Time Bound (revisited)
Charles A. Hillig
chillig at JETLINK.NET
Mon Jul 7 17:49:08 CDT 1997
>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,
>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.
>At 02:15 AM 1/07/97 -0700, you wrote:
>> 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
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list