Guest guest Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > Heya > > > > I do not quite know where to throw my twopenny - so why > > not into this well can be as good as any other well, oh > > well > > > > I think I know what you're talking about Dan, I think I > > know > > > > What you are talking about is absolutely nothing > > > > " Absolutely nothing " is absolutely nothing - meaning not > > even space, let alone " empty space " into which something > > can be stuffed, a " ready-for-whatever " space that can be > > filled up with something - or IN which something happens > > or which itself IS something happening > > > > Absolutely nothing is absolutely nothing! It IS not - it > > does not exist > > > > THAT - translate: nothing - is we, you, me, space, world, > > consciousness existance, being, dream, illusion, fantasy > > - the illusion has many names and forms and colours > > > > We do - iow - not exist. The cup does not exist, this pc > > does not exist; there is NO being, there is NO existance > > > > And there is NO explanation, there is NOTHING to explain > > > > It is NOT that NOTHING is aware or conscious as how could > > NOTHING be SOMETHING like consciousness or awareness - or > > relative (relation) or absolute (immovable)? How could it > > BE, letalone be SOMEthing when the fact is that it is not > > ? > > > > IT is NOT > > > > We are IT - and IT is NOT > > > > There is NOTHING to talk about - and since we are aware of > > this - since we know we do not exist - we can talk exactly > > as we wish - and say what we want, and do what we like and > > that is absolute-ly nostra-terra-fic; halleluja, heh heh > > > > Happy New Year, dear > > > > -Lene > > Yes, Lene, we speak. > > And our speaking arises if/as/from/by this. > > Which is absolutely nothing. > > And relatively everything. > > So, " is " and " is not, " " exists " and " does not exist, " don't pertain as categories in the sense of any dividing lines. > > Yes, you are free to be. > > One is freedom. > > Nothing has ever been said about this. > > And everything can be said, however it is said. > > One is this. > > No division of this and one. > > No choice involved. > > Choices are just ways of speaking about things that happen. > > Do things really happen? > > Yes, no. > > What are yes and no but categories of affirmation or negation? > > Does it matter if you hurt someone? > > Is it important to care? > > Is there something to care about? > > Just who one is. > > One's being. > > The caring isn't toward something. > > What matters isn't a thing. > > So, love is the automatic recognition of being as being without any distance. Just awareness. Open, undivided, indivisible. > > Do words cheapen this? > > Does painting a sunset cheapen it? > > - Dan - Okay Dan - let me be the more pragmatic of the two of us - for starters anyways. In line with my own way of thinking was your question above: " Do things really happen? Yes. No. " I would say no - until proven otherwise Most likely - things do NOT happen. Can I prove that I exist - that stuff exists? No, I cannot. Can I prove that I do not exist? Heh -- that is my mission. Let's see how it is going with that. With regard to " physical stuff " - unless I can isolate and describe the absolutely smallest bit / part of say a table which bit together with all the other billion bits of which a table is said to consist - makes the form table - I can't say that the table IS - or EXISTS. Unfortunately I cannot - nobody can as far as I'm informed, perform this isolation and description of the smallest bit. So - until proven otherwise - the table does not exist. With regard to " psychological stuff " - feelings, emotions - that's an easy one. I cannot isolate and describe emotions. Then we have time and that is a most exciting " phenomenon " . For something to become memory - on the ground of which all of us operate - act & react - it must have been a happening NOW first. The problem is that I can not tell what is happening now - and so I cannot rely on memory as existing or being. Again: unless I can isolate and describe anyone now-happening, the source that makes for memories, I cannot say, that memories exist. The same goes for thought, whose job it is to report the content of memory. What if nothing happens? Then memories are nothing. As far as I'm concerned it is MOST likely so that nothing happens and memories which is our life - are therefore nothing, do not exist, are not - and the same with these words. Another phenomenon which I cannot explain - is movement. I make a cigarette out of tobacco, I use a machine and paper. How many movements are involved in the making? Oh, give me a break! But unless I can isolate and describe (today's mantra) just a one single bit of anyone of the countless movements takes to perform the making of a cigarette - there is NO evidence that the movement is taking place. You see - you know that we see, perceive everything as a whole so I'm not too happy about the people who keep saying that we perceive but fragments of the whole and that is the reason why we are not happy. They must be joking, for it is exactly the opposite which is the case. I would be happy if I could isolate and describe THE smallest particle, the one and only particle which cannot be divided. That to me would bear evidence and prove that I exist. But alas! What we have is one theory after the other -- but NO waterproof evidence that anything IS, EXISTS. Where does all this lack of evidence of solid, re non-solid existance take me? It takes me to never-never land - where I have been all the time. To Wonderland with Alice, to the sea where I rule the waves with Jack Sparrow and all the other images and ghosts like the Adamas family and Monty Python and The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus etc Because this is what we are - images. And this is what is - images. And thats my secret which I do not share with just anybody. Do I mind being but an image? Certainly not - as long as the show is warm kind funny and entertaining. The shows that are about conflict and war and bloodshedding arent my cup of tea any more and therefore I avoid them; it is easy; in the game one can be whatever one wants to, but, I am afraid, not till it's realised that the planetarium is an imaginarium. Yes, Dan - I speak Love (is also just part of the game; no more, no less real than anything else) -Lene Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 You see - you know that we see, perceive everything as awhole so I'm not too happy about the people who keep sayingthat we perceive but fragments of the whole and that is thereason why we are not happy. They must be joking, for it isexactly the opposite which is the case. I would be happy ifI could isolate and describe THE smallest particle, the oneand only particle which cannot be divided. That to me wouldbear evidence and prove that I exist.-lene- THE smallest particle, the one and only particle which cannot be divided is the real nature of this what is. But you can not isolate or describe (as you say) objectively the essence of the subjective. The ground of being is non-referenciable. -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 Hi Lene - > Okay Dan - let me be the more pragmatic of the two of us > - for starters anyways. > > In line with my own way of thinking was your question above: > > " Do things really happen? Yes. No. " > > I would say no - until proven otherwise Nothing existing = you are not saying this. > Most likely - things do NOT happen. Things neither happen nor fail to happen. It depends on an observer to say something happened or didn't happen. No observer = no statement either way. One is not separate - one can't say " yes " or " no. " Yet, as a human being, one says " yes " or " no " as one feels moved to say. " Yes " changes to " no. " " No " changes to " yes. " " Yes " is " no. " In one context, it is a " yes. " In another context, it is a " no. " > Can I prove that I exist - that stuff exists? No, I cannot. > Can I prove that I do not exist? Heh -- that is my mission. > Let's see how it is going with that. Nothing is happening = there is no issue of proving yes or no. > With regard to " physical stuff " - unless I can isolate and > describe the absolutely smallest bit / part of say a table > which bit together with all the other billion bits of which > a table is said to consist - makes the form table - I can't > say that the table IS - or EXISTS. Nothing exists = there is no logic. For you to employ logic to prove nothing exists is therefore quite absurd. > Unfortunately I cannot - nobody can as far as I'm informed, > perform this isolation and description of the smallest bit. > > So - until proven otherwise - the table does not exist. To what is the word " table " assigned? How is " table " perceptually differentiated from " apple? " This is not a matter of whether something exists or not. It is simply perception. You don't need to know whether you exist or not. Sensing. Being aware. Nothing is just a word which is perceived. Something is just a word which is perceived. There is no conclusion to be reached. > With regard to " psychological stuff " - feelings, emotions - > that's an easy one. I cannot isolate and describe emotions. > > Then we have time and that is a most exciting " phenomenon " . > > For something to become memory - on the ground of which all > of us operate - act & react - it must have been a happening > NOW first. > > The problem is that I can not tell what is happening now - > and so I cannot rely on memory as existing or being. Again: > unless I can isolate and describe anyone now-happening, the > source that makes for memories, I cannot say, that memories > exist. The same goes for thought, whose job it is to report > the content of memory. Yet, you use logic and provide description. Surely, if you convince yourself through logic that there is nothing you can be aware of or describe, this applies also to the logic you used and your description. > What if nothing happens? Then memories are nothing. As far > as I'm concerned it is MOST likely so that nothing happens > and memories which is our life - are therefore nothing, do > not exist, are not - and the same with these words. Yes, I completely agree. And thus, you are free to say something exists. Because when you say that something exists, that doesn't exist any more than if you say nothing exists. And here we are: Neither existence nor non-existence applies. > Another phenomenon which I cannot explain - is movement. I > make a cigarette out of tobacco, I use a machine and paper. > How many movements are involved in the making? Oh, give me > a break! > > But unless I can isolate and describe (today's mantra) just > a one single bit of anyone of the countless movements takes > to perform the making of a cigarette - there is NO evidence > that the movement is taking place. You still have a concept of evidence that you're employing. Evidence doesn't exist, according to your notion of nothing existing. So, lack of evidence is meaningless. > You see - you know that we see, perceive everything as a > whole so I'm not too happy about the people who keep saying > that we perceive but fragments of the whole and that is the > reason why we are not happy. They must be joking, for it is > exactly the opposite which is the case. I would be happy if > I could isolate and describe THE smallest particle, the one > and only particle which cannot be divided. That to me would > bear evidence and prove that I exist. > > But alas! What we have is one theory after the other -- but > NO waterproof evidence that anything IS, EXISTS. > > Where does all this lack of evidence of solid, re non-solid > existance take me? > > It takes me to never-never land - where I have been all the > time. To Wonderland with Alice, to the sea where I rule the > waves with Jack Sparrow and all the other images and ghosts > like the Adamas family and Monty Python and The Imaginarium > of Dr. Parnassus etc Whatever is perceived is the perceiver. Did Alice see this? > Because this is what we are - images. And this is what is - > images. > > And thats my secret which I do not share with just anybody. Ha! The sharing is an image. The somebody it is shared with is an image. And what is an image formed of nothing, with no perceiver apart from it? It isn't really an image. As you've intuited, it's attempt to prove itself to be an image, can't be shown. It has no evidence, other than its assumption of an existence. > Do I mind being but an image? Certainly not - as long as the > show is warm kind funny and entertaining. The shows that are > about conflict and war and bloodshedding arent my cup of tea > any more and therefore I avoid them; it is easy; in the game > one can be whatever one wants to, but, I am afraid, not till > it's realised that the planetarium is an imaginarium. Conflict is me vs. not-me. Any word forms a boundary. No conflict is no boundary. No conflict can't be given in words, or in any other way. Ways and means involve boundaries. Words can only hint. > Yes, Dan - I speak Yes, you do. Nice to hear. > Love (is also just part of the game; no more, no less real > than anything else) So, real and unreal are just another polarity. Love is used to mean many different things. And can be what needs no meaning, no saying. Love can be and is: boundless, non-conflicting open being. - Dan - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Hi Lene - > > > Okay Dan - let me be the more pragmatic of the two of us > > - for starters anyways. > > > > In line with my own way of thinking was your question above: > > > > " Do things really happen? Yes. No. " > > > > I would say no - until proven otherwise > > Nothing existing = you are not saying this. > > > Most likely - things do NOT happen. > > Things neither happen nor fail to happen. > > It depends on an observer to say something happened or didn't happen. > > No observer = no statement either way. > > One is not separate - one can't say " yes " or " no. " > > Yet, as a human being, one says " yes " or " no " as one feels moved to say. > > " Yes " changes to " no. " " No " changes to " yes. " > > " Yes " is " no. " > > In one context, it is a " yes. " > > In another context, it is a " no. " > > > Can I prove that I exist - that stuff exists? No, I cannot. > > Can I prove that I do not exist? Heh -- that is my mission. > > Let's see how it is going with that. > > Nothing is happening = there is no issue of proving yes or no. > > > > With regard to " physical stuff " - unless I can isolate and > > describe the absolutely smallest bit / part of say a table > > which bit together with all the other billion bits of which > > a table is said to consist - makes the form table - I can't > > say that the table IS - or EXISTS. > > Nothing exists = there is no logic. > > For you to employ logic to prove nothing exists is therefore quite absurd. > > > Unfortunately I cannot - nobody can as far as I'm informed, > > perform this isolation and description of the smallest bit. > > > > So - until proven otherwise - the table does not exist. > > To what is the word " table " assigned? > > How is " table " perceptually differentiated from " apple? " > > This is not a matter of whether something exists or not. > > It is simply perception. > > You don't need to know whether you exist or not. > > Sensing. > > Being aware. > > Nothing is just a word which is perceived. > > Something is just a word which is perceived. > > There is no conclusion to be reached. > > > With regard to " psychological stuff " - feelings, emotions - > > that's an easy one. I cannot isolate and describe emotions. > > > > Then we have time and that is a most exciting " phenomenon " . > > > > For something to become memory - on the ground of which all > > of us operate - act & react - it must have been a happening > > NOW first. > > > > The problem is that I can not tell what is happening now - > > and so I cannot rely on memory as existing or being. Again: > > unless I can isolate and describe anyone now-happening, the > > source that makes for memories, I cannot say, that memories > > exist. The same goes for thought, whose job it is to report > > the content of memory. > > Yet, you use logic and provide description. > > Surely, if you convince yourself through logic that there is nothing you can be aware of or describe, this applies also to the logic you used and your description. > > > What if nothing happens? Then memories are nothing. As far > > as I'm concerned it is MOST likely so that nothing happens > > and memories which is our life - are therefore nothing, do > > not exist, are not - and the same with these words. > > Yes, I completely agree. > > And thus, you are free to say something exists. > > Because when you say that something exists, that doesn't exist any more than if you say nothing exists. > > And here we are: > > Neither existence nor non-existence applies. > > > Another phenomenon which I cannot explain - is movement. I > > make a cigarette out of tobacco, I use a machine and paper. > > How many movements are involved in the making? Oh, give me > > a break! > > > > But unless I can isolate and describe (today's mantra) just > > a one single bit of anyone of the countless movements takes > > to perform the making of a cigarette - there is NO evidence > > that the movement is taking place. > > You still have a concept of evidence that you're employing. > > Evidence doesn't exist, according to your notion of nothing existing. > > So, lack of evidence is meaningless. > > > You see - you know that we see, perceive everything as a > > whole so I'm not too happy about the people who keep saying > > that we perceive but fragments of the whole and that is the > > reason why we are not happy. They must be joking, for it is > > exactly the opposite which is the case. I would be happy if > > I could isolate and describe THE smallest particle, the one > > and only particle which cannot be divided. That to me would > > bear evidence and prove that I exist. > > > > But alas! What we have is one theory after the other -- but > > NO waterproof evidence that anything IS, EXISTS. > > > > Where does all this lack of evidence of solid, re non-solid > > existance take me? > > > > It takes me to never-never land - where I have been all the > > time. To Wonderland with Alice, to the sea where I rule the > > waves with Jack Sparrow and all the other images and ghosts > > like the Adamas family and Monty Python and The Imaginarium > > of Dr. Parnassus etc > > Whatever is perceived is the perceiver. > > Did Alice see this? > > > Because this is what we are - images. And this is what is - > > images. > > > > And thats my secret which I do not share with just anybody. > > Ha! > > The sharing is an image. > > The somebody it is shared with is an image. > > And what is an image formed of nothing, with no perceiver apart from it? > > It isn't really an image. > > As you've intuited, it's attempt to prove itself to be an image, can't be shown. > > It has no evidence, other than its assumption of an existence. > > > Do I mind being but an image? Certainly not - as long as the > > show is warm kind funny and entertaining. The shows that are > > about conflict and war and bloodshedding arent my cup of tea > > any more and therefore I avoid them; it is easy; in the game > > one can be whatever one wants to, but, I am afraid, not till > > it's realised that the planetarium is an imaginarium. > > Conflict is me vs. not-me. > > Any word forms a boundary. > > No conflict is no boundary. > > No conflict can't be given in words, or in any other way. > > Ways and means involve boundaries. > > Words can only hint. > > > Yes, Dan - I speak > > Yes, you do. > > Nice to hear. > > > Love (is also just part of the game; no more, no less real > > than anything else) > > So, real and unreal are just another polarity. > > Love is used to mean many different things. > > And can be what needs no meaning, no saying. > > Love can be and is: boundless, non-conflicting open being. > > - Dan - see there Lene? baba has tried to tell you. don't expect anything truly profound from this kid. expect this defensive hogwash that he always presents. forgive him..he knows no better. pssst: don't tell anyone else but.. he really really does believe.. that out here somewhere someplace.. he'll find someone as dumb as himself..dumber actually. a dumb someone who will actually be " taken in " by his non sequitirs. ain't ever going to happen but let the kid dream.. what the hell eh? :-) ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.