Dan/ONE DOESN'T KNOW WHAT WILL HAPPEN. C&A 12-5-80

[Guest guest]

Hi Dan...

 

A little (witless) repartee to complement 'your' repartee? :-)

 

Nisargadatta, Daniel Berkow <berkowd@u...> wrote:

> >Maharaj:

> ><snip>

> >One doesn't know,

> >but suddenly consciousness arises.

>

>

> From what, where, validated how?

> For whom?

 

One doesn't know...

Just as Maharaj states :-).

 

> >Does anyone think along these lines?

>

>

> Anyone thinking along these lines

> could only be an artifact of the

> belief that consciousness arose.

> Where could such belief arise?

> Whom could hold it?

 

Who is asking? <lol>...

 

> >Is it not amazing that consciousness,

> >which might remain latent

> >for any length of time,

> >suddenly arises spontaneously?

>

> Arises from what, where?

 

From 'void'. From 'void', consciousness seems to arise... and it

seems to happen spontaneously. This is 'all good' as far as

conversation goes, seen from here... as far as words can go

(obviously, 'not far').

 

> What is even more amazing is this:

> Although consciousness tends to

> be assumed, it never can have

> arisen, and thus cannot be said

> to not have arisen.

 

What is " arisen " but a 'mental picture' anyway, a word/concept? The

ground upon which you stand (sit?) while speaking is about to cave

in :-).

 

> And what does this mean for

> " all this " -- supposedly arising

> in consciousness?

 

How can any spontaneous arising 'mean anything'? Ask the Pacific

Ocean if/how much it cares when the tides are high on the shores of

Mainland China?

 

> " All this " cannot have arisen

> nor can it be said not to arise.

 

Why say so?

 

<snip>

 

> The instant something appears to

> be known, is a moment of

> unsurpassed illusion.

> To say that there is something

> unknown or unknowable is

> equally illusory.

 

To say anything at all is foolishness. Yet things get said anyway.

Clearly and obviously, nobody is required to speak in order for words

to appear -- nor is 'anybody' required for them to get read.

 

> The real which " makes " this illusion,

> cannot be known nor unknown,

> neither awareness nor something

> else other than awareness.

 

Neither this nor that, neither this nor that, neither this nor that,

Neither this nor that, neither this nor that, neither this nor that,

Neither this nor that, neither this nor that, neither this nor that,

Neither this nor that, neither this nor that, neither this nor that,

Neither this nor that, neither this nor that, neither this nor that,

Neither this nor that, neither this nor that, neither this nor that,

Neither this nor that, neither this nor that, neither this nor that...

 

> To say it will happen spontaneously

> is to kill all spontaneity.

 

Bologna. Spontaneity cannot be killed, nor even mildly injured <g>.

All 'occurrences' are spontaneous, including 'saying something will

happen spontaneously.'

 

> Even to say, " This is happening

> spontaneously " is to kill

> spontaneity.

> Who is here who can kill spontaneity?

> No one.

 

Precisely. Spontaneity is not killed, not even touched.

 

P.S. - there is no such thing as 'spontaneity' as something that can

have or be an opposite to something else and thus 'get killed'.

 

Namaste,

 

Tim