Re: whose business is it?/Helenof Troy

--- In wrote: Hey there Helen, > So let me try to respond to your questions below. > H: You mentioned having thoughts that oppose what is. I take that > to mean that you "want" or "desire" something different than it is. > (*you* implying who or whatever is providing the thoughts) ----->Ahhh....I see. Thanks for the clarification. > > In any case, I don't recall stating that wants and desires are not > > natural. As far as I know, every sentient being has them. It is > part of being a conditioned entity. > H: OK - I think this is where my made up memories goofed up. I no > longer think you said that. Sorry. ----->No problem. I don't remember what I say five minutes after I say it. :-))) > > When you say desires are "natural" ... What, exactly, is a > > "natural desire"? What is an "unnatural desire" (if there is > > one)? What is the defining line between natural and unnatural > > vis-a-vis desire? > H: I wasn't trying to say that given a desire that it is either > natural or unnatural.. I was just saying that I think it is > has desires"... it is a human thing ... or > I would even say that it is the driving force of creation ... > expansion of consciousness ... life force etc.. the "movement" of > consciousness ... desires... ----->That is certainly how it appears to function in phenomenality. > > Finally, I would disagree with your last two conjunctive clauses: > > "There is only What Is > > and > > our acceptance or resistance to it." > > > > The acceptance or resistance is also a part of What Is. Not > separate > > from it. No one gets to step out of it. > H: hmmm I don't know.. this is tricky. I disagree but don't know > if I can adequately describe my thoughts. I guess it is just > perception of what IS. Your view point indicates dualism and you > indicate that no one gets to step out of it (dualism). ----->Actually my pov indicates NONdualism: that things which appear to be separate or distinct (e.g., "What IS" and "acceptance or resistance to What IS") are, in fact, NOT separate. > What Is, Is. Accepting or rejecting what IS is what consciousness > does. The conscious entity me, judges, that thing over there... the > IS. This is the dualism. The separation from what IS. ----->Yes, I can see how this might be viewed as such. I go further (and you may not want to go there). I say that this "conscious entity me" which you refer to is also an expression of What IS. I say that there is exactly One Thing. It has been called by many, many names: God, Consciousness, Source, Totality, the Buddha-Nature, Absolute. It is a Unicity, a singleton out of which, as the Taoists say, the ten-thousand things arise. But the Taoists point out that those ten-thousand arisings are, in their essence, actually only Source. Source expressing ItSelf in manifestation as apparent separate entities. So, this entire comic/tragic "stage" of a world on which we walk, talk, eat, procreate, kill (and are killed)...all of it is the movement of Consciousness. There appears to be a "me" and "you." But when looked at very, very closely, like a scientist looking with an electron microscope, or a quantum physicist doing an experiment in 9 dimensions, the entire supra-structure collapses and is seen for the illusion that it is. > I don't > think I can step out of it but in theory I can step into IT. > ----->You can't step into IT because IT *is* you. "You," HelenofTroy, have no independent existence. That is what is meant by the Buddhist terms, "no self," "impermanence," and "emptiness." It is something that BK points to over and over when she is speaking from a pov that is nondual. > If I were to have neither acceptance or resistance > if I am THAT which IS. This is the end of separation, that is the > end of my consciousness (if even for an instant) that is the FLASH > of inspiration or whatever you want to call it. ----->Helen, there really isn't any separation. Ever. It simply appears that way. But the illusions is necessary. Were one not to perceive separation, then one would walk into a wall or desk, put shit in one's mouth instead of broccoli, and park one's car in the local gas station instead of one's driveway. How could one function if there was no differentiation of "this" from "that"? On a purely functional basis separation is necessary and it appears that it is integral to how this reality operates. ~ Andy Yahoo! Groups Links To visit your group on the web, go to: Your shop settings: Individual shop | Traditional To change settings online go to: (Yahoo! ID required) To change settings via shop: To Purchase from this group, send an shop to: Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

... Back to listing 39

... Back to article 7642 | SITEMAP | Next to article 7644 ...

We would like to express our gratitude to all those who are kindly providing this unique content, especially to:

office@a3ides.com
olga@bemobile.md
tirlik@brainchildhunter.com
office@bemobile.md
sharuha@causeni.info
info@webconsulting.md
irina.gorea@bemobile.md
office@milieukontakt.nl
igor.romanyuk@bemobile.com.ua
yuri.sekretar@olympia.net.ua
info@tophost.md
webmoldova@yahoo.com
admin@bemobile.md
webmaster@bemobile.md
emil@a3ides.com
olea@bemobile.md
yuri.sekretar@bemobile.com.ua
contact@a3ides.com
info@a3ides.com
vitaliy.lozovskiy@bemobile.md
drugg83@yahoo.com
flaviu.mateevici@gmail.com
flaviu@dataverity.com
rector@usm.md
gaugash@usm.md
acad.rudic@mail.md
acadrudic@yahoo.com
veaceslav.vasilache@gmail.com
s.bakker@milieukontakt.nl
katea.melnicenco@gmail.com
mkoe.moldova@vox.md
musteata@doctor.com
renat.buga@ase.md
s.molenkamp@milieukontakt.nl
si_problemme@mail.ru
willem.tjebbe.oostenbrink@planet.nl

Most popular links:

appears, resistance, consciousness, separate, acceptance, Taoists, instead, settings, natural, whatever, desires, function, disagree, separation, indicates, ten-thousand, something, separation,,

Similar listing on: