Guest guest Posted February 28, 2004 Report Share Posted February 28, 2004 Hello all.. Today I'd like to put to you 3 issues I have been struggling with. 1. It appears that the release from the misery of Samsara (i.e. enlightenment) *CANNOT* accrue to the individual, for enlightenment is more or less equivalent to the insight that there *IS* no individual. Though I see how this is... what's the term... logical... and even at times apperceive subjectlessly that it is really so... I often also find myself (or rather: the individual) feeling disappointed at the realization that the Insight is not for him/me, but only for something that comprehends (or " contains " ) him/me. Disappointment and a sense of helplessness seem in fact to be the predominant emotions experienced by me--as an individual--as a consequence of the dawning of Insight. How do you all feel about this? 2. Further to point 1, what basis for decision making is there for the helpless pseudo-subject commonly referred to as the individual, the person, or even more commonly: " me " ? After all, the pseudo- subject is destined to dwell in Samsara until physical death... and no element of Samsara will offer any lasting happiness. So what is the pseudo-entity to do? Give up? Or if it is not to give up, on the basis of what is it to find the energy to " act " ? And with what aims is it to " act " ? In yet other words: even if life is seen for what it is, i.e. a dream-like play, the play is nonetheless still occurring, and the individual pseudo-subject is also still there as part of the play. 3. On an largely unrelated note, I have wondered about the following. It seems to always be very, very simple to distinguish between pain and pleasure. Now, if there really is no individual entity to make this distinction, and secondly if it is clear that the impersonal Consciousness in which reality is grounded, *cannot* distinguish between pleasure and pain simply because it is not affected by either, then the question seems to remain: WHAT is it that so easily makes the distinction betwen pain and pleasure? First I thought that the answer was conditioning, i.e. the mind simply classifies as pain that which it has been conditioned to classify as pain, and likewise for pleasure. However, babies know the difference between pleasure and pain right from the start. No conditioning is needed. So I do not find this a satisfactory explanation. What do you think? Please comment. Thanks --- Caspar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 28, 2004 Report Share Posted February 28, 2004 Hi Caspar, All these issues are the result of a superficial understandinding. Nothing beyond the individual has been apperceived yet. Thoughts are still milling around trying to make sense of it all. Relax, feel the beingness, that sense of being alive. Do this as often as you can. No issues can thrive there. And pain will always be pain. Pleasure, pleasure. It's the chasing of the one, and the fleeing from the other, that comes to an end. Best, Pete Nisargadatta , " caspardegroot " <caspardegroot> wrote: > Hello all.. > > Today I'd like to put to you 3 issues I have been struggling with. > > 1. It appears that the release from the misery of Samsara (i.e. > enlightenment) *CANNOT* accrue to the individual, for enlightenment > is more or less equivalent to the insight that there *IS* no > individual. Though I see how this is... what's the term... logical... > and even at times apperceive subjectlessly that it is really so... I > often also find myself (or rather: the individual) feeling > disappointed at the realization that the Insight is not for him/me, > but only for something that comprehends (or " contains " ) him/me. > Disappointment and a sense of helplessness seem in fact to be the > predominant emotions experienced by me--as an individual--as a > consequence of the dawning of Insight. How do you all feel about > this? > > 2. Further to point 1, what basis for decision making is there for > the helpless pseudo-subject commonly referred to as the individual, > the person, or even more commonly: " me " ? After all, the pseudo- > subject is destined to dwell in Samsara until physical death... and > no element of Samsara will offer any lasting happiness. So what is > the pseudo-entity to do? Give up? Or if it is not to give up, on the > basis of what is it to find the energy to " act " ? And with what aims > is it to " act " ? In yet other words: even if life is seen for what it > is, i.e. a dream-like play, the play is nonetheless still occurring, > and the individual pseudo-subject is also still there as part of the > play. > > 3. On an largely unrelated note, I have wondered about the following. > It seems to always be very, very simple to distinguish between pain > and pleasure. Now, if there really is no individual entity to make > this distinction, and secondly if it is clear that the impersonal > Consciousness in which reality is grounded, *cannot* distinguish > between pleasure and pain simply because it is not affected by > either, then the question seems to remain: WHAT is it that so easily > makes the distinction betwen pain and pleasure? First I thought that > the answer was conditioning, i.e. the mind simply classifies as pain > that which it has been conditioned to classify as pain, and likewise > for pleasure. However, babies know the difference between pleasure > and pain right from the start. No conditioning is needed. So I do not > find this a satisfactory explanation. What do you think? > > Please comment. > > Thanks > --- Caspar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 28, 2004 Report Share Posted February 28, 2004 - " caspardegroot " <caspardegroot <Nisargadatta > Saturday, February 28, 2004 08:08 PM Some issues > Hello all.. > > Today I'd like to put to you 3 issues I have been struggling with. To whom is any of the 3 issues,... an issue? Who is it that struggles? > > 1. It appears that the release from the misery of Samsara (i.e. enlightenment) *CANNOT* accrue to the individual, for >enlightenment is more or less equivalent to the insight that there *IS* no individual. Though I see how this is... what's the term... >logical... and even at times apperceive subjectlessly that it is really so... I often also find myself (or rather: the individual) feeling > disappointed at the realization that the Insight is not for him/me, but only for something that comprehends (or " contains " ) >him/me. Disappointment and a sense of helplessness seem in fact to be the predominant emotions experienced by me--as an >individual--as a consequence of the dawning of Insight. How do you all feel about this? Par for the course. > > 2. Further to point 1, what basis for decision making is there for the helpless pseudo-subject commonly referred to as the >individual, the person, or even more commonly: " me " ? eh? pseudo-subject is to have a basis for decision-making? > After all, the pseudo- subject is destined to dwell in Samsara until physical death... Physical death for whom? A notion? > and no element of Samsara will offer any >lasting happiness. So what is the pseudo-entity to do? Give up? Or if it is not >to >give up, on the basis of what is it to find the >energy to " act " ? > And with what aims is it to " act " ? A pseudo-entity is to give up? Act? Have aims? >In yet other words: even if life >is seen for what it is, i.e. a dream-like play, >the play is nonetheless still occurring, Sure. The play in the moment, is witnessed. > and the >individual pseudo-subject is also still >there as part of the play. The individual pseudo-subject sure can believe it is there to play a part of the play. That's all it is, a prevailing sense of a belief,.......akin the rooster which agonizes the whole night, worrying whether it will awake up in time, early morning to crow the sun to rise. > > 3. On an largely unrelated note, I have wondered about the following. > It seems to always be very, very simple to distinguish between pain and pleasure. Now, if there really is no individual entity to >make this distinction, and secondly if it is clear that the impersonal Consciousness in which reality is grounded, *cannot* >distinguish between pleasure and pain simply because it is not affected by either, then the question seems to remain: WHAT is >it that so easily makes the distinction betwen pain and pleasure? First I thought that the answer was conditioning, i.e. the mind >simply classifies as pain that which it has been conditioned to classify as pain, and likewise for pleasure. However, babies know >the difference between pleasure and pain right from the start. No conditioning is needed. So I do not > find this a satisfactory explanation. Pain and pleasure is to do with the organism, assessed against it's intrinsic wiring of an instinct of survival and the instinct of perpetuation. And it is consciousness which animates the organism to cognize the sensation in the moment, as painful or pleasurable. It is the sense of entitification,....... which takes the pain in the moment and converts it into suffering as " why me? " ,.... ......which takes the pleasure in the moment and converts it into a possession. Both being relevant only to it. The sun does not agonize whether the rooster will wake up in time, in the morning. Or whether it will have a hoarse throat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 28, 2004 Report Share Posted February 28, 2004 It's like Sandeep & Seesaw say. You have to find out who it is that is having all these doubts & insecurities? Once you find out who you are, those doubts & insecurities will no longer be an issue. Ask yourself " Who am I? " Find out who asks, who is seeking. Nisargadatta , " caspardegroot " <caspardegroot> wrote: > Hello all.. > > Today I'd like to put to you 3 issues I have been struggling with. > > 1. It appears that the release from the misery of Samsara (i.e. > enlightenment) *CANNOT* accrue to the individual, for enlightenment > is more or less equivalent to the insight that there *IS* no > individual. Though I see how this is... what's the term... logical... > and even at times apperceive subjectlessly that it is really so... I > often also find myself (or rather: the individual) feeling > disappointed at the realization that the Insight is not for him/me, > but only for something that comprehends (or " contains " ) him/me. > Disappointment and a sense of helplessness seem in fact to be the > predominant emotions experienced by me--as an individual--as a > consequence of the dawning of Insight. How do you all feel about > this? > > 2. Further to point 1, what basis for decision making is there for > the helpless pseudo-subject commonly referred to as the individual, > the person, or even more commonly: " me " ? After all, the pseudo- > subject is destined to dwell in Samsara until physical death... and > no element of Samsara will offer any lasting happiness. So what is > the pseudo-entity to do? Give up? Or if it is not to give up, on the > basis of what is it to find the energy to " act " ? And with what aims > is it to " act " ? In yet other words: even if life is seen for what it > is, i.e. a dream-like play, the play is nonetheless still occurring, > and the individual pseudo-subject is also still there as part of the > play. > > 3. On an largely unrelated note, I have wondered about the following. > It seems to always be very, very simple to distinguish between pain > and pleasure. Now, if there really is no individual entity to make > this distinction, and secondly if it is clear that the impersonal > Consciousness in which reality is grounded, *cannot* distinguish > between pleasure and pain simply because it is not affected by > either, then the question seems to remain: WHAT is it that so easily > makes the distinction betwen pain and pleasure? First I thought that > the answer was conditioning, i.e. the mind simply classifies as pain > that which it has been conditioned to classify as pain, and likewise > for pleasure. However, babies know the difference between pleasure > and pain right from the start. No conditioning is needed. So I do not > find this a satisfactory explanation. What do you think? > > Please comment. > > Thanks > --- Caspar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 1, 2004 Report Share Posted March 1, 2004 It is incorrect to say " enlightenment is more or less equivalent to the insight that there *IS* no > individual. " just as it is incorrect to say " enlightenment is more or less equivalent to the insight that there *IS* no computer on the table. " Putting Advaita aside for a moment, it is more correct to say " enlightenment is realizing that the 'individual' and the computer on the table are in the same domain, that is, in the realm subject to modifications, while one's identity, and I use the word identity for fun here, is pure awareness or I Am I Am. " So enlightenment is an honest cognition that what one previously took for self, the private experiencer and the external world of tables and computers are equi-distant from I Am. The 'individual' does not go away, unless one cracks one's head and gets amnesia or makes a special attempt to minimize the 'individual' - but that has nothing to do with enlightenment. Downplaying the 'individual' is a skill like playing the piano - it belongs to the 'realm subject to modifications' and therefore feeds the ego. In a profound way, enlightenment is having a true inside and an outside. Inside I Am and outside everything else, including what was previously thought to be 'individual'. > > 2. Further to point 1, what basis for decision making is there for > the helpless pseudo-subject commonly referred to as the individual, > the person, or even more commonly: " me " ? After all, the pseudo- > subject is destined to dwell in Samsara until physical death... and > no element of Samsara will offer any lasting happiness. So what is > the pseudo-entity to do? Give up? Or if it is not to give up, on the > basis of what is it to find the energy to " act " ? And with what aims > is it to " act " ? In yet other words: even if life is seen for what it > is, i.e. a dream-like play, the play is nonetheless still occurring, > and the individual pseudo-subject is also still there as part of the > play. You are correct, the 'individual' does not go away - it is part of the three gunas. Just pick something great and do it - do what you know is right. > > 3. On an largely unrelated note, I have wondered about the following. > It seems to always be very, very simple to distinguish between pain > and pleasure. Now, if there really is no individual entity to make > this distinction, and secondly if it is clear that the impersonal > Consciousness in which reality is grounded, *cannot* distinguish > between pleasure and pain simply because it is not affected by > either, then the question seems to remain: WHAT is it that so easily > makes the distinction betwen pain and pleasure? First I thought that > the answer was conditioning, i.e. the mind simply classifies as pain > that which it has been conditioned to classify as pain, and likewise > for pleasure. However, babies know the difference between pleasure > and pain right from the start. No conditioning is needed. So I do not > find this a satisfactory explanation. What do you think? > I do not know too much about pleasure and pain, here's where I bow to the wisdom of advertisers who have studied the topic and are the obvious experts. <grin> Jesus is hot right now, so I'll borrow one of his phrases - " Seek ye first the Kingdom of Heaven and all else shall be added to you. " Jolt identity into I Am and the rest falls into place. Larry > Please comment. > > Thanks > --- Caspar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 1, 2004 Report Share Posted March 1, 2004 > So enlightenment is an honest cognition Enlightenment is a " cognition " ???????????????????? Bill - trem23 Nisargadatta Monday, March 01, 2004 9:49 AM Re: Some issues It is incorrect to say " enlightenment is more or less equivalent to the insight that there *IS* no > individual. " just as it is incorrect to say " enlightenment is more or less equivalent to the insight that there *IS* no computer on the table. " Putting Advaita aside for a moment, it is more correct to say " enlightenment is realizing that the 'individual' and the computer on the table are in the same domain, that is, in the realm subject to modifications, while one's identity, and I use the word identity for fun here, is pure awareness or I Am I Am. " So enlightenment is an honest cognition that what one previously took for self, the private experiencer and the external world of tables and computers are equi-distant from I Am. The 'individual' does not go away, unless one cracks one's head and gets amnesia or makes a special attempt to minimize the 'individual' - but that has nothing to do with enlightenment. Downplaying the 'individual' is a skill like playing the piano - it belongs to the 'realm subject to modifications' and therefore feeds the ego. In a profound way, enlightenment is having a true inside and an outside. Inside I Am and outside everything else, including what was previously thought to be 'individual'. > > 2. Further to point 1, what basis for decision making is there for > the helpless pseudo-subject commonly referred to as the individual, > the person, or even more commonly: " me " ? After all, the pseudo- > subject is destined to dwell in Samsara until physical death... and > no element of Samsara will offer any lasting happiness. So what is > the pseudo-entity to do? Give up? Or if it is not to give up, on the > basis of what is it to find the energy to " act " ? And with what aims > is it to " act " ? In yet other words: even if life is seen for what it > is, i.e. a dream-like play, the play is nonetheless still occurring, > and the individual pseudo-subject is also still there as part of the > play. You are correct, the 'individual' does not go away - it is part of the three gunas. Just pick something great and do it - do what you know is right. > > 3. On an largely unrelated note, I have wondered about the following. > It seems to always be very, very simple to distinguish between pain > and pleasure. Now, if there really is no individual entity to make > this distinction, and secondly if it is clear that the impersonal > Consciousness in which reality is grounded, *cannot* distinguish > between pleasure and pain simply because it is not affected by > either, then the question seems to remain: WHAT is it that so easily > makes the distinction betwen pain and pleasure? First I thought that > the answer was conditioning, i.e. the mind simply classifies as pain > that which it has been conditioned to classify as pain, and likewise > for pleasure. However, babies know the difference between pleasure > and pain right from the start. No conditioning is needed. So I do not > find this a satisfactory explanation. What do you think? > I do not know too much about pleasure and pain, here's where I bow to the wisdom of advertisers who have studied the topic and are the obvious experts. <grin> Jesus is hot right now, so I'll borrow one of his phrases - " Seek ye first the Kingdom of Heaven and all else shall be added to you. " Jolt identity into I Am and the rest falls into place. Larry > Please comment. > > Thanks > --- Caspar ** 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 March 1, 2004 Report Share Posted March 1, 2004 Bill, Sorry 'bout that - I got lazy - words are hard to find. L Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <plexus@a...> wrote: > > So enlightenment is an honest cognition > Enlightenment is a " cognition " ???????????????????? > > > Bill > > > - > trem23 > Nisargadatta > Monday, March 01, 2004 9:49 AM > Re: Some issues > > > > It is incorrect to say > > " enlightenment is more or less equivalent to the insight that there > *IS* no > > individual. " > > just as it is incorrect to say > > " enlightenment is more or less equivalent to the insight that there > *IS* no computer on the table. " > > Putting Advaita aside for a moment, it is more correct to > say " enlightenment is realizing that the 'individual' and the > computer on the table are in the same domain, that is, in the realm > subject to modifications, while one's identity, and I use the word > identity for fun here, is pure awareness or I Am I Am. " > > So enlightenment is an honest cognition that what one previously took > for self, the private experiencer and the external world of tables > and computers are equi-distant from I Am. The 'individual' does not > go away, unless one cracks one's head and gets amnesia or makes a > special attempt to minimize the 'individual' - but that has nothing > to do with enlightenment. Downplaying the 'individual' is a skill > like playing the piano - it belongs to the 'realm subject to > modifications' and therefore feeds the ego. > > In a profound way, enlightenment is having a true inside and an > outside. Inside I Am and outside everything else, including what was > previously thought to be 'individual'. > > > > > > 2. Further to point 1, what basis for decision making is there for > > the helpless pseudo-subject commonly referred to as the individual, > > the person, or even more commonly: " me " ? After all, the pseudo- > > subject is destined to dwell in Samsara until physical death... and > > no element of Samsara will offer any lasting happiness. So what is > > the pseudo-entity to do? Give up? Or if it is not to give up, on > the > > basis of what is it to find the energy to " act " ? And with what aims > > is it to " act " ? In yet other words: even if life is seen for what > it > > is, i.e. a dream-like play, the play is nonetheless still > occurring, > > and the individual pseudo-subject is also still there as part of > the > > play. > > You are correct, the 'individual' does not go away - it is part of > the three gunas. Just pick something great and do it - do what you > know is right. > > > > > > 3. On an largely unrelated note, I have wondered about the > following. > > It seems to always be very, very simple to distinguish between pain > > and pleasure. Now, if there really is no individual entity to make > > this distinction, and secondly if it is clear that the impersonal > > Consciousness in which reality is grounded, *cannot* distinguish > > between pleasure and pain simply because it is not affected by > > either, then the question seems to remain: WHAT is it that so > easily > > makes the distinction betwen pain and pleasure? First I thought > that > > the answer was conditioning, i.e. the mind simply classifies as > pain > > that which it has been conditioned to classify as pain, and > likewise > > for pleasure. However, babies know the difference between pleasure > > and pain right from the start. No conditioning is needed. So I do > not > > find this a satisfactory explanation. What do you think? > > > > I do not know too much about pleasure and pain, here's where I bow to > the wisdom of advertisers who have studied the topic and are the > obvious experts. <grin> > > Jesus is hot right now, so I'll borrow one of his phrases - " Seek ye > first the Kingdom of Heaven and all else shall be added to you. " > Jolt identity into I Am and the rest falls into place. > > Larry > > > > > > Please comment. > > > > Thanks > > --- Caspar > > > > ** > > 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 March 1, 2004 Report Share Posted March 1, 2004 Caspar: WHAT is it that so easily makes the distinction betwen pain and pleasure? First I thought that the answer was conditioning, i.e. the mind simply classifies as pain that which it has been conditioned to classify as pain, and likewise for pleasure. However, babies know the difference between pleasure and pain right from the start. No conditioning is needed. So I do not find this a satisfactory explanation. What do you think? Hi Caspar, What are you referring to as pain in a baby? A person's conditioning (emotional and mental) accumulates through a lifetime (not to mention vasanas)and the person may simply add on more definitions of pain and pleasure as life progresses. You seem to be assuming that babies enter this 'dream' life with a clean slate... Babies (as do other people) have a brain and a central nervous system, which responds to sensory input and is capable of registering pain. Jess Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 2, 2004 Report Share Posted March 2, 2004 > 1. It appears that the release from the misery of Samsara (i.e. > enlightenment) *CANNOT* accrue to the individual, for enlightenment > is more or less equivalent to the insight that there *IS* no > individual. Though I see how this is... what's the term... logical... > and even at times apperceive subjectlessly that it is really so... I > often also find myself (or rather: the individual) feeling > disappointed at the realization that the Insight is not for him/me, > but only for something that comprehends (or " contains " ) him/me. > Disappointment and a sense of helplessness seem in fact to be the > predominant emotions experienced by me--as an individual--as a > consequence of the dawning of Insight. How do you all feel about > this? Look at it this way: The body do really exist. It is not an illusion that it do exist. But it does not exist as a reality of its own. It does not own its place in time and space. And for sure, there is no " you " here to find in this universe. The helplessness is the fiction that there is a " you " that kan exist as an own reality with its time and space. What i call the intellect is what can be pointed out as the illusive vail of Maya. About this Maya has been said that it is en entertaining entity with no separate own existence and it relates to the one substance like warmth to fire or cold to ice. Warmth is nither the fire nor is it separate from it. This means that no relevant information kan EVER be abstracted from the intellect in the same way that no separated forms can be abstracted from the only one substance. With the intellect you have created this imagination of a form of its own. This creation is also real, but it has nothing to do with a " you " . The intellect have created time, separation, form, boundries and other consepts that it can use to guide the lifeform of that body sitting here now. But where is this " you " ? There can be no " you " in a mind that does not support this flow. When the mind seem timeless, unseparated, formless and unbound, then what is there to be dissapointed about? Then where is this " you " ? > either, then the question seems to remain: WHAT is it that so easily > makes the distinction betwen pain and pleasure? First I thought that > the answer was conditioning, i.e. the mind simply classifies as pain > that which it has been conditioned to classify as pain, and likewise > for pleasure. However, babies know the difference between pleasure > and pain right from the start. No conditioning is needed. So I do not The awnser is the intellect. Babies does NOT separate these things if you ask me. They have not yet created that friction within the intellect, but they certenly have the tendency to do so. Their intellect is frictionless and flowing of that presence that is aware and alive through the body. And so are you. /Neb 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.