Everything Posted July 4, 2012 I just woke up and I'm having a great time enjoying my experiences. I'm slowly centering myself within the paradox. I remembered that all being is being as itself. Not because the being observes itself, but because the being is. All the being has to do is to be. As we observe the being, we seize to be. Nothing observes that which everything is. The observing does not exist. There is only being. Being cannot observe, being can only be. As we observe being, we seize to be. As we be, we no longer observe. We just be. The observer can never be and being can never observe. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idiot_stimpy Posted July 4, 2012 Thank you for this thread. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Boy Posted July 4, 2012 (edited) ... Edited October 11, 2012 by Boy Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Everything Posted July 4, 2012 I appreciate it that you appreciate everything Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted July 4, 2012 Wait a minute!!! "To be, or not to be: that is the question: ... Thus conscience does make cowards of us all; ..." - William Shakespeare We should not allow our conscience to prevent us from looking (observing). And this conscience? What exactly is it? Perhaps only lies that were told us when we were young? Yes, be. But observe as well. Understand the truth in reality. No, we will never observe everything. But that is no fair reason to stop looking. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Everything Posted July 4, 2012 (edited) Wait a minute!!! "To be, or not to be: that is the question: ... Thus conscience does make cowards of us all; ..." - William Shakespeare We should not allow our conscience to prevent us from looking (observing). And this conscience? What exactly is it? Perhaps only lies that were told us when we were young? Yes, be. But observe as well. Understand the truth in reality. No, we will never observe everything. But that is no fair reason to stop looking. Yes! You can observe, but never as the being. It is not a reason to stop observing, it is not a reason to start observing. It is a reason to being. Being is all that being can do. It cannot observe itself or contemplate itself. As we observe, we pretend to be an aspect of the being that we are and observe another aspect of the being that we are. As we observe, we switch perspectives in a never ending constant of change. There is no one to observe, but the observer. As the observer observes himself, he realizes, that he does not exist. The self does not exist, but the self observes. As the observer, we are no longer the being. We are an aspect of the being, which is incomplete unto itself. Where change is the only constant to our observations and there exists no being, no truth. As we be, we are the totality of the being that we are. We have no "self" that observes. We are the being that is. As we observe we seize to exist. We are not the being, we are but an aspect of the being at any given moment. Yet, as we be, we are the being. Our individuality at any given moment is what seperates us from everything/being and allows us to observe and experience to some extend, depending on how much you have seperated yourself from being. Here on earth, we are masters of seperation, observing and experiencing. We are at the leading edge of observation. What is not existance, is non-existant. So our identity does not exist. There is only one existance and one being. That which you are. Which we all are. That which cannot be observed, but only is. That is the only truth, there is no other truth. The truth that can be observed is not a truth. A truth does not change, that which we observe changes. There is no observer either, because the observer can always be observed. The observer is a change of perspective, it is not a constant. It is not a truth, not a being. There is only one being; existance, everything, being. We are free to be more of who we are. We are also free to be less of who we are. Edited July 4, 2012 by Everything Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted July 4, 2012 There is only one being; existance, everything, being. Ah!, too much mysticism in that post. I will have to let it go. Have a great being today. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Everything Posted July 4, 2012 (edited) Ah!, too much mysticism in that post. I will have to let it go. Have a great being today. I don't know what mysticism is, but I can't relate to it either. I don't understand diffrence between being and non-being, let alone their similarities. I mean... Being is unconditional. The greatness of the being is just an observed aspect of the being. It is seems to be everchanging. Edited July 4, 2012 by Everything Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Apech Posted July 4, 2012 A lot of languages have two verbs for 'to be' (unlike English) and there is a distinction between being as such ... and being as in becoming, acting or doing something and so on. In Portuguese there is 'estar' and 'ser' ... and I know that German has two such verbs. In Ancient Egyptian there is 'wnn' and 'khepri'. Both can be translated as 'being' ,,, but 'wnn' includes being as a passive state ... like when you say 'it just is' ... where as 'khepri' has meaning related to 'appearing, forming, transforming, becoming'. So maybe ... and I'm just suggesting here ... when you are 'pure being' then you are stressing existence as such without any defined function appart from that it just is. But if you posit an observing consciousness then if this 'is' then it is in the other sense of having a function or form as 'an observer'. ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted July 4, 2012 Being is unconditional. So is non-being. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Everything Posted July 4, 2012 So is non-being. So we have a similarity! Yay! Whats the diffrence? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Everything Posted July 4, 2012 (edited) A lot of languages have two verbs for 'to be' (unlike English) and there is a distinction between being as such ... and being as in becoming, acting or doing something and so on. In Portuguese there is 'estar' and 'ser' ... and I know that German has two such verbs. In Ancient Egyptian there is 'wnn' and 'khepri'. Both can be translated as 'being' ,,, but 'wnn' includes being as a passive state ... like when you say 'it just is' ... where as 'khepri' has meaning related to 'appearing, forming, transforming, becoming'. So maybe ... and I'm just suggesting here ... when you are 'pure being' then you are stressing existence as such without any defined function appart from that it just is. But if you posit an observing consciousness then if this 'is' then it is in the other sense of having a function or form as 'an observer'. ? What I wrote makes even less sense to me then it makes sense to you. But it feels good reading it though Edited July 4, 2012 by Everything Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted July 5, 2012 So we have a similarity! Yay! Whats the diffrence? Ultimately? Bottom line? To the totality of Tao? None. Sorry, you and I don't mean jack s***. We are all straw dogs. But then, everything matters so we just be until we not-be. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Apech Posted July 5, 2012 Ultimately? Bottom line? To the totality of Tao? None. Sorry, you and I don't mean jack s***. We are all straw dogs. But then, everything matters so we just be until we not-be. Not be ... wasp. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted July 5, 2012 Not be ... wasp. Good one. Hehehe. The difference between a bee and a wasp is that a bee can do it only once but a wasp can do it multiple times. Sting, that is. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Green Tiger Posted July 5, 2012 I just woke up and I'm having a great time enjoying my experiences. I'm slowly centering myself within the paradox. I remembered that all being is being as itself. Not because the being observes itself, but because the being is. All the being has to do is to be. As we observe the being, we seize to be. Nothing observes that which everything is. The observing does not exist. There is only being. Being cannot observe, being can only be. As we observe being, we seize to be. As we be, we no longer observe. We just be. The observer can never be and being can never observe. I can grok it. Not something that's easily conveyed with words though, is it? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted July 5, 2012 Not something that's easily conveyed with words though, is it? He sure is trying though, isn't he? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Apech Posted July 5, 2012 Good one. Hehehe. The difference between a bee and a wasp is that a bee can do it only once but a wasp can do it multiple times. Sting, that is. Boris: Nothingness. Non-existence. Black emptiness.Sonja: What did you say? Boris: Oh, I was just planning my future. Woody Allen quote. Not sure why this came to mind. Maybe because if you are a bee its one sting and you've buzzed your last. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted July 5, 2012 Not sure why this came to mind. Maybe because if you are a bee its one sting and you've buzzed your last. Well, Hey!, if one bes then they will eventually not-be. However, if one is not be then one can never die. Immortality!!! WoW!!!! I finally found the answer!!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Brian Posted July 5, 2012 (edited) Well, Hey!, if one bes then they will eventually not-be. However, if one is not be then one can never die. Immortality!!! WoW!!!! I finally found the answer!!! Awesome!!! And I think it will fit on a bumper sticker. Algebraically, one might say something like: Edited July 5, 2012 by A Seeker Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted July 5, 2012 No compute. No, I don't want a refresher course in Algebra. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Everything Posted July 6, 2012 Ultimately? Bottom line? To the totality of Tao? None. Sorry, you and I don't mean jack s***. We are all straw dogs. But then, everything matters so we just be until we not-be. I still think there is no similarity between being and non-being. The sage lives at the center of all paradox because the sage knows that being and non-being arise from one another. Like a 3d torus shape, inside out, outside in. Or a 2d vortex, top view of the torus shape. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted July 6, 2012 ... because the sage knows that being and non-being arise from one another. Yes, I have no problem with this. However, the two are different. Prior to being we were only potential. As we develop our potential is reified (or not). And when we cease to be what was becomes potential for other things. The game is never over - the fat lady never gets to sing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
