Guest guest Posted September 3, 2003 Report Share Posted September 3, 2003 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > 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 Dear Dan, ))))))))))I guess what I am trying to say here is a simple curiosity in that the Ones who dispell their delusion that they are " a one " and fully realise who they aren't ( which is the same as saying they realise who they Are albeit it is nothing in particular)always seem to be Loving and Compassionate as apposed to being caotic and cruel. .... so it seems from the ordinary deluded dualist perspective that the That or This is Love and without serious intent (it would seem) naturally promotes Harmony. I just got through reading some Maharshi's Talks in which he adamantly says you must not judge a jnani if he seems to be enjoying sex and otherwise does things that might not conform to one's view of how a jnani should act...and yet aside from some Crazys, as Sandeep has illustrated, most all of them are quite Loving and even the throwing of that disciple out the window could be and is attributed to a Great Compassion to help the disciple! If there is nothing that exists, then why this compassion? ......Isn't this Great News?!! you sign your correspondance with Peace)))))) Shawn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 3, 2003 Report Share Posted September 3, 2003 Hi Shawn -- > ))))))))))I guess what I am trying to say here is a simple curiosity > in that the Ones who dispell their delusion that they are " a one " > and fully realise who they aren't ( which is the same as saying > they realise who they Are albeit it is nothing in particular)always > seem to be Loving and Compassionate as apposed to being > caotic and cruel. How do you know that it is not like this: Totality has never had an " I " anywhere, to realize anything, to do anything, or to be loving and compassionate as one " I " and chaotic and cruel as another " I " ? If that's how it is, then your curiosity is about something your own conceptualization. If you cease conceptualizing that way, you also dissolve your curiosity. There is no " their " delusion that is dispelled, so the delusion can be dispelled that there ever was a " their " to anything, anywhere. Thus, chaos and compassion, in whatever sense they can be opposed to one another as qualities, are simply an aspect of forming conceptual knowledge about reality. With no anchoring in conceptual knowledge, there is no meaning to the opposition of chaos and order, or compassion and cruelty. So " what is " has no cruelty nor compassion, and cruelty is thus understood as imbedded in a certain conceptual basis, not in truth, and such conceptual basis involves and requires opposition. To be cruel, I have to construct something to be cruel to, and to enjoy being cruel, I have to experience some kind of power through what I am doing. Thus, with no basis in conceptual oppositions, what might have formerly been interpreted as " compassion " is, in fact, simply " nonopposition " -- neither compassion nor cruelty -- just no investment in being powerful or powerless, no investment in an other to do something to -- either through cruelty or compassion. > .... so it seems from the ordinary deluded dualist perspective > that the That or This is Love and without serious intent (it would > seem) naturally promotes Harmony. Huh? If there is no opposition, how could there be an ordinary deluded dualist perspective *here* to contrast with a nonordinary true nondualist perspective? > I just got through reading some Maharshi's Talks in which he > adamantly says you must not judge a jnani if he seems to be > enjoying sex and otherwise does things that might not conform > to one's view of how a jnani should act...and yet aside from > some Crazys, as Sandeep has illustrated, most all of them are > quite Loving and even the throwing of that disciple out the > window could be and is attributed to a Great Compassion to > help the disciple! If there is nothing that exists, then why this > compassion? It is, if you interpret it that way. What if you interpret it All as the " Crazy True One " ???? > .....Isn't this Great News?!! What? That I am the Crazy True One? Nah. It's just " what is. " > you sign your correspondance with > > Peace)))))) Yes, but I've signed in many other ways, also. War, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 4, 2003 Report Share Posted September 4, 2003 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > Hi Shawn -- Hi Danji! ))))))) > > ))))))))))I guess what I am trying to say here is a simple > curiosity > > in that the Ones who dispell their delusion that they are " a one " > > and fully realise who they aren't ( which is the same as saying > > they realise who they Are albeit it is nothing in particular)always > > seem to be Loving and Compassionate as apposed to being > > caotic and cruel. > > How do you know that it is not like this: > > Totality has never had an " I " anywhere, to realize anything, > to do anything, or to be loving and compassionate > as one " I " and chaotic and cruel as another " I " ? You simply rely on the concept that " Totality " is not an " I! " > If that's how it is, then your curiosity is about something > your own conceptualization. If you cease conceptualizing > that way, you also dissolve your curiosity. ....and if you cease conceptualizing , perhaps you would get curious? )))) > There is no " their " delusion that is dispelled, so the delusion > can be dispelled that there ever was a " their " to > anything, anywhere. Exactly, so *why* compassion? > Thus, chaos and compassion, in whatever sense they can be > opposed to one another as qualities, are simply an > aspect of forming conceptual knowledge about reality. > > With no anchoring in conceptual knowledge, there is > no meaning to the opposition of chaos and order, or > compassion and cruelty. > So " what is " has no cruelty nor compassion, and > cruelty is thus understood as imbedded in a certain > conceptual basis, not in truth, and such conceptual > basis involves and requires opposition. > > To be cruel, I have to construct something to be cruel > to, and to enjoy being cruel, I have to experience > some kind of power through what I am doing. > > Thus, with no basis in conceptual oppositions, what might > have formerly been interpreted as " compassion " > is, in fact, simply " nonopposition " -- > neither compassion nor cruelty -- just no investment > in being powerful or powerless, no investment in an other > to do something to -- either through cruelty or compassion. So " compassion " is not an action but the absense of the need for any action? Somehow this doesn't jive with me. Just as LOve is not an action but simply the removal of all other motives....It seems to me that Love is not only Our Being but Also an Incomprehensible Action arisind when the one who would have motives has relaxed his death grip. > > .... so it seems from the ordinary deluded dualist perspective > > that the That or This is Love and without serious intent (it would > > seem) naturally promotes Harmony. > > Huh? If there is no opposition, how could there be > an ordinary deluded dualist perspective *here* to contrast > with a nonordinary true nondualist perspective? ok *apparent* ..sheesh you're a sticky wicket! Are you conscios of being me? > > I just got through reading some Maharshi's Talks in which he > > adamantly says you must not judge a jnani if he seems to be > > enjoying sex and otherwise does things that might not conform > > to one's view of how a jnani should act...and yet aside from > > some Crazys, as Sandeep has illustrated, most all of them are > > quite Loving and even the throwing of that disciple out the > > window could be and is attributed to a Great Compassion to > > help the disciple! If there is nothing that exists, then why this > > compassion? > > It is, if you interpret it that way. > > What if you interpret it All as the " Crazy True One " ???? > > > .....Isn't this Great News?!! > > What? That I am the Crazy True One? > > Nah. It's just " what is. " > > > you sign your correspondance with > > > > Peace)))))) > > Yes, but I've signed in many other ways, > also. > > War, > Dan Not buying it Dan. You seem to be going out on a limb to save a concept. %***@#$$ )))))))) Shawn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 4, 2003 Report Share Posted September 4, 2003 Hi Shawn -- > > > ))))))))))I guess what I am trying to say here is a simple > > curiosity > > > in that the Ones who dispell their delusion that they are " a > one " > > > and fully realise who they aren't ( which is the same as > saying > > > they realise who they Are albeit it is nothing in > particular)always > > > seem to be Loving and Compassionate as apposed to being > > > caotic and cruel. > > > > How do you know that it is not like this: > > > > Totality has never had an " I " anywhere, to realize anything, > > to do anything, or to be loving and compassionate > > as one " I " and chaotic and cruel as another " I " ? > > > You simply rely on the concept that " Totality " is not an " I! " No, I don't. I'm questioning any separable entity having its own existence anywhere, either as an I or something else. What you are saying you're curious about only makes sense if there are this self-existing " I's " some who act " chaotically " and others who realize things and then act " compassionately. " > > If that's how it is, then your curiosity is about something > > your own conceptualization. If you cease conceptualizing > > that way, you also dissolve your curiosity. > > ...and if you cease conceptualizing , perhaps you would get > curious? )))) Curiosity about what? Without conceptualization, what is there about which to be curious? > > There is no " their " delusion that is dispelled, so the delusion > > can be dispelled that there ever was a " their " to > > anything, anywhere. > > > > Exactly, so *why* compassion? I'm not sure what you're asking. Is it something like this: " If there is no 'other' to whom one would behave a certain way, why would there be compassionate action -- could there be such? " If that's the question, here's how I'd answer it: There is simply action in the moment, without an agenda attached. An interpretation of that action is as " compassionate " -- but that interpretation depends on a conceptual contrast, for example, with " cruel " or other " noncompassionate " action. However, without any separable entities, there simply is the action of the moment, as is. It is just that when there is an attempt to maintain and attach an agenda, the action gets muddled, tries to benefit a nonexisting separable " I " and can seem cruel or otherwise noncompassionate. My bottom line here is that nonselfconscious action as the moment of being having no agenda isn't concerned with being compassionate and not being some other way. That such action gets interpreted as compassionate is understandable, but one doesn't need such interpretations. To get back to the Bodhisattva vow, one could say one acts spontaneously without an attempted maintained agenda, and suffering therefore, if it presents itself, is addressed immediately and without trying to have a separable " I " existence from the " addressing of suffering as it presents now. " > > Thus, chaos and compassion, in whatever sense they can be > > opposed to one another as qualities, are simply an > > aspect of forming conceptual knowledge about reality. > > > > With no anchoring in conceptual knowledge, there is > > no meaning to the opposition of chaos and order, or > > compassion and cruelty. > > > > > > So " what is " has no cruelty nor compassion, and > > cruelty is thus understood as imbedded in a certain > > conceptual basis, not in truth, and such conceptual > > basis involves and requires opposition. > > > > To be cruel, I have to construct something to be cruel > > to, and to enjoy being cruel, I have to experience > > some kind of power through what I am doing. > > > > Thus, with no basis in conceptual oppositions, what might > > have formerly been interpreted as " compassion " > > is, in fact, simply " nonopposition " -- > > neither compassion nor cruelty -- just no investment > > in being powerful or powerless, no investment in an other > > to do something to -- either through cruelty or compassion. > > So " compassion " is not an action but the absense of the need > for any action? I think I addressed this above. > Somehow this doesn't jive with me. Just as LOve > is not an action but simply the removal of all other motives....It > seems to me that Love is not only Our Being but Also an > Incomprehensible Action arisind when the one who would have > motives has relaxed his death grip. The one who would have motives is the intent to have motives. Without that intent, there is no one (as a separably existing being having its own qualities and continuity). > > > .... so it seems from the ordinary deluded dualist perspective > > > that the That or This is Love and without serious intent (it > would > > > seem) naturally promotes Harmony. > > > > Huh? If there is no opposition, how could there be > > an ordinary deluded dualist perspective *here* to contrast > > with a nonordinary true nondualist perspective? > > ok *apparent* ..sheesh you're a sticky wicket! Are you conscios of > being me? Yes, as you. There's no need for someone else to be aware of me being you, just you as you. > > > I just got through reading some Maharshi's Talks in which he > > > adamantly says you must not judge a jnani if he seems to be > > > enjoying sex and otherwise does things that might not > conform > > > to one's view of how a jnani should act...and yet aside from > > > some Crazys, as Sandeep has illustrated, most all of them > are > > > quite Loving and even the throwing of that disciple out the > > > window could be and is attributed to a Great Compassion to > > > help the disciple! If there is nothing that exists, then why this > > > compassion? > > > > It is, if you interpret it that way. > > > > What if you interpret it All as the " Crazy True One " ???? > > > > > .....Isn't this Great News?!! > > > > What? That I am the Crazy True One? > > > > Nah. It's just " what is. " > > > > > you sign your correspondance with > > > > > > Peace)))))) > > > > Yes, but I've signed in many other ways, > > also. > > > > War, > > Dan > > > Not buying it Dan. > You seem to be going out on a limb to save a concept. Shawn, I can't account for your way of interpreting what I write. I don't see any concept that I'm trying to save, so I don't know what you're talking about. But, for you, if you interpret my writing as an attempt to save a concept, I suppose that's what it is for you. Out of curiousity, what concept do you think I'm trying to save? > %***@#$$ )))))))) Love, peace, insight, and wild strawberries, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 4, 2003 Report Share Posted September 4, 2003 delusion? delusion: when you're playing a role and forget that you are just playing a roledan330033 <dan330033 wrote: Hi Shawn --> ))))))))))I guess what I am trying to say here is a simple curiosity > in that the Ones who dispell their delusion that they are "a one" > and fully realise who they aren't ( which is the same as saying > they realise who they Are albeit it is nothing in particular)always > seem to be Loving and Compassionate as apposed to being > caotic and cruel.How do you know that it is not like this:Totality has never had an "I" anywhere, to realize anything, to do anything, or to be loving and compassionate as one "I" and chaotic and cruel as another "I"?If that's how it is, then your curiosity is about something your own conceptualization. If you cease conceptualizing that way, you also dissolve your curiosity.There is no "their" delusion that is dispelled, so the delusion can be dispelled that there ever was a "their" to anything, anywhere.Thus, chaos and compassion, in whatever sense they can be opposed to one another as qualities, are simply an aspect of forming conceptual knowledge about reality.With no anchoring in conceptual knowledge, there is no meaning to the opposition of chaos and order, or compassion and cruelty.So "what is" has no cruelty nor compassion, and cruelty is thus understood as imbedded in a certain conceptual basis, not in truth, and such conceptual basis involves and requires opposition.To be cruel, I have to construct something to be cruel to, and to enjoy being cruel, I have to experience some kind of power through what I am doing.Thus, with no basis in conceptual oppositions, what might have formerly been interpreted as "compassion" is, in fact, simply "nonopposition" -- neither compassion nor cruelty -- just no investment in being powerful or powerless, no investment in an other to do something to -- either through cruelty or compassion.> .... so it seems from the ordinary deluded dualist perspective > that the That or This is Love and without serious intent (it would > seem) naturally promotes Harmony.Huh? If there is no opposition, how could there be an ordinary deluded dualist perspective *here* to contrast with a nonordinary true nondualist perspective?> I just got through reading some Maharshi's Talks in which he > adamantly says you must not judge a jnani if he seems to be > enjoying sex and otherwise does things that might not conform > to one's view of how a jnani should act...and yet aside from > some Crazys, as Sandeep has illustrated, most all of them are > quite Loving and even the throwing of that disciple out the > window could be and is attributed to a Great Compassion to > help the disciple! If there is nothing that exists, then why this > compassion? It is, if you interpret it that way.What if you interpret it All as the "Crazy True One"????> .....Isn't this Great News?!! What? That I am the Crazy True One? Nah. It's just "what is."> you sign your correspondance with> > Peace))))))Yes, but I've signed in many other ways, also.War,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=1Under 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 4, 2003 Report Share Posted September 4, 2003 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > Out of curiousity, what concept do you think I'm trying to save? LOL See? Curiousity! ; - ) Thanks Danji.. Strawberries , Shawn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 4, 2003 Report Share Posted September 4, 2003 Nisargadatta , " Shawn Hair " <shawn@w...> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " > <dan330033> wrote: > > > Out of curiousity, what concept do you think I'm trying to save? > > LOL > > > See? Curiousity! ; - ) Exactly! ; - ) > > Thanks Danji.. Yer welcome, but heck -- I couldn't have shaved that concept without your razor sharp wit, Shawn! > Strawberries , Say, who was that masked Strawberry? Love, Darryl, Darryl, and Darryl Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 5, 2003 Report Share Posted September 5, 2003 Nisargadatta , brett geoly <rootrapture> wrote: > delusion? delusion: when you're playing a role and forget that you are just playing a role Truth: when remembering is recognized as being as much a role that is played, as is forgetting. 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.