Guest guest Posted April 24, 2009 Report Share Posted April 24, 2009 sitting in meditation silent mind deep contemplation whatever contemplated is false no exceptionsBill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 24, 2009 Report Share Posted April 24, 2009 sitting in meditation silent mind deep contemplation whatever contemplated is false no exceptions Bill geo> ...and then the clever mind says: ah...only the contemplator really is. (but that now becomes contemplated...) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 24, 2009 Report Share Posted April 24, 2009 .......that's called " liar's paradox " i.e. there is always an exception,you are not " outside " of.....whatever it might be!yours,Ricardo On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Bill Rishel <illusyn wrote: sitting in meditation silent mind deep contemplation whatever contemplated is false no exceptionsBill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 24, 2009 Report Share Posted April 24, 2009 Nisargadatta , Ricardo Almon <ricardo.almon wrote: > > ......that's called " liar's paradox " i.e. there is always an exception, > you are not " outside " of.....whatever it might be! > > yours, > Ricardo > > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Bill Rishel <illusyn wrote: > > > > > > > > > sitting in meditation > > silent mind > > deep contemplation > > > > whatever contemplated > > is false > > > > no exceptions > > > > > > > > Bill > > Not really Ricardo. The with the " no exceptions " statement appended the statement: When X is contemplated, X is false. becomes: For all X, when X is contemplated, X is false. which is of the form: For all X, P(X) implies Q(X) which is not the form of the liar's paradox. The liar's paradox involves self-reference. For all X, P(X) implies Q(X) does not involve self-reference. Liar's paradox example: This statement is false. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 24, 2009 Report Share Posted April 24, 2009 No fragmentation -geo- .......that's called " liar's paradox " i.e. there is always an exception, you are not " outside " of.....whatever it might be! yours, Ricardo sitting in meditation silent mind deep contemplation whatever contemplated is false no exceptions Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 24, 2009 Report Share Posted April 24, 2009 .....and, Russell's paradox, givetvis! Viking XIII Nisargadatta , Ricardo Almon <ricardo.almon wrote: > > ......that's called " liar's paradox " i.e. there is always an exception, > you are not " outside " of.....whatever it might be! > > yours, > Ricardo > > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Bill Rishel <illusyn wrote: > > > > > > > > > sitting in meditation > > silent mind > > deep contemplation > > > > whatever contemplated > > is false > > > > no exceptions > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 25, 2009 Report Share Posted April 25, 2009 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Ricardo Almon <ricardo.almon@> wrote: > > > > ......that's called " liar's paradox " i.e. there is always an exception, > > you are not " outside " of.....whatever it might be! > > > > yours, > > Ricardo > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Bill Rishel <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sitting in meditation > > > silent mind > > > deep contemplation > > > > > > whatever contemplated > > > is false > > > > > > no exceptions > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > Not really Ricardo. > > The with the " no exceptions " statement appended > the statement: When X is contemplated, X is false. > becomes: For all X, when X is contemplated, X is false. > > which is of the form: For all X, P(X) implies Q(X) > > which is not the form of the liar's paradox. > > The liar's paradox involves self-reference. > For all X, P(X) implies Q(X) does not involve > self-reference. > > Liar's paradox example: > This statement is false. > > Bill > The only lie lies in what is beLIEved. The rest can not be contemplated nor regurgitated at-will. Paradox is the assimilation of nothing. ~A Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 Enlightenment happens in consciousness according to Niz Kip Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " <kipalmazy wrote: > > ....and, Russell's paradox, givetvis! > > Viking XIII > > > > Nisargadatta , Ricardo Almon <ricardo.almon@> wrote: > > > > ......that's called " liar's paradox " i.e. there is always an exception, > > you are not " outside " of.....whatever it might be! > > > > yours, > > Ricardo > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Bill Rishel <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sitting in meditation > > > silent mind > > > deep contemplation > > > > > > whatever contemplated > > > is false > > > > > > no exceptions > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " <kipalmazy wrote: > since neither consciousness nor enlightenment exist.. is it a wonder a nonexistent like Nisargadatta would say that? What happens in nothing stays in nothing.. thus spake the nothing that was Niz. and they all " lived " happily ever after as One. ..b b.b. > Enlightenment happens in consciousness according to Niz > > Kip > > > > Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " <kipalmazy@> wrote: > > > > ....and, Russell's paradox, givetvis! > > > > Viking XIII > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Ricardo Almon <ricardo.almon@> wrote: > > > > > > ......that's called " liar's paradox " i.e. there is always an exception, > > > you are not " outside " of.....whatever it might be! > > > > > > yours, > > > Ricardo > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Bill Rishel <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sitting in meditation > > > > silent mind > > > > deep contemplation > > > > > > > > whatever contemplated > > > > is false > > > > > > > > no exceptions > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 Let's hang the question then: enlightenment happens in consciousness? -geo- ==== since neither consciousness nor enlightenment exist.. is it a wonder a nonexistent like Nisargadatta would say that? What happens in nothing stays in nothing.. thus spake the nothing that was Niz. and they all " lived " happily ever after as One. ..b b.b. > Enlightenment happens in consciousness according to Niz > > Kip > > > > Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " <kipalmazy@> wrote: > > > > ....and, Russell's paradox, givetvis! > > > > Viking XIII > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Ricardo Almon <ricardo.almon@> > > wrote: > > > > > > ......that's called " liar's paradox " i.e. there is always an > > > exception, > > > you are not " outside " of.....whatever it might be! > > > > > > yours, > > > Ricardo > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Bill Rishel <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sitting in meditation > > > > silent mind > > > > deep contemplation > > > > > > > > whatever contemplated > > > > is false > > > > > > > > no exceptions > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 what's this thing called enlightenment..or consciousness? how can either " thing " .. or either container of " things " .. " happen " in no- " thing " ? the question answers itself. it's a non-question with only one possible non-answer: repeat until finished. ..b b.b. Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > Let's hang the question then: enlightenment happens in consciousness? > -geo- > ==== > since neither consciousness nor enlightenment exist.. > > is it a wonder a nonexistent like Nisargadatta would say that? > > What happens in nothing stays in nothing.. > > thus spake the nothing that was Niz. > > and they all " lived " happily ever after as One. > > .b b.b. > > > Enlightenment happens in consciousness according to Niz > > > > Kip > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " <kipalmazy@> wrote: > > > > > > ....and, Russell's paradox, givetvis! > > > > > > Viking XIII > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Ricardo Almon <ricardo.almon@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > ......that's called " liar's paradox " i.e. there is always an > > > > exception, > > > > you are not " outside " of.....whatever it might be! > > > > > > > > yours, > > > > Ricardo > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Bill Rishel <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sitting in meditation > > > > > silent mind > > > > > deep contemplation > > > > > > > > > > whatever contemplated > > > > > is false > > > > > > > > > > no exceptions > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 geo> Would you care to explain what do you mean by the expression " container of " things " " ? what's this thing called enlightenment..or consciousness? how can either " thing " .. or either container of " things " .. " happen " in no- " thing " ? the question answers itself. it's a non-question with only one possible non-answer: repeat until finished. ..b b.b. Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > Let's hang the question then: enlightenment happens in consciousness? > -geo- > ==== > since neither consciousness nor enlightenment exist.. > > is it a wonder a nonexistent like Nisargadatta would say that? > > What happens in nothing stays in nothing.. > > thus spake the nothing that was Niz. > > and they all " lived " happily ever after as One. > > .b b.b. > > > Enlightenment happens in consciousness according to Niz > > > > Kip > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " <kipalmazy@> wrote: > > > > > > ....and, Russell's paradox, givetvis! > > > > > > Viking XIII > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Ricardo Almon <ricardo.almon@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > ......that's called " liar's paradox " i.e. there is always an > > > > exception, > > > > you are not " outside " of.....whatever it might be! > > > > > > > > yours, > > > > Ricardo > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Bill Rishel <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sitting in meditation > > > > > silent mind > > > > > deep contemplation > > > > > > > > > > whatever contemplated > > > > > is false > > > > > > > > > > no exceptions > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 no i don't care to but i will. 'container of things " means: any " space " " time " " dimension " or.. " idea " " spirit " " soul " or.. any vague notion of any agency.. to, from, or for which any thought of capacity.. is implied or inherent. there it is...not. ..b b.b. Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > geo> Would you care to explain what do you mean by the expression " container > of " things " " ? > > > what's this thing called enlightenment..or consciousness? > > how can either " thing " .. > > or either container of " things " .. > > " happen " in no- " thing " ? > > the question answers itself. > > it's a non-question with only one possible non-answer: > > repeat until finished. > > .b b.b. > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > Let's hang the question then: enlightenment happens in consciousness? > > -geo- > > ==== > > since neither consciousness nor enlightenment exist.. > > > > is it a wonder a nonexistent like Nisargadatta would say that? > > > > What happens in nothing stays in nothing.. > > > > thus spake the nothing that was Niz. > > > > and they all " lived " happily ever after as One. > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > Enlightenment happens in consciousness according to Niz > > > > > > Kip > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " <kipalmazy@> wrote: > > > > > > > > ....and, Russell's paradox, givetvis! > > > > > > > > Viking XIII > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Ricardo Almon <ricardo.almon@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > ......that's called " liar's paradox " i.e. there is always an > > > > > exception, > > > > > you are not " outside " of.....whatever it might be! > > > > > > > > > > yours, > > > > > Ricardo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Bill Rishel <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sitting in meditation > > > > > > silent mind > > > > > > deep contemplation > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever contemplated > > > > > > is false > > > > > > > > > > > > no exceptions > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 geo> Yes. No contents within some conteiner. Still the question is burning: -what roll has consciousness when framing the above perspective? no i don't care to but i will. 'container of things " means: any " space " " time " " dimension " or.. " idea " " spirit " " soul " or.. any vague notion of any agency.. to, from, or for which any thought of capacity.. is implied or inherent. there it is...not. ..b b.b. Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > geo> Would you care to explain what do you mean by the expression > " container > of " things " " ? > > > what's this thing called enlightenment..or consciousness? > > how can either " thing " .. > > or either container of " things " .. > > " happen " in no- " thing " ? > > the question answers itself. > > it's a non-question with only one possible non-answer: > > repeat until finished. > > .b b.b. > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > Let's hang the question then: enlightenment happens in consciousness? > > -geo- > > ==== > > since neither consciousness nor enlightenment exist.. > > > > is it a wonder a nonexistent like Nisargadatta would say that? > > > > What happens in nothing stays in nothing.. > > > > thus spake the nothing that was Niz. > > > > and they all " lived " happily ever after as One. > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > Enlightenment happens in consciousness according to Niz > > > > > > Kip > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " <kipalmazy@> wrote: > > > > > > > > ....and, Russell's paradox, givetvis! > > > > > > > > Viking XIII > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Ricardo Almon <ricardo.almon@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > ......that's called " liar's paradox " i.e. there is always an > > > > > exception, > > > > > you are not " outside " of.....whatever it might be! > > > > > > > > > > yours, > > > > > Ricardo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Bill Rishel <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sitting in meditation > > > > > > silent mind > > > > > > deep contemplation > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever contemplated > > > > > > is false > > > > > > > > > > > > no exceptions > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 none whatsoever. no roll. not some. not any. what is being danced around is not a " perspective " . " IT " (for lack of any better or worse name).. " IT " allows for any and all " perspectives " .. but has none Itself. no perspective..consciousness..Weltanschauung.. each and all but vanguards of the ever present Vanishing... none can have anything to do with that which.. in any world of perspective.. exists as just nothing at all. this division is false. IT is not other than all that you want to know..or say... all that you can and that you can't.. It is Indifferent to all of that and to " THAT " as well. all this talk is just monkeyshines. it all will pass... as in Truth it never came to pass. IT doesn't sound appealing... IT sounds appalling. IT should. ..b b.b. Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > geo> Yes. No contents within some conteiner. Still the question is burning: > -what roll has consciousness when framing the above perspective? > > no i don't care to but i will. > > 'container of things " means: > > any " space " " time " " dimension " or.. > > " idea " " spirit " " soul " or.. > > any vague notion of any agency.. > > to, from, or for which any thought of capacity.. > > is implied or inherent. > > there it is...not. > > .b b.b. > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > geo> Would you care to explain what do you mean by the expression > > " container > > of " things " " ? > > > > > > what's this thing called enlightenment..or consciousness? > > > > how can either " thing " .. > > > > or either container of " things " .. > > > > " happen " in no- " thing " ? > > > > the question answers itself. > > > > it's a non-question with only one possible non-answer: > > > > repeat until finished. > > > > .b b.b. > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > Let's hang the question then: enlightenment happens in consciousness? > > > -geo- > > > ==== > > > since neither consciousness nor enlightenment exist.. > > > > > > is it a wonder a nonexistent like Nisargadatta would say that? > > > > > > What happens in nothing stays in nothing.. > > > > > > thus spake the nothing that was Niz. > > > > > > and they all " lived " happily ever after as One. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > Enlightenment happens in consciousness according to Niz > > > > > > > > Kip > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " <kipalmazy@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > ....and, Russell's paradox, givetvis! > > > > > > > > > > Viking XIII > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Ricardo Almon <ricardo.almon@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > ......that's called " liar's paradox " i.e. there is always an > > > > > > exception, > > > > > > you are not " outside " of.....whatever it might be! > > > > > > > > > > > > yours, > > > > > > Ricardo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Bill Rishel <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sitting in meditation > > > > > > > silent mind > > > > > > > deep contemplation > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever contemplated > > > > > > > is false > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no exceptions > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 geo> Some-nothing that is a toy. This amazing, wonderous toy, as a result of the law, has in it inbuilt a set of gears and weels, a mechanism such that it produces ALL possibilities. Obviously such ALL is far beyond any idea some genius may conceive. All these possibilities started rolling at a beginingless time. None of them left a trace for lack of an ingredient. And as only this one had such ingredient, it is the only one remaning. If all had to big vanish and start bang again, would had no other chance: only this one would again appear. -geo- none whatsoever. no roll. not some. not any. what is being danced around is not a " perspective " . " IT " (for lack of any better or worse name).. " IT " allows for any and all " perspectives " .. but has none Itself. no perspective..consciousness..Weltanschauung.. each and all but vanguards of the ever present Vanishing... none can have anything to do with that which.. in any world of perspective.. exists as just nothing at all. this division is false. IT is not other than all that you want to know..or say... all that you can and that you can't.. It is Indifferent to all of that and to " THAT " as well. all this talk is just monkeyshines. it all will pass... as in Truth it never came to pass. IT doesn't sound appealing... IT sounds appalling. IT should. ..b b.b. Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > geo> Yes. No contents within some conteiner. Still the question is > burning: > -what roll has consciousness when framing the above perspective? > > no i don't care to but i will. > > 'container of things " means: > > any " space " " time " " dimension " or.. > > " idea " " spirit " " soul " or.. > > any vague notion of any agency.. > > to, from, or for which any thought of capacity.. > > is implied or inherent. > > there it is...not. > > .b b.b. > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > geo> Would you care to explain what do you mean by the expression > > " container > > of " things " " ? > > > > > > what's this thing called enlightenment..or consciousness? > > > > how can either " thing " .. > > > > or either container of " things " .. > > > > " happen " in no- " thing " ? > > > > the question answers itself. > > > > it's a non-question with only one possible non-answer: > > > > repeat until finished. > > > > .b b.b. > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > Let's hang the question then: enlightenment happens in consciousness? > > > -geo- > > > ==== > > > since neither consciousness nor enlightenment exist.. > > > > > > is it a wonder a nonexistent like Nisargadatta would say that? > > > > > > What happens in nothing stays in nothing.. > > > > > > thus spake the nothing that was Niz. > > > > > > and they all " lived " happily ever after as One. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > Enlightenment happens in consciousness according to Niz > > > > > > > > Kip > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " <kipalmazy@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > ....and, Russell's paradox, givetvis! > > > > > > > > > > Viking XIII > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Ricardo Almon > > > > > <ricardo.almon@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > ......that's called " liar's paradox " i.e. there is always an > > > > > > exception, > > > > > > you are not " outside " of.....whatever it might be! > > > > > > > > > > > > yours, > > > > > > Ricardo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Bill Rishel <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sitting in meditation > > > > > > > silent mind > > > > > > > deep contemplation > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever contemplated > > > > > > > is false > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no exceptions > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 does this notion of container of yours effectively amount to the notion of " an abstraction " ? Bill Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > no i don't care to but i will. > > 'container of things " means: > > any " space " " time " " dimension " or.. > > " idea " " spirit " " soul " or.. > > any vague notion of any agency.. > > to, from, or for which any thought of capacity.. > > is implied or inherent. > > there it is...not. > > .b b.b. > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > geo> Would you care to explain what do you mean by the expression " container > > of " things " " ? > > > > > > what's this thing called enlightenment..or consciousness? > > > > how can either " thing " .. > > > > or either container of " things " .. > > > > " happen " in no- " thing " ? > > > > the question answers itself. > > > > it's a non-question with only one possible non-answer: > > > > repeat until finished. > > > > .b b.b. > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > Let's hang the question then: enlightenment happens in consciousness? > > > -geo- > > > ==== > > > since neither consciousness nor enlightenment exist.. > > > > > > is it a wonder a nonexistent like Nisargadatta would say that? > > > > > > What happens in nothing stays in nothing.. > > > > > > thus spake the nothing that was Niz. > > > > > > and they all " lived " happily ever after as One. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > Enlightenment happens in consciousness according to Niz > > > > > > > > Kip > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " <kipalmazy@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > ....and, Russell's paradox, givetvis! > > > > > > > > > > Viking XIII > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Ricardo Almon <ricardo.almon@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > ......that's called " liar's paradox " i.e. there is always an > > > > > > exception, > > > > > > you are not " outside " of.....whatever it might be! > > > > > > > > > > > > yours, > > > > > > Ricardo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Bill Rishel <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sitting in meditation > > > > > > > silent mind > > > > > > > deep contemplation > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever contemplated > > > > > > > is false > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no exceptions > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 nothing can be abstracted from nothing. ..b b.b. Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > does this notion of container of yours > effectively amount to the notion of > " an abstraction " ? > > Bill > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > no i don't care to but i will. > > > > 'container of things " means: > > > > any " space " " time " " dimension " or.. > > > > " idea " " spirit " " soul " or.. > > > > any vague notion of any agency.. > > > > to, from, or for which any thought of capacity.. > > > > is implied or inherent. > > > > there it is...not. > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > geo> Would you care to explain what do you mean by the expression " container > > > of " things " " ? > > > > > > > > > what's this thing called enlightenment..or consciousness? > > > > > > how can either " thing " .. > > > > > > or either container of " things " .. > > > > > > " happen " in no- " thing " ? > > > > > > the question answers itself. > > > > > > it's a non-question with only one possible non-answer: > > > > > > repeat until finished. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Let's hang the question then: enlightenment happens in consciousness? > > > > -geo- > > > > ==== > > > > since neither consciousness nor enlightenment exist.. > > > > > > > > is it a wonder a nonexistent like Nisargadatta would say that? > > > > > > > > What happens in nothing stays in nothing.. > > > > > > > > thus spake the nothing that was Niz. > > > > > > > > and they all " lived " happily ever after as One. > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > Enlightenment happens in consciousness according to Niz > > > > > > > > > > Kip > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " <kipalmazy@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > ....and, Russell's paradox, givetvis! > > > > > > > > > > > > Viking XIII > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Ricardo Almon <ricardo.almon@> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ......that's called " liar's paradox " i.e. there is always an > > > > > > > exception, > > > > > > > you are not " outside " of.....whatever it might be! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > yours, > > > > > > > Ricardo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Bill Rishel <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sitting in meditation > > > > > > > > silent mind > > > > > > > > deep contemplation > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever contemplated > > > > > > > > is false > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no exceptions > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 and nothing else. that is.. nothing can not be abstracted from nothing. ..b b.b. Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > nothing can be abstracted from nothing. > > .b b.b. > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > does this notion of container of yours > > effectively amount to the notion of > > " an abstraction " ? > > > > Bill > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > no i don't care to but i will. > > > > > > 'container of things " means: > > > > > > any " space " " time " " dimension " or.. > > > > > > " idea " " spirit " " soul " or.. > > > > > > any vague notion of any agency.. > > > > > > to, from, or for which any thought of capacity.. > > > > > > is implied or inherent. > > > > > > there it is...not. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > geo> Would you care to explain what do you mean by the expression " container > > > > of " things " " ? > > > > > > > > > > > > what's this thing called enlightenment..or consciousness? > > > > > > > > how can either " thing " .. > > > > > > > > or either container of " things " .. > > > > > > > > " happen " in no- " thing " ? > > > > > > > > the question answers itself. > > > > > > > > it's a non-question with only one possible non-answer: > > > > > > > > repeat until finished. > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Let's hang the question then: enlightenment happens in consciousness? > > > > > -geo- > > > > > ==== > > > > > since neither consciousness nor enlightenment exist.. > > > > > > > > > > is it a wonder a nonexistent like Nisargadatta would say that? > > > > > > > > > > What happens in nothing stays in nothing.. > > > > > > > > > > thus spake the nothing that was Niz. > > > > > > > > > > and they all " lived " happily ever after as One. > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > Enlightenment happens in consciousness according to Niz > > > > > > > > > > > > Kip > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " <kipalmazy@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ....and, Russell's paradox, givetvis! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Viking XIII > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Ricardo Almon <ricardo.almon@> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ......that's called " liar's paradox " i.e. there is always an > > > > > > > > exception, > > > > > > > > you are not " outside " of.....whatever it might be! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > yours, > > > > > > > > Ricardo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Bill Rishel <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sitting in meditation > > > > > > > > > silent mind > > > > > > > > > deep contemplation > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever contemplated > > > > > > > > > is false > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no exceptions > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 geo> No...no... Don't have to strip it down to such small details. It is just a stupid litlle toy someone somewhere dared to conceive. Then a close friend of mine said he found it in a shop near Madrid. Probably he was laying... it doesn't even exists. > geo> Some-nothing that is a toy. This amazing, wonderous toy, as a result > of > the law, has in it inbuilt > a set of gears and weels, a mechanism such that it produces ALL > possibilities. oh it's not that involved. Obviously such ALL > is far beyond any idea some genius may conceive. obvious to who? a genius more genius yet? what conception? it doesn't matter. > All these possibilities started rolling at a beginingless time. time is not beginingless. time is hindrance. it's a braking notion... for nobody. None of them > left a trace for lack of an ingredient. > And as only this one had such ingredient, it is the only one remaning. i don't know what you are trying to say. >If > all had to big vanish and start bang again, > would had no other chance: only this one would again appear. > -geo- what bang? ..b b.b. >none whatsoever. > > no roll. > > not some. > > not any. > > what is being danced around is not a " perspective " . > > " IT " (for lack of any better or worse name).. > > " IT " allows for any and all " perspectives " .. > > but has none Itself. > > no perspective..consciousness..Weltanschauung.. > > each and all but vanguards of the ever present Vanishing... > > none can have anything to do with that which.. > > in any world of perspective.. > > exists as just nothing at all. > > this division is false. > > IT is not other than all that you want to know..or say... > > all that you can and that you can't.. > > It is Indifferent to all of that and to " THAT " as well. > > all this talk is just monkeyshines. > > it all will pass... as in Truth it never came to pass. > > IT doesn't sound appealing... > > IT sounds appalling. > > IT should. > > .b b.b. > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > geo> Yes. No contents within some conteiner. Still the question is > > burning: > > -what roll has consciousness when framing the above perspective? > > > > no i don't care to but i will. > > > > 'container of things " means: > > > > any " space " " time " " dimension " or.. > > > > " idea " " spirit " " soul " or.. > > > > any vague notion of any agency.. > > > > to, from, or for which any thought of capacity.. > > > > is implied or inherent. > > > > there it is...not. > > > > .b b.b. > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > geo> Would you care to explain what do you mean by the expression > > > " container > > > of " things " " ? > > > > > > > > > what's this thing called enlightenment..or consciousness? > > > > > > how can either " thing " .. > > > > > > or either container of " things " .. > > > > > > " happen " in no- " thing " ? > > > > > > the question answers itself. > > > > > > it's a non-question with only one possible non-answer: > > > > > > repeat until finished. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Let's hang the question then: enlightenment happens in > > > > consciousness? > > > > -geo- > > > > ==== > > > > since neither consciousness nor enlightenment exist.. > > > > > > > > is it a wonder a nonexistent like Nisargadatta would say that? > > > > > > > > What happens in nothing stays in nothing.. > > > > > > > > thus spake the nothing that was Niz. > > > > > > > > and they all " lived " happily ever after as One. > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > Enlightenment happens in consciousness according to Niz > > > > > > > > > > Kip > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " <kipalmazy@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > ....and, Russell's paradox, givetvis! > > > > > > > > > > > > Viking XIII > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Ricardo Almon > > > > > > <ricardo.almon@> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ......that's called " liar's paradox " i.e. there is always an > > > > > > > exception, > > > > > > > you are not " outside " of.....whatever it might be! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > yours, > > > > > > > Ricardo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Bill Rishel <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sitting in meditation > > > > > > > > silent mind > > > > > > > > deep contemplation > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever contemplated > > > > > > > > is false > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no exceptions > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 there are no details to be " stripped " down to or away. only the toyed with see toys.. to play with... themselves. stupid yes. ..b b.b. Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > geo> No...no... > Don't have to strip it down to such small details. It is just a stupid > litlle toy > someone somewhere dared to conceive. Then a close friend of mine said he > found > it in a shop near Madrid. Probably he was laying... it doesn't even exists. > > > > geo> Some-nothing that is a toy. This amazing, wonderous toy, as a result > > of > > the law, has in it inbuilt > > a set of gears and weels, a mechanism such that it produces ALL > > possibilities. > > oh it's not that involved. > > Obviously such ALL > > is far beyond any idea some genius may conceive. > > obvious to who? > > a genius more genius yet? > > what conception? > > it doesn't matter. > > > All these possibilities started rolling at a beginingless time. > > time is not beginingless. > > time is hindrance. > > it's a braking notion... > > for nobody. > > None of them > > left a trace for lack of an ingredient. > > And as only this one had such ingredient, it is the only one remaning. > > i don't know what you are trying to say. > > >If > > all had to big vanish and start bang again, > > would had no other chance: only this one would again appear. > > -geo- > > what bang? > > .b b.b. > > >none whatsoever. > > > > no roll. > > > > not some. > > > > not any. > > > > what is being danced around is not a " perspective " . > > > > " IT " (for lack of any better or worse name).. > > > > " IT " allows for any and all " perspectives " .. > > > > but has none Itself. > > > > no perspective..consciousness..Weltanschauung.. > > > > each and all but vanguards of the ever present Vanishing... > > > > none can have anything to do with that which.. > > > > in any world of perspective.. > > > > exists as just nothing at all. > > > > this division is false. > > > > IT is not other than all that you want to know..or say... > > > > all that you can and that you can't.. > > > > It is Indifferent to all of that and to " THAT " as well. > > > > all this talk is just monkeyshines. > > > > it all will pass... as in Truth it never came to pass. > > > > IT doesn't sound appealing... > > > > IT sounds appalling. > > > > IT should. > > > > .b b.b. > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > geo> Yes. No contents within some conteiner. Still the question is > > > burning: > > > -what roll has consciousness when framing the above perspective? > > > > > > no i don't care to but i will. > > > > > > 'container of things " means: > > > > > > any " space " " time " " dimension " or.. > > > > > > " idea " " spirit " " soul " or.. > > > > > > any vague notion of any agency.. > > > > > > to, from, or for which any thought of capacity.. > > > > > > is implied or inherent. > > > > > > there it is...not. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > geo> Would you care to explain what do you mean by the expression > > > > " container > > > > of " things " " ? > > > > > > > > > > > > what's this thing called enlightenment..or consciousness? > > > > > > > > how can either " thing " .. > > > > > > > > or either container of " things " .. > > > > > > > > " happen " in no- " thing " ? > > > > > > > > the question answers itself. > > > > > > > > it's a non-question with only one possible non-answer: > > > > > > > > repeat until finished. > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Let's hang the question then: enlightenment happens in > > > > > consciousness? > > > > > -geo- > > > > > ==== > > > > > since neither consciousness nor enlightenment exist.. > > > > > > > > > > is it a wonder a nonexistent like Nisargadatta would say that? > > > > > > > > > > What happens in nothing stays in nothing.. > > > > > > > > > > thus spake the nothing that was Niz. > > > > > > > > > > and they all " lived " happily ever after as One. > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > Enlightenment happens in consciousness according to Niz > > > > > > > > > > > > Kip > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " <kipalmazy@> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ....and, Russell's paradox, givetvis! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Viking XIII > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Ricardo Almon > > > > > > > <ricardo.almon@> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ......that's called " liar's paradox " i.e. there is always an > > > > > > > > exception, > > > > > > > > you are not " outside " of.....whatever it might be! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > yours, > > > > > > > > Ricardo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Bill Rishel <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sitting in meditation > > > > > > > > > silent mind > > > > > > > > > deep contemplation > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever contemplated > > > > > > > > > is false > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no exceptions > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 the b.b.b. yada yada = nada nada Bill Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > and nothing else. > > that is.. > > nothing can not be abstracted from nothing. > > > > .b b.b. > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > nothing can be abstracted from nothing. > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > does this notion of container of yours > > > effectively amount to the notion of > > > " an abstraction " ? > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > no i don't care to but i will. > > > > > > > > 'container of things " means: > > > > > > > > any " space " " time " " dimension " or.. > > > > > > > > " idea " " spirit " " soul " or.. > > > > > > > > any vague notion of any agency.. > > > > > > > > to, from, or for which any thought of capacity.. > > > > > > > > is implied or inherent. > > > > > > > > there it is...not. > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > geo> Would you care to explain what do you mean by the expression " container > > > > > of " things " " ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what's this thing called enlightenment..or consciousness? > > > > > > > > > > how can either " thing " .. > > > > > > > > > > or either container of " things " .. > > > > > > > > > > " happen " in no- " thing " ? > > > > > > > > > > the question answers itself. > > > > > > > > > > it's a non-question with only one possible non-answer: > > > > > > > > > > repeat until finished. > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's hang the question then: enlightenment happens in consciousness? > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > ==== > > > > > > since neither consciousness nor enlightenment exist.. > > > > > > > > > > > > is it a wonder a nonexistent like Nisargadatta would say that? > > > > > > > > > > > > What happens in nothing stays in nothing.. > > > > > > > > > > > > thus spake the nothing that was Niz. > > > > > > > > > > > > and they all " lived " happily ever after as One. > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Enlightenment happens in consciousness according to Niz > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kip > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " <kipalmazy@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ....and, Russell's paradox, givetvis! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Viking XIII > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Ricardo Almon <ricardo.almon@> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ......that's called " liar's paradox " i.e. there is always an > > > > > > > > > exception, > > > > > > > > > you are not " outside " of.....whatever it might be! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > yours, > > > > > > > > > Ricardo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Bill Rishel <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sitting in meditation > > > > > > > > > > silent mind > > > > > > > > > > deep contemplation > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever contemplated > > > > > > > > > > is false > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no exceptions > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 geo> Of course...sure....this is quite clear or the contrary. there are no details to be " stripped " down to or away. only the toyed with see toys.. to play with... themselves. stupid yes. ..b b.b. Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > geo> No...no... > Don't have to strip it down to such small details. It is just a stupid > litlle toy > someone somewhere dared to conceive. Then a close friend of mine said he > found > it in a shop near Madrid. Probably he was laying... it doesn't even > exists. > > > > geo> Some-nothing that is a toy. This amazing, wonderous toy, as a > > result > > of > > the law, has in it inbuilt > > a set of gears and weels, a mechanism such that it produces ALL > > possibilities. > > oh it's not that involved. > > Obviously such ALL > > is far beyond any idea some genius may conceive. > > obvious to who? > > a genius more genius yet? > > what conception? > > it doesn't matter. > > > All these possibilities started rolling at a beginingless time. > > time is not beginingless. > > time is hindrance. > > it's a braking notion... > > for nobody. > > None of them > > left a trace for lack of an ingredient. > > And as only this one had such ingredient, it is the only one remaning. > > i don't know what you are trying to say. > > >If > > all had to big vanish and start bang again, > > would had no other chance: only this one would again appear. > > -geo- > > what bang? > > .b b.b. > > >none whatsoever. > > > > no roll. > > > > not some. > > > > not any. > > > > what is being danced around is not a " perspective " . > > > > " IT " (for lack of any better or worse name).. > > > > " IT " allows for any and all " perspectives " .. > > > > but has none Itself. > > > > no perspective..consciousness..Weltanschauung.. > > > > each and all but vanguards of the ever present Vanishing... > > > > none can have anything to do with that which.. > > > > in any world of perspective.. > > > > exists as just nothing at all. > > > > this division is false. > > > > IT is not other than all that you want to know..or say... > > > > all that you can and that you can't.. > > > > It is Indifferent to all of that and to " THAT " as well. > > > > all this talk is just monkeyshines. > > > > it all will pass... as in Truth it never came to pass. > > > > IT doesn't sound appealing... > > > > IT sounds appalling. > > > > IT should. > > > > .b b.b. > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > geo> Yes. No contents within some conteiner. Still the question is > > > burning: > > > -what roll has consciousness when framing the above perspective? > > > > > > no i don't care to but i will. > > > > > > 'container of things " means: > > > > > > any " space " " time " " dimension " or.. > > > > > > " idea " " spirit " " soul " or.. > > > > > > any vague notion of any agency.. > > > > > > to, from, or for which any thought of capacity.. > > > > > > is implied or inherent. > > > > > > there it is...not. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > geo> Would you care to explain what do you mean by the expression > > > > " container > > > > of " things " " ? > > > > > > > > > > > > what's this thing called enlightenment..or consciousness? > > > > > > > > how can either " thing " .. > > > > > > > > or either container of " things " .. > > > > > > > > " happen " in no- " thing " ? > > > > > > > > the question answers itself. > > > > > > > > it's a non-question with only one possible non-answer: > > > > > > > > repeat until finished. > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Let's hang the question then: enlightenment happens in > > > > > consciousness? > > > > > -geo- > > > > > ==== > > > > > since neither consciousness nor enlightenment exist.. > > > > > > > > > > is it a wonder a nonexistent like Nisargadatta would say that? > > > > > > > > > > What happens in nothing stays in nothing.. > > > > > > > > > > thus spake the nothing that was Niz. > > > > > > > > > > and they all " lived " happily ever after as One. > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > Enlightenment happens in consciousness according to Niz > > > > > > > > > > > > Kip > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " <kipalmazy@> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ....and, Russell's paradox, givetvis! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Viking XIII > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Ricardo Almon > > > > > > > <ricardo.almon@> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ......that's called " liar's paradox " i.e. there is always an > > > > > > > > exception, > > > > > > > > you are not " outside " of.....whatever it might be! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > yours, > > > > > > > > Ricardo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Bill Rishel <illusyn@> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sitting in meditation > > > > > > > > > silent mind > > > > > > > > > deep contemplation > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever contemplated > > > > > > > > > is false > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no exceptions > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 geo> ...or, yes, and I include " geo " among the seen stupid toyed toys playing with themselves. there are no details to be " stripped " down to or away. only the toyed with see toys.. to play with... themselves. stupid yes. ..b b.b. Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > geo> No...no... > Don't have to strip it down to such small details. It is just a stupid > litlle toy > someone somewhere dared to conceive. Then a close friend of mine said he > found > it in a shop near Madrid. Probably he was laying... it doesn't even > exists. > > > > geo> Some-nothing that is a toy. This amazing, wonderous toy, as a > > result > > of > > the law, has in it inbuilt > > a set of gears and weels, a mechanism such that it produces ALL > > possibilities. > > oh it's not that involved. > > Obviously such ALL > > is far beyond any idea some genius may conceive. > > obvious to who? > > a genius more genius yet? > > what conception? > > it doesn't matter. > > > All these possibilities started rolling at a beginingless time. > > time is not beginingless. > > time is hindrance. > > it's a braking notion... > > for nobody. > > None of them > > left a trace for lack of an ingredient. > > And as only this one had such ingredient, it is the only one remaning. > > i don't know what you are trying to say. > > >If > > all had to big vanish and start bang again, > > would had no other chance: only this one would again appear. > > -geo- > > what bang? > > .b b.b. > > >none whatsoever. > > > > no roll. > > > > not some. > > > > not any. > > > > what is being danced around is not a " perspective " . > > > > " IT " (for lack of any better or worse name).. > > > > " IT " allows for any and all " perspectives " .. > > > > but has none Itself. > > > > no perspective..consciousness..Weltanschauung.. > > > > each and all but vanguards of the ever present Vanishing... > > > > none can have anything to do with that which.. > > > > in any world of perspective.. > > > > exists as just nothing at all. > > > > this division is false. > > > > IT is not other than all that you want to know..or say... > > > > all that you can and that you can't.. > > > > It is Indifferent to all of that and to " THAT " as well. > > > > all this talk is just monkeyshines. > > > > it all will pass... as in Truth it never came to pass. > > > > IT doesn't sound appealing... > > > > IT sounds appalling. > > > > IT should. > > > > .b b.b. > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > geo> Yes. No contents within some conteiner. Still the question is > > > burning: > > > -what roll has consciousness when framing the above perspective? > > > > > > no i don't care to but i will. > > > > > > 'container of things " means: > > > > > > any " space " " time " " dimension " or.. > > > > > > " idea " " spirit " " soul " or.. > > > > > > any vague notion of any agency.. > > > > > > to, from, or for which any thought of capacity.. > > > > > > is implied or inherent. > > > > > > there it is...not. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > geo> Would you care to explain what do you mean by the expression > > > > " container > > > > of " things " " ? > > > > > > > > > > > > what's this thing called enlightenment..or consciousness? > > > > > > > > how can either " thing " .. > > > > > > > > or either container of " things " .. > > > > > > > > " happen " in no- " thing " ? > > > > > > > > the question answers itself. > > > > > > > > it's a non-question with only one possible non-answer: > > > > > > > > repeat until finished. > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Let's hang the question then: enlightenment happens in > > > > > consciousness? > > > > > -geo- > > > > > ==== > > > > > since neither consciousness nor enlightenment exist.. > > > > > > > > > > is it a wonder a nonexistent like Nisargadatta would say that? > > > > > > > > > > What happens in nothing stays in nothing.. > > > > > > > > > > thus spake the nothing that was Niz. > > > > > > > > > > and they all " lived " happily ever after as One. > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > Enlightenment happens in consciousness according to Niz > > > > > > > > > > > > Kip > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " <kipalmazy@> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ....and, Russell's paradox, givetvis! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Viking XIII > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Ricardo Almon > > > > > > > <ricardo.almon@> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ......that's called " liar's paradox " i.e. there is always an > > > > > > > > exception, > > > > > > > > you are not " outside " of.....whatever it might be! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > yours, > > > > > > > > Ricardo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Bill Rishel <illusyn@> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sitting in meditation > > > > > > > > > silent mind > > > > > > > > > deep contemplation > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever contemplated > > > > > > > > > is false > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no exceptions > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 In this game of playing.. how is a 'winner " determined? what's the prize? ..b b.b. Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > geo> ...or, yes, and I include " geo " among the seen stupid toyed toys > playing > with themselves. > > > > there are no details to be " stripped " down to or away. > > only the toyed with see toys.. > > to play with... themselves. > > stupid yes. > > .b b.b. > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > geo> No...no... > > Don't have to strip it down to such small details. It is just a stupid > > litlle toy > > someone somewhere dared to conceive. Then a close friend of mine said he > > found > > it in a shop near Madrid. Probably he was laying... it doesn't even > > exists. > > > > > > > geo> Some-nothing that is a toy. This amazing, wonderous toy, as a > > > result > > > of > > > the law, has in it inbuilt > > > a set of gears and weels, a mechanism such that it produces ALL > > > possibilities. > > > > oh it's not that involved. > > > > Obviously such ALL > > > is far beyond any idea some genius may conceive. > > > > obvious to who? > > > > a genius more genius yet? > > > > what conception? > > > > it doesn't matter. > > > > > All these possibilities started rolling at a beginingless time. > > > > time is not beginingless. > > > > time is hindrance. > > > > it's a braking notion... > > > > for nobody. > > > > None of them > > > left a trace for lack of an ingredient. > > > And as only this one had such ingredient, it is the only one remaning. > > > > i don't know what you are trying to say. > > > > >If > > > all had to big vanish and start bang again, > > > would had no other chance: only this one would again appear. > > > -geo- > > > > what bang? > > > > .b b.b. > > > > >none whatsoever. > > > > > > no roll. > > > > > > not some. > > > > > > not any. > > > > > > what is being danced around is not a " perspective " . > > > > > > " IT " (for lack of any better or worse name).. > > > > > > " IT " allows for any and all " perspectives " .. > > > > > > but has none Itself. > > > > > > no perspective..consciousness..Weltanschauung.. > > > > > > each and all but vanguards of the ever present Vanishing... > > > > > > none can have anything to do with that which.. > > > > > > in any world of perspective.. > > > > > > exists as just nothing at all. > > > > > > this division is false. > > > > > > IT is not other than all that you want to know..or say... > > > > > > all that you can and that you can't.. > > > > > > It is Indifferent to all of that and to " THAT " as well. > > > > > > all this talk is just monkeyshines. > > > > > > it all will pass... as in Truth it never came to pass. > > > > > > IT doesn't sound appealing... > > > > > > IT sounds appalling. > > > > > > IT should. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > geo> Yes. No contents within some conteiner. Still the question is > > > > burning: > > > > -what roll has consciousness when framing the above perspective? > > > > > > > > no i don't care to but i will. > > > > > > > > 'container of things " means: > > > > > > > > any " space " " time " " dimension " or.. > > > > > > > > " idea " " spirit " " soul " or.. > > > > > > > > any vague notion of any agency.. > > > > > > > > to, from, or for which any thought of capacity.. > > > > > > > > is implied or inherent. > > > > > > > > there it is...not. > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > geo> Would you care to explain what do you mean by the expression > > > > > " container > > > > > of " things " " ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what's this thing called enlightenment..or consciousness? > > > > > > > > > > how can either " thing " .. > > > > > > > > > > or either container of " things " .. > > > > > > > > > > " happen " in no- " thing " ? > > > > > > > > > > the question answers itself. > > > > > > > > > > it's a non-question with only one possible non-answer: > > > > > > > > > > repeat until finished. > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's hang the question then: enlightenment happens in > > > > > > consciousness? > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > ==== > > > > > > since neither consciousness nor enlightenment exist.. > > > > > > > > > > > > is it a wonder a nonexistent like Nisargadatta would say that? > > > > > > > > > > > > What happens in nothing stays in nothing.. > > > > > > > > > > > > thus spake the nothing that was Niz. > > > > > > > > > > > > and they all " lived " happily ever after as One. > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Enlightenment happens in consciousness according to Niz > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kip > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " <kipalmazy@> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ....and, Russell's paradox, givetvis! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Viking XIII > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Ricardo Almon > > > > > > > > <ricardo.almon@> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ......that's called " liar's paradox " i.e. there is always an > > > > > > > > > exception, > > > > > > > > > you are not " outside " of.....whatever it might be! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > yours, > > > > > > > > > Ricardo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Bill Rishel <illusyn@> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sitting in meditation > > > > > > > > > > silent mind > > > > > > > > > > deep contemplation > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever contemplated > > > > > > > > > > is false > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no exceptions > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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.