GENIUS FORUMS

NEITHER ISNESS NOR NO-ISNESS, NEITHER EMPTINESS NOR FULLNESS,
SO UNFATHOMABLE, BEYOND THE SENSES.
WITHIN THE CROWN OF THE HEAD A CHILD SPEAKS,
HOW SHALL HE BE NAMED?
LAUGHING, PLAYING, THE KNACK OF MEDITATION,
DAY AND NIGHT SHARING DIVINE KNOWLEDGE.
HE LAUGHS, PLAYS, KEEPS MIND UNTROUBLED
SUCH UNWAVERING ONE IS ALWAYS WITH GOD.
DAY AND NIGHT DISSOLVING MIND IN NO-MIND,
DROPPING FATHOMABLE TALKING THE UNFATHOMABLE.
DROPPING HOPE REMAINING HOPELESS:
BRAHMA THE CREATOR SAYS, "I AM YOUR SERVANT."
WHAT FLOWS DOWN, HE CHANNELS UP,
A YOGI BURNS UP HIS SEX.
HE RELEASES HIS EMBRACE, SHATTERS ILLUSION:
VISHNU THE SUSTAINER WASHES HIS FEET.
DIE, O YOGI, DIE! DIE, SWEET IS DYING.
DIE THAT DEATH GORAKH DIED AND SAW.

This reminds me of Ginsberg's Moloch.

Hi "со&am"


This seems to be a translation of the Tao Te Ching.

I haven't heard of Gorakh, so did a Google search. There are quite a few different things coming up.

Would you explain what your use of "Gorakh" is, and why you consider this Gorakh to be a wise man ?


PS. Your username is interpreted by BBCode to be "co&am". Did you do this intentionally? It's easier to type at least.


.

Kelly Jones wrote:This seems to be a translation of the Tao Te Ching.

it is not a translation of the Tao Te Ching

it seems this way to you because it is wiseacring about the same shit.

Kelly Jones wrote:Would you explain what your use of "Gorakh" is,

gorakh, indian fellow, ancient times

Kelly Jones wrote:and why you consider this Gorakh to be a wise man ?

thats his poem up there

Kelly Jones wrote:PS. Your username is interpreted by BBCode to be "co&am". Did you do this intentionally?

no.

Do you think Gorakh is wise or not?

If yes, why?

Kelly Jones wrote:Do you think Gorakh is wise or not?

If yes, why?

fuck off grumpy lady, i just sharing a poem.

This is a discussion forum. If you're not going to engage in discussion I suggest you not post at all.

Dan Rowden wrote:This is a discussion forum. If you're not going to engage in discussion I suggest you not post at all.

ok grumpy lady, sure i reckon gorakh was a wise chap, and i think this because the above poem is attributed to him. thats what i meant when you last asked, 'why do you think he is wise', and i answered with, 'thats his poem up there'.

dan rowden shakes his finger like someone's dad

eat a dick, papa

DIE, O YOGI, DIE! DIE, SWEET IS DYING.
DIE THAT DEATH GORAKH DIED AND SAW.

i do not see what those two lines mean

LooF wrote:DIE, O YOGI, DIE! DIE, SWEET IS DYING.
DIE THAT DEATH GORAKH DIED AND SAW.

i do not see what those two lines mean

Gorakh says I teach death, the death I passed through and became awakened. It was the death of sleep, not of me. The ego died, not me. Duality died, not me. Duality died, and non-duality was born. Time died, and I met the eternal. The small constricted life broke, and the drop became the ocean. Yes, certainly when the drop falls into the ocean in one sense it is dying. As a drop it is dying. And in another sense for the first time it attains to the great life - it lives on as the ocean. (Osho)

со&am wrote:As a drop it is dying. And in another sense for the first time it attains to the great life - it lives on as the ocean. (Osho)

Isn't the drop already the ocean? Is it ever separate?

Kelly Jones wrote:Isn't the drop already the ocean? Is it ever separate?

is anything ever actually seperate from anything else?

or is seperateness merely illusion?

in delusion, the drop is seperate from the ocean, without delusion, it is not. the death to which gorakh refers, is the death of delusion.
so on one level, the drop has become the ocean.. on another, nothing has changed at all.

Do you have a girlfriend? Are you employed?

Or do you see that there really are separations between parts of the ocean?


.

Kelly Jones wrote:Do you have a girlfriend? Are you employed?

what? howcome you ask this

i am married, have job, kid

Kelly Jones wrote:Or do you see that there really are separations between parts of the ocean?

nothing is seperate, nothing has a true edge.

со&am wrote:nothing is seperate, nothing has a true edge.

…but there is an “edge”. Right? And without this edge, what could one say about consciousness? Can one be conscious of anything without this “edge”? Including a supposed non-duality per say?

Duality died, and non-duality was born.

How could one be aware of birth or death of anything without their separate identities? Isn’t separated-ness necessary for awareness of either to occur? Does anything exist if there truly were no separated-ness (definable identities)?

I don't think Interdependency of separately definable “things” gives them some kind of immortality, as in a drop continuing to be a drop once it is not. A drop could not exist in any other FORM except of its own. Of course, one cannot argue with it when spoken poetically.

Seeing things non-dualistically is but a shift of perspective, and would necessarily require separated-ness in any given instance to be aware of it itself. Hence… separated-ness rules, irrelevant of things having no “true edge”, or boundary.

Do you see any awareness possible without separated-ness?

Sapius wrote:…but there is an “edge”. Right? And without this edge, what could one say about consciousness? Can one be conscious of anything without this “edge”? Including a supposed non-duality per say?

edges are delusion, to translate the world in any way is delusion, the Tao cannot be named... to 'see' the Totality in a way we can keep, we translate it into the world of things, we apply edges.... and then we call our translation 'real'.

and it is 'real'.
translating, is making reality.... reality is a translation.

so from one angle, the Tao is not reality. but from another, it is, in that there is no other space, where truth is, outside all this delusion... delusion is what is happening, for 'happening' is part of delusion, part of the translation... nothing is happening outside delusion.

delusion is truth 'happening'.
delusion is truth 'seen'...

delusion is truth made 'real'.

Sapius wrote:Can one be conscious of anything without this “edge”?

no, 'one' cannot... 'one' cannot be 'one' without edges. selfhood is edges. selfhood is a language, or a product of a language, being used by the Totality, to see the Totality.

Sapius wrote:How could one be aware of birth or death of anything without their separate identities?

birth and death refer to identity, birth is the start of identity, death the end. to see, is to watch identities be born and die.
birth and death are themselves identities.. and so themselves must have a birth and a death, ad infinitum.

to watch birth and death occur from the perspective of a buddha is not to ignore birth and death, it is not ignoring anything... it is to see edges and identity as edges and identity.

so how can one be aware of the birth or death of anything without their seperate identities? they cannot. birth and death is identity.
"Duality died, and non-duality was born...." this just means, "I came into an understanding of non-duality".. duality doesnt have to go anywhere for this, how could it go anywhere... duality doesnt have to 'die', how could it..
that line, the whole piece, is attempting to communicate something by using words, cause words is all we got. you can attack the vehicle or eat the cargo, your choice.

the drop is the ocean already, the seperateness and the non-seperateness is all there at the same time.

Sapius wrote:Does anything exist if there truly were no separated-ness (definable identities)?

existing is being a defined identity. so no.

Sapius wrote:I don't think Interdependency of separately definable “things” gives them some kind of immortality, as in a drop continuing to be a drop once it is not.

seperately defining things is creating mortality within immortality... like, if there is a swirly shape happening in the water of a lake, and we look at it, and say, 'look at the swirly shape', we have identified it, it will then have a birth and death in our minds. but if we never made it to the lake that day, the swirly shape still occurs, but without being identified as a swirly shape, it is just part of the water of the lake.. with no edges applied, it has no self-hood, no birth or death... it has no 'it-ness'. once identified, it has birth and death, but without being identified, it does not.
so no, interdependency of separately definable “things” doesnt give them some kind of immortality, they are things, they will be born and they will die... but at the same time, nothing is being born or dying.. the immortality is not theirs, but they are part of it, birth and death is part of it, it is immortality happening.

Sapius wrote:Seeing things non-dualistically is but a shift of perspective, and would necessarily require separated-ness in any given instance to be aware of it itself. Hence… separated-ness rules, irrelevant of things having no “true edge”, or boundary.

seperated-ness is the language of seeing, yeah. to see is to create seperated-ness.

Sapius wrote:Do you see any awareness possible without separated-ness?

awareness itself is a definable thing... saying, this is what awareness is, and anything that falls outside this definition is not awareness, this is creating seperate identity.

so, no.

co&am wrote:

Kelly: Do you have a girlfriend? Are you employed?
co&am: what? howcome you ask this......i am married, have job, kid

Kelly: Or do you see that there really are separations between parts of the ocean?
co&am: nothing is seperate, nothing has a true edge.

I asked to investigate your understanding of the nature of the ocean.

Often, after having an initial insight into the "oneness" of all things (the ocean), people tend to make the mistake of assuming that oneness has an identifiable form. It's a very common error, and leads to being attracted to experiences of "merging" and "togetherness" and "eternal energies".

I guessed that you'd headed in this direction. So i asked whether you had a girlfriend, or a job, as these are two very typical experiences of merging.

Not very logical.

Since the ocean is defined as being absolutely everything, logically, it cannot be a thing with boundaries. To give the ocean a form, with boundaries, is to contradict the definition. If it is a thing, then there is some thing it is not.

The logical conclusion for the ocean is: the ocean is absolutely everything that appears, totally inexclusive.

The parts, or things, aren't delusional. Things are how the ocean manifests. Delusion is believing that things exist inherently, that their boundaries are inherent.

selfhood is a language, or a product of a language, being used by the Totality, to see the Totality.

The self is just a thing. It is part of the Totality, so it cannot actually see the Totality. All it need to is understand its own true nature, and that's the nature of the Totality.

the drop is the ocean already, the seperateness and the non-seperateness is all there at the same time.

Not really, the ocean has neither separateness or non-separateness.


I read this, and began to wonder about it:

seperately defining things is creating mortality within immortality... like, if there is a swirly shape happening in the water of a lake, and we look at it, and say, 'look at the swirly shape', we have identified it, it will then have a birth and death in our minds. but if we never made it to the lake that day, the swirly shape still occurs, but without being identified as a swirly shape, it is just part of the water of the lake.. with no edges applied, it has no self-hood, no birth or death... it has no 'it-ness'. once identified, it has birth and death, but without being identified, it does not.

so no, interdependency of separately definable “things” doesnt give them some kind of immortality, they are things, they will be born and they will die... but at the same time, nothing is being born or dying.. the immortality is not theirs, but they are part of it, birth and death is part of it, it is immortality happening.

I'm not sure what you're saying here.

You define mortality as the existence (birth and death) of things that appear and are identified. Then you state that things that don't appear and are not identified still "occur".

You equate identity with birth and death, but one would infer that you don't equate appearance and identity. So, one would logically conclude from your statements that you regard the realm of immortality to belong to things that appear but aren't identitifed.

Is this what you're saying?




(P.S. Neither grumpy nor lady).

Co&am

the Tao cannot be named...

But you just did!

Sapius: Seeing things non-dualistically is but a shift of perspective, and would necessarily require separated-ness in any given instance to be aware of it itself. Hence… separated-ness rules, irrelevant of things having no “true edge”, or boundary.

co&am: seperated-ness is the language of seeing, yeah. to see is to create seperated-ness.

I do understand most of what you say, but do not agree at the fundamental itself. Read my quote again and “see” that it is impossible to be an “I” without any and all that is ‘not I’. To see is not to “create” seperated-ness, but realize the matter of fact.