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

[Guest guest]

-

" seesaw1us " <seesaw1us

<Nisargadatta >

Tuesday, March 30, 2004 7:14 PM

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

bonemarrow

 

 

> 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.

>

 

 

 

ok, i agree.

 

 

 

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

> statements about the subjetivity of everyone?

> >

 

 

yes.

though i can never experience the inner of somebody else,

i can judge the inner by the outer.

i can judge what his thoughts and emotions are by his actions.

actions and words are the projection of the inner state.

 

 

but this is not important.

 

 

 

it is like this:

 

i am sick.

whether the other is also sick or not

has nothing to do with my sickness.

 

my sickness is my problem.

his sickness is his problem.

it's as simple as that.

 

usually the others are sick too.

(whether they admit it or not)

 

none of us can help another

cause all of us are sick.

all of us are still looking for the cure.

 

 

who can help?

the ones who have found health, of course.

 

 

 

 

> > 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.

 

 

 

of this were true for you,

you would be enlightened.

 

and none of these would be,

there would be only consciousness. (they say)

 

 

 

 

 

whether or not this 'entity' is real or an illusion,

these ARE.

THESE are the 'entity'. ok?

 

they are real.

they exist.

 

and when these are,

you don't 'HAVE' them, you ARE them.

this is the sickness.

your identification with them.

 

when anger is, YOU are anger.

when fear is, YOU are fear.

when desire is, YOU are desire.

 

this is the sickness.

 

what is the cure?

they call it meditation.

they call it awareness.

they call it pure observation.

 

 

 

 

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.

>

 

 

exactly.

 

or:

when they possess you.

 

 

 

 

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

> use the word 'advance.'

> >

> >

> >

 

 

 

this is a very subtle point

and everyone has to figure it out for himself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

goodnight

 

 

 

 

 

the night is good

 

dabo

 

 

 

 

 

 

> >> 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

> > >

> > >

> > >

>

>