This Morning At Niz

July 14, 2009

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote:

> >

> > Tim,

> >

> > Ideas have no power whatsoever. The idea that one has no separate

> > existence has no power and is of no value.

>

> Sure. The idea arises from the wordless knowledge that one actually has no

separate existence. But the words themselves are valueless, do not help anyone

else realize this.

>

> > We are brought up and trained to believe to have a separate

> > existence and everyone else we meet was trained the same way.

>

> One has to break away from this 'global' thinking, from the notion that " I am

one of them " . Society goes out of one's system, altogether.

>

> > And now comes along well meaning idealist Tim with his little

> > Advaita and says " The universe ain't divided " .

>

> Why should Werner care, then? If Tim is so meaningless, why reply to his

posts at all?

>

> Is it that Werner wants to 'instruct' Tim in something?

Tim,

What does it matter do get instructed ? It matters only when your pride gets

hurt. Only the image you have of yourself gets hurt.

We are social beings mutually using each other. Social beings who are trained

that they just are worth that much as they have to offer or as they are

exploitable. Just watch your thoughts how many of them are just attractivity

strategies.

And regarding those mechanisms I am no exception.

All your mockery has its basis in your belief that you are different. And to be

different makes you very attractive, doesn't it ?

Werner

>

> But I thought ideas had no power whatsoever, at least in the last sentence.

What happened? ;-).

>

July 14, 2009

Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote:

>

> Tim,

>

> What does it matter do get instructed ? It matters only when your

> pride gets hurt. Only the image you have of yourself gets hurt.

One can't know what image 'someone else' has of themselves.

Any image one believes someone else has is " one's own " image, projected to be

'elsewhere'.

Thus, you're right... words/ideas are truly valueless. There are truly no

'others' to discuss with. One addresses one's own issues, projected to be " out

there somewhere " -- whatever troubles one sees with the world are one's own

troubles, projected to be 'elswhere'.

When this projection 'elsewhere' ceases, one's own issues cease. They were

always caused by failure to see that the observer is the observed, the thinker

is the thought, the perceiver is the perceived.

July 14, 2009

Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " marktimmins60 " <marktimmins60@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " marktimmins60 " <marktimmins60@>

wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@>

wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Nisargadatta , " marktimmins60 " <marktimmins60@>

wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " marktimmins60 "

<marktimmins60@> wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Geo is a master of simplistic mystification and

> > > > > > > > > > misunderstanding.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > What's interesting (from here) is that if one sees that

" persons " are imaginary, why the compulsive need to knock them?

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Whatever comes out of Pete's computer seems to have this

repetitive " you're wrong, you're wrong " thingie happening toward projected

others. This is, of course, self-judgment and self-condemnation.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Pete does provide an essential element however.

> > > > > > > > He teaches who you are not.

> > > > > > > > Mark

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > P: Ha! And who wants to hear that? People rather

> > > > > > > want to hear they are an immortal soul, or Awareness,

> > > > > > > or the Self, or the Absolute. Anything except having

> > > > > > > no known identification. Right?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > indeed. and this scares you to fucking death,doesn't it?

> > > > > > you ain't got the cajones to be nothing.

> > > > > > Mark

> > > > >

> > > > > words from a eunuch afraid to be alone.

> > > > >

> > > > > LOL!

> > > > >

> > > > > .b b.b.

> > > > >

> > > > indeed again.

> > > > Mark

> > >

> > > you'd be safe in the harem tweety.

> > >

> > > what the fuck are you doing in deed?

> > >

> > > and again?

> > >

> > > .b b.b.

> > >

> > in deed huh? how fucking clever.

> > how about a third one then?

> > indeed,what the fuck are you doing is the real question

> > I ain't in your harem madam

> > it would seem I get misled with your rhetoric

> > but the joke is on you

>

> > Christ, I gotta stop coming here.

> > Mark

>

> Mark,

>

> Just do no longer read Roberibus and do no longer reply to his posts. If you

still do its your own fault.

>

> Werner

iz zat an oorder little fuhrer?

Das geht dich einen Scheißdreck an.

Du bist ein verdammter Wichser.

Blas' mir einen.

ROFLMAO!

..b b.b.

July 14, 2009

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote:

> >

> > Mark,

> >

> > Just do no longer read Roberibus and do no longer reply to his posts. If you

still do its your own fault.

> >

> > Werner

>

> I think I'll talk to Roberibus, just so Werner doesn't think he's a God in

control of the list and his own surroundings ;-).

and i'll talk to tim because werner is an nerdy asshole.

:-)

..b b.b.

July 14, 2009

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> >

> > maybe so.

> >

> > my name's not Christ though.

>

> For Christs's sake! Jesus! God! LOL...

>

> " Bobby " is as much God as " Tim " am. The universe ain't divided. But everyone

seems to think they're separate from everyone else, and are in control of

something.

i don't think i control anything timmy.

i certainly don't control myself..or you.

and werner isn't worth controlling.

and i don't think christ was god.

and i don't think i am christ.

i guess we go our separate ways on this stuff.

LOL!

..b b.b.

July 14, 2009

Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> > >

> > > maybe so.

> > >

> > > my name's not Christ though.

> >

> > For Christs's sake! Jesus! God! LOL...

> >

> > " Bobby " is as much God as " Tim " am. The universe ain't divided. But

everyone seems to think they're separate from everyone else, and are in control

of something.

>

> i don't think i control anything timmy.

Hey, man, calling someone " timmy " is kinda nerdy, like a little kid or sumthin'

:-p.

July 14, 2009

Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Mark,

> > >

> > > Just do no longer read Roberibus and do no longer reply to his posts. If

you still do its your own fault.

> > >

> > > Werner

> >

> > I think I'll talk to Roberibus, just so Werner doesn't think he's a God in

control of the list and his own surroundings ;-).

> >

>

> Yes, Tim,

>

> A person just has that much control over you as you allow him.

>

> Werner

you'd know.

how's Bruno?

du kleines schwules Arschloch,

..b b.b.

July 14, 2009

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote:

> >

> > Yes, Tim,

> >

> > A person just has that much control over you as you allow him.

> >

> > Werner

>

> Exactly. One is dictated by one's own attachments... or not.

the One has no attachments.

that's sort of the fucking definition of the One.

..b b.b.

July 14, 2009

Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> > >

> > > maybe so.

> > >

> > > my name's not Christ though.

> >

> > For Christs's sake! Jesus! God! LOL...

> >

> > " Bobby " is as much God as " Tim " am. The universe ain't divided. But

everyone seems to think they're separate from everyone else, and are in control

of something.

> >

>

> Tim,

>

> Ideas have no power whatsoever. The idea that one has no separate existence

has no power and is of no value.

>

> The reasl power has the psyche and its condioned responses.

>

> We are brought up and trained to believe to have a separate existence and

everyone else we meet was trained the same way. It is a global belief, a global

conditioning and a global training.

>

> And now comes along well meaning idealist Tim with his little Advaita and says

" The universe ain't divided " .

>

> What will that idea bring about ? Not the least, nothing, nada.

>

> Werner

who's the " they " that bring " us " up..

if there is no separate existence?

you're dumb wernie.

..b b.b.

July 14, 2009

Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Tim,

> > >

> > > Ideas have no power whatsoever. The idea that one has no separate

> > > existence has no power and is of no value.

> >

> > Sure. The idea arises from the wordless knowledge that one actually has no

separate existence. But the words themselves are valueless, do not help anyone

else realize this.

> >

> > > We are brought up and trained to believe to have a separate

> > > existence and everyone else we meet was trained the same way.

> >

> > One has to break away from this 'global' thinking, from the notion that " I

am one of them " . Society goes out of one's system, altogether.

> >

> > > And now comes along well meaning idealist Tim with his little

> > > Advaita and says " The universe ain't divided " .

> >

> > Why should Werner care, then? If Tim is so meaningless, why reply to his

posts at all?

> >

> > Is it that Werner wants to 'instruct' Tim in something?

>

> Tim,

>

> What does it matter do get instructed ? It matters only when your pride gets

hurt. Only the image you have of yourself gets hurt.

>

> We are social beings mutually using each other. Social beings who are trained

that they just are worth that much as they have to offer or as they are

exploitable. Just watch your thoughts how many of them are just attractivity

strategies.

>

> And regarding those mechanisms I am no exception.

>

> All your mockery has its basis in your belief that you are different. And to

be different makes you very attractive, doesn't it ?

>

> Werner

Stockdumm!

his mockery has it's basis in the fact that:

Du bist ein Arschloch.

und..

Du hast null Hoden.

..b b.b.

July 14, 2009

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > maybe so.

> > > >

> > > > my name's not Christ though.

> > >

> > > For Christs's sake! Jesus! God! LOL...

> > >

> > > " Bobby " is as much God as " Tim " am. The universe ain't divided. But

everyone seems to think they're separate from everyone else, and are in control

of something.

> >

> > i don't think i control anything timmy.

>

> Hey, man, calling someone " timmy " is kinda nerdy, like a little kid or

sumthin' :-p.

i can't control myself.

that's what i just said timmy.

and if that's how you feel..

what about calling someone " Bobby " ?

what are you trying to tell us about yourself?

i believe you there buckaroo.

..b b.b.

July 14, 2009

Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@>

wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > maybe so.

> > > > >

> > > > > my name's not Christ though.

> > > >

> > > > For Christs's sake! Jesus! God! LOL...

> > > >

> > > > " Bobby " is as much God as " Tim " am. The universe ain't divided. But

everyone seems to think they're separate from everyone else, and are in control

of something.

> > >

> > > i don't think i control anything timmy.

> >

> > Hey, man, calling someone " timmy " is kinda nerdy, like a little kid or

sumthin' :-p.

>

> i can't control myself.

>

> that's what i just said timmy.

>

> and if that's how you feel..

>

> what about calling someone " Bobby " ?

Well, that's true... OK, Timmy is all good, Bobby ;-p.

July 14, 2009

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@>

wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > maybe so.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > my name's not Christ though.

> > > > >

> > > > > For Christs's sake! Jesus! God! LOL...

> > > > >

> > > > > " Bobby " is as much God as " Tim " am. The universe ain't divided. But

everyone seems to think they're separate from everyone else, and are in control

of something.

> > > >

> > > > i don't think i control anything timmy.

> > >

> > > Hey, man, calling someone " timmy " is kinda nerdy, like a little kid or

sumthin' :-p.

> >

> > i can't control myself.

> >

> > that's what i just said timmy.

> >

> > and if that's how you feel..

> >

> > what about calling someone " Bobby " ?

>

> Well, that's true... OK, Timmy is all good, Bobby ;-p.

ah life can be beautiful..

when and whenever we disagree with what we just said huh?

:-)

..b b.b.

July 14, 2009

Re: This Morning At Niz

>P: Explaining, Ed, we distort the utter simplicity

> of perception into the maze we try to escape.

E:I feel myself in the presence of wisdom incarnate; please be

gentle.

>P: Imagine a labyrinth that would grow longer and

> twist farther with each step.

E:I reel. I quake. Shudder R Moi.

I'm fractaled into a Godelization of some sort -- isness

quavers.

Edg

P: Good morning, Edg,

First, a little in shop chat. I like the

blue color you use to answer, but some

people who receive emails don't see it, so

it helps attribution to start a response with

your initials, that is if you don't mind.

Edg: K . You can pretty much skip reading all my

replies below, because I am only agreeing with you with my usual gushing

outflow.

You said:

" I feel myself in the presence of wisdom incarnate; please be

gentle. "

P: I know that you mean the presence of your own

awareness as you read my words.

Edg: Aw rats, nah, I was being snide and

hoping you'd wink back at me. Your projection was a great mask for

me to wear though, er, can I quote you?

That's true, your

awareness can change my words.

Edg: Um, just to tweak, not to say your words

aren't wonderful to you, but I think your " incoming " hasn't the

least content, and I make it all up when it arrives here like I was

bullshitting some some rube about the meaning of hieroglyphics without me

having the Rosetta Stone. I sometimes feel the claustrophobic

impact of that incarceration (incarnation,) and it's like drowning.

Most of the time though, I'm not even aware that I'm interpreting the

world out of the whole cloth spun by my imagination....nay, out of the

cotton plants I grew and harvested and made into threads and then wove

into whole cloth first. Arrrgh.

In short: I agree with you.

So I won't take

any credit or accept fault for what you read.

Edg: Your ego shouldn't take credit, but I give

credit to amness for playing ping pong with itself in a delightful way

while the un-two of us enjoy the smacks.

I just

offer you an empty glass, and let you pour your own

drink.

Edg: " words are flowing out like endless rain

into a paper cup they slither while they pass they slip

away across the universe " -- like that, eh?

It's always interesting to watch what

different people pour in a verbal glass. Often, they

pour coffee in a wine glass, or soup, or even piss in

it and send it back.

So here they are, the empty paper cups d'jour:

Edg: That gives me a great idea for a new kind of

Starbucks -- we just sell paper cups and let everyone imagine what their

perfect coffee would taste like if they had actually been given it.

Slogan: " one cup -- any flavor. "

Barkley said: " We only perceive our perceptions. "

It reads like an awful tautology, but if contemplated

right, it becomes the exit from the verbal maze.

Edg: I don't often feel like I'm in a verbal maze,

cuz I'm so attached to being a writer that I have to take the words to be

meaningful to others as they are to me. I assume it to be true, and

off I go. Weeeeeeee! Was it Nisargadatta that said something

like: " only if you want enlightenment like a drowning man wants air,

will you get the shakti to leap out of delusion. " ???? Most

days, I'm breathing just fine under the verbal waterline. All my

words can be replaced with " gurgle, blurbo, gug, gug " and no

harm will be done to communication.

Those perceptions provided by the five senses are

judged objective (as if coming from an outside

source) and those generated by the brain itself,

can be judged ineffable.

Edg: I get your yin-yang thang, but -- call it

fuzzy instead of philosophically precise if you wish -- to me, any

thought (mental activity of any sort: memory, feeling, projection, dream,

concept) is relegated to the set, " something perceived, " --

bam, period, done. I don't tend to sort them all out. There's the

receiving of something by something in the now -- " in " a vast

silence. If I do rank them into " outside " or

" inside, " it seems not to have much impact on my insistence

that any of them are real. This logical analysis seems to be but a

weak spiritual technique at best. Giant brains may find their

results will differ -- perhaps they can ride the logic train all the way

to heaven.

I fall and break a bone.

A bone splinter severs a vein. The rock that I fell

on, and the blood flowing, I see as objective. The pain

and the fear to bleed to death, I feel as subjective, or

ineffable. The thoughts of what to do next, the explanations

as to how I fell are also subjective. As all these

perceptions happen there is no confusion as to their

nature and what to do.

Edg: K -- so far I have only harmony with

your words. They're like old friends.

Later, resting in bed, I could think about the

relative reality of bones, rocks, blood, and fear. Then

it's easy to get lost in explanations, and lose track

that I will never know a rock in itself, just a

perception labeled rock; and There is no harm in projecting

that perception outside, as an object, and use it as such.

Edg: To me, one of the biggest challenges is to

approach the question: " Is there an outside? " To me,

Advaita has the answer that serves when it teaches about the

" linear " ordering of the process of manifestation: Absolute -

amness - ego - attachment's core quality of " ignoring everything

else-ness. "

The key -- to me -- has been finally understanding that there can be no

explanation for " how " the Absolute gets its hand up the

amness-puppet's ass, and that no mechanical process can be imagined for

it to " happen. "

Self inquiry is exactly the examination process that develops a grasp of

the ineffability you mention. After about three years of

reading Advaitan books, suddenly it intellectually clicked into focus for

me that the Absolute can be said to manifest amness by the non-doing of

projecting Identity. What a mouthful that last sentence is.

I posted here about the identification process of watching two rain drops

coursing down a window pane -- having a race. The act of choosing

one of them to be " your rain drop " is the ego attaching itself

in its tiny laughable attempt to be sentient and then to project that

sentience as the Absolute does -- as if, eh? -- but miss not that this

" condition " of the ego WHOLLY incarnating itself into that

drop's karma and destiny is NOT something the ego does to the rain

drop. The rain drop is non-sentient and oblivious and mere

laws of physics in action, and remains untouched by ego's projections,

but the ego is able to see itself having free will, luck, pluck and

accomplishment in the situation. These are qualities that the rain

drop doesn't have, but the ego can be found as if riding inside the rain

drop like a homunculus and imbuing the whole scenario with meaning.

Just so are we pretending to ride inside meat robots.

Just so does Identity -- the Absolute -- " get inside " ALL

THIS. This is where the Bible is correct in saying that we (egos)

are " made in the image of God. " What our egos do when

they identify is an action-process, but this process is a very

instructive metaphor for what the Absolute non-does.

Just as no one actually becomes a rain drop, there is no actual entering

of ALL THIS by the Absolute. One doesn't have to enter the image in

the mirror to say: " that's me. " This switching of

Identity is actionless -- ya see? And since nothing was done, the

Absolute's status of being beyond " mere meaning or action "

avoids any besmirching. The image in the mirror, being an illusion, is

not provably real, while all the qualities that manifest as the

" meaning of the image " are " kept where they were

born " -- residing in the potency of the Absolute. Amness --

being so quiescent -- is able to imagine that it hears the whispering of

the Absolute, but Brahma's thoughts come to Him just like my thoughts

come to me -- from the beyondness that no ego or Ego can enter.

Brahma is as blind to that process as I am. Hee hee -- gotta love

that, eh?

The problem for contemplatives and mystics is the

temptation to objectify " divine " sensations. So if I

refer to an absolute I am talking only of an absolute

sensation.

Edg: I call this the realm of the gods -- where

their minds are able to keep one foot in amness and the other in

manifestation....the ritam level of excitation -- where it can be

explained in the terms of physics to be like a wave that enters the

virtual field of pure being when it is in its " trough

stage. " Like that, the thoughts of the gods are half-sacred --

only having the least tarnishing stain of individuality possible since

they come directly from amness and only the personality of the god tilts

it a bit. But note that even Brahma had dissonance right out of the

chute with His unrequited desire for Self. Indra's prayers to

Brahma are like a kid asking for a piece of candy from Mommy's Magic

Cupboard, and he doesn't get it that Mommy is Old Mother Hubbard whose

cupboard is where Schrodinger's cat resides -- bare until proven

otherwise. There's nothing provable about what's in the cupboard

until it's opened. Brahma doesn't know how any prayer to Him will

be answered. Now that's funny! Imagine His

embarrassment, eh?

What sensation is that? It varies with each

brain. Some label love as the absolute, others label

awareness itself as the absolute, for others is the

concept of self.

Edg: Here I think is a mess of definition

challenges. To escape that work, I rush back to the concept that

Identity does nothing and accomplishes everything. The rain drop

doesn't change, the Absolute is unsullied, but meaningfulness magically

is found in the cupboard. Go figure at your own risk, eh?

Awareness without perceptions dissolves

into unawareness.

Edg: Good poem. From a distance, the yin-yang

symbol looks like a gray colored dot as the two sides get blended into a

unity within the eye as it abstracts the " outside " before it

serves up the perception to the brain. To me, your truth here is

that when one resides in amness, suddenly and without explanation or

mechanical process, Identity is realized as beyond

awareness-amness.

There is a point in meditation where

awareness and unawareness become the same unknown. That

is the door which exits the verbal maze. Can we use

language without casting the long shadow of entification?

Edg: Um, typo? -- did you mean

" identification? " I think so. Language is sort of

like the chain they give to the elephant to hold while they're walking

through the village -- keeps the elephant from grabbing everything else

along the walk. The chain is a mantra for the elephant.

Keeping the brain busy but also safely busy is the job of the spiritual

technique -- it creates a droning that can allow the mind to drift onto

Identity out of sheer boredom, hee hee. The monkey mind jumps from

branch to branch, and when you force it to stay on one branch, it eagerly

leaps into the unknown just on the off chance it'll hit a branch

elsewhere -- anything to escape this one-branched-ness. Self

inquiry avoids involving the mind in this manner. One simply is put

upon Identity instantly, fully, immediately -- for a nanosecond (for

newbies) or for a goodly gulp (for the practiced.) When one asks:

" Who am I " the only possible answer is silence. The mind

waits for an answer to that question, and the silence of that waitingness

is the answer! I love this.

All we perceive is perception, can we perceive

non-perception?

Pete

Edg: I think you know the answer, er, are you

testing me? By definition, non-perception is not an action, so

we're in the realm of the Absolute again -- all roads lead to this

Rome. To make the poem " perceive in-action " have meaning,

I go to " realization of Identity. " That's not an

action. Finding one's glasses, after a long search, to be on one's

nose is not a finding of anything. The glasses were never

lost. No action is required to fulfill that search for those

glasses. Realization is not about achieving or doing or grasping or

understanding or entering -- the image in the mirror cannot leap out of

that " realm. "

Edg

July 14, 2009

Re: Re: This Morning At Niz

Re: This Morning At Niz

>P: Explaining, Ed, we distort the utter simplicity

> of perception into the maze we try to escape.

E:I feel myself in the presence of wisdom incarnate; please be gentle.

>P: Imagine a labyrinth that would grow longer and

> twist farther with each step.

E:I reel. I quake. Shudder R Moi.

I'm fractaled into a Godelization of some sort -- isness quavers.

Edg

P: Good morning, Edg,

First, a little in shop chat. I like the

blue color you use to answer, but some

people who receive emails don't see it, so

it helps attribution to start a response with

your initials, that is if you don't mind.

Edg: K . You can pretty much skip reading all my replies below, because I am

only agreeing with you with my usual gushing outflow.

You said:

" I feel myself in the presence of wisdom incarnate; please be gentle. "

P: I know that you mean the presence of your own

awareness as you read my words.

Edg: Aw rats, nah, I was being snide and hoping you'd wink back at me. Your

projection was a great mask for me to wear though, er, can I quote you?

That's true, your

awareness can change my words.

Edg: Um, just to tweak, not to say your words aren't wonderful to you, but I

think your " incoming " hasn't the least content, and I make it all up when it

arrives here like I was bullshitting some some rube about the meaning of

hieroglyphics without me having the Rosetta Stone. I sometimes feel the

claustrophobic impact of that incarceration (incarnation,) and it's like

drowning. Most of the time though, I'm not even aware that I'm interpreting the

world out of the whole cloth spun by my imagination....nay, out of the cotton

plants I grew and harvested and made into threads and then wove into whole cloth

first. Arrrgh.

In short: I agree with you.

So I won't take

any credit or accept fault for what you read.

Edg: Your ego shouldn't take credit, but I give credit to amness for playing

ping pong with itself in a delightful way while the un-two of us enjoy the

smacks.

I just

offer you an empty glass, and let you pour your own

drink.

Edg: " words are flowing out like endless rain into a paper cup they slither

while they pass they slip away across the universe " -- like that, eh?

It's always interesting to watch what

different people pour in a verbal glass. Often, they

pour coffee in a wine glass, or soup, or even piss in

it and send it back.

So here they are, the empty paper cups d'jour:

Edg: That gives me a great idea for a new kind of Starbucks -- we just sell

paper cups and let everyone imagine what their perfect coffee would taste like

if they had actually been given it. Slogan: " one cup -- any flavor. "

Barkley said: " We only perceive our perceptions. "

It reads like an awful tautology, but if contemplated

right, it becomes the exit from the verbal maze.

Edg: I don't often feel like I'm in a verbal maze, cuz I'm so attached to being

a writer that I have to take the words to be meaningful to others as they are to

me. I assume it to be true, and off I go. Weeeeeeee! Was it Nisargadatta that

said something like: " only if you want enlightenment like a drowning man wants

air, will you get the shakti to leap out of delusion. " ???? Most days, I'm

breathing just fine under the verbal waterline. All my words can be replaced

with " gurgle, blurbo, gug, gug " and no harm will be done to communication.

Those perceptions provided by the five senses are

judged objective (as if coming from an outside

source) and those generated by the brain itself,

can be judged ineffable.

Edg: I get your yin-yang thang, but -- call it fuzzy instead of philosophically

precise if you wish -- to me, any thought (mental activity of any sort: memory,

feeling, projection, dream, concept) is relegated to the set, " something

perceived, " -- bam, period, done. I don't tend to sort them all out. There's

the receiving of something by something in the now -- " in " a vast silence. If I

do rank them into " outside " or " inside, " it seems not to have much impact on my

insistence that any of them are real. This logical analysis seems to be but a

weak spiritual technique at best. Giant brains may find their results will

differ -- perhaps they can ride the logic train all the way to heaven.

I fall and break a bone.

A bone splinter severs a vein. The rock that I fell

on, and the blood flowing, I see as objective. The pain

and the fear to bleed to death, I feel as subjective, or

ineffable. The thoughts of what to do next, the explanations

as to how I fell are also subjective. As all these

perceptions happen there is no confusion as to their

nature and what to do.

Edg: K -- so far I have only harmony with your words. They're like old

friends.

Later, resting in bed, I could think about the

relative reality of bones, rocks, blood, and fear. Then

it's easy to get lost in explanations, and lose track

that I will never know a rock in itself, just a

perception labeled rock; and There is no harm in projecting

that perception outside, as an object, and use it as such.

Edg: To me, one of the biggest challenges is to approach the question: " Is there

an outside? " To me, Advaita has the answer that serves when it teaches about

the " linear " ordering of the process of manifestation: Absolute - amness - ego -

attachment's core quality of " ignoring everything else-ness. "

The key -- to me -- has been finally understanding that there can be no

explanation for " how " the Absolute gets its hand up the amness-puppet's ass, and

that no mechanical process can be imagined for it to " happen. "

Self inquiry is exactly the examination process that develops a grasp of the

ineffability you mention. After about three years of reading Advaitan books,

suddenly it intellectually clicked into focus for me that the Absolute can be

said to manifest amness by the non-doing of projecting Identity. What a

mouthful that last sentence is.

I posted here about the identification process of watching two rain drops

coursing down a window pane -- having a race. The act of choosing one of them

to be " your rain drop " is the ego attaching itself in its tiny laughable attempt

to be sentient and then to project that sentience as the Absolute does -- as if,

eh? -- but miss not that this " condition " of the ego WHOLLY incarnating itself

into that drop's karma and destiny is NOT something the ego does to the rain

drop. The rain drop is non-sentient and oblivious and mere laws of physics in

action, and remains untouched by ego's projections, but the ego is able to see

itself having free will, luck, pluck and accomplishment in the situation. These

are qualities that the rain drop doesn't have, but the ego can be found as if

riding inside the rain drop like a homunculus and imbuing the whole scenario

with meaning.

Just so are we pretending to ride inside meat robots.

Just so does Identity -- the Absolute -- " get inside " ALL THIS. This is where

the Bible is correct in saying that we (egos) are " made in the image of God. "

What our egos do when they identify is an action-process, but this process is a

very instructive metaphor for what the Absolute non-does.

Just as no one actually becomes a rain drop, there is no actual entering of ALL

THIS by the Absolute. One doesn't have to enter the image in the mirror to say:

" that's me. " This switching of Identity is actionless -- ya see? And since

nothing was done, the Absolute's status of being beyond " mere meaning or action "

avoids any besmirching. The image in the mirror, being an illusion, is not

provably real, while all the qualities that manifest as the " meaning of the

image " are " kept where they were born " -- residing in the potency of the

Absolute. Amness -- being so quiescent -- is able to imagine that it hears the

whispering of the Absolute, but Brahma's thoughts come to Him just like my

thoughts come to me -- from the beyondness that no ego or Ego can enter. Brahma

is as blind to that process as I am. Hee hee -- gotta love that, eh?

The problem for contemplatives and mystics is the

temptation to objectify " divine " sensations. So if I

refer to an absolute I am talking only of an absolute

sensation.

Edg: I call this the realm of the gods -- where their minds are able to keep one

foot in amness and the other in manifestation....the ritam level of excitation

-- where it can be explained in the terms of physics to be like a wave that

enters the virtual field of pure being when it is in its " trough stage. " Like

that, the thoughts of the gods are half-sacred -- only having the least

tarnishing stain of individuality possible since they come directly from amness

and only the personality of the god tilts it a bit. But note that even Brahma

had dissonance right out of the chute with His unrequited desire for Self.

Indra's prayers to Brahma are like a kid asking for a piece of candy from

Mommy's Magic Cupboard, and he doesn't get it that Mommy is Old Mother Hubbard

whose cupboard is where Schrodinger's cat resides -- bare until proven

otherwise. There's nothing provable about what's in the cupboard until it's

opened. Brahma doesn't know how any prayer to Him will be answered. Now that's

funny! Imagine His embarrassment, eh?

What sensation is that? It varies with each

brain. Some label love as the absolute, others label

awareness itself as the absolute, for others is the

concept of self.

Edg: Here I think is a mess of definition challenges. To escape that work, I

rush back to the concept that Identity does nothing and accomplishes everything.

The rain drop doesn't change, the Absolute is unsullied, but meaningfulness

magically is found in the cupboard. Go figure at your own risk, eh?

Awareness without perceptions dissolves

into unawareness.

Edg: Good poem. From a distance, the yin-yang symbol looks like a gray colored

dot as the two sides get blended into a unity within the eye as it abstracts the

" outside " before it serves up the perception to the brain. To me, your truth

here is that when one resides in amness, suddenly and without explanation or

mechanical process, Identity is realized as beyond awareness-amness.

There is a point in meditation where

awareness and unawareness become the same unknown. That

is the door which exits the verbal maze. Can we use

language without casting the long shadow of entification?

Edg: Um, typo? -- did you mean " identification? " I think so. Language is sort

of like the chain they give to the elephant to hold while they're walking

through the village -- keeps the elephant from grabbing everything else along

the walk. The chain is a mantra for the elephant. Keeping the brain busy but

also safely busy is the job of the spiritual technique -- it creates a droning

that can allow the mind to drift onto Identity out of sheer boredom, hee hee.

The monkey mind jumps from branch to branch, and when you force it to stay on

one branch, it eagerly leaps into the unknown just on the off chance it'll hit a

branch elsewhere -- anything to escape this one-branched-ness. Self inquiry

avoids involving the mind in this manner. One simply is put upon Identity

instantly, fully, immediately -- for a nanosecond (for newbies) or for a goodly

gulp (for the practiced.) When one asks: " Who am I " the only possible answer is

silence. The mind waits for an answer to that question, and the silence of that

waitingness is the answer! I love this.

All we perceive is perception, can we perceive non-perception?

Pete

Edg: I think you know the answer, er, are you testing me? By definition,

non-perception is not an action, so we're in the realm of the Absolute again --

all roads lead to this Rome. To make the poem " perceive in-action " have

meaning, I go to " realization of Identity. " That's not an action. Finding

one's glasses, after a long search, to be on one's nose is not a finding of

anything. The glasses were never lost. No action is required to fulfill that

search for those glasses. Realization is not about achieving or doing or

grasping or understanding or entering -- the image in the mirror cannot leap out

of that " realm. "

Edg

so what's your favorite color?

..b b.b.

July 14, 2009

P ;Those perceptions provided by the five senses arejudged objective (as if coming from an outsidesource) and those generated by the brain itself,can be judged ineffable. Edg: I get your yin-yang thang, but -- call it fuzzy instead of philosophically precise if you wish -- to me, any thought (mental activity of any sort: memory, feeling, projection, dream, concept) is relegated to the set, "something perceived," -- bam, period, done. I don't tend to sort them all out. There's the receiving of something by something in the now -- "in" a vast silence. If I do rank them into "outside" or "inside," it seems not to have much impact on my insistence that any of them are real. This logical analysis seems to be but a weak spiritual technique at best. Giant brains may find their results will differ -- perhaps they can ride the logic train all the way to heaven.

geo> All perceptions, all and any events, all and any things, all some or no-things....fall in the same side - be it outside or inside, doesnt matter the name. Why anything generated by the brain is specially categorized as ineffable? And why the word "itself" attached to "brain". There is only one "itself"...for ONE good reason.

July 14, 2009

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> P ;Those perceptions provided by the five senses are

> judged objective (as if coming from an outside

> source) and those generated by the brain itself,

> can be judged ineffable.

>

> Edg: I get your yin-yang thang, but -- call it fuzzy instead of

philosophically precise if you wish -- to me, any thought (mental activity of

any sort: memory, feeling, projection, dream, concept) is relegated to the set,

" something perceived, " -- bam, period, done. I don't tend to sort them all out.

There's the receiving of something by something in the now -- " in " a vast

silence. If I do rank them into " outside " or " inside, " it seems not to have

much impact on my insistence that any of them are real. This logical analysis

seems to be but a weak spiritual technique at best. Giant brains may find their

results will differ -- perhaps they can ride the logic train all the way to

heaven.

>

> geo> All perceptions, all and any events, all and any things, all some or

no-things....fall in the same side - be it outside or inside, doesnt matter the

name. Why anything generated by the brain is specially categorized as ineffable?

And why the word " itself " attached to " brain " . There is only one " itself " ...for

ONE good reason.

solipsism?

..b b.b.

July 14, 2009

Just as no one actually becomes a rain drop, there is no actual entering of ALL THIS by the Absolute. One doesn't have to enter the image in the mirror to say: "that's me."

-edg-

How else? Any and all movements in any of the sense-fields are not separate from the organism - otherwise there would be no perception of them. The eyes, its lids, the cornea, retina, the nerve...are all felt by the organism and likewise all and any movements in any of those. The vibrations in the eardrums are not other then the eardrums. The image in the mirror is a sight - ans as such it is "me".

-geo-

July 14, 2009

P: There is a point in meditation where

awareness and unawareness become the same unknown. That

is the door which exits the verbal maze. Can we use

language without casting the long shadow of entification?

Edg: Um, typo? -- did you mean " identification? "

P: No typo.

Noun

Singular

entification

Plural

entifications

1. (rare) The action of giving objective existence to something

P: It seems the mind craves to give objective existence

to abstract ideas, and so we pursue things that exist

only in language.

I don't doubt that you had a profound vision

of unity that colors your language, and makes it

very seductive. That is wonderful, and very dangerous.

The Bible and many other religious scripts have that

color and perfume of the divine, yet most of their

concepts are no better than fables.

We need to distinguish that prophets, saints, mystics

and contemplatives of great caliber can enjoy perfect

union, and still spouse whatever their religion

consider true, virtuous, or sinful. So we need to

distinguish between enlightened, and liberated brains.

Many Christian mystics and contemplative were, in my

opinion, fully enlightened, but not liberated from

conceptuality.

I don't doubt, as I said above, that you live the

unitive life while still believing in an ultimate

identity that you call Identity, or Absolute.

The very concept of identity is per force a

limited one. Only no identification has no limits.

An entity, even an absolute one, is also per force

limited, only nothingness can be unlimited. Playing

a shell game with ever more rarefied concepts only

kicks the ball down field. So if you don't mind,

could you explain your need to identify with an

absolute.

Thanks for your enjoyable input below. We are

lucky to have you here.

Pete

Edg: I think so. Language is sort of like the chain they give to the elephant

to hold while they're walking through the village -- keeps the elephant from

grabbing everything else along the walk. The chain is a mantra for the

elephant. Keeping the brain busy but also safely busy is the job of the

spiritual technique -- it creates a droning that can allow the mind to drift

onto Identity out of sheer boredom, hee hee. The monkey mind jumps from branch

to branch, and when you force it to stay on one branch, it eagerly leaps into

the unknown just on the off chance it'll hit a branch elsewhere -- anything to

escape this one-branched-ness. Self inquiry avoids involving the mind in this

manner. One simply is put upon Identity instantly, fully, immediately -- for a

nanosecond (for newbies) or for a goodly gulp (for the practiced.) When one

asks: " Who am I " the only possible answer is silence. The mind waits for an

answer to that question, and the silence of that waitingness is the answer! I

love this.