RE : whats the purpose in fighting with words../iietsa

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart@>

> wrote:

> >

> > <snip>

> >

> > > > > >

> > > > > from whole seeing no word are superior to any other word...

> > > > > from point of views some words are higher than other words...

> > > > > the search for the highest word...indicates that you take

> > > yourself

> > > > > to be what you are not...

> > > > > you are the highest nature so to speak.....and words are

> mere

> > > > > shadows on the wall....

> > > > > be who you are...and the wall will disolve..

> > > > > ...iietsa

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > What Is includes words... there is no separation between

> > > > words and " what is real " ...

> > > >

> > > > the notion of some things as " shadows " , is a notion

> > > > of separation, a notion of what is real and what isn't...

> > > >

> > > > there seems to be a tendency by many to put words and

> > > > so-called concepts on one plane and what is " referred to "

> > > > on another. Why do that?

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Bill

> > > >

> > >

> > > hey Bill

> > > the mind is only thought...

> > > and thought however beautyful is mere shadow...

> > > within the love of real beauty...

> > > differencies in objects are many..but created by the one and

> same

> > > mind..

> > > mind is not the whole...

> > > the mind is one...making many...

> > > many is in the mind...

> > > mind is in the one...

> > > the one is the whole...

> > > ...iietsa

> > >

> >

> > so you are saying it is important to distinguish

> > " mind " from " the one " ?

> >

> > Bill

> >

> the one is not a thing (it is what you are) and cannot be known from

> elsewhere ...

> the mind is a thing in the one (in you) and can easely be seen by

> the one (by you)

> it cannot be said that the one is separated from the mind because

> the one is not a thing...you are not a thing...

> ...iietsa

 

but my point was that you seem to be making

a distinction of " the mind " as an important distinction.

 

I see no such distinction.

 

Is it your view to see some things as " of mind " and

some as not? It seems you must be, else you wouldn't

be emphasizing mind as a significant distinction.

 

Bill