Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

[Meditation Society of America] Re: A Most Unusual Deathbed Scene

Expand Messages
  • tarah513
    ... Faithe: Is that a dictate that must be followed? I kinda like the exchange. Do you find it tough to handle? I just didn t want you think you are speaking
    Message 1 of 48 , Oct 19, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, sean tremblay <bethjams9@...> wrote:
      >
      > Get a room you two
      >

      Faithe: Is that a dictate that must be followed? I kinda like the exchange. Do you find it tough to handle?

      I just didn't want you think you are speaking for me. I can do that quite well for myself (right Bob!!!).


      > ________________________________
      > From: walto <calhorn@...>
      > To: meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com
      > Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 3:31 PM
      > Subject: [Meditation Society of America] Re: A Most Unusual Deathbed Scene
      >
      >
      >  
      >
      >
      > --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "dan330033" <dan330033@>
      > wrote:
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@> wrote:
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "dan330033" <dan330033@>
      > wrote:
      > > > >
      > > > > 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,
      > or don't.
      > > > >
      > > > > 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
      > contexts in which perspectives arise, simultaneously.
      > > >
      > > > 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 -
      > including any imagined "perspective of no perspective" ...
      > > > >
      > > >
      > > > Yes, one actually should because that's what follows, and as it's patently
      > false, others (and there are others or we would not be discussing, because there
      > 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 -
      > >
      >
      > Dan,
      >
      > 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.
      >
      > Best,
      >
      > W
      >
    • sandeep chatterjee
      ________________________________ From: Yahoo User To: meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, November 5, 2011 8:26 PM
      Message 48 of 48 , Nov 5, 2011
      • 0 Attachment



        From: Yahoo User <sanjivs77@...>
        To: meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Saturday, November 5, 2011 8:26 PM
        Subject: [Meditation Society of America] Re: A Most Unusual Deathbed Scene

         
        Sean,
        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.







      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.