Guest guest Posted January 17, 2005 Report Share Posted January 17, 2005 A commentary on the Mahayamavimsaka of Nagarjuna at: http://www.the-covenant.net/commentaries-section.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2005 Report Share Posted January 17, 2005 sandeep wrote: > > > > > A commentary on the Mahayamavimsaka of Nagarjuna at: > > > > > http://www.the-covenant.net/commentaries-section.htm Drink this Sandeep and rest for thirty minutes: The axis of the commentary depends on " that Which IS " and " sunyatta. " " That which is " and " sunyatta " are assumptions and concepts, are constructs used by Buddha and Nagarjuna, consciously or not, for a purpose. There is no " that which is, " or an ultimate reality nor is there " sunyatta " except that conceived and experienced in the mind. The tetralemma and dependent origination make it so. If there is no " that which is, " an ultimate reality, or " sunyatta, " then all of the commentary is word play for a soteriological purpose at best, and insanity and stultifying mystification at worst and further: The commentary also is a great misconstrual of Nagarjuna who would have had the head of the commentator. Nagarjuna would admit upon direct questioning that, " Yes, it is a sham and trickery, a manipulation of mind to get these people to drop all their attachments, their assumptions. It is hocus pocus, mumbo jumbo with a clear purpose, liberation. That is our goal. That's what we do. This is a way to do it. All this stuff ain't worth a thing except for that. " " We know that attachment is the problem of humanity, that is way we made it, so we could get everyone to drop their attachments, including these guys who are attached to Buddha's teachings and all those other concept-based teachings in existence that they have reified and made into altars where they worship or to use as a means to personal power over the minds of others and security and rightness in their hidden selves they think they don't have while miserably failing in taking that which we prescribe for their illness. " " All these teachings are disposable devices to get people to learn to live without attachment to all the stuff in their experience. You would think that after this effort and all the centuries past they would awaken by throwing off their attachments and then see the sham and trickery and be free of it. No, they do as they do as they are, attached and blinded by their attachment to unfounded assumptions, by their own rightness and insecurities. The whole thing is a crock and they never seem to be able to get their fill and blindly pass it around to others. " Wake up Sandeep. You and the commentator have been had by your beliefs. The whole thing is a sham. Always has been and so it will be as it is. Defend it, promote it and you simply demonstrate what Buddha and Nagarjuna spent their lives trying to overcome. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Phenomena are just the objective expression of " that which IS. " Knowing it is an illusion, fully participate in it, if that is what comes up, fully withdraw, when that comes up. Nothing to reject, nothing to accept. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Nothing ever happened, yet " that which-is, IS. " ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The term " sunya " has been much misunderstood to mean " dead nothingness " . Since nothing has ever happened, a conceptual terminology used is sunyatta, but a sunyatta of total potentiality. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2005 Report Share Posted January 17, 2005 Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > sandeep wrote: > > > > > > > > > > A commentary on the Mahayamavimsaka of Nagarjuna at: > > > > > > > > > > http://www.the-covenant.net/commentaries-section.htm > > > Drink this Sandeep and rest for thirty minutes: > > > The axis of the commentary depends on " that Which IS " and " sunyatta. " > > " That which is " and " sunyatta " are assumptions and concepts, are > constructs used by Buddha and Nagarjuna, consciously or not, for a purpose. > > There is no " that which is, " or an ultimate reality nor is there > " sunyatta " except that conceived and experienced in the mind. The > tetralemma and dependent origination make it so. > > > If there is no " that which is, " an ultimate reality, or " sunyatta, " then > all of the commentary is word play for a soteriological purpose at best, > and insanity and stultifying mystification at worst and further: > > The commentary also is a great misconstrual of Nagarjuna who would have > had the head of the commentator. > > Nagarjuna would admit upon direct questioning that, > > > " Yes, it is a sham and trickery, a manipulation of mind to get these > people to drop all their attachments, their assumptions. It is hocus > pocus, mumbo jumbo with a clear purpose, liberation. That is our goal. > That's what we do. This is a way to do it. All this stuff ain't worth a > thing except for that. " > > " We know that attachment is the problem of humanity, that is way we made > it, so we could get everyone to drop their attachments, including these > guys who are attached to Buddha's teachings and all those other > concept-based teachings in existence that they have reified and made > into altars where they worship or to use as a means to personal power > over the minds of others and security and rightness in their hidden > selves they think they don't have while miserably failing in taking that > which we prescribe for their illness. " > > " All these teachings are disposable devices to get people to learn to > live without attachment to all the stuff in their experience. You would > think that after this effort and all the centuries past they would > awaken by throwing off their attachments and then see the sham and > trickery and be free of it. No, they do as they do as they are, attached > and blinded by their attachment to unfounded assumptions, by their own > rightness and insecurities. The whole thing is a crock and they never > seem to be able to get their fill and blindly pass it around to others. " > > Wake up Sandeep. You and the commentator have been had by your beliefs. > The whole thing is a sham. Always has been and so it will be as it is. > Defend it, promote it and you simply demonstrate what Buddha and > Nagarjuna spent their lives trying to overcome. > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Phenomena are just the objective expression of " that which IS. " > > Knowing it is an illusion, fully participate in it, if that is what > comes up, fully withdraw, when that comes up. > > Nothing to reject, nothing to accept. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Nothing ever happened, > > yet " that which-is, IS. " > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > The term " sunya " has been much misunderstood to mean " dead nothingness " . > > Since nothing has ever happened, > > a conceptual terminology used is sunyatta, > > but a sunyatta of total potentiality. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Lewis, Everythin you said was very profound. but Everything you said is founded on the same erroneous assumption that somewhere within itself.....the so called mind.....can access the so called reality...... No matter how etherial the logic.....it is only smoke... toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2005 Report Share Posted January 17, 2005 > Lewis, > > Everythin you said was very profound. > > but > > > Everything you said is founded on the same erroneous assumption that somewhere within itself.....the so called mind.....can access the so called reality...... > > No matter how etherial the logic.....it is only smoke... > > toombaru heeeeeeeee?! That's actually what Lewis says all the time but without liar's paradoxes. What for a strange response! Are you using the Auto-Pilot, Toombaru? Go manual, the smoke is getting dense! ) The nihilist paradox (Wikipedia) Nihilism is often described as a belief in the nonexistence of truth [reality, values]. In its most extreme form, such a belief is difficult to justify, because it contains a variation on the liar paradox: if it is true that truth does not exist, the statement " truth does not exist " is a truth, thereby proving itself incorrect. A more sophisticated interpretation of the claim might be that while truth may exist, it is inaccessible in practice. However, in that case, the question can be asked, how did the nihilists access it? Kip Almazy BTW, the next level is the realm of dubbel-negations Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2005 Report Share Posted January 17, 2005 Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " <kipalmazy> wrote: > > > Lewis, > > > > Everythin you said was very profound. > > > > but > > > > > > Everything you said is founded on the same erroneous assumption > that somewhere within itself.....the so called mind.....can access > the so called reality...... > > > > No matter how etherial the logic.....it is only smoke... > > > > toombaru > > > > heeeeeeeee?! That's actually what Lewis says all the time but > without liar's paradoxes. What for a strange response! Are you using > the Auto-Pilot, Toombaru? Go manual, the smoke is getting dense! ) > > > The nihilist paradox (Wikipedia) > Nihilism is often described as a belief in the nonexistence of truth > [reality, values]. In its most extreme form, such a belief is > difficult to justify, because it contains a variation on the liar > paradox: if it is true that truth does not exist, the > statement " truth does not exist " is a truth, thereby proving itself > incorrect. A more sophisticated interpretation of the claim might be > that while truth may exist, it is inaccessible in practice. However, > in that case, the question can be asked, how did the nihilists > access it? > > > Kip Almazy > > > BTW, the next level is the realm of dubbel-negations more smoke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2005 Report Share Posted January 17, 2005 toombaru2004 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > sandeep wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A commentary on the Mahayamavimsaka of Nagarjuna at: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.the-covenant.net/commentaries-section.htm > > > > > > Drink this Sandeep and rest for thirty minutes: > > > > > > The axis of the commentary depends on " that Which IS " and " sunyatta. " > > > > " That which is " and " sunyatta " are assumptions and concepts, are > > constructs used by Buddha and Nagarjuna, consciously or not, for a > purpose. > > > > There is no " that which is, " or an ultimate reality nor is there > > " sunyatta " except that conceived and experienced in the mind. The > > tetralemma and dependent origination make it so. > > > > > > If there is no " that which is, " an ultimate reality, or " sunyatta, " then > > all of the commentary is word play for a soteriological purpose at best, > > and insanity and stultifying mystification at worst and further: > > > > The commentary also is a great misconstrual of Nagarjuna who would have > > had the head of the commentator. > > > > Nagarjuna would admit upon direct questioning that, > > > > > > " Yes, it is a sham and trickery, a manipulation of mind to get these > > people to drop all their attachments, their assumptions. It is hocus > > pocus, mumbo jumbo with a clear purpose, liberation. That is our goal. > > That's what we do. This is a way to do it. All this stuff ain't worth a > > thing except for that. " > > > > " We know that attachment is the problem of humanity, that is way we made > > it, so we could get everyone to drop their attachments, including these > > guys who are attached to Buddha's teachings and all those other > > concept-based teachings in existence that they have reified and made > > into altars where they worship or to use as a means to personal power > > over the minds of others and security and rightness in their hidden > > selves they think they don't have while miserably failing in taking that > > which we prescribe for their illness. " > > > > " All these teachings are disposable devices to get people to learn to > > live without attachment to all the stuff in their experience. You would > > think that after this effort and all the centuries past they would > > awaken by throwing off their attachments and then see the sham and > > trickery and be free of it. No, they do as they do as they are, attached > > and blinded by their attachment to unfounded assumptions, by their own > > rightness and insecurities. The whole thing is a crock and they never > > seem to be able to get their fill and blindly pass it around to others. " > > > > Wake up Sandeep. You and the commentator have been had by your beliefs. > > The whole thing is a sham. Always has been and so it will be as it is. > > Defend it, promote it and you simply demonstrate what Buddha and > > Nagarjuna spent their lives trying to overcome. > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > Phenomena are just the objective expression of " that which IS. " > > > > Knowing it is an illusion, fully participate in it, if that is what > > comes up, fully withdraw, when that comes up. > > > > Nothing to reject, nothing to accept. > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > Nothing ever happened, > > > > yet " that which-is, IS. " > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > The term " sunya " has been much misunderstood to mean " dead nothingness " . > > > > Since nothing has ever happened, > > > > a conceptual terminology used is sunyatta, > > > > but a sunyatta of total potentiality. > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > Lewis, > > Everythin you said was very profound. > > but > > > Everything you said is founded on the same erroneous assumption that > somewhere within itself.....the so called mind.....can access the so > called reality...... > > No matter how etherial the logic.....it is only smoke... > > toombaru Sorry Toom please read again. Ultimate reality of any sort, ( " That which is " or " what is " " sunyatta, " " shunyata, " " sunyata, " ) or any sort of reality defined is a concept born of experience. Ultimate reality can only be assumption a thing you make, you make it so, and it is so. Mind is a concept, variously conceived and experienced. Skandahs are concepts variously conceived and experienced. Everything expressed in language and in thought are concepts variously conceived and experienced. And the reverse is so, experienced and conceived, experienced and conceived, experienced and conceived. Your philosophy says so. You have been saying so. Experience says so. Here is good ole Nagarjuna telling you the same: " Ultimately, Nirvana truly realized is Samsara properly understood. " Here Nagarjuna says it must be " properly understood " and by that he can only mean one thing according to his and Buddha's soteriological imperative of letting go of attachments to all, which is not at all equal to in any way throwing away concepts, ideas, creations, the appearances and so forth. We do not need to return to dark caves, naked and shivering cold, to an ultimate reality, " that which is. " There is experience, Samsara, and we need to see it as it is without blinders, colorations and we know what those blinders and colorations consist of. Because we all have blinders and colorations in one way or another, we see and say different things about the appearances, but as we take off the various kinds of blinders and reduce or eliminate the colorations (however one may conceive of these things that are evident in experience) used to think, say and do, - experience, we can experience all sorts of things that we did not experience before because of them and the stress and problems and the joy and happiness and the sorrow and horror that some of the blinders and colorations cause come to be understood and put away or picked and used for this and that that as we do. There is nothing complicated or ethereal about this, Toombaru. It is attachment to these blinders and coloring devices and to the appearances themselves that makes samsara not nirvana. Nagarjuna tried hard to get that point across to us. That is the point of all traditions as far as I can see in doing them. We can enjoy a variegated world of thought and experience. There is no fear in using, without attachment, harmless passive concepts. They are merely lenses to look through to see the appearances in one way or another - to enjoy, to create... For some they are used, however that may be conceived, in the harm and disintegration of the appearances, for others they are used in all those ways to grasp, to gain and in doing so to harm their appearance and those of others. Or some combination of these in all the degrees and in all the ways we experience, do and say. We can create new worlds. We can spiffy up old worlds making them shine. We can do as it is required. If we wish to experience oceanic feelings, we can use the concepts and practices required and it will be. This is what you have been doing in your way with your tools used however you imagine you have been using them. Is there a " right " way to go? Whatever we do and what we are to do is given in experience and we always do what is required even though we do not know how we do so. So Toombaru, you have been spinning a web and are still caught in it. But you have lost nothing for you know how to spin that web and how you can be caught, so you can see now how others are doing the same and you can mention it to them in all sorts of ways and they will say yes or no or I don't or what the ____ or who are you, or who do you think you are and kiss my ____ .....and each answer will be understood as it is because your experience led you there we they are in experience through all of it, in each way, and then out of it, and experiencing it again in them you will do as required with whatever skill you are able to bring, with each one. Now why don't try to come out of it by dropping your assumptions and beliefs. The water may be cold at first but it feels fine when you start experiencing differently again as it is without one filter to everything. Take your current dream/reality experience and try on some new ones and get the hang of being free from it all. Buddha and Nagarjuna would like that, I am sure and if you are afraid, you can always go back to spinning the familiar web. No harm done for you are teaching all of us as it is in your way and with great effect in ways you do not realize. Lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2005 Report Share Posted January 17, 2005 Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > toombaru2004 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > sandeep wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A commentary on the Mahayamavimsaka of Nagarjuna at: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.the-covenant.net/commentaries-section.htm > > > > > > > > > Drink this Sandeep and rest for thirty minutes: > > > > > > > > > The axis of the commentary depends on " that Which IS " and " sunyatta. " > > > > > > " That which is " and " sunyatta " are assumptions and concepts, are > > > constructs used by Buddha and Nagarjuna, consciously or not, for a > > purpose. > > > > > > There is no " that which is, " or an ultimate reality nor is there > > > " sunyatta " except that conceived and experienced in the mind. The > > > tetralemma and dependent origination make it so. > > > > > > > > > If there is no " that which is, " an ultimate reality, or " sunyatta, " then > > > all of the commentary is word play for a soteriological purpose at best, > > > and insanity and stultifying mystification at worst and further: > > > > > > The commentary also is a great misconstrual of Nagarjuna who would have > > > had the head of the commentator. > > > > > > Nagarjuna would admit upon direct questioning that, > > > > > > > > > " Yes, it is a sham and trickery, a manipulation of mind to get these > > > people to drop all their attachments, their assumptions. It is hocus > > > pocus, mumbo jumbo with a clear purpose, liberation. That is our goal. > > > That's what we do. This is a way to do it. All this stuff ain't worth a > > > thing except for that. " > > > > > > " We know that attachment is the problem of humanity, that is way we made > > > it, so we could get everyone to drop their attachments, including these > > > guys who are attached to Buddha's teachings and all those other > > > concept-based teachings in existence that they have reified and made > > > into altars where they worship or to use as a means to personal power > > > over the minds of others and security and rightness in their hidden > > > selves they think they don't have while miserably failing in taking that > > > which we prescribe for their illness. " > > > > > > " All these teachings are disposable devices to get people to learn to > > > live without attachment to all the stuff in their experience. You would > > > think that after this effort and all the centuries past they would > > > awaken by throwing off their attachments and then see the sham and > > > trickery and be free of it. No, they do as they do as they are, attached > > > and blinded by their attachment to unfounded assumptions, by their own > > > rightness and insecurities. The whole thing is a crock and they never > > > seem to be able to get their fill and blindly pass it around to others. " > > > > > > Wake up Sandeep. You and the commentator have been had by your beliefs. > > > The whole thing is a sham. Always has been and so it will be as it is. > > > Defend it, promote it and you simply demonstrate what Buddha and > > > Nagarjuna spent their lives trying to overcome. > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > Phenomena are just the objective expression of " that which IS. " > > > > > > Knowing it is an illusion, fully participate in it, if that is what > > > comes up, fully withdraw, when that comes up. > > > > > > Nothing to reject, nothing to accept. > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > Nothing ever happened, > > > > > > yet " that which-is, IS. " > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > The term " sunya " has been much misunderstood to mean " dead nothingness " . > > > > > > Since nothing has ever happened, > > > > > > a conceptual terminology used is sunyatta, > > > > > > but a sunyatta of total potentiality. > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > > > > > Lewis, > > > > Everythin you said was very profound. > > > > but > > > > > > Everything you said is founded on the same erroneous assumption that > > somewhere within itself.....the so called mind.....can access the so > > called reality...... > > > > No matter how etherial the logic.....it is only smoke... > > > > toombaru > > > Sorry Toom please read again. Ultimate reality of any sort, ( " That which > is " or " what is " " sunyatta, " " shunyata, " " sunyata, " ) or any sort of > reality defined is a concept born of experience. Ultimate reality can > only be assumption a thing you make, you make it so, and it is so. > > Mind is a concept, variously conceived and experienced. Skandahs are > concepts variously conceived and experienced. Everything expressed in > language and in thought are concepts variously conceived and > experienced. And the reverse is so, experienced and conceived, > experienced and conceived, experienced and conceived. Your philosophy > says so. You have been saying so. Experience says so. > > Here is good ole Nagarjuna telling you the same: > > > " Ultimately, Nirvana truly realized is Samsara properly understood. " > > > Here Nagarjuna says it must be " properly understood " and by that he can > only mean one thing according to his and Buddha's soteriological > imperative of letting go of attachments to all, The so called mind is nothing but attachments........How do you propose that attachments let go of themselves? which is not at all > equal to in any way throwing away concepts, ideas, creations, the > appearances and so forth. We do not need to return to dark caves, naked > and shivering cold, to an ultimate reality, " that which is. " > > > There is experience, Samsara, and we need to see it as it is without > blinders, colorations " Experience " is nothing but the blinders imposed on what is. and we know what those blinders and colorations > consist of. Because we all have blinders and colorations in one way or > another, we see and say different things about the appearances, but as > we take off the various kinds of blinders and reduce or eliminate the > colorations (however one may conceive of these things that are evident > in experience) used to think, say and do, - experience, we can > experience all sorts of things that we did not experience before because > of them " Anything " experienced has to be within the locus of separation....has to be seen from behind more blinders. and the stress and problems and the joy and happiness and the > sorrow and horror that some of the blinders and colorations cause come > to be understood and put away or picked and used for this and that that > as we do. There is nothing complicated or ethereal about this, Toombaru. yes > It is attachment to these blinders and coloring devices There is no tumbaroo beyond the blinders and coloring devises, and to the > appearances themselves that makes samsara not nirvana. samsara is nirvana Nagarjuna tried > hard to get that point across to us. That is the point of all traditions > as far as I can see in doing them. > > We can enjoy a variegated world of thought and experience. There is no > fear in using, without attachment, harmless passive concepts. They are > merely lenses to look through to see the appearances in one way or > another - to enjoy, to create... For some they are used, however that > may be conceived, in the harm and disintegration of the appearances, for > others they are used in all those ways to grasp, to gain and in doing so > to harm their appearance and those of others. Or some combination of > these in all the degrees and in all the ways we experience, do and say. > > We can create new worlds. No... " we " can't. We can spiffy up old worlds making them shine. > We can do as it is required. If we wish to experience oceanic feelings, > we can use the concepts and practices required and it will be. This is > what you have been doing in your way with your tools used however you > imagine you have been using them. Is there a " right " way to go? Whatever > we do and what we are to do is given in experience and we always do what > is required even though we do not know how we do so. > > So Toombaru, you have been spinning a web and are still caught in it. > But you have lost nothing for you know how to spin that web and how you > can be caught, so you can see now how others are doing the same and you > can mention it to them in all sorts of ways and they will say yes or no > or I don't or what the ____ or who are you, or who do you think you are > and kiss my ____ .....and each answer will be understood as it is > because your experience led you there we they are in experience through > all of it, in each way, and then out of it, and experiencing it again in > them you will do as required with whatever skill you are able to bring, > with each one. All of this...no matter how comfortabloe you find it... emerges downstream from the assumption of autonomy..........it is still only smoke. > > Now why don't try to come out of it by dropping your assumptions and > beliefs. It is only your own belief that you have already done so. The water may be cold at first but it feels fine when you start > experiencing differently again as it is without one filter to > everything. Take your current dream/reality experience and try on some > new ones and get the hang of being free from it all. Buddha and > Nagarjuna would like that, I am sure and if you are afraid, you can > always go back to spinning the familiar web. No harm done for you are > teaching all of us as it is in your way and with great effect in ways > you do not realize. > > Lewis Lewis, I get the impression that you believe that you have had some sort of realization..... that you have " it " figured out..... well....that's ok..........every highschooler believes that they know what's going on.... even crazy people think they have a pretty goog grasp on reality......... but that belief...is itself the plenum out of which the dream of separation emerges. No-one has any idea what's happening....or even if it is happening..... toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2005 Report Share Posted January 17, 2005 toombaru2004 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > toombaru2004 wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > sandeep wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A commentary on the Mahayamavimsaka of Nagarjuna at: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.the-covenant.net/commentaries-section.htm > > > > > > > > > > > > Drink this Sandeep and rest for thirty minutes: > > > > > > > > > > > > The axis of the commentary depends on " that Which IS " and > " sunyatta. " > > > > > > > > " That which is " and " sunyatta " are assumptions and concepts, are > > > > constructs used by Buddha and Nagarjuna, consciously or not, for a > > > purpose. > > > > > > > > There is no " that which is, " or an ultimate reality nor is there > > > > " sunyatta " except that conceived and experienced in the mind. The > > > > tetralemma and dependent origination make it so. > > > > > > > > > > > > If there is no " that which is, " an ultimate reality, or > " sunyatta, " then > > > > all of the commentary is word play for a soteriological purpose > at best, > > > > and insanity and stultifying mystification at worst and further: > > > > > > > > The commentary also is a great misconstrual of Nagarjuna who > would have > > > > had the head of the commentator. > > > > > > > > Nagarjuna would admit upon direct questioning that, > > > > > > > > > > > > " Yes, it is a sham and trickery, a manipulation of mind to get these > > > > people to drop all their attachments, their assumptions. It is hocus > > > > pocus, mumbo jumbo with a clear purpose, liberation. That is our > goal. > > > > That's what we do. This is a way to do it. All this stuff ain't > worth a > > > > thing except for that. " > > > > > > > > " We know that attachment is the problem of humanity, that is way > we made > > > > it, so we could get everyone to drop their attachments, > including these > > > > guys who are attached to Buddha's teachings and all those other > > > > concept-based teachings in existence that they have reified and made > > > > into altars where they worship or to use as a means to personal > power > > > > over the minds of others and security and rightness in their hidden > > > > selves they think they don't have while miserably failing in > taking that > > > > which we prescribe for their illness. " > > > > > > > > " All these teachings are disposable devices to get people to > learn to > > > > live without attachment to all the stuff in their experience. > You would > > > > think that after this effort and all the centuries past they would > > > > awaken by throwing off their attachments and then see the sham and > > > > trickery and be free of it. No, they do as they do as they are, > attached > > > > and blinded by their attachment to unfounded assumptions, by > their own > > > > rightness and insecurities. The whole thing is a crock and they > never > > > > seem to be able to get their fill and blindly pass it around to > others. " > > > > > > > > Wake up Sandeep. You and the commentator have been had by your > beliefs. > > > > The whole thing is a sham. Always has been and so it will be as > it is. > > > > Defend it, promote it and you simply demonstrate what Buddha and > > > > Nagarjuna spent their lives trying to overcome. > > > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > > > Phenomena are just the objective expression of " that which IS. " > > > > > > > > Knowing it is an illusion, fully participate in it, if that is what > > > > comes up, fully withdraw, when that comes up. > > > > > > > > Nothing to reject, nothing to accept. > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > > > Nothing ever happened, > > > > > > > > yet " that which-is, IS. " > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > > > The term " sunya " has been much misunderstood to mean " dead > nothingness " . > > > > > > > > Since nothing has ever happened, > > > > > > > > a conceptual terminology used is sunyatta, > > > > > > > > but a sunyatta of total potentiality. > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lewis, > > > > > > Everythin you said was very profound. > > > > > > but > > > > > > > > > Everything you said is founded on the same erroneous assumption that > > > somewhere within itself.....the so called mind.....can access the so > > > called reality...... > > > > > > No matter how etherial the logic.....it is only smoke... > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > Sorry Toom please read again. Ultimate reality of any sort, ( " That which > > is " or " what is " " sunyatta, " " shunyata, " " sunyata, " ) or any sort of > > reality defined is a concept born of experience. Ultimate reality can > > only be assumption a thing you make, you make it so, and it is so. > > > > Mind is a concept, variously conceived and experienced. Skandahs are > > concepts variously conceived and experienced. Everything expressed in > > language and in thought are concepts variously conceived and > > experienced. And the reverse is so, experienced and conceived, > > experienced and conceived, experienced and conceived. Your philosophy > > says so. You have been saying so. Experience says so. > > > > Here is good ole Nagarjuna telling you the same: > > > > > > " Ultimately, Nirvana truly realized is Samsara properly understood. " > > > > > > Here Nagarjuna says it must be " properly understood " and by that he can > > only mean one thing according to his and Buddha's soteriological > > imperative of letting go of attachments to all, > > > The so called mind is nothing but attachments........How do you propose > that attachments > let go of themselves? Who said that attachments let go of themselves? which is not at all > > equal to in any way throwing away concepts, ideas, creations, the > > appearances and so forth. We do not need to return to dark caves, naked > > and shivering cold, to an ultimate reality, " that which is. " > > > > > > There is experience, Samsara, and we need to see it as it is without > > blinders, colorations > > " Experience " is nothing but the blinders imposed on what is. You are deaf and blind to say it. > > > > > and we know what those blinders and colorations > > consist of. Because we all have blinders and colorations in one way or > > another, we see and say different things about the appearances, but as > > we take off the various kinds of blinders and reduce or eliminate the > > colorations (however one may conceive of these things that are evident > > in experience) used to think, say and do, - experience, we can > > experience all sorts of things that we did not experience before because > > of them > > > " Anything " experienced has to be within the locus of separation....has > to be seen from > behind more blinders. That is correct! The issue is not about these blinders and colorations but whether they we able to have free of them or able to freely use them versus attachment to them. > > > > and the stress and problems and the joy and happiness and the > > sorrow and horror that some of the blinders and colorations cause come > > to be understood and put away or picked and used for this and that that > > as we do. There is nothing complicated or ethereal about this, Toombaru. > > > yes > > > > It is attachment to these blinders and coloring devices > > > There is no tumbaroo beyond the blinders and coloring devises, Old hat. Game playing. Put it away. > > > > > and to the > > appearances themselves that makes samsara not nirvana. > > > > samsara is nirvana " Ultimately, Nirvana truly realized is Samsara properly understood. " > > > > > > Nagarjuna tried > > hard to get that point across to us. That is the point of all traditions > > as far as I can see in doing them. > > > > We can enjoy a variegated world of thought and experience. There is no > > fear in using, without attachment, harmless passive concepts. They are > > merely lenses to look through to see the appearances in one way or > > another - to enjoy, to create... For some they are used, however that > > may be conceived, in the harm and disintegration of the appearances, for > > others they are used in all those ways to grasp, to gain and in doing so > > to harm their appearance and those of others. Or some combination of > > these in all the degrees and in all the ways we experience, do and say. > > > > We can create new worlds. > > > No... " we " can't. Yes " we' can and do. It does not matter that we imagine it and do it and imagine that we do it, that we experience it, share and learn from it. Wake up from this naive language critique. We does not have to have content Toom. Stop thinking that my use of " we " or " I " has any content in it whatsoever. That is your imagination of me. I am no-thing. I am empty. I am like that. Does that make you feel better? Try not to assume that others don't feel or know as you do. > > > > We can spiffy up old worlds making them shine. > > We can do as it is required. If we wish to experience oceanic feelings, > > we can use the concepts and practices required and it will be. This is > > what you have been doing in your way with your tools used however you > > imagine you have been using them. Is there a " right " way to go? Whatever > > we do and what we are to do is given in experience and we always do what > > is required even though we do not know how we do so. > > > > So Toombaru, you have been spinning a web and are still caught in it. > > But you have lost nothing for you know how to spin that web and how you > > can be caught, so you can see now how others are doing the same and you > > can mention it to them in all sorts of ways and they will say yes or no > > or I don't or what the ____ or who are you, or who do you think you are > > and kiss my ____ .....and each answer will be understood as it is > > because your experience led you there we they are in experience through > > all of it, in each way, and then out of it, and experiencing it again in > > them you will do as required with whatever skill you are able to bring, > > with each one. > > > All of this...no matter how comfortabloe you find it... emerges > downstream from the > assumption of autonomy..........it is still only smoke. Smoke it is. Scented vapors or stenchy ones depending on the nose. > > > > > > > > Now why don't try to come out of it by dropping your assumptions and > > beliefs. > > > > It is only your own belief that you have already done so. Incoherent twiddly dum do dabbee. > > > > The water may be cold at first but it feels fine when you start > > experiencing differently again as it is without one filter to > > everything. Take your current dream/reality experience and try on some > > new ones and get the hang of being free from it all. Buddha and > > Nagarjuna would like that, I am sure and if you are afraid, you can > > always go back to spinning the familiar web. No harm done for you are > > teaching all of us as it is in your way and with great effect in ways > > you do not realize. > > > > Lewis > > > Lewis, > > I get the impression that you believe that you have had some sort of > realization..... > > that you have " it " figured out..... > > well....that's ok..........every highschooler believes that they know > what's going on.... > > even crazy people think they have a pretty goog grasp on reality......... > > but > > > > that belief...is itself the plenum out of which the dream of separation > emerges. > > > > No-one has any idea what's happening....or even if it is happening..... > > > > > > toombaru Hi Toombaru, No, I have no special realization. Just living out my life as others do in my way with others as they do. I have nothing figured out. I have no idea how things work. There is not a single idea that makes complete sense to me. I have no understanding of what life is, how it works, how I am what I am. Nothing. I am able to do stuff though. I can post and write stuff and work and live with my family and all that stuff. I can read and swim and all sorts of things like that. But I understanding none of it really in some all defining way. I know many ideas and concepts and am able to think about things and say things and assume things. I am able to present things. But as far as understanding anything, I cannot. I am able to know that there are infinite ways of thinking about something and that no matter how much energy I put into that I still do not know what it is. For me there is no thing that is separable from anything else so when I try to think about say a stapler, to understand what it is, it would take how many lifetimes in order to get the basics of what it is in the realm of the available concepts in physics and all the new ones that would be needed to make it intelligible. Just considering the nature of the material it is composed of would take all the knowledge of the hard sciences and that would end in zero because that is all theory and not yet complete and never will be. Then there is the invention itself and the history of the stapler and this one particular history and the particular elements that went into it and the its differences and similarities with all the other staplers. My mind will never know what a stapler is because it is not possible to know all of this and I cannot spend the time to exhaust it. I am able to know that after 5 minutes. The same goes for everything else. But I experience the stapler, learn what it does, use it, use for purposes it is not designed for and so on. I do not need to know all there is to know. I assume a bit o knowledge and go on. Now as far as who knows what is going on or happening there is an open field on that. People can imagine that do know what is happening and do as they imagine and if done in certain ways there are consequences like the invention of the airplane or a nuclear weapon. We have maps to do things. Saying that no one knows what is happening is true if we press each person to demonstrate their knowledge. It is frightening to think what such pressing would reveal in those who are running things. But saying that is neither here nor there. It is one view and it holds no special privilege among the billions of view in the world. It is yours and others, I understand it and you can do whatever you want with it. I spent time with it and moved on. Your insistence on happening or not happening is only the base uncertainty that lies at the bottom of all appearances and mind. There is no fear in it. We will never ever ever never know anything completely and so nothing. This not a revelation. Of course if we allow our minds to be totally free of concept, we have no idea what is going on or if it is going on. This is a simple state of mind and I can experience this at any time. There is nothing special about. If you find that state of mind to be pleasing and it is satisfying and you like it and want and can see no other way but that and that all others are deluded because we say I ate a hot dog and you say, there is no one, there is no hot dog and there is no eating, well I can do that and experience that and say that without the least bit of discomfort and be able to know with certainty that this the case by simply pressing the hot dog eater to exhaust its knowledge and voila there is nothing! That is not special and no different than positing superstrings as the basis of material reality. Both can be said, both can be believed and so on. That is all you are able to do Toombaru, which is nothing more than I and I nothing more than you. The separation is your problem. Not mine Toombaru. I see no separation and feel none. When I speak separation appears. It is the nature of language and concept to distinguish and it is futile to think or do otherwise. Blithering statements are blithering statements when taken from more coherent points of view. If I make blithering statements and I am able to rock with it, you will sound coherent in a conversation. But you will do as you will do as you do, and as I said before, you teach to great effect many things that you do not realize or comprehend so don't imagine that I think of you as an idiot or foolish. You have your web and have my webs that I spin. That sets us apart but we are both webbed in by the limit of the human mind and body. Lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2005 Report Share Posted January 18, 2005 Dear Toom, Just a note. You said, " It is only your own belief that you have already done so " in response to my suggestions to drop your beliefs and assumptions at least to play other games. Let me make it clear since it is not apparent to you about me. I cannot help but make assumptions. Just to wake up and go to the bathroom is one helluva load of assumptions that are there without thinking a groggy thought. I cannot write a single post without assumptions made about the nature of the universe in time and space all the thousands of things necessary to assume to get a post here. And one can never get away from this experience since it occurs below awareness so that we can carry on without having to manage over and over again what we learn to assume so we can go. So it is incoherent for you to suggest that I have such a belief. Someone may believe such non-sense but that is permissible and humorous as they go about assuming and as you know a little pressing of anyone and there is soon nothing coming out. So why don't you drop that particular assumption so your mind that will become that much more clear than it is. And also I am able to change assumptions to a degree so that my blinders and colorations are different and I can see you in as many different lights as I wish making you this or that. This is what we can do and you can do it as well. I have no problem not knowing anything at all and being this way seems to be more helpful than harmful. So you are now that big tree that I saw you as before. I will leave you to cleave to the ground, stationary and immobile and grand. Lewis Lewis Burgess wrote: > > > toombaru2004 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > toombaru2004 wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sandeep wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A commentary on the Mahayamavimsaka of Nagarjuna at: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.the-covenant.net/commentaries-section.htm > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Drink this Sandeep and rest for thirty minutes: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The axis of the commentary depends on " that Which IS " and > > " sunyatta. " > > > > > > > > > > " That which is " and " sunyatta " are assumptions and concepts, are > > > > > constructs used by Buddha and Nagarjuna, consciously or not, > for a > > > > purpose. > > > > > > > > > > There is no " that which is, " or an ultimate reality nor is there > > > > > " sunyatta " except that conceived and experienced in the mind. The > > > > > tetralemma and dependent origination make it so. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If there is no " that which is, " an ultimate reality, or > > " sunyatta, " then > > > > > all of the commentary is word play for a soteriological purpose > > at best, > > > > > and insanity and stultifying mystification at worst and further: > > > > > > > > > > The commentary also is a great misconstrual of Nagarjuna who > > would have > > > > > had the head of the commentator. > > > > > > > > > > Nagarjuna would admit upon direct questioning that, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " Yes, it is a sham and trickery, a manipulation of mind to > get these > > > > > people to drop all their attachments, their assumptions. It > is hocus > > > > > pocus, mumbo jumbo with a clear purpose, liberation. That is our > > goal. > > > > > That's what we do. This is a way to do it. All this stuff ain't > > worth a > > > > > thing except for that. " > > > > > > > > > > " We know that attachment is the problem of humanity, that is way > > we made > > > > > it, so we could get everyone to drop their attachments, > > including these > > > > > guys who are attached to Buddha's teachings and all those other > > > > > concept-based teachings in existence that they have reified > and made > > > > > into altars where they worship or to use as a means to personal > > power > > > > > over the minds of others and security and rightness in their > hidden > > > > > selves they think they don't have while miserably failing in > > taking that > > > > > which we prescribe for their illness. " > > > > > > > > > > " All these teachings are disposable devices to get people to > > learn to > > > > > live without attachment to all the stuff in their experience. > > You would > > > > > think that after this effort and all the centuries past they > would > > > > > awaken by throwing off their attachments and then see the > sham and > > > > > trickery and be free of it. No, they do as they do as they are, > > attached > > > > > and blinded by their attachment to unfounded assumptions, by > > their own > > > > > rightness and insecurities. The whole thing is a crock and they > > never > > > > > seem to be able to get their fill and blindly pass it around to > > others. " > > > > > > > > > > Wake up Sandeep. You and the commentator have been had by your > > beliefs. > > > > > The whole thing is a sham. Always has been and so it will be as > > it is. > > > > > Defend it, promote it and you simply demonstrate what Buddha and > > > > > Nagarjuna spent their lives trying to overcome. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > > > > > Phenomena are just the objective expression of " that which IS. " > > > > > > > > > > Knowing it is an illusion, fully participate in it, if that > is what > > > > > comes up, fully withdraw, when that comes up. > > > > > > > > > > Nothing to reject, nothing to accept. > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > > > > > Nothing ever happened, > > > > > > > > > > yet " that which-is, IS. " > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > > > > > The term " sunya " has been much misunderstood to mean " dead > > nothingness " . > > > > > > > > > > Since nothing has ever happened, > > > > > > > > > > a conceptual terminology used is sunyatta, > > > > > > > > > > but a sunyatta of total potentiality. > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lewis, > > > > > > > > Everythin you said was very profound. > > > > > > > > but > > > > > > > > > > > > Everything you said is founded on the same erroneous assumption that > > > > somewhere within itself.....the so called mind.....can access the so > > > > called reality...... > > > > > > > > No matter how etherial the logic.....it is only smoke... > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > Sorry Toom please read again. Ultimate reality of any sort, ( " That > which > > > is " or " what is " " sunyatta, " " shunyata, " " sunyata, " ) or any sort of > > > reality defined is a concept born of experience. Ultimate reality can > > > only be assumption a thing you make, you make it so, and it is so. > > > > > > Mind is a concept, variously conceived and experienced. Skandahs are > > > concepts variously conceived and experienced. Everything expressed in > > > language and in thought are concepts variously conceived and > > > experienced. And the reverse is so, experienced and conceived, > > > experienced and conceived, experienced and conceived. Your philosophy > > > says so. You have been saying so. Experience says so. > > > > > > Here is good ole Nagarjuna telling you the same: > > > > > > > > > " Ultimately, Nirvana truly realized is Samsara properly understood. " > > > > > > > > > Here Nagarjuna says it must be " properly understood " and by that > he can > > > only mean one thing according to his and Buddha's soteriological > > > imperative of letting go of attachments to all, > > > > > > The so called mind is nothing but attachments........How do you propose > > that attachments > > let go of themselves? > > > > > Who said that attachments let go of themselves? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which is not at all > > > equal to in any way throwing away concepts, ideas, creations, the > > > appearances and so forth. We do not need to return to dark caves, > naked > > > and shivering cold, to an ultimate reality, " that which is. " > > > > > > > > > There is experience, Samsara, and we need to see it as it is without > > > blinders, colorations > > > > " Experience " is nothing but the blinders imposed on what is. > > > > > > You are deaf and blind to say it. > > > > > > > > > and we know what those blinders and colorations > > > consist of. Because we all have blinders and colorations in one way or > > > another, we see and say different things about the appearances, but as > > > we take off the various kinds of blinders and reduce or eliminate the > > > colorations (however one may conceive of these things that are evident > > > in experience) used to think, say and do, - experience, we can > > > experience all sorts of things that we did not experience before > because > > > of them > > > > > > " Anything " experienced has to be within the locus of separation....has > > to be seen from > > behind more blinders. > > > > That is correct! The issue is not about these blinders and colorations > but whether they we able to have free of them or able to freely use them > versus attachment to them. > > > > > > > > > > and the stress and problems and the joy and happiness and the > > > sorrow and horror that some of the blinders and colorations cause come > > > to be understood and put away or picked and used for this and that > that > > > as we do. There is nothing complicated or ethereal about this, > Toombaru. > > > > > > yes > > > > > > > It is attachment to these blinders and coloring devices > > > > > > There is no tumbaroo beyond the blinders and coloring devises, > > > > Old hat. Game playing. Put it away. > > > > > > > > > > > > > and to the > > > appearances themselves that makes samsara not nirvana. > > > > > > > > samsara is nirvana > > > > " Ultimately, Nirvana truly realized is Samsara properly understood. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nagarjuna tried > > > hard to get that point across to us. That is the point of all > traditions > > > as far as I can see in doing them. > > > > > > We can enjoy a variegated world of thought and experience. There is no > > > fear in using, without attachment, harmless passive concepts. They are > > > merely lenses to look through to see the appearances in one way or > > > another - to enjoy, to create... For some they are used, however that > > > may be conceived, in the harm and disintegration of the > appearances, for > > > others they are used in all those ways to grasp, to gain and in > doing so > > > to harm their appearance and those of others. Or some combination of > > > these in all the degrees and in all the ways we experience, do and > say. > > > > > > We can create new worlds. > > > > > > No... " we " can't. > > > > > Yes " we' can and do. It does not matter that we imagine it and do it and > imagine that we do it, that we experience it, share and learn from it. > Wake up from this naive language critique. We does not have to have > content Toom. Stop thinking that my use of " we " or " I " has any content > in it whatsoever. That is your imagination of me. I am no-thing. I am > empty. I am like that. Does that make you feel better? Try not to assume > that others don't feel or know as you do. > > > > > > > > > > We can spiffy up old worlds making them shine. > > > We can do as it is required. If we wish to experience oceanic > feelings, > > > we can use the concepts and practices required and it will be. This is > > > what you have been doing in your way with your tools used however you > > > imagine you have been using them. Is there a " right " way to go? > Whatever > > > we do and what we are to do is given in experience and we always > do what > > > is required even though we do not know how we do so. > > > > > > So Toombaru, you have been spinning a web and are still caught in it. > > > But you have lost nothing for you know how to spin that web and > how you > > > can be caught, so you can see now how others are doing the same > and you > > > can mention it to them in all sorts of ways and they will say yes > or no > > > or I don't or what the ____ or who are you, or who do you think > you are > > > and kiss my ____ .....and each answer will be understood as it is > > > because your experience led you there we they are in experience > through > > > all of it, in each way, and then out of it, and experiencing it > again in > > > them you will do as required with whatever skill you are able to > bring, > > > with each one. > > > > > > All of this...no matter how comfortabloe you find it... emerges > > downstream from the > > assumption of autonomy..........it is still only smoke. > > > > > Smoke it is. Scented vapors or stenchy ones depending on the nose. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now why don't try to come out of it by dropping your assumptions and > > > beliefs. > > > > > > > > It is only your own belief that you have already done so. > > > > Incoherent twiddly dum do dabbee. > > > > > > > > > > > > The water may be cold at first but it feels fine when you start > > > experiencing differently again as it is without one filter to > > > everything. Take your current dream/reality experience and try on some > > > new ones and get the hang of being free from it all. Buddha and > > > Nagarjuna would like that, I am sure and if you are afraid, you can > > > always go back to spinning the familiar web. No harm done for you are > > > teaching all of us as it is in your way and with great effect in ways > > > you do not realize. > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > Lewis, > > > > I get the impression that you believe that you have had some sort of > > realization..... > > > > that you have " it " figured out..... > > > > well....that's ok..........every highschooler believes that they know > > what's going on.... > > > > even crazy people think they have a pretty goog grasp on reality......... > > > > but > > > > > > > > that belief...is itself the plenum out of which the dream of separation > > emerges. > > > > > > > > No-one has any idea what's happening....or even if it is happening..... > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > Hi Toombaru, > > No, I have no special realization. Just living out my life as others do > in my way with others as they do. I have nothing figured out. I have no > idea how things work. There is not a single idea that makes complete > sense to me. I have no understanding of what life is, how it works, how > I am what I am. Nothing. > > I am able to do stuff though. I can post and write stuff and work and > live with my family and all that stuff. I can read and swim and all > sorts of things like that. But I understanding none of it really in some > all defining way. I know many ideas and concepts and am able to think > about things and say things and assume things. I am able to present > things. But as far as understanding anything, I cannot. > > I am able to know that there are infinite ways of thinking about > something and that no matter how much energy I put into that I still do > not know what it is. For me there is no thing that is separable from > anything else so when I try to think about say a stapler, to understand > what it is, it would take how many lifetimes in order to get the basics > of what it is in the realm of the available concepts in physics and all > the new ones that would be needed to make it intelligible. Just > considering the nature of the material it is composed of would take all > the knowledge of the hard sciences and that would end in zero because > that is all theory and not yet complete and never will be. Then there is > the invention itself and the history of the stapler and this one > particular history and the particular elements that went into it and the > its differences and similarities with all the other staplers. My mind > will never know what a stapler is because it is not possible to know all > of this and I cannot spend the time to exhaust it. I am able to know > that after 5 minutes. The same goes for everything else. > > But I experience the stapler, learn what it does, use it, use for > purposes it is not designed for and so on. I do not need to know all > there is to know. I assume a bit o knowledge and go on. > > Now as far as who knows what is going on or happening there is an open > field on that. People can imagine that do know what is happening and do > as they imagine and if done in certain ways there are consequences like > the invention of the airplane or a nuclear weapon. > > We have maps to do things. Saying that no one knows what is happening is > true if we press each person to demonstrate their knowledge. It is > frightening to think what such pressing would reveal in those who are > running things. But saying that is neither here nor there. It is one > view and it holds no special privilege among the billions of view in the > world. It is yours and others, I understand it and you can do whatever > you want with it. I spent time with it and moved on. > > Your insistence on happening or not happening is only the base > uncertainty that lies at the bottom of all appearances and mind. There > is no fear in it. We will never ever ever never know anything completely > and so nothing. This not a revelation. > > Of course if we allow our minds to be totally free of concept, we have > no idea what is going on or if it is going on. This is a simple state of > mind and I can experience this at any time. There is nothing special > about. If you find that state of mind to be pleasing and it is > satisfying and you like it and want and can see no other way but that > and that all others are deluded because we say I ate a hot dog and you > say, there is no one, there is no hot dog and there is no eating, well I > can do that and experience that and say that without the least bit of > discomfort and be able to know with certainty that this the case by > simply pressing the hot dog eater to exhaust its knowledge and voila > there is nothing! > > That is not special and no different than positing superstrings as the > basis of material reality. Both can be said, both can be believed and so > on. That is all you are able to do Toombaru, which is nothing more than > I and I nothing more than you. > > The separation is your problem. Not mine Toombaru. I see no separation > and feel none. When I speak separation appears. It is the nature of > language and concept to distinguish and it is futile to think or do > otherwise. Blithering statements are blithering statements when taken > from more coherent points of view. If I make blithering statements and I > am able to rock with it, you will sound coherent in a conversation. But > you will do as you will do as you do, and as I said before, you teach to > great effect many things that you do not realize or comprehend so don't > imagine that I think of you as an idiot or foolish. You have your web > and have my webs that I spin. That sets us apart but we are both webbed > in by the limit of the human mind and body. > > Lewis > > > > ** > > If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your > subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: > > /mygroups?edit=1 > > Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the > Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. > > > > ------ > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2005 Report Share Posted January 18, 2005 Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > toombaru2004 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > toombaru2004 wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sandeep wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A commentary on the Mahayamavimsaka of Nagarjuna at: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.the-covenant.net/commentaries-section.htm > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Drink this Sandeep and rest for thirty minutes: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The axis of the commentary depends on " that Which IS " and > > " sunyatta. " > > > > > > > > > > " That which is " and " sunyatta " are assumptions and concepts, are > > > > > constructs used by Buddha and Nagarjuna, consciously or not, for a > > > > purpose. > > > > > > > > > > There is no " that which is, " or an ultimate reality nor is there > > > > > " sunyatta " except that conceived and experienced in the mind. The > > > > > tetralemma and dependent origination make it so. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If there is no " that which is, " an ultimate reality, or > > " sunyatta, " then > > > > > all of the commentary is word play for a soteriological purpose > > at best, > > > > > and insanity and stultifying mystification at worst and further: > > > > > > > > > > The commentary also is a great misconstrual of Nagarjuna who > > would have > > > > > had the head of the commentator. > > > > > > > > > > Nagarjuna would admit upon direct questioning that, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " Yes, it is a sham and trickery, a manipulation of mind to get these > > > > > people to drop all their attachments, their assumptions. It is hocus > > > > > pocus, mumbo jumbo with a clear purpose, liberation. That is our > > goal. > > > > > That's what we do. This is a way to do it. All this stuff ain't > > worth a > > > > > thing except for that. " > > > > > > > > > > " We know that attachment is the problem of humanity, that is way > > we made > > > > > it, so we could get everyone to drop their attachments, > > including these > > > > > guys who are attached to Buddha's teachings and all those other > > > > > concept-based teachings in existence that they have reified and made > > > > > into altars where they worship or to use as a means to personal > > power > > > > > over the minds of others and security and rightness in their hidden > > > > > selves they think they don't have while miserably failing in > > taking that > > > > > which we prescribe for their illness. " > > > > > > > > > > " All these teachings are disposable devices to get people to > > learn to > > > > > live without attachment to all the stuff in their experience. > > You would > > > > > think that after this effort and all the centuries past they would > > > > > awaken by throwing off their attachments and then see the sham and > > > > > trickery and be free of it. No, they do as they do as they are, > > attached > > > > > and blinded by their attachment to unfounded assumptions, by > > their own > > > > > rightness and insecurities. The whole thing is a crock and they > > never > > > > > seem to be able to get their fill and blindly pass it around to > > others. " > > > > > > > > > > Wake up Sandeep. You and the commentator have been had by your > > beliefs. > > > > > The whole thing is a sham. Always has been and so it will be as > > it is. > > > > > Defend it, promote it and you simply demonstrate what Buddha and > > > > > Nagarjuna spent their lives trying to overcome. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > > > > > Phenomena are just the objective expression of " that which IS. " > > > > > > > > > > Knowing it is an illusion, fully participate in it, if that is what > > > > > comes up, fully withdraw, when that comes up. > > > > > > > > > > Nothing to reject, nothing to accept. > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > > > > > Nothing ever happened, > > > > > > > > > > yet " that which-is, IS. " > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > > > > > The term " sunya " has been much misunderstood to mean " dead > > nothingness " . > > > > > > > > > > Since nothing has ever happened, > > > > > > > > > > a conceptual terminology used is sunyatta, > > > > > > > > > > but a sunyatta of total potentiality. > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lewis, > > > > > > > > Everythin you said was very profound. > > > > > > > > but > > > > > > > > > > > > Everything you said is founded on the same erroneous assumption that > > > > somewhere within itself.....the so called mind.....can access the so > > > > called reality...... > > > > > > > > No matter how etherial the logic.....it is only smoke... > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > Sorry Toom please read again. Ultimate reality of any sort, ( " That which > > > is " or " what is " " sunyatta, " " shunyata, " " sunyata, " ) or any sort of > > > reality defined is a concept born of experience. Ultimate reality can > > > only be assumption a thing you make, you make it so, and it is so. > > > > > > Mind is a concept, variously conceived and experienced. Skandahs are > > > concepts variously conceived and experienced. Everything expressed in > > > language and in thought are concepts variously conceived and > > > experienced. And the reverse is so, experienced and conceived, > > > experienced and conceived, experienced and conceived. Your philosophy > > > says so. You have been saying so. Experience says so. > > > > > > Here is good ole Nagarjuna telling you the same: > > > > > > > > > " Ultimately, Nirvana truly realized is Samsara properly understood. " > > > > > > > > > Here Nagarjuna says it must be " properly understood " and by that he can > > > only mean one thing according to his and Buddha's soteriological > > > imperative of letting go of attachments to all, > > > > > > The so called mind is nothing but attachments........How do you propose > > that attachments > > let go of themselves? > > > > > Who said that attachments let go of themselves? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which is not at all > > > equal to in any way throwing away concepts, ideas, creations, the > > > appearances and so forth. We do not need to return to dark caves, naked > > > and shivering cold, to an ultimate reality, " that which is. " > > > > > > > > > There is experience, Samsara, and we need to see it as it is without > > > blinders, colorations > > > > " Experience " is nothing but the blinders imposed on what is. > > > > > > You are deaf and blind to say it. > > > > > > > > > and we know what those blinders and colorations > > > consist of. Because we all have blinders and colorations in one way or > > > another, we see and say different things about the appearances, but as > > > we take off the various kinds of blinders and reduce or eliminate the > > > colorations (however one may conceive of these things that are evident > > > in experience) used to think, say and do, - experience, we can > > > experience all sorts of things that we did not experience before because > > > of them > > > > > > " Anything " experienced has to be within the locus of separation....has > > to be seen from > > behind more blinders. > > > > That is correct! The issue is not about these blinders and colorations > but whether they we able to have free of them or able to freely use them > versus attachment to them. > > > > > > > > > > and the stress and problems and the joy and happiness and the > > > sorrow and horror that some of the blinders and colorations cause come > > > to be understood and put away or picked and used for this and that that > > > as we do. There is nothing complicated or ethereal about this, Toombaru. > > > > > > yes > > > > > > > It is attachment to these blinders and coloring devices > > > > > > There is no tumbaroo beyond the blinders and coloring devises, > > > > Old hat. Game playing. Put it away. > > > > > > > > > > > > > and to the > > > appearances themselves that makes samsara not nirvana. > > > > > > > > samsara is nirvana > > > > " Ultimately, Nirvana truly realized is Samsara properly understood. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nagarjuna tried > > > hard to get that point across to us. That is the point of all traditions > > > as far as I can see in doing them. > > > > > > We can enjoy a variegated world of thought and experience. There is no > > > fear in using, without attachment, harmless passive concepts. They are > > > merely lenses to look through to see the appearances in one way or > > > another - to enjoy, to create... For some they are used, however that > > > may be conceived, in the harm and disintegration of the appearances, for > > > others they are used in all those ways to grasp, to gain and in doing so > > > to harm their appearance and those of others. Or some combination of > > > these in all the degrees and in all the ways we experience, do and say. > > > > > > We can create new worlds. > > > > > > No... " we " can't. > > > > > Yes " we' can and do. It does not matter that we imagine it and do it and > imagine that we do it, that we experience it, share and learn from it. > Wake up from this naive language critique. We does not have to have > content Toom. Stop thinking that my use of " we " or " I " has any content > in it whatsoever. That is your imagination of me. I am no-thing. I am > empty. I am like that. Does that make you feel better? Try not to assume > that others don't feel or know as you do. > > > > > > > > > > We can spiffy up old worlds making them shine. > > > We can do as it is required. If we wish to experience oceanic feelings, > > > we can use the concepts and practices required and it will be. This is > > > what you have been doing in your way with your tools used however you > > > imagine you have been using them. Is there a " right " way to go? Whatever > > > we do and what we are to do is given in experience and we always do what > > > is required even though we do not know how we do so. > > > > > > So Toombaru, you have been spinning a web and are still caught in it. > > > But you have lost nothing for you know how to spin that web and how you > > > can be caught, so you can see now how others are doing the same and you > > > can mention it to them in all sorts of ways and they will say yes or no > > > or I don't or what the ____ or who are you, or who do you think you are > > > and kiss my ____ .....and each answer will be understood as it is > > > because your experience led you there we they are in experience through > > > all of it, in each way, and then out of it, and experiencing it again in > > > them you will do as required with whatever skill you are able to bring, > > > with each one. > > > > > > All of this...no matter how comfortabloe you find it... emerges > > downstream from the > > assumption of autonomy..........it is still only smoke. > > > > > Smoke it is. Scented vapors or stenchy ones depending on the nose. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now why don't try to come out of it by dropping your assumptions and > > > beliefs. > > > > > > > > It is only your own belief that you have already done so. > > > > Incoherent twiddly dum do dabbee. > > > > > > > > > > > > The water may be cold at first but it feels fine when you start > > > experiencing differently again as it is without one filter to > > > everything. Take your current dream/reality experience and try on some > > > new ones and get the hang of being free from it all. Buddha and > > > Nagarjuna would like that, I am sure and if you are afraid, you can > > > always go back to spinning the familiar web. No harm done for you are > > > teaching all of us as it is in your way and with great effect in ways > > > you do not realize. > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > Lewis, > > > > I get the impression that you believe that you have had some sort of > > realization..... > > > > that you have " it " figured out..... > > > > well....that's ok..........every highschooler believes that they know > > what's going on.... > > > > even crazy people think they have a pretty goog grasp on reality......... > > > > but > > > > > > > > that belief...is itself the plenum out of which the dream of separation > > emerges. > > > > > > > > No-one has any idea what's happening....or even if it is happening..... > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > Hi Toombaru, > > No, I have no special realization. Just living out my life as others do > in my way with others as they do. I have nothing figured out. I have no > idea how things work. There is not a single idea that makes complete > sense to me. I have no understanding of what life is, how it works, how > I am what I am. Nothing. > > I am able to do stuff though. I can post and write stuff and work and > live with my family and all that stuff. I can read and swim and all > sorts of things like that. But I understanding none of it really in some > all defining way. I know many ideas and concepts and am able to think > about things and say things and assume things. I am able to present > things. But as far as understanding anything, I cannot. > > I am able to know that there are infinite ways of thinking about > something and that no matter how much energy I put into that I still do > not know what it is. For me there is no thing that is separable from > anything else so when I try to think about say a stapler, to understand > what it is, it would take how many lifetimes in order to get the basics > of what it is in the realm of the available concepts in physics and all > the new ones that would be needed to make it intelligible. Just > considering the nature of the material it is composed of would take all > the knowledge of the hard sciences and that would end in zero because > that is all theory and not yet complete and never will be. Then there is > the invention itself and the history of the stapler and this one > particular history and the particular elements that went into it and the > its differences and similarities with all the other staplers. My mind > will never know what a stapler is because it is not possible to know all > of this and I cannot spend the time to exhaust it. I am able to know > that after 5 minutes. The same goes for everything else. > > But I experience the stapler, learn what it does, use it, use for > purposes it is not designed for and so on. I do not need to know all > there is to know. I assume a bit o knowledge and go on. One can indeed learn about staplers and apply that knowledge in ways that can improve life. but This not a discussion on things material. We are discussing the concepts that the brain cells in humans invent in a futile attempt to explain their own supposed reality. You have spent thousands of hours in this quest...that is quite apperent...what comes through is very polished...very logical.........but it is all meaningless.......It talks about something that doesn't even exist....it arises from something that doesn't even exist...... The whold body of work......can be tossed out........You don't need it anymore..... dream fingers....pointing at a dream moon........ > > Now as far as who knows what is going on or happening there is an open > field on that. People can imagine that do know what is happening and do > as they imagine and if done in certain ways there are consequences like > the invention of the airplane or a nuclear weapon. .....again....things material. .. > > We have maps to do things. Saying that no one knows what is happening is > true if we press each person to demonstrate their knowledge. It is > frightening to think what such pressing would reveal in those who are > running things. They are not the ones running things. But saying that is neither here nor there. It is one > view and it holds no special privilege among the billions of view in the > world. It is yours and others, I understand it and you can do whatever > you want with it. I spent time with it and moved on. It is not the staying...or moving.......It is the belief that there is an I that can do either that is the problem. > > Your insistence on happening or not happening is only the base > uncertainty that lies at the bottom of all appearances and mind. There > is no fear in it. We will never ever ever never know anything completely > and so nothing. This not a revelation. > > Of course if we allow our minds to be totally free of concept, we have > no idea what is going on or if it is going on. This is a simple state of > mind and I can experience this at any time. There is nothing special > about. If you find that state of mind to be pleasing and it is > satisfying and you like it and want and can see no other way but that > and that all others are deluded because we say I ate a hot dog and you > say, there is no one, there is no hot dog and there is no eating, well I > can do that and experience that and say that without the least bit of > discomfort and be able to know with certainty that this the case by > simply pressing the hot dog eater to exhaust its knowledge and voila > there is nothing! > > That is not special and no different than positing superstrings as the > basis of material reality. Both can be said, both can be believed and so > on. That is all you are able to do Toombaru, which is nothing more than > I and I nothing more than you. > > The separation is your problem. Not mine Toombaru. I see no separation > and feel none. Yes......you do. When I speak separation appears. It is the nature of > language and concept to distinguish and it is futile to think or do > otherwise. Blithering statements are blithering statements when taken > from more coherent points of view. If I make blithering statements and I > am able to rock with it, you will sound coherent in a conversation. But > you will do as you will do as you do, and as I said before, you teach to > great effect many things that you do not realize or comprehend so don't > imagine that I think of you as an idiot or foolish. You have your web > and have my webs that I spin. That sets us apart but we are both webbed > in by the limit of the human mind and body. > > Lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2005 Report Share Posted January 18, 2005 Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > Dear Toom, > > Just a note. You said, " It is only your own belief that you have > already done so " in response to my suggestions to drop your beliefs and > assumptions at least to play other games. Let me make it clear since it > is not apparent to you about me. I cannot help but make assumptions. > Just to wake up and go to the bathroom is one helluva load of > assumptions that are there without thinking a groggy thought. I cannot > write a single post without assumptions made about the nature of the > universe in time and space all the thousands of things necessary to > assume to get a post here. And one can never get away from this > experience since it occurs below awareness so that we can carry on > without having to manage over and over again what we learn to assume so > we can go. > > So it is incoherent for you to suggest that I have such a belief. > Someone may believe such non-sense but that is permissible and humorous > as they go about assuming and as you know a little pressing of anyone > and there is soon nothing coming out. So why don't you drop that > particular assumption so your mind that will become that much more clear > than it is. A clear mind is like a still wind...or a non moving river. > > And also I am able to change assumptions to a degree so that my blinders > and colorations are different and I can see you in as many different > lights as I wish making you this or that. This is what we can do and you > can do it as well. I have no problem not knowing anything at all and > being this way seems to be more helpful than harmful. Once again....it is the I am that is the door into the dream. The I am believing that is has no problem knowing nothing is the I am knowing something. toombaru So you are now > that big tree that I saw you as before. I will leave you to cleave to > the ground, stationary and immobile and grand. > > Lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2005 Report Share Posted January 18, 2005 toombaru2004 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > toombaru2004 wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru2004 wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess > <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sandeep wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A commentary on the Mahayamavimsaka of Nagarjuna at: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.the-covenant.net/commentaries-section.htm > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Drink this Sandeep and rest for thirty minutes: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The axis of the commentary depends on " that Which IS " and > > > " sunyatta. " > > > > > > > > > > > > " That which is " and " sunyatta " are assumptions and > concepts, are > > > > > > constructs used by Buddha and Nagarjuna, consciously or > not, for a > > > > > purpose. > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no " that which is, " or an ultimate reality nor is > there > > > > > > " sunyatta " except that conceived and experienced in the > mind. The > > > > > > tetralemma and dependent origination make it so. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If there is no " that which is, " an ultimate reality, or > > > " sunyatta, " then > > > > > > all of the commentary is word play for a soteriological > purpose > > > at best, > > > > > > and insanity and stultifying mystification at worst and > further: > > > > > > > > > > > > The commentary also is a great misconstrual of Nagarjuna who > > > would have > > > > > > had the head of the commentator. > > > > > > > > > > > > Nagarjuna would admit upon direct questioning that, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " Yes, it is a sham and trickery, a manipulation of mind to > get these > > > > > > people to drop all their attachments, their assumptions. It > is hocus > > > > > > pocus, mumbo jumbo with a clear purpose, liberation. That > is our > > > goal. > > > > > > That's what we do. This is a way to do it. All this stuff > ain't > > > worth a > > > > > > thing except for that. " > > > > > > > > > > > > " We know that attachment is the problem of humanity, that > is way > > > we made > > > > > > it, so we could get everyone to drop their attachments, > > > including these > > > > > > guys who are attached to Buddha's teachings and all those other > > > > > > concept-based teachings in existence that they have reified > and made > > > > > > into altars where they worship or to use as a means to > personal > > > power > > > > > > over the minds of others and security and rightness in > their hidden > > > > > > selves they think they don't have while miserably failing in > > > taking that > > > > > > which we prescribe for their illness. " > > > > > > > > > > > > " All these teachings are disposable devices to get people to > > > learn to > > > > > > live without attachment to all the stuff in their experience. > > > You would > > > > > > think that after this effort and all the centuries past > they would > > > > > > awaken by throwing off their attachments and then see the > sham and > > > > > > trickery and be free of it. No, they do as they do as they > are, > > > attached > > > > > > and blinded by their attachment to unfounded assumptions, by > > > their own > > > > > > rightness and insecurities. The whole thing is a crock and > they > > > never > > > > > > seem to be able to get their fill and blindly pass it > around to > > > others. " > > > > > > > > > > > > Wake up Sandeep. You and the commentator have been had by your > > > beliefs. > > > > > > The whole thing is a sham. Always has been and so it will > be as > > > it is. > > > > > > Defend it, promote it and you simply demonstrate what > Buddha and > > > > > > Nagarjuna spent their lives trying to overcome. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > > > > > > > Phenomena are just the objective expression of " that which IS. " > > > > > > > > > > > > Knowing it is an illusion, fully participate in it, if that > is what > > > > > > comes up, fully withdraw, when that comes up. > > > > > > > > > > > > Nothing to reject, nothing to accept. > > > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > > > > > > > Nothing ever happened, > > > > > > > > > > > > yet " that which-is, IS. " > > > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > > > > > > > The term " sunya " has been much misunderstood to mean " dead > > > nothingness " . > > > > > > > > > > > > Since nothing has ever happened, > > > > > > > > > > > > a conceptual terminology used is sunyatta, > > > > > > > > > > > > but a sunyatta of total potentiality. > > > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lewis, > > > > > > > > > > Everythin you said was very profound. > > > > > > > > > > but > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Everything you said is founded on the same erroneous > assumption that > > > > > somewhere within itself.....the so called mind.....can access > the so > > > > > called reality...... > > > > > > > > > > No matter how etherial the logic.....it is only smoke... > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry Toom please read again. Ultimate reality of any sort, > ( " That which > > > > is " or " what is " " sunyatta, " " shunyata, " " sunyata, " ) or any sort of > > > > reality defined is a concept born of experience. Ultimate > reality can > > > > only be assumption a thing you make, you make it so, and it is so. > > > > > > > > Mind is a concept, variously conceived and experienced. Skandahs are > > > > concepts variously conceived and experienced. Everything > expressed in > > > > language and in thought are concepts variously conceived and > > > > experienced. And the reverse is so, experienced and conceived, > > > > experienced and conceived, experienced and conceived. Your > philosophy > > > > says so. You have been saying so. Experience says so. > > > > > > > > Here is good ole Nagarjuna telling you the same: > > > > > > > > > > > > " Ultimately, Nirvana truly realized is Samsara properly understood. " > > > > > > > > > > > > Here Nagarjuna says it must be " properly understood " and by that > he can > > > > only mean one thing according to his and Buddha's soteriological > > > > imperative of letting go of attachments to all, > > > > > > > > > The so called mind is nothing but attachments........How do you > propose > > > that attachments > > > let go of themselves? > > > > > > > > > > Who said that attachments let go of themselves? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which is not at all > > > > equal to in any way throwing away concepts, ideas, creations, the > > > > appearances and so forth. We do not need to return to dark > caves, naked > > > > and shivering cold, to an ultimate reality, " that which is. " > > > > > > > > > > > > There is experience, Samsara, and we need to see it as it is without > > > > blinders, colorations > > > > > > " Experience " is nothing but the blinders imposed on what is. > > > > > > > > > > > > You are deaf and blind to say it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and we know what those blinders and colorations > > > > consist of. Because we all have blinders and colorations in one > way or > > > > another, we see and say different things about the appearances, > but as > > > > we take off the various kinds of blinders and reduce or > eliminate the > > > > colorations (however one may conceive of these things that are > evident > > > > in experience) used to think, say and do, - experience, we can > > > > experience all sorts of things that we did not experience before > because > > > > of them > > > > > > > > > " Anything " experienced has to be within the locus of separation....has > > > to be seen from > > > behind more blinders. > > > > > > > > That is correct! The issue is not about these blinders and colorations > > but whether they we able to have free of them or able to freely use them > > versus attachment to them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and the stress and problems and the joy and happiness and the > > > > sorrow and horror that some of the blinders and colorations > cause come > > > > to be understood and put away or picked and used for this and > that that > > > > as we do. There is nothing complicated or ethereal about this, > Toombaru. > > > > > > > > > yes > > > > > > > > > > It is attachment to these blinders and coloring devices > > > > > > > > > There is no tumbaroo beyond the blinders and coloring devises, > > > > > > > > Old hat. Game playing. Put it away. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and to the > > > > appearances themselves that makes samsara not nirvana. > > > > > > > > > > > > samsara is nirvana > > > > > > > > " Ultimately, Nirvana truly realized is Samsara properly understood. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nagarjuna tried > > > > hard to get that point across to us. That is the point of all > traditions > > > > as far as I can see in doing them. > > > > > > > > We can enjoy a variegated world of thought and experience. There > is no > > > > fear in using, without attachment, harmless passive concepts. > They are > > > > merely lenses to look through to see the appearances in one way or > > > > another - to enjoy, to create... For some they are used, however > that > > > > may be conceived, in the harm and disintegration of the > appearances, for > > > > others they are used in all those ways to grasp, to gain and in > doing so > > > > to harm their appearance and those of others. Or some combination of > > > > these in all the degrees and in all the ways we experience, do > and say. > > > > > > > > We can create new worlds. > > > > > > > > > No... " we " can't. > > > > > > > > > > Yes " we' can and do. It does not matter that we imagine it and do it and > > imagine that we do it, that we experience it, share and learn from it. > > Wake up from this naive language critique. We does not have to have > > content Toom. Stop thinking that my use of " we " or " I " has any content > > in it whatsoever. That is your imagination of me. I am no-thing. I am > > empty. I am like that. Does that make you feel better? Try not to assume > > that others don't feel or know as you do. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can spiffy up old worlds making them shine. > > > > We can do as it is required. If we wish to experience oceanic > feelings, > > > > we can use the concepts and practices required and it will be. > This is > > > > what you have been doing in your way with your tools used > however you > > > > imagine you have been using them. Is there a " right " way to go? > Whatever > > > > we do and what we are to do is given in experience and we always > do what > > > > is required even though we do not know how we do so. > > > > > > > > So Toombaru, you have been spinning a web and are still caught > in it. > > > > But you have lost nothing for you know how to spin that web and > how you > > > > can be caught, so you can see now how others are doing the same > and you > > > > can mention it to them in all sorts of ways and they will say > yes or no > > > > or I don't or what the ____ or who are you, or who do you think > you are > > > > and kiss my ____ .....and each answer will be understood as it is > > > > because your experience led you there we they are in experience > through > > > > all of it, in each way, and then out of it, and experiencing it > again in > > > > them you will do as required with whatever skill you are able to > bring, > > > > with each one. > > > > > > > > > All of this...no matter how comfortabloe you find it... emerges > > > downstream from the > > > assumption of autonomy..........it is still only smoke. > > > > > > > > > > Smoke it is. Scented vapors or stenchy ones depending on the nose. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now why don't try to come out of it by dropping your assumptions and > > > > beliefs. > > > > > > > > > > > > It is only your own belief that you have already done so. > > > > > > > > Incoherent twiddly dum do dabbee. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The water may be cold at first but it feels fine when you start > > > > experiencing differently again as it is without one filter to > > > > everything. Take your current dream/reality experience and try > on some > > > > new ones and get the hang of being free from it all. Buddha and > > > > Nagarjuna would like that, I am sure and if you are afraid, you can > > > > always go back to spinning the familiar web. No harm done for > you are > > > > teaching all of us as it is in your way and with great effect in > ways > > > > you do not realize. > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > > Lewis, > > > > > > I get the impression that you believe that you have had some sort of > > > realization..... > > > > > > that you have " it " figured out..... > > > > > > well....that's ok..........every highschooler believes that they know > > > what's going on.... > > > > > > even crazy people think they have a pretty goog grasp on > reality......... > > > > > > but > > > > > > > > > > > > that belief...is itself the plenum out of which the dream of > separation > > > emerges. > > > > > > > > > > > > No-one has any idea what's happening....or even if it is happening..... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > Hi Toombaru, > > > > No, I have no special realization. Just living out my life as others do > > in my way with others as they do. I have nothing figured out. I have no > > idea how things work. There is not a single idea that makes complete > > sense to me. I have no understanding of what life is, how it works, how > > I am what I am. Nothing. > > > > I am able to do stuff though. I can post and write stuff and work and > > live with my family and all that stuff. I can read and swim and all > > sorts of things like that. But I understanding none of it really in some > > all defining way. I know many ideas and concepts and am able to think > > about things and say things and assume things. I am able to present > > things. But as far as understanding anything, I cannot. > > > > I am able to know that there are infinite ways of thinking about > > something and that no matter how much energy I put into that I still do > > not know what it is. For me there is no thing that is separable from > > anything else so when I try to think about say a stapler, to understand > > what it is, it would take how many lifetimes in order to get the basics > > of what it is in the realm of the available concepts in physics and all > > the new ones that would be needed to make it intelligible. Just > > considering the nature of the material it is composed of would take all > > the knowledge of the hard sciences and that would end in zero because > > that is all theory and not yet complete and never will be. Then there is > > the invention itself and the history of the stapler and this one > > particular history and the particular elements that went into it and the > > its differences and similarities with all the other staplers. My mind > > will never know what a stapler is because it is not possible to know all > > of this and I cannot spend the time to exhaust it. I am able to know > > that after 5 minutes. The same goes for everything else. > > > > But I experience the stapler, learn what it does, use it, use for > > purposes it is not designed for and so on. I do not need to know all > > there is to know. I assume a bit o knowledge and go on. > > > One can indeed learn about staplers and apply that knowledge in ways > that can improve > life. > > > but > > > This not a discussion on things material. > > We are discussing the concepts that the brain cells in humans invent in > a futile attempt to > explain their own supposed reality. > > You have spent thousands of hours in this quest...that is quite > apperent...what comes > through is very polished...very logical.........but it is all > meaningless.......It talks about > something that doesn't even exist....it arises from something that > doesn't even exist...... > > > The whold body of work......can be tossed out........You don't need it > anymore..... > > dream fingers....pointing at a dream moon........ Ok. Toom. It is meaningless. It doesn't exist. I have tossed it out. I do not need it. Dream fingers pointing at a dream moon. I have done as you have asked before you asked because this never happened as you know it or perhaps not since you do not exist and never have but you have and have not existed and neither is the case as well. > > > > > > Now as far as who knows what is going on or happening there is an open > > field on that. People can imagine that do know what is happening and do > > as they imagine and if done in certain ways there are consequences like > > the invention of the airplane or a nuclear weapon. > > > ....again....things material. Something wrong with material, Toom? I do not see the difference between material and a thought. How do you manage to make the separation between material which is a thought in the mind and thought as thought in the mind. I see no separation. > . > > > > We have maps to do things. Saying that no one knows what is happening is > > true if we press each person to demonstrate their knowledge. It is > > frightening to think what such pressing would reveal in those who are > > running things. > > > They are not the ones running things. It is a figure of speech. Of course, no one is running things and you are correct. Yes and who is running things, you are correct. see below. > > > > > But saying that is neither here nor there. It is one > > view and it holds no special privilege among the billions of view in the > > world. It is yours and others, I understand it and you can do whatever > > you want with it. I spent time with it and moved on. > > > It is not the staying...or moving.......It is the belief that there is > an I that can do either that > is the problem. Yes. Using that I gets me into trouble. Remember when I did not use a single I in my posts for that period of acclimation. Ok. I know that no one is doing anything. This is true. There is no me. Never was. Ok. See below Mr. Shill. > > Your insistence on happening or not happening is only the base > > uncertainty that lies at the bottom of all appearances and mind. There > > is no fear in it. We will never ever ever never know anything completely > > and so nothing. This not a revelation. > > > > Of course if we allow our minds to be totally free of concept, we have > > no idea what is going on or if it is going on. This is a simple state of > > mind and I can experience this at any time. There is nothing special > > about. If you find that state of mind to be pleasing and it is > > satisfying and you like it and want and can see no other way but that > > and that all others are deluded because we say I ate a hot dog and you > > say, there is no one, there is no hot dog and there is no eating, well I > > can do that and experience that and say that without the least bit of > > discomfort and be able to know with certainty that this the case by > > simply pressing the hot dog eater to exhaust its knowledge and voila > > there is nothing! > > > > > > > > That is not special and no different than positing superstrings as the > > basis of material reality. Both can be said, both can be believed and so > > on. That is all you are able to do Toombaru, which is nothing more than > > I and I nothing more than you. > > > > The separation is your problem. Not mine Toombaru. I see no separation > > and feel none. > > > > > Yes......you do. Ok. If you insist, but remember there is no me to see and feel such a thing and the simple use of a pronoun should not throw you off. You could just humor me couldn't you? But...let's not have it both ways Toom in your lopsided and poor use of the tetralemma. So in the post you only have I am here see feeling separation or not here and therefore, incapable of see and feeling separation. You play the shell game poorly. You must include the possibilities that I am both here see feeling separation and not here and incapable of see and feeling separation and that I am neither here see feeling separation and not here and incapable of see and feeling separation. So if you do not mind, please use all of them and then tell me your how you came to use the one you did. But for my sake, let's keep me at being not here seeing no separation and feeling none.. This is my preferred experiencing condition. > > > > When I speak separation appears. It is the nature of > > language and concept to distinguish and it is futile to think or do > > otherwise. Blithering statements are blithering statements when taken > > from more coherent points of view. If I make blithering statements and I > > am able to rock with it, you will sound coherent in a conversation. But > > you will do as you will do as you do, and as I said before, you teach to > > great effect many things that you do not realize or comprehend so don't > > imagine that I think of you as an idiot or foolish. You have your web > > and have my webs that I spin. That sets us apart but we are both webbed > > in by the limit of the human mind and body. > > > > Lewis > > > > > > ** > > If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your > subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: > > /mygroups?edit=1 > > Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the > Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. > > > > ------ > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2005 Report Share Posted January 18, 2005 toombaru2004 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > Dear Toom, > > > > Just a note. You said, " It is only your own belief that you have > > already done so " in response to my suggestions to drop your beliefs and > > assumptions at least to play other games. Let me make it clear since it > > is not apparent to you about me. I cannot help but make assumptions. > > Just to wake up and go to the bathroom is one helluva load of > > assumptions that are there without thinking a groggy thought. I cannot > > write a single post without assumptions made about the nature of the > > universe in time and space all the thousands of things necessary to > > assume to get a post here. And one can never get away from this > > experience since it occurs below awareness so that we can carry on > > without having to manage over and over again what we learn to assume so > > we can go. > > > > So it is incoherent for you to suggest that I have such a belief. > > Someone may believe such non-sense but that is permissible and humorous > > as they go about assuming and as you know a little pressing of anyone > > and there is soon nothing coming out. So why don't you drop that > > particular assumption so your mind that will become that much more clear > > than it is. > > > A clear mind is like a still wind...or a non moving river. Or an oxymoron or water that becomes stagnant with each passing moment. > > > > > > > > And also I am able to change assumptions to a degree so that my blinders > > and colorations are different and I can see you in as many different > > lights as I wish making you this or that. This is what we can do and you > > can do it as well. I have no problem not knowing anything at all and > > being this way seems to be more helpful than harmful. > > > Once again....it is the I am that is the door into the dream. > > The I am believing that is has no problem knowing nothing is the I am > knowing > something. There is no one knowing something or anything since there is no I am. It is the deluded mind that cannot see the emptiness of a pronoun. > > > toombaru > > > > > > So you are now > > that big tree that I saw you as before. I will leave you to cleave to > > the ground, stationary and immobile and grand. Still the big tree but now blowing in a still wind near a non-moving river Lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2005 Report Share Posted January 18, 2005 .. > > > But for my sake, let's keep me at being not here seeing no separation > and feeling none.. This is my preferred experiencing condition. Where is this preferred experience...experienced? t. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2005 Report Share Posted January 18, 2005 Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > toombaru2004 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > Dear Toom, > > > > > > Just a note. You said, " It is only your own belief that you have > > > already done so " in response to my suggestions to drop your beliefs and > > > assumptions at least to play other games. Let me make it clear since it > > > is not apparent to you about me. I cannot help but make assumptions. > > > Just to wake up and go to the bathroom is one helluva load of > > > assumptions that are there without thinking a groggy thought. I cannot > > > write a single post without assumptions made about the nature of the > > > universe in time and space all the thousands of things necessary to > > > assume to get a post here. And one can never get away from this > > > experience since it occurs below awareness so that we can carry on > > > without having to manage over and over again what we learn to assume so > > > we can go. > > > > > > So it is incoherent for you to suggest that I have such a belief. > > > Someone may believe such non-sense but that is permissible and humorous > > > as they go about assuming and as you know a little pressing of anyone > > > and there is soon nothing coming out. So why don't you drop that > > > particular assumption so your mind that will become that much more clear > > > than it is. > > > > > > A clear mind is like a still wind...or a non moving river. > > > > > Or an oxymoron or water that becomes stagnant with each passing moment. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And also I am able to change assumptions to a degree so that my blinders > > > and colorations are different and I can see you in as many different > > > lights as I wish making you this or that. This is what we can do and you > > > can do it as well. I have no problem not knowing anything at all and > > > being this way seems to be more helpful than harmful. > > > > > > Once again....it is the I am that is the door into the dream. > > > > The I am believing that is has no problem knowing nothing is the I am > > knowing > > something. > > > > There is no one knowing something or anything since there is no I am. It > is the deluded mind that cannot see the emptiness of a pronoun. > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > So you are now > > > that big tree that I saw you as before. I will leave you to cleave to > > > the ground, stationary and immobile and grand. > > > Still the big tree but now blowing in a still wind near a non-moving river > > > > > Lewis Lewis, I love you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2005 Report Share Posted January 18, 2005 toombaru2004 wrote: > > . > > > > > > But for my sake, let's keep me at being not here seeing no separation > > and feeling none.. This is my preferred experiencing condition. > > > > Where is this preferred experience...experienced? > > > t. Well it feels like it is in the mindbody Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2005 Report Share Posted January 18, 2005 toombaru2004 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > toombaru2004 wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > Dear Toom, > > > > > > > > Just a note. You said, " It is only your own belief that you have > > > > already done so " in response to my suggestions to drop your > beliefs and > > > > assumptions at least to play other games. Let me make it clear > since it > > > > is not apparent to you about me. I cannot help but make assumptions. > > > > Just to wake up and go to the bathroom is one helluva load of > > > > assumptions that are there without thinking a groggy thought. I > cannot > > > > write a single post without assumptions made about the nature of the > > > > universe in time and space all the thousands of things necessary to > > > > assume to get a post here. And one can never get away from this > > > > experience since it occurs below awareness so that we can carry on > > > > without having to manage over and over again what we learn to > assume so > > > > we can go. > > > > > > > > So it is incoherent for you to suggest that I have such a belief. > > > > Someone may believe such non-sense but that is permissible and > humorous > > > > as they go about assuming and as you know a little pressing of > anyone > > > > and there is soon nothing coming out. So why don't you drop that > > > > particular assumption so your mind that will become that much > more clear > > > > than it is. > > > > > > > > > A clear mind is like a still wind...or a non moving river. > > > > > > > > > > Or an oxymoron or water that becomes stagnant with each passing moment. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And also I am able to change assumptions to a degree so that my > blinders > > > > and colorations are different and I can see you in as many different > > > > lights as I wish making you this or that. This is what we can do > and you > > > > can do it as well. I have no problem not knowing anything at all and > > > > being this way seems to be more helpful than harmful. > > > > > > > > > Once again....it is the I am that is the door into the dream. > > > > > > The I am believing that is has no problem knowing nothing is the I am > > > knowing > > > something. > > > > > > > > There is no one knowing something or anything since there is no I am. It > > is the deluded mind that cannot see the emptiness of a pronoun. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So you are now > > > > that big tree that I saw you as before. I will leave you to > cleave to > > > > the ground, stationary and immobile and grand. > > > > > > Still the big tree but now blowing in a still wind near a non-moving > river > > > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > Lewis, > > > I love you Toom, Ditto. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2005 Report Share Posted January 18, 2005 Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > Dear Toom, > > Just a note. You said, " It is only your own belief that you have > already done so " in response to my suggestions to drop your beliefs and > assumptions at least to play other games. Let me make it clear since it > is not apparent to you about me. I cannot help but make assumptions. > Just to wake up and go to the bathroom is one helluva load of > assumptions that are there without thinking a groggy thought. I cannot > write a single post without assumptions made about the nature of the > universe in time and space all the thousands of things necessary to > assume to get a post here. And one can never get away from this > experience since it occurs below awareness so that we can carry on > without having to manage over and over again what we learn to assume so > we can go. > > So it is incoherent for you to suggest that I have such a belief. > Someone may believe such non-sense but that is permissible and humorous > as they go about assuming and as you know a little pressing of anyone > and there is soon nothing coming out. So why don't you drop that > particular assumption so your mind that will become that much more clear > than it is. > > And also I am able to change assumptions to a degree so that my blinders > and colorations are different and I can see you in as many different > lights as I wish making you this or that. This is what we can do and you > can do it as well. I have no problem not knowing anything at all and > being this way seems to be more helpful than harmful. So you are now > that big tree that I saw you as before. I will leave you to cleave to > the ground, stationary and immobile and grand. > > Lewis ** " YOU WANT THE TRUTH!? " " YOU CAN'T *HANDLE* THE TRUTH!! " > > lol! )) kEN > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2005 Report Share Posted January 18, 2005 Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > toombaru2004 wrote: > > Toom wrote: > > This not a discussion on things material. > > > > We are discussing the concepts that the brain cells in humans invent in > > a futile attempt to > > explain their own supposed reality. > > > > You have spent thousands of hours in this quest...that is quite > > apperent...what comes > > through is very polished...very logical.........but it is all > > meaningless.......It talks about > > something that doesn't even exist....it arises from something that > > doesn't even exist...... > > > > > > The whold body of work......can be tossed out........You don't need it > > anymore..... > > > > dream fingers....pointing at a dream moon........ > > > Lewis wrote: > Ok. Toom. It is meaningless. It doesn't exist. I have tossed it out. I > do not need it. Dream fingers pointing at a dream moon. I have done as > you have asked before you asked because this never happened as you know > it or perhaps not since you do not exist and never have but you have and > have not existed and neither is the case as well. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now as far as who knows what is going on or happening there is an open > > > field on that. People can imagine that do know what is happening and do > > > as they imagine and if done in certain ways there are consequences like > > > the invention of the airplane or a nuclear weapon. > > > > > > ....again....things material. > > > Something wrong with material, Toom? I do not see the difference between > material and a thought. How do you manage to make the separation between > material which is a thought in the mind and thought as thought in the > mind. I see no separation. ** Sure, 'material' means 'measureable'-- that's all. > > > > > . > > > > > > We have maps to do things. Saying that no one knows what is happening is > > > true if we press each person to demonstrate their knowledge. It is > > > frightening to think what such pressing would reveal in those who are > > > running things. > > > > > > They are not the ones running things. > > > > It is a figure of speech. Of course, no one is running things and you > are correct. Yes and who is running things, you are correct. see below. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But saying that is neither here nor there. It is one > > > view and it holds no special privilege among the billions of view in the > > > world. It is yours and others, I understand it and you can do whatever > > > you want with it. I spent time with it and moved on. > > > > > > It is not the staying...or moving.......It is the belief that there is > > an I that can do either that > > is the problem. > > > > > Yes. Using that I gets me into trouble. Remember when I did not use a > single I in my posts for that period of acclimation. Ok. I know that no > one is doing anything. This is true. There is no me. Never was. Ok. See > below Mr. Shill. > > Your insistence on happening or not happening is only the base > > > uncertainty that lies at the bottom of all appearances and mind. There > > > is no fear in it. We will never ever ever never know anything completely > > > and so nothing. This not a revelation. > > > > > > Of course if we allow our minds to be totally free of concept, we have > > > no idea what is going on or if it is going on. This is a simple state of > > > mind and I can experience this at any time. There is nothing special > > > about. If you find that state of mind to be pleasing and it is > > > satisfying and you like it and want and can see no other way but that > > > and that all others are deluded because we say I ate a hot dog and you > > > say, there is no one, there is no hot dog and there is no eating, well I > > > can do that and experience that and say that without the least bit of > > > discomfort and be able to know with certainty that this the case by > > > simply pressing the hot dog eater to exhaust its knowledge and voila > > > there is nothing! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is not special and no different than positing superstrings as the > > > basis of material reality. Both can be said, both can be believed and so > > > on. That is all you are able to do Toombaru, which is nothing more than > > > I and I nothing more than you. > > > > > > The separation is your problem. Not mine Toombaru. I see no separation > > > and feel none. > > > > > > > > > > Yes......you do. > > > > > Ok. If you insist, but remember there is no me to see and feel such a > thing and the simple use of a pronoun should not throw you off. You > could just humor me couldn't you? > > But...let's not have it both ways Toom in your lopsided and poor use of > the tetralemma. So in the post you only have I am here see feeling > separation or not here and therefore, incapable of see and feeling > separation. You play the shell game poorly. You must include the > possibilities that I am both here see feeling separation and not here > and incapable of see and feeling separation and that I am neither here > see feeling separation and not here and incapable of see and feeling > separation. So if you do not mind, please use all of them and then tell > me your how you came to use the one you did. ** Lol! Bravo! > > > But for my sake, let's keep me at being not here seeing no separation > and feeling none.. This is my preferred experiencing condition. ** Yeah, Toom isn't really mean, but he sure is EXASPERATING!! Well...not to himself, of course. But his readers would like to see a higher level of dharma-combat! I mean, he's only tricking *himself* with his contradictions. ) Psst, Toom: It takes a thief to " bust " a thief. ;-0 Ken > > > > > > > > > When I speak separation appears. It is the nature of > > > language and concept to distinguish and it is futile to think or do > > > otherwise. Blithering statements are blithering statements when taken > > > from more coherent points of view. If I make blithering statements and I > > > am able to rock with it, you will sound coherent in a conversation. But > > > you will do as you will do as you do, and as I said before, you teach to > > > great effect many things that you do not realize or comprehend so don't > > > imagine that I think of you as an idiot or foolish. You have your web > > > and have my webs that I spin. That sets us apart but we are both webbed > > > in by the limit of the human mind and body. > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > > > > > ** > > > > If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your > > subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: > > > > /mygroups?edit=1 > > > > Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the > > Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. > > > > > > > > -------------------------------- ------- > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2005 Report Share Posted January 18, 2005 Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > toombaru2004 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > Dear Toom, > > > > > > Just a note. You said, " It is only your own belief that you have > > > already done so " in response to my suggestions to drop your beliefs and > > > assumptions at least to play other games. Let me make it clear since it > > > is not apparent to you about me. I cannot help but make assumptions. > > > Just to wake up and go to the bathroom is one helluva load of > > > assumptions that are there without thinking a groggy thought. I cannot > > > write a single post without assumptions made about the nature of the > > > universe in time and space all the thousands of things necessary to > > > assume to get a post here. And one can never get away from this > > > experience since it occurs below awareness so that we can carry on > > > without having to manage over and over again what we learn to assume so > > > we can go. > > > > > > So it is incoherent for you to suggest that I have such a belief. > > > Someone may believe such non-sense but that is permissible and humorous > > > as they go about assuming and as you know a little pressing of anyone > > > and there is soon nothing coming out. So why don't you drop that > > > particular assumption so your mind that will become that much more clear > > > than it is. > > > > > > A clear mind is like a still wind...or a non moving river. > > > > > Or an oxymoron or water that becomes stagnant with each passing moment. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And also I am able to change assumptions to a degree so that my blinders > > > and colorations are different and I can see you in as many different > > > lights as I wish making you this or that. This is what we can do and you > > > can do it as well. I have no problem not knowing anything at all and > > > being this way seems to be more helpful than harmful. > > > > > > Once again....it is the I am that is the door into the dream. > > > > The I am believing that is has no problem knowing nothing is the I am > > knowing > > something. > > > > There is no one knowing something or anything since there is no I am. It > is the deluded mind that cannot see the emptiness of a pronoun. > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > So you are now > > > that big tree that I saw you as before. I will leave you to cleave to > > > the ground, stationary and immobile and grand. > > > Still the big tree but now blowing in a still wind near a non- moving river ** Yeah...saw that one... " a non-moving river " ... I guess if he wasn't so busy " negating " he might have called it A POND! ;=} Ken > > > > > Lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2005 Report Share Posted January 18, 2005 > > > > Still the big tree but now blowing in a still wind near a non- > moving river > > ** Yeah...saw that one... " a non-moving river " ... > I guess if he wasn't so busy " negating " he might have called > it A POND! > > ;=} Ken Ken , That was the point..... A river is its movement....non moving water is not a river. Clarity of mind...is not possible.......Mind is confusion. A clear mind...is no mind. toombaru 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.