Guest guest Report post Posted February 6, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > Hmm, hmm, > > And you, Anders, have always an answer - even if one hasn't asked you > for one. > > Werner I am probably living too much in the intellect, which likes questions and answers. /AL > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My idea is...........that ALL > suffering..........can > > > be > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > avoided.............by......intense..........awareness.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Divisionless awareness avoids nothing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All-inclusive, holographic. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Divisionless awareness is a regression into oblivion. > > > True > > > > > > > > awareness > > > > > > > > > is so much smarter than that! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Divisionless oblivion is a regression into awareness. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > True oblivion is so much less than you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't understand what you mean here. Can you explain it > in > > > > > > another way? > > > > > > > > > > > > No. > > > > > > > > > > > > (You thrive way too much on explanations.) > > > > > > > > > > > > :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > Remember the most important word: > > > > > > > > > > > > No. > > > > > > > > > > No means that every time you try to assert a truth, > > > > > you are hit with its negation. > > > > > > > > > > Every time you try to move forward, expand knowing, > > > > > you are hit with the negation of that movement. > > > > > > > > > > Any explanation has to hit this wall of " no. " > > > > > > > > > > Joshu's " mu " - or " no " -- > > > > > > > > > > It is not that you are being singled out to be negated. > > > > > > > > > > It that any affirmation includes its own negation. > > > > > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > > > Now you have become trapped in your own snare. If " any > affirmation > > > > includes its own negation " , then how about the affirmation: " any > > > > affirmation includes its own negation " > > > > > > > > ? > > > > > > It's not a snare, it's the way it is. > > > > > > It includes every single word that I, you, or anyone else > > > has ever written. > > > > > > If one has eyes to see, ears to hear. > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > We can by this surely see the limits of logic. Wasn't it Gödel who > > said that no logical system is complete? Believeing that the > intellect > > can find the answer to any fundamental question is propably a recipe > > for struggle. > > > > /AL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 6, 2005 Hi Anders, Probably (haha) ? But let us consider the question: Is there also intelligence besides thinking, or is thinking the only souce of intelligence, or maybe thinking is no intelligence at all but just a social function needed for communication ? If indeed there is intelligence which doesn't need thought, why not listen ot it, why not follow its hints and whispering ? Is it because this intelligence is wordless, speechless, not using any learned language but rather works in a direct way, like for example emphathy, instincts or insights ? Werner Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > > > Hmm, hmm, > > > > And you, Anders, have always an answer - even if one hasn't asked you > > for one. > > > > Werner > > I am probably living too much in the intellect, which likes questions > and answers. > > /AL > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My idea is...........that ALL > > suffering..........can > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > avoided.............by......intense..........awareness.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Divisionless awareness avoids nothing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All-inclusive, holographic. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Divisionless awareness is a regression into oblivion. > > > > True > > > > > > > > > awareness > > > > > > > > > > is so much smarter than that! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Divisionless oblivion is a regression into awareness. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > True oblivion is so much less than you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't understand what you mean here. Can you explain it > > in > > > > > > > another way? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (You thrive way too much on explanations.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Remember the most important word: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No. > > > > > > > > > > > > No means that every time you try to assert a truth, > > > > > > you are hit with its negation. > > > > > > > > > > > > Every time you try to move forward, expand knowing, > > > > > > you are hit with the negation of that movement. > > > > > > > > > > > > Any explanation has to hit this wall of " no. " > > > > > > > > > > > > Joshu's " mu " - or " no " -- > > > > > > > > > > > > It is not that you are being singled out to be negated. > > > > > > > > > > > > It that any affirmation includes its own negation. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > > > > > Now you have become trapped in your own snare. If " any > > affirmation > > > > > includes its own negation " , then how about the affirmation: " any > > > > > affirmation includes its own negation " > > > > > > > > > > ? > > > > > > > > It's not a snare, it's the way it is. > > > > > > > > It includes every single word that I, you, or anyone else > > > > has ever written. > > > > > > > > If one has eyes to see, ears to hear. > > > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > We can by this surely see the limits of logic. Wasn't it Gödel who > > > said that no logical system is complete? Believeing that the > > intellect > > > can find the answer to any fundamental question is propably a recipe > > > for struggle. > > > > > > /AL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 6, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > Hi Anders, > > Probably (haha) ? > > But let us consider the question: Is there also intelligence besides > thinking, or is thinking the only souce of intelligence, or maybe > thinking is no intelligence at all but just a social function needed > for communication ? > > If indeed there is intelligence which doesn't need thought, why not > listen ot it, why not follow its hints and whispering ? > > Is it because this intelligence is wordless, speechless, not using > any learned language but rather works in a direct way, like for > example emphathy, instincts or insights ? > > Werner The highest form of intelligence must operate in harmony with totality. An infinitely difficult task, and if there is such intelligence operating, rational thinking can not be the highest expression of it, or rather, rational thinking _is_ a result of the highest form of intelligence, but it has to evolve, find its way through the jungle of entropy. /AL > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > wrote: > > > > > > Hmm, hmm, > > > > > > And you, Anders, have always an answer - even if one hasn't asked > you > > > for one. > > > > > > Werner > > > > I am probably living too much in the intellect, which likes > questions > > and answers. > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " > <dan330033> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My idea is...........that ALL > > > suffering..........can > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > avoided.............by......intense..........awareness.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Divisionless awareness avoids nothing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All-inclusive, holographic. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Divisionless awareness is a regression into > oblivion. > > > > > True > > > > > > > > > > awareness > > > > > > > > > > > is so much smarter than that! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Divisionless oblivion is a regression into > awareness. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > True oblivion is so much less than you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't understand what you mean here. Can you > explain it > > > in > > > > > > > > another way? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (You thrive way too much on explanations.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Remember the most important word: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No means that every time you try to assert a truth, > > > > > > > you are hit with its negation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Every time you try to move forward, expand knowing, > > > > > > > you are hit with the negation of that movement. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any explanation has to hit this wall of " no. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Joshu's " mu " - or " no " -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is not that you are being singled out to be negated. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It that any affirmation includes its own negation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > > > > > > > Now you have become trapped in your own snare. If " any > > > affirmation > > > > > > includes its own negation " , then how about the > affirmation: " any > > > > > > affirmation includes its own negation " > > > > > > > > > > > > ? > > > > > > > > > > It's not a snare, it's the way it is. > > > > > > > > > > It includes every single word that I, you, or anyone else > > > > > has ever written. > > > > > > > > > > If one has eyes to see, ears to hear. > > > > > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > > > We can by this surely see the limits of logic. Wasn't it Gödel > who > > > > said that no logical system is complete? Believeing that the > > > intellect > > > > can find the answer to any fundamental question is propably a > recipe > > > > for struggle. > > > > > > > > /AL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 6, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@c...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > >With the assumption of weness.....comes the assumption of > >otherness.......and the curtains open......the play begins......... > > Did you ever ask yourself the question, where this play is taking > place? What is the name of the stage? > > S. The stage is named... " I am " . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 6, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > > > Hi Anders, > > > > Probably (haha) ? > > > > But let us consider the question: Is there also intelligence besides > > thinking, or is thinking the only souce of intelligence, or maybe > > thinking is no intelligence at all but just a social function needed > > for communication ? > > > > If indeed there is intelligence which doesn't need thought, why not > > listen ot it, why not follow its hints and whispering ? > > > > Is it because this intelligence is wordless, speechless, not using > > any learned language but rather works in a direct way, like for > > example emphathy, instincts or insights ? > > > > Werner > > The highest form of intelligence must operate in harmony with > totality. An infinitely difficult task, and if there is such > intelligence operating, rational thinking can not be the highest > expression of it, or rather, rational thinking _is_ a result of the > highest form of intelligence, but it has to evolve, find its way > through the jungle of entropy. > Goose eggs in bottles. t. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 6, 2005 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Anders, > > > > > > Probably (haha) ? > > > > > > But let us consider the question: Is there also intelligence besides > > > thinking, or is thinking the only souce of intelligence, or maybe > > > thinking is no intelligence at all but just a social function needed > > > for communication ? > > > > > > If indeed there is intelligence which doesn't need thought, why not > > > listen ot it, why not follow its hints and whispering ? > > > > > > Is it because this intelligence is wordless, speechless, not using > > > any learned language but rather works in a direct way, like for > > > example emphathy, instincts or insights ? > > > > > > Werner > > > > The highest form of intelligence must operate in harmony with > > totality. An infinitely difficult task, and if there is such > > intelligence operating, rational thinking can not be the highest > > expression of it, or rather, rational thinking _is_ a result of the > > highest form of intelligence, but it has to evolve, find its way > > through the jungle of entropy. > > > > > > Goose eggs in bottles. > > > t. Yes, that is a very good description of the difficulty, and of the solution. /AL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 6, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > > > Hmm, hmm, > > > > And you, Anders, have always an answer - even if one hasn't asked you > > for one. > > > > Werner > > I am probably living too much in the intellect, which likes questions > and answers. > > /AL ** No insight there. There's no 'intellect' and no 'I' that could live there. Still the same game--where I 'has' so-called options, could 'have an existence somewhere else.' Futile, contradictory, imaginary attempts, that's all. > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My idea is...........that ALL > > suffering..........can > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > avoided.............by......intense..........awareness.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Divisionless awareness avoids nothing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All-inclusive, holographic. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Divisionless awareness is a regression into oblivion. > > > > True > > > > > > > > > awareness > > > > > > > > > > is so much smarter than that! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Divisionless oblivion is a regression into awareness. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > True oblivion is so much less than you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't understand what you mean here. Can you explain it > > in > > > > > > > another way? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (You thrive way too much on explanations.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Remember the most important word: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No. > > > > > > > > > > > > No means that every time you try to assert a truth, > > > > > > you are hit with its negation. > > > > > > > > > > > > Every time you try to move forward, expand knowing, > > > > > > you are hit with the negation of that movement. > > > > > > > > > > > > Any explanation has to hit this wall of " no. " > > > > > > > > > > > > Joshu's " mu " - or " no " -- > > > > > > > > > > > > It is not that you are being singled out to be negated. > > > > > > > > > > > > It that any affirmation includes its own negation. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > > > > > Now you have become trapped in your own snare. If " any > > affirmation > > > > > includes its own negation " , then how about the affirmation: " any > > > > > affirmation includes its own negation " > > > > > > > > > > ? > > > > > > > > It's not a snare, it's the way it is. > > > > > > > > It includes every single word that I, you, or anyone else > > > > has ever written. > > > > > > > > If one has eyes to see, ears to hear. > > > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > We can by this surely see the limits of logic. Wasn't it Gödel who > > > said that no logical system is complete? Believeing that the > > intellect > > > can find the answer to any fundamental question is propably a recipe > > > for struggle. > > > > > > /AL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 6, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > > > Hi Anders, > > > > Probably (haha) ? > > > > But let us consider the question: Is there also intelligence besides > > thinking, or is thinking the only souce of intelligence, or maybe > > thinking is no intelligence at all but just a social function needed > > for communication ? > > > > If indeed there is intelligence which doesn't need thought, why not > > listen ot it, why not follow its hints and whispering ? > > > > Is it because this intelligence is wordless, speechless, not using > > any learned language but rather works in a direct way, like for > > example emphathy, instincts or insights ? > > > > Werner > > The highest form of intelligence must operate in harmony with > totality. An infinitely difficult task, and if there is such > intelligence operating, rational thinking can not be the highest > expression of it, or rather, rational thinking _is_ a result of the > highest form of intelligence, but it has to evolve, find its way > through the jungle of entropy. > > /AL ** not 'highest'...not a form...not...operating (non-existent) fools rushing in.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 6, 2005 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@c...> wrote: >>Did you ever ask yourself the question, where this play is taking >>place? What is the name of the stage? >> >>S. > >The stage is named... " I am " . who ever is acting on that stage, however the scenes are changing, the stage remains the same - no matter what name it is given - you can let go S. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 6, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@c...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@c...> > wrote: > > >>Did you ever ask yourself the question, where this play is taking > >>place? What is the name of the stage? > >> > >>S. > > > >The stage is named... " I am " . > > who ever is acting on that stage, however the scenes are changing, the > stage remains the same - no matter what name it is given - you can > let go > > S. No you can't. t. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 6, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Anders, > > > > > > > > Probably (haha) ? > > > > > > > > But let us consider the question: Is there also intelligence > besides > > > > thinking, or is thinking the only souce of intelligence, or maybe > > > > thinking is no intelligence at all but just a social function > needed > > > > for communication ? > > > > > > > > If indeed there is intelligence which doesn't need thought, why not > > > > listen ot it, why not follow its hints and whispering ? > > > > > > > > Is it because this intelligence is wordless, speechless, not using > > > > any learned language but rather works in a direct way, like for > > > > example emphathy, instincts or insights ? > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > The highest form of intelligence must operate in harmony with > > > totality. An infinitely difficult task, and if there is such > > > intelligence operating, rational thinking can not be the highest > > > expression of it, or rather, rational thinking _is_ a result of the > > > highest form of intelligence, but it has to evolve, find its way > > > through the jungle of entropy. > > > > > > > > > > > Goose eggs in bottles. > > > > > > t. > > Yes, that is a very good description of the difficulty, and of the > solution. > > /AL ** the problem comes when you feel a need to get the egg or goose out of the bottle...not before. kind of like " a self in the world. " Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 7, 2005 Nisargadatta , " kenj02001 " <kenj02001> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " > <wwoehr@p...> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi Anders, > > > > > > > > > > Probably (haha) ? > > > > > > > > > > But let us consider the question: Is there also intelligence > > besides > > > > > thinking, or is thinking the only souce of intelligence, or > maybe > > > > > thinking is no intelligence at all but just a social function > > needed > > > > > for communication ? > > > > > > > > > > If indeed there is intelligence which doesn't need thought, > why not > > > > > listen ot it, why not follow its hints and whispering ? > > > > > > > > > > Is it because this intelligence is wordless, speechless, not > using > > > > > any learned language but rather works in a direct way, like > for > > > > > example emphathy, instincts or insights ? > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > The highest form of intelligence must operate in harmony with > > > > totality. An infinitely difficult task, and if there is such > > > > intelligence operating, rational thinking can not be the > highest > > > > expression of it, or rather, rational thinking _is_ a result > of the > > > > highest form of intelligence, but it has to evolve, find its > way > > > > through the jungle of entropy. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Goose eggs in bottles. > > > > > > > > > t. > > > > Yes, that is a very good description of the difficulty, and of the > > solution. > > > > /AL > > ** the problem comes when you feel a need to > get the egg or goose out of the bottle...not before. > > kind of like " a self in the world. " The egg is " me " and the bottle is the unknown. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 7, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " kenj02001 " <kenj02001> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " > > <wwoehr@p...> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Anders, > > > > > > > > > > > > Probably (haha) ? > > > > > > > > > > > > But let us consider the question: Is there also intelligence > > > besides > > > > > > thinking, or is thinking the only souce of intelligence, or > > maybe > > > > > > thinking is no intelligence at all but just a social function > > > needed > > > > > > for communication ? > > > > > > > > > > > > If indeed there is intelligence which doesn't need thought, > > why not > > > > > > listen ot it, why not follow its hints and whispering ? > > > > > > > > > > > > Is it because this intelligence is wordless, speechless, not > > using > > > > > > any learned language but rather works in a direct way, like > > for > > > > > > example emphathy, instincts or insights ? > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > The highest form of intelligence must operate in harmony with > > > > > totality. An infinitely difficult task, and if there is such > > > > > intelligence operating, rational thinking can not be the > > highest > > > > > expression of it, or rather, rational thinking _is_ a result > > of the > > > > > highest form of intelligence, but it has to evolve, find its > > way > > > > > through the jungle of entropy. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Goose eggs in bottles. > > > > > > > > > > > > t. > > > > > > Yes, that is a very good description of the difficulty, and of the > > > solution. > > > > > > /AL > > > > ** the problem comes when you feel a need to > > get the egg or goose out of the bottle...not before. > > > > kind of like " a self in the world. " > > The egg is " me " and the bottle is the unknown. Both the egg and the bottle exist only as illusory relational concepts. toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
