Click here to go to the next issue.

Monday April 23rd


________________________________________________________________________________\
_



NDS

Hi "Doc"...

As usual, the 'devil' (Hobbs) is in the details...

>From: "Doc Hobbes"
>
> >"The one who speaks does not know; and the one that knows does not speak"
>
>Hmmm... is it because 'the one who knows is DEAD'... and 'the one who speaks
>uses words' to decribe 'what he does not know'.... namely, that the 'one
>that knows how to speak is dead'.
>
>Perhaps then, he know better.... or not.
>
>You decide.


Okay.

The speaker is an (autonomous) automaton; the one who knows simply
commands the automaton to deliver carefully contrived words.

To say another way... (although not generally recognized)

The 'body' is made to speak, but the one who knows, is not the body.
On the other hand, it is all a perfectly coordinated system. Rarely,
is the one who knows, allowed to speak (via the body).

This is not to denigrate the body, however. The lovely body,
long-suffering and loyal, does what it is commanded to do.

The common confusion arises, in the attempt to dismiss one element or
another. In reality, all are equally important.

Of course, this viewpoint, being foreign to many, will probably
arouse vociferous objections (in one, at least... ).


Foreign object,

==Gene Poole==


________________________________________________________________________________\
_



Hi: Doc,
Consider...... the one who knows rarely speaks via the body perhaps
due to the knowledge that there is no need to speak, nor one to relay
a message to. The bodies who reside in close proximity to the one
who knows will understand and accept the words of another body, but
the words from the one who knows come from emptiness and would be
appreciated only within that context. There is perhaps no need to
speak due to the others who also know haveing no need to hear for
they also know. Just a perception of course.
peace to you always
Gracie



________________________________________________________________________________\
_




ºHi
ºNisargadatta, as far as I can see, by 'I am' he refers sometimes to
ºthe sense of i-am produced by the I-thought, and sometimes to the I-
ºAM as 'pure being'.
ºWhich, would you say he refers to, in his pointer : ' hold on to the
ºI-am ' ?
ºIf I 'hold on' to the i-am, would that not strenghten the I-thought ?
ºjb
º
Just a suggestion - why are some stairs equipped with a handrail?
Unless having "met" Yama, at first, emptiness could be experienced as "scary".
Emptiness - no thoughts, no feelings, no reference whatsoever...

"Nothing" to hold on which is "better" than nothing :)

Jan


________________________________________________________________________________\
_




Dear List,

What is it worth to live in the Unknown Mind perspective, to make that

shift and let go moment by moment by moment by moment by moment by

moment by moment...to really live the now?



Peace,

Missy


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Not really a test, and not really an answer:

To live the now, is to acknowledge that the unknown is the unknown.

To do this, "There is no loss".

No gain, no loss; how does one calculate value in this case?

Personally, I would not go back, for all the money in the world.

Excellent question, thanks for asking.


==Gene Poole==


________________________________________________________________________________\
_




Hi List,

Just returned from seeing the film "Memento." An interesting
meditation on memory, and the questions "Who am I?" and "Where am
I?" A really good film (highly unusual and well crafted) with a
completely open ending, recommended. Jerry could file this under
the 'nonduality and movies' category.

Namaste,

Tim

top of page