Guest guest Report post Posted February 10, 2005 In a message dated 2/10/05 4:03:47 PM, freyjartist writes: > > >These are long time > > > friends of more than 30 years who have no interest in nonduality > and on > > > >my suggestion alone " used " the positions as stated and they > learned on > > > their own in short order the speech and language displayed here, > albeit > > > in their tones and words, and they found it interesting and > pleasurable > > > >and useful. They also seem have to have no concern to discuss it > more > > > than that. They laugh at my list obsession that has taken me from > them. > > > >In any case, for them it seemed a simple exercise. They are no > different > > > after doing this in their general external behavior towards > things and > > > >others and they do seem less attached to ideas they held > previously, > > > they seem more fluid in their thinking when I press them on this > or that > > > >and say " Yeah, it is only an idea and it makes no difference in > what I > > > >do, just in how I think about it. " > > > > > P: LOL, Lewis. Has it occurred to you that your friends are just > humoring > > you? Could it be they know that the easiest way to get rid of this > lovable > > crackpot's obsession is to agree with him? > > > > It's strange that you believe that you of all people have > discovered a method > > to transform human minds in a week, when thousands opon thousands > of sages > > struggled for millennia to do the same and failed. Doesn't that > strike you > > as very odd? Should you not be very skeptical? > > > > > > F: Pete, are you sure they were struggling > to do anything? > P: For GODDD's sake! Do you think my message was about sages struggling? LOL Struggling was a poor choice of words, granted! Maybe 'tried', would have been better, but the message was about Lewis one week method to revolutionazed thinking, not about struggling. Why peeople pick up a word and ignore the the core of messages is beyond me. Kisses, Pete Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 10, 2005 > > P: For GODDD's sake! Do you think my message > > was about sages struggling? LOL Struggling was > > a poor choice of words, granted! Maybe 'tried', > > would have been better, but the message > > was about Lewis one week method to revolutionazed > > thinking, not about struggling. Why peeople pick up > > a word and ignore the the core of messages > > is beyond me. > > > > Kisses, > > Pete > > > >I see now what you meant. > > Sorry. > > t. ****************** What do you see toom? What is the difference in saying that a sage struggle to do something or " try " to do something? Don't you believe that sage don't even bother trying? You pete friend misses you? You are ready to accept whatever he says now? :0) He contradicts himself all the time. etc, But Noo problemo said the terminator. Hey I accept. Isn't that acceptance!!! Wow!! I'm awaken now!!! Odysseus, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 10, 2005 Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > In a message dated 2/10/05 4:03:47 PM, freyjartist@a... writes: > > > > > >These are long time > > > > friends of more than 30 years who have no interest in nonduality > > and on > > > > >my suggestion alone " used " the positions as stated and they > > learned on > > > > their own in short order the speech and language displayed here, > > albeit > > > > in their tones and words, and they found it interesting and > > pleasurable > > > > >and useful. They also seem have to have no concern to discuss it > > more > > > > than that. They laugh at my list obsession that has taken me from > > them. > > > > >In any case, for them it seemed a simple exercise. They are no > > different > > > > after doing this in their general external behavior towards > > things and > > > > >others and they do seem less attached to ideas they held > > previously, > > > > they seem more fluid in their thinking when I press them on this > > or that > > > > >and say " Yeah, it is only an idea and it makes no difference in > > what I > > > > >do, just in how I think about it. " > > > > > > > P: LOL, Lewis. Has it occurred to you that your friends are just > > humoring > > > you? Could it be they know that the easiest way to get rid of this > > lovable > > > crackpot's obsession is to agree with him? > > > > > > It's strange that you believe that you of all people have > > discovered a method > > > to transform human minds in a week, when thousands opon thousands > > of sages > > > struggled for millennia to do the same and failed. Doesn't that > > strike you > > > as very odd? Should you not be very skeptical? > > > > > > > > > > F: Pete, are you sure they were struggling > > to do anything? > > > P: For GODDD's sake! Do you think my message > was about sages struggling? LOL Struggling was > a poor choice of words, granted! Maybe 'tried', > would have been better, but the message > was about Lewis one week method to revolutionazed > thinking, not about struggling. Why peeople pick up > a word and ignore the the core of messages > is beyond me. > > Kisses, > Pete > f. Pete, my love, I'm sorry if you thought I ignored the core of the message. I was trying to illustrate a point though, because I didn't hear a Lewis-created " method to revolutionized thinking " . I heard him saying that when a different kind of language was presented to his friends, they were able to match it with that which they had already come to realize outside of nondual satsanging circles. And that perhaps it is not a big deal to them, certainly not worthy of spending most of one's hours on internet lists discussing. Because, let's face it -- it's really " a no-brainer " . Maybe i'm wrong, but I don't think so, because you see, I am always right, in fact, once I thought I was wrong, but..... I was mistaken. ;-)) kisses back, freyja > > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 10, 2005 carolina112900 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > >>In a message dated 2/10/05 4:03:47 PM, freyjartist@a... writes: >> >> >> >>>>>These are long time >>>>>friends of more than 30 years who have no interest in > > nonduality > >>>and on >>> >>>>>>my suggestion alone " used " the positions as stated and they >>> >>>learned on >>> >>>>>their own in short order the speech and language displayed > > here, > >>>albeit >>> >>>>>in their tones and words, and they found it interesting and >>> >>>pleasurable >>> >>>>>>and useful. They also seem have to have no concern to > > discuss it > >>>more >>> >>>>>than that. They laugh at my list obsession that has taken me > > from > >>>them. >>> >>>>>>In any case, for them it seemed a simple exercise. They are > > no > >>>different >>> >>>>>after doing this in their general external behavior towards >>> >>>things and >>> >>>>>>others and they do seem less attached to ideas they held >>> >>>previously, >>> >>>>>they seem more fluid in their thinking when I press them on > > this > >>>or that >>> >>>>>>and say " Yeah, it is only an idea and it makes no difference > > in > >>>what I >>> >>>>>>do, just in how I think about it. " >>>>> >>>>P: LOL, Lewis. Has it occurred to you that your friends are just >>> >>>humoring >>> >>>>you? Could it be they know that the easiest way to get rid of > > this > >>>lovable >>> >>>>crackpot's obsession is to agree with him? >>>> >>>>It's strange that you believe that you of all people have >>> >>>discovered a method >>> >>>>to transform human minds in a week, when thousands opon > > thousands > >>>of sages >>> >>>> struggled for millennia to do the same and failed. Doesn't that >>> >>>strike you >>> >>>>as very odd? Should you not be very skeptical? >>>> >>> >>>F: Pete, are you sure they were struggling >>>to do anything? >>> >> >>P: For GODDD's sake! Do you think my message >>was about sages struggling? LOL Struggling was >>a poor choice of words, granted! Maybe 'tried', >>would have been better, but the message >>was about Lewis one week method to revolutionazed >>thinking, not about struggling. Why peeople pick up >>a word and ignore the the core of messages >>is beyond me. >> >>Kisses, >>Pete >> > > > > f. Pete, my love, I'm sorry if you thought I > ignored the core of the message. > I was trying to illustrate a point though, > because I didn't hear a Lewis-created > " method to revolutionized thinking " . > I heard him saying that when > a different kind of language was presented > to his friends, > they were able to match it with that which > they had already come to realize outside of > nondual satsanging circles. And that perhaps it is not > a big deal to them, certainly not worthy of > spending most of one's hours on internet lists > discussing. Because, let's face it -- it's > really " a no-brainer " . > Maybe i'm wrong, but I don't think so, > because you see, I am always right, in fact, once > I thought I was wrong, but..... > I was mistaken. ;-)) > > kisses back, > > freyja No my lovelies, what was said was that I gave my friends the assumptions mentioned and they tried them on and used to look at life and stuff and they began to talk like we do here. They do not speak like that usually. The assumptions held allowed them dissolve stuff so that eventually they could not speak for everything became mute. They thought it was interesting and useful and then dropped it because they could not speak if they continued with it, they became wordless wonders and we laughed and laughed because I would ask them what was this or that they just laughed. I do not hold those assumptions for the same reason. They just mute me, making everything indistinct muted. There is nothing to say because in saying anything the words savage the experience. For example, if I hold the assumptions of emptiness, I cannot say the word keyboard as long as that assumption is held. It is just a perception and do not know what it is. The keyboard becomes seen and indescribable. If I loosen the assumptions to allow concepts to form it becomes a mass of symbols and concepts going back to the beginning of time, the origin of the universe, the formation of language and symbols to communicate, the formation of oil, the history of inventions, economic and distribution systems, directions, number systems, telecommunications, manufacturing process, millions of people, corporate systems, the natural environment and on and on and where can one begin and if I loosen up enough I can just say it is a keyboard used to input data and to signal transmission of it and leave it at that. So the assumptions give an experience of thought and realizations about the nature of things but it does not change what I am in the least. It seems like it only touches processes of conceptualization and expression. Maybe for others it does something else. That is the only thing it does for me makes things silent, indescribable. It makes me more ignorant and that makes me feel good actually for some reason. Lewis Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 10, 2005 Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > In a message dated 2/10/05 6:49:47 AM, lbb10@c... writes: > > > > >These are long time > > friends of more than 30 years who have no interest in nonduality and on > > >my suggestion alone " used " the positions as stated and they learned on > > their own in short order the speech and language displayed here, albeit > > in their tones and words, and they found it interesting and pleasurable > > >and useful. They also seem have to have no concern to discuss it more > > than that. They laugh at my list obsession that has taken me from them. > > >In any case, for them it seemed a simple exercise. They are no different > > after doing this in their general external behavior towards things and > > >others and they do seem less attached to ideas they held previously, > > they seem more fluid in their thinking when I press them on this or that > > >and say " Yeah, it is only an idea and it makes no difference in what I > > >do, just in how I think about it. " > > > P: LOL, Lewis. Has it occurred to you that your friends are just humoring > you? Could it be they know that the easiest way to get rid of this lovable > crackpot's obsession is to agree with him? > > It's strange that you believe that you of all people have discovered a method > to transform human minds in a week, when thousands opon thousands of sages > struggled for millennia to do the same and failed. Doesn't that strike you > as very odd? Should you not be very skeptical? \ Sages do not struggle to transform.....anything. toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 11, 2005 Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > In a message dated 2/10/05 6:49:47 AM, lbb10@c... writes: > > > > >These are long time > > friends of more than 30 years who have no interest in nonduality and on > > >my suggestion alone " used " the positions as stated and they learned on > > their own in short order the speech and language displayed here, albeit > > in their tones and words, and they found it interesting and pleasurable > > >and useful. They also seem have to have no concern to discuss it more > > than that. They laugh at my list obsession that has taken me from them. > > >In any case, for them it seemed a simple exercise. They are no different > > after doing this in their general external behavior towards things and > > >others and they do seem less attached to ideas they held previously, > > they seem more fluid in their thinking when I press them on this or that > > >and say " Yeah, it is only an idea and it makes no difference in what I > > >do, just in how I think about it. " > > > P: LOL, Lewis. Has it occurred to you that your friends are just humoring > you? Could it be they know that the easiest way to get rid of this lovable > crackpot's obsession is to agree with him? > > It's strange that you believe that you of all people have discovered a method > to transform human minds in a week, when thousands opon thousands of sages > struggled for millennia to do the same and failed. Doesn't that strike you > as very odd? Should you not be very skeptical? > > Pete, are you sure they were struggling to do anything? I don't know, but when talk turns to sages, lately, I get this picture of Chauncy Gardner (Peter Sellers) in " Being There " , who was not trying to do anything other than be what he was. Granted, he was a little 'odd', or different than most people. He responded simply what came to him to say, and everyone thought he was the enlightened master! They thought it was very wise to watch a lot of TV because that's what Chauncy did and he said " I like to watch " which they probably construed to be detachment. They also thought that when he spoke about sowing seeds in the spring, etc., that it was symbolic of something very profound, but he was just talking about gardening. ~freyja > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 11, 2005 Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > In a message dated 2/10/05 4:03:47 PM, freyjartist@a... writes: > > > > > >These are long time > > > > friends of more than 30 years who have no interest in nonduality > > and on > > > > >my suggestion alone " used " the positions as stated and they > > learned on > > > > their own in short order the speech and language displayed here, > > albeit > > > > in their tones and words, and they found it interesting and > > pleasurable > > > > >and useful. They also seem have to have no concern to discuss it > > more > > > > than that. They laugh at my list obsession that has taken me from > > them. > > > > >In any case, for them it seemed a simple exercise. They are no > > different > > > > after doing this in their general external behavior towards > > things and > > > > >others and they do seem less attached to ideas they held > > previously, > > > > they seem more fluid in their thinking when I press them on this > > or that > > > > >and say " Yeah, it is only an idea and it makes no difference in > > what I > > > > >do, just in how I think about it. " > > > > > > > P: LOL, Lewis. Has it occurred to you that your friends are just > > humoring > > > you? Could it be they know that the easiest way to get rid of this > > lovable > > > crackpot's obsession is to agree with him? > > > > > > It's strange that you believe that you of all people have > > discovered a method > > > to transform human minds in a week, when thousands opon thousands > > of sages > > > struggled for millennia to do the same and failed. Doesn't that > > strike you > > > as very odd? Should you not be very skeptical? > > > > > > > > > > F: Pete, are you sure they were struggling > > to do anything? > > > P: For GODDD's sake! Do you think my message > was about sages struggling? LOL Struggling was > a poor choice of words, granted! Maybe 'tried', > would have been better, but the message > was about Lewis one week method to revolutionazed > thinking, not about struggling. Why peeople pick up > a word and ignore the the core of messages > is beyond me. > > Kisses, > Pete > > > > > I see now what you meant. Sorry. t. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 11, 2005 Pedsie2 wrote: > > In a message dated 2/10/05 6:49:47 AM, lbb10 writes: > > > >>>These are long time >> >>friends of more than 30 years who have no interest in nonduality and on >> >>>my suggestion alone " used " the positions as stated and they learned on >> >>their own in short order the speech and language displayed here, albeit >>in their tones and words, and they found it interesting and pleasurable >> >>>and useful. They also seem have to have no concern to discuss it more >> >>than that. They laugh at my list obsession that has taken me from them. >> >>>In any case, for them it seemed a simple exercise. They are no different >> >>after doing this in their general external behavior towards things and >> >>>others and they do seem less attached to ideas they held previously, >> >>they seem more fluid in their thinking when I press them on this or that >> >>>and say " Yeah, it is only an idea and it makes no difference in what I >>>do, just in how I think about it. " >> > P: LOL, Lewis. Has it occurred to you that your friends are just humoring > you? Could it be they know that the easiest way to get rid of this lovable > crackpot's obsession is to agree with him? That's possible Pete if you want to think of that way. It does not matter for me or them we are the way we are before encountering this and the play we engage in is that. Humoring after 35 years through thick and thin? What kind of friends do you have, Pete. We never humor each other. A hint of it and it is called for what it is. > It's strange that you believe that you of all people have discovered a method > to transform human minds in a week, when thousands opon thousands of sages > struggled for millennia to do the same and failed. Doesn't that strike you > as very odd? Should you not be very skeptical? I do not believe any thing of the sort. It just seems to me that one can indeed talk the nondual talk by assuming the assumptions, using the nondual filters to produce speech and there it is, all that is said on this list without a bit a difference in meaning for the reader. This sort of intellectual feat is done everyday. To produce this stuff is not difficult at all for some. Any position taken here, and all of it is positions from where the poster holds their assumptions, consciously or not or what have you that are necessary to interpret, to respond, to project, to write, can be reproduced. Dan and Toombaru can be reproduced the easiest because they are the most consistent in their presentation. Others less so but reproducible none the less. For some reason you did not notice that what they are, my friends, has nothing to do with what they did for me, talking the nondual talk. They are they way they are before I brought this up. So there is no method at all. Just speech reproduction in the nondual way. And you also could have known, Pete, that I do not care a jot about all this talk since it is reproducible or found in books as words and concepts. Every bit of it is there. I am not curious about reproducible, repetitive speech patterns and ideas, the taking of assumptions and carrying them to their conclusion. I am curious about lived experience outside of presentation speech, listening to the wordless wonder livers and how they experience the world as it is. Talking about what is experienced in ordinary day to day living without reservations, without fear of what someone may imagine or think or say or whatever. There seems to be a limit here for some since if one talks freely without reservation the old filter may slip out and out comes that hidden notion held and so on. So there is a keeping tight, keeping close to the vest and so on. Some of us are not like that and say whatever it is we are at the moment. Others do not. Others are afraid to be hammered or to be caught stepping in soft turds. That's the way it is. I have no fear of that, I am out in the open doing as I am, whatever that is. Nondual speech and nondual speech dueling is one thing going *here* or *there* while demonstrating this and that about duelers, no duelers and dueling. There are other areas to explore as well that many here offer. Lewis Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 11, 2005 Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: .. It makes me > more ignorant and that makes me feel good actually for some reason. > > Lewis See, I told you....it's a no-brainer. (I stand corrected on the rest of it. :-) ~freyja Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 11, 2005 > > P: For GODDD's sake! Do you think my message > > was about sages struggling? LOL Struggling was > > a poor choice of words, granted! Maybe 'tried', > > would have been better, but the message > > was about Lewis one week method to revolutionazed > > thinking, not about struggling. Why peeople pick up > > a word and ignore the the core of messages > > is beyond me. > > > > Kisses, > > Pete > > > >I see now what you meant. > > Sorry. > > t. ****************** What do you see toom? What is the difference in saying that a sage struggle to do something or " try " to do something? Don't you believe that sage don't even bother trying? You pete friend misses you? You are ready to accept whatever he says now? :0) He contradicts himself all the time. etc, But Noo problemo said the terminator. Hey I accept. Isn't that acceptance!!! Wow!! I'm awaken now!!! Odysseus, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 11, 2005 Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > In a message dated 2/10/05 4:03:47 PM, freyjartist@a... writes: > > > > > >These are long time > > > > friends of more than 30 years who have no interest in nonduality > > and on > > > > >my suggestion alone " used " the positions as stated and they > > learned on > > > > their own in short order the speech and language displayed here, > > albeit > > > > in their tones and words, and they found it interesting and > > pleasurable > > > > >and useful. They also seem have to have no concern to discuss it > > more > > > > than that. They laugh at my list obsession that has taken me from > > them. > > > > >In any case, for them it seemed a simple exercise. They are no > > different > > > > after doing this in their general external behavior towards > > things and > > > > >others and they do seem less attached to ideas they held > > previously, > > > > they seem more fluid in their thinking when I press them on this > > or that > > > > >and say " Yeah, it is only an idea and it makes no difference in > > what I > > > > >do, just in how I think about it. " > > > > > > > P: LOL, Lewis. Has it occurred to you that your friends are just > > humoring > > > you? Could it be they know that the easiest way to get rid of this > > lovable > > > crackpot's obsession is to agree with him? > > > > > > It's strange that you believe that you of all people have > > discovered a method > > > to transform human minds in a week, when thousands opon thousands > > of sages > > > struggled for millennia to do the same and failed. Doesn't that > > strike you > > > as very odd? Should you not be very skeptical? > > > > > > > > > > F: Pete, are you sure they were struggling > > to do anything? > > > P: For GODDD's sake! Do you think my message > was about sages struggling? LOL Struggling was > a poor choice of words, granted! Maybe 'tried', > would have been better, but the message > was about Lewis one week method to revolutionazed > thinking, not about struggling. Why peeople pick up > a word and ignore the the core of messages > is beyond me. > > Kisses, > Pete > f. Pete, my love, I'm sorry if you thought I ignored the core of the message. I was trying to illustrate a point though, because I didn't hear a Lewis-created " method to revolutionized thinking " . I heard him saying that when a different kind of language was presented to his friends, they were able to match it with that which they had already come to realize outside of nondual satsanging circles. And that perhaps it is not a big deal to them, certainly not worthy of spending most of one's hours on internet lists discussing. Because, let's face it -- it's really " a no-brainer " . Maybe i'm wrong, but I don't think so, because you see, I am always right, in fact, once I thought I was wrong, but..... I was mistaken. ;-)) kisses back, freyja > > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 11, 2005 Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: >My wondering is that given the simplicity of the requirements as >discussed here and elsewhere, about the dissolving and disappearing of >central linguistic concepts such as mind, self, SELf and I AM and the >sense of those as well, and given the experiences above, is it then >possible that wordless wonder becomes or the experiencer less being and >doing occurs without experiencing concepts such as emptiness, dependent >origination and self-inquiry and their related practices that aim at >such dissolutions? That it is just natural being that way and simply >unexamined in others and thus assumed it requires all this? Wordless wonder cannot be the result of intellectual understanding. As long as the intellect understands, it is again only producing thoughts. The filtering intellect will say " look, I have filtered " . With a certain level of understanding one can very well learn to play the wordless wonderer in less than a week, but he himself knows very well that he is not wordless. After my conversation with Dan I am wordless, in so far as I have no words anymore regarding the methods of self inquiry. He has taken the idea of self inquiry to the gost town where it ultimately belongs. But when I took a morning walk today I catched my mind going " flowers, trees, beautiful, walking, fresh air " ... although I was desparately longing for the state of wordless wonder. Like a child longing for the breast of the mother. What was the obstacle? Obviously this time it was the longing, the desire. And so it might go on and on... one process being the obstacle of the next process... Obviously the firm rootedness in wordless wonder is something that cannot be attained by thinking. It cannot be attained at all. The realization must come like a sudden earthquake that destroys and transforms literally everything that could ever been thought. Leaving not even the seed for any new thought. The reality created by the mind is so different from wordless wonder, that it can be reached only by a quantum leap, and never by a steady process. Therefor I have said, if not " now " then how in a week? It happens when it happens. Odysseus would say: through gods grace. >And when you say Stefan, " It is not enough to describe the sweet apple, >it has to be taken and eaten, including the stalk " it makes me wonder >what did my friends or me for that matter eat that allows us to be as we >are. We have this wordless wonder and experiencer less being and doing >and the I AM sensation and awareness as subject and all of that. If you truly have all that, then you guys have eaten the apple! Or not? >I can >assume things about my experiences being what I am and what I ate and >have done so over the years in this without understanding what has >occurred. And it seems that all of these are experienced and can be had >as required by my friends who spent what it seems to be no study or >effort at all in this regard. Are we deluded? Am I deluded? Are our >experiences authentic? We do not know, it is a curiosity and we laugh at >total ignorance of it all, of not knowing what the hell is going on. It >is what we are as it is and maybe it will change as we have over the >years and my curiosity remains as to what others undergo in this so that >I can understand what I experience with words and concepts different >than my own and as to what my friends experience as a matter of daily life. What makes friends like friends? Love, care, sharing, familiarity, trust ... You must be a good friend to them as well... and many people have an instinctive sense for the natural being, I guess. Going together through thick and thin... it is good not to be alone, even when you know that after all you are alone. I have a nice bunch of friends as well. Nobody of us is special in the sense of being advanced. How, if there is no advance, if all advancing is only a trick of the mind? But as long we think we are what we want to be, we have not yet eaten the apple. And I will never be able to live in the world of any of my friends, to see the world through his eyes. To me living my life fully, lovingly, responsibly is the only answer I have to the paradoxon of this my life, to the fact that I am wordless wonder and still am not... Greetings Stefan (waiting for the mindquake) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 11, 2005 carolina112900 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > >>In a message dated 2/10/05 4:03:47 PM, freyjartist@a... writes: >> >> >> >>>>>These are long time >>>>>friends of more than 30 years who have no interest in > > nonduality > >>>and on >>> >>>>>>my suggestion alone " used " the positions as stated and they >>> >>>learned on >>> >>>>>their own in short order the speech and language displayed > > here, > >>>albeit >>> >>>>>in their tones and words, and they found it interesting and >>> >>>pleasurable >>> >>>>>>and useful. They also seem have to have no concern to > > discuss it > >>>more >>> >>>>>than that. They laugh at my list obsession that has taken me > > from > >>>them. >>> >>>>>>In any case, for them it seemed a simple exercise. They are > > no > >>>different >>> >>>>>after doing this in their general external behavior towards >>> >>>things and >>> >>>>>>others and they do seem less attached to ideas they held >>> >>>previously, >>> >>>>>they seem more fluid in their thinking when I press them on > > this > >>>or that >>> >>>>>>and say " Yeah, it is only an idea and it makes no difference > > in > >>>what I >>> >>>>>>do, just in how I think about it. " >>>>> >>>>P: LOL, Lewis. Has it occurred to you that your friends are just >>> >>>humoring >>> >>>>you? Could it be they know that the easiest way to get rid of > > this > >>>lovable >>> >>>>crackpot's obsession is to agree with him? >>>> >>>>It's strange that you believe that you of all people have >>> >>>discovered a method >>> >>>>to transform human minds in a week, when thousands opon > > thousands > >>>of sages >>> >>>> struggled for millennia to do the same and failed. Doesn't that >>> >>>strike you >>> >>>>as very odd? Should you not be very skeptical? >>>> >>> >>>F: Pete, are you sure they were struggling >>>to do anything? >>> >> >>P: For GODDD's sake! Do you think my message >>was about sages struggling? LOL Struggling was >>a poor choice of words, granted! Maybe 'tried', >>would have been better, but the message >>was about Lewis one week method to revolutionazed >>thinking, not about struggling. Why peeople pick up >>a word and ignore the the core of messages >>is beyond me. >> >>Kisses, >>Pete >> > > > > f. Pete, my love, I'm sorry if you thought I > ignored the core of the message. > I was trying to illustrate a point though, > because I didn't hear a Lewis-created > " method to revolutionized thinking " . > I heard him saying that when > a different kind of language was presented > to his friends, > they were able to match it with that which > they had already come to realize outside of > nondual satsanging circles. And that perhaps it is not > a big deal to them, certainly not worthy of > spending most of one's hours on internet lists > discussing. Because, let's face it -- it's > really " a no-brainer " . > Maybe i'm wrong, but I don't think so, > because you see, I am always right, in fact, once > I thought I was wrong, but..... > I was mistaken. ;-)) > > kisses back, > > freyja No my lovelies, what was said was that I gave my friends the assumptions mentioned and they tried them on and used to look at life and stuff and they began to talk like we do here. They do not speak like that usually. The assumptions held allowed them dissolve stuff so that eventually they could not speak for everything became mute. They thought it was interesting and useful and then dropped it because they could not speak if they continued with it, they became wordless wonders and we laughed and laughed because I would ask them what was this or that they just laughed. I do not hold those assumptions for the same reason. They just mute me, making everything indistinct muted. There is nothing to say because in saying anything the words savage the experience. For example, if I hold the assumptions of emptiness, I cannot say the word keyboard as long as that assumption is held. It is just a perception and do not know what it is. The keyboard becomes seen and indescribable. If I loosen the assumptions to allow concepts to form it becomes a mass of symbols and concepts going back to the beginning of time, the origin of the universe, the formation of language and symbols to communicate, the formation of oil, the history of inventions, economic and distribution systems, directions, number systems, telecommunications, manufacturing process, millions of people, corporate systems, the natural environment and on and on and where can one begin and if I loosen up enough I can just say it is a keyboard used to input data and to signal transmission of it and leave it at that. So the assumptions give an experience of thought and realizations about the nature of things but it does not change what I am in the least. It seems like it only touches processes of conceptualization and expression. Maybe for others it does something else. That is the only thing it does for me makes things silent, indescribable. It makes me more ignorant and that makes me feel good actually for some reason. Lewis Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 11, 2005 Stefan: Wordless wonder cannot be the result of intellectual understanding. As long as the intellect understands, it is again only producing > thoughts. The filtering intellect will say " look, I have filtered " . > With a certain level of understanding one can very well learn to play the wordless wonderer in less than a week, but he himself knows very well that he is not wordless. Odysseus: Only true disciples become true masters. After my conversation with Dan I am wordless, in so far as I have no words anymore regarding the methods of self inquiry. He has taken the idea of self inquiry to the gost town where it ultimately belongs. But when I took a morning walk today I catched my mind going " flowers, trees, beautiful, walking, fresh air " ... although I was desparately longing for the state of wordless wonder. Like a child longing for the breast of the mother. Odysseus: The breast of the mother is the breast of God. The grace of God is the milk you are looking for. Without God, milk. You will remain hungry for the rest of your lives. No one else can give you divine milk, but God. Thoughts masters can give you " thoughts milk " and it can look almost the same. But as you said yourself. What changed in you? You know that you don't know nothing. Great! Is that Sat-Chit-Ananda? almost every one knows that they know nothing. Are they all saints? great Mystics, Sages? buddhas? Avatars? Is it that Stefan the message of Osho, Ramana, Nis, sri aurobindo, Jesus, Buddha, Krishna? You can never bypast God. For God is the root of the Self. God is all in all for all. He is all eternity, the great majesty. Pure existance yet he is the one looking through your eyes. He breaths through your nose. No thoughts can bring you to the Palace of the lord but the lord himself. You cannot enter there without an invitation. People can play as much as they want. God likes to play too. But when you will be tire enough of all the bullshit of the world you will beg for God in your heart to enter your life and from that moment he will guide you. And if you don't fail him, he will bring you home. To his palace. Brahma loka. The house of the lord God. What I'm saying has been said by many masters. But here in this web site it worth nothing. Because here are the thoughts masters. Masters of the mind. They construct and deconstruct. Thinking mastering that process will gives them the freedom and what they are looking for. > What was the obstacle? Obviously this time it was the longing, the > desire. And so it might go on and on... one process being the obstacle of the next process... Odysseus: Well said. > > Obviously the firm rootedness in wordless wonder is something that > cannot be attained by thinking. It cannot be attained at all. The > realization must come like a sudden earthquake that destroys and > transforms literally everything that could ever been thought. Leaving not even the seed for any new thought. Odysseus: This is the holy spirit working in us. God's spirit. But how get there if we don't believe in God? We invent or copy the state and say it is the same. Like someone saying he is truly in love with his wife when truly it is not true! One can pretend until convincing our selves that it is true. But it is not! The reality created by the mind > is so different from wordless wonder, that it can be reached only by a quantum leap, and never by a steady process. > Therefor I have said, if not " now " then how in a week? It happens when it happens. Odysseus would say: through gods grace. > > > What makes friends like friends? Love, care, sharing, familiarity, > trust ... You must be a good friend to them as well... and many > people have an instinctive sense for the natural being, I guess. Going together through thick and thin... it is good not to be alone, even when you know that after all you are alone. I have a nice bunch of friends as well. Nobody of us is special in the sense of being advanced. How, if there is no advance, if all advancing is only a trick of the mind? Odysseus: You truly advance until you reach your Self. When it is done, trough the grace of God. It is the world that advances in you. When you go for a walk and you go toward a tree. It is not you anymore that goes toward the tree, it is the tree that comes toward you. But as long we think we are what we want to be, we have not yet eaten the apple. Odysseus: Yes. And I will never be able to live in the world of any of my friends, to see the world through his eyes. To me living my life fully, lovingly, responsibly is the only answer I have to the paradoxon of this my life, to the fact that I am wordless > wonder and still am not... > Greetings > Stefan (waiting for the mindquake) Odysseus: It takes courage to say what you said here. But of course people here will say it doesn't take courage to reach the Self! bla bla bla. Here some comments form my friends. Hey there is nothing to do to reach the Self. all is done. There is no one there to get anywhere! As long as you think you need something you won't be free! Get rid of the ignorance. Are you free now?? Wait a day or two! God doesn't exist. The Self is just an invention of the mind. The Spirit does not exist. There are no letters on this posting. it's all in the mind. I do not exist, really! I am a ghost. Nothing counts. Just do your stuff. Be happy. Reincarnation does not exist. Incarnation does not exist. The masters are old bags. we know more and better! God is a clown. Guys do you know what is Spiritual Anarchy??? it is when the Spiritual people get rid of the spirit! Love to all Odysseus, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 11, 2005 Stefan wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > >>My wondering is that given the simplicity of the requirements as >>discussed here and elsewhere, about the dissolving and disappearing > > of > >>central linguistic concepts such as mind, self, SELf and I AM and > > the > >>sense of those as well, and given the experiences above, is it then >>possible that wordless wonder becomes or the experiencer less being > > and > >>doing occurs without experiencing concepts such as emptiness, > > dependent > >>origination and self-inquiry and their related practices that aim at >>such dissolutions? That it is just natural being that way and simply >>unexamined in others and thus assumed it requires all this? > > > Wordless wonder cannot be the result of intellectual understanding. As > long as the intellect understands, it is again only producing > thoughts. The filtering intellect will say " look, I have filtered " . > With a certain level of understanding one can very well learn to play > the wordless wonderer in less than a week, but he himself knows very > well that he is not wordless. Yes. Filtering is just an intellectual exercise. When the filter goes all goes to what is without the filter, whatever that may be. > > After my conversation with Dan I am wordless, in so far as I have no > words anymore regarding the methods of self inquiry. He has taken the > idea of self inquiry to the gost town where it ultimately belongs. But > when I took a morning walk today I catched my mind going " flowers, > trees, beautiful, walking, fresh air " ... although I was desparately > longing for the state of wordless wonder. Like a child longing for the > breast of the mother. > > What was the obstacle? Obviously this time it was the longing, the > desire. And so it might go on and on... one process being the obstacle > of the next process... " flowers, trees, beautiful, walking, fresh air " simple and beauteous responding to appearances. Is this something that needs to be silenced? Can it be enjoyed as an emergence as it is? Is wordless wonder a silence of words or something else? These questions arise when I read your post describing simple respondings. In me, such things if they occur emerge from a darkness. I do not bid them, they just come and go or not at all. In my experience, the silence is not of no thought or thought. These seem to me in my experience to be of my darkness over which there is no control. > > Obviously the firm rootedness in wordless wonder is something that > cannot be attained by thinking. It cannot be attained at all. The > realization must come like a sudden earthquake that destroys and > transforms literally everything that could ever been thought. Leaving > not even the seed for any new thought. The reality created by the mind > is so different from wordless wonder, that it can be reached only by a > quantum leap, and never by a steady process. Yes, that seems so in my experience. It happens. I did not have a sudden realization of anything that destroys and transforms stuff. That is not my experience. Is that your experience Stefan? Are you speaking from experience or are you imagining what must happen? Why a quantum leap? A quantum leap to where? Into what? What do you think is wordless wonder? And what does process or anything sensible have to do with this? > > Therefor I have said, if not " now " then how in a week? It happens when > it happens. Odysseus would say: through gods grace. Yes. > > >>And when you say Stefan, " It is not enough to describe the sweet > > apple, > >>it has to be taken and eaten, including the stalk " it makes me > > wonder > >>what did my friends or me for that matter eat that allows us to be > > as we > >>are. We have this wordless wonder and experiencer less being and > > doing > >>and the I AM sensation and awareness as subject and all of that. > > > If you truly have all that, then you guys have eaten the apple! Or > not? > > >>I can >>assume things about my experiences being what I am and what I ate > > and > >>have done so over the years in this without understanding what has >>occurred. And it seems that all of these are experienced and can be > > had > >>as required by my friends who spent what it seems to be no study or >>effort at all in this regard. Are we deluded? Am I deluded? Are our >>experiences authentic? We do not know, it is a curiosity and we > > laugh at > >>total ignorance of it all, of not knowing what the hell is going on. > > It > >>is what we are as it is and maybe it will change as we have over the >>years and my curiosity remains as to what others undergo in this so > > that > >>I can understand what I experience with words and concepts different >>than my own and as to what my friends experience as a matter of daily > > life. > > What makes friends like friends? Love, care, sharing, familiarity, > trust ... You must be a good friend to them as well... and many > people have an instinctive sense for the natural being, I guess. Going > together through thick and thin... it is good not to be alone, even > when you know that after all you are alone. I have a nice bunch of > friends as well. Nobody of us is special in the sense of being > advanced. How, if there is no advance, if all advancing is only a > trick of the mind? Those things don't make us friends. We cannot help what we are to each other. There is no trying or conceiving it. My expression is only that Stefan. We do not need each other. We do not want each other. We are together as we are moment by moment as stuff happens. We have changed in how we express and in what we know. Nothing else seems to have changed, that is, the easy flow of us. Gaining knowledge is interesting and fun for sharing. I do not conceive of it as an advance. It is more like adding and subtracting or multiplying or dividing, something like that. Being alone is conceptual and a sensation and it makes sense in that my appearance appears and feels separate from another. My spouses appearance appears separate to mine when I lie next to her in bed without touching her. When our appearances touch (not love making) the sensation of apartness gradually disappears in a few minutes and I cannot tell where her body begins or mine. It feels like there is a flowing sensation making them one and fluid like, not solid feeling. If I move away the sensation of apartness returns. It is the same with others who allow themselves to be touched in that way and things too. When I was in Korea men my age and older held my hand or went arm in arm, as we walked down the street and there is a oneness sensation in it that comes from the contact and the sensation of apartness when the contact is discontinued. This free physical contact and feelings of oneness make for emotional feelings of great magnitude and tears upon separation were commonly experienced there. So being alone to me is only apparent and not something definite or real or describable. I feel like I am living in a field of something like invisible, intangible, that is there and all are in it and there is nothing separate just apparently so because when contact is made that sensation emerges. This is my experience. Natural being is a concept that I have explored here. Is there that? A primordial that like the Tibetan Shambalaists hold? I do not know. > > But as long we think we are what we want to be, we have not yet eaten > the apple. And I will never be able to live in the world of any of my > friends, to see the world through his eyes. We are what we are whatever it is and thinking does not seem to change it in the least. Not thinking does not change it in the least either it seems to me. How could you see through some one else eyes? The appearances are different. How do you experience blue? Is it the same as the blue I experience? I do not know. I have not yet experienced what some one else has experienced as they do. Perhaps it is impossible. I do not know. Questions and doing things together naturally emerges to assist in this as required to given the conditions. Until we are one, to speak with you, to communicate with you, I project me (my experience and response to you) as you in these words. That is, I can only know Stefan by projecting my experience of Stefan as me in words and your response tells me what your response is to my image of you as found in these words. So far that is all it seems I am able to do until you and I are unadorned. Do you experience this? All that I say is a projection of me and my experiences and responses of you and others. I cannot know others until they respond to my projected image of them. > > To me living my life fully, lovingly, responsibly is the only answer I > have to the paradoxon of this my life, to the fact that I am wordless > wonder and still am not... > > Greetings > Stefan (waiting for the mindquake) And for me, I just be and do as I am as it is, " helplessly. " Love, Lewis Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 11, 2005 Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > " flowers, trees, beautiful, walking, fresh air " simple and beauteous >responding to appearances. Is this something that needs to be >silenced? " Colourful luminous slightly radiating spots, waving green, a blissful sensing inside, outside is not apart from inside, a movement, being moved, stillness in the middle of movement, a stream of scents, freshness becoming a vibrating sensation in the spine, incredible blissfulness, fullness, each moment containing the spans of thousands of lifes, the senses part of the sensed, no distinction, everything fading into a sounding silence, containing everything possible. " Those are other words for the same events. Those thoughts come from somewhere in my memory... of another walk at another time (when naming was less rigid) now put into words in a very imperfect attempt. > Can it be enjoyed as an emergence as it is? >Is wordless wonder a silence of words or something else? >These questions arise when I read your post >describing simple respondings. Not simple. " Red flower... maybe poppy " ... unnecessary hard work for the brain cells... dividing the world into " me " and that which is apart from me. >In me, such things if they occur emerge >from a darkness. I do not bid them, they just come and go or not at >all. Great. >I did not have a sudden >realization of anything that destroys and transforms stuff. That is >not >my experience. Is that your experience Stefan? Are you speaking from >experience or are you imagining what must happen? Both. I draw conclusions from experiences. The world of " Stefan " is incompatible with the world of wonder. In the world of wonder Stefan has disappeared. Something unthinkable has to break the wall. .... >And for me, I just be and do as I am as it is, " helplessly. " Wonderful. Sounds like complete surrender. My question may sound as if I understood nothing... still, it is a honest question: besides your being " helpless " , provided you were not helpless... do you feel that anything could improve for you? Greetings Stefan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 11, 2005 Stefan wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > >> " flowers, trees, beautiful, walking, fresh air " simple and beauteous >>responding to appearances. Is this something that needs to be >>silenced? > > > " Colourful luminous slightly radiating spots, waving green, a blissful > sensing inside, outside is not apart from inside, a movement, being > moved, stillness in the middle of movement, a stream of scents, > freshness becoming a vibrating sensation in the spine, incredible > blissfulness, fullness, each moment containing the spans of thousands > of lifes, the senses part of the sensed, no distinction, everything > fading into a sounding silence, containing everything possible. " > > Those are other words for the same events. Those thoughts come from > somewhere in my memory... of another walk at another time (when naming > was less rigid) now put into words in a very imperfect attempt. It does not seem imperfect to me. It only seems unfinished there is more...to let it flow to its end as it is....... > > >>Can it be enjoyed as an emergence as it is? >>Is wordless wonder a silence of words or something else? >>These questions arise when I read your post >>describing simple respondings. > > > Not simple. " Red flower... maybe poppy " ... unnecessary hard work for > the brain cells... dividing the world into " me " and that which is > apart from me. Is that dividing me and that which is apart from me? To do that is the most natural thing in the world. The appearance does this without effort. If I divide an appearance commonly labeled flower into all its possible permutations and all of its possible descriptions and wrote them all down and took photographs and produced films and plays about that flower and songs and poems and used it and its kind as a gift, as an expression of me to someone else, as a display of color and life and grew them and tended them and caressed them and watched them wilt in the frost, their petals dropping as they do, their stems bending until they are finished and then to see them again in the spring in their blossoming and the whole round of that appearance and others like them, how is that dividing? For me it is swimming in the flower becoming the flower, uniting with the flower, knowing it in all its endless diversity and never ending wonder melting into it so that it is me, I am it. I do not understand why it is believed that language and concept, which is totally harmless as it is, is seen as the great divider. It is nothing of the sort unless life is imputed to it and it is frozen as real, believed to be the appearance itself, rather than the tool that it is to explore the appearances, to learn, to enjoy, to live with and among the appearances. What makes for the sensation of separation and apartness are the natural sensations of the appearance which needs those sensations to navigate and live among other appearances so it is not damaged and so it can grow. There are also sensations that bring oneness if one knows them and how they occur. The division and separateness comes from holding and attaching to conceptual entities and not experiencing the appearances as they are without mediation. Language and concept are tools used for exploration so that there is greater union and when in darkness this becomes so apparent for they are used to illuminate. Used incorrectly they darken and blind, they distort the sensations and the perceptions of the appearances and this leads to all sort of limits. > >>In me, such things if they occur emerge > >>from a darkness. I do not bid them, they just come and go or not at > >>all. > > > Great. > > >>I did not have a sudden >>realization of anything that destroys and transforms stuff. That is >>not >>my experience. Is that your experience Stefan? Are you speaking from >>experience or are you imagining what must happen? > > > Both. I draw conclusions from experiences. The world of " Stefan " is > incompatible with the world of wonder. In the world of wonder Stefan > has disappeared. Something unthinkable has to break the wall. > > ... Is it possible, Stefan, that thinking that way it may become precisely as you think. St. John of the Cross in the Ascent to Mount Carmel described different kinds of the difficulties faced by those seeking union with God and one of them was having conceptions of God, conceptions of how the union was to occur, and conceptions of what is causing the separation, as is also found in the Cloud of Unknowing, and other mystical texts. The same is found in the Pali canon. Is there a wall that is more than that imagined or believed? > >>And for me, I just be and do as I am as it is, " helplessly. " > > > Wonderful. Sounds like complete surrender. My question may sound as if > I understood nothing... still, it is a honest question: besides your > being " helpless " , provided you were not helpless... do you feel that > anything could improve for you? > > Greetings > Stefan I do not know you, Stefan as you are fully in your appearance with your movements and your ways of being and doing and only as you present and respond here. As you may know, this is very little to go on. I experience what you present and then project back what is experienced. Sometimes it is erroneous, perhaps most times. Your questions could cut deeper to the quick of it for there is nothing to hide. Abandon all concern. I do not know about surrendering except that I cannot help doing as I do whatever that happens to be. It is like lying in a surf and being moved by it as it comes in and out and the surf just moves you around and you enjoy the in and out of it being tossed and turned and rolled over hands and arms flopping, water coming in your nose and eyes and sand and slat and water coursing all over your body, your hair, in your trunks and through and through. Do you have the experience of just lying in a two foot surf like that and letting the waves have it with you? It has become like that. If you stand up to a strong four foot surf trying to stay your ground in it, what happens? What happens to the ground beneath your feet and to your position as you stand and the anticipation of the coming waves or the going back of the water and the next wave to follow and again and again? I do not understand how one can improve. I suppose, this takes thinking about what one is not or what one wants to be or where one wants to go from where one is at or what is wrong or broken and what have you and then all the thought of solutions to each. In times past, I have found this to take me in a circle if it did not match the underlying darkness. I just went in circles, imagining and always ending up where I started. The futility of this sunk me deeper and deeper into the darkness until I noticed it was there and did not know what to make of it until I became helpless in it. Perhaps exercising all possible solutions helps. Futility seems to be a good teacher. What seems to be all in me, never changes, and superficial efforts just covered over, shaded, that which I am. And sometimes what was created on the surface matched what lied in darkness and there was peace. When the two are disparate there is great fear and insecurity and conflict that is unexplainable as the two meet and the darkness always removes the superficialities, unravels them for that is what it does without effort and secretly. The sensation of coming apart or disintegrating, going crazy is this unraveling of all the hardened and/or complex superficialities upon which there is a behavioral dependence and need and want and craving. Fighting, resisting, opposing this always going on movement, this unraveling, creates all those unpleasant sensations that are so copiously labeled in minute detail. Many people have given into it partially and live that way and some do it more or less naturally by doing whatever they do. It seems Stefan that the nature of it in me is to propel forward into conditions that expands the appearance, removing its limits, its conditioning without fear, going with the flow of it, being placed in challenging circumstances so that the appearances is shaken out and in experiences to learn new ways. Hidden in the appearances are limits and these limits seemed to be only revealed in interactions with others and things and doings that create things to be handled; perplexities, unpleasantness, wonders, and all that are a limit or limits that are removed as it is so that a greater free occurs and all the that that is added so that living with a greater conventional understanding of what it is do among others doing as we are. This place is one place that I move in to do this. It is a calling place, limits have been removed and many new things learned as I come here unadorned and free exposed to all is it possible. Love, Lewis Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 12, 2005 Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: >Is that dividing me and that which is apart from me? To do that is >the >most natural thing in the world. The appearance does this without >effort. Yes it must be somehow natural, otherwise it would not be experienced. But I always looked at the split as something that has to be left behind. I start being confused now, which is good... :-) >If I divide an appearance commonly labeled flower into all its >possible >permutations and all of its possible descriptions and wrote them all >own and took photographs and produced films and plays about that >flower >and songs and poems and used it and its kind as a gift, as an >expression >of me to someone else, as a display of color and life and grew them >and >tended them and caressed them and watched them wilt in the frost, >their >petals dropping as they do, their stems bending until they are >finished >and then to see them again in the spring in their blossoming and the >whole round of that appearance and others like them, how is that >dividing? For me it is swimming in the flower becoming the flower, >uniting with the flower, knowing it in all its endless diversity and >never ending wonder melting into it so that it is me, I am it. With " dividing " I was referring to the split between the perceiver and the flower (object). At that morning walk, which I was describing first, I just felt the obsessive naming was annoying and keeping me apart from the natural stream of life. But I can see now that the problem was created by me refusing the naming . Instead of accepting everything as it is I went into an endless chain of refusing. This appears so obvious to me now, that I have to laugh and wonder why I did not look at things like this already then. >I do not understand why it is believed that language and concept, >which >is totally harmless as it is, is seen as the great divider. It is >nothing of the sort unless life is imputed to it and it is frozen as >real, believed to be the appearance itself, rather than the tool that >it >is to explore the appearances, to learn, to enjoy, to live with and >among the appearances. What makes for the sensation of separation and >apartness are the natural sensations of the appearance which needs >those >sensations to navigate and live among other appearances so it is not >damaged and so it can grow. There are also sensations that bring >oneness if one knows them and how they occur. Well, actually I was thinking that the only reality must be " oneness " and everything else is a dream, from which I have to awake somehow (or an illusion which has to be identified as such). But now I see that this is again " naming " and I suspect, that even the dream and the mistaken reality are aspects of reality. >The division and separateness comes from holding and attaching to >conceptual entities and not experiencing the appearances as they are >without mediation. Yes, but what is not a " conceptual entity " ? In a way you are suggesting to experience concepts directly... >>>>...Something unthinkable has to break the wall. >Is it possible, Stefan, that thinking that way it may become >precisely >as you think. St. John of the Cross in the Ascent to Mount Carmel >described different kinds of the difficulties faced by those seeking >union with God and one of them was having conceptions of God, >conceptions of how the union was to occur, and conceptions of what is >causing the separation, as is also found in the Cloud of Unknowing, >and other mystical texts. The same is found in the Pali canon. Is >there a wall that is more than that imagined or believed? hmmm... I still think that the deviding approach of a subject towards objects is logically incompatible with the existence of unity. It seems that the mind can only function in time, which again only can exist in dividedness. On the other hand it happens all the time that I cross the border between the two without even being aware of it. >I do not know you, Stefan as you are fully in your appearance with >your >movements and your ways of being and doing and only as you present >and >respond here. As you may know, this is very little to go on. I >experience what you present and then project back what is >experienced. >Sometimes it is erroneous, perhaps most times. Your questions could >cut >deeper to the quick of it for there is nothing to hide. Abandon all >concern. I am always trying to... >I do not know about surrendering except that I cannot help doing as I >do whatever that happens to be. Well, you could go and fight against it, try to change things, like everybody does... (just joking) :-) Was it for you always like this? If not, how did it happen that you sank into this state of " helplessness " , which I call (from my standpoint) complete surrender? All the best, great conversation for me :-) Stefan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 13, 2005 Stefan wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > >>Is that dividing me and that which is apart from me? To do that is >>the >>most natural thing in the world. The appearance does this without >>effort. > > > Yes it must be somehow natural, otherwise it would not be experienced. > But I always looked at the split as something that has to be left > behind. I start being confused now, which is good... :-) > > >>If I divide an appearance commonly labeled flower into all its >>possible >>permutations and all of its possible descriptions and wrote them all >>own and took photographs and produced films and plays about that >>flower >>and songs and poems and used it and its kind as a gift, as an >>expression >>of me to someone else, as a display of color and life and grew them >>and >>tended them and caressed them and watched them wilt in the frost, >>their >>petals dropping as they do, their stems bending until they are >>finished >>and then to see them again in the spring in their blossoming and the >>whole round of that appearance and others like them, how is that >>dividing? For me it is swimming in the flower becoming the flower, >>uniting with the flower, knowing it in all its endless diversity and >>never ending wonder melting into it so that it is me, I am it. > > > With " dividing " I was referring to the split between the perceiver and > the flower (object). At that morning walk, which I was describing > first, I just felt the obsessive naming was annoying and keeping me > apart from the natural stream of life. But I can see now that the > problem was created by me refusing the naming . Instead of accepting > everything as it is I went into an endless chain of refusing. This > appears so obvious to me now, that I have to laugh and wonder why I > did not look at things like this already then. > >>I do not understand why it is believed that language and concept, >>which >>is totally harmless as it is, is seen as the great divider. It is >>nothing of the sort unless life is imputed to it and it is frozen as >>real, believed to be the appearance itself, rather than the tool that >>it >>is to explore the appearances, to learn, to enjoy, to live with and >>among the appearances. What makes for the sensation of separation > > and > >>apartness are the natural sensations of the appearance which needs >>those >>sensations to navigate and live among other appearances so it is not >>damaged and so it can grow. There are also sensations that bring >>oneness if one knows them and how they occur. > > > Well, actually I was thinking that the only reality must be " oneness " > and everything else is a dream, from which I have to awake somehow (or > an illusion which has to be identified as such). But now I see that > this is again " naming " and I suspect, that even the dream and the > mistaken reality are aspects of reality. > > >>The division and separateness comes from holding and attaching to >>conceptual entities and not experiencing the appearances as they are >>without mediation. > > > Yes, but what is not a " conceptual entity " ? In a way you are > suggesting to experience concepts directly... All that is perceived and even that perceived beneath awareness (blood flow, blood pressure changes, heart beats) in whatever way that it is done, is experienced. An appearance unmediated by concept (?), appearances mediated by concept (rose) and abstract concepts (numbers) are experienced. The reality or unreality and what have you of them is made by the experiencing, making it so by calling one real and the other an illusion and so on. A conceptualization can kill (I am worthless to myself and to anyone and there is no use to living anymore->suicide) as well as the conceptualized bullet shot into the head by another. One avoids conceptualizations (I know he does not like me and hates me without even knowing it is in the case or not, there is something there in the dark, a bogeyman!) and conceptualized cars in a street. A ghost or UFO (whatever that is) that appears to someone as such is real to them though it may be unreal to others. Experience is had in all. The wondering is how to undergo and respond to the experiences whatever they may be without attachment to them and without ignoring them or trying to make them disappear. They always return until handled properly. > > >>>>>...Something unthinkable has to break the wall. > > >>Is it possible, Stefan, that thinking that way it may become >>precisely >>as you think. St. John of the Cross in the Ascent to Mount Carmel >>described different kinds of the difficulties faced by those seeking >>union with God and one of them was having conceptions of God, >>conceptions of how the union was to occur, and conceptions of what > > is > >>causing the separation, as is also found in the Cloud of Unknowing, >>and other mystical texts. The same is found in the Pali canon. Is >>there a wall that is more than that imagined or believed? > > > hmmm... I still think that the deviding approach of a subject towards > objects is logically incompatible with the existence of unity. It > seems that the mind can only function in time, which again only can > exist in dividedness. On the other hand it happens all the time that I > cross the border between the two without even being aware of it. Yes. That is correct from logic. Oneness implies nonduality, no subject and object. Logic is logic and logic is a tool used in dealing with the analysis of conventional reality, the reality that is created through conceptualizations like American, European and all the concepts that go with that or dualism and nondualism and all that goes with that. Logic has no place outside of such realities and does not apply in direct experience where order, chaos, and paradox all exist at the same time. Is there a subject and object? Who or what makes that distinction? Is the distinction harmful or are the minds who make up this stuff as harmful harmful? In experience, there is only one living subject possible in a human appearance with all the rest becoming objects to it. There is " me " who can never be made an object. " I " can never see " me " and am unable to turn " me " into an object for examination. As " I " try to do so, then " I " am immediately placed in the subject position again. This is chasing my tail. It cannot be done. Try it. Do you have this simple experience? " I " cannot get at " me " because " me " is always doing the looking and examining and if " I " can get " me " in front to examine " me " as " I " would an apple, who is examining " me " then? It cannot be done. There is infinite regress. " I " am " me " and that is all and all other things are objects that can be examined experienced. When " I " ask into the air what am I? there is no answer, there are no words, there is indescribableness. When " I " do not to use the personal pronoun, there is no what or who at all present, just capacity to be and do. A simple capacity, an ability to perform or produce, like posting. Being such a capacity and not using " I " as a referent, it is readily noticed that there is union with all and there is no separation of any kind. For example, one may " see " a cup or [see] a cup. In only " seeing " a cup there will be a sense of separation because there is a simple measure of distance and time from the appearance. The cup is over there and it takes time to reach it and pick it up. This is a crude, dull sensation or almost no sensation at all, a time space representation in a visual field. On the other hand, [seeing] the cup is very different, it is a refined, rich sensation that encompasses the dull time-space representation in a visual field. In this sensation the cup is undivided from the appearance, the cup and all other things are literally bounded as extensions of the appearances and all the appearances are mutual extensions of all others in oneness. A simple example is found in the experience of breaking something that is precious to you. The sensation, if carefully noticed, is that " you " have broken, so that one cringes or screams out or shakes or shivers and so on when this broken in front of us or nearby. The same goes for the damaging of the appearances of anyone or anything " close " to one, human or otherwise. The limited range of this phenomenon to all things is due to the limits allowed in the appearance. Once these limits have been " eaten away, " the sensation increases to all things and is no longer limited to the appearance-centered, " my bike, " " my clothes, " my watch " " my car " " my children " " my country " " my people " and so on. So, it becomes apparent in daily life that there is no subject or object when these sensations [unblocked] are experienced. Even so, subject-object relations emerge in the being and doing of things by necessities in living and language. A cup of tea (object) is drunk by the appearance (subject). I (subject) drink a cup of tea (object). If all were a simple oneness like everything glued together, there could be no movement or diversity. Oneness is not one alone but many as well. Oneness does not obviate the many or diversity or distinctions, all are naturally within oneness. > > >>I do not know you, Stefan as you are fully in your appearance with >>your >>movements and your ways of being and doing and only as you present >>and >>respond here. As you may know, this is very little to go on. I >>experience what you present and then project back what is >>experienced. >>Sometimes it is erroneous, perhaps most times. Your questions could >>cut >>deeper to the quick of it for there is nothing to hide. Abandon all >>concern. > > > I am always trying to... Conventionally said. Sorry Stefan. Should have put an exclamation mark and smiley thing there. (Abandon all concern! :-) ) > > >>I do not know about surrendering except that I cannot help doing as I >>do whatever that happens to be. > > > Well, you could go and fight against it, try to change things, like > everybody does... (just joking) :-) I tried Stefan. I really tried. It ain't be working good trying like I did. :-) > Was it for you always like this? If not, how did it happen that you > sank into this state of " helplessness " , which I call (from my > standpoint) complete surrender? No, it was not. I do not know in any precise way how this happened. I do know that futility compounded with futility and more futility in trying this and that, thinking this and that, loving this and that, and practicing this and that, to the extreme, helped. Nothing tried worked and at each crushing realization of failure after trying the utmost, efforts like this diminished since there was nothing more to think or do or practice and as this occurred, these failures and the growing sense of futility in trying, there was a going into a darkness more and more without realizing it until it became apparent that it was engulfing and became helpless in it and more and more only able to respond or not respond in it. That is the way it stands now... > > All the best, great conversation for me :-) > Stefan > For me as well, Stefan. Your free and openness allows many things to emerge from us. Love, Lewis Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 13, 2005 Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: >...The wondering is how to undergo and respond to the experiences >whatever they >may be without attachment to them and without ignoring them or trying >to make them disappear. They always return until handled properly. How are they handled properly, is there still a sense, which is right or wrong? >Yes. That is correct from logic. Oneness implies nonduality, no >subject and object. Logic is logic and logic is a tool used in >dealing with the analysis of conventional reality, the reality that >is created through conceptualizations like American, European and >all the concepts that go with that or dualism and nondualism and all >that goes with that. >Logic has no place outside of such realities and does not apply in >direct experience where order, chaos, and paradox all exist at the >same time. It seems that we have a different view of logic. In my view, logic was an attempt to describe the functioning of the mind in its search for truth. Part of setting up logic was to show, how it inevitably leads to paradoxa if used consequently. See the wonderful talks of Sokraes, written down by Platon, which came to the conclusion (through relentless use of logic) that nothing can be known, only this can be known. It was not much different from the advaitic philosophic approach, which walked the same road: only Shunyam can be known. .... >In experience, there is only one living subject possible in a human >appearance with all the rest becoming objects to it. There is " me " >who can never be made an object. But you just made it an object... > " I " can never see " me " and am unable to >turn " me " into an object for examination. As " I " try to do so, then > " I " am immediately placed in the subject position again. This is >chasing my tail. It cannot be done. Try it. Do you have this simple experience? My experience is that I am able to see myself - all that makes it up - from outside, like an object in a dream. I say " I " am able, but really this experience is impersonal when it happens. To me this is evidence enough that there is something beyond the personal " I " . I have tasted it and it tastes so sweet that I cannot help but search it on and on, trying to grasp the ungraspable. As I go on searching and try to understand what it is, I tend to believe that it is what I actually am. > " I " cannot get at " me " because " me " is always doing the looking and >examining and if " I " can get " me " in front to examine " me " as " I " >would >an apple, who is examining " me " then? It cannot be done. There is >infinite regress. " I " am " me " and that is all and all other things >are >objects that can be examined experienced. When " I " ask into the air >what >am I? there is no answer, there are no words, there is >indescribableness. No answer, no word does not mean (for me) that it is not. You say you cannot see " you " as an object. You can see your arms and your legs. You can even see your brain if you really want. You can see your habits, your experiences, your feelings, your thoughts. The one who sees all this cannot be any of those. >When " I " do not to use the personal pronoun, there is >no what or who at all present, just capacity to be and do. A simple >capacity, an ability to perform or produce, like posting. I dont call in question the authenticity of your experience. But one can also spend years and use the pronouns " him " and " it happened " instead of " I " and " me " and it will change nothing, only that some call him a fool and others a spiritually advanced, haha! .... All the best Stefan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 13, 2005 Stefan wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > >>...The wondering is how to undergo and respond to the experiences >>whatever they >>may be without attachment to them and without ignoring them or trying >>to make them disappear. They always return until handled properly. > > > How are they handled properly, is there still a sense, which is right > or wrong? No, there is not a right and wrong and the handling is not conscious. It is like speech which emerges from " nowhere. " It comes out as it is in the form that it is. Walking is as it does without thinking about how to do it or riding a bike is the same, we do not think sequentially about it we just go on and it is the same in any doing that is done. Posting is the same. Things come out and we respond to own writing and we change what is written and write again and continue till this is a finishing of the posting however that happens. We simply cannot know how something is done, especially how when we are in the midst of doing it. It all is in darkness. If you try to figure out how your riding a bike as you are doing it, looking at how you steer or peddle or balance, you will soon find out the folly of doing that. Even new activities are done in this way. So in the doing, which requires no conscious effort at all the example and teaching of life is found. For example, experience teaches that the naming of things goes as it happens or the flow of thoughts simply emerge as a matter of course. No effort is need for these to occur or not occur. If an effort is made to make them proper or to study how they emerge or interfere with them there will be confusion and complications because what is happening simply is occurring and trying to artificially block it, redirect it, analyze it as it simply occurs or what have you, distorts it and also does not alter in any way the darkness of it, the flow of it as it is. As soon as the control or redirection is released it will continue again almost from where it left off but not always. This sort of interference only makes a crash as it would if you were doing the same for bike riding as you ride. The doing is coming out as it is and it will do and go where it goes. So the proper way to ride a bike is to ride a bike as it is. If desire to ride a bike in a specific way, then the bodily appearance can be trained up to do it so. So can thoughts be trained up. The consequences are different in how this is done. If it matches the flow of doing for that appearance, the training enhances, if not, it degrades. Each appearance is different so how it is with each, how the doing occurs is different so each must find its way. There is no one way for every appearance. Right and wrong then becomes no more than preference of doing as it is and this make things lovely, to see how each does (or does not do) similar things as they do. > >>Yes. That is correct from logic. Oneness implies nonduality, no >>subject and object. Logic is logic and logic is a tool used in >>dealing with the analysis of conventional reality, the reality that >>is created through conceptualizations like American, European and >>all the concepts that go with that or dualism and nondualism and all >>that goes with that. >>Logic has no place outside of such realities and does not apply in >>direct experience where order, chaos, and paradox all exist at the >>same time. > > > It seems that we have a different view of logic. In my view, logic was > an attempt to describe the functioning of the mind in its search for > truth. Part of setting up logic was to show, how it inevitably leads > to paradoxa if used consequently. See the wonderful talks of Sokraes, > written down by Platon, which came to the conclusion (through > relentless use of logic) that nothing can be known, only this can be > known. It was not much different from the advaitic philosophic > approach, which walked the same road: only Shunyam can be known. > > ... > It seems to be the same. It is of thought and reasoning. >>In experience, there is only one living subject possible in a human >>appearance with all the rest becoming objects to it. There is " me " >>who can never be made an object. > > > But you just made it an object... So it seems. The case is different. There is experience and description of it. The above is a description and all descriptions are objects. It is unavoidable, Stefan to speak about clearly without saying it. Of course we write so that it all appears between the lines but that is unnecessary in this case. > > >> " I " can never see " me " and am unable to >>turn " me " into an object for examination. As " I " try to do so, then >> " I " am immediately placed in the subject position again. This is >>chasing my tail. It cannot be done. Try it. Do you have this simple > > experience? > > My experience is that I am able to see myself - all that makes it up - > from outside, like an object in a dream. I say " I " am able, but really > this experience is impersonal when it happens. To me this is evidence > enough that there is something beyond the personal " I " . I have tasted > it and it tastes so sweet that I cannot help but search it on and on, > trying to grasp the ungraspable. > > As I go on searching and try to understand what it is, I tend to > believe that it is what I actually am. Yes. And this is not a mystical experience. It is ordinary. Beyond the " I " that sees and cannot be seen because it is always positioned as seeing is impenetrable darkness, blinding light, or a cloud or some other sensation like that. > >> " I " cannot get at " me " because " me " is always doing the looking and >>examining and if " I " can get " me " in front to examine " me " as " I " >>would >>an apple, who is examining " me " then? It cannot be done. There is >>infinite regress. " I " am " me " and that is all and all other things >>are >>objects that can be examined experienced. When " I " ask into the air >>what >>am I? there is no answer, there are no words, there is >>indescribableness. > > > No answer, no word does not mean (for me) that it is not. Yes. The same is experienced, it simply means it is. > > You say you cannot see " you " as an object. You can see your arms and > your legs. You can even see your brain if you really want. You can see > your habits, your experiences, your feelings, your thoughts. The one > who sees all this cannot be any of those. Yes. it seems that I am indescribable. Now this is always interesting. Stefan, how is it that these are my arms and legs and brain and memories, habits, experiences, feelings, thoughts etc. Do I own them? Can I possess them? Can I do as I like with them? How can they be mine? How can they belong to me? How can a capacity own anything? Can they not be taken away? Destroyed? Obliterated? Can't others take these and do as they will with them if it happened so? In an accident, war, sickness, disease, crime, theft, rape, murder? Are the habits of the appearance something owned, possessed, " mine. " Can habits? be possessed owned? Or do they possess or own you being what they are? Are feelings, thoughts are ownable, possessable? They come and go and dissolve and memories of them are never what they were in first experience and these are impermanent and alterable. What is owned? What is mine? These things are not ownable or possessable in my experience. They do not belong to me and they are not mine as a possession or a belonging. They just are. And they are used as it is for whatever is required. They change and are never the same until they are no more. Grasping air is the way it feels to me. Of course, one can think my arms, my legs, etc. and believe that and it is commonly done in that way and attached and even obsessed with these. My space, my thoughts, my body, my mind, my things and so on. One can thinks so and believe so and act so. It is common to do so, and no one can say that it is not so for others. > >>When " I " do not to use the personal pronoun, there is >>no what or who at all present, just capacity to be and do. A simple >>capacity, an ability to perform or produce, like posting. > > > I dont call in question the authenticity of your experience. But one > can also spend years and use the pronouns " him " and " it happened " > instead of " I " and " me " and it will change nothing, only that some > call him a fool and others a spiritually advanced, haha! > > ... That is the correct. Either way makes no difference. It is simply a language convention for navigating and explaining and living and all that. Unfortunately, " I " has a bad rap, it is stereotyped. It is sometimes associated with ego or self or some homunculus and this can indeed be the case or partially the case or not at all. So what is done to make the difference is to say I AM in capital letters to denote who is speaking or what one wants to refer to as some terminal being. I find that I can simply say I am, I am me, I am indescribable, me is me, and so forth and it is not a problem because that is direct experience. There does not seem to be anything special in not being able to know how I came to be or how I do a single thing and there is nothing clearly known beyond me and my experiences. There is a sense of wonder and curiosity always because I am here and don't know how it is that that is so or how it is done and that the way it is. I hear a lot of stories about me. This place has many stories about me, trying to explain me or in the other way, the capacity. All fall short and perhaps there is no way to get to me or explain me in words. One just has to have the experience in whatever way one can. How is it for you, Stefan? > > All the best > Stefan and the best of all to you, Stefan Lewis Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 16, 2005 Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: >I hear a lot of stories about me. This place has many stories about me, >trying to explain me or in the other way, the capacity. All fall short >and perhaps there is no way to get to me or explain me in words. One >just has to have the experience in whatever way one can. > >How is it for you, Stefan? Hi Lewis, thanks for your response. Well, I dont read all the postings here. I did not hear any particular stories about you :-) But I see what you mean. I am not concerned about stories that others have about me. In fact, I see myself as an endless row of stories, stories that I am telling to myself. Only that which is not told might be real. So I must be " stories " for the others as well. I am used to be misunderstood. I think it was always like this. Sometimes I tell stories to people because they want to hear them. As a musician I am used that people have all kind of ideas what it is like to be a musician. If I told them " well, really, why do you see me as a musician, I am the same as you... " only few people would understand what I really mean. Most would take it for a gesture of politeness. Greetings... Stefan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 16, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@c...> wrote: > I am used to be misunderstood. I think it was always like this. > Sometimes I tell stories to people because they want to hear them. As > a musician I am used that people have all kind of ideas what it is > like to be a musician. If I told them " well, really, why do you see me > as a musician, I am the same as you... " only few people would > understand what I really mean. Most would take it for a gesture of > politeness. > > Greetings... > Stefan I recognize so well what you're saying, Stefan. I do cleaning for my living, and people have all kind of ideas what it is like to be a cleaner. And I'm sure if I told them: " well, really, why do you see me as a cleaner, I am the same as you... " I'm sure most would take it for a gesture of politeness. Len Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 16, 2005 Stefan wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > >>I hear a lot of stories about me. This place has many stories about > > me, > >>trying to explain me or in the other way, the capacity. All fall > > short > >>and perhaps there is no way to get to me or explain me in words. One >>just has to have the experience in whatever way one can. >> >>How is it for you, Stefan? > > > Hi Lewis, > > thanks for your response. Well, I dont read all the postings here. I > did not hear any particular stories about you :-) :-) Stefan, the stories I am referring to are not stories identified with my appearances or projections that some attach to and work with. These appearances or projections are simple manifestations or expressions that can be easily seen from many different perspectives depending on how they are experienced by each person. In this sense, I appear different to each person depending on conditioning and willingness to inquire. > But I see what you mean. I am not concerned about stories that others > have about me. In fact, I see myself as an endless row of stories, > stories that I am telling to myself. Only that which is not told might > be real. So I must be " stories " for the others as well. > > I am used to be misunderstood. I think it was always like this. > Sometimes I tell stories to people because they want to hear them. As > a musician I am used that people have all kind of ideas what it is > like to be a musician. If I told them " well, really, why do you see me > as a musician, I am the same as you... " only few people would > understand what I really mean. Most would take it for a gesture of > politeness. > > Greetings... > Stefan As you say, a musician can mean many different things to others as different from what the experience is for you [as a person or as the indescribable you]. The only way others can come close to what you experience is to inquire to see if there can be a match up in some approximate way. This is the coming to share intimately on the conventional level. As you point out, misunderstandings are common and unavoidable given the range of experiences a person may have and the conditioning and deconditioning they have undergone and their ability or inability to inquire well. And so stories about each other emerge and take form and are used as they are in the moment and left in the dark or forgotten or like some do, are kept and stored as " Eva this one " and " Nicky that one " for further use in dealing with the next " Eva " and " Nicky " projection that is encountered. I do not have endless stories about indescribable me for I am, for lack of better words, no more than air that is able to do stuff; ungraspable, unseeable, existing. Sounds weird and that is what it is like. There are experiences undergone and these stories of experience are like the stories of others that can be told and retold as it is, shared for gaining understandings in all the ways that that can happen. What I was actually referring was the stories about indescribable me, the indescribable you. Such explanations, for example, try to explain indescribable me or, if you prefer, the capacity [that posts, speaks, does], as neuronal firings, or as dependent arising, or as Atman, Brahman, God or neurosis or psychosis or anything in words that tries to get at the origin and nature of indescribable me or indescribable you. I cannot get at me. I am aware this is happening, like posting, and there seems no way to perceive me as an object. No can do. It seems to me that this can be experienced by anyone and if experienced directly it is immediately understood, one to the other, and there is communion on it. So, I suppose, one has to experience " infinite regression as a sort of a final futility of finite or infinite thinking " and realize it directly, that is, that infinite regress is simply the backward addition of finite steps and something infinite cannot be a subject of finite thinking. The buck stops with indescribable me. No ultimate being other than you and me and others can be known it seems and there seems to be little or no use in positing an external object terminus concept like God or Brahman or something other than indescribable me. I cannot know more than that it seems, even though there is talk of the terminus. There is no demonstration of the terminus and those speaking of it never seem to reach it themselves or able to speak of it coherently and what they speak of seems to me to be ordinary experience I have day to day. This leave little ole airy me and airy you if you experience it. The delicious mystery and wonder of it always remains and it seems that meaning and meaninglessness and absolutes and relatives are unnecessary and living is simple for what is there to do but to do as we are. Some question how can this be and I say try it and see. When you say, " I am the same as you... " only few people would understand what I really mean " are you referring to the indescribable you or to our common humanity in appearance? Love, Lewis Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 17, 2005 Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: .... >I do not have endless stories about indescribable me for I am, for >lack of better words, no more than air that is able to do stuff; >ungraspable, unseeable, existing. >Sounds weird and that is what it is like. There are experiences >undergone and these stories of experience are like the stories of >others that can be told and retold as it is, shared for gaining >understandings in all the ways that that can happen. From the level of intuition I understand you. Only one question, you say it is weird. Weird even for you? Would you say your state is worth to be attained for others? >What I was actually referring was the stories about indescribable me, the indescribable you. I see, I have many such stories. But my main sadhana has been to doubt everything. >Such explanations, for example, try to explain indescribable me or, if you prefer, the capacity [that posts, speaks, does], as neuronal firings, or as dependent arising, or as Atman, Brahman, God or neurosis or psychosis or anything in words that tries to get at the origin and nature of indescribable me or indescribable you. I cannot get at me. I am aware this is happening, like posting, and there seems no way to perceive me as an object. No can do. It seems to me that this can be experienced by anyone and if >experienced directly it is immediately understood, one to the other, >and there is communion on it. You mean, it can be experienced by anyone that he cannot get at himself as an object... that he simply " is " ... yes. But above you have said: " I am, for lack of better words, no more than air that is able to do stuff; ungraspable, unseeable, existing. " You know that you are existing. How can you know it? From where is the sense of " existing " being perceived? Is it possible to be in a natural state as long as this question is not solved. .... >This leave little ole airy me and airy you if you experience it. The >delicious mystery and wonder of it always remains and it seems that >meaning and meaninglessness and absolutes and relatives are >unnecessary and living is simple for what is there to do but to do as >we are. Some question how can this be and I say try it and see. Many masters have said, the experiencing of " that which cannot be experienced " is possible when " you " disappear. You become the experience itself and the experiencer disappears. Does this make sense for you? >When you say, " I am the same as you... " only few people would >understand what I really mean " are you referring to the >indescribable you or to our common humanity in appearance? I was referring to the undescribable me, because truly one cannot differ from another. In fact there is only one. At least this is what my intuition tells me. I hope my persistent questions do not bother you :-) Love Stefan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
