Guest guest Posted July 27, 2002 Report Share Posted July 27, 2002 Hello Dan My first response to your message was that I had been "out negated" - a strange experience! I have cut up and excerpted it below, hope that is not distorting things. Well, how would "I" know whether or not "I" am illusory ... We can know a great many things (as you know), we can describe things as illusory or non - illusory. Yet our knowing is still within the field of conceptualisation. > The existence of the ego can be tested out by observation, can it not? Sorry, no, it's an inference and explanatory variable -- not a measurable thing. In other words, it's made up through the activity of conceptualizing about measurable things, and those measurements and things, of course, are other concepts. So ego is an attempt to explain the conceptualizing of concepts, as if these were being done by someone or something. Yes, the ego is made up of these things. And of the movement of fear and pleasure. Would you say this movement is conceptual only? .. If there's no entity, then why label as if there were an entity? Why indeed? And yet this is the essence of the world we live in (or should I say I live in?); it is what we are conditioned to do. It seems to have a tremendous inertia. Everyone automatically relates to "me" as if I was an entity, an identity, a permanent being. They expect me to relate to them from this construct. And I see in my own mind it is a deeply conditioned response. Very ancient - yet non the less false. And, indeed, a tendency has no substance. I'm not sure what you mean here. A tendency is the movement of conditioning, is it not? It's an inference, based on an assessment of a movement and its presumed direction and repetition. The label depends on the point of view of the labeller, and the agenda of the labeller. And is the labeller anything other than the activity of making and continuing agendas? Ok Do you hold that there is no such thing as observing, pure observation that is? I am not hear talking of the overwhelming tendency of thought to divide itself as observer and observed. Clive PS Are we dealing with concepts or realities? Certainly the concepts are there. Is there anything "real" behind them. In the end I do not know, cannot know, if your words are merely concepts, or otherwise. And presumably, similarly for you. I get the impression Nisargadatta is saying "don't be concerned with concepts, be concerned with that which creates concepts". Would you say that is an accurate assessment? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 28, 2002 Report Share Posted July 28, 2002 Hi Clive -- > My first response to your message was that I had been " out negated " - a strange experience! Nothing real can be negated. Only being negated, is what hasn't actually been there, in the first place. > > I have cut up and excerpted it below, hope that is not distorting things. > > Well, how would " I " know whether or not " I " am illusory ... > > We can know a great many things (as you know), we can describe things as illusory or non - illusory. Yet our knowing is still within the field of conceptualisation. Our conceptual knowing can't truly be validated, because the validator is itself conceptual. > > The existence of the ego can be tested out by observation, can it not? > > Sorry, no, it's an inference and explanatory variable -- not a measurable thing. > > In other words, it's made up through the activity of conceptualizing about measurable > > things, and those measurements and things, of course, are other concepts. > > So ego is an attempt to explain the conceptualizing of concepts, as if these were being done by > > someone or something. > > Yes, the ego is made up of these things. And of the movement of fear and pleasure. Would you say this movement is conceptual only? I would say that realizing that the knower is conceptual, then ends the search by the knower to validate findings about an " ego, " which was an idea manufactured for the supposed benefit of the knower. > > If there's no entity, then why label as if there were an entity? > > Why indeed? And yet this is the essence of the world we live in (or should I say I live in?); it is what we are conditioned to do. It seems to have a tremendous inertia. Everyone automatically relates to " me " as if I was an entity, an identity, a permanent being. They expect me to relate to them from this construct. And I see in my own mind it is a deeply conditioned response. Very ancient - yet non the less false. Exactly! Yes -- this is exactly what I am getting at. The conditioning is the knower, which then acts to try to know things for the benefit of the knower, have experiences which are good, avoid ones that are bad, etc. Recognizing the activity of conditioning is of " the unconditioned " -- and of this we can't speak. All our speech is conditioned activity. > > And, indeed, a tendency has no substance. > > I'm not sure what you mean here. A tendency is the movement of conditioning, is it not? Conditioning has no real substance. It validates its own substance, by getting what it expects to find. But, this " getting " of what it expected, is always dependent on the assumption that an entity is there, to get something, and that entity is conditioning. In other words, conditioning has no place to act, except on the concepts that conditioning provides, to the knower of those concepts, which knower is also conditioning. > > It's an inference, based on an assessment of a movement and its presumed direction and repetition. > > The label depends on the point of view of the labeller, and the agenda of the labeller. > > And is the labeller anything other than the activity of making and continuing agendas? > > Ok > > > > Do you hold that there is no such thing as observing, pure observation that is? I am not hear talking of the overwhelming tendency of thought to divide itself as observer and observed. If there is clarity that the observer and the observed are not separate, then there is no movement to determine whether or not there is such a thing as observing ... Who would be making the determination, if not an observer? So clarity that there isn't, in reality, such a split, is the ending of any attempt to validate or invalidate concepts such as " pure observation " ... Dan > PS Are we dealing with concepts or realities? Certainly the concepts are there. Is there anything " real " behind them. The idea that there is something " real " behind concepts, is itself a concept. > In the end I do not know, cannot know, if your words are merely concepts, or otherwise. And presumably, similarly for you. You can know that all words are conceptual, as are all thoughts and images, as is the knower of this fact. > I get the impression Nisargadatta is saying " don't be concerned with concepts, be concerned with that which creates concepts " . Would you say that is an accurate assessment? In some cases, yes -- it depends on which excerpt you are reading. Realize that any teacher is speaking to a particular audience, at a particular time, using a particular language. Audiences change, what they are ready to hear changes, times change, and languages change. The changing is comprehended in contrast with that which doesn't change, but that which doesn't change isn't the idea " that which doesn't change " -- Knower and known and the process of knowing is " that which is changing " -- If knower and known drop -- then clarity is, but no one to comment about it, and nothing to be known about it. It is not nothing -- it is only nothing with regards to concepts about it ... -- Dan 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.