Each ‘thing’ is related . . . Is that the point?

I take the title of this post from Arthur’s message:

“there is not one thing related to another”. Why? Because each thing is related with every thing.

 No need to worry about simplifying the exercise. Just keep in mind that there are always more depths to explore, that each experience is the starting point for a new experience.

 Arthur, “distance” is (as we say in English) a two-edged sword. It is very important not to be caught in the content of experience. But when you say that from a great height you can’t see someone’s sadness, that is not necessarily a good thing. For the person, the sadness is real, and our not seeing it is a kind of rejection.

 Peter, sometimes there is resistance. That’s how it is. Just don’t let it be the final position.

 In English we speak of pointing something ‘out’ (I suppose in German this is like ‘an-zeigen’. The ‘out’ here has a kind of finality to it. Once something is pointed out, it is that way forever. Transcendence of Pointings says that nothing ever gets pointed out. There is just the ongoing, mutually related activity of pointing.

As for the theme of “failing to act on our good intentions,” just look for occasions that when you don’t do what you yourself would be the best thing to do. What’s going on?

Jack