Guest guest Posted May 14, 2006 Report Share Posted May 14, 2006 Bob - There's no supposition. Dying to self and all returns one right back here, as is. Kerplot! You could be posting on a list, picking your nose, walking your dog, gossiping with your friend, visiting your mom in the hospital -- It's all as it is. That there is no one to connect with, and no things to connect with each other -- that doesn't mean that human life doesn't go on just as it is. Whatever emotions you feel are felt, whatever you do, you do. It's clear that totality is the only " mover " or " doer " and that which is being done and the doer aren't split, the mover, moving, and moved not separated. Anywhere, at any time, for any one. It's all inclusive - and it has nothing to do with dichotomous concept like being enlightened or not being enlightened. There isn't anything separable which can locate a quality in itself, like an enlightened quality. -- D. (nothing new below) Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Suppose you realized enlightenment. I would say complete enlightenment > but that's silly. Of course it would be COMPLETE enlightenment. Like > pregnancy, you can't just have a LITTLE bit of it. It's here or it's > not. Period. Anyway, suppose this was so. You are THERE. Who could you > tell about it? Members on a non-duality list. Ha ha ha ! C'mon. > Suppose you won the PowerBall!...$500,000,000.!!!!! and that NOW of all > times, God/the Universe/ The All/ Self...whatever....played a real neat > trick on you and sucked everybody else out of 'your' world and left you > alone with absolutely no one to tell the great news to. How happy would > you be with your newly aquired half a billion bucks? No one to show how > super wealthy and cool you now were, now that " all your troubles' were > gone? Ha ha ha! Well even if that dirty trick wasn't in the offing, > after you told everyone then left them behind or not, my bet is, within > a short period of time, the thrill would be gone(Thank you Riley [better > known as B.B.]King). Without 'others', at least while stuck here in > duality, what the hell would anything mean? No matter what you gained > or what you lost or how happy you were or how heartbroken you > felt...and there was NO ONE HERE to tell...would you laugh, cry..what? > Whereas it may be that there are no souls and never have been etc., > unless and until, you have no need of communicating, if that was your > experience for real, and not just something to write and try to impress > others with your 'achievement', LONELINESS prevails. Not that that > would be new. Loneliness IS. IT is the driving force. We desire to > connect. After all the actualizing, realizing, gaining of degrees and > financial success, and achievement and and 'findings of truth and > meaning'.........We are still lonely. Why? I don't know. But if it were > not so, and if any one of us here were to really NOT be lonely.....why > are we here posting back and forth? No choice? Observing only? Thoughts > come and go but you 'THE GROUND' remain unmoved and ALL THAT CRAP. As I > said earlier: C'mon with you! Shallow or deep or wise or stupid, THIS > IS FACT.I may be THAT, but THIS is LONELY, and I do not fully feel that > I am THAT, if I am writing this.....no matter what I say or how I try > to come off, until the time of no more 'me' and no more writing to > lists to kill time or communicate or explain, or whatever......I am > feeling alone...unenlightened.....needing....letting the Lord be my > Shepherd by a thousand different names and myths and metaphors. Excuse > the lengthy post, but I was in need of communicating it and connecting > with whoever receives the communication. And if any soul says that this > is not the case for themselves as well......well delusion is another > important aspect of this world we live in and that's OK too. > Just some 'Sunday Morning Comin Down' thoughts and things. > > .........bob > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 14, 2006 Report Share Posted May 14, 2006 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Bob - > > There's no supposition. > > Dying to self and all returns one right back here, as is. > > Kerplot! > > You could be posting on a list, picking your nose, walking your dog, > gossiping with your friend, visiting your mom in the hospital -- > > It's all as it is. > > That there is no one to connect with, and no things to connect with > each other -- that doesn't mean that human life doesn't go on just as > it is. > > Whatever emotions you feel are felt, whatever you do, you do. > > It's clear that totality is the only > " mover " or " doer " and that which is being done and the doer aren't > split, the mover, moving, and moved not separated. Anywhere, at any > time, for any one. > > It's all inclusive - and it has nothing to do with dichotomous > concept like being enlightened or not being enlightened. > > There isn't anything separable which can locate a quality in itself, > like an enlightened quality. > > -- D. > > (nothing new below) > (nothing new in the above) Thanks Dan. I think I have a handle on what the Buddha searching for the Buddha is about. Huang-Po et al. But if you nor I weren't looking for connection of some sort.....we wouldn't be here. Whether real or unreal, substanced or nonsubstanced, enlightened or not. And your right....all the dichotomies are just and only concepts as is my writing and your reply in turn. It all goes on within you and without you as Mr. G. Harrison sang. And anything I write or you write in return or on your own, is just as false as it is true. And that's not just a paradox for me anymore. That's ground zero. It is as it is, and what it is, and neither you nor I can explain it in it's bare nakedness sans concept, anymore than we can take these bones and physically fly to the moon I'm pointing towards. And I'm fortunate I guess to be able to say that I for one, don't understand what it is I'm talking about and am therefore not proud nor defensive of it. It is, as you say, as it is. Whatever is said is just said and has zero relation to the truth or root of the matter, no matter what either of us think. And to be as clear as possible, the 'Lonely' I was referring to, has nothing to do with the maudlin meanings of that word that are written by and for posies. It's of a different caliber. And if it's not felt by a being...that being is not of the human tribe. .....bob > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Suppose you realized enlightenment. I would say complete > enlightenment <SNIP> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 15, 2006 Report Share Posted May 15, 2006 Bob - I get what you're saying -- I'd put it a bit differently: It seems to me that it needn't be that we're looking for a connection -- more that we're expressing what already is the case: a " connection " so seamless that there aren't separated beings requiring connection or being connected. Words and thinking don't necessarily give the " gestalt " of what's going on here - " reading between the lines " does. We are free to exchage words, even while recogizing the seamless totality involved with all our expressions. my 2c -- -- Dan (nnb) > Thanks Dan. I think I have a handle on what the Buddha searching for > the Buddha is about. Huang-Po et al. But if you nor I weren't looking > for connection of some sort.....we wouldn't be here. Whether real or > unreal, substanced or nonsubstanced, enlightened or not. And your > right....all the dichotomies are just and only concepts as is my > writing and your reply in turn. It all goes on within you and without > you as Mr. G. Harrison sang. And anything I write or you write in > return or on your own, is just as false as it is true. And that's not > just a paradox for me anymore. That's ground zero. It is as it is, > and what it is, and neither you nor I can explain it in it's bare > nakedness sans concept, anymore than we can take these bones and > physically fly to the moon I'm pointing towards. And I'm fortunate I > guess to be able to say that I for one, don't understand what it is > I'm talking about and am therefore not proud nor defensive of it. It > is, as you say, as it is. Whatever is said is just said and has zero > relation to the truth or root of the matter, no matter what either of > us think. And to be as clear as possible, the 'Lonely' I was > referring to, has nothing to do with the maudlin meanings of that > word that are written by and for posies. It's of a different caliber. > And if it's not felt by a being...that being is not of the human > tribe. > > .....bob > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > Suppose you realized enlightenment. I would say complete > > enlightenment > <SNIP> > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 15, 2006 Report Share Posted May 15, 2006 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Bob - > > I get what you're saying -- I'd put it a bit differently: > > It seems to me that it needn't be that we're looking for a > connection -- more that we're expressing what already is the case: > > a " connection " so seamless that there aren't separated beings > requiring connection or being connected. > > Words and thinking don't necessarily give the " gestalt " of what's > going on here - " reading between the lines " does. We are free to > exchage words, even while recogizing the seamless totality involved > with all our expressions. > > my 2c -- > > -- Dan > > (nnb) Hi again Dan. Good enough. I think we are using different words and possibly nuances of meaning, but that at the nitty-gritty, we are in complete accord. As you have said here, it's between the lines that we meet(and where we are already in wholeness). Good stuff my friend. ..........bob > > Thanks Dan. I think I have a handle on what the Buddha searching > for > > the Buddha is about. Huang-Po et al. But if you nor I weren't > looking > > for connection of some sort.....we wouldn't be here. Whether real > or > > unreal, substanced or nonsubstanced, enlightened or not. And your > > right....all the dichotomies are just and only concepts as is my > > writing and your reply in turn. It all goes on within you and > without > > you as Mr. G. Harrison sang. And anything I write or you write in > > return or on your own, is just as false as it is true. And that's > not > > just a paradox for me anymore. That's ground zero. It is as it is, > > and what it is, and neither you nor I can explain it in it's bare > > nakedness sans concept, anymore than we can take these bones and > > physically fly to the moon I'm pointing towards. And I'm fortunate > I > > guess to be able to say that I for one, don't understand what it is > > I'm talking about and am therefore not proud nor defensive of it. > It > > is, as you say, as it is. Whatever is said is just said and has > zero > > relation to the truth or root of the matter, no matter what either > of > > us think. And to be as clear as possible, the 'Lonely' I was > > referring to, has nothing to do with the maudlin meanings of that > > word that are written by and for posies. It's of a different > caliber. > > And if it's not felt by a being...that being is not of the human > > tribe. > > > > .....bob > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > > > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Suppose you realized enlightenment. I would say complete > > > enlightenment > > <SNIP> > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 15, 2006 Report Share Posted May 15, 2006 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Bob - > > I get what you're saying -- I'd put it a bit differently: > > It seems to me that it needn't be that we're looking for a > connection -- more that we're expressing what already is the case: c.f. Gregory Bateson's " a pattern that connects " ... discovery vs. invention implicit vs. explicit open vs. driven > a " connection " so seamless that there aren't separated beings > requiring connection or being connected. > > Words and thinking don't necessarily give the " gestalt " of what's > going on here - " reading between the lines " does. We are free to > exchage words, even while recogizing the seamless totality involved > with all our expressions. > > my 2c -- > > -- Dan > > (nnb) > > > Thanks Dan. I think I have a handle on what the Buddha searching > for > > the Buddha is about. Huang-Po et al. But if you nor I weren't > looking > > for connection of some sort.....we wouldn't be here. Whether real > or > > unreal, substanced or nonsubstanced, enlightened or not. And your > > right....all the dichotomies are just and only concepts as is my > > writing and your reply in turn. It all goes on within you and > without > > you as Mr. G. Harrison sang. And anything I write or you write in > > return or on your own, is just as false as it is true. And that's > not > > just a paradox for me anymore. That's ground zero. It is as it is, > > and what it is, and neither you nor I can explain it in it's bare > > nakedness sans concept, anymore than we can take these bones and > > physically fly to the moon I'm pointing towards. And I'm fortunate > I > > guess to be able to say that I for one, don't understand what it is > > I'm talking about and am therefore not proud nor defensive of it. > It > > is, as you say, as it is. Whatever is said is just said and has > zero > > relation to the truth or root of the matter, no matter what either > of > > us think. And to be as clear as possible, the 'Lonely' I was > > referring to, has nothing to do with the maudlin meanings of that > > word that are written by and for posies. It's of a different > caliber. > > And if it's not felt by a being...that being is not of the human > > tribe. > > > > .....bob > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > > > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Suppose you realized enlightenment. I would say complete > > > enlightenment > > <SNIP> > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 15, 2006 Report Share Posted May 15, 2006 Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> > wrote: > > > > Bob - > > > > I get what you're saying -- I'd put it a bit differently: > > > > It seems to me that it needn't be that we're looking for a > > connection -- more that we're expressing what already is the case: > > c.f. Gregory Bateson's " a pattern that connects " ... > > discovery vs. invention > > implicit vs. explicit > > open vs. driven --------------- What seems vs what Is. Neat. I've got your point, and as with Dan's statement below I think we are all attempting to make statements which are in fact equivalences in the heart of the matter. And I do like Gregory..a lot. ......bob > > a " connection " so seamless that there aren't separated beings > > requiring connection or being connected. > > > > Words and thinking don't necessarily give the " gestalt " of what's > > going on here - " reading between the lines " does. We are free to > > exchage words, even while recogizing the seamless totality involved > > with all our expressions. > > > > my 2c -- > > > > -- Dan > > > > (nnb) > > > > > Thanks Dan. I think I have a handle on what the Buddha searching > > for > > > the Buddha is about. Huang-Po et al. But if you nor I weren't > > looking > > > for connection of some sort.....we wouldn't be here. Whether real > > or > > > unreal, substanced or nonsubstanced, enlightened or not. And your > > > right....all the dichotomies are just and only concepts as is my > > > writing and your reply in turn. It all goes on within you and > > without > > > you as Mr. G. Harrison sang. And anything I write or you write in > > > return or on your own, is just as false as it is true. And that's > > not > > > just a paradox for me anymore. That's ground zero. It is as it > is, > > > and what it is, and neither you nor I can explain it in it's bare > > > nakedness sans concept, anymore than we can take these bones and > > > physically fly to the moon I'm pointing towards. And I'm > fortunate > > I > > > guess to be able to say that I for one, don't understand what it > is > > > I'm talking about and am therefore not proud nor defensive of it. > > It > > > is, as you say, as it is. Whatever is said is just said and has > > zero > > > relation to the truth or root of the matter, no matter what > either > > of > > > us think. And to be as clear as possible, the 'Lonely' I was > > > referring to, has nothing to do with the maudlin meanings of that > > > word that are written by and for posies. It's of a different > > caliber. > > > And if it's not felt by a being...that being is not of the human > > > tribe. > > > > > > .....bob > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " > > > > <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Suppose you realized enlightenment. I would say complete > > > > enlightenment > > > <SNIP> > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 15, 2006 Report Share Posted May 15, 2006 << a " connection " so seamless that there aren't separated beings requiring connection or being connected. Words and thinking don't necessarily give the " gestalt " of what's going on here - " reading between the lines " does. We are free to exchage words, even while recogizing the seamless totality involved with all our expressions. >> you know... I *really like* that... Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 15, 2006 Report Share Posted May 15, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <illusyn wrote: > > << > a " connection " so seamless that there aren't separated > beings requiring connection or being connected. > > Words and thinking don't necessarily give the " gestalt " > of what's going on here - " reading between the lines " > does. We are free to exchage words, even while > recogizing the seamless totality involved with all our > expressions. > >> > > you know... I *really like* that... > > Bill Hi Bill.....I 'connected' with that too. bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.