Guest guest Posted January 19, 2004 Report Share Posted January 19, 2004 Part I What I would like to say to you cannot be *understood*. Imagine all the pieces being taken from the board. Imagine the board being taken away. Now imagine your imagination of this being taken away. Now imagine anything you could imagine in its place being taken away. What I would like to say to you cannot be imagined. There is not-a-thing but it is not nothingness. Part II Regarding the above, I think it is not an " insight " . It pertains to a change in the very nature of the brain's processing. Hence it cannot be *conveyed*. What brings about the change in the brain's processing is unknown, and perhaps always must be unknown. What is called " gradual enlightenment " is a series of " insights " , of epiphanies leading to the brink of the deep change in the brain's processing. What is called " sudden enlightenment " is the change in the brain's processing. When speaking is from the changed brain, the speaking is not in reference ot an idea. The speaking is global in origin. The speaking does not taper back to a center of origination. If there is a " center of origination " out of which the speaking arises, that center of origination is an " ownership " . Such " centers of origination " , such ownerships can be very subtle. There may be no words, just a sense of preference or attraction. All such ownerships, such predilections, are distractions, are biases. In the end all must die, must fade away. Their value, less than empty, is negative. It is the end of these " strange attractors " that leaves the field open for " global movement " , that sweeps unattached. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 19, 2004 Report Share Posted January 19, 2004 > Regarding the above, I think it is not an > " insight " . It pertains to a change in the very > nature of the brain's processing. Hence it cannot > be *conveyed*. What brings about the change in the > brain's processing is unknown, and perhaps always > must be unknown. What is called " gradual > enlightenment " is a series of " insights " , of > epiphanies leading to the brink of the deep change > in the brain's processing. What is called " sudden > enlightenment " is the change in the brain's > processing. > > When speaking is from the changed brain, the > speaking is not in reference ot an idea. The > speaking is global in origin. The speaking does > not taper back to a center of origination. > > If there is a " center of origination " out of which > the speaking arises, that center of origination is > an " ownership " . Such " centers of origination " , > such ownerships can be very subtle. There may be > no words, just a sense of preference or > attraction. > > All such ownerships, such predilections, are > distractions, are biases. In the end all must die, > must fade away. Their value, less than empty, is > negative. > > It is the end of these " strange attractors " that > leaves the field open for " global movement " , that > sweeps unattached. > > > > Bill Enjoyed your well-spoken comments, Bill. Liked your interplay of gradual and sudden. What is timeless is too " fast " to even be sudden. This already always is the case, timelessly such. Not just a changed brain, a transformed universe. Nothing is coming from any point of origin, never was. The only thing that has changed is " my assumptions. " Changed by dying. The rest is .... this unspeakable suchness ... -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 20, 2004 Report Share Posted January 20, 2004 That's really great Dan, I think from now on I will throw my stones into your garden. Werner Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > What is timeless is too " fast " to even be > sudden. > > This already always is the case, timelessly such. > > Not just a changed brain, a transformed universe. > > Nothing is coming from any point of origin, never > was. > > The only thing that has changed is " my assumptions. " > > Changed by dying. > > The rest is .... this unspeakable suchness ... > > > -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 20, 2004 Report Share Posted January 20, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > That's really great Dan, > > I think from now on I will throw my stones into your garden. > > Werner Cool, Werner. How's your aim? Rock on, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 20, 2004 Report Share Posted January 20, 2004 > Liked your interplay of gradual and sudden. The old wierd knotty connundrum of gradual vs. sudden suddenly wasn't connundrum anymore. A feeling of aaaahhhh.... > This already always is the case, timelessly such. Yes, the " transition " isn't a change really... Like taking some distorting lenses off one's eyes... except one doesn't *take* them off... they just fall off. Nothing has changed, it only appears different. And yet it is not only appearance either. Experience actually changes. But perhaps we can call experience " appearance " . Really it is. Of course one knotty connundrum ever and always gives way only to another. > Nothing is coming from any point of origin, never > was. > > The only thing that has changed is " my assumptions. " And yet... ever round and round it goes... as there never were any assumptions either, nor anyone that had them... as you know... The assumptions were just mists... evanescent... only appearance... And the " appearances " ... just mists... evanescent... never real... round and round it goes... > Changed by dying. And we might wonder what dies... but perhaps it is just our wondering that must die... there was never anything there anyway... all that ever *persisted* was our wondering about it. > The rest is .... this unspeakable suchness ... and even this... misleading isn't it? those words can imply that " suchness " has a savor... that one can " experience " it... no such thing as experiencing suchness... it really is... as you say... unspeakable. Bill > > Bill > > Enjoyed your well-spoken comments, Bill. > > Liked your interplay of gradual and sudden. > > What is timeless is too " fast " to even be > sudden. > > This already always is the case, timelessly such. > > Not just a changed brain, a transformed universe. > > Nothing is coming from any point of origin, never > was. > > The only thing that has changed is " my assumptions. " > > Changed by dying. > > The rest is .... this unspeakable suchness ... > > > -- Dan > - " dan330033 " <dan330033 <Nisargadatta > Monday, January 19, 2004 4:27 PM Re: What I Would Like to Say to You, Part II > > Regarding the above, I think it is not an > > " insight " . It pertains to a change in the very > > nature of the brain's processing. Hence it cannot > > be *conveyed*. What brings about the change in the > > brain's processing is unknown, and perhaps always > > must be unknown. What is called " gradual > > enlightenment " is a series of " insights " , of > > epiphanies leading to the brink of the deep change > > in the brain's processing. What is called " sudden > > enlightenment " is the change in the brain's > > processing. > > > > When speaking is from the changed brain, the > > speaking is not in reference ot an idea. The > > speaking is global in origin. The speaking does > > not taper back to a center of origination. > > > > If there is a " center of origination " out of which > > the speaking arises, that center of origination is > > an " ownership " . Such " centers of origination " , > > such ownerships can be very subtle. There may be > > no words, just a sense of preference or > > attraction. > > > > All such ownerships, such predilections, are > > distractions, are biases. In the end all must die, > > must fade away. Their value, less than empty, is > > negative. > > > > It is the end of these " strange attractors " that > > leaves the field open for " global movement " , that > > sweeps unattached. > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2004 Report Share Posted January 21, 2004 > > > The rest is .... this unspeakable suchness ... > and even this... misleading isn't it? > those words can imply that " suchness " has a savor... > that one can " experience " it... > > no such thing as experiencing suchness... > > it really is... as you say... > unspeakable. > Bill Hi Bill, P: Let's see If we can clarify the above a bit. Can we even mention something no one has ever experienced? So when it's said " no such thing as experiencing suchness " aren't we really only saying 'no such thing as knowing suchness' without excluding that some apperception, some derivate sense of suchnes could be reflected in consciousness? What suchness is, certainly, can't not be put in words, but the mere fact we are discussing it here is an indication that some people get an inkling of 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.