I would agree, but rather than say "rather than ours" I would say including ours, as I believe that part of me that is god includes all of me, and, I AM god, meaning, I include all of god. On a good day, I hold this in my awareness.
On Aug 19, 9:29 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > On 19 Aug, 13:28, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > What I am trying to say, is because we take our experience with us, > > after the death of our bodies, we take our relationships with > > us...relationships to others, to things, to all of our experience. > > The quality of our relationships is really the basis or our > > "choices". How we choose to relate to our experience defines our > > being. > > Perhaps, but there's a good chance that we might find out that 'our' > thoughts aren't really ours (another false ownership) but God's > thoughts being thought THROUGH the vehicle we call our 'self'. > Equally, our experiences are the experiences of the One, rather than > ours. This kind of understanding may well bring one to a kind of > Nirvana, in that one will discover the true nature of self as Self. > > > On Aug 19, 8:15 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 19 Aug, 13:04, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > This brings to mind one of my favorite bits from the series Red > > > > Dwarf: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZqjLa2X3L8 > > > > > That cat knew what's what. > > > > > I think that in unity, connection with all others or objects, is > > > > "being" one with experience. In the end, we do take it all with us, > > > > or at least, as much of it as is real, and it is etched in our soul > > > > for all eternity...and that is every one of our moments in this life. > > > > Yeah, I'll go along with that. Unfortunately, I can't view YouTube > > > at work (and I still don't have a connection at home). What was the > > > clip? > > > > > On Aug 19, 7:52 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On 28 July, 18:02, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > In the course of the recent discussion here concerning the reposting > > > > > > of Minds Eye contributions in other internet fora, the question of > > > > > > copyright arose. It got me to thinking about the idea of > > > > > > intellectual > > > > > > ownership and the idea of possession in general. > > > > > > > We have all seen the Westerns in which the Native Americans sold > > > > > > away > > > > > > title to land for nothing, or pittances because the white man's > > > > > > concept of "owning" land was incomprehensible to them. Throughout > > > > > > history, many of those whom we regard as great thinkers have been > > > > > > very > > > > > > critical of the benefits of possessions and owning things. Indeed, a > > > > > > controversy centred on the absolute poverty of Christ raged > > > > > > throughout > > > > > > the medieval Christian Church and completely split the Franciscan > > > > > > movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ > > > > > > Franciscans#Renewed_controversy_on_the_question_of_poverty). In this > > > > > > context, it is perhaps interesting to note that one of the all-time > > > > > > heroes here on Minds Eye, William of Occam, was a proponent of the > > > > > > principle of absolute poverty and lost his job as English Franciscan > > > > > > provincial and was excommunicated as a result. > > > > > > > Personally I spent almost a decade as a Dominican friar, during > > > > > > which > > > > > > time I took a "vow of poverty." I don't want to go into a discussion > > > > > > on the extent to which Catholic monks actually live according to > > > > > > this > > > > > > vow here, personally, I always found it to be the expression of an > > > > > > attitude of freedom from a dictatorship of "things." It may also > > > > > > have > > > > > > left an indelible mark on me in that in almost a quarter of a > > > > > > century > > > > > > since leaving the order I have been pretty bad at earning, > > > > > > accumulating and retaining material wealth and possessions. During > > > > > > my > > > > > > life I have gone through a number of pretty radical changes, which > > > > > > have often involved leaving nearly everything behind and starting > > > > > > again. Such processes have been, inevitably, traumatic, although not > > > > > > necessarily negative. One of the things that has helped is the fact > > > > > > that I have never felt particularly attached to "things". But maybe > > > > > > my > > > > > > sense of "ownership" is just underdeveloped, or damaged! > > > > > > > There's a German saying which states that "he who has possessions > > > > > > has > > > > > > worries." Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, one of the founders (!) of modern > > > > > > anarchism went farther with his statement that "property is theft." > > > > > > What does it mean to "own" something anyway? > > > > > > > To use Molly's words: What do you think? > > > > > > > Francis > > > > > > Ownership is an illusion derived from the close spatio-temporal > > > > > relationship formed by a human (although I feel that other species > > > > > also have a similar concept {thus the problem encountered when trying > > > > > to take a bone or toy from a dog who's enjoying it}) towards an > > > > > object. That is, we tend to think of those things that spend a lot of > > > > > their existence near us as 'ours'. Of course, nothing could be > > > > > farther from the truth. Things exist. Things exist nearer or farther > > > > > from us. We tend to bond more closely, due to familiarity, to those > > > > > things that are nearer us. Those things that you can take with you > > > > > into the 'next world' are those things which are truly yours. > > > > > Everything else is just stuff that happens to be near you during your > > > > > period of physical existence. Theft, is just moving a thing from one > > > > > place to another. If there was no bond between humans and 'things', > > > > > theft could not occur. All things, including humans, simply exist and > > > > > are a part (perhaps even better, an expression) of the One. There is > > > > > only that One and any division we make is, in truth, illusory and, in > > > > > the case of ourselves, simple vanity.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
