Guest guest Posted August 23, 2002 Report Share Posted August 23, 2002 Hur! You said: "all there is, is Totality" (which is supposed to be wrong) why is that not ok, what is wrong with that statement? fox - hurg Nisargadatta Friday, August 23, 2002 8:51 AM all there is, is Totality some people get hooked on advaita because they imagine that the fleeting glimpse of the nondual awareness they have experienced, the mysterious grace is GOD.. though it may just be a mental state, a neurological disorder where the sense of self (the little self, ego), sense of doership malfunctioned and didn't kick in the way it was designed to do so. god is the anon, unknown causes, the uncertainty, the sum of all personal love and fear. god is the other, the big daddy who's always watching the paranoid mind. the difference between myths and thinking is that myths tell you the magic plug in figure for all the uncertain formulations is GOD...thinking says for example, the cause is water, consciousness, or ice cream. greeks thought sea storms were caused by the sea god. you can say the cause is water, wind, ice cream and even advaitans' almighty Consciousness and all these answers may turn out to be wrong but it's better than saying "all there is, is Totaliy." it's as redundant as saying "every formula equals its Total." yeah, duh. the people who say "all there is, is god" and worship the persona of the existence, their facial expressions will quickly turn sour when "god" in another format says no to them. people who cling on to these sort of delusions, very often their personal lives are a mess but they'll keep on telling you "all there is, is god" till they're blu in the face. why is that? why is it that they have this need? in turkish there is a very cruel saying. "the hungry chicken will imagine itself in a cereal warehouse." is religion a mental illness or a therapy for mental illness? i have no idea but it's madness.why am i saying all this? if you're programmed to believe in god, enjoy sex, you'll continue to do so and why should you stop anyway if it pleases you? please excuse me but it's also my program at this stage of my life to enjoy questioning these sort of things.hur Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 23, 2002 Report Share Posted August 23, 2002 Nisargadatta, " fox " <feel@f...> wrote: > Hur! > > You said: " all there is, is Totality " (which is supposed to be wrong) > > why is that not ok, what is wrong with that statement? > > fox To whom is the statement addressed -- someone who is not totality, who needs to know that all there is, is totality? But, how could that be? If there is someone outside of totality, who needs to know about it, then it's not totality. Does totality tell itself, " I am totality " ? How would it gain the sense of itself being totality? As compared with what -- partiality? But, if there is partiality apart from totality, then totality is less than total. It's not just that the statement is redundant, because redundancy can be a way of pointing. It's that the statement necessarily dissolves its own " being state-able " as it is understood. All suffering results from the belief/experience that " something has its own existence, apart. " That belief/experience receive instruction by various kinds of teachings, from simple to complex, from stupid to clever. But, the dissolution of the sense/belief that there is any such thing as " existing apart " doesn't come from any teaching. How could it? A teaching, being taken in and ingested, infers someone taking it in, and something apart from the ingestor, which provided the teaching. One can say that totality never separated in any way, regardless of any contrary beliefs or apparent experiences. But to whom is this being said? Namaste, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 24, 2002 Report Share Posted August 24, 2002 hi fox, there is nothing wrong with the statement " all there is, is Totality. " I think you need to read the entire post to see what i mean. Have you noticed how some of the new age believers use the impersonal words such as Totality, Universe, Existence etc in a very similar way they used to use the word God? Once the principle " all there is, is Totality " is established, then comes the personal relationship with Totality, they pray to Universe, they are annoyed by Existence. Although there is nothing wrong with any of this, my post was about the madness of being human which is a very personal experience. Hur Nisargadatta, " fox " <feel@f...> wrote: > Hur! > > You said: " all there is, is Totality " (which is supposed to be wrong) > > why is that not ok, what is wrong with that statement? > > fox > > - > hurg > Nisargadatta > Friday, August 23, 2002 8:51 AM > all there is, is Totality > > > some people get hooked on advaita because they imagine that the > fleeting glimpse of the nondual awareness they have experienced, the > mysterious grace is GOD.. though it may just be a mental state, a > neurological disorder where the sense of self (the little self, ego), > sense of doership malfunctioned and didn't kick in the way it was > designed to do so. > > god is the anon, unknown causes, the uncertainty, the sum of all > personal love and fear. god is the other, the big daddy who's always > watching the paranoid mind. > > the difference between myths and thinking is that myths tell you the > magic plug in figure for all the uncertain formulations is > GOD...thinking says for example, the cause is water, consciousness, > or ice cream. greeks thought sea storms were caused by the sea god. > you can say the cause is water, wind, ice cream and even advaitans' > almighty Consciousness and all these answers may turn out to be wrong > but it's better than saying " all there is, is Totaliy. " it's as > redundant as saying " every formula equals its Total. " yeah, duh. > > the people who say " all there is, is god " and worship the persona of > the existence, their facial expressions will quickly turn sour > when " god " in another format says no to them. people who cling on to > these sort of delusions, very often their personal lives are a mess > but they'll keep on telling you " all there is, is god " till they're > blu in the face. why is that? why is it that they have this need? in > turkish there is a very cruel saying. " the hungry chicken will > imagine itself in a cereal warehouse. " is religion a mental illness > or a therapy for mental illness? i have no idea but it's madness. > > why am i saying all this? if you're programmed to believe in god, > enjoy sex, you'll continue to do so and why should you stop anyway if > it pleases you? please excuse me but it's also my program at this > stage of my life to enjoy questioning these sort of things. > > hur > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 24, 2002 Report Share Posted August 24, 2002 Nisargadatta, " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > Nisargadatta, " fox " <feel@f...> wrote: > > Hur! > > > > You said: " all there is, is Totality " (which is supposed to be > wrong) > > > > why is that not ok, what is wrong with that statement? > > > > fox > > To whom is the statement addressed -- someone > who is not totality, who needs to know > that all there is, is totality? > > But, how could that be? > > If there is someone outside of totality, > who needs to know about it, then it's > not totality. > > Does totality tell itself, " I am totality " ? > > How would it gain the sense of itself being > totality? As compared with what -- partiality? > > But, if there is partiality apart from totality, > then totality is less than total. > > It's not just that the statement is redundant, > because redundancy can be a way of pointing. > > It's that the statement necessarily dissolves > its own " being state-able " as it is understood. > > All suffering results from the belief/experience > that " something has its own existence, apart. " > > That belief/experience receive instruction by > various kinds of teachings, from simple to > complex, from stupid to clever. > > But, the dissolution of the sense/belief that > there is any such thing as " existing apart " > doesn't come from any teaching. > > How could it? > > A teaching, being taken in and ingested, infers > someone taking it in, and something apart from > the ingestor, which provided the teaching. > > One can say that totality never separated in any > way, regardless of any contrary beliefs or > apparent experiences. > > But to whom is this being said? > > Namaste, > Dan ----------------- Yes. This is the same as all this so-called witnessing with the eating of the popcorn that goes on while watching the show. Folks forget to include themselves in as one of the characters in the show. El .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 24, 2002 Report Share Posted August 24, 2002 Nisargadatta, " el_wells_2002 " <elizabethwells@m...> wrote: > Nisargadatta, " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > > Nisargadatta, " fox " <feel@f...> wrote: > > > Hur! > > > > > > You said: " all there is, is Totality " (which is supposed to be > > wrong) > > > > > > why is that not ok, what is wrong with that statement? > > > > > > fox > > > > To whom is the statement addressed -- someone > > who is not totality, who needs to know > > that all there is, is totality? > > > > But, how could that be? > > > > If there is someone outside of totality, > > who needs to know about it, then it's > > not totality. > > > > Does totality tell itself, " I am totality " ? > > > > How would it gain the sense of itself being > > totality? As compared with what -- partiality? > > > > But, if there is partiality apart from totality, > > then totality is less than total. > > > > It's not just that the statement is redundant, > > because redundancy can be a way of pointing. > > > > It's that the statement necessarily dissolves > > its own " being state-able " as it is understood. > > > > All suffering results from the belief/experience > > that " something has its own existence, apart. " > > > > That belief/experience receive instruction by > > various kinds of teachings, from simple to > > complex, from stupid to clever. > > > > But, the dissolution of the sense/belief that > > there is any such thing as " existing apart " > > doesn't come from any teaching. > > > > How could it? > > > > A teaching, being taken in and ingested, infers > > someone taking it in, and something apart from > > the ingestor, which provided the teaching. > > > > One can say that totality never separated in any > > way, regardless of any contrary beliefs or > > apparent experiences. > > > > But to whom is this being said? > > > > Namaste, > > Dan > > ----------------- > > Yes. > > This is the same as all this so-called > witnessing with the eating of the popcorn > that goes on while watching the show. > > Folks forget to include themselves in > as one of the characters in the show. > > > El > > > . Witnessing happens. There is no one witnessing. El .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 25, 2002 Report Share Posted August 25, 2002 > Yes. > > This is the same as all this so-called > witnessing with the eating of the popcorn > that goes on while watching the show. > > Folks forget to include themselves in > as one of the characters in the show. > > > El > > > . Quite so. Maybe they want to imagine there could be somewhere to go. :-) Dan 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.