> > "Nina" <murrkis@y...> wrote:
> > It was curious, however, to wonder where she might place her
> > sense of 'center' (in fact, I might ask this question today).
> > Is it at the source of gravity? In this case, she is placing
> > it outside of her body.
--- "Gene Poole" <gene_poole@q...> wrote:
> Seen this way, it becomes apparent that the term 'local'
> is a parochial convenience, and not fact. There can be no
> 'local', because all of everything is 'merely' a temporary
> multidimensional 'expansion' of a single dot, which is
> itself the one and true 'center of everything'; there is
> no 'nonlocal'.
> 'We' live in a universe which is informed (created) by
> the force which projects from this 'dot'; in reality, we
> have no literal distance from it, although it seems to be
> utterly distant in time and space...
Thanks for that post, Gene, I see what you are saying.
Keeping that in mind, I will veer off into a tangent.
Embodiment seems to be a hot topic.
Are we our bodies? What, if any, value is there in living
a life in a body? Not only 'having a body', but in being
embodied. Is this at odds with enlightenment?
There are those, who would say: the body has nothing to
do with enlightenment. However, if enlightenment is a radical
transformation of consciousness, and 'as above, so below',
the body may be understood to be a 'map of consciousness',
then certainly the body is not a forbidden tool for enlightening.
It is no less forbidden than teachings from other masters. The flip
side of this is that it probably isn't going to get you 'there',
without a leap. The flip side of this, is that you have been
'there' from the very beginning!
While wandering through a local folk-art shop, I came
across an astounding little piece. It was astounding not
so much for what or how it was painted, or that it was
painted at all, which is already pretty astounding,
but rather, for the quote that was painted along the top:
"We walk by faith, and not by site alone."
This brings to mind the body as a repository of myths.
Faith is a blood relative of myth. Myths are diaphanous
and interpretable, so, strangely, it is round-about again
to the dissolution of the body.
Greg Goode has offered up one myth of dissolution of the
body - that the body is a collection of sensations.
Here is another myth of dissolution - the body is more
space than matter. To see this, one might immerse oneself
in the study of anatomy and physiology, moving, as one
does in yoga and meditation, from gross to subtle elements.
Skin, fat and fascia, muscle, bone, nerves,
veins and arteries, glands, cells... and so forth, through
molecules and atoms, subatomic particles, until finally,
it is revealed that within the tiniest elements that
compose everything within a body, there is only the tiniest
ratio of matter to space... if even that.
So, again, there is center then 'no-center'. Site, and then
Dona Holleman has an interesting take on embodiment,
and the dynamic of body/no-body:
"To be totally attentive to the body means that you are
interested in the body and in the movement. 'Interest' in
Latin, as we said before, means 'to be inside'. It is the
moment of being inter-ested, being 'inside' the movement
or the posture as the posture unfolds that makes it complete.
There is no future reward and no retreating involved, but it
is only the moment as it is there. So the body is completely
filled with the mind. The mind fills the body completely
from the bone structure to the skin structure, while as long
as there is a future reward the mind is very small within the
skin and so there is a lot of empty space in the body."
Of course, Dona Holleman has also described her way of living
life earnestly, but as if she were giggling behind her hand at
Very nice ramblings, everyone, thank you for playing along...