movingalways wrote:
... keeps the mind's attention on one's pure awareness.
Diebert: That sounds like trying to watch the back of ones own head. Through mirrors of photographs one might but it's a distorted view. The attention itself can never be truely the object of any awareness, only through conception.
If one conceived an image of the back of one's own head, yes, what you say would be true. But if one were analyzing only what they had become aware of, that is the silence of ONE, then's one's attention is indeed on one's metaphor for pure awareness, that is, the ONE awareness that is common to all. Example: By analyzing pure awareness to be the righteousness of thought that is undivided, unbiased and unprejudiced, I am standing on/in my pure awareness of the righteousness of ONE. There is always analysis of thought until analysis of thought is no more. The question is: is it one of analyzing two, or is it one of analyzing the singular metaphor of ONE?
Quote: movingalways:
the language points to one's pure awareness, not allowing a human image of sense to be formed. A way of thinking that is of vertical ascent.
Diebert: All language points all the time to what came to our awareness. And what came to our awareness is also a reflection of awareness. What's left is skill in context, and not some specific form or type of language.
It is true that all language points all the time to what came into our awareness. Logically, then, when one becomes aware of the Singular-Plural I of God's Mind, or non-dual awareness, out of necessity, we need to write and speak of this awareness. I provided an example above; here is another: Unlike the dual, subjective-objective thoughts of man, the thoughts of God are equal in height, width, depth and circumference.
Quote: movingalways:
Who can sustain the surgical cut every moment of every day? Certainly no one I have encountered on my journey of ascension.
Diebert: In my eyes every human being is sustaining the 'cut' every waking moment, to the point of not knowing better. This is why I can have compassion, especially with the resistance to cut even deeper.
I very much relate to your words above. Everyone that remains of their sense awareness resists the 'cut.' What I have discovered of myself, which is all I can bring to the table, is that the 'cut' itself is a thought continuum, the continuum of the analysis of the 'cut.' Which I have addressed as being the walk of, or analysis of, the renunciation of the dualities. It matters not what metaphor you use while analyzing the 'cut', as long as those who are dialoguing their analyses are familiar with the words being used. Commonality of language is important, regardless of the 'direction' of the thought continuum.
As I have stated before, but of which I continue to be misunderstood, is that language of spirit or "religious" language is ideal for this exchange, because there are few who have not been exposed to its literary presence. We could use any allegory of the story of man's awakening to his transcendent nature as a foundation for dialoguing
about transcendence, but to my knowledge, only the bible [in the western world] has attained such universality of exposure. To use logic and humanism to express this, it is logical to use the bible to dialogue about transcendence, because everyone is familiar with the 'stars' of the 'show.' Again, any story would do, but it is not logical to use any story, for reasons stated above.
