Rainbo/Dan/Inquiry

[Guest guest]

> >Rainbo: No, not necessarily, a basis for assertion may be known

> >rather than assumed. We know, of course, what assume

> >breaks into...

>

> Dan: You mean it breaks into uproarious laughter

> at my willingness to make an ass of myself? (leaving you out

> of it for now :^) )

> Any "knowing" involves assumption, if examined deeply.

> As I say this, I am asserting, therefore I can

> only say this by making assumptions.

>

>R: No, herein is the critical difference, as you "say this" you are thinking

>and *knowing* doesn't involve thinking, it is known by experience,

>as in " ... *Know Thyself* ... " i'm beginning to repeat myself, lol,

>so, you may include me :-)

 

D: Rainbo, what I'm saying *is* about experiencing. It's about the direct

moment of experience where nothing can be asserted or denied. Once

experience is representable, something can be asserted or denied about it.

Something is then assumed. Such as "I know myself" or "I don't know

myself." When you say *knowing* perhaps you mean something different than

knowing as I was discussing it - words can be sticky. I'm discussing

knowing as representing something as an image, including images of the Void

or anything else. I am pointing toward *unknowing* and for all I know this

may not be so dissimilar from what you are calling *knowing*. I'm pointing

toward *unknow thyself* and you are saying *know thyself*. There's a point

in between the two that can't be discussed or indicated.

 

R: Okay, one of the things I like about debating with you is that we usually

arrive at a "TA DA!" moment, and we have one of those here, but, you have

used some academic "escape" clauses, such as language, which has a certain

amount of

validity but also a certain amount of "escape" in there, I'm just pointing

this out.

 

(You also cut off the top of the email where you asserted and assumed *g*,

LMAO)

 

Because below the conversation goes on, which it cannot, not until the

foundation for

the conversation is built here, the rest becomes "baffle 'em with b.s." It's

a rather

traditional Apollonian approach. (Good thing I'm home sick drinking my pau

d'arco,

I'd never have had time for this *g*)

 

Since we've gotten academic I'm going to predicate my response with the

following:

Definition: what is "known" is "experienced" and what is unknown is alot by

me,

if I knew all of reality, which I saw on another list, then not only would I

have tasted

the Ocean of Bliss which is "of" God, I would be God, and i sure as hell

wouldn't be

sitting here writing to you if I were ~ LOL ... this is why I love what

Harsha wrote

this morning, "Where am I?" This is much more to the point.

 

Unknow thyself is the same thing as know thyself, and that is exactly the

point,

and once one reaches that point one doesn't ask about "unknow" or "not" know,

because one is just simply a part of the ocean. And the negation of the

affirmation

is a game, not a "known." It's flipping the coin and dropping it instead of

catching it.

 

The "Void" is not an image, it is an experience that one firewalks or crawls

across, and the only way accross is to surrender absolutely everything to God,

the Universe, call it what you will, including one's own life and as Glo

pointed out

in her email once you've done it, it cannot be denied, because it's real, and

if

it's done well, then one gives even one's life (normally pretty much in full

terror,

but again this is a "level" thing, do i still "need" a job or do i do the

work God

puts in front of me everyday, and so on.)

 

So, the point which cannot be discussed is what i'm discussing :-).

> Dan: Reality doesn't have levels, except according to a point

> of view with imbedded assumptions.

> A Void can only be asserted by making assumptions.

> The razor's edge becomes a point, the point disappears

> into a million points that disappear...

>

>Rainbo:

>A Void is experienced, when one gives all of oneself away and

>crosses the Void, then it is not an assumption, it is a known

>quantity, and so then one passes "through the eye of the needle"

 

Dan: I wouldn't use the terminology "known quantity" here. I would look at

it this way: there is a letting go of everything known, including

even the intent to make something knowable. There is nothing

that can be remembered or asserted here. I guess the idea of "thinking"

arises for me here - to make your assertions about a Void being

crossed, and having it be a known quantity sounds like "thinking".

 

Okay, taste a strawberry or a peach or both. Now describe. This is

describing

experience, I can't taste it for you, you can't taste it for me, but we can

discuss

what it tasted like. A Void is like a taste. Or touch a fire, it burns,

it's hot.

I can describe it to someone who has never burned and it makes little sense

to them because there is no relational field to touch. But, someone can tell

me,

and later I can experience and then realize "Oh my God, that's what that

person

was talking about." Which happened to me and the Void. I thought, "yeah,

yeah,

right." That is not what I thought while crawling across the void.

 

I wonder what my the office where I'm working on some consulting

thought that day, first I walked around all blissed

out and happy all the time, everyone used to comment on how happy I was and

then I crawled in one morning, and everyone was like "what the hell happened?"

>R: alive or dead ... there are smaller eyes to pass through and larger

>eyes, I've seen people do this at different levels, but having passed

>through you've died, even if alive ...

>

>"Normal, sane" people will now "think" i've crossed the razor's edge *g*.

 

D: Luckily I'm not one of "them".

 

R: I know otherwise I wouldn't debate with you :-)

> >Dan:

> > Full inquiry can only lead into itself, beyond assertion and supposition.

> > Beyond affirmation or negation, without any idea of "beyond".

> > The question disappears into itself.

> > >>

> >Rainbo:

> >Agreed.

>

> Dan: After all that, we're in agreement.

> In that case, it's time to disappear into myself.

> Leaving a smile -- Cheshire Dan )

>

>Rainbo: Rather amazing how we can end in agreement *g*

> >>

Dan: I like the idea of ending in agreement and agreeing to be amazed. *)*

 

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* Light Dancing *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* R

 

(God, I hope we're not boring the list to tears, I normally really dislike

reading the same email 10 times, I think, look guys it t'aint quite all that

interesting,

like just answer do not copy it yet, again.)

 

Submission to the National Enquirer *g*

[Guest guest]

Dan,

 

Precisemente precioso, that was a beautiful response.

 

Think the only place we differ is that I describe different experiences, which

mean to me different energies, such that not only the ocean of bliss :-).

 

But today the ocean is beautiful and the dolphins swim and Dionysian ecstasy

reigns with joy and love

here in the office all smile and the Sun shines

beautifully outside.

 

Thank you for the exchange ...

 

::::::Light Pirouettes for you::::::::

 

L*D*L ~ Rainbo ~

[Guest guest]

>D: Rainbo, what I'm saying *is* about experiencing. It's about the direct

>moment of experience where nothing can be asserted or denied. Once

>experience is representable, something can be asserted or denied about it.

>Something is then assumed. Such as "I know myself" or "I don't know

>myself." When you say *knowing* perhaps you mean something different than

>knowing as I was discussing it - words can be sticky. I'm discussing

>knowing as representing something as an image, including images of the Void

>or anything else. I am pointing toward *unknowing* and for all I know this

>may not be so dissimilar from what you are calling *knowing*. I'm pointing

>toward *unknow thyself* and you are saying *know thyself*. There's a point

>in between the two that can't be discussed or indicated.

>

>R: Okay, one of the things I like about debating with you is that we

usually

>arrive at a "TA DA!" moment, and we have one of those here, but, you have

>used some academic "escape" clauses, such as language, which has a certain

>amount of

>validity but also a certain amount of "escape" in there, I'm just pointing

>this out.

 

D: Nice to have a TA DA moment. I'm not sure what you think I'm trying to

escape from. The planet of the apes, maybe? Or attempts to label one's

interpretation of language as "truth"? Although both of those things can

be escaped, there is no escape from awareness.

>

>R: (You also cut off the top of the email where you asserted and assumed

*g*,

>LMAO)

 

D: I cut simply because the dialogue was getting lengthy - I cut out parts

that we seemed to have dealt with adequately. That was my assumption, and

I assert it with vigor.

>

>R: Because below the conversation goes on, which it cannot, not until the

>foundation for

>the conversation is built here, the rest becomes "baffle 'em with b.s."

 

D: I'm not interested in baffling anyone else. I'm baffled enough as it is.

 

R: It's

>a rather

>traditional Apollonian approach. (Good thing I'm home sick drinking my pau

>d'arco,

>I'd never have had time for this *g*)

 

D: I don't see this conversation as Apollonian. Everything that is

asserted is abandoned, everything that is assumed is dropped, logic is

trancended, the beginning is in the end. I see this conversation as

occurring at a wonderful banquet where Apollo and Dionysius raise a glass

of fine wine together to toast the end of knoweldge.

>

>R: Since we've gotten academic I'm going to predicate my response with the

>following:

>Definition: what is "known" is "experienced" and what is unknown is alot by

>me,

>if I knew all of reality, which I saw on another list, then not only would I

>have tasted

>the Ocean of Bliss which is "of" God, I would be God, and i sure as hell

>wouldn't be

>sitting here writing to you if I were ~ LOL ...

 

D: Here's how I see it: pure experience is unknown and unknowable in

terms of memory, representation, or concept. All of reality cannot be

understood by knowing, only by unknowing and nondoing. This involves

*being* and *knowing* as One and the same thing. It's okay with me to call

this pure experience as *knowing* although it's just as well to call it

*unknowing*. Not only are you in the midst of the Ocean of Bliss this

instant, God is writing to me through you, simply "unknown" to your

relative mind.

>R: this is why I love what

>Harsha wrote

>this morning, "Where am I?" This is much more to the point.

 

D: Yes - where are you in this Ocean of Bliss?

>

>R: Unknow thyself is the same thing as know thyself, and that is exactly the

>point,

 

D: Ta Da!

>R: and once one reaches that point one doesn't ask about "unknow" or

"not" know,

>because one is just simply a part of the ocean.

 

D: Yes. And -- the ocean has no parts. There is only the ocean.

 

R: And the negation of the

>affirmation

>is a game, not a "known." It's flipping the coin and dropping it instead of

>catching it.

 

D: Have you flipped or simply coined a phrase?

>R: The "Void" is not an image, it is an experience that one firewalks or

crawls

>across, and the only way accross is to surrender absolutely everything to

God,

>the Universe, call it what you will, including one's own life

 

D: One's own life already is surrendered, there is no choice about it.

Simply a matter of awareness of "what is". The Void is an attempt to

language what can't be languaged. The differences between Void, God, Self,

are philosophical differences. The reality is beyond any of those words.

There is no particular experience that is needed. Experience simply as it

is is all there is, except for "the Void" beyond experience from which

experience arises.

 

R: and as Glo

>pointed out

>in her email once you've done it, it cannot be denied, because it's real,

 

D: There is nothing to be done and no one to do it. Nothing to be

asserted or denied. Reality simply is.

>R: and

>if

>it's done well, then one gives even one's life (normally pretty much in full

>terror,

 

D: The terror is only a human reaction related to wanting to preserve

continuity. There is nothing in the Ocean that is terrifying.

>R: but again this is a "level" thing, do i still "need" a job or do i do

the

>work God

>puts in front of me everyday, and so on.)

 

D: I agree. There is only the doing of whatever God puts in front of One

each day. This God is Self is Being. I am putting in front of me, Myself.

Each day I encounter me. It has been before the beginning, will be after

the end.

Thus, there is no beginning or end, simply the appearance of beginnings and

endings in the Ocean that is called by many names.

>

>R: So, the point which cannot be discussed is what i'm discussing :-).

 

D: Precisamente. This is why this discussion is an undiscussion, and why

the words are undone as they are spoken. :-)

>

>> Dan: Reality doesn't have levels, except according to a point

>> of view with imbedded assumptions.

>> A Void can only be asserted by making assumptions.

>> The razor's edge becomes a point, the point disappears

>> into a million points that disappear...

>>

>>Rainbo:

>>A Void is experienced, when one gives all of oneself away and

>>crosses the Void, then it is not an assumption, it is a known

>>quantity, and so then one passes "through the eye of the needle"

>

>Dan: I wouldn't use the terminology "known quantity" here. I would look at

> it this way: there is a letting go of everything known, including

> even the intent to make something knowable. There is nothing

> that can be remembered or asserted here. I guess the idea of "thinking"

> arises for me here - to make your assertions about a Void being

> crossed, and having it be a known quantity sounds like "thinking".

>

>R: Okay, taste a strawberry or a peach or both. Now describe. This is

>describing

>experience, I can't taste it for you, you can't taste it for me, but we can

>discuss

>what it tasted like. A Void is like a taste.

 

D: I agree. Taste the strawberry. Now what is it? Is it a strawberry or

not a strawberry? God or Self or Void? Once we begin to discuss it we are

using assumptions and making assertions. This is fine as long as we

realize what is occurring. The Void is not "in" anything we say about It.

We can't say anything accurate. The tongue can't taste itself.

 

R: Or touch a fire, it burns,

>it's hot.

>I can describe it to someone who has never burned and it makes little sense

>to them because there is no relational field to touch. But, someone can

tell

>me,

>and later I can experience and then realize "Oh my God, that's what that

>person

>was talking about."

 

D: This seems very true. Now, when the thing you experience is Self,

there is ultimately "no experience" and "all experience". So it's a little

different than being burned with fire. There is no one to report it to.

No one else there to analyze it with.

 

R:

>Which happened to me and the Void. I thought, "yeah,

>yeah,

>right." That is not what I thought while crawling across the void.

>

>I wonder what my the office where I'm working on some consulting

> thought that day, first I walked around all blissed

>out and happy all the time, everyone used to comment on how happy I was and

>then I crawled in one morning, and everyone was like "what the hell

happened?"

 

D: Rainbo - your comments seem to be about the world where different people

have different experiences, where one being is contrasted with another.

There is, at the same time, a "world" where there aren't different people

and no contrast is possible. In this "world" there isn't a division to be

made between "one" and the "other", "this experience" and "that

experience."

>>R: alive or dead ... there are smaller eyes to pass through and larger

>>eyes, I've seen people do this at different levels, but having passed

>>through you've died, even if alive ...

>>

>>"Normal, sane" people will now "think" i've crossed the razor's edge

*g*.

>

>D: Luckily I'm not one of "them".

>

>R: I know otherwise I wouldn't debate with you :-)

 

D: Yes - and loving it because we're not really debating. I am you and

you are me. There is only this. The language we exchange facilitates the

movement of energy. There is only the movement of this energy. It has no

name, although we like to name it.

>

>> >Dan:

>> > Full inquiry can only lead into itself, beyond assertion and supposition.

>> > Beyond affirmation or negation, without any idea of "beyond".

>> > The question disappears into itself.

>> > >>

>> >Rainbo:

>> >Agreed.

>>

>> Dan: After all that, we're in agreement.

>> In that case, it's time to disappear into myself.

>> Leaving a smile -- Cheshire Dan )

>>

>>Rainbo: Rather amazing how we can end in agreement *g*

>> >>

>Dan: I like the idea of ending in agreement and agreeing to be amazed. *)*

>

>R: ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* Light Dancing *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* R

 

D: I love it when you do that Light Dance :-)

 

R: (God, I hope we're not boring the list to tears, I normally really dislike

>reading the same email 10 times, I think, look guys it t'aint quite all that

>interesting,

>like just answer do not copy it yet, again.)

 

D: I normally think: this is only Me, for Me, in Me. Pretty Selfish, huh?

If anyone has read down this far, I assume they are participating in the

movement of energy and enjoying it. If they have bothered reading

this far in spite of boredom, there must be something useful in it

in spite of boredom. Otherwise, why not simply put the message in the

trash after the first glance? That's the delightful thing about this medium.

It's a "gravitate toward what draws you" medium.

 

--- Gravitating with Love and Submitting to Enquiry -- Dan

 

>Submission to the National Enquirer *g*

>