Guest guest Posted October 17, 2005 Report Share Posted October 17, 2005 P: There is no thing more foolish than >a something pretending to be nothing. Would a nothing parade as a nothing? >Only a something could claim to be nothing. Only a something can conceive of a nothing. Outside of something there isn't even the suspicion of nothingness. Hi Pete, no nada con carne for dinner tonight? :-)) Stefan P: Ha, Ha! Very good! Dear friend, you remembered! Could you believe I had to think for a few seconds to understand what in the world you were referring to? Yes! It seems I contradicted myself, and of course, in the realm of logic those two postings are in contradiction, but not soteriologically (as instruments of salvation) First we must understand we are nothing, and then understand that we'll never understand what nothing really is/is not, therefore, we have no right to identify with it. The " I " which identifies has reality only as a mental construct, and can identify only with ideas. An idea of a Nothing differs not from an idea of a something. A nothing which can be conceived is always a something. Since I doubt you, or anyone else recalls that post in its entirety, even I, forgot I wrote it, below is what I said then. Always a pleasure hearing from you, Pete > > You are nada con carne- Nothingness incarnated, > > and when the meat goes, you will be nada sin carne- > > Pure nothingness. Buddha gave us the good news, after > > many a lifetime there will be extinction. But the news > > gets better, you are nothing now, and you will be nothing > > after you die. No effort, no accumulation of merits, no > > down payment needed. Whether you're good, bad, or even ugly > > all you have to do is die. You can die now, you can die later, > > your extinction is guarantee because you don't even exist > > this very moment. So rejoice in your true nature, zilch, > > nothing, nada. > > > > Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 18, 2005 Report Share Posted October 18, 2005 Hi Pete, Glad, you remembered :-) I had saved this your old post because it had impressed me... now, I agree that the contradictions between those two posts are merely on the surface. Words are wretched means when it comes to those realms and yet they are all we have, at least here on this list. Logic is often confused with reason, but the beauty of logic, IMO, is that it inevitably leads one towards the limits of reason (if used consequently) or even points to the illogicality of reasoning itself. lolila Stefan Nisargadatta , Pete S <pedsie4@e...> wrote: > P: Ha, Ha! Very good! > Dear friend, you remembered! > Could you believe I had to think > for a few seconds to understand > what in the world you were referring to? > > Yes! It seems I contradicted myself, and > of course, in the realm of logic those two > postings are in contradiction, but not > soteriologically (as instruments of salvation) > First we must understand we are nothing, and > then understand that we'll never understand > what nothing really is/is not, therefore, we have > no right to identify with it. The " I " which > identifies has reality only as a mental construct, > and can identify only with ideas. An idea of a > Nothing differs not from an idea of a something. > A nothing which can be conceived is always a > something. Since I doubt you, or anyone else > recalls that post in its entirety, even I, > forgot I wrote it, below is what I said then. > > Always a pleasure hearing from you, > Pete 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.