Guest guest Posted November 20, 1999 Report Share Posted November 20, 1999 At 10:45 AM 11/17/99 EST, you wrote: >FREESUE > >(translator - Swami Chetanananda) > >If you are not free, indeed, then neither are you ever bound. How then can >you think of yourself as with form (when bound) or as formless (when >liberated)? Hmm... the mind has difficulty deciphering that one :-) It would seem to indicate by inference (if you're not free then neither are you bound) that if you ARE free, then you are bound (?). And how is it possible to be neither with form nor formless? It seems that one or the other has to be the case. That one is a riddle that this mind has trouble with ! Would anyone like to discuss it? Hari OM, Tim ----- " Open mind, open heart, tolerance of all viewpoints " Visit " The Core " Website at http://coresite.cjb.net - Music, Poetry, Writings on Nondual Spiritual Topics. Tim's other pages are at http://core.vdirect.net Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 21, 1999 Report Share Posted November 21, 1999 Tim this one surprised me too. We become n feel free when we think that were bound. Self has been always there. If we think we r bound then only then we get a liking of being free. If we think we r free that means we were bound earlier but if we still think that we r free then we r still bound to and through this thought of freeness. Self is beyond the thoughts of bound and freeness , form and formless. I guess if one thinks i am free than the passion of freeness is still present in one. If u r not free. Then u r bound . But if u think u r bound then it means that there is somthing that is free. Thanks Tim > >(translator - Swami Chetanananda) > > > >If you are not free, indeed, then neither are you ever bound. How then can > >you think of yourself as with form (when bound) or as formless (when > >liberated)? > > Hmm... the mind has difficulty deciphering that one :-) It would seem to > indicate by inference (if you're not free then neither are you bound) that > if you ARE free, then you are bound (?). And how is it possible to be > neither with form nor formless? It seems that one or the other has to be > the case. > > That one is a riddle that this mind has trouble with ! > > Would anyone like to discuss it? > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 21, 1999 Report Share Posted November 21, 1999 Avadhuta Original mesg from Tim further to earlier Verse from Avadhuta >> >>If you are not free, indeed, then neither are you ever bound. How then can >>you think of yourself as with form (when bound) or as formless (when >>liberated)? > >Hmm... the mind has difficulty deciphering that one :-) It would seem to >indicate by inference (if you're not free then neither are you bound) that >if you ARE free, then you are bound (?). And how is it possible to be >neither with form nor formless? It seems that one or the other has to be >the case. > >That one is a riddle that this mind has trouble with ! > >Would anyone like to discuss it? > >Hari OM, > >Tim Hi Tim " Form and formless -- Free and Bound " The image I get is:- Suppose we draw a shape - say some kind of a rectangle. That shape acts to divide-- that which is within and that which is without (or any shape that you draw will act to create a differentiatation -- i.e. right of or left of or up or down or what ever) The moment we draw - we enter the realm of the relative. Taking this idea a bit further: Even the idea of form and formless themselves are tied up with each other as they act to differentiate -- formless is only understood in terms of the form (i.e. that which is not with form) Hence the concept that you are bound or free are both relative (related to each other if to nothing else) just like the distinction between that with form and that which is withouf form while Brahman is beyond any such differentiation. Hope this helps jay Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 1999 Report Share Posted November 22, 1999 At 11:29 PM 11/21/99 -0000, you wrote: > " Vivekananda Centre " <vivekananda >Hi Tim > > " Form and formless -- Free and Bound " > >The image I get is:- >Suppose we draw a shape - say some kind of a rectangle. That shape acts to >divide-- that which is within and that which is without (or any shape that >you draw will act to create a differentiatation -- i.e. right of or left of >or up or down or what ever) >The moment we draw - we enter the realm of the relative. Taking this idea a >bit further: Even the idea of form and formless themselves are tied up >with each other as they act to differentiate -- formless is only understood >in terms of the form (i.e. that which is not with form) Ahh, thank you, that makes sense. >Hence the concept that you are bound or free are both relative (related to >each other if to nothing else) just like the distinction between that with >form and that which is withouf form while Brahman is beyond any such >differentiation. > >Hope this helps It helps very much... thank you, Jay, and thanks also to Anurag for his comments. Hari OM, Tim ----- " Many paths -- One truth " Visit " The Core " Website at http://coresite.cjb.net - Music, Poetry, Writings on Nondual Spiritual Topics. Tim's other pages are at http://core.vdirect.net 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.