Guest guest Posted May 28, 2007 Report Share Posted May 28, 2007 True freedom is freedom from form, which is why what can be described is never where freedom lies. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 29, 2007 Report Share Posted May 29, 2007 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > > True freedom is freedom from form, > which is why what can be described > is never where freedom lies. > > > > Bill Yes. Any formulation doesn't and can't give the formless from/as/through which the formulation arises and dissolves. Teachings are rattles given to pacify a baby. The unformulated truth, isn't a concept of truth or freedom, nor a concept about how there isn't a concept of truth or freedom. Even negations are negated - as there is nothing to negate. Nor is anything lacking or missing. -- D. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 29, 2007 Report Share Posted May 29, 2007 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > True freedom is freedom from form, > > which is why what can be described > > is never where freedom lies. > > > > > > > > Bill > > Yes. > > Any formulation doesn't and can't give the formless from/as/through > which the formulation arises and dissolves. > > Teachings are rattles given to pacify a baby. > > The unformulated truth, isn't a concept of truth or freedom, nor a > concept about how there isn't a concept of truth or freedom. > > Even negations are negated - as there is nothing to negate. Nor is > anything lacking or missing. > > -- D. > The door to bliss slams shut as soon as the mouth opens. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 29, 2007 Report Share Posted May 29, 2007 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > True freedom is freedom from form, > > which is why what can be described > > is never where freedom lies. > > > > > > > > Bill > > Yes. > > Any formulation doesn't and can't give the formless from/as/through > which the formulation arises and dissolves. > > Teachings are rattles given to pacify a baby. > > The unformulated truth, isn't a concept of truth or freedom, nor a > concept about how there isn't a concept of truth or freedom. > > Even negations are negated - as there is nothing to negate. Nor is > anything lacking or missing. > > -- D. > Thanks for the explication. A pleasure to see how you unfold something terse and arcane so that in full light and air there is nothing to wonder about, as you have done here. I will post your reply above to NDP, where the where your unpacked version may help clarify the discussion. Bill PS: Dan - There was quite a discussion on NDP about that short post and I was actually thinking, " Where's Dan? He would understand it for sure! " Thanks for making me a good prognosticator ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 29, 2007 Report Share Posted May 29, 2007 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > True freedom is freedom from form, > > > which is why what can be described > > > is never where freedom lies. > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > Yes. > > > > Any formulation doesn't and can't give the formless from/as/through > > which the formulation arises and dissolves. > > > > Teachings are rattles given to pacify a baby. > > > > The unformulated truth, isn't a concept of truth or freedom, nor a > > concept about how there isn't a concept of truth or freedom. > > > > Even negations are negated - as there is nothing to negate. Nor is > > anything lacking or missing. > > > > -- D. > > > > > The door to bliss slams shut as soon as the mouth opens. > > > > toombaru > what door? Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 29, 2007 Report Share Posted May 29, 2007 bill, i am new to this group thing and would like to know why i keep getting the same emails over and over again??? do you know of any groups regarding ramana maharshi self inquiry??? thanks, rich billrishel <illusyn wrote: Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > True freedom is freedom from form, > > > which is why what can be described > > > is never where freedom lies. > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > Yes. > > > > Any formulation doesn't and can't give the formless from/as/through > > which the formulation arises and dissolves. > > > > Teachings are rattles given to pacify a baby. > > > > The unformulated truth, isn't a concept of truth or freedom, nor a > > concept about how there isn't a concept of truth or freedom. > > > > Even negations are negated - as there is nothing to negate. Nor is > > anything lacking or missing. > > > > -- D. > > > > > The door to bliss slams shut as soon as the mouth opens. > > > > toombaru > what door? Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 29, 2007 Report Share Posted May 29, 2007 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > True freedom is freedom from form, > > > which is why what can be described > > > is never where freedom lies. > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > Yes. > > > > Any formulation doesn't and can't give the formless from/as/through > > which the formulation arises and dissolves. > > > > Teachings are rattles given to pacify a baby. > > > > The unformulated truth, isn't a concept of truth or freedom, nor a > > concept about how there isn't a concept of truth or freedom. > > > > Even negations are negated - as there is nothing to negate. Nor is > > anything lacking or missing. > > > > -- D. > > > > Thanks for the explication. A pleasure to see how you > unfold something terse and arcane so that in full light > and air there is nothing to wonder about, as you have > done here. I will post your reply above to NDP, where the > where your unpacked version may help clarify the discussion. > > Bill > > PS: Dan - There was quite a discussion on NDP about that > short post and I was actually thinking, " Where's Dan? He > would understand it for sure! " Thanks for making me a good > prognosticator ) I was in the background, listening. Heard what you had to say, thought it was good. Since there is no continuity to any discussion, getting involved if I'm not moved to get involved, doesn't occur. If I'm moved to get involved, and that does occur, so it happens. Discontinuous either way. ;-) -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 29, 2007 Report Share Posted May 29, 2007 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > True freedom is freedom from form, > > > > which is why what can be described > > > > is never where freedom lies. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > Any formulation doesn't and can't give the formless from/as/through > > > which the formulation arises and dissolves. > > > > > > Teachings are rattles given to pacify a baby. > > > > > > The unformulated truth, isn't a concept of truth or freedom, nor a > > > concept about how there isn't a concept of truth or freedom. > > > > > > Even negations are negated - as there is nothing to negate. Nor is > > > anything lacking or missing. > > > > > > -- D. > > > > > > > Thanks for the explication. A pleasure to see how you > > unfold something terse and arcane so that in full light > > and air there is nothing to wonder about, as you have > > done here. I will post your reply above to NDP, where the > > where your unpacked version may help clarify the discussion. > > > > Bill > > > > PS: Dan - There was quite a discussion on NDP about that > > short post and I was actually thinking, " Where's Dan? He > > would understand it for sure! " Thanks for making me a good > > prognosticator ) > > I was in the background, listening. > > Heard what you had to say, thought it was good. > > Since there is no continuity to any discussion, getting involved if > I'm not moved to get involved, doesn't occur. > > If I'm moved to get involved, and that does occur, so it happens. > > Discontinuous either way. > > ;-) > > -- Dan I see it's still going on over there. Good stuff, Bill! Let's keep it going on here, too: If one is aware discontinuously, it will be heard when it is stated that what is, is discontinuous. It will be heard without hearing. Because with everything being discontinuous, what is said about it being discontinuous, is just one bleep in the bleep bleep -- all of which is discontinuous. Walt Whitman said, " Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself. I am vast, I contain multitudes. " One might add, " Have I spoken without making sense? Very well, then I make no sense. I am here and beyond, I include and transcend all that is sensed and makes sense. " Or how about, " Has my meaning dissolved? Very well, then my meaning dissolves. I am discontinuous. I move on by being here, and I am here by moving on. " ;-) -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 29, 2007 Report Share Posted May 29, 2007 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > True freedom is freedom from form, > > > > > which is why what can be described > > > > > is never where freedom lies. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > > Any formulation doesn't and can't give the formless from/as/through > > > > which the formulation arises and dissolves. > > > > > > > > Teachings are rattles given to pacify a baby. > > > > > > > > The unformulated truth, isn't a concept of truth or freedom, nor a > > > > concept about how there isn't a concept of truth or freedom. > > > > > > > > Even negations are negated - as there is nothing to negate. Nor is > > > > anything lacking or missing. > > > > > > > > -- D. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the explication. A pleasure to see how you > > > unfold something terse and arcane so that in full light > > > and air there is nothing to wonder about, as you have > > > done here. I will post your reply above to NDP, where the > > > where your unpacked version may help clarify the discussion. > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > PS: Dan - There was quite a discussion on NDP about that > > > short post and I was actually thinking, " Where's Dan? He > > > would understand it for sure! " Thanks for making me a good > > > prognosticator ) > > > > I was in the background, listening. > > > > Heard what you had to say, thought it was good. > > > > Since there is no continuity to any discussion, getting involved if > > I'm not moved to get involved, doesn't occur. > > > > If I'm moved to get involved, and that does occur, so it happens. > > > > Discontinuous either way. > > > > ;-) > > > > -- Dan > > I see it's still going on over there. Good stuff, Bill! > > Let's keep it going on here, too: > > If one is aware discontinuously, it will be heard when it is stated > that what is, is discontinuous. > > It will be heard without hearing. > > Because with everything being discontinuous, what is said about it > being discontinuous, is just one bleep in the bleep bleep -- all of > which is discontinuous. > > Walt Whitman said, " Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I > contradict myself. I am vast, I contain multitudes. " > > One might add, " Have I spoken without making sense? Very well, then I > make no sense. I am here and beyond, I include and transcend all that > is sensed and makes sense. " > > Or how about, " Has my meaning dissolved? Very well, then my meaning > dissolves. I am discontinuous. I move on by being here, and I am > here by moving on. " > > ;-) > > -- Dan keep movin' movin' movin' though their disapprovin' keep them doggies movin' Rawhide don't try to understand them just rope, throw and brand them soon we'll be living high and wide. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 30, 2007 Report Share Posted May 30, 2007 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > True freedom is freedom from form, > > > > which is why what can be described > > > > is never where freedom lies. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > Any formulation doesn't and can't give the formless from/as/through > > > which the formulation arises and dissolves. > > > > > > Teachings are rattles given to pacify a baby. > > > > > > The unformulated truth, isn't a concept of truth or freedom, nor a > > > concept about how there isn't a concept of truth or freedom. > > > > > > Even negations are negated - as there is nothing to negate. Nor is > > > anything lacking or missing. > > > > > > -- D. > > > > > > > Thanks for the explication. A pleasure to see how you > > unfold something terse and arcane so that in full light > > and air there is nothing to wonder about, as you have > > done here. I will post your reply above to NDP, where the > > where your unpacked version may help clarify the discussion. > > > > Bill > > > > PS: Dan - There was quite a discussion on NDP about that > > short post and I was actually thinking, " Where's Dan? He > > would understand it for sure! " Thanks for making me a good > > prognosticator ) > > I was in the background, listening. > > Heard what you had to say, thought it was good. > > Since there is no continuity to any discussion, getting involved if > I'm not moved to get involved, doesn't occur. > > If I'm moved to get involved, and that does occur, so it happens. > > Discontinuous either way. > > ;-) > > -- Dan > same here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 30, 2007 Report Share Posted May 30, 2007 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > True freedom is freedom from form, > > > > > which is why what can be described > > > > > is never where freedom lies. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > > Any formulation doesn't and can't give the formless from/as/through > > > > which the formulation arises and dissolves. > > > > > > > > Teachings are rattles given to pacify a baby. > > > > > > > > The unformulated truth, isn't a concept of truth or freedom, nor a > > > > concept about how there isn't a concept of truth or freedom. > > > > > > > > Even negations are negated - as there is nothing to negate. Nor is > > > > anything lacking or missing. > > > > > > > > -- D. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the explication. A pleasure to see how you > > > unfold something terse and arcane so that in full light > > > and air there is nothing to wonder about, as you have > > > done here. I will post your reply above to NDP, where the > > > where your unpacked version may help clarify the discussion. > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > PS: Dan - There was quite a discussion on NDP about that > > > short post and I was actually thinking, " Where's Dan? He > > > would understand it for sure! " Thanks for making me a good > > > prognosticator ) > > > > I was in the background, listening. > > > > Heard what you had to say, thought it was good. > > > > Since there is no continuity to any discussion, getting involved if > > I'm not moved to get involved, doesn't occur. > > > > If I'm moved to get involved, and that does occur, so it happens. > > > > Discontinuous either way. > > > > ;-) > > > > -- Dan > > I see it's still going on over there. Good stuff, Bill! > > Let's keep it going on here, too: > > If one is aware discontinuously, it will be heard when it is stated > that what is, is discontinuous. > > It will be heard without hearing. > > Because with everything being discontinuous, what is said about it > being discontinuous, is just one bleep in the bleep bleep -- all of > which is discontinuous. > > Walt Whitman said, " Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I > contradict myself. I am vast, I contain multitudes. " > > One might add, " Have I spoken without making sense? Very well, then I > make no sense. I am here and beyond, I include and transcend all that > is sensed and makes sense. " > > Or how about, " Has my meaning dissolved? Very well, then my meaning > dissolves. I am discontinuous. I move on by being here, and I am > here by moving on. " > > ;-) > > -- Dan > Yeah, same here... what is said is what is said. It's that simple. If what is said comes from discontinuous consciousness (awareness is inherently discontinous it seems (yeah?)), then what is said has all the flippant ambi-logic of that discontinuity... a kind of strobe-talk if you will. In a way it is talking cadences instead of concepts, it is weaving a tangle of brain-stew. When we write in cadence-speech the hearing apparati that are attuned to collecting/parsing concept messages start to get a bit dizzy (the responses to the initial post of this thread on NDP being examples, in my view). But if the cadence is kept up, hmmmm.... maybe they begin to flow with it. Yeah, maybe we're really writing/playing music, like a couple of Pied Piper's! Bill PS: Looking back at your message, yeah, I see the cadence thing there. It defies reason, yet coheres so nicely. If one lets go of trying to figure it out and just lets the message " play itself " then it all adds up perfectly. Which goes right back to your initial remark when you say: " If one is aware discontinuously, it will be heard when it is stated that what is, is discontinuous. " Kinda like a shibboleth, isn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 30, 2007 Report Share Posted May 30, 2007 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > Yeah, same here... what is said is what is said. > It's that simple. > > If what is said comes from discontinuous consciousness > (awareness is inherently discontinous it seems (yeah?)), > then what is said has all the flippant ambi-logic of that > discontinuity... a kind of strobe-talk if you will. > > In a way it is talking cadences instead of concepts, > it is weaving a tangle of brain-stew. > > When we write in cadence-speech the hearing apparati that > are attuned to collecting/parsing concept messages start > to get a bit dizzy (the responses to the initial post of > this thread on NDP being examples, in my view). > > But if the cadence is kept up, hmmmm.... maybe they begin > to flow with it. > > Yeah, maybe we're really writing/playing music, like a > couple of Pied Piper's! > > Bill > > PS: Looking back at your message, yeah, I see the cadence > thing there. It defies reason, yet coheres so nicely. > If one lets go of trying to figure it out and just lets > the message " play itself " then it all adds up perfectly. > Which goes right back to your initial remark when you say: > " If one is aware discontinuously, it will be heard when it > is stated that what is, is discontinuous. " > > Kinda like a shibboleth, isn't it? Kinda. If they have ears, let them hear kinda thing. If 'what is' blossoms as perception without division, unfolding/infolding simultaneously -- no actual time is involved. This is the discontinuity. Time is assumed for speech, for maintaining a self that uses perception (presumably to get to another perception formed by the same continuing self). Memory forms the link, supposedly, to the continuity of that self (and its group, its culture, its nation). If I am aware discontinuously, the entirety of me/my perception/my world blossoms in/as *is-ness* - discontinuous, simple is-ness, now-ing. All-inclusive - beginninglessly. Perhaps this could be called immaculate conception, who knows? Acausal, total. Words like flowing raindrops sing, or fall like droppings from a bird's wing. Just kiddin'. Yes, it's a tapestry without any strands - a bloomin' tapestry that dissolves as it forms, infinitely, multidimensionally, holographically - without happening - and discontinuous no-thing at all times. It doesn't rely on the causation and time that memory and thought rely on. Sensations aren't something that a body-mind unit is using to better its survival. Sensations are just an aspect of " what is " moving without beginning ... It doesn't have the fragmentation that memory and thought assume when they try to hold onto formulations that can be carried and imposed over time (the story of human history, methinks). So, it has no history, nor concern with history. But it doesn't operate against memory, time, and thought. It just interweaves them in/as the timeless now-moment of what this moving stillness actually is. (Blip, blip, strobe-talk ;-) Well, this simply can't be grasped as a language-based, thought-oriented, self-referencing image, set of images, perceptions, feelings, or set of ideas. You could say it implodes/explodes any images used. And that's quite okay once grokked as is. Not complicated - simple no-thing/everything. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 30, 2007 Report Share Posted May 30, 2007 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > Yeah, same here... what is said is what is said. > > It's that simple. > > > > If what is said comes from discontinuous consciousness > > (awareness is inherently discontinous it seems (yeah?)), > > then what is said has all the flippant ambi-logic of that > > discontinuity... a kind of strobe-talk if you will. > > > > In a way it is talking cadences instead of concepts, > > it is weaving a tangle of brain-stew. > > > > When we write in cadence-speech the hearing apparati that > > are attuned to collecting/parsing concept messages start > > to get a bit dizzy (the responses to the initial post of > > this thread on NDP being examples, in my view). > > > > But if the cadence is kept up, hmmmm.... maybe they begin > > to flow with it. > > > > Yeah, maybe we're really writing/playing music, like a > > couple of Pied Piper's! > > > > Bill > > > > PS: Looking back at your message, yeah, I see the cadence > > thing there. It defies reason, yet coheres so nicely. > > If one lets go of trying to figure it out and just lets > > the message " play itself " then it all adds up perfectly. > > Which goes right back to your initial remark when you say: > > " If one is aware discontinuously, it will be heard when it > > is stated that what is, is discontinuous. " > > > > Kinda like a shibboleth, isn't it? > > Kinda. > > If they have ears, let them hear kinda thing. > > If 'what is' blossoms as perception without division, > unfolding/infolding simultaneously -- no actual time is involved. > > This is the discontinuity. > > Time is assumed for speech, for maintaining a self that uses > perception (presumably to get to another perception formed by the same > continuing self). > > Memory forms the link, supposedly, to the continuity of that self (and > its group, its culture, its nation). > > If I am aware discontinuously, the entirety of me/my perception/my > world blossoms in/as *is-ness* - discontinuous, simple is-ness, > now-ing. All-inclusive - beginninglessly. > > Perhaps this could be called immaculate conception, who knows? > > Acausal, total. > > Words like flowing raindrops sing, or fall like droppings from a > bird's wing. > > Just kiddin'. > > Yes, it's a tapestry without any strands - a bloomin' tapestry that > dissolves as it forms, infinitely, multidimensionally, holographically > - without happening - and discontinuous no-thing at all times. > > It doesn't rely on the causation and time that memory and thought rely > on. Sensations aren't something that a body-mind unit is using to > better its survival. Sensations are just an aspect of " what is " > moving without beginning ... > > It doesn't have the fragmentation that memory and thought assume when > they try to hold onto formulations that can be carried and imposed > over time (the story of human history, methinks). > > So, it has no history, nor concern with history. > > But it doesn't operate against memory, time, and thought. > > It just interweaves them in/as the timeless now-moment of what this > moving stillness actually is. (Blip, blip, strobe-talk ;-) > > Well, this simply can't be grasped as a language-based, > thought-oriented, self-referencing image, set of images, perceptions, > feelings, or set of ideas. > > You could say it implodes/explodes any images used. > > And that's quite okay once grokked as is. > > Not complicated - simple no-thing/everything. > > -- Dan > The Dan Gita. nice. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 30, 2007 Report Share Posted May 30, 2007 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > Yeah, same here... what is said is what is said. > > It's that simple. > > > > If what is said comes from discontinuous consciousness > > (awareness is inherently discontinous it seems (yeah?)), > > then what is said has all the flippant ambi-logic of that > > discontinuity... a kind of strobe-talk if you will. > > > > In a way it is talking cadences instead of concepts, > > it is weaving a tangle of brain-stew. > > > > When we write in cadence-speech the hearing apparati that > > are attuned to collecting/parsing concept messages start > > to get a bit dizzy (the responses to the initial post of > > this thread on NDP being examples, in my view). > > > > But if the cadence is kept up, hmmmm.... maybe they begin > > to flow with it. > > > > Yeah, maybe we're really writing/playing music, like a > > couple of Pied Piper's! > > > > Bill > > > > PS: Looking back at your message, yeah, I see the cadence > > thing there. It defies reason, yet coheres so nicely. > > If one lets go of trying to figure it out and just lets > > the message " play itself " then it all adds up perfectly. > > Which goes right back to your initial remark when you say: > > " If one is aware discontinuously, it will be heard when it > > is stated that what is, is discontinuous. " > > > > Kinda like a shibboleth, isn't it? > > Kinda. > > If they have ears, let them hear kinda thing. > > If 'what is' blossoms as perception without division, > unfolding/infolding simultaneously -- no actual time is involved. > > This is the discontinuity. > > Time is assumed for speech, for maintaining a self that uses > perception (presumably to get to another perception formed by the same > continuing self). > > Memory forms the link, supposedly, to the continuity of that self (and > its group, its culture, its nation). > > If I am aware discontinuously, the entirety of me/my perception/my > world blossoms in/as *is-ness* - discontinuous, simple is-ness, > now-ing. All-inclusive - beginninglessly. > > Perhaps this could be called immaculate conception, who knows? > > Acausal, total. > > Words like flowing raindrops sing, or fall like droppings from a > bird's wing. > > Just kiddin'. > > Yes, it's a tapestry without any strands - a bloomin' tapestry that > dissolves as it forms, infinitely, multidimensionally, holographically > - without happening - and discontinuous no-thing at all times. > > It doesn't rely on the causation and time that memory and thought rely > on. Sensations aren't something that a body-mind unit is using to > better its survival. Sensations are just an aspect of " what is " > moving without beginning ... > > It doesn't have the fragmentation that memory and thought assume when > they try to hold onto formulations that can be carried and imposed > over time (the story of human history, methinks). > > So, it has no history, nor concern with history. > > But it doesn't operate against memory, time, and thought. > > It just interweaves them in/as the timeless now-moment of what this > moving stillness actually is. (Blip, blip, strobe-talk ;-) > > Well, this simply can't be grasped as a language-based, > thought-oriented, self-referencing image, set of images, perceptions, > feelings, or set of ideas. > > You could say it implodes/explodes any images used. > > And that's quite okay once grokked as is. > > Not complicated - simple no-thing/everything. > > -- Dan > ~~A lot of nice flashes in that strobe-plosion as so many interesting wave-effects cascade over nueral balustrades to come to final subtle shimmer in surcease.~~ -- Sez Who > If I am aware discontinuously, the entirety of me/my perception/my > world blossoms in/as *is-ness* - discontinuous, simple is-ness, > now-ing. All-inclusive - beginninglessly. This discontinuity notion has some real potential as basis for discussion of Now as ONLY " micro-fractional momentality " ... or as you said so well: > Yes, it's a tapestry without any strands - a bloomin' tapestry that > dissolves as it forms, infinitely, multidimensionally, holographically > - without happening - and discontinuous no-thing at all times. But I guess it is only for me to grok-enjoy the crackle-soup of what you've said... is anyone listening in?... or is it just us R2D2s speaking in machine code? Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 30, 2007 Report Share Posted May 30, 2007 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > Yeah, same here... what is said is what is said. > > > It's that simple. > > > > > > If what is said comes from discontinuous consciousness > > > (awareness is inherently discontinous it seems (yeah?)), > > > then what is said has all the flippant ambi-logic of that > > > discontinuity... a kind of strobe-talk if you will. > > > > > > In a way it is talking cadences instead of concepts, > > > it is weaving a tangle of brain-stew. > > > > > > When we write in cadence-speech the hearing apparati that > > > are attuned to collecting/parsing concept messages start > > > to get a bit dizzy (the responses to the initial post of > > > this thread on NDP being examples, in my view). > > > > > > But if the cadence is kept up, hmmmm.... maybe they begin > > > to flow with it. > > > > > > Yeah, maybe we're really writing/playing music, like a > > > couple of Pied Piper's! > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > PS: Looking back at your message, yeah, I see the cadence > > > thing there. It defies reason, yet coheres so nicely. > > > If one lets go of trying to figure it out and just lets > > > the message " play itself " then it all adds up perfectly. > > > Which goes right back to your initial remark when you say: > > > " If one is aware discontinuously, it will be heard when it > > > is stated that what is, is discontinuous. " > > > > > > Kinda like a shibboleth, isn't it? > > > > Kinda. > > > > If they have ears, let them hear kinda thing. > > > > If 'what is' blossoms as perception without division, > > unfolding/infolding simultaneously -- no actual time is involved. > > > > This is the discontinuity. > > > > Time is assumed for speech, for maintaining a self that uses > > perception (presumably to get to another perception formed by the same > > continuing self). > > > > Memory forms the link, supposedly, to the continuity of that self (and > > its group, its culture, its nation). > > > > If I am aware discontinuously, the entirety of me/my perception/my > > world blossoms in/as *is-ness* - discontinuous, simple is-ness, > > now-ing. All-inclusive - beginninglessly. > > > > Perhaps this could be called immaculate conception, who knows? > > > > Acausal, total. > > > > Words like flowing raindrops sing, or fall like droppings from a > > bird's wing. > > > > Just kiddin'. > > > > Yes, it's a tapestry without any strands - a bloomin' tapestry that > > dissolves as it forms, infinitely, multidimensionally, holographically > > - without happening - and discontinuous no-thing at all times. > > > > It doesn't rely on the causation and time that memory and thought rely > > on. Sensations aren't something that a body-mind unit is using to > > better its survival. Sensations are just an aspect of " what is " > > moving without beginning ... > > > > It doesn't have the fragmentation that memory and thought assume when > > they try to hold onto formulations that can be carried and imposed > > over time (the story of human history, methinks). > > > > So, it has no history, nor concern with history. > > > > But it doesn't operate against memory, time, and thought. > > > > It just interweaves them in/as the timeless now-moment of what this > > moving stillness actually is. (Blip, blip, strobe-talk ;-) > > > > Well, this simply can't be grasped as a language-based, > > thought-oriented, self-referencing image, set of images, perceptions, > > feelings, or set of ideas. > > > > You could say it implodes/explodes any images used. > > > > And that's quite okay once grokked as is. > > > > Not complicated - simple no-thing/everything. > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > > The Dan Gita. > > > > nice. > > > > toombaru > Ahhh, someone IS listening in! Yeah, The Dan Gita kinda it, ain't it? Or: it's a gas! Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 31, 2007 Report Share Posted May 31, 2007 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > Yeah, same here... what is said is what is said. > > > It's that simple. > > > > > > If what is said comes from discontinuous consciousness > > > (awareness is inherently discontinous it seems (yeah?)), > > > then what is said has all the flippant ambi-logic of that > > > discontinuity... a kind of strobe-talk if you will. > > > > > > In a way it is talking cadences instead of concepts, > > > it is weaving a tangle of brain-stew. > > > > > > When we write in cadence-speech the hearing apparati that > > > are attuned to collecting/parsing concept messages start > > > to get a bit dizzy (the responses to the initial post of > > > this thread on NDP being examples, in my view). > > > > > > But if the cadence is kept up, hmmmm.... maybe they begin > > > to flow with it. > > > > > > Yeah, maybe we're really writing/playing music, like a > > > couple of Pied Piper's! > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > PS: Looking back at your message, yeah, I see the cadence > > > thing there. It defies reason, yet coheres so nicely. > > > If one lets go of trying to figure it out and just lets > > > the message " play itself " then it all adds up perfectly. > > > Which goes right back to your initial remark when you say: > > > " If one is aware discontinuously, it will be heard when it > > > is stated that what is, is discontinuous. " > > > > > > Kinda like a shibboleth, isn't it? > > > > Kinda. > > > > If they have ears, let them hear kinda thing. > > > > If 'what is' blossoms as perception without division, > > unfolding/infolding simultaneously -- no actual time is involved. > > > > This is the discontinuity. > > > > Time is assumed for speech, for maintaining a self that uses > > perception (presumably to get to another perception formed by the same > > continuing self). > > > > Memory forms the link, supposedly, to the continuity of that self (and > > its group, its culture, its nation). > > > > If I am aware discontinuously, the entirety of me/my perception/my > > world blossoms in/as *is-ness* - discontinuous, simple is-ness, > > now-ing. All-inclusive - beginninglessly. > > > > Perhaps this could be called immaculate conception, who knows? > > > > Acausal, total. > > > > Words like flowing raindrops sing, or fall like droppings from a > > bird's wing. > > > > Just kiddin'. > > > > Yes, it's a tapestry without any strands - a bloomin' tapestry that > > dissolves as it forms, infinitely, multidimensionally, holographically > > - without happening - and discontinuous no-thing at all times. > > > > It doesn't rely on the causation and time that memory and thought rely > > on. Sensations aren't something that a body-mind unit is using to > > better its survival. Sensations are just an aspect of " what is " > > moving without beginning ... > > > > It doesn't have the fragmentation that memory and thought assume when > > they try to hold onto formulations that can be carried and imposed > > over time (the story of human history, methinks). > > > > So, it has no history, nor concern with history. > > > > But it doesn't operate against memory, time, and thought. > > > > It just interweaves them in/as the timeless now-moment of what this > > moving stillness actually is. (Blip, blip, strobe-talk ;-) > > > > Well, this simply can't be grasped as a language-based, > > thought-oriented, self-referencing image, set of images, perceptions, > > feelings, or set of ideas. > > > > You could say it implodes/explodes any images used. > > > > And that's quite okay once grokked as is. > > > > Not complicated - simple no-thing/everything. > > > > -- Dan > > > > ~~A lot of nice flashes in that strobe-plosion > as so many interesting wave-effects cascade > over nueral balustrades to come to final > subtle shimmer in surcease.~~ > -- Sez Who > > > If I am aware discontinuously, the entirety of me/my perception/my > > world blossoms in/as *is-ness* - discontinuous, simple is-ness, > > now-ing. All-inclusive - beginninglessly. > > This discontinuity notion has some real potential > as basis for discussion of Now as ONLY " micro-fractional > momentality " ... or as you said so well: > > > Yes, it's a tapestry without any strands - a bloomin' tapestry that > > dissolves as it forms, infinitely, multidimensionally, holographically > > - without happening - and discontinuous no-thing at all times. > > But I guess it is only for me to grok-enjoy the > crackle-soup of what you've said... is anyone listening in?... > or is it just us R2D2s speaking in machine code? > > > Bill Hi Bill - Discontuity is radical. Now can't be microfractional momentality if there is nothing to be a fraction of. Anything involving duration involves continuity (of something) ... a nanosecond is equal to ten thousand years ... Because time is space, without duration there can be no spatial relations. Hence, no objectification possible. The imaginary nature of these conversations means that whether or not anyone is listening, the whole universe is listening ... and no one ... Very still ... ;-) -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 31, 2007 Report Share Posted May 31, 2007 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > Yeah, same here... what is said is what is said. > > > > It's that simple. > > > > > > > > If what is said comes from discontinuous consciousness > > > > (awareness is inherently discontinous it seems (yeah?)), > > > > then what is said has all the flippant ambi-logic of that > > > > discontinuity... a kind of strobe-talk if you will. > > > > > > > > In a way it is talking cadences instead of concepts, > > > > it is weaving a tangle of brain-stew. > > > > > > > > When we write in cadence-speech the hearing apparati that > > > > are attuned to collecting/parsing concept messages start > > > > to get a bit dizzy (the responses to the initial post of > > > > this thread on NDP being examples, in my view). > > > > > > > > But if the cadence is kept up, hmmmm.... maybe they begin > > > > to flow with it. > > > > > > > > Yeah, maybe we're really writing/playing music, like a > > > > couple of Pied Piper's! > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > PS: Looking back at your message, yeah, I see the cadence > > > > thing there. It defies reason, yet coheres so nicely. > > > > If one lets go of trying to figure it out and just lets > > > > the message " play itself " then it all adds up perfectly. > > > > Which goes right back to your initial remark when you say: > > > > " If one is aware discontinuously, it will be heard when it > > > > is stated that what is, is discontinuous. " > > > > > > > > Kinda like a shibboleth, isn't it? > > > > > > Kinda. > > > > > > If they have ears, let them hear kinda thing. > > > > > > If 'what is' blossoms as perception without division, > > > unfolding/infolding simultaneously -- no actual time is involved. > > > > > > This is the discontinuity. > > > > > > Time is assumed for speech, for maintaining a self that uses > > > perception (presumably to get to another perception formed by the same > > > continuing self). > > > > > > Memory forms the link, supposedly, to the continuity of that self (and > > > its group, its culture, its nation). > > > > > > If I am aware discontinuously, the entirety of me/my perception/my > > > world blossoms in/as *is-ness* - discontinuous, simple is-ness, > > > now-ing. All-inclusive - beginninglessly. > > > > > > Perhaps this could be called immaculate conception, who knows? > > > > > > Acausal, total. > > > > > > Words like flowing raindrops sing, or fall like droppings from a > > > bird's wing. > > > > > > Just kiddin'. > > > > > > Yes, it's a tapestry without any strands - a bloomin' tapestry that > > > dissolves as it forms, infinitely, multidimensionally, holographically > > > - without happening - and discontinuous no-thing at all times. > > > > > > It doesn't rely on the causation and time that memory and thought rely > > > on. Sensations aren't something that a body-mind unit is using to > > > better its survival. Sensations are just an aspect of " what is " > > > moving without beginning ... > > > > > > It doesn't have the fragmentation that memory and thought assume when > > > they try to hold onto formulations that can be carried and imposed > > > over time (the story of human history, methinks). > > > > > > So, it has no history, nor concern with history. > > > > > > But it doesn't operate against memory, time, and thought. > > > > > > It just interweaves them in/as the timeless now-moment of what this > > > moving stillness actually is. (Blip, blip, strobe-talk ;-) > > > > > > Well, this simply can't be grasped as a language-based, > > > thought-oriented, self-referencing image, set of images, perceptions, > > > feelings, or set of ideas. > > > > > > You could say it implodes/explodes any images used. > > > > > > And that's quite okay once grokked as is. > > > > > > Not complicated - simple no-thing/everything. > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > > ~~A lot of nice flashes in that strobe-plosion > > as so many interesting wave-effects cascade > > over nueral balustrades to come to final > > subtle shimmer in surcease.~~ > > -- Sez Who > > > > > If I am aware discontinuously, the entirety of me/my perception/my > > > world blossoms in/as *is-ness* - discontinuous, simple is-ness, > > > now-ing. All-inclusive - beginninglessly. > > > > This discontinuity notion has some real potential > > as basis for discussion of Now as ONLY " micro-fractional > > momentality " ... or as you said so well: > > > > > Yes, it's a tapestry without any strands - a bloomin' tapestry that > > > dissolves as it forms, infinitely, multidimensionally, holographically > > > - without happening - and discontinuous no-thing at all times. > > > > But I guess it is only for me to grok-enjoy the > > crackle-soup of what you've said... is anyone listening in?... > > or is it just us R2D2s speaking in machine code? > > > > > > Bill > > Hi Bill - > > Discontuity is radical. > > Now can't be microfractional momentality if there is nothing to be a > fraction of. " Microfractional momentality " was used as a didactic device, not as an attempt at actual description (which is impossible anyway). I used that term to impress upon the reader (not you actually) that whatever they may think of as the " moment " , I mean something " more brief " . But in saying that, I am not interested in a quantitative change (*more* brief, etc.) but in qualitative change. The moon-finger there is trying to point the reader to such mecurially subtle and quick change that there is no way for an iota to be held by the mind. > > Anything involving duration involves continuity (of something) ... > > a nanosecond is equal to ten thousand years ... > > Because time is space, without duration there can be no spatial relations. > > Hence, no objectification possible. > > The imaginary nature of these conversations means that whether or not > anyone is listening, the whole universe is listening ... and no one ... > > Very still ... radically still dynamically still a stillness that is bursting Bill > > ;-) > > -- Dan > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 31, 2007 Report Share Posted May 31, 2007 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > The moon-finger there is trying to point > the reader to such mecurially subtle and quick change that > there is no way for an iota to be held by the mind. Yes. In the twinkling of an eye, at the sound of the last trump. > radically still > dynamically still > a stillness that is bursting Yes. My cup runneth over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 31, 2007 Report Share Posted May 31, 2007 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > The moon-finger there is trying to point > > the reader to such mecurially subtle and quick change that > > there is no way for an iota to be held by the mind. > > Yes. > > In the twinkling of an eye, at the sound of the last trump. > > > > radically still > > dynamically still > > a stillness that is bursting > > Yes. > > My cup runneth over. sweeter still..the cup that cannot be filled. sweetest yet..no cup. best..no 'my'. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 31, 2007 Report Share Posted May 31, 2007 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > The moon-finger there is trying to point > > the reader to such mecurially subtle and quick change that > > there is no way for an iota to be held by the mind. > > Yes. > > In the twinkling of an eye, at the sound of the last trump. > > > > radically still > > dynamically still > > a stillness that is bursting > > Yes. > > My cup runneth over. Runneth over what? :-0 toombaru > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.