Dan/interbeing

[Guest guest]

Morning All,

 

The Void is like the in-breath of the Cosmos or God, it seems to

me, minimum entropy, and like a flower unfolding the outbreath

is maximum, although, i think really there is perhaps no entropy,

that Cosmos Love is maximum Einstein's GUT Theory, the glue

of inbreath and outbreath the play of God's constant joy

in the creation of the universe... like black hole and galaxy,

the explosion of love ... God wants, it seems to me, us to

be in alignment with Divine Will ... so that we partake in

the beauty of the creative play.

 

L*L*L

bo

[Guest guest]

Hello Dan,

 

According to your "definitions" of Interbeing, or "interdependent

origination" and that of empathy leading to that of the void:

 

The Aristotelian principle saying that A is not equal to not A. In other

words that there can exist something totally different than the object

defined as A. Or, lest say, the pain or joy that is felt in this space

time, that is called mine by habit of culture and perception, is totally

different than the one that felt by "you", in your defined habit of

perception. This principle creating an here and a there, I do not know

it's name , would be here called Void? "The void is alive and

resonating". And it seems that the entities created by this principle,

have the "choice" to create more or less of that void.

 

Are we that void, or are we not?

To Be or not to Be, that is the question

 

Antoine

___________________________

"Dan Berkow, PhD" <berkowd

Re: Zenbob/interbeing

 

Dan: Interbeing (as I've typically heard Thich Naht Hahn translated

into English) means that no thing exists on its own. This is a

restatement of the Buddhist teaching of dependent origination,

sometimes termed "interdependent origination". Therefore,

no thing exists as a separate thing. At the same time, the

appearance

of different qualities can arise with no difficulty, although

these appareances and qualities are actually in constant flux

if observed closely. So what is it that is existing in

"interbeing"? Not a thing can be said to be existing,

as anything that is named is dependent on other things existing,

into infinity. So who is the "you" who has "your pain" and the

"me"

who has "my pain"? These entities, according to

"interbeing", aren't there in any sense as a discreet entity. The

sensation of pain arises, but no one "has" it.

 

Empathy is a

resonation of vibration, not a feeling-state of one separate

entity toward another. There is pain "over there" and pleasure

"over here" - but whose pain and pleasure is it? The apprehension

of interbeing leads to an unimaginable and unspeakable Infinity

that

is capable of indefinite flux and eternal stillness

simultaneously.

In the midst of this Infinity, you and I converse, words emanating

from "here" are heard "there" and vice versa. The Void is alive

and resonating. It is indeed a marvelous unbounded symphony

in which every note has its place in the song, and the song

arises as a simultaneous unsplit melody, every "this" resonating

with every "that".

 

-- Love -- Dan

[Guest guest]

At 12:53 PM 1/9/00 -0500, you wrote:

>Antoine <carrea

>

>Hello Dan,

>

>According to your "definitions" of Interbeing, or "interdependent

>origination" and that of empathy leading to that of the void:

>

>The Aristotelian principle saying that A is not equal to not A. In other

>words that there can exist something totally different than the object

>defined as A. Or, lest say, the pain or joy that is felt in this space

>time, that is called mine by habit of culture and perception, is totally

>different than the one that felt by "you", in your defined habit of

>perception. This principle creating an here and a there, I do not know

>it's name , would be here called Void? "The void is alive and

>resonating". And it seems that the entities created by this principle,

>have the "choice" to create more or less of that void.

>

>Are we that void, or are we not?

>To Be or not to Be, that is the question

>

>Antoine

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

To Be or not to Be

is not the question...

it is the answer,

it just is...

 

Michael

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/9/00 9:55:09 AM Pacific Standard Time,

carrea writes:

 

<< Are we that void, or are we not?

To Be or not to Be, that is the question

>>

Dearest Antoine:

 

I would prefer to avoid (:>) that direct question, as it is based on the

presumption that a true actual and complete void can exist in any domain.

Two fish can swim the same sea and both know or not know each other...know or

not know each other's pains or pleasures. Defining the ocean or river does

not explain the nature of being for either fish. Each fish (just as defining

"A" versus not "A") although inexorably linked by the water it resides

within, and linked by common heritage and certainly to varying degrees,

communication or consciousness, are of course, not the "same" fish. If we

eat fish "A" and leave fish "B", we would never suggest that we had "eaten

both fish" by devouring "A". Or that if fish "A" was female and fish

"B"

male, that therefore either fish could be termed male or female. Or black or

white, or any other independent quality of distinction. Existence must

always be based on independent verification, and it would be a sort of mental

trap to assume likeness or sameness for every independent entity or item

surrounded by a universe. It is better to suggest that such entities and

items exist in a spatial and temporal field that links them all to a central

form of inter-existence, in which no individual could be said to exist

without the underlying nature or substantation of the universe of energy that

we are all a part of. We may not be the ocean, but we would not be without

the ocean.

 

Just a quick thought, as I swim the cosmic sea...

 

Love and Blessings,

 

Zenbob

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/9/00 10:02:36 AM Pacific Standard Time,

RainboLily writes:

 

<< i think really there is perhaps no entropy, >>

Dear Rainbo:

 

....lovely comments. I fear there is entropy, however, because my clocks wind

down if I dont wind them...and my battery operated ones keep hungrily

demanding new batteries.

 

I also think that I am aging. Very, very slowly, of course. I am still

breathtakingly youthful and full of vast vitality, natch, but

at 46, I suspect that there are a few things that tire me more easily than

when I was 19.

 

Well, we never know about the universe...

 

Love & Blessings,

 

Zenbob

[Guest guest]

Dear Zenbod,

 

So many nice ways to see this world. A"void"ing the question, the sea is

now the image of a possible Dao. And i just love that image, and if i

where to chose a fish to be, it would be a dolphin, they play all the

time. But I am going away from the subject .

 

I like the Pauli Exclusion Principle, - in that no two objects can

occupy the same space -. So, in some way, as two dolphins we cannot

occupy the same space in the sea. It's the beauty of it. I also love

dolphin, because they are very sensitive to their kin, knowing all the

time where the others are floating in the sea. They are inter linked as

a colony of "cell" starting to form an organism moving as one in the

sea. Yet individually they will look into you as separate entities, if

ever you go swim with one of them. What is behind the eye looking into

you then, simply the fish "A", the community of inter linked dolphins

looking at you, or the sea itself looking at you, at itself, via the

form of a dolphin, by one of its "branch" or wounds?

 

Jumping as always, from one way of seeing to the other. The concept of

wounds is interesting, to approach the A, not A, or A and B concept in

the sea. In the sense of the 5 wounds, our five senses, the two dolphins

are wounded deeply in the sea, the sharpness of distinction between our

flesh and the air, is much more bigger than for the dolphins, between

their flesh and the water. I do not think that they do feel as sharply

the distinction between the _outside_ and the _inside_, themselves and

the other, as we do as human beings. They are deeply wounded in the

sense that, when they look into each other, they are closer to what

moves them as one single entity. Would it be simply how the water moves

them together when they let themselves simply float, compared to how the

wind moves the human when we simply sit.

 

Digging now more in the concept of wound, of course all this from

spontaneous inspiration of writing to you, dear friend. One can look at

the sea with the dolphins in two nice ways. One, the common one, where

the sea is less dense than the dolphins, or fish, or matter in it. The

void is empty physic stuff. The normal moon and sun. The other, more

"spiritual" some say, where the dolphins, are like bubbles of air in the

dense water. In other words where matter is like bubbles of "void"

moving like bubbles of champagne in the rich sea. ZPE (Zero point

Infinite Energy). The sun shinning at midnight (spiritual sun, wisdom),

and the moon shining during the day (spiritual moon, intelligence).

 

Yet, in both way of seeing the wound remains. Simply how the blood flows

differs. Under the common sun, the "blood" flow from the inner object to

the outer infinite sea. While under the spiritual sun the "blood" flows

from the unique and rich sea into the bubbles of void or air.

 

So yes of course, "defining the ocean or river does not explain the

nature of being for either fish", the "wound" remains the same. Yet the

"way" in which the blood flows from the wound changes as one define the

ocean in relation to the fish or vice versa.

 

Those something as been said in all this inspiration of the moment, I

wonder? Who knows?

 

"Looking" at the horizon where day and nigh become one.

 

It is a pleasure to write to you Zenbob.

 

Antoine

-------

 

<< Are we that void, or are we not?

To Be or not to Be, that is the question

>>

Dearest Antoine:

 

I would prefer to avoid (:>) that direct question, as it is based on the

presumption that a true actual and complete void can exist in any

domain.

Two fish can swim the same sea and both know or not know each

other...know or

not know each other's pains or pleasures. Defining the ocean or river

does

not explain the nature of being for either fish. Each fish (just as

defining

"A" versus not "A") although inexorably linked by the water it resides

within, and linked by common heritage and certainly to varying degrees,

communication or consciousness, are of course, not the "same" fish. If

we

eat fish "A" and leave fish "B", we would never suggest that we had

"eaten

both fish" by devouring "A". Or that if fish "A" was female and fish

"B"

male, that therefore either fish could be termed male or female. Or

black or

white, or any other independent quality of distinction. Existence must

always be based on independent verification, and it would be a sort of

mental

trap to assume likeness or sameness for every independent entity or item

surrounded by a universe. It is better to suggest that such entities

and

items exist in a spatial and temporal field that links them all to a

central

form of inter-existence, in which no individual could be said to exist

without the underlying nature or substantation of the universe of energy

that

we are all a part of. We may not be the ocean, but we would not be

without

the ocean.

 

Just a quick thought, as I swim the cosmic sea...

 

Love and Blessings,

 

Zenbob