Guest guest Report post Posted July 23, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > Edg: I don't like to ask this of someone, cuz, it's a big thing to ask, but can you find any quote from Nisargadatta that could support your notion that purifying the body/mind is useless? Also, I think Nisargadatta is clearly saying that realization is a gift that can only be given to one whose mind is prepared. Otherwise how does one explain Nisargadatta's bhakti actions? > > geo> Nis. purifying the body? He smoked like a chimmney!! Bhakti actions? No, he used to talk " phylosophy " in his cigarette shopp since he was a teenager...and kept doing it till he died. What bhakti? Edg: Yeah, yeah, yeah. He smoked. Yeah, and every guru what ever wuz died of something going wrong with the body's harmony. Getting free doesn't involve getting pure, but the purer body/mind will have a better chance at letting go. As for bhakti, Nisargadatta did pujas every evening, right? Why? What was he doing with that symbolism when he had a crowd watching him in that small upstairs room? It made sense to him, right? He was one tough son-of-a-bitch, right? He'd dump puja if it had no evolutionary merit, right? Can you quote Ramesh saying that Nisargadatta thought puja was " just for show? " Looks to me like I have to man up and re-read Nisargadatta again to find the passages that say what I'm saying, but given your knee-jerk judgmentalism about his smoking and his " jawing about philosophy, " I have to ask you straight up: are you a Nisargadatta true believer or not? If not, then I have no reason to rub your nose in his statements if you're going to invalidate his guru-status. If you do present yourself here as one who says Nisargadatta spoke truth, then I say, you need to study his words more until the meaning dawns on you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 23, 2009 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > > > > >Edg I don't know how to get you to where I'm at > > P: Haha! By making him go back! > > -- I had to saturate myself with Nisargadatta's notions until at least my intellect adopted them as my own point of view. Until that happened I was happy with my interpretations of his words, but now, I just cannot logically go back to my old processes > > P: hahaha! What makes you believe that what you have > now is not your interpretation? Edg: Of course, I still am interpreting, and that's why I'm here: to see if others agree with how I use words that I think I'm using as Nisargadatta used them. So far, no one here is really convincing me that they have even read Nisargadatta once. You sling the lingo purdy good, so I think you've done your homework and that we have a fair chance at congruency. > > > Edg-- they aren't big enough to allure me. They didn't include non-being. Now, I can't be satisfied with less. > > P: that is your clue: SATISFied. If it were truly non-being, > who will be there to be satisfied? Edg: Satisfaction only is a process, so I cannot use that as a metric for enlightenment. Indra would be enlightened if satisfaction was a measurement of worth, but in fact, he's the most attached that you can get to creation. If I were instantly enlightened right now, my ego would still function, but its high opinion of itself would end, since it would realize Identity is real while it is ephemeral. > > > > Inquiry immerses me in that non-beingness whereas residing in being by entering samadhi is living in a small room in a castle. > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 23, 2009 - duveyoung Nisargadatta Thursday, July 23, 2009 12:10 PM Re: Practice Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > Edg: I believe that Nisargadatta would delineate many types of samadhi -- > partial/temporary at one end of the spectrum to full and balanced at the > other end. Do you agree? I'm 100% certain that we can find statements from > Nisargadatta that goes to this issue. > > geo> I prefer not to referr to third parties. Just me and you. To me there > are two situations only: non-duality, no-time, no-known-dimension, > no-knowledge - insight; and the illusion of having some inner separte > observer. In another part you say you feel there is an " I " . So the > question is: is there some unseen part that is seeing other parts in order > to be called a " I " ? Is there? > Edg: I struggle to find comfort that I understand your usage above. You ask: " is there some unseen part? " Answer: No, cuz a part is seeable. That which sees parts is also a part itself. To me the ego is a process that cherry picks all the other parts of my operations and selects only the elite parts and the history of how those elite parts operated as its " history of me. " As if. Denial, eh? That process ends during deep sleep and also during samadhi, but during samadhi, awareness is not lost. The deep sleeping person cannot hear OM, the person in samadhi is fully merged and so there is no one to hear OM -- instead Being OM is realized by the very act of shedding ego's clothing. Residing in this status yields the acuity to finally realize that amness is a cloaking also. Then, and only then, only then in this exaulted state of almost perfect quiescence can Identity be realized as not-thingness. geo> " Answer: No, cuz a part is seeable. That which sees parts is also a part itself. " . Do not see a part - see the whole!! Look, there is this luminous world/consciousness right here (there). The seeing of it, within it, through it, beyond it...is NOT a part of it!!! The seeing is not part of consciousness. All one can do is see consciousness - wholy, then the seeing is the doing, is the being. Let us forget the ego - honestly it will not lead to a good place. Forget it. Fucus in the unfocused seeing of the whole of consciousness. Forget the teachings, the tibetans, the indians - really. In our case there is toooo much if it. Eat it and forget it. avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 090526-0, 26/05/2009 Tested on: 23/7/2009 16:01:30 avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 23, 2009 - duveyoung Nisargadatta Thursday, July 23, 2009 12:41 PM Re: Practice Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > Even the ultimate samadhi -- that of a saint that is in perfect harmony > with ALL THIS -- is but a doorway outside of which one waits until the > Absolute's Grace descends and suddenly -- then the last step is taken, and > this step is the " forever step " from which there is not a possibility of a > return to attachingness. Identity is realized as separate and real and not > " a soul in samadhi. " That's the final step. > -edg- > > Harmony with all this is crap!! Sorry to express it this way. Means > nothing. Either there is ALL THIS only or....fragmentation. No other > possibilities. Waiting for absolute grace is waaaay tooo romantic. When > what is is THIS-ing, nothing excluded, there is no absolute outside to > give one grace. One must look at all this without a trace of concept - > like a new-born child. > -geo- Edg: Sorry, Geo, but I must insist that my reading of Nisargadatta is correct and that my notion about the Absolute and Grace are congruent with his notion. Let me take a chance here by saying I don't think you've read his books enough yet. I had to reread I Am That several times before something clicked for me and suddenly Nisargadatta was talking about freedom from being instead of glorifying being's seamlessness and unity -- qualities, ya see? I think you're attached to glorifying seamlessness....unity of the gunas, samadhi's buzz of OM. No harm if that glorification is the carrot with which to allure the ego into move forward towards dissolving, but definitely wrong-headed if one espouses that unity as the ultimate state. I don't know how to get you to where I'm at -- I had to saturate myself with Nisargadatta's notions until at least my intellect adopted them as my own point of view. Until that happened I was happy with my interpretations of his words, but now, I just cannot logically go back to my old processes -- they aren't big enough to allure me. They didn't include non-being. Now, I can't be satisfied with less. Inquiry immerses me in that non-beingness whereas residing in being by entering samadhi is living in a small room in a castle. geo> We all start from different places. When I read Nis, (just a few month ago) there was no much novelty in it for me. The great thing was to understand the weight of the question who am I. Sorry to talk about myself like this. I realized the I am when I was around 6 years old - did not know how to read much the less knew anything about religion or filosophy. I am saying this out of total humbleness because you seem to attach so much importance to nis words - no harm in that - but....I know nothing of samadhis, or OM. Can not we talk about this with first hand experience? avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 090526-0, 26/05/2009 Tested on: 23/7/2009 16:01:31 avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 23, 2009 - duveyoung Nisargadatta Thursday, July 23, 2009 2:44 PM Re: Practice Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > Edg: I don't like to ask this of someone, cuz, it's a big thing to ask, > but can you find any quote from Nisargadatta that could support your > notion that purifying the body/mind is useless? Also, I think Nisargadatta > is clearly saying that realization is a gift that can only be given to one > whose mind is prepared. Otherwise how does one explain Nisargadatta's > bhakti actions? > > geo> Nis. purifying the body? He smoked like a chimmney!! Bhakti actions? > No, he used to talk " phylosophy " in his cigarette shopp since he was a > teenager...and kept doing it till he died. What bhakti? Edg: Yeah, yeah, yeah. He smoked. Yeah, and every guru what ever wuz died of something going wrong with the body's harmony. Getting free doesn't involve getting pure, but the purer body/mind will have a better chance at letting go. As for bhakti, Nisargadatta did pujas every evening, right? Why? What was he doing with that symbolism when he had a crowd watching him in that small upstairs room? It made sense to him, right? He was one tough son-of-a-bitch, right? He'd dump puja if it had no evolutionary merit, right? Can you quote Ramesh saying that Nisargadatta thought puja was " just for show? " geo> But edg....Nis was asked about his cerimonial behaviour and he himself said that was nothing...just something to satisfy the audience, the indians and perhaps for having nothing else to do. He said so. == Looks to me like I have to man up and re-read Nisargadatta again to find the passages that say what I'm saying, but given your knee-jerk judgmentalism about his smoking and his " jawing about philosophy, " I have to ask you straight up: are you a Nisargadatta true believer or not? If not, then I have no reason to rub your nose in his statements if you're going to invalidate his guru-status. If you do present yourself here as one who says Nisargadatta spoke truth, then I say, you need to study his words more until the meaning dawns on you. -edg- I am not a Nis.true beliver - god save me from that. I am not a believer in anything at all - no need. This brilliance talks by itself, it doesnt need intermediaries, attorneys, or interpreters. The whole of the wonderment is here. Bu I have nis message right here with me alright!! Now kill him again. -geo- avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 090526-0, 26/05/2009 Tested on: 23/7/2009 16:01:33 avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 23, 2009 Inquiry immerses me in that non-beingness whereas residing in being by entering samadhi is living in a small room in a castle. -edg- I have no idea of what samadhi might be. All I know is being nothing - so everything......and then not even that. What samadhi??? -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 23, 2009 Dan, Could you clarify what you wrote below? < "If you bump up against someone else in the grocery store, at the moment of the bump, there aren't two separate things hitting." > Do you mean that two bodies (psychophysical processes - not "things") bump into one another? Or is that the "sensation" *interpreted* as "two objects or bodies" colliding? Thanks, Michael Adamson < There simply aren't any others.< If you bump up against someone else in the grocery store, at the moment of the bump, there aren't two separate things hitting.< Separate others are an interpretation, not an actuality.< Language makes it seem like named things have their own separate existences.< There is no separable one who can be aware of awareness.< One's perceptual objects can fool one.< It seems that others interact, perceptually.< Being aware is not to be fooled by perceptions.< - D - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 23, 2009 Nisargadatta , " duveyoung " <edg wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > Even the ultimate samadhi -- that of a saint that is in perfect harmony with ALL THIS -- is but a doorway outside of which one waits until the Absolute's Grace descends and suddenly -- then the last step is taken, and this step is the " forever step " from which there is not a possibility of a return to attachingness. Identity is realized as separate and real and not " a soul in samadhi. " That's the final step. > > -edg- > > > > Harmony with all this is crap!! Sorry to express it this way. Means nothing. Either there is ALL THIS only or....fragmentation. No other possibilities. Waiting for absolute grace is waaaay tooo romantic. When what is is THIS-ing, nothing excluded, there is no absolute outside to give one grace. One must look at all this without a trace of concept - like a new-born child. > > -geo- > > Edg: Sorry, Geo, but I must insist that my reading of Nisargadatta is correct and that my notion about the Absolute and Grace are congruent with his notion. Let me take a chance here by saying I don't think you've read his books enough yet. I had to reread I Am That several times before something clicked for me and suddenly Nisargadatta was talking about freedom from being instead of glorifying being's seamlessness and unity -- qualities, ya see? > > I think you're attached to glorifying seamlessness....unity of the gunas, samadhi's buzz of OM. No harm if that glorification is the carrot with which to allure the ego into move forward towards dissolving, but definitely wrong-headed if one espouses that unity as the ultimate state. > > I don't know how to get you to where I'm at -- I had to saturate myself with Nisargadatta's notions until at least my intellect adopted them as my own point of view. Until that happened I was happy with my interpretations of his words, but now, I just cannot logically go back to my old processes -- they aren't big enough to allure me. They didn't include non-being. Now, I can't be satisfied with less. Inquiry immerses me in that non-beingness whereas residing in being by entering samadhi is living in a small room in a castle. It's way smaller than that. Infinitesimal, in fact. Not room for even one concept to attach. Let alone a lot of someone else's concepts. Preparation for no-time? I dun' thin' so ... - D - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 23, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " duveyoung " <edg@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > Even the ultimate samadhi -- that of a saint that is in perfect harmony with ALL THIS -- is but a doorway outside of which one waits until the Absolute's Grace descends and suddenly -- then the last step is taken, and this step is the " forever step " from which there is not a possibility of a return to attachingness. Identity is realized as separate and real and not " a soul in samadhi. " That's the final step. > > > -edg- > > > > > > Harmony with all this is crap!! Sorry to express it this way. Means nothing. Either there is ALL THIS only or....fragmentation. No other possibilities. Waiting for absolute grace is waaaay tooo romantic. When what is is THIS-ing, nothing excluded, there is no absolute outside to give one grace. One must look at all this without a trace of concept - like a new-born child. > > > -geo- > > > > Edg: Sorry, Geo, but I must insist that my reading of Nisargadatta is correct and that my notion about the Absolute and Grace are congruent with his notion. Let me take a chance here by saying I don't think you've read his books enough yet. I had to reread I Am That several times before something clicked for me and suddenly Nisargadatta was talking about freedom from being instead of glorifying being's seamlessness and unity -- qualities, ya see? > > > > I think you're attached to glorifying seamlessness....unity of the gunas, samadhi's buzz of OM. No harm if that glorification is the carrot with which to allure the ego into move forward towards dissolving, but definitely wrong-headed if one espouses that unity as the ultimate state. > > > > I don't know how to get you to where I'm at -- I had to saturate myself with Nisargadatta's notions until at least my intellect adopted them as my own point of view. Until that happened I was happy with my interpretations of his words, but now, I just cannot logically go back to my old processes -- they aren't big enough to allure me. They didn't include non-being. Now, I can't be satisfied with less. Inquiry immerses me in that non-beingness whereas residing in being by entering samadhi is living in a small room in a castle. > > > It's way smaller than that. > > Infinitesimal, in fact. > > Not room for even one concept to attach. > > Let alone a lot of someone else's concepts. > > Preparation for no-time? > > I dun' thin' so ... > > - D - > Freedom IZ Plenty of ROOM Fer the whole Kit & Caboodle As well as no room: Freedom for no room At all (No room at the inn For baby jesus and co Awww...) There's always No/Room SOME where! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 23, 2009 Hi Michael - I meant physically bumping into. But it could also be psychologically bumping into. And yes, as you indicate, the sensation can be interpreted as two things that are distinct and separate that collided temporarily, affected each other, then go their different ways. But, the sensation doesn't have to be interpreted that way. At the instant of the sensation, there is simply the sensing, the sensation-event. Whatever it is and however it is. It simply is, as it is. I don't mean that there is an interpreter who makes choices about how to interpret sensation-events. I mean that there simply is the sensing-event, choicelessly. Interpreting is actually a sense-event as well. If understood clearly, at this instant, there is no interpretation possible. Whatever sensing is happening, is sensed as is. Not sensed by someone. Any someone is just another sense-event. The actual fact does not involve separate things that bump into each other. But the conventional contents of thought make it seem as if this were what occurs. Yet, thought is also a sensed event. Immediacy is timeless awareness. - Dan - Nisargadatta , " Michael Adamson " <adamson wrote: > > > Dan, > > Could you clarify what you wrote below? < " If you bump up against someone else in the grocery store, at the moment of the bump, there aren't two separate things hitting. " > > > Do you mean that two bodies (psychophysical processes - not " things " ) bump into one another? Or is that the " sensation " *interpreted* as " two objects or bodies " colliding? > > Thanks, > Michael > Adamson > > > < There simply aren't any others. > < If you bump up against someone else in the grocery store, at the moment of the bump, there aren't two separate things hitting. > < Separate others are an interpretation, not an actuality. > < Language makes it seem like named things have their own separate existences. > < There is no separable one who can be aware of awareness. > < One's perceptual objects can fool one. > < It seems that others interact, perceptually. > < Being aware is not to be fooled by perceptions. > < - D - > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 23, 2009 Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " duveyoung " <edg@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Even the ultimate samadhi -- that of a saint that is in perfect harmony with ALL THIS -- is but a doorway outside of which one waits until the Absolute's Grace descends and suddenly -- then the last step is taken, and this step is the " forever step " from which there is not a possibility of a return to attachingness. Identity is realized as separate and real and not " a soul in samadhi. " That's the final step. > > > > -edg- > > > > > > > > Harmony with all this is crap!! Sorry to express it this way. Means nothing. Either there is ALL THIS only or....fragmentation. No other possibilities. Waiting for absolute grace is waaaay tooo romantic. When what is is THIS-ing, nothing excluded, there is no absolute outside to give one grace. One must look at all this without a trace of concept - like a new-born child. > > > > -geo- > > > > > > Edg: Sorry, Geo, but I must insist that my reading of Nisargadatta is correct and that my notion about the Absolute and Grace are congruent with his notion. Let me take a chance here by saying I don't think you've read his books enough yet. I had to reread I Am That several times before something clicked for me and suddenly Nisargadatta was talking about freedom from being instead of glorifying being's seamlessness and unity -- qualities, ya see? > > > > > > I think you're attached to glorifying seamlessness....unity of the gunas, samadhi's buzz of OM. No harm if that glorification is the carrot with which to allure the ego into move forward towards dissolving, but definitely wrong-headed if one espouses that unity as the ultimate state. > > > > > > I don't know how to get you to where I'm at -- I had to saturate myself with Nisargadatta's notions until at least my intellect adopted them as my own point of view. Until that happened I was happy with my interpretations of his words, but now, I just cannot logically go back to my old processes -- they aren't big enough to allure me. They didn't include non-being. Now, I can't be satisfied with less. Inquiry immerses me in that non-beingness whereas residing in being by entering samadhi is living in a small room in a castle. > > > > > > It's way smaller than that. > > > > Infinitesimal, in fact. > > > > Not room for even one concept to attach. > > > > Let alone a lot of someone else's concepts. > > > > Preparation for no-time? > > > > I dun' thin' so ... > > > > - D - > > > > > > Freedom > > IZ > > Plenty of > > ROOM > > Fer the whole > > Kit & Caboodle > > > As well as no room: > > Freedom for no room > > At all > > > (No room at the inn > > For baby jesus and co > > > Awww...) > > > > There's always > > No/Room > > SOME where! There's no " and " ... no " and this " " and that. " Freedom is free of freedom. Free of " and's. " Joshu said: Mu. He meant it. He didn't say it. He roared it. There's nothing to celebrate. Whaaaaaa!!! I wanna have a party, invite all my friends, and this one, and that one, and this state, and this other state. Not. - Dan -- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 24, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " duveyoung " <edg@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Even the ultimate samadhi -- that of a saint that is in perfect harmony with ALL THIS -- is but a doorway outside of which one waits until the Absolute's Grace descends and suddenly -- then the last step is taken, and this step is the " forever step " from which there is not a possibility of a return to attachingness. Identity is realized as separate and real and not " a soul in samadhi. " That's the final step. > > > > > -edg- > > > > > > > > > > Harmony with all this is crap!! Sorry to express it this way. Means nothing. Either there is ALL THIS only or....fragmentation. No other possibilities. Waiting for absolute grace is waaaay tooo romantic. When what is is THIS-ing, nothing excluded, there is no absolute outside to give one grace. One must look at all this without a trace of concept - like a new-born child. > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > Edg: Sorry, Geo, but I must insist that my reading of Nisargadatta is correct and that my notion about the Absolute and Grace are congruent with his notion. Let me take a chance here by saying I don't think you've read his books enough yet. I had to reread I Am That several times before something clicked for me and suddenly Nisargadatta was talking about freedom from being instead of glorifying being's seamlessness and unity -- qualities, ya see? > > > > > > > > I think you're attached to glorifying seamlessness....unity of the gunas, samadhi's buzz of OM. No harm if that glorification is the carrot with which to allure the ego into move forward towards dissolving, but definitely wrong-headed if one espouses that unity as the ultimate state. > > > > > > > > I don't know how to get you to where I'm at -- I had to saturate myself with Nisargadatta's notions until at least my intellect adopted them as my own point of view. Until that happened I was happy with my interpretations of his words, but now, I just cannot logically go back to my old processes -- they aren't big enough to allure me. They didn't include non-being. Now, I can't be satisfied with less. Inquiry immerses me in that non-beingness whereas residing in being by entering samadhi is living in a small room in a castle. > > > > > > > > > It's way smaller than that. > > > > > > Infinitesimal, in fact. > > > > > > Not room for even one concept to attach. > > > > > > Let alone a lot of someone else's concepts. > > > > > > Preparation for no-time? > > > > > > I dun' thin' so ... > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > > Freedom > > > > IZ > > > > Plenty of > > > > ROOM > > > > Fer the whole > > > > Kit & Caboodle > > > > > > As well as no room: > > > > Freedom for no room > > > > At all > > > > > > (No room at the inn > > > > For baby jesus and co > > > > > > Awww...) > > > > > > > > There's always > > > > No/Room > > > > SOME where! > > > There's no " and " ... no " and this " " and that. " > > Freedom is free of freedom. > > Free of " and's. " > > > Joshu said: Mu. > > He meant it. > > > He didn't say it. > > He roared it. > > > There's nothing to celebrate. > > > Whaaaaaa!!! > > > I wanna have a party, invite all my friends, and this one, and that one, and this state, and this other state. > > > Not. > > > - Dan -- > OK The uni verse Has it's not's and knots I prefer it's yeses and yeahs I embrace it All (For me) There is no Way to Freedom: Freedom IS The Way. Always, Already, Here, Now. Any, Anyway. Absolutely ANY Way Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 24, 2009 Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " duveyoung " <edg@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Even the ultimate samadhi -- that of a saint that is in perfect harmony with ALL THIS -- is but a doorway outside of which one waits until the Absolute's Grace descends and suddenly -- then the last step is taken, and this step is the " forever step " from which there is not a possibility of a return to attachingness. Identity is realized as separate and real and not " a soul in samadhi. " That's the final step. > > > > > > -edg- > > > > > > > > > > > > Harmony with all this is crap!! Sorry to express it this way. Means nothing. Either there is ALL THIS only or....fragmentation. No other possibilities. Waiting for absolute grace is waaaay tooo romantic. When what is is THIS-ing, nothing excluded, there is no absolute outside to give one grace. One must look at all this without a trace of concept - like a new-born child. > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > Edg: Sorry, Geo, but I must insist that my reading of Nisargadatta is correct and that my notion about the Absolute and Grace are congruent with his notion. Let me take a chance here by saying I don't think you've read his books enough yet. I had to reread I Am That several times before something clicked for me and suddenly Nisargadatta was talking about freedom from being instead of glorifying being's seamlessness and unity -- qualities, ya see? > > > > > > > > > > I think you're attached to glorifying seamlessness....unity of the gunas, samadhi's buzz of OM. No harm if that glorification is the carrot with which to allure the ego into move forward towards dissolving, but definitely wrong-headed if one espouses that unity as the ultimate state. > > > > > > > > > > I don't know how to get you to where I'm at -- I had to saturate myself with Nisargadatta's notions until at least my intellect adopted them as my own point of view. Until that happened I was happy with my interpretations of his words, but now, I just cannot logically go back to my old processes -- they aren't big enough to allure me. They didn't include non-being. Now, I can't be satisfied with less. Inquiry immerses me in that non-beingness whereas residing in being by entering samadhi is living in a small room in a castle. > > > > > > > > > > > > It's way smaller than that. > > > > > > > > Infinitesimal, in fact. > > > > > > > > Not room for even one concept to attach. > > > > > > > > Let alone a lot of someone else's concepts. > > > > > > > > Preparation for no-time? > > > > > > > > I dun' thin' so ... > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Freedom > > > > > > IZ > > > > > > Plenty of > > > > > > ROOM > > > > > > Fer the whole > > > > > > Kit & Caboodle > > > > > > > > > As well as no room: > > > > > > Freedom for no room > > > > > > At all > > > > > > > > > (No room at the inn > > > > > > For baby jesus and co > > > > > > > > > Awww...) > > > > > > > > > > > > There's always > > > > > > No/Room > > > > > > SOME where! > > > > > > There's no " and " ... no " and this " " and that. " > > > > Freedom is free of freedom. > > > > Free of " and's. " > > > > > > Joshu said: Mu. > > > > He meant it. > > > > > > He didn't say it. > > > > He roared it. > > > > > > There's nothing to celebrate. > > > > > > Whaaaaaa!!! > > > > > > I wanna have a party, invite all my friends, and this one, and that one, and this state, and this other state. > > > > > > Not. > > > > > > - Dan -- > > > > > OK > > The uni verse > > Has it's not's and knots > > > I prefer it's yeses and yeahs > > > > I embrace it All > > > > (For me) > > There is no Way to Freedom: > > > > Freedom IS The Way. > > > > Always, > > Already, > > Here, > > Now. > > > > Any, > > Anyway. > > > > Absolutely > > ANY Way Yes, there is no way to freedom. Freedom is the way. Nothing is in the way. Literally. There is nothing in the way of this, and there is nothing in this way. Neither yes nor no is in the way. Nor is there a yes or a no in it. Nothing to add to it. Nothing to subtract from it. Even a name isn't added. And no one was ever taken out of it, who would have to find a way to return to it, or a name for it. -- Dan -- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 24, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " duveyoung " <edg@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Even the ultimate samadhi -- that of a saint that is in perfect harmony with ALL THIS -- is but a doorway outside of which one waits until the Absolute's Grace descends and suddenly -- then the last step is taken, and this step is the " forever step " from which there is not a possibility of a return to attachingness. Identity is realized as separate and real and not " a soul in samadhi. " That's the final step. > > > > > > > -edg- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Harmony with all this is crap!! Sorry to express it this way. Means nothing. Either there is ALL THIS only or....fragmentation. No other possibilities. Waiting for absolute grace is waaaay tooo romantic. When what is is THIS-ing, nothing excluded, there is no absolute outside to give one grace. One must look at all this without a trace of concept - like a new-born child. > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > Edg: Sorry, Geo, but I must insist that my reading of Nisargadatta is correct and that my notion about the Absolute and Grace are congruent with his notion. Let me take a chance here by saying I don't think you've read his books enough yet. I had to reread I Am That several times before something clicked for me and suddenly Nisargadatta was talking about freedom from being instead of glorifying being's seamlessness and unity -- qualities, ya see? > > > > > > > > > > > > I think you're attached to glorifying seamlessness....unity of the gunas, samadhi's buzz of OM. No harm if that glorification is the carrot with which to allure the ego into move forward towards dissolving, but definitely wrong-headed if one espouses that unity as the ultimate state. > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't know how to get you to where I'm at -- I had to saturate myself with Nisargadatta's notions until at least my intellect adopted them as my own point of view. Until that happened I was happy with my interpretations of his words, but now, I just cannot logically go back to my old processes -- they aren't big enough to allure me. They didn't include non-being. Now, I can't be satisfied with less. Inquiry immerses me in that non-beingness whereas residing in being by entering samadhi is living in a small room in a castle. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's way smaller than that. > > > > > > > > > > Infinitesimal, in fact. > > > > > > > > > > Not room for even one concept to attach. > > > > > > > > > > Let alone a lot of someone else's concepts. > > > > > > > > > > Preparation for no-time? > > > > > > > > > > I dun' thin' so ... > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Freedom > > > > > > > > IZ > > > > > > > > Plenty of > > > > > > > > ROOM > > > > > > > > Fer the whole > > > > > > > > Kit & Caboodle > > > > > > > > > > > > As well as no room: > > > > > > > > Freedom for no room > > > > > > > > At all > > > > > > > > > > > > (No room at the inn > > > > > > > > For baby jesus and co > > > > > > > > > > > > Awww...) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There's always > > > > > > > > No/Room > > > > > > > > SOME where! > > > > > > > > > There's no " and " ... no " and this " " and that. " > > > > > > Freedom is free of freedom. > > > > > > Free of " and's. " > > > > > > > > > Joshu said: Mu. > > > > > > He meant it. > > > > > > > > > He didn't say it. > > > > > > He roared it. > > > > > > > > > There's nothing to celebrate. > > > > > > > > > Whaaaaaa!!! > > > > > > > > > I wanna have a party, invite all my friends, and this one, and that one, and this state, and this other state. > > > > > > > > > Not. > > > > > > > > > - Dan -- > > > > > > > > > OK > > > > The uni verse > > > > Has it's not's and knots > > > > > > I prefer it's yeses and yeahs > > > > > > > > I embrace it All > > > > > > > > (For me) > > > > There is no Way to Freedom: > > > > > > > > Freedom IS The Way. > > > > > > > > Always, > > > > Already, > > > > Here, > > > > Now. > > > > > > > > Any, > > > > Anyway. > > > > > > > > Absolutely > > > > ANY Way > > > Yes, there is no way to freedom. > > Freedom is the way. > > > Nothing is in the way. > > Literally. > > There is nothing in the way of this, and there is nothing in this way. > > > > Neither yes nor no is in the way. > > Nor is there a yes or a no in it. > > > > Nothing to add to it. > > Nothing to subtract from it. > > > Even a name isn't added. > > > > And no one was ever taken out of it, who would have to find a way to return to it, or a name for it. > > > -- Dan -- > Right. And/or/but/both/neither Is there any Finality in this Either... ) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 24, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > There's no " and " ... no " and this " " and that. " > > Freedom is free of freedom. > > Free of " and's. " > > > Joshu said: Mu. > > He meant it. > > > He didn't say it. > > He roared it. > > > There's nothing to celebrate. > > > Whaaaaaa!!! Yup... Emptiness is empty even of emptiness. Not even a single, solitary mental picture to suggest this ;-). > - Dan -- - Peace... -- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 24, 2009 Hi Dan, Got it! Thanks! Michael *********************************************** < Hi Michael - < I meant physically bumping into.< But it could also be psychologically bumping into.< And yes, as you indicate, the sensation can be interpreted as two things that are distinct and separate that collided temporarily, affected each other, then go their different ways.< But, the sensation doesn't have to be interpreted that way.< At the instant of the sensation, there is simply the sensing, the sensation-event. Whatever it is and however it is. It simply is, as it is.< I don't mean that there is an interpreter who makes choices about how to interpret sensation-events.< I mean that there simply is the sensing-event, choicelessly.< Interpreting is actually a sense-event as well.< If understood clearly, at this instant, there is no interpretation possible.< Whatever sensing is happening, is sensed as is.< Not sensed by someone.< Any someone is just another sense-event.< The actual fact does not involve separate things that bump into each other.< But the conventional contents of thought make it seem as if this were what occurs.< Yet, thought is also a sensed event.< Immediacy is timeless awareness.< - Dan -Nisargadatta , "Michael Adamson" <adamson wrote:>> > Dan,> > Could you clarify what you wrote below? < "If you bump up against someone else in the grocery store, at the moment of the bump, there aren't two separate things hitting." >> > Do you mean that two bodies (psychophysical processes - not "things") bump into one another? Or is that the "sensation" *interpreted* as "two objects or bodies" colliding?> > Thanks,> Michael> Adamson > > > < There simply aren't any others.> < If you bump up against someone else in the grocery store, at the moment of the bump, there aren't two separate things hitting.> < Separate others are an interpretation, not an actuality.> < Language makes it seem like named things have their own separate existences.> < There is no separable one who can be aware of awareness.> < One's perceptual objects can fool one.> < It seems that others interact, perceptually.> < Being aware is not to be fooled by perceptions.> < - D -> Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
