Mario's Wholeness

[Guest guest]

> Hi Marios,

 

 

My English does not help me much,but i will try to explain to you my

opinion,about what or who is in prison.(When I use the word prison i

refer to something that is not the wholeness,but part of it).

 

 

ººKip: I think your English is fine. I was wondering if the concept

of wholeness could under certain circumstances constitutes a prison,

too.

 

 

 

Nothing is in " prison " ,but our wrong concepts,about the " real " and

the " unreal " ,our wrong imagination about self and SELF,creates the

indentification,the prison feelings etc.

 

 

ººKip: Reality is the most mystical thing I can imagine. What is the

difference between self and SELF for you? Since when are

imaginations wrong or correct? They are what they are, imaginations.

Even identification has its function in our development as human

beings. The emergence of a subject is unshirkable and actually

worthwhile. It is required in our socio-cultural environment. The

question is, what to do with at the moment, it is recognized as an

obstacle.

 

 

And now at the point:

 

In the Absolute there is no one who is aware of any existance.There

is no also a " knowledge " of an Impersonal existance.

 

In the I AM state there is the feeling-knowledge-awareness, of the

IMPERSONAL existance.And.......

 

......everything concious has a " line " where it starts or

ends,everything concious is " something " ,even if this " something " is

impersonal.And here is the " prison " .We say " I EXIST " ,I AM.We say,we

feel, (impersonally),something.And this something has lines,as

any " something " use to has.

 

 

ººKip: Sure. " I am " is finite. Relative. Common to all living

creatures.

 

 

For existing the existance, of the feeling of existance,must be

something there which has this feeling.....a mind,or something,even

impersonal.(I am not refering to an ego-body

here).This " something " start to have ideas,about an existance.

 

 

ººKip: Correct!

 

 

For my opinion,there would not be freedom or liberation,if this

liberation had the quality of something which can be known even with

the quality of an impersonal knowledge(the knowledge of the I

AM).Because ,at this situation,that which can be known,is a part of

the " known-unknown " wholeness,and not the wholeness itself.

 

 

ººKip: May I tape your teachings, when you reach freedom and

liberation?

 

 

So ,i agree with Pete to this point...

 

And i have not problem to call it " unconcious " or " unknown " ,if i am

aware that i am not refering, with the word " uknown or

unconscious " ,....to something subconscious(which for my opinion

belongs to the state of consciousness),

 

 

ººKip: Aaaah! The subconscious. I follow here Lacan´s concept; It is

something transpersonal. Somehow borderless. With every word we

utter we create unconscious or subconscious. Like the perceived

harmony when listen to music.

 

I tend to use a little Lacan-based-sadhana, oriented on the concept

that all utterances " exteriorations " are defense reactions. Before I

uttered something I asked myself: " what **lacks** in what I come to

utter or to say now? " I noticed that, what lacks, is actually that,

what I was trying to defend sub or unconsciously. It is a nice

practice. There is no need to change the first utterance, but you

become more aware, of what you actually are willing to say.

 

 

 

but,that i am refering to the beyond from anything conscious or

subconscious....

 

.....Absolute.

 

 

ººKip: What lacks here?

 

 

 

Kip Almazy