Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Why?
Mar 13, 2019 14:03:19 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2019 14:03:19 GMT -5
That's where realizing that arising appearances are not separate, comes in. What?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Why?
Mar 13, 2019 14:29:49 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2019 14:29:49 GMT -5
That's where realizing that arising appearances are not separate, comes in. What? For wholeness to 'get sliced,' there would have to actually be separation. There isn't. E knows that. When he spoke of 'you' he wasn't talking about something that was separate from the whole. Thus, no slicing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Why?
Mar 13, 2019 14:31:35 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2019 14:31:35 GMT -5
For wholeness to 'get sliced,' there would have to actually be separation. There isn't. E knows that. When he spoke of 'you' he wasn't talking about something that was separate from the whole. Thus, no slicing. It's only a pointer. To say the word " you" is the first cut.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Why?
Mar 13, 2019 14:52:45 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2019 14:52:45 GMT -5
I thought you were upgrading to 8-track. Those things are bugged, man. They put cookies on your rotary dial.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Why?
Mar 13, 2019 16:12:41 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2019 16:12:41 GMT -5
For wholeness to 'get sliced,' there would have to actually be separation. There isn't. E knows that. When he spoke of 'you' he wasn't talking about something that was separate from the whole. Thus, no slicing. It's only a pointer. To say the word " you" is the first cut. "You" is just a reference to an arising appearance, which is not separate from being. There is no 'cutting up' the whole in simply referencing an appearance.
& That's a really important thing to see.... That although things that arise within experience, may 'appear to be' separate from that which gives rise to them, they are not.
The appearance of distinction does not mean the whole has been sliced into pieces. In insisting so, you demonstrate that you have both, licked a pointer and mistaken appearing distinction for actual separation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Why?
Mar 13, 2019 16:15:39 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2019 16:15:39 GMT -5
It's only a pointer. To say the word " you" is the first cut. "You" is just a reference to an arising appearance, which is not separate from being. There is no 'cutting up' the whole in simply referencing an appearance.
& That's a really important thing to see.... That although things that arise within experience, may 'appear to be' separate from that which gives rise to them, they are not.
The appearance of distinction does not mean the whole has been sliced into pieces. In insisting so, you demonstrate that you have both, licked a pointer and mistaken appearing distinction for actual separation.
How far back into Being would you take an other for Wholeness to reveal itself to them?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Why?
Mar 13, 2019 18:07:32 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2019 18:07:32 GMT -5
"You" is just a reference to an arising appearance, which is not separate from being. There is no 'cutting up' the whole in simply referencing an appearance.
& That's a really important thing to see.... That although things that arise within experience, may 'appear to be' separate from that which gives rise to them, they are not.
The appearance of distinction does not mean the whole has been sliced into pieces. In insisting so, you demonstrate that you have both, licked a pointer and mistaken appearing distinction for actual separation.
How far back into Being would you take an other for Wholeness to reveal itself to them? I don't know what that means.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Why?
Mar 13, 2019 18:17:28 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2019 18:17:28 GMT -5
How far back into Being would you take an other for Wholeness to reveal itself to them? I don't know what that means. Fair enough.
|
|
|
Why?
Mar 13, 2019 18:56:53 GMT -5
Post by enigma on Mar 13, 2019 18:56:53 GMT -5
The idea of a Self implies that God is personal. When one realizes what they are, there is nothing to grab onto to make it personal. You are wholeness. The person is a fragmentation of that wholeness. When I am wholeness is a way of saying,, " I am God." But I am not. I'm only a fragment of that Wholeness. But you're not the fragment, you're the wholeness.
|
|
|
Why?
Mar 13, 2019 19:07:34 GMT -5
Post by enigma on Mar 13, 2019 19:07:34 GMT -5
But it's a movie, right? I'm having trouble reconciling not caring if one lives or dies, and at the same time needing to live perfectly. Wouldn't both concerns fall away simultaneously? A wise man does not grieve for the sick or downtrodden. Agreed, but it's a different conversation.
|
|
|
Why?
Mar 13, 2019 19:13:18 GMT -5
Post by enigma on Mar 13, 2019 19:13:18 GMT -5
Coming from the Ocean as a droplet is fantastic, you cannot fully experience your life if you spend your whole life at home with your parents. As a separate being we can experience life and all its wonders, as a Whole we are Life, but with no experience of that which we are. I use to continue thinking that I was the Whole, but then I kept forgetting that I was separate as an organism, an organism that was here to experience that which the Whole could never. We are very lucky to be here to experience this wonderful world, we as the personality or persona which we all wear and identify our selves with, have only this one chance to experience this world. I believe that many beliefs such as religion keeps us from fully experiencing this world, it makes us lazy, believing that if it all turns out wrong we can make it up in anther life, or a wonderful place called heaven. Yes we are One with the Source, but as the Source we miss out on so much, just as we are one with our family, we also miss out on so much if we don't leave the family and make our own life separate from the family, but always knowing we belong to the family. How can you be both "one with the source" and "Separate as an organism"?
|
|
|
Why?
Mar 13, 2019 19:13:42 GMT -5
Post by krsnaraja on Mar 13, 2019 19:13:42 GMT -5
When I am wholeness is a way of saying,, " I am God." But I am not. I'm only a fragment of that Wholeness. But you're not the fragment, you're the wholeness. That's the principle of non - dualism. I accept that reasoning if I am an advocate of non - duality. The principle of duality does not accept that. In the beginning there was only Adam. Wholeness. Adam felt lonely. So, this Wholeness took from Adam a rib and came into being, Eve. So, they became two. Adam & Eve. The latter is the fragment. I am only part of the Wholeness. I am Eve, the fragment taken from the rib of Adam (Wholeness ).
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 13, 2019 19:15:29 GMT -5
Coming from the Ocean as a droplet is fantastic, you cannot fully experience your life if you spend your whole life at home with your parents. As a separate being we can experience life and all its wonders, as a Whole we are Life, but with no experience of that which we are. I use to continue thinking that I was the Whole, but then I kept forgetting that I was separate as an organism, an organism that was here to experience that which the Whole could never. We are very lucky to be here to experience this wonderful world, we as the personality or persona which we all wear and identify our selves with, have only this one chance to experience this world. I believe that many beliefs such as religion keeps us from fully experiencing this world, it makes us lazy, believing that if it all turns out wrong we can make it up in anther life, or a wonderful place called heaven. Yes we are One with the Source, but as the Source we miss out on so much, just as we are one with our family, we also miss out on so much if we don't leave the family and make our own life separate from the family, but always knowing we belong to the family. I hate to use ocean as a metaphor for this Whole thing. And I is just a drop of that ocean /wholeness. I like to say, New York City as replacement metaphor substitute for ocean I am a New Yorker trying to earn a living, enjoying life in this ocean. I go to the top of the Empire Estate building and view the vastness of this ocean New York which I can't become the whole of New York unless the people of New York elect me as Mayor of New York City. As mayor you become the whole of New York?
|
|
|
Why?
Mar 13, 2019 19:30:48 GMT -5
Post by enigma on Mar 13, 2019 19:30:48 GMT -5
But it's a movie, right? I'm having trouble reconciling not caring if one lives or dies, and at the same time needing to live perfectly. Wouldn't both concerns fall away simultaneously? It IS a movie, but a documentary...so the dude is not an actor. But yeah, I would have figured both concerns would fall away simultaneously too. But it really seems as though this guy is ok with the idea of death as he's climbing, rope free. Have a gander if you have time.
Oh, I see. The only question I have is, how is this guy still alive? He's never slipped once? Once is all it takes. I didn't get the impression he doesn't care if he lives or dies. He strikes me as an adrenaline junkie who has learned to compartmentalize his fear.
|
|
|
Why?
Mar 13, 2019 19:32:51 GMT -5
Post by krsnaraja on Mar 13, 2019 19:32:51 GMT -5
I hate to use ocean as a metaphor for this Whole thing. And I is just a drop of that ocean /wholeness. I like to say, New York City as replacement metaphor substitute for ocean I am a New Yorker trying to earn a living, enjoying life in this ocean. I go to the top of the Empire Estate building and view the vastness of this ocean New York which I can't become the whole of New York unless the people of New York elect me as Mayor of New York City. As mayor you become the whole of New York? Without the Mayor of New York's signature, activities to serve the people of New York stop. Money from Federal banks use in serving the constituents of New York cease flowing. There's chaos. The police department won't get their salaries. Incidents of crime goes up. Show me a City without a Mayor & I will show you a City in shatters. If Philippine President Duterte wants to know New York City, he visits the Mayor..
|
|