Hoping someone can help me understand a question I have

December 31, 2009

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.

December 31, 2009

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