Guest guest Report post Posted March 27, 2004 Sandeep, > A communication, whether within a cyber-based gathering like this one, or a physical > satsangh or even on an one-to one basis,.........is with concepts, of concepts. Do you consider that concepts are " real " or illusory? Which of course is like saying, " Illusions are illusory. " I consider that illusions are illusory. > In a gestalt of duality, itself being a conceptual comjecture, conceptualizings is all that > can occur. I wonder what you mean by " gestalt of duality " ... In terms of: " within a cyber-based gathering like this one, or a physical satsangh or even on an one-to one basis " ... such " arrangements " don't have to imply a duality. Does sitting in the forest imply a duality? Does my writing this message imply a duality? Subtle forces at interplay create these words. There is no defined " source " for these words. Many assume there has to be a model, a structure, an entity that is *behind* the emergence of phenomena. But that is not a good assumption. It is simplistic and simply not true. Appearances happen, phenomena arise, but there are no *real lines* in any of it. What is really distinct from anything else? Distinctions appear to be the case, but the apparent distinctions are just more phenomena arising. Duality is in the not-real mind having not-real concepts about not-real things. So when you say, " ...conceptualizings is all that can occur..., " is it not more accurate to say that " conceptualizings " only appear to occur? > The difference is that one perpetuates the sense of the " conceptualizer " believing in > an identity. The other may arrest that sense of a self. I agree. So the one that " may arrest that sense of a self " can be viewed as a kind of " intervention " rather than a statement about the " nature of things " , or as a statement of " truth " . Which is how I see all such discourse on such " spiritual " matters. As McLuhan said, " the medium is the massage. " We are massaging each other's brains with these messages. Deep Bow Bill > > > Sandeep, > > > > > > When you say: > > > > > " Everything " or " allness " ,..............is once again a > > conceptualizing,.....once again an > > > > > identity........and thus a hoopla of the mind. > > > do you consider there is any " correctness " in your statement? Do you > > consider it to be in any way valid/true/ " right " ? > > > > > > How would it be different to say: > > > > > " Everything " or " allness " ,..............is NOT a conceptualizing,.....and NOT a hoopla > > > > > of the mind. > > > Would you say the difference between the two statements is just that the squigglies > > > are different? Just that they use different words? > > > ------------ > > A communication, whether within a cyber-based gathering like this one, or a physical > satsangh or even on an one-to one basis,.........is with concepts, of concepts. > > Irrespective of of any name that you wish to take. > > In a gestalt of duality, itself being a conceptual comjecture, conceptualizings is all that > can occur. > > Thus both the statements above, in essence are concepts. > > The difference is that one perpetuates the sense of the " conceptualizer " believing in > an identity. The other may arrest that sense of a self. > > To allness,..............the concept of " allness " has no meaning. > > > -------------- > > > > > > > > > When you say: > > > > > " Everything " or " allness " ,..............is once again a > > conceptualizing,.....once again an identity........and thus a hoopla of the mind. > > > do you consider yourself to be *saying* anything, or is it just " word salad " ? > > ------------------ > > A million prattlings, all over cyber-space. > And not a single saying has been said. > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 27, 2004 - " Bill Rishel " <plexus <Nisargadatta > Saturday, March 27, 2004 11:37 PM Re: " Identity & I Am " (sandeep..) > Sandeep, > > > A communication, whether within a cyber-based gathering like this one, or a physical > > satsangh or even on an one-to one basis,.........is with concepts, of concepts. > Do you consider that concepts are " real " or illusory? ------------- Concepts are concepts,............ideations, relevant within a specific gestalt. As real as much as the specific gestalt is taken as real. As illusory as much as the specific gestalt is taken as illusory. A question was posed, have you seen the sunrise. That the sun rises, is a concept, demolished by the concept relevant within the gestalt of this solar system, that it is not the sun which rises but the earth which dips, throwing up an appearance of the rising sun. The dipping earth, is also a concept, relevant only within the gestalt of this solar system, but does it job neatly. ------------- > > Which of course is like saying, " Illusions are illusory. " > I consider that illusions are illusory. -------- Illusory compared to what? -------- > > > In a gestalt of duality, itself being a conceptual conjecture, conceptualizings is all that > > can occur. > I wonder what you mean by " gestalt of duality " ... ----------- This dialogue, taking place between two notionally separated, distinctive, uniquely conditioned entities, across cyber space. --------- > > In terms of: " within a cyber-based gathering like this one, or a physical satsangh > or even on an one-to one basis " ... such " arrangements " don't have to imply a > duality. Does sitting in the forest imply a duality? Does my writing this message > imply a duality? ------------- The duality is inferred, so long a sense of distinction prevails, between the functioning, as sitting, as writing, and the gestalt, in which the functioning is happening. Sitting in a forest,.........seeing that there is no static forest to be sat in, is the absence of the distinction. Standing on a bridge, seeing the river flowing underneath, the disciple observes, 'The river is in flow " . Remarks the Master " So is the bridge " . Writing does not imply duality. The accompanying sense that it is " me " which writes and thus a " you " to receive the writing, infers the duality and dualism. > > Subtle forces at interplay create these words. There is no defined " source " for these > words. Many assume there has to be a model, a structure, an entity that is > *behind* the emergence of phenomena. But that is not a good assumption. It is > simplistic and simply not true. Appearances happen, phenomena arise, but there > are no *real lines* in any of it. What is really distinct from anything else? Distinctions > appear to be the case, but the apparent distinctions are just more phenomena > arising. ------------ Indeed. The functioning and the fluxing instruments through which the functioning happens,............both nuances of the movement of totality in the moment............. Moment to moment to moment. Again a concept, relevant within a gestalt that something is happening, some phenomenality of which this Universe is one mere bubble, has an independent existential reality. For, if there is nothing apart from phenomenality,............how can phenomenality be affirmed, whatever be the terminology used to describe phenomenality ----------- > > Duality is in the not-real mind having not-real concepts about not-real things. > > So when you say, " ...conceptualizings is all that can occur..., " is it not more > accurate to say that " conceptualizings " only appear to occur? Sure. Conceptualizings is all that can occur within the gestalt of duality. Which being an appearance,..............all that rises within an imagery, is more imagery. > > > The difference is that one perpetuates the sense of the " conceptualizer " believing in > > an identity. The other may arrest that sense of a self. > I agree. > So the one that " may arrest that sense of a self " can be viewed as a kind > of " intervention " rather than a statement about the " nature of things " , or as > a statement of " truth " . -------------- Words are sounds (or in this case squiggly signs on a PC screen) with a connoted meaning, isn't it? Intervention, typically connotes someone intervening to,....... as if ,......set things right.:-) So long prevails the sense that something is to be done to set things right, some intervention to correct the wrong, the error,.... ......a sense of duality prevails. Conceptualizings arise in the moment,....... as nuances of the dance in the moment. Some result in the perpetuation, even further concretization of the self (now believed to be nothing less than the allness of Parabrahma, instead of some simple Joe, or Mary or whatever) Some result in the complete and total annihilation of that which never existed, aka the sense of the self. Both the results, further nuances of the dance in the moment. --------------- > Which is how I see all such discourse on such " spiritual " > matters. As McLuhan said, " the medium is the massage. " We are massaging > each other's brains with these messages. ----------- How about,............the medium is,............... the massager,.............. the massaging,...................and ............the massaged. All simultaneously. ----------- > > Deep Bow > Bill Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 29, 2004 Bill and sandeep seem to be mindbuddies. just like the enlightened are in the same realm, these two are in the same realm (whatever it is). they can talk and talk on how it's no use to talk till the end of time. sandeep, i know. 'time' is just a concept, an IDEATION. in actuality we all are in 'timelessness'. (hmm, another concept?) still.. what will be the last 'concept' on your 'mind' on your 'death'bed? i wonder... dabo p.s. is 'bed' a concept? - " sandeep " <sandeepc <Nisargadatta > Sunday, March 28, 2004 6:44 AM Re: " Identity & I Am " (sandeep..) > > - > " Bill Rishel " <plexus > <Nisargadatta > > Saturday, March 27, 2004 11:37 PM > Re: " Identity & I Am " (sandeep..) > > > > Sandeep, > > > > > A communication, whether within a cyber-based gathering like this one, or a physical > > > satsangh or even on an one-to one basis,.........is with concepts, of concepts. > > > Do you consider that concepts are " real " or illusory? > > ------------- > > Concepts are concepts,............ideations, relevant within a specific gestalt. > As real as much as the specific gestalt is taken as real. > As illusory as much as the specific gestalt is taken as illusory. > > A question was posed, have you seen the sunrise. > > That the sun rises, is a concept, demolished by the concept relevant within the gestalt of this solar system, that it is not the sun which rises but the earth which dips, throwing up an appearance of the rising sun. > > The dipping earth, is also a concept, relevant only within the gestalt of this solar system, but does it job neatly. > > > ------------- > > > > > Which of course is like saying, " Illusions are illusory. " > > I consider that illusions are illusory. > > -------- > > Illusory compared to what? > > > -------- > > > > > > > In a gestalt of duality, itself being a conceptual conjecture, conceptualizings is all that > > > can occur. > > > > I wonder what you mean by " gestalt of duality " ... > > ----------- > > This dialogue, taking place between two notionally separated, distinctive, uniquely conditioned entities, across cyber space. > > --------- > > > > > > In terms of: " within a cyber-based gathering like this one, or a physical satsangh > > or even on an one-to one basis " ... such " arrangements " don't have to imply a > > duality. Does sitting in the forest imply a duality? Does my writing this message > > imply a duality? > > > ------------- > > > The duality is inferred, so long a sense of distinction prevails, between the functioning, as sitting, as writing, and the gestalt, in which the functioning is happening. > > Sitting in a forest,.........seeing that there is no static forest to be sat in, is the absence of the distinction. > > Standing on a bridge, seeing the river flowing underneath, the disciple observes, 'The river is in flow " . > Remarks the Master " So is the bridge " . > > Writing does not imply duality. > The accompanying sense that it is " me " which writes and thus a " you " to receive the writing, infers the duality and dualism. > > > > > > > > Subtle forces at interplay create these words. There is no defined " source " for these > > words. Many assume there has to be a model, a structure, an entity that is > > *behind* the emergence of phenomena. But that is not a good assumption. It is > > simplistic and simply not true. Appearances happen, phenomena arise, but there > > are no *real lines* in any of it. What is really distinct from anything else? Distinctions > > appear to be the case, but the apparent distinctions are just more phenomena > > arising. > > > ------------ > Indeed. > The functioning and the fluxing instruments through which the functioning happens,............both nuances of the movement of totality in the moment............. > > Moment to moment to moment. > > Again a concept, relevant within a gestalt that something is happening, some phenomenality of which this Universe is one mere bubble, has an independent existential reality. > > For, if there is nothing apart from phenomenality,............how can phenomenality be affirmed, whatever be the terminology used to describe phenomenality > > ----------- > > > > > > Duality is in the not-real mind having not-real concepts about not-real things. > > > > So when you say, " ...conceptualizings is all that can occur..., " is it not more > > accurate to say that " conceptualizings " only appear to occur? > > > > Sure. > Conceptualizings is all that can occur within the gestalt of duality. > > Which being an appearance,..............all that rises within an imagery, is more imagery. > > > > > > > > > The difference is that one perpetuates the sense of the " conceptualizer " believing in > > > an identity. The other may arrest that sense of a self. > > I agree. > > So the one that " may arrest that sense of a self " can be viewed as a kind > > of " intervention " rather than a statement about the " nature of things " , or as > > a statement of " truth " . > > -------------- > > Words are sounds (or in this case squiggly signs on a PC screen) with a connoted meaning, isn't it? > > Intervention, typically connotes someone intervening to,....... as if ,......set things right.:-) > > So long prevails the sense that something is to be done to set things right, some intervention to correct the wrong, the error,.... > > .....a sense of duality prevails. > > > > Conceptualizings arise in the moment,....... as nuances of the dance in the moment. > > Some result in the perpetuation, even further concretization of the self (now believed to be nothing less than the allness of Parabrahma, instead of some simple Joe, or Mary or whatever) > > Some result in the complete and total annihilation of that which never existed, aka the sense of the self. > > Both the results, further nuances of the dance in the moment. > > > --------------- > > > > > Which is how I see all such discourse on such " spiritual " > > matters. As McLuhan said, " the medium is the massage. " We are massaging > > each other's brains with these messages. > > > ----------- > > > How about,............the medium is,............... the massager,.............. the massaging,...................and ............the massaged. > > All simultaneously. > > > ----------- > > > > > > > Deep Bow > > Bill > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
