Guest guest Posted September 2, 2001 Report Share Posted September 2, 2001 Hiya San: > Hiya Gary, > > Sandeep wrote: >> >> The dude in the diaper, Ramana, when called " Hey Bhagwan " turned to the >> direction of the caller. >> He dined on fruits, but he did dine, which means the identification with the >> hunger experienced by body-mind complex, the identification with the >> body-mind >> complex, continued. > > If you are hungry and I feed you, do I identify with you? I identify with > you only if I make my happiness depend on your being fed. > > San: > > When I am hungry and you cognize my hunger, whether you do something about it > or not, you have identified an " other " , separate to yourself, isn't it? > > That's all I am saying. Identifying an " other " and identifying WITH an " other " are two different things. > > Ego is nothing but this identification with a form (the particular body-mind > complex) and the name which society has labeled it with. > This identification is absolutely a must, for the psycho-somatic apparatus to > survive. > > Where it becomes interesting, all the games of bondage and liberation from > this bondage, etc etc, is the added quality of a sense of personal doership, > to this ego, which births the " me " . A sense of doership is not critical. I can, and do, agree with your analysis elsewhere that there is no one inside doing anything. Most of those in the field of cognitive science would agree with you. That does not of itself keep us from unnecessarily suffering. For a correct theory is not awakening. The problem arises when I identify with particulars about myself. More below. > > With a " me " , " mine " is born. > With a " me " , a " you " and " yours " is immediately born. > > A relationship is now possible between this " me " and this " you " . > A relationship of love, or hate, or indifference, whatever, is possible. > > And Life which is nothing but this myriad complex of relationship between the > billions " Me's " and " you's " , Life comes to be. > Nicely said. > ------------ > > Similarly, I > identify with my body's hunger only if I make my happiness depend on my > being fed. > > San: > > I am not getting into happiness, which is only relevant to a " me-entity " . Depends on what kind of happiness you're talking about. > > All I am saying is for " me " to cognize " my " body-mind-complex's hunger (in > whichever form), the witnessing Consciousness (a mere conceptual terminology > for the purpose of this communication) continues to be identified with the > body-mind complex. You're playing a conceptual shell game here, San. Either " the witnessing Consciousness " is real or it is not. If it is not, then there is no subject to your sentence, which is therefore meaningless. If it is something, then it is more than " a mere conceptual terminology " , which I take you to mean is " mere words " . You're trying to have it both ways. You imply what is obvious: that there is an I who is not a me. But you are worried that that formulation generates its own paradoxes. Your way out of the paradox is to say that " I " is just a word for communication. For communicating what? > > The moment this identification ends, it is the " death " of the body-mind > complex along with it's hunger. > -------------- > You wisely said just previously: > >> Incidentally the much despised " ego " , is an absolutely necessary tool for >> life >> to be what it is. >> >> And the occurrence of " apperception " , " awakening " , " enlightenment " does not >> in >> any way mean the end of the ego which is nothing but an identification with a >> particular name and form. > > Yes, the ego identifies with a particular name and form, but I do not have > to identify with my ego even while recognizing it as an absolutely necessary > tool for life. I do not have to identify with life. > > San: > > Who does not have to identify with life? > To whom is the issue relevant? > I could quote you to yourself: " the witnessing Consciousness (a mere conceptual terminology for the purpose of this communication) " , but then I would be mired with you in the problem I identify above. Gary Scoobydoobydoo Gary Schouborg Performance Consulting Walnut Creek, CA garyscho Publications and professional services: http://home.att.net/~garyscho Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 3, 2001 Report Share Posted September 3, 2001 Hiya Gary, Thank you for your most interesting comments. First of all, I do not know whether you notice, often I interject within the prattlings, the phrase "Conceptually speaking". I even end most of the posts with the same phrase. Anything ever said or conveyed by any other means of communication, by anybody, anywhere, at any time, to somebody, about Truth, ever, is a concept. Whether it is Buddha, Lao Tzu, Mohammed, the dude Jesus, Ramana, Nisargadatta, Meister Eckhart, Bodhidharma and his lineage of Zen Masters. Nothing more than a concept. A concept is like a thorn, useful to dig out other deeply embedded thorns. Then both are to kept aside. Further Truth is not an experience. We cannot know or experience, what we already are. All "experiences" occur and are only relevant to the phenomenal continuum, which itself is a concept. The playing out of the allotted role of a dreamed-up character, with which, the dreamed-up character goes into rapture exclaiming about "his" or "her" experiences within the dream. From this premise, let's see what you are saying........... <I am snipping of portions which are no longer relevant.> <SNIP> > San:> > When I am hungry and you cognize my hunger, whether you do something about it> or not, you have identified an "other", separate to yourself, isn't it?> > That's all I am saying.Identifying an "other" and identifying WITH an "other" are two differentthings. San: I submit, Identifying an other or with an other, finally is the same, for you cognize (the nature of the cognition may be different in the two cases) an "other". > > Ego is nothing but this identification with a form (the particular body-mind> complex) and the name which society has labeled it with.> This identification is absolutely a must, for the psycho-somatic apparatus to> survive.> > Where it becomes interesting, all the games of bondage and liberation from> this bondage, etc etc, is the added quality of a sense of personal doership,> to this ego, which births the "me".A sense of doership is not critical. I can, and do, agree with your analysiselsewhere that there is no one inside doing anything. Most of those in thefield of cognitive science would agree with you. That does not of itselfkeep us from unnecessarily suffering. San: Who is suffering? To whom can suffering be relevant? And thus who is to be delivered from this suffering? The relevance of the entire issue of suffering and delieverance from suffering can only be for the "me-Gary". In a separate and rather long post, I was tracing how this "me" comes to be, from the sense of personal doership Apparently comes to "be", (call it due to the wizardy of Maya) as really there is no "me" in the first place. For the "me-Gary" all suffering and I repeat all suffering fundamentally arises from a "should" (Even should-not is actually a should). The "should" is really the gap between what the moment IS and what was expected by the "me-Gary" for the moment to have been for "me-Gary". There is no other suffering for "me-Gary", apart from this. Thus the "should" arising from the expectation (including the expectation of awakening, realization, enlightenment) is really a consequence of the way the "me" (a bundle of expectations) is "wired", which has assumed an individual and separate identity. This in turn is a direct consequence of the sense of personal doership. What happens in a sage, where there is an absence of the sense of personal doership. There is no intention, whatsoever, and hence a total absence of expectation, including the expectation that the disciple in front should obtain enlightenment from the sage. Really for a sage there is no "other". What really happens, if the sense of personal doership is non-volitionally erased. There is an apperception that all that "happens", occurs in the moment, as an Impersonal functioning through the instrument of the biological computer. And thus can only be perfect, appropriate. Otherwise the "happening" will not occur. There is no un-appropriateness in phenomenality. And thus there is no "should" or "should not", because the entity to which either is relevant, that entity is no longer operative. Thus in a sage, there might be pain (experienced by the body-mind complex) but there is no suffering.( pain unaccepted is suffering) Thus the praise(if any) which society showers on the sage, is seen to be "an" objective expression of Impersonal functioning and there is no arising of pride of accomplishment. The ridicule, abuse, brickbats(if any) which society showers is also seen to be 'another" objective expression of the same Impersonal functioning and there is no arising of hatred or anger. No pride No hatred No envy (what can you envy any longer when all is seen to be the objective expressions of that same Impersonal functioning) Nothing to seek and thus no expectation of any "sought" No suffering. Call such an "existing" by whatever name you wish to. <SNIP> You're playing a conceptual shell game here, San. Either "the witnessingConsciousness" is real or it is not. San: It is once again a concept, useful to point and differentiate from Consciousness-identified-with- an individual form and name. Nothing more. If it is not, then there is no subjectto your sentence, which is therefore meaningless. San: Indeed there is no subject ever. There is subjectivity, once again conceptually speaking. And indeed all prattlings, including this post, is meaningless. The relevance of a need for a meaning is only for a "me-Gary". Life, phenomenality is meaningless, in the sense it is it's own meaning. It is completion in itself and there is no meaning "beyond" phenomenality. If it is something, thenit is more than "a mere conceptual terminology", which I take you to mean is"mere words". You're trying to have it both ways. You imply what is obvious:that there is an I who is not a me. But you are worried that thatformulation generates its own paradoxes. Your way out of the paradox is tosay that "I" is just a word for communication. For communicating what? San: LOL. That is why it is game and has been called a Lila (the grand play) After all if there is communicating taking place, in a conceptual sense, who is communicating to whom? In a conceptual sense, one can say Consciousness is communicating to Consciousness and for this "communicating" to be cognized, it can only occur in the duality of phenomenality and thus needs a manifested body-mind complex named 'Sandeep" and an apparently separate to "Sandeep", a manifested body-mind complex named "Gary". And "communicating" between "Sandeep" and "Gary" can take place. But really is there anything taking place, except "gaming"? (again conceptually speaking) Conceptually speaking because the very "gaming" which is all that is phenomenality, is itself akin to a night-sleep individual dream. Next morning, awake, sipping your hot cup of tea or coffee, what has happened to all the ethos and pathos of the last night-dream, what happens to the profound "communicating" between the dreamed-up sage and the dreamed-up disciple within that dream? While "dreaming", the dream was very real to you, so real, that you cry, laugh, break into cold sweat in terror. You dream up mountains, rivers, AIDS virus, United Nation forums on racism, great acts of cruelty, and corresponding great acts of charity, great creations of beauty, great creations of ugliness, you dream up global devastations and tranquil seas, you dream up an entire life-time of 70-80 years, in a dream time of 1-2 hours. Next morning, awake, the existential reality of all that drama, all that Lila stands exposed. Now from within the dream (within phenomenality) a dreamed character speculating on the nature of the "dreamer", all those speculations can only be mere concepts. <SNIP> > Yes, the ego identifies with a particular name and form, but I do not have> to identify with my ego even while recognizing it as an absolutely necessary> tool for life. I do not have to identify with life.> > San:> > Who does not have to identify with life?> To whom is the issue relevant?> I could quote you to yourself: "the witnessing Consciousness (a mereconceptual terminology for the purpose of this communication)", but then Iwould be mired with you in the problem I identify above. San: <s> And now do you see that the very problem has a relevance only to a "me-entity" which wants to solve it. For a sage, there is no problem, for the simple reason that the existing apperception sees the Total Picture, which already IS. "sees" is also a corruption arising from the inadequacy of language. The sage is THE Total Picture. The dsciple is also THE Total Picture. In the sage, there is knowingness of this, in the disciple, the apperception is yet to occur. The difference exists, so that the game of "prattling" is possible.<LOL> Conceptually speaking. (Phew) Cheers Sandeep 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.