Existence, nonexistence, and reading between the lines / Fuzzy

April 22, 2005

Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz>

wrote:

> Hi, Dan:

>

> So, you don't exist and you're not talking about anything. Is that

> what you're talking about? Is that what you mean to say?

>

> Yours,

>

> Fuzzy

>

> P.S. I hope Pedsie's not getting mad, again. He doesn't like it

when

> too many non-existent people get on here and talk about nothing.

Hi Fuzzy -

Existence is known as existence in contrast to nonexistence.

Nonexistence is known as such in contrast to existence.

This is how words, concepts, perceptions, and sensations

have quality and meaning - in contrast.

What about this unnameable,

which has no opposite, no outside, no inside -

because it's not formed by contrast?

It's not an it or a this, nor is this

truth, being, iam, light, love, awareness.

One can't say what this is.

Still, it's not nothing.

Nothing is formed by contrast with something.

What I'm saying is heard by listening between the lines,

where the truth of one's being isn't formed by contrast,

isn't an affirmative, and isn't something taken away.

Even saying " nonseparation " sounds like there is some kind

of separation that occurred which is negated.

So, it's reading between the lines to what can't be stated,

yet isn't just nothing, isn't a lack in any sense of the word.

Our day to day life of contrasts depends on the one forming

the contrasts. Pain is pain when it feels painful to

me, in contrast with pleasure, the way I sense pleasure.

Yet, the entire scenario of formulated contrasts, and the one

to which they relate, the self at the implied

center, is ... " just this " ... and there is no self to this,

no separation, no contrast involved in this being this.

-- Dan

April 22, 2005

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz>

> wrote:

>

> > Hi, Dan:

> >

> > So, you don't exist and you're not talking about anything. Is that

> > what you're talking about? Is that what you mean to say?

> >

> > Yours,

> >

> > Fuzzy

> >

> > P.S. I hope Pedsie's not getting mad, again. He doesn't like it

> when

> > too many non-existent people get on here and talk about nothing.

>

> Hi Fuzzy -

>

> Existence is known as existence in contrast to nonexistence.

>

> Nonexistence is known as such in contrast to existence.

>

> This is how words, concepts, perceptions, and sensations

> have quality and meaning - in contrast.

>

> What about this unnameable,

> which has no opposite, no outside, no inside -

> because it's not formed by contrast?

>

> It's not an it or a this, nor is this

> truth, being, iam, light, love, awareness.

>

> One can't say what this is.

>

> Still, it's not nothing.

>

> Nothing is formed by contrast with something.

>

> What I'm saying is heard by listening between the lines,

> where the truth of one's being isn't formed by contrast,

> isn't an affirmative, and isn't something taken away.

>

> Even saying " nonseparation " sounds like there is some kind

> of separation that occurred which is negated.

>

> So, it's reading between the lines to what can't be stated,

> yet isn't just nothing, isn't a lack in any sense of the word.

>

> Our day to day life of contrasts depends on the one forming

> the contrasts. Pain is pain when it feels painful to

> me, in contrast with pleasure, the way I sense pleasure.

>

> Yet, the entire scenario of formulated contrasts, and the one

> to which they relate, the self at the implied

> center, is ... " just this " ... and there is no self to this,

> no separation, no contrast involved in this being this.

>

> -- Dan

Greetings, Dan:

To say there is no one saying anything implicitly contradicts itself.

That's what I was trying to point out. To say there is no one who

knows also contains an implied contradiction. It's absurd. It's a

position reminiscent of the old Zen metaphor of a man immersed in

water dying of thirst.

Yours,

fuzzie

April 23, 2005

Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz>

wrote:

>

> Greetings, Dan:

>

> To say there is no one saying anything implicitly contradicts

itself.

> That's what I was trying to point out. To say there is no one who

> knows also contains an implied contradiction. It's absurd. It's a

> position reminiscent of the old Zen metaphor of a man immersed in

> water dying of thirst.

>

> Yours,

>

> fuzzie

Hi Fuzzie,

Yes, what to say?

If water is inside, and water is outside,

and there is no skin in between,

how could you say " wet " ?

-- Dan

April 23, 2005

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz>

> wrote:

>

> >

> > Greetings, Dan:

> >

> > To say there is no one saying anything implicitly contradicts

> >itself. That's what I was trying to point out. To say there is no

> >one who knows also contains an implied contradiction. It's absurd.

> >It's a position reminiscent of the old Zen metaphor of a man

.. >immersed inwater dying of thirst.

> >

> > Yours,

> >

> > fuzzie

>

> Hi Fuzzie,

>

> Yes, what to say?

>

> If water is inside, and water is outside,

> and there is no skin in between,

> how could you say " wet " ?

>

> -- Dan

Dear Fuzzie,

It seems that you have not encountered the concept of " no one " and " no

doer " and similar conceptualizations of non-identity. These metaphors

that are commonly professed by some on this list refers to " egoless "

or " selfless " existence or being. The " ego " and " self " are body/mind

reifications and are dissolvable since they are merely composed of

knots and tangles of this and that, the very " things " that

self-inquiry, neti, neti, dependent origination and other practices

untie and release.

When the ego/self is dissolved (and there is great and perhaps useless

debate on this) there supposedly remains a Self or Atman or the One or

I AM or Being all commonly described as " awareness with no second. "

However, this identification is also dissolvable, though for many it

seems like the last stop of realization. For others, it is an

impediment to realization. That is, to refer to these, to speak of

them or to use the label as fact is simply another reification, a

false identification that a partially realized person clings to

preserve ontological security, to " stay alive " and to avoid the

sometimes fear full complete shattering of false delusional being or

" death. " This may or may not be so and is case by case.

An interior examination of the sense " I AM " or " Self " shows that both

are utterly indescribable and all the capacities and incapacities

present in the human appearance are such that they emerge from

" complete unknowableness " or " utter darkness " or " blinding light " or

" undisturbed silence " or some other metaphor. Nothing can be known of

this. What appears in " the conscious mind " is superficial and

secondary to that which is unknowable and from whence those

superificalities originate, arise, operate, and dissipate and repeat.

This being so, there is no identifiable " person " or " self, " or Self,

only emergent capacities and incapacities that arise and fall, engage,

disengage or remain quiescent according to demand. The use of pronouns

and names are not problematic if they are empty of identifications and

used conventionally to communicate and act. In essence, in this sense,

there are no persons, no doers as is commonly perceived and thought

about, just capacities and incapacities expressing and interacting

with the same in " unknowableness, " from " mystery. "

The sense of awareness is nothing significant and is a superficial

capacity compared to the unknowable capacities that give origin to

awareness. In one sense, when awareness is functioning properly,

" awareness " as an isolated capacity (which it is not) allows the

realization of complete ignorance, which is the source of wisdom and

learning. Those who " know " or who are " aware " are neither wise nor do

they learn since their cup is full of awareness of things, including

awareness itself. Put a hole in the cup and all flows in and through.

Based on this experience or something similar, there is encouragement

to drop, dissolve and otherwise go beyond the " I AM, " beyond awareness

and other limitations, etc., if it is believed in or serves as an

identification, a reification, a concept. If that is so, it is seen as

an impediment. If it is not so, then this writing is of no consequence.

In the end, regardless, we, the human appearances, do as we are.

Love,

Lewis

April 24, 2005

Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz>

> > wrote:

> >

> > >

> > > Greetings, Dan:

> > >

> > > To say there is no one saying anything implicitly contradicts

> > >itself. That's what I was trying to point out. To say there is no

> > >one who knows also contains an implied contradiction. It's absurd.

> > >It's a position reminiscent of the old Zen metaphor of a man

> . >immersed inwater dying of thirst.

> > >

> > > Yours,

> > >

> > > fuzzie

> >

> > Hi Fuzzie,

> >

> > Yes, what to say?

> >

> > If water is inside, and water is outside,

> > and there is no skin in between,

> > how could you say " wet " ?

> >

> > -- Dan

>

> Dear Fuzzie,

>

> It seems that you have not encountered the concept of " no one " and " no

> doer " and similar conceptualizations of non-identity. These metaphors

> that are commonly professed by some on this list refers to " egoless "

> or " selfless " existence or being. The " ego " and " self " are body/mind

> reifications and are dissolvable since they are merely composed of

> knots and tangles of this and that, the very " things " that

> self-inquiry, neti, neti, dependent origination and other practices

> untie and release.

>

> When the ego/self is dissolved (and there is great and perhaps useless

> debate on this) there supposedly remains a Self or Atman or the One or

> I AM or Being all commonly described as " awareness with no second. "

> However, this identification is also dissolvable, though for many it

> seems like the last stop of realization. For others, it is an

> impediment to realization. That is, to refer to these, to speak of

> them or to use the label as fact is simply another reification, a

> false identification that a partially realized person clings to

> preserve ontological security, to " stay alive " and to avoid the

> sometimes fear full complete shattering of false delusional being or

> " death. " This may or may not be so and is case by case.

>

> An interior examination of the sense " I AM " or " Self " shows that both

> are utterly indescribable and all the capacities and incapacities

> present in the human appearance are such that they emerge from

> " complete unknowableness " or " utter darkness " or " blinding light " or

> " undisturbed silence " or some other metaphor. Nothing can be known of

> this. What appears in " the conscious mind " is superficial and

> secondary to that which is unknowable and from whence those

> superificalities originate, arise, operate, and dissipate and repeat.

>

> This being so, there is no identifiable " person " or " self, " or Self,

> only emergent capacities and incapacities that arise and fall, engage,

> disengage or remain quiescent according to demand. The use of pronouns

> and names are not problematic if they are empty of identifications and

> used conventionally to communicate and act. In essence, in this sense,

> there are no persons, no doers as is commonly perceived and thought

> about, just capacities and incapacities expressing and interacting

> with the same in " unknowableness, " from " mystery. "

>

> The sense of awareness is nothing significant and is a superficial

> capacity compared to the unknowable capacities that give origin to

> awareness. In one sense, when awareness is functioning properly,

> " awareness " as an isolated capacity (which it is not) allows the

> realization of complete ignorance, which is the source of wisdom and

> learning. Those who " know " or who are " aware " are neither wise nor do

> they learn since their cup is full of awareness of things, including

> awareness itself. Put a hole in the cup and all flows in and through.

> Based on this experience or something similar, there is encouragement

> to drop, dissolve and otherwise go beyond the " I AM, " beyond awareness

> and other limitations, etc., if it is believed in or serves as an

> identification, a reification, a concept. If that is so, it is seen as

> an impediment. If it is not so, then this writing is of no consequence.

>

> In the end, regardless, we, the human appearances, do as we are.

>

> Love,

>

> Lewis

Hi, Lewis:

I am aware of the " no one " and " no doer " concepts. In the Gita and the

works of Ramana Maharshi and Nisargadatta Maharaj, these refer to the

fictional egoic entity of the mind and not the Self.

You wrote: " Based on this experience or something similar, there is

encouragement to drop, dissolve and otherwise go beyond the " I AM, "

beyond awareness and other limitations, etc., if it is believed in or

serves as an identification, a reification, a concept. "

Who is it that " goes beyond " these things you mention? Someone or

something has to exist in order to " go beyond " . Again, as I have tried

to point out in previous posts to others on this forum, your denial of

your existence contains an inherent contradiction. You appear to be

caught in a nihilistic spiral of infinite regress.

Yours,

fuzzie

April 24, 2005

> > > Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz>

> > > wrote:

> > >

> > > >

> > > > Greetings, Dan:

> > > >

> > > > To say there is no one saying anything implicitly contradicts

> > > >itself. That's what I was trying to point out. To say there is no

> > > >one who knows also contains an implied contradiction. It's absurd.

> > > >It's a position reminiscent of the old Zen metaphor of a man

> > . >immersed inwater dying of thirst.

> > > >

> > > > Yours,

> > > >

> > > > fuzzie

> > >

> > > Hi Fuzzie,

> > >

> > > Yes, what to say?

> > >

> > > If water is inside, and water is outside,

> > > and there is no skin in between,

> > > how could you say " wet " ?

> > >

> > > -- Dan

> >

> > Dear Fuzzie,

> >

> > It seems that you have not encountered the concept of " no one " and " no

> > doer " and similar conceptualizations of non-identity. These metaphors

> > that are commonly professed by some on this list refers to " egoless "

> > or " selfless " existence or being. The " ego " and " self " are body/mind

> > reifications and are dissolvable since they are merely composed of

> > knots and tangles of this and that, the very " things " that

> > self-inquiry, neti, neti, dependent origination and other practices

> > untie and release.

> >

> > When the ego/self is dissolved (and there is great and perhaps useless

> > debate on this) there supposedly remains a Self or Atman or the One or

> > I AM or Being all commonly described as " awareness with no second. "

> > However, this identification is also dissolvable, though for many it

> > seems like the last stop of realization. For others, it is an

> > impediment to realization. That is, to refer to these, to speak of

> > them or to use the label as fact is simply another reification, a

> > false identification that a partially realized person clings to

> > preserve ontological security, to " stay alive " and to avoid the

> > sometimes fear full complete shattering of false delusional being or

> > " death. " This may or may not be so and is case by case.

> >

> > An interior examination of the sense " I AM " or " Self " shows that both

> > are utterly indescribable and all the capacities and incapacities

> > present in the human appearance are such that they emerge from

> > " complete unknowableness " or " utter darkness " or " blinding light " or

> > " undisturbed silence " or some other metaphor. Nothing can be known of

> > this. What appears in " the conscious mind " is superficial and

> > secondary to that which is unknowable and from whence those

> > superificalities originate, arise, operate, and dissipate and repeat.

> >

> > This being so, there is no identifiable " person " or " self, " or Self,

> > only emergent capacities and incapacities that arise and fall, engage,

> > disengage or remain quiescent according to demand. The use of pronouns

> > and names are not problematic if they are empty of identifications and

> > used conventionally to communicate and act. In essence, in this sense,

> > there are no persons, no doers as is commonly perceived and thought

> > about, just capacities and incapacities expressing and interacting

> > with the same in " unknowableness, " from " mystery. "

> >

> > The sense of awareness is nothing significant and is a superficial

> > capacity compared to the unknowable capacities that give origin to

> > awareness. In one sense, when awareness is functioning properly,

> > " awareness " as an isolated capacity (which it is not) allows the

> > realization of complete ignorance, which is the source of wisdom and

> > learning. Those who " know " or who are " aware " are neither wise nor do

> > they learn since their cup is full of awareness of things, including

> > awareness itself. Put a hole in the cup and all flows in and through.

> > Based on this experience or something similar, there is encouragement

> > to drop, dissolve and otherwise go beyond the " I AM, " beyond awareness

> > and other limitations, etc., if it is believed in or serves as an

> > identification, a reification, a concept. If that is so, it is seen as

> > an impediment. If it is not so, then this writing is of no

consequence.

> >

> > In the end, regardless, we, the human appearances, do as we are.

> >

> > Love,

> >

> > Lewis

>

> Hi, Lewis:

>

> I am aware of the " no one " and " no doer " concepts. In the Gita and the

> works of Ramana Maharshi and Nisargadatta Maharaj, these refer to the

> fictional egoic entity of the mind and not the Self.

Yes. The fictional egoic entity is experiential and is dissolvable.

The Self, as a word and concept, an object of thought is used by them

as a conceptual pointer and is no different than other pointers.

Reification of the " Self " is just as common as the reification of

" God. " Is this not so?

>

> You wrote: " Based on this experience or something similar, there is

> encouragement to drop, dissolve and otherwise go beyond the " I AM, "

> beyond awareness and other limitations, etc., if it is believed in or

> serves as an identification, a reification, a concept. "

> Who is it that " goes beyond " these things you mention? Someone or

> something has to exist in order to " go beyond " . Again, as I have tried

> to point out in previous posts to others on this forum, your denial of

> your existence contains an inherent contradiction. You appear to be

> caught in a nihilistic spiral of infinite regress.

>

> Yours,

>

> fuzzie

There is no acceptance or denial of existence or the Self, Fuzzie. It

is a metaphor. What is meant above is message, an alert about

reification and a description of the no-self or no person position. In

this, " no one " goes beyond. " No one " is aware. " Awareness " itself is

conceptual entity. Nihilism or a nihilistic spiral is an

interpretation of " non-identity " and " unknowableness. " Such an

interpretation has nothing to do with what was presented.

Is a terminus necessary to end infinite regress or is identification

of infinite regress simply human logic failing to accept and

comprehend " that " which is unknowable with reason or words?

Alternatively, I AM or Self, if not used as a pointer, is also clearly

used an artificial conceptual terminus similar to Aristotle's " Unmoved

Mover " and like it was for him it serves only to allow analysis and

communication to go forward and not to question each premise as to its

ground. As a pointer and artificial terminus, I AM or Self serves. To

believe in the pointer or artificial terminus as " real, " to reifiy it

is another matter.

So what puzzles is who writes this and to whom these messages

directed? The capacity to express in many ways is common is it not?

Also the capacity to move, to be silent and quiescent are basic

capacities that are rather unavoidable. To perceive, emote, think,

plan, imagine, abstract, reify, to experience states of consciousness

and so on are all capacities of the human appearance. The inability to

do these at times are incapacities. How do these capacities and

incapacities, which arise and become quiescent or become out of hand,

etc. form a person, a doer? And how if there is no person or doer as

is commonly thought does this lead to Nihilism or nothingness? I can

say I wrote this without feeling strange or out of order but the use

of " I " is merely a convention. There is " me " and this " me, " or " I am "

is indescribable, formless, unknowable and so how can " me " that writes

" you " be called a person or a reified Self? The " I " or " me " is a

momentary appearance used in expression and communication.

Examine carefully how a response to a post is formed and typed and

sent. How do the emotions and thoughts arise in reaction to a post?

How are the words comprehended? How do the words, thoughts put in the

response emerge and form into a response? How is typing done? How is

it that it is sent? How is it that any of this is done? It can be

done, but how? There are no definitive answers and it is not possbile

to reach such answers. It does not arise from a " you " or a describable

" Being. " This does not mean there is nothingness. It also does not

mean that " you " are used by a " Self. "

None of it can be explained precisely in words. It is all

" unknowable. " The best that can be done is make a story that

approximates and this is good enough for communicating and for

pragmatic uses. That is all that is done here. To believe the stories

as real is error. There is no one to one correspondence in anyway

between a story and " what is. " Such approximations allow going on.

They are only that.

To whom is a post directed? Conventionally, it is directed to " Fuzzie "

a label that stands for.........I AM or ? And what is that I AM? I ask

you, please describe I AM. If you cannot describe I AM other than to

say " it is " or " I AM " what does that say to you? Is I AM a person or

personal? Then please describe it? I AM stands for.....?

Of course, a reified I AM feels better than the sensation of

unknowableness, that is neither being nor non-being, but is this about

feelings or security or what is right.

To describe I AM is to undo neti, neti. Being unknowable and

indescribable and impersonal, " I AM " is not nothingness or Nihilism.

Believing I AM to be otherwise can amount to self-idolatry. Pronouns

are only that and stand in for that which unknowable and makes

expression and communication possible. There is no difference in

positions if it is not imagined that nihilism or nothingness is held

by those who say there is no doer and that reification of the Self or

Nirguna Brahman is not done.

Love,

Lewis

April 24, 2005

Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> wrote:

>

> > > > Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz "

<fuzzie_wuz>

> > > > wrote:

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Greetings, Dan:

> > > > >

> > > > > To say there is no one saying anything implicitly contradicts

> > > > >itself. That's what I was trying to point out. To say there is no

> > > > >one who knows also contains an implied contradiction. It's

absurd.

> > > > >It's a position reminiscent of the old Zen metaphor of a man

> > > . >immersed inwater dying of thirst.

> > > > >

> > > > > Yours,

> > > > >

> > > > > fuzzie

> > > >

> > > > Hi Fuzzie,

> > > >

> > > > Yes, what to say?

> > > >

> > > > If water is inside, and water is outside,

> > > > and there is no skin in between,

> > > > how could you say " wet " ?

> > > >

> > > > -- Dan

> > >

> > > Dear Fuzzie,

> > >

> > > It seems that you have not encountered the concept of " no one "

and " no

> > > doer " and similar conceptualizations of non-identity. These

metaphors

> > > that are commonly professed by some on this list refers to " egoless "

> > > or " selfless " existence or being. The " ego " and " self " are body/mind

> > > reifications and are dissolvable since they are merely composed of

> > > knots and tangles of this and that, the very " things " that

> > > self-inquiry, neti, neti, dependent origination and other practices

> > > untie and release.

> > >

> > > When the ego/self is dissolved (and there is great and perhaps

useless

> > > debate on this) there supposedly remains a Self or Atman or the

One or

> > > I AM or Being all commonly described as " awareness with no second. "

> > > However, this identification is also dissolvable, though for many it

> > > seems like the last stop of realization. For others, it is an

> > > impediment to realization. That is, to refer to these, to speak of

> > > them or to use the label as fact is simply another reification, a

> > > false identification that a partially realized person clings to

> > > preserve ontological security, to " stay alive " and to avoid the

> > > sometimes fear full complete shattering of false delusional

being or

> > > " death. " This may or may not be so and is case by case.

> > >

> > > An interior examination of the sense " I AM " or " Self " shows that

both

> > > are utterly indescribable and all the capacities and incapacities

> > > present in the human appearance are such that they emerge from

> > > " complete unknowableness " or " utter darkness " or " blinding light " or

> > > " undisturbed silence " or some other metaphor. Nothing can be

known of

> > > this. What appears in " the conscious mind " is superficial and

> > > secondary to that which is unknowable and from whence those

> > > superificalities originate, arise, operate, and dissipate and

repeat.

> > >

> > > This being so, there is no identifiable " person " or " self, " or Self,

> > > only emergent capacities and incapacities that arise and fall,

engage,

> > > disengage or remain quiescent according to demand. The use of

pronouns

> > > and names are not problematic if they are empty of

identifications and

> > > used conventionally to communicate and act. In essence, in this

sense,

> > > there are no persons, no doers as is commonly perceived and thought

> > > about, just capacities and incapacities expressing and interacting

> > > with the same in " unknowableness, " from " mystery. "

> > >

> > > The sense of awareness is nothing significant and is a superficial

> > > capacity compared to the unknowable capacities that give origin to

> > > awareness. In one sense, when awareness is functioning properly,

> > > " awareness " as an isolated capacity (which it is not) allows the

> > > realization of complete ignorance, which is the source of wisdom and

> > > learning. Those who " know " or who are " aware " are neither wise

nor do

> > > they learn since their cup is full of awareness of things, including

> > > awareness itself. Put a hole in the cup and all flows in and

through.

> > > Based on this experience or something similar, there is

encouragement

> > > to drop, dissolve and otherwise go beyond the " I AM, " beyond

awareness

> > > and other limitations, etc., if it is believed in or serves as an

> > > identification, a reification, a concept. If that is so, it is

seen as

> > > an impediment. If it is not so, then this writing is of no

> consequence.

> > >

> > > In the end, regardless, we, the human appearances, do as we are.

> > >

> > > Love,

> > >

> > > Lewis

> >

> > Hi, Lewis:

> >

> > I am aware of the " no one " and " no doer " concepts. In the Gita and the

> > works of Ramana Maharshi and Nisargadatta Maharaj, these refer to the

> > fictional egoic entity of the mind and not the Self.

>

> Yes. The fictional egoic entity is experiential and is dissolvable.

> The Self, as a word and concept, an object of thought is used by them

> as a conceptual pointer and is no different than other pointers.

> Reification of the " Self " is just as common as the reification of

> " God. " Is this not so?

>

> >

> > You wrote: " Based on this experience or something similar, there is

> > encouragement to drop, dissolve and otherwise go beyond the " I AM, "

> > beyond awareness and other limitations, etc., if it is believed in or

> > serves as an identification, a reification, a concept. "

>

> > Who is it that " goes beyond " these things you mention? Someone or

> > something has to exist in order to " go beyond " . Again, as I have tried

> > to point out in previous posts to others on this forum, your denial of

> > your existence contains an inherent contradiction. You appear to be

> > caught in a nihilistic spiral of infinite regress.

> >

> > Yours,

> >

> > fuzzie

>

> There is no acceptance or denial of existence or the Self, Fuzzie. It

> is a metaphor. What is meant above is message, an alert about

> reification and a description of the no-self or no person position. In

> this, " no one " goes beyond. " No one " is aware. " Awareness " itself is

> conceptual entity. Nihilism or a nihilistic spiral is an

> interpretation of " non-identity " and " unknowableness. " Such an

> interpretation has nothing to do with what was presented.

>

> Is a terminus necessary to end infinite regress or is identification

> of infinite regress simply human logic failing to accept and

> comprehend " that " which is unknowable with reason or words?

> Alternatively, I AM or Self, if not used as a pointer, is also clearly

> used an artificial conceptual terminus similar to Aristotle's " Unmoved

> Mover " and like it was for him it serves only to allow analysis and

> communication to go forward and not to question each premise as to its

> ground. As a pointer and artificial terminus, I AM or Self serves. To

> believe in the pointer or artificial terminus as " real, " to reifiy it

> is another matter.

>

> So what puzzles is who writes this and to whom these messages

> directed? The capacity to express in many ways is common is it not?

> Also the capacity to move, to be silent and quiescent are basic

> capacities that are rather unavoidable. To perceive, emote, think,

> plan, imagine, abstract, reify, to experience states of consciousness

> and so on are all capacities of the human appearance. The inability to

> do these at times are incapacities. How do these capacities and

> incapacities, which arise and become quiescent or become out of hand,

> etc. form a person, a doer? And how if there is no person or doer as

> is commonly thought does this lead to Nihilism or nothingness? I can

> say I wrote this without feeling strange or out of order but the use

> of " I " is merely a convention. There is " me " and this " me, " or " I am "

> is indescribable, formless, unknowable and so how can " me " that writes

> " you " be called a person or a reified Self? The " I " or " me " is a

> momentary appearance used in expression and communication.

>

> Examine carefully how a response to a post is formed and typed and

> sent. How do the emotions and thoughts arise in reaction to a post?

> How are the words comprehended? How do the words, thoughts put in the

> response emerge and form into a response? How is typing done? How is

> it that it is sent? How is it that any of this is done? It can be

> done, but how? There are no definitive answers and it is not possbile

> to reach such answers. It does not arise from a " you " or a describable

> " Being. " This does not mean there is nothingness. It also does not

> mean that " you " are used by a " Self. "

>

> None of it can be explained precisely in words. It is all

> " unknowable. " The best that can be done is make a story that

> approximates and this is good enough for communicating and for

> pragmatic uses. That is all that is done here. To believe the stories

> as real is error. There is no one to one correspondence in anyway

> between a story and " what is. " Such approximations allow going on.

> They are only that.

>

> To whom is a post directed? Conventionally, it is directed to " Fuzzie "

> a label that stands for.........I AM or ? And what is that I AM? I ask

> you, please describe I AM. If you cannot describe I AM other than to

> say " it is " or " I AM " what does that say to you? Is I AM a person or

> personal? Then please describe it? I AM stands for.....?

>

> Of course, a reified I AM feels better than the sensation of

> unknowableness, that is neither being nor non-being, but is this about

> feelings or security or what is right.

>

> To describe I AM is to undo neti, neti. Being unknowable and

> indescribable and impersonal, " I AM " is not nothingness or Nihilism.

> Believing I AM to be otherwise can amount to self-idolatry. Pronouns

> are only that and stand in for that which unknowable and makes

> expression and communication possible. There is no difference in

> positions if it is not imagined that nihilism or nothingness is held

> by those who say there is no doer and that reification of the Self or

> Nirguna Brahman is not done.

>

> Love,

>

> Lewis

Hello, Lewis:

Good to hear from you again.

As per our discussion, of course, I was not talking about reifying the

words or concepts " I AM " , or, " being " , etc., when I use this

terminology. I assumed beforehand that it was a given that words act

as signs or symbols for that to which they refer; a " representamen " ,

as Peirce would call them.

It is becoming more readily apparent, as I continue posting on these

forums, that what I am trying to discuss has a tendency to be

dramatically misunderstood. Perhaps I am not articulating it very

well. It can be somewhat frustrating, at times.

You asked me to describe I AM. It can only be described through

self-realization, as I AM is the self. So, I have to ask you: Do you

exist?

This seems to be a difficult question for the regulars on this forum,

and, usually results in evasive rambling or various forms of denial or

completely ignoring it (i.e. ignorance). So, take your time, if you

need it.

Yours,

fuzzie

April 24, 2005

>

> You asked me to describe I AM. It can only be described through

> self-realization, as I AM is the self. So, I have to ask you: Do

you

> exist?

>

Does a shadow exist?

Does a mirage exist?

Do the flickering images on the movie screen exist?

Do the people in you dreams at night exist?

Hell yes they do!

toombaru................do too.

April 24, 2005

Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz>

wrote:

>

Hi fuzzie,

> Hello, Lewis:

>

> Good to hear from you again.

>

> As per our discussion, of course, I was not talking about reifying

the

> words or concepts " I AM " , or, " being " , etc., when I use this

> terminology. I assumed beforehand that it was a given that words act

> as signs or symbols for that to which they refer; a " representamen " ,

> as Peirce would call them.

>

> It is becoming more readily apparent, as I continue posting on these

> forums, that what I am trying to discuss has a tendency to be

> dramatically misunderstood. Perhaps I am not articulating it very

> well. It can be somewhat frustrating, at times.

>

Who are you trying to make it understood to, fuzz?

And why? Ask yourself.

> You asked me to describe I AM. It can only be described through

> self-realization, as I AM is the self. So, I have to ask you: Do you

> exist?

>

> This seems to be a difficult question for the regulars on this

forum,

> and, usually results in evasive rambling or various forms of denial

or

> completely ignoring it (i.e. ignorance).>>

might there be even a slight possibility

that your not understanding what

is being said results in the labeling

of it as evasive rambling, etc. etc.

there are, in fact, different ways of

expressing one thing. Perhaps you are

not getting the answers that you want

or expect?

So, take your time, if you

> need it.

>

> Yours,

>

> fuzzie

I AM is NOT any of these things:

woman, man, white person,

black person, christian, muslim,

cancer survivor, senior citizen,

teenager, alcoholic, recovering alcoholic,

gay, hetero, daughter, son,

mother, father, high, low,

organized, unorganized,

Neither does I AM have to do with existence,

or not-existence, nor does it mean I AM the void,

or the emptiness, or the Beingness, or

the Awareness, or the Consciousness

or the Existence.

In self-realization there is none of

these concepts, not even I AM....

but.... I AM is the best place to be hanging

out.

So, here, set a spell, enjoy a cocktail,

make your way upstairs and have a smoke,

and somebody will speak and you'll go into

a dream....

ahhhhh ahhhhh ahhhhh ahhhhh

ahhhhh ahhhhh ahhhhh

i read the news today, oh boy

)

freyja

April 24, 2005

Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz:

Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10:

Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz wrote:

Greetings, Dan:

To say there is no one saying anything implicitly contradicts itself.

That's what I was trying to point out. To say there is no one who

knows also contains an implied contradiction. It's absurd. It's a

position reminiscent of the old Zen metaphor of a man immersed

inwater dying of thirst.

Yours,

fuzzie

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hi Fuzzie,

Yes, what to say?

If water is inside, and water is outside, and there is no skin in

between, how could you say " wet " ?