Re: A Most Unusual Deathbed Scene
- --- In email@example.com, "dan330033" <dan330033@...>
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "walto" <calhorn@> wrote:
> > --- In email@example.com, "dan330033" <dan330033@>
> > >or don't.
> > > The truth one is, can't be wrong.
> > >
> > > Hence, it is never right.
> > >
> > > Simply being.
> > >
> > > Not a matter of presentation to others.
> > >
> > > Being is - without an other to teach it, or to teach it to.
> > >
> > > Words being exchanged in a social context, either fit that context well,
> > >contexts in which perspectives arise, simultaneously.
> > > Did UG fit well the social contexts in which he spoke?
> > >
> > > Did JK, did Ramana, did Jesus --
> > >
> > > It's all a matter of perspective, of reactions, pro and con.
> > >
> > If there is but one, there are no reactions pro and con.
> D: The reactions pro and con
> are with words, to other words said in contexts.
> There is no pro and con to being.
> Not even an "if" is involved, and thus, no "then" ...
> Just presence.
> Not the word or idea of presence.
> Being ... itself.
> > > Yet, this being is not formed by or into a perspective.
> > >
> > > Thus, one can say it is all perspectives, past, present, future, and all
> >including any imagined "perspective of no perspective" ...
> > If there is but one there are neither contexts nor perspectives.
> D: Or ... "as this is one" ...
> As this is one, here is not a perspective or
> proposition to be explained.
> Perspectives are imagined, along with the sense of "I" ...
> (including the perspective "as this is one ..."
> > > Or, one can say this involves no perspective to have or to impart -
> > >false, others (and there are others or we would not be discussing, because there
> > Yes, one actually should because that's what follows, and as it's patently
could be no discussion) should reject it as nonsense.
> As this is one, no separated self or other has ever emerged.
> Just this unborn being, as is.
> True and false are categories of thought, for beings imagined as perspectives.
> It takes a perspective to formulate what is true in contrast to what is false.
> - D -
You have it that there is one (and only one) thing when it suits whatever line
you are pushing at one moment and as many as you like when that suits better.
You (but not I, because we are different entities) pontificate (i.e., state with
absolute assurance but provide no reasons whatever) that there are perspectives
but that there are also no perspectives, that there are numerous selves but also
that there is no self at all. In your world, I am he and you are me and you are
the walrus. That's a convenient world, it's not my world, but I like the music there.
Different as our views are on these matters, however, one thing that is
apparently the case in both of our worlds (i.e, both yours and mine) is that if
one is willing to contradict oneself, one can conclude anything whatever.
That's true in my world because it's a theorem of logic, and it's true in your
world for whatever "reason" you happen to find satisfying at some moment or rhetorically
useful at another moment (there being different moments as well as different people). These are clearly not the same type of warrant, which
in my world (but not yours) provides additional evidence of the clearest
possible kind that I am not you, and that, far from there being no selves, there
must be at least two. And if you throw in your buddy Sandeep, that would make
(as I count 'em) three.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'd like to go meditate.
From: Yahoo User <sanjivs77@...>
Sent: Saturday, November 5, 2011 8:26 PM
Subject: [Meditation Society of America] Re: A Most Unusual Deathbed SceneSean,
Thank you for expressing what I (and I assume many others) have been thinking for a long time. I value most of the posts on this forum and really appreciate all the work Bob has put in. But the few you mention seem to be in love with seeing their names on the forum associated with repetitive posts, which they may think come from an exalted state of enlightenment but are quite meaningless to lesser mortals like me. Sandeep seems to think that nothing matters, so I would ask - why bother posting here ??
-------------LOL.It is precisely because nothing matters, hence the pixelings.Incidentally, neither nothing matters............ nor......... nothing does not matter.
There was also a mention of the term "meaningless".
Meaningless is as much a meaning as any other meaning.
Hence an expression of the same creativity of thought...... which is the sense of a mind....... a sense of an individuated self.After all the sense of a a meaning (even of meaningless) ...
....has to co-exist with the sense of the entity......... for which the meaning(even of meaningless)...
..is a held meaning.
That........ to which neither a meaning, nor meaningless can be attributed....
.....cannot be referenced by even the term "That".
Or by these very pixels.