Guest guest Posted July 9, 1999 Report Share Posted July 9, 1999 Marcia, if I got it right, I think you're saying that some have more ability than others in certain areas and this may or may not be used in ways that appear constructive in the world. To me, the key word in my statement is "appear." Wouldn't nonduality imply that each plays his or her part, that the Whole is perfect the Whole time, and each constructive and destructive contribution is part of That? Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 9, 1999 Report Share Posted July 9, 1999 Dan Berkow, PhD wrote: > Marcia, if I got it right, I think you're saying that some > have more ability than others in certain areas and this > may or may not be used in ways that appear constructive > in the world. To me, the key word in my statement is > "appear." Wouldn't nonduality imply that each plays his > or her part, that the Whole is perfect the Whole time, > and each constructive and destructive contribution is > part of That? Marcia: I think we are such marvelous mirrors for each other. Not just you and all but all of us. I have a friend who wrote a thesis on cognitive development. She told me a small percentage of people think in circles and that I was one of them. Anyway I think what I was saying was much simpler than what you have written. You have called and raised me one. (can you do that in poker? both call and raise at the same time?) You mentioned supermen. Perhaps that needs to be defined. I think that the difference between a superman and a man who can use his powers for the benefit of mankind may be how he takes his powers and not the powers themselves. Abilities such as telepathy, astral travel, mind control, precognition and so forth exist but they aren't mine. If I can avoid the distraction of being distracted by them perhaps I can allow myself to be used by them for a higher purpose than making myself a superman. I have lost touch really with what I was feeling in my original post. :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 9, 1999 Report Share Posted July 9, 1999 At 12:27 PM 7/9/99 -0700, you wrote: >Marcia Paul <jacpa > >Marcia: > >I think we are such marvelous mirrors for each other. >Not just you and all but all of us. Amen to that. >Anyway I think what I was saying was much simpler than >what you have written. You have called and raised me one. Oops. There I go again. Well, it started out with trying to simplify. But then to simplify, I couldn't justify separating the constructive from the destructive aspects of the world. >(can you do that in poker? both call and raise at the same >time?) sure. >You mentioned supermen. Perhaps that needs to be defined. >I think that the difference between a superman and a man >who can use his powers for the benefit of mankind may be >how he takes his powers and not the powers themselves. > >Abilities such as telepathy, astral travel, mind control, precognition >and so forth exist but they aren't mine. If I can avoid the >distraction of being distracted by them perhaps I can allow >myself to be used by them for a higher purpose than making >myself a superman. This makes sense. It clarifies for me what you were saying about this. My way of seeing this is that the higher purpose is simply the purpose of "what is" when there's no one trying to claim superman or superwoman status. :-) >I have lost touch really with what I was feeling in my original >post. :-) Oops. Well, I hope you were in touch with what you wrote here, cause it makes a lot of sense to me. Also, it seems to fit with what you said in the first, plus be easier to comprehend (for this one). :-) dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 9, 1999 Report Share Posted July 9, 1999 Marcia Paul wrote: > I think that the difference between a superman and a man > who can use his powers for the benefit of mankind may be > how he takes his powers and not the powers themselves. How do wonderwomen fit into all this? David (wondering man) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 9, 1999 Report Share Posted July 9, 1999 At 02:08 PM 7/9/99 -0700, you wrote: >Tim Harris <harris >> >Marcia: >> > >> >I think we are such marvelous mirrors for each other. >> >Not just you and all but all of us. >> >> Dan: Amen to that. >> > >Tim: Yes. But isn't that the trouble? We all know how the mirror works and yet we >all say that we are merely mirroring 'other' while the perpetual argument of >'rightness' continues towards destruction.... In such a situation, it is best simply to observe the reflections. Like ripples on a pond intermingling. No argument, simply reflecting. hmmmm.... to me, it is more >atuned to 'two' mirrors facing each other both blaming the 'other' for the >ugliness in the 'reflection' Ah, then best to see no blame anywhere. Is this possible? No ugliness - just "what is" reflecting itself to itself in itself? when in 'what is' is the reflection of 'both' >blended enough so that the 'I' does not recognize it's 'self' Hmmmm. I see many reflections, some blended moreso than others... Yet, reflection upon reflection blended and not, opens into infinity -- reflections endlessly reflecting: no-thing. ...... I am not >pointing fingers here I am 'generally' speaking....<whistle while you >work>... Yes, I'm following. A general indication of the way mirrors operate. >I have a saying when it comes to replying to another's post... "If >you do not understand, then I am not talking to you" ... This is a good saying. It is helpful. Peace to you - Dan >Gentle Peace. > >Tim Harris > > >--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ---------------------------- > >ONElist members are using Shared Files in great ways! > >Are you? If not, see our homepage for details. > >------ > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 9, 1999 Report Share Posted July 9, 1999 "Dan Berkow, PhD" wrote: > "Dan Berkow, PhD" <berkowd > > At 12:27 PM 7/9/99 -0700, you wrote: > >Marcia Paul <jacpa > > > >Marcia: > > > >I think we are such marvelous mirrors for each other. > >Not just you and all but all of us. > > Amen to that. > Yes. But isn't that the trouble? We all know how the mirror works and yet we all say that we are merely mirroring 'other' while the perpetual argument of 'rightness' continues towards destruction.... hmmmm.... to me, it is more atuned to 'two' mirrors facing each other both blaming the 'other' for the ugliness in the 'reflection' when in 'what is' is the reflection of 'both' blended enough so that the 'I' does not recognize it's 'self'..... I am not pointing fingers here I am 'generally' speaking....<whistle while you work>... I have a saying when it comes to replying to another's post... "If you do not understand, then I am not talking to you" ... Gentle Peace. Tim Harris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 9, 1999 Report Share Posted July 9, 1999 David Bozzi wrote: >How do wonderwomen fit into all this? > David > (wondering man) Marcia: You tell me David. I am still working on that one myself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 9, 1999 Report Share Posted July 9, 1999 "Dan Berkow, PhD" wrote: > Ah, then best to see no blame anywhere. Is this possible? No ugliness - > just "what is" reflecting itself to itself in itself? > If you 'fully' understand the question you are asking, then you 'already' fully understand the answer. If you fully understand the answer you give, then you 'already' fully understand the question being asked. The question and the answer are the same if but 'one' is understood. That is why, if you do not understand the question you are asking: "Who am I?" you can 'never' understand the answer: "I am." What more is there? What less? The 'realization' then, is whether or not you 'blame' your 'self' (other) for the 'I am' that you are. Hahahaha... that sounds why more complicated than it is I am sure. Be who you 'are'. Who are you? Being/Becoming... fluid... be like water. You 'are' a drop of water 'in' an infinite ocean with 'no' ability to point to a single wave and say "this is me". Gentle Peace. Tim Harris 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.