Rod wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "carlos" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Hi, isn't it that we are not two and not one? sort of when one >> is watching a cartoon on TV , there is mickey mouse goofy and >> others, it is clearly that everything is one ,it is the same >> screen and the same source but still every one of the characters >> is designed or meant to play as separated from each other, >> mickey play as mickey and goofy as goofy, it is very unlikely >> that the life of beings is like that, is only an idea to try to >> explain "not two not one". >> So what is wrong about saying I am this or I am that as long as >> one knows that in reality one is the source?. >> I don't know where to put Karma in all this. >> Metta >> Carlos > > If one "knows" it intellectually, than this is just thinking and > theorizing, and falls in the same category as "knowing" you are > seperate. There's nothing "wrong" with spending time "knowing > things" because no one is assigning a grade. One is free to think > all sorts of ideas, sensible or not. But when you see through > these ideas (as merely unreasonable constructs), all one is left > to do is to BE the one source by ACTING as the one source. There > is likely no bother to capture it as "knowledge" by trying to > forumulate a consistent IDEA of it other than continued habit... > which will fade with practice. > > Make sense? > > Rod
For my, knowing is total ,it is not having an understanding. If we look at the zen said "before enlightenment rivers are rivers and mountains are mountains, during enlightenment rivers are not rivers and mountains are not mountains, and after enlightenment rivers are again rivers and mountains are again mountains" I understand this as saying this is real life the one life that one has to live even if one has the knowledge that all ideas are merely unreasonable constructs. I thought that the source act or lives through its creations like a dream so every being act as itself even though it is the dreamer watching through the eyes and perceiving through the senses. So I suppose after one is awakened one changes the attitude toward life because one knows but still have to carry water and chop wood. It is interesting what you say, I have never thought of the source as acting, so when one punch somebody else eye is actually punching one own eye, so who is carrying the consequences of the act if there is only one? This looks kind of messy, others opinions are needed. Metta Carlos ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> What would our lives be like without music, dance, and theater? Donate or volunteer in the arts today at Network for Good! http://us.click.yahoo.com/WwRTUD/SOnJAA/i1hLAA/S27xlB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Noble Eightfold Path: Right View, Right Intention, Right Speech, Right Action, Right Effort, Right Mindfulness, Right Concentration, Right Livelihood Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZenForum/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
