Guest guest Posted June 4, 2002 Report Share Posted June 4, 2002 Hi Zenbob, > Hi Dan: > > All this kicking can lead to bruises. Who's kicking? Did you feel something? > Awareness, as a term or condition > should not be so easily dismissed. Not if you think it's important. > > Word games aside, nothing can be communicated about the states of existence, > by anyone or any teacher without that precondition. Who needs preconditions? At some point we all > must acknowledge that there are both wise and foolish individuals, and simply > dismissing "awareness" as a trap or foible of those who have not entered into > the purest state of non-duality is both likely to suggest that the writer so > stating this has fallen for the trap of hubris, Also such a writer has fallen into the trap of believing there's an individual who enters in. Not at all, not at all... > as well as patronizing those > who might sincerely be attempting to come to greater understanding of the > nature of reality. "Don't patronize me as I'm attempting a greater understanding," said the individual who believed that it was another's hubris that needed looking into ... > To sublimimate it all by saying "All is all" or that "awareness is a trap" > misses the essential nature of causality and conversation. Well, an individual wouldn't want to miss out on knowing that ... > Someone says > something and someone else replies. Agreement or disagreement is > optional...but at no time in my recent memory or experience, has the state > of non-duality been so overpowering that neither the > person beginning the conversation, nor those who reply(replied) had opted for > a state of silence because the non-duality thing was just so obvious and > intrinsic to their existence. You assume that it's a state for an individual to be in, and you assume that the result of that state is to not participate in conversation ... > Sure, I have no argument with you on the premise of non-duality as an ongoing > super-reality beneath our illusory existence(s); but really, even that being > noted--all of us engage in the functions of eating, sleeping, working, > talking, learning, etc. Since we do, despite the ongoing super- reality, then > this existence of learning and developing must have a purpose. Yes, what is an individual without a purpose? A purposeless individual -- but still there's the purpose of being an individual ... So, what seems purposeless to an individual may just be truth with no individuals in it -- not lacking in purpose at all, just having no purpose of its own -- > If it must have a purpose---then it seems reasonable to suggest that learning > (since it seems intrinsic to our existence) must be one of the prime > objectives. As long as there's a learner seeking to gain something from learning something ... If folks pose questions and seek to arrive at deeper levels of > cognizance in so doing, Dan, then I think it would be a lovely thing if you > would be supportive, rather than mock those attempts. I'm not mocking anything. If what I say doesn't fit your image of support, I can't account for that image. > All of us fall into various mind traps and illusions of existence...because, > by definition, we are all existing as creatures of flesh, blood, mind, body > and spirit. That's what they said to Jesus after they crucified him, I think. Just want you to see what you're made of, Mr. Son of God ... Sure, we're all just perfect and dandy on some vast cosmic > scale...we're all on the journey to Samadhiville, but some of us are just > getting glimses, some of us have seen a lot, and will see more...and none of > us has the Perfect Apple of the Sun, It's not something that someone has. or else if we did, we could just Grok > that knowingness and experience to all others There are no others. and we would all enter into the > perfect non-duality state without effort, No one enters in. To be an individual is effortful. > instantly and with no tickets > requiring validation. Punch your own ticket. It has been said somewhere that upon waking from a dream, will you try to get the characters that were in the dream to wake up? > So, I say all this in good humor...not meant to be petty or picky... Good, I'm the same way. God humor to you, pardner. >but folks > out there might get the idea that you were suggesting that they were in > "error" and that you, naturally were above all that sort of humaness. If so, let me clarify. For someone to be in error, in the way you're describing, there would have to be an existing, separable individual who could enter a state of error, or enter a state of truth. To perceive as if such separable entities were in existence, and thus to conceive of a "me" who could be above it all, and a "you" who would not -- that is the error, so to speak. The image of the lotus has been used to symbolize what can float and live in a shitty pond, but not get dirty. What prevents me from being that lotus? If I am worried that someone else sees me as living in shit, and want to make sure he or she knows that he lives in shit too -- might I not be distracting myself from my own "lotus nature"? Lotus Love, also Lamborgini Love, Dan > > Love, > Blessings, > > Zenbob > (Working on losing 25 pounds of his illusional, but overweight self this > summer!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 6, 2002 Report Share Posted June 6, 2002 What prevents me from being that lotus? Hi Dan: Thanks for the thoughtful replies... I particularly appreciated the "Lamborgini Nature" tag. Always thought if one could have a "Lotus Nature" it only seemed fair that one could have a Ferrari, BMW or Lambo nature, too. I was hoping that you would appreciate that much of my direction in my comments was intended to put the comments into a context that other members of the Satsangh could appreciate, particularly if they were not yet steeped in the ultimateness of the non-duality thingy. I feared that some of our quick jibes and glib jibs might obscure the truth rather than illuminate it. As Einstein aptly remarked, "...an idea should be as simple as possible, but not more simple than possible." It is tempting to lunge for the too complex or the too simple. Hitting that target is not easy...yet, as you realize, if you are not trying to hit it, then you can. I always like the image of the archer, the arrow and the target being seen as one entity. Of course, if the target is another person, then usually only the target screams when hit, even if they are all part of the same greater non-duality thingy. Peace, good Lambo-natured Dan man! Love, Zenbob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 6, 2002 Report Share Posted June 6, 2002 Hi Zenbob -- > Thanks for the thoughtful replies... And thanks to you, as well ... > I particularly appreciated the "Lamborgini Nature" tag. Always thought if > one could have a "Lotus Nature" it only seemed fair that one could have a > Ferrari, BMW or Lambo nature, too. Or maybe a GTO nature, "Gone to ONE" > > I was hoping that you would appreciate that much of my direction in my > comments was intended to put the comments into a context that other members > of the Satsangh could appreciate, particularly if they were not yet steeped > in the ultimateness of the non-duality thingy. With a hundred perceivers of a statement, there will be a hundred versions of what was meant ... You're certainly welcome to put comments in a context that suits your perception ... as I'm sure I put comments into contexts as well -- how else to understand a comment? > > I feared that some of our quick jibes and glib jibs might obscure the truth > rather than illuminate it. Not to mention our frantic antics and snide collides ... Of course, whatever truth it is that gets obscured, is known not to be the truth that is never obscured. So, maybe by obscuring, we're clarifying :-) Oops, I've done it again. Another remark to be placed into context. Thankfully, I'm sure the Lamborgini Sutra will allow you to do this in GTO style ... :-) >As Einstein aptly remarked, "...an idea should be > as simple as possible, but not more simple than possible." Ah, and now those simple ideas have now led to the possibility of world-wide holocaust. A twist of irony with your simplicity, sir? ... > It is tempting to lunge for the too complex or the too simple. Hitting that > target is not easy...yet, as you realize, if you are not trying to hit it, > then you can. It hit me, I wasn't even aiming in the right direction :-) > I always like the image of the archer, the arrow and the target being seen as > one entity. It is -- and that's all she wrote ... The shot and the outcome of the shot ... Of course, if the target is another person, then usually only > the target screams when hit, even if they are all part of the same greater > non-duality thingy. Heh, heh ... Another twist of irony with your nonduality, sir? > Peace, good Lambo-natured Dan man! Thanks, Zenbob. May peace be heaped upon your head, and on the heads of all your friends and family, and may you land gracefully in a GTO, rather than the other way around :-) Love, Dan 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.