The Bath Of Infinity

Bathed in Infinity
Vastness heals
Immerse your hands and feet
In space and time

Heal yourself from those who ignore it
And get drown in everyday logistics
Heal yourself from those who exist
Under decorated bell-shaped glass

Heal yourself, heal others
Because within yourself

They’re all welcomed

©FJ June 2022
Groupe de Pratique

10 commentaires

    1. Who am I to answer that question ?
      And if I ever did, who would that make me ?
      certainly not someone I would choose to listen.

      …Am I not doing the same thing here ? imagining being a stranger to myself 😉

      Taisen Deshimaru often stressed the importance of practicing meditation from our coffin (which, cannot actually bear the possessive pronoun, as there is no one left to possess – is our coffin ours ?)
      This practice is very potent by offering defusing perspectives on our everyday issues…
      I see it as spiritual hygiene.
      The same way we brush our teeth before going to bed, this is a good practice to have (right after ‘folding our thoughts in the drawer of our body’)

      Boundlessness. By definition, a notion impossible to circle.
      Boundlessness of our bodies.
      The illusion of skin.

      I am fascinated by the pattern applying to our physiology / emotions / psychological realm / spiritual practice…..
      Setting limits, defining
      and then transcend those.
      Pretending to achieve the latter without having clearly set limits in the first place
      is a common fraud amongst spiritual communities / masters / even psychologists.
      One can only trust one’s inner needle on such ‘matters’.

      It’s not unusual… to be loved by anyone…
      sorry… it’s not unusual for realized masters to refer to themselves in the third person singular.
      Fake masters here think they’ve found a hack in master-ship.
      Again, a very common fraud : faking the result (often through using language typical occurrences) in order to claim having gone through the process.


    2. Who am I to answer that question ?
      And if I ever did, who would that make me ?
      certainly not someone I would choose to listen.

      …Am I not doing the same thing here ? imagining being a stranger to myself /


  1. Hello « stranger ».

    You seem to have repeated yourself somewhat in a second post. Even stranger…!

    You are at least as (in)capable as am I to answer the question in my last. Hopefully, that neither of us answers, indicates we are not among the ranks of the pretenders.

    In UK law a corpse can neither own nor be owned, if I recall correctly. The coffin, presumably, belongs to « the estate » – the trust that administers the property of the deceased. I suspect French law has no concept of a law of trusts, so no idea how that would translate.

    Philosophically, the inanimate would seem incapable of ownership. Linguistically, a genitive is perfectly applicable to a coffin or a corpse, as to… a book. « The book’s [coffin’s] cover ».

    We are inconsistent.

    The problem with defining limits is the extent to which they are either illusory or self-imposed (assuming a distinction).

    Aimé par 1 personne

  2. oh sorry.
    there must have been a glitch in the matrix…
    at least a glitch in mine –too many open tabs, too many things to process…
    can you only imagine that I dare to write articles about the mindfulness and attention.
    Another incursion from the Cosmic Joker, I guess.

    Aimé par 1 personne

  3. Genitives are tricky…It’s no wonder the Saxon type is the trickiest of all….which allows creativity to get in.
    the mere impossibility to superimpose Philosophy and Linguistics reveals that there’s much more fun to have with the latter.
    Is not Philosophy a dead-end anyway ?
    (rhetorical question : it is as much of great help that it eventually turns into a dead-end…forcing disciples to find way for extraction (transcendence ? )

    thank you for the insight on UK Law regarding corpses, I did not expect to read this as I woke up this morning.
    Possessive pronouns are overrated, and, provided we lend an ear to self programming predictions from disturbed minds up above, doomed to disappear anyway.
    Shouldn’t lawyers stand for spreading the use of such pronouns everywhere as once ownership disappears, they’ll certainly run out of job.

    Sorry, I’ve been wildly drifting here.

    Being inconsistent is not a problem
    Problems arise whenever there’s a claim for consistency.
    It’s much safer to claim inconsistency (it is always possible — if there’s a strong need for social positioning — to hide it under psychological complexity.. (« I’m not inconsistent, you’re just unable of perceiving my consistency » / politicians do that very well)

    Sorry I tried really hard to find something smart to say, but ran short of raw material (inspiration) and manufacturing facilities (cognitive capacities) , let alone distribution channels (platforms other than this one).
    in other words, I don’t have anything to say, really but I do thank you for reading me.
    The greatest fear I have is to ever be taken seriously…for lightheartedness would disappear instantly.
    Claiming inconsistency is a much better option.

    Aimé par 1 personne

  4. You are entirely free to drift as you see fit. It fits with the nature of anarchy.

    Inconsistency can be a problem. Depends on your forum. If you were in a law court, it would not stand you in good stead. But in the context of these discussions? In matters of logic, it has its force; in matters of intuition (and I do not claim to be highly intuitive) I’m not sure it means anything.

    Is philosophy a dead end? Again, is not the anarchist the heir of Socrates and Diogenes of Sinope?

    However, I will gladly refuse to take you seriously if that is your preference, and continue reading (though you may expect me to be a little less evident over the coming week as other matters are liable to intrude on my time for a few days – we’ll see).

    Aimé par 1 personne

  5. Thank you Simon,
    It is always a pleasure to read your perspectives,
    I really appreciate the general tone of our discussions,
    especially the fact that none of us is trying to ‘sell’ anything to the other,
    for none of us is willing to buy anything (anymore).

    Unless one of us is a top-notch sales engineer..
    This cannot be me, as I’m too lazy and inconsistent to conceive any strategy.
    Unless, pretending so is another layer of engineering.

    See why I have no other choice but to let go of language-related realms ?
    It’s not a matter of spiritual practice, belief, ideology or anything…it has to do with mere survival option.

    I sincerely hope everything will be fine for you over these few weeks.

    Aimé par 1 personne

Laisser un commentaire

Entrez vos coordonnées ci-dessous ou cliquez sur une icône pour vous connecter:


Vous commentez à l’aide de votre compte Déconnexion /  Changer )

Image Twitter

Vous commentez à l’aide de votre compte Twitter. Déconnexion /  Changer )

Photo Facebook

Vous commentez à l’aide de votre compte Facebook. Déconnexion /  Changer )

Connexion à %s