Guest guest Posted September 23, 1999 Report Share Posted September 23, 1999 Harsha wrote: <snip> And yet the Recognition and the Abidance in the Primal Being is a Total and Radical departure from the normal way of seeing and doing and experiencing. It Is Seeing prior to any seeing and doing. It is Being Love prior to being loving and loved. It is prior to all experience. Yet, there is no time, it is not experienced. Greg: One of the wonderful consequences of this is that we are always abiding in That, even when we think we're *not* abiding in That! We are the Abidance, the Seeing, the Being and the Love, all of which are not different. We can never not be these things. Dan: Thanks for highlighting this Greg. This Seeing, although who I presently am, is easily missed. Hence, Harsha seems correct to call it a "radical departure." The deep-rooted pervasive assumption that I am a being in time, and that my being is contingent on the things I receive in time and from time, makes such Seeing seem obscure in spite of its ever "here/nowness". I guess being in time is a self-confirming and self-perpetuating assumption, as I continually use experiences in time to reaffirm my conditional nature, and use this assumed nature as the basis for experiences in time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 23, 1999 Report Share Posted September 23, 1999 At 05:02 PM 9/23/99 , Dan Berkow, PhD wrote: >"Dan Berkow, PhD" <berkowd > >Harsha wrote: > <snip> And yet the >Recognition and the Abidance in the Primal Being is a Total and Radical >departure from the normal way of seeing and doing and experiencing. It Is >Seeing prior to any seeing and doing. It is Being Love prior to being loving >and loved. It is prior to all experience. Yet, there is no time, it is not >experienced. > >Greg: One of the wonderful consequences of this is that we are always >abiding in That, even when we think we're *not* abiding in That! We are >the Abidance, the Seeing, the Being and the Love, all of which are not >different. We can never not be these things. > >Dan: Thanks for highlighting this Greg. This Seeing, although who I >presently am, is easily missed. Hence, Harsha seems correct to call it a >"radical departure." The deep-rooted pervasive assumption that I am a >being in time, and that my being is contingent on the things I receive in >time and from time, makes such Seeing seem obscure in spite of its ever >"here/nowness". >I guess being in time is a self-confirming and self-perpetuating >assumption, as I continually use experiences in time to reaffirm my >conditional nature, and use this assumed nature as the basis for >experiences in time. Dan, Once we hear about this Seeing (that we hear we are), we want it for ourselves. Almost better to never have heard about it and never miss it, than to hear about it and perpetually think we don't have it. Once we hear about it and think we don't have it or aren't it, then our head is in the tiger's mouth. Thanks for pointing out these mutually dependent arisings. They spin around and around. They do reinforce and perpetuate themselves, and when they drop, both sides drop. As you say, we think we are a being in time because we think we have experiences, and we think we have experiences because we think we are a being in time. Also, we think there is a stream of experiences because we believe that memory points to the past. We think memory points to the past because we think there is a stream of experiences. We think we are a subject of these expereinces because we think there are objects, and we think there are objects because we think we are the subject. It helps to see such pairs as symetrical, each notionally dependent on the other, rather than all floating around some immovable central point. --Greg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 23, 1999 Report Share Posted September 23, 1999 Greg Goode wrote: > At 05:02 PM 9/23/99 , Dan Berkow, PhD wrote: > >> "Dan Berkow, PhD" <berkowd >> >> Harsha wrote: >> <snip> And yet the >> Recognition and the Abidance in the Primal Being is a Total and >> Radical >> departure from the normal way of seeing and doing and experiencing. >> It Is >> Seeing prior to any seeing and doing. It is Being Love prior to >> being loving >> and loved. It is prior to all experience. Yet, there is no time, it >> is not >> experienced. >> >> Greg: One of the wonderful consequences of this is that we are >> always >> abiding in That, even when we think we're *not* abiding in That! We >> are >> the Abidance, the Seeing, the Being and the Love, all of which are >> not >> different. We can never not be these things. >> >> Dan: Thanks for highlighting this Greg. This Seeing, although who >> I >> presently am, is easily missed. Hence, Harsha seems correct to call >> it a >> "radical departure." The deep-rooted pervasive assumption that I am >> a >> being in time, and that my being is contingent on the things I >> receive in >> time and from time, makes such Seeing seem obscure in spite of its >> ever >> "here/nowness". >> I guess being in time is a self-confirming and self-perpetuating >> assumption, as I continually use experiences in time to reaffirm my >> conditional nature, and use this assumed nature as the basis for >> experiences in time. > > > Dan, > > Once we hear about this Seeing (that we hear we are), we want it for > ourselves. Almost better to never have heard about it and never miss > it, than to hear about it and perpetually think we don't have it. > Once we hear about it and think we don't have it or aren't it, then > our head is in the tiger's mouth. > No head already was in ~ just more play for kitty > > Thanks for pointing out these mutually dependent arisings. They spin > around and around. They do reinforce and perpetuate themselves, and > when they drop, both sides drop. As you say, we think we are a being > in time because we think we have experiences, and we think we have > experiences because we think we are a being in time. Attached to .. > Also, we think there is a stream of experiences because we believe > that memory points to the past. We think memory points to the past > because we think there is a stream of experiences. We think we are a > subject of these expereinces because we think there are objects, and > we think there are objects because we think we are the subject. It > helps to see such pairs as symetrical, each notionally dependent on > the other, rather than all floating around some immovable central > point. > > --Greg There is nothing to think. Nothing to analyse. No need. Silent is best .. to abide an not ruffle it with wind (thought cutting analysis) imho Just sharing who I am today .. Byee C~ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 23, 1999 Report Share Posted September 23, 1999 Harsha wrote: <snip> And yet the Recognition and the Abidance in the Primal Being is a Total and Radical departure from the normal way of seeing and doing and experiencing. It Is Seeing prior to any seeing and doing. It is Being Love prior to being loving and loved. It is prior to all experience. Yet, there is no time, it is not experienced. Greg: One of the wonderful consequences of this is that we are always abiding in That, even when we think we're *not* abiding in That! We are the Abidance, the Seeing, the Being and the Love, all of which are not different. We can never not be these things. Dan: Thanks for highlighting this Greg. This Seeing, although who I presently am, is easily missed. Hence, Harsha seems correct to call it a "radical departure." The deep-rooted pervasive assumption that I am a being in time, and that my being is contingent on the things I receive in time and from time, makes such Seeing seem obscure in spite of its ever "here/nowness". I guess being in time is a self-confirming and self-perpetuating assumption, as I continually use experiences in time to reaffirm my conditional nature, and use this assumed nature as the basis for experiences in time. ivan: There is that implicit notion that I am a part of the content, of a bigger container. But I am all of the present content, not only any part. And, further....the content that I am is not diferent from the conteiner... This is all there is. It is being it, without division. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 23, 1999 Report Share Posted September 23, 1999 At 05:51 PM 9/23/99 , Colette T wrote >There is nothing to think. Nothing to analyse. No need. > >Silent is best .. to abide an not ruffle it with wind (thought cutting >analysis) > >imho > >Just sharing who I am today .. I like who you are today... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 23, 1999 Report Share Posted September 23, 1999 >> Dan Wrote: >> >> Once we hear about this Seeing (that we hear we are), we want it for >> ourselves. Almost better to never have heard about it and never >> miss it, than to hear about it and perpetually think we don't have >> it. Once we hear about it and think we don't have it or aren't it, >> then our head is in the tiger's mouth. > Reminds me of the following: "Tiger got to hunt, Bird got to fly, Man got to sit and wonder, Why, Why, Why? Tiger got to sleep, Bird got to land, Man got to tell himself, He Understand!" Kurt Vonegut, Jr. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 1999 Report Share Posted September 24, 1999 Greg Goode wrote: > > "Dan Berkow, PhD" <berkowd > > I guess being in time is a self-confirming and self-perpetuating > > assumption, as I continually use experiences in time to reaffirm my > > conditional nature, and use this assumed nature as the basis for > > experiences in time. > Once we hear about this Seeing (that we hear we are), we want it for > ourselves. Almost better to never have heard about it and never miss > it, than to hear about it and perpetually think we don't have it. > Once we hear about it and think we don't have it or aren't it, then > our head is in the tiger's mouth. Just love this paragraph Greg. Maybe saying i love it will help someone who fells he/she needs it, understand it. But saying what i have just said, i love it, is an approach, like pointing to the moon hoping someone will look at the moon and not at my finger. You seem to propose the approach of the "equilibrium", or realization of the balance or symmetry between opposites instead of the finger to point to this same "moon" or absence of "moon", depending on the perceptive. I could judge both approach, which is another approach to "seeing" the moon. So many approach there is to simply say: "Once we hear about it and think we don't have it or aren't it, then our head is in the tiger's mouth." Yet maybe just one way to be the sun or the moon or whatever. Antoine > Thanks for pointing out these mutually dependent arisings. They spin > around and around. They do reinforce and perpetuate themselves, and > when they drop, both sides drop. As you say, we think we are a being > in time because we think we have experiences, and we think we have > experiences because we think we are a being in time. Also, we think > there is a stream of experiences because we believe that memory points > to the past. We think memory points to the past because we think > there is a stream of experiences. We think we are a subject of these > expereinces because we think there are objects, and we think there are > objects because we think we are the subject. It helps to see such > pairs as symetrical, each notionally dependent on the other, rather > than all floating around some immovable central point. > > --Greg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 1999 Report Share Posted September 24, 1999 On Fri, Sep 24, 1999 at 07:20:28PM -0400, Antoine wrote: > > > Once we hear about this Seeing (that we hear we are), we want it for > > ourselves. Almost better to never have heard about it and never miss > > it, than to hear about it and perpetually think we don't have it. > > Once we hear about it and think we don't have it or aren't it, then > > our head is in the tiger's mouth. > Just love this paragraph Greg. Maybe saying i love it will help someone > who fells he/she needs it, understand it. But saying what i have just > said, i love it, is an approach, like pointing to the moon hoping > someone will look at the moon and not at my finger. You seem to propose > the approach of the "equilibrium", or realization of the balance or > symmetry between opposites instead of the finger to point to this same > "moon" or absence of "moon", depending on the perceptive. I could judge > both approach, which is another approach to "seeing" the moon. So many > approach there is to simply say: "Once we hear about it and think we > don't have it or aren't it, then our head is in the tiger's mouth." Yet > maybe just one way to be the sun or the moon or whatever. Hey Antoine, Thanks, may help go wherever it needs! I was suggesting that once these pairs are seen as symmetrical, then the reality attributed to one of the sides will melt away into clarity. Usually when we think one side causes the other (like "the world causes my experience"), we think the causing side is more real than the caused side. But if we see these two sides as unable to arise without each other, we can see that neither side can be real. Without experience, we can't say there's a world; without a world, we can't say there's experience. Seen that way, neither side is taken as a real, solid pivot point with inherent existence. And the stickiest pair is "me as subject - world as object." Harking back to Dan's notion of dependent arising, when this and other pairs are seen as interdependent, the feelings and judgments of separation have no reason to arise. We can feel separate only from something that we take to be absolutely independent of us. But really, there's no such thing, and no need to feel separate. With love, --Greg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 25, 1999 Report Share Posted September 25, 1999 Greg > Thanks, may help go wherever it needs! I was suggesting that > once these pairs are seen as symmetrical, then the reality > attributed to one of the sides will melt away into clarity. > Usually when we think one side causes the other (like "the world > causes my experience"), we think the causing side is more real > than the caused side. But if we see these two sides as unable > to arise without each other, we can see that neither side can be > real. Without experience, we can't say there's a world; without > a world, we can't say there's experience. Seen that way, neither > side is taken as a real, solid pivot point with inherent > existence. And the stickiest pair is "me as subject - world as > object." Harking back to Dan's notion of dependent arising, when this > and other pairs are seen as interdependent, the feelings and judgments > of separation have no reason to arise. We can feel separate > only from something that we take to be absolutely independent of > us. But really, there's no such thing, and no need to feel separate. Thank you Greg, it is a very beautiful an necessary notion. The usual self inquiry advaita method starts with the neti-neti approach. This turned out to be very helpful and clearifying, for it brings one to point zero, but (as all approaches) is has a flaw, for one is all and everything too. It arises simultaneously, or we wouldn't be talking about it. With love, Mira *Mirror* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 25, 1999 Report Share Posted September 25, 1999 On Sat, Sep 25, 1999 at 12:16:15PM +0200, Mirror wrote: > Thank you Greg, it is a very beautiful an necessary notion. > The usual self inquiry advaita method starts with the neti-neti approach. > This turned out to be very helpful and clearifying, for it brings one to > point zero, but (as all approaches) is has a flaw, for one is all and > everything too. It arises simultaneously, or we wouldn't be talking about > it. Mira, What you're saying sounds fascinating - could you say a little more about it, I'm not sure I understood. Are you saying something about two different approaches? --Greg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 25, 1999 Report Share Posted September 25, 1999 In a message dated 9/23/99 4:43:57 PM Pacific Daylight Time, RavenMcCloud writes: << Reminds me of the following: "Tiger got to hunt, Bird got to fly, Man got to sit and wonder, Why, Why, Why? Tiger got to sleep, Bird got to land, Man got to tell himself, He Understand!" Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. >> Dear Dan: A favorite quote from "Cat's Cradle." Be sure that this goes into our Swami Gloria vault, folks. Blessings Sai Ram Zenbob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 25, 1999 Report Share Posted September 25, 1999 I LIKE THAT! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 25, 1999 Report Share Posted September 25, 1999 Mirror <mirror < > Saturday, September 25, 1999 6:13 AM Re: Re: Greg/Harsha's Abiding >"Mirror" <mirror > >Greg >> Thanks, may help go wherever it needs! I was suggesting that >> once these pairs are seen as symmetrical, then the reality >> attributed to one of the sides will melt away into clarity. >> Usually when we think one side causes the other (like "the world >> causes my experience"), we think the causing side is more real >> than the caused side. But if we see these two sides as unable >> to arise without each other, we can see that neither side can be >> real. Without experience, we can't say there's a world; without >> a world, we can't say there's experience. Seen that way, neither >> side is taken as a real, solid pivot point with inherent >> existence. And the stickiest pair is "me as subject - world as >> object." Harking back to Dan's notion of dependent arising, when this >> and other pairs are seen as interdependent, the feelings and judgments >> of separation have no reason to arise. We can feel separate >> only from something that we take to be absolutely independent of >> us. But really, there's no such thing, and no need to feel separate. > >Thank you Greg, it is a very beautiful an necessary notion. >The usual self inquiry advaita method starts with the neti-neti approach. >This turned out to be very helpful and clearifying, for it brings one to >point zero, but (as all approaches) is has a flaw, for one is all and >everything too. It arises simultaneously, or we wouldn't be talking about >it. > >With love, > > Mira >*Mirror* > Mira, May I ask then, at the end of the neti, neti's nothing..is not the purpose of all this negation simply to keep us from stopping too soon, to keep us from identifying with some partial, limited attachment. What is at the end point of this process or point zero, as you call it, when there is seemingly "nothing" left..is the void, the emptiness from which simultaneously "the all" arises. "True emptiness is not empty"...as they say. To call this a flaw is therefore a misunderstanding of what is intended by neti, neti as a process. Perhaps this is what you refer to with existence and nonexistence? If these pairs are also being one of those mutally dependent, simultaneous arisings, these two are the "stickiest pair" in my opinion. I simply question your use of the word flaw. Neti, neti is so beautiful and is actually not the nihilistic notion it may be taken as by some. Thanks for understanding my concerns here. Glo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 25, 1999 Report Share Posted September 25, 1999 Mira: > Thank you Greg, it is a very beautiful an necessary notion. > The usual self inquiry advaita method starts with the neti-neti approach. > This turned out to be very helpful and clearifying, for it brings one to > point zero, but (as all approaches) is has a flaw, for one is all and > everything too. It arises simultaneously, or we wouldn't be talking about > it. Greg: > What you're saying sounds fascinating - could you say a little more > about it, I'm not sure I understood. Are you saying something about > two different approaches? No, actually I mean to say that the neti-neti (not this/not that) approach is incomplete. The complete approach could be: "not this/not that and also this/and also that". (Guess I'll make this one the first Dutch Koan). Love always, Mira http://welcome.to/mirror Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 27, 1999 Report Share Posted September 27, 1999 Hi Glo, >May I ask then, at the end of the neti, neti's nothing..is not the purpose >of all this negation simply to keep us from stopping too soon, to keep us >from identifying with some partial, limited attachment. Yes!! If you understand it as "Not this, not this..." that is clearer, right? >What is at the end >point of this process or point zero, as you call it, when there is seemingly >"nothing" left..is the void, the emptiness from which simultaneously "the >all" arises. The All does not arise. But this manifest world may be said to arise or emanate from the All. It flashes into being... or out of BEING... at each moment. When one goes beyond thinking... beyond intuition... beyond bliss... and rests in the void... abides in pure awareness... this is a very high state of consciousness... but the All is not this. Neti, neti. > "True emptiness is not empty"...as they say. In the All there is nothing... nothing in particular. But everything is there... in potential. I like the term "the ground of being." Or "the root of the world." Harsha said, >the >Recognition and the Abidance in the Primal Being is a Total and Radical >departure from the normal way of seeing and doing and experiencing. It Is >Seeing prior to any seeing and doing. It is Being Love prior to being loving >and loved. It is prior to all experience. Yet, there is no time, it is not >experienced. It is not different than you. And trying to talk about it is trying to describe in words what is prior to all words and symbols. So everything we say is of the nature of metaphor and simile. That is why poetry may come closer... So I give you... again ... the _Four Quartets_. Love, Dharma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 27, 1999 Report Share Posted September 27, 1999 On Sun, Sep 26, 1999 at 10:12:42PM -0500, Dharma wrote: > And trying to talk about it is trying to describe in words what is prior to > all words and symbols. So everything we say is of the nature of metaphor > and simile. > > That is why poetry may come closer... Not much time, I'm trying to eat a late dinner. Just wanted to comment on this - I love it - there was a smile on my face and a burst of joy in my heart when I read it - "everything we say is of the nature of metaphor and simile." Everything! Love, --Greg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 27, 1999 Report Share Posted September 27, 1999 Hi Greg, >> And trying to talk about it is trying to describe in words what is prior to >> all words and symbols. So everything we say is of the nature of metaphor >> and simile. >> >> That is why poetry may come closer... > >Not much time, I'm trying to eat a late dinner. Just wanted to >comment on this - I love it - there was a smile on my face and a >burst of joy in my heart when I read it - "everything we say is >of the nature of metaphor and simile." Everything! Yes! In the beginning, God symbolized. Earlier this evening I found a question from Ivan that I hadn't noticed before: >>There are three channels up the spine... sushumna nadi up the >>center...ida nadi and pingala nadi on either side of that... some say >>they spiral around sushumna... that is seen in Hermes' caduceus. ivan: >>some say?.....I thought you where talking of your own reality.... >>...seen in Hermes'....? Well, I was reading Govinda on this point recently... he didn't seem to think it matters which way we think of it. But as for my own knowledge... I've never paid any attention to ida and pingala... nothing ever forced them on my attention. So I decided to take a look. At the moment I was feeling very tired... so I thought I'd take a look then. And then eat something, and look again. And then do some K.meditation, and look again... to see if they always looked the same. My experiment didn't get very far... after I ate something, I fell asleep. )) But when I laid down, I told my guide I wanted to have a look at ida and pingala. I said, "I want to see my body..." and I thought it would be better to be more objective, to say, "Dharma's body..." Whoops! Not that! )) So I said, "I want to see this body in front of me... in front of my mind's eye." And I looked at it, into it... at first it didn't look right. There was the energy in sushumna and on either side something white that seemed to be ida and pingala, but it wasn't orderly and straight... it was in sort of an hour-glass shape... wide at the shoulders, going in toward the waist, then spreading out again. I looked closer... and it may be that right then I drew back from the perception of the reality... and saw it more as I expected to see it. The white went up in straight lines on either side of the central line. Then I said, "Okay, now I want to look inside my own body." And GB (my guide) started laughing... I felt he was saying, or almost said, "What's the difference?" "All right, laugh at me," I said, grinning. I directed my focus down and inward, into my own body, and looked at the three channels... and you know, there wasn't any difference. It felt like I was just doing the same thing... I projected a little me, so I could go closer, go in through the navel, go closer and look. There was the central energy... it looked red. And there was the white going up on either side. I said, "Why white?" I was thinking that the Tibetans use red and white for the energy going up sushumna and the energy going down sushumna... so wouldn't it be confusing if I saw white there too? GB said, "If you don't like my colors, pick some." I thought of gold, but I have other associations for that. He said, "Green? The opposite of red?" And ida and pingala were green. I didn't care much for that. He said, "How about pink?" I thought pink would be similar to red but not as strong... I said, "Okay, pink." And everywhere I looked, I saw the pink of ida and pingala going up on either side of red sushumna. So there you are ... I don't know what this experience is worth... it all seems to be symbol anyway. )) I suspect if I had looked later, I would have seen ida and pingala spiralling around sushumna... but it might have been just my way of seeing that the energies were "het up" and moving. Love, Dharma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 27, 1999 Report Share Posted September 27, 1999 In a message dated 9/24/99 4:22:26 PM Pacific Daylight Time, carrea writes: << Just love this paragraph Greg. Maybe saying i love it will help someone who fells he/she needs it, understand it. But saying what i have just said, i love it, is an approach, like pointing to the moon hoping someone will look at the moon and not at my finger. You seem to propose the approach of the "equilibrium", or realization of the balance or symmetry between opposites instead of the finger to point to this same "moon" or absence of "moon", depending on the perceptive. I could judge both approach, which is another approach to "seeing" the moon. So many approach there is to simply say: "Once we hear about it and think we don't have it or aren't it, then our head is in the tiger's mouth." Yet maybe just one way to be the sun or the moon or whatever. Antoine > Thanks for pointing out these mutually dependent arisings. They spin > around and around. They do reinforce and perpetuate themselves, and > when they drop, both sides drop. As you say, we think we are a being > in time because we think we have experiences, and we think we have > experiences because we think we are a being in time. Also, we think > there is a stream of experiences because we believe that memory points > to the past. We think memory points to the past because we think > there is a stream of experiences. We think we are a subject of these > expereinces because we think there are objects, and we think there are > objects because we think we are the subject. It helps to see such > pairs as symetrical, each notionally dependent on the other, rather > than all floating around some immovable central point. > > --Greg >> Applause, Applause. The reality is so simple, but it is illusive to those who try too hard. In order to float on water, one has to relax and let go...trust...just be...our instincts fight this and we struggle to stay afloat when no struggle is necessary. The path is difficult because we make it so, not because it is so. True seekers must be prepared to shed "themselves" like a snakeskin, to release all preconceptions. This is akin to "madness" to some, because they confuse needs with identity. The true self has no needs and allows understanding rather than forcing understanding...anything which is compelled or required chases the natural state of awareness and non-duality away. I have been surprised at times, when in natural surroundings, hiking or just gazing off into space at some beautiful view to have found that my thoughts naturally "ceased," my breathing slowed to a fraction and that I had achieved a moment of supreme bliss, with no words or ideas in my head at that instant. Then, if I "tried" to recapture the moment, it evaporates. Of course, many of my critics will use these words to assert that this proves that I "don't have a thought in my head." Hence, my dictum, "One must lose one's mind in order to find true mind." Blessings Sai Ram! Zenbob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 27, 1999 Report Share Posted September 27, 1999 In a message dated 9/27/99 1:09:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ZEN2WRK writes: > Hence, my dictum, "One must lose one's mind in order to find true mind." I've heard this before! I believe it began somewhere in Africa and they called it the "Zenbobway". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 27, 1999 Report Share Posted September 27, 1999 On Mon, 27 Sep 1999 14:57:24 EDT LeTeegee writes: > LeTeegee > > In a message dated 9/27/99 1:09:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > ZEN2WRK > writes: > > > Hence, my dictum, "One must lose one's mind in order to find true > mind." > > > I've heard this before! I believe it began somewhere in Africa and > they called it the "Zenbobway". > The above is demonstrates the truth of the assertion that sincere practice of ACIM can put an end to the common human affliction of shame. :-) http://come.to/realization http://www.users.uniserve.com/~samuel/brucemrg.htm http://www.users.uniserve.com/~samuel/brucsong.htm _ _________________ 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 28, 1999 Report Share Posted September 28, 1999 Gregory Goode wrote: > > Gregory Goode <goode > > On Sun, Sep 26, 1999 at 10:12:42PM -0500, Dharma wrote: > > > And trying to talk about it is trying to describe in words what is prior to > > all words and symbols. So everything we say is of the nature of metaphor > > and simile. > > > > That is why poetry may come closer... > > Not much time, I'm trying to eat a late dinner. Just wanted to > comment on this - I love it - there was a smile on my face and a > burst of joy in my heart when I read it - "everything we say is > of the nature of metaphor and simile." Everything! > > Love, > > --Greg Some say "it's Gog talking", the miracle of life, when one realise that everything is a methaphor and simile. I like the song "What a beautifull World" Antoine -- Through the coming, going, and the balance of life The essential nature which illumines existence is the adorable one May all perceive through subtle intellect the brilliance of enlightenment. A translation of the Gayatri Mantra 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.