Guest guest Posted April 30, 2002 Report Share Posted April 30, 2002 Dan, Pure gold! Thanks! I would like to clarify, however, that I used bullshit ( maybe slightly harsh with that) only to put through the fact that there's no reson to get worked up regarding anything.. How can you, when you realize that you're living in a dream. Adding to your list there's an old Sufi saying " trust in god but don't forget to tie up your camel " :-) Anand. ====================================================== Hi Anand -- > Dear Hurg, > > What you call " esoteric advaitism " is the truth . > As to " how things functin in the world " is > conceptual and hence bullshit.(Everyone one this group > from Dan to Colin have their takes on life.) You make a valid point, but one thing: Concept is not bullshit per se. Concept is concept. Some concepts are bullshit. Some concepts are useful. The difference between 'bullshit' and 'worthwhile' is, of course, conceptual, which means, dependent on interpretations of observed effects :-) If a hole is to be dug, the concept " I'll get a shovel " is more useful at that moment than the concept " there is no doer, " or " the ground as it is, is perfect. " Context is everything, regarding concepts. A starving child would rather have a samich that is edible brought by someone who thinks " I'll get that kid a samich, " than either being presented with a picture of a samich or a concept about nonduality. This pertains also to an abused child, who would live more healthily if the abuse is stopped, than if advaita concepts are offered to indicate that everything is a way to learn who you are (or whatever) ... Also pertains to a nonabused adult, who will more likely enjoy breathing if the air is clean, than if it is polluted and toxic, regardless of nondual ideas that dirty and clean are relative and interdependent concepts :-) Namaste, Dan (who enjoys walking on unpolluted beaches) > > The purpose of conceptualization must be to simplify: > like the funeral pyre that is used to burn the corpse > but finally itself burns, the mind should be used to > annhilate other concepts, finally burning out in the > Divinefires of realization ( if Divine Will) > > You are not what you stand so firmly for.You will have > to take that on faith ( if grace of the guru wills so) > > So why this vehemence and outrage? > > Namaste, > Anand. > > PS : This again is a concept :-). all we ever " do " > could but be concepts.So take life like the elf, > drunken, mad and spontaneous!Love ya, elf! > ______________________ For live cricket scores download Score Tracker at: http://in.sports./cricket/tracker.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 30, 2002 Report Share Posted April 30, 2002 Hi Anand -- > I would like to clarify, however, that I used > bullshit ( maybe slightly harsh with that) only to put > through the fact that there's no reson to get worked > up regarding anything.. The issue of conceptuality is difficult to grasp. Grasping it requires nongrasping, that is, nonconceptual being. So, whatever is occurring for you or me is conceptual, whether that be getting worked up or not getting worked up. Having a reason to get worked up, or knowing there is no reason to get worked up -- each are conceptual stances, and whatever conceptual happening occurs here, seems true conceptually, while it is perceived to be occurring here. > How can you, when you realize > that you're living in a dream. When you realize that you're living in a dream, that realization also is occurring in a dream. Recognizing anything as occurring or not occurring is within a dream (also known as " phenomenality " ) :-) > Adding to your list there's an old Sufi saying > " trust in god but don't forget to tie up your camel " > :-) Yes, this is quite true. A Western saying has it, " In God we trust, all others pay cash ... " :-) -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 30, 2002 Report Share Posted April 30, 2002 Dan wrote:When you realize that you're living in a dream, that realization also is occurring in a dream.Recognizing anything as occurring or not occurring is within a dream (also known as "phenomenality") :-) Colin replies: These insights help me to better understand the response that Dan and El expressed towards the cosmic near death experience recently referred to on this list. No matter what is going on out there as an event - dense matter, subtle dream, cosmic vision -- all are phenomenal occurrences. So much of New Age 'near death' and 'ascension' content is about describing the phenomena only and lacks the radical insight or inquiry into 'who' is having the experience -- whether that experience be a vision of Krishna or the sight of what's at the end of one's fork. If I understand Dan's penetrating clarity on this business, he seems to point to this astonishing co-incidence (sic) of how noumena and phenomena (perceiver and perceived, imminent-in-your-face-stuff and awareness of same) are not two. It's an ordinary ongoing miracle he speaks of: a unity that is not uniformity, an equality that is not sameness... where these, the absolute and the relative, "are not even aspects of each other", that's how not-two they are. Krishamurti once wrote, "In the end, it is incorrect to say there is the perceiver and the perceived. There is only perceiving." Hope I'm not muddying the waters here. I always feel like I'm trying to bite my own teeth when attempting to do more than describe phenomena. Colin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 30, 2002 Report Share Posted April 30, 2002 Hi Colin -- Very perceptive and on-target stuff you write! Namaste, good buddy! Yes, there is no content to who I am, so all descriptions are content and known as such. I am not the container of content, for if I were, there would be content to who I am. So descriptions of me as the container are also content. You've said it very, very well. Too not-two to be not-two. Nothing to add to it! (Not wanting to bite my teeth anymore :-) -- Dan > Colin replies: > These insights help me to better understand the response that Dan and El expressed towards the cosmic near death experience recently referred to on this list. No matter what is going on out there as an event - dense matter, subtle dream, cosmic vision -- all are phenomenal occurrences. > > So much of New Age 'near death' and 'ascension' content is about describing the phenomena only and lacks the radical insight or inquiry into 'who' is having the experience -- whether that experience be a vision of Krishna or the sight of what's at the end of one's fork. > > If I understand Dan's penetrating clarity on this business, he seems to point to this astonishing co-incidence (sic) of how noumena and phenomena (perceiver and perceived, imminent-in-your-face-stuff and awareness of same) are not two. It's an ordinary ongoing miracle he speaks of: a unity that is not uniformity, an equality that is not sameness... where these, the absolute and the relative, " are not even aspects of each other " , that's how not-two they are. Krishamurti once wrote, " In the end, it is incorrect to say there is the perceiver and the perceived. There is only perceiving. " Hope I'm not muddying the waters here. I always feel like I'm trying to bite my own teeth when attempting to do more than describe phenomena. > > Colin 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.