Guest guest Report post Posted August 5, 2009 Nisargadatta supposedly took his stand in the Absolute. This is proclaimed by him to be a desireless state, free of the bodymind identity. But when he was confronted with his cancer he said this, " I am not the least interested in this daily ritual of getting up in the morning, eating and again sleeping and all this...I have had enough of all that. I do not expect anything from this world. I am not going to acheive, attain, possess anything, because I am fed up with that very consciousness out of which the world is created and want to get rid of this consciousness. " (p.77, The Experience of Nothingness.) Sounds here like he was still identifying with some " thing " be it the body, or consciousness, or whatever. Any takers? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 5, 2009 Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963 wrote: > > Nisargadatta supposedly took his stand in the Absolute. This is proclaimed by him to be a desireless state, free of the bodymind identity. But when he was confronted with his cancer he said this, " I am not the least interested in this daily ritual of getting up in the morning, eating and again sleeping and all this...I have had enough of all that. I do not expect anything from this world. I am not going to acheive, attain, possess anything, because I am fed up with that very consciousness out of which the world is created and want to get rid of this consciousness. " (p.77, The Experience of Nothingness.) Sounds here like he was still identifying with some " thing " be it the body, or consciousness, or whatever. Any takers? Edg: Nisargadatta smoked too. Because the knowledge is so purely and consistently represented by his words, the dissonance I feel when his humanness shows is slight. Something kept Ramana the youth in his cave, and that same something kept Nisargadatta obsessing about a few words from his dead master. And both spoke of THAT (something) so well that the whole world came to their doorsteps. Their light was unflickering and even those from a long way off could count on it like a lighthouse. I think that all the psychological processes that constitute the ego are merely clockwork patterns which are hardwired and maintained by the fact that awareness is placed upon them -- the primal addiction that must be thwarted. When freedom comes, these processes are no longer " over fed, " and their physical reality -- a puffed uppedness -- begins to fade from " lack of attention. " Stop playing guitar and for weeks afterwards your fingertips will still have the calluses. The mind cannot be expected to stop invalid obsessions at the moment of realization -- that can only happen over a very long time of letting the clockworks recalibrate in order to harmonize with the truth that sentience is not a pattern. After freedom, the psychological clockworks keep grinding, but now it's clear that there is no ghost in the machinery, and that if there ever was a ghost, it's nature is not cogs and pulleys and wheels and that damnedable clanking racket that endlessly floods the ear. Who doesn't love it when they close the eyes and take a breath and let it out -- the sheer burden of all that WORK of processing the sensual inputs is so evident when one closes the eyes -- a peace immediately is obvious even if that peace is not entirely accomplished. I think that's what Nisargadatta was talking about -- he was the Absolute, and everything else was noise that no longer could allure the attention. The body/mind is like a whore in a doorway constantly beckoning to a holy man as he walks to the temple -- it's tawdry, and no wonder the enlightened will be glad to end that creepiness. And it's not suicidal. It's not cowardice; the saint doesn't fear the cacophony, but the Absolute's stature is so compellingly divine that one cannot justify ignoring it for the triviality that is creation. Putting the attention on consciousness' contents is to touch a tar baby -- one touch and there you are in church with your brand new white outfit and a fingertip (ego) that demands almost all the attention because it has the power to mar perfection. I think Nisargadatta was speaking to folks about how " much ado about nothing " is sheer hard work. " Put down your burdens " he was saying, " close the eyes, stop moving the body, follow thoughts to their source and shut off those loud speakers when you find them, get some rest willya? " Yet, here am I pounding the keyboard, steam coming out of my ears from the effort, eyes sucking photons in by the trillions, each one counted, and what the fuck for, eh? To whistle past a graveyard. The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. A description not an excuse. Edg Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 5, 2009 Nisargadatta , " duveyoung " <edg wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta supposedly took his stand in the Absolute. This is proclaimed by him to be a desireless state, free of the bodymind identity. But when he was confronted with his cancer he said this, " I am not the least interested in this daily ritual of getting up in the morning, eating and again sleeping and all this...I have had enough of all that. I do not expect anything from this world. I am not going to acheive, attain, possess anything, because I am fed up with that very consciousness out of which the world is created and want to get rid of this consciousness. " (p.77, The Experience of Nothingness.) Sounds here like he was still identifying with some " thing " be it the body, or consciousness, or whatever. Any takers? > > Edg: Nisargadatta smoked too. Because the knowledge is so purely and consistently represented by his words, the dissonance I feel when his humanness shows is slight. Something kept Ramana the youth in his cave, and that same something kept Nisargadatta obsessing about a few words from his dead master. And both spoke of THAT (something) so well that the whole world came to their doorsteps. Their light was unflickering and even those from a long way off could count on it like a lighthouse. > > I think that all the psychological processes that constitute the ego are merely clockwork patterns which are hardwired and maintained by the fact that awareness is placed upon them -- the primal addiction that must be thwarted. > > When freedom comes, these processes are no longer " over fed, " and their physical reality -- a puffed uppedness -- begins to fade from " lack of attention. " Stop playing guitar and for weeks afterwards your fingertips will still have the calluses. The mind cannot be expected to stop invalid obsessions at the moment of realization -- that can only happen over a very long time of letting the clockworks recalibrate in order to harmonize with the truth that sentience is not a pattern. > > After freedom, the psychological clockworks keep grinding, but now it's clear that there is no ghost in the machinery, and that if there ever was a ghost, it's nature is not cogs and pulleys and wheels and that damnedable clanking racket that endlessly floods the ear. > > Who doesn't love it when they close the eyes and take a breath and let it out -- the sheer burden of all that WORK of processing the sensual inputs is so evident when one closes the eyes -- a peace immediately is obvious even if that peace is not entirely accomplished. I think that's what Nisargadatta was talking about -- he was the Absolute, and everything else was noise that no longer could allure the attention. The body/mind is like a whore in a doorway constantly beckoning to a holy man as he walks to the temple -- it's tawdry, and no wonder the enlightened will be glad to end that creepiness. > > And it's not suicidal. It's not cowardice; the saint doesn't fear the cacophony, but the Absolute's stature is so compellingly divine that one cannot justify ignoring it for the triviality that is creation. Putting the attention on consciousness' contents is to touch a tar baby -- one touch and there you are in church with your brand new white outfit and a fingertip (ego) that demands almost all the attention because it has the power to mar perfection. > > I think Nisargadatta was speaking to folks about how " much ado about nothing " is sheer hard work. " Put down your burdens " he was saying, " close the eyes, stop moving the body, follow thoughts to their source and shut off those loud speakers when you find them, get some rest willya? " > > Yet, here am I pounding the keyboard, steam coming out of my ears from the effort, eyes sucking photons in by the trillions, each one counted, and what the fuck for, eh? To whistle past a graveyard. > > The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. A description not an excuse. > > Edg > I love you Edg. ~A Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 5, 2009 Nisargadatta , " duveyoung " <edg wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta supposedly took his stand in the Absolute. This is proclaimed by him to be a desireless state, free of the bodymind identity. But when he was confronted with his cancer he said this, " I am not the least interested in this daily ritual of getting up in the morning, eating and again sleeping and all this...I have had enough of all that. I do not expect anything from this world. I am not going to acheive, attain, possess anything, because I am fed up with that very consciousness out of which the world is created and want to get rid of this consciousness. " (p.77, The Experience of Nothingness.) Sounds here like he was still identifying with some " thing " be it the body, or consciousness, or whatever. Any takers? > > Edg: Nisargadatta smoked too. Because the knowledge is so purely and consistently represented by his words, the dissonance I feel when his humanness shows is slight. Something kept Ramana the youth in his cave, and that same something kept Nisargadatta obsessing about a few words from his dead master. And both spoke of THAT (something) so well that the whole world came to their doorsteps. Their light was unflickering and even those from a long way off could count on it like a lighthouse. > > I think that all the psychological processes that constitute the ego are merely clockwork patterns which are hardwired and maintained by the fact that awareness is placed upon them -- the primal addiction that must be thwarted. > > When freedom comes, these processes are no longer " over fed, " and their physical reality -- a puffed uppedness -- begins to fade from " lack of attention. " Stop playing guitar and for weeks afterwards your fingertips will still have the calluses. The mind cannot be expected to stop invalid obsessions at the moment of realization -- that can only happen over a very long time of letting the clockworks recalibrate in order to harmonize with the truth that sentience is not a pattern. > > After freedom, the psychological clockworks keep grinding, but now it's clear that there is no ghost in the machinery, and that if there ever was a ghost, it's nature is not cogs and pulleys and wheels and that damnedable clanking racket that endlessly floods the ear. > > Who doesn't love it when they close the eyes and take a breath and let it out -- the sheer burden of all that WORK of processing the sensual inputs is so evident when one closes the eyes -- a peace immediately is obvious even if that peace is not entirely accomplished. I think that's what Nisargadatta was talking about -- he was the Absolute, and everything else was noise that no longer could allure the attention. The body/mind is like a whore in a doorway constantly beckoning to a holy man as he walks to the temple -- it's tawdry, and no wonder the enlightened will be glad to end that creepiness. > > And it's not suicidal. It's not cowardice; the saint doesn't fear the cacophony, but the Absolute's stature is so compellingly divine that one cannot justify ignoring it for the triviality that is creation. Putting the attention on consciousness' contents is to touch a tar baby -- one touch and there you are in church with your brand new white outfit and a fingertip (ego) that demands almost all the attention because it has the power to mar perfection. > > I think Nisargadatta was speaking to folks about how " much ado about nothing " is sheer hard work. " Put down your burdens " he was saying, " close the eyes, stop moving the body, follow thoughts to their source and shut off those loud speakers when you find them, get some rest willya? " > > Yet, here am I pounding the keyboard, steam coming out of my ears from the effort, eyes sucking photons in by the trillions, each one counted, and what the fuck for, eh? To whistle past a graveyard. > > The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. A description not an excuse. > > Edg > I had my very own spirit for a while. It followed me wherever I went. I seem to have misplaced it. While it was here...it was condensed in my mind and always seemed to assume the shape of my body. I don't know where it went. But I think it has kinda diffused itself into what I grew up believing was " out there " . You know what I mean.........don't you? toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 5, 2009 - toombaru2006 Nisargadatta Wednesday, August 05, 2009 1:09 PM Re: More inconsistencies Nisargadatta , " duveyoung " <edg wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " > <douglasmitch1963@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta supposedly took his stand in the Absolute. This is > > proclaimed by him to be a desireless state, free of the bodymind > > identity. But when he was confronted with his cancer he said this, " I am > > not the least interested in this daily ritual of getting up in the > > morning, eating and again sleeping and all this...I have had enough of > > all that. I do not expect anything from this world. I am not going to > > acheive, attain, possess anything, because I am fed up with that very > > consciousness out of which the world is created and want to get rid of > > this consciousness. " (p.77, The Experience of Nothingness.) Sounds here > > like he was still identifying with some " thing " be it the body, or > > consciousness, or whatever. Any takers? > > Edg: Nisargadatta smoked too. Because the knowledge is so purely and > consistently represented by his words, the dissonance I feel when his > humanness shows is slight. Something kept Ramana the youth in his cave, > and that same something kept Nisargadatta obsessing about a few words from > his dead master. And both spoke of THAT (something) so well that the whole > world came to their doorsteps. Their light was unflickering and even those > from a long way off could count on it like a lighthouse. > > I think that all the psychological processes that constitute the ego are > merely clockwork patterns which are hardwired and maintained by the fact > that awareness is placed upon them -- the primal addiction that must be > thwarted. > > When freedom comes, these processes are no longer " over fed, " and their > physical reality -- a puffed uppedness -- begins to fade from " lack of > attention. " Stop playing guitar and for weeks afterwards your fingertips > will still have the calluses. The mind cannot be expected to stop invalid > obsessions at the moment of realization -- that can only happen over a > very long time of letting the clockworks recalibrate in order to harmonize > with the truth that sentience is not a pattern. > > After freedom, the psychological clockworks keep grinding, but now it's > clear that there is no ghost in the machinery, and that if there ever was > a ghost, it's nature is not cogs and pulleys and wheels and that > damnedable clanking racket that endlessly floods the ear. > > Who doesn't love it when they close the eyes and take a breath and let it > out -- the sheer burden of all that WORK of processing the sensual inputs > is so evident when one closes the eyes -- a peace immediately is obvious > even if that peace is not entirely accomplished. I think that's what > Nisargadatta was talking about -- he was the Absolute, and everything else > was noise that no longer could allure the attention. The body/mind is like > a whore in a doorway constantly beckoning to a holy man as he walks to the > temple -- it's tawdry, and no wonder the enlightened will be glad to end > that creepiness. > > And it's not suicidal. It's not cowardice; the saint doesn't fear the > cacophony, but the Absolute's stature is so compellingly divine that one > cannot justify ignoring it for the triviality that is creation. Putting > the attention on consciousness' contents is to touch a tar baby -- one > touch and there you are in church with your brand new white outfit and a > fingertip (ego) that demands almost all the attention because it has the > power to mar perfection. > > I think Nisargadatta was speaking to folks about how " much ado about > nothing " is sheer hard work. " Put down your burdens " he was saying, " close > the eyes, stop moving the body, follow thoughts to their source and shut > off those loud speakers when you find them, get some rest willya? " > > Yet, here am I pounding the keyboard, steam coming out of my ears from the > effort, eyes sucking photons in by the trillions, each one counted, and > what the fuck for, eh? To whistle past a graveyard. > > The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. A description not an excuse. > > Edg > I had my very own spirit for a while. It followed me wherever I went. I seem to have misplaced it. While it was here...it was condensed in my mind and always seemed to assume the shape of my body. I don't know where it went. But I think it has kinda diffused itself into what I grew up believing was " out there " . You know what I mean.........don't you? toombaru And... not that it is absent from what I thought was " in here " . -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 5, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > toombaru2006 > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, August 05, 2009 1:09 PM > Re: More inconsistencies > > > Nisargadatta , " duveyoung " <edg@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " > > <douglasmitch1963@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta supposedly took his stand in the Absolute. This is > > > proclaimed by him to be a desireless state, free of the bodymind > > > identity. But when he was confronted with his cancer he said this, " I am > > > not the least interested in this daily ritual of getting up in the > > > morning, eating and again sleeping and all this...I have had enough of > > > all that. I do not expect anything from this world. I am not going to > > > acheive, attain, possess anything, because I am fed up with that very > > > consciousness out of which the world is created and want to get rid of > > > this consciousness. " (p.77, The Experience of Nothingness.) Sounds here > > > like he was still identifying with some " thing " be it the body, or > > > consciousness, or whatever. Any takers? > > > > Edg: Nisargadatta smoked too. Because the knowledge is so purely and > > consistently represented by his words, the dissonance I feel when his > > humanness shows is slight. Something kept Ramana the youth in his cave, > > and that same something kept Nisargadatta obsessing about a few words from > > his dead master. And both spoke of THAT (something) so well that the whole > > world came to their doorsteps. Their light was unflickering and even those > > from a long way off could count on it like a lighthouse. > > > > I think that all the psychological processes that constitute the ego are > > merely clockwork patterns which are hardwired and maintained by the fact > > that awareness is placed upon them -- the primal addiction that must be > > thwarted. > > > > When freedom comes, these processes are no longer " over fed, " and their > > physical reality -- a puffed uppedness -- begins to fade from " lack of > > attention. " Stop playing guitar and for weeks afterwards your fingertips > > will still have the calluses. The mind cannot be expected to stop invalid > > obsessions at the moment of realization -- that can only happen over a > > very long time of letting the clockworks recalibrate in order to harmonize > > with the truth that sentience is not a pattern. > > > > After freedom, the psychological clockworks keep grinding, but now it's > > clear that there is no ghost in the machinery, and that if there ever was > > a ghost, it's nature is not cogs and pulleys and wheels and that > > damnedable clanking racket that endlessly floods the ear. > > > > Who doesn't love it when they close the eyes and take a breath and let it > > out -- the sheer burden of all that WORK of processing the sensual inputs > > is so evident when one closes the eyes -- a peace immediately is obvious > > even if that peace is not entirely accomplished. I think that's what > > Nisargadatta was talking about -- he was the Absolute, and everything else > > was noise that no longer could allure the attention. The body/mind is like > > a whore in a doorway constantly beckoning to a holy man as he walks to the > > temple -- it's tawdry, and no wonder the enlightened will be glad to end > > that creepiness. > > > > And it's not suicidal. It's not cowardice; the saint doesn't fear the > > cacophony, but the Absolute's stature is so compellingly divine that one > > cannot justify ignoring it for the triviality that is creation. Putting > > the attention on consciousness' contents is to touch a tar baby -- one > > touch and there you are in church with your brand new white outfit and a > > fingertip (ego) that demands almost all the attention because it has the > > power to mar perfection. > > > > I think Nisargadatta was speaking to folks about how " much ado about > > nothing " is sheer hard work. " Put down your burdens " he was saying, " close > > the eyes, stop moving the body, follow thoughts to their source and shut > > off those loud speakers when you find them, get some rest willya? " > > > > Yet, here am I pounding the keyboard, steam coming out of my ears from the > > effort, eyes sucking photons in by the trillions, each one counted, and > > what the fuck for, eh? To whistle past a graveyard. > > > > The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. A description not an excuse. > > > > Edg > > > > I had my very own spirit for a while. > It followed me wherever I went. > I seem to have misplaced it. > While it was here...it was condensed in my mind and always seemed to assume > the shape of my body. > I don't know where it went. > But I think it has kinda diffused itself into what I grew up believing was > " out there " . > > You know what I mean.........don't you? > > toombaru > > And... not that it is absent from what I thought was " in here " . > -geo- > Yes.....that too. But that seems to be a little harder to speak about. :-) toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 5, 2009 - toombaru2006 Nisargadatta Wednesday, August 05, 2009 1:23 PM Re: More inconsistencies Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > toombaru2006 > Nisargadatta > Wednesday, August 05, 2009 1:09 PM > Re: More inconsistencies > > > Nisargadatta , " duveyoung " <edg@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " > > <douglasmitch1963@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta supposedly took his stand in the Absolute. This is > > > proclaimed by him to be a desireless state, free of the bodymind > > > identity. But when he was confronted with his cancer he said this, " I > > > am > > > not the least interested in this daily ritual of getting up in the > > > morning, eating and again sleeping and all this...I have had enough of > > > all that. I do not expect anything from this world. I am not going to > > > acheive, attain, possess anything, because I am fed up with that very > > > consciousness out of which the world is created and want to get rid of > > > this consciousness. " (p.77, The Experience of Nothingness.) Sounds > > > here > > > like he was still identifying with some " thing " be it the body, or > > > consciousness, or whatever. Any takers? > > > > Edg: Nisargadatta smoked too. Because the knowledge is so purely and > > consistently represented by his words, the dissonance I feel when his > > humanness shows is slight. Something kept Ramana the youth in his cave, > > and that same something kept Nisargadatta obsessing about a few words > > from > > his dead master. And both spoke of THAT (something) so well that the > > whole > > world came to their doorsteps. Their light was unflickering and even > > those > > from a long way off could count on it like a lighthouse. > > > > I think that all the psychological processes that constitute the ego are > > merely clockwork patterns which are hardwired and maintained by the fact > > that awareness is placed upon them -- the primal addiction that must be > > thwarted. > > > > When freedom comes, these processes are no longer " over fed, " and their > > physical reality -- a puffed uppedness -- begins to fade from " lack of > > attention. " Stop playing guitar and for weeks afterwards your fingertips > > will still have the calluses. The mind cannot be expected to stop > > invalid > > obsessions at the moment of realization -- that can only happen over a > > very long time of letting the clockworks recalibrate in order to > > harmonize > > with the truth that sentience is not a pattern. > > > > After freedom, the psychological clockworks keep grinding, but now it's > > clear that there is no ghost in the machinery, and that if there ever > > was > > a ghost, it's nature is not cogs and pulleys and wheels and that > > damnedable clanking racket that endlessly floods the ear. > > > > Who doesn't love it when they close the eyes and take a breath and let > > it > > out -- the sheer burden of all that WORK of processing the sensual > > inputs > > is so evident when one closes the eyes -- a peace immediately is obvious > > even if that peace is not entirely accomplished. I think that's what > > Nisargadatta was talking about -- he was the Absolute, and everything > > else > > was noise that no longer could allure the attention. The body/mind is > > like > > a whore in a doorway constantly beckoning to a holy man as he walks to > > the > > temple -- it's tawdry, and no wonder the enlightened will be glad to end > > that creepiness. > > > > And it's not suicidal. It's not cowardice; the saint doesn't fear the > > cacophony, but the Absolute's stature is so compellingly divine that one > > cannot justify ignoring it for the triviality that is creation. Putting > > the attention on consciousness' contents is to touch a tar baby -- one > > touch and there you are in church with your brand new white outfit and a > > fingertip (ego) that demands almost all the attention because it has the > > power to mar perfection. > > > > I think Nisargadatta was speaking to folks about how " much ado about > > nothing " is sheer hard work. " Put down your burdens " he was saying, > > " close > > the eyes, stop moving the body, follow thoughts to their source and shut > > off those loud speakers when you find them, get some rest willya? " > > > > Yet, here am I pounding the keyboard, steam coming out of my ears from > > the > > effort, eyes sucking photons in by the trillions, each one counted, and > > what the fuck for, eh? To whistle past a graveyard. > > > > The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. A description not an > > excuse. > > > > Edg > > > > I had my very own spirit for a while. > It followed me wherever I went. > I seem to have misplaced it. > While it was here...it was condensed in my mind and always seemed to > assume > the shape of my body. > I don't know where it went. > But I think it has kinda diffused itself into what I grew up believing was > " out there " . > > You know what I mean.........don't you? > > toombaru > > And... not that it is absent from what I thought was " in here " . > -geo- > Yes.....that too. But that seems to be a little harder to speak about. :-) toombaru Why? Inside, outside...are both perfectly objectivable..no problems -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 5, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Yes.....that too. > > But that seems to be a little harder to speak about. > > :-) > > > > > toombaru Speaking about 'this' is least important... by far. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 6, 2009 Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963 wrote: > > Nisargadatta supposedly took his stand in the Absolute. This is proclaimed by him to be a desireless state, free of the bodymind identity. But when he was confronted with his cancer he said this, " I am not the least interested in this daily ritual of getting up in the morning, eating and again sleeping and all this...I have had enough of all that. I do not expect anything from this world. I am not going to acheive, attain, possess anything, because I am fed up with that very consciousness out of which the world is created and want to get rid of this consciousness. " (p.77, The Experience of Nothingness.) Sounds here like he was still identifying with some " thing " be it the body, or consciousness, or whatever. Any takers? Douglas - One can only guess. If one were a friend of Nisargadatta's at the time, one could ask him about it. He is dead, one has read his words translated from another language. One has no idea what was actually said, how it was interpreted and transcribed, how it was translated. One has no idea how Nisargadatta perceived the one to whom he spoke, or what experience he was addressing through his words. What would be less of a guess for you, is what identification is for you. You could ask that question of yourself - are you identified with something or not? What is it to you to be identified or not identified? Experientially what is the difference for you? What is it not to be identified with experience? Then, you wouldn't be guessing as much. Although, once you spoke about it, we would be guessing, as your readers, what you meant. Even if we spoke the same language that you speak and could ask you about it as you were still alive. We would still be guessing. And the part of your brain that supplies language, would still be guessing about what language to apply to the experience and understanding you were having, so as to bring that experience and understanding " to others. " And those others would just be whatever they were, in your experience and understanding. Is it possible not to guess? To know directly? What do you say from this awareness, where you are not guessing? -- Dan -- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 6, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta supposedly took his stand in the Absolute. This is proclaimed by him to be a desireless state, free of the bodymind identity. But when he was confronted with his cancer he said this, " I am not the least interested in this daily ritual of getting up in the morning, eating and again sleeping and all this...I have had enough of all that. I do not expect anything from this world. I am not going to acheive, attain, possess anything, because I am fed up with that very consciousness out of which the world is created and want to get rid of this consciousness. " (p.77, The Experience of Nothingness.) Sounds here like he was still identifying with some " thing " be it the body, or consciousness, or whatever. Any takers? > > > Douglas - > > One can only guess. > > If one were a friend of Nisargadatta's at the time, one could ask him about it. > > He is dead, one has read his words translated from another language. > > One has no idea what was actually said, how it was interpreted and transcribed, how it was translated. > > One has no idea how Nisargadatta perceived the one to whom he spoke, or what experience he was addressing through his words. > > What would be less of a guess for you, is what identification is for you. > > You could ask that question of yourself - are you identified with something or not? What is it to you to be identified or not identified? > > Experientially what is the difference for you? > > What is it not to be identified with experience? > > Then, you wouldn't be guessing as much. > > Although, once you spoke about it, we would be guessing, as your readers, what you meant. > > Even if we spoke the same language that you speak and could ask you about it as you were still alive. > > We would still be guessing. > > And the part of your brain that supplies language, would still be guessing about what language to apply to the experience and understanding you were having, so as to bring that experience and understanding " to others. " > > And those others would just be whatever they were, in your experience and understanding. > > Is it possible not to guess? > > To know directly? > > What do you say from this awareness, where you are not guessing? > > > -- Dan -- >Dan, >The referenced quote makes me think that Nisargadatta and I are alike in our sentiments about living with a terminal illness. I have AIDS and feel at times the way that Nisargadatta did about this supposed life. But there is a part of me that feels that the body is the " temple " of consciousness, and hence Awareness. The body should perhaps be something for which one is very grateful and blessed to have as a vehicle for the consciousness and Awareness. There is so much negativity pronounced upon the body by Nisargadatta that I find hard to accept. I know that I am not just this body, but I don't dismiss it outright. It has helped me via the mind to transcend and realize that the Awareness/Absolute would have no other way to know itself it were not for the body and mind. That is where i take my stand. Thanks for your thoughtful responses to my inquiries, Dan. You have been the most helpful to me on this site. -Doug Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 6, 2009 - douglasmitch1963 Nisargadatta Thursday, August 06, 2009 9:47 AM Re: More inconsistencies Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " > <douglasmitch1963@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta supposedly took his stand in the Absolute. This is > > proclaimed by him to be a desireless state, free of the bodymind > > identity. But when he was confronted with his cancer he said this, " I am > > not the least interested in this daily ritual of getting up in the > > morning, eating and again sleeping and all this...I have had enough of > > all that. I do not expect anything from this world. I am not going to > > acheive, attain, possess anything, because I am fed up with that very > > consciousness out of which the world is created and want to get rid of > > this consciousness. " (p.77, The Experience of Nothingness.) Sounds here > > like he was still identifying with some " thing " be it the body, or > > consciousness, or whatever. Any takers? > > > Douglas - > > One can only guess. > > If one were a friend of Nisargadatta's at the time, one could ask him > about it. > > He is dead, one has read his words translated from another language. > > One has no idea what was actually said, how it was interpreted and > transcribed, how it was translated. > > One has no idea how Nisargadatta perceived the one to whom he spoke, or > what experience he was addressing through his words. > > What would be less of a guess for you, is what identification is for you. > > You could ask that question of yourself - are you identified with > something or not? What is it to you to be identified or not identified? > > Experientially what is the difference for you? > > What is it not to be identified with experience? > > Then, you wouldn't be guessing as much. > > Although, once you spoke about it, we would be guessing, as your readers, > what you meant. > > Even if we spoke the same language that you speak and could ask you about > it as you were still alive. > > We would still be guessing. > > And the part of your brain that supplies language, would still be guessing > about what language to apply to the experience and understanding you were > having, so as to bring that experience and understanding " to others. " > > And those others would just be whatever they were, in your experience and > understanding. > > Is it possible not to guess? > > To know directly? > > What do you say from this awareness, where you are not guessing? > > > -- Dan -- >Dan, >The referenced quote makes me think that Nisargadatta and I are alike in >our sentiments about living with a terminal illness. I have AIDS and feel >at times the way that Nisargadatta did about this supposed life. But there >is a part of me that feels that the body is the " temple " of consciousness, >and hence Awareness. The body should perhaps be something for which one is >very grateful and blessed to have as a vehicle for the consciousness and >Awareness. There is so much negativity pronounced upon the body by >Nisargadatta that I find hard to accept. I know that I am not just this >body, but I don't dismiss it outright. It has helped me via the mind to >transcend and realize that the Awareness/Absolute would have no other way >to know itself it were not for the body and mind. That is where i take my >stand. Thanks for your thoughtful responses to my inquiries, Dan. You have >been the most helpful to me on this site. -Doug I think there is a bit of exageration when you say " there is so much negativity pronounced upon the body by Nisargadatta... " . If you go through other dialogues you will find that most of the time it is quite the other way around: everything is just perfect, with his body and averting else. That quote is probably from a period where he was going through much pain and physical suffering in the end of his life. The right time to go is when the time is right...isn't it? -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 6, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > douglasmitch1963 > Nisargadatta > Thursday, August 06, 2009 9:47 AM > Re: More inconsistencies > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " > > <douglasmitch1963@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta supposedly took his stand in the Absolute. This is > > > proclaimed by him to be a desireless state, free of the bodymind > > > identity. But when he was confronted with his cancer he said this, " I am > > > not the least interested in this daily ritual of getting up in the > > > morning, eating and again sleeping and all this...I have had enough of > > > all that. I do not expect anything from this world. I am not going to > > > acheive, attain, possess anything, because I am fed up with that very > > > consciousness out of which the world is created and want to get rid of > > > this consciousness. " (p.77, The Experience of Nothingness.) Sounds here > > > like he was still identifying with some " thing " be it the body, or > > > consciousness, or whatever. Any takers? > > > > > > Douglas - > > > > One can only guess. > > > > If one were a friend of Nisargadatta's at the time, one could ask him > > about it. > > > > He is dead, one has read his words translated from another language. > > > > One has no idea what was actually said, how it was interpreted and > > transcribed, how it was translated. > > > > One has no idea how Nisargadatta perceived the one to whom he spoke, or > > what experience he was addressing through his words. > > > > What would be less of a guess for you, is what identification is for you. > > > > You could ask that question of yourself - are you identified with > > something or not? What is it to you to be identified or not identified? > > > > Experientially what is the difference for you? > > > > What is it not to be identified with experience? > > > > Then, you wouldn't be guessing as much. > > > > Although, once you spoke about it, we would be guessing, as your readers, > > what you meant. > > > > Even if we spoke the same language that you speak and could ask you about > > it as you were still alive. > > > > We would still be guessing. > > > > And the part of your brain that supplies language, would still be guessing > > about what language to apply to the experience and understanding you were > > having, so as to bring that experience and understanding " to others. " > > > > And those others would just be whatever they were, in your experience and > > understanding. > > > > Is it possible not to guess? > > > > To know directly? > > > > What do you say from this awareness, where you are not guessing? > > > > > > -- Dan -- > > >Dan, > >The referenced quote makes me think that Nisargadatta and I are alike in > >our sentiments about living with a terminal illness. I have AIDS and feel > >at times the way that Nisargadatta did about this supposed life. But there > >is a part of me that feels that the body is the " temple " of consciousness, > >and hence Awareness. The body should perhaps be something for which one is > >very grateful and blessed to have as a vehicle for the consciousness and > >Awareness. There is so much negativity pronounced upon the body by > >Nisargadatta that I find hard to accept. I know that I am not just this > >body, but I don't dismiss it outright. It has helped me via the mind to > >transcend and realize that the Awareness/Absolute would have no other way > >to know itself it were not for the body and mind. That is where i take my > >stand. Thanks for your thoughtful responses to my inquiries, Dan. You have > >been the most helpful to me on this site. > -Doug > > I think there is a bit of exageration when you say " there is so much > negativity pronounced upon the body by Nisargadatta... " . If you go through > other dialogues you will find that most of the time it is quite the other > way around: everything is just perfect, with his body and averting else. > That quote is probably from a period where he was going through much pain > and physical suffering in the end of his life. > > The right time to go is when the time is right...isn't it? > -geo- > >Geo, >Who knows, but maybe you're right about the context in which the quote was made. But I still get a lot of negativity about the body from Nis and many other teachers. The body and mind are glorious to behold in my opinion. Thanks for responding, though. -Doug Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 6, 2009 Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > douglasmitch1963 > > Nisargadatta > > Thursday, August 06, 2009 9:47 AM > > Re: More inconsistencies > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " > > > <douglasmitch1963@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta supposedly took his stand in the Absolute. This is > > > > proclaimed by him to be a desireless state, free of the bodymind > > > > identity. But when he was confronted with his cancer he said this, " I am > > > > not the least interested in this daily ritual of getting up in the > > > > morning, eating and again sleeping and all this...I have had enough of > > > > all that. I do not expect anything from this world. I am not going to > > > > acheive, attain, possess anything, because I am fed up with that very > > > > consciousness out of which the world is created and want to get rid of > > > > this consciousness. " (p.77, The Experience of Nothingness.) Sounds here > > > > like he was still identifying with some " thing " be it the body, or > > > > consciousness, or whatever. Any takers? > > > > > > > > > Douglas - > > > > > > One can only guess. > > > > > > If one were a friend of Nisargadatta's at the time, one could ask him > > > about it. > > > > > > He is dead, one has read his words translated from another language. > > > > > > One has no idea what was actually said, how it was interpreted and > > > transcribed, how it was translated. > > > > > > One has no idea how Nisargadatta perceived the one to whom he spoke, or > > > what experience he was addressing through his words. > > > > > > What would be less of a guess for you, is what identification is for you. > > > > > > You could ask that question of yourself - are you identified with > > > something or not? What is it to you to be identified or not identified? > > > > > > Experientially what is the difference for you? > > > > > > What is it not to be identified with experience? > > > > > > Then, you wouldn't be guessing as much. > > > > > > Although, once you spoke about it, we would be guessing, as your readers, > > > what you meant. > > > > > > Even if we spoke the same language that you speak and could ask you about > > > it as you were still alive. > > > > > > We would still be guessing. > > > > > > And the part of your brain that supplies language, would still be guessing > > > about what language to apply to the experience and understanding you were > > > having, so as to bring that experience and understanding " to others. " > > > > > > And those others would just be whatever they were, in your experience and > > > understanding. > > > > > > Is it possible not to guess? > > > > > > To know directly? > > > > > > What do you say from this awareness, where you are not guessing? > > > > > > > > > -- Dan -- > > > > >Dan, > > >The referenced quote makes me think that Nisargadatta and I are alike in > > >our sentiments about living with a terminal illness. I have AIDS and feel > > >at times the way that Nisargadatta did about this supposed life. But there > > >is a part of me that feels that the body is the " temple " of consciousness, > > >and hence Awareness. The body should perhaps be something for which one is > > >very grateful and blessed to have as a vehicle for the consciousness and > > >Awareness. There is so much negativity pronounced upon the body by > > >Nisargadatta that I find hard to accept. I know that I am not just this > > >body, but I don't dismiss it outright. It has helped me via the mind to > > >transcend and realize that the Awareness/Absolute would have no other way > > >to know itself it were not for the body and mind. That is where i take my > > >stand. Thanks for your thoughtful responses to my inquiries, Dan. You have > > >been the most helpful to me on this site. > > -Doug > > > > I think there is a bit of exageration when you say " there is so much > > negativity pronounced upon the body by Nisargadatta... " . If you go through > > other dialogues you will find that most of the time it is quite the other > > way around: everything is just perfect, with his body and averting else. > > That quote is probably from a period where he was going through much pain > > and physical suffering in the end of his life. > > > > The right time to go is when the time is right...isn't it? > > -geo- > > > >Geo, > >Who knows, but maybe you're right about the context in which the quote was made. But I still get a lot of negativity about the body from Nis and many other teachers. The body and mind are glorious to behold in my opinion. Thanks for responding, though. -Doug > Doug, Good luck on your health challenge. I don't think Nisargadatta was invested in the body's reality enough to be negative towards it. I think he thought of the body as you or I might think of a irksome pest in a Hollywood film. One can criticize that fictional character's " personality " and be 100% correctly reporting " truth " about that character, yet, why bother dissing a fiction? That's the story as I see it: the body is a bother like an adorable toddler that tugs constantly at Mom's hem -- you love the kid, but geeze . . . The purpose of creation is the expansion of happiness. BAM -- there's the main reason for having a body/mind -- a place that doesn't exist is yet no challenge to the Absolute when it comes to infinitizing. Even where it cannot be, it IS, and the body/mind is the stage upon which that BEING coming into NONBEING is enacted. And, hey, let's get down to one basic fact: this so-called reality is here and now, and no matter why it is here, we can be assured that " the Absolute had its reasons. " I mean, come on, what's so bad about God glancing into a mirror? All of creation is but the act of God manifesting every quality in a space/time matrix. Because of time, the perfecting of non-ness cannot instantly BE, but instead, handcuffed by time and forced into being logically causal, it is as if God were doing an autopsy on Himself....all His glory on a dissection table. Gory metaphor, eh? So the very fact that there are facts means that whatever formed the facts thought they were worth the creative effort. You, for instance. And, in the end, the body/mind, yes, must be seen as an automaton that is a wooden dummy for a divine Ventriloquist, but, hey, better to be a dummy on God's lap, eh? Edg Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 6, 2009 - duveyoung Nisargadatta Thursday, August 06, 2009 12:14 PM Re: More inconsistencies Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > douglasmitch1963 > > Nisargadatta > > Thursday, August 06, 2009 9:47 AM > > Re: More inconsistencies > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " > > > <douglasmitch1963@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta supposedly took his stand in the Absolute. This is > > > > proclaimed by him to be a desireless state, free of the bodymind > > > > identity. But when he was confronted with his cancer he said this, " I > > > > am > > > > not the least interested in this daily ritual of getting up in the > > > > morning, eating and again sleeping and all this...I have had enough > > > > of > > > > all that. I do not expect anything from this world. I am not going > > > > to > > > > acheive, attain, possess anything, because I am fed up with that > > > > very > > > > consciousness out of which the world is created and want to get rid > > > > of > > > > this consciousness. " (p.77, The Experience of Nothingness.) Sounds > > > > here > > > > like he was still identifying with some " thing " be it the body, or > > > > consciousness, or whatever. Any takers? > > > > > > > > > Douglas - > > > > > > One can only guess. > > > > > > If one were a friend of Nisargadatta's at the time, one could ask him > > > about it. > > > > > > He is dead, one has read his words translated from another language. > > > > > > One has no idea what was actually said, how it was interpreted and > > > transcribed, how it was translated. > > > > > > One has no idea how Nisargadatta perceived the one to whom he spoke, > > > or > > > what experience he was addressing through his words. > > > > > > What would be less of a guess for you, is what identification is for > > > you. > > > > > > You could ask that question of yourself - are you identified with > > > something or not? What is it to you to be identified or not > > > identified? > > > > > > Experientially what is the difference for you? > > > > > > What is it not to be identified with experience? > > > > > > Then, you wouldn't be guessing as much. > > > > > > Although, once you spoke about it, we would be guessing, as your > > > readers, > > > what you meant. > > > > > > Even if we spoke the same language that you speak and could ask you > > > about > > > it as you were still alive. > > > > > > We would still be guessing. > > > > > > And the part of your brain that supplies language, would still be > > > guessing > > > about what language to apply to the experience and understanding you > > > were > > > having, so as to bring that experience and understanding " to others. " > > > > > > And those others would just be whatever they were, in your experience > > > and > > > understanding. > > > > > > Is it possible not to guess? > > > > > > To know directly? > > > > > > What do you say from this awareness, where you are not guessing? > > > > > > > > > -- Dan -- > > > > >Dan, > > >The referenced quote makes me think that Nisargadatta and I are alike > > >in > > >our sentiments about living with a terminal illness. I have AIDS and > > >feel > > >at times the way that Nisargadatta did about this supposed life. But > > >there > > >is a part of me that feels that the body is the " temple " of > > >consciousness, > > >and hence Awareness. The body should perhaps be something for which one > > >is > > >very grateful and blessed to have as a vehicle for the consciousness > > >and > > >Awareness. There is so much negativity pronounced upon the body by > > >Nisargadatta that I find hard to accept. I know that I am not just this > > >body, but I don't dismiss it outright. It has helped me via the mind to > > >transcend and realize that the Awareness/Absolute would have no other > > >way > > >to know itself it were not for the body and mind. That is where i take > > >my > > >stand. Thanks for your thoughtful responses to my inquiries, Dan. You > > >have > > >been the most helpful to me on this site. > > -Doug > > > > I think there is a bit of exageration when you say " there is so much > > negativity pronounced upon the body by Nisargadatta... " . If you go > > through > > other dialogues you will find that most of the time it is quite the > > other > > way around: everything is just perfect, with his body and averting else. > > That quote is probably from a period where he was going through much > > pain > > and physical suffering in the end of his life. > > > > The right time to go is when the time is right...isn't it? > > -geo- > > > >Geo, > >Who knows, but maybe you're right about the context in which the quote > >was made. But I still get a lot of negativity about the body from Nis and > >many other teachers. The body and mind are glorious to behold in my > >opinion. Thanks for responding, though. -Doug > Doug, Good luck on your health challenge. I don't think Nisargadatta was invested in the body's reality enough to be negative towards it. I think he thought of the body as you or I might think of a irksome pest in a Hollywood film. One can criticize that fictional character's " personality " and be 100% correctly reporting " truth " about that character, yet, why bother dissing a fiction? That's the story as I see it: the body is a bother like an adorable toddler that tugs constantly at Mom's hem -- you love the kid, but geeze . . . The purpose of creation is the expansion of happiness. BAM -- there's the main reason for having a body/mind -- a place that doesn't exist is yet no challenge to the Absolute when it comes to infinitizing. Even where it cannot be, it IS, and the body/mind is the stage upon which that BEING coming into NONBEING is enacted. And, hey, let's get down to one basic fact: this so-called reality is here and now, and no matter why it is here, we can be assured that " the Absolute had its reasons. " I mean, come on, what's so bad about God glancing into a mirror? All of creation is but the act of God manifesting every quality in a space/time matrix. Because of time, the perfecting of non-ness cannot instantly BE, but instead, handcuffed by time and forced into being logically causal, it is as if God were doing an autopsy on Himself....all His glory on a dissection table. Gory metaphor, eh? So the very fact that there are facts means that whatever formed the facts thought they were worth the creative effort. You, for instance. And, in the end, the body/mind, yes, must be seen as an automaton that is a wooden dummy for a divine Ventriloquist, but, hey, better to be a dummy on God's lap, eh? Edg Yea..I see it as something like that also. Consciousness/world is indeed a chain reactions but it has in it inbuilt a possibility. From sand, food...something emerged/evolved that can see its own nature as a fragment of the absolute. -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 6, 2009 Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963 wrote: > > Nisargadatta supposedly took his stand in the Absolute. This is proclaimed by him to be a desireless state, free of the bodymind identity. But when he was confronted with his cancer he said this, " I am not the least interested in this daily ritual of getting up in the morning, eating and again sleeping and all this...I have had enough of all that. I do not expect anything from this world. I am not going to acheive, attain, possess anything, because I am fed up with that very consciousness out of which the world is created and want to get rid of this consciousness. " (p.77, The Experience of Nothingness.) Sounds here like he was still identifying with some " thing " be it the body, or consciousness, or whatever. Any takers? Namaste Doug, Although Niz was realised, the body still functioned on the accrued karmas, and that can extend to the body/mind as it did with Ramana. His smoking is an example of something the body didn't get rid of before his realisation---so the thoughts and feeling are also there.This is also sometimes realised people don't realise they are realised hahahah...They are not got rid of until the body drops, and they dissipate as there is no jiva to preserve them.Cheers Tony. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 6, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > duveyoung > Nisargadatta > Thursday, August 06, 2009 12:14 PM > Re: More inconsistencies > > > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " > <douglasmitch1963@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > douglasmitch1963 > > > Nisargadatta > > > Thursday, August 06, 2009 9:47 AM > > > Re: More inconsistencies > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " > > > > <douglasmitch1963@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta supposedly took his stand in the Absolute. This is > > > > > proclaimed by him to be a desireless state, free of the bodymind > > > > > identity. But when he was confronted with his cancer he said this, " I > > > > > am > > > > > not the least interested in this daily ritual of getting up in the > > > > > morning, eating and again sleeping and all this...I have had enough > > > > > of > > > > > all that. I do not expect anything from this world. I am not going > > > > > to > > > > > acheive, attain, possess anything, because I am fed up with that > > > > > very > > > > > consciousness out of which the world is created and want to get rid > > > > > of > > > > > this consciousness. " (p.77, The Experience of Nothingness.) Sounds > > > > > here > > > > > like he was still identifying with some " thing " be it the body, or > > > > > consciousness, or whatever. Any takers? > > > > > > > > > > > > Douglas - > > > > > > > > One can only guess. > > > > > > > > If one were a friend of Nisargadatta's at the time, one could ask him > > > > about it. > > > > > > > > He is dead, one has read his words translated from another language. > > > > > > > > One has no idea what was actually said, how it was interpreted and > > > > transcribed, how it was translated. > > > > > > > > One has no idea how Nisargadatta perceived the one to whom he spoke, > > > > or > > > > what experience he was addressing through his words. > > > > > > > > What would be less of a guess for you, is what identification is for > > > > you. > > > > > > > > You could ask that question of yourself - are you identified with > > > > something or not? What is it to you to be identified or not > > > > identified? > > > > > > > > Experientially what is the difference for you? > > > > > > > > What is it not to be identified with experience? > > > > > > > > Then, you wouldn't be guessing as much. > > > > > > > > Although, once you spoke about it, we would be guessing, as your > > > > readers, > > > > what you meant. > > > > > > > > Even if we spoke the same language that you speak and could ask you > > > > about > > > > it as you were still alive. > > > > > > > > We would still be guessing. > > > > > > > > And the part of your brain that supplies language, would still be > > > > guessing > > > > about what language to apply to the experience and understanding you > > > > were > > > > having, so as to bring that experience and understanding " to others. " > > > > > > > > And those others would just be whatever they were, in your experience > > > > and > > > > understanding. > > > > > > > > Is it possible not to guess? > > > > > > > > To know directly? > > > > > > > > What do you say from this awareness, where you are not guessing? > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Dan -- > > > > > > >Dan, > > > >The referenced quote makes me think that Nisargadatta and I are alike > > > >in > > > >our sentiments about living with a terminal illness. I have AIDS and > > > >feel > > > >at times the way that Nisargadatta did about this supposed life. But > > > >there > > > >is a part of me that feels that the body is the " temple " of > > > >consciousness, > > > >and hence Awareness. The body should perhaps be something for which one > > > >is > > > >very grateful and blessed to have as a vehicle for the consciousness > > > >and > > > >Awareness. There is so much negativity pronounced upon the body by > > > >Nisargadatta that I find hard to accept. I know that I am not just this > > > >body, but I don't dismiss it outright. It has helped me via the mind to > > > >transcend and realize that the Awareness/Absolute would have no other > > > >way > > > >to know itself it were not for the body and mind. That is where i take > > > >my > > > >stand. Thanks for your thoughtful responses to my inquiries, Dan. You > > > >have > > > >been the most helpful to me on this site. > > > -Doug > > > > > > I think there is a bit of exageration when you say " there is so much > > > negativity pronounced upon the body by Nisargadatta... " . If you go > > > through > > > other dialogues you will find that most of the time it is quite the > > > other > > > way around: everything is just perfect, with his body and averting else. > > > That quote is probably from a period where he was going through much > > > pain > > > and physical suffering in the end of his life. > > > > > > The right time to go is when the time is right...isn't it? > > > -geo- > > > > > >Geo, > > >Who knows, but maybe you're right about the context in which the quote > > >was made. But I still get a lot of negativity about the body from Nis and > > >many other teachers. The body and mind are glorious to behold in my > > >opinion. Thanks for responding, though. -Doug > > > > Doug, > > Good luck on your health challenge. > > I don't think Nisargadatta was invested in the body's reality enough to be > negative towards it. I think he thought of the body as you or I might think > of a irksome pest in a Hollywood film. One can criticize that fictional > character's " personality " and be 100% correctly reporting " truth " about that > character, yet, why bother dissing a fiction? That's the story as I see it: > the body is a bother like an adorable toddler that tugs constantly at Mom's > hem -- you love the kid, but geeze . . . > > The purpose of creation is the expansion of happiness. > > BAM -- there's the main reason for having a body/mind -- a place that > doesn't exist is yet no challenge to the Absolute when it comes to > infinitizing. Even where it cannot be, it IS, and the body/mind is the stage > upon which that BEING coming into NONBEING is enacted. > > And, hey, let's get down to one basic fact: this so-called reality is here > and now, and no matter why it is here, we can be assured that " the Absolute > had its reasons. " I mean, come on, what's so bad about God glancing into a > mirror? > > All of creation is but the act of God manifesting every quality in a > space/time matrix. Because of time, the perfecting of non-ness cannot > instantly BE, but instead, handcuffed by time and forced into being > logically causal, it is as if God were doing an autopsy on Himself....all > His glory on a dissection table. Gory metaphor, eh? > > So the very fact that there are facts means that whatever formed the facts > thought they were worth the creative effort. You, for instance. > > And, in the end, the body/mind, yes, must be seen as an automaton that is a > wooden dummy for a divine Ventriloquist, but, hey, better to be a dummy on > God's lap, eh? > > Edg > > Yea..I see it as something like that also. Consciousness/world is indeed a > chain reactions but it has in it inbuilt a possibility. From sand, > food...something emerged/evolved that can see its own nature as a fragment > of the absolute. > -geo- > The imaginary conceptual entity invents an imaginary conceptual source. Any God is only as real as the person who conceives it. toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 6, 2009 - toombaru2006 Nisargadatta Thursday, August 06, 2009 12:34 PM Re: More inconsistencies Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > duveyoung > Nisargadatta > Thursday, August 06, 2009 12:14 PM > Re: More inconsistencies > > > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " > <douglasmitch1963@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > douglasmitch1963 > > > Nisargadatta > > > Thursday, August 06, 2009 9:47 AM > > > Re: More inconsistencies > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " > > > > <douglasmitch1963@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta supposedly took his stand in the Absolute. This is > > > > > proclaimed by him to be a desireless state, free of the bodymind > > > > > identity. But when he was confronted with his cancer he said > > > > > this, " I > > > > > am > > > > > not the least interested in this daily ritual of getting up in the > > > > > morning, eating and again sleeping and all this...I have had > > > > > enough > > > > > of > > > > > all that. I do not expect anything from this world. I am not going > > > > > to > > > > > acheive, attain, possess anything, because I am fed up with that > > > > > very > > > > > consciousness out of which the world is created and want to get > > > > > rid > > > > > of > > > > > this consciousness. " (p.77, The Experience of Nothingness.) Sounds > > > > > here > > > > > like he was still identifying with some " thing " be it the body, or > > > > > consciousness, or whatever. Any takers? > > > > > > > > > > > > Douglas - > > > > > > > > One can only guess. > > > > > > > > If one were a friend of Nisargadatta's at the time, one could ask > > > > him > > > > about it. > > > > > > > > He is dead, one has read his words translated from another language. > > > > > > > > One has no idea what was actually said, how it was interpreted and > > > > transcribed, how it was translated. > > > > > > > > One has no idea how Nisargadatta perceived the one to whom he spoke, > > > > or > > > > what experience he was addressing through his words. > > > > > > > > What would be less of a guess for you, is what identification is for > > > > you. > > > > > > > > You could ask that question of yourself - are you identified with > > > > something or not? What is it to you to be identified or not > > > > identified? > > > > > > > > Experientially what is the difference for you? > > > > > > > > What is it not to be identified with experience? > > > > > > > > Then, you wouldn't be guessing as much. > > > > > > > > Although, once you spoke about it, we would be guessing, as your > > > > readers, > > > > what you meant. > > > > > > > > Even if we spoke the same language that you speak and could ask you > > > > about > > > > it as you were still alive. > > > > > > > > We would still be guessing. > > > > > > > > And the part of your brain that supplies language, would still be > > > > guessing > > > > about what language to apply to the experience and understanding you > > > > were > > > > having, so as to bring that experience and understanding " to > > > > others. " > > > > > > > > And those others would just be whatever they were, in your > > > > experience > > > > and > > > > understanding. > > > > > > > > Is it possible not to guess? > > > > > > > > To know directly? > > > > > > > > What do you say from this awareness, where you are not guessing? > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Dan -- > > > > > > >Dan, > > > >The referenced quote makes me think that Nisargadatta and I are alike > > > >in > > > >our sentiments about living with a terminal illness. I have AIDS and > > > >feel > > > >at times the way that Nisargadatta did about this supposed life. But > > > >there > > > >is a part of me that feels that the body is the " temple " of > > > >consciousness, > > > >and hence Awareness. The body should perhaps be something for which > > > >one > > > >is > > > >very grateful and blessed to have as a vehicle for the consciousness > > > >and > > > >Awareness. There is so much negativity pronounced upon the body by > > > >Nisargadatta that I find hard to accept. I know that I am not just > > > >this > > > >body, but I don't dismiss it outright. It has helped me via the mind > > > >to > > > >transcend and realize that the Awareness/Absolute would have no other > > > >way > > > >to know itself it were not for the body and mind. That is where i > > > >take > > > >my > > > >stand. Thanks for your thoughtful responses to my inquiries, Dan. You > > > >have > > > >been the most helpful to me on this site. > > > -Doug > > > > > > I think there is a bit of exageration when you say " there is so much > > > negativity pronounced upon the body by Nisargadatta... " . If you go > > > through > > > other dialogues you will find that most of the time it is quite the > > > other > > > way around: everything is just perfect, with his body and averting > > > else. > > > That quote is probably from a period where he was going through much > > > pain > > > and physical suffering in the end of his life. > > > > > > The right time to go is when the time is right...isn't it? > > > -geo- > > > > > >Geo, > > >Who knows, but maybe you're right about the context in which the quote > > >was made. But I still get a lot of negativity about the body from Nis > > >and > > >many other teachers. The body and mind are glorious to behold in my > > >opinion. Thanks for responding, though. -Doug > > > > Doug, > > Good luck on your health challenge. > > I don't think Nisargadatta was invested in the body's reality enough to be > negative towards it. I think he thought of the body as you or I might > think > of a irksome pest in a Hollywood film. One can criticize that fictional > character's " personality " and be 100% correctly reporting " truth " about > that > character, yet, why bother dissing a fiction? That's the story as I see > it: > the body is a bother like an adorable toddler that tugs constantly at > Mom's > hem -- you love the kid, but geeze . . . > > The purpose of creation is the expansion of happiness. > > BAM -- there's the main reason for having a body/mind -- a place that > doesn't exist is yet no challenge to the Absolute when it comes to > infinitizing. Even where it cannot be, it IS, and the body/mind is the > stage > upon which that BEING coming into NONBEING is enacted. > > And, hey, let's get down to one basic fact: this so-called reality is here > and now, and no matter why it is here, we can be assured that " the > Absolute > had its reasons. " I mean, come on, what's so bad about God glancing into a > mirror? > > All of creation is but the act of God manifesting every quality in a > space/time matrix. Because of time, the perfecting of non-ness cannot > instantly BE, but instead, handcuffed by time and forced into being > logically causal, it is as if God were doing an autopsy on Himself....all > His glory on a dissection table. Gory metaphor, eh? > > So the very fact that there are facts means that whatever formed the facts > thought they were worth the creative effort. You, for instance. > > And, in the end, the body/mind, yes, must be seen as an automaton that is > a > wooden dummy for a divine Ventriloquist, but, hey, better to be a dummy on > God's lap, eh? > > Edg > > Yea..I see it as something like that also. Consciousness/world is indeed a > chain reactions but it has in it inbuilt a possibility. From sand, > food...something emerged/evolved that can see its own nature as a fragment > of the absolute. > -geo- > The imaginary conceptual entity invents an imaginary conceptual source. Gentlemen......there ain't no entity.......and there ain't no God. toombaru Not sure if I get what you mean. Do you feel that a " ground " beyond consciousness is just invention? -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 6, 2009 At 10:39 AM 8/6/2009, you wrote: --- In Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > duveyoung > To: Nisargadatta > Thursday, August 06, 2009 12:14 PM > Re: More inconsistencies > > > --- In Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " > <douglasmitch1963@> wrote: > > > > --- In Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > douglasmitch1963 > > > To: Nisargadatta > > > Thursday, August 06, 2009 9:47 AM > > > Re: More inconsistencies > > > > > > > > > --- In Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " > > > > <douglasmitch1963@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta supposedly took his stand in the Absolute. This is > > > > > proclaimed by him to be a desireless state, free of the bodymind > > > > > identity. But when he was confronted with his cancer he said this, " I > > > > > am > > > > > not the least interested in this daily ritual of getting up in the > > > > > morning, eating and again sleeping and all this...I have had enough > > > > > of > > > > > all that. I do not expect anything from this world. I am not going > > > > > to > > > > > acheive, attain, possess anything, because I am fed up with that > > > > > very > > > > > consciousness out of which the world is created and want to get rid > > > > > of > > > > > this consciousness. " (p.77, The Experience of Nothingness.) Sounds > > > > > here > > > > > like he was still identifying with some " thing " be it the body, or > > > > > consciousness, or whatever. Any takers? > > > > > > > > > > > > Douglas - > > > > > > > > One can only guess. > > > > > > > > If one were a friend of Nisargadatta's at the time, one could ask him > > > > about it. > > > > > > > > He is dead, one has read his words translated from another language. > > > > > > > > One has no idea what was actually said, how it was interpreted and > > > > transcribed, how it was translated. > > > > > > > > One has no idea how Nisargadatta perceived the one to whom he spoke, > > > > or > > > > what experience he was addressing through his words. > > > > > > > > What would be less of a guess for you, is what identification is for > > > > you. > > > > > > > > You could ask that question of yourself - are you identified with > > > > something or not? What is it to you to be identified or not > > > > identified? > > > > > > > > Experientially what is the difference for you? > > > > > > > > What is it not to be identified with experience? > > > > > > > > Then, you wouldn't be guessing as much. > > > > > > > > Although, once you spoke about it, we would be guessing, as your > > > > readers, > > > > what you meant. > > > > > > > > Even if we spoke the same language that you speak and could ask you > > > > about > > > > it as you were still alive. > > > > > > > > We would still be guessing. > > > > > > > > And the part of your brain that supplies language, would still be > > > > guessing > > > > about what language to apply to the experience and understanding you > > > > were > > > > having, so as to bring that experience and understanding " to others. " > > > > > > > > And those others would just be whatever they were, in your experience > > > > and > > > > understanding. > > > > > > > > Is it possible not to guess? > > > > > > > > To know directly? > > > > > > > > What do you say from this awareness, where you are not guessing? > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Dan -- > > > > > > >Dan, > > > >The referenced quote makes me think that Nisargadatta and I are alike > > > >in > > > >our sentiments about living with a terminal illness. I have AIDS and > > > >feel > > > >at times the way that Nisargadatta did about this supposed life. But > > > >there > > > >is a part of me that feels that the body is the " temple " of > > > >consciousness, > > > >and hence Awareness. The body should perhaps be something for which one > > > >is > > > >very grateful and blessed to have as a vehicle for the consciousness > > > >and > > > >Awareness. There is so much negativity pronounced upon the body by > > > >Nisargadatta that I find hard to accept. I know that I am not just this > > > >body, but I don't dismiss it outright. It has helped me via the mind to > > > >transcend and realize that the Awareness/Absolute would have no other > > > >way > > > >to know itself it were not for the body and mind. That is where i take > > > >my > > > >stand. Thanks for your thoughtful responses to my inquiries, Dan. You > > > >have > > > >been the most helpful to me on this site. > > > -Doug > > > > > > I think there is a bit of exageration when you say " there is so much > > > negativity pronounced upon the body by Nisargadatta... " . If you go > > > through > > > other dialogues you will find that most of the time it is quite the > > > other > > > way around: everything is just perfect, with his body and averting else. > > > That quote is probably from a period where he was going through much > > > pain > > > and physical suffering in the end of his life. > > > > > > The right time to go is when the time is right...isn't it? > > > -geo- > > > > > >Geo, > > >Who knows, but maybe you're right about the context in which the quote > > >was made. But I still get a lot of negativity about the body from Nis and > > >many other teachers. The body and mind are glorious to behold in my > > >opinion. Thanks for responding, though. -Doug > > > > Doug, > > Good luck on your health challenge. > > I don't think Nisargadatta was invested in the body's reality enough to be > negative towards it. I think he thought of the body as you or I might think > of a irksome pest in a Hollywood film. One can criticize that fictional > character's " personality " and be 100% correctly reporting " truth " about that > character, yet, why bother dissing a fiction? That's the story as I see it: > the body is a bother like an adorable toddler that tugs constantly at Mom's > hem -- you love the kid, but geeze . . . > > The purpose of creation is the expansion of happiness. > > BAM -- there's the main reason for having a body/mind -- a place that > doesn't exist is yet no challenge to the Absolute when it comes to > infinitizing. Even where it cannot be, it IS, and the body/mind is the stage > upon which that BEING coming into NONBEING is enacted. > > And, hey, let's get down to one basic fact: this so-called reality is here > and now, and no matter why it is here, we can be assured that " the Absolute > had its reasons. " I mean, come on, what's so bad about God glancing into a > mirror? > > All of creation is but the act of God manifesting every quality in a > space/time matrix. Because of time, the perfecting of non-ness cannot > instantly BE, but instead, handcuffed by time and forced into being > logically causal, it is as if God were doing an autopsy on Himself....all > His glory on a dissection table. Gory metaphor, eh? > > So the very fact that there are facts means that whatever formed the facts > thought they were worth the creative effort. You, for instance. > > And, in the end, the body/mind, yes, must be seen as an automaton that is a > wooden dummy for a divine Ventriloquist, but, hey, better to be a dummy on > God's lap, eh? > > Edg > > Yea..I see it as something like that also. Consciousness/world is indeed a > chain reactions but it has in it inbuilt a possibility. From sand, > food...something emerged/evolved that can see its own nature as a fragment > of the absolute. > -geo- > The imaginary conceptual entity invents an imaginary conceptual source. Any God is only as real as the person who conceives it. toombaru Toombaru, Since you opine that you are an imaginary conceptual entity, why do you take on the role of speaking authoritatively? Are you just wanting to be a hypocritical paradox? What's with that? Seriously -- I cannot believe that you're very much invested in your " imaginary conceptual entity " concept if you're striding so confidently and tossing opinions to the crowd like some " king sprinkling coins for the masses as he passes through town " in this dialog. And Nisargadatta and Ramana talked about God every day of their lives. It had some utility to them, right? Are you so much clearer about " real-non-real " than them? If so, give me the titles to the books about you....I'd read 'em. And, ultimately, since only the Absolute is sentient, only it can be said to be using the word " God " when someone posts a message with that word.....therefore, you're chiding the Absolute, and um, er, gulp, ahem on you for doing so, eh? Edg Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 6, 2009 - Edg Nisargadatta Thursday, August 06, 2009 4:37 PM Re: Re: More inconsistencies At 10:39 AM 8/6/2009, you wrote: Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > duveyoung > Nisargadatta > Thursday, August 06, 2009 12:14 PM > Re: More inconsistencies > > > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " > <douglasmitch1963@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > douglasmitch1963 > > > Nisargadatta > > > Thursday, August 06, 2009 9:47 AM > > > Re: More inconsistencies > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " > > > > <douglasmitch1963@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta supposedly took his stand in the Absolute. This is > > > > > proclaimed by him to be a desireless state, free of the bodymind > > > > > identity. But when he was confronted with his cancer he said > > > > > this, " I > > > > > am > > > > > not the least interested in this daily ritual of getting up in the > > > > > morning, eating and again sleeping and all this...I have had > > > > > enough > > > > > of > > > > > all that. I do not expect anything from this world. I am not going > > > > > to > > > > > acheive, attain, possess anything, because I am fed up with that > > > > > very > > > > > consciousness out of which the world is created and want to get > > > > > rid > > > > > of > > > > > this consciousness. " (p.77, The Experience of Nothingness.) Sounds > > > > > here > > > > > like he was still identifying with some " thing " be it the body, or > > > > > consciousness, or whatever. Any takers? > > > > > > > > > > > > Douglas - > > > > > > > > One can only guess. > > > > > > > > If one were a friend of Nisargadatta's at the time, one could ask > > > > him > > > > about it. > > > > > > > > He is dead, one has read his words translated from another language. > > > > > > > > One has no idea what was actually said, how it was interpreted and > > > > transcribed, how it was translated. > > > > > > > > One has no idea how Nisargadatta perceived the one to whom he spoke, > > > > or > > > > what experience he was addressing through his words. > > > > > > > > What would be less of a guess for you, is what identification is for > > > > you. > > > > > > > > You could ask that question of yourself - are you identified with > > > > something or not? What is it to you to be identified or not > > > > identified? > > > > > > > > Experientially what is the difference for you? > > > > > > > > What is it not to be identified with experience? > > > > > > > > Then, you wouldn't be guessing as much. > > > > > > > > Although, once you spoke about it, we would be guessing, as your > > > > readers, > > > > what you meant. > > > > > > > > Even if we spoke the same language that you speak and could ask you > > > > about > > > > it as you were still alive. > > > > > > > > We would still be guessing. > > > > > > > > And the part of your brain that supplies language, would still be > > > > guessing > > > > about what language to apply to the experience and understanding you > > > > were > > > > having, so as to bring that experience and understanding " to > > > > others. " > > > > > > > > And those others would just be whatever they were, in your > > > > experience > > > > and > > > > understanding. > > > > > > > > Is it possible not to guess? > > > > > > > > To know directly? > > > > > > > > What do you say from this awareness, where you are not guessing? > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Dan -- > > > > > > >Dan, > > > >The referenced quote makes me think that Nisargadatta and I are alike > > > >in > > > >our sentiments about living with a terminal illness. I have AIDS and > > > >feel > > > >at times the way that Nisargadatta did about this supposed life. But > > > >there > > > >is a part of me that feels that the body is the " temple " of > > > >consciousness, > > > >and hence Awareness. The body should perhaps be something for which > > > >one > > > >is > > > >very grateful and blessed to have as a vehicle for the consciousness > > > >and > > > >Awareness. There is so much negativity pronounced upon the body by > > > >Nisargadatta that I find hard to accept. I know that I am not just > > > >this > > > >body, but I don't dismiss it outright. It has helped me via the mind > > > >to > > > >transcend and realize that the Awareness/Absolute would have no other > > > >way > > > >to know itself it were not for the body and mind. That is where i > > > >take > > > >my > > > >stand. Thanks for your thoughtful responses to my inquiries, Dan. You > > > >have > > > >been the most helpful to me on this site. > > > -Doug > > > > > > I think there is a bit of exageration when you say " there is so much > > > negativity pronounced upon the body by Nisargadatta... " . If you go > > > through > > > other dialogues you will find that most of the time it is quite the > > > other > > > way around: everything is just perfect, with his body and averting > > > else. > > > That quote is probably from a period where he was going through much > > > pain > > > and physical suffering in the end of his life. > > > > > > The right time to go is when the time is right...isn't it? > > > -geo- > > > > > >Geo, > > >Who knows, but maybe you're right about the context in which the quote > > >was made. But I still get a lot of negativity about the body from Nis > > >and > > >many other teachers. The body and mind are glorious to behold in my > > >opinion. Thanks for responding, though. -Doug > > > > Doug, > > Good luck on your health challenge. > > I don't think Nisargadatta was invested in the body's reality enough to be > negative towards it. I think he thought of the body as you or I might > think > of a irksome pest in a Hollywood film. One can criticize that fictional > character's " personality " and be 100% correctly reporting " truth " about > that > character, yet, why bother dissing a fiction? That's the story as I see > it: > the body is a bother like an adorable toddler that tugs constantly at > Mom's > hem -- you love the kid, but geeze . . . > > The purpose of creation is the expansion of happiness. > > BAM -- there's the main reason for having a body/mind -- a place that > doesn't exist is yet no challenge to the Absolute when it comes to > infinitizing. Even where it cannot be, it IS, and the body/mind is the > stage > upon which that BEING coming into NONBEING is enacted. > > And, hey, let's get down to one basic fact: this so-called reality is here > and now, and no matter why it is here, we can be assured that " the > Absolute > had its reasons. " I mean, come on, what's so bad about God glancing into a > mirror? > > All of creation is but the act of God manifesting every quality in a > space/time matrix. Because of time, the perfecting of non-ness cannot > instantly BE, but instead, handcuffed by time and forced into being > logically causal, it is as if God were doing an autopsy on Himself....all > His glory on a dissection table. Gory metaphor, eh? > > So the very fact that there are facts means that whatever formed the facts > thought they were worth the creative effort. You, for instance. > > And, in the end, the body/mind, yes, must be seen as an automaton that is > a > wooden dummy for a divine Ventriloquist, but, hey, better to be a dummy on > God's lap, eh? > > Edg > > Yea..I see it as something like that also. Consciousness/world is indeed a > chain reactions but it has in it inbuilt a possibility. From sand, > food...something emerged/evolved that can see its own nature as a fragment > of the absolute. > -geo- > The imaginary conceptual entity invents an imaginary conceptual source. Any God is only as real as the person who conceives it. toombaru Toombaru, Since you opine that you are an imaginary conceptual entity, why do you take on the role of speaking authoritatively? Are you just wanting to be a hypocritical paradox? What's with that? Seriously -- I cannot believe that you're very much invested in your " imaginary conceptual entity " concept if you're striding so confidently and tossing opinions to the crowd like some " king sprinkling coins for the masses as he passes through town " in this dialog. And Nisargadatta and Ramana talked about God every day of their lives. It had some utility to them, right? Are you so much clearer about " real-non-real " than them? If so, give me the titles to the books about you....I'd read 'em. And, ultimately, since only the Absolute is sentient, only it can be said to be using the word " God " when someone posts a message with that word.....therefore, you're chiding the Absolute, and um, er, gulp, ahem on you for doing so, eh? Edg " If so, give me the titles to the books about you....I'd read 'em. " C'mon edg...books?? ....books....books. There is more to it then books and authorities to follow. I AM before ANY book or author is. ...books... -geo- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 6, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > toombaru2006 > Nisargadatta > Thursday, August 06, 2009 12:34 PM > Re: More inconsistencies > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > duveyoung > > Nisargadatta > > Thursday, August 06, 2009 12:14 PM > > Re: More inconsistencies > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " > > <douglasmitch1963@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > douglasmitch1963 > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > Thursday, August 06, 2009 9:47 AM > > > > Re: More inconsistencies > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " > > > > > <douglasmitch1963@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta supposedly took his stand in the Absolute. This is > > > > > > proclaimed by him to be a desireless state, free of the bodymind > > > > > > identity. But when he was confronted with his cancer he said > > > > > > this, " I > > > > > > am > > > > > > not the least interested in this daily ritual of getting up in the > > > > > > morning, eating and again sleeping and all this...I have had > > > > > > enough > > > > > > of > > > > > > all that. I do not expect anything from this world. I am not going > > > > > > to > > > > > > acheive, attain, possess anything, because I am fed up with that > > > > > > very > > > > > > consciousness out of which the world is created and want to get > > > > > > rid > > > > > > of > > > > > > this consciousness. " (p.77, The Experience of Nothingness.) Sounds > > > > > > here > > > > > > like he was still identifying with some " thing " be it the body, or > > > > > > consciousness, or whatever. Any takers? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Douglas - > > > > > > > > > > One can only guess. > > > > > > > > > > If one were a friend of Nisargadatta's at the time, one could ask > > > > > him > > > > > about it. > > > > > > > > > > He is dead, one has read his words translated from another language. > > > > > > > > > > One has no idea what was actually said, how it was interpreted and > > > > > transcribed, how it was translated. > > > > > > > > > > One has no idea how Nisargadatta perceived the one to whom he spoke, > > > > > or > > > > > what experience he was addressing through his words. > > > > > > > > > > What would be less of a guess for you, is what identification is for > > > > > you. > > > > > > > > > > You could ask that question of yourself - are you identified with > > > > > something or not? What is it to you to be identified or not > > > > > identified? > > > > > > > > > > Experientially what is the difference for you? > > > > > > > > > > What is it not to be identified with experience? > > > > > > > > > > Then, you wouldn't be guessing as much. > > > > > > > > > > Although, once you spoke about it, we would be guessing, as your > > > > > readers, > > > > > what you meant. > > > > > > > > > > Even if we spoke the same language that you speak and could ask you > > > > > about > > > > > it as you were still alive. > > > > > > > > > > We would still be guessing. > > > > > > > > > > And the part of your brain that supplies language, would still be > > > > > guessing > > > > > about what language to apply to the experience and understanding you > > > > > were > > > > > having, so as to bring that experience and understanding " to > > > > > others. " > > > > > > > > > > And those others would just be whatever they were, in your > > > > > experience > > > > > and > > > > > understanding. > > > > > > > > > > Is it possible not to guess? > > > > > > > > > > To know directly? > > > > > > > > > > What do you say from this awareness, where you are not guessing? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Dan -- > > > > > > > > >Dan, > > > > >The referenced quote makes me think that Nisargadatta and I are alike > > > > >in > > > > >our sentiments about living with a terminal illness. I have AIDS and > > > > >feel > > > > >at times the way that Nisargadatta did about this supposed life. But > > > > >there > > > > >is a part of me that feels that the body is the " temple " of > > > > >consciousness, > > > > >and hence Awareness. The body should perhaps be something for which > > > > >one > > > > >is > > > > >very grateful and blessed to have as a vehicle for the consciousness > > > > >and > > > > >Awareness. There is so much negativity pronounced upon the body by > > > > >Nisargadatta that I find hard to accept. I know that I am not just > > > > >this > > > > >body, but I don't dismiss it outright. It has helped me via the mind > > > > >to > > > > >transcend and realize that the Awareness/Absolute would have no other > > > > >way > > > > >to know itself it were not for the body and mind. That is where i > > > > >take > > > > >my > > > > >stand. Thanks for your thoughtful responses to my inquiries, Dan. You > > > > >have > > > > >been the most helpful to me on this site. > > > > -Doug > > > > > > > > I think there is a bit of exageration when you say " there is so much > > > > negativity pronounced upon the body by Nisargadatta... " . If you go > > > > through > > > > other dialogues you will find that most of the time it is quite the > > > > other > > > > way around: everything is just perfect, with his body and averting > > > > else. > > > > That quote is probably from a period where he was going through much > > > > pain > > > > and physical suffering in the end of his life. > > > > > > > > The right time to go is when the time is right...isn't it? > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > >Geo, > > > >Who knows, but maybe you're right about the context in which the quote > > > >was made. But I still get a lot of negativity about the body from Nis > > > >and > > > >many other teachers. The body and mind are glorious to behold in my > > > >opinion. Thanks for responding, though. -Doug > > > > > > > Doug, > > > > Good luck on your health challenge. > > > > I don't think Nisargadatta was invested in the body's reality enough to be > > negative towards it. I think he thought of the body as you or I might > > think > > of a irksome pest in a Hollywood film. One can criticize that fictional > > character's " personality " and be 100% correctly reporting " truth " about > > that > > character, yet, why bother dissing a fiction? That's the story as I see > > it: > > the body is a bother like an adorable toddler that tugs constantly at > > Mom's > > hem -- you love the kid, but geeze . . . > > > > The purpose of creation is the expansion of happiness. > > > > BAM -- there's the main reason for having a body/mind -- a place that > > doesn't exist is yet no challenge to the Absolute when it comes to > > infinitizing. Even where it cannot be, it IS, and the body/mind is the > > stage > > upon which that BEING coming into NONBEING is enacted. > > > > And, hey, let's get down to one basic fact: this so-called reality is here > > and now, and no matter why it is here, we can be assured that " the > > Absolute > > had its reasons. " I mean, come on, what's so bad about God glancing into a > > mirror? > > > > All of creation is but the act of God manifesting every quality in a > > space/time matrix. Because of time, the perfecting of non-ness cannot > > instantly BE, but instead, handcuffed by time and forced into being > > logically causal, it is as if God were doing an autopsy on Himself....all > > His glory on a dissection table. Gory metaphor, eh? > > > > So the very fact that there are facts means that whatever formed the facts > > thought they were worth the creative effort. You, for instance. > > > > And, in the end, the body/mind, yes, must be seen as an automaton that is > > a > > wooden dummy for a divine Ventriloquist, but, hey, better to be a dummy on > > God's lap, eh? > > > > Edg > > > > Yea..I see it as something like that also. Consciousness/world is indeed a > > chain reactions but it has in it inbuilt a possibility. From sand, > > food...something emerged/evolved that can see its own nature as a fragment > > of the absolute. > > -geo- > > > > The imaginary conceptual entity invents an imaginary conceptual source. > > Gentlemen......there ain't no entity.......and there ain't no God. > > toombaru > > Not sure if I get what you mean. Do you feel that a " ground " beyond > consciousness is just invention? > -geo- > Of course. Anything that the conceptual mind comes up with is an object.....and there are none. The mind of man cannot experience anything that is not imagined to be a separate object. Objects exist only in relationship to a subject. ....and all of that occurs in the dream of separation. toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 6, 2009 > Yea..I see it as something like that also. Consciousness/world is indeed a > chain reactions but it has in it inbuilt a possibility. From sand, > food...something emerged/evolved that can see its own nature as a fragment > of the absolute. > -geo- > Nahhh....That's just egoic grandiosity. The self is nothing but swirling mnemonic debris. It was not created....It never really existed. It evolved concurrently in the conceptual thought process within the mind of man. The mind invents the word " absolute " ......which actually refers to the totality of its own little bucket of labels.....and then claims to be a part of that conceptual totality. Pretty funny huh? toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 6, 2009 - toombaru2006 Nisargadatta Thursday, August 06, 2009 5:02 PM Re: More inconsistencies Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > toombaru2006 > Nisargadatta > Thursday, August 06, 2009 12:34 PM > Re: More inconsistencies > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > duveyoung > > Nisargadatta > > Thursday, August 06, 2009 12:14 PM > > Re: More inconsistencies > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " > > <douglasmitch1963@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > douglasmitch1963 > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > Thursday, August 06, 2009 9:47 AM > > > > Re: More inconsistencies > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " > > > > > <douglasmitch1963@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta supposedly took his stand in the Absolute. This is > > > > > > proclaimed by him to be a desireless state, free of the bodymind > > > > > > identity. But when he was confronted with his cancer he said > > > > > > this, " I > > > > > > am > > > > > > not the least interested in this daily ritual of getting up in > > > > > > the > > > > > > morning, eating and again sleeping and all this...I have had > > > > > > enough > > > > > > of > > > > > > all that. I do not expect anything from this world. I am not > > > > > > going > > > > > > to > > > > > > acheive, attain, possess anything, because I am fed up with that > > > > > > very > > > > > > consciousness out of which the world is created and want to get > > > > > > rid > > > > > > of > > > > > > this consciousness. " (p.77, The Experience of Nothingness.) > > > > > > Sounds > > > > > > here > > > > > > like he was still identifying with some " thing " be it the body, > > > > > > or > > > > > > consciousness, or whatever. Any takers? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Douglas - > > > > > > > > > > One can only guess. > > > > > > > > > > If one were a friend of Nisargadatta's at the time, one could ask > > > > > him > > > > > about it. > > > > > > > > > > He is dead, one has read his words translated from another > > > > > language. > > > > > > > > > > One has no idea what was actually said, how it was interpreted and > > > > > transcribed, how it was translated. > > > > > > > > > > One has no idea how Nisargadatta perceived the one to whom he > > > > > spoke, > > > > > or > > > > > what experience he was addressing through his words. > > > > > > > > > > What would be less of a guess for you, is what identification is > > > > > for > > > > > you. > > > > > > > > > > You could ask that question of yourself - are you identified with > > > > > something or not? What is it to you to be identified or not > > > > > identified? > > > > > > > > > > Experientially what is the difference for you? > > > > > > > > > > What is it not to be identified with experience? > > > > > > > > > > Then, you wouldn't be guessing as much. > > > > > > > > > > Although, once you spoke about it, we would be guessing, as your > > > > > readers, > > > > > what you meant. > > > > > > > > > > Even if we spoke the same language that you speak and could ask > > > > > you > > > > > about > > > > > it as you were still alive. > > > > > > > > > > We would still be guessing. > > > > > > > > > > And the part of your brain that supplies language, would still be > > > > > guessing > > > > > about what language to apply to the experience and understanding > > > > > you > > > > > were > > > > > having, so as to bring that experience and understanding " to > > > > > others. " > > > > > > > > > > And those others would just be whatever they were, in your > > > > > experience > > > > > and > > > > > understanding. > > > > > > > > > > Is it possible not to guess? > > > > > > > > > > To know directly? > > > > > > > > > > What do you say from this awareness, where you are not guessing? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Dan -- > > > > > > > > >Dan, > > > > >The referenced quote makes me think that Nisargadatta and I are > > > > >alike > > > > >in > > > > >our sentiments about living with a terminal illness. I have AIDS > > > > >and > > > > >feel > > > > >at times the way that Nisargadatta did about this supposed life. > > > > >But > > > > >there > > > > >is a part of me that feels that the body is the " temple " of > > > > >consciousness, > > > > >and hence Awareness. The body should perhaps be something for which > > > > >one > > > > >is > > > > >very grateful and blessed to have as a vehicle for the > > > > >consciousness > > > > >and > > > > >Awareness. There is so much negativity pronounced upon the body by > > > > >Nisargadatta that I find hard to accept. I know that I am not just > > > > >this > > > > >body, but I don't dismiss it outright. It has helped me via the > > > > >mind > > > > >to > > > > >transcend and realize that the Awareness/Absolute would have no > > > > >other > > > > >way > > > > >to know itself it were not for the body and mind. That is where i > > > > >take > > > > >my > > > > >stand. Thanks for your thoughtful responses to my inquiries, Dan. > > > > >You > > > > >have > > > > >been the most helpful to me on this site. > > > > -Doug > > > > > > > > I think there is a bit of exageration when you say " there is so much > > > > negativity pronounced upon the body by Nisargadatta... " . If you go > > > > through > > > > other dialogues you will find that most of the time it is quite the > > > > other > > > > way around: everything is just perfect, with his body and averting > > > > else. > > > > That quote is probably from a period where he was going through much > > > > pain > > > > and physical suffering in the end of his life. > > > > > > > > The right time to go is when the time is right...isn't it? > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > >Geo, > > > >Who knows, but maybe you're right about the context in which the > > > >quote > > > >was made. But I still get a lot of negativity about the body from Nis > > > >and > > > >many other teachers. The body and mind are glorious to behold in my > > > >opinion. Thanks for responding, though. -Doug > > > > > > > Doug, > > > > Good luck on your health challenge. > > > > I don't think Nisargadatta was invested in the body's reality enough to > > be > > negative towards it. I think he thought of the body as you or I might > > think > > of a irksome pest in a Hollywood film. One can criticize that fictional > > character's " personality " and be 100% correctly reporting " truth " about > > that > > character, yet, why bother dissing a fiction? That's the story as I see > > it: > > the body is a bother like an adorable toddler that tugs constantly at > > Mom's > > hem -- you love the kid, but geeze . . . > > > > The purpose of creation is the expansion of happiness. > > > > BAM -- there's the main reason for having a body/mind -- a place that > > doesn't exist is yet no challenge to the Absolute when it comes to > > infinitizing. Even where it cannot be, it IS, and the body/mind is the > > stage > > upon which that BEING coming into NONBEING is enacted. > > > > And, hey, let's get down to one basic fact: this so-called reality is > > here > > and now, and no matter why it is here, we can be assured that " the > > Absolute > > had its reasons. " I mean, come on, what's so bad about God glancing into > > a > > mirror? > > > > All of creation is but the act of God manifesting every quality in a > > space/time matrix. Because of time, the perfecting of non-ness cannot > > instantly BE, but instead, handcuffed by time and forced into being > > logically causal, it is as if God were doing an autopsy on > > Himself....all > > His glory on a dissection table. Gory metaphor, eh? > > > > So the very fact that there are facts means that whatever formed the > > facts > > thought they were worth the creative effort. You, for instance. > > > > And, in the end, the body/mind, yes, must be seen as an automaton that > > is > > a > > wooden dummy for a divine Ventriloquist, but, hey, better to be a dummy > > on > > God's lap, eh? > > > > Edg > > > > Yea..I see it as something like that also. Consciousness/world is indeed > > a > > chain reactions but it has in it inbuilt a possibility. From sand, > > food...something emerged/evolved that can see its own nature as a > > fragment > > of the absolute. > > -geo- > > > > The imaginary conceptual entity invents an imaginary conceptual source. > > Gentlemen......there ain't no entity.......and there ain't no God. > > toombaru > > Not sure if I get what you mean. Do you feel that a " ground " beyond > consciousness is just invention? > -geo- > Of course. Anything that the conceptual mind comes up with is an object.....and there are none. The mind of man cannot experience anything that is not imagined to be a separate object. Objects exist only in relationship to a subject. ....and all of that occurs in the dream of separation. toombaru But the ground is not aprehended through concepts or thought. It is not object. It is just pure and obvious being. In fact it is the most obvious. -geo- avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 090526-0, 26/05/2009 Tested on: 6/8/2009 18:20:32 avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 6, 2009 - toombaru2006 Nisargadatta Thursday, August 06, 2009 5:19 PM Re: More inconsistencies > Yea..I see it as something like that also. Consciousness/world is indeed a > chain reactions but it has in it inbuilt a possibility. From sand, > food...something emerged/evolved that can see its own nature as a fragment > of the absolute. > -geo- > Nahhh....That's just egoic grandiosity. The self is nothing but swirling mnemonic debris. It was not created....It never really existed. It evolved concurrently in the conceptual thought process within the mind of man. The mind invents the word " absolute " ......which actually refers to the totality of its own little bucket of labels.....and then claims to be a part of that conceptual totality. Pretty funny huh? toombaru I think werner agrees with you. -geo- avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 090526-0, 26/05/2009 Tested on: 6/8/2009 18:20:33 avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 6, 2009 - toombaru2006 Nisargadatta Thursday, August 06, 2009 5:19 PM Re: More inconsistencies > Yea..I see it as something like that also. Consciousness/world is indeed a > chain of reactions but it has in it inbuilt a possibility. From sand, > food...something emerged/evolved that can see its own nature as a fragment > of the absolute. > -geo- > Nahhh....That's just egoic grandiosity. The self is nothing but swirling mnemonic debris. It was not created....It never really existed. It evolved concurrently in the conceptual thought process within the mind of man. The mind invents the word " absolute " ......which actually refers to the totality of its own little bucket of labels.....and then claims to be a part of that conceptual totality. Pretty funny huh? toombaru Oh yes...there is always the possibility of that. The mind plays tricks. -geo- avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 090526-0, 26/05/2009 Tested on: 6/8/2009 18:20:33 avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 7, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > toombaru2006 > Nisargadatta > Thursday, August 06, 2009 5:02 PM > Re: More inconsistencies > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > - > > toombaru2006 > > Nisargadatta > > Thursday, August 06, 2009 12:34 PM > > Re: More inconsistencies > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > - > > > duveyoung > > > Nisargadatta > > > Thursday, August 06, 2009 12:14 PM > > > Re: More inconsistencies > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " > > > <douglasmitch1963@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > douglasmitch1963 > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > Thursday, August 06, 2009 9:47 AM > > > > > Re: More inconsistencies > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " > > > > > > <douglasmitch1963@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta supposedly took his stand in the Absolute. This is > > > > > > > proclaimed by him to be a desireless state, free of the bodymind > > > > > > > identity. But when he was confronted with his cancer he said > > > > > > > this, " I > > > > > > > am > > > > > > > not the least interested in this daily ritual of getting up in > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > morning, eating and again sleeping and all this...I have had > > > > > > > enough > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > all that. I do not expect anything from this world. I am not > > > > > > > going > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > acheive, attain, possess anything, because I am fed up with that > > > > > > > very > > > > > > > consciousness out of which the world is created and want to get > > > > > > > rid > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > this consciousness. " (p.77, The Experience of Nothingness.) > > > > > > > Sounds > > > > > > > here > > > > > > > like he was still identifying with some " thing " be it the body, > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > consciousness, or whatever. Any takers? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Douglas - > > > > > > > > > > > > One can only guess. > > > > > > > > > > > > If one were a friend of Nisargadatta's at the time, one could ask > > > > > > him > > > > > > about it. > > > > > > > > > > > > He is dead, one has read his words translated from another > > > > > > language. > > > > > > > > > > > > One has no idea what was actually said, how it was interpreted and > > > > > > transcribed, how it was translated. > > > > > > > > > > > > One has no idea how Nisargadatta perceived the one to whom he > > > > > > spoke, > > > > > > or > > > > > > what experience he was addressing through his words. > > > > > > > > > > > > What would be less of a guess for you, is what identification is > > > > > > for > > > > > > you. > > > > > > > > > > > > You could ask that question of yourself - are you identified with > > > > > > something or not? What is it to you to be identified or not > > > > > > identified? > > > > > > > > > > > > Experientially what is the difference for you? > > > > > > > > > > > > What is it not to be identified with experience? > > > > > > > > > > > > Then, you wouldn't be guessing as much. > > > > > > > > > > > > Although, once you spoke about it, we would be guessing, as your > > > > > > readers, > > > > > > what you meant. > > > > > > > > > > > > Even if we spoke the same language that you speak and could ask > > > > > > you > > > > > > about > > > > > > it as you were still alive. > > > > > > > > > > > > We would still be guessing. > > > > > > > > > > > > And the part of your brain that supplies language, would still be > > > > > > guessing > > > > > > about what language to apply to the experience and understanding > > > > > > you > > > > > > were > > > > > > having, so as to bring that experience and understanding " to > > > > > > others. " > > > > > > > > > > > > And those others would just be whatever they were, in your > > > > > > experience > > > > > > and > > > > > > understanding. > > > > > > > > > > > > Is it possible not to guess? > > > > > > > > > > > > To know directly? > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you say from this awareness, where you are not guessing? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Dan -- > > > > > > > > > > >Dan, > > > > > >The referenced quote makes me think that Nisargadatta and I are > > > > > >alike > > > > > >in > > > > > >our sentiments about living with a terminal illness. I have AIDS > > > > > >and > > > > > >feel > > > > > >at times the way that Nisargadatta did about this supposed life. > > > > > >But > > > > > >there > > > > > >is a part of me that feels that the body is the " temple " of > > > > > >consciousness, > > > > > >and hence Awareness. The body should perhaps be something for which > > > > > >one > > > > > >is > > > > > >very grateful and blessed to have as a vehicle for the > > > > > >consciousness > > > > > >and > > > > > >Awareness. There is so much negativity pronounced upon the body by > > > > > >Nisargadatta that I find hard to accept. I know that I am not just > > > > > >this > > > > > >body, but I don't dismiss it outright. It has helped me via the > > > > > >mind > > > > > >to > > > > > >transcend and realize that the Awareness/Absolute would have no > > > > > >other > > > > > >way > > > > > >to know itself it were not for the body and mind. That is where i > > > > > >take > > > > > >my > > > > > >stand. Thanks for your thoughtful responses to my inquiries, Dan. > > > > > >You > > > > > >have > > > > > >been the most helpful to me on this site. > > > > > -Doug > > > > > > > > > > I think there is a bit of exageration when you say " there is so much > > > > > negativity pronounced upon the body by Nisargadatta... " . If you go > > > > > through > > > > > other dialogues you will find that most of the time it is quite the > > > > > other > > > > > way around: everything is just perfect, with his body and averting > > > > > else. > > > > > That quote is probably from a period where he was going through much > > > > > pain > > > > > and physical suffering in the end of his life. > > > > > > > > > > The right time to go is when the time is right...isn't it? > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > >Geo, > > > > >Who knows, but maybe you're right about the context in which the > > > > >quote > > > > >was made. But I still get a lot of negativity about the body from Nis > > > > >and > > > > >many other teachers. The body and mind are glorious to behold in my > > > > >opinion. Thanks for responding, though. -Doug > > > > > > > > > > Doug, > > > > > > Good luck on your health challenge. > > > > > > I don't think Nisargadatta was invested in the body's reality enough to > > > be > > > negative towards it. I think he thought of the body as you or I might > > > think > > > of a irksome pest in a Hollywood film. One can criticize that fictional > > > character's " personality " and be 100% correctly reporting " truth " about > > > that > > > character, yet, why bother dissing a fiction? That's the story as I see > > > it: > > > the body is a bother like an adorable toddler that tugs constantly at > > > Mom's > > > hem -- you love the kid, but geeze . . . > > > > > > The purpose of creation is the expansion of happiness. > > > > > > BAM -- there's the main reason for having a body/mind -- a place that > > > doesn't exist is yet no challenge to the Absolute when it comes to > > > infinitizing. Even where it cannot be, it IS, and the body/mind is the > > > stage > > > upon which that BEING coming into NONBEING is enacted. > > > > > > And, hey, let's get down to one basic fact: this so-called reality is > > > here > > > and now, and no matter why it is here, we can be assured that " the > > > Absolute > > > had its reasons. " I mean, come on, what's so bad about God glancing into > > > a > > > mirror? > > > > > > All of creation is but the act of God manifesting every quality in a > > > space/time matrix. Because of time, the perfecting of non-ness cannot > > > instantly BE, but instead, handcuffed by time and forced into being > > > logically causal, it is as if God were doing an autopsy on > > > Himself....all > > > His glory on a dissection table. Gory metaphor, eh? > > > > > > So the very fact that there are facts means that whatever formed the > > > facts > > > thought they were worth the creative effort. You, for instance. > > > > > > And, in the end, the body/mind, yes, must be seen as an automaton that > > > is > > > a > > > wooden dummy for a divine Ventriloquist, but, hey, better to be a dummy > > > on > > > God's lap, eh? > > > > > > Edg > > > > > > Yea..I see it as something like that also. Consciousness/world is indeed > > > a > > > chain reactions but it has in it inbuilt a possibility. From sand, > > > food...something emerged/evolved that can see its own nature as a > > > fragment > > > of the absolute. > > > -geo- > > > > > > > The imaginary conceptual entity invents an imaginary conceptual source. > > > > Gentlemen......there ain't no entity.......and there ain't no God. > > > > toombaru > > > > Not sure if I get what you mean. Do you feel that a " ground " beyond > > consciousness is just invention? > > -geo- > > > > Of course. > > Anything that the conceptual mind comes up with is an object.....and there > are none. > > The mind of man cannot experience anything that is not imagined to be a > separate object. > > Objects exist only in relationship to a subject. > > ...and all of that occurs in the dream of separation. > > toombaru > > But the ground is not aprehended through concepts or thought. It is not > object. It is just pure and obvious being. In fact it is the most obvious. > -geo- > > > > > > What is the nature of the entity through whom the " ground' is experienced? toombaru Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
