Guest guest Posted June 11, 2005 Report Share Posted June 11, 2005 Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > > > > ||||||||||||||| > > > > Hi all, > >    Applying the criterion or the yardstick of scripture to this I > > discover Kena 1.5: " That which is not uttered by speech that by > which > > speech is revealed, know that alone to be Brahman, and not what > people > > worship as an object. " > > > > Further down: " It is known to him to whom It is unknown; he does not > > know to whom it is known, It is unknown to those who know well, and > > known to those who do not know. " Kena II.3 > > > > Whether Gene has got into the office ever or whether he is with the > > rest of us holding his ticket I cannot judge. Hey, but what's this - > > > all the tickets havethe same number on them. > > > Michael > > Hi Michael, > > Old buddy, how are you? He Lewis, What you mean by : **** It is a delight to see a matching of a scripture simply stated to some thing like Gene's words. **** How you think, it applies in this context. Could you please elaborate a little ... Do you see a 'differance' in: ---- Speaking " from " and ---- Speaking " of " Or, NO. Or, is it something else ? With warm regards, ac. [....] for ease of reading, you can put them back, if needed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 11, 2005 Report Share Posted June 11, 2005 Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " <adithya_comming> wrote: > Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > > > > > > > ||||||||||||||| > > > > > > Hi all, > > >    Applying the criterion or the yardstick of scripture > to this I > > > discover Kena 1.5: " That which is not uttered by speech that by > > which > > > speech is revealed, know that alone to be Brahman, and not what > > people > > > worship as an object. " > > > > > > Further down: " It is known to him to whom It is unknown; he does > not > > > know to whom it is known, It is unknown to those who know well, > and > > > known to those who do not know. " Kena II.3 > > > > > > Whether Gene has got into the office ever or whether he is with > the > > > rest of us holding his ticket I cannot judge. Hey, but what's > this - > > > > > all the tickets havethe same number on them. > > > > > Michael > > > > Hi Michael, > > > > Old buddy, how are you? > > He Lewis, > > What you mean by : > > > **** > It is a delight to see a matching of a > scripture simply stated to some thing like Gene's words. > **** > > How you think, it applies in this context. Could you please elaborate > a little ... > > Do you see a 'differance' in: > > ---- Speaking " from " > > and > > ---- Speaking " of " > > Or, NO. > > > > Or, is it something else ? > > > > > With warm regards, > > ac. > > > [....] > for ease of reading, you can put them back, if needed. Hi ac, Michael matched. To do so one may infer, correctly or incorrectly or partially, that he at least read Gene's words, at least found something meaningful of some kind in a specific scripture that is seen as related to Gene's words, quoted such, and then spoke of a wondering on Gene and then concluded with " same tickets " as in...take it anyway you want. It applies any way that it can be....Each as it goes.... Speaking of and speaking from? Difference? It is relative. They can be considered same, not same, both, neither, none, other. What stop would you like to get off at? Name a destination and then we can create something more than the tetralemma plus. Otherwise...... Lewis Lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 11, 2005 Report Share Posted June 11, 2005 http://www.lifepsych.com/matrix.htm http://www.lifepsych.com/logo.htm bye bye for now, love anna - Lewis Burgess Nisargadatta Saturday, June 11, 2005 1:09 PM Re: The Anteroom / Lewis. Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " <adithya_comming> wrote: > Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > > > > > > > ||||||||||||||| > > > > > > Hi all, > > >    Applying the criterion or the yardstick of scripture > to this I > > > discover Kena 1.5: " That which is not uttered by speech that by > > which > > > speech is revealed, know that alone to be Brahman, and not what > > people > > > worship as an object. " > > > > > > Further down: " It is known to him to whom It is unknown; he does > not > > > know to whom it is known, It is unknown to those who know well, > and > > > known to those who do not know. " Kena II.3 > > > > > > Whether Gene has got into the office ever or whether he is with > the > > > rest of us holding his ticket I cannot judge. Hey, but what's > this - > > > > > all the tickets havethe same number on them. > > > > > Michael > > > > Hi Michael, > > > > Old buddy, how are you? > > He Lewis, > > What you mean by : > > > **** > It is a delight to see a matching of a > scripture simply stated to some thing like Gene's words. > **** > > How you think, it applies in this context. Could you please elaborate > a little ... > > Do you see a 'differance' in: > > ---- Speaking " from " > > and > > ---- Speaking " of " > > Or, NO. > > > > Or, is it something else ? > > > > > With warm regards, > > ac. > > > [....] > for ease of reading, you can put them back, if needed. Hi ac, Michael matched. To do so one may infer, correctly or incorrectly or partially, that he at least read Gene's words, at least found something meaningful of some kind in a specific scripture that is seen as related to Gene's words, quoted such, and then spoke of a wondering on Gene and then concluded with " same tickets " as in...take it anyway you want. It applies any way that it can be....Each as it goes.... Speaking of and speaking from? Difference? It is relative. They can be considered same, not same, both, neither, none, other. What stop would you like to get off at? Name a destination and then we can create something more than the tetralemma plus. Otherwise...... Lewis Lewis ** 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 June 11, 2005 Report Share Posted June 11, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " > <adithya_comming> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > ||||||||||||||| > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > >    Applying the criterion or the yardstick of scripture > > to this I > > > > discover Kena 1.5: " That which is not uttered by speech that by > > > which > > > > speech is revealed, know that alone to be Brahman, and not what > > > people > > > > worship as an object. " > > > > > > > > Further down: " It is known to him to whom It is unknown; he does > > not > > > > know to whom it is known, It is unknown to those who know well, > > and > > > > known to those who do not know. " Kena II.3 > > > > > > > > Whether Gene has got into the office ever or whether he is with > > the > > > > rest of us holding his ticket I cannot judge. Hey, but what's > > this - > > > > > > > all the tickets havethe same number on them. > > > > > > > Michael > > > > > > Hi Michael, > > > > > > Old buddy, how are you? > > > > He Lewis, > > > > What you mean by : > > > > > > **** > > It is a delight to see a matching of a > > scripture simply stated to some thing like Gene's words. > > **** > > > > How you think, it applies in this context. Could you please elaborate > > a little ... > > > > Do you see a 'differance' in: > > > > ---- Speaking " from " > > > > and > > > > ---- Speaking " of " > > > > Or, NO. > > > > > > > > Or, is it something else ? > > > > > > > > > > With warm regards, > > > > ac. > > > > > > [....] > > for ease of reading, you can put them back, if needed. > > Hi ac, > > Michael matched. To do so one may infer, correctly or incorrectly or > partially, that he at least read Gene's words, at least found > something meaningful of some kind in a specific scripture that is seen > as related to Gene's words, quoted such, and then spoke of a wondering > on Gene and then concluded with " same tickets " as in...take it anyway > you want. > > It applies any way that it can be....Each as it goes.... > > Speaking of and speaking from? Difference? > > It is relative. They can be considered same, not same, both, neither, > none, other. What I mean is Very Simple, Lewis ! In `spiritual' context, you are often asked, " Can you describe yourself ? " ( `Yourself' meaning your reality, real essence, not a `social entity' ...) " Can you describe Who you TRULY are ? " It is often said, you can NOT. You can NOT become an `object' to `yourself' ... But, when someone says ... I am speaking. I am thinking. I am watching. ..... " I am " in that is NOT so much questioned. If NOT you, then, " who " is speaking ...? ( Who else is there ? ) If NOT from `yourself' then from " where " will you speak ...? (Where else is there ? ) Do you mean something else, Lewis ? > What stop would you like to get off at? Name a > destination and then we can create something more than the tetralemma > plus. Otherwise...... > > Lewis > > Lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 11, 2005 Report Share Posted June 11, 2005 Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " <adithya_comming> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> > wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " > > <adithya_comming> wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ||||||||||||||| > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > >    Applying the criterion or the yardstick of > scripture > > > to this I > > > > > discover Kena 1.5: " That which is not uttered by speech > that by > > > > which > > > > > speech is revealed, know that alone to be Brahman, and not > what > > > > people > > > > > worship as an object. " > > > > > > > > > > Further down: " It is known to him to whom It is unknown; he > does > > > not > > > > > know to whom it is known, It is unknown to those who know > well, > > > and > > > > > known to those who do not know. " Kena II.3 > > > > > > > > > > Whether Gene has got into the office ever or whether he is > with > > > the > > > > > rest of us holding his ticket I cannot judge. Hey, but > what's > > > this - > > > > > > > > > all the tickets havethe same number on them. > > > > > > > > > Michael > > > > > > > > Hi Michael, > > > > > > > > Old buddy, how are you? > > > > > > He Lewis, > > > > > > What you mean by : > > > > > > > > > **** > > > It is a delight to see a matching of a > > > scripture simply stated to some thing like Gene's words. > > > **** > > > > > > How you think, it applies in this context. Could you please > elaborate > > > a little ... > > > > > > Do you see a 'differance' in: > > > > > > ---- Speaking " from " > > > > > > and > > > > > > ---- Speaking " of " > > > > > > Or, NO. > > > > > > > > > > > > Or, is it something else ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With warm regards, > > > > > > ac. > > > > > > > > > [....] > > > for ease of reading, you can put them back, if needed. > > > > Hi ac, > > > > Michael matched. To do so one may infer, correctly or incorrectly or > > partially, that he at least read Gene's words, at least found > > something meaningful of some kind in a specific scripture that is > seen > > as related to Gene's words, quoted such, and then spoke of a > wondering > > on Gene and then concluded with " same tickets " as in...take it > anyway > > you want. > > > > It applies any way that it can be....Each as it goes.... > > > > Speaking of and speaking from? Difference? > > > > It is relative. They can be considered same, not same, both, > neither, > > none, other. > > What I mean is Very Simple, Lewis ! > > > In `spiritual' context, > you are often asked, > > " Can you describe yourself ? " > > ( `Yourself' meaning your reality, real essence, > not a `social entity' ...) > > > " Can you describe Who you TRULY are ? " > > > It is often said, you can NOT. > > You can NOT become an `object' > to `yourself' ... > > > But, when someone says ... > > I am speaking. > > I am thinking. > > I am watching. > > .... > > " I am " in that is NOT so much questioned. > > > If NOT you, then, " who " is speaking ...? > > ( Who else is there ? ) > > > If NOT from `yourself' then > from " where " will you speak ...? > > (Where else is there ? ) i.e. The SOURCE of speech, thoughts, expressions ... is NOT questioned. Even though, you may NOT truly describe the SOURCE. You are THAT SOURCE ... Whether you can `describe' `yourself' or Not, Whether you can TRULY describe `the SOURCE' or Not . That is often questioned, argued, ....and, even answered in Negative ! > > > > Do you mean something else, Lewis ? > > > > > What stop would you like to get off at? Name a > > destination and then we can create something more than the > tetralemma > > plus. Otherwise...... > > > > Lewis > > > > Lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 12, 2005 Report Share Posted June 12, 2005 Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " <adithya_comming> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " > <adithya_comming> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> > > wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " > > > <adithya_comming> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ||||||||||||||| > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > >    Applying the criterion or the yardstick of > > scripture > > > > to this I > > > > > > discover Kena 1.5: " That which is not uttered by speech > > that by > > > > > which > > > > > > speech is revealed, know that alone to be Brahman, and not > > what > > > > > people > > > > > > worship as an object. " > > > > > > > > > > > > Further down: " It is known to him to whom It is unknown; he > > does > > > > not > > > > > > know to whom it is known, It is unknown to those who know > > well, > > > > and > > > > > > known to those who do not know. " Kena II.3 > > > > > > > > > > > > Whether Gene has got into the office ever or whether he is > > with > > > > the > > > > > > rest of us holding his ticket I cannot judge. Hey, but > > what's > > > > this - > > > > > > > > > > > all the tickets havethe same number on them. > > > > > > > > > > > Michael > > > > > > > > > > Hi Michael, > > > > > > > > > > Old buddy, how are you? > > > > > > > > He Lewis, > > > > > > > > What you mean by : > > > > > > > > > > > > **** > > > > It is a delight to see a matching of a > > > > scripture simply stated to some thing like Gene's words. > > > > **** > > > > > > > > How you think, it applies in this context. Could you please > > elaborate > > > > a little ... > > > > > > > > Do you see a 'differance' in: > > > > > > > > ---- Speaking " from " > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > ---- Speaking " of " > > > > > > > > Or, NO. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or, is it something else ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With warm regards, > > > > > > > > ac. > > > > > > > > > > > > [....] > > > > for ease of reading, you can put them back, if needed. > > > > > > Hi ac, > > > > > > Michael matched. To do so one may infer, correctly or incorrectly > or > > > partially, that he at least read Gene's words, at least found > > > something meaningful of some kind in a specific scripture that is > > seen > > > as related to Gene's words, quoted such, and then spoke of a > > wondering > > > on Gene and then concluded with " same tickets " as in...take it > > anyway > > > you want. > > > > > > It applies any way that it can be....Each as it goes.... > > > > > > Speaking of and speaking from? Difference? > > > > > > It is relative. They can be considered same, not same, both, > > neither, > > > none, other. > > > > What I mean is Very Simple, Lewis ! > > > > > > In `spiritual' context, > > you are often asked, > > > > " Can you describe yourself ? " > > > > ( `Yourself' meaning your reality, real essence, > > not a `social entity' ...) > > > > > > " Can you describe Who you TRULY are ? " > > > > > > It is often said, you can NOT. > > > > You can NOT become an `object' > > to `yourself' ... > > > > > > But, when someone says ... > > > > I am speaking. > > > > I am thinking. > > > > I am watching. > > > > .... > > > > " I am " in that is NOT so much questioned. > > > > > > If NOT you, then, " who " is speaking ...? > > > > ( Who else is there ? ) > > > > > > If NOT from `yourself' then > > from " where " will you speak ...? > > > > (Where else is there ? ) > > i.e. > > The SOURCE of speech, thoughts, expressions ... > is NOT questioned. > > Even though, you may NOT truly describe > the SOURCE. > > > You are THAT SOURCE ... > > Whether you can `describe' `yourself' or Not, > > Whether you can TRULY describe `the SOURCE' or Not . > > That is often questioned, argued, > ...and, even answered in Negative ! > > Do you mean something else, Lewis ? > > > > > > > > > What stop would you like to get off at? Name a > > > destination and then we can create something more than the > > tetralemma > > > plus. Otherwise...... > > > > > > Lewis Lewis: Is your answer to your own question satisfactory to you? 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.