Greg/affirming and denying

[Guest guest]

>>Gregji:

So, as far as getting to "neither something or nothing," that's a

descriptive way to point to an endpoint that is not a point. I see it a

bit differently. Instead of getting to an X-that-is-not-an-X -- I'd say

it just isn't the case that there's any getting.

 

Dan: Yes. We can't rightly say there is any arrival at something that is

not itself. We might say that there is not an arrival at any something,

and thus no "getting". We have then said what hasn't occurred, or what

can't be the case. We haven't asserted what the case is. We might then

discard any notions about arriving, seeing, having, being, or perceiving.

What we are discarding is nothing real, simply "notions,qualities,"

or "concepts".

 

Words/concepts/perceptions involve affirmations and also disaffirmation of

what was previously affirmed. Examined carefully, these are seen to involve

assumed pre-definition of reality. Our word-reality cannot encompass all-of-

reality, as all-of-reality doesn't work by "affirming something", or by

then "disaffirming something" (if it did, it would be fragmented, and not

all-of-reality). We might say all-of-reality has no case of pre-definition,

and we then can't make any positive statement about what reality is.

>>G: I agree, if we say "there is Something," we've got the whole ball of

wax.

 

D: Or, more simply, we could say "!" and have the whole ball of wax.

>>G: So why ask the question of "what allows"? The true answer to any

question is the non-arising of the question. Like you say (I think you

say

this too) any positive answer ("What allows it is XYZ.") reifies or

hypostatizes the allower, the allowed, and the rest of the world.

 

These are fascinating inquiries, Dan-ji. A bit like the root differences

often cited between Advaita/Buddhism, atman/anatman, Brahman/sunyata,

plenum/void etc., which have been discussed on this list in the past.

 

OM/Gassho, Greg

 

D: Yes, fascinating to look into the difference made by one's assumptions

to either affirm or to deny what has been affirmed. Emphasizing one

direction over another (e.g. atman/anatman) constructs

a philosophy. What we seem to be noticing here is the human tendency to

define in ways that affirm or deny (thus constructing philosophies,

sciences, cultures). We are also noticing the inadequacy of any

philosophy, science, or

culture to describe or explain the nature of reality.

 

-- peace in this vast Unknowable -- Dan

[Guest guest]

At 01:42 PM 11/5/99 -0500, Dan Berkow, PhD wrote:

 

> -- peace in this vast Unknowable -- Dan

 

 

Always a pleasure not-knowing with you!

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

Hari Om Dan:

 

Your interesting and stimulating observations fully agree with view points of J.

Krishnamurthy.

 

J. Krishnamurthy's famous quotation:

"I maintain that Truth is a pathless land, and you cannot approach it by

any path whatsoever, by any religion, by any sect. That is my point of

view, and I adhere to that absolutely and unconditionally. Truth, being

limitless, unconditioned, unapproachable by any path whatsoever, cannot be

organized..... The moment you follow someone you cease to follow Truth... "

 

One of the interesting solution appears from another quotation by Nathaniel

Hawthrone:

 

"Happiness is as a butterfly which, when pursued, is always beyond our grasp,

but which if we will sit down quietly, may alight upon us"

 

Happiness and self-realization can't reached through search process and it has

to come on its own! This is Grace!

 

Ram Chandran

 

>"Dan Berkow, PhD" <berkowd

>

 

>....... What we seem to be noticing here is the human tendency to

>define in ways that affirm or deny (thus constructing philosophies,

>sciences, cultures). We are also noticing the inadequacy of any

>philosophy, science, or

>culture to describe or explain the nature of reality.

>

> -- peace in this vast Unknowable -- Dan