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

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

Expand Messages
  • dan330033
    ... D: Only if you promise not to bring a video camera. Hey, it s interesting to see Walto s response below -- I read these messages on-line and didn t see
    Message 1 of 48 , Oct 19, 2011
      --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, sean tremblay <bethjams9@...> wrote:
      > Get a room you two

      D: Only if you promise not to bring a video camera.

      Hey, it's interesting to see Walto's response below -- I read these messages on-line and didn't see the message below from Walto.

      Does that mean he deleted it after he posted it?

      Well, for fun, here's a response, Walto -

      > 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.

      No, you misunderstand what I'm saying. You haven't recapitulated it adequately at all.

      That which is non-divided may be referred to as one. But that doesn't mean it is a thing. Nor does it mean that it is one numerically.

      I can refer to "many" as much as I like - it doesn't mean that any of the "many" exist by themselves as separated entities.

      > You (but not I, because we are different entities)

      D: There aren't separately existing entities, each having and keeping their own qualities. That conclusion doesn't hold water, old chap.

      > pontificate (i.e., state with
      > absolute assurance but provide no reasons whatever) that there are perspectives

      D: Interesting how you read these notions into simple postings. My assurance or non-assurance seems irrelevant to me.

      > but that there are also no perspectives, that there are numerous selves but also
      > that there is no self at all.

      D: There isn't any actually existing separated self with its own qualities. There are self-configurations in thought via memory - but thought doesn't arise as a separately existing thing, either.

      > 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.

      D: You insist on compartmentalized worlds with different beings inhabiting them. Again, if that works for you, fine.

      If I recall, I think I was saying something like: there isn't a pro or con about being - just about words provided about being.

      With words, thoughts, one can imagine different separately existing perspectives, beings, worlds being experienced by different entities.

      Yet, being simply is as it is - unconcerned about ways that words are attributed to positions, or contests between one imagined position and another.

      Being aware is simple, doesn't involve any position or perspective, nor any non-perspective to be held.

      Being aware as this, the words we exchange here are for fun - not to provide a compartment to put reality into.

      > 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.

      D: I haven't concluded anything, my friend.

      I walked through an open door, and found myself on
      both sides, with nothing between.

      Expressing this as I will, I don't take the word for
      the actuality, nor the concept for what is so.

      > 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).

      D: Only, I am not living in a separately existing world,
      formed by a continuing line of thought and memory reference.

      > 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.

      D: A very interesting assessment you've made of this situation.
      How much does a self weigh? Where exactly is a self located?
      What are its qualities that make it able to be known
      as a self and not as something else, like a chair?

      What forms the outside of one self, and when and how
      does a self make contact with another self?

      > And if you throw in your buddy Sandeep, that would make
      > (as I count 'em) three.

      D: You can formulate entities, conceptually, however you'd
      like. Three, a million - that point is that these entities
      make sense to you, because you provide their qualities,
      their locations, based on your understanding/perception
      of where and what they are.

      So, perceptually, experientially, these entities are
      relevant to you, and formed of your perception, and your

      And the "you" that forms "them" isn't separable -
      one looking into this clearly, sees immediately
      that the "you" forming "them" hasn't a separated location,
      is simply being aware, and thoughts forming give the
      impression of different existences.

      If that thought is not, the separable existences are not.

      And yet, one is simply aware.

      This simplicity *isn't* dependent on thought/concept/memory.

      But "entities" *are* dependent on thought/concept/memory.

      > Now, if you'll excuse me, I'd like to go meditate.

      D: Yes, of course. Where is the non-conceptual
      fact of *being aware* located while
      the body-mind defined as "Walto" is in a meditational

      > Best,

      Absolutely the best ... the only ... that which is beyond compare:

      One's being ...

      - Dan

      > Walto
    • sandeep chatterjee
      ________________________________ From: Yahoo User To: meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, November 5, 2011 8:26 PM
      Message 48 of 48 , Nov 5 9:42 PM

        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

        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 ??


        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.