There’s a sense of the galaxy of the known receding. Yet I cannot say ‘behind’ me, for there’s no sense of forward movement; no pulling away or avoidance.
It’s more like gravity has lost its force and one floats in infinite space, directionless and positionless.
It’s like one is that space.
Then a call comes to communicate and one turns into some-thing that speaks, chews the old cud, spins the old stories, dances delightedly in the old dream…
And one never leaves that spaciousness for an instant.
7 thoughts on “chewing the old cud”
Like a quantum that isn’t really anywhere until someone tries to observe it, then its energy “condenses” into a particle… (if we want to communicate with it, it takes form!)
Oh yes! Exactly like that. Thank you for this wondrous comment Russil.
Coming in from spaciousness to bow in your direction …
“no sense of forward movement”
‘Not moving’ (‘not doing’) is not the same as being immobile, as it is clear in your post.The former is an attitude, let’s say of mind.
“directionless and positionless” – No center, no periphery, or perhaps just space where (how is it?) ‘the centre is everywhere and the circumference nowhere’ – (was it Spinoza?). In any case, if there is no (personal) motivation or will and no individual agency, is there a universal will or agency (other than the three gunas), as there is a universal Intelligence?
Yes – the center is everywhere Awareness is, no circumference can be found.
“…if there is no (personal) motivation or will and no individual agency…” – this part of your question cancels out the rest of it. Who would know the answer?
There is only the movement of this Livingness. Universal? Intelligent? Incomprehensibly so. Just so.
Thank you for your comment dear AM
Yes! Communication, conversations – language or speech, however, occurs, . Who are the interlocutors? Is it not My(It)-self with My(It)-self: arising in consciousness and going back to consciousness? One of your preferred words, it appears, is ‘awareness/awaring’, as well as ‘space’, which is perfect, but it does not seem to fit in well with this issue of communication; consciousness, however, does. Awareness would be ‘pure or static consciousness’, whereas the dynamic aspect (life, movement, speech) would be ‘dynamic consciousness’ – two aspects of the one reality (Nisargadatta used these two expressions at some point). An analogy is Nirguna v. Saguna Brahman. Just words! What would IT’s preference be in this discussion? Please, excuse this off-shoot. No need to reply.
What a frankly joy of a article.
Thank you for your kind comment @Erfolgstraining
Love ~ miriam louisa