Guest guest Posted June 27, 2006 Report Share Posted June 27, 2006 --- pliantheart <pliantheart a écrit : > 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 Bill, the sense of Aliveness everywhere with no center is made of atoms, atoms made of awareness, and they can only be called <I am > because their awareness is that of the All. Patricia > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > <snip> > > > > > _________________________ Mail réinvente le mail ! Découvrez le nouveau Mail et son interface révolutionnaire. http://fr.mail. 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.