Guest guest Posted February 26, 2001 Report Share Posted February 26, 2001 Thanks for posting these quotes. I enjoy the discussion of what is beyond experience, and agree that people tend to get caught in validating experiences. However, a question arises here. To say that everything relative is unreal is to construct a barrier between the absolute and the relative. How then is it possible to talk about the supposed " state " " prior to experience " if there is no connection between the experiential and the trans-experiential? The fact that you talk about what is beyond experience, while talk is within the realm of experience, shows that the two realms interpenetrate in some way. To say that " your experience is my experience " also indicates this interpenetration of " realms " . The experiential is the trans-experiential constructing experiencing as being. Being is that which is beyond being, knowing itself in terms of being and nonbeing. The illusory is the real, the only thing that makes it illusory is that it is believed to have an independent reality in an objectified space. Namaste, Dan >On 23 February 2001 >David wrote: > >Recently my mind has become very caught up in > >career plans. It is so interested in its thoughts that it doesn't > >want to rest in the " I am. " That is why the Maharaj's words about the > >fall: " accepting experiences as the truth, it gets more and more > >involved... " resonated with me so much. The pleasure in thinking and > >weaving a world of experiences is so great with me that I am > >sometimes reluctant to step beyond it. > >In relation to what David wrote about 'experience' >I thought it may be helpful to collect together >some of the words Nisargadatta offered on >the subject of experience. > >John. > > >Experience > > You talk about your spiritual experiences just to show people, " I am >something! " You are interested in your experiential state. There are so many >experiences. Be yourself and not the experiences. Experiences are a >temporary phaze and you are giving it undue importance. It happens >naturally. > > Everyone is concerned with these experiences from birth to death, but >no one gives any thought to that state before experiencing began. One who >has a clear understanding of this consciousness cannot attach any importance >to any experience. > > In the state prior to beingness I alone prevail without even the >message " I Am " . There are no experiences at all. It is the non-experiential >eternal state. I alone prevail in that state, there is no otherness. For any >experience otherness is necessary. > > I have no need of any experience. > > Whatever is seen, heard, experienced and acquired is totally useless >and redundant, when it is realized that no one will remain but the nishkama >Parabrahman, the desireless eternal Absolute state. > > Any experience you get is not real. > > The eternal ever is, a non-experiential state. In the realm of >experience you cannot have the experience of truth. There can be no >experience of truth because ultimately you are That. There cannot be >experience of truth because it is prior to the beingness. No experiences are >permanent. Experiences are in the realm of consciousness, which is bound by >time. > > Beyond the mind there is no such thing as experience. Experience is a >dual state. You cannot talk of reality as an experience. Once this is >understood, you will no longer look for being and becoming as separate and >opposite. In reality they are one and inseparable, like roots and branches >of the same tree. Both can exist only in the light of consciousness, which >again, arises in the wake of the sense " I Am " . This is the primary fact. If >you miss it, you miss all. > > The world itself is contact.....the totality of all contacts >actualized in consciousness. The spirit touches matter and consciousness >results. Such consciousness, when tainted with memory and expectation, >becomes bondage. Pure experience does not bind. Experience caught between >desire and fear is impure and creates karma. > > This habit of experiencing will not go until you realize that all this >domain of the five elements, and the experiences in the five elements, are >unreal. This " I Amness " is itself unreal. > > You speak of my experience as different from your experience, because >you believe we are separate. But we are not. On a deeper level my experience >is your experience. > >Nisargadatta: extracts from various books recording his talks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 1, 2001 Report Share Posted March 1, 2001 > The illusory is the real, the only thing that makes > it illusory is that it is believed to have an > independent reality in an objectified space. This makes sense to me, which makes me think that Nisargadatta's method of trying to sense the " inexperiencable One " prior to experience is, perhaps, not the most efficient method. Might it not be more efficient, and more graspable, to work on experiencing oneself as being everything he or she experiences, rather than trying to experience something that is nonexperiencable? dusty Nisargadatta, Daniel Berkow <berkowd@u...> wrote: > Thanks for posting these quotes. > I enjoy the discussion of what is > beyond experience, and agree > that people tend to get caught in > validating experiences. > > However, a question arises here. > > To say that everything relative is unreal > is to construct a barrier between the > absolute and the relative. > > How then is it possible to talk about > the supposed " state " " prior to experience " > if there is no connection between > the experiential and the trans-experiential? > > The fact that you talk about what is beyond > experience, while talk is within the realm > of experience, shows that the two realms > interpenetrate in some way. > > To say that " your experience is my experience " > also indicates this interpenetration of " realms " . > > The experiential is the trans-experiential > constructing experiencing as being. > Being is that which is beyond being, > knowing itself in terms of being and nonbeing. > > The illusory is the real, the only thing that makes > it illusory is that it is believed to have an > independent reality in an objectified space. > > Namaste, > Dan > > >On 23 February 2001 > >David wrote: > > > >Recently my mind has become very caught up in > > >career plans. It is so interested in its thoughts that it doesn't > > >want to rest in the " I am. " That is why the Maharaj's words about the > > >fall: " accepting experiences as the truth, it gets more and more > > >involved... " resonated with me so much. The pleasure in thinking and > > >weaving a world of experiences is so great with me that I am > > >sometimes reluctant to step beyond it. > > > >In relation to what David wrote about 'experience' > >I thought it may be helpful to collect together > >some of the words Nisargadatta offered on > >the subject of experience. > > > >John. > > > > > >Experience > > > > You talk about your spiritual experiences just to show people, " I am > >something! " You are interested in your experiential state. There are so many > >experiences. Be yourself and not the experiences. Experiences are a > >temporary phaze and you are giving it undue importance. It happens > >naturally. > > > > Everyone is concerned with these experiences from birth to death, but > >no one gives any thought to that state before experiencing began. One who > >has a clear understanding of this consciousness cannot attach any importance > >to any experience. > > > > In the state prior to beingness I alone prevail without even the > >message " I Am " . There are no experiences at all. It is the non- experiential > >eternal state. I alone prevail in that state, there is no otherness. For any > >experience otherness is necessary. > > > > I have no need of any experience. > > > > Whatever is seen, heard, experienced and acquired is totally useless > >and redundant, when it is realized that no one will remain but the nishkama > >Parabrahman, the desireless eternal Absolute state. > > > > Any experience you get is not real. > > > > The eternal ever is, a non-experiential state. In the realm of > >experience you cannot have the experience of truth. There can be no > >experience of truth because ultimately you are That. There cannot be > >experience of truth because it is prior to the beingness. No experiences are > >permanent. Experiences are in the realm of consciousness, which is bound by > >time. > > > > Beyond the mind there is no such thing as experience. Experience is a > >dual state. You cannot talk of reality as an experience. Once this is > >understood, you will no longer look for being and becoming as separate and > >opposite. In reality they are one and inseparable, like roots and branches > >of the same tree. Both can exist only in the light of consciousness, which > >again, arises in the wake of the sense " I Am " . This is the primary fact. If > >you miss it, you miss all. > > > > The world itself is contact.....the totality of all contacts > >actualized in consciousness. The spirit touches matter and consciousness > >results. Such consciousness, when tainted with memory and expectation, > >becomes bondage. Pure experience does not bind. Experience caught between > >desire and fear is impure and creates karma. > > > > This habit of experiencing will not go until you realize that all this > >domain of the five elements, and the experiences in the five elements, are > >unreal. This " I Amness " is itself unreal. > > > > You speak of my experience as different from your experience, because > >you believe we are separate. But we are not. On a deeper level my experience > >is your experience. > > > >Nisargadatta: extracts from various books recording his talks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 1, 2001 Report Share Posted March 1, 2001 Aside from considerations regarding the notions of 'work' and 'efficiency,' Nisargadatta often asserts that he is everything he surveys, thus at once encompassing and neutralizing any erstwhile sense of self in relation to other. I've always found these allusions to be more readily digestible than those to a 'foreign' state. My favorite conception is 'single-point-of-origin of all-that-is.' For me this is inescapably accompanied by a sense of the millieu as eternal beauty / infinite abundance. I know, I know...these are all mental constructs, and not to be taken for the reality to which they point. tomas Nisargadatta: > > The illusory is the real, the only thing that makes > > it illusory is that it is believed to have an > > independent reality in an objectified space. dusty: > This makes sense to me, which makes me think that Nisargadatta's > method of trying to sense the " inexperiencable One " prior to > experience is, perhaps, not the most efficient method. Might it not > be more efficient, and more graspable, to work on experiencing > oneself as being everything he or she experiences, rather than trying > to experience something that is nonexperiencable? daniel: > > Thanks for posting these quotes. > > I enjoy the discussion of what is > > beyond experience, and agree > > that people tend to get caught in > > validating experiences. > > > > However, a question arises here. > > > > To say that everything relative is unreal > > is to construct a barrier between the > > absolute and the relative. > > > > How then is it possible to talk about > > the supposed " state " " prior to experience " > > if there is no connection between > > the experiential and the trans-experiential? > > > > The fact that you talk about what is beyond > > experience, while talk is within the realm > > of experience, shows that the two realms > > interpenetrate in some way. > > > > To say that " your experience is my experience " > > also indicates this interpenetration of " realms " . > > > > The experiential is the trans-experiential > > constructing experiencing as being. > > Being is that which is beyond being, > > knowing itself in terms of being and nonbeing. > > > > The illusory is the real, the only thing that makes > > it illusory is that it is believed to have an > > independent reality in an objectified space. > > > > Namaste, > > Dan > > > > >On 23 February 2001 > > >David wrote: > > > > > >Recently my mind has become very caught up in > > > >career plans. It is so interested in its thoughts that it doesn't > > > >want to rest in the " I am. " That is why the Maharaj's words > about the > > > >fall: " accepting experiences as the truth, it gets more and more > > > >involved... " resonated with me so much. The pleasure in thinking > and > > > >weaving a world of experiences is so great with me that I am > > > >sometimes reluctant to step beyond it. > > > > > >In relation to what David wrote about 'experience' > > >I thought it may be helpful to collect together > > >some of the words Nisargadatta offered on > > >the subject of experience. > > > > > >John. > > > > > > > > >Experience > > > > > > You talk about your spiritual experiences just to show > people, " I am > > >something! " You are interested in your experiential state. There > are so many > > >experiences. Be yourself and not the experiences. Experiences are a > > >temporary phaze and you are giving it undue importance. It happens > > >naturally. > > > > > > Everyone is concerned with these experiences from birth to > death, but > > >no one gives any thought to that state before experiencing began. > One who > > >has a clear understanding of this consciousness cannot attach any > importance > > >to any experience. > > > > > > In the state prior to beingness I alone prevail without > even the > > >message " I Am " . There are no experiences at all. It is the non- > experiential > > >eternal state. I alone prevail in that state, there is no > otherness. For any > > >experience otherness is necessary. > > > > > > I have no need of any experience. > > > > > > Whatever is seen, heard, experienced and acquired is totally > useless > > >and redundant, when it is realized that no one will remain but the > nishkama > > >Parabrahman, the desireless eternal Absolute state. > > > > > > Any experience you get is not real. > > > > > > The eternal ever is, a non-experiential state. In the realm > of > > >experience you cannot have the experience of truth. There can be no > > >experience of truth because ultimately you are That. There cannot > be > > >experience of truth because it is prior to the beingness. No > experiences are > > >permanent. Experiences are in the realm of consciousness, which is > bound by > > >time. > > > > > > Beyond the mind there is no such thing as experience. > Experience is a > > >dual state. You cannot talk of reality as an experience. Once this > is > > >understood, you will no longer look for being and becoming as > separate and > > >opposite. In reality they are one and inseparable, like roots and > branches > > >of the same tree. Both can exist only in the light of > consciousness, which > > >again, arises in the wake of the sense " I Am " . This is the primary > fact. If > > >you miss it, you miss all. > > > > > > The world itself is contact.....the totality of all contacts > > >actualized in consciousness. The spirit touches matter and > consciousness > > >results. Such consciousness, when tainted with memory and > expectation, > > >becomes bondage. Pure experience does not bind. Experience caught > between > > >desire and fear is impure and creates karma. > > > > > > This habit of experiencing will not go until you realize > that all this > > >domain of the five elements, and the experiences in the five > elements, are > > >unreal. This " I Amness " is itself unreal. > > > > > > You speak of my experience as different from your > experience, because > > >you believe we are separate. But we are not. On a deeper level my > experience > > >is your experience. > > > > > >Nisargadatta: extracts from various books recording his talks. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 1, 2001 Report Share Posted March 1, 2001 Hi Dusty, I would see it as a kind of koan. Even the word " inexperiencable " -- to what does it refer? The word itself is experiencable. So where does it point? Any place, any time, can be experienced. This kind of talk is no-talk. It didn't happen, wasn't heard. And yet, here we are discussing it. Where are we this moment? Who hears this discussion? Do we ever experience the experiencer? If not, then how can be posited an experiencer, a knower, someone who is? With no experiencer, how there be verified this thing called " experience " ? Where does it happen, to whom? Love, Dan At 03:52 PM 3/1/01 +0000, you wrote: > > The illusory is the real, the only thing that makes > > it illusory is that it is believed to have an > > independent reality in an objectified space. > >This makes sense to me, which makes me think that Nisargadatta's >method of trying to sense the " inexperiencable One " prior to >experience is, perhaps, not the most efficient method. Might it not >be more efficient, and more graspable, to work on experiencing >oneself as being everything he or she experiences, rather than trying >to experience something that is nonexperiencable? > >dusty 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.