Time Bound

[Mark Hovila]

Chuck:

>      But Mark, if the "me" as an individual entity is non-existent, then
> the "you" who is seeing this "non-existent me" ALSO has to be
non-existent, too.
>

The "you" who sees is indeed nonexistent if it takes itself to be somebody,
a see-er.  Better to just be the seeing.  Or more simply put, just BE.

>
>      I  wonder, though, just how can the "me" ever be truly "absent" when
> that "me" was never really there at all in the first place?    If we
> acknowledge perfection, aren't we also equally implying the existence of
> its opposite......imperfection?
>

Imperfection is the failure to realize that perfection is staring us in the
face.

>      Maybe we can only really speak of an "is-ness" which transcends all
> duality.  (But, then again, "who's" really "there" to do the speaking?)
>

Great question, as long as we remain in the "who."  As soon as we demand
the answer, we are lost again.

Have a nice trip.

Mark