Guest guest Posted September 14, 2001 Report Share Posted September 14, 2001 Dear Rob and Sandeep, I love you both, and love your prattlings. Now hear mine! ;-) There is a contradiction if it is said that because there is no volition, the feeling of volition is wrong or erroneous. For the feeling of volition to be wrong or erroneous, there would have to be an entity who could correctly comprehend the situation of all entities (as lacking volition). So, for the feeling of volition to be incorrect, would require a volitional entity (i.e. an entity capable of knowing the situation correctly, an entity existing apart from the situation and able to correctly assess it, or to assess it incorrectly). Thus, if there is no volition, then the feeling of volition is neither correct nor incorrect. And therefore, the feeling of no volition is neither correct nor incorrect. We thus expose a fallacy in Ramesh's teaching, because he frequently implies that he is teaching about something he calls " apperception " , as if there could be an entity who knows about and teaches apperception to other entities. (He makes the associated error of discussing " the sage " as a " body mind " in which apperception supposedly " happens " ...) However, if this fallacy is understood, there is no one there, and no one missing -- hence nothing to be understood or not understood. Hence, we can't really talk about understanding the fallacy. Thus, the fallacy is exposed! Love, Dan --- Rob Sacks <editor wrote: > Dear Sandeep, > > Thanks very much for passing this along. I too > am fascinated by the history of the idea that > human beings are machines that make decisions > like computers do, by processing input from our > environment. > > It seems remarkable to me that people were able > to devise this idea more than two thousand years > ago, when machines were far simpler and > computers were beyond imagination. > > Even today, people try to find some alternative. > The Penrose stuff, for example, about quantum > effects in the brain. he wants to find something > non-determined. But quantum effects are > random. Those are the two choices: either our > decisions are determined or random. What else > can they be? As Marvin Minsky famously said, > " Brains are computers made from meat. " > > But I'm not sure that it follows from this, that the > feeling of agonizing over a decision, the feeling > of volition, does not causally affect the actions > eventually taken. Trivially, it can be seen that > the > feeling of volition *does* affect actions taken, > because it makes people toss and turn sleeplessly > at night, etc. > > > Probably the earliest pointing to the fact the > > the human entity is nothing but a conditioned, > > a programmed biological computer, helpless > > but to follow the conditioning-in-the moment. > > Is it really? I would have thought the idea was > mentioned somewhere in the early Upanishads. > > > A " Osama Ben Laden " and a " George Bush " are > > helpless but to enact out as per their innate > > conditioning in the moment, towards the unfolding > > of the Cosmic Dance. > > Helpless but responsive to the turnings of the other > gears. Saying they are responsible is a way of > nudging them with other gears, isn't it? > > Best regards, > > Rob > > > > - > Sandeep Chatterjee > Realization > Friday, September 14, 2001 12:45 AM > Gita > > > Hi, > > The good old Gita.......... > > TEXT 5 > na hi kascit ksanam api > jatu tisthaty akarma-krt > karyate hy avasah karma > sarvah prakrti-jair gunaih > > WORD FOR WORD > na -- nor; hi -- certainly; kascit -- anyone; > ksanam -- a moment; api -- also; jatu -- at any > time; tisthati -- remains; akarma-krt -- without > doing something; karyate -- is forced to do; hi -- > certainly; avasah -- helplessly; karma -- work; > sarvah -- all; prakrti-jaih -- born of the modes of > material nature; gunaih -- by the qualities. > > TRANSLATION > Everyone is forced to act helplessly according to > the qualities he has acquired from the modes of > material nature; therefore no one can refrain from > doing something, not even for a moment > > ---------- > > TEXTS 4-5 > buddhir jnanam asammohah > ksama satyam damah samah > sukham duhkham bhavo 'bhavo > bhayam cabhayam eva ca > > ahimsa samata tustis > tapo danam yaso 'yasah > bhavanti bhava bhutanam > matta eva prthag-vidhah > > WORD FOR WORD > buddhih -- intelligence; jnanam -- knowledge; > asammohah -- freedom from doubt; ksama -- > forgiveness; satyam -- truthfulness; damah -- > control of the senses; samah -- control of the mind; > sukham -- happiness; duhkham -- distress; bhavah -- > birth; abhavah -- death; bhayam -- fear; ca -- also; > abhayam -- fearlessness; eva -- also; ca -- and; > ahimsa -- nonviolence; samata -- equilibrium; tustih > -- satisfaction; tapah -- penance; danam -- charity; > yasah -- fame; ayasah -- infamy; bhavanti -- come > about; bhavah -- natures; bhutanam -- of living > entities; mattah -- from Me; eva -- certainly; > prthak-vidhah -- variously arranged. > > TRANSLATION > Intelligence, knowledge, freedom from doubt and > delusion, forgiveness, truthfulness, control of the > senses, control of the mind, happiness and distress, > birth, death, fear, fearlessness, nonviolence, > equanimity, satisfaction, austerity, charity, fame > and infamy -- all these various qualities of living > beings are created by Me alone. > > PURPORT > The different qualities of living entities, be > they good or bad, are all created by Krishna. > > > ------------------ > > San: > > Probably the earliest pointing to the fact the the > human entity is nothing but a conditioned, a > programmed biological computer, helpless but to > follow the conditioning-in-the moment. > > A " Osama Ben Laden " and a " George Bush " are > helpless but to enact out as per their innate > conditioning in the moment, towards the unfolding of > the Cosmic Dance. > > > --------- > TEXT 8 > prakrtim svam avastabhya > visrjami punah punah > bhuta-gramam imam krtsnam > avasam prakrter vasat > > WORD FOR WORD > prakrtim -- the material nature; svam -- of My > personal Self; avastabhya -- entering into; visrjami > -- I create; punah punah -- again and again; > bhuta-gramam -- all the cosmic manifestations; imam > -- these; krtsnam -- in total; avasam -- > automatically; prakrteh -- of the force of nature; > vasat -- under obligation. > > TRANSLATION > The whole cosmic order is under Me. Under My will > it is automatically manifested again and again, and > under My will it is annihilated at the end. > > ---------- > > > San: > > There is no individual will in question > whatsoever. > > > > Cheers > > Sandeep > > Terrorist Attacks on U.S. - How can you help? Donate cash, emergency relief information http://dailynews./fc/US/Emergency_Information/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 15, 2001 Report Share Posted September 15, 2001 Hi Dan, Assuming your comments are addressed to me, some conceptual two bits... - d b Realization Saturday, September 15, 2001 03:30 AM Re: The fallacy of assertions about nonvolitionality Dear Rob and Sandeep,I love you both, and love your prattlings. Now hear mine! ;-)There is a contradiction if it is said that because there is no volition, the feeling of volition is wrong or erroneous. San: I do not recall at any time, saying it is wrong or for that matter anything within phenomenality is wrong. The sense of volition is a myth and yet apparently exists, for through it's apparent existence, is the apparent existence of the individual self with it's apparent questions and the consequential apparent suffering. This is an illusion, just like the wave on the Ocean surface is an illusion. But nothing wrong about it. The sense of personal doership or the sense of possesing volition to choose to think or to act, is a direct consequence of the manner in which the human biological computer is "wired". And in some rare biological computers, this particular twist of the "wiring" is non-volitionally (from the entity's point of view) acausally, undone. Neither right, nor wrong. Just movements of Consciousness. ---------- For the feeling of volition to be wrong or erroneous, there would have to be an entity who could correctly comprehend the situation of all entities (as lacking volition). So, for the feeling of volition to be incorrect, would require a volitional entity (i.e. an entity capable of knowing the situation correctly, an entity existing apart from the situation and able to correctly assess it, or to assess it incorrectly). San: Very good point, Dan. That is why a term is used as apperception, which is the percieving, without a "perciever". That is why, enlightenment, awakening is not an experience. Cannot be objectified. Incidentally, the tenet of non-volitionality for the individual self, is itself seen to be meaningless, for the individual self, not having an existential reality to itself, saying anything about it, either in affirmation or in negation is meaningless. But to a suffering seeker, what other life- line to give? The concept of exploring the non-volitionality of the individual self is probably the longest thorn to pluck out other deeply embedded thorns. For all other life-lines actually strengthens the sense of personal identity. The ideation about the personal identity may change, may be transformed, but still persists in all it's dubious glory. Finally Dan, all thorns are kept aside, all lifelines are seen for what they are. ----- Thus, if there is no volition, then the feeling of volition is neither correct nor incorrect. And therefore, the feeling of no volition is neither correct nor incorrect.We thus expose a fallacy in Ramesh's teaching, because he frequently implies that he is teaching about something he calls "apperception", as if there could be an entity who knows about and teaches apperception to other entities. San: The end of entitification is apperception. And neither it can be taught to an other, for the end of the entity is the end of the "other' for that entity. And yet teaching takes place. For this teaching to take place, there must be an apparent Guru and an apparent miserable seeker in front of the Guru. .. And the teaching which is really Consciousness expounding to Consciousness, takes place for the sheer delight of it, the sheer pleasure in the expounding of the teaching. Incidentally from where do you get this implication about Ramesh? ----------- (He makes the associated error of discussing "the sage" as a "body mind" in which apperception supposedly "happens" ...) San: To the extent that nothing happens, nothing has ever happeneed, phenomenality, the mosiac of all happenings, is a concept, even the "happening" of enlightenment, apperception, etc etc is again a conceptual event. But Dan (have we met before<s>), who is a sage (in whom apperception is supposed to have happened) talking to? A desperate, miserable, suffering seeker, to whom "nothing happens, nothing has ever happened," has no cognitive meaning. If there was an existing apperception of this very non-happening, why would he/she find himself or herself in front of a sage? Why does a Master do what appears to be done through himself/herself? For truly when there is neither bondage nor freedom, there is nothing to be accomplished. And thus there is no talking about either accomplishment or thge means to it. There is only the pleasure of expounding. Here is some Jnaneshwar for you Dan.... These three attributes, Sat, Chit, and Ananda(Existence, Consciousness, and Bliss),Do not actually define Brahman.A poison is poison to others,But not to itself.Camphor is white;Not only that, it is soft.And not only that, it is fragrant as well.Just as these three qualities signifyOne object -- camphor, and not three objects;So the three qualities,Sat, Chit, and Ananda,Are contained in one reality.It is true that the words,Sat, Chit, and Ananda,Are different,But the three are united in one Bliss.When water is falling in drops,We can count them.But when the water is gatheredIn a puddle on the ground,It is impossible to count the number of drops.In the same way,The scriptures describe RealityAs Sat, or Existence,In order to negate Its non-existence.They call It Chit, or Consciousness,In order to negate its unconsciousness.The Vedas,Which are the very breath of the Lord,Declare It to be Ananda, or Bliss,Only in order to negate the possibilityOf pain existing in It.Thus the word, Satchidananda,Used to refer to the Self,Does not really describe Its nature,But merely signifiesThat It is not the opposite of this.The fact is, if we try to know That,The knowledge itself is That.How, then, could the knowledgeAnd the object of knowledge remain separate?So the words Sat, Chit, and AnandaDo not denote That;They are merely inventions of our thought.These well-known words, Chit, Sat, and Ananda,Are popularly used, it is true;But when the knower becomes One with That to which they refer,Then they vanishLike the clouds that pour down as rain,Or like rivers which flow into the sea,Or like a journey when one's destination is reached.Of course, what exists cannot be said not to exist;But can such existence be called "Existence?"In blissfulnessThere is no feeling of unhappiness;But can it, for that reason, be called "Bliss?"Existence vanishes along with non-existence,Consciousness along with unconsciousness,And bliss along with misery;In the end, nothing remains.Discarding the veil of dualityAnd all the pairs of opposites,That alone remainsIn Its own blessed state.If a face does not look into a mirror,There is neither a face before itNor behind it.Likewise, He is neither happiness nor misery,But pure Bliss itself.Even before the sugar cane is planted,The juice is within it;But its sweetness is unknown --Except to itself.Pure Consciousness is beyondBoth generalizations and particular statements;It remains ever-content in Itself.After such a discourse,That speech is wiseWhich drinks deeply of silence.Truly, there is neither bondage nor freedom;There is nothing to be accomplished.There is only the pleasure of expounding. However, if this fallacy is understood, there is no one there, and no one missing -- hence nothing to be understood or not understood.Hence, we can't really talk about understanding the fallacy.Thus, the fallacy is exposed! San: Very true. Cheers Sandeep PS: Is this Dan the same Dan as on the NDS, NOJ, L & S etc etc? <s> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 15, 2001 Report Share Posted September 15, 2001 Sandeep Chatterjee wrote: > > > > Incidentally, the tenet of non-volitionality for the > individual self, is itself seen to be meaningless, for the > individual self, not having an existential reality to > itself, saying anything about it, either in affirmation or > in negation is meaningless. > > But to a suffering seeker, what other life- line to give? > > ***** This makes me laugh. An old boyfriend of mine, who was a real charachter, used to say, " Listen, I can throw you guys a rope, but what you queers do among yourselves is your business. " :-) -- Happy Days, Judi http://www.users.uniserve.com/~samuel/judi-1.htm TheEndOfTheRopeRanch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 16, 2001 Report Share Posted September 16, 2001 Hi Sandeep ~ > > Assuming your comments are addressed to me, some > conceptual two bits... They are just comments. But thanks for addressing them, as addressed to you! Appreciating the dialogue! > > > Dear Rob and Sandeep, > > I love you both, and love your > prattlings. Now hear mine! ;-) > > There is a contradiction if it is > said that because there is no volition, > the feeling of volition is wrong or > erroneous. > > San: > > I do not recall at any time, saying it is wrong or > for that matter anything within phenomenality is > wrong. Ah, but you do not say that you have not said that it is erroneous ;-) If nothing within phenomenality is wrong, neither is it erroneous. If it is erroneous, then it is wrong (in the sense of being untrue or unreal). Now, admittedly, I am playing devil's advocate. That " volitionality " refers to no real choosing entity is a concept that " makes sense " to me. By playing devil's advocate, I simply point to ways that a concept of " nonvolitionality " can become a problem in and of itself. If " volitionality " points to no real entity, then there are no real entities, including biological computers which have programs. " Nonvolitionality " if taken as pointing to the nonexistence of entities makes the same error as " volitionality " in the other direction -- as if there were some reality " out there " which could accurately be described in some way, by what it has or what it doesn't have. > > The sense of volition is a myth and yet apparently > exists, for through it's apparent existence, is the > apparent existence of the individual self with it's > apparent questions and the consequential apparent > suffering. If the sense of volition is a myth, then so is the one who is able to say that volition is a myth. Thus, saying that volition can be said to be a myth, is also a myth. > > This is an illusion, just like the wave on the > Ocean surface is an illusion. > > But nothing wrong about it. Saying that it is an illusion, depends on someone being there to ascertain it is an illusion. If the reason for saying it is an illusion, is that no one is there to have volition, then saying it is an illusion is every bit as illusory, as there is no one to know this, or to whom it can be addressed. The statement that it is an illusion infers someone saying something to someone about a situation in which someone can ascertain what is real and illusion. However, that someone being an illusion, the statement about what is illusory can't meaningfully be provided. > > The sense of personal doership or the sense of > possesing volition to choose to think or to act, is > a direct consequence of the manner in which the > human biological computer is " wired " . > > And in some rare biological computers, this > particular twist of the " wiring " is non-volitionally > (from the entity's point of view) acausally, undone. For this to be true, there would have to be someone there who can understand biological computers and wiring of them. If that someone is there, then non-volitionality can not be real, for that someone has made a statement about what is true and what is not true for biological computers. If truth can be ascertained and divided from what isn't the case, someone is there to make the comparison. And, essentially, this is the " sense of volitionality " , an ability to compare, to contrast, to ascertain what is true from what is not true, and act accordingly. > Neither right, nor wrong. > > Just movements of Consciousness. If there are just movements of Consciousness, then there are not true movements and false movements. The movement called " volitionality " is not false, nor is the movement called " nonvolitional awareness that no entity exists " true. If we say that isn't a movement, then it can't be talked about, as if it included some kind of information (such as the information that there are no volitional entities) -- information being " a movement of consciousness " ... > > ---------- > > > For the feeling of volition to be wrong or > erroneous, there would have to be an > entity who could correctly comprehend > the situation of all entities (as lacking > volition). So, for the feeling of volition > to be incorrect, would require a volitional > entity (i.e. an entity capable of knowing the > situation correctly, an entity existing apart > from > the situation and able to correctly assess it, > or > to assess it incorrectly). > > > > San: > > Very good point, Dan. > > That is why a term is used as apperception, which > is the percieving, without a " perciever " . > > That is why, enlightenment, awakening is not an > experience. > Cannot be objectified. Yes. Here were are waving in tune. Cannot be objectified as " awareness that there is not volition " nor as " a sense of volition " ... > > Incidentally, the tenet of non-volitionality for > the individual self, is itself seen to be > meaningless, for the individual self, not having an > existential reality to itself, saying anything about > it, either in affirmation or in negation is > meaningless. Totally in tune here! > > But to a suffering seeker, what other life- line > to give? Exactly! To give a life-line is deceptive. It implies there is some kind of help available, for someone, and some kind of awareness to be gained. Such life-lines have always been provided, and to what avail? For example, the life-line of " the kingdom of heaven within " which Jesus provided. Many lifelines, and what changes for " the suffering seeker " ? There is no " life-line " to be had, nor is knowing that there is no life-line to be had, some kind of life-line. Even saying there is no one there, who could require a life-line, ends up being interpreted as a life-line. In the end ( " now " ), the suffering seeker can only be dissillusioned with any life-line, for it can't " deliver " -- whether it be Jesus, or that there is no Jesus, or " will " , or that there " is no volition " ... The suffering seeker is thrown back on the attempt to have a truth, an understanding, an experience, which is simply a movement away from " what is " , implying separation ... > The concept of exploring the non-volitionality of > the individual self is probably the longest thorn to > pluck out other deeply embedded thorns. Except that in the process, if adhered to as " truth " , it has become a central thorn. Associated with that thorn is a " view of the world " , including the positing of " automated biological computers " ... > > For all other life-lines actually strengthens the > sense of personal identity. > The ideation about the personal identity may > change, may be transformed, but still persists in > all it's dubious glory. > > Finally Dan, all thorns are kept aside, all > lifelines are seen for what they are. Yes, that's what I'm addressing, exactly. That there is no personal identity can be a thorn of its own, just the way that there is a personal identity can be a thorn. > > ----- > > Thus, if there is no volition, then the > feeling of volition is neither correct nor > incorrect. And therefore, the feeling of > no volition is neither correct nor incorrect. > > We thus expose a fallacy in Ramesh's teaching, > because he frequently implies that he is > teaching about something he calls > " apperception " , > as if there could be an entity who knows about > and teaches apperception to other entities. > > San: > > The end of entitification is apperception. > And neither it can be taught to an other, for the > end of the entity is the end of the " other' for that > entity. > > And yet teaching takes place. > > For this teaching to take place, there must be an > apparent Guru and an apparent miserable seeker in > front of the Guru. > . > And the teaching which is really Consciousness > expounding to Consciousness, takes place for the > sheer delight of it, the sheer pleasure in the > expounding of the teaching. Yes, and that sheer pleasure requires the sheer unpleasure of being a miserable seeker. And when there is neither pleasure of expounding, nor unpleasure of seeking, there is neither teaching nor one to receive teaching. > Incidentally from where do you get this > implication about Ramesh? > From the engagement in the activity of expounding that there is no volitional entity, and all the associated teachings derived and associated. For, in order for Ramesh to thus expound, Ramesh must understand himself as confronted by a miserable seeker believing a volitional entity to be present, which Ramesh, according to his view, must automatically and choicelessly respond to, with a variety of beliefs associated with there being " apperception " and " no volitional entity " . Thus, frequent references to the perspective of " the sage " . What I'm saying is, when there is no one confronting me, there is no concept of a " biological computer that is automated " , no counter beliefs that need to be offered, no sense of any sage-like awareness anywhere ... > ----------- > > > (He makes the associated error of discussing > " the sage " as a " body mind " in which > apperception supposedly " happens " ...) > > San: > > To the extent that nothing happens, nothing has > ever happeneed, phenomenality, the mosiac of all > happenings, is a concept, even the " happening " of > enlightenment, apperception, etc etc is again a > conceptual event. Yes. This is not a minor point, because it means that a teaching cannot be provided. It's not " to an extent " , and it can't even be said that " nothing happens " ... Granted, we are skating on the thinnest of possible ices, and the only thing to do is laugh ... > > But Dan (have we met before<s>), who is a sage (in > whom apperception is supposed to have happened) > talking to? Yes. Exactly. And every time there is talk of a sage, apperception, the truth, knowing, or even, not knowing, or nothing happening ... it ends up with the same scenario. And that scenario requires some sense of suffering, striving, existing, anxiety, in order to propose the end of suffering, striving, existing and nonexisting, and so on ... So, there is what is beyond the joy of expounding, and what is beyond anything to say or not to say ... and you, San, are *that* regardless of whether or not an apparent personality, anxiety, identity or none can be found ... > > A desperate, miserable, suffering seeker, to whom > " nothing happens, nothing has ever happened, " has no > cognitive meaning. True. Quite so. > > If there was an existing apperception of this very > non-happening, why would he/she find himself or > herself in front of a sage? Yes! > > Why does a Master do what appears to be done > through himself/herself? Like everything else, it simply is done because it is done. And talk about " appearance " appears in the same way! > > > For truly when there is neither bondage nor > freedom, there is nothing to be accomplished. Truly! There is neither a teaching, nor a lack of teaching, neither many truths, nor one truth, nor no truth. To adhere to " nonduality " is as problematic as involvement in " duality " ... > > And thus there is no talking about either > accomplishment or thge means to it. > > There is only the pleasure of expounding. I don't know what there is or isn't. And even not knowing this, is knowing far too much! Thanks for the Jnaneshwar! Thanks for the joy of expounding! When there is no beginning, how can be talk of the peace of having ended something?! Love, Dan > > > Here is some Jnaneshwar for you Dan.... > > These three attributes, Sat, Chit, and Ananda > (Existence, Consciousness, and Bliss), > Do not actually define Brahman. > A poison is poison to others, > But not to itself. > > Camphor is white; > Not only that, it is soft. > And not only that, it is fragrant as well. > > Just as these three qualities signify > One object -- camphor, and not three objects; > So the three qualities, > Sat, Chit, and Ananda, > Are contained in one reality. > > It is true that the words, > Sat, Chit, and Ananda, > Are different, > === message truncated === Terrorist Attacks on U.S. - How can you help? Donate cash, emergency relief information http://dailynews./fc/US/Emergency_Information/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 16, 2001 Report Share Posted September 16, 2001 Aaah Dan, we dance again, the dance we have had over eons and recently over the various cyber-Lists. To no purpose, just the joy of re-creating again and again, the dance of One, the Duet of One. <SNIP> > San:> > I do not recall at any time, saying it is wrong or> for that matter anything within phenomenality is> wrong.Ah, but you do not say that you have not said that it is erroneous ;-)If nothing within phenomenality is wrong, neither is it erroneous. If it is erroneous, then it is wrong (in the sense of being untrue or unreal). San: Nothing is erroneous. Nothing is not erroneous. Now, admittedly, I am playing devil's advocate.That "volitionality" refers to no real choosing entity is a concept that "makes sense" to me.By playing devil's advocate, I simply point to ways that a concept of "nonvolitionality" can become a problem in and of itself. If "volitionality" points to no real entity, then there are no real entities, including biological computers which have programs."Nonvolitionality" if taken as pointing to the nonexistence of entities makes the same error as "volitionality" in the other direction -- as if there were some reality "out there" which could accurately be described in some way, by what it has or what it doesn't have. San: Indeed. That is why at some point in the previous post, there is a mention that for a non-existent entity, affirming or negating any attributes to it, is meaningless. However, again and again, I come to the point, to whom is this being addressed. To a miserable seeker, who is arriving, with this sense of entity, which is nothing but the sense of volition. Absence of a seeker, absence of seeking, absence of a need to affirm or to negate. > The sense of volition is a myth and yet apparently> exists, for through it's apparent existence, is the> apparent existence of the individual self with it's> apparent questions and the consequential apparent> suffering.If the sense of volition is a myth, then so is the one who is able to say that volition is a myth. San: Ofcourse. Any expounding any prattling, is again a movement taking place within a conceptual construct of phenomenality and thus conceptual. Inter-alia expositions, the movement to apperceive non-volitional, which equates to the "non-entityness" is the deepest movement, conceptually speaking. Thus, saying that volition can be said to be a myth, is also a myth. San: Indeed. Another concept. Another thorn, useful to dig out other embedded thorns and then to keep all thorns kept aside. All of them. > > This is an illusion, just like the wave on the> Ocean surface is an illusion.> > But nothing wrong about it.Saying that it is an illusion, depends on someone being there to ascertain it is an illusion. San: And the next step , so to speak, is the apperception that the affirmer of the illusion is itself part of that same illusion. If the reason for saying it is an illusion, is that no one is there to have volition, then saying it is an illusion is every bit as illusory, as there is no one to know this, or to whom it can be addressed. San: Absolutely. Simply the pleasure of expounding by myself to myself. The statement that it is an illusion infers someone saying something to someone about a situation in which someone can ascertain what is real and illusion. However, that someone being an illusion, the statement about what is illusory can't meaningfully be provided. San: To provide a meaning, as per it's connotation, is saying it can be objectified. Since "objectifying" is not possible, only concepts can be prattled within phenomenality. Anything, ever said or conveyed by any other means, to anybody, anywhere, at any time, is a concept. The need for concepts, (lifelines as we discuss later on) can only be felt by a conceptual entity, posing as a miserable seeker. > > The sense of personal doership or the sense of> possessing volition to choose to think or to act, is> a direct consequence of the manner in which the> human biological computer is "wired".> > And in some rare biological computers, this> particular twist of the "wiring" is non-volitionally> (from the entity's point of view) acausally, undone.For this to be true, there would have to be someone there who can understand biological computers and wiring of them. If that someone is there, then non-volitionality can not be real, for that someone has made a statement about what is true and what is not true for biological computers. San: Aaaah, but neither has some-"one" understood that the human entity is nothing but a non-linear biological computers(expanding the scope, eh Gary?) nor is some-"one" averring anything about non-volitionality. And yet averring and negating takes place, between a sage and a disciple, with no "one" involved in either "poses". If truth can be ascertained and divided from what isn't the case, someone is there to make the comparison. And, essentially, this is the "sense of volitionality", an ability to compare, to contrast, to ascertain what is true from what is not true, and act accordingly. San: I would agree, if an entity understood the concept of non-volitionality. Understanding the concept of non-volitionality is the apparent ending of the fictitious entity and thus the term "understanding" is a corruption. For "understanding", a continuing "understander" is required and we are back to round and round the mulberry bush. All terms are approximation, keeping that in mind, the term "apperception" is used, which is the perceiving without a perceiver. And finally, Dan, even the event of apperception is a conceptual event within the conceptual construct of phenomenality. > Neither right, nor wrong.> > Just movements of Consciousness.If there are just movements of Consciousness, then there are not true movements and false movements. The movement called "volitionality" is not false, nor is the movement called "nonvolitional awareness that no entity exists" true. San: Yes, The sage and the clown are both dreamed up characters and thus to say one is true and the other false is also part of the dreaming. And yet movements take place from "volitionality" to "non-volitionality". Within the dream. If we say that isn't a movement, then it can't be talked about, as if it included some kind of information (such as the information that there are no volitional entities) --information being "a movement of consciousness" ... San: That is why when talking takes places, it is also a dance within a dream. <SNIP> > But to a suffering seeker, what other life- line> to give?Exactly! To give a life-line is deceptive.It implies there is some kind of help available, for someone, and some kind of awareness to begained.Such life-lines have always been provided, and to what avail? San: The sage knows, that there is nothing to be availed of, anyway. But what do you do for a crying child? You hand over a lollipop. For example, the life-line of "the kingdom of heaven within" which Jesus provided.Many lifelines, and what changes for "the suffering seeker"? San: Where a change occurs (and this too is seen to be an conceptual event), it would be really be nothing related to the lollipop which was handed over. Further the suffering seeker would know nothing about this change, for the simple reason that he/she would not be around to note the fact of the occurred change. So for the suffering seeker, really nothing can ever change, no matter what song and dance it gets into. And a change takes place, again in an conceptual sense.<LOL> There is no "life-line" to be had, nor is knowing that there is no life-line to be had, some kind of life-line.Even saying there is no one there, who could require a life-line, ends up being interpreted as a life-line. San: Absolutely That is why anything, ever said or conveyed by any other means, to anybody, anywhere at any time is a conceptual life-line. In the end ("now"), the suffering seeker can only be disillusioned with any life-line, for it can't "deliver" -- whether it be Jesus, or that there is no Jesus, or "will", or that there "is no volition" ...The suffering seeker is thrown back on the attempt to have a truth, an understanding, an experience, which is simply a movement away from "what is", implying separation ... San: Very good point Dan. This dis-illusion, finally takes the shape of Who cares <SNIP> > .> And the teaching which is really Consciousness> expounding to Consciousness, takes place for the> sheer delight of it, the sheer pleasure in the> expounding of the teaching.Yes, and that sheer pleasure requires the sheer unpleasure of being a miserable seeker.And when there is neither pleasure of expounding, nor unpleasure of seeking, there is neither teaching nor one to receive teaching. San: Awareness not aware of itself. > Incidentally from where do you get this> implication about Ramesh?> >From the engagement in the activity of expounding that there is no volitional entity, and all the associated teachings derived and associated.For, in order for Ramesh to thus expound, Ramesh must understand himself as confronted by a miserable seeker believing a volitional entity to be present, which Ramesh, according to his view, must automatically and choicelessly respond to, with a variety of beliefs associated with there being "apperception" and "no volitional entity".Thus, frequent references to the perspective of "the sage".What I'm saying is, when there is no one confronting me, there is no concept of a "biological computer that is automated", no counter beliefs that need to be offered, no sense of any sage-like awareness anywhere ... San: There is the above knowing, Dan, in the conceptual entity labeled the sage. There is lack of this knowing in the conceptual entity labeled the miserable seeker. The knowing and lack of knowing, are as much conceptual states, consequences of what can be conceptually called as the Divine Hypnosis. And the expounding takes place, through a Master-disciple combine, in the full apperception that no entity is involved either in the speaking or in the listening. Thus while no one is confronting nobody, conceptualizing continues, in a conceptual sense. > -----------> > > (He makes the associated error of discussing> "the sage" as a "body mind" in which> apperception supposedly "happens" ...)> > San:> > To the extent that nothing happens, nothing has> ever happened, phenomenality, the mosaic of all> happenings, is a concept, even the "happening" of> enlightenment, apperception, etc etc is again a> conceptual event.Yes. This is not a minor point, becauseit means that a teaching cannot be provided.It's not "to an extent", and it can't even be said that "nothing happens" ...Granted, we are skating on the thinnest of possible ices, and the only thing to do is laugh ... San: As we have concluded on our numerous dances, Dan all that is left is go Dooooo beeeee Doooooooo. > > But Dan (have we met before<s>), who is a sage (in> whom apperception is supposed to have happened)> talking to?Yes. Exactly.And every time there is talk of a sage, apperception, the truth, knowing, or even, not knowing, or nothing happening ... it ends up with the same scenario.And that scenario requires some sense of suffering, striving, existing, anxiety, in order to propose the end of suffering, striving, existing and nonexisting, and so on ...So, there is what is beyond the joy of expounding, and what is beyond anything to say or not to say ... and you, San, are *that* regardless of whether or not an apparent personality, anxiety, identity or none can be found ... San: And all that can said about "that" is Ladeee Daaa deeee. <SNIP> Thanks for the Jnaneshwar!Thanks for the joy of expounding!When there is no beginning, how can be talk of the peace of having ended something?! San: Yes the Duet of One, cannot start or end. Always a pleasure to be egged on by you Dan to explore the nuances of expositions, where expounding itself has no start or end. Cheers Sandeep Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 17, 2001 Report Share Posted September 17, 2001 Dear Sandeep, You wrote: Always a pleasure to be egged on by you Dan to explore the nuances of expositions, where expounding itself has no start or end. And I respond: Wonderful! And yes, it's a pleasure here, as well. Frankly, I thoroughly enjoy your expounding, whether to " me " or " someone else " ... Please expound, expound! Actually, I get something out of it! (Don't ask me what ;-) (However, while wishing to egg you on, it seems we're in agreement, and where there is agreement, nothing needs be added.) Still, why let that fact deny me the pleasure of egging on your expounding? So, with that in mind, I'd like to go a bit further into this conversation we never started. What I'd like to go into is this: Conceptual thorns are being used to pry loose those conceptual thorns that keep a conceptual entity convinced that " seeking " must be taking place. By using such thorns to remove thorns, a conceptual dance keeps on keeping on, which may include all kinds of cognitions, emotions, relationships, positions and outcomes (from " apperceiving " to " just being " or " seeking " or even " getting rid of terrorists " ). In other words, the teacher is a version of the student, and vice versa, as the terrorist is a version of the terrorized (yes, a bit of a stretch, but there is perhaps not a total dissimilarity of situations). Saying " here is a conceptual entity in which there is apperception (or terror), and here is another in which there is not, " is, indeed, purely conceptual. There is no possibility for " this " (perceived reality) to be anything else (other than conceptual), particularly noting the *placement* of apperception (or terror), as experientially residing someplace, requiring something else to be residing elsewhere (apperception that hasn't happened, or someone enjoying providing terror). The entire " conceptuality " or " experience of all experiences " is simultaneous, and unsplit, although relative, dependent on " this " to define " that " , and hence, seemingly split and involving time. If one is in an atomic blast, there automatically arises the experience of being blasted to smithereens. If one is in a building collapsing, there automatically arises the experience of being crushed. If one is seeking, there automatically arises the experience of separation. If one is apperceiving, there automatically arises the being beyond thought and experience (hence, still conceptual). If one is by a lake looking at the sunset, there automatically arises the experience of seeing a setting sun reflected on a lake. Thus, the entire conceptuality is undivided, meaning that " this " automatically arises defined with " that " , seemingly unfolding on and on. That there is no volitional entity anywhere isn't something that is recognized by anyone, for such recognition would require an entity being there to know that there is no volitional entity (sorry - I just like beating this dead horse). So, when statements are made about various things related to " totality " , such things can only be conceptual, and misleading if it is inferred there is something to get from the experience of hearing the statements. For any such statement simply unfolded relationally, in its time, just exactly the same as every other thing, experience, or statement unfolds. Thus, a guru and a student appear together as a dance, and no one needs the other because they are the same thing. Okay, for the sake of love I'll let this dead horse be, and stop beating it. So, I'll just say this: everything has already been said that could ever be said in a valid way. Repeating any of it is useless, so why was it said the first time? To be spoken and forgotten? Then, why this conversation here, now? Possible answers: a) the joy of expounding b) the dance dances itself c) conversation? d) yes Love, Dan Terrorist Attacks on U.S. - How can you help? Donate cash, emergency relief information http://dailynews./fc/US/Emergency_Information/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 18, 2001 Report Share Posted September 18, 2001 Hiya Dan, <SNIP> it seems we're in agreement, and where there is agreement, nothing needs be added.)Still, why let that fact deny me the pleasure of egging on your expounding? So, with that in mind,-------- LOL, Why not? ------- I'd like to go a bit further into this conversation we never started.What I'd like to go into is this: Conceptual thorns are being used to pry loose those conceptual thorns that keep a conceptual entity convinced that "seeking" must be taking place. By using such thorns to remove thorns, a conceptual dance keeps on keeping on, which may include all kinds of cognitions, emotions, relationships, positions and outcomes (from "apperceiving" to "just being" or "seeking" or even "getting rid of terrorists").In other words, the teacher is a version of the student, San: Absolutely. And that is why there teacher, taught, teaching, are all movements within phenomenality, speaking in a conceptual sense. and vice versa, as the terrorist is a version of the terrorized (yes, a bit of a stretch, but there is perhaps not a total dissimilarity of situations). Saying "here is a conceptual entity in which there is apperception (or terror), and here is another in which there is not," is, indeed, purely conceptual. There is no possibility for "this" (perceived reality) to be anything else (other thanconceptual), particularly noting the *placement* of apperception (or terror), as experientially residing someplace, requiring something else to be residing elsewhere (apperception that hasn't happened, or someone enjoying providing terror). San: By coincidence, this expounding was pleasured elsewhere, just now..... --------- San: This is a stupendous point that you are making Ellen. If I have got you right (forgive me, for not being native English born, am not very good with the English language) what you are saying, is that either entire phenomenality is in the state of enlightenment or nothing is. That, components of phenomenality viz an individual body-mind complex cannot be "enlightened", and exist along with other components being "un-enlightened". That either the Total Picture is enlightened or nothing is. Have I got it right Ellen? If yes, that is simply Ladeeee Daaaa Deeeee. For truly the un-enlightened" component just does not exist. Only seems to exist, due to the power of Maya, or the Divine Hypnosis. And that is why, there is no bondage and no seeking from this assumed bondage. And that is why the event of enlightenment, in an individual body-mind complex, is the biggest hoax possible in phenomenality. And what could be more hilarious than discussing the mechanics of the biggest possible hoax --------- And yet Dan as you and I know, hilarity being an intrinsic part, why should it not find it's unique expression, time after time, after time. The entire "conceptuality" or "experience of all experiences" is simultaneous, and unsplit, although relative, dependent on "this" to define "that", and hence, seemingly split and involving time. If one is in an atomic blast, there automatically arises the experience of being blasted to smithereens.If one is in a building collapsing, there automatically arises the experience of being crushed.If one is seeking, there automatically arises the experience of separation.If one is apperceiving, there automatically arises the being beyond thought and experience (hence, still conceptual).If one is by a lake looking at the sunset, there automatically arises the experience of seeing a setting sun reflected on a lake. San: Indeed. The seen and the seer, each lend to each other, the "other's" meaning and hence each other's seeming existence. In the sage , exists this very knowing, which once again can be seen to have a relevance only within duality. Where even this relevance is no more, nothing can be said, including this statement "nothing can be said". Thus, the entire conceptuality is undivided, meaning that "this" automatically arises defined with "that", seemingly unfolding on and on.That there is no volitional entity anywhere isn't something that is recognized by anyone, for such recognition would require an entity being there to know that there is no volitional entity (sorry - I just like beating this dead horse). San: Yes that is why the term used is "apperception" rather than understanding. So, when statements are made about various things related to "totality", such things can only be conceptual, and misleading if it is inferred there is something to get from the experience of hearing the statements. San: When one is all, what "else", can one have or get? However, in order to "sport", I convince myself otherwise and then seek the "getting" from such statements, such concepts which I make in the first place. For any such statement simply unfolded relationally, in its time, just exactly the same as every other thing, experience, or statement unfolds.Thus, a guru and a student appear together as a dance, and no one needs the other because they are the same thing. San: No one needs the other, because the one is the other. But a notion is required, in order for a dance to seemingly appear. So a notion, notionally appears. Okay, for the sake of love I'll let this dead horse be, and stop beating it.So, I'll just say this: everything has already been said that could ever be said in a valid way.Repeating any of it is useless, so why was it said the first time? To be spoken and forgotten? Then, why this conversation here, now? San: The joy of expounding again and again. Dan what other game is possible? Possible answers: a) the joy of expounding b) the dance dances itself c) conversation? d) yes Yes to all four. Cheers Sandeep Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 18, 2001 Report Share Posted September 18, 2001 Dear San, You speak, and I say " amen " ... > For truly the un-enlightened " component just does > not exist. > > Only seems to exist, due to the power of Maya, or > the Divine Hypnosis. > > And that is why, there is no bondage and no seeking > from this assumed bondage. > > And that is why the event of enlightenment, in an > individual body-mind complex, is the biggest hoax > possible in phenomenality. > > And what could be more hilarious than discussing the > mechanics of the biggest possible hoax Quite so, San! Laughing Buddha, laughing Jesus. The sunrise is your laugh. The sunset is your laugh. Empty space, rocks, dust sparkle with this laughter. The sounds of a symphonic orchestra or a flushing toilet equally echo this laugh. A mortal hearing this laugh, although living and dying, is mortal no longer ... > And yet Dan as you and I know, hilarity being an > intrinsic part, why should it not find it's unique > expression, time after time, after time. Amen. Its endlessly unique, never-beginning-or-ending expression as all sorts of beginnings and endings... > > > San: > > Indeed. > The seen and the seer, each lend to each other, the > " other's " meaning and hence each other's seeming > existence. > > In the sage , exists this very knowing, which once > again can be seen to have a relevance only within > duality. > > Where even this relevance is no more, nothing can be > said, including this statement " nothing can be > said " . True!! > > San: > > Yes that is why the term used is " apperception " > rather than understanding. A timeless perceiving with no perceiver, nothing to be perceived, no beginning or end -- in which all beginnings and ends " are " without taking place, nor any place to happen ... > San: > > When one is all, what " else " , can one have or get? > > However, in order to " sport " , I convince myself > otherwise and then seek the " getting " from such > statements, such concepts which I make in the first > place. Some sport... Like hitting a ball, running to the outfield, grabbing the ball, throwing it to second base, and seeing if you can catch it and tag yourself out! San: The joy of expounding again and again. Dan what other game is possible? Dan: The only game in town, San. And the game is the town. Amen, brother! Love, Dan Terrorist Attacks on U.S. - How can you help? Donate cash, emergency relief information http://dailynews./fc/US/Emergency_Information/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 19, 2001 Report Share Posted September 19, 2001 - d b Realization Wednesday, September 19, 2001 03:39 AM Re: The fallacy of assertions about nonvolitionality Dear San,You speak, and I say "amen" ... <SNIP> And an "amen" replies to an "amen" A bow to you Dan as always. Cheers Sandeep Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 19, 2001 Report Share Posted September 19, 2001 Hi Dan, - d b Realization Wednesday, September 19, 2001 03:39 AM Re: The fallacy of assertions about nonvolitionality Dear San,You speak, and I say "amen" ... Some Omar Khayyam for you Dan..... There was the Door, To which I found no Key Thee was the Veil, through which I might not see; Some little talk awhile of Me and Thee Ther was........ and then no more Thee and Me. 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.