Guest guest Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 Questioner: As long as there are pain and pleasure, one is bound to be interested. Nisargadatta Maharaj: And as long as one is conscious, there will be pain and pleasure. You cannot fight pain and pleasure on the level of consciousness. To go beyond them you must go beyond consciousness, which is possible only when you look at consciousness as something that happens to you and not in you, as something external, alien, superimposed. Then, suddenly you are free of consciousness, really alone, with nothing to intrude. And that is your true state. Consciousness is an itching rash that makes you scratch. Of course, you cannot step out of consciousness for the very idea of stepping out is in consciousness. But if you learn to look at your consciousness as a sort of fever, personal and private, in which you are enclosed like a chick in its shell, out of this very attitude will come the crisis which will break the shell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 Nisargadatta , " fewtch " <fewtch wrote: > > Questioner: As long as there are pain and pleasure, one is bound to be interested. > > Nisargadatta Maharaj: And as long as one is conscious, there will be pain and pleasure. You cannot fight pain and pleasure on the level of consciousness. To go beyond them you must go beyond consciousness, which is possible only when you look at consciousness as something that happens to you and not in you, as something external, alien, superimposed. Then, suddenly you are free of consciousness, really alone, with nothing to intrude. And that is your true state. Hm, to whom should consciousness appear to, to whom to be external, alien and superimposed ? Wo is that who looks at consciousness, who separately exists from consciousness and who suddenly is free from it ? Werner > > Consciousness is an itching rash that makes you scratch. Of course, you cannot step out of consciousness for the very idea of stepping out is in consciousness. But if you learn to look at your consciousness as a sort of fever, personal and private, in which you are enclosed like a chick in its shell, out of this very attitude will come the crisis which will break the shell. > So, now who is enclosed in consciousness and therefore different from it ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 Werner, There you have it -- right from Nisargadatta's mouth: The Absolute is. Consciousness is not. Even though the Absolute cannot be conceptually grasped, it is given the quality, " a human mind can know THAT to be beyond consciousness. " You've got to ask yourself: how can Nisargadatta's mind generate such a certainty? How can a mind be so sure that there is " something " that is not contained in consciousness -- something that cannot be said to come from consciousness? How can THAT be so " solid " that a human mind can think it is meaningful to point at THAT which cannot be pointed at? It is obvious that Nisargadatta is stating that the human mind can be aware of silence to such an intimate degree that the Absolute becomes as if palpable. No enlightened person will ever deny that realization is " making the Absolute real. " That is: silence becomes so THERE that thought-noise simply cannot compete with it, and even the ego is agog with awe such that it never thinks of itself as real again. Note that Nisargadatta is forced by the conventions of language to use a pronoun: " your " in the phrase " your true state. " If Nisargadatta posted here, you and so many of the regular posters here would be catcalling and pissing and moaning about this and saying that it is some sort of proof that Nisargadatta " didn't get it " and " wasn't a proponent of truth, " etc. Yet, it is merely language being the faulty tool that it is. Compared to the Absolute, manifestation is a scream heard during a prayer session in church. It's that blaring, that noisome. When one becomes enlightened, it's like one is watching a violent action movie with a 150 decibel soundtrack and having the mute button suddenly pushed. Who hasn't had that happen and had a genuine AHHHHHHHH response? Who hasn't been washed over with the pleasure of silence suddenly there? Well, enlightenment is a cake-and-eat-it-too thingy, because it is like the mute button being pushed and yet -- yet -- yet you get the ahhhhh without the sound being turned off. It's a paradox, but there it is. The silence is able to " out real " the noise to such an extent that silence is all that can be heard. It's like coming in from a storm and shutting the door behind you. You know the storm still rages, but it is the silence inside the home that welcomes your heart's visit. Nisargadatta says, " And as long as one is conscious " -- so look at that statement. Something " is " -- and that something is said to be what? --- " conscious. " Get it? The ego is stipulated to be identifying itself as conscious, sentient, subjective. The ego is erroneously doing this process of identification and must cease thinking that it is conscious -- that is, cease thinking period. Note that the ego does nothing in order to cease this incorrect assignment -- it doesn't have to have some sort of superdooper new kind of thought that is somehow more insightful or whatever. It just has to stop thoughts and see its own lack of continuity, that ego processes are a stuttering on again off again mind-dynamic whose job it is to say " that's me " for each and every mental-process it sees in the mind. Enlightenment is the ego seeing that silence is not in the mind but rather it is the mind that is in silence. When the ego sees this with clarity, it becomes so humble -- instantly -- that it can never be found to assert that it is anything but silence -- ever again. The ego recognizes that consciousness has a source that is, though a mystery, the only thing worth ego saying " that's me. " And if ego truly says that, then it becomes silent to prove that it is the silence. Now, the Absolute is discovered to be " the only one who can talk, but he ain't saying nuttin'! " The ego is content with that status of " infinite potency " combined with " infinite wisdom, " and if the Absolute deems it worthy to say nothing, then that's good enough for the ego too. The ego is the Absolute's sycophant after enlightenment. After enlightenment, if the person is found to use the pronoun, " I, " it is referring to the Absolute -- not the conscious entity that unenlightened ego incorrectly assumes itself to be. That last sentence says it all to those who have studied Advaita long enough to see the statement with clarity. The truly enlightened get the right to use the word " I " in that manner. The egos here, by my assessment, are not showing the least clarity about this concept, and they can be found thinking that certain thoughts passing through their minds are proof of clarity, and then they can be found placing themselves above others by their own bootstrapping. Due to Wayne and others, the boobs here are educated enough to mimic Ram Tzu's type of banter, but they do it with attachment and egoic high-hatting. It's like they're standing on the pews and making fart sounds and thinking they're sooooo fucking cool during the church sermon. Odious thugs. Edg At 02:45 AM 8/25/2009, you wrote: --- In Nisargadatta , " fewtch " <fewtch wrote: > > Questioner: As long as there are pain and pleasure, one is bound to be interested. > > Nisargadatta Maharaj: And as long as one is conscious, there will be pain and pleasure. You cannot fight pain and pleasure on the level of consciousness. To go beyond them you must go beyond consciousness, which is possible only when you look at consciousness as something that happens to you and not in you, as something external, alien, superimposed. Then, suddenly you are free of consciousness, really alone, with nothing to intrude. And that is your true state. Hm, to whom should consciousness appear to, to whom to be external, alien and superimposed ? Wo is that who looks at consciousness, who separately exists from consciousness and who suddenly is free from it ? Werner > > Consciousness is an itching rash that makes you scratch. Of course, you cannot step out of consciousness for the very idea of stepping out is in consciousness. But if you learn to look at your consciousness as a sort of fever, personal and private, in which you are enclosed like a chick in its shell, out of this very attitude will come the crisis which will break the shell. > So, now who is enclosed in consciousness and therefore different from it ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 Werner, There you have it -- right from Nisargadatta's mouth: The Absolute is. Consciousness is not. Even though the Absolute cannot be conceptually grasped, it is given the quality, " a human mind can know THAT to be beyond consciousness. " You've got to ask yourself: how can Nisargadatta's mind generate such a certainty? How can a mind be so sure that there is " something " that is not contained in consciousness -- something that cannot be said to come from consciousness? How can THAT be so " solid " that a human mind can think it is meaningful to point at THAT which cannot be pointed at? It is obvious that Nisargadatta is stating that the human mind can be aware of silence to such an intimate degree that the Absolute becomes as if palpable. No enlightened person will ever deny that realization is " making the Absolute real. " That is: silence becomes so THERE that thought-noise simply cannot compete with it, and even the ego is agog with awe such that it never thinks of itself as real again. Note that Nisargadatta is forced by the conventions of language to use a pronoun: " your " in the phrase " your true state. " If Nisargadatta posted here, you and so many of the regular posters here would be catcalling and pissing and moaning about this and saying that it is some sort of proof that Nisargadatta " didn't get it " and " wasn't a proponent of truth, " etc. Yet, it is merely language being the faulty tool that it is. Compared to the Absolute, manifestation is a scream heard during a prayer session in church. It's that blaring, that noisome. When one becomes enlightened, it's like one is watching a violent action movie with a 150 decibel soundtrack and having the mute button suddenly pushed. Who hasn't had that happen and had a genuine AHHHHHHHH response? Who hasn't been washed over with the pleasure of silence suddenly there? Well, enlightenment is a cake-and-eat-it-too thingy, because it is like the mute button being pushed and yet -- yet -- yet you get the ahhhhh without the sound being turned off. It's a paradox, but there it is. The silence is able to " out real " the noise to such an extent that silence is all that can be heard. It's like coming in from a storm and shutting the door behind you. You know the storm still rages, but it is the silence inside the home that welcomes your heart's visit. Nisargadatta says, " And as long as one is conscious " -- so look at that statement. Something " is " -- and that something is said to be what? --- " conscious. " Get it? The ego is stipulated to be identifying itself as conscious, sentient, subjective. The ego is erroneously doing this process of identification and must cease thinking that it is conscious -- that is, cease thinking period. Note that the ego does nothing in order to cease this incorrect assignment -- it doesn't have to have some sort of superdooper new kind of thought that is somehow more insightful or whatever. It just has to stop thoughts and see its own lack of continuity, that ego processes are a stuttering on again off again mind-dynamic whose job it is to say " that's me " for each and every mental-process it sees in the mind. P: Edg, Up to here, what you wrote is a wonderful post. To know when to shut up is 90% of wisdom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 Hi Edge, I tried to reply but it did not work. I don't know what you did or how you managed it I can only ask you to return to the usual way everyone here is posting. Werner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Hi Edge, > > I tried to reply but it did not work. I don't know what you did or how you managed it I can only ask you to return to the usual way everyone here is posting. > > Werner > Werner, You have to copy and paste in the reply box. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > Hi Edge, > > > > I tried to reply but it did not work. I don't know what you did or how you managed it I can only ask you to return to the usual way everyone here is posting. > > > > Werner > > > > Werner, > > You have to copy and paste in the reply box. > > > toombaru > Thanks Toomb. But the problem I have is that the original message of Edg no longer is appearing. Which means I have to reply to a blank sheet without any content. This problem only appears with egd's message and not with messages from other members. Werner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Edge, > > > > > > I tried to reply but it did not work. I don't know what you did or how you managed it I can only ask you to return to the usual way everyone here is posting. > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > Werner, > > > > You have to copy and paste in the reply box. > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > Thanks Toomb. > > But the problem I have is that the original message of Edg no longer is appearing. Which means I have to reply to a blank sheet without any content. > > This problem only appears with egd's message and not with messages from other members. P: Werner, I did the same thing that Toombs is suggesting and it works. But you can respond to him by replying to my post to him. Most of what he wrote is there. > > Werner > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Edge, > > > > > > > > I tried to reply but it did not work. I don't know what you did or how you managed it I can only ask you to return to the usual way everyone here is posting. > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > Werner, > > > > > > You have to copy and paste in the reply box. > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > Thanks Toomb. > > > > But the problem I have is that the original message of Edg no longer is appearing. Which means I have to reply to a blank sheet without any content. > > > > This problem only appears with egd's message and not with messages from other members. > > P: Werner, I did the same thing that Toombs is > suggesting and it works. But you can respond to him > by replying to my post to him. Most of what he wrote > is there. > > > > Werner > > > Yes Pete, I already had the same idea to reply to Edg via your reply because your's does contain the original message. It seems that Edg is using end editor which does send specail character which switches off the editor. ...... Ok then Edge, if you read this, your messaged you replied with is to long and to wordy and so I won't answer it. I cannot read long texts - my eyes or brain simple won't allow it. And, btw, there is no need to constanly write such long texts as you did and do. I never read them. Werner ....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " fewtch " <fewtch@> wrote: > > > > Questioner: As long as there are pain and pleasure, one is bound to be interested. > > > > Nisargadatta Maharaj: And as long as one is conscious, there will be pain and pleasure. You cannot fight pain and pleasure on the level of consciousness. To go beyond them you must go beyond consciousness, which is possible only when you look at consciousness as something that happens to you and not in you, as something external, alien, superimposed. Then, suddenly you are free of consciousness, really > alone, with nothing to intrude. And that is your true state. > > > Hm, to whom should consciousness appear to, to whom to be external, alien and superimposed ? > > Wo is that who looks at consciousness, who separately exists from consciousness and who suddenly is free from it ? > > Werner Hi Werner - His language in the quote above seems a bit dramatic. I take it this way: consciousness is a temporary situation. it only applies as long as there is " something outside, " something to contend with, to be conscious of. prior to any sense of an object, and therefore prior to any consciousness associated with an object, This is. without time being introduced, there is no thought involved. I take it that he is saying, " this is freedom. to be as one is, without assuming any outside, any contact with an object, and therefore free of the kind of consciousness involved in relating to others and to objects. " > > Consciousness is an itching rash that makes you scratch. Of course, you cannot step out of consciousness for the very idea of stepping out is in consciousness. But if you learn to look at your consciousness as a sort of fever, personal and private, in which you are enclosed like a chick in its shell, out of this very attitude will come the crisis which will break the shell. > > > > > So, now who is enclosed in consciousness and therefore different from it ? I don't see this as a matter of someone being enclosed in consciousness. I see it more as the assumption of consciousness as a means to encounter things, people, feelings, all depending on a sense of subjectivity which apprehends things, entities, qualities of experiences that arise in relation to outside and inside (oneself). To me, the breakthrough he mentions doesn't require getting rid of consciousness, or not being able to apprehend things, people, emotions, experiences. The breakthrough is the understanding that all of this (consciousness, world, everything sensed) evolved from and through one's being. One's being/nothing evolved sensing, which evolved a sense of self, world, and other, through language and thought. One " retraces " this evolution, timelessly, and understands. One's being divided into self and other, subjectivity and object, sense and that which is sensed, and the breakthrough ends any division. Now, there is sensing, but no division into a subjectivity separate from the object. There really isn't any name for this, because it's not a state, not a development, nothing to say about it and nothing to be said. Nisargadatta, and any teacher for that matter (as well as any human talking about anything), is going to imply someone being spoken to by the teacher, which is going to involve an assumed division that will " color " whatever is being said. - D - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 > > Now, there is sensing, but no division into a subjectivity separate from the object. > > There really isn't any name for this, because it's not a state, not a development, nothing to say about it and nothing to be said. > > Nisargadatta, and any teacher for that matter (as well as any human talking about anything), is going to imply someone being spoken to by the teacher, which is going to involve an assumed division that will " color " whatever is being said. > > - D - > Well then...............I think that we should come up with a name for this.....................what-ever-it-is(n't). Any suggestions? toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > > > > > Now, there is sensing, but no division into a subjectivity separate from the object. > > > > There really isn't any name for this, because it's not a state, not a development, nothing to say about it and nothing to be said. > > > > Nisargadatta, and any teacher for that matter (as well as any human talking about anything), is going to imply someone being spoken to by the teacher, which is going to involve an assumed division that will " color " whatever is being said. > > > > - D - > > > > > > Well then...............I think that we should come up with a name for this.....................what-ever-it-is(n't). > > > Any suggestions? > > > > > > toombaru > How about " Sky In The Pie " ? toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 Hi Edg - Methinks you had some quite on-target things to say about silence (below). Makes sense to me. So, why not simply rest in and be the silence one is? You give me a sense of wanting to do psychological combat with " others " - to put them in their place, and so on. How can this endeavor, to do philosophical and psychological combat with others and put them in their place, be attractive to you, as one being Silence, being All? What " other " is there for one to contend with? What " other " could be distorting this truth one is, who would have to be " exposed " as " not knowing what he is talking about " ? Another way to say this: philosophical and psychological combat takes time. If one deposes one adversary, another rises up in his place. If one person speaking off-the-mark is exposed, another person speaking off-the-mark immediately takes her place and starts talking in a similar off-base way. Certainly you may make some good points in the process, yet much of what you have to say may also be missed, simply because the sense of " combat " becomes the main focus, the sense of " adversarialness. " Such combative endeavor could go on and on ad nauseum. Why not simply rest in and be the silence of which you so eloquently speak? There is no " other " to communicate " facts " about this silence to. Any " other " is someone you are organizing conceptually from and through this " infinite potential " this " nothingness " that one is. So, one is only " combatting " one's own constructions, no? Peace, Dan (nothing new below) Werner, There you have it -- right from Nisargadatta's mouth: The Absolute is. Consciousness is not. Even though the Absolute cannot be conceptually grasped, it is given the quality, " a human mind can know THAT to be beyond consciousness. " You've got to ask yourself: how can Nisargadatta's mind generate such a certainty? How can a mind be so sure that there is " something " that is not contained in consciousness -- something that cannot be said to come from consciousness? How can THAT be so " solid " that a human mind can think it is meaningful to point at THAT which cannot be pointed at? It is obvious that Nisargadatta is stating that the human mind can be aware of silence to such an intimate degree that the Absolute becomes as if palpable. No enlightened person will ever deny that realization is " making the Absolute real. " That is: silence becomes so THERE that thought-noise simply cannot compete with it, and even the ego is agog with awe such that it never thinks of itself as real again. Note that Nisargadatta is forced by the conventions of language to use a pronoun: " your " in the phrase " your true state. " If Nisargadatta posted here, you and so many of the regular posters here would be catcalling and pissing and moaning about this and saying that it is some sort of proof that Nisargadatta " didn't get it " and " wasn't a proponent of truth, " etc. Yet, it is merely language being the faulty tool that it is. Compared to the Absolute, manifestation is a scream heard during a prayer session in church. It's that blaring, that noisome. When one becomes enlightened, it's like one is watching a violent action movie with a 150 decibel soundtrack and having the mute button suddenly pushed. Who hasn't had that happen and had a genuine AHHHHHHHH response? Who hasn't been washed over with the pleasure of silence suddenly there? Well, enlightenment is a cake-and-eat-it-too thingy, because it is like the mute button being pushed and yet -- yet -- yet you get the ahhhhh without the sound being turned off. It's a paradox, but there it is. The silence is able to " out real " the noise to such an extent that silence is all that can be heard. It's like coming in from a storm and shutting the door behind you. You know the storm still rages, but it is the silence inside the home that welcomes your heart's visit. Nisargadatta says, " And as long as one is conscious " -- so look at that statement. Something " is " -- and that something is said to be what? --- " conscious. " Get it? The ego is stipulated to be identifying itself as conscious, sentient, subjective. The ego is erroneously doing this process of identification and must cease thinking that it is conscious -- that is, cease thinking period. Note that the ego does nothing in order to cease this incorrect assignment -- it doesn't have to have some sort of superdooper new kind of thought that is somehow more insightful or whatever. It just has to stop thoughts and see its own lack of continuity, that ego processes are a stuttering on again off again mind-dynamic whose job it is to say " that's me " for each and every mental-process it sees in the mind. Enlightenment is the ego seeing that silence is not in the mind but rather it is the mind that is in silence. When the ego sees this with clarity, it becomes so humble -- instantly -- that it can never be found to assert that it is anything but silence -- ever again. The ego recognizes that consciousness has a source that is, though a mystery, the only thing worth ego saying " that's me. " And if ego truly says that, then it becomes silent to prove that it is the silence. Now, the Absolute is discovered to be " the only one who can talk, but he ain't saying nuttin'! " The ego is content with that status of " infinite potency " combined with " infinite wisdom, " and if the Absolute deems it worthy to say nothing, then that's good enough for the ego too. The ego is the Absolute's sycophant after enlightenment. After enlightenment, if the person is found to use the pronoun, " I, " it is referring to the Absolute -- not the conscious entity that unenlightened ego incorrectly assumes itself to be. That last sentence says it all to those who have studied Advaita long enough to see the statement with clarity. The truly enlightened get the right to use the word " I " in that manner. The egos here, by my assessment, are not showing the least clarity about this concept, and they can be found thinking that certain thoughts passing through their minds are proof of clarity, and then they can be found placing themselves above others by their own bootstrapping. Due to Wayne and others, the boobs here are educated enough to mimic Ram Tzu's type of banter, but they do it with attachment and egoic high-hatting. It's like they're standing on the pews and making fart sounds and thinking they're sooooo fucking cool during the church sermon. Odious thugs. Edg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Hi Edge, > > I tried to reply but it did not work. I don't know what you did or how you managed it I can only ask you to return to the usual way everyone here is posting. > > Werner I don't know how this happens, either, Werner. I've seen it occur before. What I do is copy from the original, and then paste onto the blank screen that occurs when I hit " reply. " It seems to work okay like that, as the entire post will appear when pasted. - D - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > Hi Edge, > > > > I tried to reply but it did not work. I don't know what you did or how you managed it I can only ask you to return to the usual way everyone here is posting. > > > > Werner > > I don't know how this happens, either, Werner. I've seen it occur before. What I do is copy from the original, and then paste onto the blank screen that occurs when I hit " reply. " It seems to work okay like that, as the entire post will appear when pasted. > > - D - > My entire life is cut and paste. :-0 toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 - toombaru2006 Nisargadatta Tuesday, August 25, 2009 2:51 PM Re: tonight's Nisargadatta Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > Hi Edge, > > > > I tried to reply but it did not work. I don't know what you did or how > > you managed it I can only ask you to return to the usual way everyone > > here is posting. > > > > Werner > > I don't know how this happens, either, Werner. I've seen it occur before. > What I do is copy from the original, and then paste onto the blank screen > that occurs when I hit " reply. " It seems to work okay like that, as the > entire post will appear when pasted. > > - D - > My entire life is cut and paste. :-0 toombaru No way. Not yours. There is nowhere to paste it -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Edge, > > > > > > I tried to reply but it did not work. I don't know what you did or how you managed it I can only ask you to return to the usual way everyone here is posting. > > > > > > Werner > > > > I don't know how this happens, either, Werner. I've seen it occur before. What I do is copy from the original, and then paste onto the blank screen that occurs when I hit " reply. " It seems to work okay like that, as the entire post will appear when pasted. > > > > - D - > > > > > > > My entire life is cut and paste. > > > :-0 > > > > toombaru Cut and pasted onto what? - D - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > My entire life is cut and paste. > > :-0 > > toombaru > > No way. Not yours. There is nowhere to paste it > -geo- There is only the attempt to cut and paste. And that attempt has no ground to stand on. The attempt depends on ignoring this simple fact that it has no ground. Ignore-ance. Ignore-ance is not bliss, it is avoidance. Avoidance of what isn't wanted. Don't bother me with the actual. The actual is inconvenient, disrupts and dissolves my known reality. I am not so much cutting and pasting, as I am attempting to retreat into what is not, in order to preserve what is known, where I have an identity and existence -- even if that known has no actuality. The known is what I have adapted to. The last thing I want is a truth that shows that all this " I " is, is an adaptation to a situation that never had an existence. The last thing I want is a truth that exposes me for an adaptation to others and a world that never had an existence. - D - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr wrote: > Yes Pete, I already had the same idea to reply to Edg via your reply because > your's does contain the original message. > > It seems that Edg is using end editor which does send specail character which > switches off the editor. > > ..... > > Ok then Edge, if you read this, your messaged you replied with is to long and to wordy and so I won't answer it. I cannot read long texts - my eyes or brain simple won't allow it. > > And, btw, there is no need to constanly write such long texts as you did and do. I never read them. > > Werner Here, Werner, is a snip from Edg's post, that will be simple, straightforward, and easy to read. It strikes me as on-target and well-said with regard to silence, although the word " enlightenment " is unappealing to me: Edg: " Well, enlightenment is a cake-and-eat-it-too thingy, because it is like the mute button being pushed and yet -- yet -- yet you get the ahhhhh without the sound being turned off. It's a paradox, but there it is. The silence is able to " out real " the noise to such an extent that silence is all that can be heard. It's like coming in from a storm and shutting the door behind you. You know the storm still rages, but it is the silence inside the home that welcomes your heart's visit. " - D - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > Yes Pete, I already had the same idea to reply to Edg via your reply because > > your's does contain the original message. > > > > It seems that Edg is using end editor which does send specail character which > > switches off the editor. > > > > ..... > > > > Ok then Edge, if you read this, your messaged you replied with is to long and to wordy and so I won't answer it. I cannot read long texts - my eyes or brain simple won't allow it. > > > > And, btw, there is no need to constanly write such long texts as you did and do. I never read them. > > > > Werner > > Here, Werner, is a snip from Edg's post, that will be simple, straightforward, and easy to read. > > It strikes me as on-target and well-said with regard to silence, although the word " enlightenment " is unappealing to me: > Gosh, what does that sentence above want to tell ? > Edg: " Well, enlightenment is a cake-and-eat-it-too thingy, because it is like the mute button being pushed and yet -- yet -- yet you get the ahhhhh without the sound being turned off. It's a paradox, but there it is. The silence is able to " out real " the noise to such > an extent that silence is all that can be heard. It's like coming in from a storm and shutting the door behind you. You know the storm still rages, but it is the silence inside the home that welcomes your heart's visit. " Heavens, I must say I have not the least idea what Edg here is trying to tell and so I decided better to go with not to read anything from him. Werner > > - D - > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Here, Werner, is a snip from Edg's post, that will be simple, straightforward, and easy to read. > > > > > > It strikes me as on-target and well-said with regard to silence, although the word " enlightenment " is unappealing to me: > > > > > Gosh, what does that sentence above want to tell ? D: If you really want to know, I'll tell you. If you don't want to know, then I'll tell you anyway (just kidding). > > Edg: " Well, enlightenment is a cake-and-eat-it-too thingy, because it is like the mute button being pushed and yet -- yet -- yet you get the ahhhhh without the sound being turned off. It's a paradox, but there it is. The silence is able to " out real " the noise to such > > an extent that silence is all that can be heard. It's like coming in from a storm and shutting the door behind you. You know the storm still rages, but it is the silence inside the home that welcomes your heart's visit. " > > > Heavens, I must say I have not the least idea what Edg here is trying to tell and so I decided better to go with not to read anything from him. > > D: Okay. Well, at least you got to sample the food that you then decided is not for you. Silence is not the possession of any author, and unlike Edg's posts, will not be something that one can decide to have nothing to do with. - Dan - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Hi Edg - > > Methinks you had some quite on-target things to say about silence (below). > > Makes sense to me. > > So, why not simply rest in and be the silence one is? Edg: Thanks Dan. You and Pete are consistently presenting Advaita in ways that do not trigger my intuitive alarm bell. As I've said here previously, I write to see my conceptual evolution. No matter if I'm enlightened or not, the intellect can be improved in how well it juggles concepts. That's my goal -- to be a consistent translator of the works of the sometimes inconsistent translators of Nisargadatta and Ramana. Rather a modest goal if I do say so myself. Maybe ten years ago I thought I could " change someone, " but gradually I've had to surrender to " I cannot even change me. " So, though it would be wonderful to delude myself that I'm helping Geo et al, it is so clear to me that everyone has their own path and that they make not the least misstep on that path no matter how much I might have otherwise placed my own steps on their path. That's a true beauty of life if one is jiggy with " let go let God. " Something wise is afoot -- a stealth author, eh? If someone is a clod, well, one can be assured that " clodness " is fleshed out thoroughly, and that's worth the price of admission -- a work of art iz moi and thou and even Toom. Everyone I've ever met would be a " Disneyland " if I could voluntarily incarnate into them without bringing my own ego's agendas along. What a concept, eh? Imagine being Geo for a day and not being able to fit a word in, ahem, edgewise. As they say, " Walk a mile in someone's shoes, " and most people miss that if one does so, one has another pair of shoes and is a mile away from the scene of the crime! Cue the snare drum. As for suggesting that I relax into the knowledge I cannot shut up about, well, thanks for the fatherly nudge. I sense your compassion -- here's me with an advanced degree in, say, stawberries and yet I've never tasted one. Makes for one hellava slippery slope into hypocrisy. Everytime I use the Advaitic keywords, I get very iffy and have to cinch my saddle a notch to keep on the horse. > You give me a sense of wanting to do psychological combat with " others " - to put them in their place, and so on. Edg: I know, I know. That chip on my shoulder seems to be pulsating and begging for conflict. I do have some psychological dynamics that tilt into various ruses for controlling others in some way, but, hey, look at how much " dumb and uneducated " is trumping the aces I play here -- talk about having the egoic agenda thwarted. It's like I'm being sandpapered when Werner says he not only cannot read much but sees no use in doing so if he could. This he says to someone who's read all the Nisargadatta and Ramana books several times each -- a guy who only after about three years suddenly got it that the Absolute was Identity that never identifies. Realization is always everyone's secret. How could a guy as smart as me miss THE CORE AXIOM for so many years -- easy 'twas. And seeing my own " forces of self blinkering " having had such sway over my clarity is humbling enough to at least begin to see that the blindness of others cannot but be of the same ilk. Compassion is born. > How can this endeavor, to do philosophical and psychological combat with others and put them in their place, be attractive to you, as one being Silence, being All? Edg: It can't be to the real me, but only in the sense that combativeness is a quality being falsely validated as real, but my ego is doing all the typing over here, not the Absolute. But if I were to be really pressed to the wall about this issue, I'd come back at you with a defense that whatever anyone is is a choice made by an infinite wisdom, so my carping and crapping and caviling is part of the BIG PLAN as much as Geo's next laying down of his universal trump card. > What " other " is there for one to contend with? Edg: The one true other is my ego. That's the bugger I want to throttle, and since I have not much ability to grab the twit, I find myself seeing the same phenomena in other brains, and saying, " Hey, at least I should yell at ego wherever it can be projected -- if my ego can dismiss all the other egos, then finally maybe I'd have had enough practice at it to target my own. " Slippery defense, eh? Hee hee and heh heh. > What " other " could be distorting this truth one is, who would have to be " exposed " as " not knowing what he is talking about " ? Edg: When I see ignorance in others, my own ignorance begins to vibrate in sympathetic resonance. Whistle next to a piano, and one of the strings will hum back atcha. Same dealeebopper when it comes to my projections -- ignorance is pronging ignorance. I hum an egoic note, and assholes everywhere start singing along with me. Nothing is more humbling than seeing who is choosing to be another feather in my flocked up life. I can't be that near perfection if I'm attracting the likes of Geo to instruct me. Gotta look and ask, " What's wrong with this picture? " > Another way to say this: philosophical and psychological combat takes time. If one deposes one adversary, another rises up in his place. If one person speaking off-the-mark is exposed, another person speaking off-the-mark immediately takes her place and starts talking in a similar off-base way. Edg: There's a new angle. Thanks for making me so happy with the knowledge that there's sure to be an endless supply of trolls under every bridge I tread. Now, let me return the favor and inform you that there are an endless supply of GREAT HEARTS who will never stop loving on your ass whether you know it or not. There, now we're even. > Certainly you may make some good points in the process, yet much of what you have to say may also be missed, simply because the sense of " combat " becomes the main focus, the sense of " adversarialness. " Edg: Yeah, there you got me red-handed. At a certain point, I just stop being an adult and get into returning fire. I do entertain myself, I confess, with this -- ain't nothing as pleasurable as lobbing a four pound spitball. But, yeah, I came here and of course it's a public ale-house atmosphere, and here's me -- I'm expecting everyone to quiet down while I keep the whole barroom in awe by the sheer effulgence blazing from a tale of spirituality told with such skill that each of them would be going to church the next day. As fucking if. Sheeesh. > Such combative endeavor could go on and on ad nauseum. Edg: Another new angle -- thanks! Infinite jackbooters endlessly tramping in my flower garden -- that I had a semi-handle on, but the nausea part -- that's newishy for me. I do feel a bit pukey right now in fact. Not from your adroit challenges though. But, but, but, ya see? ya see?...now I, seeing a bit more clearly the endlessness of ignorance and queasy enough to get to visit the porcelain god! And you know how I love my gods! > Why not simply rest in and be the silence of which you so eloquently speak? Edg: If I could I should and I would if I could, but I can't and I shan't so I rant. > There is no " other " to communicate " facts " about this silence to. > Edg: Intellectually I know this is truth in that sentience is only the Absolute and anything with the stink of consciousness is not even as alive as a hand puppet. But there's some very nice hand puppets out there, and at best I'm a psychic toddler and I enjoy Kukla Fran and Ollie in their many guises. > Any " other " is someone you are organizing conceptually from and through this " infinite potential " this " nothingness " that one is. Edg: What a paradox, eh? The question can be asked: " Hey, you, you there, you infinite potential just standing there like you're innocent, tell us what you've got up your sleeve. Start by telling us why you're using cosmic powers to create 'Handpuppet Edg. " All that might used for that? WTF? > So, one is only " combatting " one's own constructions, no? Edg: Yeah, Geo can only be as bad as my bad parts, and everything I post here is solely a projection of my inner works. If I am in friction with " other, " then for sure my brain is arguing with itself. There's Geo parts, Werner parts, Pete parts, Toomywoomy parts -- each piano string singing in sympathetic resonance when I read the posts of those folks. It sounds like an orchestra tuning up -- you know that sound, right? Play that sound and try to dwell in silence. I'm practicing that, honest. > > Peace, Edg: And peace unto you. And may I say " Peace on Geo? " > > Dan > > (nothing new below) > > > > > > Werner, > > There you have it -- right from Nisargadatta's mouth: The Absolute is. Consciousness is not. > > Even though the Absolute cannot be conceptually grasped, it is given the quality, " a human mind can know THAT to be beyond consciousness. " > > You've got to ask yourself: how can Nisargadatta's mind generate such a certainty? How can a mind be so sure that there is " something " that is not contained in consciousness -- something that cannot be said to come from consciousness? How can THAT be so " solid " that a human mind can think it is meaningful to point at THAT which cannot be pointed at? > > It is obvious that Nisargadatta is stating that the human mind can be aware of silence to such an intimate degree that the Absolute becomes as if palpable. No enlightened person will ever deny that realization is " making the Absolute real. " That is: silence becomes so THERE that thought-noise simply cannot compete with it, and even the ego is agog with awe such that it never thinks of itself as real again. > > Note that Nisargadatta is forced by the conventions of language to use a pronoun: " your " in the phrase " your true state. " If Nisargadatta posted here, you and so many of the regular posters here would be catcalling and pissing and moaning about this and saying that it is some sort of proof that Nisargadatta " didn't get it " and " wasn't a proponent of truth, " etc. Yet, it is merely language being the faulty tool that it is. > > Compared to the Absolute, manifestation is a scream heard during a prayer session in church. It's that blaring, that noisome. When one becomes enlightened, it's like one is watching a violent action movie with a 150 decibel soundtrack and having the mute button suddenly pushed. Who hasn't had that happen and had a genuine AHHHHHHHH response? Who hasn't been washed over with the pleasure of silence suddenly there? Well, enlightenment is a cake-and-eat-it-too thingy, because it is like the mute button being pushed and yet -- yet -- yet you get the ahhhhh without the sound being turned off. It's a paradox, but there it is. The silence is able to " out real " the noise to such an extent that silence is all that can be heard. It's like coming in from a storm and shutting the door behind you. You know the storm still rages, but it is the silence inside the home that welcomes your heart's visit. > > Nisargadatta says, " And as long as one is conscious " -- so look at that statement. Something " is " -- and that something is said to be what? --- " conscious. " Get it? The ego is stipulated to be identifying itself as conscious, sentient, subjective. The ego is erroneously doing this process of identification and must cease thinking that it is conscious -- that is, cease thinking period. Note that the ego does nothing in order to cease this incorrect assignment -- it doesn't have to have some sort of superdooper new kind of thought that is somehow more insightful or whatever. It just has to stop thoughts and see its own lack of continuity, that ego processes are a stuttering on again off again mind-dynamic whose job it is to say " that's me " for each and every mental-process it sees in the mind. Enlightenment is the ego seeing that silence is not in the mind but rather it is the mind that is in silence. When the ego sees this with clarity, it becomes so humble -- instantly -- that it can never be found to assert that it is anything but silence -- ever again. The ego recognizes that consciousness has a source that is, though a mystery, the only thing worth ego saying " that's me. " And if ego truly says that, then it becomes silent to prove that it is the silence. > > Now, the Absolute is discovered to be " the only one who can talk, but he ain't saying nuttin'! " The ego is content with that status of " infinite potency " combined with " infinite wisdom, " and if the Absolute deems it worthy to say nothing, then that's good enough for the ego too. The ego is the Absolute's sycophant after enlightenment. After enlightenment, if the person is found to use the pronoun, " I, " it is referring to the Absolute -- not the conscious entity that unenlightened ego incorrectly assumes itself to be. That last sentence says it all to those who have studied Advaita long enough to see the statement with clarity. The truly enlightened get the right to use the word " I " in that manner. > > The egos here, by my assessment, are not showing the least clarity about this concept, and they can be found thinking that certain thoughts passing through their minds are proof of clarity, and then they can be found placing themselves above others by their own bootstrapping. Due to Wayne and others, the boobs here are educated enough to mimic Ram Tzu's type of banter, but they do it with attachment and egoic high-hatting. It's like they're standing on the pews and making fart sounds and thinking they're sooooo fucking cool during the church sermon. Odious thugs. > > Edg > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 d> What "other" is there for one to contend with?Edg: The one true other is my ego. That's the bugger I want to throttle, and since I have not much ability to grab the twit, I find myself seeing the same phenomena in other brains, and saying, "Hey, at least I should yell at ego wherever it can be projected -- if my ego can dismiss all the other egos, then finally maybe I'd have had enough practice at it to target my own." Slippery defense, eh? Hee hee and heh heh.Edg: Thanks Dan. You and Pete are consistently presenting Advaita in ways that do not trigger my intuitive alarm bell. As I've said here previously, I write to see my conceptual evolution. No matter if I'm enlightened or not, the intellect can be improved in how well it juggles concepts. That's my goal geo> You confuse yourself. Just as an example I picked out two "goals" or "aims" you describe. They are different. First you want to be good with handling concepts and then you want to throttle the ego. BTW, the ego can not be throttled....it is just a conceptual observer that in fact is not. Either you get rid of the concept or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 26, 2009 Report Share Posted August 26, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > Here, Werner, is a snip from Edg's post, that will be simple, straightforward, and easy to read. > > > > > > > > > > It strikes me as on-target and well-said with regard to silence, although the word " enlightenment " is unappealing to me: > > > > > > > > > Gosh, what does that sentence above want to tell ? > > D: If you really want to know, I'll tell you. If you don't want to know, then I'll tell you anyway (just kidding). > > > > Edg: " Well, enlightenment is a cake-and-eat-it-too thingy, because it is like the mute button being pushed and yet -- yet -- yet you get the ahhhhh without the sound being turned off. It's a paradox, but there it is. The silence is able to " out real " the noise to such > > > an extent that silence is all that can be heard. It's like coming in from a storm and shutting the door behind you. You know the storm still rages, but it is the silence inside the home that welcomes your heart's visit. " > > > > > > Heavens, I must say I have not the least idea what Edg here is trying to tell and so I decided better to go with not to read anything from him. > > > > > > D: Okay. Well, at least you got to sample the food that you then decided is not for you. > > Silence is not the possession of any author, and unlike Edg's posts, will not be something that one can decide to have nothing to do with. > Have you ever been in silence, Dan ? No, you never have been but you are babbling as if you are a master of silence - argh. Werner > > - Dan - > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 26, 2009 Report Share Posted August 26, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > d> What " other " is there for one to contend with? > > Edg: The one true other is my ego. That's the bugger I want to throttle, and since I have not much ability to grab the twit, I find myself seeing the same phenomena in other brains, and saying, " Hey, at least I should yell at ego wherever it can be projected -- if my ego can dismiss all the other egos, then finally maybe I'd have had enough practice at it to target my own. " Slippery defense, eh? Hee hee and heh heh. > > Edg: Thanks Dan. You and Pete are consistently presenting Advaita in ways that do not trigger my intuitive alarm bell. As I've said here previously, I write to see my conceptual evolution. No matter if I'm enlightened or not, the intellect can be improved in how well it juggles concepts. That's my goal > > geo> You confuse yourself. Just as an example I picked out two " goals " or " aims " you describe. They are different. First you want to be good with handling concepts and then you want to throttle the ego. > > BTW, the ego can not be throttled....it is just a conceptual observer that in fact is not. Either you get rid of the concept or not. > Geo, The ego is throttled completely when one does inquiry, but only for as long as inquiry lasts. With practice on can dive into the Absolute for longer periods of time, but until all the samskaras are burnt, one gets repeatedly kicked out of transcendence by their activation of desires. Until such a time, I say I want to throttle the ego as if it were a foe who could be grabbed and pummeled, but only inquiry can snuff the little beast. As for my conceptual evolution, well, aren't you here to gain some bits and pieces more about ALL THIS? These two goals are egoic -- there I said it. Are ya satisfied now that I'm openly confessing to un-enlightenment? Do you have any hobbies? If so, cut me a break -- this is my hobby. And if my time comes and I toggle into silence, I'm betting my beloved body/mind will still be carrying hobby and chopping hobby. I only came to Advaita in its " pure form " about ten years ago. Before that, for 30 years, I was heavily (many hours per day of spiritual techniques used) involved in other forms of spirituality. My knowledge of mysitical conceptuality was largely gained in that period, but once I came to Advaita, a lot of questions got answered that had not really been satisfied by the previous 30 years -- in which I was convinced that consciousness was all that there is. As for my pride -- harrrumph, if only I did have pride in my knowledge. I do have pride in my long and hard slogging to obtain knowledge, and pride in my psychological maturation such as it is thus far, but my grasp of Advaita is merely intellectual for the most part. I high-hat on your ass, yeah, but I'd do that if I even knew one more thing than you -- heh heh. And, seriously, again, I'm looking you in the eyes and confessing: there's something I didn't get about Advaita until I'd dwelt with it for years -- and thought all along that I was getting Advaita clearly, but I wasn't. So, if you can show me that you are able to use keywords of Advaita with consistency, I'll bow to your achievement that took me decades to ferment and finally imbibe. Really now: for us all here, be our teacher: define: consciousness, awareness, Absolute, amness, being, pure being, transcendent, transcending, ego, heart, and mind. I will dwell upon your every definition, but though I've asked you and others here to do this, you refuse. Will you do it now to show us all that you have clarity and grasp these concepts such that you can easily sort them all out for us and show us which words mean the same thing and which ones are pointing to other concepts? If you can give definitions to that list of words such that either Dan or Pete agree with you, I will bow again and again to your acumen. Edg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.