Guest guest Posted May 11, 2003 Report Share Posted May 11, 2003 Toby, I must tell you I am quite stuck by the profoundness, the probing depth, of your message. What you say is about Truth being tender is my experience as well. In particular I have learned that gentleness brings me to Truth. It is like beholding truly a newborn infant in my hands. I must become totally soft and gentle before I can melt into the incredible spiritual presence of the infant. I have also discoverd that -- for me -- being gentle and soft in my energy equates to being in my heart. And that being in my heart is itself a conscious oneness with Truth. In a way I could describe my spiritual autobiography as one of: learning to be soft and gentle leading to learning to be in my heart leading to discovering that I can simply live in Truth. By that I mean that for me there is nothing but Truth and my living is as a dancing within this Truth, my true Home. I am discovering how living within this Truth is softening me in many ways. One, there is no self- judgement when living in Truth. There is no right and wrong. I make no effort to correct myself. My life has become very passionate. I follow my desires and ignore the " shoulds " . In this process the kinks and stresses are easing out. I feel I am becoming softer and more tender, both with myself and with others. None of this is by design. It is all very natural. Addressing your question more specifically: > Why is even the most traumatic and harsh reality, so gentle, delicate > and soft to conciousness when seen with absolute honesty? > It seems a cold, harsh reality does not exist outside of the ego. > Truth dampens harshness and warms the cold chill. It seems to me that Truth is of the heart, not of the mind, and hence is inherently tender and compassionate. While on the one hand gentleness, heart, and Truth seem to go together, on the other hand harsnness, mind, and ego seem to go together. Such a delight to converse with you Toby! I feel there is an openness, a softness in our exchanges, that makes it possible -- in your terms -- for Truth to unfold itself in the ease of our interaction. -Bill toby20042004 [toby.wilson] Sunday, May 11, 2003 5:58 AM Nisargadatta Re: Woffle (Bill) Whence the softness within Truth, Bill? Why is Truth so tender to conciousness? Why is even the most traumatic and harsh reality, so gentle, delicate and soft to conciousness when seen with absolute honesty? It seems a cold, harsh reality does not exist outside of the ego. Truth dampens harshness and warms the cold chill. What are your thoughts on this dynamic? Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote: > Bravo! > From my limited perspective your statement seems > absolutely perfect. > > And I notice something interesting in your statement: > " core-splitting honesty " (great phrase!) is a kind > of power that itself can come only from Truth. > So it is Truth that cuts away the cataract to > finally reveal Itself. > > There can be the notion that " we discover Truth " . > But really, I suggest, such a " we " is ficticious. > It is simply Truth realizing Itself. > > -Bill > > > > toby20042004 [toby.wilson@t...] > Saturday, May 10, 2003 4:03 AM > Nisargadatta > Re: Woffle (Bill) > > > Bill, > > Your words ring so true. I hope you don't mind if I take a little > poetic licence to them. > > I would say, before enlightenment, core-splitting honesty is the > flame that melts the cataract of personal identity. After > enlightenment, there is no more room for questions of honest or > dishonest, of distorted or not, for whatever form it takes, all that > is left is Truth. > > Toby > > > Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote: > > Toby, > > > > In my own private infinity it seems that honesty/Truth is > > in the absence of a " sense of who " , in the absence of > > of a self-consciousness or sense of personal identity, > > to get in the way of a total experience of all that > > infinity converging, emerging, expanding as one. > > > > My own private Infinity is a dynamic, living, pulsing > > Reality. When the cataract of personal identity is > > melted away there is no room for questions of honest > > or dishonest, of distorted or not. > > > > That being said, I seem to find resonance in your > > statement that (condensing): " Truth " is the undistorted > > reflection of appearances. Not how I would put it > > exactly, but I do resonate. > > > > Interesting how you brought Truth into the equation. > > For me there is nothing more important than Truth. > > > > Revising a statement I made above, I should like to > > say: > > When the cataract of personal identity is > > melted away what remains revealed it Truth. > > > > Thank you for the inspiration! > > > > -Bill > > > > > > > > > > toby20042004 [toby.wilson@t...] > > Friday, May 09, 2003 5:57 AM > > Nisargadatta > > Re: Woffle > > > > > > Very nice Bill! You wrote: " Appearance seems to be the most > > fundamental concept in that it has the least baggage. " > > > > Is this not only if conciousness is honest? For if conciousness is > > dishonest, the reflection of appearances is distorted. In fact, a > > distorted reflection of appearances within conciousness is > baggage. > > And " Truth " is nothing more than honesty of conciousness. An > > undistorted reflection of appearances. Wouldn't you agree? > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote: > > > Your question is like asking, " Can there be consciousness > > > without a who? " > > > > > > It seems to me that a " who " is context dependent. > > > A " who " has to exist as a separateness to exist > > > at all. > > > > > > It seems that Appearance is. Appearance appears to appear. > > > Apparently, at least. Does that mean that Appearance is > > > Real? No. Only that it appears to be. > > > > > > If Appearance is not Real, then there is no necessity > > > for a " who " to whom Appearance appears. Not a Real " who " , > > > at any rate. > > > > > > So my answer to your question is that appearance itself > > > does not require anything more than an *apparent who* to > > > whom it appears, if that. If consciousness is an apparent > > > reflection against an apparent surface then what is that > > > apparent surface than the " who " you are asking about? > > > > > > > > > Misc Jottings: > > > > > > Consciousness and Appearance seem to be the same: > > > can't have one without the other. > > > > > > Conciousness, Appearance, Maya, Illusion seem to be > > > the same. > > > > > > Appearance seems to be the most fundamental concept > > > in that it has the least baggage. > > > > > > There can be Appearance without a " sense of who " . > > > Perhaps the loss of a " sense of a who " is the real > > > unburdening. For it seems (appears) that with the > > > dissolution of a " sense of who " Appearance is > > > liberated, unconstrained. > > > > > > Whereupon the Dance begins. > > > > > > And Rumi howls at the Moon. > > > > > > -Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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.