Guest guest Posted December 12, 2003 Report Share Posted December 12, 2003 To all my non-existent fellow strugglers: The understanding that there is no " I " , which most of you seem to have adopted with great enthusiasm, is in and of itself hardly valuable. In fact, the understanding is of the mind, so what appears to be understanding is yet another illusion--albeit one that plants the seed for liberation. Understanding is like a rope dangling down from the Supreme. The mind can simply trudge through the marshes of mentation while holding the rope and post semantically dazzling messages about this experience. But really, there is no liberation whatsoever unless the body-mind manages to somehow hoist itself up along this rope, little by little, through assiduous efforts, intense discipline and true altruism, until it reaches the rope's end and drops away into the Void. THAT is liberation. In the mean time, somewhere halfway up between the soggy grounds and the Supreme, the view of the lands will get increasingly clearer as the ascent takes place--which justifies the involvement of more advanced but not yet liberated seekers in the pursuit of new understanders. So... why don't all you non-existing, swamp-dwelling rope-holders get off your non-dualist high horses and start the climb? We can all talk the talk. But disappointingly few of us walk the walk- -or, to stick with my original metaphore, climb the climb. And when the question is asked " Yes, there is understanding, so now what? " , posts come back claiming that " there is no understander, no doer, there is nothing to be done " . Treacherous folly, all of it. There is EVERYTHING to be done. Understanding will not redeem your miserable non-existent souls. Only liberation will. And the two are related only in the way a seed and a tree are. One MIGHT give birth to the other, but not easily: as in nature, most seeds are lost forever without any sort of plant every growing from them. Spare me your vacuous semantic games. Rather, give me, that non- existent phantom me that is desperately trying to start the climb, some practical advice on how to avoid slipping off the rope. And no, the mind-game of repeating silly statements saying " there is no climber, there is no rope, there is no statement-repeater, for you are only awareness " will not help--and that goes for YOU too. Yes YOU, coz YOU DO AND WILL EXIST until your are liberated. Laterz, Caspar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 12, 2003 Report Share Posted December 12, 2003 Hi Caspar, - " caspardegroot " <caspardegroot <Nisargadatta > Friday, December 12, 2003 04:39 PM Flame out to all you post-happy understanders > To all my non-existent fellow strugglers: <SNIP> > So... why don't all you non-existing, swamp-dwelling rope-holders get > off your non-dualist high horses and start the climb? > > We can all talk the talk. But disappointingly few of us walk the walk- > -or, to stick with my original metaphore, climb the climb. And when > the question is asked " Yes, there is understanding, so now what? " , If the question arises, understanding has yet to happen. > posts come back claiming that " there is no understander, no doer, > there is nothing to be done " . Treacherous folly, all of it. There is > EVERYTHING to be done. Understanding will not redeem your miserable > non-existent souls. :-) So posit the miserable soul and then go about trying to redeem it, is it? ? Only liberation will. And the two are related > only in the way a seed and a tree are. One MIGHT give birth to the > other, but not easily: as in nature, most seeds are lost forever > without any sort of plant every growing from them. > > Spare me your vacuous semantic games. Rather, give me, that non- > existent phantom me that is desperately trying to start the climb, > some practical advice on how to avoid slipping off the rope. OK. How exactly is the slipping taking place? > And no, > the mind-game of repeating silly statements saying " there is no > climber, there is no rope, there is no statement-repeater, for you > are only awareness " will not help-- OK. Can you advise,............. " will not help " ,....... whom? >and that goes for YOU too. Yes > YOU, coz YOU DO AND WILL EXIST until your are liberated. In which case, to whom are you addressing your post, Caspar? The blind, (as per you) is to lead another blind (you, as per you)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 12, 2003 Report Share Posted December 12, 2003 Sandeep, First, let ME thank you for responding. Wasn't sure any non-selves would " condescend " to MY hopelessly clueless being. Now then, in response to your response: > > the question is asked " Yes, there is understanding, so now what? " , > > If the question arises, understanding has yet to happen. Not true. MY understanding is complete. MY liberation is not. And *I* have the impression that this holds for most all posters here. Understanding is of the mind, by definition. There can only be understanding of the answer to a question, so the understanding presupposes the question. *I* would agree with you if you said " If the question arises, *liberation* is yet to happen. " Though clearly, as liberation would free one from the bonds of time, it can't really " happen " in the way that other events would. In any case, yes sir, I'm not liberated. Are you? > > Understanding will not redeem your miserable > > non-existent souls. > > > :-) > So posit the miserable soul and then go about trying to redeem it, is it? The positing of the soul has already happened, both for YOU and MYSELF. I'm not positing it. Maybe I did some time in the past, but since the past is only a concept, there's no point in giving any thought to that fact (or fiction). In any case, the soul exists now. Your active (though only suggested through ironic verbiage) denial of the soul only confirms that YOU, like ME, haven't perfected the soul to the point where it merges with the All and the Everything. > > Rather, give me, that non- > > existent phantom me that is desperately trying to start the climb, > > some practical advice on how to avoid slipping off the rope. > > > OK. > How exactly is the slipping taking place? > The slipping is metaphorical for the inability to have the body-mind machine act *always* in conformance with the the Supreme knowledge. This too once more demonstrates that the Supreme KNOWLEDGE is different from realization, which is UNITY with the Supreme. If there were UNITY already, all your non-dualist gibberish would hold true. For now however, there is only understanding, and this imposes the duty on the ultimately non-existent self to act in accordance with this knowledge. Why? Because this is clearly the only way to make the transition from knowledge to unity. In practical terms, the slipping takes the form of the indulging of conditioned impulses. You name em: anger, fear, desire etc. You could come back to me saying that Nisargadatta also often got angry--and you're right. BUT!!! See, Nisargadatta got angry without ANY CONCERN FOR HIMSELF (doh, coz there was no self), whereas the unliberated being gets angry ONLY OUT OF CONCERN FOR HIMSELF. So for the unliberated being, anger *IS* a vice, whereas for the liberated being, it is... nothing. > > And no, > > the mind-game of repeating silly statements saying " there is no > > climber, there is no rope, there is no statement-repeater, for you > > are only awareness " will not help-- > > OK. > Can you advise,............. " will not help " ,....... whom? > I'm glad you ask this question. To me the answer " YOU will not help ME if you pile more trivial non-dualist word games in my lap " would be sufficient. However, *you* are maybe more amenable to it if I replace the YOU and the ME with the terms " ONE body-mind machine will not help ANOTHER body-mind machine ... " . The fact remains the same, that the word games will get neither you nor me anywhere. And do we need to go places? Yessirreebob, we certainly do. Refer to my earlier metaphore about the rope, the marshes and the Supreme. We need to climb. > > In which case, to whom are you addressing your post, Caspar? Haha, good thing is, this question has me cracking up, not in a nasty, mocking way, but simply because it is so plainly amusing. Anyway, here's the answer... roll drums, coz you non-dualists are probably not quite ready for the simplicity of this answer: *I* am addressing it to *YOU*. Serendipity! Give me a medal for phrasing it so eloquenty. *I* vs. *YOU*. Wow. I pat myself on the back. Btw, there is the possibility that this group is a hotline to God. In that case, I guess I'm addressing the question to the Void. That would be nice, coz I'm sure the void wouldn't leave me dangling, now would it? > > The blind, (as per you) is to lead another blind (you, as per you)? > Yes please. See, the blind needs help. And also, the blind needs to help. This way, the blind will become the seeing. And help, is not the reinforcement of understanding, but the elimination of the need of understanding, i.e. liberation. Sandeep, thanks again for replying. *RIZZZ-PECT* Caspar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 12, 2003 Report Share Posted December 12, 2003 > In which case, to whom are you addressing your post, Caspar? > > The blind, (as per you) is to lead another blind (you, as per you)? Thanks for the humor, Sandeep. I enjoy starting my day with a chuckle. Peace on ya, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 12, 2003 Report Share Posted December 12, 2003 Nisargadatta , " caspardegroot " <caspardegroot> wrote: > Sandeep, > > First, let ME thank you for responding. Wasn't sure any non-selves > would " condescend " to MY hopelessly clueless being. Yes, Caspar, it makes my day too, whenever a nonself condescends to my hopelessly clueless being. It makes me feel so darn *right* about my self, and so sure that they are another self, too, just one that must be reiterating nondual truisms and believing they don't exist. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 12, 2003 Report Share Posted December 12, 2003 > Yes, Caspar, it makes my day too, whenever a nonself condescends > to my hopelessly clueless being. > I don't get it. Are you being ironic? I honestly can't tell. > It makes me feel so darn *right* about my self, and > so sure that they are another self, too, just one > that must be reiterating nondual truisms and believing > they don't exist. Hmm... I don't think I get this sentence. But it does seem ironic... What's your point, Dan? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 12, 2003 Report Share Posted December 12, 2003 Hmm... I believe I may have introduced an undesirable element into my story by using the terms SOUL and REDEMPTION. These words have strong Christian connotations and might not convey what I intended to convey. Allow me to clarify what I mean: REDEMPTION - The process of loosening the bonds of conditioned existence to the point where they'll break. SOUL - Hmm... the true Self? Indeed, positing a soul and then vying for its redemption is silly. So I'll rephrase. When I wrote " your miserable souls " , I should've written " your miserable conditionings " . Redemption will eliminate the conditionings so that only the soul remains. Yes, the soul is already fine and swell while the conditionings are still there. But that doesn't cut it. As long as there are conditionings, or at least as long as conditionings are allowed to rule, there's work to be done. A pearl is still a pearl when it's lying under a pile of cow dung. However, neither the pearl nor the world around it will see anything but the dung as long as it's not removed. The great achilles heel of all non-dualist philosophy is that many of its followers settle for the understanding that they are the pearl. They shouldn't. Do yourself and the world a favor: remove the dung. All true sages did. Laterz, Caspar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 12, 2003 Report Share Posted December 12, 2003 Hi Caspar, - " caspardegroot " <caspardegroot <Nisargadatta > Friday, December 12, 2003 06:48 PM Re: Flame out to all you post-happy understanders > Sandeep, > > First, let ME thank you for responding. ------- You are welcome. ------ Wasn't sure any non-selves > would " condescend " to MY hopelessly clueless being. > > Now then, in response to your response: > > > > the question is asked " Yes, there is understanding, so now what? " , > > > > If the question arises, understanding has yet to happen. > > Not true. MY understanding is complete. MY liberation is not. -------- And what is your understanding? --------- And *I* > have the impression that this holds for most all posters here. > Understanding is of the mind, by definition. -------- Nope. That is the difference. The understanding of the mind, will always enquire " now what? " -------- > There can only be understanding of the answer to a question, so the understanding > presupposes the question. *I* would agree with you if you said " If > the question arises, *liberation* is yet to happen. " ------- I am saying the same thing. The thought of liberation, ...........is not liberation. Liberation is essentially the liberation from the need of liberation,...............something which the mind cannot apperceive. -------- > Though clearly, as liberation would free one from the bonds of time, ----------- Who,......... as per you Casper, is currently bound under the bonds of time? Can that is bound under the bonds of time, be ever be free of time? Look at the concept of time. Is it not based on the concept of change? Without change, ...........can " time " be cognized,.......does " time " have any meaning? Thus the acceptance of the bondage within time, is assuming that the object which apparently changing,... is one's identity, is it not? And thus the bondage of time. So long, that apriori acceptance presists,............. bondage is definitely an issue to be addressed, resolved. And thus the seeking, the chasing for whatever you believe will resolved the issue. Can you see that the very seeking to liberate from the bondage, assumes AND perpetuates the apriori assumtion? Thus,..............is it anyhing but round and round the mulberry bush? No problem in doing the rounds,..............just the invitation to see the " round-ings " , for what they are,...... and then to go about in full gusto, if that is what moves you. --------- it can't > really " happen " in the way that other events would. In any case, yes > sir, I'm not liberated. Are you? -------- If you could define the " you " ,....................an answer will definitely arrive. ----------- > > > > Understanding will not redeem your miserable > > > non-existent souls. > > > > > > :-) > > So posit the miserable soul and then go about trying to redeem it, > is it? > > The positing of the soul has already happened, both for YOU and MYSELF. I'm not positing it. Maybe I did some time in the past, but since the past is only a concept, there's no point in giving any thought to that fact (or fiction). In any case, the soul exists now. > Your active (though only suggested through ironic verbiage) denial of > the soul only confirms that YOU, like ME, haven't perfected the soul > to the point where it merges with the All and the Everything. ----------- Whatever you say. ----------- > > > > Rather, give me, that non- > > > existent phantom me that is desperately trying to start the > climb, > > > some practical advice on how to avoid slipping off the rope. > > > > > > OK. > > How exactly is the slipping taking place? > > > > The slipping is metaphorical for the inability to have the body-mind > machine act *always* in conformance with the the Supreme knowledge. --------- The body-mind machine, does not the violition to act in any way other than the actioning, which happens in the moment. Moment to moment to moment. ------------ > This too once more demonstrates that the Supreme KNOWLEDGE is different from realization, which is UNITY with the >Supreme. If there were UNITY already, all your non-dualist gibberish would hold true. > For now however, there is only understanding, and this imposes the duty on the ultimately non-existent self to act in accordance >with this knowledge. ----------- Ultimately non-existant self? Which supposes that it exists now and at some point of time, through some activity, it will become non-existant.,...right? So Caspar, right now,......what is the basis on which you assume the existence, of a separated, individual self? ----------- > Why? Because this is clearly the only way to make the > transition from knowledge to unity. ----------- So you know what unity is? You must,...........in order for you make that statement that something is separate (and hence is to transit) from unity. -------- > In practical terms, the slipping takes the form of the indulging of conditioned impulses. You name em: > anger, fear, desire etc. --------- Anger, fear, desire,..............are feelings, is it not? ............which arise when a specific input impacts a sentient body-mind machine (using your terminology). Feelings are thoughts, with maybe an associated sensatation in the body-mind machine. So you want to control, ammend, suppress, stop,.............what are essentially thoughts, right? That wanting to control, ammend, suppress, stop,..................is it anything else but a thought? So thought is to cease thought? Can you see the oxy-moron-ess in that? --------- > You could come back to me saying that > Nisargadatta also often got angry--and you're right. BUT!!! See, Nisargadatta got angry without ANY CONCERN FOR HIMSELF >(doh, coz there was no self), whereas the unliberated being gets angry ONLY OUT OF CONCERN FOR HIMSELF. --------- Caspar,...............anger, arises in the moment, in response to an impacting input, THROUGH a conditioned sentient psycho-somatic apparatus. And can happen, irrespective of whether that apparatus is labelled as a " sage " or a " clown " . The difference is that in the case of a sage, there is no taking delivery of the " anger " , there is no stake in the anger,..............whereas, in the other case, there is a sense of identification with the anger. And thus the arising sense of " something is to be done to get liberated from anger/fear/desire " . ----------- > So for the unliberated being, anger *IS* a vice, whereas for the liberated being, it is... nothing. ------------- Anger is a nuance of the One movement, through a manifest object (which itself is an objective expression of that same movement), in the moment. In the moment, there is only anger,..............there is no one getting angry. --------- > > > > And no, > > > the mind-game of repeating silly statements saying " there is no > > > climber, there is no rope, there is no statement-repeater, for > you > > > are only awareness " will not help-- > > > > OK. > > Can you advise,............. " will not help " ,....... whom? > > > > I'm glad you ask this question. To me the answer " YOU will not help > ME if you pile more trivial non-dualist word games in my lap " would > be sufficient. However, *you* are maybe more amenable to it if I > replace the YOU and the ME with the terms " ONE body-mind machine will > not help ANOTHER body-mind machine ... " . The fact remains the same, > that the word games will get neither you nor me anywhere. ----------- I agree. The issue, is you want to get somewhere. Inviting you to see, there is nowhere to reach,...........because there is no where, which you ARE not already. --------- > And do we > need to go places? Yessirreebob, we certainly do. Refer to my earlier > metaphore about the rope, the marshes and the Supreme. We need to > climb. -------- Fine. When you are completely exhausted with all the climbing and slipping,..............come and have a glass of chilled Chablis. --------- > > > > > In which case, to whom are you addressing your post, Caspar? > > Haha, good thing is, this question has me cracking up, not in a nasty, mocking way, but simply because it is so plainly amusing. Anyway, here's the answer... roll drums, coz you non-dualists are probably not quite ready for the simplicity of this answer: *I* am addressing it to *YOU*. Serendipity! Give me a medal for phrasing it > so eloquenty. *I* vs. *YOU*. Wow. I pat myself on the back. --------- Caspar,............there is none apart from you. We all are figments of your imagination, .......not just the characters on this List, or even the one you are encountering in cyber -space, but even the characters in your physical life. So keep playing with yourself, if it pleasures you. ------------ > > Btw, there is the possibility that this group is a hotline to God. In > that case, I guess I'm addressing the question to the Void. That > would be nice, coz I'm sure the void wouldn't leave me dangling, now > would it? > > > > > The blind, (as per you) is to lead another blind (you, as per you)? > > > > Yes please. See, the blind needs help. And also, the blind needs to help. This way, the blind will become the seeing. And help, is not the reinforcement of understanding, but the elimination of the need of understanding, i.e. liberation. ------------ So if you have it all figured it out Caspar,...........what are you doing here? Just go and do it.:-) ----------- > > Sandeep, thanks again for replying. ------- You are welcome. And please feel liberated to respond off-List, if you are so moved to.:-) Zip-A-Dee-Dah-Doo-Phaaat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 12, 2003 Report Share Posted December 12, 2003 Nisargadatta , " caspardegroot " <caspardegroot> wrote: > Hmm... > > I believe I may have introduced an undesirable element into my story > by using the terms SOUL and REDEMPTION. These words have strong > Christian connotations and might not convey what I intended to convey. > > Allow me to clarify what I mean: > > REDEMPTION - The process of loosening the bonds of conditioned > existence to the point where they'll break. > > SOUL - Hmm... the true Self? > > Indeed, positing a soul and then vying for its redemption is silly. > So I'll rephrase. When I wrote " your miserable souls " , I should've > written " your miserable conditionings " . Redemption will eliminate the > conditionings so that only the soul remains. Yes, the soul is already > fine and swell while the conditionings are still there. But that > doesn't cut it. > The direct translation of soul into Greek is " psyche " . Therefore a soul-doctor is a psychotherapist. And if the soul is the psyche than it is mortal - poor Christians, Werner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 12, 2003 Report Share Posted December 12, 2003 Nisargadatta , " caspardegroot " <caspardegroot> wrote: > Hmm... > > Laterz, > Caspar. So Caspar, What do you think liberation is? Would not liberation mean complete acceptance of phenomenality? Including what " the people in the swamp " consider suffering, delusion, inaction, bondage, etc.? Would not that mean that 'what is' is perfect right now? What do 'you' think would happen to 'you' if you die unliberated? Does the sage survives death as a sage, and the deluded as deluded? What is preventing you from seeing everything is perfect now? Is not doing something an admission that things are not perfect, and that your actions will bring perfection about? Is delusion real in your opinion? Is paying attention an action? Just curious, Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 12, 2003 Report Share Posted December 12, 2003 Nisargadatta , " caspardegroot " <caspardegroot> wrote: > > Yes, Caspar, it makes my day too, whenever a nonself condescends > > to my hopelessly clueless being. > > > > I don't get it. Are you being ironic? I honestly can't tell. So, okay -- you were being honest about being clueless. Just so long as you realize I'm not a notself, and I'm not condescending to your being, whatever that means. > > It makes me feel so darn *right* about my self, and > > so sure that they are another self, too, just one > > that must be reiterating nondual truisms and believing > > they don't exist. > > Hmm... I don't think I get this sentence. But it does seem ironic... Ya think? > What's your point, Dan? Well, Caspar, it's like a joke that is overexplained. If you didn't get it the first time, you won't think it's funny after it's explained. But if this helps: there aren't any happy nonselves reiterating nondual truisms. Trying to be a happy nonself is just another trippy way to try to have a self -- just as is feeling right about one's sussing out of someone else's trip. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 12, 2003 Report Share Posted December 12, 2003 Casper, this is Wy. Your message is most welcome. I hope I never lose touch with you on the internet. If you ever change your email address, please notify me, as someday there may be some interesting activities you may like to engage in.See below. - caspardegroot Nisargadatta Friday, December 12, 2003 3:09 AM Flame out to all you post-happy understanders To all my non-existent fellow strugglers: The understanding that there is no " I " , which most of you seem to have adopted with great enthusiasm, is in and of itself hardly valuable. In fact, the understanding is of the mind, so what appears to be understanding is yet another illusion--albeit one that plants the seed for liberation. ------------ Wry: This is correct. --------------- Understanding is like a rope dangling down from the Supreme. ------------ Wry: No response required to this point, but perhaps you could examine the approach suggested in the above sentence, as this creates further dichotomy, as in order to verify a " Supreme " or Absolute, with a capitol S or A, one needs to mentally posit ones own reason on the same side of this as a verifying. This is the teaching of the prasangika madhymika school of Buddhism (that of the Dalai Lama), the consequence school, which approaches reality as having two aspects-one being that it exists conventionally, and the second being that it is ultimately empty, the reason being that without this two-fold approach, it is not possible to cleanse the afflictions (as they would be ultimately ture, if there is only one aspect). So in this way a person can develop his discriminative abilities without becoming even more confused in the way we see people becoming confused on this list and everywhere. ------------ The mind can simply trudge through the marshes of mentation while holding the rope and post semantically dazzling messages about this experience. ----------- Wry: Yes, but, even if a person does achieve mental non-duality, it is shameful, in my opinion, and in the opinion of some others, to be what is called disparagingly, " a solitary realizer, " (not that we even have any of these on here, is my guess), as this is not being in full relationship, in that it leaves suffering beings behind. ________________ But really, there is no liberation whatsoever unless the body-mind manages to somehow hoist itself up along this rope, little by little, through assiduous efforts, intense discipline and true altruism, until it reaches the rope's end and drops away into the Void. THAT is liberation. In the mean time, somewhere halfway up between the soggy grounds and the Supreme, the view of the lands will get increasingly clearer as the ascent takes place--which justifies the involvement of more advanced but not yet liberated seekers in the pursuit of new understanders. ------------------- Wry: Yep. In the pursuit of new understanders. This is a form of pyramiding. There is a need to convert in order to sustain the illusion of liberation. Not to imply that pyramiding cannot have a place in spiritual development or that there is not necessarily not a nned for some kind of conversion. -------------- So... why don't all you non-existing, swamp-dwelling rope-holders get off your non-dualist high horses and start the climb? ----------- Wry: they can't. They are not attracted to this approach. If certain conditions are set up, though, through the dedication and effort of good people like yourself, whose reason is a little bit more objective, this people will have a certain external structure that may enable them to harness certain energy that they are leaking, and thereby get a taste of a kind of food that is more essential and sustaining. ---------- We can all talk the talk. But disappointingly few of us walk the walk- -or, to stick with my original metaphore, climb the climb. And when the question is asked " Yes, there is understanding, so now what? " , posts come back claiming that " there is no understander, no doer, there is nothing to be done " . Treacherous folly, all of it. There is EVERYTHING to be done. Understanding will not redeem your miserable non-existent souls. Only liberation will. And the two are related only in the way a seed and a tree are. One MIGHT give birth to the other, but not easily: as in nature, most seeds are lost forever without any sort of plant every growing from them. ---------- Wry: Yes, not every acorn can develop into a giant oak. -------------- Spare me your vacuous semantic games. Rather, give me, that non- existent phantom me that is desperately trying to start the climb, some practical advice on how to avoid slipping off the rope. And no, the mind-game of repeating silly statements saying " there is no climber, there is no rope, there is no statement-repeater, for you are only awareness " will not help--and that goes for YOU too. Yes YOU, coz YOU DO AND WILL EXIST until your are liberated. -------------- Wry: Things need to be set up deliberately, externally, to encourage the deveopment of the little acorn into a seedling and then a tree. I notice you are making this message for the group, as well as for yourself, with a great motivation to help others, as well as a basic understanding of the great difficulty to succeed in becoming liberated. The understanding of the difficult situation of a human being with an afflicted mind already greatly increases your opportunity to become free of the afflictions. This understanding, combined with right motivation, will magnetically attract to you, as if by magic, whatever is required for you to not only help others but also yourself. It is a law. Sincerely, Wry Laterz, Caspar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 12, 2003 Report Share Posted December 12, 2003 Sandeep said: When you are completely exhausted with all the climbing and slipping,..............come and have a glass of chilled Chablis. Steve: A toast to you, Dan and Sandeep! Nisargadatta , Sandeep <sandeepc@b...> wrote: > Hi Caspar, > > > - > " caspardegroot " <caspardegroot> > <Nisargadatta > > Friday, December 12, 2003 06:48 PM > Re: Flame out to all you post-happy understanders > > > > Sandeep, > > > > First, let ME thank you for responding. > > ------- > > You are welcome. > > ------ > > Wasn't sure any non-selves > > would " condescend " to MY hopelessly clueless being. > > > > Now then, in response to your response: > > > > > > the question is asked " Yes, there is understanding, so now what? " , > > > > > > If the question arises, understanding has yet to happen. > > > > Not true. MY understanding is complete. MY liberation is not. > > -------- > > And what is your understanding? > > --------- > > > > And *I* > > have the impression that this holds for most all posters here. > > Understanding is of the mind, by definition. > > -------- > > Nope. > > That is the difference. > > The understanding of the mind, will always enquire " now what? " > > -------- > > > > There can only be understanding of the answer to a question, so the understanding > > presupposes the question. *I* would agree with you if you said " If > > the question arises, *liberation* is yet to happen. " > > > ------- > > I am saying the same thing. > > The thought of liberation, ...........is not liberation. > > > Liberation is essentially the liberation from the need of liberation,...............something which the mind cannot apperceive. > > -------- > > > > Though clearly, as liberation would free one from the bonds of time, > > ----------- > > Who,......... as per you Casper, is currently bound under the bonds of time? > > Can that is bound under the bonds of time, be ever be free of time? > > Look at the concept of time. > Is it not based on the concept of change? > Without change, ...........can " time " be cognized,.......does " time " have any meaning? > > Thus the acceptance of the bondage within time, is assuming that the object which apparently changing,... is one's identity, is it not? > And thus the bondage of time. > > So long, that apriori acceptance presists,............. bondage is definitely an issue to be addressed, resolved. > And thus the seeking, the chasing for whatever you believe will resolved the issue. > > Can you see that the very seeking to liberate from the bondage, assumes AND perpetuates the apriori assumtion? > > Thus,..............is it anyhing but round and round the mulberry bush? > > No problem in doing the rounds,..............just the invitation to see the " round-ings " , for what they are,...... and then to go about in full gusto, if that is what moves you. > > --------- > > > it can't > > really " happen " in the way that other events would. In any case, yes > > sir, I'm not liberated. Are you? > > > -------- > > If you could define the " you " ,....................an answer will definitely arrive. > > ----------- > > > > > > > > > Understanding will not redeem your miserable > > > > non-existent souls. > > > > > > > > > :-) > > > So posit the miserable soul and then go about trying to redeem it, > > is it? > > > > The positing of the soul has already happened, both for YOU and MYSELF. I'm not positing it. Maybe I did some time in the past, but since the past is only a concept, there's no point in giving any thought to that fact (or fiction). In any case, the soul exists now. > > Your active (though only suggested through ironic verbiage) denial of > > the soul only confirms that YOU, like ME, haven't perfected the soul > > to the point where it merges with the All and the Everything. > > > ----------- > > Whatever you say. > > ----------- > > > > > > > Rather, give me, that non- > > > > existent phantom me that is desperately trying to start the > > climb, > > > > some practical advice on how to avoid slipping off the rope. > > > > > > > > > OK. > > > How exactly is the slipping taking place? > > > > > > > The slipping is metaphorical for the inability to have the body- mind > > machine act *always* in conformance with the the Supreme knowledge. > > --------- > > The body-mind machine, does not the violition to act in any way other than the actioning, which happens in the moment. > > Moment to moment to moment. > > ------------ > > > > This too once more demonstrates that the Supreme KNOWLEDGE is different from realization, which is UNITY with the >Supreme. If there were UNITY already, all your non-dualist gibberish would hold true. > > For now however, there is only understanding, and this imposes the duty on the ultimately non-existent self to act in accordance >with this knowledge. > > ----------- > > > Ultimately non-existant self? > > Which supposes that it exists now and at some point of time, through some activity, it will become non-existant.,...right? > > So Caspar, right now,......what is the basis on which you assume the existence, of a separated, individual self? > > > ----------- > > > > > Why? Because this is clearly the only way to make the > > transition from knowledge to unity. > > ----------- > > So you know what unity is? > > You must,...........in order for you make that statement that something is separate (and hence is to transit) from unity. > > -------- > > > > > In practical terms, the slipping takes the form of the indulging of conditioned impulses. You name em: > > anger, fear, desire etc. > > --------- > > Anger, fear, desire,..............are feelings, is it not? > > ...........which arise when a specific input impacts a sentient body-mind machine (using your terminology). > > Feelings are thoughts, with maybe an associated sensatation in the body-mind machine. > > So you want to control, ammend, suppress, stop,.............what are essentially thoughts, right? > > That wanting to control, ammend, suppress, stop,..................is it anything else but a thought? > > So thought is to cease thought? > > Can you see the oxy-moron-ess in that? > > --------- > > > > > You could come back to me saying that > > Nisargadatta also often got angry--and you're right. BUT!!! See, Nisargadatta got angry without ANY CONCERN FOR HIMSELF >(doh, coz there was no self), whereas the unliberated being gets angry ONLY OUT OF CONCERN FOR HIMSELF. > > --------- > > Caspar,...............anger, arises in the moment, in response to an impacting input, THROUGH a conditioned sentient psycho-somatic apparatus. > And can happen, irrespective of whether that apparatus is labelled as a " sage " or a " clown " . > > The difference is that in the case of a sage, there is no taking delivery of the " anger " , there is no stake in the anger,..............whereas, in the other case, there is a sense of identification with the anger. > > And thus the arising sense of " something is to be done to get liberated from anger/fear/desire " . > > ----------- > > > > > So for the unliberated being, anger *IS* a vice, whereas for the liberated being, it is... nothing. > > ------------- > > Anger is a nuance of the One movement, through a manifest object (which itself is an objective expression of that same movement), in the moment. > > In the moment, there is only anger,..............there is no one getting angry. > > --------- > > > > > > > > And no, > > > > the mind-game of repeating silly statements saying " there is no > > > > climber, there is no rope, there is no statement-repeater, for > > you > > > > are only awareness " will not help-- > > > > > > OK. > > > Can you advise,............. " will not help " ,....... whom? > > > > > > > I'm glad you ask this question. To me the answer " YOU will not help > > ME if you pile more trivial non-dualist word games in my lap " would > > be sufficient. However, *you* are maybe more amenable to it if I > > replace the YOU and the ME with the terms " ONE body-mind machine will > > not help ANOTHER body-mind machine ... " . The fact remains the same, > > that the word games will get neither you nor me anywhere. > > ----------- > > I agree. > > The issue, is you want to get somewhere. > > Inviting you to see, there is nowhere to reach,...........because there is no where, which you ARE not already. > > --------- > > > > > And do we > > need to go places? Yessirreebob, we certainly do. Refer to my earlier > > metaphore about the rope, the marshes and the Supreme. We need to > > climb. > > -------- > > Fine. > > When you are completely exhausted with all the climbing and slipping,..............come and have a glass of chilled Chablis. > > --------- > > > > > > > > > > In which case, to whom are you addressing your post, Caspar? > > > > Haha, good thing is, this question has me cracking up, not in a nasty, mocking way, but simply because it is so plainly amusing. Anyway, here's the answer... roll drums, coz you non-dualists are probably not quite ready for the simplicity of this answer: *I* am addressing it to *YOU*. Serendipity! Give me a medal for phrasing it > > so eloquenty. *I* vs. *YOU*. Wow. I pat myself on the back. > > --------- > > Caspar,............there is none apart from you. > > We all are figments of your imagination, .......not just the characters on this List, or even the one you are encountering in cyber -space, but even the characters in your physical life. > > So keep playing with yourself, if it pleasures you. > > ------------ > > > > > > > > > Btw, there is the possibility that this group is a hotline to God. In > > that case, I guess I'm addressing the question to the Void. That > > would be nice, coz I'm sure the void wouldn't leave me dangling, now > > would it? > > > > > > > > The blind, (as per you) is to lead another blind (you, as per you)? > > > > > > > Yes please. See, the blind needs help. And also, the blind needs to help. This way, the blind will become the seeing. And help, is not the reinforcement of understanding, but the elimination of the need of understanding, i.e. liberation. > > ------------ > > So if you have it all figured it out Caspar,...........what are you doing here? > Just go and do it.:-) > > ----------- > > > > > > Sandeep, thanks again for replying. > > ------- > > You are welcome. > > And please feel liberated to respond off-List, if you are so moved to.:-) > > > > Zip-A-Dee-Dah-Doo-Phaaat > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 13, 2003 Report Share Posted December 13, 2003 Pete: > So Caspar, What do you think liberation is? Liberation is the attainment of the final state. Liberation is unity with the source. The source cannot be caused, found or experienced. Yet it is the only real. And yes, the bundles of feelings, thoughts and apparent body parts that are commonly referred to as humans, have of course sprung from the source and are at the same time IN the source. Therefore, there is some merit to statements like " You are it! It is here and now! " However, these bundles are not freed by such insights, since the insight is only another appearance in the source. These bundles are only freed when they cease to exist as bundles. THAT is liberation. It is attained when the bundle strives to eliminate itself with sufficient energy and discipline, like a snake catching hold of its own tail and then eating itself little by little. What happens when it gets to its head? Yes, well, that's probably where effort ceases to be of value and grace is required. However, most seekers need not address this issue since they haven't eaven begun gnawing at their tails. They seems to be just sort of sniffing at it, and being very content with that too. > Would not liberation mean complete acceptance of phenomenality? > Including what " the people in the swamp " consider suffering, delusion, > inaction, bondage, etc.? Well, phenomenality cannot be denied, that's for sure. But acceptance... I don't know. Acceptance might suggest that it's fine to remain at the mercy of our conditionings, as long as we just accept them. Using the term " acceptance " , one might be tempted to justify being a selfish monster by " accepting " it as part of phenomenality. This kind of acceptance I would call resignation. Or even an excuse. In any case, with this kind of acceptance it is the ego that's doing the accepting. So the term acceptance is a tricky one. If however you are talking about acceptance as a basis from which you can restrain yourself from responding to phenomena with attempts to defend the ego, then I think I concur that *complete* acceptance would probably be paramount to liberation. > Would not that mean that 'what is' is perfect right now? Misery is not perfect. Being at the mercy of one's conditionings is not perfect. Expected non-dualist response: Who is at the mercy? More semantic games. I'm sure you understand the state that I'm referring to. > What do 'you' think would happen to 'you' if you die unliberated? The real me? Clearly the real me is always unaffected. If you mean the body-mind that is typing this message and that *IS* definitely unliberated, it'll probably be away for awhile and then reappear in a similar form in a similar world--the two being 2 sides of the same coin. > Does the sage survives death as a sage, and the deluded as deluded? The sage is dead already, in the sense that he's not a person. He is also eternal life of course, since what remains cannot be born or die. So the question doesn't apply to the sage. The deluded, well, new delusions will arise after the demise of the body... so in a way the deluded " reincarnate " . > What is preventing you from seeing everything is perfect now? You assume that everything *is* perfect and that I don't see it. Though this sounds a lot like what all the famous sages are saying, my point is that realization of this perfection requires a struggle. What I see now, is that I cause pain and sorrow in this world. Without the struggle, that will not change. I can't really speak for the world--it may be fine, I'm not sure about it. As for me, I'm not fine. And I refuse to abuse a few spiritual dogmas as a means to justify the latent selfishness that I *know* exists in myself and I suspect exists in just about all of mankind. > Is not doing something an admission that things are not perfect, > and that your actions will bring perfection about? My head spins from this question. As for the first part, no, of course not. If you don't do anything, that would suggest that you are convinced things are perfect already. But they're not. Even if they are for you, I can assure you that they are not for me. This is exactly why I'm protesting against the endless exchange of messages that seem to containg nothing but lofty semantics expressing the " Truth " in a million-and-one ways. Consider this: No famous sage ever spent any time exchanging descriptions of the Supreme with other sages. Ever caught Nisaragaddata or Ramana telling each other how awesomely right they were, and how well they agreed? So if this group is full of enlightened beings, how come it seems so much effort is directed at AGREEING on how perfect everything is, and so little effort goes toward providing *practical* advice to those stuck in the marshes, like me? Well, you'll probably come back to me saying that there is no me... which once again will leave me disappointed as to what this group has to offer. As to actions bringing perfection about, I guess they could, though I will allow that the perceived causality will probaly ultimately turn out to be part of the delusion. In any case, Nisargadatta once said: " You cannot escape your sadhana. " Sadhana is a struggle toward a goal. I accept that. It means there's no quick-and-easy way. Just would like to know what the hard way entails. But that question falls on deaf ears. > Is delusion real in your opinion? The content of the delusion is not real, no, hence we call it delusion. The occurrance of the delusion though, is all too real. In fact, this takes us back to my original point: acknowledging that what one experiences is a delusion, does by itself not eliminate the fact that delusion is taking place. > Is paying attention an action? To me this is semantics. I guess we could call it an action, since it *appears* to follow an intent to pay attention, in the same way that typing this message appears to follow an intent to do so. In that sense, both are actions, yes. What is the relevance though? I.e., why do you ask? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 13, 2003 Report Share Posted December 13, 2003 > So, okay -- you were being honest about being clueless. > Just so long as you realize I'm not a notself, and I'm > not condescending to your being, whatever that means. Of course I was honest. Furthermore, if you're *not* a notself, then you are a self, right? So does that mean you are the SELF, or that you are an unrealized man like me? Please clarify. > > Hmm... I don't think I get this sentence. But it does seem ironic... > > Ya think? You repeatedly resort to sarcasm. I believe this cannot possibly be of help. > If you didn't get it the first time, you won't think > it's funny after it's explained. I'm not looking for fun here. I'm looking for guidance. > But if this helps: there aren't any happy nonselves > reiterating nondual truisms. Trying to be > a happy nonself is just another trippy way to > try to have a self -- just as is feeling right > about one's sussing out of someone else's trip. I don't feel completely right about it. I have my doubts. My sussing you guys out is caused by my ongoing frustration about not finding anybody that is willing to relate to the state I'm in. The world seems to be divided in 2 groups: the truly clueless, which have my sympathy but cannot possibly help me along... and a minority that claims to be either on the path or realized already, but that seems to lack the ability to relate to a sincere (though possibly errant) seeker. But actually, it appears we agree about this: that trying to be a happy nonself is just another trippy way to try to have a self. So am I wrong in feeling that this group is populated with individuals doing exactly that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 13, 2003 Report Share Posted December 13, 2003 caspar, when I read what you were saying, I was reminded of something Kierkegaard said: " If one is truly to succeed in leading a person to a specific place, one must first and foremost take care to find him where he is and begin there. This is the secret in the entire art of helping. Anyone who cannot do this is himself under a delusion if he thinks he is able to help someone else. In order to help someone else, I must understand more than he—but certainly first and foremost understand what he understands. If I do not do that, then my greater understanding does not help him at all. If I nevertheless want to assert my greater understanding, then it is because I am vain or proud, then basically instead of benefiting him I really want to be admired by him. " (Point of View, Hong, p. 45) Let me try to form a picture of what I think you are saying. If it is not, then not. I see a form that has a problem state, a solution state, and a solution path. That form is an existential form, and by that I mean that the solution path is a path that must be taken. Yes, it is abstract in the form, but in life it is a real process. The real difficulty is that the solution path involves a disjunction. The view of the self from the problem state and the view of the self from the solution state are not commensurable. Looking at the form from the standpoint of the difference in view, all of these self-negating terms do apply. However, it is possible to arrive at that distinction, a logical distinction, without having plied the solution path. It seems to me that you are not only making that point, but also the point that if those words have meaning, they must be related to the solution path, else that meaning could only be the thought of having arrived. So, what I see you as requesting is not the view from the " other " side, but the view from the " bridge. " ----willy Nisargadatta , " caspardegroot " <caspardegroot> wrote: > > So, okay -- you were being honest about being clueless. > > Just so long as you realize I'm not a notself, and I'm > > not condescending to your being, whatever that means. > > Of course I was honest. Furthermore, if you're *not* a notself, then > you are a self, right? So does that mean you are the SELF, or that > you are an unrealized man like me? Please clarify. > > > > Hmm... I don't think I get this sentence. But it does seem > ironic... > > > > Ya think? > > You repeatedly resort to sarcasm. I believe this cannot possibly be > of help. > > > If you didn't get it the first time, you won't think > > it's funny after it's explained. > > I'm not looking for fun here. I'm looking for guidance. > > > But if this helps: there aren't any happy nonselves > > reiterating nondual truisms. Trying to be > > a happy nonself is just another trippy way to > > try to have a self -- just as is feeling right > > about one's sussing out of someone else's trip. > > I don't feel completely right about it. I have my doubts. My sussing > you guys out is caused by my ongoing frustration about not finding > anybody that is willing to relate to the state I'm in. The world > seems to be divided in 2 groups: the truly clueless, which have my > sympathy but cannot possibly help me along... and a minority that > claims to be either on the path or realized already, but that seems > to lack the ability to relate to a sincere (though possibly errant) > seeker. > > But actually, it appears we agree about this: that trying to be a > happy nonself is just another trippy way to try to have a self. So am > I wrong in feeling that this group is populated with individuals > doing exactly that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 13, 2003 Report Share Posted December 13, 2003 > Pete: > > > So Caspar, What do you think liberation is? Caspar: > > Liberation is the attainment of the final state. sk: who told you this? Liberation is unity > with the source. sk: who told you that? The source cannot be caused, found or experienced. sk: So, why are you seeking liberation? > Yet it is the only real. sk: That's what they say. And yes, the bundles of feelings, thoughts > and apparent body parts that are commonly referred to as humans, have of course sprung from the source and are at the same time IN the source. sk: Isn't that strange? Perhaps that's a question of the size of frontal-lobes. I don't think animals have such strange theories about life. Therefore, there is some merit to statements like " You are > it! It is here and now! " However, these bundles are not freed by such insights, since the insight is only another appearance in the source.> These bundles are only freed when they cease to exist as bundles. sk: Imagine how beautiful! A life free from insights and truths. Just hearing what your heart tells you since you were an infant. There is no power comparable to the power of compassion, forgiveness and gratitude. Call it love, if you like. All the sages, teachers and gurus come to the same point. If you are seeking for help, you will find the best teacher in yourself. I practice and recommend meditation. And, of course, meditation not as a kind of competitive sport. > THAT is liberation. It is attained when the bundle strives to > eliminate itself with sufficient energy and discipline, like a snake catching hold of its own tail and then eating itself little by > little. sk: Why eliminate something which sooner or later will have an end? Dicipline, patience and humility are good things, no matter what you do. Nothing more is required, in my opinion. Listen to what the people tell you here on the list, read books if you like, find you a guru. Do what you consider adecuate and don't care about post-happy understanders, if you don't want it. What happens when it gets to its head? Yes, well, that's > probably where effort ceases to be of value and grace is required. > However, most seekers need not address this issue since they haven't > eaven begun gnawing at their tails. They seems to be just sort of > sniffing at it, and being very content with that too. sk: Yes, and why not. Not all the people are as smart as you. > > > Would not liberation mean complete acceptance of phenomenality? > > Including what " the people in the swamp " consider suffering, > delusion, > > inaction, bondage, etc.? > > Well, phenomenality cannot be denied, that's for sure. sk: ...and? But > acceptance... I don't know. Acceptance might suggest that it's fine > to remain at the mercy of our conditionings, as long as we just accept them. Using the term " acceptance " , one might be tempted to justify being a selfish monster by " accepting " it as part of > phenomenality. This kind of acceptance I would call resignation. Or > even an excuse. In any case, with this kind of acceptance it is the > ego that's doing the accepting. So the term acceptance is a tricky > one. If however you are talking about acceptance as a basis from > which you can restrain yourself from responding to phenomena with > attempts to defend the ego, then I think I concur that *complete* > acceptance would probably be paramount to liberation. sk: Forgive them and me and yourself for not being the ideal you have on perfection. > > > Would not that mean that 'what is' is perfect right now? > > Misery is not perfect. Being at the mercy of one's conditionings is > not perfect. Expected non-dualist response: Who is at the mercy? More semantic games. I'm sure you understand the state that I'm referring to. sk: ditto. > > > What do 'you' think would happen to 'you' if you die unliberated? > > The real me? Clearly the real me is always unaffected. If you mean > the body-mind that is typing this message and that *IS* definitely > unliberated, it'll probably be away for awhile and then reappear in a > similar form in a similar world--the two being 2 sides of the same > coin. sk: Who told you these stories about real and not real " mes " . Is that your opinion, too? > > > Does the sage survives death as a sage, and the deluded as deluded? > > The sage is dead already, in the sense that he's not a person. He is > also eternal life of course, since what remains cannot be born or > die. So the question doesn't apply to the sage. The deluded, well, > new delusions will arise after the demise of the body... so in a way > the deluded " reincarnate " . sk: Sometimes I get the feeling the sages, including the one with the cross on his back, were the most deluded ones. That's the point when I feel the most profound gratitude. ....I will stop here No more time. It was refreshing. Thank you, Caspar. sk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 13, 2003 Report Share Posted December 13, 2003 Nisargadatta , " caspardegroot " <caspardegroot> wrote: Hi Caspar, > > So Caspar, What do you think liberation is? P: To find, one must first, know how the thing we seek looks. What you wrote below is not liberation. There is no final state. Unity cann't be achieved. Unity is now.It is this totality that seeks itself, who creates the delusion. I'm not trying to persuade you to stop doing whatever you are doing. Do it, by all means. It's part of the game. And what is your sahanna by the way? Do whatever you have to do, but understand that not until you give up conducting the orchestra from the balcony, and trust the musicians to know their piece, that not until you relax in your chair and no longer care what happens next, not till then, that you will be free. Caring for results of any kind, for expecific changes, is to be tied to the outcome of ever changing events. Events are never going to stop, events are never going to comform to your ideals, it's you who must stop, become completly quiet, attentive, silent, and acepting. And what activity I ask you, will accomplish that? > > Liberation is the attainment of the final state. Liberation is unity > with the source. The source cannot be caused, found or experienced. > Yet it is the only real. And yes, the bundles of feelings, thoughts > and apparent body parts that are commonly referred to as humans, have > of course sprung from the source and are at the same time IN the > source. Therefore, there is some merit to statements like " You are > it! It is here and now! " However, these bundles are not freed by such > insights, since the insight is only another appearance in the source. > These bundles are only freed when they cease to exist as bundles. > THAT is liberation. It is attained when the bundle strives to > eliminate itself with sufficient energy and discipline, like a snake > catching hold of its own tail and then eating itself little by > little. What happens when it gets to its head? Yes, well, that's > probably where effort ceases to be of value and grace is required. > However, most seekers need not address this issue since they haven't > eaven begun gnawing at their tails. They seems to be just sort of > sniffing at it, and being very content with that too. > > > Would not liberation mean complete acceptance of phenomenality? > > Including what " the people in the swamp " consider suffering, > delusion, > > inaction, bondage, etc.? > > Well, phenomenality cannot be denied, that's for sure. But > acceptance... I don't know. Acceptance might suggest that it's fine > to remain at the mercy of our conditionings, as long as we just > accept them. P: All of your conditioning is aimed at non-acceptance, resistance, control, acquisition. Once it is understood there is no one to control or acquire, or resist. Acceptance is there, which doesn't mean pasivity. Sometimes acceptance means we must accept that we must fight even if we are doomed to fail. Using the term " acceptance " , one might be tempted to > justify being a selfish monster by " accepting " it as part of > phenomenality. This kind of acceptance I would call resignation. Or > even an excuse. In any case, with this kind of acceptance it is the > ego that's doing the accepting. So the term acceptance is a tricky > one. If however you are talking about acceptance as a basis from > which you can restrain yourself from responding to phenomena with > attempts to defend the ego, then I think I concur that *complete* > acceptance would probably be paramount to liberation. > > > Would not that mean that 'what is' is perfect right now? > > Misery is not perfect. Being at the mercy of one's conditionings is > not perfect. Expected non-dualist response: Who is at the mercy? More > semantic games. I'm sure you understand the state that I'm referring > to. > > > What do 'you' think would happen to 'you' if you die unliberated? > > The real me? Clearly the real me is always unaffected. > P: There is no real me > > Does the sage survives death as a sage, and the deluded as deluded? > > The sage is dead already, in the sense that he's not a person. He is > also eternal life of course, since what remains cannot be born or > die. So the question doesn't apply to the sage. The deluded, well, > new delusions will arise after the demise of the body... so in a way > the deluded " reincarnate " . P: The question doesn't apply to any one. Both the sage and the deluded are mere apperances. > > > What is preventing you from seeing everything is perfect now? > > You assume that everything *is* perfect and that I don't see it. > Though this sounds a lot like what all the famous sages are saying, > my point is that realization of this perfection requires a struggle. P: How can struggle help the seeing ? What kind of struggle? > > > Is not doing something an admission that things are not perfect, > > and that your actions will bring perfection about? > > My head spins from this question. As for the first part, no, of > course not. If you don't do anything, that would suggest that you are > convinced things are perfect already. But they're not. Even if they > are for you, I can assure you that they are not for me. P: Yes, I was in your shoes a few years back. And I was doing mantras and meditating listening to random sounds, and reading a lot of Maharaj, and I have done a lot of Zen before that, and read Krishnamurti and went around and around a lot, and then, I don't know why, a great silence happened and in that silence something took over. Something that doesn't ask questions, or has doubts. I'm not telling you Pete is realized. I'm telling you Pete is not important any longer. An there is no point in enlightening Pete. It's like you might go to college, but your hair isn't going to learn anything. So, Keep doing what you are doing, struggle all you want, it could happen any minute, or it won't. Remember, half the fun of going somewhere is getting there. Don't make the trip a problem. Best wishes, Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 13, 2003 Report Share Posted December 13, 2003 Nisargadatta , " caspardegroot " <caspardegroot> wrote: > > So, okay -- you were being honest about being clueless. > > Just so long as you realize I'm not a notself, and I'm > > not condescending to your being, whatever that means. > > Of course I was honest. Furthermore, if you're *not* a notself, then > you are a self, right? No. I'm not a self, nor a not-self. So does that mean you are the SELF, or that > you are an unrealized man like me? Please clarify. What isn't clear to you? You think there's something called the SELF which someone can be and someone else might not be. That's just a category in your own mind, nothing more, and you place one in it, and one not in it. The truth of no category eludes you, because you can't place anyone in it, or outside of it. This truth undoes your tendency to think that everything can be placed by you in a category. You realize that everytime something seems to be known, defined, the totality of that very moment of knowing and defining -- isn't known and defined. It can't be. So, call this " openness " rather than THE SELF. Nothing so pretentious as being THE SELF. Nothing to be -- nothing not to be. The peace of your own being, before you got hooked on phonics, and hooked on believing that you could know things by placing them in their categories. Which of course you can -- to a point. It's just that this truth is beyond that point. > > > Hmm... I don't think I get this sentence. But it does seem > ironic... > > > > Ya think? > > You repeatedly resort to sarcasm. I believe this cannot possibly be > of help. Help? What help are you looking for? > > If you didn't get it the first time, you won't think > > it's funny after it's explained. > > I'm not looking for fun here. I'm looking for guidance. What are you wanting to be guided toward? > > But if this helps: there aren't any happy nonselves > > reiterating nondual truisms. Trying to be > > a happy nonself is just another trippy way to > > try to have a self -- just as is feeling right > > about one's sussing out of someone else's trip. > > I don't feel completely right about it. I have my doubts. My sussing > you guys out is caused by my ongoing frustration about not finding > anybody that is willing to relate to the state I'm in. What state are you in? And, more importantly, how is the one being defined, which is being known as " in this state " ? > The world > seems to be divided in 2 groups: the truly clueless, which have my > sympathy but cannot possibly help me along... and a minority that > claims to be either on the path or realized already, but that seems > to lack the ability to relate to a sincere (though possibly errant) > seeker. What is it that you seek? > But actually, it appears we agree about this: that trying to be a > happy nonself is just another trippy way to try to have a self. So am > I wrong in feeling that this group is populated with individuals > doing exactly that? In all sincerity, I can only speak for myself. And no, that trippy way to have a self by being a happy nonself seems not worth the effort to me. As for others populating this list -- I don't see much point in speculating about what they are doing. But if you see it that way, I certainly can accept that this is how it comes across to you. Still, if you are, as you suggested earlier, inquiring into your own nature, then that seems like plenty -- trying to figure out what others are doing might be a distraction from the movement into the inquiry. Peace, Danielsan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 15, 2003 Report Share Posted December 15, 2003 > And what is your understanding? Ah well, you know, the usual. The person cannot be real, as all there is, is a collection of ever changing particulars. Also, the universe cannot be separate from the perceiver, simply because no separation can be demonstrated to exist--it can only be imagined, which shows that any separation is just another element in the big whole. Furthermore, there can be no difference between consciousness and the universe. And I could of course go on and on and on and find a gazillion other ways of expressing the same, as any other poster on this group could. > Liberation is essentially the liberation from the need of > liberation,...............something which the mind cannot apperceive. My mind acknowledges the sensibility of this statement--but I guess we agree that the mind's agreement isn't very interesting. > Who,......... as per you Casper, is currently bound under the bonds of time? > > Can that is bound under the bonds of time, be ever be free of time? No. It can't be free of it. But it can be destroyed, can't it? And when it is, there's nothing left that's under the bonds of time. > Look at the concept of time. > Is it not based on the concept of change? > Without change, ...........can " time " be cognized,.......does " time " have any meaning? No. > Can you see that the very seeking to liberate from the bondage, assumes AND perpetuates the apriori assumtion? Maybe a little, but not quite. Bondage seems real to me. > Thus,..............is it anyhing but round and round the mulberry bush? If you're right, then indeed the conclusion would be that it is nothing but a senseless chase. > > In any case, yes > > sir, I'm not liberated. Are you? > > -------- > > If you could define the " you " ,....................an answer will definitely arrive. Why do I need to define the you? Why did all the great sages blatantly state that they were enlightened (e.g. Christ, Buddha, Ramana, Papaji, Nisargadatta), but here no-one makes that claim? Why don't you want to make that claim? Or tell me something that has that implication, that'd be fine too. > Ultimately non-existant self? > > Which supposes that it exists now and at some point of time, through some activity, it will become non-existant.,...right? > > So Caspar, right now,......what is the basis on which you assume the existence, of a separated, individual self? When my mind stops moving, there is nothing to substantiate my claim that there is a separate self. However, my mind doesn't stop moving very much. And when it moves, then that is what is experienced as a separate self. Can one claim to be liberated as long as this movement is still taking place? > So you know what unity is? No, I don't *know* what unity is. > You must,...........in order for you make that statement that something is separate (and hence is to transit) from unity. No, I don't expect something to transit. I can see how that thought would be delusional, as transiting implies " this side " , " the other side " , " the boundary " and " the transiting entity " . Clearly this is not unity. However, I do expect something to die (or disappear). I guess I expect the disappearance of the separateness, so that unity is established. Is this expectation an obstacle? > That wanting to control, ammend, suppress, stop,..................is it anything else but a thought? > > So thought is to cease thought? > > Can you see the oxy-moron-ess in that? I can see the oxymoron if you word it like this, yes. However, I don't expect the thought " Think less!! " to put an end to other thoughts. But I do sort of feel that in the absence of thoughts one moves in the right direction... Or rather, is at home. I must admit that I'm not convinced that this is correct, but it has a strong apparent validity for me. And btw, I also don't believe the absence of thoughts should be brought about by suppressing thoughts. That would reduce rather than expand one's field of consciousness, and I feel that wouldn't be helpful. So yes, experience thoughts fully as they arise, but maybe don't act on them? > The issue, is you want to get somewhere. > > Inviting you to see, there is nowhere to reach,...........because there > is no where, which you ARE not already. Hmm... interesting point. I can see that I'm everywhere already in the spatial sense of the word... but who cares? I'm still not *happy* :-( Boo- hoo-hoo. Maybe this is the heart of the matter: I want to be happy. I understand that it is hopeless to try to build happyness on elements of this world, including one's own personality. So what's the alternative? That's what I'm investigating. My basic (and possibly erroneous) assumption is nonetheless: if it doesn't provide happyness, I might as well go back to relying on a steady supply of Pepperoni Pizza and Dr. Pepper. > Caspar,............there is none apart from you. > > We all are figments of your imagination, .......not just the characters on this List, or even the one you are encountering in cyber -space, but even the characters in your physical life. Sandeep, this is by far the most profound statement you've made so far. But what do you mean exactly? That you don't exist? That there is no experiencer on the other side of this exchange of messages, nor behind the figures that appear in my field of vision as I walk the planet? Coz if that's what your saying, then why don't I just totally stop caring? Maybe that's what your trying to get me to do... I find it a tough cookie to swallow though. There are other sufferers out there, right/wrong? If there aren't, then well, jee... > So if you have it all figured it out Caspar,...........what are you doing here? > Just go and do it.:-) What makes you say I have it all figured out? The only point I'm sure I'm making is: I *don't* have it figured out. And I don't understand that just about all other posters on this group seem to have little or no questions... Am I the only one here who hasn't picked up his Enlightenment diploma yet? :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 15, 2003 Report Share Posted December 15, 2003 Casper, look back through the posts and you will see many questions asked. Aside from Dan and Sandeep's responses to my questions, this has helped me 'understand' that searcing is perpetuation of the very thing we 'think' we need to be liberated from. Check this out: Contradiction gives us an impetus to live; the very element of friction makes us feel that we are alive. The effort, the struggle of contradiction, gives us a sense of vitality. That is why we love wars, that is why we enjoy the battle of frustrations. So long as there is the desire to achieve a result, which is the desire to be psychologically secure, there must be a contradiction........thought, which is the product of time, can never find that which is timeless, can never know that which is beyond time. The very nature of our thinking is a contradiction, because we are always thinking in terms of the past or of the future; therefore we are never fully cognizant, fully aware of the present.......the mind is incapable of facing a fact directly without deception. Thought is the product of the past and therefore it can only think in terms of the past or of the future; it cannot be completely aware of a fact in the present. So long as thought, which is the product of the past, tries to eliminate contradiction and all the problems that it creates, it is merely pursuing a result, trying to achieve an end, and such thinking only creates more contradiction and hence conflict, misery and confusion in us and, therefore, about us. Steve Nisargadatta , " caspardegroot " <caspardegroot> wrote: > > And what is your understanding? > > Ah well, you know, the usual. The person cannot be real, as all there is, > is a collection of ever changing particulars. Also, the universe cannot be > separate from the perceiver, simply because no separation can be > demonstrated to exist--it can only be imagined, which shows that any > separation is just another element in the big whole. Furthermore, there > can be no difference between consciousness and the universe. And I > could of course go on and on and on and find a gazillion other ways of > expressing the same, as any other poster on this group could. > > > Liberation is essentially the liberation from the need of > > liberation,...............something which the mind cannot apperceive. > > My mind acknowledges the sensibility of this statement--but I guess we > agree that the mind's agreement isn't very interesting. > > > Who,......... as per you Casper, is currently bound under the bonds of > time? > > > > Can that is bound under the bonds of time, be ever be free of time? > > No. It can't be free of it. But it can be destroyed, can't it? And when it is, > there's nothing left that's under the bonds of time. > > > Look at the concept of time. > > Is it not based on the concept of change? > > Without change, ...........can " time " be cognized,.......does " time " have > any meaning? > > No. > > > Can you see that the very seeking to liberate from the bondage, > assumes AND perpetuates the apriori assumtion? > > Maybe a little, but not quite. Bondage seems real to me. > > > Thus,..............is it anyhing but round and round the mulberry bush? > > If you're right, then indeed the conclusion would be that it is nothing but > a senseless chase. > > > > In any case, yes > > > sir, I'm not liberated. Are you? > > > > -------- > > > > If you could define the " you " ,....................an answer will definitely > arrive. > > Why do I need to define the you? Why did all the great sages blatantly > state that they were enlightened (e.g. Christ, Buddha, Ramana, Papaji, > Nisargadatta), but here no-one makes that claim? Why don't you want to > make that claim? Or tell me something that has that implication, that'd > be fine too. > > > Ultimately non-existant self? > > > > Which supposes that it exists now and at some point of time, through > some activity, it will become non-existant.,...right? > > > > So Caspar, right now,......what is the basis on which you assume the > existence, of a separated, individual self? > > When my mind stops moving, there is nothing to substantiate my claim > that there is a separate self. However, my mind doesn't stop moving > very much. And when it moves, then that is what is experienced as a > separate self. Can one claim to be liberated as long as this movement is > still taking place? > > > So you know what unity is? > > No, I don't *know* what unity is. > > > You must,...........in order for you make that statement that something > is separate (and hence is to transit) from unity. > > No, I don't expect something to transit. I can see how that thought > would be delusional, as transiting implies " this side " , " the other > side " , " the boundary " and " the transiting entity " . Clearly this is not unity. > However, I do expect something to die (or disappear). I guess I expect > the disappearance of the separateness, so that unity is established. Is > this expectation an obstacle? > > > That wanting to control, ammend, suppress, stop,..................is it > anything else but a thought? > > > > So thought is to cease thought? > > > > Can you see the oxy-moron-ess in that? > > I can see the oxymoron if you word it like this, yes. However, I don't > expect the thought " Think less!! " to put an end to other thoughts. But I > do sort of feel that in the absence of thoughts one moves in the right > direction... Or rather, is at home. I must admit that I'm not convinced > that this is correct, but it has a strong apparent validity for me. > > And btw, I also don't believe the absence of thoughts should be brought > about by suppressing thoughts. That would reduce rather than expand > one's field of consciousness, and I feel that wouldn't be helpful. So yes, > experience thoughts fully as they arise, but maybe don't act on them? > > > The issue, is you want to get somewhere. > > > > Inviting you to see, there is nowhere to reach,...........because there > > is no where, which you ARE not already. > > Hmm... interesting point. I can see that I'm everywhere already in the > spatial sense of the word... but who cares? I'm still not *happy* :-( Boo- > hoo-hoo. Maybe this is the heart of the matter: I want to be happy. I > understand that it is hopeless to try to build happyness on elements of > this world, including one's own personality. So what's the alternative? > That's what I'm investigating. My basic (and possibly erroneous) > assumption is nonetheless: if it doesn't provide happyness, I might as > well go back to relying on a steady supply of Pepperoni Pizza and Dr. > Pepper. > > > Caspar,............there is none apart from you. > > > > We all are figments of your imagination, .......not just the characters > on this List, or even the one you are encountering in cyber - space, but > even the characters in your physical life. > > Sandeep, this is by far the most profound statement you've made so far. > But what do you mean exactly? That you don't exist? That there is no > experiencer on the other side of this exchange of messages, nor behind > the figures that appear in my field of vision as I walk the planet? Coz if > that's what your saying, then why don't I just totally stop caring? Maybe > that's what your trying to get me to do... I find it a tough cookie to > swallow though. There are other sufferers out there, right/wrong? If > there aren't, then well, jee... > > > So if you have it all figured it out Caspar,...........what are you doing > here? > > Just go and do it.:-) > > What makes you say I have it all figured out? The only point I'm sure I'm > making is: I *don't* have it figured out. And I don't understand that just > about all other posters on this group seem to have little or no > questions... Am I the only one here who hasn't picked up his > Enlightenment diploma yet? :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 15, 2003 Report Share Posted December 15, 2003 > Contradiction gives us an impetus to live; the very element of > friction makes us feel that we are alive. The effort, the struggle > of contradiction, gives us a sense of vitality. That is why we love > wars, that is why we enjoy the battle of frustrations. > So long as there is the desire to achieve a result, which is the > desire to be psychologically secure, there must be a > contradiction........thought, which is the product of time, can > never find that which is timeless, can never know that which is > beyond time. The very nature of our thinking > is a contradiction, because we are always thinking in terms of the > past or of the future; therefore we are never fully cognizant, > fully aware of the present.......the mind is > incapable of facing a fact directly without deception. Thought is > the product of the past and therefore it can only think in terms of > the past or of the future; it cannot be completely aware of a fact > in the present. So long as thought, which is the product of the > past, tries to eliminate contradiction and all the problems that it > creates, it is merely pursuing a result, trying to achieve an end, > and such thinking only creates more contradiction and hence conflict, > misery and confusion in us and, therefore, about us. OK. So is thought to be eliminated? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 15, 2003 Report Share Posted December 15, 2003 > > Liberation is the attainment of the final state. > sk: who told you this? > Liberation is unity > > with the source. > sk: who told you that? Uhm, no one particular person told me this stuff. What happened was, an endless heap of scriptures and individuals have appeared in my reality and have created this notion in my mind. So what? I could post- back " Who told you this? " to every poetic description of (roll drums) The Real that gets posted on this group. I don't see how mine are any more or any less adequate. They're all equally misleading, aren't they? > sk: Isn't that strange? Perhaps that's a question of the size of > frontal-lobes. I don't think animals have such strange theories > about life. What is the relevance of their state? > All the sages, teachers > and gurus come to the same point. If you are seeking for help, you > will find the best teacher in yourself. I practice and recommend > meditation. And, of course, meditation not as a kind of competitive > sport. > sk: Why eliminate something which sooner or later will have an end? > Dicipline, patience and humility are good things, no matter what you > do. See, instincitvely I totally agree!! But why is it that most " advanced " Advaitists tell me that discipline will *not* help me? > Nothing more is required, in my opinion. Listen to what the > people tell you here on the list, read books if you like, find you a > guru. Do what you consider adecuate and don't care about post-happy > understanders, if you don't want it. This is probably good advice. Or at least, it's advice, which satisfies the mind... But now I wonder, does the fact that the *mind* is being satisfied, show that nothing has been achieved? > What happens when it gets to its head? Yes, well, that's > > probably where effort ceases to be of value and grace is required. > > However, most seekers need not address this issue since they > haven't > > eaven begun gnawing at their tails. They seems to be just sort of > > sniffing at it, and being very content with that too. > > sk: Yes, and why not. Not all the people are as smart as you. Are you being passive aggressive? Or are you serious? Regardless, my alleged smartness seems to me to be a burden only at this point. I'm hooked on explanations--I can see this, but can't stop it. I guess what I'm looking for is a *method* to stop this, to rid myself of this addiction. But maybe this search for a method is the same affliction back in a different disguise. You tell me. > > Well, phenomenality cannot be denied, that's for sure. > > sk: ...and? Are you inviting me to express implications of this statement? I can't come up with any. > sk: Forgive them and me and yourself for not being the ideal you > have on perfection. Hmm... this is an interesting statement which conveys a reproach that has an certain legitimacy about it... > sk: Who told you these stories about real and not real " mes " . Is > that your opinion, too? I wouldn't say it's my opinion... and again, noone told me this literally. But I'll allow that it's the content of my mental understanding. Anyway, it's all just semantics, isn't it? I say there's a personality, which I could call the illusory me. Then there's the real, which contains all, including the personality, and which is always present. So I could call that the " real " me. How is this inaccurate, insofar as statements about these matters can even be accurate? > sk: Sometimes I get the feeling the sages, including the one with > the cross on his back, were the most deluded ones. That's the point > when I feel the most profound gratitude. That's a pretty radical statement... What can I say? The notion that the notion (not a typo) of these beings being somehow special, is yet another delusion causes a sense of disappointment in me... but hey, I can't disprove it. Thanks for the post, regards --- Caspar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 15, 2003 Report Share Posted December 15, 2003 Nisargadatta , " caspardegroot " <caspardegroot> wrote: > > Contradiction gives us an impetus to live; the very element of > > friction makes us feel that we are alive. The effort, the struggle > > of contradiction, gives us a sense of vitality. That is why we love > > wars, that is why we enjoy the battle of frustrations. > > So long as there is the desire to achieve a result, which is the > > desire to be psychologically secure, there must be a > > contradiction........thought, which is the product of time, can > > never find that which is timeless, can never know that which is > > beyond time. The very nature of our thinking > > is a contradiction, because we are always thinking in terms of the > > past or of the future; therefore we are never fully cognizant, > > fully aware of the present.......the mind is > > incapable of facing a fact directly without deception. Thought is > > the product of the past and therefore it can only think in terms of > > the past or of the future; it cannot be completely aware of a fact > > in the present. So long as thought, which is the product of the > > past, tries to eliminate contradiction and all the problems that it > > creates, it is merely pursuing a result, trying to achieve an end, > > and such thinking only creates more contradiction and hence conflict, > > misery and confusion in us and, therefore, about us. > > OK. So is thought to be eliminated? caspar, that quote looks very much like something J. Krishnamurti would say. If so, that to be eliminated is thought that rises from the thinker who has a past, what JK calls 'the me.' JK made the distinction between thought grounded in intelligence and thought grounded in 'the me.' I would describe the difference in thought as being between thought that rises from one's understanding, self-understanding, much like a teacher who knows the subject and is able to 'think' about the subject without thinking about the subject, and thought that rises from 'the me.' In the former, with self-understanding, there is no need to think about the subject, 'the me'; that subject being no longer present. I offer this distinction only to answer your question about the elimination of thought. ----willy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 15, 2003 Report Share Posted December 15, 2003 Casper: OK. So is thought to be eliminated? Steve: How about laughed at when you notice they are second-hand assumptions built up by specualtion. What debt do you owe to second hand conceptual speculation? NOTHING. When I 'realized' that for 'myself' I had to laugh... Enjoy the movie. Nisargadatta , " caspardegroot " <caspardegroot> wrote: > > Contradiction gives us an impetus to live; the very element of > > friction makes us feel that we are alive. The effort, the struggle > > of contradiction, gives us a sense of vitality. That is why we love > > wars, that is why we enjoy the battle of frustrations. > > So long as there is the desire to achieve a result, which is the > > desire to be psychologically secure, there must be a > > contradiction........thought, which is the product of time, can > > never find that which is timeless, can never know that which is > > beyond time. The very nature of our thinking > > is a contradiction, because we are always thinking in terms of the > > past or of the future; therefore we are never fully cognizant, > > fully aware of the present.......the mind is > > incapable of facing a fact directly without deception. Thought is > > the product of the past and therefore it can only think in terms of > > the past or of the future; it cannot be completely aware of a fact > > in the present. So long as thought, which is the product of the > > past, tries to eliminate contradiction and all the problems that it > > creates, it is merely pursuing a result, trying to achieve an end, > > and such thinking only creates more contradiction and hence conflict, > > misery and confusion in us and, therefore, about us. > > OK. So is thought to be eliminated? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.