Phil-Resisting the Truth (And he's very, very sorry :)

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/31/2005 6:30:48 AM Pacific Standard Time,

Nisargadatta writes:

 

epston

Re: Phil-Resisting the Truth

 

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.

>

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

His Larryness: How does the word god get into the discussion?

 

 

His Philness: God got into the discussion cause God is Truth, and we were

talking about truth. God=Truth, Truth=God. Same thing, same thing, same thing.

The reason this is so is cause there is no God that knows Truth. There is only

God, and dat's da Truth.

 

 

 

 

 

Hi Larryness: 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.

 

His Philness: Energy, mass and velocity are all concepts relating to the

workings of the illusion, and Samsara IS the illusion. Nirvana is not.

Remarkable things occur, even conceptually, at the border between illusion and

Reality. Concepts and questions become meaningless, dualities, time, space,

events,

even mind itself, all dissolve. Connections, much less equality, become

problematic.

 

 

 

 

 

His Larryness: At least you could be accurate enough to say the analogies

are not meaningful

to you, although someone else might see it my way.

 

 

His Philness: It hardly seems necessary, but allow me to formally announce

at this time that whatever I say about Absolute Truth is my perception only.

 

 

 

 

His Larryness: And, we are not talking

about frogs, I am talking about the nature of Life, Reality, Truth. Your

analogy isn't meaningful to me.

 

 

His Philness: Meaninglessness was the point of the analogy. It was supposed

to be meaningless to you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

His Larryness: 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?.

 

 

His Philness: truth is relative within the relative. Nothing we say is True.

We're all lying, either to entertain ourselves, or to try to perfect our

lies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

His Larryness: Truth equals Illusion is not the same as light=dark, or does

up equal down,

or does hot equal cold.

 

His Philness: Well, they all share a common trait of being illogical

nonsense.

 

 

 

 

 

His Larryness: 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.

 

 

His Philness: Yeah, but don't get caught up in the details. ~

 

His Philness