Guest guest Posted January 1, 2006 Report Share Posted January 1, 2006 In a message dated 1/1/2006 3:19:10 PM Pacific Standard Time, ADHHUB writes: Yes, emptiness and Absolute are the same. There cannot be the Absolute, and then other than Absolute. The Absolute, then, doesn't arise out of anything; it just IS. The illusion (relative) is given birth within the Absolute, rather than the reverse.who the mommy is. It keeps the youngins from trying to create God. Phil L.E: Well Phil, this is really a delightful conversation. A verbal meditation of talking to myself about what is, what exists. Yes, emptiness and Absolute are the same. There cannot be the Absolute, and then other than Absolute. LE: That's accurate from the direction of the Absolute. I think if you were at present in that Absolute state and coming from that state directly, you would have nothing to say about anything. You would just be, and are, in a sense, actually in that state, but you yourself are talking about it from the relative, which is also here and now. Both exist simultaneously, and you can choose, as intelligence itself, which state you want to be in. That is your blessed and divine freedom. The Absolute, then, doesn't arise out of anything; it just IS. The illusion (relative) is given birth within the Absolute, rather than the reverse. L.E: There is no directionality in this process, this existence. It can go in either direction, or no direction. I know it's not rational, black and white, but it still is. You cannot make sense of it in ordinary state of mind, which is where you are, arguing about the idea of the Absolute. And that's not bad, or wrong, it's just that in the relative, you and I are also in the Absolute, They are simultaneous. It's really simple: when you shut up, you are right there in infinite existence, and when you start talking, Bang! You are back in the relative. Freaky!!!! It's important to know who the mommy is. It keeps the youngins from trying to create God. L.E. I know your rational mind, your ordinary state of consciousness wants the beginning to be in the beginning and then the middle, and then the end. You want it to make ordinary sense and be sure who is the mommy, who is the daddy, and who is the child. You can't do this in the state of the Absolute, only in the ordinary. It keeps the youngins from trying to create God. L.E: I can understand your concerns, but it is not the ' " youngins " that are " trying to create God, " it is the preachers, ministers, and priests that have no real of experience of anything beyond the ordinary, and try to find the Absolute, Reality, the Truth, in a so-called holy book, and totally fail. And, " god " is only a word. No one can create something that doesn't exist, never has, never will. (oooooo! past and future references.) Phil and Larry, Talking it over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 2, 2006 Report Share Posted January 2, 2006 Nisargadatta , epston@a... wrote: > LE: That's accurate from the direction of the Absolute. I think if you were at present in that Absolute state and coming from that state directly, you would have nothing to say about anything. You would just be... DC: Now, you're talking... ;-) dc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 3, 2006 Report Share Posted January 3, 2006 The Absolute, then, doesn't arise out of anything; it just IS. The illusion (relative) is given birth within the Absolute, rather than the reverse. L.E: There is no directionality in this process, this existence. It can go in either direction, or no direction. I know it's not rational, black and white, but it still is. You cannot make sense of it in ordinary state of mind, which is where you are, arguing about the idea of the Absolute. And that's not bad, or wrong, it's just that in the relative, you and I are also in the Absolute, They are simultaneous. It's really simple: when you shut up, you are right there in infinite existence, and when you start talking, Bang! You are back in the relative. Freaky!!!! Phil: But, Larry, you are also in the " normal " state of mind arguing about the Absolute. As such, here we are discussing concepts that have nothing at all to do with Absolute Truth. To use the concept of Absolute Truth to try to nullify a concept is just tail chasing. We either conceptualize or we remain silent. We can't do both at once. As far as being in the Absolute and the relative at once, of course. I never had a problem with that because I never separated them in time or space to begin with. It appears to me that you want to insist that you're a human while embracing your Absolute nature at the same time. Perhaps this is what makes it necessary for you to equate the relative and the Absolute. You don't exist as a volitional human being, you only exist in, and as, the Absolute. The human is contained in what you are. You don't need to see yourself in two places at once. You are no place, Now. It's important to know who the mommy is. It keeps the youngins from trying to create God. L.E. I know your rational mind, your ordinary state of consciousness wants the beginning to be in the beginning and then the middle, and then the end. You want it to make ordinary sense and be sure who is the mommy, who is the daddy, and who is the child. You can't do this in the state of the Absolute, only in the ordinary. Phil: Welcome to the ordinary, Larry. That's where this conversation is taking place. It had a beginning, this is the middle, and there will be an end. To deny this is so in the conversation that can exist only in that framework is absurd. Like writing out a long dissertation attempting to prove that pens don't exist. The effort is doomed by the effort itself. It keeps the youngins from trying to create God. L.E: I can understand your concerns, but it is not the ' " youngins " that are " trying to create God, " it is the preachers, ministers, and priests that have no real of experience of anything beyond the ordinary, and try to find the Absolute, Reality, the Truth, in a so-called holy book, and totally fail. And, " god " is only a word. No one can create something that doesn't exist, never has, never will. (oooooo! past and future references.) Phil: Twas just a metaphor. Youngins=humanity, humanity=youngins. Not even going to address the " God " comment. I'm fairly sure you know what I mean. Phil In a message dated 1/2/2006 2:44:44 AM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: epston Re: Phi, 1/1/06 The Relative and the Absolute In a message dated 1/1/2006 3:19:10 PM Pacific Standard Time, ADHHUB writes: Yes, emptiness and Absolute are the same. There cannot be the Absolute, and then other than Absolute. The Absolute, then, doesn't arise out of anything; it just IS. The illusion (relative) is given birth within the Absolute, rather than the reverse.who the mommy is. It keeps the youngins from trying to create God. Phil L.E: Well Phil, this is really a delightful conversation. A verbal meditation of talking to myself about what is, what exists. Yes, emptiness and Absolute are the same. There cannot be the Absolute, and then other than Absolute. LE: That's accurate from the direction of the Absolute. I think if you were at present in that Absolute state and coming from that state directly, you would have nothing to say about anything. You would just be, and are, in a sense, actually in that state, but you yourself are talking about it from the relative, which is also here and now. Both exist simultaneously, and you can choose, as intelligence itself, which state you want to be in. That is your blessed and divine freedom. The Absolute, then, doesn't arise out of anything; it just IS. The illusion (relative) is given birth within the Absolute, rather than the reverse. L.E: There is no directionality in this process, this existence. It can go in either direction, or no direction. I know it's not rational, black and white, but it still is. You cannot make sense of it in ordinary state of mind, which is where you are, arguing about the idea of the Absolute. And that's not bad, or wrong, it's just that in the relative, you and I are also in the Absolute, They are simultaneous. It's really simple: when you shut up, you are right there in infinite existence, and when you start talking, Bang! You are back in the relative. Freaky!!!! It's important to know who the mommy is. It keeps the youngins from trying to create God. L.E. I know your rational mind, your ordinary state of consciousness wants the beginning to be in the beginning and then the middle, and then the end. You want it to make ordinary sense and be sure who is the mommy, who is the daddy, and who is the child. You can't do this in the state of the Absolute, only in the ordinary. It keeps the youngins from trying to create God. L.E: I can understand your concerns, but it is not the ' " youngins " that are " trying to create God, " it is the preachers, ministers, and priests that have no real of experience of anything beyond the ordinary, and try to find the Absolute, Reality, the Truth, in a so-called holy book, and totally fail. And, " god " is only a word. No one can create something that doesn't exist, never has, never will. (oooooo! past and future references.) Phil and Larry, Talking it over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 3, 2006 Report Share Posted January 3, 2006 In a message dated 1/2/2006 2:44:44 AM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: " dannyc_1eyeluv " <dannyc_1eyeluv Re: Phi, 1/1/06 The Relative and the Absolute Nisargadatta , epston@a... wrote: > LE: That's accurate from the direction of the Absolute. I think if you were at present in that Absolute state and coming from that state directly, you would have nothing to say about anything. You would just be... DC: Now, you're talking... ;-) dc And therein lies the dilemma Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 3, 2006 Report Share Posted January 3, 2006 - ADHHUB Nisargadatta Tuesday, January 03, 2006 5:54 AM Re: Phi, 1/1/06 The Relative and the Absolute In a message dated 1/2/2006 2:44:44 AM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: " dannyc_1eyeluv " <dannyc_1eyeluv Re: Phi, 1/1/06 The Relative and the Absolute Nisargadatta , epston@a... wrote: > LE: That's accurate from the direction of the Absolute. I think if you were at present in that Absolute state and coming from that state directly, you would have nothing to say about anything. You would just be... DC: Now, you're talking... ;-) dc And therein lies the dilemma Phil " you' would just 'be'? 'I Am " ? walking the talk? being All? and Nothing at All?? in This? Is? darn I should have known better and kept this to myself... ;-) 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.