Guest guest Posted December 31, 2005 Report Share Posted December 31, 2005 In a message dated 12/31/2005 2:14:38 AM Pacific Standard Time, ADHHUB writes: > It's like the telescope thing. From one side large, from the other > small. > >When I want or need someone to complain to, they exist, if I don't want > >them there, they don't exist. In that sense, both are true. I think > you are > >stuck in the large side point of view, which is no point of view. From > the > >other side, there are multiple points of view. Samsard is nirvana and > nirvana > is samsara, Both views are equally true and exist. Or rather, one side > >exists >and the other doesn't exist, if you prefer, Stefan > > > > Larry Epston > > > > As far as Samsara and Nirvana being equally true, how is this so when one > is Truth and the other illusion? > > > Phil > > That's the whole incredible situation. The illusion is the Truth in > action. Everyday life is the activity of LIFE, the Truth. > It's very strange. > If you get it, it will make your hair rise up, and chills go down your > back. > In the Truth is the illusion, and in the illusion, is the Truth. > Think of the telescope again. The large view and the limited view are > connected. It all depends on which end you are looking through. > The realized one can see it from either or both points of view. The > ordinary person only can see it from the limited point of view. Is that > worth the > effort? Limited versus unlimited? > > Larry Epston > www.epston.com > > > p.s. Think of E = mc2. E is energy. mc2 is material. Material is > related to energy. Two sides of the same coin. Energy is space (sort of) > mc2 is > substance, material. Samsara=Nirvana, Nirvana= Samsara. Same thing, same > > thing, same thing!!!! Truth = Illusion, Illusion = Truth. Same thing, > same > thing, same thing. > > > Well, the analogies aren't meaningful. We can say, 'frog=amphibian. > Amphibian=frog. Same thing, same thing, same thing' But that has nothing to > do with making Absolute Truth the same as illusion. This is a dualistic > conceptualization. They are opposite, by definition. Would you conceptualize > light and say 'light=dark, dark=light'? > Is the illusion also God? Yes. So what? God is not a concept. > Is the non-illusion god? But illusion is not god? Can't god be both? How does the word god get into the discussion? Are you a theist pretending to be a non-dualist, an advaitist? E=mc2 is a scientific way of relating two aspects of life, of reality. Samsara equals nirvana is another. At least you could be accurate enough to say the analogies are not meaningful to you, although someone else might see it my way. And, we are not talking about frogs, I am talking about the nature of Life, Reality, Truth. Your analogy isn't meaningful to me. You just don't want to accept it, which is your right, but not because it isn't true. It is your definition that is your problems. What is a definition in this case, just words. If your definition is more important than the truth, what am I to say?. Truth equals Illusion is not the same as light=dark, or does up equal down, or does hot equal cold. Truth and everyday life at two sides of the same coin, two aspects of one reality, two extremes taken by one living being. Don't get caught up in the details. Larry > > p.s. You can say that frog equals amphibian, but amphibian equals frog is not true. There are many amphibians that are not frogs. It just doesn't work in both directions. But Samsara is nirvana and Nirvana is samsara, does, and it is really not equals, it is IS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 31, 2005 Report Share Posted December 31, 2005 Hey, Larry. You began by saying there is a connection and ended up switching that around to saying there is a relation. Two different things. If my foot is connected to your ass, I don't think there's any relation, is there? " Silver " Nisargadatta , epston@a... wrote: > > In a message dated 12/31/2005 2:14:38 AM Pacific Standard Time, > ADHHUB@A... writes: > > > It's like the telescope thing. From one side large, from the other > > small. > > >When I want or need someone to complain to, they exist, if I don't want > > >them there, they don't exist. In that sense, both are true. I think > > you are > > >stuck in the large side point of view, which is no point of view. From > > the > > >other side, there are multiple points of view. Samsard is nirvana and > > nirvana > > is samsara, Both views are equally true and exist. Or rather, one side > > >exists >and the other doesn't exist, if you prefer, Stefan > > > > > > Larry Epston > > > > > > > As far as Samsara and Nirvana being equally true, how is this so when one > > is Truth and the other illusion? > > > > > Phil > > > > That's the whole incredible situation. The illusion is the Truth in > > action. Everyday life is the activity of LIFE, the Truth. > > It's very strange. > > If you get it, it will make your hair rise up, and chills go down your > > back. > > In the Truth is the illusion, and in the illusion, is the Truth. > > Think of the telescope again. The large view and the limited view are > > connected. It all depends on which end you are looking through. > > The realized one can see it from either or both points of view. The > > ordinary person only can see it from the limited point of view. Is that > > worth the > > effort? Limited versus unlimited? > > > > Larry Epston > > www.epston.com > > > > > > p.s. Think of E = mc2. E is energy. mc2 is material. Material is > > related to energy. Two sides of the same coin. Energy is space (sort of) > > mc2 is > > substance, material. Samsara=Nirvana, Nirvana= Samsara. Same thing, same > > > > thing, same thing!!!! Truth = Illusion, Illusion = Truth. Same thing, > > same > > thing, same thing. > > > > > > Well, the analogies aren't meaningful. We can say, 'frog=amphibian. > > Amphibian=frog. Same thing, same thing, same thing' But that has nothing to > > do with making Absolute Truth the same as illusion. This is a dualistic > > conceptualization. They are opposite, by definition. Would you conceptualize > > light and say 'light=dark, dark=light'? > > Is the illusion also God? Yes. So what? God is not a concept. > > > > Is the non-illusion god? But illusion is not god? Can't god be both? > How does the word god get into the discussion? Are you a theist pretending > to be a non-dualist, an advaitist? > E=mc2 is a scientific way of relating two aspects of life, of reality. > Samsara equals nirvana is another. > At least you could be accurate enough to say the analogies are not meaningful > to you, although someone else might see it my way. And, we are not talking > about frogs, I am talking about the nature of Life, Reality, Truth. Your > analogy isn't meaningful to me. > You just don't want to accept it, which is your right, but not because it > isn't true. > It is your definition that is your problems. What is a definition in this > case, just words. If your definition is more important than the truth, what am > I to say?. > Truth equals Illusion is not the same as light=dark, or does up equal down, > or does hot equal cold. > Truth and everyday life at two sides of the same coin, two aspects of one > reality, two extremes taken by one living being. Don't get caught up in the > details. > > Larry > > > > > > p.s. You can say that frog equals amphibian, but amphibian equals frog is > not true. > There are many amphibians that are not frogs. It just doesn't work in both > directions. > But Samsara is nirvana and Nirvana is samsara, does, and it is really not > equals, it is IS. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 31, 2005 Report Share Posted December 31, 2005 In a message dated 12/31/2005 11:45:01 AM Pacific Standard Time, silver-1069 writes: > Hey, Larry. You began by saying there is a connection and ended up > switching that around to saying there is a relation. Two different > things. If my foot is connected to your ass, I don't think there's > any relation, is there? > > > > " Silver " > L.E: You're wrong there. Sure is! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 1, 2006 Report Share Posted January 1, 2006 In a message dated 1/1/2006 5:23:23 PM Pacific Standard Time, ADHHUB writes: >His Larryness: Is the non-illusion god? But illusion is not god? Can't > god be both? His Philness: Yup, both God, just like I said above your quote thingy > >there. > > Garble, garble, mumble mumble, echi cow a, oochi goochi, meobnocobi, > Escapingdo god, thingy, dingidong, schamacko!!! god is just a word, don't > worry about it. Stick to reality if you can find it somewhere. > > Larry > > No worries here. You asked the garble mumble question. I was just giving ya > > a dingidong schamacko answer. > > Phil > > No, No! > > You made the garble mumble statement, and I was just giving you > a dingidong schamackl answer. > > Larry 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.