Guest guest Posted December 14, 2009 Report Share Posted December 14, 2009 Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right on > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Couple a years ago I would talk a lot about nothingness and > > > > > > > > > > emptiness and not distinguish between them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A person, familiar with buddhism, kindly told me a couple of > > > > > > > > > > times or more that in buddhism emptiness and nothingness are > > > > > > > > > > not the same. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I never really understood the difference till last night. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What happened last night? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P: Nothing! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right. You have hereby answered your own question to me: > > > > > > > what is the difference between emptiness and nothingness. > > > > > > > Thanks vm - always appreciate it when others do the hard > > > > > > > work for me ... if you will excuse du conventional lingo. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > > > > > > > P: No, I didn't answer, but I could, since you don't want > > > > > > to. Emptiness in Buddhist is a concept that indicates > > > > > > lack of independent self-hood. When a Buddhist says, all > > > > > > things are empty, it means no thing can exist of itself, > > > > > > but comes into being in relation. This applies even to > > > > > > Buddhahood, and emptiness itself. Nothing means total absence, > > > > > > including the absence of the presence of absence. > > > > > > > > > > > > Nothingness, of course, doesn't exist. A perfect vacuum has been > > > > > > demonstrated to have the negative energy of virtual particles > > > > > > appearing and disappearing in space. Nothing is just another > > > > > > word for unconsciousness, total not knowing. Of course, I'm > > > > > > not saying my understanding is th same as yours. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the explanation. > > > > > > > > > > Our understanding is not different from one another regarding > > > > > emptiness and nothingness. > > > > > > > > > > Will try to remember the expression " self-hood " . I never know > > > > > what to call it. > > > > > > > > > > The whole thing became clear to me in a dream this morning. I > > > > > am talking about the difference between dream where self-hood > > > > > is present - and dream when self-hood is absent, and there is > > > > > but relating without a relator (self, observer, thinker etc.) > > > > > Empty center. At a certain point in the dream a self-creature > > > > > entered which created incredible havoc - because the self was > > > > > like outside the dream and interfering with what was going on > > > > > from its apparently outside-of-the-dream position. The result > > > > > was conflict of course as always, when there is this distance > > > > > between one and one, which makes for the illusion that one is > > > > > two - but then the whole dream is an illusion already so what > > > > > the heck - except the dream is much nicer, when there is only > > > > > one present - when it is but one presence -- relating with it > > > > > self. > > > > > > > > > > It (little red selfhood) came (not a surprise) in the form of > > > > > thinking, speculation, reflection about what was taking place > > > > > in the dream. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And most important - qua this creation of division which breeds > > > > confusion and conflict -- this " self " wants to be in control of > > > > the confusion which its very own entering the stage has created > > > > and what used to be " just a flow of a little of everything " now becomes a veritable battle-field. > > > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > > > > yet in Actuality... > > > > > > between " this creation of division " .. > > > > > > and.. > > > > > > " just a flow of a little of everything " .. > > > > > > not a Moment of difference Arises. > > > > > > the " real-time bastard.. > > > > > > is not other than the most subliminal Divine. > > > > > > let " Us " here together once again ponder the words of the sage.. > > > > > > Franklin-Merrell-Wolff.. > > > > > > baba's first..last...and only mentor: > > > > > > APHORISMS ON CONSCIOUSNESS-WITHOUT-AN-OBJECT > > > > > > • > > > > > > 1. Consciousness-without-an-object is. > > > > > > • > > > > > > 2. Before objects were, Consciousness-without-an-object is. > > > > > > • > > > > > > 3. Though objects seem to exist, Consciousness-without-an-object is. > > > > > > • > > > > > > 4. When objects vanish, yet remaining through all unaffected, Consciousness-without-an-object is. > > > > > > • > > > > > > 5. Outside of Consciousness-without-an-object nothing is. > > > > > > • > > > > > > 6. Within the bosom of Consciousness-without-an-object lies the power of awareness that projects objects. > > > > > > • > > > > > > 7. When objects are projected, the power of awareness as subject is presupposed, yet Consciousness-without-an-object remains unchanged. > > > > > > • > > > > > > 8. When consciousness of objects is born, then, likewise, consciousness of absence of objects arises. > > > > > > • > > > > > > 9. Consciousness of objects is the Universe. > > > > > > • > > > > > > 10. Consciousness of absence of objects is Nirvana. > > > > > > • > > > > > > 11. Within Consciousness-without-an-object lie both the Universe and Nirvana, yet to Consciousness-without-an-object these two are the same. > > > > > > • > > > > > > 12. Within Consciousness-without-an-object lies the seed of Time. > > > > > > • > > > > > > 13. When awareness cognizes Time then knowledge of Timelessness is born. > > > > > > • > > > > > > 14. To be aware of Time is to be aware of the Universe, and to be aware of the Universe is to be aware of Time. > > > > > > • > > > > > > 15. To realize Timelessness is to attain Nirvana. > > > > > > • > > > > > > 16. But for Consciousness-without-an-object there is no difference between Time and Timelessness. > > > > > > • > > > > > > 17. Within Consciousness-without-an-object lies the seed of the world-containing Space. > > > > > > • > > > > > > 18. When awareness cognizes the world-containing Space then knowledge of the Spatial Void is born. > > > > > > • > > > > > > 19. To be aware of the world-containing Space is to be aware of the Universe of Objects. > > > > > > • > > > > > > 20. To realize the Spatial Void is to awaken to Nirvanic Consciousness. > > > > > > • > > > > > > 21. But for Consciousness-without-an-object there is no difference between the world-containing Space and the Spatial Void. > > > > > > • > > > > > > 22. Within Consciousness-without-an-object lies the Seed of Law. > > > > > > • > > > > > > 23. When consciousness of objects is born the Law is invoked as a Force tending ever toward Equilibrium. > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, that is me all right. Born on the 23rd I always skim lists > > like this with numbers till I get to the no. 23. If what it says > > there is true - I guess the rest of it is too > > > > It is a long list and I will read it carefully when/if I get the > > opportunity. > > > > Thank you Bob - have a nice one. > > > > -Lene > > > > > > there is nothing beyond 23. > > there is nothing before 23. > > there is no..nor has been..a true 23. > > > the Pointless Point.. > > from which some though not many... > > can see What they see.. > > What they see's THAT they see.. > > there' no " you " nor no " me " . > > > opportunity knocks not twice. > > like the postman so nice. > > both and neither are true. > > but don't you be blue. > > > if to skim is your whim > > don't go out on a limb. > > it matter's not a whit. > > this Dark never get's lit. > > > > the Dazzling Dark > > is not known by a lark > > it's felt only lightly > > the One sole Almighty. > > > so now don't " you " read.. there's no need there's no need. > > there's no thinking there's no nothing.. no need to need feed. > > it's by taking no thought > > that the Light is Self-caught. > > > .b b.b. > > > > p.s. > > thanks for the salutation. > > the Only One i can take is Always a Good One. > > i wouldn't nor couldn't.. > > have " IT " any other Way. > > :-) > > [.bx3] Onederful poem - nonederful peom Thought is so busy telling tales about nothing The nothing that happened yesterday The nothing that shall happen tomorrow Thus thought is endlessly producing and reproducing nothing That is onederful and nonederful There is no final question - there is no final answer as how can there be when there is but a infinite flux of absolutely nothing And thought expressing the nothing that never happened and trying to find out what precisely it was that never happened Yes Love Lene Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 14, 2009 Report Share Posted December 14, 2009 - Lene Nisargadatta Monday, December 14, 2009 7:47 AM Re: Attachment Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " > > > > > > > > <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right on > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Couple a years ago I would talk a lot about nothingness > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > emptiness and not distinguish between them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A person, familiar with buddhism, kindly told me a > > > > > > > > > > couple of > > > > > > > > > > times or more that in buddhism emptiness and nothingness > > > > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > > > not the same. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I never really understood the difference till last > > > > > > > > > > night. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What happened last night? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P: Nothing! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right. You have hereby answered your own question to me: > > > > > > > what is the difference between emptiness and nothingness. > > > > > > > Thanks vm - always appreciate it when others do the hard > > > > > > > work for me ... if you will excuse du conventional lingo. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > > > > > > > P: No, I didn't answer, but I could, since you don't want > > > > > > to. Emptiness in Buddhist is a concept that indicates > > > > > > lack of independent self-hood. When a Buddhist says, all > > > > > > things are empty, it means no thing can exist of itself, > > > > > > but comes into being in relation. This applies even to > > > > > > Buddhahood, and emptiness itself. Nothing means total absence, > > > > > > including the absence of the presence of absence. > > > > > > > > > > > > Nothingness, of course, doesn't exist. A perfect vacuum has been > > > > > > demonstrated to have the negative energy of virtual particles > > > > > > appearing and disappearing in space. Nothing is just another > > > > > > word for unconsciousness, total not knowing. Of course, I'm > > > > > > not saying my understanding is th same as yours. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the explanation. > > > > > > > > > > Our understanding is not different from one another regarding > > > > > emptiness and nothingness. > > > > > > > > > > Will try to remember the expression " self-hood " . I never know > > > > > what to call it. > > > > > > > > > > The whole thing became clear to me in a dream this morning. I > > > > > am talking about the difference between dream where self-hood > > > > > is present - and dream when self-hood is absent, and there is > > > > > but relating without a relator (self, observer, thinker etc.) > > > > > Empty center. At a certain point in the dream a self-creature > > > > > entered which created incredible havoc - because the self was > > > > > like outside the dream and interfering with what was going on > > > > > from its apparently outside-of-the-dream position. The result > > > > > was conflict of course as always, when there is this distance > > > > > between one and one, which makes for the illusion that one is > > > > > two - but then the whole dream is an illusion already so what > > > > > the heck - except the dream is much nicer, when there is only > > > > > one present - when it is but one presence -- relating with it > > > > > self. > > > > > > > > > > It (little red selfhood) came (not a surprise) in the form of > > > > > thinking, speculation, reflection about what was taking place > > > > > in the dream. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And most important - qua this creation of division which breeds > > > > confusion and conflict -- this " self " wants to be in control of > > > > the confusion which its very own entering the stage has created > > > > and what used to be " just a flow of a little of everything " now > > > > becomes a veritable battle-field. > > > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > > > > yet in Actuality... > > > > > > between " this creation of division " .. > > > > > > and.. > > > > > > " just a flow of a little of everything " .. > > > > > > not a Moment of difference Arises. > > > > > > the " real-time bastard.. > > > > > > is not other than the most subliminal Divine. > > > > > > let " Us " here together once again ponder the words of the sage.. > > > > > > Franklin-Merrell-Wolff.. > > > > > > baba's first..last...and only mentor: > > > > > > APHORISMS ON CONSCIOUSNESS-WITHOUT-AN-OBJECT > > > > > > . > > > > > > 1. Consciousness-without-an-object is. > > > > > > . > > > > > > 2. Before objects were, Consciousness-without-an-object is. > > > > > > . > > > > > > 3. Though objects seem to exist, Consciousness-without-an-object is. > > > > > > . > > > > > > 4. When objects vanish, yet remaining through all unaffected, > > > Consciousness-without-an-object is. > > > > > > . > > > > > > 5. Outside of Consciousness-without-an-object nothing is. > > > > > > . > > > > > > 6. Within the bosom of Consciousness-without-an-object lies the power > > > of awareness that projects objects. > > > > > > . > > > > > > 7. When objects are projected, the power of awareness as subject is > > > presupposed, yet Consciousness-without-an-object remains unchanged. > > > > > > . > > > > > > 8. When consciousness of objects is born, then, likewise, > > > consciousness of absence of objects arises. > > > > > > . > > > > > > 9. Consciousness of objects is the Universe. > > > > > > . > > > > > > 10. Consciousness of absence of objects is Nirvana. > > > > > > . > > > > > > 11. Within Consciousness-without-an-object lie both the Universe and > > > Nirvana, yet to Consciousness-without-an-object these two are the > > > same. > > > > > > . > > > > > > 12. Within Consciousness-without-an-object lies the seed of Time. > > > > > > . > > > > > > 13. When awareness cognizes Time then knowledge of Timelessness is > > > born. > > > > > > . > > > > > > 14. To be aware of Time is to be aware of the Universe, and to be > > > aware of the Universe is to be aware of Time. > > > > > > . > > > > > > 15. To realize Timelessness is to attain Nirvana. > > > > > > . > > > > > > 16. But for Consciousness-without-an-object there is no difference > > > between Time and Timelessness. > > > > > > . > > > > > > 17. Within Consciousness-without-an-object lies the seed of the > > > world-containing Space. > > > > > > . > > > > > > 18. When awareness cognizes the world-containing Space then knowledge > > > of the Spatial Void is born. > > > > > > . > > > > > > 19. To be aware of the world-containing Space is to be aware of the > > > Universe of Objects. > > > > > > . > > > > > > 20. To realize the Spatial Void is to awaken to Nirvanic > > > Consciousness. > > > > > > . > > > > > > 21. But for Consciousness-without-an-object there is no difference > > > between the world-containing Space and the Spatial Void. > > > > > > . > > > > > > 22. Within Consciousness-without-an-object lies the Seed of Law. > > > > > > . > > > > > > 23. When consciousness of objects is born the Law is invoked as a > > > Force tending ever toward Equilibrium. > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, that is me all right. Born on the 23rd I always skim lists > > like this with numbers till I get to the no. 23. If what it says > > there is true - I guess the rest of it is too > > > > It is a long list and I will read it carefully when/if I get the > > opportunity. > > > > Thank you Bob - have a nice one. > > > > -Lene > > > > > > there is nothing beyond 23. > > there is nothing before 23. > > there is no..nor has been..a true 23. > > > the Pointless Point.. > > from which some though not many... > > can see What they see.. > > What they see's THAT they see.. > > there' no " you " nor no " me " . > > > opportunity knocks not twice. > > like the postman so nice. > > both and neither are true. > > but don't you be blue. > > > if to skim is your whim > > don't go out on a limb. > > it matter's not a whit. > > this Dark never get's lit. > > > > the Dazzling Dark > > is not known by a lark > > it's felt only lightly > > the One sole Almighty. > > > so now don't " you " read.. there's no need there's no need. > > there's no thinking there's no nothing.. no need to need feed. > > it's by taking no thought > > that the Light is Self-caught. > > > .b b.b. > > > > p.s. > > thanks for the salutation. > > the Only One i can take is Always a Good One. > > i wouldn't nor couldn't.. > > have " IT " any other Way. > > :-) > > [.bx3] Onederful poem - nonederful peom Thought is so busy telling tales about nothing The nothing that happened yesterday The nothing that shall happen tomorrow Thus thought is endlessly producing and reproducing nothing That is onederful and nonederful There is no final question - there is no final answer as how can there be when there is but a infinite flux of absolutely nothing And thought expressing the nothing that never happened and trying to find out what precisely it was that never happened Yes Love Lene So you decided to give some time, breathe deeply, close your eyes, relax, think of something else...and try a friendly chat with your old friends bbb... ....good. That is the way to go.... -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 14, 2009 Report Share Posted December 14, 2009 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right on > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Couple a years ago I would talk a lot about nothingness and > > > > > > > > emptiness and not distinguish between them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A person, familiar with buddhism, kindly told me a couple of > > > > > > > > times or more that in buddhism emptiness and nothingness are > > > > > > > > not the same. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I never really understood the difference till last night. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What happened last night? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P: Nothing! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right. You have hereby answered your own question to me: > > > > > what is the difference between emptiness and nothingness. > > > > > Thanks vm - always appreciate it when others do the hard > > > > > work for me ... if you will excuse du conventional lingo. > > > > > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > > > P: No, I didn't answer, but I could, since you don't want > > > > to. Emptiness in Buddhist is a concept that indicates > > > > lack of independent self-hood. When a Buddhist says, all > > > > things are empty, it means no thing can exist of itself, > > > > but comes into being in relation. This applies even to > > > > Buddhahood, and emptiness itself. Nothing means total absence, > > > > including the absence of the presence of absence. > > > > > > > > Nothingness, of course, doesn't exist. A perfect vacuum has been > > > > demonstrated to have the negative energy of virtual particles > > > > appearing and disappearing in space. Nothing is just another > > > > word for unconsciousness, total not knowing. Of course, I'm > > > > not saying my understanding is th same as yours. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the explanation. > > > > > > Our understanding is not different from one another regarding > > > emptiness and nothingness. > > > > > > Will try to remember the expression " self-hood " . I never know > > > what to call it. > > > > > > The whole thing became clear to me in a dream this morning. I > > > am talking about the difference between dream where self-hood > > > is present - and dream when self-hood is absent, and there is > > > but relating without a relator (self, observer, thinker etc.) > > > Empty center. At a certain point in the dream a self-creature > > > entered which created incredible havoc - because the self was > > > like outside the dream and interfering with what was going on > > > from its apparently outside-of-the-dream position. The result > > > was conflict of course as always, when there is this distance > > > between one and one, which makes for the illusion that one is > > > two - but then the whole dream is an illusion already so what > > > the heck - except the dream is much nicer, when there is only > > > one present - when it is but one presence -- relating with it > > > self. > > > > > > It (little red selfhood) came (not a surprise) in the form of > > > thinking, speculation, reflection about what was taking place > > > in the dream. > > > > > > > > And most important - qua this creation of division which breeds > > confusion and conflict -- this " self " wants to be in control of > > the confusion which its very own entering the stage has created > > and what used to be " just a flow of a little of everything " now becomes a veritable battle-field. > > > > -Lene > > P: Thanks for your answer. Emptiness and co-dependent > origination go together like this in Buddhism: Awareness > has no independent self. Awareness exist because the world > exist, the world exist because awareness exists. Both > depend on each other. They arise together luck in an > inescapable sine qua non. Reactivity to the world we > see abates when we realize that. Awareness and the world > will forever march in luck step changing as they go. > There is nothing to fight, it will change of itself like > a dream. Thanks P. I asked a teacher of religion this question: what is it that relates to what when it's given that everything is relative, ie but relations without any separate selves relating to one another, and given that this relativity is the only reality? We sort of agreed, that each of us are the world and what is relating then is the world relating to the world relating to the world. I am the world, you are the world, we are the ONE world relating to ITself. This world however is an illusion (in that the beginning and ending of it is the same & happens simulataneously wherefore nothing is happening as a matter of fact and this nothing is the world). Thoughts communicate the (n)ever happening relations, and it is thought which fixates what cannot be fixated - or IS that fixation of the non-fixable rather. That fixation is the known -- but what is known is, was, and will be eternally no thing happening. It is words which keep the wheel turning - not money -Lene Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 14, 2009 Report Share Posted December 14, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right on > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Couple a years ago I would talk a lot about nothingness and > > > > > > > > > > > emptiness and not distinguish between them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A person, familiar with buddhism, kindly told me a couple of > > > > > > > > > > > times or more that in buddhism emptiness and nothingness are > > > > > > > > > > > not the same. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I never really understood the difference till last night. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What happened last night? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P: Nothing! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right. You have hereby answered your own question to me: > > > > > > > > what is the difference between emptiness and nothingness. > > > > > > > > Thanks vm - always appreciate it when others do the hard > > > > > > > > work for me ... if you will excuse du conventional lingo. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P: No, I didn't answer, but I could, since you don't want > > > > > > > to. Emptiness in Buddhist is a concept that indicates > > > > > > > lack of independent self-hood. When a Buddhist says, all > > > > > > > things are empty, it means no thing can exist of itself, > > > > > > > but comes into being in relation. This applies even to > > > > > > > Buddhahood, and emptiness itself. Nothing means total absence, > > > > > > > including the absence of the presence of absence. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nothingness, of course, doesn't exist. A perfect vacuum has been > > > > > > > demonstrated to have the negative energy of virtual particles > > > > > > > appearing and disappearing in space. Nothing is just another > > > > > > > word for unconsciousness, total not knowing. Of course, I'm > > > > > > > not saying my understanding is th same as yours. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the explanation. > > > > > > > > > > > > Our understanding is not different from one another regarding > > > > > > emptiness and nothingness. > > > > > > > > > > > > Will try to remember the expression " self-hood " . I never know > > > > > > what to call it. > > > > > > > > > > > > The whole thing became clear to me in a dream this morning. I > > > > > > am talking about the difference between dream where self-hood > > > > > > is present - and dream when self-hood is absent, and there is > > > > > > but relating without a relator (self, observer, thinker etc.) > > > > > > Empty center. At a certain point in the dream a self-creature > > > > > > entered which created incredible havoc - because the self was > > > > > > like outside the dream and interfering with what was going on > > > > > > from its apparently outside-of-the-dream position. The result > > > > > > was conflict of course as always, when there is this distance > > > > > > between one and one, which makes for the illusion that one is > > > > > > two - but then the whole dream is an illusion already so what > > > > > > the heck - except the dream is much nicer, when there is only > > > > > > one present - when it is but one presence -- relating with it > > > > > > self. > > > > > > > > > > > > It (little red selfhood) came (not a surprise) in the form of > > > > > > thinking, speculation, reflection about what was taking place > > > > > > in the dream. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And most important - qua this creation of division which breeds > > > > > confusion and conflict -- this " self " wants to be in control of > > > > > the confusion which its very own entering the stage has created > > > > > and what used to be " just a flow of a little of everything " now becomes a veritable battle-field. > > > > > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > > > > > > > yet in Actuality... > > > > > > > > between " this creation of division " .. > > > > > > > > and.. > > > > > > > > " just a flow of a little of everything " .. > > > > > > > > not a Moment of difference Arises. > > > > > > > > the " real-time bastard.. > > > > > > > > is not other than the most subliminal Divine. > > > > > > > > let " Us " here together once again ponder the words of the sage.. > > > > > > > > Franklin-Merrell-Wolff.. > > > > > > > > baba's first..last...and only mentor: > > > > > > > > APHORISMS ON CONSCIOUSNESS-WITHOUT-AN-OBJECT > > > > > > > > • > > > > > > > > 1. Consciousness-without-an-object is. > > > > > > > > • > > > > > > > > 2. Before objects were, Consciousness-without-an-object is. > > > > > > > > • > > > > > > > > 3. Though objects seem to exist, Consciousness-without-an-object is. > > > > > > > > • > > > > > > > > 4. When objects vanish, yet remaining through all unaffected, Consciousness-without-an-object is. > > > > > > > > • > > > > > > > > 5. Outside of Consciousness-without-an-object nothing is. > > > > > > > > • > > > > > > > > 6. Within the bosom of Consciousness-without-an-object lies the power of awareness that projects objects. > > > > > > > > • > > > > > > > > 7. When objects are projected, the power of awareness as subject is presupposed, yet Consciousness-without-an-object remains unchanged. > > > > > > > > • > > > > > > > > 8. When consciousness of objects is born, then, likewise, consciousness of absence of objects arises. > > > > > > > > • > > > > > > > > 9. Consciousness of objects is the Universe. > > > > > > > > • > > > > > > > > 10. Consciousness of absence of objects is Nirvana. > > > > > > > > • > > > > > > > > 11. Within Consciousness-without-an-object lie both the Universe and Nirvana, yet to Consciousness-without-an-object these two are the same. > > > > > > > > • > > > > > > > > 12. Within Consciousness-without-an-object lies the seed of Time. > > > > > > > > • > > > > > > > > 13. When awareness cognizes Time then knowledge of Timelessness is born. > > > > > > > > • > > > > > > > > 14. To be aware of Time is to be aware of the Universe, and to be aware of the Universe is to be aware of Time. > > > > > > > > • > > > > > > > > 15. To realize Timelessness is to attain Nirvana. > > > > > > > > • > > > > > > > > 16. But for Consciousness-without-an-object there is no difference between Time and Timelessness. > > > > > > > > • > > > > > > > > 17. Within Consciousness-without-an-object lies the seed of the world-containing Space. > > > > > > > > • > > > > > > > > 18. When awareness cognizes the world-containing Space then knowledge of the Spatial Void is born. > > > > > > > > • > > > > > > > > 19. To be aware of the world-containing Space is to be aware of the Universe of Objects. > > > > > > > > • > > > > > > > > 20. To realize the Spatial Void is to awaken to Nirvanic Consciousness. > > > > > > > > • > > > > > > > > 21. But for Consciousness-without-an-object there is no difference between the world-containing Space and the Spatial Void. > > > > > > > > • > > > > > > > > 22. Within Consciousness-without-an-object lies the Seed of Law. > > > > > > > > • > > > > > > > > 23. When consciousness of objects is born the Law is invoked as a Force tending ever toward Equilibrium. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, that is me all right. Born on the 23rd I always skim lists > > > like this with numbers till I get to the no. 23. If what it says > > > there is true - I guess the rest of it is too > > > > > > It is a long list and I will read it carefully when/if I get the > > > opportunity. > > > > > > Thank you Bob - have a nice one. > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > > > > > > > there is nothing beyond 23. > > > > there is nothing before 23. > > > > there is no..nor has been..a true 23. > > > > > > the Pointless Point.. > > > > from which some though not many... > > > > can see What they see.. > > > > What they see's THAT they see.. > > > > there' no " you " nor no " me " . > > > > > > opportunity knocks not twice. > > > > like the postman so nice. > > > > both and neither are true. > > > > but don't you be blue. > > > > > > if to skim is your whim > > > > don't go out on a limb. > > > > it matter's not a whit. > > > > this Dark never get's lit. > > > > > > > > the Dazzling Dark > > > > is not known by a lark > > > > it's felt only lightly > > > > the One sole Almighty. > > > > > > so now don't " you " read.. there's no need there's no need. > > > > there's no thinking there's no nothing.. no need to need feed. > > > > it's by taking no thought > > > > that the Light is Self-caught. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > p.s. > > > > thanks for the salutation. > > > > the Only One i can take is Always a Good One. > > > > i wouldn't nor couldn't.. > > > > have " IT " any other Way. > > > > :-) > > > > [.bx3] > > > > Onederful poem - nonederful peom > > Thought is so busy telling tales about nothing > The nothing that happened yesterday > The nothing that shall happen tomorrow > > Thus thought is endlessly producing and reproducing nothing > > That is onederful and nonederful > > There is no final question - there is no final answer > as how can there be when there is but a infinite flux > of absolutely nothing > > And thought expressing the nothing that never happened > and trying to find out what precisely it was that never > happened > > Yes > > Love > Lene that's nothing. your's in the Absolute Elsewhere THAT is No Other: ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 14, 2009 Report Share Posted December 14, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Lene > Nisargadatta > Monday, December 14, 2009 7:47 AM > Re: Attachment > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " > > > > > > > > > <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right on > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Couple a years ago I would talk a lot about nothingness > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > emptiness and not distinguish between them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A person, familiar with buddhism, kindly told me a > > > > > > > > > > > couple of > > > > > > > > > > > times or more that in buddhism emptiness and nothingness > > > > > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > > > > not the same. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I never really understood the difference till last > > > > > > > > > > > night. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What happened last night? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P: Nothing! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right. You have hereby answered your own question to me: > > > > > > > > what is the difference between emptiness and nothingness. > > > > > > > > Thanks vm - always appreciate it when others do the hard > > > > > > > > work for me ... if you will excuse du conventional lingo. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P: No, I didn't answer, but I could, since you don't want > > > > > > > to. Emptiness in Buddhist is a concept that indicates > > > > > > > lack of independent self-hood. When a Buddhist says, all > > > > > > > things are empty, it means no thing can exist of itself, > > > > > > > but comes into being in relation. This applies even to > > > > > > > Buddhahood, and emptiness itself. Nothing means total absence, > > > > > > > including the absence of the presence of absence. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nothingness, of course, doesn't exist. A perfect vacuum has been > > > > > > > demonstrated to have the negative energy of virtual particles > > > > > > > appearing and disappearing in space. Nothing is just another > > > > > > > word for unconsciousness, total not knowing. Of course, I'm > > > > > > > not saying my understanding is th same as yours. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the explanation. > > > > > > > > > > > > Our understanding is not different from one another regarding > > > > > > emptiness and nothingness. > > > > > > > > > > > > Will try to remember the expression " self-hood " . I never know > > > > > > what to call it. > > > > > > > > > > > > The whole thing became clear to me in a dream this morning. I > > > > > > am talking about the difference between dream where self-hood > > > > > > is present - and dream when self-hood is absent, and there is > > > > > > but relating without a relator (self, observer, thinker etc.) > > > > > > Empty center. At a certain point in the dream a self-creature > > > > > > entered which created incredible havoc - because the self was > > > > > > like outside the dream and interfering with what was going on > > > > > > from its apparently outside-of-the-dream position. The result > > > > > > was conflict of course as always, when there is this distance > > > > > > between one and one, which makes for the illusion that one is > > > > > > two - but then the whole dream is an illusion already so what > > > > > > the heck - except the dream is much nicer, when there is only > > > > > > one present - when it is but one presence -- relating with it > > > > > > self. > > > > > > > > > > > > It (little red selfhood) came (not a surprise) in the form of > > > > > > thinking, speculation, reflection about what was taking place > > > > > > in the dream. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And most important - qua this creation of division which breeds > > > > > confusion and conflict -- this " self " wants to be in control of > > > > > the confusion which its very own entering the stage has created > > > > > and what used to be " just a flow of a little of everything " now > > > > > becomes a veritable battle-field. > > > > > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > > > > > > > yet in Actuality... > > > > > > > > between " this creation of division " .. > > > > > > > > and.. > > > > > > > > " just a flow of a little of everything " .. > > > > > > > > not a Moment of difference Arises. > > > > > > > > the " real-time bastard.. > > > > > > > > is not other than the most subliminal Divine. > > > > > > > > let " Us " here together once again ponder the words of the sage.. > > > > > > > > Franklin-Merrell-Wolff.. > > > > > > > > baba's first..last...and only mentor: > > > > > > > > APHORISMS ON CONSCIOUSNESS-WITHOUT-AN-OBJECT > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 1. Consciousness-without-an-object is. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 2. Before objects were, Consciousness-without-an-object is. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 3. Though objects seem to exist, Consciousness-without-an-object is. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 4. When objects vanish, yet remaining through all unaffected, > > > > Consciousness-without-an-object is. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 5. Outside of Consciousness-without-an-object nothing is. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 6. Within the bosom of Consciousness-without-an-object lies the power > > > > of awareness that projects objects. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 7. When objects are projected, the power of awareness as subject is > > > > presupposed, yet Consciousness-without-an-object remains unchanged. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 8. When consciousness of objects is born, then, likewise, > > > > consciousness of absence of objects arises. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 9. Consciousness of objects is the Universe. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 10. Consciousness of absence of objects is Nirvana. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 11. Within Consciousness-without-an-object lie both the Universe and > > > > Nirvana, yet to Consciousness-without-an-object these two are the > > > > same. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 12. Within Consciousness-without-an-object lies the seed of Time. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 13. When awareness cognizes Time then knowledge of Timelessness is > > > > born. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 14. To be aware of Time is to be aware of the Universe, and to be > > > > aware of the Universe is to be aware of Time. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 15. To realize Timelessness is to attain Nirvana. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 16. But for Consciousness-without-an-object there is no difference > > > > between Time and Timelessness. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 17. Within Consciousness-without-an-object lies the seed of the > > > > world-containing Space. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 18. When awareness cognizes the world-containing Space then knowledge > > > > of the Spatial Void is born. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 19. To be aware of the world-containing Space is to be aware of the > > > > Universe of Objects. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 20. To realize the Spatial Void is to awaken to Nirvanic > > > > Consciousness. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 21. But for Consciousness-without-an-object there is no difference > > > > between the world-containing Space and the Spatial Void. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 22. Within Consciousness-without-an-object lies the Seed of Law. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 23. When consciousness of objects is born the Law is invoked as a > > > > Force tending ever toward Equilibrium. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, that is me all right. Born on the 23rd I always skim lists > > > like this with numbers till I get to the no. 23. If what it says > > > there is true - I guess the rest of it is too > > > > > > It is a long list and I will read it carefully when/if I get the > > > opportunity. > > > > > > Thank you Bob - have a nice one. > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > > > > > > > there is nothing beyond 23. > > > > there is nothing before 23. > > > > there is no..nor has been..a true 23. > > > > > > the Pointless Point.. > > > > from which some though not many... > > > > can see What they see.. > > > > What they see's THAT they see.. > > > > there' no " you " nor no " me " . > > > > > > opportunity knocks not twice. > > > > like the postman so nice. > > > > both and neither are true. > > > > but don't you be blue. > > > > > > if to skim is your whim > > > > don't go out on a limb. > > > > it matter's not a whit. > > > > this Dark never get's lit. > > > > > > > > the Dazzling Dark > > > > is not known by a lark > > > > it's felt only lightly > > > > the One sole Almighty. > > > > > > so now don't " you " read.. there's no need there's no need. > > > > there's no thinking there's no nothing.. no need to need feed. > > > > it's by taking no thought > > > > that the Light is Self-caught. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > p.s. > > > > thanks for the salutation. > > > > the Only One i can take is Always a Good One. > > > > i wouldn't nor couldn't.. > > > > have " IT " any other Way. > > > > :-) > > > > [.bx3] > > Onederful poem - nonederful peom > > Thought is so busy telling tales about nothing > The nothing that happened yesterday > The nothing that shall happen tomorrow > > Thus thought is endlessly producing and reproducing nothing > > That is onederful and nonederful > > There is no final question - there is no final answer > as how can there be when there is but a infinite flux > of absolutely nothing > > And thought expressing the nothing that never happened > and trying to find out what precisely it was that never > happened > > Yes > > Love > Lene > > So you decided to give some time, breathe deeply, close your eyes, relax, > think of something else...and try a friendly chat with your old friends > bbb... > ...good. That is the way to go.... > -geo- that's dumb. but at least you're keeping up.. with the level of comment you seem to be capable of making. your marks will therefore remain the same. but these grades do not allow you to pass any to a higher level.. on a scale from 0 to 0.. you still score in the negative. but we don't have any better expectations of you. you're trying your best even if it's not good enough. good lad! ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 14, 2009 Report Share Posted December 14, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Lene > Nisargadatta > Monday, December 14, 2009 9:06 AM > Re: Attachment > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right on > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Couple a years ago I would talk a lot about nothingness and > > > > > > > > > emptiness and not distinguish between them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A person, familiar with buddhism, kindly told me a couple of > > > > > > > > > times or more that in buddhism emptiness and nothingness are > > > > > > > > > not the same. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I never really understood the difference till last night. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What happened last night? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P: Nothing! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right. You have hereby answered your own question to me: > > > > > > what is the difference between emptiness and nothingness. > > > > > > Thanks vm - always appreciate it when others do the hard > > > > > > work for me ... if you will excuse du conventional lingo. > > > > > > > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > > > > > P: No, I didn't answer, but I could, since you don't want > > > > > to. Emptiness in Buddhist is a concept that indicates > > > > > lack of independent self-hood. When a Buddhist says, all > > > > > things are empty, it means no thing can exist of itself, > > > > > but comes into being in relation. This applies even to > > > > > Buddhahood, and emptiness itself. Nothing means total absence, > > > > > including the absence of the presence of absence. > > > > > > > > > > Nothingness, of course, doesn't exist. A perfect vacuum has been > > > > > demonstrated to have the negative energy of virtual particles > > > > > appearing and disappearing in space. Nothing is just another > > > > > word for unconsciousness, total not knowing. Of course, I'm > > > > > not saying my understanding is th same as yours. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the explanation. > > > > > > > > Our understanding is not different from one another regarding > > > > emptiness and nothingness. > > > > > > > > Will try to remember the expression " self-hood " . I never know > > > > what to call it. > > > > > > > > The whole thing became clear to me in a dream this morning. I > > > > am talking about the difference between dream where self-hood > > > > is present - and dream when self-hood is absent, and there is > > > > but relating without a relator (self, observer, thinker etc.) > > > > Empty center. At a certain point in the dream a self-creature > > > > entered which created incredible havoc - because the self was > > > > like outside the dream and interfering with what was going on > > > > from its apparently outside-of-the-dream position. The result > > > > was conflict of course as always, when there is this distance > > > > between one and one, which makes for the illusion that one is > > > > two - but then the whole dream is an illusion already so what > > > > the heck - except the dream is much nicer, when there is only > > > > one present - when it is but one presence -- relating with it > > > > self. > > > > > > > > It (little red selfhood) came (not a surprise) in the form of > > > > thinking, speculation, reflection about what was taking place > > > > in the dream. > > > > > > > > > > > > And most important - qua this creation of division which breeds > > > confusion and conflict -- this " self " wants to be in control of > > > the confusion which its very own entering the stage has created > > > and what used to be " just a flow of a little of everything " now becomes > > > a veritable battle-field. > > > > > > -Lene > > > > P: Thanks for your answer. Emptiness and co-dependent > > origination go together like this in Buddhism: Awareness > > has no independent self. Awareness exist because the world > > exist, the world exist because awareness exists. Both > > depend on each other. They arise together luck in an > > inescapable sine qua non. Reactivity to the world we > > see abates when we realize that. Awareness and the world > > will forever march in luck step changing as they go. > > There is nothing to fight, it will change of itself like > > a dream. > > Thanks P. > > I asked a teacher of religion this question: what is it that > relates to what when it's given that everything is relative, > ie but relations without any separate selves relating to one > another, and given that this relativity is the only reality? > > We sort of agreed, that each of us are the world and what is > relating then is the world relating to the world relating to > the world. I am the world, you are the world, we are the ONE > world relating to ITself. > > This world however is an illusion (in that the beginning and > ending of it is the same & happens simulataneously wherefore > nothing is happening as a matter of fact and this nothing is > the world). > > Thoughts communicate the (n)ever happening relations, and it > is thought which fixates what cannot be fixated - or IS that > fixation of the non-fixable rather. > > That fixation is the known -- but what is known is, was, and > will be eternally no thing happening. > > It is words which keep the wheel turning - not money > > -Lene > > Right. Words help the easy dissemination and agreement and apparent fixation > of the inexistent. > -geo- well then you're trying to spread something. but from the smell of it.. i'd say it's fertilizer you're scattering as you speak. :-) ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 14, 2009 Report Share Posted December 14, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > geo > Nisargadatta > Monday, December 14, 2009 9:02 AM > Re: Re: Attachment > > > > > - > Lene > Nisargadatta > Monday, December 14, 2009 7:47 AM > Re: Attachment > > Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " > > > > > > > > > <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right on > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Couple a years ago I would talk a lot about nothingness > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > emptiness and not distinguish between them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A person, familiar with buddhism, kindly told me a > > > > > > > > > > > couple of > > > > > > > > > > > times or more that in buddhism emptiness and nothingness > > > > > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > > > > not the same. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I never really understood the difference till last > > > > > > > > > > > night. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What happened last night? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P: Nothing! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right. You have hereby answered your own question to me: > > > > > > > > what is the difference between emptiness and nothingness. > > > > > > > > Thanks vm - always appreciate it when others do the hard > > > > > > > > work for me ... if you will excuse du conventional lingo. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P: No, I didn't answer, but I could, since you don't want > > > > > > > to. Emptiness in Buddhist is a concept that indicates > > > > > > > lack of independent self-hood. When a Buddhist says, all > > > > > > > things are empty, it means no thing can exist of itself, > > > > > > > but comes into being in relation. This applies even to > > > > > > > Buddhahood, and emptiness itself. Nothing means total absence, > > > > > > > including the absence of the presence of absence. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nothingness, of course, doesn't exist. A perfect vacuum has been > > > > > > > demonstrated to have the negative energy of virtual particles > > > > > > > appearing and disappearing in space. Nothing is just another > > > > > > > word for unconsciousness, total not knowing. Of course, I'm > > > > > > > not saying my understanding is th same as yours. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the explanation. > > > > > > > > > > > > Our understanding is not different from one another regarding > > > > > > emptiness and nothingness. > > > > > > > > > > > > Will try to remember the expression " self-hood " . I never know > > > > > > what to call it. > > > > > > > > > > > > The whole thing became clear to me in a dream this morning. I > > > > > > am talking about the difference between dream where self-hood > > > > > > is present - and dream when self-hood is absent, and there is > > > > > > but relating without a relator (self, observer, thinker etc.) > > > > > > Empty center. At a certain point in the dream a self-creature > > > > > > entered which created incredible havoc - because the self was > > > > > > like outside the dream and interfering with what was going on > > > > > > from its apparently outside-of-the-dream position. The result > > > > > > was conflict of course as always, when there is this distance > > > > > > between one and one, which makes for the illusion that one is > > > > > > two - but then the whole dream is an illusion already so what > > > > > > the heck - except the dream is much nicer, when there is only > > > > > > one present - when it is but one presence -- relating with it > > > > > > self. > > > > > > > > > > > > It (little red selfhood) came (not a surprise) in the form of > > > > > > thinking, speculation, reflection about what was taking place > > > > > > in the dream. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And most important - qua this creation of division which breeds > > > > > confusion and conflict -- this " self " wants to be in control of > > > > > the confusion which its very own entering the stage has created > > > > > and what used to be " just a flow of a little of everything " now > > > > > becomes a veritable battle-field. > > > > > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > > > > > > > yet in Actuality... > > > > > > > > between " this creation of division " .. > > > > > > > > and.. > > > > > > > > " just a flow of a little of everything " .. > > > > > > > > not a Moment of difference Arises. > > > > > > > > the " real-time bastard.. > > > > > > > > is not other than the most subliminal Divine. > > > > > > > > let " Us " here together once again ponder the words of the sage.. > > > > > > > > Franklin-Merrell-Wolff.. > > > > > > > > baba's first..last...and only mentor: > > > > > > > > APHORISMS ON CONSCIOUSNESS-WITHOUT-AN-OBJECT > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 1. Consciousness-without-an-object is. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 2. Before objects were, Consciousness-without-an-object is. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 3. Though objects seem to exist, Consciousness-without-an-object is. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 4. When objects vanish, yet remaining through all unaffected, > > > > Consciousness-without-an-object is. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 5. Outside of Consciousness-without-an-object nothing is. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 6. Within the bosom of Consciousness-without-an-object lies the power > > > > of awareness that projects objects. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 7. When objects are projected, the power of awareness as subject is > > > > presupposed, yet Consciousness-without-an-object remains unchanged. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 8. When consciousness of objects is born, then, likewise, > > > > consciousness of absence of objects arises. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 9. Consciousness of objects is the Universe. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 10. Consciousness of absence of objects is Nirvana. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 11. Within Consciousness-without-an-object lie both the Universe and > > > > Nirvana, yet to Consciousness-without-an-object these two are the > > > > same. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 12. Within Consciousness-without-an-object lies the seed of Time. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 13. When awareness cognizes Time then knowledge of Timelessness is > > > > born. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 14. To be aware of Time is to be aware of the Universe, and to be > > > > aware of the Universe is to be aware of Time. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 15. To realize Timelessness is to attain Nirvana. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 16. But for Consciousness-without-an-object there is no difference > > > > between Time and Timelessness. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 17. Within Consciousness-without-an-object lies the seed of the > > > > world-containing Space. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 18. When awareness cognizes the world-containing Space then knowledge > > > > of the Spatial Void is born. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 19. To be aware of the world-containing Space is to be aware of the > > > > Universe of Objects. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 20. To realize the Spatial Void is to awaken to Nirvanic > > > > Consciousness. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 21. But for Consciousness-without-an-object there is no difference > > > > between the world-containing Space and the Spatial Void. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 22. Within Consciousness-without-an-object lies the Seed of Law. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 23. When consciousness of objects is born the Law is invoked as a > > > > Force tending ever toward Equilibrium. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, that is me all right. Born on the 23rd I always skim lists > > > like this with numbers till I get to the no. 23. If what it says > > > there is true - I guess the rest of it is too > > > > > > It is a long list and I will read it carefully when/if I get the > > > opportunity. > > > > > > Thank you Bob - have a nice one. > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > > > > > > > there is nothing beyond 23. > > > > there is nothing before 23. > > > > there is no..nor has been..a true 23. > > > > > > the Pointless Point.. > > > > from which some though not many... > > > > can see What they see.. > > > > What they see's THAT they see.. > > > > there' no " you " nor no " me " . > > > > > > opportunity knocks not twice. > > > > like the postman so nice. > > > > both and neither are true. > > > > but don't you be blue. > > > > > > if to skim is your whim > > > > don't go out on a limb. > > > > it matter's not a whit. > > > > this Dark never get's lit. > > > > > > > > the Dazzling Dark > > > > is not known by a lark > > > > it's felt only lightly > > > > the One sole Almighty. > > > > > > so now don't " you " read.. there's no need there's no need. > > > > there's no thinking there's no nothing.. no need to need feed. > > > > it's by taking no thought > > > > that the Light is Self-caught. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > p.s. > > > > thanks for the salutation. > > > > the Only One i can take is Always a Good One. > > > > i wouldn't nor couldn't.. > > > > have " IT " any other Way. > > > > :-) > > > > [.bx3] > > Onederful poem - nonederful peom > > Thought is so busy telling tales about nothing > The nothing that happened yesterday > The nothing that shall happen tomorrow > > Thus thought is endlessly producing and reproducing nothing > > That is onederful and nonederful > > There is no final question - there is no final answer > as how can there be when there is but a infinite flux > of absolutely nothing > > And thought expressing the nothing that never happened > and trying to find out what precisely it was that never > happened > > Yes > > Love > Lene > > So you decided to give some time, breathe deeply, close your eyes, relax, > think of something else...and try a friendly chat with your old friends > bbb... > ...good. That is the way to go.... > > > Ooops...confused lene for meth.. > -geo- oh well. you seem easily confused. it's understandable. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 14, 2009 Report Share Posted December 14, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > BobN > Nisargadatta > Monday, December 14, 2009 9:29 AM > Re: Attachment > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > Lene > > Nisargadatta > > Monday, December 14, 2009 7:47 AM > > Re: Attachment > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " > > > > > > > > > > <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right on > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Couple a years ago I would talk a lot about > > > > > > > > > > > > nothingness > > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > emptiness and not distinguish between them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A person, familiar with buddhism, kindly told me a > > > > > > > > > > > > couple of > > > > > > > > > > > > times or more that in buddhism emptiness and > > > > > > > > > > > > nothingness > > > > > > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > > > > > not the same. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I never really understood the difference till last > > > > > > > > > > > > night. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What happened last night? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P: Nothing! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right. You have hereby answered your own question to me: > > > > > > > > > what is the difference between emptiness and nothingness. > > > > > > > > > Thanks vm - always appreciate it when others do the hard > > > > > > > > > work for me ... if you will excuse du conventional lingo. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P: No, I didn't answer, but I could, since you don't want > > > > > > > > to. Emptiness in Buddhist is a concept that indicates > > > > > > > > lack of independent self-hood. When a Buddhist says, all > > > > > > > > things are empty, it means no thing can exist of itself, > > > > > > > > but comes into being in relation. This applies even to > > > > > > > > Buddhahood, and emptiness itself. Nothing means total absence, > > > > > > > > including the absence of the presence of absence. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nothingness, of course, doesn't exist. A perfect vacuum has > > > > > > > > been > > > > > > > > demonstrated to have the negative energy of virtual particles > > > > > > > > appearing and disappearing in space. Nothing is just another > > > > > > > > word for unconsciousness, total not knowing. Of course, I'm > > > > > > > > not saying my understanding is th same as yours. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the explanation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Our understanding is not different from one another regarding > > > > > > > emptiness and nothingness. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Will try to remember the expression " self-hood " . I never know > > > > > > > what to call it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The whole thing became clear to me in a dream this morning. I > > > > > > > am talking about the difference between dream where self-hood > > > > > > > is present - and dream when self-hood is absent, and there is > > > > > > > but relating without a relator (self, observer, thinker etc.) > > > > > > > Empty center. At a certain point in the dream a self-creature > > > > > > > entered which created incredible havoc - because the self was > > > > > > > like outside the dream and interfering with what was going on > > > > > > > from its apparently outside-of-the-dream position. The result > > > > > > > was conflict of course as always, when there is this distance > > > > > > > between one and one, which makes for the illusion that one is > > > > > > > two - but then the whole dream is an illusion already so what > > > > > > > the heck - except the dream is much nicer, when there is only > > > > > > > one present - when it is but one presence -- relating with it > > > > > > > self. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It (little red selfhood) came (not a surprise) in the form of > > > > > > > thinking, speculation, reflection about what was taking place > > > > > > > in the dream. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And most important - qua this creation of division which breeds > > > > > > confusion and conflict -- this " self " wants to be in control of > > > > > > the confusion which its very own entering the stage has created > > > > > > and what used to be " just a flow of a little of everything " now > > > > > > becomes a veritable battle-field. > > > > > > > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > yet in Actuality... > > > > > > > > > > between " this creation of division " .. > > > > > > > > > > and.. > > > > > > > > > > " just a flow of a little of everything " .. > > > > > > > > > > not a Moment of difference Arises. > > > > > > > > > > the " real-time bastard.. > > > > > > > > > > is not other than the most subliminal Divine. > > > > > > > > > > let " Us " here together once again ponder the words of the sage.. > > > > > > > > > > Franklin-Merrell-Wolff.. > > > > > > > > > > baba's first..last...and only mentor: > > > > > > > > > > APHORISMS ON CONSCIOUSNESS-WITHOUT-AN-OBJECT > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > 1. Consciousness-without-an-object is. > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > 2. Before objects were, Consciousness-without-an-object is. > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > 3. Though objects seem to exist, Consciousness-without-an-object is. > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > 4. When objects vanish, yet remaining through all unaffected, > > > > > Consciousness-without-an-object is. > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > 5. Outside of Consciousness-without-an-object nothing is. > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > 6. Within the bosom of Consciousness-without-an-object lies the > > > > > power > > > > > of awareness that projects objects. > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > 7. When objects are projected, the power of awareness as subject is > > > > > presupposed, yet Consciousness-without-an-object remains unchanged. > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > 8. When consciousness of objects is born, then, likewise, > > > > > consciousness of absence of objects arises. > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > 9. Consciousness of objects is the Universe. > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > 10. Consciousness of absence of objects is Nirvana. > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > 11. Within Consciousness-without-an-object lie both the Universe and > > > > > Nirvana, yet to Consciousness-without-an-object these two are the > > > > > same. > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > 12. Within Consciousness-without-an-object lies the seed of Time. > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > 13. When awareness cognizes Time then knowledge of Timelessness is > > > > > born. > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > 14. To be aware of Time is to be aware of the Universe, and to be > > > > > aware of the Universe is to be aware of Time. > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > 15. To realize Timelessness is to attain Nirvana. > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > 16. But for Consciousness-without-an-object there is no difference > > > > > between Time and Timelessness. > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > 17. Within Consciousness-without-an-object lies the seed of the > > > > > world-containing Space. > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > 18. When awareness cognizes the world-containing Space then > > > > > knowledge > > > > > of the Spatial Void is born. > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > 19. To be aware of the world-containing Space is to be aware of the > > > > > Universe of Objects. > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > 20. To realize the Spatial Void is to awaken to Nirvanic > > > > > Consciousness. > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > 21. But for Consciousness-without-an-object there is no difference > > > > > between the world-containing Space and the Spatial Void. > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > 22. Within Consciousness-without-an-object lies the Seed of Law. > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > 23. When consciousness of objects is born the Law is invoked as a > > > > > Force tending ever toward Equilibrium. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, that is me all right. Born on the 23rd I always skim lists > > > > like this with numbers till I get to the no. 23. If what it says > > > > there is true - I guess the rest of it is too > > > > > > > > It is a long list and I will read it carefully when/if I get the > > > > opportunity. > > > > > > > > Thank you Bob - have a nice one. > > > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there is nothing beyond 23. > > > > > > there is nothing before 23. > > > > > > there is no..nor has been..a true 23. > > > > > > > > > the Pointless Point.. > > > > > > from which some though not many... > > > > > > can see What they see.. > > > > > > What they see's THAT they see.. > > > > > > there' no " you " nor no " me " . > > > > > > > > > opportunity knocks not twice. > > > > > > like the postman so nice. > > > > > > both and neither are true. > > > > > > but don't you be blue. > > > > > > > > > if to skim is your whim > > > > > > don't go out on a limb. > > > > > > it matter's not a whit. > > > > > > this Dark never get's lit. > > > > > > > > > > > > the Dazzling Dark > > > > > > is not known by a lark > > > > > > it's felt only lightly > > > > > > the One sole Almighty. > > > > > > > > > so now don't " you " read.. there's no need there's no need. > > > > > > there's no thinking there's no nothing.. no need to need feed. > > > > > > it's by taking no thought > > > > > > that the Light is Self-caught. > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > p.s. > > > > > > thanks for the salutation. > > > > > > the Only One i can take is Always a Good One. > > > > > > i wouldn't nor couldn't.. > > > > > > have " IT " any other Way. > > > > > > :-) > > > > > > [.bx3] > > > > Onederful poem - nonederful peom > > > > Thought is so busy telling tales about nothing > > The nothing that happened yesterday > > The nothing that shall happen tomorrow > > > > Thus thought is endlessly producing and reproducing nothing > > > > That is onederful and nonederful > > > > There is no final question - there is no final answer > > as how can there be when there is but a infinite flux > > of absolutely nothing > > > > And thought expressing the nothing that never happened > > and trying to find out what precisely it was that never > > happened > > > > Yes > > > > Love > > Lene > > > > So you decided to give some time, breathe deeply, close your eyes, relax, > > think of something else...and try a friendly chat with your old friends > > bbb... > > ...good. That is the way to go.... > > -geo- > > that's dumb. > > but at least you're keeping up.. > > with the level of comment you seem to be capable of making. > > your marks will therefore remain the same. > > but these grades do not allow you to pass any to a higher level.. > > on a scale from 0 to 0.. > > you still score in the negative. > > but we don't have any better expectations of you. > > -bbb- > > We? I suppose that's you and werner > -geo- no.. it's the Royal " We " . but you wouldn't understand. i expect no more of you. so more or less you're grades remain static here too. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 14, 2009 Report Share Posted December 14, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > BobN > Nisargadatta > Monday, December 14, 2009 9:33 AM > Re: Attachment > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > Lene > > Nisargadatta > > Monday, December 14, 2009 9:06 AM > > Re: Attachment > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right on > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Couple a years ago I would talk a lot about nothingness > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > emptiness and not distinguish between them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A person, familiar with buddhism, kindly told me a couple > > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > times or more that in buddhism emptiness and nothingness > > > > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > > > not the same. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I never really understood the difference till last night. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What happened last night? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P: Nothing! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right. You have hereby answered your own question to me: > > > > > > > what is the difference between emptiness and nothingness. > > > > > > > Thanks vm - always appreciate it when others do the hard > > > > > > > work for me ... if you will excuse du conventional lingo. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > > > > > > > P: No, I didn't answer, but I could, since you don't want > > > > > > to. Emptiness in Buddhist is a concept that indicates > > > > > > lack of independent self-hood. When a Buddhist says, all > > > > > > things are empty, it means no thing can exist of itself, > > > > > > but comes into being in relation. This applies even to > > > > > > Buddhahood, and emptiness itself. Nothing means total absence, > > > > > > including the absence of the presence of absence. > > > > > > > > > > > > Nothingness, of course, doesn't exist. A perfect vacuum has been > > > > > > demonstrated to have the negative energy of virtual particles > > > > > > appearing and disappearing in space. Nothing is just another > > > > > > word for unconsciousness, total not knowing. Of course, I'm > > > > > > not saying my understanding is th same as yours. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the explanation. > > > > > > > > > > Our understanding is not different from one another regarding > > > > > emptiness and nothingness. > > > > > > > > > > Will try to remember the expression " self-hood " . I never know > > > > > what to call it. > > > > > > > > > > The whole thing became clear to me in a dream this morning. I > > > > > am talking about the difference between dream where self-hood > > > > > is present - and dream when self-hood is absent, and there is > > > > > but relating without a relator (self, observer, thinker etc.) > > > > > Empty center. At a certain point in the dream a self-creature > > > > > entered which created incredible havoc - because the self was > > > > > like outside the dream and interfering with what was going on > > > > > from its apparently outside-of-the-dream position. The result > > > > > was conflict of course as always, when there is this distance > > > > > between one and one, which makes for the illusion that one is > > > > > two - but then the whole dream is an illusion already so what > > > > > the heck - except the dream is much nicer, when there is only > > > > > one present - when it is but one presence -- relating with it > > > > > self. > > > > > > > > > > It (little red selfhood) came (not a surprise) in the form of > > > > > thinking, speculation, reflection about what was taking place > > > > > in the dream. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And most important - qua this creation of division which breeds > > > > confusion and conflict -- this " self " wants to be in control of > > > > the confusion which its very own entering the stage has created > > > > and what used to be " just a flow of a little of everything " now > > > > becomes > > > > a veritable battle-field. > > > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > P: Thanks for your answer. Emptiness and co-dependent > > > origination go together like this in Buddhism: Awareness > > > has no independent self. Awareness exist because the world > > > exist, the world exist because awareness exists. Both > > > depend on each other. They arise together luck in an > > > inescapable sine qua non. Reactivity to the world we > > > see abates when we realize that. Awareness and the world > > > will forever march in luck step changing as they go. > > > There is nothing to fight, it will change of itself like > > > a dream. > > > > Thanks P. > > > > I asked a teacher of religion this question: what is it that > > relates to what when it's given that everything is relative, > > ie but relations without any separate selves relating to one > > another, and given that this relativity is the only reality? > > > > We sort of agreed, that each of us are the world and what is > > relating then is the world relating to the world relating to > > the world. I am the world, you are the world, we are the ONE > > world relating to ITself. > > > > This world however is an illusion (in that the beginning and > > ending of it is the same & happens simulataneously wherefore > > nothing is happening as a matter of fact and this nothing is > > the world). > > > > Thoughts communicate the (n)ever happening relations, and it > > is thought which fixates what cannot be fixated - or IS that > > fixation of the non-fixable rather. > > > > That fixation is the known -- but what is known is, was, and > > will be eternally no thing happening. > > > > It is words which keep the wheel turning - not money > > > > -Lene > > > > Right. Words help the easy dissemination and agreement and apparent > > fixation > > of the inexistent. > > -geo- > > well then you're trying to spread something. > > but from the smell of it.. > > i'd say it's fertilizer you're scattering as you speak. > > :-) > > .b b.b. > > Ha.. but you must smell it BEFORE it is processed for the farmers... > -geo- please process soon. you're ripe for the job. so to speak... in so many words. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 14, 2009 Report Share Posted December 14, 2009 - Lene Nisargadatta Monday, December 14, 2009 9:06 AM Re: Attachment Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right on > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Couple a years ago I would talk a lot about nothingness and > > > > > > > > emptiness and not distinguish between them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A person, familiar with buddhism, kindly told me a couple of > > > > > > > > times or more that in buddhism emptiness and nothingness are > > > > > > > > not the same. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I never really understood the difference till last night. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What happened last night? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P: Nothing! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right. You have hereby answered your own question to me: > > > > > what is the difference between emptiness and nothingness. > > > > > Thanks vm - always appreciate it when others do the hard > > > > > work for me ... if you will excuse du conventional lingo. > > > > > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > > > P: No, I didn't answer, but I could, since you don't want > > > > to. Emptiness in Buddhist is a concept that indicates > > > > lack of independent self-hood. When a Buddhist says, all > > > > things are empty, it means no thing can exist of itself, > > > > but comes into being in relation. This applies even to > > > > Buddhahood, and emptiness itself. Nothing means total absence, > > > > including the absence of the presence of absence. > > > > > > > > Nothingness, of course, doesn't exist. A perfect vacuum has been > > > > demonstrated to have the negative energy of virtual particles > > > > appearing and disappearing in space. Nothing is just another > > > > word for unconsciousness, total not knowing. Of course, I'm > > > > not saying my understanding is th same as yours. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the explanation. > > > > > > Our understanding is not different from one another regarding > > > emptiness and nothingness. > > > > > > Will try to remember the expression " self-hood " . I never know > > > what to call it. > > > > > > The whole thing became clear to me in a dream this morning. I > > > am talking about the difference between dream where self-hood > > > is present - and dream when self-hood is absent, and there is > > > but relating without a relator (self, observer, thinker etc.) > > > Empty center. At a certain point in the dream a self-creature > > > entered which created incredible havoc - because the self was > > > like outside the dream and interfering with what was going on > > > from its apparently outside-of-the-dream position. The result > > > was conflict of course as always, when there is this distance > > > between one and one, which makes for the illusion that one is > > > two - but then the whole dream is an illusion already so what > > > the heck - except the dream is much nicer, when there is only > > > one present - when it is but one presence -- relating with it > > > self. > > > > > > It (little red selfhood) came (not a surprise) in the form of > > > thinking, speculation, reflection about what was taking place > > > in the dream. > > > > > > > > And most important - qua this creation of division which breeds > > confusion and conflict -- this " self " wants to be in control of > > the confusion which its very own entering the stage has created > > and what used to be " just a flow of a little of everything " now becomes > > a veritable battle-field. > > > > -Lene > > P: Thanks for your answer. Emptiness and co-dependent > origination go together like this in Buddhism: Awareness > has no independent self. Awareness exist because the world > exist, the world exist because awareness exists. Both > depend on each other. They arise together luck in an > inescapable sine qua non. Reactivity to the world we > see abates when we realize that. Awareness and the world > will forever march in luck step changing as they go. > There is nothing to fight, it will change of itself like > a dream. Thanks P. I asked a teacher of religion this question: what is it that relates to what when it's given that everything is relative, ie but relations without any separate selves relating to one another, and given that this relativity is the only reality? We sort of agreed, that each of us are the world and what is relating then is the world relating to the world relating to the world. I am the world, you are the world, we are the ONE world relating to ITself. This world however is an illusion (in that the beginning and ending of it is the same & happens simulataneously wherefore nothing is happening as a matter of fact and this nothing is the world). Thoughts communicate the (n)ever happening relations, and it is thought which fixates what cannot be fixated - or IS that fixation of the non-fixable rather. That fixation is the known -- but what is known is, was, and will be eternally no thing happening. It is words which keep the wheel turning - not money -Lene Right. Words help the easy dissemination and agreement and apparent fixation of the inexistent. -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 14, 2009 Report Share Posted December 14, 2009 - geo Nisargadatta Monday, December 14, 2009 9:02 AM Re: Re: Attachment - Lene Nisargadatta Monday, December 14, 2009 7:47 AM Re: Attachment Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " > > > > > > > > <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right on > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Couple a years ago I would talk a lot about nothingness > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > emptiness and not distinguish between them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A person, familiar with buddhism, kindly told me a > > > > > > > > > > couple of > > > > > > > > > > times or more that in buddhism emptiness and nothingness > > > > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > > > not the same. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I never really understood the difference till last > > > > > > > > > > night. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What happened last night? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P: Nothing! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right. You have hereby answered your own question to me: > > > > > > > what is the difference between emptiness and nothingness. > > > > > > > Thanks vm - always appreciate it when others do the hard > > > > > > > work for me ... if you will excuse du conventional lingo. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > > > > > > > P: No, I didn't answer, but I could, since you don't want > > > > > > to. Emptiness in Buddhist is a concept that indicates > > > > > > lack of independent self-hood. When a Buddhist says, all > > > > > > things are empty, it means no thing can exist of itself, > > > > > > but comes into being in relation. This applies even to > > > > > > Buddhahood, and emptiness itself. Nothing means total absence, > > > > > > including the absence of the presence of absence. > > > > > > > > > > > > Nothingness, of course, doesn't exist. A perfect vacuum has been > > > > > > demonstrated to have the negative energy of virtual particles > > > > > > appearing and disappearing in space. Nothing is just another > > > > > > word for unconsciousness, total not knowing. Of course, I'm > > > > > > not saying my understanding is th same as yours. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the explanation. > > > > > > > > > > Our understanding is not different from one another regarding > > > > > emptiness and nothingness. > > > > > > > > > > Will try to remember the expression " self-hood " . I never know > > > > > what to call it. > > > > > > > > > > The whole thing became clear to me in a dream this morning. I > > > > > am talking about the difference between dream where self-hood > > > > > is present - and dream when self-hood is absent, and there is > > > > > but relating without a relator (self, observer, thinker etc.) > > > > > Empty center. At a certain point in the dream a self-creature > > > > > entered which created incredible havoc - because the self was > > > > > like outside the dream and interfering with what was going on > > > > > from its apparently outside-of-the-dream position. The result > > > > > was conflict of course as always, when there is this distance > > > > > between one and one, which makes for the illusion that one is > > > > > two - but then the whole dream is an illusion already so what > > > > > the heck - except the dream is much nicer, when there is only > > > > > one present - when it is but one presence -- relating with it > > > > > self. > > > > > > > > > > It (little red selfhood) came (not a surprise) in the form of > > > > > thinking, speculation, reflection about what was taking place > > > > > in the dream. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And most important - qua this creation of division which breeds > > > > confusion and conflict -- this " self " wants to be in control of > > > > the confusion which its very own entering the stage has created > > > > and what used to be " just a flow of a little of everything " now > > > > becomes a veritable battle-field. > > > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > > > > yet in Actuality... > > > > > > between " this creation of division " .. > > > > > > and.. > > > > > > " just a flow of a little of everything " .. > > > > > > not a Moment of difference Arises. > > > > > > the " real-time bastard.. > > > > > > is not other than the most subliminal Divine. > > > > > > let " Us " here together once again ponder the words of the sage.. > > > > > > Franklin-Merrell-Wolff.. > > > > > > baba's first..last...and only mentor: > > > > > > APHORISMS ON CONSCIOUSNESS-WITHOUT-AN-OBJECT > > > > > > . > > > > > > 1. Consciousness-without-an-object is. > > > > > > . > > > > > > 2. Before objects were, Consciousness-without-an-object is. > > > > > > . > > > > > > 3. Though objects seem to exist, Consciousness-without-an-object is. > > > > > > . > > > > > > 4. When objects vanish, yet remaining through all unaffected, > > > Consciousness-without-an-object is. > > > > > > . > > > > > > 5. Outside of Consciousness-without-an-object nothing is. > > > > > > . > > > > > > 6. Within the bosom of Consciousness-without-an-object lies the power > > > of awareness that projects objects. > > > > > > . > > > > > > 7. When objects are projected, the power of awareness as subject is > > > presupposed, yet Consciousness-without-an-object remains unchanged. > > > > > > . > > > > > > 8. When consciousness of objects is born, then, likewise, > > > consciousness of absence of objects arises. > > > > > > . > > > > > > 9. Consciousness of objects is the Universe. > > > > > > . > > > > > > 10. Consciousness of absence of objects is Nirvana. > > > > > > . > > > > > > 11. Within Consciousness-without-an-object lie both the Universe and > > > Nirvana, yet to Consciousness-without-an-object these two are the > > > same. > > > > > > . > > > > > > 12. Within Consciousness-without-an-object lies the seed of Time. > > > > > > . > > > > > > 13. When awareness cognizes Time then knowledge of Timelessness is > > > born. > > > > > > . > > > > > > 14. To be aware of Time is to be aware of the Universe, and to be > > > aware of the Universe is to be aware of Time. > > > > > > . > > > > > > 15. To realize Timelessness is to attain Nirvana. > > > > > > . > > > > > > 16. But for Consciousness-without-an-object there is no difference > > > between Time and Timelessness. > > > > > > . > > > > > > 17. Within Consciousness-without-an-object lies the seed of the > > > world-containing Space. > > > > > > . > > > > > > 18. When awareness cognizes the world-containing Space then knowledge > > > of the Spatial Void is born. > > > > > > . > > > > > > 19. To be aware of the world-containing Space is to be aware of the > > > Universe of Objects. > > > > > > . > > > > > > 20. To realize the Spatial Void is to awaken to Nirvanic > > > Consciousness. > > > > > > . > > > > > > 21. But for Consciousness-without-an-object there is no difference > > > between the world-containing Space and the Spatial Void. > > > > > > . > > > > > > 22. Within Consciousness-without-an-object lies the Seed of Law. > > > > > > . > > > > > > 23. When consciousness of objects is born the Law is invoked as a > > > Force tending ever toward Equilibrium. > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, that is me all right. Born on the 23rd I always skim lists > > like this with numbers till I get to the no. 23. If what it says > > there is true - I guess the rest of it is too > > > > It is a long list and I will read it carefully when/if I get the > > opportunity. > > > > Thank you Bob - have a nice one. > > > > -Lene > > > > > > there is nothing beyond 23. > > there is nothing before 23. > > there is no..nor has been..a true 23. > > > the Pointless Point.. > > from which some though not many... > > can see What they see.. > > What they see's THAT they see.. > > there' no " you " nor no " me " . > > > opportunity knocks not twice. > > like the postman so nice. > > both and neither are true. > > but don't you be blue. > > > if to skim is your whim > > don't go out on a limb. > > it matter's not a whit. > > this Dark never get's lit. > > > > the Dazzling Dark > > is not known by a lark > > it's felt only lightly > > the One sole Almighty. > > > so now don't " you " read.. there's no need there's no need. > > there's no thinking there's no nothing.. no need to need feed. > > it's by taking no thought > > that the Light is Self-caught. > > > .b b.b. > > > > p.s. > > thanks for the salutation. > > the Only One i can take is Always a Good One. > > i wouldn't nor couldn't.. > > have " IT " any other Way. > > :-) > > [.bx3] Onederful poem - nonederful peom Thought is so busy telling tales about nothing The nothing that happened yesterday The nothing that shall happen tomorrow Thus thought is endlessly producing and reproducing nothing That is onederful and nonederful There is no final question - there is no final answer as how can there be when there is but a infinite flux of absolutely nothing And thought expressing the nothing that never happened and trying to find out what precisely it was that never happened Yes Love Lene So you decided to give some time, breathe deeply, close your eyes, relax, think of something else...and try a friendly chat with your old friends bbb... ....good. That is the way to go.... Ooops...confused lene for meth.. -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 14, 2009 Report Share Posted December 14, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > geo > Nisargadatta > Monday, December 14, 2009 9:02 AM > Re: Re: Attachment > > > > > - > Lene > Nisargadatta > Monday, December 14, 2009 7:47 AM > Re: Attachment > > Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " > > > > > > > > > <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right on > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Couple a years ago I would talk a lot about nothingness > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > emptiness and not distinguish between them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A person, familiar with buddhism, kindly told me a > > > > > > > > > > > couple of > > > > > > > > > > > times or more that in buddhism emptiness and nothingness > > > > > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > > > > not the same. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I never really understood the difference till last > > > > > > > > > > > night. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What happened last night? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P: Nothing! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right. You have hereby answered your own question to me: > > > > > > > > what is the difference between emptiness and nothingness. > > > > > > > > Thanks vm - always appreciate it when others do the hard > > > > > > > > work for me ... if you will excuse du conventional lingo. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P: No, I didn't answer, but I could, since you don't want > > > > > > > to. Emptiness in Buddhist is a concept that indicates > > > > > > > lack of independent self-hood. When a Buddhist says, all > > > > > > > things are empty, it means no thing can exist of itself, > > > > > > > but comes into being in relation. This applies even to > > > > > > > Buddhahood, and emptiness itself. Nothing means total absence, > > > > > > > including the absence of the presence of absence. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nothingness, of course, doesn't exist. A perfect vacuum has been > > > > > > > demonstrated to have the negative energy of virtual particles > > > > > > > appearing and disappearing in space. Nothing is just another > > > > > > > word for unconsciousness, total not knowing. Of course, I'm > > > > > > > not saying my understanding is th same as yours. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the explanation. > > > > > > > > > > > > Our understanding is not different from one another regarding > > > > > > emptiness and nothingness. > > > > > > > > > > > > Will try to remember the expression " self-hood " . I never know > > > > > > what to call it. > > > > > > > > > > > > The whole thing became clear to me in a dream this morning. I > > > > > > am talking about the difference between dream where self-hood > > > > > > is present - and dream when self-hood is absent, and there is > > > > > > but relating without a relator (self, observer, thinker etc.) > > > > > > Empty center. At a certain point in the dream a self-creature > > > > > > entered which created incredible havoc - because the self was > > > > > > like outside the dream and interfering with what was going on > > > > > > from its apparently outside-of-the-dream position. The result > > > > > > was conflict of course as always, when there is this distance > > > > > > between one and one, which makes for the illusion that one is > > > > > > two - but then the whole dream is an illusion already so what > > > > > > the heck - except the dream is much nicer, when there is only > > > > > > one present - when it is but one presence -- relating with it > > > > > > self. > > > > > > > > > > > > It (little red selfhood) came (not a surprise) in the form of > > > > > > thinking, speculation, reflection about what was taking place > > > > > > in the dream. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And most important - qua this creation of division which breeds > > > > > confusion and conflict -- this " self " wants to be in control of > > > > > the confusion which its very own entering the stage has created > > > > > and what used to be " just a flow of a little of everything " now > > > > > becomes a veritable battle-field. > > > > > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > > > > > > > yet in Actuality... > > > > > > > > between " this creation of division " .. > > > > > > > > and.. > > > > > > > > " just a flow of a little of everything " .. > > > > > > > > not a Moment of difference Arises. > > > > > > > > the " real-time bastard.. > > > > > > > > is not other than the most subliminal Divine. > > > > > > > > let " Us " here together once again ponder the words of the sage.. > > > > > > > > Franklin-Merrell-Wolff.. > > > > > > > > baba's first..last...and only mentor: > > > > > > > > APHORISMS ON CONSCIOUSNESS-WITHOUT-AN-OBJECT > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 1. Consciousness-without-an-object is. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 2. Before objects were, Consciousness-without-an-object is. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 3. Though objects seem to exist, Consciousness-without-an-object is. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 4. When objects vanish, yet remaining through all unaffected, > > > > Consciousness-without-an-object is. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 5. Outside of Consciousness-without-an-object nothing is. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 6. Within the bosom of Consciousness-without-an-object lies the power > > > > of awareness that projects objects. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 7. When objects are projected, the power of awareness as subject is > > > > presupposed, yet Consciousness-without-an-object remains unchanged. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 8. When consciousness of objects is born, then, likewise, > > > > consciousness of absence of objects arises. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 9. Consciousness of objects is the Universe. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 10. Consciousness of absence of objects is Nirvana. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 11. Within Consciousness-without-an-object lie both the Universe and > > > > Nirvana, yet to Consciousness-without-an-object these two are the > > > > same. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 12. Within Consciousness-without-an-object lies the seed of Time. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 13. When awareness cognizes Time then knowledge of Timelessness is > > > > born. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 14. To be aware of Time is to be aware of the Universe, and to be > > > > aware of the Universe is to be aware of Time. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 15. To realize Timelessness is to attain Nirvana. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 16. But for Consciousness-without-an-object there is no difference > > > > between Time and Timelessness. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 17. Within Consciousness-without-an-object lies the seed of the > > > > world-containing Space. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 18. When awareness cognizes the world-containing Space then knowledge > > > > of the Spatial Void is born. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 19. To be aware of the world-containing Space is to be aware of the > > > > Universe of Objects. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 20. To realize the Spatial Void is to awaken to Nirvanic > > > > Consciousness. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 21. But for Consciousness-without-an-object there is no difference > > > > between the world-containing Space and the Spatial Void. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 22. Within Consciousness-without-an-object lies the Seed of Law. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 23. When consciousness of objects is born the Law is invoked as a > > > > Force tending ever toward Equilibrium. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, that is me all right. Born on the 23rd I always skim lists > > > like this with numbers till I get to the no. 23. If what it says > > > there is true - I guess the rest of it is too > > > > > > It is a long list and I will read it carefully when/if I get the > > > opportunity. > > > > > > Thank you Bob - have a nice one. > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > > > > > > > there is nothing beyond 23. > > > > there is nothing before 23. > > > > there is no..nor has been..a true 23. > > > > > > the Pointless Point.. > > > > from which some though not many... > > > > can see What they see.. > > > > What they see's THAT they see.. > > > > there' no " you " nor no " me " . > > > > > > opportunity knocks not twice. > > > > like the postman so nice. > > > > both and neither are true. > > > > but don't you be blue. > > > > > > if to skim is your whim > > > > don't go out on a limb. > > > > it matter's not a whit. > > > > this Dark never get's lit. > > > > > > > > the Dazzling Dark > > > > is not known by a lark > > > > it's felt only lightly > > > > the One sole Almighty. > > > > > > so now don't " you " read.. there's no need there's no need. > > > > there's no thinking there's no nothing.. no need to need feed. > > > > it's by taking no thought > > > > that the Light is Self-caught. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > p.s. > > > > thanks for the salutation. > > > > the Only One i can take is Always a Good One. > > > > i wouldn't nor couldn't.. > > > > have " IT " any other Way. > > > > :-) > > > > [.bx3] > > Onederful poem - nonederful peom > > Thought is so busy telling tales about nothing > The nothing that happened yesterday > The nothing that shall happen tomorrow > > Thus thought is endlessly producing and reproducing nothing > > That is onederful and nonederful > > There is no final question - there is no final answer > as how can there be when there is but a infinite flux > of absolutely nothing > > And thought expressing the nothing that never happened > and trying to find out what precisely it was that never > happened > > Yes > > Love > Lene > > So you decided to give some time, breathe deeply, close your eyes, relax, > think of something else...and try a friendly chat with your old friends > bbb... Been doing that all week-end, thank q > ...good. That is the way to go.... > > > Ooops...confused lene for meth.. What's the difference? Last week I discovered, that I had been posting messages to the wrong forum and because it never occurred to me that it was not the right forum I wrote in such a way would have done if it had actually been the right forum but fortunately the members never found out that their forum was the wrong forum and so they read my messages as IF - they were meant for them when they were not at all that, only for the members of the right forumzzzzzzooooo what fun life can be occasionally -Lene > -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 14, 2009 Report Share Posted December 14, 2009 - BobN Nisargadatta Monday, December 14, 2009 9:29 AM Re: Attachment Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Lene > Nisargadatta > Monday, December 14, 2009 7:47 AM > Re: Attachment > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " > > > > > > > > > <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right on > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Couple a years ago I would talk a lot about > > > > > > > > > > > nothingness > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > emptiness and not distinguish between them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A person, familiar with buddhism, kindly told me a > > > > > > > > > > > couple of > > > > > > > > > > > times or more that in buddhism emptiness and > > > > > > > > > > > nothingness > > > > > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > > > > not the same. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I never really understood the difference till last > > > > > > > > > > > night. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What happened last night? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P: Nothing! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right. You have hereby answered your own question to me: > > > > > > > > what is the difference between emptiness and nothingness. > > > > > > > > Thanks vm - always appreciate it when others do the hard > > > > > > > > work for me ... if you will excuse du conventional lingo. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P: No, I didn't answer, but I could, since you don't want > > > > > > > to. Emptiness in Buddhist is a concept that indicates > > > > > > > lack of independent self-hood. When a Buddhist says, all > > > > > > > things are empty, it means no thing can exist of itself, > > > > > > > but comes into being in relation. This applies even to > > > > > > > Buddhahood, and emptiness itself. Nothing means total absence, > > > > > > > including the absence of the presence of absence. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nothingness, of course, doesn't exist. A perfect vacuum has > > > > > > > been > > > > > > > demonstrated to have the negative energy of virtual particles > > > > > > > appearing and disappearing in space. Nothing is just another > > > > > > > word for unconsciousness, total not knowing. Of course, I'm > > > > > > > not saying my understanding is th same as yours. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the explanation. > > > > > > > > > > > > Our understanding is not different from one another regarding > > > > > > emptiness and nothingness. > > > > > > > > > > > > Will try to remember the expression " self-hood " . I never know > > > > > > what to call it. > > > > > > > > > > > > The whole thing became clear to me in a dream this morning. I > > > > > > am talking about the difference between dream where self-hood > > > > > > is present - and dream when self-hood is absent, and there is > > > > > > but relating without a relator (self, observer, thinker etc.) > > > > > > Empty center. At a certain point in the dream a self-creature > > > > > > entered which created incredible havoc - because the self was > > > > > > like outside the dream and interfering with what was going on > > > > > > from its apparently outside-of-the-dream position. The result > > > > > > was conflict of course as always, when there is this distance > > > > > > between one and one, which makes for the illusion that one is > > > > > > two - but then the whole dream is an illusion already so what > > > > > > the heck - except the dream is much nicer, when there is only > > > > > > one present - when it is but one presence -- relating with it > > > > > > self. > > > > > > > > > > > > It (little red selfhood) came (not a surprise) in the form of > > > > > > thinking, speculation, reflection about what was taking place > > > > > > in the dream. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And most important - qua this creation of division which breeds > > > > > confusion and conflict -- this " self " wants to be in control of > > > > > the confusion which its very own entering the stage has created > > > > > and what used to be " just a flow of a little of everything " now > > > > > becomes a veritable battle-field. > > > > > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > > > > > > > yet in Actuality... > > > > > > > > between " this creation of division " .. > > > > > > > > and.. > > > > > > > > " just a flow of a little of everything " .. > > > > > > > > not a Moment of difference Arises. > > > > > > > > the " real-time bastard.. > > > > > > > > is not other than the most subliminal Divine. > > > > > > > > let " Us " here together once again ponder the words of the sage.. > > > > > > > > Franklin-Merrell-Wolff.. > > > > > > > > baba's first..last...and only mentor: > > > > > > > > APHORISMS ON CONSCIOUSNESS-WITHOUT-AN-OBJECT > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 1. Consciousness-without-an-object is. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 2. Before objects were, Consciousness-without-an-object is. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 3. Though objects seem to exist, Consciousness-without-an-object is. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 4. When objects vanish, yet remaining through all unaffected, > > > > Consciousness-without-an-object is. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 5. Outside of Consciousness-without-an-object nothing is. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 6. Within the bosom of Consciousness-without-an-object lies the > > > > power > > > > of awareness that projects objects. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 7. When objects are projected, the power of awareness as subject is > > > > presupposed, yet Consciousness-without-an-object remains unchanged. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 8. When consciousness of objects is born, then, likewise, > > > > consciousness of absence of objects arises. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 9. Consciousness of objects is the Universe. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 10. Consciousness of absence of objects is Nirvana. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 11. Within Consciousness-without-an-object lie both the Universe and > > > > Nirvana, yet to Consciousness-without-an-object these two are the > > > > same. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 12. Within Consciousness-without-an-object lies the seed of Time. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 13. When awareness cognizes Time then knowledge of Timelessness is > > > > born. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 14. To be aware of Time is to be aware of the Universe, and to be > > > > aware of the Universe is to be aware of Time. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 15. To realize Timelessness is to attain Nirvana. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 16. But for Consciousness-without-an-object there is no difference > > > > between Time and Timelessness. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 17. Within Consciousness-without-an-object lies the seed of the > > > > world-containing Space. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 18. When awareness cognizes the world-containing Space then > > > > knowledge > > > > of the Spatial Void is born. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 19. To be aware of the world-containing Space is to be aware of the > > > > Universe of Objects. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 20. To realize the Spatial Void is to awaken to Nirvanic > > > > Consciousness. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 21. But for Consciousness-without-an-object there is no difference > > > > between the world-containing Space and the Spatial Void. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 22. Within Consciousness-without-an-object lies the Seed of Law. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 23. When consciousness of objects is born the Law is invoked as a > > > > Force tending ever toward Equilibrium. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, that is me all right. Born on the 23rd I always skim lists > > > like this with numbers till I get to the no. 23. If what it says > > > there is true - I guess the rest of it is too > > > > > > It is a long list and I will read it carefully when/if I get the > > > opportunity. > > > > > > Thank you Bob - have a nice one. > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > > > > > > > there is nothing beyond 23. > > > > there is nothing before 23. > > > > there is no..nor has been..a true 23. > > > > > > the Pointless Point.. > > > > from which some though not many... > > > > can see What they see.. > > > > What they see's THAT they see.. > > > > there' no " you " nor no " me " . > > > > > > opportunity knocks not twice. > > > > like the postman so nice. > > > > both and neither are true. > > > > but don't you be blue. > > > > > > if to skim is your whim > > > > don't go out on a limb. > > > > it matter's not a whit. > > > > this Dark never get's lit. > > > > > > > > the Dazzling Dark > > > > is not known by a lark > > > > it's felt only lightly > > > > the One sole Almighty. > > > > > > so now don't " you " read.. there's no need there's no need. > > > > there's no thinking there's no nothing.. no need to need feed. > > > > it's by taking no thought > > > > that the Light is Self-caught. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > p.s. > > > > thanks for the salutation. > > > > the Only One i can take is Always a Good One. > > > > i wouldn't nor couldn't.. > > > > have " IT " any other Way. > > > > :-) > > > > [.bx3] > > Onederful poem - nonederful peom > > Thought is so busy telling tales about nothing > The nothing that happened yesterday > The nothing that shall happen tomorrow > > Thus thought is endlessly producing and reproducing nothing > > That is onederful and nonederful > > There is no final question - there is no final answer > as how can there be when there is but a infinite flux > of absolutely nothing > > And thought expressing the nothing that never happened > and trying to find out what precisely it was that never > happened > > Yes > > Love > Lene > > So you decided to give some time, breathe deeply, close your eyes, relax, > think of something else...and try a friendly chat with your old friends > bbb... > ...good. That is the way to go.... > -geo- that's dumb. but at least you're keeping up.. with the level of comment you seem to be capable of making. your marks will therefore remain the same. but these grades do not allow you to pass any to a higher level.. on a scale from 0 to 0.. you still score in the negative. but we don't have any better expectations of you. -bbb- We? I suppose that's you and werner -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 14, 2009 Report Share Posted December 14, 2009 - BobN Nisargadatta Monday, December 14, 2009 9:33 AM Re: Attachment Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Lene > Nisargadatta > Monday, December 14, 2009 9:06 AM > Re: Attachment > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right on > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Couple a years ago I would talk a lot about nothingness > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > emptiness and not distinguish between them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A person, familiar with buddhism, kindly told me a couple > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > times or more that in buddhism emptiness and nothingness > > > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > > not the same. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I never really understood the difference till last night. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What happened last night? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P: Nothing! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right. You have hereby answered your own question to me: > > > > > > what is the difference between emptiness and nothingness. > > > > > > Thanks vm - always appreciate it when others do the hard > > > > > > work for me ... if you will excuse du conventional lingo. > > > > > > > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > > > > > P: No, I didn't answer, but I could, since you don't want > > > > > to. Emptiness in Buddhist is a concept that indicates > > > > > lack of independent self-hood. When a Buddhist says, all > > > > > things are empty, it means no thing can exist of itself, > > > > > but comes into being in relation. This applies even to > > > > > Buddhahood, and emptiness itself. Nothing means total absence, > > > > > including the absence of the presence of absence. > > > > > > > > > > Nothingness, of course, doesn't exist. A perfect vacuum has been > > > > > demonstrated to have the negative energy of virtual particles > > > > > appearing and disappearing in space. Nothing is just another > > > > > word for unconsciousness, total not knowing. Of course, I'm > > > > > not saying my understanding is th same as yours. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the explanation. > > > > > > > > Our understanding is not different from one another regarding > > > > emptiness and nothingness. > > > > > > > > Will try to remember the expression " self-hood " . I never know > > > > what to call it. > > > > > > > > The whole thing became clear to me in a dream this morning. I > > > > am talking about the difference between dream where self-hood > > > > is present - and dream when self-hood is absent, and there is > > > > but relating without a relator (self, observer, thinker etc.) > > > > Empty center. At a certain point in the dream a self-creature > > > > entered which created incredible havoc - because the self was > > > > like outside the dream and interfering with what was going on > > > > from its apparently outside-of-the-dream position. The result > > > > was conflict of course as always, when there is this distance > > > > between one and one, which makes for the illusion that one is > > > > two - but then the whole dream is an illusion already so what > > > > the heck - except the dream is much nicer, when there is only > > > > one present - when it is but one presence -- relating with it > > > > self. > > > > > > > > It (little red selfhood) came (not a surprise) in the form of > > > > thinking, speculation, reflection about what was taking place > > > > in the dream. > > > > > > > > > > > > And most important - qua this creation of division which breeds > > > confusion and conflict -- this " self " wants to be in control of > > > the confusion which its very own entering the stage has created > > > and what used to be " just a flow of a little of everything " now > > > becomes > > > a veritable battle-field. > > > > > > -Lene > > > > P: Thanks for your answer. Emptiness and co-dependent > > origination go together like this in Buddhism: Awareness > > has no independent self. Awareness exist because the world > > exist, the world exist because awareness exists. Both > > depend on each other. They arise together luck in an > > inescapable sine qua non. Reactivity to the world we > > see abates when we realize that. Awareness and the world > > will forever march in luck step changing as they go. > > There is nothing to fight, it will change of itself like > > a dream. > > Thanks P. > > I asked a teacher of religion this question: what is it that > relates to what when it's given that everything is relative, > ie but relations without any separate selves relating to one > another, and given that this relativity is the only reality? > > We sort of agreed, that each of us are the world and what is > relating then is the world relating to the world relating to > the world. I am the world, you are the world, we are the ONE > world relating to ITself. > > This world however is an illusion (in that the beginning and > ending of it is the same & happens simulataneously wherefore > nothing is happening as a matter of fact and this nothing is > the world). > > Thoughts communicate the (n)ever happening relations, and it > is thought which fixates what cannot be fixated - or IS that > fixation of the non-fixable rather. > > That fixation is the known -- but what is known is, was, and > will be eternally no thing happening. > > It is words which keep the wheel turning - not money > > -Lene > > Right. Words help the easy dissemination and agreement and apparent > fixation > of the inexistent. > -geo- well then you're trying to spread something. but from the smell of it.. i'd say it's fertilizer you're scattering as you speak. :-) ..b b.b. Ha.. but you must smell it BEFORE it is processed for the farmers... -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 14, 2009 Report Share Posted December 14, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Lene > Nisargadatta > Monday, December 14, 2009 10:26 AM > Re: Attachment > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > geo > > Nisargadatta > > Monday, December 14, 2009 9:02 AM > > Re: Re: Attachment > > > > > > > > > > - > > Lene > > Nisargadatta > > Monday, December 14, 2009 7:47 AM > > Re: Attachment > > > > Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " > > > > > > > > > > <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right on > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Couple a years ago I would talk a lot about > > > > > > > > > > > > nothingness > > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > emptiness and not distinguish between them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A person, familiar with buddhism, kindly told me a > > > > > > > > > > > > couple of > > > > > > > > > > > > times or more that in buddhism emptiness and > > > > > > > > > > > > nothingness > > > > > > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > > > > > not the same. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I never really understood the difference till last > > > > > > > > > > > > night. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What happened last night? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P: Nothing! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right. You have hereby answered your own question to me: > > > > > > > > > what is the difference between emptiness and nothingness. > > > > > > > > > Thanks vm - always appreciate it when others do the hard > > > > > > > > > work for me ... if you will excuse du conventional lingo. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P: No, I didn't answer, but I could, since you don't want > > > > > > > > to. Emptiness in Buddhist is a concept that indicates > > > > > > > > lack of independent self-hood. When a Buddhist says, all > > > > > > > > things are empty, it means no thing can exist of itself, > > > > > > > > but comes into being in relation. This applies even to > > > > > > > > Buddhahood, and emptiness itself. Nothing means total absence, > > > > > > > > including the absence of the presence of absence. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nothingness, of course, doesn't exist. A perfect vacuum has > > > > > > > > been > > > > > > > > demonstrated to have the negative energy of virtual particles > > > > > > > > appearing and disappearing in space. Nothing is just another > > > > > > > > word for unconsciousness, total not knowing. Of course, I'm > > > > > > > > not saying my understanding is th same as yours. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the explanation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Our understanding is not different from one another regarding > > > > > > > emptiness and nothingness. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Will try to remember the expression " self-hood " . I never know > > > > > > > what to call it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The whole thing became clear to me in a dream this morning. I > > > > > > > am talking about the difference between dream where self-hood > > > > > > > is present - and dream when self-hood is absent, and there is > > > > > > > but relating without a relator (self, observer, thinker etc.) > > > > > > > Empty center. At a certain point in the dream a self-creature > > > > > > > entered which created incredible havoc - because the self was > > > > > > > like outside the dream and interfering with what was going on > > > > > > > from its apparently outside-of-the-dream position. The result > > > > > > > was conflict of course as always, when there is this distance > > > > > > > between one and one, which makes for the illusion that one is > > > > > > > two - but then the whole dream is an illusion already so what > > > > > > > the heck - except the dream is much nicer, when there is only > > > > > > > one present - when it is but one presence -- relating with it > > > > > > > self. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It (little red selfhood) came (not a surprise) in the form of > > > > > > > thinking, speculation, reflection about what was taking place > > > > > > > in the dream. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And most important - qua this creation of division which breeds > > > > > > confusion and conflict -- this " self " wants to be in control of > > > > > > the confusion which its very own entering the stage has created > > > > > > and what used to be " just a flow of a little of everything " now > > > > > > becomes a veritable battle-field. > > > > > > > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > yet in Actuality... > > > > > > > > > > between " this creation of division " .. > > > > > > > > > > and.. > > > > > > > > > > " just a flow of a little of everything " .. > > > > > > > > > > not a Moment of difference Arises. > > > > > > > > > > the " real-time bastard.. > > > > > > > > > > is not other than the most subliminal Divine. > > > > > > > > > > let " Us " here together once again ponder the words of the sage.. > > > > > > > > > > Franklin-Merrell-Wolff.. > > > > > > > > > > baba's first..last...and only mentor: > > > > > > > > > > APHORISMS ON CONSCIOUSNESS-WITHOUT-AN-OBJECT > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > 1. Consciousness-without-an-object is. > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > 2. Before objects were, Consciousness-without-an-object is. > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > 3. Though objects seem to exist, Consciousness-without-an-object is. > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > 4. When objects vanish, yet remaining through all unaffected, > > > > > Consciousness-without-an-object is. > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > 5. Outside of Consciousness-without-an-object nothing is. > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > 6. Within the bosom of Consciousness-without-an-object lies the > > > > > power > > > > > of awareness that projects objects. > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > 7. When objects are projected, the power of awareness as subject is > > > > > presupposed, yet Consciousness-without-an-object remains unchanged. > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > 8. When consciousness of objects is born, then, likewise, > > > > > consciousness of absence of objects arises. > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > 9. Consciousness of objects is the Universe. > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > 10. Consciousness of absence of objects is Nirvana. > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > 11. Within Consciousness-without-an-object lie both the Universe and > > > > > Nirvana, yet to Consciousness-without-an-object these two are the > > > > > same. > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > 12. Within Consciousness-without-an-object lies the seed of Time. > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > 13. When awareness cognizes Time then knowledge of Timelessness is > > > > > born. > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > 14. To be aware of Time is to be aware of the Universe, and to be > > > > > aware of the Universe is to be aware of Time. > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > 15. To realize Timelessness is to attain Nirvana. > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > 16. But for Consciousness-without-an-object there is no difference > > > > > between Time and Timelessness. > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > 17. Within Consciousness-without-an-object lies the seed of the > > > > > world-containing Space. > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > 18. When awareness cognizes the world-containing Space then > > > > > knowledge > > > > > of the Spatial Void is born. > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > 19. To be aware of the world-containing Space is to be aware of the > > > > > Universe of Objects. > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > 20. To realize the Spatial Void is to awaken to Nirvanic > > > > > Consciousness. > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > 21. But for Consciousness-without-an-object there is no difference > > > > > between the world-containing Space and the Spatial Void. > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > 22. Within Consciousness-without-an-object lies the Seed of Law. > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > 23. When consciousness of objects is born the Law is invoked as a > > > > > Force tending ever toward Equilibrium. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, that is me all right. Born on the 23rd I always skim lists > > > > like this with numbers till I get to the no. 23. If what it says > > > > there is true - I guess the rest of it is too > > > > > > > > It is a long list and I will read it carefully when/if I get the > > > > opportunity. > > > > > > > > Thank you Bob - have a nice one. > > > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there is nothing beyond 23. > > > > > > there is nothing before 23. > > > > > > there is no..nor has been..a true 23. > > > > > > > > > the Pointless Point.. > > > > > > from which some though not many... > > > > > > can see What they see.. > > > > > > What they see's THAT they see.. > > > > > > there' no " you " nor no " me " . > > > > > > > > > opportunity knocks not twice. > > > > > > like the postman so nice. > > > > > > both and neither are true. > > > > > > but don't you be blue. > > > > > > > > > if to skim is your whim > > > > > > don't go out on a limb. > > > > > > it matter's not a whit. > > > > > > this Dark never get's lit. > > > > > > > > > > > > the Dazzling Dark > > > > > > is not known by a lark > > > > > > it's felt only lightly > > > > > > the One sole Almighty. > > > > > > > > > so now don't " you " read.. there's no need there's no need. > > > > > > there's no thinking there's no nothing.. no need to need feed. > > > > > > it's by taking no thought > > > > > > that the Light is Self-caught. > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > p.s. > > > > > > thanks for the salutation. > > > > > > the Only One i can take is Always a Good One. > > > > > > i wouldn't nor couldn't.. > > > > > > have " IT " any other Way. > > > > > > :-) > > > > > > [.bx3] > > > > Onederful poem - nonederful peom > > > > Thought is so busy telling tales about nothing > > The nothing that happened yesterday > > The nothing that shall happen tomorrow > > > > Thus thought is endlessly producing and reproducing nothing > > > > That is onederful and nonederful > > > > There is no final question - there is no final answer > > as how can there be when there is but a infinite flux > > of absolutely nothing > > > > And thought expressing the nothing that never happened > > and trying to find out what precisely it was that never > > happened > > > > Yes > > > > Love > > Lene > > > > So you decided to give some time, breathe deeply, close your eyes, relax, > > think of something else...and try a friendly chat with your old friends > > bbb... > > Been doing that all week-end, thank q > > > ...good. That is the way to go.... > > > > > > Ooops...confused lene for meth.. > > What's the difference? > > Last week I discovered, that I had been posting messages to the > wrong forum and because it never occurred to me that it was not > the right forum I wrote in such a way would have done if it had > actually been the right forum but fortunately the members never > found out that their forum was the wrong forum and so they read > my messages as IF - they were meant for them when they were not > at all that, only for the members of the right forumzzzzzzooooo > > what fun life can be > occasionally > > -Lene > > LOL > There is a member of this forum that occasionally receives posts from > himself and doesn't even notice it. Engages in long discussions... > -geo- LOL! there's a member on this forum who never notices anything but himself. and he has a hard time explaining it too. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 14, 2009 Report Share Posted December 14, 2009 - Lene Nisargadatta Monday, December 14, 2009 10:26 AM Re: Attachment Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > geo > Nisargadatta > Monday, December 14, 2009 9:02 AM > Re: Re: Attachment > > > > > - > Lene > Nisargadatta > Monday, December 14, 2009 7:47 AM > Re: Attachment > > Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " > > > > > > > > > <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right on > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Couple a years ago I would talk a lot about > > > > > > > > > > > nothingness > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > emptiness and not distinguish between them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A person, familiar with buddhism, kindly told me a > > > > > > > > > > > couple of > > > > > > > > > > > times or more that in buddhism emptiness and > > > > > > > > > > > nothingness > > > > > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > > > > not the same. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I never really understood the difference till last > > > > > > > > > > > night. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What happened last night? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P: Nothing! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right. You have hereby answered your own question to me: > > > > > > > > what is the difference between emptiness and nothingness. > > > > > > > > Thanks vm - always appreciate it when others do the hard > > > > > > > > work for me ... if you will excuse du conventional lingo. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P: No, I didn't answer, but I could, since you don't want > > > > > > > to. Emptiness in Buddhist is a concept that indicates > > > > > > > lack of independent self-hood. When a Buddhist says, all > > > > > > > things are empty, it means no thing can exist of itself, > > > > > > > but comes into being in relation. This applies even to > > > > > > > Buddhahood, and emptiness itself. Nothing means total absence, > > > > > > > including the absence of the presence of absence. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nothingness, of course, doesn't exist. A perfect vacuum has > > > > > > > been > > > > > > > demonstrated to have the negative energy of virtual particles > > > > > > > appearing and disappearing in space. Nothing is just another > > > > > > > word for unconsciousness, total not knowing. Of course, I'm > > > > > > > not saying my understanding is th same as yours. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the explanation. > > > > > > > > > > > > Our understanding is not different from one another regarding > > > > > > emptiness and nothingness. > > > > > > > > > > > > Will try to remember the expression " self-hood " . I never know > > > > > > what to call it. > > > > > > > > > > > > The whole thing became clear to me in a dream this morning. I > > > > > > am talking about the difference between dream where self-hood > > > > > > is present - and dream when self-hood is absent, and there is > > > > > > but relating without a relator (self, observer, thinker etc.) > > > > > > Empty center. At a certain point in the dream a self-creature > > > > > > entered which created incredible havoc - because the self was > > > > > > like outside the dream and interfering with what was going on > > > > > > from its apparently outside-of-the-dream position. The result > > > > > > was conflict of course as always, when there is this distance > > > > > > between one and one, which makes for the illusion that one is > > > > > > two - but then the whole dream is an illusion already so what > > > > > > the heck - except the dream is much nicer, when there is only > > > > > > one present - when it is but one presence -- relating with it > > > > > > self. > > > > > > > > > > > > It (little red selfhood) came (not a surprise) in the form of > > > > > > thinking, speculation, reflection about what was taking place > > > > > > in the dream. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And most important - qua this creation of division which breeds > > > > > confusion and conflict -- this " self " wants to be in control of > > > > > the confusion which its very own entering the stage has created > > > > > and what used to be " just a flow of a little of everything " now > > > > > becomes a veritable battle-field. > > > > > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > > > > > > > yet in Actuality... > > > > > > > > between " this creation of division " .. > > > > > > > > and.. > > > > > > > > " just a flow of a little of everything " .. > > > > > > > > not a Moment of difference Arises. > > > > > > > > the " real-time bastard.. > > > > > > > > is not other than the most subliminal Divine. > > > > > > > > let " Us " here together once again ponder the words of the sage.. > > > > > > > > Franklin-Merrell-Wolff.. > > > > > > > > baba's first..last...and only mentor: > > > > > > > > APHORISMS ON CONSCIOUSNESS-WITHOUT-AN-OBJECT > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 1. Consciousness-without-an-object is. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 2. Before objects were, Consciousness-without-an-object is. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 3. Though objects seem to exist, Consciousness-without-an-object is. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 4. When objects vanish, yet remaining through all unaffected, > > > > Consciousness-without-an-object is. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 5. Outside of Consciousness-without-an-object nothing is. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 6. Within the bosom of Consciousness-without-an-object lies the > > > > power > > > > of awareness that projects objects. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 7. When objects are projected, the power of awareness as subject is > > > > presupposed, yet Consciousness-without-an-object remains unchanged. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 8. When consciousness of objects is born, then, likewise, > > > > consciousness of absence of objects arises. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 9. Consciousness of objects is the Universe. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 10. Consciousness of absence of objects is Nirvana. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 11. Within Consciousness-without-an-object lie both the Universe and > > > > Nirvana, yet to Consciousness-without-an-object these two are the > > > > same. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 12. Within Consciousness-without-an-object lies the seed of Time. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 13. When awareness cognizes Time then knowledge of Timelessness is > > > > born. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 14. To be aware of Time is to be aware of the Universe, and to be > > > > aware of the Universe is to be aware of Time. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 15. To realize Timelessness is to attain Nirvana. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 16. But for Consciousness-without-an-object there is no difference > > > > between Time and Timelessness. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 17. Within Consciousness-without-an-object lies the seed of the > > > > world-containing Space. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 18. When awareness cognizes the world-containing Space then > > > > knowledge > > > > of the Spatial Void is born. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 19. To be aware of the world-containing Space is to be aware of the > > > > Universe of Objects. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 20. To realize the Spatial Void is to awaken to Nirvanic > > > > Consciousness. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 21. But for Consciousness-without-an-object there is no difference > > > > between the world-containing Space and the Spatial Void. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 22. Within Consciousness-without-an-object lies the Seed of Law. > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > 23. When consciousness of objects is born the Law is invoked as a > > > > Force tending ever toward Equilibrium. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, that is me all right. Born on the 23rd I always skim lists > > > like this with numbers till I get to the no. 23. If what it says > > > there is true - I guess the rest of it is too > > > > > > It is a long list and I will read it carefully when/if I get the > > > opportunity. > > > > > > Thank you Bob - have a nice one. > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > > > > > > > there is nothing beyond 23. > > > > there is nothing before 23. > > > > there is no..nor has been..a true 23. > > > > > > the Pointless Point.. > > > > from which some though not many... > > > > can see What they see.. > > > > What they see's THAT they see.. > > > > there' no " you " nor no " me " . > > > > > > opportunity knocks not twice. > > > > like the postman so nice. > > > > both and neither are true. > > > > but don't you be blue. > > > > > > if to skim is your whim > > > > don't go out on a limb. > > > > it matter's not a whit. > > > > this Dark never get's lit. > > > > > > > > the Dazzling Dark > > > > is not known by a lark > > > > it's felt only lightly > > > > the One sole Almighty. > > > > > > so now don't " you " read.. there's no need there's no need. > > > > there's no thinking there's no nothing.. no need to need feed. > > > > it's by taking no thought > > > > that the Light is Self-caught. > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > p.s. > > > > thanks for the salutation. > > > > the Only One i can take is Always a Good One. > > > > i wouldn't nor couldn't.. > > > > have " IT " any other Way. > > > > :-) > > > > [.bx3] > > Onederful poem - nonederful peom > > Thought is so busy telling tales about nothing > The nothing that happened yesterday > The nothing that shall happen tomorrow > > Thus thought is endlessly producing and reproducing nothing > > That is onederful and nonederful > > There is no final question - there is no final answer > as how can there be when there is but a infinite flux > of absolutely nothing > > And thought expressing the nothing that never happened > and trying to find out what precisely it was that never > happened > > Yes > > Love > Lene > > So you decided to give some time, breathe deeply, close your eyes, relax, > think of something else...and try a friendly chat with your old friends > bbb... Been doing that all week-end, thank q > ...good. That is the way to go.... > > > Ooops...confused lene for meth.. What's the difference? Last week I discovered, that I had been posting messages to the wrong forum and because it never occurred to me that it was not the right forum I wrote in such a way would have done if it had actually been the right forum but fortunately the members never found out that their forum was the wrong forum and so they read my messages as IF - they were meant for them when they were not at all that, only for the members of the right forumzzzzzzooooo what fun life can be occasionally -Lene LOL There is a member of this forum that occasionally receives posts from himself and doesn't even notice it. Engages in long discussions... -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 14, 2009 Report Share Posted December 14, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Lene > Nisargadatta > Monday, December 14, 2009 9:06 AM > Re: Attachment > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right on > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Couple a years ago I would talk a lot about nothingness and > > > > > > > > > emptiness and not distinguish between them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A person, familiar with buddhism, kindly told me a couple of > > > > > > > > > times or more that in buddhism emptiness and nothingness are > > > > > > > > > not the same. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I never really understood the difference till last night. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What happened last night? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P: Nothing! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right. You have hereby answered your own question to me: > > > > > > what is the difference between emptiness and nothingness. > > > > > > Thanks vm - always appreciate it when others do the hard > > > > > > work for me ... if you will excuse du conventional lingo. > > > > > > > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > > > > > P: No, I didn't answer, but I could, since you don't want > > > > > to. Emptiness in Buddhist is a concept that indicates > > > > > lack of independent self-hood. When a Buddhist says, all > > > > > things are empty, it means no thing can exist of itself, > > > > > but comes into being in relation. This applies even to > > > > > Buddhahood, and emptiness itself. Nothing means total absence, > > > > > including the absence of the presence of absence. > > > > > > > > > > Nothingness, of course, doesn't exist. A perfect vacuum has been > > > > > demonstrated to have the negative energy of virtual particles > > > > > appearing and disappearing in space. Nothing is just another > > > > > word for unconsciousness, total not knowing. Of course, I'm > > > > > not saying my understanding is th same as yours. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the explanation. > > > > > > > > Our understanding is not different from one another regarding > > > > emptiness and nothingness. > > > > > > > > Will try to remember the expression " self-hood " . I never know > > > > what to call it. > > > > > > > > The whole thing became clear to me in a dream this morning. I > > > > am talking about the difference between dream where self-hood > > > > is present - and dream when self-hood is absent, and there is > > > > but relating without a relator (self, observer, thinker etc.) > > > > Empty center. At a certain point in the dream a self-creature > > > > entered which created incredible havoc - because the self was > > > > like outside the dream and interfering with what was going on > > > > from its apparently outside-of-the-dream position. The result > > > > was conflict of course as always, when there is this distance > > > > between one and one, which makes for the illusion that one is > > > > two - but then the whole dream is an illusion already so what > > > > the heck - except the dream is much nicer, when there is only > > > > one present - when it is but one presence -- relating with it > > > > self. > > > > > > > > It (little red selfhood) came (not a surprise) in the form of > > > > thinking, speculation, reflection about what was taking place > > > > in the dream. > > > > > > > > > > > > And most important - qua this creation of division which breeds > > > confusion and conflict -- this " self " wants to be in control of > > > the confusion which its very own entering the stage has created > > > and what used to be " just a flow of a little of everything " now becomes > > > a veritable battle-field. > > > > > > -Lene > > > > P: Thanks for your answer. Emptiness and co-dependent > > origination go together like this in Buddhism: Awareness > > has no independent self. Awareness exist because the world > > exist, the world exist because awareness exists. Both > > depend on each other. They arise together luck in an > > inescapable sine qua non. Reactivity to the world we > > see abates when we realize that. Awareness and the world > > will forever march in luck step changing as they go. > > There is nothing to fight, it will change of itself like > > a dream. > > Thanks P. > > I asked a teacher of religion this question: what is it that > relates to what when it's given that everything is relative, > ie but relations without any separate selves relating to one > another, and given that this relativity is the only reality? > > We sort of agreed, that each of us are the world and what is > relating then is the world relating to the world relating to > the world. I am the world, you are the world, we are the ONE > world relating to ITself. > > This world however is an illusion (in that the beginning and > ending of it is the same & happens simulataneously wherefore > nothing is happening as a matter of fact and this nothing is > the world). > > Thoughts communicate the (n)ever happening relations, and it > is thought which fixates what cannot be fixated - or IS that > fixation of the non-fixable rather. > > That fixation is the known -- but what is known is, was, and > will be eternally no thing happening. > > It is words which keep the wheel turning - not money > > -Lene > P: " In the beginning was the Word. " To liberate perception from words, is the work. Words like " Awareness " and " Absolute " obstruct the final view, but people fight tooth and nail to keep those words glued to their eyes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 14, 2009 Report Share Posted December 14, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > BobN > Nisargadatta > Monday, December 14, 2009 12:47 PM > Re: Attachment > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > Lene > > Nisargadatta > > Monday, December 14, 2009 10:26 AM > > Re: Attachment > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > geo > > > Nisargadatta > > > Monday, December 14, 2009 9:02 AM > > > Re: Re: Attachment > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > Lene > > > Nisargadatta > > > Monday, December 14, 2009 7:47 AM > > > Re: Attachment > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " > > > > > > > > > > > <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " > > > > > > > > > > > > <lschwabe@> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right on > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Couple a years ago I would talk a lot about > > > > > > > > > > > > > nothingness > > > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > emptiness and not distinguish between them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A person, familiar with buddhism, kindly told me a > > > > > > > > > > > > > couple of > > > > > > > > > > > > > times or more that in buddhism emptiness and > > > > > > > > > > > > > nothingness > > > > > > > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > > > > > > not the same. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I never really understood the difference till last > > > > > > > > > > > > > night. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What happened last night? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P: Nothing! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right. You have hereby answered your own question to me: > > > > > > > > > > what is the difference between emptiness and nothingness. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks vm - always appreciate it when others do the hard > > > > > > > > > > work for me ... if you will excuse du conventional lingo. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P: No, I didn't answer, but I could, since you don't want > > > > > > > > > to. Emptiness in Buddhist is a concept that indicates > > > > > > > > > lack of independent self-hood. When a Buddhist says, all > > > > > > > > > things are empty, it means no thing can exist of itself, > > > > > > > > > but comes into being in relation. This applies even to > > > > > > > > > Buddhahood, and emptiness itself. Nothing means total > > > > > > > > > absence, > > > > > > > > > including the absence of the presence of absence. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nothingness, of course, doesn't exist. A perfect vacuum has > > > > > > > > > been > > > > > > > > > demonstrated to have the negative energy of virtual > > > > > > > > > particles > > > > > > > > > appearing and disappearing in space. Nothing is just another > > > > > > > > > word for unconsciousness, total not knowing. Of course, I'm > > > > > > > > > not saying my understanding is th same as yours. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the explanation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Our understanding is not different from one another regarding > > > > > > > > emptiness and nothingness. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Will try to remember the expression " self-hood " . I never know > > > > > > > > what to call it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The whole thing became clear to me in a dream this morning. I > > > > > > > > am talking about the difference between dream where self-hood > > > > > > > > is present - and dream when self-hood is absent, and there is > > > > > > > > but relating without a relator (self, observer, thinker etc.) > > > > > > > > Empty center. At a certain point in the dream a self-creature > > > > > > > > entered which created incredible havoc - because the self was > > > > > > > > like outside the dream and interfering with what was going on > > > > > > > > from its apparently outside-of-the-dream position. The result > > > > > > > > was conflict of course as always, when there is this distance > > > > > > > > between one and one, which makes for the illusion that one is > > > > > > > > two - but then the whole dream is an illusion already so what > > > > > > > > the heck - except the dream is much nicer, when there is only > > > > > > > > one present - when it is but one presence -- relating with it > > > > > > > > self. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It (little red selfhood) came (not a surprise) in the form of > > > > > > > > thinking, speculation, reflection about what was taking place > > > > > > > > in the dream. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And most important - qua this creation of division which breeds > > > > > > > confusion and conflict -- this " self " wants to be in control of > > > > > > > the confusion which its very own entering the stage has created > > > > > > > and what used to be " just a flow of a little of everything " now > > > > > > > becomes a veritable battle-field. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > yet in Actuality... > > > > > > > > > > > > between " this creation of division " .. > > > > > > > > > > > > and.. > > > > > > > > > > > > " just a flow of a little of everything " .. > > > > > > > > > > > > not a Moment of difference Arises. > > > > > > > > > > > > the " real-time bastard.. > > > > > > > > > > > > is not other than the most subliminal Divine. > > > > > > > > > > > > let " Us " here together once again ponder the words of the sage.. > > > > > > > > > > > > Franklin-Merrell-Wolff.. > > > > > > > > > > > > baba's first..last...and only mentor: > > > > > > > > > > > > APHORISMS ON CONSCIOUSNESS-WITHOUT-AN-OBJECT > > > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Consciousness-without-an-object is. > > > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Before objects were, Consciousness-without-an-object is. > > > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. Though objects seem to exist, Consciousness-without-an-object > > > > > > is. > > > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > > > 4. When objects vanish, yet remaining through all unaffected, > > > > > > Consciousness-without-an-object is. > > > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > > > 5. Outside of Consciousness-without-an-object nothing is. > > > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > > > 6. Within the bosom of Consciousness-without-an-object lies the > > > > > > power > > > > > > of awareness that projects objects. > > > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > > > 7. When objects are projected, the power of awareness as subject > > > > > > is > > > > > > presupposed, yet Consciousness-without-an-object remains > > > > > > unchanged. > > > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > > > 8. When consciousness of objects is born, then, likewise, > > > > > > consciousness of absence of objects arises. > > > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > > > 9. Consciousness of objects is the Universe. > > > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > > > 10. Consciousness of absence of objects is Nirvana. > > > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > > > 11. Within Consciousness-without-an-object lie both the Universe > > > > > > and > > > > > > Nirvana, yet to Consciousness-without-an-object these two are the > > > > > > same. > > > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > > > 12. Within Consciousness-without-an-object lies the seed of Time. > > > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > > > 13. When awareness cognizes Time then knowledge of Timelessness is > > > > > > born. > > > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > > > 14. To be aware of Time is to be aware of the Universe, and to be > > > > > > aware of the Universe is to be aware of Time. > > > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > > > 15. To realize Timelessness is to attain Nirvana. > > > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > > > 16. But for Consciousness-without-an-object there is no difference > > > > > > between Time and Timelessness. > > > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > > > 17. Within Consciousness-without-an-object lies the seed of the > > > > > > world-containing Space. > > > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > > > 18. When awareness cognizes the world-containing Space then > > > > > > knowledge > > > > > > of the Spatial Void is born. > > > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > > > 19. To be aware of the world-containing Space is to be aware of > > > > > > the > > > > > > Universe of Objects. > > > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > > > 20. To realize the Spatial Void is to awaken to Nirvanic > > > > > > Consciousness. > > > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > > > 21. But for Consciousness-without-an-object there is no difference > > > > > > between the world-containing Space and the Spatial Void. > > > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > > > 22. Within Consciousness-without-an-object lies the Seed of Law. > > > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > > > 23. When consciousness of objects is born the Law is invoked as a > > > > > > Force tending ever toward Equilibrium. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, that is me all right. Born on the 23rd I always skim lists > > > > > like this with numbers till I get to the no. 23. If what it says > > > > > there is true - I guess the rest of it is too > > > > > > > > > > It is a long list and I will read it carefully when/if I get the > > > > > opportunity. > > > > > > > > > > Thank you Bob - have a nice one. > > > > > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there is nothing beyond 23. > > > > > > > > there is nothing before 23. > > > > > > > > there is no..nor has been..a true 23. > > > > > > > > > > > > the Pointless Point.. > > > > > > > > from which some though not many... > > > > > > > > can see What they see.. > > > > > > > > What they see's THAT they see.. > > > > > > > > there' no " you " nor no " me " . > > > > > > > > > > > > opportunity knocks not twice. > > > > > > > > like the postman so nice. > > > > > > > > both and neither are true. > > > > > > > > but don't you be blue. > > > > > > > > > > > > if to skim is your whim > > > > > > > > don't go out on a limb. > > > > > > > > it matter's not a whit. > > > > > > > > this Dark never get's lit. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the Dazzling Dark > > > > > > > > is not known by a lark > > > > > > > > it's felt only lightly > > > > > > > > the One sole Almighty. > > > > > > > > > > > > so now don't " you " read.. there's no need there's no need. > > > > > > > > there's no thinking there's no nothing.. no need to need feed. > > > > > > > > it's by taking no thought > > > > > > > > that the Light is Self-caught. > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > p.s. > > > > > > > > thanks for the salutation. > > > > > > > > the Only One i can take is Always a Good One. > > > > > > > > i wouldn't nor couldn't.. > > > > > > > > have " IT " any other Way. > > > > > > > > :-) > > > > > > > > [.bx3] > > > > > > Onederful poem - nonederful peom > > > > > > Thought is so busy telling tales about nothing > > > The nothing that happened yesterday > > > The nothing that shall happen tomorrow > > > > > > Thus thought is endlessly producing and reproducing nothing > > > > > > That is onederful and nonederful > > > > > > There is no final question - there is no final answer > > > as how can there be when there is but a infinite flux > > > of absolutely nothing > > > > > > And thought expressing the nothing that never happened > > > and trying to find out what precisely it was that never > > > happened > > > > > > Yes > > > > > > Love > > > Lene > > > > > > So you decided to give some time, breathe deeply, close your eyes, > > > relax, > > > think of something else...and try a friendly chat with your old friends > > > bbb... > > > > Been doing that all week-end, thank q > > > > > ...good. That is the way to go.... > > > > > > > > > Ooops...confused lene for meth.. > > > > What's the difference? > > > > Last week I discovered, that I had been posting messages to the > > wrong forum and because it never occurred to me that it was not > > the right forum I wrote in such a way would have done if it had > > actually been the right forum but fortunately the members never > > found out that their forum was the wrong forum and so they read > > my messages as IF - they were meant for them when they were not > > at all that, only for the members of the right forumzzzzzzooooo > > > > what fun life can be > > occasionally > > > > -Lene > > > > LOL > > There is a member of this forum that occasionally receives posts from > > himself and doesn't even notice it. Engages in long discussions... > > -geo- > > LOL! > > there's a member on this forum who never notices anything but himself. > > and he has a hard time explaining it too. > > .b b.b. > > There is a member in this forum that notices always the very same... > sometimes he goes for walk but is always back to the same. > -geo- quick like a bunny rabbit you react Son of Brazil! you don't need to try to explain yourself. it's too difficult for you it's clear. enjoy your walk. maybe you can take your focus off yourself while you do. but as you say...when you get back.. you'll probably be back to the same. anyway let's be really crystal clear here.. it seems that you have jumped to react defensively and respond... to a posting that had nothing to do with you. but i guess you think that post which you reply to.. must have been all about you (seemingly your sole focal point) well geo it wasn't. but since that's what you think and were so quick to jump on it.. i'm replying here as if you were right. that should make you feel good. you seem to need to feel right no matter what you have done or said. but wow.. i'm also thinking now because of this faux pas on your part that.. you must have been addressing yourself in your own post before that. i hadn't realized that. i was merely adding an observation about another unnamed poster. i was sort of agreeing with you... and just adding onto your reflections. (without of course naming names). but now see here geo.. you know what.. you really don't engage in long discussions with yourself. you haven't got that much to discuss anyway. but it's good that you notice yourself doing it. i don't think there is anything but yourself that you do notice again i'm just agreeing here with your initial assessment.. which in your first post you set out as: yourself posting to yourself. but i must disagree with one point... you said that you didn't notice yourself doing that. don't be modest! you notice it enough to post about it.. and not only to yourself. you do deserve a little credit for that. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 14, 2009 Report Share Posted December 14, 2009 - BobN Nisargadatta Monday, December 14, 2009 12:47 PM Re: Attachment Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Lene > Nisargadatta > Monday, December 14, 2009 10:26 AM > Re: Attachment > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > geo > > Nisargadatta > > Monday, December 14, 2009 9:02 AM > > Re: Re: Attachment > > > > > > > > > > - > > Lene > > Nisargadatta > > Monday, December 14, 2009 7:47 AM > > Re: Attachment > > > > Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " > > > > > > > > > > <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " > > > > > > > > > > > <lschwabe@> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right on > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Couple a years ago I would talk a lot about > > > > > > > > > > > > nothingness > > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > emptiness and not distinguish between them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A person, familiar with buddhism, kindly told me a > > > > > > > > > > > > couple of > > > > > > > > > > > > times or more that in buddhism emptiness and > > > > > > > > > > > > nothingness > > > > > > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > > > > > not the same. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I never really understood the difference till last > > > > > > > > > > > > night. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What happened last night? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P: Nothing! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right. You have hereby answered your own question to me: > > > > > > > > > what is the difference between emptiness and nothingness. > > > > > > > > > Thanks vm - always appreciate it when others do the hard > > > > > > > > > work for me ... if you will excuse du conventional lingo. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P: No, I didn't answer, but I could, since you don't want > > > > > > > > to. Emptiness in Buddhist is a concept that indicates > > > > > > > > lack of independent self-hood. When a Buddhist says, all > > > > > > > > things are empty, it means no thing can exist of itself, > > > > > > > > but comes into being in relation. This applies even to > > > > > > > > Buddhahood, and emptiness itself. Nothing means total > > > > > > > > absence, > > > > > > > > including the absence of the presence of absence. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nothingness, of course, doesn't exist. A perfect vacuum has > > > > > > > > been > > > > > > > > demonstrated to have the negative energy of virtual > > > > > > > > particles > > > > > > > > appearing and disappearing in space. Nothing is just another > > > > > > > > word for unconsciousness, total not knowing. Of course, I'm > > > > > > > > not saying my understanding is th same as yours. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the explanation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Our understanding is not different from one another regarding > > > > > > > emptiness and nothingness. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Will try to remember the expression " self-hood " . I never know > > > > > > > what to call it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The whole thing became clear to me in a dream this morning. I > > > > > > > am talking about the difference between dream where self-hood > > > > > > > is present - and dream when self-hood is absent, and there is > > > > > > > but relating without a relator (self, observer, thinker etc.) > > > > > > > Empty center. At a certain point in the dream a self-creature > > > > > > > entered which created incredible havoc - because the self was > > > > > > > like outside the dream and interfering with what was going on > > > > > > > from its apparently outside-of-the-dream position. The result > > > > > > > was conflict of course as always, when there is this distance > > > > > > > between one and one, which makes for the illusion that one is > > > > > > > two - but then the whole dream is an illusion already so what > > > > > > > the heck - except the dream is much nicer, when there is only > > > > > > > one present - when it is but one presence -- relating with it > > > > > > > self. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It (little red selfhood) came (not a surprise) in the form of > > > > > > > thinking, speculation, reflection about what was taking place > > > > > > > in the dream. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And most important - qua this creation of division which breeds > > > > > > confusion and conflict -- this " self " wants to be in control of > > > > > > the confusion which its very own entering the stage has created > > > > > > and what used to be " just a flow of a little of everything " now > > > > > > becomes a veritable battle-field. > > > > > > > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > yet in Actuality... > > > > > > > > > > between " this creation of division " .. > > > > > > > > > > and.. > > > > > > > > > > " just a flow of a little of everything " .. > > > > > > > > > > not a Moment of difference Arises. > > > > > > > > > > the " real-time bastard.. > > > > > > > > > > is not other than the most subliminal Divine. > > > > > > > > > > let " Us " here together once again ponder the words of the sage.. > > > > > > > > > > Franklin-Merrell-Wolff.. > > > > > > > > > > baba's first..last...and only mentor: > > > > > > > > > > APHORISMS ON CONSCIOUSNESS-WITHOUT-AN-OBJECT > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > 1. Consciousness-without-an-object is. > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > 2. Before objects were, Consciousness-without-an-object is. > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > 3. Though objects seem to exist, Consciousness-without-an-object > > > > > is. > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > 4. When objects vanish, yet remaining through all unaffected, > > > > > Consciousness-without-an-object is. > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > 5. Outside of Consciousness-without-an-object nothing is. > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > 6. Within the bosom of Consciousness-without-an-object lies the > > > > > power > > > > > of awareness that projects objects. > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > 7. When objects are projected, the power of awareness as subject > > > > > is > > > > > presupposed, yet Consciousness-without-an-object remains > > > > > unchanged. > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > 8. When consciousness of objects is born, then, likewise, > > > > > consciousness of absence of objects arises. > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > 9. Consciousness of objects is the Universe. > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > 10. Consciousness of absence of objects is Nirvana. > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > 11. Within Consciousness-without-an-object lie both the Universe > > > > > and > > > > > Nirvana, yet to Consciousness-without-an-object these two are the > > > > > same. > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > 12. Within Consciousness-without-an-object lies the seed of Time. > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > 13. When awareness cognizes Time then knowledge of Timelessness is > > > > > born. > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > 14. To be aware of Time is to be aware of the Universe, and to be > > > > > aware of the Universe is to be aware of Time. > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > 15. To realize Timelessness is to attain Nirvana. > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > 16. But for Consciousness-without-an-object there is no difference > > > > > between Time and Timelessness. > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > 17. Within Consciousness-without-an-object lies the seed of the > > > > > world-containing Space. > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > 18. When awareness cognizes the world-containing Space then > > > > > knowledge > > > > > of the Spatial Void is born. > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > 19. To be aware of the world-containing Space is to be aware of > > > > > the > > > > > Universe of Objects. > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > 20. To realize the Spatial Void is to awaken to Nirvanic > > > > > Consciousness. > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > 21. But for Consciousness-without-an-object there is no difference > > > > > between the world-containing Space and the Spatial Void. > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > 22. Within Consciousness-without-an-object lies the Seed of Law. > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > 23. When consciousness of objects is born the Law is invoked as a > > > > > Force tending ever toward Equilibrium. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, that is me all right. Born on the 23rd I always skim lists > > > > like this with numbers till I get to the no. 23. If what it says > > > > there is true - I guess the rest of it is too > > > > > > > > It is a long list and I will read it carefully when/if I get the > > > > opportunity. > > > > > > > > Thank you Bob - have a nice one. > > > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there is nothing beyond 23. > > > > > > there is nothing before 23. > > > > > > there is no..nor has been..a true 23. > > > > > > > > > the Pointless Point.. > > > > > > from which some though not many... > > > > > > can see What they see.. > > > > > > What they see's THAT they see.. > > > > > > there' no " you " nor no " me " . > > > > > > > > > opportunity knocks not twice. > > > > > > like the postman so nice. > > > > > > both and neither are true. > > > > > > but don't you be blue. > > > > > > > > > if to skim is your whim > > > > > > don't go out on a limb. > > > > > > it matter's not a whit. > > > > > > this Dark never get's lit. > > > > > > > > > > > > the Dazzling Dark > > > > > > is not known by a lark > > > > > > it's felt only lightly > > > > > > the One sole Almighty. > > > > > > > > > so now don't " you " read.. there's no need there's no need. > > > > > > there's no thinking there's no nothing.. no need to need feed. > > > > > > it's by taking no thought > > > > > > that the Light is Self-caught. > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > p.s. > > > > > > thanks for the salutation. > > > > > > the Only One i can take is Always a Good One. > > > > > > i wouldn't nor couldn't.. > > > > > > have " IT " any other Way. > > > > > > :-) > > > > > > [.bx3] > > > > Onederful poem - nonederful peom > > > > Thought is so busy telling tales about nothing > > The nothing that happened yesterday > > The nothing that shall happen tomorrow > > > > Thus thought is endlessly producing and reproducing nothing > > > > That is onederful and nonederful > > > > There is no final question - there is no final answer > > as how can there be when there is but a infinite flux > > of absolutely nothing > > > > And thought expressing the nothing that never happened > > and trying to find out what precisely it was that never > > happened > > > > Yes > > > > Love > > Lene > > > > So you decided to give some time, breathe deeply, close your eyes, > > relax, > > think of something else...and try a friendly chat with your old friends > > bbb... > > Been doing that all week-end, thank q > > > ...good. That is the way to go.... > > > > > > Ooops...confused lene for meth.. > > What's the difference? > > Last week I discovered, that I had been posting messages to the > wrong forum and because it never occurred to me that it was not > the right forum I wrote in such a way would have done if it had > actually been the right forum but fortunately the members never > found out that their forum was the wrong forum and so they read > my messages as IF - they were meant for them when they were not > at all that, only for the members of the right forumzzzzzzooooo > > what fun life can be > occasionally > > -Lene > > LOL > There is a member of this forum that occasionally receives posts from > himself and doesn't even notice it. Engages in long discussions... > -geo- LOL! there's a member on this forum who never notices anything but himself. and he has a hard time explaining it too. ..b b.b. There is a member in this forum that notices always the very same... sometimes he goes for walk but is always back to the same. -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 14, 2009 Report Share Posted December 14, 2009 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>so back and so backwards above<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< > > quick like a bunny rabbit you react Son of Brazil! > > you don't need to try to explain yourself. > > it's too difficult for you it's clear. > > enjoy your walk. > > maybe you can take your focus off yourself while you do. > > but as you say...when you get back.. > > you'll probably be back to the same. > > anyway let's be really crystal clear here.. > > it seems that you have jumped to react defensively and respond... > -bbb- >(geoGenius): > React? To what? Why would I? Why take it personally? > I'm sitting by the PC, checking mails because I am trading the stock market > online. > -geo- (.b b.b.): yes react..just like you're reacting now. and quicker than that bunny from before. you shouldn't take it persinally i agree. so why do you? i mean if you're trying to stay on top of the market.. doesn't it seem a little ludicrous for you to takes the time.. and make the effort.. to defend yourself against a charge that you say is untrue? unless of course it IS true. and of course your " self " is more of focal point.. and a " thing " more important to you than even your money right? i mean who cares if you make money or not on the market.. and why keep a keen eye on any market swings.. when your very important self-status.. and your need to project a nonreactive behavior are at stake right? LOL! you protest way too much geo. that's why you're so lovable. >(geoGenius): > (bellow its just fruit of fertile imagination....nothing new) (.b b.b.) it seems that you are " bellowing " . agreed..nothing new. as for the " below " .. think of it as tough love. you're imagining that it's anything other than that. i do this for your own good: i tell the truth. you should be glad to receive the help. it helps keep you mind off that imporstant stock market business. you know.. that really big stuff that you forget about as soon as you feel.. that your ego is being threatened. it is geo. that's the point. and that's the very point you don't like. and it's truth about yourself is something you will forever: deny deny deny. ...now the below referred to above: a continuation from the last post. > to a posting that had nothing to do with you. > > but i guess you think that post which you reply to.. > > must have been all about you (seemingly your sole focal point) > > well geo it wasn't. > > but since that's what you think and were so quick to jump on it.. > > i'm replying here as if you were right. > > that should make you feel good. > > you seem to need to feel right no matter what you have done or said. > > but wow.. > > i'm also thinking now because of this faux pas on your part that.. > > you must have been addressing yourself in your own post before that. > > i hadn't realized that. > > i was merely adding an observation about another unnamed poster. > > i was sort of agreeing with you... > > and just adding onto your reflections. > > (without of course naming names). > > but now see here geo.. > > you know what.. > > you really don't engage in long discussions with yourself. > > you haven't got that much to discuss anyway. > > but it's good that you notice yourself doing it. > > i don't think there is anything but yourself that you do notice > > again i'm just agreeing here with your initial assessment.. > > which in your first post you set out as: > > yourself posting to yourself. > > but i must disagree with one point... > > you said that you didn't notice yourself doing that. > > don't be modest! > > you notice it enough to post about it.. > > and not only to yourself. > > you do deserve a little credit for that. > > .b b.b. now chop chop geo. here you've got a chance.. to get away from that market stuff on the computer. i mean you must keep getting away from it anyway.. checking and checking this far more important stuff here. YOUR VERY SELF IMAGE IS AT STAKE!!!! screw that money deal. ROFLMAO! ..b b.b. from : Are you sure you want to send this message? ABSOLUTELY! :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 14, 2009 Report Share Posted December 14, 2009 - BobN Nisargadatta Monday, December 14, 2009 2:03 PM Re: Attachment Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > BobN > Nisargadatta > Monday, December 14, 2009 12:47 PM > Re: Attachment > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > Lene > > Nisargadatta > > Monday, December 14, 2009 10:26 AM > > Re: Attachment > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > geo > > > Nisargadatta > > > Monday, December 14, 2009 9:02 AM > > > Re: Re: Attachment > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > Lene > > > Nisargadatta > > > Monday, December 14, 2009 7:47 AM > > > Re: Attachment > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " > > > > > > > > > > <pedsie6@> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " > > > > > > > > > > > <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " > > > > > > > > > > > > <lschwabe@> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right on > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Couple a years ago I would talk a lot about > > > > > > > > > > > > > nothingness > > > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > emptiness and not distinguish between them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A person, familiar with buddhism, kindly told me a > > > > > > > > > > > > > couple of > > > > > > > > > > > > > times or more that in buddhism emptiness and > > > > > > > > > > > > > nothingness > > > > > > > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > > > > > > not the same. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I never really understood the difference till last > > > > > > > > > > > > > night. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What happened last night? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P: Nothing! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right. You have hereby answered your own question to me: > > > > > > > > > > what is the difference between emptiness and > > > > > > > > > > nothingness. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks vm - always appreciate it when others do the hard > > > > > > > > > > work for me ... if you will excuse du conventional > > > > > > > > > > lingo. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P: No, I didn't answer, but I could, since you don't want > > > > > > > > > to. Emptiness in Buddhist is a concept that indicates > > > > > > > > > lack of independent self-hood. When a Buddhist says, all > > > > > > > > > things are empty, it means no thing can exist of itself, > > > > > > > > > but comes into being in relation. This applies even to > > > > > > > > > Buddhahood, and emptiness itself. Nothing means total > > > > > > > > > absence, > > > > > > > > > including the absence of the presence of absence. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nothingness, of course, doesn't exist. A perfect vacuum > > > > > > > > > has > > > > > > > > > been > > > > > > > > > demonstrated to have the negative energy of virtual > > > > > > > > > particles > > > > > > > > > appearing and disappearing in space. Nothing is just > > > > > > > > > another > > > > > > > > > word for unconsciousness, total not knowing. Of course, > > > > > > > > > I'm > > > > > > > > > not saying my understanding is th same as yours. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the explanation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Our understanding is not different from one another > > > > > > > > regarding > > > > > > > > emptiness and nothingness. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Will try to remember the expression " self-hood " . I never > > > > > > > > know > > > > > > > > what to call it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The whole thing became clear to me in a dream this morning. > > > > > > > > I > > > > > > > > am talking about the difference between dream where > > > > > > > > self-hood > > > > > > > > is present - and dream when self-hood is absent, and there > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > but relating without a relator (self, observer, thinker > > > > > > > > etc.) > > > > > > > > Empty center. At a certain point in the dream a > > > > > > > > self-creature > > > > > > > > entered which created incredible havoc - because the self > > > > > > > > was > > > > > > > > like outside the dream and interfering with what was going > > > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > from its apparently outside-of-the-dream position. The > > > > > > > > result > > > > > > > > was conflict of course as always, when there is this > > > > > > > > distance > > > > > > > > between one and one, which makes for the illusion that one > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > two - but then the whole dream is an illusion already so > > > > > > > > what > > > > > > > > the heck - except the dream is much nicer, when there is > > > > > > > > only > > > > > > > > one present - when it is but one presence -- relating with > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > self. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It (little red selfhood) came (not a surprise) in the form > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > thinking, speculation, reflection about what was taking > > > > > > > > place > > > > > > > > in the dream. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And most important - qua this creation of division which > > > > > > > breeds > > > > > > > confusion and conflict -- this " self " wants to be in control > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > the confusion which its very own entering the stage has > > > > > > > created > > > > > > > and what used to be " just a flow of a little of everything " > > > > > > > now > > > > > > > becomes a veritable battle-field. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > yet in Actuality... > > > > > > > > > > > > between " this creation of division " .. > > > > > > > > > > > > and.. > > > > > > > > > > > > " just a flow of a little of everything " .. > > > > > > > > > > > > not a Moment of difference Arises. > > > > > > > > > > > > the " real-time bastard.. > > > > > > > > > > > > is not other than the most subliminal Divine. > > > > > > > > > > > > let " Us " here together once again ponder the words of the sage.. > > > > > > > > > > > > Franklin-Merrell-Wolff.. > > > > > > > > > > > > baba's first..last...and only mentor: > > > > > > > > > > > > APHORISMS ON CONSCIOUSNESS-WITHOUT-AN-OBJECT > > > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Consciousness-without-an-object is. > > > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Before objects were, Consciousness-without-an-object is. > > > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. Though objects seem to exist, Consciousness-without-an-object > > > > > > is. > > > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > > > 4. When objects vanish, yet remaining through all unaffected, > > > > > > Consciousness-without-an-object is. > > > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > > > 5. Outside of Consciousness-without-an-object nothing is. > > > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > > > 6. Within the bosom of Consciousness-without-an-object lies the > > > > > > power > > > > > > of awareness that projects objects. > > > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > > > 7. When objects are projected, the power of awareness as subject > > > > > > is > > > > > > presupposed, yet Consciousness-without-an-object remains > > > > > > unchanged. > > > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > > > 8. When consciousness of objects is born, then, likewise, > > > > > > consciousness of absence of objects arises. > > > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > > > 9. Consciousness of objects is the Universe. > > > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > > > 10. Consciousness of absence of objects is Nirvana. > > > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > > > 11. Within Consciousness-without-an-object lie both the Universe > > > > > > and > > > > > > Nirvana, yet to Consciousness-without-an-object these two are > > > > > > the > > > > > > same. > > > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > > > 12. Within Consciousness-without-an-object lies the seed of > > > > > > Time. > > > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > > > 13. When awareness cognizes Time then knowledge of Timelessness > > > > > > is > > > > > > born. > > > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > > > 14. To be aware of Time is to be aware of the Universe, and to > > > > > > be > > > > > > aware of the Universe is to be aware of Time. > > > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > > > 15. To realize Timelessness is to attain Nirvana. > > > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > > > 16. But for Consciousness-without-an-object there is no > > > > > > difference > > > > > > between Time and Timelessness. > > > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > > > 17. Within Consciousness-without-an-object lies the seed of the > > > > > > world-containing Space. > > > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > > > 18. When awareness cognizes the world-containing Space then > > > > > > knowledge > > > > > > of the Spatial Void is born. > > > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > > > 19. To be aware of the world-containing Space is to be aware of > > > > > > the > > > > > > Universe of Objects. > > > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > > > 20. To realize the Spatial Void is to awaken to Nirvanic > > > > > > Consciousness. > > > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > > > 21. But for Consciousness-without-an-object there is no > > > > > > difference > > > > > > between the world-containing Space and the Spatial Void. > > > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > > > 22. Within Consciousness-without-an-object lies the Seed of Law. > > > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > > > 23. When consciousness of objects is born the Law is invoked as > > > > > > a > > > > > > Force tending ever toward Equilibrium. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, that is me all right. Born on the 23rd I always skim lists > > > > > like this with numbers till I get to the no. 23. If what it says > > > > > there is true - I guess the rest of it is too > > > > > > > > > > It is a long list and I will read it carefully when/if I get the > > > > > opportunity. > > > > > > > > > > Thank you Bob - have a nice one. > > > > > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there is nothing beyond 23. > > > > > > > > there is nothing before 23. > > > > > > > > there is no..nor has been..a true 23. > > > > > > > > > > > > the Pointless Point.. > > > > > > > > from which some though not many... > > > > > > > > can see What they see.. > > > > > > > > What they see's THAT they see.. > > > > > > > > there' no " you " nor no " me " . > > > > > > > > > > > > opportunity knocks not twice. > > > > > > > > like the postman so nice. > > > > > > > > both and neither are true. > > > > > > > > but don't you be blue. > > > > > > > > > > > > if to skim is your whim > > > > > > > > don't go out on a limb. > > > > > > > > it matter's not a whit. > > > > > > > > this Dark never get's lit. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the Dazzling Dark > > > > > > > > is not known by a lark > > > > > > > > it's felt only lightly > > > > > > > > the One sole Almighty. > > > > > > > > > > > > so now don't " you " read.. there's no need there's no need. > > > > > > > > there's no thinking there's no nothing.. no need to need feed. > > > > > > > > it's by taking no thought > > > > > > > > that the Light is Self-caught. > > > > > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > p.s. > > > > > > > > thanks for the salutation. > > > > > > > > the Only One i can take is Always a Good One. > > > > > > > > i wouldn't nor couldn't.. > > > > > > > > have " IT " any other Way. > > > > > > > > :-) > > > > > > > > [.bx3] > > > > > > Onederful poem - nonederful peom > > > > > > Thought is so busy telling tales about nothing > > > The nothing that happened yesterday > > > The nothing that shall happen tomorrow > > > > > > Thus thought is endlessly producing and reproducing nothing > > > > > > That is onederful and nonederful > > > > > > There is no final question - there is no final answer > > > as how can there be when there is but a infinite flux > > > of absolutely nothing > > > > > > And thought expressing the nothing that never happened > > > and trying to find out what precisely it was that never > > > happened > > > > > > Yes > > > > > > Love > > > Lene > > > > > > So you decided to give some time, breathe deeply, close your eyes, > > > relax, > > > think of something else...and try a friendly chat with your old > > > friends > > > bbb... > > > > Been doing that all week-end, thank q > > > > > ...good. That is the way to go.... > > > > > > > > > Ooops...confused lene for meth.. > > > > What's the difference? > > > > Last week I discovered, that I had been posting messages to the > > wrong forum and because it never occurred to me that it was not > > the right forum I wrote in such a way would have done if it had > > actually been the right forum but fortunately the members never > > found out that their forum was the wrong forum and so they read > > my messages as IF - they were meant for them when they were not > > at all that, only for the members of the right forumzzzzzzooooo > > > > what fun life can be > > occasionally > > > > -Lene > > > > LOL > > There is a member of this forum that occasionally receives posts from > > himself and doesn't even notice it. Engages in long discussions... > > -geo- > > LOL! > > there's a member on this forum who never notices anything but himself. > > and he has a hard time explaining it too. > > .b b.b. > > There is a member in this forum that notices always the very same... > sometimes he goes for walk but is always back to the same. > -geo- quick like a bunny rabbit you react Son of Brazil! you don't need to try to explain yourself. it's too difficult for you it's clear. enjoy your walk. maybe you can take your focus off yourself while you do. but as you say...when you get back.. you'll probably be back to the same. anyway let's be really crystal clear here.. it seems that you have jumped to react defensively and respond... -bbb- React? To what? Why would I? Why take it personally? I'm sitting by the PC, checking mails because I am trading the stock market online. -geo- (bellow its just fruit of fertile imagination....nothing new) to a posting that had nothing to do with you. but i guess you think that post which you reply to.. must have been all about you (seemingly your sole focal point) well geo it wasn't. but since that's what you think and were so quick to jump on it.. i'm replying here as if you were right. that should make you feel good. you seem to need to feel right no matter what you have done or said. but wow.. i'm also thinking now because of this faux pas on your part that.. you must have been addressing yourself in your own post before that. i hadn't realized that. i was merely adding an observation about another unnamed poster. i was sort of agreeing with you... and just adding onto your reflections. (without of course naming names). but now see here geo.. you know what.. you really don't engage in long discussions with yourself. you haven't got that much to discuss anyway. but it's good that you notice yourself doing it. i don't think there is anything but yourself that you do notice again i'm just agreeing here with your initial assessment.. which in your first post you set out as: yourself posting to yourself. but i must disagree with one point... you said that you didn't notice yourself doing that. don't be modest! you notice it enough to post about it.. and not only to yourself. you do deserve a little credit for that. ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 14, 2009 Report Share Posted December 14, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right on > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Couple a years ago I would talk a lot about nothingness and > > > > > > > > > emptiness and not distinguish between them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A person, familiar with buddhism, kindly told me a couple of > > > > > > > > > times or more that in buddhism emptiness and nothingness are > > > > > > > > > not the same. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I never really understood the difference till last night. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What happened last night? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P: Nothing! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right. You have hereby answered your own question to me: > > > > > > what is the difference between emptiness and nothingness. > > > > > > Thanks vm - always appreciate it when others do the hard > > > > > > work for me ... if you will excuse du conventional lingo. > > > > > > > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > > > > > P: No, I didn't answer, but I could, since you don't want > > > > > to. Emptiness in Buddhist is a concept that indicates > > > > > lack of independent self-hood. When a Buddhist says, all > > > > > things are empty, it means no thing can exist of itself, > > > > > but comes into being in relation. This applies even to > > > > > Buddhahood, and emptiness itself. Nothing means total absence, > > > > > including the absence of the presence of absence. > > > > > > > > > > Nothingness, of course, doesn't exist. A perfect vacuum has been > > > > > demonstrated to have the negative energy of virtual particles > > > > > appearing and disappearing in space. Nothing is just another > > > > > word for unconsciousness, total not knowing. Of course, I'm > > > > > not saying my understanding is th same as yours. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the explanation. > > > > > > > > Our understanding is not different from one another regarding > > > > emptiness and nothingness. > > > > > > > > Will try to remember the expression " self-hood " . I never know > > > > what to call it. > > > > > > > > The whole thing became clear to me in a dream this morning. I > > > > am talking about the difference between dream where self-hood > > > > is present - and dream when self-hood is absent, and there is > > > > but relating without a relator (self, observer, thinker etc.) > > > > Empty center. At a certain point in the dream a self-creature > > > > entered which created incredible havoc - because the self was > > > > like outside the dream and interfering with what was going on > > > > from its apparently outside-of-the-dream position. The result > > > > was conflict of course as always, when there is this distance > > > > between one and one, which makes for the illusion that one is > > > > two - but then the whole dream is an illusion already so what > > > > the heck - except the dream is much nicer, when there is only > > > > one present - when it is but one presence -- relating with it > > > > self. > > > > > > > > It (little red selfhood) came (not a surprise) in the form of > > > > thinking, speculation, reflection about what was taking place > > > > in the dream. > > > > > > > > > > > > And most important - qua this creation of division which breeds > > > confusion and conflict -- this " self " wants to be in control of > > > the confusion which its very own entering the stage has created > > > and what used to be " just a flow of a little of everything " now becomes a veritable battle-field. > > > > > > -Lene > > > > P: Thanks for your answer. Emptiness and co-dependent > > origination go together like this in Buddhism: Awareness > > has no independent self. Awareness exist because the world > > exist, the world exist because awareness exists. Both > > depend on each other. They arise together luck in an > > inescapable sine qua non. Reactivity to the world we > > see abates when we realize that. Awareness and the world > > will forever march in luck step changing as they go. > > There is nothing to fight, it will change of itself like > > a dream. > > > > Thanks P. > > I asked a teacher of religion this question: what is it that > relates to what when it's given that everything is relative, > ie but relations without any separate selves relating to one > another, and given that this relativity is the only reality? > > We sort of agreed, that each of us are the world and what is > relating then is the world relating to the world relating to > the world. I am the world, you are the world, we are the ONE > world relating to ITself. > > This world however is an illusion (in that the beginning and > ending of it is the same & happens simulataneously wherefore > nothing is happening as a matter of fact and this nothing is > the world). > > Thoughts communicate the (n)ever happening relations, and it > is thought which fixates what cannot be fixated - or IS that > fixation of the non-fixable rather. > > That fixation is the known -- but what is known is, was, and > will be eternally no thing happening. > > It is words which keep the wheel turning - not money > > -Lene Relativity is " half of the truth. " The part that can be imaged, named and experienced. Words operate because ideation operates. This no thing that is happening, isn't ideated - and therefore isn't " no thing " as if something other than things, or as if the absence of things. It is the thinging itself. - D - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 15, 2009 Report Share Posted December 15, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right on > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Couple a years ago I would talk a lot about nothingness and > > > > > > > > > > emptiness and not distinguish between them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A person, familiar with buddhism, kindly told me a couple of > > > > > > > > > > times or more that in buddhism emptiness and nothingness are > > > > > > > > > > not the same. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I never really understood the difference till last night. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What happened last night? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P: Nothing! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right. You have hereby answered your own question to me: > > > > > > > what is the difference between emptiness and nothingness. > > > > > > > Thanks vm - always appreciate it when others do the hard > > > > > > > work for me ... if you will excuse du conventional lingo. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > > > > > > > P: No, I didn't answer, but I could, since you don't want > > > > > > to. Emptiness in Buddhist is a concept that indicates > > > > > > lack of independent self-hood. When a Buddhist says, all > > > > > > things are empty, it means no thing can exist of itself, > > > > > > but comes into being in relation. This applies even to > > > > > > Buddhahood, and emptiness itself. Nothing means total absence, > > > > > > including the absence of the presence of absence. > > > > > > > > > > > > Nothingness, of course, doesn't exist. A perfect vacuum has been > > > > > > demonstrated to have the negative energy of virtual particles > > > > > > appearing and disappearing in space. Nothing is just another > > > > > > word for unconsciousness, total not knowing. Of course, I'm > > > > > > not saying my understanding is th same as yours. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the explanation. > > > > > > > > > > Our understanding is not different from one another regarding > > > > > emptiness and nothingness. > > > > > > > > > > Will try to remember the expression " self-hood " . I never know > > > > > what to call it. > > > > > > > > > > The whole thing became clear to me in a dream this morning. I > > > > > am talking about the difference between dream where self-hood > > > > > is present - and dream when self-hood is absent, and there is > > > > > but relating without a relator (self, observer, thinker etc.) > > > > > Empty center. At a certain point in the dream a self-creature > > > > > entered which created incredible havoc - because the self was > > > > > like outside the dream and interfering with what was going on > > > > > from its apparently outside-of-the-dream position. The result > > > > > was conflict of course as always, when there is this distance > > > > > between one and one, which makes for the illusion that one is > > > > > two - but then the whole dream is an illusion already so what > > > > > the heck - except the dream is much nicer, when there is only > > > > > one present - when it is but one presence -- relating with it > > > > > self. > > > > > > > > > > It (little red selfhood) came (not a surprise) in the form of > > > > > thinking, speculation, reflection about what was taking place > > > > > in the dream. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And most important - qua this creation of division which breeds > > > > confusion and conflict -- this " self " wants to be in control of > > > > the confusion which its very own entering the stage has created > > > > and what used to be " just a flow of a little of everything " now becomes a veritable battle-field. > > > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > P: Thanks for your answer. Emptiness and co-dependent > > > origination go together like this in Buddhism: Awareness > > > has no independent self. Awareness exist because the world > > > exist, the world exist because awareness exists. Both > > > depend on each other. They arise together luck in an > > > inescapable sine qua non. Reactivity to the world we > > > see abates when we realize that. Awareness and the world > > > will forever march in luck step changing as they go. > > > There is nothing to fight, it will change of itself like > > > a dream. > > > > > > > > Thanks P. > > > > I asked a teacher of religion this question: what is it that > > relates to what when it's given that everything is relative, > > ie but relations without any separate selves relating to one > > another, and given that this relativity is the only reality? > > > > We sort of agreed, that each of us are the world and what is > > relating then is the world relating to the world relating to > > the world. I am the world, you are the world, we are the ONE > > world relating to ITself. > > > > This world however is an illusion (in that the beginning and > > ending of it is the same & happens simulataneously wherefore > > nothing is happening as a matter of fact and this nothing is > > the world). > > > > Thoughts communicate the (n)ever happening relations, and it > > is thought which fixates what cannot be fixated - or IS that > > fixation of the non-fixable rather. > > > > That fixation is the known -- but what is known is, was, and > > will be eternally no thing happening. > > > > It is words which keep the wheel turning - not money > > > > -Lene > > > Relativity is " half of the truth. " > > The part that can be imaged, named and experienced. > > Words operate because ideation operates. > > This no thing that is happening, isn't ideated - and therefore isn't " no thing " as if something other than things, or as if the absence of things. > > It is the thinging itself. > > > - D - oh bullshit. are you half brain-dead? ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 15, 2009 Report Share Posted December 15, 2009 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > Lene > > Nisargadatta > > Monday, December 14, 2009 9:06 AM > > Re: Attachment > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right on > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Couple a years ago I would talk a lot about nothingness and > > > > > > > > > > emptiness and not distinguish between them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A person, familiar with buddhism, kindly told me a couple of > > > > > > > > > > times or more that in buddhism emptiness and nothingness are > > > > > > > > > > not the same. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I never really understood the difference till last night. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What happened last night? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P: Nothing! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right. You have hereby answered your own question to me: > > > > > > > what is the difference between emptiness and nothingness. > > > > > > > Thanks vm - always appreciate it when others do the hard > > > > > > > work for me ... if you will excuse du conventional lingo. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > > > > > > > P: No, I didn't answer, but I could, since you don't want > > > > > > to. Emptiness in Buddhist is a concept that indicates > > > > > > lack of independent self-hood. When a Buddhist says, all > > > > > > things are empty, it means no thing can exist of itself, > > > > > > but comes into being in relation. This applies even to > > > > > > Buddhahood, and emptiness itself. Nothing means total absence, > > > > > > including the absence of the presence of absence. > > > > > > > > > > > > Nothingness, of course, doesn't exist. A perfect vacuum has been > > > > > > demonstrated to have the negative energy of virtual particles > > > > > > appearing and disappearing in space. Nothing is just another > > > > > > word for unconsciousness, total not knowing. Of course, I'm > > > > > > not saying my understanding is th same as yours. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the explanation. > > > > > > > > > > Our understanding is not different from one another regarding > > > > > emptiness and nothingness. > > > > > > > > > > Will try to remember the expression " self-hood " . I never know > > > > > what to call it. > > > > > > > > > > The whole thing became clear to me in a dream this morning. I > > > > > am talking about the difference between dream where self-hood > > > > > is present - and dream when self-hood is absent, and there is > > > > > but relating without a relator (self, observer, thinker etc.) > > > > > Empty center. At a certain point in the dream a self-creature > > > > > entered which created incredible havoc - because the self was > > > > > like outside the dream and interfering with what was going on > > > > > from its apparently outside-of-the-dream position. The result > > > > > was conflict of course as always, when there is this distance > > > > > between one and one, which makes for the illusion that one is > > > > > two - but then the whole dream is an illusion already so what > > > > > the heck - except the dream is much nicer, when there is only > > > > > one present - when it is but one presence -- relating with it > > > > > self. > > > > > > > > > > It (little red selfhood) came (not a surprise) in the form of > > > > > thinking, speculation, reflection about what was taking place > > > > > in the dream. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And most important - qua this creation of division which breeds > > > > confusion and conflict -- this " self " wants to be in control of > > > > the confusion which its very own entering the stage has created > > > > and what used to be " just a flow of a little of everything " now becomes > > > > a veritable battle-field. > > > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > P: Thanks for your answer. Emptiness and co-dependent > > > origination go together like this in Buddhism: Awareness > > > has no independent self. Awareness exist because the world > > > exist, the world exist because awareness exists. Both > > > depend on each other. They arise together luck in an > > > inescapable sine qua non. Reactivity to the world we > > > see abates when we realize that. Awareness and the world > > > will forever march in luck step changing as they go. > > > There is nothing to fight, it will change of itself like > > > a dream. > > > > Thanks P. > > > > I asked a teacher of religion this question: what is it that > > relates to what when it's given that everything is relative, > > ie but relations without any separate selves relating to one > > another, and given that this relativity is the only reality? > > > > We sort of agreed, that each of us are the world and what is > > relating then is the world relating to the world relating to > > the world. I am the world, you are the world, we are the ONE > > world relating to ITself. > > > > This world however is an illusion (in that the beginning and > > ending of it is the same & happens simulataneously wherefore > > nothing is happening as a matter of fact and this nothing is > > the world). > > > > Thoughts communicate the (n)ever happening relations, and it > > is thought which fixates what cannot be fixated - or IS that > > fixation of the non-fixable rather. > > > > That fixation is the known -- but what is known is, was, and > > will be eternally no thing happening. > > > > It is words which keep the wheel turning - not money > > > > -Lene > > > P: " In the beginning was the Word. " To liberate > perception from words, is the work. Words like > " Awareness " and " Absolute " obstruct the final view, > but people fight tooth and nail to keep those > words glued to their eyes. Thanks for using my second-favourite mantra The favourite m. is no mantra (silence) of course. K (Jiddu -- name reminds one of the Jedi -- oh, well) would say that [direct] perception is not to be confused with intellectual understanding. Intellectually speaking the *absolute* would be something which never moves or changes. Its just that something is no thing BUT movement and change. Is there something to that movement, which never moves/changes then? Intellectually speaking: yes there is and that is the fact (truth if you will) that some thing is BUT movement and change. Voila! Thats liberation for one from the word about one. So far the intellect: the absolute to the movement -- and the movement itself is the same. Something - nothing: the same. Relativeness and ultimateness - all the same. Question: could I have said this had there never been a thought -free moment, a word-less moment - when it was all clear? That's a good question as we say when we do not know the answer. Yours cheerfully -Lene Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 15, 2009 Report Share Posted December 15, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right on > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Couple a years ago I would talk a lot about nothingness and > > > > > > > > > > emptiness and not distinguish between them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A person, familiar with buddhism, kindly told me a couple of > > > > > > > > > > times or more that in buddhism emptiness and nothingness are > > > > > > > > > > not the same. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I never really understood the difference till last night. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What happened last night? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P: Nothing! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right. You have hereby answered your own question to me: > > > > > > > what is the difference between emptiness and nothingness. > > > > > > > Thanks vm - always appreciate it when others do the hard > > > > > > > work for me ... if you will excuse du conventional lingo. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > > > > > > > P: No, I didn't answer, but I could, since you don't want > > > > > > to. Emptiness in Buddhist is a concept that indicates > > > > > > lack of independent self-hood. When a Buddhist says, all > > > > > > things are empty, it means no thing can exist of itself, > > > > > > but comes into being in relation. This applies even to > > > > > > Buddhahood, and emptiness itself. Nothing means total absence, > > > > > > including the absence of the presence of absence. > > > > > > > > > > > > Nothingness, of course, doesn't exist. A perfect vacuum has been > > > > > > demonstrated to have the negative energy of virtual particles > > > > > > appearing and disappearing in space. Nothing is just another > > > > > > word for unconsciousness, total not knowing. Of course, I'm > > > > > > not saying my understanding is th same as yours. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the explanation. > > > > > > > > > > Our understanding is not different from one another regarding > > > > > emptiness and nothingness. > > > > > > > > > > Will try to remember the expression " self-hood " . I never know > > > > > what to call it. > > > > > > > > > > The whole thing became clear to me in a dream this morning. I > > > > > am talking about the difference between dream where self-hood > > > > > is present - and dream when self-hood is absent, and there is > > > > > but relating without a relator (self, observer, thinker etc.) > > > > > Empty center. At a certain point in the dream a self-creature > > > > > entered which created incredible havoc - because the self was > > > > > like outside the dream and interfering with what was going on > > > > > from its apparently outside-of-the-dream position. The result > > > > > was conflict of course as always, when there is this distance > > > > > between one and one, which makes for the illusion that one is > > > > > two - but then the whole dream is an illusion already so what > > > > > the heck - except the dream is much nicer, when there is only > > > > > one present - when it is but one presence -- relating with it > > > > > self. > > > > > > > > > > It (little red selfhood) came (not a surprise) in the form of > > > > > thinking, speculation, reflection about what was taking place > > > > > in the dream. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And most important - qua this creation of division which breeds > > > > confusion and conflict -- this " self " wants to be in control of > > > > the confusion which its very own entering the stage has created > > > > and what used to be " just a flow of a little of everything " now becomes a veritable battle-field. > > > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > P: Thanks for your answer. Emptiness and co-dependent > > > origination go together like this in Buddhism: Awareness > > > has no independent self. Awareness exist because the world > > > exist, the world exist because awareness exists. Both > > > depend on each other. They arise together luck in an > > > inescapable sine qua non. Reactivity to the world we > > > see abates when we realize that. Awareness and the world > > > will forever march in luck step changing as they go. > > > There is nothing to fight, it will change of itself like > > > a dream. > > > > > > > > Thanks P. > > > > I asked a teacher of religion this question: what is it that > > relates to what when it's given that everything is relative, > > ie but relations without any separate selves relating to one > > another, and given that this relativity is the only reality? > > > > We sort of agreed, that each of us are the world and what is > > relating then is the world relating to the world relating to > > the world. I am the world, you are the world, we are the ONE > > world relating to ITself. > > > > This world however is an illusion (in that the beginning and > > ending of it is the same & happens simulataneously wherefore > > nothing is happening as a matter of fact and this nothing is > > the world). > > > > Thoughts communicate the (n)ever happening relations, and it > > is thought which fixates what cannot be fixated - or IS that > > fixation of the non-fixable rather. > > > > That fixation is the known -- but what is known is, was, and > > will be eternally no thing happening. > > > > It is words which keep the wheel turning - not money > > > > -Lene > > > Relativity is " half of the truth. " Mm. I am aware that in a certain school of buddhism (ask the experts they operate with two aspects of the truth, but I am one stubborn donkey, and every time I see the word two, I freeze completely and refuse to take another step. As soon as there is the word: one is all there is and one is none - this ass gets moving again - as cheerfully as had the word two or the word half never been spoken. 1 = ½ + ½ is also dividing what canNOT BE divided, first and last and in between, because there is nothing consist-ant to it - no lasting content. Since it is content-less - there is nothing to it, which can be divided into fragments or halves. By and by -Lene > > The part that can be imaged, named and experienced. > > Words operate because ideation operates. > > This no thing that is happening, isn't ideated - and therefore isn't " no thing " as if something other than things, or as if the absence of things. > > It is the thinging itself. > > > - D - > 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.