Guest guest Report post Posted December 25, 2004 Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " <kipalmazy> > > Kip: dis-ease, suffering, dukkha, sickness....unless, we recover our original face.... " we " dissolves in what it came from.... " I am " . > And, " I am " in " I " and perhaps " I " in, " THAT " . > > > Kip Almazy **************************************** Hi kip :0), " I am " , then " I " then " That " . Seems good I red it somewhere, but where? Where are my books? my books! Humm. What am I without book, without knowledge. Nothing important. Who wants not to be important? Who? Who want to be stupid?? ha ha ha! Love Odysseus, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 25, 2004 ilikezen2004 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> > wrote: > > > > > > anders_lindman wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> > wrote: > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > When we know we are the Self, I suppose we know our own > creative > > > > > power, not as a single entity, but as creative power > itself, emanating > > > > > from our unmanifested Self. > > > > > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > > > " When " we " know " we " are the " Self, " it is a > somewhat " denuded " " ego " > > > > that says " I Am the Self. " > > > > > > > > When " we " know " our " own creative power as power itself > emanating from our " unmanifested Self, " it is a > somewhat " denuded " " ego " > > > Odysseus: Hi Lewis :0) There is no ego so how can it be denuded? :0) Yes, Odysseus there is no ego and so denuding is not possible. There is also an ego that can be " denuded. " And there is emptiness that is not emptiness and there is......:-) and there is :-( and so.....skullduggery reigns! > > that thinks or imagines that it is " THAT which is > beyond. " " spiritual experience and spiritual powers are experienced. > > > > > > > > When " we " " conclusively experience " the " utter finality " that > > > " awareness of awareness " results in " infinite > regression " " infinite meaninglessness " " infinite darkness, " > infinite uncertainty " ..... an > > > > almost disintegrated ego almost becomes " blank " " an empty > shell " with > > > > all thoughts, concepts, feelings, imaginings, dissolving as > they occur. The ego becomes " empty, " " dry, " so very dry and numb. A > bone dry dispassion sets in. But the dispassion is one that is > removed, distant, > > > > non-engaging, watching, alone, separated, an emotionless ego > > Odysseus: emotionless ego, ha ha ha! There are a bunch of those in > this web site! :0) Haahahahahahahahahaha, Hehehehehehehehehehehehe, boscum go ridum tooeee boobooo, yaiyai raroorooooooah!!!!!!!! > > with only a single concept left that is rooted only in a completely > denuded " I. " In > > > > this state the ego totters on the brink of annihilation. > > > > > > > > But this " I " is often mistaken for what is and the process of > > > > disintegration, almost complete, is halted. > > > > > > > > Some of these almost disintegrated egos become God, messiahs, > gurus, enlightened ones, etc. self help people, business persons, > recluses, hermits, misanthropes, prophets and so on. > > > Odyseeus: One day a frog was watching the moon. not knowing what it > is, said to himself, I must understand what it is! Never being able > to explain it quit the effort to understand it. Then started to > teach? After his death,One of the best pupil of the master teaches > that the moon is not to understand nothing. A student asked, what > are the clouds? The Master replyied I don't know? The buddha > discovered what the moon is! I cannot answer your question that > easely. I would need to be as great as the buddha! And I cannot, no > one can! Until today no one knows what the clouds are. Keepopo reeneegeego! > > The freedom from > > > > identification with conceptual baggage and the clarity > attained through their practices give them great advantage over > minds clouded with concepts and self-centeredness. These are some of > the most wonderful and the most dangerous people. They become the > warden and jailers of the prisoners but they are in prison as well. > > > > > > Odysseus: No, they are not! Yes, they are are not! No, they are! Oh how can it get straight? Oh won't you help make it straight oh great joy? > > > > > The ego that totters and falls and like humpty dumpty can > never be put together > again " annihilated, " " dead, " " dissolved, " disintegrated, " > > > > " exploded.........., " > > > > > Odysseus: The Ego can never die. It is Eternal. In other words, Ego is cosmological infinity of plenitude and stuporous awe that tastes good too! Boringi Fumari Poo. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 25, 2004 ilikezen2004 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " <kipalmazy> > wrote: > > > > The Self > > > > > > It is small and no more visible than a cricket > > in August. > > Odysseus: Not true, > > It likes to dress up, to masquerade, > > as all dwarfs do. It lodges between > > granite blocks, between serviceable > > truths. It even fits under > > a bandage, under adhesive. Neither customs officers > > nor their beautifull dogs will find it. Between > > hymns, between alliances, it hides itself. > > It camps in the Rocky Mountains of the skull. > > An eternel refugee. > > Odysseus: It is not a refuge. > > It is I and I, > > with the fearful hope that I have found at last > > a friend, am it. But the self > > is so lonely, > > Odysseus: ha ha! Lonely you say!!! :0 > > > so distrustful, it does not > > accept anyone, even me. > > It clings to historical events > > not less tightly than water to a glass. > > I could fill a Neolithic jar. > > It is insatiable, it wants to flow > > in aqueducts, it thirsts for newer and newer vessels. > > It wants to taste space without walls, > > diffuse itself, diffuse itself. Then it fades away > > like desire, and in the silence of an August > > night you hear only crickets patiently > > conversing with the stars. > > Odysseus: Fades away hum? I don' " Think " . Yes, I tried to convers > with those crickets patiently... I just can't, they talk all the > time! Non stop talking, non stop, thinking, it is a dead end > situation, but they don't die? damn crickets. So I tried to talk to > the stars. Them, they don't speak, they don't think, they are dead! > They are so far (space). What the " hell " is going on? Oh what a > boring day! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Bored? Lethargic? Try this. Ugu rapu tangi beenana? Ugu boreeree sampo kutunda momo? Kengsa, Teeolatta coraimee durabiso. Tanga Tanga heporatta jumonabobo queetari linka. Igi tono mo? Kuku triga triga bin Bruteeni. Kuku, Odysseus, kuku! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 26, 2004 Hi Lewis, If the formation of the pre-Oedipal stage unconscious is conceptually a fiction and that ego has no access to the unconscious directly, then understanding depends on someone well versed in Lacanian psychoanalysis. K: Yes, to the first part of this passage. Lacan calls unconsciousness, " the discourse of the Other " . It is a transpersonal affair and " timeless " , so to say. That's why the ego has only an indirect, restricted and partial access. That means, that we, as subjects, will never be able to understand the totality of that, what makes us think or act in this or that way. Choice, or free will, evaporates. The discourse of the Other could be compared with " Karma " , somehow. And is comparable too to a sort of notion which could be called, maybe, " collective un-consciousness " . K: Regarding the second part I can recommend meditation & inquiry. I do not recommend a special school of psychoanalysis or a special type of psychotherapy. If that be you Kip, your input would be necessary to go beyond the relatively simple notion of ego to that mysterious and complicated unconscious that is assumed or designed by Lacanian to do all the work it does with language, desire, ego and so forth. So do you adhere Lacanian psychoanalysis? K: I have used Lacanian concepts as a tool in inquiry. But there are a lot of other interesting concepts coming from other authors, i.e. Kohut or Winnicott, with his fuzzy but interesting notion of a " true self " , which probably can help. To what degree? What is the unconscious? A clear definition and some empty pointer would suffice. What is your conception and experience of the unconscious? Can the unconscious be explored by the members of the forum? If so how? K: See above. Yes, I think everyone in this forum would be able to do it for nad by themselves. I have offered several times links. It does not suprise me that you, also as anthropologist, seem to be interested. You are actually the first showing some deeper interest. To the question of how, I think Lacan delivers a lot of tools concerning inquiry into " Who am I " . I recommend also meditation. A work in stillness. I refuse almost always to give concrete examples or concrete sadhanas and cede the decision on that to the interested. But, as said, there are a lot of powerful tools to find. I see it as a complement and enrichment to the already known vedantic and buddhistic or taoistic notions. On the other hand, it also blows away the fug of esoterism and cheap mysticism. After this we can examine language, the unconscious and language, the unconscious and ego, the interaction with the environment and solutions to living in imaginary realms versus the " real. " K: Lacan's notion of the " real " is fuzzy and he refused to give direct comments on it. Here is something I found written in English which could be a hint: The words most commonly used to define the real are " ineffable " and " impossible " : " it is impossible to imagine, impossible to integrate into the symbolic order, and impossible to attain in any way " (Evans 160; see also Bowie 95). Indeed, the chief qualities of the real in Lacan's scheme are that it is unsymbolisable and unrepresentable, that it precedes, exceeds, and supersedes any attempt to give it a coherent and comprehensible form. " The undecidability of the concept `real' is scrupulously preserved. The real is an uncrossable threshold for the subject, and not one that can be sidestepped in the analytic encounter " (Bowie 106). Approachable only asymptotically, the real is most often defined by way of paradoxes; it lies beyond the network of signifiers, yet causes an uncontrollable upheaval within it. It is firm and obdurate, yet its intrusions upon the subject cannot be anticipated or forestalled. […] The real is more forcible than anything else in the world, yet it is phantasmal, shallow and fortuitous. […] The real is inward and outward at once, and belongs indifferently to sanity and to madness. In all its modes, it successfully resists the intercessions of language. (Bowie 110) Furthermore, this undecidability is a feature of the real upon which Lacan insisted as its most essential defining feature: " Lacan takes pains to ensure that the real remains the most elusive and mysterious of the three orders, by speaking of it less than of the other orders, and by making it the site of a radical indeterminacy. Thus it is never completely clear whether the real is external or internal, or whether it is unknowable or amenable to reason " (Evans 160). In a realm characterised by the fundamentally negative mode of definition and differentiation (i.e. the RSI), the real stands out as extraordinarily negative and exceptionally undifferentiated. http://web.uvic.ca/~saross/lacan.html K: The links to Taoism, Zen and Vedanta are apparent. Turn it on. It is fascinating. Please correct any misunderstanding without reserve. K: Thanks, Lewis. There is still plenty of juice to press out, above all on " desire " . Actually, there are no misunderstandings. It will be a pleasure for me to constrast my interpretations with yours. Kip Almazy P.S. A little (Lacanian) sadhana for the every day life: supposed that the ego is nothing but a defense-shield and every exterioration coming from the ego a defense-reaction and that, what we verbalize generates and augments unconsciousness, what is lacking in what I say? What lack or gap do I try to fill out with words? What am I actually saying? What am I trying to hide? Before I open my mouth, I will ask me that question! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 26, 2004 Nisargadatta , " ilikezen2004 " <ilikezen2004> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " <kipalmazy> > > > Kip: dis-ease, suffering, dukkha, sickness....unless, we recover > our original face.... " we " dissolves in what it came from.... " I am " . > > And, " I am " in " I " and perhaps " I " in, " THAT " . > > > > > > Kip Almazy > > **************************************** > > Hi kip :0), " I am " , then " I " then " That " . Seems good I red it > somewhere, but where? Where are my books? my books! Humm. What am I > without book, without knowledge. Nothing important. Who wants not to > be important? Who? Who want to be stupid?? ha ha ha! Hi Odysseus, Merry Christmas and, btw, ¿Qué te pasa? There is nothing wrong with knowledge and to pass it over, if someone thinks it can be helpful. It is just a tool. Use it! Take what you need! Do you nail things with your fist? Do you chop wood with your teeth and carry water in the palm of your hands? I actually think that great part of the misery we can observe on this planet is caused by egoism regarding knowledge. The deliberately deprivation of certain ethnic groups from knowledge. Knowledge has also an awareness heightening and mind- expanding effect. Ignorance only leads to misery, stupidity, stuporness and war. As well as you can use a stone as a weapon, you can use knowledge. Things do not have intrinsically a moral nor ethic dimension, it is a dimension we confere to things. If your take on knowledge is the above described, I consider you a very poor human being but rich in preconceptions. Knowledge doesn´t make someone " important " , it takes away " importance " . Kip Almazy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 26, 2004 Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " <kipalmazy> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " ilikezen2004 " > <ilikezen2004> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " <kipalmazy> > > > > > Kip: dis-ease, suffering, dukkha, sickness....unless, we recover > > our original face.... " we " dissolves in what it came from.... " I > am " . > > > And, " I am " in " I " and perhaps " I " in, " THAT " . > > > > > > > > > Kip Almazy > > > > **************************************** > > > > Hi kip :0), " I am " , then " I " then " That " . Seems good I red it > > somewhere, but where? Where are my books? my books! Humm. What am > I > > without book, without knowledge. Nothing important. Who wants not > to > > be important? Who? Who want to be stupid?? ha ha ha! > > > > Hi Odysseus, > > > Merry Christmas and, btw, ¿Qué te pasa? There is nothing wrong with > knowledge and to pass it over, if someone thinks it can be helpful. > It is just a tool. Use it! Take what you need! Do you nail things > with your fist? Do you chop wood with your teeth and carry water in > the palm of your hands? I actually think that great part of the > misery we can observe on this planet is caused by egoism regarding > knowledge. The deliberately deprivation of certain ethnic groups > from knowledge. Knowledge has also an awareness heightening and mind- > expanding effect. Ignorance only leads to misery, stupidity, > stuporness and war. As well as you can use a stone as a weapon, you > can use knowledge. Things do not have intrinsically a moral nor > ethic dimension, it is a dimension we confere to things. If your > take on knowledge is the above described, I consider you a very poor > human being but rich in preconceptions. Knowledge doesn´t make > someone " important " , it takes away " importance " . > > > Kip Almazy *************************************** Ha ha! Kip: Knowledge doesn´t make > someone " important " , it takes away " importance " . From what I see here it doesn't sorry, Odysseus, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 26, 2004 kipalmazy wrote: > > Hi Lewis, > > > If the formation of the pre-Oedipal stage unconscious is > conceptually a fiction and that ego has no access to the unconscious > directly, then understanding depends on someone well versed in > Lacanian psychoanalysis. > > > K: Yes, to the first part of this passage. Lacan calls > unconsciousness, " the discourse of the Other " . It is a transpersonal > affair and " timeless " , so to say. That's why the ego has only an > indirect, restricted and partial access. That means, that we, as > subjects, will never be able to understand the totality of that, > what makes us think or act in this or that way. Choice, or free > will, evaporates. The discourse of the Other could be compared > with " Karma " , somehow. And is comparable too to a sort of notion > which could be called, maybe, " collective un-consciousness " . Cooking a conceptual soup, the unconscious must remain the Other for ego. For Lacan, ego is constructed in three worlds, the imaginary, symbolic and the real. The symbolic world can be can be summarily dismissed by denying conceptual formations, including language. All concepts are language formations, mental creations, crude and gross approximations to sensate experiences and the elaboration and creation of new concepts from mental experience of concepts. As known as it is, all thought, concepts and language are empty pointers. Communication internally ceases with the end of language. There is no symbolic world in silence. No thing can be known or communicated. This is a relatively easy task. Deconstructionism is a popular attempt to dismantle the symbolic world by reason. It is much easier to simply let it disappear by treating it as the language, script and symbolic meanings of movie. The ego is not dissolved wit this loss. The images on the screen now have no meaning and ego cannot understand what is happening. There is uncertainty and confusion without the labels and signage and concepts and ontologies and linguistic-conceptual what not. But the seemingly images remain stable because of attachment, affections (Lacan's ideas distinctive weak point) and desire. This brings us to the movie, the imaginary world, the middle ground between Lacan's real and symbolic worlds. The imaginary world is far more difficult to reduce or eliminate to reach the real and the unconscious since it is an unarticulated perception and image filled world charged with attachment, affections, and desires all of which are impervious to symbolic disintegration. These perception and images became articulated in the symbolic order through language and concepts creating ontologies of various sorts. When the symbolic order is gradually reduced to absurdity and emptiness and " ontological security " is removed, the ego relies on its feelings and attachments and desires to define its existence. Ego is a centered on providing the body's basic needs air, heat (warmth), shelter, water, food, health, movement (exercise) comfort, and these according to what it has experienced and become habituated in infancy and till it leaves parental care and then to what is procurable. In Lacanian terms, the the imago or ideal ego is formed by identification with what amounts to mere " physical objects. " This perhaps is the single weakness of jnana yoga and the forte of bhakti yoga making each alone a boat with one oar. To approach the real, ego must release the symbolic world by ending language and conceptualization and escape the imaginary world by ending attachment, affection and desires for physical objects and thereby self-indentification with them. In Lacanian circles, this is impossible. There cannot be a return to experiencing undifferentiated being an experience that precludes functioning in the imaginary world and symbolic world as previously constituted by ego and ego subjectivity. This of course in non-sense. The real world is " ineffable " and " impossible. " Lacan does no better in talking of the real world. It is. So to get to the real there must be a dissolution of the symbolic and imaginary worlds, which is the dissolution of the ego, the self. " Jnana yoga " and practices similar to it are skullduggery for disappearing Lacan's symbolic world. " Bhakti yoga " practice similar to it are skullduggery for releasing Lacan's imaginary world. At such dissolution the unconscious encounters the real and awareness without awareness is. > K: Regarding the second part I can recommend meditation & inquiry. I > do not recommend a special school of psychoanalysis or a special > type of psychotherapy. Yes. Various types of skullduggery for ego is required for the interaction of the " unconscious " and " real. " > > If that be you Kip, your input would be necessary to go beyond the > relatively simple notion of ego to that mysterious and complicated > unconscious that is assumed or designed by Lacanian to do all the > work it does with language, desire, ego and so forth. So do you > adhere Lacanian psychoanalysis? > > > > K: I have used Lacanian concepts as a tool in inquiry. But there are > a lot of other interesting concepts coming from other authors, i.e. > Kohut or Winnicott, with his fuzzy but interesting notion of a " true > self " , which probably can help. It will be researched. > > To what degree? What is the unconscious? A clear definition and > some empty pointer would suffice. What is your conception and > experience of the unconscious? Can the unconscious be > explored by the members of the forum? If so how? > > > > K: See above. Yes, I think everyone in this forum would be able to > do it for nad by themselves. I have offered several times links. It > does not suprise me that you, also as anthropologist, seem to be > interested. You are actually the first showing some deeper interest. > To the question of how, I think Lacan delivers a lot of tools > concerning inquiry into " Who am I " . I recommend also meditation. A > work in stillness. I refuse almost always to give concrete examples > or concrete sadhanas and cede the decision on that to the > interested. But, as said, there are a lot of powerful tools to find. > I see it as a complement and enrichment to the already known > vedantic and buddhistic or taoistic notions. On the other hand, it > also blows away the fug of esoterism and cheap mysticism. There is very nice trickery available for in treating symbolic and imaginary worlds, especially dealing with attachment, affect or emotions and desires. > After this we can examine language, the unconscious and language, > the unconscious and ego, the interaction with the environment and > solutions to living in imaginary realms versus the " real. " > > > K: Lacan's notion of the " real " is fuzzy and he refused to give > direct comments on it. Here is something I found written in English > which could be a hint: > > > The words most commonly used to define the real are " ineffable " > and " impossible " : " it is impossible to imagine, impossible to > integrate into the symbolic order, and impossible to attain in any > way " (Evans 160; see also Bowie 95). Indeed, the chief qualities of > the real in Lacan's scheme are that it is unsymbolisable and > unrepresentable, that it precedes, exceeds, and supersedes any > attempt to give it a coherent and comprehensible form. " The > undecidability of the concept `real' is scrupulously preserved. The > real is an uncrossable threshold for the subject, and not one that > can be sidestepped in the analytic encounter " (Bowie 106). > Approachable only asymptotically, the real is most often defined by > way of paradoxes; it lies beyond the network of signifiers, yet > causes an uncontrollable upheaval within it. It is firm and > obdurate, yet its intrusions upon the subject cannot be anticipated > or forestalled. […] The real is more forcible than anything else in > the world, yet it is phantasmal, shallow and fortuitous. […] The > real is inward and outward at once, and belongs indifferently to > sanity and to madness. In all its modes, it successfully resists the > intercessions of language. (Bowie 110) Furthermore, this > undecidability is a feature of the real upon which Lacan insisted as > its most essential defining feature: " Lacan takes pains to ensure > that the real remains the most elusive and mysterious of the three > orders, by speaking of it less than of the other orders, and by > making it the site of a radical indeterminacy. Thus it is never > completely clear whether the real is external or internal, or > whether it is unknowable or amenable to reason " (Evans 160). In a > realm characterised by the fundamentally negative mode of definition > and differentiation (i.e. the RSI), the real stands out as > extraordinarily negative and exceptionally undifferentiated. > > http://web.uvic.ca/~saross/lacan.html > > > K: The links to Taoism, Zen and Vedanta are apparent. > > > Turn it on. It is fascinating. > > Please correct any misunderstanding without reserve. > > > K: Thanks, Lewis. There is still plenty of juice to press out, above > all on " desire " . Actually, there are no misunderstandings. It will > be a pleasure for me to constrast my interpretations with yours. > > > > Kip Almazy > > > > P.S. A little (Lacanian) sadhana for the every day life: supposed > that the ego is nothing but a defense-shield and every exterioration > coming from the ego a defense-reaction and that, what we verbalize > generates and augments unconsciousness, what is lacking in what I > say? What lack or gap do I try to fill out with words? What am I > actually saying? What am I trying to hide? Before I open my mouth, I > will ask me that question! The lack or gap is not spontaneously feeling that " I " am " You. " Lewis ** > > 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. > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 26, 2004 ********************************************** Holy cow Alexander the great! You want to kill the guy! ha ha ha! Well If you didn't kill him, you killed me! ;0)) Good that is very good. Odysseus, Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > kipalmazy wrote: > > > > > Hi Lewis, > > > > > > If the formation of the pre-Oedipal stage unconscious is > > conceptually a fiction and that ego has no access to the unconscious > > directly, then understanding depends on someone well versed in > > Lacanian psychoanalysis. > > > > > > K: Yes, to the first part of this passage. Lacan calls > > unconsciousness, " the discourse of the Other " . It is a transpersonal > > affair and " timeless " , so to say. That's why the ego has only an > > indirect, restricted and partial access. That means, that we, as > > subjects, will never be able to understand the totality of that, > > what makes us think or act in this or that way. Choice, or free > > will, evaporates. The discourse of the Other could be compared > > with " Karma " , somehow. And is comparable too to a sort of notion > > which could be called, maybe, " collective un-consciousness " . > > Cooking a conceptual soup, the unconscious must remain the Other for > ego. For Lacan, ego is constructed in three worlds, the imaginary, > symbolic and the real. The symbolic world can be can be summarily > dismissed by denying conceptual formations, including language. All > concepts are language formations, mental creations, crude and gross > approximations to sensate experiences and the elaboration and creation > of new concepts from mental experience of concepts. As known as it is, > all thought, concepts and language are empty pointers. Communication > internally ceases with the end of language. There is no symbolic world > in silence. No thing can be known or communicated. This is a relatively > easy task. Deconstructionism is a popular attempt to dismantle the > symbolic world by reason. It is much easier to simply let it disappear > by treating it as the language, script and symbolic meanings of movie. > The ego is not dissolved wit this loss. The images on the screen now > have no meaning and ego cannot understand what is happening. There is > uncertainty and confusion without the labels and signage and concepts > and ontologies and linguistic-conceptual what not. But the seemingly > images remain stable because of attachment, affections (Lacan's ideas > distinctive weak point) and desire. This brings us to the movie, the > imaginary world, the middle ground between Lacan's real and symbolic worlds. > > The imaginary world is far more difficult to reduce or eliminate to > reach the real and the unconscious since it is an unarticulated > perception and image filled world charged with attachment, affections, > and desires all of which are impervious to symbolic disintegration. > These perception and images became articulated in the symbolic order > through language and concepts creating ontologies of various sorts. When > the symbolic order is gradually reduced to absurdity and emptiness and > " ontological security " is removed, the ego relies on its feelings and > attachments and desires to define its existence. Ego is a centered on > providing the body's basic needs air, heat (warmth), shelter, water, > food, health, movement (exercise) comfort, and these according to what > it has experienced and become habituated in infancy and till it leaves > parental care and then to what is procurable. In Lacanian terms, the the > imago or ideal ego is formed by identification with what amounts to mere > " physical objects. " > > This perhaps is the single weakness of jnana yoga and the forte of > bhakti yoga making each alone a boat with one oar. > > To approach the real, ego must release the symbolic world by ending > language and conceptualization and escape the imaginary world by ending > attachment, affection and desires for physical objects and thereby > self-indentification with them. > > In Lacanian circles, this is impossible. There cannot be a return to > experiencing undifferentiated being an experience that precludes > functioning in the imaginary world and symbolic world as previously > constituted by ego and ego subjectivity. This of course in non- sense. > > The real world is " ineffable " and " impossible. " Lacan does no better in > talking of the real world. It is. > > So to get to the real there must be a dissolution of the symbolic and > imaginary worlds, which is the dissolution of the ego, the self. > > " Jnana yoga " and practices similar to it are skullduggery for > disappearing Lacan's symbolic world. > > " Bhakti yoga " practice similar to it are skullduggery for releasing > Lacan's imaginary world. > > At such dissolution the unconscious encounters the real and awareness > without awareness is. > > > > K: Regarding the second part I can recommend meditation & inquiry. I > > do not recommend a special school of psychoanalysis or a special > > type of psychotherapy. > > > Yes. Various types of skullduggery for ego is required for the > interaction of the " unconscious " and " real. " > > > > > If that be you Kip, your input would be necessary to go beyond the > > relatively simple notion of ego to that mysterious and complicated > > unconscious that is assumed or designed by Lacanian to do all the > > work it does with language, desire, ego and so forth. So do you > > adhere Lacanian psychoanalysis? > > > > > > > > K: I have used Lacanian concepts as a tool in inquiry. But there are > > a lot of other interesting concepts coming from other authors, i.e. > > Kohut or Winnicott, with his fuzzy but interesting notion of a " true > > self " , which probably can help. > > It will be researched. > > > > > To what degree? What is the unconscious? A clear definition and > > some empty pointer would suffice. What is your conception and > > experience of the unconscious? Can the unconscious be > > explored by the members of the forum? If so how? > > > > > > > > K: See above. Yes, I think everyone in this forum would be able to > > do it for nad by themselves. I have offered several times links. It > > does not suprise me that you, also as anthropologist, seem to be > > interested. You are actually the first showing some deeper interest. > > To the question of how, I think Lacan delivers a lot of tools > > concerning inquiry into " Who am I " . I recommend also meditation. A > > work in stillness. I refuse almost always to give concrete examples > > or concrete sadhanas and cede the decision on that to the > > interested. But, as said, there are a lot of powerful tools to find. > > I see it as a complement and enrichment to the already known > > vedantic and buddhistic or taoistic notions. On the other hand, it > > also blows away the fug of esoterism and cheap mysticism. > > There is very nice trickery available for in treating symbolic and > imaginary worlds, especially dealing with attachment, affect or emotions > and desires. > > > > > After this we can examine language, the unconscious and language, > > the unconscious and ego, the interaction with the environment and > > solutions to living in imaginary realms versus the " real. " > > > > > > K: Lacan's notion of the " real " is fuzzy and he refused to give > > direct comments on it. Here is something I found written in English > > which could be a hint: > > > > > > The words most commonly used to define the real are " ineffable " > > and " impossible " : " it is impossible to imagine, impossible to > > integrate into the symbolic order, and impossible to attain in any > > way " (Evans 160; see also Bowie 95). Indeed, the chief qualities of > > the real in Lacan's scheme are that it is unsymbolisable and > > unrepresentable, that it precedes, exceeds, and supersedes any > > attempt to give it a coherent and comprehensible form. " The > > undecidability of the concept `real' is scrupulously preserved. The > > real is an uncrossable threshold for the subject, and not one that > > can be sidestepped in the analytic encounter " (Bowie 106). > > Approachable only asymptotically, the real is most often defined by > > way of paradoxes; it lies beyond the network of signifiers, yet > > causes an uncontrollable upheaval within it. It is firm and > > obdurate, yet its intrusions upon the subject cannot be anticipated > > or forestalled. […] The real is more forcible than anything else in > > the world, yet it is phantasmal, shallow and fortuitous. […] The > > real is inward and outward at once, and belongs indifferently to > > sanity and to madness. In all its modes, it successfully resists the > > intercessions of language. (Bowie 110) Furthermore, this > > undecidability is a feature of the real upon which Lacan insisted as > > its most essential defining feature: " Lacan takes pains to ensure > > that the real remains the most elusive and mysterious of the three > > orders, by speaking of it less than of the other orders, and by > > making it the site of a radical indeterminacy. Thus it is never > > completely clear whether the real is external or internal, or > > whether it is unknowable or amenable to reason " (Evans 160). In a > > realm characterised by the fundamentally negative mode of definition > > and differentiation (i.e. the RSI), the real stands out as > > extraordinarily negative and exceptionally undifferentiated. > > > > http://web.uvic.ca/~saross/lacan.html > > > > > > K: The links to Taoism, Zen and Vedanta are apparent. > > > > > > Turn it on. It is fascinating. > > > > Please correct any misunderstanding without reserve. > > > > > > K: Thanks, Lewis. There is still plenty of juice to press out, above > > all on " desire " . Actually, there are no misunderstandings. It will > > be a pleasure for me to constrast my interpretations with yours. > > > > > > > > Kip Almazy > > > > > > > > P.S. A little (Lacanian) sadhana for the every day life: supposed > > that the ego is nothing but a defense-shield and every exterioration > > coming from the ego a defense-reaction and that, what we verbalize > > generates and augments unconsciousness, what is lacking in what I > > say? What lack or gap do I try to fill out with words? What am I > > actually saying? What am I trying to hide? Before I open my mouth, I > > will ask me that question! > > The lack or gap is not spontaneously feeling that " I " am " You. " > > Lewis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ** > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 27, 2004 Lewis, Cooking a conceptual soup, the unconscious must remain the Other for ego. For Lacan, ego is constructed in three worlds, the imaginary, symbolic and the real. The symbolic world can be can be summarily dismissed by denying conceptual formations, including language. All concepts are language formations, mental creations, crude and gross approximations to sensate experiences and the elaboration and creation of new concepts from mental experience of concepts. As known as it is, all thought, concepts and language are empty pointers. Communication internally ceases with the end of language. There is no symbolic world in silence. No thing can be known or communicated. This is a relatively easy task. K: Yes to all above with exception of the last sentence. A complete detachment from the register of the symbolic is also that what characterizes a psychotic state. Deconstructionism is a popular attempt to dismantle the symbolic world by reason. It is much easier to simply let it disappear by treating it as the language, script and symbolic meanings of movie. The ego is not dissolved wit this loss. The images on the screen now have no meaning and ego cannot understand what is happening. K: Exactly! There is uncertainty and confusion without the labels and signage and concepts and ontologies and linguistic-conceptual what not. But the seemingly images remain stable because of attachment, affections (Lacan's ideas distinctive weak point) and desire. This brings us to the movie, the imaginary world, the middle ground between Lacan's real and symbolic worlds. K: Excellent! Impressive how quickly you have digested these concepts. The imaginary world is far more difficult to reduce or eliminate to reach the real and the unconscious since it is an unarticulated perception and image filled world charged with attachment, affections, and desires all of which are impervious to symbolic disintegration. These perception and images became articulated in the symbolic order through language and concepts creating ontologies of various sorts. When the symbolic order is gradually reduced to absurdity and emptiness and " ontological security " is removed, the ego relies on its feelings and attachments and desires to define its existence. Ego is a centered on providing the body's basic needs air, heat (warmth), shelter, water, food, health, movement (exercise) comfort, and these according to what it has experienced and become habituated in infancy and till it leaves parental care and then to what is procurable. In Lacanian terms, the the imago or ideal ego is formed by identification with what amounts to mere " physical objects. " K: The " real " in Lacanian terms has (almost) a traumatic texture. It is that what doesn't fit in the register of the imaginery by not being accessible to an articulation by and through the symbolic order, e.g., parental child abuse or the experience of continued double bind situations in early childhood. A Koan, meditation on a Koan, works actually like a controlled and continued confrontation with the essence of the real in Lacanian terms, its overwhelming absurdness, negativity and paradoxicality. Almost like a desensitisation, could be said, but in contrast to it, the purpose isn't subject to a subsumption into an adequate chain of singnifiers or a metonymy. This perhaps is the single weakness of jnana yoga and the forte of bhakti yoga making each alone a boat with one oar. K: Indeed! To approach the real, ego must release the symbolic world by ending language and conceptualization and escape the imaginary world by ending attachment, affection and desires for physical objects and thereby self-indentification with them. In Lacanian circles, this is impossible. K: No, it is possible! But, it comprehends all that what actually constitutes a psychosis. The phallus, or the distance between the " inarticulated object of desire " (e.g. the experience of Mom's tit as suckling) and the objectified desires in later stages of development or in adulthood constitutes actually the inherent yearning of the human condition, i.e. " I can get no satisfaction! " Physical objects can't lead to the fullfilment of a satisfaction reached in a pre-linguistic stage and in a inarticulated way as it was in early childhood. There is no peace to find neither in physical objects nor in concepts on them. Completion, complete fulfillment of desire would also constitute in Lacanian terms something equatable to a psychosis. There cannot be a return to experiencing undifferentiated being an experience that precludes functioning in the imaginary world and symbolic world as previously constituted by ego and ego subjectivity. This of course in non-sense. K: No, there can be a return, but it would constitute a pathological status in Lacanian terms. It would constitute a complete removal of the symbolic order and substitution with another sort of phantasm e.g. hallucinations, which would differ dramatically from the established norms in which the subject has been imbedded. The real world is " ineffable " and " impossible. " Lacan does no better in talking of the real world. It is. So to get to the real there must be a dissolution of the symbolic and imaginary worlds, which is the dissolution of the ego, the self. K: With Moebius-strip tied as a trefoil-knot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Imm3.gif it becomes clear that even the " real " couldn't exist, as concept, independent of the symbolic and the imaginery. I am far away from conferring to the register of the real an ontological, metaphysical relevance. There is no " to get to the real " in my discourse, nor a teleological (purpose) ambition, so to say. " Jnana yoga " and practices similar to it are skullduggery for disappearing Lacan's symbolic world. K: That could be seen that way! " Bhakti yoga " practice similar to it are skullduggery for releasing Lacan's imaginary world. K: Yes! Skullduggery is, in my opinion too, the notion that something like a free-floating, independent, isolated " reality " exists i.e, Noumenon existing or non-existing, that somehow could be reached by a subject. Nirvana is Samasara, Samsara is Nirvana. That's what I think Lacan exemplifies aptly by using the trefoil knot to illustrate that there is actually no border, no difference between the real, imaginery and the symbolic. It is a senseless undertaking to isolate one from the other. At such dissolution the unconscious encounters the real and awareness without awareness is. K: the unconscious is the " real " . Yes. Various types of skullduggery for ego is required for the interaction of the " unconscious " and " real. " K: see above P.S. A little (Lacanian) sadhana for the every day life: supposed that the ego is nothing but a defense-shield and every exterioration coming from the ego a defense-reaction and that, what we verbalize generates and augments unconsciousness, what is lacking in what I say? What lack or gap do I try to fill out with words? What am I actually saying? What am I trying to hide? Before I open my mouth, I will ask me that question! The lack or gap is not spontaneously feeling that " I " am " You. " K: Can you expand on this? Kip Almazy P.S. I am enjoying this dance very much! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 27, 2004 Lewis is a name that represents a lot of feelings from de mind/body olnly. Namastê Nirgunananda - Lewis Burgess Nisargadatta Friday, December 24, 2004 7:03 PM Re: Real & virtual space Nisargadatta , " Nirgunananda " <nirgunananda@t...> wrote: > > TO:LEWIS > FROM:Swami Nirgunananda > I would like answer to Lewis about his questions below : > > Lewis > Who put " me " into mechanical slavery? > > Swami Nirgunananda > Nobody put you into mechanical slavery. You think that you are into mechanical slavery. > > Lewis > Did " I " put " my self " into slavery? > > Swami Nirgunananda > You put when you think that you are into slavery. > > Lewis > Can " I " liberate " my self, " throw off the chains? " > > Swami Nirgunananda > No. You can not, there are not liberate, are thinks about prison. > > Lewis > Or does someone liberate " me? " > > Swami Nirgunananda > No one can liberate you, you must believe that you are not into slavery. > > Lewis > Is it a cooperative venture between " me " and another " I " or is it " me " and a " no me " ? > > Swami Nirgunananda > No it is not, because there are no you, neither other you, no I neither other I. There are no even one, these things of one, two etc, is of the mind. There are the sense of constant " BEING " , the other questions about " I " , " You " , " We " etc is of the mind, not of you, because you are the Supreme Reality that stands beyond of the mind. > > Lewis > Is " someone " being liberated or is it change in interior states? > > Swami Nirgunananda > It is change of concepts of the mind, only. > > Lewis > Is it possible to be liberated? > > Swami Nirgunananda > No it is not possible to be liberated, because You just are liberated, is your mind that think on the contrary. > > Lewis > Is liberation necessary? > > Swami Nirgunananda > Is necessary you understand that you just are liberated. The question of prison is of your mind, only. > > Lewis > What is liberation? Is it a concept, a goal, a state, an experience? > > Swami Nirgunananda > Liberation is not a concept, a goal, a state neither an experience. Liberation is to see the things like the things are: without permanence and without proper essence and substance; or rather the things have not proper existence. > Lewis pay attention, see and feel: you are that sense " I AM, the same sense when you were a child, a teen age, a young, an adult and a old, " THAT " the same sense " I AM " are you. But the sense " I am a boy, a old, a young, or I am mother, father, intellectual, a boss, a man, a woman etc is the mind, no you, ok? > All the other words, things and concepts are of the mind, remember that you are not the mind/body, you are the SELF,you are THAT, which has no name, only awareness. > > Thank you very much > > Namastê > Swami Nirgunananda ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dear Swami Nirgunananda, Who is Lewis? ** 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 27, 2004 Yes AL, it is, only. Namastê Nirgunananda - anders_lindman Nisargadatta Saturday, December 25, 2004 3:49 AM Re: Real & virtual space Nisargadatta , " Nirgunananda " <nirgunananda@t...> wrote: > > Hi Lewis and Anders, > > Have you thought from the point of view of the SELF, ( from your proper point like the Supreme Reality that you really are ) and not the ego, these question about the real space and virtual space? > > Why do I say it? > 1 - Because the Self stands beyond mind, and you are the Self always, > 2 - Because the mind/body and universe are automatic they work with input and out put from one to another, " cause and effect between them " > 3 - The universe is not permanent, is a illusion that modify itself from instant to instant > 4 - When the space is open the forms appear up > 5 - When the space is closed there are no forms. > > Lets see the concept about real space: > If the universe are not real, where can we find the real space? > In what moment " in the now " ? > If like the Self that we are, we have no pass no future, " we were no born " what is " now " ?, because the now can only be if has the pass and future, then the passed, now and future are time of the mind, ok? > For we, that were no born neither can die, there are no space, no time, and yes to the mind, ok? We must remember that we are no mind no body, but the Self that is beyond. > > Lets see the concept about virtual space: > I see that the concept of virtual space is the same to the real space, because we are speaking about the mind only. > > The mind " our mind " explain about itself and make confusion in relation with the Self that we are. > > If we speake from what we are, the Supreme Reality " the Self " I believe that is better to understand, see: > For we understand what really we are is very simple: say I AM only, that automatically we become ourselves in the witness that observe only, this witness is the I AM, and " I am that or I am this " is the mind. > We are I AM when ther are objets in the mind only. > We can do it by the auto observation, that is observe the mind only. > After some time that we have observed the mind like the witness, we can know that we are the Self, beyond the proper witness, because the witness see if do the auto observation, if has something to observe in the mind, if not we stay in our conscious, not in the conscious of the objets of the mind, but in the conscious of " BEING " that is awareness, or rather in ourselves " in the Self " , in silence, immobility and plenitude. > " That " is what we are, the no manifested beyond mind and mind is the reflex scarcely. > > Thank you > and > Thing about > > Namastê > > Swami Nirgunananda > When we know we are the Self, I suppose we know our own creative power, not as a single entity, but as creative power itself, emanating from our unmanifested Self. /AL ** 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 27, 2004 kipalmazy wrote: > > Lewis, > > > Cooking a conceptual soup, the unconscious must remain the Other for > ego. For Lacan, ego is constructed in three worlds, the imaginary, > symbolic and the real. The symbolic world can be can be summarily > dismissed by denying conceptual formations, including language. All > concepts are language formations, mental creations, crude and gross > approximations to sensate experiences and the elaboration and > creation of new concepts from mental experience of concepts. As > known as it is, all thought, concepts and language are empty > pointers. Communication internally ceases with the end of language. > There is no symbolic world in silence. No thing can be known or > communicated. This is a relatively easy task. > > > K: Yes to all above with exception of the last sentence. A complete > detachment from the register of the symbolic is also that what > characterizes a psychotic state. The experience can be psychotic, if the symbolic order disappears at once in a flash as it can in an " overly intense hallucinogenic experience " where the world of sensation does not appear as it " should " and the inability of the ego to reconstitute the sensations into its " normal ontology " sends the ego into a " violent break. " Less violent but nonetheless severe suffering has occurred in the experiences of adepts in all of the mystic traditions including their leading figures. Hallucinations are part and parcel of ego disintegration and can be dangerous for the unskilled. It is a by product of conceptual diarrhea. It is temporary and passing for most. The are many testimonies and documents that describe these in stark detail. But there is nothing like direct experience. Are you experienced, Kip? Such experiences of " breaking suddenly " are relatively rare under the circumstances such as can be seen in the lived experiences of the members of this forum, even though some may not " think " so. Also the detachment or disintegration of the symbolic order as described is artificial, conceptual. The " organicity " and " integration " of the three worlds does not allow such discrete and progressive disintegration of the symbolic world followed by the disintegration of the imaginary world. Such disintegration may happen simultaneously, more in one than the other with one or the other lagging, or with the imaginary world being a primary ego target and the symbolic world as second target depending on practices adopted. All of this can be done with more or less confusion or clarity by ego, going for it wild abandon or painstakingly removing a single concept at time. The " real " as " interior movements " also does its work as ego's effort are conducted. This can be a close discussion once the " real " and " unconscious " in Lacanian terms are better understood. It is important to note that the disintegration of the symbolic order is inevitable in " realization " but it can be reconstituted for play and work and enjoyment after ego disintegration. That is the " world " or " worlds " are not as they are " thought " but as it is. Free from " conceptual worlds " and symbolic orders altogether allows what is to form and or enter any " conceptual world " Such as " France " and to disassemble and leave all such worlds without effort. The worlds are " seen, " and therefore are objects and unreal and there it is no longer possible to have attachments to or " beliefs about " " faith in " such worlds. All is malleable. So a psychotic break can occur if the symbolic order is removed in a flash but it need not occur, there may be manageable hallucinations, and the symbolic orders becomes what they are " objects " to play with, to work with, to enjoy and to discard if boring or useless. > Deconstructionism is a popular attempt to dismantle the > symbolic world by reason. It is much easier to simply let it > disappear by treating it as the language, script and symbolic > meanings of movie. The ego is not dissolved wit this loss. The > images on the screen now have no meaning and ego cannot understand > what is happening. > > > K: Exactly! > > > There is uncertainty and confusion without the labels and signage > and concepts and ontologies and linguistic-conceptual what not. But > the seemingly images remain stable because of attachment, affections > (Lacan's ideas distinctive weak point) and desire. This brings us to > the movie, the imaginary world, the middle ground between Lacan's > real and symbolic worlds. > > > K: Excellent! Impressive how quickly you have digested these > concepts. > > > The imaginary world is far more difficult to reduce or eliminate to > reach the real and the unconscious since it is an unarticulated > perception and image filled world charged with attachment, > affections, and desires all of which are impervious to symbolic > disintegration. These perception and images became articulated in > the symbolic order through language and concepts creating ontologies > of various sorts. When the symbolic order is gradually reduced to > absurdity and emptiness and " ontological security " is removed, the > ego relies on its feelings and attachments and desires to define its > existence. Ego is a centered on providing the body's basic needs > air, heat (warmth), shelter, water, food, health, movement > (exercise) comfort, and these according to what it has experienced > and become habituated in infancy and till it leaves > parental care and then to what is procurable. In Lacanian terms, the > the imago or ideal ego is formed by identification with what amounts > to mere " physical objects. " > > > > K: The " real " in Lacanian terms has (almost) a traumatic texture. It > is that what doesn't fit in the register of the imaginery by not > being accessible to an articulation by and through the symbolic > order, e.g., parental child abuse or the experience of continued > double bind situations in early childhood. A Koan, meditation on a > Koan, works actually like a controlled and continued confrontation > with the essence of the real in Lacanian terms, its overwhelming > absurdness, negativity and paradoxicality. Almost like a > desensitisation, could be said, but in contrast to it, the purpose > isn't subject to a subsumption into an adequate chain of singnifiers > or a metonymy. Yes. But the " real " may not be only repressed and suppressed memories. It may also refer to all ordinary sensations that are distorted, clouded and denied by the the operative functions and filters of ego's imaginary and symbolic worlds (i.e.. sexual desire) > This perhaps is the single weakness of jnana yoga and the forte of > bhakti yoga making each alone a boat with one oar. > > > > K: Indeed! > > > > To approach the real, ego must release the symbolic world by ending > language and conceptualization and escape the imaginary world by > ending attachment, affection and desires for physical objects and > thereby self-indentification with them. In Lacanian circles, this is > impossible. > > > > K: No, it is possible! But, it comprehends all that what actually > constitutes a psychosis. The phallus, or the distance between > the " inarticulated object of desire " (e.g. the experience of Mom's > tit as suckling) and the objectified desires in later stages of > development or in adulthood constitutes actually the inherent > yearning of the human condition, i.e. " I can get no satisfaction! " > Physical objects can't lead to the fullfilment of a satisfaction > reached in a pre-linguistic stage and in a inarticulated way as it > was in early childhood. There is no peace to find neither in > physical objects nor in concepts on them. Completion, complete > fulfillment of desire would also constitute in Lacanian terms > something equatable to a psychosis. Again, Kip this is challenged. What is the complete fulfillment of desire? It is not through objects or concepts, through the imaginary or symbolic worlds. This is clear. In Lacanian concept, it is the mother's absence that creates the conditions where the child chooses objects in replacement to alleviate the sense of discontinuity in the flow of being, " desire. " But is the separation of " mother " or mother in any conceptual way the object of the child? Lacanian notions need reworking. There is no such thing as " completion of desire. " Completion implies end, finality and perhaps the beginning of desire again, if the desire is not supreme and finite. This is an ego concept. To use utterly gross terms and language, " desire is the movement towards union of being in dynamic circuit. " Such union is never completed and is ever moving, flowing endlessly. Such " desire " is manifest here in the posting. It is " desire " flowing that is moving the eyes, brain, body, mind, hands to create to give, to reach. Failure is achieved when there is the " thought " that there are discrete persons responding to that given. This ego communication. There is only the giving/responding, the responding is giving, the giving responding with no beginning, no interruption or end to the flow of it as it moves from posting to eating, to making love to shopping to....... Take away all the names, the discrete identifications leaving only the posts and feel the circuit of life made with the flow of giving/responding without seeing or having attachment to identity of any sort or conceptual worlds of any or identification of conceptual worlds with identity. " This is what I think. " " I think so. " It is no longer who said what and who is what or who is this way or that. Such identifications dams the flow of " desire " in minds there accumulates " desire, " impeded, dammed, turning turbulent onto itself then grasped, distorted and wrestled with by a blind ego unable to make sense of its " desire " and what these becomes is distortion, dissatisfaction, upset, searching, frustration, anger and the attacking of others who are seen to impede their flow. Grossly speaking, this what " I am You " points to in its empty way. " I am mother, " " I am Toombaru " " I am whatever is " flowing, giving responding entering leaving ever flowing in all conceptual worlds, attachment to none, favoring, disfavoring none, giving/responding as it is. Completion of a desire supreme could be psychotic if such a desire was fulfilled. After fulfillment what would there be? The end of the desire? Perhaps the end of life? > > There cannot be a return to experiencing undifferentiated being an > experience that precludes functioning in the imaginary world and > symbolic world as previously constituted by ego and ego > subjectivity. This of course in non-sense. > > > > K: No, there can be a return, but it would constitute a pathological > status in Lacanian terms. It would constitute a complete removal of > the symbolic order and substitution with another sort of phantasm > e.g. hallucinations, which would differ dramatically from the > established norms in which the subject has been imbedded. A response was made above. Fluid, non-attached movement in the formation, use, enjoyment, and discarding of symbolic worlds is the inevitable outcome of ego disintegration. Hallucinations are experienced by ego as subject. When there is no ego such phenomena are transparent, manageable. > The real world is " ineffable " and " impossible. " Lacan does no better > in talking of the real world. It is. > So to get to the real there must be a dissolution of the symbolic > and imaginary worlds, which is the dissolution of the ego, the self. > > > > K: With Moebius-strip tied as a trefoil-knot > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Imm3.gif > it becomes clear that even the " real " couldn't exist, as concept, > independent of the symbolic and the imaginery. I am far away from > conferring to the register of the real an ontological, metaphysical > relevance. There is no " to get to the real " in my discourse, nor a > teleological (purpose) ambition, so to say. Agreed. > > " Jnana yoga " and practices similar to it are skullduggery for > disappearing Lacan's symbolic world. > > > > K: That could be seen that way! > > > > " Bhakti yoga " practice similar to it are skullduggery for releasing > Lacan's imaginary world. > > > > K: Yes! Skullduggery is, in my opinion too, the notion that > something like a free-floating, independent, isolated " reality " > exists i.e, Noumenon existing or non-existing, that somehow could be > reached by a subject. Nirvana is Samasara, Samsara is Nirvana. > That's what I think Lacan exemplifies aptly by using the trefoil > knot to illustrate that there is actually no border, no difference > between the real, imaginery and the symbolic. It is a senseless > undertaking to isolate one from the other. Yes it is senseless. Nirvana is Samsara, Samsara is nirvana without any distinction between the two as Nagarjuna and others give out. It is a matter or " non-doing " " release " " surrender, non-attachment " but as V. I. Lenin said in reach of the Marxist Communist goal of absolute freedom: " What is to be done? " > > At such dissolution the unconscious encounters the real and > awareness without awareness is. > > > > K: the unconscious is the " real " . Ok. Is that Lacanian? If so good. It is made so. If not good, it is made so. > Yes. Various types of skullduggery for ego is required for the > interaction of the " unconscious " and " real. " > > > > K: see above > > > > > > P.S. A little (Lacanian) sadhana for the every day life: supposed > that the ego is nothing but a defense-shield and every exterioration > coming from the ego a defense-reaction and that, what we verbalize > generates and augments unconsciousness, what is lacking in what I > say? What lack or gap do I try to fill out with words? What am I > actually saying? What am I trying to hide? Before I open my mouth, I > will ask me that question! > > > > The lack or gap is not spontaneously feeling that " I " am " You. " > > > > K: Can you expand on this? See above. > > Kip Almazy > > > P.S. I am enjoying this dance very much! Round and round and round it goes, And where it stops, nobody knows, Round and round is our love, Let's blame in on the stars above (Gil) Lewis Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 27, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Nirgunananda " <nirgunananda@t...> wrote: > > Lewis is a name that represents a lot of feelings from de mind/body olnly. > > Namastê > Nirgunananda ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Agreed. Lewis is a name that represents a lot of feelings from the mind and body only. Nirgunananda, please respond to the following questions: How did the name Lewis come to represent " a lot of feelings from the mind and body only? What feelings are being referred to? Is it possible that feelings originate from that which is not mind/body? If yes, how so? If not, what is meant by the statement made. If something else please describe. To whom or to what does that name, Lewis, represent a lot of feelings from the mind and body only? Lewis > - > Lewis Burgess > Nisargadatta > Friday, December 24, 2004 7:03 PM > Re: Real & virtual space > > > > Nisargadatta , " Nirgunananda " > <nirgunananda@t...> wrote: > > > > TO:LEWIS > > FROM:Swami Nirgunananda > > I would like answer to Lewis about his questions below : > > > > Lewis > > Who put " me " into mechanical slavery? > > > > Swami Nirgunananda > > Nobody put you into mechanical slavery. You think that you are into > mechanical slavery. > > > > Lewis > > Did " I " put " my self " into slavery? > > > > Swami Nirgunananda > > You put when you think that you are into slavery. > > > > Lewis > > Can " I " liberate " my self, " throw off the chains? " > > > > Swami Nirgunananda > > No. You can not, there are not liberate, are thinks about prison. > > > > Lewis > > Or does someone liberate " me? " > > > > Swami Nirgunananda > > No one can liberate you, you must believe that you are not into slavery. > > > > Lewis > > Is it a cooperative venture between " me " and another " I " or is it > " me " and a " no me " ? > > > > Swami Nirgunananda > > No it is not, because there are no you, neither other you, no I > neither other I. There are no even one, these things of one, two etc, > is of the mind. There are the sense of constant " BEING " , the other > questions about " I " , " You " , " We " etc is of the mind, not of you, > because you are the Supreme Reality that stands beyond of the mind. > > > > Lewis > > Is " someone " being liberated or is it change in interior states? > > > > Swami Nirgunananda > > It is change of concepts of the mind, only. > > > > Lewis > > Is it possible to be liberated? > > > > Swami Nirgunananda > > No it is not possible to be liberated, because You just are > liberated, is your mind that think on the contrary. > > > > Lewis > > Is liberation necessary? > > > > Swami Nirgunananda > > Is necessary you understand that you just are liberated. The > question of prison is of your mind, only. > > > > Lewis > > What is liberation? Is it a concept, a goal, a state, an experience? > > > > Swami Nirgunananda > > Liberation is not a concept, a goal, a state neither an experience. > Liberation is to see the things like the things are: without > permanence and without proper essence and substance; or rather the > things have not proper existence. > > Lewis pay attention, see and feel: you are that sense " I AM, the > same sense when you were a child, a teen age, a young, an adult and a > old, " THAT " the same sense " I AM " are you. But the sense " I am a boy, > a old, a young, or I am mother, father, intellectual, a boss, a man, a > woman etc is the mind, no you, ok? > > All the other words, things and concepts are of the mind, remember > that you are not the mind/body, you are the SELF,you are THAT, which > has no name, only awareness. > > > > Thank you very much > > > > Namastê > > Swami Nirgunananda > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Dear Swami Nirgunananda, > > Who is Lewis? ** > > 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. > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 28, 2004 The experience can be psychotic, if the symbolic order disappears at once in a flash as it can in an " overly intense hallucinogenic experience " where the world of sensation does not appear as it " should " and the inability of the ego to reconstitute the sensations into its " normal ontology " sends the ego into a " violent break. " Less violent but nonetheless severe suffering has occurred in the experiences of adepts in all of the mystic traditions including their leading figures. K: Yes. Similar experiencies can be induced by consuming certain types of drugs or even alcoholics. Hallucinations are part and parcel of ego disintegration and can be dangerous for the unskilled. It is a by product of conceptual diarrhea. It is temporary and passing for most. The are many testimonies and documents that describe these in stark detail. But there is nothing like direct experience. Are you experienced, Kip? K: Not that much that I would take care of it outside a medical environment. Such experiences of " breaking suddenly " are relatively rare under the circumstances such as can be seen in the lived experiences of the members of this forum, even though some may not " think " so. Also the detachment or disintegration of the symbolic order as described is artificial, conceptual. The " organicity " and " integration " of the three worlds does not allow such discrete and progressive disintegration of the symbolic world followed by the disintegration of the imaginary world. Such disintegration may happen simultaneously, more in one than the other with one or the other lagging, or with the imaginary world being a primary ego target and the symbolic world as second target depending on practices adopted. All of this can be done with more or less confusion or clarity by ego, going for it wild abandon or painstakingly removing a single concept at time. The " real " as " interior movements " also does its work as ego's effort are conducted. This can be a close discussion once the " real " and " unconscious " in Lacanian terms are better understood. K: Indeed. Unconscious is according to Lacan formed like a language. Somehow plausible. Language precedes and determines subjectivity. Language is not a function of our identities and desires so much as our identities and desires are functions of language. Entering language we begin to generate unconscious " items " imbedded and imbedding them in the discourse of the Other. The discourse of the Other, as said, is a transpersonal affair. You and me were actually here before we were born, so to say. Your parents chose perhaps the name, Lewis, many years before you were born. Your grandfather dreamed and spoke perhaps about of having a daughter, who would be anthropologist and, that's the reason why you now became an anthropologist and so on and on and on. There was a unique and singular mold of conditionings waiting for you and me since the beginning of culture, or language, and, if we go a little further, since the beginning of time. It is important to note that the disintegration of the symbolic order is inevitable in " realization " but it can be reconstituted for play and work and enjoyment after ego disintegration. K: Exactly! To see through it, is actually enough, in my opinion. Desintegration sounds a tad heroical to me. That is the " world " or " worlds " are not as they are " thought " but as it is. Free from " conceptual worlds " and symbolic orders altogether allows what is to form and or enter any " conceptual world " Such as " France " and to disassemble and leave all such worlds without effort. The worlds are " seen, " and therefore are objects and unreal and there it is no longer possible to have attachments to or " beliefs about " " faith in " such worlds. All is malleable. K: Agreed! So a psychotic break can occur if the symbolic order is removed in a flash but it need not occur, there may be manageable hallucinations, and the symbolic orders becomes what they are " objects " to play with, to work with, to enjoy and to discard if boring or useless. K: Yes! Yes. But the " real " may not be only repressed and suppressed memories. It may also refer to all ordinary sensations that are distorted, clouded and denied by the the operative functions and filters of ego's imaginary and symbolic worlds (i.e.. sexual desire) K: Sure! Again, Kip this is challenged. What is the complete fulfillment of desire? It is not through objects or concepts, through the imaginary or symbolic worlds. This is clear. In Lacanian concept, it is the mother's absence that creates the conditions where the child chooses objects in replacement to alleviate the sense of discontinuity in the flow of being, " desire. " But is the separation of " mother " or mother in any conceptual way the object of the child? Lacanian notions need reworking. K: I agree and I am very skeptical about many of Lacan's concepts. I couldn't buy everything but, I could replace certain pieces of the puzzle by looking into the writings of other authors. Lacan continues to constitute, in spite of everything, the basis, the fundament on the " western " bank of the river from which I could build a bridge to the " eastern " shore of the river. Or better, they met in the middle. The absence of the " mother " is, in my opinion, only one of a many different motors. But, it is, insofar as it constitutes one of the first perceptions and impressions of duality on us, enormously relevant. It is a (the) primordial discrimination, the seed, from which the " tree of duality " with all its ramifications grows out. O and 1 encoding Mozart's Figaro or the controlmodule of an atomic bomb. There is no such thing as " completion of desire. " Completion implies end, finality and perhaps the beginning of desire again, if the desire is not supreme and finite. This is an ego concept. To use utterly gross terms and language, " desire is the movement towards union of being in dynamic circuit. " Such union is never completed and is ever moving, flowing endlessly. Such " desire " is manifest here in the posting. It is " desire " flowing that is moving the eyes, brain, body, mind, hands to create to give, to reach. Failure is achieved when there is the " thought " that there are discrete persons responding to that given. This ego communication. K: Desire is caught up in social structures and strictures, in the fantasy version of reality that dominates our lives after our entrance into language. That's why, Lacan writes that the unconscious is the " discourse of the Other. " Even our unconscious desires are, in other words, organized by the linguistic system that Lacan terms the symbolic order. Then, our desire is never properly our own, but is created through fantasies that are caught up in cultural ideologies. This means that desire can't be fulfilled by the subject, as well as " enlightenement " can't be gained by an individ or a subject and, I agree with you, that there is no such thing as " completion of desire " ....we can't become what we already are or get what we already are. There is only the giving/responding, the responding is giving, the giving responding with no beginning, no interruption or end to the flow of it as it moves from posting to eating, to making love to shopping to....... K: Yes, exactly. Driven by a strange desire, which neither is mine nor yours. Take away all the names, the discrete identifications leaving only the posts and feel the circuit of life made with the flow of giving/responding without seeing or having attachment to identity of any sort or conceptual worlds of any or identification of conceptual worlds with identity. " This is what I think. " " I think so. " It is no longer who said what and who is what or who is this way or that. Such identifications dams the flow of " desire " in minds there accumulates " desire, " impeded, dammed, turning turbulent onto itself then grasped, distorted and wrestled with by a blind ego unable to make sense of its " desire " and what these becomes is distortion, dissatisfaction, upset, searching, frustration, anger and the attacking of others who are seento impede their flow. K: You have put that very nice together. Yes, I agree! Grossly speaking, this what " I am You " points to in its empty way. " I am mother, " " I am Toombaru " " I am whatever is " flowing, giving responding entering leaving ever flowing in all conceptual worlds, attachment to none, favoring, disfavoring none, giving/responding as it is. K: Yes, " I am whatever is! " Completion of a desire supreme could be psychotic if such a desire was fulfilled. After fulfillment what would there be? The end of the desire? Perhaps the end of life? K:...or " enlightenment " . Desire finds itself. The seeker finds out that she/he already comprehends all what she/he were searching for. Not even a movement in totality, rather totality moving in what we experience as a lap of time, reflecting itself. A response was made above. Fluid, non-attached movement in the formation, use, enjoyment, and discarding of symbolic worlds is the inevitable outcome of ego disintegration. Hallucinations are experienced by ego as subject. When there is no ego such phenomena are transparent, manageable. K: Yes! Yes it is senseless. Nirvana is Samsara, Samsara is nirvana without any distinction between the two as Nagarjuna and others give out. It is a matter or " non-doing " " release " " surrender, non-attachment " but as V. I. Lenin said in reach of the Marxist Communist goal of absolute freedom: " What is to be done? " K: Good question! How to find peace? Nobody seems to have an universally valid formula, not even the USA. To fight war with war seems not to make sense and to surrender untimely neither. Perhaps we should speak with each other a little more really listening to each other and not all the time to ourselves. Learn from each other. Learn to accept and love " oneself " (which is the universe) truly and not the phantasm of oneself. But, that's perhaps too boring and would fit better into a sermon on a sunday-morning. I have nothing new to add to what already have been said almost since the beginning of humanity. Everything seems to converge into the question " Who am I " and everyone has to find the answer to that question by themselves not reposing in all that, what sages have been saying until now, no matter how plausible and wonderfull it might be. You have to work until you disappear! Round and round and round it goes, And where it stops, nobody knows, Round and round is our love, Let's blame in on the stars above (Gil) " When the end draws near, there no longer remain any remembered images; only words remain. It is not strange that time should have confused the words that once represented me with those that were symbols of the fate of he who accompanied me for so many centuries. I have been Homer; shortly, I shall be On One, like Ulysses; shortly, I shall be all men; I shall be dead. " (Jorge Luis Borges) Kip Almazy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 28, 2004 Hello Lewis (here is Swami Nirgunananda) Lewis How did the name Lewis come to represent " a lot of feelings from the mind and body only? Nirgunanada the name Lewis come to represente " a lot of feeling from the mind and body only, by the personality. Lewis What feelings are being referred to? Nirgunananda The feelings that you thing you are, you to refer to yourself. Lewis Is it possible that feelings originate from that which is not mind/body? If yes, how so? If not, what is meant by the statement made. If something else please describe. Nirgunanada Yes. It is possible that feelings are originated from which is not mind/body. The felling are clear in its origin that become modificated itself by contact with the elements of the nature " GUNAS " , Sattva, Rajas and Tamas or rather (Sattva=inteligence=goodness), (Rajas=energy= passion) and (Tamas=mass=ignorance). It is with the interlace of the gunas that occur the difference of feelings. Lewis To whom or to what does that name, Lewis, represent a lot of feelings from the mind and body only? Nirgunananda To yourself and to world that you thing communicate. Namastê Nirgunananda - Lewis Burgess Nisargadatta Monday, December 27, 2004 5:09 PM Re: Real & virtual space Nisargadatta , " Nirgunananda " <nirgunananda@t...> wrote: > > Lewis is a name that represents a lot of feelings from de mind/body olnly. > > Namastê > Nirgunananda ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Agreed. Lewis is a name that represents a lot of feelings from the mind and body only. Nirgunananda, please respond to the following questions: How did the name Lewis come to represent " a lot of feelings from the mind and body only? What feelings are being referred to? Is it possible that feelings originate from that which is not mind/body? If yes, how so? If not, what is meant by the statement made. If something else please describe. To whom or to what does that name, Lewis, represent a lot of feelings from the mind and body only? Lewis > - > Lewis Burgess > Nisargadatta > Friday, December 24, 2004 7:03 PM > Re: Real & virtual space > > > > Nisargadatta , " Nirgunananda " > <nirgunananda@t...> wrote: > > > > TO:LEWIS > > FROM:Swami Nirgunananda > > I would like answer to Lewis about his questions below : > > > > Lewis > > Who put " me " into mechanical slavery? > > > > Swami Nirgunananda > > Nobody put you into mechanical slavery. You think that you are into > mechanical slavery. > > > > Lewis > > Did " I " put " my self " into slavery? > > > > Swami Nirgunananda > > You put when you think that you are into slavery. > > > > Lewis > > Can " I " liberate " my self, " throw off the chains? " > > > > Swami Nirgunananda > > No. You can not, there are not liberate, are thinks about prison. > > > > Lewis > > Or does someone liberate " me? " > > > > Swami Nirgunananda > > No one can liberate you, you must believe that you are not into slavery. > > > > Lewis > > Is it a cooperative venture between " me " and another " I " or is it > " me " and a " no me " ? > > > > Swami Nirgunananda > > No it is not, because there are no you, neither other you, no I > neither other I. There are no even one, these things of one, two etc, > is of the mind. There are the sense of constant " BEING " , the other > questions about " I " , " You " , " We " etc is of the mind, not of you, > because you are the Supreme Reality that stands beyond of the mind. > > > > Lewis > > Is " someone " being liberated or is it change in interior states? > > > > Swami Nirgunananda > > It is change of concepts of the mind, only. > > > > Lewis > > Is it possible to be liberated? > > > > Swami Nirgunananda > > No it is not possible to be liberated, because You just are > liberated, is your mind that think on the contrary. > > > > Lewis > > Is liberation necessary? > > > > Swami Nirgunananda > > Is necessary you understand that you just are liberated. The > question of prison is of your mind, only. > > > > Lewis > > What is liberation? Is it a concept, a goal, a state, an experience? > > > > Swami Nirgunananda > > Liberation is not a concept, a goal, a state neither an experience. > Liberation is to see the things like the things are: without > permanence and without proper essence and substance; or rather the > things have not proper existence. > > Lewis pay attention, see and feel: you are that sense " I AM, the > same sense when you were a child, a teen age, a young, an adult and a > old, " THAT " the same sense " I AM " are you. But the sense " I am a boy, > a old, a young, or I am mother, father, intellectual, a boss, a man, a > woman etc is the mind, no you, ok? > > All the other words, things and concepts are of the mind, remember > that you are not the mind/body, you are the SELF,you are THAT, which > has no name, only awareness. > > > > Thank you very much > > > > Namastê > > Swami Nirgunananda > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Dear Swami Nirgunananda, > > Who is Lewis? > > > > > > > ** > > 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. > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 28, 2004 kipalmazy wrote: > > The experience can be psychotic, if the symbolic order disappears at > once in a flash as it can in an " overly intense hallucinogenic > experience " where the world of sensation does not appear as > it " should " and the inability of the ego to reconstitute the > sensations into its " normal ontology " sends the ego into a " violent > break. " Less violent but nonetheless severe suffering has occurred > in the experiences of adepts in all of the mystic traditions > including their leading figures. > > > K: Yes. Similar experiencies can be induced by consuming certain > types of drugs or even alcoholics. > > > Hallucinations are part and parcel of ego disintegration and can be > dangerous for the unskilled. It is a by product of conceptual > diarrhea. It is temporary and passing for most. The are many > testimonies and documents that describe these in stark detail. But > there is nothing like direct experience. Are you experienced, Kip? > K: Not that much that I would take care of it outside a medical > environment. > > Such experiences of " breaking suddenly " are relatively rare under > the circumstances such as can be seen in the lived experiences of > the members of this forum, even though some may not " think " so. Also > the detachment or disintegration of the symbolic order as described > is artificial, conceptual. The " organicity " and " integration " of the > three worlds does not allow such discrete and progressive > disintegration of the symbolic world followed by the disintegration > of the imaginary world. Such disintegration may happen > simultaneously, more in one than the other with one or the other > lagging, or with the imaginary world being a primary ego target and > the symbolic world as second target depending on practices adopted. > All of this can be done with more or less confusion or clarity by > ego, going for it wild abandon or painstakingly removing a single > concept at time. The " real " as " interior movements " also does its > work as ego's effort are conducted. This can be a close discussion > once the " real " and " unconscious " in Lacanian terms are better > understood. > > K: Indeed. Unconscious is according to Lacan formed like a language. > Somehow plausible. Language precedes and determines subjectivity. > Language is not a function of our identities and desires so much as > our identities and desires are functions of language. > Entering language we begin to generate unconscious " items " imbedded > and imbedding them in the discourse of the Other. Kip there is some conceptual difficulty with the notion that language, as defined previously, has agency, that it does something. Language is passive, it is an object. Language is learned and then used and becomes part of ego's subjectivity and can, through reification of words and concepts constitute a factor or factors that influence ego (also a creation) to be or do something. Such as language behavior, particularly speech and concept formation and manipulation. This is said above: " Entering language we begin to generate unconscious " items " imbedded and imbedding them in the discourse of the Other. " " Agency " as " we " or " I " enters and generates. But language itself, as a concept, has no generating power. Even ego ( " I, " " we, " " you, " " me " ) does not have generating power. Ego imagines that it has power, a will to generate, to create. How could a concept do this? It cannot. Ego can be seen as a " thief " a " usurper. " The mind/brain/body is machinery that generates all these, including ego, which emits a mental/physical sensation (in the forehead, eyes, chest, or belly) of a " driver of mind, " " A thinker, a person, a name, an identity, a subject, an experiencer. " This is the greatest illusion. Ego can seen as an " illegal claimer " of the mind's products and " appears: as " director " of mental focus and attention, " a thinker, " a feeler, " " an entity, " " an individual. " There is no agency, that is, there is no one doing anything. >The discourse of > the Other, as said, is a transpersonal affair. You and me were > actually here before we were born, so to say. Your parents chose > perhaps the name, Lewis, many years before you were born. Your > grandfather dreamed and spoke perhaps about of having a daughter, > who would be anthropologist and, that's the reason why you now > became an anthropologist and so on and on and on. There was a unique > and singular mold of conditionings waiting for you and me since the > beginning of culture, or language, and, if we go a little further, > since the beginning of time. What is meant by " me " and " you? " > > It is important to note that the disintegration of the symbolic > order is inevitable in " realization " but it can be reconstituted for > play and work and enjoyment after ego disintegration. > > > > K: Exactly! To see through it, is actually enough, in my opinion. > Desintegration sounds a tad heroical to me. Ego disintegration is neither personal nor comparable, so no heroics are involved. Ego disintegration is not achieved by ego, even though ego " thinks " it is doing something. The practices, process and outcomes leading towards " realization " " enlightenment " and other illusions are all an immense labyrinth of trickery and skullduggery emerging from different " symbolic and imaginary worlds " that moves upon ego to dissolve it so that the full undistorted expression and flow of " desire " to give and give (respond), is. " No one " is involved. There are no heroics. > > That is the " world " or " worlds " are not as they are " thought " but as > it is. Free from " conceptual worlds " and symbolic orders altogether > allows what is to form and or enter any " conceptual world " Such > as " France " and to disassemble and leave all such worlds without > effort. The worlds are " seen, " and therefore are objects and unreal > and there it is no longer possible to have attachments to > or " beliefs about " " faith in " such worlds. All is malleable. > > > > K: Agreed! > > > So a psychotic break can occur if the symbolic order is removed in a > flash but it need not occur, there may be manageable hallucinations, > and the symbolic orders becomes what they are " objects " to play > with, to work with, to enjoy and to discard if boring or useless. > > K: Yes! > > Yes. But the " real " may not be only repressed and suppressed > memories. It may also refer to all ordinary sensations that are > distorted, clouded and denied by the the operative functions and > filters of ego's imaginary and symbolic worlds (i.e.. sexual desire) > > K: Sure! > > Again, Kip this is challenged. What is the complete fulfillment of > desire? It is not through objects or concepts, through the imaginary > or symbolic worlds. This is clear. In Lacanian concept, it is the > mother's absence that creates the conditions where the child chooses > objects in replacement to alleviate the sense of discontinuity in > the flow of being, " desire. " But is the separation of " mother " or > mother in any conceptual way the object of the child? Lacanian > notions need reworking. > > K: I agree and I am very skeptical about many of Lacan's concepts. I > couldn't buy everything but, I could replace certain pieces of the > puzzle by looking into the writings of other authors. Lacan > continues to constitute, in spite of everything, the basis, the > fundament on the " western " bank of the river from which I could > build a bridge to the " eastern " shore of the river. Or better, they > met in the middle. > > The absence of the " mother " is, in my opinion, only one of a many > different motors. But, it is, insofar as it constitutes one of the > first perceptions and impressions of duality on us, enormously > relevant. It is a (the) primordial discrimination, the seed, from > which the " tree of duality " with all its ramifications grows out. O > and 1 encoding Mozart's Figaro or the controlmodule of an atomic > bomb. Yes. A search for the ancient story, the " fall of man. " It is a futile search Kip. There is no duality or seed of it, though it is fun to create new myths or to express new " revelations. " The concepts of duality and non-duality are part of the labyrinth of symbolic ontologies and trickery. Ego, a concept imagines it deals with duality, a concept, and non-duality, a concept. Concepts encountering concepts is illusion. The vivid experience of duality remains because of the emotional attachment to the physical sensations of " individuality " the sensations from a discrete mind/body. It is is easy to see that " I am not this mind/body. " It is far more difficult, though possible, to become unattached to the physical sensations of mind/body in space time. So " I " " me " " you " " my " " mine " " yours " continue. Yes. we can see through it but seeing is not being and being is not doing as it is. > There is no such thing as " completion of desire. " Completion implies > end, finality and perhaps the beginning of desire again, if the > desire is not supreme and finite. This is an ego concept. To use > utterly gross terms and language, " desire is the movement towards > union of being in dynamic circuit. " Such union is never completed > and is ever moving, flowing endlessly. Such " desire " is manifest > here in the posting. It is " desire " flowing that is moving the eyes, > brain, body, mind, hands to create to give, to reach. Failure is > achieved when there is the " thought " that there are discrete persons > responding to that given. This ego communication. > > > > K: Desire is caught up in social structures and strictures, > in the fantasy version of reality that dominates our lives > after our entrance into language. That's why, Lacan writes > that the unconscious is the " discourse of the Other. " Even our > unconscious desires are, in other words, organized by the linguistic > system that Lacan terms the symbolic order. Then, our desire is > never properly our own, but is created through fantasies that are > caught up in cultural ideologies. This means that desire can't be > fulfilled by the subject, as well as " enlightenement " can't be > gained by an individ or a subject and, I agree with you, that there > is no such thing as " completion of desire " ....we can't become what > we already are or get what we already are. Yes. > There is only the giving/responding, the responding is giving, the > giving responding with no beginning, no interruption or end to the > flow of it as it moves from posting to eating, to making love to > shopping to....... > > > > K: Yes, exactly. Driven by a strange desire, which neither is mine > nor yours. Yes. Strange to ego. > Take away all the names, the discrete identifications leaving only > the posts and feel the circuit of life made with the flow of > giving/responding without seeing or having attachment to identity of > any sort or conceptual worlds of any or identification of conceptual > worlds with identity. " This is what I think. " " I think so. " It is no > longer who said what and who is what or who is this way or that. > Such identifications dams the flow of " desire " in minds there > accumulates " desire, " impeded, dammed, turning turbulent onto itself > then grasped, distorted and wrestled with by a blind ego unable to > make sense of its " desire " and what these becomes is distortion, > dissatisfaction, upset, searching, frustration, anger and the > attacking of others who are seento impede their flow. > > > > K: You have put that very nice together. Yes, I agree! > > > > Grossly speaking, this what " I am You " points to in its empty > way. " I am mother, " " I am Toombaru " " I am whatever is " flowing, > giving responding entering leaving ever flowing in all conceptual > worlds, attachment to none, favoring, disfavoring none, > giving/responding as it is. > > > > K: Yes, " I am whatever is! " > > > > Completion of a desire supreme could be psychotic if such a desire > was fulfilled. After fulfillment what would there be? The end of the > desire? Perhaps the end of life? > > > > K:...or " enlightenment " . Desire finds itself. The seeker finds out > that she/he already comprehends all what she/he were searching for. > Not even a movement in totality, rather totality moving in what we > experience as a lap of time, reflecting itself. > > > > > A response was made above. Fluid, non-attached movement in the > formation, use, enjoyment, and discarding of symbolic worlds is the > inevitable outcome of ego disintegration. Hallucinations are > experienced by ego as subject. When there is no ego such phenomena > are transparent, manageable. > > K: Yes! > > Yes it is senseless. Nirvana is Samsara, Samsara is nirvana without > any distinction between the two as Nagarjuna and others give out. It > is a matter or " non-doing " " release " " surrender, non-attachment " but > as V. I. Lenin said in reach of the Marxist Communist goal of > absolute freedom: " What is to be done? " > > > > K: Good question! How to find peace? Nobody seems to have an > universally valid formula, not even the USA. To fight war with war > seems not to make sense and to surrender untimely neither. Perhaps > we should speak with each other a little more really listening to > each other and not all the time to ourselves. Learn from each other. > Learn to accept and love " oneself " (which is the universe) truly and > not the phantasm of oneself. But, that's perhaps too boring and > would fit better into a sermon on a sunday-morning. I have nothing > new to add to what already have been said almost since the beginning > of humanity. Everything seems to converge into the question " Who am > I " and everyone has to find the answer to that question by > themselves not reposing in all that, what sages have been saying > until now, no matter how plausible and wonderfull it might be. You > have to work until you disappear! All that is to be done is being done. > Round and round and round it goes, > And where it stops, nobody knows, > Round and round is our love, > Let's blame in on the stars above > > (Gil) > > " When the end draws near, there no longer remain any remembered > images; only words remain. It is not strange that time should have > confused the words that once represented me with those that were > symbols of the fate of he who accompanied me for so many centuries. > I have been Homer; shortly, I shall be On One, like Ulysses; > shortly, I shall be all men; I shall be dead. " > > (Jorge Luis Borges) > Song of Childhood When the child was a child It walked with its arms swinging, wanted the brook to be a river, the river to be a torrent, and this puddle to be the sea. When the child was a child, it didn’t know that it was a child, everything was soulful, and all souls were one. When the child was a child, it had no opinion about anything, had no habits, it often sat cross-legged, took off running, had a cowlick in its hair, and made no faces when photographed. When the child was a child, It was the time for these questions: Why am I me, and why not you? Why am I here, and why not there? When did time begin, and where does space end? Is life under the sun not just a dream? Is what I see and hear and smell not just an illusion of a world before the world? Given the facts of evil and people. does evil really exist? How can it be that I, who I am, didn’t exist before I came to be, and that, someday, I, who I am, will no longer be who I am? When the child was a child, It choked on spinach, on peas, on rice pudding, and on steamed cauliflower, and eats all of those now, and not just because it has to. When the child was a child, it awoke once in a strange bed, and now does so again and again. Many people, then, seemed beautiful, and now only a few do, by sheer luck. It had visualized a clear image of Paradise, and now can at most guess, could not conceive of nothingness, and shudders today at the thought. When the child was a child, It played with enthusiasm, and, now, has just as much excitement as then, but only when it concerns its work. When the child was a child, It was enough for it to eat an apple, … bread, And so it is even now. When the child was a child, Berries filled its hand as only berries do, and do even now, Fresh walnuts made its tongue raw, and do even now, it had, on every mountaintop, the longing for a higher mountain yet, and in every city, the longing for an even greater city, and that is still so, It reached for cherries in topmost branches of trees with an elation it still has today, has a shyness in front of strangers, and has that even now. It awaited the first snow, And waits that way even now. When the child was a child, It threw a stick like a lance against a tree, And it quivers there still today. (Peter Handke) > > Kip Almazy > Lewis Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 29, 2004 Dear Swami Nirgunananda, The answers given are understood and since you have the title Swami, there are more questions. What is personality? Who is Swami Nirgunananda? What does the name Swami Nirgunananda represent? Is the name Swami Nirgunananda the same as any other name or is it different? If yes, how so? Does the name Swami Nirgunananda represent a lot of feelings about the mind/body only? If yes, how is it so, If not, how is it so? It is written in the Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 14 that the gunas are of the body and that each guna is a form of bondage, originating in and binding the self to the body. Is this where you read and learned of the gunas? How did you learn about the gunas? From this sacred scripture, it seems that the gunas are of the mind/body as are feelings. So it can be asked, can there be feelings or gunas without a mind/body? Are gunas of the mind/body? Are feelings equal to gunas or are they something else? What are the origins of feelings, the origins of the three gunas? It is written and said the origin of the three gunas lies in prakriti or material nature or world. If this is so, then are not the gunas of the mind/body " material " in nature as it held in the non-absolute monistic yogic teachings? Do you to the concepts of prakriti and the gunas? What is Swamiji's full understanding of the gunas and prakriti? Lewis Nisargadatta , " Nirgunananda " <nirgunananda@t...> wrote: > > Hello Lewis (here is Swami Nirgunananda) > > Lewis > How did the name Lewis come to represent " a lot of feelings from the > mind and body only? > > Nirgunanada > the name Lewis come to represente " a lot of feeling from the mind and body only, by the personality. > > Lewis > What feelings are being referred to? > > Nirgunananda > The feelings that you thing you are, you to refer to yourself. > > Lewis > Is it possible that feelings originate from that which is not > mind/body? If yes, how so? If not, what is meant by the statement > made. If something else please describe. > > Nirgunanada > Yes. It is possible that feelings are originated from which is not mind/body. The felling are clear in its origin that become modificated itself by contact with the elements of the nature " GUNAS " , Sattva, Rajas and Tamas or rather (Sattva=inteligence=goodness), (Rajas=energy= passion) and (Tamas=mass=ignorance). It is with the interlace of the gunas that occur the difference of feelings. > > Lewis > To whom or to what does that name, Lewis, represent a lot of feelings > from the mind and body only? > > > Nirgunananda > To yourself and to world that you thing communicate. > > > Namastê > Nirgunananda > > - > Lewis Burgess > Nisargadatta > Monday, December 27, 2004 5:09 PM > Re: Real & virtual space > > > > Nisargadatta , " Nirgunananda " > <nirgunananda@t...> wrote: > > > > Lewis is a name that represents a lot of feelings from de mind/body > olnly. > > > > Namastê > > Nirgunananda > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Agreed. Lewis is a name that represents a lot of feelings from the > mind and body only. > > Nirgunananda, please respond to the following questions: > > How did the name Lewis come to represent " a lot of feelings from the > mind and body only? > > What feelings are being referred to? > > Is it possible that feelings originate from that which is not > mind/body? If yes, how so? If not, what is meant by the statement > made. If something else please describe. > > To whom or to what does that name, Lewis, represent a lot of feelings > from the mind and body only? > > > Lewis > > > > > > - > > Lewis Burgess > > Nisargadatta > > Friday, December 24, 2004 7:03 PM > > Re: Real & virtual space > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Nirgunananda " > > <nirgunananda@t...> wrote: > > > > > > TO:LEWIS > > > FROM:Swami Nirgunananda > > > I would like answer to Lewis about his questions below : > > > > > > Lewis > > > Who put " me " into mechanical slavery? > > > > > > Swami Nirgunananda > > > Nobody put you into mechanical slavery. You think that you are into > > mechanical slavery. > > > > > > Lewis > > > Did " I " put " my self " into slavery? > > > > > > Swami Nirgunananda > > > You put when you think that you are into slavery. > > > > > > Lewis > > > Can " I " liberate " my self, " throw off the chains? " > > > > > > Swami Nirgunananda > > > No. You can not, there are not liberate, are thinks about prison. > > > > > > Lewis > > > Or does someone liberate " me? " > > > > > > Swami Nirgunananda > > > No one can liberate you, you must believe that you are not into > slavery. > > > > > > Lewis > > > Is it a cooperative venture between " me " and another " I " or is it > > " me " and a " no me " ? > > > > > > Swami Nirgunananda > > > No it is not, because there are no you, neither other you, no I > > neither other I. There are no even one, these things of one, two etc, > > is of the mind. There are the sense of constant " BEING " , the other > > questions about " I " , " You " , " We " etc is of the mind, not of you, > > because you are the Supreme Reality that stands beyond of the mind. > > > > > > Lewis > > > Is " someone " being liberated or is it change in interior states? > > > > > > Swami Nirgunananda > > > It is change of concepts of the mind, only. > > > > > > Lewis > > > Is it possible to be liberated? > > > > > > Swami Nirgunananda > > > No it is not possible to be liberated, because You just are > > liberated, is your mind that think on the contrary. > > > > > > Lewis > > > Is liberation necessary? > > > > > > Swami Nirgunananda > > > Is necessary you understand that you just are liberated. The > > question of prison is of your mind, only. > > > > > > Lewis > > > What is liberation? Is it a concept, a goal, a state, an experience? > > > > > > Swami Nirgunananda > > > Liberation is not a concept, a goal, a state neither an experience. > > Liberation is to see the things like the things are: without > > permanence and without proper essence and substance; or rather the > > things have not proper existence. > > > Lewis pay attention, see and feel: you are that sense " I AM, the > > same sense when you were a child, a teen age, a young, an adult and a > > old, " THAT " the same sense " I AM " are you. But the sense " I am a boy, > > a old, a young, or I am mother, father, intellectual, a boss, a man, a > > woman etc is the mind, no you, ok? > > > All the other words, things and concepts are of the mind, remember > > that you are not the mind/body, you are the SELF,you are THAT, which > > has no name, only awareness. > > > > > > Thank you very much > > > > > > Namastê > > > Swami Nirgunananda > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > Dear Swami Nirgunananda, > > > > Who is Lewis? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 29, 2004 >Kip there is some conceptual difficulty with the notion that language, >as defined previously, has agency, that it does something. Language is >passive, it is an object. Language is learned and then used and becomes >part of ego's subjectivity and can, through reification of words and >concepts constitute a factor or factors that influence ego (also a >creation) to be or do something. Such as language behavior, particularly >speech and concept formation and manipulation. This is said above: In effect, language is a skill. It has no agency. It precedes and determines subjectivity. Subjectivity is nothing but a tool. > " Entering language we begin to generate unconscious " items " imbedded >and imbedding them in the discourse of the Other. " > " Agency " as " we " or " I " enters and generates. But language itself, as a >concept, has no generating power. Even ego ( " I, " " we, " " you, " " me " ) does >not have generating power. Ego imagines that it has power, a will to >generate, to create. How could a concept do this? It cannot. Exactly! Even unconscious or the discourse of the other has no magical nor divine texture. It cannot create and it does not generate ex nihil patterns, forms and figures. It is more like transformation, like reassembling itself continuously, moment to moment, comparable to a kaleidoscope. Subjectivity is the rotating, driving force behind this optical illusion, projecting a pattern of cause and effect. Once the movement stops nothing disappears, the kaleidoscope remains but, it is identified as what it is, an artefact generating illusions. > Ego can be seen as a " thief " a " usurper. " The mind/brain/body is > machinery that generates all these, including ego, which emits a > mental/physical sensation (in the forehead, eyes, chest, or belly) of a > " driver of mind, " " A thinker, a person, a name, an identity, a subject, > an experiencer. " This is the greatest illusion. Ego can seen as an > " illegal claimer " of the mind's products and " appears: as " director " of > mental focus and attention, " a thinker, " a feeler, " " an entity, " " an > individual. " There is no agency, that is, there is no one doing anything. Oh, I agree almost completely, Lewis! But I don't confer to the ego any kind of dignity. It isn't the " fall of man " , a thief nor an usurper. It is simply an illusion. I could call the dream I had last night an usurper, a thief of high spirits but, why should I give dreams such an importance? > >The discourse of > > the Other, as said, is a transpersonal affair. You and me were > > actually here before we were born, so to say. Your parents chose > > perhaps the name, Lewis, many years before you were born. Your > > grandfather dreamed and spoke perhaps about of having a daughter, > > who would be anthropologist and, that's the reason why you now > > became an anthropologist and so on and on and on. There was a unique > > and singular mold of conditionings waiting for you and me since the > > beginning of culture, or language, and, if we go a little further, > > since the beginning of time. > What is meant by " me " and " you? " Just, what it means, it is actually only that what it means, in this case. > Ego disintegration is neither personal nor comparable, so no heroics are > involved. Ego disintegration is not achieved by ego, even though ego > " thinks " it is doing something. The practices, process and outcomes > leading towards " realization " " enlightenment " and other illusions are > all an immense labyrinth of trickery and skullduggery emerging from > different " symbolic and imaginary worlds " that moves upon ego to > dissolve it so that the full undistorted expression and flow of " desire " > to give and give (respond), is. " No one " is involved. There are no > heroics. Yes, to believe also that someone is able to see through it is equally skullduggery. > Yes. A search for the ancient story, the " fall of man. " It is a futile > search Kip. There is no duality or seed of it, though it is fun to > create new myths or to express new " revelations. " The concepts of > duality and non-duality are part of the labyrinth of symbolic ontologies > and trickery. Ego, a concept imagines it deals with duality, a concept, > and non-duality, a concept. Concepts encountering concepts is illusion. > The vivid experience of duality remains because of the emotional > attachment to the physical sensations of " individuality " the sensations > from a discrete mind/body. It is is easy to see that " I am not this > mind/body. " It is far more difficult, though possible, to become > unattached to the physical sensations of mind/body in space time. So " I " > " me " " you " " my " " mine " " yours " continue. Yes. we can see through it but > seeing is not being and being is not doing as it is. In effect, the concepts of duality and non-duality are part of the labyrinth of symbolic ontologies and it is possible to become unattached to the physical sensations of mind/body in space and time. You could expand, if you like, on what you mean with, seeing is not being and being is not doing as it is. > > Round and round and round it goes, > > And where it stops, nobody knows, > > Round and round is our love, > > Let's blame in on the stars above > > > > (Gil) > > > > " When the end draws near, there no longer remain any remembered > > images; only words remain. It is not strange that time should have > > confused the words that once represented me with those that were > > symbols of the fate of he who accompanied me for so many centuries. > > I have been Homer; shortly, I shall be On One, like Ulysses; > > shortly, I shall be all men; I shall be dead. " > > > > (Jorge Luis Borges) > > > > > Song of Childhood > > > When the child was a child > It walked with its arms swinging, > wanted the brook to be a river, > the river to be a torrent, > and this puddle to be the sea. > > When the child was a child, > it didn't know that it was a child, > everything was soulful, > and all souls were one. > > When the child was a child, > it had no opinion about anything, > had no habits, > it often sat cross-legged, > took off running, > had a cowlick in its hair, > and made no faces when photographed. > > When the child was a child, > It was the time for these questions: > Why am I me, and why not you? > Why am I here, and why not there? > When did time begin, and where does space end? > Is life under the sun not just a dream? > Is what I see and hear and smell > not just an illusion of a world before the world? > Given the facts of evil and people. > does evil really exist? > How can it be that I, who I am, > didn't exist before I came to be, > and that, someday, I, who I am, > will no longer be who I am? > > When the child was a child, > It choked on spinach, on peas, on rice pudding, > and on steamed cauliflower, > and eats all of those now, and not just because it has to. > > When the child was a child, > it awoke once in a strange bed, > and now does so again and again. > Many people, then, seemed beautiful, > and now only a few do, by sheer luck. > > It had visualized a clear image of Paradise, > and now can at most guess, > could not conceive of nothingness, > and shudders today at the thought. > > When the child was a child, > It played with enthusiasm, > and, now, has just as much excitement as then, > but only when it concerns its work. > > When the child was a child, > It was enough for it to eat an apple, … bread, > And so it is even now. > > When the child was a child, > Berries filled its hand as only berries do, > and do even now, > Fresh walnuts made its tongue raw, > and do even now, > it had, on every mountaintop, > the longing for a higher mountain yet, > and in every city, > the longing for an even greater city, > and that is still so, > It reached for cherries in topmost branches of trees > with an elation it still has today, > has a shyness in front of strangers, > and has that even now. > It awaited the first snow, > And waits that way even now. > > When the child was a child, > It threw a stick like a lance against a tree, > And it quivers there still today. > > (Peter Handke) 'When I was a boy' When I was a boy A god often rescued me From the shouts and the rods of men And I played among trees and flowers Secure in their kindness And the breezes of heaven Were playing there too. And as you delight The hearts of plants When they stretch towards you With little strength So you delighted the heart in me Father Helios, and like Endymion I was your favourite, Moon. 0 all You friendly And faithful gods I wish you could know How my soul has loved you. Even though when I called to you then It was not yet with names, and you Never named me as people do As though they knew one another I knew you better Than I have ever known them. I understood the stillness above the sky But never the words of men. Trees were my teachers Melodious trees And I learned to love Among flowers. I grew up in the arms of the gods. (Hölderlin) >Lewis >Kip Almazy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 29, 2004 Dear Lewis lets yours answers: Lewis asked What is personality? Nirgunananda Personality is all thinks, feelings, sensations represented by one name " a character of a person " . When a person was born, it was only " existing " with no identification. With the time going on, the person going on receiving the ego as gift from the society where it was born. In the reality the personality is " lets say " the representing of the egos about all its formation. Lewis Who is Swami Nirgunananda? Nirgunananda Swami Nirgunananda is a new name adopted by me, after I have understood the concept of liberation and stand myself alter the mind, only observing it. Lewis What does the name Swami Nirgunananda represent? Nirgunananda The name Swami Nirgunananda represent a identification with the idea of Self that stands beyond mind. See, only represents, but it is only the name that " represents " , a way to communication only. Lewis Is the name Swami Nirgunananda the same as any other name or is it different? If yes, how so? Nirgunananda The name Swami Nirgunananda is the same as any other name; Its formation is " Nirguna " that is other side of the " Guna " , because the Gunas are of the mind, but represents only for me a new reality, that is stand me beyond mind/body. Lewis Does the name Swami Nirgunananda represent a lot of feelings about the mind/body only? If yes, how is it so, If not, how is it so? Nirgunananda No, the name Swami Nirgunananda do not represent a lot of feelings about the mind/body, but represents the understanding of the mind/body, by self observation of the mind/body. Lewis It is written in the Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 14 that the gunas are of the body and that each guna is a form of bondage, originating in and binding the self to the body. Is this where you read and learned of the gunas? How did you learn about the gunas? Nirgunananda I learned about the concept of gunas from the Advaita Philosophy, from the Sankara etc, but was felling that in my mind/body that I understood and liberate myself of the concepts, but not the suffer of the mind/body, however I learned that to understand liberate, and the suffer of who understand is different, is little in considerations with who does not understand, because to me nowadays to knows is different of to suffer, of course. Lewis From this sacred scripture, it seems that the gunas are of the mind/body as are feelings. So it can be asked, can there be feelings or gunas without a mind/body? Are gunas of the mind/body? Are feelings equal to gunas or are they something else? What are the origins of feelings, the origins of the three gunas? Nirgunananda The gunas is a row material to building all the things by the cosmic mind. Is the gunas that works for to do all, no the Self. Only when the self is identified with the ego, is that, there are the think, that the somebody is doing something. The truth is that, nobody do anything, all is done, make, by the gunas, the self play only. The origin of the gunas is the desire and fear for control by the mind, identification of the self with the think becomes attachment and forgetfulness of itself as the self. Lewis It is written and said the origin of the three gunas lies in prakriti or material nature or world. If this is so, then are not the gunas of the mind/body " material " in nature as it held in the non-absolute monistic yogic teachings? Do you to the concepts of prakriti and the gunas? Nirgunananda If you liberate your mind, you will see that the illusion about the power of your mind does what you want do, from what you think. We have no forget that the mind and its creation is a little bubble floating in the open space of the infinite Self, that is yourself, myself, ourselves without identification. I have no more concepts about prakriti, Purusa, gunas etc., it all, is to understand the liberation of the all concepts and stand myself beyond the mind. Lewis What is Swamiji's full understanding of the gunas and prakriti? Nirgunananda Are all concepts that are in constant motion, transformation, born and die, but is necessary understand to see by yourself that everybody is free. All people are prisoner by the concepts and all people will be free by the understanding of the concepts. Namastê Swami Nirgunananda - Lewis Burgess Nisargadatta Wednesday, December 29, 2004 5:02 AM Re: Real & virtual space Dear Swami Nirgunananda, The answers given are understood and since you have the title Swami, there are more questions. What is personality? Who is Swami Nirgunananda? What does the name Swami Nirgunananda represent? Is the name Swami Nirgunananda the same as any other name or is it different? If yes, how so? Does the name Swami Nirgunananda represent a lot of feelings about the mind/body only? If yes, how is it so, If not, how is it so? It is written in the Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 14 that the gunas are of the body and that each guna is a form of bondage, originating in and binding the self to the body. Is this where you read and learned of the gunas? How did you learn about the gunas? From this sacred scripture, it seems that the gunas are of the mind/body as are feelings. So it can be asked, can there be feelings or gunas without a mind/body? Are gunas of the mind/body? Are feelings equal to gunas or are they something else? What are the origins of feelings, the origins of the three gunas? It is written and said the origin of the three gunas lies in prakriti or material nature or world. If this is so, then are not the gunas of the mind/body " material " in nature as it held in the non-absolute monistic yogic teachings? Do you to the concepts of prakriti and the gunas? What is Swamiji's full understanding of the gunas and prakriti? Lewis Nisargadatta , " Nirgunananda " <nirgunananda@t...> wrote: > > Hello Lewis (here is Swami Nirgunananda) > > Lewis > How did the name Lewis come to represent " a lot of feelings from the > mind and body only? > > Nirgunanada > the name Lewis come to represente " a lot of feeling from the mind and body only, by the personality. > > Lewis > What feelings are being referred to? > > Nirgunananda > The feelings that you thing you are, you to refer to yourself. > > Lewis > Is it possible that feelings originate from that which is not > mind/body? If yes, how so? If not, what is meant by the statement > made. If something else please describe. > > Nirgunanada > Yes. It is possible that feelings are originated from which is not mind/body. The felling are clear in its origin that become modificated itself by contact with the elements of the nature " GUNAS " , Sattva, Rajas and Tamas or rather (Sattva=inteligence=goodness), (Rajas=energy= passion) and (Tamas=mass=ignorance). It is with the interlace of the gunas that occur the difference of feelings. > > Lewis > To whom or to what does that name, Lewis, represent a lot of feelings > from the mind and body only? > > > Nirgunananda > To yourself and to world that you thing communicate. > > > Namastê > Nirgunananda > > - > Lewis Burgess > Nisargadatta > Monday, December 27, 2004 5:09 PM > Re: Real & virtual space > > > > Nisargadatta , " Nirgunananda " > <nirgunananda@t...> wrote: > > > > Lewis is a name that represents a lot of feelings from de mind/body > olnly. > > > > Namastê > > Nirgunananda > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Agreed. Lewis is a name that represents a lot of feelings from the > mind and body only. > > Nirgunananda, please respond to the following questions: > > How did the name Lewis come to represent " a lot of feelings from the > mind and body only? > > What feelings are being referred to? > > Is it possible that feelings originate from that which is not > mind/body? If yes, how so? If not, what is meant by the statement > made. If something else please describe. > > To whom or to what does that name, Lewis, represent a lot of feelings > from the mind and body only? > > > Lewis > > > > > > - > > Lewis Burgess > > Nisargadatta > > Friday, December 24, 2004 7:03 PM > > Re: Real & virtual space > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Nirgunananda " > > <nirgunananda@t...> wrote: > > > > > > TO:LEWIS > > > FROM:Swami Nirgunananda > > > I would like answer to Lewis about his questions below : > > > > > > Lewis > > > Who put " me " into mechanical slavery? > > > > > > Swami Nirgunananda > > > Nobody put you into mechanical slavery. You think that you are into > > mechanical slavery. > > > > > > Lewis > > > Did " I " put " my self " into slavery? > > > > > > Swami Nirgunananda > > > You put when you think that you are into slavery. > > > > > > Lewis > > > Can " I " liberate " my self, " throw off the chains? " > > > > > > Swami Nirgunananda > > > No. You can not, there are not liberate, are thinks about prison. > > > > > > Lewis > > > Or does someone liberate " me? " > > > > > > Swami Nirgunananda > > > No one can liberate you, you must believe that you are not into > slavery. > > > > > > Lewis > > > Is it a cooperative venture between " me " and another " I " or is it > > " me " and a " no me " ? > > > > > > Swami Nirgunananda > > > No it is not, because there are no you, neither other you, no I > > neither other I. There are no even one, these things of one, two etc, > > is of the mind. There are the sense of constant " BEING " , the other > > questions about " I " , " You " , " We " etc is of the mind, not of you, > > because you are the Supreme Reality that stands beyond of the mind. > > > > > > Lewis > > > Is " someone " being liberated or is it change in interior states? > > > > > > Swami Nirgunananda > > > It is change of concepts of the mind, only. > > > > > > Lewis > > > Is it possible to be liberated? > > > > > > Swami Nirgunananda > > > No it is not possible to be liberated, because You just are > > liberated, is your mind that think on the contrary. > > > > > > Lewis > > > Is liberation necessary? > > > > > > Swami Nirgunananda > > > Is necessary you understand that you just are liberated. The > > question of prison is of your mind, only. > > > > > > Lewis > > > What is liberation? Is it a concept, a goal, a state, an experience? > > > > > > Swami Nirgunananda > > > Liberation is not a concept, a goal, a state neither an experience. > > Liberation is to see the things like the things are: without > > permanence and without proper essence and substance; or rather the > > things have not proper existence. > > > Lewis pay attention, see and feel: you are that sense " I AM, the > > same sense when you were a child, a teen age, a young, an adult and a > > old, " THAT " the same sense " I AM " are you. But the sense " I am a boy, > > a old, a young, or I am mother, father, intellectual, a boss, a man, a > > woman etc is the mind, no you, ok? > > > All the other words, things and concepts are of the mind, remember > > that you are not the mind/body, you are the SELF,you are THAT, which > > has no name, only awareness. > > > > > > Thank you very much > > > > > > Namastê > > > Swami Nirgunananda > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > Dear Swami Nirgunananda, > > > > Who is Lewis? ** 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 29, 2004 kipalmazy wrote: > > >Kip there is some conceptual difficulty with the notion that > language, > >as defined previously, has agency, that it does something. Language > is > >passive, it is an object. Language is learned and then used and > becomes > >part of ego's subjectivity and can, through reification of words > and > >concepts constitute a factor or factors that influence ego (also a > >creation) to be or do something. Such as language behavior, > particularly > >speech and concept formation and manipulation. This is said above: > > > In effect, language is a skill. It has no agency. It precedes and > determines subjectivity. Subjectivity is nothing but a tool. > > > > " Entering language we begin to generate unconscious " items " imbedded > >and imbedding them in the discourse of the Other. " > > > > " Agency " as " we " or " I " enters and generates. But language itself, > as a > >concept, has no generating power. Even ego ( " I, " " we, " " you, " " me " ) > does > >not have generating power. Ego imagines that it has power, a will > to > >generate, to create. How could a concept do this? It cannot. > > > Exactly! Even unconscious or the discourse of the other has no > magical nor divine texture. It cannot create and it does not > generate ex nihil patterns, forms and figures. It is more like > transformation, like reassembling itself continuously, moment to > moment, comparable to a kaleidoscope. Subjectivity is the rotating, > driving force behind this optical illusion, projecting a pattern of > cause and effect. Once the movement stops nothing disappears, the > kaleidoscope remains but, it is identified as what it is, an > artefact generating illusions. > > > > Ego can be seen as a " thief " a " usurper. " The mind/brain/body is > > machinery that generates all these, including ego, which emits a > > mental/physical sensation (in the forehead, eyes, chest, or belly) > of a > > " driver of mind, " " A thinker, a person, a name, an identity, a > subject, > > an experiencer. " This is the greatest illusion. Ego can seen as an > > " illegal claimer " of the mind's products and " appears: > as " director " of > > mental focus and attention, " a thinker, " a feeler, " " an > entity, " " an > > individual. " There is no agency, that is, there is no one doing > anything. > > > > Oh, I agree almost completely, Lewis! But I don't confer to the ego > any kind of dignity. > It isn't the " fall of man " , a thief nor an usurper. It is simply an > illusion. I could call the dream I had last night an usurper, a > thief of high spirits but, why should I give dreams such an > importance? Yes. It is a phantasm an illusion. Calling it, an " ego " or a " thief " is trickery. > > > >The discourse of > > > the Other, as said, is a transpersonal affair. You and me were > > > actually here before we were born, so to say. Your parents chose > > > perhaps the name, Lewis, many years before you were born. Your > > > grandfather dreamed and spoke perhaps about of having a daughter, > > > who would be anthropologist and, that's the reason why you now > > > became an anthropologist and so on and on and on. There was a > unique > > > and singular mold of conditionings waiting for you and me since > the > > > beginning of culture, or language, and, if we go a little > further, > > > since the beginning of time. > > > > What is meant by " me " and " you? " > > > Just, what it means, it is actually only that what it means, in this > case. The meaning cannot be fathomed. It points to what other other concept? > Ego disintegration is neither personal nor comparable, so no > heroics are > > involved. Ego disintegration is not achieved by ego, even though > ego > > " thinks " it is doing something. The practices, process and > outcomes > > leading towards " realization " " enlightenment " and other illusions > are > > all an immense labyrinth of trickery and skullduggery emerging > from > > different " symbolic and imaginary worlds " that moves upon ego to > > dissolve it so that the full undistorted expression and flow > of " desire " > > to give and give (respond), is. " No one " is involved. There are no > > heroics. > > > Yes, to believe also that someone is able to see through it is > equally skullduggery. Yes. That said is lovely. > > > > Yes. A search for the ancient story, the " fall of man. " It is a > futile > > search Kip. There is no duality or seed of it, though it is fun to > > create new myths or to express new " revelations. " The concepts of > > duality and non-duality are part of the labyrinth of symbolic > ontologies > > and trickery. Ego, a concept imagines it deals with duality, a > concept, > > and non-duality, a concept. Concepts encountering concepts is > illusion. > > The vivid experience of duality remains because of the emotional > > attachment to the physical sensations of " individuality " the > sensations > > from a discrete mind/body. It is is easy to see that " I am not > this > > mind/body. " It is far more difficult, though possible, to become > > unattached to the physical sensations of mind/body in space time. > So " I " > > " me " " you " " my " " mine " " yours " continue. Yes. we can see through > it but > > seeing is not being and being is not doing as it is. > > > In effect, the concepts of duality and non-duality are part of the > labyrinth of symbolic ontologies and it is possible to become > unattached to the physical sensations of mind/body in space and > time. You could expand, if you like, on what you mean with, seeing > is not being and being is not doing as it is. Ok. Here is the skullduggery. " Seeing " is " light " on concept as illusion revealing it " intellectually " as vapor. " Being " is " non-attachment " to the illusion. " Doing " is movement among sensations without effort. Seeing is easy in that the ego can " see " illusion and even conceive itself as an illusion and " pretends " (artificially constructs) that all is vapor. But it can only do this conceptually. If ego holds the concept that " all is illusion " then all that is conceptual can be vaporized in word play without contradiction, a mere intellectual feat. But there is no " being " what is. The next illusion ego has is that it is " being " that it is not attached to illusory concepts, that it is resting in " what is. " The ego lets the illusions pass and watches them, not holding these vaporous objects in attention in any way, following the dictums, and those similar to it in one way or another, of the " Hsin Hsin Ming. " But this to is an illusion for ego is aware that it is aware of the objects and is making effort however slight to be non-attached to them as they appear and disappear in the filed of consciousness. It tricks itself and " being " in this way is an illusion, delusion. But the ego goes further knowing that the ultimate state is " apperception, " awareness without being aware and thus seeks to use this trickery to trick itself and begins " doing without effort " that is acting without thought ( " being " ) and guided and responding to sensations and perceptions that appear in front of it (non-doing). However, ego is simply hiding itself in the darkness of " no thought " or " emptiness " (to which it is ardently attached) thereby tricking itself into sensing " awareness without awareness. " All of this, " seeing, " " being, " " doing without awareness " or " non-doing " is conceptual and self trickery, a conceptual achievement. It is " rising above the gunas " but still bound by them. How can this be demonstrated? Slap the face of any mind/body, verbally or physically, (humiliating acts), have the experience total loss of material, status, possessions, etc. be cheated, lied to, betrayed, tricked and deceived repeatedly, be told how stupid and idiotic, and foolish one is, to be a laughing stock of all, to be unloved and uncared for, to do what is unpleasant, to experience repeated failures, be threatened and/or experience physical injury, disease, and death, in short, be tested out to see if the illusions rise and command action, to experience " I " yet again and again. " Ego dissolution " is trickery for ego and it is not something " achievable. " It is a bold faced lie. All the trickster sages want you to die. In the Tao Te Ching it says " To die but not to perish is to be eternally present (33). Jesus said, " Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit. He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal. (John 12:24-25). If one agrees with this trickery and tries to do it, one will die, but not by one's own hand. No one will kill you. If one disagrees with this and ignore it, you are already dead by your own hand. No one still will kill you. If one is indifferent, dispassionate, or neither agreeing or disagreeing, just being there, it does not matter. No one kills all. Sometimes it occurs very slowly and painfully sometimes swiftly and cleanly, sometimes...... All around the killing goes on. Are the woeful cries and moanings and wailings and the silent screams of ecstasy, joy and freedom experienced? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > Round and round and round it goes, > > > And where it stops, nobody knows, > > > Round and round is our love, > > > Let's blame in on the stars above > > > > > > (Gil) > > > > > > " When the end draws near, there no longer remain any remembered > > > images; only words remain. It is not strange that time should > have > > > confused the words that once represented me with those that were > > > symbols of the fate of he who accompanied me for so many > centuries. > > > I have been Homer; shortly, I shall be On One, like Ulysses; > > > shortly, I shall be all men; I shall be dead. " > > > > > > (Jorge Luis Borges) > > > > > > > > > Song of Childhood > > > > > > When the child was a child > > It walked with its arms swinging, > > wanted the brook to be a river, > > the river to be a torrent, > > and this puddle to be the sea. > > > > When the child was a child, > > it didn't know that it was a child, > > everything was soulful, > > and all souls were one. > > > > When the child was a child, > > it had no opinion about anything, > > had no habits, > > it often sat cross-legged, > > took off running, > > had a cowlick in its hair, > > and made no faces when photographed. > > > > When the child was a child, > > It was the time for these questions: > > Why am I me, and why not you? > > Why am I here, and why not there? > > When did time begin, and where does space end? > > Is life under the sun not just a dream? > > Is what I see and hear and smell > > not just an illusion of a world before the world? > > Given the facts of evil and people. > > does evil really exist? > > How can it be that I, who I am, > > didn't exist before I came to be, > > and that, someday, I, who I am, > > will no longer be who I am? > > > > When the child was a child, > > It choked on spinach, on peas, on rice pudding, > > and on steamed cauliflower, > > and eats all of those now, and not just because it has to. > > > > When the child was a child, > > it awoke once in a strange bed, > > and now does so again and again. > > Many people, then, seemed beautiful, > > and now only a few do, by sheer luck. > > > > It had visualized a clear image of Paradise, > > and now can at most guess, > > could not conceive of nothingness, > > and shudders today at the thought. > > > > When the child was a child, > > It played with enthusiasm, > > and, now, has just as much excitement as then, > > but only when it concerns its work. > > > > When the child was a child, > > It was enough for it to eat an apple, … bread, > > And so it is even now. > > > > When the child was a child, > > Berries filled its hand as only berries do, > > and do even now, > > Fresh walnuts made its tongue raw, > > and do even now, > > it had, on every mountaintop, > > the longing for a higher mountain yet, > > and in every city, > > the longing for an even greater city, > > and that is still so, > > It reached for cherries in topmost branches of trees > > with an elation it still has today, > > has a shyness in front of strangers, > > and has that even now. > > It awaited the first snow, > > And waits that way even now. > > > > When the child was a child, > > It threw a stick like a lance against a tree, > > And it quivers there still today. > > > > (Peter Handke) > > 'When I was a boy' > > When I was a boy > A god often rescued me > >From the shouts and the rods of men > And I played among trees and flowers > Secure in their kindness > And the breezes of heaven > Were playing there too. > > And as you delight > The hearts of plants > When they stretch towards you > With little strength > > So you delighted the heart in me > Father Helios, and like Endymion > I was your favourite, > Moon. 0 all > > You friendly > And faithful gods > I wish you could know > How my soul has loved you. > > Even though when I called to you then > It was not yet with names, and you > Never named me as people do > As though they knew one another > > I knew you better > Than I have ever known them. > I understood the stillness above the sky > But never the words of men. > > Trees were my teachers > Melodious trees > And I learned to love > Among flowers. > > I grew up in the arms of the gods. > > (Hölderlin) In the pursuit of learning, every day something is acquired. In the pursuit of Tao, every day something is dropped. (The Tao Te Ching, 48) >>__________________ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 29, 2004 Dear Swamiji, Gratitude. Swamiji said that the name Swami Nirgunananda " do not represent a lot of feelings about the mind/body, but represents the understanding of the mind/body, by self observation of the mind/body and the name Swami Nirgunananda is an " identification with the idea of Self that stands beyond mind. See, only represents, but it is only the name that " represents " , a way to communication only. " It was also said the name Lewis represents " a lot of feelings from the mind and body only? How does Swamiji know the difference between these names? How does Swamiji know that the one name represents " a lot of feelings from the mind and body only " and the other name " do not represent a lot of feelings about the mind/body, but represents the understanding of the mind/body, by self observation of the mind/body? Swamiji said that Swami Nirgunananda " is a new name adopted by me, after I have understood the concept of liberation and stand myself alter the mind, only observing it. " Who is " me " and who is " I. " Is " I " and " me " that which is beyond mind and body? If so, does this mean that Swamiji is not an ego pretending but only " that " which is? If so, then are you the trickster who lies and deceives and kills the ego, the personality and are you the destroyer of the gunas, of all the worlds? Lewis ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Nisargadatta , " Nirgunananda " <nirgunananda@t...> wrote: > Dear Lewis > lets yours answers: > > Lewis asked > What is personality? > > Nirgunananda > Personality is all thinks, feelings, sensations represented by one name " a character of a person " . > When a person was born, it was only " existing " with no identification. > With the time going on, the person going on receiving the ego as gift from the society where it was born. > In the reality the personality is " lets say " the representing of the egos about all its formation. > > Lewis > Who is Swami Nirgunananda? > > Nirgunananda > Swami Nirgunananda is a new name adopted by me, after I have understood the concept of liberation and stand myself alter the mind, only observing it. > > Lewis > What does the name Swami Nirgunananda represent? > > Nirgunananda > The name Swami Nirgunananda represent a identification with the idea of Self that stands beyond mind. See, only represents, but it is only the name that " represents " , a way to communication only. > > Lewis > Is the name Swami Nirgunananda the same as any other name or is it > different? If yes, how so? > > Nirgunananda > The name Swami Nirgunananda is the same as any other name; Its formation is " Nirguna " that is other side of the " Guna " , because the Gunas are of the mind, but represents only for me a new reality, that is stand me beyond mind/body. > > Lewis > Does > the name Swami Nirgunananda represent a lot of feelings about the > mind/body only? If yes, how is it so, If not, how is it so? > > Nirgunananda > No, the name Swami Nirgunananda do not represent a lot of feelings about the mind/body, but represents the understanding of the mind/body, by self observation of the mind/body. > > Lewis > It is written in the Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 14 that the gunas are of > the body and that each guna is a form of bondage, originating in and > binding the self to the body. > Is this where you read and learned of the gunas? How did you learn > about the gunas? > > Nirgunananda > I learned about the concept of gunas from the Advaita Philosophy, from the Sankara etc, but was felling that in my mind/body that I understood and liberate myself of the concepts, but not the suffer of the mind/body, however I learned that to understand liberate, and the suffer of who understand is different, is little in considerations with who does not understand, because to me nowadays to knows is different of to suffer, of course. > > Lewis > From this sacred scripture, it seems that the gunas are of the > mind/body as are feelings. > So it can be asked, can there be feelings or gunas without a > mind/body? Are gunas of the mind/body? Are feelings equal to gunas or > are they something else? What are the origins of feelings, the origins > of the three gunas? > > Nirgunananda > The gunas is a row material to building all the things by the cosmic mind. Is the gunas that works for to do all, no the Self. Only when the self is identified with the ego, is that, there are the think, that the somebody is doing something. The truth is that, nobody do anything, all is done, make, by the gunas, the self play only. > The origin of the gunas is the desire and fear for control by the mind, identification of the self with the think becomes attachment and forgetfulness of itself as the self. > > Lewis > It is written and said the origin of the three gunas lies in prakriti > or material nature or world. If this is so, then are not the gunas of > the mind/body " material " in nature as it held in the non-absolute > monistic yogic teachings? Do you to the concepts of prakriti > and the gunas? > > Nirgunananda > If you liberate your mind, you will see that the illusion about the power of your mind does what you want do, from what you think. We have no forget that the mind and its creation is a little bubble floating in the open space of the infinite Self, that is yourself, myself, ourselves without identification. > I have no more concepts about prakriti, Purusa, gunas etc., it all, is to understand the liberation of the all concepts and stand myself beyond the mind. > > Lewis > What is Swamiji's full understanding of the gunas and prakriti? > > Nirgunananda > Are all concepts that are in constant motion, transformation, born and die, but is necessary understand to see by yourself that everybody is free. All people are prisoner by the concepts and all people will be free by the understanding of the concepts. > > > > Namastê > Swami Nirgunananda > > > - > Lewis Burgess > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, December 29, 2004 5:02 AM > Re: Real & virtual space > > > > Dear Swami Nirgunananda, > > The answers given are understood and since you have the title Swami, > there are more questions. > > What is personality? > > Who is Swami Nirgunananda? > > What does the name Swami Nirgunananda represent? > > Is the name Swami Nirgunananda the same as any other name or is it > different? If yes, how so? > > Does the name Swami Nirgunananda represent a lot of feelings about the > mind/body only? If yes, how is it so, If not, how is it so? > > It is written in the Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 14 that the gunas are of > the body and that each guna is a form of bondage, originating in and > binding the self to the body. > > Is this where you read and learned of the gunas? How did you learn > about the gunas? > > From this sacred scripture, it seems that the gunas are of the > mind/body as are feelings. > > So it can be asked, can there be feelings or gunas without a > mind/body? Are gunas of the mind/body? Are feelings equal to gunas or > are they something else? What are the origins of feelings, the origins > of the three gunas? > > It is written and said the origin of the three gunas lies in prakriti > or material nature or world. If this is so, then are not the gunas of > the mind/body " material " in nature as it held in the non-absolute > monistic yogic teachings? Do you to the concepts of prakriti > and the gunas? > > What is Swamiji's full understanding of the gunas and prakriti? > > Lewis > > > Nisargadatta , " Nirgunananda " > <nirgunananda@t...> wrote: > > > > Hello Lewis (here is Swami Nirgunananda) > > > > Lewis > > How did the name Lewis come to represent " a lot of feelings from the > > mind and body only? > > > > Nirgunanada > > the name Lewis come to represente " a lot of feeling from the mind > and body only, by the personality. > > > > Lewis > > What feelings are being referred to? > > > > Nirgunananda > > The feelings that you thing you are, you to refer to yourself. > > > > Lewis > > Is it possible that feelings originate from that which is not > > mind/body? If yes, how so? If not, what is meant by the statement > > made. If something else please describe. > > > > Nirgunanada > > Yes. It is possible that feelings are originated from which is not > mind/body. The felling are clear in its origin that become modificated > itself by contact with the elements of the nature " GUNAS " , Sattva, > Rajas and Tamas or rather (Sattva=inteligence=goodness), > (Rajas=energy= passion) and (Tamas=mass=ignorance). It is with the > interlace of the gunas that occur the difference of feelings. > > > > Lewis > > To whom or to what does that name, Lewis, represent a lot of feelings > > from the mind and body only? > > > > > > Nirgunananda > > To yourself and to world that you thing communicate. > > > > > > Namastê > > Nirgunananda > > > > - > > Lewis Burgess > > Nisargadatta > > Monday, December 27, 2004 5:09 PM > > Re: Real & virtual space > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Nirgunananda " > > <nirgunananda@t...> wrote: > > > > > > Lewis is a name that represents a lot of feelings from de mind/body > > olnly. > > > > > > Namastê > > > Nirgunananda > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > Agreed. Lewis is a name that represents a lot of feelings from the > > mind and body only. > > > > Nirgunananda, please respond to the following questions: > > > > How did the name Lewis come to represent " a lot of feelings from the > > mind and body only? > > > > What feelings are being referred to? > > > > Is it possible that feelings originate from that which is not > > mind/body? If yes, how so? If not, what is meant by the statement > > made. If something else please describe. > > > > To whom or to what does that name, Lewis, represent a lot of feelings > > from the mind and body only? > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > Lewis Burgess > > > Nisargadatta > > > Friday, December 24, 2004 7:03 PM > > > Re: Real & virtual space > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Nirgunananda " > > > <nirgunananda@t...> wrote: > > > > > > > > TO:LEWIS > > > > FROM:Swami Nirgunananda > > > > I would like answer to Lewis about his questions below : > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > Who put " me " into mechanical slavery? > > > > > > > > Swami Nirgunananda > > > > Nobody put you into mechanical slavery. You think that you > are into > > > mechanical slavery. > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > Did " I " put " my self " into slavery? > > > > > > > > Swami Nirgunananda > > > > You put when you think that you are into slavery. > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > Can " I " liberate " my self, " throw off the chains? " > > > > > > > > Swami Nirgunananda > > > > No. You can not, there are not liberate, are thinks about > prison. > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > Or does someone liberate " me? " > > > > > > > > Swami Nirgunananda > > > > No one can liberate you, you must believe that you are not into > > slavery. > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > Is it a cooperative venture between " me " and another " I " or > is it > > > " me " and a " no me " ? > > > > > > > > Swami Nirgunananda > > > > No it is not, because there are no you, neither other you, no I > > > neither other I. There are no even one, these things of one, > two etc, > > > is of the mind. There are the sense of constant " BEING " , the other > > > questions about " I " , " You " , " We " etc is of the mind, not of you, > > > because you are the Supreme Reality that stands beyond of the > mind. > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > Is " someone " being liberated or is it change in interior states? > > > > > > > > Swami Nirgunananda > > > > It is change of concepts of the mind, only. > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > Is it possible to be liberated? > > > > > > > > Swami Nirgunananda > > > > No it is not possible to be liberated, because You just are > > > liberated, is your mind that think on the contrary. > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > Is liberation necessary? > > > > > > > > Swami Nirgunananda > > > > Is necessary you understand that you just are liberated. The > > > question of prison is of your mind, only. > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > What is liberation? Is it a concept, a goal, a state, an > experience? > > > > > > > > Swami Nirgunananda > > > > Liberation is not a concept, a goal, a state neither an > experience. > > > Liberation is to see the things like the things are: without > > > permanence and without proper essence and substance; or rather the > > > things have not proper existence. > > > > Lewis pay attention, see and feel: you are that sense " I AM, the > > > same sense when you were a child, a teen age, a young, an > adult and a > > > old, " THAT " the same sense " I AM " are you. But the sense " I > am a boy, > > > a old, a young, or I am mother, father, intellectual, a boss, > a man, a > > > woman etc is the mind, no you, ok? > > > > All the other words, things and concepts are of the mind, > remember > > > that you are not the mind/body, you are the SELF,you are THAT, > which > > > has no name, only awareness. > > > > > > > > Thank you very much > > > > > > > > Namastê > > > > Swami Nirgunananda > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > Dear Swami Nirgunananda, > > > > > > Who is Lewis? > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 29, 2004 > It is written in the Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 14 that the gunas are of > the body and that each guna is a form of bondage, originating in and > binding the self to the body. The Gunas are obviously part of the creation. In advaita realization a Master become gunatita.... gunas are just another illusion for the impersonal Consciousness create all the manifested things. Time also is part of creation with space, so that the illusion can appear...but there is no time in that wich is timeless, eternity... love swa Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 29, 2004 In a message dated 12/29/04 8:32:47 AM, lbb10 writes: > >But this to is an illusion > for ego is aware that it is aware of the objects and is making effort > >however slight to be nonattached to them as they appear and disappear > in the filed of consciousness. It tricks itself and " being " in this way > is an illusion, delusion. But the ego goes further knowing that the > >ultimate state is " apperception, " awareness without being aware and thus > seeks to use this trickery to trick itself and begins " doing without > >effort " that is acting without thought ( " being " ) and guided and > responding to sensations and perceptions that appear in front of it > >(non-doing). However, ego is simply hiding itself in the darkness of > " no thought " or " emptiness " (to which it is ardently attached) thereby > >tricking itself into sensing " awareness without awareness. " > P: If I may point out, although all these tricks could indeed be used by the brain in order to preserve the illusion of an entity inside, you seem to be falling for one of those very tricks in the paragraph above. That's, writing about the ego as if it were capable of awareness, and understanding. What we call ego is simply a complex of habits, tricks, beliefs, emotions, and memories that the brain conjures from time to time. They appear moment to moment, and most of the time they are not there. Their main function is to serve as a flag, or a figurehead to fight, defend and acquire for. Sort of the " for God and Country " of the body/mind organism. It seems to me, that if we clearly see ego as a discontinue series of responses, the back of the mirage is then broken, because what gives ego its hypnotic hold on the brain is the illusion of continuity. Without this belief in the continuity of a person who owns the life of the body and the virtues and faults of the brain, the self-preservation tricks begin to spin its wheels in the void. In this way, anger may come, fear may come, together with other ego considerations, but without the hypnotic effect of a 'this is happening to me.' Excuseme for butting in, Pete > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 30, 2004 Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > In a message dated 12/29/04 8:32:47 AM, lbb10@c... writes: > > > > >But this to is an illusion > > for ego is aware that it is aware of the objects and is making effort > > >however slight to be nonattached to them as they appear and disappear > > in the filed of consciousness. It tricks itself and " being " in this way > > is an illusion, delusion. But the ego goes further knowing that the > > >ultimate state is " apperception, " awareness without being aware and thus > > seeks to use this trickery to trick itself and begins " doing without > > >effort " that is acting without thought ( " being " ) and guided and > > responding to sensations and perceptions that appear in front of it > > >(non-doing). However, ego is simply hiding itself in the darkness of > > " no thought " or " emptiness " (to which it is ardently attached) thereby > > >tricking itself into sensing " awareness without awareness. " > > > P: If I may point out, although all these tricks could indeed be used by > the brain in order to preserve the illusion of an entity inside, you seem > to be falling for one of those very tricks in the paragraph above. That's, > writing about the ego as if it were capable of awareness, and understanding. > What we call ego is simply a complex of habits, tricks, beliefs, emotions, > and > memories that the brain conjures from time to time. They appear moment > to moment, and most of the time they are not there. Their main function > is to serve as a flag, or a figurehead to fight, defend and acquire for. > Sort > of the " for God and Country " of the body/mind organism. > > It seems to me, that if we clearly see ego as a discontinue series of > responses, Pete, I'm wondering if it would have to be the ego itself that would have to be the one seeing its own vacuity. Are you speculating that there is some thing beyond the so called ego that can get a good look at what is happening and thereby weaken the ego's strangle hold? > the back of the mirage is then broken, because what gives ego its hypnotic > hold on > the brain is the illusion of continuity. I'm wondering if there is nothing beyond the illusion of separation...(the dream). Without this belief in the > continuity of > a person who owns the life of the body and the virtues and faults of the > brain, > the self-preservation tricks begin to spin its wheels in the void. In this > way, > anger may come, fear may come, together with other ego considerations, > but without the hypnotic effect of a 'this is happening to me.' > > Excuseme for butting in, > Pete > > > > > > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 30, 2004 Pedsie2 wrote: > > In a message dated 12/29/04 8:32:47 AM, lbb10 writes: > > > > >But this to is an illusion > > for ego is aware that it is aware of the objects and is making effort > > >however slight to be nonattached to them as they appear and disappear > > in the filed of consciousness. It tricks itself and " being " in this way > > is an illusion, delusion. But the ego goes further knowing that the > > >ultimate state is " apperception, " awareness without being aware and thus > > seeks to use this trickery to trick itself and begins " doing without > > >effort " that is acting without thought ( " being " ) and guided and > > responding to sensations and perceptions that appear in front of it > > >(non-doing). However, ego is simply hiding itself in the darkness of > > " no thought " or " emptiness " (to which it is ardently attached) thereby > > >tricking itself into sensing " awareness without awareness. " > > > P: If I may point out, although all these tricks could indeed be used by > the brain in order to preserve the illusion of an entity inside, you seem > to be falling for one of those very tricks in the paragraph above. That's, > writing about the ego as if it were capable of awareness, and understanding. > What we call ego is simply a complex of habits, tricks, beliefs, emotions, > and > memories that the brain conjures from time to time. They appear moment > to moment, and most of the time they are not there. Their main function > is to serve as a flag, or a figurehead to fight, defend and acquire for. > Sort > of the " for God and Country " of the body/mind organism. > > It seems to me, that if we clearly see ego as a discontinue series of > responses, > the back of the mirage is then broken, because what gives ego its hypnotic > hold on > the brain is the illusion of continuity. Without this belief in the > continuity of > a person who owns the life of the body and the virtues and faults of the > brain, > the self-preservation tricks begin to spin its wheels in the void. In > this > way, > anger may come, fear may come, together with other ego considerations, > but without the hypnotic effect of a 'this is happening to me.' > > Excuseme for butting in, > Pete ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ There is no sense of butting in at all, Pete. Your flow is always welcome. To the points of interest. In this thread, ego phenomena have been discussed in conceptual terms and in terms of the experience of ego phenomena. On one line, there is agreement among most participants that ego is a concept and has no existence. What ego as concept points to is phenomena. The second line follows descriptions of this phenomena. In various places, the phenomena has been described in ways closely following the description provided above minus the assertion of brain origin/location. In other places, the ego phenomena is described as " imagined agency. " This is not trivial. Ego as concept or phenomena has no agency whatsoever. It is not conscious. It has no awareness. It is blind. It can do nothing for it is no thing. However, the illusion of such " agency, " the deeply rooted intellectual, affective and habitual attachment to this illusion and associated illusions and habitual behavior make ego a formidable phenomena to dissolve as it may be done with other concepts. What you pointed out is trickery for " calling out. " This will be described below. The dissolution of this concept constitutes a third line in the thread. In this, it is clearly noted that ego cannot dissolve itself by any means. It is no thing and so what can it do? Yet, the illusion of a personal identity persists being held together by the collection, remembrance, use of memories and experiences over an imagined time span and located in space. Attached to these are habitual mental, speech and body behaviors, and constant thinking, repetitive and otherwise, on these and other illusions as " real. " The intellectual and affective attachment to these illusions and to the sensations and perception tied to these illusions finishes the ego soup. The ego " appears " to think, feel, will and act. It " appears " as a person an entity. But ego is not singular by any means, it is a patchwork of concepts memories, behaviors, etc. Ego also has many formations. Since it has no awareness how does ego come to appear to have awareness of itself? Such awareness is illusion and it occurs through the mind's formation of sub egos each coming into " stimulus-response " relations to a " main ego " the commonly experienced " I " " me " in the field of consciousness, the stage upon which we experience mental phenomena. These sub egos and the main ego exchange concepts in stimulation-response patterns so that there is an appearance " internal discourse " and continuity of identity by the S-R relations between aspects of ego personality (the good side, evil side, selfish side, altruistic side, criminal side, law abiding side, enlightened side, the confused side, the a passive side the aggressive side the passive aggressive the silly side, etc.) each of which is tied to ontologies, opinions, moralities, ethics, desires, and so on. There are not only dualities but multiple conceptual aspects and worlds interacting in stimulus-response patterns. Each formation appears different in each mind/body. For some there is the appearance of thoughts with words which go back and forth in stimulus-response patterns established over the mind/body's existence. In those less heady, feelings, more than thoughts are exchanged in stimulus-response patterns. In action types, desires lead and interact. When any of these patterns or combination of these patterns become habitual and well formed giving satisfactory feelings, the ego as " persons " feels stable, comfortable, in control. When these patterns are interrupted, disrupted or otherwise prevented from occurring there is instability, insecurity, fear, anxiety, frustration, anger, rage, etc. To deal with such interruptions or threats to pattern disruption, mind/body adaptations occurs and reformed or new stimulus patterns can be made to encounter unexpected changes and to protect continuity and and prevent breakdown. Such mind/body adaptation is variable. Some can and some cannot adapt well to pattern disruption. When these patterns are substantially interrupted, ego disintegration begins. Ego disintegration proceeds without interventions by the experiences in life (trauma, death, failure, humiliation, etc.) and is completed by what is. It is hastened by the mystical, yogic and other traditions that target ego for elimination in one way or another. It is blocked by habitual mind/body s-r patterns that lead to illusion and attachment to them. But what happens when mind/bodies and such egos encounter the mystical and yogic traditions? To participate in such traditions there already must be some degree of ego disintegration so that " what is " " peeks through " the gaps in various disintegrating stimulus-response patterns. This " peeking through, " this awareness is what Nisargadatta said he was talking to and appealing to. But what could Nisargadatta possibly teach what is. Absolutely no-thing. What he and others like him through the ages have done is provide the tools, the trickery, the skullduggery, the dictums, the practices that lure the ego (mind/body S-R patterns) into an adaptation that is supposedly better than what the mind/body possesses. So there are promises of enlightenment, Nirvana, Heaven, Self-realization, Perfection, True Self and all these lofty, lovely, higher being states, which are given to be intrinsically superior to ordinary unenlightened mundane life. Such promises tempt, lure, and deceive the ego (mind/body S-R patterns) to move within the realm of the traditions. Once in, what is uses these tools, which are generally just words, concepts and practices designed to break rigid mind/body S-R patterns, and manipulates the mind to disintegrate the ego (rigid mind/body S-R patterns). The ego " thinks " it is doing it. But it is doing no-thing. What is is doing it. Even so, the mind/body's effort to adapt to these goals and practices creates new egos and sub egos (rigid mind/body S-R patterns) that match the new conceptual world taught in the mystical and yogic traditions. So the mind/body moves and recreates the conceptual world of its teacher or what is read or observed as it did in the old conceptual world it inhabited by creating illusions and more important the attachments to them. The machinery does its work well. What was pointed out above is what the ego " appears " like to the mind/body. That is, mind/body S-R patterns can come to imitate all the states described in the traditions. Even to the point of the imitative or constructed experience of " apperception " or awareness without awareness. How does this imitation occur. It is rather simple. The mind/body enacts the dictums and protocols say of the " Hsin Hsin Ming " or " I am THAT " (neti, neti) by adapting S-R patterns that resemble the described states of " non-doing " or " no thought. " To create no-thought is a simple exercise. It occurs this way the mind/body reads a work. " What is " is reading since ego cannot read (concepts don't read) but previous mind/body S-R patterns filter, distort the meaning and attach to the pleasurable, so that instead of taking it in and leaving it without attachment, there is the sensation that it must be held in the mind to be effective, a previous mind/body S-R pattern of controlling, possessing, owning. This is undesirable but this occurs when the for example when a student has not lost affective attachment to ego and its illusions, before beginning jnana yoga. So, what is is " blocked " by such deep affective attachment behavior and develops a work around. It uses this opportunity to use the mind, which is a machinery, to artificially embed a dictum (i.e.. " By neither favoring nor disfavoring, holding no opinion, all thought cease. " ) in a new mind/body S-R pattern that will disable mind/body affect. " What is focuses the mind on the dictum, repeating the dictum, meditating on the dictum to creates a S-R patterns that follows this simple rule. When a thought appears, the mind automatically darkens it, putting it aside. This is what is' artificial contrivance with the result being a blank mind. This state can be endured but for so long. With thought stopping comes the loss of affect. Numbness and depression set in. Eventually the mind/body cannot maintain this artificial state and it breaks down sooner or later depending on how stubborn the mind/body is. Thought stopping was not the goal. The goal was " beyond ego " it was the deadening of affect and affective attachments, which will allow what is to " peek through " more often and more easily. In this kind of experience and others like it lessons are learned an what is expands as " foolishness " is lost and what is moves on to trying again to disintegrate the ego. All during this time however ego is imagines it has done something or has arrived somewhere. This pattern will continue until the ego is fully dissolved and the fluid S-R action occurs without the binding of illusions and the illusions are now created and manipulated by what is. So what is described in the very beginning of this message is now detailed a bit more. The first passage (repeated below) is the trickery designed for " calling out " or " arousing " minds/bodies that are in imitative and delusional ego states of " being, " " non-doing " and " apperception " and that still are firmly attached to ego illusions and a fixed mind/body S-R pattern that hinders the appearance of what is. It is a aid for recognition and dissolution of an imitative ego state. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ " But this to is an illusion for ego is aware that it is aware of the objects and is making effort however slight to be nonattached to them as they appear and disappear in the field of consciousness. It tricks itself and " being " in this way is an illusion, delusion. But the ego goes further knowing that the ultimate state is " apperception, " awareness without being aware and thus seeks to use this trickery to trick itself and begins " doing without effort " that is acting without thought ( " being " ) and guided and responding to sensations and perceptions that appear in front of it (non-doing). However, ego is simply hiding itself in the darkness of " no thought " or " emptiness " (to which it is ardently attached) thereby tricking itself into sensing " awareness without awareness. " " ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ How does the " call out " work. It is read and taken in by what is, placed between an imitative mind/body stimulus-response pattern, which disrupts it, creating internal dissonance. Feelings of uncertainty and doubt, insecurity and fear arise that " say, " more or less, " I " AM not " THAT " which I thought I was? (for example). Questions arise and simply put (though not always so simple) and " Am I this? " " what is written here. " This is a fall into self-reflection, the basic indication of an operative ego and arousal from illusion occurs as what is points it out. A new effort can then begin. If there is no imitative state, there is no dissonance and the attendant feelings and thoughts. If the imitative state is well established and rigid, the description will be blocked altogether, will be misunderstood, and all responses to the threat of exposure of " imitative behavior " will be denied with the production of " cockeyed, " delusional, defensive what not. What is has no response such as these or others. It is trickery and that is all. There is no ego so there are no fears, doubts, uncertainty. A clear " intellectual " recognition of ego as concept and illusion and its attendant illusions, sensations, perceptions and behavior is a beginning. Such clear recognition indicates the presence and movement of what is. But there also needs recognition and elimination of the affective attachments to ego as illusion and to all of its attendant illusions, creations, desires, sensations, perceptions and possessions. This is not a task suitable to the use of the mind's faculty of intellection. So what is uses a different trickery for these mind/body s-r patterns. Then there is the movement to more " advanced " trickery...... All of this you know well. Lewis Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
