rather than condemn, why not post your own outlook on this conscious life, I would like to hear the way you see it
On Aug 28, 6:31 am, roomsearching <[email protected]> wrote: > *As beautiful and simple as the quote of Nisargadatta was, > > I found the part written by you was extremely annoying and utterly > disgusting. > > Please stop writing your own thoughts. They are very ugly. > > Your sense of humour is like a horrible car crash. * > > On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 6:31 AM, Kuber Technologies < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > Since the Beedi dude is supposed to be the expert in such > > matters...........Godzen...... > > > here is what he kept on growling at poor seekers appearing in front of him > > > "I do not negate the world. I see it as appearing in consciousness, which > > is the totality of the known in the immensity of the unknown. > > > What begins and ends is mere appearance. > > > The world can be said to appear, but not to "be". > > > The appearance may last very long on some scale of time, and be very short > > on another, but ultimately it comes to the same. > > > Whatever is time bound is momentary and has no reality." > > > ---------- > > > And that world which can be said to appear but not to be ......... > > > ...is a collation of experiences.........both the mundane and the > > profound..... > > > .....experiences which include a satsangh with the energy-exuding-Master. > > > Or a satsangh with the energy-sapping divine mistress in a bordello. > > > On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 12:31 PM, Kuber Technologies < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > >> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 11:04 AM, godszen <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>> so the universe, all creation, and your life is a concept? > > >>> and to be dismissed as such? > > >> A dismissal needs a substantivity of the to-be-dismissed. > > >> Awake today morning, sipping from a hot cup of tea........do you dismiss > >> the drama of last night sleep dream? > > >> Or there is a prevailing knowing (to use a word) of the intrinsic nature > >> of appearing gestalts, > > >> .............whether that be the awake-dream drama or the sleep-dream > >> drama, or the deep-sleep-state. > > >> A prevailing knowing , which does not dawn because it is never not so > >> ..... > > >> ......and in the absence of the dawning, there is no dusking. > > >> No alpha, no omega. > > >> Which off course makes the term "prevailing" superfluous. > > >> A knowing, in which there is neither the presence of acceptance, or the > >> presence of negation/dismissing..... > > >> ..... and neither their absences. > > >> A knowing which apperceives that appearing gestalts are not apart, not > >> separate.... > > >> ............as there is no independent, separative loci at which the > >> appearing gestalt > > >> can get anchored...... > > >> .....and simultaneously apperceives the durational conceptuality of > >> appearances. > > >> Thus the immanence and the simultaneous transcendence of the immanence. > > >> Call it Turiyatta or awareness-not-aware-of-itself.........or > >> Bozo.........makes no difference.
