What is not impersonal presence?
On Sep 3, 9:01 am, Sandeep-Kuber Technologies <[email protected]> wrote: > fearlessinquirer wrote: > > By "impersonal presence" do you mean choiceless awareness? > > No. > > A presence in which there is no further labeling. > > Including the label of "no further labeling". > > Of course in the very referencing, a label as "presence" is being used. > > > Can you sense that without being in relationship with that? > > That is why........the earlier prattling.......it is to be found neither > in relationship nor in isolation. > > The apperception of this........consumes even the attributed quality of > "findable". > > > To be in > > relationship is to be without labeling the experience of being. > > Well, that's a new connotation of the term "relationship". > > Yes the absence of labeling, which is actually the absence of experiencing. > > And since the absence of experiencing is also an experiencing..... > > ....the absence of the presence of experiencing/labeling > > AND > > the absence of absence of the presence of experiencing/labeling. > > > To > > sense that is to give that a quality, a perfume, a flavor... and > > certainly the instrument of perception, which is limited in itself, > > cannot make apparent that which is limitless. > > Yes. > > To sense is another way to say ......to experience. > > And experience is in time, is of time. > > Thus durational and thus limited. > > Look at the term "limitless". > > It is as much limited as any other terming. > > That there is something as limitless.......is a thought within the > domain of limitation. > > That-which-is...........is neither limited. > > Nor limitless. > > > Life is relationship. > > Life, as typically or conventionally connoted.........is indeed a > collage of relationships. > > As a display of what relationships could be like, if relationships could > ever be.
