The self as an object - ken

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " kenj02001 " <kenj02001>

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " sam_t_7 " <sam_t_7>

wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " hemantbhai100 "

> > <hemantbhai100@h...> wrote:

> > >

> > >be aware of yourself (ie, your body), as an expression of the

> > universe. your pain is its pain. your evolution is its evolution.

> >

> > there is no sin in existing as a separate mind-body. it is what

it

> > is.

> >

> > you don't owe suffering to anybody who lived or died for you.

you

> > have

> > to find your own path. you have to find your own peace here.

> >

> > accept struggle as part of nature. then you will someday cease

to

> be

> > bothered by it. some will call it transcendence.

> >

> > struggle will not end. your awakening means nothing to Nature.

it

> has

> > to carry on its work.

> >

> > Sam: this is the place of the realized non-seeker. The

> realization

> > is there ----- with a twist. It sounds like Al is moving out

of

> > the seeker mode and into this mode. The dream is still a dream

> but

> > it looks a little different from this view.

>

>

> ** No, there's only the totality of " what is " and it's not

> separated or divided into seekers and realizers. Definitions

> seem to divide, make difference, but they dissolve as

> they form, and return to ____, which is not a blank.

>

> There's no 'accepting,' or moving of any kind--just a

> passing impression 'created' by a (passing) assumption that

> definitions can 'create' anything real at all--like a me

> having changing experiences or attaining some knowledge.

>

> Definitions can be useful in their appropriate context,

> but I don't see that yours here meet that test. Looks like

> 'spiritual' ideas, right out of the memory-box --unexamined.

>

> Ken

 

 

sam: what test is trying to be met or passed?

Yes there is no accepting. Yes moving is just a passing impression

of an assumption that definitions can 'create' anything real at

all. Sounds like your version was only another version of the one

you are disagreeing with. It isn't real - no - that wasn't the

debate about the dream state. The debate was the state in which the

dreamer is in. Sure, it's not -real-. That was my previous

point. As Nis says, it's a dream. The old zen poem posted only re-

iterates what Nis said using different words. Did these 2 messages

not meet or pass your test either, since those were the messages I

was offering on this, Nis forum. If I did not meet your test are you

inferring that Nis and the Zen poem didn't either?

 

Have you examined the dream and " your " role in it? Does it matter?

Or are you another one hung up in the endless debate about the

real/non-real?

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " sam_t_7 " <sam_t_7> wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " kenj02001 " <kenj02001>

> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " sam_t_7 " <sam_t_7>

> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " hemantbhai100 "

> > > <hemantbhai100@h...> wrote:

> > > >

> > > >be aware of yourself (ie, your body), as an expression of the

> > > universe. your pain is its pain. your evolution is its

evolution.

> > >

> > > there is no sin in existing as a separate mind-body. it is what

> it

> > > is.

> > >

> > > you don't owe suffering to anybody who lived or died for you.

> you

> > > have

> > > to find your own path. you have to find your own peace here.

> > >

> > > accept struggle as part of nature. then you will someday cease

> to

> > be

> > > bothered by it. some will call it transcendence.

> > >

> > > struggle will not end. your awakening means nothing to Nature.

> it

> > has

> > > to carry on its work.

> > >

> > > Sam: this is the place of the realized non-seeker. The

> > realization

> > > is there ----- with a twist. It sounds like Al is moving out

> of

> > > the seeker mode and into this mode. The dream is still a dream

> > but

> > > it looks a little different from this view.

> >

> >

> > ** No, there's only the totality of " what is " and it's not

> > separated or divided into seekers and realizers. Definitions

> > seem to divide, make difference, but they dissolve as

> > they form, and return to ____, which is not a blank.

> >

> > There's no 'accepting,' or moving of any kind--just a

> > passing impression 'created' by a (passing) assumption that

> > definitions can 'create' anything real at all--like a me

> > having changing experiences or attaining some knowledge.

> >

> > Definitions can be useful in their appropriate context,

> > but I don't see that yours here meet that test. Looks like

> > 'spiritual' ideas, right out of the memory-box --unexamined.

> >

> > Ken

>

>

> sam: what test is trying to be met or passed?

> Yes there is no accepting. Yes moving is just a passing impression

> of an assumption that definitions can 'create' anything real at

> all. Sounds like your version was only another version of the one

> you are disagreeing with. It isn't real - no - that wasn't the

> debate about the dream state. The debate was the state in which the

> dreamer is in. Sure, it's not -real-. That was my previous

> point. As Nis says, it's a dream. The old zen poem posted only re-

> iterates what Nis said using different words. Did these 2 messages

> not meet or pass your test either, since those were the messages I

> was offering on this, Nis forum. If I did not meet your test are

you

> inferring that Nis and the Zen poem didn't either?

>

> Have you examined the dream and " your " role in it? Does it

matter?

> Or are you another one hung up in the endless debate about the

> real/non-real?

 

** No. " Test " was a figure of speech--just came out like that.

I may not have followed the thread you mention, and after

responding as above, I read another of your's that left

a different impression. Anyway, I'm not too responsive

today-- aome type of cold or sinus thing showed up!

Catch you later, maybe...

 

 

Ken