Guest guest Posted May 14, 2006 Report Share Posted May 14, 2006 Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia <gdtige@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For one who dies, there is no other to evaluate. > > > > > > -- D. > > > > > > > > > Only in death do we get weighed > > > > > > Patricia > > > > In dying, I find life. > > > > In losing all, I find the all. > > > > -- D. > > when's the last time you lost all? > days, hours, seconds, microseconds? > > > this moment so raw > not even knowing what is felt > just an intensity > that is a life of its own. > > in the Tao of Physics Capra talks about > a flux state of matter/energy/space where > particles are spontaneously created and > destroyed out of nothingness. > > this moment so raw is like that. > each pixel of bright vitality is in > continual explosion and decay > > > > Bill The loss of all can't be any other moment, can't be something that happened previously, thus isn't an experience that can be had or collected. The flux which is the totality movement isn't separated into particles each with their owh qualitie. The qualities aren't located anywhere, appear only in/as relativity itself - which is how human lives are lived (apparently). -- D. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 15, 2006 Report Share Posted May 15, 2006 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <illusyn@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia <gdtige@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For one who dies, there is no other to evaluate. > > > > > > > > -- D. > > > > > > > > > > > > Only in death do we get weighed > > > > > > > > Patricia > > > > > > In dying, I find life. > > > > > > In losing all, I find the all. > > > > > > -- D. > > > > when's the last time you lost all? > > days, hours, seconds, microseconds? > > > > > > this moment so raw > > not even knowing what is felt > > just an intensity > > that is a life of its own. > > > > in the Tao of Physics Capra talks about > > a flux state of matter/energy/space where > > particles are spontaneously created and > > destroyed out of nothingness. > > > > this moment so raw is like that. > > each pixel of bright vitality is in > > continual explosion and decay > > > > > > > > Bill > > > The loss of all can't be any other moment, can't be something that > happened previously, thus isn't an experience that can be had or > collected. > > The flux which is the totality movement isn't separated into > particles each with their owh qualitie. if, in speaking of particles, you are referring to: > each pixel of bright vitality is in > continual explosion and decay then you didn't read that aright. metaphoric language (which is all we have when talking about nonduality) must not be taken as referring to literals. standing on the beach and looking into the myriad sparkles of sunlight dancing and minute movements of water and sand... what is beheld is very alive, movement everywhere and yet not a " thing " moving anywhere. how does one describe that? by metaphor but the metaphor cannot be analyzed, broken up... without killing the goose > The qualities aren't located anywhere, appear only in/as relativity > itself - which is how human lives are lived (apparently). yes... touching on something important there and very elusive as well... sometimes " this moment " is very quiet and still sometimes " this moment " is very alive with vibrance but it is not that " this moment " really has qualities in either case perhaps one could say the stillness *aspect* is more forward in one moment, the vitality aspect more forward in another [some will read that last sentence and see an implied model behind it. they will then go on to assume that the writer of the sentence was working from such a model to have written that sentence. and they then will go on (perhaps) to critique the writer for the invalidity of the model that the writer is assumed to be advocating. yuk!!] the qualities that only appear in/as relativity... are the only kind we have... so we may as well learn how to talk about them. the mind that likes to pin things down as absolutes is out of business. it is tough, I suppose, but that is the way it is. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 15, 2006 Report Share Posted May 15, 2006 Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <illusyn wrote: > > > > > > > > > > For one who dies, there is no other to evaluate. > > > > > > > > > > -- D. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Only in death do we get weighed > > > > > > > > > > Patricia > > > > > > > > In dying, I find life. > > > > > > > > In losing all, I find the all. > > > > > > > > -- D. > > > > > > when's the last time you lost all? > > > days, hours, seconds, microseconds? > > > > > > > > > this moment so raw > > > not even knowing what is felt > > > just an intensity > > > that is a life of its own. > > > > > > in the Tao of Physics Capra talks about > > > a flux state of matter/energy/space where > > > particles are spontaneously created and > > > destroyed out of nothingness. > > > > > > this moment so raw is like that. > > > each pixel of bright vitality is in > > > continual explosion and decay > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > D: > > The loss of all can't be any other moment, can't be something that > > happened previously, thus isn't an experience that can be had or > > collected. > > > > The flux which is the totality movement isn't separated into > > particles each with their owh qualitie. > > B: if, in speaking of particles, you are referring to: > > each pixel of bright vitality is in > > continual explosion and decay > then you didn't read that aright. > > metaphoric language (which is all we have when > talking about nonduality) must not be taken > as referring to literals. > > standing on the beach and looking into the > myriad sparkles of sunlight dancing and minute > movements of water and sand... what is beheld > is very alive, movement everywhere and yet > not a " thing " moving anywhere. > > how does one describe that? > > by metaphor > > but the metaphor cannot be analyzed, broken up... > without killing the goose D: It's all metaphor -- including " analysis, " and your image of " killing a goose. " If a metaphor can be messed with -- then go ahead and mess with it, deconstruct away. That " messing with it " is itself a metaphor, " deconstruction of metaphor " is itself a metaphor. The idea of one metaphor (like " an analysis " ) doing something (like " killing " ) to another metaphor (like a goose) is just another image. As are the " doers " of these actions, and the " done to's " (e.g., the one who performs the analysis, and that upon which it's performed. Bottom line: What makes the dream a dream is that it is all metaphorical -- and the metaphors, while seemingly referring to something outside, actually don't. What is not metaphor can't be stated, as all speech is, at root, based in metaphor, as speech is based in memory, which depends on metaphor. The recapitulization of " what was " as image and feeling, has to be metaphor -- since there isn't actually any residue, any " what was " to deal with. > > The qualities aren't located anywhere, appear only in/as relativity > > itself - which is how human lives are lived (apparently). > > yes... > > touching on something important there > and very elusive as well... > > sometimes " this moment " is very quiet and still > > sometimes " this moment " is very alive with vibrance > > but it is not that " this moment " really has qualities > in either case Yes, the qualities are relative to each other, and even as " raw emotion " are metaphorical in nature -- seeming to refer to something, " something actually happened to me - I feel it strongly " -- " What is " is always discussed in terms of metaphor -- either positive in nature (like " what is " or " love " ) or negative ( " when the illusion is not, " " neti, neti " ). > perhaps one could say the stillness *aspect* is more > forward in one moment, the vitality aspect more forward > in another > > [some will read that last sentence and see an implied > model behind it. they will then go on to assume that > the writer of the sentence was working from such a > model to have written that sentence. and they then > will go on (perhaps) to critique the writer for the > invalidity of the model that the writer is assumed to > be advocating. yuk!!] > > > the qualities that only appear in/as relativity... > are the only kind we have... so we may as well learn > how to talk about them. That's all we can talk about. All concepts of " the absolute " being relative. > the mind that likes to pin things down as absolutes is > out of business. it is tough, I suppose, but that is the > way it is. One can talk about absolutes all one wants -- but one's talk remains relative, the images of the absolute remain relative. What isn't relative also isn't absolute -- and so can't be discussed, never has and never will. Dream characters can only discuss the dream, because they are of the dream. What isn't of the dream can't be indicated, not even negatively, (by a signifier like " what isn't of the dream, " or " Tao that can't be spoken. " ) -- D. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 15, 2006 Report Share Posted May 15, 2006 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > For one who dies, there is no other to evaluate. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- D. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Only in death do we get weighed > > > > > > > > > > > > Patricia > > > > > > > > > > In dying, I find life. > > > > > > > > > > In losing all, I find the all. > > > > > > > > > > -- D. > > > > > > > > when's the last time you lost all? > > > > days, hours, seconds, microseconds? > > > > > > > > > > > > this moment so raw > > > > not even knowing what is felt > > > > just an intensity > > > > that is a life of its own. > > > > > > > > in the Tao of Physics Capra talks about > > > > a flux state of matter/energy/space where > > > > particles are spontaneously created and > > > > destroyed out of nothingness. > > > > > > > > this moment so raw is like that. > > > > each pixel of bright vitality is in > > > > continual explosion and decay > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > D: > > > The loss of all can't be any other moment, can't be something that > > > happened previously, thus isn't an experience that can be had or > > > collected. > > > > > > The flux which is the totality movement isn't separated into > > > particles each with their owh qualitie. > > > > B: if, in speaking of particles, you are referring to: > > > each pixel of bright vitality is in > > > continual explosion and decay > > then you didn't read that aright. > > > > metaphoric language (which is all we have when > > talking about nonduality) must not be taken > > as referring to literals. > > > > standing on the beach and looking into the > > myriad sparkles of sunlight dancing and minute > > movements of water and sand... what is beheld > > is very alive, movement everywhere and yet > > not a " thing " moving anywhere. > > > > how does one describe that? > > > > by metaphor > > > > but the metaphor cannot be analyzed, broken up... > > without killing the goose > > D: It's all metaphor -- including " analysis, " and your image of > " killing a goose. " > > If a metaphor can be messed with -- then go ahead and mess with it, > deconstruct away. > > That " messing with it " is itself a metaphor, " deconstruction of > metaphor " is itself a metaphor. > > The idea of one metaphor (like " an analysis " ) doing something (like > " killing " ) to another metaphor (like a goose) is just another image. > > As are the " doers " of these actions, and the " done to's " (e.g., the > one who performs the analysis, and that upon which it's performed. > > Bottom line: > > What makes the dream a dream is that it is all metaphorical -- and the > metaphors, while seemingly referring to something outside, actually don't. > > What is not metaphor can't be stated, as all speech is, at root, based > in metaphor, as speech is based in memory, which depends on metaphor. > The recapitulization of " what was " as image and feeling, has to be > metaphor -- since there isn't actually any residue, any " what was " to > deal with. > > > > The qualities aren't located anywhere, appear only in/as relativity > > > itself - which is how human lives are lived (apparently). > > > > yes... > > > > touching on something important there > > and very elusive as well... > > > > sometimes " this moment " is very quiet and still > > > > sometimes " this moment " is very alive with vibrance > > > > but it is not that " this moment " really has qualities > > in either case > > Yes, the qualities are relative to each other, and even as " raw > emotion " are metaphorical in nature -- seeming to refer to something, > " something actually happened to me - I feel it strongly " -- > > " What is " is always discussed in terms of metaphor -- either positive > in nature (like " what is " or " love " ) or negative ( " when the illusion > is not, " " neti, neti " ). > > > perhaps one could say the stillness *aspect* is more > > forward in one moment, the vitality aspect more forward > > in another > > > > [some will read that last sentence and see an implied > > model behind it. they will then go on to assume that > > the writer of the sentence was working from such a > > model to have written that sentence. and they then > > will go on (perhaps) to critique the writer for the > > invalidity of the model that the writer is assumed to > > be advocating. yuk!!] > > > > > > the qualities that only appear in/as relativity... > > are the only kind we have... so we may as well learn > > how to talk about them. > > That's all we can talk about. All concepts of " the absolute " being > relative. > > > the mind that likes to pin things down as absolutes is > > out of business. it is tough, I suppose, but that is the > > way it is. > > One can talk about absolutes all one wants -- but one's talk remains > relative, the images of the absolute remain relative. > > What isn't relative also isn't absolute -- and so can't be discussed, > never has and never will. Dream characters can only discuss the > dream, because they are of the dream. What isn't of the dream can't > be indicated, not even negatively, (by a signifier like " what isn't of > the dream, " or " Tao that can't be spoken. " ) > > -- D. BINGO and BANZAIS Dan! nothing left to say.......neat and fine. .......bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 15, 2006 Report Share Posted May 15, 2006 <snip> > > metaphoric language (which is all we have when > > talking about nonduality) must not be taken > > as referring to literals. > > > > standing on the beach and looking into the > > myriad sparkles of sunlight dancing and minute > > movements of water and sand... what is beheld > > is very alive, movement everywhere and yet > > not a " thing " moving anywhere. > > > > how does one describe that? > > > > by metaphor > > > > but the metaphor cannot be analyzed, broken up... > > without killing the goose > > D: It's all metaphor -- including " analysis, " and your image of > " killing a goose. " > > If a metaphor can be messed with -- then go ahead and mess with it, > deconstruct away. > > That " messing with it " is itself a metaphor, " deconstruction of > metaphor " is itself a metaphor. > > The idea of one metaphor (like " an analysis " ) doing something (like > " killing " ) to another metaphor (like a goose) is just another image. > > As are the " doers " of these actions, and the " done to's " (e.g., the > one who performs the analysis, and that upon which it's performed. > > Bottom line: > > What makes the dream a dream is that it is all metaphorical -- and the > metaphors, while seemingly referring to something outside, actually don't. this would seem to imply that meaning comes not from what is referred to, but from the *referring* itself... i.e. evidently there is some kind of itch being scratched by the dream process... and that process keeps " reaching across " ... but it seems clear that what is " over there " is not what provides the real impetus and so the impetus is evidently in the very reaching across itself. [just a notion] > What is not metaphor can't be stated, as all speech is, at root, based > in metaphor, as speech is based in memory, which depends on metaphor. > The recapitulization of " what was " as image and feeling, has to be > metaphor -- since there isn't actually any residue, any " what was " to > deal with. > > > > The qualities aren't located anywhere, appear only in/as relativity > > > itself - which is how human lives are lived (apparently). > > > > yes... > > > > touching on something important there > > and very elusive as well... > > > > sometimes " this moment " is very quiet and still > > > > sometimes " this moment " is very alive with vibrance > > > > but it is not that " this moment " really has qualities > > in either case > > Yes, the qualities are relative to each other, and even as " raw > emotion " are metaphorical in nature -- seeming to refer to something, > " something actually happened to me - I feel it strongly " -- > > " What is " is always discussed in terms of metaphor -- either positive > in nature (like " what is " or " love " ) or negative ( " when the illusion > is not, " " neti, neti " ). > > > perhaps one could say the stillness *aspect* is more > > forward in one moment, the vitality aspect more forward > > in another > > > > [some will read that last sentence and see an implied > > model behind it. they will then go on to assume that > > the writer of the sentence was working from such a > > model to have written that sentence. and they then > > will go on (perhaps) to critique the writer for the > > invalidity of the model that the writer is assumed to > > be advocating. yuk!!] > > > > > > the qualities that only appear in/as relativity... > > are the only kind we have... so we may as well learn > > how to talk about them. > > That's all we can talk about. All concepts of " the absolute " being > relative. > > > the mind that likes to pin things down as absolutes is > > out of business. it is tough, I suppose, but that is the > > way it is. > > One can talk about absolutes all one wants -- but one's talk remains > relative, the images of the absolute remain relative. > > What isn't relative also isn't absolute -- and so can't be discussed, > never has and never will. Castenada's Don Juan talks about not only the unknown, but also the *unknowable* > Dream characters can only discuss the > dream, because they are of the dream. so what are we discussing here? and does it have to be the dream characters that do the discussing? perhaps the Dream can speak... with the characters being decorations within that speaking... just a (dream) thought [who's talking?] > What isn't of the dream can't > be indicated, not even negatively, (by a signifier like " what isn't of > the dream, " or " Tao that can't be spoken. " ) > > -- D. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 15, 2006 Report Share Posted May 15, 2006 Hi Bill -- Yes, all references are " to " something, or " about " something - yet there isn't anything there (nor anything absent). There is just the movement of referencing as you inferred below. And yes, it is the dream that is speaking. Speaking not even to itself, and certainly not to someone else. Any question such as " why " or " wherefore " evaporates - And of course, that's just another metaphor. You could also use the metaphor of " hologram " instead of dream, it would work as well -- Indra's net. Maybe it depends on whether one is in a silent mood or a shimmering mood, which metaphor seems applicable in the moment of speaking. -- D. (nnb) Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <illusyn wrote: > > <snip> > > > > metaphoric language (which is all we have when > > > talking about nonduality) must not be taken > > > as referring to literals. > > > > > > standing on the beach and looking into the > > > myriad sparkles of sunlight dancing and minute > > > movements of water and sand... what is beheld > > > is very alive, movement everywhere and yet > > > not a " thing " moving anywhere. > > > > > > how does one describe that? > > > > > > by metaphor > > > > > > but the metaphor cannot be analyzed, broken up... > > > without killing the goose > > > > D: It's all metaphor -- including " analysis, " and your image of > > " killing a goose. " > > > > If a metaphor can be messed with -- then go ahead and mess with it, > > deconstruct away. > > > > That " messing with it " is itself a metaphor, " deconstruction of > > metaphor " is itself a metaphor. > > > > The idea of one metaphor (like " an analysis " ) doing something (like > > " killing " ) to another metaphor (like a goose) is just another image. > > > > As are the " doers " of these actions, and the " done to's " (e.g., the > > one who performs the analysis, and that upon which it's performed. > > > > Bottom line: > > > > What makes the dream a dream is that it is all metaphorical -- and the > > metaphors, while seemingly referring to something outside, actually > don't. > > this would seem to imply that meaning comes not from what is > referred to, but from the *referring* itself... > > i.e. evidently there is some kind of itch being scratched by the > dream process... and that process keeps " reaching across " ... > > but it seems clear that what is " over there " is not what provides > the real impetus > > and so the impetus is evidently in the very reaching across itself. > > [just a notion] > > > What is not metaphor can't be stated, as all speech is, at root, based > > in metaphor, as speech is based in memory, which depends on metaphor. > > The recapitulization of " what was " as image and feeling, has to be > > metaphor -- since there isn't actually any residue, any " what was " to > > deal with. > > > > > > The qualities aren't located anywhere, appear only in/as relativity > > > > itself - which is how human lives are lived (apparently). > > > > > > yes... > > > > > > touching on something important there > > > and very elusive as well... > > > > > > sometimes " this moment " is very quiet and still > > > > > > sometimes " this moment " is very alive with vibrance > > > > > > but it is not that " this moment " really has qualities > > > in either case > > > > Yes, the qualities are relative to each other, and even as " raw > > emotion " are metaphorical in nature -- seeming to refer to something, > > " something actually happened to me - I feel it strongly " -- > > > > " What is " is always discussed in terms of metaphor -- either positive > > in nature (like " what is " or " love " ) or negative ( " when the illusion > > is not, " " neti, neti " ). > > > > > perhaps one could say the stillness *aspect* is more > > > forward in one moment, the vitality aspect more forward > > > in another > > > > > > [some will read that last sentence and see an implied > > > model behind it. they will then go on to assume that > > > the writer of the sentence was working from such a > > > model to have written that sentence. and they then > > > will go on (perhaps) to critique the writer for the > > > invalidity of the model that the writer is assumed to > > > be advocating. yuk!!] > > > > > > > > > the qualities that only appear in/as relativity... > > > are the only kind we have... so we may as well learn > > > how to talk about them. > > > > That's all we can talk about. All concepts of " the absolute " being > > relative. > > > > > the mind that likes to pin things down as absolutes is > > > out of business. it is tough, I suppose, but that is the > > > way it is. > > > > One can talk about absolutes all one wants -- but one's talk remains > > relative, the images of the absolute remain relative. > > > > What isn't relative also isn't absolute -- and so can't be discussed, > > never has and never will. > > Castenada's Don Juan talks about not only the unknown, but also > the *unknowable* > > > Dream characters can only discuss the > > dream, because they are of the dream. > so what are we discussing here? > > and does it have to be the dream characters that do the discussing? > > perhaps the Dream can speak... with the characters being decorations > within that speaking... > > just a (dream) thought > > [who's talking?] > > > What isn't of the dream can't > > be indicated, not even negatively, (by a signifier like " what isn't of > > the dream, " or " Tao that can't be spoken. " ) > > > > -- D. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 16, 2006 Report Share Posted May 16, 2006 --- pliantheart <illusyn a écrit : <snip> > > metaphoric language (which is all we have when > > talking about nonduality) must not be taken > > as referring to literals. > > > > standing on the beach and looking into the > > myriad sparkles of sunlight dancing and minute > > movements of water and sand... what is beheld > > is very alive, movement everywhere and yet > > not a " thing " moving anywhere. > > > > how does one describe that? > > > > by metaphor > > > > but the metaphor cannot be analyzed, broken up... > > without killing the goose > > D: It's all metaphor -- including " analysis, " and your image of > " killing a goose. " > > If a metaphor can be messed with -- then go ahead and mess with it, > deconstruct away. > > That " messing with it " is itself a metaphor, " deconstruction of > metaphor " is itself a metaphor. > > The idea of one metaphor (like " an analysis " ) doing something (like > " killing " ) to another metaphor (like a goose) is just another image. > > As are the " doers " of these actions, and the " done to's " (e.g., the > one who performs the analysis, and that upon which it's performed. > > Bottom line: > > What makes the dream a dream is that it is all metaphorical -- and the > metaphors, while seemingly referring to something outside, actually don't. this would seem to imply that meaning comes not from what is referred to, but from the *referring* itself... i.e. evidently there is some kind of itch being scratched by the dream process... and that process keeps " reaching across " ... but it seems clear that what is " over there " is not what provides the real impetus and so the impetus is evidently in the very reaching across itself. [just a notion] > What is not metaphor can't be stated, as all speech is, at root, based > in metaphor, as speech is based in memory, which depends on metaphor. > The recapitulization of " what was " as image and feeling, has to be > metaphor -- since there isn't actually any residue, any " what was " to > deal with. > > > > The qualities aren't located anywhere, appear only in/as relativity > > > itself - which is how human lives are lived (apparently). > > > > yes... > > > > touching on something important there > > and very elusive as well... > > > > sometimes " this moment " is very quiet and still > > > > sometimes " this moment " is very alive with vibrance > > > > but it is not that " this moment " really has qualities > > in either case > > Yes, the qualities are relative to each other, and even as " raw > emotion " are metaphorical in nature -- seeming to refer to something, > " something actually happened to me - I feel it strongly " -- > > " What is " is always discussed in terms of metaphor -- either positive > in nature (like " what is " or " love " ) or negative ( " when the illusion > is not, " " neti, neti " ). > > > perhaps one could say the stillness *aspect* is more > > forward in one moment, the vitality aspect more forward > > in another > > > > [some will read that last sentence and see an implied > > model behind it. they will then go on to assume that > > the writer of the sentence was working from such a > > model to have written that sentence. and they then > > will go on (perhaps) to critique the writer for the > > invalidity of the model that the writer is assumed to > > be advocating. yuk!!] > > > > > > the qualities that only appear in/as relativity... > > are the only kind we have... so we may as well learn > > how to talk about them. > > That's all we can talk about. All concepts of " the absolute " being > relative. > > > the mind that likes to pin things down as absolutes is > > out of business. it is tough, I suppose, but that is the > > way it is. > > One can talk about absolutes all one wants -- but one's talk remains > relative, the images of the absolute remain relative. > > What isn't relative also isn't absolute -- and so can't be discussed, > never has and never will. Castenada's Don Juan talks about not only the unknown, but also the *unknowable* > Dream characters can only discuss the > dream, because they are of the dream. so what are we discussing here? and does it have to be the dream characters that do the discussing? perhaps the Dream can speak... with the characters being decorations within that speaking... just a (dream) thought [who's talking?] > What isn't of the dream can't > be indicated, not even negatively, (by a signifier like " what isn't of > the dream, " or " Tao that can't be spoken. " ) > > -- D. so forgetting about reading between lines, or between two words,or even between two thoughts, I will Includ lines with the space that hold them, And maybe tell you about it. That remains a bit in the non-doing. Wu-Wei Patricia > ** If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: /mygroups?edit=1 Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 16, 2006 Report Share Posted May 16, 2006 Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <illusyn wrote: > > > the mind that likes to pin things down as absolutes is > out of business. it is tough, I suppose, but that is the > way it is. > > > Bill > ** just recalling now Wilber's stuff: red meme, orange meme, etc. like attempting to 'stay in business' through association (or modeling) with so-called 'absolutes' kinda weirdly primitive...but still quite common. ;-( 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.