Guest guest Posted April 17, 2000 Report Share Posted April 17, 2000 , "Roger Isaacs" <RIsaacs@c...> wrote: > Antoine Carre <carrea > > > > Antoine; > > > > " Yet asking oneself what one should not or should do, or have > > > > or have not done, or what consequence it will or will not have, > > > > is to my presence a very strange question in itself. IMHO, > > > > this very form of question or questioning of one in action, > > > > instead of simply being present to the Presence of the moment, > > > > is one of the major cause of the act of violence in itself." > > > Roger: > > > If we claim to be above the law (moral or legal law), how would we > > know if this attitude is premature? > > > > First one would have to claim, > > > > Antoine > > Antoine, you recommend against considering the consequences of one's action. Thank you for wanting to give consequence to my words, Roger. > If your advise was adopted by a 'thinker', wouldn't it amount to a claim > that the thinker is above the law? If... If... Butterflies would stop flying in China, if they new of the tornados they may create in Florida years latter. Considering one not to be responsible of everything is as worst as considering one responsible of its specific actions that determines what some call their limited ego. The path of above and below the law is as infinite as the shores of a fractal lake. Questionning my being here, or a movement, etc... one starts to walk on this path of infinite stairs... The thinker would have to stop thinking, to listen to the advise of simply being there. In thinking he/she tries to understand and there "he/she" lost me a long time ago... > Roger Antoine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 17, 2000 Report Share Posted April 17, 2000 , "Roger Isaacs" <RIsaacs@c...> wrote: > The understanding of things seems to change over the spiritual quest. > > For example: at the beginning one might believe that one has free will, yet > later it may become apparent that there is no separate "I" that might > project free will. > > Or, at the beginning, there might appear to be a doer, one who claims > volition, yet later it might become apparent that there is only freedom. > > Or, at the beginning, subtle effort / meditation may appear to be useful in > quieting the mind, yet later, if the mind is truly still, then there is no > need for intrusive effort. > > I feel, Antoine, that your earlier statement something like 'one need never > consider the consequences of an action' is not a universal truth. > > This statement might promote higher understanding, but, depending on who > hears it, it might also promote licentious identification. > > Roger Roger, Who hears it? "I" should shut up... Antoine 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.