Guest guest Posted August 11, 2003 Report Share Posted August 11, 2003 'Subjectivity', as a word, or a thought, is an object. Using it is creating an object in order to describe that which is not an object. 'Subjectivity' should never be thought of as any thing. If it is thought of it should be regarded simply as the resolution of the duality subject-object, & be left nameless. The resolution of every duality is nameless & is that. For no non-duality can be a thing or an object. Once understood, it should not be thought of at all, nor sought, nor 'looked' at, for it is that 'We' which we, as we, can never see. As a word it is only a pointing finger, rather the pointing of a finger, not a finger pointing at anything or at nothing.' - Wei Wu Wei Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2003 Report Share Posted August 11, 2003 Nisargadatta , " s_u_b_j_e_c_t_i_v_i_t_y " <infinite_mirror> wrote: > 'Subjectivity', as a word, or a thought, is an object. Using it is > creating an object in order to describe that which is not an > object. 'Subjectivity' should never be thought of as any thing. If it > is thought of it should be regarded simply as the resolution of the > duality subject-object, & be left nameless. The resolution of every > duality is nameless & is that. For no non-duality can be a thing or > an object. Once understood, it should not be thought of at all, nor > sought, nor 'looked' at, for it is that 'We' which we, as we, can > never see. As a word it is only a pointing finger, rather the > pointing of a finger, not a finger pointing at anything or at > nothing.' - Wei Wu Wei Yes, that's a nice one. So -- What is, before there is a finger, or any thought of pointing -- or being pointed to? Before there is the concept of before and after? Not to give this a name, but to know that this has never been changed by a concept arising, not even concepts such as " I am " " pointing to truth " " Consciousness " " interdependent co-origination " or " before and after. " Peace, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2003 Report Share Posted August 11, 2003 << What is, before there is a finger, or any thought of pointing -- or being pointed to? Before there is the concept of before and after? >> Why a " before " ? Never a before. It is always the same. Clarity and confusion have always been " mixed " . Primordiality and the " ten thousand things " have always co-existed. There is no " Before there is the concept of before and after " . << Not to give this a name, but to know that this has never been changed by a concept arising, not even concepts such as " I am " " pointing to truth " " Consciousness " " interdependent co-origination " or " before and after. " >> What could be changed if it is always the same? Peace and non-Peace, -Bill dan330033 [dan330033] Monday, August 11, 2003 10:54 AM Nisargadatta Re: supposition of subjectivity Nisargadatta , " s_u_b_j_e_c_t_i_v_i_t_y " <infinite_mirror> wrote: > 'Subjectivity', as a word, or a thought, is an object. Using it is > creating an object in order to describe that which is not an > object. 'Subjectivity' should never be thought of as any thing. If it > is thought of it should be regarded simply as the resolution of the > duality subject-object, & be left nameless. The resolution of every > duality is nameless & is that. For no non-duality can be a thing or > an object. Once understood, it should not be thought of at all, nor > sought, nor 'looked' at, for it is that 'We' which we, as we, can > never see. As a word it is only a pointing finger, rather the > pointing of a finger, not a finger pointing at anything or at > nothing.' - Wei Wu Wei Yes, that's a nice one. So -- What is, before there is a finger, or any thought of pointing -- or being pointed to? Before there is the concept of before and after? Not to give this a name, but to know that this has never been changed by a concept arising, not even concepts such as " I am " " pointing to truth " " Consciousness " " interdependent co-origination " or " before and after. " Peace, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2003 Report Share Posted August 11, 2003 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " s_u_b_j_e_c_t_i_v_i_t_y " > <infinite_mirror> wrote: > > 'Subjectivity', as a word, or a thought, is an object. Using it is > > creating an object in order to describe that which is not an > > object. 'Subjectivity' should never be thought of as any thing. If > it > > is thought of it should be regarded simply as the resolution of the > > duality subject-object, & be left nameless. The resolution of every > > duality is nameless & is that. For no non-duality can be a thing or > > an object. Once understood, it should not be thought of at all, nor > > sought, nor 'looked' at, for it is that 'We' which we, as we, can > > never see. As a word it is only a pointing finger, rather the > > pointing of a finger, not a finger pointing at anything or at > > nothing.' - Wei Wu Wei > > Yes, that's a nice one. > > So -- > > What is, before there is a finger, or any thought > of pointing -- or being pointed to? > > Before there is the concept of before and after? > > Not to give this a name, but to know that this has > never been changed by a concept arising, not even > concepts such as " I am " " pointing to truth " " Consciousness " > " interdependent co-origination " or " before and after. " > > Peace, > Dan Dan, There is no 'see-er' nor anything seen, only a 'seeing'. Subjectivity is void, there is no 'see-er' nor anything 'seen', There is nought but the 'Void', which in the sage Han Shan's demonstration of the Heart Sutra is called the 'Void Of Prajna' who stated that it was the intention of the Buddha to make it clear that 'Prajna' was the subject. 'It follows that the 'Void' is 'Subject' & 'Subject' is the 'Void'. When looked at of course, & since there is no one to else to look- looked at by itself.' - Wu Wei Wu. The Void is simply what 'subjectivity' cannot see as it cannot see itself. There is no one to see, no-thing seen, only a 'seeing', & that has been 'indicated' in various teachings, are only'indications' of that which cannot be defined, 'Pure Awareness', 'Mind', 'Pure Consciousness' & so-forth, though of course names inply an object, but these 'indications' are intended to be 'indications' only, objective of course when 'regarded', for in regarding one objectifies. Subjectivity, as with any word or thought or thing when 'regarded' is of course, an object. But Wei Wu Wei has made it plain in his writings (I don't think you have read any of his writings & should before making any premature conclusions as to his meanings) that subjectivity in this sense is not to be regarded as anything whatsoever, only an 'indication' of that which cannot be defined, expressed, as that which 'IS' cannot be expressed as the object of a subject. 'Pure Seeing', subjectivity functioning, is subjectivity looking at itself, which is why form is seen as void by the unenlightened who are looking in the correct direction. No thing is then seen, which is called 'void'. Form & void are one. Form is void & void is form. Subjectivity, (function) looking at itself (principal) & all that is seen is void. (An eye looking at itself could never see anything.' - Wei Wu Wei) There is only a 'seeing'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 12, 2003 Report Share Posted August 12, 2003 Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote: > << > What is, before there is a finger, or any thought > of pointing -- or being pointed to? > > Before there is the concept of before and after? > >> > Why a " before " ? > Never a before. > It is always the same. It's never the same, nor different, Bill, and has no before it or after it. Before before-and-after has nothing to do with with something past. Don't lose sleep waiting for the right word. > > Clarity and confusion have always been " mixed " . > Primordiality and the " ten thousand things " have > always co-existed. There is no always, no time, no before, no after. Thus, there is no negation, nor anything to be negated. > There is no " Before there is the concept of before and after " . Duh! Mr. Poetry Man suddenly got too literal? Okay, take off your boots and run your toes through the mud. > << > Not to give this a name, but to know that this has > never been changed by a concept arising, not even > concepts such as " I am " " pointing to truth " " Consciousness " > " interdependent co-origination " or " before and after. " > >> > What could be changed if it is always the same? It is " change " Mr. Poetry Man -- otherwise you couldn't be posting here. > Peace and non-Peace, Okay. Have a peace of pizza, it's tastier when it's not nonpizza. Love, Dan > -Bill > > > dan330033 [dan330033] > Monday, August 11, 2003 10:54 AM > Nisargadatta > Re: supposition of subjectivity > > > Nisargadatta , " s_u_b_j_e_c_t_i_v_i_t_y " > <infinite_mirror> wrote: > > 'Subjectivity', as a word, or a thought, is an object. Using it is > > creating an object in order to describe that which is not an > > object. 'Subjectivity' should never be thought of as any thing. If > it > > is thought of it should be regarded simply as the resolution of the > > duality subject-object, & be left nameless. The resolution of every > > duality is nameless & is that. For no non-duality can be a thing or > > an object. Once understood, it should not be thought of at all, nor > > sought, nor 'looked' at, for it is that 'We' which we, as we, can > > never see. As a word it is only a pointing finger, rather the > > pointing of a finger, not a finger pointing at anything or at > > nothing.' - Wei Wu Wei > > Yes, that's a nice one. > > So -- > > What is, before there is a finger, or any thought > of pointing -- or being pointed to? > > Before there is the concept of before and after? > > Not to give this a name, but to know that this has > never been changed by a concept arising, not even > concepts such as " I am " " pointing to truth " " Consciousness " > " interdependent co-origination " or " before and after. " > > Peace, > Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 12, 2003 Report Share Posted August 12, 2003 Nisargadatta , " s_u_b_j_e_c_t_i_v_i_t_y " <infinite_mirror> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> > wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " s_u_b_j_e_c_t_i_v_i_t_y " > > <infinite_mirror> wrote: > > > 'Subjectivity', as a word, or a thought, is an object. Using it > is > > > creating an object in order to describe that which is not an > > > object. 'Subjectivity' should never be thought of as any thing. > If > > it > > > is thought of it should be regarded simply as the resolution of > the > > > duality subject-object, & be left nameless. The resolution of > every > > > duality is nameless & is that. For no non-duality can be a thing > or > > > an object. Once understood, it should not be thought of at all, > nor > > > sought, nor 'looked' at, for it is that 'We' which we, as we, can > > > never see. As a word it is only a pointing finger, rather the > > > pointing of a finger, not a finger pointing at anything or at > > > nothing.' - Wei Wu Wei > > > > Yes, that's a nice one. > > > > So -- > > > > What is, before there is a finger, or any thought > > of pointing -- or being pointed to? > > > > Before there is the concept of before and after? > > > > Not to give this a name, but to know that this has > > never been changed by a concept arising, not even > > concepts such as " I am " " pointing to truth " " Consciousness " > > " interdependent co-origination " or " before and after. " > > > > Peace, > > Dan > > Dan, > There is no 'see-er' nor anything seen, only a 'seeing'. Nope. And just who are you addressing this to? Do you see something and someone that you're addressing, Mr. Nonseer? Where did you come up with so much verbiage about things that happened in the past? Is this a history lesson? For someone who didn't see anything, you sure talk a lot about things you read, heard, and saw. Love to ya, Dan Subjectivity > is void, there is no 'see-er' nor anything 'seen', There is nought > but the 'Void', which in the sage Han Shan's demonstration of the > Heart Sutra is called the 'Void Of Prajna' who stated that it was the > intention of the Buddha to make it clear that 'Prajna' was the > subject. 'It follows that the 'Void' is 'Subject' & 'Subject' is > the 'Void'. When looked at of course, & since there is no one to else > to look- looked at by itself.' - Wu Wei Wu. The Void is simply > what 'subjectivity' cannot see as it cannot see itself. There is no > one to see, no-thing seen, only a 'seeing', & that has > been 'indicated' in various teachings, are only'indications' of that > which cannot be defined, 'Pure Awareness', 'Mind', 'Pure > Consciousness' & so-forth, though of course names inply an object, > but these 'indications' are intended to be 'indications' only, > objective of course when 'regarded', for in regarding one > objectifies. > Subjectivity, as with any word or thought or thing when 'regarded' is > of course, an object. But Wei Wu Wei has made it plain in his > writings (I don't think you have read any of his writings & should > before making any premature conclusions as to his meanings) that > subjectivity in this sense is not to be regarded as anything > whatsoever, only an 'indication' of that which cannot be defined, > expressed, as that which 'IS' cannot be expressed as the object of a > subject. > 'Pure Seeing', subjectivity functioning, is subjectivity looking at > itself, which is why form is seen as void by the unenlightened who > are looking in the correct direction. No thing is then seen, which is > called 'void'. Form & void are one. Form is void & void is form. > Subjectivity, (function) looking at itself (principal) & all that is > seen is void. (An eye looking at itself could never see anything.' - > Wei Wu Wei) There is only a 'seeing'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 12, 2003 Report Share Posted August 12, 2003 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " s_u_b_j_e_c_t_i_v_i_t_y " > <infinite_mirror> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> > > wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " s_u_b_j_e_c_t_i_v_i_t_y " > > > <infinite_mirror> wrote: > > > > 'Subjectivity', as a word, or a thought, is an object. Using it > > is > > > > creating an object in order to describe that which is not an > > > > object. 'Subjectivity' should never be thought of as any thing. > > If > > > it > > > > is thought of it should be regarded simply as the resolution of > > the > > > > duality subject-object, & be left nameless. The resolution of > > every > > > > duality is nameless & is that. For no non-duality can be a > thing > > or > > > > an object. Once understood, it should not be thought of at all, > > nor > > > > sought, nor 'looked' at, for it is that 'We' which we, as we, > can > > > > never see. As a word it is only a pointing finger, rather the > > > > pointing of a finger, not a finger pointing at anything or at > > > > nothing.' - Wei Wu Wei > > > > > > Yes, that's a nice one. > > > > > > So -- > > > > > > What is, before there is a finger, or any thought > > > of pointing -- or being pointed to? > > > > > > Before there is the concept of before and after? > > > > > > Not to give this a name, but to know that this has > > > never been changed by a concept arising, not even > > > concepts such as " I am " " pointing to truth " " Consciousness " > > > " interdependent co-origination " or " before and after. " > > > > > > Peace, > > > Dan > > > > Dan, > > There is no 'see-er' nor anything seen, only a 'seeing'. > > Nope. And just who are you addressing this to? > > Do you see something and someone that you're addressing, Mr. Nonseer? > > Where did you come up with so much verbiage about things > that happened in the past? > > Is this a history lesson? > > For someone who didn't see anything, you sure talk a lot > about things you read, heard, and saw. > > Love to ya, > Dan > Dan, Are you enlightened ? To be dogmatic as you are in your statements one would assume you think you are as you don't think anyone that posts here is correct but yourself. These 'words' I have posted here come from 'enlightened sages', just as Nisargadatta's were to help those who have not realize or remembered their true nature. Your statements are simply borrowed from the texts you have read if you are not enlightened. You have no qualification for what you stated if you are not enlightened. So, the question is, Are you enlightened ? And please don't say there is no one to be enlightened, everyone already knows that, but it is the only way to speak of the phenomenal 'others' those who are not yet enlightened to understand. Your sweeping statements do not impress me nor your constant slamming of the postings of others. If you are enlighhtened, well & good. If not, please stop dogmatizing & posting the borrowed words of Nisargadatta or whatever sage you have taken 'your' statements from. Yes, there is no one to be enlightened, which is already a fact that you do not have to point out so condescendingly to us. In order to speak of such matters with the 'illusionary beings' those beings who have not realized the illusion of 'others', the illusion of separate beings, words sometimes must be resorted to & while it may be better to hold one's tongue, one should definitely hold it if one has not realized enlightenment. To make sweeping absolute statements such as you have made, you are either borrowing the words of the sages or you feel yourself to be enlightened. Do you have the qualification to make your 'true' statements ? Please show me your qualification. Oh, & let me say it for you ... 'Who is there to be enlightened, who is there to be qualified ? Already a known Dan...I feel we must agree to disagree, the posts I have placed here come from those 'illusionary' enlightened beings which you come here to also quote, i.e. Nisargadatta or whoever. Only whole mind knows, those of us who have not yet realized or remembered what we are must sometimes hear the words of those that we must take on faith to be enlightened beings. That sticks in your throat doesnt't it, but try as you may, you cannot get rid of the fact that 'conceptually' 'we' are, phenomenally we are, you cannot just dismiss the phenomenal as not existing 'as illusion', it does exist as phenomena. 'Conceptually I must be, & via the world I must be. But beyond conceptualism, no thing is & that is the void. The void is also a non- void, or a plenum, in so far as it is a concept. Stop playing sage Dan, I am not impressed & you are not the last word in 'truth'. I will not longer read your posts, as I believe you are a phony, & an arrogant inflated ego. I will continue to post whatever I feel is valid from those teachers who never existed, never instructed, never were enlightened, never were attested to be sages in the non-existent books that were never written about them. P.S. > Subjectivity > > is void, there is no 'see-er' nor anything 'seen', There is nought > > but the 'Void', which in the sage Han Shan's demonstration of the > > Heart Sutra is called the 'Void Of Prajna' who stated that it was > the > > intention of the Buddha to make it clear that 'Prajna' was the > > subject. 'It follows that the 'Void' is 'Subject' & 'Subject' is > > the 'Void'. When looked at of course, & since there is no one to > else > > to look- looked at by itself.' - Wu Wei Wu. The Void is simply > > what 'subjectivity' cannot see as it cannot see itself. There is no > > one to see, no-thing seen, only a 'seeing', & that has > > been 'indicated' in various teachings, are only'indications' of > that > > which cannot be defined, 'Pure Awareness', 'Mind', 'Pure > > Consciousness' & so-forth, though of course names inply an object, > > but these 'indications' are intended to be 'indications' only, > > objective of course when 'regarded', for in regarding one > > objectifies. > > Subjectivity, as with any word or thought or thing when 'regarded' > is > > of course, an object. But Wei Wu Wei has made it plain in his > > writings (I don't think you have read any of his writings & should > > before making any premature conclusions as to his meanings) that > > subjectivity in this sense is not to be regarded as anything > > whatsoever, only an 'indication' of that which cannot be defined, > > expressed, as that which 'IS' cannot be expressed as the object of > a > > subject. > > 'Pure Seeing', subjectivity functioning, is subjectivity looking at > > itself, which is why form is seen as void by the unenlightened who > > are looking in the correct direction. No thing is then seen, which > is > > called 'void'. Form & void are one. Form is void & void is form. > > Subjectivity, (function) looking at itself (principal) & all that > is > > seen is void. (An eye looking at itself could never see anything.' - > > > Wei Wu Wei) There is only a 'seeing'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 12, 2003 Report Share Posted August 12, 2003 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " s_u_b_j_e_c_t_i_v_i_t_y " > <infinite_mirror> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> > > wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " s_u_b_j_e_c_t_i_v_i_t_y " > > > <infinite_mirror> wrote: > > > > 'Subjectivity', as a word, or a thought, is an object. Using it > > is > > > > creating an object in order to describe that which is not an > > > > object. 'Subjectivity' should never be thought of as any thing. > > If > > > it > > > > is thought of it should be regarded simply as the resolution of > > the > > > > duality subject-object, & be left nameless. The resolution of > > every > > > > duality is nameless & is that. For no non-duality can be a > thing > > or > > > > an object. Once understood, it should not be thought of at all, > > nor > > > > sought, nor 'looked' at, for it is that 'We' which we, as we, > can > > > > never see. As a word it is only a pointing finger, rather the > > > > pointing of a finger, not a finger pointing at anything or at > > > > nothing.' - Wei Wu Wei > > > > > > Yes, that's a nice one. > > > > > > So -- > > > > > > What is, before there is a finger, or any thought > > > of pointing -- or being pointed to? > > > > > > Before there is the concept of before and after? > > > > > > Not to give this a name, but to know that this has > > > never been changed by a concept arising, not even > > > concepts such as " I am " " pointing to truth " " Consciousness " > > > " interdependent co-origination " or " before and after. " > > > > > > Peace, > > > Dan > > > > Dan, > > There is no 'see-er' nor anything seen, only a 'seeing'. > > Nope. And just who are you addressing this to? > > Do you see something and someone that you're addressing, Mr. Nonseer? > > Where did you come up with so much verbiage about things > that happened in the past? > > Is this a history lesson? > > For someone who didn't see anything, you sure talk a lot > about things you read, heard, and saw. > > Love to ya, > Dan > Dan, Please, again, do not pretend to be a sage, your ego is showing, & big time, you also contradict yourself constantly, did you realize that ? I am not enlightened & I freely admit it, but you are not either, your attitude & pomposity has revealed that. As I said, I will no longer read nor respond to your arrogant posts. 'Love to ya'. P.S. your > Subjectivity > > is void, there is no 'see-er' nor anything 'seen', There is nought > > but the 'Void', which in the sage Han Shan's demonstration of the > > Heart Sutra is called the 'Void Of Prajna' who stated that it was > the > > intention of the Buddha to make it clear that 'Prajna' was the > > subject. 'It follows that the 'Void' is 'Subject' & 'Subject' is > > the 'Void'. When looked at of course, & since there is no one to > else > > to look- looked at by itself.' - Wu Wei Wu. The Void is simply > > what 'subjectivity' cannot see as it cannot see itself. There is no > > one to see, no-thing seen, only a 'seeing', & that has > > been 'indicated' in various teachings, are only'indications' of > that > > which cannot be defined, 'Pure Awareness', 'Mind', 'Pure > > Consciousness' & so-forth, though of course names inply an object, > > but these 'indications' are intended to be 'indications' only, > > objective of course when 'regarded', for in regarding one > > objectifies. > > Subjectivity, as with any word or thought or thing when 'regarded' > is > > of course, an object. But Wei Wu Wei has made it plain in his > > writings (I don't think you have read any of his writings & should > > before making any premature conclusions as to his meanings) that > > subjectivity in this sense is not to be regarded as anything > > whatsoever, only an 'indication' of that which cannot be defined, > > expressed, as that which 'IS' cannot be expressed as the object of > a > > subject. > > 'Pure Seeing', subjectivity functioning, is subjectivity looking at > > itself, which is why form is seen as void by the unenlightened who > > are looking in the correct direction. No thing is then seen, which > is > > called 'void'. Form & void are one. Form is void & void is form. > > Subjectivity, (function) looking at itself (principal) & all that > is > > seen is void. (An eye looking at itself could never see anything.' - > > > Wei Wu Wei) There is only a 'seeing'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 12, 2003 Report Share Posted August 12, 2003 Nisargadatta , " s_u_b_j_e_c_t_i_v_i_t_y " <infinite_mirror> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> > wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " s_u_b_j_e_c_t_i_v_i_t_y " > > <infinite_mirror> wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> > > > wrote: > > > > --- In Nisargadatta , " s_u_b_j_e_c_t_i_v_i_t_y " > > > > <infinite_mirror> wrote: > > > > > 'Subjectivity', as a word, or a thought, is an object. Using > it > > > is > > > > > creating an object in order to describe that which is not an > > > > > object. 'Subjectivity' should never be thought of as any > thing. > > > If > > > > it > > > > > is thought of it should be regarded simply as the resolution > of > > > the > > > > > duality subject-object, & be left nameless. The resolution of > > > every > > > > > duality is nameless & is that. For no non-duality can be a > > thing > > > or > > > > > an object. Once understood, it should not be thought of at > all, > > > nor > > > > > sought, nor 'looked' at, for it is that 'We' which we, as we, > > can > > > > > never see. As a word it is only a pointing finger, rather the > > > > > pointing of a finger, not a finger pointing at anything or at > > > > > nothing.' - Wei Wu Wei > > > > > > > > Yes, that's a nice one. > > > > > > > > So -- > > > > > > > > What is, before there is a finger, or any thought > > > > of pointing -- or being pointed to? > > > > > > > > Before there is the concept of before and after? > > > > > > > > Not to give this a name, but to know that this has > > > > never been changed by a concept arising, not even > > > > concepts such as " I am " " pointing to truth " " Consciousness " > > > > " interdependent co-origination " or " before and after. " > > > > > > > > Peace, > > > > Dan > > > > > > Dan, > > > There is no 'see-er' nor anything seen, only a 'seeing'. > > > > Nope. And just who are you addressing this to? > > > > Do you see something and someone that you're addressing, Mr. > Nonseer? > > > > Where did you come up with so much verbiage about things > > that happened in the past? > > > > Is this a history lesson? > > > > For someone who didn't see anything, you sure talk a lot > > about things you read, heard, and saw. > > > > Love to ya, > > Dan > > > Dan, Are you enlightened ? Is your keyboard enlightened? To be dogmatic as you are in your > statements one would assume you think you are as you don't think > anyone that posts here is correct but yourself. Nope -- you're sure off the mark on that assumption. You know what Stuart Smalley says about assumptions, don't you? Anyone who makes an assumption makes an ass of Uma Thurman. Good luck with being enlightened, Dan These 'words' I have > posted here come from 'enlightened sages', just as Nisargadatta's > were to help those who have not realize or remembered their true > nature. Your statements are simply borrowed from the texts you have > read if you are not enlightened. You have no qualification for what > you stated if you are not enlightened. So, the question is, Are you > enlightened ? And please don't say there is no one to be enlightened, > everyone already knows that, but it is the only way to speak of the > phenomenal 'others' those who are not yet enlightened to understand. > Your sweeping statements do not impress me nor your constant slamming > of the postings of others. If you are enlighhtened, well & good. If > not, please stop dogmatizing & posting the borrowed words of > Nisargadatta or whatever sage you have taken 'your' statements from. > Yes, there is no one to be enlightened, which is already a fact that > you do not have to point out so condescendingly to us. In order to > speak of such matters with the 'illusionary beings' those beings who > have not realized the illusion of 'others', the illusion of separate > beings, words sometimes must be resorted to & while it may be better > to hold one's tongue, one should definitely hold it if one has not > realized enlightenment. To make sweeping absolute statements such as > you have made, you are either borrowing the words of the sages or you > feel yourself to be enlightened. Do you have the qualification to > make your 'true' statements ? Please show me your qualification. Oh, > & let me say it for you ... 'Who is there to be enlightened, who is > there to be qualified ? Already a known Dan...I feel we must agree to > disagree, the posts I have placed here come from those 'illusionary' > enlightened beings which you come here to also quote, i.e. > Nisargadatta or whoever. Only whole mind knows, those of us who have > not yet realized or remembered what we are must sometimes hear the > words of those that we must take on faith to be enlightened beings. > That sticks in your throat doesnt't it, but try as you may, you > cannot get rid of the fact that 'conceptually' 'we' are, phenomenally > we are, you cannot just dismiss the phenomenal as not existing 'as > illusion', it does exist as phenomena. > 'Conceptually I must be, & via the world I must be. But beyond > conceptualism, no thing is & that is the void. The void is also a non- > void, or a plenum, in so far as it is a concept. > Stop playing sage Dan, I am not impressed & you are not the last word > in 'truth'. I will not longer read your posts, as I believe you are a > phony, & an arrogant inflated ego. I will continue to post whatever I > feel is valid from those teachers who never existed, never > instructed, never were enlightened, never were attested to be sages > in the non-existent books that were never written about them. > > P.S. > > > Subjectivity > > > is void, there is no 'see-er' nor anything 'seen', There is > nought > > > but the 'Void', which in the sage Han Shan's demonstration of the > > > Heart Sutra is called the 'Void Of Prajna' who stated that it was > > the > > > intention of the Buddha to make it clear that 'Prajna' was the > > > subject. 'It follows that the 'Void' is 'Subject' & 'Subject' is > > > the 'Void'. When looked at of course, & since there is no one to > > else > > > to look- looked at by itself.' - Wu Wei Wu. The Void is simply > > > what 'subjectivity' cannot see as it cannot see itself. There is > no > > > one to see, no-thing seen, only a 'seeing', & that has > > > been 'indicated' in various teachings, are only'indications' of > > that > > > which cannot be defined, 'Pure Awareness', 'Mind', 'Pure > > > Consciousness' & so-forth, though of course names inply an > object, > > > but these 'indications' are intended to be 'indications' only, > > > objective of course when 'regarded', for in regarding one > > > objectifies. > > > Subjectivity, as with any word or thought or thing > when 'regarded' > > is > > > of course, an object. But Wei Wu Wei has made it plain in his > > > writings (I don't think you have read any of his writings & > should > > > before making any premature conclusions as to his meanings) that > > > subjectivity in this sense is not to be regarded as anything > > > whatsoever, only an 'indication' of that which cannot be defined, > > > expressed, as that which 'IS' cannot be expressed as the object > of > > a > > > subject. > > > 'Pure Seeing', subjectivity functioning, is subjectivity looking > at > > > itself, which is why form is seen as void by the unenlightened > who > > > are looking in the correct direction. No thing is then seen, > which > > is > > > called 'void'. Form & void are one. Form is void & void is form. > > > Subjectivity, (function) looking at itself (principal) & all that > > is > > > seen is void. (An eye looking at itself could never see > anything.' - > > > > > Wei Wu Wei) There is only a 'seeing'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 12, 2003 Report Share Posted August 12, 2003 Nisargadatta , " s_u_b_j_e_c_t_i_v_i_t_y " <infinite_mirror> wrote: > > > > > > > > Yes, that's a nice one. > > > > > > > > So -- > > > > > > > > What is, before there is a finger, or any thought > > > > of pointing -- or being pointed to? > > > > > > > > Before there is the concept of before and after? > > > > > > > > Not to give this a name, but to know that this has > > > > never been changed by a concept arising, not even > > > > concepts such as " I am " " pointing to truth " " Consciousness " > > > > " interdependent co-origination " or " before and after. " > > > > > > > > Peace, > > > > Dan > > > > > > Dan, > > > There is no 'see-er' nor anything seen, only a 'seeing'. > > > > Nope. And just who are you addressing this to? > > > > Do you see something and someone that you're addressing, Mr. > Nonseer? > > > > Where did you come up with so much verbiage about things > > that happened in the past? > > > > Is this a history lesson? > > > > For someone who didn't see anything, you sure talk a lot > > about things you read, heard, and saw. > > > > Love to ya, > > Dan > > > Dan, Are you enlightened ? To be dogmatic as you are in your > statements one would assume you think you are as you don't think > anyone that posts here is correct but yourself. These 'words' I have > posted here come from 'enlightened sages', just as Nisargadatta's > were to help those who have not realize or remembered their true > nature. Your statements are simply borrowed from the texts you have > read if you are not enlightened. You have no qualification for what > you stated if you are not enlightened. Dear Mr. Infinite Mirror, What kind of rubbish is this? Words are words -- who cares if they're from this object that you want to designate as enlightened or not. Take the words for what they are. So, the question is, Are you > enlightened ? And please don't say there is no one to be enlightened, > everyone already knows that, but it is the only way to speak of the > phenomenal 'others' those who are not yet enlightened to understand. > Your sweeping statements do not impress me nor your constant slamming > of the postings of others. If you are enlighhtened, well & good. If > not, please stop dogmatizing & posting the borrowed words of > Nisargadatta or whatever sage you have taken 'your' statements from. > Yes, there is no one to be enlightened, which is already a fact that > you do not have to point out so condescendingly to us. In order to > speak of such matters with the 'illusionary beings' those beings who > have not realized the illusion of 'others', the illusion of separate > beings, words sometimes must be resorted to & while it may be better > to hold one's tongue, one should definitely hold it if one has not > realized enlightenment. To make sweeping absolute statements such as > you have made, you are either borrowing the words of the sages or you > feel yourself to be enlightened. Do you have the qualification to > make your 'true' statements ? Please show me your qualification. I think I saw his diploma of enlightenment somewhere?... Hey, how much are those things anyway? Ya know, mr. subjectivity, I'm not enlightened one bit, but when I read your post, I thought -- Wow, great, this guy has memorized tons of shit and can speak the speak -- but what good is that? What is your experience? Who gives a fuck what so and so says. I mean it's well and good, but your post makes it sound like you know there is no seer for a fact. But you don't. You see things out your little holes in your head and you believe you are a seer. You are a 'me' and there is a big bad world out there. You've memorized this stuff and believe it now. Too bad for you. You know the old zen story about a student who comes to the master and the master keeps pouring tea until it spills out... yeah, that's something to consider. I'm sure you know that story. Joe 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.