Time Is The Child Of A Barren Woman - Nectar of Immortality

[Guest guest]

From " The Nectar of Immortality -- Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj's

Discourses on the Eternal " ([very wordily] edited by Robert Powell,

PhD)

 

Note to the list -- The chapters in this book are long, so only

excerpts are presented here. V denotes " Visitor, " " M " indicates

Maharaj's response.

 

 

Chapter 3 - Time is the Child of a Barren Woman

 

V: What is the difference between physical suffering and

psychological suffering?

 

Maharaj: When there is disorder in the body, suffering is physical;

but when there is disturbance due to thoughts and concepts, the

suffering is psychological. Have you any idea when all this began?

 

V: I do not know.

 

M: It is spontaneous and it is inside. But how and when was

registration made of the first day of life?

 

V: From death, birth took place; prior to that there was no

consciousness.

 

M: To what was this title of birth given? Just look into that, what

is really born?

 

V: A concept is born.

 

M: Even to say that a concept is born, is not the full truth. What

did actually happen?

 

V: Time and space appeared.

 

M: You will have to do plenty of dhyana-yoga to come up with a

correct reply. There are any number of Upanishads and yogas like

hatha-yoga, Patanjali yoga, and others. But I know only atma-yoga,

which is Self-knowledge and nothing else.

 

Out of a common heap of wheat, many types of edibles are prepared,

using different methods. In the same way, there are many systems of

spirituality. I am not interested in nibbling at the various

delicacies -- methods and techniques -- but only in the main course,

which is the primordial Source of all existence.

 

How and why did the state of my beingness, my existence, and the

entire manifestation arise and out of what? In that original source,

there is no feeling of my presence. To that ultimate source, how did

the state of existence resulting in differentiation (duality) appear?

 

The Upanishads and various systems of yoga are conceptual fantasies.

I did not go into all these at all. I inquired only about my " non-

beingness " and beingness, and how and why they did come about.

 

V: That I am born is itself...

 

M: But this is a concept which you have accepted. It is a hearsay.

 

V: Every moment we are born.

 

M: Yes, every moment births take place. But what is that material

which is born?

 

V: Whatever that maybe?

 

M: On the " non-beingness " beingness has appeared; and in the

beingness, thousands of births and live forms are created within a

moment.

 

V: But the background of all this is " nothingness " only.

 

M: There should also be a knower of this " nothingness, " and this

knower is " nothingness, " too! In the " non-beingness, " how could that

be expressed and who would? In that state, there is no subject and

no object, and it is called nirvishaya. But in the beingness state,

both subject and object are there, hence it is called savishaya.

 

Have you understood that Pantanjali yoga deals with duality? Have

you studied the yoga? Does it deal with yoking or unyoking?

 

V: I have read a little. The yoga deals with duality.

 

M: Out of what did Patanjali create duality? When he established

duality, what did he divide? Whatever he divided, was it not in the

realm of beingness -- in the sphere of subject-object?

 

V: The moment one tries to divide something, it becomes " objective. "

 

M: But the ultimate principle is prior to the sphere of subject-

object. I would like to know how you divide that state.

 

On the subject of " non-beingness, " the beingness appeared together

with manifestation, creating a feeling as if " I am. " Who that is, is

not important; only " I am " is important.

 

We talked about duality. Did it begin with the appearance of

beingness over " non-beingness " or has it developed later? It is

simple. When the beingness -- that is, the " I-am-ness " -- is felt,

it is obvious that Quality (awareness of attributes) has begun.

Later, the beingness manifests as multiplicity, functioning as it

does through innumerable forms. The initial humming of the beingness

as " I am, I am " is the duality. But who accepts the duality?

The " non-beingness " accepts duality with the beingness. The

absolute " non-being " state, by assuming the being state, becomes dual

in manifestation.

 

Words create duality between us. Two persons are sitting quietly,

and so there is no quarrel. But the moment they start talking,

duality begins.

 

When the " non-being " state expresses objectivity (the manifest)

through the being state, the latter is called maya, the female

aspect, while the " non-being " state is considered the male aspect.

Therefore, the functioning of the manifest universe is called the

play of prakriti and purusha -- that is, the female and male aspects.

 

.... Transcribed by Omkara ...

.... To Be Continued ...

[Guest guest]

I've been thinking about just this subject lately. In looking back

to

the time before I was born, I find nothing there. No me, no god,

no world. Just a sort of golden light, encapsulated in a round

bulb.

 

So, I started to wonder what would make or cause this golden

light of nothingness to become anything. If there is nothing

there, what could intrude to stimulate or draw out the world (or

the beginning of it)?

 

I conclude that there is a potentiality in the nothingness. An

energy which causes it to burst forth into the the world (and me).

 

This energy can't be stopped and appears to be what we know of

as life itself. It arises spontaneously from an inexhaustible

source - regardless of what anyone does or doesn't do.

 

Enough for now,

 

Michael Souther

 

Nisargadatta, " Omkara " <coresite@h...> wrote: s

>

> From " The Nectar of Immortality -- Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj's

> Discourses on the Eternal " ([very wordily] edited by Robert

Powell,

> PhD)

>

> Note to the list -- The chapters in this book are long, so only

> excerpts are presented here. V denotes " Visitor, " " M " indicates

> Maharaj's response.

>

>

> Chapter 3 - Time is the Child of a Barren Woman

>

> V: What is the difference between physical suffering and

> psychological suffering?

>

> Maharaj: When there is disorder in the body, suffering is

physical;

> but when there is disturbance due to thoughts and concepts,

the

> suffering is psychological. Have you any idea when all this

began?

>

> V: I do not know.

>

> M: It is spontaneous and it is inside. But how and when was

> registration made of the first day of life?

>

> V: From death, birth took place; prior to that there was no

> consciousness.

>

> M: To what was this title of birth given? Just look into that,

what

> is really born?

>

> V: A concept is born.

>

> M: Even to say that a concept is born, is not the full truth. What

> did actually happen?

>

> V: Time and space appeared.

>

> M: You will have to do plenty of dhyana-yoga to come up with a

> correct reply. There are any number of Upanishads and yogas

like

> hatha-yoga, Patanjali yoga, and others. But I know only

atma-yoga,

> which is Self-knowledge and nothing else.

>

> Out of a common heap of wheat, many types of edibles are

prepared,

> using different methods. In the same way, there are many

systems of

> spirituality. I am not interested in nibbling at the various

> delicacies -- methods and techniques -- but only in the main

course,

> which is the primordial Source of all existence.

>

> How and why did the state of my beingness, my existence, and

the

> entire manifestation arise and out of what? In that original

source,

> there is no feeling of my presence. To that ultimate source,

how did

> the state of existence resulting in differentiation (duality)

appear?

>

> The Upanishads and various systems of yoga are conceptual

fantasies.

> I did not go into all these at all. I inquired only about my " non-

> beingness " and beingness, and how and why they did come

about.

>

> V: That I am born is itself...

>

> M: But this is a concept which you have accepted. It is a

hearsay.

>

> V: Every moment we are born.

>

> M: Yes, every moment births take place. But what is that

material

> which is born?

>

> V: Whatever that maybe?

>

> M: On the " non-beingness " beingness has appeared; and in

the

> beingness, thousands of births and live forms are created

within a

> moment.

>

> V: But the background of all this is " nothingness " only.

>

> M: There should also be a knower of this " nothingness, " and

this

> knower is " nothingness, " too! In the " non-beingness, " how

could that

> be expressed and who would? In that state, there is no

subject and

> no object, and it is called nirvishaya. But in the beingness

state,

> both subject and object are there, hence it is called savishaya.

>

> Have you understood that Pantanjali yoga deals with duality?

Have

> you studied the yoga? Does it deal with yoking or unyoking?

>

> V: I have read a little. The yoga deals with duality.

>

> M: Out of what did Patanjali create duality? When he

established

> duality, what did he divide? Whatever he divided, was it not in

the

> realm of beingness -- in the sphere of subject-object?

>

> V: The moment one tries to divide something, it becomes

" objective. "

>

> M: But the ultimate principle is prior to the sphere of subject-

> object. I would like to know how you divide that state.

>

> On the subject of " non-beingness, " the beingness appeared

together

> with manifestation, creating a feeling as if " I am. " Who that is,

is

> not important; only " I am " is important.

>

> We talked about duality. Did it begin with the appearance of

> beingness over " non-beingness " or has it developed later? It

is

> simple. When the beingness -- that is, the " I-am-ness " -- is

felt,

> it is obvious that Quality (awareness of attributes) has begun.

> Later, the beingness manifests as multiplicity, functioning as it

> does through innumerable forms. The initial humming of the

beingness

> as " I am, I am " is the duality. But who accepts the duality?

> The " non-beingness " accepts duality with the beingness. The

> absolute " non-being " state, by assuming the being state,

becomes dual

> in manifestation.

>

> Words create duality between us. Two persons are sitting

quietly,

> and so there is no quarrel. But the moment they start talking,

> duality begins.

>

> When the " non-being " state expresses objectivity (the

manifest)

> through the being state, the latter is called maya, the female

> aspect, while the " non-being " state is considered the male

aspect.

> Therefore, the functioning of the manifest universe is called the

> play of prakriti and purusha -- that is, the female and male

aspects.

>

> ... Transcribed by Omkara ...

> ... To Be Continued ...

[Guest guest]

Wow that was good. Thanks Tim for that powerful dose of Maharaj.

 

Hur

 

Nisargadatta, " Omkara " <coresite@h...> wrote:

> Chapter 3 - Time is the Child of a Barren Woman

>

> V: What is the difference between physical suffering and

> psychological suffering?

>

> Maharaj: When there is disorder in the body, suffering is physical;

> but when there is disturbance due to thoughts and concepts, the

> suffering is psychological. Have you any idea when all this began?

>

> V: I do not know.

>

> M: It is spontaneous and it is inside. But how and when was

> registration made of the first day of life?

>

> V: From death, birth took place; prior to that there was no

> consciousness.

>

> M: To what was this title of birth given? Just look into that,

what

> is really born?

>

> V: A concept is born.

>

> M: Even to say that a concept is born, is not the full truth. What

> did actually happen?

>

> V: Time and space appeared.

>

> M: You will have to do plenty of dhyana-yoga to come up with a

> correct reply. There are any number of Upanishads and yogas like

> hatha-yoga, Patanjali yoga, and others. But I know only atma-yoga,

> which is Self-knowledge and nothing else.

>

> Out of a common heap of wheat, many types of edibles are prepared,

> using different methods. In the same way, there are many systems

of

> spirituality. I am not interested in nibbling at the various

> delicacies -- methods and techniques -- but only in the main

course,

> which is the primordial Source of all existence.

>

> How and why did the state of my beingness, my existence, and the

> entire manifestation arise and out of what? In that original

source,

> there is no feeling of my presence. To that ultimate source, how

did

> the state of existence resulting in differentiation (duality)

appear?

>

> The Upanishads and various systems of yoga are conceptual

fantasies.

> I did not go into all these at all. I inquired only about my " non-

> beingness " and beingness, and how and why they did come about.

>

> V: That I am born is itself...

>

> M: But this is a concept which you have accepted. It is a hearsay.

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste All,

 

Even the globe is a concept a body, even the minutest thought is a

body, just as much as a gross physical,,,,,,is it not? ONS Tony.

 

 

Nisargadatta, MSouther@e... wrote:

> I've been thinking about just this subject lately. In looking back

> to

> the time before I was born, I find nothing there. No me, no god,

> no world. Just a sort of golden light, encapsulated in a round

> bulb.

>

> So, I started to wonder what would make or cause this golden

> light of nothingness to become anything. If there is nothing

> there, what could intrude to stimulate or draw out the world (or

> the beginning of it)?

>

> I conclude that there is a potentiality in the nothingness. An

> energy which causes it to burst forth into the the world (and me).

>

> This energy can't be stopped and appears to be what we know of

> as life itself. It arises spontaneously from an inexhaustible

> source - regardless of what anyone does or doesn't do.

>

> Enough for now,

>

> Michael Souther

>

> Nisargadatta, " Omkara " <coresite@h...> wrote: s

> >

> > From " The Nectar of Immortality -- Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj's

> > Discourses on the Eternal " ([very wordily] edited by Robert

> Powell,

> > PhD)

> >

> > Note to the list -- The chapters in this book are long, so only

> > excerpts are presented here. V denotes " Visitor, " " M " indicates

> > Maharaj's response.

> >

> >

> > Chapter 3 - Time is the Child of a Barren Woman

> >

> > V: What is the difference between physical suffering and

> > psychological suffering?

> >

> > Maharaj: When there is disorder in the body, suffering is

> physical;

> > but when there is disturbance due to thoughts and concepts,

> the

> > suffering is psychological. Have you any idea when all this

> began?

> >

> > V: I do not know.

> >

> > M: It is spontaneous and it is inside. But how and when was

> > registration made of the first day of life?

> >

> > V: From death, birth took place; prior to that there was no

> > consciousness.

> >

> > M: To what was this title of birth given? Just look into that,

> what

> > is really born?

> >

> > V: A concept is born.

> >

> > M: Even to say that a concept is born, is not the full truth.

What

> > did actually happen?

> >

> > V: Time and space appeared.

> >

> > M: You will have to do plenty of dhyana-yoga to come up with a

> > correct reply. There are any number of Upanishads and yogas

> like

> > hatha-yoga, Patanjali yoga, and others. But I know only

> atma-yoga,

> > which is Self-knowledge and nothing else.

> >

> > Out of a common heap of wheat, many types of edibles are

> prepared,

> > using different methods. In the same way, there are many

> systems of

> > spirituality. I am not interested in nibbling at the various

> > delicacies -- methods and techniques -- but only in the main

> course,

> > which is the primordial Source of all existence.

> >

> > How and why did the state of my beingness, my existence, and

> the

> > entire manifestation arise and out of what? In that original

> source,

> > there is no feeling of my presence. To that ultimate source,

> how did

> > the state of existence resulting in differentiation (duality)

> appear?

> >

> > The Upanishads and various systems of yoga are conceptual

> fantasies.

> > I did not go into all these at all. I inquired only about my

" non-

> > beingness " and beingness, and how and why they did come

> about.

> >

> > V: That I am born is itself...

> >

> > M: But this is a concept which you have accepted. It is a

> hearsay.

> >

> > V: Every moment we are born.

> >

> > M: Yes, every moment births take place. But what is that

> material

> > which is born?

> >

> > V: Whatever that maybe?

> >

> > M: On the " non-beingness " beingness has appeared; and in

> the

> > beingness, thousands of births and live forms are created

> within a

> > moment.

> >

> > V: But the background of all this is " nothingness " only.

> >

> > M: There should also be a knower of this " nothingness, " and

> this

> > knower is " nothingness, " too! In the " non-beingness, " how

> could that

> > be expressed and who would? In that state, there is no

> subject and

> > no object, and it is called nirvishaya. But in the beingness

> state,

> > both subject and object are there, hence it is called savishaya.

> >

> > Have you understood that Pantanjali yoga deals with duality?

> Have

> > you studied the yoga? Does it deal with yoking or unyoking?

> >

> > V: I have read a little. The yoga deals with duality.

> >

> > M: Out of what did Patanjali create duality? When he

> established

> > duality, what did he divide? Whatever he divided, was it not in

> the

> > realm of beingness -- in the sphere of subject-object?

> >

> > V: The moment one tries to divide something, it becomes

> " objective. "

> >

> > M: But the ultimate principle is prior to the sphere of subject-

> > object. I would like to know how you divide that state.

> >

> > On the subject of " non-beingness, " the beingness appeared

> together

> > with manifestation, creating a feeling as if " I am. " Who that is,

> is

> > not important; only " I am " is important.

> >

> > We talked about duality. Did it begin with the appearance of

> > beingness over " non-beingness " or has it developed later? It

> is

> > simple. When the beingness -- that is, the " I-am-ness " -- is

> felt,

> > it is obvious that Quality (awareness of attributes) has begun.

> > Later, the beingness manifests as multiplicity, functioning as it

> > does through innumerable forms. The initial humming of the

> beingness

> > as " I am, I am " is the duality. But who accepts the duality?

> > The " non-beingness " accepts duality with the beingness. The

> > absolute " non-being " state, by assuming the being state,

> becomes dual

> > in manifestation.

> >

> > Words create duality between us. Two persons are sitting

> quietly,

> > and so there is no quarrel. But the moment they start talking,

> > duality begins.

> >

> > When the " non-being " state expresses objectivity (the

> manifest)

> > through the being state, the latter is called maya, the female

> > aspect, while the " non-being " state is considered the male

> aspect.

> > Therefore, the functioning of the manifest universe is called the

> > play of prakriti and purusha -- that is, the female and male

> aspects.

> >

> > ... Transcribed by Omkara ...

> > ... To Be Continued ...

[Guest guest]

-

Tony O'Clery <aoclery

 

 

 

> Namaste All,

>

> Even the globe is a concept a body, even the minutest thought

is a

> body, just as much as a gross physical,,,,,,is it not? ONS

Tony.

 

Skye: Yes, but it was the light of Michaels consciousness that

propelled them, made them almost fade into insignificance i

found. Quite beautiful.

[Guest guest]

Namaste All,

 

Yes but just as false, even bliss is false, and attachment, beauty

is an attachment. This is all dualistic of course...Does

michael have a separate consciousness? What is that? This is

all in the realms of religions and superstition.....Tony.

 

 

 

Nisargadatta, " skye chambers " <skyechambers@b...> wrote:

>

> -

> Tony O'Clery <aoclery>

>

>

>

> > Namaste All,

> >

> > Even the globe is a concept a body, even the minutest thought

> is a

> > body, just as much as a gross physical,,,,,,is it not? ONS

> Tony.

>

> Skye: Yes, but it was the light of Michaels consciousness that

> propelled them, made them almost fade into insignificance i

> found. Quite beautiful.

[Guest guest]

What could possibly divide

the original " nothing " --

 

From where could any " other "

or " actual division " arise?

 

What could ever create a

body within " original body " ,

and from what?

 

Shalom,

Dan

 

 

Namaste All,

 

Even the globe is a concept a body, even the minutest thought is a

body, just as much as a gross physical,,,,,,is it not? ONS

Tony.

 

 

Nisargadatta, MSouther@e... wrote:

> I've been thinking about just this subject lately. In looking

back

> to

> the time before I was born, I find nothing there. No me, no

god,

> no world. Just a sort of golden light, encapsulated in a round

 

> bulb.

>

> So, I started to wonder what would make or cause this golden

> light of nothingness to become anything. If there is nothing

 

> there, what could intrude to stimulate or draw out the world (or

 

> the beginning of it)?

>

> I conclude that there is a potentiality in the nothingness. An

 

> energy which causes it to burst forth into the the world (and

me).

>

> This energy can't be stopped and appears to be what we know of

> as life itself. It arises spontaneously from an inexhaustible

 

> source - regardless of what anyone does or doesn't do.

>

> Enough for now,

>

> Michael Souther

>

> Nisargadatta, " Omkara " <coresite@h...>

wrote: s

> >

> > From " The Nectar of Immortality -- Sri Nisargadatta

Maharaj's

> > Discourses on the Eternal " ([very wordily] edited by

Robert

> Powell,

> > PhD)

> >

> > Note to the list -- The chapters in this book are long, so only

 

> > excerpts are presented here. V denotes

" Visitor, " " M " indicates

> > Maharaj's response.

> >

> >

> > Chapter 3 - Time is the Child of a Barren Woman

> >

> > V: What is the difference between physical suffering and

> > psychological suffering?

> >

> > Maharaj: When there is disorder in the body, suffering is

> physical;

> > but when there is disturbance due to thoughts and concepts,

 

> the

> > suffering is psychological. Have you any idea when all

this

> began?

> >

> > V: I do not know.

> >

> > M: It is spontaneous and it is inside. But how and when

was

> > registration made of the first day of life?

> >

> > V: From death, birth took place; prior to that there was no

 

> > consciousness.

> >

> > M: To what was this title of birth given? Just look into

that,

> what

> > is really born?

> >

> > V: A concept is born.

> >

> > M: Even to say that a concept is born, is not the full

truth.

What

> > did actually happen?

> >

> > V: Time and space appeared.

> >

> > M: You will have to do plenty of dhyana-yoga to come up with a

 

> > correct reply. There are any number of Upanishads and

yogas

> like

> > hatha-yoga, Patanjali yoga, and others. But I know only

 

> atma-yoga,

> > which is Self-knowledge and nothing else.

> >

> > Out of a common heap of wheat, many types of edibles are

> prepared,

> > using different methods. In the same way, there are many

 

> systems of

> > spirituality. I am not interested in nibbling at the

various

> > delicacies -- methods and techniques -- but only in the main

 

> course,

> > which is the primordial Source of all existence.

> >

> > How and why did the state of my beingness, my existence, and

 

> the

> > entire manifestation arise and out of what? In that

original

> source,

> > there is no feeling of my presence. To that ultimate

source,

> how did

> > the state of existence resulting in differentiation (duality)

 

> appear?

> >

> > The Upanishads and various systems of yoga are conceptual

> fantasies.

> > I did not go into all these at all. I inquired only about

my

" non-

> > beingness " and beingness, and how and why they did come

 

> about.

> >

> > V: That I am born is itself...

> >

> > M: But this is a concept which you have accepted. It is a

 

> hearsay.

> >

> > V: Every moment we are born.

> >

> > M: Yes, every moment births take place. But what is that

 

> material

> > which is born?

> >

> > V: Whatever that maybe?

> >

> > M: On the " non-beingness " beingness has appeared; and

in

> the

> > beingness, thousands of births and live forms are created

> within a

> > moment.

> >

> > V: But the background of all this is " nothingness "

only.

> >

> > M: There should also be a knower of this

" nothingness, " and

> this

> > knower is " nothingness, " too! In the

" non-beingness, " how

> could that

> > be expressed and who would? In that state, there is no

 

> subject and

> > no object, and it is called nirvishaya. But in the

beingness

> state,

> > both subject and object are there, hence it is called

savishaya.

> >

> > Have you understood that Pantanjali yoga deals with

duality?

> Have

> > you studied the yoga? Does it deal with yoking or

unyoking?

> >

> > V: I have read a little. The yoga deals with

duality.

> >

> > M: Out of what did Patanjali create duality? When he

 

> established

> > duality, what did he divide? Whatever he divided, was it

not in

> the

> > realm of beingness -- in the sphere of subject-object?

> >

> > V: The moment one tries to divide something, it becomes

> " objective. "

> >

> > M: But the ultimate principle is prior to the sphere of

subject-

> > object. I would like to know how you divide that

state.

> >

> > On the subject of " non-beingness, " the beingness

appeared

> together

> > with manifestation, creating a feeling as if " I

am. " Who that is,

> is

> > not important; only " I am " is important.

> >

> > We talked about duality. Did it begin with the appearance

of

> > beingness over " non-beingness " or has it developed

later? It

> is

> > simple. When the beingness -- that is, the

" I-am-ness " -- is

> felt,

> > it is obvious that Quality (awareness of attributes) has

begun.

> > Later, the beingness manifests as multiplicity, functioning as

it

> > does through innumerable forms. The initial humming of

the

> beingness

> > as " I am, I am " is the duality. But who accepts

the duality?

> > The " non-beingness " accepts duality with the

beingness. The

> > absolute " non-being " state, by assuming the being

state,

> becomes dual

> > in manifestation.

> >

> > Words create duality between us. Two persons are sitting

 

> quietly,

> > and so there is no quarrel. But the moment they start

talking,

> > duality begins.

> >

> > When the " non-being " state expresses objectivity (the

 

> manifest)

> > through the being state, the latter is called maya, the female

 

> > aspect, while the " non-being " state is considered the

male

> aspect.

> > Therefore, the functioning of the manifest universe is called

the

> > play of prakriti and purusha -- that is, the female and male

 

> aspects.

> >

> > ... Transcribed by Omkara ...

> > ... To Be Continued ...

[Guest guest]

It would be nice to discuss what's beyond both duality, and 'the

basic unity of life' (that which is beyond the *duality*

of " duality " and " nonduality " ).

 

Unfortunately i can't (it's undiscussable), so it has to be one or

the other. Either/or is fine here, or both/and :-). Or whatever

arises, which is what gets discussed anyway :-).

 

If anyone's up for pointless, purposeless and useless discussion

about silly, foolish, incomprehensible things, mad-crazy-ridiculous

talk, it sounds great... ;-). Joy, love, laughter and peace,

blessings beyond blessings.

 

Love,

 

Omkara

 

Nisargadatta, " skye chambers " <skyechambers@b...> wrote:

>

> -

> Tony O'Clery <aoclery>

>

>

> > Namaste All,

> >

> > Yes but just as false, even bliss is false, and attachment,

> beauty

> > is an attachment. This is all dualistic of course...Does

> > michael have a separate consciousness? What is that? This is

> > all in the realms of religions and superstition.....Tony.

>

> Skye: You are free, to concentrate your attention on what is

> false, gross, attached, separate, religious and superstitious,

> all you wish, perhaps some-else here might like to discuss

> duality with you, i'm only interested in the basic unity of life.

>

> Peace

[Guest guest]

-

Tony O'Clery <aoclery

 

 

> Namaste All,

>

> Yes but just as false, even bliss is false, and attachment,

beauty

> is an attachment. This is all dualistic of course...Does

> michael have a separate consciousness? What is that? This is

> all in the realms of religions and superstition.....Tony.

 

Skye: You are free, to concentrate your attention on what is

false, gross, attached, separate, religious and superstitious,

all you wish, perhaps some-else here might like to discuss

duality with you, i'm only interested in the basic unity of life.

 

Peace