Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The Bhagavad Gita via davidsun
I am the Heat of the Sun, I release and hold back the Rains. I am Death and Immortality; I am Being and Not-Being.
|
"Ahh, the
glorious Isness of Being" rang in my head as I was finishing reprising this thread.
Then, pow, came the
realization that there
really cannot
be any such thing (or non-thing!
) as
Non-Being.
There
is non-
existence, meaning not-manifest in any '
external' world.
But Being, the
Isness of Being,
is eternally everpresent whether IT
is manifest or not.
Non-Being
cannot be and so
never really
is (except as thought and talked about
idea, which
is a kind of
being, aye what?)
The fact that it (the
false concept of Non-Being) is included in the Gita quote suggests to me that the
idea is am embedded 'bug'-a-boo (an 'awful' thought) for most people, so pontificators of Oneness
include it as a designated 'reality' within Oneness. That way, peeps - authors and audiences alike - may/can/will 'relax' with the
thought that 'they' (their beingness or isness) can/will
never not be a part of said Oneness.
I think it is a 'sweet' (linguistic sleight of mind) 'lie' -- that Non-Being
is a
part of Oneness --
to reassure peeps (who are
still 'afraid' of it as a 'real' possibility) that one's 'spirit' can
never be
completely reduced to 'zero' or ejected 'out' of and so be separated from Oneness
by being 'relegated' to Non-Being.
'Survival' is quite the emotionally-loaded 'fantasy', evoking as it does
fear of 'non-survival', aye what?
I suspect the same (existential?) 'anxiety' is what gives rise to concerns about 'duality' or 'dualistic existence' being like a 'branch' which is somehow 'separate' from the
Isness of Being which is therefore susceptible to getting/being 'cut off' from
It.
My sense is that peeps who
don't have such 'concerns'
because they are completely (
emotionally)
sure (and many 'simple' folks 'simply' are so!) that their Beingness is 'eternally' valid and will continue to be so
no matter what 'state' of Isness they are 'in' will 'see' this discussion as being 'irrelevant', albeit possibly of curiosity satisfying interest,
to them.
Synopsis: One
can be 'nothing', in the sense of
no 'thing' (one can just be a 'spirit' for instance), but one can't
not 'be' what one
is - Non-Being is
not a
possibility, IOW.
Shakespeare didn't have it right. "To be or not to be" is
not the question. "
What to be and
how one may best be so"
is!
That question is often 'hidden' and so 'finessed' by focus on the former one.
Of course,
ideas and
convolutions thereof being so elastically maleable, others may well 'see' the BIG PICTURE quite differently than the way I have 'pointed' it.
Linear Mode
