Aggressive speech/elephants

[Guest guest]

Non divided inside, or non divided as inside/outside?> -geo-> > I think division is division, and when there is seamlessness between inside> and outside, the answer to that question will be clear. But I don't know.> That is how I'm proceeding, because taking an absolute view of this feels> incomplete. I was struck by this quote from Nisargadatta, which brought me> to this list:> > There must be love in the relation between the person who says 'I am' and> the observer of the 'I am.' As long as the observer, the inner self, the> 'higher' self, considers himself apart from the observed, the 'lower self',> despises it and condemns it, the situation is hopeless. It is only when the> observer accepts the person as a projection or manifestation of himself, and> so to say, takes the self into the Self, the duality of 'I' and 'this' goes> and in the identify of the outer and inner the Supreme Reality manifests> itself.> This union of the seer and the seen happens when the seer becomes conscious> of himself as the seer; he is not merely interested in the seen, which he is> anyhow, but also interested in being interested, giving attention to> attention, aware of being aware. Affectionate awareness is the crucial> factor that brings Reality into focus."> > G> > Yes, I also like that.> But let us be clear here. Nis is refering to the situation where "I am" is > the world.> It is the world syaing "I am" - not some inner imagined separate observer.> -geo-> > > There seems to be something subtle but extremely important here. There seems to be a sense of the world acknowledging/experiencing itself as one who may separately observe. > > I really don't know. I'm still feeling my way around this elephant, blindfolded. > > GP: Thanks God you decided to post. You are not soblindfolded. You are peeking with one eye. Iagree with all have you said so far. I hope you haveno head to this to go to.

 

 

Of course I do We are all bozos on this bus, or so I hear.

 

 

Yes, "What Is" knowsitself in us, but in doing so it sees itself asthe "other:" the inanimate and non-aware.

 

 

 

Again, there seems to be a small distinction between being "What Is" and seeing oneself as "What Is" . Acts/gestures arising from feeling oneself an expression of "What Is" seem quite different than those that come from trying to fully realize "What Is." But it is a distinction I am hard pressed to explain further. Anthony de Mello comes close to what I am trying to express:

 

 

"What must I do to attain the divine?""The divine isn't something one attains through doing, but something one realizes through seeing," said the Master."What, then, is the function of doing?"

 

"To express the divine, not to attain it."

 

 

It's also important to understand that being aware of itself is nobig thing for "what is." it is equally OK with not knowingitself.

 

Can you explain this a little? Is this sort of in reference to one who may be looking for relative value in the Absolute?

 

 

Welcome to the posting rostrum,

 

Thank you.Pete, aggressively fighting the mucho-hiding of BS, oris it the mushahaddeen of BS?

Freedom fighter of and for BS? You're taking a lot on, Pete.

 

Gloria