Maria to Piet, Rod and Heloisa

Dear Heloisa, Piet and Rod:

Yesterday, I was mulling over Piet's last email and his challenge of "really taking that hypothesis seriously, that everything is already complete" and "all is wonderful" as stated in his 9/26/06 response.

So far, I have been letting go, stopping, and seeing the no-self. I have not been seeing "all is wonderful".

My discovery of the one day experiment with "all is wonderful" is that indeed it’s a more positive approach than letting go. I found that it is actually easier and requires less effort than letting go. The positive approach allows for acceptance and appreciation of all that is. Therefore, there is no internal resistance which then bypasses effort as “effort only is effort by virtue of its being opposed”.

I also was pondering about “there are no intrinsic limits to knowing”. If all is complete, then we should already have all the information available except that we do not yet know. For me, the "not yet know" implies time. Some information is available that is not available now. But if there is no time, then what does "not yet know" mean? Can we know what we do not yet know now? Or is there another definition of now that is timeless?

...

I have an additional thought.  Piet suggested in his last email that "the process itself, interestingly, is not rational at all. If anything, it is learning to let go. By letting go of the assumptions that got you into a paradox".  I wonder perhaps, that I have to let go of my assumptions about what I have understood so far about consciousness and awareness.  I think I have a good understanding of consciousness as well-defined by Rod and Piet in their earlier discussions, but perhaps all of this has to be deconstructed.  I know I have an attachment to this understanding and from there, I frame my contemplation, but maybe that has to be let go of too.

Maria