RE: Re: no story, no world-- Eddie, ander

[Guest guest]

Eva,

Perhaps the ocean is not awareness--Perhaps Awareness is observing " one "

trying to be the ocean.

Eddie

>

>Reply-To: Loving-what-is

>To: Loving-what-is

>Subject: Re: no story, no world-- Eddie,

>Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 13:38:11 -0000

>

>Hi Andy,

>

> > > In order to change the perspective and get a better look at a

>fish,

> > > I first need to acknowledge I'm eaten (do a worksheet to take

>stock

> > > of my seemingly hopeless situation).

> > >

> > > Then I question the reality of the fish (= the thought).

> >

> >

> >

> > *****perhaps it would be more efficacious to question the reality

>of

> > that which seeks the fish. ;-))) instead of cutting off the

> > branches, dissolve the root.

>

>Questioning the reality of the ocean would amount to questioning the

>reality of awareness.

>Right now I cannot imagine that the answer to the question " Does

>Awareness exist? " would ever be 'no', since it requires awareness to

>do the questioning and to perceive the fish.

>Maybe when also the questioning has left me, there will be no

>awareness either.

>I don't know.

>Also, it appears to me that Awareness (the ocean) does not *seek* the

>fish, it contains them, and then it may question the reality of how

>they are being perceived.

>

> > > If I find that the fish is not real, it becomes just an innocent

> > > illusion, right in that moment.

> >

> >

> > *****neither the fish, nor the fisher-person was *ever* real.

>

>There is no fisher-person, in my experience, that's the beauty of it.

>Whenever the perspective has changed from inside the fish to outside

>the fish, it has become a multi-media total surround sound

>experience..., which means it is from all sides simultaneously, and

>awareness is both at the center AND the surrounding.

>

>There is only an apparent fisher-person when he/she/it is inside of a

>fish that he/she/it wants to get out of.

>

>But an analogy can only go as far as it goes, which is never far

>enough.

>Since it can never be more than a story.

>

>No story, no fishes, no ocean, no world.

>

>Love,

>Eva

>

_________________________________________________________________

FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now!

http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/

[Guest guest]

Eva,

You are always aware--you are AWARENESS.

Eddie

>

>Reply-To: Loving-what-is

>To: Loving-what-is

>Subject: Re: no story, no world-- Eddie,

>Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 09:03:08 -0000

>

>Dear Eddie and ,

>

>To me this discussion sounds pretty abstract, or perhaps your

>descriptions do not match my experience.

>

>When I'm lucky, I feel like fish are swimming through me.

>

>And every so often I believe a fish is real and dangerous. Then the

>fish swallows me and I get carried away by it, (sounds like Jonah and

>the whale) and I'm inside of the fish, in its dark belly, ignorant of

>the ocean.

>

>Else I come to just watch the fish and they are inside of me.

>The perspective has changed, completely turned around.

>From the latter view I feel expanded and peaceful.

>Also I seem to get a much better look at the fish, admiring shapes

>and colors.

>

>Getting a good look at the fish is close to impossible when I'm

>dragged along by it.

>

>In order to change the perspective and get a better look at a fish, I

>first need to acknowledge I'm eaten (do a worksheet to take stock of

>my seemingly hopeless situation).

>

>Then I question the reality of the fish (= the thought).

>If I find that the fish is not real, it becomes just an innocent

>illusion, right in that moment.

>What a joke to think the fish could ever be that powerful to swallow

>me!

>It's just an innocent, harmless fish...

>

>I think that for me, awareness would not occur if there were no fish

>in the ocean (= no thoughts to become aware of).

>They appear to define the ocean.

>They are a prerequisite to becoming aware.

>I love those fish!

>

>My cup of ocean, holding my fish ... :-)

>

>Love,

>Eva

>

>

>

> > Bravo!

> > And even if you could take the fish away--which you could not, you

>would not

> > be able to control the fish from coming back. And if it did return,

>we would

> > all get to see it again.

> >

> > So what is there to be concerned about--NOTHING. Just watch the

>fish and let

> > them be.

> >

> > Cheers,

> > Eddie

> >

> >

> > >From: Olli 26 <olli_26@y...>

> > >Reply-To: Loving-what-is

> > >To: Loving-what-is

> > >Subject: Re: Re: no story, no world

> > >Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2004 21:44:52 +0200

> > >

> > >Forgive my stubborness, if you can.

> > >

> > >If I took away a fish, wich I can't, I wouldn't see it anymore,

>what I

> > >wouldn't be aware of, and so could no one else, because all is ONE.

> > >

> > >And therein lies peace.

> > >

> > >Thank you,

> > >

>

>

_________________________________________________________________

Watch the online reality show Mixed Messages with a friend and enter to win

a trip to NY

http://www.msnmessenger-download.click-url.com/go/onm00200497ave/direct/01/

[Guest guest]

Trying *not* to be the ocean?

Am 28.06.2004 um 18:32 schrieb Eddie Katz:

> Eva,

> Perhaps the ocean is not awareness--Perhaps Awareness is observing

> " one "

> trying to be the ocean.

>

> Eddie

>

>

>>

>> Reply-To: Loving-what-is

>> To: Loving-what-is

>> Subject: Re: no story, no world-- Eddie,

>> Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 13:38:11 -0000

>>

>> Hi Andy,

>>

>>>> In order to change the perspective and get a better look at a

>> fish,

>>>> I first need to acknowledge I'm eaten (do a worksheet to take

>> stock

>>>> of my seemingly hopeless situation).

>>>>

>>>> Then I question the reality of the fish (= the thought).

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> *****perhaps it would be more efficacious to question the reality

>> of

>>> that which seeks the fish. ;-))) instead of cutting off the

>>> branches, dissolve the root.

>>

>> Questioning the reality of the ocean would amount to questioning the

>> reality of awareness.

>> Right now I cannot imagine that the answer to the question " Does

>> Awareness exist? " would ever be 'no', since it requires awareness to

>> do the questioning and to perceive the fish.

>> Maybe when also the questioning has left me, there will be no

>> awareness either.

>> I don't know.

>> Also, it appears to me that Awareness (the ocean) does not *seek* the

>> fish, it contains them, and then it may question the reality of how

>> they are being perceived.

>>

>>>> If I find that the fish is not real, it becomes just an innocent

>>>> illusion, right in that moment.

>>>

>>>

>>> *****neither the fish, nor the fisher-person was *ever* real.

>>

>> There is no fisher-person, in my experience, that's the beauty of it.

>> Whenever the perspective has changed from inside the fish to outside

>> the fish, it has become a multi-media total surround sound

>> experience..., which means it is from all sides simultaneously, and

>> awareness is both at the center AND the surrounding.

>>

>> There is only an apparent fisher-person when he/she/it is inside of a

>> fish that he/she/it wants to get out of.

>>

>> But an analogy can only go as far as it goes, which is never far

>> enough.

>> Since it can never be more than a story.

>>

>> No story, no fishes, no ocean, no world.

>>

>> Love,

>> Eva

>>

>

> _________________________________________________________________

> FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now!

> http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Eva,

Am 28.06.2004 um 11:03 schrieb Eva Lobach:

> Dear Eddie and ,

>

> To me this discussion sounds pretty abstract,

Well, maybe because it is. We use models to talk about something that

can not be told.

> or perhaps your descriptions do not match my experience.

>

> When I'm lucky, I feel like fish are swimming through me.

>

> And every so often I believe a fish is real and dangerous. Then the

> fish swallows me and I get carried away by it, (sounds like Jonah and

> the whale) and I'm inside of the fish, in its dark belly, ignorant of

> the ocean.

>

> Else I come to just watch the fish and they are inside of me.

> The perspective has changed, completely turned around.

> From the latter view I feel expanded and peaceful.

> Also I seem to get a much better look at the fish, admiring shapes

> and colors.

>

> Getting a good look at the fish is close to impossible when I'm

> dragged along by it.

>

> In order to change the perspective and get a better look at a fish, I

> first need to acknowledge I'm eaten (do a worksheet to take stock of

> my seemingly hopeless situation).

>

> Then I question the reality of the fish (= the thought).

> If I find that the fish is not real, it becomes just an innocent

> illusion, right in that moment.

> What a joke to think the fish could ever be that powerful to swallow

> me!

> It's just an innocent, harmless fish...

>

> I think that for me, awareness would not occur if there were no fish

> in the ocean (= no thoughts to become aware of).

> They appear to define the ocean.

So, is there anything else but fish? Is there ocean, anyway? Is it ONE?

> They are a prerequisite to becoming aware.

> I love those fish!

>

> My cup of ocean, holding my fish ... :-)

>

> Love,

> Eva

take care,

>

>

> > Bravo!

> > And even if you could take the fish away--which you could not, you

> would not

> > be able to control the fish from coming back. And if it did return,

> we would

> > all get to see it again.

> >

> > So what is there to be concerned about--NOTHING. Just watch the

> fish and let

> > them be.

> >

> > Cheers,

> > Eddie

> >

> >

> > >From: Olli 26 <olli_26@y...>

> > >Reply-To: Loving-what-is

> > >To: Loving-what-is

> > >Subject: Re: Re: no story, no world

> > >Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2004 21:44:52 +0200

> > >

> > >Forgive my stubborness, if you can.

> > >

> > >If I took away a fish, wich I can't, I wouldn't see it anymore,

> what I

> > >wouldn't be aware of, and so could no one else, because all is ONE.

> > >

> > >And therein lies peace.

> > >

> > >Thank you,

> > >