There there

[Guest guest]

" There " is there when I know it to be there.

As long as " there " is there, I can be there,

to know.

 

So, how can there be a fact, when the fact

can only be there, when there is there?

 

-- Dan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Realization, " daveoshana " <daveoshana> wrote:

> Hi Dan

>

> In this poem which you sent:

> What is the fact? Or wasn't there one to start with?

>

> dave

> Enlightenment for All

> http://oshana.org/

>

>

> Realization, " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote:

> > That there is there

> > isn't a fact.

> >

> > The fact isn't that there is there,

> > nor is it what is there.

> >

> > The fact isn't what it was taken to be,

> > nor is it something else, or some

> > other way.

[Guest guest]

Hello Friends,

I find the talk interesting and if I may enter I would like to share:

 

Who is knowing that there is a there ?----- I am knowing it----- I

am knowing it from Here----the only place where conscousnes is pure---the

only place that is a true viewpoint------ So, there is there at effect point

as long as I am here at a source point projecting my attention units on

whatever there ( dimensionpoint ) is there. Since space is a viewpoint of

dimension---you need a cause-point to project an awareness across a distance

to an effect-point ( There )---- Then you have communication, time space and

material universe---so you can have a there.

Jerrio

[Guest guest]

Thank you Gelf------------ Jerrio--------

[Guest guest]

well put :} Gelf - QJproductions Sunday, July 21, 2002 9:26 PM Realization Re: "There" there Hello Friends,I find the talk interesting and if I may enter I would like to share: Who is knowing that there is a there ?----- I am knowing it----- I am knowing it from Here----the only place where consciousness is pure---the only place that is a true viewpoint------ So, there is there at effect point as long as I am here at a source point projecting my attention units on whatever there ( dimension point ) is there. Since space is a viewpoint of dimension---you need a cause-point to project an awareness across a distance to an effect-point ( There )---- Then you have communication, time space and material universe---so you can have a there. Jerrio ..........INFORMATION ABOUT THIS LIST..........Email addresses: Post message: Realization Un: Realization- Our web address: http://www.realization.orgBy sending a message to this list, you are givingpermission to have it reproduced as a letter onhttp://www.realization.org................................................

[Guest guest]

Hi Dan,

Thanks for letting me see how it is all connected ! . I appreciate how you

tied the words and the thoughts together, very profound and from an

understanding awareness.

 

Bruce Lee once said " When I first started in the marial arts, a kick was a

kick and a punch was a punch----after years of complicated training a kick

and a punch became a complex subject------------ Now that I am an expert in

the martial arts----------------- " A Kick is a kick and a punch is a punch

" .

 

So, the circle goes around and around, If the ocean is the Highest

awareness ( or God if you prefer ) and we are but waves of that ocean, well

then----- the ocean can exist without the wave ---but the wave cannot exist

without the ocean------------------------- Therefore I would have to

add--------- That the knower does not depend on the there,

----- It ( knower ) was before the there and can and has existed long before

the there----- to have a there ---- you have to have a material

universe------- cause and effect are but another pair of opposites ------

existing outside of that is the knower-------- Sat-chit-ananda ( eternal

existence, eternal consciousness, and eternal bliss )

------ Namaste------- Jerrio-----

[Guest guest]

Hi Jerrio --

 

> Hello Friends,

> I find the talk interesting and if I may enter I would like to

share:

>

> Who is knowing that there is a there ?

 

A who which knows, can only be there (or here) to know,

if a there is there, for that who, as well

as for that which is being known.

 

----- I am knowing it----- I

> am knowing it from Here----the only place where conscousnes is pure-

--the

> only place that is a true viewpoint------

 

How is it that consciousness appears as such,

with whatever capacities or qualities are

associated with consciousness?

 

Saying it is " here, " makes this " here " the there,

in which the consciousness is said to be.

 

So, there is there at effect point

> as long as I am here at a source point projecting my attention

units on

> whatever there ( dimensionpoint ) is there.

 

A source point requires something else, of which

it is being the source.

 

The source and this something else thus arise

in mutual definition.

 

Prior to the source point and the something else

being known as such, what is?

 

What is " prior " to there or here being there, and a knower

or consciousness being there (or here)?

 

Since space is a viewpoint of

> dimension---you need a cause-point to project an awareness across a

distance

> to an effect-point

 

Yes, so cause and effect arise in mutual definition.

Each is known as such, in terms of the other.

 

( There )---- Then you have communication, time space and

> material universe---so you can have a there.

 

Time, space, matter -- all " there. "

And " there " depends on a knower, yet

the knower depends on there.

 

Which is all a way of saying that the knower

of the known is itself the known.

 

So knower, knowing, and known are essentially

the same, indivisible phenomenal unity.

As is cause-and-effect.

 

Yet how is this phenomenality to arise,

unless there is there, which requires

a knower, which requires a there?

 

Dan

[Guest guest]

Hi Dan--

I am grateful for your reply to my point of view. It's been awhile since I

have had this type of discussion and I am truly honored to have this

opportunity to share and learn from others. If I may , I would like to share

some more thoughts on this profound subject you brought up. But first i would

like to say, I stumbled onto this site through the Kundalini links, stumbled

------ actually I was led to it by the higher power and its grace to help me

find an answer to a difficulty I had been dealing with since I was very young

this lifetime------- I was spinning in a Kundalini hurricane of force all

these years until i chanced upon this site and found the answer--- that it

was the Kundalini force I was dealing with. The moment I spotted this--------

it stopped, and came under my control for the first time ever. I am so

relieved by this that I have been in a state of Bliss ever since, and I am

enjoying the win. The moment one meets the truth--- its gone------ only lies

linger. I have studied many philosophies intellectually, you know through the

senses !---- But what I wanted was the direct knowledge--- and that can be

done only through " intuition " ----- how do you know you exist----you just

know !-- it is an awareness outside of the senses. Even though we speak on an

ineffable subject and talking about it brings it down to the physical

universe (words and vibrations)-- it's where we all start. So with due

respect I would like to continue on the : " There-- There subject----- In

your reply you stated that our remarks are in the same general ballpark ----

There we agree----- Only one truth but many paths to it. You are correct I am

saying there is a knower that is not in the material universe as we know it,

yes a portion of the knower is impinging on the physical universe, or we

would'nt even be having this conversation. But if you look straight to the

source of life whatever your reality is on that----- you almost have to see

that the source of life : Has no mass, no significance, no wavelenght, no

location in space or time, but has the potential or ability to postulate life

or existence and then to perceive it----- and if we are sparks of this one

potential ( or God or Higher self or intelligence )-- Then we came before the

physical universe------ And It can be known through direct knowledge, it is

not an intellectual thing--- you don't experience it------ you go

higher----you know it !------ my assertion of this is not for the purpose of

causing an argument but to state that it can be known --and has been known by

several masters that have lived and walked on this planet. You said " What

I'm saying is that a " knower " is a concept that depends on the known. Without

the known, how can a knower be understood? To know is to know something, to

have the qualities associated with being able to know " ------- Here is where

I believe we diverge----- You say the knower is a concept (Idea, thought )---

I am adding to that, that the knower is more than a concept----- but is a

living existing presence,an inuitive consciousness, that's how we know we

are---- You are the knower ! I am the knower, anyone else reading this is the

knower------ From what I see, you are going from effect (known) back to cause

(knower)------ I am going from cause (knower) to effect (known).The truth is

that you and I are on the same path, this I can sense---- and if I

misunderstood what you have been laying down and from your viewpoint have not

gotten the gist of your communication---- in the future I will try harder and

go deeper for the understanding. I truly appreciate this exchange, I believe

nothing is by accident, everything is for our spiritual evolution, right!.We

always learn and should grow with the learning. Who was the teacher of the

very first teacher?

Peace & Namaste------- Jerrio-------

[Guest guest]

Hi Jerrio --

 

Thanks for your kind comments.

 

I like the way Bruce Lee stole Zen stories

and put them in his movies, too!

 

I think our remarks are in the same

general ballpark.

 

Probably the main area where we diverge

is in your defining a " knower " as

primary, whereas, I'm not.

 

You're saying that there's a knower that's

not in the material universe, but which

makes the material universe appear.

 

I'm saying that such a knower can't be known,

and therefore can't be talked about as a knower.

 

In other words, how do you know there's such a knower?

 

Where are you when you know this knower to be?

 

Of course, the usual answers would be something like:

I know because I am immediately aware, beyond words.

 

And: I am nowhere when I know this knower to be,

because I am this knower.

 

Of course, there is no way to argue with such assertions.

 

You either take them at face value, unquestioningly, or

you don't.

 

It's like if you say you see the sky as purple, because

that's how it appears to you. No one can contest that --

you say it's your experience. Or, you might say that

for you the whole universe is purple.

 

What I'm saying is that a " knower " is a concept that depends

on the known. Without a known, how can a knower be

understood? To know is to know something, to know of something,

to have the qualities associated with being able to know.

 

And what I am getting at, is that there is a conceptual aspect

to the idea of being the knower, which attributes a certain

quality and position.

 

For example, you said that the knower is outside of the material

universe. So you define a material universe, and in relation

to that definition, you define a knower which is beyond

that.

 

I'm pointing to this: it all depends on the definitions

being placed. Whether it is the definition of knowing,

or knower, or known. The definitions relate to each other,

giving the impression that something has been said,

understood, or known.

 

When any sense of a knower being there collapses, when

consciousness dissolves as an idea or an experience --

what is?

 

That's where my inquiry is headed -- and of course,

it dissolves there as well as everything else.

 

Inside and outside dissolve into each other.

 

Before and after do the same ...

 

Take, for example, a man in Afghanistan, riding on

a donkey, carrying all his possessions,

which steps on a landmine, which explodes,

killing the donkey, destroying his possessions,

and leaving his feet bloody and unusable.

 

The man is staggering around, half-blinded,

in great pain and

distress, not knowing how he will return to

his village, and what he will be able to do

when he does return.

 

Now, this event can be trivialized in many ways,

by saying it is hallucinatory, there is only

the Self, or consciousness, and so on.

 

But, at that moment, for that man, such assertions

are meaningless, without relevance.

 

At that moment, for him, there is great pain, loss,

uncertainty.

 

In the midst of that experience there is " this " which

is untouchable, unknowable, timeless ...

 

But it's not there because of the ways we define

spiritual concepts and such.

 

It's not there because there is a there in which it is,

nor because there is a who for it to be, nor

because it is the knower or some other metaphysical

construct.

 

None of these apply -- utterly without any

relevance at that moment -- and yet, " this is so " ...

 

That's the best I can do to express what it is

that I wish words could convey ...

 

Namaste, and thanks for your input --

 

Dan

 

 

 

 

> Thanks for letting me see how it is all connected ! . I appreciate

how you

> tied the words and the thoughts together, very profound and from

an

> understanding awareness.

>

> Bruce Lee once said " When I first started in the marial arts, a

kick was a

> kick and a punch was a punch----after years of complicated training

a kick

> and a punch became a complex subject------------ Now that I am an

expert in

> the martial arts----------------- " A Kick is a kick and a punch

is a punch

> " .

>

> So, the circle goes around and around, If the ocean is the

Highest

> awareness ( or God if you prefer ) and we are but waves of that

ocean, well

> then----- the ocean can exist without the wave ---but the wave

cannot exist

> without the ocean------------------------- Therefore I would have

to

> add--------- That the knower does not depend on the there,

> ----- It ( knower ) was before the there and can and has existed

long before

> the there----- to have a there ---- you have to have a material

> universe------- cause and effect are but another pair of opposites -

-----

> existing outside of that is the knower-------- Sat-chit-ananda (

eternal

> existence, eternal consciousness, and eternal bliss )

> ------ Namaste------- Jerrio-----

[Guest guest]

Hi Dan

Once again we exchange communication, the interchange of ideas. I accept your

viewpoint as your viewpoint. If your reality on everything we have spoken on

has you closer to the reason we are even in this universe and why we are in

bodies working it all out----- Then, you are heading towards liberation from

all the lies that keep us blind and ignorant of our true identity. What I

have shared with you is a reality for me from which I function and get

results. The proof of the pudding is always in the taste !--- If one is

experiencing peace and understanding and Love, then he is on the right path.

Thank you Dan, this has helped me in my ongoing growth.

Peace to you and yours------- Jerrio------

[Guest guest]

Hi Jerio --

 

> Hi Dan--

> I am grateful for your reply to my point of view. It's been awhile

since I

> have had this type of discussion and I am truly honored to have

this

> opportunity to share and learn from others.

 

Great!

 

Sharing is fun.

 

You wrote, in part:

 

I am so

> relieved by this that I have been in a state of Bliss ever since,

and I am

> enjoying the win.

 

That's fine, and I'm glad for you.

 

So, there is you, who is in a state of bliss,

and others who are in other states.

 

We still have this division of self and others,

and beings in divergent states being assumed.

 

Some of my comments are to point to the nonreality

of these kinds of assumptions. By asking is " there "

there, I'm asking " is there a 'there' in which a being

can be? " For example, to be in a state of bliss that

another being isn't in?

 

The moment one meets the truth--- its gone------ only lies

> linger.

 

Well-said.

 

Truth is not a continuity.

 

Thus, it is not a construction, a concept.

 

 

I have studied many philosophies intellectually, you know through the

> senses !---- But what I wanted was the direct knowledge--- and that

can be

> done only through " intuition " ----- how do you know you exist----

you just

> know !-- it is an awareness outside of the senses.

 

An intuition about existence is a sensory awareness,

just not the usual way that sensory awareness is

described.

 

You couldn't say you had an intuition if you couldn't

sense that the intuition occurred.

 

Therefore, the intuition that you exist is no more

or less definite than any other construction

using sensory information.

 

 

Even though we speak on an

> ineffable subject and talking about it brings it down to the

physical

> universe (words and vibrations)-- it's where we all start.

 

Yes.

 

We communicate using concepts, and therefore the most

useful thing, I find, is to use concepts to be as

clear as possible about the limits of concepts,

and the assumptions made which don't pertain to truth.

 

snip

 

You are correct I am

> saying there is a knower that is not in the material universe as we

know it,

> yes a portion of the knower is impinging on the physical universe,

or we

> would'nt even be having this conversation.

 

Here's where I would raise a question.

The physical universe doesn't have a there in which to be there.

It is the assumption of a " there " by thought which allows

the construct of a physical universe to be formed.

Thought and senses operate together.

They are the process of " construct formulation, "

the way that a conceptual universe is formed.

 

But if you look straight to the

> source of life whatever your reality is on that----- you almost

have to see

> that the source of life : Has no mass, no significance, no

wavelenght, no

> location in space or time, but has the potential or ability to

postulate life

> or existence and then to perceive it-----

 

I agree with all the above.

 

In fact, the postulation of life and the

perception of life are essentially the

same process.

 

 

and if we are sparks of this one

> potential ( or God or Higher self or intelligence )--

 

We aren't sparks.

 

Sparks would require that division occurs in reality.

 

Division doesn't occur in reality, it is an assumption

whereby concepts can seemingly convey information.

 

 

Then we came before the

> physical universe------ And It can be known through direct

knowledge, it is

> not an intellectual thing---

 

Right.

 

And therefore, it's not known as an object.

 

And therefore, it is not an " it " and doesn't

require nor involve a knower or a known.

 

you don't experience it------ you go

> higher----you know it !

 

And now you go without moving anywhere,

to where there is no " there, " no high or low,

and nothing to know and no knower --

 

But this is not a negation --

all that is being negated is conceptual assumptions...

 

You can know this knowledgeless unknowing, and

yet participate as a conceptual being in a conceptual

universe. That is how this conversation can happen!

 

------ my assertion of this is not for the purpose of

> causing an argument but to state that it can be known --and has

been known by

> several masters that have lived and walked on this planet.

 

No.

They were fictions, conceptualities.

It is not known by anyone.

There is nothing outside of it, by which

it could be known.

There is no " master " existing apart from " this. "

There is only the conceptuality called " master walking around, "

which requires a " there " in which to walk, and requires

non-masters also to walk around, to appreciate and know

the master to be a master.

Conceptuality operates by oppositions, contrasts.

Thus a " knower " is postulated, who makes comparisons,

understands contrasts, and has a relationship with " the known. "

 

 

You said " What

> I'm saying is that a " knower " is a concept that depends on the

known. Without

> the known, how can a knower be understood? To know is to know

something, to

> have the qualities associated with being able to know " ------- Here

is where

> I believe we diverge----- You say the knower is a concept (Idea,

thought )---

> I am adding to that, that the knower is more than a concept-----

but is a

> living existing presence,an inuitive consciousness, that's how we

know we

> are---- You are the knower !

 

I am familiar with this teaching, and appreciate

you sharing that which is inspirational to you.

 

For me, there are limits to the ideas you present.

 

So, we do diverge on that.

 

But, not a problem -- I enjoy your enthusiasm, and am

glad you have experienced the kind of resolution

you described above.

 

I am saying that prior to this sense of being

the knower which you describe, is that which

can't be understood as the knower.

 

For there to be an understanding of oneself as knower,

there has to be a sense of what knowing is.

Saying that this is intuitive doesn't make it any

less of a sensing.

And reality that isn't given form or quality by mind/sense,

won't be " in " this understanding of self as knower.

 

This is why I say that the knower arises with the known,

and isn't other than the known.

 

Essentially, I'm pointint to the limitations of anything conveyed

about reality.

 

Reality doesn't depend on something being conveyed, on information,

on an idea of a knower.

 

I am the knower, anyone else reading this is the

> knower------

 

Where is the space between us?

 

If there is no space between us, where is there

anything appearing, which can be known?

 

If there is no space between us, and nothing can

appear to be known, why call " this " the knower?

 

Knower of what?

 

You see, the knower arises with the concept of

knowing, and with the implication of something

that is being known, through the apparent

content of the concept.

 

From what I see, you are going from effect (known) back to cause

> (knower)------

 

Actually, I am saying that effect and cause arise together,

and it's just a matter of interpretation concerning

whether something is a cause or an effect.

 

I am going from cause (knower) to effect (known).The truth is

> that you and I are on the same path, this I can sense---- and if I

> misunderstood what you have been laying down and from your

viewpoint have not

> gotten the gist of your communication---- in the future I will try

harder and

> go deeper for the understanding.

 

I'm doing the best I can to express my position.

 

The illusion being that there is a knower here with a

different point of view than the knower there.

 

And this illusion, in fact, is what I am questioning.

 

>I truly appreciate this exchange, I believe

> nothing is by accident, everything is for our spiritual evolution,

right!.

 

Excellent.

I, too, am happy with this exchange.

Not that in reality anything is exchanged.

 

We

> always learn and should grow with the learning. Who was the teacher

of the

> very first teacher?

 

I think it was you, was it not?

 

Peace and namaste,

Dan

[Guest guest]

Hi Dan

I Know, not sense that you outflow in riddles that have no solutions, so I

believe you will enjoy this---------------------------- You said---- " What

if one is having no experience at all " ?-------- " What path is that "

?--------------- And my answer to that would have to

be------------------------- YOUR PATH

!!!!!!-----------------------------

So Long for this moment of Now !------ Jerrio-------

[Guest guest]

Hi Jerrio --

 

> Once again we exchange communication, the interchange of ideas. I

accept your

> viewpoint as your viewpoint.

 

Well, they are words appearing on a screen.

One assumes they must constitute a viewpoint.

But what if they really don't?

What if there isn't anything holding it together?

 

> If your reality on everything we have spoken on

> has you closer to the reason we are even in this universe

 

There is no reason, and we aren't in it.

 

The universe happens without explanation -- doesn't need one.

 

It's undivided, so there's no separate space in which

someone could appear and disappear.

 

 

and why we are in

> bodies working it all out-----

 

There is no inhabitant of the universe, nor of

bodies appearing in that universe.

 

There is no separation between the body and the

universe in which it appears.

 

> Then, you are heading towards liberation from

> all the lies that keep us blind and ignorant of our true identity.

 

There is no one being kept blind and ignorant.

That conclusion itself is the central delusion.

 

>What I

> have shared with you is a reality for me from which I function and

get

> results.

 

I hope your results are not populating the universe with inhabitants,

assigning divided individuals to positions in bodies,

and making separable entities that can be kept ignorant :-)

 

Just kidding.

 

If you're happy, then I'm happy.

 

 

>The proof of the pudding is always in the taste !

 

True!

 

 

--- If one is

> experiencing peace and understanding and Love, then he is on the

right path.

 

Yes, indeed.

 

What if one is having no experience at all?

 

What path is that?

 

> Thank you Dan, this has helped me in my ongoing growth.

 

I'm glad to hear that.

 

I've enjoyed conversing with you, Jerrio, and wish

you well ...

 

> Peace to you and yours-------

 

And peace to all ...

 

Dan

[Guest guest]

Hi Jerrio --

 

Are you sure of that?

 

<s>

 

So long for now ...

 

Yes, this seemingly is a very long now ...

 

I don't remember when it started,

and how could I know if it ended?

 

And if experience and with it me were not,

 

Any discussion of a path to be had, would

also be not ...

 

Ah, but it's a beautiful day!

 

The rain has fallen, and the sky has cleared.

 

-- Dan

 

 

 

Realization, QJproductions@a... wrote:

> Hi Dan

> I Know, not sense that you outflow in riddles that have no

solutions, so I

> believe you will enjoy this---------------------------- You said---

- " What

> if one is having no experience at all " ?-------- " What path is

that "

> ?--------------- And my answer to that would have to

> be------------------------- YOUR PATH

> !!!!!!-----------------------------

> So Long for this moment of Now !------ Jerrio-------

[Guest guest]

Hi Dan

without a DOUBT !

[Guest guest]

Hi Dan

It is there !------ and you are there !------ and doubt is there------

So------------------------------

 

----------------------------- " There there ! .

[Guest guest]

Hi Jerrio --

 

If you miss it,

maybe Mrs. Doubtfire will

fire one up for you!

 

 

> Hi Dan

> without a DOUBT !

[Guest guest]

Hi Dan

Poof !!!!!-------- You " re right, It's gone--- But it was there---sounds like

an infinite never ending cycle to me------ right on the $--------- Has me

laughing Too.

 

------- Jerrio---------

[Guest guest]

Hi Jerrio --

 

It's all there.

 

Right there, where it's supposed to be.

 

Everything's happening right on schedule.

 

Doubts come, and doubts go,

But anyway,

On with the show!

 

It's there all right.

 

Right where you said it was.

 

There it goes again!

 

How could I have ever doubted?

 

All I can do now is laugh ...

 

-- Dan

 

 

 

> Hi Dan

> It is there !------ and you are there !------ and doubt is there----

--

> So------------------------------

>

> ----------------------------- " There there ! .

[Guest guest]

Hi Dan

Yes my fellow traveler, that was me !---------- " There " there ------ " Here "

here " ------------------- " Poof " , " Nowhere " nowhere " ------------ Always !

------ " Aware " aware

 

Jerrio

[Guest guest]

Hi Jerrio --

 

 

> Poof !!!!!--------

 

Yes, " that's all she wrote " --

 

No looking back, now.

 

Back? What's that?

 

> You " re right, It's gone--- But it was there---

 

Only for as long as a memory persists.

 

 

> sounds like

> an infinite never ending cycle to me------

 

Only for someone in a position to view a cycle.

 

right on the $--------- Has me

> laughing Too.

 

Yes, I heard the sound waves reverberating.

 

That was you laughing, wasn't it?

 

-- Dan

[Guest guest]

Where did everything go?

 

Oh, there it is again!

[Guest guest]

Hi Bye

Jerrio

Bye Hi

Jerrio