Guest guest Report post Posted July 10, 2006 Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa wrote: > beyond the so-called " me " there is...a deeper existence... > and this existence or being or whatever name we use... > cannot be understood by the mind... > > it is within this beingness that the mind is operating... > the mind is only a piece within this openness... > or whatever name the mind gives it... > dont stick with words...words are only mindcreations... > dont react at all...the openness never reacts... > in nature of openness its not possible to react... > nor to stick...cling...resist...hate...Unameit > ...iietsa you say that openness never reacts, never sticks or clings, never resists or hates so, you have a limited openness, which does certain things, but not other things ... there are things going on outside of that openness -- like sticking, clinging, resisting, hating ... which raises the question: what is this openness that includes all possible possibilities, without exception? -- D. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 10, 2006 Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa wrote: > but you are saying that you are attached to your point of view..or ? > and if this is the case...you will suffer as long as you hold on to > this point of view....because holding on to a point of view is going > against your own nature...openness... > ...iietsa I am not assuming a separated or separably existing being that has a nature of and to itself. So, I am not assuming a separately existing " me " or a " you " that has a point of view belonging to it, which " me " or " I " is supposed to get free from the point of view. The " I " is included in, and is the point of view. Therefore, presenting a point of view about an " I " that has no point of view, is contradictory. I don't assume, as you seem to, that there is such a thing as a now-moment that can go against its own nature. -- D. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 11, 2006 >>>> but you are saying that you are attached to your point of view..or ? and if this is the case...you will suffer as long as you hold on to this point of view....because holding on to a point of view is going against your own nature...openness... ....iietsa >> I am not assuming a separated or separably existing being that has a nature of and to itself. >> So, I am not assuming a separately existing " me " or a " you " that has a point of view belonging to it, which " me " or " I " is supposed to get free from the point of view. The " I " is included in, and is the point of view. Therefore, presenting a point of view about an " I " that has no point of view, is contradictory. >>I don't assume, as you seem to, that there is such a thing as a now-moment that can go against its own nature. >>-- D. " you " don't assume, or, does " assuming " and " not assuming " just happens? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 11, 2006 Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > > > > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dannyc_1eyeluv " > > > > > > > <dannyc_1eyeluv@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " > <iietsa@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In > Nisargadatta , " dannyc_1eyeluv " > > > > > > > > > <dannyc_1eyeluv@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " > > > <iietsa@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In > > > Nisargadatta , " dannyc_1eyeluv " > > > > > > > > > > > <dannyc_1eyeluv@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " > > > > > <iietsa@> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > suffering is everyday-life for most people... > > > > > > > > > > > > > can one do anything to help another to find > > > bliss... > > > > > > > > > > > > > its obvious that mere words will not do > much... > > > > > > > > > > > > > and its quite obvious too, that just by > being > > > bliss > > > > > > > > > oneself.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > there is not much of change happening to > > > others... > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > how do you know? dc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > know what ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > how do you know what you said in the above > paragraph > > > is > > > > > true? > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > much change is happening to others? how do you > > > evaluate > > > > > that? > > > > > > > > > what's > > > > > > > > > > your criteria of measurement? share with me. dc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " other " (the true Self mixed up with the mind- > thought) > > > > > > > > > when mixed up with mind...there is taking yourself > to > > be > > > > > what > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > > are not... > > > > > > > > > this " entity " is false...so whatever change there > is - > > > > > > > > > is to his " entity " and therefor no change at all > > > > > > > > > ...to help the " other " ....only sustains the " other " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > real help is when the Self somehow realizes this mix- > up > > > > > mecanism > > > > > > > > > and when this realization is there...there never was > > > > anybody > > > > > to > > > > > > > help > > > > > > > > > ....and when all this is clear it can be said that > all > > > so > > > > > > called > > > > > > > > > help was a hindrance....it was a part of the mix-up- > > > > > buisness... > > > > > > > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ^^^yeah, but, how do you know that what you are saying > > > above > > > > > is > > > > > > > true & > > > > > > > > that you are not mixed up? how do you determine what > > > > > is " other " & > > > > > > > what > > > > > > > > is not? where does " other " begin & " the self " end? is > > > there > > > > > even a > > > > > > > > division between the two? if not, then what's the > > > problem? ;- > > > > ) > > > > > > > dc^^^ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the Self is the true God...so to speak > > > > > > > the mind...if emphasized...is the false God > > > > > > > when you are true...the mind by nature is in its right > place > > > > > > > when mind is made king...then all kinds of illusions is > > > taken > > > > to > > > > > be > > > > > > > real... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > > > > > > > maybe what lead to Self....is the energy of God..... > > > > > > God is the key....is love....represent Oneness of being.... > > > > > > > > > > > > Self....has nothing realy to do with all This..... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ....there is a lake....in the middle of nice mountains..... > > > > > > fishes in the lake...... > > > > > > sometimes....when the water is clear..... > > > > > > fishes get a little " view " ....and " idea " ....about the > > > mountains > > > > > > around......the lake.....they are " catched in " ...... > > > > > > > > > > > > Self....is all This.....together > > > > > > lake.... > > > > > > mountain.... > > > > > > fishes....swimming nicely... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wish a peaceful day > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the word " Self " the way I am seeing it...is a pointer to the > > one > > > > > and you seem to see it the same way you see the word " self " > > > > > " Self " is not identified with " self " > > > > > " Self " is not identified with anything...it is pure freedom > > > > > " self " is identified with Unameit...and is in bondage > > > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > > > yes... > > > > > > > > there is only one and only real Self.....for All > > > > > > > > (there are infinite number of little selfs.....in the mind- > prison) > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > there is only one...real Self...yes > > > (whatever names we are givin it...it is not the names) > > > there is no need to attack the words for they dont say they are > the > > > one...they only say that they are not it...in different ways > > > ...iietsa > > > > yes.... > > > > it is not the names.... > > it is not the forms.... > > it is not the concepts.... > > it is not the mind-prison.... > > it is not the dream-bubble(s).... > > it is not of words..... > > it is of no worlds.... > > it is not of any importance for the dream-bubbles.... > > it is not of birth and death... > > it is not of little friendships and relationships.... > > it is not of few drops....who imagine to be ocean.... > > it is not of beginning and end... > > it is not of " God " (s).... > > it is not of intellect.... > > it is not of love only.... > > > > therefore..... > > > > there is no reason to " fight " for anything in here..... > > no reason to exchange endless mind-bubbles..... > > no reason to teach anything to anybody.... > > no reason to prove the existence of more or less mind-prison (ego- > > mind)... > > no reason to show the ignorance....to a world filled up with the > > ignorance of oneself.... > > > > therefore.... > > > > let's empty the mind..... > > > > and be free > > > > Marc > > > > no need even to empty the mind... > ...iietsa great.... Marc > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 11, 2006 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > beyond the so-called " me " there is...a deeper existence... > > and this existence or being or whatever name we use... > > cannot be understood by the mind... > > > > it is within this beingness that the mind is operating... > > the mind is only a piece within this openness... > > or whatever name the mind gives it... > > dont stick with words...words are only mindcreations... > > dont react at all...the openness never reacts... > > in nature of openness its not possible to react... > > nor to stick...cling...resist...hate...Unameit > > ...iietsa > > you say that openness never reacts, never sticks or clings, never > resists or hates > > so, you have a limited openness, which does certain things, but not > other things ... > > there are things going on outside of that openness -- like sticking, > clinging, resisting, hating ... > > which raises the question: > > what is this openness that includes all possible possibilities, > without exception? > > -- D. > openness is not a reaction...freedom never sticks or clings...pure accepting never resists....love never hates....by nature it is impossible.... and nothing can ever never limit openness...openness doesnt do certain things, but not other things...openness is not in a possition to do anything at all....and all is happening in perfect order within openness...(in reality there is nothing happening-only openness is)....and the last question " what is this openness that includes all possible possibilities, without exception? " ............its the one and only openness... by saying that openness never react resists clings hates it is not limited at all...all those not-open-point-of-views are all welcomed in pure openness (in reality there is even nothing to welcome) ....iietsa Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 11, 2006 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > but you are saying that you are attached to your point of view..or ? > > and if this is the case...you will suffer as long as you hold on to > > this point of view....because holding on to a point of view is going > > against your own nature...openness... > > ...iietsa > > I am not assuming a separated or separably existing being that has a > nature of and to itself. ok... > So, I am not assuming a separately existing " me " or a " you " that has a > point of view belonging to it, which " me " or " I " is supposed to get > free from the point of view. The " I " is included in, and is the point > of view. you say that the I is the point of view itself...yes ? is this by your understanding the ego-I-point-of-view or the openness-I-point-of-view...? hehe sorry...but this is entertaining.. Therefore, presenting a point of view about an " I " that has > no point of view, is contradictory. exactly what are you saying here ? > I don't assume, as you seem to, that there is such a thing as a > now-moment that can go against its own nature. > -- D. you could say that there is the dream...and if not seen for what it is(mind)...it can be taken for the real...and if taken for the real...then you take yourself for what you are not.... and if you take yourself for what you are not then youre in the dream fisching for the fantasy-fish...from your dream-boat...in the fantasy-sea... ....iietsa Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 11, 2006 Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > > > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > > > > > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In Nisargadatta , " dannyc_1eyeluv " > > > > > > > > <dannyc_1eyeluv@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " > > <iietsa@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In > > Nisargadatta , " dannyc_1eyeluv " > > > > > > > > > > <dannyc_1eyeluv@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " > > > > <iietsa@> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In > > > > Nisargadatta , " dannyc_1eyeluv " > > > > > > > > > > > > <dannyc_1eyeluv@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In Nisargadatta , " iietsa " > > > > > > <iietsa@> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > suffering is everyday-life for most > people... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can one do anything to help another to find > > > > bliss... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > its obvious that mere words will not do > > much... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and its quite obvious too, that just by > > being > > > > bliss > > > > > > > > > > oneself.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there is not much of change happening to > > > > others... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > how do you know? dc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > know what ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > how do you know what you said in the above > > paragraph > > > > is > > > > > > true? > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > > much change is happening to others? how do you > > > > evaluate > > > > > > that? > > > > > > > > > > what's > > > > > > > > > > > your criteria of measurement? share with me. dc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " other " (the true Self mixed up with the mind- > > thought) > > > > > > > > > > when mixed up with mind...there is taking yourself > > to > > > be > > > > > > what > > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > > > are not... > > > > > > > > > > this " entity " is false...so whatever change there > > is - > > > > > > > > > > is to his " entity " and therefor no change at all > > > > > > > > > > ...to help the " other " ....only sustains the " other " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > real help is when the Self somehow realizes this > mix- > > up > > > > > > mecanism > > > > > > > > > > and when this realization is there...there never > was > > > > > anybody > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > help > > > > > > > > > > ....and when all this is clear it can be said that > > all > > > > so > > > > > > > called > > > > > > > > > > help was a hindrance....it was a part of the mix- up- > > > > > > buisness... > > > > > > > > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ^^^yeah, but, how do you know that what you are > saying > > > > above > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > true & > > > > > > > > > that you are not mixed up? how do you determine what > > > > > > is " other " & > > > > > > > > what > > > > > > > > > is not? where does " other " begin & " the self " end? is > > > > there > > > > > > even a > > > > > > > > > division between the two? if not, then what's the > > > > problem? ;- > > > > > ) > > > > > > > > dc^^^ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the Self is the true God...so to speak > > > > > > > > the mind...if emphasized...is the false God > > > > > > > > when you are true...the mind by nature is in its right > > place > > > > > > > > when mind is made king...then all kinds of illusions is > > > > taken > > > > > to > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > real... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > > > > > > > > > maybe what lead to Self....is the energy of God..... > > > > > > > God is the key....is love....represent Oneness of > being.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Self....has nothing realy to do with all This..... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ....there is a lake....in the middle of nice > mountains..... > > > > > > > fishes in the lake...... > > > > > > > sometimes....when the water is clear..... > > > > > > > fishes get a little " view " ....and " idea " ....about the > > > > mountains > > > > > > > around......the lake.....they are " catched in " ...... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Self....is all This.....together > > > > > > > lake.... > > > > > > > mountain.... > > > > > > > fishes....swimming nicely... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wish a peaceful day > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the word " Self " the way I am seeing it...is a pointer to > the > > > one > > > > > > and you seem to see it the same way you see the word " self " > > > > > > " Self " is not identified with " self " > > > > > > " Self " is not identified with anything...it is pure freedom > > > > > > " self " is identified with Unameit...and is in bondage > > > > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > > > > > yes... > > > > > > > > > > there is only one and only real Self.....for All > > > > > > > > > > (there are infinite number of little selfs.....in the mind- > > prison) > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there is only one...real Self...yes > > > > (whatever names we are givin it...it is not the names) > > > > there is no need to attack the words for they dont say they are > > the > > > > one...they only say that they are not it...in different ways > > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > yes.... > > > > > > it is not the names.... > > > it is not the forms.... > > > it is not the concepts.... > > > it is not the mind-prison.... > > > it is not the dream-bubble(s).... > > > it is not of words..... > > > it is of no worlds.... > > > it is not of any importance for the dream-bubbles.... > > > it is not of birth and death... > > > it is not of little friendships and relationships.... > > > it is not of few drops....who imagine to be ocean.... > > > it is not of beginning and end... > > > it is not of " God " (s).... > > > it is not of intellect.... > > > it is not of love only.... > > > > > > therefore..... > > > > > > there is no reason to " fight " for anything in here..... > > > no reason to exchange endless mind-bubbles..... > > > no reason to teach anything to anybody.... > > > no reason to prove the existence of more or less mind-prison (ego- > > > mind)... > > > no reason to show the ignorance....to a world filled up with the > > > ignorance of oneself.... > > > > > > therefore.... > > > > > > let's empty the mind..... > > > > > > and be free > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > no need even to empty the mind... > > ...iietsa > > great.... > > Marc > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 11, 2006 Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " <adithya_comming wrote: > " you " don't assume, > > or, does " assuming " and " not assuming " > just happens? It's worthwhile to understand words. It's not just the " I-word " that has no referent outside of the word. It's every word. Including " happening " and " assuming " and " not assuming. " It's very interesting understanding this, and watching words group themselves into sentences! -- D. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 11, 2006 Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " <adithya_comming wrote: > " you " don't assume, > > or, does " assuming " and " not assuming " > just happens? words seem as if they have referents outside of themselves, because of the way we use them as if they were pointing to things - like a body, a thought, a this or a that. but if you understand how it works together as a whole, the words have no referents, there are no things existing separately, or qualities existing separately, to which words could refer -- and the whole sense of separation is just a kind of hypnosis generated by words, memory, and perception working together to generate maintained assumptions. when the assumption isn't maintained, you see immediately that there is no inside and outside to who you are, to what is. you see through the tricks that words and memory use, to act as if they represent things. -- D. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 11, 2006 Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa wrote: > openness is not a reaction...freedom never sticks or clings...pure > accepting never resists....love never hates....by nature it is > impossible.... > and nothing can ever never limit openness...openness doesnt do > certain things, but not other things...openness is not in a > possition to do anything at all....and all is happening in perfect > order within openness...(in reality there is nothing happening-only > openness is)....and the last question > " what is this openness that includes all possible possibilities, > without exception? " ............its the one and only openness... > by saying that openness never react resists clings hates it is not > limited at all...all those not-open-point-of-views are all welcomed > in pure openness (in reality there is even nothing to welcome) > ...iietsa so, all the preachings about how openness doesn't do this or that, are erroneous, because they depict limits to openness. in fact, the word " openness " is also misleading, because " closedness " appears as if excluded. and my reason for stating this is: *this* isn't a preferred mode of being of some sort. it doesn't belong to any individual, such as an individual who supposedly doesn't cling or whatever. you could say it is inclusive of all modes of being, without having or being any mode of being. *this* is as is. call it " openness " if you will. once known, understood, one is it, and all is it, and there is no " it " to refer to, nor any quality of any sort involved. all the preachings, teachings, prescriptions, motivators, just fade away, like an afterimage. why do we speak, when nothing can be said? why not? humans are speaking creatures, after all! ;-) just like birds sing, or clouds can thunder. so, we speak freely, without ever having defined a single truth. -- D. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 11, 2006 > >D: I am not assuming a separated or separably existing being that has > a > > nature of and to itself. > ok... > > So, I am not assuming a separately existing " me " or a " you " that > has a > > point of view belonging to it, which " me " or " I " is supposed to get > > free from the point of view. The " I " is included in, and is the > point > > of view. > I: you say that the I is the point of view itself...yes ? > is this by your understanding the ego-I-point-of-view or the > openness-I-point-of-view...? hehe sorry...but this is entertaining.. Glad you're enjoying it. Me, too. To me, " openness " as we're using that term is not referring to something outside of itself, to some other reality or truth. Any instruction, like, " be here now " is erroneous and misleading. Even to say, " it always already is so " is misleading, as it implies that some kind of affirmation of it can be provided, as if everything as is, is not already fully *this* and something should be conveyed to someone. so, the " I-as-point-of-view " is a way to say that a construction comes together. you can call this construction a point of view, or I, or my history, or my life. that construction seems to be referring to something outside of itself, like words seem to refer to states of being for example, or to objects, or to relations with people. and like I seem to refer to you, and to actions I took, or take, or will take, and so on. > Therefore, presenting a point of view about an " I " that has > > no point of view, is contradictory. > exactly what are you saying here ? That it's contradictory to propose a construct that has no constructs. Do not the " I " which perceives, which knows, and " that " which is perceived and known arise together as " perception " -- and the perception is only validated in terms of the " I " experiencing it and the object, state, or quality being experienced and known. so, it breaks down if observed closely and can't be validated - including the " knower " of it. which isn't saying that it's unreal. because the term " unreal " is also validated perceptually, and through a knower of the term. > > I don't assume, as you seem to, that there is such a thing as a > > now-moment that can go against its own nature. > > -- D. > you could say that there is the dream...and if not seen for what it > is(mind)...it can be taken for the real...and if taken for the > real...then you take yourself for what you are not.... > and if you take yourself for what you are not > then youre in the dream fisching for the fantasy-fish...from your > dream-boat...in the fantasy-sea... > ...iietsa this is similar to what I'm saying above about " perception. " so, we are in the funny position of speaking as if we could speak in a dream about the dream being a dream -- as if we were not an aspect of it, as if we were in a position to give a description of what it is. -- D. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 11, 2006 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > openness is not a reaction...freedom never sticks or clings...pure > > accepting never resists....love never hates....by nature it is > > impossible.... > > and nothing can ever never limit openness...openness doesnt do > > certain things, but not other things...openness is not in a > > possition to do anything at all....and all is happening in perfect > > order within openness...(in reality there is nothing happening- only > > openness is)....and the last question > > " what is this openness that includes all possible possibilities, > > without exception? " ............its the one and only openness... > > by saying that openness never react resists clings hates it is not > > limited at all...all those not-open-point-of-views are all welcomed > > in pure openness (in reality there is even nothing to welcome) > > ...iietsa > > so, all the preachings about how openness doesn't do this or that, are > erroneous, because they depict limits to openness. > > in fact, the word " openness " is also misleading, because " closedness " > appears as if excluded. > > and my reason for stating this is: > > *this* isn't a preferred mode of being of some sort. it doesn't > belong to any individual, such as an individual who supposedly doesn't > cling or whatever. you could say it is inclusive of all modes of > being, without having or being any mode of being. > > *this* is as is. > > call it " openness " if you will. > > once known, understood, one is it, and all is it, and there is no " it " > to refer to, nor any quality of any sort involved. > > all the preachings, teachings, prescriptions, motivators, just fade > away, like an afterimage. > > why do we speak, when nothing can be said? > > why not? > > humans are speaking creatures, after all! > > ;-) > > just like birds sing, or clouds can thunder. > > so, we speak freely, without ever having defined a single truth. > > -- D. > speaking is part of the dream...nothings wrong with it... only I am not the dream... ....iietsa Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 11, 2006 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > >D: I am not assuming a separated or separably existing being that has > > a > > > nature of and to itself. > > ok... > > > So, I am not assuming a separately existing " me " or a " you " that > > has a > > > point of view belonging to it, which " me " or " I " is supposed to get > > > free from the point of view. The " I " is included in, and is the > > point > > > of view. > > > I: you say that the I is the point of view itself...yes ? > > is this by your understanding the ego-I-point-of-view or the > > openness-I-point-of-view...? hehe sorry...but this is entertaining.. > > Glad you're enjoying it. Me, too. > > To me, " openness " as we're using that term is not referring to > something outside of itself, to some other reality or truth. Any > instruction, like, " be here now " is erroneous and misleading. Even to > say, " it always already is so " is misleading, as it implies that some > kind of affirmation of it can be provided, as if everything as is, is > not already fully *this* and something should be conveyed to someone. > > so, the " I-as-point-of-view " is a way to say that a construction comes > together. you can call this construction a point of view, or I, or my > history, or my life. that construction seems to be referring to > something outside of itself, like words seem to refer to states of > being for example, or to objects, or to relations with people. and > like I seem to refer to you, and to actions I took, or take, or will > take, and so on. > > > Therefore, presenting a point of view about an " I " that has > > > no point of view, is contradictory. > > > exactly what are you saying here ? > > That it's contradictory to propose a construct that has no constructs. > > Do not the " I " which perceives, which knows, and " that " which is > perceived and known arise together as " perception " -- > > and the perception is only validated in terms of the " I " experiencing > it and the object, state, or quality being experienced and known. > > so, it breaks down if observed closely and can't be validated - > including the " knower " of it. > > which isn't saying that it's unreal. because the term " unreal " is > also validated perceptually, and through a knower of the term. > > > > > I don't assume, as you seem to, that there is such a thing as a > > > now-moment that can go against its own nature. > > > -- D. > > you could say that there is the dream...and if not seen for what it > > is(mind)...it can be taken for the real...and if taken for the > > real...then you take yourself for what you are not.... > > and if you take yourself for what you are not > > then youre in the dream fisching for the fantasy-fish...from your > > dream-boat...in the fantasy-sea... > > ...iietsa > > this is similar to what I'm saying above about " perception. " > > so, we are in the funny position of speaking as if we could speak in a > dream about the dream being a dream -- as if we were not an aspect of > it, as if we were in a position to give a description of what it is. > > -- D. > the dream is dependent on seeing to be seen... that means the seeing is before the seen can be... without seeing the seen is not possible... but the seeing is not depending on what is seen... in fact it is totaly independent... I am the seeing...and the seen is the dream... ....iietsa Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 11, 2006 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " > <adithya_comming@> wrote: > > > " you " don't assume, > > > > or, does " assuming " and " not assuming " > > just happens? > > It's worthwhile to understand words. > > It's not just the " I-word " that has no referent outside of the word. > > It's every word. > > Including " happening " and " assuming " and " not assuming. " > > It's very interesting understanding this, and watching words > group themselves into sentences! > > -- D. > to be interested in the word in a focusing way makes one attached and involved with the word...and after all...what is a word if not only mind... ....iietsa Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 11, 2006 Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa wrote: > the dream is dependent on seeing to be seen... > that means the seeing is before the seen can be... > without seeing the seen is not possible... > but the seeing is not depending on what is seen... > in fact it is totaly independent... > I am the seeing...and the seen is the dream... > ...iietsa it is totally interdependent. there is no first cause. first causes are imaginary, food for the mind and imagination only. the seeing and the seen mutually co-arise and co-determine. and so, neither has any anchoring within and of itself. to be clear on this, is not to invest in any side, not to invest in either being or nonbeing, being the seen or the seeing, in knowing or not knowing. -- D. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 11, 2006 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > openness is not a reaction...freedom never sticks or clings...pure > > accepting never resists....love never hates....by nature it is > > impossible.... > > and nothing can ever never limit openness...openness doesnt do > > certain things, but not other things...openness is not in a > > possition to do anything at all....and all is happening in perfect > > order within openness...(in reality there is nothing happening-only > > openness is)....and the last question > > " what is this openness that includes all possible possibilities, > > without exception? " ............its the one and only openness... > > by saying that openness never react resists clings hates it is not > > limited at all...all those not-open-point-of-views are all welcomed > > in pure openness (in reality there is even nothing to welcome) > > ...iietsa > > so, all the preachings about how openness doesn't do this or that, are > erroneous, because they depict limits to openness. > > in fact, the word " openness " is also misleading, because " closedness " > appears as if excluded. > > and my reason for stating this is: > > *this* isn't a preferred mode of being of some sort. it doesn't > belong to any individual, such as an individual who supposedly doesn't > cling or whatever. you could say it is inclusive of all modes of > being, without having or being any mode of being. > > *this* is as is. > > call it " openness " if you will. > > once known, understood, one is it, and all is it, and there is no " it " > to refer to, nor any quality of any sort involved. > > all the preachings, teachings, prescriptions, motivators, just fade > away, like an afterimage. > > why do we speak, when nothing can be said? > > why not? > > humans are speaking creatures, after all! > > ;-) > > just like birds sing, or clouds can thunder. > > so, we speak freely, without ever having defined a single truth. > > -- D. good stuff.... Bill Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 12, 2006 Nisargadatta , " dannyc_1eyeluv " <dannyc_1eyeluv wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dannyc_1eyeluv " > > <dannyc_1eyeluv@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dannyc_1eyeluv " > > > > <dannyc_1eyeluv@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > suffering is everyday-life for most people... > > > > > > can one do anything to help another to find bliss... > > > > > > its obvious that mere words will not do much... > > > > > > and its quite obvious too, that just by being bliss > > oneself.... > > > > > > there is not much of change happening to others... > > > > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > how do you know? dc > > > > > > > > > know what ? > > > > > > > > > > how do you know what you said in the above paragraph is true? that > > not > > > much change is happening to others? how do you evaluate that? > > what's > > > your criteria of measurement? share with me. dc > > > > > " other " (the true Self mixed up with the mind-thought) > > when mixed up with mind...there is taking yourself to be what you > > are not... > > this " entity " is false...so whatever change there is - > > is to his " entity " and therefor no change at all > > ...to help the " other " ....only sustains the " other " > > > > real help is when the Self somehow realizes this mix-up mecanism > > and when this realization is there...there never was anybody to help > > ....and when all this is clear it can be said that all so called > > help was a hindrance....it was a part of the mix-up-buisness... > > ...iietsa > > > > > ^^^yeah, but, how do you know that what you are saying above is true & > that you are not mixed up? how do you determine what is " other " & what > is not? where does " other " begin & " the self " end? is there even a > division between the two? if not, then what's the problem? ;-) dc^^^ > it's all in the experience... One current, ac/dc ;-) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 12, 2006 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > the dream is dependent on seeing to be seen... > > that means the seeing is before the seen can be... > > without seeing the seen is not possible... > > but the seeing is not depending on what is seen... > > in fact it is totaly independent... > > I am the seeing...and the seen is the dream... > > ...iietsa > > it is totally interdependent. > > there is no first cause. > > first causes are imaginary, food for the mind and imagination only. > > the seeing and the seen mutually co-arise and co-determine. > > and so, neither has any anchoring within and of itself. > > to be clear on this, is not to invest in any side, not to invest in > either being or nonbeing, being the seen or the seeing, in knowing or > not knowing. > > -- D. > be who you are knowingly (real knowing)... and the words does not matter (dream knowing)... take yourself to be what you are not and all you do is sustaining this dream-self-world... ....iietsa Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 12, 2006 Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dannyc_1eyeluv " > <dannyc_1eyeluv@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dannyc_1eyeluv " > > > <dannyc_1eyeluv@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dannyc_1eyeluv " > > > > > <dannyc_1eyeluv@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > suffering is everyday-life for most people... > > > > > > > can one do anything to help another to find bliss... > > > > > > > its obvious that mere words will not do much... > > > > > > > and its quite obvious too, that just by being bliss > > > oneself.... > > > > > > > there is not much of change happening to others... > > > > > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > how do you know? dc > > > > > > > > > > > know what ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > how do you know what you said in the above paragraph is true? > that > > > not > > > > much change is happening to others? how do you evaluate that? > > > what's > > > > your criteria of measurement? share with me. dc > > > > > > > " other " (the true Self mixed up with the mind-thought) > > > when mixed up with mind...there is taking yourself to be what > you > > > are not... > > > this " entity " is false...so whatever change there is - > > > is to his " entity " and therefor no change at all > > > ...to help the " other " ....only sustains the " other " > > > > > > real help is when the Self somehow realizes this mix-up mecanism > > > and when this realization is there...there never was anybody to > help > > > ....and when all this is clear it can be said that all so called > > > help was a hindrance....it was a part of the mix-up-buisness... > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > > > > ^^^yeah, but, how do you know that what you are saying above is > true & > > that you are not mixed up? how do you determine what is " other " & > what > > is not? where does " other " begin & " the self " end? is there even a > > division between the two? if not, then what's the problem? ;-) > dc^^^ > > all words are dream-stuff...one can never imprison the true in words...even the word " true " is dream... mind is the mix-up...and the real Self is not a mind product... the real does not determine what is " other " ...all begins with the mind and ends with the mind...but the real Self does not play this game of time...divisions is what the mind is...its one mind with two sides...and nothing is wrong with the mind...and here comes the tricky part...anybody can read some non-dual books...and with some training copy what is read into the mind...then say the exact same thing as Nisargadatta or Unameit...but this is just parroting...meaning that the words are wiser than the one who speaks...the speaker is lost in the mind...and lost in the mind one teaches boundness to the mind... the words are just good to some point...then they are the hinrance... this list is all mind...and at the best it frees you little by little til you are totaly free...this is as well a tricky part...because to say little by little is truely a lie... becoming is all dream...the true is...its all only about a shift in attention...in the dream you are mixed-up with the mind...involved with the mind-buisness... in the real you are not mixed up with the mind...the mind is still there...but you are not involved with it or any of its movements... try only to shift attention from being involved with the mind... to stand beyond and let the mind move as it does... ....iietsa Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 12, 2006 Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > > the dream is dependent on seeing to be seen... > > > that means the seeing is before the seen can be... > > > without seeing the seen is not possible... > > > but the seeing is not depending on what is seen... > > > in fact it is totaly independent... > > > I am the seeing...and the seen is the dream... > > > ...iietsa > > > > it is totally interdependent. > > > > there is no first cause. > > > > first causes are imaginary, food for the mind and imagination only. > > > > the seeing and the seen mutually co-arise and co-determine. > > > > and so, neither has any anchoring within and of itself. > > > > to be clear on this, is not to invest in any side, not to invest in > > either being or nonbeing, being the seen or the seeing, in knowing > or > > not knowing. > > > > -- D. > > > be who you are knowingly (real knowing)... and the words does not > matter (dream knowing)... > > take yourself to be what you are not and all you do is sustaining > this dream-self-world... > ...iietsa there is no way to take yourself for what you are not. it can't be done. " awareness " and the entirety of the so-called " dream " co-arise. there is no aspect of the so-called " dream " that could ever exist split off from " awareness. " so, no actual mistake could be made, and whether to sustain or not to sustain is *not* the question. the " dream " has no pieces. it arises in simultaneity, ever unsplit, and awareness and dream never are, nor have been, divisble. -- D. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 16, 2006 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> wrote: > > > > > > > the dream is dependent on seeing to be seen... > > > > that means the seeing is before the seen can be... > > > > without seeing the seen is not possible... > > > > but the seeing is not depending on what is seen... > > > > in fact it is totaly independent... > > > > I am the seeing...and the seen is the dream... > > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > it is totally interdependent. > > > > > > there is no first cause. > > > > > > first causes are imaginary, food for the mind and imagination only. > > > > > > the seeing and the seen mutually co-arise and co-determine. > > > > > > and so, neither has any anchoring within and of itself. > > > > > > to be clear on this, is not to invest in any side, not to invest in > > > either being or nonbeing, being the seen or the seeing, in knowing > > or > > > not knowing. > > > > > > -- D. > > > > > be who you are knowingly (real knowing)... and the words does not > > matter (dream knowing)... > > > > take yourself to be what you are not and all you do is sustaining > > this dream-self-world... > > ...iietsa > > there is no way to take yourself for what you are not. THEN TO TAKE YOURSELF TO BE A PERSON WITH A BODY AND A MIND OWNING A HOUSE AND A CAR A JOB SOME MONEY AND HAVING RELATIONSHIPS WITH ENEMIES AND SUFFERING THAT YOU ARE TRYING HARD TO RUN AWAY FROM IGNORE OR FIGHT...BATTLE TO REACH FOR A MOMENT OF JOY AND SO ON... ALL THIS IS NO ACTUAL MISTAKE...ITS JUST THE WAY THE STORY GOES ...THE EVER UNSPLIT ULTIMATE TRUTH...? > it can't be done. > > " awareness " and the entirety of the so-called " dream " co-arise. > > there is no aspect of the so-called " dream " that could ever exist > split off from " awareness. " > > so, no actual mistake could be made, and whether to sustain or not to > sustain is *not* the question. > > the " dream " has no pieces. > > it arises in simultaneity, ever unsplit, and awareness and dream never > are, nor have been, divisble. > > -- D. > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
