Guest guest Posted November 27, 2002 Report Share Posted November 27, 2002 " you are the consciousness and you have these ideas of a separate being, and then marvelously enough you imagine you stand as the separate being and refer to the consciousness as if it were your possession. isn't that a funny thing? that's very strange. " ~NOME~ Re: " you have these ideas of a separate being " ... Not really. It is only an appearance. We wonder to whom the appearance appears, and get confused. There is no one to whom the appearance appears. The appearance -- this Now -- simply is. -Bill PS: And don't get confused by the " we wonder " above. That is just appearance too. What is there but appearance? What has there ever been? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 27, 2002 Report Share Posted November 27, 2002 Now you're talking. That's telling it like it's. Way to go! Pete --- Bill Rishel <plexus wrote: > > " you are the consciousness and you have > these ideas of a separate being, and > then marvelously enough you imagine you > stand as the separate being and refer > to the consciousness as if it were your > possession. isn't that a funny thing? > that's very strange. " ~NOME~ > > > Re: " you have these ideas of a separate being " ... > Not really. It is only an appearance. > > We wonder to whom the appearance appears, and > get confused. > > There is no one to whom the appearance appears. > The appearance -- this Now -- simply is. > > -Bill > > PS: And don't get confused by the " we wonder " > above. That is just appearance too. What is > there but appearance? What has there ever been? > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 28, 2002 Report Share Posted November 28, 2002 Consciousness,the level of perception,was the first split introduced into the mind after the separation, making the mind a perceiver rather than a creator.Consciousness is correctly identified as the domain of the ego. The ego is a wrong-minded attempt to perceive yourself as you wish to be, rather than as you are. Yet you can know yourself only as you are, because that is all you can be sure of.Everything else is open to question. acim ariel --- Bill Rishel <plexus wrote: <HR> <html><body> <tt> <BR> & quot;you are the consciousness and you have<BR> these ideas of a separate being, and <BR> then marvelously enough you imagine you<BR> stand as the separate being and refer <BR> to the consciousness as if it were your <BR> possession. isn't that a funny thing? <BR> that's very strange. & quot; ~NOME~<BR> <BR> <BR> Re: & quot;you have these ideas of a separate being & quot;...<BR> Not really. It is only an appearance.<BR> <BR> We wonder to whom the appearance appears, and<BR> get confused.<BR> <BR> There is no one to whom the appearance appears.<BR> The appearance -- this Now -- simply is.<BR> <BR> -Bill<BR> <BR> PS: And don't get confused by the & quot;we wonder & quot; <BR> above. That is just appearance too. What is<BR> there but appearance? What has there ever been?<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> </tt> <br> <!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| --> <table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2> <tr bgcolor=#FFFFCC> <td align=center><font size= " -1 " color=#003399><b> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 28, 2002 Report Share Posted November 28, 2002 ariel, > Consciousness,the level of perception,was the first > split introduced into the mind after the separation, I'm not with you on the split being into the " mind " . Maybe just semantics there. But, " first split...after the separation " doesn't make sense to me. Keeping in mind that " the separation " was/is only apparent, then the split you are talking about can only be that apparent separation. > making the mind a perceiver rather than a > creator. Interesting. Again, only apparent. > Consciousness is correctly identified as the > domain of the ego. OK. To me the " mind " is only apparent, or " virtual " . It is not real. It does not exist. Thought arises. No " mind " behind the arising. > The ego is a wrong-minded attempt > to perceive yourself as you wish to be, rather than as > you are. But the notion of a " you " is ego. And " wrong-minded " is an oxymoron. > Yet you can know yourself only as you are, > because that is all you can be sure of. If you replace " all you can be sure of " with " all you can know " .... " Being sure " is a mind construct. What the mind thinks is ever and always beside the point. > Everything else > is open to question. Again, " open to question " is a mind construct. All my quibbling aside, the essence of your message: > Yet you can know yourself only as you are, > because that is all you can be sure of. is right on as far as I am concerned. -Bill ariel cathcart [arielcathcart] Consciousness,the level of perception,was the first split introduced into the mind after the separation, making the mind a perceiver rather than a creator.Consciousness is correctly identified as the domain of the ego. The ego is a wrong-minded attempt to perceive yourself as you wish to be, rather than as you are. Yet you can know yourself only as you are, because that is all you can be sure of.Everything else is open to question. acim ariel --- Bill Rishel wrote: " you are the consciousness and you have these ideas of a separate being, and then marvelously enough you imagine you stand as the separate being and refer to the consciousness as if it were your possession. isn't that a funny thing? that's very strange. " ~NOME~ Re: " you have these ideas of a separate being " ... Not really. It is only an appearance. We wonder to whom the appearance appears, and get confused. There is no one to whom the appearance appears. The appearance -- this Now -- simply is. -Bill PS: And don't get confused by the " we wonder " above. That is just appearance too. What is there but appearance? What has there ever been? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 29, 2002 Report Share Posted November 29, 2002 hi bill,what i posted froma acim, resonates with that part of my mind which is not my ego,but it can be like separating oil from water,as my ego uses everything for its own survival whatever resonates with you is great ariel --- Bill Rishel <plexus wrote: <HR> <html><body> <tt> ariel,<BR> <BR> & nbsp; & gt; Consciousness,the level of perception,was the first<BR> & nbsp; & gt; split introduced into the mind after the separation,<BR> I'm not with you on the split being into the & quot;mind & quot;.<BR> Maybe just semantics there. But, & quot;first split...after<BR> the separation & quot; doesn't make sense to me. Keeping in mind<BR> that & quot;the separation & quot; was/is only apparent, then the <BR> split you are talking about can only be that apparent <BR> separation. <BR> & nbsp; & gt; making the mind a perceiver rather than a<BR> & nbsp; & gt; creator.<BR> Interesting. Again, only apparent. <BR> & nbsp; & gt; Consciousness is correctly identified as the<BR> & nbsp; & gt; domain of the ego. <BR> OK.<BR> & nbsp; <BR> To me the & quot;mind & quot; is only apparent, or & quot;virtual & quot;. It is<BR> not real. It does not exist. Thought arises. No & quot;mind & quot;<BR> behind the arising.<BR> <BR> & nbsp; & gt; The ego is a wrong-minded attempt<BR> & nbsp; & gt; to perceive yourself as you wish to be, rather than as<BR> & nbsp; & gt; you are.<BR> But the notion of a & quot;you & quot; is ego. And & quot;wrong-minded & quot; is an<BR> oxymoron.<BR> <BR> & nbsp; & gt; Yet you can know yourself only as you are,<BR> & nbsp; & gt; because that is all you can be sure of.<BR> If you replace & quot;all you can be sure of & quot; with & quot;all you can <BR> know & quot;.... & quot;Being sure & quot; is a mind construct. What the mind<BR> thinks is ever and always beside the point.<BR> <BR> & nbsp; & gt; Everything else<BR> & nbsp; & gt; is open to question. & nbsp; & nbsp; <BR> Again, & quot;open to question & quot; is a mind construct. <BR> & nbsp; <BR> All my quibbling aside, the essence of your message:<BR> & nbsp; & gt; Yet you can know yourself only as you are,<BR> & nbsp; & gt; because that is all you can be sure of.<BR> is right on as far as I am concerned.<BR> <BR> -Bill<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> ariel cathcart [arielcathcart]<BR> <BR> Consciousness,the level of perception,was the first<BR> split introduced into the mind after the separation,<BR> making the mind a perceiver rather than a<BR> creator.Consciousness is correctly identified as the<BR> domain of the ego. The ego is a wrong-minded attempt<BR> to perceive yourself as you wish to be, rather than as<BR> you are. Yet you can know yourself only as you are,<BR> because that is all you can be sure of.Everything else<BR> is open to question. & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; acim & nbsp; & nbsp; ariel<BR> <BR> --- Bill Rishel wrote:<BR> <BR> & quot;you are the consciousness and you have<BR> these ideas of a separate being, and <BR> then marvelously enough you imagine you<BR> stand as the separate being and refer <BR> to the consciousness as if it were your <BR> possession. isn't that a funny thing? <BR> that's very strange. & quot; ~NOME~<BR> <BR> <BR> Re: & quot;you have these ideas of a separate being & quot;...<BR> Not really. It is only an appearance.<BR> <BR> We wonder to whom the appearance appears, and<BR> get confused.<BR> <BR> There is no one to whom the appearance appears.<BR> The appearance -- this Now -- simply is.<BR> <BR> -Bill<BR> <BR> PS: And don't get confused by the & quot;we wonder & quot; <BR> above. That is just appearance too. What is<BR> there but appearance? What has there ever been?<BR> <BR> <BR> </tt> <br> <!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| --> <table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2> <tr bgcolor=#FFFFCC> <td align=center><font size= " -1 " color=#003399><b> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 29, 2002 Report Share Posted November 29, 2002 .... my ego uses everything for its own survival... ariel ------------------ That is a good observation. That is why all insights are worthless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 29, 2002 Report Share Posted November 29, 2002 it wants to live and it will live for it is life itself and there is no separate ego there is one > ... my ego uses everything > for its own survival... > ariel > > ------------------ > > That is a good observation. > That is why all insights are worthless. yup! michael Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 30, 2002 Report Share Posted November 30, 2002 hi there, this is from a acim,The ego lives by comparisons.Equality is beyond its grasp,and charity is impossible. The ego never gives out of abundance,as it was made as a substitute for it. That is why the concept of " getting " arose in the ego's thought system. Appetites are " getting " mechanisms, representing the ego's need to confirm itself. This is as true of body appetites as it is of the so called " higher ego needs " .Body appetites are not physical in origin. The ego regards the body as its home, and tries to satify itself through the body.But the idea that this is possible is a decision of the mind, which has become completly confused about what is really possible. take care ariel--- el_wells_2003 <elwells8 wrote: <HR> <html><body> <tt> .... my ego uses everything<BR> for its own survival...<BR> ariel<BR> <BR> ------------------<BR> <BR> That is a good observation.<BR> That is why all insights are worthless.<BR> <BR> </tt> <br> <!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| --> <table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2> <tr bgcolor=#FFFFCC> <td align=center><font size= " -1 " color=#003399><b> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.