Guest guest Report post Posted January 13, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > Allow me to join because it is a interesting topic. Hi Werner, you are very welcome! >I my understanding there is no observer and never was one. Ok, I think this is nonsense and I will try to show you, why. >The observer is the observed, no matter if one calls it the world or >mind or thought. Did you not just say that they do not exist? ...??? >The " observer " is an illusion caused by thought >separating itself from the content of consciouseness without >realizing that it is itself just another content again. Werner, by mentioning " thought " you prove that there is an observer. If you had never observed a phenomenon like " thought " you would not be able to mention it. Giving to it an attribute like " illusion " is completely irrelevant to the simple and basic fact that a thought has been observed. When you see a mirage you make an observation, it is irrelevant if there is real water or not. >So it doesn't matter if there is a thought arising taking the >position of the observer in relation to the seen. A thought cannot be an observer. That which observes thoughts must necessarily be a non-thought. That which observes things must necessarily be a no-thing. >The seen is the seen, constantly changing and the world is the world >with or without an illussionary observer. This is only an idea because it cannot be proved. But the other way around it becomes truth: the seen is obviously an illusion because nothing seen really exists as it is seen. The observer cannot be an illusion unless ihe becomes himself an object of an observation. >The content remains the same, if thought separates itself from it >taking the position of being the (illusionary) subject, or if it >doesn't. The opposite is true. The content never remains the same, not even for a millisecond. A thought cannot take the position of a subject. Maybe you are confusing something: when you think " I am the subject " this is only a thought. It is not the same as BEING the subject, the observer. Only when the observer disappears, everything disappears. Greetings S. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 13, 2005 Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > Werner Woehr wrote: > > > > > Hi Stefan, > > > > Allow me to join because it is a interesting topic. > > > > I my understanding there is no observer and never was one. The > > observer is the observed, no matter if one calls it the world or mind > > or thought. The " observer " is an illusion caused by thought > > separating itself from the content of consciouseness without > > realizing that it is itself just another content again. This not > > realizing being just another content of consciousness, so an object, > > causes the illusion of being the subject in relation to objects. > > > > So it doesn't matter if there is a thought arising taking the > > position of the observer in relation to the seen. The seen is the > > seen, constantly changing and the world is the world with or without > > an illussionary observer. > > > > The content remains the same, if thought separates itself from it > > taking the position of being the (illusionary) subject, or if it > > doesn't. > > > > Werner > > Hi Stefan and Werner, > > Would you like to go for a walk? Here's the path. It is green and > verdant but later becomes barren and desolate as it should for life to > spring anew.... > > After posting thoughts about the brain model introduced by Pete and > reading Odysseus's remarks on the Nisargadatta list about its relevance > here, I am moved to present other models for examination. The two models > are that of Advaita Vedanta and Madhyamika or Madhyamaka. Let's see if > we can achieve a mutual understanding and then go on from there. Take a > look and let me know where corrections and tweaking needs to be done. > > All models stand on foundational assumptions upon which the creators of > these models build an edifice of thought, concept and practice. If the > foundational assumptions are clearly understood, one can see the > edifice for what it is. The whole edifice comes down when the > foundational assumptions are removed. > > For example, the Orch OR model of consciousness and others like it, have > the foundational assumption of materialist monism or that all existence, > all substance underlying appearance is physical matter/energy that > operates according to laws known and unknown or yet to be discovered. > This assumption upon close examination has no certainty, as all models > have no certainty, and therefore, it tumbles with the removal of its > foundational assumption(s). The magic wand to make it disappear is to > ask how does one conclusively demonstrate that all things are physical? > If there is a physical must not' there be a spiritual and how can you > account for that which is not present in your model? > > The answer is that no such final demonstration of the singularity of the > physical can be made in words, concepts or by experiment. The question > cannot be answered. So the model collapses to become one story among > many. Just a story that can be used for various purposes. > > So what of Advaita Vedanta and Madhyamika or Madhyamaka? Advaita > Vedanta, in its various versions, is a model based on the foundational > assumptions of either an absolute monism where there is one infinite, > immaterial, and unchanging substance or existence. > > Or one infinite, immaterial, and unchanging substrate of existence that > extends or manifests as subatomic particles that are infinite and > changing aspects that form the various appearances. > > Or the interaction between an eternal, infinite, and immaterial > consciousness (Purusha) and non-conscious primordial energy including > sub-atomic particles (Prakriti). > > This assumption places in the human appearance an infinite, immaterial, > and unchanging extension called an Atman or atman. It is goal of this > model to realize Atman, an infinite, immaterial, attribute less, > awareness or consciousness as it variously defined. These appear to be > the foundational assumptions upon which the edifice of Advaita Vedanta, > a metaphysical model, is erected and maintained. > > Madhyamika or Madhyamaka, as formulated by Nagarjuna, is a very > different model than Advaita Vedanta. Its foundational assumption is > more complex, but nonetheless an assumption. Also, Madhyamika or > Madhyamaka is not metaphysical system or model as is Advaita Vedanta. As > it is, Madhyamika or Madhyamaka is an analytical philosophy that focuses > exclusively on concepts and language. It has no model or concept of > reality as does Advaita Vedanta. It is impossible for this philosophy to > describe reality. > > Nevertheless, in Madhyamika or Madhyamaka, reality is experiential, with > no distinctions, with no speech, language or concept, and it quiescent. > This is usually misrepresented as " void. " > > In Madhyamika, no word, thought, concept in any way is allowed to be > made in reference to reality in itself and this is Madhyamika's > foundational assumption, that language and concept have absolutely > nothing to do with reality. If one speaks, describes, or makes models of > reality in any way you and believe them to be reality or to represent > reality in any way or use them in thinking about reality, you are lost. > Asking for information about the Madhyamika reality is rebuffed. Such > questions or inquiries are unanswerable, because of the assumption and, > therefore are not considered (valid) questions. > > How can such an assumption be made? Easily, by simply doing so and in > this case with authority born of the analytics that enable any well > studied practitioner to silence any one else by using their own language > and conceptualizations to undermine certainty in all of their and other > thought systems, dismantling them to become the reality of Madhyamika as > described above. It is similar to modern sciences attempt to silence > religions. Both are non-metaphysical systems of thought and practice. > > So, it is important to note, that this does not mean that Madhyamika > reality is beyond words and concepts. Such a statement would be fine for > Advaita Vedanta, but not in the practice of Madhyamika. Thinking, > dealing with concepts, as we are doing here, is not dealing with reality > in Madhyamika. This is, in the Madhyamika practice, a futile effort if > it is directed in any way as an attempt to represent reality. > > In Madhyamika there is no Brahman, Atman, soul, self, or any thing > conceptual or metaphysical because of its fundamental assumption. There > are no quanta or information bits swirling around. Instead there is a > revelation experienced after the cessation of the co-dependent arising > of thoughts, concepts, language, that is when there is sunyata or > " emptiness " (empty of content [nairatmya] but having existence > [abhava]). This is not achieved or not achieved, made with effort or > unmade with effort, known or unknown and so on. > > So it is that Madhyamikas are conceptually undecided about realities; > there is nothing to say about that for them. > > So where does this leave us? Well, we could use Madhyamika to eliminate > all the conceptual models in the universe in one fell wave of the mind, > including Advaita Vedanta. We can then stop assuming Madhyamika > foundational assumption and put down its singular capacity to silence > all or smile at not being silenced by its singular focus on concept and > language at the expense of experience and living freely. Instead, we can > learn well from Madhyamika rise up from sunyata, which we share with > ease, to create an enjoy the worlds of ours and others making, doing the > best we can with others, harming no one and no thing's appearance as > best as we are able. We could do the opposite too. > > From these assumptions also come the body of concepts and practices. > The concepts are not necessary unless you want to go over them for they > all come from the foundational assumptions. All those matters usually > are a confusion. Nisargadatta is a good example of cleaning up the house > and going to the point. If these assumptions are clearly understood the > practices should be simple and straightforward. The practices could also > be explored to see if there are more efficient ways to realize Atman or > sunyata or ........ > > What do you say? > > At the ready, > > Lewis > > > P.S. If one holds tightly or attachedly to the assumptions of models, > stories, like the above and this endless conversation occurs > automatically without end: > > Advaita Vedanta: Self > Madhyamika: Hmmm. Co-dependent origination! no Self. > Advaita Vedanta: Self > Madhyamika: Well, Co-dependent origination! no Self. > Advaita Vedanta: Self > Madhyamika: But, Co-dependent origination! no Self. > Advaita Vedanta: Self > Madhyamika: See, Co-dependent origination! no Self. > Advaita Vedanta: Self > Madhyamika: However, Co-dependent origination! no Self. > Advaita Vedanta: Self > Madhyamika: Nevertheless. Co-dependent origination! no Self. > Advaita Vedanta: Self > Madhyamika: In other words, Co-dependent origination! no Self......... Reality consists of information and the observation of that information. The unmanifested one existence becomes manifest by observing itself, in such way that the illusion of duality can happen. In one glance the unmanifested takes a look at itself and its infinite possibilities. That one glance is the explosion we now observe as the universe unfolding. Why does the unmanifested see the universe and not some other things? The manifested universe is information, but not any kind of information. What becomes visible of the infinite information is that which _can_ become visible. Therefore there is information seen/experienced and information not seen. The information seen we can call complexity. The manifested universe is complexity unfolding in a single bang. /AL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 13, 2005 Hi Stefan, Allow me not to go into this discussion again because I also like the alternative Lewis suggested to see that all my opinions are just air - that seemse to be the wisest. But when not taking that into account, it rather seems we have different motivations which make you needing an observer and for me it is counterproductive. I shouldn't have included myself into this discussion because we can't convince each other. So each of us has to proceed on his path and maybe we sometimes could meet and say hello. Werner Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@c...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > wrote: > > > Allow me to join because it is a interesting topic. > > Hi Werner, you are very welcome! > > >I my understanding there is no observer and never was one. > > Ok, I think this is nonsense and I will try to show you, why. > > >The observer is the observed, no matter if one calls it the world or > >mind or thought. > > Did you not just say that they do not exist? ...??? > > >The " observer " is an illusion caused by thought > >separating itself from the content of consciouseness without > >realizing that it is itself just another content again. > > Werner, by mentioning " thought " you prove that there is an observer. > If you had never observed a phenomenon like " thought " you would not be > able to mention it. Giving to it an attribute like " illusion " is > completely irrelevant to the simple and basic fact that a thought has > been observed. When you see a mirage you make an observation, it is > irrelevant if there is real water or not. > > >So it doesn't matter if there is a thought arising taking the > >position of the observer in relation to the seen. > > A thought cannot be an observer. That which observes thoughts must > necessarily be a non-thought. That which observes things must > necessarily be a no-thing. > > >The seen is the seen, constantly changing and the world is the world > >with or without an illussionary observer. > > This is only an idea because it cannot be proved. But the other way > around it becomes truth: the seen is obviously an illusion because > nothing seen really exists as it is seen. The observer cannot be an > illusion unless ihe becomes himself an object of an observation. > > >The content remains the same, if thought separates itself from it > >taking the position of being the (illusionary) subject, or if it > >doesn't. > > The opposite is true. The content never remains the same, not even for > a millisecond. A thought cannot take the position of a subject. Maybe > you are confusing something: when you think " I am the subject " this is > only a thought. It is not the same as BEING the subject, the observer. > > Only when the observer disappears, everything disappears. > > Greetings > S. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 13, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > Hi Stefan, > > Allow me not to go into this discussion again because I also like the > alternative Lewis suggested to see that all my opinions are just air - > that seemse to be the wisest. But when not taking that into account, > it rather seems we have different motivations which make you needing > an observer and for me it is counterproductive. > > I shouldn't have included myself into this discussion because we > can't convince each other. So each of us has to proceed on his path > and maybe we sometimes could meet and say hello. > > Werner Ups... did I do it again ?! Yes... logic is quite an animal... for me it is a tool, a sword so to say... let me reply only one thing: I did not say that I need an observer (did you read my last sentence?)... nor did I say it is productive... unfortunately nobody has asked me what I need or want before I came to this world... Greetings S. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 13, 2005 Nisargadatta , " sandeep " <sandeepc@b...> wrote: Hi Sandeep, thank you for your bits... very... meaningful. just two comments, >The sense of an observing entity assuming itself as the " subject " and >thus the sense of the " observed " as the myriad of objects.... > ...are nuances of the functioning in the moment. The observing entity cannot assume itself as anything. And the *sense* of an observing entity?... hmm... you know, I am not talking about a sense, nor am I talking about an assumption... I am talking about a conclusion. And it should be enquired. Therefor I mention it. Then there comes a sense. It might disappear in a brighter light but this way it will have served as a stepping stone. > Both arise together. > Both dissipate together. With the observer the observed disappears. But the one who thinks they both will disappear by simply denying the observer... is trying to take a shortcut... that only ends in a meaningless loop. The fruit will fall when it is ripe. Greetings S. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 13, 2005 - ilikezen2004 Nisargadatta Thursday, January 13, 2005 9:51 PM Re: The Information Revolution Hi Sandeep, for the second time. Are you Sandeep Chatterjee? :0) ---------------- In some quarters I am known as so. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 13, 2005 ilikezen2004 wrote: > > > ************************* > > Lewis, > > Names are names. No big deal. I don't stick to them. You call > yourself Old pigeon. And it is good! I told you that I am new born > pigeon. Is Alberto my real name? No! This is the name my mother > chose for me. It is not me! Done with that. > > You talk about gravity! That is good and true. Gravity exist. If we > say it is an illusion and ignore it is ridiculous as you know. > > The one who says I have a body but I have no blood is not very > smart. OR, I have no body!... but as his daily activities takes care > of it as it was the greatest jewel on earth? Is someone there or > not? Does gravity exist or not? To go beyong the world we must know > the world first. Does Love exist or not? or do we need to be > heartless bodies, to realise the void? > > > Odysseus, My dear Odysseus, The names are at the bottom. They are insignificant. These are not the point. They are the last to be produced in assuming. It is the assuming itself that needs to seen for what it is. Try this if you haven't already. You can put in I Self, God, Atman, Anatman, Buddha nature, Someone, whatever condition, state, deity, demon that is assumed. Remember it is not the name it self, but all the assumptions and connotations contained in the name and carried unknown by you. As ____, it is clear and unambiguous that ____ does as _____ does in the world of human and other appearances. ______ has no attributes, no distinctions. _________is beyond such concepts and language and cannot be expressed in any way in concepts and language. However experience shows that _______ has capabilities to assume attributes and many other concepts to be in the appearances with other appearances. ### These include the assumption of such concepts as free will, agency, personhood, and the more hidden assumptions of " whoness " " whatness " " thingness " and " no-thingness. " This is something to closely examine Odysseus. _____ has no attributes such as " whoness, " " whatness " " thingness " and " no-thingness. " These are concepts and assuming them makes us think and speak " who is that doing this? Be free from it all, to see. Check language and thought and concept to see all the hidden assumptions held which cause you speak and think and feel as it is. Calling _______ the Self or no self or Atman or God does not make _________ the Self or no self or Atman or God no matter how well assumed. This you know well as does most of us. But, _________does not need identification, it is an attribute. Emerging from yet still acting in quiescence ,_________ assumes identities and all the assumptions and concepts attribute necessary for traversing the world of appearances as required. So there is posting and eating sandwiches, operations on brain tumors and skateboarding, team sports, mass movements, migrations, wars, flying to the moon, research, libraries and all the rest. These can be done and are done with or without the assumption of concepts such as free will, agency, personhood, and the more hidden assumptions of " whoness " " whatness " " thingness " and " no-thingness. This is _________experience and that is how __________experiences the world. What more does _______have to say? _______ is always here doing as ______does. Better to be blind than to see, for ________is not seen with the eyes or mind or thought. _________expresses through mind and to do so,___________assumes this and that, says this and that as required. One with eyes open can try to paste a label on ________but _______ is never that label and never needs defense or promotion. So,___________always comes eventually to refute the labeling and assumptions when it is damaging the appearances and that is why there are differences of opinion, suggestions, advice, admonishments, joy, laughter, humor and the rest of it. The appearance of ____________ in one way balances the appearance of ________ in another way through cooperation and discussion and then negotiation and then argument and this escalates to extremes, and if allowed by the strength of the attachments to the assumed identities, to much unpleasantness. If there is attachment to the assumed identity and concepts, the different appearances of _________ will not find understanding but division, not one but two because of ignorance and improper minding. Does this all end in peace and happiness and everyone thinking as one. No, it will not for every appearance is unique in its attributes and expression will always display those differences. Fear not, Brave Odysseus, sail on, Ithaca appears ahead. By your side, Lewis Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 13, 2005 Hi Stefan, - Stefan Nisargadatta Friday, January 14, 2005 12:28 AM Re: The Information Revolution Nisargadatta , " sandeep " <sandeepc@b...> wrote: Hi Sandeep, thank you for your bits... very... meaningful. just two comments, >The sense of an observing entity assuming itself as the " subject " and >thus the sense of the " observed " as the myriad of objects.... > ...are nuances of the functioning in the moment. The observing entity cannot assume itself as anything. --------- The sense of the observing entity and it is only a sense...........arises when there is a sense of the observed,.......... as distinct, as separate, as apart. The sense of distinction, that sense of separation, that sense of apartness...............infers the sense of the " me " as the subject. An infant, right uptil the age of 1-2 years has no sense of the " me " , because for it there is as yet, ...........no sense of the " other " . Notice when an infant falls down, it says " it hurts " .............not " I am hurting " . And then ofcourse the parents, siblings, peers, favourite uncle, hated bully around the swings at the park.............all kick in. --------- And the *sense* of an observing entity?... hmm... you know, I am not talking about a sense, nor am I talking about an assumption... I am talking about a conclusion. --------- The term " sense of... " is being used to point that at no point of time, is there any existential reality to the individual self. It is not that, at one time........... there is a robust, substantiated self, ...........which by standing on it's head, or some other Tantra, meditation, self-enquiry, ...........dissolves itself.............in future time. And yet there might well be the functioning in the moment,......... as a particular practise, ................a particular doing, ..........happening through a conditioned, sentient manifested durational appearance. ----------- And it should be enquired. Therefor I mention it. ----- By all means. If that is what is happening in the moment...........then that is precisely what is to happen in that moment. The very enquiring, the very assumption, belief structure, .............the object of the enquiring.... ...the innate, prevailing conditioning for which all this is a........ " to-be-defended-premise " ..... ....the very psycho-somatic biological objected......... appearing as a durational manifestation.......acting as a vehicle, an instrument... ...........all nuances of the hoopla of the moment. --------- Then there comes a sense. It might disappear in a brighter light but this way it will have served as a stepping stone. -------- So long there is a prevailing sense of something being a stepping stone, there is the sense of a journey, and thus a sense of a self-conceived goal. And thus a sense of time, in which the journey is to happen, goal to be reached. And so long such a prevalence...........the goal post just keeps shifting. ------- > Both arise together. > Both dissipate together. With the observer the observed disappears. But the one who thinks they both will disappear by simply denying the observer... is trying to take a shortcut... that only ends in a meaningless loop. ---- Absolutely. You cannot think away the thinker. Nor can the thought be thought away. You cannot smash the observer by denying the observed. The observer/observed are two sides of the same coin. Either the coin drops. Or it does not. When it does not you have the waking-dream, along with the self which is enquiring or kicking ass. Or you have the sleeping-dream, along with the dreamed-self cognizing and particpating in that co-created world. The coin drops in the state of deep sleep. Where there being no self...........there is no enquiring........for the very issue itself is moot. Since the state of deep sleep.......is also a durational appearance.....use whatever conceptual term you wish to, to point to that,.... .... which while being the very immanence of all the three states..... ....is simultaneously transcendental to all the three states. Turiya, which means the Fourth.......is one such term. Bozo is another. Invite a visit to: http://www.the-covenant.net/pou114.htm Give the page a bit time to download, due to the recent addition of some animation. ---------- The fruit will fall when it is ripe. -------- The fruit is always ripe.:-) Ting- a- ling, Ting-a-ling....that's amore. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 13, 2005 Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > ilikezen2004 wrote: > > > > > > ************************* > > > > Lewis, > > > > Names are names. No big deal. I don't stick to them. You call > > yourself Old pigeon. And it is good! I told you that I am new born > > pigeon. Is Alberto my real name? No! This is the name my mother > > chose for me. It is not me! Done with that. > > > > You talk about gravity! That is good and true. Gravity exist. If we > > say it is an illusion and ignore it is ridiculous as you know. > > > > The one who says I have a body but I have no blood is not very > > smart. OR, I have no body!... but as his daily activities takes care > > of it as it was the greatest jewel on earth? Is someone there or > > not? Does gravity exist or not? To go beyong the world we must know > > the world first. Does Love exist or not? or do we need to be > > heartless bodies, to realise the void? > > > > > > Odysseus, > > My dear Odysseus, > > > The names are at the bottom. They are insignificant. These are not the > point. They are the last to be produced in assuming. > > It is the assuming itself that needs to seen for what it is. Try this if > you haven't already. You can put in I Self, God, Atman, Anatman, Buddha > nature, Someone, whatever condition, state, deity, demon that is > assumed. Remember it is not the name it self, but all the assumptions > and connotations contained in the name and carried unknown by you. > > As ____, it is clear and unambiguous that ____ does as _____ does in > the world of human and other appearances. > > ______ has no attributes, no distinctions. > > _________is beyond such concepts and language and cannot be expressed in > any way in concepts and language. > > > However experience shows that _______ has capabilities to assume > attributes and many other concepts to be in the appearances with other > appearances. > > > ### These include the assumption of such concepts as free will, agency, > personhood, and the more hidden assumptions of " whoness " " whatness " > " thingness " and " no-thingness. " This is something to closely examine > Odysseus. > > _____ has no attributes such as " whoness, " " whatness " " thingness " and > " no-thingness. " These are concepts and assuming them makes us think and > speak " who is that doing this? Be free from it all, to see. Check > language and thought and concept to see all the hidden assumptions held > which cause you speak and think and feel as it is. > > > Calling _______ the Self or no self or Atman or God does not make > _________ the Self or no self or Atman or God no matter how well > assumed. This you know well as does most of us. > > > But, _________does not need identification, it is an attribute. > > > Emerging from yet still acting in quiescence ,_________ assumes > identities and all the assumptions and concepts attribute necessary for > traversing the world of appearances as required. > > So there is posting and eating sandwiches, operations on brain tumors > and skateboarding, team sports, mass movements, migrations, wars, flying > to the moon, research, libraries and all the rest. These can be done and > are done with or without the assumption of concepts such as free will, > agency, personhood, and the more hidden assumptions of " whoness " > " whatness " " thingness " and " no-thingness. > > This is _________experience and that is how __________experiences the world. > > What more does _______have to say? > > _______ is always here doing as ______does. > > > Better to be blind than to see, for ________is not seen with the eyes or > mind or thought. > > > _________expresses through mind and to do so,___________assumes this and > that, says this and that as required. > > One with eyes open can try to paste a label on ________but _______ is > never that label and never needs defense or promotion. > > So,___________always comes eventually to refute the labeling and > assumptions when it is damaging the appearances and that is why there > are differences of opinion, suggestions, advice, admonishments, joy, > laughter, humor and the rest of it. > > The appearance of ____________ in one way balances the appearance of > ________ in another way through cooperation and discussion and then > negotiation and then argument and this escalates to extremes, and if > allowed by the strength of the attachments to the assumed identities, to > much unpleasantness. > > > If there is attachment to the assumed identity and concepts, the > different appearances of _________ will not find understanding but > division, not one but two because of ignorance and improper minding. > > Does this all end in peace and happiness and everyone thinking as one. > No, it will not for every appearance is unique in its attributes and > expression will always display those differences. Fear not, Brave > Odysseus, sail on, Ithaca appears ahead. > > By your side, > > Lewis ***************************** hi hi hi! I know that. When someone tell me that you just need to read a book and be awaken to all you said above... It makes me laugh a lot! I hope you don't agree with that? Instant enlightenement is a glimpse of your Self. Like a LSD trip. The guy felt something and he is like master Nis or as wise or he understands all for all his life!!! ha ha ha! This is bull$#@#. Yes in a trip one can have an experience. Few days later one is almost as idiot as he was few days ago. By the way using drugs doesn't make us brighter but more idiot. It is not good for the body. So what do I post. To say: You are not awakened unless you awaken!' 'You are not That, unless you reach unity with Universal I AM!' 'There is no Path but only for those who Completed it!' 'There is nobody here, but only when somebody has dissolved! Until that time you are simply a suffering somebody who only tries to believe in being no one or entertains oneself. If you fit in there well we can discuss. If you don't fit. Better! Your understanding is good. If you don't agree with what I say, no problem. Just go ahead and tell me what! If you are fine, No problem. That is great. Love Odysseus, P.S. I believe in santa. Hi hi! (joke) but if you think that all 7 billion people on earth are awaken as Ramana or Master Nis, I will think you are more naive than me my friend! ha ha ha! I am glad you are by my side! :0) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 13, 2005 > Nisargadatta , " sandeep " <sandeepc@b...> wrote: > The sense of the observing entity and it is only a sense...........arises when there is a sense of the observed,.......... as distinct, as separate, as apart. > The sense of distinction, that sense of separation, that sense of apartness...............infers the sense of the " me " as the subject. > > An infant, right uptil the age of 1-2 years has no sense of the " me " , because for it there is as yet, ...........no sense of the " other " . > > Notice when an infant falls down, it says " it hurts " .............not " I am hurting " . > > And then ofcourse the parents, siblings, peers, favourite uncle, hated bully around the swings at the park.............all kick in. All this does not represent the observer I am talking about. You talk about the personality. People who identify themselves with their personality believe that they observe through their body and dont enquire about the question, how this can be possible at all. For them perception and observation is the same. But once you realize that everything that arises in front of you - thoughts, things, feelings - is observed the question arises: WHO observes all this? Because the common concept (that the senses and the brain are the observers) cannot be maintained anymore, once it is realized that the observed cannot be the observer. And the senses and the thoughts can be observed, they belong to those things that arise in front of me! From this moment on the quest takes another direction and it becomes a necessity to find out who this observer really is. And it can be found that it is this, which never changes. And from there you can go on, as Nisargadatta has said: " When you come to the end of material world-knowledge, at that stage you transcend the observer and the observed. That means that you are in a true state of being-ness. Thereafter, you enter the state of transcending being-ness, where the identities of the observer and observed disappear. " >So long there is a prevailing sense of something being a stepping >stone, there is the sense of a journey, and thus a sense of a >self-conceived goal. Nothing wrong about this. First step first. Read a little in this group and you will see why I am emphasizing this... If you want to become a doctor you have to go to the univerity first. Here you will find some doctors who are still in the kindergarden. No, there is no shortcut. So what? Those who trie hard, who are ready to die for truth, who give everything: they will be rewarded. Even when it turns out later that their effort was unnecessary: their effort was still not fruitless. Maybe they give up like Gautama and: ahhh... but... without taking all this effort there would have been nothing to give up. Those " instant enlightenment " wannabees: they cannot let go because they have nothing to let go... they just think: the fruit is always ripe... so I can still pick it tomorrow. Me: >The fruit will fall when it is ripe. > >-------- > You: >The fruit is always ripe.:-) Yes, yes, this is the obvious modern answer. But maybe it is like this: it falls when it falls... plop... and there is nothing you can do... so one could as well GO FOR IT - instead of being a couch potato or however you call those lazy self addicts. Greetings S. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 13, 2005 ilikezen2004 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> > wrote: > > > > > > ilikezen2004 wrote: > > > > > > > > > ************************* > > > > > > Lewis, > > > > > > Names are names. No big deal. I don't stick to them. You call > > > yourself Old pigeon. And it is good! I told you that I am new > born > > > pigeon. Is Alberto my real name? No! This is the name my mother > > > chose for me. It is not me! Done with that. > > > > > > You talk about gravity! That is good and true. Gravity exist. If > we > > > say it is an illusion and ignore it is ridiculous as you know. > > > > > > The one who says I have a body but I have no blood is not very > > > smart. OR, I have no body!... but as his daily activities takes > care > > > of it as it was the greatest jewel on earth? Is someone there or > > > not? Does gravity exist or not? To go beyong the world we must > know > > > the world first. Does Love exist or not? or do we need to be > > > heartless bodies, to realise the void? > > > > > > > > > Odysseus, > > > > My dear Odysseus, > > > > > > The names are at the bottom. They are insignificant. These are not > the > > point. They are the last to be produced in assuming. > > > > It is the assuming itself that needs to seen for what it is. Try > this if > > you haven't already. You can put in I Self, God, Atman, Anatman, > Buddha > > nature, Someone, whatever condition, state, deity, demon that is > > assumed. Remember it is not the name it self, but all the > assumptions > > and connotations contained in the name and carried unknown by you. > > > > As ____, it is clear and unambiguous that ____ does as _____ > does in > > the world of human and other appearances. > > > > ______ has no attributes, no distinctions. > > > > _________is beyond such concepts and language and cannot be > expressed in > > any way in concepts and language. > > > > > > However experience shows that _______ has capabilities to assume > > attributes and many other concepts to be in the appearances with > other > > appearances. > > > > > > ### These include the assumption of such concepts as free will, > agency, > > personhood, and the more hidden assumptions > of " whoness " " whatness " > > " thingness " and " no-thingness. " This is something to closely > examine > > Odysseus. > > > > _____ has no attributes such as " whoness, " " whatness " " thingness " > and > > " no-thingness. " These are concepts and assuming them makes us > think and > > speak " who is that doing this? Be free from it all, to see. Check > > language and thought and concept to see all the hidden assumptions > held > > which cause you speak and think and feel as it is. > > > > > > Calling _______ the Self or no self or Atman or God does not make > > _________ the Self or no self or Atman or God no matter how well > > assumed. This you know well as does most of us. > > > > > > But, _________does not need identification, it is an attribute. > > > > > > Emerging from yet still acting in quiescence ,_________ assumes > > identities and all the assumptions and concepts attribute > necessary for > > traversing the world of appearances as required. > > > > So there is posting and eating sandwiches, operations on brain > tumors > > and skateboarding, team sports, mass movements, migrations, wars, > flying > > to the moon, research, libraries and all the rest. These can be > done and > > are done with or without the assumption of concepts such as free > will, > > agency, personhood, and the more hidden assumptions of " whoness " > > " whatness " " thingness " and " no-thingness. > > > > This is _________experience and that is how __________experiences > the world. > > > > What more does _______have to say? > > > > _______ is always here doing as ______does. > > > > > > Better to be blind than to see, for ________is not seen with the > eyes or > > mind or thought. > > > > > > _________expresses through mind and to do so,___________assumes > this and > > that, says this and that as required. > > > > One with eyes open can try to paste a label on ________but _______ > is > > never that label and never needs defense or promotion. > > > > So,___________always comes eventually to refute the labeling and > > assumptions when it is damaging the appearances and that is why > there > > are differences of opinion, suggestions, advice, admonishments, > joy, > > laughter, humor and the rest of it. > > > > The appearance of ____________ in one way balances the appearance > of > > ________ in another way through cooperation and discussion and > then > > negotiation and then argument and this escalates to extremes, and > if > > allowed by the strength of the attachments to the assumed > identities, to > > much unpleasantness. > > > > > > If there is attachment to the assumed identity and concepts, the > > different appearances of _________ will not find understanding but > > division, not one but two because of ignorance and improper > minding. > > > > Does this all end in peace and happiness and everyone thinking as > one. > > No, it will not for every appearance is unique in its attributes > and > > expression will always display those differences. Fear not, Brave > > Odysseus, sail on, Ithaca appears ahead. > > > > By your side, > > > > Lewis > > ***************************** > > hi hi hi! I know that. Yes. You do. When someone tell me that you just need to > read a book and be awaken to all you said above... It makes me laugh > a lot! I hope you don't agree with that? Experiencing the appearances is like book reading. We drink both. Now Odysseus, there is no need for agreement or disagreement knowing that I am incapable of being attached to assuming so why, my lovely one, why do you treat me so? > Instant enlightenement is a glimpse of your Self. Like a LSD trip. > The guy felt something and he is like master Nis or as wise or he > understands all for all his life!!! ha ha ha! This is bull$#@#. Yes > in a trip one can have an experience. Few days later one is almost > as idiot as he was few days ago. By the way using drugs doesn't make > us brighter but more idiot. It is not good for the body. Yes. There are some who say that. I do not know what it is. may be I experienced it. Who know? Drugs of any sort, food of many kinds, and lots of other things can hurt our appearance if not properly used. > > So what do I post. To say: You are not awakened unless you > awaken!' 'You are not That, unless you reach unity with Universal I > AM!' 'There is no Path but only for those who Completed it!' 'There > is nobody here, but only when somebody has dissolved! Until that > time you are simply a suffering somebody who only tries to believe > in being no one or entertains oneself. Ok. I drink you as you present, Odysseus without reserve. Now, is this what you said above, what you see when you look at me, Odysseus? > > If you fit in there well we can discuss. If you don't fit. Better! > Your understanding is good. If you don't agree with what I say, no > problem. Just go ahead and tell me what! If you are fine, No > problem. That is great. This is the way we have been my sweet, There have been no alterations. We go as we do with laughter as we move. > > Love > Odysseus, > > P.S. I believe in santa. Hi hi! (joke) but if you think that all 7 > billion people on earth are awaken as Ramana or Master Nis, I will > think you are more naive than me my friend! ha ha ha! Yes, Every Christmas Santa comes alive at home. But now my youngest son has done research with friends and has come to not to believe any more. To many contradictions with his experience of time and space. That magic lasted for all of them and now it is gone. But I assume Santa for others who still believe. Ho, Ho, Ho. > > I am glad you are by my side! :0) And happy to there. Lewis Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 14, 2005 Stefan wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " sandeep " <sandeepc@b...> > wrote: > > > The sense of the observing entity and it is only a > sense...........arises when there is a sense of the > observed,.......... as distinct, as separate, as apart. > > > The sense of distinction, that sense of separation, that sense of > apartness...............infers the sense of the " me " as the subject. > > > > An infant, right uptil the age of 1-2 years has no sense of the > " me " , because for it there is as yet, ...........no sense of the > " other " . > > > > Notice when an infant falls down, it says " it > hurts " .............not " I am hurting " . > > > > And then ofcourse the parents, siblings, peers, favourite uncle, > hated bully around the swings at the park.............all kick in. > > All this does not represent the observer I am talking about. You talk > about the personality. People who identify themselves with their > personality believe that they observe through their body and dont > enquire about the question, how this can be possible at all. For them > perception and observation is the same. > > But once you realize that everything that arises in front of you - > thoughts, things, feelings - is observed the question arises: WHO > observes all this? Because the common concept (that the senses and the > brain are the observers) cannot be maintained anymore, once it is > realized that the observed cannot be the observer. And the senses and > the thoughts can be observed, they belong to those things that arise > in front of me! From this moment on the quest takes another direction > and it becomes a necessity to find out who this observer really is. > And it can be found that it is this, which never changes. > > And from there you can go on, as Nisargadatta has said: > > " When you come to the end of material world-knowledge, at that stage > you transcend the observer and the observed. That means that you are > in a true state of being-ness. Thereafter, you enter the state of > transcending being-ness, where the identities of the observer and > observed disappear. " > > >So long there is a prevailing sense of something being a stepping > >stone, there is the sense of a journey, and thus a sense of a > >self-conceived goal. > > Nothing wrong about this. First step first. Read a little in this > group and you will see why I am emphasizing this... If you want to > become a doctor you have to go to the univerity first. Here you will > find some doctors who are still in the kindergarden. > > No, there is no shortcut. So what? Those who trie hard, who are ready > to die for truth, who give everything: they will be rewarded. Even > when it turns out later that their effort was unnecessary: their > effort was still not fruitless. Maybe they give up like Gautama and: > ahhh... but... without taking all this effort there would have been > nothing to give up. Those " instant enlightenment " wannabees: they > cannot let go because they have nothing to let go... they just think: > the fruit is always ripe... so I can still pick it tomorrow. > > Me: > >The fruit will fall when it is ripe. > > > >-------- > > > You: > >The fruit is always ripe.:-) > > Yes, yes, this is the obvious modern answer. But maybe it is like > this: it falls when it falls... plop... and there is nothing you can > do... so one could as well GO FOR IT - instead of being a couch potato > or however you call those lazy self addicts. > > Greetings > S. Dear Stefan, Why descend? Your are shedding and that is good so you see why you fight so with your assumption of " whoness " as an attribute of the Observer, the Atman, Self, God, I am, all of whom have no attributes unless you are rewriting all of Advaita Vedanta, Absolute monism, Monotheism and other metaphysical systems positing mystical personal agency. Let me answer your question about who observes all this? I observe it. Me. You observe. You. Who am I? I am that irreducible, experiencing being without attribute or name that is said to eternal, infinite, immaterial and without birth, yet being that and beyond all that, not that. That is who is observing and yet is beyond this, as pure awareness without awareness and as Nisargadatta says " the observer and observed disappear. " I need no designation being that but as a pointer to me as I am, without language it can be used. It affects me not. I need no defense. I live not within conventional reality, the world of concepts and language. So, there is no need to convince any one of this. This is experience, not a concept, not conversation. The experience of me as that is earned through arduous self-inquiry by some and the experience is direct without peer. Such talk of no self strikes the bones of one who goes this path, but it is of no consequence to me. So why do you shake and shudder? It strikes not me. What is struck in you, Stefan? Why the harshness? Others will not accept the word Self, Atman, I am, God, Brahman, Allah. For they are words, complex concepts and will not give into accepting such a word, concept on the principle of co-dependent origination or the simple rule that a concept cannot fully represent reality, or has no relation to reality at all so why blind oneself with it. Has it not blinded and still blinds many who do not understand the simplest of facts? There is no arguing through that philosophy, so why shed in front of everyone? To realize the Self, requires the great shedding of all attachments, attachments of all sorts and the process is like gold being separated from the ore in which it is embedded. There is great heat required to burn away the dross. Leaving the gold shining pure as it is, brilliant, unchangeable. But let me ask you, do you know who has been in the flames and who has not? You cannot tell this with certitude without asking each one. Those seeking the middle path, also must go through fire, Stefan. They too must burn the dross, the attachments. It is a different way to sunyata then to Self-realization but the result is the same. The flames burn the same dross. The " state of transcending being-ness, where the identities of the observer and observed disappear " is sunyata. This is no self. Why do you not see this? What is the dross? It is attachment, a cherishing, longing for union with that which is not gold resulting in bindings, suffering, imprisonment. Nagarjuna argued against the Self as concept because he saw it as a hindrance to reaching liberation. It is argued that trying to relate to any conception, self-projection is a delusion. And he is correct. We know how such delusions, the worship of self and ego projections have wreaked havoc and still do so today. Many people have sought after a concept that had not the life they imagined and in discovering it have become disillusioned only to pick up another one. But that is philosophy, not practice. Both must practice - both Self and No self, Atman and Anatman - and to reach these one must burn hotly in the raging furnaces of their appearance, regardless of all the conceptualizations and thoughts, the attachments to which, (not the conceptualizations or appearances themselves) will also be placed in the flames and obliterated. Those fires, that burning, those furnaces, are in all mystical and yogic traditions, in the East and West and all around in life and death. When someone who is deeply loved dies, the fires alight to burn the dross, the attachments, but we may put them out before the job is done. The fires burn everywhere in life in tragedies, in war, in sufferings of all kinds. But we just cling to instead of letting go our attachment to something that is not, simply not knowing what to do, how to do, how to burn. When the fires have done the job, when the gold appears in its untarnished brilliance, it is unmistakable, all will have been let go, put down, discarded including attachments to the vehicle used to arrive, whether that vehicle is one of ardent effort towards the gold or the ardent effort not to make effort at all in the middle path or some other way. So, what was struck in you that you are compelled to lash out? It is not the gold. Here, perhaps, is an opportunity to burn and learn. Lewis This breathing of the Holy Spirit in the soul, whereby God transforms it in Himself, is to the soul a joy so deep, so exquisite, and so grand that no mortal tongue can describe it, no human understanding, as such, conceive it in any degree; for even that which passes in the soul with respect to the communication which takes place in its transformation wrought in this life cannot be described, because the soul united with God and transformed in Him breathes in God that very divine aspiration which God breathes Himself in the soul when it is transformed in Him. St John of the Cross, A SPIRITUAL CANTICLE OF THE SOUL AND THE BRIDEGROOM CHRIST, Stanza 39:2. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 14, 2005 Lewis, Maybe you think I am attacking you? Don't think that! If you say stupid things I will tell you gladly and with Love because you have a heart. Did I say something yet? No. Pete did. He is Dark Vader. Not me! As for the anti-pseudo-advaita statements: 'You are not awakened unless you awaken!' 'You are not That, unless you reach unity with Universal I AM!' 'There is no Path but only for those who Completed it!' 'There is nobody here, but only when somebody has dissolved! Until that time you are simply a suffering somebody who only tries to believe in being no one or entertains oneself. It was not directed to you at all. I said what do I say or do here! I am 100% anti-pseudo-advaita. Pseudo advaita is a plague to advaita vedanta. There cannot be 2456 mozart! or 3489 picasso! It cannot be. That's it! Easy statement. You know what I like about martial-arts. It is that you have no choive but to talk what you truly can do! I never challenged a Kung-fu master! Nor a grand kung-fu master! See! You want to know why? Because you can truly challenge a kung fu master, and have a true fight. True blood on the floor! They have those rules. I can go anytime to any kung-fu dojo and ask to challenge the master there. They will be honored. Can you imagine the blood I am gonna drop on the floor!!! ha ha ha! It will be mine for sure!! ha ha ha! I know Martial arts. And when you are a kung fu master... you are a kung fu master! There is no " I think there " you cannot hide behind a computer and say the blood does not exist! etc. So I find ridicule people talking about God, Realisation, spirituality, Mind etc. without a proper understanding of the basics of Spirituality. I mean ABC. I'm not talking about advance stuff yet but basic. Ex: You need faith to grow on the way. Others: Bullshit. You need to trust God. Others: God does not exist. Love Others: Love is bullshit! Invention etc. Awakening is gradual Others: No it is instant and permanent!! and it never happened too! etc etc etc You cannot build a house starting from the 15th floor!!! So lets be honest. I know you are not at the first floor. But what about the ones who are at the lower levels? And I'm not only talking here but everywhere in the world. Must we say, there is nothing to do? All is done man? Do I want to get that answer when I want to graduate from university? No, because it is untrue. Masters don't teach stupid things. They don't teach pseudo advaita. Why should I speak stupid things. I want to learn more from them not less. I'm not here to laugh at them. I can joke and have a lot of fun. I say I am immortal and there is one who says that it is in my mind not true etc. But he says that thoughts are electric and bow before technology as an answer. We would need a new path a way to clear the road. Osho worked hard to achieve this. Anyway... Life goes it's way ... Odysseus, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 14, 2005 Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > Stefan wrote: > > > > > Nisargadatta , " sandeep " <sandeepc@b...> > > wrote: > > > > > The sense of the observing entity and it is only a > > sense...........arises when there is a sense of the > > observed,.......... as distinct, as separate, as apart. > > > > > The sense of distinction, that sense of separation, that sense of > > apartness...............infers the sense of the " me " as the subject. > > > > > > An infant, right uptil the age of 1-2 years has no sense of the > > " me " , because for it there is as yet, ...........no sense of the > > " other " . > > > > > > Notice when an infant falls down, it says " it > > hurts " .............not " I am hurting " . > > > > > > And then ofcourse the parents, siblings, peers, favourite uncle, > > hated bully around the swings at the park.............all kick in. > > > > All this does not represent the observer I am talking about. You talk > > about the personality. People who identify themselves with their > > personality believe that they observe through their body and dont > > enquire about the question, how this can be possible at all. For them > > perception and observation is the same. > > > > But once you realize that everything that arises in front of you - > > thoughts, things, feelings - is observed the question arises: WHO > > observes all this? Because the common concept (that the senses and the > > brain are the observers) cannot be maintained anymore, once it is > > realized that the observed cannot be the observer. And the senses and > > the thoughts can be observed, they belong to those things that arise > > in front of me! From this moment on the quest takes another direction > > and it becomes a necessity to find out who this observer really is. > > And it can be found that it is this, which never changes. > > > > And from there you can go on, as Nisargadatta has said: > > > > " When you come to the end of material world-knowledge, at that stage > > you transcend the observer and the observed. That means that you are > > in a true state of being-ness. Thereafter, you enter the state of > > transcending being-ness, where the identities of the observer and > > observed disappear. " > > > > >So long there is a prevailing sense of something being a stepping > > >stone, there is the sense of a journey, and thus a sense of a > > >self-conceived goal. > > > > Nothing wrong about this. First step first. Read a little in this > > group and you will see why I am emphasizing this... If you want to > > become a doctor you have to go to the univerity first. Here you will > > find some doctors who are still in the kindergarden. > > > > No, there is no shortcut. So what? Those who trie hard, who are ready > > to die for truth, who give everything: they will be rewarded. Even > > when it turns out later that their effort was unnecessary: their > > effort was still not fruitless. Maybe they give up like Gautama and: > > ahhh... but... without taking all this effort there would have been > > nothing to give up. Those " instant enlightenment " wannabees: they > > cannot let go because they have nothing to let go... they just think: > > the fruit is always ripe... so I can still pick it tomorrow. > > > > Me: > > >The fruit will fall when it is ripe. > > > > > >-------- > > > > > You: > > >The fruit is always ripe.:-) > > > > Yes, yes, this is the obvious modern answer. But maybe it is like > > this: it falls when it falls... plop... and there is nothing you can > > do... so one could as well GO FOR IT - instead of being a couch potato > > or however you call those lazy self addicts. > > > > Greetings > > S. > > > Dear Stefan, > > Why descend? Your are shedding and that is good so you see why you fight > so with your assumption of " whoness " as an attribute of the Observer, > the Atman, Self, God, I am, all of whom have no attributes unless you > are rewriting all of Advaita Vedanta, Absolute monism, Monotheism and > other metaphysical systems positing mystical personal agency. > > Let me answer your question about who observes all this? I observe it. > Me. You observe. You. Who am I? I am that irreducible, experiencing > being without attribute or name that is said to eternal, infinite, > immaterial and without birth, yet being that and beyond all that, not > that. That is who is observing and yet is beyond this, as pure awareness > without awareness and as Nisargadatta says " the observer and > observed disappear. " I need no designation being that but as a pointer > to me as I am, without language it can be used. It affects me not. I > need no defense. I live not within conventional reality, the world of > concepts and language. > > So, there is no need to convince any one of this. This is experience, > not a concept, not conversation. The experience of me as that is earned > through arduous self-inquiry by some and the experience is direct > without peer. Such talk of no self strikes the bones of one who goes > this path, but it is of no consequence to me. So why do you shake and > shudder? It strikes not me. What is struck in you, Stefan? Why the > harshness? > > Others will not accept the word Self, Atman, I am, God, Brahman, Allah. > For they are words, complex concepts and will not give into accepting > such a word, concept on the principle of co-dependent origination or the > simple rule that a concept cannot fully represent reality, or has no > relation to reality at all so why blind oneself with it. Has it not > blinded and still blinds many who do not understand the simplest of facts? > > There is no arguing through that philosophy, so why shed in front of > everyone? > > To realize the Self, requires the great shedding of all attachments, > attachments of all sorts and the process is like gold being separated > from the ore in which it is embedded. There is great heat required to > burn away the dross. Leaving the gold shining pure as it is, brilliant, > unchangeable. > > But let me ask you, do you know who has been in the flames and who has > not? You cannot tell this with certitude without asking each one. > > Those seeking the middle path, also must go through fire, Stefan. They > too must burn the dross, the attachments. It is a different way to > sunyata then to Self-realization but the result is the same. The flames > burn the same dross. The " state of transcending being-ness, where the > identities of the observer and observed disappear " is sunyata. This is > no self. Why do you not see this? > > What is the dross? It is attachment, a cherishing, longing for union > with that which is not gold resulting in bindings, suffering, imprisonment. > > Nagarjuna argued against the Self as concept because he saw it as a > hindrance to reaching liberation. It is argued that trying to relate to > any conception, self-projection is a delusion. And he is correct. We > know how such delusions, the worship of self and ego projections have > wreaked havoc and still do so today. Many people have sought after a > concept that had not the life they imagined and in discovering it have > become disillusioned only to pick up another one. > > But that is philosophy, not practice. Both must practice - both Self and > No self, Atman and Anatman - and to reach these one must burn hotly in > the raging furnaces of their appearance, regardless of all the > conceptualizations and thoughts, the attachments to which, (not the > conceptualizations or appearances themselves) will also be placed in the > flames and obliterated. > > Those fires, that burning, those furnaces, are in all mystical and yogic > traditions, in the East and West and all around in life and death. When > someone who is deeply loved dies, the fires alight to burn the dross, > the attachments, but we may put them out before the job is done. The > fires burn everywhere in life in tragedies, in war, in sufferings of all > kinds. But we just cling to instead of letting go our attachment to > something that is not, simply not knowing what to do, how to do, how to > burn. > > When the fires have done the job, when the gold appears in its > untarnished brilliance, it is unmistakable, all will have been let go, > put down, discarded including attachments to the vehicle used to arrive, > whether that vehicle is one of ardent effort towards the gold or the > ardent effort not to make effort at all in the middle path or some other > way. > > So, what was struck in you that you are compelled to lash out? It is not > the gold. Here, perhaps, is an opportunity to burn and learn. > > Lewis > > > This breathing of the Holy Spirit in the soul, whereby God transforms it > in Himself, is to the soul a joy so deep, so exquisite, and so grand > that no mortal tongue can describe it, no human understanding, as such, > conceive it in any degree; for even that which passes in the soul with > respect to the communication which takes place in its transformation > wrought in this life cannot be described, because the soul united with > God and transformed in Him breathes in God that very divine aspiration > which God breathes Himself in the soul when it is transformed in Him. > > St John of the Cross, A SPIRITUAL CANTICLE OF THE SOUL > AND THE BRIDEGROOM CHRIST, Stanza 39:2. ************************************** Lewis, now go say that to Pete. We will see what he is going to think about what you said in this posting!! :0) Odysseus, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 14, 2005 Hi Stefan, - Stefan Nisargadatta Friday, January 14, 2005 3:42 AM Re: The Information Revolution > Nisargadatta , " sandeep " <sandeepc@b...> wrote: > The sense of the observing entity and it is only a sense...........arises when there is a sense of the observed,.......... as distinct, as separate, as apart. > The sense of distinction, that sense of separation, that sense of apartness...............infers the sense of the " me " as the subject. > > An infant, right uptil the age of 1-2 years has no sense of the " me " , because for it there is as yet, ...........no sense of the " other " . > > Notice when an infant falls down, it says " it hurts " .............not " I am hurting " . > > And then ofcourse the parents, siblings, peers, favourite uncle, hated bully around the swings at the park.............all kick in. All this does not represent the observer I am talking about. --------- Is there an observer other than the thought of the observed? Which infers the sense of the observer. ---------- You talk about the personality. People who identify themselves with their personality believe that they observe through their body and dont enquire about the question, how this can be possible at all. For them perception and observation is the same. ------- None of " your " observation is anything more than a " fashioned " observation, which is perception. ------- But once you realize that everything that arises in front of you - thoughts, things, feelings - is observed the question arises: WHO observes all this? ------- Sure. The usual self-enquiry process. ------------- Because the common concept (that the senses and the brain are the observers) cannot be maintained anymore, once it is realized that the observed cannot be the observer. And the senses and the thoughts can be observed, they belong to those things that arise in front of me! From this moment on the quest takes another direction and it becomes a necessity to find out who this observer really is. And it can be found that it is this, which never changes. ------- " this-which-never-changes " ..............can only be a conceptualization...............against the premise that something-else-is changing, isn't it? The platform at a railway station is stationary..............only in relation to the moving train. " this-which-never-changes " ................being both that which-never-changes..............and simultaneously .........the changing appearances........ ......does the defining as " that-which-not-changes.............have a meaning? When I am all that there is..............can.......... I............. be of any meaningful relevance? ----------- And from there you can go on, as Nisargadatta has said: " When you come to the end of material world-knowledge, at that stage you transcend the observer and the observed. That means that you are in a true state of being-ness. Thereafter, you enter the state of transcending being-ness, where the identities of the observer and observed disappear. " ----- Nisargadatta was a dude of the first waters. But remember the dialogues by which the world came to know about the dude, was reported via a 4 way circus. Nisargadutta knew no English. He did not even knew the usual Marathi language but a dialect of that language. Questions posed were in Polish, German, French, and English, intrepreted into English to the Marathi intrepreted, who in turn did his two bits to Nisargadatta. And then the reverse process. The sense of the world-knowledge (using your term)...........is the sense of the " you " . Thus " you " do not have this world-knowledge, ..........for " you " to ever be possible to come to end of your possession. " You " never ever being an existential reality..... ....can neither come out or enter the state of transcending being-ness. And to the transcendental beingness.......can even " beingness " be meaningful. Or meaningless. ---------- >So long there is a prevailing sense of something being a stepping >stone, there is the sense of a journey, and thus a sense of a >self-conceived goal. Nothing wrong about this. -------- Never suggested otherwise.:-) --------- First step first. Read a little in this group and you will see why I am emphasizing this... If you want to become a doctor you have to go to the univerity first. Here you will find some doctors who are still in the kindergarden. --------- The doctors with MD degrees are still kids playing Doctor Doctor. --------- No, there is no shortcut. ----- Never suggested there was.:-) Just an invitation to apperceive that there is nothing to be cut, ..............whether by the short putt or by the long putt. The goose was never in the bottle. ------- So what? Those who trie hard, who are ready to die for truth, who give everything: they will be rewarded. Even when it turns out later that their effort was unnecessary: their effort was still not fruitless. -------- As nuances of the functioning in the moment...........indeed there are the arising/dissipating .........of durational appearances.......through which ensued.... .... fierce battle, tremendous display of some effort or the other....poignant drama.........ethos and pathos of the highest grandeurs......... ..either for material thingies or for spiritual thingies. Am not at all suggesting otherwise. Just the invitation.......to drink the waters ...........expressing itself ,..... ......as each of the thousand " waves " of the Ocean, ... ....each " wave " uniquely architectured .......and none of the " waves " having any independent existential reality. --------- Maybe they give up like Gautama and: ahhh... but... without taking all this effort there would have been nothing to give up. ---------- :-) A role...........is architectured, ..........where life long there is a stamping of one's shadow, ...........to erase it's infernal presence. Roles.......... whereby is architectured.............schools and experts.........who even teach the step-by-step process of how that stamping is to be done. Including claims and endorsements of success stories. Another role is architectured.....where there is just a resting under a tree's shade. All roles...........being played by the same.........in simultaneous time. ----------- Those " instant enlightenment " wannabees: they cannot let go because they have nothing to let go... they just think: the fruit is always ripe... so I can still pick it tomorrow. Me: >The fruit will fall when it is ripe. > >-------- > You: >The fruit is always ripe.:-) Yes, yes, this is the obvious modern answer. But maybe it is like this: it falls when it falls... plop... and there is nothing you can do... so one could as well GO FOR IT - instead of being a couch potato or however you call those lazy self addicts. --------- Sure, go for it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 14, 2005 Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: >Dear Stefan, .... >Let me answer your question about who observes all this? I observe >it. Me. You observe. You. Who am I? I am that irreducible, >experiencing being without attribute or name that is said to eternal, >infinite, immaterial and without birth, yet being that and beyond all >that, not that. That is who is observing and yet is beyond this, as >pure a areness without awareness and as Nisargadatta says " the >observer and observed disappear. " I need no designation being that >but as a pointer to me as I am, without language it can be used. It >affects me not. I need no defense. I live not within conventional >reality, the world of concepts and language. You have said it beautifully. >So, there is no need to convince any one of this. This is experience, >not a concept, not conversation. The experience of me as that is >earned through arduous self-inquiry by some and the experience is >direct without peer. Yes. Bye then. (just kidding) >Such talk of no self strikes the bones of one who goes >this path, but it is of no consequence to me. So why do you shake >and shudder? It strikes not me. What is struck in you, Stefan? Why >the harshness? Interesting that you felt harshness. What strikes you that you are posting all this to me? Why do you bother? (I am grateful that you bother.) I did not intend to describe IT, I just wanted to ask the question. Because I think it is better to suggest enquiry than to come up with a disputable description. This was my suggestion: Ask yourself WHO is the observer before you deny it without even looking... It seems that asking the right questions can be much more threatening than coming up with any weird theory... I like this, now I will go on posting those questions forever!!! I am just saying: first step first. Those who did or just do those steps do not feel threatened by my mails. But I feel sad when I see someone who thinks he knows everything does not even look at " knowing " . >There is no arguing through that philosophy, so why shed in front of >everyone? I am asking questions. I am drawing logical conclusions and I am often surprised myself about the results. I prove something and hope for the counter-prove. I have nothing to lose. The fire is burning. >But let me ask you, do you know who has been in the flames and who >has not? You cannot tell this with certitude without asking each one. Oh, even then I cannot know with certainty. But it is not the question of having been in the flames. The question is if those mails are reflecting the flames. Lets say, I am contributing to the symphony by stirring them up. But dont worry, I am here only from time to time. All the best Stefan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 14, 2005 Nisargadatta , " sandeep " <sandeepc@b...> wrote: >Is there an observer other than the thought of the observed? Look at the observer, be with it, stay with it solely and you will get the answer. >None of " your " observation is anything more than a " fashioned " >observation, which is perception. I am not convinced, my friend :-) At the end, what will remain (if anything at all)... the question or the answer? > " this-which-never-changes " ..............can only be a >conceptualization...............against the premise that >something-else-is changing, isn't it? Yes >The platform at a railway station is stationary..............only in >relation to the moving train. Yes > " this-which-never-changes " ................being both that >which-never-changes..............and simultaneously .........the >changing appearances........ > > ......does the defining as > " that-which-not-changes.............have a meaning? It certainly has a meaning in the dual world of thinking. Every coin has two sides. Most people know only one side. The first step is to understand that there is another side too. This other side can serve as the door to the unspeakable. >When I am all that there is..............can.......... I............. >be of any meaningful relevance? No relevance. But spoken out, does it change anything? Repeated by parrots? >Nisargadatta was a dude of the first waters. > >But remember the dialogues by which the world came to know about the >dude, was reported via a 4 way circus. > >Nisargadutta knew no English. >He did not even knew the usual Marathi language but a dialect of that >language. >Questions posed were in Polish, German, French, and English, >intrepreted into English to the Marathi intrepreted, who in turn did >his two bits to Nisargadatta. > >And then the reverse process. So, I see, he was in a quite similar position as we are here in this chaotic group... haha! .... >The goose was never in the bottle. I know. And you never suggested there was. Nor did ever I suggest that you suggested there was. The goose was never in the bottle but still there is this joyful shouting heard in the four corners of the world: THE GOOSE IS OUT! And there was even no bottle, there was no goose... We could continue our conversation forever and ever... >As nuances of the functioning in the moment...........indeed there >are the arising/dissipating .........of durational >appearances.......through which ensued.... > >.... fierce battle, tremendous display of some effort or the >other....poignant drama.........ethos and pathos of the highest >grandeurs......... > >..either for material thingies or for spiritual thingies. Ahhh... how I LOVE tose dots!!! All the best Stefan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 14, 2005 In a message dated 1/14/05 10:30:58 AM, anders_lindman writes: > Personally I have not experienced the suspension of thought. However, > I have experienced deep states of peace where thoughts just floated. > My goal is to find that kind of peace as my normal state of being. > > P: Where was your attention in that moment of peace? Was your attention focussed in any thing in particular? What is a goal? Isn't a goal more thoughts chasing no thoughts? What is the 'who' who has the goal? Is that 'who' different from thoughts? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 14, 2005 ilikezen2004 wrote: > > > Lewis, > > Maybe you think I am attacking you? Don't think that! I do not Odysseus. It was you who I was thinking about. I am pleased that you are fine. If you say > stupid things I will tell you gladly and with Love because you have > a heart. Did I say something yet? No. Pete did. He is Dark Vader. > Not me! I know this is your great love for Pete as you have always shown it. Others may misunderstand, but you are transparent. You are lovely. As for the anti-pseudo-advaita statements: 'You are not > awakened unless you awaken!' 'You are not That, unless you reach > unity with Universal I AM!' 'There is no Path but only for those who > Completed it!' 'There is nobody here, but only when somebody has > dissolved! Until that time you are simply a suffering somebody who > only tries to believe in being no one or entertains oneself. > It was not directed to you at all. I said what do I say or do here! > I am 100% anti-pseudo-advaita. Pseudo advaita is a plague to advaita > vedanta. No. The question was not for me or about me. You know that. As for the plague, there are always plagues and there are preventive measures, vaccinations upon contraction of the disease, and after care for the infected. None can die as you know. So inject the syringes as it goes. > > There cannot be 2456 mozart! or 3489 picasso! It cannot be. That's > it! Easy statement. You know what I like about martial-arts. It is > that you have no choive but to talk what you truly can do! I never > challenged a Kung-fu master! Nor a grand kung-fu master! See! You > want to know why? Because you can truly challenge a kung fu master, > and have a true fight. True blood on the floor! They have those > rules. I can go anytime to any kung-fu dojo and ask to challenge the > master there. They will be honored. Can you imagine the blood I am > gonna drop on the floor!!! ha ha ha! It will be mine for sure!! ha > ha ha! I know Martial arts. And when you are a kung fu master... you > are a kung fu master! There is no " I think there " you cannot hide > behind a computer and say the blood does not exist! etc. Yes, Odysseus, one can do that and do that everywhere. Tangling with a Kung Fu Master as you want will not be had, for the Master knows the desire of the student will moderate it, so that blood will not be spilled without it being required. The Master will floor you with a knockout move when you have stepped beyond the bounds by harming the inner aspect of the appearances. > > So I find ridicule people talking about God, Realisation, > spirituality, Mind etc. without a proper understanding of the basics > of Spirituality. I mean ABC. I'm not talking about advance stuff yet > but basic. We are learning, growing, burning. Help us learn and grow and burn. > > Ex: You need faith to grow on the way. > Others: Bullshit. > You need to trust God. > Others: God does not exist. > Love > Others: Love is bullshit! Invention etc. > Awakening is gradual > Others: No it is instant and permanent!! and it never happened too! > etc etc etc There is the difference between thought and practice, between thinking about the burning and burning. This has always been so, but need not be. It is a confounding that is overcome by example, of the lived life. > You cannot build a house starting from the 15th floor!!! > So lets be honest. I know you are not at the first floor. But what > about the ones who are at the lower levels? And I'm not only talking > here but everywhere in the world. Must we say, there is nothing to > do? All is done man? Do I want to get that answer when I want to > graduate from university? No, because it is untrue. If we are to conceive levels, then I am at the bottom, Odysseus, closest to those " lower levels. " You know that, you have said so. Is it not compassion that moves you fiercely? That opens your mouth making you say what you say with fire and light? I know it does move you with great force, I feel it and drink it for building the strength of this appearance, but why do you still ask those questions? Give. Inject. The whyness of it is for the fires and the response of others to compassion, the injections, will be what it is and nothing more. > Masters don't teach stupid things. They don't teach pseudo advaita. > Why should I speak stupid things. I want to learn more from them not > less. I'm not here to laugh at them. They teach what they experience in the way that they know. Each different in their way. Every Wise Master, now matter how ridiculous or great in appearance to others, will push you away, throw you in the fires to burn. They will lure you, trick you and eventually throw you in to burn for that is the way of the Wise Master. It is in your appearance where the work is to be done, the burning away. They can do nothing but point, point out, and push; show the fire (as something else), point out your resistance and then push you in, if you are ready and allow it. Who willing walks into a raging furnace to suffer the pain and anguish of the burning of all attachments? What happens in the fire, if you decide not to resist, lies within your appearance. Wise masters can do nothing directly with the inner aspect of your appearance. You allow all or part or not. " True " masters are incapable of being ridiculed and laughed at. Such matters are a glass of water to drink with all the rest. As you may know, lies become truth and truth becomes lies, sincerity becomes trickery and trickery sincerity and then none have meaning in the darkness of mind and then all is clear. We do not worry the transitions, we let them burn. > > I can joke and have a lot of fun. I say I am immortal and there is > one who says that it is in my mind not true etc. But he says that > thoughts are electric and bow before technology as an answer. He says it, but means and intends something else, as you do. Drink it heartily, enjoy. Belief in it is unnecessary. It is a tool to use or not, to see what needs be in the fires. > > We would need a new path a way to clear the road. Osho worked hard > to achieve this. Anyway... Yes. It is understood. > > Life goes it's way ... > > Odysseus, And we go with it in our way. Lewis Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 14, 2005 Dearest Odysseus, He has seen it and knows of it well. Lewis ilikezen2004 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> > wrote: > > > > > > Stefan wrote: > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " sandeep " > <sandeepc@b...> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > The sense of the observing entity and it is only a > > > sense...........arises when there is a sense of the > > > observed,.......... as distinct, as separate, as apart. > > > > > > > The sense of distinction, that sense of separation, that > sense of > > > apartness...............infers the sense of the " me " as the > subject. > > > > > > > > An infant, right uptil the age of 1-2 years has no sense of > the > > > " me " , because for it there is as yet, ...........no sense of the > > > " other " . > > > > > > > > Notice when an infant falls down, it says " it > > > hurts " .............not " I am hurting " . > > > > > > > > And then ofcourse the parents, siblings, peers, favourite > uncle, > > > hated bully around the swings at the park.............all kick > in. > > > > > > All this does not represent the observer I am talking about. You > talk > > > about the personality. People who identify themselves with their > > > personality believe that they observe through their body and dont > > > enquire about the question, how this can be possible at all. For > them > > > perception and observation is the same. > > > > > > But once you realize that everything that arises in front of > you - > > > thoughts, things, feelings - is observed the question arises: WHO > > > observes all this? Because the common concept (that the senses > and the > > > brain are the observers) cannot be maintained anymore, once it is > > > realized that the observed cannot be the observer. And the > senses and > > > the thoughts can be observed, they belong to those things that > arise > > > in front of me! From this moment on the quest takes another > direction > > > and it becomes a necessity to find out who this observer really > is. > > > And it can be found that it is this, which never changes. > > > > > > And from there you can go on, as Nisargadatta has said: > > > > > > " When you come to the end of material world-knowledge, at that > stage > > > you transcend the observer and the observed. That means that you > are > > > in a true state of being-ness. Thereafter, you enter the state of > > > transcending being-ness, where the identities of the observer and > > > observed disappear. " > > > > > > >So long there is a prevailing sense of something being a > stepping > > > >stone, there is the sense of a journey, and thus a sense of a > > > >self-conceived goal. > > > > > > Nothing wrong about this. First step first. Read a little in this > > > group and you will see why I am emphasizing this... If you want > to > > > become a doctor you have to go to the univerity first. Here you > will > > > find some doctors who are still in the kindergarden. > > > > > > No, there is no shortcut. So what? Those who trie hard, who are > ready > > > to die for truth, who give everything: they will be rewarded. > Even > > > when it turns out later that their effort was unnecessary: their > > > effort was still not fruitless. Maybe they give up like Gautama > and: > > > ahhh... but... without taking all this effort there would have > been > > > nothing to give up. Those " instant enlightenment " wannabees: they > > > cannot let go because they have nothing to let go... they just > think: > > > the fruit is always ripe... so I can still pick it tomorrow. > > > > > > Me: > > > >The fruit will fall when it is ripe. > > > > > > > >-------- > > > > > > > You: > > > >The fruit is always ripe.:-) > > > > > > Yes, yes, this is the obvious modern answer. But maybe it is like > > > this: it falls when it falls... plop... and there is nothing you > can > > > do... so one could as well GO FOR IT - instead of being a couch > potato > > > or however you call those lazy self addicts. > > > > > > Greetings > > > S. > > > > > > Dear Stefan, > > > > Why descend? Your are shedding and that is good so you see why you > fight > > so with your assumption of " whoness " as an attribute of the > Observer, > > the Atman, Self, God, I am, all of whom have no attributes unless > you > > are rewriting all of Advaita Vedanta, Absolute monism, Monotheism > and > > other metaphysical systems positing mystical personal agency. > > > > Let me answer your question about who observes all this? I observe > it. > > Me. You observe. You. Who am I? I am that irreducible, > experiencing > > being without attribute or name that is said to eternal, infinite, > > immaterial and without birth, yet being that and beyond all that, > not > > that. That is who is observing and yet is beyond this, as pure > awareness > > without awareness and as Nisargadatta says " the observer and > > observed disappear. " I need no designation being that but as a > pointer > > to me as I am, without language it can be used. It affects me not. > I > > need no defense. I live not within conventional reality, the world > of > > concepts and language. > > > > So, there is no need to convince any one of this. This is > experience, > > not a concept, not conversation. The experience of me as that is > earned > > through arduous self-inquiry by some and the experience is direct > > without peer. Such talk of no self strikes the bones of one who > goes > > this path, but it is of no consequence to me. So why do you shake > and > > shudder? It strikes not me. What is struck in you, Stefan? Why the > > harshness? > > > > Others will not accept the word Self, Atman, I am, God, Brahman, > Allah. > > For they are words, complex concepts and will not give into > accepting > > such a word, concept on the principle of co-dependent origination > or the > > simple rule that a concept cannot fully represent reality, or has > no > > relation to reality at all so why blind oneself with it. Has it > not > > blinded and still blinds many who do not understand the simplest > of facts? > > > > There is no arguing through that philosophy, so why shed in front > of > > everyone? > > > > To realize the Self, requires the great shedding of all > attachments, > > attachments of all sorts and the process is like gold being > separated > > from the ore in which it is embedded. There is great heat required > to > > burn away the dross. Leaving the gold shining pure as it is, > brilliant, > > unchangeable. > > > > But let me ask you, do you know who has been in the flames and who > has > > not? You cannot tell this with certitude without asking each one. > > > > Those seeking the middle path, also must go through fire, Stefan. > They > > too must burn the dross, the attachments. It is a different way to > > sunyata then to Self-realization but the result is the same. The > flames > > burn the same dross. The " state of transcending being-ness, where > the > > identities of the observer and observed disappear " is sunyata. > This is > > no self. Why do you not see this? > > > > What is the dross? It is attachment, a cherishing, longing for > union > > with that which is not gold resulting in bindings, suffering, > imprisonment. > > > > Nagarjuna argued against the Self as concept because he saw it as > a > > hindrance to reaching liberation. It is argued that trying to > relate to > > any conception, self-projection is a delusion. And he is correct. > We > > know how such delusions, the worship of self and ego projections > have > > wreaked havoc and still do so today. Many people have sought after > a > > concept that had not the life they imagined and in discovering it > have > > become disillusioned only to pick up another one. > > > > But that is philosophy, not practice. Both must practice - both > Self and > > No self, Atman and Anatman - and to reach these one must burn > hotly in > > the raging furnaces of their appearance, regardless of all the > > conceptualizations and thoughts, the attachments to which, (not > the > > conceptualizations or appearances themselves) will also be placed > in the > > flames and obliterated. > > > > Those fires, that burning, those furnaces, are in all mystical and > yogic > > traditions, in the East and West and all around in life and death. > When > > someone who is deeply loved dies, the fires alight to burn the > dross, > > the attachments, but we may put them out before the job is done. > The > > fires burn everywhere in life in tragedies, in war, in sufferings > of all > > kinds. But we just cling to instead of letting go our attachment > to > > something that is not, simply not knowing what to do, how to do, > how to > > burn. > > > > When the fires have done the job, when the gold appears in its > > untarnished brilliance, it is unmistakable, all will have been let > go, > > put down, discarded including attachments to the vehicle used to > arrive, > > whether that vehicle is one of ardent effort towards the gold or > the > > ardent effort not to make effort at all in the middle path or some > other > > way. > > > > So, what was struck in you that you are compelled to lash out? It > is not > > the gold. Here, perhaps, is an opportunity to burn and learn. > > > > Lewis > > > > > > This breathing of the Holy Spirit in the soul, whereby God > transforms it > > in Himself, is to the soul a joy so deep, so exquisite, and so > grand > > that no mortal tongue can describe it, no human understanding, as > such, > > conceive it in any degree; for even that which passes in the soul > with > > respect to the communication which takes place in its > transformation > > wrought in this life cannot be described, because the soul united > with > > God and transformed in Him breathes in God that very divine > aspiration > > which God breathes Himself in the soul when it is transformed in > Him. > > > > St John of the Cross, A SPIRITUAL CANTICLE OF THE SOUL > > AND THE BRIDEGROOM CHRIST, Stanza 39:2. > > ************************************** > > Lewis, now go say that to Pete. We will see what he is going to > think about what you said in this posting!! :0) > > Odysseus, > > > > > > ** > > 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 January 14, 2005 Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > Dearest Odysseus, > > He has seen it and knows of it well. > > Lewis ******************** :0) I'm sure he did. You said it yourself. He has someting weird, dark hidden. I red it from you. It was a post you replyied to him. That is why a call him. Dark Vader. Oh he is a Jedi. But a dark one.! ha ha ha! Do you see me better now Pete Boy! Love Odysseus, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 14, 2005 Stefan wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > >Dear Stefan, > ... > >Let me answer your question about who observes all this? I observe > >it. Me. You observe. You. Who am I? I am that irreducible, > >experiencing being without attribute or name that is said to eternal, > >infinite, immaterial and without birth, yet being that and beyond all > >that, not that. That is who is observing and yet is beyond this, as > >pure a areness without awareness and as Nisargadatta says " the > >observer and observed disappear. " I need no designation being that > >but as a pointer to me as I am, without language it can be used. It > >affects me not. I need no defense. I live not within conventional > >reality, the world of concepts and language. > > You have said it beautifully. > > >So, there is no need to convince any one of this. This is > experience, > >not a concept, not conversation. The experience of me as that is > >earned through arduous self-inquiry by some and the experience is > >direct without peer. > > Yes. Bye then. (just kidding) > > >Such talk of no self strikes the bones of one who goes > >this path, but it is of no consequence to me. So why do you shake > >and shudder? It strikes not me. What is struck in you, Stefan? Why > >the harshness? > > Interesting that you felt harshness. What strikes you that you are > posting all this to me? Why do you bother? (I am grateful that you > bother.) I did not feel harshness Stefan. I was asking your intention. I do not know you as I know Odysseus. I know his compassion. I wanted to drink you as you are not as imagined. I am not stricken, but moved by your words, by you. it is not a bother. It is the way I am. > > I did not intend to describe IT, I just wanted to ask the question. > Because I think it is better to suggest enquiry than to come up with a > disputable description. > > This was my suggestion: > Ask yourself WHO is the observer before you deny it without even > looking... Yes. But for those who deny on principle such inquiry it may be of little use. One cannot ask who is the observer when that question is deemed already to be a failure to understand. Stefan, it is a different path that enters by a different method to the same arrival as self-inquiry. Bhakti yoga and raja yoga are also different. So is the path for mystical union with God and so it goes. Also, in my experience, both self-inquiry and the middle path are useful in that they both strip away attachment to thought and concept. Self-inquiry does so through direct questioning and internal observation which allows the emergence and prominence of the irreducible observer and then the irreducible observer works to release all conceptualizations of itself left in the mind until the observer merges with the appearances without concept meditation which is experiencing what is, is living as it is. The middle path is through " letting go " of all that arises in the mind toward sunyata. This " letting go " is achieved " without effort " that is you cannot let go by trying to let go (that is effort) and it is a difficult art to master. So you can see why self-inquiry practices are somewhat anti-thetical to the practices of the middle path. It is extremely difficult to do this without reduction to that which is irreducible, but it can be done, regardless. Because there is no transition stage as there is self-inquiry and in the mystical union traditions, the letting go is arduous, difficult, disconcerting. In one sense it is the attempt to enter the dark night without knowing what it is all about and there is no goal but to let go. Such direct immersion, proves difficult in general and there tends to be lapses in letting go not only intellectual concepts, but life concepts as it is in self-inquiry. Other paths cover these weakness in these paths, that focus on the use of the intellect. For those predisposed to the middle path, there is extremely rapid advancement. This can be experienced and it is not a hoax. Unfortunately, the notions of satori, of whatever degree, have made the middle path a highway of people trying to get it quick. It comes quickly for some, but it is clear that it is the very very few who become incapable of no-attached thought. Both are useful. Each can be examined and used in the light of the other. There is only gain to be had. And the path after, the outward path has not been paved well at all. > > It seems that asking the right questions can be much more threatening > than coming up with any weird theory... I like this, now I will go on > posting those questions forever!!! > > I am just saying: first step first. Those who did or just do those > steps do not feel threatened by my mails. But I feel sad when I see > someone who thinks he knows everything does not even look at > " knowing " . Knowing in whose way? There are many ways of knowing. Who has the right way? Asserting the right way has consequences as we have seen in the writings of the past. Lived example is the only available arbiter of what is the way and then all of those who are substantial examples of what they say, do not begrudge others their path but show themselves as an example. " Here I am. I am the way or I am a way " It is up to each one to do as they do with such an example. The example can do nothing more. > > >There is no arguing through that philosophy, so why shed in front of > >everyone? > > I am asking questions. I am drawing logical conclusions and I am often > surprised myself about the results. I prove something and hope for the > counter-prove. I have nothing to lose. The fire is burning. Yes. Let us burn intensely leaving all the dross to be obliterated. > > >But let me ask you, do you know who has been in the flames and who > >has not? You cannot tell this with certitude without asking each one. > > Oh, even then I cannot know with certainty. But it is not the question > of having been in the flames. The question is if those mails are > reflecting the flames. Lets say, I am contributing to the symphony by > stirring them up. But dont worry, I am here only from time to time. That question can be answered by asking and your sense of the answer. Yes. That may be your instrument or or just one of them, but play on as you do we all can use kindling for the fires. > > All the best > Stefan Thank you for the refreshing drink, Lewis Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 14, 2005 Nisargadatta , " ilikezen2004 " <ilikezen2004> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> > wrote: > > Dearest Odysseus, > > > > He has seen it and knows of it well. > > > > Lewis > ******************** > > :0) I'm sure he did. You said it yourself. He has someting weird, > dark hidden. I red it from you. It was a post you replyied to him. > That is why a call him. Dark Vader. Oh he is a Jedi. But a dark > one.! ha ha ha! Do you see me better now Pete Boy! > > Love > Odysseus, That's called a Sith. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 14, 2005 anders_lindman wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " ilikezen2004 " > <ilikezen2004> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> > > wrote: > > > Dearest Odysseus, > > > > > > He has seen it and knows of it well. > > > > > > Lewis > > ******************** > > > > :0) I'm sure he did. You said it yourself. He has someting weird, > > dark hidden. I red it from you. It was a post you replyied to him. > > That is why a call him. Dark Vader. Oh he is a Jedi. But a dark > > one.! ha ha ha! Do you see me better now Pete Boy! > > > > Love > > Odysseus, > > That's called a Sith. Pete = Sith? Pete is alight with all your love and attention, Odysseus. My first encounters were exploratory as you may know. You enlarge him and expand him as he breathes the scented air of your compassion filled disses, Odysseus. But try speaking to him directly. He has a great calm in him, behind those exteriors presented that are sometimes gruff. Drink him as he is. Lewis Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 14, 2005 Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > anders_lindman wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " ilikezen2004 " > > <ilikezen2004> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> > > > wrote: > > > > Dearest Odysseus, > > > > > > > > He has seen it and knows of it well. > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > ******************** > > > > > > :0) I'm sure he did. You said it yourself. He has someting weird, > > > dark hidden. I red it from you. It was a post you replyied to him. > > > That is why a call him. Dark Vader. Oh he is a Jedi. But a dark > > > one.! ha ha ha! Do you see me better now Pete Boy! > > > > > > Love > > > Odysseus, > > > > That's called a Sith. > > > Pete = Sith? Pete is alight with all your love and attention, Odysseus. > My first encounters were exploratory as you may know. You enlarge him > and expand him as he breathes the scented air of your compassion filled > disses, Odysseus. But try speaking to him directly. He has a great calm > in him, behind those exteriors presented that are sometimes gruff. Drink > him as he is. > > Lewis The thinking mind is a Sith. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
