Guest guest Posted April 26, 2005 Report Share Posted April 26, 2005 Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz> > wrote: > > > > > > .....how to discuss that which cannot be discussed (cf. the " Tao Te > > Ching " for more details on that). > > > > > > > > Yours truly, > > > > fuzzie > > > > > > > > Dear fuzzie, > > > > Here are two chapters from the Tao Te Ching that refers to what was > > discussed. This translation can be found at: > > http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/gthursby/taoism/ttcmerel.htm > > > > Other translations that vary widely can be found at: > > http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/gthursby/taoism/ttc-list.htm > > http://www.wam.umd.edu/~stwright/rel/tao/TaoTeChing.html > > > > Language and dialogue can be made more adequate to the task though > > never sufficient. " Sitting " at the 'opening of " mystery, " ' rather than > > in senseless immersion in it so that the operation of the expressive > > capacities are not naturally muted, the emergence of consciouseness > > and the superficial mind can be experienced, " observed " as these take > > formation, produce their products and then dissipate. This > > observational experience is used to find the words that better suit > > " my " appearance. The venerated appearances of the past that describe > > these matters derive them from such observations all different as each > > is. Each appearance's observations are different than another due to > > the expressing body/mind. Each find its way. The sooner alone and > > vanished the better it seems. What do you experience fuzzie, at the > > opening? > > > > Love, > > > > Lewis > > > Dear, Lewis: > > I had a hunch you were into Taoism. Your writing style revealed a > poise and a reserve that was reminiscent of a Taoist fluency. Thank > you for the links to the Taoist websites. I noticed the quotes you > used were from the James Legge translation. He was the guy that did > the old classic " I Ching " that was popular back when I was growing up > (late '60's, early '70's). Good to see old Legge is still holding up. > > You wrote: " Each appearance's observations are different than another > due to the expressing body/mind. Each find its way. The sooner alone > and vanished the better it seems. What do you experience fuzzie, at > the opening? " > > What do I experience, " Sitting " at the 'opening of " mystery " ', you > ask? My experience is that I am aware that I am; indefinable, > indescribable being-awareness. I know, that is a hackneyed cliche' in > the Advaita circles these days, but, I don't know anything else but > that, hackneyed or not. I AM; no experience necessary. As you seem to > be aware, everything which is generally considered to be experiential > is but an apparency and the expression thereof. The appearances, or, > experiences, are but waves upon the deep, so to speak. Like any other > sentient body/mind, I experience these waves of appearances, > modulating in and out, apparencies which can be re-membered and > re-counted as experiences in seemingly endless variations and > combinations. But, I really know nothing about any of it. I am > ignorant, really. There is the joy in just being, though. That's my > experience. There's no need to know anything in order to know > yourself. Self-realization is inherent; natural. The old saw > " ignorance is bliss " appears to be accurate, in this case. > Self-realization is so blunt simple, that that is why it is so > difficult. And, as the Taoists and Buddhists and Vedantists have all > so aptly reiterated, it cannot be verbalized or thought. One can only > gesture. The rest is up to grace or fate or the infinite wisdom of all > things or whatever anyone wants to call it. > > Well, I've rambled on enough here. Most people think I'm crazy and/or > deluded, etc., anyhow. Maybe they're right. I don't know. It wouldn't > make any difference, either way, would it, Lewis? > > As usual, it's been a pleasure. Thanks so much for your consideration. > You are a gentleman and a scholar. I appreciate it. > > Yours, > > fuzzie > dear mr. fuzz: I am filling out this here form on the back of your Post-Neo Hackneyed Advaita Newsletter. I am sending it in (no 'love offering', sorry) so that I can become your official disciple. I don't ask for much, just an impressive-sounding spiritual name, preferably with an " ananda " attached to it, like perhaps, " Bodhiananda " to indicate that I AM, after all, really, the one, the only, Mr. Enlightenment Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 26, 2005 Report Share Posted April 26, 2005 Dear Fuzzie. Thank you so much for your very honest and blunt description of what is.You have brought tears to my eyes.Have a great day,Douglas --- misterenlightenment <misterenlightenment wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " > <fuzzie_wuz> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lewis > Burgess " <lbb10@c...> > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , > " fuzzie_wuz " > <fuzzie_wuz> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > .....how to discuss that which cannot be > discussed (cf. the " Tao > Te > > > Ching " for more details on that). > > > > > > > > > > > > Yours truly, > > > > > > fuzzie > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear fuzzie, > > > > > > Here are two chapters from the Tao Te Ching that > refers to what > was > > > discussed. This translation can be found at: > > > > http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/gthursby/taoism/ttcmerel.htm > > > > > > Other translations that vary widely can be found > at: > > > > http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/gthursby/taoism/ttc-list.htm > > > > http://www.wam.umd.edu/~stwright/rel/tao/TaoTeChing.html > > > > > > Language and dialogue can be made more adequate > to the task though > > > never sufficient. " Sitting " at the 'opening of > " mystery, " ' rather > than > > > in senseless immersion in it so that the > operation of the > expressive > > > capacities are not naturally muted, the > emergence of > consciouseness > > > and the superficial mind can be experienced, > " observed " as these > take > > > formation, produce their products and then > dissipate. This > > > observational experience is used to find the > words that better > suit > > > " my " appearance. The venerated appearances of > the past that > describe > > > these matters derive them from such observations > all different as > each > > > is. Each appearance's observations are different > than another due > to > > > the expressing body/mind. Each find its way. The > sooner alone and > > > vanished the better it seems. What do you > experience fuzzie, at > the > > > opening? > > > > > > Love, > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > Dear, Lewis: > > > > I had a hunch you were into Taoism. Your > writing style revealed a > > poise and a reserve that was reminiscent of a > Taoist fluency. Thank > > you for the links to the Taoist websites. I > noticed the quotes you > > used were from the James Legge translation. He was > the guy that did > > the old classic " I Ching " that was popular back > when I was growing > up > > (late '60's, early '70's). Good to see old Legge > is still holding > up. > > > > You wrote: " Each appearance's observations are > different than > another > > due to the expressing body/mind. Each find its > way. The sooner alone > > and vanished the better it seems. What do you > experience fuzzie, at > > the opening? " > > > > What do I experience, " Sitting " at the 'opening of > " mystery " ', you > > ask? My experience is that I am aware that I am; > indefinable, > > indescribable being-awareness. I know, that is a > hackneyed cliche' > in > > the Advaita circles these days, but, I don't know > anything else but > > that, hackneyed or not. I AM; no experience > necessary. As you seem > to > > be aware, everything which is generally considered > to be > experiential > > is but an apparency and the expression thereof. > The appearances, or, > > experiences, are but waves upon the deep, so to > speak. Like any > other > > sentient body/mind, I experience these waves of > appearances, > > modulating in and out, apparencies which can be > re-membered and > > re-counted as experiences in seemingly endless > variations and > > combinations. But, I really know nothing about any > of it. I am > > ignorant, really. There is the joy in just being, > though. That's my > > experience. There's no need to know anything in > order to know > > yourself. Self-realization is inherent; natural. > The old saw > > " ignorance is bliss " appears to be accurate, in > this case. > > Self-realization is so blunt simple, that that is > why it is so > > difficult. And, as the Taoists and Buddhists and > Vedantists have all > > so aptly reiterated, it cannot be verbalized or > thought. One can > only > > gesture. The rest is up to grace or fate or the > infinite wisdom of > all > > things or whatever anyone wants to call it. > > > > Well, I've rambled on enough here. Most people > think I'm crazy > and/or > > deluded, etc., anyhow. Maybe they're right. I > don't know. It > wouldn't > > make any difference, either way, would it, Lewis? > > > > As usual, it's been a pleasure. Thanks so much for > your > consideration. > > You are a gentleman and a scholar. I appreciate > it. > > > > Yours, > > > > fuzzie > > > > dear mr. fuzz: I am filling out this here form on > the back of your > Post-Neo Hackneyed Advaita Newsletter. I am sending > it in (no 'love > offering', sorry) so that I can become your official > disciple. > > I don't ask for much, just an impressive-sounding > spiritual name, > preferably with an " ananda " attached to it, like > perhaps, " Bodhiananda " to indicate that I AM, after > all, really, the > one, the only, > > Mr. Enlightenment > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 26, 2005 Report Share Posted April 26, 2005 > > > Dear, Lewis: > > > > > > I had a hunch you were into Taoism. Your > > writing style revealed a > > > poise and a reserve that was reminiscent of a > > Taoist fluency. Thank > > > you for the links to the Taoist websites. I > > noticed the quotes you > > > used were from the James Legge translation. He was > > the guy that did > > > the old classic " I Ching " that was popular back > > when I was growing > > up > > > (late '60's, early '70's). Good to see old Legge > > is still holding > > up. > > > > > > You wrote: " Each appearance's observations are > > different than > > another > > > due to the expressing body/mind. Each find its > > way. The sooner alone > > > and vanished the better it seems. What do you > > experience fuzzie, at > > > the opening? " > > > > > > What do I experience, " Sitting " at the 'opening of > > " mystery " ', you > > > ask? My experience is that I am aware that I am; > > indefinable, > > > indescribable being-awareness. I know, that is a > > hackneyed cliche' > > in > > > the Advaita circles these days, but, I don't know > > anything else but > > > that, hackneyed or not. I AM; no experience > > necessary. As you seem > > to > > > be aware, everything which is generally considered > > to be > > experiential > > > is but an apparency and the expression thereof. > > The appearances, or, > > > experiences, are but waves upon the deep, so to > > speak. Like any > > other > > > sentient body/mind, I experience these waves of > > appearances, > > > modulating in and out, apparencies which can be > > re-membered and > > > re-counted as experiences in seemingly endless > > variations and > > > combinations. But, I really know nothing about any > > of it. I am > > > ignorant, really. There is the joy in just being, > > though. That's my > > > experience. There's no need to know anything in > > order to know > > > yourself. Self-realization is inherent; natural. > > The old saw > > > " ignorance is bliss " appears to be accurate, in > > this case. > > > Self-realization is so blunt simple, that that is > > why it is so > > > difficult. And, as the Taoists and Buddhists and > > Vedantists have all > > > so aptly reiterated, it cannot be verbalized or > > thought. One can > > only > > > gesture. The rest is up to grace or fate or the > > infinite wisdom of > > all > > > things or whatever anyone wants to call it. > > > > > > Well, I've rambled on enough here. Most people > > think I'm crazy > > and/or > > > deluded, etc., anyhow. Maybe they're right. I > > don't know. It > > wouldn't > > > make any difference, either way, would it, Lewis? > > > > > > As usual, it's been a pleasure. Thanks so much for > > your > > consideration. > > > You are a gentleman and a scholar. I appreciate > > it. > > > > > > Yours, > > > > > > fuzzie > > > sweet perfume toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 26, 2005 Report Share Posted April 26, 2005 Nisargadatta , " misterenlightenment " <misterenlightenment> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " > <fuzzie_wuz> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > .....how to discuss that which cannot be discussed (cf. the " Tao > Te > > > Ching " for more details on that). > > > > > > > > > > > > Yours truly, > > > > > > fuzzie > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear fuzzie, > > > > > > Here are two chapters from the Tao Te Ching that refers to what > was > > > discussed. This translation can be found at: > > > http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/gthursby/taoism/ttcmerel.htm > > > > > > Other translations that vary widely can be found at: > > > http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/gthursby/taoism/ttc-list.htm > > > http://www.wam.umd.edu/~stwright/rel/tao/TaoTeChing.html > > > > > > Language and dialogue can be made more adequate to the task though > > > never sufficient. " Sitting " at the 'opening of " mystery, " ' rather > than > > > in senseless immersion in it so that the operation of the > expressive > > > capacities are not naturally muted, the emergence of > consciouseness > > > and the superficial mind can be experienced, " observed " as these > take > > > formation, produce their products and then dissipate. This > > > observational experience is used to find the words that better > suit > > > " my " appearance. The venerated appearances of the past that > describe > > > these matters derive them from such observations all different as > each > > > is. Each appearance's observations are different than another due > to > > > the expressing body/mind. Each find its way. The sooner alone and > > > vanished the better it seems. What do you experience fuzzie, at > the > > > opening? > > > > > > Love, > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > Dear, Lewis: > > > > I had a hunch you were into Taoism. Your writing style revealed a > > poise and a reserve that was reminiscent of a Taoist fluency. Thank > > you for the links to the Taoist websites. I noticed the quotes you > > used were from the James Legge translation. He was the guy that did > > the old classic " I Ching " that was popular back when I was growing > up > > (late '60's, early '70's). Good to see old Legge is still holding > up. > > > > You wrote: " Each appearance's observations are different than > another > > due to the expressing body/mind. Each find its way. The sooner alone > > and vanished the better it seems. What do you experience fuzzie, at > > the opening? " > > > > What do I experience, " Sitting " at the 'opening of " mystery " ', you > > ask? My experience is that I am aware that I am; indefinable, > > indescribable being-awareness. I know, that is a hackneyed cliche' > in > > the Advaita circles these days, but, I don't know anything else but > > that, hackneyed or not. I AM; no experience necessary. As you seem > to > > be aware, everything which is generally considered to be > experiential > > is but an apparency and the expression thereof. The appearances, or, > > experiences, are but waves upon the deep, so to speak. Like any > other > > sentient body/mind, I experience these waves of appearances, > > modulating in and out, apparencies which can be re-membered and > > re-counted as experiences in seemingly endless variations and > > combinations. But, I really know nothing about any of it. I am > > ignorant, really. There is the joy in just being, though. That's my > > experience. There's no need to know anything in order to know > > yourself. Self-realization is inherent; natural. The old saw > > " ignorance is bliss " appears to be accurate, in this case. > > Self-realization is so blunt simple, that that is why it is so > > difficult. And, as the Taoists and Buddhists and Vedantists have all > > so aptly reiterated, it cannot be verbalized or thought. One can > only > > gesture. The rest is up to grace or fate or the infinite wisdom of > all > > things or whatever anyone wants to call it. > > > > Well, I've rambled on enough here. Most people think I'm crazy > and/or > > deluded, etc., anyhow. Maybe they're right. I don't know. It > wouldn't > > make any difference, either way, would it, Lewis? > > > > As usual, it's been a pleasure. Thanks so much for your > consideration. > > You are a gentleman and a scholar. I appreciate it. > > > > Yours, > > > > fuzzie > > > > dear mr. fuzz: I am filling out this here form on the back of your > Post-Neo Hackneyed Advaita Newsletter. I am sending it in (no 'love > offering', sorry) so that I can become your official disciple. > > I don't ask for much, just an impressive-sounding spiritual name, > preferably with an " ananda " attached to it, like > perhaps, " Bodhiananda " to indicate that I AM, after all, really, the > one, the only, > > Mr. Enlightenment Mr. E.: You may as well become my disciple, as I have been your disciple since I first started reading your posts a few weeks ago. You are my Guru. Everybody is my Guru. Especially, animals. I don't know if you've noticed, but dogs and cats and other such critters are beaming with the Buddha Mind. Yours, fuzz 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.