Guest guest Posted February 13, 2006 Report Share Posted February 13, 2006 In a message dated 2/13/2006 11:37:25 AM Pacific Standard Time, adithya_comming writes: > > It is not the " I am " that is false, > but what you take yourself to be. I can > see, beyond the least shadow of doubt, > that you are not what you believe > yourself to be. > > ~Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj L.E: Do most people " believe " themselves to be other than what they are? Is the belief an essential part of it. Are they guessing as in, " I believe it is true, " or assuming, or taking as true something that is not true? And what is that, that they believe, that they exists as a separate entity? That they have a distinct and unique history and existence? And if they have this " belief, " who or what has it? Life, the Universe, existence, humanity? And then, so what, everyone has a head, two arms and a liver, mostly. They didn't put it there themselves, not as an ego, yet the ego has grown out of the body just as sure as the head has grown out of the neck. The ego or I Am self is just a natural outgrowth of a person, like a rosebud on a bush. Now perhaps the rose doesn't realize it is part of a plant that stretches into the ground, but so what? It is still as much of a rose as a rose that may be aware of its roots. No more, no less. Larry Epston Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 13, 2006 Report Share Posted February 13, 2006 In a message dated 2/13/2006 11:39:42 AM Pacific Standard Time, adithya_comming writes: Nisargardatta writes: Changes are inevitable in the > changeful, but you are not subject to > them. You are the changeless > background, against which changes are > perceived. > > L.E: Notice that the changeless background " perceives. " And if it does not > perceived because it is changeless then who or what is the perceiver? > If the background which he says we are does not change as ordinary life > proceeds what is going on? Why does changing life proceed against a changeless > background? > This is the image of the motion picture screen on which the movie is played > but does not change the movie screen. It compares ordinary life to a > projected image that appears to move but has no life of its own, or at all. He says > he knows he is like the movie screen but not the movie. One problem is that > projected characters in a movie do not have any independent thoughts or > feelings as we do, or inner thoughts as we do. And they can be replayed over and > over where our lives never repeat anything. Our lives are not like projected > images on a screen, and our true identity cannot be that of the changeless > screen. It makes no sense and cannot be true, accurate or real. > Also, the screen has no life of its own and is only a surface where light is > bounced through a film that is turning in a projector that is operated by a > human. The movies only exists because of the relationship of the film and > the light bulb and the mechanical projector that moves the film through it. > Every part of the situation changes and moves: the projector, the film, the > light and even the person running the film. They all age, deteriorate and run > down. Even the changelss screen sits in the air and is oxidizing and > deteriorating and the movie itself is changing as the screen, the film, light and > projector is slowly changing. > So the whole image of the changeless background is faulty and doesn't > describe what life is about. > > Larry Epston > www.epston.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 13, 2006 Report Share Posted February 13, 2006 .... It is not the " I am " that is false, but what you take yourself to be. I can see, beyond the least shadow of doubt, that you are not what you believe yourself to be. ~Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj [ NNB ] Nisargadatta , Pete S <pedsie4 wrote: > > Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj: > > " As the Absolute, > you were free from all concepts, > including the primary concept " I Am " . > > You did not have this concept " I Am " > in the course of the nine months > in the womb. > > Understand this state of affairs; > the concept " I Am " > comes spontaneously and > goes spontaneously. > > Amazingly, when it appears, > it is accepted as real. > > All subsequent misconceptions > arise from that feeling of reality > in the " I Amness " . > > Why am I totally free? > > Because I have understood > the unreality of that 'I Am'. " > > ~Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj from > " Consciousness and the Absolute " > > > As I Am, > > M > ---------- > > zie > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 13, 2006 Report Share Posted February 13, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Arvind " <adithya_comming wrote: > > ... > > It is not the " I am " that is false, > but what you take yourself to be. I can > see, beyond the least shadow of doubt, > that you are not what you believe > yourself to be. Why not investigate the very idea of body? Does the mind appear in the body or the body in the mind? Surely there must be a mind to conceive the " I-am- the-body " idea. A body without a mind cannot be 'my body'. 'My body' is invariably absent when the mind is in abeyance. It is also absent when the mind is deeply engaged in thoughts and feelings. The perceived cannot be the perceiver. Whatever you see, hear or think of, remember - you are not what happens, you are he to whom it happens. When you realize that the distinction between inner and outer is in the mind only, you are no longer afraid. You are not in the body, the body is in you! The mind is in you. They happen to you. They are there because you find them interesting. Changes are inevitable in the changeful, but you are not subject to them. You are the changeless background, against which changes are perceived. ~Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj [ NNB ] > > > > > Nisargadatta , Pete S <pedsie4@> wrote: > > > > Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj: > > > > " As the Absolute, > > you were free from all concepts, > > including the primary concept " I Am " . > > > > You did not have this concept " I Am " > > in the course of the nine months > > in the womb. > > > > Understand this state of affairs; > > the concept " I Am " > > comes spontaneously and > > goes spontaneously. > > > > Amazingly, when it appears, > > it is accepted as real. > > > > All subsequent misconceptions > > arise from that feeling of reality > > in the " I Amness " . > > > > Why am I totally free? > > > > Because I have understood > > the unreality of that 'I Am'. " > > > > ~Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj from > > " Consciousness and the Absolute " > > > > > > As I Am, > > > > M > > ---------- > > > > zie > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 14, 2006 Report Share Posted February 14, 2006 yes but..Does the Rose exhude lovely fragrance or does it smell? Because if it forgot its roots it won`t smell good, it will only look good. That isn`t enough! --- epston a écrit : In a message dated 2/13/2006 11:37:25 AM Pacific Standard Time, adithya_comming writes: > > It is not the " I am " that is false, > but what you take yourself to be. I can > see, beyond the least shadow of doubt, > that you are not what you believe > yourself to be. > > ~Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj L.E: Do most people " believe " themselves to be other than what they are? Is the belief an essential part of it. Are they guessing as in, " I believe it is true, " or assuming, or taking as true something that is not true? And what is that, that they believe, that they exists as a separate entity? That they have a distinct and unique history and existence? And if they have this " belief, " who or what has it? Life, the Universe, existence, humanity? And then, so what, everyone has a head, two arms and a liver, mostly. They didn't put it there themselves, not as an ego, yet the ego has grown out of the body just as sure as the head has grown out of the neck. The ego or I Am self is just a natural outgrowth of a person, like a rosebud on a bush. Now perhaps the rose doesn't realize it is part of a plant that stretches into the ground, but so what? It is still as much of a rose as a rose that may be aware of its roots. No more, no less. Larry Epston Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 14, 2006 Report Share Posted February 14, 2006 In a message dated 2/13/2006 8:44:45 PM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: epston Re: Re: I Am / Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj In a message dated 2/13/2006 11:39:42 AM Pacific Standard Time, adithya_comming writes: Nisargardatta writes: Changes are inevitable in the > changeful, but you are not subject to > them. You are the changeless > background, against which changes are > perceived. > > L.E: Notice that the changeless background " perceives. " And if it does not > perceived because it is changeless then who or what is the perceiver? > If the background which he says we are does not change as ordinary life > proceeds what is going on? Why does changing life proceed against a changeless > background? This caught my attention, but I'm not clear why it's a problem. Why is it not possible to have a changeless background that perceives change? The background identifies with it's own partial reflection. The totality from which the reflection originates need not change in this experiential identification. Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 15, 2006 Report Share Posted February 15, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 2/13/2006 8:44:45 PM Pacific Standard Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > epston > Re: Re: I Am / Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj > > In a message dated 2/13/2006 11:39:42 AM Pacific Standard Time, > adithya_comming writes: > > > Nisargardatta writes: > > Changes are inevitable in the > > changeful, but you are not subject to > > them. You are the changeless > > background, against which changes are > > perceived. > > > > L.E: Notice that the changeless background " perceives. " And if it does > not > > perceived because it is changeless then who or what is the perceiver? > > If the background which he says we are does not change as ordinary life > > proceeds what is going on? Why does changing life proceed against a > changeless > > background? > > > > > > This caught my attention, but I'm not clear why it's a problem. Why is it > not possible to have a changeless background that perceives change? The > background identifies with it's own partial reflection. The totality from which the > reflection originates need not change in this experiential identification. > > Phil Let's look at Niz's statement again: " You are the changeless background, against which changes are perceived. " Larry asks us to " Notice that the changeless background " perceives. " " Do you see the problem now? " Silver " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 15, 2006 Report Share Posted February 15, 2006 Nisargadatta , " s_i_l_v_e_r1069 " <silver- 1069 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 2/13/2006 8:44:45 PM Pacific Standard Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > epston@ > > Re: Re: I Am / Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj > > > > In a message dated 2/13/2006 11:39:42 AM Pacific Standard Time, > > adithya_comming@ writes: > > > > > > Nisargardatta writes: > > > > Changes are inevitable in the > > > changeful, but you are not subject to > > > them. You are the changeless > > > background, against which changes are > > > perceived. > > > > > > L.E: Notice that the changeless background " perceives. " And if > it does > > not > > > perceived because it is changeless then who or what is the > perceiver? > > > If the background which he says we are does not change as > ordinary life > > > proceeds what is going on? Why does changing life proceed > against a > > changeless > > > background? > > > > > > > > > > > > This caught my attention, but I'm not clear why it's a problem. Why > is it > > not possible to have a changeless background that perceives change? > The > > background identifies with it's own partial reflection. The > totality from which the > > reflection originates need not change in this experiential > identification. > > > > Phil > > Let's look at Niz's statement again: " You are the changeless > background, against which changes are perceived. " > > Larry asks us to " Notice that the changeless background " perceives. " " > > Do you see the problem now? > > " Silver " > i do prefer Nisargadatta's statement, but both are good in pointing to nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 16, 2006 Report Share Posted February 16, 2006 In a message dated 2/15/2006 8:20:12 AM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: " s_i_l_v_e_r1069 " <silver-1069 Re: I Am / Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 2/13/2006 8:44:45 PM Pacific Standard Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > epston > Re: Re: I Am / Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj > > In a message dated 2/13/2006 11:39:42 AM Pacific Standard Time, > adithya_comming writes: > > > Nisargardatta writes: > > Changes are inevitable in the > > changeful, but you are not subject to > > them. You are the changeless > > background, against which changes are > > perceived. > > > > L.E: Notice that the changeless background " perceives. " And if it does > not > > perceived because it is changeless then who or what is the perceiver? > > If the background which he says we are does not change as ordinary life > > proceeds what is going on? Why does changing life proceed against a > changeless > > background? > > > > > > This caught my attention, but I'm not clear why it's a problem. Why is it > not possible to have a changeless background that perceives change? The > background identifies with it's own partial reflection. The totality from which the > reflection originates need not change in this experiential identification. > > Phil Let's look at Niz's statement again: " You are the changeless background, against which changes are perceived. " Larry asks us to " Notice that the changeless background " perceives. " " Do you see the problem now? " Silver " Um.....no, I don't see the problem. The changeless background creates a dreamscape in which perception occurs, and proceeds to identify with the dream character. The changeless background is doing the perceiving by virtue of it's identification with it's own dream. Why does this have to change the changeless background? Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 16, 2006 Report Share Posted February 16, 2006 You are like a blank piece of paper upon which the word is written, an untainted canvas upon which the painting is struck, an uncarved block of marble out of which the statue is chiseled, an unanimated cinema screen against which the motion picture is projected. You are blank, untainted, uncarved, unanimated and unmanifested potential. You are the changeless background against which illusory changes appear and disappear, unmanifested potential out of which actualized manifestations arise and subside. " Silver " Nisargadatta , " s_i_l_v_e_r1069 " <silver- 1069 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 2/13/2006 8:44:45 PM Pacific Standard Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > epston@ > > Re: Re: I Am / Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj > > > > In a message dated 2/13/2006 11:39:42 AM Pacific Standard Time, > > adithya_comming@ writes: > > > > > > Nisargardatta writes: > > > > Changes are inevitable in the > > > changeful, but you are not subject to > > > them. You are the changeless > > > background, against which changes are > > > perceived. > > > > > > L.E: Notice that the changeless background " perceives. " And if > it does > > not > > > perceived because it is changeless then who or what is the > perceiver? > > > If the background which he says we are does not change as > ordinary life > > > proceeds what is going on? Why does changing life proceed > against a > > changeless > > > background? > > > > > > > > > > > > This caught my attention, but I'm not clear why it's a problem. Why > is it > > not possible to have a changeless background that perceives change? > The > > background identifies with it's own partial reflection. The > totality from which the > > reflection originates need not change in this experiential > identification. > > > > Phil > > Let's look at Niz's statement again: " You are the changeless > background, against which changes are perceived. " > > Larry asks us to " Notice that the changeless background " perceives. " " > > Do you see the problem now? > > " Silver " ************** You are like a blank piece of paper upon which the word is written, an untainted canvas upon which the painting is struck, an uncarved block of marble out of which the statue is chiseled, an unanimated cinema screen against which the motion picture is projected. You are blank, untainted, uncarved, unanimated and unmanifested potential. You are the changeless background against which illusory changes appear and disappear, unmanifested potential out of which actualized manifestations arise and subside. " Silver " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 16, 2006 Report Share Posted February 16, 2006 Nisargadatta , " bigwaaba " <bigwaaba wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " s_i_l_v_e_r1069 " <silver- > 1069@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 2/13/2006 8:44:45 PM Pacific Standard Time, > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > epston@ > > > Re: Re: I Am / Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj > > > > > > In a message dated 2/13/2006 11:39:42 AM Pacific Standard Time, > > > adithya_comming@ writes: > > > > > > > > > Nisargardatta writes: > > > > > > Changes are inevitable in the > > > > changeful, but you are not subject to > > > > them. You are the changeless > > > > background, against which changes are > > > > perceived. > > > > > > > > L.E: Notice that the changeless background " perceives. " And > if > > it does > > > not > > > > perceived because it is changeless then who or what is the > > perceiver? > > > > If the background which he says we are does not change as > > ordinary life > > > > proceeds what is going on? Why does changing life proceed > > against a > > > changeless > > > > background? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This caught my attention, but I'm not clear why it's a problem. > Why > > is it > > > not possible to have a changeless background that perceives > change? > > The > > > background identifies with it's own partial reflection. The > > totality from which the > > > reflection originates need not change in this experiential > > identification. > > > > > > Phil > > > > Let's look at Niz's statement again: " You are the changeless > > background, against which changes are perceived. " > > > > Larry asks us to " Notice that the changeless > background " perceives. " " > > > > Do you see the problem now? > > > > " Silver " > > > > i do prefer Nisargadatta's statement, but both are good in pointing > to nothing. > ************* Niz's statement points to Reality while Larry's is a misunderstanding of both the statement and Reality. *shrug* " Silver " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 16, 2006 Report Share Posted February 16, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 2/15/2006 8:20:12 AM Pacific Standard Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > " s_i_l_v_e_r1069 " <silver-1069 > Re: I Am / Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 2/13/2006 8:44:45 PM Pacific Standard Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > epston@ > > Re: Re: I Am / Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj > > > > In a message dated 2/13/2006 11:39:42 AM Pacific Standard Time, > > adithya_comming@ writes: > > > > > > Nisargardatta writes: > > > > Changes are inevitable in the > > > changeful, but you are not subject to > > > them. You are the changeless > > > background, against which changes are > > > perceived. > > > > > > L.E: Notice that the changeless background " perceives. " And if > it does > > not > > > perceived because it is changeless then who or what is the > perceiver? > > > If the background which he says we are does not change as > ordinary life > > > proceeds what is going on? Why does changing life proceed > against a > > changeless > > > background? > > > > > > > > > > > > This caught my attention, but I'm not clear why it's a problem. Why > is it > > not possible to have a changeless background that perceives change? > The > > background identifies with it's own partial reflection. The > totality from which the > > reflection originates need not change in this experiential > identification. > > > > Phil > > Let's look at Niz's statement again: " You are the changeless > background, against which changes are perceived. " > > Larry asks us to " Notice that the changeless background " perceives. " " > > Do you see the problem now? > > " Silver " > > > > > Um.....no, I don't see the problem. The changeless background creates a > dreamscape in which perception occurs, and proceeds to identify with the dream > character. The changeless background is doing the perceiving by virtue of it's > identification with it's own dream. Why does this have to change the > changeless background? > > Phil ************ In different words, Niz said the background makes perception possible. Larry said the background is that which does the perceiving. For the non-identity of the changeless background to go from non-identity to identity requires a change in the changeless background. You see? So, it's not the changeless background that does the identifying, perceiving, creating or changing. It just allows for it all to happen. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. " Silver " " Silver " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 16, 2006 Report Share Posted February 16, 2006 In a message dated 2/15/2006 9:16:45 PM Pacific Standard Time, > Um.....no, I don't see the problem. The changeless background creates a > dreamscape in which perception occurs, and proceeds to identify with the > dream > character. The changeless background is doing the perceiving by virtue of > it's > identification with it's own dream. Why does this have to change the > changeless background? > > Phil > L.E: Phil, you refuse to see the obvious. A changeless background doesn't create anything because creating is changing. It can't proceed to identify anything, because identification is changing. It can't be doing anything, because that is changing, it can't identify with a dream, because that is changing. To ask at the end of oll this changing why does it change anything is blind to the obvious. If the changelss background is having a dream, tha't's changing. How can it be having a dream and stay the same? What then is the purpose of the dream? Also if you have a dream, then time exists. Dreams have beginnings, middles, and endingss. Nisargardatta says the background is changeless. I suppose that means changeless. If our real identity is the changeless background, the whole image has a problem. Larry lEpston www.epston.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 16, 2006 Report Share Posted February 16, 2006 In a message dated 2/16/2006 12:18:37 AM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: " s_i_l_v_e_r1069 " <silver-1069 Re: I Am / Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 2/15/2006 8:20:12 AM Pacific Standard Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > " s_i_l_v_e_r1069 " <silver-1069 > Re: I Am / Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 2/13/2006 8:44:45 PM Pacific Standard Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > epston@ > > Re: Re: I Am / Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj > > > > In a message dated 2/13/2006 11:39:42 AM Pacific Standard Time, > > adithya_comming@ writes: > > > > > > Nisargardatta writes: > > > > Changes are inevitable in the > > > changeful, but you are not subject to > > > them. You are the changeless > > > background, against which changes are > > > perceived. > > > > > > L.E: Notice that the changeless background " perceives. " And if > it does > > not > > > perceived because it is changeless then who or what is the > perceiver? > > > If the background which he says we are does not change as > ordinary life > > > proceeds what is going on? Why does changing life proceed > against a > > changeless > > > background? > > > > > > > > > > > > This caught my attention, but I'm not clear why it's a problem. Why > is it > > not possible to have a changeless background that perceives change? > The > > background identifies with it's own partial reflection. The > totality from which the > > reflection originates need not change in this experiential > identification. > > > > Phil > > Let's look at Niz's statement again: " You are the changeless > background, against which changes are perceived. " > > Larry asks us to " Notice that the changeless background " perceives. " " > > Do you see the problem now? > > " Silver " > > > > > Um.....no, I don't see the problem. The changeless background creates a > dreamscape in which perception occurs, and proceeds to identify with the dream > character. The changeless background is doing the perceiving by virtue of it's > identification with it's own dream. Why does this have to change the > changeless background? > > Phil ************ In different words, Niz said the background makes perception possible. Larry said the background is that which does the perceiving. For the non-identity of the changeless background to go from non-identity to identity requires a change in the changeless background. You see? So, it's not the changeless background that does the identifying, perceiving, creating or changing. It just allows for it all to happen. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. " Silver " Well, if the background (consciousness, in Phil's world) is not doing the perceiving, what is? There is nothing but consciousness. The question, to me, is why does this have to change the background? The background is the totality of all that is. Perception is the experience of a tiny portion of that totality. How can perception add to or subtract from or change the totality of all that is? Can anything make it more or less than everything. Can it take a no-thing and somehow make it a some-thing? Maybe the difficulty is that, since humans apparently change from their experience, that it's believed consciousness must change from it as well. This is a confusion as to the source of that experience. The source is not changed by anything that comes from the source, and all 'things' come from the source. Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 18, 2006 Report Share Posted February 18, 2006 In a message dated 2/14/2006 7:50:31 PM Pacific Standard Time, ADHHUB writes: > This caught my attention, but I'm not clear why it's a problem. Why is it > not possible to have a changeless background that perceives change? The > background identifies with it's own partial reflection. The totality from > which the > reflection originates need not change in this experiential identification. > > Phil L.E: If the background " idenfifies with it's own partial reflection, " it is changing. Some see the background as a mirror that only reflects the images cast upon it but does not change. But the mirror does not " identify, " and does not " perceive. " Yet of course, as a material object a mirror does change, because it is made of silicon, glass, sand, and is constantly changing in time. Of course the imaginary mirror of the background can be fantasized to not do this in your imagination. The deeper problem is, how can something Not Be and Be at the same time. My answer is that, that is its nature. To be both the ordinary world and the Infinite Nature of Life simultaneously. Larry Epston www.epston.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 19, 2006 Report Share Posted February 19, 2006 In a message dated 2/18/2006 2:15:46 PM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: epston Re: I Am / Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj In a message dated 2/14/2006 7:50:31 PM Pacific Standard Time, ADHHUB writes: > This caught my attention, but I'm not clear why it's a problem. Why is it > not possible to have a changeless background that perceives change? The > background identifies with it's own partial reflection. The totality from > which the > reflection originates need not change in this experiential identification. > > Phil L.E: If the background " idenfifies with it's own partial reflection, " it is changing. Some see the background as a mirror that only reflects the images cast upon it but does not change. But the mirror does not " identify, " and does not " perceive. " Yet of course, as a material object a mirror does change, because it is made of silicon, glass, sand, and is constantly changing in time. Of course the imaginary mirror of the background can be fantasized to not do this in your imagination. The deeper problem is, how can something Not Be and Be at the same time. My answer is that, that is its nature. To be both the ordinary world and the Infinite Nature of Life simultaneously. Larry Epston I guess the bottom line here for me is that change is an illusion and not meaningful in the Absolute of consciousness. The film is already in the can. Phil 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.