Guest guest Posted August 7, 2009 Report Share Posted August 7, 2009 I'll settle with the message that the below message stinks to high heaven of the separativeness claimed not to be seen by 'this one' noted below ;-). Any comments? Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > Heck, let's not even talk to him, if he's nonexistent ;-). > > > > He's something of a projecting device, anyhoo... 'bout on Bryn's level, I'd say. > > > As far as I'm concerned there is the level in which you are viewing from a distance someone or some experience that is other than you. > > Or, there are no levels, and there is no distance between you and what you view or " encounter. " > > Apparently, it's very rare that a human being expresses awareness of no levels and no distance apart, no time involved. > > It seems that human beings ingrain a sense of surviving, continuing and keep a sense of time as real, and space between observer and observed as real. > > Many, many communications reflect the intent to keep this distance. > > Many " nondual communicators " reflect this intent, often " unconsciously " as if unaware they are doing it, as if they are consciously believing " all is one. " > > But they still believe there is a separable they - they are this belief, they are this energy contraction. > > Still, it is indivisible energy, no doubt. > > There is beauty when the energy is not attempting to obscure what it is, by making itself as self and other. > > Rarely, there is a communication in which no distance apart is assumed. > > For this one, the communicated to, the communicator, and the communicating aren't divided or divisible. > > There is no intent to continue and survive. > > There is no demonstration, no sense of adventure assumed in the communicating. > > - D - > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 7, 2009 Report Share Posted August 7, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > I'll settle with the message that the below message stinks to high heaven of the separativeness claimed not to be seen by 'this one' noted below ;-). > > Any comments? That's your stinky mental picture, all right. - D - > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Heck, let's not even talk to him, if he's nonexistent ;-). > > > > > > He's something of a projecting device, anyhoo... 'bout on Bryn's level, I'd say. > > > > > > As far as I'm concerned there is the level in which you are viewing from a distance someone or some experience that is other than you. > > > > Or, there are no levels, and there is no distance between you and what you view or " encounter. " > > > > Apparently, it's very rare that a human being expresses awareness of no levels and no distance apart, no time involved. > > > > It seems that human beings ingrain a sense of surviving, continuing and keep a sense of time as real, and space between observer and observed as real. > > > > Many, many communications reflect the intent to keep this distance. > > > > Many " nondual communicators " reflect this intent, often " unconsciously " as if unaware they are doing it, as if they are consciously believing " all is one. " > > > > But they still believe there is a separable they - they are this belief, they are this energy contraction. > > > > Still, it is indivisible energy, no doubt. > > > > There is beauty when the energy is not attempting to obscure what it is, by making itself as self and other. > > > > Rarely, there is a communication in which no distance apart is assumed. > > > > For this one, the communicated to, the communicator, and the communicating aren't divided or divisible. > > > > There is no intent to continue and survive. > > > > There is no demonstration, no sense of adventure assumed in the communicating. > > > > - D - > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 7, 2009 Report Share Posted August 7, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > I'll settle with the message that the below message stinks to high heaven of the separativeness claimed not to be seen by 'this one' noted below ;-). > > > > Any comments? > > That's your stinky mental picture, all right. > > > - D - Well, it's just a memory now. Although it still seems silly why the word 'levels' would have set off the chain of thoughts in the earlier message, if in fact that's what happened: > > > As far as I'm concerned there is the level in which you are > > viewing from a distance someone or some experience that is other > > than you. > > > > > > Or, there are no levels, and there is no distance between you > > and what you view or " encounter. " I recall you recently posting something from the Tao Te Ching, where it said that a wise man would do xxx, an ordinary man would do xx, and a fool would do xx. Are those not 'levels'? You aren't the nondual police. 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.