Guest guest Posted January 5, 2004 Report Share Posted January 5, 2004 Dear Dan: Let me attempt to sum up what you have offered in a pity manner. We are all " it " and nothing that we do or don't do can change that. A breakthrough happens and we then know we are " it " not only intellectually like most seekers do, but on some non-phenomenal level. If I stated it in an acceptable manner then my question is why " Dan' or some other " It " soul and not Swami Spam aka Alton? Am I inferior or does God love Dan more than SS? Hey if a breakthrough happens then that person knows something that ss does not, right? I think after this the dialogue round may be completed on this issue after you reply. Thanks for the interesting exchange. Om Shanti, ss > Hi Friend Dan: > Swami Spam is in training. He diligently wants to become the > Absolute and have not only his body, the world, but his mind ceasing > to exist. Only the Absolute remains which is the sub-structure of > consciousness or those Strings that the physicists are conjuring > about. > By careful and earnest removal of the Attention from thought Visanas > and all mentations that are gabbing that Attention, a time comes > when there is nothing to appear except the Attention, which is > turned on permanently to that Attention. Will this be " the truth " ? > > Will that then be " the moment, the breaking through " ? No. There is no future moment other than this now, which can be or become more 'this' than this is. Simply this: this moment is misunderstood, misconstrued, and distorted for the sake of " self. " Indeed, " self " is this very activity of distortion. Any attempts to remove disturbances and obstacles, are themselves disturbances and obstacles. -- Dan > ss: No I don't want a perfect state of being for myself as the final > solution. I want to know nothing be nothing have nothing. Your wanting is 'something.' So, your very wanting is distortion, an attempt to have something, rather than nothing. Most > seekers appear to want some eternal terrific state but not ss. > Sure on the way I might like those states, but knowing it wont last, > I chose the final solution. The attempt to manufacture and choose a solution, is the problem. > And by the way does not the " understanding of the loop " , " one is > the moment " need a mind to know about it? No. This which understands the mind, is not the mind. Otherwise, how could mind be understood? > And could it be that this " understanding of the loop " , " is the > moment " also Delusionary? It's a delusion for anyone who thinks they have an understanding for themselves. > Dan: Nothing is fixed, so nothing is embodied. > ss: Without a body how can we know this? If you are talking about > the Absolute~words cant go there. Saying that words can't go there, is words trying to go there. > ss: This cant apply to ss because as stated above he wants the state > of non-states. You wanting a non-state, is itself being in a state. > ss: Desire created the Universe and all it accouterments and desire > can end the personal and return to its source. Nonsense. There is no one to return, and nothing to be returned to. What you describe is a spiritual search, aka, " avoidance of 'this as is'. " > Doesn't this all amount to having a " firm conviction " ? > If one has the moment of truth and has not had all the teachings > about it would they become disturbed? Would they even know what it > meant? This has no meaning, nor does it lack meaning. This is not manufactured, and is not part of a consensus belief system. > Om Shanti > Swami spam loves everybody Love to you, too, Dan > Hi Friend Dan: > Swami Spam is in training. He diligently wants to become the > Absolute and have not only his body, the world, but his mind ceasing > to exist. Only the Absolute remains which is the sub-structure of > consciousness or those Strings that the physicists are conjuring > about. > By careful and earnest removal of the Attention from thought Visanas > and all mentations that are gabbing that Attention, a time comes > when there is nothing to appear except the Attention, which is > turned on permanently to that Attention. Will this be " the truth " ? > > Will that then be " the moment, the breaking through " ? No. There is no future moment other than this now, which can be or become more 'this' than this is. Simply this: this moment is misunderstood, misconstrued, and distorted for the sake of " self. " Indeed, " self " is this very activity of distortion. Any attempts to remove disturbances and obstacles, are themselves disturbances and obstacles. -- Dan > ss: No I don't want a perfect state of being for myself as the final > solution. I want to know nothing be nothing have nothing. Your wanting is 'something.' So, your very wanting is distortion, an attempt to have something, rather than nothing. Most > seekers appear to want some eternal terrific state but not ss. > Sure on the way I might like those states, but knowing it wont last, > I chose the final solution. The attempt to manufacture and choose a solution, is the problem. > And by the way does not the " understanding of the loop " , " one is > the moment " need a mind to know about it? No. This which understands the mind, is not the mind. Otherwise, how could mind be understood? > And could it be that this " understanding of the loop " , " is the > moment " also Delusionary? It's a delusion for anyone who thinks they have an understanding for themselves. > Dan: Nothing is fixed, so nothing is embodied. > ss: Without a body how can we know this? If you are talking about > the Absolute~words cant go there. Saying that words can't go there, is words trying to go there. > ss: This cant apply to ss because as stated above he wants the state > of non-states. You wanting a non-state, is itself being in a state. > ss: Desire created the Universe and all it accouterments and desire > can end the personal and return to its source. Nonsense. There is no one to return, and nothing to be returned to. What you describe is a spiritual search, aka, " avoidance of 'this as is'. " > Doesn't this all amount to having a " firm conviction " ? > If one has the moment of truth and has not had all the teachings > about it would they become disturbed? Would they even know what it > meant? This has no meaning, nor does it lack meaning. This is not manufactured, and is not part of a consensus belief system. > Om Shanti > Swami spam loves everybody Love to you, too, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 5, 2004 Report Share Posted January 5, 2004 Hi Dan: Hi Ss -- > Let me attempt to sum up what you have offered in a pity manner. I'm not asking for your pity. Just kiddin', know you meant " pithy. " > We are all " it " and nothing that we do or don't do can change that. Sure, except there's not an " it " for us to be. And that's how language reaches a limit, just as you suggested earlier. Breaking through beyond thought, idea, language, sensation *is* truth -- truth not being an it, nor a something, so certainly not " divisionable " -- Alton: So, saying " I am this " is to say " there is no division possible 'here' Alton: Nisargadatta, Ramana, U.G, Saradamma et al: Do not perceive objects but Alton does. Why and how will it happen that he joins that fated group? Isn't that " transformation " on a cellular level and when it is not it is unstable and can revert back to duality? i.e Judy's ephipany? > A breakthrough happens and we then know we are " it " not only > intellectually like most seekers do, but on some > non-phenomenal level. The breakthrough is this " now " as is -- it is simply that avoidance tactics are now dropped. Alton: Can I drop them by choice? If not who drops them? How are they dropped, by what process or no process? > If I stated it in an acceptable manner then my question is why " Dan' > or some other " It " soul and not Swami Spam aka Alton? The separable soul is only the tactics of avoidance. Atlon: Who avoids? Who' s tactics are they? How do you know there is a separate soul? Drop the attempt to avoid, to have an existence of one's own, and only truth is, as has never not been the case. Alton: Can I do that just by listening. I wont ask about training because that goes over here like a bomb. LOL. > Am I inferior > or does God love Dan more than SS? Feelings, reactions, thoughts, sensations involving dualities of separation, such as inferiority/superiority, are what constitutes " the self. " Alton: Yes they are progammatic and encryped in that program is the means to eject one's True Self from it's midst. The " I " is the construction around handling dualities in service of a self-being. Not just superiority/inferiority, but weakness, strength, having/losing, etc. " You can't serve two masters, " said the J-man. You can't invest in maintaining the self-center and be the truth that is. The attempt to maintain self, being the investment, being what self is. An attempt to maintain a constructed center. Alton: So I should raise my hands and just surrender? Will that do it? If yes we should start a group and give directions. hehehe I will announce your greatness to the whole net!!! Actually I think that if this was being dialogued in person and you are really the REAL I could have a transmission kind of make over. > Hey if a breakthrough happens > then that person knows something that ss does not, right? Not exactly. The " person " is what is broken through. The *knowing* is the timeless divisionless truth that Alton: I know that also but it does not matter to my desiring, reactive, dualistic selfish mind. > I think after this the dialogue round may be completed on this issue > after you reply. Who knows? Alton: You're right this may go on forever. hahaha > Love and namaste, .. p.s I just got tired of that name so Love, Alton Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 5, 2004 Report Share Posted January 5, 2004 Hi Alton: > Alton: So, saying " I am this " is to say " there is no division > possible > 'here' > > Alton: Nisargadatta, Ramana, U.G, Saradamma et al: Do not perceive > objects but Alton does. No, it only seems like that. Nisargadatta, Ramana, U.G., et. al *are* the objects that aren't perceivable as separable from/as *this.* Likewise, the objects Alton and Dan. We are equally objects, equally not anything having our own separable existence, qualities, or " separable knowing faculties, " any more than Nis, Ramana, or Joe Blow down the street. *Who is the knower*? Is Nis a separable knower with his own separable knowing faculties? Or, rather, are all of those faculties themselves objects, which are being constructed and perhaps mistaken as an existing separable knower with its own location and experience? If you take appearance for truth, all you will get is appearance. So, dig deep. :-) Truth isn't what appears to be real, nor is it something else, other than what is appearing. What is being mistaken as a knower, an experiencer, and the intimate memories, experiences, and feelings of a being -- are equally objects, being construed -- just as much as this computer on this table. What is clear is that the object never has its own existence separable from the knowing, that there is no independence of either the knower from the known, or the known from the knower. So, the Nis experience and knowing, the Ramana experience and knowing, Jennifer Lopez's experience and knowing, are equally constructions by/of/for/as *this.* Which is totality, the nameless, who you are. > Why and how will it happen that he joins that fated group? Isn't > that " transformation " on a cellular level and when it is not it is > unstable and can revert back to duality? i.e Judy's ephipany? All of duality is included in/of/as this nondual knowing -- as is. If there were any question of " reverting back " this wouldn't be the nondual which is. There are no separable cells which must transform. There are no separable anything which must transform. There never have been, never will be, never could be. There is nothing external to intrude into this to separate this from this. Each moment is a diamond in/as/of this -- just as is. The appearance of dualities never interferes with this nondual *is* ... There never has been anyone (apart, with its own existence, its own posture, its own knowership) to find this out. Clarity is the ending of the effort to be a knower/experiencer knowing things and having experiences. But the beginning and ending of that effort never interfered with this nondual suchness -- ever. > > A breakthrough happens and we then know we are " it " not only > > intellectually like most seekers do, but on some > > non-phenomenal level. > > The breakthrough is this " now " as is -- it is simply that > avoidance tactics are now dropped. > > Alton: Can I drop them by choice? No, the sense of an existing chooser is what drops. > If not who drops them? The one who constructed them and put the effort into maintaining them. The dropping is simultaneously a seeing in clarity of the situation. So, it's not getting rid of something undesirable. On the contrary, it's seeing through the duality of desirability/undesirability such that it is clear what is going on. It is as if you are trying to get rid of something, but now seeing that the something you are trying to get rid of has no real, fixed, existence of its own which could be gotten rid of. It is as if you are trying to establish something (a knower, experiencer, feeling being) but now seeing that the existing someone has never had any real, fixed, existence of its own. Neither has the effort to establish such a being, ever had its own volition, choice, or substance. So, this is clarity. Clarity through all situations, conditions, arisings. Not someone's clarity. The clarity which knows and sees through " someones " . > How are > they dropped, by what process or no process? There is no substitute for one moment of clear seeing, in which the seeing is the now in which the seeing occurs, and there are no objects and no subject. > > If I stated it in an acceptable manner then my question is > why " Dan' > > or some other " It " soul and not Swami Spam aka Alton? Dan is equally an object, a construct, not a separable knower of any sort. > The separable soul is only the tactics of avoidance. > Atlon: Who avoids? Who' s tactics are they? How do you know there is > a separate soul? I am saying there is no actual separate soul, only the tactics of avoidance (the attempt to avoid nonseparation) which make it appear as if there could be a separable soul, separable experience for a self, and so on. I know that there is nothing external which could enter in to " this " " of which I am " and divide it against itself. Thus, internal and external have no actual separation, nor do knower and known. So, they aren't any " one's " tactics. The tactics make it appear as if there could be a someone who could be doing them -- but that is how the tactics work -- to try to give an appearance continuity and solidity -- when there is no actual continuity at all. Just moment to moment being -- with nothing being carried over from one moment to another. No separable observer of the moment. Only the momentary whole-as-is. Eternity in/as this instant. > Drop the attempt to avoid, to have an existence of one's > own, and only truth is, as has never not been the case. > > > Alton: Can I do that just by listening. I wont ask about training > because that goes over here like a bomb. LOL. The point about training is that it requires construing a reality in which there is a continuing being that can get somewhere as it moves from this moment into another better moment. And that is just the illusion that is being dissolved, just the set of beliefs that is being dis-integrated (in service of the totality-integration). So " listening " isn't a " just " -- it's a total listening. What is it to listen so totally, that the (apparently separable) listener (with its own qualities and position) dissolves? That there is no division between what is heard, how it is heard, and the one who hears? > > Am I inferior > > or does God love Dan more than SS? God, Dan, Alton are objects. The question is: who is construing these objects, relating them, having feelings about them? And: how is that construal occurring, including the feelings and relatings to those construals? Hint: Nothing is left, which could be considered inferior or superior, as a constuer or a construed. One object can be construed as superior and another object as inferior. But the construal which is their relationship with each other, isn't superior or inferior. > Feelings, reactions, thoughts, sensations involving > dualities of separation, such as inferiority/superiority, > are what constitutes " the self. " > > Alton: Yes they are progammatic and encryped in that program is the > means to eject one's True Self from it's midst. > > The " I " is the construction around handling dualities > in service of a self-being. Not just superiority/inferiority, > but weakness, strength, having/losing, etc. > > " You can't serve two masters, " said the J-man. > > You can't invest in maintaining the self-center and > be the truth that is. > > The attempt to maintain self, being the investment, > being what self is. An attempt to maintain a > constructed center. > > Alton: So I should raise my hands and just surrender? Will that do > it? If yes we should start a group and give directions. hehehe > I will announce your greatness to the whole net!!! Actually I think > that if this was being dialogued in person and you are really the > REAL I could have a transmission kind of make over. You are looking to something or someone outside yourself. The avoidance is the activity which won't face here, now, that there is no one outside of who you are -- to bring some kind of truth to you, transmit something to you. That is the avoidance strategy that says: there must be someone else who knows, who can give it to me. Notice: that strategy is an attempt to take, to get, to have. If there is a true desire to know truth, which you say there is, then it won't accept such a strategy at face value, won't continue the strategy without taking a clear cold look into its dynamics. This is between you and you Alton. There is no one else involved, no one to give you something, just you to look into your desire to get, to have, to maintain an existence in relation to another who is external. > > Hey if a breakthrough happens > > then that person knows something that ss does not, right? > > Not exactly. > > The " person " is what is broken through. > > The *knowing* is the timeless divisionless truth that > > Alton: I know that also but it does not matter to my desiring, > reactive, dualistic selfish mind. You need to take a hard look at what makes that mind " yours " if anything does. If you avoid taking such a look, you remain imbedded in the fanstasy that there is an existing being with a name that has a certain located mind with a set of beliefs that are mine. Rather, it is the set of beliefs that constitute " me " and thus, " me " is never constituted perfectly, situated really, having any certainty. It is, in fact, the uncertainty and unreality of the self's situation that brings forth the " project " the " investment " of the " spiritual search " when everything else seems unable to keep the self going. > > I think after this the dialogue round may be completed on this > issue > > after you reply. > > Who knows? > > Alton: You're right this may go on forever. hahaha Until the entire facade crumbles. The entire self-image and all its props dissolve. Including the world -- which is merely a stage on which the dramas of the self and its image are being played out through various dramas of love, theft, glory, inadequacy, harm, pleasure, power, and grief. The drama we call " us, " and " our history, " " our civilization, " or values, our achievements ... Love to ya, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 6, 2004 Report Share Posted January 6, 2004 Dear Dan: I believe that you quelled my mind at least for now. Thanks for all the patience you had with this ajani soul. I am going to compile all our exchanges into one document. Maybe we can call it Dan's Gita. Love, Alton 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.