Dan/Self-Knowledge

[Guest guest]

At 08:58 AM 4/6/2000 -0400, you wrote:

 

>>OK, I'll accept that it's an inference, but one that seems valid enough.

>>How to explain the apparent " world? "

>

>There is no need to explain it.

>Unless established as a self that requires knowledge,

> what is the need for an explanation.

 

OK, admittedly there is some entity or identity here still separating

reality from unreality, working ceaselessly at un-doing confusion. This

" work " goes on constantly at a " subconscious " level, often surfacing on

the conscious level.

 

>If established as a self requiring knowledge,

> no explanation will suffice.

 

It suffices this " self " to say that there is a mind, and the mind creates

pictures (dreaming or waking) which are confused with awareness. Awareness

is contained within the pictures, but the pictures depend entirely on

awareness... awareness stands free, undisturbed and untouched by the

pictures taking place on the screen, as the sky is unaffected by clouds

passing through, or the sea is unaffected by surface waves. Awareness

gives apparent light and life to the pictures, but the pictures themselves

arise from only one source - the mind. This explanation suffices

perfectly, despite what you may claim.

 

>The moving and the not-moving are not-two.

 

Absolutely! This does not by *any* means block the sensations or

perception of movement, and I don't believe it does so in " your " case

either. I don't believe that in " your " case, only utter stillness is seen

with open eyes while watching a hurricane or waves crashing on a beach.

I'm talking here of perception as provided by the five senses, nothing more.

 

>>Something disappears in sleep and reappears upon awakening. It seems there

>>are only two choices: Consider the universe as objectively real, or

>>consider it a product of the mind.

>

>Or consider it as not something to be considered :-)

 

It is " my " sadhana or spiritual practice to sort out confusion...

therefore, consideration of these things is imperative here. I ask for

some respect - the practices of vairagya and viveka are " jnana yoga, " and

this is a " time-honored " technique espoused by Shankara, Ramana Maharshi,

Nisargadatta Maharaj and others. As long as there is still some imperative

here to see through delusion, I ask only respect for these practices (which

will eventually also be discarded as useless and unreal).

 

>That's exactly my point regarding 'mind'.

>Why talk about things that can't be measured

>as if they were real entities?

 

Why not? :-) :-) Can you honestly give a valid reason for either doing or

not doing something? Actually, there is no choice in the matter. Do you

think " I " am doing these things, that there is something like " free will "

involved?

 

You're asking the All: Why talk about things that can't be measured? Who

asks who? The talking occurs. Questions as to " why " are utterly meaningless.

 

>>Something has to explain the world-appearance.

>

>Nothing can be explained. There is no explaining entity.

>There is no position apart from which to gather explanation.

 

Dan... I see you attempting to articulate things with one leg on either

side of a wall, so to speak. Call the " wall " the " self. " Your words are

not heard clearly on " this side. " Enter " my dream " and speak to me in my

dreamland language, or go back to where words cannot reach and have no

meaning... this is not helpful as far as clarity is concerned.

 

>Why establish nonentities as existent, then question what denies

> reality to those nonentities????????????????

 

I do not establish nonentities as existent, only *APPARENT*. Can't you see

the difference? Have you ever hallucinated? During the hallucination, do

you deny the apparentness of it, even while knowing it as hallucination?

As long as something is apparent, it has conditional existence, and can be

dealt with on that level. Why can't you see that?

 

>The contradiction occurs the instant you believe

> that I've spoken my name.

>

>Love,

>Dan

 

The words appear above. The eyes see:

 

Love,

Dan

 

Perhaps they see a dream, but to deny apparent (or dependent) existence to

the dream is just stupid. I know you are not stupid.

 

One thing's for sure... you'd make a hell of a lousy " Guru " due to your

lack of ability to " come down to the level " of those who temporarily see

the truth with less clarity. Transcendence does not mean destruction. You

are free to move in dream as well as in reality, to express yourself in

" common language, " yet you refuse to do so.

 

Love,

 

Tim