Guest guest Posted March 24, 2001 Report Share Posted March 24, 2001 Deep-sand, Well, your reply was about what I thought it would be. You are obviously having a great time playing the "trickster," (I'm sure someone as well-read as you knows who I mean) so have fun with yourself! But sorry, I don't want to "play." I wish I had time for the verbal "fun" you are inviting everyone to enter into, but I don't have the time or the inclination. Been there, done that, dozens of times. It is finally empty, meaningless, and most damning of all, selfish and BORING. If one wishes to take the verbal stance of "neti, neti," not-two" "not-not-twoneither not-two or not-not-two" in conversation, then nothing can really be said (and that, the trickster will say, is saying something…yes, yes, I know…BORING!). It's a trivial thing to do, really, doesn't require any great insight – it's just a verbal mechanism that "works" because of the limitations of human language and, finally, of human thought. While you are having "fun" saying, "not this, not that" "not-Two" to any assertion a correspondent or sage makes, there's nothing mutual going on, just your own masturbation (Yes, yes, I know, trickster, that can be fun too, but in public? Pardon me if I don't want to participate! <lol>) If I had time, I'd also comment on your extreme "nothing but" reductionism that you seem to feel is the answer to anything anyone says, but that discussion would be more properly belong in one of the alt-philosophy newsgroups. Personally, I find your absolutist reductionism boring and trivial. As for why I do, I recommend Ken Wilbur in "The Spectrum of Consciousness" and especially "Sex, Ecology, Spirituality." He says why far more eruditely and eloquently than I ever could. Deep-sand, I have met many people who deeply understand non-dualism, and better yet, live it in lives of grace and goodness, and they never talk to or treat people the flippant way you have in your posts. Oh sure, I suppose they could play your "trickster" game, probably better than you. Maybe they went through this phase in their youth. But they have outgrown that attachment, and instead, when they converse, they hope to have a genuine meetings of the heart and exchanges of the mind that actually bring light into the world and to the individual they are talking to. I see none of this honesty, heart or compassion in your posts. (I know, I know, trickster, you've probably got some "not thisnot that" or reductionist wise crack to make about "who" it is that is being compassionate or not, and then prattle on about the "fun game" you think you are playing. But again, you are simply playing with yourself. That's your right, but I'd rather not watch, and I certainly don't want to participate! Eww!) Your absolutist neti-neti-verbal system is self-reifying, and thus in your own mind, it is ultimately proof against all critique, but it is finally just a little hidey-hole. Hope you'll come out to *really* play sometime. It'd probably be nice to learn who you "really" are as a human. Until then, have fun playing with "yourself." (Quotes added so I won't have to read some more "neti, neti" prattle about my belief (as you suppose) that you have a "self" to play with or tell us about! <lol>) Just a few points in you "replies" you my post: > San: > > What is Christian existentialist? Can existence be Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, > or Islamic? > Read Berdyaev and find out! <snip> So, how about it, Sandeep, are you a Buddhist of some sort come to have fun with the Hindus and their "attachment" to Atman? <g> > San: > > I am neither a Buddhist (Mahayana or Hinayana), neither a "Zenist",(Soto or > Renzai schools) neither a Hinduist, neither an Advaitist. > Gee, why am I not surprised at your answer?....Neti, neti ,neti, neti….yawn....BORING! > To shamelessly borrow, I am that I am. > Oh, what clever word games "we" play! "I" am in awe! > And yes, all concepts including the concept of either a "self" or a Father's > Kingdom are hilarious. > Hilarity being in the "I" of the "beholder!" <lol> > And incidentally Ramana was one of the highest expression of Consciousness, in > the phenomenal context. > That's probably why I was so struck by the huge gulf between what I had just read in his "Collected Works" and your "prattling here on the forum, O Deep-sand! > And if you just allow, you will only see Ramana in these prattlings. > On the contrary, fresh from reading him, so far as I can tell, you little grasp of what Ramana actually taught, O Self-denier. <lol> And you certainly don't grasp his great heart or simple honesty in answering people. > Do you know once Ramana was asked. "Are the 33,000,0000 Gods and Goddesses of > the Hindus real?" His reply is classic. Ramana replied "they are as real as > you are" > Do you know that Ramana once said: "To understand anything there must be the Self. The Self is obvious, so why not remain as Self? What need to explain the non-self? Does your world view and practice include what Ramana called "Self-Enquiry" and the Self, or are you agnostic on these questions, accepting the doctrine of no-Self (anatman)? > San: > <SNIP (prattle, prattle, prattle...see me play with myself...what fun, whee!)> > Not-Two, Not-Two, Not-Two. > Simple answer folks: yes, he clearly accepts Buddha's doctrine of anatman; he simply won't admit it, but chooses instead to play "neti neti" word games. As for your long-winded explanation (smoke screen) which tries to say you do believe it, and you don't believe it, and you neither believe it or do not believe it......boring, not boring, not not boring, not not boring and not not not boring....yawn....zzzzz > So does it not make Sandeep an Advaitist? > > An Advaitist, remains at this Not-Two, not seeing that stating, not-Two is > also absurd. > Are we having fun yet? I couldn't tell. I too can make this sort of response to every sentence you write...so can anyone on the forum...neti, neti, neti...what fun the "trickster" is having (with himself) with the limitations of words and concepts...is there no end to this fun? > Awareness not even aware of itself ( a conceptual term to indicate), to whom > will it affirm, not-Two? > > Thus to whom can there be a need to affirm, anything at all? > To whom indeed? More verbal masturbation. (If you are a student of Zen, I can imagine all sort of neti, neti, "not this! not that!" answers you might be tempted to give, but if you accept anatman, I hope you'll simply say so.) The reason I ask for plain speaking is because of this response you gave initially in your posts: San: Was that plain enough? <s> Your answer truly says it all, O Deep-sand! <s> > Hiya Gummuluru, > > <SNIP> > > namaste shri Sandeepji, and welcome to the List. > > It is customary on this List to send a short note introducing yourself to the > List so that all the members are aware of the perspectives behind the post. > > San: > > A gentleman of leisure. ------------- > > I concede that recalling the background itself is to perpetuate bondage but in > vyavahArika communications, it is unavoidable. San: If the background is not > the message, then it's not worth a fig. > How Zen! Or disingenuous? A "gentleman of leisure" hardly seems to be answering the question in the spirit in which it was asked. Of course, I anyone is certainly free to say as much or little about his or her "background beliefs" as he or she wants. > San: > > Indeed background is nothing but a belief structure, value system, heard, > collected, read about or even experienced. > > Not worth the time or effort to delve into. > Ah, the sweet refuge of "nothing but" reductionism.....if you ever *really* decide to come out and play, let us know....otherwise, "not worth the time or effort to delve into" just about sums up your posts... For me to say upfront "I am a Christian" gives only the barest information, I admit, and given all the Christian sects, could be relatively meaningless. But since I am so new to Advaita, and since this is a forum to discuss Advaita, I was just wondering where you were coming from so I could separate personal belief from what the actual teaching of Advaita is. > San: > > Shorn of all the intricate maneuverings, it is a simple term meaning Not-Two. > Yes, Not-Two. But also *only* Self, as Ramana repeatedly says. > And it might surprise you (or may not), this is the essence of what was > "prattled" (again that word<g>) by all true dudes of every so called > religions. > Ramana: "For the moment you get into the quest for the Self and begin to go deeper, the real Self is waiting there to receive you." Deep-sand: Ramana, how you prattle! Who is this "self" getting into a quest for the Self? And what is this "Self" waiting there to receive you except (to quote myself from an earlier post) "...the ego's attempts to perpetuate itself. Seeing the temporal nature of the current identity, the body-mind complex, it latches on to a more permanent option, [self], which it expects to last few lifetimes." O Ramana, let me teach you about not-Two, and stop this silly prattle about the divine Self! See, Deep-sand, it's easy! Anyone can play the game. There's nothing even the most wise and advanced human being can say that one can't do this with. So what? It means nothing. And the real Self is still waiting there to receive you. <LOL> > The essence of Christianity is not the silly virgin conception or the miracles > or the resurrection. > > It is, the dude on the cross, who cries out "Hey dad, why ya kick my ass" > > And then then those 5 words--------- 'let they will be done". > Gee, and now your going to enlighten us all on what the "essence" of Christianity is? As far as knowing Jesus or his Christianity, I am tempted to reply as Lloyd Benson's did to Dan Quayle when he spoke of knowing John Kennedy. (You can fill in the words!) I'd be happy to discuss with someone who was serious what the "essence" of Christianity might be, but you just want to play with yourself. > (Paraphased off course) > (Funny verbal slip.) Indeed, *off* course! And missing the mark by a mile, too. Furthermore, nothing in the spirit in which you write about "the dude on the cross" (as you so disrespectfully put it) indicates you have a clue about him or the essence of his teachings, which is divine, creative Love itself. > Let thy will be done is nothing but Not-Two. > Ah, the wonderful "nothing but" again! I get "nothing but" bored by it! <s> > > Take Islam. The essence of Islam is Laillaha Allah. There is no god but GOD. > Or even take the term used "Inshallah" commonly used in Islam, which means God > willing. > > Not-Two. > Wow, this is going to be news to most of the Muslims I know! They've been practicing Advaita all along, and just never noticed! (Well, maybe a few Sufi mystics practice and teach something like your "Not-Two," but that's a whole other ball-game. And none that I know of ever lose sight of their God, the ineffable One, the Self, as you would imply they do. One of my favorite quotes is this: "Forgetfulness of self is remembrance of God." (Bayazid Al-Bistami) > Take the dude Buddha who prattled "There is doing but no doer thereof; there > is suffering but no 'sufferer thereof". > > Not-Two. > Ah yes, that "prattling" old "dude" Buddha! Let's see, let's apply the Deep-sand neti-neti method to his words you just quoted: Now, dude, what is this "doing" you are talking about? If you think there is some "doing" going on so that you need to say there is no doer thereof, doesn't that imply a doer? And if there is no "sufferer thereof" then why do you need to tell us there is no suffering, since nothing suffers? There is no suffering, nor is there not suffering. To speak of a a non-sufferer implies the dualism of a sufferer, and if there is no sufferer, then whereof do you speak? Blah, blah, blah.....the so the sophistry runs into Deep-sand. (Assuming that this is more or less understood and agreed upon. Perhaps to ask, "what does Advaita teach" is like asking "what does Christianity teach?" There would be a multiplicity of possible answers, but certainly there would also be some core, basic beliefs. That's what I'm looking to understand about Advaita. And of course, I realize that no one here can claim infallibility of understanding!) Please know that I don't ask or say any of this to be critical of you, Sandeep, I really did enjoy your posts, your humor, and I look forward to your response. Let me add, too, that some of the best discussion I've seen have been when someone with a different belief system visits, for example, a newsgroup like alt.meditation, or alt.religion.buddhism.tibetan or alt.religion.christian and brings a "outsider's" or "non-believer's" critique. That feels like what you are doing, Sandeep. Am I wrong? > San: > > Who knows? > Who indeed, for who would be the who who knows who? Hoo, hoo, dee hoo... > Can a Leela, a game have a purpose? > Many games do, but yours is just masturbation. I don't want to play. And from the other posts, I don't think many others want to either. But it's been quite a "one man show" (or Duet of One as you say below.) > My dropping in to this List, my prattlings, and my getting kicked out of the > List (likely<s>) are all part of that leela, that Duet of One. > You've got the "duet of One" part down right....another name for your masturbatory postings....hope it's been good for you...not many here seem to be enjoying the spectacle...not that you care! "Truth is not something given objectively, but rather a creative achievement. > San: > > By whom? > Oh gosh, Deep-sand, that's just soooo profound....I never thought of that, or Berdyaev either....you are such a bad boy -- I can never get enough of your "neti-ness" <g> It is creative discovery, rather than the reflected knowledge of an object or of being. > San: A closer statement, but still pre-supposes an entity, discovering. > You haven't a clue of what Berdyaev is saying here...you are just wanking yourself off again...you neti-boy! Truth ... is the creative transfiguration of reality." Nicolas Berdyaev > As the dude Lao Tzu put it , anything said about Truth is False, meaning a > concept. > > My addendum ----- the statement "anything said about Truth is False" is also > saying something about Truth and thus subject to the same intrinsic logic of > it. > > LOL. > Gee, thanks for enlightening us about the "dude" Lao Tzu....when you catch up to him, be sure to say "hi"....I'm sure that "addendum" never occurred to him or any of us here....as for your LOL...well, what's the sound of one voice laughing? Answer: I don't know, but it sure is BORING! Steve Steven L. Fair -- "The explanation of the world by a series of reductions has an aim in view: to rid the world of extramundane values. It is a systematic banalization of the world undertaken for the purpose of conquering and mastering it." Mircea Eliade, "The Two and the One" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 24, 2001 Report Share Posted March 24, 2001 Hi Steven, - stevenfair advaitin Sunday, March 25, 2001 04:26 AM Sandeep, quick sand Deep-sand, Well, your reply was about what I thought it would be. San; Glad you enjoyed it. <s> As for the rest, whatever you say, Steven. <SNIP> 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.