Guest guest Posted December 9, 2003 Report Share Posted December 9, 2003 The spontaneous abandonment of purposeful intention is the only way by which enlightenment can happen. Without intention there is no will, no 'me' and no egocentric effort, but only the natural, noumenal ACTION of living. Ramesh Balsekar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 9, 2003 Report Share Posted December 9, 2003 Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > The spontaneous abandonment of purposeful intention is the only way > by which enlightenment can happen. Without intention there is no > will, no 'me' and no egocentric effort, but only the natural, > noumenal ACTION of living. > > Ramesh Balsekar let the arrogant french dude correct balsekar once more here: " the spontaneous abandonment of purposeful intention " is the greatest miracle in lifeforms also called Grace hubrix Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 9, 2003 Report Share Posted December 9, 2003 Dear arrogant Frenchman, I would love to resist what you wrote - just for the sake of resisting, but you are right ! The only I would like to correct is that your reply is not a correction but a valuable addition. Werner Nisargadatta , " eric paroissien " <vertvetiver> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > The spontaneous abandonment of purposeful intention is the only way > > by which enlightenment can happen. Without intention there is no > > will, no 'me' and no egocentric effort, but only the natural, > > noumenal ACTION of living. > > > > Ramesh Balsekar > > let the arrogant french dude correct balsekar once more here: > " the spontaneous abandonment of purposeful intention " is the greatest > miracle in lifeforms also called Grace > hubrix Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 9, 2003 Report Share Posted December 9, 2003 Werner you are correct in addition Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > Dear arrogant Frenchman, > > I would love to resist what you wrote - just for the sake of > resisting, but you are right ! The only I would like to correct is > that your reply is not a correction but a valuable addition. > > Werner > > > Nisargadatta , " eric paroissien " > <vertvetiver> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > > The spontaneous abandonment of purposeful intention is the only > way > > > by which enlightenment can happen. Without intention there is no > > > will, no 'me' and no egocentric effort, but only the natural, > > > noumenal ACTION of living. > > > > > > Ramesh Balsekar > > > > let the arrogant french dude correct balsekar once more here: > > " the spontaneous abandonment of purposeful intention " is the > greatest > > miracle in lifeforms also called Grace > > hubrix Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 9, 2003 Report Share Posted December 9, 2003 Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > The spontaneous abandonment of purposeful intention is the only way > by which enlightenment can happen. Without intention there is no > will, no 'me' and no egocentric effort, but only the natural, > noumenal ACTION of living. > > Ramesh Balsekar This is not true. Obviously Ramesh maintains purposeful intentions. He gets up, takes a shower, gets dressed, eats breakfast, has scheduled times to talk with people who want to hear what he has to say -- to which he shows up on time. There is no issue of enlightenment vs. nonenlightenment, although he has talked as if there is such an issue. The only result is to perpetuate the me, as " enlightened me's who spontaneously have no purposeful intention " vs. " me's who have purposeful intention. " The me is perpetuated as a center in this kind of discourse, either as a center that is maintained or abandoned. In fact, there never has been such a center to be concerned about, anywhere. Thus, there is only clarity, or there is mistaking the situation for what it is not, an attempt to avoid or deflect clarity. Mistaking the situation isn't a lack of enlightenment, nor is it a presence of something that shouldn't be there, something like purposeful intention. Mistaking the situation for what it is not is to use the template of the past as the basis for reality, an attempted ignoring of the truth that is never not present. You can't really ignore what is omnipresent, at best you can deflect it and act as if something else were the case. Even the acting as if, the mistaking of the situation for what it is not, occurs spontaneously and presently. Clarity is to know that there is nothing anywhere, ever, that is not " what is " as is, as totality, as " spontaneity. " This knowing is itself " what is " - isn't from a position apart. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 9, 2003 Report Share Posted December 9, 2003 Dear Dan, Interesting view. It would be interesting why Balsekar as an Advaitist was using the word " enlightenment " at all ? Maybe his statement I posted was an excerpt of a book and out of it's context it consequently is open to speculations. I personally like it very much because it touched some point in me which is open to " doing nothing " and so I was interpreting Balsekar in that direction and the mentioning of " enlightenment " didn't scratch me at all. It would be interesting to substitute it by another word. How do you like this one: " The spontaneous abandonment of purposeful intention is the only way by which George Bush can happen. Without intention there is no will, no 'me' and no egocentric effort, but only the natural, noumenal ACTION of living " . Werner Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > The spontaneous abandonment of purposeful intention is the only way > > by which enlightenment can happen. Without intention there is no > > will, no 'me' and no egocentric effort, but only the natural, > > noumenal ACTION of living. > > > > Ramesh Balsekar > > This is not true. > > Obviously Ramesh maintains purposeful intentions. > > He gets up, takes a shower, gets dressed, eats > breakfast, has scheduled times to talk with > people who want to hear what he has to say -- > to which he shows up on time. > > There is no issue of enlightenment vs. nonenlightenment, > although he has talked as if there is such an issue. > The only result is to perpetuate the me, as " enlightened > me's who spontaneously have no purposeful intention " vs. > " me's who have purposeful intention. " > > The me is perpetuated as a center in this kind of discourse, > either as a center that is maintained or abandoned. > > In fact, there never has been such a center to be concerned > about, anywhere. > > Thus, there is only clarity, or there is mistaking the situation > for what it is not, an attempt to avoid or deflect clarity. > > Mistaking the situation isn't a lack of enlightenment, > nor is it a presence of something that shouldn't be > there, something like purposeful intention. > > Mistaking the situation for what it is not is to > use the template of the past as the basis for > reality, an attempted ignoring of the truth > that is never not present. > > You can't really ignore what is omnipresent, at best > you can deflect it and act as if something else were > the case. > > Even the acting as if, the mistaking of the situation for > what it is not, occurs spontaneously and presently. > > Clarity is to know that there is nothing anywhere, ever, that is > not " what is " as is, as totality, as " spontaneity. " > This knowing is itself " what is " - isn't from a position apart. > > -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 9, 2003 Report Share Posted December 9, 2003 - Hi Guys, I agree with Dan and would simplify Balsekar statement thus: At one point clarity happens, and the mind stops debating itself. Then, the only course of action possible, is seen spontaneously. Pete -- In Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > Dear Dan, > > Interesting view. > > It would be interesting why Balsekar as an Advaitist was using the > word " enlightenment " at all ? Maybe his statement I posted was an > excerpt of a book and out of it's context it consequently is open to > speculations. > > I personally like it very much because it touched some point in me > which is open to " doing nothing " and so I was interpreting Balsekar > in that direction and the mentioning of " enlightenment " didn't > scratch me at all. It would be interesting to substitute it by > another word. How do you like this one: > > " The spontaneous abandonment of purposeful intention is the only way > by which George Bush can happen. Without intention there is no > will, no 'me' and no egocentric effort, but only the natural, > noumenal ACTION of living " . > > Werner > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> > wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > > The spontaneous abandonment of purposeful intention is the only > way > > > by which enlightenment can happen. Without intention there is no > > > will, no 'me' and no egocentric effort, but only the natural, > > > noumenal ACTION of living. > > > > > > Ramesh Balsekar > > > > This is not true. > > > > Obviously Ramesh maintains purposeful intentions. > > > > He gets up, takes a shower, gets dressed, eats > > breakfast, has scheduled times to talk with > > people who want to hear what he has to say -- > > to which he shows up on time. > > > > There is no issue of enlightenment vs. nonenlightenment, > > although he has talked as if there is such an issue. > > The only result is to perpetuate the me, as " enlightened > > me's who spontaneously have no purposeful intention " vs. > > " me's who have purposeful intention. " > > > > The me is perpetuated as a center in this kind of discourse, > > either as a center that is maintained or abandoned. > > > > In fact, there never has been such a center to be concerned > > about, anywhere. > > > > Thus, there is only clarity, or there is mistaking the situation > > for what it is not, an attempt to avoid or deflect clarity. > > > > Mistaking the situation isn't a lack of enlightenment, > > nor is it a presence of something that shouldn't be > > there, something like purposeful intention. > > > > Mistaking the situation for what it is not is to > > use the template of the past as the basis for > > reality, an attempted ignoring of the truth > > that is never not present. > > > > You can't really ignore what is omnipresent, at best > > you can deflect it and act as if something else were > > the case. > > > > Even the acting as if, the mistaking of the situation for > > what it is not, occurs spontaneously and presently. > > > > Clarity is to know that there is nothing anywhere, ever, that is > > not " what is " as is, as totality, as " spontaneity. " > > This knowing is itself " what is " - isn't from a position apart. > > > > -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 9, 2003 Report Share Posted December 9, 2003 Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > Dear Dan, > > Interesting view. > > It would be interesting why Balsekar as an Advaitist was using the > word " enlightenment " at all ? Maybe his statement I posted was an > excerpt of a book and out of it's context it consequently is open to > speculations. > > I personally like it very much because it touched some point in me > which is open to " doing nothing " and so I was interpreting Balsekar > in that direction and the mentioning of " enlightenment " didn't > scratch me at all. It would be interesting to substitute it by > another word. How do you like this one: > > " The spontaneous abandonment of purposeful intention is the only way > by which George Bush can happen. Without intention there is no > will, no 'me' and no egocentric effort, but only the natural, > noumenal ACTION of living " . > > Werner Hi Werner -- I like the way you put it! And you say those words touched some point in you that is open to " nondoing " -- so, I say, great! Of course, any word might do that, so might any sound. If that happened through those words, so be it! And, what is it like when every word, thought, experience, is equally from/of nondoing? Yours, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 9, 2003 Report Share Posted December 9, 2003 Nisargadatta , " seesaw1us " <seesaw1us> wrote: > - > Hi Guys, > > I agree with Dan and would simplify Balsekar statement thus: > > At one point clarity happens, and the mind stops debating itself. > Then, the only course of action possible, is seen spontaneously. > > Pete Hi Guys and Gals, I agree with Pete - well said. I'd simplify Pete's statement thus: One point: clarity. Stop. Only: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 10, 2003 Report Share Posted December 10, 2003 Dear Dan, Thanks for your supportive and encouraging words. I think I got now what Balsekar did and why his words did catch me immediately. Dan, leave your position as an nondual-psychologist for a moment and try to see that Balsekar with his statement took the position of the " me " , how the me would see it. The " me " indeed lives in the illusion of owning purposeful intentions and I as the watcher can realize this when it is caught again in that illusion. I can feel that " will " physically because it is mobilizing " effort " . Maybe he was using in addition the word " enlightenment " as kind of carroting the " me " which constantly is driven by " gaining " to increase the tension between gaining and letting go. What do you think about this ? Werner Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > Dear Dan, > > > > Interesting view. > > > > It would be interesting why Balsekar as an Advaitist was using the > > word " enlightenment " at all ? Maybe his statement I posted was an > > excerpt of a book and out of it's context it consequently is open > to > > speculations. > > > > I personally like it very much because it touched some point in me > > which is open to " doing nothing " and so I was interpreting Balsekar > > in that direction and the mentioning of " enlightenment " didn't > > scratch me at all. It would be interesting to substitute it by > > another word. How do you like this one: > > > > " The spontaneous abandonment of purposeful intention is the only way > > by which George Bush can happen. Without intention there is no > > will, no 'me' and no egocentric effort, but only the natural, > > noumenal ACTION of living " . > > > > Werner > > Hi Werner -- > > I like the way you put it! > > And you say those words touched some point in you that is > open to " nondoing " -- so, I say, great! > > Of course, any word might do that, so might any sound. > > If that happened through those words, so be it! > > And, what is it like when every word, thought, experience, > is equally from/of nondoing? > > Yours, > Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 10, 2003 Report Share Posted December 10, 2003 Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > Dear Dan, > > Thanks for your supportive and encouraging words. > > I think I got now what Balsekar did and why his words did catch me > immediately. Dan, leave your position as an nondual-psychologist for > a moment and try to see that Balsekar with his statement took the > position of the " me " , how the me would see it. The " me " indeed lives > in the illusion of owning purposeful intentions and I as the watcher > can realize this when it is caught again in that illusion. I can feel > that " will " physically because it is mobilizing " effort " . Maybe he > was using in addition the word " enlightenment " as kind of carroting > the " me " which constantly is driven by " gaining " to increase the > tension between gaining and letting go. > > What do you think about this ? > > Werner Hi Werner -- Not putting aside just yet being aware of psychology, because I think what you are talking about are psychological concerns of an individual. An individual wants to feel free, to feel unimpeded, not to have the weight of responsibility, decision-making. To speak to an individual, about the freedom for and in an individual by realizing nonindividuality, requires an individual to speak to that individual. So, it's true what you say, that he speaks to the me, and thus he must be a me to speak thusly. A me being spoken to by a me about freedom from the me, remains a me, now wanting to experience this freedom. Yes, it is a carrot. The end of psychology, the end of any individual or group concerns, needs, and so on -- is the end of verbal communications providing anything like truth, meaning, hope, affirmation, love. But not just that -- it is the end of experience being used to provide satisfaction, affirmation, and confirmation. -- 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.