Thank you for your most thoughful replies concerning GOD

[Guest guest]

Just a small note to thank you for all those who replied to my inquiry

concerning God.

The fact is that whether GOD exists or not is a BELIEF, not something that

can be proved scientifically, or in our life time.

 

The question I think perhaps should be asked is not whether there IS or is

NOT a GOD, but whether we as a people are better off believing in God. For,

if belief in GOD can cause people to do good actions (even if it is for

fearing him), how could anyone argue with such a belief?? Unfortunately,

belief in DIFFERENT Gods has also cause humans to kill their fellow men in

the name of God! How nice it would be if we could all agree on ONE God!!

 

Nav

[Guest guest]

<< One thing for sure.

Awareness proves there is life. >>

 

---

 

Well, we could go so far as to say,

"Awareness proves there is awareness."

 

xan

[Guest guest]

You are absolutely correct. No one can prove God's

existence as a fact to be scientifically proved.

 

Believing in God and knowing God are an ocean apart.

As long as you have God in the belief category you will

never know. Can't you see that it is you who are defining

the parameters of God? It doesn't work that way. God

is no respector of persons. God makes the rules not you.

 

And even God can't beat the ace of spades with a two

of diamonds. :-)

 

Marcia

 

INSprofess wrote:

> INSprofess

>

> Just a small note to thank you for all those who replied to my inquiry

> concerning God.

> The fact is that whether GOD exists or not is a BELIEF, not something that

> can be proved scientifically, or in our life time.

>

> The question I think perhaps should be asked is not whether there IS or is

> NOT a GOD, but whether we as a people are better off believing in God. For,

> if belief in GOD can cause people to do good actions (even if it is for

> fearing him), how could anyone argue with such a belief?? Unfortunately,

> belief in DIFFERENT Gods has also cause humans to kill their fellow men in

> the name of God! How nice it would be if we could all agree on ONE God!!

>

> Nav

>

> --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------

>

> Books, music, auctions, and more. Amazon.com!

> <a href=" http://clickme./ad/Amazon6 ">Click Here</a>

>

> ------

[Guest guest]

Marcia Paul wrote:

> You are absolutely correct. No one can prove God's

> existence as a fact to be scientifically proved.

 

Well...

that statement has as yet to be proved. : )

 

There's a famous proof that proves that nothing can ever be proved.

(I'm just waiting for some one to disprove it)

 

One thing for sure.

Awareness proves there is life.

 

Here is the greatest testimony of all...

 

Blessings...

[Guest guest]

On Fri, 16 Jul 1999 16:06:28 -0400 David Bozzi <david.bozzi

writes:

> David Bozzi <david.bozzi

>

> Marcia Paul wrote:

>

> > You are absolutely correct. No one can prove God's

> > existence as a fact to be scientifically proved.

>

> Well...

> that statement has as yet to be proved. : )

>

> There's a famous proof that proves that nothing can ever be proved.

> (I'm just waiting for some one to disprove it)

>

> One thing for sure.

> Awareness proves there is life.

>

Whatever "life" is...

thought sure gets dizzy

quickly, doesn't it?

The very fact of awareness

itself is miracle enough,

wouldn't you agree? I

wonder if awareness actually

requires "life" in the

biological sense, or if

perhaps awareness is an

attribute of non-biological

entities like stars and

planets as well. More than

one revered spiritual teacher

has posited that awareness

pervades the universe in its

entirety, to differing

extents depending on what

aspect of the universe one

is referring to. I for one

don't pretend to know.

> Here is the greatest testimony of all...

>

> Blessings...

>

Just remember, all generalizations

are untrue -- including this one!

 

 

http://www.users.uniserve.com/~samuel/brucemrg.htm

http://www.users.uniserve.com/~samuel/brucsong.htm

m(_ _)m

_

 

_________________

Get the Internet just the way you want it.

Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!

Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

[Guest guest]

INSprofess wrote:

> The fact is that whether GOD exists or not is a BELIEF, not something that

> can be proved scientifically, or in our life time.

> How nice it would be if we could all agree on ONE God!!

>

> Nav

 

Hello Nav,

 

Is not One, the number one, not also a belief as you say god is? Who can

prove scientifically the existence of the number one?

 

Antoine

[Guest guest]

Antoine - what a wonderful observation, so succinctly put.

Marie-Louise Von Franz saw the primal archetypes as number,

time, matter, and space. These are the basic assumptions

that allow observation and experience. She thought number

might be the most primary. So what is it that put these necessary

assumptive archetypes in place?

 

Dan

 

At 04:40 PM 7/16/99 -0400, you wrote:

>Antoine <carrea

>

>INSprofess wrote:

>

>> The fact is that whether GOD exists or not is a BELIEF, not something that

>> can be proved scientifically, or in our life time.

>

>> How nice it would be if we could all agree on ONE God!!

>>

>> Nav

>

>Hello Nav,

>

>Is not One, the number one, not also a belief as you say god is? Who can

>prove scientifically the existence of the number one?

>

>Antoine

>

>--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------

>

>ONElist: your connection to people who share your interests.

>

>------

>

[Guest guest]

Bruce Morgen wrote:

> Whatever "life" is...

> thought sure gets dizzy

> quickly, doesn't it?

 

Like a gnat in a whirlpool...

> The very fact of awareness

> itself is miracle enough,

> wouldn't you agree?

 

Yes. This was where I was aiming.

> I wonder if awareness actually

> requires "life" in the

> biological sense,

 

Know.

> or if

> perhaps awareness is an

> attribute of non-biological

> entities like stars and

> planets as well. More than

> one revered spiritual teacher

> has posited that awareness

> pervades the universe in its

> entirety, to differing

> extents depending on what

> aspect of the universe one

> is referring to. I for one

> don't pretend to know.

 

Nothing unreal exists,

That which is real is alive with awareness.

 

This is a seed for the heart,

not the intellect.

> > Here is the greatest testimony of all...

> >

> > Blessings...

> >

> Just remember, all generalizations

> are untrue -- including this one!

 

Generalization noted!

[Guest guest]

> Antoine <carrea

[...]

> Hello Nav,

>

> Is not One, the number one, not also a belief as you say god is? Who can

> prove scientifically the existence of the number one?

>

> Antoine

 

It appears several animals are hardwired to directly recognize (small)

numbers. Some time ago New Scientist had an article about it. But still

funnier is a recent article called "the power of one". Part of the

introduction: "Everyday numbers obey a law so unexpected it is hard to

believe it's true". Excerpt: "nature seems to have a penchant for arranging

numbers so that the proportion beginning with the digit D is equal to log10

of 1+(1/D)" (Benford's law).

Apparently nothing can be proven, just recognized and (conditionally)

verified.

 

Jan

[Guest guest]

Dan Berkow, PhD wrote:

>

> "Dan Berkow, PhD" <berkowd

>

> Antoine - what a wonderful observation, so succinctly put.

> Marie-Louise Von Franz saw the primal archetypes as number,

> time, matter, and space. These are the basic assumptions

> that allow observation and experience. She thought number

> might be the most primary. So what is it that put these necessary

> assumptive archetypes in place?

>

> Dan

 

I just love to trow one rock in the water, crystal clear, an look at

the concentric pattern grow from it, in time and space created in was

wath my mirror mind, and observe how crystals surface comes back over

the concentric patterns.

 

Why does those simple subtle patterns of a single rock in the water

should apply to the magnifiient complex beauty of a flower opening or a

fire burning?

 

In other words why do we compare?

 

Antoine

 

 

 

>

> At 04:40 PM 7/16/99 -0400, you wrote:

> >Antoine <carrea

> >

> >INSprofess wrote:

> >

> >> The fact is that whether GOD exists or not is a BELIEF, not something that

> >> can be proved scientifically, or in our life time.

> >

> >> How nice it would be if we could all agree on ONE God!!

> >>

> >> Nav

> >

> >Hello Nav,

> >

> >Is not One, the number one, not also a belief as you say god is? Who can

> >prove scientifically the existence of the number one?

> >

> >Antoine

> >

> >--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------

> >

> >ONElist: your connection to people who share your interests.

> >

> >------

> >

>

> --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------

>

> Your anytime, anywhere sports store. Fogdog Sports.

> <a href=" http://clickme./ad/fogdog1 ">Click Here</a>

>

> ------

 

--

"An act of goodness is of itself an act of happiness. No reward coming

after the event can compare with the sweet reward that went with it."

(Maeterlinck, Maurice)

[Guest guest]

Hi Dan,

>Antoine - what a wonderful observation, so succinctly put.

> Marie-Louise Von Franz saw the primal archetypes as number,

> time, matter, and space. These are the basic assumptions

> that allow observation and experience. She thought number

> might be the most primary.

 

An ancient teaching of the wisdom schools: "In the beginning, God geometrized."

 

Kabbalah says the letters of the alphabet are the archetypes from which the

world was made... and the Hebrew letters are also numbers.

 

Love,

Dharma

[Guest guest]

At 05:38 PM 7/16/99 -0400, you wrote:

>Xanma

>

><< One thing for sure.

> Awareness proves there is life. >>

>

>---

>

>Well, we could go so far as to say,

>"Awareness proves there is awareness."

>

>xan

 

We could even go so far as to say,

"Awareness"

>

>--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------

>

>Campaign 2000 is here!

>

>Discuss your thoughts; get informed at ONElist. See our homepage.

>

>------

>

[Guest guest]

>>Dan: Antoine - what a wonderful observation, so succinctly put.

>> Marie-Louise Von Franz saw the primal archetypes as number,

>> time, matter, and space. These are the basic assumptions

>> that allow observation and experience. She thought number

>> might be the most primary.

>

>An ancient teaching of the wisdom schools: "In the beginning, God

geometrized."

>

>Kabbalah says the letters of the alphabet are the archetypes from which the

>world was made... and the Hebrew letters are also numbers.

>

>Love,

>Dharma

>

Yes, the letter-numbers of the Hebrew alphabet appear to be a synthesis of

meaning and number, each representing a different force or counter-force

involved in structuring reality. (The first two letters are alpeh bet, as

we use the word "alphabet," and as our first two letters are A B, and Greek

alpha beta - interesting.) This divine geometry is quite intriguing,

especially from the Hebrew perspective that meaning and number aren't

separable from each other.

 

Peace, Dan

[Guest guest]

Dan Berkow, PhD wrote:

>

> "Dan Berkow, PhD" <berkowd

>

> >>Dan: Antoine - what a wonderful observation, so succinctly put.

> >> Marie-Louise Von Franz saw the primal archetypes as number,

> >> time, matter, and space. These are the basic assumptions

> >> that allow observation and experience. She thought number

> >> might be the most primary.

> >

> >An ancient teaching of the wisdom schools: "In the beginning, God

> geometrized."

> >

> >Kabbalah says the letters of the alphabet are the archetypes from which the

> >world was made... and the Hebrew letters are also numbers.

> >

> >Love,

> >Dharma

> >

> Yes, the letter-numbers of the Hebrew alphabet appear to be a synthesis of

> meaning and number, each representing a different force or counter-force

> involved in structuring reality. (The first two letters are alpeh bet, as

> we use the word "alphabet," and as our first two letters are A B, and Greek

> alpha beta - interesting.) This divine geometry is quite intriguing,

> especially from the Hebrew perspective that meaning and number aren't

> separable from each other.

>

> Peace, Dan

 

Other cultures, don't see in archetypes a way to open to what is. For

some, the world is born of chaos directly, and as in the Taoist

approach, the yin yang polaritiy is a way to "open" to the Dao, but it

is not the Dao. One can "escape" into the Dao in so many ways, reaching

the balance of yin yang is one of them, finding the number One another,

or "exploding" into Chaos itself another one. But none is the Dao

itself.

 

The river that flows is never the same yet always the same. My

attachment to the river in one state when another is present, creates

those wonderful structures of flow, time, space, numbers, language,

culture and so own. It is not the Dao.

 

Words like

I

One

ALL

God

Energy

Presence

 

Etc...

 

Are no more and no less the Dao than words like

 

Chaos

Yin

Yang

Blue

Red

Ego

 

Etc..

 

Is the Dao the absence of Archetypes? I don't think so, but yet the Dao

is not a though, it's even not (not a though). Maybe i can say it exist

as much that this universe exist? But those the universe exist? Is there

an I, or a One or a All to It.

 

Turning in circle, with those questions...

 

My awareness looks at the river flowing, until there is only the Dao.

But the Dao was already there before???

 

Antoine

[Guest guest]

Antoine -

Thanks for your comments here. I feel you conveyed the spirit of something

that can't be easily languaged.

>Other cultures, don't see in archetypes a way to open to what is. For

>some, the world is born of chaos directly, and as in the Taoist

>approach, the yin yang polaritiy is a way to "open" to the Dao, but it

>is not the Dao.

 

I think we need to be careful about defining archetypes too narrowly. They

are defined as universal images and symbols, so if the concept can be

applied, it is applicable, by definition, in any culture. Culture can't

exist without archetype, at least if you accept a Jungian definition. Of

course, this all depends on one's formulation of the idea of "archetype."

I've had very good communication with people who put no stock in archetypes

at all, although I find meditation on archetypal realities to be useful.

 

Unlike a die-hard Jungian,

I would not say there is no reality beyond archetypes. However, similar to

a die-hard Jungian I think it is possible to include Tao (Dao), Chaos, and

Infinity as archetypes. I interpret you as saying that the Tao (Dao) that

can be spoken (indicated) is not the true Tao, and I agree - this is

exactly what the Tao Te Ching says. This text appears to me to be using an

archetype of Wholeness and Inclusion to point beyond the archetypal

experience. It is true that Chaos is used as descriptor of the "primal

reality" in many Taoist writings, yet Chaos may be considered a powerful

archetypal symbol.

 

Although there may well "be something" beyond archetypal awareness, this

"somethng" would not be found in the realm of words, experiences, or

perceptions. The theme of something beyond culture, language, the human

mind is definitely a characteristic of much Taoist thought. It is implied

in the Taoist statement, "he (she) who knows does not speak; he (she) who

speaks does not know." Nonetheless, the Tao Te Ching was written, and many

verses follow. There were powerful archetypal symbols involved in Taoist

alchemy, which involved transforming body-mind to achieve "immortality"

(e.g. the "golden flower" the "secret elixir") Calling the Tao the

"eternal feminine" and the "mother of 10,000 things" is archetypal imagery.

 

 

One can "escape" into the Dao in so many ways, reaching

>the balance of yin yang is one of them, finding the number One another,

>or "exploding" into Chaos itself another one. But none is the Dao

>itself.

>

>The river that flows is never the same yet always the same. My

>attachment to the river in one state when another is present, creates

>those wonderful structures of flow, time, space, numbers, language,

>culture and so own. It is not the Dao.

>

>Words like

>I

>One

>ALL

>God

>Energy

>Presence

>

>Etc...

>

>Are no more and no less the Dao than words like

>

>Chaos

>Yin

>Yang

>Blue

>Red

>Ego

>

>Etc..

>

>Is the Dao the absence of Archetypes? I don't think so, but yet the Dao

>is not a though, it's even not (not a though). Maybe i can say it exist

>as much that this universe exist? But those the universe exist? Is there

>an I, or a One or a All to It.

>

>Turning in circle, with those questions...

>

>My awareness looks at the river flowing, until there is only the Dao.

>But the Dao was already there before???

 

Yes. There is a peace and stillness before, during, and after the flowing

river. Peace and stillness are concepts - we can say "Tao" to say what is

not sayable. I remember reading a statement about Tao that there is

nothing in front of it, behind it, above it, or below it. You're pointing

to something that is too subtle for words, too powerful for perception :-)

 

Dan

 

>Antoine

>

>--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------

>

>The Best Place to Buy Movies - Reel.com

><a href=" http://clickme./ad/reel1 ">Click Here</a>

>

>------

>

[Guest guest]

Hello Dan,

 

I do understand you point about archetypes and there "absolute"

importance tied to any form of perception.

 

In this tissue of perception that is our world, some come to open doors

into something "else", more than others, for we are that very tissue.

 

Love, God, The Dao, One, Beauty, are all such wonderful doors.

 

After the door is opened, it vanishes, and i come back to the same

tissue, transformed by this door know left open.

 

And one goes on, starting from the structure of his being, like a tree

opening each one of it's little knots as a leaf to the sky, as the roots

to the ground. He/she finds himself or herself with not just a trunk

(like the trunk of a tree) to open in concepts like One, God, Love. But

with millions of leafs and roots to open in all directions. Like a

breath, like life. Each little thing becomes The Archetype in itself.

 

Not just the trunk of his being "sees" What is, but all the leaf at the

same time. The lotus flower expands, as it always did.

> "Dan Berkow, PhD" <berkowd

> Unlike a die-hard Jungian,

> I would not say there is no reality beyond archetypes. However, similar to

> a die-hard Jungian I think it is possible to include Tao (Dao), Chaos, and

> Infinity as archetypes. I interpret you as saying that the Tao (Dao) that

> can be spoken (indicated) is not the true Tao, and I agree - this is

> exactly what the Tao Te Ching says. This text appears to me to be using an

> archetype of Wholeness and Inclusion to point beyond the archetypal

> experience. It is true that Chaos is used as descriptor of the "primal

> reality" in many Taoist writings, yet Chaos may be considered a powerful

> archetypal symbol.

 

The Dao, Chaos and Infinity are archetypes, of course they are. And they

differ from each other in the way ones opens. But like time and space,

comes a "time" , where even they become meaningless. The talk to the

trunk of the tree, but the trunk is already open, and the leafs are

waiting to flourish like millions of bees.

 

Each archetypes in it's generalization, in it's power of analogy between

similar experience, just starts to vanish for such a tree. Each

experience as such becomes "Unique", The Archetype, and as absolute

nothing to compare it to. Would it be in the past, in the present, or a

trace of the flow of my being.

 

A flower i look into becomes simply what it is. I could say Nothing else

exist, that there is no I looking at the flower, that ALL is there and

One, Only Now, that act of being the perception of the flower is all the

unique Truth, and that the river will capture all that as i let go the

flower. But none of this is true. The leafs and the roots are coming to

become so subtle, the archetypes just vanish in the millions directions

and no direction of this continual process of opening, that nothing can

describe it, as you know. And yet i use words to convey witch cannot be

conveyed.

> Although there may well "be something" beyond archetypal awareness, this

> "somethng" would not be found in the realm of words, experiences, or

> perceptions. The theme of something beyond culture, language, the human

> mind is definitely a characteristic of much Taoist thought. It is implied

> in the Taoist statement, "he (she) who knows does not speak; he (she) who

> speaks does not know." Nonetheless, the Tao Te Ching was written, and many

> verses follow. There were powerful archetypal symbols involved in Taoist

> alchemy, which involved transforming body-mind to achieve "immortality"

> (e.g. the "golden flower" the "secret elixir") Calling the Tao the

> "eternal feminine" and the "mother of 10,000 things" is archetypal imagery.

 

I really enjoyed that book the secret of the golden flower, nice magic

in it. Archetypes point you to the limit of language somewhere... How

you grow after is your path. Some have mastered the culture of bonsai,

they take the time to cut and form in the perfect way each leafs and

roots, but how this tree opens in it's most subtle form is beyond the

art of social culture made for the mass. _One_ as to take it's tree in

it's own hands or allow it to grow in its most "natural" path that only

the flow of the opening him or her knows.

> Yes. There is a peace and stillness before, during, and after the flowing

> river. Peace and stillness are concepts - we can say "Tao" to say what is

> not sayable.

 

Yes, but has the art of bonsai, compared to american gardening Pardon

my comparison... We can say more, telepathy, dna resonance between two

lovers or a mother and a child and stuff like that, do push the art of

cultivating a bonsai in a deeper subtlety than words. Communication

those still exist for we are still alive. The idea of a bonsai, and the

art of making them, are two things. How will this process come to unfold

is a continuos amazement to me, away from words, and in what is Dao from

the perspective of words, but still on vibrating levels of subtle

communication leading to a wider Dao.

 

I remember reading a statement about Tao that there is

> nothing in front of it, behind it, above it, or below it. You're pointing

> to something that is too subtle for words, too powerful for perception :-)

 

Love your vibrating smile Dan

 

Antoine

[Guest guest]

"Dan Berkow, PhD" wrote:

>

> "Dan Berkow, PhD" <berkowd

>

> >>Dan: Antoine - what a wonderful observation, so succinctly put.

> >> Marie-Louise Von Franz saw the primal archetypes as number,

> >> time, matter, and space. These are the basic assumptions

> >> that allow observation and experience. She thought number

> >> might be the most primary.

> >

> >An ancient teaching of the wisdom schools: "In the beginning, God

> geometrized."

> Yes, the letter-numbers of the Hebrew alphabet appear to be a synthesis of

> meaning and number, each representing a different force or counter-force

> involved in structuring reality. (The first two letters are alpeh bet, as

> we use the word "alphabet," and as our first two letters are A B, and Greek

> alpha beta - interesting.) This divine geometry is quite intriguing,

> especially from the Hebrew perspective that meaning and number aren't

> separable from each other.

 

Tim:

 

Pythagoras taught that number has both shape and through shape,

meaning. Although his philosophy remains lost, traces remain.

Pythagoras and his followers were hunted by the state and Pythagoras

himself was executed. Why? Because of the discovery of irrational

numbers? That is what we have been told. Seems a bit extreme, doesn't

it?

 

There is another possible explanation. The system Pythagoras taught may

have, in some manner, threatened the powers that be.

 

Number has shape. Each shape has an inherent connection with one of the

seven ancient planetary bodies, which included the Sun and Moon. By the

use of models built in accordance with the Pythagorean laws governing

numerical shape and form, the planetary forces could be channeled and

brought to bear in the material realm.

 

A group of adepts trained in such a system could very well have been

viewed as a threat by the powers that were and are. One wonders what a

group of similarly trained practitioners might accomplish in today's

world.

 

 

Tim Lambert

[Guest guest]

At 08:55 PM 7/17/99 -0400, you wrote:

>Antoine <carrea

>

>Hello Dan,

>

>I do understand you point about archetypes and there "absolute"

>importance tied to any form of perception.

>

>In this tissue of perception that is our world, some come to open doors

>into something "else", more than others, for we are that very tissue.

>

>Love, God, The Dao, One, Beauty, are all such wonderful doors.

>

>After the door is opened, it vanishes, and i come back to the same

>tissue, transformed by this door know left open.

>

>And one goes on, starting from the structure of his being, like a tree

>opening each one of it's little knots as a leaf to the sky, as the roots

>to the ground. He/she finds himself or herself with not just a trunk

>(like the trunk of a tree) to open in concepts like One, God, Love. But

>with millions of leafs and roots to open in all directions. Like a

>breath, like life. Each little thing becomes The Archetype in itself.

>

>Not just the trunk of his being "sees" What is, but all the leaf at the

>same time. The lotus flower expands, as it always did.

>

 

One tree is millions of trees. One human being is millions. The

uniqueness of each is an aspect of the miracle of manifestation.

 

>The Dao, Chaos and Infinity are archetypes, of course they are. And they

>differ from each other in the way ones opens. But like time and space,

>comes a "time" , where even they become meaningless. The talk to the

>trunk of the tree, but the trunk is already open, and the leafs are

>waiting to flourish like millions of bees.

 

The archetypal tree opens and the garden blooms.

Its roots are deep and its branches reach to the stars.

>

>Each archetypes in it's generalization, in it's power of analogy between

>similar experience, just starts to vanish for such a tree. Each

>experience as such becomes "Unique", The Archetype, and as absolute

>nothing to compare it to. Would it be in the past, in the present, or a

>trace of the flow of my being.

 

The pure energy-intelligence that underlies the very patterns of the

archetypes is itself "the Unique." In manifestation, the primal universal

energy is evident in

the uniqueness of each moment, each expression.

 

 

>A flower i look into becomes simply what it is. I could say Nothing else

>exist, that there is no I looking at the flower, that ALL is there and

>One, Only Now, that act of being the perception of the flower is all the

>unique Truth, and that the river will capture all that as i let go the

>flower. But none of this is true. The leafs and the roots are coming to

>become so subtle, the archetypes just vanish in the millions directions

>and no direction of this continual process of opening, that nothing can

>describe it, as you know. And yet i use words to convey witch cannot be

>conveyed.

 

The primal original archetype of all archetypes. Jung called it the Self.

The Tibetans call it "the Great Mandala." St. John called it "the Word."

The one image that underlies and expresses through all images. Continual

flowing, continual emanation of light. Breaking into millions of patterns,

fragmenting

into endless crystaline realities, yet never broken, never fragmented. As

the Taoists say, by doing nothing, it all is done.

>

>I really enjoyed that book the secret of the golden flower, nice magic

>in it. Archetypes point you to the limit of language somewhere... How

>you grow after is your path.

 

Perhaps the "you" that grows it the archetypal "self," the "path" that

is

walked

in your unique version of the archetypal "path." Tao can be translated as

"way" or "path." :-)

 

Some have mastered the culture of bonsai,

>they take the time to cut and form in the perfect way each leafs and

>roots, but how this tree opens in it's most subtle form is beyond the

>art of social culture made for the mass. _One_ as to take it's tree in

>it's own hands or allow it to grow in its most "natural" path that only

>the flow of the opening him or her knows.

 

A beautiful way of expressing it!

>

>> We can say more, telepathy, dna resonance between two

>lovers or a mother and a child and stuff like that, do push the art of

>cultivating a bonsai in a deeper subtlety than words. Communication

>those still exist for we are still alive. The idea of a bonsai, and the

>art of making them, are two things. How will this process come to unfold

>is a continuos amazement to me, away from words, and in what is Dao from

>the perspective of words, but still on vibrating levels of subtle

>communication leading to a wider Dao.

>

 

An Dao that opens forever into Itself.

 

Appreciations for your poetic images

that help me open, Antoine --

 

Dan

 

>--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------

>

>ONElist: your connection to online communities.

>

>------

>