Guest guest Posted January 16, 2005 Report Share Posted January 16, 2005 Dear Sandy: It seems my reconciling is not done yet, but I feel a fervor growing in me for this new role as peacemaker. Peace must reign supreme between you and Lewis, even if I have to kill you both. ) Well, let's see below: Sandy: " ,.....there is not whit of existential reality to either of the appearing manifested biological objects. " P: What is existential reality? How can it be defined in a non circular way? If we look up 'real' in a dictionary the definition that'defines' it the most is: " that which have independent objective existence. " Notice it can't be defined without referring to existence. So how is existence defined? Yes, you guess it, Reality as opposed to appearance. b) reality as represented in experience. c) the totality of existent things. d) the state of having being, specially, indepent of consciousness and as contrasted with nonexistence. Well, you get the drift, it's a semantical revolving door. Of course, we all have a sense of what it means beyond the words. It's as Saint Agustine said about time: " I know what it means, but if you ask me; then, I don't know. " We can't really talk about the real, or about existence. And if we do, we can only hope to convey its perfume: The real is that which is apperceived as being sufficient in itself, that in which no need, want or movement arises, that which apperceives itself as endless and empty, yet completely present, and containing all things. If apperception is there those words exhale the fragrance of the real, without it, they could be just words. So, in that perfume no thing is unreal. A mirage is as real as a rock. All things are the behavior of the real, and partake of its reality. Unreality is another word for misinterpretation. When someone says something is unreal, it only points to a misconception. True, there are no unicorns galloping around, but horses are real, and horns are real. So a unicorn, although an imaginary being, was fashioned with elements taken from reality. Something wholly unreal, nonexistent can't be conceived or imagined. So biological object are real, they are the behavior of the real. Deluded biological objects are real. They are the behavior of the real. Delusion is real, it's the behavior of the real. The Real has no preference for apperception, or delusion. Both are its lela. ----------- S: " And I am suggesting Pete.......that so long for a " realized-a " .....there still exists un-realized- " b " , " c " , " d " .... .....no awakening has taken place. " P: Not so at all. This would be equating realization with a particular Hindu concept. Innumerable Muslins, Christians, and Jews have realized the real and had no such concept. They still held such concepts as individual souls in need of salvation. Realization has nothing to do with religious or philosophical concepts, and could happen despite them. There is no infallible, specific method to trigger realization, and it doesn't obey any specific rules. S: " Now to the immediate question " Why say this to Pete " , when Pete has no existential reality.. ...Like signatures of flowing waters,.. .....In the eruption of this very saying..... ......There is none to have said..... And none to have been said-to. " P: Sorry, Sandy, the above is just poetry. Intellectual pastry full of sugar and carbs. You were collecting money for the victims of the sismic tragedy. If you really believed this people were dream characters you would have kept drinking your tea and smoking your cigar. But your heart knows better than your head. By the way, I was going to send you a contribution, but unbeknown to me my wife had already contributed. The husband is always the last to know, you know. ) Anyway all for the best, she is the generous one in the family. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying what you wrote is not true, it is, in a partial way. I just think I say it better. ) -------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 16, 2005 Report Share Posted January 16, 2005 - Pedsie2 nisargadatta Sunday, January 16, 2005 10:20 PM Sandy's Existential Reality Dear Sandy: It seems my reconciling is not done yet, but I feel a fervor growing in me for this new role as peacemaker. Peace must reign supreme between you and Lewis, even if I have to kill you both. ) ------- Who or what is Lewis? -------------- Well, let's see below: Sandy: " ,.....there is not whit of existential reality to either of the appearing manifested biological objects. " P: What is existential reality? How can it be defined in a non circular way? If we look up 'real' in a dictionary the definition that'defines' it the most is: " that which have independent objective existence. " Notice it can't be defined without referring to existence. So how is existence defined? Yes, you guess it, Reality as opposed to appearance. b) reality as represented in experience. c) the totality of existent things. d) the state of having being, specially, indepent of consciousness and as contrasted with nonexistence. Well, you get the drift, it's a semantical revolving door. ------- All semantic definitions are just that, Pete. It has to take something as the standard, relative to which something else is defined. --------- Of course, we all have a sense of what it means beyond the words. It's as Saint Agustine said about time: " I know what it means, but if you ask me; then, I don't know. " We can't really talk about the real, or about existence. And if we do, we can only hope to convey its perfume: The real is that which is apperceived as being sufficient in itself, that in which no need, want or movement arises, that which apperceives itself as endless and empty, yet completely present, and containing all things. If apperception is there those words exhale the fragrance of the real, without it, they could be just words. So, in that perfume no thing is unreal. A mirage is as real as a rock. All things are the behavior of the real, and partake of its reality. Unreality is another word for misinterpretation. When someone says something is unreal, it only points to a misconception. True, there are no unicorns galloping around, but horses are real, and horns are real. So a unicorn, although an imaginary being, was fashioned with elements taken from reality. Something wholly unreal, nonexistent can't be conceived or imagined. So biological object are real, they are the behavior of the real. Deluded biological objects are real. They are the behavior of the real. Delusion is real, it's the behavior of the real. The Real has no preference for apperception, or delusion. Both are its lela. ----------- Whatever you say Pete. -------- S: " And I am suggesting Pete.......that so long for a " realized-a " .....there still exists un-realized- " b " , " c " , " d " .... ...no awakening has taken place. " P: Not so at all. This would be equating realization with a particular Hindu concept. ---------- No it is not. --------- Innumerable Muslins, Christians, and Jews have realized the real and had no such concept. They still held such concepts as individual souls in need of salvation. Realization has nothing to do with religious or philosophical concepts, and could happen despite them. There is no infallible, specific method to trigger realization, and it doesn't obey any specific rules. -------- Apperception is not a realization, and nothing to do with Hindu/Muslim/Christian. Apperception is just another term pointing to the absence of even the concept of apperception..... ....AND.... the absence of that absence. --------- S: " Now to the immediate question " Why say this to Pete " , when Pete has no existential reality.. .Like signatures of flowing waters,.. ...In the eruption of this very saying..... ....There is none to have said..... And none to have been said-to. " P: Sorry, Sandy, the above is just poetry. Intellectual pastry full of sugar and carbs. You were collecting money for the victims of the sismic tragedy. If you really believed this people were dream characters you would have kept drinking your tea and smoking your cigar. But your heart knows better than your head. -------- There is not a whit of contradiction between the pointing and the actions that you refer to, Pete.:-) As to the contribution....no issue Pete.....all rivers flow to the Ocean. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2005 Report Share Posted January 17, 2005 Nisargadatta , " sandeep " <sandeepc@b...> wrote: > > - > Pedsie2@a... > nisargadatta > Sunday, January 16, 2005 10:20 PM > Sandy's Existential Reality > > > Dear Sandy: > > It seems my reconciling is not done yet, but I feel a fervor growing > in me for this new role as peacemaker. Peace must reign supreme > between you and Lewis, even if I have to kill you both. ) > ------- > > Who or what is Lewis? > > > -------------- > > Well, let's see below: > > Sandy: " ,.....there is not whit > of existential reality to either of the appearing manifested biological > objects. " > > > P: What is existential reality? How can it be defined in a non circular > way? > > If we look up 'real' in a dictionary the definition that'defines' it the > most is: > " that which have independent objective existence. " Notice it can't be defined > > without referring to existence. So how is existence defined? Yes, you guess > it, > Reality as opposed to appearance. b) reality as represented in experience. > c) > the totality of existent things. d) the state of having being, specially, > indepent of consciousness and as contrasted with nonexistence. Well, you get > the drift, it's a semantical revolving door. > > ------- > > All semantic definitions are just that, Pete. > > It has to take something as the standard, relative to which something else is defined. > > > > --------- Of course, we all have a sense of what it means beyond the words. It's as > Saint Agustine said about time: " I know what it means, but if you ask me; > then, I don't know. " > > We can't really talk about the real, or about existence. And if we > do, we can only hope to convey its perfume: > > The real is that which is apperceived as being sufficient in itself, that > in which no need, want or movement arises, that which apperceives itself > as endless and empty, yet completely present, and containing all things. > If apperception is there those words exhale the fragrance of the real, > without it, they could be just words. > > So, in that perfume no thing is unreal. A mirage is as real as a rock. > All things are the behavior of the real, and partake of its reality. > Unreality is another word for misinterpretation. When someone says > something is unreal, it only points to a misconception. True, there are > no unicorns galloping around, but horses are real, and horns are real. > So a unicorn, although an imaginary being, was fashioned with elements > taken from reality. Something wholly unreal, nonexistent can't be > conceived or imagined. So biological object are real, they are > the behavior of the real. Deluded biological objects are real. They > are the behavior of the real. Delusion is real, it's the behavior > of the real. The Real has no preference for apperception, or > delusion. Both are its lela. > > > ----------- > > Whatever you say Pete. > > > > > -------- > > > > S: " And I am suggesting Pete.......that so long for a " realized-a " .....there > still > exists un-realized- " b " , " c " , " d " .... > > ...no awakening has taken place. " > > P: Not so at all. This would be equating realization with a particular Hindu > concept. > > > ---------- > > > No it is not. > > --------- > > > > Innumerable Muslins, Christians, and > Jews have realized the real and had no such concept. They still held > such concepts as individual souls in need of salvation. Realization > has nothing to do with religious or philosophical concepts, and could > happen despite them. There is no infallible, specific method to trigger > realization, and it doesn't obey any specific rules. > > > -------- > > Apperception is not a realization, and nothing to do with Hindu/Muslim/Christian. > > > Apperception is just another term pointing to the absence of even the concept of apperception..... > > ....AND.... the absence of that absence. > > > > --------- > > > > > > S: " Now to the immediate question " Why say this to Pete " , when Pete has no > existential reality.. > > .Like signatures of flowing waters,.. > > > ...In the eruption of this very saying..... > > ....There is none to have said..... > > And none to have been said-to. " > > P: Sorry, Sandy, the above is just poetry. Intellectual pastry full > of sugar and carbs. You were collecting money for the victims of > the sismic tragedy. If you really believed this people were dream > characters > you would have kept drinking your tea and smoking your cigar. But your > heart knows better than your head. > > > -------- > > > > > There is not a whit of contradiction between the pointing and the actions that you refer to, Pete.:-) > > > > As to the contribution....no issue Pete.....all rivers flow to the Ocean. Pete, there is no need to make peace. Just see things as they could be seen if we change or remove a foundational assumption from the conversations had in this forum. As an exercise, let's take away Buddha's and Nagarjuna's foundational assumption so that we can see their views for what they are. Then we can take ours away and see what we are. Assumption one. There is an ultimate reality, a what is. Neither Buddha nor Nagarjuna hold in any way that there is only no-thingness or non-existence. Emptiness, sunyata, does not indicate pure non-existence. There is only the argument and philosophy that there is no relation at all between " what is " and language and concept. This argument and analytics that support are exquisite and powerful but in the end is nothing as it says it is, it is self-dissolving, that is Buddhism of the Nagarjuna variety dissolves itself. What is left is its purpose to lead people to an experience, to sunyata, and, once experienced, this is the end of it, as it closes in on itself in experience. This assumption, there is a what is, is only that, a mere assumption. There is no need to posit a reality of any sort, ultimate or conventional or what have you. Take away this assumption and the whole edifice of Buddhism that rests on it collapses. Buddhism becomes nothing but a mound of clever talk, a play of words, a manipulation of the linguistic and conceptual inadequacies of the human species and the dullness of the human intellect. It becomes nothing more than a mission taken up by succeeding generations of believers and practioners to lead people to sunyata, nirvana, liberation and the like to do as they do to finish off as they do. We can witness this. Who started this dullard's notion that there is a reality of any kind that needs to be understood? Reality is a cultural construct and Buddha and Nagarjuna fell for it and were blinded by it, trying to deal with in the ways that they did. Any one can see that there is no such thing as reality of any kind and there is only experience variously undergone and interpreted and misinterpreted as Pete said. Misinterpretation, misconstrual has nothing to do with a truth and falsehood or real and unreal, but action that is incongruous with the conditions of the appearances however it is experienced in changing contexts of appearances. Experience needs no assumption because assumptions and assuming are experiencing. What is experiencing? To ask that question means you are a blithering idiot for the answer is in the asking itself (experience) in the doing (experience) No secret. No mystification. All things are in experience and so there is no real or unreal, and so there are no illusions or delusions. There is only experiences of one sort or another construed or misconstrued in various ways as we do. To say that Pete or any appearance has no existential reality in this context is the statement of a being unable to construe appearances as they are. So instead of acknowledging the experience of Pete through the internet in this forum as it is, as he appears in his words and repsonses, there is a ludicrous expression of Pete's total lack of existential reality. Attachment, attachment to assumptions, philosophies, perspectives, money this and that and so on is the problematic in human experience and experience in this is a better master and teacher than any philosophy or master could ever be. So we can look to our assumptions to see if we are attached to them and how they make us speak and do construe and miscontrue and whether or not that can be let go so we use them rather than allow attachments to them have us do as they dictate in their way. Now control of your television set is returned to you and you are no longer in the outer limits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2005 Report Share Posted January 17, 2005 Nisargadatta , " sandeep " <sandeepc@b...> wrote: > > - > Pedsie2@a... > nisargadatta > Sunday, January 16, 2005 10:20 PM > Sandy's Existential Reality > > > Dear Sandy: > > It seems my reconciling is not done yet, but I feel a fervor growing > in me for this new role as peacemaker. Peace must reign supreme > between you and Lewis, even if I have to kill you both. ) > ------- > > Who or what is Lewis? Sandeep, if nonseparation were of the nature that this question suggests, it would render verbal communication meaningless. Lewis is the one you - Sandeep - have been talking to. (and please, don't ask me to define " you " .) nonseparation is an interesting thing indeed. on the one hand, there is the knowledge that you are not separate from anyone else. on the other hand, you can see A and B talking to each other, sometimes even arguing. (let's say, for the the sake of argument, that A and B know about nonseparation) obviously, there are levels of communication - and there are levels on which personal boundaries are useful. for example, when addressing another poster on a list, or when paying your taxes. so many people run around the net posing the question " who am i? " to others. this looks kind of stupid to me, and as communication it's just a dodge and betrays these people's insecurity. i think the question " who am i? " is to be posed to yourself, not to others, and to me it's the only question worth asking. everything else is verbal communication, like on a net list. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2005 Report Share Posted January 17, 2005 In a message dated 1/16/05 3:35:52 PM, lbb10 writes: Dear Lewis: > >Pete, there is no need to make peace. Just see things as they could be > seen if we change or remove a foundational assumption from the > >conversations had in this forum. > P: I was joking, Lewis, couldn't care less if you two (dirty old birds) peck your philosophical eyes out. Sandeep and Dan's messages could use a little dusting, they have become by now, their worse imitators. No doubt, newcomers could still find them " illuminating " > > > > > > >This assumption, there is a what is, is only that, a mere assumption. > There is no need to posit a reality of any sort, ultimate or > >conventional or what have you. > P: You are back to your advance high wire trickery, you old pigeon! Is not the statement above, also an assumption on your part? And one that falls flat on its face because without " a what is " of some sort, it is obvious, assumptions could not be made. > > >Take away this assumption and the whole edifice of Buddhism that rests > >on it collapses. Buddhism becomes nothing but a mound of clever talk, > >a play of words, a manipulation of the linguistic and conceptual > >inadequacies of the human species and the dullness of the human > >intellect. It becomes nothing more than a mission taken up by > >succeeding generations of believers and practitioners to lead people to > >sunyata, nirvana, liberation and the like to do as they do to finish > >off as they do. We can witness this. > LOL, Lewis, I expected better from you, my dear. You made the mistake of setting the bar to high for yourself. And now, we expect flawless reasoning from you, not any old pigeon shit. I'm not defending Buddhism here. It doesn't need my defense. It has survived for 2600 years, and it will survive your opinion, I am sure. But I must, cordially, point out that no religion rest on one assumption or dogma. Religions are very complex extructures resting on many diverse pillars. Dogma is but one of them, and it's the weakest, no doubt, sometimes hindering more than supporting. Buddhism, is a very complex liberation system, which uses philosophy, a very crafty psychological know-how, ritual, and meditations practices. It's a bombardment of the mind and senses. Its methods and dictums appeal not only to intellect, but to subconscious and unconscious levels of the psyche. No one single method is infallible, Lewis, Sitting like a statue in meditation for hour could do it, dancing like a top could do it, a nonsensical statement like: " Emptiness itself is empty " could do it, a blow to the head could do it. What did it for you, Lewis? Do you know? Did deconstruction by itself do it? Can you say for sure? I certainly can't! My advise to anyone, try everything. Let not stone unturned. > > >Any one can see that there is no such thing as reality of any kind and > there is only experience variously undergone and interpreted and > >misinterpreted > > >All things are in experience and so there is no real or unreal, and so > there are no illusions or delusions. There is only experiences of one > >sort or another construed or misconstrued in various ways as we do. > P: Dear me, Lewis, playing a phil shell game? Putting labels inside of nutshells and moving them around? " Guess where reality is now, ladies, and gents, and you'll win Liberation! No sorry! It's experience under this shell. You lost! " What difference does it make to name " what obviously is going on " reality or experience? Have you accomplish anything by such parlor tricks? To say there is no real or unreal violates your precious tretalemma, i, but go ahead, who cares, rape her, she might enjoy it because nonsensical statements could work too! Something is going on Lewis! What that something is, no one knows. Labels don't clarify the matter, that you know. We must strip all labels, all explanations and rest naked against the raw material of life, Like a newborn against his mother's breast. That's all! Maybe that's what you were trying to say. Just because we are full of milk, is no reason to kill the cow. 'Others' need their calcium too. You still my favorite pigeon, thou. Burp! ) Baby Pete. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2005 Report Share Posted January 17, 2005 In a message dated 1/17/05 9:38:04 AM, cptc writes: > That.......that assumption that there is a " we " ...is the caldron out of > which whole dream > materializes...... > > " You " don't " have it " Pete...Lewis doesn't " have it " ...Sandeep doesn't > " have it " . > > > > No body " has it " ! > > t. > > P : is it not your statement that there is no 'we' and assumption? If you think of it, Toom, all knowledge, all thoughts are based on assumption. So the only thing to do is to rate assumptions according to the fruits they bear. Some bring suffering, others bring great benefits, others are completely useless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2005 Report Share Posted January 17, 2005 Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > In a message dated 1/16/05 3:35:52 PM, lbb10@c... writes: > > Dear Lewis: > > > >Pete, there is no need to make peace. Just see things as they could be > > seen if we change or remove a foundational assumption from the > > >conversations had in this forum. > > > P: I was joking, Lewis, couldn't care less if you two (dirty old birds) > peck your philosophical eyes out. Sandeep and Dan's messages > could use a little dusting, they have become by now, their > worse imitators. No doubt, newcomers could still find them > " illuminating " > > > > > > > > > > > > >This assumption, there is a what is, is only that, a mere assumption. > > There is no need to posit a reality of any sort, ultimate or > > >conventional or what have you. > > > P: You are back to your advance high wire trickery, you old pigeon! > Is not the statement above, also an assumption on your part? > And one that falls flat on its face because without " a what is " of > some sort, it is obvious, assumptions could not be made. > > > > >Take away this assumption and the whole edifice of Buddhism that rests > > >on it collapses. Buddhism becomes nothing but a mound of clever talk, > > >a play of words, a manipulation of the linguistic and conceptual > > >inadequacies of the human species and the dullness of the human > > >intellect. It becomes nothing more than a mission taken up by > > >succeeding generations of believers and practitioners to lead people to > > >sunyata, nirvana, liberation and the like to do as they do to finish > > >off as they do. We can witness this. > > > LOL, Lewis, I expected better from you, my dear. You made the mistake > of setting the bar to high for yourself. And now, we expect flawless > reasoning from you, not any old pigeon shit. > > I'm not defending Buddhism here. It doesn't need my defense. > It has survived for 2600 years, and it will survive your opinion, > I am sure. But I must, cordially, point out that no religion > rest on one assumption or dogma. Religions are very complex > extructures resting on many diverse pillars. Dogma is but one > of them, and it's the weakest, no doubt, sometimes hindering > more than supporting. > > Buddhism, is a very complex liberation system, which uses > philosophy, a very crafty psychological know-how, ritual, > and meditations practices. It's a bombardment of the > mind and senses. Its methods and dictums appeal not > only to intellect, but to subconscious and unconscious > levels of the psyche. No one single method is infallible, > Lewis, Sitting like a statue in meditation for hour could > do it, dancing like a top could do it, a nonsensical statement > like: " Emptiness itself is empty " could do it, a blow to > the head could do it. What did it for you, Lewis? Do you > know? Did deconstruction by itself do it? Can you say > for sure? I certainly can't! My advise to anyone, try > everything. Let not stone unturned. > > > > >Any one can see that there is no such thing as reality of any kind and > > there is only experience variously undergone and interpreted and > > >misinterpreted > > > > >All things are in experience and so there is no real or unreal, and so > > there are no illusions or delusions. There is only experiences of one > > >sort or another construed or misconstrued in various ways as we do. > > > P: Dear me, Lewis, playing a phil shell game? Putting labels inside of > nutshells and moving them around? " Guess where reality is now, > ladies, and gents, and you'll win Liberation! No sorry! It's experience > under this shell. You lost! " > > What difference does it make to name " what obviously is going on " > reality or experience? Have you accomplish anything by such parlor > tricks? > > To say there is no real or unreal violates your precious tretalemma, > i, but go ahead, who cares, rape her, she might enjoy it because > nonsensical statements could work too! > > Something is going on Lewis! What that something is, no one knows. > Labels don't clarify the matter, that you know. We must strip all > labels, That.......that assumption that there is a " we " ...is the caldron out of which whole dream materializes...... " You " don't " have it " Pete...Lewis doesn't " have it " ...Sandeep doesn't " have it " . No body " has it " ! t. all explanations and rest naked against the raw material of life, > Like a newborn against his mother's breast. That's all! Maybe that's > what you were trying to say. Just because we are full of milk, is > no reason to kill the cow. 'Others' need their calcium too. > > You still my favorite pigeon, thou. > > Burp! ) > > Baby Pete. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2005 Report Share Posted January 17, 2005 > " You " don't " have it " Pete...Lewis doesn't " have it " ...Sandeep doesn't " have it " . > > > > No body " has it " ! .....Toombaru´s divine Phallus ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2005 Report Share Posted January 17, 2005 Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > In a message dated 1/17/05 9:38:04 AM, cptc@w... writes: > > > > That.......that assumption that there is a " we " ...is the caldron out of > > which whole dream > > materializes...... > > > > " You " don't " have it " Pete...Lewis doesn't " have it " ...Sandeep doesn't > > " have it " . > > > > > > > > No body " has it " ! > > > > t. > > > > > > P : is it not your statement that there is no 'we' > and assumption? > If you think of it, Toom, all knowledge, all thoughts > are based on assumption. So the only thing to do > is to rate assumptions according to the fruits they > bear. Bear fruit...which I assume is some form of benifit...for whom? Some bring suffering, others bring great benefits, > others are completely useless. All assumptions concerning things immaterial bring suffering........ All assumptions concerning things immaterial....are useless. t. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2005 Report Share Posted January 17, 2005 L: > And there it is. Rest naked (having no.....) against the raw material of >life (more or less), however that is experienced, and do as you do from there. But you cannot stay there naked and resting can you? You will catch a death of a cold. There are things to do. You have to experience well to properly understand Samsara as it is. Uncle Nagarjuna would like >that. Hey do I see something attached there? Oh, just kidding, Not. I am... P: Yes, we must return to the market place and sell our wares. You, your shell game. I, ( A Zen master once said, he had spent his life selling water by the river) I don't even sell fresh water, I sell secondhand water. Used bathtub water, urinal water, yellow, mellow, with a crisp ammonia bouquet. ) > >But you knew all this. So why did you trick me into saying all this stuff? > P: Cause you didn't say it clearly enough, so old idiots like me, could understand exactly if you were playing a con, or explaining one. Con games are not the only way to make a buck. Besides, you have such silver tongue, you old blabbermouth! > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2005 Report Share Posted January 17, 2005 Pedsie2 wrote: > > In a message dated 1/16/05 3:35:52 PM, lbb10 writes: > > Dear Lewis: > > > >Pete, there is no need to make peace. Just see things as they could be > > seen if we change or remove a foundational assumption from the > > >conversations had in this forum. > > > P: I was joking, Lewis, couldn't care less if you two (dirty old birds) > peck your philosophical eyes out. Sandeep and Dan's messages > could use a little dusting, they have become by now, their > worse imitators. No doubt, newcomers could still find them > " illuminating " I know Pete, since you never touched my assumption. Pulling the leg, Pete, pulling the leg too. > > > > >This assumption, there is a what is, is only that, a mere assumption. > > There is no need to posit a reality of any sort, ultimate or > > >conventional or what have you. > > > P: You are back to your advance high wire trickery, you old pigeon! > Is not the statement above, also an assumption on your part? > And one that falls flat on its face because without " a what is " of > some sort, it is obvious, assumptions could not be made. Of course it is an assumption. It is obvious and that is the point as you know well you crafty devil. It is assuming there is no need to posit a reality of any sort. By doing so Buddha's and Nagarjuna's teachings are revealed in a new light. No longer does one need to think about the teaching that cannot be thought about without being silenced. We are outside it completely. We are not arguing on its ground we you will always lose. How can I do this? By doing it. I do not need permission to assume and there is no falling flat because it is insignificant and of no value except as a heuristic device. No one needs permission to assume and we are unable not to assume. But we are able to move assumptions as it is necessary and if we attached to some over others we are limited by that in whatever way they do in us. I am unable to have these limits. I can assume anything. Buddha and Nagarjuna assumed that all human beings suffer because of their attachments, that is their experience and because others have experienced that, when they hear and read about these teachings they go, Oh yeah, suffering, attachment, liberation, have that, have those, want that and off they go. Shared experience is a great mover is it not? With this bright light you can see that: They determined to liberate people by teaching what they did knowing that the teaching itself was insignificant in light of their soterological goal and teaching so that every question and concept and argument dissipates under the tetralemma and dependent origination until there is realization of that there is absolutely no way to think your self out of Samsara and that all attachments must be let go so that sunyata is realized with a coming back to a now properly understood Samsara which is Nirvana and the sunyata and the whole baggage of the teachings is left behind. Again, we are unable not to assume, Pete. It is a basis of human experience for dealing with appearances, interior and exterior, in experience. We need to know what and how we assume so it is clear how we have come to do and say in local contexts and attachment to assumptions and beliefs and what have has something to do with Samsara not being properly understood. This is the point as you know. > > > > >Take away this assumption and the whole edifice of Buddhism that rests > > >on it collapses. Buddhism becomes nothing but a mound of clever talk, > > >a play of words, a manipulation of the linguistic and conceptual > > >inadequacies of the human species and the dullness of the human > > >intellect. It becomes nothing more than a mission taken up by > > >succeeding generations of believers and practitioners to lead people to > > >sunyata, nirvana, liberation and the like to do as they do to finish > > >off as they do. We can witness this. > > > LOL, Lewis, I expected better from you, my dear. You made the mistake > of setting the bar to high for yourself. And now, we expect flawless > reasoning from you, not any old pigeon shit. Forget that Pete. No reasoning needed. Shock stuff only. Experience it to see if you are attached to that stuff and see how tightly the cords are bound. Ask Buddha and Nagarjuna, they will tell you no different. > > I'm not defending Buddhism here. It doesn't need my defense. > It has survived for 2600 years, and it will survive your opinion, > I am sure. But I must, cordially, point out that no religion > rest on one assumption or dogma. Religions are very complex > extructures resting on many diverse pillars. Dogma is but one > of them, and it's the weakest, no doubt, sometimes hindering > more than supporting Yes, But the point is not to discuss the large scale complications and articulations of Buddhism through time and space. Plenty of people have done that. What we are working on here is a specific philosophy that emerged from Buddha's teaching by Nagarjuna, which has been variously misconstrued and presented awkwardly. .. > > Buddhism, is a very complex liberation system, which uses > philosophy, a very crafty psychological know-how, ritual, > and meditations practices. It's a bombardment of the > mind and senses. Its methods and dictums appeal not > only to intellect, but to subconscious and unconscious > levels of the psyche. No one single method is infallible, > Lewis, Sitting like a statue in meditation for hour could > do it, dancing like a top could do it, a nonsensical statement > like: " Emptiness itself is empty " could do it, a blow to > the head could do it. No one is challenging the merit of Buddhism or its practices or promoting or destroying it. People eat and drink what they like and digest as they are capable. I have no particular method or thesis ax to grind, as you know. A monkey mentor could work as I have expressed before. What did it for you, Lewis? Do you > know? Did deconstruction by itself do it? Can you say > for sure? I certainly can't! My advise to anyone, try > everything. Let not stone unturned. Did what for me, Pete. Make me the case that I am, doing the sort of things done here? Experiences help. You know getting trapped in your own thought and then getting out easily and the hard way caught by others, tripping over self-centeredness and ego, weaving justifications and rationalizations to defend beliefs held, protecting me and the turf I earned and sweated to obtain and ..... and then having them all one by one mercilessly obliterated, in one way or another, and suffering the death that comes with that more than once because it is hard to keep a dull and stupid man down, fasting, praying, meditating, mind discipline practices, studying at the university, experiencing Western and Eastern traditions by practicing them wholeheartedly for more than 30 years, having those ineffable mystical experiences of many kinds and varieties, cross racial, cross cultural,international experiences with others in head on collisions and cooperation, suffering from disillusionment, failure, humiliation, anxiety, experiencing fear, the fear of death, facing death, overcoming the fear of death, falling out, going in, ups and downs, kids and family and friends, making a living, problems and joys..... stuff like that. Hard experiences helps to shake it out. That's why I am here, to get shaken out as much as possible. Never practiced deconstruction, though, as a method. Learned well about it in the university. > > > > >Any one can see that there is no such thing as reality of any kind and > > there is only experience variously undergone and interpreted and > > >misinterpreted > > > > >All things are in experience and so there is no real or unreal, and so > > there are no illusions or delusions. There is only experiences of one > > >sort or another construed or misconstrued in various ways as we do. > > > P: Dear me, Lewis, playing a phil shell game? Putting labels inside of > nutshells and moving them around? " Guess where reality is now, > ladies, and gents, and you'll win Liberation! No sorry! It's experience > under this shell. You lost! " That is the way it is, Pete. We are playing in a shell game as long as we see it that way, that is, as long as we are unable to shift fluidly from one set of assumptions to another, assuming all that is entailed so that it is understood from the inside out not just the by intellect. Intellect alone is how con men in this sort of game (nondual philosophy and so on) make their success and keep the marks coming. The con men put one thing under one shell and know where it is, say, reality, and under the other two shells, experience. Then the con man moves them around and around in the way that they do so that you will never win. Then the shills who pretend to play are asked by the con man to pick the shell with reality under it. They do so and win but not every time. The mark is now interested and primed and wants to play to gain something for nothing, a good calculated guess. He thinks he can win. Around and around they go and the con man asks the mark where is reality. The mark points to the shell he thinks is right and up pops experience. He tries again and again the same thing happens. 'Hey, you must be cheating, " the mark says, " I can't lose always. " The con man smiles and says " Sorry you guessed wrong. " He lets the shills win and so the mark tries again. And over and over again the mark loses until he fully realizes he has been conned. And he will never play that game again, one that he could not possibly win. He is awakened to the facts of life and sees it as it is, what he was. This is Buddha's game and Nagarjuna is the main con man. Now if you have seen this con on the street and you know it is a con, would you play? No, because you know you cannot win. So you stay away. That leaves you safe, but you do not know how it was done or why. There is something uneasy about that, not knowing well. But if you watch close enough or ask the con man how he does it then you will learn what is required to understand the whole game and its parts, its goal and its hoped for outcomes. Then you can be the con man if it is required. Buddha and Nagarjuna have done just this sort of con and all the shills are right here. So I watched the game of shifting one thing to another, " You have a self you say. but that is concept, because there is no-self, there is no one " invoking privately the tetralemma and dependent origination and all that. " There are people but there are none because, nothing ever happened. " Is this not a con of the same sort but run badly? Run it well so its beauty, its remarkable ability to create futility in thought and attachment to thought in experience is vividly displayed. I am not running a con game. I am telling you about the con game. If one cannot see it then, then you will never trust the con man and his shills and will keep safe distance in your own version of reality or experience or you will get conned again and again and perhaps brought into the lower level of shillery. I am saying there is no fear of the con man, especially one that is seemingly harmless and Buddha and his fast hand man Nagarjuna who have only the best of intentions in my experience. > > What difference does it make to name " what obviously is going on " > reality or experience? Have you accomplish anything by such parlor > tricks? No trick. You either see it or you don't. It is laid out in plain sight. As Nagarjuna succinctly said, " Ultimately, Nirvana is Samasara properly understood. " > > To say there is no real or unreal violates your precious tretalemma, > i, but go ahead, who cares, rape her, she might enjoy it because > nonsensical statements could work too! No, it does not. I am using the tetralemma and dependent origination against to disappear notions of reality and unreality to end Buddhist teachings as Nagarjuna intended. You can take it to the concept of experience and the same result happens but you cannot empty experience as undergone. Therefore, Nagarjuna never touches experience as phenomena. Only interpretations of experiences as found in language and concept. To make his philosophy so that it did not end in no-thingness, Nagarjuna left a bit of " something " that is empty. That he had to do or else the whole thing wouldn't work, it would end in an absolute non-existence which would make it " nihilistic " which would be hopeless and meaningless. By having that bit of something in sunyata, there is hope to get to it. That is the lure. I take that " something " out by saying that is Buddha's and Nagarjuna's assumption, there is no proof of it, they simply assert it and set up the logic for its existence and its total inaccessibility by language and concept. But, there is no need for me to buy this stuff. The logic never allows me to win. I see this game and so determine to get to the bottom of it as I did. Nagarjuna does not hide this. It is the users of this philosophy who do not see it. And that is why there is a lot of blithering talk. This philosophy is exquisite if understood and used properly. Nagarjuna disappears Buddha and its teachings and practices, all of it. This is the beauty of it. It is self-dissolving solvent. Those people who adhere to the teachings and practices are attached to the intellectual aspects of the philosophy and to the idea of non-attachment and in doing so mistake the teachings as having some importance when they are insignificant for the purpose they were created. They were created so that no one, no one, can ever guess (make an explanation of) what shell reality is under so that you give up attachment to thought and all that goes with it. So some play this con as unwitting shills not understanding what the con is really about and try to ply it poorly on unsuspecting marks. > > Something is going on Lewis! What that something is, no one knows. > Labels don't clarify the matter, that you know. We must strip all > labels, all explanations and rest naked against the raw material of life, > Like a newborn against his mother's breast. That's all! Maybe that's > what you were trying to say. Just because we are full of > milk, is > no reason to kill the cow. 'Others' need their calcium too. No cow killing here my love. My old uncles are close to me, their stories are different and refreshing. Like my other uncles.......... And there it is. Rest naked (having no.....) against the raw material of life (more or less), however that is experienced, and do as you do from there. But you cannot stay there naked and resting can you? You will catch a death of a cold. There are things to do. You have to experience well to properly understand Samsara as it is. Uncle Nagarjuna would like that. Hey do I see something attached there? Oh, just kidding, Not. I am... But you knew all this. So why did you trick me in to saying all this stuff? > > You still my favorite pigeon, thou. > > Burp! ) > > Baby Pete. And you my lovely one. Oh,.... nice burp, my little sweetikins, now you can lay on your back and see everything from that point of view. Lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2005 Report Share Posted January 18, 2005 Pedsie2 wrote: > L: > And there it is. Rest naked (having no.....) against the raw > material of > >life (more or less), however that is experienced, and do as you do from > there. But you cannot stay there naked and resting can you? You will > catch a death of a cold. There are things to do. You have to experience > well to properly understand Samsara as it is. Uncle Nagarjuna would like > >that. Hey do I see something attached there? Oh, just kidding, Not. I > am... > > > P: Yes, we must return to the market place and sell our wares. You, > your shell game. I, ( A Zen master once said, he had spent his life > selling water by the river) I don't even sell fresh water, I sell secondhand > water. Used bathtub water, urinal water, yellow, mellow, with a crisp > ammonia bouquet. ) Well, Peter, I have nothing to sell. Going through Buddha and Nagarjuna was a great learning experience thanks to all here. A truly exquisite philosophy that allowed the letting go of some important attachments to hidden assumptions I held just below awareness and that came to the fore during the reading and writing and studying. Though I have spent time in Buddhism and in certain practices, I did not spend any time with Nagarjuna so this was very good. He took me down a quiet path and told me his plan and it was surprising and thrilling any way that's how I drink people. He is very fierce and he has stymied western philosophers who see him through their assumptions. At least, that's how I read him and his critics. Coming here, I was hoping to get conned by someone. Being conned is a good way to wake up more. I been conned more than once and you get a good mind clearing jolt of, well, whatever you want call it, when new realizations set in. Also, getting roasted is nice. Thanks for allowing me to become a tasty roasted treat for others to munch on as Old Pigeon. > > >But you knew all this. So why did you trick me into saying all this > stuff? > > > P: Cause you didn't say it clearly enough, so old idiots like me, > could understand exactly if you were playing a con, or > explaining one. Con games are not the only way to make a buck. > Besides, you have such silver tongue, you old > blabbermouth! > > It is good to put it out in the open so my imagination does not get the best of me. Blabbermouthing, Lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2005 Report Share Posted January 18, 2005 What a smother and ammonia bouquet! Already problems with incontinence? Change the diapers! ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2005 Report Share Posted January 18, 2005 " dabo_now " <dscasta> Mon Jan 17, 2005 12:06 pm Re: Sandy's Existential Reality Nisargadatta , " sandeep " <sandeepc@b...> wrote: > > - > Pedsie2@a... > nisargadatta > Sunday, January 16, 2005 10:20 PM > Sandy's Existential Reality > > > Dear Sandy: > > It seems my reconciling is not done yet, but I feel a fervor growing > in me for this new role as peacemaker. Peace must reign supreme > between you and Lewis, even if I have to kill you both. ) > ------- > > Who or what is Lewis? Sandeep, if nonseparation were of the nature that this question suggests, it would render verbal communication meaningless. ------- Neither meaningful nor meaningless. And communication whether verbal or otherwise..... happens. As right now. -------- Lewis is the one you - Sandeep - have been talking to. (and please, don't ask me to define " you " .) ----- OK I won't.:-) There is talking. Seems a lot of it on this List, as of lately. As and through the various characters involved. --------- nonseparation is an interesting thing indeed. on the one hand, there is the knowledge that you are not separate from anyone else. on the other hand, you can see A and B talking to each other, sometimes even arguing. (let's say, for the the sake of argument, that A and B know about nonseparation) -------- Indeed, such is the case when either separation or non-separation is held to be a concept........ to be defended or to be negated. The apperception of non-separation.........is the ceasing of the relevance of both separation and non-seperation. At the same time, apperceiving may not be the cessation of functioning........a nuance of which....... is the talking. --------- obviously, there are levels of communication - and there are levels on which personal boundaries are useful. for example, when addressing another poster on a list, or when paying your taxes. -------- Sure. I am before the dreaming, I am during the dreaming.......... being and using the very conventions of the dreaming gestalt..... ...... and I am when the dreaming has ended. --------- so many people run around the net posing the question " who am i? " to others. this looks kind of stupid to me, and as communication it's just a dodge and betrays these people's insecurity. ----- The question, or the self-enquiry brings such a supposition back to.........as " to whom does it appear as a dodge and to whom it seems a betrayal of insecurity " . For whom is there " people " ? (secure or insecure, enlightened, or dumb......being only projections of the prevailing conditioning-in-the moment) ----------- i think the question " who am i? " is to be posed to yourself, not to others, and to me it's the only question worth asking. ------- Fine. -------- everything else is verbal communication, like on a net list. ---- Even the question " who am I " is a communication, arising from the prevailing belief that there is someone separated to ask that very question. The " deeper " question (so to say)........is the wondering.......... to whom is that very quest of who am I...........of relevance? As a nuance of the functioning as the moment.....such a wondering.... may act as a fire which burns and in the process burns itself out as well. The apperception of " who am I " is not an answer, any answer. Including that " it is not an answer, any answer " . The absence of the presence of conceptualizing and the absence of the absence of the presence of conceptualizing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2005 Report Share Posted January 18, 2005 Nisargadatta , " sandeep " <sandeepc@b...> wrote: > > > Even the question " who am I " is a communication, arising from the prevailing belief that there is someone separated to ask that very question. > > The " deeper " question (so to say)........is the wondering.......... to whom is that very quest of who am I...........of relevance? > > > > As a nuance of the functioning as the moment.....such a wondering.... may act as a fire which burns and in the process burns itself out as well. i keep hearing about this fire... thanks for the talk, man. 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.