Guest guest Posted April 12, 2006 Report Share Posted April 12, 2006 In a message dated 4/12/2006 8:49:33 AM Pacific Daylight Time, gdtige writes: > this is a summary of what I retained of chapter 14 of appearances and > reality of I AM THAT. > > There is only light. > And yet, to take appearance for reality is the cause of all calamities. > There is only light and light alone. Everything else is but a picture made > of light. > The light makes everything possible and yet, > Nothing that makes a thing what it is, > Its name and form, > Comes from the light. > The light does not move at all, > The movement is illusory, > A sequence of interceptions and coloring in the film. > What moves is the film-which is the mind. > The picture on the cinema screen is light also. > There is only light! > > Patricia L.E: There are big difference between a projected film image and our ordinary reality. You can see a box of oranges as a projected image but you can't eat them where the orange in your hand can be tasted, smelled and eaten for nourishment. The projected image does not nourish. It's a good try, but easy to dismiss and before movies existed, what comparisons did the teachers use I wonder? It's much more complex than that, how it is as it is, and what it is. I'd rather stick with Life Itself and the expression of life into form. Larry Epston Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 13, 2006 Report Share Posted April 13, 2006 Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > > In a message dated 4/12/2006 8:49:33 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > gdtige writes: > > > this is a summary of what I retained of chapter 14 of appearances and > > reality of I AM THAT. > > > > There is only light. > > And yet, to take appearance for reality is the cause of all calamities. > > There is only light and light alone. Everything else is but a picture made > > of light. > > The light makes everything possible and yet, > > Nothing that makes a thing what it is, > > Its name and form, > > Comes from the light. > > The light does not move at all, > > The movement is illusory, > > A sequence of interceptions and coloring in the film. > > What moves is the film-which is the mind. > > The picture on the cinema screen is light also. > > There is only light! > > > > Patricia > > L.E: There are big difference between a projected film image and our ordinary > reality. You can see a box of oranges as a projected image but you can't eat > them where the orange in your hand can be tasted, smelled and eaten for > nourishment. The projected image does not nourish. It's a good try, but easy to > dismiss and before movies existed, what comparisons did the teachers use I > wonder? It's much more complex than that, how it is as it is, and what it is. I'd > rather stick with Life Itself and the expression of life into form. > > Larry Epston > > ....then, Larry.....couldn't you love something or somebody.....who left his/her form (body).......? the real being and nature is infinite...... means....as long " you " , Larry, feel to have an orange in " his " hand......is already lost in illusion.... this illusion " Larry " will be no more.....one day....... just like this your theorie of oranges....... which are realy there.....or not realy there....... Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 13, 2006 Report Share Posted April 13, 2006 Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > In a message dated 4/12/2006 8:49:33 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > > gdtige@ writes: > > > > > this is a summary of what I retained of chapter 14 of appearances > and > > > reality of I AM THAT. > > > > > > There is only light. > > > And yet, to take appearance for reality is the cause of all > calamities. > > > There is only light and light alone. Everything else is but a > picture made > > > of light. > > > The light makes everything possible and yet, > > > Nothing that makes a thing what it is, > > > Its name and form, > > > Comes from the light. > > > The light does not move at all, > > > The movement is illusory, > > > A sequence of interceptions and coloring in the film. > > > What moves is the film-which is the mind. > > > The picture on the cinema screen is light also. > > > There is only light! > > > > > > Patricia > > > > L.E: There are big difference between a projected film image and > our ordinary > > reality. You can see a box of oranges as a projected image but you > can't eat > > them where the orange in your hand can be tasted, smelled and eaten > for > > nourishment. The projected image does not nourish. It's a good > try, but easy to > > dismiss and before movies existed, what comparisons did the > teachers use I > > wonder? It's much more complex than that, how it is as it is, and > what it is. I'd > > rather stick with Life Itself and the expression of life into form. > > > > Larry Epston > > > > > ...then, Larry.....couldn't you love something or somebody.....who > left his/her form (body).......? > > the real being and nature is infinite...... > > means....as long " you " , Larry, feel to have an orange in " his " > hand......is already lost in illusion.... > > this illusion " Larry " will be no more.....one day....... > > just like this your theorie of oranges....... which are realy > there.....or not realy there....... > > Marc > re: this illusion " Larry " will be no more.....one day....... And now... where's the illusion now? Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 13, 2006 Report Share Posted April 13, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 4/12/2006 8:49:33 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > > > gdtige@ writes: > > > > > > > this is a summary of what I retained of chapter 14 of > appearances > > and > > > > reality of I AM THAT. > > > > > > > > There is only light. > > > > And yet, to take appearance for reality is the cause of all > > calamities. > > > > There is only light and light alone. Everything else is but a > > picture made > > > > of light. > > > > The light makes everything possible and yet, > > > > Nothing that makes a thing what it is, > > > > Its name and form, > > > > Comes from the light. > > > > The light does not move at all, > > > > The movement is illusory, > > > > A sequence of interceptions and coloring in the film. > > > > What moves is the film-which is the mind. > > > > The picture on the cinema screen is light also. > > > > There is only light! > > > > > > > > Patricia > > > > > > L.E: There are big difference between a projected film image and > > our ordinary > > > reality. You can see a box of oranges as a projected image but > you > > can't eat > > > them where the orange in your hand can be tasted, smelled and > eaten > > for > > > nourishment. The projected image does not nourish. It's a good > > try, but easy to > > > dismiss and before movies existed, what comparisons did the > > teachers use I > > > wonder? It's much more complex than that, how it is as it is, > and > > what it is. I'd > > > rather stick with Life Itself and the expression of life into > form. > > > > > > Larry Epston > > > > > > > > ...then, Larry.....couldn't you love something or somebody.....who > > left his/her form (body).......? > > > > the real being and nature is infinite...... > > > > means....as long " you " , Larry, feel to have an orange in " his " > > hand......is already lost in illusion.... > > > > this illusion " Larry " will be no more.....one day....... > > > > just like this your theorie of oranges....... which are realy > > there.....or not realy there....... > > > > Marc > > > > re: > this illusion " Larry " will be no more.....one day....... > > And now... where's the illusion now? > > > Bill this is all happening....now.....and in " every now " ......in a dream only..... in this dream, Bill....there are more or less great egos.....and also....more or less wonderful lights....... nobody realy care about " Larries " .... " Bill " ..... " Marc " ......except the dream Itself......which risc to end...... in " The now " .... Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 13, 2006 Report Share Posted April 13, 2006 Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > > > > > In a message dated 4/12/2006 8:49:33 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > > > > gdtige@ writes: > > > > > > > > > this is a summary of what I retained of chapter 14 of > > appearances > > > and > > > > > reality of I AM THAT. > > > > > > > > > > There is only light. > > > > > And yet, to take appearance for reality is the cause of all > > > calamities. > > > > > There is only light and light alone. Everything else is but a > > > picture made > > > > > of light. > > > > > The light makes everything possible and yet, > > > > > Nothing that makes a thing what it is, > > > > > Its name and form, > > > > > Comes from the light. > > > > > The light does not move at all, > > > > > The movement is illusory, > > > > > A sequence of interceptions and coloring in the film. > > > > > What moves is the film-which is the mind. > > > > > The picture on the cinema screen is light also. > > > > > There is only light! > > > > > > > > > > Patricia > > > > > > > > L.E: There are big difference between a projected film image > and > > > our ordinary > > > > reality. You can see a box of oranges as a projected image but > > you > > > can't eat > > > > them where the orange in your hand can be tasted, smelled and > > eaten > > > for > > > > nourishment. The projected image does not nourish. It's a > good > > > try, but easy to > > > > dismiss and before movies existed, what comparisons did the > > > teachers use I > > > > wonder? It's much more complex than that, how it is as it is, > > and > > > what it is. I'd > > > > rather stick with Life Itself and the expression of life into > > form. > > > > > > > > Larry Epston > > > > > > > > > > > ...then, Larry.....couldn't you love something or > somebody.....who > > > left his/her form (body).......? > > > > > > the real being and nature is infinite...... > > > > > > means....as long " you " , Larry, feel to have an orange in " his " > > > hand......is already lost in illusion.... > > > > > > this illusion " Larry " will be no more.....one day....... > > > > > > just like this your theorie of oranges....... which are realy > > > there.....or not realy there....... > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > re: > > this illusion " Larry " will be no more.....one day....... > > > > And now... where's the illusion now? > > > > > > Bill > > > this is all happening....now.....and in " every now " ......in a dream > only..... > > in this dream, Bill....there are more or less great egos.....and > also....more or less wonderful lights....... > > nobody realy care about " Larries " .... " Bill " ..... " Marc " ......except > the dream Itself......which risc to end...... > > in " The now " .... > > > > Marc > are those words written or silence written... what is silence without light what is light without silence tumbling into the void the dream submerges the moon Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 13, 2006 Report Share Posted April 13, 2006 In a message dated 4/13/2006 12:32:27 AM Pacific Daylight Time, dennis_travis33 writes: > ...then, Larry.....couldn't you love something or somebody.....who > left his/her form (body).......? > > the real being and nature is infinite...... > > means....as long " you " , Larry, feel to have an orange in " his " > hand......is already lost in illusion.... > > this illusion " Larry " will be no more.....one day....... > > just like this your theorie of oranges....... which are realy > there.....or not realy there....... > > Marc > > L.E: Just one orange will disappears, the orange tree continues as do oranges. Just as the human organism named Larry will disappear, human organisms will continues. So where is the illusion? Just because a particual life comes and goes that doesn't mean it's an illusion while its here or after it's gone. Larry Epston Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 13, 2006 Report Share Posted April 13, 2006 Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > > > > > In a message dated 4/12/2006 8:49:33 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > > > > gdtige@ writes: > > > > > > > > > this is a summary of what I retained of chapter 14 of > > appearances > > > and > > > > > reality of I AM THAT. > > > > > > > > > > There is only light. > > > > > And yet, to take appearance for reality is the cause of all > > > calamities. > > > > > There is only light and light alone. Everything else is but a > > > picture made > > > > > of light. > > > > > The light makes everything possible and yet, > > > > > Nothing that makes a thing what it is, > > > > > Its name and form, > > > > > Comes from the light. > > > > > The light does not move at all, > > > > > The movement is illusory, > > > > > A sequence of interceptions and coloring in the film. > > > > > What moves is the film-which is the mind. > > > > > The picture on the cinema screen is light also. > > > > > There is only light! > > > > > > > > > > Patricia > > > > > > > > L.E: There are big difference between a projected film image > and > > > our ordinary > > > > reality. You can see a box of oranges as a projected image but > > you > > > can't eat > > > > them where the orange in your hand can be tasted, smelled and > > eaten > > > for > > > > nourishment. The projected image does not nourish. It's a > good > > > try, but easy to > > > > dismiss and before movies existed, what comparisons did the > > > teachers use I > > > > wonder? It's much more complex than that, how it is as it is, > > and > > > what it is. I'd > > > > rather stick with Life Itself and the expression of life into > > form. > > > > > > > > Larry Epston > > > > > > > > > > > ...then, Larry.....couldn't you love something or > somebody.....who > > > left his/her form (body).......? > > > > > > the real being and nature is infinite...... > > > > > > means....as long " you " , Larry, feel to have an orange in " his " > > > hand......is already lost in illusion.... > > > > > > this illusion " Larry " will be no more.....one day....... > > > > > > just like this your theorie of oranges....... which are realy > > > there.....or not realy there....... > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > re: > > this illusion " Larry " will be no more.....one day....... > > > > And now... where's the illusion now? > > > > > > Bill > > > this is all happening....now.....and in " every now " ......in a dream > only..... > > in this dream, Bill....there are more or less great egos.....and > also....more or less wonderful lights....... > > nobody realy care about " Larries " .... " Bill " ..... " Marc " ......except > the dream Itself......which risc to end...... > > in " The now " .... > > > > Marc > are those words written or silence written... what is silence without light what is light without silence tumbling into the void the dream submerges the moon Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 13, 2006 Report Share Posted April 13, 2006 In a message dated 4/13/2006 5:18:33 AM Pacific Daylight Time, dennis_travis33 writes: > yes....there is no illusion in a dream..... > > in a dream...things appear to come and go..... > > things appear only to come and go..... > because the " seer " of things work in limited time and > space " observations " .... > > and therefore him/herself is also only the fiction of a time and > space related object..... > > the subject is out of this time and space related appearences > > there is only one subject.....and all appearences are reflections of > this one subject > > illusion is when " Larry " identify himself with the infinite subject > ....and forget that the subject Itself....can't hold an orange in the > hands > > Marc > > > L.E: Good try Marc. I'm sure you are saying something of significance, but I can't understand what it is. Sorry for my limitation. Larry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 13, 2006 Report Share Posted April 13, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 4/12/2006 8:49:33 AM Pacific Daylight > Time, > > > > > gdtige@ writes: > > > > > > > > > > > this is a summary of what I retained of chapter 14 of > > > appearances > > > > and > > > > > > reality of I AM THAT. > > > > > > > > > > > > There is only light. > > > > > > And yet, to take appearance for reality is the cause of all > > > > calamities. > > > > > > There is only light and light alone. Everything else is but > a > > > > picture made > > > > > > of light. > > > > > > The light makes everything possible and yet, > > > > > > Nothing that makes a thing what it is, > > > > > > Its name and form, > > > > > > Comes from the light. > > > > > > The light does not move at all, > > > > > > The movement is illusory, > > > > > > A sequence of interceptions and coloring in the film. > > > > > > What moves is the film-which is the mind. > > > > > > The picture on the cinema screen is light also. > > > > > > There is only light! > > > > > > > > > > > > Patricia > > > > > > > > > > L.E: There are big difference between a projected film image > > and > > > > our ordinary > > > > > reality. You can see a box of oranges as a projected image > but > > > you > > > > can't eat > > > > > them where the orange in your hand can be tasted, smelled and > > > eaten > > > > for > > > > > nourishment. The projected image does not nourish. It's a > > good > > > > try, but easy to > > > > > dismiss and before movies existed, what comparisons did the > > > > teachers use I > > > > > wonder? It's much more complex than that, how it is as it > is, > > > and > > > > what it is. I'd > > > > > rather stick with Life Itself and the expression of life into > > > form. > > > > > > > > > > Larry Epston > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...then, Larry.....couldn't you love something or > > somebody.....who > > > > left his/her form (body).......? > > > > > > > > the real being and nature is infinite...... > > > > > > > > means....as long " you " , Larry, feel to have an orange in " his " > > > > hand......is already lost in illusion.... > > > > > > > > this illusion " Larry " will be no more.....one day....... > > > > > > > > just like this your theorie of oranges....... which are realy > > > > there.....or not realy there....... > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > re: > > > this illusion " Larry " will be no more.....one day....... > > > > > > And now... where's the illusion now? > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > this is all happening....now.....and in " every now " ......in a dream > > only..... > > > > in this dream, Bill....there are more or less great egos.....and > > also....more or less wonderful lights....... > > > > nobody realy care about " Larries " .... " Bill " ..... " Marc " ......except > > the dream Itself......which risc to end...... > > > > in " The now " .... > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > are those words written > or silence written... > > what is silence without light > what is light without silence > > tumbling into the void > the dream submerges the moon > > > Bill wherever is Silence.....there is light... .....and also the moment of waking up..... " the world " let one fall asleep ....again....and again Silence has nothing in common with the world....but without Silence......there could be no projection of worlds Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 13, 2006 Report Share Posted April 13, 2006 Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > > In a message dated 4/13/2006 12:32:27 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > dennis_travis33 writes: > > > ...then, Larry.....couldn't you love something or somebody.....who > > left his/her form (body).......? > > > > the real being and nature is infinite...... > > > > means....as long " you " , Larry, feel to have an orange in " his " > > hand......is already lost in illusion.... > > > > this illusion " Larry " will be no more.....one day....... > > > > just like this your theorie of oranges....... which are realy > > there.....or not realy there....... > > > > Marc > > > > > > L.E: Just one orange will disappears, the orange tree continues as do > oranges. > Just as the human organism named Larry will disappear, human organisms will > continues. So where is the illusion? Just because a particual life comes and > goes that doesn't mean it's an illusion while its here or after it's gone. > > Larry Epston > > yes....there is no illusion in a dream..... in a dream...things appear to come and go..... things appear only to come and go..... because the " seer " of things work in limited time and space " observations " .... and therefore him/herself is also only the fiction of a time and space related object..... the subject is out of this time and space related appearences there is only one subject.....and all appearences are reflections of this one subject illusion is when " Larry " identify himself with the infinite subject .....and forget that the subject Itself....can't hold an orange in the hands Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 13, 2006 Report Share Posted April 13, 2006 Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > > In a message dated 4/13/2006 5:18:33 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > dennis_travis33 writes: > > > yes....there is no illusion in a dream..... > > > > in a dream...things appear to come and go..... > > > > things appear only to come and go..... > > because the " seer " of things work in limited time and > > space " observations " .... > > > > and therefore him/herself is also only the fiction of a time and > > space related object..... > > > > the subject is out of this time and space related appearences > > > > there is only one subject.....and all appearences are reflections of > > this one subject > > > > illusion is when " Larry " identify himself with the infinite subject > > ....and forget that the subject Itself....can't hold an orange in the > > hands > > > > Marc > > > > > > > L.E: Good try Marc. I'm sure you are saying something of significance, > but I can't understand what it is. Sorry for my limitation. > > Larry > > .....yes Larry..... in talking here in limited time and space related fictions.....there is nothing " to understand " .....except that we are limited.... so the reason you still can't " understand " ....is our attitude of nice play.....nice fun....in this great and wonderful nothingness of a life-dream Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 13, 2006 Report Share Posted April 13, 2006 >In a message dated 4/13/2006 5:18:33 AM Pacific Daylight Time, >dennis_travis33 writes: > >>yes....there is no illusion in a dream..... >> >>in a dream...things appear to come and go..... >> >>things appear only to come and go..... >>because the " seer " of things work in limited time and >>space " observations " .... >> >>and therefore him/herself is also only the fiction of a time and >>space related object..... >> >>the subject is out of this time and space related appearences >> >>there is only one subject.....and all appearences are reflections of >>this one subject >> >>illusion is when " Larry " identify himself with the infinite subject >>....and forget that the subject Itself....can't hold an orange in the >>hands >> >>Marc >> L.E: Good try Marc. I'm sure you are saying something of significance, >but I can't understand what it is. Sorry for my limitation. > >Larry > > yes Larry..... in talking here in limited time and space related fictions.....there is nothing " to understand " .....except that we are limited.... so the reason you still can't " understand " ....is our attitude of nice play.....nice fun....in this great and wonderful nothingness of a life-dream Marc L.E: Sorry Marc. You may be correct, but it appears to me to be an English problem of usage and definitions. So, to you we are limited. Exactly how limited, and what is unlimited? Are you so limited you cannot even know that an unlimited exists? Larry Epston > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 14, 2006 Report Share Posted April 14, 2006 Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > > > >In a message dated 4/13/2006 5:18:33 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > >dennis_travis33@ writes: > > > >>yes....there is no illusion in a dream..... > >> > >>in a dream...things appear to come and go..... > >> > >>things appear only to come and go..... > >>because the " seer " of things work in limited time and > >>space " observations " .... > >> > >>and therefore him/herself is also only the fiction of a time and > >>space related object..... > >> > >>the subject is out of this time and space related appearences > >> > >>there is only one subject.....and all appearences are reflections > of > >>this one subject > >> > >>illusion is when " Larry " identify himself with the infinite > subject > >>....and forget that the subject Itself....can't hold an orange in > the > >>hands > >> > >>Marc > >> > L.E: Good try Marc. I'm sure you are saying something of > significance, > >but I can't understand what it is. Sorry for my limitation. > > > >Larry > > > > > yes Larry..... > > in talking here in limited time and space related fictions.....there > is nothing " to understand " .....except that we are limited.... > > so the reason you still can't " understand " ....is our attitude of nice > play.....nice fun....in this great and wonderful nothingness of a > life-dream > > Marc > > > L.E: Sorry Marc. You may be correct, but it appears to me to be an English > problem of usage and definitions. So, to you we are limited. Exactly how > limited, and what is unlimited? Are you so limited you cannot even know that an > unlimited exists? > > Larry Epston > > > > > Get it Mark/ It's an English problem of usage and definitions. If you were French or German or Russian..or what have you, everything would be just hunky dorey with definition of usages OR your usage of definitions. See then there would be no prob.! That's my guess as to the meaning of this DEEP analysis and commentary of our pal Larry. ;-) ......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.