Guest guest Posted May 28, 2005 Report Share Posted May 28, 2005 Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz> wrote: >> Hi, Gary, > > So, you're gonna give up being and get unborn again, huh? Well, > alright. This religion business is good for the economy and keeps the > money circulating, so, yeah, have at it and good luck with all that. > > My POV is that there is no individual self. There is no " you " and " me " > except as a thought-fiction; as dream characters. This eliminates any > need for getting more books and tapes and running to and fro, in > search of something that never was. This POV is not a denial of > physical reality, or the body-mind, as such, as some have thought or > suggested. It is merely the recognition that the body-mind (any > body-mind) is a product of what is, presence, and an expression of > that. It is seen that all things are an expression of the sacred. Who > sees it?, some may ask. No one; it just is. > > I have nothing to give, nothing to get. It is what it is; no more, no > less. > > fuzzie > > " And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the > air have nests; but the Son of man hath nowhere to lay his head. " > (Matthew, 8:20 KJV)>> Eventhough our beloved Sri Mangoji has moved on to explore other lineages, or perhaps to start his own (possibly with Sri Durgaji), I have remained true to my anti-guru, fuzzieananda, who pointed me towards pure being/awareness that is my empty self. There is no question of either getting unborn again or giving up being since, since lacking personal will and choice, I can do neither. " It is as it is " is still the best take on things-as-they-are. As far as those who have not taken kindly to your advaita, remember, " A prophet is not without honor, except on his own list. " " He was despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not " (Isaiah 53:3) You're not alone in being mis-understood. The Nazz and the Sixth Zen Patriarch, to name just a few, are feeling your pain this Gevalia morning, Praise the Lord. And Glory to his name. Unborn Gary Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 28, 2005 Report Share Posted May 28, 2005 Nisargadatta , " garyfalk1943 " <falkgw@h...> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz> > wrote: > >> Hi, Gary, > > > > So, you're gonna give up being and get unborn again, huh? Well, > > alright. This religion business is good for the economy and keeps > the > > money circulating, so, yeah, have at it and good luck with all > that. > > > > My POV is that there is no individual self. There is no " you " > and " me " > > except as a thought-fiction; as dream characters. This eliminates > any > > need for getting more books and tapes and running to and fro, in > > search of something that never was. This POV is not a denial of > > physical reality, or the body-mind, as such, as some have thought or > > suggested. It is merely the recognition that the body-mind (any > > body-mind) is a product of what is, presence, and an expression of > > that. It is seen that all things are an expression of the sacred. > Who > > sees it?, some may ask. No one; it just is. > > > > I have nothing to give, nothing to get. It is what it is; no more, > no > > less. > > > > fuzzie > > > > " And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of > the > > air have nests; but the Son of man hath nowhere to lay his head. " > > (Matthew, 8:20 KJV)>> > > > > Eventhough our beloved Sri Mangoji has moved on to explore other > lineages, or perhaps to start his own (possibly with Sri Durgaji), I > have remained true to my anti-guru, fuzzieananda, who pointed me > towards pure being/awareness that is my empty self. > > > There is no question of either getting unborn again or giving up > being since, since lacking personal will and choice, I can do neither. > > " It is as it is " is still the best take on things-as-they-are. > > As far as those who have not taken kindly to your advaita, > remember, " A prophet is not without honor, except on his own list. " > > " He was despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and > acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he > was despised, and we esteemed him not " (Isaiah 53:3) > > You're not alone in being mis-understood. The Nazz and the Sixth Zen > Patriarch, to name just a few, are feeling your pain this Gevalia > morning, Praise the Lord. And Glory to his name. > > Unborn Gary Hi, Gary, There is nothing to understand. That's why I am misunderstood. Mango and I have never even had a dialogue. I still don't know what he is about. I tried several times to engage him in a conversation, but, all I got was alot of adolescent posturing and ad hominem. Sarlo's list has too many religious Hindu fundamentalists on there. They don't take too kindly to my kind being on there. And, that's understandable. It would be like me getting on a hardcore Christian list and telling them that Jesus was the original punk rocker (which he was, IMO...). that would go over like a whore in church (and, whores were J.C.'s best friends; oh, the irony...). It's the same with Sarlo's list, with all the hardcore Hindu fundies on there. So, I'm gonna leave 'em alone, for the most part. I'm not a crusader or jihadist or anything like that. I actually thought, with people like Bobby Meizer and a few others on there, that an intelligent discussion could be generated. But, it never materialized. Such is life. Bankei's " Unborn " teaching is awesome. I am living and breathing it. I just don't use the same terminology. Bankei teaches in that book that the belief in the ego is the primary cause of mankind's problems (cf. pp. 38, 49, and 58 of the 1984 edition, North Point Press). His teaching, which is Buddhism in its purest form (cf. " anatman " [no-self]), is analogous to the teaching of the Bhagavad Gita and the Advaita Vedantists (i.e. " no doer " ). Friedrich W. Nietzsche and Charles Peirce, both, also said that the ego was purely a linguistic fiction. So, this is not a new revelation, by no means. It's just the way it is. There is no individual self. When this is seen, questions and doubts are resolved. " All things are perfectly resolved in the Unborn... " fuzzie P.S. I still swing by Sarlo's to read your funny posts. You are hilarious, sometimes... but, I've already told you that about 2 dozen times... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 28, 2005 Report Share Posted May 28, 2005 - fuzzie_wuz Nisargadatta Saturday, May 28, 2005 12:26 PM Re: Unborn-Again Seeker Nisargadatta , " garyfalk1943 " <falkgw@h...> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz> > wrote: > >> Hi, Gary, > > > > So, you're gonna give up being and get unborn again, huh? Well, > > alright. This religion business is good for the economy and keeps > the > > money circulating, so, yeah, have at it and good luck with all > that. > > > > My POV is that there is no individual self. There is no " you " > and " me " > > except as a thought-fiction; as dream characters. This eliminates > any > > need for getting more books and tapes and running to and fro, in > > search of something that never was. This POV is not a denial of > > physical reality, or the body-mind, as such, as some have thought or > > suggested. It is merely the recognition that the body-mind (any > > body-mind) is a product of what is, presence, and an expression of > > that. It is seen that all things are an expression of the sacred. > Who > > sees it?, some may ask. No one; it just is. > > > > I have nothing to give, nothing to get. It is what it is; no more, > no > > less. > > > > fuzzie > > > > " And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of > the > > air have nests; but the Son of man hath nowhere to lay his head. " > > (Matthew, 8:20 KJV)>> > > > > Eventhough our beloved Sri Mangoji has moved on to explore other > lineages, or perhaps to start his own (possibly with Sri Durgaji), I > have remained true to my anti-guru, fuzzieananda, who pointed me > towards pure being/awareness that is my empty self. > > > There is no question of either getting unborn again or giving up > being since, since lacking personal will and choice, I can do neither. > > " It is as it is " is still the best take on things-as-they-are. > > As far as those who have not taken kindly to your advaita, > remember, " A prophet is not without honor, except on his own list. " > > " He was despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and > acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he > was despised, and we esteemed him not " (Isaiah 53:3) > > You're not alone in being mis-understood. The Nazz and the Sixth Zen > Patriarch, to name just a few, are feeling your pain this Gevalia > morning, Praise the Lord. And Glory to his name. > > Unborn Gary Hi, Gary, There is nothing to understand. That's why I am misunderstood. Mango and I have never even had a dialogue. I still don't know what he is about. I tried several times to engage him in a conversation, but, all I got was alot of adolescent posturing and ad hominem. Sarlo's list has too many religious Hindu fundamentalists on there. They don't take too kindly to my kind being on there. And, that's understandable. It would be like me getting on a hardcore Christian list and telling them that Jesus was the original punk rocker (which he was, IMO...). that would go over like a whore in church (and, whores were J.C.'s best friends; oh, the irony...). It's the same with Sarlo's list, with all the hardcore Hindu fundies on there. So, I'm gonna leave 'em alone, for the most part. I'm not a crusader or jihadist or anything like that. I actually thought, with people like Bobby Meizer and a few others on there, that an intelligent discussion could be generated. But, it never materialized. Such is life. Bankei's " Unborn " teaching is awesome. I am living and breathing it. I just don't use the same terminology. Bankei teaches in that book that the belief in the ego is the primary cause of mankind's problems (cf. pp. 38, 49, and 58 of the 1984 edition, North Point Press). His teaching, which is Buddhism in its purest form (cf. " anatman " [no-self]), is analogous to the teaching of the Bhagavad Gita and the Advaita Vedantists (i.e. " no doer " ). Friedrich W. Nietzsche and Charles Peirce, both, also said that the ego was purely a linguistic fiction. So, this is not a new revelation, by no means. It's just the way it is. There is no individual self. When this is seen, questions and doubts are resolved. " All things are perfectly resolved in the Unborn... " fuzzie P.S. I still swing by Sarlo's to read your funny posts. You are hilarious, sometimes... but, I've already told you that about 2 dozen times... Hey Fuzzie, Oh, ye of much courage. If Sai can handle all the flack with his love for his Baba, then Fuzz-master can stick around the heated soup. We're all in the same pot, anyway. It's just us providing a flavor, that may have never been tasted before....: - ) And I'm sure you've tasted that delicious road-bum soup before, no? a. a song for fuzzie: From the movie: Oh, Brother Where Art Thou. (sung by the soggie bottom boys: - ) (In constant sorrow through his days) I am a man of constant sorrow I've seen trouble all my day. I bid farewell to old Kentucky The place where I was born and raised. (The place where he was born and raised) For six long years I've been in trouble No pleasures here on earth I found For in this world I'm bound to ramble I have no friends to help me now. [chorus] He has no friends to help him now It's fare thee well my old lover I never expect to see you again For I'm bound to ride that northern railroad Perhaps I'll die upon this train. [chorus] Perhaps he'll die upon this train. You can bury me in some deep valley For many years where I may lay Then you may learn to love another While I am sleeping in my grave. [chorus] While he is sleeping in his grave. Maybe your friends think I'm just a stranger My face you'll never see no more. But there is one promise that is given I'll meet you on God's golden shore. [chorus] He'll meet you on God's golden shore. ** 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 28, 2005 Report Share Posted May 28, 2005 Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " garyfalk1943 " <falkgw@h...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz> > > wrote: > > >> Hi, Gary, > > > > > > So, you're gonna give up being and get unborn again, huh? Well, > > > alright. This religion business is good for the economy and keeps > > the > > > money circulating, so, yeah, have at it and good luck with all > > that. > > > > > > My POV is that there is no individual self. There is no " you " > > and " me " > > > except as a thought-fiction; as dream characters. This eliminates > > any > > > need for getting more books and tapes and running to and fro, in > > > search of something that never was. This POV is not a denial of > > > physical reality, or the body-mind, as such, as some have thought or > > > suggested. It is merely the recognition that the body-mind (any > > > body-mind) is a product of what is, presence, and an expression of > > > that. It is seen that all things are an expression of the sacred. > > Who > > > sees it?, some may ask. No one; it just is. > > > > > > I have nothing to give, nothing to get. It is what it is; no more, > > no > > > less. > > > > > > fuzzie > > > > > > " And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of > > the > > > air have nests; but the Son of man hath nowhere to lay his head. " > > > (Matthew, 8:20 KJV)>> > > > > > > > > Eventhough our beloved Sri Mangoji has moved on to explore other > > lineages, or perhaps to start his own (possibly with Sri Durgaji), I > > have remained true to my anti-guru, fuzzieananda, who pointed me > > towards pure being/awareness that is my empty self. > > > > > > There is no question of either getting unborn again or giving up > > being since, since lacking personal will and choice, I can do neither. > > > > " It is as it is " is still the best take on things-as-they-are. > > > > As far as those who have not taken kindly to your advaita, > > remember, " A prophet is not without honor, except on his own list. " > > > > " He was despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and > > acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he > > was despised, and we esteemed him not " (Isaiah 53:3) > > > > You're not alone in being mis-understood. The Nazz and the Sixth Zen > > Patriarch, to name just a few, are feeling your pain this Gevalia > > morning, Praise the Lord. And Glory to his name. > > > > Unborn Gary > > Hi, Gary, > > There is nothing to understand. That's why I am misunderstood. > > Mango and I have never even had a dialogue. I still don't know what he > is about. I tried several times to engage him in a conversation, but, > all I got was alot of adolescent posturing and ad hominem. > > Sarlo's list has too many religious Hindu fundamentalists on there. > They don't take too kindly to my kind being on there. And, that's > understandable. It would be like me getting on a hardcore Christian > list and telling them that Jesus was the original punk rocker (which > he was, IMO...). that would go over like a whore in church (and, > whores were J.C.'s best friends; oh, the irony...). It's the same with > Sarlo's list, with all the hardcore Hindu fundies on there. So, I'm > gonna leave 'em alone, for the most part. I'm not a crusader or > jihadist or anything like that. I actually thought, with people like > Bobby Meizer and a few others on there, that an intelligent discussion > could be generated. But, it never materialized. Such is life. > > Bankei's " Unborn " teaching is awesome. I am living and breathing it. I > just don't use the same terminology. Bankei teaches in that book that > the belief in the ego is the primary cause of mankind's problems (cf. > pp. 38, 49, and 58 of the 1984 edition, North Point Press). His > teaching, which is Buddhism in its purest form (cf. " anatman " > [no-self]), is analogous to the teaching of the Bhagavad Gita and the > Advaita Vedantists (i.e. " no doer " ). Friedrich W. Nietzsche and > Charles Peirce, both, also said that the ego was purely a linguistic > fiction. So, this is not a new revelation, by no means. It's just the > way it is. There is no individual self. When this is seen, questions > and doubts are resolved. " All things are perfectly resolved in the > Unborn... " > > > > fuzzie > > P.S. I still swing by Sarlo's to read your funny posts. You are > hilarious, sometimes... but, I've already told you that about 2 dozen > times... Try again fuzzie. Buddhism in its " purest form " is self and no self-immolating. There is no " anatman. " Mistaking dialogical heuristics for some...... Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta - never the doctrinal twain shall meet except in your imagination. Lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 28, 2005 Report Share Posted May 28, 2005 - Lewis Burgess Nisargadatta Saturday, May 28, 2005 1:06 PM Re: Unborn-Again Seeker Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " garyfalk1943 " <falkgw@h...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz> > > wrote: > > >> Hi, Gary, > > > > > > So, you're gonna give up being and get unborn again, huh? Well, > > > alright. This religion business is good for the economy and keeps > > the > > > money circulating, so, yeah, have at it and good luck with all > > that. > > > > > > My POV is that there is no individual self. There is no " you " > > and " me " > > > except as a thought-fiction; as dream characters. This eliminates > > any > > > need for getting more books and tapes and running to and fro, in > > > search of something that never was. This POV is not a denial of > > > physical reality, or the body-mind, as such, as some have thought or > > > suggested. It is merely the recognition that the body-mind (any > > > body-mind) is a product of what is, presence, and an expression of > > > that. It is seen that all things are an expression of the sacred. > > Who > > > sees it?, some may ask. No one; it just is. > > > > > > I have nothing to give, nothing to get. It is what it is; no more, > > no > > > less. > > > > > > fuzzie > > > > > > " And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of > > the > > > air have nests; but the Son of man hath nowhere to lay his head. " > > > (Matthew, 8:20 KJV)>> > > > > > > > > Eventhough our beloved Sri Mangoji has moved on to explore other > > lineages, or perhaps to start his own (possibly with Sri Durgaji), I > > have remained true to my anti-guru, fuzzieananda, who pointed me > > towards pure being/awareness that is my empty self. > > > > > > There is no question of either getting unborn again or giving up > > being since, since lacking personal will and choice, I can do neither. > > > > " It is as it is " is still the best take on things-as-they-are. > > > > As far as those who have not taken kindly to your advaita, > > remember, " A prophet is not without honor, except on his own list. " > > > > " He was despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and > > acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he > > was despised, and we esteemed him not " (Isaiah 53:3) > > > > You're not alone in being mis-understood. The Nazz and the Sixth Zen > > Patriarch, to name just a few, are feeling your pain this Gevalia > > morning, Praise the Lord. And Glory to his name. > > > > Unborn Gary > > Hi, Gary, > > There is nothing to understand. That's why I am misunderstood. > > Mango and I have never even had a dialogue. I still don't know what he > is about. I tried several times to engage him in a conversation, but, > all I got was alot of adolescent posturing and ad hominem. > > Sarlo's list has too many religious Hindu fundamentalists on there. > They don't take too kindly to my kind being on there. And, that's > understandable. It would be like me getting on a hardcore Christian > list and telling them that Jesus was the original punk rocker (which > he was, IMO...). that would go over like a whore in church (and, > whores were J.C.'s best friends; oh, the irony...). It's the same with > Sarlo's list, with all the hardcore Hindu fundies on there. So, I'm > gonna leave 'em alone, for the most part. I'm not a crusader or > jihadist or anything like that. I actually thought, with people like > Bobby Meizer and a few others on there, that an intelligent discussion > could be generated. But, it never materialized. Such is life. > > Bankei's " Unborn " teaching is awesome. I am living and breathing it. I > just don't use the same terminology. Bankei teaches in that book that > the belief in the ego is the primary cause of mankind's problems (cf. > pp. 38, 49, and 58 of the 1984 edition, North Point Press). His > teaching, which is Buddhism in its purest form (cf. " anatman " > [no-self]), is analogous to the teaching of the Bhagavad Gita and the > Advaita Vedantists (i.e. " no doer " ). Friedrich W. Nietzsche and > Charles Peirce, both, also said that the ego was purely a linguistic > fiction. So, this is not a new revelation, by no means. It's just the > way it is. There is no individual self. When this is seen, questions > and doubts are resolved. " All things are perfectly resolved in the > Unborn... " > > > > fuzzie > > P.S. I still swing by Sarlo's to read your funny posts. You are > hilarious, sometimes... but, I've already told you that about 2 dozen > times... Try again fuzzie. Buddhism in its " purest form " is self and no self-immolating. There is no " anatman. " Mistaking dialogical heuristics for some...... Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta - never the doctrinal twain shall meet except in your imagination. Lewis But, But, But Lewis, all things arise, merge and dissolve in the imagination, the Act of Seeing. Self/No-Self or advaita IS anatman. Further resolved as Atman seeing himself/herself as being Seen by Brahman. Only Seeing. Only a flowing of Seeing...Never to look back again : - ) Who is there to see any so-called difference? The pure forms of all doctrines meet in the Act of Seeing. All doctrines speak of this seeing in a word called Love. Is this not so? a. ** 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 28, 2005 Report Share Posted May 28, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Anna Ruiz " <nli10u@c...> wrote: > > - > Lewis Burgess > Nisargadatta > Saturday, May 28, 2005 1:06 PM > Re: Unborn-Again Seeker > > > Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " garyfalk1943 " <falkgw@h...> wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz> > > > wrote: > > > >> Hi, Gary, > > > > > > > > So, you're gonna give up being and get unborn again, huh? Well, > > > > alright. This religion business is good for the economy and keeps > > > the > > > > money circulating, so, yeah, have at it and good luck with all > > > that. > > > > > > > > My POV is that there is no individual self. There is no " you " > > > and " me " > > > > except as a thought-fiction; as dream characters. This eliminates > > > any > > > > need for getting more books and tapes and running to and fro, in > > > > search of something that never was. This POV is not a denial of > > > > physical reality, or the body-mind, as such, as some have thought or > > > > suggested. It is merely the recognition that the body-mind (any > > > > body-mind) is a product of what is, presence, and an expression of > > > > that. It is seen that all things are an expression of the sacred. > > > Who > > > > sees it?, some may ask. No one; it just is. > > > > > > > > I have nothing to give, nothing to get. It is what it is; no more, > > > no > > > > less. > > > > > > > > fuzzie > > > > > > > > " And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of > > > the > > > > air have nests; but the Son of man hath nowhere to lay his head. " > > > > (Matthew, 8:20 KJV)>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Eventhough our beloved Sri Mangoji has moved on to explore other > > > lineages, or perhaps to start his own (possibly with Sri Durgaji), I > > > have remained true to my anti-guru, fuzzieananda, who pointed me > > > towards pure being/awareness that is my empty self. > > > > > > > > > There is no question of either getting unborn again or giving up > > > being since, since lacking personal will and choice, I can do neither. > > > > > > " It is as it is " is still the best take on things-as-they-are. > > > > > > As far as those who have not taken kindly to your advaita, > > > remember, " A prophet is not without honor, except on his own list. " > > > > > > " He was despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and > > > acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he > > > was despised, and we esteemed him not " (Isaiah 53:3) > > > > > > You're not alone in being mis-understood. The Nazz and the Sixth Zen > > > Patriarch, to name just a few, are feeling your pain this Gevalia > > > morning, Praise the Lord. And Glory to his name. > > > > > > Unborn Gary > > > > Hi, Gary, > > > > There is nothing to understand. That's why I am misunderstood. > > > > Mango and I have never even had a dialogue. I still don't know what he > > is about. I tried several times to engage him in a conversation, but, > > all I got was alot of adolescent posturing and ad hominem. > > > > Sarlo's list has too many religious Hindu fundamentalists on there. > > They don't take too kindly to my kind being on there. And, that's > > understandable. It would be like me getting on a hardcore Christian > > list and telling them that Jesus was the original punk rocker (which > > he was, IMO...). that would go over like a whore in church (and, > > whores were J.C.'s best friends; oh, the irony...). It's the same with > > Sarlo's list, with all the hardcore Hindu fundies on there. So, I'm > > gonna leave 'em alone, for the most part. I'm not a crusader or > > jihadist or anything like that. I actually thought, with people like > > Bobby Meizer and a few others on there, that an intelligent discussion > > could be generated. But, it never materialized. Such is life. > > > > Bankei's " Unborn " teaching is awesome. I am living and breathing it. I > > just don't use the same terminology. Bankei teaches in that book that > > the belief in the ego is the primary cause of mankind's problems (cf. > > pp. 38, 49, and 58 of the 1984 edition, North Point Press). His > > teaching, which is Buddhism in its purest form (cf. " anatman " > > [no-self]), is analogous to the teaching of the Bhagavad Gita and the > > Advaita Vedantists (i.e. " no doer " ). Friedrich W. Nietzsche and > > Charles Peirce, both, also said that the ego was purely a linguistic > > fiction. So, this is not a new revelation, by no means. It's just the > > way it is. There is no individual self. When this is seen, questions > > and doubts are resolved. " All things are perfectly resolved in the > > Unborn... " > > > > > > > > fuzzie > > > > P.S. I still swing by Sarlo's to read your funny posts. You are > > hilarious, sometimes... but, I've already told you that about 2 dozen > > times... > > > Try again fuzzie. > > Buddhism in its " purest form " is self and no self-immolating. > > There is no " anatman. " > > Mistaking dialogical heuristics for some...... > > Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta - never the doctrinal twain shall meet > except in your imagination. > > Lewis > > > But, But, But Lewis, all things arise, merge and dissolve in the > imagination, > the Act of Seeing... what ever, how ever, why ever, for ever, some thing or not in that Act of Seeing as imagination and also the other unseeing that sees no thing, knows no word > > Self/No-Self or advaita IS anatman, is not anatman, is both, neither, other, moot and mute > Further resolved as Atman seeing himself/herself as being Seen by > Brahman. Only Seeing. Only a > flowing of Seeing...Never to look > back again : - ) never to look at all and to see without seeing even Love >And now dissolve it all the words all those above and below > Who is there to see any so-called > difference? > The pure forms of all doctrines meet in > the Act of Seeing the imagining of what ever, how ever, why ever, for ever, some thing or not > All doctrines > speak of this seeing in a word called > Love. where anna stands and dwells in it > Is this not so? for anna in the Act of Seeing as imagination? > > a. It is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.