Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org

For Dave S. on Aziz (Dan)

Rate this topic


Guest guest

Recommended Posts

Dan,

 

I'm looking for " I Am " and thought Aziz had some useful words to

guide me. I'm not " looking " for a particular response just feedback.

I'm just a beginner on this path still suffering from " spiritual "

insecurity.

 

Shawn

 

> Were you looking for " what he

> says is most excellent, accept

> it without further inquiry; it is the truth "

> as the response? "

>

> He comes across to me as unnecessarily

> flowery, mysterious, and special ...

> but that's just my take on it ...

>

> Whether one enjoys a speaker or not, seems

> to be largely a matter of taste ...

>

> Peace,

> Dan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At 14.09.02-08:09 AM Shawn wrote:

>Dan,

>

>I'm looking for " I Am " and thought Aziz had some useful words to

>guide me. I'm not " looking " for a particular response just feedback.

>I'm just a beginner on this path still suffering from " spiritual "

>insecurity.

>

>Shawn

 

Let me first state that Aziz's writings gave me a huge breakthrough.

However I also agree with what Dan is saying.

Forget about all the concepts. However Aziz's explanations about the state

of presence and how to progress from there helped me stay in awareness

without consciousness a whole night.

His methods are very simple.

 

Also, I have seen the 'souls' of my workers in a mystical experience.

However I don't know how to fit that in with Nisargadatta's teachings.

[Nisargadatta being my no.1 Guru]

 

If you want 'concepts' than Ramana and Nisargadatta are the best. The

'thorns' they give you to remove other 'thorns' are themselves very easy to

remove.

 

As for Dan. I don't think he is the right guru for beginners!

 

Love

Jan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jan,

 

Could you explain what you mean by awareness without consciousness?

 

Mark

Let me first state that Aziz's writings gave me a huge breakthrough. However I also agree with what Dan is saying.Forget about all the concepts. However Aziz's explanations about the state of presence and how to progress from there helped me stay in awareness without consciousness a whole night.His methods are very simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Mark Hovila <hovila@a...>

>Sat Sep 14, 2002 7:42pm

>Re: Re: For Dave S. on Aziz (Dan)

>Jan, Could you explain what you mean by awareness without consciousness? Mark

>

>>Let me first state that Aziz's writings gave me a huge breakthrough.

>>However I also agree with what Dan is saying.

>>Forget about all the concepts. However Aziz's explanations about the state

>>of presence and how to progress from there helped me stay in awareness

>>without consciousness a whole night.

>>His methods are very simple.

 

It means there was an awareness but no consciousness of any objects. No

thoughts, no volition, nothing. Just being. I think Ken Wilber explains it

better ... there is an article on his site. Or you can search NDhighlights.

It had been selected there after I posted it somewhere.

 

Jan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nisargadatta, " Shawn " <shawnregan> wrote:

> Dan,

>

> I'm looking for " I Am " and thought Aziz had some useful words to

> guide me. I'm not " looking " for a particular response just

feedback.

> I'm just a beginner on this path still suffering from " spiritual "

> insecurity.

>

> Shawn

 

Hi Shawn,

 

There is nowhere for a beginner to go,

except to remain with the beginning,

and what is prior to beginning...

 

Some questions arise at the beginning ...

 

Why are you looking for " I Am " ?

 

How will you know " I Am " when you find it?

 

How do you know this isn't it, right now and here,

just like this?

 

What do you imagine " I Am " to be, and where

did you get that idea from?

 

What is the difference between " I Am " and

what is not " I Am " ...?

 

Space,

Dan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> As for Dan. I don't think he is the right guru for beginners!

>

> Love

> Jan

 

Hi Jan --

 

Me, either.

 

I don't think he's the right

guru for anyone -- not even

for me ...

 

:-)

 

-- Dan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dan,

 

I wan't sure if I was to ask myself these questions or you were

asking. Anyway I'll answer to both here.

 

> Why are you looking for " I Am " ?

 

Freedom from myself

 

> How will you know " I Am " when you find it?

 

When I have this freedom

 

> How do you know this isn't it, right now and here,

> just like this?

 

From what I've read about the state I am still identified with the

mind. I have no center, no continuity of consciousness.

 

> What do you imagine " I Am " to be, and where

> did you get that idea from?

 

Having a center will free me from the mind, from the minds

conditioning via memory.

 

> What is the difference between " I Am " and

> what is not " I Am " ...?

 

Being awake and being asleep.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Shawn --

 

> I wan't sure if I was to ask myself these questions or you were

> asking. Anyway I'll answer to both here.

>

> > Why are you looking for " I Am " ?

>

> Freedom from myself

 

Perceptive answer.

 

Can't be done.

 

The one getting away, is that

from which one is trying to get away.

 

> > How will you know " I Am " when you find it?

>

> When I have this freedom

 

That freedom is an idea, a concept.

 

You attempt to hold that concept, in

the hope of getting there at some

point in the future.

 

The concept of the future, is a concept

you imagine now, hold now.

 

You are an idea, trying to use an idea,

to get away from an undesirable " you, "

which is the same " you " that thinks

it will later experience freedom.

 

I can't get away, because there is nowhere to

get away to. That future perfection is

simply my imagination trying to hold its

own image, now.

 

> > How do you know this isn't it, right now and here,

> > just like this?

>

> From what I've read about the state I am still identified with the

> mind. I have no center, no continuity of consciousness.

 

You are using readings to manufacture concepts,

which you think you can experience as a state.

 

One thinks one is a something, which can move

from one state to another -- an experiencer

which moves from an undesirable experiencer

to a more highly valued experience.

 

This is " mind trickery " which also includes

" emotional splitting " -- attempting to split

off what I don't want to feel or be, and get

to where I'll be and feel what I hope will

be much better, even " perfect " or " realized. "

 

> > What do you imagine " I Am " to be, and where

> > did you get that idea from?

>

> Having a center will free me from the mind, from the minds

> conditioning via memory.

 

How do you know this to be true?

 

> > What is the difference between " I Am " and

> > what is not " I Am " ...?

>

> Being awake and being asleep.

 

How do you think it is possible for

unconditioned awareness without

memory (which you described above)

to fall asleep?

 

Where would something come along from outside

of itself which could put it to sleep, or

into which it could go to leave its

" being awake " behind somewhere?

 

Space,

Dan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dan,

 

I just re-read chapter 12 from " Eye of he Spirit " and I think I know

what you're telling me here. I need to accept myself now. What I'm

looking for is already here now. By looking for it in the future as a

concept I can't see that it's already here now. What Wilber calls

the " Great Search " .

 

> How do you think it is possible for

> unconditioned awareness without

> memory (which you described above)

> to fall asleep?

 

I thought that's what incarnation is?

 

Shawn

 

 

Nisargadatta, " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote:

> Hi Shawn --

>

> > I wan't sure if I was to ask myself these questions or you were

> > asking. Anyway I'll answer to both here.

> >

> > > Why are you looking for " I Am " ?

> >

> > Freedom from myself

>

> Perceptive answer.

>

> Can't be done.

>

> The one getting away, is that

> from which one is trying to get away.

>

> > > How will you know " I Am " when you find it?

> >

> > When I have this freedom

>

> That freedom is an idea, a concept.

>

> You attempt to hold that concept, in

> the hope of getting there at some

> point in the future.

>

> The concept of the future, is a concept

> you imagine now, hold now.

>

> You are an idea, trying to use an idea,

> to get away from an undesirable " you, "

> which is the same " you " that thinks

> it will later experience freedom.

>

> I can't get away, because there is nowhere to

> get away to. That future perfection is

> simply my imagination trying to hold its

> own image, now.

>

> > > How do you know this isn't it, right now and here,

> > > just like this?

> >

> > From what I've read about the state I am still identified with

the

> > mind. I have no center, no continuity of consciousness.

>

> You are using readings to manufacture concepts,

> which you think you can experience as a state.

>

> One thinks one is a something, which can move

> from one state to another -- an experiencer

> which moves from an undesirable experiencer

> to a more highly valued experience.

>

> This is " mind trickery " which also includes

> " emotional splitting " -- attempting to split

> off what I don't want to feel or be, and get

> to where I'll be and feel what I hope will

> be much better, even " perfect " or " realized. "

>

> > > What do you imagine " I Am " to be, and where

> > > did you get that idea from?

> >

> > Having a center will free me from the mind, from the minds

> > conditioning via memory.

>

> How do you know this to be true?

>

> > > What is the difference between " I Am " and

> > > what is not " I Am " ...?

> >

> > Being awake and being asleep.

>

> How do you think it is possible for

> unconditioned awareness without

> memory (which you described above)

> to fall asleep?

>

> Where would something come along from outside

> of itself which could put it to sleep, or

> into which it could go to leave its

> " being awake " behind somewhere?

>

> Space,

> Dan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Shawn --

 

> I just re-read chapter 12 from " Eye of he Spirit " and I think I

know

> what you're telling me here.

 

If you know, then you know.

The most that reading a book could do, is give

words that fit with what you know.

But the knowing comes from you, not the book.

 

>I need to accept myself now.

 

Do you accept yourself, or don't you?

 

If you don't accept yourself, and are telling yourself

you need to accept yourself, then the actuality

is non-acceptance, and the added telling to oneself

that I need to accept myself, actually compounds

the non-acceptance, does it not?

 

So -- can one know deeply what non-acceptance is --

what is going on there when there is non-acceptance.

Telling oneself " I need to accept myself " just

gives one something to try to do, an image to

try to fit in the future, does it not?

 

And, one isn't looking fully into the actuality

of non-acceptance, while one is trying to

get to the image of acceptance one thinks

one needs - no?

 

> What I'm

> looking for is already here now.

 

That's just an idea -- a teaching tool.

 

It's only helpful in certain situations -- in

other situations, it's not helpful at all -

may be counterproductive, as noted above --

can give an image, a belief, to try to

maintain ... dishonesty, in other words

 

By looking for it in the future as a

> concept I can't see that it's already here now.

 

How could you possibly know that it's already here

now? All that you can know is that by looking for

it in the future, you are placing it ahead of

yourself in time.

 

If looking into/as " what is " ... one can only inquire

what is? what is the case now?

 

If there is nonacceptance now, one can look into:

what is this nonacceptance.

 

To say " I am what I'm looking for, " or " It is here now, "

easily becomes a placebo - a belief to placate one's

anxiety -- push it away, deny it ...

 

> What Wilber calls

> the " Great Search " .

 

The " great fire " consumes Wilber, all his writings,

even all the beings in the universe,

and everything they ever thought was so.

 

> > How do you think it is possible for

> > unconditioned awareness without

> > memory (which you described above)

> > to fall asleep?

>

> I thought that's what incarnation is?

 

They key words being " I thought " --

 

and you're right -- it's a story that

thought has told itself ...

 

and that's all it is ...

 

not necessarily any better or more useful

than any of thought's other stories ...

each of which have a time and place ...

 

Space,

Dan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The most enduring truth is that there is no entity.

 

[]Tuesday, September 17, 2002 7:17 PMNisargadatta Subject: Re: Re: For Dave S. on Aziz (Dan)

 

 

 

 

 

 

What entity is there to either accept itself or not-accept itself?

 

Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: Click Here

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nisargadatta, " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote:

> The most enduring truth is that there is no entity.

 

Who measured all the truths, and found this to

be the most enduring one of all?

 

<s>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who is asking?

 

 

dan330033 [dan330033]

Wednesday, September 18, 2002 2:45 PM

Nisargadatta

Re: For Dave S. on Aziz (Dan)

 

 

Nisargadatta, " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote:

> The most enduring truth is that there is no entity.

 

Who measured all the truths, and found this to

be the most enduring one of all?

 

<s>

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>The most enduring truth is that there is no entity.

Only an objective truth can be enduring. For only objects require time in order to exist. There is of course as you know, no objective truth so how can it be enduring? Much less the "most" enduring? Are there any other truths that are not so enduring? smarten up man. no-entity is as much conceptual thinking as is entity. SO what entity is there to either be or not to be. To be or not to be---- that is not the question!

 

-MarkMSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: Click Here

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> >What entity is there to either accept itself or not-accept itself?

> >Mickey Mouse -- the true nonentity for you and me! >

 

smarten up. had nothing been said....music

MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: Click Here

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nisargadatta, " " <@h...> wrote:

> >The most enduring truth is that there is no entity.

 

>Only an objective truth can be enduring. For only objects require

time in order to exist. There is of course as you know, no objective

truth so how can it be enduring? Much less the " most " enduring? Are

there any other truths that are not so enduring? smarten up man. no-

entity is as much conceptual thinking as is entity. SO what entity

is there to either be or not to be. To be or not to be---- that is

not the question!

 

-Mark

 

Exactamundo.

 

Only an entity would want to know

that there is an enduring truth

of no entity.

 

-- Dan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nisargadatta, " " <@h...> wrote:

 

> >What entity is there to either accept itself or not-accept itself?

>

>Mickey Mouse -- the true nonentity for you and me!

>

smarten up. had nothing been said....music

 

oh, you must be the one who's shit don't stink, I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Nisargadatta, "" wrote:

> > > >What entity is there to either accept itself or not-accept itself? > > > >Mickey Mouse -- the true nonentity for you and me! > > >smarten up. had nothing been said....music > >oh, you must be the one who's shit don't stink, I guess. >

 

For shit not to stink it would first require both a shitter and a shit. I am neither nor both. Second, it would require both an object with a non-offending odour and a subject with a nose. A subject with a nose. How funny a concept! I am neither nor both. Friend, if i have offended or in anyway caused your subject-object any suffering i apologize. It was just a silly form of humour. i did not intend it as an insult. apologies.Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: Click Here

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nisargadatta, " " <@h...> wrote:

> >

> > >What entity is there to either accept itself or not-accept

itself?

> >

> >Mickey Mouse -- the true nonentity for you and me!

> >

>smarten up. had nothing been said....music

>

>oh, you must be the one who's shit don't stink, I guess.

>

For shit not to stink it would first require both a shitter and a

shit. I am neither nor both. Second, it would require both an object

with a non-offending odour and a subject with a nose. A subject with

a nose. How funny a concept! I am neither nor both. Friend, if i

have offended or in anyway caused your subject-object any suffering i

apologize. It was just a silly form of humour. i did not intend it

as an insult. apologies.

 

*********

No insult was taken, and none offered.

 

Only humor...

 

Thanks for checking.

 

Mickey's nose can't smell anything other than Mickey's

shit, so who could be offended?

 

And by the way, I hope you can come out of this

no-subject no-object mindplay, when

it's time to relieve yourself.

Wouldn't want constipation to set in,

in the body that isn't there ...

 

Always enjoying laughter,

Dan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...