Guest guest Report post Posted February 7, 2005 Nisargadatta , " goldenrainbowrider " <laughterx8@h...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > It's all just fine...it's all working itself out...even though > some > > > > will say, " what? There is " No " thing in which to work out. > > > > > > > > I say, obviously there is or you wouldn't be here. > > > > > > > > ~G. > > > > > > The people in your dream last night were there....Where are they > now? > > > > > > t. > > -------------------------- > > aaaaah, but your still here. > > you can debate whether you're here or not til the non-cows come home. > > Why bother? > > If there's nothing to produce why bother attempting to produce > nothing? Why bother attempting to debate whether nothing is > producable? > > yowza! > > ~G. > -------------------------------- G! Your mind is ridden by the same illusion as is pestering toombaru. There is no such thing as " is not " other than as an IDEA of what is not. Is an IDEA NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Wake up, already! 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 , " carolina112900 " > <freyjartist@a...> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> > > wrote: > > > > > Maybe Ramana simply was joking when he told his followers about > > his > > > > > enlightened cow. :-] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's what I mean......It doesn't occur to them that Ramana was > > > flat out wrong. > > > > > > > > t. > > > > > > Or maybe he was pointing out that everything is enlightened, > > inluding > > > the cow, and the only thing that is not enlightened is an illusion. > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > AL, are you saying that illusions have qualities, > > such as, un-enlightened? > > > > what is an illusion? > > something that is not there? > > how do you know what is there > > and what is not there? > > > > f. > > Everything is. The illusion is the belief that not everything is. > > /AL There is no everything which can be, and therefore is not doesn't apply either. - D. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 7, 2005 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " carolina112900 " > > <freyjartist@a...> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " > <cptc@w...> > > > wrote: > > > > > > Maybe Ramana simply was joking when he told his followers > about > > > his > > > > > > enlightened cow. :-] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's what I mean......It doesn't occur to them that Ramana > was > > > > flat out wrong. > > > > > > > > > > t. > > > > > > > > Or maybe he was pointing out that everything is enlightened, > > > inluding > > > > the cow, and the only thing that is not enlightened is an > illusion. > > > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > > AL, are you saying that illusions have qualities, > > > such as, un-enlightened? > > > > > > what is an illusion? > > > something that is not there? > > > how do you know what is there > > > and what is not there? > > > > > > f. > > > > Everything is. The illusion is the belief that not everything is. > > > > /AL > > There is no everything which can be, and therefore > is not doesn't apply either. > > - D. Everything is what is. Including your body, the computer screen in front of you, earth, solar system, and the Andromeda galaxy - they are what is. There is no thing that is not. Touch the keyboard in front of you; it is a part of what is. There is nothing that is not. /AL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 7, 2005 Hi freyja. I dont know if you remember this thread ;-) Things happen fast, here. Well, I wrote some comments: >OK, Tom, I get it now :-) >Question: Do you know what IT is >that makes human units different >than machines, other than being >capable of perceiving through the >senses (sentient), >and the ability to reflect, reason, >and experience? I know sentience can be defined as raw sensual perception as you indicate here, but I would prefer if you could move it down 2 lines to include a degree of consciousness. In fact, machines surpassed a long time ago the human capacity to sense the external world. This goes for all senses: light, sound, tactility, chemical recognition (smell, taste) etc So sentience includes something more than sense perception: I imagine it is a matter of complexity, information content, entropy. On a relatively low complexity scale, consider this: A large jet-plane is disassembled unto individual parts, all lying in a big heap. The average person would never recognize the significance of this pile of junk, but a team of aeronautic engineers could actually get all the parts together…..and fly. This is a sort of a quantum leap: From heap to flying on vacation. Many mistakes are allowed in the assembly - and as many are fatal. To fly or not to fly. The same with what we call living/dead. Take a bowl of oxtail soup. It probably contains all the necessary ingredients to at least manufacture a simple one cell organism, an amoebae. - just get all the atoms and molecules right and it swims. Place a vital one in a wrong place - and it's dead. I don't think it is necessity for god to " blow life into it " . Or rather, that's what he/she automatically does, if the complexity level is high enough - and all parts are in the right place. >We label one animate, (imbued with life) >the other inanimate (no visible signs of life) >but all made of the same stuff. And we, the >animate human units 'appear' to control the >>inanimate objects. Yes. Different levels of complexity. - at some level sentience emerge. (Come to think of a hilarious short story called " sentient meat " u read that?) >But it is not so very simple to >see, even in a grammar school geography class, >that it takes a huge cooperative effort to >manifest just one little thing? And how far >back does this cooperative symbiotic effort >go? Can you know? I cannot grasp what you are saying here ;-) >Can you 'know' original cause (unknown) or are >you a manifestation of that original >cause? whatever it is. Yes...... To be or not to be. Sorry, can't come up with much here. I'm not on that complexity level LOL But I like your question ;-) >This is the unknown variable that is >always present, and which contains all >of our drives, beliefs, and everything, Yes! >and it un-balances all equations. Last line: No comprendo >freyja Tom Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 8, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Tom Flou " <tom@f...> wrote: > > Hi freyja. Hi Tom > I dont know if you remember this thread ;-) f. oh yeah...it's all coming back now ;-) > Things happen fast, here. f. the round and round is picking up speed -- has anyone twirled around enough and gotten dizzy enough to make themselves sick yet? > Well, I wrote some comments: > > >OK, Tom, I get it now :-) > > >Question: Do you know what IT is > >that makes human units different > >than machines, other than being > >capable of perceiving through the > >senses (sentient), > >and the ability to reflect, reason, > >and experience? > > > I know sentience can be defined > as raw sensual perception as you indicate here, > but I would prefer if you could move it down > 2 lines to include a degree of consciousness. > In fact, machines surpassed a long time ago > the human capacity to sense the external world. > This goes for all senses: light, sound, tactility, > chemical recognition (smell, taste) etc > So sentience includes something more > than sense perception: > > I imagine it is a matter of complexity, > information content, entropy. > On a relatively low complexity scale, consider this: > A large jet-plane is disassembled unto > individual parts, all lying in a big heap. > The average person would never recognize > the significance of this pile of junk, but > a team of aeronautic engineers could actually > get all the parts together…..and fly. > This is a sort of a quantum leap: > From heap to flying on vacation. > Many mistakes are allowed in the assembly > - and as many are fatal. > To fly or not to fly. > The same with what we call living/dead. > Take a bowl of oxtail soup. > It probably contains all the necessary ingredients to at least > manufacture a simple one cell organism, an amoebae. > - just get all the atoms and molecules right and it swims. > Place a vital one in a wrong place - and it's dead. > I don't think it is necessity for god to " blow life into it " . > Or rather, that's what he/she automatically does, > if the complexity level is high enough - and > all parts are in the right place. > f. yes, that's true. the way i hear this, aside from a biological and other kinds of matter perspective, is a lot of things have to do with physics and the way the numbers work, and there are some 'mysteries' which aren't really mysteries. Things are only obeying simple rules, which make " sense " but sometimes the factors involved get so complicated or complex, that it is impossible to predict what they are going to do next. > >We label one animate, (imbued with life) > >the other inanimate (no visible signs of life) > >but all made of the same stuff. And we, the > >animate human units 'appear' to control the > >>inanimate objects. > > Yes. Different levels of complexity. > - at some level sentience emerge. > (Come to think of a hilarious short story > called " sentient meat " u read that?) > f. Can't say that I have...who wrote it? > >But it is not so very simple to > >see, even in a grammar school geography class, > >that it takes a huge cooperative effort to > >manifest just one little thing? And how far > >back does this cooperative symbiotic effort > >go? Can you know? > > I cannot grasp what you are saying here ;-) > f. I made a mistake in the above by saying " it is NOT so very simple to see " , when it should have been, " it IS so very simple to see " , but basically, I'm asking, can I stand far back enough to see original cause? > >Can you 'know' original cause (unknown) or are > >you a manifestation of that original > >cause? whatever it is. > > Yes...... To be or not to be. > Sorry, can't come up with much here. > I'm not on that complexity level LOL > But I like your question ;-) > > >This is the unknown variable that is > >always present, and which contains all > >of our drives, beliefs, and everything, > > Yes! > > >and it un-balances all equations. > > Last line: No comprendo > f. just that it is the unknown variable which allows change; no finding can be final, except under certain conditions, and then conditions are always changing. So as you can see, duality is about constant need to understand choices, it is about balancing the equations, it is about needing to solve and counter each variable one at a time. Non-duality is the un-balanced equation, where things cannot be put into boxes. Non-duality allows for balancing equations, but the balancing of any kind of equations does not produce something called 'enlightenment'. Enlightenment is a balanced equation. > >freyja > > > Tom Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 8, 2005 Nisargadatta , " carolina112900 " <freyjartist@a...> wrote: > > > Non-duality is the un-balanced > equation, where things cannot be put into > boxes. Non-duality allows for balancing > equations, but the balancing of any kind of > equations does not produce something called > 'enlightenment'. Enlightenment is a > balanced equation. nice box you got there for nonduality. you're on a crusade against " enlightenment " - don't you get sick of it? what does a word matter? some say enlightenment/realization is the same as nonduality - does it matter if you call it clarity/apperception/truth/this/Tao? it's just a pointer to something different than your current state - and that's what you don't want to accept. you're clear enough to see that all intellectualizations are fabricated places of rest, which don't last. you're not clear enough to not be comfortable and satisfied with this state of unrest. so you name your unrest nonduality - and this is where you stop, where you provide yourself a resting place. maybe you'd just like to convince yourself you know what nonduality is? " there is no place to rest " can be a place to rest too. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 8, 2005 Nisargadatta , " dabo_now " <dscasta> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " carolina112900 " > <freyjartist@a...> wrote: > > > > > > Non-duality is the un-balanced > > equation, where things cannot be put into > > boxes. Non-duality allows for balancing > > equations, but the balancing of any kind of > > equations does not produce something called > > 'enlightenment'. Enlightenment is a > > balanced equation. > > > nice box you got there for nonduality. > > > you're on a crusade against " enlightenment " - don't you get sick of > it? > > what does a word matter? > > some say enlightenment/realization is the same as nonduality - does > it matter if you call it clarity/apperception/truth/this/Tao? > > it's just a pointer to something different than your current state - > and that's what you don't want to accept. > > > you're clear enough to see that all intellectualizations are > fabricated places of rest, which don't last. > > you're not clear enough to not be comfortable and satisfied with this > state of unrest. > > so you name your unrest nonduality - and this is where you stop, > where you provide yourself a resting place. > > maybe you'd just like to convince yourself you know what nonduality > is? > > > " there is no place to rest " can be a place to rest too. f. Yes, and do you see that we could go on with this line of thinking forever? If you look at it that way, " " there is no place to rest " can be a place to rest " can be a place to rest, too. just another subtle line of dogma. Things can be said and yet there does not have to be a holding on to them. We do not need to hold to any concept of nonduality, because we are nonduality, and i won't even hold to that...it is just for discussion. :-) anyway, did you know that in a particular West African language, which i don't recall the name of right now, 'dabo' means " goodbye " . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 8, 2005 Nisargadatta , " carolina112900 " <freyjartist@a...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dabo_now " <dscasta> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " carolina112900 " > > <freyjartist@a...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Non-duality is the un-balanced > > > equation, where things cannot be put into > > > boxes. Non-duality allows for balancing > > > equations, but the balancing of any kind of > > > equations does not produce something called > > > 'enlightenment'. Enlightenment is a > > > balanced equation. > > > > > > nice box you got there for nonduality. > > > > > > you're on a crusade against " enlightenment " - don't you get sick of > > it? > > > > what does a word matter? > > > > some say enlightenment/realization is the same as nonduality - does > > it matter if you call it clarity/apperception/truth/this/Tao? > > > > it's just a pointer to something different than your current state - > > > and that's what you don't want to accept. > > > > > > you're clear enough to see that all intellectualizations are > > fabricated places of rest, which don't last. > > > > you're not clear enough to not be comfortable and satisfied with > this > > state of unrest. > > > > so you name your unrest nonduality - and this is where you stop, > > where you provide yourself a resting place. > > > > maybe you'd just like to convince yourself you know what nonduality > > is? > > > > > > " there is no place to rest " can be a place to rest too. > > > f. Yes, and do you see > that we could go on with > this line of thinking forever? > > If you look at it that way, > " " there is no place to rest " can be a place to > rest " > can be a place to rest, too. > just another subtle line of dogma. > > Things can be said and yet there > does not have to be a > holding on to them. We do not > need to hold to any concept of nonduality, > because we are nonduality, and i won't > even hold to that...it is just for > discussion. :-) > > anyway, did you know that in a particular > West African language, which i don't recall > the name of right now, 'dabo' means > " goodbye " . That's interesting. Goodbye to the now, which is goodbye to the past. To see the past constantly in state of goodbye. What a relief! Just to let the past flow away from one's being like tears in the rain. /AL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 8, 2005 Nisargadatta , " carolina112900 " <freyjartist@a...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dabo_now " <dscasta> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " carolina112900 " > > <freyjartist@a...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Non-duality is the un-balanced > > > equation, where things cannot be put into > > > boxes. Non-duality allows for balancing > > > equations, but the balancing of any kind of > > > equations does not produce something called > > > 'enlightenment'. Enlightenment is a > > > balanced equation. > > > > > > nice box you got there for nonduality. > > > > > > you're on a crusade against " enlightenment " - don't you get sick of > > it? > > > > what does a word matter? > > > > some say enlightenment/realization is the same as nonduality - does > > it matter if you call it clarity/apperception/truth/this/Tao? > > > > it's just a pointer to something different than your current state - > > > and that's what you don't want to accept. > > > > > > you're clear enough to see that all intellectualizations are > > fabricated places of rest, which don't last. > > > > you're not clear enough to not be comfortable and satisfied with > this > > state of unrest. > > > > so you name your unrest nonduality - and this is where you stop, > > where you provide yourself a resting place. > > > > maybe you'd just like to convince yourself you know what nonduality > > is? > > > > > > " there is no place to rest " can be a place to rest too. > > > f. Yes, and do you see > that we could go on with > this line of thinking forever? not if we stop right now. > If you look at it that way, > " " there is no place to rest " can be a place to > rest " > can be a place to rest, too. > just another subtle line of dogma. that's part of the continuing, ongoing unrest. the dogma is made when a statement is made. and silence is a dogma too - when it's opposed to all statements that can be made. > Things can be said and yet there > does not have to be a > holding on to them. We do not > need to hold to any concept of nonduality, > because we are nonduality, what are we? nonduality is just a word. and i won't > even hold to that...it is just for > discussion. :-) cool. that was my point, btw. > anyway, did you know that in a particular > West African language, which i don't recall > the name of right now, 'dabo' means > " goodbye " . well, in that case... hi, Freyja. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 8, 2005 Nisargadatta , " carolina112900 " <freyjartist@a...> wrote: > anyway, did you know that in a particular > West African language, which i don't recall > the name of right now, 'dabo' means > " goodbye " . Yoruba Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 9, 2005 Tough questions here under, Freyja. I´l have a go, though. Here is my attempt: (Almost got a little " rimy " at the end ;-)) The created cannot know the creator. The amoebae I assembled, will never know me. - Nor can I know my creator. All I can know is my creations. All I know, are my creations. I am the creator of my universe - where I reside. Myself, I can never know - least I will have to go, so only knowing is left. Tom. Rest is old posts, heavily snipped. -> Freyja:--- basically, I'm asking, can > I stand far back enough to see original > cause? > > > > >Can you 'know' original cause (unknown) or are > > >you a manifestation of that original > > >cause? whatever it is. > > > > > > f. just that it is the unknown variable > which allows change; no finding can > be final, except under certain conditions, > and then conditions are always changing. > > So as you can see, duality is about constant > need to understand choices, it is about > balancing the equations, it is about needing > to solve and counter each variable one at > a time. > > Non-duality is the un-balanced > equation, where things cannot be put into > boxes. Non-duality allows for balancing > equations, but the balancing of any kind of > equations does not produce something called > 'enlightenment'. Enlightenment is a > balanced equation. > > > >freyja Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
