Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org

appearance simply is

Rate this topic


Guest guest

Recommended Posts

" 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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

>

>

>

>

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...