Guest guest Report post Posted December 30, 2004 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 isno " 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? Yes, Lewis. Thanks for the dance. Kip Almazy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 30, 2004 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: >I'm wondering if there is nothing beyond the illusion of >separation...(the dream). For him who is still completely identified with his thoughts it certainly appears as if there is nothing else. But the smallest bit of intelligence can already disquiet such a fellow. ( " nothing beyond illusion " is absurd, an illusion is implying somebody who has an illusion and also is implying something that is real - opposed to the illusion). But most people hate to be disquieted... Greetings S. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 30, 2004 In a message dated 12/29/04 7:59:34 PM, cptc writes: > 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 something beyond the so called > ego that can get a good look at what is happening and thereby weaken > >the ego's strangle hold? > P: No. The ego complex is made up of mechanical responses, memories, a well edited story line called 'myself.' The higher faculties of the brain such as consciousness, and understanding uses the ego complex as a reference point, and a flag. Is there anything beyond the ego? Yes, sure. But it all depends where you want to give up the search for ultimate causes. For some it's enough to stop at the brain. Others need to go further, and call it, Life. Others need to go even further, and call it The Universe, or Self, or God, or The Void, That, This, What is, , Etc. It really doesn't make any difference where you stop, all names are within the dream. Movement is all. The mover will always be unknown. The only lesson to get, is not to hold on, to learn how to roll. Moving along, Pete > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 30, 2004 kipalmazy wrote: > > > > > Yes, Lewis. Thanks for the dance. > > > Kip Almazy ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The pleasure of that dance was wonderful, Kip. The introduction and exploration of Lacan was most beneficial. Thanks for helping to broaden the conceptual horizon and introducing resources that provide heuristic devices as well new tonality and speech forms for written and vocal expression. Melanie Klein, Winnicott and Kohut are being read. Peace Lewis 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 7:59:34 PM, cptc writes: > > > > 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 something beyond the so called > > ego that can get a good look at what is happening and thereby weaken > > >the ego's strangle hold? > > > > P: No. The ego complex is made up of mechanical responses, > memories, a well edited story line called 'myself.' The higher > faculties of the brain such as consciousness, and > understanding uses the ego complex as a reference point, > and a flag. Is there anything beyond the ego? > Yes, sure. But it all depends where you want to give up the > search for ultimate causes. > > For some it's enough to stop at the brain. Others need to go > further, and call it, , Etc. It really doesn't make any difference where you stop, > all names are within the dream. Movement is all. The mover will > always be unknown. The only lesson to get, is not to hold on, to learn > how to roll. > > Moving along, > Pete ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dear Pete, Names are for communication as are concepts. Nothing wrong with them they are perfectly harmless. The " mover, " the name you use in this case, and, as you know, is a name no different than Life, The Universe, or Self, or God, or The Void, That, This, What is. All are unknowable. But is what they refer to completely beyond experience. Words yes. How about experience? " not to hold on, to learning how to roll " is, in other words, non-attachment to names, concepts, to any thing. No thing new has been said. Just a rehash a rework of names, concepts. Nothing has vanished, but the " mover " appeared as his brothers were placed in the dream world. Why is that? Perhaps the unknowable " mover " is " pissed off " and wants some credit for being something other than " what is " or " life " or " universe " or " mover " or " Self, " and is tired of hearing that there is no one home, yet doing all the work like moving all the 'stuff " of the mulitverses, you know creating civilizations with all their products and then destroying them as needed or simply posting to this forum. Perhaps the indescribable " mover " wants to be at home in " Larry " and wants that name or a new one and a discrete " mind/body " identification 6. 3 billion times over instead of an identity or pointer as of a faceless, ineffableness. Why stick to the " no one " is there line. That is as much a concept as anything else and is trickery of the first order. Of course there is someone home when it is necessary to be there and no one home when it is not required. No fear, no angst. No remove. No distance. All for one and one for all, all in all and one in one. " Learn to roll on " is a good way of " being " . Yes. Roll on, cowboys. Always rollin' Lewis " Rawhide " Rollin', rollin', rollin' Rollin', rollin', rollin' Rollin', rollin', rollin' Rollin', rollin', rollin' Rawhide! Rollin', rollin', rollin' Though the streams are swollen Keep them doggies rollin' Rawhide Rain and wind and weather Hellbent for leather Wishin' my gal was by my side All the things I'm missin' Good vittals, love and kissin' Are waiting at the end of my ride CHORUS Move 'em on, head 'em up Head 'em up, move 'em on Move 'em on, head 'em up Rawhide Count 'em out, ride 'em in Ride 'em in, count 'em out Count 'em out, ride 'em in Rawhide Keep movin', movin', movin' Though they're disapprovin' Keep them doggies movin' Rawhide Don't try to understand 'em Just rope 'em, pull and brand 'em Soon we'll be living high and wide My hearts calculatin' My true love will be waitin' Be waitin' at the end of my ride Hyaa! CHORUS Rollin', rollin', rollin' Rollin', rollin', rollin' Hyaa! Rollin', rollin', rollin' Rollin', rollin', rollin' Hyaa! Rawhide! Rawhide! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 30, 2004 Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > > > In a message dated 12/29/04 7:59:34 PM, cptc@w... writes: > > > > > > > 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 something beyond the so called > > > ego that can get a good look at what is happening and thereby weaken > > > >the ego's strangle hold? > > > > > > > P: No. The ego complex is made up of mechanical responses, > > memories, a well edited story line called 'myself.' The higher > > faculties of the brain such as consciousness, and > > understanding uses the ego complex as a reference point, > > and a flag. Is there anything beyond the ego? > > Yes, sure. But it all depends where you want to give up the > > search for ultimate causes. > > > > For some it's enough to stop at the brain. Others need to go > > further, and call it, , Etc. It really doesn't make any difference where you stop, > > all names are within the dream. Movement is all. The mover will > > always be unknown. The only lesson to get, is not to hold on, to learn > > how to roll. > > > > Moving along, > > Pete > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Dear Pete, > > Names are for communication as are concepts. Nothing wrong with them > they are perfectly harmless. The " mover, " the name you use in this case, > and, as you know, is a name no different than Life, The Universe, or > Self, or God, or The Void, That, This, What is. All are unknowable. But > is what they refer to completely beyond experience. Words yes. How about > experience? > > " not to hold on, to learning how to roll " is, in other words, > non-attachment to names, concepts, to any thing. No thing new has been > said. Just a rehash a rework of names, concepts. Nothing has vanished, > but the " mover " appeared as his brothers were placed in the dream world. > > Why is that? > > Perhaps the unknowable " mover " is " pissed off " and wants some credit for > being something other than " what is " or " life " or " universe " or " mover " > or " Self, " and is tired of hearing that there is no one home, yet doing > all the work like moving all the 'stuff " of the mulitverses, you know > creating civilizations with all their products and then destroying them > as needed or simply posting to this forum. Perhaps the indescribable > " mover " wants to be at home in " Larry " and wants that name or a new one > and a discrete " mind/body " identification 6. 3 billion times over > instead of an identity or pointer as of a faceless, ineffableness. Why > stick to the " no one " is there line. That is as much a concept as > anything else and is trickery of the first order. Of course there is > someone home when it is necessary to be there and no one home when it is > not required. No fear, no angst. No remove. No distance. All for one and > one for all, all in all and one in one. > > " Learn to roll on " is a good way of " being " . Yes. Roll on, cowboys. > > Always rollin' > > Lewis > > ******************************** Odysseus: Beautiful, wonderful. **************************************** Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
