Guest guest Posted June 11, 2006 Report Share Posted June 11, 2006 Thesis: It's impossible to be a nondualist Since it involves a relationship to duality Defined as an absence of relationship The instant there's relationship There's duality To have an ego Is to have an agenda An agenda is a relationship Antithesis: There is no exclusive relationship Between one and another, between presence And absence Relationship can be eternal Beyond the instant Ego has no agenda Agenda has ego Both agenda and relationshp Are illusions Synthesis: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 11, 2006 Report Share Posted June 11, 2006 L.E: So its impossible to be a non-dualist because it involves a relationship to dualism and if there is a relationship, there must be dualism. The problem this unnamed person is having is a matter of difinitions, and definitions are words, verbal, which are themselves limitated to describe the oneness of life, the non-dual state of here and now reality. Most living things have a relationship as attacker or prey. Is this the proof they exist as separate unique forever divided individual? No. They exist is a unity of existence and are intrinsically related to each other. No duality exists in their relationship. You can talk about illusions when a pack of wolves sees you as flesh to eat and is chasing you through the snow. And cry out as the fangs tear into your thigh, " here is the synthesis. " Larry Epston In a message dated 6/10/2006 9:31:09 PM Pacific Daylight Time, skywords writes: > Thesis: > > It's impossible to be a nondualist > Since it involves a relationship to duality > Defined as an absence of relationship > > The instant there's relationship > There's duality > > To have an ego > Is to have an agenda > An agenda is a relationship > > Antithesis: > > There is no exclusive relationship > Between one and another, between presence > And absence > > Relationship can be eternal > Beyond the instant > > Ego has no agenda > Agenda has ego > Both agenda and relationshp > Are illusions > > Synthesis: > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 11, 2006 Report Share Posted June 11, 2006 Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords wrote: > > Thesis: > > It's impossible to be a nondualist > Since it involves a relationship to duality > Defined as an absence of relationship > > The instant there's relationship > There's duality > > To have an ego > Is to have an agenda OK > An agenda is a relationship ?? I can see that an agenda implies relationship(s), but don't see it as the same thing. > Antithesis: > > There is no exclusive relationship what do you mean by " exclusive relationship " ? > Between one and another, between presence > And absence > > Relationship can be eternal Don't understand this. Isn't relationship inherently relative? > Beyond the instant > > Ego has no agenda > Agenda has ego > Both agenda and relationshp > Are illusions > > Synthesis: > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 11, 2006 Report Share Posted June 11, 2006 Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords wrote: > > Thesis: > > It's impossible to be a nondualist > Since it involves a relationship to duality > Defined as an absence of relationship > > The instant there's relationship > There's duality > > To have an ego > Is to have an agenda > An agenda is a relationship > > Antithesis: > > There is no exclusive relationship > Between one and another, between presence > And absence > > Relationship can be eternal > Beyond the instant > > Ego has no agenda > Agenda has ego > Both agenda and relationshp > Are illusions > > Synthesis: > ;-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 11, 2006 Report Share Posted June 11, 2006 Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote: > > > > Thesis: > > > > It's impossible to be a nondualist > > Since it involves a relationship to duality > > Defined as an absence of relationship > > > > The instant there's relationship > > There's duality > > > > To have an ego > > Is to have an agenda > OK > > An agenda is a relationship > ?? > I can see that an agenda implies > relationship(s), but don't see it > as the same thing. > > > > Antithesis: > > > > There is no exclusive relationship > what do you mean by " exclusive relationship " ? > > > Between one and another, between presence > > And absence > > > > Relationship can be eternal > Don't understand this. > Isn't relationship inherently relative? > > > Beyond the instant > > > > Ego has no agenda > > Agenda has ego > > Both agenda and relationshp > > Are illusions > > > > Synthesis: > > ?? I can see that an agenda implies relationship(s), but don't see it as the same thing. ~ It is overidentified as the same thing as a thesis what do you mean by " exclusive relationship " ? ~ Rather than being a focusing on the whole and it's perpetual relationship to itself as a whole, it is a focusing primarily on a relationship between objects separate from the whole. Don't understand this. > Isn't relationship inherently relative? ~ Yes, but the " antithesis " is now focusing on the totality, rather than on its parts. ~*~ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 11, 2006 Report Share Posted June 11, 2006 In a message dated 6/11/2006 11:26:55 AM Pacific Daylight Time, skywords writes: > > Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > > > >L.E: So its impossible to be a non-dualist because it involves a > relationship > >to dualism and if there is a relationship, there must be dualism. > >The problem this unnamed person is having is a matter of > difinitions, and > >definitions are words, verbal, which are themselves limitated to > describe the > >oneness of life, the non-dual state of here and now reality. Most > living things > >have a relationship as attacker or prey. Is this the proof they > exist as > >separate unique forever divided individual? No. They exist is a > unity of > >existence and are intrinsically related to each other. No duality > exists in their > >relationship. > >You can talk about illusions when a pack of wolves sees you as flesh > to eat > >and is chasing you through the snow. > >And cry out as the fangs tear into your thigh, " here is the synthesis. " > > > >Larry Epston > > > >In a message dated 6/10/2006 9:31:09 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > >skywords writes: > > > >>Thesis: > >> > >>It's impossible to be a nondualist > >>Since it involves a relationship to duality > >>Defined as an absence of relationship > >> > >>The instant there's relationship > >>There's duality > >> > >>To have an ego > >>Is to have an agenda > >>An agenda is a relationship > >> > >>Antithesis: > >> > >>There is no exclusive relationship > >>Between one and another, between presence > >>And absence > >> > >>Relationship can be eternal > >>Beyond the instant > >> > >>Ego has no agenda > >>Agenda has ego > >>Both agenda and relationshp > >>Are illusions > >> > >>Synthesis: > >> > >> > >> > >One perspective doesn't exclude the other. > > ~*~ L.E: If you think about what a perspective is, by definition, it must exclude the other. No perspective or point of view or opinion will include all. As long as you choose to be in the condition of freedom and no longer an individual. This can last until the human get hungry, then, it back to feeding time. > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 11, 2006 Report Share Posted June 11, 2006 In a message dated 6/11/2006 12:19:17 PM Pacific Daylight Time, skywords writes: > > Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > > > >In a message dated 6/11/2006 11:26:55 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > >skywords writes: > > > >> > >>Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > >>> > >>>L.E: So its impossible to be a non-dualist because it involves a > >>relationship > >>>to dualism and if there is a relationship, there must be dualism. > >>>The problem this unnamed person is having is a matter of > >>difinitions, and > >>>definitions are words, verbal, which are themselves limitated to > >>describe the > >>>oneness of life, the non-dual state of here and now reality. Most > >>living things > >>>have a relationship as attacker or prey. Is this the proof they > >>exist as > >>>separate unique forever divided individual? No. They exist is a > >>unity of > >>>existence and are intrinsically related to each other. No duality > >>exists in their > >>>relationship. > >>>You can talk about illusions when a pack of wolves sees you as flesh > >>to eat > >>>and is chasing you through the snow. > >>>And cry out as the fangs tear into your thigh, " here is the > synthesis. " > >>> > >>>Larry Epston > >>> > >>>In a message dated 6/10/2006 9:31:09 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > >>>skywords@ writes: > >>> > >>>>Thesis: > >>>> > >>>>It's impossible to be a nondualist > >>>>Since it involves a relationship to duality > >>>>Defined as an absence of relationship > >>>> > >>>>The instant there's relationship > >>>>There's duality > >>>> > >>>>To have an ego > >>>>Is to have an agenda > >>>>An agenda is a relationship > >>>> > >>>>Antithesis: > >>>> > >>>>There is no exclusive relationship > >>>>Between one and another, between presence > >>>>And absence > >>>> > >>>>Relationship can be eternal > >>>>Beyond the instant > >>>> > >>>>Ego has no agenda > >>>>Agenda has ego > >>>>Both agenda and relationshp > >>>>Are illusions > >>>> > >>>>Synthesis: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>One perspective doesn't exclude the other. > >> > >>~*~ > > > >L.E: If you think about what a perspective is, by definition, it > must exclude > >the other. No perspective or point of view or opinion will include > all. As > >long as you choose to be in the condition of freedom and no longer an > >individual. > >This can last until the human get hungry, then, it back to feeding time. > > > >> > > Yes, but the perspective that is all inclusive, by definition, > excludes the perspective that is exclusive, too. > > It is a metaperspective, a perspective on perspective: And that's a > whole well established notion in mathematical set theory. > > It is the witnessing of witnessing perspective that nondualism is > all about, from my perspective. > > I don't reject your perspective, either. > > ~*~ > > L.E: This is getting kind of complex, but it's fun anyway. A > meta-perspective is a verbal abstraction, but it just takes the same question up to another > verbal level. Perspective is a particular within a universal no matter how many meta-levels you want to verbally create. It alway exists as a definition within no definition and thus is limited although useful for argumentation and drawing houses. And, non-dualism has nothing to do with witnessing or separteness. It simply is what exists that includes all. It has no inside or outside or reference points and is just seamless reality itself, and since nothing is separate from it, it can be called non-dual. > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 11, 2006 Report Share Posted June 11, 2006 Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > > L.E: So its impossible to be a non-dualist because it involves a relationship > to dualism and if there is a relationship, there must be dualism. > The problem this unnamed person is having is a matter of difinitions, and > definitions are words, verbal, which are themselves limitated to describe the > oneness of life, the non-dual state of here and now reality. Most living things > have a relationship as attacker or prey. Is this the proof they exist as > separate unique forever divided individual? No. They exist is a unity of > existence and are intrinsically related to each other. No duality exists in their > relationship. > You can talk about illusions when a pack of wolves sees you as flesh to eat > and is chasing you through the snow. > And cry out as the fangs tear into your thigh, " here is the synthesis. " > > Larry Epston > > In a message dated 6/10/2006 9:31:09 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > skywords writes: > > > Thesis: > > > > It's impossible to be a nondualist > > Since it involves a relationship to duality > > Defined as an absence of relationship > > > > The instant there's relationship > > There's duality > > > > To have an ego > > Is to have an agenda > > An agenda is a relationship > > > > Antithesis: > > > > There is no exclusive relationship > > Between one and another, between presence > > And absence > > > > Relationship can be eternal > > Beyond the instant > > > > Ego has no agenda > > Agenda has ego > > Both agenda and relationshp > > Are illusions > > > > Synthesis: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One perspective doesn't exclude the other. ~*~ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 11, 2006 Report Share Posted June 11, 2006 Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > > In a message dated 6/11/2006 11:26:55 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > skywords writes: > > > > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > > >L.E: So its impossible to be a non-dualist because it involves a > > relationship > > >to dualism and if there is a relationship, there must be dualism. > > >The problem this unnamed person is having is a matter of > > difinitions, and > > >definitions are words, verbal, which are themselves limitated to > > describe the > > >oneness of life, the non-dual state of here and now reality. Most > > living things > > >have a relationship as attacker or prey. Is this the proof they > > exist as > > >separate unique forever divided individual? No. They exist is a > > unity of > > >existence and are intrinsically related to each other. No duality > > exists in their > > >relationship. > > >You can talk about illusions when a pack of wolves sees you as flesh > > to eat > > >and is chasing you through the snow. > > >And cry out as the fangs tear into your thigh, " here is the synthesis. " > > > > > >Larry Epston > > > > > >In a message dated 6/10/2006 9:31:09 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > > >skywords@ writes: > > > > > >>Thesis: > > >> > > >>It's impossible to be a nondualist > > >>Since it involves a relationship to duality > > >>Defined as an absence of relationship > > >> > > >>The instant there's relationship > > >>There's duality > > >> > > >>To have an ego > > >>Is to have an agenda > > >>An agenda is a relationship > > >> > > >>Antithesis: > > >> > > >>There is no exclusive relationship > > >>Between one and another, between presence > > >>And absence > > >> > > >>Relationship can be eternal > > >>Beyond the instant > > >> > > >>Ego has no agenda > > >>Agenda has ego > > >>Both agenda and relationshp > > >>Are illusions > > >> > > >>Synthesis: > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >One perspective doesn't exclude the other. > > > > ~*~ > > L.E: If you think about what a perspective is, by definition, it must exclude > the other. No perspective or point of view or opinion will include all. As > long as you choose to be in the condition of freedom and no longer an > individual. > This can last until the human get hungry, then, it back to feeding time. > > > Yes, but the perspective that is all inclusive, by definition, excludes the perspective that is exclusive, too. It is a metaperspective, a perspective on perspective: And that's a whole well established notion in mathematical set theory. It is the witnessing of witnessing perspective that nondualism is all about, from my perspective. I don't reject your perspective, either. ~*~ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 12, 2006 Report Share Posted June 12, 2006 In a message dated 6/11/2006 7:20:50 PM Pacific Daylight Time, lastrain writes: > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords wrote: > > > >Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote: > >> > >>Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > >>> > >>>Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>In a message dated 6/11/2006 11:26:55 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > >>>>>skywords@ writes: > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>L.E: So its impossible to be a non-dualist because it > >involves a > >>>>>>relationship > >>>>>>>to dualism and if there is a relationship, there must be > >dualism. > >>>>>>>The problem this unnamed person is having is a matter of > >>>>>>difinitions, and > >>>>>>>definitions are words, verbal, which are themselves > >limitated to > >>>>>>describe the > >>>>>>>oneness of life, the non-dual state of here and now > >reality. Most > >>>>>>living things > >>>>>>>have a relationship as attacker or prey. Is this the > proof they > >>>>>>exist as > >>>>>>>separate unique forever divided individual? No. They > exist is a > >>>>>>unity of > >>>>>>>existence and are intrinsically related to each other. No > >duality > >>>>>>exists in their > >>>>>>>relationship. > >>>>>>>You can talk about illusions when a pack of wolves sees > you as > >>>flesh > >>>>>>to eat > >>>>>>>and is chasing you through the snow. > >>>>>>>And cry out as the fangs tear into your thigh, " here is the > >>>>synthesis. " > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>Larry Epston > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>In a message dated 6/10/2006 9:31:09 PM Pacific Daylight > Time, > >>>>>>>skywords@ writes: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>Thesis: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>It's impossible to be a nondualist > >>>>>>>>Since it involves a relationship to duality > >>>>>>>>Defined as an absence of relationship > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>The instant there's relationship > >>>>>>>>There's duality > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>To have an ego > >>>>>>>>Is to have an agenda > >>>>>>>>An agenda is a relationship > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>Antithesis: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>There is no exclusive relationship > >>>>>>>>Between one and another, between presence > >>>>>>>>And absence > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>Relationship can be eternal > >>>>>>>>Beyond the instant > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>Ego has no agenda > >>>>>>>>Agenda has ego > >>>>>>>>Both agenda and relationshp > >>>>>>>>Are illusions > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>Synthesis: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>One perspective doesn't exclude the other. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>~*~ > >>>>> > >>>>>L.E: If you think about what a perspective is, by definition, it > >>>>must exclude > >>>>>the other. No perspective or point of view or opinion will > >include > >>>>all. As > >>>>>long as you choose to be in the condition of freedom and no > >>longer an > >>>>>individual. > >>>>>This can last until the human get hungry, then, it back to > feeding > >>>time. > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>Yes, but the perspective that is all inclusive, by definition, > >>>>excludes the perspective that is exclusive, too. > >>>> > >>>>It is a metaperspective, a perspective on perspective: And > >that's a > >>>>whole well established notion in mathematical set theory. > >>>> > >>>>It is the witnessing of witnessing perspective that > nondualism is > >>>>all about, from my perspective. > >>>> > >>>>I don't reject your perspective, either. > >>>> > >>>>~*~ > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>I reject all perspectives. > >>> > >>> > >>>toombaru > >>> > >> > >> > >>Typical! > >> > >>:-)) > >> > >>~*~ > >> > > > > > >P.S.: Only the witness (of witnessing) is without folly. > > > > The 'witness' exists only within duality. > > It is folly. > > toombaru > > > > L.E: Trying so hard. There is no prize. If you win, you have pride to deal > with. Ha! ha! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 12, 2006 Report Share Posted June 12, 2006 In a message dated 6/11/2006 7:28:44 PM Pacific Daylight Time, skywords writes: > L.E: If you think about what a perspective is, by > definition, it > >>>>>must exclude > >>>>>>the other. No perspective or point of view or opinion will > >>include > >>>>>all. As > >>>>>>long as you choose to be in the condition of freedom and no > >>>longer an > >>>>>>individual. > >>>>>>This can last until the human get hungry, then, it back to > >feeding > >>>>time. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>Yes, but the perspective that is all inclusive, by definition, > >>>>>excludes the perspective that is exclusive, too. > >>>>> > >>>>>It is a metaperspective, a perspective on perspective: And > >>that's a > >>>>>whole well established notion in mathematical set theory. > >>>>> > >>>>>It is the witnessing of witnessing perspective that > >nondualism is > >>>>>all about, from my perspective. > >>>>> > >>>>>I don't reject your perspective, either. > >>>>> > >>>>>~*~ > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>I reject all perspectives. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>toombaru > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>>Typical! > >>> > >>>:-)) > >>> > >>>~*~ > >>> > >> > >> > >>P.S.: Only the witness (of witnessing) is without folly. > >> > > > > > > > >The 'witness' exists only within duality. > > > >It is folly. > > > > > > > >toombaru > > > > There is no witness > There is no folly > There is no duality > There is no there > There is no is (existence) > > ~*~ > L.E: Ah..... that's what I like. Someone who can finally tell the truth. Peanut and jelly sandwich anyone? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 12, 2006 Report Share Posted June 12, 2006 Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords wrote: > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > In a message dated 6/11/2006 11:26:55 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > > skywords@ writes: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > > > > >L.E: So its impossible to be a non-dualist because it involves a > > > relationship > > > >to dualism and if there is a relationship, there must be dualism. > > > >The problem this unnamed person is having is a matter of > > > difinitions, and > > > >definitions are words, verbal, which are themselves limitated to > > > describe the > > > >oneness of life, the non-dual state of here and now reality. Most > > > living things > > > >have a relationship as attacker or prey. Is this the proof they > > > exist as > > > >separate unique forever divided individual? No. They exist is a > > > unity of > > > >existence and are intrinsically related to each other. No duality > > > exists in their > > > >relationship. > > > >You can talk about illusions when a pack of wolves sees you as flesh > > > to eat > > > >and is chasing you through the snow. > > > >And cry out as the fangs tear into your thigh, " here is the > synthesis. " > > > > > > > >Larry Epston > > > > > > > >In a message dated 6/10/2006 9:31:09 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > > > >skywords@ writes: > > > > > > > >>Thesis: > > > >> > > > >>It's impossible to be a nondualist > > > >>Since it involves a relationship to duality > > > >>Defined as an absence of relationship > > > >> > > > >>The instant there's relationship > > > >>There's duality > > > >> > > > >>To have an ego > > > >>Is to have an agenda > > > >>An agenda is a relationship > > > >> > > > >>Antithesis: > > > >> > > > >>There is no exclusive relationship > > > >>Between one and another, between presence > > > >>And absence > > > >> > > > >>Relationship can be eternal > > > >>Beyond the instant > > > >> > > > >>Ego has no agenda > > > >>Agenda has ego > > > >>Both agenda and relationshp > > > >>Are illusions > > > >> > > > >>Synthesis: > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >One perspective doesn't exclude the other. > > > > > > ~*~ > > > > L.E: If you think about what a perspective is, by definition, it > must exclude > > the other. No perspective or point of view or opinion will include > all. As > > long as you choose to be in the condition of freedom and no longer an > > individual. > > This can last until the human get hungry, then, it back to feeding time. > > > > > > > > Yes, but the perspective that is all inclusive, by definition, > excludes the perspective that is exclusive, too. > > It is a metaperspective, a perspective on perspective: And that's a > whole well established notion in mathematical set theory. > > It is the witnessing of witnessing perspective that nondualism is > all about, from my perspective. > > I don't reject your perspective, either. > > ~*~ > I reject all perspectives. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 12, 2006 Report Share Posted June 12, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 6/11/2006 11:26:55 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > > > skywords@ writes: > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > >L.E: So its impossible to be a non-dualist because it involves a > > > > relationship > > > > >to dualism and if there is a relationship, there must be dualism. > > > > >The problem this unnamed person is having is a matter of > > > > difinitions, and > > > > >definitions are words, verbal, which are themselves limitated to > > > > describe the > > > > >oneness of life, the non-dual state of here and now reality. Most > > > > living things > > > > >have a relationship as attacker or prey. Is this the proof they > > > > exist as > > > > >separate unique forever divided individual? No. They exist is a > > > > unity of > > > > >existence and are intrinsically related to each other. No duality > > > > exists in their > > > > >relationship. > > > > >You can talk about illusions when a pack of wolves sees you as > flesh > > > > to eat > > > > >and is chasing you through the snow. > > > > >And cry out as the fangs tear into your thigh, " here is the > > synthesis. " > > > > > > > > > >Larry Epston > > > > > > > > > >In a message dated 6/10/2006 9:31:09 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > > > > >skywords@ writes: > > > > > > > > > >>Thesis: > > > > >> > > > > >>It's impossible to be a nondualist > > > > >>Since it involves a relationship to duality > > > > >>Defined as an absence of relationship > > > > >> > > > > >>The instant there's relationship > > > > >>There's duality > > > > >> > > > > >>To have an ego > > > > >>Is to have an agenda > > > > >>An agenda is a relationship > > > > >> > > > > >>Antithesis: > > > > >> > > > > >>There is no exclusive relationship > > > > >>Between one and another, between presence > > > > >>And absence > > > > >> > > > > >>Relationship can be eternal > > > > >>Beyond the instant > > > > >> > > > > >>Ego has no agenda > > > > >>Agenda has ego > > > > >>Both agenda and relationshp > > > > >>Are illusions > > > > >> > > > > >>Synthesis: > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >One perspective doesn't exclude the other. > > > > > > > > ~*~ > > > > > > L.E: If you think about what a perspective is, by definition, it > > must exclude > > > the other. No perspective or point of view or opinion will include > > all. As > > > long as you choose to be in the condition of freedom and no longer an > > > individual. > > > This can last until the human get hungry, then, it back to feeding > time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, but the perspective that is all inclusive, by definition, > > excludes the perspective that is exclusive, too. > > > > It is a metaperspective, a perspective on perspective: And that's a > > whole well established notion in mathematical set theory. > > > > It is the witnessing of witnessing perspective that nondualism is > > all about, from my perspective. > > > > I don't reject your perspective, either. > > > > ~*~ > > > > > > I reject all perspectives. > > > toombaru > Typical! :-)) ~*~ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 12, 2006 Report Share Posted June 12, 2006 Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > > > > > In a message dated 6/11/2006 11:26:55 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > > > > skywords@ writes: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >L.E: So its impossible to be a non-dualist because it involves a > > > > > relationship > > > > > >to dualism and if there is a relationship, there must be dualism. > > > > > >The problem this unnamed person is having is a matter of > > > > > difinitions, and > > > > > >definitions are words, verbal, which are themselves limitated to > > > > > describe the > > > > > >oneness of life, the non-dual state of here and now reality. Most > > > > > living things > > > > > >have a relationship as attacker or prey. Is this the proof they > > > > > exist as > > > > > >separate unique forever divided individual? No. They exist is a > > > > > unity of > > > > > >existence and are intrinsically related to each other. No duality > > > > > exists in their > > > > > >relationship. > > > > > >You can talk about illusions when a pack of wolves sees you as > > flesh > > > > > to eat > > > > > >and is chasing you through the snow. > > > > > >And cry out as the fangs tear into your thigh, " here is the > > > synthesis. " > > > > > > > > > > > >Larry Epston > > > > > > > > > > > >In a message dated 6/10/2006 9:31:09 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > > > > > >skywords@ writes: > > > > > > > > > > > >>Thesis: > > > > > >> > > > > > >>It's impossible to be a nondualist > > > > > >>Since it involves a relationship to duality > > > > > >>Defined as an absence of relationship > > > > > >> > > > > > >>The instant there's relationship > > > > > >>There's duality > > > > > >> > > > > > >>To have an ego > > > > > >>Is to have an agenda > > > > > >>An agenda is a relationship > > > > > >> > > > > > >>Antithesis: > > > > > >> > > > > > >>There is no exclusive relationship > > > > > >>Between one and another, between presence > > > > > >>And absence > > > > > >> > > > > > >>Relationship can be eternal > > > > > >>Beyond the instant > > > > > >> > > > > > >>Ego has no agenda > > > > > >>Agenda has ego > > > > > >>Both agenda and relationshp > > > > > >>Are illusions > > > > > >> > > > > > >>Synthesis: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >One perspective doesn't exclude the other. > > > > > > > > > > ~*~ > > > > > > > > L.E: If you think about what a perspective is, by definition, it > > > must exclude > > > > the other. No perspective or point of view or opinion will include > > > all. As > > > > long as you choose to be in the condition of freedom and no > longer an > > > > individual. > > > > This can last until the human get hungry, then, it back to feeding > > time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, but the perspective that is all inclusive, by definition, > > > excludes the perspective that is exclusive, too. > > > > > > It is a metaperspective, a perspective on perspective: And that's a > > > whole well established notion in mathematical set theory. > > > > > > It is the witnessing of witnessing perspective that nondualism is > > > all about, from my perspective. > > > > > > I don't reject your perspective, either. > > > > > > ~*~ > > > > > > > > > > > I reject all perspectives. > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > Typical! > > :-)) > > ~*~ > P.S.: Only the witness (of witnessing) is without folly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 12, 2006 Report Share Posted June 12, 2006 Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 6/11/2006 11:26:55 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > > > > > skywords@ writes: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > >L.E: So its impossible to be a non-dualist because it > involves a > > > > > > relationship > > > > > > >to dualism and if there is a relationship, there must be > dualism. > > > > > > >The problem this unnamed person is having is a matter of > > > > > > difinitions, and > > > > > > >definitions are words, verbal, which are themselves > limitated to > > > > > > describe the > > > > > > >oneness of life, the non-dual state of here and now > reality. Most > > > > > > living things > > > > > > >have a relationship as attacker or prey. Is this the proof they > > > > > > exist as > > > > > > >separate unique forever divided individual? No. They exist is a > > > > > > unity of > > > > > > >existence and are intrinsically related to each other. No > duality > > > > > > exists in their > > > > > > >relationship. > > > > > > >You can talk about illusions when a pack of wolves sees you as > > > flesh > > > > > > to eat > > > > > > >and is chasing you through the snow. > > > > > > >And cry out as the fangs tear into your thigh, " here is the > > > > synthesis. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Larry Epston > > > > > > > > > > > > > >In a message dated 6/10/2006 9:31:09 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > > > > > > >skywords@ writes: > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>Thesis: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >>It's impossible to be a nondualist > > > > > > >>Since it involves a relationship to duality > > > > > > >>Defined as an absence of relationship > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >>The instant there's relationship > > > > > > >>There's duality > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >>To have an ego > > > > > > >>Is to have an agenda > > > > > > >>An agenda is a relationship > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >>Antithesis: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >>There is no exclusive relationship > > > > > > >>Between one and another, between presence > > > > > > >>And absence > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >>Relationship can be eternal > > > > > > >>Beyond the instant > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >>Ego has no agenda > > > > > > >>Agenda has ego > > > > > > >>Both agenda and relationshp > > > > > > >>Are illusions > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >>Synthesis: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >One perspective doesn't exclude the other. > > > > > > > > > > > > ~*~ > > > > > > > > > > L.E: If you think about what a perspective is, by definition, it > > > > must exclude > > > > > the other. No perspective or point of view or opinion will > include > > > > all. As > > > > > long as you choose to be in the condition of freedom and no > > longer an > > > > > individual. > > > > > This can last until the human get hungry, then, it back to feeding > > > time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, but the perspective that is all inclusive, by definition, > > > > excludes the perspective that is exclusive, too. > > > > > > > > It is a metaperspective, a perspective on perspective: And > that's a > > > > whole well established notion in mathematical set theory. > > > > > > > > It is the witnessing of witnessing perspective that nondualism is > > > > all about, from my perspective. > > > > > > > > I don't reject your perspective, either. > > > > > > > > ~*~ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I reject all perspectives. > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > Typical! > > > > :-)) > > > > ~*~ > > > > > P.S.: Only the witness (of witnessing) is without folly. > The 'witness' exists only within duality. It is folly. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 12, 2006 Report Share Posted June 12, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 6/11/2006 11:26:55 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > > > > > > skywords@ writes: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >L.E: So its impossible to be a non-dualist because it > > involves a > > > > > > > relationship > > > > > > > >to dualism and if there is a relationship, there must be > > dualism. > > > > > > > >The problem this unnamed person is having is a matter of > > > > > > > difinitions, and > > > > > > > >definitions are words, verbal, which are themselves > > limitated to > > > > > > > describe the > > > > > > > >oneness of life, the non-dual state of here and now > > reality. Most > > > > > > > living things > > > > > > > >have a relationship as attacker or prey. Is this the > proof they > > > > > > > exist as > > > > > > > >separate unique forever divided individual? No. They > exist is a > > > > > > > unity of > > > > > > > >existence and are intrinsically related to each other. No > > duality > > > > > > > exists in their > > > > > > > >relationship. > > > > > > > >You can talk about illusions when a pack of wolves sees > you as > > > > flesh > > > > > > > to eat > > > > > > > >and is chasing you through the snow. > > > > > > > >And cry out as the fangs tear into your thigh, " here is the > > > > > synthesis. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Larry Epston > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >In a message dated 6/10/2006 9:31:09 PM Pacific Daylight > Time, > > > > > > > >skywords@ writes: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>Thesis: > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >>It's impossible to be a nondualist > > > > > > > >>Since it involves a relationship to duality > > > > > > > >>Defined as an absence of relationship > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >>The instant there's relationship > > > > > > > >>There's duality > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >>To have an ego > > > > > > > >>Is to have an agenda > > > > > > > >>An agenda is a relationship > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >>Antithesis: > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >>There is no exclusive relationship > > > > > > > >>Between one and another, between presence > > > > > > > >>And absence > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >>Relationship can be eternal > > > > > > > >>Beyond the instant > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >>Ego has no agenda > > > > > > > >>Agenda has ego > > > > > > > >>Both agenda and relationshp > > > > > > > >>Are illusions > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >>Synthesis: > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >One perspective doesn't exclude the other. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~*~ > > > > > > > > > > > > L.E: If you think about what a perspective is, by definition, it > > > > > must exclude > > > > > > the other. No perspective or point of view or opinion will > > include > > > > > all. As > > > > > > long as you choose to be in the condition of freedom and no > > > longer an > > > > > > individual. > > > > > > This can last until the human get hungry, then, it back to > feeding > > > > time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, but the perspective that is all inclusive, by definition, > > > > > excludes the perspective that is exclusive, too. > > > > > > > > > > It is a metaperspective, a perspective on perspective: And > > that's a > > > > > whole well established notion in mathematical set theory. > > > > > > > > > > It is the witnessing of witnessing perspective that > nondualism is > > > > > all about, from my perspective. > > > > > > > > > > I don't reject your perspective, either. > > > > > > > > > > ~*~ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I reject all perspectives. > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > Typical! > > > > > > :-)) > > > > > > ~*~ > > > > > > > > > P.S.: Only the witness (of witnessing) is without folly. > > > > > > The 'witness' exists only within duality. > > It is folly. > > > > toombaru > There is no witness There is no folly There is no duality There is no there There is no is (existence) ~*~ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 12, 2006 Report Share Posted June 12, 2006 Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 6/11/2006 11:26:55 AM Pacific Daylight > Time, > > > > > > > skywords@ writes: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >L.E: So its impossible to be a non-dualist because it > > > involves a > > > > > > > > relationship > > > > > > > > >to dualism and if there is a relationship, there must be > > > dualism. > > > > > > > > >The problem this unnamed person is having is a matter of > > > > > > > > difinitions, and > > > > > > > > >definitions are words, verbal, which are themselves > > > limitated to > > > > > > > > describe the > > > > > > > > >oneness of life, the non-dual state of here and now > > > reality. Most > > > > > > > > living things > > > > > > > > >have a relationship as attacker or prey. Is this the > > proof they > > > > > > > > exist as > > > > > > > > >separate unique forever divided individual? No. They > > exist is a > > > > > > > > unity of > > > > > > > > >existence and are intrinsically related to each other. No > > > duality > > > > > > > > exists in their > > > > > > > > >relationship. > > > > > > > > >You can talk about illusions when a pack of wolves sees > > you as > > > > > flesh > > > > > > > > to eat > > > > > > > > >and is chasing you through the snow. > > > > > > > > >And cry out as the fangs tear into your thigh, " here is the > > > > > > synthesis. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Larry Epston > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >In a message dated 6/10/2006 9:31:09 PM Pacific Daylight > > Time, > > > > > > > > >skywords@ writes: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>Thesis: > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>It's impossible to be a nondualist > > > > > > > > >>Since it involves a relationship to duality > > > > > > > > >>Defined as an absence of relationship > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>The instant there's relationship > > > > > > > > >>There's duality > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>To have an ego > > > > > > > > >>Is to have an agenda > > > > > > > > >>An agenda is a relationship > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>Antithesis: > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>There is no exclusive relationship > > > > > > > > >>Between one and another, between presence > > > > > > > > >>And absence > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>Relationship can be eternal > > > > > > > > >>Beyond the instant > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>Ego has no agenda > > > > > > > > >>Agenda has ego > > > > > > > > >>Both agenda and relationshp > > > > > > > > >>Are illusions > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>Synthesis: > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >One perspective doesn't exclude the other. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~*~ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > L.E: If you think about what a perspective is, by > definition, it > > > > > > must exclude > > > > > > > the other. No perspective or point of view or opinion will > > > include > > > > > > all. As > > > > > > > long as you choose to be in the condition of freedom and no > > > > longer an > > > > > > > individual. > > > > > > > This can last until the human get hungry, then, it back to > > feeding > > > > > time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, but the perspective that is all inclusive, by definition, > > > > > > excludes the perspective that is exclusive, too. > > > > > > > > > > > > It is a metaperspective, a perspective on perspective: And > > > that's a > > > > > > whole well established notion in mathematical set theory. > > > > > > > > > > > > It is the witnessing of witnessing perspective that > > nondualism is > > > > > > all about, from my perspective. > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't reject your perspective, either. > > > > > > > > > > > > ~*~ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I reject all perspectives. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Typical! > > > > > > > > :-)) > > > > > > > > ~*~ > > > > > > > > > > > > > P.S.: Only the witness (of witnessing) is without folly. > > > > > > > > > > > The 'witness' exists only within duality. > > > > It is folly. > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > There is no witness > There is no folly > There is no duality > There is no there > There is no is (existence) > > ~*~ > ....................and yet............. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 12, 2006 Report Share Posted June 12, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 6/11/2006 11:26:55 AM Pacific Daylight > > Time, > > > > > > > > skywords@ writes: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >L.E: So its impossible to be a non-dualist because it > > > > involves a > > > > > > > > > relationship > > > > > > > > > >to dualism and if there is a relationship, there must be > > > > dualism. > > > > > > > > > >The problem this unnamed person is having is a matter of > > > > > > > > > difinitions, and > > > > > > > > > >definitions are words, verbal, which are themselves > > > > limitated to > > > > > > > > > describe the > > > > > > > > > >oneness of life, the non-dual state of here and now > > > > reality. Most > > > > > > > > > living things > > > > > > > > > >have a relationship as attacker or prey. Is this the > > > proof they > > > > > > > > > exist as > > > > > > > > > >separate unique forever divided individual? No. They > > > exist is a > > > > > > > > > unity of > > > > > > > > > >existence and are intrinsically related to each other. No > > > > duality > > > > > > > > > exists in their > > > > > > > > > >relationship. > > > > > > > > > >You can talk about illusions when a pack of wolves sees > > > you as > > > > > > flesh > > > > > > > > > to eat > > > > > > > > > >and is chasing you through the snow. > > > > > > > > > >And cry out as the fangs tear into your thigh, " here > is the > > > > > > > synthesis. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Larry Epston > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >In a message dated 6/10/2006 9:31:09 PM Pacific Daylight > > > Time, > > > > > > > > > >skywords@ writes: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>Thesis: > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >>It's impossible to be a nondualist > > > > > > > > > >>Since it involves a relationship to duality > > > > > > > > > >>Defined as an absence of relationship > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >>The instant there's relationship > > > > > > > > > >>There's duality > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >>To have an ego > > > > > > > > > >>Is to have an agenda > > > > > > > > > >>An agenda is a relationship > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >>Antithesis: > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >>There is no exclusive relationship > > > > > > > > > >>Between one and another, between presence > > > > > > > > > >>And absence > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >>Relationship can be eternal > > > > > > > > > >>Beyond the instant > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >>Ego has no agenda > > > > > > > > > >>Agenda has ego > > > > > > > > > >>Both agenda and relationshp > > > > > > > > > >>Are illusions > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >>Synthesis: > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >One perspective doesn't exclude the other. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~*~ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > L.E: If you think about what a perspective is, by > > definition, it > > > > > > > must exclude > > > > > > > > the other. No perspective or point of view or opinion will > > > > include > > > > > > > all. As > > > > > > > > long as you choose to be in the condition of freedom and no > > > > > longer an > > > > > > > > individual. > > > > > > > > This can last until the human get hungry, then, it back to > > > feeding > > > > > > time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, but the perspective that is all inclusive, by definition, > > > > > > > excludes the perspective that is exclusive, too. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is a metaperspective, a perspective on perspective: And > > > > that's a > > > > > > > whole well established notion in mathematical set theory. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is the witnessing of witnessing perspective that > > > nondualism is > > > > > > > all about, from my perspective. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't reject your perspective, either. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~*~ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I reject all perspectives. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Typical! > > > > > > > > > > :-)) > > > > > > > > > > ~*~ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P.S.: Only the witness (of witnessing) is without folly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The 'witness' exists only within duality. > > > > > > It is folly. > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > There is no witness > > There is no folly > > There is no duality > > There is no there > > There is no is (existence) > > > > ~*~ > > > > > ...................and yet............. > exactly! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 12, 2006 Report Share Posted June 12, 2006 Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 6/11/2006 11:26:55 AM Pacific Daylight > > > Time, > > > > > > > > > skywords@ writes: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >L.E: So its impossible to be a non-dualist because it > > > > > involves a > > > > > > > > > > relationship > > > > > > > > > > >to dualism and if there is a relationship, there > must be > > > > > dualism. > > > > > > > > > > >The problem this unnamed person is having is a > matter of > > > > > > > > > > difinitions, and > > > > > > > > > > >definitions are words, verbal, which are themselves > > > > > limitated to > > > > > > > > > > describe the > > > > > > > > > > >oneness of life, the non-dual state of here and now > > > > > reality. Most > > > > > > > > > > living things > > > > > > > > > > >have a relationship as attacker or prey. Is this the > > > > proof they > > > > > > > > > > exist as > > > > > > > > > > >separate unique forever divided individual? No. They > > > > exist is a > > > > > > > > > > unity of > > > > > > > > > > >existence and are intrinsically related to each > other. No > > > > > duality > > > > > > > > > > exists in their > > > > > > > > > > >relationship. > > > > > > > > > > >You can talk about illusions when a pack of wolves sees > > > > you as > > > > > > > flesh > > > > > > > > > > to eat > > > > > > > > > > >and is chasing you through the snow. > > > > > > > > > > >And cry out as the fangs tear into your thigh, " here > > is the > > > > > > > > synthesis. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Larry Epston > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >In a message dated 6/10/2006 9:31:09 PM Pacific > Daylight > > > > Time, > > > > > > > > > > >skywords@ writes: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>Thesis: > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >>It's impossible to be a nondualist > > > > > > > > > > >>Since it involves a relationship to duality > > > > > > > > > > >>Defined as an absence of relationship > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >>The instant there's relationship > > > > > > > > > > >>There's duality > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >>To have an ego > > > > > > > > > > >>Is to have an agenda > > > > > > > > > > >>An agenda is a relationship > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >>Antithesis: > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >>There is no exclusive relationship > > > > > > > > > > >>Between one and another, between presence > > > > > > > > > > >>And absence > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >>Relationship can be eternal > > > > > > > > > > >>Beyond the instant > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >>Ego has no agenda > > > > > > > > > > >>Agenda has ego > > > > > > > > > > >>Both agenda and relationshp > > > > > > > > > > >>Are illusions > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >>Synthesis: > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >One perspective doesn't exclude the other. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~*~ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > L.E: If you think about what a perspective is, by > > > definition, it > > > > > > > > must exclude > > > > > > > > > the other. No perspective or point of view or opinion > will > > > > > include > > > > > > > > all. As > > > > > > > > > long as you choose to be in the condition of freedom > and no > > > > > > longer an > > > > > > > > > individual. > > > > > > > > > This can last until the human get hungry, then, it back to > > > > feeding > > > > > > > time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, but the perspective that is all inclusive, by > definition, > > > > > > > > excludes the perspective that is exclusive, too. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is a metaperspective, a perspective on perspective: > And > > > > > that's a > > > > > > > > whole well established notion in mathematical set theory. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is the witnessing of witnessing perspective that > > > > nondualism is > > > > > > > > all about, from my perspective. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't reject your perspective, either. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~*~ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I reject all perspectives. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Typical! > > > > > > > > > > > > :-)) > > > > > > > > > > > > ~*~ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P.S.: Only the witness (of witnessing) is without folly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The 'witness' exists only within duality. > > > > > > > > It is folly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no witness > > > There is no folly > > > There is no duality > > > There is no there > > > There is no is (existence) > > > > > > ~*~ > > > > > > > > > ...................and yet............. > > > > > exactly! > in the mattering of is does matter matter? and if is matters is there any matter that does not matter? relatively speaking, of is, about matters mattering, exactly, that is. ;-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 12, 2006 Report Share Posted June 12, 2006 Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <anabebe57 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " > <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " > <skywords@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " > <lastrain@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " > <skywords@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 6/11/2006 11:26:55 AM Pacific > Daylight > > > > Time, > > > > > > > > > > skywords@ writes: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , epston@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >L.E: So its impossible to be a non-dualist > because it > > > > > > involves a > > > > > > > > > > > relationship > > > > > > > > > > > >to dualism and if there is a relationship, there > > must be > > > > > > dualism. > > > > > > > > > > > >The problem this unnamed person is having is a > > matter of > > > > > > > > > > > difinitions, and > > > > > > > > > > > >definitions are words, verbal, which are > themselves > > > > > > limitated to > > > > > > > > > > > describe the > > > > > > > > > > > >oneness of life, the non-dual state of here and > now > > > > > > reality. Most > > > > > > > > > > > living things > > > > > > > > > > > >have a relationship as attacker or prey. Is > this the > > > > > proof they > > > > > > > > > > > exist as > > > > > > > > > > > >separate unique forever divided individual? No. > They > > > > > exist is a > > > > > > > > > > > unity of > > > > > > > > > > > >existence and are intrinsically related to each > > other. No > > > > > > duality > > > > > > > > > > > exists in their > > > > > > > > > > > >relationship. > > > > > > > > > > > >You can talk about illusions when a pack of > wolves sees > > > > > you as > > > > > > > > flesh > > > > > > > > > > > to eat > > > > > > > > > > > >and is chasing you through the snow. > > > > > > > > > > > >And cry out as the fangs tear into your > thigh, " here > > > is the > > > > > > > > > synthesis. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Larry Epston > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >In a message dated 6/10/2006 9:31:09 PM Pacific > > Daylight > > > > > Time, > > > > > > > > > > > >skywords@ writes: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>Thesis: > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>It's impossible to be a nondualist > > > > > > > > > > > >>Since it involves a relationship to duality > > > > > > > > > > > >>Defined as an absence of relationship > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>The instant there's relationship > > > > > > > > > > > >>There's duality > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>To have an ego > > > > > > > > > > > >>Is to have an agenda > > > > > > > > > > > >>An agenda is a relationship > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>Antithesis: > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>There is no exclusive relationship > > > > > > > > > > > >>Between one and another, between presence > > > > > > > > > > > >>And absence > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>Relationship can be eternal > > > > > > > > > > > >>Beyond the instant > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>Ego has no agenda > > > > > > > > > > > >>Agenda has ego > > > > > > > > > > > >>Both agenda and relationshp > > > > > > > > > > > >>Are illusions > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>Synthesis: > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >One perspective doesn't exclude the other. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~*~ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > L.E: If you think about what a perspective is, by > > > > definition, it > > > > > > > > > must exclude > > > > > > > > > > the other. No perspective or point of view or > opinion > > will > > > > > > include > > > > > > > > > all. As > > > > > > > > > > long as you choose to be in the condition of > freedom > > and no > > > > > > > longer an > > > > > > > > > > individual. > > > > > > > > > > This can last until the human get hungry, then, it > back to > > > > > feeding > > > > > > > > time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, but the perspective that is all inclusive, by > > definition, > > > > > > > > > excludes the perspective that is exclusive, too. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is a metaperspective, a perspective on > perspective: > > And > > > > > > that's a > > > > > > > > > whole well established notion in mathematical set > theory. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is the witnessing of witnessing perspective that > > > > > nondualism is > > > > > > > > > all about, from my perspective. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't reject your perspective, either. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~*~ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I reject all perspectives. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Typical! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :-)) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~*~ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P.S.: Only the witness (of witnessing) is without folly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The 'witness' exists only within duality. > > > > > > > > > > It is folly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no witness > > > > There is no folly > > > > There is no duality > > > > There is no there > > > > There is no is (existence) > > > > > > > > ~*~ > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...................and yet............. > > > > > > > > > exactly! > > > > > > in the mattering of is > does matter matter? > and if is matters > is there any matter that does not matter? > > relatively speaking, of is, about matters mattering, > exactly, that is. ;-) > does a splattering of nattering ring a bell of bellicosity? Or does the laddering of prattling spell the beginning of a belle cite? ;-)) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 12, 2006 Report Share Posted June 12, 2006 Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > > In a message dated 6/11/2006 12:19:17 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > skywords writes: > > > > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > > >In a message dated 6/11/2006 11:26:55 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > > >skywords@ writes: > > > > > >> > > >>Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > >>> > > >>>L.E: So its impossible to be a non-dualist because it involves a > > >>relationship > > >>>to dualism and if there is a relationship, there must be dualism. > > >>>The problem this unnamed person is having is a matter of > > >>difinitions, and > > >>>definitions are words, verbal, which are themselves limitated to > > >>describe the > > >>>oneness of life, the non-dual state of here and now reality. Most > > >>living things > > >>>have a relationship as attacker or prey. Is this the proof they > > >>exist as > > >>>separate unique forever divided individual? No. They exist is a > > >>unity of > > >>>existence and are intrinsically related to each other. No duality > > >>exists in their > > >>>relationship. > > >>>You can talk about illusions when a pack of wolves sees you as flesh > > >>to eat > > >>>and is chasing you through the snow. > > >>>And cry out as the fangs tear into your thigh, " here is the > > synthesis. " > > >>> > > >>>Larry Epston > > >>> > > >>>In a message dated 6/10/2006 9:31:09 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > > >>>skywords@ writes: > > >>> > > >>>>Thesis: > > >>>> > > >>>>It's impossible to be a nondualist > > >>>>Since it involves a relationship to duality > > >>>>Defined as an absence of relationship > > >>>> > > >>>>The instant there's relationship > > >>>>There's duality > > >>>> > > >>>>To have an ego > > >>>>Is to have an agenda > > >>>>An agenda is a relationship > > >>>> > > >>>>Antithesis: > > >>>> > > >>>>There is no exclusive relationship > > >>>>Between one and another, between presence > > >>>>And absence > > >>>> > > >>>>Relationship can be eternal > > >>>>Beyond the instant > > >>>> > > >>>>Ego has no agenda > > >>>>Agenda has ego > > >>>>Both agenda and relationshp > > >>>>Are illusions > > >>>> > > >>>>Synthesis: > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>One perspective doesn't exclude the other. > > >> > > >>~*~ > > > > > >L.E: If you think about what a perspective is, by definition, it > > must exclude > > >the other. No perspective or point of view or opinion will include > > all. As > > >long as you choose to be in the condition of freedom and no longer an > > >individual. > > >This can last until the human get hungry, then, it back to feeding time. > > > > > >> > > > > Yes, but the perspective that is all inclusive, by definition, > > excludes the perspective that is exclusive, too. > > > > It is a metaperspective, a perspective on perspective: And that's a > > whole well established notion in mathematical set theory. > > > > It is the witnessing of witnessing perspective that nondualism is > > all about, from my perspective. > > > > I don't reject your perspective, either. > > > > ~*~ > > > > L.E: This is getting kind of complex, but it's fun anyway. A > > meta-perspective is a verbal abstraction, but it just takes the same question up to another > > verbal level. > Perspective is a particular within a universal no matter how many meta-levels > you want to verbally create. It alway exists as a definition within no > definition and thus is limited although useful for argumentation and drawing > houses. And, non-dualism has nothing to do with witnessing or separteness. It > simply is what exists that includes all. It has no inside or outside or reference > points and is just seamless reality itself, and since nothing is separate from > it, it can be called non-dual. > Just as you've deconstructing meta perspective, so the word, " non-dual " can just as easily be deconstructed, in precisely the same manner. Precisely the same manner. Similarly, just because one says that something is " ineffable, " does not literally mean that there are no words to describe it, since the word " ineffable, " is itself a word. ~*~ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 12, 2006 Report Share Posted June 12, 2006 In a message dated 6/11/2006 8:37:05 PM Pacific Daylight Time, skywords writes: > >> > >>>>There is no witness > >>>>There is no folly > >>>>There is no duality > >>>>There is no there > >>>>There is no is (existence) > >>>> > >>>>~*~ > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>>...................and yet............. > >>> > >> > >> > >>exactly! > >> > > > > > > > >in the mattering of is > >does matter matter? > >and if is matters > >is there any matter that does not matter? > > > >relatively speaking, of is, about matters mattering, > >exactly, that is. ;-) > > > > does a splattering of nattering ring a bell of bellicosity? Or does > the laddering of prattling spell the beginning of a belle cite? > > ;-)) L.E: So what exactly is the matter? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 12, 2006 Report Share Posted June 12, 2006 Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords wrote: > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > In a message dated 6/11/2006 12:19:17 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > > skywords@ writes: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > > > > >In a message dated 6/11/2006 11:26:55 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > > > >skywords@ writes: > > > > > > > >> > > > >>Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>>L.E: So its impossible to be a non-dualist because it involves a > > > >>relationship > > > >>>to dualism and if there is a relationship, there must be dualism. > > > >>>The problem this unnamed person is having is a matter of > > > >>difinitions, and > > > >>>definitions are words, verbal, which are themselves limitated to > > > >>describe the > > > >>>oneness of life, the non-dual state of here and now reality. Most > > > >>living things > > > >>>have a relationship as attacker or prey. Is this the proof they > > > >>exist as > > > >>>separate unique forever divided individual? No. They exist is a > > > >>unity of > > > >>>existence and are intrinsically related to each other. No duality > > > >>exists in their > > > >>>relationship. > > > >>>You can talk about illusions when a pack of wolves sees you as > flesh > > > >>to eat > > > >>>and is chasing you through the snow. > > > >>>And cry out as the fangs tear into your thigh, " here is the > > > synthesis. " > > > >>> > > > >>>Larry Epston > > > >>> > > > >>>In a message dated 6/10/2006 9:31:09 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > > > >>>skywords@ writes: > > > >>> > > > >>>>Thesis: > > > >>>> > > > >>>>It's impossible to be a nondualist > > > >>>>Since it involves a relationship to duality > > > >>>>Defined as an absence of relationship > > > >>>> > > > >>>>The instant there's relationship > > > >>>>There's duality > > > >>>> > > > >>>>To have an ego > > > >>>>Is to have an agenda > > > >>>>An agenda is a relationship > > > >>>> > > > >>>>Antithesis: > > > >>>> > > > >>>>There is no exclusive relationship > > > >>>>Between one and another, between presence > > > >>>>And absence > > > >>>> > > > >>>>Relationship can be eternal > > > >>>>Beyond the instant > > > >>>> > > > >>>>Ego has no agenda > > > >>>>Agenda has ego > > > >>>>Both agenda and relationshp > > > >>>>Are illusions > > > >>>> > > > >>>>Synthesis: > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>One perspective doesn't exclude the other. > > > >> > > > >>~*~ > > > > > > > >L.E: If you think about what a perspective is, by definition, it > > > must exclude > > > >the other. No perspective or point of view or opinion will include > > > all. As > > > >long as you choose to be in the condition of freedom and no > longer an > > > >individual. > > > >This can last until the human get hungry, then, it back to > feeding time. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Yes, but the perspective that is all inclusive, by definition, > > > excludes the perspective that is exclusive, too. > > > > > > It is a metaperspective, a perspective on perspective: And that's a > > > whole well established notion in mathematical set theory. > > > > > > It is the witnessing of witnessing perspective that nondualism is > > > all about, from my perspective. > > > > > > I don't reject your perspective, either. > > > > > > ~*~ > > > > > > L.E: This is getting kind of complex, but it's fun anyway. A > > > meta-perspective is a verbal abstraction, but it just takes the > same question up to another > > > verbal level. > > Perspective is a particular within a universal no matter how many > meta-levels > > you want to verbally create. It alway exists as a definition within no > > definition and thus is limited although useful for argumentation and > drawing > > houses. And, non-dualism has nothing to do with witnessing or > separteness. It > > simply is what exists that includes all. It has no inside or > outside or reference > > points and is just seamless reality itself, and since nothing is > separate from > > it, it can be called non-dual. > > > > Just as you've deconstructing meta perspective, so the word, > " non-dual " can just as easily be deconstructed, in precisely the same > manner. Precisely the same manner. > > Similarly, just because one says that something is " ineffable, " does > not literally mean that there are no words to describe it, since the > word " ineffable, " is itself a word. > > ~*~ > What we do on these lists is amusing. Instead of picking up a fork with (Fill in your blank) and tasting, savoring, letting the juices flow, masticating, swallowing and making our mouths happy, we talk endlessly about eating. or making love. The act is so much better than words about, eh??????? What-how do-does our lives look like? How much joy and peace and fun and excitement do we engage in? After all nonduality looks and feels and tastes better on that side of the inside/downslide/upside in the sliding scale of life. Unless we're into self-flaggelation and guilt. Or adrenaline rushes. mmmmm. Yours In Love, Ana Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 12, 2006 Report Share Posted June 12, 2006 Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <anabebe57 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 6/11/2006 12:19:17 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > > > skywords@ writes: > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > >In a message dated 6/11/2006 11:26:55 AM Pacific Daylight > Time, > > > > >skywords@ writes: > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > >>>L.E: So its impossible to be a non-dualist because it > involves a > > > > >>relationship > > > > >>>to dualism and if there is a relationship, there must be > dualism. > > > > >>>The problem this unnamed person is having is a matter of > > > > >>difinitions, and > > > > >>>definitions are words, verbal, which are themselves > limitated to > > > > >>describe the > > > > >>>oneness of life, the non-dual state of here and now > reality. Most > > > > >>living things > > > > >>>have a relationship as attacker or prey. Is this the proof > they > > > > >>exist as > > > > >>>separate unique forever divided individual? No. They exist > is a > > > > >>unity of > > > > >>>existence and are intrinsically related to each other. No > duality > > > > >>exists in their > > > > >>>relationship. > > > > >>>You can talk about illusions when a pack of wolves sees you > as > > flesh > > > > >>to eat > > > > >>>and is chasing you through the snow. > > > > >>>And cry out as the fangs tear into your thigh, " here is the > > > > synthesis. " > > > > >>> > > > > >>>Larry Epston > > > > >>> > > > > >>>In a message dated 6/10/2006 9:31:09 PM Pacific Daylight > Time, > > > > >>>skywords@ writes: > > > > >>> > > > > >>>>Thesis: > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>It's impossible to be a nondualist > > > > >>>>Since it involves a relationship to duality > > > > >>>>Defined as an absence of relationship > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>The instant there's relationship > > > > >>>>There's duality > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>To have an ego > > > > >>>>Is to have an agenda > > > > >>>>An agenda is a relationship > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>Antithesis: > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>There is no exclusive relationship > > > > >>>>Between one and another, between presence > > > > >>>>And absence > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>Relationship can be eternal > > > > >>>>Beyond the instant > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>Ego has no agenda > > > > >>>>Agenda has ego > > > > >>>>Both agenda and relationshp > > > > >>>>Are illusions > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>Synthesis: > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>One perspective doesn't exclude the other. > > > > >> > > > > >>~*~ > > > > > > > > > >L.E: If you think about what a perspective is, by definition, > it > > > > must exclude > > > > >the other. No perspective or point of view or opinion will > include > > > > all. As > > > > >long as you choose to be in the condition of freedom and no > > longer an > > > > >individual. > > > > >This can last until the human get hungry, then, it back to > > feeding time. > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Yes, but the perspective that is all inclusive, by definition, > > > > excludes the perspective that is exclusive, too. > > > > > > > > It is a metaperspective, a perspective on perspective: And > that's a > > > > whole well established notion in mathematical set theory. > > > > > > > > It is the witnessing of witnessing perspective that nondualism > is > > > > all about, from my perspective. > > > > > > > > I don't reject your perspective, either. > > > > > > > > ~*~ > > > > > > > > L.E: This is getting kind of complex, but it's fun anyway. A > > > > meta-perspective is a verbal abstraction, but it just takes the > > same question up to another > > > > verbal level. > > > Perspective is a particular within a universal no matter how many > > meta-levels > > > you want to verbally create. It alway exists as a definition > within no > > > definition and thus is limited although useful for argumentation > and > > drawing > > > houses. And, non-dualism has nothing to do with witnessing or > > separteness. It > > > simply is what exists that includes all. It has no inside or > > outside or reference > > > points and is just seamless reality itself, and since nothing is > > separate from > > > it, it can be called non-dual. > > > > > > > Just as you've deconstructing meta perspective, so the word, > > " non-dual " can just as easily be deconstructed, in precisely the > same > > manner. Precisely the same manner. > > > > Similarly, just because one says that something is " ineffable, " > does > > not literally mean that there are no words to describe it, since > the > > word " ineffable, " is itself a word. > > > > ~*~ > > > > > What we do on these lists is amusing. Instead of picking up a fork > with (Fill in your blank) and tasting, savoring, letting the juices > flow, masticating, swallowing and making our mouths happy, > we talk endlessly about eating. or making love. > > The act is so much better than words about, eh??????? > > What-how do-does our lives look like? How much joy and peace and > fun and excitement do we engage in? After all nonduality looks and > feels and tastes better on that side of the inside/downslide/upside > in the sliding scale of life. Unless we're into self-flaggelation > and guilt. Or adrenaline rushes. > > mmmmm. > > Yours In Love, > Ana > don't say I didn't ask ~*~ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2006 Report Share Posted June 13, 2006 Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > > In a message dated 6/11/2006 8:37:05 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > skywords writes: > > > >> > > >>>>There is no witness > > >>>>There is no folly > > >>>>There is no duality > > >>>>There is no there > > >>>>There is no is (existence) > > >>>> > > >>>>~*~ > > >>>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>...................and yet............. > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > >>exactly! > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >in the mattering of is > > >does matter matter? > > >and if is matters > > >is there any matter that does not matter? > > > > > >relatively speaking, of is, about matters mattering, > > >exactly, that is. ;-) > > > > > > > does a splattering of nattering ring a bell of bellicosity? Or does > > the laddering of prattling spell the beginning of a belle cite? > > > > ;-)) > > L.E: So what exactly is the matter? I'd say it's the absence of grace and compassion. Without these, there is a separation between mind and spirit (mind separated from spirit = matter). There is a weight, a mass, a resistence, an inertia, an unwillingness to change. But compassion and grace transform everything, unite and celebrate in harmonic unity. ~*~ 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.