Guest guest Posted February 7, 2005 Report Share Posted February 7, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My idea is...........that ALL > > suffering..........can > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > avoided.............by......intense..........awareness.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Divisionless awareness avoids nothing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All-inclusive, holographic. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Divisionless awareness is a regression into > > oblivion. > > > > True > > > > > > > > > awareness > > > > > > > > > > is so much smarter than that! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Divisionless oblivion is a regression into awareness. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > True oblivion is so much less than you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't understand what you mean here. Can you explain > > it in > > > > > > > another way? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (You thrive way too much on explanations.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Remember the most important word: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No. > > > > > > > > > > > > No means that every time you try to assert a truth, > > > > > > you are hit with its negation. > > > > > > > > > > > > Every time you try to move forward, expand knowing, > > > > > > you are hit with the negation of that movement. > > > > > > > > > > > > Any explanation has to hit this wall of " no. " > > > > > > > > > > > > Joshu's " mu " - or " no " -- > > > > > > > > > > > > It is not that you are being singled out to be negated. > > > > > > > > > > > > It that any affirmation includes its own negation. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > > > > > Now you have become trapped in your own snare. If " any > > affirmation > > > > > includes its own negation " , then how about the > > affirmation: " any > > > > > affirmation includes its own negation " > > > > > > > > > > ? > > > > > > > > It's not a snare, it's the way it is. > > > > > > > > It includes every single word that I, you, or anyone else > > > > has ever written. > > > > > > > > If one has eyes to see, ears to hear. > > > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > We can by this surely see the limits of logic. Wasn't it Gödel who > > > said that no logical system is complete? Believeing that the > > intellect > > > can find the answer to any fundamental question is propably a > > recipe > > > for struggle. > > > > > > /AL > > > > The question is: can you *be here* where no assumption > > is involved? > > > > It has nothing to do with establishing a system. > > > > -- Dan > > > Can there be a *be here* where no assumption is involved? To know what I'm saying, you have to read " in between " the words, Lewis. The truth isn't in the word meanings. Yet, once in a while, there is, indeed, a hearing that is not of or from the words themselves, but the silence " between " -- which infuses the words. There is no need to get rid of words, or not have words, but to listen through and beyond the words themselves. -- D. (nothing new below) > > Can this *be here* where no assumption is involved be asserted without > assuming something? > > Can any mention of a *be here* in any form, *be here* or !*be here*! > or BEHERE be made, pointed to with any meaning other than not where, > not a moment, *this one* is at and " somewhere " " some moment, " where > *this one* can be? > > Why not say, Can you **be over here** or **be over there* where no > assumption is involved? > > What would be the difference between these three questions? > > Is there another way to point to the same thing (*be here*) that is > not assumptive at all? > > Is it possible? > > If it is, an exploration would interesting. > > If not, does the question establish a " *be here* where no assumption > is involved " system and defeat itself? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 7, 2005 Report Share Posted February 7, 2005 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " > <dan330033> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My idea is...........that ALL > > > suffering..........can > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > avoided.............by......intense..........awareness.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Divisionless awareness avoids nothing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All-inclusive, holographic. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Divisionless awareness is a regression into > > > oblivion. > > > > > True > > > > > > > > > > awareness > > > > > > > > > > > is so much smarter than that! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Divisionless oblivion is a regression into > awareness. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > True oblivion is so much less than you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't understand what you mean here. Can you > explain > > > it in > > > > > > > > another way? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (You thrive way too much on explanations.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Remember the most important word: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No means that every time you try to assert a truth, > > > > > > > you are hit with its negation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Every time you try to move forward, expand knowing, > > > > > > > you are hit with the negation of that movement. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any explanation has to hit this wall of " no. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Joshu's " mu " - or " no " -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is not that you are being singled out to be negated. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It that any affirmation includes its own negation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > > > > > > > Now you have become trapped in your own snare. If " any > > > affirmation > > > > > > includes its own negation " , then how about the > > > affirmation: " any > > > > > > affirmation includes its own negation " > > > > > > > > > > > > ? > > > > > > > > > > It's not a snare, it's the way it is. > > > > > > > > > > It includes every single word that I, you, or anyone else > > > > > has ever written. > > > > > > > > > > If one has eyes to see, ears to hear. > > > > > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > > > We can by this surely see the limits of logic. Wasn't it Gödel > who > > > > said that no logical system is complete? Believeing that the > > > intellect > > > > can find the answer to any fundamental question is propably a > > > recipe > > > > for struggle. > > > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > The question is: can you *be here* where no assumption > > > is involved? > > > > > > It has nothing to do with establishing a system. > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > Can there be a *be here* where no assumption is involved? > > To know what I'm saying, you have to read " in between " > the words, Lewis. The truth isn't in the word > meanings. Yet, once in a while, there is, indeed, a > hearing that is not of or from the words themselves, > but the silence " between " -- which infuses the words. > > There is no need to get rid of words, or not have words, > but to listen through and beyond the words themselves. > > -- D. > > Yes. There is no need to get rid of words, anyone's words. And it is clear what lies between the words for some and not for others. Some see and hear the silence between which infuses the words and some do not. This view extends to all, that is, the silence between the words that infuses them is in everyone's words, and read so, leaves a bit of wonder and one wonders how there can be certainty in advice or conclusiveness about what others think, feel, imagine, be, do, and so on. The questions below were not for Dan alone. Seeing that there is nothing personal in you, they were asked for exploring the construction and the silence as it is. And the answers to the questions may provide light on the silence between the words for those who may not see or hear it through the words above or who may question them as it is possible. The questions remain open as they sit there and hopefully not closed by the sign posted. Others may answer in the way that they do in writing or however it may be done and as it has been said, there is no need to get rid of words and the same could apply to questions containing them. (nothing new below) > > > > > Can this *be here* where no assumption is involved be asserted > without > > assuming something? > > > > Can any mention of a *be here* in any form, *be here* or !*be > here*! > > or BEHERE be made, pointed to with any meaning other than not > where, > > not a moment, *this one* is at and " somewhere " " some moment, " where > > *this one* can be? > > > > Why not say, Can you **be over here** or **be over there* where no > > assumption is involved? > > > > What would be the difference between these three questions? > > > > Is there another way to point to the same thing (*be here*) that is > > not assumptive at all? > > > > Is it possible? > > > > If it is, an exploration would interesting. > > > > If not, does the question establish a " *be here* where no > assumption > > is involved " system and defeat itself? 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.