Guest guest Posted January 6, 2009 Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 Science may have already proved the fundamental unity of all phenomena. Although physicists have not ventured that the entanglement of subatomic particles indicates a fundamental unity, in my opinion it's the only logical explanation as to why a pair photons eleven miles apart will instantaneously reflect any changes make to its partner. It's impossible that information could travel instantaneously, so this must indicate some basic unity, a realm where distance doesn't exist. This also may proof my point that matter is not as material as it seems. Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 6, 2009 Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > Science may have already proved the > fundamental unity of all phenomena. > Although physicists have not ventured > that the entanglement of subatomic > particles indicates a fundamental > unity, in my opinion it's the only > logical explanation as to why a pair > photons eleven miles apart will > instantaneously reflect any changes > make to its partner. > > It's impossible that information > could travel instantaneously, so > this must indicate some basic unity, > a realm where distance doesn't exist. > > This also may proof my point that matter > is not as material as it seems. > > Pete you're right pete.. matter doesn't matter as a matter of 'fact'..or 'fiction'. nor does it's opposite nor it's spiritual counterpart, count for much. nor does it's equivalence in and/or as 'energy'. it's all the same and without second. it doesn't 'know' this. that's not required. finger-painting mind stuff construing space/time doesn't amuse. quite truthfully... it's a bastard in a lot of ways. like that. it's incredibly sweet as well. it's neither. concrete, candid, conscious, certain. most just call it the blues. the only 'way' to 'know' the blues..yea the sweet down low blues.. is to hear the music. all the notation and description... scientific or romantic.. will not get you there... where all whos vanish. it's a sad thing. it's glorious. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 6, 2009 Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > Science may have already proved the > fundamental unity of all phenomena. > Although physicists have not ventured > that the entanglement of subatomic > particles indicates a fundamental > unity, in my opinion it's the only > logical explanation as to why a pair > photons eleven miles apart will > instantaneously reflect any changes > make to its partner. > > It's impossible that information > could travel instantaneously, so > this must indicate some basic unity, > a realm where distance doesn't exist. > > This also may proof my point that matter > is not as material as it seems. > > Pete > what could be the distances about....within dreams?.... Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 There is a fundamental desire for unity in all human beings. New Age philosophies have found a niche here; at the beginning, maybe, to counteract capitalism and the disorientation caused by the " death of God " during emergence of postmodern philosophies in 60'ties. Unity (ad-vait) can well replace God as a pointer, as a master-pointer. Then, everything is OK again: we have unity, and might ask ourselves, what this unity might expect from us. We also could ask ourselves, which attributes we would like to confer to unity. To see unity you have to stand outside unity. As soon something stands outside unity, unity is not or not? When you dream and see and act as yourself in this dream, you have to wake up to become aware of the fact that you were dreaming. Thus, a dreamer exists, who is not part of the dream. The person in the dream who looked and acted like you, wasn't you. Your reflection in a mirror isn't you too; it's an inverted image and this image is located in a virtual space behind the mirror. Gods has been, in our western-monotheistic culture, the unifying signifier/pointer for centuries. We have to correct Caesar: " unify " (and not " divide " ) and win is the slogan. It wasn't a big problem for monotheistic religions to replace the multiple deities of roman or greek mythology/religion by " One " all-embracing, total omniescent and omnipotent deity. Christians introduced a subtle split by dividing, and simultaneously unifying in God, in the father, the son and the holy ghost-as if the founders would had known that about 2000 years later there would be a wave-particle discussion in physics. Some people always need a unifying signifier, because they can't live with the fundamental idiocy of reality and objectivity. Pointless, however, is to try to convince others about the correctness of one's own " master-pointer " , because this is always done to convince oneself. Idiocy lurks always around; there is, thus, always a constant need for self- reaffirmation, otherwise we can get sad or depressed. Again, All is One, can only be said be someone standing outside All, then, All is One minus 1, and this can't be All. However, some people here and in other spiritual groups believe they are beyond reasoning or socio-politic engagement.... Yours, Ricardo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 Nisargadatta , " almon2009 " <almon2009 wrote: > > There is a fundamental desire for unity in all human beings. New Age philosophies have > found a niche here; at the beginning, maybe, to counteract capitalism and the > disorientation caused by the " death of God " during emergence of postmodern > philosophies in 60'ties. > > Unity (ad-vait) can well replace God as a pointer, as a master- pointer. Then, everything is > OK again: we have unity, and might ask ourselves, what this unity might expect from us. > We also could ask ourselves, which attributes we would like to confer to unity. > > To see unity you have to stand outside unity. As soon something stands outside unity, > unity is not or not? When you dream and see and act as yourself in this dream, you have to > wake up to become aware of the fact that you were dreaming. Thus, a dreamer exists, who > is not part of the dream. The person in the dream who looked and acted like you, wasn't > you. Your reflection in a mirror isn't you too; it's an inverted image and this image is > located in a virtual space behind the mirror. > > Gods has been, in our western-monotheistic culture, the unifying signifier/pointer for > centuries. We have to correct Caesar: " unify " (and not " divide " ) and win is the slogan. It > wasn't a big problem for monotheistic religions to replace the multiple deities of roman or > greek mythology/religion by " One " all-embracing, total omniescent and omnipotent deity. > Christians introduced a subtle split by dividing, and simultaneously unifying in God, in the > father, the son and the holy ghost-as if the founders would had known that about 2000 > years later there would be a wave-particle discussion in physics. > > Some people always need a unifying signifier, because they can't live with the > fundamental idiocy of reality and objectivity. Pointless, however, is to try to convince > others about the correctness of one's own " master-pointer " , because this is always done > to convince oneself. Idiocy lurks always around; there is, thus, always a constant need for > self- reaffirmation, otherwise we can get sad or depressed. > > Again, All is One, can only be said be someone standing outside All, then, All is One minus > 1, and this can't be All. However, some people here and in other spiritual groups believe > they are beyond reasoning or socio-politic engagement.... > > > Yours, > Ricardo > do you think that there is anybody in the world who is out of " socio- politic " engagment?.... Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " almon2009@ " <almon2009@> > wrote: > > > > There is a fundamental desire for unity in all human beings. New > Age philosophies have > > found a niche here; at the beginning, maybe, to counteract > capitalism and the > > disorientation caused by the " death of God " during emergence of > postmodern > > philosophies in 60'ties. > > > > Unity (ad-vait) can well replace God as a pointer, as a master- > pointer. Then, everything is > > OK again: we have unity, and might ask ourselves, what this unity > might expect from us. > > We also could ask ourselves, which attributes we would like to > confer to unity. > > > > To see unity you have to stand outside unity. As soon something > stands outside unity, > > unity is not or not? When you dream and see and act as yourself in > this dream, you have to > > wake up to become aware of the fact that you were dreaming. Thus, a > dreamer exists, who > > is not part of the dream. The person in the dream who looked and > acted like you, wasn't > > you. Your reflection in a mirror isn't you too; it's an inverted > image and this image is > > located in a virtual space behind the mirror. > > > > Gods has been, in our western-monotheistic culture, the unifying > signifier/pointer for > > centuries. We have to correct Caesar: " unify " (and not " divide " ) > and win is the slogan. It > > wasn't a big problem for monotheistic religions to replace the > multiple deities of roman or > > greek mythology/religion by " One " all-embracing, total omniescent > and omnipotent deity. > > Christians introduced a subtle split by dividing, and > simultaneously unifying in God, in the > > father, the son and the holy ghost-as if the founders would had > known that about 2000 > > years later there would be a wave-particle discussion in physics. > > > > Some people always need a unifying signifier, because they can't > live with the > > fundamental idiocy of reality and objectivity. Pointless, however, > is to try to convince > > others about the correctness of one's own " master-pointer " , because > this is always done > > to convince oneself. Idiocy lurks always around; there is, thus, > always a constant need for > > self- reaffirmation, otherwise we can get sad or depressed. > > > > Again, All is One, can only be said be someone standing outside > All, then, All is One minus > > 1, and this can't be All. However, some people here and in other > spiritual groups believe > > they are beyond reasoning or socio-politic engagement.... > > > > > > Yours, > > Ricardo > > > > > > do you think that there is anybody in the world who is out of " socio- > politic " engagment?.... > > > > Marc Hi Marc, I don't think so. We live in societies, we interact. Even a cynical, sarcastic attitude is a form of socio-political act. I meant with the term " engagement " a kind of responsibility. More then ever before I believe we are living an age of radical change. The post- postmodern unifying pointer, i.e. God, seems to be Technology, in my opinion. Ricardo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 Nisargadatta , " almon2009 " <almon2009 wrote: > > There is a fundamental desire for unity in all human beings. New Age philosophies have > found a niche here; at the beginning, maybe, to counteract capitalism and the > disorientation caused by the " death of God " during emergence of postmodern > philosophies in 60'ties. > > Unity (ad-vait) can well replace God as a pointer, as a master-pointer. Then, everything is > OK again: we have unity, and might ask ourselves, what this unity might expect from us. > We also could ask ourselves, which attributes we would like to confer to unity. > > To see unity you have to stand outside unity. As soon something stands outside unity, > unity is not or not? When you dream and see and act as yourself in this dream, you have to > wake up to become aware of the fact that you were dreaming. Thus, a dreamer exists, who > is not part of the dream. The person in the dream who looked and acted like you, wasn't > you. Your reflection in a mirror isn't you too; it's an inverted image and this image is > located in a virtual space behind the mirror. > > Gods has been, in our western-monotheistic culture, the unifying signifier/pointer for > centuries. We have to correct Caesar: " unify " (and not " divide " ) and win is the slogan. It > wasn't a big problem for monotheistic religions to replace the multiple deities of roman or > greek mythology/religion by " One " all-embracing, total omniescent and omnipotent deity. > Christians introduced a subtle split by dividing, and simultaneously unifying in God, in the > father, the son and the holy ghost-as if the founders would had known that about 2000 > years later there would be a wave-particle discussion in physics. > > Some people always need a unifying signifier, because they can't live with the > fundamental idiocy of reality and objectivity. Pointless, however, is to try to convince > others about the correctness of one's own " master-pointer " , because this is always done > to convince oneself. Idiocy lurks always around; there is, thus, always a constant need for > self- reaffirmation, otherwise we can get sad or depressed. > > Again, All is One, can only be said be someone standing outside All, then, All is One minus > 1, and this can't be All. However, some people here and in other spiritual groups believe > they are beyond reasoning or socio-politic engagement.... > > > Yours, > Ricardo there are no people here. there is no such thing as 'here'. abandon all hope. it iss useless as are all formulations. All is function without procedure...un-formatted Capacity. no-self alone IS. imaginary number of negative sign is just that...imaginary. there is no one imagining. 'THAT' is not imaginable. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " almon2009@ " <almon2009@> > wrote: > > > > There is a fundamental desire for unity in all human beings. New Age > philosophies have > > found a niche here; at the beginning, maybe, to counteract > capitalism and the > > disorientation caused by the " death of God " during emergence of > postmodern > > philosophies in 60'ties. > > > > Unity (ad-vait) can well replace God as a pointer, as a > master-pointer. Then, everything is > > OK again: we have unity, and might ask ourselves, what this unity > might expect from us. > > We also could ask ourselves, which attributes we would like to > confer to unity. > > > > To see unity you have to stand outside unity. As soon something > stands outside unity, > > unity is not or not? When you dream and see and act as yourself in > this dream, you have to > > wake up to become aware of the fact that you were dreaming. Thus, a > dreamer exists, who > > is not part of the dream. The person in the dream who looked and > acted like you, wasn't > > you. Your reflection in a mirror isn't you too; it's an inverted > image and this image is > > located in a virtual space behind the mirror. > > > > Gods has been, in our western-monotheistic culture, the unifying > signifier/pointer for > > centuries. We have to correct Caesar: " unify " (and not " divide " ) and > win is the slogan. It > > wasn't a big problem for monotheistic religions to replace the > multiple deities of roman or > > greek mythology/religion by " One " all-embracing, total omniescent > and omnipotent deity. > > Christians introduced a subtle split by dividing, and simultaneously > unifying in God, in the > > father, the son and the holy ghost-as if the founders would had > known that about 2000 > > years later there would be a wave-particle discussion in physics. > > > > Some people always need a unifying signifier, because they can't > live with the > > fundamental idiocy of reality and objectivity. Pointless, however, > is to try to convince > > others about the correctness of one's own " master-pointer " , because > this is always done > > to convince oneself. Idiocy lurks always around; there is, thus, > always a constant need for > > self- reaffirmation, otherwise we can get sad or depressed. > > > > Again, All is One, can only be said be someone standing outside All, > then, All is One minus > > 1, and this can't be All. However, some people here and in other > spiritual groups believe > > they are beyond reasoning or socio-politic engagement.... > > > > > > Yours, > > Ricardo > > > there are no people here. > > there is no such thing as 'here'. > > abandon all hope. > > it iss useless as are all formulations. > > All is function without procedure...un-formatted Capacity. > > no-self alone IS. > > imaginary number of negative sign is just that...imaginary. > > there is no one imagining. > > 'THAT' is not imaginable. Hi, despite 'That', thanks for the feedback. What I read here reminds me of Nisargadatta's discourse. I agree about the imaginary, the illusory, dream-like texture of reality. Also, this or that might not be imaginable...and what? Does it change something? More than 'That', concepts or attributes like kindness, tolerance, benevolence, gentleness, to service appear to me important. Maybe also the concept of 'That' has to be discarded, abandoned. It becomes useless outside a didactic constellation of interactions. Ricardo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 Nisargadatta , " almon2009 " <almon2009 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " almon2009@ " <almon2009@> > > wrote: > > > > > > There is a fundamental desire for unity in all human beings. New > > Age philosophies have > > > found a niche here; at the beginning, maybe, to counteract > > capitalism and the > > > disorientation caused by the " death of God " during emergence of > > postmodern > > > philosophies in 60'ties. > > > > > > Unity (ad-vait) can well replace God as a pointer, as a master- > > pointer. Then, everything is > > > OK again: we have unity, and might ask ourselves, what this unity > > might expect from us. > > > We also could ask ourselves, which attributes we would like to > > confer to unity. > > > > > > To see unity you have to stand outside unity. As soon something > > stands outside unity, > > > unity is not or not? When you dream and see and act as yourself in > > this dream, you have to > > > wake up to become aware of the fact that you were dreaming. Thus, a > > dreamer exists, who > > > is not part of the dream. The person in the dream who looked and > > acted like you, wasn't > > > you. Your reflection in a mirror isn't you too; it's an inverted > > image and this image is > > > located in a virtual space behind the mirror. > > > > > > Gods has been, in our western-monotheistic culture, the unifying > > signifier/pointer for > > > centuries. We have to correct Caesar: " unify " (and not " divide " ) > > and win is the slogan. It > > > wasn't a big problem for monotheistic religions to replace the > > multiple deities of roman or > > > greek mythology/religion by " One " all-embracing, total omniescent > > and omnipotent deity. > > > Christians introduced a subtle split by dividing, and > > simultaneously unifying in God, in the > > > father, the son and the holy ghost-as if the founders would had > > known that about 2000 > > > years later there would be a wave-particle discussion in physics. > > > > > > Some people always need a unifying signifier, because they can't > > live with the > > > fundamental idiocy of reality and objectivity. Pointless, however, > > is to try to convince > > > others about the correctness of one's own " master-pointer " , because > > this is always done > > > to convince oneself. Idiocy lurks always around; there is, thus, > > always a constant need for > > > self- reaffirmation, otherwise we can get sad or depressed. > > > > > > Again, All is One, can only be said be someone standing outside > > All, then, All is One minus > > > 1, and this can't be All. However, some people here and in other > > spiritual groups believe > > > they are beyond reasoning or socio-politic engagement.... > > > > > > > > > Yours, > > > Ricardo > > > > > > > > > > > do you think that there is anybody in the world who is out of " socio- > > politic " engagment?.... > > > > > > > > Marc > > Hi Marc, > > I don't think so. We live in societies, we interact. Even a cynical, sarcastic attitude is a form > of socio-political act. I meant with the term " engagement " a kind of responsibility. > > More then ever before I believe we are living an age of radical change. The post- > postmodern unifying pointer, i.e. God, seems to be Technology, in my opinion. > > Ricardo > so there is an " engagement " with higher responsibility?.....about who & what?.... i don't think that there is anybody who has higher responsibilities for/about him/herself than others.... Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " almon2009@ " <almon2009@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " almon2009@ " <almon2009@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > There is a fundamental desire for unity in all human beings. > New > > > Age philosophies have > > > > found a niche here; at the beginning, maybe, to counteract > > > capitalism and the > > > > disorientation caused by the " death of God " during emergence of > > > postmodern > > > > philosophies in 60'ties. > > > > > > > > Unity (ad-vait) can well replace God as a pointer, as a master- > > > pointer. Then, everything is > > > > OK again: we have unity, and might ask ourselves, what this > unity > > > might expect from us. > > > > We also could ask ourselves, which attributes we would like to > > > confer to unity. > > > > > > > > To see unity you have to stand outside unity. As soon something > > > stands outside unity, > > > > unity is not or not? When you dream and see and act as yourself > in > > > this dream, you have to > > > > wake up to become aware of the fact that you were dreaming. > Thus, a > > > dreamer exists, who > > > > is not part of the dream. The person in the dream who looked > and > > > acted like you, wasn't > > > > you. Your reflection in a mirror isn't you too; it's an > inverted > > > image and this image is > > > > located in a virtual space behind the mirror. > > > > > > > > Gods has been, in our western-monotheistic culture, the > unifying > > > signifier/pointer for > > > > centuries. We have to correct Caesar: " unify " (and > not " divide " ) > > > and win is the slogan. It > > > > wasn't a big problem for monotheistic religions to replace the > > > multiple deities of roman or > > > > greek mythology/religion by " One " all-embracing, total > omniescent > > > and omnipotent deity. > > > > Christians introduced a subtle split by dividing, and > > > simultaneously unifying in God, in the > > > > father, the son and the holy ghost-as if the founders would had > > > known that about 2000 > > > > years later there would be a wave-particle discussion in > physics. > > > > > > > > Some people always need a unifying signifier, because they > can't > > > live with the > > > > fundamental idiocy of reality and objectivity. Pointless, > however, > > > is to try to convince > > > > others about the correctness of one's own " master-pointer " , > because > > > this is always done > > > > to convince oneself. Idiocy lurks always around; there is, > thus, > > > always a constant need for > > > > self- reaffirmation, otherwise we can get sad or depressed. > > > > > > > > Again, All is One, can only be said be someone standing outside > > > All, then, All is One minus > > > > 1, and this can't be All. However, some people here and in > other > > > spiritual groups believe > > > > they are beyond reasoning or socio-politic engagement.... > > > > > > > > > > > > Yours, > > > > Ricardo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do you think that there is anybody in the world who is out > of " socio- > > > politic " engagment?.... > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > Hi Marc, > > > > I don't think so. We live in societies, we interact. Even a > cynical, sarcastic attitude is a form > > of socio-political act. I meant with the term " engagement " a kind > of responsibility. > > > > More then ever before I believe we are living an age of radical > change. The post- > > postmodern unifying pointer, i.e. God, seems to be Technology, in > my opinion. > > > > Ricardo > > > > > so there is an " engagement " with higher responsibility?.....about > who & what?.... > > i don't think that there is anybody who has higher responsibilities > for/about him/herself than others.... > > > Marc > Hi Marc, I agree with you; we have different responsibilities - not higher or lower, no scales. What I mean with socio-political engagement is to engage actively in the society someone lives. Nisargadatta did it too. He was on the way to some cave in the Himalaya, when he reconsidered his decision and went back to his family. He felt the need to teach, to spread his message, i.e. to help others. It also doesn't matter how big the circle is in which someone moves. Again, my message was not about evaluating responsibilities, it is about being active and, for example, fight for the things someone considers important or good. If people could agree, for example, in that killing others isn't good and that dialogue is the only way to overcome differences in opinion, many things in this world would run much easier. If people could agree in that to buy or own more and more commodities of whatever kind will not satisfy desire but rather generate feelings of anxiety, guilt and more dissatisfaction and unease no child would have to die due to malnutrition. Ricardo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 Nisargadatta , " almon2009 " <almon2009 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " almon2009@ " <almon2009@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " almon2009@ " <almon2009@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > There is a fundamental desire for unity in all human beings. > > New > > > > Age philosophies have > > > > > found a niche here; at the beginning, maybe, to counteract > > > > capitalism and the > > > > > disorientation caused by the " death of God " during emergence of > > > > postmodern > > > > > philosophies in 60'ties. > > > > > > > > > > Unity (ad-vait) can well replace God as a pointer, as a master- > > > > pointer. Then, everything is > > > > > OK again: we have unity, and might ask ourselves, what this > > unity > > > > might expect from us. > > > > > We also could ask ourselves, which attributes we would like to > > > > confer to unity. > > > > > > > > > > To see unity you have to stand outside unity. As soon something > > > > stands outside unity, > > > > > unity is not or not? When you dream and see and act as yourself > > in > > > > this dream, you have to > > > > > wake up to become aware of the fact that you were dreaming. > > Thus, a > > > > dreamer exists, who > > > > > is not part of the dream. The person in the dream who looked > > and > > > > acted like you, wasn't > > > > > you. Your reflection in a mirror isn't you too; it's an > > inverted > > > > image and this image is > > > > > located in a virtual space behind the mirror. > > > > > > > > > > Gods has been, in our western-monotheistic culture, the > > unifying > > > > signifier/pointer for > > > > > centuries. We have to correct Caesar: " unify " (and > > not " divide " ) > > > > and win is the slogan. It > > > > > wasn't a big problem for monotheistic religions to replace the > > > > multiple deities of roman or > > > > > greek mythology/religion by " One " all-embracing, total > > omniescent > > > > and omnipotent deity. > > > > > Christians introduced a subtle split by dividing, and > > > > simultaneously unifying in God, in the > > > > > father, the son and the holy ghost-as if the founders would had > > > > known that about 2000 > > > > > years later there would be a wave-particle discussion in > > physics. > > > > > > > > > > Some people always need a unifying signifier, because they > > can't > > > > live with the > > > > > fundamental idiocy of reality and objectivity. Pointless, > > however, > > > > is to try to convince > > > > > others about the correctness of one's own " master-pointer " , > > because > > > > this is always done > > > > > to convince oneself. Idiocy lurks always around; there is, > > thus, > > > > always a constant need for > > > > > self- reaffirmation, otherwise we can get sad or depressed. > > > > > > > > > > Again, All is One, can only be said be someone standing outside > > > > All, then, All is One minus > > > > > 1, and this can't be All. However, some people here and in > > other > > > > spiritual groups believe > > > > > they are beyond reasoning or socio-politic engagement.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yours, > > > > > Ricardo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do you think that there is anybody in the world who is out > > of " socio- > > > > politic " engagment?.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > Hi Marc, > > > > > > I don't think so. We live in societies, we interact. Even a > > cynical, sarcastic attitude is a form > > > of socio-political act. I meant with the term " engagement " a kind > > of responsibility. > > > > > > More then ever before I believe we are living an age of radical > > change. The post- > > > postmodern unifying pointer, i.e. God, seems to be Technology, in > > my opinion. > > > > > > Ricardo > > > > > > > > > so there is an " engagement " with higher responsibility?.....about > > who & what?.... > > > > i don't think that there is anybody who has higher responsibilities > > for/about him/herself than others.... > > > > > > Marc > > > > Hi Marc, > > I agree with you; we have different responsibilities - not higher or lower, no scales. What I > mean with socio-political engagement is to engage actively in the society someone lives. > Nisargadatta did it too. He was on the way to some cave in the Himalaya, when he > reconsidered his decision and went back to his family. He felt the need to teach, to spread > his message, i.e. to help others. It also doesn't matter how big the circle is in which > someone moves. > > Again, my message was not about evaluating responsibilities, it is about being active and, > for example, fight for the things someone considers important or good. > > If people could agree, for example, in that killing others isn't good and that dialogue is > the only way to overcome differences in opinion, many things in this world would run > much easier. If people could agree in that to buy or own more and more commodities of > whatever kind will not satisfy desire but rather generate feelings of anxiety, guilt and more > dissatisfaction and unease no child would have to die due to malnutrition. > > Ricardo > Nis, Ramana, Jesus etc....didn't change the world.... Same for the one sitting in a cave. They didn't intent to change the world. The world was/is/will be just perfect in their eyes. They showed that there is also a life after/beside this imaginary busy " world " , " mind " , " important engagments " ,....and many other illusions. Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 Nisargadatta , " almon2009 " <almon2009 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " almon2009@ " <almon2009@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " almon2009@ " <almon2009@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > There is a fundamental desire for unity in all human beings. > > New > > > > Age philosophies have > > > > > found a niche here; at the beginning, maybe, to counteract > > > > capitalism and the > > > > > disorientation caused by the " death of God " during emergence of > > > > postmodern > > > > > philosophies in 60'ties. > > > > > > > > > > Unity (ad-vait) can well replace God as a pointer, as a master- > > > > pointer. Then, everything is > > > > > OK again: we have unity, and might ask ourselves, what this > > unity > > > > might expect from us. > > > > > We also could ask ourselves, which attributes we would like to > > > > confer to unity. > > > > > > > > > > To see unity you have to stand outside unity. As soon something > > > > stands outside unity, > > > > > unity is not or not? When you dream and see and act as yourself > > in > > > > this dream, you have to > > > > > wake up to become aware of the fact that you were dreaming. > > Thus, a > > > > dreamer exists, who > > > > > is not part of the dream. The person in the dream who looked > > and > > > > acted like you, wasn't > > > > > you. Your reflection in a mirror isn't you too; it's an > > inverted > > > > image and this image is > > > > > located in a virtual space behind the mirror. > > > > > > > > > > Gods has been, in our western-monotheistic culture, the > > unifying > > > > signifier/pointer for > > > > > centuries. We have to correct Caesar: " unify " (and > > not " divide " ) > > > > and win is the slogan. It > > > > > wasn't a big problem for monotheistic religions to replace the > > > > multiple deities of roman or > > > > > greek mythology/religion by " One " all-embracing, total > > omniescent > > > > and omnipotent deity. > > > > > Christians introduced a subtle split by dividing, and > > > > simultaneously unifying in God, in the > > > > > father, the son and the holy ghost-as if the founders would had > > > > known that about 2000 > > > > > years later there would be a wave-particle discussion in > > physics. > > > > > > > > > > Some people always need a unifying signifier, because they > > can't > > > > live with the > > > > > fundamental idiocy of reality and objectivity. Pointless, > > however, > > > > is to try to convince > > > > > others about the correctness of one's own " master-pointer " , > > because > > > > this is always done > > > > > to convince oneself. Idiocy lurks always around; there is, > > thus, > > > > always a constant need for > > > > > self- reaffirmation, otherwise we can get sad or depressed. > > > > > > > > > > Again, All is One, can only be said be someone standing outside > > > > All, then, All is One minus > > > > > 1, and this can't be All. However, some people here and in > > other > > > > spiritual groups believe > > > > > they are beyond reasoning or socio-politic engagement.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yours, > > > > > Ricardo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do you think that there is anybody in the world who is out > > of " socio- > > > > politic " engagment?.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > Hi Marc, > > > > > > I don't think so. We live in societies, we interact. Even a > > cynical, sarcastic attitude is a form > > > of socio-political act. I meant with the term " engagement " a kind > > of responsibility. > > > > > > More then ever before I believe we are living an age of radical > > change. The post- > > > postmodern unifying pointer, i.e. God, seems to be Technology, in > > my opinion. > > > > > > Ricardo > > > > > > > > > so there is an " engagement " with higher responsibility?.....about > > who & what?.... > > > > i don't think that there is anybody who has higher responsibilities > > for/about him/herself than others.... > > > > > > Marc > > > > Hi Marc, > > I agree with you; we have different responsibilities - not higher or lower, no scales. What I > mean with socio-political engagement is to engage actively in the society someone lives. > Nisargadatta did it too. He was on the way to some cave in the Himalaya, when he > reconsidered his decision and went back to his family. He felt the need to teach, to spread > his message, i.e. to help others. It also doesn't matter how big the circle is in which > someone moves. > > Again, my message was not about evaluating responsibilities, it is about being active and, > for example, fight for the things someone considers important or good. > > If people could agree, for example, in that killing others isn't good and that dialogue is > the only way to overcome differences in opinion, many things in this world would run > much easier. If people could agree in that to buy or own more and more commodities of > whatever kind will not satisfy desire but rather generate feelings of anxiety, guilt and more > dissatisfaction and unease no child would have to die due to malnutrition. > > Ricardo > " things " are never as they " could " or " should " ..be. for one and only one reason.. (even " reason " = condescension to the requirements of phantom thought) and that one reason is that in truth there are no " things " . All is " seeming " .. " You will always have the poor among you " .. ...and war, and strife, and crime and criminals and all " world ills " . but they are all of nonsustaining and unsubstantial value only. it is all part of an imaginary conjunctive and collective dis-ease. and queerer than queer..the shadow of " you " has set it all up. the " you " is a universal.. falsely seen as individuated it appears unique to a projected " me " . All God's children are in His hands. now that is as meta-metaphorical as can be. but it is an iconic knowing-talk that can be intuited even in fantasy. ultimately even intuition must fail in Realization. IT is High Indifference to all feeling tones and all opinion. no thought nor talk can convey what this IS. But mayhap, through some strange " infection " it can be transmitted. similar to an electrical charging.. occurring by being near a powerful generator (in terms of the dream). THIS " happens " or rather becomes AWARE as IT IS.. without adventure or design. II is THAT IT IS. OM TAT SAT. HERE all Worlds and all Self falls SILENT. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " almon2009@ " <almon2009@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " almon2009@ " <almon2009@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " almon2009@ " <almon2009@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > There is a fundamental desire for unity in all human beings. > > > New > > > > > Age philosophies have > > > > > > found a niche here; at the beginning, maybe, to counteract > > > > > capitalism and the > > > > > > disorientation caused by the " death of God " during emergence of > > > > > postmodern > > > > > > philosophies in 60'ties. > > > > > > > > > > > > Unity (ad-vait) can well replace God as a pointer, as a master- > > > > > pointer. Then, everything is > > > > > > OK again: we have unity, and might ask ourselves, what this > > > unity > > > > > might expect from us. > > > > > > We also could ask ourselves, which attributes we would like to > > > > > confer to unity. > > > > > > > > > > > > To see unity you have to stand outside unity. As soon something > > > > > stands outside unity, > > > > > > unity is not or not? When you dream and see and act as yourself > > > in > > > > > this dream, you have to > > > > > > wake up to become aware of the fact that you were dreaming. > > > Thus, a > > > > > dreamer exists, who > > > > > > is not part of the dream. The person in the dream who looked > > > and > > > > > acted like you, wasn't > > > > > > you. Your reflection in a mirror isn't you too; it's an > > > inverted > > > > > image and this image is > > > > > > located in a virtual space behind the mirror. > > > > > > > > > > > > Gods has been, in our western-monotheistic culture, the > > > unifying > > > > > signifier/pointer for > > > > > > centuries. We have to correct Caesar: " unify " (and > > > not " divide " ) > > > > > and win is the slogan. It > > > > > > wasn't a big problem for monotheistic religions to replace the > > > > > multiple deities of roman or > > > > > > greek mythology/religion by " One " all-embracing, total > > > omniescent > > > > > and omnipotent deity. > > > > > > Christians introduced a subtle split by dividing, and > > > > > simultaneously unifying in God, in the > > > > > > father, the son and the holy ghost-as if the founders would had > > > > > known that about 2000 > > > > > > years later there would be a wave-particle discussion in > > > physics. > > > > > > > > > > > > Some people always need a unifying signifier, because they > > > can't > > > > > live with the > > > > > > fundamental idiocy of reality and objectivity. Pointless, > > > however, > > > > > is to try to convince > > > > > > others about the correctness of one's own " master-pointer " , > > > because > > > > > this is always done > > > > > > to convince oneself. Idiocy lurks always around; there is, > > > thus, > > > > > always a constant need for > > > > > > self- reaffirmation, otherwise we can get sad or depressed. > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, All is One, can only be said be someone standing outside > > > > > All, then, All is One minus > > > > > > 1, and this can't be All. However, some people here and in > > > other > > > > > spiritual groups believe > > > > > > they are beyond reasoning or socio-politic engagement.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yours, > > > > > > Ricardo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do you think that there is anybody in the world who is out > > > of " socio- > > > > > politic " engagment?.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > Hi Marc, > > > > > > > > I don't think so. We live in societies, we interact. Even a > > > cynical, sarcastic attitude is a form > > > > of socio-political act. I meant with the term " engagement " a kind > > > of responsibility. > > > > > > > > More then ever before I believe we are living an age of radical > > > change. The post- > > > > postmodern unifying pointer, i.e. God, seems to be Technology, in > > > my opinion. > > > > > > > > Ricardo > > > > > > > > > > > > > so there is an " engagement " with higher responsibility?.....about > > > who & what?.... > > > > > > i don't think that there is anybody who has higher responsibilities > > > for/about him/herself than others.... > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > Hi Marc, > > > > I agree with you; we have different responsibilities - not higher or > lower, no scales. What I > > mean with socio-political engagement is to engage actively in the > society someone lives. > > Nisargadatta did it too. He was on the way to some cave in the > Himalaya, when he > > reconsidered his decision and went back to his family. He felt the > need to teach, to spread > > his message, i.e. to help others. It also doesn't matter how big the > circle is in which > > someone moves. > > > > Again, my message was not about evaluating responsibilities, it is > about being active and, > > for example, fight for the things someone considers important or good. > > > > If people could agree, for example, in that killing others isn't > good and that dialogue is > > the only way to overcome differences in opinion, many things in this > world would run > > much easier. If people could agree in that to buy or own more and > more commodities of > > whatever kind will not satisfy desire but rather generate feelings > of anxiety, guilt and more > > dissatisfaction and unease no child would have to die due to > malnutrition. > > > > Ricardo > > > > > " things " are never as they " could " or " should " ..be. > > for one and only one reason.. > > (even " reason " = condescension to the requirements of phantom thought) > > and that one reason is that in truth there are no " things " . > > All is " seeming " .. > > " You will always have the poor among you " .. > > ..and war, and strife, and crime and criminals and all " world ills " . > > but they are all of nonsustaining and unsubstantial value only. > > it is all part of an imaginary conjunctive and collective dis-ease. > > and queerer than queer..the shadow of " you " has set it all up. > > the " you " is a universal.. > > falsely seen as individuated it appears unique to a projected " me " . > > All God's children are in His hands. > > now that is as meta-metaphorical as can be. > > but it is an iconic knowing-talk that can be intuited even in fantasy. > > ultimately even intuition must fail in Realization. > > IT is High Indifference to all feeling tones and all opinion. > > no thought nor talk can convey what this IS. > > But mayhap, through some strange " infection " it can be transmitted. > > similar to an electrical charging.. > > occurring by being near a powerful generator (in terms of the dream). > > THIS " happens " or rather becomes AWARE as IT IS.. > > without adventure or design. > > II is THAT IT IS. > > OM TAT SAT. > > HERE all Worlds and all Self falls SILENT. Hi, this is beautiful, a superb read. It is form and design, it is like music or poetry. Incapsulated, there is the promise of infinity or eternity. It tries to convey peace, the infinite darkness and silence, beyond all that that an be understood and conceptualized. But, there is no loss! We transform lack in loss and become sad. Then, we try to find what we never have lost in the first place. Also you will die and to know this is the prize we have to pay for freedom and by language we are able to apprehend what freedom is and means. Going back, searching what we never lost, we find at the end lack or 'emptiness' as some guys like to call it. Then, we are born again and walk again towards death, like we always did. We walk and speak, speak, write and speak, we work, we eat, we dream, we laugh and cry but knowing we are dreaming. We then dream what we become knowing we are dreaming. But, like in a dream we have no control.... God is a " unifying signifier " . God exists in words and gives meaning. The fundamental idiocy of life gains meaning...... Ricardo > > .b b.b. > 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.