Phil, 1/3/06 The Relative and the Absolute

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/3/2006 2:52:58 AM Pacific Standard Time, ADHHUB

writes:

 

> The Absolute, then, doesn't arise out of anything;

> it just IS. The illusion (relative) is given birth within the Absolute,

> rather than the reverse.

>

> L.E: There is no directionality in this process, this existence. It can go

>

> in either direction, or no direction. I know it's not rational, black and

> white, but it still is.

> You cannot make sense of it in ordinary state of mind, which is where you

> are, arguing about the idea of the Absolute. And that's not bad, or wrong,

>

> it's

> just that in the relative, you and I are also in the Absolute, They are

> simultaneous. It's really simple: when you shut up, you are right there in

>

> infinite existence, and when you start talking, Bang! You are back in the

> relative.

> Freaky!!!!

>

> Phil: But, Larry, you are also in the " normal " state of mind arguing about

> the Absolute. As such, here we are discussing concepts that have nothing at

> all

> to do with Absolute Truth. To use the concept of Absolute Truth to try to

> nullify a concept is just tail chasing. We either conceptualize or we remain

>

> silent. We can't do both at once.

 

L.E. I'm not getting my point across very clearly or you are not able or

willing to understand it. I'm sorry if it is my limitation.

 

Phil: As such, here we are discussing concepts that have nothing at all

to do with Absolute Truth. To use the concept of Absolute Truth to try to

nullify a concept is just tail chasing. We either conceptualize or we remain

 

silent. We can't do both at once.

 

L.E. If Asolute Truth cannot be discussed then why are we talking to each

other and why are you wasting your time? Are you sincere in this discussion or

is it another game of " catch you if I can. " We are conceptualizing in the

realm of the limited and ordinary. That is obvous, and I agree, maybe we can't

discuss it, but we can BE IT simultaneously.

 

> As far as being in the Absolute and the relative at once, of course. I

> never

> had a problem with that because I never separated them in time or space to

> begin with. It appears to me that you want to insist that you're a human

> while

> embracing your Absolute nature at the same time. Perhaps this is what makes

> it necessary for you to equate the relative and the Absolute. You don't

> exist

> as a volitional human being, you only exist in, and as, the Absolute. The

> human is contained in what you are. You don't need to see yourself in two

> places

> at once. You are no place, Now.

 

L.E; I do exist as a " volitional human being " but this is what the Absolute

is expressing or doing, or dreaming, that I am a " volitional human being' "

having this conversation. I am writing this in my present sense of the moment,

saying that the human is embraced in the Absolute and the Absolute is

expressing the human, me. Isn't that obvious to you?. Why do you make an

argument

about it? What do you think about it for yourself?

 

> It's important to know who the mommy is. It keeps the

> youngins from trying to create God.

>

> L.E. I know your rational mind, your ordinary state of consciousness wants

> the beginning to be in the beginning and then the middle, and then the end.

>

> You want it to make ordinary sense and be sure who is the mommy, who is the

>

> daddy, and who is the child. You can't do this in the state of the

> Absolute, only in the ordinary.

>

> Phil: Welcome to the ordinary, Larry. That's where this conversation is

> taking place. It had a beginning, this is the middle, and there will be an

> end.

> To deny this is so in the conversation that can exist only in that

> framework

> is absurd. Like writing out a long dissertation attempting to prove that

> pens

> don't exist. The effort is doomed by the effort itself.

>

L.E: You don't need to tell me that, I know this is taking place in the

ordinary state of mind. I said, beginning, middle and end take place in the

ordinary, but not in the absolute. I'm not attempting to prove that pens don't

exist. You're not understanding me very well. Again, I am sorry if it is my

limitation. " You are no place, Now " you say. This is true from the Absolute,

but not from the relative. Writing is a linear process, but existence is not.

At the same time both exist, in time from the relative and out of time as the

Absolute. Why is this so hard to underestand? That's about as clear as I

can get.

 

Larry Epston

www.epston.com