Guest guest Posted April 9, 2006 Report Share Posted April 9, 2006 In a message dated 4/9/2006 9:35:21 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Sun, 9 Apr 2006 20:53:50 EDT epston The Changeable As Real In a message dated 4/9/2006 4:55:24 PM Pacific Daylight Time, gdtige writes: > What is changeable cannot be real. L.E: This is an ancient idea and I think mistaken. Take the example of water. It exists as a still pond, a rapidly rolling river, a meanering stream and finally merges with the ocean to begin a new cycle. Which is the real water? The pool that is cut off from the stream? The lake fed by underground streams, or the ocean that is sometimes in some places, still? It is all real, all water, all unified. So it is with what appears to be changing. It is part of the whole, essentially the same as all of life and not more or less real than anythiing else. Why do you cling to such an idea that brings you more sufferring? Larry Epston Wasn't Patricia talking about Absolute Reality? Why are you talking about water? ~ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 9, 2006 Report Share Posted April 9, 2006 In a message dated 4/9/2006 9:35:21 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 00:59:39 -0000 " Bob N. " <Roberibus111 Re: The Changeable As Real --- In Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > > In a message dated 4/9/2006 4:55:24 PM Pacific Daylight Time, gdtige > writes: > > > What is changeable cannot be real. > > > L.E: This is an ancient idea and I think mistaken. Take the example of > water. It exists as a still pond, a rapidly rolling river, a meanering stream and > finally merges with the ocean to begin a new cycle. Which is the real water? > The pool that is cut off from the stream? The lake fed by underground streams, > or the ocean that is sometimes in some places, still? > It is all real, all water, all unified. So it is with what appears to be > changing. It is part of the whole, essentially the same as all of life and not > more or less real than anythiing else. Why do you cling to such an idea that > brings you more sufferring? > > Larry Epston > > " when questions arise, answers appear. Why, how? I can't answer that, but it's interesting, so I persist " ...April 9,2006 9:00 P.Mm I'm thinking bumper sticker! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 10, 2006 Report Share Posted April 10, 2006 In a message dated 4/10/2006 1:14:23 AM Pacific Daylight Time, ADHHUB writes: > > In a message dated 4/9/2006 9:35:21 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Sun, 9 Apr 2006 20:53:50 EDT > epston > The Changeable As Real > > In a message dated 4/9/2006 4:55:24 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > gdtige > writes: > > >What is changeable cannot be real. > > > L.E: This is an ancient idea and I think mistaken. Take the example of > water. It exists as a still pond, a rapidly rolling river, a meanering > stream and > finally merges with the ocean to begin a new cycle. Which is the real > water? > The pool that is cut off from the stream? The lake fed by underground > streams, > or the ocean that is sometimes in some places, still? > It is all real, all water, all unified. So it is with what appears to be > changing. It is part of the whole, essentially the same as all of life and > > not > more or less real than anythiing else. Why do you cling to such an idea > that > brings you more sufferring? > > Larry Epston > > > > Wasn't Patricia talking about Absolute Reality? Why are you talking about > water? ~ L.E: I thought she was talking about rotten potatoes, My bad. Did you ever come across the idea that Nirvana is the same as Samskaras? The Absolute is the same as its expressions. Water and clay are often used to show the relationship between the uncreated and the created, the substance and the form. The still pond or ocean is like the absolute and the rivers and rain are like the changeable aspect of existence. they exist together in a unity so you cannot say that what changes is not real. Is that clear enough or do I need to try again? Larry Epston Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 10, 2006 Report Share Posted April 10, 2006 Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > > In a message dated 4/10/2006 1:14:23 AM Pacific Daylight Time, ADHHUB > writes: > > > > > In a message dated 4/9/2006 9:35:21 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > Sun, 9 Apr 2006 20:53:50 EDT > > epston > > The Changeable As Real > > > > In a message dated 4/9/2006 4:55:24 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > > gdtige > > writes: > > > > >What is changeable cannot be real. > > > > > > L.E: This is an ancient idea and I think mistaken. Take the example of > > water. It exists as a still pond, a rapidly rolling river, a meanering > > stream and > > finally merges with the ocean to begin a new cycle. Which is the real > > water? > > The pool that is cut off from the stream? The lake fed by underground > > streams, > > or the ocean that is sometimes in some places, still? > > It is all real, all water, all unified. So it is with what appears to be > > changing. It is part of the whole, essentially the same as all of life and > > > > not > > more or less real than anythiing else. Why do you cling to such an idea > > that > > brings you more sufferring? > > > > Larry Epston > > > > > > > > Wasn't Patricia talking about Absolute Reality? Why are you talking about > > water? ~ > > L.E: I thought she was talking about rotten potatoes, My bad. > > Did you ever come across the idea that Nirvana is the same as Samskaras? The > Absolute is the same as its expressions. > Water and clay are often used to show the relationship between the uncreated > and the created, the substance and the form. The still pond or ocean is like > the absolute and the rivers and rain are like the changeable aspect of > existence. they exist together in a unity so you cannot say that what changes is > not real. > Is that clear enough or do I need to try again? > > Larry Epston > > you mean that in being in " Nirvana " ....you should try to discover " you " again.....?..... (how many times you need to discover yourSelf so?) Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 10, 2006 Report Share Posted April 10, 2006 Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > > In a message dated 4/10/2006 1:14:23 AM Pacific Daylight Time, ADHHUB > writes: > > > > > In a message dated 4/9/2006 9:35:21 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > Sun, 9 Apr 2006 20:53:50 EDT > > epston > > The Changeable As Real > > > > In a message dated 4/9/2006 4:55:24 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > > gdtige > > writes: > > > > >What is changeable cannot be real. > > > > > > L.E: This is an ancient idea and I think mistaken. Take the example of > > water. It exists as a still pond, a rapidly rolling river, a meanering > > stream and > > finally merges with the ocean to begin a new cycle. Which is the real > > water? > > The pool that is cut off from the stream? The lake fed by underground > > streams, > > or the ocean that is sometimes in some places, still? > > It is all real, all water, all unified. So it is with what appears to be > > changing. It is part of the whole, essentially the same as all of life and > > > > not > > more or less real than anythiing else. Why do you cling to such an idea > > that > > brings you more sufferring? > > > > Larry Epston > > > > > > > > Wasn't Patricia talking about Absolute Reality? Why are you talking about > > water? ~ > > L.E: I thought she was talking about rotten potatoes, My bad. > > Did you ever come across the idea that Nirvana is the same as Samskaras? The > Absolute is the same as its expressions. > Water and clay are often used to show the relationship between the uncreated > and the created, the substance and the form. The still pond or ocean is like > the absolute and the rivers and rain are like the changeable aspect of > existence. they exist together in a unity so you cannot say that what changes is > not real. > Is that clear enough or do I need to try again? > > Larry Epston > > > [NonSense portions of this message have been displayed] > No No Please DONT......It's as clear as you will ever be able to make anything(especially innanities), Larry. .......bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 10, 2006 Report Share Posted April 10, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Bob N. " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > In a message dated 4/10/2006 1:14:23 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > ADHHUB@ > > writes: > > > > > > > > In a message dated 4/9/2006 9:35:21 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > Sun, 9 Apr 2006 20:53:50 EDT > > > epston@ > > > The Changeable As Real > > > > > > In a message dated 4/9/2006 4:55:24 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > > > gdtige@ > > > writes: > > > > > > >What is changeable cannot be real. > > > > > > > > > L.E: This is an ancient idea and I think mistaken. Take the > example of > > > water. It exists as a still pond, a rapidly rolling river, a > meanering > > > stream and > > > finally merges with the ocean to begin a new cycle. Which is > the real > > > water? > > > The pool that is cut off from the stream? The lake fed by > underground > > > streams, > > > or the ocean that is sometimes in some places, still? > > > It is all real, all water, all unified. So it is with what > appears to be > > > changing. It is part of the whole, essentially the same as all > of life and > > > > > > not > > > more or less real than anythiing else. Why do you cling to such > an idea > > > that > > > brings you more sufferring? > > > > > > Larry Epston > > > > > > > > > > > > Wasn't Patricia talking about Absolute Reality? Why are you > talking about > > > water? ~ > > > > L.E: I thought she was talking about rotten potatoes, My bad. > > > > Did you ever come across the idea that Nirvana is the same as > Samskaras? The > > Absolute is the same as its expressions. > > Water and clay are often used to show the relationship between the > uncreated > > and the created, the substance and the form. The still pond or > ocean is like > > the absolute and the rivers and rain are like the changeable > aspect of > > existence. they exist together in a unity so you cannot say that > what changes is > > not real. > > Is that clear enough or do I need to try again? > > > > Larry Epston > > > > > > [NonSense portions of this message have been displayed] > > > > > No No Please DONT......It's as clear as you will ever be able to > make anything(especially innanities), Larry. > .......bob > In case you want to look it up L.E., 'innanities' is 'inanities' with two ns. Wouldn't want you to miss the meaning, which by the way is: " Total lack of meaning or ideas " ..if you get the idea. ........bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 10, 2006 Report Share Posted April 10, 2006 In a message dated 4/10/2006 6:09:18 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 08:38:58 EDT epston The Changeable As Real In a message dated 4/10/2006 1:14:23 AM Pacific Daylight Time, ADHHUB writes: > > In a message dated 4/9/2006 9:35:21 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Sun, 9 Apr 2006 20:53:50 EDT > epston > The Changeable As Real > > In a message dated 4/9/2006 4:55:24 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > gdtige > writes: > > >What is changeable cannot be real. > > > L.E: This is an ancient idea and I think mistaken. Take the example of > water. It exists as a still pond, a rapidly rolling river, a meanering > stream and > finally merges with the ocean to begin a new cycle. Which is the real > water? > The pool that is cut off from the stream? The lake fed by underground > streams, > or the ocean that is sometimes in some places, still? > It is all real, all water, all unified. So it is with what appears to be > changing. It is part of the whole, essentially the same as all of life and > > not > more or less real than anythiing else. Why do you cling to such an idea > that > brings you more sufferring? > > Larry Epston > > > > Wasn't Patricia talking about Absolute Reality? Why are you talking about > water? ~ L.E: I thought she was talking about rotten potatoes, My bad. Did you ever come across the idea that Nirvana is the same as Samskaras? The Absolute is the same as its expressions. Water and clay are often used to show the relationship between the uncreated and the created, the substance and the form. The still pond or ocean is like the absolute and the rivers and rain are like the changeable aspect of existence. they exist together in a unity so you cannot say that what changes is not real. Is that clear enough or do I need to try again? Larry Epston Yes, I've heard the concept. When folks use the term " Reality " , it's a dualistic concept that implies illusion, and further indicates that illusion is not what they mean. In one context, all things are One, but in the context of Reality/illusion, you can't use illusion as an example of how Reality changes. It would be like watching a Godzilla movie, then leaving the theater and campaigning for foreign aid to help rebuild Tokyo. Reality is the unchanging foundation of illusion. If it changes, it's not Reality, it's illusion. Let me know if you need further clarification. ~ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 11, 2006 Report Share Posted April 11, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/10/2006 6:09:18 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Mon, 10 Apr 2006 08:38:58 EDT > epston > The Changeable As Real > > In a message dated 4/10/2006 1:14:23 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > ADHHUB > writes: > > > > > In a message dated 4/9/2006 9:35:21 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > Sun, 9 Apr 2006 20:53:50 EDT > > epston > > The Changeable As Real > > > > In a message dated 4/9/2006 4:55:24 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > > gdtige > > writes: > > > > >What is changeable cannot be real. > > > > > > L.E: This is an ancient idea and I think mistaken. Take the example of > > water. It exists as a still pond, a rapidly rolling river, a meanering > > stream and > > finally merges with the ocean to begin a new cycle. Which is the real > > water? > > The pool that is cut off from the stream? The lake fed by underground > > streams, > > or the ocean that is sometimes in some places, still? > > It is all real, all water, all unified. So it is with what appears to be > > > changing. It is part of the whole, essentially the same as all of life > and > > > > not > > more or less real than anythiing else. Why do you cling to such an idea > > that > > brings you more sufferring? > > > > Larry Epston > > > > > > > > Wasn't Patricia talking about Absolute Reality? Why are you talking about > > water? ~ > > L.E: I thought she was talking about rotten potatoes, My bad. > > Did you ever come across the idea that Nirvana is the same as Samskaras? > The > Absolute is the same as its expressions. > Water and clay are often used to show the relationship between the uncreated > and the created, the substance and the form. The still pond or ocean is like > > the absolute and the rivers and rain are like the changeable aspect of > existence. they exist together in a unity so you cannot say that what > changes is > not real. > Is that clear enough or do I need to try again? > > Larry Epston > > > > Yes, I've heard the concept. When folks use the term " Reality " , it's a > dualistic concept that implies illusion, and further indicates that illusion is > not what they mean. In one context, all things are One, but in the context of > Reality/illusion, you can't use illusion as an example of how Reality changes. > It would be like watching a Godzilla movie, then leaving the theater and > campaigning for foreign aid to help rebuild Tokyo. Reality is the unchanging > foundation of illusion. If it changes, it's not Reality, it's illusion. > > Let me know if you need further clarification. ~ > > Uh Phil...a little clarification please.. I've been donating to the rebuild Tokyo Fund since 1955. That damn Godzilla scared the hell out of me. Not only did that bring me religion it gave me what I thought was a good cause...helping the Japanese clean up that mess in Tokyo. Are you saying that I shouldn't have been taking those charitable deductions for all those years? Man the Taxman's going to be pissed at me if this gets out! And you know, I should have known....I always wondered how Raymond Burr just left those poor people and opened up a lucrative law practice on American TV. I thought he changed his name to Perry Mason because of his shame over doing that! Damn!..Well at least I never donated to the P.M.Fund. He always won his cases anyway. That was something that was Changless..a taste of heaven? I KNOW that wasn't an illusion anyway.That was REAL TELEVISION! :-) ........bob > 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.