re:the real / Michael

[Guest guest]

Michael --

 

> I would go a certain distance with you in that I would accept

that

> manifest reality does not contain within itself the basis of its

reality.

> To take it in that way is to live in unreality. However reality

is

> non-dual with it which is not a cunning way of saying that they

are one.

> In that way the real is always present which even if I was

realized, which

> I'm not, I could say nothing about. A point of agreement there so

a good

> place to sign off,

> Best Wishes, Michael

 

This agreement can only be *is* itself --

 

The *is* is what allows all realities to be understood

as if real for an observer of the reality.

 

Yet, logical can never give the *is* because the

logic is always for the sake of an observer

defined as within a defined experiential realm

called a life-space.

 

Freud's dream-theory can be appropriate for understanding

a being that has wishes and fears, but can't give the

*is* with neither a wish nor a fear -- for that will

always be " beyond the defined parameters " of either

a system of logic or metaphor ...

 

Existence of anything is presumed as the basis for

making definitions, true -- yet look closely, for

existence is a definition -- a preverally defined

definition, true -- yet a definition ...

 

I exist because I sense something being now in some

way of which I wasn't aware a moment ago.

 

Therefore I am.

 

I experience, therefore I am.

 

So, the definition is preverbal and has to

do with registration of experience as

sensation.

 

Yes, *is* transcends those parameters,

yet those parameters appear only as

the nessary expression of *is* as and within

parameters.

 

*Is* is at once beyond parameters, the parameters,

and whatever is within the parameters (me and you

talking here, for example).

 

Peace,

Dan