non non-nondual

[Guest guest]

Hi --

>

> A reaction and I respond, clumsily but trying to get a point across

or mere

> bitching at Dan's indications ... plus an attempt at some play-with-

words. I

> mean, I can only be my self ...

 

That sounds like some kind of excuse for bad behavior.

 

>

> The one who is trying to grasp an immortal experience has no

> basis for grasping anything. It is the attempt to grasp,

> and that's all it's ever been.

>

> [ ... That's all it's ever been ? Alluding to something eternal or

what ? ]

 

Alluding to the attempt to keep a continuity where there isn't

anything continuing.

 

> When that attempt to grasp is understood as not comprising

> any kind of permanent self, it is clear that such a self

> isn't there to hold onto the promised experience of

> permanent being, bliss, and so on.

>

> [ Oh! So the absence is what remains all along ? Not-two worry

then, hey ?!?

 

How can an absence be a what that remains? You're playing

word games, as you said above.

 

What is lost is only an attempted image, an trying to hold, not an

actual thing. So, losing that doesn't leave an absence

of anything. You could call it a nonabsence, the absence

of abscence some have said.

 

What is lost is the attempt to have something that is protected

from whatever would make it absent, aka self.

 

> This clarity of understanding doesn't need or require permanence,

> nor to establish itself in something, nor to worry about what

> will be after the body decays.

>

> [ Robert Adams talked directly about the same notions in his own

words and

> you objected !! ]

 

No, he didn't. And you mistake me as objecting, when

I merely wanted to make a different point.

 

And why? Simply if someone understands what that point

can't point to. So, the point isn't the thing, it's

understanding what it can't give.

 

The point is about the nature of impermanence. Neither

I nor Robert nor anyone can give you what impermanence is.

 

And I don't care what notions he had. He's dead. So will I be.

Do you care what notions I have? All getting someone's

notions can give you is a transfer of information which you

can store and consult. And how useful is that? Not at

all when it comes to understanding what is, as is.

 

> This clarity isn't scared of impermanence, nor seeking

> after permance, nor trying to hold onto an absolute.

>

> [ What about your cherished turn-of-phrase " Never not the case "

that he

> used so often ? Grasping is the culprit when trying to curb down

anxiety. ]

 

I picked that phrase up from Adi Da. So what? I don't idealize

him whatsoever. Maybe he got it from Robert, or Robert and

Adi both got it from someone else. Who cares?

 

> There is no before or after now.

>

> [ So isn't the now like ... eternal ? ]

 

It's not like anything, it's not an it.

 

So, you say it's like eternal. So, isn't

eternity like now? 'Round and round we go ...

the word is not the thing, the thing is not

the thing.

 

> There is no separable self to seek after a samadhi state now.

>

> There never has been a separable being going through states

> ever.

>

> All the religions, practices and spokespeople attempting to

> bring people to an experience of the absolute are now

> out of a job.

>

> [ Thank you for your persistence, some give satsang, but you're a

writer and

> have honing your skill for years, like a professional chess player

doesn't

> stay away long from the game. ]

 

Glad you enjoyed it.

 

> You sure don't claim enlightenment, but you sure don't present

yourself as

> ignorant. Reading those comments on these lists made me more aware

of the

> need for a hook for a guru/teacher/guide/friend/mentor/awakened one

to get

> out of his silence to respond to a question from somebody.

> I've seen you mistaken and arguing with your own words on GR while

thinking

> these were Freyja's replies.

 

Ah, what a moment that must have been for you!

 

> I did enjoy the conversation with Gene and

> yourself about the word, the notion and the meaning of '

Advaita ' ....

 

Cool.

 

> I like your humor and you can be a shithead too.

 

So what?

 

> Eric will manage to say anything, irrelevancy is no concern of his

and I

> like someone assuming his irrational side and you will most likely

have the

> last word forever and ever. Hey man !!

 

There is no last word.

 

> Seems to me a retort from an absolute point of view collides with a

relative

> one so often, you know the buddhist concept of two truths ?

 

Sure. They aren't really two.

 

> Well there's no

> 'me' tying his shoes when coming from the Totality no-point of view

and then

> if I mention " my " nirvikalpa samadhi, I'll be reminded of the

entropy

> reality of incarnation and cha-cha-cha.

 

What a bummer for you.

 

> I'll confess it's not easy writing about such a subtle topic but

what fun

> even though I'm not proficient at it! Hell, a bore rating, he'll

abhor

> hating elaborating.

>

> More a pun-isher than a writer.

>

> If you know that you don't know; there is innocence.

> If you don't know that you know; there is denying.

> If you don't know that you don't know, there is impotence.

> If you know that you do know, there is savoring.

 

That's a good piece.

 

And the rest of this back and forth stuff is beside the point.

 

And there's only one worthwhile point.

 

Liberation from what's unreal, and being the is you is.

 

I haven't said anything true about it, nor Robert, nor

anyone else.

 

It's clarity about what can't be said, and why not,

that ends the mistaking of untruth as a basis for

reality, and in that ending, is is as is.

 

Gee wh izzzzzzz,

Dan