Guest guest Posted September 2, 2003 Report Share Posted September 2, 2003 The vow to help all beings and to not " enter nirvana " ..... How does this play if the final understanding is that there exists No Thing? Why compassion from a Nobody to a bunch of Nobodies? Is this a serious vow? Or as Sandeep's message so beautifully states- is it mere playfulness? The Buddhists tend to take it seriously, do they not? If the reality of This lies in its undermining of the necessity of action, then what prompts the always positive Love and Compassion instead of it's opposite? I don't think I said this very well, but hope you get my drift... Love (includes all " negative " emotions?) Shawn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 2, 2003 Report Share Posted September 2, 2003 Hi Shawn, Given the bit easing of stuff around you, .....you might now enjoy this. What did the hurricane say to the palm tree? Hold on to your nuts baby, this ain't no ordinary blowjob. Some two cents....below - Shawn Hair Nisargadatta Tuesday, September 02, 2003 05:47 AM Bodhisattva The vow to help all beings and to not "enter nirvana".....How does this play if the final understanding is that there exists No Thing?Why compassion from a Nobody to a bunch of Nobodies?Is this a serious vow? As serious as they come. The apperception of no-thingy-ness, the apperception of nobody dealing with no-bodies, whether in compassion, or in genocide, ....... ....may not coincide with the end of functioning through that manifest object, which popular media henceforth refers to as a sage, or whatever. Instances when they have, obviously history has very scant records of such events. If the instrument continues to be "alive", ........functioning seamlessly continues through that instrument. Aka all the dudes that are bandied about in the spiritual bazaar. The subsequent functioning through such instruments, invariably is compassion, irrespective of whether it fits into the normal norms and connotation as to what compassion should be. In fact it is the non-realized (to use a term), who would be predictable in their attempts to be compassionate. Ma Tzu, once threw a disciple out of the window, from two floors up, out of his immense compassion. So much was his compassion, that he himself proceeded to jump and landed on top of the already broken body of the disciple, screaming in his ear, "Do you get it". The poor sod, quickly nodded, no doubt just to get the weight off his back and get to the hospital as quickly as possible. Broken physically,nevertheless he was completely cured of the itch of enlightenment. Nisargadatta, was not shy of screaming, when "profound" questions were posed. His compassion often took the shape of cutting sarcasm. Getrude Stein, came to Gurdjieff, to discuss the finer nuances of Truth. For 6 months, he made her dig a ditch, which after every 3 days would be filled up, for Getrude to start all over again. A Sufi Master, told an "advanced" seeker who came looking for the final jump (everybody else told him , he was ready for it), was told to enter the monastery but to leave himself at the outer door. Not knowing what the Master meant, the seeker, sat at the doorway for 12 months, tending to the footwear of all other seekers who would leave their shoes at the doorway, before entering. Tending to the dirty shoes over months and months, and doing nothing else,.... one day he entered, that which he had never left. A sage does not try to compassionate. There being no "me" in that organism, there can be no "you" (for that organism) for whom there can either be compassion or cruelty. There is no "other", either to abet or to obstruct, either to teach or to lead astray. If the sage has a stake in your salvation (worded in whatever ways, perfumed by whatever esoteric sounding terminology),......run. Or have ample time and assets to lose. A sage......is......Isness of the totality of the moment. And in the milieu of that isness, ...............anybody entering that milieu feels "compassionated", ...feels "benedicted", .........feels "loved", .........feels "supported", ........feels "melted", .........feels the warmth of the extended hand, without any hand being extended. Or not. Either have nothing to do with the dude in question. Or as Sandeep's message so beautifully states- is it mere playfulness? The Buddhists tend to take it seriously, do they not?If the reality of This lies in its undermining of the necessity of action, then what prompts the always positive Love and Compassion instead of it's opposite? Nuances of the movement in the same moment. Somehow the roles of love and compassion get alotted to these organisms. For roles aka "Dubya Bus" and "Saddaam" , other actors are manifested. Neither of the roles are superior or inferior. Just dancing waves of different shimmerings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 2, 2003 Report Share Posted September 2, 2003 Nisargadatta , " Shawn Hair " <shawn@w...> wrote: > > The vow to help all beings and to not " enter nirvana " ..... > > How does this play if the final understanding is that there exists > No Thing? > > Why compassion from a Nobody to a bunch of Nobodies? > > Is this a serious vow? > > Or as Sandeep's message so beautifully states- is it mere > playfulness? The Buddhists tend to take it seriously, do they not? > > If the reality of This lies in its undermining of the necessity of > action, then what prompts the always positive Love and > Compassion instead of it's opposite? > > I don't think I said this very well, but hope you get my drift... > > Love (includes all " negative " emotions?) > > Shawn Yes, Shawn, I'd say they (at least many) take it seriously, and it is the difference between Hinayana, aka Theravadin (as 'Hinayana' is kind of derogatory, meaning " lesser vehicle " , and Mahayana (giving itself the name " greater vehicle " ) Buddhism, having led to all kinds of debates over the centuries. Like, if you're concerned about saving other beings, are you fully aware of the truth of nirvana in which there is no continuity of a self that could have something to offer other selves, or which could see any self anywhere -- or, from the other side -- if you're not concerned about them (suffering selves), are you fully aware that samsara is nirvana? From the Mahayana side, your question raises the issue of conventional and aconventional truths existing simultaneously, as posited in Madyamika Buddhism. That is, aconventionally, not a thing has ever existed, but conventionally, there are beings who suffer, who can benefit from application of " skillful means " to assist opening to truth. Maybe one way to look at this is that the traditional Theravadin approach is more purist and less paradoxical, saying in a straightforward way that " entry " into nirvana is the " blowing out " of any continuity of self, whereas in the Mahayana approach, there is simultaneously " blowing out " and " full participation " in relativity, including conventional realities. I like that better, and it reminds me a lot of Jesus saying to be in the world but not of the world, to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto YHVH what is YHVH's. Peace, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 2, 2003 Report Share Posted September 2, 2003 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: to render unto > Caesar what is Caesar's and unto YHVH what is YHVH's. LOL I always thought this was just his way of playing politics! )))))))))Shawn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 2, 2003 Report Share Posted September 2, 2003 Nisargadatta , " Shawn Hair " <shawn@w...> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " > <dan330033> wrote: > to render unto > > Caesar what is Caesar's and unto YHVH what is YHVH's. > > > LOL I always thought this was just his way of playing politics! > > )))))))))Shawn Hmmmm, if so, Caesar probably wouldn't have given him very high marks on his gamesmanship -- at least, not in the short run! -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 3, 2003 Report Share Posted September 3, 2003 << How does this play if the final understanding is that there exists No Thing? >> *Is* there a " final understanding " ? And whatever is *final*... even in a relative sense... is certainly not an " understanding " . That is like saying the destination is a map. What does understanding have to do with anything of deep spiritual significance? The Unutterable is trans-experiential. What clue can there be that is not an illusion? -Bill Shawn Hair [shawn] Monday, September 01, 2003 5:17 PM Nisargadatta Bodhisattva The vow to help all beings and to not " enter nirvana " ..... How does this play if the final understanding is that there exists No Thing? Why compassion from a Nobody to a bunch of Nobodies? Is this a serious vow? Or as Sandeep's message so beautifully states- is it mere playfulness? The Buddhists tend to take it seriously, do they not? If the reality of This lies in its undermining of the necessity of action, then what prompts the always positive Love and Compassion instead of it's opposite? I don't think I said this very well, but hope you get my drift... Love (includes all " negative " emotions?) Shawn ** 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 September 3, 2003 Report Share Posted September 3, 2003 Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote: > << > How does this play if the final understanding is that there exists > No Thing? > >> > *Is* there a " final understanding " ? NO!!! :-) And that's my final word on the subject! Understandingly Compassionate, Dan > > And whatever is *final*... even in a relative sense... > is certainly not an " understanding " . That is like saying > the destination is a map. > > What does understanding have to do with anything of deep > spiritual significance? > > The Unutterable is trans-experiential. > What clue can there be that is not an illusion? > > > -Bill > > > > Shawn Hair [shawn@w...] > Monday, September 01, 2003 5:17 PM > Nisargadatta > Bodhisattva > > > > The vow to help all beings and to not " enter nirvana " ..... > > How does this play if the final understanding is that there exists > No Thing? > > Why compassion from a Nobody to a bunch of Nobodies? > > Is this a serious vow? > > Or as Sandeep's message so beautifully states- is it mere > playfulness? The Buddhists tend to take it seriously, do they not? > > If the reality of This lies in its undermining of the necessity of > action, then what prompts the always positive Love and > Compassion instead of it's opposite? > > I don't think I said this very well, but hope you get my drift... > > Love (includes all " negative " emotions?) > > Shawn > > > > ** > > 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...
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.