Tim / Transient -Being!!

[Guest guest]

Dan:

 

" The observer is as much in transition as what is

observed. "

 

Nisargadatta:

 

" All appearance and disappearance presupposes a change against some

 

changeless background. "

 

On the level of thought, the two statements above appear as

opposites. From a perspective of clarity, these appear to be saying

 

the same thing!

 

But what about for 'those' who aren't seeing from a perspective of

clarity? The question becomes " Who is right and who is

wrong? "

 

The answer is " Yes... 'who' is right *and* 'who' is wrong. "

;-).

 

Namaste,

 

Tim

Hi Tim --

 

transition isn't moving

from something to something else, and isn't

standing still. It's not noticed against

a background, because perceptions of background

are in transition (what would be the background

allowing the changeless background to be

perceived as changeless background?)

 

transition is the totality, unmoving,

yet not remaining static

 

in flux, as nothing separate --

yet unchanging, as nothing

to change into something else

 

Transitionally,

Dan

[Guest guest]

I wish I could write like that. I never would have passed English Lit! :-)

Beck

 

At 03:25 PM 5/6/01 , you wrote:

>Hi Tim --

>

>transition isn't moving

> from something to something else, and isn't

> standing still. It's not noticed against

> a background, because perceptions of background

> are in transition (what would be the background

> allowing the changeless background to be

> perceived as changeless background?)

>

>transition is the totality, unmoving,

> yet not remaining static

>

>in flux, as nothing separate --

> yet unchanging, as nothing

> to change into something else

>

>Transitionally,

>Dan

>

>