Guest guest Posted May 5, 2001 Report Share Posted May 5, 2001 At 07:06 AM 5/5/01 , you wrote: " mortivan " <mortivan > Hmm. > > Overt meaning the mind/body concept causing itself to apparently > cease functioning? Covert meaning achieving realization and dropping > the identification with maya? > > If so, overt. Or better yet, overt after covert. Well... If we accept that Enlightenment is the same for everyone, and thus Christian references to the topic which discuss being At-One with God and Creation are simply a different cultural expression meaning the same thing as eastern notions of Annihilation seen from a different angle, then is it not equally valid to say that the pursuit of Enlightenment is as much a form of 'Self'-Actualisation as it is a covert means of 'ending ones [dream] life? Kind regards, Stephen Greetings, Stephen. I run into you in the darndest places. :-) I think, once again, we run into the problem of discussing the subjective with a medium which is by its very nature, objective - language. A second barrier to effective communication is the lack of words in the English language concerning these subjects. I suspect if we were using Sanskrit, we would have much less difficulty. When I asked the difference between overt and covert suicide, I was, as Stephen suggested, referring to the lack of difference between slow suicide by life style vs. fast suicide by lethal means. I have many years of experience in hospice nursing and suicide counseling and have seen plenty of both. The former is more " socially acceptable " and the latter is messier. Other than that, I see no real difference in the two. Realize that this discussion is in the context of " the body is real " . If we switch the subject to the death of the ego, I don't consider that suicide or murder, either one, since the ego doesn't exist in that context. Neither does the body. Neither do birth or death. So, the subject of suicide, in that context, seems like a moot point. Beck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 5, 2001 Report Share Posted May 5, 2001 Beck Greetings, Stephen. I run into you in the darndest places. :-) Hello Beck, and it's good to see you too. If you recall it was myself that spread the stuff about Nisargadatta on the NG and the Urtext Implications list. I'm very much of the opinion that texts like the Course (or anything else for that matter) that claims to teach Enlightenment should only be read when one is quite familiar with a genuinely Enlightened being such as Nisargadatta exemplifies so well. I think, once again, we run into the problem of discussing the subjective with a medium which is by its very nature, objective - language. A second barrier to effective communication is the lack of words in the English language concerning these subjects. I suspect if we were using Sanskrit, we would have much less difficulty. Don't kid yourself. Sanskrit is a technical language, some scholars even alledge that it was never actually spoken or meant to be spoken. Thus there are certainly doubts about it ever being anyones first language. Then again, in pre-Columbian South-America there was also a highly advanced technical language that seems to have been constructed. Who knows? There are enough legends to make many thing that there are some signigficant pieces of the jic-saw of history missing from our current view? However, if we were 'thinking' in Sanskrit, we may very well have much less difficulty understanding Enlightenment. Indeed, if we are honest, it must be noted that the Course seems to have its own language (and thinking) in the precise definition with which it seems to use words, debatable though the exact meaning may be. When I asked the difference between overt and covert suicide, I was, as Stephen suggested, referring to the lack of difference between slow suicide by life style vs. fast suicide by lethal means. I must be psychic! ;-) I have many years of experience in hospice nursing and suicide counseling and have seen plenty of both. The former is more "socially acceptable" and the latter is messier. Other than that, I see no real difference in the two. Realize that this discussion is in the context of "the body is real". True, from the definitions you and I were using (physical suicide) the body and its 'death' was taken as the central factor. It may not be the same for Mort. What I'm not sure about is his suggestion of "Or better yet, overt after covert". Why would one wish, or need to, physically 'die' after Enlightenment? I don't think there is anything from Nisargadatta that supports this. If we switch the subject to the death of the ego, I don't consider that suicide or murder, either one, since the ego doesn't exist in that context. Neither does the body. Neither do birth or death. So, the subject of suicide, in that context, seems like a moot point. I agree, suicide is definatly not the best word to use to describe Enlightenment. However, since you point out that it is moot, you may want to consider how recursive this is. If the ego and the body don't really exist, thus meaning, that only the ego's dream can 'die' the idea of suicide can be effected and used. You see, if there is only the ego and it is only the ego that is abandoned in Enlightenment then, to part of us at least, Enlightenment is death. If we are indeed, as the Enlightened testify, currently Enlightened ourselves and capable of waking up at any moment then part of the reason why we don't do this is the fear of something 'deathlike'. Kind regards, Stephen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 5, 2001 Report Share Posted May 5, 2001 At 08:12 AM 5/5/01 , you wrote: Beck I suspect if we were using Sanskrit, we would have much less difficulty. Don't kid yourself. Sanskrit is a technical language, some scholars even alledge that it was never actually spoken or meant to be spoken. I don't know that much about Sanskrit. In the back of my mind I was thinking about the language spoken by the Eskimo. I understand they have something like 40 different words to describe snow. This is because it is very important to them. English has only a few - snow, slush. French has many words for love - English has only one. English on the other hand has many words for sex - you can tell what is important to the English speaking countries. :-) So, I was guessing Sanskrit would be a good language for discussing enlightenment. So much for guessing. If we are indeed, as the Enlightened testify, currently Enlightened ourselves and capable of waking up at any moment then part of the reason why we don't do this is the fear of something 'deathlike'. For me, it seems to be more of a fear of loss of control, which I suppose could be extrapolated to a fear of death or, better, annihilation. It seems to be this insidious belief that I am smarter than " God " and can run my life better, etc. Coupled to that is the fear or lack of faith that " God " won't care for me - and therefore release of control will bring suffering and eventual annihilation. From the reading I have done, it would appear my " fears " are pretty common and typical. Beck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 5, 2001 Report Share Posted May 5, 2001 Nisargadatta, Beck <beck@b...> wrote: > At 08:12 AM 5/5/01 , you wrote: > >><beck@b...>Beck > >>I suspect if we were using Sanskrit, we would have much less difficulty. > >> > >>Don't kid yourself. Sanskrit is a technical language, some scholars even > >>alledge that it was never actually spoken or meant to be spoken. > > I don't know that much about Sanskrit. In the back of my mind I was > thinking about the language spoken by the Eskimo. I understand they have > something like 40 different words to describe snow. This is because it is > very important to them. English has only a few - snow, slush. French has > many words for love - English has only one. English on the other hand has > many words for sex - you can tell what is important to the English speaking > countries. :-) So, I was guessing Sanskrit would be a good language for > discussing enlightenment. So much for guessing. > > >> > >> If we are indeed, as the Enlightened testify, currently Enlightened > >> ourselves and capable of waking up at any moment then part of the reason > >> why we don't do this is the fear of something 'deathlike'. > > For me, it seems to be more of a fear of loss of control, which I suppose > could be extrapolated to a fear of death or, better, annihilation. It seems > to be this insidious belief that I am smarter than " God " and can run my > life better, etc. Coupled to that is the fear or lack of faith that " God " > won't care for me - and therefore release of control will bring suffering > and eventual annihilation. From the reading I have done, it would appear my > " fears " are pretty common and typical. > > Beck Namaste All, Sanskrit is spoken today as a living language, and isn't that much different from Vedic. Sanskrit is extremely concise in spiritual descriptions. Which usually take a sentence or even a paragraph to attempt an explanation in English etc. I don't think the Eskimos or the Inuit as they prefer to be known as, would help with 40 words for the same thing. This would just contribute to the empty intellectualisations common on these boards. Like people who have developed lower minds and little developed awareness sheaths. People whose awareness isn't enhanced enough to connect the suffering of animal and flesh on their plates, for example. Yet can expound forever about spirituality non dualism and anything else ad nauseum. Nauseum for it is only non experiential intellectualising. OM Namah Sivaya......Tony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 5, 2001 Report Share Posted May 5, 2001 Beck At 08:12 AM 5/5/01 , you wrote: Beck I suspect if we were using Sanskrit, we would have much less difficulty.Don't kid yourself. Sanskrit is a technical language, some scholars even alledge that it was never actually spoken or meant to be spoken. I don't know that much about Sanskrit. In the back of my mind I was thinking about the language spoken by the Eskimo. I understand they have something like 40 different words to describe snow. This is because it is very important to them. English has only a few - snow, slush. French has many words for love - English has only one. English on the other hand has many words for sex - you can tell what is important to the English speaking countries. The reason that the English language has the largest lexicon and most flexible vocabulary is quite simply that the British were the greatest pirates in history. After stealing roughly two thirds of the world we encompassed a great deal of the language spoken by the current inhabitants. :-) So, I was guessing Sanskrit would be a good language for discussing enlightenment. So much for guessing. Well, no, you guessed correctly. What I was getting at is that we would have much less difficulty if we were 'thinking' in the way that Sanskrit is designed. But mearly learning and speaking a language are quite different from thinking in that language. If we are indeed, as the Enlightened testify, currently Enlightened ourselves and capable of waking up at any moment then part of the reason why we don't do this is the fear of something 'deathlike'. For me, it seems to be more of a fear of loss of control, which I suppose could be extrapolated to a fear of death or, better, annihilation. It seems to be this insidious belief that I am smarter than "God" and can run my life better, etc. Coupled to that is the fear or lack of faith that "God" won't care for me - and therefore release of control will bring suffering and eventual annihilation. From the reading I have done, it would appear my "fears" are pretty common and typical. Yes, I'd be inclined to agree that these 'fears' are quite common and typical. The fear of God, the fear of success.... All quite regular in people, sadly. Kind regards, Stephen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 5, 2001 Report Share Posted May 5, 2001 " Tony O'Clery " <aoclery > > Namaste All, Hi Tony, > Sanskrit is spoken today as a living language, and isn't that much > different from Vedic. Sanskrit pretty much is the language of the Vedas and is, indeed, in use for literary and religious purposes. However, Prakrit, the language from which Sanskrit was codified is the one which has developed into Hindi and Bengali. I'm certanly not aware of anyone having sankrit as their first language or native tounge. > Sanskrit is extremely concise in spiritual > descriptions. Which usually take a sentence or even a paragraph to > attempt an explanation in English etc. This is what it was created to do. But it is an artificial language, not one which developed naturally. It's conciseness is part of the reason why learning to think in Sanskrit (and presumably having Hindi or Bengali as a first language) is so important if you wish to understand how something written in Sanskrit can help you, say, attain Enlightenment. Aside from that I know nothing else about it. Kind regards, Stephen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 7, 2001 Report Share Posted May 7, 2001 Nisargadatta, " Stephen " <user@p...> wrote: > What I'm not sure about is his suggestion of " Or better yet, overt after covert " . Why would one wish, or need to, physically 'die' after Enlightenment? I misunderstood what was meant by overt and covert. I interpreted overt as physical suicide (as a deliberate action rather than destructive lifestyle), and covert as the experience of enlightenment " killing " the self or the " I. " Why would one wish, or need to, physically remain 'alive' after enlightenment? -mort Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 7, 2001 Report Share Posted May 7, 2001 > Why would one wish, or need to, physically remain 'alive' after > enlightenment? > > -mort ---------------- Check it out!!!!!!!!!!! Find out for yourself who is there to care, or not to care. No one here. El Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 8, 2001 Report Share Posted May 8, 2001 Nisargadatta, elizabethwells2001 wrote: > > > Why would one wish, or need to, physically remain 'alive' after > > enlightenment? > > > > -mort > > ---------------- > > Check it out!!!!!!!!!!! Errr.... you ok there, El? :-) > Find out for yourself who is there > to care, or not to care. Fantastic advice, but no 'screaming' required :-). Namaste, Tim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 8, 2001 Report Share Posted May 8, 2001 The universe is already enlightened. Where is this imaginary center of self that is trying to get enlightened, or imagining whether enlightened people think they should stay alive or not stay alive? Regardless of what enlightened people think, life is life, the universe is the universe. As the universe and enlightenment are not-two -- what is there you have to decide about living or dying, when you are all the time everywhere and nothing? Dan Nisargadatta, " Stephen " <user@p...> wrote: > What I'm not sure about is his suggestion of " Or better yet, overt after covert " . Why would one wish, or need to, physically 'die' after Enlightenment? I misunderstood what was meant by overt and covert. I interpreted overt as physical suicide (as a deliberate action rather than destructive lifestyle), and covert as the experience of enlightenment " killing " the self or the " I. " Why would one wish, or need to, physically remain 'alive' after enlightenment? -mort 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.