Guest guest Posted June 18, 2001 Report Share Posted June 18, 2001 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 , Daniel Berkow <berkowd@u...> wrote: > 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 "bodymindtime") > 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 > ><http://rd./M=168002.1477935.3051340.2/D=egroupmail/S=170006 0955:N/A=630092/*http://mojofarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/990-1736-1039-59? bn=GuyWants12Free468> > >Click for Details > > > ></join>http://groups.yaho o.com/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 > ><> 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.