Guest guest Posted June 27, 2006 Report Share Posted June 27, 2006 Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia <gdtige wrote: > > > --- pliantheart <pliantheart a écrit : > > > Nisargadatta , OConnor > > Patricia <gdtige@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > you can only understand what you are not. > > > For the rest,< youcanonlybe> > > > when you find I am, what else can you say, why > > would > > > words matter? > > > There are no right word that can describe it, you > > can > > > only try to know who is talking to you, then > > seeing if > > > their choice of word is in the same line than > > yours, > > > or not. > > That's exactly what my question about " I am " is all > > about. " I am " seems not the description for me at > > all. > > > So when someone else does use " I am " to describe, > > does that mean they are describing something quite > > different, or does it mean that they actually are > > describing the same thing (more or less), but that > > the term " I am " does resonate for them even though > > for me it doesn't. > > > > > When you find I am, it doesn`t matter how you call > > it. > > > You`ll touch their beingness because there is > > nothing > > > else to be. > > > There is only disappearance of the seeker. > > Some use the term 'This' for that. > > At this moment I'm inclined to say: " alivenenss > > everywhere " > > > > For those who incline to say " I am " ... > > I wonder if there is a " sense of I " ... > > even with the disappearance of the seeker. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > so, the seeker gone, there could still be a sense of > I? So you are saying that for you no sense of I... that is what I am interested to know. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>. > > > > If not, I don't understand calling it " I am " . > > > > If so, then they are describing something quite > > different from what I describe when I say > > " aliveness everywhere " . > > > > For one who would say " I am " I wonder if > > simply " beingness " would work just as well. > > Does there really have to be an " I " in it? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I > understand your reluctance to the word I. And it is > wise to be very careful. > But I find now that <I am> is not a all personnal, it > is yet so appropriate because it describes something > oh...so very close to home, nearer than hands and feet > and irrefutable.....Patricia So no " sense of I " yet the term " I am " does speak for you. OK. Hard for me to understand. But OK. Thank you for going into this with me. Bill > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > <snip> 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.