the art of living in peace and harmony, in friendliness and love

[Guest guest]

An expectation of what others should be

doing, is an attempt to maintain " I "

--

" I " am set against " others "

and " my expectations " against " what is happening. "

 

Not that such is wrong or out of place,

but that such is to be inquired into ...

 

-- Dan

 

 

Nisargadatta, " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote:

> Andrew,

>

> Thank you for the clarification.

> I said:

> " I'm afraid I don't really belong here (this list).

> I don't feel comfortable. "

> It was referring not to a cozy sense of " belongingness "

> but simply a question to myself as to whether

> " I am a fit here " .

> " Don't feel comfortable, " referred to a feeling of

> not being comfortable being myself here.

>

> The subject of this thread does say it for me:

> " the art of living in peace and harmony,

> in friendliness and love "

> To me a list dedicated to Nisargadatta should

> be pursuing just that. I'm not expecting perfection,

> but am expecting a commitment to that value by

> the core membership.

>

> I am starting to feel some dialog emerging around

> this topic. To me " real dialog " is the key to

> real value on a list such as this. Perhaps

> something of real value will emerge from this.

>

> So I encourage you to hang in here for a bit to

> see what happens. It is in times of crises that

> true character shows itself.

>

> -Bill

>

>

>

>

>

> andrew macnab [a.macnab@n...]

> Bill,

>

> I'm wondering about wanting to belong and feel comfortable

> and what that has to do with the love you speak of.

> Are they connected? If so, could the love be unconditional?

> Is it true love?

> Maybe there's no connection, and you're just expressing an aversion

> to the oneupmanship and jockying for position you perceive on this

list.

> I certainly share that perception and aversion.

> I'm questioning myself as much as I'm questioning you.

>

> andrew

>

>

>

> Bill Rishel wrote:

> >

> > andrew,

> >

> > Of course there is a free-standingness inherent

> > love. Past that I can't decipher what you are

> > saying. Perhaps you can put it more plain.

> >

> > -Bill

> >

> >

> > andrew macnab [a.macnab@n...]

> >

> > I agree Bill

> > it's boring

> > what is there to defend

> > what about belonging

> > and feeling comfortable

> > there is a freestandingness

> > inherent in the love

> > you speak of

> > in which belonging and

> > comfort are not a

> > consideration

> >

> > andrew

> >

[Guest guest]

>> but that such is to be inquired into ...

What is not to be inquired into?

True inquiry is choiceless.

Yet inquiry itself is delusion.

 

-Bill

 

 

dan330033 [dan330033]

Sunday, October 20, 2002 2:43 PM

Nisargadatta

Re: the art of living in peace and harmony, in

friendliness and love

 

 

An expectation of what others should be

doing, is an attempt to maintain " I "

--

" I " am set against " others "

and " my expectations " against " what is happening. "

 

Not that such is wrong or out of place,

but that such is to be inquired into ...

 

-- Dan

 

 

Nisargadatta, " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote:

> Andrew,

>

> Thank you for the clarification.

> I said:

> " I'm afraid I don't really belong here (this list).

> I don't feel comfortable. "

> It was referring not to a cozy sense of " belongingness "

> but simply a question to myself as to whether

> " I am a fit here " .

> " Don't feel comfortable, " referred to a feeling of

> not being comfortable being myself here.

>

> The subject of this thread does say it for me:

> " the art of living in peace and harmony,

> in friendliness and love "

> To me a list dedicated to Nisargadatta should

> be pursuing just that. I'm not expecting perfection,

> but am expecting a commitment to that value by

> the core membership.

>

> I am starting to feel some dialog emerging around

> this topic. To me " real dialog " is the key to

> real value on a list such as this. Perhaps

> something of real value will emerge from this.

>

> So I encourage you to hang in here for a bit to

> see what happens. It is in times of crises that

> true character shows itself.

>

> -Bill

>

>

>

>

>

> andrew macnab [a.macnab@n...]

> Bill,

>

> I'm wondering about wanting to belong and feel comfortable

> and what that has to do with the love you speak of.

> Are they connected? If so, could the love be unconditional?

> Is it true love?

> Maybe there's no connection, and you're just expressing an aversion

> to the oneupmanship and jockying for position you perceive on this

list.

> I certainly share that perception and aversion.

> I'm questioning myself as much as I'm questioning you.

>

> andrew

>

>

>

> Bill Rishel wrote:

> >

> > andrew,

> >

> > Of course there is a free-standingness inherent

> > love. Past that I can't decipher what you are

> > saying. Perhaps you can put it more plain.

> >

> > -Bill

> >

> >

> > andrew macnab [a.macnab@n...]

> >

> > I agree Bill

> > it's boring

> > what is there to defend

> > what about belonging

> > and feeling comfortable

> > there is a freestandingness

> > inherent in the love

> > you speak of

> > in which belonging and

> > comfort are not a

> > consideration

> >

> > andrew

> >

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hi Bill --

 

Your ideas of delusion seem to be

based around what feels bad.

 

Delusion isn't what gives me a bad feeling.

 

Delusion is believing that a bad feeling

should have to deal with my expectations

of what and how arisings should occur.

 

Of course we are all vulnerable.

 

And when the bullet hits, and blood is

spurting -- where is love?

 

Hiding in the corner, wringing its hands

because no one is listening to how

we are vulnerable and should take

care of each other?

 

Or is it right there, in the midst of

the experience as is?

 

You seem to think there is a right way

and a wrong way to think about

realization.

 

Realization doesn't involve having the

correct thought about it, the right

feelings and vulnerabilities, or the

correct approach to it.

 

Conceptualization is conceptualization.

 

-- Dan

 

 

 

> Dan,

>

> Another way to look at this is that there

> are tender hearts here. There is a fragility

> to our humanness that is hard to face.

>

> Is there a fear of being simply human that

> I seem to sense on this list?

>

> If " realization " is seen as an escape from

> our humanness, then I say it is itself a

> deluded notion.

>

> Your poem is eloquent, but I don't think it

> is the medicine for a heart that is wounded.

> I hope I am wrong.

>

> I think Anand has brought real value to this

> list. I will be sorry to see him go. I think

> he needs to hear that.

>

> -Bill

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta, " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote:

> >> but that such is to be inquired into ...

> What is not to be inquired into?

> True inquiry is choiceless.

> Yet inquiry itself is delusion.

>

> -Bill

 

Bill, it's the self thinking that

it will gain something from

inquiry that is the delusion,

along with what it thinks is

to be gotten.

 

Inquiry is into that self.

 

You know, the self that is maintained

as expectations of others, and as a focus

on getting others to act in the way

that the self thinks is spiritual,

for example, with proper sensitivity.

 

-- Dan

[Guest guest]

Who performs the Inquiry, Dan?

 

 

dan330033 [dan330033]

Sunday, October 20, 2002 3:06 PM

Nisargadatta

Re: the art of living in peace and harmony, in

friendliness and love

 

 

Nisargadatta, " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote:

> >> but that such is to be inquired into ...

> What is not to be inquired into?

> True inquiry is choiceless.

> Yet inquiry itself is delusion.

>

> -Bill

 

Bill, it's the self thinking that

it will gain something from

inquiry that is the delusion,

along with what it thinks is

to be gotten.

 

Inquiry is into that self.

 

You know, the self that is maintained

as expectations of others, and as a focus

on getting others to act in the way

that the self thinks is spiritual,

for example, with proper sensitivity.

 

-- Dan

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta, " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote:

> Who performs the Inquiry, Dan?

 

What makes you think that there is

a who performing anything, Bill?

[Guest guest]

Bill Rishel wrote:

>

> Andrew,

>

> Thank you for the clarification.

> I said:

> " I'm afraid I don't really belong here (this list).

> I don't feel comfortable. "

> It was referring not to a cozy sense of " belongingness "

> but simply a question to myself as to whether

> " I am a fit here " .

> " Don't feel comfortable, " referred to a feeling of

> not being comfortable being myself here.

>

> The subject of this thread does say it for me:

> " the art of living in peace and harmony,

> in friendliness and love "

 

 

Maybe its an art, maybe not. It seems pretty natural.

I get the feeling folks don't particularly care

for peace and harmony, friendliness and love

as much as they say they do. Not as much as

status, position, power...

 

 

> To me a list dedicated to Nisargadatta should

> be pursuing just that. I'm not expecting perfection,

> but am expecting a commitment to that value by

> the core membership.

>

> I am starting to feel some dialog emerging around

> this topic. To me " real dialog " is the key to

> real value on a list such as this. Perhaps

> something of real value will emerge from this.

>

> So I encourage you to hang in here for a bit to

> see what happens. It is in times of crises that

> true character shows itself.

 

I'll be around, I just don't post much.

 

andrew

 

 

> -Bill

>

[Guest guest]

-

" Bill Rishel " <plexus

<Nisargadatta >

Sunday, October 20, 2002 3:28 PM

RE: Re: the art of living in peace and harmony, in

friendliness and love

 

 

> Who performs the Inquiry, Dan?

>

>

> dan330033 [dan330033]

> Sunday, October 20, 2002 3:06 PM

> Nisargadatta

> Re: the art of living in peace and harmony, in

> friendliness and love

>

>

> Nisargadatta, " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote:

> > >> but that such is to be inquired into ...

> > What is not to be inquired into?

> > True inquiry is choiceless.

> > Yet inquiry itself is delusion.

> >

> > -Bill

>

> Bill, it's the self thinking that

> it will gain something from

> inquiry that is the delusion,

> along with what it thinks is

> to be gotten.

>

> Inquiry is into that self.

>

> You know, the self that is maintained

> as expectations of others, and as a focus

> on getting others to act in the way

> that the self thinks is spiritual,

> for example, with proper sensitivity.

>

> -- Dan

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

> What makes you think that there is

> a who performing anything, Bill?

I don't. What makes you think I do?

You said, " Inquiry is into that self. "

So I asked who does this so-called Inquiry.

 

Which is pretty obvious from the original post.

 

Why do I feel like you are on my case, Dan?

Am I Totally Delusional?

 

Ease up, man. Don't you see how Serious you are?

When's the last time you showed some humor

around here? Remember when Pete called you the

King of Philosophic Comedy? Seems like ages ago.

 

Hey, man. Let's just party. I'll promise not to

try to enlighten anyone if you do.

 

Bill

 

 

 

dan330033 [dan330033]

Sunday, October 20, 2002 4:23 PM

Nisargadatta

Re: the art of living in peace and harmony, in

friendliness and love

 

 

Nisargadatta, " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote:

> Who performs the Inquiry, Dan?

 

What makes you think that there is

a who performing anything, Bill?

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta, " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote:

> Nisargadatta, " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote:

> > Who performs the Inquiry, Dan?

>

> What makes you think that there is

> a who performing anything, Bill?

> Nisargadatta, " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote:

> > Who performs the Inquiry, Dan?

>

> What makes you think that there is

> a who performing anything, Bill?

 

To ask the above question is to imply that there is no activity

(inquiries and etc.) taking place, or that actions are taking place

but there is no author(s).

 

Neither position holds up to the light of common sense or everyday

experience - or, as two philosophers once 'resolved' this issue:

one philosopher asks the other, how do we know the world (of action)

is real - - the other says, I can prove it thusly and proceeds to

kick him in the shins.

 

To suggest that there may not be a 'who performing' may sound cute

and zenlike, and it is certainly in line with a nondualistic

philosophy that only allows for the Unchanging Absolute - - however,

it sounds foolish spoken by Joe and Mary Sixpack with fingered

stained yellow from Fritos.

 

To consciously deny the performance of action by ourselves and or

others is a waste of energy, and will guarantee failure in the field

of human endeavors as well as spiritual evolvement. Any attempt to

refute or disprove my above statement only strengthens my position

(how convenient) - unless of course you can 'kill me softly with

Silence'.

 

Only the Young Die!!

[Guest guest]

> > > Who performs the Inquiry, Dan?

> >

> > What makes you think that there is

> > a who performing anything, Bill?

 

> To ask the above question is to imply that there is no activity

> (inquiries and etc.) taking place, or that actions are taking place

> but there is no author(s).

>

> Neither position holds up to the light of common sense or everyday

> experience - or, as two philosophers once 'resolved' this issue:

> one philosopher asks the other, how do we know the world (of action)

> is real - - the other says, I can prove it thusly and proceeds to

> kick him in the shins.

>

> To suggest that there may not be a 'who performing' may sound cute

> and zenlike, and it is certainly in line with a nondualistic

> philosophy that only allows for the Unchanging Absolute - - however,

> it sounds foolish spoken by Joe and Mary Sixpack with fingered

> stained yellow from Fritos.

>

> To consciously deny the performance of action by ourselves and or

> others is a waste of energy, and will guarantee failure in the field

> of human endeavors as well as spiritual evolvement. Any attempt to

> refute or disprove my above statement only strengthens my position

> (how convenient) - unless of course you can 'kill me softly with

> Silence'.

>

> Only the Young Die!!

 

Go ahead, kick me in the shins. No problem.

Just not much higher please!

 

I don't mind saying " I " or " me " , just watch:

err, already did!

 

Activity goes on all the time, just as you say.

It would be crazy to deny it, just as you say.

And who would want to? (Just as you imply?)

 

I even have emotions sometimes. Yesterday

morning when I woke up I cried for awhile.

Don't even know why. I shouldn't admit this.

Everyone will know I am deluded.

OK! I admit it. I'm deluded!

 

I also melt into Now off and on. Kinda like

a cat napper. Now on. Now off.

 

You speak of activity taking place. For me

sometimes words arise. Sometimes not. When

not, sometimes still a movement in awareness.

Is it attention, is it some kind of energy?

And sometimes even the movement dies. That is

what I call Now.

 

So yes, activity happens.

 

But Inquiry? Why?

 

Things are stirred up enough.

 

I'd rather let them die. In the moment.

 

Why advise Inquiry? Does that create a seeker?

That's what I mean: an inquiry by *whom*?

 

Activity arises. Someone might even kick me

in the shins. But Now always awaits. And

where would I rather be? Certainly not engaged

in no *#?$ Inquiry.

 

-Bill

[Guest guest]

Anand wrote [[After that I never could associate with Anand, who

functions on his own.]]

** Sounds like a black epiphany.

 

[[Everything you do and not do is apart from THAT.]]

** I will reword the above: Everything you do and not do is PART of

That.

 

Om Shanti ...

Shakti

[Guest guest]

Bill wrote [[i'm afraid I don't really belong here (this list). I

don't feel comfortable. [snip] All I feel is love.]]

** Love is understanding. Love is our true human nature. Desires

cause pain, fear & restraint. Love - like moksha - comes only

through detachment.

 

Om Shanti ...

Shakti

[Guest guest]

Hi Bill --

 

> > What makes you think that there is

> > a who performing anything, Bill?

> I don't. What makes you think I do?

 

You asked the question " who performs the inquiry? "

 

If you don't think there is a who perfoming anything,

then why ask who performs it? It's a nonsensical

question.

 

> You said, " Inquiry is into that self. "

> So I asked who does this so-called Inquiry.

 

I never said a who did anything.

 

The inquiry is into the who.

 

> Which is pretty obvious from the original post.

 

Although you're saying it's pretty obvious, you've

obviously missed what I am saying.

 

> Why do I feel like you are on my case, Dan?

 

I am posting in service of inquiry.

 

So, inquire into those feelings of someone

being on your case, Bill -- of course, if

that inquiry arises choicelessly and naturally

for you.

 

A feeling that someone is on your case, is

the maintenance of self as a reaction to

what someone else is doing. So are maintained

expectations about how others should interact,

and assumptions about one's self-perceived

sensitivity and others relative lack of sensivity.

 

The inquiry is into the self/other relation.

 

By the way, I appreciate your contribution here,

and am sharing this not to be on yours or anyone's

case -- merely as indicators of where I'm at, if

anyone resonates with that. If not, it can't

be helped.

 

> Am I Totally Delusional?

 

The inquiry is into the nature of delusion.

 

When it is clear what delusion is, truth is

there as always, unobstructed.

 

> Ease up, man. Don't you see how Serious you are?

 

Nope. I'm simply sharing inquiry for any who

are so moved. Inquiry being a look into self,

not a criticism of others for being not sensitive

enough, or too serious, or whatever. Inquiry

being into base assumptions of perception.

 

> When's the last time you showed some humor

> around here?

 

Is that another one of your requirements for how

people should interact with each other?

 

> Remember when Pete called you the

> King of Philosophic Comedy? Seems like ages ago.

 

Bill, you imply that I'm too serious and you're

light-hearted. A little while ago you

were talking about leaving the list, and

seeing others as being wounded. But whatever

mood you're in, that's the mood you're in.

Realization doesn't depend on how you're

experiencing things -- it's how the experience

arises.

 

I've shared what I can, and if that comes across

as too serious for you, then I guess we're

not resonating. For me, this is simply

a matter of " what is " without conditions --

not the condition of not being serious, and

not the condition of being serious.

 

 

> Hey, man. Let's just party.

 

Whatever choicelessly arises for you to do, Bill,

will be done. Whether that is partying, meditating,

or eating a Twinkie.

 

> I'll promise not to

> try to enlighten anyone if you do.

 

Make no promises, and I'll tell no lies.

 

Party, make jokes, be serious --- whatever floats your boat.

 

Share your enlightenment, by all means.

 

I certainly am not aiming to constrain you

from that.

 

Peace,

Dan

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta, " trem23 " <inmadison@h...> wrote:

> Nisargadatta, " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote:

> > Nisargadatta, " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote:

> > > Who performs the Inquiry, Dan?

> >

> > What makes you think that there is

> > a who performing anything, Bill?

> > Nisargadatta, " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote:

> > > Who performs the Inquiry, Dan?

> >

> > What makes you think that there is

> > a who performing anything, Bill?

>

> To ask the above question is to imply that there is no activity

> (inquiries and etc.) taking place, or that actions are taking place

> but there is no author(s).

 

It implies that there are no separated causal agents, my friend.

 

> Neither position holds up to the light of common sense or everyday

> experience -

 

Your common sense and way of experiencing everyday life

is what inquiry is into.

 

or, as two philosophers once 'resolved' this issue:

> one philosopher asks the other, how do we know the world (of

action)

> is real - - the other says, I can prove it thusly and proceeds to

> kick him in the shins.

 

That doesn't resolve the issue of causal agency at all.

 

A kick to the shins can take place without requiring

that one think a separated entity caused it or

had an impact from it.

 

> To suggest that there may not be a 'who performing' may sound cute

> and zenlike, and it is certainly in line with a nondualistic

> philosophy that only allows for the Unchanging Absolute - -

 

Nonsense.

 

You are bringing up your own inferences and conclusions which

have nothing to do with what I said.

 

If there is no separable who, there certainly is no separable

unchanging absolute. Unchanging absolute is just an idea

occuring to you now, and you are a changing temporal being.

 

however,

> it sounds foolish spoken by Joe and Mary Sixpack with fingered

> stained yellow from Fritos.

 

To you.

 

>

> To consciously deny the performance of action by ourselves and or

> others is a waste of energy,

 

Insight denies nothing.

 

It is your assumption that we can't act unless we know ourselves

as an acting who.

 

> and will guarantee failure in the field

> of human endeavors as well as spiritual evolvement.

 

Ah, so now you're making guarantees of failure.

You must be the authority on success and failure

in the field of human endeavors and spiritual

evolvement.

 

Aren't these open lists great? Everyone is an instant

authority on what everyone else is saying and what

ultimate truth is. Ya gotta love it!

 

> Any attempt to

> refute or disprove my above statement only strengthens my position

> (how convenient) -

 

That is unfortunate for you, being stuck in that position

and unable to inquire into it.

 

> unless of course you can 'kill me softly with

> Silence'.

 

The unreal vanishes of itself, when there is readiness

to discriminate what is constructed from what isn't.

 

> Only the Young Die!!

 

Only the unborn doesn't have to worry about it.

 

-- Dan

[Guest guest]

Hi Bill --

 

snip

 

> But Inquiry? Why?

 

There is no why to inquiry.

 

Inquiry dissolves why.

 

>

> Things are stirred up enough.

 

A perfect moment for inquiry!

 

>

> I'd rather let them die. In the moment.

 

Inquiry is the dissolution of all created

and constructed entities, qualities,

and assumptions.

 

> Why advise Inquiry? Does that create a seeker?

 

Inquiry isn't a question to be answered by a seeker,

so there is no advice for the seeker.

 

Inquiry is the dissolution of the assumptions which

inform the activity which the seeker appears as.

 

> That's what I mean: an inquiry by *whom*?

 

Inquiry is not an activity of mind.

 

The who is an activity of mind.

 

Inquiry dissolves the root assumption by

which activity of mind seems to be

grounded in a center.

 

> Activity arises. Someone might even kick me

> in the shins. But Now always awaits. And

> where would I rather be? Certainly not engaged

> in no *#?$ Inquiry.

 

Then, now, later -- none of them is closer

or farther away.

 

Inquiry isn't something that is happening

in some other moment, isn't something

that can be put off or avoided.

 

To think one can avoid inquiry is like

thinking one can avoid dying --

one is in the process of dying, one

may not want to admit it to oneself :-)

 

-- Dan

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta, bardsley@c... wrote:

> Hi Karta,

>

> > the problem with judi is not that she

> > IS or is not, but her delusion that

> > she is the ONLY one realized.

> >

> > karta

>

> Judi is often challenging in her approach (not to say abrasive), but she has

not made any such claim since I've been following her contributions to this list

(and others, including her own). How did you form this opinion of her?

>

> Grant.

 

from her remarks like: " .. nobody came

*through* at her ranch.. " where she is taking the realized-person's-pose judging

...and

referring to an upcoming event of realization to be waiting for the poor abused

members of that club

 

karta

[Guest guest]

Hi Dan

 

I come out of lurkdom to thank you for your post on Inquiry (copy

below) and ask a question.

 

In the post you write:

 

" Inquiry dissolves..... "

and

" Inquiry is the dissolution.... "

 

Is Inquiry an activity?

 

Best Wishes,

yahd.

 

Nisargadatta, " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote:

> Hi Bill --

>

> snip

>

> > But Inquiry? Why?

>

> There is no why to inquiry.

>

> Inquiry dissolves why.

>

> >

> > Things are stirred up enough.

>

> A perfect moment for inquiry!

>

> >

> > I'd rather let them die. In the moment.

>

> Inquiry is the dissolution of all created

> and constructed entities, qualities,

> and assumptions.

>

> > Why advise Inquiry? Does that create a seeker?

>

> Inquiry isn't a question to be answered by a seeker,

> so there is no advice for the seeker.

>

> Inquiry is the dissolution of the assumptions which

> inform the activity which the seeker appears as.

>

> > That's what I mean: an inquiry by *whom*?

>

> Inquiry is not an activity of mind.

>

> The who is an activity of mind.

>

> Inquiry dissolves the root assumption by

> which activity of mind seems to be

> grounded in a center.

>

> > Activity arises. Someone might even kick me

> > in the shins. But Now always awaits. And

> > where would I rather be? Certainly not engaged

> > in no *#?$ Inquiry.

>

> Then, now, later -- none of them is closer

> or farther away.

>

> Inquiry isn't something that is happening

> in some other moment, isn't something

> that can be put off or avoided.

>

> To think one can avoid inquiry is like

> thinking one can avoid dying --

> one is in the process of dying, one

> may not want to admit it to oneself :-)

>

> -- Dan

[Guest guest]

Hi Yahd --

 

I'm enjoying your emergence from lurkdom.

 

Inquiry is not an activity.

 

Inquiry is neither a who, nor a process,

nor an it, but using words it seems

to become a something ... because words are

encodings of information ... and

inquiry isn't an encoding of information.

 

Inquiry is direct insight.

 

Inquiry is the experience of radical discontinuity,

and thus isn't an experience in the usual

sense of the term.

 

There is no content to inquiry, nor

is it against content (i.e., information processing,

or ordinary experiencing) ...

 

What is dissolved isn't anything real,

is the conceptual associations that

seem to link one moment with another

through the apparent form and

pattern of a continuing self ...

 

The continuing sense of a being which is brought from one

moment into another ... dissolves in the sense

that it is understood never to have been

there to be brought forward ever ...

 

This is not about a person who discovers something

special -- it is the discovery of what a person,

any and all persons, is and is not ...

 

Best to you, too,

Dan

 

 

 

 

> Hi Dan

>

> I come out of lurkdom to thank you for your post on Inquiry (copy

> below) and ask a question.

>

> In the post you write:

>

> " Inquiry dissolves..... "

> and

> " Inquiry is the dissolution.... "

>

> Is Inquiry an activity?

>

> Best Wishes,

> yahd.

[Guest guest]

Thanks for the reply Dan.

Enjoying this forum, athough it often moves too fast for me.

The mind here, when it tries to focus on a subtle aspect of a subtle

issue, such as *inquiry* or *now*, seems to lose focus and interest.

However I am interested.

?

yahd

 

Nisargadatta, " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote:

> Hi Yahd --

>

> I'm enjoying your emergence from lurkdom.

>

> Inquiry is not an activity.

>

> Inquiry is neither a who, nor a process,

> nor an it, but using words it seems

> to become a something ... because words are

> encodings of information ... and

> inquiry isn't an encoding of information.

>

> Inquiry is direct insight.

>

> Inquiry is the experience of radical discontinuity,

> and thus isn't an experience in the usual

> sense of the term.

>

> There is no content to inquiry, nor

> is it against content (i.e., information processing,

> or ordinary experiencing) ...

>

> What is dissolved isn't anything real,

> is the conceptual associations that

> seem to link one moment with another

> through the apparent form and

> pattern of a continuing self ...

>

> The continuing sense of a being which is brought from one

> moment into another ... dissolves in the sense

> that it is understood never to have been

> there to be brought forward ever ...

>

> This is not about a person who discovers something

> special -- it is the discovery of what a person,

> any and all persons, is and is not ...

>

> Best to you, too,

> Dan

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta, " yahded " <geebs@g...> wrote:

>

> Thanks for the reply Dan.

> Enjoying this forum, athough it often moves too fast for me.

> The mind here, when it tries to focus on a subtle aspect of a

subtle

> issue, such as *inquiry* or *now*, seems to lose focus and interest.

> However I am interested.

> ?

> yahd

 

Yes, Yahd -- the mind can only follow what is past.

 

The mind can't follow what is not of the mind.

 

-- Dan