Guest guest Posted April 15, 2002 Report Share Posted April 15, 2002 FW What I mean is sometimes you say me and sometimes I. Which do you mean by me and the I which is one. xx To me there is no difference between " me and I and you and him and them " . It is just 'talk " . AS UG puts it so well, this is a 'barking dog'. Use any of them, there is still no one there doing the talking. Limited or unlimited. El .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 15, 2002 Report Share Posted April 15, 2002 To me there is no difference between "me and I and you and him and them".It is just 'talk".AS UG puts it so well, this is a 'barking dog'.Use any of them, there is still no one there doing the talking.Limited or unlimited.El Yes, and... so what? As E.J.Gold put it so well, 'Of course we're all one. Now, how are we different?' Colin Yardley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 15, 2002 Report Share Posted April 15, 2002 Nisargadatta, Colin Yardley <yardley@s...> wrote: > > > To me there is no difference between " me and I and you and > him and them " . > It is just 'talk " . > AS UG puts it so well, this is a 'barking dog'. > Use any of them, there is still no one there doing the talking. > Limited or unlimited. > > El > Yes, and... so what? As E.J.Gold put it so well, 'Of course we're all one. Now, how are we different?' > > Colin Yardley Hi Colin -- We're not all one, as your namesake Colin Powell is probably in the process of figuring out. Nonetheless, differentiation and sameness aren't two. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 15, 2002 Report Share Posted April 15, 2002 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Monday, April 15, 2002 12:26 PM Re: FW Nisargadatta, Colin Yardley <yardley@s...> wrote:> > > To me there is no difference between "me and I and you and > him and them".> It is just 'talk".> AS UG puts it so well, this is a 'barking dog'.> Use any of them, there is still no one there doing the talking.> Limited or unlimited.> > El> Yes, and... so what? As E.J.Gold put it so well, 'Of course we're all one. Now, how are we different?'> > Colin YardleyHi Colin --We're not all one, as your namesake Colin Powell is probably in the process of figuring out.Nonetheless, differentiation and sameness aren't two.-- DanGreetings, Dan: Point well noted. Yet, what is interesting about anything is the thing in itself, its particularity, not its contingent transparency to the 'not two' domainless domain. Everything gets boring, vaporous, denuded of content when viewed that way. Unless one can participate in that Maha Mudra consciousness which "utterly transcends all things while embracing each lovingly in its womb." That loving embrace involves homage to the particular. If that is not truly honored, one ends up a sage, mouthing abstract universalist generalizations and never getting around to poetry anywhere near as beautiful as that of the Irish drunkard, Dylan Thomas, to choose an example at random. I'm not arguing rightness here, only declaring my bias towards poets as lovers of the world as compared with saints as masters of same. Statements like "differentiation and sameness aren't two" have the flavor of Zennoid Wittgensteinian logic chopping, gesturing at absolutes and abstractions that manas, mind, dearly loves to gnaw on --as in the bone no one can find; as in see 'barking dogs' in El's post. That kind of language poses as a vehicle but functions more like a barrier. That's my story and I'm sticking to it, at least until I read your reply. :-) Colin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 15, 2002 Report Share Posted April 15, 2002 Hi Colin -- > Point well noted. Yet, what is interesting about anything is the thing in itself, its particularity, not its contingent transparency to the 'not two' domainless domain. Its particularity is its transparency, no domainless domain need be brought into the picture, as something to be transparent to. Domainless, unlocatable -- this is particularity. > Everything gets boring, vaporous, denuded of content when viewed that way. This is a dead giveaway to the one who is doing the viewing, experiencing boredom with it, thinking there's an experience going on which is devoid of content. There isn't. The observer is the content, the boredom and vaporousness is the content. >Unless one can participate in that Maha Mudra consciousness which " utterly transcends all things while embracing each lovingly in its womb. " Or as the Christians like to put it, while singing in church, " He's got the whole world in His hands, " " Rock of Ages cleft for me, " ... But why imagine oneself participating in it, when it is what brings forth the image taken as " me, " the supposed participant ... >That loving embrace involves homage to the particular. There isn't anything apart from the particular. >If that is not truly honored, one ends up a sage, mouthing abstract universalist generalizations and never getting around to poetry anywhere near as beautiful as that of the Irish drunkard, Dylan Thomas, to choose an example at random. Okay. Although someone else may love E=MC2. Different strokes for different particular folks -- >I'm not arguing rightness here, only declaring my bias towards poets as lovers of the world as compared with saints as masters of same. Yes, all one can do is declare one's biases. > Statements like " differentiation and sameness aren't two " have the flavor of Zennoid Wittgensteinian logic chopping, gesturing at absolutes and abstractions that manas, mind, dearly loves to gnaw on - -as in the bone no one can find; as in see 'barking dogs' in El's post. Only if that's what happens for you. For me, it has nothing to do with that. " Differentiation and sameness aren't two " is the reality that hits you, pow, when the stunning uniqueness/ distinctness and the nondifferentiated suchness aren't even two aspects of the same experience. So, it isn't differentiation of one experience, nor different experiences of the same suchness ... >That kind of language poses as a vehicle but functions more like a barrier. Only if that's how it works for you. If I am the only barrier I face, then language taken as a barrier reveals to me, my own imposition on experience, in the form of " mind " ... >That's my story and I'm sticking to it, at least until I read your reply. :-) Ah, another Colin said that, the one on Saturday Night? And, yes! One should stick to one's story, because sticking to someone else's story just doesn't work ... :-) -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 15, 2002 Report Share Posted April 15, 2002 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Monday, April 15, 2002 3:30 PM Re: FW Colin wrote:(snipped)... what is interesting about anything is the thing in itself, its particularity, not its contingent transparency to the 'not two' domainless domain. Dan replied:Its particularity is its transparency...(snipped) Colin replies: Thank you for that. A majestic insight! best, Colin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.