Guest guest Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > cerosoul > > > Nisargadatta > > > Monday, February 01, 2010 5:55 PM > > > Re: Nothingness' Koan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > Tim G. > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > Monday, February 01, 2010 2:33 PM > > > > Re: Nothingness' Koan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The notion of " nothingness " , in any ontological sense, is > > > > > > a philosophical muddle. But it can still be a useful idea > > > > > > when it is seen as merely an idea, and not at as *reference > > > > > > to something* (urr, nothing). > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > Yes, there's isn't any attempt to be referring to something. > > > > > > > > > > Hence, it's epistemological rather than ontological. > > > > > > > > > > Has to do with the limitation of knowing, and of the known. > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree. > > > > > > > > This nothingness is not " non-being " . > > > > > > > > It's more of an unknowing. > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > It is an unknowing " about " . Nonetheless it is all knowing and much more. > > > > -geo- > > > > > > P: Haha! Geo wants his mommy! Suck your thumb, fool. > > > > > > geo> That is what is called " trying to escape to the left " , but to > no > > > avail.....there is a fence there. > > > > It's interesting he said what he did. > > > > I don't see anything childish in your statement above, e.g. " it' is an unknowing about... " > > > > The feeling of childishness must be inside Pete. > > > > He certainly didn't get it from your words. > > Pete addressed the attempt to find something to hold onto, and used the metaphor of a child looking to hold onto a breast or a thumb. Trying to find something that can be known about this to say what it is. oh for Christ sake let Pete talk for Pete. are you trying to be his mother? put that tit back where it belongs dabbo. my gracious! ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > The notion of " nothingness " , in any ontological sense, is > > > > a philosophical muddle. But it can still be a useful idea > > > > when it is seen as merely an idea, and not at as *reference > > > > to something* (urr, nothing). > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > Yes, there's isn't any attempt to be referring to something. > > > > > > Hence, it's epistemological rather than ontological. > > > > > > Has to do with the limitation of knowing, and of the known. > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > I agree. > > > > This nothingness is not " non-being " . > > > > It's more of an unknowing. > > Unknown, not in the known - can't be analyzed or imparted. > > - D - > Right. Nor need it be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > cerosoul > > > Nisargadatta > > > Monday, February 01, 2010 5:55 PM > > > Re: Nothingness' Koan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > Tim G. > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > Monday, February 01, 2010 2:33 PM > > > > Re: Nothingness' Koan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The notion of " nothingness " , in any ontological sense, is > > > > > > a philosophical muddle. But it can still be a useful idea > > > > > > when it is seen as merely an idea, and not at as *reference > > > > > > to something* (urr, nothing). > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > Yes, there's isn't any attempt to be referring to something. > > > > > > > > > > Hence, it's epistemological rather than ontological. > > > > > > > > > > Has to do with the limitation of knowing, and of the known. > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree. > > > > > > > > This nothingness is not " non-being " . > > > > > > > > It's more of an unknowing. > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > It is an unknowing " about " . Nonetheless it is all knowing and much more. > > > > -geo- > > > > > > P: Haha! Geo wants his mommy! Suck your thumb, fool. > > > > > > geo> That is what is called " trying to escape to the left " , but to > no > > > avail.....there is a fence there. > > > > It's interesting he said what he did. > > > > I don't see anything childish in your statement above, e.g. " it' is an unknowing about... " > > > > The feeling of childishness must be inside Pete. > > > > He certainly didn't get it from your words. > > Pete addressed the attempt to find something to hold onto, and used the metaphor of a child looking to hold onto a breast or a thumb. Trying to find something that can be known about this to say what it is. > I don't think Pete did that. But then, Pete did whatever one thinks Pete to have done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > cerosoul > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > Monday, February 01, 2010 5:55 PM > > > > Re: Nothingness' Koan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > Tim G. > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > Monday, February 01, 2010 2:33 PM > > > > > Re: Nothingness' Koan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The notion of " nothingness " , in any ontological sense, is > > > > > > > a philosophical muddle. But it can still be a useful idea > > > > > > > when it is seen as merely an idea, and not at as *reference > > > > > > > to something* (urr, nothing). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, there's isn't any attempt to be referring to something. > > > > > > > > > > > > Hence, it's epistemological rather than ontological. > > > > > > > > > > > > Has to do with the limitation of knowing, and of the known. > > > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree. > > > > > > > > > > This nothingness is not " non-being " . > > > > > > > > > > It's more of an unknowing. > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > It is an unknowing " about " . Nonetheless it is all knowing and much more. > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > P: Haha! Geo wants his mommy! Suck your thumb, fool. > > > > > > > > geo> That is what is called " trying to escape to the left " , but to > no > > > > avail.....there is a fence there. > > > > > > It's interesting he said what he did. > > > > > > I don't see anything childish in your statement above, e.g. " it' is an unknowing about... " > > > > > > The feeling of childishness must be inside Pete. > > > > > > He certainly didn't get it from your words. > > > > Pete addressed the attempt to find something to hold onto, and used the metaphor of a child looking to hold onto a breast or a thumb. Trying to find something that can be known about this to say what it is. > > > > I don't think Pete did that. > > But then, Pete did whatever one thinks Pete to have done. whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat???? whether it's regarding Pete or anybody else.. the premise of what you just said.. whether it's about anything (they)said..did..or even just thought.. is insane! whatever " you " thought (they) or Pete..did..thought..said..etc... for 'you " is whatever they did..thought..said..etc... BUT its NOT actually WHAT they or Pete.. ACTUALLY did..said..thought etc. unless you truly believe it's " all about you " and you alone. in which case you are still insane. indeed that's the actual definition of insanity. despite your " it's all inside me " trite philosophy.. despite your childish " New Age " pulp-paperback pudding-head ideas.. despite the Oprah style talk show darlings' bullshit.. which like soap opera's of old make up and feed housewives' worlds.. it's nutzoid trash and that is all. try to come to grips with real honest and truthful... gutsy..wiggly..down and dirty..flesh and bones reality. or keep your apron on and believe the between the commercials crap... and swing your feather duster while listening to Kenny G... and " just know " that you have the world as you oyster honey. tell all the girls about it at tea time... as well as all about the new and wonderful.. laundry detergent and hand cream you've discovered.. watching those in-between commercials as well. after the afternoon fete.. when you're again alone.. you can down a brewski or two. another fine mother's little helper... that will convince you of your brilliance dearie. and you can even then post it on a fave internet group list. ahhhhhhhhhh life is so sweet and accommodating.. when you understand it's all and everything isn't it honey! ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 3:44 PM, dan330033 <dan330033 wrote:>> >> Nisargadatta , Bill Rishel <illusyn wrote: > >> > On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 8:44 AM, cerosoul <pedsie6 wrote:> > >> > >> > >> > > >> > > > The word " nothingness " is a tarbaby, a gleam in a philosopher's > > > > eye. And " nothing " more.> > > >> > > > The notion of " nothingness " , in any ontological sense, is> > > > a philosophical muddle. But it can still be a useful idea > > > > when it is seen as merely an idea, and not at as *reference> > > > to something* (urr, nothing).> > > >> > > > Bill> > >> > > P: No thing exist as real nor illusion in unconsciousness. In > > > this sense, nothigness is a synonym for unconsciousness. Our> > > idea of nothingness arises from an irresolvable contradiction:> > > our awareness of the total absence of everything when unconscious. > > >> > > How that strikes you?> > >> >> > B: It's a cool idea... my first impression.> >> > To me unconsciousness is the natural state or dimension > > of awareness, and consciousness is more like the fart> > in the elevator. And yes, the existence of " things " , real> > or illusory, is the play-dough work of consciousness.> > > > The real meat of your comment is the last sentence,> > though. It is as if you are saying that when consciousness> > goes into a kind of comma due to a relaxation and giving> > up of its obsessive-compulsive tendencies there is a kind > > of " blank on the screen " (speaking metaphorically) and> > in the " absence " of the glitches/shit-brickbats thrown up> > by consciousness... there is what could be called an > > *artifact *of the system's own processing... a " sensation " > > amounting to a kind of buzz... and not knowing what to> > call it one might call it " nothingness " . It could also be > > referenced via other terms... maybe " presence " , or> > " light " , or ... Any serious-taking of such terms amounts> > to consciousness re-entering the stage as it tries to > > take up such topics and make something of them> > (seems the mischief of consciousness is perpetually> > of the " make something of <whatever> " variety).> >> > To sum up, it seems that " nothingness " is an attempt > > to refer to an " *absence* of the glitches/shit-brickbats> > thrown up by consciousness " , which is not some kind> > of profound " metaphysical something " but just an effectively > > metaphorical/poetic reference to the " absence " of the> > conscious mind's continual yadda-yadda bull-shit-stream.> >> > Bill>> D: The absence as never-having-had-any-reality of divisions based on the past and memory. >> The end of any anchor found in so-called knowledge and accumulation of experiences.B: I like this " end of any anchor " notion.And that's what " knowledge " is, come to think of it, an established baseline, a *reference frame*. And what is so inconceivable to most everyone is absence of anyreference frame.What absence of any reference frame means is learning to live without guidance of a " mind " , to live without guidelines, without compass and starmap. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 5:19 AM, Lene <lschwabe wrote:>> >> Nisargadatta , Bill Rishel <illusyn wrote: > >> > On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 8:44 AM, cerosoul <pedsie6 wrote:> > >> > >> > >> > > >> > > > The word " nothingness " is a tarbaby, a gleam in a philosopher's > > > > eye. And " nothing " more.> > > >> > > > The notion of " nothingness " , in any ontological sense, is> > > > a philosophical muddle. But it can still be a useful idea > > > > when it is seen as merely an idea, and not at as *reference> > > > to something* (urr, nothing).> > > >> > > > Bill> > >> > > P: No thing exist as real nor illusion in unconsciousness. In > > > this sense, nothigness is a synonym for unconsciousness. Our> > > idea of nothingness arises from an irresolvable contradiction:> > > our awareness of the total absence of everything when unconscious. > > >> > > How that strikes you?> > >> >> > B: It's a cool idea... my first impression.> >> > To me unconsciousness is the natural state or dimension > > of awareness, and consciousness is more like the fart> > in the elevator. And yes, the existence of " things " , real> > or illusory, is the play-dough work of consciousness.> > > > The real meat of your comment is the last sentence,> > though. It is as if you are saying that when consciousness> > goes into a kind of comma due to a relaxation and giving> > up of its obsessive-compulsive tendencies there is a kind > > of " blank on the screen " (speaking metaphorically) and> > in the " absence " of the glitches/shit-brickbats thrown up> > by consciousness... there is what could be called an > > *artifact *of the system's own processing... a " sensation " > > amounting to a kind of buzz... and not knowing what to> > call it one might call it " nothingness " . It could also be > > referenced via other terms... maybe " presence " , or> > " light " , or ... Any serious-taking of such terms amounts> > to consciousness re-entering the stage as it tries to > > take up such topics and make something of them> > (seems the mischief of consciousness is perpetually> > of the " make something of <whatever> " variety).> >> > To sum up, it seems that " nothingness " is an attempt > > to refer to an " *absence* of the glitches/shit-brickbats> > thrown up by consciousness " , which is not some kind> > of profound " metaphysical something " but just an effectively > > metaphorical/poetic reference to the " absence " of the> > conscious mind's continual yadda-yadda bull-shit-stream.> >> > Bill>> I knew I missed toom and anna but I had forgotten I missed > you too.>> Perhaps what you wrote upstairs is horseshit but what shit!>> Smells a lot like something I keep trying to say. So thanks.>> All paths lead to Rome but when you get there is no Rome good one!and much deeper than might appear on the surface, because indeed all paths do lead " there " and yet there is nothing " there " .Bill>> Love> Lene Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > cerosoul > > Nisargadatta > > Monday, February 01, 2010 5:55 PM > > Re: Nothingness' Koan > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > Tim G. > > > Nisargadatta > > > Monday, February 01, 2010 2:33 PM > > > Re: Nothingness' Koan > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > The notion of " nothingness " , in any ontological sense, is > > > > > a philosophical muddle. But it can still be a useful idea > > > > > when it is seen as merely an idea, and not at as *reference > > > > > to something* (urr, nothing). > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > Yes, there's isn't any attempt to be referring to something. > > > > > > > > Hence, it's epistemological rather than ontological. > > > > > > > > Has to do with the limitation of knowing, and of the known. > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > I agree. > > > > > > This nothingness is not " non-being " . > > > > > > It's more of an unknowing. > > > > > > --- > > > > > > It is an unknowing " about " . Nonetheless it is all knowing and much more. > > > -geo- > > > > P: Haha! Geo wants his mommy! Suck your thumb, fool. > > > > geo> That is what is called " trying to escape to the left " , but to no > > avail.....there is a fence there. > > Remember: you may fool some....others...... no. The ones that really smile. > > D: Not seeing any " escape " in that comment. > > It is not " about. " Period. You can't say what it is or isn't. Of course. Unknowing about is an oxymoron. -L- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 9:33 AM, Tim G. <fewtch wrote:>> >> Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > >> >> > > The notion of " nothingness " , in any ontological sense, is> > > a philosophical muddle. But it can still be a useful idea> > > when it is seen as merely an idea, and not at as *reference > > > to something* (urr, nothing).> > >> > > Bill> >> > Yes, there's isn't any attempt to be referring to something.> >> > Hence, it's epistemological rather than ontological. > >> > Has to do with the limitation of knowing, and of the known.> >> > - D -> >>> I agree.>> This nothingness is not " non-being " .> > It's more of an unknowing.>For me there is no " this nothingness " ...For me there is no " This " For me there is no anything, not even " me " ...Just an FYI, though so what, of course. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 6:48 PM, dan330033 <dan330033 wrote:>> >> Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > >> >> > -> > cerosoul> > Nisargadatta > > Monday, February 01, 2010 5:55 PM > > Re: Nothingness' Koan> >> >> >> >> >> > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > >> > >> > > -> > > Tim G.> > > Nisargadatta > > > Monday, February 01, 2010 2:33 PM > > > Re: Nothingness' Koan> > >> > >> > >> > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > >> > > >> > > > > The notion of " nothingness " , in any ontological sense, is> > > > > a philosophical muddle. But it can still be a useful idea > > > > > when it is seen as merely an idea, and not at as *reference> > > > > to something* (urr, nothing).> > > > >> > > > > Bill> > > > > > > > Yes, there's isn't any attempt to be referring to something.> > > >> > > > Hence, it's epistemological rather than ontological.> > > >> > > > Has to do with the limitation of knowing, and of the known. > > > >> > > > - D -> > > >> > >> > > I agree.> > >> > > This nothingness is not " non-being " .> > > > > > It's more of an unknowing.> > >> > > ---> > >> > > It is an unknowing " about " . Nonetheless it is all knowing and much more.> > > -geo- > >> > P: Haha! Geo wants his mommy! Suck your thumb, fool.> >> > geo> That is what is called " trying to escape to the left " , but to no> > avail.....there is a fence there. > > Remember: you may fool some....others...... no. The ones that really smile.>> D: Not seeing any " escape " in that comment.>> It is not " about. " Period. You can't say what it is or isn't. >Yes, an imagination (dream) of speaking about <whatever> is just that, imagination.All we have, really, are " speech acts " .What is going on here is just brains massaging brains. Billhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_acts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Monday, February 01, 2010 11:48 PM Re: Nothingness' Koan Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > cerosoul > Nisargadatta > Monday, February 01, 2010 5:55 PM > Re: Nothingness' Koan > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > Tim G. > > Nisargadatta > > Monday, February 01, 2010 2:33 PM > > Re: Nothingness' Koan > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > The notion of " nothingness " , in any ontological sense, is > > > > a philosophical muddle. But it can still be a useful idea > > > > when it is seen as merely an idea, and not at as *reference > > > > to something* (urr, nothing). > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > Yes, there's isn't any attempt to be referring to something. > > > > > > Hence, it's epistemological rather than ontological. > > > > > > Has to do with the limitation of knowing, and of the known. > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > I agree. > > > > This nothingness is not " non-being " . > > > > It's more of an unknowing. > > > > --- > > > > It is an unknowing " about " . Nonetheless it is all knowing and much more. > > -geo- > > P: Haha! Geo wants his mommy! Suck your thumb, fool. > > geo> That is what is called " trying to escape to the left " , but to no > avail.....there is a fence there. > Remember: you may fool some....others...... no. The ones that really > smile. D: Not seeing any " escape " in that comment. It is not " about. " Period. You can't say what it is or isn't. geo: is that what you say? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 - dan330033 Nisargadatta Monday, February 01, 2010 11:51 PM Re: Nothingness' Koan Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > cerosoul > > Nisargadatta > > Monday, February 01, 2010 5:55 PM > > Re: Nothingness' Koan > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > Tim G. > > > Nisargadatta > > > Monday, February 01, 2010 2:33 PM > > > Re: Nothingness' Koan > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > The notion of " nothingness " , in any ontological sense, is > > > > > a philosophical muddle. But it can still be a useful idea > > > > > when it is seen as merely an idea, and not at as *reference > > > > > to something* (urr, nothing). > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > Yes, there's isn't any attempt to be referring to something. > > > > > > > > Hence, it's epistemological rather than ontological. > > > > > > > > Has to do with the limitation of knowing, and of the known. > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > I agree. > > > > > > This nothingness is not " non-being " . > > > > > > It's more of an unknowing. > > > > > > --- > > > > > > It is an unknowing " about " . Nonetheless it is all knowing and much > > > more. > > > -geo- > > > > P: Haha! Geo wants his mommy! Suck your thumb, fool. > > > > geo> That is what is called " trying to escape to the left " , but to > no > > avail.....there is a fence there. > > It's interesting he said what he did. > > I don't see anything childish in your statement above, e.g. " it' is an > unknowing about... " > > The feeling of childishness must be inside Pete. > > He certainly didn't get it from your words. Pete addressed the attempt to find something to hold onto, and used the metaphor of a child looking to hold onto a breast or a thumb. Trying to find something that can be known about this to say what it is. -d- Where was the attempt to hold into? -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 - Tim G. Nisargadatta Tuesday, February 02, 2010 3:09 AM Re: Nothingness' Koan Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > The notion of " nothingness " , in any ontological sense, is > > > > a philosophical muddle. But it can still be a useful idea > > > > when it is seen as merely an idea, and not at as *reference > > > > to something* (urr, nothing). > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > Yes, there's isn't any attempt to be referring to something. > > > > > > Hence, it's epistemological rather than ontological. > > > > > > Has to do with the limitation of knowing, and of the known. > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > I agree. > > > > This nothingness is not " non-being " . > > > > It's more of an unknowing. > > Unknown, not in the known - can't be analyzed or imparted. > > - D - > Right. Nor need it be. -tim- Tim's comment was needed -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 - Bill Rishel Nisargadatta Tuesday, February 02, 2010 7:13 AM Re: Re: Nothingness' Koan On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 3:44 PM, dan330033 <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , Bill Rishel <illusyn wrote: > > > > On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 8:44 AM, cerosoul <pedsie6 wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The word " nothingness " is a tarbaby, a gleam in a philosopher's > > > > eye. And " nothing " more. > > > > > > > > The notion of " nothingness " , in any ontological sense, is > > > > a philosophical muddle. But it can still be a useful idea > > > > when it is seen as merely an idea, and not at as *reference > > > > to something* (urr, nothing). > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > P: No thing exist as real nor illusion in unconsciousness. In > > > this sense, nothigness is a synonym for unconsciousness. Our > > > idea of nothingness arises from an irresolvable contradiction: > > > our awareness of the total absence of everything when unconscious. > > > > > > How that strikes you? > > > > > > > B: It's a cool idea... my first impression. > > > > To me unconsciousness is the natural state or dimension > > of awareness, and consciousness is more like the fart > > in the elevator. And yes, the existence of " things " , real > > or illusory, is the play-dough work of consciousness. > > > > The real meat of your comment is the last sentence, > > though. It is as if you are saying that when consciousness > > goes into a kind of comma due to a relaxation and giving > > up of its obsessive-compulsive tendencies there is a kind > > of " blank on the screen " (speaking metaphorically) and > > in the " absence " of the glitches/shit-brickbats thrown up > > by consciousness... there is what could be called an > > *artifact *of the system's own processing... a " sensation " > > amounting to a kind of buzz... and not knowing what to > > call it one might call it " nothingness " . It could also be > > referenced via other terms... maybe " presence " , or > > " light " , or ... Any serious-taking of such terms amounts > > to consciousness re-entering the stage as it tries to > > take up such topics and make something of them > > (seems the mischief of consciousness is perpetually > > of the " make something of <whatever> " variety). > > > > To sum up, it seems that " nothingness " is an attempt > > to refer to an " *absence* of the glitches/shit-brickbats > > thrown up by consciousness " , which is not some kind > > of profound " metaphysical something " but just an effectively > > metaphorical/poetic reference to the " absence " of the > > conscious mind's continual yadda-yadda bull-shit-stream. > > > > Bill > > D: The absence as never-having-had-any-reality of divisions based on the > past and memory. > > The end of any anchor found in so-called knowledge and accumulation of > experiences. B: I like this " end of any anchor " notion. And that's what " knowledge " is, come to think of it, an established baseline, a *reference frame*. And what is so inconceivable to most everyone is absence of any reference frame. What absence of any reference frame means is learning to live without guidance of a " mind " , to live without guidelines, without compass and starmap. Bill Because in fact there is not any *reference frame* in the known - except the conviction that there is. -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 - Bill Rishel Nisargadatta Tuesday, February 02, 2010 7:48 AM Re: Re: Nothingness' Koan On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 9:33 AM, Tim G. <fewtch wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > > > > The notion of " nothingness " , in any ontological sense, is > > > a philosophical muddle. But it can still be a useful idea > > > when it is seen as merely an idea, and not at as *reference > > > to something* (urr, nothing). > > > > > > Bill > > > > Yes, there's isn't any attempt to be referring to something. > > > > Hence, it's epistemological rather than ontological. > > > > Has to do with the limitation of knowing, and of the known. > > > > - D - > > > > I agree. > > This nothingness is not " non-being " . > > It's more of an unknowing. > For me there is no " this nothingness " ... For me there is no " This " For me there is no anything, not even " me " ... Just an FYI, though so what, of course. Bill Ah..for me there is everything, this and that - for obviously they have been referred to, just like me as a thought. -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Bill Rishel > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, February 02, 2010 7:13 AM > Re: Re: Nothingness' Koan > > > > > > On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 3:44 PM, dan330033 <dan330033 wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Bill Rishel <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 8:44 AM, cerosoul <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The word " nothingness " is a tarbaby, a gleam in a philosopher's > > > > > eye. And " nothing " more. > > > > > > > > > > The notion of " nothingness " , in any ontological sense, is > > > > > a philosophical muddle. But it can still be a useful idea > > > > > when it is seen as merely an idea, and not at as *reference > > > > > to something* (urr, nothing). > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > P: No thing exist as real nor illusion in unconsciousness. In > > > > this sense, nothigness is a synonym for unconsciousness. Our > > > > idea of nothingness arises from an irresolvable contradiction: > > > > our awareness of the total absence of everything when unconscious. > > > > > > > > How that strikes you? > > > > > > > > > > B: It's a cool idea... my first impression. > > > > > > To me unconsciousness is the natural state or dimension > > > of awareness, and consciousness is more like the fart > > > in the elevator. And yes, the existence of " things " , real > > > or illusory, is the play-dough work of consciousness. > > > > > > The real meat of your comment is the last sentence, > > > though. It is as if you are saying that when consciousness > > > goes into a kind of comma due to a relaxation and giving > > > up of its obsessive-compulsive tendencies there is a kind > > > of " blank on the screen " (speaking metaphorically) and > > > in the " absence " of the glitches/shit-brickbats thrown up > > > by consciousness... there is what could be called an > > > *artifact *of the system's own processing... a " sensation " > > > amounting to a kind of buzz... and not knowing what to > > > call it one might call it " nothingness " . It could also be > > > referenced via other terms... maybe " presence " , or > > > " light " , or ... Any serious-taking of such terms amounts > > > to consciousness re-entering the stage as it tries to > > > take up such topics and make something of them > > > (seems the mischief of consciousness is perpetually > > > of the " make something of <whatever> " variety). > > > > > > To sum up, it seems that " nothingness " is an attempt > > > to refer to an " *absence* of the glitches/shit-brickbats > > > thrown up by consciousness " , which is not some kind > > > of profound " metaphysical something " but just an effectively > > > metaphorical/poetic reference to the " absence " of the > > > conscious mind's continual yadda-yadda bull-shit-stream. > > > > > > Bill > > > > D: The absence as never-having-had-any-reality of divisions based on the > > past and memory. > > > > The end of any anchor found in so-called knowledge and accumulation of > > experiences. > > > B: I like this " end of any anchor " notion. > > And that's what " knowledge " is, come to think of it, an established > baseline, a *reference frame*. > > And what is so inconceivable to most everyone is absence of any > reference frame. > > What absence of any reference frame means is learning to > live without guidance of a " mind " , to live without guidelines, > without compass and starmap. > > > Bill > > Because in fact there is not any *reference frame* in the known - except the > conviction that there is. > -geo- Whenever I get to this cross-road I hesitantly set up a distinction between conventional and actual/real. Actual/real is unknown (nothing-ness). Conventional is known (something-ness). Conventional is the reference frame - it is not actual - except it is actually what it is, namely the past - and that is the *way* we were and so be it. -Lene Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 Ah, thanks for reminding the author! > The expression " it is an unknowing " about " " meant that it is not subject > to > knowledge - or any > referring to it, for the case. The expression " nonetheless it is all > knowing > and much more " meant > that any and all knowledge - or any thing, event, for the case - is known > only by it. It is the only > knower of any known. > -geo- " (...) all knowledge (...) is known only by it. " It? Unknowing? Is the known known by unknowing? -lene- Only the absolute unknon is the knower of the known. Ha...how strange...but true. -geo- Is unknowing the only knower of any known? What do you mean? -Lene Not unknowing but the unknown. Follow the analogy: - Things are because there is no-thing - Time because of timeless -Space becasue of the space-less. and... - The known because of the unknown. -geo- and also... " geo " because of the unknown and then also... ignorance because of geo... etc lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 > > Whenever unknowing-ness or nothing-ness, it's blank, a tabula rasa > > and whenever knowledge - there are prints all over it. > > > > -Lene > > > > Ah, thanks for reminding the author! > > The expression " it is an unknowing " about " " meant that it is not subject > > to > > knowledge - or any > > referring to it, for the case. The expression " nonetheless it is all > > knowing > > and much more " meant > > that any and all knowledge - or any thing, event, for the case - is known > > only by it. It is the only > > knower of any known. > > -geo- > > " (...) all knowledge (...) is known only by it. " > > It? Unknowing? Is the known known by unknowing? > -lene- > > Only the absolute unknon is the knower of the known. Ha...how strange...but > true. > -geo- > > Is unknowing the only knower of any known? > > What do you mean? > > -Lene > > Not unknowing but the unknown. Follow the analogy: > - Things are because there is no-thing > - Time because of timeless > -Space becasue of the space-less. > and... > - The known because of the unknown. > -geo- Disagreed. There is no because - there is no reason - unknowing/knowing is the same and IT has no cause. Originally we spoke of unknowing - not unknown. Unknowing is the same as non-recognition. I took a long walk in the snow-storm without recognizing that it was snowstorming and walking and laughing and talking with a friend and having a great time until I was about to be late for an appointment and I woke and I recognised everything and living was destroyed. -Lene Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 - Lene Nisargadatta Tuesday, February 02, 2010 1:53 PM Re: Nothingness' Koan > > Whenever unknowing-ness or nothing-ness, it's blank, a tabula rasa > > and whenever knowledge - there are prints all over it. > > > > -Lene > > > > Ah, thanks for reminding the author! > > The expression " it is an unknowing " about " " meant that it is not > > subject > > to > > knowledge - or any > > referring to it, for the case. The expression " nonetheless it is all > > knowing > > and much more " meant > > that any and all knowledge - or any thing, event, for the case - is > > known > > only by it. It is the only > > knower of any known. > > -geo- > > " (...) all knowledge (...) is known only by it. " > > It? Unknowing? Is the known known by unknowing? > -lene- > > Only the absolute unknon is the knower of the known. Ha...how > strange...but > true. > -geo- > > Is unknowing the only knower of any known? > > What do you mean? > > -Lene > > Not unknowing but the unknown. Follow the analogy: > - Things are because there is no-thing > - Time because of timeless > -Space becasue of the space-less. > and... > - The known because of the unknown. > -geo- Disagreed. -lene- I doubt it! :>) -geo- There is no because - there is no reason - unknowing/knowing is the same and IT has no cause. -lene- Of course there is no because! There is no time in this. It is an analogy...I could choose many words. But which? Also no reason, yes. -geo- Originally we spoke of unknowing - not unknown. -lene- I understood so I answered to you upstairs: " not unknowing but the unknown. Follow the analogy...etc... " -geo- Unknowing is the same as non-recognition. -lene- Yes. I am/was not talking about unknowing. I meant unknown. (what a famous and known unknown this is becoming!!) -geo- I took a long walk in the snow-storm without recognizing that it was snowstorming and walking and laughing and talking with a friend and having a great time until I was about to be late for an appointment and I woke and I recognised everything and living was destroyed. -Lene Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > The notion of " nothingness " , in any ontological sense, is > > > > > a philosophical muddle. But it can still be a useful idea > > > > > when it is seen as merely an idea, and not at as *reference > > > > > to something* (urr, nothing). > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > Yes, there's isn't any attempt to be referring to something. > > > > > > > > Hence, it's epistemological rather than ontological. > > > > > > > > Has to do with the limitation of knowing, and of the known. > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > I agree. > > > > > > This nothingness is not " non-being " . > > > > > > It's more of an unknowing. > > > > Unknown, not in the known - can't be analyzed or imparted. > > > > - D - > > > are you trying to identify the unknown dabbo? > > that's departed. > > .b b.b the dead bury the dead. see how they run. - d - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > cerosoul > > > Nisargadatta > > > Monday, February 01, 2010 5:55 PM > > > Re: Nothingness' Koan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > Tim G. > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > Monday, February 01, 2010 2:33 PM > > > > Re: Nothingness' Koan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The notion of " nothingness " , in any ontological sense, is > > > > > > a philosophical muddle. But it can still be a useful idea > > > > > > when it is seen as merely an idea, and not at as *reference > > > > > > to something* (urr, nothing). > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > Yes, there's isn't any attempt to be referring to something. > > > > > > > > > > Hence, it's epistemological rather than ontological. > > > > > > > > > > Has to do with the limitation of knowing, and of the known. > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree. > > > > > > > > This nothingness is not " non-being " . > > > > > > > > It's more of an unknowing. > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > It is an unknowing " about " . Nonetheless it is all knowing and much more. > > > > -geo- > > > > > > P: Haha! Geo wants his mommy! Suck your thumb, fool. > > > > > > geo> That is what is called " trying to escape to the left " , but to no > > > avail.....there is a fence there. > > > Remember: you may fool some....others...... no. The ones that really smile. > > > > D: Not seeing any " escape " in that comment. > > > > It is not " about. " Period. You can't say what it is or isn't. > > > it doesn't matter if you can see an escape. > > you can't see a lot of things dabbo. > > no offense. > > and no defense will be tolerated. > > .b b.b. i can't see anything, babbo. - d - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > cerosoul > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > Monday, February 01, 2010 5:55 PM > > > > Re: Nothingness' Koan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > Tim G. > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > Monday, February 01, 2010 2:33 PM > > > > > Re: Nothingness' Koan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The notion of " nothingness " , in any ontological sense, is > > > > > > > a philosophical muddle. But it can still be a useful idea > > > > > > > when it is seen as merely an idea, and not at as *reference > > > > > > > to something* (urr, nothing). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, there's isn't any attempt to be referring to something. > > > > > > > > > > > > Hence, it's epistemological rather than ontological. > > > > > > > > > > > > Has to do with the limitation of knowing, and of the known. > > > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree. > > > > > > > > > > This nothingness is not " non-being " . > > > > > > > > > > It's more of an unknowing. > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > It is an unknowing " about " . Nonetheless it is all knowing and much more. > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > P: Haha! Geo wants his mommy! Suck your thumb, fool. > > > > > > > > geo> That is what is called " trying to escape to the left " , but to > no > > > > avail.....there is a fence there. > > > > > > It's interesting he said what he did. > > > > > > I don't see anything childish in your statement above, e.g. " it' is an unknowing about... " > > > > > > The feeling of childishness must be inside Pete. > > > > > > He certainly didn't get it from your words. > > > > Pete addressed the attempt to find something to hold onto, and used the metaphor of a child looking to hold onto a breast or a thumb. Trying to find something that can be known about this to say what it is. > > > oh for Christ sake let Pete talk for Pete. > > are you trying to be his mother? > > put that tit back where it belongs dabbo. > > my gracious! > > .b b.b. i speak for pete and pete speaks for me. who are you speaking for? (this should be good) - d - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > cerosoul > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > Monday, February 01, 2010 5:55 PM > > > > Re: Nothingness' Koan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > Tim G. > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > Monday, February 01, 2010 2:33 PM > > > > > Re: Nothingness' Koan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The notion of " nothingness " , in any ontological sense, is > > > > > > > a philosophical muddle. But it can still be a useful idea > > > > > > > when it is seen as merely an idea, and not at as *reference > > > > > > > to something* (urr, nothing). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, there's isn't any attempt to be referring to something. > > > > > > > > > > > > Hence, it's epistemological rather than ontological. > > > > > > > > > > > > Has to do with the limitation of knowing, and of the known. > > > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree. > > > > > > > > > > This nothingness is not " non-being " . > > > > > > > > > > It's more of an unknowing. > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > It is an unknowing " about " . Nonetheless it is all knowing and much more. > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > P: Haha! Geo wants his mommy! Suck your thumb, fool. > > > > > > > > geo> That is what is called " trying to escape to the left " , but to > no > > > > avail.....there is a fence there. > > > > > > It's interesting he said what he did. > > > > > > I don't see anything childish in your statement above, e.g. " it' is an unknowing about... " > > > > > > The feeling of childishness must be inside Pete. > > > > > > He certainly didn't get it from your words. > > > > Pete addressed the attempt to find something to hold onto, and used the metaphor of a child looking to hold onto a breast or a thumb. Trying to find something that can be known about this to say what it is. > > > > I don't think Pete did that. > > But then, Pete did whatever one thinks Pete to have done. Yes, it was just a passing thought. A passing thought of a Pete. Now there's a passing thought of an email from a Tim. Imagine that! - D - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 Nisargadatta , Bill Rishel <illusyn wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 3:44 PM, dan330033 <dan330033 wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Bill Rishel <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 8:44 AM, cerosoul <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The word " nothingness " is a tarbaby, a gleam in a philosopher's > > > > > eye. And " nothing " more. > > > > > > > > > > The notion of " nothingness " , in any ontological sense, is > > > > > a philosophical muddle. But it can still be a useful idea > > > > > when it is seen as merely an idea, and not at as *reference > > > > > to something* (urr, nothing). > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > P: No thing exist as real nor illusion in unconsciousness. In > > > > this sense, nothigness is a synonym for unconsciousness. Our > > > > idea of nothingness arises from an irresolvable contradiction: > > > > our awareness of the total absence of everything when unconscious. > > > > > > > > How that strikes you? > > > > > > > > > > B: It's a cool idea... my first impression. > > > > > > To me unconsciousness is the natural state or dimension > > > of awareness, and consciousness is more like the fart > > > in the elevator. And yes, the existence of " things " , real > > > or illusory, is the play-dough work of consciousness. > > > > > > The real meat of your comment is the last sentence, > > > though. It is as if you are saying that when consciousness > > > goes into a kind of comma due to a relaxation and giving > > > up of its obsessive-compulsive tendencies there is a kind > > > of " blank on the screen " (speaking metaphorically) and > > > in the " absence " of the glitches/shit-brickbats thrown up > > > by consciousness... there is what could be called an > > > *artifact *of the system's own processing... a " sensation " > > > amounting to a kind of buzz... and not knowing what to > > > call it one might call it " nothingness " . It could also be > > > referenced via other terms... maybe " presence " , or > > > " light " , or ... Any serious-taking of such terms amounts > > > to consciousness re-entering the stage as it tries to > > > take up such topics and make something of them > > > (seems the mischief of consciousness is perpetually > > > of the " make something of <whatever> " variety). > > > > > > To sum up, it seems that " nothingness " is an attempt > > > to refer to an " *absence* of the glitches/shit-brickbats > > > thrown up by consciousness " , which is not some kind > > > of profound " metaphysical something " but just an effectively > > > metaphorical/poetic reference to the " absence " of the > > > conscious mind's continual yadda-yadda bull-shit-stream. > > > > > > Bill > > > > D: The absence as never-having-had-any-reality of divisions based on the > past and memory. > > > > The end of any anchor found in so-called knowledge and accumulation of > experiences. > > > B: I like this " end of any anchor " notion. > > And that's what " knowledge " is, come to think of it, an established > baseline, a **reference fram*e*. D: Yes. A conventional reference. As if reference points were possible. And so, they are struggled over and killed over to make sure they are understood to be real. Knowledge is as real as war, as real as a heart attack. The fear of pain and death is the basis for knowledge. " Objective science " is a myth. > And what is so inconceivable to most everyone is absence of any > reference frame. D: Because " I " am a reference point, a placeholder. > What absence of any reference frame means is learning to > live without guidance of a " mind " , to live without guidelines, > without compass and starmap. D: No mind, no anchor, no learning involved. " Snuffed out " ... - D - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 > > > > > > > > It is an unknowing " about " . Nonetheless it is all knowing and much more. > > > > -geo- > > > > > > P: Haha! Geo wants his mommy! Suck your thumb, fool. > > > > > > geo> That is what is called " trying to escape to the left " , but to > no > > > avail.....there is a fence there. > > > > It's interesting he said what he did. > > > > I don't see anything childish in your statement above, e.g. " it' is an unknowing about... " > > > > The feeling of childishness must be inside Pete. > > > > He certainly didn't get it from your words. > > Pete addressed the attempt to find something to hold onto, and used the metaphor of a child looking to hold onto a breast or a thumb. Trying to find something that can be known about this to say what it is. P: Exactly! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2010 Report Share Posted February 2, 2010 On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 4:24 AM, geo <inandor wrote: > > > > - > Bill Rishel > Nisargadatta > Tuesday, February 02, 2010 7:48 AM > Re: Re: Nothingness' Koan > > On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 9:33 AM, Tim G. <fewtch wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > > > > > > > The notion of " nothingness " , in any ontological sense, is > > > > a philosophical muddle. But it can still be a useful idea > > > > when it is seen as merely an idea, and not at as *reference > > > > to something* (urr, nothing). > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > Yes, there's isn't any attempt to be referring to something. > > > > > > Hence, it's epistemological rather than ontological. > > > > > > Has to do with the limitation of knowing, and of the known. > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > I agree. > > > > This nothingness is not " non-being " . > > > > It's more of an unknowing. > > > > For me there is no " this nothingness " ... > For me there is no " This " > > For me there is no anything, not even " me " ... > > Just an FYI, though so what, of course. > > Bill > > Ah..for me there is everything, this and that - for obviously they have been > referred to, just like me as a thought. > -geo- > so you take words seriously for me they are like the saliva I now swallow... their significance has no duration. Bill 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.