Sandeep finally answers Dabo -OR- let's cut to the bonemarrow

[Guest guest]

what sandeep says here is right,

but it's nothing new.

 

there can be no enlightened human being,

because the very essence of enlightenment

is the disappearance of the self, the I, the ego.

 

so the buddhas say:

there is enlightenment,

but there is noone who is enlightened.

 

when enlightenment happens,

it will be there, but you won't be there.

 

 

 

 

we can repeat the words of the buddhas forever.

we can repeat that 'ego is illusory'.

we can repeat that 'we are all buddhas from the very beginning'.

 

BUT

 

ego IS our reality now.

we all have the sense of I inside.

don't we?

we are no fucking buddhas,

ARE WE???

 

we all have pain, we all have fear, we all have greed, we all have desire,

we all have anger, we all have jealosy, we all have hate,

we all have alllll these nasty things inside

that make us just ordinary human fucked-up beings.

 

 

 

it's true noone can say: I am enlightened.

 

but the 'I' CAN say: I am NOT enlightened.

 

evidently, sandeep can't find this I inside.

evidently, this I is just a concept, an ideation.

 

evidently, 'sandeep' is enlightened.

 

congrats, sandeep!

say hi to the Buddha from me.

 

 

 

 

 

but the point is not what you say,

but whether you ARE what you say.

 

for example,

i can say very convincingly 'i am an African American',

but that does not make me one.

i can even have skin pigments injected and get my hair curled.

maybe a penis-enlargement operation.. )

 

or i can say: i am already a buddha,

why try for it?

this doesn't make me one.

 

 

 

 

advancing to buddhahood requires a much deeper understanding,

a more total awareness of what is.

it has nothing to do with honing your debating skills.

it has nothing to do with linguistic gymnastics.

 

it has to do with awareness,

pure observation of what is.

 

it has to do with a total transformation of your energies,

and if you don't know what the hell dabo is talking about,

then you are far from buddhahood.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a true seeker is in pain

 

 

dabo

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-

" seesaw1us " <seesaw1us

<Nisargadatta >

Monday, March 29, 2004 8:29 PM

Sandeep finally answers Dabo

 

 

> Hey Dabo,

> Since Sandeep won't answer your indiscreet question about his

> enlightenment, I used my time machine to get his answer about anyone's

> enlightenment from the past.

>

> Here it goes.

>

> Wednesday, January 02, 2002 11:12 PM

> [NoDoer] Enlightenment

>

>

> Hi Gloria & Michael,

>

> P:Thanks for your kind words. My main reason to post that draft was

> to get input on

> how to depict the experience of enlightenment.

>

>

> Sandy: Whoever told you that enlightenment is an experience and thus

> could be depicted in words or without words?

>

> G: Hi Sandeep,

> Hey, even Ramesh and you do this, you just call it the appercetion

> dawns.

>

> Sandy: Sure.

> When you have to talk about something, you need some words.

> But no matter what word is used, inlcuding the word " apperception " ,

> it is always about it, not it.

>

> Secondly, words are meanignful as far as their connotations go.

>

> Apperception is not what is typically given by the dictionaries.

>

> It denotes the state of perceiving without a perceiver, thus

> indicating that such a state is not a perception, not an experience

> within the cause-effect continuum.

>

>

>

> G: All the great subjects of literature, like love, sorrow,

> truth..none of these can ever be adequately depicted either, but that

> is no reason to stop anyone.

>

>

> Sandy:Great literature or smut, can neither be stopped nor abetted.

>

>

> G: What is the use of setting enlightenment aside as so specially

> exempt from human experience?

>

> Sandy: Simply because a human can never experience,

> realize, " enlightenment " .

>

> Yes, the occurrence may happen through a human body-mind organism.

>

> But there has been never, any enlightened human being, ever.

>

> An " enlightened human being " is an oxymoron.

>

>

>

> In my opinion, there aren't any good renditions of

> the experience in fiction.

>

> Even the good renditions in fiction are fictions.

>

> LOL

>

> G:Again, what I liked about it was that it avoided conceptualizing in

> favor of letting images carry the story, without spelling it out.

> Like moon and autumn conjur up worlds of meaning to a Japanese, so

> that whole meaning goes without saying, it is there without actually

> being there in words, only suggested. The words are symbolic, of

> course, what else could they be? While Pete is writing a story, he

> has used a poetic device, quite effectively. He leaves a great deal

> of blank space to be filled in by the reader's imagination.

>

>

> G:I know that.

> All I am saying is that no matter how much is the imagination

> stretched to fill in the blanks, it will still be symbolic and thus

> the blanks will remain blanks.

>

> The need to depict, to describe, to symbolize, to conceptualize, to

> whom can this need arise?

> To an entity.

> The presence of the entity is the absence of.....

>

> Notionally speaking.

>

> For if the dude in the diaper, was not doped out when he

> uttered " there is no creation, there is no destruction " ,

> enlightenment can only be a notion.

>

> Depiction of a notion, no matter how poetically beautiful, is at best

> a notion.

>

>

>

>

>

> Zip-A-Dee-Dah-Doo

>

> Sandeep

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " dabo " <dscasta> wrote:

 

sorry, snip

 

> a true seeker is in pain

>

 

e# good shot, pain is a good clue,

but there's something else

(not that i know but i'm good about pain)

 

 

> dabo

>

>

-

> " seesaw1us " <seesaw1us>

> <Nisargadatta >

> Monday, March 29, 2004 8:29 PM

> Sandeep finally answers Dabo

>

>

> > Hey Dabo,

> > Since Sandeep won't answer your indiscreet question about his

> > enlightenment, I used my time machine to get his answer about

anyone's

> > enlightenment from the past.

> >

> > Here it goes.

> >

> > Wednesday, January 02, 2002 11:12 PM

> > [NoDoer] Enlightenment

> >

> >

> > Hi Gloria & Michael,

> >

> > P:Thanks for your kind words. My main reason to post that draft

was

> > to get input on

> > how to depict the experience of enlightenment.

> >

> >

> > Sandy: Whoever told you that enlightenment is an experience and

thus

> > could be depicted in words or without words?

> >

> > G: Hi Sandeep,

> > Hey, even Ramesh and you do this, you just call it the

appercetion

> > dawns.

> >

> > Sandy: Sure.

> > When you have to talk about something, you need some words.

> > But no matter what word is used, inlcuding the

word " apperception " ,

> > it is always about it, not it.

> >

> > Secondly, words are meanignful as far as their connotations go.

> >

> > Apperception is not what is typically given by the dictionaries.

> >

> > It denotes the state of perceiving without a perceiver, thus

> > indicating that such a state is not a perception, not an

experience

> > within the cause-effect continuum.

> >

> >

> >

> > G: All the great subjects of literature, like love, sorrow,

> > truth..none of these can ever be adequately depicted either, but

that

> > is no reason to stop anyone.

> >

> >

> > Sandy:Great literature or smut, can neither be stopped nor

abetted.

> >

> >

> > G: What is the use of setting enlightenment aside as so specially

> > exempt from human experience?

> >

> > Sandy: Simply because a human can never experience,

> > realize, " enlightenment " .

> >

> > Yes, the occurrence may happen through a human body-mind organism.

> >

> > But there has been never, any enlightened human being, ever.

> >

> > An " enlightened human being " is an oxymoron.

> >

> >

> >

> > In my opinion, there aren't any good renditions of

> > the experience in fiction.

> >

> > Even the good renditions in fiction are fictions.

> >

> > LOL

> >

> > G:Again, what I liked about it was that it avoided

conceptualizing in

> > favor of letting images carry the story, without spelling it out.

> > Like moon and autumn conjur up worlds of meaning to a Japanese,

so

> > that whole meaning goes without saying, it is there without

actually

> > being there in words, only suggested. The words are symbolic, of

> > course, what else could they be? While Pete is writing a story,

he

> > has used a poetic device, quite effectively. He leaves a great

deal

> > of blank space to be filled in by the reader's imagination.

> >

> >

> > G:I know that.

> > All I am saying is that no matter how much is the imagination

> > stretched to fill in the blanks, it will still be symbolic and

thus

> > the blanks will remain blanks.

> >

> > The need to depict, to describe, to symbolize, to conceptualize,

to

> > whom can this need arise?

> > To an entity.

> > The presence of the entity is the absence of.....

> >

> > Notionally speaking.

> >

> > For if the dude in the diaper, was not doped out when he

> > uttered " there is no creation, there is no destruction " ,

> > enlightenment can only be a notion.

> >

> > Depiction of a notion, no matter how poetically beautiful, is at

best

> > a notion.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Zip-A-Dee-Dah-Doo

> >

> > Sandeep

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

-

" ericparoissien " <msrhood

<Nisargadatta >

Tuesday, March 30, 2004 2:29 PM

Re: Sandeep finally answers Dabo -OR- let's cut to the

bonemarrow

 

 

> Nisargadatta , " dabo " <dscasta> wrote:

>

> sorry, snip

>

> > a true seeker is in pain

> >

>

> e# good shot, pain is a good clue,

> but there's something else

> (not that i know but i'm good about pain)

>

>

 

 

 

the one who is not really in pain

is not seeking anything.

 

 

 

 

yes there IS something else

 

dabo

 

 

 

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > -

> > " seesaw1us " <seesaw1us>

> > <Nisargadatta >

> > Monday, March 29, 2004 8:29 PM

> > Sandeep finally answers Dabo

> >

> >

> > > Hey Dabo,

> > > Since Sandeep won't answer your indiscreet question about his

> > > enlightenment, I used my time machine to get his answer about

> anyone's

> > > enlightenment from the past.

> > >

> > > Here it goes.

> > >

> > > Wednesday, January 02, 2002 11:12 PM

> > > [NoDoer] Enlightenment

> > >

> > >

> > > Hi Gloria & Michael,

> > >

> > > P:Thanks for your kind words. My main reason to post that draft

> was

> > > to get input on

> > > how to depict the experience of enlightenment.

> > >

> > >

> > > Sandy: Whoever told you that enlightenment is an experience and

> thus

> > > could be depicted in words or without words?

> > >

> > > G: Hi Sandeep,

> > > Hey, even Ramesh and you do this, you just call it the

> appercetion

> > > dawns.

> > >

> > > Sandy: Sure.

> > > When you have to talk about something, you need some words.

> > > But no matter what word is used, inlcuding the

> word " apperception " ,

> > > it is always about it, not it.

> > >

> > > Secondly, words are meanignful as far as their connotations go.

> > >

> > > Apperception is not what is typically given by the dictionaries.

> > >

> > > It denotes the state of perceiving without a perceiver, thus

> > > indicating that such a state is not a perception, not an

> experience

> > > within the cause-effect continuum.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > G: All the great subjects of literature, like love, sorrow,

> > > truth..none of these can ever be adequately depicted either, but

> that

> > > is no reason to stop anyone.

> > >

> > >

> > > Sandy:Great literature or smut, can neither be stopped nor

> abetted.

> > >

> > >

> > > G: What is the use of setting enlightenment aside as so specially

> > > exempt from human experience?

> > >

> > > Sandy: Simply because a human can never experience,

> > > realize, " enlightenment " .

> > >

> > > Yes, the occurrence may happen through a human body-mind organism.

> > >

> > > But there has been never, any enlightened human being, ever.

> > >

> > > An " enlightened human being " is an oxymoron.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > In my opinion, there aren't any good renditions of

> > > the experience in fiction.

> > >

> > > Even the good renditions in fiction are fictions.

> > >

> > > LOL

> > >

> > > G:Again, what I liked about it was that it avoided

> conceptualizing in

> > > favor of letting images carry the story, without spelling it out.

> > > Like moon and autumn conjur up worlds of meaning to a Japanese,

> so

> > > that whole meaning goes without saying, it is there without

> actually

> > > being there in words, only suggested. The words are symbolic, of

> > > course, what else could they be? While Pete is writing a story,

> he

> > > has used a poetic device, quite effectively. He leaves a great

> deal

> > > of blank space to be filled in by the reader's imagination.

> > >

> > >

> > > G:I know that.

> > > All I am saying is that no matter how much is the imagination

> > > stretched to fill in the blanks, it will still be symbolic and

> thus

> > > the blanks will remain blanks.

> > >

> > > The need to depict, to describe, to symbolize, to conceptualize,

> to

> > > whom can this need arise?

> > > To an entity.

> > > The presence of the entity is the absence of.....

> > >

> > > Notionally speaking.

> > >

> > > For if the dude in the diaper, was not doped out when he

> > > uttered " there is no creation, there is no destruction " ,

> > > enlightenment can only be a notion.

> > >

> > > Depiction of a notion, no matter how poetically beautiful, is at

> best

> > > a notion.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Zip-A-Dee-Dah-Doo

> > >

> > > Sandeep

> > >

> > >

> > >

>

>

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " dabo " <dscasta> wrote:

>

>

>

>>

> we can repeat the words of the buddhas forever.

> we can repeat that 'ego is illusory'.

> we can repeat that 'we are all buddhas from the very beginning'.

>

> BUT

>

> ego IS our reality now.

> we all have the sense of I inside.

> don't we?

> we are no fucking buddhas,

> ARE WE???

 

Hi Dabo,

 

I think some definitions are needed to see if you and I are writing

about th same things.

 

When I use the word 'illusion' I don't mean the thing doesn't exist,

but that the interpretation is illusory. In this way a mirage does

exist, but is not water, and an ego exist, but is not a conscious

entity called Pete.

 

Then let's consider the words 'actual' and potential. Everyone is a

potential buddha ( awakened being), but the actuality of being awake,

obviously, is not here for everyone.

 

And finally, 'we' if by that you mean everyone. Can anyone make any

statements about the subjetivity of everyone?

>

> we all have pain, we all have fear, we all have greed, we all have

desire,

> we all have anger, we all have jealosy, we all have hate,

> we all have alllll these nasty things inside

> that make us just ordinary human fucked-up beings.

 

P: I think the key word here is HAVE. There is no entity to take

possetion of any of the above. There is fear, but if fear is allowed

to raise and die in the moment, if far is not given coninuety by

thought and the feeling that it belong to a me, thenfear is no

problem, but an asset. All thos nasty things as well as the good

things becomes problems only when view as possessed by a me.

 

I have no problem with what you say below, except perhaps I wouldn't

use the word 'advance.'

>

>

>

>> advancing to buddhahood requires a much deeper understanding,

> a more total awareness of what is.

> it has nothing to do with honing your debating skills.

> it has nothing to do with linguistic gymnastics.

>

> it has to do with awareness,

> pure observation of what is.

>

> it has to do with a total transformation of your energies,

> and if you don't know what the hell dabo is talking about,

> then you are far from buddhahood.

>

>

>

a true seeker is in pain

>

>

> dabo

>

>

-

> " seesaw1us " <seesaw1us>

> <Nisargadatta >

> Monday, March 29, 2004 8:29 PM

> Sandeep finally answers Dabo

>

>

> > Hey Dabo,

> > Since Sandeep won't answer your indiscreet question about his

> > enlightenment, I used my time machine to get his answer about

anyone's

> > enlightenment from the past.

> >

> > Here it goes.

> >

> > Wednesday, January 02, 2002 11:12 PM

> > [NoDoer] Enlightenment

> >

> >

> > Hi Gloria & Michael,

> >

> > P:Thanks for your kind words. My main reason to post that draft

was

> > to get input on

> > how to depict the experience of enlightenment.

> >

> >

> > Sandy: Whoever told you that enlightenment is an experience and

thus

> > could be depicted in words or without words?

> >

> > G: Hi Sandeep,

> > Hey, even Ramesh and you do this, you just call it the

appercetion

> > dawns.

> >

> > Sandy: Sure.

> > When you have to talk about something, you need some words.

> > But no matter what word is used, inlcuding the

word " apperception " ,

> > it is always about it, not it.

> >

> > Secondly, words are meanignful as far as their connotations go.

> >

> > Apperception is not what is typically given by the dictionaries.

> >

> > It denotes the state of perceiving without a perceiver, thus

> > indicating that such a state is not a perception, not an

experience

> > within the cause-effect continuum.

> >

> >

> >

> > G: All the great subjects of literature, like love, sorrow,

> > truth..none of these can ever be adequately depicted either, but

that

> > is no reason to stop anyone.

> >

> >

> > Sandy:Great literature or smut, can neither be stopped nor

abetted.

> >

> >

> > G: What is the use of setting enlightenment aside as so specially

> > exempt from human experience?

> >

> > Sandy: Simply because a human can never experience,

> > realize, " enlightenment " .

> >

> > Yes, the occurrence may happen through a human body-mind organism.

> >

> > But there has been never, any enlightened human being, ever.

> >

> > An " enlightened human being " is an oxymoron.

> >

> >

> >

> > In my opinion, there aren't any good renditions of

> > the experience in fiction.

> >

> > Even the good renditions in fiction are fictions.

> >

> > LOL

> >

> > G:Again, what I liked about it was that it avoided

conceptualizing in

> > favor of letting images carry the story, without spelling it out.

> > Like moon and autumn conjur up worlds of meaning to a Japanese,

so

> > that whole meaning goes without saying, it is there without

actually

> > being there in words, only suggested. The words are symbolic, of

> > course, what else could they be? While Pete is writing a story,

he

> > has used a poetic device, quite effectively. He leaves a great

deal

> > of blank space to be filled in by the reader's imagination.

> >

> >

> > G:I know that.

> > All I am saying is that no matter how much is the imagination

> > stretched to fill in the blanks, it will still be symbolic and

thus

> > the blanks will remain blanks.

> >

> > The need to depict, to describe, to symbolize, to conceptualize,

to

> > whom can this need arise?

> > To an entity.

> > The presence of the entity is the absence of.....

> >

> > Notionally speaking.

> >

> > For if the dude in the diaper, was not doped out when he

> > uttered " there is no creation, there is no destruction " ,

> > enlightenment can only be a notion.

> >

> > Depiction of a notion, no matter how poetically beautiful, is at

best

> > a notion.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Zip-A-Dee-Dah-Doo

> >

> > Sandeep

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

> advancing to buddhahood requires a much deeper understanding,

> a more total awareness of what is.

> it has nothing to do with honing your debating skills.

> it has nothing to do with linguistic gymnastics.

>

> it has to do with awareness,

> pure observation of what is.

>

> it has to do with a total transformation of your energies,

> and if you don't know what the hell dabo is talking about,

> then you are far from buddhahood.

>

> a true seeker is in pain

>

>

> dabo

 

Well, dab-ster, I'm glad that you have THE criteria for Buddhahood --

I've been looking for awhile now.

 

So, if someone is in pure observation of what is, how would he look

or be any different than anyone else? And why is this Buddhahood?

(rhetorical question, no need for answers)

 

Sounds like some ideas you got from books.

 

> a true seeker is in pain

 

Bullshit.

 

A " true seeker " seeks Truth at all costs, pain or not. If you're in

pain, do something about it, leave this enlightenment business alone.

 

Best wishes,

Joe