Guest guest Posted July 19, 2009 Report Share Posted July 19, 2009 Warning, danger, danger, bigass concept being spotlit by a blind man's non-existent ego.So, there, I admitted it, and now you don't have to hammer that concept if you reply to this post, but, but, but I think I've got something rarely said, if ever, in Advaita circles. You snipers out there, can ya shoot real bullets at it instead of yelling "pow pow pow you're dead" as I did at age ten? If the reasoning below if flawed, I would grateful for any corrections.Here goes:As usual, let me start with something not intuitively germane to the topic at hand: the difference between diamond and coal. You know that a diamond starts off as "something coalish" and that under great pressure and heat gets compressed into a close-packing orderliness that makes it have all the qualities of diamond. But both diamond and coal retain their atoms of carbon -- nothing other than "orderliness-snapshots" can distinguish diamond from coal if a scientist examines both. Only diamond's orderliness accounts for the dramatic differences. For details, see the Second Law of Thermodynamics.So, let's pretend that via Pantanjali's smaller-than-an-atom sutra, we've been tiny-ized and are hovering in that space between the two surfaces; we see the carbon atoms of the coal's surface abutting the diamond's carbon atoms. (Well, we'd see the magnetic fields of the outer electrons of carbon atoms repelling the magnetic fields of the outer electrons of other carbon atoms.) There we are right on the carbonental divide. On our right we see only diamond, on the left only coal, but in either direction all we actually see are (by the laws of physics this is true) IDENTICAL carbon atoms. Identical in number of electrons, neutrons, protons and their positions relative to each other. Get that? Show a top scientist two carbons atoms, and then take them away, and then show the scientist three carbon atoms, and ask the scientist to point out the newly added carbon atom, and there's no instrumentality that the scientist can use to sniff-out the newbie, and in fact, theoretically there is no difference to target. So why do we look and see only diamond on the right? To me this is the same as asking what is the difference between Cosmic Ego and individual ego. When we consider the boundaries of a 3D object, we are fuzzy and arbitrary. We're ballparkish. We're playing horseshoes where getting close is enough to score a point. My body's atoms' protons, neutrons and electrons are identical to those of the atoms of the air I breathe. Still small, we can hover near an oxygen atom's outer electron and not be able to identify it as "belonging to an oxygen atom," nor can we identify the outer electrons of my skin's carbon atoms as "carbonish electrons." So how does one precisely designate where my body begins? Can't tell. That is the arbitrary boarder of small self and Cosmic Self. When a saint has so refined the nervous system that he/she can see that the body is SEAMLESSLY residing in a matrix of identical parts and that these parts extend for 13 billion light years in all directions, it is quite understandable for that saint to opine that his/her body is the universe. We all know the concept of infinite correlation - the butterfly's flutter's energy is eventually felt everywhere, and thus everything affects everything. Just so, a Cosmic Egoed saint can rightly argue that he/she is omnipresent in the universe just as you or I could argue that our awareness is omnipresent throughout our localized and arbitrarily defined bodies. See?Now we've got a working definition of a saint -- still limited by time and space, but pretty close to God. The outer limits of God's "body" is (laws of physics in operation) not easily defined, because the outer electrons that abut "deep empty space" are radiating, and this radiation can be measured for, presumably, out as far as another 13 billion light years farther out since the universe has existed for that span of time, and thus the radiation has had that much time to get that far away from the outer most electrons. So, God's body is about 37 billion light years wide. Cool math, eh? But does God agree? Maybe God thinks that His/Hers body is also the space that the radiation of the outer electrons is, even now, expanding into. God's Big Bang is continuing, ya see? So God can say, "Hey, all that space that I'll eventually enter is Me too." And space -- well, we don't know if that ever ends or what? or even if we have a working definition of the term "space" when we are not allowed to fill it with some sort of "markers." God can chuckle if we try to say He/She's got a limited body if we allow space to be "part of" Him/Her.See? We're defining God in a way that reveals the limitations of our imaginations. Okay, now here's GOD (an ironic acronym for Get Over Defining,) and we ask if God could take another step in "bigness" when He/She is already being defined, at least space-wisely, as unendingly infinite. The word "unending" reveals that God's body is time-bound, so God can say, "Hey, every when is also within My definition of body. I'm so perfectly able to remember what has happened that it is as if I'm still there watching it happen, and my mind is so adroit that at any given time at any given space, I can deduce the operations of all My parts, and, additionally, My mind can predict all the possible future operations of all things."But, still, we see God's limited to defining Him/Herself as imprisoned within space/time's definitions.Okay, NOW, how does God expand His/Her definition of Self?Only by Grace. Only by shutting down the Cosmic Ego into amness (God closes His/Her eyes and does tapas,) can we imagine another step in the process: making God bigger. Only by God realizing the limitations of time/space and discovering THAT can God solve the "getting bigger" puzzle. Only by realizing that all imaginable phenomena and the time/space in which they exist are definitively claustrophobic can God leap out of Godness into God-plus-all-that's-left-out-of-the-definition-of-God.That's when God finally realizes that all possibilities are graspable, but to include the Ungraspable in the definition of Self is the last step possible in personal evolution. Here language fails. God gets enlightened by embracing paradox, enfolding non-sensibility, and Elvis leaves the building (creation.) And, don't miss, that all this transitioning can be experienced from the localized body's point of view. The small ego can be seen as a cub reporter with a hot scoop.So, all you atoms out there assembled in arbitrary packettes, is ya exultationing? Is ya seeing that your challenge is the same as God's, and that you must transcend the intellect's ability to define Self? Are you going to assert that your packette's summations about my packette's summations are not arbitrarily handcuffed by bogus gerrymandered boarderlines of local embodiments?So there's your Sunday morning sermon's question -- homework fer ya. And don't be coming back to me with "my dog ate it" excuses.Edg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 19, 2009 Report Share Posted July 19, 2009 Nisargadatta , " duveyoung " <edg wrote: > > Warning, danger, danger, bigass concept being spotlit by a blind man's > non-existent ego. > > So, there, I admitted it, and now you don't have to hammer that concept > if you reply to this post, but, but, but I think I've got something > rarely said, if ever, in Advaita circles. You snipers out there, can ya > shoot real bullets at it instead of yelling " pow pow pow you're dead " as > I did at age ten? If the reasoning below if flawed, I would grateful > for any corrections. > > Here goes: > > As usual, let me start with something not intuitively germane to the > topic at hand: the difference between diamond and coal. > > You know that a diamond starts off as " something coalish " and that under > great pressure and heat gets compressed into a close-packing orderliness > that makes it have all the qualities of diamond. But both diamond and > coal retain their atoms of carbon -- nothing other than > " orderliness-snapshots " can distinguish diamond from coal if a scientist > examines both. Only diamond's orderliness accounts for the dramatic > differences. For details, see the Second Law of Thermodynamics. > > So, let's pretend that via Pantanjali's smaller-than-an-atom sutra, > we've been tiny-ized and are hovering in that space between the two > surfaces; we see the carbon atoms of the coal's surface abutting the > diamond's carbon atoms. (Well, we'd see the magnetic fields of the > outer electrons of carbon atoms repelling the magnetic fields of the > outer electrons of other carbon atoms.) > > There we are right on the carbonental divide. On our right we see only > diamond, on the left only coal, but in either direction all we actually > see are (by the laws of physics this is true) IDENTICAL carbon atoms. > Identical in number of electrons, neutrons, protons and their positions > relative to each other. > > Get that? Show a top scientist two carbons atoms, and then take them > away, and then show the scientist three carbon atoms, and ask the > scientist to point out the newly added carbon atom, and there's no > instrumentality that the scientist can use to sniff-out the newbie, and > in fact, theoretically there is no difference to target. > > So why do we look and see only diamond on the right? To me this is the > same as asking what is the difference between Cosmic Ego and individual > ego. > > When we consider the boundaries of a 3D object, we are fuzzy and > arbitrary. We're ballparkish. We're playing horseshoes where getting > close is enough to score a point. My body's atoms' protons, neutrons > and electrons are identical to those of the atoms of the air I breathe. > Still small, we can hover near an oxygen atom's outer electron and not > be able to identify it as " belonging to an oxygen atom, " nor can we > identify the outer electrons of my skin's carbon atoms as " carbonish > electrons. " So how does one precisely designate where my body begins? > > Can't tell. > > That is the arbitrary boarder of small self and Cosmic Self. > > When a saint has so refined the nervous system that he/she can see that > the body is SEAMLESSLY residing in a matrix of identical parts and that > these parts extend for 13 billion light years in all directions, it is > quite understandable for that saint to opine that his/her body is the > universe. > > We all know the concept of infinite correlation - the butterfly's > flutter's energy is eventually felt everywhere, and thus everything > affects everything. Just so, a Cosmic Egoed saint can rightly argue > that he/she is omnipresent in the universe just as you or I could argue > that our awareness is omnipresent throughout our localized and > arbitrarily defined bodies. See? > > Now we've got a working definition of a saint -- still limited by time > and space, but pretty close to God. The outer limits of God's " body " is > (laws of physics in operation) not easily defined, because the outer > electrons that abut " deep empty space " are radiating, and this radiation > can be measured for, presumably, out as far as another 13 billion light > years farther out since the universe has existed for that span of time, > and thus the radiation has had that much time to get that far away from > the outer most electrons. > > So, God's body is about 37 billion light years wide. Cool math, eh? > > But does God agree? Maybe God thinks that His/Hers body is also the > space that the radiation of the outer electrons is, even now, expanding > into. God's Big Bang is continuing, ya see? So God can say, " Hey, all > that space that I'll eventually enter is Me too. " And space -- well, we > don't know if that ever ends or what? or even if we have a working > definition of the term " space " when we are not allowed to fill it with > some sort of " markers. " God can chuckle if we try to say He/She's got a > limited body if we allow space to be " part of " Him/Her. > > See? We're defining God in a way that reveals the limitations of our > imaginations. > > Okay, now here's GOD (an ironic acronym for Get Over Defining,) and we > ask if God could take another step in " bigness " when He/She is already > being defined, at least space-wisely, as unendingly infinite. The word > " unending " reveals that God's body is time-bound, so God can say, " Hey, > every when is also within My definition of body. I'm so perfectly able > to remember what has happened that it is as if I'm still there watching > it happen, and my mind is so adroit that at any given time at any given > space, I can deduce the operations of all My parts, and, additionally, > My mind can predict all the possible future operations of all things. " > > But, still, we see God's limited to defining Him/Herself as imprisoned > within space/time's definitions. > > Okay, NOW, how does God expand His/Her definition of Self? > > Only by Grace. Only by shutting down the Cosmic Ego into amness (God > closes His/Her eyes and does tapas,) can we imagine another step in the > process: making God bigger. Only by God realizing the limitations of > time/space and discovering THAT can God solve the " getting bigger " > puzzle. Only by realizing that all imaginable phenomena and the > time/space in which they exist are definitively claustrophobic can God > leap out of Godness into > God-plus-all-that's-left-out-of-the-definition-of-God. > > That's when God finally realizes that all possibilities are graspable, > but to include the Ungraspable in the definition of Self is the last > step possible in personal evolution. Here language fails. God gets > enlightened by embracing paradox, enfolding non-sensibility, and Elvis > leaves the building (creation.) And, don't miss, that all this > transitioning can be experienced from the localized body's point of > view. The small ego can be seen as a cub reporter with a hot scoop. > > So, all you atoms out there assembled in arbitrary packettes, is ya > exultationing? Is ya seeing that your challenge is the same as God's, > and that you must transcend the intellect's ability to define Self? Are > you going to assert that your packette's summations about my packette's > summations are not arbitrarily handcuffed by bogus gerrymandered > boarderlines of local embodiments? > > So there's your Sunday morning sermon's question -- homework fer ya. > > And don't be coming back to me with " my dog ate it " excuses. > > Edg whatever gets you you through your days and nights is just alright. it doesn't matter. i enjoy bullshitting my way through it all. and listening to the bullshit of others too. that doesn't matter either. the bull is seemingly never constipated. that's ok too. the old mythical crockamoose is the one that could be trouble. the crockamoose is the world's most ferocious animal. it's a beast with one end having the head of a crocodile.. and the other end being the head of a moose. it's big problem is that it has end no where from it can shit. that of course is why it's the world's most ferocious animal. in this case let us pray.. that in the case of the " crockamoose " .. the word is never made flesh. and never dwell among us bullshitters. we would never be able to handle it's jealous wrath. hallelujah hallucination! ..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 , " duveyoung " <edg wrote: > > Warning, danger, danger, bigass concept being spotlit by a blind man's > non-existent ego. > > So, there, I admitted it, and now you don't have to hammer that concept > if you reply to this post, but, but, but I think I've got something > rarely said, if ever, in Advaita circles. You snipers out there, can ya > shoot real bullets at it instead of yelling " pow pow pow you're dead " as > I did at age ten? If the reasoning below if flawed, I would grateful > for any corrections. > > Here goes: > > As usual, let me start with something not intuitively germane to the > topic at hand: the difference between diamond and coal. > > You know that a diamond starts off as " something coalish " and that under > great pressure and heat gets compressed into a close-packing orderliness > that makes it have all the qualities of diamond. But both diamond and > coal retain their atoms of carbon -- nothing other than > " orderliness-snapshots " can distinguish diamond from coal if a scientist > examines both. Only diamond's orderliness accounts for the dramatic > differences. For details, see the Second Law of Thermodynamics. > > So, let's pretend that via Pantanjali's smaller-than-an-atom sutra, > we've been tiny-ized and are hovering in that space between the two > surfaces; we see the carbon atoms of the coal's surface abutting the > diamond's carbon atoms. (Well, we'd see the magnetic fields of the > outer electrons of carbon atoms repelling the magnetic fields of the > outer electrons of other carbon atoms.) > > There we are right on the carbonental divide. On our right we see only > diamond, on the left only coal, but in either direction all we actually > see are (by the laws of physics this is true) IDENTICAL carbon atoms. > Identical in number of electrons, neutrons, protons and their positions > relative to each other. > > Get that? Show a top scientist two carbons atoms, and then take them > away, and then show the scientist three carbon atoms, and ask the > scientist to point out the newly added carbon atom, and there's no > instrumentality that the scientist can use to sniff-out the newbie, and > in fact, theoretically there is no difference to target. > > So why do we look and see only diamond on the right? To me this is the > same as asking what is the difference between Cosmic Ego and individual > ego. > > When we consider the boundaries of a 3D object, we are fuzzy and > arbitrary. We're ballparkish. We're playing horseshoes where getting > close is enough to score a point. My body's atoms' protons, neutrons > and electrons are identical to those of the atoms of the air I breathe. > Still small, we can hover near an oxygen atom's outer electron and not > be able to identify it as " belonging to an oxygen atom, " nor can we > identify the outer electrons of my skin's carbon atoms as " carbonish > electrons. " So how does one precisely designate where my body begins? > > Can't tell. > > That is the arbitrary boarder of small self and Cosmic Self. > > When a saint has so refined the nervous system that he/she can see that > the body is SEAMLESSLY residing in a matrix of identical parts and that > these parts extend for 13 billion light years in all directions, it is > quite understandable for that saint to opine that his/her body is the > universe. > > We all know the concept of infinite correlation - the butterfly's > flutter's energy is eventually felt everywhere, and thus everything > affects everything. Just so, a Cosmic Egoed saint can rightly argue > that he/she is omnipresent in the universe just as you or I could argue > that our awareness is omnipresent throughout our localized and > arbitrarily defined bodies. See? > > Now we've got a working definition of a saint -- still limited by time > and space, but pretty close to God. The outer limits of God's " body " is > (laws of physics in operation) not easily defined, because the outer > electrons that abut " deep empty space " are radiating, and this radiation > can be measured for, presumably, out as far as another 13 billion light > years farther out since the universe has existed for that span of time, > and thus the radiation has had that much time to get that far away from > the outer most electrons. > > So, God's body is about 37 billion light years wide. Cool math, eh? > > But does God agree? Maybe God thinks that His/Hers body is also the > space that the radiation of the outer electrons is, even now, expanding > into. God's Big Bang is continuing, ya see? So God can say, " Hey, all > that space that I'll eventually enter is Me too. " And space -- well, we > don't know if that ever ends or what? or even if we have a working > definition of the term " space " when we are not allowed to fill it with > some sort of " markers. " God can chuckle if we try to say He/She's got a > limited body if we allow space to be " part of " Him/Her. > > See? We're defining God in a way that reveals the limitations of our > imaginations. > > Okay, now here's GOD (an ironic acronym for Get Over Defining,) and we > ask if God could take another step in " bigness " when He/She is already > being defined, at least space-wisely, as unendingly infinite. The word > " unending " reveals that God's body is time-bound, so God can say, " Hey, > every when is also within My definition of body. I'm so perfectly able > to remember what has happened that it is as if I'm still there watching > it happen, and my mind is so adroit that at any given time at any given > space, I can deduce the operations of all My parts, and, additionally, > My mind can predict all the possible future operations of all things. " > > But, still, we see God's limited to defining Him/Herself as imprisoned > within space/time's definitions. > > Okay, NOW, how does God expand His/Her definition of Self? > > Only by Grace. Only by shutting down the Cosmic Ego into amness (God > closes His/Her eyes and does tapas,) can we imagine another step in the > process: making God bigger. Only by God realizing the limitations of > time/space and discovering THAT can God solve the " getting bigger " > puzzle. Only by realizing that all imaginable phenomena and the > time/space in which they exist are definitively claustrophobic can God > leap out of Godness into > God-plus-all-that's-left-out-of-the-definition-of-God. > > That's when God finally realizes that all possibilities are graspable, > but to include the Ungraspable in the definition of Self is the last > step possible in personal evolution. Here language fails. God gets > enlightened by embracing paradox, enfolding non-sensibility, and Elvis > leaves the building (creation.) And, don't miss, that all this > transitioning can be experienced from the localized body's point of > view. The small ego can be seen as a cub reporter with a hot scoop. > > So, all you atoms out there assembled in arbitrary packettes, is ya > exultationing? Is ya seeing that your challenge is the same as God's, > and that you must transcend the intellect's ability to define Self? Are > you going to assert that your packette's summations about my packette's > summations are not arbitrarily handcuffed by bogus gerrymandered > boarderlines of local embodiments? > > So there's your Sunday morning sermon's question -- homework fer ya. > > And don't be coming back to me with " my dog ate it " excuses. > > Edg > Hi Edg, I starteded to read your post but I quickly gave up because to many words, hmm, about what ? I have no idea what you tried to convey, if at all. The only I could see that your really love to talk a lot without any respect regarding your readers. Could you eventually give a short summary of your post in three or four sentences ? 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 , " duveyoung " <edg@> wrote: > > > > Warning, danger, danger, bigass concept being spotlit by a blind man's > > non-existent ego. > > > > So, there, I admitted it, and now you don't have to hammer that concept > > if you reply to this post, but, but, but I think I've got something > > rarely said, if ever, in Advaita circles. You snipers out there, can ya > > shoot real bullets at it instead of yelling " pow pow pow you're dead " as > > I did at age ten? If the reasoning below if flawed, I would grateful > > for any corrections. > > > > Here goes: > > > > As usual, let me start with something not intuitively germane to the > > topic at hand: the difference between diamond and coal. > > > > You know that a diamond starts off as " something coalish " and that under > > great pressure and heat gets compressed into a close-packing orderliness > > that makes it have all the qualities of diamond. But both diamond and > > coal retain their atoms of carbon -- nothing other than > > " orderliness-snapshots " can distinguish diamond from coal if a scientist > > examines both. Only diamond's orderliness accounts for the dramatic > > differences. For details, see the Second Law of Thermodynamics. > > > > So, let's pretend that via Pantanjali's smaller-than-an-atom sutra, > > we've been tiny-ized and are hovering in that space between the two > > surfaces; we see the carbon atoms of the coal's surface abutting the > > diamond's carbon atoms. (Well, we'd see the magnetic fields of the > > outer electrons of carbon atoms repelling the magnetic fields of the > > outer electrons of other carbon atoms.) > > > > There we are right on the carbonental divide. On our right we see only > > diamond, on the left only coal, but in either direction all we actually > > see are (by the laws of physics this is true) IDENTICAL carbon atoms. > > Identical in number of electrons, neutrons, protons and their positions > > relative to each other. > > > > Get that? Show a top scientist two carbons atoms, and then take them > > away, and then show the scientist three carbon atoms, and ask the > > scientist to point out the newly added carbon atom, and there's no > > instrumentality that the scientist can use to sniff-out the newbie, and > > in fact, theoretically there is no difference to target. > > > > So why do we look and see only diamond on the right? To me this is the > > same as asking what is the difference between Cosmic Ego and individual > > ego. > > > > When we consider the boundaries of a 3D object, we are fuzzy and > > arbitrary. We're ballparkish. We're playing horseshoes where getting > > close is enough to score a point. My body's atoms' protons, neutrons > > and electrons are identical to those of the atoms of the air I breathe. > > Still small, we can hover near an oxygen atom's outer electron and not > > be able to identify it as " belonging to an oxygen atom, " nor can we > > identify the outer electrons of my skin's carbon atoms as " carbonish > > electrons. " So how does one precisely designate where my body begins? > > > > Can't tell. > > > > That is the arbitrary boarder of small self and Cosmic Self. > > > > When a saint has so refined the nervous system that he/she can see that > > the body is SEAMLESSLY residing in a matrix of identical parts and that > > these parts extend for 13 billion light years in all directions, it is > > quite understandable for that saint to opine that his/her body is the > > universe. > > > > We all know the concept of infinite correlation - the butterfly's > > flutter's energy is eventually felt everywhere, and thus everything > > affects everything. Just so, a Cosmic Egoed saint can rightly argue > > that he/she is omnipresent in the universe just as you or I could argue > > that our awareness is omnipresent throughout our localized and > > arbitrarily defined bodies. See? > > > > Now we've got a working definition of a saint -- still limited by time > > and space, but pretty close to God. The outer limits of God's " body " is > > (laws of physics in operation) not easily defined, because the outer > > electrons that abut " deep empty space " are radiating, and this radiation > > can be measured for, presumably, out as far as another 13 billion light > > years farther out since the universe has existed for that span of time, > > and thus the radiation has had that much time to get that far away from > > the outer most electrons. > > > > So, God's body is about 37 billion light years wide. Cool math, eh? > > > > But does God agree? Maybe God thinks that His/Hers body is also the > > space that the radiation of the outer electrons is, even now, expanding > > into. God's Big Bang is continuing, ya see? So God can say, " Hey, all > > that space that I'll eventually enter is Me too. " And space -- well, we > > don't know if that ever ends or what? or even if we have a working > > definition of the term " space " when we are not allowed to fill it with > > some sort of " markers. " God can chuckle if we try to say He/She's got a > > limited body if we allow space to be " part of " Him/Her. > > > > See? We're defining God in a way that reveals the limitations of our > > imaginations. > > > > Okay, now here's GOD (an ironic acronym for Get Over Defining,) and we > > ask if God could take another step in " bigness " when He/She is already > > being defined, at least space-wisely, as unendingly infinite. The word > > " unending " reveals that God's body is time-bound, so God can say, " Hey, > > every when is also within My definition of body. I'm so perfectly able > > to remember what has happened that it is as if I'm still there watching > > it happen, and my mind is so adroit that at any given time at any given > > space, I can deduce the operations of all My parts, and, additionally, > > My mind can predict all the possible future operations of all things. " > > > > But, still, we see God's limited to defining Him/Herself as imprisoned > > within space/time's definitions. > > > > Okay, NOW, how does God expand His/Her definition of Self? > > > > Only by Grace. Only by shutting down the Cosmic Ego into amness (God > > closes His/Her eyes and does tapas,) can we imagine another step in the > > process: making God bigger. Only by God realizing the limitations of > > time/space and discovering THAT can God solve the " getting bigger " > > puzzle. Only by realizing that all imaginable phenomena and the > > time/space in which they exist are definitively claustrophobic can God > > leap out of Godness into > > God-plus-all-that's-left-out-of-the-definition-of-God. > > > > That's when God finally realizes that all possibilities are graspable, > > but to include the Ungraspable in the definition of Self is the last > > step possible in personal evolution. Here language fails. God gets > > enlightened by embracing paradox, enfolding non-sensibility, and Elvis > > leaves the building (creation.) And, don't miss, that all this > > transitioning can be experienced from the localized body's point of > > view. The small ego can be seen as a cub reporter with a hot scoop. > > > > So, all you atoms out there assembled in arbitrary packettes, is ya > > exultationing? Is ya seeing that your challenge is the same as God's, > > and that you must transcend the intellect's ability to define Self? Are > > you going to assert that your packette's summations about my packette's > > summations are not arbitrarily handcuffed by bogus gerrymandered > > boarderlines of local embodiments? > > > > So there's your Sunday morning sermon's question -- homework fer ya. > > > > And don't be coming back to me with " my dog ate it " excuses. > > > > Edg > > > > > Hi Edg, > > I starteded to read your post but I quickly gave up because to many words, hmm, about what ? > > I have no idea what you tried to convey, if at all. The only I could see that your really love to talk a lot without any respect regarding your readers. > > Could you eventually give a short summary of your post in three or four sentences ? > > Werner let me help Edg. wernie-poo can't read. he is a dumb ass. this is sentence #4. wernie doesn't deserve any respect at all. oops..that's 5.. and now with this 6..sentences. well fuck that dumb ass wernie. i can say that because this has gotten.. too long and complicated for numb nuts to " get " . psst..don't break it down into 2 or 3 sentences for him. that might get him " starteded " (sic) pissing and moaning again. 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 , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " duveyoung " <edg@> wrote: > > > > > > Warning, danger, danger, bigass concept being spotlit by a blind man's > > > non-existent ego. > > > > > > So, there, I admitted it, and now you don't have to hammer that concept > > > if you reply to this post, but, but, but I think I've got something > > > rarely said, if ever, in Advaita circles. You snipers out there, can ya > > > shoot real bullets at it instead of yelling " pow pow pow you're dead " as > > > I did at age ten? If the reasoning below if flawed, I would grateful > > > for any corrections. > > > > > > Here goes: > > > > > > As usual, let me start with something not intuitively germane to the > > > topic at hand: the difference between diamond and coal. > > > > > > You know that a diamond starts off as " something coalish " and that under > > > great pressure and heat gets compressed into a close-packing orderliness > > > that makes it have all the qualities of diamond. But both diamond and > > > coal retain their atoms of carbon -- nothing other than > > > " orderliness-snapshots " can distinguish diamond from coal if a scientist > > > examines both. Only diamond's orderliness accounts for the dramatic > > > differences. For details, see the Second Law of Thermodynamics. > > > > > > So, let's pretend that via Pantanjali's smaller-than-an-atom sutra, > > > we've been tiny-ized and are hovering in that space between the two > > > surfaces; we see the carbon atoms of the coal's surface abutting the > > > diamond's carbon atoms. (Well, we'd see the magnetic fields of the > > > outer electrons of carbon atoms repelling the magnetic fields of the > > > outer electrons of other carbon atoms.) > > > > > > There we are right on the carbonental divide. On our right we see only > > > diamond, on the left only coal, but in either direction all we actually > > > see are (by the laws of physics this is true) IDENTICAL carbon atoms. > > > Identical in number of electrons, neutrons, protons and their positions > > > relative to each other. > > > > > > Get that? Show a top scientist two carbons atoms, and then take them > > > away, and then show the scientist three carbon atoms, and ask the > > > scientist to point out the newly added carbon atom, and there's no > > > instrumentality that the scientist can use to sniff-out the newbie, and > > > in fact, theoretically there is no difference to target. > > > > > > So why do we look and see only diamond on the right? To me this is the > > > same as asking what is the difference between Cosmic Ego and individual > > > ego. > > > > > > When we consider the boundaries of a 3D object, we are fuzzy and > > > arbitrary. We're ballparkish. We're playing horseshoes where getting > > > close is enough to score a point. My body's atoms' protons, neutrons > > > and electrons are identical to those of the atoms of the air I breathe. > > > Still small, we can hover near an oxygen atom's outer electron and not > > > be able to identify it as " belonging to an oxygen atom, " nor can we > > > identify the outer electrons of my skin's carbon atoms as " carbonish > > > electrons. " So how does one precisely designate where my body begins? > > > > > > Can't tell. > > > > > > That is the arbitrary boarder of small self and Cosmic Self. > > > > > > When a saint has so refined the nervous system that he/she can see that > > > the body is SEAMLESSLY residing in a matrix of identical parts and that > > > these parts extend for 13 billion light years in all directions, it is > > > quite understandable for that saint to opine that his/her body is the > > > universe. > > > > > > We all know the concept of infinite correlation - the butterfly's > > > flutter's energy is eventually felt everywhere, and thus everything > > > affects everything. Just so, a Cosmic Egoed saint can rightly argue > > > that he/she is omnipresent in the universe just as you or I could argue > > > that our awareness is omnipresent throughout our localized and > > > arbitrarily defined bodies. See? > > > > > > Now we've got a working definition of a saint -- still limited by time > > > and space, but pretty close to God. The outer limits of God's " body " is > > > (laws of physics in operation) not easily defined, because the outer > > > electrons that abut " deep empty space " are radiating, and this radiation > > > can be measured for, presumably, out as far as another 13 billion light > > > years farther out since the universe has existed for that span of time, > > > and thus the radiation has had that much time to get that far away from > > > the outer most electrons. > > > > > > So, God's body is about 37 billion light years wide. Cool math, eh? > > > > > > But does God agree? Maybe God thinks that His/Hers body is also the > > > space that the radiation of the outer electrons is, even now, expanding > > > into. God's Big Bang is continuing, ya see? So God can say, " Hey, all > > > that space that I'll eventually enter is Me too. " And space -- well, we > > > don't know if that ever ends or what? or even if we have a working > > > definition of the term " space " when we are not allowed to fill it with > > > some sort of " markers. " God can chuckle if we try to say He/She's got a > > > limited body if we allow space to be " part of " Him/Her. > > > > > > See? We're defining God in a way that reveals the limitations of our > > > imaginations. > > > > > > Okay, now here's GOD (an ironic acronym for Get Over Defining,) and we > > > ask if God could take another step in " bigness " when He/She is already > > > being defined, at least space-wisely, as unendingly infinite. The word > > > " unending " reveals that God's body is time-bound, so God can say, " Hey, > > > every when is also within My definition of body. I'm so perfectly able > > > to remember what has happened that it is as if I'm still there watching > > > it happen, and my mind is so adroit that at any given time at any given > > > space, I can deduce the operations of all My parts, and, additionally, > > > My mind can predict all the possible future operations of all things. " > > > > > > But, still, we see God's limited to defining Him/Herself as imprisoned > > > within space/time's definitions. > > > > > > Okay, NOW, how does God expand His/Her definition of Self? > > > > > > Only by Grace. Only by shutting down the Cosmic Ego into amness (God > > > closes His/Her eyes and does tapas,) can we imagine another step in the > > > process: making God bigger. Only by God realizing the limitations of > > > time/space and discovering THAT can God solve the " getting bigger " > > > puzzle. Only by realizing that all imaginable phenomena and the > > > time/space in which they exist are definitively claustrophobic can God > > > leap out of Godness into > > > God-plus-all-that's-left-out-of-the-definition-of-God. > > > > > > That's when God finally realizes that all possibilities are graspable, > > > but to include the Ungraspable in the definition of Self is the last > > > step possible in personal evolution. Here language fails. God gets > > > enlightened by embracing paradox, enfolding non-sensibility, and Elvis > > > leaves the building (creation.) And, don't miss, that all this > > > transitioning can be experienced from the localized body's point of > > > view. The small ego can be seen as a cub reporter with a hot scoop. > > > > > > So, all you atoms out there assembled in arbitrary packettes, is ya > > > exultationing? Is ya seeing that your challenge is the same as God's, > > > and that you must transcend the intellect's ability to define Self? Are > > > you going to assert that your packette's summations about my packette's > > > summations are not arbitrarily handcuffed by bogus gerrymandered > > > boarderlines of local embodiments? > > > > > > So there's your Sunday morning sermon's question -- homework fer ya. > > > > > > And don't be coming back to me with " my dog ate it " excuses. > > > > > > Edg > > > > > > > > > Hi Edg, > > > > I starteded to read your post but I quickly gave up because to many words, hmm, about what ? > > > > I have no idea what you tried to convey, if at all. The only I could see that your really love to talk a lot without any respect regarding your readers. > > > > Could you eventually give a short summary of your post in three or four sentences ? > > > > Werner > > > let me help Edg. > > wernie-poo can't read. > > he is a dumb ass. > > this is sentence #4. > > wernie doesn't deserve any respect at all. > > oops..that's 5.. and now with this 6..sentences. > > well fuck that dumb ass wernie. > > i can say that because this has gotten.. > > too long and complicated for numb nuts to " get " . > > psst..don't break it down into 2 or 3 sentences for him. > > that might get him " starteded " (sic) pissing and moaning again. > > LOL!! > > .b b.b. Werner, if you gave up reading, how are you going to have the wherewithal to invest your creativity in fleshing out any skeleton of the above? Seems to me you're not going to be able to get there from here by that method. Here's the poem you want: All definitions are arbitrary. The Absolute is beyond all definitions. Bang, done. Now you tell me how I could have ever posted that poem and gotten you to be able to see the difference between diamond and coal? I will apologize for my prolixity if you apologize for your brevity. Of course, your apology must be lengthy in order for me to see that you see the challenge of nutshell summationing. Fair deal? Edg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 19, 2009 Report Share Posted July 19, 2009 - duveyoung Nisargadatta Sunday, July 19, 2009 12:18 PM The Cosmic Ego -- and beyond Warning, danger, danger, bigass concept being spotlit by a blind man's non-existent ego. So, there, I admitted it, and now you don't have to hammer that concept if you reply to this post, but, but, but I think I've got something rarely said, if ever, in Advaita circles. You snipers out there, can ya shoot real bullets at it instead of yelling " pow pow pow you're dead " as I did at age ten? If the reasoning below if flawed, I would grateful for any corrections. Here goes: As usual, let me start with something not intuitively germane to the topic at hand: the difference between diamond and coal. You know that a diamond starts off as " something coalish " and that under great pressure and heat gets compressed into a close-packing orderliness that makes it have all the qualities of diamond. But both diamond and coal retain their atoms of carbon -- nothing other than " orderliness-snapshots " can disti nguish diamond from coal if a scientist examines both. Only diamond's orderliness accounts for the dramatic differences. For details, see the Second Law of Thermodynamics. So, let's pretend that via Pantanjali's smaller-than-an-atom sutra, we've been tiny-ized and are hovering in that space between the two surfaces; we see the carbon atoms of the coal's surface abutting the diamond's carbon atoms. (Well, we'd see the magnetic fields of the outer electrons of carbon atoms repelling the magnetic fields of the outer electrons of other carbon atoms.) There we are right on the carbonental divide. On our right we see only diamond, on the left only coal, but in either direction all we actually see are (by the laws of physics this is true) IDENTICAL carbon atoms. Identical in number of electrons, neutrons, protons and their positions relative to each other. Get that? Show a top scientist two carbons atoms, and th en take them away, and then show the scientist three carbon atoms, and ask the scientist to point out the newly added carbon atom, and there's no instrumentality that the scientist can use to sniff-out the newbie, and in fact, theoretically there is no difference to target. So why do we look and see only diamond on the right? To me this is the same as asking what is the difference between Cosmic Ego and individual ego. geo> Not sure what you mean by Cosmic Ego. Is it Ego as the World or Ego as Awareness? In both cases the individual ego is much different. Individual ego is a non-fixed imagined inner entity, it has no materiality or boundaries, it is just an " as if " , it is very simply non-existent, it is an asumption. Cosmic Ego as Awareness, or the Ground of being is an assumption? Could one say that they are like both carbons, coal and diamond? What you say? === When we consider the boundaries of a 3D object, we are fuzzy and arbitrary. We're ballparkish. We're playing horseshoes where getting close is enough to score a point. My body's atoms' protons, neutrons and electrons are identical to those of the atoms of the air I breathe. Still small, we can hover near an oxygen atom's outer electron and not be able to identify it as " belonging to an oxygen atom, " nor can we identify the outer electrons of my skin's carbon atoms as " carbonish electrons. " & nb sp; So how does one precisely designate where my body begins? geo> The body is identified not only by its materiality but as something tactil, felt. A person without tactil senses would soon die (actualy there is such desiese and the baby cant survive - dies). The feelings of the body is what makes it " mine " . But of course these feelings are also universal and not mine at all. Can't tell. geo> You can: pinch it. === That is the arbitrary boarder of small self and Cosmic Self. When a saint has so refined the nervous system that he/she can see that the body is SEAMLESSLY residing in a matrix of identical parts and that these parts extend for 13 billion light years in all directions, it is quite understandable for that saint to opine that his/her body is the universe. geo> I am all and everything that is perceivable. Perceptions are my senses and their dynamics is also me. HOw else would they be perceptible? == We all know the concept of infinite correlation - the butterfly's flutter's energy is eventually felt everywhere, and thus everything affects everything. Just so, a Cosmic Egoed saint can rightly argue that he/she is omnipresent in the universe just as you or I could argue that our awareness is omnipresent throughout our localized and arbitrarily defined bodies. See? Now we've got a working definition of a saint -- still limited by time and space, but pretty close to God. The outer limits of God's " body " is (laws of physics in operation) not easily defined, because the outer electrons that abut " deep empty space " are radiating, and this radiation can be measured for, presumably, out as far as another 13 billion light years farther out since the universe has existed for that span of time, and thus the radiation has had that much time to get that far away from the outer most electrons. So, God's body is about 37 billion light years wide. Cool math, eh? But does God agree? Maybe God thinks that His/Hers body is also the space that the radiation of the outer electrons is, even now, expanding into. God's Big Bang is continuing, ya see? So God can say, " Hey, all that space that I'll eventually enter is Me too. " And space -- well, we don't know if that ever ends or what? or even if we have a working definition of the term " space " when we are not allowed to fill it with some sort of " markers. " God can chuckle if we try to say He/She's got a limited body if we allow space to be " part of " Him/Her. See? We're defining God in a way that reveals the limitations of our imaginations. Okay, now here's GOD (an ironic acronym for Get Over Defining,) and we ask if God could take another step in " bigness " when He/She is already being defined, at least space-wisely, as unendingly infinite. The word " unending " reveals that God's body is time-bound, so God can say, " Hey, every when is also within My definition of body. I'm so perfectly able to remember what has happened that it is as if I'm still there watching it happen, and my mind is so adroit that at any given time at any given space, I can deduce the operations of all My parts, and, additionally, My mind can predict all the possible future operations of all things. " But, still, we see God's limited to defining Him/Herself as imprisoned within space/time's definitions. Okay, NOW, how does God expand His/Her definition of Self? Only by Grace. Only by shutting down the Cosmic Ego into amness (God closes His/Her eyes and does tapas,) can we imagine another step in the process: making God bigger. Only by God realizing the limitations of time/space and discovering THAT can God solve the " getting bigger " puzzle. Only by realizing that all imaginable phenomena and the time/space in which they exist are definitively claustrophobic can God leap out of Godness into God-plus-all-that's-left-out-of-the-definition-of-God. That's when God finally realizes that all possibilities are graspable, but to include the Ungraspable in the definition of Self is the last step possible in personal evolution. Here language fails. geo> Listen. When nothing is, there is only the potential of all and any possibility and any and all impossibility included. Is it nothing? It is concrete and solid like a diamond. == God gets enlightened by embracing paradox, enfolding non-sensibility, and Elvis leaves the building (creation.) And, don't miss, that all this transitioning can be experienced from the localized body's point of view. The small ego can be seen as a cub reporter with a hot scoop. geo> Dimensionality, time, space, the human world is NOT the " small ego " !! Small ego is a set of limiting conditionings derived from the illusional inner sense of separate entity. The body IS separte from other bodies (because of the tactil sense) == So, all you atoms out there assembled in arbitrary packettes, is ya exultationing? Is ya seeing that your challenge is the same as God's, and that you must transcend the intellect's ability to define Self? Are you going to assert that your packette's summations about my packette's summations are not arbitrarily handcuffed by bogus gerrymandered boarderlines of local embodiments? So there's your Sunday morning sermon's question -- homework fer ya. And don't be coming back to me with " my dog ate it " excuses. Edg geo> The intellect ahs been transcended. It is a small litlle limited dark field in the unlimited ground. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 19, 2009 Report Share Posted July 19, 2009 Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " duveyoung " <edg@> wrote: > > > > Warning, danger, danger, bigass concept being spotlit by a blind man's > > non-existent ego. > > > > So, there, I admitted it, and now you don't have to hammer that concept > > if you reply to this post, but, but, but I think I've got something > > rarely said, if ever, in Advaita circles. You snipers out there, can ya > > shoot real bullets at it instead of yelling " pow pow pow you're dead " as > > I did at age ten? If the reasoning below if flawed, I would grateful > > for any corrections. > > > > Here goes: > > > > As usual, let me start with something not intuitively germane to the > > topic at hand: the difference between diamond and coal. > > > > You know that a diamond starts off as " something coalish " and that under > > great pressure and heat gets compressed into a close-packing orderliness > > that makes it have all the qualities of diamond. But both diamond and > > coal retain their atoms of carbon -- nothing other than > > " orderliness-snapshots " can distinguish diamond from coal if a scientist > > examines both. Only diamond's orderliness accounts for the dramatic > > differences. For details, see the Second Law of Thermodynamics. > > > > So, let's pretend that via Pantanjali's smaller-than-an-atom sutra, > > we've been tiny-ized and are hovering in that space between the two > > surfaces; we see the carbon atoms of the coal's surface abutting the > > diamond's carbon atoms. (Well, we'd see the magnetic fields of the > > outer electrons of carbon atoms repelling the magnetic fields of the > > outer electrons of other carbon atoms.) > > > > There we are right on the carbonental divide. On our right we see only > > diamond, on the left only coal, but in either direction all we actually > > see are (by the laws of physics this is true) IDENTICAL carbon atoms. > > Identical in number of electrons, neutrons, protons and their positions > > relative to each other. > > > > Get that? Show a top scientist two carbons atoms, and then take them > > away, and then show the scientist three carbon atoms, and ask the > > scientist to point out the newly added carbon atom, and there's no > > instrumentality that the scientist can use to sniff-out the newbie, and > > in fact, theoretically there is no difference to target. > > > > So why do we look and see only diamond on the right? To me this is the > > same as asking what is the difference between Cosmic Ego and individual > > ego. > > > > When we consider the boundaries of a 3D object, we are fuzzy and > > arbitrary. We're ballparkish. We're playing horseshoes where getting > > close is enough to score a point. My body's atoms' protons, neutrons > > and electrons are identical to those of the atoms of the air I breathe. > > Still small, we can hover near an oxygen atom's outer electron and not > > be able to identify it as " belonging to an oxygen atom, " nor can we > > identify the outer electrons of my skin's carbon atoms as " carbonish > > electrons. " So how does one precisely designate where my body begins? > > > > Can't tell. > > > > That is the arbitrary boarder of small self and Cosmic Self. > > > > When a saint has so refined the nervous system that he/she can see that > > the body is SEAMLESSLY residing in a matrix of identical parts and that > > these parts extend for 13 billion light years in all directions, it is > > quite understandable for that saint to opine that his/her body is the > > universe. > > > > We all know the concept of infinite correlation - the butterfly's > > flutter's energy is eventually felt everywhere, and thus everything > > affects everything. Just so, a Cosmic Egoed saint can rightly argue > > that he/she is omnipresent in the universe just as you or I could argue > > that our awareness is omnipresent throughout our localized and > > arbitrarily defined bodies. See? > > > > Now we've got a working definition of a saint -- still limited by time > > and space, but pretty close to God. The outer limits of God's " body " is > > (laws of physics in operation) not easily defined, because the outer > > electrons that abut " deep empty space " are radiating, and this radiation > > can be measured for, presumably, out as far as another 13 billion light > > years farther out since the universe has existed for that span of time, > > and thus the radiation has had that much time to get that far away from > > the outer most electrons. > > > > So, God's body is about 37 billion light years wide. Cool math, eh? > > > > But does God agree? Maybe God thinks that His/Hers body is also the > > space that the radiation of the outer electrons is, even now, expanding > > into. God's Big Bang is continuing, ya see? So God can say, " Hey, all > > that space that I'll eventually enter is Me too. " And space -- well, we > > don't know if that ever ends or what? or even if we have a working > > definition of the term " space " when we are not allowed to fill it with > > some sort of " markers. " God can chuckle if we try to say He/She's got a > > limited body if we allow space to be " part of " Him/Her. > > > > See? We're defining God in a way that reveals the limitations of our > > imaginations. > > > > Okay, now here's GOD (an ironic acronym for Get Over Defining,) and we > > ask if God could take another step in " bigness " when He/She is already > > being defined, at least space-wisely, as unendingly infinite. The word > > " unending " reveals that God's body is time-bound, so God can say, " Hey, > > every when is also within My definition of body. I'm so perfectly able > > to remember what has happened that it is as if I'm still there watching > > it happen, and my mind is so adroit that at any given time at any given > > space, I can deduce the operations of all My parts, and, additionally, > > My mind can predict all the possible future operations of all things. " > > > > But, still, we see God's limited to defining Him/Herself as imprisoned > > within space/time's definitions. > > > > Okay, NOW, how does God expand His/Her definition of Self? > > > > Only by Grace. Only by shutting down the Cosmic Ego into amness (God > > closes His/Her eyes and does tapas,) can we imagine another step in the > > process: making God bigger. Only by God realizing the limitations of > > time/space and discovering THAT can God solve the " getting bigger " > > puzzle. Only by realizing that all imaginable phenomena and the > > time/space in which they exist are definitively claustrophobic can God > > leap out of Godness into > > God-plus-all-that's-left-out-of-the-definition-of-God. > > > > That's when God finally realizes that all possibilities are graspable, > > but to include the Ungraspable in the definition of Self is the last > > step possible in personal evolution. Here language fails. God gets > > enlightened by embracing paradox, enfolding non-sensibility, and Elvis > > leaves the building (creation.) And, don't miss, that all this > > transitioning can be experienced from the localized body's point of > > view. The small ego can be seen as a cub reporter with a hot scoop. > > > > So, all you atoms out there assembled in arbitrary packettes, is ya > > exultationing? Is ya seeing that your challenge is the same as God's, > > and that you must transcend the intellect's ability to define Self? Are > > you going to assert that your packette's summations about my packette's > > summations are not arbitrarily handcuffed by bogus gerrymandered > > boarderlines of local embodiments? > > > > So there's your Sunday morning sermon's question -- homework fer ya. > > > > And don't be coming back to me with " my dog ate it " excuses. > > > > Edg > > >B: whatever gets you you through your days and nights is just alright. it doesn't matter. P: You hit the nail on the head! I can tell how much pleasure Edg felt in writing that, and that Werner felt none in reading it, goes to show that we really do not write to please the reader, but to please ourselves. Despite mounting boos the writer must continue to write as you have done in the past, and Anna does too. I did read his piece, but found no thing new but analogies. One can't not prove anything with analogy and metaphor. He tries to built his cosmology with the same leggo pieces of ego, Cosmic Ego, Amness, Identity, god, and Absolute, but his imagination is not up to the task. Nature created life out of the four leggo pieces of DNA, but it had three billions years to experiment. So let's not be too rough on Edg, let Edg have fun, even if he missed that what makes diamond a cut above carbon is form, the face centered cubic shape. Yes, as an arch made of the same stones as a wall can support more weight, carbon atoms get harder with the face centered cubic shape. Form is matter, matter is form. Well, I have fun writing this, so I thank Edg. ) Hey, Bob, blow Werner a kiss. We need Werner, we need every poster here to have our fun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 19, 2009 Report Share Posted July 19, 2009 Nisargadatta , " duveyoung " <edg wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " duveyoung " <edg@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Warning, danger, danger, bigass concept being spotlit by a blind man's > > > > non-existent ego. > > > > > > > > So, there, I admitted it, and now you don't have to hammer that concept > > > > if you reply to this post, but, but, but I think I've got something > > > > rarely said, if ever, in Advaita circles. You snipers out there, can ya > > > > shoot real bullets at it instead of yelling " pow pow pow you're dead " as > > > > I did at age ten? If the reasoning below if flawed, I would grateful > > > > for any corrections. > > > > > > > > Here goes: > > > > > > > > As usual, let me start with something not intuitively germane to the > > > > topic at hand: the difference between diamond and coal. > > > > > > > > You know that a diamond starts off as " something coalish " and that under > > > > great pressure and heat gets compressed into a close-packing orderliness > > > > that makes it have all the qualities of diamond. But both diamond and > > > > coal retain their atoms of carbon -- nothing other than > > > > " orderliness-snapshots " can distinguish diamond from coal if a scientist > > > > examines both. Only diamond's orderliness accounts for the dramatic > > > > differences. For details, see the Second Law of Thermodynamics. > > > > > > > > So, let's pretend that via Pantanjali's smaller-than-an-atom sutra, > > > > we've been tiny-ized and are hovering in that space between the two > > > > surfaces; we see the carbon atoms of the coal's surface abutting the > > > > diamond's carbon atoms. (Well, we'd see the magnetic fields of the > > > > outer electrons of carbon atoms repelling the magnetic fields of the > > > > outer electrons of other carbon atoms.) > > > > > > > > There we are right on the carbonental divide. On our right we see only > > > > diamond, on the left only coal, but in either direction all we actually > > > > see are (by the laws of physics this is true) IDENTICAL carbon atoms. > > > > Identical in number of electrons, neutrons, protons and their positions > > > > relative to each other. > > > > > > > > Get that? Show a top scientist two carbons atoms, and then take them > > > > away, and then show the scientist three carbon atoms, and ask the > > > > scientist to point out the newly added carbon atom, and there's no > > > > instrumentality that the scientist can use to sniff-out the newbie, and > > > > in fact, theoretically there is no difference to target. > > > > > > > > So why do we look and see only diamond on the right? To me this is the > > > > same as asking what is the difference between Cosmic Ego and individual > > > > ego. > > > > > > > > When we consider the boundaries of a 3D object, we are fuzzy and > > > > arbitrary. We're ballparkish. We're playing horseshoes where getting > > > > close is enough to score a point. My body's atoms' protons, neutrons > > > > and electrons are identical to those of the atoms of the air I breathe. > > > > Still small, we can hover near an oxygen atom's outer electron and not > > > > be able to identify it as " belonging to an oxygen atom, " nor can we > > > > identify the outer electrons of my skin's carbon atoms as " carbonish > > > > electrons. " So how does one precisely designate where my body begins? > > > > > > > > Can't tell. > > > > > > > > That is the arbitrary boarder of small self and Cosmic Self. > > > > > > > > When a saint has so refined the nervous system that he/she can see that > > > > the body is SEAMLESSLY residing in a matrix of identical parts and that > > > > these parts extend for 13 billion light years in all directions, it is > > > > quite understandable for that saint to opine that his/her body is the > > > > universe. > > > > > > > > We all know the concept of infinite correlation - the butterfly's > > > > flutter's energy is eventually felt everywhere, and thus everything > > > > affects everything. Just so, a Cosmic Egoed saint can rightly argue > > > > that he/she is omnipresent in the universe just as you or I could argue > > > > that our awareness is omnipresent throughout our localized and > > > > arbitrarily defined bodies. See? > > > > > > > > Now we've got a working definition of a saint -- still limited by time > > > > and space, but pretty close to God. The outer limits of God's " body " is > > > > (laws of physics in operation) not easily defined, because the outer > > > > electrons that abut " deep empty space " are radiating, and this radiation > > > > can be measured for, presumably, out as far as another 13 billion light > > > > years farther out since the universe has existed for that span of time, > > > > and thus the radiation has had that much time to get that far away from > > > > the outer most electrons. > > > > > > > > So, God's body is about 37 billion light years wide. Cool math, eh? > > > > > > > > But does God agree? Maybe God thinks that His/Hers body is also the > > > > space that the radiation of the outer electrons is, even now, expanding > > > > into. God's Big Bang is continuing, ya see? So God can say, " Hey, all > > > > that space that I'll eventually enter is Me too. " And space -- well, we > > > > don't know if that ever ends or what? or even if we have a working > > > > definition of the term " space " when we are not allowed to fill it with > > > > some sort of " markers. " God can chuckle if we try to say He/She's got a > > > > limited body if we allow space to be " part of " Him/Her. > > > > > > > > See? We're defining God in a way that reveals the limitations of our > > > > imaginations. > > > > > > > > Okay, now here's GOD (an ironic acronym for Get Over Defining,) and we > > > > ask if God could take another step in " bigness " when He/She is already > > > > being defined, at least space-wisely, as unendingly infinite. The word > > > > " unending " reveals that God's body is time-bound, so God can say, " Hey, > > > > every when is also within My definition of body. I'm so perfectly able > > > > to remember what has happened that it is as if I'm still there watching > > > > it happen, and my mind is so adroit that at any given time at any given > > > > space, I can deduce the operations of all My parts, and, additionally, > > > > My mind can predict all the possible future operations of all things. " > > > > > > > > But, still, we see God's limited to defining Him/Herself as imprisoned > > > > within space/time's definitions. > > > > > > > > Okay, NOW, how does God expand His/Her definition of Self? > > > > > > > > Only by Grace. Only by shutting down the Cosmic Ego into amness (God > > > > closes His/Her eyes and does tapas,) can we imagine another step in the > > > > process: making God bigger. Only by God realizing the limitations of > > > > time/space and discovering THAT can God solve the " getting bigger " > > > > puzzle. Only by realizing that all imaginable phenomena and the > > > > time/space in which they exist are definitively claustrophobic can God > > > > leap out of Godness into > > > > God-plus-all-that's-left-out-of-the-definition-of-God. > > > > > > > > That's when God finally realizes that all possibilities are graspable, > > > > but to include the Ungraspable in the definition of Self is the last > > > > step possible in personal evolution. Here language fails. God gets > > > > enlightened by embracing paradox, enfolding non-sensibility, and Elvis > > > > leaves the building (creation.) And, don't miss, that all this > > > > transitioning can be experienced from the localized body's point of > > > > view. The small ego can be seen as a cub reporter with a hot scoop. > > > > > > > > So, all you atoms out there assembled in arbitrary packettes, is ya > > > > exultationing? Is ya seeing that your challenge is the same as God's, > > > > and that you must transcend the intellect's ability to define Self? Are > > > > you going to assert that your packette's summations about my packette's > > > > summations are not arbitrarily handcuffed by bogus gerrymandered > > > > boarderlines of local embodiments? > > > > > > > > So there's your Sunday morning sermon's question -- homework fer ya. > > > > > > > > And don't be coming back to me with " my dog ate it " excuses. > > > > > > > > Edg > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Edg, > > > > > > I starteded to read your post but I quickly gave up because to many words, hmm, about what ? > > > > > > I have no idea what you tried to convey, if at all. The only I could see that your really love to talk a lot without any respect regarding your readers. > > > > > > Could you eventually give a short summary of your post in three or four sentences ? > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > let me help Edg. > > > > wernie-poo can't read. > > > > he is a dumb ass. > > > > this is sentence #4. > > > > wernie doesn't deserve any respect at all. > > > > oops..that's 5.. and now with this 6..sentences. > > > > well fuck that dumb ass wernie. > > > > i can say that because this has gotten.. > > > > too long and complicated for numb nuts to " get " . > > > > psst..don't break it down into 2 or 3 sentences for him. > > > > that might get him " starteded " (sic) pissing and moaning again. > > > > LOL!! > > > > .b b.b. > > Werner, if you gave up reading, how are you going to have the wherewithal to invest your creativity in fleshing out any skeleton of the above? Seems to me you're not going to be able to get there from here by that method. > > Here's the poem you want: > > All definitions are arbitrary. > The Absolute is beyond all definitions. > > Bang, done. Now you tell me how I could have ever posted that poem and gotten you to be able to see the difference between diamond and coal? > > I will apologize for my prolixity if you apologize for your brevity. Of course, your apology must be lengthy in order for me to see that you see the challenge of nutshell summationing. Fair deal? > > Edg Edg.. you are a gentleman and a scholar. ..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 , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " duveyoung " <edg@> wrote: > > > > > > Warning, danger, danger, bigass concept being spotlit by a blind man's > > > non-existent ego. > > > > > > So, there, I admitted it, and now you don't have to hammer that concept > > > if you reply to this post, but, but, but I think I've got something > > > rarely said, if ever, in Advaita circles. You snipers out there, can ya > > > shoot real bullets at it instead of yelling " pow pow pow you're dead " as > > > I did at age ten? If the reasoning below if flawed, I would grateful > > > for any corrections. > > > > > > Here goes: > > > > > > As usual, let me start with something not intuitively germane to the > > > topic at hand: the difference between diamond and coal. > > > > > > You know that a diamond starts off as " something coalish " and that under > > > great pressure and heat gets compressed into a close-packing orderliness > > > that makes it have all the qualities of diamond. But both diamond and > > > coal retain their atoms of carbon -- nothing other than > > > " orderliness-snapshots " can distinguish diamond from coal if a scientist > > > examines both. Only diamond's orderliness accounts for the dramatic > > > differences. For details, see the Second Law of Thermodynamics. > > > > > > So, let's pretend that via Pantanjali's smaller-than-an-atom sutra, > > > we've been tiny-ized and are hovering in that space between the two > > > surfaces; we see the carbon atoms of the coal's surface abutting the > > > diamond's carbon atoms. (Well, we'd see the magnetic fields of the > > > outer electrons of carbon atoms repelling the magnetic fields of the > > > outer electrons of other carbon atoms.) > > > > > > There we are right on the carbonental divide. On our right we see only > > > diamond, on the left only coal, but in either direction all we actually > > > see are (by the laws of physics this is true) IDENTICAL carbon atoms. > > > Identical in number of electrons, neutrons, protons and their positions > > > relative to each other. > > > > > > Get that? Show a top scientist two carbons atoms, and then take them > > > away, and then show the scientist three carbon atoms, and ask the > > > scientist to point out the newly added carbon atom, and there's no > > > instrumentality that the scientist can use to sniff-out the newbie, and > > > in fact, theoretically there is no difference to target. > > > > > > So why do we look and see only diamond on the right? To me this is the > > > same as asking what is the difference between Cosmic Ego and individual > > > ego. > > > > > > When we consider the boundaries of a 3D object, we are fuzzy and > > > arbitrary. We're ballparkish. We're playing horseshoes where getting > > > close is enough to score a point. My body's atoms' protons, neutrons > > > and electrons are identical to those of the atoms of the air I breathe. > > > Still small, we can hover near an oxygen atom's outer electron and not > > > be able to identify it as " belonging to an oxygen atom, " nor can we > > > identify the outer electrons of my skin's carbon atoms as " carbonish > > > electrons. " So how does one precisely designate where my body begins? > > > > > > Can't tell. > > > > > > That is the arbitrary boarder of small self and Cosmic Self. > > > > > > When a saint has so refined the nervous system that he/she can see that > > > the body is SEAMLESSLY residing in a matrix of identical parts and that > > > these parts extend for 13 billion light years in all directions, it is > > > quite understandable for that saint to opine that his/her body is the > > > universe. > > > > > > We all know the concept of infinite correlation - the butterfly's > > > flutter's energy is eventually felt everywhere, and thus everything > > > affects everything. Just so, a Cosmic Egoed saint can rightly argue > > > that he/she is omnipresent in the universe just as you or I could argue > > > that our awareness is omnipresent throughout our localized and > > > arbitrarily defined bodies. See? > > > > > > Now we've got a working definition of a saint -- still limited by time > > > and space, but pretty close to God. The outer limits of God's " body " is > > > (laws of physics in operation) not easily defined, because the outer > > > electrons that abut " deep empty space " are radiating, and this radiation > > > can be measured for, presumably, out as far as another 13 billion light > > > years farther out since the universe has existed for that span of time, > > > and thus the radiation has had that much time to get that far away from > > > the outer most electrons. > > > > > > So, God's body is about 37 billion light years wide. Cool math, eh? > > > > > > But does God agree? Maybe God thinks that His/Hers body is also the > > > space that the radiation of the outer electrons is, even now, expanding > > > into. God's Big Bang is continuing, ya see? So God can say, " Hey, all > > > that space that I'll eventually enter is Me too. " And space -- well, we > > > don't know if that ever ends or what? or even if we have a working > > > definition of the term " space " when we are not allowed to fill it with > > > some sort of " markers. " God can chuckle if we try to say He/She's got a > > > limited body if we allow space to be " part of " Him/Her. > > > > > > See? We're defining God in a way that reveals the limitations of our > > > imaginations. > > > > > > Okay, now here's GOD (an ironic acronym for Get Over Defining,) and we > > > ask if God could take another step in " bigness " when He/She is already > > > being defined, at least space-wisely, as unendingly infinite. The word > > > " unending " reveals that God's body is time-bound, so God can say, " Hey, > > > every when is also within My definition of body. I'm so perfectly able > > > to remember what has happened that it is as if I'm still there watching > > > it happen, and my mind is so adroit that at any given time at any given > > > space, I can deduce the operations of all My parts, and, additionally, > > > My mind can predict all the possible future operations of all things. " > > > > > > But, still, we see God's limited to defining Him/Herself as imprisoned > > > within space/time's definitions. > > > > > > Okay, NOW, how does God expand His/Her definition of Self? > > > > > > Only by Grace. Only by shutting down the Cosmic Ego into amness (God > > > closes His/Her eyes and does tapas,) can we imagine another step in the > > > process: making God bigger. Only by God realizing the limitations of > > > time/space and discovering THAT can God solve the " getting bigger " > > > puzzle. Only by realizing that all imaginable phenomena and the > > > time/space in which they exist are definitively claustrophobic can God > > > leap out of Godness into > > > God-plus-all-that's-left-out-of-the-definition-of-God. > > > > > > That's when God finally realizes that all possibilities are graspable, > > > but to include the Ungraspable in the definition of Self is the last > > > step possible in personal evolution. Here language fails. God gets > > > enlightened by embracing paradox, enfolding non-sensibility, and Elvis > > > leaves the building (creation.) And, don't miss, that all this > > > transitioning can be experienced from the localized body's point of > > > view. The small ego can be seen as a cub reporter with a hot scoop. > > > > > > So, all you atoms out there assembled in arbitrary packettes, is ya > > > exultationing? Is ya seeing that your challenge is the same as God's, > > > and that you must transcend the intellect's ability to define Self? Are > > > you going to assert that your packette's summations about my packette's > > > summations are not arbitrarily handcuffed by bogus gerrymandered > > > boarderlines of local embodiments? > > > > > > So there's your Sunday morning sermon's question -- homework fer ya. > > > > > > And don't be coming back to me with " my dog ate it " excuses. > > > > > > Edg > > > > > >B: whatever gets you you through your days and nights is just alright. it doesn't matter. > > > P: You hit the nail on the head! I can tell > how much pleasure Edg felt in writing that, > and that Werner felt none in reading it, > goes to show that we really do not write > to please the reader, but to please ourselves. > > Despite mounting boos the writer must continue > to write as you have done in the past, and Anna > does too. I did read his piece, but found no thing > new but analogies. One can't not prove anything > with analogy and metaphor. He tries to built his > cosmology with the same leggo pieces of ego, Cosmic > Ego, Amness, Identity, god, and Absolute, but his > imagination is not up to the task. Nature created > life out of the four leggo pieces of DNA, but it > had three billions years to experiment. So let's > not be too rough on Edg, let Edg have fun, even > if he missed that what makes diamond a cut above > carbon is form, the face centered cubic shape. > Yes, as an arch made of the same stones as a wall > can support more weight, carbon atoms get harder > with the face centered cubic shape. Form is matter, > matter is form. > > Well, I have fun writing this, so I thank Edg. ) > > Hey, Bob, blow Werner a kiss. We need Werner, we > need every poster here to have our fun. i love having fun with wernie. i'll blow him a kiss.. and then just keep it simple for him.. he can simply just blow me. how fair is that? :-) ..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 - > > > > Well, I have fun writing this, so I thank Edg. ) > > > > Hey, Bob, blow Werner a kiss. We need Werner, we > > need every poster here to have our fun. > > > i love having fun with wernie. > > i'll blow him a kiss.. > > and then just keep it simple for him.. > > he can simply just blow me. > > how fair is that? > > :-) > > .b b.b. P: Whatever you two do in privacy is OK with me. > 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: > > - > > > > > > Well, I have fun writing this, so I thank Edg. ) > > > > > > Hey, Bob, blow Werner a kiss. We need Werner, we > > > need every poster here to have our fun. > > > > > > i love having fun with wernie. > > > > i'll blow him a kiss.. > > > > and then just keep it simple for him.. > > > > he can simply just blow me. > > > > how fair is that? > > > > :-) > > > > .b b.b. > > P: Whatever you two do in privacy is OK with me. LOL! ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 At 02:49 PM 7/19/2009, you wrote: --- In Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > --- In Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > --- In Nisargadatta , " duveyoung " <edg@> wrote: > > > > > > Warning, danger, danger, bigass concept being spotlit by a blind man's > > > non-existent ego. > > > > > > So, there, I admitted it, and now you don't have to hammer that concept > > > if you reply to this post, but, but, but I think I've got something > > > rarely said, if ever, in Advaita circles. You snipers out there, can ya > > > shoot real bullets at it instead of yelling " pow pow pow you're dead " as > > > I did at age ten? If the reasoning below if flawed, I would grateful > > > for any corrections. > > > > > > Here goes: > > > > > > As usual, let me start with something not intuitively germane to the > > > topic at hand: the difference between diamond and coal. > > > > > > You know that a diamond starts off as " something coalish " and that under > > > great pressure and heat gets compressed into a close-packing orderliness > > > that makes it have all the qualities of diamond. But both diamond and > > > coal retain their atoms of carbon -- nothing other than > > > " orderliness-snapshots " can distinguish diamond from coal if a scientist > > > examines both. Only diamond's orderliness accounts for the dramatic > > > differences. For details, see the Second Law of Thermodynamics. > > > > > > So, let's pretend that via Pantanjali's smaller-than-an-atom sutra, > > > we've been tiny-ized and are hovering in that space between the two > > > surfaces; we see the carbon atoms of the coal's surface abutting the > > > diamond's carbon atoms. (Well, we'd see the magnetic fields of the > > > outer electrons of carbon atoms repelling the magnetic fields of the > > > outer electrons of other carbon atoms.) > > > > > > There we are right on the carbonental divide. On our right we see only > > > diamond, on the left only coal, but in either direction all we actually > > > see are (by the laws of physics this is true) IDENTICAL carbon atoms. > > > Identical in number of electrons, neutrons, protons and their positions > > > relative to each other. > > > > > > Get that? Show a top scientist two carbons atoms, and then take them > > > away, and then show the scientist three carbon atoms, and ask the > > > scientist to point out the newly added carbon atom, and there's no > > > instrumentality that the scientist can use to sniff-out the newbie, and > > > in fact, theoretically there is no difference to target. > > > > > > So why do we look and see only diamond on the right? To me this is the > > > same as asking what is the difference between Cosmic Ego and individual > > > ego. > > > > > > When we consider the boundaries of a 3D object, we are fuzzy and > > > arbitrary. We're ballparkish. We're playing horseshoes where getting > > > close is enough to score a point. My body's atoms' protons, neutrons > > > and electrons are identical to those of the atoms of the air I breathe. > > > Still small, we can hover near an oxygen atom's outer electron and not > > > be able to identify it as " belonging to an oxygen atom, " nor can we > > > identify the outer electrons of my skin's carbon atoms as " carbonish > > > electrons. " So how does one precisely designate where my body begins? > > > > > > Can't tell. > > > > > > That is the arbitrary boarder of small self and Cosmic Self. > > > > > > When a saint has so refined the nervous system that he/she can see that > > > the body is SEAMLESSLY residing in a matrix of identical parts and that > > > these parts extend for 13 billion light years in all directions, it is > > > quite understandable for that saint to opine that his/her body is the > > > universe. > > > > > > We all know the concept of infinite correlation - the butterfly's > > > flutter's energy is eventually felt everywhere, and thus everything > > > affects everything. Just so, a Cosmic Egoed saint can rightly argue > > > that he/she is omnipresent in the universe just as you or I could argue > > > that our awareness is omnipresent throughout our localized and > > > arbitrarily defined bodies. See? > > > > > > Now we've got a working definition of a saint -- still limited by time > > > and space, but pretty close to God. The outer limits of God's " body " is > > > (laws of physics in operation) not easily defined, because the outer > > > electrons that abut " deep empty space " are radiating, and this radiation > > > can be measured for, presumably, out as far as another 13 billion light > > > years farther out since the universe has existed for that span of time, > > > and thus the radiation has had that much time to get that far away from > > > the outer most electrons. > > > > > > So, God's body is about 37 billion light years wide. Cool math, eh? > > > > > > But does God agree? Maybe God thinks that His/Hers body is also the > > > space that the radiation of the outer electrons is, even now, expanding > > > into. God's Big Bang is continuing, ya see? So God can say, " Hey, all > > > that space that I'll eventually enter is Me too. " And space -- well, we > > > don't know if that ever ends or what? or even if we have a working > > > definition of the term " space " when we are not allowed to fill it with > > > some sort of " markers. " God can chuckle if we try to say He/She's got a > > > limited body if we allow space to be " part of " Him/Her. > > > > > > See? We're defining God in a way that reveals the limitations of our > > > imaginations. > > > > > > Okay, now here's GOD (an ironic acronym for Get Over Defining,) and we > > > ask if God could take another step in " bigness " when He/She is already > > > being defined, at least space-wisely, as unendingly infinite. The word > > > " unending " reveals that God's body is time-bound, so God can say, " Hey, > > > every when is also within My definition of body. I'm so perfectly able > > > to remember what has happened that it is as if I'm still there watching > > > it happen, and my mind is so adroit that at any given time at any given > > > space, I can deduce the operations of all My parts, and, additionally, > > > My mind can predict all the possible future operations of all things. " > > > > > > But, still, we see God's limited to defining Him/Herself as imprisoned > > > within space/time's definitions. > > > > > > Okay, NOW, how does God expand His/Her definition of Self? > > > > > > Only by Grace. Only by shutting down the Cosmic Ego into amness (God > > > closes His/Her eyes and does tapas,) can we imagine another step in the > > > process: making God bigger. Only by God realizing the limitations of > > > time/space and discovering THAT can God solve the " getting bigger " > > > puzzle. Only by realizing that all imaginable phenomena and the > > > time/space in which they exist are definitively claustrophobic can God > > > leap out of Godness into > > > God-plus-all-that's-left-out-of-the-definition-of-God. > > > > > > That's when God finally realizes that all possibilities are graspable, > > > but to include the Ungraspable in the definition of Self is the last > > > step possible in personal evolution. Here language fails. God gets > > > enlightened by embracing paradox, enfolding non-sensibility, and Elvis > > > leaves the building (creation.) And, don't miss, that all this > > > transitioning can be experienced from the localized body's point of > > > view. The small ego can be seen as a cub reporter with a hot scoop. > > > > > > So, all you atoms out there assembled in arbitrary packettes, is ya > > > exultationing? Is ya seeing that your challenge is the same as God's, > > > and that you must transcend the intellect's ability to define Self? Are > > > you going to assert that your packette's summations about my packette's > > > summations are not arbitrarily handcuffed by bogus gerrymandered > > > boarderlines of local embodiments? > > > > > > So there's your Sunday morning sermon's question -- homework fer ya. > > > > > > And don't be coming back to me with " my dog ate it " excuses. > > > > > > Edg > > > > > >B: whatever gets you you through your days and nights is just alright. it doesn't matter. > Edg: B, Um, is that an axiom for you? Care to expand that poem? Not sure if you just dashed that off and would disavow various interpretations such as " the ends justifies the means. " I think there's spiritual meat on those bones still to be vulchered off. > > P: You hit the nail on the head! I can tell > how much pleasure Edg felt in writing that, > and that Werner felt none in reading it, > goes to show that we really do not write > to please the reader, but to please ourselves. Edg: P, I love writing as a conversation between my egoic editor and my brain's thought-committee. I usually simply am a typist getting it down, but when I get even the slightest hesitation in accepting the flow of thought, then I " stop " and the thought-committee gives me alternatives in the silence of my waiting. Or the editor sometimes says something very dramatic like: " Whoa, dude, dude, dude, that is such bullshit, kneejerk, dogmatism; where's your syllogism to arrive at that goofyassed conclusion? " I'll tell ya, even though it's perfectly true that I'm a world-class narcissist, the conversations that happen inside my mind are true entertainment. To me it's like peering over God's shoulder as He/She writes the words and argues with Him/Herself about them. I'd call my writing process a form of meditation in that I can, to a significant degree, stand aside and let the clockworks mesh the gears without my doing anything. Not exactly inquiry, but I think it has some evolutionary impact on my attachment to my writing. I reread and hone each post many times before posting, but afterwards, typically, I'll reread a post once days later to see if the meaning I meant still gets triggered by the words. Often, the words are " now dead " in that I've moved on and grown out of the smaller point of view by having arrived at some clarity during the writing process. If anything, my posts chronicle my path, and that's enough for me to feel like Johnny Appleseed. > > Despite mounting boos the writer must continue > to write as you have done in the past, and Anna > does too. Edg: If there are no boos, then the audience isn't listening, for all conclusions are false, so the writer, knowing the impotency of words, must weasel his/her way into the hearts of the audience, and get them to " work with the words, cuz, hey, I'm a funzies kinda guy, and I cared enough to take the risk of putting them before you, and there's a good chance you'll enjoy how they get your thought-committee to percolate. " If there is only applause, nice, but the writer cannot feel nearly as connected to that audience as much as to an audience that " doesn't get the joke now and then " and offers the writer that most precious of gifts: a blast of feedback, a steaming hunk of silence. And, a snark response is like Mother Divine's love, right? Any awareness is love, right? Even a third grade boy pulling the pigtails of the girl in the seat in front of him knows that her angry snarl is love, right? I did read his piece, but found no thing > new but analogies. Edg: If you actually did find some new analogies, my heart leaps! Me? Original? I swoon. One can't not prove anything > with analogy and metaphor. Edg: I do try to " prove " when I write, but only to myself. Believe me, I had no faith that my words mean anything near to the readers that they mean to me. I can't waste my time trying to conjure up a spell that they feel is properly worded such that they can use them for their incantations also. The words have to quiet down some part of me that's straining at the leash to get out of my mind; before I post, some magical decision has to be made, and I'm not the guy who decides that. Nope, ego just sits there and waits for a signal from the brain to " let the words out of the chute, " and the ego says, " Hear ye, hear ye, I just wrote something! " Ignoring the thought-committee, ya see? Authorship: it's what a thief eats for breakfast. He tries to built his > cosmology with the same leggo pieces of ego, Cosmic > Ego, Amness, Identity, god, and Absolute, but his > imagination is not up to the task. Edg: Ha ha ha! Look who's using an analogy! Leggo pieces of ego? -- that's deliciously precious. And, hey, until enlightenment dawns, my cosmology's basic building blocks are like squirming puppies in my lap. It's a bitch to keep them from licking my face off, but I'm laughing the whole time. Playing with these concepts can be (Leggo alert, danger, danger) likened to shooting up heroin, but show me a person who doesn't love a flood of puppies? (Is that a mixed metaphor or a puree of analogs?) I can go up to a derelict on the street and ask, " Do you believe in God? " and that person will take the time out of his/her busy schedule and engage me -- not just slough me off -- engage me. So don't tell me that there's no philosophy being juggled out there or that I'm some sort of rare concept collecting geek. Everyone's addicted. Even the posters here, so wise in so many ways, so impressively sensitive to the nuances of identification, are addicted. Come on, someone, anyone, can we all just admit we are spellbound lovers laying on our backs on some summer lawn watching the night sky for flashing streaks of brilliance? Nature created > life out of the four leggo pieces of DNA, but it > had three billions years to experiment. Edg: Nah, the greys did all the DNA experimenting on our gene pool -- trying to regain their lost ability to emote donchaknow. But they were banned from tweaking us any more by the Galactic Council of Alien Species, ya see? So let's > not be too rough on Edg, let Edg have fun, even > if he missed that what makes diamond a cut above > carbon is form, the face centered cubic shape. > Yes, as an arch made of the same stones as a wall > can support more weight, carbon atoms get harder > with the face centered cubic shape. Form is matter, > matter is form. Edg: Now just you wait a damned second, bub. I mentioned the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and that's all about orderliness and how form dominates function far more than substance can. If you're thinking I don't grok " form, " put up yer dukes. If you want to pretend we're not Advaitans for a while, I'll go toe to toe with you about the concept of entropy and the heat death of the universe and why a proton will eventually decay, and all that. But nope, 'tis wrong to say carbon atoms get harder. You were typing too fast, eh? The arrangement of atoms is the issue, not the " crushability of the carbon atom. " They can be crushed, yeah, but only inside the core of a star going nova! A diamond's carbon atoms are IDENTICAL to coal's. The arrangement of those atoms can be called " form, " and that's important, but my post was about the arbitrary nature of the boundaries of form. If I say, " from here on, all the carbon atoms are diamond, but all those over there are coal, " you can rightly ask how I knew exactly where the borderline is, and you can rub my nose in the fact that there's no way to draw that line without being arbitrary. Thus the individual ego is a subset of Cosmic Ego -- why it's as obvious as a shotgun in a crib. > > Well, I have fun writing this, so I thank Edg. ) Edg: I'm thinking I just got fulfilled. Ahhhhhh.....nothing like pronging minds and drinking coffee. > > Hey, Bob, blow Werner a kiss. We need Werner, we > need every poster here to have our fun. i love having fun with wernie. i'll blow him a kiss.. and then just keep it simple for him.. he can simply just blow me. how fair is that? :-) ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 Re: Re: The Cosmic Ego -- and beyond At 02:49 PM 7/19/2009, you wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " duveyoung " <edg@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Warning, danger, danger, bigass concept being spotlit by a blind man's > > > > non-existent ego. > > > > > > > > So, there, I admitted it, and now you don't have to hammer that concept > > > > if you reply to this post, but, but, but I think I've got something > > > > rarely said, if ever, in Advaita circles. You snipers out there, can ya > > > > shoot real bullets at it instead of yelling " pow pow pow you're dead " as > > > > I did at age ten? If the reasoning below if flawed, I would grateful > > > > for any corrections. > > > > > > > > Here goes: > > > > > > > > As usual, let me start with something not intuitively germane to the > > > > topic at hand: the difference between diamond and coal. > > > > > > > > You know that a diamond starts off as " something coalish " and that under > > > > great pressure and heat gets compressed into a close-packing orderliness > > > > that makes it have all the qualities of diamond. But both diamond and > > > > coal retain their atoms of carbon -- nothing other than > > > > " orderliness-snapshots " can distinguish diamond from coal if a scientist > > > > examines both. Only diamond's orderliness accounts for the dramatic > > > > differences. For details, see the Second Law of Thermodynamics. > > > > > > > > So, let's pretend that via Pantanjali's smaller-than-an-atom sutra, > > > > we've been tiny-ized and are hovering in that space between the two > > > > surfaces; we see the carbon atoms of the coal's surface abutting the > > > > diamond's carbon atoms. (Well, we'd see the magnetic fields of the > > > > outer electrons of carbon atoms repelling the magnetic fields of the > > > > outer electrons of other carbon atoms.) > > > > > > > > There we are right on the carbonental divide. On our right we see only > > > > diamond, on the left only coal, but in either direction all we actually > > > > see are (by the laws of physics this is true) IDENTICAL carbon atoms. > > > > Identical in number of electrons, neutrons, protons and their positions > > > > relative to each other. > > > > > > > > Get that? Show a top scientist two carbons atoms, and then take them > > > > away, and then show the scientist three carbon atoms, and ask the > > > > scientist to point out the newly added carbon atom, and there's no > > > > instrumentality that the scientist can use to sniff-out the newbie, and > > > > in fact, theoretically there is no difference to target. > > > > > > > > So why do we look and see only diamond on the right? To me this is the > > > > same as asking what is the difference between Cosmic Ego and individual > > > > ego. > > > > > > > > When we consider the boundaries of a 3D object, we are fuzzy and > > > > arbitrary. We're ballparkish. We're playing horseshoes where getting > > > > close is enough to score a point. My body's atoms' protons, neutrons > > > > and electrons are identical to those of the atoms of the air I breathe. > > > > Still small, we can hover near an oxygen atom's outer electron and not > > > > be able to identify it as " belonging to an oxygen atom, " nor can we > > > > identify the outer electrons of my skin's carbon atoms as " carbonish > > > > electrons. " So how does one precisely designate where my body begins? > > > > > > > > Can't tell. > > > > > > > > That is the arbitrary boarder of small self and Cosmic Self. > > > > > > > > When a saint has so refined the nervous system that he/she can see that > > > > the body is SEAMLESSLY residing in a matrix of identical parts and that > > > > these parts extend for 13 billion light years in all directions, it is > > > > quite understandable for that saint to opine that his/her body is the > > > > universe. > > > > > > > > We all know the concept of infinite correlation - the butterfly's > > > > flutter's energy is eventually felt everywhere, and thus everything > > > > affects everything. Just so, a Cosmic Egoed saint can rightly argue > > > > that he/she is omnipresent in the universe just as you or I could argue > > > > that our awareness is omnipresent throughout our localized and > > > > arbitrarily defined bodies. See? > > > > > > > > Now we've got a working definition of a saint -- still limited by time > > > > and space, but pretty close to God. The outer limits of God's " body " is > > > > (laws of physics in operation) not easily defined, because the outer > > > > electrons that abut " deep empty space " are radiating, and this radiation > > > > can be measured for, presumably, out as far as another 13 billion light > > > > years farther out since the universe has existed for that span of time, > > > > and thus the radiation has had that much time to get that far away from > > > > the outer most electrons. > > > > > > > > So, God's body is about 37 billion light years wide. Cool math, eh? > > > > > > > > But does God agree? Maybe God thinks that His/Hers body is also the > > > > space that the radiation of the outer electrons is, even now, expanding > > > > into. God's Big Bang is continuing, ya see? So God can say, " Hey, all > > > > that space that I'll eventually enter is Me too. " And space -- well, we > > > > don't know if that ever ends or what? or even if we have a working > > > > definition of the term " space " when we are not allowed to fill it with > > > > some sort of " markers. " God can chuckle if we try to say He/She's got a > > > > limited body if we allow space to be " part of " Him/Her. > > > > > > > > See? We're defining God in a way that reveals the limitations of our > > > > imaginations. > > > > > > > > Okay, now here's GOD (an ironic acronym for Get Over Defining,) and we > > > > ask if God could take another step in " bigness " when He/She is already > > > > being defined, at least space-wisely, as unendingly infinite. The word > > > > " unending " reveals that God's body is time-bound, so God can say, " Hey, > > > > every when is also within My definition of body. I'm so perfectly able > > > > to remember what has happened that it is as if I'm still there watching > > > > it happen, and my mind is so adroit that at any given time at any given > > > > space, I can deduce the operations of all My parts, and, additionally, > > > > My mind can predict all the possible future operations of all things. " > > > > > > > > But, still, we see God's limited to defining Him/Herself as imprisoned > > > > within space/time's definitions. > > > > > > > > Okay, NOW, how does God expand His/Her definition of Self? > > > > > > > > Only by Grace. Only by shutting down the Cosmic Ego into amness (God > > > > closes His/Her eyes and does tapas,) can we imagine another step in the > > > > process: making God bigger. Only by God realizing the limitations of > > > > time/space and discovering THAT can God solve the " getting bigger " > > > > puzzle. Only by realizing that all imaginable phenomena and the > > > > time/space in which they exist are definitively claustrophobic can God > > > > leap out of Godness into > > > > God-plus-all-that's-left-out-of-the-definition-of-God. > > > > > > > > That's when God finally realizes that all possibilities are graspable, > > > > but to include the Ungraspable in the definition of Self is the last > > > > step possible in personal evolution. Here language fails. God gets > > > > enlightened by embracing paradox, enfolding non-sensibility, and Elvis > > > > leaves the building (creation.) And, don't miss, that all this > > > > transitioning can be experienced from the localized body's point of > > > > view. The small ego can be seen as a cub reporter with a hot scoop. > > > > > > > > So, all you atoms out there assembled in arbitrary packettes, is ya > > > > exultationing? Is ya seeing that your challenge is the same as God's, > > > > and that you must transcend the intellect's ability to define Self? Are > > > > you going to assert that your packette's summations about my packette's > > > > summations are not arbitrarily handcuffed by bogus gerrymandered > > > > boarderlines of local embodiments? > > > > > > > > So there's your Sunday morning sermon's question -- homework fer ya. > > > > > > > > And don't be coming back to me with " my dog ate it " excuses. > > > > > > > > Edg > > > > > > > > >B: whatever gets you you through your days and nights is just alright. it doesn't matter. > > Edg: B, Um, is that an axiom for you? Care to expand that poem? Not sure if you just dashed that off and would disavow various interpretations such as " the ends justifies the means. " I think there's spiritual meat on those bones still to be vulchered off. > > > > > P: You hit the nail on the head! I can tell > > how much pleasure Edg felt in writing that, > > and that Werner felt none in reading it, > > goes to show that we really do not write > > to please the reader, but to please ourselves. Edg: P, I love writing as a conversation between my egoic editor and my brain's thought-committee. I usually simply am a typist getting it down, but when I get even the slightest hesitation in accepting the flow of thought, then I " stop " and the thought-committee gives me alternatives in the silence of my waiting. Or the editor sometimes says something very dramatic like: " Whoa, dude, dude, dude, that is such bullshit, kneejerk, dogmatism; where's your syllogism to arrive at that goofyassed conclusion? " I'll tell ya, even though it's perfectly true that I'm a world-class narcissist, the conversations that happen inside my mind are true entertainment. To me it's like peering over God's shoulder as He/She writes the words and argues with Him/Herself about them. I'd call my writing process a form of meditation in that I can, to a significant degree, stand aside and let the clockworks mesh the gears without my doing anything. Not exactly inquiry, but I think it has some evolutionary impact on my attachment to my writing. I reread and hone each post many times before posting, but afterwards, typically, I'll reread a post once days later to see if the meaning I meant still gets triggered by the words. Often, the words are " now dead " in that I've moved on and grown out of the smaller point of view by having arrived at some clarity during the writing process. If anything, my posts chronicle my path, and that's enough for me to feel like Johnny Appleseed. > > > > Despite mounting boos the writer must continue > > to write as you have done in the past, and Anna > > does too. Edg: If there are no boos, then the audience isn't listening, for all conclusions are false, so the writer, knowing the impotency of words, must weasel his/her way into the hearts of the audience, and get them to " work with the words, cuz, hey, I'm a funzies kinda guy, and I cared enough to take the risk of putting them before you, and there's a good chance you'll enjoy how they get your thought-committee to percolate. " If there is only applause, nice, but the writer cannot feel nearly as connected to that audience as much as to an audience that " doesn't get the joke now and then " and offers the writer that most precious of gifts: a blast of feedback, a steaming hunk of silence. And, a snark response is like Mother Divine's love, right? Any awareness is love, right? Even a third grade boy pulling the pigtails of the girl in the seat in front of him knows that her angry snarl is love, right? > I did read his piece, but found no thing > > new but analogies. Edg: If you actually did find some new analogies, my heart leaps! Me? Original? I swoon. > One can't not prove anything > > with analogy and metaphor. Edg: I do try to " prove " when I write, but only to myself. Believe me, I had no faith that my words mean anything near to the readers that they mean to me. I can't waste my time trying to conjure up a spell that they feel is properly worded such that they can use them for their incantations also. The words have to quiet down some part of me that's straining at the leash to get out of my mind; before I post, some magical decision has to be made, and I'm not the guy who decides that. Nope, ego just sits there and waits for a signal from the brain to " let the words out of the chute, " and the ego says, " Hear ye, hear ye, I just wrote something! " Ignoring the thought-committee, ya see? Authorship: it's what a thief eats for breakfast. > He tries to built his > > cosmology with the same leggo pieces of ego, Cosmic > > Ego, Amness, Identity, god, and Absolute, but his > > imagination is not up to the task. Edg: Ha ha ha! Look who's using an analogy! Leggo pieces of ego? -- that's deliciously precious. And, hey, until enlightenment dawns, my cosmology's basic building blocks are like squirming puppies in my lap. It's a bitch to keep them from licking my face off, but I'm laughing the whole time. Playing with these concepts can be (Leggo alert, danger, danger) likened to shooting up heroin, but show me a person who doesn't love a flood of puppies? (Is that a mixed metaphor or a puree of analogs?) I can go up to a derelict on the street and ask, " Do you believe in God? " and that person will take the time out of his/her busy schedule and engage me -- not just slough me off -- engage me. So don't tell me that there's no philosophy being juggled out there or that I'm some sort of rare concept collecting geek. Everyone's addicted. Even the posters here, so wise in so many ways, so impressively sensitive to the nuances of identification, are addicted. Come on, someone, anyone, can we all just admit we are spellbound lovers laying on our backs on some summer lawn watching the night sky for flashing streaks of brilliance? > Nature created > > life out of the four leggo pieces of DNA, but it > > had three billions years to experiment. Edg: Nah, the greys did all the DNA experimenting on our gene pool -- trying to regain their lost ability to emote donchaknow. But they were banned from tweaking us any more by the Galactic Council of Alien Species, ya see? > So let's > > not be too rough on Edg, let Edg have fun, even > > if he missed that what makes diamond a cut above > > carbon is form, the face centered cubic shape. > > Yes, as an arch made of the same stones as a wall > > can support more weight, carbon atoms get harder > > with the face centered cubic shape. Form is matter, > > matter is form. Edg: Now just you wait a damned second, bub. I mentioned the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and that's all about orderliness and how form dominates function far more than substance can. If you're thinking I don't grok " form, " put up yer dukes. If you want to pretend we're not Advaitans for a while, I'll go toe to toe with you about the concept of entropy and the heat death of the universe and why a proton will eventually decay, and all that. But nope, 'tis wrong to say carbon atoms get harder. You were typing too fast, eh? The arrangement of atoms is the issue, not the " crushability of the carbon atom. " They can be crushed, yeah, but only inside the core of a star going nova! A diamond's carbon atoms are IDENTICAL to coal's. The arrangement of those atoms can be called " form, " and that's important, but my post was about the arbitrary nature of the boundaries of form. If I say, " from here on, all the carbon atoms are diamond, but all those over there are coal, " you can rightly ask how I knew exactly where the borderline is, and you can rub my nose in the fact that there's no way to draw that line without being arbitrary. Thus the individual ego is a subset of Cosmic Ego -- why it's as obvious as a shotgun in a crib. > > > > Well, I have fun writing this, so I thank Edg. ) >Edg: I'm thinking I just got fulfilled. Ahhhhhh.....nothing like >pronging minds and drinking coffee. whatever gets you through your days and nights.. is just alright. ..b b.b. 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.