriguing here ;-) Namaste, Dan Dan, You raise some very interesting questions and I think they bear looking at because much of how we declare our " unenlightenment " is based on behaviours and manifestations. I do not know if in Maharaj's case, he became physically addicted to cigarette smoking, really bidi smoking, before it was known to have such deletrious effects. Maharaj's smoking in some ways was a more intense breaker of spiritual concepts than his words. Was he disassociated from his body? This is a question I think about my self because I have spent much time dissassociated from my body and I am a carbohydrate addict and overweight. And from time to time I allow myself to be conscious of what my body is like and it blows my mind. So was my disidentification from the body healthy or is the dissociation an altogether different thing from disidentification. I think this discussion is very interesting, because we spend an awful lot of time proving how different the enlightened is when they spend so much time showing how there are not two states. Hmmm... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 14, 2001 Report Share Posted April 14, 2001 I now see that the turmoil it created in my mind, was catalytic for me in eventually accepting and understanding Advaita. I feel that ONE response from Maharaj " that is how it appears to you " is extremely PROFOUND! Yes -- that is how it appears to you ;-) Love, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 14, 2001 Report Share Posted April 14, 2001 " to see a world in a grain of sand " Nothing is needed. " Slice a piece of wood, and I am there, shatter a stone and I am there " ... Where did all the " characters " go? -- Dan Cathy wrote: I think this discussion is very interesting, because we spend an awful lot of time proving how different the enlightened is when they spend so much time showing how there are not two states. snip> in continuing from last nite ... An impactful dialogue ensued between Robert Adams and a devotee regarding Nisargadatta. The devotee had run into Jean Dunn several weeks before in a motel and was quite impressed with her and related to Robert that he had told her, " I really get the impression that you understand " He then related that she got angry with him and told him, " You really didn't get it! People would tell this to Maharaj all the time (as she waved her finger in my face), and he would get upset and say, " You don't understand! " You created me! You created this body. You created these teachings that you're understanding from me! " It was wonderful! I went around for a week owning everything. I created the walls.I created the sky, I created the war, I created the teachings. Robert's remark was " She's right " ... So back to Maharaj's smoking... after being exposed to Robert... who is it that is seeing this? A dreamer seeing a dreamed character, who happens to be awake in the dream. Love, ~jess ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Tony O'Cleary wrote: Maharaj also smoked, and said it was something the body was doing. snip> Dan Berkow wrote: snip> If so, how can a " sage " who functions with apparent self-deprivation or apparent excess, be differentiated from a dissociative personality or a manic personality? Is it a matter of whether there are disciples to validate the teacher, and whether those disciples have or gain enough social status for the claim to hold? snip> Dan, You raise some very interesting questions and I think they bear looking at snip> I do not know if in Maharaj's case, he became physically addicted to cigarette smoking, really bidi smoking, before it was known to have such deletrious effects. Maharaj's smoking in some ways was a more intense breaker of spiritual concepts than his words. Was he disassociated from his body? snip> Sponsor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 14, 2001 Report Share Posted April 14, 2001 " Chopping wood and carrying water, chop wood and carry water. " Namaste, Choppingwoodandcarryingwater Nisargadatta, Daniel Berkow <berkowd@u...> wrote: > " to see a world in a grain of sand " > > Nothing is needed. > > " Slice a piece of wood, > and I am there, > shatter a stone and > I am there " ... > > Where did all the " characters " go? > > -- Dan > > > Cathy wrote: > > >I think this discussion is very interesting, because we spend an awful > > > >lot of time proving how different the enlightened is when they spend so > > > >much time showing how there are not two states. > > > >snip> > >in continuing from last nite ... > > > >An impactful dialogue ensued between Robert Adams and a devotee regarding > >Nisargadatta. The devotee had run into Jean Dunn several weeks before in a > >motel and was quite impressed with her and related to Robert that he had > >told her, " I really get the impression that you understand " He then > >related that she got angry with him and told him, " You really didn't get > >it! People would tell this to Maharaj all the time (as she waved her > >finger in my face), and he would get upset and say, " You don't understand! > > " You created me! You created this body. You created these teachings that > >you're understanding from me! " It was wonderful! I went around for a week > >owning everything. I created the walls.I created the sky, I created the > >war, I created the teachings. > >Robert's remark was " She's right " ... > > > >So back to Maharaj's smoking... > >after being exposed to Robert... > > > >who is it that is seeing this? > > > >A dreamer seeing a dreamed character, who happens to be awake in the dream. > > > >Love, > >~jess > >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > > > > > > > > Tony O'Cleary wrote: > > > >Maharaj also smoked, and said it was something the body was doing. > >snip> > > > > > > Dan Berkow wrote: > >snip> > >If so, how can a " sage " who > > functions with apparent self-deprivation > > or apparent excess, be differentiated > > from a dissociative personality or > > a manic personality? > > > >Is it a matter of whether there are > > disciples to validate the teacher, > > and whether those disciples have > > or gain enough social status for > > the claim to hold? > >snip> > > > >Dan, > >You raise some very interesting questions and I think they bear looking at > >snip> > > I do not know if in Maharaj's case, he became physically addicted to > >cigarette smoking, really bidi smoking, before it was known to have > >such deletrious effects. Maharaj's smoking in some ways was a more > >intense breaker of spiritual concepts than his words. Was he > >disassociated from his body? > >snip> > > > > > >Sponsor<http://rd./M=176325.1402487.2987152.2/D=egroupmail/S =1700075991:N/A=637409/R=2/*http://store./cgi-bin/clink? ydomains+merchant- ad:dmad/M=176325.1402487.2987152.2/D=egroupmail/S=1700075991:N/A=63740 9/R=3/987274329+http://domains./> > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 14, 2001 Report Share Posted April 14, 2001 Hi Melody -- Yup - 'zactly ... The body knows what it's doing, being impeccably in synch with the universe that is itself, at home in " this living intelligence " ... The body is never an object -- That would require a separated knower. Making the body an object of perception is the " primary dissociation " on which all other dissociations and disregardings of " what it knows " are based. And yes -- the distance between the two is not, and all learning about the object-body is hearsay (second-hand information) and invalid as evidence in the Court of Love ;-) Dan (snip)The body's evidence, of course! What I hear Dan saying is that the body can be 'offering evidence' that it rejects certain types of foods or chemicals, and that evidence can, and often is, disregarded by mind/emotion. In that disregarding, mind is dissociating from body. Otherwise, when the body says " no " , the mind would be saying " no " , too.....automatically. Any of us who have engaged in compulsive behaviours can testify to this dissociation, and that by 'paying attention' once again to the body.....really being present to its cues......the distance between 'the two' begins to shrink more and more. Melody Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 14, 2001 Report Share Posted April 14, 2001 Hi Melody! Hi Dan, you wrote, in part: > Making the body an object of > perception is the " primary > dissociation " From the 'absolute' perspective, perhaps. From the " now " perspective. What happens " now " such that the body takes itself as an object ... However, if people knew to .....were encouraged to.... pay attention to the messages their bodies send out; if people learned to read, and hear 'body language' it is my suspicion that psychotherapists would have to look for another way to pay their rent. Yes - it is such learning that is an important aspect of what therapy is -- and allowing something different than repetition of the past is part of it, too ... as much " unlearning " as " learning " -- another related aspect is " trusting perception as is, not as mediated by " messages and images internalized from 'others' and 'the past' " .. Good therapy indeed encourages direct perception in which therapist isn't needed as interpreter, good therapy ends itself of itself, as timing is appropriate ... The body gives 'voice' to the 'divided many'. The body that moves about in time and space, appears conceptually -- The body that divides into time, space, subject, object -- is itself undivided ... It is the touchstone... as well as a holographic 'manifestation'..... of One. Yes. Namaste, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 14, 2001 Report Share Posted April 14, 2001 Hi Dan, you wrote, in part: > Making the body an object of > perception is the " primary > dissociation " From the 'absolute' perspective, perhaps. However, if people knew to .....were encouraged to.... pay attention to the messages their bodies send out; if people learned to read, and hear 'body language' it is my suspicion that psychotherapists would have to look for another way to pay their rent. The body gives 'voice' to the 'divided many'. It is the touchstone... as well as a holographic 'manifestation'..... of One. Melody 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.