Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org

Hoping someone can help me understand a question I have

Rate this topic


Guest guest

Recommended Posts

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote:

>

>

> Hi Lene -

>

> > > > No, no, no :) Someone is also an illusion.

> > >

> > > an illusion compared with what?

> > >

> > > what is really so?

> > >

> > > > And - there is no belief involved in my argumentation.

> > >

> > > then, there is no argument.

> > >

> > > > Yes, the illusory me makes illusory points in the illusion.

> > >

> > > how do you know there is an illusion?

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > :) Hm, hm, what to say, what to say? I call it an illusion

> > because it's ungraspable, the moment is, the now, that you

> > called " this here " .

>

> If I understand this moment as not other than who I am, then there isn't an

illusion in this moment for me - and this is all that is.

>

> Grasping ceases.

>

> So, the illusion is my own grasping at what can't be grasped.

>

> There's no one else involved in what makes the illusion.

>

> That there would be someone else involved, is the illusion.

>

> > > I agree actually that there is only " this here " but because

> > it's ungraspable, untouchable, meaning I cannot say what it

> > is, I call it meaningless, absurd, a dream, an illusion. It

> > is all just names for what I do not understand respectively

> > know.

>

> Well, to call it something requires a namer of it, apart from the named.

>

> And for whom is it to be named?

>

> Someone else to whom it will be communicated?

>

> No - that is the illusion.

>

> It is not understood as an object - there are no objects - so, in that sense,

it is no-thing.

>

> Yet, it is also what is called " movement, life, awareness, experience " - so

this no-thing that isn't named or communicated, is not an absence of anything.

Nothing is missing or left out.

>

> > This was in the beginning :)

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > The illusion is the only reality. I did not say the illusion

> > > > or the world of images did not exist - my point was that out

> > > > side of the illusion, there is nothing -- not any thing real

> > > > or sacred or holy or godly etc, no it, no that, no awareness

> > > > - just plain naught.

> > >

> > > how do you know there is a world of images?

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > An image of a cow in a meadow - same image outside as inside.

> > No difference. Such images is/are me, the world that is me :)

>

> Yes, the image is me, making myself as a form to experience.

>

> There is no self in the image, as the image, or outside the image.

>

> So, it is " empty " - I wouldn't say " absurd " - because there is beauty to the

emptiness, stillness.

>

> > When I close my eyes I see no cows anywhere -- but then there

> > are sounds and smells and tastes and feelings - like the wind

> > on the skin - and I name it all and the name is the image and

> > this labelling has taken place for eternity.

>

> Yes.

>

> Even without labeling, the feeling of the wind on skin, even at the moment of

experience - it is a feeling-image.

>

> Not a word-image.

>

> Still an imaged sensing.

>

> It is impossible

> > to say what was and is - if anything - before and after these

> > images, before and after the names - the words. They probably

> > appear out of - right: nothing, nowhere - and that makes them

> > be nothing taking place nowhere - I find myself to be nothing

> > in the middle of nowhere.

>

> Yes.

>

> And this nothing simply means: no identity. No identity for me, therefore no

identities out there. No " out there " because no identifiable being " in here " to

locate anything " out there " in relation.

>

> Nothing known - but there is no grasping at having it be known.

>

> Even to say " nothing " is saying something, is providing a name, a descriptor.

>

> > This was in the middle :)

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > > if an image is saying there are images, how is it known that the image

took place that said this?

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > The answer lies in the question. The image is all there is.

> > The image is the asking the question, and the answering the

> > question. The image is the knowing that there is nothing to

> > know, for the image is the knowing that there is but images.

> >

> > This was in the end :)

>

> Makes sense to me.

>

> And this would be to understand images as neither occurring nor not occurring.

>

> So, " something happened " or " nothing happened " are images.

>

> >

> > > indeed, there is no inside or outside involved.

> > >

> > > therefore, there isn't any image of anything.

> > >

> > > nothing for there to be an image of.

> >

> >

> >

> > Correct. The image is an image made of nothing for there is

> > but nothing to form images of - your " something " is nothing

> > is image is spin and its content is nothing.

> >

> > And that is not what you meant - I know :) Or -- could I be

> > wrong? ;) Nah ardly ... heh heh.

>

> That seems pretty on-target to what I meant.

>

> That anything would be made of something is an aspect of illusion.

>

> The idea that there is nothing because there isn't anything from which

something is made, is equally illusion.

>

> There simply is no place to land - neither " something " nor " nothing " nor

something other than something or nothing.

>

> > > > We all know what an illusion is. Hocus-pocus - tricks - not

> > > > real. My point is that the hocus-pocus is all there is, and

> > > > real as such of course.

> > >

> > > okay.

> > >

> > > so look at this image at the instant of knowing it as image.

> > >

> > > how long does it last?

> > >

> > > does it have any duration?

> > >

> > > so, the illusion is that there is an illusion.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Shit, you are too learned, too much intellect/intelligence?

> > Boy oh boy oh well you shut me up with that one - congrats!

> > I figured it would be fun to play with you, heh.

>

> I merely express how it is for me in words, if there were any communicating of

this to someone else.

>

> But, there isn't any other involved.

>

> So the communing through words is as it is.

>

> Or not.

>

> The words just come and I type - so if there is intelligence, it is simply

that the moment as is, is " intelligent. "

>

> Whatever intelligence you see " out there " from " someone's words " is just

intelligence you find from/of yourself in the moment of understanding.

>

> But, it could be the intelligence of a waterfall, or a breeze blowing. So,

human intelligence and the intelligence of " what is " are not-two.

>

> Certainly, a word like " intelligence " is just another descriptor, but to keep

reiterating that there are no descriptors, isn't necessary. Because to say

" there are no descriptors " is also a kind of description.

>

> And what is " unintelligence " ? It could only be mistaking what is. To be

involved in what is illusory as if it were real. That is the only

unintelligence, in terms of what we're discussing. Of course, there are

measures that people make for the intelligence of people - but that is something

different than what we are looking at. This intelligence does not reside in a

person.

>

> >

> > > there isn't any image of anything, nor something for there to be an image

of.

> > >

> > > thus, things are nothing all along.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > You win again. 2-nil.

>

> Oh, we're playing tennis? Tennis with words? I didn't realize that.

>

> Well, if I lose, I win.

>

> Like it says in the Tao te Ching, one comes to this through loss upon loss.

>

> To lose one's position, one's identity, even any sense that one knew one's own

being in any objectifiable way, or even that there is " nothing. "

>

> >

> >

> >

> > > and what is this nothing that is no-thing, that is all things?

> >

> >

> >

> > But you said it already??? It is nothing! Why did you ask

> > that question then?

>

> Because it isn't truly answerable.

>

> That is why.

>

> > > it is not nothing - there is no lack of anything to it.

> >

> >

> >

> > Hellow - if you cannot settle with there being nothing and

> > only nothing, not even images, not even illusions, you are

> > violating your own teaching, not? :)

>

> Not really.

>

> Because those kind of descriptors such as " nothing and only nothing " ... also

dissolve.

>

> Saying it is " not this, not that " - well, it isn't a matter of knowing that,

either.

>

> > > > I have been looking for a source, a foundation, a ground of

> > > > existance/ life/ being - for years - and found no such.

> > >

> > > agreed.

> > >

> > > no need for such.

> > >

> > > > Some have told me that it is important to have a strong and

> > > > solid foundation, or else the house built on the foundation

> > > > will not stand.

> > >

> > > > And then I find out that there is no foundation, no source,

> > > > no ground.

> > > >

> > > > How can there be a house then?

> > >

> > > agreed.

> > >

> > > and to say this sourceless being is nothing is just as off-course as

saying it is something.

> >

> >

> >

> > Wowowo wait a second - my point was that without a source to

> > being - there IS no being! You see, all images rest on point

> > zero, that is why they are called images. If there were just

> > one solid teeny weeny little point to being - on which a one

> > and whole and irrevocably existing world could stand - there

> > would NOT be nothing appearing as images -- there would be a

> > reality which was a something - and which we as these things

> > - somethings - would have no choice but take seriously - and

> > that would indeed be a good reason to save the world because

> > it would indeed be in a miserable state. IF ... IF ... IF :)

>

> Okay.

>

> Well, my point is that with no source, there isn't any ground, and without any

ground, there isn't any basis to say that something isn't.

>

> You seem to see a world as existing, and then understand it as an illusion.

>

> Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you.

>

> But if the world I see isn't there, then there is just this being, which is

who I am - a being that involves or has no being. It is paradox, rather than

negation.

>

> So, I'm basically agreeing with you and just pointing out that, just as it's

not that something is there, it's not that nothing is there.

>

> The world is not affirmed nor denied.

>

> Just saying the world doesn't exist, is denial of existence.

>

> Saying there is something to be done for the world, is affirmation of its

existence.

>

> Neither denial nor affirmation makes sense at this point (that has no point)

that we're at - where there isn't any separable you or I to see things either as

they are, or as not being, or as some other way.

>

> > I thought we were in agreement? You've played a win-win game

> > recently, insisting that nothing is nothing - not even image

> > - not even illusion - and now you're suggesting that nothing

> > is not plain nothing?

>

> Well, I'm not suggesting that there is something other than nothing - but I'm

not wanting to see it as some kind of " absolute nothing " either, as if that

could be held onto as a descriptor.

>

> You said " ungraspable " earlier - which seems on-target.

>

> > > to get stuck on " nothing " is an action, a holding to a concept.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Not. I have said it all along - there are images - the whole

> > " thing " is nothing -- the whole " thing " is an illusion and a

> > very tangible such. There is feeling the keys of this kboard

> > on which fingers are playing with typing letters. It feels!

>

> Well, this is the very point.

>

> What is the feeling of typing when there isn't any illusion, when I'm not

fooling myself, when there is no " self or other " ...

>

> It is not " me " touching the keyboard apart from me.

>

> So, what is it?

>

> When there isn't the image - nor any lack of an image?

>

> It isn't even " nothing " ... not even that ...

>

> If it is " nothing, " it is " all nothing " - so the nothing and all are not-two.

The moment of typing, as it is ...

>

> > It is just that the feel has no duration, does not last - as

> > you said it yourself upstairs. It is skin, it is spin, it is

> > transparent and because it cannot be held on to, grasped, it

> > is impossible to state for sure that it IS and yet! it keeps

> > happening and happening and so on ...

>

> It is the sense of happening that is being inquired into here.

>

> When there is no duration whatsoever, there is no illusion, nothing happening,

no sense that this happened before and is happening again - and there is no

negation, no sense of nothing, no affirmation that " this is nothing. "

>

> and for lack of better

> > words thought calls all of it imaginary, yet tangible events

> > - thought itself being a such. Thought can not even say what

> > itself is, ha ha ha :) so it says about itself, that is must

> > be an image - no solid reality to be found anywhere, it says

> > too. And then it finishes off by saying - do not shoot me, I

> > am just the messenger and total transparency too of course -

> > so no need to wipe off the dust of the old WWII shotgun ;)

>

> Yes.

>

> It simply fades away into all-nothing, which is all there ever was or could

be.

>

> > > to think that " nothing " describes what is better than some other

description, is an action, a holding.

> > >

> > > nothing to hold to.

> > >

> > > not even " nothing " ...

> > >

> > >

> > > > Its very simple and there are countless ways to illustrate

> > > > it.

> > > >

> > > > Nomore. I have said what I wanted to say and made my point.

> > > >

> > > > O, and I am very stubborn but that is okay as long as it's

> > > > clear that Something is an illusion. You are stubborn too,

> > > > so we ought to play well together in the illusion, heh :)

> > >

> > > There is no illusion except to the extent that I am real and mistake

something I am not, for who I am.

> > >

> > > When no mistake is made, there isn't any illusion.

> > >

> > > I play freely, as I am played.

> > >

> > > > If you want to call the illusion by the name of something,

> > > > go on and be my guest :)

> > >

> > > Whatever is named, has been given a name.

> > >

> > > Either the name of nothing or of something.

> > >

> > > I am your guest and you are mine.

> > >

> > > In the land with no subject and no object.

> > >

> > > Twinkle twinkle little star, what a wonder that you are.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Well, thanks, and so is you -- that much we can agree on :)

> >

> > Stardust - all stardust - none of it solid in any way or for

> > as long as it takes to name it - and yet it is named. Enigma.

> > Wonder. Illusion. Image. Dream. A dear nobody has many names.

> >

> > Bye for now :)

>

> Yes, a beginingless and endless twinkling, never named, never identified,

never having any identities in it.

>

> - Dan -

 

 

 

yes yes ..Oh My Goodness YES!

 

it's sooooooooooooo important and INVIOLABLY WHOLE in WHOLENESSNESS!

 

an.. " UNDERSTANDINGNESS " TWINKLING...by gosh by golly!

 

and dabbo's right here to tell everyone all about it.

 

it can't be explained nor talked about..

 

but little dabbo has an INSIDE SCOOP!

 

and he MUST share this incredible INSIGHT that only he possesses.

 

and miracle of Miracles....

 

he accomplishes this even though he's not here...

 

he's IMAGINARY but pretty darn smart nonetheless he'll have you know.

 

Gee Gosh dabbo is swell.

 

and Wowzer! does he ever impress himself.

 

LOL!

 

..b b.b.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dan - I have some translating to do today and your message is

not quite exactly a brief one, so have no choice but wait and

read it properly soon as possible.

 

I said I only read the Heart Sutra - I just reread it, and no

- not true; the sutra I found most interesting then must have

been the Diamond Sutra. Pardon.

 

In the most ingenious of ways (according to the ever failing

memory (there is nothing to remember, therefore memory fails

to serve correct reconstruction of what did not ever happen)

it presents evidence that nothing is happening. It is a tit-

bit for someone like me.

 

I am, I am not

I neither am nor am not

 

I also read some arguments amongst the " sages " , as to whether

or not nothing is nothing or not, heh :) We ever seem to want

for there to be at the very least a invisible " spirit " or god

creature or likewise, but where this spirit is supposed to be

there is just - void. It is not void OF something, it is just

and simply VOID and the void is the apparition. So - there is

NO void and NO apparition.

 

And I am not a sage too - in me nown right - tee hee.

 

Till later then - fly little butter fly fly :)

 

-Lene

 

 

 

 

 

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote:

>

>

> Hi Lene -

>

> > > > No, no, no :) Someone is also an illusion.

> > >

> > > an illusion compared with what?

> > >

> > > what is really so?

> > >

> > > > And - there is no belief involved in my argumentation.

> > >

> > > then, there is no argument.

> > >

> > > > Yes, the illusory me makes illusory points in the illusion.

> > >

> > > how do you know there is an illusion?

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > :) Hm, hm, what to say, what to say? I call it an illusion

> > because it's ungraspable, the moment is, the now, that you

> > called " this here " .

>

> If I understand this moment as not other than who I am, then there isn't an

illusion in this moment for me - and this is all that is.

>

> Grasping ceases.

>

> So, the illusion is my own grasping at what can't be grasped.

>

> There's no one else involved in what makes the illusion.

>

> That there would be someone else involved, is the illusion.

>

> > > I agree actually that there is only " this here " but because

> > it's ungraspable, untouchable, meaning I cannot say what it

> > is, I call it meaningless, absurd, a dream, an illusion. It

> > is all just names for what I do not understand respectively

> > know.

>

> Well, to call it something requires a namer of it, apart from the named.

>

> And for whom is it to be named?

>

> Someone else to whom it will be communicated?

>

> No - that is the illusion.

>

> It is not understood as an object - there are no objects - so, in that sense,

it is no-thing.

>

> Yet, it is also what is called " movement, life, awareness, experience " - so

this no-thing that isn't named or communicated, is not an absence of anything.

Nothing is missing or left out.

>

> > This was in the beginning :)

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > The illusion is the only reality. I did not say the illusion

> > > > or the world of images did not exist - my point was that out

> > > > side of the illusion, there is nothing -- not any thing real

> > > > or sacred or holy or godly etc, no it, no that, no awareness

> > > > - just plain naught.

> > >

> > > how do you know there is a world of images?

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > An image of a cow in a meadow - same image outside as inside.

> > No difference. Such images is/are me, the world that is me :)

>

> Yes, the image is me, making myself as a form to experience.

>

> There is no self in the image, as the image, or outside the image.

>

> So, it is " empty " - I wouldn't say " absurd " - because there is beauty to the

emptiness, stillness.

>

> > When I close my eyes I see no cows anywhere -- but then there

> > are sounds and smells and tastes and feelings - like the wind

> > on the skin - and I name it all and the name is the image and

> > this labelling has taken place for eternity.

>

> Yes.

>

> Even without labeling, the feeling of the wind on skin, even at the moment of

experience - it is a feeling-image.

>

> Not a word-image.

>

> Still an imaged sensing.

>

> It is impossible

> > to say what was and is - if anything - before and after these

> > images, before and after the names - the words. They probably

> > appear out of - right: nothing, nowhere - and that makes them

> > be nothing taking place nowhere - I find myself to be nothing

> > in the middle of nowhere.

>

> Yes.

>

> And this nothing simply means: no identity. No identity for me, therefore no

identities out there. No " out there " because no identifiable being " in here " to

locate anything " out there " in relation.

>

> Nothing known - but there is no grasping at having it be known.

>

> Even to say " nothing " is saying something, is providing a name, a descriptor.

>

> > This was in the middle :)

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > > if an image is saying there are images, how is it known that the image

took place that said this?

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > The answer lies in the question. The image is all there is.

> > The image is the asking the question, and the answering the

> > question. The image is the knowing that there is nothing to

> > know, for the image is the knowing that there is but images.

> >

> > This was in the end :)

>

> Makes sense to me.

>

> And this would be to understand images as neither occurring nor not occurring.

>

> So, " something happened " or " nothing happened " are images.

>

> >

> > > indeed, there is no inside or outside involved.

> > >

> > > therefore, there isn't any image of anything.

> > >

> > > nothing for there to be an image of.

> >

> >

> >

> > Correct. The image is an image made of nothing for there is

> > but nothing to form images of - your " something " is nothing

> > is image is spin and its content is nothing.

> >

> > And that is not what you meant - I know :) Or -- could I be

> > wrong? ;) Nah ardly ... heh heh.

>

> That seems pretty on-target to what I meant.

>

> That anything would be made of something is an aspect of illusion.

>

> The idea that there is nothing because there isn't anything from which

something is made, is equally illusion.

>

> There simply is no place to land - neither " something " nor " nothing " nor

something other than something or nothing.

>

> > > > We all know what an illusion is. Hocus-pocus - tricks - not

> > > > real. My point is that the hocus-pocus is all there is, and

> > > > real as such of course.

> > >

> > > okay.

> > >

> > > so look at this image at the instant of knowing it as image.

> > >

> > > how long does it last?

> > >

> > > does it have any duration?

> > >

> > > so, the illusion is that there is an illusion.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Shit, you are too learned, too much intellect/intelligence?

> > Boy oh boy oh well you shut me up with that one - congrats!

> > I figured it would be fun to play with you, heh.

>

> I merely express how it is for me in words, if there were any communicating of

this to someone else.

>

> But, there isn't any other involved.

>

> So the communing through words is as it is.

>

> Or not.

>

> The words just come and I type - so if there is intelligence, it is simply

that the moment as is, is " intelligent. "

>

> Whatever intelligence you see " out there " from " someone's words " is just

intelligence you find from/of yourself in the moment of understanding.

>

> But, it could be the intelligence of a waterfall, or a breeze blowing. So,

human intelligence and the intelligence of " what is " are not-two.

>

> Certainly, a word like " intelligence " is just another descriptor, but to keep

reiterating that there are no descriptors, isn't necessary. Because to say

" there are no descriptors " is also a kind of description.

>

> And what is " unintelligence " ? It could only be mistaking what is. To be

involved in what is illusory as if it were real. That is the only

unintelligence, in terms of what we're discussing. Of course, there are

measures that people make for the intelligence of people - but that is something

different than what we are looking at. This intelligence does not reside in a

person.

>

> >

> > > there isn't any image of anything, nor something for there to be an image

of.

> > >

> > > thus, things are nothing all along.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > You win again. 2-nil.

>

> Oh, we're playing tennis? Tennis with words? I didn't realize that.

>

> Well, if I lose, I win.

>

> Like it says in the Tao te Ching, one comes to this through loss upon loss.

>

> To lose one's position, one's identity, even any sense that one knew one's own

being in any objectifiable way, or even that there is " nothing. "

>

> >

> >

> >

> > > and what is this nothing that is no-thing, that is all things?

> >

> >

> >

> > But you said it already??? It is nothing! Why did you ask

> > that question then?

>

> Because it isn't truly answerable.

>

> That is why.

>

> > > it is not nothing - there is no lack of anything to it.

> >

> >

> >

> > Hellow - if you cannot settle with there being nothing and

> > only nothing, not even images, not even illusions, you are

> > violating your own teaching, not? :)

>

> Not really.

>

> Because those kind of descriptors such as " nothing and only nothing " ... also

dissolve.

>

> Saying it is " not this, not that " - well, it isn't a matter of knowing that,

either.

>

> > > > I have been looking for a source, a foundation, a ground of

> > > > existance/ life/ being - for years - and found no such.

> > >

> > > agreed.

> > >

> > > no need for such.

> > >

> > > > Some have told me that it is important to have a strong and

> > > > solid foundation, or else the house built on the foundation

> > > > will not stand.

> > >

> > > > And then I find out that there is no foundation, no source,

> > > > no ground.

> > > >

> > > > How can there be a house then?

> > >

> > > agreed.

> > >

> > > and to say this sourceless being is nothing is just as off-course as

saying it is something.

> >

> >

> >

> > Wowowo wait a second - my point was that without a source to

> > being - there IS no being! You see, all images rest on point

> > zero, that is why they are called images. If there were just

> > one solid teeny weeny little point to being - on which a one

> > and whole and irrevocably existing world could stand - there

> > would NOT be nothing appearing as images -- there would be a

> > reality which was a something - and which we as these things

> > - somethings - would have no choice but take seriously - and

> > that would indeed be a good reason to save the world because

> > it would indeed be in a miserable state. IF ... IF ... IF :)

>

> Okay.

>

> Well, my point is that with no source, there isn't any ground, and without any

ground, there isn't any basis to say that something isn't.

>

> You seem to see a world as existing, and then understand it as an illusion.

>

> Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you.

>

> But if the world I see isn't there, then there is just this being, which is

who I am - a being that involves or has no being. It is paradox, rather than

negation.

>

> So, I'm basically agreeing with you and just pointing out that, just as it's

not that something is there, it's not that nothing is there.

>

> The world is not affirmed nor denied.

>

> Just saying the world doesn't exist, is denial of existence.

>

> Saying there is something to be done for the world, is affirmation of its

existence.

>

> Neither denial nor affirmation makes sense at this point (that has no point)

that we're at - where there isn't any separable you or I to see things either as

they are, or as not being, or as some other way.

>

> > I thought we were in agreement? You've played a win-win game

> > recently, insisting that nothing is nothing - not even image

> > - not even illusion - and now you're suggesting that nothing

> > is not plain nothing?

>

> Well, I'm not suggesting that there is something other than nothing - but I'm

not wanting to see it as some kind of " absolute nothing " either, as if that

could be held onto as a descriptor.

>

> You said " ungraspable " earlier - which seems on-target.

>

> > > to get stuck on " nothing " is an action, a holding to a concept.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Not. I have said it all along - there are images - the whole

> > " thing " is nothing -- the whole " thing " is an illusion and a

> > very tangible such. There is feeling the keys of this kboard

> > on which fingers are playing with typing letters. It feels!

>

> Well, this is the very point.

>

> What is the feeling of typing when there isn't any illusion, when I'm not

fooling myself, when there is no " self or other " ...

>

> It is not " me " touching the keyboard apart from me.

>

> So, what is it?

>

> When there isn't the image - nor any lack of an image?

>

> It isn't even " nothing " ... not even that ...

>

> If it is " nothing, " it is " all nothing " - so the nothing and all are not-two.

The moment of typing, as it is ...

>

> > It is just that the feel has no duration, does not last - as

> > you said it yourself upstairs. It is skin, it is spin, it is

> > transparent and because it cannot be held on to, grasped, it

> > is impossible to state for sure that it IS and yet! it keeps

> > happening and happening and so on ...

>

> It is the sense of happening that is being inquired into here.

>

> When there is no duration whatsoever, there is no illusion, nothing happening,

no sense that this happened before and is happening again - and there is no

negation, no sense of nothing, no affirmation that " this is nothing. "

>

> and for lack of better

> > words thought calls all of it imaginary, yet tangible events

> > - thought itself being a such. Thought can not even say what

> > itself is, ha ha ha :) so it says about itself, that is must

> > be an image - no solid reality to be found anywhere, it says

> > too. And then it finishes off by saying - do not shoot me, I

> > am just the messenger and total transparency too of course -

> > so no need to wipe off the dust of the old WWII shotgun ;)

>

> Yes.

>

> It simply fades away into all-nothing, which is all there ever was or could

be.

>

> > > to think that " nothing " describes what is better than some other

description, is an action, a holding.

> > >

> > > nothing to hold to.

> > >

> > > not even " nothing " ...

> > >

> > >

> > > > Its very simple and there are countless ways to illustrate

> > > > it.

> > > >

> > > > Nomore. I have said what I wanted to say and made my point.

> > > >

> > > > O, and I am very stubborn but that is okay as long as it's

> > > > clear that Something is an illusion. You are stubborn too,

> > > > so we ought to play well together in the illusion, heh :)

> > >

> > > There is no illusion except to the extent that I am real and mistake

something I am not, for who I am.

> > >

> > > When no mistake is made, there isn't any illusion.

> > >

> > > I play freely, as I am played.

> > >

> > > > If you want to call the illusion by the name of something,

> > > > go on and be my guest :)

> > >

> > > Whatever is named, has been given a name.

> > >

> > > Either the name of nothing or of something.

> > >

> > > I am your guest and you are mine.

> > >

> > > In the land with no subject and no object.

> > >

> > > Twinkle twinkle little star, what a wonder that you are.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Well, thanks, and so is you -- that much we can agree on :)

> >

> > Stardust - all stardust - none of it solid in any way or for

> > as long as it takes to name it - and yet it is named. Enigma.

> > Wonder. Illusion. Image. Dream. A dear nobody has many names.

> >

> > Bye for now :)

>

> Yes, a beginingless and endless twinkling, never named, never identified,

never having any identities in it.

>

> - Dan -

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> ...but where this spirit is supposed to be

> there is just - void. It is not void OF something, it is just

> and simply VOID and the void is the apparition. So - there is

> NO void and NO apparition.

> -lene-

>

> It is a void of things...of any-things. Nonetheless it IS...and it is IS-ING

as THIS.

> -geo-

 

 

ROFLMAO!

 

thanks geoparada.

 

..b b.b.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> ...but where this spirit is supposed to be

> there is just - void. It is not void OF something, it is just

> and simply VOID and the void is the apparition. So - there is

> NO void and NO apparition.

> -lene-

>

> It is a void of things...of any-things. Nonetheless it IS...and it is IS-ING

as THIS.

> -geo-

 

 

 

Very subtle non material this :)

 

How can void be void OF thing?

 

Imagine a point. Imagine the point is all there is.

One single point, one single dot, spot, plot.

 

See that a point - a one single point - is NOTHING.

 

Point = pointless

 

Form = void

 

Void is not void OF form - void IS form :D

 

Form (any thing) IS void.

 

I wish you a voidful noday :)

 

-Lene

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe wrote:

>

>

>

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

> >

> > ...but where this spirit is supposed to be

> > there is just - void. It is not void OF something, it is just

> > and simply VOID and the void is the apparition. So - there is

> > NO void and NO apparition.

> > -lene-

> >

> > It is a void of things...of any-things. Nonetheless it IS...and it is IS-ING

as THIS.

> > -geo-

>

>

>

> Very subtle non material this :)

>

> How can void be void OF thing?

>

> Imagine a point. Imagine the point is all there is.

> One single point, one single dot, spot, plot.

>

> See that a point - a one single point - is NOTHING.

>

> Point = pointless

>

> Form = void

>

> Void is not void OF form - void IS form :D

>

> Form (any thing) IS void.

>

> I wish you a voidful noday :)

>

> -Lene

 

 

check!

 

gotcha Lene.

 

but uhm..

 

subtlety is not geoparado's forte.

 

he likes " Ising " and stuff.

 

you'll see.

 

:-)

 

..b b.b.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> BobN

> Nisargadatta

> Thursday, December 31, 2009 9:05 AM

> Re: Hoping someone can help me understand a question

> I have

>

>

>

>

>

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

> >

> > ...but where this spirit is supposed to be

> > there is just - void. It is not void OF something, it is just

> > and simply VOID and the void is the apparition. So - there is

> > NO void and NO apparition.

> > -lene-

> >

> > It is a void of things...of any-things. Nonetheless it IS...and it is

> > IS-ING as THIS.

> > -geo-

>

> ROFLMAO!

>

> thanks geoparada.

>

> .b b.b.

>

> Your welcome..... chilly pepper.

> -geo-

 

 

what great Thising!

 

LOL!

 

..b b.b.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

....but where this spirit is supposed to bethere is just - void. It is not void OF something, it is justand simply VOID and the void is the apparition. So - there isNO void and NO apparition.

-lene-

 

It is a void of things...of any-things. Nonetheless it IS...and it is IS-ING as THIS.

-geo-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> Lene

> Nisargadatta

> Thursday, December 31, 2009 9:10 AM

> Re: Hoping someone can help me understand a question

> I have

>

>

>

>

>

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

> >

> > ...but where this spirit is supposed to be

> > there is just - void. It is not void OF something, it is just

> > and simply VOID and the void is the apparition. So - there is

> > NO void and NO apparition.

> > -lene-

> >

> > It is a void of things...of any-things. Nonetheless it IS...and it is

> > IS-ING as THIS.

> > -geo-

>

> Very subtle non material this :)

> -lene-

>

> geo> Yes. Subtle and the most obvious at the same time.

>

> How can void be void OF thing?

> -lene-

>

> geo> That is the point here....it is void of the known, void of any

> perceivable, and probably void of much more :>)) and is the ground of all

> those. What else could be it?

>

> Imagine a point. Imagine the point is all there is.

> One single point, one single dot, spot, plot.

>

> See that a point - a one single point - is NOTHING.

> -lene-

>

> geo> Too dimensional this point of yours. The point is also the biggest of

> all. The void of things is void of any dimension - nonetheless it just is as

> this.

>

>

>

> Point = pointless

>

> Form = void

>

> Void is not void OF form - void IS form :D

>

> Form (any thing) IS void.

>

> I wish you a voidful noday :)

>

> -Lene-

>

> geo> Lao Tze called it in one of his poems as " the spirit of the valley " : to

> where all things flow as rivers - they just cant help it :>))

 

 

one of " his " poems????

 

you don't seriously believe..

 

that there was a little guy named Lao Tze do you?

 

well..i guess you just can't help it.

 

:-)

 

..b b.b.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-

BobN

Nisargadatta

Thursday, December 31, 2009 9:05 AM

Re: Hoping someone can help me understand a question

I have

 

 

 

 

 

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> ...but where this spirit is supposed to be

> there is just - void. It is not void OF something, it is just

> and simply VOID and the void is the apparition. So - there is

> NO void and NO apparition.

> -lene-

>

> It is a void of things...of any-things. Nonetheless it IS...and it is

> IS-ING as THIS.

> -geo-

 

ROFLMAO!

 

thanks geoparada.

 

..b b.b.

 

Your welcome..... chilly pepper.

-geo-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> " The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources. "

> -Albert Einstein-

 

 

real creativity is not depending quoting others regarding creativity.

 

..b b.b.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-

Lene

Nisargadatta

Thursday, December 31, 2009 9:10 AM

Re: Hoping someone can help me understand a question

I have

 

 

 

 

 

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> ...but where this spirit is supposed to be

> there is just - void. It is not void OF something, it is just

> and simply VOID and the void is the apparition. So - there is

> NO void and NO apparition.

> -lene-

>

> It is a void of things...of any-things. Nonetheless it IS...and it is

> IS-ING as THIS.

> -geo-

 

Very subtle non material this :)

-lene-

 

geo> Yes. Subtle and the most obvious at the same time.

 

How can void be void OF thing?

-lene-

 

geo> That is the point here....it is void of the known, void of any

perceivable, and probably void of much more :>)) and is the ground of all

those. What else could be it?

 

Imagine a point. Imagine the point is all there is.

One single point, one single dot, spot, plot.

 

See that a point - a one single point - is NOTHING.

-lene-

 

geo> Too dimensional this point of yours. The point is also the biggest of

all. The void of things is void of any dimension - nonetheless it just is as

this.

 

 

 

Point = pointless

 

Form = void

 

Void is not void OF form - void IS form :D

 

Form (any thing) IS void.

 

I wish you a voidful noday :)

 

-Lene-

 

geo> Lao Tze called it in one of his poems as " the spirit of the valley " : to

where all things flow as rivers - they just cant help it :>))

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> BobN

> Nisargadatta

> Thursday, December 31, 2009 10:37 AM

> Re: Hoping someone can help me understand a question

> I have

>

>

>

>

>

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

> >

> > " The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources. "

> > -Albert Einstein-

>

> real creativity is not depending quoting others regarding creativity.

>

> .b b.b.

>

> Naaah.... its not just that. What I see above is only, solely, exclusively,

> nothing else then reactivity - the opposite of creativity.

> -geo-

 

 

i didn't claim it as creative.

 

it's a statement of fact.

 

absolutely it's in reaction to that tripe you posted above it.

 

that has nothing to do with creativity.

 

what's the matter with you touchy?

 

you're really getting more and more stupid every day geoparado.

 

..b b.b.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BobN

Nisargadatta

Thursday, December 31, 2009 10:37 AM

Re: Hoping someone can help me understand a question

I have

 

Nisargadatta, " geo " <inandor > wrote:

>

> " The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources. "

> -Albert Einstein-

 

real creativity is not depending quoting others regarding creativity.

 

..b b.b.

 

Naaah.... its not just that. What I see above is only, solely, exclusively,

nothing else then reactivity - the opposite of creativity.

-geo-

 

 

spiritual baby geo....

 

so please make prove of this your mentionned " opposite of creativity " ...

 

lol

 

Marc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-

BobN

Nisargadatta

Thursday, December 31, 2009 10:37 AM

Re: Hoping someone can help me understand a question

I have

 

 

 

 

 

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> " The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources. "

> -Albert Einstein-

 

real creativity is not depending quoting others regarding creativity.

 

..b b.b.

 

Naaah.... its not just that. What I see above is only, solely, exclusively,

nothing else then reactivity - the opposite of creativity.

-geo-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> Marc

> Nisargadatta

> Thursday, December 31, 2009 11:19 AM

> Re: Re: Hoping someone can help me understand a

> question I have

>

>

>

> BobN

> Nisargadatta

> Thursday, December 31, 2009 10:37 AM

> Re: Hoping someone can help me understand a question

> I have

>

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

> >

> > " The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources. "

> > -Albert Einstein-

>

> real creativity is not depending quoting others regarding creativity.

>

> .b b.b.

>

> Naaah.... its not just that. What I see above is only, solely, exclusively,

> nothing else then reactivity - the opposite of creativity.

> -geo-

>

> spiritual baby geo....

>

> so please make prove of this your mentionned " opposite of creativity " ...

>

> lol

>

> Marc

>

>

>

> So I should make prove of something that is the opposite of creativity.

>

> wait...

>

> I am trying...

>

> trying...

>

> trying...

>

> I am afraid I cant do it right now as unfortunately the " atmosphere " is

> becoming more and more creative right now.

>

> Maybe sometime later.... when I am less inspired.

> -geo-

 

 

if that's what you call creative inspiration..

 

it's no goddamn wonder you have no idea..

 

what either creativity or inspiration IS.

 

quit trying.

 

..b b.b.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-

Marc

Nisargadatta

Thursday, December 31, 2009 11:19 AM

Re: Re: Hoping someone can help me understand a

question I have

 

 

 

BobN

Nisargadatta

Thursday, December 31, 2009 10:37 AM

Re: Hoping someone can help me understand a question

I have

 

Nisargadatta, " geo " <inandor > wrote:

>

> " The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources. "

> -Albert Einstein-

 

real creativity is not depending quoting others regarding creativity.

 

..b b.b.

 

Naaah.... its not just that. What I see above is only, solely, exclusively,

nothing else then reactivity - the opposite of creativity.

-geo-

 

spiritual baby geo....

 

so please make prove of this your mentionned " opposite of creativity " ...

 

lol

 

Marc

 

 

 

So I should make prove of something that is the opposite of creativity.

 

wait...

 

I am trying...

 

trying...

 

trying...

 

I am afraid I cant do it right now as unfortunately the " atmosphere " is

becoming more and more creative right now.

 

Maybe sometime later.... when I am less inspired.

-geo-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> BobN

> Nisargadatta

> Thursday, December 31, 2009 12:33 PM

> Re: Hoping someone can help me understand a question

> I have

>

>

>

>

>

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

> >

> >

> > -

> > Marc

> > Nisargadatta

> > Thursday, December 31, 2009 11:19 AM

> > Re: Re: Hoping someone can help me understand a

> > question I have

> >

> >

> >

> > BobN

> > Nisargadatta

> > Thursday, December 31, 2009 10:37 AM

> > Re: Hoping someone can help me understand a

> > question

> > I have

> >

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

> > >

> > > " The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources. "

> > > -Albert Einstein-

> >

> > real creativity is not depending quoting others regarding creativity.

> >

> > .b b.b.

> >

> > Naaah.... its not just that. What I see above is only, solely,

> > exclusively,

> > nothing else then reactivity - the opposite of creativity.

> > -geo-

> >

> > spiritual baby geo....

> >

> > so please make prove of this your mentionned " opposite of creativity " ...

> >

> > lol

> >

> > Marc

> >

> >

> >

> > So I should make prove of something that is the opposite of creativity.

> >

> > wait...

> >

> > I am trying...

> >

> > trying...

> >

> > trying...

> >

> > I am afraid I cant do it right now as unfortunately the " atmosphere " is

> > becoming more and more creative right now.

> >

> > Maybe sometime later.... when I am less inspired.

> > -geo-

>

> if that's what you call creative inspiration..

>

> it's no goddamn wonder you have no idea..

>

> what either creativity or inspiration IS.

>

> quit trying.

>

> .b b.b.

>

> Too fast honey.....too fast; reacting as always.

> I was asked to provide something that is the opposite of creativity....

> pumpy darling.

> -geo-

 

 

no you weren't asked to provide something that was the opposite..

 

of creativity.

 

you were asked to prove it.

 

you really have a comprehension problem kid.

 

well..

 

if providing something that lacked creativity and inspiration..

 

was what you mistakenly understood..

 

and then you tried to provide that something as an example..

 

as opposed to doing a thorough proof of the idea ..

 

you succeeded both times.

 

but hell geoparado..

 

you provide uncreative and uninspired somethings all the time.

 

maybe that in itself is a sort of proof.

 

but it's not a rigorous development of the idea at all.

 

it's just the same old same old that we get from you all the time.

 

..b b.b.

 

 

p.s.

 

now i order you to react..

 

you MUST obey.

 

and you know it.

 

[.bx3]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-

BobN

Nisargadatta

Thursday, December 31, 2009 12:33 PM

Re: Hoping someone can help me understand a question

I have

 

 

 

 

 

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> Marc

> Nisargadatta

> Thursday, December 31, 2009 11:19 AM

> Re: Re: Hoping someone can help me understand a

> question I have

>

>

>

> BobN

> Nisargadatta

> Thursday, December 31, 2009 10:37 AM

> Re: Hoping someone can help me understand a

> question

> I have

>

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

> >

> > " The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources. "

> > -Albert Einstein-

>

> real creativity is not depending quoting others regarding creativity.

>

> .b b.b.

>

> Naaah.... its not just that. What I see above is only, solely,

> exclusively,

> nothing else then reactivity - the opposite of creativity.

> -geo-

>

> spiritual baby geo....

>

> so please make prove of this your mentionned " opposite of creativity " ...

>

> lol

>

> Marc

>

>

>

> So I should make prove of something that is the opposite of creativity.

>

> wait...

>

> I am trying...

>

> trying...

>

> trying...

>

> I am afraid I cant do it right now as unfortunately the " atmosphere " is

> becoming more and more creative right now.

>

> Maybe sometime later.... when I am less inspired.

> -geo-

 

if that's what you call creative inspiration..

 

it's no goddamn wonder you have no idea..

 

what either creativity or inspiration IS.

 

quit trying.

 

..b b.b.

 

Too fast honey.....too fast; reacting as always.

I was asked to provide something that is the opposite of creativity....

pumpy darling.

-geo-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe wrote:

 

Hi Lene -

 

> Dan - I have some translating to do today and your message is

> not quite exactly a brief one, so have no choice but wait and

> read it properly soon as possible.

 

Okay, sounds good.

 

> I said I only read the Heart Sutra - I just reread it, and no

> - not true; the sutra I found most interesting then must have

> been the Diamond Sutra. Pardon.

 

Good stuff.

 

> In the most ingenious of ways (according to the ever failing

> memory (there is nothing to remember, therefore memory fails

> to serve correct reconstruction of what did not ever happen)

> it presents evidence that nothing is happening.

 

There is no evidence, nor is there any evidence lacking.

 

Thus, nothing is happening. That is, neither nothing nor something is

happening.

 

It is a tit-

> bit for someone like me.

 

I think you mean " tid-bit. " Tit-bit is probably not what you want to say - ask

your translator about this.

 

> I am, I am not

> I neither am nor am not

 

Yes.

 

I neither am, nor am not, nor in some other state, something other than being or

not-being.

 

> I also read some arguments amongst the " sages " , as to whether

> or not nothing is nothing or not, heh :)

 

Yes, these kinds of talks are always funny.

 

> We ever seem to want

> for there to be at the very least a invisible " spirit " or god

> creature or likewise, but where this spirit is supposed to be

> there is just - void. It is not void OF something, it is just

> and simply VOID and the void is the apparition. So - there is

> NO void and NO apparition.

 

Agreed.

 

The void is not a void.

 

> And I am not a sage too - in me nown right - tee hee.

>

> Till later then - fly little butter fly fly :)

 

I've got no flies on me.

 

Flying on,

 

Dan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> ...but where this spirit is supposed to be

> there is just - void. It is not void OF something, it is just

> and simply VOID and the void is the apparition. So - there is

> NO void and NO apparition.

> -lene-

>

> It is a void of things...of any-things. Nonetheless it IS...and it is IS-ING

as THIS.

> -geo-

 

 

It is no-thinging -- brilliant, shining, empty, nothing.

 

- D -

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe wrote:

>

>

>

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

> >

> > ...but where this spirit is supposed to be

> > there is just - void. It is not void OF something, it is just

> > and simply VOID and the void is the apparition. So - there is

> > NO void and NO apparition.

> > -lene-

> >

> > It is a void of things...of any-things. Nonetheless it IS...and it is IS-ING

as THIS.

> > -geo-

>

>

>

> Very subtle non material this :)

>

> How can void be void OF thing?

>

> Imagine a point. Imagine the point is all there is.

> One single point, one single dot, spot, plot.

>

> See that a point - a one single point - is NOTHING.

>

> Point = pointless

>

> Form = void

>

> Void is not void OF form - void IS form :D

>

> Form (any thing) IS void.

>

> I wish you a voidful noday :)

>

> -Lene

 

Yes, exactly so.

 

Form is void, void is form.

 

Thus, there is no divisible form.

 

And yet, there are infinite textures being perceived, and all kinds of

distinctions.

 

Spaces, times, beings, histories, experiences - this nothing.

 

- Dan -

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote:

>

> Hi Lene -

>

> > Dan - I have some translating to do today and your message is

> > not quite exactly a brief one, so have no choice but wait and

> > read it properly soon as possible.

>

> Okay, sounds good.

>

> > I said I only read the Heart Sutra - I just reread it, and no

> > - not true; the sutra I found most interesting then must have

> > been the Diamond Sutra. Pardon.

>

> Good stuff.

>

> > In the most ingenious of ways (according to the ever failing

> > memory (there is nothing to remember, therefore memory fails

> > to serve correct reconstruction of what did not ever happen)

> > it presents evidence that nothing is happening.

>

> There is no evidence, nor is there any evidence lacking.

>

> Thus, nothing is happening. That is, neither nothing nor something is

happening.

>

> It is a tit-

> > bit for someone like me.

>

> I think you mean " tid-bit. " Tit-bit is probably not what you want to say -

ask your translator about this.

 

 

 

She says tit-bit is the correct word - you know - like in

yammy-yammy, nam-nam, and so on :) She also says you have

a dirty mind :)

 

Dear, dear, someone just fired a gunshot - it is not safe

out there tonite - happy new year!

 

I wonder what an old year is, hm.

 

-Lene

 

 

 

 

> > I am, I am not

> > I neither am nor am not

>

> Yes.

>

> I neither am, nor am not, nor in some other state, something other than being

or not-being.

>

> > I also read some arguments amongst the " sages " , as to whether

> > or not nothing is nothing or not, heh :)

>

> Yes, these kinds of talks are always funny.

>

> > We ever seem to want

> > for there to be at the very least a invisible " spirit " or god

> > creature or likewise, but where this spirit is supposed to be

> > there is just - void. It is not void OF something, it is just

> > and simply VOID and the void is the apparition. So - there is

> > NO void and NO apparition.

>

> Agreed.

>

> The void is not a void.

>

> > And I am not a sage too - in me nown right - tee hee.

> >

> > Till later then - fly little butter fly fly :)

>

> I've got no flies on me.

>

> Flying on,

>

> Dan

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> BobN

> Nisargadatta

> Thursday, December 31, 2009 1:15 PM

> Re: Hoping someone can help me understand a question

> I have

>

>

>

>

>

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

> >

> >

> > -

> > BobN

> > Nisargadatta

> > Thursday, December 31, 2009 12:33 PM

> > Re: Hoping someone can help me understand a

> > question

> > I have

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

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

> > >

> > >

> > > -

> > > Marc

> > > Nisargadatta

> > > Thursday, December 31, 2009 11:19 AM

> > > Re: Re: Hoping someone can help me understand a

> > > question I have

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > BobN

> > > Nisargadatta

> > > Thursday, December 31, 2009 10:37 AM

> > > Re: Hoping someone can help me understand a

> > > question

> > > I have

> > >

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

> > > >

> > > > " The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources. "

> > > > -Albert Einstein-

> > >

> > > real creativity is not depending quoting others regarding creativity.

> > >

> > > .b b.b.

> > >

> > > Naaah.... its not just that. What I see above is only, solely,

> > > exclusively,

> > > nothing else then reactivity - the opposite of creativity.

> > > -geo-

> > >

> > > spiritual baby geo....

> > >

> > > so please make prove of this your mentionned " opposite of creativity " ...

> > >

> > > lol

> > >

> > > Marc

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > So I should make prove of something that is the opposite of creativity.

> > >

> > > wait...

> > >

> > > I am trying...

> > >

> > > trying...

> > >

> > > trying...

> > >

> > > I am afraid I cant do it right now as unfortunately the " atmosphere " is

> > > becoming more and more creative right now.

> > >

> > > Maybe sometime later.... when I am less inspired.

> > > -geo-

> >

> > if that's what you call creative inspiration..

> >

> > it's no goddamn wonder you have no idea..

> >

> > what either creativity or inspiration IS.

> >

> > quit trying.

> >

> > .b b.b.

> >

> > Too fast honey.....too fast; reacting as always.

> > I was asked to provide something that is the opposite of creativity....

> > pumpy darling.

> > -geo-

>

> no you weren't asked to provide something that was the opposite..

>

> of creativity.

>

> you were asked to prove it.

>

> you really have a comprehension problem kid.

>

> well..

>

> if providing something that lacked creativity and inspiration..

>

> was what you mistakenly understood..

>

> and then you tried to provide that something as an example..

>

> as opposed to doing a thorough proof of the idea ..

>

> you succeeded both times.

>

> but hell geoparado..

>

> you provide uncreative and uninspired somethings all the time.

>

> maybe that in itself is a sort of proof.

>

> but it's not a rigorous development of the idea at all.

>

> it's just the same old same old that we get from you all the time.

>

> .b b.b.

>

> p.s.

>

> now i order you to react..

>

> you MUST obey.

>

> and you know it.

>

> [.bx3]

>

> A sense of pity crossed my being as you seem to be begging inside, almost

> supplicating for me to stop writing otherwise you MUST react....I almost did

> not answer...but....sorry, you will have to do it. Did you need all those

> words to prove your ignorance, honey-pie? He asked me to provide it

> ......and as an answer I said I could not do it, and did not.....pumpkin.

> Just give me more orders and I will obey them immediately.

> -geo-

 

 

i know that you will obey me.

 

you have no choice.

 

this has been proven time and time again.

 

and now you're beginning to lean a bit in the queer side too.

 

quick now Son of Brazil..

 

hop to it...

 

get back to me with your dumb attempts at comebacks.

 

you seem hurt and upset.

 

that's funny!

 

LOL!

 

..b b.b.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " Lene " <lschwabe@> wrote:

>

> Hi Lene -

>

> > Dan - I have some translating to do today and your message is

> > not quite exactly a brief one, so have no choice but wait and

> > read it properly soon as possible.

>

> Okay, sounds good.

>

> > I said I only read the Heart Sutra - I just reread it, and no

> > - not true; the sutra I found most interesting then must have

> > been the Diamond Sutra. Pardon.

>

> Good stuff.

>

> > In the most ingenious of ways (according to the ever failing

> > memory (there is nothing to remember, therefore memory fails

> > to serve correct reconstruction of what did not ever happen)

> > it presents evidence that nothing is happening.

>

> There is no evidence, nor is there any evidence lacking.

>

> Thus, nothing is happening. That is, neither nothing nor something is

happening.

>

> It is a tit-

> > bit for someone like me.

>

> I think you mean " tid-bit. " Tit-bit is probably not what you want to say -

ask your translator about this.

>

> > I am, I am not

> > I neither am nor am not

>

> Yes.

>

> I neither am, nor am not, nor in some other state, something other than being

or not-being.

>

> > I also read some arguments amongst the " sages " , as to whether

> > or not nothing is nothing or not, heh :)

>

> Yes, these kinds of talks are always funny.

>

> > We ever seem to want

> > for there to be at the very least a invisible " spirit " or god

> > creature or likewise, but where this spirit is supposed to be

> > there is just - void. It is not void OF something, it is just

> > and simply VOID and the void is the apparition. So - there is

> > NO void and NO apparition.

>

> Agreed.

>

> The void is not a void.

>

> > And I am not a sage too - in me nown right - tee hee.

> >

> > Till later then - fly little butter fly fly :)

>

> I've got no flies on me.

>

> Flying on,

>

> Dan

 

 

maybe no flies..

 

but the stink of unenlightened bullshit abounds around you.

 

and it's friggin' cloying.

 

:-)

 

..b b.b.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

Support the Ashram

Join Groups

IndiaDivine Telegram Group IndiaDivine WhatsApp Group


×
×
  • Create New...