Guest guest Posted July 30, 2003 Report Share Posted July 30, 2003 Nisargadatta , " Shawn Hair " <shawn@w...> wrote: > > > > > > .....These four facts of life are meant to be known, understood, > and realized, seen as they are. Knowing the bare fact that things > are dissatisfying won't free us from dissatisfaction. The crucial > part is knowing the Second Noble Truth, which is the cause of > that dissatisfaction — not the things themselves, since the > things themselves don't suffer; it is we who suffer. The cause of > that suffering is clinging, attachment, greed, desire, resistance, > fixation — whatever you want to call it. It is often called craving. > The word literally is tanha in Pali (samudaya in Sanskrit), which > suggests thirst. Because we crave, continually desire and thirst > for various experiences and things, and because created things > are never ultimately satisfying, we suffer. That's where the chain > of suffering can be addressed: whether or not we cling to things > and crave for experience. It's not that we have to get rid of the > things themselves. Things are not the problem. It is the > attachment, the identification with things that causes suffering. > Tilopa wrote, " It is not outer objects which entangle us. It is inner > clinging which entangles us. " > > http://www.Dzogchen.org/teachings/talks/ndt06.htm And what makes craving seem a problem? Because we take the feeling of craving as a me wanting something, a me being there. Otherwise, craving is just another object arising -- can't hurt anyone. Attachment is a contradiction -- it requires a subject trying to have an object, without itself being an object -- impossible. But if I know this -- nothing can bother me, and teachings aren't needed. Any teaching being an object. Peace, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 30, 2003 Report Share Posted July 30, 2003 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " Shawn Hair " <shawn@w...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > .....These four facts of life are meant to be known, understood, > > and realized, seen as they are. Knowing the bare fact that things > > are dissatisfying won't free us from dissatisfaction. The crucial > > part is knowing the Second Noble Truth, which is the cause of > > that dissatisfaction — not the things themselves, since the > > things themselves don't suffer; it is we who suffer. The cause of > > that suffering is clinging, attachment, greed, desire, resistance, > > fixation — whatever you want to call it. It is often called > craving. > > The word literally is tanha in Pali (samudaya in Sanskrit), which > > suggests thirst. Because we crave, continually desire and thirst > > for various experiences and things, and because created things > > are never ultimately satisfying, we suffer. That's where the chain > > of suffering can be addressed: whether or not we cling to things > > and crave for experience. It's not that we have to get rid of the > > things themselves. Things are not the problem. It is the > > attachment, the identification with things that causes suffering. > > Tilopa wrote, " It is not outer objects which entangle us. It is > inner > > clinging which entangles us. " > > > > http://www.Dzogchen.org/teachings/talks/ndt06.htm > > And what makes craving seem a problem? > > Because we take the feeling of craving as > a me wanting something, a me being there. > > Otherwise, craving is just another object > arising -- can't hurt anyone. > > Attachment is a contradiction -- it requires > a subject trying to have an object, without > itself being an object -- impossible. > > But if I know this -- nothing can bother me, > and teachings aren't needed. > > Any teaching being an object. > > Peace, > Dan Most " cravings " come from that identification with the mind, and would not arise without the identification. Yes? No? ))))Shawn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 30, 2003 Report Share Posted July 30, 2003 Nisargadatta , " Shawn Hair " <shawn@w...> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " > <dan330033> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Shawn Hair " > <shawn@w...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .....These four facts of life are meant to be known, > understood, > > > and realized, seen as they are. Knowing the bare fact that > things > > > are dissatisfying won't free us from dissatisfaction. The > crucial > > > part is knowing the Second Noble Truth, which is the cause > of > > > that dissatisfaction — not the things themselves, since the > > > things themselves don't suffer; it is we who suffer. The cause > of > > > that suffering is clinging, attachment, greed, desire, > resistance, > > > fixation — whatever you want to call it. It is often called > > craving. > > > The word literally is tanha in Pali (samudaya in Sanskrit), > which > > > suggests thirst. Because we crave, continually desire and > thirst > > > for various experiences and things, and because created > things > > > are never ultimately satisfying, we suffer. That's where the > chain > > > of suffering can be addressed: whether or not we cling to > things > > > and crave for experience. It's not that we have to get rid of the > > > things themselves. Things are not the problem. It is the > > > attachment, the identification with things that causes > suffering. > > > Tilopa wrote, " It is not outer objects which entangle us. It is > > inner > > > clinging which entangles us. " > > > > > > http://www.Dzogchen.org/teachings/talks/ndt06.htm > > > > And what makes craving seem a problem? > > > > Because we take the feeling of craving as > > a me wanting something, a me being there. > > > > Otherwise, craving is just another object > > arising -- can't hurt anyone. > > > > Attachment is a contradiction -- it requires > > a subject trying to have an object, without > > itself being an object -- impossible. > > > > But if I know this -- nothing can bother me, > > and teachings aren't needed. > > > > Any teaching being an object. > > > > Peace, > > Dan > > > Most " cravings " come from that identification with the mind, and > would not arise without the identification. Yes? No? > > ))))Shawn Wanting an explanation of where things come from, is a craving of the mind. Yes? No? The mind invents the idea of identification, so it can have something to ponder. As there is no separable being, there is nothing which can identify and disidentify. There is only the choiceless cohering of apparent identity and choiceless dissolution of apparent identity, as there is choiceless cohering of apparent mind, and choiceless dissolution of apparent mind. Between the apparent cohering and dissolution, choices seemingly occur. Such as how to explain this or that, how to deal with craving, the craving not to crave cravings, and so on. Smiles to you, too, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 31, 2003 Report Share Posted July 31, 2003 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " Shawn Hair " <shawn@w...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " > > <dan330033> wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " Shawn Hair " > > <shawn@w...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .....These four facts of life are meant to be known, > > understood, > > > > and realized, seen as they are. Knowing the bare fact that > > things > > > > are dissatisfying won't free us from dissatisfaction. The > > crucial > > > > part is knowing the Second Noble Truth, which is the cause > > of > > > > that dissatisfaction — not the things themselves, since the > > > > things themselves don't suffer; it is we who suffer. The cause > > of > > > > that suffering is clinging, attachment, greed, desire, > > resistance, > > > > fixation — whatever you want to call it. It is often called > > > craving. > > > > The word literally is tanha in Pali (samudaya in Sanskrit), > > which > > > > suggests thirst. Because we crave, continually desire and > > thirst > > > > for various experiences and things, and because created > > things > > > > are never ultimately satisfying, we suffer. That's where the > > chain > > > > of suffering can be addressed: whether or not we cling to > > things > > > > and crave for experience. It's not that we have to get rid of > the > > > > things themselves. Things are not the problem. It is the > > > > attachment, the identification with things that causes > > suffering. > > > > Tilopa wrote, " It is not outer objects which entangle us. It is > > > inner > > > > clinging which entangles us. " > > > > > > > > http://www.Dzogchen.org/teachings/talks/ndt06.htm > > > > > > And what makes craving seem a problem? > > > > > > Because we take the feeling of craving as > > > a me wanting something, a me being there. > > > > > > Otherwise, craving is just another object > > > arising -- can't hurt anyone. > > > > > > Attachment is a contradiction -- it requires > > > a subject trying to have an object, without > > > itself being an object -- impossible. > > > > > > But if I know this -- nothing can bother me, > > > and teachings aren't needed. > > > > > > Any teaching being an object. > > > > > > Peace, > > > Dan > > > > > > Most " cravings " come from that identification with the mind, and > > would not arise without the identification. Yes? No? > > > > ))))Shawn > > Wanting an explanation of where things come from, > is a craving of the mind. Yes? No? Yes. > The mind invents the idea of identification, so > it can have something to ponder. The mind IS identifiation. > As there is no separable being, there is nothing > which can identify and disidentify. Is there Being at all? How an you deny it? > There is only the choiceless cohering of apparent > identity and choiceless dissolution of apparent > identity, as there is choiceless cohering of > apparent mind, and choiceless dissolution of > apparent mind. Who " choiclessly coheres? > Between the apparent cohering and dissolution, > choices seemingly occur. To who? Such as how to > explain this or that, how to deal with > craving, the craving not to crave cravings, > and so on. > > Smiles to you, too, > > Dan ....and where does the Self fit in. WHO is happening, man?!! )))))))Shawn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 31, 2003 Report Share Posted July 31, 2003 Hi Shawn -- > > > Most " cravings " come from that identification with the mind, > and > > > would not arise without the identification. Yes? No? > > > > > > ))))Shawn > > > > Wanting an explanation of where things come from, > > is a craving of the mind. Yes? No? > > > Yes. Okay, so that craving is a phenomenon, it arises and dissolves as phenomena do. Choicelessly, without explanation -- and none needed or required. > > > The mind invents the idea of identification, so > > it can have something to ponder. > > The mind IS identifiation. Well, that is an idea held by mind, no? Without any ideas held, where is mind? It is not -- is that not so? So, mind is only the activity of holding concept. Is there something there which identifies or doesn't identify? I think you and I are agreeing, there isn't. So whether mind is identification, or whether identification is a concept held by mind, is a moot point, when mind is not. Identification is not as mind is not, we agree on that -- and disidentification also is not, as mind is not. Do we agree on that? No identification, no disidentification -- they are reciprocal concepts. > > As there is no separable being, there is nothing > > which can identify and disidentify. > > Is there Being at all? How an you deny it? I didn't say anything at all about Being. You are now bringing a concept you call Being into this discussion. How does that concept relate? Are you saying that something you call Being is that which identifies? If that's what you're saying, please clarify for me what Being is, and how it identifies, and with what it identifies. > > There is only the choiceless cohering of apparent > > identity and choiceless dissolution of apparent > > identity, as there is choiceless cohering of > > apparent mind, and choiceless dissolution of > > apparent mind. > > > Who " choiclessly coheres? What makes you think there's a 'who' involved? Is not 'who' a word that refers to something that coheres? If we are saying what coheres, dissolves -- a 'who' would not be left as something that coheres. In other words, your question is a logical error. If you understand that phenomena are the activity of cohering/dissolving, you will observe that to cohere is to dissolve. You will know this immediately, now, as the truth of your being. No 'who' is involved in making that happen, neither as something being it, or inside it. > > Between the apparent cohering and dissolution, > > choices seemingly occur. > > To who? You seem really stuck on this conceptual error, that behind anything that happens there must be a 'who' to whom it happens. Nonsense. Any 'who's' are cohering and dissolving, just as other phenomena. > Such as how to > > explain this or that, how to deal with > > craving, the craving not to crave cravings, > > and so on. > > > > Smiles to you, too, > > > > Dan > > > ...and where does the Self fit in. WHO is happening, man?!! > > )))))))Shawn Shawn, there is no Self to fit into anything -- that is only a concept, being held, which is activity of mind -- mind being the attempt to hold concept. Smiles upon ya, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 1, 2003 Report Share Posted August 1, 2003 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > Hi Shawn -- > > > > > Most " cravings " come from that identification with the mind, > > and > > > > would not arise without the identification. Yes? No? > > > > > > > > ))))Shawn > > > > > > Wanting an explanation of where things come from, > > > is a craving of the mind. Yes? No? > > > > > > Yes. > > Okay, so that craving is a phenomenon, it arises > and dissolves as phenomena do. > > Choicelessly, without explanation -- and none needed > or required. > > > > > > The mind invents the idea of identification, so > > > it can have something to ponder. > > > > The mind IS identifiation. > > Well, that is an idea held by mind, no? > > Without any ideas held, where is mind? > > It is not -- is that not so? > > So, mind is only the activity of holding > concept. > > Is there something there which identifies or > doesn't identify? I think you and I are > agreeing, there isn't. > > So whether mind is identification, or whether > identification is a concept held by mind, > is a moot point, when mind is not. > > Identification is not as mind is not, we agree > on that -- and disidentification also is > not, as mind is not. Do we agree on that? > > No identification, no disidentification -- they > are reciprocal concepts. > > > > As there is no separable being, there is nothing > > > which can identify and disidentify. > > > > Is there Being at all? How an you deny it? > > I didn't say anything at all about Being. > > You are now bringing a concept you call Being into > this discussion. > > How does that concept relate? > > Are you saying that something you call Being is > that which identifies? > > If that's what you're saying, please clarify for > me what Being is, and how it identifies, and > with what it identifies. > > > > There is only the choiceless cohering of apparent > > > identity and choiceless dissolution of apparent > > > identity, as there is choiceless cohering of > > > apparent mind, and choiceless dissolution of > > > apparent mind. > > > > > > Who " choiclessly coheres? > > What makes you think there's a 'who' involved? > > Is not 'who' a word that refers to something > that coheres? > > If we are saying what coheres, dissolves -- a 'who' > would not be left as something that coheres. > > In other words, your question is a logical error. > > If you understand that phenomena are the activity > of cohering/dissolving, you will observe > that to cohere is to dissolve. > > You will know this immediately, now, as the truth > of your being. No 'who' is involved in making > that happen, neither as something being it, or inside it. > > > > Between the apparent cohering and dissolution, > > > choices seemingly occur. > > > > To who? > > You seem really stuck on this conceptual error, > that behind anything that happens there must > be a 'who' to whom it happens. > > Nonsense. > > Any 'who's' are cohering and dissolving, just > as other phenomena. > > > Such as how to > > > explain this or that, how to deal with > > > craving, the craving not to crave cravings, > > > and so on. > > > > > > Smiles to you, too, > > > > > > Dan > > > > > > ...and where does the Self fit in. WHO is happening, man?!! > > > > )))))))Shawn > > Shawn, there is no Self to fit into anything -- that is > only a concept, being held, which is activity of mind -- > mind being the attempt to hold concept. > > Smiles upon ya, > Dan Dan, I found your reply interesting. However your talks seem exclusively restricted to the 'apparent phenomena'. is this where you come from? And are you aiming to stay there? You said " the mind is the activity or the attempt to hold concepts " . This is a 'conceptual error'. In reality it is the concepts that are keeping the mind bound not the other way round. This is where the " who " becomes relevant. " who " is the direct result of conceptual coherence, and the cause of ignorance. The Being/Self is That which is beyond, and remains unaffected by all the apparent comings and goings, births and deaths, coherent and dissolution. This is what Jesus meant when he said: before Abraham was, I AM! Peace upon you too Parsa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 1, 2003 Report Share Posted August 1, 2003 Hi Parsa - > I found your reply interesting. However your talks seem exclusively > restricted to the 'apparent phenomena'. is this where you come from? Do you think that question is not an apparent phenomenon? Do you believe the thinker of that thought is not phenomenal, not included with the thought? The attempt to use thought to conclude something about the nature of something beyond thought and phenomena is futile. > And are you aiming to stay there? Any someone who could stay or go is phenomenal. What is not phenomenal won't be expresssed verbally, nor is it someplace that someone can be, or not be -- nor is it a someone, nor a lack of someone. > You said " the mind is the activity or the attempt to hold concepts " . > This is a 'conceptual error'. In reality it is the concepts that are > keeping the mind bound not the other way round. You really believe that there is something called a mind that exists on its own, that isn't conceptual? Where is it? How do you know this to be so? How have you verified it? This is where > the " who " becomes relevant. " who " is the direct result of conceptual > coherence, and the cause of ignorance. One who has died to " who " one is, finds " what is " beyond explanations or concepts, which can't be conveyed or stated -- yet is obvious. > The Being/Self is That which is beyond, and remains unaffected by all > the apparent comings and goings, births and deaths, coherent and > dissolution. That statement is merely another phenomenal arising, another concept. > This is what Jesus meant when he said: before Abraham was, I AM! Why take that as an absolute truism? This being a Nisargadatta list -- he was one who pointed to not taking I AM as one's final resting place. Jesus also said: " The foxes have their dens, and the birds have their nests, but the son of ADAM has no place to rest his head. " Cheerful peace, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 1, 2003 Report Share Posted August 1, 2003 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > Hi Parsa - > > > I found your reply interesting. However your talks seem exclusively > > restricted to the 'apparent phenomena'. is this where you come > from? > > Do you think that question is not an apparent phenomenon? It's just a movement in consciousness, nowhere in particular. > Do you believe the thinker of that thought is not phenomenal, > not included with the thought? No, he can't be limited to just a thought or phenomenon. Why limit the unlimited? > The attempt to use thought to conclude something about > the nature of something beyond thought and phenomena > is futile. What is this 'something' other than the state of no thoughts, where in the absence of concepts, mind returns to its original state! > > > And are you aiming to stay there? > > Any someone who could stay or go is phenomenal. unless he isn't there at all in the first place. > What is not phenomenal won't be expresssed verbally, > nor is it someplace that someone can be, or not be -- > nor is it a someone, nor a lack of someone. One who has died to " who " one is, finds " what is " beyond explanations or concepts. (your own answer) > > You said " the mind is the activity or the attempt to hold > concepts " . > > This is a 'conceptual error'. In reality it is the concepts that > are > > keeping the mind bound not the other way round. > > You really believe that there is something > called a mind that exists on its own, that isn't > conceptual? Where is it? How do you know this > to be so? How have you verified it? If no fruits in the basket it doesn't mean the basket's not there, at that moment it is full of emptiness, which is much more than a bunch of fruits/concepts. Verifying it requires the " Who " who would do the verification doesn't it? :-) Again your own answer: One who has died to " who " one is, finds " what is " beyond explanations or concepts. Though I would modify it slightly to read: one who has died to " who " one has never been becomes who he has always been which " IS " . > This is where > > the " who " becomes relevant. " who " is the direct result of > conceptual > > coherence, and the cause of ignorance. > > One who has died to " who " one is, finds " what is " > beyond explanations or concepts, which can't > be conveyed or stated -- yet is obvious. Good! " Yet it is obvious " > > The Being/Self is That which is beyond, and remains unaffected by > all > > the apparent comings and goings, births and deaths, coherent and > > dissolution. > > That statement is merely another phenomenal arising, another concept. Well as Ramana said, to remove a thorn in the foot, use another thorn but once done discard both thorns! > > > This is what Jesus meant when he said: before Abraham was, I AM! > > Why take that as an absolute truism? > > This being a Nisargadatta list -- he was one who pointed > to not taking I AM as one's final resting place. If you want to take that as an absolute truism it's your choice, I didn't say it was. Yet at the I AM stage one is not yet contaminated by multitude of concepts, I AM is simply the awareness of Being as in a two year old baby. > > Jesus also said: " The foxes have their dens, and the > birds have their nests, but the son of ADAM has no place to rest > his head. " He obviously meant Phenomenon is not the place for us to hang around for too long! Cheers Parsa > Cheerful peace, > Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 1, 2003 Report Share Posted August 1, 2003 Hi Parsa -- > > > I found your reply interesting. However your talks seem > exclusively > > > restricted to the 'apparent phenomena'. is this where you come > > from? > > > > Do you think that question is not an apparent phenomenon? > > It's just a movement in consciousness, nowhere in particular. What's nowhere in particular, needn't be named. Moving on without a name, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 1, 2003 Report Share Posted August 1, 2003 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > Hi Shawn -- > > > > > Most " cravings " come from that identification with the mind, > > and > > > > would not arise without the identification. Yes? No? > > > > > > > > ))))Shawn > > > > > > Wanting an explanation of where things come from, > > > is a craving of the mind. Yes? No? > > > > > > Yes. > > Okay, so that craving is a phenomenon, it arises > and dissolves as phenomena do. > > Choicelessly, without explanation -- and none needed > or required. > > > > > > The mind invents the idea of identification, so > > > it can have something to ponder. > > > > The mind IS identifiation. > > Well, that is an idea held by mind, no? > > Without any ideas held, where is mind? > > It is not -- is that not so? > > So, mind is only the activity of holding > concept. Activity of what? > Is there something there which identifies or > doesn't identify? I think you and I are > agreeing, there isn't. Not " a something " -the Self. > So whether mind is identification, or whether > identification is a concept held by mind, > is a moot point, when mind is not. An apparent arising *from*.... > Identification is not as mind is not, we agree > on that -- and disidentification also is > not, as mind is not. Do we agree on that? temporarily.....; ^ ) > No identification, no disidentification -- they > are reciprocal concepts. ....eyes starting to cross.... > > > As there is no separable being, there is nothing > > > which can identify and disidentify. You are bringing in " seperable. " > > Is there Being at all? How an you deny it? > > I didn't say anything at all about Being. ....you implied it. > You are now bringing a concept you call Being into > this discussion. > > How does that concept relate? > > Are you saying that something you call Being is > that which identifies? Maybe...Who's asking? > If that's what you're saying, please clarify for > me what Being is, and how it identifies, and > with what it identifies. ....smoke coming from ears. > > > There is only the choiceless cohering of apparent > > > identity and choiceless dissolution of apparent > > > identity, as there is choiceless cohering of > > > apparent mind, and choiceless dissolution of > > > apparent mind. > > > > > > Who " choiclessly coheres? > > What makes you think there's a 'who' involved? > > Is not 'who' a word that refers to something > that coheres? > > If we are saying what coheres, dissolves -- a 'who' > would not be left as something that coheres. ....head burting into flames now. > In other words, your question is a logical error. > > If you understand that phenomena are the activity > of cohering/dissolving, you will observe > that to cohere is to dissolve. ....ashes > You will know this immediately, now, as the truth > of your being. No 'who' is involved in making > that happen, neither as something being it, or inside it. > > > > Between the apparent cohering and dissolution, > > > choices seemingly occur. > > > > To who? > > You seem really stuck on this conceptual error, > that behind anything that happens there must > be a 'who' to whom it happens. > > Nonsense. I disagree...repectfully.......; ^ D > Any 'who's' are cohering and dissolving, just > as other phenomena. > > > Such as how to > > > explain this or that, how to deal with > > > craving, the craving not to crave cravings, > > > and so on. > > > > > > Smiles to you, too, > > > > > > Dan > > > > > > ...and where does the Self fit in. WHO is happening, man?!! > > > > )))))))Shawn > > Shawn, there is no Self to fit into anything -- that is > only a concept, being held, which is activity of mind -- > mind being the attempt to hold concept. Dan, there IS the Self which is everybody's who. > Smiles upon ya, > Dan glass half full, )))))Shawn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 1, 2003 Report Share Posted August 1, 2003 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > Hi Shawn -- > > > > > Most " cravings " come from that identification with the mind, > > and > > > > would not arise without the identification. Yes? No? > > > > > > > > ))))Shawn > > > > > > Wanting an explanation of where things come from, > > > is a craving of the mind. Yes? No? > > > > > > Yes. > > Okay, so that craving is a phenomenon, it arises > and dissolves as phenomena do. > > Choicelessly, without explanation -- and none needed > or required. > > > > > > The mind invents the idea of identification, so > > > it can have something to ponder. > > > > The mind IS identifiation. > > Well, that is an idea held by mind, no? > > Without any ideas held, where is mind? > > It is not -- is that not so? > > So, mind is only the activity of holding > concept. Activity of what? > Is there something there which identifies or > doesn't identify? I think you and I are > agreeing, there isn't. Not " a something " -the Self. > So whether mind is identification, or whether > identification is a concept held by mind, > is a moot point, when mind is not. An apparent arising *from*.... > Identification is not as mind is not, we agree > on that -- and disidentification also is > not, as mind is not. Do we agree on that? temporarily.....; ^ ) > No identification, no disidentification -- they > are reciprocal concepts. ....eyes starting to cross.... > > > As there is no separable being, there is nothing > > > which can identify and disidentify. You are bringing in " seperable. " > > Is there Being at all? How an you deny it? > > I didn't say anything at all about Being. ....you implied it. > You are now bringing a concept you call Being into > this discussion. > > How does that concept relate? > > Are you saying that something you call Being is > that which identifies? Maybe...Who's asking? > If that's what you're saying, please clarify for > me what Being is, and how it identifies, and > with what it identifies. ....smoke coming from ears. > > > There is only the choiceless cohering of apparent > > > identity and choiceless dissolution of apparent > > > identity, as there is choiceless cohering of > > > apparent mind, and choiceless dissolution of > > > apparent mind. > > > > > > Who " choiclessly coheres? > > What makes you think there's a 'who' involved? > > Is not 'who' a word that refers to something > that coheres? > > If we are saying what coheres, dissolves -- a 'who' > would not be left as something that coheres. ....head burting into flames now. > In other words, your question is a logical error. > > If you understand that phenomena are the activity > of cohering/dissolving, you will observe > that to cohere is to dissolve. ....ashes > You will know this immediately, now, as the truth > of your being. No 'who' is involved in making > that happen, neither as something being it, or inside it. > > > > Between the apparent cohering and dissolution, > > > choices seemingly occur. > > > > To who? > > You seem really stuck on this conceptual error, > that behind anything that happens there must > be a 'who' to whom it happens. > > Nonsense. I disagree...repectfully.......; ^ D > Any 'who's' are cohering and dissolving, just > as other phenomena. > > > Such as how to > > > explain this or that, how to deal with > > > craving, the craving not to crave cravings, > > > and so on. > > > > > > Smiles to you, too, > > > > > > Dan > > > > > > ...and where does the Self fit in. WHO is happening, man?!! > > > > )))))))Shawn > > Shawn, there is no Self to fit into anything -- that is > only a concept, being held, which is activity of mind -- > mind being the attempt to hold concept. Dan, there IS the Self which is everybody's who. > Smiles upon ya, > Dan glass half full, )))))Shawn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 2, 2003 Report Share Posted August 2, 2003 Nisargadatta , " Shawn Hair " <shawn@w...> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " > <dan330033> wrote: > > Hi Shawn -- > > > > > > > Most " cravings " come from that identification with the > mind, > > > and > > > > > would not arise without the identification. Yes? No? > > > > > > > > > > ))))Shawn > > > > > > > > Wanting an explanation of where things come from, > > > > is a craving of the mind. Yes? No? > > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > Okay, so that craving is a phenomenon, it arises > > and dissolves as phenomena do. > > > > Choicelessly, without explanation -- and none needed > > or required. > > > > > > > > > The mind invents the idea of identification, so > > > > it can have something to ponder. > > > > > > The mind IS identifiation. > > > > Well, that is an idea held by mind, no? > > > > Without any ideas held, where is mind? > > > > It is not -- is that not so? > > > > So, mind is only the activity of holding > > concept. > > > Activity of what? You will understand when you can go beyond thinking in terms of things that cause other things to happen. > > Is there something there which identifies or > > doesn't identify? I think you and I are > > agreeing, there isn't. > > Not " a something " -the Self. What do you get from giving a label where no label applies? Self as opposed to other? Where is this other? If there is no other, then how could the label self pertain? What does self have to do with the nature of truth where no namer can exist separately to give a name? > > So whether mind is identification, or whether > > identification is a concept held by mind, > > is a moot point, when mind is not. > > An apparent arising *from*.... The perception that something is arising *from*, is also an arising. What if nothing is arising from anything, except when there is an analsysis in terms of causes and effects? If you don't make such an analysis, there's no from anything or movement toward anything. > > Identification is not as mind is not, we agree > > on that -- and disidentification also is > > not, as mind is not. Do we agree on that? > > temporarily.....; ^ ) Yes, anything said here is " temporarily. " Quite so. > > No identification, no disidentification -- they > > are reciprocal concepts. > > > ...eyes starting to cross.... Cool! > > > > > As there is no separable being, there is nothing > > > > which can identify and disidentify. > > You are bringing in " seperable. " True -- there's a saying that at the end of a ten thousand foot pole, one leaps into space. > > > Is there Being at all? How an you deny it? > > > > I didn't say anything at all about Being. > > ...you implied it. Not to me, I didn't. <s> > > You are now bringing a concept you call Being into > > this discussion. > > > > How does that concept relate? > > > > Are you saying that something you call Being is > > that which identifies? > > Maybe...Who's asking? I've left the kind of thinking behind that there must be a who to know, or a where that things take place, or an explanation for events. I can use those concepts when needed, but I don't take them as defining of truth. > > If that's what you're saying, please clarify for > > me what Being is, and how it identifies, and > > with what it identifies. > > > ...smoke coming from ears. Fire on the bridge! Fire on the bridge! > > > > There is only the choiceless cohering of apparent > > > > identity and choiceless dissolution of apparent > > > > identity, as there is choiceless cohering of > > > > apparent mind, and choiceless dissolution of > > > > apparent mind. > > > > > > > > > Who " choiclessly coheres? > > > > What makes you think there's a 'who' involved? > > > > Is not 'who' a word that refers to something > > that coheres? > > > > If we are saying what coheres, dissolves -- a 'who' > > would not be left as something that coheres. > > ...head burting into flames now. Fire's in the head, too, Captain! > > In other words, your question is a logical error. > > > > > > If you understand that phenomena are the activity > > of cohering/dissolving, you will observe > > that to cohere is to dissolve. > > ...ashes To ashes ... > > You will know this immediately, now, as the truth > > of your being. No 'who' is involved in making > > that happen, neither as something being it, or inside it. > > > > > > Between the apparent cohering and dissolution, > > > > choices seemingly occur. > > > > > > To who? > > > > You seem really stuck on this conceptual error, > > that behind anything that happens there must > > be a 'who' to whom it happens. > > > > Nonsense. > > > I disagree...repectfully.......; ^ D Well, " you " can appear to disagree, and " you " and " I " can discuss it. But that " you " and that " I " dissolve moment to moment -- there just won't be any commentary available to recognize that happening (or unhappening, if you'd like). > > Any 'who's' are cohering and dissolving, just > > as other phenomena. > > > > > Such as how to > > > > explain this or that, how to deal with > > > > craving, the craving not to crave cravings, > > > > and so on. > > > > > > > > Smiles to you, too, > > > > > > > > Dan > > > > > > > > > ...and where does the Self fit in. WHO is happening, man?!! > > > > > > )))))))Shawn > > > > Shawn, there is no Self to fit into anything -- that is > > only a concept, being held, which is activity of mind -- > > mind being the attempt to hold concept. > > Dan, there IS the Self which is everybody's who. Shawn -- I'd like to bring your attention to the fact that such a Self is a concept, and is an object. Saying it includes all the observers, doesn't take away the fact that you're observing it to be so, giving it a name, and commenting about it. That Self, dissolves, because it is conceptual, and depends on an observer to speak of it. And the observer dissolves when the observed dissolves. Each defines the other, observer and observed, they arise together, and so they dissolve together. No self or Self, or other, or Other remains. Please consider, the word Self is deceptive. There is no reason that the word Other wouldn't be just as good, and just as deceptive. > > Smiles upon ya, > > Dan > > glass half full, > > )))))Shawn Who is holding the glass? <<<Laughing>>> Sorry 'bout that, you set me up, dude -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 2, 2003 Report Share Posted August 2, 2003 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: <snip> > Well, " you " can appear to disagree, and > " you " and " I " can discuss it. > > But that " you " and that " I " dissolve > moment to moment -- there just > won't be any commentary available > to recognize that happening (or > unhappening, if you'd like). You and I are the Self, God, the IS, etc. > Shawn -- I'd like to bring your attention to the fact > that such a Self is a concept, and is an object. No, it is the Real. It is only a concept if you have not realised. > Saying it includes all the observers, doesn't take > away the fact that you're observing it to be so, > giving it a name, and commenting about it. All happens in the _______(insert word of choice.) > That Self, dissolves, because it is conceptual, > and depends on an observer to speak of it. > And the observer dissolves when the observed > dissolves. No, the " you " disolves. > Each defines the other, observer and observed, > they arise together, and so they dissolve > together. The observer and observed are in the Self. They needn't disolve. > No self or Self, or other, or Other remains. > > Please consider, the word Self is deceptive. Wait! You consider : " No other remains " > Who remains to say? > There is no reason that the word Other wouldn't > be just as good, and just as deceptive. No, *other* implies duality. The Self *is meant* to imply nonduality. You cannot assert your non-being. > > > Smiles upon ya, > > > Dan > > > > glass half full, > > > > )))))Shawn > > Who is holding the glass? > > <<<Laughing>>> > > Sorry 'bout that, you set me up, dude -- > Dan Yes........ " no one there " is the dissolution of limited and qualified identification, but in no way negates I AM. )))))))Shawn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 2, 2003 Report Share Posted August 2, 2003 - Parsa Nisargadatta Friday, August 01, 2003 10:31 PM Re: craving experience and teachings <SNIP> Though I would modify it slightly to read: one who has died to "who" one has never been becomes who he has always been which "IS". ---------- You cannot become what you already are. -------- <SNIP> > > The Being/Self is That which is beyond, and remains unaffected by > all > > the apparent comings and goings, births and deaths, coherent and > > dissolution. -------- Who notes this unaffection, in order to make the affirmation? ---- > > That statement is merely another phenomenal arising, another concept.Well as Ramana said, to remove a thorn in the foot, use another thorn but once done discard both thorns! ------ Well the dude in the diaper also prattled, there has been no creationing and no destructioning. Ever. Thus no thorning and no dethorning with another thorn. ------------- > > This is what Jesus meant when he said: before Abraham was, I AM! > > Why take that as an absolute truism?> > This being a Nisargadatta list -- he was one who pointed> to not taking I AM as one's final resting place.If you want to take that as an absolute truism it's your choice, I didn't say it was. Yet at the I AM stage one is not yet contaminated by multitude of concepts, I AM is simply the awareness of Being as in a two year old baby. ------- If a two year old baby was aware of awareness, wonder could it be a two year old baby? An infant is beingness...........AND........totally unaware of it. > > Jesus also said: "The foxes have their dens, and the> birds have their nests, but the son of ADAM has no place to rest> his head."He obviously meant Phenomenon is not the place for us to hang around for too long! -------- Any positing of anything apart form phenomenon, ........the need to posit can only arise within the gestalt of phenomenon, .......and thus is nothing but hoopla. Maybe exotically esoteric, ...........but still hoopla. It's like a dreamed-up character in your last night sleep dream, affirming to another character in the dream, that meditating on the "Who am I" for 20 years, ........it has realized and can definitely affirm,......that you have a red coloured nose. Awake, today morning, sipping from a cup of hot tea,.........you recall in amusement, .........the affirmation. Zip-A-Dee-Dah-Doo-Phat, the latest Anhat Nad, beat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 2, 2003 Report Share Posted August 2, 2003 Nisargadatta , " Shawn Hair " <shawn@w...> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " > <dan330033> wrote: > <snip> > > Well, " you " can appear to disagree, and > > " you " and " I " can discuss it. > > > > But that " you " and that " I " dissolve > > moment to moment -- there just > > won't be any commentary available > > to recognize that happening (or > > unhappening, if you'd like). > > > You and I are the Self, God, the IS, etc. > > > > Shawn -- I'd like to bring your attention to the fact > > that such a Self is a concept, and is an object. > > > No, it is the Real. It is only a concept if you have not realised. Anything you write here is your concept, same with my concepts presented here. > > Saying it includes all the observers, doesn't take > > away the fact that you're observing it to be so, > > giving it a name, and commenting about it. > > > All happens in the _______(insert word of choice.) The point is, Shawn, that there is this limit you hit when you realize that your entire reality and yourself, and any Self, God, Truth, Being, Consciousness, Is, ... whatever -- is conceptual, and is being held together as conceptuality. You don't get to get out of this, nor do I. A time-honored way to try to avoid getting out of this truth of the limits of conceptuality/phenomenality/experience, is to take concepts and experiences and enshrine them as if they represented truth beyond conceptuality -- concepts like God, Brahman, Self, and so on. All of that is an attempt to maintain an anchor in conceptuality, for the sake of the conceptualizer, the imagined separable thinker and experiencer. In other words, I'm protecting the being I think I have, by making certain concepts representative of something holy, sacred, special, ultimate, absolute -- and so I can keep going as the one who has these sacred concepts, and I can treat them like they are the ultimate, along with whatever experiences I generate around those concepts. > > That Self, dissolves, because it is conceptual, > > and depends on an observer to speak of it. > > And the observer dissolves when the observed > > dissolves. > > No, the " you " disolves. The dissolution in which self dissolves with the other. Why insist on a Self, which is an abstraction formulated by and for one's self? If there is full dissolution of " you " there is also, along with that, dissolution of everything which supports " you " which includes the entire edifice of conceptuality, its sacred concepts as well as its mundane concepts, the external world along with the internal world. > > Each defines the other, observer and observed, > > they arise together, and so they dissolve > > together. > > The observer and observed are in the Self. They needn't disolve. > > > No self or Self, or other, or Other remains. > > > > Please consider, the word Self is deceptive. > > > Wait! You consider : " No other remains " > Who remains to say? No one. That's why nothing being said here is the truth, why all of this talk is conceptual, and involves conceptual knowers, speakers, and listeners. > > There is no reason that the word Other wouldn't > > be just as good, and just as deceptive. > > > No, *other* implies duality. The Self *is meant* to imply > nonduality. Is that not equally dualistic? If you have a word that you say represents duality, and another word that represents nonduality, isn't all of that conceptual and dualistic? Is not any concept of nonduality just as conceptual and dual as any other concept? Isn't the prizing of something you are calling nonduality, and the diminishing of something you are calling duality, dualistic? Wouldn't nonduality, not as a concept, be beyond the reach of anything we say, think, emote, explain, experience? And how could trying to get out of, or get rid of, or get beyond " duality " be anything other than dualistic? Wouldn't this truth only be understood, when there is no concern at all about nonduality vs. duality, ultimacy vs. relativity? > You cannot assert your non-being. I agree. What can't be asserted hasn't been asserted. Words don't take away from that, and they don't point to it. Neither does anything else. > > > > > Smiles upon ya, > > > > Dan > > > > > > glass half full, > > > > > > )))))Shawn > > > > Who is holding the glass? > > > > <<<Laughing>>> > > > > Sorry 'bout that, you set me up, dude -- > > Dan > > Yes........ " no one there " is the dissolution of limited and qualified > identification, but in no way negates I AM. I AM NOT negates I AM, becuase it is a concept that has been capitalized. And it doesn't matter if you capitalize it. Any concept is negated by an antithetical concept. It's clear to me that realizing the limitations of words, concepts, the speaker, the conceptualizer, is possible, whereas to represent the unrepresentable with an image or a concept is not possible. There is no way to represent that which is never re-presented! Love to ya, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 2, 2003 Report Share Posted August 2, 2003 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: snip> > I AM NOT negates I AM, becuase it is a concept > that has been capitalized. > > And it doesn't matter if you capitalize it. > > Any concept is negated by an antithetical > concept. Only *in concept* Dan. In Reality " I AM NOT " is nonsense. > It's clear to me that realizing the limitations > of words, concepts, the speaker, the conceptualizer, > is possible, whereas to represent the unrepresentable > with an image or a concept is not possible. > > There is no way to represent that which is never > re-presented! > > Love to ya, > Dan Love to you also Danji. You are a great representation! )))))Shawn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 2, 2003 Report Share Posted August 2, 2003 Nisargadatta , " Shawn Hair " <shawn@w...> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " > <dan330033> wrote: > snip> > > I AM NOT negates I AM, becuase it is a concept > > that has been capitalized. > > > > And it doesn't matter if you capitalize it. > > > > Any concept is negated by an antithetical > > concept. > > Only *in concept* Dan. In Reality " I AM NOT " is nonsense. O.K. Shawn. But then, so is I AM. Look at it this way: if there is no negation, there is no way to affirm anything. If there is nowhere one is not, there is no one to communicate to, no way to get a sense of being or existing, and nothing to feel or know. > > It's clear to me that realizing the limitations > > of words, concepts, the speaker, the conceptualizer, > > is possible, whereas to represent the unrepresentable > > with an image or a concept is not possible. > > > > There is no way to represent that which is never > > re-presented! > > > > Love to ya, > > Dan > > > Love to you also Danji. You are a great representation! > > )))))Shawn Quite so. Everything said here is a representation, as are all the contributers. The non-re-presentable, meanwhile, remains all that is. Funny isn't it, Shawn? Thanks for your smiles. Joy to the world -- all the boys, girls, and bullfrogs, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 2, 2003 Report Share Posted August 2, 2003 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " Shawn Hair " <shawn@w...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " > > <dan330033> wrote: > > snip> > > > I AM NOT negates I AM, becuase it is a concept > > > that has been capitalized. > > > > > > And it doesn't matter if you capitalize it. > > > > > > Any concept is negated by an antithetical > > > concept. > > > > Only *in concept* Dan. In Reality " I AM NOT " is nonsense. > > O.K. Shawn. But then, so is I AM. > > Look at it this way: if there is no negation, there > is no way to affirm anything. If there is nowhere > one is not, there is no one to communicate to, > no way to get a sense of being or existing, > and nothing to feel or know. Being is its own affirmation. It is beyond relative knowledge. > > > It's clear to me that realizing the limitations > > > of words, concepts, the speaker, the conceptualizer, > > > is possible, whereas to represent the unrepresentable > > > with an image or a concept is not possible. > > > > > > There is no way to represent that which is never > > > re-presented! > > > > > > Love to ya, > > > Dan > > > > > > Love to you also Danji. You are a great representation! > > > > )))))Shawn > > Quite so. Everything said here is a representation, > as are all the contributers. > > The non-re-presentable, meanwhile, remains all that is. > > Funny isn't it, Shawn? > > Thanks for your smiles. > > Joy to the world -- all the boys, girls, and bullfrogs, > Dan Jerimiah, is that you? pass me some wine....... )))))))))Shawn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 3, 2003 Report Share Posted August 3, 2003 I-Am-Not Show me where the nonsense is Shawn. This gets into " preformative speech " . For example when in a marriage ceremony someone says " I do " . That is performative speech. " I do " is not a description in that case. The ordinary laws of logic do not apply. Nonsense is a logical notion, so re performative speech the qualification " nonsense " does not apply. The expression that is the first line of this message is the manifestation of a " speech act " , not a statement. To say " I Am " makes absolutely no sense. But saying I-Am-Not resonates deep deep deep...... So in the context of this message, as it is being spilled onto the screen at this " seeming moment in time " ... I-AM-Not Bill dan330033 [dan330033] Saturday, August 02, 2003 9:44 AM Nisargadatta Re: craving experience and teachings Nisargadatta , " Shawn Hair " <shawn@w...> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " > <dan330033> wrote: > snip> > > I AM NOT negates I AM, becuase it is a concept > > that has been capitalized. > > > > And it doesn't matter if you capitalize it. > > > > Any concept is negated by an antithetical > > concept. > > Only *in concept* Dan. In Reality " I AM NOT " is nonsense. O.K. Shawn. But then, so is I AM. Look at it this way: if there is no negation, there is no way to affirm anything. If there is nowhere one is not, there is no one to communicate to, no way to get a sense of being or existing, and nothing to feel or know. > > It's clear to me that realizing the limitations > > of words, concepts, the speaker, the conceptualizer, > > is possible, whereas to represent the unrepresentable > > with an image or a concept is not possible. > > > > There is no way to represent that which is never > > re-presented! > > > > Love to ya, > > Dan > > > Love to you also Danji. You are a great representation! > > )))))Shawn Quite so. Everything said here is a representation, as are all the contributers. The non-re-presentable, meanwhile, remains all that is. Funny isn't it, Shawn? Thanks for your smiles. Joy to the world -- all the boys, girls, and bullfrogs, Dan ** If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: /mygroups?edit=1 Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 3, 2003 Report Share Posted August 3, 2003 Nisargadatta , " Shawn Hair " <shawn@w...> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " > <dan330033> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Shawn Hair " > <shawn@w...> wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " > > > <dan330033> wrote: > > > snip> > > > > I AM NOT negates I AM, becuase it is a concept > > > > that has been capitalized. > > > > > > > > And it doesn't matter if you capitalize it. > > > > > > > > Any concept is negated by an antithetical > > > > concept. > > > > > > Only *in concept* Dan. In Reality " I AM NOT " is nonsense. > > > > O.K. Shawn. But then, so is I AM. > > > > Look at it this way: if there is no negation, there > > is no way to affirm anything. If there is nowhere > > one is not, there is no one to communicate to, > > no way to get a sense of being or existing, > > and nothing to feel or know. > > > > Being is its own affirmation. It is beyond relative knowledge. What you just said, Shawn, is a relative statement made by a relative being. The statement passes and dissolves, as does the one who stated it, and the ones reading it. The claim of the statement to represent or impart something absolute is fictional -- apart from the desires of relative beings to know or be something absolute, which they invent for themselves conceptually -- there is nothing to it. > > > > It's clear to me that realizing the limitations > > > > of words, concepts, the speaker, the conceptualizer, > > > > is possible, whereas to represent the unrepresentable > > > > with an image or a concept is not possible. > > > > > > > > There is no way to represent that which is never > > > > re-presented! > > > > > > > > Love to ya, > > > > Dan > > > > > > > > > Love to you also Danji. You are a great representation! > > > > > > )))))Shawn > > > > Quite so. Everything said here is a representation, > > as are all the contributers. > > > > The non-re-presentable, meanwhile, remains all that is. > > > > Funny isn't it, Shawn? > > > > Thanks for your smiles. > > > > Joy to the world -- all the boys, girls, and bullfrogs, > > Dan > > Jerimiah, is that you? Yup, dat be me! > > pass me some wine....... No shortage. It's a good year for grapes in this swamp! Ribbit, Jeremiah Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 3, 2003 Report Share Posted August 3, 2003 Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote: > I-Am-Not > > Show me where the nonsense is Shawn. > > This gets into " preformative speech " . > > For example when in a marriage ceremony > someone says " I do " . That is performative > speech. > > " I do " is not a description in that case. > The ordinary laws of logic do not apply. > > Nonsense is a logical notion, so re performative > speech the qualification " nonsense " does not > apply. > > The expression that is the first line of this > message is the manifestation of a " speech act " , > not a statement. > > To say " I Am " makes absolutely no sense. > > But saying I-Am-Not resonates deep deep deep...... > > So in the context of this message, as it is > being spilled onto the screen at this " seeming > moment in time " ... > > I-AM-Not > > Bill > > Words must be used like stepping stones: lightly and > > with nimbleness, > > because if you step on them too heavily, you incur > > the danger of falling > > into the intellectual mire of logic and reason. - > > Balsekar ))))))) Shawn 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.