Timeless truth is not having a calm mind, nor is it the property of such a mind

[Guest guest]

Dan,

 

 

 

If you need a mind of a certain type, then you are talking about a conditional

understanding.

 

sk: Yes, that's true. I'm talking about a 'possible' and very individual

prerequisite. Instrospection, meditation, contemplation as tool to calm the

mind. Why not?

 

 

When such a mind is present, then an understanding of the kind you seek, can be

had.

 

 

 

sk: Yes, and I found what I was looking for, a calm mind, nothing more nothing

else.

 

 

 

When such a mind decays, the understanding is lost.

 

 

 

sk: That mind decayed. Now it is just a memory. That conditional 'understanding'

disappeared another came and went away but (I) was suddenly not more so involved

in these dynamics...in these ups and downs.

 

 

 

So, you are talking about a conditional, transitory

kind of understanding, dependent on a certain type of

mind.

 

 

 

 

sk: The calm mind was a prerequisite to be able to forget about a calm mind, so

to say. It was just a tool. No deeper penetration of transcendental things were

intended in my case. I got the recommendation and, I just decide to prove it.

What you write is correct, Dan.

 

 

Timeless truth, of course, is another matter entirely.

 

 

 

sk: not even another matter.

 

 

 

Neither arising nor departing, not conditional, neither

coming into being nor going out of being.

 

 

 

sk: Is this your definition of timeless truth, Dan? The flux of negations is

infinte and includes your abbreviated definition, too. Negations are like to

attempt the quadrature of a circle. A procedure as conditioned as meditation,

not different in its essence.

 

 

Of course, the mind is altogether irrelevant with regards

to this truth. You don't get to possess it in any way,

shape or form.

 

 

 

sk: Indeed.

 

 

 

Naturally, this is not for anyone who needs an " other " to

provide recommendations which they will use to steer their ship, to approximate

what they believe the " other " to have discovered and to be sharing.

 

 

 

sk: Yes, therefore I insist in saying, what was of use for me, doesn't

obligatorily need to be of use for another. It is about calming the mind, not

steering ships or other bigger enterprises. Just that. In fact, the only thing I

can recommend and the only thing I recommend, is, to sit down, to shut up, to

introspect. The " how " isn't so important in my opinion, use a koan, use " who am

I " , use a mantra. Take what you need and leave without hesitation

" one-way-steets " . That's all.

 

 

 

Nor is it for one who desires a certain kind of outcome,

which they then plan to discuss as if they have become " one who has arrived. "

 

 

 

sk: I ignore completely this sort of stupid discussions about the " ones who have

arrived " . Agreed, really ridiculous. But, does it matter?

 

 

Calming the mind is a pursuit for those who want to

experience what having a calm mind is like.

 

 

 

sk: Yes, and that's OK, too.

 

 

Timeless truth is altogther a different sort of beast,

there is no way for you to lay ahold of it.

 

 

 

sk: Indeed and I even don't talk about timeless truths.

 

 

 

a bow to you

 

sk

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hi sk,

 

 

> If you need a mind of a certain type, then you are talking about a

conditional understanding.

>

> sk: Yes, that's true. I'm talking about a 'possible' and very

individual prerequisite. Instrospection, meditation, contemplation as

tool to calm the mind. Why not?

 

Introspection means to look into yourself -- this may not

be calming. Sometimes, shaking things up is a good thing. :-)

 

Being able to keep calm when you want to be calm can also

be a good thing of another sort.

 

Then, there is looking into the whole package of " the one

who wants to be calm, and wants other things at other times,

and what that wanting is all about. "

 

That kind of looking is to understand an entire situation,

usually because there is an awareness that the one who

wants something, moves to get to that desired state,

and the intervening process: involves conflict.

 

You could call this the conflict of wanting to position oneself

in a desired state, which includes the tension between

desired and undesired states of being, and the self.

 

Calming the mind won't result in understanding of this sort,

although it can give a calm mind, which may be desirable,

and an effective strategy in certain situations. Also,

gaining a calm mind may be assisted by medications, such as

serotonin reuptake inhibitors, which tend to have a calming

effect on emotions -- often more calming than meditation

from what I've seen -- at least in some cases.

 

> When such a mind is present, then an understanding of the kind you

seek, can be had.

>

>

>

> sk: Yes, and I found what I was looking for, a calm mind, nothing

more nothing else.

 

That's good. I think it's nice to experience something one

wanted to experience, such as a calm state of being,

or feeling really high, or feeling very energized,

and so on.

 

That one can't always be in the state one would like to

be in, is also an important realization. This is why

the Buddha said life is unsatisfactory. What is wanted

can't be held forever, what isn't wanted can't be avoided

forever. So, resolving this conflict isn't brought about

by learning how to develop a calm mind, either through

meditation or medication.

 

It's interesting that the Buddha recommended " middle-wayed

meditation " although usually people think meditation is

calming the mind. The middle way isn't to be in a calm

state, it is neither attaching to something continuing

(attempting to have permanence)

nor trying to get rid of everything (nihilism).

 

>

> When such a mind decays, the understanding is lost.

>

>

>

> sk: That mind decayed. Now it is just a memory. That

conditional 'understanding' disappeared another came and went away

but (I) was suddenly not more so involved in these dynamics...in

these ups and downs.

 

Okay. Again, that sounds like a good thing, maintaining

a relatively calm state when there are ups and downs.

That relatively calm state isn't permanent, nor is the

one who experiences it. Finding out that this impermanence

reveals the noncontinuing nature of any state or being,

is beyond being able to maintain relative disengagement or

nonivolvement in ups and downs.

 

Maintaining a relatively calm disposition involves continuity,

whereas insight isn't a continuity, nor an annhilation.

 

 

> So, you are talking about a conditional, transitory

> kind of understanding, dependent on a certain type of

> mind.

>

>

>

>

> sk: The calm mind was a prerequisite to be able to forget about a

calm mind, so to say. It was just a tool. No deeper penetration of

transcendental things were intended in my case. I got the

recommendation and, I just decide to prove it. What you write is

correct, Dan.

 

Cool that we're on the same page, sk.

 

> Timeless truth, of course, is another matter entirely.

>

>

>

> sk: not even another matter.

 

Yes, timeless truth that can be discussed, isn't timeless truth.

 

>

> Neither arising nor departing, not conditional, neither

> coming into being nor going out of being.

>

>

>

> sk: Is this your definition of timeless truth, Dan?

 

No -- it's saying how it can't be defined, not what it is

defined as being.

 

> The flux of negations is infinte and includes your abbreviated

definition, too. Negations are like to attempt the quadrature of a

circle. A procedure as conditioned as meditation, not different in

its essence.

 

Negation is just saying where not to attempt to find it.

 

It's not saying that timeless truth is a negative, or is

taking something away that was there.

 

So verbalizations of negation have to be understood

as a means to point to the futility of assertions --

and nothing more.

 

>

>

> Of course, the mind is altogether irrelevant with regards

> to this truth. You don't get to possess it in any way,

> shape or form.

>

>

>

> sk: Indeed.

 

No possessor, therefore nothing to have.

 

No chooser, therefore no option to go into a certain

state, or avoid another state.

 

Certainly, saying these things doesn't give what " this " is --

just a way of throwing assumptions into doubt.

 

>

> Naturally, this is not for anyone who needs an " other " to

> provide recommendations which they will use to steer their ship, to

approximate what they believe the " other " to have discovered and to

be sharing.

>

>

>

> sk: Yes, therefore I insist in saying, what was of use for me,

doesn't obligatorily need to be of use for another. It is about

calming the mind, not steering ships or other bigger enterprises.

Just that. In fact, the only thing I can recommend and the only thing

I recommend, is, to sit down, to shut up, to introspect. The " how "

isn't so important in my opinion, use a koan, use " who am I " , use a

mantra. Take what you need and leave without hesitation " one-way-

steets " . That's all.

 

A sincere inquiry will never be rote, will never be because someone

else said to do it in such and such a way.

 

If I want to get to the bottom of things, really want to be clear,

that is because I realize that my understanding of the way

things are, is a misunderstanding, a misperception.

 

I am clearing me out of my way, which also clears the world

of my previous understanding.

 

That is the only inquiry there is, whatever form it takes.

 

> Nor is it for one who desires a certain kind of outcome,

> which they then plan to discuss as if they have become " one who

has arrived. "

>

>

>

> sk: I ignore completely this sort of stupid discussions about

the " ones who have arrived " . Agreed, really ridiculous. But, does it

matter?

 

Sincerity and nothing to be gained other than " what is " -- which

isn't something that is gained at all.

 

Merely, what can't be done away with, when everything that

can pass, passes away.

 

> Calming the mind is a pursuit for those who want to

> experience what having a calm mind is like.

>

>

>

> sk: Yes, and that's OK, too.

 

Sure! Nothing manifests, that isn't to manifest.

 

>

> Timeless truth is altogther a different sort of beast,

> there is no way for you to lay ahold of it.

>

>

>

> sk: Indeed and I even don't talk about timeless truths.

 

Neither do I. Timeless truth can't be talked.

 

> a bow to you

 

And to you ...

 

-- Dan

[Guest guest]

Hi dan,

 

 

Introspection means to look into yourself -- this may not

be calming. Sometimes, shaking things up is a good thing. :-)

 

 

sk: Yes. That's why I like to use the term introspection. Things can shake up

upon a background of calmness. Meditation, inquire, introspection,

contemplation, recitation, prayer...all of them are OK.

 

 

Then, there is looking into the whole package of " the one

who wants to be calm, and wants other things at other times,

and what that wanting is all about. "

 

 

sk: Exactly. There are thousand ways to come to that point. This " then " , you use

here, connotes a kind of progress in something. What was before this " then " ,

Dan? Someone didn't look into the whole package, and then, suddenly someone did

it, asking him/herself what that wanting was all about. How maturity,

emanicipation happens, is often, a question of logistics on an individual level,

so to say. Fundamentalisms would be absurd. The erection of dogmatisms

ridiculous. Fingers pointing to something are, in my opinion, applicable

concepts. A work has to be done and nobody can do this work for another. That,

what someone realizes pointing to one-self, in this or that way or this or that

manner, is more relevant than all that, what someone can try to find in

questions and answers of others, in scriptures or books. But, sure, a certain

maturity is needed to stop expecting things, even from oneself.

 

 

That kind of looking is to understand an entire situation,

usually because there is an awareness that the one who

wants something, moves to get to that desired state,

and the intervening process: involves conflict.

 

 

sk: A conflict appears a the moment someone pronounce silently or articulates or

apprehends the concept, conflict, in a context. Yes, there is a conflict, where

you see a conflict and, where is this " where " ? In your head, Dan, or not?

 

 

You could call this the conflict of wanting to position oneself

in a desired state, which includes the tension between

desired and undesired states of being, and the self.

 

 

sk: as said, a conflict appears wherever you like to see one...and, yes, it is

the self, who dsicriminates between desired and undesired and the tension

appears in that construct, called self. You can learn to forget about the

states, but the states of being would not forget about you...like the Lacanian

story of the man on the island, who forgot why he resides on an lonley island

but, the island didn't forget about him. Conflicts can remain, once perceived

and apparently forgotten, on a subconscious level and make you act (think) in

this or that way, write this or that things in lists for example. You can

enquire things which show up on the field of your kognitive consciousness but

you would hardly go deeper on the " socratic way " . A calm mind is in my opinion a

prerequisite for going a little deeper and that doesn't really mean you will get

more calm by going deeper. Things can became really shaky and that's why

sometimes a good teacher can have the same goldvalue as a good dentist.

 

 

 

Calming the mind won't result in understanding of this sort,

although it can give a calm mind, which may be desirable,

and an effective strategy in certain situations. Also,

gaining a calm mind may be assisted by medications, such as

serotonin reuptake inhibitors, which tend to have a calming

effect on emotions -- often more calming than meditation

from what I've seen -- at least in some cases.

 

 

sk: Ha! Reach me the doobie, old pothead! ;-)

 

 

 

That's good. I think it's nice to experience something one

wanted to experience, such as a calm state of being,

or feeling really high, or feeling very energized,

and so on.

 

 

 

sk: inhaling deep...1,2,3,4 and...exhaling. Oh my goodness!

 

 

That one can't always be in the state one would like to

be in, is also an important realization.

 

 

sk: Indeed. A bow to you for this insight!

 

 

This is why the Buddha said life is unsatisfactory. What is wanted isn't be

held forever, what isn't wanted can't be avoided

forever. So, resolving this conflict isn't brought about

by learning how to develop a calm mind, either through

meditation or medication.

 

 

sk: The Buddha teached that life is suffering and he teached the (a way, a path)

end of suffering, too. I would say that means quiet a little bit more than just

a remedy for " insatisfaction " or conflicts between the desired and achieved.

Conflicts or contradictory situations are a part of this suffering, Buddha

described, as well as situations of extasy, even calmness, feelings of

satisfaction are in its essence, dukkha, suffering, too. And that is not so far

away of that what the " beedies-dude " teached, too.

 

 

It's interesting that the Buddha recommended " middle-wayed

meditation " although usually people think meditation is

calming the mind.

 

 

sk: Perhaps that's what people usually think and, you and me know it better ;-)

 

 

The middle way isn't to be in a calm state, it is neither attaching to something

continuing (attempting to have permanence) nor trying to get rid of everything

(nihilism).

 

 

sk: Yes, that's why it's called the middle way.

 

 

That mind decayed. Now it is just a memory. That

conditional 'understanding' disappeared another came and went away but (I) was

suddenly not more so involved in these dynamics...in these ups and downs.

 

Okay. Again, that sounds like a good thing, maintaining

a relatively calm state when there are ups and downs.

 

 

sk: This is (can be) a kind of side-effect of the praxis of meditation. I think,

Dan, you are mature enough to know about the advantages of calmness in what ever

you do. A discussion about that would be ridiculous.

 

 

That relatively calm state isn't permanent, nor is the

one who experiences it.

 

 

sk: To know that is to stay calm.

 

 

 

Finding out that this impermanence reveals the noncontinuing nature of any state

or being, is beyond being able to maintain relative disengagement or

nonivolvement in ups and downs.

 

 

sk: Yes. What did you get finding this out apart of insight? Be sincere,

sweetie!

 

 

Maintaining a relatively calm disposition involves continuity,

whereas insight isn't a continuity, nor an annhilation.

 

 

sk: You are talking about insight and calmness as they were antithetic concepts.

Why? Even insights appear and disappear, change. People who don't accept that

become often fanatics, dogmatics, fundamentalists, phony gurus...imbecils and

cretins, at least.

 

 

So, you are talking about a conditional, transitory

kind of understanding, dependent on a certain type of

mind.

 

 

 

sk: The calm mind was a prerequisite to be able to forget about a calm mind, so

to say. It was just a tool. No deeper penetration of transcendental things were

intended in my case. I got the recommendation and, I just decide to prove it.

What you write is correct, Dan.

 

 

Cool that we're on the same page, sk.

 

 

sk: Yes, cool, but not regarding your " insights " . But, cool down, it isn't a

conflict!

 

 

Timeless truth, of course, is another matter entirely.

 

 

sk: not even another matter.

 

 

Yes, timeless truth that can be discussed, isn't timeless truth.

 

 

sk: Where is the conflict, Dan?

 

 

Neither arising nor departing, not conditional, neither

coming into being nor going out of being.

 

 

sk: Is this your definition of timeless truth, Dan?

 

 

No -- it's saying how it can't be defined, not what it is

defined as being.

 

 

sk: ah! Is this a conflict? I would call this a paragraph 22 conflict (oh my

goodness, where is the conflict now?)

 

 

sk: The flux of negations is infinte and includes your abbreviated definition,

too. Negations are like to attempt the quadrature of a circle. A procedure as

conditioned as meditation, not different in its essence.

 

Negation is just saying where not to attempt to find it.

 

 

sk: Thanks for the hint and that insight, my dear.

 

 

It's not saying that timeless truth is a negative, or is

taking something away that was there.

 

 

sk: We could talk about love, the next time, I mean, the ultimate experience of

love? Would be no different to timelezz truzz.

 

 

So verbalizations of negation have to be understood

as a means to point to the futility of assertions --

and nothing more.

 

 

sk: I agree 100%, Dan, including yours and my verbalisations of insights.

 

 

 

Of course, the mind is altogether irrelevant with regards

to this truth. You don't get to possess it in any way,

shape or form.

 

 

sk: Indeed.

 

 

No possessor, therefore nothing to have.

 

No chooser, therefore no option to go into a certain

state, or avoid another state.

 

 

sk: Including that or this insight, would I say, too, Mr. possessor of insights.

 

 

Certainly, saying these things doesn't give what " this " is --

just a way of throwing assumptions into doubt.

 

 

sk: Are you politician?

 

 

Naturally, this is not for anyone who needs an " other " to

provide recommendations which they will use to steer their ship, to approximate

what they believe the " other " to have discovered and to be sharing.

 

 

 

sk: Yes, therefore I insist in saying, what was of use for me,

doesn't obligatorily need to be of use for another. It is about

calming the mind, not steering ships or other bigger enterprises. Just that. In

fact, the only thing I can recommend and the only thing I recommend, is, to sit

down, to shut up, to introspect. The " how " isn't so important in my opinion, use

a koan, use " who am I " , use a mantra. Take what you need and leave without

hesitation " one-way-streets " . That's all.

 

A sincere inquiry will never be rote, will never be because someone else said to

do it in such and such a way.

 

 

sk: hmmm...how sincere? How sincere can you be with yourself, Dan? Be sincere!

Sometimes we need the " others " .

 

If I want to get to the bottom of things, really want to be clear, that is

because I realize that my understanding of the way things are, is a

misunderstanding, a misperception.

 

 

sk: How did you get to this insight? On an lonely island? I think some guys gave

you some hints. To understand, that you understand nothing is just the departing

point.

 

 

I am clearing me out of my way, which also clears the world

of my previous understanding.

 

 

sk: The island didn't forget the man, who forgot that he was on an island. Who

will clea®n up the world from your momentary understanding, Dan?

 

That is the only inquiry there is, whatever form it takes.

 

sk: Where?

 

Nor is it for one who desires a certain kind of outcome,

which they then plan to discuss as if they have become " one who

has arrived. "

 

 

sk: I ignore completely this sort of stupid discussions about

the " ones who have arrived " . Agreed, really ridiculous. But, does it matter?

 

Sincerity and nothing to be gained other than " what is " -- which

isn't something that is gained at all.

 

 

sk: This sounds like a good thing. Sincerity? Be sincere, if you like, but don't

bother others with " your " sincerity.

 

 

Merely, what can't be done away with, when everything that

can pass, passes away.

 

 

sk: ...smile like a moron, perhaps?

 

 

Calming the mind is a pursuit for those who want to

experience what having a calm mind is like.

 

 

sk: Yes, and that's OK, too.

 

 

Sure! Nothing manifests, that isn't to manifest.

 

 

sk: Again, where, Mr. Island?

 

 

Timeless truth is altogther a different sort of beast,

there is no way for you to lay ahold of it.

 

 

sk: Indeed and I even don't talk about timeless truths.

 

 

Neither do I. Timeless truth can't be talked.

 

 

sk: For someone who don't talk about timeless truths, you use the term very

often.

 

 

cheers,

sk

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hi Sk,

 

> Then, there is looking into the whole package of " the one

> who wants to be calm, and wants other things at other times,

> and what that wanting is all about. "

>

>

> sk: Exactly. There are thousand ways to come to that point.

This " then " , you use here, connotes a kind of progress in something.

 

No, it's just a byproduct of communicating in words.

 

> What was before this " then " , Dan?

 

What isn't a product of time, nor thought, Sk?

 

Nothing that's going to be described here :-)

 

> Someone didn't look into the whole package, and then, suddenly

someone did it, asking him/herself what that wanting was all about.

How maturity, emanicipation happens, is often, a question of

logistics on an individual level, so to say. Fundamentalisms would be

absurd. The erection of dogmatisms ridiculous.

 

I'd call it a nonoutcome, therefore not involving a process.

 

All affirmatives, posulations, beliefs, presuppositions dissolve.

 

Along with them, time and the observer which is the carrying

forward of time.

 

Their dissolution isn't the removal of something that had

existed.

 

Existence and nonexistence are exposed as inferential,

and relative to opinions and preferences of an assumed

observer - assumed to exist rather than not exist, and

therefore able to experience events in time, as existing

and then nonexisting, or as present and then nonpresent.

 

> Fingers pointing to something are, in my opinion, applicable

concepts. A work has to be done and nobody can do this work for

another.

 

The work is now not work upon something nor to get somewhere.

 

So, this " now " is itself " the work " which isn't something that

is done.

 

Thus, all is thrown into upheaval, without any movement taking

place.

 

>That, what someone realizes pointing to one-self, in this or that

way or this or that manner, is more relevant than all that, what

someone can try to find in questions and answers of others, in

scriptures or books. But, sure, a certain maturity is needed to stop

expecting things, even from oneself.

 

The maturity is simply the relinquishment of illusions.

 

The holding to illusion is the child's way to deal with

insecurity.

 

Maturity doesn't develop from childishness (not the maturity

we're discussing here) -- it's what is, when the attempt

to cling to belief is not.

 

> That kind of looking is to understand an entire situation,

> usually because there is an awareness that the one who

> wants something, moves to get to that desired state,

> and the intervening process: involves conflict.

>

>

> sk: A conflict appears a the moment someone pronounce silently or

articulates or apprehends the concept, conflict, in a context. Yes,

there is a conflict, where you see a conflict and, where is

this " where " ? In your head, Dan, or not?

 

Where is my head, Sk?

 

Locating anything as really existing, is conflict.

 

The conflict of focusing on something there, which is

opposed to whatever will make it not be there.

 

Whether that something is considered as body, feeling,

mind, thought -- it amounts to the same.

 

Until existence vs. nonexistence isn't one's situation.

 

And " until " is a verbal convention, not a statement that

something is being developed over time :-)

 

snip

 

> That relatively calm state isn't permanent, nor is the

> one who experiences it.

>

>

> sk: To know that is to stay calm.

 

It's not to stay, nor to leave.

 

Nonpermanence is not to carry oneself forward,

as self, nor as state.

 

> Finding out that this impermanence reveals the noncontinuing nature

of any state or being, is beyond being able to maintain relative

disengagement or nonivolvement in ups and downs.

>

>

> sk: Yes. What did you get finding this out apart of insight? Be

sincere, sweetie!

 

Okay.

 

I didn't get anything at all.

 

The I that was the wanting to get somewhere, was

exposed for what it is.

 

Nothing continues, nothing needs to be maintained,

and nothing is left behind.

 

To say this affirmatively: that's life -- movin' on ...

 

life undivided, with no separable ones to get something.

 

 

> Maintaining a relatively calm disposition involves continuity,

> whereas insight isn't a continuity, nor an annhilation.

>

>

> sk: You are talking about insight and calmness as they were

antithetic concepts. Why? Even insights appear and disappear, change.

 

I like calmness, too, Sk. And when there is a moment that isn't

calm, that arises and dissolves just the same way as

any other moment.

 

That's why I'm saying it this way.

 

The insight that doesn't arise or depart, certainly won't

be said here, won't be experienced by a person, isn't

any more in one place than another.

 

All of our talk comes and goes, nothing we say can give

what doesn't come and go.

 

But we talk, because we're talking human beings.

 

And that arises and dissolves, too, just like everything else :-)

 

snip

 

> So verbalizations of negation have to be understood

> as a means to point to the futility of assertions --

> and nothing more.

>

>

> sk: I agree 100%, Dan, including yours and my verbalisations of

insights.

 

Of course, Sk.

 

> No possessor, therefore nothing to have.

>

> No chooser, therefore no option to go into a certain

> state, or avoid another state.

>

>

> sk: Including that or this insight, would I say, too, Mr. possessor

of insights.

 

Well, that's why the Tao that can be spoken, isn't the true Tao.

 

Also, the Tao that can't be spoken, isn't the true Tao.

 

snip

 

> sk: Are you politician?

 

I'm being as clear as I can. Nothing for me to gain here,

so politics isn't much of a concern.

 

Except to the extent that any human communication, either

as speech or silence, is political.

 

So, for what is truly beyond politics, don't adhere to

any human understanding, and don't try to be somewhere

beyond human -- as that's about as human a thing to

do as anything else.

 

> A sincere inquiry will never be rote, will never be because someone

else said to do it in such and such a way.

 

> sk: hmmm...how sincere? How sincere can you be with yourself, Dan?

Be sincere! Sometimes we need the " others " .

 

This is where that falls apart, Sk.

 

The whole business of self with others, and others with self,

is not taking place here.

 

There's nothing wrong with being a self that needs others,

that just has nothing to do with truth that is undivided.

 

That truth has nothing to get, nothing to which to relate,

isn't trying to survive or stay alive.

 

> If I want to get to the bottom of things, really want to be clear,

that is because I realize that my understanding of the way things

are, is a misunderstanding, a misperception.

>

>

> sk: How did you get to this insight? On an lonely island? I think

some guys gave you some hints. To understand, that you understand

nothing is just the departing point.

 

Getting hints is fine, and having experiences is even finer.

 

Then, there is this which doesn't depend on an experience,

isn't presenting itself over here to this one, and not

over there to that one.

 

And " then " is just a phrase, it doesn't transpire through

a process over time.

 

 

> I am clearing me out of my way, which also clears the world

> of my previous understanding.

>

>

> sk: The island didn't forget the man, who forgot that he was on an

island. Who will clea®n up the world from your momentary

understanding, Dan?

 

If you clear you, me, the world, then the clearing is cleared

of itself.

 

> That is the only inquiry there is, whatever form it takes.

>

> sk: Where?

 

Right where you are.

 

snip

 

> sk: This sounds like a good thing. Sincerity? Be sincere, if you

like, but don't bother others with " your " sincerity.

 

If you're bothered, I suggest looking into what's

bothering you, and not attributing it to something

or someone outside.

 

> Merely, what can't be done away with, when everything that

> can pass, passes away.

>

>

> sk: ...smile like a moron, perhaps?

 

Being judgmental toward those who aren't as smart as you,

just ends up with you being smug.

 

> Calming the mind is a pursuit for those who want to

> experience what having a calm mind is like.

>

>

> sk: Yes, and that's OK, too.

>

>

> Sure! Nothing manifests, that isn't to manifest.

>

>

> sk: Again, where, Mr. Island?

 

No wonder you're bothered, you think you have

to find a where.

 

You think there is an island and someone is on it,

having insights.

 

You're offtrack, but you're very calm about that :-)

 

snip

 

> sk: For someone who don't talk about timeless truths, you use the

term very often.

 

Yes, you're not understanding what I'm saying.

 

Truth isn't the term " truth " - it doesn't

matter what I'm saying, or which words are

used -- if you're able to be clear this moment

as to who you are.

 

If clarity is, then talk is cheap.

 

If clarity is not, no amount of clear talk will

get you to it.

 

> cheers,

 

Cheery cheers, and three beers,

Dan

[Guest guest]

Hi dan,

 

 

Then, there is looking into the whole package of " the one

who wants to be calm, and wants other things at other times,> and what that

wanting is all about. "

 

 

sk: Exactly. There are thousand ways to come to that point. This " then " , you

use here, connotes a kind of progress in something.

 

No, it's just a byproduct of communicating in words.

*sk: the " then " or the whole package you stated?

sk: What was before this " then " , Dan?

 

What isn't a product of time, nor thought, Sk?

 

Nothing that's going to be described here :-)

 

*sk: what are we doing here then?

 

sk: Someone didn't look into the whole package, and then, suddenly someone did

it, asking him/herself what that wanting was all about. How maturity,

emanicipation happens, is often, a question of logistics on an individual level,

so to say. Fundamentalisms would be

absurd. The erection of dogmatisms ridiculous.

 

I'd call it a nonoutcome, therefore not involving a process.

 

*sk: That's what I would call meditation: Nonoutcome, no process, the end of all

questions and answers. Meditation becomes infinite, effortless, spontaneous,

fathomless.

 

 

All affirmatives, posulations, beliefs, presuppositions dissolve.

 

*sk: Yes, or simplier, they loose their relevance. Like a dream does it, when

you wake up.

 

Along with them, time and the observer which is the carrying forward of time.

 

*sk: Dissolve in insignificance but mantain their relative meaning, merely the

functional aspects remain, as rudiments, as tools. The whole package is viewed

including the observer, who is the projector of the whole machinery.

 

 

Their dissolution isn't the removal of something that had

existed.

 

*sk: Certain. I would not even speak neither about dissolution or removal nor

paralellism.

 

 

Existence and nonexistence are exposed as inferential,

and relative to opinions and preferences of an assumed

observer - assumed to exist rather than not exist, and

therefore able to experience events in time, as existing

and then nonexisting, or as present and then nonpresent.

 

*sk: Yes, but even rather assuming to-not-exist than to exist doesn't change or

solve this equation.

 

 

sk: Fingers pointing to something are, in my opinion, applicable concepts. A

work has to be done and nobody can do this work for another.

 

The work is now not work upon something nor to get somewhere.

 

*sk: exactly

 

So, this " now " is itself " the work " which isn't something that is done.

 

*sk: Nice again, a wonderful definition of meditation.

 

Thus, all is thrown into upheaval, without any movement taking place.

 

*sk: MEDITATION, Dogen, zen, classical.

 

sk: That, what someone realizes pointing to one-self, in this or that way or

this or that manner, is more relevant than all that, what someone can try to

find in questions and answers of others, in scriptures or books. But, sure, a

certain maturity is needed to stop expecting things, even from oneself.

 

The maturity is simply the relinquishment of illusions.

 

The holding to illusion is the child's way to deal with

insecurity.

 

*sk: Do you have kids? I would say that's the way teenagers and adults like to

deal with insecurity.

 

 

Maturity doesn't develop from childishness (not the maturity we're discussing

here) -- it's what is, when the attempt to cling to belief is not.

 

*sk: Yes,but that's what I would call emancipation.

 

That kind of looking is to understand an entire situation, usually because there

is an awareness that the one who wants something, moves to get to that desired

state, and the intervening process: involves conflict.

 

 

sk: A conflict appears a the moment someone pronounce silently or articulates or

apprehends the concept, conflict, in a context. Yes, there is a conflict, where

you see a conflict and, where is this " where " ? In your head, Dan, or not?

 

Where is my head, Sk?

 

*sk: right between your ears!

 

Locating anything as really existing, is conflict.

 

*sk: It depends. As I said before, the notion of conflict has to be percieved.

 

 

The conflict of focusing on something there, which is

opposed to whatever will make it not be there.

 

*sk: That constitutes, if a conflictive situation is perceived, a conflict. A

Brasilian Indio would probably perceive an academic library in a diferent form

as we do it. Locating it as existent or, as manifestation in a dreamworld, it

although would have no connotations or others. We see (recognize, apperceive)

often what we know and are nearly blind for the things we do not know. To see

without (previous) knowing is a revelation in some way. This apperception in a

non-dual manner makes it possible to transcendent the borders of our constructed

pseudoreality; to " see " those things we didn't need to know previously. In this

way perceived things are not opposed to what ever will make it not be there.

They have in the instant when they are perceived no contextual involvement, no

" karmical " load. We have perhaps unlearned to " see " , we " see " nearly exclusively

with our cerebro-optical apparatus and, even our illusions and dreams are built

on that, on account of many reasons but, one of

the most important reasons is our socio-cultural indoctrination. But even that

indoctrination has not to constitute a conflict. Meditation is a way to open the

eyes, or, if you like, that " ominius " eye in the forehead.

 

 

snip

 

That relatively calm state isn't permanent, nor is the

one who experiences it.

 

 

sk: To know that is to stay calm.

 

It's not to stay, nor to leave.

 

*sk: agreed

 

Nonpermanence is not to carry oneself forward,

as self, nor as state.

 

*sk: Ok, fine.

 

Finding out that this impermanence reveals the noncontinuing nature of any state

or being, is beyond being able to maintain relative disengagement or

nonivolvement in ups and downs.

 

sk: Yes. What did you get finding this out apart of insight? Be sincere,

sweetie!

 

Okay.

 

I didn't get anything at all.

 

The I that was the wanting to get somewhere, was

exposed for what it is.

 

Nothing continues, nothing needs to be maintained,

and nothing is left behind.

 

To say this affirmatively: that's life -- movin' on ...

 

life undivided, with no separable ones to get something.

 

*sk: That's pretty much, don't you think? Nobody would be able to weigh that in

dollars.

 

Maintaining a relatively calm disposition involves continuity, whereas insight

isn't a continuity, nor an annhilation.

 

 

sk: You are talking about insight and calmness as they were antithetic concepts.

Why? Even insights appear and disappear, change.

 

I like calmness, too, Sk. And when there is a moment that isn't calm, that

arises and dissolves just the same way as any other moment.

 

That's why I'm saying it this way.

 

*sk: Sure, Dan.

 

The insight that doesn't arise or depart, certainly won't

be said here, won't be experienced by a person, isn't

any more in one place than another.

 

*sk: insights arise and depart, like anything else.

 

All of our talk comes and goes, nothing we say can give

what doesn't come and go.

 

But we talk, because we're talking human beings.

 

And that arises and dissolves, too, just like everything else :-)

 

*sk: Amen. To have a little fun is part of the show.

 

 

 

snip

 

So verbalizations of negation have to be understood

as a means to point to the futility of assertions --

and nothing more.

 

 

sk: I agree 100%, Dan, including yours and my verbalisations of insights.

 

Of course, Sk.

 

No possessor, therefore nothing to have.

 

No chooser, therefore no option to go into a certain

state, or avoid another state.

 

 

sk: Including that or this insight, would I say, too, Mr. possessor of insights.

 

Well, that's why the Tao that can be spoken, isn't the true Tao.

 

Also, the Tao that can't be spoken, isn't the true Tao.

 

*sk: I like that!

 

 

 

snip

 

sk: Are you politician?

 

I'm being as clear as I can. Nothing for me to gain here, so politics isn't much

of a concern.

 

Except to the extent that any human communication, either

as speech or silence, is political.

 

*sk: Yes. And I have sometimes the feeling the old Greeks knew more about

politics than the most politicians of today.

 

So, for what is truly beyond politics, don't adhere to

any human understanding, and don't try to be somewhere

beyond human -- as that's about as human a thing to

do as anything else.

 

*sk: Ok I won't try it today but, let me be human from time to time.

 

A sincere inquiry will never be rote, will never be because someone else said to

do it in such and such a way.

 

sk: hmmm...how sincere? How sincere can you be with yourself, Dan? Be sincere!

Sometimes we need the " others " .

 

This is where that falls apart, Sk.

 

*sk: What happened?

 

The whole business of self with others, and others with self, is not taking

place here.

 

*sk: Well, I think yes, when the concept sincerity comes suddenly up.

 

 

There's nothing wrong with being a self that needs others, that just has nothing

to do with truth that is undivided.

 

*sk: But, with sincerity, has it something to do. I don't talk about truths,

neither undivided nor timeless.

 

That truth has nothing to get, nothing to which to relate, isn't trying to

survive or stay alive.

 

*sk: Don't understand this assertion or is it redundant?

 

 

If I want to get to the bottom of things, really want to be clear, that is

because I realize that my understanding of the way things are, is a

misunderstanding, a misperception.

 

 

sk: How did you get to this insight? On an lonely island? I think some guys gave

you some hints. To understand, that you understand nothing is just the departing

point.

 

Getting hints is fine, and having experiences is even finer.

 

Then, there is this which doesn't depend on an experience, isn't presenting

itself over here to this one, and not over there to that one.

 

And " then " is just a phrase, it doesn't transpire through

a process over time.

 

*sk: over space, neither?

 

 

I am clearing me out of my way, which also clears the world of my previous

understanding.

 

 

sk: The island didn't forget the man, who forgot that he was on an island. Who

will clea®n up the world from your momentary understanding, Dan?

 

If you clear you, me, the world, then the clearing is cleared of itself.

 

That is the only inquiry there is, whatever form it takes.

 

sk: Where?

 

Right where you are.

 

*sk: Where am I?

 

 

 

snip

 

 

 

sk: This sounds like a good thing. Sincerity? Be sincere, if you like, but don't

bother others with " your " sincerity.

 

If you're bothered, I suggest looking into what's

bothering you, and not attributing it to something

or someone outside.

 

*sk: You came up with the concept sincerity and I gave you my opinion about

sincerity. If I'm bothered or not is secondarily. Sincerity would be a nice

topic to discuss.

 

 

 

Calming the mind is a pursuit for those who want to

experience what having a calm mind is like.

 

 

sk: Yes, and that's OK, too.

 

 

Sure! Nothing manifests, that isn't to manifest.

 

sk: Again, where, Mr. Island?

 

No wonder you're bothered, you think you have

to find a where.

 

*sk: was a rethorical question. I told you where your head is, do you know now

where nothing manifests, that isn't to manifest?

 

You think there is an island and someone is on it,

having insights.

 

You're offtrack, but you're very calm about that :-)

 

*sk: I'm the east cost of the island and I don't forget about you. Take care

when you walk on me.

 

snip

 

sk: For someone who don't talk about timeless truths, you use the term very

often.

 

Yes, you're not understanding what I'm saying.

 

*sk: I try, at least.

 

Truth isn't the term " truth " - it doesn't

matter what I'm saying, or which words are

used -- if you're able to be clear this moment

as to who you are.

 

If clarity is, then talk is cheap.

 

If clarity is not, no amount of clear talk will

get you to it.

 

*sk: Don't be so dramatic :-)

 

 

 

cheers,

 

sk

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Protect your identity with Mail AddressGuard

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hi Sk --

 

I enjoyed reading your comments.

 

Thanks for sharing your responses with me - much fun!

 

You said a lot, but here's two points I picked up on:

 

Yes, children have illusions.

One illusion is that their parents can be the

authorities for them about what is so,

and that their parents can be counted

on to be there for them, to keep them

safe from harm, to put up with their tantrums

and remain loving.

 

Very important illusions at that time of growth --

illusions because their parents won't always

be there, and don't have the answers for them.

 

But if those illusions are disrupted by too much

violence external to the family, such as a war,

or neglect, abuse, illness, or death,

children's lives will be affected on an ongoing basis.

 

We need our illusions, until we don't.

 

The other point:

 

You asked whether what doesn't require time also

doesn't take place in space.

 

Yes, quite so.

 

Time is space is observation is change/movement.

 

Each implies the other as a situation.

 

Of course, this applies to you repeatedly asking " where? " .

 

" Where " is a function of time/space.

 

To understand that situation as a totality, would include

wheres, and whens, but wouldn't occur in a where,

or at a particular when.

 

So, it doesn't have a beginning at time point a and an

ending at time point b.

 

That is why I was differentiating it from a calm mind,

which becomes calm at point a and may stop being

calm at point b.

 

You also said several times that insight is had by an

insight haver, or words to that effect.

And yes, typically what we talk about as insights

begin at point a, and end at point b -- so are

not the insight into the nature of the situation

as totality, which isn't any event separable from

and as totality.

 

You can say that, therefore, totality isn't an insight,

which is fine, or you can say that insight into totality,

is being totality, which is fine, too, or equally

unfine as neither really gives totality.

 

What it gets down to is that words themselves require time

and space. They are located, they are heard or read,

they register at point a in time, and something else

registers at point b.

 

So words can only ever hint.

 

They can't provide what doesn't start at point a and end

at point b.

 

Yet, this *knowing* or *understanding* or *totality* or

*clarity* or *being aware* or whatever word suits you,

resolves all contradictions occuring within space/time,

as a clash of forces, of awarenesses from different points

of view, of cultures, of wanting to exist vs. what won't

allow that existence to continue.

 

So, we talk about it.

 

And we know that we can't give it or get it in words, nor by actions,

nor by sitting still, nor by doing nothing.

 

Thus, it already always is the case.

 

It is merely clarity that nothing has been added, which could

be taken away -- neither a self nor an object.

 

One could call this seeing beyond the consensus determination

of reality (by thought, words, actions, cultures developed

within time/space) -- yet still participating in the consensus

reality -- such as by communicating here.

 

To be in the world, but not of the world, as the J man said.

 

 

Dan

[Guest guest]

Hi Dan,

 

 

I enjoyed reading your comments.

 

sk: me, too :-)

 

Thanks for sharing your responses with me - much fun!

 

sk: Thanks to you :-)

 

You said a lot, but here's two points I picked up on:

 

Yes, children have illusions.

One illusion is that their parents can be the

authorities for them about what is so,

and that their parents can be counted

on to be there for them, to keep them

safe from harm, to put up with their tantrums

and remain loving.

 

Very important illusions at that time of growth --

illusions because their parents won't always

be there, and don't have the answers for them.

 

But if those illusions are disrupted by too much

violence external to the family, such as a war,

or neglect, abuse, illness, or death,

children's lives will be affected on an ongoing basis.

 

We need our illusions, until we don't.

 

 

 

sk: Sure, Dan. I agree with this perspective. Illusions would be a great topic

to discuss.

 

 

The other point:

 

You asked whether what doesn't require time also

doesn't take place in space.

 

Yes, quite so.

 

Time is space is observation is change/movement.

 

Each implies the other as a situation.

 

Of course, this applies to you repeatedly asking " where? " .

 

" Where " is a function of time/space.

 

To understand that situation as a totality, would include

wheres, and whens, but wouldn't occur in a where,

or at a particular when.

 

So, it doesn't have a beginning at time point a and an

ending at time point b.

 

That is why I was differentiating it from a calm mind,

which becomes calm at point a and may stop being

calm at point b.

 

 

 

sk: As I see this, you were " critisizing " the " when and where " of meditation and

I was trying to point out the " when and wheres " of inquiry or insights gained be

inquiry. Inquiry as well as meditation is a denomination of an activity.

Meditation, in my opinion, points, although being a movement, an activity, to

the opposite of movement. To sit an shut up and only breath can be for many

people a kind of revelation. Inquiry and meditation doesn't exclude one another.

A calm mind can, but, must not, be a byproduct of meditation.

 

 

 

You also said several times that insight is had by an

insight haver, or words to that effect.

And yes, typically what we talk about as insights

begin at point a, and end at point b --

 

 

 

sk: Yes

 

 

 

so are not the insight into the nature of the situation

as totality, which isn't any event separable from

and as totality.

 

 

 

sk: That's the point I don't agree with, because, if you are able to put

something in words, to vest it with concepts you are discribing an experience

you consider an insight of a very special character. And you go further giving

it names, like timeless truth or insight into the nature of the situation as

totality. You are separating something, by pointing to it, which you

coinstantaneously call unseparable and indivisible and call it the result of

insight. Meditation doesn't use words, so to say and, that's the reason why I

point to meditation and not to concepts about " something " I can't explain on a

verbal level. I'm aiming lower, could be opined, but I'm just doing the opposite

of aiming low.

 

 

You can say that, therefore, totality isn't an insight,

which is fine, or you can say that insight into totality,

is being totality, which is fine, too, or equally

unfine as neither really gives totality.

 

 

 

sk: That's the point. But I also don't talk about totalities.

 

 

 

 

What it gets down to is that words themselves require time and space. They are

located, they are heard or read, they register at point a in time, and something

else registers at point b.

 

 

So words can only ever hint.

 

 

 

sk: Yes. That's why I point to meditation and that even, without discriminating

deeper on the concept of meditation.

 

 

 

They can't provide what doesn't start at point a and end

at point b.

 

 

 

sk: Yes.

 

 

 

Yet, this *knowing* or *understanding* or *totality* or

*clarity* or *being aware* or whatever word suits you,

resolves all contradictions occuring within space/time,

as a clash of forces, of awarenesses from different points of view, of cultures,

of wanting to exist vs. what won't allow that existence to continue.

 

 

So, we talk about it.

 

 

 

sk: Yes, a wonderful passtime!

 

 

 

And we know that we can't give it or get it in words, nor by actions, nor by

sitting still, nor by doing nothing.

 

 

 

sk: Yes.

 

 

 

Thus, it already always is the case.

 

It is merely clarity that nothing has been added, which could be taken away --

neither a self nor an object.

 

 

 

sk: Beautiful!

 

 

 

One could call this seeing beyond the consensus determination of reality (by

thought, words, actions, cultures developed within time/space) -- yet still

participating in the consensus reality -- such as by communicating here.

 

 

To be in the world, but not of the world, as the J man said.

 

 

 

A bow to you,

 

sk

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Protect your identity with Mail AddressGuard

 

 

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , skogen <skoggman> wrote:

 

Really guys, great job, concepts don't get much clearer than this.

Skogen this is the finest translation from Dannish to English I ever

seen. What a shame I have to forget all those fine words!

 

Well how about if I try to remember this:

 

" To understand that situation as a totality, would include

> wheres, and whens, but wouldn't occur in a where,

> or at a particular when. "

 

Hmm, Maybe not. What possible use could that have? Oh I know, I'll

try it with the nurse next time I'm late for my doctor's appointment.

 

Seriously, great piece of work. Thanks

 

Pete

 

 

 

 

> Hi Dan,

>

>

> I enjoyed reading your comments.

>

> sk: me, too :-)

>

> Thanks for sharing your responses with me - much fun!

>

> sk: Thanks to you :-)

>

> You said a lot, but here's two points I picked up on:

>

> Yes, children have illusions.

> One illusion is that their parents can be the

> authorities for them about what is so,

> and that their parents can be counted

> on to be there for them, to keep them

> safe from harm, to put up with their tantrums

> and remain loving.

>

> Very important illusions at that time of growth --

> illusions because their parents won't always

> be there, and don't have the answers for them.

>

> But if those illusions are disrupted by too much

> violence external to the family, such as a war,

> or neglect, abuse, illness, or death,

> children's lives will be affected on an ongoing basis.

>

> We need our illusions, until we don't.

>

>

>

> sk: Sure, Dan. I agree with this perspective. Illusions would be a

great topic to discuss.

>

>

> The other point:

>

> You asked whether what doesn't require time also

> doesn't take place in space.

>

> Yes, quite so.

>

> Time is space is observation is change/movement.

>

> Each implies the other as a situation.

>

> Of course, this applies to you repeatedly asking " where? " .

>

> " Where " is a function of time/space.

>

> To understand that situation as a totality, would include

> wheres, and whens, but wouldn't occur in a where,

> or at a particular when.

>

> So, it doesn't have a beginning at time point a and an

> ending at time point b.

>

> That is why I was differentiating it from a calm mind,

> which becomes calm at point a and may stop being

> calm at point b.

>

>

>

> sk: As I see this, you were " critisizing " the " when and where " of

meditation and I was trying to point out the " when and wheres " of

inquiry or insights gained be inquiry. Inquiry as well as meditation

is a denomination of an activity. Meditation, in my opinion, points,

although being a movement, an activity, to the opposite of movement.

To sit an shut up and only breath can be for many people a kind of

revelation. Inquiry and meditation doesn't exclude one another. A

calm mind can, but, must not, be a byproduct of meditation.

>

>

>

> You also said several times that insight is had by an

> insight haver, or words to that effect.

> And yes, typically what we talk about as insights

> begin at point a, and end at point b --

>

>

>

> sk: Yes

>

>

>

> so are not the insight into the nature of the situation

> as totality, which isn't any event separable from

> and as totality.

>

>

>

> sk: That's the point I don't agree with, because, if you are able

to put something in words, to vest it with concepts you are

discribing an experience you consider an insight of a very special

character. And you go further giving it names, like timeless truth or

insight into the nature of the situation as totality. You are

separating something, by pointing to it, which you coinstantaneously

call unseparable and indivisible and call it the result of insight.

Meditation doesn't use words, so to say and, that's the reason why I

point to meditation and not to concepts about " something " I can't

explain on a verbal level. I'm aiming lower, could be opined, but I'm

just doing the opposite of aiming low.

>

>

> You can say that, therefore, totality isn't an insight,

> which is fine, or you can say that insight into totality,

> is being totality, which is fine, too, or equally

> unfine as neither really gives totality.

>

>

>

> sk: That's the point. But I also don't talk about totalities.

>

>

>

>

> What it gets down to is that words themselves require time and

space. They are located, they are heard or read, they register at

point a in time, and something else registers at point b.

>

>

> So words can only ever hint.

>

>

>

> sk: Yes. That's why I point to meditation and that even, without

discriminating deeper on the concept of meditation.

>

>

>

> They can't provide what doesn't start at point a and end

> at point b.

>

>

>

> sk: Yes.

>

>

>

> Yet, this *knowing* or *understanding* or *totality* or

> *clarity* or *being aware* or whatever word suits you,

> resolves all contradictions occuring within space/time,

> as a clash of forces, of awarenesses from different points of view,

of cultures, of wanting to exist vs. what won't allow that existence

to continue.

>

>

> So, we talk about it.

>

>

>

> sk: Yes, a wonderful passtime!

>

>

>

> And we know that we can't give it or get it in words, nor by

actions, nor by sitting still, nor by doing nothing.

>

>

>

> sk: Yes.

>

>

>

> Thus, it already always is the case.

>

> It is merely clarity that nothing has been added, which could be

taken away -- neither a self nor an object.

>

>

>

> sk: Beautiful!

>

>

>

> One could call this seeing beyond the consensus determination of

reality (by thought, words, actions, cultures developed within

time/space) -- yet still participating in the consensus reality --

such as by communicating here.

>

>

> To be in the world, but not of the world, as the J man said.

>

>

>

> A bow to you,

>

> sk

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Protect your identity with Mail AddressGuard

>

>

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " seesaw1us " <seesaw1us>

wrote:

> Nisargadatta , skogen <skoggman> wrote:

>

> Really guys, great job, concepts don't get much clearer than this.

> Skogen this is the finest translation from Dannish to English I

ever

> seen. What a shame I have to forget all those fine words!

>

> Well how about if I try to remember this:

>

> " To understand that situation as a totality, would include

> > wheres, and whens, but wouldn't occur in a where,

> > or at a particular when. "

>

> Hmm, Maybe not. What possible use could that have? Oh I know, I'll

> try it with the nurse next time I'm late for my doctor's

appointment.

>

> Seriously, great piece of work. Thanks

>

> Pete

>

 

it does look a little tricky but from becket's perspective:

" To understand that the absurdity of a situation as a totality

includes the necessity of wheres, and the complexity of whens, but

wouldn't occur in an undefined where, or at a particularly odd

when... would require feelings. "

eric