--- In [email protected], "Rory Goff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>
> > On Jun 20, 2007, at 2:06 AM, tertonzeno wrote:
> >
> > > ---
> > > So, Rory; you see no need to rectify anything? Sounds like a
typical
> > > Neo-Advaitin-ism. I suppose that if some home invaders took
over
> > > your neighbor's house and threatened to kill everybody, you
wouldn't
> > > take measures to "rectify" the situation? (i.e. make it go
away,
> > > change it in some way?). At the very least, call the cops.
>
> --- In [email protected], Vaj <vajranatha@> wrote:
>
> > It's all one, so why bother?
>
> Because it's all one, we "bother".
>
> There is no need to rectify anything, *including* my current
impulse to
> clarify your apparent misapprehensions of my position(s).
>
> I write this despite my suspicion that you really do *get* this,
and
> you're just pulling my leg, because I do remember when I didn't
get it,
> for many years, so I know that hypothetically not-getting this is
> indeed possible and probably prevalent. So even if you *do* get
this
> and are just playing dumb, there are others who don't, so this may
be
> actually heard somewhere, somewhen, by some Being actually seeking
to
> come back to "Me."
>
> I also suspect that (as someone on FFL said recently -- was it
Curtis?
> Or Judy?) not-getting this is a Piaget-like stage of Being, like a
kid
> who doesn't get it that a tall narrow glass and a short fat one
contain
> the same amount of water. He won't get it even if we pour the
water
> back and forth between the glasses all day long; he thinks it's
some
> kind of a trick. He thinks either the tall glass is bigger, or the
fat
> glass is bigger -- he can't see that tall+thin = short+fat.
>
> Nonetheless, I'll pour the water a few more times, just for the
fun of
> it.
>
> There is no need to rectify anything, *including* my hypothetical
> impulse to call the cops in your hypothetical home-invasion
scenario.
>
> My appreciation of the perfection of what IS *includes* all our
> particular dynamic attempts to change what IS. It is both utterly
still
> *and* utterly dynamic, simultaneously. It is both silent *and*
noisy,
> simultaneously. It is both mistake-laden *and* error-free,
> simultaneously.
>
> It contains all the slippery opposites in spacetime, because it is
US,
> and we're more than spacetime, more than any particular story.
>
> It is -- we are -- whatever we put our attention on and thereby
evoke
> from the vasty deep.
>
> Chopra has a good analogy -- if we look at the movement of the
crowd in
> a train station, we see people rushing everywhere in apparent
chaos,
> and yet there is an underlying order; everyone's needs are being
met.
>
> To me, that's a great description of Life -- everyone's needs are
being
> met. If we don't think our needs are being met, we look closer,
feel
> the emotion(s), be open to our deepest need in this moment, open
our
> heart to receive the divine perfection being offered to us in this
> moment, be open to receiving both subtler and infinitely more
fullness
> more than we expected, almost certainly in a different flavor than
we
> expected. If we're completely honest with ourself, completely
open, we
> will find what we've been craving, and infinitely more. But again,
> maybe only when we're ready to see the two glasses of water are
> equivalent! :-)
>
> *L*L*L*
>
So...Rory...[imagine me with my fingers steepled, sitting in a
leather armchair, brandy and cigar at my side] you are saying, if I
am not mistaken, and forgive me if my summation is overly academic,
for I know of the great and learned minds on this august forum, and
wish to provide something equal in stature at least to those most
highly esteemed and towering giants of intellect: "you gots to know
when to hold 'em, and you gots to know when to fold 'em".:-)
