Guest guest Posted May 9, 2006 Report Share Posted May 9, 2006 > > > I feel revolted. > That Phil leaves because of Larry and other immature > stupidity is TOO BAD!! > I love Nisargadatta`s teaching because of his noble > kindness and extremely abrupt invitation to truth. > None of that in those caracteres. Again, I wonder > why they bother posting here. And it will be too ridiculous to ask of poeple to mind others, to open oneself, to extend the heart they are looking for. The way to find one`s heart is to use it, to extend it. Not by sarcasm or so called knowedge!! Again and again, the heart won`t be found by experimental minds. > > Patricia > > > _________________________ Mail réinvente le mail ! Découvrez le nouveau Mail et son interface révolutionnaire. http://fr.mail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 9, 2006 Report Share Posted May 9, 2006 Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia <gdtige wrote: > > > > > > > > I feel revolted. > > That Phil leaves because of Larry and other immature > > stupidity is TOO BAD!! > > I love Nisargadatta`s teaching because of his noble > > kindness and extremely abrupt invitation to truth. > > None of that in those caracteres. Again, I wonder > > why they bother posting here. > And it will be too ridiculous to ask of poeple to > mind others, to open oneself, to extend the heart they > are looking for. > The way to find one`s heart is to use it, to extend > it. > Not by sarcasm or so called knowedge!! > Again and again, the heart won`t be found by > experimental minds. > > > > > > Patricia Absolutely right on all counts. .....bob > Mail réinvente le mail ! Découvrez le nouveau Mail et son interface révolutionnaire. > http://fr.mail. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 9, 2006 Report Share Posted May 9, 2006 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia <gdtige@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > I feel revolted. > > > That Phil leaves because of Larry and other immature > > > stupidity is TOO BAD!! > > > I love Nisargadatta`s teaching because of his noble > > > kindness and extremely abrupt invitation to truth. > > > None of that in those caracteres. Again, I wonder > > > why they bother posting here. > > And it will be too ridiculous to ask of poeple to > > mind others, to open oneself, to extend the heart they > > are looking for. > > The way to find one`s heart is to use it, to extend > > it. > > Not by sarcasm or so called knowedge!! > > Again and again, the heart won`t be found by > > experimental minds. > > > > > > > > > > Patricia > > > Absolutely right on all counts. > .....bob Addendum: For youself. ......bob > > Mail réinvente le mail ! Découvrez le nouveau Mail et > son interface révolutionnaire. > > http://fr.mail. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 9, 2006 Report Share Posted May 9, 2006 On 5/9/06, OConnor Patricia <gdtige wrote: > > > > > > > I feel revolted. > > That Phil leaves because of Larry and other immature > > stupidity is TOO BAD!! > > I love Nisargadatta`s teaching because of his noble > > kindness and extremely abrupt invitation to truth. > > None of that in those caracteres. Again, I wonder > > why they bother posting here. > And it will be too ridiculous to ask of poeple to > mind others, to open oneself, to extend the heart they > are looking for. > The way to find one`s heart is to use it, to extend > it. > Not by sarcasm or so called knowedge!! > Again and again, the heart won`t be found by > experimental minds. > > > > > > Patricia a tirade with class Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 9, 2006 Report Share Posted May 9, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <illusyn wrote: > > On 5/9/06, OConnor Patricia <gdtige wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I feel revolted. > > > That Phil leaves because of Larry and other immature > > > stupidity is TOO BAD!! > > > I love Nisargadatta`s teaching because of his noble > > > kindness and extremely abrupt invitation to truth. > > > None of that in those caracteres. Again, I wonder > > > why they bother posting here. > > And it will be too ridiculous to ask of poeple to > > mind others, to open oneself, to extend the heart they > > are looking for. > > The way to find one`s heart is to use it, to extend > > it. > > Not by sarcasm or so called knowedge!! > > Again and again, the heart won`t be found by > > experimental minds. > > > > > > > > > > Patricia > > a tirade with class Yes tirades, sarcasms, lambastings, poems, postings, thoughts, feelings, beliefs etc., can all be classified as good or bad or tasteless or classy, enlightened or debased, of the mind or of the heart, depending on who is doing the deed eh? And of course on who, after reading or hearing those words, makes that judgement in the first place. Cozy setup I'd say. One to another: Oh that's soooooooo great! .......bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 9, 2006 Report Share Posted May 9, 2006 Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia <gdtige wrote: > > > > > > > > I feel revolted. The revulsion is the result of everything that has occured in your past. It is a reaction to your perception of what is occuring between two personalities...about which you know very little. > > That Phil leaves because of Larry and other immature > > stupidity is TOO BAD!! Phil's reaction could not been other then it was. And Larry played his part perfectly. > > I love Nisargadatta`s teaching because of his noble > > kindness and extremely abrupt invitation to truth. Wishing things to be different then they are is the avoidance of the truth of which he speaks. The attempt to manipulate the dream into a more comfortable and hospitable place is not likely to lead to a deeper undersatnding. > > None of that in those caracteres. Again, I wonder > > why they bother posting here. They have no choice.....and you have no choice but to wonder. > And it will be too ridiculous to ask of poeple to > mind others, to open oneself, to extend the heart they > are looking for. You can ask. > The way to find one`s heart is to use it, to extend > it. The way to find one's heart is the understanding that it never was.....or ever could be..... lost. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 10, 2006 Report Share Posted May 10, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia <gdtige@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > I feel revolted. > > > The revulsion is the result of everything that has occured in your past. > > It is a reaction to your perception of what is occuring between two > personalities...about which you know very little. > > > > > > > > That Phil leaves because of Larry and other immature > > > stupidity is TOO BAD!! > > > Phil's reaction could not been other then it was. > And Larry played his part perfectly. > > I love Nisargadatta`s teaching because of his noble > > > kindness and extremely abrupt invitation to truth. > > > > Wishing things to be different then they are is the avoidance of the > truth of which he speaks. > > > The attempt to manipulate the dream into a more comfortable and > hospitable place is not likely to lead to a deeper undersatnding. > > > > > > > > None of that in those caracteres. Again, I wonder > > > why they bother posting here. > > > They have no choice.....and you have no choice but to wonder. > > > > > And it will be too ridiculous to ask of poeple to > > mind others, to open oneself, to extend the heart they > > are looking for. > > > You can ask. > > > > > > > The way to find one`s heart is to use it, to extend > > it. > > > > > > The way to find one's heart is the understanding that it never > was.....or ever could be..... lost. toombaru > Empty Frame Between the parted pages of memory I place Beloved You, a thumbprint on my heart, next to the picture of how it might have been if only we loved enough and stayed the course of water. ;-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 10, 2006 Report Share Posted May 10, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia <gdtige@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > I feel revolted. > > > The revulsion is the result of everything that has occured in your past. > > It is a reaction to your perception of what is occuring between two > personalities...about which you know very little. > > > > > > > > That Phil leaves because of Larry and other immature > > > stupidity is TOO BAD!! > > > Phil's reaction could not been other then it was. > And Larry played his part perfectly. > > I love Nisargadatta`s teaching because of his noble > > > kindness and extremely abrupt invitation to truth. > > > > Wishing things to be different then they are is the avoidance of the > truth of which he speaks. > > > The attempt to manipulate the dream into a more comfortable and > hospitable place is not likely to lead to a deeper undersatnding. > > > > > > > > None of that in those caracteres. Again, I wonder > > > why they bother posting here. > > > They have no choice.....and you have no choice but to wonder. > > > > > And it will be too ridiculous to ask of poeple to > > mind others, to open oneself, to extend the heart they > > are looking for. > > > You can ask. > > > > > > > The way to find one`s heart is to use it, to extend > > it. > > > > > > The way to find one's heart is the understanding that it never > was.....or ever could be..... lost. toombaru Understanding one's heart? Feeling one's thoughts? Same? Just wondering. Intellection and Emotion same same? " You can check out anytime you want, but you can never leave " ? Of course this posting never was. And it can never be lost. And I have no choice in the matter. And matter and energy are the same too. So I have no choice in the energy either. Who exactly is it that feels, thinks, decides, writes etc. I know that the " Truth is inversely proportional to ponderability " , sorta like the effect of gravity relative to distance, as postulated by Newton, and I'm not saying that the former formula is of the same stature as Newton's, only that it seems to be pinched from his idea, but Isaac's ideas can be tested. I'm not so sure about the Reality/ponderability thing, although Niels Bohr would get a kick out of the idea I'm sure. But since I as one of " They have no choice.....and you have no choice but to wonder " .......I wonder. Do YOU have the answer toombaru? Please don't just post some little quip of sophistry pinched from some little reading somewhere. Try to answer from your own truth or opinion. They are the same same no? .......bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 10, 2006 Report Share Posted May 10, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia <gdtige@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > I feel revolted. > > > The revulsion is the result of everything that has occured in your past. > > It is a reaction to your perception of what is occuring between two > personalities...about which you know very little. > > > > > > > > That Phil leaves because of Larry and other immature > > > stupidity is TOO BAD!! > > > Phil's reaction could not been other then it was. > And Larry played his part perfectly. > > I love Nisargadatta`s teaching because of his noble > > > kindness and extremely abrupt invitation to truth. > > > > Wishing things to be different then they are is the avoidance of the > truth of which he speaks. > > > The attempt to manipulate the dream into a more comfortable and > hospitable place is not likely to lead to a deeper undersatnding. > > > > > > > > None of that in those caracteres. Again, I wonder > > > why they bother posting here. > > > They have no choice.....and you have no choice but to wonder. > > > > > And it will be too ridiculous to ask of poeple to > > mind others, to open oneself, to extend the heart they > > are looking for. > > > You can ask. > > > > > > > The way to find one`s heart is to use it, to extend > > it. > > > > > > The way to find one's heart is the understanding that it never > was.....or ever could be..... lost. > the heart is not about understanding, is it? understanding leaves off where the heart begins the heart begins where understanding leaves off > > > > > toombaru > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 10, 2006 Report Share Posted May 10, 2006 Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia <gdtige@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I feel revolted. > > > > > > The revulsion is the result of everything that has occured in your past. > > > > It is a reaction to your perception of what is occuring between two > > personalities...about which you know very little. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That Phil leaves because of Larry and other immature > > > > stupidity is TOO BAD!! > > > > > > Phil's reaction could not been other then it was. > > And Larry played his part perfectly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I love Nisargadatta`s teaching because of his noble > > > > kindness and extremely abrupt invitation to truth. > > > > > > > > Wishing things to be different then they are is the avoidance of the > > truth of which he speaks. > > > > > > The attempt to manipulate the dream into a more comfortable and > > hospitable place is not likely to lead to a deeper undersatnding. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > None of that in those caracteres. Again, I wonder > > > > why they bother posting here. > > > > > > They have no choice.....and you have no choice but to wonder. > > > > > > > > > And it will be too ridiculous to ask of poeple to > > > mind others, to open oneself, to extend the heart they > > > are looking for. > > > > > > You can ask. > > > > > > > > > > > > > The way to find one`s heart is to use it, to extend > > > it. > > > > > > > > > > > > The way to find one's heart is the understanding that it never > > was.....or ever could be..... lost. > > > > the heart is not about understanding, is it? > > understanding leaves off where the heart begins > > the heart begins where understanding leaves off You got my vote of approval on this one Bill. Not that it matters or should matter, for that matter. I'm just glad whenever I see someone else who sees things the same way as I do. That's just my human nature, my 'need' for community and sharing and all that stuff. Thanks for fullfilling that humankind confirmation of same thinking for me herein. ........bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 10, 2006 Report Share Posted May 10, 2006 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia <gdtige@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I feel revolted. > > > > > > The revulsion is the result of everything that has occured in your > past. > > > > It is a reaction to your perception of what is occuring between two The> > personalities...about which you know very little. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That Phil leaves because of Larry and other immature > > > > stupidity is TOO BAD!! > > > > > > Phil's reaction could not been other then it was. > > And Larry played his part perfectly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I love Nisargadatta`s teaching because of his noble > > > > kindness and extremely abrupt invitation to truth. > > > > > > > > Wishing things to be different then they are is the avoidance of the > > truth of which he speaks. > > > > > > The attempt to manipulate the dream into a more comfortable and > > hospitable place is not likely to lead to a deeper undersatnding. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > None of that in those caracteres. Again, I wonder > > > > why they bother posting here. > > > > > > They have no choice.....and you have no choice but to wonder. > > > > > > > > > And it will be too ridiculous to ask of poeple to > > > mind others, to open oneself, to extend the heart they > > > are looking for. > > > > > > You can ask. > > > > > > > > > > > > > The way to find one`s heart is to use it, to extend > > > it. > > > > > > > > > > > > The way to find one's heart is the understanding that it never > > was.....or ever could be..... lost. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > Understanding one's heart? Feeling one's thoughts? Same? Just > wondering. Intellection and Emotion same same? " You can check out > anytime you want, but you can never leave " ? Of course this posting > never was. And it can never be lost. And I have no choice in the > matter. And matter and energy are the same too. So I have no choice > in the energy either. Who exactly is it that feels, thinks, decides, > writes etc. I know that the " Truth is inversely proportional to > ponderability " , sorta like the effect of gravity relative to > distance, as postulated by Newton, and I'm not saying that the former > formula is of the same stature as Newton's, only that it seems to be > pinched from his idea, but Isaac's ideas can be tested. I'm not so > sure about the Reality/ponderability thing, although Niels Bohr would > get a kick out of the idea I'm sure. But since I as one of " They have > no choice.....and you have no choice but to wonder " .......I wonder. > Do YOU have the answer toombaru? Please don't just post some little > quip of sophistry pinched from some little reading somewhere. Try to > answer from your own truth or opinion. They are the same same no? > .......bob > How is the Ultimate Understanding translated back into concepts?....I don't know. There are some psycho-somas that are better designed to do that then others. The conceptual overlay is not a closed loop....it appears that there is a blind spot where it is attached to the ALL. Within the thought stream......something...very much like a human being is able to stand up......look around.......and then recline back into the flowingness. This creature, however, has no mouth...and cannot speak......It carries the wisdom of the ages....... that it cannot share....... It lives....filling the gap between immanence and transcendence. It is the Pristine Quiescence......and the ripple of I-am-ness...........Dancing in the dark. Am I speaking gibberish? Yes I am. It is the only language spoken. Can it be said any better? Undoubtedly. Many have tried......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 10, 2006 Report Share Posted May 10, 2006 Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia <gdtige@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I feel revolted. > > > > > > The revulsion is the result of everything that has occured in your past. > > > > It is a reaction to your perception of what is occuring between two > > personalities...about which you know very little. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That Phil leaves because of Larry and other immature > > > > stupidity is TOO BAD!! > > > > > > Phil's reaction could not been other then it was. > > And Larry played his part perfectly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I love Nisargadatta`s teaching because of his noble > > > > kindness and extremely abrupt invitation to truth. > > > > > > > > Wishing things to be different then they are is the avoidance of the > > truth of which he speaks. > > > > > > The attempt to manipulate the dream into a more comfortable and > > hospitable place is not likely to lead to a deeper undersatnding. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > None of that in those caracteres. Again, I wonder > > > > why they bother posting here. > > > > > > They have no choice.....and you have no choice but to wonder. > > > > > > > > > And it will be too ridiculous to ask of poeple to > > > mind others, to open oneself, to extend the heart they > > > are looking for. > > > > > > You can ask. > > > > > > > > > > > > > The way to find one`s heart is to use it, to extend > > > it. > > > > > > > > > > > > The way to find one's heart is the understanding that it never > > was.....or ever could be..... lost. > > > > the heart is not about understanding, is it? > > understanding leaves off where the heart begins > > the heart begins where understanding leaves off > > > Understanding destroys all distinctions like 'heart' and 'not heart' toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 10, 2006 Report Share Posted May 10, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru<lastrain@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia <gdtige@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I feel revolted. > > > > > > > > > The revulsion is the result of everything that has occured in your > > past. > > > > > > It is a reaction to your perception of what is occuring between two > The> > personalities...about which you know very little. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That Phil leaves because of Larry and other immature > > > > > stupidity is TOO BAD!! > > > > > > > > > Phil's reaction could not been other then it was. > > > And Larry played his part perfectly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I love Nisargadatta`s teaching because of his noble > > > > > kindness and extremely abrupt invitation to truth. > > > > > > > > > > > > Wishing things to be different then they are is the avoidance of the > > > truth of which he speaks. > > > > > > > > > The attempt to manipulate the dream into a more comfortable and > > > hospitable place is not likely to lead to a deeper undersatnding. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > None of that in those caracteres. Again, I wonder > > > > > why they bother posting here. > > > > > > > > > They have no choice.....and you have no choice but to wonder. > > > > > > > > > > > > > And it will be too ridiculous to ask of poeple to > > > > mind others, to open oneself, to extend the heart they > > > > are looking for. > > > > > > > > > You can ask. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The way to find one`s heart is to use it, to extend > > > > it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The way to find one's heart is the understanding that it never > > > was.....or ever could be..... lost. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > Understanding one's heart? Feeling one's thoughts? Same? Just > > wondering. Intellection and Emotion same same? " You can check out > > anytime you want, but you can never leave " ? Of course this posting > > never was. And it can never be lost. And I have no choice in the > > matter. And matter and energy are the same too. So I have no choice > > in the energy either. Who exactly is it that feels, thinks, decides, > > writes etc. I know that the " Truth is inversely proportional to > > ponderability " , sorta like the effect of gravity relative to > > distance, as postulated by Newton, and I'm not saying that the former > > formula is of the same stature as Newton's, only that it seems to be > > pinched from his idea, but Isaac's ideas can be tested. I'm not so > > sure about the Reality/ponderability thing, although Niels Bohr would > > get a kick out of the idea I'm sure. But since I as one of " They have > > no choice.....and you have no choice but to wonder " .......I wonder. > > Do YOU have the answer toombaru? Please don't just post some little > > quip of sophistry pinched from some little reading somewhere. Try to > > answer from your own truth or opinion. They are the same same no? > > .......bob > > > > > > How is the Ultimate Understanding translated back into concepts?....I > don't know. > > There are some psycho-somas that are better designed to do that then > others. > > The conceptual overlay is not a closed loop....it appears that there > is a blind spot where it is attached to the ALL. > > Within the thought stream......something...very much like a human > being is able to stand up......look around.......and then recline back > into the flowingness. > > This creature, however, has no mouth...and cannot speak......It > carries the wisdom of the ages....... that it cannot share....... > > > It lives....filling the gap between immanence and transcendence. > > > It is the Pristine Quiescence......and the ripple of > I-am-ness...........Dancing in the dark. > > > > > Am I speaking gibberish? > > > > > Yes I am. > > > > It is the only language spoken. > > > > Can it be said any better? > > > > Undoubtedly. > > > > Many have tried......... > <<< Within the thought stream......something...very much like a human being is able to stand up......look around.......and then recline back into the flowingness. This creature, however, has no mouth...and cannot speak......It carries the wisdom of the ages....... that it cannot share....... It lives....filling the gap between immanence and transcendence. It is the Pristine Quiescence......and the ripple of I-am-ness...........Dancing in the dark. >>> there it is again... you spoke of this before... and seems to refer to something that I consider very " important " and yet have been unable to talk about... I should give a shot at my own words on this, as perhaps there is a correlation with what you speak of here and perhaps you will understand what I am speaking of when I do that would be something! Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 10, 2006 Report Share Posted May 10, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia <gdtige@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I feel revolted. > > > > > > > > > The revulsion is the result of everything that has occured in your > > past. > > > > > > It is a reaction to your perception of what is occuring between two > The> > personalities...about which you know very little. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That Phil leaves because of Larry and other immature > > > > > stupidity is TOO BAD!! > > > > > > > > > Phil's reaction could not been other then it was. > > > And Larry played his part perfectly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I love Nisargadatta`s teaching because of his noble > > > > > kindness and extremely abrupt invitation to truth. > > > > > > > > > > > > Wishing things to be different then they are is the avoidance of the > > > truth of which he speaks. > > > > > > > > > The attempt to manipulate the dream into a more comfortable and > > > hospitable place is not likely to lead to a deeper undersatnding. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > None of that in those caracteres. Again, I wonder > > > > > why they bother posting here. > > > > > > > > > They have no choice.....and you have no choice but to wonder. > > > > > > > > > > > > > And it will be too ridiculous to ask of poeple to > > > > mind others, to open oneself, to extend the heart they > > > > are looking for. > > > > > > > > > You can ask. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The way to find one`s heart is to use it, to extend > > > > it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The way to find one's heart is the understanding that it never > > > was.....or ever could be..... lost. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > Understanding one's heart? Feeling one's thoughts? Same? Just > > wondering. Intellection and Emotion same same? " You can check out > > anytime you want, but you can never leave " ? Of course this posting > > never was. And it can never be lost. And I have no choice in the > > matter. And matter and energy are the same too. So I have no choice > > in the energy either. Who exactly is it that feels, thinks, decides, > > writes etc. I know that the " Truth is inversely proportional to > > ponderability " , sorta like the effect of gravity relative to > > distance, as postulated by Newton, and I'm not saying that the former > > formula is of the same stature as Newton's, only that it seems to be > > pinched from his idea, but Isaac's ideas can be tested. I'm not so > > sure about the Reality/ponderability thing, although Niels Bohr would > > get a kick out of the idea I'm sure. But since I as one of " They have > > no choice.....and you have no choice but to wonder " .......I wonder. > > Do YOU have the answer toombaru? Please don't just post some little > > quip of sophistry pinched from some little reading somewhere. Try to > > answer from your own truth or opinion. They are the same same no? > > .......bob > > > > > > How is the Ultimate Understanding translated back into concepts?....I > don't know. > > There are some psycho-somas that are better designed to do that then > others. > > The conceptual overlay is not a closed loop....it appears that there > is a blind spot where it is attached to the ALL. > > Within the thought stream......something...very much like a human > being is able to stand up......look around.......and then recline back > into the flowingness. > > This creature, however, has no mouth...and cannot speak......It > carries the wisdom of the ages....... that it cannot share....... > > > It lives....filling the gap between immanence and transcendence. > > > It is the Pristine Quiescence......and the ripple of > I-am-ness...........Dancing in the dark. > > > > > Am I speaking gibberish? > > > > > Yes I am. > > > > It is the only language spoken. > > > > Can it be said any better? > > > > Undoubtedly. > > > > Many have tried......... > The Mark of An Arrow Tame me not My Beloved, fear me instead, there are oceans between us these rivers flow downstream these rivers flow through us these rivers were tears of sorrow that once separated us across time and distance, across our Souls as divine hearts met, lifetimes ago across these kisses we would yield cherish me now before I dance away... A Gazelle you wept with. Love, Ana only words... .... dancing... just This. Is. one shared moment of time with You, Starlight The distances of all stars is the Light shining from One's eyes ....and sawdust and fairy sprinkles, crumbling bones torn ligaments, dedications and blessings A Morning Prayer Nataraja dances spewed from embers of stardust A Harmonic Convergence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 10, 2006 Report Share Posted May 10, 2006 Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <anabebe57 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia <gdtige@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I feel revolted. > > > > > > > > > > > > The revulsion is the result of everything that has occured in > your > > > past. > > > > > > > > It is a reaction to your perception of what is occuring between > two > > The> > personalities...about which you know very little. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That Phil leaves because of Larry and other immature > > > > > > stupidity is TOO BAD!! > > > > > > > > > > > > Phil's reaction could not been other then it was. > > > > And Larry played his part perfectly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I love Nisargadatta`s teaching because of his noble > > > > > > kindness and extremely abrupt invitation to truth. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wishing things to be different then they are is the avoidance > of the > > > > truth of which he speaks. > > > > > > > > > > > > The attempt to manipulate the dream into a more comfortable and > > > > hospitable place is not likely to lead to a deeper > undersatnding. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > None of that in those caracteres. Again, I wonder > > > > > > why they bother posting here. > > > > > > > > > > > > They have no choice.....and you have no choice but to wonder. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And it will be too ridiculous to ask of poeple to > > > > > mind others, to open oneself, to extend the heart they > > > > > are looking for. > > > > > > > > > > > > You can ask. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The way to find one`s heart is to use it, to extend > > > > > it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The way to find one's heart is the understanding that it never > > > > was.....or ever could be..... lost. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > Understanding one's heart? Feeling one's thoughts? Same? Just > > > wondering. Intellection and Emotion same same? " You can check out > > > anytime you want, but you can never leave " ? Of course this > posting > > > never was. And it can never be lost. And I have no choice in the > > > matter. And matter and energy are the same too. So I have no > choice > > > in the energy either. Who exactly is it that feels, thinks, > decides, > > > writes etc. I know that the " Truth is inversely proportional to > > > ponderability " , sorta like the effect of gravity relative to > > > distance, as postulated by Newton, and I'm not saying that the > former > > > formula is of the same stature as Newton's, only that it seems to > be > > > pinched from his idea, but Isaac's ideas can be tested. I'm not > so > > > sure about the Reality/ponderability thing, although Niels Bohr > would > > > get a kick out of the idea I'm sure. But since I as one of " They > have > > > no choice.....and you have no choice but to wonder " .......I > wonder. > > > Do YOU have the answer toombaru? Please don't just post some > little > > > quip of sophistry pinched from some little reading somewhere. Try > to > > > answer from your own truth or opinion. They are the same same no? > > > .......bob > > > > > > > > > > > How is the Ultimate Understanding translated back into > concepts?....I > > don't know. > > > > There are some psycho-somas that are better designed to do that then > > others. > > > > The conceptual overlay is not a closed loop....it appears that there > > is a blind spot where it is attached to the ALL. > > > > Within the thought stream......something...very much like a human > > being is able to stand up......look around.......and then recline > back > > into the flowingness. > > > > This creature, however, has no mouth...and cannot speak......It > > carries the wisdom of the ages....... that it cannot share....... > > > > > > It lives....filling the gap between immanence and transcendence. > > > > > > It is the Pristine Quiescence......and the ripple of > > I-am-ness...........Dancing in the dark. > > > > > > > > > > Am I speaking gibberish? > > > > > > > > > > Yes I am. > > > > > > > > It is the only language spoken. > > > > > > > > Can it be said any better? > > > > > > > > Undoubtedly. > > > > > > > > Many have tried......... > > > > The Mark of An Arrow > > Tame me not My Beloved, > fear me instead, > > there are oceans between us > these rivers flow downstream > these rivers flow through us > these rivers were tears > of sorrow that once > separated us across time and > distance, across our Souls > as divine hearts met, > lifetimes ago > > across these kisses we would > yield > cherish me now > before > I dance away... > > A Gazelle you wept with. > > > Love, > Ana > > only words... > ... dancing... > just This. > Is. > > one shared moment of time > with You, > > > Starlight > > The distances of all stars > is the Light > shining > from One's eyes > > ...and sawdust and fairy sprinkles, > crumbling bones > torn ligaments, > dedications and blessings > > A Morning Prayer > Nataraja dances > > spewed from embers of stardust > > A Harmonic Convergence. > once again Ana, such gorgeous words though really, not about the words at all, is it? such a gorgeous Spirit you grace us with here in these your writings Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 10, 2006 Report Share Posted May 10, 2006 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <illusyn@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia <gdtige@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I feel revolted. > > > > > > > > > The revulsion is the result of everything that has occured in > your past. > > > > > > It is a reaction to your perception of what is occuring between > two > > > personalities...about which you know very little. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That Phil leaves because of Larry and other immature > > > > > stupidity is TOO BAD!! > > > > > > > > > Phil's reaction could not been other then it was. > > > And Larry played his part perfectly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I love Nisargadatta`s teaching because of his noble > > > > > kindness and extremely abrupt invitation to truth. > > > > > > > > > > > > Wishing things to be different then they are is the avoidance of > the > > > truth of which he speaks. > > > > > > > > > The attempt to manipulate the dream into a more comfortable and > > > hospitable place is not likely to lead to a deeper undersatnding. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > None of that in those caracteres. Again, I wonder > > > > > why they bother posting here. > > > > > > > > > They have no choice.....and you have no choice but to wonder. > > > > > > > > > > > > > And it will be too ridiculous to ask of poeple to > > > > mind others, to open oneself, to extend the heart they > > > > are looking for. > > > > > > > > > You can ask. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The way to find one`s heart is to use it, to extend > > > > it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The way to find one's heart is the understanding that it never > > > was.....or ever could be..... lost. > > > > > > > the heart is not about understanding, is it? > > > > understanding leaves off where the heart begins > > > > the heart begins where understanding leaves off > > You got my vote of approval on this one Bill. Not that it matters or > should matter, for that matter. I'm just glad whenever I see someone > else who sees things the same way as I do. That's just my human > nature, my 'need' for community and sharing and all that stuff. > Thanks for fullfilling that humankind confirmation of same thinking > for me herein. > ........bob I like that we can " have it out " with each other and then move on to sweeter pastures, Bob. It is uplifting for me. At it restores a bit of faith and hope that perhaps I lost along the way (at bit here, a but there, and Lo! it adds up!). Because I do care about really communicating about these matters that are *not* matters of sharpening the knives of intellect. And I care not because I am such a " great guy " or such. I care because I *must*, because I have no choice. To be blessed as I have been and to not give with abandon... is just not possible. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 10, 2006 Report Share Posted May 10, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia <gdtige@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I feel revolted. > > > > > > > > > The revulsion is the result of everything that has occured in your > > past. > > > > > > It is a reaction to your perception of what is occuring between two > The> > personalities...about which you know very little. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That Phil leaves because of Larry and other immature > > > > > stupidity is TOO BAD!! > > > > > > > > > Phil's reaction could not been other then it was. > > > And Larry played his part perfectly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I love Nisargadatta`s teaching because of his noble > > > > > kindness and extremely abrupt invitation to truth. > > > > > > > > > > > > Wishing things to be different then they are is the avoidance of the > > > truth of which he speaks. > > > > > > > > > The attempt to manipulate the dream into a more comfortable and > > > hospitable place is not likely to lead to a deeper undersatnding. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > None of that in those caracteres. Again, I wonder > > > > > why they bother posting here. > > > > > > > > > They have no choice.....and you have no choice but to wonder. > > > > > > > > > > > > > And it will be too ridiculous to ask of poeple to > > > > mind others, to open oneself, to extend the heart they > > > > are looking for. > > > > > > > > > You can ask. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The way to find one`s heart is to use it, to extend > > > > it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The way to find one's heart is the understanding that it never > > > was.....or ever could be..... lost. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > Understanding one's heart? Feeling one's thoughts? Same? Just > > wondering. Intellection and Emotion same same? " You can check out > > anytime you want, but you can never leave " ? Of course this posting > > never was. And it can never be lost. And I have no choice in the > > matter. And matter and energy are the same too. So I have no choice > > in the energy either. Who exactly is it that feels, thinks, decides, > > writes etc. I know that the " Truth is inversely proportional to > > ponderability " , sorta like the effect of gravity relative to > > distance, as postulated by Newton, and I'm not saying that the former > > formula is of the same stature as Newton's, only that it seems to be > > pinched from his idea, but Isaac's ideas can be tested. I'm not so > > sure about the Reality/ponderability thing, although Niels Bohr would > > get a kick out of the idea I'm sure. But since I as one of " They have > > no choice.....and you have no choice but to wonder " .......I wonder. > > Do YOU have the answer toombaru? Please don't just post some little > > quip of sophistry pinched from some little reading somewhere. Try to > > answer from your own truth or opinion. They are the same same no? > > .......bob > > > > > > How is the Ultimate Understanding translated back into concepts?....I > don't know. > > There are some psycho-somas that are better designed to do that then > others. > > The conceptual overlay is not a closed loop....it appears that there > is a blind spot where it is attached to the ALL. > > Within the thought stream......something...very much like a human > being is able to stand up......look around.......and then recline back > into the flowingness. > > This creature, however, has no mouth...and cannot speak......It > carries the wisdom of the ages....... that it cannot share....... > > > It lives....filling the gap between immanence and transcendence. > > > It is the Pristine Quiescence......and the ripple of > I-am-ness...........Dancing in the dark. > > > > > Am I speaking gibberish? > > > > > Yes I am. > > > > It is the only language spoken. > > > > Can it be said any better? > > > > Undoubtedly. > > > > Many have tried......... > Thanks for the straight forward toombaru. So basically you're saying you are everyman/woman....as are we all........and it's all full of ...'nesses'(flowing-, light-, dark-, etc.), and 'ences'(transcend- , imman-, quiesc-, etc.). Am I on the right track here? And that it all really cannot be talked about as Paul said when saying that his talk of Christ and Love and Brotherhood would be deemed childishness and foolishness by the many. Is this also what you're saying without saying? As one psycho-soma to another psycho-soma... understanding is a ponderability of something that isn't, in that it is beyond thinking and therefore can only be alluded to through metaphore or zen-like snippits on post-its on listses. Just more gibberish here and in my case it's done for the fun of it.If I ever try to say it in better gibberish form,I'll let you know. Just so you know, I'm NOT trying to now. I'm sure the many who have tried (and failed?) are thankful for your admission that saying it better is at least a possibility unto them, even though up to this point, those have all been 'attempts' only. That's big of you to make that allowance. And so now: Let It Be Written! .........bob P.S. Since you find it difficult to use the pronoun of the personal....are you now " This creature " .. " very much like a human being " ... " Within the thought stream " ?.....Shucks toomy, Who's thought stream are you referring to here? And what kind of creature is very much like a human being but not? And what flowingness do you fall back into? Better yet...what's flowing? Ah Yes.....nothing! And even that nothing NEVER WAS!(sounds of Cecil B DeMille's orchestra and choir). ........bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 10, 2006 Report Share Posted May 10, 2006 > > > > > > > > > > > How is the Ultimate Understanding translated back into > concepts?....I > > don't know. > > > > There are some psycho-somas that are better designed to do that then > > others. > > > > The conceptual overlay is not a closed loop....it appears that there > > is a blind spot where it is attached to the ALL. > > > > Within the thought stream......something...very much like a human > > being is able to stand up......look around.......and then recline > back > > into the flowingness. > > > > This creature, however, has no mouth...and cannot speak......It > > carries the wisdom of the ages....... that it cannot share....... > > > > > > It lives....filling the gap between immanence and transcendence. > > > > > > It is the Pristine Quiescence......and the ripple of > > I-am-ness...........Dancing in the dark. > > > > > > > > > > Am I speaking gibberish? > > > > > > > > > > Yes I am. > > > > > > > > It is the only language spoken. > > > > > > > > Can it be said any better? > > > > > > > > Undoubtedly. > > > > > > > > Many have tried......... > > > Thanks for the straight forward toombaru. So basically you're saying > you are everyman/woman....as are we all........and it's all full > of ...'nesses'(flowing-, light-, dark-, etc.), and 'ences'(transcend- I am saying that the closer you get.....the harder it is to conceptualize and transmit information or insights in these matters.........and that which is intuited must take the form of poetry or the use of images that attempt to reach a places where the roots touch. > , imman-, quiesc-, etc.). Am I on the right track here? And that it > all really cannot be talked about as Paul said when saying that his > talk of Christ and Love and Brotherhood would be deemed childishness > and foolishness by the many. Is this also what you're saying without > saying? As one psycho-soma to another psycho-soma... understanding is > a ponderability of something that isn't, in that it is beyond > thinking and therefore can only be alluded to through metaphore or > zen-like snippits on post-its on listses. Just more gibberish here > and in my case it's done for the fun of it. It may appear like that...and it can be quite fun..... but in the truest sense........it is merely a predisposition within certain thought loops to ponder the origin of its identified entity. It labors under a most peculiar set of circumstances.....If it finds what it is looking for.....it disappears. If I ever try to say it in > better gibberish form,I'll let you know. Just so you know, I'm NOT > trying to now. I'm sure the many who have tried (and failed?) are > thankful for your admission that saying it better is at least a > possibility unto them, even though up to this point, those have all > been 'attempts' only. That's big of you to make that allowance. And > so now: Let It Be Written! A few fingers never quiver when pointing to the moon. > .........bob > P.S. Since you find it difficult to use the pronoun of the > personal....are you now " This creature " .. " very much like a human > being " ... " Within the thought stream " ?.....Shucks toomy, Who's thought > stream are you referring to here? And what kind of creature is very > much like a human being but not? And what flowingness do you fall > back into? Better yet...what's flowing? Ah Yes.....nothing! And even > that nothing NEVER WAS!(sounds of Cecil B DeMille's orchestra and > choir). > > ........bob > LOL Just a chord....from a dimly remembered song......the smell of green grass and willows ......deep water......and the silver flash of a rainbow trout. Perhaps Bill can help us through this one. I look around this room.......the light is streaming through my wife's hair as she stirs the cornbread....joy flows up Strawberry Canyon.........into this open heart. and I thank you for that. toombaru ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 10, 2006 Report Share Posted May 10, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How is the Ultimate Understanding translated back into > > concepts?....I > > > don't know. > > > > > > There are some psycho-somas that are better designed to do that then > > > others. > > > > > > The conceptual overlay is not a closed loop....it appears that there > > > is a blind spot where it is attached to the ALL. > > > > > > Within the thought stream......something...very much like a human > > > being is able to stand up......look around.......and then recline > > back > > > into the flowingness. > > > > > > This creature, however, has no mouth...and cannot speak......It > > > carries the wisdom of the ages....... that it cannot share....... > > > > > > > > > It lives....filling the gap between immanence and transcendence. > > > > > > > > > It is the Pristine Quiescence......and the ripple of > > > I-am-ness...........Dancing in the dark. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Am I speaking gibberish? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes I am. > > > > > > > > > > > > It is the only language spoken. > > > > > > > > > > > > Can it be said any better? > > > > > > > > > > > > Undoubtedly. > > > > > > > > > > > > Many have tried......... > > > > > Thanks for the straight forward toombaru. So basically you're saying > > you are everyman/woman....as are we all........and it's all full > > of ...'nesses'(flowing-, light-, dark-, etc.), and 'ences'(transcend- I am saying that the closer you get.....the harder it is to > conceptualize and transmit information or insights in these > matters.........and that which is intuited must take the form of > poetry or the use of images that attempt to reach a places where the > roots touch. > > , imman-, quiesc-, etc.). Am I on the right track here? And that it > > all really cannot be talked about as Paul said when saying that his > > talk of Christ and Love and Brotherhood would be deemed childishness > > and foolishness by the many. Is this also what you're saying without > > saying? As one psycho-soma to another psycho-soma... understanding is > > a ponderability of something that isn't, in that it is beyond > > thinking and therefore can only be alluded to through metaphore or > > zen-like snippits on post-its on listses. Just more gibberish here > > and in my case it's done for the fun of it. > > > It may appear like that...and it can be quite fun..... but in the > truest sense........it is merely a predisposition within certain > thought loops to ponder the origin of its identified entity. > > > > > > It labors under a most peculiar set of circumstances.....If it finds > what it is looking for.....it disappears. > > > If I ever try to say it in > > better gibberish form,I'll let you know. Just so you know, I'm NOT > > trying to now. I'm sure the many who have tried (and failed?) are > > thankful for your admission that saying it better is at least a > > possibility unto them, even though up to this point, those have all > > been 'attempts' only. That's big of you to make that allowance. And > > so now: Let It Be Written! > > > > > > A few fingers never quiver when pointing to the moon. > > > > > > > .........bob > > P.S. Since you find it difficult to use the pronoun of the > > personal....are you now " This creature " .. " very much like a human > > being " ... " Within the thought stream " ?.....Shucks toomy, Who's thought > > stream are you referring to here? And what kind of creature is very > > much like a human being but not? And what flowingness do you fall > > back into? Better yet...what's flowing? Ah Yes.....nothing! And even > > that nothing NEVER WAS!(sounds of Cecil B DeMille's orchestra and > > choir). > > > > ........bob > LOL > > > > Just a chord....from a dimly remembered song......the smell of green > grass and willows ......deep water......and the silver flash of a > rainbow trout. > > > > Perhaps Bill can help us through this one. > > > > I look around this room.......the light is streaming through my wife's > hair as she stirs the cornbread....joy flows up Strawberry > Canyon.........into this open heart. > > > > and I thank you for that. > > > > > > toombaru Very nice. :-) ...bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 10, 2006 Report Share Posted May 10, 2006 Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia <gdtige@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I feel revolted. > > > > > > The revulsion is the result of everything that has occured in your past. > > > > It is a reaction to your perception of what is occuring between two > > personalities...about which you know very little. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That Phil leaves because of Larry and other immature > > > > stupidity is TOO BAD!! > > > > > > Phil's reaction could not been other then it was. > > And Larry played his part perfectly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I love Nisargadatta`s teaching because of his noble > > > > kindness and extremely abrupt invitation to truth. > > > > > > > > Wishing things to be different then they are is the avoidance of the > > truth of which he speaks. > > > > > > The attempt to manipulate the dream into a more comfortable and > > hospitable place is not likely to lead to a deeper undersatnding. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > None of that in those caracteres. Again, I wonder > > > > why they bother posting here. > > > > > > They have no choice.....and you have no choice but to wonder. > > > > > > > > > And it will be too ridiculous to ask of poeple to > > > mind others, to open oneself, to extend the heart they > > > are looking for. > > > > > > You can ask. > > > > > > > > > > > > > The way to find one`s heart is to use it, to extend > > > it. > > > > > > > > > > > > The way to find one's heart is the understanding that it never > > was.....or ever could be..... lost. > > > > the heart is not about understanding, is it? > > understanding leaves off where the heart begins > > the heart begins where understanding leaves off This explains why you write such crap. Len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 10, 2006 Report Share Posted May 10, 2006 On 5/9/06, toombaru2006 <lastrain wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How is the Ultimate Understanding translated back into > > concepts?....I > > > don't know. > > > > > > There are some psycho-somas that are better designed to do that then > > > others. > > > > > > The conceptual overlay is not a closed loop....it appears that there > > > is a blind spot where it is attached to the ALL. > > > > > > Within the thought stream......something...very much like a human > > > being is able to stand up......look around.......and then recline > > back > > > into the flowingness. > > > > > > This creature, however, has no mouth...and cannot speak......It > > > carries the wisdom of the ages....... that it cannot share....... > > > > > > > > > It lives....filling the gap between immanence and transcendence. > > > > > > > > > It is the Pristine Quiescence......and the ripple of > > > I-am-ness...........Dancing in the dark. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Am I speaking gibberish? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes I am. > > > > > > > > > > > > It is the only language spoken. > > > > > > > > > > > > Can it be said any better? > > > > > > > > > > > > Undoubtedly. > > > > > > > > > > > > Many have tried......... > > > > > Thanks for the straight forward toombaru. So basically you're saying > > you are everyman/woman....as are we all........and it's all full > > of ...'nesses'(flowing-, light-, dark-, etc.), and 'ences'(transcend- I am saying that the closer you get.....the harder it is to > conceptualize and transmit information or insights in these > matters.........and that which is intuited must take the form of > poetry or the use of images that attempt to reach a places where the > roots touch. yes yes yes! Some object to expressions such as poetry as smooshy-blah-blah... They don't trust anything that is not hard-edged, it would seem. But here's a simple fact of life in the nondual lane: Poetry is all that we have, really. To think one can analytically get at something is an illusion. To show what I mean, consider how a poem is not meaningfully considered correct or incorrect. If A writes a poem and B reads the poem, then B may or may not " get it " . If B does not get it then it is not clear whether it is because A's poem is hard to get, whether B just fails to grasp what the poem is saying, or perhaps whether the " angle on experience " that A expresses is very different from B's outlook, and so there is very little liklihood that A and B will be able to communicate. In this regard nondual conversation such as occurs here on this list is like poetry. It is *not* like mathematics where if one has the necessary background then one can " get " a particular exposition, or where it is clear if a particular exposition is " incorrect " . [All of which is why I consider it nonsense for members of this list to go poking fingers and decrying what they deem as " nonsense " in the postings of others. There is no " correct/ incorrect " when speaking of nondualism.] Hello! This is not an analytic subject domain! Analysis can help to untangle what is being said in an exchange, that is true. But *what is being said* is not going to be analytic in nature. Nondualism is inherently *mystical*. This is necessarily the case because what nondualism (advaitan, anyway) necessarily talks about what is beyond language, what is beyond subject-object discriminations. Analysis can't go there. Someone who isn't actually reading carefully will look at what is written above and say it is an example of analysis (true) and conclude that the writer of that is contradicting himself (false). As Wittgenstein demonstrated so powerfully, philosophical analysis can be employed in a strictly *deconstructive* manner. That is to say, it can be used to uncover confusions, to shed light on the discourse, without venturing to say what-is-the-case in any non-ordinary sense. > > , imman-, quiesc-, etc.). Am I on the right track here? And that it > > all really cannot be talked about as Paul said when saying that his > > talk of Christ and Love and Brotherhood would be deemed childishness > > and foolishness by the many. Is this also what you're saying without > > saying? As one psycho-soma to another psycho-soma... understanding is > > a ponderability of something that isn't, in that it is beyond > > thinking and therefore can only be alluded to through metaphore or > > zen-like snippits on post-its on listses. Just more gibberish here > > and in my case it's done for the fun of it. > > > It may appear like that...and it can be quite fun..... but in the > truest sense........it is merely a predisposition within certain > thought loops to ponder the origin of its identified entity. > > > It labors under a most peculiar set of circumstances.....If it finds > what it is looking for.....it disappears. > > > If I ever try to say it in > > better gibberish form,I'll let you know. Just so you know, I'm NOT > > trying to now. I'm sure the many who have tried (and failed?) are > > thankful for your admission that saying it better is at least a > > possibility unto them, even though up to this point, those have all > > been 'attempts' only. That's big of you to make that allowance. And > > so now: Let It Be Written! > > > A few fingers never quiver when pointing to the moon. > > > > .........bob > > P.S. Since you find it difficult to use the pronoun of the > > personal....are you now " This creature " .. " very much like a human > > being " ... " Within the thought stream " ?.....Shucks toomy, Who's thought > > stream are you referring to here? And what kind of creature is very > > much like a human being but not? And what flowingness do you fall > > back into? Better yet...what's flowing? Ah Yes.....nothing! And even > > that nothing NEVER WAS!(sounds of Cecil B DeMille's orchestra and > > choir). > > > > ........bob > > You seem to be suckering for the reification trap here, Bob. Someone speaks of " stream " and you seem to infer that *for them* the alluded to stream is somehow *actual*. And then you go on to reify the existence of a " someone " for whom such actual whatever exists. So when you say " who's thought stream? " you have already engaged in two steps of presumption. If you like to so engage then go for it. But those steps of presumption are *entirely yours*. They may have very little to do with the writing you are imagining yourself as responding to. So going back to your question, " Who's thought stream are you referring to? " ... the question is akin to the famous, " When did you stop beating your wife? " The answer may well be (most likely is in toombaru's case): There is no one to whom said thought stream is. And further: Even the thought stream is not actual, but is only an expedient use of terms. When I give such answers to such questions all too often (unfortunately) the other party comes back with some dissing remark such as, " Yeah sure Bill, etc. " Such are fixed minds that are unwilling to listen because the answers they ask aren't really questions. Because so often such questions are (apparently) poised not out of a genuine wondering, out of a genuine wanting to know the view of the other party. They are rather rhetorical questions, intended to " trip up " the other party. And then, that the other party has failed to satisfactorily reply is the only possible interpretation. That die has been case before the response to the question has even been written. It is all a talkng to oneself while imagining the conversation involves another party. Bill > > LOL > > > > Just a chord....from a dimly remembered song......the smell of green > grass and willows ......deep water......and the silver flash of a > rainbow trout. > > > > Perhaps Bill can help us through this one. > > > > I look around this room.......the light is streaming through my wife's > hair as she stirs the cornbread....joy flows up Strawberry > Canyon.........into this open heart. > > > > and I thank you for that. > > > > > > toombaru > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 10, 2006 Report Share Posted May 10, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <illusyn wrote: > > On 5/9/06, toombaru2006 <lastrain wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How is the Ultimate Understanding translated back into > > > concepts?....I > > > > don't know. > > > > > > > > There are some psycho-somas that are better designed to do that then > > > > others. > > > > > > > > The conceptual overlay is not a closed loop....it appears that there > > > > is a blind spot where it is attached to the ALL. > > > > > > > > Within the thought stream......something...very much like a human > > > > being is able to stand up......look around.......and then recline > > > back > > > > into the flowingness. > > > > > > > > This creature, however, has no mouth...and cannot speak......It > > > > carries the wisdom of the ages....... that it cannot share....... > > > > > > > > > > > > It lives....filling the gap between immanence and transcendence. > > > > > > > > > > > > It is the Pristine Quiescence......and the ripple of > > > > I-am-ness...........Dancing in the dark. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Am I speaking gibberish? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes I am. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is the only language spoken. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can it be said any better? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Undoubtedly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Many have tried......... > > > > > > > Thanks for the straight forward toombaru. So basically you're saying > > > you are everyman/woman....as are we all........and it's all full > > > of ...'nesses'(flowing-, light-, dark-, etc.), and 'ences'(transcend- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am saying that the closer you get.....the harder it is to > > conceptualize and transmit information or insights in these > > matters.........and that which is intuited must take the form of > > poetry or the use of images that attempt to reach a places where the > > roots touch. > > yes yes yes! > > Some object to expressions such as poetry as smooshy-blah-blah... > They don't trust anything that is not hard-edged, it would seem. > > But here's a simple fact of life in the nondual lane: > Poetry is all that we have, really. > To think one can analytically get at something is an > illusion. This just is not the case Bill.Let alone a simple fact-of-life of the nondual lane, highway, path, walkway,road or any other simile you'd care to use. If you think that ALL Advaita or NonDuality is Poetry, I would suggest some readings in zen and in the Vedic literature and in many many other reputable sources of same both from the past and present. Sorry bud, but you aren't well versed enough in all areas of this philosophy to start making blanket statements like this. Who are you trying to kid? Yourself? And also Bill..poetry is not going to get at anything any better than anaysis or literature or meditations or works or any other human activity. It may give you good feelings, but you know what Bill.not everyone goes by the same path as you. > To show what I mean, consider how a poem is not meaningfully > considered correct or incorrect. If A writes a poem and B > reads the poem, then B may or may not " get it " . If B does not > get it then it is not clear whether it is because A's poem is > hard to get, whether B just fails to grasp what the poem is > saying, or perhaps whether the " angle on experience " that A > expresses is very different from B's outlook, and so there is > very little liklihood that A and B will be able to communicate. And THIS is NOT an analytical statement? Look here Bill, I love poetry myself. But it's not ALL poetry and here you murder the very thing you love so dearly by surgically trying to get at it's essence. And also, everything you are saying about A and B and their 'getting it' or not, can be applied to straight prose or for that matter, mathematical formulae. > In this regard nondual conversation such as occurs here on this > list is like poetry. It is *not* like mathematics where if one > has the necessary background then one can " get " a particular > exposition, or where it is clear if a particular exposition is > " incorrect " . See above.....I STRONGLY disagree with your premise regarding mathematics. There are areas within number theory and advanced mathematics that do not just border on the mystical..They are mystic as it gets. Mayhaps you cannot see the poetry in math but that's YOUR loss Bill, not something that is a fundamental truth. Again, if you care for some source material on this, ask me and I'll give you more to read and ponder than you can do in years and years of diligent study. > [All of which is why I consider it nonsense for members of this > list to go poking fingers and decrying what they deem as > " nonsense " in the postings of others. There is no " correct/ > incorrect " when speaking of nondualism.] Agreed 100%. If you areb saying though that disagreement is non permissable, I'd suggest here that you review your own postings and tell me how you can say this with a straight face. 5 > Hello! This is not an analytic subject domain! Analysis can > help to untangle what is being said in an exchange, that is > true. But *what is being said* is not going to be analytic > in nature. Nondualism is inherently *mystical*. This is > necessarily the case because what nondualism (advaitan, > anyway) necessarily talks about what is beyond language, > what is beyond subject-object discriminations. Analysis > can't go there. Hello! WRONG. The poetry I've seen posted in here is filled with subject-object discriminations. And by the bye, mathematics also speaks to that which is beyond language, as does quantum physics as does philosophical investigations of many stripes, whether characterised by you as non-dual or dualistic. In fact, analysis is all we really have Bill. You can't possibly know what's in my heart, mind, soul anymore than I can know your's(even though in REALITY, we are all ONE, I bet we are not thinking or feeling as One on this planet, in this life or on this list. Obviously, or we wouldn't be having this little tete a tete. Even straightforward speech is for the most part misinterpreted by different listeners. There is Bill: your story...my story...their story..Which one is the Truth Bill? > Someone who isn't actually reading carefully will look at what > is written above and say it is an example of analysis (true) > and conclude that the writer of that is contradicting > himself (false). The last bit here is ipso facto False. > As Wittgenstein demonstrated so powerfully, philosophical > analysis can be employed in a strictly *deconstructive* manner. > That is to say, it can be used to uncover confusions, to shed > light on the discourse, without venturing to say what-is-the-case > in any non-ordinary sense. Early Wittgenstein Bill...read some of his later work wherein he refuted much of the 'Tractatus', including this early take on the limitations of thought. Language is another matter..and to Ludy, poetry was the poorest of excuses in terms of thought transfer. He was fond of saying 'whereof one cannot speak, one should be silent'. How's that for championing the poetic? Great for emotional release and expression, but he as well as G. Spencer Brown made the poetry of mathematics a field of it's own. Sorry Bill but YOU brought up Wittgenstein. > > > , imman-, quiesc-, etc.). Am I on the right track here? And that it > > > all really cannot be talked about as Paul said when saying that his > > > talk of Christ and Love and Brotherhood would be deemed childishness > > > and foolishness by the many. Is this also what you're saying without > > > saying? As one psycho-soma to another psycho-soma... understanding is > > > a ponderability of something that isn't, in that it is beyond > > > thinking and therefore can only be alluded to through metaphore or > > > zen-like snippits on post-its on listses. Just more gibberish here > > > and in my case it's done for the fun of it. > > > > > > It may appear like that...and it can be quite fun..... but in the > > truest sense........it is merely a predisposition within certain > > thought loops to ponder the origin of its identified entity. > > > > > > It labors under a most peculiar set of circumstances.....If it finds > > what it is looking for.....it disappears. > > > > > > If I ever try to say it in > > > better gibberish form,I'll let you know. Just so you know, I'm NOT > > > trying to now. I'm sure the many who have tried (and failed?) are > > > thankful for your admission that saying it better is at least a > > > possibility unto them, even though up to this point, those have all > > > been 'attempts' only. That's big of you to make that allowance. And > > > so now: Let It Be Written! > > > > > > A few fingers never quiver when pointing to the moon. > > > > > > > .........bob > > > P.S. Since you find it difficult to use the pronoun of the > > > personal....are you now " This creature " .. " very much like a human > > > being " ... " Within the thought stream " ?.....Shucks toomy, Who's thought > > > stream are you referring to here? And what kind of creature is very > > > much like a human being but not? And what flowingness do you fall > > > back into? Better yet...what's flowing? Ah Yes.....nothing! And even > > > that nothing NEVER WAS!(sounds of Cecil B DeMille's orchestra and > > > choir). > > > > > > ........bob > > > > > You seem to be suckering for the reification trap here, Bob. > Someone speaks of " stream " and you seem to infer that *for > them* the alluded to stream is somehow *actual*. Wrong. Bill quit trying to speak for people. You've been doing that a lot lately and it grates my friend. You don't know wht I'm thinking unless I tell you so quit assuming things OK? > And then you go on to reify the existence of a " someone " for > whom such actual whatever exists. I don't try to make the abstract real or make real anything, Bill. You do that! You're doing it here for God's sake. > So when you say " who's thought stream? " you have already > engaged in two steps of presumption. If you like to so engage > then go for it. But those steps of presumption are *entirely > yours*. They may have very little to do with the writing you > are imagining yourself as responding to. And this crap is *entirely yours*. You seem to be the one that likes to engage people if they see things differently Bill. Actually you have engaged yourself here in a 3 step presumtive process, if you need help in the analysis of this fact, ask for further elucidation and I'll break down all 3 steps for you. > So going back to your question, " Who's thought stream are you > referring to? " ... the question is akin to the famous, " When > did you stop beating your wife? " WHAT? This is totally non sequiter. > The answer may well be (most likely is in toombaru's case): > > There is no one to whom said thought stream is. Please let toombaru speak for himself. he's a big boy and is not in need of your defence or protection. Fact is Bill..he already gave a valid and good answer. Your little contribution here is not only redundant in answering me..it's WAY off the mark of what I received in my reading of HIS answer.His answer needs no vindication in my book. Again, I've just got to ask, where are you coming from? Are you just tring to make friends or is their something you have to say in earnest and not just wanting to sound your horn? Did you not read my response to toom? Let me refresh, I said, " very nice " . You are carrying on as if their were some disagreement between he and I on what he said and that aint true pal. Once again let me refer you to the literature of zen. Masters among themselves and with students, as well as monks, mendicants and students between themselves are wont to spar or test each others understanding with this/not this type of dialogue. 'Mondo' is the word that is used for this type of exchange, and I can readily see that it is a poor fit for yourself. But it's been a form of exchange and communication of spirit for centuries and centuries Bill, and I don't think everyone has been wrong. And I don't think you have a better handle on any of it friend. > And further: > > Even the thought stream is not actual, but is only an > expedient use of terms. Gee!Thanks for the tip. > When I give such answers to such questions all too often > (unfortunately) the other party comes back with some dissing > remark such as, " Yeah sure Bill, etc. " I won't say etc. here Bill. > Such are fixed minds that are unwilling to listen because > the answers they ask aren't really questions. Because so > often such questions are (apparently) poised not out of a > genuine wondering, out of a genuine wanting to know the > view of the other party. They are rather rhetorical > questions, intended to " trip up " the other party. And then, > that the other party has failed to satisfactorily reply is > the only possible interpretation. That die has been case > before the response to the question has even been written. > It is all a talkng to oneself while imagining the conversation > involves another party. >Bill And this is plain bullshit. If ANYONE has a fixed mind here, you can point him out to yourself by looking at the tip of your own finger as it points homeward.And if I'm not mistaken Bill, toombaru has said that it IS all talking to self. No? And one more thing, don't accuse me of setting people up, I don't do that and I don''t intend to start. If they set themselves up, as you do so often, don't blame them or me for coming back with a little common sense and truer rendering of what has been said. >Check out the LOL directly below Bill. That's toombaru enjoying the game with me. Why can't you? > > > > > > LOL > > > > > > > > Just a chord....from a dimly remembered song......the smell of green > > grass and willows ......deep water......and the silver flash of a > > rainbow trout. > > > > > > > > Perhaps Bill can help us through this one. > > > > > > > > I look around this room.......the light is streaming through my wife's > > hair as she stirs the cornbread....joy flows up Strawberry > > Canyon.........into this open heart. > > > > > > > > and I thank you for that. > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 10, 2006 Report Share Posted May 10, 2006 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <illusyn@> > wrote: > > > > On 5/9/06, toombaru2006 <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How is the Ultimate Understanding translated back into > > > > concepts?....I > > > > > don't know. > > > > > > > > > > There are some psycho-somas that are better designed to do > that then > > > > > others. > > > > > > > > > > The conceptual overlay is not a closed loop....it appears > that there > > > > > is a blind spot where it is attached to the ALL. > > > > > > > > > > Within the thought stream......something...very much like a > human > > > > > being is able to stand up......look around.......and then > recline > > > > back > > > > > into the flowingness. > > > > > > > > > > This creature, however, has no mouth...and cannot > speak......It > > > > > carries the wisdom of the ages....... that it cannot > share....... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It lives....filling the gap between immanence and > transcendence. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is the Pristine Quiescence......and the ripple of > > > > > I-am-ness...........Dancing in the dark. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Am I speaking gibberish? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes I am. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is the only language spoken. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can it be said any better? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Undoubtedly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Many have tried......... > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the straight forward toombaru. So basically you're > saying > > > > you are everyman/woman....as are we all........and it's all full > > > > of ...'nesses'(flowing-, light-, dark-, etc.), > and 'ences'(transcend- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am saying that the closer you get.....the harder it is to > > > conceptualize and transmit information or insights in these > > > matters.........and that which is intuited must take the form of > > > poetry or the use of images that attempt to reach a places where > the > > > roots touch. > > > > yes yes yes! > > > > Some object to expressions such as poetry as smooshy-blah-blah... > > They don't trust anything that is not hard-edged, it would seem. > > > > But here's a simple fact of life in the nondual lane: > > Poetry is all that we have, really. > > To think one can analytically get at something is an > > illusion. > > This just is not the case Bill.Let alone a simple fact-of-life of the > nondual lane, highway, path, walkway,road or any other simile you'd > care to use. If you think that ALL Advaita or NonDuality is Poetry, I > would suggest some readings in zen and in the Vedic literature and in > many many other reputable sources of same both from the past and > present. Sorry bud, but you aren't well versed enough in all areas of > this philosophy to start making blanket statements like this. Who are > you trying to kid? Yourself? And also Bill..poetry is not going to > get at anything any better than anaysis or literature or meditations > or works or any other human activity. It may give you good feelings, > but you know what Bill.not everyone goes by the same path as you. > > > To show what I mean, consider how a poem is not meaningfully > > considered correct or incorrect. If A writes a poem and B > > reads the poem, then B may or may not " get it " . If B does not > > get it then it is not clear whether it is because A's poem is > > hard to get, whether B just fails to grasp what the poem is > > saying, or perhaps whether the " angle on experience " that A > > expresses is very different from B's outlook, and so there is > > very little liklihood that A and B will be able to communicate. > > And THIS is NOT an analytical statement? Look here Bill, I love > poetry myself. But it's not ALL poetry and here you murder the very > thing you love so dearly by surgically trying to get at it's essence. > And also, everything you are saying about A and B and their 'getting > it' or not, can be applied to straight prose or for that matter, > mathematical formulae. > > > In this regard nondual conversation such as occurs here on this > > list is like poetry. It is *not* like mathematics where if one > > has the necessary background then one can " get " a particular > > exposition, or where it is clear if a particular exposition is > > " incorrect " . > > See above.....I STRONGLY disagree with your premise regarding > mathematics. There are areas within number theory and advanced > mathematics that do not just border on the mystical..They are mystic > as it gets. Mayhaps you cannot see the poetry in math but that's YOUR > loss Bill, not something that is a fundamental truth. Again, if you > care for some source material on this, ask me and I'll give you more > to read and ponder than you can do in years and years of diligent > study. > > > [All of which is why I consider it nonsense for members of this > > list to go poking fingers and decrying what they deem as > > " nonsense " in the postings of others. There is no " correct/ > > incorrect " when speaking of nondualism.] > > > Agreed 100%. If you areb saying though that disagreement is non > permissable, I'd suggest here that you review your own postings and > tell me how you can say this with a straight face. > > 5 > > Hello! This is not an analytic subject domain! Analysis can > > help to untangle what is being said in an exchange, that is > > true. But *what is being said* is not going to be analytic > > in nature. Nondualism is inherently *mystical*. This is > > necessarily the case because what nondualism (advaitan, > > anyway) necessarily talks about what is beyond language, > > what is beyond subject-object discriminations. Analysis > > can't go there. > > Hello! WRONG. The poetry I've seen posted in here is filled with > subject-object discriminations. And by the bye, mathematics also > speaks to that which is beyond language, as does quantum physics as > does philosophical investigations of many stripes, whether > characterised by you as non-dual or dualistic. In fact, analysis is > all we really have Bill. You can't possibly know what's in my heart, > mind, soul anymore than I can know your's(even though in REALITY, we > are all ONE, I bet we are not thinking or feeling as One on this > planet, in this life or on this list. Obviously, or we wouldn't be > having this little tete a tete. Even straightforward speech is for > the most part misinterpreted by different listeners. There is Bill: > your story...my story...their story..Which one is the Truth Bill? > > > Someone who isn't actually reading carefully will look at what > > is written above and say it is an example of analysis (true) > > and conclude that the writer of that is contradicting > > himself (false). > > The last bit here is ipso facto False. > > > As Wittgenstein demonstrated so powerfully, philosophical > > analysis can be employed in a strictly *deconstructive* manner. > > That is to say, it can be used to uncover confusions, to shed > > light on the discourse, without venturing to say what-is-the-case > > in any non-ordinary sense. > > Early Wittgenstein Bill...read some of his later work wherein he > refuted much of the 'Tractatus', including this early take on the > limitations of thought. Language is another matter..and to Ludy, > poetry was the poorest of excuses in terms of thought transfer. He > was fond of saying 'whereof one cannot speak, one should be silent'. > How's that for championing the poetic? Great for emotional release > and expression, but he as well as G. Spencer Brown made the poetry of > mathematics a field of it's own. Sorry Bill but YOU brought up > Wittgenstein. > > > > > > , imman-, quiesc-, etc.). Am I on the right track here? And > that it > > > > all really cannot be talked about as Paul said when saying that > his > > > > talk of Christ and Love and Brotherhood would be deemed > childishness > > > > and foolishness by the many. Is this also what you're saying > without > > > > saying? As one psycho-soma to another psycho-soma... > understanding is > > > > a ponderability of something that isn't, in that it is beyond > > > > thinking and therefore can only be alluded to through metaphore > or > > > > zen-like snippits on post-its on listses. Just more gibberish > here > > > > and in my case it's done for the fun of it. > > > > > > > > > It may appear like that...and it can be quite fun..... but in the > > > truest sense........it is merely a predisposition within certain > > > thought loops to ponder the origin of its identified entity. > > > > > > > > > It labors under a most peculiar set of circumstances.....If it > finds > > > what it is looking for.....it disappears. > > > > > > > > > If I ever try to say it in > > > > better gibberish form,I'll let you know. Just so you know, I'm > NOT > > > > trying to now. I'm sure the many who have tried (and failed?) > are > > > > thankful for your admission that saying it better is at least a > > > > possibility unto them, even though up to this point, those have > all > > > > been 'attempts' only. That's big of you to make that allowance. > And > > > > so now: Let It Be Written! > > > > > > > > > A few fingers never quiver when pointing to the moon. > > > > > > > > > > .........bob > > > > P.S. Since you find it difficult to use the pronoun of the > > > > personal....are you now " This creature " .. " very much like a human > > > > being " ... " Within the thought stream " ?.....Shucks toomy, Who's > thought > > > > stream are you referring to here? And what kind of creature is > very > > > > much like a human being but not? And what flowingness do you > fall > > > > back into? Better yet...what's flowing? Ah Yes.....nothing! And > even > > > > that nothing NEVER WAS!(sounds of Cecil B DeMille's orchestra > and > > > > choir). > > > > > > > > ........bob > > > > > > > > You seem to be suckering for the reification trap here, Bob. > > Someone speaks of " stream " and you seem to infer that *for > > them* the alluded to stream is somehow *actual*. > > Wrong. Bill quit trying to speak for people. You've been doing that a > lot lately and it grates my friend. You don't know wht I'm thinking > unless I tell you so quit assuming things OK? > > > And then you go on to reify the existence of a " someone " for > > whom such actual whatever exists. > > I don't try to make the abstract real or make real anything, Bill. > You do that! You're doing it here for God's sake. > > > > So when you say " who's thought stream? " you have already > > engaged in two steps of presumption. If you like to so engage > > then go for it. But those steps of presumption are *entirely > > yours*. They may have very little to do with the writing you > > are imagining yourself as responding to. > > And this crap is *entirely yours*. You seem to be the one that likes > to engage people if they see things differently Bill. Actually you > have engaged yourself here in a 3 step presumtive process, if you > need help in the analysis of this fact, ask for further elucidation > and I'll break down all 3 steps for you. > > > > So going back to your question, " Who's thought stream are you > > referring to? " ... the question is akin to the famous, " When > > did you stop beating your wife? " > > WHAT? This is totally non sequiter. > > > > The answer may well be (most likely is in toombaru's case): > > > > There is no one to whom said thought stream is. > > Please let toombaru speak for himself. he's a big boy and is not in > need of your defence or protection. Fact is Bill..he already gave a > valid and good answer. Your little contribution here is not only > redundant in answering me..it's WAY off the mark of what I received > in my reading of HIS answer.His answer needs no vindication in my > book. Again, I've just got to ask, where are you coming from? Are you > just tring to make friends or is their something you have to say in > earnest and not just wanting to sound your horn? Did you not read my > response to toom? Let me refresh, I said, " very nice " . You are > carrying on as if their were some disagreement between he and I on > what he said and that aint true pal. Once again let me refer you to > the literature of zen. Masters among themselves and with students, as > well as monks, mendicants and students between themselves are wont to > spar or test each others understanding with this/not this type of > dialogue. 'Mondo' is the word that is used for this type of exchange, > and I can readily see that it is a poor fit for yourself. But it's > been a form of exchange and communication of spirit for centuries and > centuries Bill, and I don't think everyone has been wrong. And I > don't think you have a better handle on any of it friend. > > And further: > > > > Even the thought stream is not actual, but is only an > > expedient use of terms. > > Gee!Thanks for the tip. > > > > When I give such answers to such questions all too often > > (unfortunately) the other party comes back with some dissing > > remark such as, " Yeah sure Bill, etc. " > > I won't say etc. here Bill. > > > Such are fixed minds that are unwilling to listen because > > the answers they ask aren't really questions. Because so > > often such questions are (apparently) poised not out of a > > genuine wondering, out of a genuine wanting to know the > > view of the other party. They are rather rhetorical > > questions, intended to " trip up " the other party. And then, > > that the other party has failed to satisfactorily reply is > > the only possible interpretation. That die has been case > > before the response to the question has even been written. > > It is all a talkng to oneself while imagining the conversation > > involves another party. > > >Bill > > And this is plain bullshit. If ANYONE has a fixed mind here, you can > point him out to yourself by looking at the tip of your own finger as > it points homeward.And if I'm not mistaken Bill, toombaru has said > that it IS all talking to self. No? And one more thing, don't accuse > me of setting people up, I don't do that and I don''t intend to > start. If they set themselves up, as you do so often, don't blame > them or me for coming back with a little common sense and truer > rendering of what has been said. > > > >Check out the LOL directly below Bill. That's toombaru enjoying the > game with me. Why can't you? > > > > > > > > > > LOL > > > > > > > > > > > > Just a chord....from a dimly remembered song......the smell of > green > > > grass and willows ......deep water......and the silver flash of a > > > rainbow trout. > > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps Bill can help us through this one. > > > > > > > > > > > > I look around this room.......the light is streaming through my > wife's > > > hair as she stirs the cornbread....joy flows up Strawberry > > > Canyon.........into this open heart. > > > > > > > > > > > > and I thank you for that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > Dogwood I should like to emblazon a trail to the flowering Dogwood, make way for the sea in me, I should like to bury this lonely night in a glass-cased coffin, find El Greco painting my Poem once hidden in my bones, I should like to point my finger at the moon cascading silver night gowns, touch the sky in unclenched hands and so I shall pound these offending fists to to the solid ground beneath my feet, the only way I know how to make peace with the earth, Let me be intangible like your breath, My Love, canyon-rimmed ocean-eyed. Love, Ana Hey toomie, how many trips do we get to make to strawberry canyon? I'm ready... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 10, 2006 Report Share Posted May 10, 2006 Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <anabebe57 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <illusyn@> > > wrote: > > > > > > On 5/9/06, toombaru2006 <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How is the Ultimate Understanding translated back into > > > > > concepts?....I > > > > > > don't know. > > > > > > > > > > > > There are some psycho-somas that are better designed to do > > that then > > > > > > others. > > > > > > > > > > > > The conceptual overlay is not a closed loop....it appears > > that there > > > > > > is a blind spot where it is attached to the ALL. > > > > > > > > > > > > Within the thought stream......something...very much like a > > human > > > > > > being is able to stand up......look around.......and then > > recline > > > > > back > > > > > > into the flowingness. > > > > > > > > > > > > This creature, however, has no mouth...and cannot > > speak......It > > > > > > carries the wisdom of the ages....... that it cannot > > share....... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It lives....filling the gap between immanence and > > transcendence. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is the Pristine Quiescence......and the ripple of > > > > > > I-am-ness...........Dancing in the dark. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Am I speaking gibberish? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes I am. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is the only language spoken. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can it be said any better? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Undoubtedly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Many have tried......... > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the straight forward toombaru. So basically you're > > saying > > > > > you are everyman/woman....as are we all........and it's all > full > > > > > of ...'nesses'(flowing-, light-, dark-, etc.), > > and 'ences'(transcend- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am saying that the closer you get.....the harder it is to > > > > conceptualize and transmit information or insights in these > > > > matters.........and that which is intuited must take the form of > > > > poetry or the use of images that attempt to reach a places > where > > the > > > > roots touch. > > > > > > yes yes yes! > > > > > > Some object to expressions such as poetry as smooshy-blah-blah... > > > They don't trust anything that is not hard-edged, it would seem. > > > > > > But here's a simple fact of life in the nondual lane: > > > Poetry is all that we have, really. > > > To think one can analytically get at something is an > > > illusion. > > > > This just is not the case Bill.Let alone a simple fact-of-life of > the > > nondual lane, highway, path, walkway,road or any other simile you'd > > care to use. If you think that ALL Advaita or NonDuality is Poetry, > I > > would suggest some readings in zen and in the Vedic literature and > in > > many many other reputable sources of same both from the past and > > present. Sorry bud, but you aren't well versed enough in all areas > of > > this philosophy to start making blanket statements like this. Who > are > > you trying to kid? Yourself? And also Bill..poetry is not going to > > get at anything any better than anaysis or literature or > meditations > > or works or any other human activity. It may give you good > feelings, > > but you know what Bill.not everyone goes by the same path as you. > > > > > To show what I mean, consider how a poem is not meaningfully > > > considered correct or incorrect. If A writes a poem and B > > > reads the poem, then B may or may not " get it " . If B does not > > > get it then it is not clear whether it is because A's poem is > > > hard to get, whether B just fails to grasp what the poem is > > > saying, or perhaps whether the " angle on experience " that A > > > expresses is very different from B's outlook, and so there is > > > very little liklihood that A and B will be able to communicate. > > > > And THIS is NOT an analytical statement? Look here Bill, I love > > poetry myself. But it's not ALL poetry and here you murder the very > > thing you love so dearly by surgically trying to get at it's > essence. > > And also, everything you are saying about A and B and > their 'getting > > it' or not, can be applied to straight prose or for that matter, > > mathematical formulae. > > > > > In this regard nondual conversation such as occurs here on this > > > list is like poetry. It is *not* like mathematics where if one > > > has the necessary background then one can " get " a particular > > > exposition, or where it is clear if a particular exposition is > > > " incorrect " . > > > > See above.....I STRONGLY disagree with your premise regarding > > mathematics. There are areas within number theory and advanced > > mathematics that do not just border on the mystical..They are > mystic > > as it gets. Mayhaps you cannot see the poetry in math but that's > YOUR > > loss Bill, not something that is a fundamental truth. Again, if you > > care for some source material on this, ask me and I'll give you > more > > to read and ponder than you can do in years and years of diligent > > study. > > > > > [All of which is why I consider it nonsense for members of this > > > list to go poking fingers and decrying what they deem as > > > " nonsense " in the postings of others. There is no " correct/ > > > incorrect " when speaking of nondualism.] > > > > > > Agreed 100%. If you areb saying though that disagreement is non > > permissable, I'd suggest here that you review your own postings and > > tell me how you can say this with a straight face. > > > > 5 > > > Hello! This is not an analytic subject domain! Analysis can > > > help to untangle what is being said in an exchange, that is > > > true. But *what is being said* is not going to be analytic > > > in nature. Nondualism is inherently *mystical*. This is > > > necessarily the case because what nondualism (advaitan, > > > anyway) necessarily talks about what is beyond language, > > > what is beyond subject-object discriminations. Analysis > > > can't go there. > > > > Hello! WRONG. The poetry I've seen posted in here is filled with > > subject-object discriminations. And by the bye, mathematics also > > speaks to that which is beyond language, as does quantum physics as > > does philosophical investigations of many stripes, whether > > characterised by you as non-dual or dualistic. In fact, analysis is > > all we really have Bill. You can't possibly know what's in my > heart, > > mind, soul anymore than I can know your's(even though in REALITY, > we > > are all ONE, I bet we are not thinking or feeling as One on this > > planet, in this life or on this list. Obviously, or we wouldn't be > > having this little tete a tete. Even straightforward speech is for > > the most part misinterpreted by different listeners. There is Bill: > > your story...my story...their story..Which one is the Truth Bill? > > > > > Someone who isn't actually reading carefully will look at what > > > is written above and say it is an example of analysis (true) > > > and conclude that the writer of that is contradicting > > > himself (false). > > > > The last bit here is ipso facto False. > > > > > As Wittgenstein demonstrated so powerfully, philosophical > > > analysis can be employed in a strictly *deconstructive* manner. > > > That is to say, it can be used to uncover confusions, to shed > > > light on the discourse, without venturing to say what-is-the-case > > > in any non-ordinary sense. > > > > Early Wittgenstein Bill...read some of his later work wherein he > > refuted much of the 'Tractatus', including this early take on the > > limitations of thought. Language is another matter..and to Ludy, > > poetry was the poorest of excuses in terms of thought transfer. He > > was fond of saying 'whereof one cannot speak, one should be > silent'. > > How's that for championing the poetic? Great for emotional release > > and expression, but he as well as G. Spencer Brown made the poetry > of > > mathematics a field of it's own. Sorry Bill but YOU brought up > > Wittgenstein. > > > > > > > > > , imman-, quiesc-, etc.). Am I on the right track here? And > > that it > > > > > all really cannot be talked about as Paul said when saying > that > > his > > > > > talk of Christ and Love and Brotherhood would be deemed > > childishness > > > > > and foolishness by the many. Is this also what you're saying > > without > > > > > saying? As one psycho-soma to another psycho-soma... > > understanding is > > > > > a ponderability of something that isn't, in that it is beyond > > > > > thinking and therefore can only be alluded to through > metaphore > > or > > > > > zen-like snippits on post-its on listses. Just more gibberish > > here > > > > > and in my case it's done for the fun of it. > > > > > > > > > > > > It may appear like that...and it can be quite fun..... but in > the > > > > truest sense........it is merely a predisposition within certain > > > > thought loops to ponder the origin of its identified entity. > > > > > > > > > > > > It labors under a most peculiar set of circumstances.....If it > > finds > > > > what it is looking for.....it disappears. > > > > > > > > > > > > If I ever try to say it in > > > > > better gibberish form,I'll let you know. Just so you know, > I'm > > NOT > > > > > trying to now. I'm sure the many who have tried (and failed?) > > are > > > > > thankful for your admission that saying it better is at least > a > > > > > possibility unto them, even though up to this point, those > have > > all > > > > > been 'attempts' only. That's big of you to make that > allowance. > > And > > > > > so now: Let It Be Written! > > > > > > > > > > > > A few fingers never quiver when pointing to the moon. > > > > > > > > > > > > > .........bob > > > > > P.S. Since you find it difficult to use the pronoun of the > > > > > personal....are you now " This creature " .. " very much like a > human > > > > > being " ... " Within the thought stream " ?.....Shucks toomy, Who's > > thought > > > > > stream are you referring to here? And what kind of creature > is > > very > > > > > much like a human being but not? And what flowingness do you > > fall > > > > > back into? Better yet...what's flowing? Ah Yes.....nothing! > And > > even > > > > > that nothing NEVER WAS!(sounds of Cecil B DeMille's orchestra > > and > > > > > choir). > > > > > > > > > > ........bob > > > > > > > > > > > You seem to be suckering for the reification trap here, Bob. > > > Someone speaks of " stream " and you seem to infer that *for > > > them* the alluded to stream is somehow *actual*. > > > > Wrong. Bill quit trying to speak for people. You've been doing that > a > > lot lately and it grates my friend. You don't know wht I'm thinking > > unless I tell you so quit assuming things OK? > > > > > And then you go on to reify the existence of a " someone " for > > > whom such actual whatever exists. > > > > I don't try to make the abstract real or make real anything, Bill. > > You do that! You're doing it here for God's sake. > > > > > > > So when you say " who's thought stream? " you have already > > > engaged in two steps of presumption. If you like to so engage > > > then go for it. But those steps of presumption are *entirely > > > yours*. They may have very little to do with the writing you > > > are imagining yourself as responding to. > > > > And this crap is *entirely yours*. You seem to be the one that > likes > > to engage people if they see things differently Bill. Actually you > > have engaged yourself here in a 3 step presumtive process, if you > > need help in the analysis of this fact, ask for further elucidation > > and I'll break down all 3 steps for you. > > > > > > > So going back to your question, " Who's thought stream are you > > > referring to? " ... the question is akin to the famous, " When > > > did you stop beating your wife? " > > > > WHAT? This is totally non sequiter. > > > > > > > The answer may well be (most likely is in toombaru's case): > > > > > > There is no one to whom said thought stream is. > > > > Please let toombaru speak for himself. he's a big boy and is not in > > need of your defence or protection. Fact is Bill..he already gave a > > valid and good answer. Your little contribution here is not only > > redundant in answering me..it's WAY off the mark of what I received > > in my reading of HIS answer.His answer needs no vindication in my > > book. Again, I've just got to ask, where are you coming from? Are > you > > just tring to make friends or is their something you have to say in > > earnest and not just wanting to sound your horn? Did you not read > my > > response to toom? Let me refresh, I said, " very nice " . You are > > carrying on as if their were some disagreement between he and I on > > what he said and that aint true pal. Once again let me refer you to > > the literature of zen. Masters among themselves and with students, > as > > well as monks, mendicants and students between themselves are wont > to > > spar or test each others understanding with this/not this type of > > dialogue. 'Mondo' is the word that is used for this type of > exchange, > > and I can readily see that it is a poor fit for yourself. But it's > > been a form of exchange and communication of spirit for centuries > and > > centuries Bill, and I don't think everyone has been wrong. And I > > don't think you have a better handle on any of it friend. > > > And further: > > > > > > Even the thought stream is not actual, but is only an > > > expedient use of terms. > > > > Gee!Thanks for the tip. > > > > > > > When I give such answers to such questions all too often > > > (unfortunately) the other party comes back with some dissing > > > remark such as, " Yeah sure Bill, etc. " > > > > I won't say etc. here Bill. > > > > > Such are fixed minds that are unwilling to listen because > > > the answers they ask aren't really questions. Because so > > > often such questions are (apparently) poised not out of a > > > genuine wondering, out of a genuine wanting to know the > > > view of the other party. They are rather rhetorical > > > questions, intended to " trip up " the other party. And then, > > > that the other party has failed to satisfactorily reply is > > > the only possible interpretation. That die has been case > > > before the response to the question has even been written. > > > It is all a talkng to oneself while imagining the conversation > > > involves another party. > > > > >Bill > > > > And this is plain bullshit. If ANYONE has a fixed mind here, you > can > > point him out to yourself by looking at the tip of your own finger > as > > it points homeward.And if I'm not mistaken Bill, toombaru has said > > that it IS all talking to self. No? And one more thing, don't > accuse > > me of setting people up, I don't do that and I don''t intend to > > start. If they set themselves up, as you do so often, don't blame > > them or me for coming back with a little common sense and truer > > rendering of what has been said. > > > > > > >Check out the LOL directly below Bill. That's toombaru enjoying > the > > game with me. Why can't you? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > LOL > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just a chord....from a dimly remembered song......the smell of > > green > > > > grass and willows ......deep water......and the silver flash of > a > > > > rainbow trout. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps Bill can help us through this one. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I look around this room.......the light is streaming through my > > wife's > > > > hair as she stirs the cornbread....joy flows up Strawberry > > > > Canyon.........into this open heart. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and I thank you for that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > Dogwood > > I should like to emblazon a trail > to the flowering Dogwood, > make way for the sea in me, > I should like to bury this lonely night > in a glass-cased coffin, > find El Greco painting my Poem > once hidden in my bones, > I should like to point my finger > at the moon cascading silver night gowns, > touch the sky > in unclenched hands > and so I shall pound these offending fists > to to the solid ground beneath my feet, > the only way I know how > to make peace with the earth, > > Let me be intangible like your breath, > My Love, > canyon-rimmed > ocean-eyed. > > Love, > Ana > > Hey toomie, > how many trips do we get to make to strawberry canyon? > > I'm ready... > The baby quail are no longer egg shaped. They have legs........but you can never see them. l@>()E Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 11, 2006 Report Share Posted May 11, 2006 On 5/10/06, roberibus111 <Roberibus111 wrote: > Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <illusyn > wrote: > > > > On 5/9/06, toombaru2006 <lastrain wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How is the Ultimate Understanding translated back into > > > > concepts?....I > > > > > don't know. > > > > > > > > > > There are some psycho-somas that are better designed to do > that then > > > > > others. > > > > > > > > > > The conceptual overlay is not a closed loop....it appears > that there > > > > > is a blind spot where it is attached to the ALL. > > > > > > > > > > Within the thought stream......something...very much like a > human > > > > > being is able to stand up......look around.......and then > recline > > > > back > > > > > into the flowingness. > > > > > > > > > > This creature, however, has no mouth...and cannot > speak......It > > > > > carries the wisdom of the ages....... that it cannot > share....... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It lives....filling the gap between immanence and > transcendence. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is the Pristine Quiescence......and the ripple of > > > > > I-am-ness...........Dancing in the dark. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Am I speaking gibberish? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes I am. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is the only language spoken. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can it be said any better? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Undoubtedly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Many have tried......... > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the straight forward toombaru. So basically you're > saying > > > > you are everyman/woman....as are we all........and it's all full > > > > of ...'nesses'(flowing-, light-, dark-, etc.), > and 'ences'(transcend- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am saying that the closer you get.....the harder it is to > > > conceptualize and transmit information or insights in these > > > matters.........and that which is intuited must take the form of > > > poetry or the use of images that attempt to reach a places where > the > > > roots touch. > > > > yes yes yes! > > > > Some object to expressions such as poetry as smooshy-blah-blah... > > They don't trust anything that is not hard-edged, it would seem. > > > > But here's a simple fact of life in the nondual lane: > > Poetry is all that we have, really. > > To think one can analytically get at something is an > > illusion. > > This just is not the case Bill.Let alone a simple fact-of-life of the > nondual lane, highway, path, walkway,road or any other simile you'd > care to use. If you think that ALL Advaita or NonDuality is Poetry, I > would suggest some readings in zen and in the Vedic literature and in > many many other reputable sources of same both from the past and > present. Sorry bud, but you aren't well versed enough in all areas of > this philosophy to start making blanket statements like this. Who are > you trying to kid? Yourself? And also Bill..poetry is not going to > get at anything any better than anaysis or literature or meditations > or works or any other human activity. It may give you good feelings, > but you know what Bill.not everyone goes by the same path as you. > > > To show what I mean, consider how a poem is not meaningfully > > considered correct or incorrect. If A writes a poem and B > > reads the poem, then B may or may not " get it " . If B does not > > get it then it is not clear whether it is because A's poem is > > hard to get, whether B just fails to grasp what the poem is > > saying, or perhaps whether the " angle on experience " that A > > expresses is very different from B's outlook, and so there is > > very little liklihood that A and B will be able to communicate. > > And THIS is NOT an analytical statement? Look here Bill, I love > poetry myself. But it's not ALL poetry and here you murder the very > thing you love so dearly by surgically trying to get at it's essence. > And also, everything you are saying about A and B and their 'getting > it' or not, can be applied to straight prose or for that matter, > mathematical formulae. > > > In this regard nondual conversation such as occurs here on this > > list is like poetry. It is *not* like mathematics where if one > > has the necessary background then one can " get " a particular > > exposition, or where it is clear if a particular exposition is > > " incorrect " . > > See above.....I STRONGLY disagree with your premise regarding > mathematics. There are areas within number theory and advanced > mathematics that do not just border on the mystical..They are mystic > as it gets. Mayhaps you cannot see the poetry in math but that's YOUR > loss Bill, not something that is a fundamental truth. Again, if you > care for some source material on this, ask me and I'll give you more > to read and ponder than you can do in years and years of diligent > study. > > > [All of which is why I consider it nonsense for members of this > > list to go poking fingers and decrying what they deem as > > " nonsense " in the postings of others. There is no " correct/ > > incorrect " when speaking of nondualism.] > > > Agreed 100%. If you areb saying though that disagreement is non > permissable, I'd suggest here that you review your own postings and > tell me how you can say this with a straight face. > > 5 > > Hello! This is not an analytic subject domain! Analysis can > > help to untangle what is being said in an exchange, that is > > true. But *what is being said* is not going to be analytic > > in nature. Nondualism is inherently *mystical*. This is > > necessarily the case because what nondualism (advaitan, > > anyway) necessarily talks about what is beyond language, > > what is beyond subject-object discriminations. Analysis > > can't go there. > > Hello! WRONG. The poetry I've seen posted in here is filled with > subject-object discriminations. And by the bye, mathematics also > speaks to that which is beyond language, as does quantum physics as > does philosophical investigations of many stripes, whether > characterised by you as non-dual or dualistic. In fact, analysis is > all we really have Bill. You can't possibly know what's in my heart, > mind, soul anymore than I can know your's(even though in REALITY, we > are all ONE, I bet we are not thinking or feeling as One on this > planet, in this life or on this list. Obviously, or we wouldn't be > having this little tete a tete. Even straightforward speech is for > the most part misinterpreted by different listeners. There is Bill: > your story...my story...their story..Which one is the Truth Bill? > > > Someone who isn't actually reading carefully will look at what > > is written above and say it is an example of analysis (true) > > and conclude that the writer of that is contradicting > > himself (false). > > The last bit here is ipso facto False. > > > As Wittgenstein demonstrated so powerfully, philosophical > > analysis can be employed in a strictly *deconstructive* manner. > > That is to say, it can be used to uncover confusions, to shed > > light on the discourse, without venturing to say what-is-the-case > > in any non-ordinary sense. > > Early Wittgenstein Bill...read some of his later work wherein he > refuted much of the 'Tractatus', I am referring strictly to the later Wittgenstein. > including this early take on the > limitations of thought. Language is another matter..and to Ludy, > poetry was the poorest of excuses in terms of thought transfer. He > was fond of saying 'whereof one cannot speak, one should be silent'. Oh, I know he said that. That is from the Tractatus, BTW. The last line of the book. And what I do is endeavor to speak what cannot be spoken. I guess I like a challenge. > How's that for championing the poetic? Great for emotional release > and expression, but he as well as G. Spencer Brown made the poetry of > mathematics a field of it's own. Sorry Bill but YOU brought up > Wittgenstein. It is your own lack of understanding of Wittgenstein showing here Bob. > > > > > , imman-, quiesc-, etc.). Am I on the right track here? And > that it > > > > all really cannot be talked about as Paul said when saying that > his > > > > talk of Christ and Love and Brotherhood would be deemed > childishness > > > > and foolishness by the many. Is this also what you're saying > without > > > > saying? As one psycho-soma to another psycho-soma... > understanding is > > > > a ponderability of something that isn't, in that it is beyond > > > > thinking and therefore can only be alluded to through metaphore > or > > > > zen-like snippits on post-its on listses. Just more gibberish > here > > > > and in my case it's done for the fun of it. > > > > > > > > > It may appear like that...and it can be quite fun..... but in the > > > truest sense........it is merely a predisposition within certain > > > thought loops to ponder the origin of its identified entity. > > > > > > > > > It labors under a most peculiar set of circumstances.....If it > finds > > > what it is looking for.....it disappears. > > > > > > > > > If I ever try to say it in > > > > better gibberish form,I'll let you know. Just so you know, I'm > NOT > > > > trying to now. I'm sure the many who have tried (and failed?) > are > > > > thankful for your admission that saying it better is at least a > > > > possibility unto them, even though up to this point, those have > all > > > > been 'attempts' only. That's big of you to make that allowance. > And > > > > so now: Let It Be Written! > > > > > > > > > A few fingers never quiver when pointing to the moon. > > > > > > > > > > .........bob > > > > P.S. Since you find it difficult to use the pronoun of the > > > > personal....are you now " This creature " .. " very much like a human > > > > being " ... " Within the thought stream " ?.....Shucks toomy, Who's > thought > > > > stream are you referring to here? And what kind of creature is > very > > > > much like a human being but not? And what flowingness do you > fall > > > > back into? Better yet...what's flowing? Ah Yes.....nothing! And > even > > > > that nothing NEVER WAS!(sounds of Cecil B DeMille's orchestra > and > > > > choir). > > > > > > > > ........bob > > > > > > > > You seem to be suckering for the reification trap here, Bob. > > Someone speaks of " stream " and you seem to infer that *for > > them* the alluded to stream is somehow *actual*. > > Wrong. Bill quit trying to speak for people. You've been doing that a > lot lately and it grates my friend. You don't know wht I'm thinking > unless I tell you so quit assuming things OK? > > > And then you go on to reify the existence of a " someone " for > > whom such actual whatever exists. > > I don't try to make the abstract real or make real anything, Bill. > You do that! You're doing it here for God's sake. > > > > So when you say " who's thought stream? " you have already > > engaged in two steps of presumption. If you like to so engage > > then go for it. But those steps of presumption are *entirely > > yours*. They may have very little to do with the writing you > > are imagining yourself as responding to. > > And this crap is *entirely yours*. You seem to be the one that likes > to engage people if they see things differently Bill. Actually you > have engaged yourself here in a 3 step presumtive process, if you > need help in the analysis of this fact, ask for further elucidation > and I'll break down all 3 steps for you. > > > > So going back to your question, " Who's thought stream are you > > referring to? " ... the question is akin to the famous, " When > > did you stop beating your wife? " > > WHAT? This is totally non sequiter. > > > > The answer may well be (most likely is in toombaru's case): > > > > There is no one to whom said thought stream is. > > Please let toombaru speak for himself. I simply accepted his invitation when he wrote: > > > Perhaps Bill can help us through this one. Obviously he was wrong! > he's a big boy and is not in > need of your defence or protection. Fact is Bill..he already gave a > valid and good answer. Your little contribution here is not only > redundant in answering me..it's WAY off the mark of what I received > in my reading of HIS answer.His answer needs no vindication in my > book. Again, I've just got to ask, where are you coming from? Are you > just tring to make friends or is their something you have to say in > earnest and not just wanting to sound your horn? Did you not read my > response to toom? Let me refresh, I said, " very nice " . You are > carrying on as if their were some disagreement between he and I on > what he said and that aint true pal. Once again let me refer you to > the literature of zen. Masters among themselves and with students, as > well as monks, mendicants and students between themselves are wont to > spar or test each others understanding with this/not this type of > dialogue. 'Mondo' is the word that is used for this type of exchange, > and I can readily see that it is a poor fit for yourself. But it's > been a form of exchange and communication of spirit for centuries and > centuries Bill, and I don't think everyone has been wrong. And I > don't think you have a better handle on any of it friend. > > And further: > > > > Even the thought stream is not actual, but is only an > > expedient use of terms. > > Gee!Thanks for the tip. > > > > When I give such answers to such questions all too often > > (unfortunately) the other party comes back with some dissing > > remark such as, " Yeah sure Bill, etc. " > > I won't say etc. here Bill. > > > Such are fixed minds that are unwilling to listen because > > the answers they ask aren't really questions. Because so > > often such questions are (apparently) poised not out of a > > genuine wondering, out of a genuine wanting to know the > > view of the other party. They are rather rhetorical > > questions, intended to " trip up " the other party. And then, > > that the other party has failed to satisfactorily reply is > > the only possible interpretation. That die has been case > > before the response to the question has even been written. > > It is all a talkng to oneself while imagining the conversation > > involves another party. > > >Bill > > And this is plain bullshit. If ANYONE has a fixed mind here, you can > point him out to yourself by looking at the tip of your own finger as > it points homeward.And if I'm not mistaken Bill, toombaru has said > that it IS all talking to self. No? And one more thing, don't accuse > me of setting people up, I don't do that and I don''t intend to > start. If they set themselves up, as you do so often, don't blame > them or me for coming back with a little common sense and truer > rendering of what has been said. Regarding your message as a whole, full of vituperation and signifying nothing, to paraphrase Shakespeare. But don't worry Bob. I'll be cutting you a wide berth. Bill > > >Check out the LOL directly below Bill. That's toombaru enjoying the > game with me. Why can't you? > > > > > > > > > > LOL > > > > > > > > > > > > Just a chord....from a dimly remembered song......the smell of > green > > > grass and willows ......deep water......and the silver flash of a > > > rainbow trout. > > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps Bill can help us through this one. > > > > > > > > > > > > I look around this room.......the light is streaming through my > wife's > > > hair as she stirs the cornbread....joy flows up Strawberry > > > Canyon.........into this open heart. > > > > > > > > > > > > and I thank you for that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > 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.