Guest guest Posted January 27, 2004 Report Share Posted January 27, 2004 Bill -- It seems to me you are using " vulnerability " to equate with " openness. " Yet to me, there is a difference between these ideas. Openness doesn't suggest the potential to be harmed that vulnerability suggests. Vulnerability suggests being unprotected, and thus able to be harmed. Openness suggests being unprotected, because there is no harmful agent from which one needs protection. If I am open without reservation, then vulnerability vs. invulnerability isn't an issue. Vulnerability implies taking a risk, which is how you discuss it below. Openness doesn't involve the opposition of risk vs. no risk, as without an outside agent which could bring harm, risk doesn't apply. The truth of who we are is always open. The relative being we mistakenly place ourselves as, can be hurt, takes risks, my try to be invulnerable, or may wontonly abandon concerns about security. However, for a relative being, it is important to be aware of possible threats, and to balance vulnerability and protection. For example, you wouldn't tell your child to go play in the traffic. :-) For me, this discussion requires differentiating totality-awareness, which is who you are as openness, and the imagined character going through time, who considers things like what might hurt his child, or partner, and so on. The totality you are, simultaneously includes the different dream characters, such as Dan, Bill, George, Osama, Sheila, Oprah, and Mickey Mouse, and their experiencings. The dream character as invidividual does not include totality, therefore may choose to be more or less vulnerable, and can be harmed by an outside agent. The individual experiences things affecting him, the totality includes all the apparent things, but is not affected. In that sense, the totality is invulnerable, impervious to harm. But it is not a protected state or situation, is open, and in that sense is vulnerable. Invulnerable vulnerability as openness. -- Dan Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote: > > Vulnerability and the Mind > > 'Vulnerability' is one of those verbs that > can be transitive (has a direct object), > or intransitive (does not have a direct > object). > > I am using it here in an intransitive sense. > So the question " Vulnerable to what " does > not apply. > > To me, vulnerability and being are effectively > the same. To be vulnerable and to simply be > express the same, but the term 'vulnerable' is, > I believe helpful because to simply talk in terms > of " being " can seem very abstract. > > Being vulnerable is to put oneself on the line. > " Who " is being put " on the line " ? This is just > an expression, but it effectively entails > surrender into something unknown. It is a leaving > of the " mind hat " at the door and melting in > to the unknown what-is. > > To me it doesn't matter about any *actual* who, > as some sort of existing entity. What is > significant is any *sense* of who. Vulnerability > is to me the dissolving of, the freedom from, a > " sense of who " . > > The mind can play a lot of games, but vulnerability > is one that it does not know how to play. That is > because the mind is about security, safety, and > vulnerability is about nakeness, wanton abandom of > concern about security, safety. > > Vulnerability is about walking into the heart-zone, > and leaving who walked there behind, checked in -- > as the mind-hat -- at the door. > > > > > Bill > 6-2003 > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2004 Report Share Posted January 27, 2004 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > Bill -- > > It seems to me you are using " vulnerability " to equate > with " openness. " Yet to me, there is a difference > between these ideas. > > Openness doesn't suggest the potential to be harmed that > vulnerability suggests. > > Vulnerability suggests being unprotected, and thus able to be > harmed. > > Openness suggests being unprotected, because there is no > harmful agent from which one needs protection. > > If I am open without reservation, then vulnerability vs. > invulnerability isn't an issue. > > Vulnerability implies taking a risk, which is how you discuss > it below. > > Openness doesn't involve the opposition of risk vs. no risk, > as without an outside agent which could bring harm, risk > doesn't apply. > > The truth of who we are is always open. > > The relative being we mistakenly place ourselves as, can > be hurt, takes risks, my try to be invulnerable, or may > wontonly abandon concerns about security. > > However, for a relative being, it is important to be > aware of possible threats, and to balance vulnerability > and protection. For example, you wouldn't tell your > child to go play in the traffic. :-) > > For me, this discussion requires differentiating totality-awareness, > which is who you are as openness, and the imagined character > going through time, who considers things like what might > hurt his child, or partner, and so on. > > The totality you are, simultaneously > includes the different dream characters, > such as Dan, Bill, George, Osama, Sheila, Oprah, and Mickey Mouse, > and their experiencings. > > The dream character as invidividual does not include totality, > therefore may choose to be more or less vulnerable, > and can be harmed by an outside agent. The individual > experiences things affecting him, the totality includes > all the apparent things, but is not affected. > > In that sense, the totality is invulnerable, impervious to harm. > > But it is not a protected state or situation, is open, and in that > sense is vulnerable. > > Invulnerable vulnerability as openness. > > -- Dan > > It is within the nature of mind to divide its reality into concepts. It is within the nature of mind to invent words to represent the conceptual separations......and then search for what it has named the 'truth' within those words... .....no wonder it feels a little lost...... > > Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote: > > > > Vulnerability and the Mind > > > > 'Vulnerability' is one of those verbs that > > can be transitive (has a direct object), > > or intransitive (does not have a direct > > object). > > > > I am using it here in an intransitive sense. > > So the question " Vulnerable to what " does > > not apply. > > > > To me, vulnerability and being are effectively > > the same. To be vulnerable and to simply be > > express the same, but the term 'vulnerable' is, > > I believe helpful because to simply talk in terms > > of " being " can seem very abstract. > > > > Being vulnerable is to put oneself on the line. > > " Who " is being put " on the line " ? This is just > > an expression, but it effectively entails > > surrender into something unknown. It is a leaving > > of the " mind hat " at the door and melting in > > to the unknown what-is. > > > > To me it doesn't matter about any *actual* who, > > as some sort of existing entity. What is > > significant is any *sense* of who. Vulnerability > > is to me the dissolving of, the freedom from, a > > " sense of who " . > > > > The mind can play a lot of games, but vulnerability > > is one that it does not know how to play. That is > > because the mind is about security, safety, and > > vulnerability is about nakeness, wanton abandom of > > concern about security, safety. > > > > Vulnerability is about walking into the heart-zone, > > and leaving who walked there behind, checked in -- > > as the mind-hat -- at the door. > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > 6-2003 > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2004 Report Share Posted January 27, 2004 > It is within the nature of mind to divide its reality into concepts. > > It is within the nature of mind to invent words to represent the conceptual separations......and then search for what it has named the 'truth' within those words... > > ....no wonder it feels a little lost...... You won't be lost if not mistaking a word for representing a thing. Including the word 'mind.' Mind hasn't named things. Mind is a named thing. Thus, mind doesn't have a nature. Words ascribe a nature to the named thing " mind. " -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2004 Report Share Posted January 27, 2004 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > > It is within the nature of mind to divide its reality into concepts. > > > > It is within the nature of mind to invent words to represent the > conceptual separations......and then search for what it has named > the 'truth' within those words... > > > > ....no wonder it feels a little lost...... > > You won't be lost if not mistaking a word > for representing a thing. > > Including the word 'mind.' > > Mind hasn't named things. > > Mind is a named thing. > > Thus, mind doesn't have a nature. > > Words ascribe a nature to the named thing " mind. " > > -- Dan Ahh Dan, You are right. Mind does not create thoughts... Thoughts create the mind. and then mind uses thoughts in a futile search for itself.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2004 Report Share Posted January 27, 2004 > Ahh Dan, > You are right. > > Mind does not create thoughts... > > Thoughts create the mind. > > > and then mind uses thoughts in a futile search for itself.... Hi Toombaru, Yup, very futile, not to mention all the misery based on attempts to keep such a self for itself. Meanwhile, there is only this *flickering* which there has been a futile attempt to name, " thought. " -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2004 Report Share Posted January 27, 2004 I am not exactly *equating* vulnerability with openness. I would say that openness is an aspect of vulnerability. Vulnerability goes much deeper. Also, the ego-mind can play the openness game, but it can't play the vulnerability game. Keep in mind what I said about using " vulnerability " in the intransitive sense. If you do the following does not apply: << Vulnerability implies taking a risk, which is how you discuss it below. >> In the intransitive sense there is no " to whom " with respect to which a risk is taken. " Being vulnerable " (as I use the term) *feels* risky, to be sure. But it is not a " taking a risk " . To be vulnerable is to be *naked*. We are used to feeling we need a wet suit on. But actually the water is very pleasant. Why wear a wet suit when you could be skinny dipping! Note: " Openness " tends to be read in an intransitive sense, hence the distinction you are seeing. Bill - " dan330033 " <dan330033 <Nisargadatta > Tuesday, January 27, 2004 6:34 AM Re: Vulnerability and the Mind > Bill -- > > It seems to me you are using " vulnerability " to equate > with " openness. " Yet to me, there is a difference > between these ideas. > > Openness doesn't suggest the potential to be harmed that > vulnerability suggests. > > Vulnerability suggests being unprotected, and thus able to be > harmed. > > Openness suggests being unprotected, because there is no > harmful agent from which one needs protection. > > If I am open without reservation, then vulnerability vs. > invulnerability isn't an issue. > > Vulnerability implies taking a risk, which is how you discuss > it below. > > Openness doesn't involve the opposition of risk vs. no risk, > as without an outside agent which could bring harm, risk > doesn't apply. > > The truth of who we are is always open. > > The relative being we mistakenly place ourselves as, can > be hurt, takes risks, my try to be invulnerable, or may > wontonly abandon concerns about security. > > However, for a relative being, it is important to be > aware of possible threats, and to balance vulnerability > and protection. For example, you wouldn't tell your > child to go play in the traffic. :-) > > For me, this discussion requires differentiating totality-awareness, > which is who you are as openness, and the imagined character > going through time, who considers things like what might > hurt his child, or partner, and so on. > > The totality you are, simultaneously > includes the different dream characters, > such as Dan, Bill, George, Osama, Sheila, Oprah, and Mickey Mouse, > and their experiencings. > > The dream character as invidividual does not include totality, > therefore may choose to be more or less vulnerable, > and can be harmed by an outside agent. The individual > experiences things affecting him, the totality includes > all the apparent things, but is not affected. > > In that sense, the totality is invulnerable, impervious to harm. > > But it is not a protected state or situation, is open, and in that > sense is vulnerable. > > Invulnerable vulnerability as openness. > > -- Dan > > > > Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote: > > > > Vulnerability and the Mind > > > > 'Vulnerability' is one of those verbs that > > can be transitive (has a direct object), > > or intransitive (does not have a direct > > object). > > > > I am using it here in an intransitive sense. > > So the question " Vulnerable to what " does > > not apply. > > > > To me, vulnerability and being are effectively > > the same. To be vulnerable and to simply be > > express the same, but the term 'vulnerable' is, > > I believe helpful because to simply talk in terms > > of " being " can seem very abstract. > > > > Being vulnerable is to put oneself on the line. > > " Who " is being put " on the line " ? This is just > > an expression, but it effectively entails > > surrender into something unknown. It is a leaving > > of the " mind hat " at the door and melting in > > to the unknown what-is. > > > > To me it doesn't matter about any *actual* who, > > as some sort of existing entity. What is > > significant is any *sense* of who. Vulnerability > > is to me the dissolving of, the freedom from, a > > " sense of who " . > > > > The mind can play a lot of games, but vulnerability > > is one that it does not know how to play. That is > > because the mind is about security, safety, and > > vulnerability is about nakeness, wanton abandom of > > concern about security, safety. > > > > Vulnerability is about walking into the heart-zone, > > and leaving who walked there behind, checked in -- > > as the mind-hat -- at the door. > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > 6-2003 > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2004 Report Share Posted January 27, 2004 << Mind hasn't named things. Mind is a named thing. >> Nicely put. The existence of " mind " is inferred/implied in thoughts. The *apparent* existence of thoughts seems to substantiate the existence of mind. One might say, " I think therefore I have a mind. " Thoughts do not exist. They only appear to exist. This can be utterly baffling to one who " thinks " about this. " What do you mean thoughts do not exist... I just had one! " It is a deep topic to explain that thoughts do not exist. Perhaps Dan could address that : ) But even assuming that thoughts *do* exist, that in itself does not substantiate the existence of mind. Ohhh... trying to explain to the mind that it does not exist! Such folly really. Sometimes it seems like trying to put out a forest fire with one's own spit. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2004 Report Share Posted January 27, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote: > << > Mind hasn't named things. > > Mind is a named thing. > >> > Nicely put. > > The existence of " mind " is inferred/implied in thoughts. > The *apparent* existence of thoughts seems to substantiate > the existence of mind. > > One might say, " I think therefore I have a mind. " > > Thoughts do not exist. They only appear to exist. > This can be utterly baffling to one who " thinks " > about this. " What do you mean thoughts do not > exist... I just had one! " > Thought...is...a vibration....a disturbance.... a miniscule part of the infinite and constant stream of re-actions...which...in the mind of man...when it reacts with to its own re-actions...becomes isolated.. and creates a rippling back- water....called 'self'........this...in turn... brings into being and sustains a secondary conceptual reality....until it uses up its alloted energy....and disappears back......into what never was...... > It is a deep topic to explain that thoughts do not exist. > Perhaps Dan could address that : ) > > But even assuming that thoughts *do* exist, > that in itself does not substantiate the existence of > mind. > > Ohhh... trying to explain to the mind that it does > not exist! Such folly really. > > Sometimes it seems like trying to put out a forest > fire with one's own spit. ......which just happens to be made of gasoline..... > > Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2004 Report Share Posted January 27, 2004 > Ohhh... trying to explain to the mind that it does > not exist! Such folly really. Bingo, Bill! The more you explain, the more you reinforce that something must be there, to whom you are explaining! > Sometimes it seems like trying to put out a forest > fire with one's own spit. Or with gasoline! Hunk a hunk a burnin' love, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2004 Report Share Posted January 27, 2004 > It is a deep topic to explain that thoughts do not exist. > Perhaps Dan could address that : ) Okay, Bill. I'm trying to think of a way to explain that! Funny, but nothing's coming to me. I'll let you know if I have a thought about how to get this across! Probably Rodin could explain it (you know, the sculptor), but unfortunately, he's dead. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2004 Report Share Posted January 27, 2004 > Thought...is...a vibration....a disturbance.... a miniscule part of > the infinite and constant stream of re-actions...which...in the mind > of man...when it reacts with to its own re-actions...becomes > isolated.. and creates a rippling back- > water....called 'self'........this...in turn... brings into being and > sustains a secondary conceptual reality....until it uses up its > alloted energy....and disappears back......into what never was...... A nice stab a explaining how it is that thoughts do not exist. A deep exploration of this would seem to me to be along these lines. What seem to be thoughts are really shimmering, pulsing apparitions. > .....which just happens to be made of gasoline..... LOL Good one! Bill - " toombaru2003 " <toombaru2003 <Nisargadatta > Tuesday, January 27, 2004 1:40 PM Re: Vulnerability and the Mind > Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote: > > << > > Mind hasn't named things. > > > > Mind is a named thing. > > >> > > Nicely put. > > > > The existence of " mind " is inferred/implied in thoughts. > > The *apparent* existence of thoughts seems to substantiate > > the existence of mind. > > > > One might say, " I think therefore I have a mind. " > > > > Thoughts do not exist. They only appear to exist. > > This can be utterly baffling to one who " thinks " > > about this. " What do you mean thoughts do not > > exist... I just had one! " > > Thought...is...a vibration....a disturbance.... a miniscule part of > the infinite and constant stream of re-actions...which...in the mind > of man...when it reacts with to its own re-actions...becomes > isolated.. and creates a rippling back- > water....called 'self'........this...in turn... brings into being and > sustains a secondary conceptual reality....until it uses up its > alloted energy....and disappears back......into what never was...... > > It is a deep topic to explain that thoughts do not exist. > > Perhaps Dan could address that : ) > > > > But even assuming that thoughts *do* exist, > > that in itself does not substantiate the existence of > > mind. > > > > Ohhh... trying to explain to the mind that it does > > not exist! Such folly really. > > > > Sometimes it seems like trying to put out a forest > > fire with one's own spit. > > > > .....which just happens to be made of gasoline..... > > > > > > > Bill > > > ** > > If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: > > /mygroups?edit=1 > > Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2004 Report Share Posted January 27, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote: > I am not exactly *equating* vulnerability with openness. > I would say that openness is an aspect of vulnerability. > Vulnerability goes much deeper. Also, the ego-mind can > play the openness game, but it can't play the vulnerability > game. > > Keep in mind what I said about using " vulnerability " in > the intransitive sense. If you do the following does not > apply: > > << > Vulnerability implies taking a risk, which is how you discuss > it below. > >> > In the intransitive sense there is no " to whom " with > respect to which a risk is taken. > > " Being vulnerable " (as I use the term) *feels* risky, to be sure. > But it is not a " taking a risk " . To be vulnerable is to > be *naked*. We are used to feeling we need a wet > suit on. But actually the water is very pleasant. > Why wear a wet suit when you could be skinny dipping! > > > Note: " Openness " tends to be read in an intransitive sense, > hence the distinction you are seeing. > > Bill what ever we do we are badly exposed at all times, we reveal the worst about ourselves involuntarily at the first occasion, but who wants to see it? for example Pete has noticed it, so he choses to let it out naturally once in a while, and that gets the darkness out of the way for a while and make the communication smoother - with those who are willing to play, otherwise you can have many ennemies too -; ....for example... ....i would say... ....know what i'm sayin'?... eric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2004 Report Share Posted January 27, 2004 > I'll let you know if I have a thought about > how to get this across! Just let if flow Dan. Don't think! : ) Bill - " dan330033 " <dan330033 <Nisargadatta > Tuesday, January 27, 2004 2:20 PM Re: Vulnerability and the Mind > > It is a deep topic to explain that thoughts do not exist. > > Perhaps Dan could address that : ) > > Okay, Bill. > > I'm trying to think of a way to explain that! > > Funny, but nothing's coming to me. > > I'll let you know if I have a thought about > how to get this across! > > Probably Rodin could explain it (you know, the > sculptor), but unfortunately, he's dead. > > -- Dan > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 28, 2004 Report Share Posted January 28, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote: > > I'll let you know if I have a thought about > > how to get this across! > Just let if flow Dan. > Don't think! > > : ) > Bill If you can think, do. When it's not possible, now, you don't. -- 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.