in comparsions, or beyond compare? / Dan

[Guest guest]

D: The words said, "A man realizes it cannot be known"... which is

different than "A man who realizes *what* cannot be known". (or

maybe not different, just as "seen here")

 

but of course... words assembled in different ways will present different meanings...

and only validate themselves as true or not true when interpreted

according to what is considered true and what is considered not. A

man who realizes *what* can't be known, can't be known as a man,

and can't be spoken about truthfully, certainly not as a man who

realized that it can't be known. (Or maybe he can -- but this is

my story, unfolding like this, in this dream ;-)

 

Exactly so. And since it cannot be spoken about truthfully, or maybe

it can, it doesn't matter really what is being said about it, for it

doesn't clearify nor obscure that which is self evident itself. It is

self evident in all things known, as it becomes known to itself alone.

But I'm very happy to know you Danman! :-)

In realizing *what*, he was/is simultaneously enfolded/unfolded

....The man is the realization, and the realization, being fully

unknown, is no realization.And yes, we just did speak about him,

and yes, to thought there is only paradox.Beyond thought, it is

simplicity itself and no paradox at all.Beyond speaking of *it*

there is *it* itself, unfolding/enfolding itself simultaneously,

unknown.

 

Speaking of it, implies objectifying it. Giving it a location that we

call 'beyond', and if we add enough words and non-words to it, we

might be able to outsmart language ;-)D: Simultaneous, instantaneous,

nondurational enfolding/unfolding, leaves no place for a "game

of comparisons" --The imagining that one is playing a game of

comparisons is how there is an investment in a self.

 

I have no problems with that, since self is the only thing there is.

If an investment made, it will yield its profits and its losses to self alone.

It's when the tangible proof is no longer taken as tangible proof

that the game and game player can no longer attempt to co-exist

with *it* ...

 

If something can be taken first like 'this...' and then 'no longer

like this...' is that a word game?

Tangible proof... maybe I should have added a smiley to that sentence... ;-)

That which is itself alone does not need any proof for itself.

There is no outside reality that could possibly proof its realness. It

is self evident to itself all the time.

Words like game and gameplayer.... they're all in the game?

 

It is the attempt to continue an existence as a particle who thrives,

which is the root of suffering. To take suffering as thriving is

how the game of comparisons validates itself as worth continuing.

If he knows himself to be neither yet both, then he knows

something. By knowing himself as both, he's not *not*, he's

someone who knows something.

 

First of all, I have no problems or conflicts with the so called root

of suffering. This root is not a threat, but more likely a beautiful

mechanism that can aid the human mind in its investigation into this

presumed root.

I see no conflicts with playing a game of comparisons or thriving on

anything, since the particle that is playing the game, is no

different from the whole, but perhaps this is for lack of a more

acceptable nondual word. Truly I see no difference in essence between

the part and the whole, but I do see practical distinctions between a

man and a woman for example. By the way, I love men that know

something, and I equally love men that know nothing. I do have a bit

of a problem sometimes with men that know nothing but believe they

know a whole lot though ;-)

To rejoice in the play is to be the play.To be the play is to be all

players and locations.To be all players and locations is to have no

location.To have no location ends having a position in a play.*it*

now ends "is" and "is not" as playing positions ...

 

and maybe not.... :-)

Thus, the fire which is "rejoicing" ends up burning itself up,

burning up all sense of being something, being nothing, or being

both -- revealing only not-a-thing ...

 

which was there all the time anyway, revealing itself to itself through all senses of being....

doesn't that old song say something like ... "keep that fire burning..?"

Useless knowledge about being and not-being is burned up ...So yes,

dreams unfold beyond choice or nonchoice, in the seemingness of a

space that has no real place, where "is" and "is not" appear to

play out activities and nonactivities ...And in this dream, these

words, this exchange of (non)information seemingly took place ...

 

and 'I' love to play with 'you'

and I don't care much for defining it as game, or dream, or seeming, or some neo non-word... ;-)

it is self evident anyway, not matter what you or I say or not say.

 

Love,

Mira

[Guest guest]

Dear Mira --

I enjoyed hearing from you.

Thanks for sharing how you

see *it* ...

You wrote in part:

That

which is itself alone does not need any proof for

itself.

And it can't speak of itself or to anyone about itself,

for the same reason.

There

is no outside reality that could possibly proof its realness. It is self

evident to itself all the time.

Words like game and gameplayer.... they're all in

the game?

And the game is only a game while

it can be identified with in some

way. When it is clear that the

identities, the game, the play,

the outcomes are all the same,

what position can be taken?

With no identification

it is not.

Yes, the game player, the game,

the tools of the game, and

the possible outcomes are

all the same thing.

It is not self-evident to itself, ever.

That is how it is self-evident.

Words are only given for readers

of words.

The reader digesting the words

has digested self.

Having digested self, there is

no self to be self-evident to

or as.

This is the end of the game,

the game player, the tools,

and the outcomes.

;-)

Blessed be,

Dan

[Guest guest]

Dan:

 

It is not self-evident to itself, ever.That is how it is self-evident.

 

 

 

I'd like to submit this quote to Joyce's refrigerator-quote-contest!!

 

Love,

B*B

Mira