View Single Post
  #4  
Old 03-02-2017, 07:30 PM
jimrich jimrich is offline
Deactivated Account
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 837
  jimrich's Avatar
Angel1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Mc
Jim, thanks. I get what your saying but it seems to me, the danger with its 'All Source' is that it seems to deny relative values.
It may "seem" so to the personal self but not to Source. Source INCLUDES the "relative". Nathan Gil says there is only Awareness (Source) and the contents of Awareness (the relative) which is ALSO Awareness! Reality in it's apparent two forms as Awareness and Contents - Absolute and Relative but NOT TWO! The mind finds this very difficult to grasp.
Quote:
So an empty stomach is the same as a full stomach,
How does that work? How are they the "same"? They are both within and of Source but definitely NOT the "same". And empty stomach is an empty stomach and a full stomach is a full stomach. There may be one stomach but it's not full/empty simultaneously. When Source, in the apparent form of a stomach, is full - it's full and when empty - its empty!

Quote:
it's all Source
True!
Quote:
and also where is the impetus, motivation, volition,
Source IS the impetus, motivation and volition plus every other apparent thing and condition, etc. It's all Source. Source does NOT deprive any "apparent" person of motivations or volition, etc. Source, in the form of a 'me'/person can express: impetus,motivation and volition all that it likes.

Quote:
I'm sure there are 100s of other terms, where is the impetus to move from bad to good, from hate to love, from negative to positive.
That all comes from and IS the Source but a separate person may not see that and may feel threatened or deprived of their own personal intentions, desires, motivations, rewards, goals, duties, etc. You, Source, move from bad to good, from hate to love and from negative to positive. It's all you, Source, doing these things.

Quote:
What would be the point if it's all Source, one position ie starvation would have equal validation with another ie. full stomach, hunger satiated.
Do you, Source, really see everything as "equal"? If that were true, why do you, the Source, create all these different and not-equal things in your Cosmos such as: different fish, plants, animals, weather conditions, worlds, suns, etc.? Why not just make one: fish, plant, animal, weather, world, sun, etc.? Source is both one and many. Wouldn't you, Source, prefer to make a lot of different "stuff" since you are UNLIMITED?

Quote:
Surely hatred is part of an 'unawakened state' and to say it is Source or God seeking something is a bit of a cop out to me ?
LOL, I am wondering why you put that "?" mark at the end of a statement that is not a question.
Source, in the form of Joe Mc, is expressing an opinion about: hatred, unawakened states, god, cop out, and the 'me', etc.

Quote:
Replying to you however, has brought up a question in my mind this very moment. Perhaps the Seeker, me is not responsible for other people's suffering, or is unconcerned with it ? Perhaps acknowledging suffering in the world is part of a guilt trip created by such things as Christianity etc. or modern politics ?

I don't see a question there but all of that is Source thinking and speaking in the form of a person known as Joe Mc. I, jim, would guess that Source has its own, unique reasons and purposes for: suffering, responsibility, concern, guilt trips, Christianity and politics, etc. that I, jim, don't fully understand right now. All that I, jim, can say is that it just is and I am not going to question it at this time.

Quote:
I get that Liberation is not adequately describable with words. There is pointing with words and concepts and emotions and that is all. But why is there so much pointing going on ?
Because there is Seeking going on. It's the "Play of Life". ~ Nathan Gil
Source appears as Seekers and also as Teachers/Spokes persons in the Play.

Quote:
Surely with so many people pointing someone is going to be poked in the eye ? lol. Very interesting Jim, thanks for your reply. I saw Tony Parsons a couple of times in London. His style as you know yourself is very non compromising and he expresses the fact that you cannot speak about it, such a paradox. There are other good teacher's too out there as you know. Joe.
Tony (and many of his "students", such as Jim Newman and Richard Sylvester,) doesn't call himself a "teacher" which is what I love about him. They just point to what is and allow the "Seeker" to find the Source or Reality as best the Seeker can. I believe that Liberation can be adequately described with words, assuming one can find the words! I like stuff like: Source, Absolute, It, This, That, Real, Energy, Love, Peace, Essence, Presence, Awareness, Consciousness, Wholeness, Aliveness, Me, You, I and a whole bunch of other words that sometimes come from Source itself. I don't see myself as Liberated or Awake but I definitely see that Source is all that there REALLY is.
Source is sitting here typing this commentary. Source hears the cars gong by, the ringing in these ears, the tingling in these toes, the thoughts for the next word on this page, the feelings of generosity and love to be able and willing to write this stuff. Source is both doing all of this and IS this. I hope that doesn't seem arrogant but if it is, blame Source.
Re: "I saw Tony Parsons a couple of times in London."
I would love to attend his meetings but only get his Youtube videos over here. His messages hit me deeper and deeper as the reality of Source comes up stronger and clearer for me. I also follow Nathan Gil, Lisa Cairns and a lot of other "pure" non-dualists. They are all quite a threat to the personal 'me'/ego! Oh well..........
__________________
These are JUST MY OPINIONS!
Reply With Quote