Guest guest Posted May 10, 2009 Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 What you are is an essence, a brightness, a formless vibration. Within that does there arise hunger, longing, desire? Within that does there arise movement? Dwelling still in pure, bright, consciousness, behold transformation. Dwelling in dynamic transformation, behold stillness. In movement between dynamic transformation and stillness, behold beholding. Then, in dissolution of movement awaken. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 10, 2009 Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 Nisargadatta , Bill Rishel <illusyn wrote: > > What you are is an essence, a brightness, a formless vibration. > > Within that does there arise hunger, longing, desire? > > Within that does there arise movement? > > Dwelling still in pure, bright, consciousness, behold transformation. > > Dwelling in dynamic transformation, behold stillness. > > In movement between dynamic transformation and stillness, behold beholding. > > Then, in dissolution of movement awaken. > > > Bill > There is no pure, bright, consciousness. I wonder how long this nonsense it will get traded from generation to generation. Werner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 10, 2009 Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 Nisargadatta , Bill Rishel <illusyn wrote: > > What you are is an essence, a brightness, a formless vibration. > > Within that does there arise hunger, longing, desire? > > Within that does there arise movement? > > Dwelling still in pure, bright, consciousness, behold transformation. > > Dwelling in dynamic transformation, behold stillness. > > In movement between dynamic transformation and stillness, behold beholding. > > Then, in dissolution of movement awaken. > > > Bill all " things " are arisen in Emptiness. before enlightenment: bitter tears fall in sorrow. anger bellows forth. laughter echoes aimlessly. boredom bothers. life goes on. trees are trees. after enlightenment. all is the same. but there are no " roots " from which arise.. any " things " whatsoever. being NOW without question. this is the Great Isness. still..there is pain..tears...anger..boredom..nature. but it is not of or for or towards or within. if the thought of enlightenment arises.. " you' go straight to hell.. wherein.. there is weeping..laughter..boredom..nature..longing... and there..in hell.. all of that is " yours " ...or " others " . the " zen Man " ..the " christian Man " ..the " jewish Man " etc... none are followers of buddha...christ.... yaweh..or whatever.. the buddha..the christ..or whatever the big kahuna.. they follow that Man. eating a pulled pork sandwich.. is as holy and hollow.. as Mass or meditation. all is all and all is same. " i " love it when " they " yell at " me " : " get lost you bullying bastard! " for it's true: I already am lost.. in Amness. all are. most are in amnesiac amness of this fundamental. but there is no escaping It. not any condition nor thought applies. a floating cloud expressing all but vaporizing endlessly. changing changelessly... all the above however is: too " worldly " ...and wordy. ..b b.b. p.s. any " method " ..prayer..thought...meditation..shock...love or hate.. when wrought to the end which is the beginning-less beginning... are " worthwhile " .. the prize is unspeakable. and all are in possession of...are possessed by THIS even now. JOY beyond the Boundless.. where Joy itself is no longer desired. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 10, 2009 Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Bill Rishel <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > What you are is an essence, a brightness, a formless vibration. > > > > Within that does there arise hunger, longing, desire? > > > > Within that does there arise movement? > > > > Dwelling still in pure, bright, consciousness, behold transformation. > > > > Dwelling in dynamic transformation, behold stillness. > > > > In movement between dynamic transformation and stillness, behold beholding. > > > > Then, in dissolution of movement awaken. > > > > > > Bill > > > > > There is no pure, bright, consciousness. > > I wonder how long this nonsense it will get traded from generation to generation. > > Werner how long? as long as there are assholes like you who try to negate it. what " generations " you deluded bastard? ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 10, 2009 Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Bill Rishel <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > What you are is an essence, a brightness, a formless vibration. > > > > Within that does there arise hunger, longing, desire? > > > > Within that does there arise movement? > > > > Dwelling still in pure, bright, consciousness, behold transformation. > > > > Dwelling in dynamic transformation, behold stillness. > > > > In movement between dynamic transformation and stillness, behold beholding. > > > > Then, in dissolution of movement awaken. > > > > > > Bill > > > > > all " things " are arisen in Emptiness. > Take a look at this introduction from Mr. lttl vrg mn. This lttl vrg mn spend seven years on this forum to come to this conclusion. Not for a moment this lttl vrg mn has grasped that: -Emptiness does not consists or arise from 'things' -Emptiness is not light -Emptiness is not consciousness or awareness -Emptiness is not the Absolute -Emptiness is not a background -Emptiness does not exist on its own -Emptiness is not a substance " as long as there are assholes like you who try to prove there is emptiness, the world is full of deluded bastards, like lttl vrg mn like b?, living of 'things'? b? LOL! ....and oh, enjoy your 'pulled pork sandwich', your personal 'unspeakable príze'... )) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 10, 2009 Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 Nisargadatta , " mstrdmmlbrn " <mstrdmmlbrn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , Bill Rishel <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > What you are is an essence, a brightness, a formless vibration. > > > > > > Within that does there arise hunger, longing, desire? > > > > > > Within that does there arise movement? > > > > > > Dwelling still in pure, bright, consciousness, behold transformation. > > > > > > Dwelling in dynamic transformation, behold stillness. > > > > > > In movement between dynamic transformation and stillness, behold beholding. > > > > > > Then, in dissolution of movement awaken. > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > all " things " are arisen in Emptiness. > > > > Take a look at this introduction from Mr. lttl vrg mn. > This lttl vrg mn spend seven years on this forum to come to this conclusion. > Not for a moment this lttl vrg mn has grasped that: > > -Emptiness does not consists or arise from 'things' > -Emptiness is not light > -Emptiness is not consciousness or awareness > -Emptiness is not the Absolute > -Emptiness is not a background > -Emptiness does not exist on its own > -Emptiness is not a substance > > " as long as there are assholes like you who try to prove there is emptiness, the world is full of deluded bastards, like lttl vrg mn like b?, living of 'things'? > > b? > > LOL! > > ...and oh, enjoy your 'pulled pork sandwich', your personal 'unspeakable príze'... > > )) > you live and die for .b b.b. " you " are obsessed. yet " you " are not. " you " have no idea. " you " are lost. " you " think emptiness is other than form. " you " think life is other than death. " you " think paradise is lost and must be regained. " you " are wrong. " you " are a dumb asshole. it's not to be or not to be.. It's to be AND not to be. to be a wlaking dead man is the true wisdom. johnny.. grow the fuck up. ROFLMAO! ..b b.b. p.s. when you finally understand.. that all of your stupidity.. all your anger.. is because you are identifying with a false premise.. that " you " are " real " and have " something " to defend.. that " you " or .b b.b. are " real " .. you'll finally be able to stand up in your crib. and you won't need baba's motherly handling. until then.. i'll keep laughing at you.. anmd pointing out that you have shit your diaper again.. and again and again and again.. well.. you already know how stupid, stinky, silly, and sorry ass you are. how can you go on living like that shitty pants? LOL! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 10, 2009 Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " mstrdmmlbrn " <mstrdmmlbrn@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Bill Rishel <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > What you are is an essence, a brightness, a formless vibration. > > > > > > > > Within that does there arise hunger, longing, desire? > > > > > > > > Within that does there arise movement? > > > > > > > > Dwelling still in pure, bright, consciousness, behold transformation. > > > > > > > > Dwelling in dynamic transformation, behold stillness. > > > > > > > > In movement between dynamic transformation and stillness, behold beholding. > > > > > > > > Then, in dissolution of movement awaken. > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all " things " are arisen in Emptiness. > > > > > > > Take a look at this introduction from Mr. lttl vrg mn. > > This lttl vrg mn spend seven years on this forum to come to this conclusion. > > Not for a moment this lttl vrg mn has grasped that: > > > > -Emptiness does not consists or arise from 'things' > > -Emptiness is not light > > -Emptiness is not consciousness or awareness > > -Emptiness is not the Absolute > > -Emptiness is not a background > > -Emptiness does not exist on its own > > -Emptiness is not a substance > > > > " as long as there are assholes like you who try to prove there is emptiness, the world is full of deluded bastards, like lttl vrg mn like b?, living of 'things'? > > > > b? > > > > LOL! > > > > ...and oh, enjoy your 'pulled pork sandwich', your personal 'unspeakable príze'... > > > > )) > > > > > > you live and die for .b b.b. > > " you " are obsessed. > > yet " you " are not. > > " you " have no idea. > > " you " are lost. > > " you " think emptiness is other than form. > > " you " think life is other than death. > > " you " think paradise is lost and must be regained. > > " you " are wrong. > > " you " are a dumb asshole. > > it's not to be or not to be.. > > It's to be AND not to be. > > to be a wlaking dead man is the true wisdom. > > johnny.. > > grow the fuck up. > > ROFLMAO! > > .b b.b. > > p.s. > > when you finally understand.. > > that all of your stupidity.. > > all your anger.. > > is because you are identifying with a false premise.. > > that " you " are " real " and have " something " to defend.. > > that " you " or .b b.b. are " real " .. > > you'll finally be able to stand up in your crib. > > and you won't need baba's motherly handling. > > until then.. > > i'll keep laughing at you.. > > anmd pointing out that you have shit your diaper again.. > > and again and again and again.. > > well.. > > you already know how stupid, stinky, silly, and sorry ass you are. > > how can you go on living like that shitty pants? > > LOL! OK.. time's up. i'll answer for you dummy.. " how long can you go on living like that shitty pants? " .. as long as there is a dumb asshole like you johnny. i'm thinkin' that's gonna be a very long time indeed. :-) ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 10, 2009 Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " mstrdmmlbrn " <mstrdmmlbrn@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Bill Rishel <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > What you are is an essence, a brightness, a formless vibration. > > > > > > > > > > Within that does there arise hunger, longing, desire? > > > > > > > > > > Within that does there arise movement? > > > > > > > > > > Dwelling still in pure, bright, consciousness, behold transformation. > > > > > > > > > > Dwelling in dynamic transformation, behold stillness. > > > > > > > > > > In movement between dynamic transformation and stillness, behold beholding. > > > > > > > > > > Then, in dissolution of movement awaken. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all " things " are arisen in Emptiness. > > > > > > > > > > Take a look at this introduction from Mr. lttl vrg mn. > > > This lttl vrg mn spend seven years on this forum to come to this conclusion. > > > Not for a moment this lttl vrg mn has grasped that: > > > > > > -Emptiness does not consists or arise from 'things' > > > -Emptiness is not light > > > -Emptiness is not consciousness or awareness > > > -Emptiness is not the Absolute > > > -Emptiness is not a background > > > -Emptiness does not exist on its own > > > -Emptiness is not a substance > > > > > > " as long as there are assholes like you who try to prove there is emptiness, the world is full of deluded bastards, like lttl vrg mn like b?, living of 'things'? > > > > > > b? > > > > > > LOL! > > > > > > ...and oh, enjoy your 'pulled pork sandwich', your personal 'unspeakable príze'... > > > > > > )) > > > > > > > > > > > you live and die for .b b.b. > > > > " you " are obsessed. > > > > yet " you " are not. > > > > " you " have no idea. > > > > " you " are lost. > > > > " you " think emptiness is other than form. > > > > " you " think life is other than death. > > > > " you " think paradise is lost and must be regained. > > > > " you " are wrong. > > > > " you " are a dumb asshole. > > > > it's not to be or not to be.. > > > > It's to be AND not to be. > > > > to be a wlaking dead man is the true wisdom. > > > > johnny.. > > > > grow the fuck up. > > > > ROFLMAO! > > > > .b b.b. > > > > p.s. > > > > when you finally understand.. > > > > that all of your stupidity.. > > > > all your anger.. > > > > is because you are identifying with a false premise.. > > > > that " you " are " real " and have " something " to defend.. > > > > that " you " or .b b.b. are " real " .. > > > > you'll finally be able to stand up in your crib. > > > > and you won't need baba's motherly handling. > > > > until then.. > > > > i'll keep laughing at you.. > > > > anmd pointing out that you have shit your diaper again.. > > > > and again and again and again.. > > > > well.. > > > > you already know how stupid, stinky, silly, and sorry ass you are. > > > > how can you go on living like that shitty pants? > > > > LOL! > > > OK.. > > time's up. > > i'll answer for you dummy.. > > " how long can you go on living like that shitty pants? " .. > > as long as there is a dumb asshole like you johnny. > > i'm thinkin' that's gonna be a very long time indeed. > > :-) > > .b b.b. > How hard I try, I couldn't better that great performance of self-analysis...lttl vrg mn. Say hello to the warmhearted 'Good Wife', and enjoy the 'Emptiness' with her... You make me laugh, you invisible little suburban average man. )) b? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 10, 2009 Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 Nisargadatta , " mstrdmmlbrn " <mstrdmmlbrn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " mstrdmmlbrn " <mstrdmmlbrn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Bill Rishel <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > What you are is an essence, a brightness, a formless vibration. > > > > > > > > > > > > Within that does there arise hunger, longing, desire? > > > > > > > > > > > > Within that does there arise movement? > > > > > > > > > > > > Dwelling still in pure, bright, consciousness, behold transformation. > > > > > > > > > > > > Dwelling in dynamic transformation, behold stillness. > > > > > > > > > > > > In movement between dynamic transformation and stillness, behold beholding. > > > > > > > > > > > > Then, in dissolution of movement awaken. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all " things " are arisen in Emptiness. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Take a look at this introduction from Mr. lttl vrg mn. > > > > This lttl vrg mn spend seven years on this forum to come to this conclusion. > > > > Not for a moment this lttl vrg mn has grasped that: > > > > > > > > -Emptiness does not consists or arise from 'things' > > > > -Emptiness is not light > > > > -Emptiness is not consciousness or awareness > > > > -Emptiness is not the Absolute > > > > -Emptiness is not a background > > > > -Emptiness does not exist on its own > > > > -Emptiness is not a substance > > > > > > > > " as long as there are assholes like you who try to prove there is emptiness, the world is full of deluded bastards, like lttl vrg mn like b?, living of 'things'? > > > > > > > > b? > > > > > > > > LOL! > > > > > > > > ...and oh, enjoy your 'pulled pork sandwich', your personal 'unspeakable príze'... > > > > > > > > )) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you live and die for .b b.b. > > > > > > " you " are obsessed. > > > > > > yet " you " are not. > > > > > > " you " have no idea. > > > > > > " you " are lost. > > > > > > " you " think emptiness is other than form. > > > > > > " you " think life is other than death. > > > > > > " you " think paradise is lost and must be regained. > > > > > > " you " are wrong. > > > > > > " you " are a dumb asshole. > > > > > > it's not to be or not to be.. > > > > > > It's to be AND not to be. > > > > > > to be a wlaking dead man is the true wisdom. > > > > > > johnny.. > > > > > > grow the fuck up. > > > > > > ROFLMAO! > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > p.s. > > > > > > when you finally understand.. > > > > > > that all of your stupidity.. > > > > > > all your anger.. > > > > > > is because you are identifying with a false premise.. > > > > > > that " you " are " real " and have " something " to defend.. > > > > > > that " you " or .b b.b. are " real " .. > > > > > > you'll finally be able to stand up in your crib. > > > > > > and you won't need baba's motherly handling. > > > > > > until then.. > > > > > > i'll keep laughing at you.. > > > > > > anmd pointing out that you have shit your diaper again.. > > > > > > and again and again and again.. > > > > > > well.. > > > > > > you already know how stupid, stinky, silly, and sorry ass you are. > > > > > > how can you go on living like that shitty pants? > > > > > > LOL! > > > > > > OK.. > > > > time's up. > > > > i'll answer for you dummy.. > > > > " how long can you go on living like that shitty pants? " .. > > > > as long as there is a dumb asshole like you johnny. > > > > i'm thinkin' that's gonna be a very long time indeed. > > > > :-) > > > > .b b.b. > > > > How hard I try, I couldn't better that great performance of self-analysis...lttl vrg mn. > > Say hello to the warmhearted 'Good Wife', and enjoy the 'Emptiness' with her... > > You make me laugh, you invisible little suburban average man. > > )) > > b? LOL! are you really such a simpleton? you have to look upwards to see the average. do you use a telescope from that far below the norm? you have nothing better to do than be a pest do you shitty pants? johnny it's mother's day.. go squeal to your momma sow... you know.. your dad's sister. she probably finds your oinks cute. i find them funny too. now go on.. get back in the barnyard with your family little piglet. your upbringing is evident. seriously kid.. are you this fucking lonely? your only interest is in getting spanked by your betters. what a sad and sorry life you have. but maybe not for a dumb pathetic piggy like you. mmmmmmmm! Porky you'd make a nice sandwich.. except for the fact that your all asshole meat. though it's easy to pull the wool over your piggy ass eyes.. it's not so easy to pull your porky flesh. it's stinky and decomposing... not meat to eat nor to greet actually... it's mushy like what you call your mind. happy mothers day motherfucker... that must sound sweet to an inbred like you huh? ROFLMAO! ..b b.b. p.s. none of the above is meant to hurt you. but i hope it does. hahahaaaaaaaaaaa! (o_O) (johnny saying " what the hell does he mean???) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 10, 2009 Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " mstrdmmlbrn " <mstrdmmlbrn@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " mstrdmmlbrn " <mstrdmmlbrn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Bill Rishel <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What you are is an essence, a brightness, a formless vibration. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Within that does there arise hunger, longing, desire? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Within that does there arise movement? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dwelling still in pure, bright, consciousness, behold transformation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dwelling in dynamic transformation, behold stillness. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In movement between dynamic transformation and stillness, behold beholding. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then, in dissolution of movement awaken. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all " things " are arisen in Emptiness. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Take a look at this introduction from Mr. lttl vrg mn. > > > > > This lttl vrg mn spend seven years on this forum to come to this conclusion. > > > > > Not for a moment this lttl vrg mn has grasped that: > > > > > > > > > > -Emptiness does not consists or arise from 'things' > > > > > -Emptiness is not light > > > > > -Emptiness is not consciousness or awareness > > > > > -Emptiness is not the Absolute > > > > > -Emptiness is not a background > > > > > -Emptiness does not exist on its own > > > > > -Emptiness is not a substance > > > > > > > > > > " as long as there are assholes like you who try to prove there is emptiness, the world is full of deluded bastards, like lttl vrg mn like b?, living of 'things'? > > > > > > > > > > b? > > > > > > > > > > LOL! > > > > > > > > > > ...and oh, enjoy your 'pulled pork sandwich', your personal 'unspeakable príze'... > > > > > > > > > > )) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you live and die for .b b.b. > > > > > > > > " you " are obsessed. > > > > > > > > yet " you " are not. > > > > > > > > " you " have no idea. > > > > > > > > " you " are lost. > > > > > > > > " you " think emptiness is other than form. > > > > > > > > " you " think life is other than death. > > > > > > > > " you " think paradise is lost and must be regained. > > > > > > > > " you " are wrong. > > > > > > > > " you " are a dumb asshole. > > > > > > > > it's not to be or not to be.. > > > > > > > > It's to be AND not to be. > > > > > > > > to be a wlaking dead man is the true wisdom. > > > > > > > > johnny.. > > > > > > > > grow the fuck up. > > > > > > > > ROFLMAO! > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > p.s. > > > > > > > > when you finally understand.. > > > > > > > > that all of your stupidity.. > > > > > > > > all your anger.. > > > > > > > > is because you are identifying with a false premise.. > > > > > > > > that " you " are " real " and have " something " to defend.. > > > > > > > > that " you " or .b b.b. are " real " .. > > > > > > > > you'll finally be able to stand up in your crib. > > > > > > > > and you won't need baba's motherly handling. > > > > > > > > until then.. > > > > > > > > i'll keep laughing at you.. > > > > > > > > anmd pointing out that you have shit your diaper again.. > > > > > > > > and again and again and again.. > > > > > > > > well.. > > > > > > > > you already know how stupid, stinky, silly, and sorry ass you are. > > > > > > > > how can you go on living like that shitty pants? > > > > > > > > LOL! > > > > > > > > > OK.. > > > > > > time's up. > > > > > > i'll answer for you dummy.. > > > > > > " how long can you go on living like that shitty pants? " .. > > > > > > as long as there is a dumb asshole like you johnny. > > > > > > i'm thinkin' that's gonna be a very long time indeed. > > > > > > :-) > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > How hard I try, I couldn't better that great performance of self-analysis...lttl vrg mn. > > > > Say hello to the warmhearted 'Good Wife', and enjoy the 'Emptiness' with her... > > > > You make me laugh, you invisible little suburban average man. > > > > )) > > > > b? > > > > > LOL! > > are you really such a simpleton? > > you have to look upwards to see the average. > > do you use a telescope from that far below the norm? > > you have nothing better to do than be a pest do you shitty pants? > > johnny it's mother's day.. > > go squeal to your momma sow... > > you know.. > > your dad's sister. > > she probably finds your oinks cute. > > i find them funny too. > > now go on.. > > get back in the barnyard with your family little piglet. > > your upbringing is evident. > > seriously kid.. > > are you this fucking lonely? > > your only interest is in getting spanked by your betters. > > what a sad and sorry life you have. > > but maybe not for a dumb pathetic piggy like you. > > mmmmmmmm! > > Porky you'd make a nice sandwich.. > > except for the fact that your all asshole meat. > > though it's easy to pull the wool over your piggy ass eyes.. > > it's not so easy to pull your porky flesh. > > it's stinky and decomposing... > > not meat to eat nor to greet actually... > > it's mushy like what you call your mind. > > happy mothers day motherfucker... > > that must sound sweet to an inbred like you huh? > > ROFLMAO! > > .b b.b. > > p.s. > > none of the above is meant to hurt you. > > but i hope it does. > > hahahaaaaaaaaaaa! > > (o_O) > > (johnny saying " what the hell does he mean???) > Sounds familiair, trying to shake off your past...again? ....little invivisible suburban man? b? )) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Bill Rishel <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > What you are is an essence, a brightness, a formless vibration. > > > > Within that does there arise hunger, longing, desire? > > > > Within that does there arise movement? > > > > Dwelling still in pure, bright, consciousness, behold transformation. > > > > Dwelling in dynamic transformation, behold stillness. > > > > In movement between dynamic transformation and stillness, behold beholding. > > > > Then, in dissolution of movement awaken. > > > > > > Bill > I love it when you let it roll like this Bob. [more below] > > all " things " are arisen in Emptiness. > > before enlightenment: > > bitter tears fall in sorrow. > > anger bellows forth. > > laughter echoes aimlessly. > > boredom bothers. > > life goes on. > > trees are trees. > > after enlightenment. > > all is the same. > > but there are no " roots " from which arise.. > > any " things " whatsoever. > > being NOW without question. the " without question " here I find very interesting, since as I see it " liberation " is precisely when the " questions " end. > > this is the Great Isness. > > still..there is pain..tears...anger..boredom..nature. > > but it is not of or for or towards or within. > > if the thought of enlightenment arises.. > > " you' go straight to hell.. By which you mean the thought, " I am enlightened. " After liberation that thought simply cannot arise. Even if it did arise, it would seem meaningless, as at that point there is no " I " to attach it to. Bill > wherein.. > > there is weeping..laughter..boredom..nature..longing... > > and there..in hell.. > > all of that is " yours " ...or " others " . > > the " zen Man " ..the " christian Man " ..the " jewish Man " etc... > > none are followers of buddha...christ.... yaweh..or whatever.. > > the buddha..the christ..or whatever the big kahuna.. > > they follow that Man. > > eating a pulled pork sandwich.. > > is as holy and hollow.. > > as Mass or meditation. > > all is all and all is same. > > " i " love it when " they " yell at " me " : > > " get lost you bullying bastard! " > > for it's true: I already am lost.. > > in Amness. > > all are. > > most are in amnesiac amness of this fundamental. > > but there is no escaping It. > > not any condition nor thought applies. > > a floating cloud expressing all but vaporizing endlessly. > > changing changelessly... > > all the above however is: > > too " worldly " ...and wordy. > > .b b.b. > > > p.s. > > any " method " ..prayer..thought...meditation..shock...love or hate.. > > when wrought to the end which is the beginning-less beginning... > > are " worthwhile " .. > > the prize is unspeakable. > > and all are in possession of...are possessed by THIS even now. > > JOY beyond the Boundless.. > > where Joy itself is no longer desired. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 -Emptiness does not consists or arise from 'things' -Emptiness is not light -Emptiness is not consciousness or awareness -Emptiness is not the Absolute -Emptiness is not a background -Emptiness does not exist on its own -Emptiness is not a substance ************************************ Emptiness is not. All Dharmas are empty. etc. But such assertions, if read as some " metaphysical truth " , are inherently misleading. So how should they be interpreted? Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > -Emptiness does not consists or arise from 'things' > -Emptiness is not light > -Emptiness is not consciousness or awareness > -Emptiness is not the Absolute > -Emptiness is not a background > -Emptiness does not exist on its own > -Emptiness is not a substance > > ************************************ > > Emptiness is not. > > All Dharmas are empty. > > etc. > > But such assertions, if read as some > " metaphysical truth " , are inherently > misleading. So how should they be > interpreted? > > > Bill > Everything interpreted from the self-referential perspective is a facet of the delusional dream of conceptual-separation. All interpretation is a comparison of the known. All interpretation involves the supposition of things......and there are none. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > -Emptiness does not consists or arise from 'things' > > -Emptiness is not light > > -Emptiness is not consciousness or awareness > > -Emptiness is not the Absolute > > -Emptiness is not a background > > -Emptiness does not exist on its own > > -Emptiness is not a substance > > > > ************************************ > > > > Emptiness is not. > > > > All Dharmas are empty. > > > > etc. > > > > But such assertions, if read as some > > " metaphysical truth " , are inherently > > misleading. So how should they be > > interpreted? > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > Everything interpreted from the self-referential perspective is a facet of the delusional dream of conceptual-separation. > > All interpretation is a comparison of the known. > > All interpretation involves the supposition of things......and there are none. > > No Toom. A) Not all interpretation is from a self-referential perspective. B) Not all interpretation involves comparison. " This moment visual-kinesthetic manifestation is vividly present. " That is not in comparison to visual-kinesthetic manifestation as non-present. Nevertheless it entails interpretation. Just the presentation of whatever is displayed in consciousness by the brain entails interpretation, as what is so displayed is the result of filtering and ordering in pre-consciousness of an overwhelming bombardment of sensory signals. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > -Emptiness does not consists or arise from 'things' > > > -Emptiness is not light > > > -Emptiness is not consciousness or awareness > > > -Emptiness is not the Absolute > > > -Emptiness is not a background > > > -Emptiness does not exist on its own > > > -Emptiness is not a substance > > > > > > ************************************ > > > > > > Emptiness is not. > > > > > > All Dharmas are empty. > > > > > > etc. > > > > > > But such assertions, if read as some > > > " metaphysical truth " , are inherently > > > misleading. So how should they be > > > interpreted? > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > Everything interpreted from the self-referential perspective is a facet of the delusional dream of conceptual-separation. > > > > All interpretation is a comparison of the known. > > > > All interpretation involves the supposition of things......and there are none. > > > > > > No Toom. > > A) Not all interpretation is from a self-referential perspective. > B) Not all interpretation involves comparison. > > " This moment visual-kinesthetic manifestation is vividly present. " > > That is not in comparison to visual-kinesthetic manifestation as > non-present. > > Nevertheless it entails interpretation. > > Just the presentation of whatever is displayed in consciousness > by the brain entails interpretation, as what is so displayed > is the result of filtering and ordering in pre-consciousness > of an overwhelming bombardment of sensory signals. > > Bill > Every'thing' within the arena of self is part of its conceptual overlay and exists only in reference to its accumulation of assumptions. You are right.......there is an alternative. But trying to find words to speak of it is like............ ....is like................. .........well........I can't think of anything that doesn't need words........... toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 > > Everything interpreted from the self-referential perspective is a facet of the delusional dream of conceptual-separation. > > > > All interpretation is a comparison of the known. > > > > All interpretation involves the supposition of things......and there are none. > > > > > > No Toom. > > A) Not all interpretation is from a self-referential perspective. > B) Not all interpretation involves comparison. > > " This moment visual-kinesthetic manifestation is vividly present. " > > That is not in comparison to visual-kinesthetic manifestation as > non-present. > > Nevertheless it entails interpretation. > > Just the presentation of whatever is displayed in consciousness > by the brain entails interpretation, as what is so displayed > is the result of filtering and ordering in pre-consciousness > of an overwhelming bombardment of sensory signals. > > Bill > Every'thing' within the arena of self is part of its conceptual overlay and exists only in reference to its accumulation of assumptions. You are right.......there is an alternative. But trying to find words to speak of it is like............ ....is like................. .........well........I can't think of anything that doesn't need words........... toombaru-------------------------------That's because there is no " it " of which to speak.To go beyond " self " as a POV is to go beyonddescription. It is impossible to describe what cannot be described.That doesn't mean that words are useless, however.Consider the classic " finger pointing to the moon " .Clearly such a " finger " is not a " description " . Nevertheless such " fingers " can be of value. " The alternative " can be said to be absence ofany " self " . What does this mean? Can we evendescribe " self " ? " Self " is not a thing either, nor does it exist.Recently it occurred to me that " self " is in effecta " strange-attractor " . It amounts to an " organizingprinciple " by the brain. Note that I said brain, notmind. For this reason freedom from " self " is not attainable by any conceptual understanding by themind. While there is the concept of " self " , certainly,the root of self is not in the concept but in the operationof the brain in terms of a certain kind of ordering principle, what I have called a type of strange attractor. This is a crucial point and is why freedomfrom the self-principle is so difficult to attain, andwhy conceptual understanding in particular is not up to the task. It is as if a character in a comic bookwere to undertake a reordering of the frames in thecomic strip. So the question becomes (if you are with me so far)one of altering the manner of ordering of the brain so as to induce a fundamental change in that ordering.Most methods of achieving that involve various " practices " , such a zazen etc., which pushing thebrain to some kind of limit hopefully induces a fundamental change. Given the foregoing, I suggest that this much is clear:the transition from " self " as an organizing principleof the brain entails a transition by the brain to a (radically) different kind of ordering principle, which is to say a different kind of strange-attractor.The best way I can see to induce such a transitionis to maintain vigilant attention to what is strictlynow, the absolutely immediate present. If such a " practice " is maintained vigilantly, eventually the brain " discovers " a much simpler organizing principle,which supplants the former self-based one. Whenthat happens the subjective experience is of astounding and in ways even devastating significance. What could be more radical? But the subjectiveexperience of such a transition is still illusion, andin the long run unimportant. Once that shift by thebrain occurs the " programming " of the system gradually undergoes a thorough-going revision.Over time the " choppiness of the waves of experience " subsides and a deeper and deeperharmonic resonance in experience develops.This phase could be called the " purification of the Buddha fields. " But in all of it there is only one real " event " , and that is the transition by the brain toa different organizing principle. All the rest is insignificant detail.Exactly what induces induces the shift by the brain to a different ordering principle is unknown (at leastby this author). Sometimes the term " grace " is used.But it could be something as impersonal as some kind of " butterfly effect " , some tiny factor that triggers a cascade of transformation, much as agrain of sand triggers the sudden crystallization ofa super-saturated solution.Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > -Emptiness does not consists or arise from 'things' > -Emptiness is not light > -Emptiness is not consciousness or awareness > -Emptiness is not the Absolute > -Emptiness is not a background > -Emptiness does not exist on its own > -Emptiness is not a substance > > ************************************ > > Emptiness is not. > > All Dharmas are empty. > > etc. > > But such assertions, if read as some > " metaphysical truth " , are inherently > misleading. So how should they be > interpreted? > > > Bill > At best they shouldn't be interpreted. Discussing and 'teaching' each other the truth on a forum like this one is a result of hanging on to consciousness by Ego. For even one of the smallest word, which happens to be 'I' (let alone Emptiness) is an illussion, fallacy and the like. That's more than fifty words too many... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 Nisargadatta , Bill Rishel <illusyn wrote: > > > > Everything interpreted from the self-referential perspective is a facet > of the delusional dream of conceptual-separation. > > > > > > All interpretation is a comparison of the known. > > > > > > All interpretation involves the supposition of things......and there are > none. > > > > > > > > > > No Toom. > > > > A) Not all interpretation is from a self-referential perspective. > > B) Not all interpretation involves comparison. > > > > " This moment visual-kinesthetic manifestation is vividly present. " > > > > That is not in comparison to visual-kinesthetic manifestation as > > non-present. > > > > Nevertheless it entails interpretation. > > > > Just the presentation of whatever is displayed in consciousness > > by the brain entails interpretation, as what is so displayed > > is the result of filtering and ordering in pre-consciousness > > of an overwhelming bombardment of sensory signals. > > > > Bill > > > > Every'thing' within the arena of self is part of its conceptual overlay and > exists only in reference to its accumulation of assumptions. > > You are right.......there is an alternative. > > But trying to find words to speak of it is like............ > > ...is like................. > > ........well........I can't think of anything that doesn't need > words........... > > toombaru > > ------------------------------- > > That's because there is no " it " of which to speak. Yes. That's the rub. Conceptual mind and its sense of self need to convert experience to a conceptual format in order to " see " anything and that out of which it emerges cannot be conceptualized. It's an insurmountable conundrum. > > To go beyond " self " as a POV is to go beyond > description. It is impossible to describe what > cannot be described. Ultimately nothing can be described. > > That doesn't mean that words are useless, however. > Consider the classic " finger pointing to the moon " . > Clearly such a " finger " is not a " description " . > Nevertheless such " fingers " can be of value. Words.........arranged just so.....can pull the blanket from under the dream. But the dream floods back almost immediately . Only when one becomes accustomed to standing on the air does the pristine-immediacy of the moment display its ever-presentness. > > " The alternative " can be said to be absence of > any " self " . What does this mean? Can we even > describe " self " ? " Self " is not a thing either, nor does > it exist. Yes. The " self " is the only obstruction to that which it is programmed to seek. > > Recently it occurred to me that " self " is in effect > a " strange-attractor " . It amounts to an " organizing > principle " by the brain. Note that I said *brain*, not > mind. For this reason freedom from " self " is not > attainable by any conceptual understanding by the > mind. While there is the concept of " self " , certainly, > the root of self is not in the concept but in the operation > of the brain in terms of a certain kind of ordering > principle, what I have called a type of *strange > attractor.* This is a crucial point and is why freedom > from the self-principle is so difficult to attain, and > why conceptual understanding in particular is not up > to the task. It is as if a character in a comic book > were to undertake a reordering of the frames in the > comic strip. Nicely put. > > So the question becomes (if you are with me so far) > one of altering the manner of ordering of the brain > so as to induce a fundamental change in that ordering. > Most methods of achieving that involve various > " practices " , such a zazen etc., which pushing the > brain to some kind of limit hopefully induces a > fundamental change. There does seem to be a connection. But one wonders if the Emptiness is the cause or result of the seeking. > > Given the foregoing, I suggest that this much is clear: > the transition from " self " as an organizing principle > of the brain entails a transition by the brain to a > (radically) different kind of ordering principle, which is > to say a different kind of strange-attractor. Yes. A diametrically opposed antithesis. (I think I saw one of those crossing the road this morning.) > > The best way I can see to induce such a transition > is to maintain vigilant attention to what is strictly > now, the absolutely immediate present. If such a > " practice " is maintained vigilantly, eventually the > brain " discovers " a much simpler organizing principle, > which supplants the former self-based one. When > that happens the subjective experience is of > astounding and in ways even devastating significance. > What could be more radical? But the subjective > experience of such a transition is still illusion, and > in the long run unimportant. Once that shift by the > brain occurs the " programming " of the system > gradually undergoes a thorough-going revision. > Over time the " choppiness of the waves of > experience " subsides and a deeper and deeper > harmonic resonance in experience develops. > This phase could be called the " purification of the > Buddha fields. " But in all of it there is only one real > " event " , and that is the transition by the brain to > a different organizing principle. All the rest is > insignificant detail. Yes.......that seems about as clear as words can be. > > Exactly what induces induces the shift by the brain > to a different ordering principle is unknown (at least > by this author). Sometimes the term " grace " is used. > But it could be something as impersonal as some > kind of " butterfly effect " , some tiny factor that > triggers a cascade of transformation, much as a > grain of sand triggers the sudden crystallization of > a super-saturated solution. > > Bill > .......or.....more likely it is beyond the egis of mind and its post-it dream. Good night Bill. You are a jewel. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , Bill Rishel <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > What you are is an essence, a brightness, a formless vibration. > > > > > > Within that does there arise hunger, longing, desire? > > > > > > Within that does there arise movement? > > > > > > Dwelling still in pure, bright, consciousness, behold transformation. > > > > > > Dwelling in dynamic transformation, behold stillness. > > > > > > In movement between dynamic transformation and stillness, behold beholding. > > > > > > Then, in dissolution of movement awaken. > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > I love it when you let it roll like this Bob. > [more below] i'm gladdened that you do Bill. > > all " things " are arisen in Emptiness. > > > > before enlightenment: > > > > bitter tears fall in sorrow. > > > > anger bellows forth. > > > > laughter echoes aimlessly. > > > > boredom bothers. > > > > life goes on. > > > > trees are trees. > > > > after enlightenment. > > > > all is the same. > > > > but there are no " roots " from which arise.. > > > > any " things " whatsoever. > > > > being NOW without question. > > the " without question " here I find > very interesting, since as I see it > " liberation " is precisely when the > " questions " end. yes. > > this is the Great Isness. > > > > still..there is pain..tears...anger..boredom..nature. > > > > but it is not of or for or towards or within. > > > > if the thought of enlightenment arises.. > > > > " you' go straight to hell.. > > By which you mean the thought, " I am enlightened. " > > After liberation that thought simply cannot arise. > Even if it did arise, it would seem meaningless, > as at that point there is no " I " to attach it to. > > Bill to whom would " it " " seem " meaningless? both before and after only enlightenment is. enlightenment is..i am not. should ANY thought arise... that thought.. no matter who's..or what it is regarding..even " I AM " ... is the first and fundamental delusion. thinking itself is merely a derivative of the Unknown. *******************************nnb************************************ > > wherein.. > > > > there is weeping..laughter..boredom..nature..longing... > > > > and there..in hell.. > > > > all of that is " yours " ...or " others " . > > > > the " zen Man " ..the " christian Man " ..the " jewish Man " etc... > > > > none are followers of buddha...christ.... yaweh..or whatever.. > > > > the buddha..the christ..or whatever the big kahuna.. > > > > they follow that Man. > > > > eating a pulled pork sandwich.. > > > > is as holy and hollow.. > > > > as Mass or meditation. > > > > all is all and all is same. > > > > " i " love it when " they " yell at " me " : > > > > " get lost you bullying bastard! " > > > > for it's true: I already am lost.. > > > > in Amness. > > > > all are. > > > > most are in amnesiac amness of this fundamental. > > > > but there is no escaping It. > > > > not any condition nor thought applies. > > > > a floating cloud expressing all but vaporizing endlessly. > > > > changing changelessly... > > > > all the above however is: > > > > too " worldly " ...and wordy. > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > p.s. > > > > any " method " ..prayer..thought...meditation..shock...love or hate.. > > > > when wrought to the end which is the beginning-less beginning... > > > > are " worthwhile " .. > > > > the prize is unspeakable. > > > > and all are in possession of...are possessed by THIS even now. > > > > JOY beyond the Boundless.. > > > > where Joy itself is no longer desired. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > -Emptiness does not consists or arise from 'things' > > > > -Emptiness is not light > > > > -Emptiness is not consciousness or awareness > > > > -Emptiness is not the Absolute > > > > -Emptiness is not a background > > > > -Emptiness does not exist on its own > > > > -Emptiness is not a substance > > > > > > > > ************************************ > > > > > > > > Emptiness is not. > > > > > > > > All Dharmas are empty. > > > > > > > > etc. > > > > > > > > But such assertions, if read as some > > > > " metaphysical truth " , are inherently > > > > misleading. So how should they be > > > > interpreted? > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Everything interpreted from the self-referential perspective is a facet of the delusional dream of conceptual-separation. > > > > > > All interpretation is a comparison of the known. > > > > > > All interpretation involves the supposition of things......and there are none. > > > > > > > > > > No Toom. > > > > A) Not all interpretation is from a self-referential perspective. > > B) Not all interpretation involves comparison. > > > > " This moment visual-kinesthetic manifestation is vividly present. " > > > > That is not in comparison to visual-kinesthetic manifestation as > > non-present. > > > > Nevertheless it entails interpretation. > > > > Just the presentation of whatever is displayed in consciousness > > by the brain entails interpretation, as what is so displayed > > is the result of filtering and ordering in pre-consciousness > > of an overwhelming bombardment of sensory signals. > > > > Bill > > > > > Every'thing' within the arena of self is part of its conceptual overlay and exists only in reference to its accumulation of assumptions. > > You are right.......there is an alternative. > > > But trying to find words to speak of it is like............ > > ...is like................. > > > > > ........well........I can't think of anything that doesn't need words........... > > > > > toombaru > on words.. i like the take taken by Lewis Carroll.. aka Charles Lutwidge Dodgson... mathematician, logician, photographer, poet and so much more.. in Alice Through the Looking Glass: `Some people,' said Humpty Dumpty, looking away from her as usual, `have no more sense than a baby!' Alice didn't know what to say to this: it wasn't at all like conversation, she thought, as he never said anything to her; in fact, his last remark was evidently addressed to a tree -- so she stood and softly repeated to herself: `Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall: Humpty Dumpty had a great fall. All the King's horses and all the King's men Couldn't put Humpty Dumpty in his place again.' `That last line is much too long for the poetry,' she added, almost out loud, forgetting that Humpty Dumpty would hear her. `Don't stand chattering to yourself like that,' Humpty Dumpty said, looking at her for the first time, `but tell me your name and your business.' `My name is Alice, but --' `It's a stupid name enough!' Humpty Dumpty interrupted impatiently. `What does it mean?' `Must a name mean something?' Alice asked doubtfully. `Of course it must,' Humpty Dumpty said with a short laugh: `my name means the shape I am -- and a good handsome shape it is, too. With a name like yours, you might be any shape, almost.' `Why do you sit out here all alone?' said Alice, not wishing to begin an argument. `Why, because there's nobody with me!' cried Humpty Dumpty. `Did you think I didn't know the answer to that? Ask another.' `Don't you think you'd be safer down on the ground?' Alice went on, not with any idea of making another riddle, but simply in her good-natured anxiety for the queer creature. `That wall is so very narrow!' `What tremendously easy riddles you ask!' Humpty Dumpty growled out. `Of course I don't think so! Why, if ever I did fall off -- which there's no chance of -- but if I did --' Here he pursed up his lips, and looked so solemn and grand that Alice could hardly help laughing. `If I did fall,' he went on, `the King has promised me -- ah, you may turn pale, if you like! You didn't think I was going to say that, did you? The King has promised me -- with his very own mouth -- to -- to --' `To send all his horses and all his men,' Alice interrupted, rather unwisely. `Now I declare that's too bad!' Humpty Dumpty cried, breaking into a sudden passion. `You've been listening at doors -- and behind trees -- and down chimneys -- or you couldn't have known it!' `I haven't indeed!' Alice said very gently. `It's in a book.' `Ah, well! They may write such things in a book,' Humpty Dumpty said in a calmer tone. `That's what you call a History of England, that is. Now, take a good look at me! I'm one that has spoken to a King, Iam: mayhap you'll never see such another: and, to show you I'm not proud, you may shake hands with me!' And he grinned almost from ear to ear, as he leant forwards (and as nearly as possible fell off the wall in doing so) and offered Alice his hand. She watched him a little anxiously as she took it. `If he smiled much more the ends of his mouth might meet behind,' she thought: `And then I don't know what would happen to his head! I'm afraid it would come off!' `Yes, all his horses and all his men,' Humpty Dumpty went on. `They'd pick me up again in a minute, they would! However, this conversation is going on a little too fast: let's go back to the last remark but one.' `I'm afraid I can't quite remember it,' Alice said, very politely. `In that case we start afresh,' said Humpty Dumpty, `and it's my turn to choose a subject --' (`He talks about it just as if it was a game!' thought Alice.) `So here's a question for you. How old did you say you were?' Alice made a short calculation, and said `Seven years and six months.' `Wrong!' Humpty Dumpty exclaimed triumphantly. `You never said a word like it!' `I thought you meant " How old are you? " ' Alice explained. `If I'd meant that, I'd have said it,' said Humpty Dumpty. Alice didn't want to begin another argument, so she said nothing. `Seven years and six months!' Humpty Dumpty repeated thoughtfully. `An uncomfortable sort of age. Now if you'd asked my advice, I'd have said " Leave off at seven " -- but it's too late now.' `I never ask advice about growing,' Alice said indignantly. `Too proud?' the other enquired. Alice felt even more indignant at this suggestion. `I mean,' she said, `that one ca'n't help growing older.' `One can't, perhaps,' said Humpty Dumpty; `but two can. With proper assistance, you might have left off at seven.' `What a beautiful belt you've got on!' Alice suddenly remarked. (They had had quite enough of the subject of age, she thought: and, if they really were to take turns in choosing subjects, it was her turn now.) `At least,' she corrected herself on second thoughts, `a beautiful cravat, I should have said -- no, a belt, I mean -- I beg your pardon!' she added in dismay, for Humpty Dumpty looked thoroughly offended, and she began to wish she hadn't chosen that subject. `If only I knew,' she thought to herself, `which was neck and which was waist!' Evidently Humpty Dumpty was very angry, though he said nothing for a minute or two. When he did speak again, it was in a deep growl. `It is a -- most -- provoking -- thing,' he said at last, `when a person doesn't know a cravat from a belt!' `I know it's very ignorant of me,' Alice said, in so humble a tone that Humpty Dumpty relented. `It's a cravat, child, and a beautiful one, as you say. It's a present from the White King and Queen. There now!' `Is it really?' said Alice, quite pleased to find that she had chosen a good subject after all. `They gave it me,' Humpty Dumpty continued thoughtfully as he crossed one knee over the other and clasped his hands round it, `they gave it me -- for an un-birthday present.' `I beg your pardon?' Alice said with a puzzled air. `I'm not offended,' said Humpty Dumpty. `I mean, what is an un-birthday present?' `A present given when it isn't your birthday, of course.' Alice considered a little. `I like birthday presents best,' she said at last. `You don't know what you're talking about!' cried Humpty Dumpty. `How many days are there in a year?' `Three hundred and sixty-five,' said Alice. `And how many birthdays have you?' `One.' `And if you take one from three hundred and sixty-five what remains?' `Three hundred and sixty-four, of course.' Humpty Dumpty looked doubtful. `I'd rather see that done on paper,' he said. Alice couldn't help smiling as she took out her memorandum book, and worked the sum for him: 365 1 ---- 364 ---- Humpty Dumpty took the book and looked at it carefully. `That seems to be done right --' he began. `You're holding it upside down!' Alice interrupted. `To be sure I was!' Humpty Dumpty said gaily as she turned it round for him. `I thought it looked a little queer. As I was saying, that seems to be done right -- though I haven't time to look it over thoroughly just now -- and that shows that there are three hundred and sixty-four days when you might get un-birthday presents --' `Certainly,' said Alice. `And only one for birthday presents, you know. There's glory for you!' `I don't know what you mean by " glory " ,' Alice said. Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant " there's a nice knock-down argument for you! " ' `But " glory " doesn't mean " a nice knock-down argument " ,' Alice objected. `When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.' `The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.' `The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master -- that's all.' Alice was too much puzzled to say anything; so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. `They've a temper, some of them -- particularly verbs: they're the proudest -- adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs -- however, I can manage the whole lot of them! Impenetrability! That's what I say!' `Would you tell me please,' said Alice, `what that means?' `Now you talk like a reasonable child,' said Humpty Dumpty, looking very much pleased. `I meant by " impenetrability " that we've had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you'd mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don't mean to stop here all the rest of your life.' `That's a great deal to make one word mean,' Alice said in a thoughtful tone. `When I make a word do a lot of work like that,' said Humpty Dumpty, `I always pay it extra.' `Oh!' said Alice. She was too much puzzled to make any other remark. `Ah, you should see 'em come round me of a Saturday night,' Humpty Dumpty went on, wagging his head gravely from side to side, `for to get their wages, you know.' (Alice didn't venture to ask what he paid them with; and so you see I can't tell you.) `You seem very clever at explaining words, Sir,' said Alice. `Would you kindly tell me the meaning of the poem called " Jabberwocky " ?' `Let's hear it,' said Humpty Dumpty. `I can explain all the poems that ever were invented -- and a good many that haven't been invented just yet.' This sounded very hopeful, so Alice repeated the first verse: `'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves Did gyre and gimble in the wabe: All mimsy were the borogoves, And the mome raths outgrabe.' `That's enough to begin with,' Humpty Dumpty interrupted: `there are plenty of hard words there. " Brillig " means four o'clock in the afternoon -- the time when you begin broiling things for dinner.' `That'll do very well,' said Alice: `and " slithy " ?' `Well, " slithy " means " lithe and slimy " . " Lithe " is the same as " active " . You see it's like a portmanteau -- there are two meanings packed up into one word.' `I see it now,' Alice remarked thoughtfully: `and what are " toves " ?' `Well, " toves " are something like badgers -- they're something like lizards -- and they're something like corkscrews.' `They must be very curious-looking creatures.' `They are that,' said Humpty Dumpty; `also they make their nests under sun-dials -- also they live on cheese.' `And what's to " gyre " and to " gimble " ?' `To " gyre " is to go round and round like a gyroscope. To " gimble " is to make holes like a gimlet.' `And " the wabe " is the grass-plot round a sun-dial, I suppose?' said Alice, surprised at her own ingenuity. `Of course it is. It's called " wabe " you know, because it goes a long way before it, and a long way behind it --' `And a long way beyond it on each side,' Alice added. `Exactly so. Well then, " mimsy " is " flimsy and miserable " (there's another portmanteau for you). And a " borogove " is a thin shabby-looking bird with its feathers sticking out all round -- something like a live mop.' `And then " mome raths " ?' said Alice. `I'm afraid I'm giving you a great deal of trouble.' `Well, a " rath " is a sort of green pig: but " mome " I'm not certain about. I think it's short for " from home " -- meaning that they'd lost their way, you know.' `And what does " outgrabe " mean?' `Well, " outgribing " is something between bellowing and whistling, with a kind of sneeze in the middle: however, you'll hear it done, maybe -- down in the wood yonder -- and, when you've once heard it, you'll be quite content. Who's been repeating all that hard stuff to you?' `I read it in a book,' said Alice. `But I had some poetry repeated to me much easier than that, by -- Tweedledee, I think.' `As to poetry, you know,' said Humpty Dumpty, stretching out one of his great hands, `I can repeat poetry as well as other folk, if it comes to that --' `Oh, it needn't come to that!' Alice hastily said, hoping to keep him from beginning. `The piece I'm going to repeat,' he went on without noticing her remark, `was written entirely for your amusement.' Alice felt that in that case she really ought to listen to it; so she sat down, and said `Thank you' rather sadly, `In winter, when the fields are white, I sing this song for your delight -- only I don't sing it,' he added, as an explanation. `I see you don't,' said Alice. `If you can see whether I'm singing or not, you've sharper eyes than most,' Humpty Dumpty remarked severely. Alice was silent. `In spring, when woods are getting green, I'll try and tell you what I mean: `Thank you very much,' said Alice. `In summer, when the days are long, Perhaps you'll understand the song: In autumn, when the leaves are brown, Take pen and ink, and write it down.' `I will, if I can remember it so long,' said Alice. `You needn't go on making remarks like that,' Humpty Dumpty said: `they're not sensible, and they put me out.' `I sent a message to the fish: I told them " This is what I wish. " The little fishes of the sea, They sent an answer back to me. The little fishes' answer was " We cannot do it, Sir, because -- " ' `I'm afraid I don't quite understand,' said Alice. `It gets easier further on,' Humpty Dumpty replied. `I sent to them again to say " It will be better to obey. " The fishes answered, with a grin, " Why, what a temper you are in! " I told them once, I told them twice: They would not listen to advice. I took a kettle large and new, Fit for the deed I had to do. My heart went hop, my heart went thump: I filled the kettle at the pump. Then some one came to me and said " The little fishes are in bed. " I said to him, I said it plain, " Then you must wake them up again. " I said it very loud and clear: I went and shouted in his ear.' Humpty Dumpty raised his voice almost to a scream as he repeated this verse, and Alice thought with a shudder, `I wouldn't have been the messenger for anything!' `But he was very stiff and proud: He said, " You needn't shout so loud! " And he was very proud and stiff: He said " I'd go and wake them, if -- " I took a corkscrew from the shelf: I went to wake them up myself. And when I found the door was locked, I pulled and pushed and kicked and knocked. And when I found the door was shut, I tried to turn the handle, but--' There was a long pause. `Is that all?' Alice timidly asked. `That's all,' said Humpty Dumpty. `Good-bye.' ********************************************************************** and so says me: ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 That's because there is no " it " of which to speak. To go beyond " self " as a POV is to go beyond description. It is impossible to describe what cannot be described. That doesn't mean that words are useless, however. Consider the classic " finger pointing to the moon " . Clearly such a " finger " is not a " description " . Nevertheless such " fingers " can be of value. " The alternative " can be said to be absence of any " self " . What does this mean? Can we even describe " self " ? " Self " is not a thing either, nor does it exist. Recently it occurred to me that " self " is in effect a " strange-attractor " . It amounts to an " organizing principle " by the brain. Note that I said brain, not mind. For this reason freedom from " self " is not attainable by any conceptual understanding by the mind. While there is the concept of " self " , certainly, the root of self is not in the concept but in the operation of the brain in terms of a certain kind of ordering principle, what I have called a type of strange attractor. This is a crucial point and is why freedom from the self-principle is so difficult to attain, and why conceptual understanding in particular is not up to the task. It is as if a character in a comic book were to undertake a reordering of the frames in the comic strip. So the question becomes (if you are with me so far) one of altering the manner of ordering of the brain so as to induce a fundamental change in that ordering. Most methods of achieving that involve various " practices " , such a zazen etc., which pushing the brain to some kind of limit hopefully induces a fundamental change. geo> The transformation in the ordering process of the brain is a result of proper understanding - in fact this last word is superficial - so maybe.. proper insight. No methods can achieve such transformation because all the methods involve the very entity trying to " transform in order to " - a means to a end - and such procedure is something that has been atracted by your " atractor " . === Given the foregoing, I suggest that this much is clear: the transition from " self " as an organizing principle of the brain entails a transition by the brain to a (radically) different kind of ordering principle, which is to say a different kind of strange-attractor. The best way I can see to induce such a transition is to maintain vigilant attention to what is strictly now, the absolutely immediate present. If such a " practice " is maintained vigilantly, eventually the brain " discovers " a much simpler organizing principle, which supplants the former self-based one. When that happens the subjective experience is of astounding and in ways even devastating significance. geo> This is non-personal, of course. The problem I see.. is with the expression " now " . A seeker is unable to " to maintain vigilant attention to what is strictly now, the absolutely immediate present " without a real insight into the nature of time. If not so, we are back to trying to take time (practice being here and now) to transcend time (into that which is beyond time). Thought is time. Thinking is time. So perhaps there is the need to have a deep insight into the nature of thought. And such insight entails the insight into the nature of that which is witnessing thought and the thinker. All in all we are then grasping the very nature of the dream. If thought is again left unobserved - we are back into the dream and self.... ==== What could be more radical? But the subjective experience of such a transition is still illusion, and in the long run unimportant. Once that shift by the brain occurs the " programming " of the system gradually undergoes a thorough-going revision. Over time the " choppiness of the waves of experience " subsides and a deeper and deeper harmonic resonance in experience develops. This phase could be called the " purification of the Buddha fields. " But in all of it there is only one real " event " , and that is the transition by the brain to a different organizing principle. All the rest is insignificant detail. geo> What is important is the quantum leap of understanding/insight into the nature of the " programing " , and not the eventual gradual change in the brain. If we loose this from sight, back is hope, the expectation of change, gradual grasping of the nature of what is. Each flash of understanding is cummulative but not gradual - you know words dont apply here - and the programing will change by itself. === Exactly what induces induces the shift by the brain to a different ordering principle is unknown (at least by this author). Sometimes the term " grace " is used. But it could be something as impersonal as some kind of " butterfly effect " , some tiny factor that triggers a cascade of transformation, much as a grain of sand triggers the sudden crystallization of a super-saturated solution. 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.