mumbo Jumbo and Religious Speak

[Guest guest]

In the Talavakâra or Kena-Upanishad (Translated by Vidyavachaspati V.

Panoli), it is made clear that no word or cognition has anything to do

with " Brahman: "

 

I-3. The eye does not reach there, nor speech, nor mind, nor do we

know (Its nature). Therefore we don't know how to impart instruction

(about It). Distinct indeed is That from the known and distinct from

the unknown. Thus have we heard from the ancients who expounded It to us.

 

II-3. It is known to him to whom It is unknown; he to whom It is known

does not know It. It is unknown to those who know, and known to those

who know not.

 

This scriptural reading, lifted from its context, simply says that

there is no way to know Brahman by words or cognition or awareness.

 

Nisargadatta says the same in I am That being of the same tradition:

 

" When you follow it up carefully from brain through consciousness to

awareness, you find that the sense of duality persists. When you go

beyond awareness, there is a state of nonduality, in which there is no

cognition, only pure being, which may be as well called non-being, if

by being you mean being something in particular. "

 

In all the mystic traditions, it is the same. No words please, no way

to know.

 

So why all this talk, the mountains of scriptures, books and words,

and gurus, saviors, avatars etc., the organizations, the lists,

dialogue and the endless streams of endless talk ad infinitum, times

ad infinitum squared and multiplied by an infinity of googleplexes?

 

Why all the mumbo jumbo, pointing, arguments, and idiocy about no

thing, which by scriptural word, personal testimony of " realized "

persons, common experience and common sense is simply not available in

any way directly through words or cognition of any kind.

 

There is no thing to be known or

There is no way to know no thing or

This advice says stop! or

Fughedaboutit! or

You be drivelin and dribblin and in circles and if you be believin dat

drivelin and dribblin done, and you be stupider than a dog's ass,

givin' nuttin more than it can!

 

There are some who hold out for the fiction of awareness and pure

consciousness and all the mumbo jumbo that goes with that. And they

seem to be truly lost since they live in a thought or cognitive

replicating fallacy similar to a belief in God. They refuse to see how

they continuously make an object from an abstracted experience and

then talk about that abstracted object as if it is " real " compared to

everything else even though it is pure abstraction. There is only pure

consciousness, " I know because I know, " " I am that I am " or " How do

you know that you know, what is that that is knowing, eh? and other

trivial mental parlor tricks to convince themselves and others unwary

that there is some thing to hold onto to explain or make sense of what

it is all about. To be aware of being aware in infinite regress or

progress is common experience. It is nothing special and is quite

ordinary. Yet it is made into an icon Absolute Being, Self and other

imaginings that nothing more than that, just simple vehicles of

expression.

 

The extraordinary experiences are all discounted by the so-called

realized ones and mystics as being distractions.

 

So why the continued talk?

 

What drives the constant expression of this and that about no thing at

all?

 

Anna seems to have a firm grip on the why of it, has spoken it and

plays it well with fervor for all of us as us as she does. Any one

else care share to share the why of their or others babblon (babbling

on) to take from the Da Fire who demonstrates an elaborate case of it

while knowing that he is doing it.

 

Why do we babble on about no thing?

 

Lewis

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...>

wrote:

In the Talavakâra or Kena-Upanishad (Translated by Vidyavachaspati V.

Panoli), it is made clear that no word or cognition has anything to

do

with " Brahman: "

 

I-3. The eye does not reach there, nor speech, nor mind, nor do we

know (Its nature). Therefore we don't know how to impart instruction

(about It). Distinct indeed is That from the known and distinct from

the unknown. Thus have we heard from the ancients who expounded It

to us.

 

II-3. It is known to him to whom It is unknown; he to whom It is

known

does not know It. It is unknown to those who know, and known to those

who know not.

 

This scriptural reading, lifted from its context, simply says that

there is no way to know Brahman by words or cognition or awareness.

 

Nisargadatta says the same in I am That being of the same tradition:

 

" When you follow it up carefully from brain through consciousness to

awareness, you find that the sense of duality persists. When you go

beyond awareness, there is a state of nonduality, in which there is

no

cognition, only pure being, which may be as well called non-being, if

by being you mean being something in particular. "

 

In all the mystic traditions, it is the same. No words please, no way

to know.