Guest guest Posted June 10, 1999 Report Share Posted June 10, 1999 HS Re: Madhya/Bruce: Bwahahahaha! Madhya... Bruce... Gee whiz... I had to walk away, staggering into the kitchen to rinse my eyes, blinded by tears of laughter. Thank you so much for this! This is... beyond funny! Do I see true love in bloom, the eternal dance of Siva and Sakti here, as portrayed by two of my very favorite Mighty Minds of all time? Or what? This dialog is priceless! Is this a pre-planned, scripted 'conversation', a veritable 'nondual vaudeville act', or is it actually a spontaneous occurance? If this gets any 'better', I may have to wear 'Depends' as I read my mail! Bwahahahaha! > Wed, 9 Jun 1999 23:14:31 -0400 > Bruce Morgen <editor > Re: tidbits... > On Wed, 09 Jun 1999 19:54:33 -0700 "Madhya Nandi" <madhya writes: > >"Madhya Nandi" <madhya > >>Bruce Morgen <editor > >>There are no geniuses here, > >>Madhyaji, to "keep up" is a > >>matter of time and attention, > >>which we apportion according > >>to the propensities of our > >>nominally individual > >>incarnations. > >Wow, lighten up, Bruce. It was only a bit of humor! > OK. > >>As Sri Ramana might have > >>put it, such semantic > >>distinctions are surely > >>"for scholars." > >Now, Bruce, my sensors are detecting a reductionism coming on. Are > >you going to claim that it is meaningless to speak in any way about > >experience at all because, a) all experience of an 'absolute' nature is > >ontologically 'equal' or 'the same?' and, b) thereby claim that all >discourse > >regarding the absolute is valueless since it is 'absolutely' different >from the > >experience itself? > No, I'm not -- what I'm > saying is that discourse > because of the nature of > language itself cannot > be directly descriptive > and there are myriad > communicative choices > possible in what such > discourse actually is -- > a "pointing" toward the > indescribable. > >So, in order to deal with any and all viewpoints and > >expressions different from one's own, one need only negate the very > >possibility of discourse being at all relevant. Then one need never > >deal with any difference of view by reducing all possible discourse to > >"semanticism" or, in this case, nonsense. > No, but very elaborate > inference noted. > > I have every > >>confidence that the > >>perceptual states of Sri > >>Ramana and Gautama Buddha > >>were identical in essence. > >Despite your worthy confidence, Bruce, how can you possibly justify > >making such a claim? It is clearly invalid, since no possibility exists for > >verification. And first, you must successfully account for your > >implied assumption that 'all possible enlightened states are identical.' > >Please explain how this can be so...? > I can't, it is inexplicable. > >>Let us not confuse > >>charactarization -- yet > >>another communicative > >>preference -- for substantive > >>difference in consciousness > >>itself. > >Again, Bruce, you rely on psychologism: All talk about experience is > >absolutely incapable of saying anything 'real' about that experience > >and as such, is nothing more than 'characterization' or, 'communicative > >preference.' Bruce, this is not valid reasoning. > It is not based on > reasoning, so from your > chosen framework you > couldn't be more correct. > >>To dispense with this in the > >>most universal mannar I can > >>muster, "interpretation" is > >>yet another instance of > >>communicative preference. > >>To find the commonality that > >>underlies such apparent > >>differences, it surely > >>behooves us to see through > >>to the authentic resonance > >>between and behind what are, > >>after all, merely words. > >Bruce, your argument does not hold water. > As an "argument" it is as > leaky as a cheesecloth > dinghy. Once again you > are correct. > >IF one presumes that Unmanifest > >Reality is absolutely different from Manifest Reality, then one might > >be correct in asserting a substantive, ontological difference between > >one 'True' reality and another, 'False' reality. > Who is this "one" you are > arguing with -- surely not > here, I assure you! > >Then, one might successfully > >argue that words are absolutely 'different' from the 'true' reality. > >But first, one must successfully account for the proposed ontological > >difference between the assertion of two entirely 'different' forms of > >reality--one Real and the other Not Real. > If one is in an undergraduate > Rhetoric class, I suppose so. > Where have I supposed hinted > at "real" and "not real?" > >So, to your apparent chagrin, and the chagrin of many on this list, I > >have expressed another viewpoint. That perspective states that no > >ontological difference exists between manifest and unmanifest Reality. > I have no disagreement with > that expression, it is > accurate and quite eloquent. > >All reality is Real. > A truism, but true. :-) > >Words are not 'false' forms of some other Reality. They are > >true, dynamic expressions of the Real. > In other words they are real > *words,* another truism. > >This does not mean that all words have > >equal proportion, value or weight. > Words are just words -- all > "proportion, value or weight" > is in the eye of the beholder. > >In fact, this is partly the point. > This getting too muddy to > follow. > >Absolute Reality is absolutely Creative. Therefore, any accounting > >for enlightened experience must also account for the creative dynamicity > >of Enlightened Reality. From my perspective--and I have never stated my > >view as other than my own perspective--one cannot separate the creative > >Performance, including speaking, acting, et cetera, from the > >experience of Enlightenment. > In non-dual terms nothing > whatsoever is separable, > there is only the > seamless whole. > >>View noted -- and undoubtedly > >>correct for one without an > >>innate proprensity for jnana. > >An innate propensity, Bruce? Are you saying that I am > >jnana-challenged? > Apparently, and you are in > the vast majority imo. > >Is this condition genetic, environmental or perhaps, biological? > I don't know. ((Note: Bruce avoids the bait, and thus the hook, but also the question. He must be married!)) > >More importantly, you are making quite a value judgement regarding > >something for which you have very little information to go on! > It is a mere observation > based on your statements > about an approach you > admit not have followed. > >Its quite a big claim, > >Bruce! I don't believe we've ever even corresponded before. We > >certainly haven't met. Wouldn't you require more information to propose >such a > >judgement? > It's not a judgement, it's > an observation based on > your own words. > >Ah, Bruce! You leave me nearly speechless! > Ah Madhya, do consider that > that might be an improvement > over this hyper-intellectual > fugue you've posted. :-) How sweet it is! Try this: (From Jerry's NDS list, a bit of a recent posting by me) "If I find myself 'pressurized', with words spewing forth in a fountain of attachment, I know that I have tapped a deep pocket of unabreacted or unresolved material within myself. If that happens, I can usually succeed in reversing the polarity of my words (without turning them off), and to thus speak in poetry, rather than in defensive resentment. This is what Shakespear did, and why his words live on as they do. He was able to have the feelings, the sentiment, and the awareness of the actual relativity of the situation, all at the same time. His is a high art. The parsing-engine of 'real/unreal' is useable only in the world-dream. In the world-dream, the absolute is 'unreal'. The error of many is to assume that in the 'absolute', the the world-dream is 'unreal'. In 'reality', the absolute _contains_ (subsumes) the world-dream. Seen in this way, the world-dream is harmless. This is freedom." "The Unicorn barbeque is happening in the space between the two worlds. All are invited." Really, Bruce and Madhya, I am not trying to 'fix' anything going on here. Please... continue! I love it! Please... pass me a plate of Unicorn 'ribs'! You are both master chefs! Having a 'great time'... thanks again... please continue... please... ==Gene Poole== Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 1999 Report Share Posted June 10, 1999 On Thu, 10 Jun 1999 08:02:00 -0800 magus (==Gene Poole==) writes: >magus (==Gene Poole==) > >HS > >Re: Madhya/Bruce: Bwahahahaha! > >Madhya... Bruce... > >Gee whiz... I had to walk away, staggering into the kitchen to rinse >my eyes, blinded by tears of laughter. Thank you so much for this! You are much more than welcome, Gene. As you can tell by the errors in my part of this very aerobic exercise, I was hard put to hold it together myself. Replying to Madhyaji is like encountering one of those mountainous waves out your way -- one either body-surfs or dies, and I've done some of each. :-) >This is... >beyond funny! Do I see true love in bloom, the eternal dance of Siva >and >Sakti here, as portrayed by two of my very favorite Mighty Minds of >all >time? Or what? This dialog is priceless! Is this a pre-planned, >scripted >'conversation', a veritable 'nondual vaudeville act', or is it >actually a >spontaneous occurance? If this gets any 'better', I may have to wear >'Depends' as I read my mail! Bwahahahaha! Unless Madhya objects, I plan to remedy my booboos and immortalize this on the website Samuel maintains for my words. Afterwards we will collaborate energetically on a new endeavor, The Burns & Allen Memorial Ashram. We'll flip a non-dual coin to decide who gets to be Gracie. Much love -- Bruce > >> Wed, 9 Jun 1999 23:14:31 -0400 >> Bruce Morgen <editor >> Re: tidbits... > >> On Wed, 09 Jun 1999 19:54:33 -0700 "Madhya Nandi" ><madhya writes: >> >"Madhya Nandi" <madhya > >> >>Bruce Morgen <editor > [matinee at Minsky's snipped] http://www.users.uniserve.com/~samuel/brucemrg.htm http://www.users.uniserve.com/~samuel/brucsong.htm m(_ _)m _ _________________ Get the Internet just the way you want it. Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month! Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj. 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.