There Is No Me Corrected

[Guest guest]

Len: The body moves through its

surroundings but without a " me " to worry about :-)

 

>>>

 

that fits!

 

Bill

 

L.E: How can you say that? The body is not just a body, and when you give it

some thought the word " body " is a gross generalization. The body has physical

pieces, parts that together create a nonphysical realm called mind, which

produces ego or self.

The body is atoms, molecules, cells, muscles, organs, skeleton, brain, mind and

self, all working together.

There is no " me " or " I " as a separate distinct thing, but it exists as heat

surrounds the flame of a

candle, and as the flame rises out of the interaction of wax and wick, the mind

rises out of the physical nature of the brain. No brain, no mind, no self. So

there is no " me, " then who or what is writing the words on the computer? You as

no me, not me, not I, I do not exist?

The body cannot move without a " me " to guide

it.

So smart, yet so clueless.

 

 

Larry Epston

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , epston wrote:

>

> Len: The body moves through its

> surroundings but without a " me " to worry about :-)

>

> >>>

>

> that fits!

>

> Bill

>

> L.E: How can you say that? The body is not just a body, and when

you give it

> some thought the word " body " is a gross generalization. The body

has physical

> pieces, parts that together create a nonphysical realm called mind,

which

> produces ego or self.

> The body is atoms, molecules, cells, muscles, organs, skeleton,

brain, mind and self, all working together.

> There is no " me " or " I " as a separate distinct thing, but it exists

as heat surrounds the flame of a

> candle, and as the flame rises out of the interaction of wax and

wick, the mind

> rises out of the physical nature of the brain. No brain, no mind,

no self. So

> there is no " me, " then who or what is writing the words on the

computer? You as

> no me, not me, not I, I do not exist?

> The body cannot move without a " me " to guide

> it.

> So smart, yet so clueless.

>

>

> Larry Epston

>

>

maybe you are right that there is a " me " ....as long there is some

breathing.....

 

i think that one could agree on the fact that this " me " don't work

independent from other appearing " me's "

 

whenever there is a " me " ....there is also

a " you " ...and " he " ..... " she " ....appearing

 

with some " spiritual practice " or " experience "

or " understanding " .....or " whatever " .........

this appearing " me " ...when there is a " you " ......

and this appearing " you " ...when there is a " me " ........

let one feel Oneness of all this appearing seperated " you's "

and " me's " ......

 

you look in a mirror...and you see another Larry....

you don't look in the mirror...and you don't see another Larry

 

you see the world...and you " see " Larry

you don't see the world.....and you don't " see " Larry

 

how possible that there is no appearing " Larry " when " Larry " is not

focused on the world?....

 

because the appearing " Larry " , in reality, is fiction........

means, " Larry " is as real as a shadow.....moving.....

and coming and going

 

but where is real " Larry " so?

 

real " Larry " ....like real " Marc " ...and " Bill " ....and " Len " .....are

always One......

 

there is splitting when one " see at " the world.....at the

mirror.....at the movie screen.......

then there is splitting in " seer " , " seen " and " seeing " ......

 

when there is no more " seer " , " seen " and " seeing " ....then there is

Oneness......which no more " appear " to be " Larry " only

 

this Oneness is maybe the " no me " ......

 

the " no me " ....indeed....don't need to worry about something....

because It is here and there......here and

now.....wherever......however.....whenever........*

 

Marc

 

 

*vibrating or non-vibrating....flowing....non-

flowing.....energy......peace....love...... " who " cares