Guest guest Posted May 27, 2005 Report Share Posted May 27, 2005 Hey! you trying to steal my chicken? I sell it to you for a dollar. It's a tough old chicken, but if you boil the meat with vinager and water. It'll be alright for stew. Nothing new below, just foxy chicken stealing, Lewis: Let's talk on this if it calls you. The " other, " always a raw cipher, is " deciphered and made " by me as I am made by the other. There is 'Stefan' and there is " Stefan " and there is +Stefan+ and there is @Stefan@ and there is.......I decipher and make Stefan as Stefan deciphers and makes me. And our creations meet in the words exchanged and deciphered and we do it again forming and re-forming each other as we go. We can go up or down or sideways or clash or conflict or compete or avoid or avert or escape or get in a rut or fuss or tiff or be in love or embrace or commune......whatever it is that is done. If the expression of one or both ciphers is [fill it in] what happens?...... This relative world here is a fine place to develop the fine art of decipering and making the " other " and in knowing and doing it is that fabled and legendary, elusive nonduality. Any offerings for continuation.....are most welcome Lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 27, 2005 Report Share Posted May 27, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> wrote: >Hi Stefan and Anna, > >Let's talk on this if it calls you. > >The " other, " always a raw cipher, is " deciphered and made " by me as I >am made by the other. There is 'Stefan' and there is " Stefan " and >there is +Stefan+ and there is @Stefan@ and there is.......I decipher >and make Stefan as Stefan deciphers and makes me. Hi Lewis :-)) ... yes, this sounds reasonable. >And our creations >meet in the words exchanged and deciphered and we do it again forming >and re-forming each other as we go. We can go up or down or sideways >or clash or conflict or compete or avoid or avert or escape or get in >a rut or fuss or tiff or be in love or embrace or >commune......whatever it is that is done. If the expression of one or >both ciphers is [fill it in] what happens?...... > >This relative world here is a fine place to develop the fine art of >decipering and making the " other " and in knowing and doing it is that >fabled and legendary, elusive nonduality. > >Any offerings for continuation.....are most welcome I see a balancing act between freedom and commitment. We are social beings and lonely heroes. The lonely heroe understands that all communication is unreal and futile as it is the result of highly doubtful deciphering. The social being suffers from separateness. It wants to melt, understand and be understood. When I write here I try to do as always: be honest towards myself, including all there is. What other art shall I develop? Love Stefan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 27, 2005 Report Share Posted May 27, 2005 - Lewis Burgess Nisargadatta Friday, May 27, 2005 5:12 PM Re: Stefan The Tough Chicken Nisargadatta , " Anna Ruiz " <nli10u@c...> wrote: > > - > Stefan > Nisargadatta > Friday, May 27, 2005 4:27 PM > Re: Stefan The Tough Chicken > > > >P:Ha ha! Now you scared me to death! Go ahead, Stieve, get tough! > > This is a good example for meaninglessness, Pete. > If I would have scared you to death... > you would not have said " Haha " . > > What else can you see, besides fear and threat? > > Greetings > S. > > > Hi Ho Stefan, > > You know one of the last things let go is that anyOne-else could ever be a threat and bring " stefan " fear. > > It is an amazing grace, this peace without " Borders " . > > Love, > Anna Hi Stefan and Anna, Let's talk on this if it calls you. The " other, " always a raw cipher, is " deciphered and made " by me as I am made by the other. There is 'Stefan' and there is " Stefan " and there is +Stefan+ and there is @Stefan@ and there is.......I decipher and make Stefan as Stefan deciphers and makes me. And our creations meet in the words exchanged and deciphered and we do it again forming and re-forming each other as we go. We can go up or down or sideways or clash or conflict or compete or avoid or avert or escape or get in a rut or fuss or tiff or be in love or embrace or commune......whatever it is that is done. If the expression of one or both ciphers is [fill it in] what happens?...... This relative world here is a fine place to develop the fine art of decipering and making the " other " and in knowing and doing it is that fabled and legendary, elusive nonduality. Any offerings for continuation.....are most welcome Certainly Dear Lewis, How we, The I--Anna and Thou--Lewis meet in this moment in any scenario that could possibly occur is the Unknown I and Unknown Thou. What occurs as these two distant shores merge is what i would call a 'blending' of us in whatever " form " it takes. Our borders have become " fuzzy " , so to speak. I am empty, a 'hungry ghost' in a sense, and my fulfillment is in " relationship " with you in this moment of exchange. We are thus the breath of oneAnother. I breath your Life, you breathe mine. That is, if we are Open to Life, this stuff of breathing. Of Loving. Our 'individual' life is shaped, honed, colored and textured by We. You and I are the stuff out of which we now create the unborn. Anna Lewis ** If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: /mygroups?edit=1 Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 28, 2005 Report Share Posted May 28, 2005 Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > Hey! you trying to steal my chicken? > I sell it to you for a dollar. It's a tough > old chicken, but if you boil the meat > with vinager and water. It'll be alright > for stew. > Hey, wha ya talkin' bout! You be kickin' dat lovely chicken round. Wha ya expect, you mean ole chicken kicker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 28, 2005 Report Share Posted May 28, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> wrote: >The art, the creation, what you always do in music, but here, the art, >the music created here. I am your instrument as you make me, design >me, your flute, play me, create music with me or if you wish, ignore >me or put me aside or smash me if I do not play your song as wanted or >fix me if I am broken or....As your instrument what can I do to you? > > >So when you do it, do it artfully, knowingly. > >That is what anna is saying. The only fear or threat is that made by >you. There is none elsewhere to be found in any " one " or thing. >That is what anna is saying. The only fear or threat is that made by >you. There is none elsewhere to be found in any " one " or thing. Lewis, I did not understand Anna this way. Haha, it is funny how it happens as we talk about the subject (deciphering, I mean)! Was it you who once suggested I should exhale and wait till the last moment to inhale? So I can see how my survival instinct works on its own? I did it and never forget this experience. In my former post to Anna I wanted to express that I have abandoned the idea to get rid of anything, like fear. When the floor starts to tremble I will run out of the house, faster than I can think. I dont want to be cooked yet. You say threat and fear are only made by me. Are you shure? If they were made by God or the Devil, it makes no difference. Even if they were made by Anna or Pete... why is it important? I only know one thing for shure: they are experienced. They come and go without me doing anything, like everything else. Greetings Stefan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 28, 2005 Report Share Posted May 28, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Anna Ruiz " <nli10u@c...> wrote: >>Now floating with the tide... breathing in and out, as required... >>hearing you, I wonder: to what unknown shores will it take me? > > >The unknown shore for me is Stefan, the unknown shore for Stefan is >Anna..... >and we meet in this moment, as it is...... every moment... the unknown shore. ....Love... Stefan >It is the absolute wonder of " You " for I have nOne other. I am emptiness filling myself with 'thou'. >I/thou/This....... This.........This......... breathing in, breathing out. It has always been thus..... > >Love, >Anna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 28, 2005 Report Share Posted May 28, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@o...> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> > wrote: >Hi Stefan and Anna, > >Let's talk on this if it calls you. > >The " other, " always a raw cipher, is " deciphered and made " by me as I >am made by the other. There is 'Stefan' and there is " Stefan " and >there is +Stefan+ and there is @Stefan@ and there is.......I decipher >and make Stefan as Stefan deciphers and makes me. Hi Lewis :-)) ... yes, this sounds reasonable. >And our creations >meet in the words exchanged and deciphered and we do it again forming >and re-forming each other as we go. We can go up or down or sideways >or clash or conflict or compete or avoid or avert or escape or get in >a rut or fuss or tiff or be in love or embrace or >commune......whatever it is that is done. If the expression of one or >both ciphers is [fill it in] what happens?...... > >This relative world here is a fine place to develop the fine art of >decipering and making the " other " and in knowing and doing it is that >fabled and legendary, elusive nonduality. > >Any offerings for continuation.....are most welcome I see a balancing act between freedom and commitment. We are social beings and lonely heroes. The lonely heroe understands that all communication is unreal and futile as it is the result of highly doubtful deciphering. The social being suffers from separateness. It wants to melt, understand and be understood. When I write here I try to do as always: be honest towards myself, including all there is. What other art shall I develop? Love Stefan Is all communication unreal and futile as it is the result of highly doubtful deciphering? I do not experience a separation of a social being and the lonely hero, Stefan. Both emerge as it is, one than the other and then a different one for all the various calls and demands made. So for me there is no standing in one or the other or both and therefore no balance required. There is no standing in any thing or in any position or view as it goes except for those necessary for living and that cannot be helped. The sense of separation, separateness and wanting to melt, understand and be understood that I once had came from assuming, believing, hoping, wanting, desiring, seeking, trying to have perfect communication and complete union with an " other. " This conceptual dream, fantasy was found to be experientially impossible through using words and speech and language and writing and all such communicative devices. There was always a gap created if this insatiable desire for an impossibility was present. The union was there as it was in any hearing and heard, in very gesture and word, but seeking an imagined union made me communicatively insane. It is like seeking union with the Self or the No Self. It is not possible to reach an imaginary. It is always out of reach, just around the corner, one more step..... One may imagine union with an other as two separate objects becoming one through communicating but that is all it is. The closest one gets to union in this way is opening up a form (word concept event) mutally reaching an agreement on how some thing is to be understood by say Yes and No to things about it. So the thing is never understood, but the agreement is. Yes, that is it and No it is not that. Yes and No are easily understood. The thing understood is never the same for two in experience. To confuse agreement with understanding is error. So in communicating with others as it goes there always is union (it cannot be helped) and it is the surface appearance of the communication that gives the sense of duality and separation. We can never become one with an other in understanding (always relative) using communicative devices that try to bring or join one with the other in understanding. This is communicative insanity and dialogical tyranny and result in intense oppositional dialogue which is in perfect unity and with surface discomfort, anxiety and all that. We are one as it is before, during and after no matter the appearances. Instead of being communicatively insane, we play with, work with and explore with the " other " that is always a cipher and will never be fully known as is every thing else is never fully known and there is infinite progress in knowing by creating and experience the " other " from the phenomena presented before us. Union as it is is there as it is doing, as it is. No desiring of it necessary, it is always there. The art is in the play, work, exploring, etc. with the " other " which can never be fixed or certain or final. When the play, work, exploring, etc. with the " other " becomes something other than this on the surface, artful communication helps to go through the superficial stormy seas without throwing any thing or one overboard or by throwing things and any one overboard. It depends, and all weather is welcome and if not welcomed, we suffer on account of being unprepared. Union always is and goes without saying. Lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 28, 2005 Report Share Posted May 28, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Anna Ruiz " <nli10u@c...> wrote: > > - > Lewis Burgess > Nisargadatta > Friday, May 27, 2005 5:12 PM > Re: Stefan The Tough Chicken > > > Nisargadatta , " Anna Ruiz " <nli10u@c...> wrote: > > > > - > > Stefan > > Nisargadatta > > Friday, May 27, 2005 4:27 PM > > Re: Stefan The Tough Chicken > > > > > > >P:Ha ha! Now you scared me to death! Go ahead, Stieve, get tough! > > > > This is a good example for meaninglessness, Pete. > > If I would have scared you to death... > > you would not have said " Haha " . > > > > What else can you see, besides fear and threat? > > > > Greetings > > S. > > > > > > Hi Ho Stefan, > > > > You know one of the last things let go is that anyOne-else could > ever be a threat and bring " stefan " fear. > > > > It is an amazing grace, this peace without " Borders " . > > > > Love, > > Anna > > > Hi Stefan and Anna, > > Let's talk on this if it calls you. > > The " other, " always a raw cipher, is " deciphered and made " by me as I > am made by the other. There is 'Stefan' and there is " Stefan " and > there is +Stefan+ and there is @Stefan@ and there is.......I decipher > and make Stefan as Stefan deciphers and makes me. And our creations > meet in the words exchanged and deciphered and we do it again forming > and re-forming each other as we go. We can go up or down or sideways > or clash or conflict or compete or avoid or avert or escape or get in > a rut or fuss or tiff or be in love or embrace or > commune......whatever it is that is done. If the expression of one or > both ciphers is [fill it in] what happens?...... > > This relative world here is a fine place to develop the fine art of > decipering and making the " other " and in knowing and doing it is that > fabled and legendary, elusive nonduality. > > Any offerings for continuation.....are most welcome > > Certainly Dear Lewis, > > How we, The I--Anna and Thou--Lewis > meet in this moment in any scenario > that could possibly occur is the Unknown I and Unknown Thou. > > What occurs as these two distant shores merge is what i would call a 'blending' of us in whatever " form " it > takes. Our borders have become > " fuzzy " , so to speak. > > I am empty, a 'hungry ghost' in a > sense, and my fulfillment is in > " relationship " with you in this > moment of exchange. > > We are thus the breath of oneAnother. > I breath your Life, you breathe mine. > > That is, if we are Open to Life, this > stuff of breathing. Of Loving. > Our 'individual' life is shaped, honed, colored and textured by We. You and I are the stuff out of which we now create the unborn. > > Anna Yes, that is my experience and though your form in presenting is in the idiom of love, it is more adequate than mine in conveying the essences, the touch, the mingling of the fluid ciphers that we are. Lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 28, 2005 Report Share Posted May 28, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@o...> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> > wrote: > > >The art, the creation, what you always do in music, but here, the > art, > >the music created here. I am your instrument as you make me, design > >me, your flute, play me, create music with me or if you wish, ignore > >me or put me aside or smash me if I do not play your song as wanted > or > >fix me if I am broken or....As your instrument what can I do to you? > > > > > >So when you do it, do it artfully, knowingly. > > > >That is what anna is saying. The only fear or threat is that made by > >you. There is none elsewhere to be found in any " one " or thing. > > >That is what anna is saying. The only fear or threat is that made by > >you. There is none elsewhere to be found in any " one " or thing. > > Lewis, > > I did not understand Anna this way. Haha, it is funny how it happens > as we talk about the subject (deciphering, I mean)! > > Was it you who once suggested I should exhale and wait till the last > moment to inhale? So I can see how my survival instinct works on its > own? I did it and never forget this experience. > > In my former post to Anna I wanted to express that I have abandoned > the idea to get rid of anything, like fear. When the floor starts to > tremble I will run out of the house, faster than I can think. I dont > want to be cooked yet. > > You say threat and fear are only made by me. Are you shure? If they > were made by God or the Devil, it makes no difference. Even if they > were made by Anna or Pete... why is it important? I only know one > thing for shure: they are experienced. They come and go without me > doing anything, like everything else. > > Greetings > Stefan Hi Stefan, Yes, it is certain. The experience is yours as you say. That is the point. Fear is a bodily emotion constructed in thought. The same physical emotions and sensations can be experienced as excitement, readiness or fear. There is fearlessness that comes with being no thing. Lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 28, 2005 Report Share Posted May 28, 2005 >Is all communication unreal and futile as it is the result of highly doubtful deciphering? S.:No, not at all. It is what it is, highly doubtful deciphering. In a way it seems to be necessary and helpful. >I do not experience a separation of a social being and the lonely hero, Stefan. Both emerge as it is, one than the other and then a different one for all the various calls and demands made. So for me there is no standing in one or the other or both and therefore no balance required. There is no standing in any thing or in any position or view as it goes except for those necessary for living and that cannot be helped. S.:You are right. " Balancing act " was only how I visioned what you just described. To me it seems that feelings and thoughts are trying to find a balance by themselves. And you say: " those necessary for living cannot be helped " . I cannot see anything that can be helped, can you? >The sense of separation, separateness and wanting to melt, understand and be understood that I once had came from assuming, believing, hoping, wanting, desiring, seeking, trying to have perfect communication and complete union with an " other. " This conceptual dream, fantasy was found to be experientially impossible through using words and speech and language and writing and all such communicative devices. There was always a gap created if this insatiable desire for an impossibility was present. The union was there as it was in any hearing and heard, in very gesture and word, but seeking an imagined union made me communicatively insane. It is like seeking union with the Self or the No Self. It is not possible to reach an imaginary. It is always out of reach, just around the corner, one more step..... S.:Yes, thats how I see it too. Yet I observe that " melting with the whole " is wanted by the appearance. It seems to be a basic need of everything, when you eat you melt with food. I think communication is driven by this need, no matter how it is performed. The appearance can only reassure itself by melting and departing. >One may imagine union with an other as two separate objects becoming one through communicating but that is all it is. The closest one gets to union in this way is opening up a form (word concept event) mutally reaching an agreement on how some thing is to be understood by say Yes and No to things about it. So the thing is never understood, but the agreement is. Yes, that is it and No it is not that. Yes and No are easily understood. The thing understood is never the same for two in experience. To confuse agreement with understanding is error. S.:The union I see is not found in agreement nor mutual understanding. This union is found in the realization that there is never separation. This is often not realized by two, it is found by the one who disappears into everything - into nothing. The separation that I experience seems to be necessary for survival. But this union is the disappearance of the apearance that wants to survive. Sensing all this brings a new quality to the daily life of the personality. It knows that it cannot be. But it sees that it is. So it starts to inhale more deeply. >So in communicating with others as it goes there always is union (it cannot be helped) and it is the surface appearance of the communication that gives the sense of duality and separation. We can never become one with an other in understanding (always relative) using communicative devices that try to bring or join one with the other in understanding. This is communicative insanity and dialogical tyranny and result in intense oppositional dialogue which is in perfect unity and with surface discomfort, anxiety and all that. We are one as it is before, during and after no matter the appearances. S.:The " communicative insanity " , as you call it, may be as it needs to be. As you feel it is " insane " you must have mesured it against something you call " sane " . Why look at it this way? Discomfort and anxiety is there as long as comfort and safety is wanted. It comes all perfectly into place as I admit my helplessness. The one who melts into unity also melts with war, hatred and madness. Haha! The warlords and the singing birds in the tree... they all want to melt. This is the power of love. >Instead of being communicatively insane, we play with, work with and explore with the " other " that is always a cipher and will never be fully known as is every thing else is never fully known and there is infinite progress in knowing by creating and experience the " other " from the phenomena presented before us. Union as it is is there as it is doing, as it is. No desiring of it necessary, it is always there. S.:Yes. It is always there, so we can as well be communicatevly insane :-) Why not? Bark, bark, bark... those who think this has been written by a dog... let them think. My thinking is not better. The insanity lies in the idea that things have to be sane... So lets celebrate insanity. >The art is in the play, work, exploring, etc. with the " other " which can never be fixed or certain or final. When the play, work, exploring, etc. with the " other " becomes something other than this on the surface, artful communication helps to go through the superficial stormy seas without throwing any thing or one overboard or by throwing things and any one overboard. It depends, and all weather is welcome and if not welcomed, we suffer on account of being unprepared. Union always is and goes without saying. S.:For me the art (here) is in reading and in chosing words. Thats all. Being true to myself. I have no control over the result. Every true artist knows this. And the whole life is an art. Helpless art. Art of helplessness. It all is yet it cannot be. Great to talk to you again, Lewis... great to talk to you all... to myself... in insane sanity Yours Stefan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 28, 2005 Report Share Posted May 28, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@o...> wrote: L: Is all communication unreal and futile as it is the result of highly doubtful deciphering? S.:No, not at all. It is what it is, highly doubtful deciphering. In a way it seems to be necessary and helpful. *L: Can deciphering be seen in as many ways as there are possible: highly doubtful being one,with others such as close, mis-taken, silly, grossly inaccurate, manipulative, twisted, loving, creative, odd, imaginative, dull, etc. ? L: I do not experience a separation of a social being and the lonely hero, Stefan. Both emerge as it is, one than the other and then a different one for all the various calls and demands made. So for me there is no standing in one or the other or both and therefore no balance required. There is no standing in any thing or in any position or view as it goes except for those necessary for living and that cannot be helped. S.:You are right. " Balancing act " was only how I visioned what you just described. To me it seems that feelings and thoughts are trying to find a balance by themselves. And you say: " those necessary for living cannot be helped " . I cannot see anything that can be helped, can you? *L: No. L: The sense of separation, separateness and wanting to melt, understand and be understood that I once had came from assuming, believing, hoping, wanting, desiring, seeking, trying to have perfect communication and complete union with an " other. " This conceptual dream, fantasy was found to be experientially impossible through using words and speech and language and writing and all such communicative devices. There was always a gap created if this insatiable desire for an impossibility was present. The union was there as it was in any hearing and heard, in very gesture and word, but seeking an imagined union made me communicatively insane. It is like seeking union with the Self or the No Self. It is not possible to reach an imaginary. It is always out of reach, just around the corner, one more step..... S.:Yes, thats how I see it too. Yet I observe that " melting with the whole " is wanted by the appearance. It seems to be a basic need of everything, when you eat you melt with food. I think communication is driven by this need, no matter how it is performed. The appearance can only reassure itself by melting and departing. *L: I do not conceive it as a need but an insatiable desire created by having an imagined and impossible object/goal: perfect union in communication. And such a desire indeed drives towards its impossible goal. This works as you say it does. However, there is another way. Union already is in the moment.Nothing need be done. So in disposing of the imagined object goal of perfect communication where there is a sense of separation, separateness and wanting to melt, understand and be understood is absent. The imagined object goal, " the need, " what is " wanted by the appearance " creates both the sense of separation and separateness and the insatiable desire of wanting to melt, understand and be understood and the thinking of it and so on. It is imagined in the appearance. Realize, see the imagined object/goal and the insatiable desire can drop out as well as the sense of separation and separateness. L: One may imagine union with an other as two separate objects becoming one through communicating but that is all it is. The closest one gets to union in this way is opening up a form (word concept event) mutally reaching an agreement on how some thing is to be understood by say Yes and No to things about it. So the thing is never understood, butthe agreement is. Yes, that is it and No it is not that. Yes and No are easily understood. The thing understood is never the same for two in experience. To confuse agreement with understanding is error. S.:The union I see is not found in agreement nor mutual understanding. *L: The union refered to was the insatiable one and not the one that is always. These are not to be confused. S: This union is found in the realization that there is never separation. *L: Yes. S: This is often not realized by two, it is found by the one who disappears into everything - into nothing. *L: Yes, that is the point being made. S: The separation that I experience seems to be necessary for survival. *L: It seems that that is imagined. S: But this union is the disappearance of the apearance that wants to survive. Sensing all this brings a new quality to the daily life of the personality. It knows that it cannot be. But it sees that it is. So it starts to inhale more deeply. *L: Yes, with the release of the imagined object/goal. L: So in communicating with others as it goes there always is union it cannot be helped) and it is the surface appearance of the communication that gives the sense of duality and separation. We can never become one with an other in understanding (always relative) using communicative devices that try to bring or join one with the other in understanding. This is communicative insanity and dialogical tyranny and result in intense oppositional dialogue which is in perfect unity and with surface discomfort, anxiety and all that. We are one as it is before, during and after no matter the appearances. S.:The " communicative insanity " , as you call it, may be as it needs to be. *L: It is as it is. It is possible, not required, or destined. It also does not have to be appear. It happens as it does or doesn't. S: As you feel it is " insane " you must have mesured it against something you call " sane " . Why look at it this way? *L: It is not a value judgement. It is a heuristic to catch attention. It captures in words forms of dialogue that lead to discomfort, \ anxiety confusion, fear, threat, violence, bodily death. Stuff like that. S: Discomfort and anxiety is there as long as comfort and safety is wanted. It comes all perfectly into place as I admit my helplessness. The one who melts into unity also melts with war, hatred and madness. Haha! The warlords and the singing birds in the tree... they all want to melt. This is the power of love. *L: There is another way to conceive it. " I don't get, have, what I want and someone else is preventing me from having that. " It is in the not getting, having the object/goal, that all this arises and the striving for this and that emerges. Also wanting, desiring, are the indications of holding imagined objects/goals. The concept of Helplessness is a sort of solution. But it is standing in some " thing " called helplessness. This can blind. L: Instead of being communicatively insane, we play with, work with and explore with the " other " that is always a cipher and will never be fully known as is every thing else is never fully known and there is infinite progress in knowing by creating and experience the " other " from the phenomena presented before us. Union as it is is there as it is doing, as it is. No desiring of it necessary, it is always there. S.:Yes. It is always there, so we can as well be communicatevly insane :-) Why not? Bark, bark, bark... those who think this has been written by a dog... let them think. My thinking is not better. The insanity lies in the idea that things have to be sane... So lets celebrate insanity. *L: This is mis-taking the concept, Stefan. Communication is not limited to this forum and typed text. Barking in daily life in response to calls and demands will not last for long for obvious reasons. " Shizophrenic dialogue' is considered insane not because of a comparison to what is sane (what is sane anyway) but in specific formation of discursive style that is not easily followed or followed at all by anyone including other 'schizophrenics. " A true " schizophrenic " is a true individual and is completely outside of any discourse and is nonadaptive. The " psychotic " cannot discourse. I am " psychotic " as I am, and become adaptive when entering the relative world of many discourses. " Communicatively insane " does not mean to be " psychotic " or " insane " as it appears you have taken it. It means " non-psychotic. " You have understood it in reverse. So there is no need for thinking sane vs insane as it is normally conceived. It is not about that at all. L: The art is in the play, work, exploring, etc. with the " other " which can never be fixed or certain or final. When the play, work, exploring, etc. with the " other " becomes something other than this on the surface, artful communication helps to go through the superficial stormy seas without throwing any thing or one overboard or by throwing things and any one overboard. It depends, and all weather is welcome and if not welcomed, we suffer on account of being unprepared. Union always is and goes without saying. S.:For me the art (here) is in reading and in chosing words. Thats all. Being true to myself. I have no control over the result. Every true artist knows this. And the whole life is an art. Helpless art. Art of helplessness. It all is yet it cannot be. Great to talk to you again, Lewis... great to talk to you all... to myself... in insane sanity Yours Stefan That is it! And you too, Stefan. To the art of it...... Love, Lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 28, 2005 Report Share Posted May 28, 2005 Hi Lewis... >*L: Can deciphering be seen in as many ways as there are possible: highly doubtful being one,with others such as close, mis-taken, silly, grossly inaccurate, manipulative, twisted, loving, creative, odd, imaginative, dull, etc. ? Yes but it always stays highly doubtful. I see deciphering as an act of thinking, which is itself highly doubtful... About " MELTING " : Your idea of " perfect union in communication " , which you have described as an impossible goal, is too abstract for me. I tried to point to the underlying principle of expansion and unification. It is at work always and everywhere, as I observe. My need to communicate is like the need of the tree to grow leaves. Call it love. There is no question if the goal is reachable or not. Union is my experience... the union unfolds into myriad things... then the split, separation... then everything floats back into union. This floating with the tide seems to be inevitable, natural, necessary. *L: The union refered to was the insatiable one and not the one that is always. These are not to be confused. Maybe you can see now why I believe the " insatiable " and the one " always here " are one and the same? The searcher, running after the unreachable has not seen yet, that it is unreachable because it is so close. About " INSANITY " . I had written: S.:Yes. It (union) is always there, so we can as well be communicatevly insane :-) Why not? Bark, bark, bark... those who think this has been written by a dog... let them think. My thinking is not better. The insanity lies in the idea that things have to be sane... So lets celebrate insanity. And you: *L: This is mis-taking the concept, Stefan... Our deciphering mechanism -tilt-, haha! I have not mistaken your expression " insane " for " psychotic " . For me " union " also means: sanity and insanity are one. I have often (in/sanely) said " meeow.. meeow " but someone understood " bark.. bark.. " and again someone else " piep.. piep " . Did you read that anecdote of Nasrudin that I have posted? Babylon has made people mad with anger and confusion. Unnecessarily. Only silence can be an answer. Or maybe a good laugh? To occasionaly break the silence I might as well say " ooink... ooink " . Oh, and how do chickens chatter in English, anyway? Highly doubtful yours in/sane Stefan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 28, 2005 Report Share Posted May 28, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@o...> wrote: > Hi Lewis... > > > *L: Can deciphering be seen in as many ways as there are possible: > > highly doubtful being one,with others such as close, mis-taken, > > silly, grossly inaccurate, manipulative, twisted, loving, > > creative, odd, imaginative, dull, etc. ? S: Yes but it always stays highly doubtful. I see deciphering as an act of thinking, which is itself highly doubtful... **L: and which is any way it can be. About " MELTING " : S: Your idea of " perfect union in communication " , which you have described as an impossible goal, is too abstract for me. **L: It is idea that is seen in the doing, something strived for by some as seen as it goes. Abstract or not is not meant to be anything to you unless you see your communication as striving for such. It is a heuristic nothing more...... It is not for debate. S: I tried to point to the underlying principle of expansion and unification. It is at work always and everywhere, as I observe. My need to communicate is like the need of the tree to grow leaves. Call it love. There is no question if the goal is reachable or not. **L: Yes. Your imagined object/goal, the need, the striving for the impossible and your solution of helpnessness was noted. S: Union is my experience... the union unfolds into myriad things... then the split, separation... then everything floats back into union. This floating with the tide seems to be inevitable, natural, necessary. **L: For me there is never a separation as union is. Separation is only some thing thought, imagined. > *L: The union refered to was the insatiable one and not the one > that is always. These are not to be confused. S: Maybe you can see now why I believe the " insatiable " and the one " always here " are one and the same? The searcher, running after the unreachable has not seen yet, that it is unreachable because it is so close. **L: Yes it is a belief in an imagined thing, and the always here: two. They are the same in imagination and in experience they seem to be two and the union occuring by helplessness before the insatiable need - " the union unfolds into myriad things...then the [split, separation]... then everything floats back into union. This floating with the tide seems to be inevitable, natural, necessary. " > > About " INSANITY " . > I had written: > S.:Yes. It (union) is always there, so we can as well be > communicatevly insane :-) Why not? Bark, bark, bark... > those who think this has been written by a dog... let them > think. My thinking is not better. The insanity lies in the > idea that things have to be sane... So lets celebrate insanity. And you: > *L: This is mis-taking the concept, Stefan... S: Our deciphering mechanism -tilt-, haha! I have not mistaken your expression " insane " for " psychotic " . For me " union " also means: sanity and insanity are one. I have often (in/sanely) said " meeow.. meeow " but someone understood " bark.. bark.. " and again someone else " piep.. piep " . **L: What does this have to do with the concept? Meeow <> bark is a simple difference in intended meaning and decipered meaning. That is not at all what was referred to. How it seen by you cannot be helped. It is ok, so continue on. > Did you read that anecdote of Nasrudin that I have posted? > > Babylon has made people mad with anger and confusion. > Unnecessarily. Only silence can be an answer. Or maybe > a good laugh? > > To occasionaly break the silence I might as well say > " ooink... ooink " . Oh, and how do chickens chatter > in English, anyway? > > Highly doubtful yours > in/sane > Stefan It is ok as it is. We do as we are. Lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 29, 2005 Report Share Posted May 29, 2005 Hi Lewis, >**L: Yes. Your imagined object/goal, the need, the striving for the >impossible and your solution of helpnessness was noted. You noted something that I did not note. I observe a need to melt, as a natural process. This is part of my experience which I cannot help but experience. For now I have not any goal nor any need for a solution. Can you please tell me: helplessness is the solution for what? - Abstraction... I try to describe what I experience, not what I think about how I experience. My experiencing is happening in separation. In unity: I vanish... and then experience reappears. Thats how it goes for me... how I am able to type those words. And wonder about their meaning. And become more and more uncertain. When I said: >>For me " union " also means: sanity and insanity are one. You answered: >What does this have to do with the concept? I were talking about Baklava and you about a concept! Haha! I hope this was clear? Love Stefan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 29, 2005 Report Share Posted May 29, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@o...> wrote: > Hi Lewis, > > >**L: Yes. Your imagined object/goal, the need, the striving for the > >impossible and your solution of helpnessness was noted. > > You noted something that I did not note. ***L: Yes. It was said and not recognized. > > I observe a need to melt, as a natural process. > > This is part of my experience which I cannot help but > experience. For now I have not any goal nor any need for > a solution. ***L: It is the need you keep talking about it is an object. You have objectified it. Examine your objectification. You named it. But is taken for granted. > > Can you please tell me: helplessness is the solution for > what? ***L: You said it in this way in post 29410 (see bracketed items]. The need of the appearance, the striving, the solution. The need is taken as natural, it is taken for granted and remains unexamined. This need drives you but you do not know what it is. I pointed to what it is and you did not see the pointing to see if it was appropriate or not. Does it fit or not. And it is important to remember that experience is conceptualization, it is the selection and naming of phenomena, It is always an abstraction. See your abstractions about the " need " and how unexamined it is. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ S.:Yes, thats how I see it too. Yet I observe that " melting with the whole " is [wanted by the appearance.] It seems to be [a basic need] of everything, when you eat you melt with food. I think communication is [driven by this need,] no matter how it is performed. [The appearance can only reassure itself by melting and departing.] S: But this union is the [disappearance of the apearance that wants to survive.] Sensing all this brings a new quality to the daily life of the personality. [it knows that it cannot be.] But it sees that it is. So it starts to inhale more deeply. S: Discomfort and anxiety is there as long as comfort and safety is wanted. [it comes all perfectly into place as I admit my helplessness.] In message 24922, the need is natural, inevitable, necessary. This is objectifying. Taken for granted, as natural, settled without further examination. You believe it. It is an object followed without question. S: [My need] to communicate is [like the need of the tree to grow leaves.] Call it love. There is no question if the goal is reachable or not. Union is my experience... the union unfolds into myriad things... then the split, separation... then everything floats back into union. [This floating with the tide seems to be inevitable, natural, necessary.] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > - > > Abstraction... > > I try to describe what I experience, not what I think > about how I experience. ***L: As mentioned above, all experience as written is an abstraction from a larger experience that is within an unkowable one. > > My experiencing is happening in separation. > In unity: I vanish... and then experience reappears. > > Thats how it goes for me... how I am able to type > those words. And wonder about their meaning. And > become more and more uncertain. ***L: Such uncertainty has to do with being certain about what is written or told as experience. Such tellings are always never true of what is undergone. X is undergone in an inseparable unknowable wholeness and the telling of what is imagined to be X is always x+y+a...etc. never ever X. There can never be a match between words and what is undergone in wholeness. One may believe words capture it but that is certainly moot. To date no one has admitted to such a possibility. > > When I said: > >>For me " union " also means: sanity and insanity are one. > > You answered: > >What does this have to do with the concept? > > I were talking about Baklava and you about a concept! > Haha! ***L: To think or believe that a telling of experience is different than a conceptualization of an event is mistaken Stefan. Both are conceptualizations: One general and the other specific. The question was does your concpetualization of your experience resemble in any way the conceptualization put forth? That was not addressed because of the idea of Baklava. Hoca and the other dude had different conceptualiztions of the same experience undergone. Both were concpetualized differently. They never spoke to see if that were the case as we are doing. > > I hope this was clear? ***L: It is the same as before. > > Love > Stefan Perhaps these notes may add clarity in some way to the discussion. Lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 29, 2005 Report Share Posted May 29, 2005 <<<<<snipping occurred>>>>> above and below Stefan: Abstraction... I try to describe what I experience, not what I think how I experience. My experiencing is happening in separation. In unity: I vanish... and then experience reappears. Thats how it goes for me... how I am able to type those words. And wonder about their meaning. And become more and more uncertain. Anna: Who is in separation to experience unity? When I said: >>For me " union " also means: sanity and insanity are one. You answered: >What does this have to do with the concept? I were talking about Baklava and you about a concept! Haha! I hope this was clear? Love Stefan ** If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: /mygroups?edit=1 Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 29, 2005 Report Share Posted May 29, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@o...> wrote: >***L: It is the need you keep talking about it is an object. You have >objectified it. Examine your objectification. You named it. But is >taken for granted. I have written about an " observation " . I have emphasized that every moment might show me something different. I do not want to present teachings or thesis here, nor any abstract truth. If it came over like that... it was not my intention. The " need " was examined to my best effort. There is no striving futility. It happens naturaly. I observe " need to melt " as a force inside everything that is unfolded. Until it melts back into unity. Take this as a poem, if you like. Take it as a decription of something indescribable. Take it as Stefans words... I need not know " what " it is. I see it at work. All explanation is speculation. We have provisory called it " need " ... many other names can be given. I become more and more uncertain because I start to experience every moment as more and more unpredictable. You say it is a conceptualization. Lewis, we cannot put anything into words without constructing a concept around. But the true meaning was felt when written. I have mentioned before that the only true answer would be silence or maybe a good laugh. Yes, it is important to cut through illusion. But once you have cut enough you will come to a point when you simply watch yourself breathing in and out. Will you cut this, too? Has all the cutting and examining led you anywhere? I see us basically in the same situation as those guys in the joke. They gestured, we speak (write). I do not see a big difference. I do not believe that it is possible to profoundly confirm if our conceptualizations do match or not. Language is too unclear. >Perhaps these notes may add clarity in some way to the discussion. Thank you, they did, relatively spoken :-) How necessary is clarity? Love Stefan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 29, 2005 Report Share Posted May 29, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Anna Ruiz " <nli10u@c...> wrote: >Stefan: >Abstraction... >I try to describe what I experience, not what I think how I experience. >My experiencing is happening in separation. >In unity: I vanish... and then experience reappears. >Thats how it goes for me... how I am able to type >those words. And wonder about their meaning. And >become more and more uncertain. >Anna: >Who is in separation to experience unity? what unity? unity of what? I wake up in the morning and wonder who waked up... Then I see what comes... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 29, 2005 Report Share Posted May 29, 2005 - Stefan Nisargadatta Sunday, May 29, 2005 6:25 AM Re: Stefan The Tough Chicken Nisargadatta , " Anna Ruiz " <nli10u@c...> wrote: >Stefan: >Abstraction... >I try to describe what I experience, not what I think how I experience. >My experiencing is happening in separation. >In unity: I vanish... and then experience reappears. >Thats how it goes for me... how I am able to type >those words. And wonder about their meaning. And >become more and more uncertain. >Anna: >Who is in separation to experience unity? what unity? unity of what? I wake up in the morning and wonder who waked up... Then I see what comes... Stefan is but a fleeting Name. You have listened well to your calling My Love It is a heroic journey taken for the love of Stefan in search of the Beloved an exquisite Joy Written in Holy Music Passion's Soul is but A small mind's contrivance Utter it not Here Echos reach not your Surrender Your lips Bleed Wonder Have Mercy For your Love of God another Name. a, 5/29/05 ** If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: /mygroups?edit=1 Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 29, 2005 Report Share Posted May 29, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@o...> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@o...> > wrote: > >***L: It is the need you keep talking about it is an object. You have >objectified it. Examine your objectification. You named it. But is >taken for granted. I have written about an " observation " . I have emphasized that every moment might show me something different. I do not want to present teachings or thesis here, nor any abstract truth. If it came over like that... it was not my intention. ****L: It is clear your are not teaching. No implication of that intended. The " need " was examined to my best effort. There is no striving futility. It happens naturaly. I observe " need to melt " as a force inside everything that is unfolded. Until it melts back into unity. ****L: There, it is done. Take this as a poem, if you like. Take it as a decription of something indescribable. Take it as Stefans words... ****L: It has been and there has been exploring the reaches of it.....the boundaries... I need not know " what " it is. I see it at work. ****L: Yes. It can remain as formulated. All explanation is speculation. We have provisory called it " need " ... many other names can be given. ****L: Yes. Or no name at all. Silence or a good laugh or sandal on the head....... I become more and more uncertain because I start to experience every moment as more and more unpredictable...... ****L: Until...........complete unpredictability with no one watching it unfold? Certainty and uncertainity in knowing thoughts never match that of/from which they are formed. You say it is a conceptualization. Lewis, we cannot put anything into words without constructing a concept around. ****L: Yes. experience is entirely conceptual, imagined, words about words, in response to a call or demand, nothing more. There is no thing beyond words that can be known. But the true meaning was felt when written. I have mentioned before that the only true answer would be silence or maybe a good laugh. ****L: Yes. That has been the point all along.....and..... Yes, it is important to cut through illusion. But once you have cut enough you will come to a point when you simply watch yourself breathing in and out. Will you cut this, too? Has all the cutting and examining led you anywhere? ****L: It had been " cut " and so " cut " and " anywhere " are only words as all of this is. The point of simply watching yourself breathe in and out can be seen as an oasis or as standing in some thing, some where or as you say it. All do work. I see us basically in the same situation as those guys in the joke. They gestured, we speak (write). I do not see a big difference. I do not believe that it is possible to profoundly confirm if our conceptualizations do match or not. Language is too unclear. ****L: They did not talk about it, play about it, explore it, work with it. It began and ended in silence and off they went assuming, dreaming without discourse. Both assumed, dreamed and sailed on creating stories, imagining and then talking with " others. " Here there is assuming, dreaming, imagining and speaking of the assuming and dreaming, imaginings in exchange, sharing. You say you are driven by " a force inside everything that is unfolded. Until it melts back into unity " in your idiom. In mine there is no separation, need, melting or unfolding as it is. It is the same. One is fragmented by time and space, the other not. Same " thing " expressed differently on the surface. It is the same. Can it be otherwise? Of course it can.... think it, say it, believe it and it is. Language is clear, unclear, both, neither, other or absent. In using language to communicate this and that about this and that undergone in sharing and comparing, a universe of dialogue is that we accept or deny or synthesize or confuse or pretend or be the sceptic for posing doubt, or waver uncertain or avoid or all or some of these, in all the ways that is done. In one part of that universe, we can play and work and and create together agreeing. We can hold up our toys and say here is mine, it is different than yours, mine is not like yours and what you say about mine is not and escalate that to...... Or we can form something new, melting. Or get confused in it all, or doubt the whole thing or say " like whatever " or " fuck off. " And then all the permutations of these. These are some basic forms of dialogue. There is a knowing that it occurs in thes forms and how use them artfully. >Perhaps these notes may add clarity in some way to the discussion. Thank you, they did, relatively spoken :-) How necessary is clarity? Love Stefan It is not necessary at all in the what ever of language; we just sail on as it goes in how it goes or not as we are. :-) Love Lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 29, 2005 Report Share Posted May 29, 2005 Lewis... where are you heading? ****L: Yes. experience is entirely conceptual, imagined, words about words, in response to a call or demand, nothing more. There is no thing beyond words that can be known. Yes, the word " experience " is conceptual... as a word and as a form... but not the content of experiencing itself I refer to. It is my only truth, and it is known. It is all that I am. And it was already here before language. Instead of " experiencing " I will say from now on: " being " . It is now the same. Being is. Knowing comes before language. If not, language could not be learned. It can be learned but it is not necessary. I am talking about baklava, not about theories. One who knows no words will perfectly know how baklava does taste, once he put a piece in his mouth. Language is necessary to be logical. But I have found that the fact that I wake up every morning and gaze at my mosquito net is completely un-logical. So I will probably spend the rest of my life: wondering... what an impossible being. Lewis, in my attempt to decipher your recent mails I have asked myself many times what you really want to say, what story, what truth you have to share. I have the idea that there is something hidden behind your words, something I have no clue of. So, I dare to ask you one question. If your next mail would be the last one you will ever be able to write for me... if it would be your last chance to share something with me, to maybe give a certain meaning to our meeting, what would you say? Dont spare my feelings, you know I am a tough chicken :-) Your friend Stefan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 30, 2005 Report Share Posted May 30, 2005 Lewis... where are you heading? *****L: I am not heading anywhere, Stefan. I am with you, going with you as you with me as it is. ****L: Yes. experience is entirely conceptual, imagined, words about words, in response to a call or demand, nothing more. There is no thing beyond words that can be known. Yes, the word " experience " is conceptual... as a word and as a form... but not the content of experiencing itself I refer to. It is my only truth, and it is known. It is all that I am. And it was already here before language. *****L: If so, it cannot be known as there is no distinct object before words or beyond words. Here there is only a difference conceptualizing what lies before the abstaction of experience using language, words. Instead of " experiencing " I will say from now on: " being " . It is now the same. Being is. *****L: That concept is closer, much closer than the grossness of experience and is still a word, an abstraction, a mental object to work with. Being is. Awareness is. What is. Self is. and so on. It works it does the work. It also is not necessary to name " it " as you know. Knowing comes before language. *****L: That is moot. If not, language could not be learned. *****L: That too is very moot It can be learned but it is not necessary. *****L: Explore feral children, Stefan. http://www.feralchildren.com/en/index.php http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_children http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A269840/ http://bowland-files.lancs.ac.uk/chimp/langac/LECTURE4/4feral.htm I am talking about baklava, not about theories. *****L: Talking about can only refer to theories, concepts, words about words. Is this so hard to grasp, Stefan? One who knows no words will perfectly know how baklava does taste, once he put a piece in his mouth. *****L: Know what Stefan? Describe for me the taste of baklava without words. (Open your eyes wide, gesture with hands, mouth and tongue, make sounds, hmmmmm yummmmm, dance, wiggle, smile, etc. What?......) What is known? The eater/taster knows no thing. It is all a flugenbackentogoshiliiofufuwastegriwawa. It is no thing. When he abstracts he knows. When he makes an object of the flugenbackentogoshiliofufuwastegriawawa in words, thoughts. Sensations, taste, texture, other sensations emerge in words thoughts, etc. Sweet, flaky, gooey, nutty, and other vague experiential terms. Otherwise there is unknowing knowing flugenbackentogoshiliiofufuwastegriwawa or [.......]. Language is necessary to be logical. *****L: That is moot. But I have found that the fact that I wake up every morning and gaze at my mosquito net is completely un-logical. So I will probably spend the rest of my life: wondering... what an impossible being. *****L: Or some thing else or no thing at all or a smile or.... Lewis, in my attempt to decipher your recent mails I have asked myself many times what you really want to say, what story, what truth you have to share. I have the idea that there is something hidden behind your words, something I have no clue of. *****L: No thing is hidden. All is open and free as it can be. So, I dare to ask you one question. If your next mail would be the last one you will ever be able to write for me... if it would be your last chance to share something with me, to maybe give a certain meaning to our meeting, what would you say? Dont spare my feelings, you know I am a tough chicken :-) Your friend Stefan I would say no thing, Stefan. A smiley face would be given meaning I smile warmly looking at your face and eyes, embracing you dearly, walking on with you as we have always done, slowly, leisurely, the memory of saying and saying, smiling, pondering, touching, and examining what we create for and in the other....as it is here.....as we go along. :-) Love always, Lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 30, 2005 Report Share Posted May 30, 2005 *****L: If so, it cannot be known as there is no distinct object before words or beyond words. Here there is only a difference conceptualizing what lies before the abstaction of experience using language, words. I spend a big part of my live without a single word entering the scene. During those times I can very well perceive and imagine. And I know what needs to be known. If you dont believe me... what can I do. *****L: Know what Stefan? Describe for me the taste of baklava without words. Why? I am talking about knowing, not about describing. The wordless one who has a bite will know something thereafter which he did not know before. We would call it sweet taste. But he cannot call it anything. Dont you think it is quite arrogant to say " He cannot know the taste of baklava because he has no words " ? Or: " For him a lemon tastes the same as baklava, because he cannot name the difference " ? Haha, he maybe knows more things than we know! How can we tell? Come on, Lewis, this discussion is becoming childish. I think I have made my point clear. Before you go on with your abstractions walk a mile in my shoes... and then look at it again. Shall I teach you to play flute? I know how to play. But I cannot tell you with words. You have to come so I can show you. And when you want to play really good you have to forget all that you have learned. Only then you can really play. You have to disappear and make room for the real music to take off. *****L: Talking about can only refer to theories, concepts, words about words. Is this so hard to grasp, Stefan? I do not agree, Lewis. Talking about the experienced points to what is for me. You have to accept it as my reality. My words to you are invitations to look with me... with that wondering because you see everything for the first time. All is utterly fluctuant and never repeats. Those conceptions are made to artificially keep hold of something that cannot be grasped. When I point at it with my finger I invite you to look with my eyes. But you keep on looking at my finger, discussing my finger. *****L: No thing is hidden. All is open and free as it can be. I do not understand where you are, what you want, why you take the position you take. I have hoped for your " last words " ... you have offered me a silent walk instead. It is gladly accepted :-) See you there Stefan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 30, 2005 Report Share Posted May 30, 2005 *****L: If so, it cannot be known as there is no distinct object before words or beyond words. Here there is only a difference conceptualizing what lies before the abstaction of experience using language, words. I spend a big part of my live without a single word entering the scene. During those times I can very well perceive and imagine. And I know what needs to be known. If you dont believe me... what can I do. ******L: As said above Stefan: " Here there is only a difference conceptualizing what lies before the abstaction of experience using language, words. If you wish to enlarge it something about me not believing you you can and in that there is nothing for you to do. The difference is mentioned. It is ok. All you say is accepted, I am opening it to see what is there, to explore. Do you mind? I can stop. *****L: Know what Stefan? Describe for me the taste of baklava without words. Why? I am talking about knowing, not about describing. ******L: There is a difference in understanding the word " knowing. " You are using that word in a way unfamilair to me. I use it in this way as found here. http://dict.die.net/know/ In all cases here, knowing is distinct, discriminated, separated out. That only occurs with that which breaks or discontinues a whole, such as thoughts, verbal thoughts, states, situations and so which is recognizing this and that and difference. So if you know something as it is defined in all these ways, it is a fragment, and each fragment is an object and can be described and related to other objects and this is " knowing. " as commonly understood. The word I use for what you perhaps call " knowing " is " unknowing knowing " that is, a knowing incapable of discrimination or distinguishing one phenomena from another until a demand or call comes (i.e. " my darkness " ). There is no thing in it. S: The wordless one who has a bite will know something thereafter which he did not know before. We would call it sweet taste. But he cannot call it anything. Dont you think it is quite arrogant to say " He cannot know the taste of baklava because he has no words " ? Or: " For him a lemon tastes the same as baklava, because he cannot name the difference " ? ******L: That is not what was said. Haha, he maybe knows more things than we know! How can we tell? ******L: Only by exploring. Come on, Lewis, this discussion is becoming childish. I think I have made my point clear. Before you go on with your abstractions walk a mile in my shoes... and then look at it again. ******L: I do not seek your agreement Stefan. Nor do I wish to change you in any way. I am exploring the map you laid out. I say look here at this map of yours, how do you say that these are hills? It looks like mountains to me. And you say, I have been there, I know. And I say, yes, I do not know this as it your territory and in the territories I explored those hills amount to mountains. How is that you call them hills? The elevation of hills is such and mountains are such and you gave the elevation as such. So sounds like mountains as hills. So how is that? That is interesting. You say, Well because I say so. Ok. I do not mind that. You have a view and wish to stick with it. That is one manner of dialogue. It is also possible to explore how I see mountains instead of hills on your map and how I came to see that way what appears to be the same phenomena see differently. That has not been done, no exploration there at all. S: Shall I teach you to play flute? I know how to play. But I cannot tell you with words. You have to come so I can show you. ******L: And you will teach me with words........ S: And when you want to play really good you have to forget all that you have learned. Only then you can really play. You have to disappear and make room for the real music to take off. ******L: How is that any different than what has been said thus far? *****L: Talking about can only refer to theories, concepts, words about words. Is this so hard to grasp, Stefan? I do not agree, Lewis. Talking about the experienced points to what is for me. You have to accept it as my reality. *****L: Have always accepted it. Only exploring that reality, its extensions, sights and sounds and boundaries. My words to you are invitations to look with me... ******L: And vice versa and.... S: with that wondering because you see everything for the first time. All is utterly fluctuant and never repeats. Those conceptions are made to artificially keep hold of something that cannot be grasped. ******L: That is what we have been saying. When I point at it with my finger I invite you to look with my eyes. But you keep on looking at my finger, discussing my finger. ******L: Yes. Precisely. I am discussing your finger. Your compositions. Your abstractions. Did you think I was discussing anything else? Your pointing points to all the abstractions made about other abstractions you are calling what you are and what you know, also abstractions. You have not pointed to anything else but abstractions on abstractions. Now, for you, your abstractions are connected to sensations, perceptions, movement, impressions, thoughts, desires, actions, conduct and a plethora of stimuli that have been formed in your way to some things or other undergone. They are " yours " to whatever degree allowed, as you have said. For me they are only abstractions, pure and simple; memories abstracted, formulated and written down about the past or the very very near past as you write. Now it is possible to see the abstractions as that alone and have no attachment to these fictions, as they are being formed and reformed in any way desired so that what was once indescribable is now X is now -X or X-a or X+2 or...Perceptions change, fluctuate, alter, and so on. And it is also possible to be attached to those abstractions, those fashioned memories, as if they are what was actually undergone or as some sort of identity. That is not my concern or interest. We do as we are in that. It is the anbstractions only that is of interest..... Further, I am not your body/mind, so I do not imagine what you undergo by imagining it to be comparable to what I undergo; Sensations, perceptions, impressions for sensations, perceptions, impressions. I have no access to yours except by imagining from what you say what you have undergone so I can say. " Oh yeah I know what you are talking about, I had the same experience. " That is avoided by me. I am not privy in any way to what you undergo, your sensations, impressions, perceptions, phenomena. So how could I possibly be talking about anything but your finger! It would be presumptious to think so. It is not presumptuous to wax on what is written. Confusion occurs when the abstraction is taken as identity and spoken about as such when the other is sees no identity only the abstraction. I am not my words. They are attempts to convey a past. Not what was precisley undergone, an impossibility. So inviting me to see with your eyes means to me always to have as precise account of your abstractions as possible so that I can wear those well-fashioned " spectacles " to see what I can see with it as you may see it. I do not take abstractions lightly. Careful use of words and understanding of words is important for understanding if that is what is sought. The fantastic difference in understanding of Advaita Vedanta and Buddhist teachings that are quoted and used here is remarkable not to mention lexial meanings. It is no wonder there is miscommunication and misunderstanding when we talk past each other thinking words used mean the same to others when they do not. You have an experience and call it whatever and you say it is this and that and so on. I am unable to doubt it. How can I doubt that which I did not and cannot undergo? If someone says that they saw a UFO and are certain of it, I will not say they did not undergo it because I imagine such things to be hallucinations. If some one sees a snake for a rope, they for all intents and purposes saw a snake. I will not argue they saw a rope. I will ask them about that which they have undergone and explore it in all the ways allowed to see how it is that they saw the rope as a sanke, if I know that that was or was not the case. Then I understand how a UFO or snake is seen, though I may never see one as they did with all attached perceptions,sensations, impressions and so on, and, perhaps, I may. No reason to shut doors. So..... *****L: No thing is hidden. All is open and free as it can be. I do not understand where you are, what you want, why you take the position you take. ******L: I am here. I want no thing. I am exploring you with you. It is as it goes doing as I am as you are. I have hoped for your " last words " ... you have offered me a silent walk instead. It is gladly accepted :-) See you there Stefan So on we go [or not], Love Lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 30, 2005 Report Share Posted May 30, 2005 Hi Lewis, when I would teach you to play flute I would not teach you with words. I would use words here and there but it would not be necessary. I have learned the flute from a teacher in India. He did not use one single word in all those lessons. Anyway, he spoke no word of English nor did I speak Hindi. He played a phrase. Then he looked at me. I tried to play the phrase. He played it again. He looked at me. Thats how it went. Sometimes he played for half an hour and I listend. Sometimes I played for half an hour and he started to laugh. In India they say that human is like an instrument with resonating strings. Like the sitar. When there are two sitars and one of them is played well the other sitar will start to resonate from the vibration that it receives. For this reason the disciples in India live in the family of the master. The teaching happens through hanging out together, not through wordly instructions. The relationship between the master and the desciple is that of friendship. When I write to you I use words but I hope that they can create resonance around me. And I try to be aware about the resonance received. I perfectly understand the dangers of this approach and why and how you try to avoid them. But by avoiding them you are at the same time avoiding life. You try to stay as safe as possible. Avoiding the danger. Now, as you can see, I am going right into the fire and it can burn me, I know - it can hurt! But it cannot be avoided. We cannot be objective. Things happen as they happen. Chaos is around every corner. It cannot be escaped. The only thing I can try is to keep a certain balance within all aspects of being. Maybe. Maybe not. I think thats how our discussion started, with that balance thingy, balancing act... Lets stay aware about the abstractions but lets use our skills to swim in deep waters when required. Water that has nothing to stand on. Fire that can eat up all that we thought that we are. We are now one, Lewis and Stefan are one. Two pointing fingers have become one with the pointed. With the fire and the water and the earth and the open sky. Hi ho Stefan 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.