I think of the ongoing dynamic, the engine propelling that which is me/not me forward, as taking responsibility for everything, yet having knowledge of nothing. Continuous acceptance of what I am sensing, feeling, thinking, being, and yet watching it unfold largely without judgment or reaching conclusions. When I am not being active, my mind is still, vs. keeping the low idle of "me" going.
I like the way you refer to "I-particles" because it immediately assumes my total ownership of my experience. On the other hand, it does have an odd flavor to it too (not that there's anything wrong with that), because of the mental image I get of literally being filled with a lot of tiny "I's" - like a bag shaped like me, stuffed with a zillion styrofoam peanut "I's". And yet referencing the "I's" on a practical level, having something to work with to resolve various attachments, tranforms into an amazingly simple, literal, astral exercise. Thanks fer joggin' my noggin'.%-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "RoryGoff" <rorygoff@...> wrote: > > > > > > > >RG: From one POV, Reality awoke to itSelf as That-alone-IS, that which has > > >only ever Been and only ever will Be, in November 1982. In Reality, we > > >could say we felt and granted the need for "liberation into utter > > >perfection" to our first I-particle then, and then immediately experienced > > >the result once we had met all the "yeah-but" objections of all the > > >counter-programs. That first particle is probably always the stickiest! > > >And of course, absolutely, "shadows" or other I-particles whom we have > > >been ignoring, are constantly arising within us to grab our attention! We > > >are constantly enlightening ourselves, weaving back and forth between > > >"ignorance" and "unity" in our particles, though we ourselves are "none of > > >the above" and/or "all of the above, simultaneously" :-) > > > > ML: From the POV of these arising particles, would you say they come both > > from the mindbody you inhabit here and the collective, or would you not be > > able to make this distinction, being both none and all of the above? > > * * Yes, the latter! All for One and One for All! :-) >
