Guest guest Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 At 10:27 AM 7/9/2009, you wrote: The sun comes up behind the silent dump site. Bottles and rusty cans glitter among the mounts of refuse. Only four seagulls waddle along, pause, and take a dump. Ha! What mighty contribution their specks of muck are to the steamy, stinking mountain of words! Pete Whew, suddenly the sin of prolixity is spotlit. Where's a confessional that I can get a priest to absolve me? Thanks for the whack, Pete. Edg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > The sun comes up behind the silent > dump site. Bottles and rusty cans > glitter among the mounts of refuse. > Only four seagulls waddle along, pause, > and take a dump. > > Ha! What mighty contribution their specks > of muck are to the steamy, stinking mountain of words! > > Pete i see you've been visiting Toronto. Windsor, Ontario is even worse. The Canadian Union of Public Workers has been on strike here.. since April 15. ah the sweet smell of overgrown suckle grass in all our parks... the overflowing trash cans on the streets and at every home. makes visiting New Yorkers pine for their homeland. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 Re: This Morning At Niz At 10:27 AM 7/9/2009, you wrote: > The sun comes up behind the silent > dump site. Bottles and rusty cans > glitter among the mounts of refuse. > Only four seagulls waddle along, pause, > and take a dump. > > Ha! What mighty contribution their specks > of muck are to the steamy, stinking mountain of words! > > Pete Whew, suddenly the sin of prolixity is spotlit. Where's a confessional that I can get a priest to absolve me? Thanks for the whack, Pete. Edg turgidity tango. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 2009 Report Share Posted July 12, 2009 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > The sun comes up behind the silent > dump site. Translation: the Absolute is a dump for all " things " -- that are useless, unusable, rejectable as trash, because they lack any substance. But that damned sun, amness, rises and whams ever single THING it can imagine coming forth from that pile with rays of attention. Bottles and rusty cans > glitter among the mounts of refuse. Translation: the glitter is the false flash of a mirage beckoning the thirsty to crawl towards a fake oasis. The bliss of ritam is the BIG LIE. Bliss is the drug of the gods. > Only four seagulls waddle along, pause, > and take a dump. Translation: four states of processing is all it takes to survey all things that are possible for the godhead to be or to manifest (manifest means put attention on a potentiality of the Absolute.) 1. Waking is how 3D objects can be entertained but only if the mind is handcuffed into obeying the laws: " there is space " and " there is time. " 2. Dreaming is how other lokas with other axioms of isness are entertained, and the dreaming mind can experience a higher order of freedom than the waking mind in that all the siddhis can be easily manifested -- any dreamer can fly, be invisible, etc. If one flies in a dream, one knows what it is like to be a god. 3. The deep sleeping mind can entertain the thought: " nothingness " -- a monotone, a drone, a constant buzzing of the gunas that is not OM but appears so, but that monotone -- deadly boring -- lacks fecundity whereas OM can be modulated into any other sound. 4. And finally, amness, OM, can be a seagull that is the mother of the three other flying rats. From amness any seagull can spring except a non-seagull. Amness is the transcendental state -- pure, but merely a state, a mode of processing. > > Ha! What mighty contribution their specks > of muck are to the steamy, stinking mountain of words! Translation: in the beginning was the word OM spoken by no one but definitely heard -- a word not unlike the falsity of a ponzi scheme -- a promise upon which an entire upside down pyramid can be balanced, and if one just imagines that scenario a bit, one can see that pyramid topple an instant after it's been built into a stinking mountain of words. As soon as a ponzi scheme is recognized, it collapses. One nanosecond of the Absolute is all it takes to arrest Being for the crime of fraud. > > Pete Pete -- great poem! Me lurves it. How'd I do on the translations? I know, I know, just more stinking trash. Sigh . . . Edg At 10:27 AM 7/9/2009, you wrote: The sun comes up behind the silent dump site. Bottles and rusty cans glitter among the mounts of refuse. Only four seagulls waddle along, pause, and take a dump. Ha! What mighty contribution their specks of muck are to the steamy, stinking mountain of words! Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 2009 Report Share Posted July 12, 2009 Pete -- great poem! Me lurves it. How'd I do on the translations? I know, I know, just more stinking trash. Sigh . . . Edg P: You did great Ed, but how could you have failed? Metaphors are so ductile, so uncomplaining, like sucks puppets they can be made to say anything. You don't mind being called Ed do you? That g at the end dangles so uselessly like explanations on metaphors. Explaining, Ed, we distort the utter simplicity of perception into the maze we try to escape. Imagine a labyrinth that would grow longer and twist farther with each step. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 2009 Report Share Posted July 12, 2009 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > Pete -- great poem! Me lurves it. How'd I do on the translations? I know, I know, just more stinking trash. Sigh .. . . > > Edg > > > P: You did great Ed, but how could you > have failed? Failed as in " fall short of the glory of God " seems to be one way. Metaphors are so ductile, > so uncomplaining, like sucks puppets they > can be made to say anything. And I hate that truth so much, that I've put it on my official " it's okay to be in denial of the following truths if it suits you " list. I never hear my words as they sound in another's ear, nor does anyone, right? -- each of us lives in one's own interpretive matrix that veils, filters, blinkers out, etc. the " sacred incoming " until it's framed for a proper viewing by the one listening. Who can say what another will make of our grunts or shapes on screens? But when I think, when I write, when I speak, my creativity is different for each. My own words stink of infinity, and only for that birthing span of time does my meaning gel and momentarily stand embodied as judged by my inner ken's validation processes. Then, the river of life's matrix, always in flux, evolves past the recent as it surfs a new now-front bowing ahead of consciousness -- a karmic tsunami. Something like that, eh? Words....phihhhh! Toss them all, but, wait, let's keep at least a few words like: charm, sweet, real, pure, eternal, heart, infinite, love, awareness, intent, and gotta have a Scrabble-esque word-tile that's blank, so that I can put any word I want into that tile's moment as the matix vibrates just so, cuz any word can have it day, it's 15 bits of time, it's place to shine. Even, say, " Hitler " -- who can make that word zing into readers hearts like a personal note of love from God? Do I have to do that for you? Nah, right? You got the Nah tee shirt, right? You don't mind > being called Ed do you? I hate that. Stop it or I'll, I'll, I'll I'll, there that oughta be enough I'lls. Long story about that g. But, um do we get personal here -- are lifestories bandied? That g at the end > dangles so uselessly like explanations on > metaphors. Ugh, a metaphor that has to be explained is a boot stomped rose. So, my g boggled yer agogable parts -- the ones that hates them danglelys pronged ya? > > Explaining, Ed, we distort the utter simplicity > of perception into the maze we try to escape. I feel myself in the presence of wisdom incarnate; please be gentle. > Imagine a labyrinth that would grow longer and > twist farther with each step. I reel. I quake. Shudder R Moi. I'm fractaled into a Godelization of some sort -- isness quavers. Edg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 2009 Report Share Posted July 12, 2009 > > > > Explaining, Ed, we distort the utter simplicity > > of perception into the maze we try to escape. > > I feel myself in the presence of wisdom incarnate; please be gentle. " I'm burning, I'm burning, I'm burning for you " ... Is this not our 'escape attempt'? Nothing mystical about it; no rocket science. We attempt to escape 'ourselves' through projecting 'others', and burying our awareness in trying to figure them out. Except they're both projections, mental constructs. Happening 'right here'. Nothing is escaped; nothing figured out. There is no escape. There is nothing to figure out. And that turns out to be the answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 2009 Report Share Posted July 12, 2009 I reel. I quake. Shudder R Moi. I'm fractaled into a Godelization of some sort -- isness quavers. Edg it matters not a whit.. if you realize god. does god realize you? quavers have only the value of 1/8th of a whole note. stop quivering.. be whole my child. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 2009 Report Share Posted July 12, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > > > > > > Explaining, Ed, we distort the utter simplicity > > > of perception into the maze we try to escape. > > > > I feel myself in the presence of wisdom incarnate; please be gentle. > > " I'm burning, I'm burning, I'm burning for you " ... > > Is this not our 'escape attempt'? > > Nothing mystical about it; no rocket science. We attempt to escape 'ourselves' through projecting 'others', and burying our awareness in trying to figure them out. > > Except they're both projections, mental constructs. Happening 'right here'. > > Nothing is escaped; nothing figured out. > > There is no escape. > > There is nothing to figure out. > > And that turns out to be the answer. " answer " to what? no one is home. you're confused. confusion IS a " you " . lose that and there are no questions..nor answers needed. till then.. " you " will continue as well as " your " bullshit. " you " don't understand. and " you " never will. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 2009 Report Share Posted July 12, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > I reel. I quake. Shudder R Moi. > > I'm fractaled into a Godelization of some sort -- isness quavers. > > Edg > > > > > it matters not a whit.. > > if you realize god. > > does god realize you? > > quavers have only the value of 1/8th of a whole note. > > stop quivering.. > > be whole my child. > > .b b.b. or were you talking about Kurt Godel? quite a logician there. but no god. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 2009 Report Share Posted July 12, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > I reel. I quake. Shudder R Moi. > > > > I'm fractaled into a Godelization of some sort -- isness quavers. > > > > Edg > > > > > > > > > > it matters not a whit.. > > > > if you realize god. > > > > does god realize you? > > > > quavers have only the value of 1/8th of a whole note. > > > > stop quivering.. > > > > be whole my child. > > > > .b b.b. > > > or were you talking about Kurt Godel? > > quite a logician there. > > but no god. > > .b b.b. Yeah, 'twas Godel. He may not have been a god, but he danced at their pot lucks. To see that there is a host of truth that cannot be expressed in any sufficiently complex system of symbols was a huge jackhammering on the intellects of the world -- proof in their own terms that they could not express all truth in their own terms. Neatsokeeno. To me, Godel forced all thinkers to take Brahma's ride down the lotus stalk. Transcendental message to all white coat wearing Ivory Towerists: You can't get there from here -- if you're a you, you're not allowed there -- only Identity knows Identity -- only Identity resides where Schrodinger's Cat awaits a die thrown -- attachment to any thing prevents one from being able to discover Identity because all things are here and Identity is over there. Watch the big brains scatter. Hee hee. Edg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 2009 Report Share Posted July 12, 2009 Nisargadatta , " duveyoung " <edg wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > I reel. I quake. Shudder R Moi. > > > > > > I'm fractaled into a Godelization of some sort -- isness quavers. > > > > > > Edg > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it matters not a whit.. > > > > > > if you realize god. > > > > > > does god realize you? > > > > > > quavers have only the value of 1/8th of a whole note. > > > > > > stop quivering.. > > > > > > be whole my child. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > or were you talking about Kurt Godel? > > > > quite a logician there. > > > > but no god. > > > > .b b.b. > > Yeah, 'twas Godel. He may not have been a god, but he danced at their pot lucks. To see that there is a host of truth that cannot be expressed in any sufficiently complex system of symbols was a huge jackhammering on the intellects of the world -- proof in their own terms that they could not express all truth in their own terms. > > Neatsokeeno. > > To me, Godel forced all thinkers to take Brahma's ride down the lotus stalk. Transcendental message to all white coat wearing Ivory Towerists: You can't get there from here -- if you're a you, you're not allowed there -- only Identity knows Identity -- only Identity resides where Schrodinger's Cat awaits a die thrown -- attachment to any thing prevents one from being able to discover Identity because all things are here and Identity is over there. Watch the big brains scatter. Hee hee. > > Edg in my view Georg Cantor got to it more deeply. of course he went fucking nuts. Ludwig Wittgenstein would have argued with me on that one. but what the fuck did he know? his three brothers who committed suicide had more sense. my fave though is G. Spenser Brown. something about his form on form that is the best. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 2009 Report Share Posted July 12, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " duveyoung " <edg@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > I reel. I quake. Shudder R Moi. > > > > > > > > I'm fractaled into a Godelization of some sort -- isness quavers. > > > > > > > > Edg > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it matters not a whit.. > > > > > > > > if you realize god. > > > > > > > > does god realize you? > > > > > > > > quavers have only the value of 1/8th of a whole note. > > > > > > > > stop quivering.. > > > > > > > > be whole my child. > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > or were you talking about Kurt Godel? > > > > > > quite a logician there. > > > > > > but no god. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > Yeah, 'twas Godel. He may not have been a god, but he danced at their pot lucks. To see that there is a host of truth that cannot be expressed in any sufficiently complex system of symbols was a huge jackhammering on the intellects of the world -- proof in their own terms that they could not express all truth in their own terms. > > > > Neatsokeeno. > > > > To me, Godel forced all thinkers to take Brahma's ride down the lotus stalk. Transcendental message to all white coat wearing Ivory Towerists: You can't get there from here -- if you're a you, you're not allowed there -- only Identity knows Identity -- only Identity resides where Schrodinger's Cat awaits a die thrown -- attachment to any thing prevents one from being able to discover Identity because all things are here and Identity is over there. Watch the big brains scatter. Hee hee. > > > > Edg > > > in my view Georg Cantor got to it more deeply. > > of course he went fucking nuts. > > Ludwig Wittgenstein would have argued with me on that one. > > but what the fuck did he know? > > his three brothers who committed suicide had more sense. > > my fave though is G. Spenser Brown. > > something about his form on form that is the best. > > .b b.b. Brown's null set -- seen as his prime axiom -- sure seems to be the best effort at capturing the Absolute with a concept about non-conceptuality. But, a bear of little brain am I, and no way do I try to explain Brown to anyone. Nay, better that I stick with fuzzy metaphors that cannot be bothered to obey the requirement: precision. Picasso said: " why ask me what my paintings mean when you don't ask a bird what its song means? " Edg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 2009 Report Share Posted July 12, 2009 Nisargadatta , " duveyoung " <edg wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " duveyoung " <edg@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I reel. I quake. Shudder R Moi. > > > > > > > > > > I'm fractaled into a Godelization of some sort -- isness quavers. > > > > > > > > > > Edg > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it matters not a whit.. > > > > > > > > > > if you realize god. > > > > > > > > > > does god realize you? > > > > > > > > > > quavers have only the value of 1/8th of a whole note. > > > > > > > > > > stop quivering.. > > > > > > > > > > be whole my child. > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > or were you talking about Kurt Godel? > > > > > > > > quite a logician there. > > > > > > > > but no god. > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > Yeah, 'twas Godel. He may not have been a god, but he danced at their pot lucks. To see that there is a host of truth that cannot be expressed in any sufficiently complex system of symbols was a huge jackhammering on the intellects of the world -- proof in their own terms that they could not express all truth in their own terms. > > > > > > Neatsokeeno. > > > > > > To me, Godel forced all thinkers to take Brahma's ride down the lotus stalk. Transcendental message to all white coat wearing Ivory Towerists: You can't get there from here -- if you're a you, you're not allowed there -- only Identity knows Identity -- only Identity resides where Schrodinger's Cat awaits a die thrown -- attachment to any thing prevents one from being able to discover Identity because all things are here and Identity is over there. Watch the big brains scatter. Hee hee. > > > > > > Edg > > > > > > in my view Georg Cantor got to it more deeply. > > > > of course he went fucking nuts. > > > > Ludwig Wittgenstein would have argued with me on that one. > > > > but what the fuck did he know? > > > > his three brothers who committed suicide had more sense. > > > > my fave though is G. Spenser Brown. > > > > something about his form on form that is the best. > > > > .b b.b. > > Brown's null set -- seen as his prime axiom -- sure seems to be the best effort at capturing the Absolute with a concept about non-conceptuality. > > But, a bear of little brain am I, and no way do I try to explain Brown to anyone. Nay, better that I stick with fuzzy metaphors that cannot be bothered to obey the requirement: precision. > > Picasso said: " why ask me what my paintings mean when you don't ask a bird what its song means? " > > Edg well hell.. i ask birds all the time. and they tell me. but i'm not supposed to say anything. so i won't. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 2009 Report Share Posted July 12, 2009 > >P: Explaining, Ed, we distort the utter simplicity > of perception into the maze we try to escape. E:I feel myself in the presence of wisdom incarnate; please be gentle. >P: Imagine a labyrinth that would grow longer and > twist farther with each step. E:I reel. I quake. Shudder R Moi. I'm fractaled into a Godelization of some sort -- isness quavers. Edg P: Good morning, Edg, First, a little in shop chat. I like the blue color you use to answer, but some people who receive emails don't see it, so it helps attribution to start a response with your initials, that is if you don't mind. You said: " I feel myself in the presence of wisdom incarnate; please be gentle. " P: I know that you mean the presence of your own awareness as you read my words. That's true, your awareness can change my words. So I won't take any credit or accept fault for what you read. I just offer you an empty glass, and let you pour your own drink. It's always interesting to watch what different people pour in a verbal glass. Often, they pour coffee in a wine glass, or soup, or even piss in it and send it back. So here they are, the empty paper cups d'jour: Barkley said: " We only perceive our perceptions. " It reads like an awful tautology, but if contemplated right, it becomes the exit from the verbal maze. Those perceptions provided by the five senses are judged objective (as if coming from an outside source) and those generated by the brain itself, can be judged ineffable. I fall and break a bone. A bone splinter severs a vein. The rock that I fell on, and the blood flowing, I see as objective. The pain and the fear to bleed to death, I feel as subjective, or ineffable. The thoughts of what to do next, the explanations as to how I fell are also subjective. As all these perceptions happen there is no confusion as to their nature and what to do. Later, resting in bed, I could think about the relative reality of bones, rocks, blood, and fear. Then it's easy to get lost in explanations, and lose track that I will never know a rock in itself, just a perception labeled rock; and There is no harm in projecting that perception outside, as an object, and use it as such. The problem for contemplatives and mystics is the temptation to objectify " divine " sensations. So if I refer to an absolute I am talking only of an absolute sensation. What sensation is that? It varies with each brain. Some label love as the absolute, others label awareness itself as the absolute, for others is the concept of self. Awareness without perceptions dissolves into unawareness. There is a point in meditation where awareness and unawareness become the same unknown. That is the door which exits the verbal maze. Can we use language without casting the long shadow of entification? All we perceive is perception, can we perceive non-perception? Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 2009 Report Share Posted July 12, 2009 - cerosoul Nisargadatta Sunday, July 12, 2009 2:29 PM Re: This Morning At Niz > >P: Explaining, Ed, we distort the utter simplicity > of perception into the maze we try to escape. E:I feel myself in the presence of wisdom incarnate; please be gentle. >P: Imagine a labyrinth that would grow longer and > twist farther with each step. E:I reel. I quake. Shudder R Moi. I'm fractaled into a Godelization of some sort -- isness quavers. Edg P: Good morning, Edg, First, a little in shop chat. I like the blue color you use to answer, but some people who receive emails don't see it, so it helps attribution to start a response with your initials, that is if you don't mind. You said: " I feel myself in the presence of wisdom incarnate; please be gentle. " P: I know that you mean the presence of your own awareness as you read my words. That's true, your awareness can change my words. So I won't take any credit or accept fault for what you read. I just offer you an empty glass, and let you pour your own drink. It's always interesting to watch what different people pour in a verbal glass. Often, they pour coffee in a wine glass, or soup, or even piss in it and send it back. So here they are, the empty paper cups d'jour: Barkley said: " We only perceive our perceptions. " It reads like an awful tautology, but if contemplated right, it becomes the exit from the verbal maze. Those perceptions provided by the five senses are judged objective (as if coming from an outside source) and those generated by the brain itself, can be judged ineffable. I fall and break a bone. A bone splinter severs a vein. The rock that I fell on, and the blood flowing, I see as objective. The pain and the fear to bleed to death, I feel as subjective, or ineffable. The thoughts of what to do next, the explanations as to how I fell are also subjective. As all these perceptions happen there is no confusion as to their nature and what to do. Later, resting in bed, I could think about the relative reality of bones, rocks, blood, and fear. Then it's easy to get lost in explanations, and lose track that I will never know a rock in itself, just a perception labeled rock; and There is no harm in projecting that perception outside, as an object, and use it as such. The problem for contemplatives and mystics is the temptation to objectify " divine " sensations. So if I refer to an absolute I am talking only of an absolute sensation. What sensation is that? It varies with each brain. Some label love as the absolute, others label awareness itself as the absolute, for others is the concept of self. Awareness without perceptions dissolves into unawareness. There is a point in meditation where awareness and unawareness become the same unknown. That is the door which exits the verbal maze. Can we use language without casting the long shadow of entification? All we perceive is perception, can we perceive non-perception? Pete All we perceive is perception, we can not perceive non-perception. All perceptions are objective...or subjective if you prefer. Just make sure they are on the same side. -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 2009 Report Share Posted July 12, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > cerosoul > Nisargadatta > Sunday, July 12, 2009 2:29 PM > Re: This Morning At Niz > > > > > > >p: All we perceive is perception, can we perceive non-perception? > > > >G: All we perceive is perception, we can not perceive non-perception. .. > -geo- P: Are you sure? How do you know that? > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 2009 Report Share Posted July 12, 2009 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > cerosoul > > Nisargadatta > > Sunday, July 12, 2009 2:29 PM > > Re: This Morning At Niz > > > > > > > > > > > > > >p: All we perceive is perception, can we perceive non-perception? > > > > > > > >G: All we perceive is perception, we can not perceive non-perception. > . > > -geo- > > P: Are you sure? How do you know that? how would he know if he didn't know it? ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 2009 Report Share Posted July 12, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > cerosoul > > > Nisargadatta > > > Sunday, July 12, 2009 2:29 PM > > > Re: This Morning At Niz > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >p: All we perceive is perception, can we perceive non-perception? > > > > > > > > > > > >G: All we perceive is perception, we can not perceive non-perception. > > . > > > -geo- > > > > P: Are you sure? How do you know that? > > > how would he know if he didn't know it? > > .b b.b. how could he know that he didn't know if he didn't know it? what's to know anyway? who's to know what? what's going on? who's on first? ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 2009 Report Share Posted July 12, 2009 - cerosoul Nisargadatta Sunday, July 12, 2009 2:47 PM Re: This Morning At Niz Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > cerosoul > Nisargadatta > Sunday, July 12, 2009 2:29 PM > Re: This Morning At Niz > > > > > > >p: All we perceive is perception, can we perceive non-perception? > > > >G: All we perceive is perception, we can not perceive non-perception. .. > -geo- P: Are you sure? How do you know that? geo> Perception is perceivable through the senses. Thename is not the issue, is it? But perhaps you see it otherwise... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 2009 Report Share Posted July 12, 2009 I will never know a rock in itself, just aperception labeled rock -p- You are not getting it... There is no other rock aside from the rock perceived. There is nothing else: a world of perceptions. The idea of a world apart from perceptions is conceptual, imagination, the essence of duality. Be-ing the world of perceptions, wholy. -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 2009 Report Share Posted July 12, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > You are not getting it... > There is no other rock aside from the rock perceived. > There is nothing else: a world of perceptions. > The idea of a world apart from perceptions is conceptual, imagination, the essence of duality. > Be-ing the world of perceptions, wholy. > -geo- It's the notion of a separate perceiver and perceived that's the essential illusion, no? " Me in here " , " rock out there " . Subject separate from object. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 2009 Report Share Posted July 12, 2009 > >p: All we perceive is perception, can we perceive non-perception? > > > > > > > >G: All we perceive is perception, we can not perceive non-perception. > . > > -geo- > > P: Are you sure? How do you know that? > > geo> Perception is perceivable through the senses. Thename is not the issue, > is it? But perhaps you see it otherwise... P: There are perceptions that are not perceived through the senses. Through what sense do you feel confused, or angry, or calm? You said, we can not perceive non-perception. Can you perceive your wallet missing? Can you perceive silence? Any absence? all perceptions absent? If you fall sleep, do you perceive that? I want you to think for a while about perception, and don't rush to answer with whatever comes to your head. If you reread my questions above: are you sure? How do you know that? You could see that what you gave as answer doesn't match those questions, yet the questions were simple, clear and specific. But you jumped with a false, and naive assertion: " Perception is perceivable through the senses. Thename is not the issue. " Only a Martian, or one who really doesn't understand the meaning of the word perception would answer that: Perception: 1 a : a result of perceiving : observation b : a mental image : concept 2 obsolete : consciousness 3 a : awareness of the elements of environment through physical sensation <color perception> b : physical sensation interpreted in the light of experience 4 a : quick, acute, and intuitive cognition : appreciation b : a capacity for comprehension You got to do your home work to play, OK? > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 2009 Report Share Posted July 12, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > I will never know a rock in itself, just a > perception labeled rock > -p- > > You are not getting it... > There is no other rock aside from the rock perceived. > There is nothing else: a world of perceptions. > The idea of a world apart from perceptions is conceptual, imagination, the essence of duality. > Be-ing the world of perceptions, wholy. > -geo- P: What are you? An idiot? A student of English 101? Why do you cut a sentence in half and disagree with it, when as a whole it says exactly what you said. Here is what I wrote in its entirety: Then, it's easy to get lost in explanations, and lose track that I will never know a rock in itself, just a perception labeled rock. Should I waste my time with you? Nah! Bye! > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 2009 Report Share Posted July 12, 2009 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > > > >p: All we perceive is perception, can we perceive non-perception? > > > > > > > > > > > >G: All we perceive is perception, we can not perceive non-perception. > > . > > > -geo- > > > > P: Are you sure? How do you know that? > > > > geo> Perception is perceivable through the senses. Thename is not the issue, > > is it? But perhaps you see it otherwise... > > P: There are perceptions that are not perceived > through the senses. Through what sense do you feel > confused, or angry, or calm? Thought is itself " sensed " , is it not? We're normally not in touch with this fact, because thought tends to be obsessive/ceaseless with most of us. But it is sensed, just as sound and light are sensed. Its absence can be sensed, just as the absence of light can be sensed. 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.