Guest guest Posted June 14, 2005 Report Share Posted June 14, 2005 Why do we babble on about no thing? Lewis P: Cause we have to! And you'll have to, until you don't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 14, 2005 Report Share Posted June 14, 2005 Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > Why do we babble on about no thing? > > Lewis > > P: Cause we have to! > And you'll have to, > until you don't. L: I prefer, cause I am able to! And I will do so until I am unable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 15, 2005 Report Share Posted June 15, 2005 Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > Why do we babble on about no thing? > > Lewis > > P: Cause we have to! > And you'll have to, > until you don't. > > Not only that; I think the no thing is what binds the universe together as a unit. For example, the computer monitor in front of me is somehow holding together! No words can ever describe this no thing glue, because words are fragments and not even an infinite number of fragments can describe the soup in which they exist, but we can point to the fact that things cannot be truly separate (having no relation to anything else). Separation is indeed an illusion, an illusion that must exist for it to emerge 'this' and 'that'. The no thing is the real 'stuff'. al. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 15, 2005 Report Share Posted June 15, 2005 - anders_lindman Nisargadatta Wednesday, June 15, 2005 5:54 AM Re: Mumbo Jumbo.... Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > Why do we babble on about no thing? > > Lewis > > P: Cause we have to! > And you'll have to, > until you don't. > > Not only that; I think the no thing is what binds the universe together as a unit. For example, the computer monitor in front of me is somehow holding together! No words can ever describe this no thing glue, because words are fragments and not even an infinite number of fragments can describe the soup in which they exist, but we can point to the fact that things cannot be truly separate (having no relation to anything else). Separation is indeed an illusion, an illusion that must exist for it to emerge 'this' and 'that'. The no thing is the real 'stuff'. al. ah, my dearest al. nice to see you again. How are/am you? Love my friend, is a glue that holds the cosmos together, strings and pings quarks and memes and themes and molecules of inspiration and human love perspiration, shooting stars in all directions, comet tail cooked in a soup. Everything that Is that was that will be possibility probability all in One I Am, appearing as I Am This, This that I Am. Alpha and Omega just another flavor. This Is What It Is. Love = Truth, something out of Nothing. Love, 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 June 15, 2005 Report Share Posted June 15, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Anna Ruiz " <nli10u@c...> wrote: > > - > anders_lindman > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, June 15, 2005 5:54 AM > Re: Mumbo Jumbo.... > > > Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > Why do we babble on about no thing? > > > > Lewis > > > > P: Cause we have to! > > And you'll have to, > > until you don't. > > > > > > > Not only that; I think the no thing is what binds the universe > together as a unit. For example, the computer monitor in front of me > is somehow holding together! No words can ever describe this no thing > glue, because words are fragments and not even an infinite number of > fragments can describe the soup in which they exist, but we can point > to the fact that things cannot be truly separate (having no relation > to anything else). > > Separation is indeed an illusion, an illusion that must exist for it > to emerge 'this' and 'that'. The no thing is the real 'stuff'. > > al. > > > ah, my dearest al. nice to see you > again. How are/am you? > > Love my friend, is a glue that holds > the cosmos together, strings and pings > quarks and memes and themes and > molecules of inspiration and human > love perspiration, shooting > stars in all directions, comet > tail cooked in a soup. Everything that > Is that was that will be possibility probability > all in One I Am, appearing as I Am This, This > that I Am. Alpha and Omega just another flavor. > This Is What It Is. > Love = Truth, something out of Nothing. > > Love, > a. > Exactly, dearest Anna. I am fine. I think you maybe did accurately described the soup after all. Well done. But I want to correct you on one point: It is something out of no thing, not something out of nothing. Big difference! Blesswisely yours, al. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 15, 2005 Report Share Posted June 15, 2005 - anders_lindman Nisargadatta Wednesday, June 15, 2005 8:15 AM Re: Mumbo Jumbo.... Nisargadatta , " Anna Ruiz " <nli10u@c...> wrote: > > - > anders_lindman > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, June 15, 2005 5:54 AM > Re: Mumbo Jumbo.... > > > Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > Why do we babble on about no thing? > > > > Lewis > > > > P: Cause we have to! > > And you'll have to, > > until you don't. > > > > > > > Not only that; I think the no thing is what binds the universe > together as a unit. For example, the computer monitor in front of me > is somehow holding together! No words can ever describe this no thing > glue, because words are fragments and not even an infinite number of > fragments can describe the soup in which they exist, but we can point > to the fact that things cannot be truly separate (having no relation > to anything else). > > Separation is indeed an illusion, an illusion that must exist for it > to emerge 'this' and 'that'. The no thing is the real 'stuff'. > > al. > > > ah, my dearest al. nice to see you > again. How are/am you? > > Love my friend, is a glue that holds > the cosmos together, strings and pings > quarks and memes and themes and > molecules of inspiration and human > love perspiration, shooting > stars in all directions, comet > tail cooked in a soup. Everything that > Is that was that will be possibility probability > all in One I Am, appearing as I Am This, This > that I Am. Alpha and Omega just another flavor. > This Is What It Is. > Love = Truth, something out of Nothing. > > Love, > a. > Exactly, dearest Anna. I am fine. I think you maybe did accurately described the soup after all. Well done. But I want to correct you on one point: It is something out of no thing, not something out of nothing. Big difference! Blesswisely yours, al. sorry, a lapse in clarity: love and truth is something out of nothing, turning nothing into something......else......This. love, 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 June 16, 2005 Report Share Posted June 16, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Anna Ruiz " <nli10u@c...> wrote: > > - > anders_lindman > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, June 15, 2005 8:15 AM > Re: Mumbo Jumbo.... > > > Nisargadatta , " Anna Ruiz " <nli10u@c...> wrote: > > > > - > > anders_lindman > > Nisargadatta > > Wednesday, June 15, 2005 5:54 AM > > Re: Mumbo Jumbo.... > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > > Why do we babble on about no thing? > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > P: Cause we have to! > > > And you'll have to, > > > until you don't. > > > > > > > > > > > > Not only that; I think the no thing is what binds the universe > > together as a unit. For example, the computer monitor in front of > me > > is somehow holding together! No words can ever describe this no > thing > > glue, because words are fragments and not even an infinite number > of > > fragments can describe the soup in which they exist, but we can > point > > to the fact that things cannot be truly separate (having no > relation > > to anything else). > > > > Separation is indeed an illusion, an illusion that must exist for > it > > to emerge 'this' and 'that'. The no thing is the real 'stuff'. > > > > al. > > > > > > ah, my dearest al. nice to see you > > again. How are/am you? > > > > Love my friend, is a glue that holds > > the cosmos together, strings and pings > > quarks and memes and themes and > > molecules of inspiration and human > > love perspiration, shooting > > stars in all directions, comet > > tail cooked in a soup. Everything that > > Is that was that will be possibility probability > > all in One I Am, appearing as I Am This, This > > that I Am. Alpha and Omega just another flavor. > > This Is What It Is. > > Love = Truth, something out of Nothing. > > > > Love, > > a. > > > > > Exactly, dearest Anna. I am fine. I think you maybe did accurately > described the soup after all. Well done. > > But I want to correct you on one point: It is something out of no > thing, not something out of nothing. Big difference! > > Blesswisely yours, > > al. > > > > sorry, a lapse in clarity: > > love and truth is something out of nothing, turning nothing into something......else......This. > > love, > a. > I feel that there is a difference between the concept 'nothing' and 'no thing'. The rational mind is very much trained to grasp the concept 'nothing', but when we say 'no thing', then the thinking mind becomes confused, and that makes it a much better pointer to Noumenon in my view. Buddhists use the concept 'emptiness', but that is similar to 'nothing'. al. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 16, 2005 Report Share Posted June 16, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " Anna Ruiz " <nli10u@c...> wrote: > > > > - > > anders_lindman > > Nisargadatta > > Wednesday, June 15, 2005 8:15 AM > > Re: Mumbo Jumbo.... > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Anna Ruiz " <nli10u@c...> > wrote: > > > > > > - > > > anders_lindman > > > Nisargadatta > > > Wednesday, June 15, 2005 5:54 AM > > > Re: Mumbo Jumbo.... > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > > > Why do we babble on about no thing? > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > P: Cause we have to! > > > > And you'll have to, > > > > until you don't. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not only that; I think the no thing is what binds the > universe > > > together as a unit. For example, the computer monitor in > front of > > me > > > is somehow holding together! No words can ever describe this > no > > thing > > > glue, because words are fragments and not even an infinite > number > > of > > > fragments can describe the soup in which they exist, but we > can > > point > > > to the fact that things cannot be truly separate (having no > > relation > > > to anything else). > > > > > > Separation is indeed an illusion, an illusion that must exist > for > > it > > > to emerge 'this' and 'that'. The no thing is the real 'stuff'. > > > > > > al. > > > > > > > > > ah, my dearest al. nice to see you > > > again. How are/am you? > > > > > > Love my friend, is a glue that holds > > > the cosmos together, strings and pings > > > quarks and memes and themes and > > > molecules of inspiration and human > > > love perspiration, shooting > > > stars in all directions, comet > > > tail cooked in a soup. Everything that > > > Is that was that will be possibility probability > > > all in One I Am, appearing as I Am This, This > > > that I Am. Alpha and Omega just another flavor. > > > This Is What It Is. > > > Love = Truth, something out of Nothing. > > > > > > Love, > > > a. > > > > > > > > > Exactly, dearest Anna. I am fine. I think you maybe did > accurately > > described the soup after all. Well done. > > > > But I want to correct you on one point: It is something out of no > > thing, not something out of nothing. Big difference! > > > > Blesswisely yours, > > > > al. > > > > > > > > sorry, a lapse in clarity: > > > > love and truth is something out of nothing, turning nothing into > something......else......This. > > > > love, > > a. > > > > > I feel that there is a difference between the concept 'nothing' > and 'no thing'. The rational mind is very much trained to grasp the > concept 'nothing', but when we say 'no thing', then the thinking mind > becomes confused, and that makes it a much better pointer to Noumenon > in my view. Buddhists use the concept 'emptiness', but that is > similar to 'nothing'. > > al. Hi Al, Yes. Emptiness, sunyata, is also close in meaning to nonthingness (no inherent self-existence) and becoming (potential arising and falling). Yet these are conceptions as well admit of a reality beyond conventional reality, a reality beyond words, sometimes said to be the ultimate reality. In that, these concepts, all of those in Buddhism and its teachings are within the bounds of conventional reality as well. They are not exempt from its self-immolating logic. Proper application of sunyata to sunyata, Buddhism, Buddha and the Buddha's teachings eliminates them all leaving no thing beyond words and this is not equivalent, in any way, to " nothing. " Lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 16, 2005 Report Share Posted June 16, 2005 the unpardonable sin: cross posting, top posting (hi Sarlo) and naming names. so crucify me, I'll still love you. We can no longer belong to separate lists. - anders_lindman Nisargadatta Thursday, June 16, 2005 7:20 AM Re: Mumbo Jumbo.... Nisargadatta , " Anna Ruiz " <nli10u@c...> wrote: > > - > anders_lindman > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, June 15, 2005 8:15 AM > Re: Mumbo Jumbo.... > > > Nisargadatta , " Anna Ruiz " <nli10u@c...> wrote: > > > > - > > anders_lindman > > Nisargadatta > > Wednesday, June 15, 2005 5:54 AM > > Re: Mumbo Jumbo.... > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > > Why do we babble on about no thing? > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > P: Cause we have to! > > > And you'll have to, > > > until you don't. > > > > > > > > > > > > Not only that; I think the no thing is what binds the universe > > together as a unit. For example, the computer monitor in front of > me > > is somehow holding together! No words can ever describe this no > thing > > glue, because words are fragments and not even an infinite number > of > > fragments can describe the soup in which they exist, but we can > point > > to the fact that things cannot be truly separate (having no > relation > > to anything else). > > > > Separation is indeed an illusion, an illusion that must exist for > it > > to emerge 'this' and 'that'. The no thing is the real 'stuff'. > > > > al. > > > > > > ah, my dearest al. nice to see you > > again. How are/am you? > > > > Love my friend, is a glue that holds > > the cosmos together, strings and pings > > quarks and memes and themes and > > molecules of inspiration and human > > love perspiration, shooting > > stars in all directions, comet > > tail cooked in a soup. Everything that > > Is that was that will be possibility probability > > all in One I Am, appearing as I Am This, This > > that I Am. Alpha and Omega just another flavor. > > This Is What It Is. > > Love = Truth, something out of Nothing. > > > > Love, > > a. > > > > > Exactly, dearest Anna. I am fine. I think you maybe did accurately > described the soup after all. Well done. > > But I want to correct you on one point: It is something out of no > thing, not something out of nothing. Big difference! > > Blesswisely yours, > > al. > > > > sorry, a lapse in clarity: > > love and truth is something out of nothing, turning nothing into something......else......This. > > love, > a. > I feel that there is a difference between the concept 'nothing' and 'no thing'. The rational mind is very much trained to grasp the concept 'nothing', but when we say 'no thing', then the thinking mind becomes confused, and that makes it a much better pointer to Noumenon in my view. Buddhists use the concept 'emptiness', but that is similar to 'nothing'. al. ** 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 17, 2005 Report Share Posted June 17, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Anna Ruiz " <nli10u@c...> wrote: > > > > > > - > > > anders_lindman > > > Nisargadatta > > > Wednesday, June 15, 2005 8:15 AM > > > Re: Mumbo Jumbo.... > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Anna Ruiz " <nli10u@c...> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > - > > > > anders_lindman > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > Wednesday, June 15, 2005 5:54 AM > > > > Re: Mumbo Jumbo.... > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > > > > Why do we babble on about no thing? > > > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > > > P: Cause we have to! > > > > > And you'll have to, > > > > > until you don't. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not only that; I think the no thing is what binds the > > universe > > > > together as a unit. For example, the computer monitor in > > front of > > > me > > > > is somehow holding together! No words can ever describe this > > no > > > thing > > > > glue, because words are fragments and not even an infinite > > number > > > of > > > > fragments can describe the soup in which they exist, but we > > can > > > point > > > > to the fact that things cannot be truly separate (having no > > > relation > > > > to anything else). > > > > > > > > Separation is indeed an illusion, an illusion that must exist > > for > > > it > > > > to emerge 'this' and 'that'. The no thing is the real 'stuff'. > > > > > > > > al. > > > > > > > > > > > > ah, my dearest al. nice to see you > > > > again. How are/am you? > > > > > > > > Love my friend, is a glue that holds > > > > the cosmos together, strings and pings > > > > quarks and memes and themes and > > > > molecules of inspiration and human > > > > love perspiration, shooting > > > > stars in all directions, comet > > > > tail cooked in a soup. Everything that > > > > Is that was that will be possibility probability > > > > all in One I Am, appearing as I Am This, This > > > > that I Am. Alpha and Omega just another flavor. > > > > This Is What It Is. > > > > Love = Truth, something out of Nothing. > > > > > > > > Love, > > > > a. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Exactly, dearest Anna. I am fine. I think you maybe did > > accurately > > > described the soup after all. Well done. > > > > > > But I want to correct you on one point: It is something out of no > > > thing, not something out of nothing. Big difference! > > > > > > Blesswisely yours, > > > > > > al. > > > > > > > > > > > > sorry, a lapse in clarity: > > > > > > love and truth is something out of nothing, turning nothing into > > something......else......This. > > > > > > love, > > > a. > > > > > > > > > I feel that there is a difference between the concept 'nothing' > > and 'no thing'. The rational mind is very much trained to grasp the > > concept 'nothing', but when we say 'no thing', then the thinking mind > > becomes confused, and that makes it a much better pointer to Noumenon > > in my view. Buddhists use the concept 'emptiness', but that is > > similar to 'nothing'. > > > > al. > > Hi Al, > > Yes. Emptiness, sunyata, is also close in meaning to nonthingness (no > inherent self-existence) and becoming (potential arising and falling). > Yet these are conceptions as well admit of a reality beyond > conventional reality, a reality beyond words, sometimes said to be the > ultimate reality. In that, these concepts, all of those in Buddhism > and its teachings are within the bounds of conventional reality as > well. They are not exempt from its self-immolating logic. Proper > application of sunyata to sunyata, Buddhism, Buddha and the Buddha's > teachings eliminates them all leaving no thing beyond words and this > is not equivalent, in any way, to " nothing. " > > Lewis Hi Lewis, I think that concepts like 'nothing' and 'emptiness' are too imprinted in our minds. Maybe synyata should better be called 'no thing', or no-thing-ness (not nothingness)? al. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 17, 2005 Report Share Posted June 17, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Anna Ruiz " <nli10u@c...> wrote: > the unpardonable sin: cross posting, top posting (hi Sarlo) and naming names. Maybe 'nothing' _is_ a better concept. I guess it depends on the angle we are coming from. :-) > > so crucify me, I'll still love you. We can no longer belong to separate lists. > - > anders_lindman > Nisargadatta > Thursday, June 16, 2005 7:20 AM > Re: Mumbo Jumbo.... > > > Nisargadatta , " Anna Ruiz " <nli10u@c...> wrote: > > > > - > > anders_lindman > > Nisargadatta > > Wednesday, June 15, 2005 8:15 AM > > Re: Mumbo Jumbo.... > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Anna Ruiz " <nli10u@c...> > wrote: > > > > > > - > > > anders_lindman > > > Nisargadatta > > > Wednesday, June 15, 2005 5:54 AM > > > Re: Mumbo Jumbo.... > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > > > Why do we babble on about no thing? > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > P: Cause we have to! > > > > And you'll have to, > > > > until you don't. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not only that; I think the no thing is what binds the > universe > > > together as a unit. For example, the computer monitor in > front of > > me > > > is somehow holding together! No words can ever describe this > no > > thing > > > glue, because words are fragments and not even an infinite > number > > of > > > fragments can describe the soup in which they exist, but we > can > > point > > > to the fact that things cannot be truly separate (having no > > relation > > > to anything else). > > > > > > Separation is indeed an illusion, an illusion that must exist > for > > it > > > to emerge 'this' and 'that'. The no thing is the real 'stuff'. > > > > > > al. > > > > > > > > > ah, my dearest al. nice to see you > > > again. How are/am you? > > > > > > Love my friend, is a glue that holds > > > the cosmos together, strings and pings > > > quarks and memes and themes and > > > molecules of inspiration and human > > > love perspiration, shooting > > > stars in all directions, comet > > > tail cooked in a soup. Everything that > > > Is that was that will be possibility probability > > > all in One I Am, appearing as I Am This, This > > > that I Am. Alpha and Omega just another flavor. > > > This Is What It Is. > > > Love = Truth, something out of Nothing. > > > > > > Love, > > > a. > > > > > > > > > Exactly, dearest Anna. I am fine. I think you maybe did > accurately > > described the soup after all. Well done. > > > > But I want to correct you on one point: It is something out of no > > thing, not something out of nothing. Big difference! > > > > Blesswisely yours, > > > > al. > > > > > > > > sorry, a lapse in clarity: > > > > love and truth is something out of nothing, turning nothing into > something......else......This. > > > > love, > > a. > > > > > I feel that there is a difference between the concept 'nothing' > and 'no thing'. The rational mind is very much trained to grasp the > concept 'nothing', but when we say 'no thing', then the thinking mind > becomes confused, and that makes it a much better pointer to Noumenon > in my view. Buddhists use the concept 'emptiness', but that is > similar to 'nothing'. > > al. > > > > > ** > > 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 17, 2005 Report Share Posted June 17, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> > wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " Anna Ruiz " <nli10u@c...> > wrote: > > > > > > > > - > > > > anders_lindman > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > Wednesday, June 15, 2005 8:15 AM > > > > Re: Mumbo Jumbo.... > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Anna Ruiz " > <nli10u@c...> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > anders_lindman > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > Wednesday, June 15, 2005 5:54 AM > > > > > Re: Mumbo Jumbo.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > > > > > Why do we babble on about no thing? > > > > > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > > > > > P: Cause we have to! > > > > > > And you'll have to, > > > > > > until you don't. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not only that; I think the no thing is what binds the > > > universe > > > > > together as a unit. For example, the computer monitor in > > > front of > > > > me > > > > > is somehow holding together! No words can ever describe > this > > > no > > > > thing > > > > > glue, because words are fragments and not even an > infinite > > > number > > > > of > > > > > fragments can describe the soup in which they exist, but > we > > > can > > > > point > > > > > to the fact that things cannot be truly separate (having > no > > > > relation > > > > > to anything else). > > > > > > > > > > Separation is indeed an illusion, an illusion that must > exist > > > for > > > > it > > > > > to emerge 'this' and 'that'. The no thing is the > real 'stuff'. > > > > > > > > > > al. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ah, my dearest al. nice to see you > > > > > again. How are/am you? > > > > > > > > > > Love my friend, is a glue that holds > > > > > the cosmos together, strings and pings > > > > > quarks and memes and themes and > > > > > molecules of inspiration and human > > > > > love perspiration, shooting > > > > > stars in all directions, comet > > > > > tail cooked in a soup. Everything that > > > > > Is that was that will be possibility probability > > > > > all in One I Am, appearing as I Am This, This > > > > > that I Am. Alpha and Omega just another flavor. > > > > > This Is What It Is. > > > > > Love = Truth, something out of Nothing. > > > > > > > > > > Love, > > > > > a. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Exactly, dearest Anna. I am fine. I think you maybe did > > > accurately > > > > described the soup after all. Well done. > > > > > > > > But I want to correct you on one point: It is something out > of no > > > > thing, not something out of nothing. Big difference! > > > > > > > > Blesswisely yours, > > > > > > > > al. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sorry, a lapse in clarity: > > > > > > > > love and truth is something out of nothing, turning nothing > into > > > something......else......This. > > > > > > > > love, > > > > a. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I feel that there is a difference between the concept 'nothing' > > > and 'no thing'. The rational mind is very much trained to grasp > the > > > concept 'nothing', but when we say 'no thing', then the thinking > mind > > > becomes confused, and that makes it a much better pointer to > Noumenon > > > in my view. Buddhists use the concept 'emptiness', but that is > > > similar to 'nothing'. > > > > > > al. > > > > Hi Al, > > > > Yes. Emptiness, sunyata, is also close in meaning to nonthingness > (no > > inherent self-existence) and becoming (potential arising and > falling). > > Yet these are conceptions as well admit of a reality beyond > > conventional reality, a reality beyond words, sometimes said to be > the > > ultimate reality. In that, these concepts, all of those in Buddhism > > and its teachings are within the bounds of conventional reality as > > well. They are not exempt from its self-immolating logic. Proper > > application of sunyata to sunyata, Buddhism, Buddha and the Buddha's > > teachings eliminates them all leaving no thing beyond words and this > > is not equivalent, in any way, to " nothing. " > > > > Lewis > > Hi Lewis, > > I think that concepts like 'nothing' and 'emptiness' are too > imprinted in our minds. Maybe synyata should better be called 'no > thing', or no-thing-ness (not nothingness)? > > al. Hi Al, Doing that would then make it a thing, however airy and difficult to grasp, it is still usable for a chase. Sunyata is a processual thing, a dynamic concept and it does not point at all, rather, it dissolves thingness and nothingness and all in between. It does not remove no-thing-ness, nonthingness and becoming. It leaves a residue. That residue is phenomena arising and falling as is, undefined, unlabeled, as is. Now when the sunyata of sunyata is taken up, then there is the end of sunyata and its residual undefined phenomena, including no-thing-ness, becoming and nonthingness and burning itself up as well being self-immolating in the hands of the user leaving " no thing beyond words " to seek, find, etc. Since words are part of conventional reality, using them always creates and recreates and forms and reforms conventional reality. So, one cannot say " there is no thing " and escape words and pointing and cycling and chasing phantoms because it is words in the fomr of an assertion and it becomes a thing, a concept. " There is " does this and though much much less a graspable some thing than a " nothing " or " nonthing " is, it is still an object of contemplation, a kind of koan, some thing to begin waxing on, chasing about, thinking about ad infinitum, etc. And to what end? Also, it is immediately contradicted, synthesized, and doubted by: There is not no thing There is no thing and not no thing There is neither no thing nor not no thing All airy enough to partially and temporarily short circuit thought production but so can this: Beeboo baba nono keekee meefoso rooni. Like a non-sense mantra or a koan one cannot live well with this turning around in the head. There is simply no thing beyond words. No one can demonstrate that there is, because no one directly explain how language, speech, writing is produced. It passes all understanding. It is so simple. What in all that is is beyond words? Lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 17, 2005 Report Share Posted June 17, 2005 - Lewis Burgess Nisargadatta Friday, June 17, 2005 12:38 PM Re: Mumbo Jumbo.... Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> > wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " Anna Ruiz " <nli10u@c...> > wrote: > > > > > > > > - > > > > anders_lindman > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > Wednesday, June 15, 2005 8:15 AM > > > > Re: Mumbo Jumbo.... > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Anna Ruiz " > <nli10u@c...> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > anders_lindman > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > Wednesday, June 15, 2005 5:54 AM > > > > > Re: Mumbo Jumbo.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > > > > > Why do we babble on about no thing? > > > > > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > > > > > P: Cause we have to! > > > > > > And you'll have to, > > > > > > until you don't. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not only that; I think the no thing is what binds the > > > universe > > > > > together as a unit. For example, the computer monitor in > > > front of > > > > me > > > > > is somehow holding together! No words can ever describe > this > > > no > > > > thing > > > > > glue, because words are fragments and not even an > infinite > > > number > > > > of > > > > > fragments can describe the soup in which they exist, but > we > > > can > > > > point > > > > > to the fact that things cannot be truly separate (having > no > > > > relation > > > > > to anything else). > > > > > > > > > > Separation is indeed an illusion, an illusion that must > exist > > > for > > > > it > > > > > to emerge 'this' and 'that'. The no thing is the > real 'stuff'. > > > > > > > > > > al. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ah, my dearest al. nice to see you > > > > > again. How are/am you? > > > > > > > > > > Love my friend, is a glue that holds > > > > > the cosmos together, strings and pings > > > > > quarks and memes and themes and > > > > > molecules of inspiration and human > > > > > love perspiration, shooting > > > > > stars in all directions, comet > > > > > tail cooked in a soup. Everything that > > > > > Is that was that will be possibility probability > > > > > all in One I Am, appearing as I Am This, This > > > > > that I Am. Alpha and Omega just another flavor. > > > > > This Is What It Is. > > > > > Love = Truth, something out of Nothing. > > > > > > > > > > Love, > > > > > a. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Exactly, dearest Anna. I am fine. I think you maybe did > > > accurately > > > > described the soup after all. Well done. > > > > > > > > But I want to correct you on one point: It is something out > of no > > > > thing, not something out of nothing. Big difference! > > > > > > > > Blesswisely yours, > > > > > > > > al. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sorry, a lapse in clarity: > > > > > > > > love and truth is something out of nothing, turning nothing > into > > > something......else......This. > > > > > > > > love, > > > > a. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I feel that there is a difference between the concept 'nothing' > > > and 'no thing'. The rational mind is very much trained to grasp > the > > > concept 'nothing', but when we say 'no thing', then the thinking > mind > > > becomes confused, and that makes it a much better pointer to > Noumenon > > > in my view. Buddhists use the concept 'emptiness', but that is > > > similar to 'nothing'. > > > > > > al. > > > > Hi Al, > > > > Yes. Emptiness, sunyata, is also close in meaning to nonthingness > (no > > inherent self-existence) and becoming (potential arising and > falling). > > Yet these are conceptions as well admit of a reality beyond > > conventional reality, a reality beyond words, sometimes said to be > the > > ultimate reality. In that, these concepts, all of those in Buddhism > > and its teachings are within the bounds of conventional reality as > > well. They are not exempt from its self-immolating logic. Proper > > application of sunyata to sunyata, Buddhism, Buddha and the Buddha's > > teachings eliminates them all leaving no thing beyond words and this > > is not equivalent, in any way, to " nothing. " > > > > Lewis > > Hi Lewis, > > I think that concepts like 'nothing' and 'emptiness' are too > imprinted in our minds. Maybe synyata should better be called 'no > thing', or no-thing-ness (not nothingness)? > > al. Hi Al, Doing that would then make it a thing, however airy and difficult to grasp, it is still usable for a chase. Sunyata is a processual thing, a dynamic concept and it does not point at all, rather, it dissolves thingness and nothingness and all in between. It does not remove no-thing-ness, nonthingness and becoming. It leaves a residue. That residue is phenomena arising and falling as is, undefined, unlabeled, as is. Now when the sunyata of sunyata is taken up, then there is the end of sunyata and its residual undefined phenomena, including no-thing-ness, becoming and nonthingness and burning itself up as well being self-immolating in the hands of the user leaving " no thing beyond words " to seek, find, etc. Since words are part of conventional reality, using them always creates and recreates and forms and reforms conventional reality. So, one cannot say " there is no thing " and escape words and pointing and cycling and chasing phantoms because it is words in the fomr of an assertion and it becomes a thing, a concept. " There is " does this and though much much less a graspable some thing than a " nothing " or " nonthing " is, it is still an object of contemplation, a kind of koan, some thing to begin waxing on, chasing about, thinking about ad infinitum, etc. And to what end? Also, it is immediately contradicted, synthesized, and doubted by: There is not no thing There is no thing and not no thing There is neither no thing nor not no thing All airy enough to partially and temporarily short circuit thought production but so can this: Beeboo baba nono keekee meefoso rooni. Like a non-sense mantra or a koan one cannot live well with this turning around in the head. There is simply no thing beyond words. No one can demonstrate that there is, because no one directly explain how language, speech, writing is produced. It passes all understanding. It is so simple. What in all that is is beyond words? Lewis it's just a knee-jerk thought thinking I am with out any substance, at all. 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 June 17, 2005 Report Share Posted June 17, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Anna Ruiz " <nli10u@c...> wrote: > > - > Lewis Burgess > Nisargadatta > Friday, June 17, 2005 12:38 PM > Re: Mumbo Jumbo.... > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> > > wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Anna Ruiz " <nli10u@c...> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > anders_lindman > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > Wednesday, June 15, 2005 8:15 AM > > > > > Re: Mumbo Jumbo.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Anna Ruiz " > > <nli10u@c...> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > anders_lindman > > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > > Wednesday, June 15, 2005 5:54 AM > > > > > > Re: Mumbo Jumbo.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > > > > > > Why do we babble on about no thing? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P: Cause we have to! > > > > > > > And you'll have to, > > > > > > > until you don't. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not only that; I think the no thing is what binds the > > > > universe > > > > > > together as a unit. For example, the computer monitor in > > > > front of > > > > > me > > > > > > is somehow holding together! No words can ever describe > > this > > > > no > > > > > thing > > > > > > glue, because words are fragments and not even an > > infinite > > > > number > > > > > of > > > > > > fragments can describe the soup in which they exist, but > > we > > > > can > > > > > point > > > > > > to the fact that things cannot be truly separate (having > > no > > > > > relation > > > > > > to anything else). > > > > > > > > > > > > Separation is indeed an illusion, an illusion that must > > exist > > > > for > > > > > it > > > > > > to emerge 'this' and 'that'. The no thing is the > > real 'stuff'. > > > > > > > > > > > > al. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ah, my dearest al. nice to see you > > > > > > again. How are/am you? > > > > > > > > > > > > Love my friend, is a glue that holds > > > > > > the cosmos together, strings and pings > > > > > > quarks and memes and themes and > > > > > > molecules of inspiration and human > > > > > > love perspiration, shooting > > > > > > stars in all directions, comet > > > > > > tail cooked in a soup. Everything that > > > > > > Is that was that will be possibility probability > > > > > > all in One I Am, appearing as I Am This, This > > > > > > that I Am. Alpha and Omega just another flavor. > > > > > > This Is What It Is. > > > > > > Love = Truth, something out of Nothing. > > > > > > > > > > > > Love, > > > > > > a. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Exactly, dearest Anna. I am fine. I think you maybe did > > > > accurately > > > > > described the soup after all. Well done. > > > > > > > > > > But I want to correct you on one point: It is something out > > of no > > > > > thing, not something out of nothing. Big difference! > > > > > > > > > > Blesswisely yours, > > > > > > > > > > al. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sorry, a lapse in clarity: > > > > > > > > > > love and truth is something out of nothing, turning nothing > > into > > > > something......else......This. > > > > > > > > > > love, > > > > > a. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I feel that there is a difference between the concept 'nothing' > > > > and 'no thing'. The rational mind is very much trained to grasp > > the > > > > concept 'nothing', but when we say 'no thing', then the thinking > > mind > > > > becomes confused, and that makes it a much better pointer to > > Noumenon > > > > in my view. Buddhists use the concept 'emptiness', but that is > > > > similar to 'nothing'. > > > > > > > > al. > > > > > > Hi Al, > > > > > > Yes. Emptiness, sunyata, is also close in meaning to nonthingness > > (no > > > inherent self-existence) and becoming (potential arising and > > falling). > > > Yet these are conceptions as well admit of a reality beyond > > > conventional reality, a reality beyond words, sometimes said to be > > the > > > ultimate reality. In that, these concepts, all of those in Buddhism > > > and its teachings are within the bounds of conventional reality as > > > well. They are not exempt from its self-immolating logic. Proper > > > application of sunyata to sunyata, Buddhism, Buddha and the Buddha's > > > teachings eliminates them all leaving no thing beyond words and this > > > is not equivalent, in any way, to " nothing. " > > > > > > Lewis > > > > Hi Lewis, > > > > I think that concepts like 'nothing' and 'emptiness' are too > > imprinted in our minds. Maybe synyata should better be called 'no > > thing', or no-thing-ness (not nothingness)? > > > > al. > > Hi Al, > > Doing that would then make it a thing, however airy and difficult to > grasp, it is still usable for a chase. Sunyata is a processual thing, > a dynamic concept and it does not point at all, rather, it dissolves > thingness and nothingness and all in between. It does not remove > no-thing-ness, nonthingness and becoming. It leaves a residue. That > residue is phenomena arising and falling as is, undefined, unlabeled, > as is. Now when the sunyata of sunyata is taken up, then there is the > end of sunyata and its residual undefined phenomena, including > no-thing-ness, becoming and nonthingness and burning itself up as well > being self-immolating in the hands of the user leaving " no thing > beyond words " to seek, find, etc. Since words are part of conventional > reality, using them always creates and recreates and forms and reforms > conventional reality. > > So, one cannot say " there is no thing " and escape words and pointing > and cycling and chasing phantoms because it is words in the fomr of an > assertion and it becomes a thing, a concept. " There is " does this and > though much much less a graspable some thing than a " nothing " or > " nonthing " is, it is still an object of contemplation, a kind of koan, > some thing to begin waxing on, chasing about, thinking about ad > infinitum, etc. And to what end? > > Also, it is immediately contradicted, synthesized, and doubted by: > > There is not no thing > There is no thing and not no thing > There is neither no thing nor not no thing > > All airy enough to partially and temporarily short circuit thought > production but so can this: > > Beeboo baba nono keekee meefoso rooni. > > Like a non-sense mantra or a koan one cannot live well with this > turning around in the head. > > There is simply no thing beyond words. > > No one can demonstrate that there is, because no one directly explain > how language, speech, writing is produced. It passes all > understanding. It is so simple. > > What in all that is is beyond words? > > Lewis > > > it's just a knee-jerk thought thinking I am with out any substance, at all. > > a. Unremitting silent glossilalia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 18, 2005 Report Share Posted June 18, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> > > wrote: .... > > > > Hi Lewis, > > > > I think that concepts like 'nothing' and 'emptiness' are too > > imprinted in our minds. Maybe synyata should better be called 'no > > thing', or no-thing-ness (not nothingness)? > > > > al. > > Hi Al, > > Doing that would then make it a thing, however airy and difficult to > grasp, it is still usable for a chase. Sunyata is a processual thing, > a dynamic concept and it does not point at all, rather, it dissolves > thingness and nothingness and all in between. It does not remove > no-thing-ness, nonthingness and becoming. It leaves a residue. That > residue is phenomena arising and falling as is, undefined, unlabeled, > as is. Now when the sunyata of sunyata is taken up, then there is the > end of sunyata and its residual undefined phenomena, including > no-thing-ness, becoming and nonthingness and burning itself up as well > being self-immolating in the hands of the user leaving " no thing > beyond words " to seek, find, etc. Since words are part of conventional > reality, using them always creates and recreates and forms and reforms > conventional reality. > > So, one cannot say " there is no thing " and escape words and pointing > and cycling and chasing phantoms because it is words in the fomr of an > assertion and it becomes a thing, a concept. " There is " does this and > though much much less a graspable some thing than a " nothing " or > " nonthing " is, it is still an object of contemplation, a kind of koan, > some thing to begin waxing on, chasing about, thinking about ad > infinitum, etc. And to what end? > > Also, it is immediately contradicted, synthesized, and doubted by: > > There is not no thing > There is no thing and not no thing > There is neither no thing nor not no thing > > All airy enough to partially and temporarily short circuit thought > production but so can this: > > Beeboo baba nono keekee meefoso rooni. > > Like a non-sense mantra or a koan one cannot live well with this > turning around in the head. > > There is simply no thing beyond words. > > No one can demonstrate that there is, because no one directly explain > how language, speech, writing is produced. It passes all > understanding. It is so simple. > > What in all that is is beyond words? > > Lewis Maybe to say " there is no thing " is misleading, but to say " there is 'no thing' " is different IMO. I use the phrase 'no thing' as a pointer to 'that' which every thing is sprung from. Some may call it Noumenon. Maybe even Tao. And these kind of concepts are different from concept like 'nothing' and 'emptiness'. Therefore I suspected that sunyata had been mistranslated, because emptiness is not a good pointer to the unmanifested since that word has a firm meaning in english. al. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 18, 2005 Report Share Posted June 18, 2005 --- > > Hi Lewis, > > > > I think that concepts like 'nothing' and 'emptiness' are too > > imprinted in our minds. Maybe synyata should better be called 'no > > thing', or no-thing-ness (not nothingness)? > > > > al. > Hi Al, Doing that would then make it a thing, however airy and difficult to grasp, it is still usable for a chase. Sunyata is a processual thing, a dynamic concept and it does not point at all, rather, it dissolves thingness and nothingness and all in between. It does not remove no-thing-ness, nonthingness and becoming. It leaves a residue. That residue is phenomena arising and falling as is, undefined, unlabeled, as is. Now when the sunyata of sunyata is taken up, then there is the end of sunyata and its residual undefined phenomena, including no-thing-ness, becoming and nonthingness and burning itself up as well being self-immolating in the hands of the user leaving " no thing beyond words " to seek, find, etc. Since words are part of conventional reality, using them always creates and recreates and forms and reforms conventional reality. So, one cannot say " there is no thing " and escape words and pointing and cycling and chasing phantoms because it is words in the fomr of an assertion and it becomes a thing, a concept. " There is " does this and though much much less a graspable some thing than a " nothing " or " nonthing " is, it is still an object of contemplation, a kind of koan, some thing to begin waxing on, chasing about, thinking about ad infinitum, etc. And to what end? Also, it is immediately contradicted, synthesized, and doubted by: There is not no thing There is no thing and not no thing There is neither no thing nor not no thing All airy enough to partially and temporarily short circuit thought production but so can this: Beeboo baba nono keekee meefoso rooni. Like a non-sense mantra or a koan one cannot live well with this turning around in the head. There is simply no thing beyond words. No one can demonstrate that there is, because no one directly explain how language, speech, writing is produced. It passes all understanding. It is so simple. What in all that is is beyond words? Lewis Maybe to say " there is no thing " is misleading, but to say " there is 'no thing' " is different IMO. I use the phrase 'no thing' as a pointer to 'that' which every thing is sprung from. Some may call it Noumenon. Maybe even Tao. And these kind of concepts are different from concept like 'nothing' and 'emptiness'. Therefore I suspected that sunyata had been mistranslated, because emptiness is not a good pointer to the unmanifested since that word has a firm meaning in english. al. I understand your pointing and have no thing to say about your pointing and to what you point to as that is your preference at the moment. Your understanding of emptiness (sunyata), however, is mistaken. Emptiness or sunyata in Madhyamika Buddhist usage does not point something beyond it or point at all. It is not a pointer to " that. " It has nothing to do with pointing to such and is not equivalent in any way to 'nothing' " that, " 'no thing' as you use it, Noumenon, or Tao or any other self-created 'ineffable thing' that attempts to capture all of reality as source in language and imagination. It is a conceptual device, a thing used to dissolve those concepts and all concepts including itself as it was said to you above, previously. Below is a URL that presents the concept of sunyata in a clear, succint way so you can understand that is a soteriological device that is designed to dissolve pointers like 'That' " Noumenon, " " Tao " " no thing " and other hyperessentialities conceptually created to to obscure and deflect the existential experience and sense of irremediable ignorance; the unchanging inability of being able consciously knowing in any way, in word, concept, language, imagination,... the how and why of the appearances and happenings of daily life; the refusal to admit and surrender to the inescapable sense that one cannot know in any way origins, source with 'conscious understanding' So, a bandaid, a hyperessential pointer, is repeatedly created and placed on what appears to be a never healing wound; a futile palliative. For the Madhyamikan Buddhist this behavior is the cause of suffering. There is the conceptualization of the unknowing knowing found in all the nondual and Christian mystic traditions, that is, knowing sans words, concepts, language, imagination, conscious thought, conceptualization, pointing. This is said to appear when there is the ability to no longer need or use " bandaids " or the arising of incapability of assigning hyperessentialities. In this idea, we accept our creations as creations and do not assign reality or essentialness to them. And we play and explore them in the now without being chained to this or that. It is freedom or emancipation from the slavery of needing to play omniscient; that is, claiming I know it all by capturing all in an ultimate word ore words or theory that contains all things and thus explains all things. All explanations work to the end they were made be it religion, science, a novel, scribbling in a diary. Is there a final or ultimate or absolute story of it all? The Meaning of Sunyata in Nagarjuna's Philosophy http://www.integralscience.org/sacredscience/SS_sunyata.html Lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 19, 2005 Report Share Posted June 19, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> wrote: > --- > > > Hi Lewis, > > > > > > I think that concepts like 'nothing' and 'emptiness' are too > > > imprinted in our minds. Maybe synyata should better be called 'no > > > thing', or no-thing-ness (not nothingness)? > > > > > > al. > > > Hi Al, > > Doing that would then make it a thing, however airy and difficult to > grasp, it is still usable for a chase. Sunyata is a processual > thing, a dynamic concept and it does not point at all, rather, it > dissolves thingness and nothingness and all in between. It does not > remove no-thing-ness, nonthingness and becoming. It leaves a residue. > That residue is phenomena arising and falling as is, undefined, > unlabeled, as is. Now when the sunyata of sunyata is taken up, then > there is the end of sunyata and its residual undefined phenomena, > including no-thing-ness, becoming and nonthingness and burning itself > up as well being self-immolating in the hands of the user leaving " no > thing beyond words " to seek, find, etc. Since words are part of > conventional reality, using them always creates and recreates and > forms and reforms conventional reality. > > So, one cannot say " there is no thing " and escape words and pointing > and cycling and chasing phantoms because it is words in the fomr of > an assertion and it becomes a thing, a concept. " There is " does this > and though much much less a graspable some thing than a " nothing " or > " nonthing " is, it is still an object of contemplation, a kind of > koan, some thing to begin waxing on, chasing about, thinking about > ad infinitum, etc. And to what end? > > Also, it is immediately contradicted, synthesized, and doubted by: > > There is not no thing > There is no thing and not no thing > There is neither no thing nor not no thing > > All airy enough to partially and temporarily short circuit thought > production but so can this: > > Beeboo baba nono keekee meefoso rooni. > > Like a non-sense mantra or a koan one cannot live well with this > turning around in the head. > > There is simply no thing beyond words. > > No one can demonstrate that there is, because no one directly > explain how language, speech, writing is produced. It passes all > understanding. It is so simple. > > What in all that is is beyond words? > > Lewis > > > Maybe to say " there is no thing " is misleading, but to say " there > is 'no thing' " is different IMO. I use the phrase 'no thing' as a > pointer to 'that' which every thing is sprung from. Some may call it > Noumenon. Maybe even Tao. And these kind of concepts are different > from concept like 'nothing' and 'emptiness'. Therefore I suspected > that sunyata had been mistranslated, because emptiness is not a good > pointer to the unmanifested since that word has a firm meaning in > english. > > al. > > I understand your pointing and have no thing to say about your > pointing and to what you point to as that is your preference at the > moment. > > Your understanding of emptiness (sunyata), however, is mistaken. > Emptiness or sunyata in Madhyamika Buddhist usage does not point > something beyond it or point at all. It is not a pointer to " that. " It > has nothing to do with pointing to such and is not equivalent in any > way to 'nothing' " that, " 'no thing' as you use it, Noumenon, or Tao or > any other self-created 'ineffable thing' that attempts to capture all > of reality as source in language and imagination. It is a conceptual > device, a thing used to dissolve those concepts and all concepts > including itself as it was said to you above, previously. Below is a > URL that presents the concept of sunyata in a clear, succint way so > you can understand that is a soteriological device that is designed to > dissolve pointers like 'That' " Noumenon, " " Tao " " no thing " and other > hyperessentialities conceptually created to to obscure and deflect the > existential experience and sense of irremediable ignorance; the > unchanging inability of being able consciously knowing in any way, in > word, concept, language, imagination,... the how and why of the > appearances and happenings of daily life; the refusal to admit and > surrender to the inescapable sense that one cannot know in any way > origins, source with 'conscious understanding' So, a bandaid, a > hyperessential pointer, is repeatedly created and placed on what > appears to be a never healing wound; a futile palliative. For the > Madhyamikan Buddhist this behavior is the cause of suffering. > > There is the conceptualization of the unknowing knowing found in all > the nondual and Christian mystic traditions, that is, knowing sans > words, concepts, language, imagination, conscious thought, > conceptualization, pointing. This is said to appear when there is the > ability to no longer need or use " bandaids " or the arising of > incapability of assigning hyperessentialities. In this idea, we accept > our creations as creations and do not assign reality or essentialness > to them. And we play and explore them in the now without being chained > to this or that. It is freedom or emancipation from the slavery of > needing to play omniscient; that is, claiming I know it all by > capturing all in an ultimate word ore words or theory that contains > all things and thus explains all things. All explanations work to the > end they were made be it religion, science, a novel, scribbling in a > diary. Is there a final or ultimate or absolute story of it all? > > The Meaning of Sunyata in Nagarjuna's Philosophy > http://www.integralscience.org/sacredscience/SS_sunyata.html > > Lewis I have change my mind about the 'no thing' concept. It adds nothing to all pointers that already exist. It is interesting to hear that sunyata is not a pointer. I will check out the link you gave. al. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 19, 2005 Report Share Posted June 19, 2005 - anders_lindman Nisargadatta Sunday, June 19, 2005 6:28 AM Re: Mumbo Jumbo.... Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> wrote: > --- > > > Hi Lewis, > > > > > > I think that concepts like 'nothing' and 'emptiness' are too > > > imprinted in our minds. Maybe synyata should better be called 'no > > > thing', or no-thing-ness (not nothingness)? > > > > > > al. > > > Hi Al, > > Doing that would then make it a thing, however airy and difficult to > grasp, it is still usable for a chase. Sunyata is a processual > thing, a dynamic concept and it does not point at all, rather, it > dissolves thingness and nothingness and all in between. It does not > remove no-thing-ness, nonthingness and becoming. It leaves a residue. > That residue is phenomena arising and falling as is, undefined, > unlabeled, as is. Now when the sunyata of sunyata is taken up, then > there is the end of sunyata and its residual undefined phenomena, > including no-thing-ness, becoming and nonthingness and burning itself > up as well being self-immolating in the hands of the user leaving " no > thing beyond words " to seek, find, etc. Since words are part of > conventional reality, using them always creates and recreates and > forms and reforms conventional reality. > > So, one cannot say " there is no thing " and escape words and pointing > and cycling and chasing phantoms because it is words in the fomr of > an assertion and it becomes a thing, a concept. " There is " does this > and though much much less a graspable some thing than a " nothing " or > " nonthing " is, it is still an object of contemplation, a kind of > koan, some thing to begin waxing on, chasing about, thinking about > ad infinitum, etc. And to what end? > > Also, it is immediately contradicted, synthesized, and doubted by: > > There is not no thing > There is no thing and not no thing > There is neither no thing nor not no thing > > All airy enough to partially and temporarily short circuit thought > production but so can this: > > Beeboo baba nono keekee meefoso rooni. > > Like a non-sense mantra or a koan one cannot live well with this > turning around in the head. > > There is simply no thing beyond words. > > No one can demonstrate that there is, because no one directly > explain how language, speech, writing is produced. It passes all > understanding. It is so simple. > > What in all that is is beyond words? > > Lewis > > > Maybe to say " there is no thing " is misleading, but to say " there > is 'no thing' " is different IMO. I use the phrase 'no thing' as a > pointer to 'that' which every thing is sprung from. Some may call it > Noumenon. Maybe even Tao. And these kind of concepts are different > from concept like 'nothing' and 'emptiness'. Therefore I suspected > that sunyata had been mistranslated, because emptiness is not a good > pointer to the unmanifested since that word has a firm meaning in > english. > > al. > > I understand your pointing and have no thing to say about your > pointing and to what you point to as that is your preference at the > moment. > > Your understanding of emptiness (sunyata), however, is mistaken. > Emptiness or sunyata in Madhyamika Buddhist usage does not point > something beyond it or point at all. It is not a pointer to " that. " It > has nothing to do with pointing to such and is not equivalent in any > way to 'nothing' " that, " 'no thing' as you use it, Noumenon, or Tao or > any other self-created 'ineffable thing' that attempts to capture all > of reality as source in language and imagination. It is a conceptual > device, a thing used to dissolve those concepts and all concepts > including itself as it was said to you above, previously. Below is a > URL that presents the concept of sunyata in a clear, succint way so > you can understand that is a soteriological device that is designed to > dissolve pointers like 'That' " Noumenon, " " Tao " " no thing " and other > hyperessentialities conceptually created to to obscure and deflect the > existential experience and sense of irremediable ignorance; the > unchanging inability of being able consciously knowing in any way, in > word, concept, language, imagination,... the how and why of the > appearances and happenings of daily life; the refusal to admit and > surrender to the inescapable sense that one cannot know in any way > origins, source with 'conscious understanding' So, a bandaid, a > hyperessential pointer, is repeatedly created and placed on what > appears to be a never healing wound; a futile palliative. For the > Madhyamikan Buddhist this behavior is the cause of suffering. > > There is the conceptualization of the unknowing knowing found in all > the nondual and Christian mystic traditions, that is, knowing sans > words, concepts, language, imagination, conscious thought, > conceptualization, pointing. This is said to appear when there is the > ability to no longer need or use " bandaids " or the arising of > incapability of assigning hyperessentialities. In this idea, we accept > our creations as creations and do not assign reality or essentialness > to them. And we play and explore them in the now without being chained > to this or that. It is freedom or emancipation from the slavery of > needing to play omniscient; that is, claiming I know it all by > capturing all in an ultimate word ore words or theory that contains > all things and thus explains all things. All explanations work to the > end they were made be it religion, science, a novel, scribbling in a > diary. Is there a final or ultimate or absolute story of it all? > > The Meaning of Sunyata in Nagarjuna's Philosophy > http://www.integralscience.org/sacredscience/SS_sunyata.html > > Lewis I have change my mind about the 'no thing' concept. It adds nothing to all pointers that already exist. It is interesting to hear that sunyata is not a pointer. I will check out the link you gave. al. Morning Al, Just a quick question? While all this discourse about_______________, Is BEING Being? And If not, where did it go? Is Being Enlightened, Enlightening? If not, where did the light go? 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 June 20, 2005 Report Share Posted June 20, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Anna Ruiz " <nli10u@c...> wrote: > > - > anders_lindman > Nisargadatta > Sunday, June 19, 2005 6:28 AM > Re: Mumbo Jumbo.... > > > Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> > wrote: > > --- > > > > Hi Lewis, > > > > > > > > I think that concepts like 'nothing' and 'emptiness' are too > > > > imprinted in our minds. Maybe synyata should better be > called 'no > > > > thing', or no-thing-ness (not nothingness)? > > > > > > > > al. > > > > > Hi Al, > > > > Doing that would then make it a thing, however airy and difficult > to > > grasp, it is still usable for a chase. Sunyata is a processual > > thing, a dynamic concept and it does not point at all, rather, it > > dissolves thingness and nothingness and all in between. It does not > > remove no-thing-ness, nonthingness and becoming. It leaves a > residue. > > That residue is phenomena arising and falling as is, undefined, > > unlabeled, as is. Now when the sunyata of sunyata is taken up, then > > there is the end of sunyata and its residual undefined phenomena, > > including no-thing-ness, becoming and nonthingness and burning > itself > > up as well being self-immolating in the hands of the user > leaving " no > > thing beyond words " to seek, find, etc. Since words are part of > > conventional reality, using them always creates and recreates and > > forms and reforms conventional reality. > > > > So, one cannot say " there is no thing " and escape words and pointing > > and cycling and chasing phantoms because it is words in the fomr of > > an assertion and it becomes a thing, a concept. " There is " does this > > and though much much less a graspable some thing than a " nothing " or > > " nonthing " is, it is still an object of contemplation, a kind of > > koan, some thing to begin waxing on, chasing about, thinking about > > ad infinitum, etc. And to what end? > > > > Also, it is immediately contradicted, synthesized, and doubted by: > > > > There is not no thing > > There is no thing and not no thing > > There is neither no thing nor not no thing > > > > All airy enough to partially and temporarily short circuit thought > > production but so can this: > > > > Beeboo baba nono keekee meefoso rooni. > > > > Like a non-sense mantra or a koan one cannot live well with this > > turning around in the head. > > > > There is simply no thing beyond words. > > > > No one can demonstrate that there is, because no one directly > > explain how language, speech, writing is produced. It passes all > > understanding. It is so simple. > > > > What in all that is is beyond words? > > > > Lewis > > > > > > Maybe to say " there is no thing " is misleading, but to say " there > > is 'no thing' " is different IMO. I use the phrase 'no thing' as a > > pointer to 'that' which every thing is sprung from. Some may call it > > Noumenon. Maybe even Tao. And these kind of concepts are different > > from concept like 'nothing' and 'emptiness'. Therefore I suspected > > that sunyata had been mistranslated, because emptiness is not a good > > pointer to the unmanifested since that word has a firm meaning in > > english. > > > > al. > > > > I understand your pointing and have no thing to say about your > > pointing and to what you point to as that is your preference at the > > moment. > > > > Your understanding of emptiness (sunyata), however, is mistaken. > > Emptiness or sunyata in Madhyamika Buddhist usage does not point > > something beyond it or point at all. It is not a pointer to " that. " > It > > has nothing to do with pointing to such and is not equivalent in any > > way to 'nothing' " that, " 'no thing' as you use it, Noumenon, or Tao > or > > any other self-created 'ineffable thing' that attempts to capture > all > > of reality as source in language and imagination. It is a conceptual > > device, a thing used to dissolve those concepts and all concepts > > including itself as it was said to you above, previously. Below is a > > URL that presents the concept of sunyata in a clear, succint way so > > you can understand that is a soteriological device that is designed > to > > dissolve pointers like 'That' " Noumenon, " " Tao " " no thing " and other > > hyperessentialities conceptually created to to obscure and deflect > the > > existential experience and sense of irremediable ignorance; the > > unchanging inability of being able consciously knowing in any way, > in > > word, concept, language, imagination,... the how and why of the > > appearances and happenings of daily life; the refusal to admit and > > surrender to the inescapable sense that one cannot know in any way > > origins, source with 'conscious understanding' So, a bandaid, a > > hyperessential pointer, is repeatedly created and placed on what > > appears to be a never healing wound; a futile palliative. For the > > Madhyamikan Buddhist this behavior is the cause of suffering. > > > > There is the conceptualization of the unknowing knowing found in all > > the nondual and Christian mystic traditions, that is, knowing sans > > words, concepts, language, imagination, conscious thought, > > conceptualization, pointing. This is said to appear when there is > the > > ability to no longer need or use " bandaids " or the arising of > > incapability of assigning hyperessentialities. In this idea, we > accept > > our creations as creations and do not assign reality or > essentialness > > to them. And we play and explore them in the now without being > chained > > to this or that. It is freedom or emancipation from the slavery of > > needing to play omniscient; that is, claiming I know it all by > > capturing all in an ultimate word ore words or theory that contains > > all things and thus explains all things. All explanations work to > the > > end they were made be it religion, science, a novel, scribbling in a > > diary. Is there a final or ultimate or absolute story of it all? > > > > The Meaning of Sunyata in Nagarjuna's Philosophy > > http://www.integralscience.org/sacredscience/SS_sunyata.html > > > > Lewis > > > I have change my mind about the 'no thing' concept. It adds nothing > to all pointers that already exist. It is interesting to hear that > sunyata is not a pointer. I will check out the link you gave. > > al. > > > > Morning Al, > > Just a quick question? While all this discourse about_______________, > Is BEING Being? And If not, > where did it go? Is Being Enlightened, Enlightening? If not, where did the light go? > > a. > Godmorning Anna, Light is now. Light is brought to us by the Trinity/Being: (1) Lightbringer, (2) Darkness, (3) Now. al. 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.