Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org

Here I go again

Rate this topic


Guest guest

Recommended Posts

Some more ponderings, which largely just reiterate the points I made

earlier--but that won't keep me from posting em ;) ...

 

Understanding on the mental level that one is nothing, that one is

not one's thoughts or body or feelings, and that one is only

consciousness, is just a first step. *A* first step, I say, because

one might also go with the notion that one is everything, that one is

love, or that one is " with God " , as is done on the Bhakti path.

 

Such understandings plant the seed for self-destruction in the ego.

However, it's just the seed. Once the seed's been planted, it will

have to be nurtured. The seed will only grow if it starts little by

little to override the conditioned impulses that put us at the mercy

of desires and fears. Ultimately the seed might grow to encompass the

All and the Everything, in which case Enlightenment *is*. Is not the

seed itself another conditioning, one might interject? Well... in a

way, yes, but it is a conditioning that " undoes " other conditionings.

Let's liken it to putting a heater inside a freezer. The heater is

yet more freezer-content, yes, but it plays a rather different role

than the other content... and when everything is thawed, the heater

itself will no longer serve a purpose and thus dissolve itself.

 

From the enlightened perspective--which indeed cannot really be a

perspective, it will probably be clear that yes, there never was a

doer, nor a path, nor a struggle, nor any free will. However, as long

as this non-perspective is not permanently established, i.e. as long

as perspectives are not permanently eliminated, the path, the seeker

and the struggle are as real as can be, and one will have to deal

with them, I think.

 

I cannot at this point to the notion that the mere extra-

mental insight and acceptance that one does not exist *is*

enlightenment. It might be because I'm going through emotionally

rough times and I find that Advaita Vedanta is just too tough a

cookie to swallow--valid though it clearly is. It's easy to be an

Advaitist when times are good or at least bearable... but when your

world cracks up it takes an absolutely gargantuan amount of courage

to hold only to the Advaita teachings--more courage than I can muster

right now.

 

On the positive side though, I do believe that great practical

lessons can be learned from Advaita. For one, it shows that there is

really no point in scolding ourselves or others for anything, as we

are all just conditioned mechanisms struggling with the challenge of

life.

 

Advaita, especially as taught by Ramana, has been called " The

Mountain Path " . And I confirm: it is. One can try to take it, sure,

it's probably the shortest route to the top. But boy, is it steep or

what. It's a narrow, slippery, rocky path straight up, with

absolutely nothing to hold on to along the way. No signposts, no

comforts, nothing, except a large sign all the way at the start

saying " SHORTEST PATH TO SUMMIT " .

 

I find right now that at times it is more viable to take the well-

paved interstates that spiral up along that giant mountain and that

have comforting inns and McDonald's along the way. Or, to drop the

metaphore, to go with a lot of love and a little devotion instead of

(just) the clinical full-frontal attack that Advaita prescribes.

Sure, the journey will take longer--possibly a lot longer, but who

cares, since there really is no path, right?

 

Merry christmas,

Caspar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hallelujah Caspar,

 

<SNIP>

 

 

> From the enlightened perspective--which indeed cannot really be a

> perspective, it will probably be clear that yes, there never was a

> doer, nor a path, nor a struggle, nor any free will. However, as long

> as this non-perspective is not permanently established, i.e. as long

> as perspectives are not permanently eliminated, the path, the seeker

> and the struggle are as real as can be, and one will have to deal

> with them, I think.

 

 

Sure.

As long as the sense of a " me " prevails, the " me " can only see things to do,

paths to follow, goals to be achieved, problems ot be solved, questions to be

answered,...........speculate about what could be the enlightened

perspective/non-perspective.

 

Enlightenment is itself an issue of relevance, of significance,....... only for

the " me " .

 

 

 

>

> I cannot at this point to the notion that the mere extra-

> mental insight and acceptance that one does not exist *is*

> enlightenment. It might be because I'm going through emotionally

> rough times and I find that Advaita Vedanta is just too tough a

> cookie to swallow--valid though it clearly is.

 

 

That takes something to admit, Caspar.

 

Invite to see, that the need for courage arises with a stake.

 

A stake which is believed to be threatened, which can be lost.

 

Without this prevailing sense of a stake,......the very issue of the need for

courage is moot, isn't it?

 

 

So what's the stake which is feared could be lost?

 

And that which can be lost,..................was it ever with you?

 

Did you ever have it?

 

A temporary guest which came to reside in your house, ...........the risk of the

guest of leaving at some time or the other definitely exists,............but

would you need courage to face that possible risk?

 

What's the difference between that guest and say,........ a loved one?

 

 

 

 

 

> It's easy to be an

> Advaitist when times are good or at least bearable... but when your

> world cracks up it takes an absolutely gargantuan amount of courage

> to hold only to the Advaita teachings--more courage than I can muster

> right now.

 

 

Invite you to see what is the gargantuan orangutan at stake.

 

 

 

>

> On the positive side though, I do believe that great practical

> lessons can be learned from Advaita. For one, it shows that there is

> really no point in scolding ourselves or others for anything, as we

> are all just conditioned mechanisms struggling with the challenge of

> life.

>

> Advaita, especially as taught by Ramana, has been called " The

> Mountain Path " . And I confirm: it is. One can try to take it, sure,

> it's probably the shortest route to the top. But boy, is it steep or

> what. It's a narrow, slippery, rocky path straight up, with

> absolutely nothing to hold on to along the way. No signposts, no

> comforts, nothing, except a large sign all the way at the start

> saying " SHORTEST PATH TO SUMMIT " .

 

 

Nope.

 

The signpost says, " WHERE YOU ARE, YOUR ASS RESTS ON A SHARP SUMMIT "

 

>

> I find right now that at times it is more viable to take the well-

> paved interstates that spiral up along that giant mountain and that

> have comforting inns and McDonald's along the way. Or, to drop the

> metaphore, to go with a lot of love and a little devotion instead of

> (just) the clinical full-frontal attack that Advaita prescribes.

> Sure, the journey will take longer--possibly a lot longer, but who

> cares, since there really is no path, right?

 

 

:-)

 

You do care Caspar.

 

But hey this is Hallelujah seasons,..............it's all about caring isn't it?

 

So heigh ho, Caspar.

 

Say boo to all the Advaitists and the Bhaktists.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nisargadatta , " caspardegroot " <caspardegroot> wrote:

> Some more ponderings, which largely just reiterate the points I made

> earlier--but that won't keep me from posting em ;) ...

>

> Understanding on the mental level that one is nothing, that one is

> not one's thoughts or body or feelings, and that one is only

> consciousness, is just a first step.

 

 

 

Hi Caspar,

 

These are the thoughts that many of us of have struggled with.....lo these many

years.

 

It seems to be impossible to understand intellectually that one is nothing...as

there still exists a locus in which the understanding occurs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*A* first step, I say, because

> one might also go with the notion that one is everything, that one is

> love, or that one is " with God " , as is done on the Bhakti path.

 

 

 

The same applies to the belief that one is all.

The identified-entity, being a phantom, cannot resolve its own

predicament.....identification and separation arise and subside together.

 

 

 

 

>

> Such understandings plant the seed for self-destruction in the ego.

> However, it's just the seed. Once the seed's been planted, it will

> have to be nurtured. The seed will only grow if it starts little by

> little to override the conditioned impulses that put us at the mercy

> of desires and fears. Ultimately the seed might grow to encompass the

> All and the Everything, in which case Enlightenment *is*. Is not the

> seed itself another conditioning, one might interject? Well... in a

> way, yes, but it is a conditioning that " undoes " other conditionings.

> Let's liken it to putting a heater inside a freezer. The heater is

> yet more freezer-content, yes, but it plays a rather different role

> than the other content... and when everything is thawed, the heater

> itself will no longer serve a purpose and thus dissolve itself.

>

> From the enlightened perspective--which indeed cannot really be a

> perspective, it will probably be clear that yes, there never was a

> doer, nor a path, nor a struggle, nor any free will. However, as long

> as this non-perspective is not permanently established, i.e. as long

> as perspectives are not permanently eliminated, the path, the seeker

> and the struggle are as real as can be, and one will have to deal

> with them, I think.

>

> I cannot at this point to the notion that the mere extra-

> mental insight and acceptance that one does not exist *is*

> enlightenment. It might be because I'm going through emotionally

> rough times and I find that Advaita Vedanta is just too tough a

> cookie to swallow--valid though it clearly is.

 

 

Ahhh yes,

Along with the illusion of separation come the dogs of war.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's easy to be an

> Advaitist when times are good or at least bearable... but when your

> world cracks up it takes an absolutely gargantuan amount of courage

> to hold only to the Advaita teachings--more courage than I can muster

> right now.

 

 

The identified mind, when threatened, has a whole bag of tricks.....one of which

is emotional turmol.

The drama-de-jour keeps the windows closed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

>

> On the positive side though, I do believe that great practical

> lessons can be learned from Advaita. For one, it shows that there is

> really no point in scolding ourselves or others for anything, as we

> are all just conditioned mechanisms struggling with the challenge of

> life.

 

 

 

 

As long as the identified-entity exists....it will be at war.....the realization

of its condition only makes it appear more real to itself.

 

 

 

>

> Advaita, especially as taught by Ramana, has been called " The

> Mountain Path " . And I confirm: it is. One can try to take it, sure,

> it's probably the shortest route to the top. But boy, is it steep or

> what. It's a narrow, slippery, rocky path straight up, with

> absolutely nothing to hold on to along the way. No signposts, no

> comforts, nothing, except a large sign all the way at the start

> saying " SHORTEST PATH TO SUMMIT " .

>

> I find right now that at times it is more viable to take the well-

> paved interstates that spiral up along that giant mountain and that

> have comforting inns and McDonald's along the way. Or, to drop the

> metaphore, to go with a lot of love and a little devotion instead of

> (just) the clinical full-frontal attack that Advaita prescribes.

> Sure, the journey will take longer--possibly a lot longer, but who

> cares, since there really is no path, right?

 

 

 

 

........and no one to take it.......LOL

 

 

 

Caspar,

 

Thank you for the above letter.......

When I read your words.....something in me resonates and responds.....I guess

we're all trying to sneek up on this thing.......

 

 

Merry Christmas

 

 

 

 

 

>

 

 

 

 

> Merry christmas,

> Caspar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Caspar, a view from the bridge. Let me offer another view of the

problem. This particular problem is round enough that there can be

many different views of what it is, yet all be looking at the same

thing. It can be described as the seeker-complex, with it's me trying

to adjust its past, from whence it comes to be present, by playing

with the future, a circle of sorts that thinks/imagines it is making

progress; and it can be described as a conditioned entity, a me,

always reacting to what it immediately confronts, and seeking to find

freedom from that conditioning by seeking a free self, or

enlightenment. The me of the seeker-complex can be seen as an imagined

entity plying an imagined cycle and imagining that it is moving in

time, reacting to it plight. The me of the conditioned reaction, in

contradistinction, is always present, reacting to its conditioning.

Same picture, but with a different view.

 

The me of the seeker-complex can be tossed into the present by being

excised of its future. If that me realizes, however it comes about,

that there is no future in its future, it is stuck with its reactions.

If the me of the conditioned reaction forgets the future and begins to

observe its conditioned way, the bridge is entered, and we have a view

from the bridge. I toss this on the table for your consideration as

another way of describing what others have described for you in their

terms. So, please consider this as only another perspective. ----willy

 

 

Nisargadatta , " caspardegroot "

<caspardegroot> wrote:

> Some more ponderings, which largely just reiterate the points I made

> earlier--but that won't keep me from posting em ;) ...

>

> Understanding on the mental level that one is nothing, that one is

> not one's thoughts or body or feelings, and that one is only

> consciousness, is just a first step. *A* first step, I say, because

> one might also go with the notion that one is everything, that one is

> love, or that one is " with God " , as is done on the Bhakti path.

>

> Such understandings plant the seed for self-destruction in the ego.

> However, it's just the seed. Once the seed's been planted, it will

> have to be nurtured. The seed will only grow if it starts little by

> little to override the conditioned impulses that put us at the mercy

> of desires and fears. Ultimately the seed might grow to encompass the

> All and the Everything, in which case Enlightenment *is*. Is not the

> seed itself another conditioning, one might interject? Well... in a

> way, yes, but it is a conditioning that " undoes " other conditionings.

> Let's liken it to putting a heater inside a freezer. The heater is

> yet more freezer-content, yes, but it plays a rather different role

> than the other content... and when everything is thawed, the heater

> itself will no longer serve a purpose and thus dissolve itself.

>

> From the enlightened perspective--which indeed cannot really be a

> perspective, it will probably be clear that yes, there never was a

> doer, nor a path, nor a struggle, nor any free will. However, as long

> as this non-perspective is not permanently established, i.e. as long

> as perspectives are not permanently eliminated, the path, the seeker

> and the struggle are as real as can be, and one will have to deal

> with them, I think.

>

> I cannot at this point to the notion that the mere extra-

> mental insight and acceptance that one does not exist *is*

> enlightenment. It might be because I'm going through emotionally

> rough times and I find that Advaita Vedanta is just too tough a

> cookie to swallow--valid though it clearly is. It's easy to be an

> Advaitist when times are good or at least bearable... but when your

> world cracks up it takes an absolutely gargantuan amount of courage

> to hold only to the Advaita teachings--more courage than I can muster

> right now.

>

> On the positive side though, I do believe that great practical

> lessons can be learned from Advaita. For one, it shows that there is

> really no point in scolding ourselves or others for anything, as we

> are all just conditioned mechanisms struggling with the challenge of

> life.

>

> Advaita, especially as taught by Ramana, has been called " The

> Mountain Path " . And I confirm: it is. One can try to take it, sure,

> it's probably the shortest route to the top. But boy, is it steep or

> what. It's a narrow, slippery, rocky path straight up, with

> absolutely nothing to hold on to along the way. No signposts, no

> comforts, nothing, except a large sign all the way at the start

> saying " SHORTEST PATH TO SUMMIT " .

>

> I find right now that at times it is more viable to take the well-

> paved interstates that spiral up along that giant mountain and that

> have comforting inns and McDonald's along the way. Or, to drop the

> metaphore, to go with a lot of love and a little devotion instead of

> (just) the clinical full-frontal attack that Advaita prescribes.

> Sure, the journey will take longer--possibly a lot longer, but who

> cares, since there really is no path, right?

>

> Merry christmas,

> Caspar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nisargadatta , " Will Brown " <wilbro99> wrote:

> Caspar, a view from the bridge. Let me offer another view of the

> problem. This particular problem is round enough that there can be

> many different views of what it is, yet all be looking at the same

> thing. It can be described as the seeker-complex, with it's me trying

> to adjust its past, from whence it comes to be present, by playing

> with the future, a circle of sorts that thinks/imagines it is making

> progress; and it can be described as a conditioned entity, a me,

> always reacting to what it immediately confronts, and seeking to find

> freedom from that conditioning by seeking a free self, or

> enlightenment. The me of the seeker-complex can be seen as an imagined

> entity plying an imagined cycle and imagining that it is moving in

> time, reacting to it plight. The me of the conditioned reaction, in

> contradistinction, is always present, reacting to its conditioning.

> Same picture, but with a different view.

>

> The me of the seeker-complex can be tossed into the present by being

> excised of its future. If that me realizes, however it comes about,

> that there is no future in its future, it is stuck with its reactions.

> If the me of the conditioned reaction forgets the future and begins to

> observe its conditioned way, the bridge is entered, and we have a view

> from the bridge. I toss this on the table for your consideration as

> another way of describing what others have described for you in their

> terms. So, please consider this as only another perspective. ----willy

>

>

 

 

Willy,

 

I really like what you said.

I have a question........Was what you stated above well articulated in your mind

prior to your response to Caspar.....or did it just bubble up in response to his

post?

 

I am asking because I have recently noticed a resonance like process that occurs

in the minds of seekers....that I can't describe.

 

 

 

 

 

 

> Nisargadatta , " caspardegroot "

> <caspardegroot> wrote:

> > Some more ponderings, which largely just reiterate the points I made

> > earlier--but that won't keep me from posting em ;) ...

> >

> > Understanding on the mental level that one is nothing, that one is

> > not one's thoughts or body or feelings, and that one is only

> > consciousness, is just a first step. *A* first step, I say, because

> > one might also go with the notion that one is everything, that one is

> > love, or that one is " with God " , as is done on the Bhakti path.

> >

> > Such understandings plant the seed for self-destruction in the ego.

> > However, it's just the seed. Once the seed's been planted, it will

> > have to be nurtured. The seed will only grow if it starts little by

> > little to override the conditioned impulses that put us at the mercy

> > of desires and fears. Ultimately the seed might grow to encompass the

> > All and the Everything, in which case Enlightenment *is*. Is not the

> > seed itself another conditioning, one might interject? Well... in a

> > way, yes, but it is a conditioning that " undoes " other conditionings.

> > Let's liken it to putting a heater inside a freezer. The heater is

> > yet more freezer-content, yes, but it plays a rather different role

> > than the other content... and when everything is thawed, the heater

> > itself will no longer serve a purpose and thus dissolve itself.

> >

> > From the enlightened perspective--which indeed cannot really be a

> > perspective, it will probably be clear that yes, there never was a

> > doer, nor a path, nor a struggle, nor any free will. However, as long

> > as this non-perspective is not permanently established, i.e. as long

> > as perspectives are not permanently eliminated, the path, the seeker

> > and the struggle are as real as can be, and one will have to deal

> > with them, I think.

> >

> > I cannot at this point to the notion that the mere extra-

> > mental insight and acceptance that one does not exist *is*

> > enlightenment. It might be because I'm going through emotionally

> > rough times and I find that Advaita Vedanta is just too tough a

> > cookie to swallow--valid though it clearly is. It's easy to be an

> > Advaitist when times are good or at least bearable... but when your

> > world cracks up it takes an absolutely gargantuan amount of courage

> > to hold only to the Advaita teachings--more courage than I can muster

> > right now.

> >

> > On the positive side though, I do believe that great practical

> > lessons can be learned from Advaita. For one, it shows that there is

> > really no point in scolding ourselves or others for anything, as we

> > are all just conditioned mechanisms struggling with the challenge of

> > life.

> >

> > Advaita, especially as taught by Ramana, has been called " The

> > Mountain Path " . And I confirm: it is. One can try to take it, sure,

> > it's probably the shortest route to the top. But boy, is it steep or

> > what. It's a narrow, slippery, rocky path straight up, with

> > absolutely nothing to hold on to along the way. No signposts, no

> > comforts, nothing, except a large sign all the way at the start

> > saying " SHORTEST PATH TO SUMMIT " .

> >

> > I find right now that at times it is more viable to take the well-

> > paved interstates that spiral up along that giant mountain and that

> > have comforting inns and McDonald's along the way. Or, to drop the

> > metaphore, to go with a lot of love and a little devotion instead of

> > (just) the clinical full-frontal attack that Advaita prescribes.

> > Sure, the journey will take longer--possibly a lot longer, but who

> > cares, since there really is no path, right?

> >

> > Merry christmas,

> > Caspar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nisargadatta , " toombaru2003 "

<toombaru2003> wrote:

> Nisargadatta , " Will Brown " <wilbro99> wrote:

> > Caspar, a view from the bridge. Let me offer another view of the

> > problem. This particular problem is round enough that there can be

> > many different views of what it is, yet all be looking at the same

> > thing. It can be described as the seeker-complex, with it's me trying

> > to adjust its past, from whence it comes to be present, by playing

> > with the future, a circle of sorts that thinks/imagines it is making

> > progress; and it can be described as a conditioned entity, a me,

> > always reacting to what it immediately confronts, and seeking to find

> > freedom from that conditioning by seeking a free self, or

> > enlightenment. The me of the seeker-complex can be seen as an imagined

> > entity plying an imagined cycle and imagining that it is moving in

> > time, reacting to it plight. The me of the conditioned reaction, in

> > contradistinction, is always present, reacting to its conditioning.

> > Same picture, but with a different view.

> >

> > The me of the seeker-complex can be tossed into the present by being

> > excised of its future. If that me realizes, however it comes about,

> > that there is no future in its future, it is stuck with its reactions.

> > If the me of the conditioned reaction forgets the future and begins to

> > observe its conditioned way, the bridge is entered, and we have a view

> > from the bridge. I toss this on the table for your consideration as

> > another way of describing what others have described for you in their

> > terms. So, please consider this as only another perspective. ----willy

> >

> >

>

>

> Willy,

>

> I really like what you said.

> I have a question........Was what you stated above well articulated

in your mind prior to your response to Caspar.....or did it just

bubble up in response to his post?

>

> I am asking because I have recently noticed a resonance like process

that occurs in the minds of seekers....that I can't describe.

 

" ....Was what you stated above well articulated in your mind prior to

your response to Caspar.....or did it just bubble up in response to

his post? "

 

Toom, if you will hold still for my changing your question to fit my

answer, I will give it a shot. If I contort your question completely

out of shape, ignore my answer.

 

I have an understanding with my understanding. If I let it do its

thing in response to something it wants to respond to, it will collect

itself in the form of words and create a response. Another way of

saying that is that when I read something and a sense an understanding

in respect to it arises, I may let that understanding express itself,

or I may not. If I decide to say, I do not have to think about what I

am going to say; it is as if there is a picture and the words are

describing the picture. As the words describe the picture, the picture

goes away, and the words come to an end.

 

What I have found is that there is no need to remember the picture,

and that each time the picture appears, it is a new picture, even

though the words say the same thing. Maybe I could say that the frame

is always the same, but that the picture is always different. Is that

frame what we call insight? I think so, but that does not make it so.

 

" I am asking because I have recently noticed a resonance like process

that occurs in the minds of seekers....that I can't describe. "

 

And I am guessing that what I have just described is what you are

referring to. If not, perhaps we need to find a different frame of

reference. [;>}] ----willy

 

PS: Almost forgot. Everyone, have a great holiday!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nisargadatta , " Will Brown " <wilbro99> wrote:

> Nisargadatta , " toombaru2003 "

> <toombaru2003> wrote:

> > Nisargadatta , " Will Brown " <wilbro99> wrote:

> > > Caspar, a view from the bridge. Let me offer another view of the

> > > problem. This particular problem is round enough that there can be

> > > many different views of what it is, yet all be looking at the same

> > > thing. It can be described as the seeker-complex, with it's me trying

> > > to adjust its past, from whence it comes to be present, by playing

> > > with the future, a circle of sorts that thinks/imagines it is making

> > > progress; and it can be described as a conditioned entity, a me,

> > > always reacting to what it immediately confronts, and seeking to find

> > > freedom from that conditioning by seeking a free self, or

> > > enlightenment. The me of the seeker-complex can be seen as an imagined

> > > entity plying an imagined cycle and imagining that it is moving in

> > > time, reacting to it plight. The me of the conditioned reaction, in

> > > contradistinction, is always present, reacting to its conditioning.

> > > Same picture, but with a different view.

> > >

> > > The me of the seeker-complex can be tossed into the present by being

> > > excised of its future. If that me realizes, however it comes about,

> > > that there is no future in its future, it is stuck with its reactions.

> > > If the me of the conditioned reaction forgets the future and begins to

> > > observe its conditioned way, the bridge is entered, and we have a view

> > > from the bridge. I toss this on the table for your consideration as

> > > another way of describing what others have described for you in their

> > > terms. So, please consider this as only another perspective. ----willy

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

> > Willy,

> >

> > I really like what you said.

> > I have a question........Was what you stated above well articulated

> in your mind prior to your response to Caspar.....or did it just

> bubble up in response to his post?

> >

> > I am asking because I have recently noticed a resonance like process

> that occurs in the minds of seekers....that I can't describe.

>

> " ....Was what you stated above well articulated in your mind prior to

> your response to Caspar.....or did it just bubble up in response to

> his post? "

>

> Toom, if you will hold still for my changing your question to fit my

> answer, I will give it a shot. If I contort your question completely

> out of shape, ignore my answer.

>

> I have an understanding with my understanding. If I let it do its

> thing in response to something it wants to respond to, it will collect

> itself in the form of words and create a response. Another way of

> saying that is that when I read something and a sense an understanding

> in respect to it arises, I may let that understanding express itself,

> or I may not. If I decide to say, I do not have to think about what I

> am going to say; it is as if there is a picture and the words are

> describing the picture. As the words describe the picture, the picture

> goes away, and the words come to an end.

>

> What I have found is that there is no need to remember the picture,

> and that each time the picture appears, it is a new picture, even

> though the words say the same thing. Maybe I could say that the frame

> is always the same, but that the picture is always different. Is that

> frame what we call insight? I think so, but that does not make it so.

>

> " I am asking because I have recently noticed a resonance like process

> that occurs in the minds of seekers....that I can't describe. "

>

> And I am guessing that what I have just described is what you are

> referring to. If not, perhaps we need to find a different frame of

> reference. [;>}] ----willy

>

> PS: Almost forgot. Everyone, have a great holiday!

 

 

 

 

 

Beautiful................Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> Willy,

>

> I really like what you said.

> I have a question........Was what you stated above well articulated

in your mind prior to your response to Caspar.....or did it just

bubble up in response to his post?

>

> I am asking because I have recently noticed a resonance like

process that occurs in the minds of seekers....that I can't describe.

 

 

Funny you wrote that. You stopped posting like for two months, and on

the very morning I noticed you had stopped posting, I found two post

by you in the evening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nicely put :-)

 

 

Nisargadatta , " Will Brown " <wilbro99>

wrote:

> Caspar, a view from the bridge. Let me offer another view of the

> problem. This particular problem is round enough that there can be

> many different views of what it is, yet all be looking at the same

> thing. It can be described as the seeker-complex, with it's me

trying

> to adjust its past, from whence it comes to be present, by playing

> with the future, a circle of sorts that thinks/imagines it is

making

> progress; and it can be described as a conditioned entity, a me,

> always reacting to what it immediately confronts, and seeking to

find

> freedom from that conditioning by seeking a free self, or

> enlightenment. The me of the seeker-complex can be seen as an

imagined

> entity plying an imagined cycle and imagining that it is moving in

> time, reacting to it plight. The me of the conditioned reaction, in

> contradistinction, is always present, reacting to its conditioning.

> Same picture, but with a different view.

>

> The me of the seeker-complex can be tossed into the present by

being

> excised of its future. If that me realizes, however it comes about,

> that there is no future in its future, it is stuck with its

reactions.

> If the me of the conditioned reaction forgets the future and

begins to

> observe its conditioned way, the bridge is entered, and we have a

view

> from the bridge. I toss this on the table for your consideration as

> another way of describing what others have described for you in

their

> terms. So, please consider this as only another perspective. ----

willy

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " caspardegroot "

> <caspardegroot> wrote:

> > Some more ponderings, which largely just reiterate the points I

made

> > earlier--but that won't keep me from posting em ;) ...

> >

> > Understanding on the mental level that one is nothing, that one

is

> > not one's thoughts or body or feelings, and that one is only

> > consciousness, is just a first step. *A* first step, I say,

because

> > one might also go with the notion that one is everything, that

one is

> > love, or that one is " with God " , as is done on the Bhakti path.

> >

> > Such understandings plant the seed for self-destruction in the

ego.

> > However, it's just the seed. Once the seed's been planted, it

will

> > have to be nurtured. The seed will only grow if it starts little

by

> > little to override the conditioned impulses that put us at the

mercy

> > of desires and fears. Ultimately the seed might grow to

encompass the

> > All and the Everything, in which case Enlightenment *is*. Is not

the

> > seed itself another conditioning, one might interject? Well...

in a

> > way, yes, but it is a conditioning that " undoes " other

conditionings.

> > Let's liken it to putting a heater inside a freezer. The heater

is

> > yet more freezer-content, yes, but it plays a rather different

role

> > than the other content... and when everything is thawed, the

heater

> > itself will no longer serve a purpose and thus dissolve itself.

> >

> > From the enlightened perspective--which indeed cannot really be

a

> > perspective, it will probably be clear that yes, there never was

a

> > doer, nor a path, nor a struggle, nor any free will. However, as

long

> > as this non-perspective is not permanently established, i.e. as

long

> > as perspectives are not permanently eliminated, the path, the

seeker

> > and the struggle are as real as can be, and one will have to

deal

> > with them, I think.

> >

> > I cannot at this point to the notion that the mere

extra-

> > mental insight and acceptance that one does not exist *is*

> > enlightenment. It might be because I'm going through emotionally

> > rough times and I find that Advaita Vedanta is just too tough a

> > cookie to swallow--valid though it clearly is. It's easy to be

an

> > Advaitist when times are good or at least bearable... but when

your

> > world cracks up it takes an absolutely gargantuan amount of

courage

> > to hold only to the Advaita teachings--more courage than I can

muster

> > right now.

> >

> > On the positive side though, I do believe that great practical

> > lessons can be learned from Advaita. For one, it shows that

there is

> > really no point in scolding ourselves or others for anything, as

we

> > are all just conditioned mechanisms struggling with the

challenge of

> > life.

> >

> > Advaita, especially as taught by Ramana, has been called " The

> > Mountain Path " . And I confirm: it is. One can try to take it,

sure,

> > it's probably the shortest route to the top. But boy, is it

steep or

> > what. It's a narrow, slippery, rocky path straight up, with

> > absolutely nothing to hold on to along the way. No signposts, no

> > comforts, nothing, except a large sign all the way at the start

> > saying " SHORTEST PATH TO SUMMIT " .

> >

> > I find right now that at times it is more viable to take the

well-

> > paved interstates that spiral up along that giant mountain and

that

> > have comforting inns and McDonald's along the way. Or, to drop

the

> > metaphore, to go with a lot of love and a little devotion

instead of

> > (just) the clinical full-frontal attack that Advaita prescribes.

> > Sure, the journey will take longer--possibly a lot longer, but

who

> > cares, since there really is no path, right?

> >

> > Merry christmas,

> > Caspar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...