Guest guest Report post Posted July 15, 2009 Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana wrote: > > Just one question: > > Have you ever met a saint, enlightened or otherwise? > > All I've met are human beings... fallible and saintly, sometimes with *horns*... > > > ~A > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 15, 2009 At 04:29 PM 7/14/2009, you wrote: P: There is a point in meditation where awareness and unawareness become the same unknown. That is the door which exits the verbal maze. Can we use language without casting the long shadow of entification? Edg: Um, typo? -- did you mean " identification? " P: No typo. Noun Singular entification Plural entifications 1. (rare) The action of giving objective existence to something P: It seems the mind craves to give objective existence to abstract ideas, and so we pursue things that exist only in language. I don't doubt that you had a profound vision of unity that colors your language, and makes it very seductive. That is wonderful, and very dangerous. Edg: I'm not so sure that I've had a vision of Unity. I think my ego has sometimes pretended that certain spiritual experiences are moments of Unity, but I am not mindfully living Unity -- only unmindfully like most others. My intellectual clarity has not liberated me from attachment to " sacred concepts. " The Bible and many other religious scripts have that color and perfume of the divine, yet most of their concepts are no better than fables. We need to distinguish that prophets, saints, mystics and contemplatives of great caliber can enjoy perfect union, and still spouse whatever their religion consider true, virtuous, or sinful. So we need to distinguish between enlightened, and liberated brains. Edg: My first post of today deals with this issue. Many Christian mystics and contemplative were, in my opinion, fully enlightened, but not liberated from conceptuality. I don't doubt, as I said above, that you live the unitive life while still believing in an ultimate identity that you call Identity, or Absolute. The very concept of identity is per force a limited one. Only no identification has no limits. Edg: I agree, of course, but it takes a thorn (intellectual processing) to remove the thorns of ignorance (attachment to intellectual processing.) I use the word Absolute, but depending on context, it's sometimes fuzzy and comes off like I'm seeing it as amness/awareness. So, I understand your concerns above....mmmm, I think so anyway. Sigh. Language forces us to have the word as a place marker. An entity, even an absolute one, is also per force limited, only nothingness can be unlimited. Playing a shell game with ever more rarefied concepts only kicks the ball down field. So if you don't mind, could you explain your need to identify with an absolute. Edg: A beautiful question that. My need can only be an egoic process that seeks certainty of its realness. The inquiry process will eventually lead me to see that I'm storing up my treasures where moth and rust doth corrupt -- that is: if I insist on being an ego, then death will come eventually, so I, ego, must find " my " eternal status. To do this, I use inquiry to get jiggy with " what is ego? " Discovering that ego is but a reflection of Identity, ego's puffed up nature -- its delusion of sentience -- is crisped -- fried on the fires of knowledge. Ego's actions can never acquire for it the status of sentience, but it can at least stop the delusion process. Stopping means ego merges back into amness and is no longer " out and about and investing in the manifestations of amness, " and in that quiescence, in samadhi, in that residing in the pure silence of being, Identity can be realized as THAT which amness is attempting to ape. The ego must cease -- not " find the Absolute and attach to It. " The Absolute is always unsulled and beyond ALL THIS. Language forces me to treat the Absolute as if it were an object. The ego's desires -- if followed relentlessly -- will, like the fool and his folly, eventually lead to the wisdom that there is no way for the ego to become real, and ego says, " Oh, I get it. Nevermind. My bad. I'm just a rope, and that's okay. " Thanks for your enjoyable input below. We are lucky to have you here. Pete Edg: I'm not satisfied with the above, but I'm sure to write again and again along these lines, and this beating around the bush will eventually delineate that bush by having it being the only thing left unbeaten. Hee hee. Glad someone is enjoying meness -- but of course! Whether this group is lucky is unknowable though. I might be ignorantly tilting my readers toward doom by my blindness to my own attachments. Beware out there -- I like juggling the words skillfully -- keyword: " like. " Attachment....ugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 15, 2009 Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana@> wrote: > > > > Just one question: > > > > Have you ever met a saint, enlightened or otherwise? > > > > All I've met are human beings... fallible and saintly, sometimes with *horns*... > > ~A Edg: I mostly believe that only an enlightened person can validate the enlightenment of another. So, I can be fooled by a charlatan or I can luck out and attach to a world-class guru and I wouldn't know how to determine which is which. To answer your question: my ego believes Nisargadatta and Ramana were enlightened. How refined their nervous systems were is another question. Each impressed me, but I'm so easy, ya see? The neo-advaitans still haven't produced a guru of their caliber if you ask me. Still, Ramana thought a crow had but one eye, and Nisargadatta smoked cigarettes -- caveat emptor, eh? Since Arjuna was told to sin in order to advance creation's intent, one cannot judge the level of freedom or consciousness of another by looking at their actions from a dogmatic or moralistic standpoint. All I know is that when I read Nisargadatta or Ramana I hear thunder between the words. Edg Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 15, 2009 Edg: Hmmmm, are we talking about the difference between a saint and an enlightened saint? Well, we are now!!!! A saint is perfect -- perfectly in harmony with ALL THIS. It is said that if one memorizes the Rig Veda, one has so mastered the mind that all its clockworks are in sympathetic harmony with the godhead's manifestations, and that such a person is sinless. However, the saint can be lured out of harmony because the ego -- though obeying divine law -- is still operative and can be lured to take a bite from Eve's apple, and, like Lucifer's, one's egoic nature, one's Adamic ego -- despite being in heavenly perfection -- can decide to imbalance the perfection of Eden. On the other hand though, an enlightened saint is one who is liberated of the possibility of falling back into sinning. The enlightened saint has no handles with which Satan can commandeer a soul. No desire can arise when there is no desirer. The ego of the enlightened saint is burnt rope. The saint merely has his snake perfectly trained and doesn't have to realize its rope-ness. The enlightened saint is free of all laws and can be found disobeying scripture if creation slams into a Godel point. " Godel point " -- that's my phrase for when the laws of creation do not allow the divine agenda to have the freedom to " fudge. " When Arjuna was unable to kill his twin brother Karna who was as martially endowed as Arjuna, Krishna told Arjuna to disobey the Kshatric laws in order to " get the drop " on his brother and kill him. See? When Arjuna, a saint, vied against his brother, a saint, two perfections vied, and the only tie breaker was the Absolute's bias for Arjuna's cause. Krishna had given His entire army to Karna's side, and all Arjuna had was Krishna as his charioteer Who is not expected to fight but merely witness. Yet, that presence of the witness on Arjuna's side was a trump card. Why? -- because when Arjuna couldn't win legally, the Absolute said, well, then do it illegally, but do it. Killing is always a sin, but do it. Dishonorable combat is wrong, but do it. Yes, you'll incur sin, but do it. Yes, you'll have to atone for that sin, but do it. Trust me -- not scripture. " " Do it or I will. " Get that? Krishna said even He would break His vow of remaining as the charioteer if need be. So, Arjuna cheated -- that is: expressed a truth that the " system of laws " were unable to express and about which only the Absolute could advise and pinpoint when to leap out of the system in order to do the " next right action. " Lacking this, roads paved with gold can lead to hell. So, Arjuna then killed almost the entire Kshatria caste, and this heralded the onset of Kali Yuga. Creation's plan was enabled by Arjuna acting on intuition's advice (Krishna's whisper) to sin. How appropriate it was that sin was used to begin the yuga that epitomizes sinfulness -- gotta love that, eh? Note that Krishna was supportive of this transition -- fully behind creation's move to the darkest of palettes. Why? Because creation's beauty requires freedom from determination. A few miracles and cheats have to pepper the canvas, ya see? Christian saints could be one of the above two kinds. The ones who are perfectly in line with Christian dogma (that would be Christ's heart's dogma -- not the church's tweaked mess of rules) are able to believe that they could only gain heaven by sinless living, and, guess what?, they are correct. The Christian saint cannot live sinlessly unless the heart of Christ is found within and nurtured to fullness -- that is: one fully trains the ego to do what Jesus would do -- without a doubt. If you don't sin, you're in heaven. Bam. Done deal. A mind/heart that has such subtlety will not be fooled or skewed by church rules about what Jesus would do. Such a mind will see Christ's enlightenment without any church beliefs getting in the way. A Christian saint would know the truth of " heaven is within " and know that they are residing in that heaven while still yet living -- no church dogma can talk them out of that certainty. Their attachment to the purity of amness is understandable -- they are stuck at the level of angels -- mindfully choosing the role of worshipper. Whether they evolve from that status or not -- this is a personal matter only. Let no one attempt to adjudicate this other than that saint and God. To remain a worshipper or to unite fully by dropping the perfect ego is a personal affair between the saint and God -- they decide this matter. The non-enlightened saint is not liberated, but being hand-cuffed to God's right hand -- what's not to love? Unlike the angelic saint, the enlightened saint will have the power of Christ to refuse Satan's bribe -- that is: be illogical for the sake of righteousness. A saint will stick to the manifest laws, but the enlightened saint has no such constraints. Arjuna's choice, ya see? Christ passed up the bargain of the millennia -- seemingly -- all of creation was offered for the price of subservience to ego -- what's not to love? The ego, being worthless, holy cowabunga, what a deal that couldn't be refused, eh? But Christ turned from it like Arjuna was instructed to turn from the sacred logic of the perfect rules of combat. All of creation was seen by Christ as not payment enough for the karmic burden taken on when one believes the ego is real. That's a Godel point: where the right thing to do is not determinable except by an agency outside of the system. Logic screams to take the deal, but the enlightened's intuitional clarity cannot be fooled. The message: we do not live in a determined world; causality does not have a Supreme Court that can decide all cases correctly. Sometimes you have to cut the baby in half, and King Solomon was willing to do that. Arjuna removed his brother's head and butchered thousands of other family members. And you and I must also find that strength of clarity when each and every thought arises within -- to walk away from identifying with it -- and all the pleasure that that would garner. We are expected to see that nothing seen is worthy of sight. There's your irony. The enlightened Christian saint would be a terrorist whipping the church elders like the moneylenders in the temple. No papal authority would stay the ire of an enlightened Christian saint. I would expect that these folks were driven from the church. The non-enlightened saint can " work the system " and be sinless, but they are not the perfect tool for divine agenda -- only an intuition that's tuned to the transcendent can embrace paradox and suddenly erupt in a divine Non Sequitur. Edg P: Jesus, fucking, Christ! What a rant! ) You sure are enamored of holy verbiage. Do you think you'd be able to leave behind all those Hindu folk tales, anytime soon? Don't you realize all those fake divine entities, such as Brahman, Atman, and Absolute are only language devices? Here are some simple questions for you: Do your sensations and perceptions provide the beauty, joy, and meaning that you need? Do you need anything else to be happy? Do you need your concepts to be happy? What is the relation between your perceptions and your concepts? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 15, 2009 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > Edg: Hmmmm, are we talking about the difference between a saint and an enlightened saint? > > Well, we are now!!!! > > A saint is perfect -- perfectly in harmony with ALL THIS. It is said that if one memorizes the Rig Veda, one has so mastered the mind that all its clockworks are in sympathetic harmony with the godhead's manifestations, and that such a person is sinless. However, the saint can be lured out of harmony because the ego -- though obeying divine law -- is still operative and can be lured to take a bite from Eve's apple, and, like Lucifer's, one's egoic nature, one's Adamic ego -- despite being in heavenly perfection -- can decide to imbalance the perfection of Eden. > > On the other hand though, an enlightened saint is one who is liberated of the possibility of falling back into sinning. > > The enlightened saint has no handles with which Satan can commandeer a soul. No desire can arise when there is no desirer. The ego of the enlightened saint is burnt rope. The saint merely has his snake perfectly trained and doesn't have to realize its rope-ness. The enlightened saint is free of all laws and can be found disobeying scripture if creation slams into a Godel point. > > " Godel point " -- that's my phrase for when the laws of creation do not allow the divine agenda to have the freedom to " fudge. " When Arjuna was unable to kill his twin brother Karna who was as martially endowed as Arjuna, Krishna told Arjuna to disobey the Kshatric laws in order to " get the drop " on his brother and kill him. See? When Arjuna, a saint, vied against his brother, a saint, two perfections vied, and the only tie breaker was the Absolute's bias for Arjuna's cause. Krishna had given His entire army to Karna's side, and all Arjuna had was Krishna as his charioteer Who is not expected to fight but merely witness. Yet, that presence of the witness on Arjuna's side was a trump card. Why? -- because when Arjuna couldn't win legally, the Absolute said, well, then do it illegally, but do it. Killing is always a sin, but do it. Dishonorable combat is wrong, but do it. Yes, you'll incur sin, but do it. Yes, you'll have to atone for that sin, but do it. Trust me -- not scripture. " > > " Do it or I will. " > > Get that? Krishna said even He would break His vow of remaining as the charioteer if need be. So, Arjuna cheated -- that is: expressed a truth that the " system of laws " were unable to express and about which only the Absolute could advise and pinpoint when to leap out of the system in order to do the " next right action. " Lacking this, roads paved with gold can lead to hell. > > So, Arjuna then killed almost the entire Kshatria caste, and this heralded the onset of Kali Yuga. Creation's plan was enabled by Arjuna acting on intuition's advice (Krishna's whisper) to sin. How appropriate it was that sin was used to begin the yuga that epitomizes sinfulness -- gotta love that, eh? Note that Krishna was supportive of this transition -- fully behind creation's move to the darkest of palettes. Why? Because creation's beauty requires freedom from determination. A few miracles and cheats have to pepper the canvas, ya see? > > Christian saints could be one of the above two kinds. The ones who are perfectly in line with Christian dogma (that would be Christ's heart's dogma -- not the church's tweaked mess of rules) are able to believe that they could only gain heaven by sinless living, and, guess what?, they are correct. The Christian saint cannot live sinlessly unless the heart of Christ is found within and nurtured to fullness -- that is: one fully trains the ego to do what Jesus would do -- without a doubt. If you don't sin, you're in heaven. Bam. Done deal. > > A mind/heart that has such subtlety will not be fooled or skewed by church rules about what Jesus would do. Such a mind will see Christ's enlightenment without any church beliefs getting in the way. A Christian saint would know the truth of " heaven is within " and know that they are residing in that heaven while still yet living -- no church dogma can talk them out of that certainty. > > Their attachment to the purity of amness is understandable -- they are stuck at the level of angels -- mindfully choosing the role of worshipper. Whether they evolve from that status or not -- this is a personal matter only. Let no one attempt to adjudicate this other than that saint and God. To remain a worshipper or to unite fully by dropping the perfect ego is a personal affair between the saint and God -- they decide this matter. The non-enlightened saint is not liberated, but being hand-cuffed to God's right hand -- what's not to love? > > Unlike the angelic saint, the enlightened saint will have the power of Christ to refuse Satan's bribe -- that is: be illogical for the sake of righteousness. A saint will stick to the manifest laws, but the enlightened saint has no such constraints. Arjuna's choice, ya see? Christ passed up the bargain of the millennia -- seemingly -- all of creation was offered for the price of subservience to ego -- what's not to love? The ego, being worthless, holy cowabunga, what a deal that couldn't be refused, eh? > > But Christ turned from it like Arjuna was instructed to turn from the sacred logic of the perfect rules of combat. All of creation was seen by Christ as not payment enough for the karmic burden taken on when one believes the ego is real. That's a Godel point: where the right thing to do is not determinable except by an agency outside of the system. Logic screams to take the deal, but the enlightened's intuitional clarity cannot be fooled. The message: we do not live in a determined world; causality does not have a Supreme Court that can decide all cases correctly. Sometimes you have to cut the baby in half, and King Solomon was willing to do that. Arjuna removed his brother's head and butchered thousands of other family members. And you and I must also find that strength of clarity when each and every thought arises within -- to walk away from identifying with it -- and all the pleasure that that would garner. > > We are expected to see that nothing seen is worthy of sight. There's your irony. > > The enlightened Christian saint would be a terrorist whipping the church elders like the moneylenders in the temple. No papal authority would stay the ire of an enlightened Christian saint. I would expect that these folks were driven from the church. The non-enlightened saint can " work the system " and be sinless, but they are not the perfect tool for divine agenda -- only an intuition that's tuned to the transcendent can embrace paradox and suddenly erupt in a divine Non Sequitur. > > Edg > > P: Jesus, fucking, Christ! What a rant! ) > > You sure are enamored of holy verbiage. Do > you think you'd be able to leave behind all > those Hindu folk tales, anytime soon? Don't you > realize all those fake divine entities, such as > Brahman, Atman, and Absolute are only language > devices? > > Here are some simple questions for > you: > > Do your sensations and perceptions provide the > beauty, joy, and meaning that you need? Do you > need anything else to be happy? Do you need your > concepts to be happy? What is the relation > between your perceptions and your concepts? > Edg: Arrrghh! Your lashing is raising welts on my psyche. Yes, I confess. I am enamored of holy verbiage -- Help! I don't believe Hindu entities exist except as dynamics of a human nervous system. Just to be sure you get me, though I talk about Brahma going down the stalk, it is me imagining ego seeking the Absolute -- not that there really is a " Brahma. " So, yeah, I think I'm very very clear about Hindu entities being language devices. That said, hey, I could really mount up a charge and try to prove that Brahma IS real -- that'd be fun. Now as for your " simple questions, " um, crap! -- those are hard questions. Since my ego is insatiable, no amount of input will satisfy it. So, no, my ego is not getting all the " happy " it wants. The concepts still please my ego to no end -- I'm shameless. I roll in them like a dog on cat shit. Sue me. Are you addiction free? I hope so. My concepts are my perceptions -- it would be hard to separate the wheat from the chaff -- can you? All I know is that the frequent handling of these concepts pleases me, and that after many years of such masturbation I'm gradually falling in love with the silence that envelops them. When someone tells you a joke -- it is the unsaid, the non-stated, that generates the humor. " Take my wife, please. " A vile statement that can only be transmuted by silence. Henny Youngman didn't have to spell out the joke. Leaving it unexplained allowed that unsaidness to be a place marker for the Absolute. When one suddenly sees the silence, the real, the vile becomes like a plush toy and huggable. The audience is expected to enter the unsaidness and get the joke explained from within -- not imposed upon them by Henny. The only proper response to the sudden appearance of such silence is to laugh. It is just such silence -- before and after the expression of concepts -- that is stating to attract my attention. When I stop breathing on purpose -- it's like breaking out of prison. All meaning is implied, I see that the silence " around " words is the source of their worth -- why bother wrangling individual meanings when you can just dive into the source of all meaning? Like this, reading Nisargadatta and Ramana somehow, by magic?, has gotten me so thirsty for silence that I'm not-hearing it everyfuckingwherewhen. It's like the Star Trek Holodeck suddenly showing the empty walls and proving all the objects to have been illusions. Just a quick toggle to show the blank walls, and even if the Holodeck starts up again, the knowledge of the blank walls cannot be erased. Ya can't cram all the crap back into Pandora's box once the cork is pulled. One glimpse of the Absolute will pull out a lot of rugs from under ya. Even a fake glimpse (samadhi) can do wonders when it comes to detaching from objects of consciousness (get clarity that they are illusions.) GAWD -- more words. Stop encouraging me. Hee hee. Edg Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 15, 2009 Nisargadatta , " duveyoung " <edg wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana@> wrote: > > > > > > Just one question: > > > > > > Have you ever met a saint, enlightened or otherwise? > > > > > > All I've met are human beings... fallible and saintly, sometimes with *horns*... > > > ~A > > Edg: I mostly believe that only an enlightened person can validate the enlightenment of another. So, I can be fooled by a charlatan or I can luck out and attach to a world-class guru and I wouldn't know how to determine which is which. Perhaps the answer is to see everyone as enlightened to their own sense of being....known or unknown. Mostly folks mirror one another... the more one faults another, the more fault is found thingy. > > To answer your question: my ego believes Nisargadatta and Ramana were enlightened. How refined their nervous systems were is another question. Each impressed me, but I'm so easy, ya see? I've never met them, so I can only speak from the feelings I've had reading their words. Some take me *out*... so to speak. But then again, I too, am easy...for many do... > > The neo-advaitans still haven't produced a guru of their caliber if you ask me. noted. but then again, neo-advaita is new ;-), and has not yet withstood the test of time... all the advaita is based on centuries of monologues and dialogues. > > Still, Ramana thought a crow had but one eye, and Nisargadatta smoked cigarettes -- caveat emptor, eh? Humans have silly foibles sometimes, that doesn't mean they're not *real* in the sense that even a broken clock...yada.. > > Since Arjuna was told to sin in order to advance creation's intent, one cannot judge the level of freedom or consciousness of another by looking at their actions from a dogmatic or moralistic standpoint. No, but one can tell by one's feelings... what Hitler left behind as his legacy is vastly dissimilar (ok its an easy one) than let's say, Krishnamurti. > > All I know is that when I read Nisargadatta or Ramana I hear thunder between the words. > > Edg > Ah, you're a poet? ~A Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 15, 2009 edg: Since my ego is insatiable, no amount of input will satisfy it. So, no, my ego is not getting all the "happy" it wants. geo> Why do you treat ego in third person? My ego? That is the way you found to perpetuate it. Its YOU pall. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 15, 2009 Edg: I'm not so sure that I've had a vision of Unity. I think my ego has sometimes pretended that certain spiritual experiences are moments of Unity, but I am not mindfully living Unity -- only unmindfully like most others. My intellectual clarity has not liberated me from attachment to " sacred concepts. " P: Mindfully living unity? I don't know what that could mean. If there is mindfulness (a purposeful stance) then there is no unity, but the duality of focusing and its object. Again here are the questions that trace unitive perception: Do your sensations and perceptions provide the beauty, joy, and meaning that you need? Do you need anything else to be happy? Do you need your concepts to be happy? What is the relation between your perceptions and your concepts? >P: An entity, even an absolute one, is also per force > limited, only nothingness can be unlimited. Playing > a shell game with ever more rarefied concepts only > kicks the ball down field. So if you don't mind, > could you explain your need to identify with an > absolute. Edg: A beautiful question that. My need can only be an egoic process that seeks certainty of its realness. The inquiry process will eventually lead me to see that I'm storing up my treasures where moth and rust doth corrupt -- that is: if I insist on being an ego, then death will come eventually, so I, ego, must find " my " eternal status. To do this, I use inquiry to get jiggy with " what is ego? " P: Well, let's discuss ego. Ego is a concept invented by Freud. It has no reality outside language. Of course, there are habits of defense, attack, and acquisition that we can label as ego. The feeling of being a self apart from perceptions animates these habits, it gives them the appearance of being an entity. Please see this utube about Being No One. Edg:Discovering that ego is but a reflection of Identity, ego's puffed up nature -- its delusion of sentience -- is crisped -- fried on the fires of knowledge. Ego's actions can never acquire for it the status of sentience, but it can at least stop the delusion process. Stopping means ego merges back into amness and is no longer " out and about and investing in the manifestations of amness, " and in that quiescence, in samadhi, in that residing in the pure silence of being, Identity can be realized as THAT which amness is attempting to ape. The ego must cease -- not " find the Absolute and attach to It. " The Absolute is always unsulled and beyond ALL THIS. Language forces me to treat the Absolute as if it were an object. The ego's desires -- if followed relentlessly -- will, like the fool and his folly, eventually lead to the wisdom that there is no way for the ego to become real, and ego says, " Oh, I get it. Nevermind. My bad. I'm just a rope, and that's okay. " P: Well, would you consider that there cannot be any " ammess " outside of o a sense of being in a particular brain? Universal selves and the Absolute could only be projections of perceptions. Feel the " original being " as it was before you learned to talk. That is the best practice to liberate the brain from conceptuality and suffering. > Thanks for your enjoyable input below. We are > lucky to have you here. > > Pete Edg: I'm not satisfied with the above, but I'm sure to write again and again along these lines, and this beating around the bush will eventually delineate that bush by having it being the only thing left unbeaten. Hee hee. Glad someone is enjoying meness -- but of course! Whether this group is lucky is unknowable though. I might be ignorantly tilting my readers toward doom by my blindness to my own attachments. Beware out there -- I like juggling the words skillfully -- keyword: " like. " Attachment....ugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 15, 2009 P: Well, let's discuss ego. Ego is a concept invented by Freud. It has no reality outside language. Of course, there are habits of defense, attack, and acquisition that we can label as ego. The feeling of being a self apart from perceptions animates these habits, it gives them the appearance of being an entity. geo> BS. Ego means " I " - period. It is a greek word that means exactly that: I. The " ego " invented by freud has nothing to do with the context we treat here - or advaita if you prefer. The freudian ego is good only for psichiytrists to play with - and write books upon. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 15, 2009 - geo Nisargadatta Wednesday, July 15, 2009 5:16 PM Re: Re: This Morning At Niz P: Well, let's discuss ego. Ego is a concept invented by Freud. It has no reality outside language. Of course, there are habits of defense, attack, and acquisition that we can label as ego. The feeling of being a self apart from perceptions animates these habits, it gives them the appearance of being an entity. geo> BS. Ego means " I " - period. It is a greek word that means exactly that: I. The " ego " invented by freud has nothing to do with the context we treat here - or advaita if you prefer. The freudian ego is good only for psichiytrists to play with - and write books upon. But let me cool down a bit and be fair with you. Apart from the origin of the word, what you say about " ego " is correct - as I see it. But you would probably say that the " final receiver " of perceptions is a " brain " . I would say that the brain is a processor that by itself could not perceive anything at all - its a dead peace of meat. (a la edg) -geo- avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 090526-0, 26/05/2009 Tested on: 15/7/2009 17:50:38 avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 16, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > geo > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, July 15, 2009 5:16 PM > Re: Re: This Morning At Niz > > > P: Well, let's discuss ego. Ego is a > concept invented by Freud. It has no > reality outside language. Of course, there > are habits of defense, attack, and acquisition > that we can label as ego. The feeling of > being a self apart from perceptions animates > these habits, it gives them the appearance of > being an entity. > > geo> BS. Ego means " I " - period. " Ego " means whatever we want it to mean. Words mean whatever the folks currently discussing take them to mean. Why anyone gets so excited about words, as though set in stone, I dunno. Language itself is constantly mutating, changing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 16, 2009 Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana wrote: > > Perhaps the answer is to see everyone as enlightened to their own > sense of being....known or unknown. > > Mostly folks mirror one another... the more one faults another, the > more fault is found thingy. Not so far off, Anna. But it's not an answer, it's what's happening now, already. One is seeing everyone in similar ways as to how one sees oneself. No answer is needed, when no question is asked. Peace... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 16, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana@> wrote: > > > > Perhaps the answer is to see everyone as enlightened to their own > > sense of being....known or unknown. > > > > Mostly folks mirror one another... the more one faults another, the > more fault is found thingy. > > Not so far off, Anna. But it's not an answer, it's what's happening now, already. One is seeing everyone in similar ways as to how one sees oneself. > > No answer is needed, when no question is asked. > > Peace... > ....then no reply was need to the answer without a question.....EH? ~A Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 16, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana@> wrote: > > > > Perhaps the answer is to see everyone as enlightened to their own > > sense of being....known or unknown. > > > > Mostly folks mirror one another... the more one faults another, the > more fault is found thingy. > > Not so far off, Anna. But it's not an answer, it's what's happening now, already. One is seeing everyone in similar ways as to how one sees oneself. > > No answer is needed, when no question is asked. > > Peace... > ....then no reply was needed to the answer without a question.....EH? ~A Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 16, 2009 Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana@> wrote: > > > > > > Perhaps the answer is to see everyone as enlightened to their own > > > sense of being....known or unknown. > > > > > > Mostly folks mirror one another... the more one faults another, the > more fault is found thingy. > > > > Not so far off, Anna. But it's not an answer, it's what's happening now, already. One is seeing everyone in similar ways as to how one sees oneself. > > > > No answer is needed, when no question is asked. > > > > Peace... > > > > > ...then no reply was need to the answer without a question.....EH? > > > ~A no second reply was required... without question. ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 16, 2009 Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana@> wrote: > > > > > > Perhaps the answer is to see everyone as enlightened to their own > > > sense of being....known or unknown. > > > > > > Mostly folks mirror one another... the more one faults another, the > more fault is found thingy. > > > > Not so far off, Anna. But it's not an answer, it's what's happening now, already. One is seeing everyone in similar ways as to how one sees oneself. > > > > No answer is needed, when no question is asked. > > > > Peace... > > > > > ...then no reply was needed to the answer without a question.....EH? > > > ~A Nope, no reply was needed... but as one was provided anyway, and time doesn't go in reverse, " it is what it is " ... eh? ;-). Hugs... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 16, 2009 Edg: I have utterly no reason to ask anyone to slog through all the below. Use the time rereading " I Am That, " instead. Of course, if you're just totally in love with my vibe -- bask in meness all you want! Hee hee. At 02:00 PM 7/15/2009, you wrote: Edg: I'm not so sure that I've had a vision of Unity. I think my ego has sometimes pretended that certain spiritual experiences are moments of Unity, but I am not mindfully living Unity -- only unmindfully like most others. My intellectual clarity has not liberated me from attachment to " sacred concepts. " P: Mindfully living unity? I don't know what that could mean. If there is mindfulness (a purposeful stance) then there is no unity, but the duality of focusing and its object. Edg: Okay, " mindful " is problematic usage. My proofing process is not 100% when I edit the final draft of the post -- sometimes I get lazy and only reread a post once. When I mess up -- it's flaky of me, sigh -- but sometimes it's just easier to say I was doing poetry rather than try to weasel out some weak rationalization, or, horrors admit I'm wrong. But I did have a concept behind the word. But, holy moly, look at the below pukingness I have to retch out to approach an explanation. Arrgh. I think keyboards should be like Tom Hank's giant piano keys that he tap danced upon in Big -- then maybe I'd at least get some exercise while I typed....a profit at last from writing! Certainly even a desert mirage has the reality status of " being an illusion. " That it isn't a 3D actually measurable object matters not in that a mirage IS a processing of the brain that IS measurable. All sorts of experiments can be devised to measure the processing of a brain that must necessarily underlie the phenomenon, " mirage. " Just so, an enlightened person can be physiologically measured by a host of instruments extant and imaginable that COULD actually measure the body and determine if " mindfulness " is afoot. Today's science can but crudely approach this challenge -- the machines used are clunky -- it's like trying to do surgery with boxing gloves on. Brainwave analysis, blood chemistry, MRI's etc. are only able to measure large structures of process, and it may be decades before machines can really get down to the " per thought " ability to " see a mind work. " But it can and will be a reality in the not too distant future. Whatever a scientist of 2050 says is " mindful " will be what I am referring to -- if you can bear my conceit about the future, ahem. I know, I know, I'm being fuzzy and slippery here. If ya wants instruction, read Nisargadatta -- I'm only talking-it-out for my sake here. Your mileage may vary. Back to my spewing. Physiologically speaking there must be a difference in processing between a person who is angelic and one who is in Unity. I would predict that a person in Unity is in a lesser state of excitation and that that can be measured. Something physical CHANGES when the state of consciousness changes. Today's science can easily measure the differences between sleep, dream and waking, and they're almost " there " for being able to " spot " if a person is in samadhi with today's gross " lie detector equipment. " It is merely " around the corner " for science to be able to work at that next level of subtlety. I predict that there will come a time when science must admit that Heisenberg's quantum uncertainties are a barrier to advancing the delicacy of the " touch " of machines. It is at that point that I would expect science to see its blindness when it comes to measuring " the last change of enlightenment. " When the ego is finally abandoned, (the last samskara is burnt) we can expect to see a lessening of excitations of some ilk -- the quality of samadhi will quantitatively change -- entering Unity will be notable -- but when in a samskara-less samadhi, in Unity, if THEN AND ONLY THEN Identity, er, um, (poetry alert -- warning, warning Will Robinson) " stops looking at its image, " amness, I would predict that no machinery can be imagined to measure that actionless event. To me, every concept can be eventually delineated into physiological processing-terms -- except actionless changes. It would be difficult to conceptually delineate the merged ego in samadhi -- it seem resistant to being imagined to have some sort of individualistic process-of-existence during samadhi even though it yet still there are unburnt samskaras. The samskaras, " baby egos yet unborn, " are also merged but also " still able to emerge. " There may be an " excitational construct " we can label " ego " or samskaras when measuring a person in samadhi, but once they've been burnt, there's no processing during samadhi that can " get even more quiet. " If there are seeds yet with potency, then samadhi is not perfect and must be continued until they are all burnt before attachment to manifestation in general is burnt. When all the seeds are dead, urp, there's still one more to burn. Cosmic Ego, the ultimate samskara, must be burnt too. If I say, " I'm betting on that horse to win this race, " and then I say, " No, now I'm betting on that other horse, " -- in this scenario, neither horse can be measured to have been changed in any way by my changing my identificationing. Just so, when Identity is recognized as a non-bettor (utterly uninvolved with creation) -- that's the last step to gaining freedom, but can it be measured? The glasses are on the nose and never were lost. Though unreal, amness cannot be said to end when the last step is taken, just as the image in the mirror remains when one recognizes it to be unreal. The Absolute, being even beyond omnipresence cannot be blind to its own potency, and all potencies of the Absolute, though beyond the eyesight of Brahma, are as clearly THERE/THEN to the Absolute as Shroedinger's Cat is to a person who is in the box with the cat. Ahem. After the last step is taken, chopping wood and carrying water can be measured again and found to not have been changed. The body/mind, localized, is but a tiny aspect of ALL THIS's processing. If any change can be imagined to have happened during the last step, one must begin to measure THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE -- to see if it quiets down in some way, but the local body mind will have no changes in how it interacts with the rest of the universe. Sez moi. One is able to retain awareness of OM while doing workaday life, and one is enlightened -- free from identifying with the contents of the mind. Yet, the person who is free will report a change in operational style when Unity is achieved -- " OH -- THAT'S BETTER than having a trinity of " me + here-ing-ness + OM, " and that enlightened person will claim that it is illogical to deconstruct Unity -- that sentience is unbounded and seamless -- that the inside is identical with the outside. That change from ME + ALL THIS to " only me everywherewhen " is a process of ceasing the seekingness process. The separation of ME from ALL THIS is intolerable to the now-abandoned ego processes. The ego then tries a hat trick -- it will become as refined in sensitivity as God -- that is, grow into God Consciousness -- yeah, that's the ticket, says ego, I'll become God -- then let's see who's calling who unreal. Pre-Unity, Identity is found to be independent of the concept " existence. " The non-bird has escaped the Emperor's New Cage. But in Unity, no processing imaginable can measure any difference between Perfection and A Perfect Image of Perfection. It is not-sensible. All the noise of OM is understood to be variations on the theme: silence complete. This is different from " lesser " states of enlightenment where Identity is seen as real and amness as unreal. In Unity, since the Absolute is perfectly miscible with any manifestation, pointing at any thing is a pointing at the Absolute. Quick, grab a stick and point to everywhere. You can't miss, right? Wow, mindfulness is a mouthful. I don't think I've even begun exploring it with you by the above. Again here are the questions that trace unitive perception: Do your sensations and perceptions provide the beauty, joy, and meaning that you need? Do you need anything else to be happy? Do you need your concepts to be happy? What is the relation between your perceptions and your concepts? Edg: Okay, since you're repeating your questions, I apologize for not handling them fully-directly. I want to " get " what your mind does with those questions, so I'll try again to answer them from my side. And, hey, you might toss a paragraph at me to show me how to answer them -- a hint might help me over here, ya know? I'm here to learn if something's learnable. " Do your sensations and perceptions provide the beauty, joy, and meaning that you need? " Okay, first off, clearly the word " you " can mean the Absolute or the ego or the Cosmic Ego. Others? Well, three is enough to confuse one when approaching the question, yes? The ego can never be happy -- the monkey mind always thinks the fruit on the other branch is more tempting. Training the ego to espouse concepts that frame " being human " as an infinite ecstasy of bliss without the ego actually having the status of residing in an angelic mind is merely training the ego to mood make and pretend that it doesn't want to jump to another branch. Useless endeavor that. Polly want a cracker time. The Cosmic Ego is what a person in God Consciousness attaches to as the " last bastion of meness. " Angels are attached to having God in their perceptual fields. They're perfect, but still believe they're angels -- not God. A person in God Consciousness is as if an angel trapped in a human body. The God conscious person is conscious of God everywherewhen. All objects are holy partials of God. Only when Unity dawns do angels disappear. It is marked by the end of seeking " for more. " There can be no more to add to the contents of the mind. Everything is seen, and it's not enough, so how to evolve even more? By recognizing that bliss is a drug, seeking ends. Unity is the only thing that will satisfy. Ego is left on the doorstep. The person in Unity will know that ego is a mirage. Who, then, is this " knower? " -- answer: Cosmic Ego, God -- not the Absolute. Enlightening God-that-I-am is the next step in personal evolution beyond Unity. God has to discover His limitations, ya see? Unity is not enough. It still has the stink of the gunas, still can be imagined by Brahma's mind to be a trinity with invisible seams. Only by remaining in samadhi and eschewing manifesting (doing tapas) can God finally purify His nervous system enough to see that He is but merely the Ultimate Image, the Best But Laughable Attempt At Embodiment Of Identity. A joke. Out of embarrassment for catching Himself " faking sentience, " God laughs and even His Cosmic Ego is thusly schooled. And, finally, fulfillment is complete; finally the sensations and perceptions provide (are recognized as) the beauty, joy, and meaning potencies of Identity -- they're never-not-ever, no-not real but, yeah, real. And, Identity is not affected by any of the above. Pete: Do you need anything else to be happy? Do you need your concepts to be happy? What is the relation between your perceptions and your concepts? Edg: So, the other questions become redundant -- asked and answered. Identity has everything so nothing is sought. Concepts are insentient. Perceptions are concepts. Personally speaking, my wantingness is lessening, but how much more work is required is not clear to me. I see the mountain below me; I know I've climbed, but there's still more mountain to climb and I know not its height. Doing inquiry reveals the " lie " of the previous statement. Until I stop lying like that, anything I write must have a taint of untruthiness. Crap! >P: An entity, even an absolute one, is also per force > limited, only nothingness can be unlimited. Playing > a shell game with ever more rarefied concepts only > kicks the ball down field. So if you don't mind, > could you explain your need to identify with an > absolute. Edg: A beautiful question that. My need can only be an egoic process that seeks certainty of its realness. The inquiry process will eventually lead me to see that I'm storing up my treasures where moth and rust doth corrupt -- that is: if I insist on being an ego, then death will come eventually, so I, ego, must find " my " eternal status. To do this, I use inquiry to get jiggy with " what is ego? " P: Well, let's discuss ego. Ego is a concept invented by Freud. It has no reality outside language. Of course, there are habits of defense, attack, and acquisition that we can label as ego. The feeling of being a self apart from perceptions animates these habits, it gives them the appearance of being an entity. Please see this utube about Being No One. Edg: I haven't watched the video yet. I will, but after all my instructions from Nisargadatta and Ramana, and after all the spiritual cud I've chewed with an almost pathological compulsion to write, I doubt that the video will add to my conceptual library -- but the exercise of watching the video may slightly improve my ken. Do you think this video is somehow especially instructive beyond what Nisargadatta and Ramana were able to present? Edg:Discovering that ego is but a reflection of Identity, ego's puffed up nature -- its delusion of sentience -- is crisped -- fried on the fires of knowledge. Ego's actions can never acquire for it the status of sentience, but it can at least stop the delusion process. Stopping means ego merges back into amness and is no longer " out and about and investing in the manifestations of amness, " and in that quiescence, in samadhi, in that residing in the pure silence of being, Identity can be realized as THAT which amness is attempting to ape. The ego must cease -- not " find the Absolute and attach to It. " The Absolute is always unsulled and beyond ALL THIS. Language forces me to treat the Absolute as if it were an object. The ego's desires -- if followed relentlessly -- will, like the fool and his folly, eventually lead to the wisdom that there is no way for the ego to become real, and ego says, " Oh, I get it. Nevermind. My bad. I'm just a rope, and that's okay. " P: Well, would you consider that there cannot be any " ammess " outside of o a sense of being in a particular brain? Universal selves and the Absolute could only be projections of perceptions. Edg: Here is a whole 'nother can of beans. I do believe that the Cosmic Ego is incarnated as " The Universe, " and thus, the human body/mind is part of that Cosmic Ego. The small ego may be extinguished, and no more refinement of the local body/mind can be imagined, but the Cosmic Ego is still going strong. This " universal self " is to God as " small self " is to local body/mind. It must go. The place marker, " the Absolute, " is a projection of amness, but that which it refers to is beyond not only amness but also non-amness, non-being. Talk about being far out.....it's downright exhaustingly out of this world. My small ego can assert that the Absolute is, but all words can only but partially approach a definition when the Absolute presides over all non-words too. Ask Godel for details. And may I note at this moment how much I hate words! Ink blot bastards they be. Feel the " original being " as it was before you learned to talk. That is the best practice to liberate the brain from conceptuality and suffering. Edg: Nisargadatta loves to ask one to imagine one's status before being born. That is: face the emptiness of non-being. Learning to talk is the ego being " solidified into nervous pathways. " Somewhere around the age of four or five, the child begins using " I, " and meaning it bigtime. The caged bird begins to sing. Your statement is poetry, and I would ask that you define " feel. " How is feeling something akin to inquiry by your reckoning? Edg > Thanks for your enjoyable input below. We are > lucky to have you here. > > Pete Edg: I'm not satisfied with the above, but I'm sure to write again and again along these lines, and this beating around the bush will eventually delineate that bush by having it being the only thing left unbeaten. Hee hee. Glad someone is enjoying meness -- but of course! Whether this group is lucky is unknowable though. I might be ignorantly tilting my readers toward doom by my blindness to my own attachments. Beware out there -- I like juggling the words skillfully -- keyword: " like. " Attachment....ugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 17, 2009 Edg: Nisargadatta loves to ask one to imagine one's status before being born. That is: face the emptiness of non-being. Learning to talk is the ego being " solidified into nervous pathways. " Somewhere around the age of four or five, the child begins using " I, " and meaning it bigtime. The caged bird begins to sing. Your statement is poetry, and I would ask that you define " feel. " How is feeling something akin to inquiry by your reckoning? Edg P: Well, Edg, here we are In Dr. Niz waiting room. We are patients discussing our symptoms, and medications, which the good doctor prescribed before he died. Yes, the doctor is dead, but we come to this waiting room to ask each other: " How do you feel? " " How are you today? " Both questions mean the same, and their meaning is clear. We come here to talk of our illness, and inevitable death. We, are at different stages, but all mortally ill. It's a matter of time. We love to discuss this disease. You seem to be at the stage where all the conceptual pieces of the puzzle of life seem to have fallen into place and you find the " solved puzzle " fascinating. Talking about your solved puzzle gives you great pleasure. Reading and talking about spiritual matters can become very addictive, like a form of holy pornography. Spiritual wankers like Tim, and geo can't stop posting. They need to wank in public. You, of course, are not that compulsive, yet. It's just a stage. Sooner or later it will pass. One day, holy concepts will taste like straw, and the gushing of words will dry up. Meanwhile, enjoy! It's great fun to discuss the symptoms of this holy dementia. You'll grow worse with time and forget your concepts, and your identity. You will be like a baby again. A baby feels intensely, but doesn't talk or think about its feelings. When all is said and done, there is only the great black void and the activity it hosts. We are both the activity and the void. The only difference between a Jiba and Jnnani is that the sage doesn't identify with either and is both, while the jiba identifies and feels itself to be this activity in his consciousness. You, Edg, seems very happy with this holy activity bubbling up in you. Sooner or later the focus will shift toward the void, the empty, the dark, the silent. Meanwhile, enjoy the verbal dust devil! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 18, 2009 At 11:49 AM 7/17/2009, you wrote: Edg: Nisargadatta loves to ask one to imagine one's status before being born. That is: face the emptiness of non-being. Learning to talk is the ego being " solidified into nervous pathways. " Somewhere around the age of four or five, the child begins using " I, " and meaning it bigtime. The caged bird begins to sing. Your statement is poetry, and I would ask that you define " feel. " How is feeling something akin to inquiry by your reckoning? Edg P: Well, Edg, here we are In Dr. Niz waiting room. We are patients discussing our symptoms, and medications, which the good doctor prescribed before he died. Yes, the doctor is dead, but we come to this waiting room to ask each other: " How do you feel? " " How are you today? " Both questions mean the same, and their meaning is clear. We come here to talk of our illness, and inevitable death. Edg: What a downer scenario. Hee hee. To me, bhakti techniques get the mind filled with passionate attachment to the godhead -- the practice of which leads to a culturing of the heart's worshipping focus. With much practice, eventually, one who can worship with a relentless continuity will be residing on the ritam level of operations and will be batting aside angels to get closer to " pure God. " This is the " topic area " I was juggling with the word " feeling. " I don't think an angelic attachment is inquiry even though the perception of God fills the mind and the individual ego is wholly " washed out by the 'loudness' of OM. " A perfect bhakti, outside of samadhi, will be God, so there's the problem -- getting rid of that identity, that persona, that boundary. Inquiry puts the mind on a search for something that doesn't exist -- the ego -- thus, the only way it could succeed would be to realize Identity since no-thingness doesn't exist in amness which is jammed with thingness solely. Inquiry, however short the span of time involved, instantly has one in realization, and only practice is required to get the tee shirt. Bhakti takes one to the doorway, but inquiry instantly has one already through that doorway. We, are at different stages, but all mortally ill. It's a matter of time. We love to discuss this disease. You seem to be at the stage where all the conceptual pieces of the puzzle of life seem to have fallen into place and you find the " solved puzzle " fascinating. Talking about your solved puzzle gives you great pleasure. Reading and talking about spiritual matters can become very addictive, like a form of holy pornography. Spiritual wankers like Tim, and geo can't stop posting. They need to wank in public. You, of course, are not that compulsive, yet. Edg: I thank you for that summation. It has to be true to some degree. I also do tons of other activities that give me pleasure, so I'm not " too bad " as addictions go. I spreads me out over many addictions, ya see? All roads lead to ego though, eh? My jyotish chart says I was born to preach and teach. GAWD -- fulfilling my destiny with merely " book learnin " is doomed from the start. I could get myself all sussed out with dhoti and rudraksha beads and convince most passersby to toss a few ruples into my coconut shell, but without my intuition being fully established in the heart, however slightly, I would be sermonizing with a tilt. And when it comes to leading a flock, the least mistake can be BIG down the line. So I come here for shop talk to get-off on some jollies. It's just a stage. Sooner or later it will pass. One day, holy concepts will taste like straw, and the gushing of words will dry up. Meanwhile, enjoy! It's great fun to discuss the symptoms of this holy dementia. You'll grow worse with time and forget your concepts, and your identity. You will be like a baby again. A baby feels intensely, but doesn't talk or think about its feelings. Edg: Boy o boy o boy do I feel like a kid in short pants having his hair mussed up by a loving uncle. Thanks -- haven't had that for about 60 years! Hee hee. I do think that the concepts are mostly depleted of the power to " easily trigger Edg into a frenzy of ideation. " Used to be a lot more excitational punch to them. These days: not so much. In daily life, I'm not churning on them, not chewing the cud, not straining against the boundaries of the roles I play in order to jam some spirituality into, say, a grocery store cashier's mind. Here though, I let loose. Why not? And, though no one is here except my phantom ego, my intellectual bantering serves to keep my nervous system " topped off " and " calibrated " when it comes to assigning meaning to philosophical terms. When I meditate, I don't get to " shoot up " with the " thrill of spewing " drug. When all is said and done, there is only the great black void and the activity it hosts. We are both the activity and the void. The only difference between a Jiba and Jnnani is that the sage doesn't identify with either and is both, while the jiba identifies and feels itself to be this activity in his consciousness. You, Edg, seems very happy with this holy activity bubbling up in you. Sooner or later the focus will shift toward the void, the empty, the dark, the silent. Meanwhile, enjoy the verbal dust devil! Edg: Man, you're good at the head patting. You should start a service. The PittyPattery -- " come in and get validated " -- " today's special: 108 pats and 10 hugs for only $9.95 " I pepper my outer life with inquiry -- stopping for a nonce mid-breath -- this is possible for all activities -- just insert a full stop until the momentum of the samskaras will not be denied. It's silence that is inserted thusly, and, as you say, it is soooooooo attractive -- an oasis where all noise ceases. Nice to have that, and even the space between words becomes enlivened with peace. My ego does cringe to think that I'm spewing so over-the-top-ishly here that I'm seen as a straightout newbie on a shakti pogo stick. Arrrgh. Am I like Indra who at some point has to see that there's been an infinity of Indras before him -- has there been a succession of blabber-mouthed newbies parading with their best strutting here who must be patted on their heads for juggling dogma? Sigh..... All this water everywhere, almost everyone thirsty, and nary a horse can be found to drink. And I come here, and all the horses have drunk their fill already. Fucking hell! Edg Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 18, 2009 Re: Re: This Morning At Niz At 11:49 AM 7/17/2009, you wrote: > > > Edg: Nisargadatta loves to ask one to imagine one's status before being born. That is: face the emptiness of non-being. Learning to talk is the ego being " solidified into nervous pathways. " Somewhere around the age of four or five, the child begins using " I, " and meaning it bigtime. The caged bird begins to sing. Your statement is poetry, and I would ask that you define " feel. " How is feeling something akin to inquiry by your reckoning? > > Edg > > P: Well, Edg, here we are In Dr. Niz waiting room. > We are patients discussing our symptoms, and > medications, which the good doctor prescribed > before he died. Yes, the doctor is dead, but we > come to this waiting room to ask each other: > " How do you feel? " " How are you today? " Both questions > mean the same, and their meaning is clear. We come > here to talk of our illness, and inevitable death. Edg: What a downer scenario. Hee hee. To me, bhakti techniques get the mind filled with passionate attachment to the godhead -- the practice of which leads to a culturing of the heart's worshipping focus. With much practice, eventually, one who can worship with a relentless continuity will be residing on the ritam level of operations and will be batting aside angels to get closer to " pure God. " This is the " topic area " I was juggling with the word " feeling. " I don't think an angelic attachment is inquiry even though the perception of God fills the mind and the individual ego is wholly " washed out by the 'loudness' of OM. " A perfect bhakti, outside of samadhi, will be God, so there's the problem -- getting rid of that identity, that persona, that boundary. Inquiry puts the mind on a search for something that doesn't exist -- the ego -- thus, the only way it could succeed would be to realize Identity since no-thingness doesn't exist in amness which is jammed with thingness solely. Inquiry, however short the span of time involved, instantly has one in realization, and only practice is required to get the tee shirt. Bhakti takes one to the doorway, but inquiry instantly has one already through that doorway. > We, are at different stages, but all mortally ill. > It's a matter of time. We love to discuss this > disease. You seem to be at the stage where all > the conceptual pieces of the puzzle of life seem to have > fallen into place and you find the " solved puzzle " > fascinating. Talking about your solved puzzle > gives you great pleasure. Reading and talking > about spiritual matters can become very addictive, > like a form of holy pornography. Spiritual wankers > like Tim, and geo can't stop posting. They need to > wank in public. You, of course, are not that > compulsive, yet. Edg: I thank you for that summation. It has to be true to some degree. I also do tons of other activities that give me pleasure, so I'm not " too bad " as addictions go. I spreads me out over many addictions, ya see? All roads lead to ego though, eh? My jyotish chart says I was born to preach and teach. GAWD -- fulfilling my destiny with merely " book learnin " is doomed from the start. I could get myself all sussed out with dhoti and rudraksha beads and convince most passersby to toss a few ruples into my coconut shell, but without my intuition being fully established in the heart, however slightly, I would be sermonizing with a tilt. And when it comes to leading a flock, the least mistake can be BIG down the line. So I come here for shop talk to get-off on some jollies. > It's just a stage. Sooner or later it will > pass. One day, holy concepts will taste like straw, > and the gushing of words will dry up. Meanwhile, > enjoy! It's great fun to discuss the symptoms > of this holy dementia. You'll grow worse with > time and forget your concepts, and your identity. > You will be like a baby again. A baby feels > intensely, but doesn't talk or think about its > feelings. Edg: Boy o boy o boy do I feel like a kid in short pants having his hair mussed up by a loving uncle. Thanks -- haven't had that for about 60 years! Hee hee. I do think that the concepts are mostly depleted of the power to " easily trigger Edg into a frenzy of ideation. " Used to be a lot more excitational punch to them. These days: not so much. In daily life, I'm not churning on them, not chewing the cud, not straining against the boundaries of the roles I play in order to jam some spirituality into, say, a grocery store cashier's mind. Here though, I let loose. Why not? And, though no one is here except my phantom ego, my intellectual bantering serves to keep my nervous system " topped off " and " calibrated " when it comes to assigning meaning to philosophical terms. When I meditate, I don't get to " shoot up " with the " thrill of spewing " drug. > When all is said and done, there is only the great > black void and the activity it hosts. We are both > the activity and the void. The only difference > between a Jiba and Jnnani is that the sage doesn't > identify with either and is both, while the jiba > identifies and feels itself to be this activity > in his consciousness. You, Edg, seems very happy > with this holy activity bubbling up in you. > Sooner or later the focus will shift toward > the void, the empty, the dark, the silent. Meanwhile, > enjoy the verbal dust devil! Edg: Man, you're good at the head patting. You should start a service. The PittyPattery -- " come in and get validated " -- " today's special: 108 pats and 10 hugs for only $9.95 " I pepper my outer life with inquiry -- stopping for a nonce mid-breath -- this is possible for all activities -- just insert a full stop until the momentum of the samskaras will not be denied. It's silence that is inserted thusly, and, as you say, it is soooooooo attractive -- an oasis where all noise ceases. Nice to have that, and even the space between words becomes enlivened with peace. My ego does cringe to think that I'm spewing so over-the-top-ishly here that I'm seen as a straightout newbie on a shakti pogo stick. Arrrgh. Am I like Indra who at some point has to see that there's been an infinity of Indras before him -- has there been a succession of blabber-mouthed newbies parading with their best strutting here who must be patted on their heads for juggling dogma? Sigh..... All this water everywhere, almost everyone thirsty, and nary a horse can be found to drink. And I come here, and all the horses have drunk their fill already. Fucking hell! Edg " fucking hell " ? now that sounds fucking divine! ..b b.b. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
