Guest guest Posted September 19, 2002 Report Share Posted September 19, 2002 Nisargadatta, " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote: > > The most enduring truth gives way > to the truth that has no duration. > Nice. > > Mickey can't look for anything, only > you can imagine Mickey as looking > for something. > Ah. That means that Mickey doesn't need > any help. > > Yet there are so many Mickeys that seem > to be suffering, that complain of not > being able to stop their thoughts, of > needing to be alert to the dangers of ego, > of needing to watch out for duality, > illusion etc. These Mickeys appear to be > suffering. > > When such a Mickey speaks to me aboout a > desire to " stop his thoughts " , for example, > I will say, in various ways, to simply > abide in the heart and witness. > > Your comment above suggests to me that > it is only my imagination that the person > trying to " stop his thoughts " is not free. What was said was, " Mickey can't look for anything, only you can imagine Mickey as looking for something. " Everything else, about all these Mickeys needing help, and you doing something to someone in your imagination, is being supplied by your imagination. Mickey is not looking for something. You may be dealing with people who are needing or wanting help from you. Good luck with them. The situation has not been changed into one in which there are many different Mickey's interacting with each other, and imagining things about each other. That situation is your imagination. By all means, help people. Just recognize what is going on here. It was you who asked " who is asking, " and now you've turned it into many individual who's all asking for your help. Mickey still is not looking for something -- it's just that you are dealing with many people looking for help, and you are looking for how you're helping them. > If I try to help him stop trying to help > himself I am really in contradiction. > Ah! That feels better! It's only when interpreted that Mickey is seen as many Mickey's all looking for your help. You can help people, without being confused about who Mickey Mouse is. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 19, 2002 Report Share Posted September 19, 2002 Nisargadatta, " " <@h...> wrote: > >A million volumes written over thousands of years, > and nothing has been said. > >The idea of something being a concept only has > meaning, as/through the non-conceptual. > >In terms of concepts and words, this truth > will most clearly be given as negative > concept -- > >Yet, the reality is not the negative > concept, for it truly is not-a-concept -- > and here is where any pointing of words, > images, sensations (positive > or negative) -- dissolves. > >It is only because of this non-conceptual, > that there is any understanding of what is > concept. > >It is only as this non-conceptual, that clarity > is that the knower and the known are concept. > >-- Dan > Very nicely expressed Dan. Thank you for the insight. The point attempted was to reify the idea that over a multitude of years and within a multitude of texts nothing has been said. Yes the conceptual and the non-conceptual are both " one half of a pair, " as Huang Po said. To express the ineffable however, neither can be used. I know you agree. M. I'm glad you enjoyed, M. And yes, it's a sad, sad situation, this business of expressing the ineffable and having it come out effable. A thankless task, but apparently, someone's got to do it. -- D. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 19, 2002 Report Share Posted September 19, 2002 Nisargadatta, " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > Nisargadatta, " " <@h...> wrote: > > >A million volumes written over thousands of years, > > > and nothing has been said. > > > >The idea of something being a concept only has > > meaning, as/through the non-conceptual. > > > >In terms of concepts and words, this truth > > will most clearly be given as negative > > concept -- > > > >Yet, the reality is not the negative > > concept, for it truly is not-a-concept -- > > and here is where any pointing of words, > > images, sensations (positive > > or negative) -- dissolves. > > > >It is only because of this non-conceptual, > > that there is any understanding of what is > > concept. > > > >It is only as this non-conceptual, that clarity > > is that the knower and the known are concept. > > > >-- Dan > > > Very nicely expressed Dan. Thank you for the insight. The point > attempted was to reify the idea that over a multitude of years and > within a multitude of texts nothing has been said. Yes the > conceptual and the non-conceptual are both " one half of a pair, " as > Huang Po said. To express the ineffable however, neither can be > used. I know you agree. > > M. > > I'm glad you enjoyed, M. > And yes, it's a sad, sad situation, this > business of expressing the ineffable > and having it come out effable. > > A thankless task, but apparently, someone's > got to do it. > > -- D. aka apparently, D. .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 20, 2002 Report Share Posted September 20, 2002 > A thankless task, but apparently, someone's > got to do it. Thankless? " Somebody's " not paying attention. -Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 20, 2002 Report Share Posted September 20, 2002 Dan, I'm sure I didn't communicate clearly. I'll try again: Something you said in previous message sparked an Aha! for me (thank you very much!). The Aha! was that I can relax about communicating to people how to find peace. It's like a hologram. Reality is reflected in every facet. I can just let the love flow. " I " (whoever that was) don't have to do a thing. -Bill dan330033 [dan330033] Thursday, September 19, 2002 2:21 PM Nisargadatta Re: For Dave S. on Aziz (pete) Nisargadatta, " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote: > > The most enduring truth gives way > to the truth that has no duration. > Nice. > > Mickey can't look for anything, only > you can imagine Mickey as looking > for something. > Ah. That means that Mickey doesn't need > any help. > > Yet there are so many Mickeys that seem > to be suffering, that complain of not > being able to stop their thoughts, of > needing to be alert to the dangers of ego, > of needing to watch out for duality, > illusion etc. These Mickeys appear to be > suffering. > > When such a Mickey speaks to me aboout a > desire to " stop his thoughts " , for example, > I will say, in various ways, to simply > abide in the heart and witness. > > Your comment above suggests to me that > it is only my imagination that the person > trying to " stop his thoughts " is not free. What was said was, " Mickey can't look for anything, only you can imagine Mickey as looking for something. " Everything else, about all these Mickeys needing help, and you doing something to someone in your imagination, is being supplied by your imagination. Mickey is not looking for something. You may be dealing with people who are needing or wanting help from you. Good luck with them. The situation has not been changed into one in which there are many different Mickey's interacting with each other, and imagining things about each other. That situation is your imagination. By all means, help people. Just recognize what is going on here. It was you who asked " who is asking, " and now you've turned it into many individual who's all asking for your help. Mickey still is not looking for something -- it's just that you are dealing with many people looking for help, and you are looking for how you're helping them. > If I try to help him stop trying to help > himself I am really in contradiction. > Ah! That feels better! It's only when interpreted that Mickey is seen as many Mickey's all looking for your help. You can help people, without being confused about who Mickey Mouse is. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 20, 2002 Report Share Posted September 20, 2002 Nisargadatta, " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote: > > A thankless task, but apparently, someone's > > got to do it. > Thankless? > " Somebody's " not paying attention. > > -Bill No " Somebody " to bring into it -- just apparently someone. Maybe your attention is on the thanklessness. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 20, 2002 Report Share Posted September 20, 2002 Hi Bill -- > I'm sure I didn't communicate clearly. Ah, yes -- communicating is a bitch, isn't it -- but apparently, someone has to do it! :-) > I'll try again: > Something you said in previous message > sparked an Aha! for me (thank you very much!). Aha! is good ... > The Aha! was that I can relax about communicating > to people how to find peace. Aha! > It's like a hologram. Reality is reflected in > every facet. Reality's seemingness reflects everything in everything else, and every experiential moment, in every other moment -- and there is nothing to be reflected, and nothing for it to get reflected in ... " This dewdrop world " ... > I can just let the love flow. Whatever the reflection called Bill is doing, including letting love flow or not flow, is whatever is being reflected as Bill's doing ... > " I " (whoever that was) don't have to do a thing. To do or not to do, is not the question. Just as to be or not to be, is only a question that is asked by a character in a play. -- 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.