The subject thought that it was separate from the object. At least that is what it was taught. But without all the objects, what would the subject be?
[Young Long-tailed Jaegar in a Pine Tree.]
Resting by the lake… Photo by Thomas Peace 2014
My Blog primarily consists of close-up nature photos (that I've taken locally) combined with original holistic-truth oriented prose and/or poetry involving mindfulness/awareness. I love nature and I love understanding the whole (not merely the parts and the details). I'm a retired teacher of the multiply handicapped.
I have a number of interesting hobbies, such as fossil collecting, sport-kite flying, 3D and 2D close-up photography, holography, and pets. Most of all, I am into holistic self-awareness, spontaneous insight, unconventional observation/direct perception, mindfulness, meditation, world peace, non-fragmentation, population control, vegetarianism, and green energy.
To follow my unique Blog of "Nature Photos and Mindfulness Sayings" and for RSS feeds to my new posts, please access at: tom8pie.com (On my regular Blog posting pages, for additional information and to follow, simply click on the "tack icon" at the upper right corner... or, on my profile page, you can click on the "Thomas Peace" icon.)
Stay mindful, understanding, and caring!...
So true, there will be no good without evil, no peace without war, no subject without object. 🙂
There can – for the intelligent, which isn’t happening so far on this planet – be a lasting peace without war. And there is a profound, pristine goodness that has no opposite (as evil); that goodness is beyond the (realm of the opposites) and is “not of the petty shenanigans of man.”
Ummm.. I agree with the essence of what you are saying but not with the usage of words.. See, when we say something is good, we are always saying it relative to something else that is less or more or opposite.. That’s the very basis of duality. Whereas, if we talk about let’s say the divine energy for eg. That I believe is beyond both our definitions of good or bad. I hope I have been able to explain my point correctly.. 🙂
I understand. Words, of course, are always limited.
However, I still say it is good in and of itself, with no need for an opposite. It is beyond opposites. The very fact that it is beyond opposites, beyond disorder… is innate, intrinsic goodness in and of itself. (Of course, that “otherness,” that “sacred energy” is beyond any and all definitions that we can come up with… including, to a large extent, the action of calling it good. Of course, however, you know what I mean when I suggest that its profound, unlimited order is – understandably – intrinsically good.)