Guest guest Posted June 11, 2004 Report Share Posted June 11, 2004 Nisargadatta , " danananda2004 " <danananda2004> wrote: > " I would only be trying to give you something, if I secretly had > something to get. " > > good one! great line, dan... speaks volumes > > " What happens when you have no within and no without? " > > " What's to practice now? " > > the practice is where u realize that nothing u realize is u... it's > nisarga yoga... u know? like what it says in the blurb on the > nisargadatta ! forum homepage... that's some good stuff... > that's the practice... > > within u & without u is referring to the relative side of things... > it's where the relative meets the absolute... it is referring to the > body-mind nexus, time-space modality... always remember: just because > it's an illusion doesn't mean it isn't real... it's that whole > samsara is nirvana & nirvana is samsara routine... i mean... whaddya > gonna do? i just kick back & watch shiva dance... > > " I don't see this as a battle of the good gurus and the bad gurus. " > > nah... it's more like 'my guru is better than your guru'... or, 'my > guru can kick your guru's ass' routine... very childish, immature... > > " To me, it's much more like there's a battle between > being in the trance, and waking up. And since any guru or teaching > involves a trance, you're going to have to wake up on your own. So, > to me, a good teacher won't even try to be a guru, in > > the sense of indoctrinating a parent-child relation -- won't > > support a trance like that. A good teacher will respect > > your ability to wake up, may challenge you to find your > strength, but will most of all respect life for already > always providing such challenge on all sides -- for one > who has open eyes. " I don't even know if they cared whether or > > not anyone saw them as a guru. Probably not. > > " It does seem odd when someone says, " I am a guru, I am the > > best of all time, you would want to live with me and > > serve me if you had a clue about how important I am. But it may > not seem odd to someone who feels really lost. It may feel > reassuring, at least at the beginning. " > > > exactly... any guru who is out there hawking his or her wares & > promoting themselves as guru is not satguru > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > Maharaj: There are no distinctive marks of gnana. Only ignorance can > be recognised, not gnana. Nor does a gnani claim to be something > special. All those who proclaim their own greatness and uniqueness > are not gnanis. They are mistaking some unusual development for > realisation. The gnani shows no tendency to proclaim himself to be a > gnani. He considers himself to be perfectly normal, true to his real > nature. Proclaiming oneself to be an omnipotent, omniscient and > omnipresent deity is a clear sign of ignorance. " (`I Am That` Ch. 43, > p. 193) > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > " The guru, if you want to call it that, is right here, right now. > There is no other guru. " > > i concur... > > " Someone like N. or R. seem to me to be ackowledging that, > > not pointing to their body as a special thing which you > > should want to be near, or to serve. > > > > " If you are ready to die to yourself, > > you will be taken. But you won't > > be making that happen. > > > > " If you are thinking you'll figure out > > how to kill yourself, or you're looking for someone else to > > make you ready, or to kill you, > > you aren't ready. " > > good point... alot of people r looking for some way to kill > themselves or to get someone else to kill them... > > everybody is looking for something... sweet dreams r made of this... > who am i to disagree? > > i'll tell ya one thing, tho... that nisarga yoga is fun... i get > lotsa joy out of it... sometimes it seems to well up from down inside > of the body... an ecstatic bliss state... it's sweet... once u taste > it, your hooked... > > u know what i'm talkin' about... > > > > your > > bliss junkie > > danananda Nice letter, Dan -- thanks! Good to hear from you on this. I like what you had to say about jnanis. Just watch out about that bliss stuff. Don't get hung up on bliss. Bliss is released and there is only *this intelligence* -- acting as it is to act in each situation, according to the situation at hand. Clean, free, clear. Nothing to attract, no one to be attracted. Just *this* -- Like you said about jnanis, only what is natural, however that is. Nothing special. A razor slices through everything, but then can't slice itself. So, it dissolves. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2004 Report Share Posted June 13, 2004 alright, then... i'll watch out for that " bliss stuff " & try not to get hung up on it... it's just that sometimes i can't help it... it comes on by itself... i'll be sitting there or driving down the road or something & it comes on & it's so sweet... what's not to like, ya know whatta mean? i just practice what the maharaj said... i go into myself & be THAT... the way to being yourself is by not being that which is not yourself... anything u can perceive is not u... THAT'S about IT... yours danananda Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " danananda2004 " > <danananda2004> wrote: > > " I would only be trying to give you something, if I secretly had > > something to get. " > > > > good one! great line, dan... speaks volumes > > > > " What happens when you have no within and no without? " > > > > " What's to practice now? " > > > > the practice is where u realize that nothing u realize is u... it's > > nisarga yoga... u know? like what it says in the blurb on the > > nisargadatta ! forum homepage... that's some good stuff... > > that's the practice... > > > > within u & without u is referring to the relative side of things... > > it's where the relative meets the absolute... it is referring to > the > > body-mind nexus, time-space modality... always remember: just > because > > it's an illusion doesn't mean it isn't real... it's that whole > > samsara is nirvana & nirvana is samsara routine... i mean... > whaddya > > gonna do? i just kick back & watch shiva dance... > > > > " I don't see this as a battle of the good gurus and the bad gurus. " > > > > nah... it's more like 'my guru is better than your guru'... or, 'my > > guru can kick your guru's ass' routine... very childish, > immature... > > > > " To me, it's much more like there's a battle between > > being in the trance, and waking up. And since any guru or > teaching > > involves a trance, you're going to have to wake up on your own. So, > > to me, a good teacher won't even try to be a guru, in > > > the sense of indoctrinating a parent-child relation -- won't > > > support a trance like that. A good teacher will respect > > > your ability to wake up, may challenge you to find your > > strength, but will most of all respect life for already > > always providing such challenge on all sides -- for one > > who has open eyes. " I don't even know if they cared whether or > > > not anyone saw them as a guru. Probably not. > > > > " It does seem odd when someone says, " I am a guru, I am the > > > best of all time, you would want to live with me and > > > serve me if you had a clue about how important I am. But it may > > not seem odd to someone who feels really lost. It may feel > > reassuring, at least at the beginning. " > > > > > > exactly... any guru who is out there hawking his or her wares & > > promoting themselves as guru is not satguru > > > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > > Maharaj: There are no distinctive marks of gnana. Only ignorance > can > > be recognised, not gnana. Nor does a gnani claim to be something > > special. All those who proclaim their own greatness and uniqueness > > are not gnanis. They are mistaking some unusual development for > > realisation. The gnani shows no tendency to proclaim himself to be > a > > gnani. He considers himself to be perfectly normal, true to his > real > > nature. Proclaiming oneself to be an omnipotent, omniscient and > > omnipresent deity is a clear sign of ignorance. " (`I Am That` Ch. > 43, > > p. 193) > > > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > > " The guru, if you want to call it that, is right here, right now. > > There is no other guru. " > > > > i concur... > > > > " Someone like N. or R. seem to me to be ackowledging that, > > > not pointing to their body as a special thing which you > > > should want to be near, or to serve. > > > > > > " If you are ready to die to yourself, > > > you will be taken. But you won't > > > be making that happen. > > > > > > " If you are thinking you'll figure out > > > how to kill yourself, or you're looking for someone else to > > > make you ready, or to kill you, > > > you aren't ready. " > > > > good point... alot of people r looking for some way to kill > > themselves or to get someone else to kill them... > > > > everybody is looking for something... sweet dreams r made of > this... > > who am i to disagree? > > > > i'll tell ya one thing, tho... that nisarga yoga is fun... i get > > lotsa joy out of it... sometimes it seems to well up from down > inside > > of the body... an ecstatic bliss state... it's sweet... once u > taste > > it, your hooked... > > > > u know what i'm talkin' about... > > > > > > > > your > > > > bliss junkie > > > > danananda > > Nice letter, Dan -- thanks! > > Good to hear from you on this. > > I like what you had to say about jnanis. > > Just watch out about that bliss stuff. > > Don't get hung up on bliss. > > Bliss is released and there is only > *this intelligence* -- acting > as it is to act in each situation, > according to the situation at hand. > > Clean, free, clear. > > Nothing to attract, no one to be attracted. > > Just *this* -- > > Like you said about jnanis, only what is > natural, however that is. Nothing special. > > A razor slices through everything, but then > can't slice itself. > > So, it dissolves. > > -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2004 Report Share Posted June 13, 2004 Nisargadatta , " danananda2004 " <danananda2004> wrote: > alright, then... i'll watch out for that " bliss stuff " & try not to > get hung up on it... If it's become an addiction, it may be too late for just 'watching out for it.' If it's a self-induced trance state accompanied by endogenous chemical release, you may be helpless to stop until you acknowledge the full extent of the limitation involved. Just as it is with any addiction. it's just that sometimes i can't help it... it > comes on by itself... i'll be sitting there or driving down the road > or something & it comes on & it's so sweet... what's not to like, ya > know whatta mean? Sure, I know exactly what you mean. Drug addiction, in other words, only not depending on someone to buy the drugs from. > i just practice what the maharaj said... i go into myself & be > THAT... the way to being yourself is by not being that which is not > yourself... anything u can perceive is not u... THAT'S about IT... > > So, maybe the addiction serves a purpose. The purpose being to keep you hooked into repeating a practice and a mantra. Well, try this: anything you perceive is none other than you. That's why there is no separable you. You'll realize this entire world that you perceive, all the people in it, all the manipulations, killing, poverty, starvation, illness, various addictions (as well as the joy and love the gets expressed) -- all of it is included. It's a sobering awareness. Sobering enough to break the addiction to bliss. :-) -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2004 Report Share Posted June 13, 2004 bliss is good... there's nothing wrong w/ bliss, dan... u can say it's an addiction... to me, it's just feeling good... what's wrong w/ feeling good??? i got no problem w/ it... u say everything is me... i know that... but what is the me that everything exists for??? to find that, u have to realize that nothing u perceive is it... u r that... to be that is the practice... to be other than that is the addiction, the virus, the dis-ease... yours danananda2004 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " danananda2004 " > <danananda2004> wrote: > > alright, then... i'll watch out for that " bliss stuff " & try not to > > get hung up on it... > > If it's become an addiction, it may be too late for just > 'watching out for it.' > > If it's a self-induced trance state accompanied by endogenous > chemical release, you may be helpless to stop until > you acknowledge the full extent of the limitation involved. > Just as it is with any addiction. > > it's just that sometimes i can't help it... it > > comes on by itself... i'll be sitting there or driving down the > road > > or something & it comes on & it's so sweet... what's not to like, > ya > > know whatta mean? > > Sure, I know exactly what you mean. Drug addiction, in other > words, only not depending on someone to buy the drugs > from. > > > i just practice what the maharaj said... i go into myself & be > > THAT... the way to being yourself is by not being that which is not > > yourself... anything u can perceive is not u... THAT'S about IT... > > > > > > So, maybe the addiction serves a purpose. The purpose being > to keep you hooked into repeating a practice and a mantra. > > Well, try this: anything you perceive is none other than you. > That's why there is no separable you. You'll realize > this entire world that you perceive, all the people in it, > all the manipulations, killing, poverty, > starvation, illness, various addictions (as well as the > joy and love the gets expressed) -- all of it is included. > > It's a sobering awareness. Sobering enough to break the > addiction to bliss. > > :-) > > -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 16, 2004 Report Share Posted June 16, 2004 Nisargadatta , " danananda2004 " <danananda2004> wrote: > bliss is good... there's nothing wrong w/ bliss, dan... u can say > it's an addiction... to me, it's just feeling good... what's wrong w/ > feeling good??? i got no problem w/ it... > > u say everything is me... i know that... but what is the me that > everything exists for??? to find that, u have to realize that nothing > u perceive is it... u r that... to be that is the practice... to be > other than that is the addiction, the virus, the dis-ease... > > yours > > danananda2004 You can have a relationship with bliss, as a postive experience -- and sure, positive experiences feel good, positive relationships feel good. That isn't a problem, but it is a question. That question is the door to *this* -- which is not a state, doesn't confer any experience on you -- not of bliss, not of suffering, not of love, not of hate. Nor is there any kind of relationship to be had to anything. Again -- bliss, nor any addiction, at heart isn't a problem, but gives a question. The question is, what is *this* which has no quality of any kind, no experience of any kind, nothing to relish -- no adventure, no attainment. And of course, there's no negation occurring here. If there were, something could be lacking or missing. But nothing is lacking. Totally clarity is not blissful -- nor is it anything else, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 16, 2004 Report Share Posted June 16, 2004 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > You can have a relationship with bliss, as a postive > experience -- and sure, positive experiences feel good, > positive relationships feel good. > > That isn't a problem, but it is a question. > > That question is the door to *this* -- which is not a state, > doesn't confer any experience on you -- not of bliss, > not of suffering, not of love, not of hate. > > Nor is there any kind of relationship to be had to anything. > > Again -- bliss, nor any addiction, at heart > isn't a problem, but gives a question. > > The question is, what is *this* which has no quality of > any kind, no experience of any kind, nothing to relish -- > no adventure, no attainment. > > And of course, there's no negation occurring here. > > If there were, something could be lacking or missing. > > But nothing is lacking. > > Totally clarity is not blissful -- nor is it anything else, > Dan bliss is the by-product of understanding consciousness... it is the feeling of pure consciousness... it is the feeling of wholeness... of harmony... there is more to realization than dry intellectual clarity... realization concerns not only the field of consciousness but the body- mind, as well, along with all other body-minds, & the environment... all things are inter-related... how we relate to everything is of primary importance... one has not realized oneself unless one realizes one's relationship to all... how we relate to the world is symptomatic of our understanding of reality... one who does not maintain a healthy relationship with others & one's environment is one who is yet to be realized... yours danananda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 20, 2004 Report Share Posted June 20, 2004 Nisargadatta , " danananda2004 " <danananda2004> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> > wrote: > > > You can have a relationship with bliss, as a postive > > experience -- and sure, positive experiences feel good, > > positive relationships feel good. > > > > That isn't a problem, but it is a question. > > > > That question is the door to *this* -- which is not a state, > > doesn't confer any experience on you -- not of bliss, > > not of suffering, not of love, not of hate. > > > > Nor is there any kind of relationship to be had to anything. > > > > Again -- bliss, nor any addiction, at heart > > isn't a problem, but gives a question. > > > > The question is, what is *this* which has no quality of > > any kind, no experience of any kind, nothing to relish -- > > no adventure, no attainment. > > > > And of course, there's no negation occurring here. > > > > If there were, something could be lacking or missing. > > > > But nothing is lacking. > > > > Totally clarity is not blissful -- nor is it anything else, > > Dan > > bliss is the by-product of understanding consciousness... it is the > feeling of pure consciousness... it is the feeling of wholeness... of > harmony... > > there is more to realization than dry intellectual clarity... > realization concerns not only the field of consciousness but the body- > mind, as well, along with all other body-minds, & the environment... > all things are inter-related... how we relate to everything is of > primary importance... one has not realized oneself unless one > realizes one's relationship to all... > > how we relate to the world is symptomatic of our understanding of > reality... one who does not maintain a healthy relationship with > others & one's environment is one who is yet to be realized... > > yours > > danananda One is the already-so interrelationship of all with all, and thus, each within each and all, and all within each. Transcendent and immanent. Just " so. " Thus, there is no separable place for a someone having unending experiences of bliss -- never-ending bliss being a wish of the greedy self, nothing more or less. The wish for a spiritual drug. Neither is any body-mind a separable entity divided from the universe and having its own experience to itself. Clarity cuts through intellect, emotion, relationship, experiences, separable body-mind, and self-continuity -- instantly. So it's been talked about at times as a sword, such as the vajra sword of discrimination of truth, the truth sword that Jesus spoke of: " I come not to bring peace (bliss), but a sword. " Healthy relationships are good, and feeling happy in appropriate situations is important to being human -- no doubt. Yet to be continually happy and blissful no matter what occurs, isn't appropriate -- and if truly acted out would become a kind of illness. Intelligence responds to the situation as is, cleanly, simply, directly -- that is all. Nothing brought forward or left behind to pick up later. But the wish to be always blissful is a projection of a self that experiences and denies a sense of lack, that itself is the sense of lack and its denial, and which wants " wholeness " and so is fragmentation itself, which wants to embody a " spiritual answer " and therefore is seeking to perpetuate greed, self-continuity through " spirituality " . This clarity with no separable self, is not a clarity which has a feeling to it, any more than it has a thought-form to it, or belongs to a particular body-mind. Regardless of all the claims made by particular body-minds, and the body-minds which cling to those body-minds. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 21, 2004 Report Share Posted June 21, 2004 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " danananda2004 " > <danananda2004> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> > > wrote: > > > > > You can have a relationship with bliss, as a postive > > > experience -- and sure, positive experiences feel good, > > > positive relationships feel good. > > > > > > That isn't a problem, but it is a question. > > > > > > That question is the door to *this* -- which is not a state, > > > doesn't confer any experience on you -- not of bliss, > > > not of suffering, not of love, not of hate. > > > > > > Nor is there any kind of relationship to be had to anything. > > > > > > Again -- bliss, nor any addiction, at heart > > > isn't a problem, but gives a question. > > > > > > The question is, what is *this* which has no quality of > > > any kind, no experience of any kind, nothing to relish -- > > > no adventure, no attainment. > > > > > > And of course, there's no negation occurring here. > > > > > > If there were, something could be lacking or missing. > > > > > > But nothing is lacking. > > > > > > Totally clarity is not blissful -- nor is it anything else, > > > Dan > > > > bliss is the by-product of understanding consciousness... it is the > > feeling of pure consciousness... it is the feeling of wholeness... > of > > harmony... > > > > there is more to realization than dry intellectual clarity... > > realization concerns not only the field of consciousness but the > body- > > mind, as well, along with all other body-minds, & the > environment... > > all things are inter-related... how we relate to everything is of > > primary importance... one has not realized oneself unless one > > realizes one's relationship to all... > > > > how we relate to the world is symptomatic of our understanding of > > reality... one who does not maintain a healthy relationship with > > others & one's environment is one who is yet to be realized... > > > > yours > > > > danananda > > One is the already-so interrelationship of all with all, > and thus, each within each and all, and all within each. > > Transcendent and immanent. > > Just " so. " > > Thus, there is no separable place for > a someone having unending experiences > of bliss -- never-ending bliss being > a wish of the greedy self, nothing > more or less. The wish for a spiritual > drug. > > Neither is any body-mind a separable entity > divided from the universe and having its > own experience to itself. > > Clarity cuts through intellect, emotion, relationship, > experiences, separable body-mind, and self-continuity -- instantly. > > So it's been talked about at times as a sword, > such as the vajra sword of discrimination of truth, > the truth sword that Jesus spoke of: > " I come not to bring peace (bliss), but a sword. " > > Healthy relationships are good, and feeling happy in > appropriate situations is important to being human -- no doubt. > > Yet to be continually happy and blissful no matter what occurs, > isn't appropriate -- and if truly acted out would become > a kind of illness. > > Intelligence responds to the situation as is, cleanly, > simply, directly -- that is all. Nothing brought forward > or left behind to pick up later. > > But the wish to be always blissful is a projection of > a self that experiences and denies a sense of lack, > that itself is the sense of lack and its denial, > and which wants " wholeness " and so is fragmentation itself, > which wants to embody a " spiritual answer " and therefore > is seeking to perpetuate greed, self-continuity > through " spirituality " . > > This clarity with no separable self, is not a clarity which > has a feeling to it, any more than it has a thought-form > to it, or belongs to a particular body-mind. > > Regardless of all the claims made by particular body-minds, > and the body-minds which cling to those body-minds. > > -- Dan hi, dan, from danananda: in regards to the use of the term " bliss " , this bliss is not a " wish to be always blissful " , as you wrote earlier... it isn't something that can be obtained by seeking or wishing for it, at all... it is the seeking of it that obstructs one's consciousness of it, to begin with... for it is what is, in & of itself... bliss is not an emotion, per se... it is what is... the vedantists refer to it as 'sat-chit- ananda' (being-consciousness-bliss)... the main thrust of your argument is centered around the epistem " clarity " ... this " clarity " , of which you speak, may be analogous to the " ananda " , of which the vedantists speak... yes? no? maybe? it's good talking to ya, dan... u r a good swordsman... yours danananda p.s. this bliss-consciousness doesn't mean the body-mind does not continue to experience the full range of normal emotions... at sorrowful occasions, a gnani is sorrowful; at joyous occasions, the gnani is joyous; etc., etc.... this bliss-consciousness simply witnesses all things as they are & nothing more... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 21, 2004 Report Share Posted June 21, 2004 > hi, dan, from danananda: Hi Ananda Dan Man, > in regards to the use of the term " bliss " , this bliss is not a " wish > to be always blissful " , as you wrote earlier... Yes, I know. I'm writing that way to express my understanding that a wish remains there, as a denial of any wishing, the very denial being itself a wish. it isn't something > that can be obtained by seeking or wishing for it, at all... it is > the seeking of it that obstructs one's consciousness of it, to begin > with... for it is what is, in & of itself... bliss is not an emotion, > per se... it is what is... Ah, you see though, don't you, the connotations of the term " bliss " ? Saying *is* in itself is saying too much. So why compound the error by adding " bliss " to *is*? > the vedantists refer to it as 'sat-chit- > ananda' (being-consciousness-bliss)... Yes, they do. > the main thrust of your > argument is centered around the epistem " clarity " ... this " clarity " , > of which you speak, may be analogous to the " ananda " , of which the > vedantists speak... > > yes? no? maybe? > > One is forced to use words when communicating. There's no way around it. One either affirms or negates what was affirmed. These are the limitations of speech. 'Clarity' appeals to me as a term because it's not so loaded with tradition, and it doesn't seem to reflect some kind of absolute quality (at least to me). In other words, clarity isn't a thing, a state to be in, nor a quality to be experienced. Sometimes, the ways that traditional terms like ananda get used, seem to me to reflect a permanent and absolute condition, quality, and/or state. (Which for me, represents a wish -- the wish being that of a transient being for something immortal and unchanging). And even that wish is transient. :-) > it's good talking to ya, dan... u r a good swordsman... You, too. Glad you're enjoying the dialogue, as am I. > yours > > danananda > > p.s. this bliss-consciousness doesn't mean the body-mind does not > continue to experience the full range of normal emotions... at > sorrowful occasions, a gnani is sorrowful; at joyous occasions, the > gnani is joyous; etc., etc.... this bliss-consciousness simply > witnesses all things as they are & nothing more... Sure. But the witnesser/witnessed dichotomy (which reflects the subject/object dichotomy) is itself deconstructed. Not because you or I deconstruct it, but because any construct deconstructs *in/as this clarity*. And of course, *this clarity* also deconstructs the same. And, not to mention, *deconstruction* suffers the same fate itself. As they say in Spanish: que lastima (how sad -- too bad! :-) -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2004 Report Share Posted July 1, 2004 dear dan: we must speak from the standpoint of the body-mind as long as these body-minds are attached to our consciousness... when we finally no longer need the body-mind, we will communicate in a much more transcendent & sublime manner... ....but, until then, we are confined to this human sign system... yours danananda Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > > hi, dan, from danananda: > > Hi Ananda Dan Man, > > > in regards to the use of the term " bliss " , this bliss is not > a " wish > > to be always blissful " , as you wrote earlier... > > Yes, I know. I'm writing that way to express my understanding > that a wish remains there, as a denial of any wishing, the > very denial being itself a wish. > > it isn't something > > that can be obtained by seeking or wishing for it, at all... it is > > the seeking of it that obstructs one's consciousness of it, to > begin > > with... for it is what is, in & of itself... bliss is not an > emotion, > > per se... it is what is... > > Ah, you see though, don't you, the connotations of the term > " bliss " ? > > Saying *is* in itself is saying too much. So why compound > the error by adding " bliss " to *is*? > > > the vedantists refer to it as 'sat-chit- > > ananda' (being-consciousness-bliss)... > > Yes, they do. > > > the main thrust of your > > argument is centered around the epistem " clarity " ... > this " clarity " , > > of which you speak, may be analogous to the " ananda " , of which the > > vedantists speak... > > > > yes? no? maybe? > > > > > > One is forced to use words when communicating. There's no > way around it. One either affirms or negates what > was affirmed. These are the limitations of speech. > > 'Clarity' appeals to me as a term because it's not so > loaded with tradition, and it doesn't seem to reflect > some kind of absolute quality (at least to me). > > In other words, clarity isn't a thing, a state to be in, > nor a quality to be experienced. > > Sometimes, the ways that traditional terms like ananda get > used, seem to me to reflect a permanent and absolute > condition, quality, and/or state. > > (Which for me, represents a wish -- the wish being that > of a transient being for something immortal and unchanging). > > And even that wish is transient. :-) > > > it's good talking to ya, dan... u r a good swordsman... > > You, too. Glad you're enjoying the dialogue, as am I. > > > yours > > > > danananda > > > > p.s. this bliss-consciousness doesn't mean the body-mind does not > > continue to experience the full range of normal emotions... at > > sorrowful occasions, a gnani is sorrowful; at joyous occasions, the > > gnani is joyous; etc., etc.... this bliss-consciousness simply > > witnesses all things as they are & nothing more... > > Sure. > > But the witnesser/witnessed dichotomy (which reflects the > subject/object dichotomy) is itself deconstructed. > > Not because you or I deconstruct it, but because any construct > deconstructs *in/as this clarity*. > > And of course, *this clarity* also deconstructs the same. > > And, not to mention, *deconstruction* suffers the same fate > itself. > > As they say in Spanish: que lastima (how sad -- too bad! :-) > > -- 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.