Identity & I Am (sandeep..) / sandeep yet again

[Guest guest]

-

" 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.

>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

another question was posed to you, sandeep...

(actually this is the same question,

the sunrise was just a metaphor, sandeep,

do not brood over it so much)

 

 

 

 

ARE YOU ENLIGHTENED?

 

 

 

or are you gonna ask me to define 'are', 'you', 'enlightened', and '?' ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

dabo

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

> 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

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " dabo " <dscasta> wrote:

>

 

snip

 

> another question was posed to you, sandeep...

> (actually this is the same question,

> the sunrise was just a metaphor, sandeep,

> do not brood over it so much)

>

>

>

>

> ARE YOU ENLIGHTENED?

 

e# now dabo it's very interesting why you, me, most people want to

know this, what's the motive upstream and downstream what it would

change if Sandeep said a sharp " yes " (which would sudenly crystallize

around him all kinds of heavy, unwanted energies, somehow like the

kind of mess i introduced here)

 

>

>

>

> or are you gonna ask me to define 'are', 'you', 'enlightened',

and '?' ?

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> dabo

[Guest guest]

e# now dabo it's very interesting why you, me, most people want to

know this

 

It is a fear of facing What Is alone.

 

 

-

ericparoissien

Nisargadatta

Sunday, March 28, 2004 12:34 PM

Re: " Identity & I Am " (sandeep..) / sandeep yet again

 

 

Nisargadatta , " dabo " <dscasta> wrote:

>

 

snip

 

> another question was posed to you, sandeep...

> (actually this is the same question,

> the sunrise was just a metaphor, sandeep,

> do not brood over it so much)

>

>

>

>

> ARE YOU ENLIGHTENED?

 

e# now dabo it's very interesting why you, me, most people want to

know this, what's the motive upstream and downstream what it would

change if Sandeep said a sharp " yes " (which would sudenly crystallize

around him all kinds of heavy, unwanted energies, somehow like the

kind of mess i introduced here)

 

>

>

>

> or are you gonna ask me to define 'are', 'you', 'enlightened',

and '?' ?

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> dabo

 

 

 

**

 

If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription,

sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups:

 

/mygroups?edit=1

 

Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group

and click on Save Changes.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@a...> wrote:

> e# now dabo it's very interesting why you, me, most people want to

> know this

>

> It is a fear of facing What Is alone.

>

>

 

 

 

ahahha,

 

we have another 'enlightened',

living in What Is.

 

Bill,

i wouldn't wanna face YOUR What Is,

but thanks for the invitation

 

btw,

i don't see the logical connection of your comment.

(as usual)

does anyone?

 

 

 

 

dabo

 

 

 

 

p.s.

paroissien, i'm waiting....

 

 

 

 

 

> -

> ericparoissien

> Nisargadatta

> Sunday, March 28, 2004 12:34 PM

> Re: " Identity & I Am " (sandeep..) / sandeep yet again

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " dabo " <dscasta> wrote:

> >

>

> snip

>

> > another question was posed to you, sandeep...

> > (actually this is the same question,

> > the sunrise was just a metaphor, sandeep,

> > do not brood over it so much)

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > ARE YOU ENLIGHTENED?

>

> e# now dabo it's very interesting why you, me, most people want to

> know this, what's the motive upstream and downstream what it would

> change if Sandeep said a sharp " yes " (which would sudenly crystallize

> around him all kinds of heavy, unwanted energies, somehow like the

> kind of mess i introduced here)

>

> >

> >

> >

> > or are you gonna ask me to define 'are', 'you', 'enlightened',

> and '?' ?

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > dabo

>

>

>

> **

>

> If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription,

sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups:

>

> /mygroups?edit=1

>

> Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta

group and click on Save Changes.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " dabo " <dscasta> wrote:

 

snip

 

> p.s.

> paroissien, i'm waiting....

 

e# for what casta?

[Guest guest]

-

" ericparoissien " <msrhood

<Nisargadatta >

Monday, March 29, 2004 7:38 PM

Re: " Identity & I Am " (sandeep..) / sandeep yet again

 

 

> Nisargadatta , " dabo " <dscasta> wrote:

>

> snip

>

> > p.s.

> > paroissien, i'm waiting....

>

> e# for what casta?

>

>

 

 

for enlightenment

 

)))