Guest guest Posted August 8, 2003 Report Share Posted August 8, 2003 Nisargadatta , " Shawn Hair " <shawn@w...> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " josesiem " > <josesiem> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Shawn Hair " > <shawn@w...> wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " josesiem " > > > > No problems -- easy to say and talk about -- just like the > > > imaginary > > > > I, which although imaginary, must still defend its viewpoint. > > > > > > > > No problems -- until the cat pisses on the couch again. Or > until > > > > traffic is backed up on the 5, until my wife cheats on me -- > > > these > > > > little nondual nuggets of quasi-wisdom only take one so > far. > > > > > > > > No problems -- sure > > > > yet problems there are. > > > > > > > > Pissing the night away, > > > > Joe > > > > > > > > > Dear Joe, > > > > > > The " everything is fine " statements are of a non-dual, > ultimate > > > unspeakable " view " ...They are meant to relax you and pique > your > > > interest. You must find out for yourself if this is so. > > > > > > You cannot investigate or " be still " if you are running around > with > > > your head cut off. So first, you relax alittle and then you look. > > > Who is upset that the cat pissed? You wish you didn't have to > > > clean it. You have other things you'd like to do. You're stuck in > > > traffic and you wish you weren't. I'ts not perfect, is it? > > > > > > When you are deep asleep, where are the problems? And > yet > > > the same you exists in sleep and is here now. What has > > > changed and brought the problems? > > > The mind has entered and you believe you *are* the mind > and > > > the body. But in sleep you are there without mind and body. > > > > > > Advaita is about understanding and not about making > everything > > > perfect, the way you want it. It is about changing your > > perspective, > > > your attitude, and finding out who is this one you identify with. > > > > > > Ultimately, it is about breaking the limiting identification with > > the > > > body and realising who you really are. You are having > problems? > > > So what? You are not " having " problems. They happen > before > > > you and the " you " wants something else. > > > > > > This isn't to be believed in. It is to be directly investigated. > > > > > > Peace, > > > > > > ))))))Shawn > > > > Shawn, > > > > Thanks, yes this is all very clear to me. > > > > I know there are ultimately no problems. > > > > I am referring to a tendency in the advaita crowd to dismiss > things > > intellectually. " There are no problems " , for example -- yes, fine, > > true. But do one's actions reflect this " no problems " statement? > Or > > are there areas of one's life that one avoids, because it's too > > difficult to look into? > > > > Because it's bunk to say there are no problems and no 'me' to > look > > into and yet one cannot get on with one's spouse and > co-workers. > > There needs to be a deepening, obviously, right. Otherwise it's > > covering, a philosophical stance, an avoidance tactic. > > > > Part of the path is dealing directly with what is, and that what is > > often manifests as anger, disappointment, etc. This needs to > be gone > > through, not over or around -- and when I hear " There are no > > problems " I hear someone going around. > > > > See ya, > > Joe > > Dear Joe, > You presume that. Why worry about somebody else? It is true, > there are lots of people on these groups who understand > brilliantly and have great intellects and yet it is so obvious they > have not " taken it to the bank. " They can describe the interior as > no interior and so forth, but there is lacking a profound love and > ability to move smoothly through life. Their attitude seems angry > and uncaring. Don't worry about them. They are trouble. They > only wish to argue and support themselves. They are still > trapped in the mind and now have merely added this advaita > crap to their reportiore. When " you " disappear there is a profound > Love and if it is not evident, it is probably because they have NOT > dissappeared as they say. > > This is called the " talking school " . It is rubbish. It is all God or > whatever in the ultimate sense, but that is not helpful to one still > looking as I am. I am not rid of this notion that I am the body, but I > am hopeful and can see readily those who pretend. The Self > recognises the Self. > > )))))))Shawn Hi Shawn -- It seems to me from what you say that you have heard someone, certainly Nis, and maybe some others say " you are not the body, " or " I know who I am, and I am not the body, " and things like that. So, you imagine there must be some state of knowing oneself and not being the body, and you compare that with your present experience, which includes a concept of being a body, bodily feelings and wants, and you say, " I am not there, where they are, when they said they are not the body. " This is how I interpret what you say. If that is what's going on, I must share with you that I experience that kind of process as self-limiting, even as a kind of violence against oneself -- in which one places the words and ideas attributed to others, and the assumed experiences of the ones who said that, and use that to demean or diminish one's present experience and being as it is. Let me say this in terms of me, instead of you. What would it be like for me to release any imputation I am making about what someone else might have meant or might have been experiencing, to release any idealization of another's state? And what if I go into my own experience now as it is, and see how that is happening and what that is about? Okay, I have bodily feelings. I can check those out. When I check those out, where am I? Am I somewhere located in the body, or outside of the body? No, I can't say that I find myself one place, and the body another place. So, the concept of " I " in here or somewhere else, and the body over there, doesn't hold. That concept goes, it's untenable. When I say that I experience bodily feelings and sensations, what does that mean? Do I experience nonbodily feelings and sensations? How could that happen? Doesn't any feeling or sensation imply some kind of body? So, the concept body doesn't really hold any value as a way of conceptualizing experience, so " body " goes as a concept that holds any real value (outside of day to day conversations that refer to bodies, which share a conventional understanding that is socially constructed). So, in my immediate, direct experience, exactly as it is, the concepts " I " and " the body " don't really convey any useful information. Is it possible that my present direct experience, this moment, as is, has nothing at all to do with concepts that have widespread social utilization, such as " I " and " my body " ? I would say, yes, this is so. My immediate direct experience, now, isn't of a " me " or an " I " nor " a body " nor is it in any way something other than a body, or a Self that is not-a-body. There's no reason to hypnotize myself with statements made by others. In fact, is that not another one of those concepts that don't really apply to my immediate experience, the concept of " other " ? Am I in any way experiencing " an other " ? How could I? I would have to somehow go outside of my experience to know that an other has a separate existence apart from my experience -- and I have no way to do that, never have, never will. So, here is this present experience, now, without an " I " a " body, " something else other than a body, nor an " other. " It's not in any way a describable or conceptual experience, is it? Even the word " experience " doesn't convey any useful information. It just is as it is. Beyond words, " me, " or " you, " right now, just as it is. Yes, and with all these so-called " bodily feelings and perceptions " -- which aren't really describable or locatable -- until one engages in social interactions which require descriptions to be given and placements to be made and personalities to be assigned and attributed. Peace, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2003 Report Share Posted August 9, 2003 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " Shawn Hair " <shawn@w...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " josesiem " > > <josesiem> wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " Shawn Hair " > > <shawn@w...> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " josesiem " > > > > > No problems -- easy to say and talk about -- just like the > > > > imaginary > > > > > I, which although imaginary, must still defend its viewpoint. > > > > > > > > > > No problems -- until the cat pisses on the couch again. Or > > until > > > > > traffic is backed up on the 5, until my wife cheats on me -- > > > > these > > > > > little nondual nuggets of quasi-wisdom only take one so > > far. > > > > > > > > > > No problems -- sure > > > > > yet problems there are. > > > > > > > > > > Pissing the night away, > > > > > Joe > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Joe, > > > > > > > > The " everything is fine " statements are of a non-dual, > > ultimate > > > > unspeakable " view " ...They are meant to relax you and pique > > your > > > > interest. You must find out for yourself if this is so. > > > > > > > > You cannot investigate or " be still " if you are running around > > with > > > > your head cut off. So first, you relax alittle and then you > look. > > > > Who is upset that the cat pissed? You wish you didn't have to > > > > clean it. You have other things you'd like to do. You're stuck > in > > > > traffic and you wish you weren't. I'ts not perfect, is it? > > > > > > > > When you are deep asleep, where are the problems? And > > yet > > > > the same you exists in sleep and is here now. What has > > > > changed and brought the problems? > > > > The mind has entered and you believe you *are* the mind > > and > > > > the body. But in sleep you are there without mind and body. > > > > > > > > Advaita is about understanding and not about making > > everything > > > > perfect, the way you want it. It is about changing your > > > perspective, > > > > your attitude, and finding out who is this one you identify > with. > > > > > > > > Ultimately, it is about breaking the limiting identification > with > > > the > > > > body and realising who you really are. You are having > > problems? > > > > So what? You are not " having " problems. They happen > > before > > > > you and the " you " wants something else. > > > > > > > > This isn't to be believed in. It is to be directly investigated. > > > > > > > > Peace, > > > > > > > > ))))))Shawn > > > > > > Shawn, > > > > > > Thanks, yes this is all very clear to me. > > > > > > I know there are ultimately no problems. > > > > > > I am referring to a tendency in the advaita crowd to dismiss > > things > > > intellectually. " There are no problems " , for example -- yes, > fine, > > > true. But do one's actions reflect this " no problems " statement? > > Or > > > are there areas of one's life that one avoids, because it's too > > > difficult to look into? > > > > > > Because it's bunk to say there are no problems and no 'me' to > > look > > > into and yet one cannot get on with one's spouse and > > co-workers. > > > There needs to be a deepening, obviously, right. Otherwise it's > > > covering, a philosophical stance, an avoidance tactic. > > > > > > Part of the path is dealing directly with what is, and that what > is > > > often manifests as anger, disappointment, etc. This needs to > > be gone > > > through, not over or around -- and when I hear " There are no > > > problems " I hear someone going around. > > > > > > See ya, > > > Joe > > > > Dear Joe, > > You presume that. Why worry about somebody else? It is true, > > there are lots of people on these groups who understand > > brilliantly and have great intellects and yet it is so obvious they > > have not " taken it to the bank. " They can describe the interior as > > no interior and so forth, but there is lacking a profound love and > > ability to move smoothly through life. Their attitude seems angry > > and uncaring. Don't worry about them. They are trouble. They > > only wish to argue and support themselves. They are still > > trapped in the mind and now have merely added this advaita > > crap to their reportiore. When " you " disappear there is a profound > > Love and if it is not evident, it is probably because they have NOT > > dissappeared as they say. > > > > This is called the " talking school " . It is rubbish. It is all God > or > > whatever in the ultimate sense, but that is not helpful to one > still > > looking as I am. I am not rid of this notion that I am the body, > but I > > am hopeful and can see readily those who pretend. The Self > > recognises the Self. > > > > )))))))Shawn > > Hi Shawn -- > > It seems to me from what you say that you have heard someone, > certainly Nis, and maybe some others say " you are not the body, " or > " I know who I am, and I am not the body, " and things like that. > > So, you imagine there must be some state of knowing oneself > and not being the body, and you compare that with > your present experience, which includes a concept of being > a body, bodily feelings and wants, and you say, " I am not > there, where they are, when they said they are not the body. " > > This is how I interpret what you say. Pretty good so far... not right on the money but pretty good. > If that is what's going on, I must share with you that I experience > that kind of process as self-limiting, LOL even as a kind of > violence against oneself -- in which one places the words > and ideas attributed to others, and the assumed experiences > of the ones who said that, and use that to demean or diminish > one's present experience and being as it is. > > Let me say this in terms of me, instead of you. > > What would it be like for me to release any imputation I am > making about what someone else might have meant or might > have been experiencing, to release any idealization of > another's state? You want me to imagine what this would be like for you? lol > And what if I go into my own experience now as it is, and see > how that is happening and what that is about? yes, frees one up a bit. > Okay, I have bodily feelings. I can check those out. > > When I check those out, where am I? Am I somewhere located > in the body, or outside of the body? > > No, I can't say that I find myself one place, and the body > another place. > > So, the concept of " I " in here or somewhere else, and > the body over there, doesn't hold. If I am aware of the body, then the body is object. > That concept goes, it's untenable. Not yet! :-) > When I say that I experience bodily feelings and sensations, > what does that mean? Do I experience nonbodily feelings > and sensations? How could that happen? Doesn't any > feeling or sensation imply some kind of body? I feel and experience nonbodily sensations in my dreams. The feeling af awareness itself is not a sensation seperate from itself and has no limits or lines of demarcation. Yet this exists without doubt. > So, the concept body doesn't really hold any value as a way > of conceptualizing experience, so " body " goes as a concept > that holds any real value (outside of day to day conversations > that refer to bodies, which share a conventional understanding > that is socially constructed). > > So, in my immediate, direct experience, exactly as it is, > the concepts " I " and " the body " don't really convey any > useful information. On the contrary, Dan, it seems to me that those concepts ONLY hold " useful " information. > Is it possible that my present direct experience, this moment, > as is, has nothing at all to do with concepts that have > widespread social utilization, such as " I " and " my body " ? > > I would say, yes, this is so. ....and you did! > My immediate direct experience, now, isn't of a " me " or an " I " > nor " a body " nor is it in any way something other than > a body, or a Self that is not-a-body. Smoke coming from ears again.... > There's no reason to hypnotize myself with statements made > by others. I object, your honor, he is drawing inferences! > In fact, is that not another one of those concepts that > don't really apply to my immediate experience, the concept > of " other " ? Leading the witness! > Am I in any way experiencing " an other " ? > > How could I? beats me, but shit happens! > I would have to somehow go outside of my experience to > know that an other has a separate existence apart from > my experience -- and I have no way to do that, never > have, never will. > > So, here is this present experience, now, without an > " I " a " body, " something else other than a body, nor > an " other. " > > It's not in any way a describable or conceptual experience, > is it? you lost me bud. > Even the word " experience " doesn't convey any useful information. > > It just is as it is. > > Beyond words, " me, " or " you, " right now, just as it is. > > Yes, and with all these so-called " bodily feelings and perceptions " -- > which aren't really describable or locatable -- until > one engages in social interactions which require > descriptions to be given and placements to be made > and personalities to be assigned and attributed. > > Peace, > Dan Yes and peace to all beings outside of my experience. ;-) )))))Shawn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2003 Report Share Posted August 9, 2003 Hi Shawn -- snipping lots of verbiage > > I would have to somehow go outside of my experience to > > know that an other has a separate existence apart from > > my experience -- and I have no way to do that, never > > have, never will. > > > > So, here is this present experience, now, without an > > " I " a " body, " something else other than a body, nor > > an " other. " > > > > It's not in any way a describable or conceptual experience, > > is it? > > you lost me bud. I am not experiencing my body or a body. Sensations are arising as experience which I have learned to refer to as " bodily " -- purely a learned conceptuality. There isn't any subject apart from this experiencing, hence no objects to which a subject could exist in relation, neither a separable body nor other objects. The only objects are conceptuality which has been learned in order to communicate, which assumes subjects. In fact, there is no location for this present experience, except in terms of learned conceptual forms of communication which assume subjects and objects in locations that have relationships with one another. > > Peace, > > Dan > > Yes and peace to all beings outside of my experience. ;-) > )))))Shawn There aren't any that you or I could know of, as present experience doesn't hold a you or an I to which they could be outside. My present experience being nonlocated, is a moment to moment expression of that which is beyond experience or thought. Happy days, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2003 Report Share Posted August 9, 2003 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > Hi Shawn -- > > snipping lots of verbiage > > > > I would have to somehow go outside of my experience to > > > know that an other has a separate existence apart from > > > my experience -- and I have no way to do that, never > > > have, never will. > > > > > > So, here is this present experience, now, without an > > > " I " a " body, " something else other than a body, nor > > > an " other. " > > > > > > It's not in any way a describable or conceptual experience, > > > is it? > > > > you lost me bud. > > I am not experiencing my body or a body. > > Sensations are arising as experience which I have > learned to refer to as " bodily " -- purely a learned > conceptuality. Who has learned? Whether or not you unlearn the word and concept, the " sensations " are there because of the " body " whatever you choose to call it. Who gathers the impressions and formulates an understanding? Sensations arise where? to whom? in what? > There isn't any subject apart from this experiencing, > hence no objects to which a subject could exist in > relation, neither a separable body nor other objects. How can there be " experiencing " without a subject to experience and objects to be related to? Isn't this what maks up experience? > The only objects are conceptuality which has been learned in order > to communicate, which assumes subjects. Where does a concept come from? How can concepts arise. What IS a word? > In fact, there is no location for this present experience, > except in terms of learned conceptual forms of communication > which assume subjects and objects in locations that > have relationships with one another. ahhhh, but can't you simply say the present experience is here? > > > Peace, > > > Dan > > > > Yes and peace to all beings outside of my experience. ;-) > > )))))Shawn > > There aren't any that you or I could know of, as present > experience doesn't hold a you or an I to which they > could be outside. Isn't this a concept? Love you bud, )))))Shawn > My present experience being nonlocated, is a moment to > moment expression of that which is beyond experience > or thought. > > Happy days, > Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 10, 2003 Report Share Posted August 10, 2003 Hi Shawn -- > > > > > > you lost me bud. > > > > I am not experiencing my body or a body. > > > > Sensations are arising as experience which I have > > learned to refer to as " bodily " -- purely a learned > > conceptuality. > > > Who has learned? The idea of " who, " of " identity " also is learned. > > Whether or not you unlearn the word and concept, the > " sensations " are there because of the " body " whatever you > choose to call it. " Because of " is learned, causality is conceptuality. > Who gathers the impressions and formulates an > understanding? Sensations arise where? to whom? in what? Find this out directly, beyond words, concepts, or the memory structures which are the past. > > There isn't any subject apart from this experiencing, > > hence no objects to which a subject could exist in > > relation, neither a separable body nor other objects. > > How can there be " experiencing " without a subject to experience > and objects to be related to? Isn't this what maks up experience? Experience constitutes causelessly, without motive -- and as experience constitutes, the subject is placed in a relation to the object -- as memory structures formulate, experience is taken as if an object of a subject. Yet, the subject for which experience seemingly becomes an object, is itself appearing only with experiencing. > > The only objects are conceptuality which has been learned in > order > > to communicate, which assumes subjects. > > Where does a concept come from? How can concepts arise. > What IS a word? Concept arises from the nonconceptual, which never arises. Experience, which is associated and intertwined with concept, arises from that which is beyond experiential reality, or verification. The nonconceptual, transexperiential, can't be talked about, for obvious reasons. And clearly, " this " has nothing to do with the concept of something that is outside of, or beyond conceptual reality -- the idea of " beyond " being just another concept. > > In fact, there is no location for this present experience, > > except in terms of learned conceptual forms of > communication > > which assume subjects and objects in locations that > > have relationships with one another. > > ahhhh, but can't you simply say the present experience is here? Whatever you say, is the speech that is constituted as this moment arises, experientially. What can't be said, has never been said. There's no right way to say it. > > > > Peace, > > > > Dan > > > > > > Yes and peace to all beings outside of my experience. ;-) > > > )))))Shawn > > > > There aren't any that you or I could know of, as present > > experience doesn't hold a you or an I to which they > > could be outside. > > Isn't this a concept? Well, duh! Anything written is conceptual by definition! > Love you bud, And love to you, Shawn Hair, Dan > )))))Shawn > > My present experience being nonlocated, is a moment to > > moment expression of that which is beyond experience > > or thought. > > > > Happy days, > > Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.