Time Bound (revisited)

[Charles A. Hillig]

Hi   Martin,

>Who is there to make a distinction? Beauty, love, intelligence, feelings.
>You know.... human stuff, heart stuff.

    Why not "SELF-stuff?"


>Who is being violent to whom? An owned aspect of consciousness is being
>violent to a disowned aspect of consciousness.

     But exactly WHO owns this aspect?   WHO disowns it?

     Can pure consciousness ever be divided from Itself?


>I am asking - What is the motivation for violence? Isn't it caused by the
>sense of separation?

     But what SEPARATE one is really there to sense this so-called "separation?"

>If so, then when that sense of separation is gone,

     .......from WHOM?......

>violence should be gone too.

     How can violence really "come" and "go?"  Isn't the Self always complete?

>Human violence is clearly a distortion caused
>by ego. If a person has feelings (we spiritual philosophers tend to forget
>about feelings) then it is more than a philisophical question.

     But the violence may not really be the problem at all.

     The problem may only be in believing that there is a quintessential
difference between the "victor" and the "victim."  The Self is all that
there really is.

                                   With Blessings,


                                      Chuck Hillig




>Martin Gifford.
>
>
>
>At 02:15 AM 1/07/97 -0700, you wrote:
>
>>Hi Mark,
>>
>>     But if, as you say, there "is no duality, no self/other split," then
>>how is so-called "violence" (or, for that matter, even "non-violence") even
>>recognizable as such?   "Who" is really there to be making  that distinction?
>>
>>     In other words, "who" is being "violent" towards "whom?"
>>
>>     When your ego seemingly disappears (it doesn't really exist in the
>>first place),  there will be no separate one left to give "us" an answer,
>>anyway.  What a paradox!
>>
>>                                With Blessings,
>>
>>                                        Chuck Hillig
>>
>>
>
>