Guest guest Posted February 3, 2004 Report Share Posted February 3, 2004 Since we have been having nothing to talk about, thought I would raise a question to challenge the wit and profundity or y'all's no-minds. How many Buddhas can you fit on the head of a pin? Extra Credit, an advaita algebra question: One day no-mind encountered X. On encountering X, no-mind and X mutually annihilated and what remained was a transparent peace. What is X? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2004 Report Share Posted February 3, 2004 > Extra Credit, an advaita algebra question: > > One day no-mind encountered X. On encountering X, > no-mind and X mutually annihilated and what remained > was a transparent peace. What is X? " The Variable " sk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 4, 2004 Report Share Posted February 4, 2004 LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I do believe we have a winner! Bill - " sk000005 " <sk000005 <Nisargadatta > Tuesday, February 03, 2004 10:58 PM Re: A question > > Extra Credit, an advaita algebra question: > > > > One day no-mind encountered X. On encountering X, > > no-mind and X mutually annihilated and what remained > > was a transparent peace. What is X? > > > " The Variable " > > > sk > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 4, 2004 Report Share Posted February 4, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote: > Since we have been having nothing to talk about, thought > I would raise a question to challenge the wit and profundity > or y'all's no-minds. > > How many Buddhas can you fit on the head of a pin? > > > > Extra Credit, an advaita algebra question: > > One day no-mind encountered X. On encountering X, > no-mind and X mutually annihilated and what remained > was a transparent peace. What is X? > > Answer to Q.1> As many Buddhas as you possibly could think off.... Answer to Q.2> X is the mirror in which " no-mind " accidentally(perhaps) looked in. Oldslave(with intact mind). > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 4, 2004 Report Share Posted February 4, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote: > Since we have been having nothing to talk about, thought > I would raise a question to challenge the wit and profundity > or y'all's no-minds. wELL bILL, since your craving some pasta with lots of tomato sauce and cheese, and garlic bread on the side. Here is what 'they'( guess who " they " are) are discussing at another list. You addressed the search for the end of thought. > >But, often the teaching is, when one stops, then understanding >arises. The " stopping " being referred to is the seeking, which is >basically a belief that something cool (bliss, and all the good >stuff!) will happen to me in the future. As long as I am seeking, I >am covering my true nature. So, if I " call of the search " (that much >overused phrase!), and relax into my being, relax into the " what is " , >then there will be understanding. > >This is a very common neo-advaita teaching. > >I think it's true to some extent. When I have relaxed from the trying >to understand, there is a quiet peace there... but as you're probably >thinking, it's a phenomenal peace, and thus subject to non-peace. >The seeker hopes that in this quiet peace, there will arise the real >peace so much talked about... or the quiet peace will just keep going! ===Yes, you restated the neo-advaita line. More succinctly than their proponents usually do. You asked if it makes sense. Not! Neo-advaita is most often psychology practised with the language of metaphysics. It's like practicing gardening using the tools for watchmaking. No results!!! But if the neoadvaita seekers were to do psychology on its own powerful and direct terms, they'd get much faster results, and more phenomenal peace! Which is what they're usually looking for, underneath all the metaphysical language. I have several friends who turned away in hopelessness from the neoadvaita movement. They went to various forms of therapy and psychological work, and they became happier and more joyous than they ever had been by going to satsang. The neo-advaita quest is still based on a misunderstanding. They think the short-term peace will allow the real peace to be experienced. Yet just what is the criterion of success they use to determine if real peace has been found? What are they thinking?? Short vs long, that's all. They'll think they found it if it lasts a long time. Longer than 3 months (this was told to me by two students, success! One was a Gangaji and the other an Eli student). So it's still a phenomenal characteristic they are looking for. And I've seen it come crashing down around them too. >This brings us back to what Dan said earlier about >having " requirements " for 'this'. Kind of like, once conditions a,b, >and c are fullfilled, then the understanding will arise. Of course, >this is a delay tactic and is totally thought-constructed. ==The peace of 'this' is not an emotional or mind-emptying thing. It resides in the very insubstantiality of phenomena, of the thoughts, mind, heart, body, and world. There's nowhere it's not. This is why it makes no sense to erect special emotional states as requirements. Ahuu-huuuu, he said erect. --Greg THE THREE LAST PARAGRAPH are OF SPECIAL INTEREST. Could there be a peace 'without the feeling of peace' a peace that is not of phenomenality? Is it not this postuliting of a supra phenomenical peace the creation of another pasifier concept to created the illusion of having arrived without given up the conceptual game? Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 4, 2004 Report Share Posted February 4, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote: > LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > > I do believe we have a winner! > > Bill Yes, Sk is on a roll. Let's keep his ball rolling. The variable is the mysterios, inmutable One, as long as it is not solved. Once the mystery is cracked, it becomes one of the many particulars of multiplicity. > > - > " sk000005 " <sk000005> > <Nisargadatta > > Tuesday, February 03, 2004 10:58 PM > Re: A question > > > > > Extra Credit, an advaita algebra question: > > > > > > One day no-mind encountered X. On encountering X, > > > no-mind and X mutually annihilated and what remained > > > was a transparent peace. What is X? > > > > > > " The Variable " > > > > > > sk > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 4, 2004 Report Share Posted February 4, 2004 Y? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 4, 2004 Report Share Posted February 4, 2004 Nisargadatta , " seesaw1us " <seesaw1us> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote: > > LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > > > > I do believe we have a winner! > > > > Bill > > Yes, Sk is on a roll. Let's keep his ball rolling. The variable is > the mysterios, inmutable One, as long as it is not solved. Once the > mystery is cracked, it becomes one of the many particulars of > multiplicity. Yes, Pete! I think this could fit also quiet fine as response to Danananda's question about Big " eyes " in the skies. Concerning sk, I don't think he is, more or less, on a roll as usual. Bill, I will assign my winner-award to Pete to restore the universal balance. I hope its Ok for you! Nevertheless thanks! gassho sk P.S. ha! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 4, 2004 Report Share Posted February 4, 2004 > Y? Oh boy! Love it! Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 4, 2004 Report Share Posted February 4, 2004 << Bill, I will assign my winner-award to Pete to restore the universal balance. I hope its Ok for you! Nevertheless thanks! >> Knowing Pete he will just throw it in the trash. Which would be a timely demise for it... it has served its purpose. As for Pete's balancing act, I think he will fall off the highwire on purpose. Some things never change. As a result of which universal balance will remain unperturbed. Thank Heaven! Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 4, 2004 Report Share Posted February 4, 2004 Oldslave wrote: << Answer to Q.1> As many Buddhas as you possibly could think off.... Answer to Q.2> X is the mirror in which " no-mind " accidentally(perhaps) looked in. >> I enjoyed your answers! When no-mind looked in the mirror apparently what no-mind saw was its own looking. Therefore the looking was the mirror. Whereupon no-mind lost its no-mind, resting in no-no-mind. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 4, 2004 Report Share Posted February 4, 2004 RE: <<< The neo-advaita quest is still based on a misunderstanding. They think the short-term peace will allow the real peace to be experienced. Yet just what is the criterion of success they use to determine if real peace has been found? What are they thinking?? Short vs long, that's all. They'll think they found it if it lasts a long time. Longer than 3 months (this was told to me by two students, success! One was a Gangaji and the other an Eli student). So it's still a phenomenal characteristic they are looking for. And I've seen it come crashing down around them too. >This brings us back to what Dan said earlier about >having " requirements " for 'this'. Kind of like, once conditions a,b, >and c are fullfilled, then the understanding will arise. Of course, >this is a delay tactic and is totally thought-constructed. ==The peace of 'this' is not an emotional or mind- emptying thing. It resides in the very insubstantiality of phenomena, of the thoughts, mind, heart, body, and world. There's nowhere it's not. This is why it makes no sense to erect special emotional states as requirements. >>> Pete wrote: << THE THREE LAST PARAGRAPH are OF SPECIAL INTEREST. Could there be a peace 'without the feeling of peace' a peace that is not of phenomenality? >> Perhaps we should distinguish between " peace " and " Peace " . I might define " peace " as the " feeling of peace " , and " Peace " as cessation. no-peace is really the restlessness of the mind. One does not " find peace/Peace so much as that restlessness ends. In Peace there is not really the feeling of peace. It can *seem* like that but is actually much deeper. It is not an experience or a state. It is what remains when all the " noise " dissipates. << Is it not this postuliting of a supra phenomenical peace the creation of another pasifier concept to created the illusion of having arrived without given up the conceptual game? >> This is speculation on the doing/non-doing of others. Even if these dudes *are* so deluding themselves, and even if one could ascertain such, conveying as much to them would seem hopeless, yes? As for the statement: " The peace of 'this' is not an emotional or mind-emptying thing. It resides in the very insubstantiality of phenomena, of the thoughts, mind, heart, body, and world. There's nowhere it's not. " - Greg I have no problem with that at all. It is the classic Buddhist notion of impermanence. In fact, the following is from a post I wrote just moments ago: The Void is Impermanence. Impermanence is the Void. To me Impermanence is not a condition of something (relative/dualistic) but the " condition of all conditions " . Impermanence is the inherent nature of all manifestation. There is nothing that is not " Impermanent " . As for roots, this is a Buddhist notion. I consider the Void to have no properties, but that its nature can be somewhat " intuited " by contemplating the Impermanence of all manifestation. The terms Emptiness, Silence, and even Heart all equate to Void for me. Incidentally, to me the Void is " not a void " , it is Full. It is only apprehended by realizing the absolute emptiness of all manifestation. On such realization any " who " is gone, and all that remains is the Void. Seems to me much the same as what Greg said. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 4, 2004 Report Share Posted February 4, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote: > Oldslave wrote: > << > Answer to Q.1> > As many Buddhas as you possibly could think off.... > Answer to Q.2> > X is the mirror in which " no-mind " accidentally (perhaps) > looked in. > >> > I enjoyed your answers! > > When no-mind looked in the mirror apparently what no-mind saw > was its own looking. > > Therefore the looking was the mirror. > > Whereupon no-mind lost its no-mind, > resting in no-no-mind. > > > Bill Is that you impersoneting Bill, Dan? ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 4, 2004 Report Share Posted February 4, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote: > RE: P: Wasn't that a fine plate of pasta that Greg cooked? He is Italian, you know. His real name is Gregorio Goodellino. Well, your Caesar salad wasn't bad either. Are you Italian too, Guillermo? > <<< > The neo-advaita quest is still based on a > misunderstanding. They think the short-term peace > will allow the real peace to be experienced. Yet > just what is the criterion of success they use to > determine if real peace has been found? What are > they thinking?? Short vs long, that's all. They'll > think they found it if it lasts a long time. Longer > than 3 months (this was told to me by two students, > success! One was a Gangaji and the other an Eli > student). So it's still a phenomenal characteristic > they are looking for. And I've seen it come > crashing down around them too. > > > >This brings us back to what Dan said earlier about > >having " requirements " for 'this'. Kind of like, once conditions a,b, > >and c are fullfilled, then the understanding will arise. Of course, > >this is a delay tactic and is totally thought-constructed. > > > ==The peace of 'this' is not an emotional or mind- > emptying thing. It resides in the very > insubstantiality of phenomena, of the thoughts, > mind, heart, body, and world. There's nowhere it's > not. This is why it makes no sense to erect special > emotional states as requirements. > >>> > > Pete wrote: > << > THE THREE LAST PARAGRAPH are OF SPECIAL INTEREST. > Could there be a peace 'without the feeling of > peace' a peace that is not of phenomenality? > >> > Perhaps we should distinguish between " peace " > and " Peace " . I might define " peace " as the > " feeling of peace " , and " Peace " as cessation. > > no-peace is really the restlessness of the mind. > > One does not " find peace/Peace so much as that > restlessness ends. > > In Peace there is not really the feeling of peace. > It can *seem* like that but is actually much > deeper. It is not an experience or a state. > It is what remains when all the " noise " dissipates. > > > << > Is it not this postuliting of a supra phenomenical > peace the creation of another pasifier concept to > created the illusion of having arrived without > given up the conceptual game? > >> > This is speculation on the doing/non-doing of > others. Even if these dudes *are* so deluding > themselves, and even if one could ascertain > such, conveying as much to them would seem > hopeless, yes? > > As for the statement: > > " The peace of 'this' is not an emotional or > mind-emptying thing. It resides in the very > insubstantiality of phenomena, of the thoughts, > mind, heart, body, and world. There's nowhere > it's not. " - Greg > > I have no problem with that at all. It is the > classic Buddhist notion of impermanence. > > In fact, the following is from a post I wrote > just moments ago: > > The Void is Impermanence. > Impermanence is the Void. > > To me Impermanence is not a condition of something > (relative/dualistic) but the " condition of all conditions " . > > Impermanence is the inherent nature of all manifestation. > There is nothing that is not " Impermanent " . > > As for roots, this is a Buddhist notion. > > I consider the Void to have no properties, but that its > nature can be somewhat " intuited " by contemplating > the Impermanence of all manifestation. > > The terms Emptiness, Silence, and even Heart all > equate to Void for me. > > Incidentally, to me the Void is " not a void " , it is Full. > > It is only apprehended by realizing the absolute > emptiness of all manifestation. > > On such realization any " who " is gone, and all that > remains is the Void. > > > Seems to me much the same as what Greg said. > > Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 21, 2004 Report Share Posted October 21, 2004 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > >Can a person choose not to believe in free will? Of course it can. And again this choice, like every choice is not his free will. Is there anything special about that? S. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 21, 2004 Report Share Posted October 21, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@c...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > >Can a person choose not to believe in free will? > > Of course it can. And again this choice, like every choice is not his > free will. Is there anything special about that? > S. .......but Stefan.......if " it " has the ability to willfully choose.....anything......it has free will. and its belief that it doesn't have free will would contradict its own stance......... The " problem " lies deeper then individual beliefs............It originates from within the assumption of self.....from the (I-am). t. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 21, 2004 Report Share Posted October 21, 2004 Toom: >Can a person choose not to believe in free will? Me: >Of course it can. And again this choice, like every choice is not his >free will. Is there anything special about that? >...but Stefan... if " it " has the ability to willfully choose... >anything... it has free will. Hey, good morning! Did you wake up already? I mean, enough oxygen in your dreamed braincells? Look on your question above! Who in the world was talking about " willfull choice " ? Not you... not me... And who the hell is " it " ? I was not introduced to " it " yet. So, get your feet on the ground, and hear me repeat: obviously we are choosing all the time. But the misconception is, that some people believe there was a " free will " behind those choices. It is sooo very easy to disprove this funny idea! All those thoughts... choices... are coming up without control of any " will " . Just watch it, everybody!... for 30 seconds... if you have already had a strong coffe, latest after 20 seconds there comes a choice. Maybe one like: " I just have to open my eyes for a millisecond, to check if I have put bread in the toaster " . Where was the free will before that? Did you see it? There is none, believe me... Where would you locate it? The choice comes up because the mind cannot see the " oneness " between " not opening eyes/opening eyes " . Another simple thought leads to the same conclusion: whenever you may recognise " I make a choice " , the " making " of the choice has already passed. You cannot undo this choice! You only can make another choice instead, and with that choice it is the same etc..etc... . Look at it now: this chain. If you ever really look, the idea of " free will " will vanish forever. Believe me, there will be quite some relief and a door might open (symbolicaly and dreamed)for some new thoughts, that are still waiting to be thought in your grey cells. But your " free will " will NOT bring them up. They come... when they come... >and its belief that it doesn't have free will would contradict its >own stance... See above, no contradiction, simple fact. The mind wants to believe whatever he can. Believe cannot be disputed, it is completely interchangeable. Believe is not a logical element. But you can cut through this jungle... if the right choices come up! >The " problem " lies deeper then individual beliefs... It originates >from within the assumption of self.....from the (I-am). Yes, but is that deeper than what I just have said? It is not deep at all! It is here, obvious and naked, above your shoulders. Dont make everything so complicated and so stiff. Wait for the right choices, they may come or not, they may finally go or not... why " speculate " about this all the time since it is already here and you have no choice to choose anyway? Greetings S. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 21, 2004 Report Share Posted October 21, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@c...> wrote: > > Toom: > >Can a person choose not to believe in free will? > Me: > >Of course it can. And again this choice, like every choice is not his > >free will. Is there anything special about that? > > >...but Stefan... if " it " has the ability to willfully choose... > >anything... it has free will. > > Hey, good morning! Did you wake up already? I mean, enough oxygen in > your dreamed braincells? Look on your question above! Who in the world > was talking about " willfull choice " ? Not you... not me... And who the > hell is " it " ? I was not introduced to " it " yet. > > So, get your feet on the ground, and hear me repeat: obviously we are > choosing all the time. But the misconception is, that some people > believe there was a " free will " behind those choices. It is sooo very > easy to disprove this funny idea! All those thoughts... choices... > are coming up without control of any " will " . Just watch it, > everybody!... for 30 seconds... if you have already had a strong > coffe, latest after 20 seconds there comes a choice. Maybe one like: > " I just have to open my eyes for a millisecond, to check if I have put > bread in the toaster " . Where was the free will before that? Did you > see it? There is none, believe me... Where would you locate it? The > choice comes up because the mind cannot see the " oneness " between " not > opening eyes/opening eyes " . > > Another simple thought leads to the same conclusion: whenever you may > recognise " I make a choice " , the " making " of the choice has already > passed. You cannot undo this choice! You only can make another choice > instead, and with that choice it is the same etc..etc... . Look at > it now: this chain. If you ever really look, the idea of " free will " > will vanish forever. Believe me, there will be quite some relief and a > door might open (symbolicaly and dreamed)for some new thoughts, that > are still waiting to be thought in your grey cells. But your " free > will " will NOT bring them up. They come... when they come... > > >and its belief that it doesn't have free will would contradict its > >own stance... > > See above, no contradiction, simple fact. The mind wants to believe > whatever he can. Believe cannot be disputed, it is completely > interchangeable. Believe is not a logical element. But you can cut > through this jungle... if the right choices come up! > > >The " problem " lies deeper then individual beliefs... It originates > >from within the assumption of self.....from the (I-am). > > Yes, but is that deeper than what I just have said? It is not deep > at all! It is here, obvious and naked, above your shoulders. > > Dont make everything so complicated and so stiff. Wait for the right > choices, they may come or not, they may finally go or not... why > " speculate " about this all the time since it is already here and you > have no choice to choose anyway? > > Greetings > S. " Choice " requires the conceptual separation of the infinite-chain-of causation into separate distinct entities.....from whom this supposed self may choose. There is no separation......in the universe. Everything is the cause of everything. Everything is the effect of everything. t. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 21, 2004 Report Share Posted October 21, 2004 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > " Choice " requires the conceptual separation of the infinite-chain-of >causation into separate distinct entities... from whom this supposed >self may choose. Hey, what are you talking about? The question was: " Can a person choose not to believe in free will? " A Person (like Toombaru, or like Stefan)is functioning through a dualisticly conditioned and identified mind. So much you have understood. But a so called " choice " is nothing else than another thought coming up. It requires nothing. It is simply the way the brain functions. Thats all. YOU have no control over that process, and neither does it require anything except a living, functioning brain. The only intelligent thing we can do is to " wait " for those choices to come and go, and relax. Why another dualistic theory again? >There is no separation......in the universe. >Everything is the cause of everything. >Everything is the effect of everything. Maybe this is true, but maybe not! But there is a separation in your brain! Still you cannot see this? Why are you arguing and fighting against the breain... with the brain? For what? As long as YOU cannot say how YOU found this out such sentences are simply silly poetry meant to soothe the mind for a good sleep tonight. Greetings S. 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.