Guest guest Posted February 7, 2005 Report Share Posted February 7, 2005 Hey, Lewis, as far as the " getting " issue you mention below, what I said makes sense when you understand that questioning what one gets, opens into clarity that truth isn't a matter of someone getting something. Sorry I have to explain this to you, as directly hearing this truth from silence is utterly beyond any explanation offered by someone else. -- Dan (nothing new below) Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " > > > > <adithya_comming> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > [........] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> BTW, what and `why' are you still `debating', Dan ? > > > > > > > > > > This is why, I asked you this question, Dan. > > > > > > > > > > About 3 messages ago in the same thread, I asked you perhaps, > > a > > > > Very > > > > > Simple question and then I even repeated it. > > > > > > > > > > You haven't answered it. Yet, you have been presenting your > > ideas > > > > > on ...assumes sense, inability of words ... > > > > > > > > > > Whereas, answer to the question might be pretty simple and > > > > straight > > > > > and might require No elaborate logic. Just little Courage > > should > > > > be > > > > > enough. > > > > > > > > > > If you can NOT try to honestly and sincerely this question in > > > > > straight and simple terms, I ask ....Why, you are still > > > > `debating', > > > > > Dan. Here is the question again: > > > > > > > > > > ============ > > > > > > > > > > It is quite easy, Dan! > > > > > ....for anybody who can take courage to be HONEST, Sincere and > > > > Open > > > > > for a Moment. > > > > > > > > > > What any assuming, thinking requires ? > > > > > > > > > > What is ...ALWAYS ...Present ? > > > > > > > > > > What you can ...NEVER ...get rid of ? > > > > > > > > > > WHAT ...IS ...ALWAYS ? > > > > > > > > > > =========== > > > > > > > > > > [........] > > > > > > > > I'm not debating Arvind. > > > > > > > > I'm simply inviting you to look at the one who > > > > holds the belief and why, rather than repeating > > > > the belief over and over. > > > > > > > > Why the need to believe there is something you have > > > > that is always present, some IS that never changes? > > > > > > > > What do you get out of that? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps, " he gets " the same thing " you get " out what you hold. > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > It's not a matter of someone getting something. > > > > Since Arvind was asked " What do you get out of that? " I assumed that > is what you meant. > > > > > > > That is not the silence speaking into and through the words. > > > > In and through this silence, there is no one getting or > > having anything. > > > Then it is a wonder why Arvind was questioned in that way. > > > > > > " The movement of the shadow on the stairs, disturbs not > > one mote of dust. " > > > > It is not, as you seem to suggest below, a debate about > > terminology. It is a matter of clear seeing, understanding, > > that doesn't depend on terminology. > > > > -- D. > > > > > > > That is a conclusion made without Arvind's response. Is it certain > that Arvind does not experience it in the way you describe? There is > enough silence between his words overall to indicate that Arvind's > words and Dan's word's below are not much different and it seems that > it is the affirming presentation and the negating one that has this at > odds. When Dan affirmed intelligence as it was done below, it seemed > possible that the same is being held by Arvind, as that is the > traditional view and reported experience of " I AM. " It seems moot > until Arvind responds and a " conclusion, " if one needs to make one, > may be best held in abeyance until Arvind is heard or not, as each > does so in that way we do. > > > And Arvind has yet to answer clearly and with elaboration to those > matters put out in the numerous posts made on this. Is the " I AM " that > is referred to simply a self-constructed mind entity maintained by > repeatedly affirming and reaffirming an experience coupled with a > rigid belief in it, which allows it to be frozen in place as a mental > conceptual filter that vigilantly scans all incoming sensations and > words and so on declaring them to be objects and is unable to see > itself as the object it is? Or is I AM something else. It has been the > experience of many that I AM can speak for itself and needs no > affirmation from others or realization by others. So let us hear I AM > speak as it is without reservation or the asking of questions or > simple affirmations. This seems possible and if not how is that so? > > > > > > > > Dan: Indeed, this intelligence is immediate, not dependent > > > on words or structures, yet can " use " the structurings > > > and words. > > > > > > It is total, timeless, nonlocal. > > > > > > Neither absolute, nor relative -- but allowing > > > us to make sense of the distinction and > > > relation of concepts of absoluteness and relativity. > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > > > > Arvind seems to call this you describe as " I AM. " You seem to > > agree to > > > name it " intelligence. " The difference is obscured if Arvind sees > > I AM > > > as total, timeless, nonlocal. > > > > > > What does Arvind say? Arvind? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Obviously, you get security, you get permanence. > > > > > > > > So, you could, instead of repeatedly saying, " I AM " - > > > > look into the insecurity that wants to hold onto > > > > something permanent and absolute as a means to > > > > have something to count on. > > > > > > > > And then, you might surprise yourself. > > > > > > > > -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 7, 2005 Report Share Posted February 7, 2005 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > > Hey, Lewis, as far as the " getting " issue you mention below, what > I said makes sense when you understand that questioning > what one gets, opens into clarity that truth isn't > a matter of someone getting something. > > Sorry I have to explain this to you, as > directly hearing this truth from silence is utterly > beyond any explanation offered by someone else. > > -- Dan Yes, under the circumstances it makes sense. No explanation is necessary. The explanation offered still does not handle the the fact that Arvind was questioned in that way given that you say " no one getting or having anything. " How is it known if Arvind has not asked and answered that question as it is, before you asked? And does Arvind have the sort of " self " required for getting and having? And would it be necessary to assume this so that the question could be asked? Does asking that question require assumptions about the veracity and clarity of Arvind as he is or claims as I AM and that he has nothing more than a mind projecting a I AM self? How is it known if Arvind is projecting an I AM self any more than Dan is doing the same. Is projection avoidable? Is it necessary to assume what others are from their appearances alone when questions can be asked? It is clear that when Dan's appearances are questioned that clarifying statements emerge. Arvind also needs the chance to do the same as do all appearances for whatever explanations offered. And if only the one with the requisite " hearing from silence " can hear this truth and it is beyond any explanation offered by someone else, then is it not fair to ask if Arvind has taken a similar position towards Dan, assuming something about Dan, asking Dan questions that assumes the form of a probe to bring clarity to Dan as Dan did with " getting " to Arvind? Can it be said that Arvind sees the I AM as beyond any explanation offered by someone else as does Dan sees " this truth? " Like Dan, no explanations are offered. Both say it is beyond any explanation offered by someone else. It [i AM, this truth] can only be realized or heard from silence. Who disagrees? Is it the assuming that creates this sort of dialog, the assuming that has nothing to do with either I AM or this truth? It is a wondering. Arvind speaks: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ....and, if you read the message, you might see, I am not talking about some reality, ...or un-reality which might require theory, concepts, words, thinking, imagination, senses, feeling, ...whatever, But, ---- I AM ---- that ALWAYS ....IS. Which requires No proof, but, ---- I AM --- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ It is quite easy, Dan! .....for anybody who can take courage to be HONEST, Sincere and Open for a Moment. What any assuming, thinking requires ? What is ...ALWAYS ...Present ? What you can ...NEVER ...get rid of ? WHAT ...IS ...ALWAYS ? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " > <lbb10@c...> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " > <dan330033> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " > > > > > <adithya_comming> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > [........] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> BTW, what and `why' are you still `debating', Dan ? > > > > > > > > > > > > This is why, I asked you this question, Dan. > > > > > > > > > > > > About 3 messages ago in the same thread, I asked you > perhaps, > > > a > > > > > Very > > > > > > Simple question and then I even repeated it. > > > > > > > > > > > > You haven't answered it. Yet, you have been presenting > your > > > ideas > > > > > > on ...assumes sense, inability of words ... > > > > > > > > > > > > Whereas, answer to the question might be pretty simple and > > > > > straight > > > > > > and might require No elaborate logic. Just little Courage > > > should > > > > > be > > > > > > enough. > > > > > > > > > > > > If you can NOT try to honestly and sincerely this question > in > > > > > > straight and simple terms, I ask ....Why, you are still > > > > > `debating', > > > > > > Dan. Here is the question again: > > > > > > > > > > > > ============ > > > > > > > > > > > > It is quite easy, Dan! > > > > > > ....for anybody who can take courage to be HONEST, Sincere > and > > > > > Open > > > > > > for a Moment. > > > > > > > > > > > > What any assuming, thinking requires ? > > > > > > > > > > > > What is ...ALWAYS ...Present ? > > > > > > > > > > > > What you can ...NEVER ...get rid of ? > > > > > > > > > > > > WHAT ...IS ...ALWAYS ? > > > > > > > > > > > > =========== > > > > > > > > > > > > [........] > > > > > > > > > > I'm not debating Arvind. > > > > > > > > > > I'm simply inviting you to look at the one who > > > > > holds the belief and why, rather than repeating > > > > > the belief over and over. > > > > > > > > > > Why the need to believe there is something you have > > > > > that is always present, some IS that never changes? > > > > > > > > > > What do you get out of that? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps, " he gets " the same thing " you get " out what you hold. > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > It's not a matter of someone getting something. > > > > > > > > Since Arvind was asked " What do you get out of that? " I assumed > that > > is what you meant. > > > > > > > > > > > > That is not the silence speaking into and through the words. > > > > > > In and through this silence, there is no one getting or > > > having anything. > > > > > > Then it is a wonder why Arvind was questioned in that way. > > > > > > > > > > " The movement of the shadow on the stairs, disturbs not > > > one mote of dust. " > > > > > > It is not, as you seem to suggest below, a debate about > > > terminology. It is a matter of clear seeing, understanding, > > > that doesn't depend on terminology. > > > > > > -- D. > > > > > > > > > > > > That is a conclusion made without Arvind's response. Is it certain > > that Arvind does not experience it in the way you describe? There > is > > enough silence between his words overall to indicate that Arvind's > > words and Dan's word's below are not much different and it seems > that > > it is the affirming presentation and the negating one that has > this at > > odds. When Dan affirmed intelligence as it was done below, it > seemed > > possible that the same is being held by Arvind, as that is the > > traditional view and reported experience of " I AM. " It seems moot > > until Arvind responds and a " conclusion, " if one needs to make one, > > may be best held in abeyance until Arvind is heard or not, as each > > does so in that way we do. > > > > > > And Arvind has yet to answer clearly and with elaboration to those > > matters put out in the numerous posts made on this. Is the " I AM " > that > > is referred to simply a self-constructed mind entity maintained by > > repeatedly affirming and reaffirming an experience coupled with a > > rigid belief in it, which allows it to be frozen in place as a > mental > > conceptual filter that vigilantly scans all incoming sensations and > > words and so on declaring them to be objects and is unable to see > > itself as the object it is? Or is I AM something else. It has been > the > > experience of many that I AM can speak for itself and needs no > > affirmation from others or realization by others. So let us hear I > AM > > speak as it is without reservation or the asking of questions or > > simple affirmations. This seems possible and if not how is that > so? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dan: Indeed, this intelligence is immediate, not dependent > > > > on words or structures, yet can " use " the structurings > > > > and words. > > > > > > > > It is total, timeless, nonlocal. > > > > > > > > Neither absolute, nor relative -- but allowing > > > > us to make sense of the distinction and > > > > relation of concepts of absoluteness and relativity. > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > > > > > > > Arvind seems to call this you describe as " I AM. " You seem to > > > agree to > > > > name it " intelligence. " The difference is obscured if Arvind > sees > > > I AM > > > > as total, timeless, nonlocal. > > > > > > > > What does Arvind say? Arvind? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Obviously, you get security, you get permanence. > > > > > > > > > > So, you could, instead of repeatedly saying, " I AM " - > > > > > look into the insecurity that wants to hold onto > > > > > something permanent and absolute as a means to > > > > > have something to count on. > > > > > > > > > > And then, you might surprise yourself. > > > > > > > > > > -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 8, 2005 Report Share Posted February 8, 2005 If you read and hear between the words, Lewis, you'll understand what's different between Arvind's talk and mine, and those and yours for that matter. And then/now, while being clear on the differences, hearing the sound of the flute of no holes -- it won't matter. -- Dan (nothing new below) Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > > > > Hey, Lewis, as far as the " getting " issue you mention below, what > > I said makes sense when you understand that questioning > > what one gets, opens into clarity that truth isn't > > a matter of someone getting something. > > > > Sorry I have to explain this to you, as > > directly hearing this truth from silence is utterly > > beyond any explanation offered by someone else. > > > > -- Dan > > Yes, under the circumstances it makes sense. No explanation is > necessary. The explanation offered still does not handle the the fact > that Arvind was questioned in that way given that you say " no one > getting or having anything. " How is it known if Arvind has not asked > and answered that question as it is, before you asked? And does Arvind > have the sort of " self " required for getting and having? And would it > be necessary to assume this so that the question could be asked? Does > asking that question require assumptions about the veracity and > clarity of Arvind as he is or claims as I AM and that he has nothing > more than a mind projecting a I AM self? > > How is it known if Arvind is projecting an I AM self any more than Dan > is doing the same. Is projection avoidable? Is it necessary to assume > what others are from their appearances alone when questions can be > asked? It is clear that when Dan's appearances are questioned that > clarifying statements emerge. Arvind also needs the chance to do the > same as do all appearances for whatever explanations offered. > > And if only the one with the requisite " hearing from silence " can hear > this truth and it is beyond any explanation offered by someone else, > then is it not fair to ask if Arvind has taken a similar position > towards Dan, assuming something about Dan, asking Dan questions that > assumes the form of a probe to bring clarity to Dan as Dan did with > " getting " to Arvind? Can it be said that Arvind sees the I AM as > beyond any explanation offered by someone else as does Dan sees " this > truth? " > > Like Dan, no explanations are offered. Both say it is beyond any > explanation offered by someone else. It [i AM, this truth] can only be > realized or heard from silence. Who disagrees? Is it the assuming that > creates this sort of dialog, the assuming that has nothing to do with > either I AM or this truth? It is a wondering. > > > Arvind speaks: > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > ...and, if you read the message, you might see, I am not talking > about some reality, ...or un-reality which might require theory, > concepts, words, thinking, imagination, senses, feeling, ...whatever, > > But, > > > ---- I AM ---- > > > that ALWAYS ....IS. > > > > > Which requires No proof, but, > > ---- I AM --- > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > It is quite easy, Dan! > > ....for anybody who can take courage to be HONEST, Sincere and Open > for a Moment. > > What any assuming, thinking requires ? > > What is ...ALWAYS ...Present ? > > What you can ...NEVER ...get rid of ? > > WHAT ...IS ...ALWAYS ? > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " > > <lbb10@c...> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " > > <dan330033> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " > > > > > > <adithya_comming> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [........] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> BTW, what and `why' are you still `debating', Dan ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is why, I asked you this question, Dan. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > About 3 messages ago in the same thread, I asked you > > perhaps, > > > > a > > > > > > Very > > > > > > > Simple question and then I even repeated it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You haven't answered it. Yet, you have been presenting > > your > > > > ideas > > > > > > > on ...assumes sense, inability of words ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Whereas, answer to the question might be pretty simple and > > > > > > straight > > > > > > > and might require No elaborate logic. Just little Courage > > > > should > > > > > > be > > > > > > > enough. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you can NOT try to honestly and sincerely this question > > in > > > > > > > straight and simple terms, I ask ....Why, you are still > > > > > > `debating', > > > > > > > Dan. Here is the question again: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ============ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is quite easy, Dan! > > > > > > > ....for anybody who can take courage to be HONEST, Sincere > > and > > > > > > Open > > > > > > > for a Moment. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What any assuming, thinking requires ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is ...ALWAYS ...Present ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What you can ...NEVER ...get rid of ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WHAT ...IS ...ALWAYS ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > =========== > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [........] > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not debating Arvind. > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm simply inviting you to look at the one who > > > > > > holds the belief and why, rather than repeating > > > > > > the belief over and over. > > > > > > > > > > > > Why the need to believe there is something you have > > > > > > that is always present, some IS that never changes? > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you get out of that? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps, " he gets " the same thing " you get " out what you hold. > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > > > It's not a matter of someone getting something. > > > > > > > > > > > > Since Arvind was asked " What do you get out of that? " I assumed > > that > > > is what you meant. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is not the silence speaking into and through the words. > > > > > > > > In and through this silence, there is no one getting or > > > > having anything. > > > > > > > > > Then it is a wonder why Arvind was questioned in that way. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " The movement of the shadow on the stairs, disturbs not > > > > one mote of dust. " > > > > > > > > It is not, as you seem to suggest below, a debate about > > > > terminology. It is a matter of clear seeing, understanding, > > > > that doesn't depend on terminology. > > > > > > > > -- D. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is a conclusion made without Arvind's response. Is it certain > > > that Arvind does not experience it in the way you describe? There > > is > > > enough silence between his words overall to indicate that Arvind's > > > words and Dan's word's below are not much different and it seems > > that > > > it is the affirming presentation and the negating one that has > > this at > > > odds. When Dan affirmed intelligence as it was done below, it > > seemed > > > possible that the same is being held by Arvind, as that is the > > > traditional view and reported experience of " I AM. " It seems moot > > > until Arvind responds and a " conclusion, " if one needs to make one, > > > may be best held in abeyance until Arvind is heard or not, as each > > > does so in that way we do. > > > > > > > > > And Arvind has yet to answer clearly and with elaboration to those > > > matters put out in the numerous posts made on this. Is the " I AM " > > that > > > is referred to simply a self-constructed mind entity maintained by > > > repeatedly affirming and reaffirming an experience coupled with a > > > rigid belief in it, which allows it to be frozen in place as a > > mental > > > conceptual filter that vigilantly scans all incoming sensations and > > > words and so on declaring them to be objects and is unable to see > > > itself as the object it is? Or is I AM something else. It has been > > the > > > experience of many that I AM can speak for itself and needs no > > > affirmation from others or realization by others. So let us hear I > > AM > > > speak as it is without reservation or the asking of questions or > > > simple affirmations. This seems possible and if not how is that > > so? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dan: Indeed, this intelligence is immediate, not dependent > > > > > on words or structures, yet can " use " the structurings > > > > > and words. > > > > > > > > > > It is total, timeless, nonlocal. > > > > > > > > > > Neither absolute, nor relative -- but allowing > > > > > us to make sense of the distinction and > > > > > relation of concepts of absoluteness and relativity. > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Arvind seems to call this you describe as " I AM. " You seem to > > > > agree to > > > > > name it " intelligence. " The difference is obscured if Arvind > > sees > > > > I AM > > > > > as total, timeless, nonlocal. > > > > > > > > > > What does Arvind say? Arvind? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Obviously, you get security, you get permanence. > > > > > > > > > > > > So, you could, instead of repeatedly saying, " I AM " - > > > > > > look into the insecurity that wants to hold onto > > > > > > something permanent and absolute as a means to > > > > > > have something to count on. > > > > > > > > > > > > And then, you might surprise yourself. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 8, 2005 Report Share Posted February 8, 2005 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > > If you read and hear between the words, Lewis, you'll > understand what's different between Arvind's talk > and mine, and those and yours for that matter. > > And then/now, while being clear on the differences, hearing > the sound of the flute of no holes -- it won't matter. > > -- Dan Yes, and having read and heard between the words and noticing this and that with uncertainty as is the nature of words and what they offer, it always come to pass that wonderings expressed settle to quiet as all is revealed directly in the course of a series of events. From wonderings and questions to quiet and silence again and what matters is not the differences. > (nothing new below) > > Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> > wrote: > > > > > > Hey, Lewis, as far as the " getting " issue you mention below, what > > > I said makes sense when you understand that questioning > > > what one gets, opens into clarity that truth isn't > > > a matter of someone getting something. > > > > > > Sorry I have to explain this to you, as > > > directly hearing this truth from silence is utterly > > > beyond any explanation offered by someone else. > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > Yes, under the circumstances it makes sense. No explanation is > > necessary. The explanation offered still does not handle the the > fact > > that Arvind was questioned in that way given that you say " no one > > getting or having anything. " How is it known if Arvind has not asked > > and answered that question as it is, before you asked? And does > Arvind > > have the sort of " self " required for getting and having? And would > it > > be necessary to assume this so that the question could be asked? > Does > > asking that question require assumptions about the veracity and > > clarity of Arvind as he is or claims as I AM and that he has nothing > > more than a mind projecting a I AM self? > > > > How is it known if Arvind is projecting an I AM self any more than > Dan > > is doing the same. Is projection avoidable? Is it necessary to > assume > > what others are from their appearances alone when questions can be > > asked? It is clear that when Dan's appearances are questioned that > > clarifying statements emerge. Arvind also needs the chance to do the > > same as do all appearances for whatever explanations offered. > > > > And if only the one with the requisite " hearing from silence " can > hear > > this truth and it is beyond any explanation offered by someone else, > > then is it not fair to ask if Arvind has taken a similar position > > towards Dan, assuming something about Dan, asking Dan questions that > > assumes the form of a probe to bring clarity to Dan as Dan did with > > " getting " to Arvind? Can it be said that Arvind sees the I AM as > > beyond any explanation offered by someone else as does Dan > sees " this > > truth? " > > > > Like Dan, no explanations are offered. Both say it is beyond any > > explanation offered by someone else. It [i AM, this truth] can only > be > > realized or heard from silence. Who disagrees? Is it the assuming > that > > creates this sort of dialog, the assuming that has nothing to do > with > > either I AM or this truth? It is a wondering. > > > > > > Arvind speaks: > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > ...and, if you read the message, you might see, I am not talking > > about some reality, ...or un-reality which might require theory, > > concepts, words, thinking, imagination, senses, > feeling, ...whatever, > > > > But, > > > > > > ---- I AM ---- > > > > > > that ALWAYS ....IS. > > > > > > > > > > Which requires No proof, but, > > > > ---- I AM --- > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > It is quite easy, Dan! > > > > ....for anybody who can take courage to be HONEST, Sincere and Open > > for a Moment. > > > > What any assuming, thinking requires ? > > > > What is ...ALWAYS ...Present ? > > > > What you can ...NEVER ...get rid of ? > > > > WHAT ...IS ...ALWAYS ? > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " > <dan330033> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " > > > <lbb10@c...> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " > > > <dan330033> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " > > > > > > > <adithya_comming> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [........] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> BTW, what and `why' are you still `debating', Dan ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is why, I asked you this question, Dan. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > About 3 messages ago in the same thread, I asked you > > > perhaps, > > > > > a > > > > > > > Very > > > > > > > > Simple question and then I even repeated it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You haven't answered it. Yet, you have been presenting > > > your > > > > > ideas > > > > > > > > on ...assumes sense, inability of words ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Whereas, answer to the question might be pretty simple > and > > > > > > > straight > > > > > > > > and might require No elaborate logic. Just little > Courage > > > > > should > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > enough. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you can NOT try to honestly and sincerely this > question > > > in > > > > > > > > straight and simple terms, I ask ....Why, you are still > > > > > > > `debating', > > > > > > > > Dan. Here is the question again: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ============ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is quite easy, Dan! > > > > > > > > ....for anybody who can take courage to be HONEST, > Sincere > > > and > > > > > > > Open > > > > > > > > for a Moment. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What any assuming, thinking requires ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is ...ALWAYS ...Present ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What you can ...NEVER ...get rid of ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WHAT ...IS ...ALWAYS ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > =========== > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [........] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not debating Arvind. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm simply inviting you to look at the one who > > > > > > > holds the belief and why, rather than repeating > > > > > > > the belief over and over. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why the need to believe there is something you have > > > > > > > that is always present, some IS that never changes? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you get out of that? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps, " he gets " the same thing " you get " out what you > hold. > > > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > > > > > It's not a matter of someone getting something. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since Arvind was asked " What do you get out of that? " I assumed > > > that > > > > is what you meant. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is not the silence speaking into and through the words. > > > > > > > > > > In and through this silence, there is no one getting or > > > > > having anything. > > > > > > > > > > > > Then it is a wonder why Arvind was questioned in that way. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " The movement of the shadow on the stairs, disturbs not > > > > > one mote of dust. " > > > > > > > > > > It is not, as you seem to suggest below, a debate about > > > > > terminology. It is a matter of clear seeing, understanding, > > > > > that doesn't depend on terminology. > > > > > > > > > > -- D. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is a conclusion made without Arvind's response. Is it > certain > > > > that Arvind does not experience it in the way you describe? > There > > > is > > > > enough silence between his words overall to indicate that > Arvind's > > > > words and Dan's word's below are not much different and it > seems > > > that > > > > it is the affirming presentation and the negating one that has > > > this at > > > > odds. When Dan affirmed intelligence as it was done below, it > > > seemed > > > > possible that the same is being held by Arvind, as that is the > > > > traditional view and reported experience of " I AM. " It seems > moot > > > > until Arvind responds and a " conclusion, " if one needs to make > one, > > > > may be best held in abeyance until Arvind is heard or not, as > each > > > > does so in that way we do. > > > > > > > > > > > > And Arvind has yet to answer clearly and with elaboration to > those > > > > matters put out in the numerous posts made on this. Is the " I > AM " > > > that > > > > is referred to simply a self-constructed mind entity maintained > by > > > > repeatedly affirming and reaffirming an experience coupled with > a > > > > rigid belief in it, which allows it to be frozen in place as a > > > mental > > > > conceptual filter that vigilantly scans all incoming sensations > and > > > > words and so on declaring them to be objects and is unable to > see > > > > itself as the object it is? Or is I AM something else. It has > been > > > the > > > > experience of many that I AM can speak for itself and needs no > > > > affirmation from others or realization by others. So let us > hear I > > > AM > > > > speak as it is without reservation or the asking of questions or > > > > simple affirmations. This seems possible and if not how is that > > > so? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dan: Indeed, this intelligence is immediate, not dependent > > > > > > on words or structures, yet can " use " the structurings > > > > > > and words. > > > > > > > > > > > > It is total, timeless, nonlocal. > > > > > > > > > > > > Neither absolute, nor relative -- but allowing > > > > > > us to make sense of the distinction and > > > > > > relation of concepts of absoluteness and relativity. > > > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Arvind seems to call this you describe as " I AM. " You seem > to > > > > > agree to > > > > > > name it " intelligence. " The difference is obscured if > Arvind > > > sees > > > > > I AM > > > > > > as total, timeless, nonlocal. > > > > > > > > > > > > What does Arvind say? Arvind? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Obviously, you get security, you get permanence. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, you could, instead of repeatedly saying, " I AM " - > > > > > > > look into the insecurity that wants to hold onto > > > > > > > something permanent and absolute as a means to > > > > > > > have something to count on. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And then, you might surprise yourself. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.