Tim-Desire and Being

[Guest guest]

Hi Tim ~~

Everything you say here

makes sense to me.

If the desire to be can

be dropped acausally,

then the "existence"

of the desire also

is acausal.

Causation is a way to

explain and interpret.

Acausal events are one (non)event,

an unexplained

and uninterpreted (non)event.

The moment that there is no

explanation and no interpretation,

the entire "universe" or "being"

is acausal, not conceptualizable.

The desire to be is "hooked into"

causality, hence concept.

Even a single-celled organism involves

concept, even an atom -- anything

that can be perceived ...

I desire to be

because I sense a cause and

effect relationship between

desire and result. The desire

to be is the desire to have (an

existence), to experience and know

a reality -- and the ability to

exist is not only the ability to "make

things happen" (to be a doer),

but also to have things happen to me

(experiences, relationships), which

is also causality, except with oneself

as effect (or done to, able to be affected).

So, from here, the acausal dropping

away of the desire to be is the dropping

away of causality. Yes, it's

acausal, because all apparent "existence"

turns out to be acausal. The entity

who explains and interprets turns out

to be the same thing as the desire to

have, which is the same thing as the

"causal lens" ...

I agree that this is what is commonly considered

as life.

With no explanation, interpretation, or

causality, one is "outside the

lens of consensus reality" ...

one can "interact in the world" yet

be "not of the world" ...

The death/rebirth you mention is the shift

from believing/perceiving oneself as in the

world, doing and done to,

to what can't be described in words

(as words are devices of interpretation,

meaning, causal linking) but can be

said as neither a doer, a doing, nor

a "done to" ...

Does the acausal dropping of the 'desire to

be' happen to a person, or is the person

a construct (along with "bodymind"

"time")

of the desire to be?

I see the person, history, time as structures

developed as the desire to be/have/do

"situates" itself. That desire situates

itself as "meyouit", countless

points of view, ways of being, perspectives,

all interactive and mutually arising

(ultimately "acausally") ...

Investment/identification with these structures

necessarily drops acausally, as you say.

It may seem to others that this dropping away

occurred "in" a person, or "for" or

"to"

a person. The person may appear to continue,

to recognize his or her name, to interact, etc.

However, that appearance is dependent on interpretation,

and the desire to be of "others" ...

The paradox is that there is no person, yet for "others"

there is a person. The acausal dropping is the dropping

of the entire world, universe, reality. Yet for

"others",

a seeming structure continues (as you say, physical death

need not occur).

What is revealed is that there actually are no others.

There is no continuing universe of causation.

The desire to be/have/do never added or subtracted

anything, was itself acausal (hence unable to

add a causal entity into the scheme of things) ...

This is entirely paradoxical to thought.

Thought relies on a lens of time.

To thought, there will always be "self" and

"other",

just as a computer will always be binary in

its processing of information.

Yet the paradox is no paradox, because thought

as a causal agent, and sense as a representation

of reality, never really takes place.

As there is no causation, there are no separated

events. Words, thoughts, experiences arise

acausally, because the acausal reality involves

no separation.

There is literally no separation of anything from

anything else, regardless of the apparent arising

of a "desire to have" ...

So, although everything drops as that desire drops

acausally, nothing drops because there is only

acausal reality all along.

Love,

Dan

Ok, here's how i see it...

The desire to be (not to be anything in particular, just to BE) lies

at the root of life. The desire to be something in particular, as

you mentioned, is the desire to attain something not already

possessed.

Yet the desire to *BE* is something "built in" to life

itself. In

fact, i maintain that this "root" desire is precisely what

maintains

life as "separation" (as a physical body, as a separate entity

in

space and time).

For example, my mother has been a cancer care nurse for 25 years, and

has described many cases where a patient, told by a doctor "there's

nothing more we can do for you," will quietly lay down and

"pass on"

a few hours or even minutes afterwards.

So as i see it, the desire to BE is the 'root' of all other

desires.

If for some reason that desire drops acausally, life (as commonly

known) ends.

It doesn't (necessarily) result in actual death of the body. If

that

root desire is "cut" or drops off somehow (without any illness

involved), something like a death occurs -- as described by Ramana

Maharshi, U.G. Krishnamurti and some of the other sages.

Following that 'death', desire itself is no more -- all desires

are "Fulfilled."

Anyway, just some ramblings and 'pointings'. They won't be useful

to

anyone, because the dropping of "the root desire" is acausal --

there

is no way for an 'entity' or a "me" to drop the desire to be

(if

causally related, it seems likely to result only in clinical

depression and related dis-ease).

Namaste,

Tim

, Daniel Berkow <berkowd@u...>

wrote:

> Hi Tim!

>

> Okay, speak on ...

> >How about "the desire to be the ultimate Subject?"

:-)

> >

> >There's plenty i could say on that, but

> >curious as to 'your input' :-).

Sponsor

Click for Details

/join

 

All paths go somewhere. No path goes nowhere. Paths, places, sights,

perceptions, and indeed all experiences arise from and exist in and

subside back into the Space of Awareness. Like waves rising are not

different than the ocean, all things arising from Awareness are of the

nature of Awareness. Awareness does not come and go but is always

Present. It is Home. Home is where the Heart Is. Jnanis know the Heart to

be the Finality of Eternal Being. A true devotee relishes in the Truth of

Self-Knowledge, spontaneously arising from within into It Self. Welcome

all to a.

Your use of is subject to the

Terms of

Service.

[Guest guest]

Dear Tim --

I'm happy with the synchronicity

that emerged (from synchronicity).

Thanks for the insight you shared,

your sincerity, and the

experience you described.

I agree with you that the desire to

be is the way that all the apparent

being one knows, including an apparent

body one has, are construed as real.

Yes, it is an imaged location, truly

nonlocal -- put together and

held together by the desire to

have a desire that can be located ...

using memory as cement, although

it is always slipping away ;-)

What is usually called reality, is

nostalgia ;-)

That all this is acausal is self-evident.

It can only be so.

I'll be off-list now for a few days.

Be well

Be, well ...

Be

Love,

Dan

Dear Dan,

i am a bit surprised and humbled that my short expounding on 'the

desire to be' seemed to act as an inspiration for the synchronicity

expressed below.

In actuality, the determination of the 'desire to be' as the root of

desire (and of life) was made simply by remaining as

simple 'Being', 'prior to personality' -- precisely as recommended by

Nisargadatta. Not as a sadhana or yoga or anything, but it 'so

happened' that way (acausally, in the course of events) -- and in a

moment of clarity while lying in bed at night, it became abundantly

clear that at the root of 'Being' lies 'the desire to be'. i won't

go into it further here, but this 'satori' is documented in the

archives of TheWayStation list, here:

TheWayStation/message/213

Jan Barendrecht ("jb" on the NDS list, for readers unfamiliar)

expresses something similar in his pointer, "giving up the will to

live and enjoy."

The acausal dropping of 'the desire to be' does not happen to

a 'person'... it can't really be said that it 'happens to' anything

or anyone in particular. It 'just happens'. There seems to be

a

connection with the physical body, yet the physical body is not a

person, merely an 'imaged location in space' (we have discussed this

before).

It seems here 'the person' or 'the persona' could be compared to

writing on an (otherwise) blank sheet of paper. The paper could be

said to be distantly related to reality (a jungle of trees), and the

pencil that wrote the information also distantly related to

reality... yet the writing itself is entirely 'unreal'.

When awareness loses interest in 'the writing', 'the paper' is

noticed... and an intuition is then free to arise as to the 'source'

of that paper.

Anyway, gracious thanks for your input on this...

Love,

Tim

[Guest guest]

Hi Tim!

It can be observed that a body

'dies', and thus is no longer

animated... a corpse remains, still holding the shape of a body until

disintegration sets in.

Yet this is *always* an "external" observation. Bodies

are

observed "externally" to die -- the idea "my body will

die" is

simultaneously an identification, a projection and an

assumption.

Well-said.

Indeed it is so.

A body dying is an externalized

image.

A mind thinking thoughts is an

internalized image.

Without any images, reality

is neither inside or outside.

"All this -- as is" is reality --

it just isn't inside or outside,

and thus there can't be situated

any entities living or dying.

A body dying is an externalized

conceptualization, and the

"me" of "my" body

is an internalization

of an externalization

(to give the body imaged,

an imaged owner/doer/perceiver).

Thoughts are placed inside the body

in a way that makes it seem like

mine. This placement is a repetition

of memory image that is socially

steered and guided through language,

behavior, and expectation.

I become a doer through imagining that

these thoughts placed there are acting

on behalf of an entity to make things happen.

Similarly, I become a perceiver by imagining

that senses are forming objects in relation

to a "me", and the objects can be placed

out there, and the "me" somewhere (unspecified)

"in here" ...

If using the metaphor of

reincarnation, the only thing

that "reincarnates" is 'the desire to be', as previously

discussed.

Form is a result of the desire to have form, to maintain continuity

in time. Thus (metaphorically speaking), memory and desire

"take a

body," but strictly speaking *are* the body.

True.

The body is a recorded image in

memory, maintained as image

by the desire to have -- to

have a location and a life for

a self.

> The instant there is

"insight", there is no separation,

> hence no incarnation and no reincarnation.

No argument :-).

> With clarity, there is no arising, as no separate

> entity is there to perceive anything arising.

Perception 'occurs' without a perceiver. There is no

"how," the fact

is there never was a separate perceiver... yet perception 'occurs'

anyway. None can dispute this.

Perception with no perceiver isn't perception

in the usual meaning of the word.

It doesn't give a report of "events outside" ...

With no inside or outside, nothing is represented

or construed.

It is simply "what is" ...

Memory can function, thought can

arise -- but where is this occurring?

Where am "I" located?

There is only the acausal, undivided being ...

Namaste,

Dan