Guest guest Posted October 1, 2002 Report Share Posted October 1, 2002 Nice selection, Bill ... A good " fit " ... Hey, it almost sounded like he said something there for a second ... Like, " I'm not cognizing myself while I'm cognizing, but I am cognizing that I'm not cognizing the one who's cognizing what's being cognized ... " But, that could never work! That would make that which is noncognizable into a cognizable nonthing that is assumed not to be cognizable, but which yet can be cognized as the one who cognizes ... Nah! Peace, Dan Nisargadatta, " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote: > > Someone who thinks he " knows. " > > > > And, what could be sillier than that? > Dan, > > Your comment reminds me of Wei Wu Wei. > Have you heard of him? His books have > long been out of print (like 30 years). > > Any way, it struck me that you might like > his writing, so I pulled out an old volume. > Here's a pretty random sample: > > Objective existence is phenomenal -- appearance only, > Non-objective existence is unaware of existing, > And it is phenomenally incognisable. > > Objective existence is figuration in mind, > Non-objective existence only 'exists' as such mind, > Cognising everything except what is cognising. > > Objective mind is self-elaboration in space-time, > Non-objective mind, phenomenally void, knows neither. > > By whom is this being said? > By mind atempting to see itself -- and not succeeding. > Why? As space-time 'it' appears as 'void', > Intemporally 'it' cannot cognise what is cognising. > > > -- Wei Wu Wei > Posthumous Pieces > > > -Bill > > > > > > > > dan330033 [dan330033] > > Monday, September 30, 2002 6:20 AM > > Nisargadatta > > Re: Digest Number 639 > > > > > > > > :-) > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > Nisargadatta, " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote: > > > " Who " is to judge? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 1, 2002 Report Share Posted October 1, 2002 > dan330033 [dan330033] > > Nice selection, Bill ... > > A good " fit " ... > > Hey, it almost sounded like he > said something there for a second ... Kinda like you, huh? > Like, " I'm not cognizing myself while I'm > cognizing, but I am cognizing that I'm > not cognizing the one who's cognizing > what's being cognized ... " Now this actually makes sense. Just be careful you don't fall into a state of hyper-cognosis! > > But, that could never work! > > That would make that which is noncognizable > into a cognizable nonthing that is assumed > not to be cognizable, but which > yet can be cognized as the one > who cognizes ... Oops! I didn't give the warning about hyper-cognosis soon enough. -Bill 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.