Guest guest Posted February 3, 2005 Report Share Posted February 3, 2005 Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > It is ---- EXISTING ---- > > > > > > > > > ----- BEING ----- > > > > > > ----- I AM ------ > > > What is I AM, ac? Very simple, Lewis! What is STILL left, ...when you take out everything that you CAN take out by any means whatsoever ... What is THAT, ...which can not be gotten rid of ... What is That, which IS ...ALWAYS .... ....No matter, ...what! ....thoughts, no-thoughts, love, hate, emptiness, fullness, peace, noise ... What is that which is ...ALWAYS ...there, NOW, ...Here, ...Ever ... What is that, which requires ...NO ...*Looking* What is that, requires ...NO ...explanation, NO ...Pointing, NO ...Investigation. NO ...inquiry. NO ...search. No ...inspection. Doesn't rises ... Doesn't fall ... What you can ...NEVER ...deny, No matter, ...What! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2005 Report Share Posted February 3, 2005 Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > And: > > What other frames for this age old battle are there? > > Can other questions be asked? Yes, RE: No-Self an I AM: One can wonder if language and thought mean anything, refer to anything, touch anything. What happens when I ask " What is no self. Is there a self?... " What effect do these words have floating in awareness? If I say, " Yes, there is a thing which the " I " refers to, a self. " -- does this make it so? What's actually happening when these questions are asked and answers come up, either to the affirmative or negative. It seems to me there is just a flux of sensations either way. Nothing is substantiated however. I notice whenever a position is taken and believed, a sense of contraction arises with this held position. Yet, besides that whether or not a position is held, this remains as it is. > > Is it all a futility? It doesn't matter what it's called, does it? It is so, it happens. I can call it " futility " which arises with a sense of annoyance or disgust. I can call it " the ultimate pinnacle of a life well-lived " which may be accompanied by sensations of pleasure and happiness. In either case, nothing is substantiated. In Buddhist terms, one should go with the more skillful of means. Joe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2005 Report Share Posted February 3, 2005 adithya_comming wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > > > It is ---- EXISTING ---- > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- BEING ----- > > > > > > > > ----- I AM ------ > > > > > > What is I AM, ac? > > Very simple, Lewis! > > What is STILL left, ...when you take out everything that you CAN take > out by any means whatsoever ... > > What is THAT, ...which can not be gotten rid of ... > > > What is That, which IS ...ALWAYS .... > ...No matter, ...what! > > ...thoughts, no-thoughts, love, hate, emptiness, fullness, peace, > noise ... > > What is that which is ...ALWAYS ...there, NOW, ...Here, ...Ever ... > > What is that, which requires ...NO ...*Looking* > What is that, requires ...NO ...explanation, > NO ...Pointing, > > NO ...Investigation. > NO ...inquiry. > NO ...search. > No ...inspection. > > Doesn't rises ... > Doesn't fall ... > > What you can ...NEVER ...deny, > No matter, ...What! Since there is " what is still left, " after complete denuding of every thing is it accurate to say that I AM is something that is no thing? Is I AM then no one? Is that accurate? And is that something an object? An appearance? Lewis Lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2005 Report Share Posted February 3, 2005 Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > adithya_comming wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > It is ---- EXISTING ---- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- BEING ----- > > > > > > > > > > ----- I AM ------ > > > > > > > > > What is I AM, ac? > > > > Very simple, Lewis! > > > > What is STILL left, ...when you take out everything that you CAN take > > out by any means whatsoever ... > > > > What is THAT, ...which can not be gotten rid of ... > > > > > > What is That, which IS ...ALWAYS .... > > ...No matter, ...what! > > > > ...thoughts, no-thoughts, love, hate, emptiness, fullness, peace, > > noise ... > > > > What is that which is ...ALWAYS ...there, NOW, ...Here, ...Ever ... > > > > What is that, which requires ...NO ...*Looking* > > What is that, requires ...NO ...explanation, > > NO ...Pointing, > > > > NO ...Investigation. > > NO ...inquiry. > > NO ...search. > > No ...inspection. > > > > Doesn't rises ... > > Doesn't fall ... > > > > What you can ...NEVER ...deny, > > No matter, ...What! > > >>Since there is " what is still left, " after complete denuding of every thing is it accurate to say that I AM is something that is no thing? Is I AM then no one? Is that accurate? Not a ...something ... Not a ...nothing Not ...a No-one Not ...an One `Who' cares, " what " it is `Who cares', " who " it is I AM ... or say, I AM ...THAT ...I AM I AM ...WHAT ...I AM. I AM. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2005 Report Share Posted February 3, 2005 josesiem wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > And: > > > > What other frames for this age old battle are there? > > > > Can other questions be asked? > > > Yes, RE: No-Self an I AM: One can wonder if language and thought mean > anything, refer to anything, touch anything. What happens when I > ask " What is no self. Is there a self?... " What effect do these words > have floating in awareness? If I say, " Yes, there is a thing which > the " I " refers to, a self. " -- does this make it so? What's actually > happening when these questions are asked and answers come up, either > to the affirmative or negative. > > It seems to me there is just a flux of sensations either way. Nothing > is substantiated however. I notice whenever a position is taken and > believed, a sense of contraction arises with this held position. Yet, > besides that whether or not a position is held, this remains as it is. Would you say that with all language, concepts, labels unsubstantiated, that when reading or hearing language and concept or thinking, feeling, experiencing and so forth, is there just a flux of sensations with variable changes in it without changing the flux itself? Is that flux of sensation describable, reachable, penetrable? Does the use of language and concept and labels in posting and in daily life alter that flux of sensations? Does the flux of sensations ever harden into something recognizable? Are you capable of being attached to a view or assumption or a perspective being that way? If so, what? If not, how do carry out the day? Does thinking interfere with the flux of sensations? Does anything disturb it or overturn it or impede it or damage it? Can you escape or get rid of the flux of sensations? Can you alter it? Do you depend on it? Do you cherish it? > > > > Is it all a futility? > > It doesn't matter what it's called, does it? It is so, it happens. I > can call it " futility " which arises with a sense of annoyance or > disgust. I can call it " the ultimate pinnacle of a life well-lived " > which may be accompanied by sensations of pleasure and happiness. > > In either case, nothing is substantiated. In Buddhist terms, one > should go with the more skillful of means. > > Joe > Any recommendations? Lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2005 Report Share Posted February 3, 2005 adithya_comming wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > adithya_comming wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > It is ---- EXISTING ---- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- BEING ----- > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- I AM ------ > > > > > > > > > > > > What is I AM, ac? > > > > > > Very simple, Lewis! > > > > > > What is STILL left, ...when you take out everything that you CAN > take > > > out by any means whatsoever ... > > > > > > What is THAT, ...which can not be gotten rid of ... > > > > > > > > > What is That, which IS ...ALWAYS .... > > > ...No matter, ...what! > > > > > > ...thoughts, no-thoughts, love, hate, emptiness, fullness, peace, > > > noise ... > > > > > > What is that which is ...ALWAYS ...there, > NOW, ...Here, ...Ever ... > > > > > > What is that, which requires ...NO ...*Looking* > > > What is that, requires ...NO ...explanation, > > > NO ...Pointing, > > > > > > NO ...Investigation. > > > NO ...inquiry. > > > NO ...search. > > > No ...inspection. > > > > > > Doesn't rises ... > > > Doesn't fall ... > > > > > > What you can ...NEVER ...deny, > > > No matter, ...What! > > > > > >>Since there is " what is still left, " after complete denuding of > every thing is it accurate to say that I AM is something that is no > thing? Is I AM then no one? Is that accurate? > > > Not a ...something ... > > Not a ...nothing > > > Not ...a No-one > > Not ...an One > > > `Who' cares, " what " it is > > `Who cares', " who " it is > > I AM ... > > > or say, > > I AM ...THAT ...I AM > > I AM ...WHAT ...I AM. > > > > I AM. So it can be said that I AM is not an object of any kind? Is this correct? If it is not an object what is " it? " " It " is used in your language. `Who' cares, " what " [it] is `Who cares', " who " [it] is So can we say that " I AM " and " it is " are the same? If so, is there any difference in saying " It is " and " I AM " ? If not, what is the difference? Lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2005 Report Share Posted February 3, 2005 Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > adithya_comming wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > adithya_comming wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is ---- EXISTING ---- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- BEING ----- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- I AM ------ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is I AM, ac? > > > > > > > > Very simple, Lewis! > > > > > > > > What is STILL left, ...when you take out everything that you CAN > > take > > > > out by any means whatsoever ... > > > > > > > > What is THAT, ...which can not be gotten rid of ... > > > > > > > > > > > > What is That, which IS ...ALWAYS .... > > > > ...No matter, ...what! > > > > > > > > ...thoughts, no-thoughts, love, hate, emptiness, fullness, peace, > > > > noise ... > > > > > > > > What is that which is ...ALWAYS ...there, > > NOW, ...Here, ...Ever ... > > > > > > > > What is that, which requires ...NO ...*Looking* > > > > What is that, requires ...NO ...explanation, > > > > NO ...Pointing, > > > > > > > > NO ...Investigation. > > > > NO ...inquiry. > > > > NO ...search. > > > > No ...inspection. > > > > > > > > Doesn't rises ... > > > > Doesn't fall ... > > > > > > > > What you can ...NEVER ...deny, > > > > No matter, ...What! > > > > > > > > >>Since there is " what is still left, " after complete denuding of > > every thing is it accurate to say that I AM is something that is no > > thing? Is I AM then no one? Is that accurate? > > > > > > Not a ...something ... > > > > Not a ...nothing > > > > > > Not ...a No-one > > > > Not ...an One > > > > > > `Who' cares, " what " it is > > > > `Who cares', " who " it is > > > > I AM ... > > > > > > or say, > > > > I AM ...THAT ...I AM > > > > I AM ...WHAT ...I AM. > > > > > > > > I AM. > > > So it can be said that I AM is not an object of any kind? Is this correct? > > If it is not an object what is " it? " > > " It " is used in your language. > > `Who' cares, " what " [it] is > > `Who cares', " who " [it] is > > > So can we say that " I AM " and " it is " are the same? > > If so, is there any difference in saying " It is " and " I AM " ? > > If not, what is the difference? > > > Lewis Again, quite simple, Lewis. As I said, it is ... KNOWN ...Always. It can ...NEVER ...be forgotten. It can ...NEVER ...be `remembered' because it can never be forgotten ...in the first place. It can ...NEVER ...be gotten rid of. It requires ...NO ...external aid to know. .....memory, logic, thinking, senses, ...it requires none of that. .. .... ...... All that implies, that, ...you have it too! You ...KNOW ...it, too. There is ...NO ...way Not to KNOW it! I said, what I felt appropriate about it. If you want to say something more or something different, You can ...ALWAYS ....do it, yourself ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2005 Report Share Posted February 3, 2005 In a message dated 2/3/05 10:10:57 AM, lbb10 writes: > If not, what is the difference? > > > > > > > > > This question is canceled by the answer above. > > > > > > If the answers are accurate ac and that has been said remain, can it > > be said that: > > > > There is no I AM > > There is no it is, what is, THAT, HERE, etc. > > There is no SELF > > There is no NO SELF > > There is no ultimate > > There is no infinity > > There is no certainty > > There is no uncertainty > > > > Since all are conceptual objects, conventional terms for " wordless > > existing/doing as is, " (another conceptual object) is there need to > > defend, assert, demand, deny, love, hate, cherish, etc. them or allow > > these objects to confuse? > > > > If the answers are accurate ac. and what has been said remains, can it > > be said that: > > > > There is no " wordless existing/doing as is. " > > > An ax is given to woodcutter so he can cut wood with blade and handle. > What good is an ax without the sharpened blade. The handle can be used > to beat the trees. It cannot cut the wood. All day the woodcutter > beats the trees. When he goes home is abode is cold. > > > > > P: this is getting long, this is getting silly Why not give it up, sounds too willy nilly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2005 Report Share Posted February 3, 2005 Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " <adithya_comming> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > adithya_comming wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > adithya_comming wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess > <lbb10@c...> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is ---- EXISTING ---- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- BEING ----- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- I AM ------ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is I AM, ac? > > > > > > > > > > Very simple, Lewis! > > > > > > > > > > What is STILL left, ...when you take out everything that you > CAN > > > take > > > > > out by any means whatsoever ... > > > > > > > > > > What is THAT, ...which can not be gotten rid of ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is That, which IS ...ALWAYS .... > > > > > ...No matter, ...what! > > > > > > > > > > ...thoughts, no-thoughts, love, hate, emptiness, fullness, > peace, > > > > > noise ... > > > > > > > > > > What is that which is ...ALWAYS ...there, > > > NOW, ...Here, ...Ever ... > > > > > > > > > > What is that, which requires ...NO ...*Looking* > > > > > What is that, requires ...NO ...explanation, > > > > > NO ...Pointing, > > > > > > > > > > NO ...Investigation. > > > > > NO ...inquiry. > > > > > NO ...search. > > > > > No ...inspection. > > > > > > > > > > Doesn't rises ... > > > > > Doesn't fall ... > > > > > > > > > > What you can ...NEVER ...deny, > > > > > No matter, ...What! > > > > > > > > > > > >>Since there is " what is still left, " after complete denuding of > > > every thing is it accurate to say that I AM is something that is > no > > > thing? Is I AM then no one? Is that accurate? > > > > > > > > > Not a ...something ... > > > > > > Not a ...nothing > > > > > > > > > Not ...a No-one > > > > > > Not ...an One > > > > > > > > > `Who' cares, " what " it is > > > > > > `Who cares', " who " it is > > > > > > I AM ... > > > > > > > > > or say, > > > > > > I AM ...THAT ...I AM > > > > > > I AM ...WHAT ...I AM. > > > > > > > > > > > > I AM. > > > > > > So it can be said that I AM is not an object of any kind? Is this > correct? > > > > If it is not an object what is " it? " > > > > " It " is used in your language. > > > > `Who' cares, " what " [it] is > > > > `Who cares', " who " [it] is > > > > > > So can we say that " I AM " and " it is " are the same? > > > > If so, is there any difference in saying " It is " and " I AM " ? > > > > If not, what is the difference? > > > > > > Lewis > > > Again, quite simple, Lewis. > > As I said, it is ... KNOWN ...Always. > > It can ...NEVER ...be forgotten. > > > It can ...NEVER ...be `remembered' because it can never be > forgotten ...in the first place. > > It can ...NEVER ...be gotten rid of. > > It requires ...NO ...external aid to know. > ....memory, logic, thinking, senses, ...it requires none of that. > > > . > ... > ..... > > All that implies, that, ...you have it too! > > You ...KNOW ...it, too. > > > There is ...NO ...way Not to KNOW it! > > > I said, what I felt appropriate about it. > > If you want to say something more or something different, > > You can ...ALWAYS ....do it, yourself ! Ok. Let us do it then ac. Would this be an accurate set of answers? > > So it can be said that I AM is not an object of any kind? Is this > correct? Yes. That is correct. > > > > If it is not an object what is " it? " It is an " indescribable subject, " that is why " it " is as described above. > > > > " It " is used in your language. > > > > `Who' cares, " what " [it] is > > > > `Who cares', " who " [it] is Yes. That is correct. > > > > So can we say that " I AM " and " it is " are the same? Yes. > > > > If so, is there any difference in saying " It is " and " I AM " ? No, there is not. The words are conventions, they make no difference to what is; to what I AM. > > > > If not, what is the difference? This question is canceled by the answer above. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2005 Report Share Posted February 3, 2005 Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " <adithya_comming> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > adithya_comming wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > adithya_comming wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess > <lbb10@c...> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is ---- EXISTING ---- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- BEING ----- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- I AM ------ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is I AM, ac? > > > > > > > > > > Very simple, Lewis! > > > > > > > > > > What is STILL left, ...when you take out everything that you > CAN > > > take > > > > > out by any means whatsoever ... > > > > > > > > > > What is THAT, ...which can not be gotten rid of ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is That, which IS ...ALWAYS .... > > > > > ...No matter, ...what! > > > > > > > > > > ...thoughts, no-thoughts, love, hate, emptiness, fullness, > peace, > > > > > noise ... > > > > > > > > > > What is that which is ...ALWAYS ...there, > > > NOW, ...Here, ...Ever ... > > > > > > > > > > What is that, which requires ...NO ...*Looking* > > > > > What is that, requires ...NO ...explanation, > > > > > NO ...Pointing, > > > > > > > > > > NO ...Investigation. > > > > > NO ...inquiry. > > > > > NO ...search. > > > > > No ...inspection. > > > > > > > > > > Doesn't rises ... > > > > > Doesn't fall ... > > > > > > > > > > What you can ...NEVER ...deny, > > > > > No matter, ...What! > > > > > > > > > > > >>Since there is " what is still left, " after complete denuding of > > > every thing is it accurate to say that I AM is something that is > no > > > thing? Is I AM then no one? Is that accurate? > > > > > > > > > Not a ...something ... > > > > > > Not a ...nothing > > > > > > > > > Not ...a No-one > > > > > > Not ...an One > > > > > > > > > `Who' cares, " what " it is > > > > > > `Who cares', " who " it is > > > > > > I AM ... > > > > > > > > > or say, > > > > > > I AM ...THAT ...I AM > > > > > > I AM ...WHAT ...I AM. > > > > > > > > > > > > I AM. > > > > > > So it can be said that I AM is not an object of any kind? Is this > correct? > > > > If it is not an object what is " it? " > > > > " It " is used in your language. > > > > `Who' cares, " what " [it] is > > > > `Who cares', " who " [it] is > > > > > > So can we say that " I AM " and " it is " are the same? > > > > If so, is there any difference in saying " It is " and " I AM " ? > > > > If not, what is the difference? > > > > > > Lewis > > > Again, quite simple, Lewis. > > As I said, it is ... KNOWN ...Always. > > It can ...NEVER ...be forgotten. > > > It can ...NEVER ...be `remembered' because it can never be > forgotten ...in the first place. > > It can ...NEVER ...be gotten rid of. > > It requires ...NO ...external aid to know. > ....memory, logic, thinking, senses, ...it requires none of that. > > > . > ... > ..... > > All that implies, that, ...you have it too! > > You ...KNOW ...it, too. > > > There is ...NO ...way Not to KNOW it! > > > I said, what I felt appropriate about it. > > If you want to say something more or something different, > > You can ...ALWAYS ....do it, yourself ! empty......babble Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2005 Report Share Posted February 3, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " > <adithya_comming> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > adithya_comming wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > adithya_comming wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess > > <lbb10@c...> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is ---- EXISTING ---- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- BEING ----- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- I AM ------ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is I AM, ac? > > > > > > > > > > > > Very simple, Lewis! > > > > > > > > > > > > What is STILL left, ...when you take out everything that you > > CAN > > > > take > > > > > > out by any means whatsoever ... > > > > > > > > > > > > What is THAT, ...which can not be gotten rid of ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is That, which IS ...ALWAYS .... > > > > > > ...No matter, ...what! > > > > > > > > > > > > ...thoughts, no-thoughts, love, hate, emptiness, fullness, > > peace, > > > > > > noise ... > > > > > > > > > > > > What is that which is ...ALWAYS ...there, > > > > NOW, ...Here, ...Ever ... > > > > > > > > > > > > What is that, which requires ...NO ...*Looking* > > > > > > What is that, requires ...NO ...explanation, > > > > > > NO ...Pointing, > > > > > > > > > > > > NO ...Investigation. > > > > > > NO ...inquiry. > > > > > > NO ...search. > > > > > > No ...inspection. > > > > > > > > > > > > Doesn't rises ... > > > > > > Doesn't fall ... > > > > > > > > > > > > What you can ...NEVER ...deny, > > > > > > No matter, ...What! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>Since there is " what is still left, " after complete denuding of > > > > every thing is it accurate to say that I AM is something that is > > no > > > > thing? Is I AM then no one? Is that accurate? > > > > > > > > > > > > Not a ...something ... > > > > > > > > Not a ...nothing > > > > > > > > > > > > Not ...a No-one > > > > > > > > Not ...an One > > > > > > > > > > > > `Who' cares, " what " it is > > > > > > > > `Who cares', " who " it is > > > > > > > > I AM ... > > > > > > > > > > > > or say, > > > > > > > > I AM ...THAT ...I AM > > > > > > > > I AM ...WHAT ...I AM. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I AM. > > > > > > > > > So it can be said that I AM is not an object of any kind? Is this > > correct? > > > > > > If it is not an object what is " it? " > > > > > > " It " is used in your language. > > > > > > `Who' cares, " what " [it] is > > > > > > `Who cares', " who " [it] is > > > > > > > > > So can we say that " I AM " and " it is " are the same? > > > > > > If so, is there any difference in saying " It is " and " I AM " ? > > > > > > If not, what is the difference? > > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > Again, quite simple, Lewis. > > > > As I said, it is ... KNOWN ...Always. > > > > It can ...NEVER ...be forgotten. > > > > > > It can ...NEVER ...be `remembered' because it can never be > > forgotten ...in the first place. > > > > It can ...NEVER ...be gotten rid of. > > > > It requires ...NO ...external aid to know. > > ....memory, logic, thinking, senses, ...it requires none of that. > > > > > > . > > ... > > ..... > > > > All that implies, that, ...you have it too! > > > > You ...KNOW ...it, too. > > > > > > There is ...NO ...way Not to KNOW it! > > > > > > I said, what I felt appropriate about it. > > > > If you want to say something more or something different, > > > > You can ...ALWAYS ....do it, yourself ! > > > > > > Ok. Let us do it then ac. Would this be an accurate set of answers? > > > > > So it can be said that I AM is not an object of any kind? Is this > > correct? > > > Yes. That is correct. > > > > > > > > If it is not an object what is " it? " > > > It is an " indescribable subject, " that is why " it " is as described above. > > > > > > > > " It " is used in your language. > > > > > > `Who' cares, " what " [it] is > > > > > > `Who cares', " who " [it] is > > > Yes. That is correct. > > > > > > > > So can we say that " I AM " and " it is " are the same? > > > Yes. > > > > > > > > If so, is there any difference in saying " It is " and " I AM " ? > > > No, there is not. The words are conventions, they make no difference > to what is; to what I AM. > > > > > > > > If not, what is the difference? > > > This question is canceled by the answer above. If the answers are accurate ac and that has been said remain, can it be said that: There is no I AM There is no it is, what is, THAT, HERE, etc. There is no SELF There is no NO SELF There is no ultimate There is no infinity There is no certainty There is no uncertainty Since all are conceptual objects, conventional terms for " wordless existing/doing as is, " (another conceptual object) is there need to defend, assert, demand, deny, love, hate, cherish, etc. them or allow these objects to confuse? If the answers are accurate ac. and what has been said remains, can it be said that: There is no " wordless existing/doing as is. " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2005 Report Share Posted February 3, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " > > <adithya_comming> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > adithya_comming wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > adithya_comming wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess > > > <lbb10@c...> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is ---- EXISTING ---- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- BEING ----- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- I AM ------ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is I AM, ac? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Very simple, Lewis! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is STILL left, ...when you take out everything that you > > > CAN > > > > > take > > > > > > > out by any means whatsoever ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is THAT, ...which can not be gotten rid of ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is That, which IS ...ALWAYS .... > > > > > > > ...No matter, ...what! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...thoughts, no-thoughts, love, hate, emptiness, fullness, > > > peace, > > > > > > > noise ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is that which is ...ALWAYS ...there, > > > > > NOW, ...Here, ...Ever ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is that, which requires ...NO ...*Looking* > > > > > > > What is that, requires ...NO ...explanation, > > > > > > > NO ...Pointing, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > NO ...Investigation. > > > > > > > NO ...inquiry. > > > > > > > NO ...search. > > > > > > > No ...inspection. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Doesn't rises ... > > > > > > > Doesn't fall ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What you can ...NEVER ...deny, > > > > > > > No matter, ...What! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>Since there is " what is still left, " after complete denuding of > > > > > every thing is it accurate to say that I AM is something that is > > > no > > > > > thing? Is I AM then no one? Is that accurate? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not a ...something ... > > > > > > > > > > Not a ...nothing > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not ...a No-one > > > > > > > > > > Not ...an One > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > `Who' cares, " what " it is > > > > > > > > > > `Who cares', " who " it is > > > > > > > > > > I AM ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or say, > > > > > > > > > > I AM ...THAT ...I AM > > > > > > > > > > I AM ...WHAT ...I AM. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I AM. > > > > > > > > > > > > So it can be said that I AM is not an object of any kind? Is this > > > correct? > > > > > > > > If it is not an object what is " it? " > > > > > > > > " It " is used in your language. > > > > > > > > `Who' cares, " what " [it] is > > > > > > > > `Who cares', " who " [it] is > > > > > > > > > > > > So can we say that " I AM " and " it is " are the same? > > > > > > > > If so, is there any difference in saying " It is " and " I AM " ? > > > > > > > > If not, what is the difference? > > > > > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > > Again, quite simple, Lewis. > > > > > > As I said, it is ... KNOWN ...Always. > > > > > > It can ...NEVER ...be forgotten. > > > > > > > > > It can ...NEVER ...be `remembered' because it can never be > > > forgotten ...in the first place. > > > > > > It can ...NEVER ...be gotten rid of. > > > > > > It requires ...NO ...external aid to know. > > > ....memory, logic, thinking, senses, ...it requires none of that. > > > > > > > > > . > > > ... > > > ..... > > > > > > All that implies, that, ...you have it too! > > > > > > You ...KNOW ...it, too. > > > > > > > > > There is ...NO ...way Not to KNOW it! > > > > > > > > > I said, what I felt appropriate about it. > > > > > > If you want to say something more or something different, > > > > > > You can ...ALWAYS ....do it, yourself ! > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok. Let us do it then ac. Would this be an accurate set of answers? > > > > > > > > So it can be said that I AM is not an object of any kind? Is this > > > correct? > > > > > > Yes. That is correct. > > > > > > > > > > > > If it is not an object what is " it? " > > > > > > It is an " indescribable subject, " that is why " it " is as described > above. > > > > > > > > > > > > " It " is used in your language. > > > > > > > > `Who' cares, " what " [it] is > > > > > > > > `Who cares', " who " [it] is > > > > > > Yes. That is correct. > > > > > > > > > > > > So can we say that " I AM " and " it is " are the same? > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > > > > > > If so, is there any difference in saying " It is " and " I AM " ? > > > > > > No, there is not. The words are conventions, they make no difference > > to what is; to what I AM. > > > > > > > > > > > > If not, what is the difference? > > > > > > This question is canceled by the answer above. > > > If the answers are accurate ac and that has been said remain, can it > be said that: > > There is no I AM > There is no it is, what is, THAT, HERE, etc. > There is no SELF > There is no NO SELF > There is no ultimate > There is no infinity > There is no certainty > There is no uncertainty > > Since all are conceptual objects, conventional terms for " wordless > existing/doing as is, " (another conceptual object) is there need to > defend, assert, demand, deny, love, hate, cherish, etc. them or allow > these objects to confuse? > > If the answers are accurate ac. and what has been said remains, can it > be said that: > > There is no " wordless existing/doing as is. " An ax is given to woodcutter so he can cut wood with blade and handle. What good is an ax without the sharpened blade. The handle can be used to beat the trees. It cannot cut the wood. All day the woodcutter beats the trees. When he goes home is abode is cold. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2005 Report Share Posted February 3, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " > > <adithya_comming> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > adithya_comming wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > adithya_comming wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess > > > <lbb10@c...> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is ---- EXISTING ---- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- BEING ----- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- I AM ------ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is I AM, ac? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Very simple, Lewis! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is STILL left, ...when you take out everything that you > > > CAN > > > > > take > > > > > > > out by any means whatsoever ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is THAT, ...which can not be gotten rid of ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is That, which IS ...ALWAYS .... > > > > > > > ...No matter, ...what! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...thoughts, no-thoughts, love, hate, emptiness, fullness, > > > peace, > > > > > > > noise ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is that which is ...ALWAYS ...there, > > > > > NOW, ...Here, ...Ever ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is that, which requires ...NO ...*Looking* > > > > > > > What is that, requires ...NO ...explanation, > > > > > > > NO ...Pointing, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > NO ...Investigation. > > > > > > > NO ...inquiry. > > > > > > > NO ...search. > > > > > > > No ...inspection. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Doesn't rises ... > > > > > > > Doesn't fall ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What you can ...NEVER ...deny, > > > > > > > No matter, ...What! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>Since there is " what is still left, " after complete denuding of > > > > > every thing is it accurate to say that I AM is something that is > > > no > > > > > thing? Is I AM then no one? Is that accurate? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not a ...something ... > > > > > > > > > > Not a ...nothing > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not ...a No-one > > > > > > > > > > Not ...an One > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > `Who' cares, " what " it is > > > > > > > > > > `Who cares', " who " it is > > > > > > > > > > I AM ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or say, > > > > > > > > > > I AM ...THAT ...I AM > > > > > > > > > > I AM ...WHAT ...I AM. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I AM. > > > > > > > > > > > > So it can be said that I AM is not an object of any kind? Is this > > > correct? > > > > > > > > If it is not an object what is " it? " > > > > > > > > " It " is used in your language. > > > > > > > > `Who' cares, " what " [it] is > > > > > > > > `Who cares', " who " [it] is > > > > > > > > > > > > So can we say that " I AM " and " it is " are the same? > > > > > > > > If so, is there any difference in saying " It is " and " I AM " ? > > > > > > > > If not, what is the difference? > > > > > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > > Again, quite simple, Lewis. > > > > > > As I said, it is ... KNOWN ...Always. > > > > > > It can ...NEVER ...be forgotten. > > > > > > > > > It can ...NEVER ...be `remembered' because it can never be > > > forgotten ...in the first place. > > > > > > It can ...NEVER ...be gotten rid of. > > > > > > It requires ...NO ...external aid to know. > > > ....memory, logic, thinking, senses, ...it requires none of that. > > > > > > > > > . > > > ... > > > ..... > > > > > > All that implies, that, ...you have it too! > > > > > > You ...KNOW ...it, too. > > > > > > > > > There is ...NO ...way Not to KNOW it! > > > > > > > > > I said, what I felt appropriate about it. > > > > > > If you want to say something more or something different, > > > > > > You can ...ALWAYS ....do it, yourself ! > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok. Let us do it then ac. Would this be an accurate set of answers? > > > > > > > > So it can be said that I AM is not an object of any kind? Is this > > > correct? > > > > > > Yes. That is correct. > > > > > > > > > > > > If it is not an object what is " it? " > > > > > > It is an " indescribable subject, " that is why " it " is as described > above. > > > > > > > > > > > > " It " is used in your language. > > > > > > > > `Who' cares, " what " [it] is > > > > > > > > `Who cares', " who " [it] is > > > > > > Yes. That is correct. > > > > > > > > > > > > So can we say that " I AM " and " it is " are the same? > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > > > > > > If so, is there any difference in saying " It is " and " I AM " ? > > > > > > No, there is not. The words are conventions, they make no difference > > to what is; to what I AM. > > > > > > > > > > > > If not, what is the difference? > > > > > > This question is canceled by the answer above. > > > If the answers are accurate ac and that has been said remain, can it > be said that: > > There is no I AM > There is no it is, what is, THAT, HERE, etc. > There is no SELF > There is no NO SELF > There is no ultimate > There is no infinity > There is no certainty > There is no uncertainty > > Since all are conceptual objects, conventional terms for " wordless > existing/doing as is, " (another conceptual object) is there need to > defend, assert, demand, deny, love, hate, cherish, etc. them or allow > these objects to confuse? > > If the answers are accurate ac. and what has been said remains, can it > be said that: > > There is no " wordless existing/doing as is. " Say, whatever, pleases you, Lewis. I AM. .. .... ...... Alternatively, ...you can just answer: What is that, ...which you can ...NEVER ...deny ? Call it, ...'xyz', if that, feels appropriate to you. Or, do Not call it, ....if you don't wish to. Or keep drawing in 100 miles circle around it, ...if, that is More enjoyable. What is ...THERE, ...WHEN, ...drawing these 100 miles circles ? What is ...THERE, ...WHEN, ....NOT ...drawing these 100 miles circles ? ...... .... .. See, if it is possible to answer it, ...simply, honestly, sincerely, openly ...'courageously' or if there is a NEED to draw one more ---- philosophical --- circle --- .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2005 Report Share Posted February 3, 2005 Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " <adithya_comming> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " > > > <adithya_comming> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > adithya_comming wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess > <lbb10@c...> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > adithya_comming wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess > > > > <lbb10@c...> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is ---- EXISTING ---- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- BEING ----- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- I AM ------ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is I AM, ac? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Very simple, Lewis! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is STILL left, ...when you take out everything > that you > > > > CAN > > > > > > take > > > > > > > > out by any means whatsoever ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is THAT, ...which can not be gotten rid of ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is That, which IS ...ALWAYS .... > > > > > > > > ...No matter, ...what! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...thoughts, no-thoughts, love, hate, emptiness, > fullness, > > > > peace, > > > > > > > > noise ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is that which is ...ALWAYS ...there, > > > > > > NOW, ...Here, ...Ever ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is that, which requires ...NO ...*Looking* > > > > > > > > What is that, requires ...NO ...explanation, > > > > > > > > NO ...Pointing, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > NO ...Investigation. > > > > > > > > NO ...inquiry. > > > > > > > > NO ...search. > > > > > > > > No ...inspection. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Doesn't rises ... > > > > > > > > Doesn't fall ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What you can ...NEVER ...deny, > > > > > > > > No matter, ...What! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>Since there is " what is still left, " after complete > denuding of > > > > > > every thing is it accurate to say that I AM is something > that is > > > > no > > > > > > thing? Is I AM then no one? Is that accurate? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not a ...something ... > > > > > > > > > > > > Not a ...nothing > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not ...a No-one > > > > > > > > > > > > Not ...an One > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > `Who' cares, " what " it is > > > > > > > > > > > > `Who cares', " who " it is > > > > > > > > > > > > I AM ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or say, > > > > > > > > > > > > I AM ...THAT ...I AM > > > > > > > > > > > > I AM ...WHAT ...I AM. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I AM. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So it can be said that I AM is not an object of any kind? Is > this > > > > correct? > > > > > > > > > > If it is not an object what is " it? " > > > > > > > > > > " It " is used in your language. > > > > > > > > > > `Who' cares, " what " [it] is > > > > > > > > > > `Who cares', " who " [it] is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So can we say that " I AM " and " it is " are the same? > > > > > > > > > > If so, is there any difference in saying " It is " and " I AM " ? > > > > > > > > > > If not, what is the difference? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, quite simple, Lewis. > > > > > > > > As I said, it is ... KNOWN ...Always. > > > > > > > > It can ...NEVER ...be forgotten. > > > > > > > > > > > > It can ...NEVER ...be `remembered' because it can never be > > > > forgotten ...in the first place. > > > > > > > > It can ...NEVER ...be gotten rid of. > > > > > > > > It requires ...NO ...external aid to know. > > > > ....memory, logic, thinking, senses, ...it requires none of > that. > > > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > ... > > > > ..... > > > > > > > > All that implies, that, ...you have it too! > > > > > > > > You ...KNOW ...it, too. > > > > > > > > > > > > There is ...NO ...way Not to KNOW it! > > > > > > > > > > > > I said, what I felt appropriate about it. > > > > > > > > If you want to say something more or something different, > > > > > > > > You can ...ALWAYS ....do it, yourself ! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok. Let us do it then ac. Would this be an accurate set of > answers? > > > > > > > > > > > So it can be said that I AM is not an object of any kind? Is > this > > > > correct? > > > > > > > > > Yes. That is correct. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If it is not an object what is " it? " > > > > > > > > > It is an " indescribable subject, " that is why " it " is as described > > above. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " It " is used in your language. > > > > > > > > > > `Who' cares, " what " [it] is > > > > > > > > > > `Who cares', " who " [it] is > > > > > > > > > Yes. That is correct. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So can we say that " I AM " and " it is " are the same? > > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If so, is there any difference in saying " It is " and " I AM " ? > > > > > > > > > No, there is not. The words are conventions, they make no > difference > > > to what is; to what I AM. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If not, what is the difference? > > > > > > > > > This question is canceled by the answer above. > > > > > > If the answers are accurate ac and that has been said remain, can it > > be said that: > > > > There is no I AM > > There is no it is, what is, THAT, HERE, etc. > > There is no SELF > > There is no NO SELF > > There is no ultimate > > There is no infinity > > There is no certainty > > There is no uncertainty > > > > Since all are conceptual objects, conventional terms for " wordless > > existing/doing as is, " (another conceptual object) is there need to > > defend, assert, demand, deny, love, hate, cherish, etc. them or > allow > > these objects to confuse? > > > > If the answers are accurate ac. and what has been said remains, can > it > > be said that: > > > > There is no " wordless existing/doing as is. " > > > > Say, whatever, pleases you, Lewis. > > I AM. > > > . > ... > ..... > > Alternatively, ...you can just answer: > > What is that, ...which you can ...NEVER ...deny ? > > Call it, ...'xyz', if that, feels appropriate to you. > > Or, do Not call it, ....if you don't wish to. > > Or keep drawing in 100 miles circle around it, ...if, that is More > enjoyable. > > > What is ...THERE, ...WHEN, ...drawing these 100 miles circles ? > > What is ...THERE, ...WHEN, ....NOT ...drawing these 100 miles > circles ? > > ..... > ... > . > > See, if it is possible to answer it, ...simply, honestly, sincerely, > openly ...'courageously' or if there is a NEED to draw one more ---- > philosophical --- circle --- > > ... ME 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.