Guest guest Report post Posted March 11, 2005 Hi Stefan, Your wrote: S: Werner, in a way you just have said that you do not want to believe in immortality because you want to be immortal. W: If you feel the need to put shit in my mouth I never said or meant, I fear I can't stop you doing that. Already your next text is demonstrating it again: S: 1.The idea that the " me " is ultimately interested in survival is a myth. There is plenty of evidence that the " me " can be suicidal and self destructive or simply wants to forget itself and cease. W: I never wrote such a crap that the " me " is ULTINATELY interested in survival. What I wrote was when there is an interest in eternal survival then it is the " me " which is interested in it. Stefan, I am tired of this game to discuss things I never said or meant. Werner Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@c...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > wrote: > > >I don't give a damn hood for if awareness will go on lasting for > ever or not because when I died and it will last then ok ok, and if > it won't last then ok too. But I am still alive and as long as I > believe in an eternal awareness then this very belief will undermine > enquiry because this enquiry could lead to the ending of the " me " > which is thinking that it is awareness. Can't you see that point ? Who > >else besides the " me " is interested in eternal survival ? > > Werner, in a way you just have said that you do not want to believe in > immortality because you want to be immortal. Do you see that? You just > indicated that you want your mortal part, your " me " to end. You want > your inquiry to succeed, not to be undermined. You are trying to trick > yourself. But it does not work. Thats why you are frustratedly > shouting on others that they are stupidly ruled by immortality > wishes. > > Why do you want your personal " me " to end at all, what is > wrong with it. What do you expect to be left when ended. Who wants to > end what. Whose enquiry is in danger to be undermined. > > I would like write down for you three points based on my own > experience. > > 1.The idea that the " me " is ultimately interested in survival is a > myth. There is plenty of evidence that the " me " can be suicidal and > self destructive or simply wants to forget itself and cease. > > 2.When I allow awareness to be as it is I am just allowing what is > already in place. I am already experiencing the totality every moment. > It does not need my allowance. > > 3.This awareness, this experiencing is ultimately impersonal. This > also means immortal. But not the immortality of the person. It just > means that my total experiencing is so vast that the conceptual person > is only a tiny, unimportant, transitory part of it. > > If you like, please read those three points again, but read them > without thinking every word has an underlying hidden meaning. Just > take what is in there for you and I am out of here. > > Greetings > Stefan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 11, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@c...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > wrote: > > >I don't give a damn hood for if awareness will go on lasting for > ever or not because when I died and it will last then ok ok, and if > it won't last then ok too. But I am still alive and as long as I > believe in an eternal awareness then this very belief will undermine > enquiry because this enquiry could lead to the ending of the " me " > which is thinking that it is awareness. Can't you see that point ? Who > >else besides the " me " is interested in eternal survival ? > > Werner, in a way you just have said that you do not want to believe in > immortality because you want to be immortal. Do you see that? You just > indicated that you want your mortal part, your " me " to end. You want > your inquiry to succeed, not to be undermined. You are trying to trick > yourself. But it does not work. Thats why you are frustratedly > shouting on others that they are stupidly ruled by immortality > wishes. > > Why do you want your personal " me " to end at all, what is > wrong with it. What do you expect to be left when ended. Who wants to > end what. Whose enquiry is in danger to be undermined. > > I would like write down for you three points based on my own > experience. > > 1.The idea that the " me " is ultimately interested in survival is a > myth. There is plenty of evidence that the " me " can be suicidal and > self destructive or simply wants to forget itself and cease. > > 2.When I allow awareness to be as it is I am just allowing what is > already in place. I am already experiencing the totality every moment. > It does not need my allowance. > > 3.This awareness, this experiencing is ultimately impersonal. This > also means immortal. But not the immortality of the person. It just > means that my total experiencing is so vast that the conceptual person > is only a tiny, unimportant, transitory part of it. > > If you like, please read those three points again, but read them > without thinking every word has an underlying hidden meaning. Just > take what is in there for you and I am out of here. > > Greetings > Stefan ********************** ha ha! :0) Beautiful! Yes! Knocking at heavens doors! Namaste Odysseus, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 11, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@c...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > wrote: > > >I don't give a damn hood for if awareness will go on lasting for > ever or not because when I died and it will last then ok ok, and if > it won't last then ok too. But I am still alive and as long as I > believe in an eternal awareness then this very belief will undermine > enquiry because this enquiry could lead to the ending of the " me " > which is thinking that it is awareness. Can't you see that point ? Who > >else besides the " me " is interested in eternal survival ? > All " mes " are wired for self-survival. Some " mes " are not wired to endure the painful illusion of separation as well as " others " and to seek a premature departure. > Werner, in a way you just have said that you do not want to believe in > immortality because you want to be immortal. Do you see that? You just > indicated that you want your mortal part, your " me " to end. You want > your inquiry to succeed, not to be undermined. You are trying to trick > yourself. But it does not work. Thats why you are frustratedly > shouting on others that they are stupidly ruled by immortality > wishes. > > Why do you want your personal " me " to end at all, what is > wrong with it. What do you expect to be left when ended. Who wants to > end what. Whose enquiry is in danger to be undermined. > > I would like write down for you three points based on my own > experience. > > 1.The idea that the " me " is ultimately interested in survival is a > myth. There is plenty of evidence that the " me " can be suicidal and > self destructive or simply wants to forget itself and cease. > > 2.When I allow awareness to be as it is I am just allowing what is > already in place. There is no " allowing " . Allowing implies a choice and a chooser. " Awareness " cannot allow itself to " be as it is " . I am already experiencing the totality every moment. The " I am " .....cannot exist co-incidentally with the " totality " . > It does not need my allowance. > > 3.This awareness, this experiencing is ultimately impersonal. All awareness.......all experience is personal. This > also means immortal. But not the immortality of the person. It just > means that my total experiencing is so vast that the conceptual person > is only a tiny, unimportant, transitory part of it. Vast experiencing is still experiencing.... Dreams of vastness. > > If you like, please read those three points again, but read them > without thinking every word has an underlying hidden meaning. Just > take what is in there for you and I am out of here. > > Greetings > Stefan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 11, 2005 --- toombaru2004 <cptc wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " Stefan " > <s.petersilge@c...> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner > Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > > wrote: > > --- toombaru2004 <cptc wrote: Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@c... wrote: Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p... wrote: Werner: I don't give a damn hood for if awareness will go on lasting for ever or not because when I died and it will last then ok ok, and if it won't last then ok too. But I am still alive and as long as I believe in an eternal awareness then this very belief will undermine enquiry because this enquiry could lead to the ending of the " me " which is thinking that it is awareness. Can't you see that point ? Who else besides the " me " is interested in eternal survival ? Toom: All " mes " are wired for self-survival. Some " mes " are not wired to endure the painful illusion of separation as well as " others " and to seek a premature departure. Lewis: All " mes " are not as stated. Neither are all " I " s. Or " you's or any other pronoun. That is a projection, part of a dream world, imagination. Fill out the dream fully. Stefan: Werner, in a way you just have said that you do not want to believe in immortality because you want to be immortal. Do you see that? You just indicated that you want your mortal part, your " me " to end. You want your inquiry to succeed, not to be undermined. You are trying to trick yourself. But it does not work. Thats why you are frustratedly shouting on others that they are stupidly ruled by immortality wishes. Why do you want your personal " me " to end at all, what is wrong with it. What do you expect to be left when ended. Who wants to end what. Whose enquiry is in danger to be undermined. I would like write down for you three points based on my own experience. 1.The idea that the " me " is ultimately interested in survival is a myth. There is plenty of evidence that the " me " can be suicidal and self destructive or simply wants to forget itself and cease. 2.When I allow awareness to be as it is I am just allowing what is already in place. Toom: There is no " allowing " . Allowing implies a choice and a chooser. Lewis: There is allowing when there is a " me " as you stated " me " s are in the dream statement above. Or have it both ways, with one dream contradicting the other as it is usually done by the dreamer called Toom. Toom: " Awareness " cannot allow itself to " be as it is " . Lewis: Awareness is a concept and has no agency. It is a dream entity. There is no awareness. Non-existing things do not do. Toom: I am already experiencing the totality every moment. Lewis: There it is. The " I " that is not an " I " or is it? Toom: The " I am " .....cannot exist co-incidentally with the " totality " . Lewis: There is no totality. That is a figment of imagination, dreamwork par excellence. Stefan: It does not need my allowance. 3.This awareness, this experiencing is ultimately impersonal. Toom: All awareness.......all experience is personal. Lewis: There is no awareness and there is no personal or impersonal. That is dreamwork as is this. Stefan: This also means immortal. But not the immortality of the person. It just means that my total experiencing is so vast that the conceptual person is only a tiny, unimportant, transitory part of it. Toom: Vast experiencing is still experiencing.... Dreams of vastness. Lewis: The above said in the same dream from where all of those words above and these have come. Dreaming and dreamwork is all that is done here. Are there different dreams for different dreamers such as Toom's dreams, Stefan's dreams, Werner's dreams and Lewis' dreams? Are there dreamers? All is a dream dreamt by dreamers. That sentence above is a dream dreamt by dreamers. Sunyata And that sentence about the first one is a dream dreamt by dreamers. Sunyata All is a dream dreamt by dreamers is an absurdity. That sentence above is a dream dreamt by dreamers. Sunyata Werner, Stefan, Toom, Lewis, all is a dream dreamt by dreamers. That sentence above is a dream dreamt by dreamers. Sunyata There is no terminus. All is absurd. That sentence above is a dream dreamt by dreamers. Sunyata There is a terminus. There is the Absolute. There is ME! That sentence above is a dream dreamt by dreamers. Sunyata Nothing can be said then? That sentence above is a dream dreamt by dreamers. Sunyata Then there is only silence. That sentence above is a dream dreamt by dreamers. Sunyata What is there then? That sentence above is a dream dreamt by dreamers. Sunyata That is not an answer! That sentence above is a dream dreamt by dreamers. Sunyata …………….. Stefan: If you like, please read those three points again, but read them without thinking every word has an underlying hidden meaning. Just take what is in there for you and I am out of here. Greetings Stefan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 11, 2005 > > > Toom: I am already experiencing the totality every > moment. Toom never said that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 11, 2005 Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > --- toombaru2004 <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Stefan " > > <s.petersilge@c...> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner > > Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > > > wrote: > > > > --- toombaru2004 <cptc@w... wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " Stefan " > <s.petersilge@c... wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner > Woehr " <wwoehr@p... > wrote: > > Werner: I don't give a damn hood for if awareness > will go on lasting for ever or not because when I died > and it will last then ok ok, and if it won't last then > ok too. But I am still alive and as long as I believe > in an eternal awareness then this very belief will > undermine enquiry because this enquiry could lead to > the ending of the " me " which is thinking that it is > awareness. Can't you see that point ? Who else besides > the " me " is interested in eternal survival ? > > > Toom: All " mes " are wired for self-survival. Some > " mes " are not wired to endure the painful illusion of > separation as well as " others " and to seek a premature > departure. > > > Lewis: All " mes " are not as stated. Neither are all > " I " s. Or " you's or any other pronoun. That is a > projection, part of a dream world, imagination. Fill > out the dream fully. > > > Stefan: Werner, in a way you just have said that you > do not want to believe in immortality because you want > to be immortal. Do you see that? You just indicated > that you want your mortal part, your " me " to end. You > want your inquiry to succeed, not to be undermined. > You are trying to trick yourself. But it does not > work. Thats why you are frustratedly shouting on > others that they are stupidly ruled by immortality > wishes. > > Why do you want your personal " me " to end at all, what > is wrong with it. What do you expect to be left when > ended. Who wants to end what. Whose enquiry is in > danger to be undermined. > > I would like write down for you three points based on > my own experience. > > 1.The idea that the " me " is ultimately interested in > survival is a myth. There is plenty of evidence that > the " me " can be suicidal and self destructive or > simply wants to forget itself and cease. > > 2.When I allow awareness to be as it is I am just > allowing what is already in place. > > > Toom: There is no " allowing " . > > Allowing implies a choice and a chooser. > > > Lewis: There is allowing when there is a " me " as you > stated " me " s are in the dream statement above. Or have > it both ways, with one dream contradicting the other > as it is usually done by the dreamer called Toom. > > > Toom: " Awareness " cannot allow itself to " be as it > is " . > > > Lewis: Awareness is a concept and has no agency. It is > a dream entity. There is no awareness. Non-existing > things do not do. > > > Toom: I am already experiencing the totality every > moment. > > > Lewis: There it is. The " I " that is not an " I " or is > it? > > > Toom: The " I am " .....cannot exist co-incidentally with > the " totality " . > > > Lewis: There is no totality. That is a figment of > imagination, dreamwork par excellence. > > > Stefan: It does not need my allowance. > > 3.This awareness, this experiencing is ultimately > impersonal. > > > Toom: All awareness.......all experience is personal. > > > Lewis: There is no awareness and there is no personal > or impersonal. That is dreamwork as is this. > > > Stefan: This also means immortal. But not the > immortality of the person. It just means that my total > experiencing is so vast that the conceptual person is > only a tiny, unimportant, transitory part of it. > > > Toom: Vast experiencing is still experiencing.... > > Dreams of vastness. > > > Lewis: The above said in the same dream from where all > of those words above and these have come. Dreaming and > dreamwork is all that is done here. > > Are there different dreams for different dreamers such > as Toom's dreams, Stefan's dreams, Werner's dreams and > Lewis' dreams? Are there dreamers? > > All is a dream dreamt by dreamers. > > That sentence above is a dream dreamt by dreamers. > Sunyata > > And that sentence about the first one is a dream > dreamt by dreamers. Sunyata > > All is a dream dreamt by dreamers is an absurdity. > > That sentence above is a dream dreamt by dreamers. > Sunyata > > Werner, Stefan, Toom, Lewis, all is a dream dreamt by > dreamers. > > That sentence above is a dream dreamt by dreamers. > Sunyata > > There is no terminus. All is absurd. > > That sentence above is a dream dreamt by dreamers. > Sunyata > > There is a terminus. There is the Absolute. There is > ME! > > That sentence above is a dream dreamt by dreamers. > Sunyata > > Nothing can be said then? > > That sentence above is a dream dreamt by dreamers. > Sunyata > > Then there is only silence. > > That sentence above is a dream dreamt by dreamers. > Sunyata > > What is there then? > > That sentence above is a dream dreamt by dreamers. > Sunyata > > That is not an answer! > > That sentence above is a dream dreamt by dreamers. > Sunyata …………….. Everything is falling into everything....:-) toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 11, 2005 --- toombaru2004 <cptc wrote: > > Everything is falling into everything....:-) > > > toombaru Still dreaming Toom? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 11, 2005 --- toombaru2004 <cptc wrote: > > > > > > > > > Toom: I am already experiencing the totality every > > moment. > > > > Toom never said that. Who is answering? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 11, 2005 Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > --- toombaru2004 <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > > Everything is falling into everything....:-) > > > > > > toombaru > > > Still dreaming Toom? of course Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 11, 2005 Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > --- toombaru2004 <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Toom: I am already experiencing the totality every > > > moment. > > > > > > > > Toom never said that. > > > Who is answering? Who is asking? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 11, 2005 --- toombaru2004 <cptc wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess > <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > --- toombaru2004 <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > > > > > Everything is falling into everything....:-) > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > Still dreaming Toom? > > > > > of course Toom is incorrigible! :-) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 11, 2005 Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > --- toombaru2004 <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess > > <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > --- toombaru2004 <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Everything is falling into everything....:-) > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > Still dreaming Toom? > > > > > > > > > > of course > > > Toom is incorrigible! :-) He's a slippery little monkey. LOL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 11, 2005 --- toombaru2004 <cptc wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess > <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > --- toombaru2004 <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Toom: I am already experiencing the totality > every > > > > moment. > > > > > > > > > > > > Toom never said that. > > > > > > Who is answering? > > > > Who is asking? Kreba Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 11, 2005 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > --- toombaru2004 <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess > > > <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- toombaru2004 <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Toom: I am already experiencing the totality > > > every > > > > > > moment. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Toom never said that. > > > > > > > > > > > > Who is answering? > > > > > > > > > > > > Who is asking? > > > > Kreba > Kreba Johnson? I went to high school with a Kreba Johnson...... Oh my god....is that you Kreba? How is that little dog?......what was his name? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 11, 2005 --- toombaru2004 <cptc wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess > <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > --- toombaru2004 <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis > Burgess > > > <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- toombaru2004 <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Toom: I am already experiencing the > totality > > > every > > > > > > moment. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Toom never said that. > > > > > > > > > > > > Who is answering? > > > > > > > > > > > > Who is asking? > > > > Kreba > > > > Kreba Johnson? > > > > I went to high school with a Kreba Johnson...... > > > Oh my god....is that ypu Kreba? > > > How is that little dog?......what was his name? Yes, it is. You are a darling for remembering me. And Frufree is just fine. You even remember my darling pupsie! Are you still wild and crazy as I knew you. You were such a one. It seems you are interested in dreams coming to a place like this. Are you a dream watcher or collector? Write soon. Tata Loves and Peaces Kreba J. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 11, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: >Stefan, I am tired of this game to discuss things I never said or >meant. Hi Werner, this is very good. If you have read all that I wrote you should have understood that I did not want a discussion either. Thats what I meant when I wrote: " Just take what is in there for you and I am out of here. " I have spent part of this afternoon to share my experience and to give you a part of my heart. It was not easy for me but it was good when it was out. Maybe it has reached some part of you, maybe not. I wished it had. But it is not in my hands. You dont need to be affraid, I see no reason to be defensive. There is nothing you or I need to defend. But if you still are having any problem with my postings... feel free to tell me what it is, in whatever way you wish. But dont expect that I shut my mouth when it wants to overflow. My sencere and honest wish is happiness and freedom for everybody and you are part of my wish, too. Om shanti!!! Stefan > Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@c...> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > > wrote: > > > > >I don't give a damn hood for if awareness will go on lasting for > > ever or not because when I died and it will last then ok ok, and if > > it won't last then ok too. But I am still alive and as long as I > > believe in an eternal awareness then this very belief will undermine > > enquiry because this enquiry could lead to the ending of the " me " > > which is thinking that it is awareness. Can't you see that point ? > Who > > >else besides the " me " is interested in eternal survival ? > > > > Werner, in a way you just have said that you do not want to believe > in > > immortality because you want to be immortal. Do you see that? You > just > > indicated that you want your mortal part, your " me " to end. You want > > your inquiry to succeed, not to be undermined. You are trying to > trick > > yourself. But it does not work. Thats why you are frustratedly > > shouting on others that they are stupidly ruled by immortality > > wishes. > > > > Why do you want your personal " me " to end at all, what is > > wrong with it. What do you expect to be left when ended. Who wants > to > > end what. Whose enquiry is in danger to be undermined. > > > > I would like write down for you three points based on my own > > experience. > > > > 1.The idea that the " me " is ultimately interested in survival is a > > myth. There is plenty of evidence that the " me " can be suicidal and > > self destructive or simply wants to forget itself and cease. > > > > 2.When I allow awareness to be as it is I am just allowing what is > > already in place. I am already experiencing the totality every > moment. > > It does not need my allowance. > > > > 3.This awareness, this experiencing is ultimately impersonal. This > > also means immortal. But not the immortality of the person. It just > > means that my total experiencing is so vast that the conceptual > person > > is only a tiny, unimportant, transitory part of it. > > > > If you like, please read those three points again, but read them > > without thinking every word has an underlying hidden meaning. Just > > take what is in there for you and I am out of here. > > > > Greetings > > Stefan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 11, 2005 Nisargadatta , " ilikezen2004 " <ilikezen2004> wrote: > >ha ha! :0) Beautiful! Yes! Knocking at heavens doors! > >Namaste >Odysseus, Hi my friend, yes I am knocking. Or lets even say: heaven nocks on my door. It is carnaval now here in Greece and all the heroes are dancing on the streets. Achileas Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 11, 2005 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: >There is no " allowing " . True. >All awareness.......all experience is personal. the stream of experiencing happens, and the person itself is experienced as a fluctuant concept. It is only a small part of that which is experienced. >Vast experiencing is still experiencing.... Yes. No attribute can change it. >Dreams of vastness. Yes: " vast " only in comparison to the dreamed person. Greetings Stefan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 11, 2005 In a message dated 3/11/05 10:31:02 AM, lbb10 writes: > > > Still dreaming Toom? > > > > > > > > > > of course > > > Toom is incorrigible! :-) > > P: Nah! He just doesn't understand logic. He doesn't get that " everything is... " statements are nonsensical. To say, " everything is a dream, " and " everything is real, " amounts to saying the same, because the " everything is' phrase robs the object of the sentence (in this case dream) of any meaning. So the sentence is valid only as a poetic statement. Maybe he's trying to say: That mental events (no matter how grandiose) are born in, and never leave the brain. But he might as well adopt that Las Vegas slogan: " What happens here, stays here. " ) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 11, 2005 Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > In a message dated 3/11/05 10:31:02 AM, lbb10@c... writes: > > > > > > Still dreaming Toom? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of course > > > > > > Toom is incorrigible! :-) > > > > > > P: Nah! He just doesn't understand logic. > The attempt to apply logic to an illogical assumption......is insanity. The claim that one can be logical about things spiritual is delusional. Under all that dirt......what was the real color of Cinderella's dress? well.............Cinderella's dress wasn't real......and speculating about its real color....although interesting...can lead to nothing of value. He doesn't get that " everything is... " statements > are nonsensical. To say, " everything is a dream, " > and " everything is real, " amounts to saying the same, because > the " everything is' phrase robs the object of the > sentence (in this case dream) of any meaning. So the sentence is valid only > as a poetic statement. Maybe he's trying to say: That mental > events (no matter how grandiose) are born in, and never leave the brain. But > he might as well adopt that Las Vegas slogan: " What happens here, stays > here. " ) > > In saying that toombaru has absolutely no idea what color Cinderella's dress really is.....Pete is claiming that he does. So......Pete.......what is the color of Cinderella's dress? toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 12, 2005 In a message dated 3/11/05 10:07:21 PM, cptc writes: > P: Nah! He just doesn't understand logic. > > > > > > T: The attempt to apply logic to an illogical assumption......is insanity. > P: Another nonsense masterpiece! You have made nonsense your art form! Illogical situations and statements are what logic was designed to unmask. Your statement makes as much sense, as saying: To use medicine on sick people is insanity. Maybe a little humor is called for here. You should use Woody's famous retort. When someone pointed out he was talking nonsense, he asked in total amazement, " You mean to tell me, my whole fallacy is wrong? " > > T: The claim that one can be logical about things spiritual is delusional. > P: Toom, you are not even clear about what discipline your statements fall under. To say: " Everything is a dream " is not a spiritual statement, it's a philosophical one, it's a view of the world. With 'everything' as a qualifier you are not talking only about souls, and gods, but also about your loved ones, and .... hamburgers. > > > T: Under all that dirt......what was the real color of Cinderella's dress? > well.............Cinderella's dress wasn't real......and speculating about > its real color....although interesting...can lead to nothing of value. > P: When you state: " Everything is a dream, " Cinderella's dress becomes as real as your love for your wife. > > T: In saying that toombaru has absolutely no idea what color Cinderella's > dress really is.....Pete is claiming that he does. > P: What you have no idea of, is that terms like real and dream, if used in an absolute sense, have no meaning whatsoever. That everything could be a dream or not, doesn't change a damn thing about pain and pleasure, suffering and joy, and life and death. As Woody said, " You can question reality all you want, but it's the only place you can get a decent meal. " > > T:So......Pete.......what is the color of Cinderella's dress? > We can " a-dress " that with poetry better than logic, as I did sometime ago with this poem: Emptiness dreaming stuff, Stuff dreaming emptiness. And in the belly of the dream, a dream dreams: " I'm awake. " Pete > > ** > > If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your > subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: > > /mygroups?edit=1 > > Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta > group and click on Save Changes. > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 12, 2005 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: >The claim that one can be logical about things spiritual is >delusional. Absolutely is logic applyable to spirituality (whatever that is)! In fact it is the most " spiritual " thinking system that I have ever come across. Commonly logic is often confused with rationalism. But rationalism is avoiding paradox, whereas logic is pointing to the paradox nature of everything. It is amazing how logic, invented by Greek philosophers 2500 years ago, is still rudimentary to our arguing and thinking, although most have knowledge next to nothing about it. Historically logic thinking is most probably influenced by vedantic thinking. The originators of logic have used it to prove thesis like: nothing is knowable. Or: no real existence can be proved. Or: Everything that we perceive must be delusional. Logic was meant as a tool to teach people true understanding by persistent use of their own minds. It is also wonderful and amazing to watch how Nisargadatta and others have used logic to point to the unspeakable. So, this was my lecture for today, it cannot be harmful. But what I really wanted to express is my opinion: lets not be affraid of logical thinking! It can be a sharp, sharp sword to cut the ropes that are keeping us from freedom. Om Shanti Stefan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 12, 2005 --- Stefan <s.petersilge wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " > <cptc@w...> wrote: > > >The claim that one can be logical about things > spiritual is > >delusional. > > Absolutely is logic applyable to spirituality > (whatever that is)! In > fact it is the most " spiritual " thinking system that > I have ever come > across. Commonly logic is often confused with > rationalism. But > rationalism is avoiding paradox, whereas logic is > pointing to the > paradox nature of everything. > > It is amazing how logic, invented by Greek > philosophers 2500 years > ago, is still rudimentary to our arguing and > thinking, although most > have knowledge next to nothing about it. > Historically logic thinking > is most probably influenced by vedantic thinking. > The originators of > logic have used it to prove thesis like: nothing is > knowable. Or: no > real existence can be proved. Or: Everything that we > perceive must be > delusional. Logic was meant as a tool to teach > people true > understanding by persistent use of their own minds. > > It is also wonderful and amazing to watch how > Nisargadatta and others > have used logic to point to the unspeakable. > > So, this was my lecture for today, it cannot be > harmful. But what I > really wanted to express is my opinion: lets not be > affraid of logical > thinking! It can be a sharp, sharp sword to cut the > ropes that are > keeping us from freedom. > > Om Shanti > Stefan Hi Stefan, Yes. Logical thinking is useful if held to tightly as a sharp, sharp sword that is used to cut and slash at this and that until there is no thing left except the indefinable capacity wielding the sword. At that point with no thing left to slash, to cut away what use is it? It cannot slash away at the capacity holding it. That is an impossibility. From then, the sharp sword and all other like it, have absolutely no use at all and all are thrown away. All religion, philosophy, science, all is discarded. What use have these? None whatsover. The sharp swords are left on the ground with the other things slashed away. It then will be experienced what cannot be experienced with swords of any type. From then swords and the like are tools in the trade of communicating. Each sword is then used for each moment requiring it. They are taken up and put down as needed. They are no more than that. All and any can be used switching from one to the next as the need arises in communicating the ineffable. Why use one tool only? Is one tool use an indication of a fixation? Or does it indicate something else? Love, Lewis Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 12, 2005 In a message dated 3/12/05 8:26:21 AM, cptc writes: > Pete, > > I never said " everything is a dream " ..... > > That would mean that the dream is also a dream.... > > > I said that there is nothing beyond the dream of separation. > > > There is a difference. > > > P: If you want to retract, or modify your statement that is fine > with me. But here is what you wrote to Devi: " Devi.....there is nothing ...outside of the dream. " P: No mention of separation there. It's a blanket statement. If there is nothing outside the dream, then everything is the dream. I'm willing to hear any irrefutable 'sophistry'you care to spin concerning differences between those staments. ) t. > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 12, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@c...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > >The claim that one can be logical about things spiritual is > >delusional. > > Absolutely is logic applyable to spirituality (whatever that is)! In > fact it is the most " spiritual " thinking system that I have ever come > across. Commonly logic is often confused with rationalism. But > rationalism is avoiding paradox, whereas logic is pointing to the > paradox nature of everything. > > It is amazing how logic, invented by Greek philosophers 2500 years > ago, is still rudimentary to our arguing and thinking, although most > have knowledge next to nothing about it. Historically logic thinking > is most probably influenced by vedantic thinking. The originators of > logic have used it to prove thesis like: nothing is knowable. Or: no > real existence can be proved. Or: Everything that we perceive must be > delusional. Logic was meant as a tool to teach people true > understanding by persistent use of their own minds. > > It is also wonderful and amazing to watch how Nisargadatta and others > have used logic to point to the unspeakable. > > So, this was my lecture for today, it cannot be harmful. But what I > really wanted to express is my opinion: lets not be affraid of logical > thinking! It can be a sharp, sharp sword to cut the ropes that are > keeping us from freedom. > > Om Shanti > Stefan The assumption of autonomy itself is illogical. When that assumption (the self) attempts to apply its own conceptual construct (logic) to its imaginary imprisonment.....only further confusion results. toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
