I would agree, and say that any judgment of other is a thought that separates us from them, ourselves and the one. Being our true individual selves while recognizing our connection to all others as One does not leave room for such judgment.
On Jun 1, 4:27 am, Dinesh <[email protected]> wrote: > 'Not this, not this' is again a concept to destroy itself and reach > 'Not other than this' (to put in words what cannot be) > > On Jun 1, 1:17 pm, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On 29 May, 09:55, vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > It seems the way I came across to this Group, the ideas and views I > > > presented, have affected some people. Pat may be true in saying that > > > he'd been thus ' helped.' I do remember communicating with a few > > > others through mail. > > > As for me, your 'help' was very material. In fact not just in > > material substance to my ideas but as material as it gets. > > > > But my query is : so what ? ... not to dismiss, but to remind > > > ourselves of the duty to go back to our de - anchored view or > > > perception, or continue with the search, even as we live it out in the > > > world, live out the mind and the concept structures that constitute > > > us ... with the desire to know, reflect and awaken into greater > > > peace, from where more loving, effective and fulfilling, and > > > regenerative actions proceed. > > > Sounds more like a re-anchoring than a true de-anchoring. Not that > > there's anything wrong with that, rather, indeed, great merit. But > > see it for what it is...a re-anchoring. And ANY anchor will weigh you > > down keeping you where you are...in a sea of 'so what'. > > > > I have no doubt that all well - meaning people are doing the same, in > > > their own ways, to consequences appropriate to their own preoccupying > > > natures and exigencies, that mean and form us in the middle of things. > > > Most are vivacious, cooling off their minds from time to time than > > > knowing it. But they are preferable than those who do not rise and > > > merely become adept, great adepts but chilling like lords Voldemort, > > > dedicated to a specific concept - structure that is deified but only > > > because it assures one's own overriding self - importance. > > > A nice oblique. I still find it bordering on ad hominem. But VERY > > cloaked and oblique...I appreciate your style and lingering 'need' to > > re-affirm your commitment. > > > > Few indeed see the measure of our acceptance of diversity, and of the > > > plurality about us, as a definite KPI of love, peace and wisdom in our > > > lives. Because for it to be, much of our earned spiritual power, > > > happiness and freedom, need to be subsumed in the practice of ' not > > > this,' ' not this.' > > > Except if the 'not this' happens to be your sacred view. Rather, > > that's when 'neti' MUST apply. And, yes, I still do this myself, as a > > refining fire before the rise of the next phoenix of refined thought. > > > > The destination is without all concept structures, of oneself and of > > > the other(s). > > > Except 'neti'. That, too, is a structure and, by its very call must > > also be thrown away.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
