tonight's Nisargadatta

August 26, 2009

Hi Edg -

I enjoyed reading what you wrote, made sense to me, and I liked the humor that

came through.

So-called enlightenment is just awareness being what it is, ever-changing, ever

still, sharing its movement with all that is on the side of perception,

including and being all that is, and absolute nothing on the side of

nonperception.

So, the term enlightenment is misleading, in that it makes awareness or being

sound like a personal accomplishment in some way.

It's true what you say about timing, as in the universe's timing of the movement

of each being is absolutely appropriate to the all that is. (You didn't say it

in exactly those words.) So, yes, no one to fix, no one to make be someone

else. And even if someone is trying to fix someone else, that movement, too, is

the note at that point in the symphony.

Awareness is moving through me. The me it is moving through is an image, not

the actuality. The actuality of its movement is what is.

So, the awareness of me, you, Geo, everyone else on the list, everything and

everyone else, is playing its part in the flux of manifestation. Nothing is out

of place, there is no one who is not my teacher - this is true, as you said.

Anyone I perceive is me perceiving me, the distance between is imagined.

Teacher is learner, and vice versa. With no actual distance ever established

(or, you could say, no absolute distance established), the good and bad parts

are not really contending with one another. And if they appear to contend (like

when they blow up buildings and inflict serious bodily harm, for example) that

is a very discordant note indeed, yet played out in the symphony, in the

stillness.

-- D --

(nothing new below)

Nisargadatta , " duveyoung " <edg wrote:

>

> 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

> >

>

August 26, 2009

Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr wrote:

>

> 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

You answer the question you directed to me.

And how would you know, Werner?

Thus you continue with your attempts to claim omniscience.

At the same time you state that you are non-existent.

Quite a trick.

You are repeatedly quick to judge others.

Yet you consistently seem to miss the big, bulky " Werner " right there in your

immediate field of vision, while busily and often pointing at others' lacks. Is

this not a clue?

Do you even want a clue?

- Dan -

August 26, 2009

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

> Hi Edg -

>

> I enjoyed reading what you wrote, made sense to me, and I liked the humor that

came through.

>

> So-called enlightenment is just awareness being what it is, ever-changing,

ever still, sharing its movement with all that is on the side of perception,

including and being all that is, and absolute nothing on the side of

nonperception.

>

> So, the term enlightenment is misleading, in that it makes awareness or being

sound like a personal accomplishment in some way.

>

> It's true what you say about timing, as in the universe's timing of the

movement of each being is absolutely appropriate to the all that is. (You

didn't say it in exactly those words.) So, yes, no one to fix, no one to make

be someone else. And even if someone is trying to fix someone else, that

movement, too, is the note at that point in the symphony.

>

> Awareness is moving through me. The me it is moving through is an image, not

the actuality. The actuality of its movement is what is.

>

> So, the awareness of me, you, Geo, everyone else on the list, everything and