Guest guest Posted July 14, 2004 Report Share Posted July 14, 2004 The only way to defeat an adversary is to love him, help him and wish him all the best. http://www.wewalk.net http://www.wewalk.net/weblog/ ____________ lanza su nueva tecnología de búsquedas ¿te atreves a comparar? http://busquedas..es Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 14, 2004 Report Share Posted July 14, 2004 Nisargadatta , Caminamos <caminamosnet> wrote: > > The only way to defeat an adversary is to love him, > help him and wish him all the best. I have a better idea. I much, much better idea. At least I think it is a much better idea. Any adversary or friend, any good thing or bad thing, any hopes for the future, any fears for the future, any desires, longings, hopings, anxieties, restlessness, frustration, happiness, anger, hatred, nervousness, boredome, bitterness, jealousy, guilt, shame, or pride. All of that exists as thoughts and emotions. Here is the trick: let all thinking and emotions become unimportant to you. This is the most difficult thing to do and at the same time the easiest thing to do. /AL > > > http://www.wewalk.net > > http://www.wewalk.net/weblog/ > > > > ____________ > lanza su nueva tecnología de búsquedas > ¿te atreves a comparar? > http://busquedas..es Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 14, 2004 Report Share Posted July 14, 2004 Hello, The only way to overcome anger and hate is loving acceptance and the realization that forgiveness is ( must be ) automatic. Kind Regards, Scott. > > The only way to defeat an adversary is to love him, > > help him and wish him all the best. > > I have a better idea. I much, much better idea. At least I think it > is a much better idea. Any adversary or friend, any good thing or bad > thing, any hopes for the future, any fears for the future, any > desires, longings, hopings, anxieties, restlessness, frustration, > happiness, anger, hatred, nervousness, boredome, bitterness, > jealousy, guilt, shame, or pride. All of that exists as thoughts and > emotions. Here is the trick: let all thinking and emotions become > unimportant to you. This is the most difficult thing to do and at the > same time the easiest thing to do. > > /AL > > > > > > > http://www.wewalk.net > > > > http://www.wewalk.net/weblog/ > > > > > > > > ____________ > > lanza su nueva tecnologú} de búsquedas > > ¿te atreves a comparar? > > http://busquedas..es Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 15, 2004 Report Share Posted July 15, 2004 For those who cannot neglect the thoughts - as anders suggests simply ask who is my adversary ??? Is it the body of the person ?? or is it the mind/attitude - of the person - if there is realization that it is not body of the person then u cease from physical violence and then u r face to face with the real problem ...to deal with the minds/thoughts anders_lindman [anders_lindman] Thursday, July 15, 2004 1:00 AM Nisargadatta Re: Defeating oneself Nisargadatta , Caminamos <caminamosnet> wrote: > > The only way to defeat an adversary is to love him, > help him and wish him all the best. I have a better idea. I much, much better idea. At least I think it is a much better idea. Any adversary or friend, any good thing or bad thing, any hopes for the future, any fears for the future, any desires, longings, hopings, anxieties, restlessness, frustration, happiness, anger, hatred, nervousness, boredome, bitterness, jealousy, guilt, shame, or pride. All of that exists as thoughts and emotions. Here is the trick: let all thinking and emotions become unimportant to you. This is the most difficult thing to do and at the same time the easiest thing to do. /AL > > > http://www.wewalk.net > > http://www.wewalk.net/weblog/ > > > > ____________ > lanza su nueva tecnología de búsquedas > ¿te atreves a comparar? > http://busquedas..es ** If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: /mygroups?edit=1 Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 15, 2004 Report Share Posted July 15, 2004 Hiyee!! This topic is interesting. Ive thought a little bit about it, read some of the stuff and thus sharing some of thoughts which have come and gone through my mind Here goes some of my " gyan " ... The wonder of being a human is the unique freedom offered to you through your separation and distance from every other person and being. This is the freedom to feel completion within and by yourself. Yet in order to feel this fullness that is inherent in us, rather than seeking liberation, we unconsciously bind ourselves in external fetters. We cling to possessions and people, and look for certainty in circumstances and relationships in the belief that these will bring us fulfillment. We are happy or sad depending on how these elements follow " our plan " . If they do, we feel 'in control'; if they don't, as often happens, we are disappointed, and we become full of resentment, bitterness and self-pity. Many of us live out our lives in secret spaces of grief and guilt. Unknowingly, we enjoy inhabiting these spaces. While we may proclaim that we long to be joyous and free of fears, doubts, hurt and sadness, if we were to honestly look within, we may find we do just the opposite. We nourish hurt, often proudly displaying it; we feel loyal if we refuse to shed the loss of someone passing; we carry the cross of guilt, unable to forgive ourselves or others for perceived transgressions; we 'responsibly' worry and fret. Can we choose to be joyful, free of fear and worry? ( Why try to steer the OCEAN aye aye Anders? ) Can we remain unaffected by circumstances? And what about letting go of deeply inflicted hurt and pain? Would that not mean cheaply letting off the hook someone who deserves to be punished? Can we choose our emotional states? hmmmm... I dont know if a human is " supposed " to do all that :- ) but we can try. M Scott Andersen <sga_email wrote: Hello, The only way to overcome anger and hate is loving acceptance and the realization that forgiveness is ( must be ) automatic. Kind Regards, Scott. > > The only way to defeat an adversary is to love him, > > help him and wish him all the best. > > I have a better idea. I much, much better idea. At least I think it > is a much better idea. Any adversary or friend, any good thing or bad > thing, any hopes for the future, any fears for the future, any > desires, longings, hopings, anxieties, restlessness, frustration, > happiness, anger, hatred, nervousness, boredome, bitterness, > jealousy, guilt, shame, or pride. All of that exists as thoughts and > emotions. Here is the trick: let all thinking and emotions become > unimportant to you. This is the most difficult thing to do and at the > same time the easiest thing to do. > > /AL > > > > > > > http://www.wewalk.net > > > > http://www.wewalk.net/weblog/ > > > > > > > > ____________ > > lanza su nueva tecnologú} de búsquedas > > ¿te atreves a comparar? > > http://busquedas..es ** If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: /mygroups?edit=1 Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 15, 2004 Report Share Posted July 15, 2004 Nisargadatta , Masti <mastteddy> wrote: > Hiyee!! > > This topic is interesting. Ive thought a little bit about it, read some of the stuff and thus sharing some of thoughts which have come and gone through my mind Here goes some of my " gyan " ... > > The wonder of being a human is the unique freedom offered to you through > your separation and distance from every other person and being. This is the > freedom to feel completion within and by yourself. > > Yet in order to feel this fullness that is inherent in us, rather than > seeking liberation, we unconsciously bind ourselves in external fetters. > We cling to possessions and people, and look for certainty in circumstances > and relationships in the belief that these will bring us fulfillment. > > We are happy or sad depending on how these elements follow " our plan " . If > they do, we feel 'in control'; if they don't, as often happens, we are > disappointed, and we become full of resentment, bitterness and self- pity. > > Many of us live out our lives in secret spaces of grief and guilt. Unknowingly, we enjoy inhabiting these spaces. While we may proclaim that we long to be joyous and free of fears, doubts, hurt and sadness, if we were to honestly look within, we may find we do just the opposite. We nourish hurt, often proudly displaying it; we feel loyal if we refuse to > shed the loss of someone passing; we carry the cross of guilt, unable to forgive ourselves or others for perceived transgressions; we 'responsibly' worry and fret. > > Can we choose to be joyful, free of fear and worry? ( Why try to steer the OCEAN aye aye Anders? ) Can we remain unaffected by circumstances? And what about letting go of deeply inflicted hurt and pain? Would that not mean cheaply letting off the hook someone who > deserves to be punished? Can we choose our emotional states? > > hmmmm... I dont know if a human is " supposed " to do all that > > :- ) but we can try. > > M Hi there, It is interesting that you mentioned letting someone deserving punishment go. This is exactly why we have revenge. The emotion called revenge is a mechanical regulating factor in our society. Many movies and books are leaning on revenge in order to create valid stories and scripts. Revenge makes us put great effort, time and even money on somebody or some organization who we believe is not worth a damn thing! You see the joke in this? Even criminals make great effort in movies in order to get revenge. See? When we try to steer the ocean, then it is only a regulating process in the human body/mind we observe. This is the ego in 'action'. The ego is the thinking and emotions going on in a human being. And the ego needs grief and guilt in order to maintain its illusion of separation. /AL > > Scott Andersen <sga_email> wrote: > > Hello, > > The only way to overcome anger and hate is loving acceptance and the > realization that forgiveness is ( must be ) automatic. > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. > > > > > The only way to defeat an adversary is to love him, > > > help him and wish him all the best. > > > > I have a better idea. I much, much better idea. At least I think it > > is a much better idea. Any adversary or friend, any good thing or > bad > > thing, any hopes for the future, any fears for the future, any > > desires, longings, hopings, anxieties, restlessness, frustration, > > happiness, anger, hatred, nervousness, boredome, bitterness, > > jealousy, guilt, shame, or pride. All of that exists as thoughts > and > > emotions. Here is the trick: let all thinking and emotions become > > unimportant to you. This is the most difficult thing to do and at > the > > same time the easiest thing to do. > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.wewalk.net > > > > > > http://www.wewalk.net/weblog/ > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ > > > lanza su nueva tecnologú} de búsquedas > > > ¿te atreves a comparar? > > > http://busquedas..es > > > > ** > > If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: > > /mygroups?edit=1 > > Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 15, 2004 Report Share Posted July 15, 2004 Hi again, This is the ego in 'action'. The > ego is the thinking and emotions going on in a human being. And the > ego needs grief and guilt in order to maintain its illusion of > separation. Why stop at 'grief and guilt' The ego doesn't *need* to maintain the illusion, the ME IS the illusion. Kind Regards, Scott Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 15, 2004 Report Share Posted July 15, 2004 Hi Anders, My thought of today is dedicated to you... Indifference is a powerful and useful shield, and Love is the perfect sword, which opens springs of joy wherever it touchs. Message: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 19:30:13 -0000 " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman Re: Defeating oneself Nisargadatta , Caminamos <caminamosnet> wrote: > > The only way to defeat an adversary is to love him, > help him and wish him all the best. I have a better idea. I much, much better idea. At least I think it is a much better idea. Any adversary or friend, any good thing or bad thing, any hopes for the future, any fears for the future, any desires, longings, hopings, anxieties, restlessness, frustration, happiness, anger, hatred, nervousness, boredome, bitterness, jealousy, guilt, shame, or pride. All of that exists as thoughts and emotions. Here is the trick: let all thinking and emotions become unimportant to you. This is the most difficult thing to do and at the same time the easiest thing to do. /AL > > > http://www.wewalk.net > > http://www.wewalk.net/weblog/ > ____________ lanza su nueva tecnología de búsquedas ¿te atreves a comparar? http://busquedas..es Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 15, 2004 Report Share Posted July 15, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi again, > > This is the ego in 'action'. The > > ego is the thinking and emotions going on in a human being. And the > > ego needs grief and guilt in order to maintain its illusion of > > separation. > > > Why stop at 'grief and guilt' > > The ego doesn't *need* to maintain the illusion, the ME IS the > illusion. Maybe there is a state of oneness possible to be experienced. I mean, we *are* the universe, and why would not the universe want to experience itself as the universe? /AL > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 15, 2004 Report Share Posted July 15, 2004 Nisargadatta , Caminamos <caminamosnet> wrote: > > Hi Anders, > > My thought of today is dedicated to you... > > Indifference is a powerful and useful shield, and Love > is the perfect sword, which opens springs of joy > wherever it touchs. The state of indifference is a double illusion, and yes creates a double shield. The state of Indifference brings true Compassion. Maybe there is a state of oneness possible to be experienced. I mean, we *are* the universe, and why would not the universe want to experience itself as the universe? The thinking mind and Love are incompatible as long as there is double-thinking going on; a 'me' being a thinker. The 'me' is only concerned about its future 'me'. There is no such thing as a future 'me', so the 'me' can never touch Love which is life happening in the present moment. We can say that the 'me' is Love hiding from itself. Remove the future 'me' and the 'me' will touch the spring of joy. /AL > > Message: > Wed, 14 Jul 2004 19:30:13 -0000 > " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> > Re: Defeating oneself > > Nisargadatta , Caminamos > <caminamosnet> > wrote: > > > > The only way to defeat an adversary is to love him, > > help him and wish him all the best. > > I have a better idea. I much, much better idea. At > least I think it > is a much better idea. Any adversary or friend, any > good thing or bad > thing, any hopes for the future, any fears for the > future, any > desires, longings, hopings, anxieties, restlessness, > frustration, > happiness, anger, hatred, nervousness, boredome, > bitterness, > jealousy, guilt, shame, or pride. All of that exists > as thoughts and > emotions. Here is the trick: let all thinking and > emotions become > unimportant to you. This is the most difficult thing > to do and at the > same time the easiest thing to do. > > /AL > > > > > > > http://www.wewalk.net > > > > http://www.wewalk.net/weblog/ > ____________ > lanza su nueva tecnología de búsquedas > ¿te atreves a comparar? > http://busquedas..es Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 15, 2004 Report Share Posted July 15, 2004 Hi again, > > The ego doesn't *need* to maintain the illusion, the ME IS the > > illusion. > > Maybe there is a state of oneness possible to be experienced. I mean, > we *are* the universe> *We* are not the universe. and why would not the universe want to > experience itself as the universe? The universe cannot want to do. Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 2004 Report Share Posted July 16, 2004 Remove the future 'me' and the 'me' will touch the spring of joy. /AL You are absolutely correct Anders!! regards M Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 2004 Report Share Posted July 16, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi again, > > > > The ego doesn't *need* to maintain the illusion, the ME IS the > > > illusion. > > > > Maybe there is a state of oneness possible to be experienced. I > mean, > > we *are* the universe> > > > *We* are not the universe. > > > and why would not the universe want to > > experience itself as the universe? > > > The universe cannot want to do. > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. I repeat: we are the universe. People think that it is humans who have created the computer, Jeans and Mc Donald's, but it is the universe who is the creator of everything. People think that the universe is the universe *plus* themselves, but they *are* the universe. When you have a thought, do you really believe it is 'you' who have created that thought?! /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 2004 Report Share Posted July 16, 2004 Hi again, > I repeat: we are the universe. *WE*, you and me, are not the universe. People think that it is humans who > have created the computer, Jeans and Mc Donald's, but it is the > universe who is the creator of everything> There is only one 'creator' and that is 'mind'. People think that the > universe is the universe *plus* themselves, but they *are* the > universe. A person is not the universe, it is not correct to say that we as MEs are the whole. > When you have a thought, do you really believe it is 'you' who have > created that thought?! No, most definitely not Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 17, 2004 Report Share Posted July 17, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi again, > > > I repeat: we are the universe. > > *WE*, you and me, are not the universe. We are the universe. > > People think that it is humans who > > have created the computer, Jeans and Mc Donald's, but it is the > > universe who is the creator of everything> > > There is only one 'creator' and that is 'mind'. When I say universe, I mean the totality of everything including mind. > > > People think that the > > universe is the universe *plus* themselves, but they *are* the > > universe. > > A person is not the universe, it is not correct to say that we as MEs > are the whole. Perhaps it is exactly correct to say that we are the whole. > > > > When you have a thought, do you really believe it is 'you' who have > > created that thought?! > > No, most definitely not Maybe a ME can create thoughts. ;-) /AL > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 17, 2004 Report Share Posted July 17, 2004 Hi again, > > *WE*, you and me, are not the universe. > > We are the universe. Below you say that your definition of 'universe' is the totality of everything. I use the same meaning and others also to mean the same thing. *WE*, you and me are not the universe. > When I say universe, I mean the totality of everything including mind.> Yes, me also, all that is, the whole, the universe and so on. > > A person is not the universe, it is not correct to say that we as > MEs > > are the whole. > > Perhaps it is exactly correct to say that we are the whole. No. What are *WE*; you and me? We are *not* the whole. > > > When you have a thought, do you really believe it is 'you' who > have > > > created that thought?! > > > > No, most definitely not <Maybe, a ME can create thoughts?> No. A ME 'receives' thoughts, it does not create them. Thoughts are *available* to a ME. Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 17, 2004 Report Share Posted July 17, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi again, > > > > *WE*, you and me, are not the universe. > > > > We are the universe. > > > Below you say that your definition of 'universe' is the totality of > everything. I use the same meaning and others also to mean the same > thing. > > *WE*, you and me are not the universe. If we picture the universe as a tree, then a human being can be pictured as a leaf on that tree. Is a leaf the tree? Both yes and no. But what I am talking about here is the fundamental quantum 'soup' of existence where nothing is separated. Within this quantum soap a stone, a human body/mind and a leaf are the same 'thing'. /AL > > > > When I say universe, I mean the totality of everything including > mind.> > > > Yes, me also, all that is, the whole, the universe and so on. > > > > > A person is not the universe, it is not correct to say that we as > > MEs > > > are the whole. > > > > Perhaps it is exactly correct to say that we are the whole. > > > No. > > What are *WE*; you and me? > > We are *not* the whole. > > > > > > > When you have a thought, do you really believe it is 'you' who > > have > > > > created that thought?! > > > > > > No, most definitely not > > > <Maybe, a ME can create thoughts?> > > > No. > > A ME 'receives' thoughts, it does not create them. > Thoughts are *available* to a ME. > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 17, 2004 Report Share Posted July 17, 2004 Hi again, > > *WE*, you and me are not the universe. > > If we picture the universe as a tree, then a human being can be > pictured as a leaf on that tree. Is a leaf the tree? Both yes and no.> To use your example; can / does / should a leaf say it is a tree? > But what I am talking about here is the fundamental quantum 'soup' of > existence where nothing is separated. Within this quantum soap a > stone, a human body/mind and a leaf are the same 'thing'> If you are talking about 'fundamentals' it is meaningless to talk about *things* ( then ). (Because you are not talking about *things* (then)) This is the same as the apple we have spoken about which is then not 'an apple'. Kind Regards, Scott. > > /AL > > > > > > > > When I say universe, I mean the totality of everything including > > mind.> > > > > > > Yes, me also, all that is, the whole, the universe and so on. > > > > > > > > A person is not the universe, it is not correct to say that we > as > > > MEs > > > > are the whole. > > > > > > Perhaps it is exactly correct to say that we are the whole. > > > > > > No. > > > > What are *WE*; you and me? > > > > We are *not* the whole. > > > > > > > > > > > When you have a thought, do you really believe it is 'you' > who > > > have > > > > > created that thought?! > > > > > > > > No, most definitely not > > > > > > <Maybe, a ME can create thoughts?> > > > > > > No. > > > > A ME 'receives' thoughts, it does not create them. > > Thoughts are *available* to a ME. > > > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 17, 2004 Report Share Posted July 17, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > > Hi again, > > > > > *WE*, you and me are not the universe. > > > > If we picture the universe as a tree, then a human being can be > > pictured as a leaf on that tree. Is a leaf the tree? Both yes and > no.> > > > To use your example; can / does / should a leaf say it is a tree? On the level of objects, probably no. On the level of the quantum 'soup', definitely yes. > > > > But what I am talking about here is the fundamental quantum 'soup' > of > > existence where nothing is separated. Within this quantum soap a > > stone, a human body/mind and a leaf are the same 'thing'> > > > If you are talking about 'fundamentals' it is meaningless to talk > about *things* ( then ). > > (Because you are not talking about *things* (then)) > > This is the same as the apple we have spoken about which is then > not 'an apple'. Yes, this is the same thing as an apple being not a separate object. The apple *is* separate in the form of a unique expression, a unique wave in the quantum 'soup', but everything is totally interconnected with everything else. One evidence for this interconnction is space. A 'particle', in the apple or in a human being has a relative position to every other 'particles' in the universe. So even though the quantum soup maybe contains only probabilities, or possibilities for differenent states, there clearly exist interlinked correlations between these probabilities. This correlation we sometimes call structure. The world is evidently not only pure randomness, because even if it is pure randomness at the most fundamental level, there is a filtering of this random state going on which results in structure. But this structure is never separate. The structure itself is only a wave in the quantum soup. For example, the structure " 2+2 " exists only as a relative 'wave' and not as a separate system. Knowledge is structure, and when we live in this world from knowledge alone we will always feel incomplete, because the rigid structure of knowledge cannot cope with the ever changing newness in the world in a complete and total way. So we need to relax into a state that embraces knowledge and at the same time embraces *every* change in the form of a unified clarity of perception. This state of clarity is what I believe Tony parsons talks about when he says: " Clarity means confusion " (http://www.theopensecret.com/audio1.htm). And what J. Krishnamurti means by " Freedom from the known " . /AL > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. > > > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > > > > > When I say universe, I mean the totality of everything > including > > > mind.> > > > > > > > > > Yes, me also, all that is, the whole, the universe and so on. > > > > > > > > > > > A person is not the universe, it is not correct to say that > we > > as > > > > MEs > > > > > are the whole. > > > > > > > > Perhaps it is exactly correct to say that we are the whole. > > > > > > > > > No. > > > > > > What are *WE*; you and me? > > > > > > We are *not* the whole. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When you have a thought, do you really believe it is 'you' > > who > > > > have > > > > > > created that thought?! > > > > > > > > > > No, most definitely not > > > > > > > > > <Maybe, a ME can create thoughts?> > > > > > > > > > No. > > > > > > A ME 'receives' thoughts, it does not create them. > > > Thoughts are *available* to a ME. > > > > > > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > > > Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 18, 2004 Report Share Posted July 18, 2004 Hi again, > > To use your example; can / does / should a leaf say it is a tree? > > On the level of objects, probably no. On the level of the > quantum 'soup', definitely yes. At the level of 'rarified mind' where is all common, you cannot then speak of ( seperate ) objects. > > > But what I am talking about here is the fundamental > quantum 'soup' > > of > > > existence where nothing is separated. Within this quantum soap a > > > stone, a human body/mind and a leaf are the same 'thing'> > > > > > > If you are talking about 'fundamentals' it is meaningless to talk > > about *things* ( then ). > > > > (Because you are not talking about *things* (then)) > > > > This is the same as the apple we have spoken about which is then > > not 'an apple'. > > Yes, this is the same thing as an apple being not a separate object. > The apple *is* separate in the form of a unique expression, a unique > wave in the quantum 'soup', but everything is totally interconnected > with everything else> Yes. > > Knowledge is structure, and when we live in this world from knowledge > alone we will always feel incomplete, because the rigid structure of > knowledge cannot cope with the ever changing newness in the world in > a complete and total way> Knowledge restricts reality and imposes structure, so yes you could say that knowledge is structure. I know what you are getting at anyway! Kind Regards, Scott. 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.