Flame out to all you post-happy understanders/Willy

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Will Brown " <wilbro99>

wrote:

 

> Willy: 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: It's excellent, Willy, because

it touches on the core issues that having

to do with seeking and transformation!

> -- -- --

 

> 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. (?)

>

> W: 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: Yes, a " seeing " and then a " release " . Is that an

" insight " ? Is it a non-causal event that mysteriously erupts

into the present, and suddenly releases one from thought as

self, and this sense of an inward entity, and the continuous

thought stream of the internal dialogue?

.... It that the direct perception of what is?

It's seems so simple and natural as soon as the self is gone,

the whole psychological complex of thought and emotion.

> -- -- --

 

> RF: But what can remove one from the entanglement of

> thinking? Some say just keep coming back to the relaxed,

> abdominal breathing, and focus your attention on the

> " heart " , for example?

 

> W: 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.

> out the innards. 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: " Working together " – " The way of exhaustion " ?

… Are these, then, perhaps " bridges " ?

It seems that the " relative man " must finally exhausts himself by

making tremendous efforts to try to realize the effortlessness of

observation and non-doing - just simple observation and spontaneity?

Untild then must we always be thinking about it, and trying so hard

work it in various ways – is that the solution/answer?

> -- -- --

 

> RF: Why does one have the " conclusion " that there is no

> " bridge " , I wonder? I know it is logical, .. but is it " true " ?

 

> W: 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: Yes, the bridge self-destructs, because it no longer serves

any purpose once on " the other side " . We set up the conditions, and

then we wait for it to happen. We think that we will recognize " it "

when it comes, because we already have an idea of what it is like.

It's like I am projecting - I project my desire and then I realize

it, and when I encounter some extraordinary experience I think I

have realized.

So the " relative man " lives in dualism, and must " do " and make

effort to set up the right conditions, whereas the non-dual

person lives in unity already, and so there is nothing to do

and nowhere to go, because everything is already one.

.... And then there is the person who intellectually understands

non-dual concepts, but cannot actually live them.

> -- -- --

 

> 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???

 

> W: 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: Well, it may be a mistake to look for an answer

outside of the problem, because we are really pointing out

that the solution does NOT exist on it own side - outside

of the problem. I think what we need to discover if it is

really " practical " to live without the self,

.... if is it even possible?

> -- -- --

 

> RF: What is this " glitch in one's self-to-self relation " ?

> What " wrong doing " does one cease to do,

> or are we only indulging in yet another

> oxymoron, one which only promises to

> " bring the glitch to an end " ?

 

> W: 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 one self, that one is that problem.

> How would you now answer the questions you have just asked

> if another asked them?

 

**** RF: It may not be possible to approach this problem - or

even communicate it, until there is that discovery that " you "

ARE the problem. It is from this point on then that one must

face the problem of how to dissolve the self and how to live

without it?

> -- -- --

 

> RF: Will the intellectual " negation from the 'other' side "

> dissolve the self? If not, I wonder what will???

 

> W: 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

 

 

**** RF: It's only a " dead end " intellectually. The value of

having an insight into the difference between " intellectual

understanding " and holistic understanding " , is in its practical

application to daily life. We must then observe to see the

difference between the idea and the actual, because the idea

is the self and its illusions, whereas the actual is real life.

.... I am just trying to say that the information and knowledge

ABOUT a thing, is not the thing itself – it is only a symbolic

representation, and that I think that transformation may come

from the direct contact with the real thing, and the spontaneity

that results.

 

Sincerely,

RF