Guest guest Posted July 27, 2006 Report Share Posted July 27, 2006 Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia <gdtige wrote: > > it isn`t Dan knocking, it is your origin resurfacing without pity > for the decorum of an entity. > > > > Patricia > > Dan knocked. > > Or was Dan knocked? > > I forget. > > Either way, all is in service to what is, choicelessly, seamlessly, > and without division. > > -- Dan > > division is in our imagination. but i guess everything else is in our imagination too. > What is not? > Yet imagination is good, it makes us jump several miles of dark shadows and brings us a little closer to stopping projecting our univers. > Imagination ending itself, imagine that! > > > Patricia How is an image formed? A person can't answer this, because the person is an image formed. The " how " isn't being done by an image. If you look into this, you find that determining a location, such as " somewhere " or " nowhere " -- depends on images. Without images, you can't say anything at all about " how. " Yet, you can know how. Because you are forming the images. But you can't know by using the images you have of " you " and " forming an image. " That is what is difficult about inquiry, and why many talk without knowing first-hand. People say things they have heard, that intuitively sound good, like: " don't indentify with an image, with a 'me.' " But saying that and believing that, is the same process of so-called " identification " that they are advising not to do! Disidentification isn't a full answer to this question. It is an aspect of the answer. You can't identify with an image and know how image formation occurs and what it's about. But disidentification and identification are two aspects of the same coin, just like formation and destruction. Only one who stands in the now-moment of formation/destruction without separation understands image-formation and dissolution. Bill was calling this a " fire " -- Which is what Heraclitis and Pascal called it. Of course, all our attempts to provide an image necessarily fall short. The saying was attributed to Jesus that one is chosen to know/be. But chosen by who? Someone apart from who one is? No, I don't think he meant it that way at all. So, to be chosen is to relinquish one's position as a chooser, not voluntarily or because one knows ahead of time what will happen -- but because it can't be helped. It is what is, as is. No division is possible, so none is there. -- Dan 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.