Where can the pure land be [Dan, why Jung didn't meet Ramana]

[Guest guest]

> > Is there a land of neither gurus

> > nor students, neither knowers

> > nor known, neither archetypes

> > nor egos, neither Self nor not-Self?

>

> Hmmmm. I wonder where such a land might

> be?

>

> -Bill

 

Me, too.

 

" Where oh where can the pure land be,

oh where oh where can it be? "

 

-- Dan

 

Well, for starters, it clearly is nowhere " else " .

 

-Bill

[Guest guest]

> Well, for starters, it clearly is nowhere " else " .

>

> -Bill

 

Don't look for it " here, " either.

 

-- Dan

[Guest guest]

Look " here " ?

How absurd.

It's the one place looking can't go to.

 

 

 

dan330033 [dan330033]

Tuesday, September 24, 2002 1:43 PM

Nisargadatta

Re: Where can the pure land be [Dan, why Jung

didn't meet Ramana]

 

 

> Well, for starters, it clearly is nowhere " else " .

>

> -Bill

 

Don't look for it " here, " either.

 

-- Dan

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

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

> Look " here " ?

> How absurd.

> It's the one place looking can't go to.

 

I agree.

 

And if looking can't go there,

how is it that you have

named it " here " ?

 

Is it " here " as opposed to " there " ?

[Guest guest]

>

> dan330033 [dan330033]

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

> > Look " here " ?

> > How absurd.

> > It's the one place looking can't go to.

>

> I agree.

>

> And if looking can't go there,

> how is it that you have

> named it " here " ?

" Here " is simply a term that is chosen.

No explanation.

 

" Here " is where these words come from.

" Here " is all there is.

No " I " is needed here.

Yet as words arise from " here " , the terms 'I',

'you', 'me' may arise. Convenience words. No

more. The words from " here " are about connotation,

implicit pointing. Forget denotation regarding

words from " here " .

 

A poem:

 

Here

 

I abide here,

knowing I am not.

" I am " is a foreign notion.

 

I have found the Heart.

It is not in the chest.

That was illusion.

It is simply *here*.

Where else could it be?

*Here* is the Residence,

the Abode.

 

 

 

> Is it " here " as opposed to " there " ?

No. " Here " is all there is.

 

 

-Bill

[Guest guest]

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

> >

> > dan330033 [dan330033]

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

> > > Look " here " ?

> > > How absurd.

> > > It's the one place looking can't go to.

> >

> > I agree.

> >

> > And if looking can't go there,

> > how is it that you have

> > named it " here " ?

> " Here " is simply a term that is chosen.

> No explanation.

>

> " Here " is where these words come from.

> " Here " is all there is.

> No " I " is needed here.

> Yet as words arise from " here " , the terms 'I',

> 'you', 'me' may arise. Convenience words. No

> more. The words from " here " are about connotation,

> implicit pointing. Forget denotation regarding

> words from " here " .

>

> A poem:

>

> Here

>

> I abide here,

> knowing I am not.

> " I am " is a foreign notion.

>

> I have found the Heart.

> It is not in the chest.

> That was illusion.

> It is simply *here*.

> Where else could it be?

> *Here* is the Residence,

> the Abode.

>

>

>

> > Is it " here " as opposed to " there " ?

> No. " Here " is all there is.

>

>

> -Bill

 

Thanks for sharing your poem.

 

And this has never been named, nor spoken.

 

This has never been observed or thought.

 

There has never been an " I experience "

to be dropped.

 

So, pass me some ketchup before my french

fries get cold.

 

:-)

-- Dan

[Guest guest]

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

> > >

> > > dan330033 [dan330033]

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

> > > > Look " here " ?

> > > > How absurd.

> > > > It's the one place looking can't go to.

> > >

> > > I agree.

> > >

> > > And if looking can't go there,

> > > how is it that you have

> > > named it " here " ?

> > " Here " is simply a term that is chosen.

> > No explanation.

> >

> > " Here " is where these words come from.

> > " Here " is all there is.

> > No " I " is needed here.

> > Yet as words arise from " here " , the terms 'I',

> > 'you', 'me' may arise. Convenience words. No

> > more. The words from " here " are about connotation,

> > implicit pointing. Forget denotation regarding

> > words from " here " .

> >

> > A poem:

> >

> > Here

> >

> > I abide here,

> > knowing I am not.

> > " I am " is a foreign notion.

> >

> > I have found the Heart.

> > It is not in the chest.

> > That was illusion.

> > It is simply *here*.

> > Where else could it be?

> > *Here* is the Residence,

> > the Abode.

> >

> >

> >

> > > Is it " here " as opposed to " there " ?

> > No. " Here " is all there is.

> >

> >

> > -Bill

>

> Thanks for sharing your poem.

>

> And this has never been named, nor spoken.

>

> This has never been observed or thought.

>

> There has never been an " I experience "

> to be dropped.

>

> So, pass me some ketchup before my french

> fries get cold.

>

> :-)

> -- Dan

>

Dan,

 

Your response is clearly quite cynical.

Which is fine. There is honesty in it.

 

And I am not dismayed that the former message

fell flat for you.

 

It is not really important that anyone understands.

 

Nevertheless, words continue to arise.

What *reason* need there be?

 

It is not about boiling down into words, not

from this end.

 

Here it isn't even *experience*.

 

I know it is hard to believe there would be

no subjective continuity.

 

How can that be?

 

Well, it can be. How doesn't matter.

 

Studying the entrails of words that come from

Here will give no clues.

 

Here is. It needn't be more complicated than that.

And it isn't.

 

-Bill

[Guest guest]

Hi Bill --

 

> Your response is clearly quite cynical.

 

Clear to whom -- as interpreted by whom?

 

> Which is fine. There is honesty in it.

 

I'm glad there's honesty in it.

 

Cynical honesty?

 

I don't feel cynical about my honesty, just

honest.

 

Does cynical mean not needing illusions?

 

> And I am not dismayed that the former message

> fell flat for you.

 

It was fine with me. Honestly.

 

> It is not really important that anyone understands.

 

" No one " understands.

 

And that is fine for no one.

 

No one will never be interviewed on this subject.

 

> Nevertheless, words continue to arise.

> What *reason* need there be?

 

That question arises, to depart.

 

The words " words continue to arise "

arise and depart.

 

> It is not about boiling down into words, not

> from this end.

 

What is that the end of?

 

> Here it isn't even *experience*.

 

What isn't even experience?

 

> I know it is hard to believe there would be

> no subjective continuity.

 

If there is no continuity, then

there is no way to hold a belief.

 

> How can that be?

>

> Well, it can be. How doesn't matter.

 

If there is no continuity, then

the statement " it can be " doesn't

continue, and makes no difference.

 

> Studying the entrails of words that come from

> Here will give no clues.

 

Nothing has been said.

 

> Here is. It needn't be more complicated than that.

> And it isn't.

 

It's less complicated than that.

 

It has never been said.

 

The words " words that come from Here will

given no clue " cannot be construed as

giving a clue.

 

Peace,

Dan