Guest guest Posted May 24, 2009 Report Share Posted May 24, 2009 First off, don't be afraid of the word " Self " . It won't bite. Conventional wisdom says there are many selves, and one universe. Truth-pointers say there is one Self, many universes. Reality says there is one Selfuniverse. Thought divides the indivisible. It should be impossible. As Dan stated, it's highly unlikely. Nothing is divided. Therefore, nothing need be put back together. If anything is needed, it's to stop pretending to split things up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2009 Report Share Posted May 24, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > First off, don't be afraid of the word " Self " . > > It won't bite. > > Conventional wisdom says there are many selves, and one universe. > > Truth-pointers say there is one Self, many universes. > > Reality says there is one Selfuniverse. > > Thought divides the indivisible. It should be impossible. As Dan stated, it's highly unlikely. > > Nothing is divided. > > Therefore, nothing need be put back together. > > If anything is needed, it's to stop pretending to split things up. > A tar baby can reshape itself but it can never reshape itself into a non-existent tar baby. toombaru toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2009 Report Share Posted May 24, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > First off, don't be afraid of the word " Self " . > > > > It won't bite. > > > > Conventional wisdom says there are many selves, and one universe. > > > > Truth-pointers say there is one Self, many universes. > > > > Reality says there is one Selfuniverse. > > > > Thought divides the indivisible. It should be impossible. As Dan stated, it's highly unlikely. > > > > Nothing is divided. > > > > Therefore, nothing need be put back together. > > > > If anything is needed, it's to stop pretending to split things up. > > > > > > A tar baby can reshape itself but it can never reshape itself into > a non-existent tar baby. Exactly. Therefore, don't fear the word " self " or " me " or " I " or " Self " . None of them create a self. If used as pointers, they work just as well as any other word. There is only Self, absent " me and you " . " Self " is a stand-in word that means " awareness " . Don't reject certain words. It's as bad as clinging. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2009 Report Share Posted May 24, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > First off, don't be afraid of the word " Self " . > > > > It won't bite. > > > > Conventional wisdom says there are many selves, and one universe. > > > > Truth-pointers say there is one Self, many universes. > > > > Reality says there is one Selfuniverse. > > > > Thought divides the indivisible. It should be impossible. As Dan stated, it's highly unlikely. > > > > Nothing is divided. > > > > Therefore, nothing need be put back together. > > > > If anything is needed, it's to stop pretending to split things up. > > > > > > A tar baby can reshape itself but it can never reshape itself into a non-existent tar baby. > > > > toombaru > > > > toombaru i think splits are grand. especially banana splits. i hope they remain nonexistent like me for a long time.. banana..ice cream..three kinds!.. sweet sauces..chocolate..strawberry...pineapple.. oozing over the neapolitan scoops.. whipped cream...crushed peanuts...maraschino cherry.. melting together atop all that like tar sands and glacier melt... glittering with gold and diamonds.. slipping across the canadian rockies.. and big I in the sky.. holding a big spoon.. looking down..hungry and gluttonous.. oh sweet momma! splits forever! ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2009 Report Share Posted May 24, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > First off, don't be afraid of the word " Self " . > > > > > > It won't bite. > > > > > > Conventional wisdom says there are many selves, and one universe. > > > > > > Truth-pointers say there is one Self, many universes. > > > > > > Reality says there is one Selfuniverse. > > > > > > Thought divides the indivisible. It should be impossible. As Dan stated, it's highly unlikely. > > > > > > Nothing is divided. > > > > > > Therefore, nothing need be put back together. > > > > > > If anything is needed, it's to stop pretending to split things up. > > > > > > > > > > > A tar baby can reshape itself but it can never reshape itself into > a non-existent tar baby. > > Exactly. Therefore, don't fear the word " self " or " me " or " I " or " Self " . None of them create a self. If used as pointers, they work just as well as any other word. > > There is only Self, absent " me and you " . > > " Self " is a stand-in word that means " awareness " . > > Don't reject certain words. It's as bad as clinging. Use the word " Other " as a pointer. It works as well as any other word. All is " Other. " This works as well as saying all is " Self. " There is only the " Other. " All is " Other. " Other than what? Other than conceptualizations that can be maintained. Other than self and the world of self, which is identified-with conceptualizations that are attempted to be maintained. All there is, is the holy " Other. " I am wholly " Other. " Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2009 Report Share Posted May 24, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Use the word " Other " as a pointer. > > It works as well as any other word. > > All is " Other. " > > This works as well as saying all is " Self. " Absolutely... I agree. Anything that can be pointed to is an object, therefore all is Other. Either there's no self, or all is Self. Same difference. Buddhism's 'void' and Vedanta's 'Absolute' are identical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2009 Report Share Posted May 24, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Use the word " Other " as a pointer. > > > > It works as well as any other word. > > > > All is " Other. " > > > > This works as well as saying all is " Self. " > > Absolutely... I agree. Anything that can be pointed to is an object, therefore all is Other. > > Either there's no self, or all is Self. Same difference. Buddhism's 'void' and Vedanta's 'Absolute' are identical. > Well...........except for the dictionary meanings. :-0 toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2009 Report Share Posted May 24, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Use the word " Other " as a pointer. > > > > It works as well as any other word. > > > > All is " Other. " > > > > This works as well as saying all is " Self. " > > Absolutely... I agree. Anything that can be pointed to is an object, therefore all is Other. > > Either there's no self, or all is Self. Same difference. > Buddhism's 'void' and Vedanta's 'Absolute' are identical. P.S. but it doesn't work as well as " any other word " . Saying " All is toilet paper " doesn't point to anything ;-). If you didn't " believe in " words as pointers, you wouldn't be saying words don't point to anything... which is a verbal pointer. So, you've offered that one, and I've offered other ones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2009 Report Share Posted May 24, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Use the word " Other " as a pointer. > > > > It works as well as any other word. > > > > All is " Other. " > > > > This works as well as saying all is " Self. " > > Absolutely... I agree. Anything that can be pointed to is an object, therefore all is Other. > > Either there's no self, or all is Self. Same difference. > Buddhism's 'void' and Vedanta's 'Absolute' are identical. P.S. but it doesn't work as well as " any other word " . Saying " All is toilet paper " doesn't point to anything ;-). If you didn't " believe in " words as pointers, you wouldn't be saying words don't point to anything... which is a verbal pointer. So, you've offered that one, and I've offered other ones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2009 Report Share Posted May 24, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Use the word " Other " as a pointer. > > > > > > It works as well as any other word. > > > > > > All is " Other. " > > > > > > This works as well as saying all is " Self. " > > > > Absolutely... I agree. Anything that can be pointed to is an object, therefore all is Other. > > > > Either there's no self, or all is Self. Same difference. Buddhism's 'void' and Vedanta's 'Absolute' are identical. > > > > > Well...........except for the dictionary meanings. > > > :-0 > > > > > toombaru did nizardattaji say that? ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2009 Report Share Posted May 24, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Use the word " Other " as a pointer. > > > > It works as well as any other word. > > > > All is " Other. " > > > > This works as well as saying all is " Self. " > > Absolutely... I agree. Anything that can be pointed to is an object, therefore all is Other. > > Either there's no self, or all is Self. Same difference. Buddhism's 'void' and Vedanta's 'Absolute' are identical. Yes. The self is an attempt to internalize part of the " Other " - which can't really be held. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2009 Report Share Posted May 24, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Use the word " Other " as a pointer. > > > > > > It works as well as any other word. > > > > > > All is " Other. " > > > > > > This works as well as saying all is " Self. " > > > > Absolutely... I agree. Anything that can be pointed to is an object, therefore all is Other. > > > > Either there's no self, or all is Self. Same difference. Buddhism's 'void' and Vedanta's 'Absolute' are identical. > > Yes. > > The self is an attempt to internalize part of the " Other " - which > can't really be held. Well-said. The void is absolute ('void of voidness') and the absolute, void ('qualityless Brahman). This is a non-verbal understanding, however, and both Buddhism and Vedanta are problematic in that they are verbal approaches. Neither Buddhism nor Vedanta 'works'. Nothing works. In the end, this turns out to be the solution. 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.