Guest guest Posted April 26, 2002 Report Share Posted April 26, 2002 I don't remember from where I copied this link... However, thanks to the person who posted it. Very interesting!!! http://www.near-death.com/benedict.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 26, 2002 Report Share Posted April 26, 2002 Nisargadatta, Jan Sultan <swork@m...> wrote: > I don't remember from where I copied this link... > However, thanks to the person who posted it. > > Very interesting!!! > > http://www.near-death.com/benedict.html -------------------------------- Ya, nice dream........ " A " for " effort " . (Are you sure Tim Leary didn't write this?) but ~~~~~ I ~~~~~~~ am neither perceivable to the senses or conceivable to the mind sense. .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 26, 2002 Report Share Posted April 26, 2002 - elizabeth_wells2001 Nisargadatta Friday, April 26, 2002 11:42 AM Re: beautiful near death experience Nisargadatta, Jan Sultan <swork@m...> wrote:> I don't remember from where I copied this link...> However, thanks to the person who posted it.> > Very interesting!!!> > http://www.near-death.com/benedict.html--------------------------------Ya, nice dream........"A" for "effort". (Are you sure Tim Leary didn't write this?)but ~~~~~ I ~~~~~~~ am neither perceivable to the sensesor conceivable to the mind sense.Yet 'Eternity is in love with the productions of time.' Why sour the relationship? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 26, 2002 Report Share Posted April 26, 2002 > -------------------------------- > > Ya, nice dream........ > > " A " for " effort " . > (Are you sure Tim Leary didn't write this?) > > > but ~~~~~ I ~~~~~~~ > am neither perceivable to the senses > or conceivable to the mind sense. > > > . Yup. It's surely something, all the remarkable experiences people have to share about their version of nothing. :-) Reality that can't be made into " a version " won't get anyone an " A " on their paper about " My Great Experience of Reality. " I wonder if this is what the Buddhists mean by being caught by " desire " and " a version " -- probably not! I doubt Gautama would have had the impact he had if he had said, " I am awake. Now let met tell you all about my trip to the Void, and the Nothingness, and what the infinite intelligence of the universe is, blah, blah, blah ... " Maybe why he simply handed a flower to Kashyapa and smiled silently :-) -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 26, 2002 Report Share Posted April 26, 2002 > Yet 'Eternity is in love with the productions of time.' > Why sour the relationship? You mean El's doesn't count as a production of time with which Eternity is in love? Are you sure eternity isn't equally in love with all time and times? As it takes time for something to sour, and as eternity has not time, how could it get soured on anything? How can it have a relationship, when it includes all relationship? Blake didn't quite get it right -- eternity isn't in love with the productions of time -- eternity's love is the production of time ... :-) -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 26, 2002 Report Share Posted April 26, 2002 - dan330033 nisargadatta Friday, April 26, 2002 1:29 PM Re: beautiful near death experience > --------------------------------> > Ya, nice dream........> > "A" for "effort". > (Are you sure Tim Leary didn't write this?)> > > but ~~~~~ I ~~~~~~~ > am neither perceivable to the senses> or conceivable to the mind sense.> > > .Yup.It's surely something, all the remarkable experiences people have to share about their version of nothing.:-)Reality that can't be made into "a version" won't get anyone an "A" on their paper about "My Great Experience of Reality." I wonder if this is what the Buddhists mean by being caught by "desire" and "a version" -- probably not!I doubt Gautama would have had the impact he had if he had said, "I am awake. Now let met tell you all about my trip to the Void, and the Nothingness, and what the infinite intelligence of the universe is, blah, blah, blah ..."Maybe why he simply handed a flower to Kashyapa and smiled silently :-)-- DanIs perception a "version"? Is aversion a "version" - i.e., aversion to the notion of ascribing as much validity to the image as to the imageless? Even the handing of a flower is a "version", especially so if one groks the equatable emptiness of flowers and words. Colin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 26, 2002 Report Share Posted April 26, 2002 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Friday, April 26, 2002 1:35 PM Re: beautiful near death experience > Yet 'Eternity is in love with the productions of time.'> Why sour the relationship?You mean El's doesn't count as a production of time with which Eternity is in love? With the caveat that this may quickly devolve into meaningless wordplay, here goes:Your question addresses a different issue than the one mine raises. Of course eternity is equally in love with all. This has nothing to do with the issue that El's comments tend to always devalue the productions of time. They are not 'loving' towards those productions, but rather tend to dismiss them as dreams, fantasies and non-sequiturs. I know, I know, if they really are dreams, then the loving thing to do is to call them as such, but that brings up what's really bugging me :-)... I would ask you and El, what are the qualities of this ~~~~~~I~~~~~~~~ of whom/which nothing whatever is predicated? The 'neti, neti' approach has always puzzled me and may, I expect, be an obstacle to many others as well, in that it is difficult, for those of us still enarmored of perception, to comprehend what value there may be altogether in the postulation of a stateless state 'I' that has no size, weight, color, duration, experience, perception, friends, relatives, home cooking or continuing narrative. :-) What are the qualities of this that would lead you to recommend it to the deluded? As it takes time for something to sour, and as eternity has not time, how could it get soured on anything? I spoke of the relationship between time and eternity as being soured, not eternity itself. How can it have a relationship, whenit includes all relationship?As it is infinite, it includes the capacity of forming finite relationships. Blake didn't quite get it right -- eternity isn't in love with the productions of time -- eternity's love is the production of time ... Yes! :-)-- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 26, 2002 Report Share Posted April 26, 2002 Dear Dan: Whoah! What a Freudian slip in that last post. I typed "enarmored of perception." :-) Colin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 26, 2002 Report Share Posted April 26, 2002 I doubt Gautama would have had the impact he had if he had said, "I am awake. Now let met tell you all about my trip to the Void, and the Nothingness, and what the infinite intelligence of the universe is, blah, blah, blah ..."Maybe why he simply handed a flower to Kashyapa and smiled silently :-)-- DanAnd then, in his name, arose peaceful Deities, wrathful Deities, Chenrezig, Tara, Amitabha, the Sambhogakaya, the Nirmanakaya, the Dharmakaya, Pure Lands, Buddha Heavens, endless devas, devatas, dakinis, elaborate bardos, six realms and enough "versions" of same to make our friend's near death experience look like a walk in Central Park. Colin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 26, 2002 Report Share Posted April 26, 2002 > Is perception a " version " ? A perception is a version. > Is aversion a " version " - i.e., aversion to the notion of ascribing as much validity to the image as to the imageless? There is no imageless which can be contrasted with images. The imageless you contrast with image is, therefore, an image of imagelessness. > Even the handing of a flower is a " version " , especially so if one groks the equatable emptiness of flowers and words. One doesn't grok emptiness. Emptiness alone is. Kashyapa wasn't trying to convey it. So, he got a flower. :-) Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 26, 2002 Report Share Posted April 26, 2002 > With the caveat that this may quickly devolve into meaningless wordplay, here goes: With that statement, it already has ... :-) > Your question addresses a different issue than the one mine raises. Of course eternity is equally in love with all. Ah. So wordplay is okay after all? (Sigh of relief) :-) > This has nothing to do with the issue that El's comments tend to always devalue the productions of time. Her words are a production of time. They can't use what they are to turn around and devalue what they are, because they already are. >They are not 'loving' towards those productions, but rather tend to dismiss them as dreams, fantasies and non-sequiturs. If her words, as you say, dismiss those productions, then they dismiss themselves. Therefore, they can't dismiss " other " productions, because they dismiss themselves in the process of their own production. (That is, if they are doing what you say they are doing.) >I know, I know, if they really are dreams, then the loving thing to do is to call them as such, but that brings up what's really bugging me :-)... Ah, now we've devolved from meaningless wordplay into a loving dream ... or are these the same? > > I would ask you and El, what are the qualities of this ~~~~~~I~~~~~~~~ of whom/which nothing whatever is predicated? Speaking for myself only, there is no quality, not I, not even the quality of having no quality. So, how then can I speak for myself? Well, don't see anyone else around to speak for me ... :-) The reason that qualities are negated by supposed teachers is only because no quality can exist or be perceived without its opposite. However, this is also true of the quality of being a teacher of " neti, neti " ... To touch something, there must be the toucher, and that which is touched. When there is no touch, there is no dividing line, nothing to be sensed, imparted or learned. There is no quality to that. Dividing lines, thoughts, senses, involve a placement, an emphasis on here apart from there. This has no such emphasis. Sensations appear, thought appears, so this emphasis seems to be there. In reality, appearance appears without any real emphasis taking place. So, in reality, nothing is touched. " The beauty of time is that it's snowing, " Steve Miller Band Well-defined, clear, sequential perceptions and memories occur. No problem. Yet, nothing is. Not a nothing that negates anything. Not a nothing that takes away somethings. >The 'neti, neti' approach has always puzzled me and may, I expect, be an obstacle to many others as well, in that it is difficult, for those of us still enarmored of perception, to comprehend what value there may be altogether in the postulation of a stateless state 'I' that has no size, weight, color, duration, experience, perception, friends, relatives, home cooking or continuing narrative. :-) Yes, the drawback of this approach is that it implies negation. The only thing that's being negated is illusion. But, illusion has no real existence. This being clear, there is nothing that need be negated, anywhere or at any time. The neti, neti approach is illusory. >What are the qualities of this that would lead you to recommend it to the deluded? Infinity is being yourself as you are, sitting quietly at home. Having no qualities, all spaces, times, perceptions are included. > As it takes time for something to sour, > and as eternity has not time, > how could it get soured on anything? > > I spoke of the relationship between time and eternity as being soured, not eternity itself. There is no relationship between eternity and time. Time is eternity's expression of itself to itself. It can't really touch itself, so its expression is emptiness ... > How can it have a relationship, when > it includes all relationship? > > As it is infinite, it includes the capacity of forming finite relationships. What makes them finite, is their relationship with other finite relationships, which are made finite by their relationship with other finite relationships, on and on. An endless regress ... So ... no finite relationship was ever really formed ... > Blake didn't quite get it right -- > eternity isn't in love with > the productions of time -- eternity's love > is the production of time ... > > Yes! Amen! > > :-) :-))))) -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 26, 2002 Report Share Posted April 26, 2002 Nisargadatta, Colin Yardley <yardley@s...> wrote: > Dear Dan: > Whoah! What a Freudian slip in that last post. I typed " enarmored of perception. " :-) > > Colin Excellent! I am enarmored as I perceive you. My armor allows me to live as a perceiving being in an experiential field. Enarmored, I can't be intruded upon or hurt by those I perceive and who perceive me. (Willhelm Reich had a very interesting theory that character, personality is armoring ...) Dearmored, there is no character to perception, yet there is no lack of quality and definition to this empty field ... -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 26, 2002 Report Share Posted April 26, 2002 > And then, in his name, arose peaceful Deities, wrathful Deities, Chenrezig, Tara, Amitabha, the Sambhogakaya, the Nirmanakaya, the Dharmakaya, Pure Lands, Buddha Heavens, endless devas, devatas, dakinis, elaborate bardos, six realms and enough " versions " of same to make our friend's near death experience look like a walk in Central Park. > > Colin I know, I know. I'm holding my sides laughing! -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 26, 2002 Report Share Posted April 26, 2002 dan330033 wrote: > > > Maybe why he simply handed a flower to Kashyapa > and smiled silently :-) > > ****** I heard the guy started holding his sides laughing and then Buddha gave him the flower. :-) -- Happy Days, Judi http://www.users.uniserve.com/~samuel/judi-1.htm TheEndOfTheRopeRanch http://www.livingston.net/allison/sacred01.htm Rev. Helen Hiwater, D.D. ... " Straighten up and bow down! There's nooooo way around it! " 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.