Guest guest Posted November 20, 2001 Report Share Posted November 20, 2001 Dan: > G: (snip) My criticism of the way Judi, Dan, and Sandeep have been talking is > not that they have been wrong, but that they have been incomplete. Their talk > makes life in the everyday world inexplicable and makes the nondual sound > unnecessarily paradoxical. > > D: Life in the everday world is utterly > inexplicable, and yet here it is, going on in > its everyday sort of way. And that's truly > and utterly inexplicable! Marvelous, no? Thanks for catching that. That should have read: " Their talk makes the relationship between the everyday world and nonduality inexplicable and unnecessarily paradoxical. " I am offering a naturalistic explanation of nonduality, claiming it is really " interwoven into this > day to day structuring of what we do " , not something outside it. > > All of our explanations are interwoven into this > day to day structuring of what we do -- and yet, > the reality of who it/I am is utterly beyond > explanation. Awesome, no? > Agreed, and my account aims to make nonduality part of the warp and woof of everyday life. > This paradox can't be discussed -- > we are it, we live as it, it lives us. > It is as if I were offering a neuropsychology of seeing and you said, " What's the problem? Just open your eyes and look! " Well, yes; but that doesn't speak to my concern. And by the same token, my concern may not speak to yours or hrtburn7's. You don't have to know the neuropsychology of seeing to be able to enjoy seeing the world. But on the other hand, neuropsychology is interesting, may help heal some visual pathology, and may even help some people to see exceptionally well under certain conditions. Similarly, my account of nonduality in relationship to duality aims to provide a heuristic structure that reduces ambiguities in talk about nonduality -- just as the physical sciences provide heuristic structures that reduce error in understanding and manipulating physical reality. 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 November 22, 2001 Report Share Posted November 22, 2001 Realization, " Murali " <murali@g...> wrote: > Realization, d b <dan330033> wrote: > > > D: What is the perceived separation between the one > > answering and the one asking? Without > > thought about a separation between a questioner > > and one answering, what would be the > > relevance of the question? > > > > > My misery is that I see a separation. Hence the question. If separation is taken as real as the question is asked, is taken as the underlying basis for being -- then no answer provided by " someone else " will resolve the dilemma referenced by the question. > If you don't see this separation why bother to answer? It's not a bother, and doesn't require a belief in separation for an answer to " happen " ... > Murali Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 23, 2001 Report Share Posted November 23, 2001 You have been gleefully answering(or as you say answers were happening) in terms or 'Yes' or 'No' until a question on the identity of the answering entity (and it's past) was raised. Wondering why only this question has no relevance where as all others have... And I know that no answers themselves will resolve my dilemmas, all I am looking for is some pointers. Especially for those, which will shred off some of these heavy loads of concepts. Thanks. Murali Realization, dan330033 wrote: > > > > > D: What is the perceived separation between the one > > > answering and the one asking? Without > > > thought about a separation between a questioner > > > and one answering, what would be the > > > relevance of the question? > > > > > > > > > My misery is that I see a separation. Hence the question. > > If separation is taken as real as the question > is asked, is taken as the underlying basis > for being -- then no answer provided by " someone else " > will resolve the dilemma referenced by the question. > > > If you don't see this separation why bother to answer? > > It's not a bother, and doesn't require a belief in separation > for an answer to " happen " ... > > > Murali > > Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 26, 2001 Report Share Posted November 26, 2001 Realization, " Murali " <murali@g...> wrote: > You have been gleefully answering(or as you say answers were > happening) in terms or 'Yes' or 'No' until a question on the identity > of the answering entity (and it's past) was raised. Wondering why > only this question has no relevance where as all others have... The question of identity is, speaking precisely, neither relevant nor irrelevant. It is a question in which questioner, question, and answer are the same. > And I know that no answers themselves will resolve my dilemmas, all I > am looking for is some pointers. Especially for those, which will > shred off some of these heavy loads of concepts. Dying to the past, one is eternally opening to/as oneself. The " energy " of " is " is thus neither created nor destroyed. The concept that concepts make a heavy load, needn't be carried. The only thing that makes a load of concepts heavy, is the investment of identity and sense of reality in the concepts. Essentially, this is the investment of " self " in the past. Namaste, Dan > > for being -- then no answer provided by " someone else " > > will resolve the dilemma referenced by the question. > > > > > If you don't see this separation why bother to answer? > > > > It's not a bother, and doesn't require a belief in separation > > for an answer to " happen " ... > > > > > Murali > > > > 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.