How to Raise an Ox

[r***@rwilliams.us]

"... you must suspend your attempts to understand by means
of scrutinizing words, reverse the activity of the mind which
seeks externally, and illuminate your own true nature" (page 96).

'How to Raise an Ox'
Zen Practice as Taught in Zen Master Dogen's Shobogenzo
by Francis D Cook, Ph.D.
Forward by Taizan Maezumi Roshi
Wisdom Publications, 2002

[Lee Rudolph]

Post by r***@rwilliams.us
"... you must suspend your attempts to understand by means
of scrutinizing words, reverse the activity of the mind which
seeks externally, and illuminate your own true nature" (page 96).

This post (and your previous post, and, I'm going to go out on a limb
to bet, your next several today) are full of "should"s and "must"s.

There! I've subjected your (quoted) words to a scrutiny, and not
even *attempted* to understand anything. May I have my Gold
Englightenment Star now?

Lee Rudolph

[r***@rwilliams.us]

Post by Lee Rudolph

Post by r***@rwilliams.us
"... you must suspend your attempts to understand by means
of scrutinizing words, reverse the activity of the mind which
seeks externally, and illuminate your own true nature" (page 96).

.
This post (and your previous post, and, I'm going to go out on a limb
to bet, your next several today) are full of "should"s and "must"s.
There! I've subjected your (quoted) words to a scrutiny, and not
even *attempted* to understand anything.  

But Lee, you are supposed to read the book BEFORE you
post your comments.

Post by Lee Rudolph
May I have my Gold Englightenment Star now?

[Pete]

Post by r***@rwilliams.us

Post by Lee Rudolph

Post by r***@rwilliams.us
"... you must suspend your attempts to understand by means
of scrutinizing words, reverse the activity of the mind which
seeks externally, and illuminate your own true nature" (page 96).

.
This post (and your previous post, and, I'm going to go out on a limb
to bet, your next several today) are full of "should"s and "must"s.
There! I've subjected your (quoted) words to a scrutiny, and not
even *attempted* to understand anything.  

But Lee, you are supposed to read the book BEFORE you
post your comments.

Whoa! He raised your "shoulds" and "musts" with a "supposed to."

Pete (go all in!)

[DT]

Post by Pete

Post by r***@rwilliams.us

Post by Lee Rudolph

Post by r***@rwilliams.us
"... you must suspend your attempts to understand by means
of scrutinizing words, reverse the activity of the mind which
seeks externally, and illuminate your own true nature" (page 96).

.
This post (and your previous post, and, I'm going to go out on a limb
to bet, your next several today) are full of "should"s and "must"s.
There! I've subjected your (quoted) words to a scrutiny, and not
even *attempted* to understand anything.

But Lee, you are supposed to read the book BEFORE you
post your comments.

Whoa! He raised your "shoulds" and "musts" with a "supposed to."
Pete (go all in!)

He's gotta!

DT

[dick blisters]

poke'm in the arse with a sharp sick

[r***@rwilliams.us]

Post by dick blisters
poke'm in the arse with a sharp sick

No, Dick, that would make them stink like Zen.

Too avid seeking for enlightenment embodies a
very subtle greed which must be rooted out by
more subtle efforts. But you must not pursue the
uprooting greedily, but by means of a still more
subtle way. Dick needs to realize that he is not
going to get any more enlightenment than he is
going to get. And while metaphysical pursuits
may be interesting to a certain degree, not one
single concept is going to help him cross over
to the other side.

[^@%>---*=#]

Post by r***@rwilliams.us

Post by dick blisters
poke'm in the arse with a sharp sick

No, Dick, that would make them stink like Zen.
Too avid seeking for enlightenment embodies a
very subtle greed which must be rooted out by
more subtle efforts.

the avid seeking undone by the less
than avid seeking ?

Post by r***@rwilliams.us
But you must not pursue the
uprooting greedily,

no pain no gain

Post by r***@rwilliams.us
but by means of a still more
subtle way.

backwards through yesterdays
apriori preterites ?

Post by r***@rwilliams.us
Dick needs to realize that he is not
going to get any more enlightenment than he is
going to get.

heavy. so he's gotten as much as
he's got ? if he got some what stops
him from getting more ? the enlightenment
police ?

Post by r***@rwilliams.us
And while metaphysical pursuits
may be interesting to a certain degree,

money, sex, power. the big three.

not one

Post by r***@rwilliams.us
single concept is going to help him cross over
to the other side.

if you are as enlightened as you're ever going to get
then there is no other side to break on through to.

[r***@rwilliams.us]

Post by ^@%>---*=#

Post by r***@rwilliams.us
Too avid seeking for enlightenment embodies a
very subtle greed which must be rooted out by
more subtle efforts.

if you are as enlightened as you're ever going to get
then there is no other side to break on through to.

Its just a metaphor - the other side means beyond
the physical, transcendental. Shakya said to take
the large boat to the other side. When you get to
the other side, you'll find that there is no other side.
So, you take a boat to get to the other side. Once
you get there you don't need to walk around with the
boat on your head.

Dogen Kigen:

Fifty-four years lighting up the sky.
A quivering leap smashes a billion worlds.
Hah!
Entire body looks for nothing.
Living, I plunge into Yellow Springs.

[Keynes]

Post by r***@rwilliams.us

Post by ^@%>---*=#

Post by r***@rwilliams.us
Too avid seeking for enlightenment embodies a
very subtle greed which must be rooted out by
more subtle efforts.

if you are as enlightened as you're ever going to get
then there is no other side to break on through to.

Its just a metaphor - the other side means beyond
the physical, transcendental. Shakya said to take
the large boat to the other side. When you get to
the other side, you'll find that there is no other side.
So, you take a boat to get to the other side. Once
you get there you don't need to walk around with the
boat on your head.

The vehicle to cross the stream to the other shore
is a make-shift affair of grass and twigs propelled
by kicking hands and feet. Half truths and directions
used as skillful means, and no comprehensive real
truths worth carrying afterwards.

Post by r***@rwilliams.us
Fifty-four years lighting up the sky.
A quivering leap smashes a billion worlds.
Hah!
Entire body looks for nothing.
Living, I plunge into Yellow Springs.

[r***@rwilliams.us]

Post by Keynes

Post by r***@rwilliams.us

Post by ^@%>---*=#
if you are as enlightened as you're ever going to get
then there is no other side to break on through to.

Its just a metaphor - the other side means beyond
the physical, transcendental. Shakya said to take
the large boat to the other side. When you get to
the other side, you'll find that there is no other side.
So, you take a boat to get to the other side. Once
you get there you don't need to walk around with the
boat on your head.

The vehicle to cross the stream to the other shore
is a make-shift affair of grass and twigs propelled
by kicking hands and feet. Half truths and directions
used as skillful means, and no comprehensive real
truths worth carrying afterwards.

Fifty-four years lighting up the sky.
A quivering leap smashes a billion worlds.
Hah!
Entire body looks for nothing.
Living, I plunge into Yellow Springs.
- Dogen Kigen:

[DT]

Post by Keynes

Post by r***@rwilliams.us

Post by ^@%>---*=#

Post by r***@rwilliams.us
Too avid seeking for enlightenment embodies a
very subtle greed which must be rooted out by
more subtle efforts.

if you are as enlightened as you're ever going to get
then there is no other side to break on through to.

Its just a metaphor - the other side means beyond
the physical, transcendental. Shakya said to take
the large boat to the other side. When you get to
the other side, you'll find that there is no other side.
So, you take a boat to get to the other side. Once
you get there you don't need to walk around with the
boat on your head.

The vehicle to cross the stream to the other shore
is a make-shift affair of grass and twigs propelled
by kicking hands and feet. Half truths and directions
used as skillful means, and no comprehensive real
truths worth carrying afterwards.

Can a take along an inflatable PFD, just in case?

DT

[dick blisters]

Post by DT

Post by Keynes

Post by r***@rwilliams.us

Post by ^@%>---*=#
if you are as enlightened as you're ever going to get
then there is no other side to break on through to.

Its just a metaphor - the other side means beyond
the physical, transcendental. Shakya said to take
the large boat to the other side. When you get to
the other side, you'll find that there is no other side.
So, you take a boat to get to the other side. Once
you get there you don't need to walk around with the
boat on your head.

The vehicle to cross the stream to the other shore
is a make-shift affair of grass and twigs propelled
by kicking hands and feet. Half truths and directions
used as skillful means, and no comprehensive real
truths worth carrying afterwards.

Can a take along an inflatable PFD, just in case?
DT

When my ship comes in the harbor, I'll be waiting on the other side...

[Wally Chapman]

Post by DT

Post by Keynes

Post by r***@rwilliams.us

Post by ^@%>---*=#

Post by r***@rwilliams.us
Too avid seeking for enlightenment embodies a
very subtle greed which must be rooted out by
more subtle efforts.

if you are as enlightened as you're ever going to get
then there is no other side to break on through to.

Its just a metaphor - the other side means beyond
the physical, transcendental. Shakya said to take
the large boat to the other side. When you get to
the other side, you'll find that there is no other side.
So, you take a boat to get to the other side. Once
you get there you don't need to walk around with the
boat on your head.

The vehicle to cross the stream to the other shore
is a make-shift affair of grass and twigs propelled
by kicking hands and feet. Half truths and directions
used as skillful means, and no comprehensive real
truths worth carrying afterwards.

Can a take along an inflatable PFD, just in case?

Be sure to wear a shower cap. And maybe water wings. And take a copy
of Huxley's "Doors of Perception", as well as the Doors first album, and
download "Horse Latitudes" onto your iPod, and maybe "Night Swimming" by
R.E.M., because it's lonely in nowhere, when you got no place to be,
with eternity smiling like a placid allegory on the banks of the Nile,
or Styx, just one more river to cross, Lord, gotta get to the other
side, although this *is* the other side, a Moebius strip folded through
a wormhole tucked into the Orgone box, deep blue like a baby's veins and
containing nothing, nothing, nothing at all which is what the world is
made of, that and plastic, which doesn't exist except in the mind of the
beholder, all for naught and vanity, a long, strange trip it's been
through shark-infested waters, fins to the left of me, fins to the right
and the Black Pearl dives and comes up in the middle of a water spout,
guns blazing, and there you are with your water wings and Tagatha, true
to the creed, which is - what is it anyway?

Wally

[dick blisters]

Post by DT

Post by Keynes

Post by r***@rwilliams.us

Post by ^@%>---*=#

Post by r***@rwilliams.us
Too avid seeking for enlightenment embodies a
very subtle greed which must be rooted out by
more subtle efforts.

if you are as enlightened as you're ever going to get
then there is no other side to break on through to.

Its just a metaphor - the other side means beyond
the physical, transcendental. Shakya said to take
the large boat to the other side. When you get to
the other side, you'll find that there is no other side.
So, you take a boat to get to the other side. Once
you get there you don't need to walk around with the
boat on your head.

The vehicle to cross the stream to the other shore
is a make-shift affair of grass and twigs propelled
by kicking hands and feet. Half truths and directions
used as skillful means, and no comprehensive real
truths worth carrying afterwards.

Can a take along an inflatable PFD, just in case?

Be sure to wear a shower cap. And maybe water wings. And take a copy of
Huxley's "Doors of Perception", as well as the Doors first album, and
download "Horse Latitudes" onto your iPod, and maybe "Night Swimming" by
R.E.M., because it's lonely in nowhere, when you got no place to be, with
eternity smiling like a placid allegory on the banks of the Nile, or Styx,
just one more river to cross, Lord, gotta get to the other side, although
this *is* the other side, a Moebius strip folded through a wormhole tucked
into the Orgone box, deep blue like a baby's veins and containing nothing,
nothing, nothing at all which is what the world is made of, that and
plastic, which doesn't exist except in the mind of the beholder, all for
naught and vanity, a long, strange trip it's been through shark-infested
waters, fins to the left of me, fins to the right and the Black Pearl
dives and comes up in the middle of a water spout, guns blazing, and there
you are with your water wings and Tagatha, true to the creed, which is -
what is it anyway?
Wally

Now that's what I like to hear.......

[DT]

Post by dick blisters

Post by DT

Post by Keynes

Post by r***@rwilliams.us

Post by ^@%>---*=#

Post by r***@rwilliams.us
Too avid seeking for enlightenment embodies a
very subtle greed which must be rooted out by
more subtle efforts.

if you are as enlightened as you're ever going to get
then there is no other side to break on through to.

Its just a metaphor - the other side means beyond
the physical, transcendental. Shakya said to take
the large boat to the other side. When you get to
the other side, you'll find that there is no other side.
So, you take a boat to get to the other side. Once
you get there you don't need to walk around with the
boat on your head.

The vehicle to cross the stream to the other shore
is a make-shift affair of grass and twigs propelled
by kicking hands and feet. Half truths and directions
used as skillful means, and no comprehensive real
truths worth carrying afterwards.

Can a take along an inflatable PFD, just in case?

Be sure to wear a shower cap. And maybe water wings. And take a copy of
Huxley's "Doors of Perception", as well as the Doors first album, and
download "Horse Latitudes" onto your iPod, and maybe "Night Swimming" by
R.E.M., because it's lonely in nowhere, when you got no place to be, with
eternity smiling like a placid allegory on the banks of the Nile, or Styx,
just one more river to cross, Lord, gotta get to the other side, although
this *is* the other side, a Moebius strip folded through a wormhole tucked
into the Orgone box, deep blue like a baby's veins and containing nothing,
nothing, nothing at all which is what the world is made of, that and
plastic, which doesn't exist except in the mind of the beholder, all for
naught and vanity, a long, strange trip it's been through shark-infested
waters, fins to the left of me, fins to the right and the Black Pearl
dives and comes up in the middle of a water spout, guns blazing, and there
you are with your water wings and Tagatha, true to the creed, which is -
what is it anyway?
Wally

Now that's what I like to hear.......

Amen, brother! Take me to the river. Drop me in the water.

DT

[halfawake]

Post by Wally Chapman

Post by DT

Post by Keynes

Post by r***@rwilliams.us

Post by ^@%>---*=#

Post by r***@rwilliams.us
Too avid seeking for enlightenment embodies a
very subtle greed which must be rooted out by
more subtle efforts.

if you are as enlightened as you're ever going to get
then there is no other side to break on through to.

Its just a metaphor - the other side means beyond
the physical, transcendental. Shakya said to take
the large boat to the other side. When you get to
the other side, you'll find that there is no other side.
So, you take a boat to get to the other side. Once
you get there you don't need to walk around with the
boat on your head.

The vehicle to cross the stream to the other shore
is a make-shift affair of grass and twigs propelled
by kicking hands and feet. Half truths and directions
used as skillful means, and no comprehensive real
truths worth carrying afterwards.

Can a take along an inflatable PFD, just in case?

Be sure to wear a shower cap. And maybe water wings. And take a copy
of Huxley's "Doors of Perception", as well as the Doors first album,
and download "Horse Latitudes" onto your iPod, and maybe "Night
Swimming" by R.E.M., because it's lonely in nowhere, when you got no
place to be, with eternity smiling like a placid allegory on the banks
of the Nile, or Styx, just one more river to cross, Lord, gotta get to
the other side, although this *is* the other side, a Moebius strip
folded through a wormhole tucked into the Orgone box, deep blue like a
baby's veins and containing nothing, nothing, nothing at all which is
what the world is made of, that and plastic, which doesn't exist
except in the mind of the beholder, all for naught and vanity, a long,
strange trip it's been through shark-infested waters, fins to the left
of me, fins to the right and the Black Pearl dives and comes up in the
middle of a water spout, guns blazing, and there you are with your
water wings and Tagatha, true to the creed, which is - what is it anyway?
Wally

an amorphous blue cloud
in an infinity of night


robert

=======================

[DT]

Post by Keynes

Post by r***@rwilliams.us

Post by ^@%>---*=#

Post by r***@rwilliams.us
Too avid seeking for enlightenment embodies a
very subtle greed which must be rooted out by
more subtle efforts.

if you are as enlightened as you're ever going to get
then there is no other side to break on through to.

Its just a metaphor - the other side means beyond
the physical, transcendental. Shakya said to take
the large boat to the other side. When you get to
the other side, you'll find that there is no other side.
So, you take a boat to get to the other side. Once
you get there you don't need to walk around with the
boat on your head.

The vehicle to cross the stream to the other shore
is a make-shift affair of grass and twigs propelled
by kicking hands and feet. Half truths and directions
used as skillful means, and no comprehensive real
truths worth carrying afterwards.

Can a take along an inflatable PFD, just in case?

DT

[^@%>---*=#*^]

Post by r***@rwilliams.us

Post by ^@%>---*=#

Post by r***@rwilliams.us
Too avid seeking for enlightenment embodies a
very subtle greed which must be rooted out by
more subtle efforts.

if you are as enlightened as you're ever going to get
then there is no other side to break on through to.

Its just a metaphor - the other side means beyond
the physical, transcendental. Shakya said to take
the large boat to the other side. When you get to
the other side, you'll find that there is no other side.
So, you take a boat to get to the other side. Once
you get there you don't need to walk around with the
boat on your head.

from that answer i'd say you can't
get the boat off of your head anyway.

[halfawake]

Post by dick blisters
poke'm in the arse with a sharp sick

that's not the way to raise an ox;
that's the way to raise a blister.

robert

[^@%>---*=#]

Post by halfawake

Post by dick blisters
poke'm in the arse with a sharp sick

that's not the way to raise an ox;
that's the way to raise a blister.
robert

blister has it made. he never shows
up until all of the work is done.

[r***@rwilliams.us]

Post by Lee Rudolph
This post (and your previous post, and, I'm going to go
out on a limb to bet, your next several today) are full of
"should"s and "must"s.

So, Lee, how much would you be willing wager?

[Lee Rudolph]

Post by r***@rwilliams.us

Post by Lee Rudolph
This post (and your previous post, and, I'm going to go
out on a limb to bet, your next several today) are full of
"should"s and "must"s.

So, Lee, how much would you be willing wager?

Aw, shoot, I already lost that bet. Oughta knowed better...

Lee Rudolph

[^@%>---*=#]

Post by r***@rwilliams.us

Post by Lee Rudolph
This post (and your previous post, and, I'm going to go
out on a limb to bet, your next several today) are full of
"should"s and "must"s.

So, Lee, how much would you be willing wager?

should and must addictions followed
disproportionately by gambling addictions
usually spawn a nasty vagina envy addiction.
but then again, there could actually be that fabled
light at the end of the tunnel, eh ?

[zenworm]

Post by ^@%>---*=#

Post by r***@rwilliams.us

Post by Lee Rudolph
This post (and your previous post, and, I'm going to go
out on a limb to bet, your next several today) are full of
"should"s and "must"s.

So, Lee, how much would you be willing wager?

should and must addictions followed
disproportionately by gambling addictions
usually spawn a nasty vagina envy addiction.
but then again, there could actually be that fabled
light at the end of the tunnel, eh ?

liquor?

ZN

[Don Shepherd]

Post by zenworm

Post by ^@%>---*=#

Post by r***@rwilliams.us

Post by Lee Rudolph
This post (and your previous post, and, I'm going to go
out on a limb to bet, your next several today) are full of
"should"s and "must"s.

So, Lee, how much would you be willing wager?

should and must addictions followed
disproportionately by gambling addictions
usually spawn a nasty vagina envy addiction.
but then again, there could actually be that fabled
light at the end of the tunnel, eh ?

liquor?
ZN

I didn't even kissor!

Don

[^@%>---*=#]

Post by ^@%>---*=#

Post by r***@rwilliams.us

Post by Lee Rudolph
This post (and your previous post, and, I'm going to go
out on a limb to bet, your next several today) are full of
"should"s and "must"s.

So, Lee, how much would you be willing wager?

should and must addictions followed
disproportionately by gambling addictions
usually spawn a nasty vagina envy addiction.
but then again, there could actually be that fabled
light at the end of the tunnel, eh ?
liquor?

maybe. depends on the aroma.

[zenworm]

Post by ^@%>---*=#

Post by r***@rwilliams.us

Post by Lee Rudolph
This post (and your previous post, and, I'm going to go
out on a limb to bet, your next several today) are full of
"should"s and "must"s.

So, Lee, how much would you be willing wager?

should and must addictions followed
disproportionately by gambling addictions
usually spawn a nasty vagina envy addiction.
but then again, there could actually be that fabled
light at the end of the tunnel, eh ?
liquor?

maybe. depends on the aroma.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

sushi?

ZN

[^@%>---*=#]

Post by ^@%>---*=#

Post by r***@rwilliams.us

Post by Lee Rudolph
This post (and your previous post, and, I'm going to go
out on a limb to bet, your next several today) are full of
"should"s and "must"s.

So, Lee, how much would you be willing wager?

should and must addictions followed
disproportionately by gambling addictions
usually spawn a nasty vagina envy addiction.
but then again, there could actually be that fabled
light at the end of the tunnel, eh ?
liquor?

maybe. depends on the aroma.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

sushi?

ZN

===================

if she's rich

[daletx]

Post by zenworm

Post by ^@%>---*=#

Post by r***@rwilliams.us

Post by Lee Rudolph
This post (and your previous post, and, I'm going to go
out on a limb to bet, your next several today) are full of
"should"s and "must"s.

So, Lee, how much would you be willing wager?

should and must addictions followed
disproportionately by gambling addictions
usually spawn a nasty vagina envy addiction.
but then again, there could actually be that fabled
light at the end of the tunnel, eh ?
liquor?

maybe. depends on the aroma.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

sushi?
ZN

Everybody sing: "If you knew sushi, like I know sushi..."

DT
(OK, everybody but Ned.)

[^@%>---*=#]

Post by daletx

Post by zenworm

Post by ^@%>---*=#

Post by r***@rwilliams.us

Post by Lee Rudolph
This post (and your previous post, and, I'm going to go
out on a limb to bet, your next several today) are full of
"should"s and "must"s.

So, Lee, how much would you be willing wager?

should and must addictions followed
disproportionately by gambling addictions
usually spawn a nasty vagina envy addiction.
but then again, there could actually be that fabled
light at the end of the tunnel, eh ?
liquor?

maybe. depends on the aroma.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

sushi?
ZN

Everybody sing: "If you knew sushi, like I know sushi..."
DT
(OK, everybody but Ned.)

oh sushi q, oh sushi q
oh sushi q baby i love you
sushi q

[DT]

Post by ^@%>---*=#

Post by daletx

Post by zenworm

Post by ^@%>---*=#

Post by r***@rwilliams.us

Post by Lee Rudolph
This post (and your previous post, and, I'm going to go
out on a limb to bet, your next several today) are full of
"should"s and "must"s.

So, Lee, how much would you be willing wager?

should and must addictions followed
disproportionately by gambling addictions
usually spawn a nasty vagina envy addiction.
but then again, there could actually be that fabled
light at the end of the tunnel, eh ?
liquor?

maybe. depends on the aroma.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

sushi?
ZN

Everybody sing: "If you knew sushi, like I know sushi..."
DT
(OK, everybody but Ned.)

oh sushi q, oh sushi q
oh sushi q baby i love you
sushi q

Hey, I ain't givin' that one any Creedence...

DT

[^@%>---*=#]

Post by DT

Post by ^@%>---*=#

Post by daletx

Post by zenworm

Post by ^@%>---*=#

Post by r***@rwilliams.us

Post by Lee Rudolph
This post (and your previous post, and, I'm going to go
out on a limb to bet, your next several today) are full of
"should"s and "must"s.

So, Lee, how much would you be willing wager?

should and must addictions followed
disproportionately by gambling addictions
usually spawn a nasty vagina envy addiction.
but then again, there could actually be that fabled
light at the end of the tunnel, eh ?
liquor?

maybe. depends on the aroma.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

sushi?
ZN

Everybody sing: "If you knew sushi, like I know sushi..."
DT
(OK, everybody but Ned.)

oh sushi q, oh sushi q
oh sushi q baby i love you
sushi q

Hey, I ain't givin' that one any Creedence...
DT

wake up little sushi wake up
dum de dum de dum dum
wake up little sushi wake up
dum de dum de dum dum

[DT]

Post by ^@%>---*=#

Post by DT

Post by ^@%>---*=#

Post by daletx

Post by zenworm

Post by ^@%>---*=#

Post by r***@rwilliams.us

Post by Lee Rudolph
This post (and your previous post, and, I'm going to go
out on a limb to bet, your next several today) are full of
"should"s and "must"s.

So, Lee, how much would you be willing wager?

should and must addictions followed
disproportionately by gambling addictions
usually spawn a nasty vagina envy addiction.
but then again, there could actually be that fabled
light at the end of the tunnel, eh ?
liquor?

maybe. depends on the aroma.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

sushi?
ZN

Everybody sing: "If you knew sushi, like I know sushi..."
DT
(OK, everybody but Ned.)

oh sushi q, oh sushi q
oh sushi q baby i love you
sushi q

Hey, I ain't givin' that one any Creedence...
DT

wake up little sushi wake up
dum de dum de dum dum
wake up little sushi wake up
dum de dum de dum dum

Oh, Brother! Does this go on forEver?

DT

[^@%>---*=#]

Post by DT

Post by ^@%>---*=#

Post by DT

Post by ^@%>---*=#

Post by daletx

Post by zenworm

Post by ^@%>---*=#

Post by r***@rwilliams.us

Post by Lee Rudolph
This post (and your previous post, and, I'm going to go
out on a limb to bet, your next several today) are full of
"should"s and "must"s.

So, Lee, how much would you be willing wager?

should and must addictions followed
disproportionately by gambling addictions
usually spawn a nasty vagina envy addiction.
but then again, there could actually be that fabled
light at the end of the tunnel, eh ?
liquor?

maybe. depends on the aroma.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

sushi?
ZN

Everybody sing: "If you knew sushi, like I know sushi..."
DT
(OK, everybody but Ned.)

oh sushi q, oh sushi q
oh sushi q baby i love you
sushi q

Hey, I ain't givin' that one any Creedence...
DT

wake up little sushi wake up
dum de dum de dum dum
wake up little sushi wake up
dum de dum de dum dum

Oh, Brother! Does this go on forEver?
DT

if you knew sushi like i knew
sushi oh oh oh what a gal

[r***@rwilliams.us]

Post by ^@%>---*=#
if you knew sushi like i knew
sushi oh oh oh what a gal

Very impressive!

[Awaken21]

Post by r***@rwilliams.us
"... you must suspend your attempts to understand by means
of scrutinizing words, reverse the activity of the mind which
seeks externally, and illuminate your own true nature" (page 96).
'How to Raise an Ox'
Zen Practice as Taught in Zen Master Dogen's Shobogenzo
by Francis D Cook, Ph.D.
Forward by Taizan Maezumi Roshi
Wisdom Publications, 2002

Dogen is always great to come back to. Reminders are always
appreciated.

[r***@rwilliams.us]

Post by Awaken21
Dogen is always great to come back to. Reminders
are always appreciated.

Dogen Kigen:

Fifty-four years lighting up the sky.
A quivering leap smashes a billion worlds.
Hah!
Entire body looks for nothing.
Living, I plunge into Yellow Springs.

'Dogen Kigen--Mystical Realist'
by Hee-Jin Kim
Wisdom Publications, 2004

[r***@rwilliams.us]

"... you must suspend your attempts to understand by means
of scrutinizing words, reverse the activity of the mind which
seeks externally, and illuminate your own true nature" (page 96).

'How to Raise an Ox'
Zen Practice as Taught in Zen Master Dogen's Shobogenzo
by Francis D Cook, Ph.D.
Forward by Taizan Maezumi Roshi
Wisdom Publications, 2002

    Fifty-four years lighting up the sky.
    A quivering leap smashes a billion worlds.
    Hah!
    Entire body looks for nothing.
    Living, I plunge into Yellow Springs.
'Dogen Kigen--Mystical Realist'
by Hee-Jin Kim
Wisdom Publications, 2004

[Allen Barker]

Great quote posted by richard from Cook's book on Dogen:




you must suspend your attempts to understand by means
of scrutinizing words, reverse the activity of the mind
which seeks externally

[oxtail]

Post by r***@rwilliams.us
you must suspend your attempts to understand by means
of scrutinizing words, reverse the activity of the mind
which seeks externally

Why don't you?

[Allen Barker]

Post by oxtail

Post by r***@rwilliams.us
you must suspend your attempts to understand by means
of scrutinizing words, reverse the activity of the mind
which seeks externally

Why don't you?

So contentious there, oxtail.

[oxtail]

Post by Allen Barker

Post by oxtail

Post by r***@rwilliams.us
you must suspend your attempts to understand by means
of scrutinizing words, reverse the activity of the mind
which seeks externally

Why don't you?

So contentious there, oxtail.

Just trying to be aware of what I'm doing;
preferably while being imbued with compassion.
Were you trying to help us stop seeking externally?

[Allen Barker]

Post by oxtail

Post by Allen Barker

Post by oxtail

Post by r***@rwilliams.us
you must suspend your attempts to understand by means
of scrutinizing words, reverse the activity of the mind
which seeks externally

Why don't you?

So contentious there, oxtail.

Just trying to be aware of what I'm doing;
preferably while being imbued with compassion.
Were you trying to help us stop seeking externally?

Is that what you understand from scrutinizing the words? ;-)

[oxtail]

Post by Allen Barker

Post by oxtail

Post by Allen Barker

Post by oxtail

Post by r***@rwilliams.us
you must suspend your attempts to understand by means
of scrutinizing words, reverse the activity of the mind
which seeks externally

Why don't you?

So contentious there, oxtail.

Just trying to be aware of what I'm doing;
preferably while being imbued with compassion.
Were you trying to help us stop seeking externally?

Is that what you understand from scrutinizing the words? ;-)

Do you like flowers?

[Allen Barker]

Post by oxtail

Post by Allen Barker

Post by oxtail

Post by Allen Barker

Post by oxtail

Post by r***@rwilliams.us
you must suspend your attempts to understand by means
of scrutinizing words, reverse the activity of the mind
which seeks externally

Why don't you?

So contentious there, oxtail.

Just trying to be aware of what I'm doing;
preferably while being imbued with compassion.
Were you trying to help us stop seeking externally?

Is that what you understand from scrutinizing the words? ;-)

Do you like flowers?

Some are especially fragrant...

[zenworm]

Post by oxtail

Post by Allen Barker

Post by oxtail

Post by r***@rwilliams.us
you must suspend your attempts to understand by means
of scrutinizing words, reverse the activity of the mind
which seeks externally

Why don't you?

So contentious there, oxtail.

Just trying to be aware of what I'm doing;
preferably while being imbued with compassion.
Were you trying to help us stop seeking externally?
--
oxtail

"do

or do not

there is no try"

- Yoda

ZN

[willytex]

Post by r***@rwilliams.us
you must suspend your attempts to understand by means
of scrutinizing words, reverse the activity of the mind
which seeks externally

According to Wilber, the states of consciousness include:
waking, dreaming, dreamless sleep, and nondual.

Apparently Wilber ascribes to the 'two truths doctrine' of
Nagarjuna. For Wilber no metaphysical doctrine or apparent
reality is true in an absolute sense: only formless awareness,
"the simple feeling of being," exists absolutely.

"And tell me: is that story, sung by mystics and sages the
world over, any crazier than the scientific materialism story,
which is that the entire sequence is a tale told by an idiot,
full of sound and fury, signifying absolutely nothing? Listen
very carefully: just which of those two stories actually sounds
totally insane?"

Work cited:

'A Brief History of Everything'
By Ken Wilber
Shambhala, 2007
Page 42-3

[^@%>---*=#**]

Post by willytex

Post by r***@rwilliams.us
you must suspend your attempts to understand by means
of scrutinizing words, reverse the activity of the mind
which seeks externally

waking, dreaming, dreamless sleep, and nondual.
Apparently Wilber ascribes to the 'two truths doctrine' of
Nagarjuna. For Wilber no metaphysical doctrine or apparent
reality is true in an absolute sense: only formless awareness,
"the simple feeling of being," exists absolutely.
"And tell me: is that story, sung by mystics and sages the
world over, any crazier than the scientific materialism story,
which is that the entire sequence is a tale told by an idiot,
full of sound and fury, signifying absolutely nothing? Listen
very carefully: just which of those two stories actually sounds
totally insane?"
'A Brief History of Everything'
By Ken Wilber
Shambhala, 2007
Page 42-3

wilbur is a dink

[daletx]

Post by ^@%>---*=#**

Post by willytex

Post by r***@rwilliams.us
you must suspend your attempts to understand by means
of scrutinizing words, reverse the activity of the mind
which seeks externally

waking, dreaming, dreamless sleep, and nondual.
Apparently Wilber ascribes to the 'two truths doctrine' of
Nagarjuna. For Wilber no metaphysical doctrine or apparent
reality is true in an absolute sense: only formless awareness,
"the simple feeling of being," exists absolutely.
"And tell me: is that story, sung by mystics and sages the
world over, any crazier than the scientific materialism story,
which is that the entire sequence is a tale told by an idiot,
full of sound and fury, signifying absolutely nothing? Listen
very carefully: just which of those two stories actually sounds
totally insane?"
'A Brief History of Everything'
By Ken Wilber
Shambhala, 2007
Page 42-3

wilbur is a dink

Channelling Mr. Ed, are you?

DT

[Wilson]

Post by ^@%>---*=#**

Post by willytex

Post by r***@rwilliams.us
you must suspend your attempts to understand by means
of scrutinizing words, reverse the activity of the mind
which seeks externally

waking, dreaming, dreamless sleep, and nondual.
Apparently Wilber ascribes to the 'two truths doctrine' of
Nagarjuna. For Wilber no metaphysical doctrine or apparent
reality is true in an absolute sense: only formless awareness,
"the simple feeling of being," exists absolutely.
"And tell me: is that story, sung by mystics and sages the
world over, any crazier than the scientific materialism story,
which is that the entire sequence is a tale told by an idiot,
full of sound and fury, signifying absolutely nothing? Listen
very carefully: just which of those two stories actually sounds
totally insane?"
'A Brief History of Everything'
By Ken Wilber
Shambhala, 2007
Page 42-3

wilbur is a dink

Wilber is a convenient club that people who like to talk about religion
on Usenet use to beat each other over the head.

[john kahila]

Post by Wilson

Post by ^@%>---*=#**

Post by willytex

Post by r***@rwilliams.us
you must suspend your attempts to understand by means
of scrutinizing words, reverse the activity of the mind
which seeks externally

waking, dreaming, dreamless sleep, and nondual.
Apparently Wilber ascribes to the 'two truths doctrine' of
Nagarjuna. For Wilber no metaphysical doctrine or apparent
reality is true in an absolute sense: only formless awareness,
"the simple feeling of being," exists absolutely.
"And tell me: is that story, sung by mystics and sages the
world over, any crazier than the scientific materialism story,
which is that the entire sequence is a tale told by an idiot,
full of sound and fury, signifying absolutely nothing? Listen
very carefully: just which of those two stories actually sounds
totally insane?"
'A Brief History of Everything'
By Ken Wilber
Shambhala, 2007
Page 42-3

wilbur is a dink

Wilber is a convenient club that people who like to talk about
religion on Usenet use to beat each other over the head.

And wilbur isn't a dink. He's a pig.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlotte%27s_Web

jtk

[Keynes]

Post by willytex

Post by r***@rwilliams.us
you must suspend your attempts to understand by means
of scrutinizing words, reverse the activity of the mind
which seeks externally

waking, dreaming, dreamless sleep, and nondual.
Apparently Wilber ascribes to the 'two truths doctrine' of
Nagarjuna. For Wilber no metaphysical doctrine or apparent
reality is true in an absolute sense: only formless awareness,
"the simple feeling of being," exists absolutely.

I think the 'feeling of being' is what needs to be overcome.
Neither 'I am' nor 'I am not'. No 'is or is not' either.

Although there may be thoughts and sensation in the higher
states, there is no claiming of them, no 'here nor there'. From
ordinary perspective it may be called a 'feeling of being' when
one has to give a logical account of it, but there is no notice
of being or non-being in it. It oughtn't to come up. I think any
'feeling of being' is a dualistic logical construct and the
ultimate barrier.

Post by willytex
"And tell me: is that story, sung by mystics and sages the
world over, any crazier than the scientific materialism story,
which is that the entire sequence is a tale told by an idiot,
full of sound and fury, signifying absolutely nothing? Listen
very carefully: just which of those two stories actually sounds
totally insane?"

As we may understand it, life in delusion IS a tale told
by an idiot full of sound and fury signifying nothing.
The diamond sutra says as much.

Delving seriously into material science for wisdom, (which
is certainly the wrong place to look), one must come to the
conclusion that humans are meat machines locked into pointless
deterministic destiny.

The future claims possibility, but the past is one inevitable stream.
Time is time, and the past once was the future. This reductionism
totally denies human nature. It would be a living death, if anyone
could possibly believe it all the time, rather than on lonely dark
nights or in the glare of outspoken controversy.

Matter has never really mattered to humans. Their life
and concerns are of a different and unrelated order.
Neither prosperity nor poverty bring consistent results.
Subjectivity over rules the commonly called 'objective'
world. It can't be really real to us. No use to pretend that
it is definitive 'reality'.

Post by willytex
'A Brief History of Everything'
By Ken Wilber
Shambhala, 2007
Page 42-3

[Lee Rudolph]

Post by Keynes
I think the 'feeling of being' is what needs to be overcome.

"Overcome" is adversarial (and ipso facto dualistic) language. How
about, "acknowledged to be a feeling", like other feelings (and like
other situations that are often not acknowledged as feelings)?

Lee Rudolph (not that I'm saying dualism is wrong. Or right.)

[Keynes]

Post by Lee Rudolph

Post by Keynes
I think the 'feeling of being' is what needs to be overcome.

"Overcome" is adversarial (and ipso facto dualistic) language. How
about, "acknowledged to be a feeling", like other feelings (and like
other situations that are often not acknowledged as feelings)?
Lee Rudolph (not that I'm saying dualism is wrong. Or right.)

Well it's a known fact that I never tell the truth.

Neither can anybody else.

[brian mitchell]

On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 19:40:51 +0000 (UTC), Lee Rudolph

Post by Lee Rudolph

Post by Keynes
I think the 'feeling of being' is what needs to be overcome.

"Overcome" is adversarial (and ipso facto dualistic) language. How
about, "acknowledged to be a feeling", like other feelings (and like
other situations that are often not acknowledged as feelings)?

Doesn't this put all feelings and other situations on a completely
equal footing and so disallow any structural order to their
occurrence? It could be, though, that some states and feelings form a
prerequisite substrate without which others would not or could not
occur; they have greater functional significance. This seems to be
Wilbur's position. For him, the 'feeling of being' is the base on
which all else rests and where all searching can stop. Keynes also
gives that feeling/state a position of significance, though of an
opposite kind. Is there a hierarchy of significance separating the
feeling of being and, say, irritation at slow-moving traffic, or are
they both just flickers across the screen?

Post by Lee Rudolph
Lee Rudolph (not that I'm saying dualism is wrong. Or right.)

[Allen Barker]

Post by brian mitchell
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 19:40:51 +0000 (UTC), Lee Rudolph

Post by Lee Rudolph

Post by Keynes
I think the 'feeling of being' is what needs to be overcome.

"Overcome" is adversarial (and ipso facto dualistic) language. How
about, "acknowledged to be a feeling", like other feelings (and like
other situations that are often not acknowledged as feelings)?

Doesn't this put all feelings and other situations on a completely
equal footing and so disallow any structural order to their
occurrence? It could be, though, that some states and feelings form a
prerequisite substrate without which others would not or could not
occur; they have greater functional significance. This seems to be
Wilbur's position. For him, the 'feeling of being' is the base on
which all else rests and where all searching can stop. Keynes also
gives that feeling/state a position of significance, though of an
opposite kind. Is there a hierarchy of significance separating the
feeling of being and, say, irritation at slow-moving traffic, or are
they both just flickers across the screen?

You have a great sense of sarcasm. ;-)

[brian mitchell]

On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 01:22:23 -0400, Allen Barker

Post by Allen Barker
You have a great sense of sarcasm. ;-)

Not intentionally, and I hope the poster I replied to didn't take it
that way. It's a question that genuinely interests me. There was a
follow up post which didn't make it to APZ because I was replying to
someone who'd trimmed the groups. I'll risk the faux pas of repeating
the relevant part:
========
. . . I suggest that no mind can operate without a fundamental belief
in the concept of truth (or reality, if you prefer): that there are
things which are true and real, and things which aren't. No matter for
the moment which things are in which category. Without that basic
concept, the thousands of necessary discriminations we make couldn't
be made. So Truth is an Ur-concept upon which much --maybe even all--
of the functioning of the mind/brain depends. That suggests structural
order and hierarchies of significance to me.
========

[Keynes]

Post by brian mitchell
On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 01:22:23 -0400, Allen Barker

Post by Allen Barker
You have a great sense of sarcasm. ;-)

Not intentionally, and I hope the poster I replied to didn't take it
that way. It's a question that genuinely interests me. There was a
follow up post which didn't make it to APZ because I was replying to
someone who'd trimmed the groups. I'll risk the faux pas of repeating
========
. . . I suggest that no mind can operate without a fundamental belief
in the concept of truth (or reality, if you prefer): that there are
things which are true and real, and things which aren't. No matter for
the moment which things are in which category. Without that basic
concept, the thousands of necessary discriminations we make couldn't
be made. So Truth is an Ur-concept upon which much --maybe even all--
of the functioning of the mind/brain depends. That suggests structural
order and hierarchies of significance to me.
========

What things are unreal?
Philosophers have debated the issue for millennia.

Science says that which can't be observed, demonstrated,
measured, and duplicated/reproduced must be unreal.
This leaves out a great deal of human experience, but
it's good enough for making toasters and cell phones.

Buddhism asserts that as things are impermanent they
have no essential own-being, all things arising and passing
away due to the web of causation. The prajnaparamita
sutras go farther, denying the being of all things, and
with that denying causation. For if there are no objects
to interact, how can there be any causation or continuity?

The philosophic consensus (more or less) is that if a
thing were real, it would be real in all times and places.
It's also one of the theological properties of the
perfection of God.

My opinion can be expressed in a joke.
The senator's wife catches him naked in bed with his intern.
The senator sits up and says,"Who are you going to believe?
Me? Or your lying eyes?"

[Awaken21]

Post by Keynes
Science says that which can't be observed, demonstrated,
measured, and duplicated/reproduced must be unreal.

Not really. science says that which can't be observed, demonstrated,
measured, and duplicated/reproduced cannot be assumed to be real. It's
Scientists that act as though it must be unreal...and not all them,
but many.

[halfawake]

Post by Lee Rudolph

Post by Keynes
I think the 'feeling of being' is what needs to be overcome.

"Overcome" is adversarial (and ipso facto dualistic) language. How
about, "acknowledged to be a feeling", like other feelings (and like
other situations that are often not acknowledged as feelings)?
Lee Rudolph (not that I'm saying dualism is wrong. Or right.)

Are you challenging him to a dualism?

Robert

- - - - - - - - - -

[^@%>---*=#**]

Post by halfawake

Post by Lee Rudolph

Post by Keynes
I think the 'feeling of being' is what needs to be overcome.

"Overcome" is adversarial (and ipso facto dualistic) language. How
about, "acknowledged to be a feeling", like other feelings (and like
other situations that are often not acknowledged as feelings)?
Lee Rudolph (not that I'm saying dualism is wrong. Or right.)

Are you challenging him to a dualism?
Robert
- - - - - - - - - -

polarity of opposite's concepts
at fifty paces

[Allen Barker]

Post by Keynes

Post by willytex

Post by r***@rwilliams.us
you must suspend your attempts to understand by means
of scrutinizing words, reverse the activity of the mind
which seeks externally

waking, dreaming, dreamless sleep, and nondual.
Apparently Wilber ascribes to the 'two truths doctrine' of
Nagarjuna. For Wilber no metaphysical doctrine or apparent
reality is true in an absolute sense: only formless awareness,
"the simple feeling of being," exists absolutely.

I think the 'feeling of being' is what needs to be overcome.

What about the 'feeling of needing to overcome something'? ;-)

Post by Keynes
Neither 'I am' nor 'I am not'. No 'is or is not' either.
Although there may be thoughts and sensation in the higher
states, there is no claiming of them, no 'here nor there'. From
ordinary perspective it may be called a 'feeling of being' when
one has to give a logical account of it, but there is no notice
of being or non-being in it. It oughtn't to come up. I think any
'feeling of being' is a dualistic logical construct and the
ultimate barrier.

Post by willytex
"And tell me: is that story, sung by mystics and sages the
world over, any crazier than the scientific materialism story,
which is that the entire sequence is a tale told by an idiot,
full of sound and fury, signifying absolutely nothing? Listen
very carefully: just which of those two stories actually sounds
totally insane?"

As we may understand it, life in delusion IS a tale told
by an idiot full of sound and fury signifying nothing.
The diamond sutra says as much.
Delving seriously into material science for wisdom, (which
is certainly the wrong place to look), one must come to the
conclusion that humans are meat machines locked into pointless
deterministic destiny.
The future claims possibility, but the past is one inevitable stream.
Time is time, and the past once was the future. This reductionism
totally denies human nature. It would be a living death, if anyone
could possibly believe it all the time, rather than on lonely dark
nights or in the glare of outspoken controversy.
Matter has never really mattered to humans. Their life
and concerns are of a different and unrelated order.
Neither prosperity nor poverty bring consistent results.
Subjectivity over rules the commonly called 'objective'
world. It can't be really real to us. No use to pretend that
it is definitive 'reality'.

Post by willytex
'A Brief History of Everything'
By Ken Wilber
Shambhala, 2007
Page 42-3

[Allen Barker]

Post by willytex

Post by r***@rwilliams.us
you must suspend your attempts to understand by means
of scrutinizing words, reverse the activity of the mind
which seeks externally

waking, dreaming, dreamless sleep, and nondual.
Apparently Wilber ascribes to the 'two truths doctrine' of
Nagarjuna. For Wilber no metaphysical doctrine or apparent
reality is true in an absolute sense: only formless awareness,
"the simple feeling of being," exists absolutely.

If that *is* the case, he's clearly no Nagarjuna...

To say that formless awareness (or anything else) exists
absolutely is to fall right back into the world of form.
Is that truth 1 or truth 2? ;-)

Nice to know intellectually and in theory, but actually
realizing it experientially and doing it in practice is
another matter altogether.

Post by willytex
"And tell me: is that story, sung by mystics and sages the
world over, any crazier than the scientific materialism story,
which is that the entire sequence is a tale told by an idiot,
full of sound and fury, signifying absolutely nothing? Listen
very carefully: just which of those two stories actually sounds
totally insane?"
'A Brief History of Everything'
By Ken Wilber
Shambhala, 2007
Page 42-3

[zenworm]

Post by Allen Barker

Post by willytex

Post by r***@rwilliams.us
you must suspend your attempts to understand by means
of scrutinizing words, reverse the activity of the mind
which seeks externally

waking, dreaming, dreamless sleep, and nondual.
Apparently Wilber ascribes to the 'two truths doctrine' of
Nagarjuna. For Wilber no metaphysical doctrine or apparent
reality is true in an absolute sense: only formless awareness,
"the simple feeling of being," exists absolutely.

If that *is* the case, he's clearly no Nagarjuna...
To say that formless awareness (or anything else) exists
absolutely is to fall right back into the world of form.
Is that truth 1 or truth 2?  ;-)
Nice to know intellectually and in theory, but actually
realizing it experientially and doing it in practice is
another matter altogether.

Post by willytex
"And tell me: is that story, sung by mystics and sages the
world over, any crazier than the scientific materialism story,
which is that the entire sequence is a tale told by an idiot,
full of sound and fury, signifying absolutely nothing? Listen
very carefully: just which of those two stories actually sounds
totally insane?"
'A Brief History of Everything'
By Ken Wilber
Shambhala, 2007
Page 42-3- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"To say that formless awareness (or anything else) exists
absolutely is to fall right back into the world of form.
Is that truth 1 or truth 2? ;-)"


Awareness is absolute

(not two)(not finite)(not temporal)

what has that got to do with

'the world of form'? (the appearences of form)

ZN

[Allen Barker]

Post by zenworm

Post by Allen Barker

Post by willytex

Post by r***@rwilliams.us
you must suspend your attempts to understand by means
of scrutinizing words, reverse the activity of the mind
which seeks externally

waking, dreaming, dreamless sleep, and nondual.
Apparently Wilber ascribes to the 'two truths doctrine' of
Nagarjuna. For Wilber no metaphysical doctrine or apparent
reality is true in an absolute sense: only formless awareness,
"the simple feeling of being," exists absolutely.

If that *is* the case, he's clearly no Nagarjuna...
To say that formless awareness (or anything else) exists
absolutely is to fall right back into the world of form.
Is that truth 1 or truth 2? ;-)
Nice to know intellectually and in theory, but actually
realizing it experientially and doing it in practice is
another matter altogether.

Post by willytex
"And tell me: is that story, sung by mystics and sages the
world over, any crazier than the scientific materialism story,
which is that the entire sequence is a tale told by an idiot,
full of sound and fury, signifying absolutely nothing? Listen
very carefully: just which of those two stories actually sounds
totally insane?"
'A Brief History of Everything'
By Ken Wilber
Shambhala, 2007
Page 42-3- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"To say that formless awareness (or anything else) exists
absolutely is to fall right back into the world of form.
Is that truth 1 or truth 2? ;-)"
Awareness is absolute
(not two)(not finite)(not temporal)
what has that got to do with
'the world of form'? (the appearences of form)

You lost your Moment.

[zenworm]

Post by zenworm

Post by Allen Barker

Post by willytex

Post by r***@rwilliams.us
you must suspend your attempts to understand by means
of scrutinizing words, reverse the activity of the mind
which seeks externally

waking, dreaming, dreamless sleep, and nondual.
Apparently Wilber ascribes to the 'two truths doctrine' of
Nagarjuna. For Wilber no metaphysical doctrine or apparent
reality is true in an absolute sense: only formless awareness,
"the simple feeling of being," exists absolutely.

If that *is* the case, he's clearly no Nagarjuna...
To say that formless awareness (or anything else) exists
absolutely is to fall right back into the world of form.
Is that truth 1 or truth 2?  ;-)
Nice to know intellectually and in theory, but actually
realizing it experientially and doing it in practice is
another matter altogether.

Post by willytex
"And tell me: is that story, sung by mystics and sages the
world over, any crazier than the scientific materialism story,
which is that the entire sequence is a tale told by an idiot,
full of sound and fury, signifying absolutely nothing? Listen
very carefully: just which of those two stories actually sounds
totally insane?"
'A Brief History of Everything'
By Ken Wilber
Shambhala, 2007
Page 42-3- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"To say that formless awareness (or anything else) exists
absolutely is to fall right back into the world of form.
Is that truth 1 or truth 2?  ;-)"
Awareness is absolute
(not two)(not finite)(not temporal)
what has that got to do with
'the world of form'? (the appearences of form)

You lost your Moment.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

*i* and *my* Moment?
compared to *you* and *your* Moment?

'you'? 'your'?
why project ownership?

lost?
why project objectification?

how many 'moments' do you see?
'owned' by how many 'people'?

so many 'things'

Moment is

ZN

[Allen Barker]

Post by zenworm

Post by zenworm

Post by Allen Barker

Post by willytex

Post by r***@rwilliams.us
you must suspend your attempts to understand by means
of scrutinizing words, reverse the activity of the mind
which seeks externally

waking, dreaming, dreamless sleep, and nondual.
Apparently Wilber ascribes to the 'two truths doctrine' of
Nagarjuna. For Wilber no metaphysical doctrine or apparent
reality is true in an absolute sense: only formless awareness,
"the simple feeling of being," exists absolutely.

If that *is* the case, he's clearly no Nagarjuna...
To say that formless awareness (or anything else) exists
absolutely is to fall right back into the world of form.
Is that truth 1 or truth 2? ;-)
Nice to know intellectually and in theory, but actually
realizing it experientially and doing it in practice is
another matter altogether.

Post by willytex
"And tell me: is that story, sung by mystics and sages the
world over, any crazier than the scientific materialism story,
which is that the entire sequence is a tale told by an idiot,
full of sound and fury, signifying absolutely nothing? Listen
very carefully: just which of those two stories actually sounds
totally insane?"
'A Brief History of Everything'
By Ken Wilber
Shambhala, 2007
Page 42-3- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"To say that formless awareness (or anything else) exists
absolutely is to fall right back into the world of form.
Is that truth 1 or truth 2? ;-)"
Awareness is absolute
(not two)(not finite)(not temporal)
what has that got to do with
'the world of form'? (the appearences of form)

You lost your Moment.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

*i* and *my* Moment?
compared to *you* and *your* Moment?
'you'? 'your'?
why project ownership?
lost?
why project objectification?
how many 'moments' do you see?
'owned' by how many 'people'?
so many 'things'
Moment is
ZN

I didn't imply. You inferred, based apparently on
an analysis of the surface-grammar of my sentence.

Moment, indeed...

[halfawake]

Post by zenworm

Post by zenworm

Post by Allen Barker

Post by willytex

Post by r***@rwilliams.us
you must suspend your attempts to understand by means
of scrutinizing words, reverse the activity of the mind
which seeks externally

waking, dreaming, dreamless sleep, and nondual.
Apparently Wilber ascribes to the 'two truths doctrine' of
Nagarjuna. For Wilber no metaphysical doctrine or apparent
reality is true in an absolute sense: only formless awareness,
"the simple feeling of being," exists absolutely.

If that *is* the case, he's clearly no Nagarjuna...
To say that formless awareness (or anything else) exists
absolutely is to fall right back into the world of form.
Is that truth 1 or truth 2? ;-)
Nice to know intellectually and in theory, but actually
realizing it experientially and doing it in practice is
another matter altogether.

Post by willytex
"And tell me: is that story, sung by mystics and sages the
world over, any crazier than the scientific materialism story,
which is that the entire sequence is a tale told by an idiot,
full of sound and fury, signifying absolutely nothing? Listen
very carefully: just which of those two stories actually sounds
totally insane?"
'A Brief History of Everything'
By Ken Wilber
Shambhala, 2007
Page 42-3- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"To say that formless awareness (or anything else) exists
absolutely is to fall right back into the world of form.
Is that truth 1 or truth 2? ;-)"
Awareness is absolute
(not two)(not finite)(not temporal)
what has that got to do with
'the world of form'? (the appearences of form)

You lost your Moment.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

*i* and *my* Moment?
compared to *you* and *your* Moment?
'you'? 'your'?
why project ownership?
lost?
why project objectification?
how many 'moments' do you see?
'owned' by how many 'people'?
so many 'things'
Moment is
ZN

If moment "is," moment sucks.

robert

- - - - - - - - -

[zenworm]

Post by halfawake

Post by zenworm

Post by zenworm

Post by Allen Barker

Post by willytex

Post by r***@rwilliams.us
you must suspend your attempts to understand by means
of scrutinizing words, reverse the activity of the mind
which seeks externally

waking, dreaming, dreamless sleep, and nondual.
Apparently Wilber ascribes to the 'two truths doctrine' of
Nagarjuna. For Wilber no metaphysical doctrine or apparent
reality is true in an absolute sense: only formless awareness,
"the simple feeling of being," exists absolutely.

If that *is* the case, he's clearly no Nagarjuna...
To say that formless awareness (or anything else) exists
absolutely is to fall right back into the world of form.
Is that truth 1 or truth 2?  ;-)
Nice to know intellectually and in theory, but actually
realizing it experientially and doing it in practice is
another matter altogether.

Post by willytex
"And tell me: is that story, sung by mystics and sages the
world over, any crazier than the scientific materialism story,
which is that the entire sequence is a tale told by an idiot,
full of sound and fury, signifying absolutely nothing? Listen
very carefully: just which of those two stories actually sounds
totally insane?"
'A Brief History of Everything'
By Ken Wilber
Shambhala, 2007
Page 42-3- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"To say that formless awareness (or anything else) exists
absolutely is to fall right back into the world of form.
Is that truth 1 or truth 2?  ;-)"
Awareness is absolute
(not two)(not finite)(not temporal)
what has that got to do with
'the world of form'? (the appearences of form)

You lost your Moment.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

*i* and *my* Moment?
compared to *you* and *your* Moment?
'you'?  'your'?
why project ownership?
lost?
why project objectification?
how many 'moments' do you see?
'owned' by how many 'people'?
so many 'things'
Moment is
ZN

If moment "is," moment sucks.
robert
- - - - - - - - -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

is Totality?

ZN

[halfawake]

Post by zenworm

Post by halfawake

Post by zenworm

Post by zenworm

Post by Allen Barker

Post by willytex

Post by r***@rwilliams.us
you must suspend your attempts to understand by means
of scrutinizing words, reverse the activity of the mind
which seeks externally

waking, dreaming, dreamless sleep, and nondual.
Apparently Wilber ascribes to the 'two truths doctrine' of
Nagarjuna. For Wilber no metaphysical doctrine or apparent
reality is true in an absolute sense: only formless awareness,
"the simple feeling of being," exists absolutely.

If that *is* the case, he's clearly no Nagarjuna...
To say that formless awareness (or anything else) exists
absolutely is to fall right back into the world of form.
Is that truth 1 or truth 2? ;-)
Nice to know intellectually and in theory, but actually
realizing it experientially and doing it in practice is
another matter altogether.

Post by willytex
"And tell me: is that story, sung by mystics and sages the
world over, any crazier than the scientific materialism story,
which is that the entire sequence is a tale told by an idiot,
full of sound and fury, signifying absolutely nothing? Listen
very carefully: just which of those two stories actually sounds
totally insane?"
'A Brief History of Everything'
By Ken Wilber
Shambhala, 2007
Page 42-3- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"To say that formless awareness (or anything else) exists
absolutely is to fall right back into the world of form.
Is that truth 1 or truth 2? ;-)"
Awareness is absolute
(not two)(not finite)(not temporal)
what has that got to do with
'the world of form'? (the appearences of form)

You lost your Moment.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

*i* and *my* Moment?
compared to *you* and *your* Moment?
'you'? 'your'?
why project ownership?
lost?
why project objectification?
how many 'moments' do you see?
'owned' by how many 'people'?
so many 'things'
Moment is
ZN

If moment "is," moment sucks.
robert
- - - - - - - - -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

is Totality?
ZN

that's a big word.

robert

- - - - -

[zenworm]

Post by halfawake

Post by zenworm

Post by halfawake

Post by zenworm

Post by zenworm

Post by Allen Barker

Post by willytex

Post by r***@rwilliams.us
you must suspend your attempts to understand by means
of scrutinizing words, reverse the activity of the mind
which seeks externally

waking, dreaming, dreamless sleep, and nondual.
Apparently Wilber ascribes to the 'two truths doctrine' of
Nagarjuna. For Wilber no metaphysical doctrine or apparent
reality is true in an absolute sense: only formless awareness,
"the simple feeling of being," exists absolutely.

If that *is* the case, he's clearly no Nagarjuna...
To say that formless awareness (or anything else) exists
absolutely is to fall right back into the world of form.
Is that truth 1 or truth 2?  ;-)
Nice to know intellectually and in theory, but actually
realizing it experientially and doing it in practice is
another matter altogether.

Post by willytex
"And tell me: is that story, sung by mystics and sages the
world over, any crazier than the scientific materialism story,
which is that the entire sequence is a tale told by an idiot,
full of sound and fury, signifying absolutely nothing? Listen
very carefully: just which of those two stories actually sounds
totally insane?"
'A Brief History of Everything'
By Ken Wilber
Shambhala, 2007
Page 42-3- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"To say that formless awareness (or anything else) exists
absolutely is to fall right back into the world of form.
Is that truth 1 or truth 2?  ;-)"
Awareness is absolute
(not two)(not finite)(not temporal)
what has that got to do with
'the world of form'? (the appearences of form)

You lost your Moment.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

*i* and *my* Moment?
compared to *you* and *your* Moment?
'you'?  'your'?
why project ownership?
lost?
why project objectification?
how many 'moments' do you see?
'owned' by how many 'people'?
so many 'things'
Moment is
ZN

If moment "is," moment sucks.
robert
- - - - - - - - -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

is Totality?
ZN

that's a big word.
robert
- - - - -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

too big for a you

ZN

[halfawake]

Post by Allen Barker

Post by zenworm

Post by Allen Barker

Post by willytex

Post by r***@rwilliams.us
you must suspend your attempts to understand by means
of scrutinizing words, reverse the activity of the mind
which seeks externally

waking, dreaming, dreamless sleep, and nondual.
Apparently Wilber ascribes to the 'two truths doctrine' of
Nagarjuna. For Wilber no metaphysical doctrine or apparent
reality is true in an absolute sense: only formless awareness,
"the simple feeling of being," exists absolutely.

If that *is* the case, he's clearly no Nagarjuna...
To say that formless awareness (or anything else) exists
absolutely is to fall right back into the world of form.
Is that truth 1 or truth 2? ;-)
Nice to know intellectually and in theory, but actually
realizing it experientially and doing it in practice is
another matter altogether.

Post by willytex
"And tell me: is that story, sung by mystics and sages the
world over, any crazier than the scientific materialism story,
which is that the entire sequence is a tale told by an idiot,
full of sound and fury, signifying absolutely nothing? Listen
very carefully: just which of those two stories actually sounds
totally insane?"
'A Brief History of Everything'
By Ken Wilber
Shambhala, 2007
Page 42-3- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"To say that formless awareness (or anything else) exists
absolutely is to fall right back into the world of form.
Is that truth 1 or truth 2? ;-)"
Awareness is absolute
(not two)(not finite)(not temporal)
what has that got to do with
'the world of form'? (the appearences of form)

You lost your Moment.

that's right, except you shouldn't have capitalized "Moment." The
moment doesn't exist.

Robert

- - - - - -

[halfawake]

Post by zenworm

Post by Allen Barker

Post by willytex

Post by r***@rwilliams.us
you must suspend your attempts to understand by means
of scrutinizing words, reverse the activity of the mind
which seeks externally

waking, dreaming, dreamless sleep, and nondual.
Apparently Wilber ascribes to the 'two truths doctrine' of
Nagarjuna. For Wilber no metaphysical doctrine or apparent
reality is true in an absolute sense: only formless awareness,
"the simple feeling of being," exists absolutely.

If that *is* the case, he's clearly no Nagarjuna...
To say that formless awareness (or anything else) exists
absolutely is to fall right back into the world of form.
Is that truth 1 or truth 2? ;-)
Nice to know intellectually and in theory, but actually
realizing it experientially and doing it in practice is
another matter altogether.

Post by willytex
"And tell me: is that story, sung by mystics and sages the
world over, any crazier than the scientific materialism story,
which is that the entire sequence is a tale told by an idiot,
full of sound and fury, signifying absolutely nothing? Listen
very carefully: just which of those two stories actually sounds
totally insane?"
'A Brief History of Everything'
By Ken Wilber
Shambhala, 2007
Page 42-3- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"To say that formless awareness (or anything else) exists
absolutely is to fall right back into the world of form.
Is that truth 1 or truth 2? ;-)"
Awareness is absolute
(not two)(not finite)(not temporal)
what has that got to do with
'the world of form'? (the appearences of form)
ZN

when you make a statement about something, you give it a boundary, a
definition, you turn it into a conceptual object. To say that
"awareness is absolute" is to destroy awareness.

Robert

- - - - - - - - -

[zenworm]

Post by halfawake

Post by zenworm

Post by Allen Barker

Post by willytex

Post by r***@rwilliams.us
you must suspend your attempts to understand by means
of scrutinizing words, reverse the activity of the mind
which seeks externally

waking, dreaming, dreamless sleep, and nondual.
Apparently Wilber ascribes to the 'two truths doctrine' of
Nagarjuna. For Wilber no metaphysical doctrine or apparent
reality is true in an absolute sense: only formless awareness,
"the simple feeling of being," exists absolutely.

If that *is* the case, he's clearly no Nagarjuna...
To say that formless awareness (or anything else) exists
absolutely is to fall right back into the world of form.
Is that truth 1 or truth 2?  ;-)
Nice to know intellectually and in theory, but actually
realizing it experientially and doing it in practice is
another matter altogether.

Post by willytex
"And tell me: is that story, sung by mystics and sages the
world over, any crazier than the scientific materialism story,
which is that the entire sequence is a tale told by an idiot,
full of sound and fury, signifying absolutely nothing? Listen
very carefully: just which of those two stories actually sounds
totally insane?"
'A Brief History of Everything'
By Ken Wilber
Shambhala, 2007
Page 42-3- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"To say that formless awareness (or anything else) exists
absolutely is to fall right back into the world of form.
Is that truth 1 or truth 2?  ;-)"
Awareness is absolute
(not two)(not finite)(not temporal)
what has that got to do with
'the world of form'? (the appearences of form)
ZN

when you make a statement about something, you give it a boundary, a
definition, you turn it into a conceptual object.  To say that
"awareness is absolute" is to destroy awareness.
Robert
- - - - - - - - -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Since ‘Awareness” and “absolute”

cannot be defined in terms of “Totality”

save perhaps to say “isness”

this definitive ambiguity preserves the Mystery

and acknowledged unspeakability of the Truth as IS

yet with the seeming perverse glee of moths to flame

words that ultimately are meaningless

flutter forth to be consumed in the Moment


ZN

[halfawake]

Post by zenworm

Post by halfawake

Post by zenworm

Post by Allen Barker

Post by willytex

Post by r***@rwilliams.us
you must suspend your attempts to understand by means
of scrutinizing words, reverse the activity of the mind
which seeks externally

waking, dreaming, dreamless sleep, and nondual.
Apparently Wilber ascribes to the 'two truths doctrine' of
Nagarjuna. For Wilber no metaphysical doctrine or apparent
reality is true in an absolute sense: only formless awareness,
"the simple feeling of being," exists absolutely.

If that *is* the case, he's clearly no Nagarjuna...
To say that formless awareness (or anything else) exists
absolutely is to fall right back into the world of form.
Is that truth 1 or truth 2? ;-)
Nice to know intellectually and in theory, but actually
realizing it experientially and doing it in practice is
another matter altogether.

Post by willytex
"And tell me: is that story, sung by mystics and sages the
world over, any crazier than the scientific materialism story,
which is that the entire sequence is a tale told by an idiot,
full of sound and fury, signifying absolutely nothing? Listen
very carefully: just which of those two stories actually sounds
totally insane?"
'A Brief History of Everything'
By Ken Wilber
Shambhala, 2007
Page 42-3- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"To say that formless awareness (or anything else) exists
absolutely is to fall right back into the world of form.
Is that truth 1 or truth 2? ;-)"
Awareness is absolute
(not two)(not finite)(not temporal)
what has that got to do with
'the world of form'? (the appearences of form)
ZN

when you make a statement about something, you give it a boundary, a
definition, you turn it into a conceptual object. To say that
"awareness is absolute" is to destroy awareness.
Robert
- - - - - - - - -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Since ‘Awareness” and “absolute”
cannot be defined in terms of “Totality”
save perhaps to say “isness”
this definitive ambiguity preserves the Mystery
and acknowledged unspeakability of the Truth as IS
yet with the seeming perverse glee of moths to flame
words that ultimately are meaningless
flutter forth to be consumed in the Moment
ZN

the last two lines are nice

generally speaking, though, the above formulation sounds vague and
conceptual, at least to me

robert

- - - - - - - - - -

[zenworm]

Post by halfawake

Post by zenworm

Post by halfawake

Post by zenworm

Post by Allen Barker

Post by willytex

Post by r***@rwilliams.us
you must suspend your attempts to understand by means
of scrutinizing words, reverse the activity of the mind
which seeks externally

waking, dreaming, dreamless sleep, and nondual.
Apparently Wilber ascribes to the 'two truths doctrine' of
Nagarjuna. For Wilber no metaphysical doctrine or apparent
reality is true in an absolute sense: only formless awareness,
"the simple feeling of being," exists absolutely.

If that *is* the case, he's clearly no Nagarjuna...
To say that formless awareness (or anything else) exists
absolutely is to fall right back into the world of form.
Is that truth 1 or truth 2?  ;-)
Nice to know intellectually and in theory, but actually
realizing it experientially and doing it in practice is
another matter altogether.

Post by willytex
"And tell me: is that story, sung by mystics and sages the
world over, any crazier than the scientific materialism story,
which is that the entire sequence is a tale told by an idiot,
full of sound and fury, signifying absolutely nothing? Listen
very carefully: just which of those two stories actually sounds
totally insane?"
'A Brief History of Everything'
By Ken Wilber
Shambhala, 2007
Page 42-3- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"To say that formless awareness (or anything else) exists
absolutely is to fall right back into the world of form.
Is that truth 1 or truth 2?  ;-)"
Awareness is absolute
(not two)(not finite)(not temporal)
what has that got to do with
'the world of form'? (the appearences of form)
ZN

when you make a statement about something, you give it a boundary, a
definition, you turn it into a conceptual object.  To say that
"awareness is absolute" is to destroy awareness.
Robert
- - - - - - - - -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Since ‘Awareness” and “absolute”
cannot be defined in terms of “Totality”
save perhaps to say “isness”
this definitive ambiguity preserves the Mystery
and acknowledged unspeakability of the Truth as IS
yet with the seeming perverse glee of moths to flame
words that ultimately are meaningless
flutter forth to be consumed in the Moment
ZN

the last two lines are nice
generally speaking, though, the above formulation sounds vague and
conceptual, at least to me
robert
- - - - - - - - - -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

you?

ZN

[halfawake]

Post by halfawake

Post by zenworm

Post by halfawake

Post by zenworm

Post by Allen Barker

Post by willytex

Post by r***@rwilliams.us
you must suspend your attempts to understand by means
of scrutinizing words, reverse the activity of the mind
which seeks externally

waking, dreaming, dreamless sleep, and nondual.
Apparently Wilber ascribes to the 'two truths doctrine' of
Nagarjuna. For Wilber no metaphysical doctrine or apparent
reality is true in an absolute sense: only formless awareness,
"the simple feeling of being," exists absolutely.

If that *is* the case, he's clearly no Nagarjuna...
To say that formless awareness (or anything else) exists
absolutely is to fall right back into the world of form.
Is that truth 1 or truth 2? ;-)
Nice to know intellectually and in theory, but actually
realizing it experientially and doing it in practice is
another matter altogether.

Post by willytex
"And tell me: is that story, sung by mystics and sages the
world over, any crazier than the scientific materialism story,
which is that the entire sequence is a tale told by an idiot,
full of sound and fury, signifying absolutely nothing? Listen
very carefully: just which of those two stories actually sounds
totally insane?"
'A Brief History of Everything'
By Ken Wilber
Shambhala, 2007
Page 42-3- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"To say that formless awareness (or anything else) exists
absolutely is to fall right back into the world of form.
Is that truth 1 or truth 2? ;-)"
Awareness is absolute
(not two)(not finite)(not temporal)
what has that got to do with
'the world of form'? (the appearences of form)
ZN

when you make a statement about something, you give it a boundary, a
definition, you turn it into a conceptual object. To say that
"awareness is absolute" is to destroy awareness.
Robert
- - - - - - - - -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Since ‘Awareness” and “absolute”
cannot be defined in terms of “Totality”
save perhaps to say “isness”
this definitive ambiguity preserves the Mystery
and acknowledged unspeakability of the Truth as IS
yet with the seeming perverse glee of moths to flame
words that ultimately are meaningless
flutter forth to be consumed in the Moment
ZN

the last two lines are nice
generally speaking, though, the above formulation sounds vague and
conceptual, at least to me
robert
- - - - - - - - - -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

you?
ZN

yeah, whatever.
don't get all linguistic on me please.

Robert

- - - - - - - -

[zenworm]

Post by halfawake

Post by halfawake

Post by zenworm

Post by halfawake

Post by zenworm

Post by Allen Barker

Post by willytex

Post by r***@rwilliams.us
you must suspend your attempts to understand by means
of scrutinizing words, reverse the activity of the mind
which seeks externally

waking, dreaming, dreamless sleep, and nondual.
Apparently Wilber ascribes to the 'two truths doctrine' of
Nagarjuna. For Wilber no metaphysical doctrine or apparent
reality is true in an absolute sense: only formless awareness,
"the simple feeling of being," exists absolutely.

If that *is* the case, he's clearly no Nagarjuna...
To say that formless awareness (or anything else) exists
absolutely is to fall right back into the world of form.
Is that truth 1 or truth 2?  ;-)
Nice to know intellectually and in theory, but actually
realizing it experientially and doing it in practice is
another matter altogether.

Post by willytex
"And tell me: is that story, sung by mystics and sages the
world over, any crazier than the scientific materialism story,
which is that the entire sequence is a tale told by an idiot,
full of sound and fury, signifying absolutely nothing? Listen
very carefully: just which of those two stories actually sounds
totally insane?"
'A Brief History of Everything'
By Ken Wilber
Shambhala, 2007
Page 42-3- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"To say that formless awareness (or anything else) exists
absolutely is to fall right back into the world of form.
Is that truth 1 or truth 2?  ;-)"
Awareness is absolute
(not two)(not finite)(not temporal)
what has that got to do with
'the world of form'? (the appearences of form)
ZN

when you make a statement about something, you give it a boundary, a
definition, you turn it into a conceptual object.  To say that
"awareness is absolute" is to destroy awareness.
Robert
- - - - - - - - -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Since ‘Awareness” and “absolute”
cannot be defined in terms of “Totality”
save perhaps to say “isness”
this definitive ambiguity preserves the Mystery
and acknowledged unspeakability of the Truth as IS
yet with the seeming perverse glee of moths to flame
words that ultimately are meaningless
flutter forth to be consumed in the Moment
ZN

the last two lines are nice
generally speaking, though, the above formulation sounds vague and
conceptual, at least to me
robert
- - - - - - - - - -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

you?
ZN

yeah, whatever.
don't get all linguistic on me please.
Robert
- - - - - - - -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

are you afraid?

ZN

[halfawake]

Post by zenworm

Post by halfawake

Post by halfawake

Post by zenworm

Post by halfawake

Post by zenworm

Post by Allen Barker

Post by willytex

Post by r***@rwilliams.us
you must suspend your attempts to understand by means
of scrutinizing words, reverse the activity of the mind
which seeks externally

waking, dreaming, dreamless sleep, and nondual.
Apparently Wilber ascribes to the 'two truths doctrine' of
Nagarjuna. For Wilber no metaphysical doctrine or apparent
reality is true in an absolute sense: only formless awareness,
"the simple feeling of being," exists absolutely.

If that *is* the case, he's clearly no Nagarjuna...
To say that formless awareness (or anything else) exists
absolutely is to fall right back into the world of form.
Is that truth 1 or truth 2? ;-)
Nice to know intellectually and in theory, but actually
realizing it experientially and doing it in practice is
another matter altogether.

Post by willytex
"And tell me: is that story, sung by mystics and sages the
world over, any crazier than the scientific materialism story,
which is that the entire sequence is a tale told by an idiot,
full of sound and fury, signifying absolutely nothing? Listen
very carefully: just which of those two stories actually sounds
totally insane?"
'A Brief History of Everything'
By Ken Wilber
Shambhala, 2007
Page 42-3- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"To say that formless awareness (or anything else) exists
absolutely is to fall right back into the world of form.
Is that truth 1 or truth 2? ;-)"
Awareness is absolute
(not two)(not finite)(not temporal)
what has that got to do with
'the world of form'? (the appearences of form)
ZN

when you make a statement about something, you give it a boundary, a
definition, you turn it into a conceptual object. To say that
"awareness is absolute" is to destroy awareness.
Robert
- - - - - - - - -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Since ‘Awareness” and “absolute”
cannot be defined in terms of “Totality”
save perhaps to say “isness”
this definitive ambiguity preserves the Mystery
and acknowledged unspeakability of the Truth as IS
yet with the seeming perverse glee of moths to flame
words that ultimately are meaningless
flutter forth to be consumed in the Moment
ZN

the last two lines are nice
generally speaking, though, the above formulation sounds vague and
conceptual, at least to me
robert
- - - - - - - - - -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

you?
ZN

yeah, whatever.
don't get all linguistic on me please.
Robert
- - - - - - - -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

are you afraid?
ZN

not of that, but yes, I'm afraid of many things. What do you have in mind?

Robert

= = = = = = =

[zenworm]

Post by zenworm

Post by halfawake

Post by halfawake

Post by zenworm

Post by halfawake

Post by zenworm

Post by Allen Barker

Post by willytex

Post by r***@rwilliams.us
you must suspend your attempts to understand by means
of scrutinizing words, reverse the activity of the mind
which seeks externally

waking, dreaming, dreamless sleep, and nondual.
Apparently Wilber ascribes to the 'two truths doctrine' of
Nagarjuna. For Wilber no metaphysical doctrine or apparent
reality is true in an absolute sense: only formless awareness,
"the simple feeling of being," exists absolutely.

If that *is* the case, he's clearly no Nagarjuna...
To say that formless awareness (or anything else) exists
absolutely is to fall right back into the world of form.
Is that truth 1 or truth 2?  ;-)
Nice to know intellectually and in theory, but actually
realizing it experientially and doing it in practice is
another matter altogether.

Post by willytex
"And tell me: is that story, sung by mystics and sages the
world over, any crazier than the scientific materialism story,
which is that the entire sequence is a tale told by an idiot,
full of sound and fury, signifying absolutely nothing? Listen
very carefully: just which of those two stories actually sounds
totally insane?"
'A Brief History of Everything'
By Ken Wilber
Shambhala, 2007
Page 42-3- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"To say that formless awareness (or anything else) exists
absolutely is to fall right back into the world of form.
Is that truth 1 or truth 2?  ;-)"
Awareness is absolute
(not two)(not finite)(not temporal)
what has that got to do with
'the world of form'? (the appearences of form)
ZN

when you make a statement about something, you give it a boundary, a
definition, you turn it into a conceptual object.  To say that
"awareness is absolute" is to destroy awareness.
Robert
- - - - - - - - -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Since ‘Awareness” and “absolute”
cannot be defined in terms of “Totality”
save perhaps to say “isness”
this definitive ambiguity preserves the Mystery
and acknowledged unspeakability of the Truth as IS
yet with the seeming perverse glee of moths to flame
words that ultimately are meaningless
flutter forth to be consumed in the Moment
ZN

the last two lines are nice
generally speaking, though, the above formulation sounds vague and
conceptual, at least to me
robert
- - - - - - - - - -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

you?
ZN

yeah, whatever.
don't get all linguistic on me please.
Robert
- - - - - - - -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

are you afraid?
ZN

not of that, but yes, I'm afraid of many things.  What do you have in mind?
Robert
= = = = = = =- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

the unknown

ZN

[halfawake]

Post by zenworm

Post by halfawake

Post by zenworm

Post by halfawake

Post by halfawake

Post by zenworm

Post by halfawake

Post by zenworm

Post by Allen Barker

Post by willytex

Post by r***@rwilliams.us
you must suspend your attempts to understand by means
of scrutinizing words, reverse the activity of the mind
which seeks externally

waking, dreaming, dreamless sleep, and nondual.
Apparently Wilber ascribes to the 'two truths doctrine' of
Nagarjuna. For Wilber no metaphysical doctrine or apparent
reality is true in an absolute sense: only formless awareness,
"the simple feeling of being," exists absolutely.

If that *is* the case, he's clearly no Nagarjuna...
To say that formless awareness (or anything else) exists
absolutely is to fall right back into the world of form.
Is that truth 1 or truth 2? ;-)
Nice to know intellectually and in theory, but actually
realizing it experientially and doing it in practice is
another matter altogether.

Post by willytex
"And tell me: is that story, sung by mystics and sages the
world over, any crazier than the scientific materialism story,
which is that the entire sequence is a tale told by an idiot,
full of sound and fury, signifying absolutely nothing? Listen
very carefully: just which of those two stories actually sounds
totally insane?"
'A Brief History of Everything'
By Ken Wilber
Shambhala, 2007
Page 42-3- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"To say that formless awareness (or anything else) exists
absolutely is to fall right back into the world of form.
Is that truth 1 or truth 2? ;-)"
Awareness is absolute
(not two)(not finite)(not temporal)
what has that got to do with
'the world of form'? (the appearences of form)
ZN

when you make a statement about something, you give it a boundary, a
definition, you turn it into a conceptual object. To say that
"awareness is absolute" is to destroy awareness.
Robert
- - - - - - - - -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Since ‘Awareness” and “absolute”
cannot be defined in terms of “Totality”
save perhaps to say “isness”
this definitive ambiguity preserves the Mystery
and acknowledged unspeakability of the Truth as IS
yet with the seeming perverse glee of moths to flame
words that ultimately are meaningless
flutter forth to be consumed in the Moment
ZN

the last two lines are nice
generally speaking, though, the above formulation sounds vague and
conceptual, at least to me
robert
- - - - - - - - - -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

you?
ZN

yeah, whatever.
don't get all linguistic on me please.
Robert
- - - - - - - -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

are you afraid?
ZN

not of that, but yes, I'm afraid of many things. What do you have in mind?
Robert
= = = = = = =- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

the unknown
ZN

"you" is not unknown, it's my best friend.

'hi,' "you."

what are you frightened of?

Robert

= = = = = = =

[zenworm]

Post by halfawake

Post by zenworm

Post by zenworm

Post by halfawake

Post by halfawake

Post by zenworm

Post by halfawake

Post by zenworm

Post by Allen Barker

Post by willytex

Post by r***@rwilliams.us
you must suspend your attempts to understand by means
of scrutinizing words, reverse the activity of the mind
which seeks externally

waking, dreaming, dreamless sleep, and nondual.
Apparently Wilber ascribes to the 'two truths doctrine' of
Nagarjuna. For Wilber no metaphysical doctrine or apparent
reality is true in an absolute sense: only formless awareness,
"the simple feeling of being," exists absolutely.

If that *is* the case, he's clearly no Nagarjuna...
To say that formless awareness (or anything else) exists
absolutely is to fall right back into the world of form.
Is that truth 1 or truth 2?  ;-)
Nice to know intellectually and in theory, but actually
realizing it experientially and doing it in practice is
another matter altogether.

Post by willytex
"And tell me: is that story, sung by mystics and sages the
world over, any crazier than the scientific materialism story,
which is that the entire sequence is a tale told by an idiot,
full of sound and fury, signifying absolutely nothing? Listen
very carefully: just which of those two stories actually sounds
totally insane?"
'A Brief History of Everything'
By Ken Wilber
Shambhala, 2007
Page 42-3- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"To say that formless awareness (or anything else) exists
absolutely is to fall right back into the world of form.
Is that truth 1 or truth 2?  ;-)"
Awareness is absolute
(not two)(not finite)(not temporal)
what has that got to do with
'the world of form'? (the appearences of form)
ZN

when you make a statement about something, you give it a boundary, a
definition, you turn it into a conceptual object.  To say that
"awareness is absolute" is to destroy awareness.
Robert
- - - - - - - - -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Since ‘Awareness” and “absolute”
cannot be defined in terms of “Totality”
save perhaps to say “isness”
this definitive ambiguity preserves the Mystery
and acknowledged unspeakability of the Truth as IS
yet with the seeming perverse glee of moths to flame
words that ultimately are meaningless
flutter forth to be consumed in the Moment
ZN

the last two lines are nice
generally speaking, though, the above formulation sounds vague and
conceptual, at least to me
robert
- - - - - - - - - -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

you?
ZN

yeah, whatever.
don't get all linguistic on me please.
Robert
- - - - - - - -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

are you afraid?
ZN

not of that, but yes, I'm afraid of many things.  What do you have in mind?
Robert
= = = = = = =- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

the unknown
ZN

"you" is not unknown, it's my best friend.
'hi,' "you."
what are you frightened of?
Robert
= = = = = = =- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

with no 'you'

there is no fear

ZN

[halfawake]

Post by zenworm

Post by halfawake

Post by zenworm

Post by halfawake

Post by zenworm

Post by halfawake

Post by halfawake

Post by zenworm

Post by halfawake

Post by zenworm

Post by Allen Barker

Post by willytex

Post by r***@rwilliams.us
you must suspend your attempts to understand by means
of scrutinizing words, reverse the activity of the mind
which seeks externally

waking, dreaming, dreamless sleep, and nondual.
Apparently Wilber ascribes to the 'two truths doctrine' of
Nagarjuna. For Wilber no metaphysical doctrine or apparent
reality is true in an absolute sense: only formless awareness,
"the simple feeling of being," exists absolutely.

If that *is* the case, he's clearly no Nagarjuna...
To say that formless awareness (or anything else) exists
absolutely is to fall right back into the world of form.
Is that truth 1 or truth 2? ;-)
Nice to know intellectually and in theory, but actually
realizing it experientially and doing it in practice is
another matter altogether.

Post by willytex
"And tell me: is that story, sung by mystics and sages the
world over, any crazier than the scientific materialism story,
which is that the entire sequence is a tale told by an idiot,
full of sound and fury, signifying absolutely nothing? Listen
very carefully: just which of those two stories actually sounds
totally insane?"
'A Brief History of Everything'
By Ken Wilber
Shambhala, 2007
Page 42-3- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"To say that formless awareness (or anything else) exists
absolutely is to fall right back into the world of form.
Is that truth 1 or truth 2? ;-)"
Awareness is absolute
(not two)(not finite)(not temporal)
what has that got to do with
'the world of form'? (the appearences of form)
ZN

when you make a statement about something, you give it a boundary, a
definition, you turn it into a conceptual object. To say that
"awareness is absolute" is to destroy awareness.
Robert
- - - - - - - - -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Since ‘Awareness” and “absolute”
cannot be defined in terms of “Totality”
save perhaps to say “isness”
this definitive ambiguity preserves the Mystery
and acknowledged unspeakability of the Truth as IS
yet with the seeming perverse glee of moths to flame
words that ultimately are meaningless
flutter forth to be consumed in the Moment
ZN

the last two lines are nice
generally speaking, though, the above formulation sounds vague and
conceptual, at least to me
robert
- - - - - - - - - -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

you?
ZN

yeah, whatever.
don't get all linguistic on me please.
Robert
- - - - - - - -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

are you afraid?
ZN

not of that, but yes, I'm afraid of many things. What do you have in mind?
Robert
= = = = = = =- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

the unknown
ZN

"you" is not unknown, it's my best friend.
'hi,' "you."
what are you frightened of?
Robert
= = = = = = =- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

with no 'you'
there is no fear
ZN

so u r 99.9% pure?

robert

[zenworm]

Post by halfawake

Post by halfawake

Post by zenworm

Post by halfawake

Post by zenworm

Post by Allen Barker

Post by willytex

Post by r***@rwilliams.us
you must suspend your attempts to understand by means
of scrutinizing words, reverse the activity of the mind
which seeks externally

waking, dreaming, dreamless sleep, and nondual.
Apparently Wilber ascribes to the 'two truths doctrine' of
Nagarjuna. For Wilber no metaphysical doctrine or apparent
reality is true in an absolute sense: only formless awareness,
"the simple feeling of being," exists absolutely.

If that *is* the case, he's clearly no Nagarjuna...
To say that formless awareness (or anything else) exists
absolutely is to fall right back into the world of form.
Is that truth 1 or truth 2?  ;-)
Nice to know intellectually and in theory, but actually
realizing it experientially and doing it in practice is
another matter altogether.

Post by willytex
"And tell me: is that story, sung by mystics and sages the
world over, any crazier than the scientific materialism story,
which is that the entire sequence is a tale told by an idiot,
full of sound and fury, signifying absolutely nothing? Listen
very carefully: just which of those two stories actually sounds
totally insane?"
'A Brief History of Everything'
By Ken Wilber
Shambhala, 2007
Page 42-3- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"To say that formless awareness (or anything else) exists
absolutely is to fall right back into the world of form.
Is that truth 1 or truth 2?  ;-)"
Awareness is absolute
(not two)(not finite)(not temporal)
what has that got to do with
'the world of form'? (the appearences of form)
ZN

when you make a statement about something, you give it a boundary, a
definition, you turn it into a conceptual object.  To say that
"awareness is absolute" is to destroy awareness.
Robert
- - - - - - - - -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Since ‘Awareness” and “absolute”
cannot be defined in terms of “Totality”
save perhaps to say “isness”
this definitive ambiguity preserves the Mystery
and acknowledged unspeakability of the Truth as IS
yet with the seeming perverse glee of moths to flame
words that ultimately are meaningless
flutter forth to be consumed in the Moment
ZN

the last two lines are nice
generally speaking, though, the above formulation sounds vague and
conceptual, at least to me
robert
- - - - - - - - - -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

you?
ZN

yeah, whatever.
don't get all linguistic on me please.
Robert
- - - - - - - -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

pay no attention

to the man behind the curtain

to the word behind the concept


what is context?

ZN

[halfawake]

Post by zenworm

Post by halfawake

Post by halfawake

Post by zenworm

Post by halfawake

Post by zenworm

Post by Allen Barker

Post by willytex

Post by r***@rwilliams.us
you must suspend your attempts to understand by means
of scrutinizing words, reverse the activity of the mind
which seeks externally

waking, dreaming, dreamless sleep, and nondual.
Apparently Wilber ascribes to the 'two truths doctrine' of
Nagarjuna. For Wilber no metaphysical doctrine or apparent
reality is true in an absolute sense: only formless awareness,
"the simple feeling of being," exists absolutely.

If that *is* the case, he's clearly no Nagarjuna...
To say that formless awareness (or anything else) exists
absolutely is to fall right back into the world of form.
Is that truth 1 or truth 2? ;-)
Nice to know intellectually and in theory, but actually
realizing it experientially and doing it in practice is
another matter altogether.

Post by willytex
"And tell me: is that story, sung by mystics and sages the
world over, any crazier than the scientific materialism story,
which is that the entire sequence is a tale told by an idiot,
full of sound and fury, signifying absolutely nothing? Listen
very carefully: just which of those two stories actually sounds
totally insane?"
'A Brief History of Everything'
By Ken Wilber
Shambhala, 2007
Page 42-3- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"To say that formless awareness (or anything else) exists
absolutely is to fall right back into the world of form.
Is that truth 1 or truth 2? ;-)"
Awareness is absolute
(not two)(not finite)(not temporal)
what has that got to do with
'the world of form'? (the appearences of form)
ZN

when you make a statement about something, you give it a boundary, a
definition, you turn it into a conceptual object. To say that
"awareness is absolute" is to destroy awareness.
Robert
- - - - - - - - -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Since ‘Awareness” and “absolute”
cannot be defined in terms of “Totality”
save perhaps to say “isness”
this definitive ambiguity preserves the Mystery
and acknowledged unspeakability of the Truth as IS
yet with the seeming perverse glee of moths to flame
words that ultimately are meaningless
flutter forth to be consumed in the Moment
ZN

the last two lines are nice
generally speaking, though, the above formulation sounds vague and
conceptual, at least to me
robert
- - - - - - - - - -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

you?
ZN

yeah, whatever.
don't get all linguistic on me please.
Robert
- - - - - - - -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

pay no attention
to the man behind the curtain

you mean that empty space?

Post by zenworm
to the word behind the concept

you mean that silent space?

Post by zenworm
what is context?
ZN

what is context? what do you think?

robert

= = = = = = =

[^@%>---*=#**]

Post by halfawake

Post by zenworm

Post by halfawake

Post by halfawake

Post by zenworm

Post by halfawake

Post by zenworm

Post by Allen Barker

Post by willytex

Post by r***@rwilliams.us
you must suspend your attempts to understand by means
of scrutinizing words, reverse the activity of the mind
which seeks externally

waking, dreaming, dreamless sleep, and nondual.
Apparently Wilber ascribes to the 'two truths doctrine' of
Nagarjuna. For Wilber no metaphysical doctrine or apparent
reality is true in an absolute sense: only formless awareness,
"the simple feeling of being," exists absolutely.

If that *is* the case, he's clearly no Nagarjuna...
To say that formless awareness (or anything else) exists
absolutely is to fall right back into the world of form.
Is that truth 1 or truth 2? ;-)
Nice to know intellectually and in theory, but actually
realizing it experientially and doing it in practice is
another matter altogether.

Post by willytex
"And tell me: is that story, sung by mystics and sages the
world over, any crazier than the scientific materialism story,
which is that the entire sequence is a tale told by an idiot,
full of sound and fury, signifying absolutely nothing? Listen
very carefully: just which of those two stories actually sounds
totally insane?"
'A Brief History of Everything'
By Ken Wilber
Shambhala, 2007
Page 42-3- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"To say that formless awareness (or anything else) exists
absolutely is to fall right back into the world of form.
Is that truth 1 or truth 2? ;-)"
Awareness is absolute
(not two)(not finite)(not temporal)
what has that got to do with
'the world of form'? (the appearences of form)
ZN

when you make a statement about something, you give it a boundary, a
definition, you turn it into a conceptual object. To say that
"awareness is absolute" is to destroy awareness.
Robert
- - - - - - - - -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Since ‘Awareness” and “absolute”
cannot be defined in terms of “Totality”
save perhaps to say “isness”
this definitive ambiguity preserves the Mystery
and acknowledged unspeakability of the Truth as IS
yet with the seeming perverse glee of moths to flame
words that ultimately are meaningless
flutter forth to be consumed in the Moment
ZN

the last two lines are nice
generally speaking, though, the above formulation sounds vague and
conceptual, at least to me
robert
- - - - - - - - - -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

you?
ZN

yeah, whatever.
don't get all linguistic on me please.
Robert
- - - - - - - -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

pay no attention
to the man behind the curtain

you mean that empty space?

Post by zenworm
to the word behind the concept

you mean that silent space?

Post by zenworm
what is context?
ZN

what is context? what do you think?
robert
= = = = = = =

mafia on a cell?

[halfawake]

Post by ^@%>---*=#**

Post by halfawake

Post by zenworm

Post by halfawake

Post by halfawake

Post by zenworm

Post by halfawake

Post by zenworm

Post by Allen Barker

Post by willytex

Post by r***@rwilliams.us
you must suspend your attempts to understand by means
of scrutinizing words, reverse the activity of the mind
which seeks externally

waking, dreaming, dreamless sleep, and nondual.
Apparently Wilber ascribes to the 'two truths doctrine' of
Nagarjuna. For Wilber no metaphysical doctrine or apparent
reality is true in an absolute sense: only formless awareness,
"the simple feeling of being," exists absolutely.

If that *is* the case, he's clearly no Nagarjuna...
To say that formless awareness (or anything else) exists
absolutely is to fall right back into the world of form.
Is that truth 1 or truth 2? ;-)
Nice to know intellectually and in theory, but actually
realizing it experientially and doing it in practice is
another matter altogether.

Post by willytex
"And tell me: is that story, sung by mystics and sages the
world over, any crazier than the scientific materialism story,
which is that the entire sequence is a tale told by an idiot,
full of sound and fury, signifying absolutely nothing? Listen
very carefully: just which of those two stories actually sounds
totally insane?"
'A Brief History of Everything'
By Ken Wilber
Shambhala, 2007
Page 42-3- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"To say that formless awareness (or anything else) exists
absolutely is to fall right back into the world of form.
Is that truth 1 or truth 2? ;-)"
Awareness is absolute
(not two)(not finite)(not temporal)
what has that got to do with
'the world of form'? (the appearences of form)
ZN

when you make a statement about something, you give it a boundary, a
definition, you turn it into a conceptual object. To say that
"awareness is absolute" is to destroy awareness.
Robert
- - - - - - - - -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Since ‘Awareness” and “absolute”
cannot be defined in terms of “Totality”
save perhaps to say “isness”
this definitive ambiguity preserves the Mystery
and acknowledged unspeakability of the Truth as IS
yet with the seeming perverse glee of moths to flame
words that ultimately are meaningless
flutter forth to be consumed in the Moment
ZN

the last two lines are nice
generally speaking, though, the above formulation sounds vague and
conceptual, at least to me
robert
- - - - - - - - - -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

you?
ZN

yeah, whatever.
don't get all linguistic on me please.
Robert
- - - - - - - -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

pay no attention
to the man behind the curtain

you mean that empty space?

Post by zenworm
to the word behind the concept

you mean that silent space?

Post by zenworm
what is context?
ZN

what is context? what do you think?
robert
= = = = = = =

mafia on a cell?

ah, that is good.
and Paradise is what you play craps with,
Paradox is what you buy to start a mallard farm,
and Paralinguistics is an athletic activity you do with your girlfriend.

Best,
Robert

= = = = = = = = = = =

[^@%>---*=#**]

Post by halfawake

Post by ^@%>---*=#**

Post by halfawake

Post by zenworm

Post by halfawake

Post by halfawake

Post by zenworm

Post by halfawake

Post by zenworm

Post by Allen Barker

Post by willytex

Post by r***@rwilliams.us
you must suspend your attempts to understand by means
of scrutinizing words, reverse the activity of the mind
which seeks externally

waking, dreaming, dreamless sleep, and nondual.
Apparently Wilber ascribes to the 'two truths doctrine' of
Nagarjuna. For Wilber no metaphysical doctrine or apparent
reality is true in an absolute sense: only formless awareness,
"the simple feeling of being," exists absolutely.

If that *is* the case, he's clearly no Nagarjuna...
To say that formless awareness (or anything else) exists
absolutely is to fall right back into the world of form.
Is that truth 1 or truth 2? ;-)
Nice to know intellectually and in theory, but actually
realizing it experientially and doing it in practice is
another matter altogether.

Post by willytex
"And tell me: is that story, sung by mystics and sages the
world over, any crazier than the scientific materialism story,
which is that the entire sequence is a tale told by an idiot,
full of sound and fury, signifying absolutely nothing? Listen
very carefully: just which of those two stories actually sounds
totally insane?"
'A Brief History of Everything'
By Ken Wilber
Shambhala, 2007
Page 42-3- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"To say that formless awareness (or anything else) exists
absolutely is to fall right back into the world of form.
Is that truth 1 or truth 2? ;-)"
Awareness is absolute
(not two)(not finite)(not temporal)
what has that got to do with
'the world of form'? (the appearences of form)
ZN

when you make a statement about something, you give it a boundary, a
definition, you turn it into a conceptual object. To say that
"awareness is absolute" is to destroy awareness.
Robert
- - - - - - - - -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Since ‘Awareness” and “absolute”
cannot be defined in terms of “Totality”
save perhaps to say “isness”
this definitive ambiguity preserves the Mystery
and acknowledged unspeakability of the Truth as IS
yet with the seeming perverse glee of moths to flame
words that ultimately are meaningless
flutter forth to be consumed in the Moment
ZN

the last two lines are nice
generally speaking, though, the above formulation sounds vague and
conceptual, at least to me
robert
- - - - - - - - - -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

you?
ZN

yeah, whatever.
don't get all linguistic on me please.
Robert
- - - - - - - -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

pay no attention
to the man behind the curtain

you mean that empty space?

Post by zenworm
to the word behind the concept

you mean that silent space?

Post by zenworm
what is context?
ZN

what is context? what do you think?
robert
= = = = = = =

mafia on a cell?

ah, that is good.
and Paradise is what you play craps with,
Paradox is what you buy to start a mallard farm,
and Paralinguistics is an athletic activity you do with your girlfriend.
Best,
Robert
= = = = = = = = = = =

s'pose we'll never find a paranormals

[Wally Chapman]

Post by ^@%>---*=#**

Post by halfawake

Post by ^@%>---*=#**

Post by halfawake

Post by zenworm

Post by halfawake

Post by halfawake

Post by zenworm

Post by halfawake

On Jul 24, 1:45 am, Allen Barker

Post by Allen Barker

Post by willytex

Post by r***@rwilliams.us
you must suspend your attempts to understand by means
of scrutinizing words, reverse the activity of the mind
which seeks externally

waking, dreaming, dreamless sleep, and nondual.
Apparently Wilber ascribes to the 'two truths doctrine' of
Nagarjuna. For Wilber no metaphysical doctrine or apparent
reality is true in an absolute sense: only formless awareness,
"the simple feeling of being," exists absolutely.

If that *is* the case, he's clearly no Nagarjuna...
To say that formless awareness (or anything else) exists
absolutely is to fall right back into the world of form.
Is that truth 1 or truth 2? ;-)
Nice to know intellectually and in theory, but actually
realizing it experientially and doing it in practice is
another matter altogether.

Post by willytex
"And tell me: is that story, sung by mystics and sages the
world over, any crazier than the scientific materialism story,
which is that the entire sequence is a tale told by an idiot,
full of sound and fury, signifying absolutely nothing? Listen
very carefully: just which of those two stories actually sounds
totally insane?"
'A Brief History of Everything'
By Ken Wilber
Shambhala, 2007
Page 42-3- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"To say that formless awareness (or anything else) exists
absolutely is to fall right back into the world of form.
Is that truth 1 or truth 2? ;-)"
Awareness is absolute
(not two)(not finite)(not temporal)
what has that got to do with
'the world of form'? (the appearences of form)
ZN

when you make a statement about something, you give it a boundary, a
definition, you turn it into a conceptual object. To say that
"awareness is absolute" is to destroy awareness.
Robert
- - - - - - - - -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Since ‘Awareness” and “absolute”
cannot be defined in terms of “Totality”
save perhaps to say “isness”
this definitive ambiguity preserves the Mystery
and acknowledged unspeakability of the Truth as IS
yet with the seeming perverse glee of moths to flame
words that ultimately are meaningless
flutter forth to be consumed in the Moment
ZN

the last two lines are nice
generally speaking, though, the above formulation sounds vague and
conceptual, at least to me
robert
- - - - - - - - - -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

you?
ZN

yeah, whatever.
don't get all linguistic on me please.
Robert
- - - - - - - -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

pay no attention
to the man behind the curtain

you mean that empty space?

Post by zenworm
to the word behind the concept

you mean that silent space?

Post by zenworm
what is context?
ZN

what is context? what do you think?
robert
= = = = = = =

mafia on a cell?

ah, that is good.
and Paradise is what you play craps with,
Paradox is what you buy to start a mallard farm,
and Paralinguistics is an athletic activity you do with your girlfriend.
Best,
Robert
= = = = = = = = = = =

s'pose we'll never find a paranormals

Paraphernalia is an is a couple of chutes.

Wally

[Keynes]

Post by Wally Chapman

Post by ^@%>---*=#**

Post by halfawake

Post by ^@%>---*=#**

Post by halfawake

Post by zenworm

Post by halfawake

Post by halfawake

Post by zenworm

Post by halfawake

On Jul 24, 1:45 am, Allen Barker

Post by Allen Barker

Post by willytex

Post by r***@rwilliams.us
you must suspend your attempts to understand by means
of scrutinizing words, reverse the activity of the mind
which seeks externally

waking, dreaming, dreamless sleep, and nondual.
Apparently Wilber ascribes to the 'two truths doctrine' of
Nagarjuna. For Wilber no metaphysical doctrine or apparent
reality is true in an absolute sense: only formless awareness,
"the simple feeling of being," exists absolutely.

If that *is* the case, he's clearly no Nagarjuna...
To say that formless awareness (or anything else) exists
absolutely is to fall right back into the world of form.
Is that truth 1 or truth 2? ;-)
Nice to know intellectually and in theory, but actually
realizing it experientially and doing it in practice is
another matter altogether.

Post by willytex
"And tell me: is that story, sung by mystics and sages the
world over, any crazier than the scientific materialism story,
which is that the entire sequence is a tale told by an idiot,
full of sound and fury, signifying absolutely nothing? Listen
very carefully: just which of those two stories actually sounds
totally insane?"
'A Brief History of Everything'
By Ken Wilber
Shambhala, 2007
Page 42-3- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"To say that formless awareness (or anything else) exists
absolutely is to fall right back into the world of form.
Is that truth 1 or truth 2? ;-)"
Awareness is absolute
(not two)(not finite)(not temporal)
what has that got to do with
'the world of form'? (the appearences of form)
ZN

when you make a statement about something, you give it a boundary, a
definition, you turn it into a conceptual object. To say that
"awareness is absolute" is to destroy awareness.
Robert
- - - - - - - - -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Since ‘Awareness” and “absolute”
cannot be defined in terms of “Totality”
save perhaps to say “isness”
this definitive ambiguity preserves the Mystery
and acknowledged unspeakability of the Truth as IS
yet with the seeming perverse glee of moths to flame
words that ultimately are meaningless
flutter forth to be consumed in the Moment
ZN

the last two lines are nice
generally speaking, though, the above formulation sounds vague and
conceptual, at least to me
robert
- - - - - - - - - -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

you?
ZN

yeah, whatever.
don't get all linguistic on me please.
Robert
- - - - - - - -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

pay no attention
to the man behind the curtain

you mean that empty space?

Post by zenworm
to the word behind the concept

you mean that silent space?

Post by zenworm
what is context?
ZN

what is context? what do you think?
robert
= = = = = = =

mafia on a cell?

ah, that is good.
and Paradise is what you play craps with,
Paradox is what you buy to start a mallard farm,
and Paralinguistics is an athletic activity you do with your girlfriend.
Best,
Robert
= = = = = = = = = = =

s'pose we'll never find a paranormals

Paraphernalia is an is a couple of chutes.
Wally

Paraphernalia?
I've never even seen one phernalia.

(Has it anything to do with kilts?)

[^@%>---*=#**]

Post by Wally Chapman

Post by ^@%>---*=#**

Post by halfawake

Post by ^@%>---*=#**

Post by halfawake

Post by zenworm

Post by halfawake

Post by halfawake

Post by zenworm

Post by halfawake

On Jul 24, 1:45 am, Allen Barker

Post by Allen Barker

Post by willytex

Post by r***@rwilliams.us
you must suspend your attempts to understand by means
of scrutinizing words, reverse the activity of the mind
which seeks externally

waking, dreaming, dreamless sleep, and nondual.
Apparently Wilber ascribes to the 'two truths doctrine' of
Nagarjuna. For Wilber no metaphysical doctrine or apparent
reality is true in an absolute sense: only formless awareness,
"the simple feeling of being," exists absolutely.

If that *is* the case, he's clearly no Nagarjuna...
To say that formless awareness (or anything else) exists
absolutely is to fall right back into the world of form.
Is that truth 1 or truth 2? ;-)
Nice to know intellectually and in theory, but actually
realizing it experientially and doing it in practice is
another matter altogether.

Post by willytex
"And tell me: is that story, sung by mystics and sages the
world over, any crazier than the scientific materialism story,
which is that the entire sequence is a tale told by an idiot,
full of sound and fury, signifying absolutely nothing? Listen
very carefully: just which of those two stories actually sounds
totally insane?"
'A Brief History of Everything'
By Ken Wilber
Shambhala, 2007
Page 42-3- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"To say that formless awareness (or anything else) exists
absolutely is to fall right back into the world of form.
Is that truth 1 or truth 2? ;-)"
Awareness is absolute
(not two)(not finite)(not temporal)
what has that got to do with
'the world of form'? (the appearences of form)
ZN

when you make a statement about something, you give it a boundary, a
definition, you turn it into a conceptual object. To say that
"awareness is absolute" is to destroy awareness.
Robert
- - - - - - - - -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Since ‘Awareness” and “absolute”
cannot be defined in terms of “Totality”
save perhaps to say “isness”
this definitive ambiguity preserves the Mystery
and acknowledged unspeakability of the Truth as IS
yet with the seeming perverse glee of moths to flame
words that ultimately are meaningless
flutter forth to be consumed in the Moment
ZN

the last two lines are nice
generally speaking, though, the above formulation sounds vague and
conceptual, at least to me
robert
- - - - - - - - - -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

you?
ZN

yeah, whatever.
don't get all linguistic on me please.
Robert
- - - - - - - -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

pay no attention
to the man behind the curtain

you mean that empty space?

Post by zenworm
to the word behind the concept

you mean that silent space?

Post by zenworm
what is context?
ZN

what is context? what do you think?
robert
= = = = = = =

mafia on a cell?

ah, that is good.
and Paradise is what you play craps with,
Paradox is what you buy to start a mallard farm,
and Paralinguistics is an athletic activity you do with your girlfriend.
Best,
Robert
= = = = = = = = = = =

s'pose we'll never find a paranormals

Paraphernalia is an is a couple of chutes.
Wally

are two cows a parabrahma ?
mu mu.

[halfawake]

Post by ^@%>---*=#**

Post by halfawake

Post by ^@%>---*=#**

Post by halfawake

Post by zenworm

Post by halfawake

Post by halfawake

Post by zenworm

Post by halfawake

On Jul 24, 1:45 am, Allen Barker

Post by Allen Barker

Post by willytex

Post by r***@rwilliams.us
you must suspend your attempts to understand by means
of scrutinizing words, reverse the activity of the mind
which seeks externally

waking, dreaming, dreamless sleep, and nondual.
Apparently Wilber ascribes to the 'two truths doctrine' of
Nagarjuna. For Wilber no metaphysical doctrine or apparent
reality is true in an absolute sense: only formless awareness,
"the simple feeling of being," exists absolutely.

If that *is* the case, he's clearly no Nagarjuna...
To say that formless awareness (or anything else) exists
absolutely is to fall right back into the world of form.
Is that truth 1 or truth 2? ;-)
Nice to know intellectually and in theory, but actually
realizing it experientially and doing it in practice is
another matter altogether.

Post by willytex
"And tell me: is that story, sung by mystics and sages the
world over, any crazier than the scientific materialism story,
which is that the entire sequence is a tale told by an idiot,
full of sound and fury, signifying absolutely nothing? Listen
very carefully: just which of those two stories actually sounds
totally insane?"
'A Brief History of Everything'
By Ken Wilber
Shambhala, 2007
Page 42-3- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"To say that formless awareness (or anything else) exists
absolutely is to fall right back into the world of form.
Is that truth 1 or truth 2? ;-)"
Awareness is absolute
(not two)(not finite)(not temporal)
what has that got to do with
'the world of form'? (the appearences of form)
ZN

when you make a statement about something, you give it a boundary, a
definition, you turn it into a conceptual object. To say that
"awareness is absolute" is to destroy awareness.
Robert
- - - - - - - - -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Since ‘Awareness” and “absolute”
cannot be defined in terms of “Totality”
save perhaps to say “isness”
this definitive ambiguity preserves the Mystery
and acknowledged unspeakability of the Truth as IS
yet with the seeming perverse glee of moths to flame
words that ultimately are meaningless
flutter forth to be consumed in the Moment
ZN

the last two lines are nice
generally speaking, though, the above formulation sounds vague and
conceptual, at least to me
robert
- - - - - - - - - -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

you?
ZN

yeah, whatever.
don't get all linguistic on me please.
Robert
- - - - - - - -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

pay no attention
to the man behind the curtain

you mean that empty space?

Post by zenworm
to the word behind the concept

you mean that silent space?

Post by zenworm
what is context?
ZN

what is context? what do you think?
robert
= = = = = = =

mafia on a cell?

ah, that is good.
and Paradise is what you play craps with,
Paradox is what you buy to start a mallard farm,
and Paralinguistics is an athletic activity you do with your girlfriend.
Best,
Robert
= = = = = = = = = = =

s'pose we'll never find a paranormals

not around here bub

robert

= = = = = = = = =

[zenworm]

Post by halfawake

Post by zenworm

Post by halfawake

Post by halfawake

Post by zenworm

Post by halfawake

Post by zenworm

Post by Allen Barker

Post by willytex

Post by r***@rwilliams.us
you must suspend your attempts to understand by means
of scrutinizing words, reverse the activity of the mind
which seeks externally

waking, dreaming, dreamless sleep, and nondual.
Apparently Wilber ascribes to the 'two truths doctrine' of
Nagarjuna. For Wilber no metaphysical doctrine or apparent
reality is true in an absolute sense: only formless awareness,
"the simple feeling of being," exists absolutely.

If that *is* the case, he's clearly no Nagarjuna...
To say that formless awareness (or anything else) exists
absolutely is to fall right back into the world of form.
Is that truth 1 or truth 2?  ;-)
Nice to know intellectually and in theory, but actually
realizing it experientially and doing it in practice is
another matter altogether.

Post by willytex
"And tell me: is that story, sung by mystics and sages the
world over, any crazier than the scientific materialism story,
which is that the entire sequence is a tale told by an idiot,
full of sound and fury, signifying absolutely nothing? Listen
very carefully: just which of those two stories actually sounds
totally insane?"
'A Brief History of Everything'
By Ken Wilber
Shambhala, 2007
Page 42-3- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"To say that formless awareness (or anything else) exists
absolutely is to fall right back into the world of form.
Is that truth 1 or truth 2?  ;-)"
Awareness is absolute
(not two)(not finite)(not temporal)
what has that got to do with
'the world of form'? (the appearences of form)
ZN

when you make a statement about something, you give it a boundary, a
definition, you turn it into a conceptual object.  To say that
"awareness is absolute" is to destroy awareness.
Robert
- - - - - - - - -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Since ‘Awareness” and “absolute”
cannot be defined in terms of “Totality”
save perhaps to say “isness”
this definitive ambiguity preserves the Mystery
and acknowledged unspeakability of the Truth as IS
yet with the seeming perverse glee of moths to flame
words that ultimately are meaningless
flutter forth to be consumed in the Moment
ZN

the last two lines are nice
generally speaking, though, the above formulation sounds vague and
conceptual, at least to me
robert
- - - - - - - - - -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

you?
ZN

yeah, whatever.
don't get all linguistic on me please.
Robert
- - - - - - - -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

pay no attention
to the man behind the curtain

you mean that empty space?

Post by zenworm
to the word behind the concept

you mean that silent space?

Post by zenworm
what is context?
ZN

what is context?  what do you think?
robert
= = = = = = =- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

what has thinking got to do with context?

ZN

[halfawake]

Post by zenworm

Post by halfawake

Post by zenworm

Post by halfawake

Post by halfawake

Post by zenworm

Post by halfawake

Post by zenworm

Post by Allen Barker

Post by willytex

Post by r***@rwilliams.us
you must suspend your attempts to understand by means
of scrutinizing words, reverse the activity of the mind
which seeks externally

waking, dreaming, dreamless sleep, and nondual.
Apparently Wilber ascribes to the 'two truths doctrine' of
Nagarjuna. For Wilber no metaphysical doctrine or apparent
reality is true in an absolute sense: only formless awareness,
"the simple feeling of being," exists absolutely.

If that *is* the case, he's clearly no Nagarjuna...
To say that formless awareness (or anything else) exists
absolutely is to fall right back into the world of form.
Is that truth 1 or truth 2? ;-)
Nice to know intellectually and in theory, but actually
realizing it experientially and doing it in practice is
another matter altogether.

Post by willytex
"And tell me: is that story, sung by mystics and sages the
world over, any crazier than the scientific materialism story,
which is that the entire sequence is a tale told by an idiot,
full of sound and fury, signifying absolutely nothing? Listen
very carefully: just which of those two stories actually sounds
totally insane?"
'A Brief History of Everything'
By Ken Wilber
Shambhala, 2007
Page 42-3- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"To say that formless awareness (or anything else) exists
absolutely is to fall right back into the world of form.
Is that truth 1 or truth 2? ;-)"
Awareness is absolute
(not two)(not finite)(not temporal)
what has that got to do with
'the world of form'? (the appearences of form)
ZN

when you make a statement about something, you give it a boundary, a
definition, you turn it into a conceptual object. To say that
"awareness is absolute" is to destroy awareness.
Robert
- - - - - - - - -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Since ‘Awareness” and “absolute”
cannot be defined in terms of “Totality”
save perhaps to say “isness”
this definitive ambiguity preserves the Mystery
and acknowledged unspeakability of the Truth as IS
yet with the seeming perverse glee of moths to flame
words that ultimately are meaningless
flutter forth to be consumed in the Moment
ZN

the last two lines are nice
generally speaking, though, the above formulation sounds vague and
conceptual, at least to me
robert
- - - - - - - - - -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

you?
ZN

yeah, whatever.
don't get all linguistic on me please.
Robert
- - - - - - - -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

pay no attention
to the man behind the curtain

you mean that empty space?

Post by zenworm
to the word behind the concept

you mean that silent space?

Post by zenworm
what is context?
ZN

what is context? what do you think?
robert
= = = = = = =- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

what has thinking got to do with context?
ZN

what does context have to do with anything?
context is a construct.

why not talk about the way things are instead.

Robert

= = = = = = = =

[zenworm]

Post by halfawake

Post by zenworm

Post by halfawake

Post by zenworm

Post by halfawake

Post by halfawake

Post by zenworm

Post by halfawake

Post by zenworm

Post by Allen Barker

Post by willytex

Post by r***@rwilliams.us
you must suspend your attempts to understand by means
of scrutinizing words, reverse the activity of the mind
which seeks externally

waking, dreaming, dreamless sleep, and nondual.
Apparently Wilber ascribes to the 'two truths doctrine' of
Nagarjuna. For Wilber no metaphysical doctrine or apparent
reality is true in an absolute sense: only formless awareness,
"the simple feeling of being," exists absolutely.

If that *is* the case, he's clearly no Nagarjuna...
To say that formless awareness (or anything else) exists
absolutely is to fall right back into the world of form.
Is that truth 1 or truth 2?  ;-)
Nice to know intellectually and in theory, but actually
realizing it experientially and doing it in practice is
another matter altogether.

Post by willytex
"And tell me: is that story, sung by mystics and sages the
world over, any crazier than the scientific materialism story,
which is that the entire sequence is a tale told by an idiot,
full of sound and fury, signifying absolutely nothing? Listen
very carefully: just which of those two stories actually sounds
totally insane?"
'A Brief History of Everything'
By Ken Wilber
Shambhala, 2007
Page 42-3- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"To say that formless awareness (or anything else) exists
absolutely is to fall right back into the world of form.
Is that truth 1 or truth 2?  ;-)"
Awareness is absolute
(not two)(not finite)(not temporal)
what has that got to do with
'the world of form'? (the appearences of form)
ZN

when you make a statement about something, you give it a boundary, a
definition, you turn it into a conceptual object.  To say that
"awareness is absolute" is to destroy awareness.
Robert
- - - - - - - - -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Since ‘Awareness” and “absolute”
cannot be defined in terms of “Totality”
save perhaps to say “isness”
this definitive ambiguity preserves the Mystery
and acknowledged unspeakability of the Truth as IS
yet with the seeming perverse glee of moths to flame
words that ultimately are meaningless
flutter forth to be consumed in the Moment
ZN

the last two lines are nice
generally speaking, though, the above formulation sounds vague and
conceptual, at least to me
robert
- - - - - - - - - -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

you?
ZN

yeah, whatever.
don't get all linguistic on me please.
Robert
- - - - - - - -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

pay no attention
to the man behind the curtain

you mean that empty space?

Post by zenworm
to the word behind the concept

you mean that silent space?

Post by zenworm
what is context?
ZN

what is context?  what do you think?
robert
= = = = = = =- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

what has thinking got to do with context?
ZN

what does context have to do with anything?
context is a construct.

when context is Awareness

what construct?

ZN

Post by halfawake
why not talk about the way things are instead.

without verbal/language/labels what are 'things'

ZN

Post by halfawake
Robert
= = = = = = = =- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

[halfawake]

Post by zenworm

Post by halfawake

Post by zenworm

Post by halfawake

Post by zenworm

Post by halfawake

Post by halfawake

Post by zenworm

Post by halfawake

Post by zenworm

Post by Allen Barker

Post by willytex

Post by r***@rwilliams.us
you must suspend your attempts to understand by means
of scrutinizing words, reverse the activity of the mind
which seeks externally

waking, dreaming, dreamless sleep, and nondual.
Apparently Wilber ascribes to the 'two truths doctrine' of
Nagarjuna. For Wilber no metaphysical doctrine or apparent
reality is true in an absolute sense: only formless awareness,
"the simple feeling of being," exists absolutely.

If that *is* the case, he's clearly no Nagarjuna...
To say that formless awareness (or anything else) exists
absolutely is to fall right back into the world of form.
Is that truth 1 or truth 2? ;-)
Nice to know intellectually and in theory, but actually
realizing it experientially and doing it in practice is
another matter altogether.

Post by willytex
"And tell me: is that story, sung by mystics and sages the
world over, any crazier than the scientific materialism story,
which is that the entire sequence is a tale told by an idiot,
full of sound and fury, signifying absolutely nothing? Listen
very carefully: just which of those two stories actually sounds
totally insane?"
'A Brief History of Everything'
By Ken Wilber
Shambhala, 2007
Page 42-3- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"To say that formless awareness (or anything else) exists
absolutely is to fall right back into the world of form.
Is that truth 1 or truth 2? ;-)"
Awareness is absolute
(not two)(not finite)(not temporal)
what has that got to do with
'the world of form'? (the appearences of form)
ZN

when you make a statement about something, you give it a boundary, a
definition, you turn it into a conceptual object. To say that
"awareness is absolute" is to destroy awareness.
Robert
- - - - - - - - -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Since ‘Awareness” and “absolute”
cannot be defined in terms of “Totality”
save perhaps to say “isness”
this definitive ambiguity preserves the Mystery
and acknowledged unspeakability of the Truth as IS
yet with the seeming perverse glee of moths to flame
words that ultimately are meaningless
flutter forth to be consumed in the Moment
ZN

the last two lines are nice
generally speaking, though, the above formulation sounds vague and
conceptual, at least to me
robert
- - - - - - - - - -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

you?
ZN

yeah, whatever.
don't get all linguistic on me please.
Robert
- - - - - - - -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

pay no attention
to the man behind the curtain

you mean that empty space?

Post by zenworm
to the word behind the concept

you mean that silent space?

Post by zenworm
what is context?
ZN

what is context? what do you think?
robert
= = = = = = =- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

what has thinking got to do with context?
ZN

what does context have to do with anything?
context is a construct.

when context is Awareness
what construct?
ZN

if Awareness is a context it is no longer awareness

[Awaken21]

Post by halfawake
why not talk about the way things are instead.

Because I'd rather be torn to shreds by a pack of hungry wolves?

I remember being on a cruise many years ago watching a particularly
stunning sunset with small group of fellow cruisers. One young lady
kept repeating "Oh my god it's soooo beautiful, soooo...Orange!" I
made it for maybe 5 minutes until I realized I was releasing an urge
to throw her overboard. An urge which kept arising in perfect unison
with the sound of her voice. Shortly afterward II found myself a less
social spot that I could enjoy the sunset from.

[Lee Rudolph]

Post by Awaken21
I remember being on a cruise many years ago watching a particularly
stunning sunset with small group of fellow cruisers. One young lady
kept repeating "Oh my god it's soooo beautiful, soooo...Orange!" I
made it for maybe 5 minutes until I realized I was releasing an urge
to throw her overboard. An urge which kept arising in perfect unison
with the sound of her voice. Shortly afterward II found myself a less
social spot that I could enjoy the sunset from.

But was II able to convince I to move to that spot?

Lee Rudolph (and since when is your given name "Mark", anyhow?)

[Lee Rudolph]

Post by r***@rwilliams.us
Fifty-four years lighting up the sky.
A quivering leap smashes a billion worlds.
Hah!
Entire body looks for nothing.
Living, I plunge into Yellow Springs.

How the Yellow Springs
got that way: concession staff
piss in Old Faithful.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30765586/

Lee Rudolph