Guest guest Posted March 22, 2006 Report Share Posted March 22, 2006 Beauty UPON THE NEUTRAL WORLD of things I cast a sheath of Beauty, which is Myself, and all things whatsoever stand exalted in that Beauty. Plato is right; beyond the beauty that is predicated of various forms and relationships, there is a pure Transcendent Beauty, and this is a mode of the very Being of the SELF. This Beauty is not something that is beautiful. It is Self-existent and casts Its luster upon all things for Him who has found Himself identical with that Beauty. When a man reports that he has found beauty in some department of nature, in a combination of sounds, a blending of colors or in the proportions of forms, he has not merely discovered an external existence. He has had, at least, a momentary, penumbral glimpse of Himself, but has interpreted it as something externally apprehended. The failure of many, while in the full possession and exercise of their senses, to see the beauty realized by others, shows that beauty is not something external. A man may gaze upon a drab and somber landscape and, taking merely the photographic record of that view, find no beauty; but let him place over his eyes appropriately chosen light filters and the scene will take on a new quality that is far more pleasing. The light filter acts like a sheath which changes the whole quality of the experience. Somewhat similarly, man projects Beauty upon the phenomenal world and, in most cases, thinks that he simply experiences it. But He who has made the ineffable Transition may say: " I am Beauty and make all things to become beautiful. " But the real Beauty is entirely apart from the object, however subtle. Ecstasy is pure Beauty, as well as pure Joy and Knowledge. Beauty is one of the many facets of THAT which is the Fullness appearing as Emptiness. Another facet is Significance, and these two are One. bob's post..thank you Mr. Wolff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 24, 2006 Report Share Posted March 24, 2006 UPON THE NEUTRAL WORLD of things I cast a sheath of Beauty, which is Myself, and all things whatsoever stand exalted in that Beauty. Plato is right; beyond the beauty that is predicated of various forms and relationships, there is a pure Transcendent Beauty, and this is a mode of the very Being of the SELF. This Beauty is not something that is beautiful. It is Self-existent and casts Its luster upon all things for Him who has found Himself identical with that Beauty. When a man reports that he has found beauty in some department of nature, in a combination of sounds, a blending of colors or in the proportions of forms, he has not merely discovered an external existence. He has had, at least, a momentary, penumbral glimpse of Himself, but has interpreted it as something externally apprehended. The failure of many, while in the full possession and exercise of their senses, to see the beauty realized by others, shows that beauty is not something external. A man may gaze upon a drab and somber landscape and, taking merely the photographic record of that view, find no beauty; but let him place over his eyes appropriately chosen light filters and the scene will take on a new quality that is far more pleasing. The light filter acts like a sheath which changes the whole quality of the experience. Somewhat similarly, man projects Beauty upon the phenomenal world and, in most cases, thinks that he simply experiences it. But He who has made the ineffable Transition may say: " I am Beauty and make all things to become beautiful. " But the real Beauty is entirely apart from the object, however subtle. Ecstasy is pure Beauty, as well as pure Joy and Knowledge. Beauty is one of the many facets of THAT which is the Fullness appearing as Emptiness. Another facet is Significance, and these two are One. ~~~~~~~ A very interesting quote. I see this as a deep elaboration of the familiar adage " Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. " Such phrases become shop-worn and dull; a passage such as the above can bring them back to life. It is interesting how a statement such as, " Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, " can become meaningless simply because it has been heard so very often, as if the mind simply " clicks it off " with an, " Oh, *I know that*! " Even though the statement is quite true, it is as if *dismissed* because of its familiarity, almost *as if it were false*! What he says of beauty applies to joy and happiness. When happiness is seen as a *derived* value from conditions that " provide " it... happiness becomes a phantom ever-chased. But if the Self-Nature is Happiness itself, then realizing happiness is simply to stop *seeking it*! [easier said than done?] What he says about " facets " is very interesting, and something I have noted as well. How is it that the same oneness is at once Joy, Peace, Harmony, Intelligence, etc.? All of those conflate as one, and in reality are non-distinct. They are not separate *things*. And yet the *aspect* of What Is may at one moment be Joy, at another Peace. Now regarding " Plato was right, " I'm not ready to go there on the basis of what he is saying. But then perhaps I haven't studied Plato's notion of Ideas carefully enough. It seems to me that Plato was " separating out " as significant distinctions what he referred to as the Ideas (Beauty, Truth, Love etc.), very different from the " conflating " view that I see in Merrill-Wolff's passage. Bill PS: Thank you Bob, for posting that! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 24, 2006 Report Share Posted March 24, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > > > UPON THE NEUTRAL WORLD of things I cast a sheath of Beauty, which > is Myself, and all things whatsoever stand exalted in that > Beauty. Plato is right; beyond the beauty that is predicated of > various forms and relationships, there is a pure Transcendent > Beauty, and this is a mode of the very Being of the SELF. This > Beauty is not something that is beautiful. It is Self-existent > and casts Its luster upon all things for Him who has found > Himself identical with that Beauty. When a man reports that he > has found beauty in some department of nature, in a combination > of sounds, a blending of colors or in the proportions of forms, > he has not merely discovered an external existence. He has had, > at least, a momentary, penumbral glimpse of Himself, but has > interpreted it as something externally apprehended. The failure > of many, while in the full possession and exercise of their > senses, to see the beauty realized by others, shows that beauty > is not something external. A man may gaze upon a drab and somber > landscape and, taking merely the photographic record of that > view, find no beauty; but let him place over his eyes > appropriately chosen light filters and the scene will take on a > new quality that is far more pleasing. The light filter acts like > a sheath which changes the whole quality of the experience. > Somewhat similarly, man projects Beauty upon the phenomenal world > and, in most cases, thinks that he simply experiences it. But He > who has made the ineffable Transition may say: " I am Beauty and > make all things to become beautiful. " But the real Beauty is > entirely apart from the object, however subtle. Ecstasy is pure > Beauty, as well as pure Joy and Knowledge. Beauty is one of the > many facets of THAT which is the Fullness appearing as Emptiness. > Another facet is Significance, and these two are One. > > > > ~~~~~~~ > > A very interesting quote. > > I see this as a deep elaboration of the familiar adage > " Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. " Such phrases become > shop-worn and dull; a passage such as the above can bring > them back to life. > > It is interesting how a statement such as, " Beauty is in the > eye of the beholder, " can become meaningless simply because > it has been heard so very often, as if the mind simply > " clicks it off " with an, " Oh, *I know that*! " Even though > the statement is quite true, it is as if *dismissed* because > of its familiarity, almost *as if it were false*! > > What he says of beauty applies to joy and happiness. When > happiness is seen as a *derived* value from conditions that > " provide " it... happiness becomes a phantom ever-chased. > But if the Self-Nature is Happiness itself, then realizing > happiness is simply to stop *seeking it*! [easier said than > done?] > > What he says about " facets " is very interesting, and something > I have noted as well. How is it that the same oneness is at > once Joy, Peace, Harmony, Intelligence, etc.? All of those > conflate as one, and in reality are non-distinct. They are > not separate *things*. And yet the *aspect* of What Is may > at one moment be Joy, at another Peace. > > Now regarding " Plato was right, " I'm not ready to go there > on the basis of what he is saying. But then perhaps I haven't > studied Plato's notion of Ideas carefully enough. It seems > to me that Plato was " separating out " as significant distinctions > what he referred to as the Ideas (Beauty, Truth, Love etc.), > very different from the " conflating " view that I see in > Merrill-Wolff's passage. > > Bill > > > PS: Thank you Bob, for posting that! > I concur with your thought on Plato Bill. I think however that Franklin was saying that Plato was correct in the Limited sense of predicating Beauty etc. as issuances of That which lies behind and through 'Form' in the Trancendent sense; and not expressions of things in and of themselves, in the panorama of visible forms.. That that or any and all thinkable and nonthinkable Aspects are modes our very Being and Self, which is One, is as it were posited as an addition to Plato's thought. The Greek was indeed seeing more than the average man, but failed to carry through to a more potent recognition of himself and all possible selves as Identical with that Trancendence. I believe that duality was the result of his total emphasis on logical thought at the expense of that Something that precedes and contains all lesser values,ideas,forms..et al. I agree as well with the fact that we lose sight of the deeper meanings within 'old adages' and that repitition can breed not only contempt but also ignorance of the Impulse from which those messages were received in the dipole moment of their origins.This too is why I often re-read and revisit a large and indefinite number of sources of wisdom and living times. This practice can lead to renewals and refreshments that can be quite surprising and joyful, in the seeing of new vistas in what were considered old places and worn out forms. One other and darker consideration to ponder is that whereas the Realization can make clear the diamond within the personal man and world, it makes clear also the relative dross and encrusting grime and scandal that in the more mundane world and self, overlays that enduring Wealth of Beauty/Joy/Bliss within... " I am become Death and All Things. Even unto the Wraths and unpleasing blemishes of Defect. " Yet it is of this Moment that perhaps Courage, Fortitude, Loving Kindness and Forgiveness are become conflations and Knowledge through Identity.(Excuse the attempt to be poetic, but at times it seems to me the only way to convey a thought for which I cannot find words apropos to the Witness thereof.) Thanks for your reply Bill. It is insightful,invigorating and thought provoking......bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 24, 2006 Report Share Posted March 24, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > How is it that the same oneness is at > once Joy, Peace, Harmony, Intelligence, etc.? All of those > conflate as one, and in reality are non-distinct. They are > not separate *things*. And yet the *aspect* of What Is may > at one moment be Joy, at another Peace. > Bill Yes, it´s one and yet, every time new and different. Len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 25, 2006 Report Share Posted March 25, 2006 How is it that the same oneness is at >>>once Joy, Peace, Harmony, Intelligence, etc.? All of those >>>conflate as one, and in reality are non-distinct. They are >>>not separate *things*. And yet the *aspect* of What Is may >>>at one moment be Joy, at another Peace. >> >>>Bill L.E: Joy, Peace and Hharmony are not the problem with oneness. It is Hate, Depression, Fear, Dictatorship and Violence that are the problem and must also be embraced for a sense of completeness. Larry Epston Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 25, 2006 Report Share Posted March 25, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Bob N. " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > UPON THE NEUTRAL WORLD of things I cast a sheath of Beauty, which > > is Myself, and all things whatsoever stand exalted in that > > Beauty. Plato is right; beyond the beauty that is predicated of > > various forms and relationships, there is a pure Transcendent > > Beauty, and this is a mode of the very Being of the SELF. This > > Beauty is not something that is beautiful. It is Self-existent > > and casts Its luster upon all things for Him who has found > > Himself identical with that Beauty. When a man reports that he > > has found beauty in some department of nature, in a combination > > of sounds, a blending of colors or in the proportions of forms, > > he has not merely discovered an external existence. He has had, > > at least, a momentary, penumbral glimpse of Himself, but has > > interpreted it as something externally apprehended. The failure > > of many, while in the full possession and exercise of their > > senses, to see the beauty realized by others, shows that beauty > > is not something external. A man may gaze upon a drab and somber > > landscape and, taking merely the photographic record of that > > view, find no beauty; but let him place over his eyes > > appropriately chosen light filters and the scene will take on a > > new quality that is far more pleasing. The light filter acts like > > a sheath which changes the whole quality of the experience. > > Somewhat similarly, man projects Beauty upon the phenomenal world > > and, in most cases, thinks that he simply experiences it. But He > > who has made the ineffable Transition may say: " I am Beauty and > > make all things to become beautiful. " But the real Beauty is > > entirely apart from the object, however subtle. Ecstasy is pure > > Beauty, as well as pure Joy and Knowledge. Beauty is one of the > > many facets of THAT which is the Fullness appearing as Emptiness. > > Another facet is Significance, and these two are One. > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~ > > > > A very interesting quote. > > > > I see this as a deep elaboration of the familiar adage > > " Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. " Such phrases become > > shop-worn and dull; a passage such as the above can bring > > them back to life. > > > > It is interesting how a statement such as, " Beauty is in the > > eye of the beholder, " can become meaningless simply because > > it has been heard so very often, as if the mind simply > > " clicks it off " with an, " Oh, *I know that*! " Even though > > the statement is quite true, it is as if *dismissed* because > > of its familiarity, almost *as if it were false*! > > > > What he says of beauty applies to joy and happiness. When > > happiness is seen as a *derived* value from conditions that > > " provide " it... happiness becomes a phantom ever-chased. > > But if the Self-Nature is Happiness itself, then realizing > > happiness is simply to stop *seeking it*! [easier said than > > done?] > > > > What he says about " facets " is very interesting, and something > > I have noted as well. How is it that the same oneness is at > > once Joy, Peace, Harmony, Intelligence, etc.? All of those > > conflate as one, and in reality are non-distinct. They are > > not separate *things*. And yet the *aspect* of What Is may > > at one moment be Joy, at another Peace. > > > > Now regarding " Plato was right, " I'm not ready to go there > > on the basis of what he is saying. But then perhaps I haven't > > studied Plato's notion of Ideas carefully enough. It seems > > to me that Plato was " separating out " as significant distinctions > > what he referred to as the Ideas (Beauty, Truth, Love etc.), > > very different from the " conflating " view that I see in > > Merrill-Wolff's passage. > > > > Bill > > > > > > PS: Thank you Bob, for posting that! > > > I concur with your thought on Plato Bill. I think however that > Franklin was saying that Plato was correct in the Limited sense of > predicating Beauty etc. as issuances of That which lies behind and > through 'Form' in the Trancendent sense; and not expressions of > things in and of themselves, in the panorama of visible forms.. That > that or any and all thinkable and nonthinkable Aspects are modes our > very Being and Self, which is One, is as it were posited as an > addition to Plato's thought. The Greek was indeed seeing more than > the average man, but failed to carry through to a more potent > recognition of himself and all possible selves as Identical with that > Trancendence. I believe that duality was the result of his total > emphasis on logical thought at the expense of that Something that > precedes and contains all lesser values,ideas,forms..et al. I agree > as well with the fact that we lose sight of the deeper meanings > within 'old adages' and that repitition can breed not only contempt > but also ignorance of the Impulse from which those messages were > received in the dipole moment of their origins.This too is why I > often re-read and revisit a large and indefinite number of sources of > wisdom and living times. This practice can lead to renewals and > refreshments that can be quite surprising and joyful, in the seeing > of new vistas in what were considered old places and worn out forms. > One other and darker consideration to ponder is that whereas the > Realization can make clear the diamond within the personal man and > world, it makes clear also the relative dross and encrusting grime > and scandal that in the more mundane world and self, overlays that > enduring Wealth of Beauty/Joy/Bliss within... " I am become Death and > All Thingss. Even unto the Wraths and unpleasing blemishes of Defect. " > Yet it is of this Moment that perhaps Courage, Fortitude, Loving > Kindness and Forgiveness are become conflations and Knowledge through > Identity.(Excuse the attempt to be poetic, but at times it seems to > me the only way to convey a thought for which I cannot find words > apropos to the Witness thereof.) > Thanks for your reply Bill. It is insightful,invigorating and > thought provoking......bob > Thank you for your message bob. Regarding the " darker considerations " ... I know not of them. I was talking to a friend today and the word " sacred " came up. He mentioned that it was a very potent word. I realized that at one time there were " certain things " that were very sacred to me. Perhaps that would be Truth, something felt in the heart, etc. But now there is none such. I realized that for there to be a aura of sacredness around anything in particular means that sacredness must necessarily not apply everywhere. Now nothing in particular is sacred, but everything (not every *distinct* thing, but Everything) is sacred. Not that I think of it as such, but in effect there is nothing that is not sacred. So for me there is nothing that is " dark " really. When joy and light fills every part, how can there anywhere be darkness? Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 25, 2006 Report Share Posted March 25, 2006 Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > How is it that the same oneness is at > > once Joy, Peace, Harmony, Intelligence, etc.? All of those > > conflate as one, and in reality are non-distinct. They are > > not separate *things*. And yet the *aspect* of What Is may > > at one moment be Joy, at another Peace. > > > Bill > > > Yes, it´s one and yet, every time new and different. > > Len > Every moment is different from every other. Every moment is indistinct from every other. Which goes to show that logic and truth are not the same. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 25, 2006 Report Share Posted March 25, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Bob N. " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > UPON THE NEUTRAL WORLD of things I cast a sheath of Beauty, which > > > is Myself, and all things whatsoever stand exalted in that > > > Beauty. Plato is right; beyond the beauty that is predicated of > > > various forms and relationships, there is a pure Transcendent > > > Beauty, and this is a mode of the very Being of the SELF. This > > > Beauty is not something that is beautiful. It is Self-existent > > > and casts Its luster upon all things for Him who has found > > > Himself identical with that Beauty. When a man reports that he > > > has found beauty in some department of nature, in a combination > > > of sounds, a blending of colors or in the proportions of forms, > > > he has not merely discovered an external existence. He has had, > > > at least, a momentary, penumbral glimpse of Himself, but has > > > interpreted it as something externally apprehended. The failure > > > of many, while in the full possession and exercise of their > > > senses, to see the beauty realized by others, shows that beauty > > > is not something external. A man may gaze upon a drab and somber > > > landscape and, taking merely the photographic record of that > > > view, find no beauty; but let him place over his eyes > > > appropriately chosen light filters and the scene will take on a > > > new quality that is far more pleasing. The light filter acts like > > > a sheath which changes the whole quality of the experience. > > > Somewhat similarly, man projects Beauty upon the phenomenal world > > > and, in most cases, thinks that he simply experiences it. But He > > > who has made the ineffable Transition may say: " I am Beauty and > > > make all things to become beautiful. " But the real Beauty is > > > entirely apart from the object, however subtle. Ecstasy is pure > > > Beauty, as well as pure Joy and Knowledge. Beauty is one of the > > > many facets of THAT which is the Fullness appearing as Emptiness. > > > Another facet is Significance, and these two are One. > > > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~ > > > > > > A very interesting quote. > > > > > > I see this as a deep elaboration of the familiar adage > > > " Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. " Such phrases become > > > shop-worn and dull; a passage such as the above can bring > > > them back to life. > > > > > > It is interesting how a statement such as, " Beauty is in the > > > eye of the beholder, " can become meaningless simply because > > > it has been heard so very often, as if the mind simply > > > " clicks it off " with an, " Oh, *I know that*! " Even though > > > the statement is quite true, it is as if *dismissed* because > > > of its familiarity, almost *as if it were false*! > > > > > > What he says of beauty applies to joy and happiness. When > > > happiness is seen as a *derived* value from conditions that > > > " provide " it... happiness becomes a phantom ever-chased. > > > But if the Self-Nature is Happiness itself, then realizing > > > happiness is simply to stop *seeking it*! [easier said than > > > done?] > > > > > > What he says about " facets " is very interesting, and something > > > I have noted as well. How is it that the same oneness is at > > > once Joy, Peace, Harmony, Intelligence, etc.? All of those > > > conflate as one, and in reality are non-distinct. They are > > > not separate *things*. And yet the *aspect* of What Is may > > > at one moment be Joy, at another Peace. > > > > > > Now regarding " Plato was right, " I'm not ready to go there > > > on the basis of what he is saying. But then perhaps I haven't > > > studied Plato's notion of Ideas carefully enough. It seems > > > to me that Plato was " separating out " as significant distinctions > > > what he referred to as the Ideas (Beauty, Truth, Love etc.), > > > very different from the " conflating " view that I see in > > > Merrill-Wolff's passage. > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > PS: Thank you Bob, for posting that! > > > > > I concur with your thought on Plato Bill. I think however that > > Franklin was saying that Plato was correct in the Limited sense of > > predicating Beauty etc. as issuances of That which lies behind and > > through 'Form' in the Trancendent sense; and not expressions of > > things in and of themselves, in the panorama of visible forms.. That > > that or any and all thinkable and nonthinkable Aspects are modes our > > very Being and Self, which is One, is as it were posited as an > > addition to Plato's thought. The Greek was indeed seeing more than > > the average man, but failed to carry through to a more potent > > recognition of himself and all possible selves as Identical with that > > Trancendence. I believe that duality was the result of his total > > emphasis on logical thought at the expense of that Something that > > precedes and contains all lesser values,ideas,forms..et al. I agree > > as well with the fact that we lose sight of the deeper meanings > > within 'old adages' and that repitition can breed not only contempt > > but also ignorance of the Impulse from which those messages were > > received in the dipole moment of their origins.This too is why I > > often re-read and revisit a large and indefinite number of sources of > > wisdom and living times. This practice can lead to renewals and > > refreshments that can be quite surprising and joyful, in the seeing > > of new vistas in what were considered old places and worn out forms. > > One other and darker consideration to ponder is that whereas the > > Realization can make clear the diamond within the personal man and > > world, it makes clear also the relative dross and encrusting grime > > and scandal that in the more mundane world and self, overlays that > > enduring Wealth of Beauty/Joy/Bliss within... " I am become Death and > > All Thingss. Even unto the Wraths and unpleasing blemishes of Defect. " > > Yet it is of this Moment that perhaps Courage, Fortitude, Loving > > Kindness and Forgiveness are become conflations and Knowledge through > > Identity.(Excuse the attempt to be poetic, but at times it seems to > > me the only way to convey a thought for which I cannot find words > > apropos to the Witness thereof.) > > Thanks for your reply Bill. It is insightful,invigorating and > > thought provoking......bob > > > > Thank you for your message bob. > > Regarding the " darker considerations " ... > I know not of them. > > I was talking to a friend today and the word " sacred " > came up. He mentioned that it was a very potent word. > > I realized that at one time there were " certain things " > that were very sacred to me. Perhaps that would be Truth, > something felt in the heart, etc. But now there is none > such. I realized that for there to be a aura of sacredness > around anything in particular means that sacredness must > necessarily not apply everywhere. Now nothing in particular > is sacred, but everything (not every *distinct* thing, but > Everything) is sacred. Not that I think of it as such, but > in effect there is nothing that is not sacred. > > So for me there is nothing that is " dark " really. > > When joy and light fills every part, how can there anywhere > be darkness? > > Bill > Yes I agree Bill...All is consecrated, hallowed, sacred..All everywhere and nowhere in particular or general. Even the dark, the light, the strong and the weak, the good the bad and the ugly. Only in relative senses can there be " things " and " aspects " . That which it all is, was, will be and not be. That which is ...is Loving and Kind and Hateful and Wrathful, is Living and Dying and is in fact Life and Death and that for which we have no words. Joy and Bliss and Tears and Sorrow......all thoughts, judgements, attitudes, feelings, inspirations and depressions. But all shall be alright. All manner of thing and thought shall be alright...in fact already is and has been for all time and whatever was before time was and after it ceases to be. I am talking to a friend today and that friend is you Bill, and that is as potent and sacred as anything is in this or any other life or world. It is this thing that happens between friends and foes everywhere..this communion (good or bad) that truly makes the " world go round " . It is the only worthy thing amongst all that seems to be. Thank you for your message Bill. Your thoughts always give pause and that is a good thing (with apologies to Martha for this little rip off). .......bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 25, 2006 Report Share Posted March 25, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Bob N. " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > UPON THE NEUTRAL WORLD of things I cast a sheath of Beauty, which > > > is Myself, and all things whatsoever stand exalted in that > > > Beauty. Plato is right; beyond the beauty that is predicated of > > > various forms and relationships, there is a pure Transcendent > > > Beauty, and this is a mode of the very Being of the SELF. This > > > Beauty is not something that is beautiful. It is Self-existent > > > and casts Its luster upon all things for Him who has found > > > Himself identical with that Beauty. When a man reports that he > > > has found beauty in some department of nature, in a combination > > > of sounds, a blending of colors or in the proportions of forms, > > > he has not merely discovered an external existence. He has had, > > > at least, a momentary, penumbral glimpse of Himself, but has > > > interpreted it as something externally apprehended. The failure > > > of many, while in the full possession and exercise of their > > > senses, to see the beauty realized by others, shows that beauty > > > is not something external. A man may gaze upon a drab and somber > > > landscape and, taking merely the photographic record of that > > > view, find no beauty; but let him place over his eyes > > > appropriately chosen light filters and the scene will take on a > > > new quality that is far more pleasing. The light filter acts like > > > a sheath which changes the whole quality of the experience. > > > Somewhat similarly, man projects Beauty upon the phenomenal world > > > and, in most cases, thinks that he simply experiences it. But He > > > who has made the ineffable Transition may say: " I am Beauty and > > > make all things to become beautiful. " But the real Beauty is > > > entirely apart from the object, however subtle. Ecstasy is pure > > > Beauty, as well as pure Joy and Knowledge. Beauty is one of the > > > many facets of THAT which is the Fullness appearing as Emptiness. > > > Another facet is Significance, and these two are One. > > > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~ > > > > > > A very interesting quote. > > > > > > I see this as a deep elaboration of the familiar adage > > > " Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. " Such phrases become > > > shop-worn and dull; a passage such as the above can bring > > > them back to life. > > > > > > It is interesting how a statement such as, " Beauty is in the > > > eye of the beholder, " can become meaningless simply because > > > it has been heard so very often, as if the mind simply > > > " clicks it off " with an, " Oh, *I know that*! " Even though > > > the statement is quite true, it is as if *dismissed* because > > > of its familiarity, almost *as if it were false*! > > > > > > What he says of beauty applies to joy and happiness. When > > > happiness is seen as a *derived* value from conditions that > > > " provide " it... happiness becomes a phantom ever-chased. > > > But if the Self-Nature is Happiness itself, then realizing > > > happiness is simply to stop *seeking it*! [easier said than > > > done?] > > > > > > What he says about " facets " is very interesting, and something > > > I have noted as well. How is it that the same oneness is at > > > once Joy, Peace, Harmony, Intelligence, etc.? All of those > > > conflate as one, and in reality are non-distinct. They are > > > not separate *things*. And yet the *aspect* of What Is may > > > at one moment be Joy, at another Peace. > > > > > > Now regarding " Plato was right, " I'm not ready to go there > > > on the basis of what he is saying. But then perhaps I haven't > > > studied Plato's notion of Ideas carefully enough. It seems > > > to me that Plato was " separating out " as significant distinctions > > > what he referred to as the Ideas (Beauty, Truth, Love etc.), > > > very different from the " conflating " view that I see in > > > Merrill-Wolff's passage. > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > PS: Thank you Bob, for posting that! > > > > > I concur with your thought on Plato Bill. I think however that > > Franklin was saying that Plato was correct in the Limited sense of > > predicating Beauty etc. as issuances of That which lies behind and > > through 'Form' in the Trancendent sense; and not expressions of > > things in and of themselves, in the panorama of visible forms.. That > > that or any and all thinkable and nonthinkable Aspects are modes our > > very Being and Self, which is One, is as it were posited as an > > addition to Plato's thought. The Greek was indeed seeing more than > > the average man, but failed to carry through to a more potent > > recognition of himself and all possible selves as Identical with that > > Trancendence. I believe that duality was the result of his total > > emphasis on logical thought at the expense of that Something that > > precedes and contains all lesser values,ideas,forms..et al. I agree > > as well with the fact that we lose sight of the deeper meanings > > within 'old adages' and that repitition can breed not only contempt > > but also ignorance of the Impulse from which those messages were > > received in the dipole moment of their origins.This too is why I > > often re-read and revisit a large and indefinite number of sources of > > wisdom and living times. This practice can lead to renewals and > > refreshments that can be quite surprising and joyful, in the seeing > > of new vistas in what were considered old places and worn out forms. > > One other and darker consideration to ponder is that whereas the > > Realization can make clear the diamond within the personal man and > > world, it makes clear also the relative dross and encrusting grime > > and scandal that in the more mundane world and self, overlays that > > enduring Wealth of Beauty/Joy/Bliss within... " I am become Death and > > All Thingss. Even unto the Wraths and unpleasing blemishes of Defect. " > > Yet it is of this Moment that perhaps Courage, Fortitude, Loving > > Kindness and Forgiveness are become conflations and Knowledge through > > Identity.(Excuse the attempt to be poetic, but at times it seems to > > me the only way to convey a thought for which I cannot find words > > apropos to the Witness thereof.) > > Thanks for your reply Bill. It is insightful,invigorating and > > thought provoking......bob > > > > Thank you for your message bob. > > Regarding the " darker considerations " ... > I know not of them. > > I was talking to a friend today and the word " sacred " > came up. He mentioned that it was a very potent word. > > I realized that at one time there were " certain things " > that were very sacred to me. Perhaps that would be Truth, > something felt in the heart, etc. But now there is none > such. I realized that for there to be a aura of sacredness > around anything in particular means that sacredness must > necessarily not apply everywhere. Now nothing in particular > is sacred, but everything (not every *distinct* thing, but > Everything) is sacred. Not that I think of it as such, but > in effect there is nothing that is not sacred. > > So for me there is nothing that is " dark " really. > > When joy and light fills every part, how can there anywhere > be darkness? > > Bill What is sacred, remains sacred and cannot be polluted nor destroyed in any way. What can be polluted or destroyed is not sacred. That´s a good thing. Len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 25, 2006 Report Share Posted March 25, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > How is it that the same oneness is at > > > once Joy, Peace, Harmony, Intelligence, etc.? All of those > > > conflate as one, and in reality are non-distinct. They are > > > not separate *things*. And yet the *aspect* of What Is may > > > at one moment be Joy, at another Peace. > > > > > Bill > > > > > > Yes, it´s one and yet, every time new and different. > > > > Len > > > > Every moment is different from every other. > Every moment is indistinct from every other. > > Which goes to show that logic and truth are > not the same. > > Bill Truth has a logic of its own :-) Len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 25, 2006 Report Share Posted March 25, 2006 Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > > How is it that the same oneness is at > >>>once Joy, Peace, Harmony, Intelligence, etc.? All of those > >>>conflate as one, and in reality are non-distinct. They are > >>>not separate *things*. And yet the *aspect* of What Is may > >>>at one moment be Joy, at another Peace. > >> > >>>Bill > > L.E: Joy, Peace and Hharmony are not the problem with oneness. It is Hate, > Depression, Fear, Dictatorship and Violence that are the problem and must also > be embraced for a sense of completeness. > > Larry Epston Oneness and any " sense of completeness " are unrelated. Oneness entails no " embracing " of any kind. Oneness is not *achieved*. Oneness is what remains when all " doing " (efforting) has left the scene. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 25, 2006 Report Share Posted March 25, 2006 Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Bob N. " <Roberibus111@> > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > UPON THE NEUTRAL WORLD of things I cast a sheath of Beauty, > which > > > > is Myself, and all things whatsoever stand exalted in that > > > > Beauty. Plato is right; beyond the beauty that is predicated > of > > > > various forms and relationships, there is a pure Transcendent > > > > Beauty, and this is a mode of the very Being of the SELF. This > > > > Beauty is not something that is beautiful. It is Self-existent > > > > and casts Its luster upon all things for Him who has found > > > > Himself identical with that Beauty. When a man reports that he > > > > has found beauty in some department of nature, in a > combination > > > > of sounds, a blending of colors or in the proportions of > forms, > > > > he has not merely discovered an external existence. He has > had, > > > > at least, a momentary, penumbral glimpse of Himself, but has > > > > interpreted it as something externally apprehended. The > failure > > > > of many, while in the full possession and exercise of their > > > > senses, to see the beauty realized by others, shows that > beauty > > > > is not something external. A man may gaze upon a drab and > somber > > > > landscape and, taking merely the photographic record of that > > > > view, find no beauty; but let him place over his eyes > > > > appropriately chosen light filters and the scene will take on > a > > > > new quality that is far more pleasing. The light filter acts > like > > > > a sheath which changes the whole quality of the experience. > > > > Somewhat similarly, man projects Beauty upon the phenomenal > world > > > > and, in most cases, thinks that he simply experiences it. But > He > > > > who has made the ineffable Transition may say: " I am Beauty > and > > > > make all things to become beautiful. " But the real Beauty is > > > > entirely apart from the object, however subtle. Ecstasy is > pure > > > > Beauty, as well as pure Joy and Knowledge. Beauty is one of > the > > > > many facets of THAT which is the Fullness appearing as > Emptiness. > > > > Another facet is Significance, and these two are One. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~ > > > > > > > > A very interesting quote. > > > > > > > > I see this as a deep elaboration of the familiar adage > > > > " Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. " Such phrases become > > > > shop-worn and dull; a passage such as the above can bring > > > > them back to life. > > > > > > > > It is interesting how a statement such as, " Beauty is in the > > > > eye of the beholder, " can become meaningless simply because > > > > it has been heard so very often, as if the mind simply > > > > " clicks it off " with an, " Oh, *I know that*! " Even though > > > > the statement is quite true, it is as if *dismissed* because > > > > of its familiarity, almost *as if it were false*! > > > > > > > > What he says of beauty applies to joy and happiness. When > > > > happiness is seen as a *derived* value from conditions that > > > > " provide " it... happiness becomes a phantom ever-chased. > > > > But if the Self-Nature is Happiness itself, then realizing > > > > happiness is simply to stop *seeking it*! [easier said than > > > > done?] > > > > > > > > What he says about " facets " is very interesting, and something > > > > I have noted as well. How is it that the same oneness is at > > > > once Joy, Peace, Harmony, Intelligence, etc.? All of those > > > > conflate as one, and in reality are non-distinct. They are > > > > not separate *things*. And yet the *aspect* of What Is may > > > > at one moment be Joy, at another Peace. > > > > > > > > Now regarding " Plato was right, " I'm not ready to go there > > > > on the basis of what he is saying. But then perhaps I haven't > > > > studied Plato's notion of Ideas carefully enough. It seems > > > > to me that Plato was " separating out " as significant > distinctions > > > > what he referred to as the Ideas (Beauty, Truth, Love etc.), > > > > very different from the " conflating " view that I see in > > > > Merrill-Wolff's passage. > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > PS: Thank you Bob, for posting that! > > > > > > > I concur with your thought on Plato Bill. I think however that > > > Franklin was saying that Plato was correct in the Limited sense > of > > > predicating Beauty etc. as issuances of That which lies behind > and > > > through 'Form' in the Trancendent sense; and not expressions of > > > things in and of themselves, in the panorama of visible forms.. > That > > > that or any and all thinkable and nonthinkable Aspects are modes > our > > > very Being and Self, which is One, is as it were posited as an > > > addition to Plato's thought. The Greek was indeed seeing more > than > > > the average man, but failed to carry through to a more potent > > > recognition of himself and all possible selves as Identical with > that > > > Trancendence. I believe that duality was the result of his total > > > emphasis on logical thought at the expense of that Something > that > > > precedes and contains all lesser values,ideas,forms..et al. I > agree > > > as well with the fact that we lose sight of the deeper meanings > > > within 'old adages' and that repitition can breed not only > contempt > > > but also ignorance of the Impulse from which those messages were > > > received in the dipole moment of their origins.This too is why I > > > often re-read and revisit a large and indefinite number of > sources of > > > wisdom and living times. This practice can lead to renewals and > > > refreshments that can be quite surprising and joyful, in the > seeing > > > of new vistas in what were considered old places and worn out > forms. > > > One other and darker consideration to ponder is that whereas > the > > > Realization can make clear the diamond within the personal man > and > > > world, it makes clear also the relative dross and encrusting > grime > > > and scandal that in the more mundane world and self, overlays > that > > > enduring Wealth of Beauty/Joy/Bliss within... " I am become Death > and > > > All Thingss. Even unto the Wraths and unpleasing blemishes of > Defect. " > > > Yet it is of this Moment that perhaps Courage, Fortitude, > Loving > > > Kindness and Forgiveness are become conflations and Knowledge > through > > > Identity.(Excuse the attempt to be poetic, but at times it seems > to > > > me the only way to convey a thought for which I cannot find > words > > > apropos to the Witness thereof.) > > > Thanks for your reply Bill. It is insightful,invigorating and > > > thought provoking......bob > > > > > > > Thank you for your message bob. > > > > Regarding the " darker considerations " ... > > I know not of them. > > > > I was talking to a friend today and the word " sacred " > > came up. He mentioned that it was a very potent word. > > > > I realized that at one time there were " certain things " > > that were very sacred to me. Perhaps that would be Truth, > > something felt in the heart, etc. But now there is none > > such. I realized that for there to be a aura of sacredness > > around anything in particular means that sacredness must > > necessarily not apply everywhere. Now nothing in particular > > is sacred, but everything (not every *distinct* thing, but > > Everything) is sacred. Not that I think of it as such, but > > in effect there is nothing that is not sacred. > > > > So for me there is nothing that is " dark " really. > > > > When joy and light fills every part, how can there anywhere > > be darkness? > > > > Bill > > > What is sacred, remains sacred and cannot be polluted nor destroyed > in any way. > What can be polluted or destroyed is not sacred. > That´s a good thing. > > Len > What is not sacred is *false*. What is false is unreal. To *oppose* the unreal is itself unreal. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 26, 2006 Report Share Posted March 26, 2006 In a message dated 3/26/2006 5:37:39 AM Pacific Standard Time, lissbon2002 writes: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn > wrote: > > > >Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > > > >>What is sacred, remains sacred and cannot be polluted nor > destroyed > >>in any way. > >>What can be polluted or destroyed is not sacred. > >>That´s a good thing. > >> > >>Len > > > >What is not sacred is *false*. > > > >What is false is unreal. > > > >To *oppose* the unreal is itself unreal. > > > >Bill > > > Isn´t calling the unreal " unreal " , when it seems very real, opposing > it, through putting it into word construct? > What about not calling it anything and dealing with it instead, > because - real or not, when it´s there it´s there, and no words can > change anything about it? > > Len > L.E: You guys are lost in a word game. Are you having a good time? You are both very persistent, tenacious and aggressive. But, a lot better than football or war. Yes? Larry Epston Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 26, 2006 Report Share Posted March 26, 2006 In a message dated 3/26/2006 8:52:46 AM Pacific Standard Time, lissbon2002 writes: > Strange. I don´t feel lost, neither do I feel aggressive. > I was just inquiring into something which seems worth to pay > attention to. > Where did you get this aggression? > > Len L.E: O.K. then. How about the part about the ''word game? " And perhaps involved is better than " lost?: Perhaps aggresive can be changed to intense? Better? And I still think you are having a great time. I know I do. Larry Epston Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 26, 2006 Report Share Posted March 26, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > What is sacred, remains sacred and cannot be polluted nor destroyed > > in any way. > > What can be polluted or destroyed is not sacred. > > That´s a good thing. > > > > Len > What is not sacred is *false*. > > What is false is unreal. > > To *oppose* the unreal is itself unreal. > > Bill Isn´t calling the unreal " unreal " , when it seems very real, opposing it, through putting it into word construct? What about not calling it anything and dealing with it instead, because - real or not, when it´s there it´s there, and no words can change anything about it? Len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 26, 2006 Report Share Posted March 26, 2006 In a message dated 3/26/2006 9:34:40 AM Pacific Standard Time, lissbon2002 writes: > What I was talking about, is how people tend to call something > unreal, even if it is some conflict they are stuck in. > This name giving will not solve the conflict, it will only help to > close ones eyes for it. > > Len L.E: I agree. How's your day going? What did you have for breakfast? Larry Epston Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 26, 2006 Report Share Posted March 26, 2006 Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > > In a message dated 3/26/2006 5:37:39 AM Pacific Standard Time, > lissbon2002 writes: > > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > wrote: > > > > > >Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > > > > > > > >>What is sacred, remains sacred and cannot be polluted nor > > destroyed > > >>in any way. > > >>What can be polluted or destroyed is not sacred. > > >>That´s a good thing. > > >> > > >>Len > > > > > > >What is not sacred is *false*. > > > > > >What is false is unreal. > > > > > >To *oppose* the unreal is itself unreal. > > > > > >Bill > > > > > > Isn´t calling the unreal " unreal " , when it seems very real, opposing > > it, through putting it into word construct? > > What about not calling it anything and dealing with it instead, > > because - real or not, when it´s there it´s there, and no words can > > change anything about it? > > > > Len > > > L.E: You guys are lost in a word game. Are you having a good time? > You are both very persistent, tenacious and aggressive. But, a lot better > than football or war. Yes? > > Larry Epston Strange. I don´t feel lost, neither do I feel aggressive. I was just inquiring into something which seems worth to pay attention to. Where did you get this aggression? Len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 26, 2006 Report Share Posted March 26, 2006 Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > > In a message dated 3/26/2006 8:52:46 AM Pacific Standard Time, > lissbon2002 writes: > > > Strange. I don´t feel lost, neither do I feel aggressive. > > I was just inquiring into something which seems worth to pay > > attention to. > > Where did you get this aggression? > > > > Len > > L.E: O.K. then. How about the part about the ''word game? " > And perhaps involved is better than " lost?: Perhaps aggresive can be changed > to intense? Better? And I still think you are having a great time. I know > I do. > > Larry Epston What I was talking about, is how people tend to call something unreal, even if it is some conflict they are stuck in. This name giving will not solve the conflict, it will only help to close ones eyes for it. Len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 26, 2006 Report Share Posted March 26, 2006 Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > > In a message dated 3/26/2006 9:34:40 AM Pacific Standard Time, > lissbon2002 writes: > > > What I was talking about, is how people tend to call something > > unreal, even if it is some conflict they are stuck in. > > This name giving will not solve the conflict, it will only help to > > close ones eyes for it. > > > > Len > > L.E: I agree. How's your day going? What did you have for breakfast? > > Larry Epston LOL! Tea, bread with cheese and a long, long discussion about whether it´s a good idea to spend a holiday with somebody who doesn´t seem to be very trustworthy. Len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 27, 2006 Report Share Posted March 27, 2006 Isn´t calling the unreal " unreal " , when it seems very real, opposing it, through putting it into word construct? What about not calling it anything and dealing with it instead, because - real or not, when it´s there it´s there, and no words can change anything about it? Len >>>>>>>> What is important is not " calling it " anything, but recognizing it as unreal. Whatever words arise is besides the point. There is no " dealing with it " besides simply *seeing* openly, unattached to implications. If I feel " annoyed with " someone, then is that about them or about me? It's about me. It is not about them. So what is for me to deal with? It is for me to recognized that my annoyance is *my issue*, and that to deal with it means to see it as such. Really, if all of that transpires in an open, undistorted way, then it simply evaporates. Once the cycle of blaming is broken the circuit can no longer fuel itself. Bill Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > > > > > What is sacred, remains sacred and cannot be polluted nor > destroyed > > > in any way. > > > What can be polluted or destroyed is not sacred. > > > That´s a good thing. > > > > > > Len > > > > What is not sacred is *false*. > > > > What is false is unreal. > > > > To *oppose* the unreal is itself unreal. > > > > Bill > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 27, 2006 Report Share Posted March 27, 2006 Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > In a message dated 3/26/2006 5:37:39 AM Pacific Standard Time, > > lissbon2002@ writes: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " > <lissbon2002@> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>What is sacred, remains sacred and cannot be polluted nor > > > destroyed > > > >>in any way. > > > >>What can be polluted or destroyed is not sacred. > > > >>That´s a good thing. > > > >> > > > >>Len > > > > > > > > > >What is not sacred is *false*. > > > > > > > >What is false is unreal. > > > > > > > >To *oppose* the unreal is itself unreal. > > > > > > > >Bill > > > > > > > > > Isn´t calling the unreal " unreal " , when it seems very real, > opposing > > > it, through putting it into word construct? > > > What about not calling it anything and dealing with it instead, > > > because - real or not, when it´s there it´s there, and no words > can > > > change anything about it? > > > > > > Len > > > > > L.E: You guys are lost in a word game. Are you having a good > time? > > You are both very persistent, tenacious and aggressive. But, a > lot better > > than football or war. Yes? > > > > Larry Epston > > > Strange. I don´t feel lost, neither do I feel aggressive. > I was just inquiring into something which seems worth to pay > attention to. > Where did you get this aggression? > > Len > Yes, Larry. The irony is that Len is not being agressive, nor am I. Your message, on the other hand... comes across as a provocation. Perhaps, in this case, aggression is in the eye of the beholder? Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 27, 2006 Report Share Posted March 27, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Isn´t calling the unreal " unreal " , when it seems very real, opposing > it, through putting it into word construct? > What about not calling it anything and dealing with it instead, > because - real or not, when it´s there it´s there, and no words can > change anything about it? > > Len > What is important is not " calling it " anything, but recognizing > it as unreal. Whatever words arise is besides the point. When you " recognize it as unreal " , it´s gone. If it isn´t gone you didn´t recognize it as unreal. True? len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 27, 2006 Report Share Posted March 27, 2006 In a message dated 3/27/2006 2:31:26 AM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 08:49:46 -0000 " billrishel " <illusyn Re: A BEAUTY... from Franklin Isn´t calling the unreal " unreal " , when it seems very real, opposing it, through putting it into word construct? What about not calling it anything and dealing with it instead, because - real or not, when it´s there it´s there, and no words can change anything about it? Len >>>>>>>> What is important is not " calling it " anything, but recognizing it as unreal. Whatever words arise is besides the point. There is no " dealing with it " besides simply *seeing* openly, unattached to implications. If I feel " annoyed with " someone, then is that about them or about me? It's about me. It is not about them. So what is for me to deal with? It is for me to recognized that my annoyance is *my issue*, and that to deal with it means to see it as such. Really, if all of that transpires in an open, undistorted way, then it simply evaporates. Once the cycle of blaming is broken the circuit can no longer fuel itself. Bill Ha! Yes. When the truth of the matter has swelled to such proportion that all the tricks of ego are known to be an exercise in futility and everywhere one turns is that same blasted truth that even bleeds through the closed eyelids, there is literally nothing that can be done, and nothing that need be done. It is already done. Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 27, 2006 Report Share Posted March 27, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 3/27/2006 2:31:26 AM Pacific Standard Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Mon, 27 Mar 2006 08:49:46 -0000 > " billrishel " <illusyn > Re: A BEAUTY... from Franklin > > Isn´t calling the unreal " unreal " , when it seems very real, opposing > it, through putting it into word construct? > What about not calling it anything and dealing with it instead, > because - real or not, when it´s there it´s there, and no words can > change anything about it? > > Len > > >>>>>>>> > > What is important is not " calling it " anything, but recognizing > it as unreal. Whatever words arise is besides the point. > > There is no " dealing with it " besides simply *seeing* openly, > unattached to implications. > > If I feel " annoyed with " someone, then is that about them > or about me? It's about me. It is not about them. So what > is for me to deal with? It is for me to recognized that my > annoyance is *my issue*, and that to deal with it means to > see it as such. Really, if all of that transpires in an open, > undistorted way, then it simply evaporates. Once the cycle of > blaming is broken the circuit can no longer fuel itself. > > > > Bill > > > > > > Ha! Yes. When the truth of the matter has swelled to such proportion that > all the tricks of ego are known to be an exercise in futility and everywhere one > turns is that same blasted truth that even bleeds through the closed > eyelids, there is literally nothing that can be done, and nothing that need be > done. It is already done. > > Phil > > The End.....bob > > 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.