Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org
Sign in to follow this  
Guest guest

Ego, realization, conceptual and nonconceptual

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Edg:

 

When the individual's nervous system is experiencing the least state

of excitation required to remain alive—this is defined as pure-Being,

samadhi, etc. (India is replete with stories of saints who are

sealed into caves and only come out once a year for a breath and then

back to samadhi -- almost no food or water is needed by such quiet systems.)

 

The ego is said to be perfect in its unity with Being when the

body/mind is in this quiescence, and that the ego's status is equal

to that of the so-called Cosmic Ego, God's Ego, The Ego of Universal

Consciousness (Being.)

 

Despite its unity-status, until " realization, " ego's re-emergence

from Being is due to a samskara that is not " burnt by the fires of

knowledge " and that thusly remains during samadhi that then again

founds the ego's potential-to-manifest out of this " perfection of

Being. " " Perfection " here means, " as if nondual " in that the unity

of Being, samadhi, is unsullied by motion/thought/feeling — which, if

present, would mean that the ego had become the doppelganger for

the " absentee Absolute " and thus assume its role as the subjective

aspect of relative manifestation.

 

Being/samadhi is " as close as possible " to being a perfect symbol of

the Absolute in that 1. No thing-ness exists (ignoring the special

case of Being having thingness in that it has the characteristic

of " existing without a manifest observer,) and 2. Being has the

potential to symbolize sentience once it manifests creation.

 

When we use the reflection/mirror analogy, we immediately understand

that though the Relative is a " mirror " that might " reflect, " it

has " no one " to reflect " to " since the Absolute is beyond any quality

or non-quality—including the quality of " the ability to receive a

reflection from a non-thing. "

 

Thus is the " Mexican standoff " created.

 

We have no egoic actions during samadhi, and the Absolute, of course,

does no actions (and does no not-doing either.) What then, is the

recognizer of the nonconceptual during samadhi or out of samadhi?

 

Only when immersed in Being do we have an " experience " that

intellectually satisfies us (after the experience, not during it) when

we use it as Being as a symbol for the Absolute, but when the ego

manifests -- becomes a recognizer -- then it must necessarily be

dualistically appreciative (limited,) and relegated to the status of being

a " reviewer of the past " which then juggles qualities that are

bogusly proffered as symbols of the experience of pure Being. This

is merely a case of the ego recognizing " mental actions outside of

samadhi " that are resonant with the ego's " sense of self, " during

samadhi, and in no way is the ego " reliving " or " remembering " the

experience of Being but instead is recalling the experience of its

emergence from the " absoluteness " of Being. This emergence is " done "

at the finer levels of consciousness (subtle, very quiet body/mind

movements.) The experience of the finest level of consciousness is

bliss, and you must slip " through " bliss as you enter samadhi and

once again as you emerge from it. During samadhi, it is like

dreamless sleep—which itself is considered by Nisargadatta as another

" fit " symbol for the Absolute. Emergence from samadhi is a true birth

process, a true re-incarnation of the ego occurs.

 

The ego pretends to be sentient, a real observer, the " absolute

witness " of that samadhi experience when, in fact, it is merely an

editing-of-memory function of the nervous system.

 

The ego is NEVER in a position to recognize anything but, well,

things, and even then the ego is a part of the recognition process,

not the knower of the recognition process. The best that can be said

is that the ego pretends to relive experiences, via memory, of

entering or leaving pure Being and that these become symbolic of the

entering-unity experience. There is no way for ego or any other

process to directly experience anything—being a process and non-

sentient. This whole process is as dead as it would be if it were

observed in a Hollywood conception of a futuristic robot's mind. No

sentience is found—only processes that can be used as limited symbols

of it are found.

 

So, again, what is the recognizer? The manifest ego pretends and

does not actually recognize, and the Absolute is beyond action/non-

action and never is/isn't a recognizer.

 

Thus, no enlightenment is possible—there being no entity that could

somehow " suddenly get a whole bunch more sentience " or whatever other

poetic expression that might come up to justify that some " thing "

becomes enlightened. The ego is annihilated when it enters samadhi,

and only by " pure grace " does the so-called " Big Self disidentify

with the small self. " Spontaneously—beyond causality—grace " flows "

and suddenly what? Suddenly the samskara that is the basis of the

ego's emergence is burnt by the true fire of knowledge—grace, a gift

from the beyond. Suddenly, the whole nervous system shifts

paradigms, and the egoic processes begin to speak of the illusory

nature of manifestation, of the non-ness of itself, of the wholeness

of Being's infinite correlation with itself, etc.

 

Suddenly the ego speaks with authority as it denies its authority.

Suddenly the ego is guru who says, " Within is the guru—I'm only here

to tell you you're looking in the wrong direction for me. "

 

What happened? How did this come about that suddenly the ego

has " gotten it? "

 

Nothing happens, of course, when we see the world through Advaita

tinted lenses, but on a grosser level of existence, we strain the

limitations of language to assign meaning to this circumstance. The

blind ego suddenly sees the REAL, everywhere, and yet maintains the

illusion of the conceptual. Why is the ego so certain?

 

Here's how I am presently talking about this to myself: the nervous

system gradually gets thoroughly saturated with the Advaita

Concepts -- concepts are patterns of ideation that must necessarily

have physicality underlying them. All the masters suggest that

" hanging out with the enlightened " is a powerful technique; also,

Ramana and Nisargadatta both did the Hindu rituals with bajans

and pujas etc., and they had dialogue with their devotees in which

all the forms of yoga and other paths to enlightenment are thoroughly

discussed over and over and over and over and over.

 

The practice of self inquiry leads to samadhi that burns up the

samskaras, and when the mind/body system is

thus purified, THEN, grace " can finally withdraw identification with

the small self. " This means that the body/mind is now in perfect

accord with the " intent of Universal Consciousness " and the " lineage "

of all experiences of that body/mind is such that it is directly

flowing, untouched, unedited, straight out of Being. This is the

status that allows the ego to " let go of the notion of doership. "

The ego, in such a mind free of samskaras, finally has a nervous

system that has the clarity to see the utterly mysterious nature of

manifestation, finally can see that causality is a crock, finally can

see its own impotency, finally can adore spontaneous right actions

that are unwavering true to their most subtle origins, and in the end

can " retire " when it sees that all the jobs of doership are filled

by " God " and that its role of subjectivity is proper but

identification with that subjectivity no longer is present and the

illusion of sentience is evaporated.

 

Once you see the snake as a rope, the fear of the snake is gone, and,

so too, the ego can retire from being " that which can be harmed by

snakebite " —that which never was snake-bitable even if a real snake

has been there.

 

In the end, we are left with the Absolute and with (without too) a

mind/body system that is wholly automatic (it always was but the ego

had not surrendered to this fact due to lack of saturation/clarity.)

 

The mind/body now glorifies the Absolute as the source of Being that

has no explanation for itself….and no need to have one. The ego

never gets enlightened but it begins to act in the ways that only the

enlightened act. Knowing its own thingness, the ego, properly

aligned at last in a harmonious, unified mind/body system, has no

pretensions of sentience. The Absolute did nothing; Being's ego

finds out it " is nothing " and is satisfied to know that it is as

close to being Absolute as it can get, and that while it no longer

thinks of itself as the Absolute, the Absolute is understood to never

have identified with it in the first place—that being a delusion of

the ego's grandeur.

 

Realization, then, is a misnomer. Nothing is realized—meaning the

nothingness of the conceptual is finally integrated into the

perceptual, the mental, the psychological, the physical, etc. to such

a degree that it is taken as truth by the WHOLE mind/body system with

such certainty that clarity is present at the most subtle levels of

the thinking processes. It is not a clarity about the Absolute but

rather of the non-ness of the conceptual.

 

The ego, after realization, is not working overtime to conceptually

designate all experiences as illusory or anything else to " maintain "

realization. It is truly convinced of the illusory nature of

manifestation, and so, it has no need to shore-up its opinions

anymore with constant dogma-lessons. Hence, no egoic functions come

up. The mind/body, now relieved of the pressures of the ego to

support the " I'm sentient " stance, is an automaton that is EXACTLY of

the same ilk as we happen upon in our night dreams. In our normal

dreams we have many " other characters " and also our " dream self " that

interacts with these other characters. These other characters are

being manufactured by the sleeping-REM-state brain and are considered

by us, when we awaken, to have never been anything but a mental

processing of autonomic functions of the dreaming mind. Just so,

does the realized mind/body slough off identification—in exactly the

same manner that we disidentify with the life-intent of the dream

characters we " are " in dreams. When we awaken, no matter how

important the actions of the dream character seem to be, we do not

regret the unfinished business of the dream once waking consciousness

is upon us. We don't pine away our morning hours worrying about our

dream children who no longer have our dream parenting. Why? Because

we see the non-ness of those children with such clarity that

identification cannot take place.

 

When the ego realizes that it cannot realize, then the ego realizes

that the REAL never goes through a process in order to be REAL, and

in fact, the REAL has not manifested ever—no REAL-ization took

place. The REAL always is, the ego never is. The whole seeking

process was merely the ego finding out its true status—illusory non-

entity-ness—and having the common sense from that point to stay out

of God's way as the body/mind now fulfill a cosmic purpose beyond the

ken of the ego.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

When the ego realizes that it cannot realize, then the ego realizes

that the REAL never goes through a process in order to be REAL, and

in fact, the REAL has not manifested ever-no REAL-ization took

place. The REAL always is, the ego never is. The whole seeking

process was merely the ego finding out its true status-illusory non-

entity-ness-and having the common sense from that point to stay out

of God's way as the body/mind now fulfill a cosmic purpose beyond the

ken of the ego.

-edg-

 

The mind, the thinking mind realizes that it can not realize anything. But

you seem to know...

Has it happened to you? Is the REAL present?

-geo-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> When the ego realizes that it cannot realize, then the ego realizes

> that the REAL never goes through a process in order to be REAL, and

> in fact, the REAL has not manifested ever-no REAL-ization took

> place. The REAL always is, the ego never is. The whole seeking

> process was merely the ego finding out its true status-illusory non-

> entity-ness-and having the common sense from that point to stay out

> of God's way as the body/mind now fulfill a cosmic purpose beyond the

> ken of the ego.

> -edg-

>

> The mind, the thinking mind realizes that it can not realize anything. But

> you seem to know...

> Has it happened to you? Is the REAL present?

> -geo-

 

Edg: Sorry, Geo, it sucks to be me. Bear with me in my ignorance. You seem

convinced that you're enlightened. Hooray for you, and thus, no, I don't expect

that your NOW has to be exclusively congruent to Nisargadatta's explanations,

but I do expect your words to fall into a ballpark where all philosophies

reside. I'm not sure you can be said to be enlightened by my definitions -- I

cannot get inside your head nor can I see you within the " intellectually

defined " ballpark of my personal design.

 

Given how you've been expressing yourself here though, I find myself unwilling

to slog through all the words and all the possible meanings to try to get us

both using words the same way. I don't have faith in you, but I do in

Nisargadatta.

 

If you have a book published of your conversations with thousands of devotees --

hassling out the challenges -- then if you are truly enlightened, your book

should be precise and consistent without fail. I find your usages to be fuzzy

and not jiggy with my expectations. I never find Nisargadatta contradicting

himself -- or for that matter -- disagreeing with Ramana's Advaitic statements.

These two giants were models of precision usage. Your few posts here are far

from being enough proof for me to try to adopt your word usage.

 

As one who is not saying anything that hasn't been intellectually given to me

previously, I cannot claim to espouse these concepts from life experience nearly

so much as from being a true believer who is willing to parrot those who seem to

be enlightened. I have a many decades long spiritual practice, and I've had my

share of wondrous moments, transcendental ecstasies, etc. But my memory of

those events doesn't qualify me for speaking about enlightenment, and so I try

to be in harmony with those who I think are the spiritual experts.

 

Enlightenment is like a water well that's surrounded all around by water -- no

need for the well even though its water will slake a thirst. Just so,

Nisargadatta's words are well water, and your experience of wholeness is

flooding your reality with water all around, so no need for Nisargadatta's words

to guide your intellect into a greater clarity about water so that one day you

might recognize that water is everywhere. Your east has zero motivation to meet

my west. I need precision words right now to shore up motivation to do inquiry.

By your words, I would say you have no need to do inquiry. Why are you here?

Are you a world master who's going to reincarnate again and again until the

likes of me are saved?

 

Edg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

-

duveyoung

Nisargadatta

Thursday, July 23, 2009 5:29 PM

Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and nonconceptual

 

 

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> When the ego realizes that it cannot realize, then the ego realizes

> that the REAL never goes through a process in order to be REAL, and

> in fact, the REAL has not manifested ever-no REAL-ization took

> place. The REAL always is, the ego never is. The whole seeking

> process was merely the ego finding out its true status-illusory non-

> entity-ness-and having the common sense from that point to stay out

> of God's way as the body/mind now fulfill a cosmic purpose beyond the

> ken of the ego.

> -edg-

>

> The mind, the thinking mind realizes that it can not realize anything. But

> you seem to know...

> Has it happened to you? Is the REAL present?

> -geo-

 

Edg: Sorry, Geo, it sucks to be me. Bear with me in my ignorance. You seem

convinced that you're enlightened. Hooray for you, and thus, no, I don't

expect that your NOW has to be exclusively congruent to Nisargadatta's

explanations, but I do expect your words to fall into a ballpark where all

philosophies reside. I'm not sure you can be said to be enlightened by my

definitions -- I cannot get inside your head nor can I see you within the

" intellectually defined " ballpark of my personal design.

 

Given how you've been expressing yourself here though, I find myself

unwilling to slog through all the words and all the possible meanings to try

to get us both using words the same way. I don't have faith in you, but I do

in Nisargadatta.

 

If you have a book published of your conversations with thousands of

devotees -- hassling out the challenges -- then if you are truly

enlightened, your book should be precise and consistent without fail. I find

your usages to be fuzzy and not jiggy with my expectations. I never find

Nisargadatta contradicting himself -- or for that matter -- disagreeing with

Ramana's Advaitic statements. These two giants were models of precision

usage. Your few posts here are far from being enough proof for me to try to

adopt your word usage.

 

As one who is not saying anything that hasn't been intellectually given to

me previously, I cannot claim to espouse these concepts from life experience

nearly so much as from being a true believer who is willing to parrot those

who seem to be enlightened. I have a many decades long spiritual practice,

and I've had my share of wondrous moments, transcendental ecstasies, etc.

But my memory of those events doesn't qualify me for speaking about

enlightenment, and so I try to be in harmony with those who I think are the

spiritual experts.

 

Enlightenment is like a water well that's surrounded all around by water --

no need for the well even though its water will slake a thirst. Just so,

Nisargadatta's words are well water, and your experience of wholeness is

flooding your reality with water all around, so no need for Nisargadatta's

words to guide your intellect into a greater clarity about water so that one

day you might recognize that water is everywhere. Your east has zero

motivation to meet my west. I need precision words right now to shore up

motivation to do inquiry. By your words, I would say you have no need to do

inquiry. Why are you here? Are you a world master who's going to reincarnate

again and again until the likes of me are saved?

 

Edg

 

I think in essence it is absolutely simple. Nothing is more simple then

this. Just being-it. But you want it complicated. Maybe you are afraid that

for being so simple you might not have anything to think/write about.

" You seem convinced that you're enlightened. " ....what a joke! There is only

light and I am not there...but you want the light and be there to be able to

write a compendium about it. Have you ever considered, edg, that simple

people, almost unable to read and write have come upon what IS?

-geo-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean.

Virus Database (VPS): 090526-0, 26/05/2009

Tested on: 23/7/2009 20:43:12

avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

I think in essence it is absolutely simple. Nothing is more simple then

 

this. Just being-it. But you want it complicated. Maybe you are afraid

that

for being so simple you might not have anything to think/write

about.

" You seem convinced that you're enlightened. " ....what a joke!

There is only

light and I am not there...but you want the light and be there to be able

to

write a compendium about it. Have you ever considered, edg, that simple

 

people, almost unable to read and write have come upon what IS?

-geo-

 

Edg: Geo, if I were able to truly say, " There is only light

and I am not here, " I would be enlightened by my definition.

That is why I ask you about it -- to me those are words that can only be

true if you're free of youness. Yet, despite the boldness of your

statement, you rapidly step back from it when confronted with your

" what a joke " conditional. I don't get this.

 

Oh, I know, I know, " if you meet the Buddha on the path, kill the

Buddha, " so your ego dare not declare it is an entity that could

even begin to think of itself as something that could be free. But,

but, but -- how about putting that aside for the nonce and " just

have a friendly conversation with a stranger who's walking with you for

but a while on your life-stroll? "

As for simplicity. I love simplicity.

Shankara had four disciples. Three of them were giant intellects,

and they severely challenged Shankara's bringing non-dualism to the

Vedas. The fourth disciple was Trotakacharya who, well, he did the

washing and cooking and never was significant in the debates. The

other disciples had less than full respect for him. One day,

Shankara delayed starting the debate, because Trotakacharya was late

getting to the meeting. The three disciples wondered why, but soon,

up the hill came sweet, loving, Trotakacharya singing in perfect meter a

new poem of love for Shankara he'd spontaneously composed that astounded

the three disciples with depth of insight and perfection of

expression.

So, yeah, I get it that the intellect is not a necessary element in all

the ways to get free. There is no limit to the power of

Grace. I often consider that Bali the demon king became Krishna's

most ardent devotee -- without giving up his status as the leader of

necromancers.

But, while I'm waiting for Grace in whatever form it takes, I do like to

write and juggle stuff. Call it " giving the elephant a chain

to carry to keep his trunk from mischief. " If I didn't

" do writing, " hell, I'd be out there investing in sex, drugs

and rock and roll, right?

I think that your advice to me is an attempt by you to get me to see

something more clearly. Nice intent, but your words have not given

me whatever it would take to " make my thirsty horse

drink. " In fact, I would dare say that suggestions like yours

are counter to Nisargadatta's advice to do inquiry. My intellect

dwelling on your suggestions would be a form of contemplation that keeps

the mind immersed in the unreal, right?

Do you have a spiritual technique to promote, or are you satisfied with

inquiry? And, um, er, do you do inquiry?

Edg

 

 

At 06:59 PM 7/23/2009, you wrote:

 

-

duveyoung

To:

 

Nisargadatta

Thursday, July 23, 2009 5:29 PM

Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and

nonconceptual

--- In

 

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor

wrote:

>

> When the ego realizes that it cannot realize, then the ego

realizes

> that the REAL never goes through a process in order to be REAL,

and

> in fact, the REAL has not manifested ever-no REAL-ization took

> place. The REAL always is, the ego never is. The whole seeking

> process was merely the ego finding out its true status-illusory

non-

> entity-ness-and having the common sense from that point to stay

out

> of God's way as the body/mind now fulfill a cosmic purpose beyond

the

> ken of the ego.

> -edg-

>

> The mind, the thinking mind realizes that it can not realize

anything. But

> you seem to know...

> Has it happened to you? Is the REAL present?

> -geo-

Edg: Sorry, Geo, it sucks to be me. Bear with me in my ignorance. You

seem

convinced that you're enlightened. Hooray for you, and thus, no, I don't

 

expect that your NOW has to be exclusively congruent to Nisargadatta's

 

explanations, but I do expect your words to fall into a ballpark where

all

philosophies reside. I'm not sure you can be said to be enlightened by my

 

definitions -- I cannot get inside your head nor can I see you within the

 

" intellectually defined " ballpark of my personal

design.

Given how you've been expressing yourself here though, I find myself

 

unwilling to slog through all the words and all the possible meanings to

try

to get us both using words the same way. I don't have faith in you, but I

do

in Nisargadatta.

If you have a book published of your conversations with thousands of

 

devotees -- hassling out the challenges -- then if you are truly

enlightened, your book should be precise and consistent without fail. I

find

your usages to be fuzzy and not jiggy with my expectations. I never find

 

Nisargadatta contradicting himself -- or for that matter -- disagreeing

with

Ramana's Advaitic statements. These two giants were models of precision

 

usage. Your few posts here are far from being enough proof for me to try

to

adopt your word usage.

As one who is not saying anything that hasn't been intellectually given

to

me previously, I cannot claim to espouse these concepts from life

experience

nearly so much as from being a true believer who is willing to parrot

those

who seem to be enlightened. I have a many decades long spiritual

practice,

and I've had my share of wondrous moments, transcendental ecstasies, etc.

 

But my memory of those events doesn't qualify me for speaking about

enlightenment, and so I try to be in harmony with those who I think are

the

spiritual experts.

Enlightenment is like a water well that's surrounded all around by water

--

no need for the well even though its water will slake a thirst. Just so,

 

Nisargadatta's words are well water, and your experience of wholeness is

 

flooding your reality with water all around, so no need for

Nisargadatta's

words to guide your intellect into a greater clarity about water so that

one

day you might recognize that water is everywhere. Your east has zero

 

motivation to meet my west. I need precision words right now to shore up

 

motivation to do inquiry. By your words, I would say you have no need to

do

inquiry. Why are you here? Are you a world master who's going to

reincarnate

again and again until the likes of me are saved?

Edg

I think in essence it is absolutely simple. Nothing is more simple then

 

this. Just being-it. But you want it complicated. Maybe you are afraid

that

for being so simple you might not have anything to think/write

about.

" You seem convinced that you're enlightened. " ....what a joke!

There is only

light and I am not there...but you want the light and be there to be able

to

write a compendium about it. Have you ever considered, edg, that simple

 

people, almost unable to read and write have come upon what IS?

-geo-

avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean.

Virus Database (VPS): 090526-0, 26/05/2009

Tested on: 23/7/2009 20:43:12

avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

-

Edg

Nisargadatta

Friday, July 24, 2009 11:51 AM

Re: Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and

nonconceptual

 

 

 

I think in essence it is absolutely simple. Nothing is more simple then

this. Just being-it. But you want it complicated. Maybe you are afraid that

for being so simple you might not have anything to think/write about.

" You seem convinced that you're enlightened. " ....what a joke! There is only

light and I am not there...but you want the light and be there to be able to

write a compendium about it. Have you ever considered, edg, that simple

people, almost unable to read and write have come upon what IS?

-geo-

 

 

Edg: Geo, if I were able to truly say, " There is only light and I am not

here, " I would be enlightened by my definition. That is why I ask you about

it -- to me those are words that can only be true if you're free of youness.

Yet, despite the boldness of your statement, you rapidly step back from it

when confronted with your " what a joke " conditional. I don't get this.

 

geo> Because enlightment is a " stuffed up " word. I hate it. It is like god.

Cant stand it. Those are expressions that are used in a miriad of ways...

But yes, there is only light and there is not a ME. The ME is the assumed

inner separate observer. What is it that you dont like in what I said?

 

Edg:...Oh, I know, I know, " if you meet the Buddha on the path, kill the

Buddha, " so your ego dare not declare it is an entity that could even begin

to think of itself as something that could be free. But, but, but -- how

about putting that aside for the nonce and " just have a friendly

conversation with a stranger who's walking with you for but a while on your

life-stroll? "

 

geo> Happy to do it. Lets walk.

 

edg:...As for simplicity. I love simplicity.

 

Shankara had four disciples. Three of them were giant intellects, and they

severely challenged Shankara's bringing non-dualism to the Vedas. The

fourth disciple was Trotakacharya who, well, he did the washing and cooking

and never was significant in the debates. The other disciples had less than

full respect for him. One day, Shankara delayed starting the debate,

because Trotakacharya was late getting to the meeting. The three disciples

wondered why, but soon, up the hill came sweet, loving, Trotakacharya

singing in perfect meter a new poem of love for Shankara he'd spontaneously

composed that astounded the three disciples with depth of insight and

perfection of expression.

 

So, yeah, I get it that the intellect is not a necessary element in all the

ways to get free. There is no limit to the power of Grace. I often

consider that Bali the demon king became Krishna's most ardent devotee --

without giving up his status as the leader of necromancers.

 

geo: You see...you have considered a " grace " . Who the fuck is going to

provide it and for whom if there is only light and nobady else? The most

difficult task for you edg, - and we are friends walking in a shady path,

right? - is to damp all those ideas, all those hearasays about enlightment,

wisdom, gods, spirituality. We must be the light to ourselves. But how if we

carry the lamps of others?

 

edg:...But, while I'm waiting for Grace in whatever form it takes, I do like

to write and juggle stuff. Call it " giving the elephant a chain to carry to

keep his trunk from mischief. " If I didn't " do writing, " hell, I'd be out

there investing in sex, drugs and rock and roll, right?

 

geo> This is serious. How to live life, right? So you must know you are

addicted - if you compare it to sex and drugs, right? You love to toss and

twist ideas ABOUT the essence - adicction. Waiting for grace is cheap

religiousness, goes against the minimum rationality. It is bringuing in the

notion of " taking time to get rid of time " .

 

edg:...I think that your advice to me is an attempt by you to get me to see

something more clearly. Nice intent, but your words have not given me

whatever it would take to " make my thirsty horse drink. " In fact, I would

dare say that suggestions like yours are counter to Nisargadatta's advice to

do inquiry. My intellect dwelling on your suggestions would be a form of

contemplation that keeps the mind immersed in the unreal, right?

 

geo> Not your intellect edg. You are not being just with me. Nis fundamental

issue is the question " who or what am I " . That is what I did/do. In my case

I did it out of pure perplexity - sorry I will talk of me again, but i have

to. It is a " sacred " inquiry. Now I ask you: how much intellectual work you

need to pursue this incredible question? Nis said all he did was do it -

nothing else, because his " guru " told him. Now a voice in the wilderness is

telling you: stay with this questioning, nothin else. The problem is that

your horse wants to drink essays, and hearasys. Lets sit on that log over

there and have a cup of coffe from my termo... >:)

 

edg:..Do you have a spiritual technique to promote, or are you satisfied

with inquiry? And, um, er, do you do inquiry?

 

geo> LOL i think I answered above. But as we are having coffee I will

elaborate. A child that has bearly any knowledge looks around and suddenly

" sees " that there is a ground of being...and that nothing is excluded from

the ground. This world is a cloak - with its history, its galaxies, its

people.... - and all will be gone as the body kicks.

 

 

 

At 06:59 PM 7/23/2009, you wrote:

 

 

 

 

-

duveyoung

Nisargadatta

Thursday, July 23, 2009 5:29 PM

Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and nonconceptual

 

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> When the ego realizes that it cannot realize, then the ego realizes

> that the REAL never goes through a process in order to be REAL, and

> in fact, the REAL has not manifested ever-no REAL-ization took

> place. The REAL always is, the ego never is. The whole seeking

> process was merely the ego finding out its true status-illusory non-

> entity-ness-and having the common sense from that point to stay out

> of God's way as the body/mind now fulfill a cosmic purpose beyond the

> ken of the ego.

> -edg-

>

> The mind, the thinking mind realizes that it can not realize anything. But

> you seem to know...

> Has it happened to you? Is the REAL present?

> -geo-

 

Edg: Sorry, Geo, it sucks to be me. Bear with me in my ignorance. You seem

convinced that you're enlightened. Hooray for you, and thus, no, I don't

expect that your NOW has to be exclusively congruent to Nisargadatta's

explanations, but I do expect your words to fall into a ballpark where all

philosophies reside. I'm not sure you can be said to be enlightened by my

definitions -- I cannot get inside your head nor can I see you within the

" intellectually defined " ballpark of my personal design.

 

Given how you've been expressing yourself here though, I find myself

unwilling to slog through all the words and all the possible meanings to try

to get us both using words the same way. I don't have faith in you, but I do

in Nisargadatta.

 

If you have a book published of your conversations with thousands of

devotees -- hassling out the challenges -- then if you are truly

enlightened, your book should be precise and consistent without fail. I find

your usages to be fuzzy and not jiggy with my expectations. I never find

Nisargadatta contradicting himself -- or for that matter -- disagreeing with

Ramana's Advaitic statements. These two giants were models of precision

usage. Your few posts here are far from being enough proof for me to try to

adopt your word usage.

 

As one who is not saying anything that hasn't been intellectually given to

me previously, I cannot claim to espouse these concepts from life experience

nearly so much as from being a true believer who is willing to parrot those

who seem to be enlightened. I have a many decades long spiritual practice,

and I've had my share of wondrous moments, transcendental ecstasies, etc.

But my memory of those events doesn't qualify me for speaking about

enlightenment, and so I try to be in harmony with those who I think are the

spiritual experts.

 

Enlightenment is like a water well that's surrounded all around by water --

no need for the well even though its water will slake a thirst. Just so,

Nisargadatta's words are well water, and your experience of wholeness is

flooding your reality with water all around, so no need for Nisargadatta's

words to guide your intellect into a greater clarity about water so that one

day you might recognize that water is everywhere. Your east has zero

motivation to meet my west. I need precision words right now to shore up

motivation to do inquiry. By your words, I would say you have no need to do

inquiry. Why are you here? Are you a world master who's going to reincarnate

again and again until the likes of me are saved?

 

Edg

 

I think in essence it is absolutely simple. Nothing is more simple then

this. Just being-it. But you want it complicated. Maybe you are afraid that

for being so simple you might not have anything to think/write about.

" You seem convinced that you're enlightened. " ....what a joke! There is only

light and I am not there...but you want the light and be there to be able to

write a compendium about it. Have you ever considered, edg, that simple

people, almost unable to read and write have come upon what IS?

-geo-

 

avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean.

Virus Database (VPS): 090526-0, 26/05/2009

Tested on: 23/7/2009 20:43:12

avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean.

Virus Database (VPS): 090526-0, 26/05/2009

Tested on: 24/7/2009 12:12:19

avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> duveyoung

> Nisargadatta

> Thursday, July 23, 2009 5:29 PM

> Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and nonconceptual

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> >

> > When the ego realizes that it cannot realize, then the ego realizes

> > that the REAL never goes through a process in order to be REAL, and

> > in fact, the REAL has not manifested ever-no REAL-ization took

> > place. The REAL always is, the ego never is. The whole seeking

> > process was merely the ego finding out its true status-illusory non-

> > entity-ness-and having the common sense from that point to stay out

> > of God's way as the body/mind now fulfill a cosmic purpose beyond the

> > ken of the ego.

> > -edg-

> >

> > The mind, the thinking mind realizes that it can not realize anything. But

> > you seem to know...

> > Has it happened to you? Is the REAL present?

> > -geo-

>

> Edg: Sorry, Geo, it sucks to be me. Bear with me in my ignorance. You seem

> convinced that you're enlightened. Hooray for you, and thus, no, I don't

> expect that your NOW has to be exclusively congruent to Nisargadatta's

> explanations, but I do expect your words to fall into a ballpark where all

> philosophies reside. I'm not sure you can be said to be enlightened by my

> definitions -- I cannot get inside your head nor can I see you within the

> " intellectually defined " ballpark of my personal design.

>

> Given how you've been expressing yourself here though, I find myself

> unwilling to slog through all the words and all the possible meanings to try

> to get us both using words the same way. I don't have faith in you, but I do

> in Nisargadatta.

>

> If you have a book published of your conversations with thousands of

> devotees -- hassling out the challenges -- then if you are truly

> enlightened, your book should be precise and consistent without fail. I find

> your usages to be fuzzy and not jiggy with my expectations. I never find

> Nisargadatta contradicting himself -- or for that matter -- disagreeing with

> Ramana's Advaitic statements. These two giants were models of precision

> usage. Your few posts here are far from being enough proof for me to try to

> adopt your word usage.

>

> As one who is not saying anything that hasn't been intellectually given to

> me previously, I cannot claim to espouse these concepts from life experience

> nearly so much as from being a true believer who is willing to parrot those

> who seem to be enlightened. I have a many decades long spiritual practice,

> and I've had my share of wondrous moments, transcendental ecstasies, etc.

> But my memory of those events doesn't qualify me for speaking about

> enlightenment, and so I try to be in harmony with those who I think are the

> spiritual experts.

>

> Enlightenment is like a water well that's surrounded all around by water --

> no need for the well even though its water will slake a thirst. Just so,

> Nisargadatta's words are well water, and your experience of wholeness is

> flooding your reality with water all around, so no need for Nisargadatta's

> words to guide your intellect into a greater clarity about water so that one

> day you might recognize that water is everywhere. Your east has zero

> motivation to meet my west. I need precision words right now to shore up

> motivation to do inquiry. By your words, I would say you have no need to do

> inquiry. Why are you here? Are you a world master who's going to reincarnate

> again and again until the likes of me are saved?

>

> Edg

>

> I think in essence it is absolutely simple. Nothing is more simple then

> this. Just being-it. But you want it complicated. Maybe you are afraid that

> for being so simple you might not have anything to think/write about.

> " You seem convinced that you're enlightened. " ....what a joke! There is only

> light and I am not there...but you want the light and be there to be able to

> write a compendium about it. Have you ever considered, edg, that simple

> people, almost unable to read and write have come upon what IS?

> -geo-

 

It's not a mind-trick.

 

It's not the property of a brain.

 

One cubic nanometer of what we call empty space includes and is, all that is.

 

Not because someone thinks this is so.

 

Because it is so.

 

What was your original face, before your parents conceived you?

 

Before the story of your body, before pain and pleasure ...

 

.... antecedent to time, to before and after?

 

No language to draw on, no image or feelings, no form ...

 

Here it be.

 

And language, speaking, thinking ... doesn't add or subtract one iota from this

as is.

 

- Dan -

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Dan,

 

Do you see any disagreement with Nisargadatta in the following?

 

From " I Am That. " pp 412-3 paperback edition.

 

Q: In meditation, who meditates, the person or the witness?

 

Nisargadatta: " Meditation is a deliberate attempt to pierce into the higher

states of consciousness and finally go beyond it. The art of meditation is the

art of shifting the focus of attention to ever subtler levels, without losing

one's grip on the levels left behind. In a way, it is like having death under

control. One begins with the lowest levels: social circumstances, customs and

habits, physical surroundings, the posture and the breathing of the body; the

senses, their sensations and perceptions; the mind, its thoughts and feelings;

until the entire mechanism of personality is grasped and firmly held.

 

" The final stage of meditation is reached when the sense of identity goes beyond

the " I am so and so, " beyond " so I am, " beyond " I am the witness only, " beyond

" there is, " beyond all ideas into the impersonally personal pure being. But you

must be energetic when you take to meditation. It is definitely not a part-time

occupation. Limit your interests and activities to what is needed for you and

your dependents' barest needs. Save all your energies and time for breaking

the wall your mind had built around you. Believe me, you will not regret. "

 

So, Dan, where in the above do you see Nisargadatta eschewing discussion about

creation -- despite its unreality?

 

Edg

 

 

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> >

> >

> > -

> > duveyoung

> > Nisargadatta

> > Thursday, July 23, 2009 5:29 PM

> > Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and nonconceptual

> >

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> > >

> > > When the ego realizes that it cannot realize, then the ego realizes

> > > that the REAL never goes through a process in order to be REAL, and

> > > in fact, the REAL has not manifested ever-no REAL-ization took

> > > place. The REAL always is, the ego never is. The whole seeking

> > > process was merely the ego finding out its true status-illusory non-

> > > entity-ness-and having the common sense from that point to stay out

> > > of God's way as the body/mind now fulfill a cosmic purpose beyond the

> > > ken of the ego.

> > > -edg-

> > >

> > > The mind, the thinking mind realizes that it can not realize anything. But

> > > you seem to know...

> > > Has it happened to you? Is the REAL present?

> > > -geo-

> >

> > Edg: Sorry, Geo, it sucks to be me. Bear with me in my ignorance. You seem

> > convinced that you're enlightened. Hooray for you, and thus, no, I don't

> > expect that your NOW has to be exclusively congruent to Nisargadatta's

> > explanations, but I do expect your words to fall into a ballpark where all

> > philosophies reside. I'm not sure you can be said to be enlightened by my

> > definitions -- I cannot get inside your head nor can I see you within the

> > " intellectually defined " ballpark of my personal design.

> >

> > Given how you've been expressing yourself here though, I find myself

> > unwilling to slog through all the words and all the possible meanings to try

> > to get us both using words the same way. I don't have faith in you, but I do

> > in Nisargadatta.

> >

> > If you have a book published of your conversations with thousands of

> > devotees -- hassling out the challenges -- then if you are truly

> > enlightened, your book should be precise and consistent without fail. I find

> > your usages to be fuzzy and not jiggy with my expectations. I never find

> > Nisargadatta contradicting himself -- or for that matter -- disagreeing with

> > Ramana's Advaitic statements. These two giants were models of precision

> > usage. Your few posts here are far from being enough proof for me to try to

> > adopt your word usage.

> >

> > As one who is not saying anything that hasn't been intellectually given to

> > me previously, I cannot claim to espouse these concepts from life experience

> > nearly so much as from being a true believer who is willing to parrot those

> > who seem to be enlightened. I have a many decades long spiritual practice,

> > and I've had my share of wondrous moments, transcendental ecstasies, etc.

> > But my memory of those events doesn't qualify me for speaking about

> > enlightenment, and so I try to be in harmony with those who I think are the

> > spiritual experts.

> >

> > Enlightenment is like a water well that's surrounded all around by water --

> > no need for the well even though its water will slake a thirst. Just so,

> > Nisargadatta's words are well water, and your experience of wholeness is

> > flooding your reality with water all around, so no need for Nisargadatta's

> > words to guide your intellect into a greater clarity about water so that one

> > day you might recognize that water is everywhere. Your east has zero

> > motivation to meet my west. I need precision words right now to shore up

> > motivation to do inquiry. By your words, I would say you have no need to do

> > inquiry. Why are you here? Are you a world master who's going to reincarnate

> > again and again until the likes of me are saved?

> >

> > Edg

> >

> > I think in essence it is absolutely simple. Nothing is more simple then

> > this. Just being-it. But you want it complicated. Maybe you are afraid that

> > for being so simple you might not have anything to think/write about.

> > " You seem convinced that you're enlightened. " ....what a joke! There is only

> > light and I am not there...but you want the light and be there to be able to

> > write a compendium about it. Have you ever considered, edg, that simple

> > people, almost unable to read and write have come upon what IS?

> > -geo-

>

> It's not a mind-trick.

>

> It's not the property of a brain.

>

> One cubic nanometer of what we call empty space includes and is, all that is.

>

> Not because someone thinks this is so.

>

> Because it is so.

>

> What was your original face, before your parents conceived you?

>

> Before the story of your body, before pain and pleasure ...

>

> ... antecedent to time, to before and after?

>

> No language to draw on, no image or feelings, no form ...

>

> Here it be.

>

> And language, speaking, thinking ... doesn't add or subtract one iota from

this as is.

>

> - Dan -

>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

You post a dialogue that was recorded between Nisargadatta and someone else.

 

Are you looking for someone else to say something about what Nisargadatta said,

to make it more clear to you?

 

Or, are you debating a point that is important to you, and you believe that this

story from Nisargadatta backs up your point?

 

What is it you're looking for, wanting, from this conversation?

 

As for me, I did not come to truth because of Nisargadatta. The truth is. I

found statements from Nisargadatta that I enjoyed, and I've enjoyed

communicating on this list.

 

That is all. He is not an authority for me. I am not looking to his words as a

way to understand what is.

 

Are you?

 

If so, please feel free to share with all what you found.

 

It's truly not a concern for me.

 

 

-- Dan

 

 

 

Nisargadatta , " duveyoung " <edg wrote:

>

> Dan,

>

> Do you see any disagreement with Nisargadatta in the following?

>

> From " I Am That. " pp 412-3 paperback edition.

>

> Q: In meditation, who meditates, the person or the witness?

>

> Nisargadatta: " Meditation is a deliberate attempt to pierce into the higher

states of consciousness and finally go beyond it. The art of meditation is the

art of shifting the focus of attention to ever subtler levels, without losing

one's grip on the levels left behind. In a way, it is like having death under

control. One begins with the lowest levels: social circumstances, customs and

habits, physical surroundings, the posture and the breathing of the body; the

senses, their sensations and perceptions; the mind, its thoughts and feelings;

until the entire mechanism of personality is grasped and firmly held.

>

> " The final stage of meditation is reached when the sense of identity goes

beyond the " I am so and so, " beyond " so I am, " beyond " I am the witness only, "

beyond " there is, " beyond all ideas into the impersonally personal pure being.

But you must be energetic when you take to meditation. It is definitely not a

part-time occupation. Limit your interests and activities to what is needed for

you and your dependents' barest needs. Save all your energies and time for

breaking the wall your mind had built around you. Believe me, you will not

regret. "

>

> So, Dan, where in the above do you see Nisargadatta eschewing discussion about

creation -- despite its unreality?

>

> Edg

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > > -

> > > duveyoung

> > > Nisargadatta

> > > Thursday, July 23, 2009 5:29 PM

> > > Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and nonconceptual

> > >

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > When the ego realizes that it cannot realize, then the ego realizes

> > > > that the REAL never goes through a process in order to be REAL, and

> > > > in fact, the REAL has not manifested ever-no REAL-ization took

> > > > place. The REAL always is, the ego never is. The whole seeking

> > > > process was merely the ego finding out its true status-illusory non-

> > > > entity-ness-and having the common sense from that point to stay out

> > > > of God's way as the body/mind now fulfill a cosmic purpose beyond the

> > > > ken of the ego.

> > > > -edg-

> > > >

> > > > The mind, the thinking mind realizes that it can not realize anything.

But

> > > > you seem to know...

> > > > Has it happened to you? Is the REAL present?

> > > > -geo-

> > >

> > > Edg: Sorry, Geo, it sucks to be me. Bear with me in my ignorance. You seem

> > > convinced that you're enlightened. Hooray for you, and thus, no, I don't

> > > expect that your NOW has to be exclusively congruent to Nisargadatta's

> > > explanations, but I do expect your words to fall into a ballpark where all

> > > philosophies reside. I'm not sure you can be said to be enlightened by my

> > > definitions -- I cannot get inside your head nor can I see you within the

> > > " intellectually defined " ballpark of my personal design.

> > >

> > > Given how you've been expressing yourself here though, I find myself

> > > unwilling to slog through all the words and all the possible meanings to

try

> > > to get us both using words the same way. I don't have faith in you, but I

do

> > > in Nisargadatta.

> > >

> > > If you have a book published of your conversations with thousands of

> > > devotees -- hassling out the challenges -- then if you are truly

> > > enlightened, your book should be precise and consistent without fail. I

find

> > > your usages to be fuzzy and not jiggy with my expectations. I never find

> > > Nisargadatta contradicting himself -- or for that matter -- disagreeing

with

> > > Ramana's Advaitic statements. These two giants were models of precision

> > > usage. Your few posts here are far from being enough proof for me to try

to

> > > adopt your word usage.

> > >

> > > As one who is not saying anything that hasn't been intellectually given to

> > > me previously, I cannot claim to espouse these concepts from life

experience

> > > nearly so much as from being a true believer who is willing to parrot

those

> > > who seem to be enlightened. I have a many decades long spiritual practice,

> > > and I've had my share of wondrous moments, transcendental ecstasies, etc.

> > > But my memory of those events doesn't qualify me for speaking about

> > > enlightenment, and so I try to be in harmony with those who I think are

the

> > > spiritual experts.

> > >

> > > Enlightenment is like a water well that's surrounded all around by water

--

> > > no need for the well even though its water will slake a thirst. Just so,

> > > Nisargadatta's words are well water, and your experience of wholeness is

> > > flooding your reality with water all around, so no need for Nisargadatta's

> > > words to guide your intellect into a greater clarity about water so that

one

> > > day you might recognize that water is everywhere. Your east has zero

> > > motivation to meet my west. I need precision words right now to shore up

> > > motivation to do inquiry. By your words, I would say you have no need to

do

> > > inquiry. Why are you here? Are you a world master who's going to

reincarnate

> > > again and again until the likes of me are saved?

> > >

> > > Edg

> > >

> > > I think in essence it is absolutely simple. Nothing is more simple then

> > > this. Just being-it. But you want it complicated. Maybe you are afraid

that

> > > for being so simple you might not have anything to think/write about.

> > > " You seem convinced that you're enlightened. " ....what a joke! There is

only

> > > light and I am not there...but you want the light and be there to be able

to

> > > write a compendium about it. Have you ever considered, edg, that simple

> > > people, almost unable to read and write have come upon what IS?

> > > -geo-

> >

> > It's not a mind-trick.

> >

> > It's not the property of a brain.

> >

> > One cubic nanometer of what we call empty space includes and is, all that

is.

> >

> > Not because someone thinks this is so.

> >

> > Because it is so.

> >

> > What was your original face, before your parents conceived you?

> >

> > Before the story of your body, before pain and pleasure ...

> >

> > ... antecedent to time, to before and after?

> >

> > No language to draw on, no image or feelings, no form ...

> >

> > Here it be.

> >

> > And language, speaking, thinking ... doesn't add or subtract one iota from

this as is.

> >

> > - Dan -

> >

>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

At 10:42 AM 7/24/2009, you wrote:

 

-

Edg

To:

 

Nisargadatta

Friday, July 24, 2009 11:51 AM

Re: Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and

nonconceptual

I think in essence it is absolutely simple. Nothing is more simple

then

this. Just being-it. But you want it complicated. Maybe you are afraid

that

for being so simple you might not have anything to think/write

about.

" You seem convinced that you're enlightened. " ....what a joke!

There is only

light and I am not there...but you want the light and be there to be able

to

write a compendium about it. Have you ever considered, edg, that

simple

people, almost unable to read and write have come upon what IS?

-geo-

Edg: Geo, if I were able to truly say, " There is only light and I am

not

here, " I would be enlightened by my definition. That is why I ask

you about

it -- to me those are words that can only be true if you're free of

youness.

Yet, despite the boldness of your statement, you rapidly step back from

it

when confronted with your " what a joke " conditional. I don't

get this.

geo> Because enlightment is a " stuffed up " word. I hate it.

It is like god.

Cant stand it. Those are expressions that are used in a miriad of

ways...

But yes, there is only light and there is not a ME. The ME is the assumed

 

inner separate observer. What is it that you dont like in what I

said?

Edg: I get it that " god " is seldom used

by anyone as a precision tool. But I hope to arrive at an agreed

upon definition for the word with you. My meaning is: amness, pure

being -- that's God with a capital G to me. For you to say,

" There is only light and I am not here, "

seems like you're having your cake and eating it

too -- you assert I-ness in order to counter the concept of I-ness.

I get the yin-yang balance of the statement, but it sure seems to me that

you're operating in you are posting as a separate entity by your own

surmise. No harm -- Nisargadatta used the word " I "

too. Why do you run from using that word when it has such power

" in the relative? " Er, do you believe that Nisargadatta

was enlightened? I don't know if the question is valuable given

that you've admitted to not knowing much about Nisargadatta, but please

tell me why you're here if not to dwell upon Nisargadatta's

teachings? Seems to me that anyone who comes here is uncertain

about something -- is still seeking something.

 

Edg:...Oh, I know, I

know, " if you meet the Buddha on the path, kill the

Buddha, " so your ego dare not declare it is an entity that could

even begin

to think of itself as something that could be free. But, but, but -- how

 

about putting that aside for the nonce and " just have a friendly

 

conversation with a stranger who's walking with you for but a while on

your

life-stroll? "

geo> Happy to do it. Lets walk.

edg:...As for simplicity. I love simplicity.

Shankara had four disciples. Three of them were giant intellects, and

they

severely challenged Shankara's bringing non-dualism to the Vedas. The

 

fourth disciple was Trotakacharya who, well, he did the washing and

cooking

and never was significant in the debates. The other disciples had less

than

full respect for him. One day, Shankara delayed starting the debate,

 

because Trotakacharya was late getting to the meeting. The three

disciples

wondered why, but soon, up the hill came sweet, loving, Trotakacharya

 

singing in perfect meter a new poem of love for Shankara he'd

spontaneously

composed that astounded the three disciples with depth of insight and

 

perfection of expression.

So, yeah, I get it that the intellect is not a necessary element in all

the

ways to get free. There is no limit to the power of Grace. I often

consider that Bali the demon king became Krishna's most ardent devotee --

 

without giving up his status as the leader of necromancers.

geo: You see...you have considered a " grace " . Who the fuck is

going to

provide it and for whom if there is only light and nobady else?

 

Edg: Ultimately, it can only be me doing a

me-thing to me, but that statement is a self serving tautological

bootstrapping, so, let me say that, to me, Grace is the non-act of the

Absolute being discovered as the only Reality and that, like a dream from

which one has just awoken, life's myriads of meanings fades instantly by

comparison -- one doesn't worry about what desires one was just about to

fulfill in the now-over dream, because that dream-person is a delusion of

sentience that the waking state of consciousness allows us to so clearly

grasp the ephemerality of. No one wakes from a dream and brags

about having had the sidhi of levitation or whatever in the dream.

That dream ego is discarded as a burnt rope. Just so, Grace awakens

one from the final dream of " I AM. " The egoic mind cannot

be expected to do this by itself -- it must be a gift to a mind that has

been prepared to leap into the infinite instead of swimming in samsara.

 

The most

difficult task for you edg, - and we are friends walking in a shady path,

 

right? - is to damp all those ideas, all those hearasays about

enlightment,

wisdom, gods, spirituality. We must be the light to ourselves. But how if

we

carry the lamps of others?

Edg: I get it that parroting dogma is stale and

lacks punch, but a passionate blind man still cannot lead other blind men

no matter how certain he is about the path he's taking, so, to me, I'm

using my white cane and tapping along the path Nisargadatta has placed me

upon. I want to be authentic, I practice speaking and writing with

authority, but I try to saturate that with the knowledge that an

" I " is ultimately unreal. Christ said: " I am the

light, " so it's obvious that your contentions are jiggy with

Christ's statements, but when it comes to teaching one how to recognize

" light is all there is, " I find that Christianity is quite

sparse when it comes to offering spiritual techniques of

self-empowerment. You seem to have the same challenge, yes?

How do you convince someone that only light exists?

 

edg:...But, while I'm

waiting for Grace in whatever form it takes, I do like

to write and juggle stuff. Call it " giving the elephant a chain to

carry to

keep his trunk from mischief. " If I didn't " do writing, "

hell, I'd be out

there investing in sex, drugs and rock and roll, right?

geo> This is serious. How to live life, right? So you must know you

are

addicted - if you compare it to sex and drugs, right? You love to toss

and

twist ideas ABOUT the essence - adicction. Waiting for grace is cheap

 

religiousness, goes against the minimum rationality. It is bringuing in

the

notion of " taking time to get rid of time " .

Edg: To me, waiting for Grace is the final act of

surrendering the ego -- the Cosmic Ego that is. I do daily inquiry

-- that's the process to end all processing, but talking about talking is

fun -- where's the harm? And, ahem, pardon my ego showing, but I

protest when you use the word " cheap " in referring to my

spiritual efforts. I may not have the best record, but if you

want to slam your dick on the table I'll slam mine down too. I've

got four decades of many-hours-per-day of spiritual effort -- I many not

be free yet, but I'm a fucking expert on how to not get free.

 

 

edg:...I think that your

advice to me is an attempt by you to get me to see

something more clearly. Nice intent, but your words have not given me

 

whatever it would take to " make my thirsty horse drink. " In

fact, I would

dare say that suggestions like yours are counter to Nisargadatta's advice

to

do inquiry. My intellect dwelling on your suggestions would be a form of

 

contemplation that keeps the mind immersed in the unreal, right?

geo> Not your intellect edg. You are not being just with me.

 

Edg: How can I not be with you? Amness is our

common ground.

Nis fundamental

issue is the question " who or what am I " . That is what I

did/do. In my case

I did it out of pure perplexity - sorry I will talk of me again, but i

have

to. It is a " sacred " inquiry. Now I ask you: how much

intellectual work you

need to pursue this incredible question?

Edg: I need intellectual certainty to motivate my

daily inquiry. I believe Nisargadatta delivers this certainty to

the ego knowing that it will be eventually discarded.

Nis said all he did was

do it -

nothing else, because his " guru " told him. Now a voice in the

wilderness is

telling you: stay with this questioning, nothin else. The problem is that

 

your horse wants to drink essays, and hearasys. Lets sit on that log over

 

there and have a cup of coffe from my termo... >:)

Edg: Again, I do inquiry. You're posting

here, why can't I? Call it a hobby, call it addiction, I'll

agree. I have at least a million addictions -- why all the

attention to my addiction to forming word bouquets?

 

edg:..Do you have a

spiritual technique to promote, or are you satisfied

with inquiry? And, um, er, do you do inquiry?

geo> LOL i think I answered above. But as we are having coffee I will

 

elaborate. A child that has bearly any knowledge looks around and

suddenly

" sees " that there is a ground of being...and that nothing is

excluded from

the ground. This world is a cloak - with its history, its galaxies, its

 

people.... - and all will be gone as the body kicks.

Edg: I agree -- death is death of all thing

egoic. A death as complete as the death of the person one things

one is during a dream when the dream ends.

 

At 06:59 PM 7/23/2009,

you wrote:

-

duveyoung

To:

 

Nisargadatta

Thursday, July 23, 2009 5:29 PM

Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and

nonconceptual

--- In

 

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor

wrote:

>

> When the ego realizes that it cannot realize, then the ego

realizes

> that the REAL never goes through a process in order to be REAL,

and

> in fact, the REAL has not manifested ever-no REAL-ization took

> place. The REAL always is, the ego never is. The whole seeking

> process was merely the ego finding out its true status-illusory

non-

> entity-ness-and having the common sense from that point to stay

out

> of God's way as the body/mind now fulfill a cosmic purpose beyond

the

> ken of the ego.

> -edg-

>

> The mind, the thinking mind realizes that it can not realize

anything. But

> you seem to know...

> Has it happened to you? Is the REAL present?

> -geo-

Edg: Sorry, Geo, it sucks to be me. Bear with me in my ignorance. You

seem

convinced that you're enlightened. Hooray for you, and thus, no, I

don't

expect that your NOW has to be exclusively congruent to

Nisargadatta's

explanations, but I do expect your words to fall into a ballpark where

all

philosophies reside. I'm not sure you can be said to be enlightened by

my

definitions -- I cannot get inside your head nor can I see you within

the

" intellectually defined " ballpark of my personal

design.

Given how you've been expressing yourself here though, I find myself

unwilling to slog through all the words and all the possible meanings to

try

to get us both using words the same way. I don't have faith in you, but I

do

in Nisargadatta.

If you have a book published of your conversations with thousands of

devotees -- hassling out the challenges -- then if you are truly

enlightened, your book should be precise and consistent without fail. I

find

your usages to be fuzzy and not jiggy with my expectations. I never

find

Nisargadatta contradicting himself -- or for that matter -- disagreeing

with

Ramana's Advaitic statements. These two giants were models of

precision

usage. Your few posts here are far from being enough proof for me to try

to

adopt your word usage.

As one who is not saying anything that hasn't been intellectually given

to

me previously, I cannot claim to espouse these concepts from life

experience

nearly so much as from being a true believer who is willing to parrot

those

who seem to be enlightened. I have a many decades long spiritual

practice,

and I've had my share of wondrous moments, transcendental ecstasies,

etc.

But my memory of those events doesn't qualify me for speaking about

enlightenment, and so I try to be in harmony with those who I think are

the

spiritual experts.

Enlightenment is like a water well that's surrounded all around by water

--

no need for the well even though its water will slake a thirst. Just

so,

Nisargadatta's words are well water, and your experience of wholeness

is

flooding your reality with water all around, so no need for

Nisargadatta's

words to guide your intellect into a greater clarity about water so that

one

day you might recognize that water is everywhere. Your east has zero

motivation to meet my west. I need precision words right now to shore

up

motivation to do inquiry. By your words, I would say you have no need to

do

inquiry. Why are you here? Are you a world master who's going to

reincarnate

again and again until the likes of me are saved?

Edg

I think in essence it is absolutely simple. Nothing is more simple

then

this. Just being-it. But you want it complicated. Maybe you are afraid

that

for being so simple you might not have anything to think/write

about.

" You seem convinced that you're enlightened. " ....what a joke!

There is only

light and I am not there...but you want the light and be there to be able

to

write a compendium about it. Have you ever considered, edg, that

simple

people, almost unable to read and write have come upon what IS?

-geo-

avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean.

Virus Database (VPS): 090526-0, 26/05/2009

Tested on: 23/7/2009 20:43:12

avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software.

avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean.

Virus Database (VPS): 090526-0, 26/05/2009

Tested on: 24/7/2009 12:12:19

avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Okay, Dan, I'll accommodate. You are now in that category of " posters who

counter merely for countering's sake. "

 

To post at a site that's dedicated to Nisargadatta and then toss his teachings

aside is, well, it's easy to frame it as " trollish. " I'd suggest you start your

own . Nisargadatta was all about getting clarity about jargon. You

think it's a time waster. Fine. No problem, but can I ask that you refrain

from responding to my future posts, and I'll return the favor?

 

Edg

 

 

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

> You post a dialogue that was recorded between Nisargadatta and someone else.

>

> Are you looking for someone else to say something about what Nisargadatta

said, to make it more clear to you?

>

> Or, are you debating a point that is important to you, and you believe that

this story from Nisargadatta backs up your point?

>

> What is it you're looking for, wanting, from this conversation?

>

> As for me, I did not come to truth because of Nisargadatta. The truth is. I

found statements from Nisargadatta that I enjoyed, and I've enjoyed

communicating on this list.

>

> That is all. He is not an authority for me. I am not looking to his words as

a way to understand what is.

>

> Are you?

>

> If so, please feel free to share with all what you found.

>

> It's truly not a concern for me.

>

>

> -- Dan

>

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " duveyoung " <edg@> wrote:

> >

> > Dan,

> >

> > Do you see any disagreement with Nisargadatta in the following?

> >

> > From " I Am That. " pp 412-3 paperback edition.

> >

> > Q: In meditation, who meditates, the person or the witness?

> >

> > Nisargadatta: " Meditation is a deliberate attempt to pierce into the higher

states of consciousness and finally go beyond it. The art of meditation is the

art of shifting the focus of attention to ever subtler levels, without losing

one's grip on the levels left behind. In a way, it is like having death under

control. One begins with the lowest levels: social circumstances, customs and

habits, physical surroundings, the posture and the breathing of the body; the

senses, their sensations and perceptions; the mind, its thoughts and feelings;

until the entire mechanism of personality is grasped and firmly held.

> >

> > " The final stage of meditation is reached when the sense of identity goes

beyond the " I am so and so, " beyond " so I am, " beyond " I am the witness only, "

beyond " there is, " beyond all ideas into the impersonally personal pure being.

But you must be energetic when you take to meditation. It is definitely not a

part-time occupation. Limit your interests and activities to what is needed for

you and your dependents' barest needs. Save all your energies and time for

breaking the wall your mind had built around you. Believe me, you will not

regret. "

> >

> > So, Dan, where in the above do you see Nisargadatta eschewing discussion

about creation -- despite its unreality?

> >

> > Edg

> >

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > -

> > > > duveyoung

> > > > Nisargadatta

> > > > Thursday, July 23, 2009 5:29 PM

> > > > Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and

nonconceptual

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > When the ego realizes that it cannot realize, then the ego realizes

> > > > > that the REAL never goes through a process in order to be REAL, and

> > > > > in fact, the REAL has not manifested ever-no REAL-ization took

> > > > > place. The REAL always is, the ego never is. The whole seeking

> > > > > process was merely the ego finding out its true status-illusory non-

> > > > > entity-ness-and having the common sense from that point to stay out

> > > > > of God's way as the body/mind now fulfill a cosmic purpose beyond the

> > > > > ken of the ego.

> > > > > -edg-

> > > > >

> > > > > The mind, the thinking mind realizes that it can not realize anything.

But

> > > > > you seem to know...

> > > > > Has it happened to you? Is the REAL present?

> > > > > -geo-

> > > >

> > > > Edg: Sorry, Geo, it sucks to be me. Bear with me in my ignorance. You

seem

> > > > convinced that you're enlightened. Hooray for you, and thus, no, I don't

> > > > expect that your NOW has to be exclusively congruent to Nisargadatta's

> > > > explanations, but I do expect your words to fall into a ballpark where

all

> > > > philosophies reside. I'm not sure you can be said to be enlightened by

my

> > > > definitions -- I cannot get inside your head nor can I see you within

the

> > > > " intellectually defined " ballpark of my personal design.

> > > >

> > > > Given how you've been expressing yourself here though, I find myself

> > > > unwilling to slog through all the words and all the possible meanings to

try

> > > > to get us both using words the same way. I don't have faith in you, but

I do

> > > > in Nisargadatta.

> > > >

> > > > If you have a book published of your conversations with thousands of

> > > > devotees -- hassling out the challenges -- then if you are truly

> > > > enlightened, your book should be precise and consistent without fail. I

find

> > > > your usages to be fuzzy and not jiggy with my expectations. I never find

> > > > Nisargadatta contradicting himself -- or for that matter -- disagreeing

with

> > > > Ramana's Advaitic statements. These two giants were models of precision

> > > > usage. Your few posts here are far from being enough proof for me to try

to

> > > > adopt your word usage.

> > > >

> > > > As one who is not saying anything that hasn't been intellectually given

to

> > > > me previously, I cannot claim to espouse these concepts from life

experience

> > > > nearly so much as from being a true believer who is willing to parrot

those

> > > > who seem to be enlightened. I have a many decades long spiritual

practice,

> > > > and I've had my share of wondrous moments, transcendental ecstasies,

etc.

> > > > But my memory of those events doesn't qualify me for speaking about

> > > > enlightenment, and so I try to be in harmony with those who I think are

the

> > > > spiritual experts.

> > > >

> > > > Enlightenment is like a water well that's surrounded all around by water

--

> > > > no need for the well even though its water will slake a thirst. Just so,

> > > > Nisargadatta's words are well water, and your experience of wholeness is

> > > > flooding your reality with water all around, so no need for

Nisargadatta's

> > > > words to guide your intellect into a greater clarity about water so that

one

> > > > day you might recognize that water is everywhere. Your east has zero

> > > > motivation to meet my west. I need precision words right now to shore up

> > > > motivation to do inquiry. By your words, I would say you have no need to

do

> > > > inquiry. Why are you here? Are you a world master who's going to

reincarnate

> > > > again and again until the likes of me are saved?

> > > >

> > > > Edg

> > > >

> > > > I think in essence it is absolutely simple. Nothing is more simple then

> > > > this. Just being-it. But you want it complicated. Maybe you are afraid

that

> > > > for being so simple you might not have anything to think/write about.

> > > > " You seem convinced that you're enlightened. " ....what a joke! There is

only

> > > > light and I am not there...but you want the light and be there to be

able to

> > > > write a compendium about it. Have you ever considered, edg, that simple

> > > > people, almost unable to read and write have come upon what IS?

> > > > -geo-

> > >

> > > It's not a mind-trick.

> > >

> > > It's not the property of a brain.

> > >

> > > One cubic nanometer of what we call empty space includes and is, all that

is.

> > >

> > > Not because someone thinks this is so.

> > >

> > > Because it is so.

> > >

> > > What was your original face, before your parents conceived you?

> > >

> > > Before the story of your body, before pain and pleasure ...

> > >

> > > ... antecedent to time, to before and after?

> > >

> > > No language to draw on, no image or feelings, no form ...

> > >

> > > Here it be.

> > >

> > > And language, speaking, thinking ... doesn't add or subtract one iota from

this as is.

> > >

> > > - Dan -

> > >

> >

>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Nisargadatta , " duveyoung " <edg wrote:

>

> Okay, Dan, I'll accommodate. You are now in that category of " posters who

counter merely for countering's sake. "

>

> To post at a site that's dedicated to Nisargadatta and then toss his teachings

aside is, well, it's easy to frame it as " trollish. " I'd suggest you start your

own . Nisargadatta was all about getting clarity about jargon. You

think it's a time waster. Fine. No problem, but can I ask that you refrain

from responding to my future posts, and I'll return the favor?

>

> Edg

 

Hi Edg -

 

You can ask me not to respond to your posts, but it's an open forum.

 

If I respond, I simply put a note out there for anyone to read who reads it.

 

Whether you read my response to your post is up to you, but someone else may get

something from it, and wouldn't that be fine on an open list?

 

By the way, I answered your post sincerely, not with the motives you seem to

impute to me by labelling my response " trollish. " Maybe that's what it is for

you - but for me, it's that I like to speak directly and sincerely with someone,

not to score points with them.

 

You responded by giving me a label in a way that suits your prejudices -

certainly not the first time posters use the internet to provide their labels

for other posters. Seems to be a technique that is pretty common on the

internet.

 

Apparently, you have some predetermined idea in mind of how I'm supposed to

respond.

 

And apparently, you don't find much value in Nisargadatta's teaching that one

simply is awareness.

 

If one is awareness, then what need for Nisargadatta's teachings or any

authority or anything of the past and conceptuality?

 

It seems you want to determine what is appropriate to be said here, and that it

has to reference Nisargadatta, and it has to view him as an authority.

 

Funny, but the list owner doesn't seem to see it that way. Nor anyone else

posting here.

 

I guess that would make you a someone who wants to be an authority on someone

else's list, tell people how and what they should post, and tell them not to

bother you with any responses that don't fit your formula. Why not look into

that " someone " rather than what " someone else is doing wrong according to that

someone " ? Didn't Nisargadatta, whom you say is important to you, teach

self-inquiry rather than other-inquiry?

 

At any rate, guide yourself as you see fit, of course. I have no intent to

bring any distress into your life. Life itself will do that well enough.

Please know that if you ignore my posts, I will be fine and happy, and glad that

you are doing well that way.

 

I assume that all are free not to respond to what I say, or to any others to

whom they may object, be bored by, or simply not have time for.

 

No need to notify anyone about that, or make up rules.

 

Simply not responding works well enough.

 

And you have my wishes for well-being and fruitfulness for self-inquiry with

you, for whatever that's worth to you.

 

- Dan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " duveyoung " <edg@> wrote:

> >

> > Okay, Dan, I'll accommodate. You are now in that category of " posters who

counter merely for countering's sake. "

> >

> > To post at a site that's dedicated to Nisargadatta and then toss his

teachings aside is, well, it's easy to frame it as " trollish. " I'd suggest you

start your own . Nisargadatta was all about getting clarity about

jargon. You think it's a time waster. Fine. No problem, but can I ask that

you refrain from responding to my future posts, and I'll return the favor?

> >

> > Edg

>

> Hi Edg -

>

> You can ask me not to respond to your posts, but it's an open forum.

>

> If I respond, I simply put a note out there for anyone to read who reads it.

>

> Whether you read my response to your post is up to you, but someone else may

get something from it, and wouldn't that be fine on an open list?

>

> By the way, I answered your post sincerely, not with the motives you seem to

impute to me by labelling my response " trollish. " Maybe that's what it is for

you - but for me, it's that I like to speak directly and sincerely with someone,

not to score points with them.

>

> You responded by giving me a label in a way that suits your prejudices -

certainly not the first time posters use the internet to provide their labels

for other posters. Seems to be a technique that is pretty common on the

internet.

>

> Apparently, you have some predetermined idea in mind of how I'm supposed to

respond.

>

> And apparently, you don't find much value in Nisargadatta's teaching that one

simply is awareness.

>

> If one is awareness, then what need for Nisargadatta's teachings or any

authority or anything of the past and conceptuality?

>

> It seems you want to determine what is appropriate to be said here, and that

it has to reference Nisargadatta, and it has to view him as an authority.

>

> Funny, but the list owner doesn't seem to see it that way. Nor anyone else

posting here.

>

> I guess that would make you a someone who wants to be an authority on someone

else's list, tell people how and what they should post, and tell them not to

bother you with any responses that don't fit your formula. Why not look into

that " someone " rather than what " someone else is doing wrong according to that

someone " ? Didn't Nisargadatta, whom you say is important to you, teach

self-inquiry rather than other-inquiry?

>

> At any rate, guide yourself as you see fit, of course. I have no intent to

bring any distress into your life. Life itself will do that well enough.

Please know that if you ignore my posts, I will be fine and happy, and glad that

you are doing well that way.

>

> I assume that all are free not to respond to what I say, or to any others to

whom they may object, be bored by, or simply not have time for.

>

> No need to notify anyone about that, or make up rules.

>

> Simply not responding works well enough.

>

> And you have my wishes for well-being and fruitfulness for self-inquiry with

you, for whatever that's worth to you.

>

> - Dan

>

 

Hi Dan,

 

Us and Them...

 

There are those who love to invalidate anyone they can only to post the same old

tired same old. And then tell you, they don't read you.

 

It's a good thing that life is free to be whatever anyone thinks it is... until

that prevailing thought dies a timely death.

 

~A

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana wrote:

>

> Hi Dan,

>

> Us and Them...

 

As in, " Anna and Dan " vs. " Edg? " ;-)

 

Ya see, Anna, what we post really has to do with 'here and now', which we are

most of the time unaware of.

 

Not even, generally speaking, the content of the message we believe to be

replying to, which is 'the past'.

 

Our thoughts, now.

 

> There are those who love to invalidate anyone they can only to post

> the same old tired same old. And then tell you, they don't read you.

 

There isn't a " them " . There never was. Only here and now.

 

Peace...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana@> wrote:

> >

> > Hi Dan,

> >

> > Us and Them...

>

> As in, " Anna and Dan " vs. " Edg? " ;-)

>

> Ya see, Anna, what we post really has to do with 'here and now', which we are

most of the time unaware of.

>

> Not even, generally speaking, the content of the message we believe to be

replying to, which is 'the past'.

>

> Our thoughts, now.

>

> > There are those who love to invalidate anyone they can only to post

> > the same old tired same old. And then tell you, they don't read you.

>

> There isn't a " them " . There never was. Only here and now.

>

> Peace...

>

 

 

Tim.... let's get this straight once and for all.... Only in the here and now

can a division occur in which we can experience *Self* and *Other*. If this

were not so, you wouldn't have anyone to speak to- to question or answer.

 

All the rest is bs.

 

Sorry.

 

~A

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana wrote:

>

> Tim.... let's get this straight once and for all.... Only in the here > and

now can a division occur in which we can experience *Self* and

> *Other*.

 

Of course. Where else?

 

> If this were not so, you wouldn't have anyone to speak to- to

> question or answer.

>

> All the rest is bs.

>

> Sorry.

 

That's 'k... I don't mind. No need to apologize for thoughts arising as they

do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Hi Dan,

> > >

> > > Us and Them...

> >

> > As in, " Anna and Dan " vs. " Edg? " ;-)

> >

> > Ya see, Anna, what we post really has to do with 'here and now', which we

are most of the time unaware of.

> >

> > Not even, generally speaking, the content of the message we believe to be

replying to, which is 'the past'.

> >

> > Our thoughts, now.

> >

> > > There are those who love to invalidate anyone they can only to post

> > > the same old tired same old. And then tell you, they don't read you.

> >

> > There isn't a " them " . There never was. Only here and now.

> >

> > Peace...

> >

>

>

> Tim.... let's get this straight once and for all.... Only in the here and now

can a division occur in which we can experience *Self* and *Other*. If this

were not so, you wouldn't have anyone to speak to- to question or answer.

>

> All the rest is bs.

>

> Sorry.

>

> ~A

 

 

timmy buys E. Tolle's bullshit.

 

the power of now is powerless here.

 

..b b.b.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote:

>

> timmy buys E. Tolle's bullshit.

 

I've never read a single word of Eckhart Tolle.

 

> the power of now is powerless here.

 

Too bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> >

> > timmy buys E. Tolle's bullshit.

>

> I've never read a single word of Eckhart Tolle.

>

> > the power of now is powerless here.

>

> Too bad.

 

How's about a bit of Nisargadatta, tho --

 

Questioner: Are you not immersed timelessly in an abstraction?

 

Nisargadatta: Abstraction is mental and verbal and disappears in sleep, or

swoon; it reappears in time; I am in my own state (swarupa) timelessly in the

now. Past and future are in mind only -- I am *now*.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Geo,

Since the site is unmoderated, Dan's welcome to post anything he wants,

but my decision to categorize his posts as trollish is to --

adult-to-adult -- notify Dan that I will no longer attempt a meaningful

interaction with someone who, at a site dedicated to Nisargadatta, tosses

Nisargadatta's statements into the trash " out of hand. "

Why come here with that point of view? -- it can only be to provoke and

irritate by ignoring all dialog and simply snickering like a bully on a

playground at " the little kids. " It's trollish at a site

that has the name " Nisargadatta. " Troll means " being

a brutish putz under a bridge that prongs passersby for no reason other

than to gain attention illicitly. " Dan took offense at the

categorization -- that's a tell right there that he's as invested in his

ego as am I.

I'm not saying that Dan has nothing to say or that he hasn't earned some

tee shirts or that I won't read his statements. All I'm saying is

" I give up on hoping this dude will get real with me instead of

spewing non-duality slogans at me. " If I engage him again,

shame on me, says me. Insanity is expecting the same operation to

yield differing results, right? I think Dan has made it clear that

no words of mine can have any merit in his nervous system, but, hey, is

it just me or does everyone get that Dan loves his own words despite his

snarling at anyone else's words?

You, Geo, on the other hand do try to get into harmony with me at least

some of the time, so I'm sharing time with you. Big of me,

eh? Hee hee.

Your below kibitzing is not unlike Dan's kind of abuse here, so watch it

bub -- just watch it. You don't want to see me angry. I'll ,

I'll, I'll, I'll find more words -- yeah I see you trembling now -- you

just watch -- boy will you be in a world of hurt. Where's my

thesaurus? Got it....now I'm ready for ya.

Hee hee.

Edg

 

At 12:01 PM 7/24/2009, you wrote:

--- In

 

Nisargadatta , " duveyoung " <edg

wrote:

>

> Okay, Dan, I'll accommodate. You are now in that category

> of " posters who counter merely for countering's sake. "

 

And this post isn't " countering merely for countering's

sake " ?

What " countering " is happening, anyway?

Who's arguing with whom?

Who is feeling an inner conflict?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> > >

> > > timmy buys E. Tolle's bullshit.

> >

> > I've never read a single word of Eckhart Tolle.

> >

> > > the power of now is powerless here.

> >

> > Too bad.

> >

>

> When we see all

>

> As All One:

>

>

> There is NEVER

>

> Any disagreement,

>

> Anywhere.

 

There are lots of folks disagreeing with themselves (projected as 'other').

 

There are not two people disagreeing with each other, no. It's actually quite

impossible, although it may seem just the opposite.

 

Nobody is in contact with any 'other', only with their own interpretations...

which is, to say, themselves. Or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> > >

> > > timmy buys E. Tolle's bullshit.

> >

> > I've never read a single word of Eckhart Tolle.

> >

> > > the power of now is powerless here.

> >

> > Too bad.

>

> How's about a bit of Nisargadatta, tho --

>

> Questioner: Are you not immersed timelessly in an abstraction?

>

> Nisargadatta: Abstraction is mental and verbal and disappears in sleep, or

swoon; it reappears in time; I am in my own state (swarupa) timelessly in the

now. Past and future are in mind only -- I am *now*.

>

 

 

When?

 

" Yes, I accept myself " :

 

Now.

 

 

Not Now?

 

No:

 

" I reject my

 

Self "

 

Now

 

 

There is only

 

The NO

 

And the

 

NOW

 

 

With Infinite Freedom

 

To choose one or the other:

 

 

If one says one is bound:

 

One is bound.

 

 

If one says one is free

 

One is free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > timmy buys E. Tolle's bullshit.

> > >

> > > I've never read a single word of Eckhart Tolle.

> > >

> > > > the power of now is powerless here.

> > >

> > > Too bad.

> > >

> >

> > When we see all

> >

> > As All One:

> >

> >

> > There is NEVER

> >

> > Any disagreement,

> >

> > Anywhere.

>

> There are lots of folks disagreeing with themselves (projected as 'other').

>

> There are not two people disagreeing with each other, no. It's actually quite

impossible, although it may seem just the opposite.

>

> Nobody is in contact with any 'other', only with their own interpretations...

which is, to say, themselves. Or not.

>

 

Precisely!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@>

wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > timmy buys E. Tolle's bullshit.

> > > >

> > > > I've never read a single word of Eckhart Tolle.

> > > >

> > > > > the power of now is powerless here.

> > > >

> > > > Too bad.

> > > >

> > >

> > > When we see all

> > >

> > > As All One:

> > >

> > >

> > > There is NEVER

> > >

> > > Any disagreement,

> > >

> > > Anywhere.

> >

> > There are lots of folks disagreeing with themselves (projected as 'other').

> >

> > There are not two people disagreeing with each other, no. It's actually

quite impossible, although it may seem just the opposite.

> >

> > Nobody is in contact with any 'other', only with their own

interpretations... which is, to say, themselves. Or not.

> >

>

> Precisely!

>

PS: Except for those pesky viruses. These words, here, the Now ones, they

immunize against such infections as, " I/you/she/it/they are not free. "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

He edg.....why did you adress your message to geo? Maybe you have mistaken

me foe someone else? I did not write any of those posts bellow

-ego-

 

-

Edg

Nisargadatta

Friday, July 24, 2009 3:59 PM

Re: Re: Ego, realization, conceptual and

nonconceptual

 

 

Geo,

 

Since the site is unmoderated, Dan's welcome to post anything he wants, but

my decision to categorize his posts as trollish is to -- adult-to-adult --

notify Dan that I will no longer attempt a meaningful interaction with

someone who, at a site dedicated to Nisargadatta, tosses Nisargadatta's

statements into the trash " out of hand. " Why come here with that point of

view? -- it can only be to provoke and irritate by ignoring all dialog and

simply snickering like a bully on a playground at " the little kids. " It's

trollish at a site that has the name " Nisargadatta. " Troll means " being a

brutish putz under a bridge that prongs passersby for no reason other than

to gain attention illicitly. " Dan took offense at the categorization --

that's a tell right there that he's as invested in his ego as am I.

 

I'm not saying that Dan has nothing to say or that he hasn't earned some tee

shirts or that I won't read his statements. All I'm saying is " I give up on

hoping this dude will get real with me instead of spewing non-duality

slogans at me. " If I engage him again, shame on me, says me. Insanity is

expecting the same operation to yield differing results, right? I think Dan

has made it clear that no words of mine can have any merit in his nervous

system, but, hey, is it just me or does everyone get that Dan loves his own

words despite his snarling at anyone else's words?

 

You, Geo, on the other hand do try to get into harmony with me at least some

of the time, so I'm sharing time with you. Big of me, eh? Hee hee.

 

Your below kibitzing is not unlike Dan's kind of abuse here, so watch it

bub -- just watch it. You don't want to see me angry. I'll , I'll, I'll,

I'll find more words -- yeah I see you trembling now -- you just watch --

boy will you be in a world of hurt. Where's my thesaurus? Got it....now

I'm ready for ya.

 

Hee hee.

 

Edg

 

 

At 12:01 PM 7/24/2009, you wrote:

 

 

 

Nisargadatta , " duveyoung " <edg wrote:

>

> Okay, Dan, I'll accommodate. You are now in that category

> of " posters who counter merely for countering's sake. "

 

And this post isn't " countering merely for countering's sake " ?

 

What " countering " is happening, anyway?

 

Who's arguing with whom?

 

Who is feeling an inner conflict?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean.

Virus Database (VPS): 090526-0, 26/05/2009

Tested on: 24/7/2009 16:03:34

avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...