Guest guest Posted April 12, 2003 Report Share Posted April 12, 2003 Realization , " Harvey Schneider " <haarvi1@n...> wrote: > > - > " Rob Sacks " <editor@r...> > <Realization > > Friday, April 11, 2003 1:01 PM > Re: Re: Judi's Ghost? > > > > Dear Judi, > > > > > > In other words, " vigilance " requires a " doer " if that makes sense? > > > > Yes it makes sense. > > Hi Rob, > What sense does it make to say that vigilence requires a doer but > understanding > doesn't? In other words, what priviledges understanding? > Harvey A very important distinction -- and as it's come up several times on different lists, raised by Karta and you, and probably others ... here's a way to be clear about the distinction being made: Vigilance implies there's something you need to keep, that you have to watch out so it's not taken away. Understanding undermines any need for vigilance, along with the one being vigilant. Understanding isn't some kind of destination or ultimate goal, isn't being used in the sense that there's some state imparted which could be lost and must be guarded. It isn't someone's property, some " understander " of things. It's a word for what isn't based on words, for what isn't a doing, and doesn't involve anything or anyone that is " done to " in some way. There is no one holding on to understanding of any sort, so how could there be vigilance about it or involved in it? " What is " which is what the word *understanding* is the same as -- is prior to, beyond, and after all experiencing of any states involving time, duration, continuity -- and not depending on a continuing experiencer or knower of any kind. The friction of the continuing being and its experiencing, in terms of wants and fears, constitutes suffering. Understanding is just a word to say, that if suffering is comprehended clearly for what it is, *this* which doesn't involve or require suffering is immediately evident. *This* isn't a continuity, so states, wants, and fears have no ground here. *This* isn't an attainment, thus isn't somewhere you get by getting rid of suffering, isn't by trying to reach an imaginary bliss that is beyond suffering -- but is clear when one directly addresses suffering as it is occurring, with clarity about what that " doing " of suffering is -- and that clarity in and of itself opens *what doesn't require suffering* Comprehending the life of a being continuing in time as suffering immediately opens the timeless truth. This clarity is your own natural being, it doesn't need to be forced, manufactured, or made to occur. It is the attempt to manipulate experiences and have desired states occur, the day to day life of being a human being who experiences different states with pulls of attraction and avoidance, that apparently occludes one's own natural awareness and being. I've occluded my own being, by trying to be something I'm not, an object I can experience, and for whom experiences represent desired or feared objects, or states to be in. Thus, *understanding* is another word for *nonobjectification* -- If you are trying to be vigilant about your nonobjectification, then you have made it into an object. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 12, 2003 Report Share Posted April 12, 2003 " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: " Harvey Schneider " > > Dear Judi, > > In other words, " vigilance " requires a " doer " if that makes > sense? > > Yes it makes sense. > > > > Hi Rob, > > What sense does it make to say that vigilence requires a doer but > > understanding > > doesn't? In other words, what priviledges understanding? > > Harvey > > A very important distinction -- and as it's come up > several times on different lists, raised by Karta > and you, and probably others ... here's a way > to be clear about the distinction being made: > > Vigilance implies there's something you need to keep, > that you have to watch out so it's not taken away. > > Understanding undermines any need for vigilance, > along with the one being vigilant. > > Understanding isn't some kind of destination or > ultimate goal, isn't being used in the sense that > there's some state imparted which could be lost > and must be guarded. > > It isn't someone's property, > some " understander " of things. > > It's a word for what isn't based on words, for > what isn't a doing, and doesn't involve anything > or anyone that is " done to " in some way. > > There is no one holding on to understanding of any sort, > so how could there be vigilance about it or involved > in it? > > " What is " which is what the word *understanding* is the > same as -- is prior to, beyond, and after all experiencing > of any states involving time, duration, continuity -- > and not depending on a continuing experiencer or knower of any kind. > > The friction of the continuing being and its experiencing, > in terms of wants and fears, constitutes suffering. > > Understanding is just a word to say, that if suffering is > comprehended clearly for what it is, *this* which doesn't > involve or require suffering is immediately evident. > > *This* isn't a continuity, so states, wants, and fears > have no ground here. > > *This* isn't an attainment, thus > isn't somewhere you get by getting > rid of suffering, isn't by trying to > reach an imaginary bliss that is beyond suffering -- > but is clear when one directly addresses > suffering as it is occurring, > with clarity about what that " doing " of suffering is -- > and that clarity in and of itself opens *what doesn't > require suffering* > > Comprehending the life of a being continuing in time > as suffering immediately opens the timeless truth. > > This clarity is your own natural being, it > doesn't need to be forced, manufactured, or made to occur. > > It is the attempt to manipulate experiences and have desired > states occur, the day to day life of being a human being > who experiences different states with pulls of attraction > and avoidance, that apparently occludes one's own natural > awareness and being. > > I've occluded my own being, by trying to be something I'm not, > an object I can experience, and for whom experiences > represent desired or feared objects, or states to be in. > > Thus, *understanding* is another word for *nonobjectification* -- > > If you are trying to be vigilant about your nonobjectification, > then you have made it into an object. > > -- Dan hello Dan, oh the duet! trying to sell the non-sense approach? LOL So you are the last standing PhD by the Reverend ? hehehe sorry, I saw my name...but I can't answer until you read the Webster and than my post; than read it again and again please until you understand what I wrote since this post here is proof, that you don't. I know Judi is not capable; she hears only herself and her own mutated rhetoric BUT YOU ARE aren't you? you understand if you want to, why do you act stubborned ? peace-love, Karta Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 12, 2003 Report Share Posted April 12, 2003 In a message dated 4/12/2003 9:09:24 PM Pacific Daylight Time, haarvi1 writes: My own sense is that no special word need be specially priviledged. What is is - whether or not we understand it or keep vigil over it. Harvey There is never a need for special words, but as we all communicate it certainly becomes easier if the 'exact,' analytically incised meaning of the word is set aside in order to receive the 'sense' of what is being expressed. We can no longer receive words in the way we once did. It doesn't work. "Understanding" leads to a sense of openness. And when there is openness there is understanding. Five, ten or one hundred different words can be expressed and sensed and understood as meaning the same thing as they point to what is, rather than what is not, when analysis doesn't get in the way. Vigilance should not be thought of as someone sitting at a watch point who looks out for trouble. Vigilance can be sensed as alertness, awareness, understanding, the potential to differentiate between poppings of thoughts that reference to and from old beliefs, and that which references to 'what is,' as Dan describes. But the point is, that communication can either continue at these trivial battlings of semantics or they can lead to significant sharings that are humanly possible. Norma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 12, 2003 Report Share Posted April 12, 2003 - " dan330033 " <dan330033 <Realization > Saturday, April 12, 2003 4:31 PM Re: Getting clear about understanding and vigilance > Realization , " Harvey Schneider " > <haarvi1@n...> wrote: > > > > - > > " Rob Sacks " <editor@r...> > > <Realization > > > Friday, April 11, 2003 1:01 PM > > Re: Re: Judi's Ghost? > > > > > > > Dear Judi, > > > > > > > > In other words, " vigilance " requires a " doer " if that makes > sense? > > > > > > Yes it makes sense. > > > > Hi Rob, > > What sense does it make to say that vigilence requires a doer but > > understanding > > doesn't? In other words, what priviledges understanding? > > Harvey > > A very important distinction -- and as it's come up > several times on different lists, raised by Karta > and you, and probably others ... here's a way > to be clear about the distinction being made: > > Vigilance implies there's something you need to keep, > that you have to watch out so it's not taken away. > > Understanding undermines any need for vigilance, > along with the one being vigilant. > > Understanding isn't some kind of destination or > ultimate goal, isn't being used in the sense that > there's some state imparted which could be lost > and must be guarded. > > It isn't someone's property, > some " understander " of things. > > It's a word for what isn't based on words, for > what isn't a doing, and doesn't involve anything > or anyone that is " done to " in some way. > > There is no one holding on to understanding of any sort, > so how could there be vigilance about it or involved > in it? > > " What is " which is what the word *understanding* is the > same as -- is prior to, beyond, and after all experiencing > of any states involving time, duration, continuity -- > and not depending on a continuing experiencer or knower of any kind. > > The friction of the continuing being and its experiencing, > in terms of wants and fears, constitutes suffering. > > Understanding is just a word to say, that if suffering is > comprehended clearly for what it is, *this* which doesn't > involve or require suffering is immediately evident. > > *This* isn't a continuity, so states, wants, and fears > have no ground here. > > *This* isn't an attainment, thus > isn't somewhere you get by getting > rid of suffering, isn't by trying to > reach an imaginary bliss that is beyond suffering -- > but is clear when one directly addresses > suffering as it is occurring, > with clarity about what that " doing " of suffering is -- > and that clarity in and of itself opens *what doesn't > require suffering* > > Comprehending the life of a being continuing in time > as suffering immediately opens the timeless truth. > > This clarity is your own natural being, it > doesn't need to be forced, manufactured, or made to occur. > > It is the attempt to manipulate experiences and have desired > states occur, the day to day life of being a human being > who experiences different states with pulls of attraction > and avoidance, that apparently occludes one's own natural > awareness and being. > > I've occluded my own being, by trying to be something I'm not, > an object I can experience, and for whom experiences > represent desired or feared objects, or states to be in. > > Thus, *understanding* is another word for *nonobjectification* -- > > If you are trying to be vigilant about your nonobjectification, > then you have made it into an object. > > -- Dan Hi Dan, I very much appreciate the detailed analysis you have presented of the words 'vigilence' and 'understanding' as they apply to nondual realiazation. But I am left wondering about some of the assumptions contained in your analysis. When we speak of vigilence, there is someone who is vigilent. When we speak of understanding, there is someone who is understanding. If we come up with a consideration which leads us to believe that the someone who understands is not quite the solid stand up presence we might otherwise assume to be behind to be behind all actions, that consideration would apply equally to vigilence and, indeed, across the board to all activities. An analysis showing that understanding does not imply the existence of one who understands, would show in the same way that being vigilent doesn't imply the existenceof someone who is vigilent. You say " understanding undermines any need for vigilence " . Doesn't it make the same sense to say that vigilence undermines any need for understanding? You have defined vigilence in a way to emphasize its connection with the one who is vigilent. It could be defined differently. What comes to mind is Wayne Liquorman's account of what happens in the mind of the sage. He says that ego-centered thoughts may and do arise in the mind of the sage, but are, without the emergence of a self centered censor, automatically cut off. As far as I know no special trying or manipulation or even a nondual understanding process is required for this cutoff to occur. There is no reason to restrict the idea of activities happening without a self to vigilence or understanding. In zen they say: Before enlightenment: chopping wood and fetching water. After enlightenment: chopping wood and fetching water. If we are fond of speaking of understanding as happening without someone to understand, the chopping wood and fetching water after enightenment can be thought of similarly as happening without an actor. You say: " 'What is' which is what the word *understanding* is the same as -- is prior to, beyond, and after all experiencing of any states involving time, duration, continuity -- and not depending on a continuing experiencer or knower of any kind. Why can't the equivalence of understanding with what is be said of everything and not just understanding ? I could try to deconstruct your analysis of vigilence argument for argument, but you may perhaps see the trend of my thinking. I would just like to point out that in the use of the word 'vigilence' by Poonjaji and Gangaji, vigilence is said not to involve the manipulation which you have attributed to it, but is said to be effortless and natural. It's not hard to imagine the same special treatment and special definitional equivalences given to the word 'vigilence' as you give to 'understanding'. And, of course, 'understanding' could be given the same tie in to trying and manipulation as you have done with the word 'vigilence'. My own sense is that no special word need be specially priviledged. What is is - whether or not we understand it or keep vigil over it. Harvey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 12, 2003 Report Share Posted April 12, 2003 > Hi Karta, > > oh the duet! trying to sell the > non-sense approach? LOL Yes. As long as one is stuck with what makes sense to self, that's what one keeps getting -- the familiar, what makes sense. > So you are the last standing PhD > by the Reverend ? Nope. > hehehe > > sorry, I saw my name...but I can't > answer until you read the Webster > and than my post; than read it > again and again please until you > understand what I wrote I have said what I had to say, for any who get what I'm talking about, the way I'm talking about it. If you don't, you don't, I'm not trying to force the issue -- not interested in going back and forth, reading and re-reading -- which has nothing whatsoever to do with *understanding* > since this post here is proof, > that you don't. It doesn't matter. Because I posted what I have to say, not an attempt to gain your approval. And you posted what you had to say, we're each doing our best. > I know Judi is not capable; she > hears only herself and her own > mutated rhetoric Nope. That's just how it is for you within your interpretation -- obviously not an interpretation that everyone shares. > BUT YOU ARE aren't you? > you understand if you want to, > why do you act stubborned ? Do you mean, why am I stubborn? I'm not stubborn. I'm expressing the truth I know directly, as clearly as I can. It's not a truth that depends on words, so I'm not taking this as a situation in which someone has the absolutely correct way to say things. You say things the way that you want, I'm fine with that. To me, a distinction between vigilance and understanding is worthwhile and I explained why. If you keep liking the word " vigilance " and think it fits with what you want to express -- go for it. I've done what I can -- and I don't think the words define the truth " that is " anyway -- far from it. > peace-love, Karta Peace-love to you, too. Be well, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 12, 2003 Report Share Posted April 12, 2003 Hi Harvey -- > > I very much appreciate the detailed analysis you have presented of the words > 'vigilence' and 'understanding' as they apply to nondual realiazation. But > I am > left wondering about some of the assumptions contained in your analysis. > > When we speak of vigilence, there is someone who is vigilent. When we speak > of understanding, there is someone who is understanding. That's clearly not the case, in the way the word is being used, and as I previously made clear. And with vigilance, it is the case, as there is the concern that something must be nurtured and protected. The differentiation is that understanding is not a state you are in, doesn't require you to attend to it, nurture it, and protect it. If we come up with > a consideration which leads us to believe that the someone who understands > is > not quite the solid stand up presence we might otherwise assume to be behind > to be behind all actions, that consideration would apply equally to > vigilence and, > indeed, across the board to all activities. Well, you're taking this very far afield as far as I'm concerned, apparently to make a point. Keep it simple, Harvey -- there's the attempt to be in a state, to protect and nurture that state -- and vigilance implies protection -- or there is no attempt to be in or have a state, in which case vigilance isn't required. An analysis showing that > understanding > does not imply the existence of one who understands, would show in the same > way that being vigilent doesn't imply the existenceof someone who is > vigilent. Again -- a differentiation is being made. In the first case there is an attempt to maintain a focus, as if that focus could persist as a center. In the second case, no such attempt is being made. The attempt has relaxed, as a fist that is closed can open. With that openness, there is no sense that something is had, which could then be lost if not protected, if there is not vigilance, or which needs to be enhanced and nurtured. > You say " understanding undermines any need for vigilence " . Doesn't it make > the > same sense to say that vigilence undermines any need for understanding? No, not at all. See above. Vigilance precludes and occludes *understanding* because there is a subtle self-concern and self-protection. > You have defined vigilence in a way to emphasize its connection with the one > who > is vigilent. It could be defined differently. What comes to mind is Wayne > Liquorman's > account of what happens in the mind of the sage. He says that ego- centered > thoughts > may and do arise in the mind of the sage, but are, without the emergence of > a self centered censor, automatically cut off. Yes, but that kind of rhetoric is clearly self-serving, implying he has a special kind of mind that others don't have. And, as far as I'm concerned, a clearly thought-focused issue. So the focus is there, as a focus on good thoughts that don't have a center and bad thoughts that do, and which automatically get cut off. What I'm looking into here has no mind to it, no location in a person or as a person. There is no sage-like quality to it, nor does it pertain to certain kinds of thoughts, and not others. In fact, entirely there is no dependence on thought-forms whatsoever for *this.* Which may be called *understanding* in terms of the discussion, but which clearly cannot be substituted for with a word of any kind. As far as I know no special > trying or > manipulation or even a nondual understanding process is required for this > cutoff to occur. Well, you're still stuck being a person who has thoughts being cut off in some way you think makes your mind a special case. > There is no reason to restrict the idea of activities happening without a > self to > vigilence or understanding. There is no self involved in any activities anywhere. There is no center that is a focus of anything happening ever. Knowing this directly is *understanding* -- but to worry about the semantics of it is to miss that it's a direct understanding that doesn't depend on any verbal construction at all. In zen they say: Before enlightenment: > chopping wood and fetching water. After enlightenment: chopping wood and > fetching water. If we > are fond of speaking of understanding as happening without someone to > understand, the chopping wood and fetching water after enightenment can be > thought of similarly as happening without an actor. Once you see clearly that no actor is involved anywhere, then everything happens at once, with no separation. There isn't anything special about the chopping wood happening here and the chopping wood happening there. It's all the unsplit block of wood, as the Taoists put it. > You say: " 'What is' which is what the word *understanding* is the same > as -- > is prior to, beyond, and after all experiencing of any states > involving > time, duration, continuity -- and not depending on a > continuing > experiencer or knower of any kind. > > Why can't the equivalence of understanding with what is be said of > everything > and not just understanding ? Let's not get caught up in the semantics. The words are only useful as pointers, and they are, in fact, dropped at the moment of *understanding* or you could use any other word that implies an original being that is timeless and unmanufactured. I haven't got a clue what the relevance of vigilance is to this. What would you be being vigilant about, if there were nothing needing to be protected against something else, no way for *this* to be taken away, diluted, besmirched etc. What exactly are you being vigilant about with regards to undertanding, Harvey? Maybe if you can make this clear, I'll be able to see your point. > I could try to deconstruct your analysis of vigilence argument for argument, > but you may perhaps see the trend of my thinking. I would just like to > point > out that in the use of the word 'vigilence' by Poonjaji and Gangaji, > vigilence > is said not to involve the manipulation which you have attributed to it, but > is > said to be effortless and natural. They can say whatever they want, obviously, it's a free world. But if there's no effort, then why not just say there is no effort? Why add vigilance into it as an activity and say there needs to be vigilance with no effort? What happens if there isn't vigilance? What if there is no effort, and no vigilance happens? In fact, what if there is an effort, but that effort is seen clearly as empty of any doer or done-to. So, is the effort any problem at that moment? It's not hard to imagine the same > special > treatment and special definitional equivalences given to the word > 'vigilence' > as you give to 'understanding'. Yes, there is. I tried to say why above. If one is using words, why not be as clear as possible with them? Why invent things that you supposedly have to do in order to *understand* or *know 'what is'* if you prefer that term? The point being made is that there is no doing whatsoever involved or required -- no activity that needs to arise or not arise ... And, of course, 'understanding' could be > given > the same tie in to trying and manipulation as you have done with the word > 'vigilence'. Well, you seem to be all involved in protecting the word vigilance from being manipulated, and missing the essence of what is being said. The tone of this, to me, is a word game, not this *knowing* we're looking into -- which is not word-based at all. If you get the point being made, then fine ... let's move on ... > My own sense is that no special word need be specially priviledged. Whenever we speak in words, we give words the priviledge of representing whatever we say they supposedly mean. When you get to the point where no word is privileged, then you get to the point where nonprivileging words, also is not privileged. And then it's clear that no word ever represented anything real outside of itself. No one is ever going to say the truth in some ultimate way that will be once and for all correct. We can only communicate back and forth as we may, leaving hints about what we're looking into, knowing that no description can ever give 'what is' -- What > is is - whether or not we understand it or keep vigil over it. But do you see how the idea of keeping a vigil over something, gives that something a privileged status? Why not carry what you're saying through, Harvey. If there is to be no privilege to a word, then there is no privilege to a state, and nothing to be kept vigil over. Just 'what is' -- which essentially is beyond any description and has nothing to do with any advocated activity which supposedly will add to it or enhance it somehow. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 13, 2003 Report Share Posted April 13, 2003 Realization , wrmspirit@a... wrote: > In a message dated 4/12/2003 9:09:24 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > haarvi1@n... writes: > > > > My own sense is that no special word need be specially priviledged. What > > is is - whether or not we understand it or keep vigil over it. > > > > Harvey > > There is never a need for special words, but as we all communicate it > certainly becomes easier if the 'exact,' analytically incised meaning of the > word is set aside in order to receive the 'sense' of what is being expressed. > > > We can no longer receive words in the way we once did. It doesn't work. > " Understanding " leads to a sense of openness. And when there is openness > there is understanding. Five, ten or one hundred different words can be > expressed and sensed and understood as meaning the same thing as they point > to what is, rather than what is not, when analysis doesn't get in the way. > > Vigilance should not be thought of as someone sitting at a watch point who > looks out for trouble. Vigilance can be sensed as alertness, awareness, > understanding, the potential to differentiate between poppings of thoughts > that reference to and from old beliefs, Karta: thank you for undersanding paece, k and that which references to 'what > is,' as Dan describes. > > But the point is, that communication can either continue at these trivial > battlings of semantics or they can lead to significant sharings that are > humanly possible. > > Norma 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.