Guest guest Posted October 22, 2002 Report Share Posted October 22, 2002 To affirm there is, or there is not a doer; that inquire happens by itself or not, is really not helpful. Such arguments only obscure the issue that inquire is nothing but attention. That when relentless attention is given to the false, the false vanishes because the false can only flourish in inattention. The false identity is the illusion that actions and thoughts rotating like the twin blades of a fan, create a solid, continuous self. When there is the quietude of total attention, there is no self. A self at rest is no-self. When this illusion created by action and thought is seen through, actions and thoughts loose their power to deceive. Need we argue about the unnameable and inexplicable or concentrate on the false? Your choice. Pete Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site http://webhosting./ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 22, 2002 Report Share Posted October 22, 2002 We are all using words such as inquire, attention, activity and insight, etc. - - and (re)defining them in context of our own posts. As such, the words lose some of their already limited ability to communicate and share ideas. This is OK and is part of the fun and challange of language. For example, I believe we basically are in agreement with Inquiry, that is, it is simple " attention " according to Pete or " insight " according to Dan. How I use the word Inquiry is also Activity; not always activity as gross or physical as walking, seeking or having a thought, but perhaps subtle activity such as " Stillness moving across the Water " or " Fullness moving into Fullness " . Or to borrow from the Old Testament, " In the Beginning was the Word of God, and the Word was Inquire, and God Inquire should One be Many, and the rest is History " I do not use Inquiry in context of Pure Awareness of Samadhi, nor would I use Inquiry in Vedanta Philosophy which only allows for Oneness. But that is just my opinion, I might be wrong. Take Care Larry Nisargadatta, pete seesaw <seesaw1us> wrote: > To affirm there is, or there is not a doer; that > inquire happens by itself or not, is really not > helpful. Such arguments only obscure the issue that > inquire is nothing but attention. That when relentless > attention is given to the false, the false vanishes > because the false can only flourish in inattention. > The > false identity is the illusion that actions and > thoughts rotating like the twin blades of a fan, > create > a solid, continuous self. When there is the quietude > of total attention, there is no self. A self at rest > is no-self. When this illusion created by action and > thought is seen through, actions and thoughts loose > their power to deceive. Need we argue about the > unnameable and inexplicable or concentrate on the > false? > > Your choice. > > Pete > > > > > Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site > http://webhosting./ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 22, 2002 Report Share Posted October 22, 2002 Nisargadatta, " trem23 " <inmadison@h...> wrote: > We are all using words such as inquire, attention, activity and > insight, etc. - - and (re)defining them in context of our own posts. > As such, the words lose some of their already limited ability to > communicate and share ideas. This is OK and is part of the fun and > challange of language. > > For example, I believe we basically are in agreement with Inquiry, > that is, it is simple " attention " according to Pete or " insight " > according to Dan. Hi Larry, The word inquire is sinonymous with asking.It derives from the Latin quaerere, to seek. Once we ask, we have to pay silent attention, if we are going to grasp the answer to our inquiry, so there might be an initial activity (asking) but it must end in inactivity, silence and attention, if it's to bear results. I would dare say, at the risk of sounding mystical, that the question 'Who am I? had already been asked by the act of being born and is constantly being answered. We just need to be quiet and attentive to hear that reply. Best, Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 22, 2002 Report Share Posted October 22, 2002 Nisargadatta, " trem23 " <inmadison@h...> wrote: > We are all using words such as inquire, attention, activity and > insight, etc. - - and (re)defining them in context of our own posts. > As such, the words lose some of their already limited ability to > communicate and share ideas. This is OK and is part of the fun and > challange of language. > > For example, I believe we basically are in agreement with Inquiry, > that is, it is simple " attention " according to Pete or " insight " > according to Dan. This seems like a needed realism with respect to words. Which is why if we limit ourselves to statements regarding our own point of view and do not attempt to make grand statements for everyone, we are on firmer ground when we speak. The following statements are all from *my* point of view: Now is. It is the fundamental reality. Only Now is. Now is inquiry. Deriving from Larry's statement: " Now is the inquiry of Dharma. " Hadn't felt the need for this, but opens up a sense of deeper meaning. I am exploring this. Larry's, " Now is the inquiry of Dharma " hit me between the eyes, and I'm still smoldering there. Now is non-action. Inquiry is non-action. -Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 22, 2002 Report Share Posted October 22, 2002 Dharma has always been one of my favorite concepts - it has meaning on every level of existence, and non-existence as well. It is no coincidence that the massive and profound Gita begins with, " Assembled on the field of Dharma... " Dharma is generally translated as 'duty', and on a gross material level speaks of duty of a priest perfoming rites, duties of parents, janitors and etc. But Dharma also speaks to our spiritual duty as Christ says " Seek ye first the Kingdom of Heaven... " our first and foremost duty. But even this refers to the grossest interpretation of Dharma. Pete refered to a still more subtle application of Dharma - when he said that we are propelled from birth to Inquire - if we could only stop the noise. Dharma is that which upholds evolution, and explains why we are at our best when we go with the flow and ride that wavy gravy train. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 22, 2002 Report Share Posted October 22, 2002 Hi Bill -- Yes -- there is nothing that is not now. Constructions of memory, of then, only come into being now -- these constructs are made now and interpreted now. Yes, now is nonaction. There is nothing upon which it can act. It is not an it. There is nothing outside, upon which it could act. Now is never put into memory images, although those images always are constituted now. The past never reacts to the present, never can give an interpretation of the present that is what the present is. Now is inquiry, and is the end of inquiry, the end of knowledge, the end of the knower. Namaste and love, Dan > The following statements are all from *my* point of view: > > Now is. > It is the fundamental reality. Only Now is. > > Now is inquiry. > Deriving from Larry's statement: " Now is the inquiry of Dharma. " > Hadn't felt the need for this, but opens up a sense of deeper > meaning. I am exploring this. Larry's, " Now is the inquiry of Dharma " > hit me between the eyes, and I'm still smoldering there. > > Now is non-action. > > Inquiry is non-action. > > > -Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 22, 2002 Report Share Posted October 22, 2002 > " Now is inquiry, and is the end of inquiry, the end of knowledge, the end of the knower. " May we have this painted on silk, and hung in the Great Hall. " gate gate paragate parasamgate bodhi svaha " -Bill dan330033 [dan330033] Tuesday, October 22, 2002 1:55 PM Nisargadatta Re: Inquire Hi Bill -- Yes -- there is nothing that is not now. Constructions of memory, of then, only come into being now -- these constructs are made now and interpreted now. Yes, now is nonaction. There is nothing upon which it can act. It is not an it. There is nothing outside, upon which it could act. Now is never put into memory images, although those images always are constituted now. The past never reacts to the present, never can give an interpretation of the present that is what the present is. Now is inquiry, and is the end of inquiry, the end of knowledge, the end of the knower. Namaste and love, Dan > The following statements are all from *my* point of view: > > Now is. > It is the fundamental reality. Only Now is. > > Now is inquiry. > Deriving from Larry's statement: " Now is the inquiry of Dharma. " > Hadn't felt the need for this, but opens up a sense of deeper > meaning. I am exploring this. Larry's, " Now is the inquiry of Dharma " > hit me between the eyes, and I'm still smoldering there. > > Now is non-action. > > Inquiry is non-action. > > > -Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 23, 2002 Report Share Posted October 23, 2002 Nisargadatta, " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote:> " Now is inquiry, and is the end of inquiry, the end of knowledge, the end of the knower. " May we have this painted on silk, and hung in the Great Hall. " gate gate paragate parasamgate bodhi svaha " -Bill KKT: You've just lost your attention, Bill :-)) KKT 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.