Guest guest Report post Posted December 9, 2009 I just wrote and posted a msg to two K-fora where I said that the world consist of images and those images is all there is. The images are empty of content - still something though. What is nothingness? Nothing-ness is nothing-ness and there's nothing there to describe and write home about + no one to do it, and so nothing is just an other image, a thought, a word. -Lene Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > For no one to describe no thing is a Sisyph-US game > > Tubes are we? I would rather call it holes in nothing. > > > > -Lene > > > who's describing? > > we iz whats we iz. > > but OK.. > > let's call US: > > Holes 'R Us. > > let's run that up the flagpole and see if anyone salutes. > > now don't applaud. > > it's really nothing. > > .b b.b. > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 9, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > For no one to describe no thing is a Sisyph-US game > > Tubes are we? I would rather call it holes in nothing. > > > > -Lene > > What has never been described, has never been described. > > Period. > > Talk about nothing is talk about something. > > Something being called " nothing. " > > What a delusion it would be to think that because one continutally references " nothing " that one's talk is superior to other talk that is about " something. " > > But, humans certainly are funny animals. > > Smiles, > > Dan Right on Couple a years ago I would talk a lot about nothingness and emptiness and not distinguish between them. A person, familiar with buddhism, kindly told me a couple of times or more that in buddhism emptiness and nothingness are not the same. I never really understood the difference till last night. -Lene Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 9, 2009 - Lene Nisargadatta Wednesday, December 09, 2009 8:22 AM Re: Attachment Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > For no one to describe no thing is a Sisyph-US game > > Tubes are we? I would rather call it holes in nothing. > > > > -Lene > > What has never been described, has never been described. > > Period. > > Talk about nothing is talk about something. > > Something being called " nothing. " > > What a delusion it would be to think that because one continutally > references " nothing " that one's talk is superior to other talk that is > about " something. " > > But, humans certainly are funny animals. > > Smiles, > > Dan Right on Couple a years ago I would talk a lot about nothingness and emptiness and not distinguish between them. A person, familiar with buddhism, kindly told me a couple of times or more that in buddhism emptiness and nothingness are not the same. I never really understood the difference till last night. -Lene Just like " unknowable " does not mean inexistent or not-present, just that the mind can not grapple with it. -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 9, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > Lene > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, December 09, 2009 8:22 AM > Re: Attachment > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > For no one to describe no thing is a Sisyph-US game > > > Tubes are we? I would rather call it holes in nothing. > > > > > > -Lene > > > > What has never been described, has never been described. > > > > Period. > > > > Talk about nothing is talk about something. > > > > Something being called " nothing. " > > > > What a delusion it would be to think that because one continutally > > references " nothing " that one's talk is superior to other talk that is > > about " something. " > > > > But, humans certainly are funny animals. > > > > Smiles, > > > > Dan > > Right on > > Couple a years ago I would talk a lot about nothingness and > emptiness and not distinguish between them. > > A person, familiar with buddhism, kindly told me a couple of > times or more that in buddhism emptiness and nothingness are > not the same. > > I never really understood the difference till last night. > > -Lene > > Just like " unknowable " does not mean inexistent or not-present, just that > the mind can not grapple with it. > -geo- it seems capable of grappling with it enough that.. it can say that it can't grapple with it. better to be mindless. meanings have no meaning in mindlessness. that's the tops! ...without a bottom i may add. well..actually no. there's nothing to add nor subtract from THAT. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 9, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > geo > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, December 09, 2009 9:28 AM > Re: Re: Attachment > > > > > - > Lene > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, December 09, 2009 8:22 AM > Re: Attachment > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > For no one to describe no thing is a Sisyph-US game > > > Tubes are we? I would rather call it holes in nothing. > > > > > > -Lene > > > > What has never been described, has never been described. > > > > Period. > > > > Talk about nothing is talk about something. > > > > Something being called " nothing. " > > > > What a delusion it would be to think that because one continutally > > references " nothing " that one's talk is superior to other talk that is > > about " something. " > > > > But, humans certainly are funny animals. > > > > Smiles, > > > > Dan > > Right on > > Couple a years ago I would talk a lot about nothingness and > emptiness and not distinguish between them. > > A person, familiar with buddhism, kindly told me a couple of > times or more that in buddhism emptiness and nothingness are > not the same. > > I never really understood the difference till last night. > > -Lene > > Just like " unknowable " does not mean inexistent or not-present, just that > the mind can not grapple with it. > > Better: unknowable does not mean un-concern-able. Something like: " ahhh..it > is unknowable so lets drop it...its dead and gone. " , instead of considering > the genuine inquiry into the nature of what is. > -geo- there's a difference between the nature of what is and inquiry? my my! ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 9, 2009 - geo Nisargadatta Wednesday, December 09, 2009 9:28 AM Re: Re: Attachment - Lene Nisargadatta Wednesday, December 09, 2009 8:22 AM Re: Attachment Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > For no one to describe no thing is a Sisyph-US game > > Tubes are we? I would rather call it holes in nothing. > > > > -Lene > > What has never been described, has never been described. > > Period. > > Talk about nothing is talk about something. > > Something being called " nothing. " > > What a delusion it would be to think that because one continutally > references " nothing " that one's talk is superior to other talk that is > about " something. " > > But, humans certainly are funny animals. > > Smiles, > > Dan Right on Couple a years ago I would talk a lot about nothingness and emptiness and not distinguish between them. A person, familiar with buddhism, kindly told me a couple of times or more that in buddhism emptiness and nothingness are not the same. I never really understood the difference till last night. -Lene Just like " unknowable " does not mean inexistent or not-present, just that the mind can not grapple with it. Better: unknowable does not mean un-concern-able. Something like: " ahhh..it is unknowable so lets drop it...its dead and gone. " , instead of considering the genuine inquiry into the nature of what is. -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 9, 2009 - BobN Nisargadatta Wednesday, December 09, 2009 9:33 AM Re: Attachment Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > geo > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, December 09, 2009 9:28 AM > Re: Re: Attachment > > > > > - > Lene > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, December 09, 2009 8:22 AM > Re: Attachment > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > For no one to describe no thing is a Sisyph-US game > > > Tubes are we? I would rather call it holes in nothing. > > > > > > -Lene > > > > What has never been described, has never been described. > > > > Period. > > > > Talk about nothing is talk about something. > > > > Something being called " nothing. " > > > > What a delusion it would be to think that because one continutally > > references " nothing " that one's talk is superior to other talk that is > > about " something. " > > > > But, humans certainly are funny animals. > > > > Smiles, > > > > Dan > > Right on > > Couple a years ago I would talk a lot about nothingness and > emptiness and not distinguish between them. > > A person, familiar with buddhism, kindly told me a couple of > times or more that in buddhism emptiness and nothingness are > not the same. > > I never really understood the difference till last night. > > -Lene > > Just like " unknowable " does not mean inexistent or not-present, just that > the mind can not grapple with it. > > Better: unknowable does not mean un-concern-able. Something like: > " ahhh..it > is unknowable so lets drop it...its dead and gone. " , instead of > considering > the genuine inquiry into the nature of what is. > -geo- there's a difference between the nature of what is and inquiry? my my! ..b b.b. No. The difference is between disregarding the unknowable or not. -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 9, 2009 > > > For no one to describe no thing is a Sisyph-US game > > > Tubes are we? I would rather call it holes in nothing. > > > > > > -Lene > > > > What has never been described, has never been described. > > > > Period. > > > > Talk about nothing is talk about something. > > > > Something being called " nothing. " > > > > What a delusion it would be to think that because one continutally > > references " nothing " that one's talk is superior to other talk that is > > about " something. " > > > > But, humans certainly are funny animals. > > > > Smiles, > > > > Dan > > Right on > > Couple a years ago I would talk a lot about nothingness and > emptiness and not distinguish between them. > > A person, familiar with buddhism, kindly told me a couple of > times or more that in buddhism emptiness and nothingness are > not the same. > > I never really understood the difference till last night. > > -Lene > > Just like " unknowable " does not mean inexistent or not-present, just that > the mind can not grapple with it. > > Better: unknowable does not mean un-concern-able. Something like: > " ahhh..it > is unknowable so lets drop it...its dead and gone. " , instead of > considering > the genuine inquiry into the nature of what is. > -geo- there's a difference between the nature of what is and inquiry? my my! ..b b.b. No. The difference is between disregarding the unknowable or not. Is it that this " regarding " ...this " concern " ...this " seeing " is an issue that encompasses the heart, not just the brain? -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 9, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe wrote: > > Right on > > Couple a years ago I would talk a lot about nothingness and > emptiness and not distinguish between them. > > A person, familiar with buddhism, kindly told me a couple of > times or more that in buddhism emptiness and nothingness are > not the same. > > I never really understood the difference till last night. > > -Lene What happened last night? - D - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 9, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > For no one to describe no thing is a Sisyph-US game > > > Tubes are we? I would rather call it holes in nothing. > > > > > > -Lene > > > > What has never been described, has never been described. > > > > Period. > > > > Talk about nothing is talk about something. > > > > Something being called " nothing. " > > > > What a delusion it would be to think that because one continutally references " nothing " that one's talk is superior to other talk that is about " something. " > > > > But, humans certainly are funny animals. > > > > Smiles, > > > > Dan > > > > Right on > > Couple a years ago I would talk a lot about nothingness and > emptiness and not distinguish between them. > > A person, familiar with buddhism, kindly told me a couple of > times or more that in buddhism emptiness and nothingness are > not the same. > > I never really understood the difference till last night. > > -Lene P: And the difference is? > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 9, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > Right on > > > > Couple a years ago I would talk a lot about nothingness and > > emptiness and not distinguish between them. > > > > A person, familiar with buddhism, kindly told me a couple of > > times or more that in buddhism emptiness and nothingness are > > not the same. > > > > I never really understood the difference till last night. > > > > -Lene > > > What happened last night? > > - D - P: Nothing! > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 9, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > BobN > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, December 09, 2009 9:33 AM > Re: Attachment > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > geo > > Nisargadatta > > Wednesday, December 09, 2009 9:28 AM > > Re: Re: Attachment > > > > > > > > > > - > > Lene > > Nisargadatta > > Wednesday, December 09, 2009 8:22 AM > > Re: Attachment > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > For no one to describe no thing is a Sisyph-US game > > > > Tubes are we? I would rather call it holes in nothing. > > > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > What has never been described, has never been described. > > > > > > Period. > > > > > > Talk about nothing is talk about something. > > > > > > Something being called " nothing. " > > > > > > What a delusion it would be to think that because one continutally > > > references " nothing " that one's talk is superior to other talk that is > > > about " something. " > > > > > > But, humans certainly are funny animals. > > > > > > Smiles, > > > > > > Dan > > > > Right on > > > > Couple a years ago I would talk a lot about nothingness and > > emptiness and not distinguish between them. > > > > A person, familiar with buddhism, kindly told me a couple of > > times or more that in buddhism emptiness and nothingness are > > not the same. > > > > I never really understood the difference till last night. > > > > -Lene > > > > Just like " unknowable " does not mean inexistent or not-present, just that > > the mind can not grapple with it. > > > > Better: unknowable does not mean un-concern-able. Something like: > > " ahhh..it > > is unknowable so lets drop it...its dead and gone. " , instead of > > considering > > the genuine inquiry into the nature of what is. > > -geo- > > there's a difference between the nature of what is and inquiry? > > my my! > > .b b.b. > > No. The difference is between disregarding the unknowable or not. > -geo- " who " could possibly do either? silliness! ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 9, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > > > > For no one to describe no thing is a Sisyph-US game > > > > Tubes are we? I would rather call it holes in nothing. > > > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > What has never been described, has never been described. > > > > > > Period. > > > > > > Talk about nothing is talk about something. > > > > > > Something being called " nothing. " > > > > > > What a delusion it would be to think that because one continutally > > > references " nothing " that one's talk is superior to other talk that is > > > about " something. " > > > > > > But, humans certainly are funny animals. > > > > > > Smiles, > > > > > > Dan > > > > Right on > > > > Couple a years ago I would talk a lot about nothingness and > > emptiness and not distinguish between them. > > > > A person, familiar with buddhism, kindly told me a couple of > > times or more that in buddhism emptiness and nothingness are > > not the same. > > > > I never really understood the difference till last night. > > > > -Lene > > > > Just like " unknowable " does not mean inexistent or not-present, just that > > the mind can not grapple with it. > > > > Better: unknowable does not mean un-concern-able. Something like: > > " ahhh..it > > is unknowable so lets drop it...its dead and gone. " , instead of > > considering > > the genuine inquiry into the nature of what is. > > -geo- > > there's a difference between the nature of what is and inquiry? > > my my! > > .b b.b. > > No. The difference is between disregarding the unknowable or not. > Is it that this " regarding " ...this " concern " ...this " seeing " is an issue > that encompasses the heart, not just the brain? > -geo- the heart is just another organ. " meat " as you would have it. and both brains and hearts..unlike " memory " ...are available for sale.. at meat counters right here in North America. i still would appreciate it if you all least sent me a photo.. of that " memory " meat you said was available in Brazil. anyhow.. here in North America it also has not been seen.. that hearts are ocular organs. seeing doesn't encompass the heart up hear. eyes..and brains...seem to be.. the standard issue here for that sort of thing. damn it sounds as if the people...places...and things in Brazil.. are of the nature of Oz. are you a munchkin? ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 10, 2009 Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > BobN > > Nisargadatta > > Wednesday, December 09, 2009 9:33 AM > > Re: Attachment > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > geo > > > Nisargadatta > > > Wednesday, December 09, 2009 9:28 AM > > > Re: Re: Attachment > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > Lene > > > Nisargadatta > > > Wednesday, December 09, 2009 8:22 AM > > > Re: Attachment > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > For no one to describe no thing is a Sisyph-US game > > > > > Tubes are we? I would rather call it holes in nothing. > > > > > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > > > What has never been described, has never been described. > > > > > > > > Period. > > > > > > > > Talk about nothing is talk about something. > > > > > > > > Something being called " nothing. " > > > > > > > > What a delusion it would be to think that because one continutally > > > > references " nothing " that one's talk is superior to other talk that is > > > > about " something. " > > > > > > > > But, humans certainly are funny animals. > > > > > > > > Smiles, > > > > > > > > Dan > > > > > > Right on > > > > > > Couple a years ago I would talk a lot about nothingness and > > > emptiness and not distinguish between them. > > > > > > A person, familiar with buddhism, kindly told me a couple of > > > times or more that in buddhism emptiness and nothingness are > > > not the same. > > > > > > I never really understood the difference till last night. > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > Just like " unknowable " does not mean inexistent or not-present, just that > > > the mind can not grapple with it. > > > > > > Better: unknowable does not mean un-concern-able. Something like: > > > " ahhh..it > > > is unknowable so lets drop it...its dead and gone. " , instead of > > > considering > > > the genuine inquiry into the nature of what is. > > > -geo- > > > > there's a difference between the nature of what is and inquiry? > > > > my my! > > > > .b b.b. > > > > No. The difference is between disregarding the unknowable or not. > > -geo- > > > " who " could possibly do either? > > silliness! > > .b b.b. > No one does anything. Yet everything just happens in its own indomitable way, eh? Way out on a limb birds are chirping, wonder what they're saying that hasn't been said before.... Nite boys. Wendy tucks in her lost ones. ~A Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 10, 2009 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Right on > > > > > > Couple a years ago I would talk a lot about nothingness and > > > emptiness and not distinguish between them. > > > > > > A person, familiar with buddhism, kindly told me a couple of > > > times or more that in buddhism emptiness and nothingness are > > > not the same. > > > > > > I never really understood the difference till last night. > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > What happened last night? > > > > - D - > > P: Nothing! yeah but when Nothing really happens.. as a non-happening sort of non-thing.. which only Nothing ever and Nothing never.. can and cannot " do " as it doesn't anytime. that's really something. but it's never not happening " last night " ..or " today " .. or anytime anyway. but what a thrill for nobody! ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 10, 2009 Nisargadatta , " anna " <kailashana wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > BobN > > > Nisargadatta > > > Wednesday, December 09, 2009 9:33 AM > > > Re: Attachment > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > geo > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > Wednesday, December 09, 2009 9:28 AM > > > > Re: Re: Attachment > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > Lene > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > Wednesday, December 09, 2009 8:22 AM > > > > Re: Attachment > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > For no one to describe no thing is a Sisyph-US game > > > > > > Tubes are we? I would rather call it holes in nothing. > > > > > > > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > > > > > What has never been described, has never been described. > > > > > > > > > > Period. > > > > > > > > > > Talk about nothing is talk about something. > > > > > > > > > > Something being called " nothing. " > > > > > > > > > > What a delusion it would be to think that because one continutally > > > > > references " nothing " that one's talk is superior to other talk that is > > > > > about " something. " > > > > > > > > > > But, humans certainly are funny animals. > > > > > > > > > > Smiles, > > > > > > > > > > Dan > > > > > > > > Right on > > > > > > > > Couple a years ago I would talk a lot about nothingness and > > > > emptiness and not distinguish between them. > > > > > > > > A person, familiar with buddhism, kindly told me a couple of > > > > times or more that in buddhism emptiness and nothingness are > > > > not the same. > > > > > > > > I never really understood the difference till last night. > > > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > > > Just like " unknowable " does not mean inexistent or not-present, just that > > > > the mind can not grapple with it. > > > > > > > > Better: unknowable does not mean un-concern-able. Something like: > > > > " ahhh..it > > > > is unknowable so lets drop it...its dead and gone. " , instead of > > > > considering > > > > the genuine inquiry into the nature of what is. > > > > -geo- > > > > > > there's a difference between the nature of what is and inquiry? > > > > > > my my! > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > No. The difference is between disregarding the unknowable or not. > > > -geo- > > > > > > " who " could possibly do either? > > > > silliness! > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > No one does anything. Yet everything just happens in its own indomitable way, eh? > > Way out on a limb > birds are chirping, > wonder what they're saying > that hasn't been said before.... > > > Nite boys. Wendy tucks in her lost ones. > > ~A OK Tink! let's onward to Death and Dying! what an adventure THAT will be when it never happens in Never Land. let's never ever grow up. " cause that's when FUN is finally receded... and " they " begin to call the Knowing Ones the " lost " . as they became the " lost " to the Life that late they Knew... and they start worrying about their pensions and the government... and health care and...Death. oh bother! ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 10, 2009 Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " anna " <kailashana@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > BobN > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > Wednesday, December 09, 2009 9:33 AM > > > > Re: Attachment > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > geo > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > Wednesday, December 09, 2009 9:28 AM > > > > > Re: Re: Attachment > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > Lene > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > Wednesday, December 09, 2009 8:22 AM > > > > > Re: Attachment > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For no one to describe no thing is a Sisyph-US game > > > > > > > Tubes are we? I would rather call it holes in nothing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > > > > > > > What has never been described, has never been described. > > > > > > > > > > > > Period. > > > > > > > > > > > > Talk about nothing is talk about something. > > > > > > > > > > > > Something being called " nothing. " > > > > > > > > > > > > What a delusion it would be to think that because one continutally > > > > > > references " nothing " that one's talk is superior to other talk that is > > > > > > about " something. " > > > > > > > > > > > > But, humans certainly are funny animals. > > > > > > > > > > > > Smiles, > > > > > > > > > > > > Dan > > > > > > > > > > Right on > > > > > > > > > > Couple a years ago I would talk a lot about nothingness and > > > > > emptiness and not distinguish between them. > > > > > > > > > > A person, familiar with buddhism, kindly told me a couple of > > > > > times or more that in buddhism emptiness and nothingness are > > > > > not the same. > > > > > > > > > > I never really understood the difference till last night. > > > > > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > > > > > Just like " unknowable " does not mean inexistent or not-present, just that > > > > > the mind can not grapple with it. > > > > > > > > > > Better: unknowable does not mean un-concern-able. Something like: > > > > > " ahhh..it > > > > > is unknowable so lets drop it...its dead and gone. " , instead of > > > > > considering > > > > > the genuine inquiry into the nature of what is. > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > there's a difference between the nature of what is and inquiry? > > > > > > > > my my! > > > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > No. The difference is between disregarding the unknowable or not. > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > " who " could possibly do either? > > > > > > silliness! > > > > > > .b b.b. > > > > > > > > > No one does anything. Yet everything just happens in its own indomitable way, eh? > > > > Way out on a limb > > birds are chirping, > > wonder what they're saying > > that hasn't been said before.... > > > > > > Nite boys. Wendy tucks in her lost ones. > > > > ~A > > > OK Tink! > > let's onward to Death and Dying! > > what an adventure THAT will be when it never happens in Never Land. LOL - indeed, what an adventure that will be. Reminds me of Krishnamurtis saying that only the image can die. But then what is an image but a flash of nothing. The flash existed but it consisted of nothing. Heh ... I still like that expression -- holes in nothing. Good one. Only nothing was born so only nothing can die. -Lene > > let's never ever grow up. > > " cause that's when FUN is finally receded... > > and " they " begin to call the Knowing Ones the " lost " . > > as they became the " lost " to the Life that late they Knew... > > and they start worrying about their pensions and the government... > > and health care and...Death. > > oh bother! > > .b b.b. > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 10, 2009 Nisargadatta , " BobN " <Roberibus111 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > For no one to describe no thing is a Sisyph-US game > > > > Tubes are we? I would rather call it holes in nothing. > > > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > What has never been described, has never been described. > > > > > > Period. > > > > > > Talk about nothing is talk about something. > > > > > > Something being called " nothing. " > > > > > > What a delusion it would be to think that because one continutally references " nothing " that one's talk is superior to other talk that is about " something. " > > > > > > But, humans certainly are funny animals. > > > > > > Smiles, > > > > > > Dan > > > > > > > > Right on > > > > Couple a years ago I would talk a lot about nothingness and > > emptiness and not distinguish between them. > > > > A person, familiar with buddhism, kindly told me a couple of > > times or more that in buddhism emptiness and nothingness are > > not the same. > > > > I never really understood the difference till last night. > > > > -Lene > > > there are no " differences " in Oneness. > > there was no " last night " . > > there is no " today " . > > there's nothing to " understand " . > > have a nice breakfast.. > > though never a fast has there been. > > .b b.b. Alrighty, THE Mr. E Let us take a break then -Lene Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 10, 2009 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Right on > > > > > > Couple a years ago I would talk a lot about nothingness and > > > emptiness and not distinguish between them. > > > > > > A person, familiar with buddhism, kindly told me a couple of > > > times or more that in buddhism emptiness and nothingness are > > > not the same. > > > > > > I never really understood the difference till last night. > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > What happened last night? > > > > - D - > P: Nothing! Right. You have hereby answered your own question to me: what is the difference between emptiness and nothingness. Thanks vm - always appreciate it when others do the hard work for me ... if you will excuse du conventional lingo. -Lene Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 10, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Right on > > > > > > > > Couple a years ago I would talk a lot about nothingness and > > > > emptiness and not distinguish between them. > > > > > > > > A person, familiar with buddhism, kindly told me a couple of > > > > times or more that in buddhism emptiness and nothingness are > > > > not the same. > > > > > > > > I never really understood the difference till last night. > > > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > > > > What happened last night? > > > > > > - D - > > > > > P: Nothing! > > > Right. You have hereby answered your own question to me: > what is the difference between emptiness and nothingness. > Thanks vm - always appreciate it when others do the hard > work for me ... if you will excuse du conventional lingo. > > -Lene P: No, I didn't answer, but I could, since you don't want to. Emptiness in Buddhist is a concept that indicates lack of independent self-hood. When a Buddhist says, all things are empty, it means no thing can exist of itself, but comes into being in relation. This applies even to Buddhahood, and emptiness itself. Nothing means total absence, including the absence of the presence of absence. Nothingness, of course, doesn't exist. A perfect vacuum has been demonstrated to have the negative energy of virtual particles appearing and disappearing in space. Nothing is just another word for unconsciousness, total not knowing. Of course, I'm not saying my understanding is th same as yours. > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 11, 2009 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right on > > > > > > > > > > Couple a years ago I would talk a lot about nothingness and > > > > > emptiness and not distinguish between them. > > > > > > > > > > A person, familiar with buddhism, kindly told me a couple of > > > > > times or more that in buddhism emptiness and nothingness are > > > > > not the same. > > > > > > > > > > I never really understood the difference till last night. > > > > > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > > > > > > > What happened last night? > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > P: Nothing! > > > > > > Right. You have hereby answered your own question to me: > > what is the difference between emptiness and nothingness. > > Thanks vm - always appreciate it when others do the hard > > work for me ... if you will excuse du conventional lingo. > > > > -Lene > > P: No, I didn't answer, but I could, since you don't want > to. Emptiness in Buddhist is a concept that indicates > lack of independent self-hood. When a Buddhist says, all > things are empty, it means no thing can exist of itself, > but comes into being in relation. This applies even to > Buddhahood, and emptiness itself. Nothing means total absence, > including the absence of the presence of absence. > > Nothingness, of course, doesn't exist. A perfect vacuum has been > demonstrated to have the negative energy of virtual particles > appearing and disappearing in space. Nothing is just another > word for unconsciousness, total not knowing. Of course, I'm > not saying my understanding is th same as yours. Thanks for the explanation. Our understanding is not different from one another regarding emptiness and nothingness. Will try to remember the expression " self-hood " . I never know what to call it. The whole thing became clear to me in a dream this morning. I am talking about the difference between dream where self-hood is present - and dream when self-hood is absent, and there is but relating without a relator (self, observer, thinker etc.) Empty center. At a certain point in the dream a self-creature entered which created incredible havoc - because the self was like outside the dream and interfering with what was going on from its apparently outside-of-the-dream position. The result was conflict of course as always, when there is this distance between one and one, which makes for the illusion that one is two - but then the whole dream is an illusion already so what the heck - except the dream is much nicer, when there is only one present - when it is but one presence -- relating with it self. It (little red selfhood) came (not a surprise) in the form of thinking, speculation, reflection about what was taking place in the dream. So it seems that the idea of a separate self comes with self- reflection. Hm. As for nothingness - is unconsciousness - right. Total blank. -Lene Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 11, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right on > > > > > > > > > > > > Couple a years ago I would talk a lot about nothingness and > > > > > > emptiness and not distinguish between them. > > > > > > > > > > > > A person, familiar with buddhism, kindly told me a couple of > > > > > > times or more that in buddhism emptiness and nothingness are > > > > > > not the same. > > > > > > > > > > > > I never really understood the difference till last night. > > > > > > > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What happened last night? > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > > > > P: Nothing! > > > > > > > > > Right. You have hereby answered your own question to me: > > > what is the difference between emptiness and nothingness. > > > Thanks vm - always appreciate it when others do the hard > > > work for me ... if you will excuse du conventional lingo. > > > > > > -Lene > > > > P: No, I didn't answer, but I could, since you don't want > > to. Emptiness in Buddhist is a concept that indicates > > lack of independent self-hood. When a Buddhist says, all > > things are empty, it means no thing can exist of itself, > > but comes into being in relation. This applies even to > > Buddhahood, and emptiness itself. Nothing means total absence, > > including the absence of the presence of absence. > > > > Nothingness, of course, doesn't exist. A perfect vacuum has been > > demonstrated to have the negative energy of virtual particles > > appearing and disappearing in space. Nothing is just another > > word for unconsciousness, total not knowing. Of course, I'm > > not saying my understanding is th same as yours. > > > > Thanks for the explanation. > > Our understanding is not different from one another regarding > emptiness and nothingness. > > Will try to remember the expression " self-hood " . I never know > what to call it. > > The whole thing became clear to me in a dream this morning. I > am talking about the difference between dream where self-hood > is present - and dream when self-hood is absent, and there is > but relating without a relator (self, observer, thinker etc.) > Empty center. At a certain point in the dream a self-creature > entered which created incredible havoc - because the self was > like outside the dream and interfering with what was going on > from its apparently outside-of-the-dream position. The result > was conflict of course as always, when there is this distance > between one and one, which makes for the illusion that one is > two - but then the whole dream is an illusion already so what > the heck - except the dream is much nicer, when there is only > one present - when it is but one presence -- relating with it > self. > > It (little red selfhood) came (not a surprise) in the form of > thinking, speculation, reflection about what was taking place > in the dream. And most important - qua this creation of division which breeds confusion and conflict -- this " self " wants to be in control of the confusion which its very own entering the stage has created and what used to be " just a flow of a little of everything " now becomes a veritable battle-field. -Lene Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 11, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right on > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Couple a years ago I would talk a lot about nothingness and > > > > > > > emptiness and not distinguish between them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A person, familiar with buddhism, kindly told me a couple of > > > > > > > times or more that in buddhism emptiness and nothingness are > > > > > > > not the same. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I never really understood the difference till last night. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What happened last night? > > > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P: Nothing! > > > > > > > > > > > > Right. You have hereby answered your own question to me: > > > > what is the difference between emptiness and nothingness. > > > > Thanks vm - always appreciate it when others do the hard > > > > work for me ... if you will excuse du conventional lingo. > > > > > > > > -Lene > > > > > > P: No, I didn't answer, but I could, since you don't want > > > to. Emptiness in Buddhist is a concept that indicates > > > lack of independent self-hood. When a Buddhist says, all > > > things are empty, it means no thing can exist of itself, > > > but comes into being in relation. This applies even to > > > Buddhahood, and emptiness itself. Nothing means total absence, > > > including the absence of the presence of absence. > > > > > > Nothingness, of course, doesn't exist. A perfect vacuum has been > > > demonstrated to have the negative energy of virtual particles > > > appearing and disappearing in space. Nothing is just another > > > word for unconsciousness, total not knowing. Of course, I'm > > > not saying my understanding is th same as yours. > > > > > > > > Thanks for the explanation. > > > > Our understanding is not different from one another regarding > > emptiness and nothingness. > > > > Will try to remember the expression " self-hood " . I never know > > what to call it. > > > > The whole thing became clear to me in a dream this morning. I > > am talking about the difference between dream where self-hood > > is present - and dream when self-hood is absent, and there is > > but relating without a relator (self, observer, thinker etc.) > > Empty center. At a certain point in the dream a self-creature > > entered which created incredible havoc - because the self was > > like outside the dream and interfering with what was going on > > from its apparently outside-of-the-dream position. The result > > was conflict of course as always, when there is this distance > > between one and one, which makes for the illusion that one is > > two - but then the whole dream is an illusion already so what > > the heck - except the dream is much nicer, when there is only > > one present - when it is but one presence -- relating with it > > self. > > > > It (little red selfhood) came (not a surprise) in the form of > > thinking, speculation, reflection about what was taking place > > in the dream. > > > > And most important - qua this creation of division which breeds > confusion and conflict -- this " self " wants to be in control of > the confusion which its very own entering the stage has created > and what used to be " just a flow of a little of everything " now becomes a veritable battle-field. > > -Lene yet in Actuality... between " this creation of division " .. and.. " just a flow of a little of everything " .. not a Moment of difference Arises. the " real-time bastard.. is not other than the most subliminal Divine. let " Us " here together once again ponder the words of the sage.. Franklin-Merrell-Wolff.. baba's first..last...and only mentor: APHORISMS ON CONSCIOUSNESS-WITHOUT-AN-OBJECT • 1. Consciousness-without-an-object is. • 2. Before objects were, Consciousness-without-an-object is. • 3. Though objects seem to exist, Consciousness-without-an-object is. • 4. When objects vanish, yet remaining through all unaffected, Consciousness-without-an-object is. • 5. Outside of Consciousness-without-an-object nothing is. • 6. Within the bosom of Consciousness-without-an-object lies the power of awareness that projects objects. • 7. When objects are projected, the power of awareness as subject is presupposed, yet Consciousness-without-an-object remains unchanged. • 8. When consciousness of objects is born, then, likewise, consciousness of absence of objects arises. • 9. Consciousness of objects is the Universe. • 10. Consciousness of absence of objects is Nirvana. • 11. Within Consciousness-without-an-object lie both the Universe and Nirvana, yet to Consciousness-without-an-object these two are the same. • 12. Within Consciousness-without-an-object lies the seed of Time. • 13. When awareness cognizes Time then knowledge of Timelessness is born. • 14. To be aware of Time is to be aware of the Universe, and to be aware of the Universe is to be aware of Time. • 15. To realize Timelessness is to attain Nirvana. • 16. But for Consciousness-without-an-object there is no difference between Time and Timelessness. • 17. Within Consciousness-without-an-object lies the seed of the world-containing Space. • 18. When awareness cognizes the world-containing Space then knowledge of the Spatial Void is born. • 19. To be aware of the world-containing Space is to be aware of the Universe of Objects. • 20. To realize the Spatial Void is to awaken to Nirvanic Consciousness. • 21. But for Consciousness-without-an-object there is no difference between the world-containing Space and the Spatial Void. • 22. Within Consciousness-without-an-object lies the Seed of Law. • 23. When consciousness of objects is born the Law is invoked as a Force tending ever toward Equilibrium. • 24. All objects exist as tensions within Consciousness-without-an-object that tend ever to flow into their own complements or others. • 25. The ultimate effect of the flow of all objects into their complements is mutual cancellation in complete Equilibrium. • 26. Consciousness of the field of tensions is the Universe. • 27. Consciousness of Equilibrium is Nirvana. • 28. But for Consciousness-without-an-object there is neither tension nor Equilibrium. • 29. The state of tensions is the state of ever-becoming. • 30. Ever-becoming is endless-dying. • 31. So the state of consciousness of objects is a state of ever-renewing promises that pass into death at the moment of fulfillment. • 32. Thus when consciousness is attached to objects the agony of birth and death never ceases. • 33. In the state of Equilibrium where birth cancels death the deathless Bliss of Nirvana is realized. • 34. But Consciousness-without-an-object is neither agony nor bliss. • 35. Out of the Great Void, which is Consciousness-without-an-object, the Universe is creatively projected. • 36. The Universe as experienced is the created negation that ever resists. • 37. The creative act is bliss, the resistance, unending pain. • 38. Endless resistance is the Universe of experience, the agony of crucifixion. • 39. Ceaseless creativeness is Nirvana, the Bliss beyond human conceiving. • 40. But for Consciousness-without-an-object there is neither creativeness nor resistance. • 41. Ever-becoming and ever-ceasing-to-be are endless action. • 42. When ever-becoming cancels the ever-ceasing-to-be then Rest is realized. • 43. Ceaseless action is the Universe. • 44. Unending Rest is Nirvana. • 45. But Consciousness-without-an-object is neither Action nor Rest. • 46. When consciousness is attached to objects it is restricted through the forms imposed by the world-containing Space, by Time, and by Law. • 47. When consciousness is disengaged from objects, Liberation from the forms of the world-containing Space, of Time, and of Law is attained. • 48. Attachment to objects is consciousness bound within the Universe. • 49. Liberation from such attachment is the State of unlimited Nirvanic Freedom. • 50. But Consciousness-without-an-object is neither bondage nor freedom. • 51. Consciousness-without-an-object may be symbolized by a SPACE that is unaffected by the presence or absence of objects, for which there is neither Time nor Timelessness, neither a world-containing Space nor a Spatial Void, neither Tension nor Equilibrium, neither Resistance nor Creativeness, neither Agony nor Bliss, neither Action nor Rest, and neither Restriction nor Freedom. • 52. As the GREAT SPACE is not to be identified with the Universe, so neither is It to be identified with any Self. • 53. The GREAT SPACE is not God, but the comprehender of all Gods, as well as of all lesser creatures. • 54. The GREAT SPACE, or Consciousness-without-an-object, is the Sole Reality upon which all objects and all selves depend and derive their existence. • 55. The GREAT SPACE comprehends both the Path of the Universe and the Path of Nirvana. • 56. Beside the GREAT SPACE there is none other. • OM TAT SAT Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 11, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > yet in Actuality... > > between " this creation of division " .. > > and.. > > " just a flow of a little of everything " .. > > not a Moment of difference Arises. > > the " real-time bastard.. > > is not other than the most subliminal Divine. > > let " Us " here together once again ponder the words of the sage.. > > Franklin-Merrell-Wolff.. > > baba's first..last...and only mentor: > > APHORISMS ON CONSCIOUSNESS-WITHOUT-AN-OBJECT > > . > > 1. Consciousness-without-an-object is. > > ---Here we call it awareness, ultimate, absolute. > > . > > 2. Before objects were, Consciousness-without-an-object is. > > ---Awareness, here. > > . > > 3. Though objects seem to exist, Consciousness-without-an-object is. > > . > > 4. When objects vanish, yet remaining through all unaffected, > Consciousness-without-an-object is. > > . > > 5. Outside of Consciousness-without-an-object nothing is. > > . > > 6. Within the bosom of Consciousness-without-an-object lies the power of > awareness that projects objects. > > --Here we would say: Within the bosom of Awareness lies the power of > Consciousness that projects objects. > > . > > 7. When objects are projected, the power of awareness as subject is > presupposed, yet Consciousness-without-an-object remains unchanged. > > --Correct. Just swapp the words. > > . > > 8. When consciousness of objects is born, then, likewise, consciousness of > absence of objects arises. > > . > > 9. Consciousness of objects is the Universe. > > . > > 10. Consciousness of absence of objects is Nirvana. > > --Awareness, here. > > . > > 11. Within Consciousness-without-an-object lie both the Universe and > Nirvana, yet to Consciousness-without-an-object these two are the same. > > .---Awareness > > 12. Within Consciousness-without-an-object lies the seed of Time. > > . > > 13. When awareness cognizes Time then knowledge of Timelessness is born. > > . > > 14. To be aware of Time is to be aware of the Universe, and to be aware of > the Universe is to be aware of Time. > > --T be conscious of Time is to be conscious of the Universe, and to be > conscius of the Universe is to be conscious of Time. > > . > > 15. To realize Timelessness is to attain Nirvana. > > . > > 16. But for Consciousness-without-an-object there is no difference between > Time and Timelessness. > > . > > 17. Within Consciousness-without-an-object lies the seed of the > world-containing Space. > > . .---Yes. Within the absolute/awareness - which is beyond space. > > > 18. When awareness cognizes the world-containing Space then knowledge of the > Spatial Void is born. > > . > 19. To be aware of the world-containing Space is to be aware of the Universe > of Objects. > > . > > 20. To realize the Spatial Void is to awaken to Nirvanic Consciousness. > > . NIrvanic consciousness= awareness, absolute. > > 21. But for Consciousness-without-an-object there is no difference between > the world-containing Space and the Spatial Void. > > . > > 22. Within Consciousness-without-an-object lies the Seed of Law. > > .---Yes. " Law " is the impersonal flow of least resistence inherent to > awareness/absolute. > > 23. When consciousness of objects is born the Law is invoked as a Force > tending ever toward Equilibrium. > > . > > 24. All objects exist as tensions within Consciousness-without-an-object > that tend ever to flow into their own complements or others. > > . > > 25. The ultimate effect of the flow of all objects into their complements is > mutual cancellation in complete Equilibrium. > > . > > 26. Consciousness of the field of tensions is the Universe. > > . > > 27. Consciousness of Equilibrium is Nirvana. > > . > > 28. But for Consciousness-without-an-object there is neither tension nor > Equilibrium. > > . > > 29. The state of tensions is the state of ever-becoming. > > . > > 30. Ever-becoming is endless-dying. > > . > > 31. So the state of consciousness of objects is a state of ever-renewing > promises that pass into death at the moment of fulfillment. > > . > > 32. Thus when consciousness is attached to objects the agony of birth and > death never ceases. > > . > > 33. In the state of Equilibrium where birth cancels death the deathless > Bliss of Nirvana is realized. > > . > > 34. But Consciousness-without-an-object is neither agony nor bliss. > > . > > 35. Out of the Great Void, which is Consciousness-without-an-object, the > Universe is creatively projected. > > . > > 36. The Universe as experienced is the created negation that ever resists. > > . > > 37. The creative act is bliss, the resistance, unending pain. > > . > > 38. Endless resistance is the Universe of experience, the agony of > crucifixion. > > . > > 39. Ceaseless creativeness is Nirvana, the Bliss beyond human conceiving. > > . > > 40. But for Consciousness-without-an-object there is neither creativeness > nor resistance. > > . > > 41. Ever-becoming and ever-ceasing-to-be are endless action. > > . > > 42. When ever-becoming cancels the ever-ceasing-to-be then Rest is realized. > > . > > 43. Ceaseless action is the Universe. > > . > > 44. Unending Rest is Nirvana. > > . > > 45. But Consciousness-without-an-object is neither Action nor Rest. > > . > > 46. When consciousness is attached to objects it is restricted through the > forms imposed by the world-containing Space, by Time, and by Law. > > . > > 47. When consciousness is disengaged from objects, Liberation from the forms > of the world-containing Space, of Time, and of Law is attained. > > . > > 48. Attachment to objects is consciousness bound within the Universe. > > . > > 49. Liberation from such attachment is the State of unlimited Nirvanic > Freedom. > > . > > 50. But Consciousness-without-an-object is neither bondage nor freedom. > > . > > 51. Consciousness-without-an-object may be symbolized by a SPACE that is > unaffected by the presence or absence of objects, for which there is neither > Time nor Timelessness, neither a world-containing Space nor a Spatial Void, > neither Tension nor Equilibrium, neither Resistance nor Creativeness, > neither Agony nor Bliss, neither Action nor Rest, and neither Restriction > nor Freedom. > > . > > 52. As the GREAT SPACE is not to be identified with the Universe, so neither > is It to be identified with any Self. > > . > > 53. The GREAT SPACE is not God, but the comprehender of all Gods, as well as > of all lesser creatures. > > . > > 54. The GREAT SPACE, or Consciousness-without-an-object, is the Sole Reality > upon which all objects and all selves depend and derive their existence. > > . > > 55. The GREAT SPACE comprehends both the Path of the Universe and the Path > of Nirvana. > > . > > 56. Beside the GREAT SPACE there is none other. > > . > > OM TAT SAT > > geo>Well bob....all you have to do is change the expression > Consciousness-without-an-object to Awareness or Absolute and you will se > that many of us have been saying what is writen above. " many of us " ???? OMG! there's no use in even trying. ok geo. stay where you are. All Will Be Well.. all manner of " thing " will be well. Merry Christmas geo...and enjoy the dream fella... where " you " can continue to believe " you " have a handle on " THIS " . and " you " can continue to pridefully defend.. what " you " and " many of you " have been saying. why gosh the bet here is.. that you've been at this stuff for several weeks by now. no wonder you're an expert! no wonder " you " should be and should have been " listened to " ... by all the " others " that are not the " many of us " . actually..there's no " Wonder " in " you " at all. Ho Ho Ho! :-) ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 11, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > BobN > Nisargadatta > Friday, December 11, 2009 1:20 PM > Re: Attachment > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > yet in Actuality... > > > > between " this creation of division " .. > > > > and.. > > > > " just a flow of a little of everything " .. > > > > not a Moment of difference Arises. > > > > the " real-time bastard.. > > > > is not other than the most subliminal Divine. > > > > let " Us " here together once again ponder the words of the sage.. > > > > Franklin-Merrell-Wolff.. > > > > baba's first..last...and only mentor: > > > > APHORISMS ON CONSCIOUSNESS-WITHOUT-AN-OBJECT > > > > . > > > > 1. Consciousness-without-an-object is. > > > > ---Here we call it awareness, ultimate, absolute. > > > > . > > > > 2. Before objects were, Consciousness-without-an-object is. > > > > ---Awareness, here. > > > > . > > > > 3. Though objects seem to exist, Consciousness-without-an-object is. > > > > . > > > > 4. When objects vanish, yet remaining through all unaffected, > > Consciousness-without-an-object is. > > > > . > > > > 5. Outside of Consciousness-without-an-object nothing is. > > > > . > > > > 6. Within the bosom of Consciousness-without-an-object lies the power of > > awareness that projects objects. > > > > --Here we would say: Within the bosom of Awareness lies the power of > > Consciousness that projects objects. > > > > . > > > > 7. When objects are projected, the power of awareness as subject is > > presupposed, yet Consciousness-without-an-object remains unchanged. > > > > --Correct. Just swapp the words. > > > > . > > > > 8. When consciousness of objects is born, then, likewise, consciousness of > > absence of objects arises. > > > > . > > > > 9. Consciousness of objects is the Universe. > > > > . > > > > 10. Consciousness of absence of objects is Nirvana. > > > > --Awareness, here. > > > > . > > > > 11. Within Consciousness-without-an-object lie both the Universe and > > Nirvana, yet to Consciousness-without-an-object these two are the same. > > > > .---Awareness > > > > 12. Within Consciousness-without-an-object lies the seed of Time. > > > > . > > > > 13. When awareness cognizes Time then knowledge of Timelessness is born. > > > > . > > > > 14. To be aware of Time is to be aware of the Universe, and to be aware of > > the Universe is to be aware of Time. > > > > --T be conscious of Time is to be conscious of the Universe, and to be > > conscius of the Universe is to be conscious of Time. > > > > . > > > > 15. To realize Timelessness is to attain Nirvana. > > > > . > > > > 16. But for Consciousness-without-an-object there is no difference between > > Time and Timelessness. > > > > . > > > > 17. Within Consciousness-without-an-object lies the seed of the > > world-containing Space. > > > > . .---Yes. Within the absolute/awareness - which is beyond space. > > > > > > 18. When awareness cognizes the world-containing Space then knowledge of > > the > > Spatial Void is born. > > > > . > > 19. To be aware of the world-containing Space is to be aware of the > > Universe > > of Objects. > > > > . > > > > 20. To realize the Spatial Void is to awaken to Nirvanic Consciousness. > > > > . NIrvanic consciousness= awareness, absolute. > > > > 21. But for Consciousness-without-an-object there is no difference between > > the world-containing Space and the Spatial Void. > > > > . > > > > 22. Within Consciousness-without-an-object lies the Seed of Law. > > > > .---Yes. " Law " is the impersonal flow of least resistence inherent to > > awareness/absolute. > > > > 23. When consciousness of objects is born the Law is invoked as a Force > > tending ever toward Equilibrium. > > > > . > > > > 24. All objects exist as tensions within Consciousness-without-an-object > > that tend ever to flow into their own complements or others. > > > > . > > > > 25. The ultimate effect of the flow of all objects into their complements > > is > > mutual cancellation in complete Equilibrium. > > > > . > > > > 26. Consciousness of the field of tensions is the Universe. > > > > . > > > > 27. Consciousness of Equilibrium is Nirvana. > > > > . > > > > 28. But for Consciousness-without-an-object there is neither tension nor > > Equilibrium. > > > > . > > > > 29. The state of tensions is the state of ever-becoming. > > > > . > > > > 30. Ever-becoming is endless-dying. > > > > . > > > > 31. So the state of consciousness of objects is a state of ever-renewing > > promises that pass into death at the moment of fulfillment. > > > > . > > > > 32. Thus when consciousness is attached to objects the agony of birth and > > death never ceases. > > > > . > > > > 33. In the state of Equilibrium where birth cancels death the deathless > > Bliss of Nirvana is realized. > > > > . > > > > 34. But Consciousness-without-an-object is neither agony nor bliss. > > > > . > > > > 35. Out of the Great Void, which is Consciousness-without-an-object, the > > Universe is creatively projected. > > > > . > > > > 36. The Universe as experienced is the created negation that ever resists. > > > > . > > > > 37. The creative act is bliss, the resistance, unending pain. > > > > . > > > > 38. Endless resistance is the Universe of experience, the agony of > > crucifixion. > > > > . > > > > 39. Ceaseless creativeness is Nirvana, the Bliss beyond human conceiving. > > > > . > > > > 40. But for Consciousness-without-an-object there is neither creativeness > > nor resistance. > > > > . > > > > 41. Ever-becoming and ever-ceasing-to-be are endless action. > > > > . > > > > 42. When ever-becoming cancels the ever-ceasing-to-be then Rest is > > realized. > > > > . > > > > 43. Ceaseless action is the Universe. > > > > . > > > > 44. Unending Rest is Nirvana. > > > > . > > > > 45. But Consciousness-without-an-object is neither Action nor Rest. > > > > . > > > > 46. When consciousness is attached to objects it is restricted through the > > forms imposed by the world-containing Space, by Time, and by Law. > > > > . > > > > 47. When consciousness is disengaged from objects, Liberation from the > > forms > > of the world-containing Space, of Time, and of Law is attained. > > > > . > > > > 48. Attachment to objects is consciousness bound within the Universe. > > > > . > > > > 49. Liberation from such attachment is the State of unlimited Nirvanic > > Freedom. > > > > . > > > > 50. But Consciousness-without-an-object is neither bondage nor freedom. > > > > . > > > > 51. Consciousness-without-an-object may be symbolized by a SPACE that is > > unaffected by the presence or absence of objects, for which there is > > neither > > Time nor Timelessness, neither a world-containing Space nor a Spatial > > Void, > > neither Tension nor Equilibrium, neither Resistance nor Creativeness, > > neither Agony nor Bliss, neither Action nor Rest, and neither Restriction > > nor Freedom. > > > > . > > > > 52. As the GREAT SPACE is not to be identified with the Universe, so > > neither > > is It to be identified with any Self. > > > > . > > > > 53. The GREAT SPACE is not God, but the comprehender of all Gods, as well > > as > > of all lesser creatures. > > > > . > > > > 54. The GREAT SPACE, or Consciousness-without-an-object, is the Sole > > Reality > > upon which all objects and all selves depend and derive their existence. > > > > . > > > > 55. The GREAT SPACE comprehends both the Path of the Universe and the Path > > of Nirvana. > > > > . > > > > 56. Beside the GREAT SPACE there is none other. > > > > . > > > > OM TAT SAT > > > > geo>Well bob....all you have to do is change the expression > > Consciousness-without-an-object to Awareness or Absolute and you will se > > that many of us have been saying what is writen above. > > " many of us " ???? > > OMG! > > there's no use in even trying. > > ok geo. > > stay where you are. > > All Will Be Well.. > > all manner of " thing " will be well. > > Merry Christmas geo...and enjoy the dream fella... > > where " you " can continue to believe " you " have a handle on " THIS " . > > and " you " can continue to pridefully defend.. > > what " you " and " many of you " have been saying. > > why gosh the bet here is.. > > that you've been at this stuff for several weeks by now. > > no wonder you're an expert! > > no wonder " you " should be and should have been " listened to " ... > > by all the " others " that are not the " many of us " . > > actually..there's no " Wonder " in " you " at all. > > Ho Ho Ho! > > :-) > > .b b.b. > > OK....SOME of us is better. > But would it be too big a leap to swapp those expressions one for the other? > Yes....it seems it would for you. > -geo- oh no geo. i'm sure you're right. damn straight man! you know if i just changed a few words around then the words of.. oh i don't know..let's say.. Socrates..Plato..Aristotle..Plotinus..Leibniz..Berkley..Hume.. Rousseau..Spinoza..Kant...Locke..Hegel..Fichte..Kierkegaard.. Nietzsche..James...Russell..Wittgenstein..Heidegger..Sartre.. yoiu know..that crew.. well hell that's what you or many of you have been saying all along. and if you changed a few notes around.. my songs are exactly like the works of.. Bach..Beethoven...Mozart..Handel...Tchaikovsky..Haydn.. and most of the others. look geo.. i'm not going to hold back exactly how i feel about what you said. you're a goddamn idiot. grow up.... and maybe grow some brains for crizsakes! ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
