Guest guest Report post Posted January 6, 1999 >> >Greetings, >Harsha says its okay for me to post some oldies and goodies here for your reflection. While he needs some time for getting organized, maybe we can discuss with one another what our responses may be to Harsha's thoughts. > >This one I selected for some relevance to Dirk's question. While it does not use the word "immortality"... it speaks to that. > >With love, >Gloria >> >> >>>Tue, 2 Jun 1998 16:20:11 EDT >>><Harsha1MTM >>>Reply-to: iam >>>iam >>>[iam] Re: What requires no interpretation? >>> >> >>> >>>In a message dated 6/2/1998 10:39:09 AM Pacific Daylight Time, >>>david******* writes: >>> >>><< Nothing lies beyond All That Is. (what's left?) >> >>> >>>Harsha: Agreed David. The wise say that the Tao that can be talked about is not The Tao. Still Sages manage to indicate the Existence of the Underlying Reality with words and without words. They do it because it is their firsthand knowledge and it is their nature to do it. > >I am often reminded of the words of Ramana Maharshi who used to say that the Reality must Always be Real and therefore It must be Here and Now also. If it is not Here and Now and is to be gained at some future time, then it must be subject to loss also. What can be gained can also be lost! Therefore that which is Real, Absolute, Eternal cannot be gained. It is what You already Are. Can we Accept This? What undermines the acceptance of our Own Natural State? >>> >>>God bless everyone with all that is best in life. >>> >>>------------------------------ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
