so strange that liberation means being unseparate; seems like it would mean quite the opposite, y'know? (true also in yoga samkyha, ultimate liberation is called 'kaivalya' which literally means 'aloneness' (!!) but this usually comes out something like 'not in the presence of many')

dunno what i was saying about liberation and unseparated.... maybe this: when we are separated and have an identity of our own, then we struggle to identify ourselves and to separate ourselves from the rest of the world, but in reality we are all just one. therefore in the struggle to break free we are bound to failure, and anything that's bound is not free. probably that's why many religions teach people to surrender, to yield, to submit, to give in. but i think, only after a difficult struggle to break free can we realize the value of being one with nature/all/god/etc, and when we are just One (thus not in the presence of many and nothing to be separated), we are truly alone and liberated.

ah, but never listen to me. i am good at playing with words and concepts. just playing. my only trick, but a good one. :)

the western metaphysicians refer to a set of properties known as the 'cambridge properties', things like time, location, et cetera, that are supposed to be sort unimportant in the sense that changes in these properties don't necessarily effect changes in the identify of the things in which the properties inhere. so why is it then that ann-arbor reality doesn't seem the same as travel reality or colorado reality or ... to us? i don't know, but i know that if you sit anyplace long enough you get in a rut, and moving around is good for shaking that up. sure, if we were absolutely enlightened i doubt our location would matter much, but we're still embodied and also into our embodiments, and so don't resist too much the facts of this embodiment, including the urge to travel and try new things and also to be home and be settled in old ways. equanimity in all conditions is something we can strive for and still have the impulse for change, no?

i like the concept of "cambridge properties". i can surly use it to enhance my trick. you are right. i am not so enlightened and liberated, so i am still bound to "cambridge properties". but at least i am no longer depressed by unpleasant circumstances. i used to get depressed all the time and i felt i had no choice and life was heavy. now i just think, all shall pass... and none of these is important. none of these is me (although all is an aspect of me--note, not "all is a part of me", but an aspect, a manifestation, a projection, an eigenvalue...). so your advice is good, to not resist any embodiment. not resist is to surrender, but this word sounds too passive. the words i like are "observe" (when less pleasant), "immerse" (when pleasant), or rather "play" (as in a play, either tragedy or comedy).

-- email excerpt to JF.