Guest guest Report post Posted April 24, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/23/2006 9:21:50 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Mon, 24 Apr 2006 04:07:34 -0000 > " toombaru2006 " <lastrain > Re: Ego Drives the Car > > > > > > The assumption is yours only. Why do you find it necessary to keep > > making > > > this assumption? You keep saying " You speak as though " and " you > > speak of the ego > > > as if " . This is your mental process of association and implication > > and I > > > wonder how it serves you to engage this process since it seems you > > wish to > > > negate the process. > > > > > > No volition has been implied, only a description of the apparent > > process. > > > > > > > > > > > > The ego or self is nothing without volition. > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > That's right, and so volition is assumed by both you and I, which > makes us > > both liars. Nothing can be done about that, eh? > > > > > > > > > There is no assumption of volition here. > > > > toombaru > > > > Oh, okay, I actually didn't know that. I 'assume' that if this is a knowing > rather than just a belief held, that the whole ego structure must collapse. Am > I mistaken? > > Phil At first reading I thought you were saying there was 'no-self' where you are toombaru. That absence of the personal pronoun thing, my guess anyway.As I say, that was at first blush, as I didn't really think you'd expect the minions to buy that, other than as the fundamental truth of any and all things; that, to hold credence in that particular non-qualifying qualifier, 'no-self', as a singular property of any person, place or thing, is to hold a flawed belief. But on rereading the statement, I get " there is no assumption of volition " , well cool. You don't assume 'volition', which herein considered, is a 'property' of 'self'. Now it makes sense. It would be OK without there being any assuming or not assuming done too, I assume. bob > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 24, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/23/2006 9:21:50 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Mon, 24 Apr 2006 04:07:34 -0000 > " toombaru2006 " <lastrain > Re: Ego Drives the Car > > > > > > The assumption is yours only. Why do you find it necessary to keep > > making > > > this assumption? You keep saying " You speak as though " and " you > > speak of the ego > > > as if " . This is your mental process of association and implication > > and I > > > wonder how it serves you to engage this process since it seems you > > wish to > > > negate the process. > > > > > > No volition has been implied, only a description of the apparent > > process. > > > > > > > > > > > > The ego or self is nothing without volition. > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > That's right, and so volition is assumed by both you and I, which > makes us > > both liars. Nothing can be done about that, eh? > > > > > > > > > There is no assumption of volition here. > > > > toombaru > > > > Oh, okay, I actually didn't know that. I 'assume' that if this is a knowing > rather than just a belief held, that the whole ego structure must collapse. Am > I mistaken? > > Phil > > The structure remains.......but is now empty. toombaru > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 24, 2006 In a message dated 4/24/2006 11:12:15 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 14:23:01 -0000 " toombaru2006 " <lastrain Re: Ego Drives the Car Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/23/2006 9:21:50 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Mon, 24 Apr 2006 04:07:34 -0000 > " toombaru2006 " <lastrain > Re: Ego Drives the Car > > > > > > The assumption is yours only. Why do you find it necessary to keep > > making > > > this assumption? You keep saying " You speak as though " and " you > > speak of the ego > > > as if " . This is your mental process of association and implication > > and I > > > wonder how it serves you to engage this process since it seems you > > wish to > > > negate the process. > > > > > > No volition has been implied, only a description of the apparent > > process. > > > > > > > > > > > > The ego or self is nothing without volition. > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > That's right, and so volition is assumed by both you and I, which > makes us > > both liars. Nothing can be done about that, eh? > > > > > > > > > There is no assumption of volition here. > > > > toombaru > > > > Oh, okay, I actually didn't know that. I 'assume' that if this is a knowing > rather than just a belief held, that the whole ego structure must collapse. Am > I mistaken? > > Phil > > The structure remains.......but is now empty. toombaru Okay, so the structure remains which means there's a fundamental belief in the reality of an independent identity beyond all concepts and experiences to the contrary. This independent identity is an individual, but this individual does not believe it has independent volition.......... The only way this could be is if it believes it's being controlled by 'something else'. If this is so, what is it about this individual that supports it's belief in it's individuality? In what way is an individual and individual if even it's thoughts are not it's own, even the thought of individuality? Why doesn't the structure simply collapse? This is my own exploration, but if you're inclined to play, too, that would be great. Phil Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 24, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > In a message dated 4/23/2006 8:52:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > ADHHUB@ > > writes: > > > > > >No volition has been implied, only a description of the apparent > > > process. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The ego or self is nothing without volition. > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > L.E: The ego or self is nothing even with volition. > > Ha! > > (rather, it, I, you are not an independent entity but arise when > thinking or > > mind, a function of brain interacts with body. The interaction of > the first > > two entities, creates the apparent third entity, the ego, self, or I.) > > > > > > > The assumption of volition is necessary for the assumption of a self. > > > toombaru Assumed location is neccessary for the assumption of self, and volition can then be attributed to " action from the located center. " -- D. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 24, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > There is no assumption of volition here. > > > > toombaru > > > > Oh, okay, I actually didn't know that. I 'assume' that if this is a knowing > rather than just a belief held, that the whole ego structure must collapse. Am > I mistaken? > > Phil > If volition can be located as held over here, but not held over there, then there still is the assumption of location (e.g., located beings). A major contradiction in many teachings of a supposed nondual nature is that they assume that a located being has done away with the sense of volition (e.g., " the sage has no sense of volition, but the seeker does. " ) Thus, the assumption of location is left intact and maintained. One still is dealing with assumed continuing and located beings, one of which may have lost a sense of volition and another of which still has that sense. -- D. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 24, 2006 In a message dated 4/24/2006 1:56:53 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 20:03:43 -0000 " dan330033 " <dan330033 Re: Ego Drives the Car Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > In a message dated 4/23/2006 8:52:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > ADHHUB@ > > writes: > > > > > >No volition has been implied, only a description of the apparent > > > process. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The ego or self is nothing without volition. > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > L.E: The ego or self is nothing even with volition. > > Ha! > > (rather, it, I, you are not an independent entity but arise when > thinking or > > mind, a function of brain interacts with body. The interaction of > the first > > two entities, creates the apparent third entity, the ego, self, or I.) > > > > > > > The assumption of volition is necessary for the assumption of a self. > > > toombaru Assumed location is neccessary for the assumption of self, and volition can then be attributed to " action from the located center. " -- D. Yes, that seems right. A nonvolitional self can be assumed to exist. Phil Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 24, 2006 In a message dated 4/24/2006 1:56:53 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 20:11:25 -0000 " dan330033 " <dan330033 Re: Ego Drives the Car Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > There is no assumption of volition here. > > > > toombaru > > > > Oh, okay, I actually didn't know that. I 'assume' that if this is a knowing > rather than just a belief held, that the whole ego structure must collapse. Am > I mistaken? > > Phil > If volition can be located as held over here, but not held over there, then there still is the assumption of location (e.g., located beings). A major contradiction in many teachings of a supposed nondual nature is that they assume that a located being has done away with the sense of volition (e.g., " the sage has no sense of volition, but the seeker does. " ) Thus, the assumption of location is left intact and maintained. One still is dealing with assumed continuing and located beings, one of which may have lost a sense of volition and another of which still has that sense. -- D. You're saying the 'student' assumes there is a nonvolitional being present (in the form of the sage)? Because he assumes himself to be both a self and volitional? And so they are actually separate constructs. Phil Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 25, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/24/2006 11:12:15 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Mon, 24 Apr 2006 14:23:01 -0000 > " toombaru2006 " <lastrain > Re: Ego Drives the Car > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 4/23/2006 9:21:50 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > Mon, 24 Apr 2006 04:07:34 -0000 > > " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > Re: Ego Drives the Car > > > > > > > > > > The assumption is yours only. Why do you find it necessary to keep > > > making > > > > this assumption? You keep saying " You speak as though " and " you > > > speak of the ego > > > > as if " . This is your mental process of association and > implication > > > and I > > > > wonder how it serves you to engage this process since it seems > you > > > wish to > > > > negate the process. > > > > > > > > No volition has been implied, only a description of the apparent > > > process. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The ego or self is nothing without volition. > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > That's right, and so volition is assumed by both you and I, which > > makes us > > > both liars. Nothing can be done about that, eh? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no assumption of volition here. > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > Oh, okay, I actually didn't know that. I 'assume' that if this is a > knowing > > rather than just a belief held, that the whole ego structure must > collapse. Am > > I mistaken? > > > > Phil > > > > > > The structure remains.......but is now empty. > > > toombaru > > > > Okay, so the structure remains which means there's a fundamental belief in > the reality of an independent identity beyond all concepts and experiences to > the contrary. No. There is no independent entity....anywhere. The entity needs to breathe.....needs to sustain itself with food and water. The body can do quite well without concepts. It is within the conceptual overlay that the confusion exists. When that becomes transparent...the natural world shines through......and can only be described as ........Bliss. > This independent identity is an individual, It is a separate body. The sense of a separate self arises from within the conceptual thought process. but this individual > does not believe it has independent volition...... All of those who believe that they are separate individuals also believe that they have volition. In some the sense of a separate self becomes traslucent......in some it becomes transparent.......when it is transparent.....all belief in volition is gone.....simply because there is no one left to whom it could apply. >.... The only way this > could be is if it believes it's being controlled by 'something else'. In the transparent.....all beliefs disappear. > If this is > so, what is it about this individual that supports it's belief in it's > individuality? In what way is an individual and individual if even it's thoughts > are not it's own, even the thought of individuality? Why doesn't the structure > simply collapse? How or Why it forms....and collapses is a great mystery. The deepest sages tell us that nothing ever happened. > > This is my own exploration, No.....It is not. The brain cells.....in the frontal cortex are simply wondering what in the hell is going on.....and also wondering who in the hell is that voice that keeps talking to them....:-) toombaru but if you're inclined to play, too, that would > be great. > > Phil > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 25, 2006 In a message dated 4/24/2006 5:35:53 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 23:54:33 -0000 " toombaru2006 " <lastrain Re: Ego Drives the Car Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/24/2006 11:12:15 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Mon, 24 Apr 2006 14:23:01 -0000 > " toombaru2006 " <lastrain > Re: Ego Drives the Car > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 4/23/2006 9:21:50 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > Mon, 24 Apr 2006 04:07:34 -0000 > > " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > Re: Ego Drives the Car > > > > > > > > > > The assumption is yours only. Why do you find it necessary to keep > > > making > > > > this assumption? You keep saying " You speak as though " and " you > > > speak of the ego > > > > as if " . This is your mental process of association and > implication > > > and I > > > > wonder how it serves you to engage this process since it seems > you > > > wish to > > > > negate the process. > > > > > > > > No volition has been implied, only a description of the apparent > > > process. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The ego or self is nothing without volition. > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > That's right, and so volition is assumed by both you and I, which > > makes us > > > both liars. Nothing can be done about that, eh? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no assumption of volition here. > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > Oh, okay, I actually didn't know that. I 'assume' that if this is a > knowing > > rather than just a belief held, that the whole ego structure must > collapse. Am > > I mistaken? > > > > Phil > > > > > > The structure remains.......but is now empty. > > > toombaru > > > > Okay, so the structure remains which means there's a fundamental belief in > the reality of an independent identity beyond all concepts and experiences to > the contrary. No. There is no independent entity....anywhere. The entity needs to breathe.....needs to sustain itself with food and water. The body can do quite well without concepts. It is within the conceptual overlay that the confusion exists. When that becomes transparent...the natural world shines through......and can only be described as ........Bliss. > This independent identity is an individual, It is a separate body. The sense of a separate self arises from within the conceptual thought process. Phil: The structure we're talking about is an ego structure. This is what you said remains. but this individual > does not believe it has independent volition...... All of those who believe that they are separate individuals also believe that they have volition. In some the sense of a separate self becomes traslucent......in some it becomes transparent.......when it is transparent.....all belief in volition is gone.....simply because there is no one left to whom it could apply. >.... The only way this > could be is if it believes it's being controlled by 'something else'. In the transparent.....all beliefs disappear. > If this is > so, what is it about this individual that supports it's belief in it's > individuality? In what way is an individual and individual if even it's thoughts > are not it's own, even the thought of individuality? Why doesn't the structure > simply collapse? How or Why it forms....and collapses is a great mystery. The deepest sages tell us that nothing ever happened. Phil: I don't see it as a mystery at all. It collapses when there is no longer a belief structure to hold it in place. Is there, or is there not, a belief structure holding your identity in place? > > This is my own exploration, No.....It is not. The brain cells.....in the frontal cortex are simply wondering what in the hell is going on.....and also wondering who in the hell is that voice that keeps talking to them....:-) toombaru but if you're inclined to play, too, that would > be great. > > Phil Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 25, 2006 The assumption of volition is necessary for the assumption of a self. toombaru L.E: Neither will be assumed. No assumption. No volition, no self. ** If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: /mygroups?edit=1 Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 25, 2006 In a message dated 4/24/2006 11:59:06 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 04:44:19 -0000 " toombaru2006 " <lastrain Re: Ego Drives the Car > Phil: I don't see it as a mystery at all. It collapses when there is no > longer a belief structure to hold it in place. Is there, or is there not, a > belief structure holding your identity in place? The identity and the belief structure are the same thing. It never really collapses....because it never really existed. The belief structure is a conceptual structure. Of course it exists as a conceptual structure and of course it can collapse. Such structures collapse all the time. Phil Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 25, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/24/2006 5:35:53 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Mon, 24 Apr 2006 23:54:33 -0000 > " toombaru2006 " <lastrain > Re: Ego Drives the Car > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 4/24/2006 11:12:15 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > Mon, 24 Apr 2006 14:23:01 -0000 > > " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > Re: Ego Drives the Car > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 4/23/2006 9:21:50 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > Mon, 24 Apr 2006 04:07:34 -0000 > > > " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > > Re: Ego Drives the Car > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The assumption is yours only. Why do you find it necessary > to keep > > > > making > > > > > this assumption? You keep saying " You speak as though " and " you > > > > speak of the ego > > > > > as if " . This is your mental process of association and > > implication > > > > and I > > > > > wonder how it serves you to engage this process since it seems > > you > > > > wish to > > > > > negate the process. > > > > > > > > > > No volition has been implied, only a description of the > apparent > > > > process. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The ego or self is nothing without volition. > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's right, and so volition is assumed by both you and I, which > > > makes us > > > > both liars. Nothing can be done about that, eh? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no assumption of volition here. > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > Oh, okay, I actually didn't know that. I 'assume' that if this is a > > knowing > > > rather than just a belief held, that the whole ego structure must > > collapse. Am > > > I mistaken? > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > > The structure remains.......but is now empty. > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > Okay, so the structure remains which means there's a fundamental > belief in > > the reality of an independent identity beyond all concepts and > experiences to > > the contrary. > > > No. > > There is no independent entity....anywhere. > > The entity needs to breathe.....needs to sustain itself with food and > water. > > The body can do quite well without concepts. > > It is within the conceptual overlay that the confusion exists. > > When that becomes transparent...the natural world shines > through......and can only be described as ........Bliss. > > > > > > This independent identity is an individual, > > > It is a separate body. > > The sense of a separate self arises from within the conceptual thought > process. > > > > > > Phil: The structure we're talking about is an ego structure. This is what > you said remains. If someone called to Ramana, he would usually answer. Did he have an ego?...I don't know. I do believe that the problem lies within the concpetual realm. The concept 'ego' is taken as a given and then an attempt to fit the incoming impressions into a perconcieved box occurs. This is the dilemma of the conceptual overlay that makes the human experience confusing. > > > > > but this individual > > does not believe it has independent volition...... > > > > All of those who believe that they are separate individuals also > believe that they have volition. > > In some the sense of a separate self becomes traslucent......in some > it becomes transparent.......when it is transparent.....all belief in > volition is gone.....simply because there is no one left to whom it > could apply. > > > > >.... The only way this > > could be is if it believes it's being controlled by 'something else'. > > > > In the transparent.....all beliefs disappear. > > > > If this is > > so, what is it about this individual that supports it's belief in it's > > individuality? In what way is an individual and individual if even > it's thoughts > > are not it's own, even the thought of individuality? Why doesn't the > structure > > simply collapse? > > > How or Why it forms....and collapses is a great mystery. > > The deepest sages tell us that nothing ever happened. > Phil: I don't see it as a mystery at all. It collapses when there is no > longer a belief structure to hold it in place. Is there, or is there not, a > belief structure holding your identity in place? The identity and the belief structure are the same thing. It never really collapses....because it never really existed. It is as real as the people in your dream last night. > > > > > > > > This is my own exploration, > > > No.....It is not. > > The brain cells.....in the frontal cortex are simply wondering what in > the hell is going on.....and also wondering who in the hell is that > voice that keeps talking to them....:-) > > > > toombaru > > > > > but if you're inclined to play, too, that would > > be great. > > > > Phil Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 26, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/24/2006 1:56:53 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Mon, 24 Apr 2006 20:11:25 -0000 > " dan330033 " <dan330033 > Re: Ego Drives the Car > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > There is no assumption of volition here. > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > Oh, okay, I actually didn't know that. I 'assume' that if this is a > knowing > > rather than just a belief held, that the whole ego structure must > collapse. Am > > I mistaken? > > > > Phil > > > > If volition can be located as held over here, but not held over there, > then there still is the assumption of location (e.g., located beings). > > A major contradiction in many teachings of a supposed nondual nature > is that they assume that a located being has done away with the sense > of volition (e.g., " the sage has no sense of volition, but the seeker > does. " ) > > Thus, the assumption of location is left intact and maintained. > > One still is dealing with assumed continuing and located beings, one > of which may have lost a sense of volition and another of which still > has that sense. > > -- D. > > > > You're saying the 'student' assumes there is a nonvolitional being present > (in the form of the sage)? Because he assumes himself to be both a self and > volitional? And so they are actually separate constructs. > > Phil I'm also saying that the teacher implies he or she is a nonvolitional being in distinction to the student who assumes falsely to be volitional. An ongoing relationship is established in which each assumes a location with inherent qualities to the located beings. One who understands nonlocally, isn't investing in such a dance. -- D. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 26, 2006 > One who understands nonlocally, isn't investing in such a dance. > > -- D. > What is the location of the one who understands this? toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 26, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > > > One who understands nonlocally, isn't investing in such a dance. > > > > -- D. > > > > > What is the location of the one who understands this? > > > toombaru Dan ;-) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 26, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > > > One who understands nonlocally, isn't investing in such a dance. > > > > -- D. > > > > > What is the location of the one who understands this? > > > toombaru " It's like thunder, like lightening ... the way you love me is frightening ... You better knock ... on wood ... knock, knock, knock on wood ... Baby ... You better knock ... on wood ... " Eddie Floyd Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 26, 2006 Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > wrote: > > > > > > > One who understands nonlocally, isn't investing in such a dance. > > > > > > -- D. > > > > > > > > > What is the location of the one who understands this? > > > > > > toombaru > > > Dan ;-) > :-) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 26, 2006 In a message dated 4/25/2006 4:40:18 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 23:03:20 -0000 " dan330033 " <dan330033 Re: Ego Drives the Car Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/24/2006 1:56:53 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Mon, 24 Apr 2006 20:11:25 -0000 > " dan330033 " <dan330033 > Re: Ego Drives the Car > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > There is no assumption of volition here. > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > Oh, okay, I actually didn't know that. I 'assume' that if this is a > knowing > > rather than just a belief held, that the whole ego structure must > collapse. Am > > I mistaken? > > > > Phil > > > > If volition can be located as held over here, but not held over there, > then there still is the assumption of location (e.g., located beings). > > A major contradiction in many teachings of a supposed nondual nature > is that they assume that a located being has done away with the sense > of volition (e.g., " the sage has no sense of volition, but the seeker > does. " ) > > Thus, the assumption of location is left intact and maintained. > > One still is dealing with assumed continuing and located beings, one > of which may have lost a sense of volition and another of which still > has that sense. > > -- D. > > > > You're saying the 'student' assumes there is a nonvolitional being present > (in the form of the sage)? Because he assumes himself to be both a self and > volitional? And so they are actually separate constructs. > > Phil I'm also saying that the teacher implies he or she is a nonvolitional being in distinction to the student who assumes falsely to be volitional. An ongoing relationship is established in which each assumes a location with inherent qualities to the located beings. One who understands nonlocally, isn't investing in such a dance. -- D. Ahh, yes. The teacher of nonduality establishes a dualistic relationship within which to teach, and he knows he's teaching himself. Phil Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 26, 2006 In a message dated 4/25/2006 4:40:18 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 23:16:08 -0000 " toombaru2006 " <lastrain Re: Ego Drives the Car > One who understands nonlocally, isn't investing in such a dance. > > -- D. > What is the location of the one who understands this? toombaru Probly an out of town address, doncha think? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 26, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/25/2006 4:40:18 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Tue, 25 Apr 2006 23:03:20 -0000 > " dan330033 " <dan330033 > Re: Ego Drives the Car > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 4/24/2006 1:56:53 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > Mon, 24 Apr 2006 20:11:25 -0000 > > " dan330033 " <dan330033@> > > Re: Ego Drives the Car > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > There is no assumption of volition here. > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > Oh, okay, I actually didn't know that. I 'assume' that if this is a > > knowing > > > rather than just a belief held, that the whole ego structure must > > collapse. Am > > > I mistaken? > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > If volition can be located as held over here, but not held over there, > > then there still is the assumption of location (e.g., located beings). > > > > A major contradiction in many teachings of a supposed nondual nature > > is that they assume that a located being has done away with the sense > > of volition (e.g., " the sage has no sense of volition, but the seeker > > does. " ) > > > > Thus, the assumption of location is left intact and maintained. > > > > One still is dealing with assumed continuing and located beings, one > > of which may have lost a sense of volition and another of which still > > has that sense. > > > > -- D. > > > > > > > > You're saying the 'student' assumes there is a nonvolitional being > present > > (in the form of the sage)? Because he assumes himself to be both a > self and > > volitional? And so they are actually separate constructs. > > > > Phil > > I'm also saying that the teacher implies he or she is a nonvolitional > being in distinction to the student who assumes falsely to be > volitional. An ongoing relationship is established in which each > assumes a location with inherent qualities to the located beings. > > One who understands nonlocally, isn't investing in such a dance. > > -- D. > > > > Ahh, yes. The teacher of nonduality establishes a dualistic relationship > within which to teach, and he knows he's teaching himself. > > Phil The same applies to the " student " (i.e. everyone)... dancing in apparent duality while not " investing in " the dance. And keeping in mind that attachments do come up (again for everyone)... and so then not being attached to the fact that they come up when they do. Attachments that are *rejected* as not-me because they are attachments are the ones that *really stick*. [interesting reflections here on the notion of neti-neti] Bill Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 26, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/25/2006 4:40:18 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Tue, 25 Apr 2006 23:16:08 -0000 > " toombaru2006 " <lastrain > Re: Ego Drives the Car > > > > One who understands nonlocally, isn't investing in such a dance. > > > > -- D. > > > > > What is the location of the one who understands this? > > > toombaru > > > > Probly an out of town address, doncha think? Instead of deriding, perhaps an honest inquiry into what Dan might actually be saying is in order. Can there be understanding that is not attached to a " here " ? That is the inquiry. Bill Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 26, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 4/25/2006 4:40:18 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > Tue, 25 Apr 2006 23:16:08 -0000 > > " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > Re: Ego Drives the Car > > > > > > > One who understands nonlocally, isn't investing in such a dance. > > > > > > -- D. > > > > > > > > > What is the location of the one who understands this? > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > Probly an out of town address, doncha think? > > Instead of deriding, perhaps an honest inquiry into > what Dan might actually be saying is in order. > > Can there be understanding that is not attached to > a " here " ? > > That is the inquiry. > > Bill > Oh Bill....I was not deriding Dan. He is one of the few that able to withstand intense inquirery. I love Dan......He has helped me understand a lot. toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 26, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 4/25/2006 4:40:18 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > Tue, 25 Apr 2006 23:03:20 -0000 > > " dan330033 " <dan330033@> > > Re: Ego Drives the Car > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 4/24/2006 1:56:53 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > Mon, 24 Apr 2006 20:11:25 -0000 > > > " dan330033 " <dan330033@> > > > Re: Ego Drives the Car > > > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no assumption of volition here. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Oh, okay, I actually didn't know that. I 'assume' that if this > is a > > > knowing > > > > rather than just a belief held, that the whole ego structure must > > > collapse. Am > > > > I mistaken? > > > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > > If volition can be located as held over here, but not held over > there, > > > then there still is the assumption of location (e.g., located > beings). > > > > > > A major contradiction in many teachings of a supposed nondual nature > > > is that they assume that a located being has done away with the > sense > > > of volition (e.g., " the sage has no sense of volition, but the > seeker > > > does. " ) > > > > > > Thus, the assumption of location is left intact and maintained. > > > > > > One still is dealing with assumed continuing and located beings, one > > > of which may have lost a sense of volition and another of which > still > > > has that sense. > > > > > > -- D. > > > > > > > > > > > > You're saying the 'student' assumes there is a nonvolitional being > > present > > > (in the form of the sage)? Because he assumes himself to be both a > > self and > > > volitional? And so they are actually separate constructs. > > > > > > Phil > > > > I'm also saying that the teacher implies he or she is a nonvolitional > > being in distinction to the student who assumes falsely to be > > volitional. An ongoing relationship is established in which each > > assumes a location with inherent qualities to the located beings. > > > > One who understands nonlocally, isn't investing in such a dance. > > > > -- D. > > > > > > > > Ahh, yes. The teacher of nonduality establishes a dualistic > relationship > > within which to teach, and he knows he's teaching himself. > > > > Phil > > The same applies to the " student " (i.e. everyone)... > dancing in apparent duality while not " investing in " > the dance. > > And keeping in mind that attachments do come up (again > for everyone)... and so then not being attached to the > fact that they come up when they do. Attachments that > are *rejected* as not-me because they are attachments > are the ones that *really stick*. > > [interesting reflections here on the notion of neti-neti] > > Bill > The mind is full of hooks......The world is full of hoops. toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 26, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 4/25/2006 4:40:18 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > Tue, 25 Apr 2006 23:16:08 -0000 > > > " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > > Re: Ego Drives the Car > > > > > > > > > > One who understands nonlocally, isn't investing in such a dance. > > > > > > > > -- D. > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is the location of the one who understands this? > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > Probly an out of town address, doncha think? > > > > Instead of deriding, perhaps an honest inquiry into > > what Dan might actually be saying is in order. > > > > Can there be understanding that is not attached to > > a " here " ? > > > > That is the inquiry. > > > > Bill > > > > > Oh Bill....I was not deriding Dan. > > He is one of the few that able to withstand intense inquirery. > > I love Dan......He has helped me understand a lot. > > toombaru > I was addressing the one who wrote: " Probly an out of town address, doncha think? " Which was not you. Bill Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 27, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 4/25/2006 4:40:18 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > Tue, 25 Apr 2006 23:16:08 -0000 > > " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > Re: Ego Drives the Car > > > > > > > One who understands nonlocally, isn't investing in such a dance. > > > > > > -- D. > > > > > > > > > What is the location of the one who understands this? > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > Probly an out of town address, doncha think? > > Instead of deriding, perhaps an honest inquiry into > what Dan might actually be saying is in order. > > Can there be understanding that is not attached to > a " here " ? > > That is the inquiry. > > Bill Can understanding be attached? To what? Len Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
