Guest guest Posted March 30, 2006 Report Share Posted March 30, 2006 Len wrote a very simple question to me: Len: The rain which is raining, is raining, right? I realized it was a very good question. Somehow it got at the " grit " ... so I dug in (maybe there's a pony in here:)... And this is what came of it, which I wish to share with all of you: That which is is? That is what you are asking? That's a tautology. But what you ask there does hit a crucial distinction... which I will attempt to address: I've been saying that What Is is what has always been, but conditioning gets in the way of realizing the boundless wonder of it. It is as if there is a fly in the ointment. Or like standing before a glorious sunset but not being able to behold it becomes of some sand that has gotten in one's eyes... At some point, I'm not sure when, I realized that a *real change* had transpired. Since I am one who has gone through major changes rather routinely, I must emphasize that when I say *real change* I do mean something out of the ordinary. But it was not that " I " had changed. That would not be it at all. Two of my favorite authors wrote books with similar titles. One was *By the Late John Brockman*. The other was *Posthumous Pieces* by Wei Wu Wei. Neither was dead at the time the book was written. But I now understand those titles in a way I never did before. Oh, before I understood what they were getting at... but now I *really* know. I use the pronoun " I " freely, because I hate the artifice of avoiding it, and there is no real need to avoid it. But there really is no " I " . Not for me, not for anyone. That, to me, is quite clear. And sometimes it simply is most natural to say something such as: " the words that come from here are... " because that is more what it is like. Except even the " here " is a distortion... there *is no* " here " . These words are just happening. All of this is somehow a " collective dream " . This is a *shared space*. Yet there is no actual space, and there are no " ones " occupying it. Rather, all language around these topics must necessarily be metaphoric. NOTHING is literal. It is not science, nor even analytical philosophy. What we really have is just " poetry " . Because nothing can be " nailed down " . If you write something, maybe I get your drift, maybe I don't. If I don't, it doesn't mean the words emitted were not true/correct etc., any more than if someone reads a poem and doesn't " get it " does that mean that the poem is " invalid " . All it means is that person doesn't get anything out of the poem. And if someone *does* get it (say they get all excited etc.), all that means is that they got *something* from it, perhaps of very little relation to what the poet intended. Who knows? And that is the case even if a thousand people read the poem and only one person feels they understand. Maybe that one person *does* understand. Who knows? This is not about democracy. I am saying that is just the way it is. It is tough that communication has to be so difficult, especially on the things that matter to us the most. But such is life! So I will now try to boil down to the point: It is *possible* (and I testify as much) that there can be complete absence and complete fullness simultaneously in so-called " experience " . I don't like to say " experience " because there is no " an " experience to it. It is *not even a flow*!! It is really undescribable. But such things as " the rain is falling " yes/no is really besides the point. *What-is-going-on* is totally besides the point. What Is is not about *particulars*! People keep wanting to say, " I am suffering. And don't say that's not real, Damn it! " While I can understand the sentiment, I insist nevertheless, " No. It is NOT real. It is illusion. " Any *experience* that is of a *particular*, I am saying, is Not Real. Any particular is only the invention of the perceptual process. There *is no particular Out There*! I don't expect that to be understood, in general. And that is not something I can help. These words are not coming from a person-with-a-point-of-view. 90% of those who read that line will simply not believe. I understand. But it must be said. It is " as if " (and AM being metaphorical here), it is " as if " a luminous sphere of light were emanating words. And the words so emanated were the very words now being read... and the luminous sphere of light is saying... there-is-nothing- going-on! Forget the Damn Phenomena! Forget the friggin' rain, and the book on the table in front of you. You can't take all those particulars and add them up to an understanding. To attempt to do so is a false beginning. You don't *arrive at* wholeness. Wholeness is where it all begins. That's what the " fall from grace " is all about. To return to Grace is to *realize* the very wholeness that ever and always has been! Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 31, 2006 Report Share Posted March 31, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Len wrote a very simple question to me: > > Len: The rain which is raining, is raining, right? > > I realized it was a very good question. Somehow it > got at the " grit " ... so I dug in (maybe there's a > pony in here:)... > > And this is what came of it, which I wish to share > with all of you: > > That which is is? That is what you are asking? That's a > tautology. But what you ask there does hit a crucial > distinction... which I will attempt to address: > > I've been saying that What Is is what has always been, > but conditioning gets in the way of realizing the > boundless wonder of it. It is as if there is a fly in > the ointment. Or like standing before a glorious sunset > but not being able to behold it becomes of some sand > that has gotten in one's eyes... > > > At some point, I'm not sure when, I realized that a > *real change* had transpired. Since I am one who has > gone through major changes rather routinely, I must > emphasize that when I say *real change* I do mean > something out of the ordinary. > > But it was not that " I " had changed. That would not be > it at all. Two of my favorite authors wrote books with > similar titles. One was *By the Late John Brockman*. > The other was *Posthumous Pieces* by Wei Wu Wei. > Neither was dead at the time the book was written. But > I now understand those titles in a way I never did > before. Oh, before I understood what they were getting > at... but now I *really* know. > > I use the pronoun " I " freely, because I hate the > artifice of avoiding it, and there is no real need to > avoid it. But there really is no " I " . Not for me, not > for anyone. That, to me, is quite clear. > > And sometimes it simply is most natural to say > something such as: " the words that come from here > are... " because that is more what it is like. Except > even the " here " is a distortion... there *is no* > " here " . > > These words are just happening. All of this is somehow > a " collective dream " . This is a *shared space*. Yet > there is no actual space, and there are no " ones " > occupying it. Rather, all language around these topics > must necessarily be metaphoric. NOTHING is literal. It > is not science, nor even analytical philosophy. What we > really have is just " poetry " . Because nothing can be > " nailed down " . If you write something, maybe I get your > drift, maybe I don't. If I don't, it doesn't mean the > words emitted were not true/correct etc., any more than > if someone reads a poem and doesn't " get it " does that > mean that the poem is " invalid " . All it means is that > person doesn't get anything out of the poem. And if > someone *does* get it (say they get all excited etc.), > all that means is that they got *something* from it, > perhaps of very little relation to what the poet > intended. Who knows? > > And that is the case even if a thousand people read the > poem and only one person feels they understand. Maybe > that one person *does* understand. Who knows? This is > not about democracy. > > I am saying that is just the way it is. It is tough > that communication has to be so difficult, especially > on the things that matter to us the most. But such is > life! > > So I will now try to boil down to the point: It is > *possible* (and I testify as much) that there can be > complete absence and complete fullness simultaneously > in so-called " experience " . I don't like to say > " experience " because there is no " an " experience to it. > It is *not even a flow*!! It is really undescribable. > But such things as " the rain is falling " yes/no is > really besides the point. *What-is-going-on* is totally > besides the point. What Is is not about *particulars*! > > People keep wanting to say, " I am suffering. And don't > say that's not real, Damn it! " While I can understand > the sentiment, I insist nevertheless, " No. It is NOT > real. It is illusion. " Any *experience* that is of a > *particular*, I am saying, is Not Real. Any particular > is only the invention of the perceptual process. There > *is no particular Out There*! > > I don't expect that to be understood, in general. And > that is not something I can help. These words are not > coming from a person-with-a-point-of-view. 90% of those > who read that line will simply not believe. I > understand. But it must be said. It is " as if " (and AM > being metaphorical here), it is " as if " a luminous > sphere of light were emanating words. And the words so > emanated were the very words now being read... and the > luminous sphere of light is saying... there-is-nothing- > going-on! Forget the Damn Phenomena! Forget the > friggin' rain, and the book on the table in front of > you. You can't take all those particulars and add them > up to an understanding. To attempt to do so is a false > beginning. You don't *arrive at* wholeness. Wholeness > is where it all begins. > > That's what the " fall from grace " is all about. > > To return to Grace is to *realize* the very wholeness > that ever and always has been! > > > Bill > Hi Bill, thank yo for sharing this. " At some point, I'm not sure when, I realized that a *real change* had transpired " i like this sentence of yours i like the " i'm not sure when " because this change doesn't not belong to the " I " , how could there be sureness about when and where? and i like the verb " transpired " too, for how it describes it. about that question: The rain which is raining, is raining, right? yes, it is a good one! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 31, 2006 Report Share Posted March 31, 2006 Two of my favorite authors wrote books with similar titles. One was *By the Late John Brockman*. The other was *Posthumous Pieces* by Wei Wu Wei. Neither was dead at the time the book was written. It is my experience that this is the typical sequence of events for authors, though it is just my experience........... (Sorry, Bill. Just another joke. Phil(Still living at the time of this writing.) In a message dated 3/30/2006 12:36:28 PM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 18:19:42 -0000 " billrishel " <illusyn An Open Letter... Len wrote a very simple question to me: Len: The rain which is raining, is raining, right? I realized it was a very good question. Somehow it got at the " grit " ... so I dug in (maybe there's a pony in here:)... And this is what came of it, which I wish to share with all of you: That which is is? That is what you are asking? That's a tautology. But what you ask there does hit a crucial distinction... which I will attempt to address: I've been saying that What Is is what has always been, but conditioning gets in the way of realizing the boundless wonder of it. It is as if there is a fly in the ointment. Or like standing before a glorious sunset but not being able to behold it becomes of some sand that has gotten in one's eyes... At some point, I'm not sure when, I realized that a *real change* had transpired. Since I am one who has gone through major changes rather routinely, I must emphasize that when I say *real change* I do mean something out of the ordinary. But it was not that " I " had changed. That would not be it at all. Two of my favorite authors wrote books with similar titles. One was *By the Late John Brockman*. The other was *Posthumous Pieces* by Wei Wu Wei. Neither was dead at the time the book was written. But I now understand those titles in a way I never did before. Oh, before I understood what they were getting at... but now I *really* know. I use the pronoun " I " freely, because I hate the artifice of avoiding it, and there is no real need to avoid it. But there really is no " I " . Not for me, not for anyone. That, to me, is quite clear. And sometimes it simply is most natural to say something such as: " the words that come from here are... " because that is more what it is like. Except even the " here " is a distortion... there *is no* " here " . These words are just happening. All of this is somehow a " collective dream " . This is a *shared space*. Yet there is no actual space, and there are no " ones " occupying it. Rather, all language around these topics must necessarily be metaphoric. NOTHING is literal. It is not science, nor even analytical philosophy. What we really have is just " poetry " . Because nothing can be " nailed down " . If you write something, maybe I get your drift, maybe I don't. If I don't, it doesn't mean the words emitted were not true/correct etc., any more than if someone reads a poem and doesn't " get it " does that mean that the poem is " invalid " . All it means is that person doesn't get anything out of the poem. And if someone *does* get it (say they get all excited etc.), all that means is that they got *something* from it, perhaps of very little relation to what the poet intended. Who knows? And that is the case even if a thousand people read the poem and only one person feels they understand. Maybe that one person *does* understand. Who knows? This is not about democracy. I am saying that is just the way it is. It is tough that communication has to be so difficult, especially on the things that matter to us the most. But such is life! So I will now try to boil down to the point: It is *possible* (and I testify as much) that there can be complete absence and complete fullness simultaneously in so-called " experience " . I don't like to say " experience " because there is no " an " experience to it. It is *not even a flow*!! It is really undescribable. But such things as " the rain is falling " yes/no is really besides the point. *What-is-going-on* is totally besides the point. What Is is not about *particulars*! People keep wanting to say, " I am suffering. And don't say that's not real, Damn it! " While I can understand the sentiment, I insist nevertheless, " No. It is NOT real. It is illusion. " Any *experience* that is of a *particular*, I am saying, is Not Real. Any particular is only the invention of the perceptual process. There *is no particular Out There*! I don't expect that to be understood, in general. And that is not something I can help. These words are not coming from a person-with-a-point-of-view. 90% of those who read that line will simply not believe. I understand. But it must be said. It is " as if " (and AM being metaphorical here), it is " as if " a luminous sphere of light were emanating words. And the words so emanated were the very words now being read... and the luminous sphere of light is saying... there-is-nothing- going-on! Forget the Damn Phenomena! Forget the friggin' rain, and the book on the table in front of you. You can't take all those particulars and add them up to an understanding. To attempt to do so is a false beginning. You don't *arrive at* wholeness. Wholeness is where it all begins. That's what the " fall from grace " is all about. To return to Grace is to *realize* the very wholeness that ever and always has been! Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 31, 2006 Report Share Posted March 31, 2006 --- ADHHUB a écrit : Two of my favorite authors wrote books with similar titles. One was *By the Late John Brockman*. The other was *Posthumous Pieces* by Wei Wu Wei. Neither was dead at the time the book was written. It is my experience that this is the typical sequence of events for authors, though it is just my experience........... (Sorry, Bill. Just another joke. Phil(Still living at the time of this writing.) In a message dated 3/30/2006 12:36:28 PM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 18:19:42 -0000 " billrishel " <illusyn An Open Letter... Len wrote a very simple question to me: Len: The rain which is raining, is raining, right? I realized it was a very good question. Somehow it got at the " grit " ... so I dug in (maybe there's a pony in here:)... And this is what came of it, which I wish to share with all of you: That which is is? That is what you are asking? That's a tautology. But what you ask there does hit a crucial distinction... which I will attempt to address: I've been saying that What Is is what has always been, but conditioning gets in the way of realizing the boundless wonder of it. It is as if there is a fly in the ointment. Or like standing before a glorious sunset but not being able to behold it becomes of some sand that has gotten in one's eyes... At some point, I'm not sure when, I realized that a *real change* had transpired. Since I am one who has gone through major changes rather routinely, I must emphasize that when I say *real change* I do mean something out of the ordinary. But it was not that " I " had changed. That would not be it at all. Two of my favorite authors wrote books with similar titles. One was *By the Late John Brockman*. The other was *Posthumous Pieces* by Wei Wu Wei. Neither was dead at the time the book was written. But I now understand those titles in a way I never did before. Oh, before I understood what they were getting at... but now I *really* know. I use the pronoun " I " freely, because I hate the artifice of avoiding it, and there is no real need to avoid it. But there really is no " I " . Not for me, not for anyone. That, to me, is quite clear. And sometimes it simply is most natural to say something such as: " the words that come from here are... " because that is more what it is like. Except even the " here " is a distortion... there *is no* " here " . These words are just happening. All of this is somehow a " collective dream " . This is a *shared space*. Yet there is no actual space, and there are no " ones " occupying it. Rather, all language around these topics must necessarily be metaphoric. NOTHING is literal. It is not science, nor even analytical philosophy. What we really have is just " poetry " . Because nothing can be " nailed down " . If you write something, maybe I get your drift, maybe I don't. If I don't, it doesn't mean the words emitted were not true/correct etc., any more than if someone reads a poem and doesn't " get it " does that mean that the poem is " invalid " . All it means is that person doesn't get anything out of the poem. And if someone *does* get it (say they get all excited etc.), all that means is that they got *something* from it, perhaps of very little relation to what the poet intended. Who knows? And that is the case even if a thousand people read the poem and only one person feels they understand. Maybe that one person *does* understand. Who knows? This is not about democracy. I am saying that is just the way it is. It is tough that communication has to be so difficult, especially on the things that matter to us the most. But such is life! So I will now try to boil down to the point: It is *possible* (and I testify as much) that there can be complete absence and complete fullness simultaneously in so-called " experience " . I don't like to say " experience " because there is no " an " experience to it. It is *not even a flow*!! It is really undescribable. But such things as " the rain is falling " yes/no is really besides the point. *What-is-going-on* is totally besides the point. What Is is not about *particulars*! People keep wanting to say, " I am suffering. And don't say that's not real, Damn it! " While I can understand the sentiment, I insist nevertheless, " No. It is NOT real. It is illusion. " Any *experience* that is of a *particular*, I am saying, is Not Real. Any particular is only the invention of the perceptual process. There *is no particular Out There*! I don't expect that to be understood, in general. And that is not something I can help. These words are not coming from a person-with-a-point-of-view. 90% of those who read that line will simply not believe. I understand. But it must be said. It is " as if " (and AM being metaphorical here), it is " as if " a luminous sphere of light were emanating words. And the words so emanated were the very words now being read... and the luminous sphere of light is saying... there-is-nothing- going-on! Forget the Damn Phenomena! Forget the friggin' rain, and the book on the table in front of you. You can't take all those particulars and add them up to an understanding. To attempt to do so is a false beginning. You don't *arrive at* wholeness. Wholeness is where it all begins. That's what the " fall from grace " is all about. To return to Grace is to *realize* the very wholeness that ever and always has been! Bill <One doesn`t get to wholeness,>..... maybe one has to let wholeness get to us; and that is the difficult part of surrender, non-doing, being able to stand the weight of our longing, <our separatedness >in silence and immobility. And as far as sharing a poem or a thought, it is a real feast if only one gets something out of it. Patricia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 31, 2006 Report Share Posted March 31, 2006 --- > > > --- ADHHUB a écrit : > > > > > Two of my favorite authors wrote books with > similar titles. One was *By the Late John Brockman*. > The other was *Posthumous Pieces* by Wei Wu Wei. > Neither was dead at the time the book was written. > > > It is my experience that this is the typical sequence > of events for authors, > though it is just my experience........... > (Sorry, Bill. Just another joke. > > Phil(Still living at the time of this writing.) > > > > > > In a message dated 3/30/2006 12:36:28 PM Pacific > Standard Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Thu, 30 Mar 2006 18:19:42 -0000 > " billrishel " <illusyn > An Open Letter... > > Len wrote a very simple question to me: > > Len: The rain which is raining, is raining, right? > > I realized it was a very good question. Somehow it > got at the " grit " ... so I dug in (maybe there's a > pony in here:)... > > And this is what came of it, which I wish to share > with all of you: > > That which is is? That is what you are asking? That's > a > tautology. But what you ask there does hit a crucial > distinction... which I will attempt to address: > > I've been saying that What Is is what has always > been, > but conditioning gets in the way of realizing the > boundless wonder of it. It is as if there is a fly in > the ointment. Or like standing before a glorious > sunset > but not being able to behold it becomes of some sand > that has gotten in one's eyes... > > > At some point, I'm not sure when, I realized that a > *real change* had transpired. Since I am one who has > gone through major changes rather routinely, I must > emphasize that when I say *real change* I do mean > something out of the ordinary. > > But it was not that " I " had changed. That would not > be > it at all. Two of my favorite authors wrote books > with > similar titles. One was *By the Late John Brockman*. > The other was *Posthumous Pieces* by Wei Wu Wei. > Neither was dead at the time the book was written. > But > I now understand those titles in a way I never did > before. Oh, before I understood what they were > getting > at... but now I *really* know. > > I use the pronoun " I " freely, because I hate the > artifice of avoiding it, and there is no real need to > avoid it. But there really is no " I " . Not for me, not > for anyone. That, to me, is quite clear. > > And sometimes it simply is most natural to say > something such as: " the words that come from here > are... " because that is more what it is like. Except > even the " here " is a distortion... there *is no* > " here " . > > > These words are just happening. All of this is > somehow > a " collective dream " . This is a *shared space*. Yet > there is no actual space, and there are no " ones " > occupying it. Rather, all language around these topics > must necessarily be metaphoric. NOTHING is literal. > It > is not science, nor even analytical philosophy. What > we > really have is just " poetry " . Because nothing can be > " nailed down " . If you write something, maybe I get > your > drift, maybe I don't. If I don't, it doesn't mean the > words emitted were not true/correct etc., any more > than > if someone reads a poem and doesn't " get it " does > that > mean that the poem is " invalid " . All it means is that > person doesn't get anything out of the poem. And if > someone *does* get it (say they get all excited > etc.), > all that means is that they got *something* from it, > perhaps of very little relation to what the poet > intended. Who knows? > > And that is the case even if a thousand people read > the > poem and only one person feels they understand. Maybe > that one person *does* understand. Who knows? This is > not about democracy. > > I am saying that is just the way it is. It is tough > that communication has to be so difficult, especially > on the things that matter to us the most. But such is > life! > > So I will now try to boil down to the point: It is > *possible* (and I testify as much) that there can be > complete absence and complete fullness simultaneously > in so-called " experience " . I don't like to say > " experience " because there is no " an " experience to > it. > It is *not even a flow*!! It is really undescribable. > But such things as " the rain is falling " yes/no is > really besides the point. *What-is-going-on* is > totally > besides the point. What Is is not about *particulars*! > > People keep wanting to say, " I am suffering. And > don't > say that's not real, Damn it! " While I can understand > the sentiment, I insist nevertheless, " No. It is NOT > real. It is illusion. " Any *experience* that is of a > *particular*, I am saying, is Not Real. Any > particular > is only the invention of the perceptual process. > There > *is no particular Out There*! > > I don't expect that to be understood, in general. And > that is not something I can help. These words are not > coming from a person-with-a-point-of-view. 90% of > those > who read that line will simply not believe. I > understand. But it must be said. It is " as if " (and AM > being metaphorical here), it is " as if " a luminous > sphere of light were emanating words. And the words > so > emanated were the very words now being read... and > the > luminous sphere of light is saying... > there-is-nothing- > going-on! Forget the Damn Phenomena! Forget the > friggin' rain, and the book on the table in front of > you. You can't take all those particulars and add them > up to an understanding. To attempt to do so is a > false > beginning. You don't *arrive at* wholeness. Wholeness > is where it all begins. > > That's what the " fall from grace " is all about. > > To return to Grace is to *realize* the very wholeness > that ever and always has been! > > > Bill > > This I like Bill......Grace unto you ....bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 31, 2006 Report Share Posted March 31, 2006 > " At some point, I'm not sure when, I realized that a *real change* > had transpired " > i like this sentence of yours > i like the " i'm not sure when " because this change doesn't not belong > to the " I " , how could there be sureness about when and where? yes, good point. once there were " events " , but then there were none. Bill Nisargadatta , " bigwaaba " <bigwaaba wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > Len wrote a very simple question to me: > > > > Len: The rain which is raining, is raining, right? > > > > I realized it was a very good question. Somehow it > > got at the " grit " ... so I dug in (maybe there's a > > pony in here:)... > > > > And this is what came of it, which I wish to share > > with all of you: > > > > That which is is? That is what you are asking? That's a > > tautology. But what you ask there does hit a crucial > > distinction... which I will attempt to address: > > > > I've been saying that What Is is what has always been, > > but conditioning gets in the way of realizing the > > boundless wonder of it. It is as if there is a fly in > > the ointment. Or like standing before a glorious sunset > > but not being able to behold it becomes of some sand > > that has gotten in one's eyes... > > > > > > At some point, I'm not sure when, I realized that a > > *real change* had transpired. Since I am one who has > > gone through major changes rather routinely, I must > > emphasize that when I say *real change* I do mean > > something out of the ordinary. > > > > But it was not that " I " had changed. That would not be > > it at all. Two of my favorite authors wrote books with > > similar titles. One was *By the Late John Brockman*. > > The other was *Posthumous Pieces* by Wei Wu Wei. > > Neither was dead at the time the book was written. But > > I now understand those titles in a way I never did > > before. Oh, before I understood what they were getting > > at... but now I *really* know. > > > > I use the pronoun " I " freely, because I hate the > > artifice of avoiding it, and there is no real need to > > avoid it. But there really is no " I " . Not for me, not > > for anyone. That, to me, is quite clear. > > > > And sometimes it simply is most natural to say > > something such as: " the words that come from here > > are... " because that is more what it is like. Except > > even the " here " is a distortion... there *is no* > > " here " . > > > > These words are just happening. All of this is somehow > > a " collective dream " . This is a *shared space*. Yet > > there is no actual space, and there are no " ones " > > occupying it. Rather, all language around these topics > > must necessarily be metaphoric. NOTHING is literal. It > > is not science, nor even analytical philosophy. What we > > really have is just " poetry " . Because nothing can be > > " nailed down " . If you write something, maybe I get your > > drift, maybe I don't. If I don't, it doesn't mean the > > words emitted were not true/correct etc., any more than > > if someone reads a poem and doesn't " get it " does that > > mean that the poem is " invalid " . All it means is that > > person doesn't get anything out of the poem. And if > > someone *does* get it (say they get all excited etc.), > > all that means is that they got *something* from it, > > perhaps of very little relation to what the poet > > intended. Who knows? > > > > And that is the case even if a thousand people read the > > poem and only one person feels they understand. Maybe > > that one person *does* understand. Who knows? This is > > not about democracy. > > > > I am saying that is just the way it is. It is tough > > that communication has to be so difficult, especially > > on the things that matter to us the most. But such is > > life! > > > > So I will now try to boil down to the point: It is > > *possible* (and I testify as much) that there can be > > complete absence and complete fullness simultaneously > > in so-called " experience " . I don't like to say > > " experience " because there is no " an " experience to it. > > It is *not even a flow*!! It is really undescribable. > > But such things as " the rain is falling " yes/no is > > really besides the point. *What-is-going-on* is totally > > besides the point. What Is is not about *particulars*! > > > > People keep wanting to say, " I am suffering. And don't > > say that's not real, Damn it! " While I can understand > > the sentiment, I insist nevertheless, " No. It is NOT > > real. It is illusion. " Any *experience* that is of a > > *particular*, I am saying, is Not Real. Any particular > > is only the invention of the perceptual process. There > > *is no particular Out There*! > > > > I don't expect that to be understood, in general. And > > that is not something I can help. These words are not > > coming from a person-with-a-point-of-view. 90% of those > > who read that line will simply not believe. I > > understand. But it must be said. It is " as if " (and AM > > being metaphorical here), it is " as if " a luminous > > sphere of light were emanating words. And the words so > > emanated were the very words now being read... and the > > luminous sphere of light is saying... there-is-nothing- > > going-on! Forget the Damn Phenomena! Forget the > > friggin' rain, and the book on the table in front of > > you. You can't take all those particulars and add them > > up to an understanding. To attempt to do so is a false > > beginning. You don't *arrive at* wholeness. Wholeness > > is where it all begins. > > > > That's what the " fall from grace " is all about. > > > > To return to Grace is to *realize* the very wholeness > > that ever and always has been! > > > > > > Bill > > > > Hi Bill, > > thank yo for sharing this. > " At some point, I'm not sure when, I realized that a *real change* > had transpired " > i like this sentence of yours > i like the " i'm not sure when " because this change doesn't not belong > to the " I " , how could there be sureness about when and where? > > and i like the verb " transpired " too, for how it describes it. > > about that question: The rain which is raining, is raining, right? > yes, it is a good one! > 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.