My Dinner With Lewis

[Guest guest]

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

wrote:

> Nisargadatta , " gary falk " <falkgw@h...>

wrote:

>

>

> Gary: Lewis, you are obviously very intelligent and have a broad

> base of knowledge, it would seem. Tell us, therefore, if you will,

> just what brought you to " hang out " online with a bunch of

> mystically-oriented (some might say, " airy-fairy " ) spiritual

seekers?

> Would you say that in some manner you are " spiritual seeker "

yourself?

>

> Lewis: Seeming is all that it is for the first. For the second, that

> was explained in nauseating detail, in various ways before, here and

> elsewhere on some of the same lists you frequent, Gary. I accidently

> found the list researching Shambala for a friend, stepped into a

> dialogue here on the Niz list with Anders Lindman offering two cents

> about his concern with time and then little by little read and found

> the dialogues interesting and stimulating by the different voices

and

> views, perspectives, approaches, and the varying modes of responses

> underwent experiences never had before, and would never had had

> otherwise, through the dialogues. All of it works something like

> tilling a field for the first time where you do not know what is in

it

> until the plow(s) pulls it up and you say, Well, well what have we

> here, that never appeared before? All kinds of stuff bubbled and

> bubbles up: ignorance, beliefs, attachments that are seen and popped

> as it goes or not, as well as new expressions, new perceptions, and

> new language that emerges in the interactions and that give voice to

> undefined sensations flowing in a transparent darkness and new

stories

> about it all.

>

> And, no, Gary, there is no seeking truth or answers or spirituality

of

> some final or absolute type or any type. That goose has been cooked

> and eaten. There is desire to explore in dialogue the wonders of

> living and creating from any perspective. That is just the way it

has

> always been since childhood; curosity coming out the kazoo. Almost

all

> that is known (98%?) about Advaita Vedanta, Hinduism and Buddhism in

> its various forms, and the figures and writings and teachings of

> Ramana, Nisargadatta, Sankara, Nagarjuna, Lacan, and many many

others

> and the hearings presented were before unexplored and were met and

> studied here for the first time. The language and conceptual worlds

> were and are learned, explored and employed in daily living to see

> what it is about and then put down in the way that is done. Before

> this, it was consciousness and brain science, social anthroplogy,

> phenomenology, dialogism, ethnomethodology, and other divisions in

the

> social sciences concerned with the construction and maintenance of

> social realities.

>

> There are no answers here; nothing to offer but conversation,

> exploration of all things in this way or that or no way at all and

> sometimes a few laughs and sometimes making a contribution to what

> appears as annoyance to some at what is said in all the ways that is

> possible and offering challenges as it goes.

>

> That's it.

>

> Lewis>>

 

Gary: When you say, " that goose has been cooked already, " relative

to " seeking truth or answers or spirituality of some final or

absolute type, " does that mean you have settled those issues for

yourself, or does it mean that you have dismissed the whole idea

of " spiritual seeking " as being, essentially, a meaningless

enterprise?

 

Also, from the point of view of either brain science or social

anthropology, what is your take on " That, " which seems to be the

central concept (if we could call it that)on the Niz and GR boards?

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " garyfalk1943 " <falkgw@h...> wrote:

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

> wrote:

> > Nisargadatta , " gary falk " <falkgw@h...>

> wrote:

> >

> >

> > Gary: Lewis, you are obviously very intelligent and have a broad

> > base of knowledge, it would seem. Tell us, therefore, if you will,

> > just what brought you to " hang out " online with a bunch of

> > mystically-oriented (some might say, " airy-fairy " ) spiritual

> seekers?

> > Would you say that in some manner you are " spiritual seeker "

> yourself?

> >

> > Lewis: Seeming is all that it is for the first. For the second, that

> > was explained in nauseating detail, in various ways before, here and

> > elsewhere on some of the same lists you frequent, Gary. I accidently

> > found the list researching Shambala for a friend, stepped into a

> > dialogue here on the Niz list with Anders Lindman offering two cents

> > about his concern with time and then little by little read and found

> > the dialogues interesting and stimulating by the different voices

> and

> > views, perspectives, approaches, and the varying modes of responses

> > underwent experiences never had before, and would never had had

> > otherwise, through the dialogues. All of it works something like

> > tilling a field for the first time where you do not know what is in

> it

> > until the plow(s) pulls it up and you say, Well, well what have we

> > here, that never appeared before? All kinds of stuff bubbled and

> > bubbles up: ignorance, beliefs, attachments that are seen and popped

> > as it goes or not, as well as new expressions, new perceptions, and

> > new language that emerges in the interactions and that give voice to

> > undefined sensations flowing in a transparent darkness and new

> stories

> > about it all.

> >

> > And, no, Gary, there is no seeking truth or answers or spirituality

> of

> > some final or absolute type or any type. That goose has been cooked

> > and eaten. There is desire to explore in dialogue the wonders of

> > living and creating from any perspective. That is just the way it

> has

> > always been since childhood; curosity coming out the kazoo. Almost

> all

> > that is known (98%?) about Advaita Vedanta, Hinduism and Buddhism in

> > its various forms, and the figures and writings and teachings of

> > Ramana, Nisargadatta, Sankara, Nagarjuna, Lacan, and many many

> others

> > and the hearings presented were before unexplored and were met and

> > studied here for the first time. The language and conceptual worlds

> > were and are learned, explored and employed in daily living to see

> > what it is about and then put down in the way that is done. Before

> > this, it was consciousness and brain science, social anthroplogy,

> > phenomenology, dialogism, ethnomethodology, and other divisions in

> the

> > social sciences concerned with the construction and maintenance of

> > social realities.

> >

> > There are no answers here; nothing to offer but conversation,

> > exploration of all things in this way or that or no way at all and

> > sometimes a few laughs and sometimes making a contribution to what

> > appears as annoyance to some at what is said in all the ways that is

> > possible and offering challenges as it goes.

> >

> > That's it.

> >

> > Lewis>>

>

> Gary: When you say, " that goose has been cooked already, " relative

> to " seeking truth or answers or spirituality of some final or

> absolute type, " does that mean you have settled those issues for

> yourself, or does it mean that you have dismissed the whole idea

> of " spiritual seeking " as being, essentially, a meaningless

> enterprise?

 

Lewis: Yes. There is an inability to seek seek " truth or

answers or spirituality of some final or absolute type, or any type "

(why cut " any type, " Gary). It is not a decision or intellectual

realization. And when there is the ability it is there as it is doing

what it does.

 

No. There is no dismissal. And in that there is an inability to seek

there is an inability to consider meaning or meaninglessness as being

either finally admissible or inadmissable or some thing to affirm or

deny with conviction or belief or to accept or dismiss with reason.

For me there is " can and cannot " in daily life. Either I can do

something or cannot do it. Meaning and meaninglessness are " poles " on

a continuum in between, which the stuff on the surface has the

potential for play and exploration.

 

If the enterprise were meaningless as you conceive it, how can there

be dialogue as it was described?

 

>

> Also, from the point of view of either brain science or social

> anthropology, what is your take on " That, " which seems to be the

> central concept (if we could call it that)on the Niz and GR boards?

 

Lewis: I do not engage those perspectives as life. They are tools for

communication, discussion and getting things done with words, concepts

and technology. Depending on the wielder and how those are wielded you

can get many different takes on " That. "

 

I do not have a take on " That " it goes without saying, there are no words.

 

Lewis

[Guest guest]

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

wrote:

><<snipped prior question and answer> >

 

> > Gary: When you say, " that goose has been cooked already, "

relative

> > to " seeking truth or answers or spirituality of some final or

> > absolute type, " does that mean you have settled those issues for

> > yourself, or does it mean that you have dismissed the whole idea

> > of " spiritual seeking " as being, essentially, a meaningless

> > enterprise?

>

> Lewis: Yes. There is an inability to seek seek " truth or

> answers or spirituality of some final or absolute type, or any

type "

> (why cut " any type, " Gary).>>

 

(NOTE: I don't know why I cut " any type. " I certainly didn't mean to

change the intended meaning of the sentence in which it appeared. )

 

Lewis:

 

It is not a decision or intellectual

> realization. And when there is the ability it is there as it is

doing

> what it does.

>

> No. There is no dismissal. And in that there is an inability to seek

> there is an inability to consider meaning or meaninglessness as

being

> either finally admissible or inadmissable or some thing to affirm or

> deny with conviction or belief or to accept or dismiss with reason.

> For me there is " can and cannot " in daily life. Either I can do

> something or cannot do it. Meaning and meaninglessness are " poles "

on

> a continuum in between, which the stuff on the surface has the

> potential for play and exploration.

>

> If the enterprise were meaningless as you conceive it, how can there

> be dialogue as it was described? >>

 

Gary:

Let me see if I'm with you so far. The " enterprise " we are talking

about here is " spiritual seeking, " i.e., the effort put forth by many

people to discover or realize the essential truth of not only their

existence, but of existence (Life) in general. In other words, is

there a purpose in life other than survival of the indivdual and the

propagation of the species?

 

You say that for you, there is an " inability to seek. " Why?

 

Are you saying that for you there is only that which you " can and

cannot do " in daily life, plus possible explorations of those things

which appear superficially to you as you go through your daily

routine?

 

Given what I take to be your sane, rational, and practical approach

to living, do you think that the people on the GR and the Niz boards

are essentially wasting their time or barking up the wrong tree with

all this talk about " I Am That " and Self-Realization, God's Will,

the non-existence of the apparent individual entity, etc. etc.?

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " garyfalk1943 " <falkgw@h...> wrote:

 

 

Gary: Lewis, you are obviously very intelligent and have a broad

base of knowledge, it would seem. Tell us, therefore, if you will,

just what brought you to " hang out " online with a bunch of

mystically-oriented (some might say, " airy-fairy " ) spiritual seekers?

Would you say that in some manner you are " spiritual seeker " yourself?

 

Lewis: Seeming is all that it is for the first. For the second, that

was explained in nauseating detail, in various ways before, here and

elsewhere on some of the same lists you frequent, Gary. I accidently

found the list researching Shambala for a friend, stepped into a

dialogue here on the Niz list with Anders Lindman offering two cents

about his concern with time and then little by little read and found

the dialogues interesting and stimulating by the different voices and

views, perspectives, approaches, and the varying modes of responses

underwent experiences never had before, and would never had had

otherwise, through the dialogues. All of it works something like

tilling a field for the first time where you do not know what is in it

until the plow(s) pulls it up and you say, Well, well what have we

here, that never appeared before? All kinds of stuff bubbled and

bubbles up: ignorance, beliefs, attachments that are seen and popped

as it goes or not, as well as new expressions, new perceptions, and

new language that emerges in the interactions and that give voice to

undefined sensations flowing in a transparent darkness and new stories

about it all.

 

And, no, Gary, there is no seeking truth or answers or spirituality of

some final or absolute type or any type. That goose has been cooked

and eaten. There is desire to explore in dialogue the wonders of

living and creating from any perspective. That is just the way it has

always been since childhood; curosity coming out the kazoo. Almost all

that is known (98%?) about Advaita Vedanta, Hinduism and Buddhism in

its various forms, and the figures and writings and teachings of

Ramana, Nisargadatta, Sankara, Nagarjuna, Lacan, and many many others

and the hearings presented were before unexplored and were met and

studied here for the first time. The language and conceptual worlds

were and are learned, explored and employed in daily living to see

what it is about and then put down in the way that is done. Before

this, it was consciousness and brain science, social anthroplogy,

phenomenology, dialogism, ethnomethodology, and other divisions in the

social sciences concerned with the construction and maintenance of

social realities.

 

There are no answers here; nothing to offer but conversation,

exploration of all things in this way or that or no way at all and

sometimes a few laughs and sometimes making a contribution to what

appears as annoyance to some at what is said in all the ways that is

possible and offering challenges as it goes.

 

That's it.

 

Lewis

 

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

 

*Gary: When you say, " that goose has been cooked already, " relative

to " seeking truth or answers or spirituality of some final or

absolute type, " does that mean you have settled those issues for

yourself, or does it mean that you have dismissed the whole idea

of " spiritual seeking " as being, essentially, a meaningless

enterprise?

 

Also, from the point of view of either brain science or social

anthropology, what is your take on " That, " which seems to be the

central concept (if we could call it that)on the Niz and GR boards?

 

 

*Lewis: Yes. There is an inability to seek seek " truth or

answers or spirituality of some final or absolute type, or any type "

(why cut " any type, " Gary). It is not a decision or intellectual

realization. And when there is the ability it is there as it is doing

what it does.

 

**[Gary: (NOTE: I don't know why I cut " any type. " I certainly didn't

mean to change the intended meaning of the sentence in which it

appeared. )]

 

No. There is no dismissal. And in that there is an inability to seek

there is an inability to consider meaning or meaninglessness as being

either finally admissible or inadmissible or some thing to affirm or

deny with conviction or belief or to accept or dismiss with reason.

For me there is " can and cannot " in daily life. Either I can do

something or cannot do it. Meaning and meaninglessness are " poles " on

a continuum in between, which the stuff on the surface has the

potential for play and exploration.

 

If the enterprise were meaningless as you conceive it, how can there

be dialogue as it was described?

 

 

[Cut and pasted from above]

 

 

*Gary: Also, from the point of view of either brain science or social

anthropology, what is your take on " That, " which seems to be the

central concept (if we could call it that)on the Niz and GR boards?

 

 

*Lewis: I do not engage those perspectives as life. They are tools for

communication, discussion and getting things done with words, concepts

and technology. Depending on the wielder and how those are wielded you

can get many different takes on " That. "

 

I do not have a take on " That " it goes without saying, there are no

words.

 

Lewis

 

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

 

 

**Gary: Let me see if I'm with you so far. The " enterprise " we are

talking about here is " spiritual seeking, " i.e., the effort put forth

by many people to discover or realize the essential truth of not only

their existence, but of existence (Life) in general. In other words,

is there a purpose in life other than survival of the indivdual and

the propagation of the species?

 

 

**Lewis: That is the " enterprise " that you are speaking about and are

creating at the moment. I am not participating directly in the

creation of that, Gary. You are defining the " enterprise " and the

questions about it. So, it is Made clear here that that is the case.

 

As to your yes or no question " is there a purpose in life other than

survival of the indivdual and the propagation of the species? " the

answer depends on who the question is directed to and what is its

purpose. If the question is general and an academic, theoretical, or

speculative one, simply pursuing an perspective or an opinion, the

answer is moot. Since words are used with each individual answering as

is their wont, the answer varies along with the evidence,

rationalizations and justifications that follow to support the answer.

So the answers are either " yes " or " no " for those with hard, well

defined positions and beliefs, " yes and no " for the syncretic seeing

both sides and trying to achieve a creative balanced position made

from that offered by the two hard positions and some added thing, or

" I do not know " for those who see both sides of as having merit but

are undecided and wavering for some reason or other (fill it in) about

making an answer or commitment as they are insecure or not wishing to

be wrong and so argue all sides or the simple rejection of the

question as unanswerable, the position of the skeptic. These are the

possible answers for that general, academic, theoretical or

speculative question.

 

Now if you are asking how do " I " answer the question in a

non-academic manner the answer is […..…..].

 

 

**Gary: You say that for you, there is an " inability to seek. " Why?

 

 

**Lewis: There is no why. It just is.

 

 

**Gary: Are you saying that for you there is only that which you " can

and cannot do " in daily life, plus possible explorations of those

things which appear superficially to you as you go through your daily

routine?

 

 

**Lewis: Yes. And to clarify it is not a " plus possible explorations, "

Gary. The explorations, play, breathing, eating, drinking, excreting,

perceiving speaking, writing, reading, moving around, perceiving,

creating, resting, sleeping, etc are all can and cannot do.

 

**Gary: Given what I take to be your sane, rational, and practical

approach to living, do you think that the people on the GR and the Niz

boards are essentially wasting their time or barking up the wrong tree

with all this talk about " I Am That " and Self-Realization, God's Will,

the non-existence of the apparent individual entity, etc. etc.?

 

**Lewis: First, what you take is may be only apparent to you and not

generalizable. Other takes are possible as has been generated on this

and other boards and elsewhere as it goes…..

 

Second, if you wish an academic answer it goes the same as above for

your other question. Yes, no, yes and no, I do not know, and

irrelevant, unanswerable question. Which one is desired, Gary?

 

If you are asking this as a non-academic question to " me. " the answer

is [………].

[Guest guest]

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

wrote:

**Gary: Given what I take to be your sane, rational, and practical

> approach to living, do you think that the people on the GR and the

Niz

> boards are essentially wasting their time or barking up the wrong

tree

> with all this talk about " I Am That " and Self-Realization, God's

Will,

> the non-existence of the apparent individual entity, etc. etc.?

 

 

**Lewis: First, what you take is may be only apparent to you and not

> generalizable. Other takes are possible as has been generated on

this

> and other boards and elsewhere as it goes…..

>

> Second, if you wish an academic answer it goes the same as above

for

> your other question. Yes, no, yes and no, I do not know, and

> irrelevant, unanswerable question. Which one is desired, Gary?

>

> If you are asking this as a non-academic question to " me. " the

answer

> is [………].>>

 

Gary: Let's stick with the non-academic, if you don't mind.

First of all, when you say, " [........], " what do you mean?

Secondly, who are you? (That is, from your present point of view?)

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " garyfalk1943 " <falkgw@h...> wrote:

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

> wrote:

> **Gary: Given what I take to be your sane, rational, and practical

> > approach to living, do you think that the people on the GR and the

> Niz

> > boards are essentially wasting their time or barking up the wrong

> tree

> > with all this talk about " I Am That " and Self-Realization, God's

> Will,

> > the non-existence of the apparent individual entity, etc. etc.?

>

>

> **Lewis: First, what you take is may be only apparent to you and not

> > generalizable. Other takes are possible as has been generated on

> this

> > and other boards and elsewhere as it goes…..

> >

> > Second, if you wish an academic answer it goes the same as above

> for

> > your other question. Yes, no, yes and no, I do not know, and

> > irrelevant, unanswerable question. Which one is desired, Gary?

> >

> > If you are asking this as a non-academic question to " me. " the

> answer

> > is [………].>>

>

> Gary: Let's stick with the non-academic, if you don't mind.

 

Ok.

 

> First of all, when you say, " [........], " what do you mean?

 

 

Lewis: [........]

 

 

> Secondly, who are you? (That is, from your present point of view?)

 

 

Lewis: [........]