Guest guest Posted December 15, 2003 Report Share Posted December 15, 2003 Yes, Willy I do believe that was somthing from J. Krishnamurti from an essay on the web. I think he does a good job in describing thought in that little clip I have been keeping around. Steve Nisargadatta , " Will Brown " <wilbro99> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " caspardegroot " > <caspardegroot> wrote: > > > Contradiction gives us an impetus to live; the very element of > > > friction makes us feel that we are alive. The effort, the struggle > > > of contradiction, gives us a sense of vitality. That is why we love > > > wars, that is why we enjoy the battle of frustrations. > > > So long as there is the desire to achieve a result, which is the > > > desire to be psychologically secure, there must be a > > > contradiction........thought, which is the product of time, can > > > never find that which is timeless, can never know that which is > > > beyond time. The very nature of our thinking > > > is a contradiction, because we are always thinking in terms of the > > > past or of the future; therefore we are never fully cognizant, > > > fully aware of the present.......the mind is > > > incapable of facing a fact directly without deception. Thought is > > > the product of the past and therefore it can only think in terms of > > > the past or of the future; it cannot be completely aware of a fact > > > in the present. So long as thought, which is the product of the > > > past, tries to eliminate contradiction and all the problems that it > > > creates, it is merely pursuing a result, trying to achieve an end, > > > and such thinking only creates more contradiction and hence conflict, > > > misery and confusion in us and, therefore, about us. > > > > OK. So is thought to be eliminated? > > caspar, that quote looks very much like something J. Krishnamurti > would say. If so, that to be eliminated is thought that rises from the > thinker who has a past, what JK calls 'the me.' JK made the > distinction between thought grounded in intelligence and thought > grounded in 'the me.' I would describe the difference in thought as > being between thought that rises from one's understanding, > self-understanding, much like a teacher who knows the subject and is > able to 'think' about the subject without thinking about the subject, > and thought that rises from 'the me.' In the former, with > self-understanding, there is no need to think about the subject, 'the > me'; that subject being no longer present. I offer this distinction > only to answer your question about the elimination of thought. ---- willy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 15, 2003 Report Share Posted December 15, 2003 - " caspardegroot " <caspardegroot <Nisargadatta > Monday, December 15, 2003 05:52 PM Re: Flame out to all you post-happy understanders > > And what is your understanding? > > Ah well, you know, the usual. The person cannot be real, as all there is, > is a collection of ever changing particulars. Also, the universe cannot be > separate from the perceiver, simply because no separation can be > demonstrated to exist--it can only be imagined, which shows that any > separation is just another element in the big whole. Furthermore, there > can be no difference between consciousness and the universe. And I > could of course go on and on and on and find a gazillion other ways of > expressing the same, as any other poster on this group could. OK And what is the issue between this understanding and your living, the day to day living? > > > Liberation is essentially the liberation from the need of > > liberation,...............something which the mind cannot apperceive. > > My mind acknowledges the sensibility of this statement--but I guess we agree that the mind's agreement isn't very interesting. Meaning you agree, but..............:-) > > > Who,......... as per you Casper, is currently bound under the bonds of > time? > > > > Can that is bound under the bonds of time, be ever be free of time? > > No. It can't be free of it. But it can be destroyed, can't it? And when it is, > there's nothing left that's under the bonds of time. Destroy what? Shadows? A shadow does not exist, where it does not fall. A shadow does not exist, even where it does fall. All attempts to be free, is like stamping on your shadow to be erase it's infernal presence. And there are schools which teach you particular stamping techniques,........there are even experts who claim to have erased such infernal obnoxiousity, using such techniques. See the shadow for what it is,........... and go and sit under a tree, smoking a Cohiba or sipping some Remy Martin. > > > Look at the concept of time. > > Is it not based on the concept of change? > > Without change, ...........can " time " be cognized,.......does " time " have > any meaning? > > No. > > > Can you see that the very seeking to liberate from the bondage, > assumes AND perpetuates the apriori assumption? > > Maybe a little, but not quite. Bondage seems real to me. OK. In what way? > > > Thus,..............is it anything but round and round the mulberry bush? > > If you're right, then indeed the conclusion would be that it is nothing but > a senseless chase. :-) So, look for yourself. > > > > In any case, yes > > > sir, I'm not liberated. Are you? > > > > -------- > > > > If you could define the " you " ,....................an answer will definitely > arrive. > > Why do I need to define the you? Because a question was posed for that " you " . > Why did all the great sages blatantly state that they were enlightened (e.g. Christ, Buddha, Ramana, Papaji, > Nisargadatta), In this moment, ...............all that you have on these dudes,.............is a written record or what they have supposed to have said. Right? All records are an conditioned interpretative rendering of what the utterance was, in the moment which is long gone. So invite you not to go too much with all those " blatant statements " and look into the oxymoron-ness of a stating " I am enlightened " . > but here no-one makes that claim? Maybe they are the shy simpering types. > Why don't you want to > make that claim? Or tell me something that has that implication, that'd > be fine too. There has never been an enlightened person. Ever. Yes, in a manner of speaking, there has been manifest biological objects,............where the prevailing sense of entitification, hence the prevailing sense of separation, and hence the prevailing sense of bondage/seeking to end bondage,...............all that hoopla,...........has ended. In a manner of speaking, ...........for the term " ended " ,...............presupposes the existential reality of something which has ended, in time. The hilarity of awakening,.........the awakening of that which was never not-awake, and that put to rest, which never was. > > > Ultimately non-existant self? > > > > Which supposes that it exists now and at some point of time, through > some activity, it will become non-existant.,...right? > > > > So Caspar, right now,......what is the basis on which you assume the > existence, of a separated, individual self? > > When my mind stops moving, there is nothing to substantiate my claim > that there is a separate self. However, my mind doesn't stop moving > very much. And when it moves, then that is what is experienced as a > separate self. Mind moving. Mind stopping to move. Bring me your mind and I'll solve it's dilemma, whether to move or not to move. >Can one claim to be liberated as long as this movement is still taking place? Oh you can claim whatever you want to. Always great fun, this claiming game. > > > So you know what unity is? > > No, I don't *know* what unity is. > > > You must,...........in order for you make that statement that something > is separate (and hence is to transit) from unity. > > No, I don't expect something to transit. I can see how that thought > would be delusional, as transiting implies " this side " , " the other > side " , " the boundary " and " the transiting entity " . Clearly this is not unity. Yes. > However, I do expect something to die (or disappear). Sure. The form of the manifest object,.........the out-growth of a sperm-ovum complex, ........appears and disappears within a gestalt. And thus a concept of birth/death, thus the concept of change and ergo the concept of time,...............all this exists within this gestalt. > I guess I expect the disappearance of the separateness, so that unity is established. Is > this expectation an obstacle? The expectation of a disappearance,............resides on the apriori assumption of the existential reality of that which is to disappear, is it not? Do you see the cul-de-sac? The round and round the mulberry bush. It's like wanting to lift yourself by your boot-straps. You are the very weight, you wish to lift. Lot's of fun and games in trying to. > > > That wanting to control, amend, suppress, stop,..................is it > anything else but a thought? > > > > So thought is to cease thought? > > > > Can you see the oxy-moron-ess in that? > > I can see the oxymoron if you word it like this, yes. However, I don't > expect the thought " Think less!! " to put an end to other thoughts. But I > do sort of feel that in the absence of thoughts one moves in the right > direction... The absence of thought,....................is it anything else but a thought? And do you think a sage, an object which the audience has labeled as an " enlightened Master " ,..............is a thoughtless moron? When thought is seen to be,............. like any other aspect of living,.......a nuance of that one movement in the moment,...........moment to moment to moment,............ through a manifest conditioned biological object (which is again an objective expression of that same movement),.......... ......what is the issue with thoughts? > Or rather, is at home. I must admit that I'm not convinced > that this is correct, but it has a strong apparent validity for me. > > And btw, I also don't believe the absence of thoughts should be brought > about by suppressing thoughts. That would reduce rather than expand > one's field of consciousness, and I feel that wouldn't be helpful. So yes, > experience thoughts fully as they arise, but maybe don't act on them? Thought, arises in the moment,......... " moves " the instrument to act/respond, in whatever way it is supposed to,...........and dissipates in the same moment. See this, and find that chilled Riesling and that tree. > > > The issue, is you want to get somewhere. > > > > Inviting you to see, there is nowhere to reach,...........because there > > is no where, which you ARE not already. > > Hmm... interesting point. I can see that I'm everywhere already in the > spatial sense of the word... but who cares? I'm still not *happy* :-( Boo- > hoo-hoo. Maybe this is the heart of the matter: I want to be happy. You want to be happy or do you want to be " un-disturbale " , irrespective of the situation/condition that you find yourself in, at any point of time. > I understand that it is hopeless to try to build happyness on elements of this world, including one's own personality. Why would it be hopeless? > So what's the alternative? To see that happiness exists only in contrast. > That's what I'm investigating. My basic (and possibly erroneous) > assumption is nonetheless: if it doesn't provide happyness, I might as > well go back to relying on a steady supply of Pepperoni Pizza and Dr. > Pepper. I personally prefer Pepperoni with extra cheese. Chased with some Kingfisher beer. > > > Caspar,............there is none apart from you. > > > > We all are figments of your imagination, .......not just the characters > on this List, or even the one you are encountering in cyber -space, but > even the characters in your physical life. > > Sandeep, this is by far the most profound statement you've made so far. > But what do you mean exactly? That you don't exist? That there is no > experiencer on the other side of this exchange of messages, nor behind > the figures that appear in my field of vision as I walk the planet? Coz if > that's what your saying, then why don't I just totally stop caring? Maybe > that's what your trying to get me to do... I find it a tough cookie to > swallow though. There are other sufferers out there, right/wrong? If > there aren't, then well, jee... Out there,.............and the embellishments out there,............in whose cognition does it exist? > > > So if you have it all figured it out Caspar,...........what are you doing > here? > > Just go and do it.:-) > > What makes you say I have it all figured out? The only point I'm sure I'm > making is: I *don't* have it figured out. And I don't understand that just > about all other posters on this group seem to have little or no > questions... Am I the only one here who hasn't picked up his > Enlightenment diploma yet? :-) They all are out having some Pepperoni,.. pan fried. And keep an eye that nobody is swiping their beers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 15, 2003 Report Share Posted December 15, 2003 Nisargadatta , " caspardegroot " <caspardegroot> wrote: > > Contradiction gives us an impetus to live; the very element of > > friction makes us feel that we are alive. The effort, the struggle > > of contradiction, gives us a sense of vitality. That is why we love > > wars, that is why we enjoy the battle of frustrations. > > So long as there is the desire to achieve a result, which is the > > desire to be psychologically secure, there must be a > > contradiction........thought, which is the product of time, can > > never find that which is timeless, can never know that which is > > beyond time. The very nature of our thinking > > is a contradiction, because we are always thinking in terms of the > > past or of the future; therefore we are never fully cognizant, > > fully aware of the present.......the mind is > > incapable of facing a fact directly without deception. Thought is > > the product of the past and therefore it can only think in terms of > > the past or of the future; it cannot be completely aware of a fact > > in the present. So long as thought, which is the product of the > > past, tries to eliminate contradiction and all the problems that it > > creates, it is merely pursuing a result, trying to achieve an end, > > and such thinking only creates more contradiction and hence conflict, > > misery and confusion in us and, therefore, about us. > > OK. So is thought to be eliminated? The beyond-thought reality would never seek to eliminate thought. It has no reason to. It already always *is* beyond thought, no matter what. So, it is only thought that seeks to eliminate thought. And the better it gets at it, the more it can think that it has eliminated thought, and can advertise the ways, programs, devotions, spiritual teachings that do this significant thing! -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 16, 2003 Report Share Posted December 16, 2003 > So, what I see you as requesting is not the view from the > " other " side, but the view from the " bridge. " ----willy That very accurately summarizes my initial post, yes. I must admit though, that the responses that have been posted so far, have certainly been helpful--so I guess there is somehow value in the refusal of some here to indulge my eager mind... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 16, 2003 Report Share Posted December 16, 2003 What kind of thought? What kind of question? What ways to bring words togehter? Could this offered worse? OK? http://n0by.de n0by/ > Nisargadatta , " caspardegroot " > <caspardegroot> wrote: .......snip... > OK. So is thought to be eliminated? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 16, 2003 Report Share Posted December 16, 2003 Nisargadatta , " caspardegroot " <caspardegroot> wrote: > > So, what I see you as requesting is not the view from the > > " other " side, but the view from the " bridge. " ----willy > > That very accurately summarizes my initial post, yes. > > I must admit though, that the responses that have been posted so far, > have certainly been helpful--so I guess there is somehow value in the > refusal of some here to indulge my eager mind... caspar, I can only speak from my experience with this whole mess, but perhaps it might be of help. All I am going to try to do here is put the problem, and its solution, in a light that requires a change in the solution path. What if your problem were not your eager mind, but the direction your eager mind was taking? Assume that the answer is not to find something, enlightenment, the answer, or whatever, but to stop doing something. Assume further that that doing which must be stopped is something that is being done naturally, but naturally only because there is a glitch, say in one's self-to-self relation, that makes doing the wrong thing seem like the right thing to do. And the last assumption, assume that the glitch is of such a nature that in trying to un-glitch, doing the wrong thing is perpetuated. From that assumption pile, it could be concluded that the glitch and the wrong doing is one, and that ceasing the wrong doing brings the glitch to an end. It might be that the wrong doing has some inertia to it and creates what might look like a causal relation, or that the glitch want to preserve itself, or however else the ending of the act displays itself, but the central conclusion is that the glitch /is/ the act and the act /is/ the glitch. This is what powers all of this talk of negation from the " other " side. Another conclusion that might arise from those assumptions is that there is no " bridge. " The notion of a bridge would arise from the wrong act, the notion of a finding that supports a seeker. So, the solution is to bring the act to an end. But the glitch cannot do that if it is the wrong act. See how the logic of this works? So what can the wrong act do to bring itself to an end? Nothing. End of story? Nope. Since the act of observing has an anti-act quality about it, pick any one of a number of observer conditions and have at it. My suggestion would be to watch yourself getting caught up in your thoughts by the way you are reacting to things, including your reaction to the observation of that reaction, and watch the way you lose yourself in thought, losing your sensed world in the process. Others might suggest meditation of some sort. In any case, fire up the observer and begin watching what is going on. That sets the condition for the act, and its glitch, to come to an end. Or so this particular run of words would have it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 16, 2003 Report Share Posted December 16, 2003 Nisargadatta , wilbro99 wrote: > Nisargadatta , " caspardegroot " > <caspardegroot> wrote: > > > So, what I see you as requesting is not the view from the > > > " other " side, but the view from the " bridge. " ----willy > > > > That very accurately summarizes my initial post, yes. > > > > I must admit though, that the responses that have been posted so far, > > have certainly been helpful--so I guess there is somehow value in the > > refusal of some here to indulge my eager mind... > > caspar, I can only speak from my experience with this whole mess, but > perhaps it might be of help. All I am going to try to do here is put > the problem, and its solution, in a light that requires a change in > the solution path. What if your problem were not your eager mind, but > the direction your eager mind was taking? > > Assume that the answer is not to find something, enlightenment, the > answer, or whatever, but to stop doing something. Assume further that > that doing which must be stopped is something that is being done > naturally, but naturally only because there is a glitch, say in one's > self-to-self relation, that makes doing the wrong thing seem like the > right thing to do. And the last assumption, assume that the glitch is > of such a nature that in trying to un-glitch, doing the wrong thing is > perpetuated. > > From that assumption pile, it could be concluded that the glitch and > the wrong doing is one, and that ceasing the wrong doing brings the > glitch to an end. It might be that the wrong doing has some inertia to > it and creates what might look like a causal relation, or that the > glitch want to preserve itself, or however else the ending of the act > displays itself, but the central conclusion is that the glitch /is/ > the act and the act /is/ the glitch. This is what powers all of this > talk of negation from the " other " side. > > Another conclusion that might arise from those assumptions is that > there is no " bridge. " The notion of a bridge would arise from the > wrong act, the notion of a finding that supports a seeker. So, the > solution is to bring the act to an end. But the glitch cannot do that > if it is the wrong act. See how the logic of this works? So what can > the wrong act do to bring itself to an end? Nothing. End of story? > Nope. Since the act of observing has an anti-act quality about it, > pick any one of a number of observer conditions and have at it. > > My suggestion would be to watch yourself getting caught up in your > thoughts by the way you are reacting to things, including your > reaction to the observation of that reaction, and watch the way you > lose yourself in thought, losing your sensed world in the process. > Others might suggest meditation of some sort. In any case, fire up the > observer and begin watching what is going on. That sets the condition > for the act, and its glitch, to come to an end. Or so this particular > run of words would have it. *********************************** Hi Willy, So it appears all this self-centered activity finally must come full circle - to eventually arrive at this silent and passive observation, and that means one cannot always be caught up in thought. (?) But what can remove one from the entaglement of thinking? Some say just keep coming back to the relaxed, abdominal breathing, and focus your attention on the " heart " , for example? Why does one have the " conclusion " that there is no " bridge " , I wonder? I know it is logical, .... but is it " true " ? Is there really no action - nothing, then, that the " relative man " can do? Is the intellectual understanding of " non-doing " really sufficient? .... What is it that will actually bring about a real and valid transformation? We already can see that the mere conceptual idea that one should just " observe " is again just more thought and more self, and, therefore, not a real solution - is it??? What is this " glitch in one's self-to-self relation " ? What " wrong doing " does one cease to do, or are we only indugling in yet another oxymoron, one which only promises to " bring the glitch to an end " ? Will the intellectual " negation from the 'other' side " dissolve the self? If not, I wonder what will??? Sincerely, RF Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 17, 2003 Report Share Posted December 17, 2003 > > What is this " glitch in one's self-to-self relation " ? > What " wrong doing " does one cease to do, or are we > only indugling in yet another oxymoron, one which only > promises to " bring the glitch to an end " ? > > Will the intellectual " negation from the 'other' side " > dissolve the self? If not, I wonder what will??? > > Sincerely, > RF P: Did you will this interest in the 'affair.' Has it not grown with time? Is it not taking more of your time, thoughts, life? Are you, now, able to give up this 'affair' ? Doesn't it seems it generates its own action? It will grow. It will Consumme you. It's not really 'you' who do or not do. Not any longer. Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 18, 2003 Report Share Posted December 18, 2003 RF, after I had written this, and absorbed its pedantic style, I have rationalized that it was also an invite for you, and others in this list, to fill in the cracks, completely rework it, or demolish it. If the last, let's have a ripe Stilton cheese before coffee is served. Again, consider this as something I place on the table here as fodder for thought. -- -- -- RF: Hi Willy, So it appears all this self-centered activity finally must come full circle - to eventually arrive at this silent and passive observation, and that means one cannot always be caught up in thought. (?) Hi RF, I think that pretty much sums it up. In the some six years that I have been plying the web, I have found that those with whom I could communicate this have come to it through various doors, but essentially to the same place; there is the seeing of a doing that releases one from that doing, and, in that release, there is the sense of being unbound. There is a secondary binding that ensues if one takes that release as a sign of having " found " the answer, which begins the activity again. I would characterize that place as the place of seeing. We have all agreed that it was an in-common place. -- -- -- RF: But what can remove one from the entaglement of thinking? Some say just keep coming back to the relaxed, abdominal breathing, and focus your attention on the " heart " , for example? I would guess that there are two ways, working together, to get at it; the way of observation and the way of exhaustion. The way of observation is the way of meditation and/or passive observation, and the way of exhaustion is to beat one's head against the wall sufficiently to see the activity that supports it. Some get an immediate intuitive feel for what the doing is, and, in recognizing it, end it. Others work their way through it and can lay out the innards of that activity. In the end, I see it as a practical problem with a practical answer; nothing mystical or such. -- -- -- RF: Why does one have the " conclusion " that there is no " bridge " , I wonder? I know it is logical, .. but is it " true " ? That's a question I have rassled with before. My present answer goes like this: The bridge is not the " Via Positiva, " which makes the bridge a bridge, but the " Via Negativa, " which makes it the bridge that self-destructs with use. If the " other side " is the ending of an activity, then the most " this side " can do is set the condition for the activity to come to an end. All of this hinges upon the necessity that the bridge is itself an extension of the activity. -- -- -- RF: Is there really no action - nothing, then, that the " relative man " can do? Is the intellectual understanding of " non-doing " really sufficient? ... What is it that will actually bring about a real and valid transformation? We already can see that the mere conceptual idea that one should just " observe " is again just more thought and more self, and, therefore, not a real solution - is it??? My inclination here would be to separate the act from the intent. It would seem to me that anything I do as the seeker, and this includes not doing, is with the intent of crossing the bridge. The notion of crossing the bridge, even if tempered by the notion of a self-destructing bridge, still contains the vision of crossing the bridge. So, for whatever the reason, if I take up the cause of not doing, I have taken that poison pill, as it were, and narrowed the possibility of exposing my doing's through the not doing. Again, if the problem is not a practical problem with a practical answer, what then? -- -- -- RF: What is this " glitch in one's self-to-self relation " ? What " wrong doing " does one cease to do, or are we only indugling in yet another oxymoron, one which only promises to " bring the glitch to an end " ? A thought experiment. Let's isolate you from others for the purpose of this thought experiment. Say this, say that there is a problem whose cause cannot be seen until it is solved and that you did not know you had that problem until it was solved. Suddenly, the problem is solved. Then, you not only see that you had a problem, but you also see what the problem was and it turns out that you were the problem. Since this is absolutely new territory, your task is now to describe that problem. The metaphor that rises to describe that self-problem was of a wrong grasp of yourself as yourself, of a glitch in your self-to-self relation. With that metaphor in hand, you now use it to show that the problem is not separate from oneself, that one is that problem. How would you now answer the questions you have just asked if another asked them? -- -- -- RF: Will the intellectual " negation from the 'other' side " dissolve the self? If not, I wonder what will??? It seems to me that the notion of an intellectual understanding only is just another " other side " term for saying that the " bridge " is a projection. If that term is adopted by a seeker, then any understanding could be termed " intellectual " and the seeker may then take the next step of saying that since its understanding is " intellectual " it follows that there is something that cannot be understood. This seems to me to be a dead end. But that's not your question, is it. ----willy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 2, 2004 Report Share Posted January 2, 2004 Hi. Too bad I have to put this out here again, but maybe once was not enough. Casper is a rather unique person which is why I responded to him. It is this kind of person, a person who is not ordinary, with whom I would like to make a lifelong association and not lose touch with, as people like this are few and far between. This is why I wrote the message below, which you can read in its entirety, to Casper, and not because I want to be his Guru. In truth, if I ever do want to be a guru, many young people are attracted to me, like bees to honey, and hordes of them will come to me in person and bring many of their friends, if at any time I decide to begin activities. So, if anyone has not seen my original message, you can read it below. Sincerely, Wry - wry Nisargadatta Friday, December 12, 2003 1:04 PM Re: Flame out to all you post-happy understanders Casper, this is Wy. Your message is most welcome. I hope I never lose touch with you on the internet. If you ever change your email address, please notify me, as someday there may be some interesting activities you may like to engage in.See below. - caspardegroot Nisargadatta Friday, December 12, 2003 3:09 AM Flame out to all you post-happy understanders To all my non-existent fellow strugglers: The understanding that there is no " I " , which most of you seem to have adopted with great enthusiasm, is in and of itself hardly valuable. In fact, the understanding is of the mind, so what appears to be understanding is yet another illusion--albeit one that plants the seed for liberation. ------------ Wry: This is correct. --------------- Understanding is like a rope dangling down from the Supreme. ------------ Wry: No response required to this point, but perhaps you could examine the approach suggested in the above sentence, as this creates further dichotomy, as in order to verify a " Supreme " or Absolute, with a capitol S or A, one needs to mentally posit ones own reason on the same side of this as a verifying. This is the teaching of the prasangika madhymika school of Buddhism (that of the Dalai Lama), the consequence school, which approaches reality as having two aspects-one being that it exists conventionally, and the second being that it is ultimately empty, the reason being that without this two-fold approach, it is not possible to cleanse the afflictions (as they would be ultimately ture, if there is only one aspect). So in this way a person can develop his discriminative abilities without becoming even more confused in the way we see people becoming confused on this list and everywhere. ------------ The mind can simply trudge through the marshes of mentation while holding the rope and post semantically dazzling messages about this experience. ----------- Wry: Yes, but, even if a person does achieve mental non-duality, it is shameful, in my opinion, and in the opinion of some others, to be what is called disparagingly, " a solitary realizer, " (not that we even have any of these on here, is my guess), as this is not being in full relationship, in that it leaves suffering beings behind. ________________ But really, there is no liberation whatsoever unless the body-mind manages to somehow hoist itself up along this rope, little by little, through assiduous efforts, intense discipline and true altruism, until it reaches the rope's end and drops away into the Void. THAT is liberation. In the mean time, somewhere halfway up between the soggy grounds and the Supreme, the view of the lands will get increasingly clearer as the ascent takes place--which justifies the involvement of more advanced but not yet liberated seekers in the pursuit of new understanders. ------------------- Wry: Yep. In the pursuit of new understanders. This is a form of pyramiding. There is a need to convert in order to sustain the illusion of liberation. Not to imply that pyramiding cannot have a place in spiritual development or that there is not necessarily not a nned for some kind of conversion. -------------- So... why don't all you non-existing, swamp-dwelling rope-holders get off your non-dualist high horses and start the climb? ----------- Wry: they can't. They are not attracted to this approach. If certain conditions are set up, though, through the dedication and effort of good people like yourself, whose reason is a little bit more objective, this people will have a certain external structure that may enable them to harness certain energy that they are leaking, and thereby get a taste of a kind of food that is more essential and sustaining. ---------- We can all talk the talk. But disappointingly few of us walk the walk- -or, to stick with my original metaphore, climb the climb. And when the question is asked " Yes, there is understanding, so now what? " , posts come back claiming that " there is no understander, no doer, there is nothing to be done " . Treacherous folly, all of it. There is EVERYTHING to be done. Understanding will not redeem your miserable non-existent souls. Only liberation will. And the two are related only in the way a seed and a tree are. One MIGHT give birth to the other, but not easily: as in nature, most seeds are lost forever without any sort of plant every growing from them. ---------- Wry: Yes, not every acorn can develop into a giant oak. -------------- Spare me your vacuous semantic games. Rather, give me, that non- existent phantom me that is desperately trying to start the climb, some practical advice on how to avoid slipping off the rope. And no, the mind-game of repeating silly statements saying " there is no climber, there is no rope, there is no statement-repeater, for you are only awareness " will not help--and that goes for YOU too. Yes YOU, coz YOU DO AND WILL EXIST until your are liberated. -------------- Wry: Things need to be set up deliberately, externally, to encourage the deveopment of the little acorn into a seedling and then a tree. I notice you are making this message for the group, as well as for yourself, with a great motivation to help others, as well as a basic understanding of the great difficulty to succeed in becoming liberated. The understanding of the difficult situation of a human being with an afflicted mind already greatly increases your opportunity to become free of the afflictions. This understanding, combined with right motivation, will magnetically attract to you, as if by magic, whatever is required for you to not only help others but also yourself. It is a law. Sincerely, Wry Laterz, Caspar. 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.