Guest guest Posted July 7, 2006 Report Share Posted July 7, 2006 Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart wrote: > Per my reading Dan did not repeat what you said. > > when you say: > " these 'true' concepts of yours are just as illusory as the so > called 'false' ones " > you seem to be saying that any expression of concepts is > illusory. Is that what you are saying? > > Dan said (referring to your statement above): > " it's meaningless to say that concepts are true or false " > > How can you say he is saying the same thing as you > when he is clearly disagreeing with what you said? > > Bill Yes, to say that concepts are illusory is to still value the conceptual distinction between illusion and reality. A tooth can't bite itself. Using concepts to try to comment about the nature of concepts (as true, false, illusory, real, meaningful, meaningless) reaches an impasse. At this impasse, something happens that can't be spoken, but even to say that it can't be spoken, involves conceptual distinction-making. And, for that reason, all kinds of apparently contradictory statements get offered, like " sitting silently " or " nothing happens, " or " this moment is transcendent, " or " this is the way that can't be spoken, " or " this is no-thingness " or " this simply is as is " or " all phenomena mutually co-arise and co-determine " or " this is very God, " or " this is brilliance, " or " this is the clear light " or " this is naked awareness. " Different schools of teaching form around the different apparently contradictory offerings (and they have) - and on it goes. And 'round and 'round we go, my comment about your comment about his comment about that comment ... :-) -- Dan 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.