Guest guest Posted July 18, 2009 Report Share Posted July 18, 2009 - cerosoul Nisargadatta Saturday, July 18, 2009 1:18 PM The Nothingness Syllogisms Understanding can only understand activity, All somethings are activity, nothingness is not an activity; therefore, it cannot be understood. Awareness needs something stirring to know itself; therefore, without stirrings, awareness is only aware of an incomprehensible, unknown no thing. Pete Without the stirrings/patternings it is just awareness. There is no " of " something. To conceive some " of " is dividing it in two. -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 18, 2009 Report Share Posted July 18, 2009 - geo Nisargadatta Saturday, July 18, 2009 2:03 PM Re: The Nothingness Syllogisms - cerosoulNisargadatta Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2009 1:18 PM The Nothingness Syllogisms Understanding can only understand activity,All somethings are activity, nothingness isnot an activity; therefore, it cannot be understood.Awareness needs something stirring to know itself;therefore, without stirrings, awareness is onlyaware of an incomprehensible, unknown no thing.PeteWithout the stirrings/patternings it is just awareness. There is no "of" something.To conceive some "of" is dividing it in two. It is not just a matter of words but a fundamental duality in the "understanding" of the ground of being.-geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 18, 2009 Report Share Posted July 18, 2009 - geo geo ; Nisargadatta Saturday, July 18, 2009 2:15 PM Re: The Nothingness Syllogisms - geo Nisargadatta Saturday, July 18, 2009 2:03 PM Re: The Nothingness Syllogisms - cerosoul Nisargadatta Saturday, July 18, 2009 1:18 PM The Nothingness Syllogisms Understanding can only understand activity, All somethings are activity, nothingness is not an activity; therefore, it cannot be understood. Awareness needs something stirring to know itself; therefore, without stirrings, awareness is only aware of an incomprehensible, unknown no thing. Pete Without the stirrings/patternings it is just awareness. There is no " of " something. To conceive some " of " is dividing it in two. It is not just a matter of words but a fundamental duality in the " understanding " of the ground of being. -geo- But...comming back to earth...The ground is fully understood and be-ed as consciousness. Seems paradoxal but that is the way it is from here. Being consciousness, the manifest, the world, completly, wholy....IS the being of the ground, awareness. -ego- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 19, 2009 Report Share Posted July 19, 2009 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > Understanding can only understand activity, > All somethings are activity, nothingness is > not an activity; therefore, it cannot be understood. > > Awareness needs something stirring to know itself; > therefore, without stirrings, awareness is only > aware of an incomprehensible, unknown no thing. > > Pete > Hm, Pete, Awareness IS the stirrings. Without 'stirrings' there also is no awareness. Question: When you are dead and gone and without stirrings then 'awareness is only aware of an incomprehensible, unknown no thing' ? Werner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 19, 2009 Report Share Posted July 19, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > Understanding can only understand activity, > > All somethings are activity, nothingness is > > not an activity; therefore, it cannot be understood. > > > > Awareness needs something stirring to know itself; > > therefore, without stirrings, awareness is only > > aware of an incomprehensible, unknown no thing. > > > > Pete > > > > > Hm, Pete, > > Awareness IS the stirrings. > Without 'stirrings' there also is no awareness. > > Question: > When you are dead and gone and without stirrings then 'awareness is only aware of an incomprehensible, unknown no thing' ? > > Werner hmmm... stirring stuff wernie. we'll take your word for it. as an unstirred brain-dead washout you must know. clearly you aren't aware of a goddamn thing in reality. you must be like a James Bond martini: shaken not stirred. now stop rattlin' them ol' dusty bones bonehead. your nonsense is disturbing noise to we who are stirred in awareness. LOL! ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 19, 2009 Report Share Posted July 19, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > Understanding can only understand activity, > > All somethings are activity, nothingness is > > not an activity; therefore, it cannot be understood. > > > > Awareness needs something stirring to know itself; > > therefore, without stirrings, awareness is only > > aware of an incomprehensible, unknown no thing. > > > > Pete > > > > > Hm, Pete, > >W: Awareness IS the stirrings. > Without 'stirrings' there also is no awareness. P: Hmm, Warner. That indeed is your believe that you cannot prove is true, and of course, I cannot prove is false. So there it stays, a believe that you repeat as often as you can. By now, we all know that you, surely, believe that. So there is no need to keep on repeating it, unless you need to reassure yourself of it. Sometimes, I could swear that awareness is aware of this nothingness, of course, I could be labeling it wrong. No way to know. > >W: Question: > When you are dead and gone and without stirrings then 'awareness is only aware of an incomprehensible, unknown no thing' ? P: The awareness of someone still alive could, a dead man is not aware, but that one TV set breaks, doesn't mean others stop working too. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 19, 2009 Report Share Posted July 19, 2009 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > Understanding can only understand activity, > > > All somethings are activity, nothingness is > > > not an activity; therefore, it cannot be understood. > > > > > > Awareness needs something stirring to know itself; > > > therefore, without stirrings, awareness is only > > > aware of an incomprehensible, unknown no thing. > > > > > > Pete > > > > > > > > > Hm, Pete, > > > >W: Awareness IS the stirrings. > > Without 'stirrings' there also is no awareness. > > P: Hmm, Warner. That indeed is your believe that > you cannot prove is true, and of course, I cannot > prove is false. So there it stays, a believe that > you repeat as often as you can. By now, we all > know that you, surely, believe that. So there is > no need to keep on repeating it, unless you need > to reassure yourself of it. > > Sometimes, I could swear that awareness is aware of > this nothingness, of course, I could be labeling it > wrong. No way to know. > > > >W: Question: > > When you are dead and gone and without stirrings then 'awareness is only aware of an incomprehensible, unknown no thing' ? > > P: The awareness of someone still alive could, a dead man > is not aware, but that one TV set breaks, doesn't mean > others stop working too. > > > This is the realm of potential solipsism. If *I* arose with the world as the world, then after my *I* dies, will there be such a thing as (called) *world*? Much like can we imagine a world without us or before we were? Is time a relevant thing other than within the processing of *I* and all the other seemingly disassociated *I's? Is existence on some level simultaneous? Past, Present and Future? Is there really One Being, individuated in(to) seemingly endless strings of I-experiencing? My experience is that all of this is food for thought, and IT is a smörgåsbord yet we're all starving for attention, eh? ~A Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 19, 2009 Report Share Posted July 19, 2009 Is there really One Being, individuated in(to) seemingly endless strings of I-experiencing? ... .....My experience is that all of this is food for thought, and IT is a smörgåsbord yet we're all starving for attention, eh? -A- There is no doubt regarding this and it can not be a food for thinking process: BE-ING. -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 19, 2009 Report Share Posted July 19, 2009 Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Understanding can only understand activity, > > > > All somethings are activity, nothingness is > > > > not an activity; therefore, it cannot be understood. > > > > > > > > Awareness needs something stirring to know itself; > > > > therefore, without stirrings, awareness is only > > > > aware of an incomprehensible, unknown no thing. > > > > > > > > Pete > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hm, Pete, > > > > > >W: Awareness IS the stirrings. > > > Without 'stirrings' there also is no awareness. > > > > P: Hmm, Warner. That indeed is your believe that > > you cannot prove is true, and of course, I cannot > > prove is false. So there it stays, a believe that > > you repeat as often as you can. By now, we all > > know that you, surely, believe that. So there is > > no need to keep on repeating it, unless you need > > to reassure yourself of it. > > > > Sometimes, I could swear that awareness is aware of > > this nothingness, of course, I could be labeling it > > wrong. No way to know. > > > > > >W: Question: > > > When you are dead and gone and without stirrings then 'awareness is only aware of an incomprehensible, unknown no thing' ? > > > > P: The awareness of someone still alive could, a dead man > > is not aware, but that one TV set breaks, doesn't mean > > others stop working too. > > > > > > > > This is the realm of potential solipsism. > > If *I* arose with the world as the world, then after my *I* > dies, will there be such a thing as (called) *world*? Much like can we imagine a world without us or before we were? > > Is time a relevant thing other than within the processing of *I* > and all the other seemingly disassociated *I's? > > Is existence on some level simultaneous? Past, Present and Future? > Is there really One Being, individuated in(to) seemingly endless strings of I-experiencing? > > My experience is that all of this is food for thought, and IT is a smörgåsbord yet we're all starving for attention, eh? > > ~A IT's Swedish? well than there goes my theory of theories. i thought IT was one of the bunch below: a salmagundi... a farrago... a mélange of many... an omnium-gatherum... a gallimaufry... but if you're right.. let's dig in! ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 19, 2009 Report Share Posted July 19, 2009 >A: This is the realm of potential solipsism. > > If *I* arose with the world as the world, then after my *I* > dies, will there be such a thing as (called) *world*? Much like can we imagine a world without us or before we were? P: *I* never arose, and will never die. If focused on, a wave seems to exist as an entity, and not as an undulation of the ocean. Will there be ocean and waves after this particular wave kisses your feet and dies from the smell? ) > > A: Is time a relevant thing other than within the processing of *I* > and all the other seemingly disassociated *I's? > > Is existence on some level simultaneous? Past, Present and Future? > Is there really One Being, individuated in(to) seemingly endless strings of I-experiencing? P: All explanations end in not knowing. > >A: My experience is that all of this is food for thought, and IT is a smörgåsbord yet we're all starving for attention, eh? P: I'm not starving for anything, but a little fun is nice. > > ~A > 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.