Guest guest Posted March 6, 2010 Report Share Posted March 6, 2010 > > >P: Yes, " What Is " knows > itself in us, but in doing so it sees itself as > the " other: " the inanimate and non-aware. > > > G: 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. " P: Sorry that what I wrote was not clear enough, I didn't intent to say " what is " is seem as my myself, on the contrary, before realization " what is " sees itself as the " other. " It's only after realization that such distinction vanishes. No self, nor other. Just what is recognizing itself as the all. But as I wrote before, this recognition is not a big deal for what is. It is temporary and dies with each realized brain. > > > >P: It's also important to understand that being aware of itself is no > big thing for " what is. " it is equally OK with not knowing > itself. > > > G: Can you explain this a little? Is this sort of in reference to one who may be looking for relative value in the Absolute? P: No, it's to state that there is no eternal awareness of anything, even of Oneness. > > 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.