Guest guest Posted July 9, 2004 Report Share Posted July 9, 2004 THE NOUMENAL ANSWER The chief hindrance is the identification with the body, the I-am-the- body idea? Any identification with any object is an absolute hindrance, because 'I' am totally devoid of objectivity, or of any trace-element thereof. One can either seek to understand what one is, or what one is not? I can only know what I am not. What I am is unknowable, for I am it, and if I could know it 'I' would thereby be an object. Therefore there is no 'it', and 'I' am not. You are, and you are not? I neither am nor am not. There is no 'I'. If there were I would be an object. I am not at all, in any conceivable way, manner, state, form or dimension. For the same reason there is no such thing as Reality, Truth, Absolute, Self, Consciousness, Mind, Dharmakaya or any other concept whatever. But there is I-am-not? There is no I-am-not either. There is no thing, positive or negative, not even presence or absence. The Diamond Sutra, understood via Shen Hui's double negative, is the authority for that – if authority should be necessary, which it is not, for every sentient being is 'I' and so can know this- for being and knowing are identical. But there is no being or knowing? There is no thing, nothing 'been' or 'known': all I can be or know is such –no thing. What is Shen Hui's double negative? In brief: absence of (the absence which is) the counterpart of presence, and absence of (the presence which is) the counterpart of absence. Or, if you prefer: absence of the concepts of absence of presence and of presence of absence. Then what are object? Objects are I. The whole sensorially perceptible, knowable and imaginable universe is I. So you are the universe? Not at all: the universe is 'I'. Pantheism maintains that God is the universe. God is not the universe: the universe is God. What is the difference? In physics- none: in metaphysics – absolute difference, the difference between subject and object. The universe is not the subject of God. Then the universe is both God and you? Certainly not: it may be both God and 'I'. So you are God? Not at all: 'God' is an object, your concept, and so are 'you'. As for me, this –which-I-am is not any thing at all. Then nor is God? Every concept is a thing but, as such, is not. Neither 'God' nor 'I' is as an object. You say that the universe is in you. How do you know that? I said that the universe is I. You can say it, every beetle, every sentient being can say it – what else is there that it could be, where else is there for it to be? Movement, space and time are only concepts. There can only be 'I'- and I am not, no matter who says it. Then why are the beetle, you and I different? We are not different: we only appear to be different. Noumenally we are one: as phenomena (appearance), as one another's objects, we sensorially perceive and mentally interpret one another as the beetle, you and I. But as what we are, we are not. So we are not – either phenomenally or noumenally? Phenomenally we are not as entities, noumenally we are not as concepts – which also are objects. what we are is not entity or concept, objectivity of any kind, therefore we cannot either think or say that we are any thing – for that is what we are not. Then can we not know ourselves at all? We cannot 'know' our selves at all, for we are not any thing to be known: we can only be ourselves- 'our selves' being what-we-are. And how is that to be done? It is not to be done. It is. Everything is as it is. Is there any authority for that? Yes indeed. But, as it is liable to be misunderstood, it has usually been implied rather than stated. Then, regarding ourselves as some thing is the hindrance? That alone is 'bondage'. And the remedy? To cease regarding the universe as an object (since it is I), objects as entities (since there are none), 'yourself' and 'others' as such (for neither ever was)! To look in the right direction, look up and look in, where there is no longer any direction at all – where no longer is there any thing to be measured from any where (nor any looking). Who then is there to be bound, to what then could there be any binding? So that is Liberation? Liberation for whom? From what? There has never been either. And then you see that & ldots;? 'It is as it is. That is all you can say', and they are Maharishi's words. Which means that there is no entity or object at all as such, not ever ourselves, not even 'I'. Not ever 'Not-I'! How could there be? Think, man, think! Does not thought unite with intuition in this ultimate insight? How & ldots;could & ldots;there & ldots;be? Ha-ha-ha! That is the answer, the answer which dualistic language cannot give, which an only be apperceived noumenally, that is by intuitive apprehension. Heartily I agree – Ha-ha-ha-ha! But is laughter the correct reaction to this understanding? Many have laughed, some have cried, a few have prayed. Bodhidharma told the Emperor that there was no doctrine and nothing holy about it, but the Emperor was too earnest a man even to understand. And that is all it is? One monk is reported as having said that too. The phenomenal reaction is correct as laughter, but the final noumenal living of it is usually describes as Bliss, and it expresses itself as Universal Benediction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 9, 2004 Report Share Posted July 9, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > THE NOUMENAL ANSWER > > > The chief hindrance is the identification with the body, the I-am- the- > body idea? > > Any identification with any object is an absolute hindrance, > because 'I' am totally devoid of objectivity, or of any trace- element > thereof. > > One can either seek to understand what one is, or what one is not? > > I can only know what I am not. What I am is unknowable, for I am it, > and if I could know it 'I' would thereby be an object. Therefore > there is no 'it', and 'I' am not. > > You are, and you are not? > > I neither am nor am not. There is no 'I'. If there were I would be an > object. I am not at all, in any conceivable way, manner, state, form > or dimension. For the same reason there is no such thing as Reality, > Truth, Absolute, Self, Consciousness, Mind, Dharmakaya or any other > concept whatever. > > But there is I-am-not? > > There is no I-am-not either. There is no thing, positive or negative, > not even presence or absence. The Diamond Sutra, understood via Shen > Hui's double negative, is the authority for that – if authority > should be necessary, which it is not, for every sentient being is 'I' > and so can know this- for being and knowing are identical. > > But there is no being or knowing? > > There is no thing, nothing 'been' or 'known': all I can be or know is > such –no thing. > > What is Shen Hui's double negative? > > In brief: absence of (the absence which is) the counterpart of > presence, and absence of (the presence which is) the counterpart of > absence. Or, if you prefer: absence of the concepts of absence of > presence and of presence of absence. > > Then what are object? > > Objects are I. The whole sensorially perceptible, knowable and > imaginable universe is I. > > So you are the universe? > > Not at all: the universe is 'I'. > > Pantheism maintains that God is the universe. > > God is not the universe: the universe is God. > > What is the difference? > > In physics- none: in metaphysics – absolute difference, the > difference between subject and object. The universe is not the > subject of God. > > Then the universe is both God and you? > > Certainly not: it may be both God and 'I'. > > So you are God? > > Not at all: 'God' is an object, your concept, and so are 'you'. As > for me, this –which-I-am is not any thing at all. > > Then nor is God? > > Every concept is a thing but, as such, is not. Neither 'God' nor 'I' > is as an object. > > You say that the universe is in you. How do you know that? > > I said that the universe is I. You can say it, every beetle, every > sentient being can say it – what else is there that it could be, > where else is there for it to be? Movement, space and time are only > concepts. There can only be 'I'- and I am not, no matter who says it. > > Then why are the beetle, you and I different? > > We are not different: we only appear to be different. Noumenally we > are one: as phenomena (appearance), as one another's objects, we > sensorially perceive and mentally interpret one another as the > beetle, you and I. But as what we are, we are not. > > So we are not – either phenomenally or noumenally? > > Phenomenally we are not as entities, noumenally we are not as > concepts – which also are objects. what we are is not entity or > concept, objectivity of any kind, therefore we cannot either think or > say that we are any thing – for that is what we are not. > > Then can we not know ourselves at all? > > We cannot 'know' our selves at all, for we are not any thing to be > known: we can only be ourselves- 'our selves' being what-we-are. > > And how is that to be done? > > It is not to be done. It is. Everything is as it is. > > Is there any authority for that? > > Yes indeed. But, as it is liable to be misunderstood, it has usually > been implied rather than stated. > > Then, regarding ourselves as some thing is the hindrance? > > That alone is 'bondage'. > > And the remedy? > > To cease regarding the universe as an object (since it is I), objects > as entities (since there are none), 'yourself' and 'others' as such > (for neither ever was)! To look in the right direction, look up and > look in, where there is no longer any direction at all – where no > longer is there any thing to be measured from any where (nor any > looking). Who then is there to be bound, to what then could there be > any binding? > > So that is Liberation? > > Liberation for whom? From what? There has never been either. > > And then you see that & ldots;? > > 'It is as it is. That is all you can say', and they are Maharishi's > words. > > Which means that there is no entity or object at all as such, not > ever ourselves, not even 'I'. > > Not ever 'Not-I'! How could there be? Think, man, think! Does not > thought unite with intuition in this ultimate insight? > How & ldots;could & ldots;there & ldots;be? > > Ha-ha-ha! > > That is the answer, the answer which dualistic language cannot give, > which an only be apperceived noumenally, that is by intuitive > apprehension. Heartily I agree – Ha-ha-ha-ha! > > But is laughter the correct reaction to this understanding? > > Many have laughed, some have cried, a few have prayed. Bodhidharma > told the Emperor that there was no doctrine and nothing holy about > it, but the Emperor was too earnest a man even to understand. > > And that is all it is? > > One monk is reported as having said that too. The phenomenal reaction > is correct as laughter, but the final noumenal living of it is > usually describes as Bliss, and it expresses itself as Universal > Benediction. Thanks Werner! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2004 Report Share Posted July 13, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > THE NOUMENAL ANSWER > > > The chief hindrance is the identification with the body, the I-am-the- > body idea? > > Any identification with any object is an absolute hindrance, > because 'I' am totally devoid of objectivity, or of any trace-element > thereof. > > One can either seek to understand what one is, or what one is not? > > I can only know what I am not. What I am is unknowable, for I am it, > and if I could know it 'I' would thereby be an object. Therefore > there is no 'it', and 'I' am not. > > You are, and you are not? > > I neither am nor am not. There is no 'I'. If there were I would be an > object. I am not at all, in any conceivable way, manner, state, form > or dimension. For the same reason there is no such thing as Reality, > Truth, Absolute, Self, Consciousness, Mind, Dharmakaya or any other > concept whatever. > > But there is I-am-not? > > There is no I-am-not either. There is no thing, positive or negative, > not even presence or absence. The Diamond Sutra, understood via Shen > Hui's double negative, is the authority for that – if authority > should be necessary, which it is not, for every sentient being is 'I' > and so can know this- for being and knowing are identical. > > But there is no being or knowing? > > There is no thing, nothing 'been' or 'known': all I can be or know is > such –no thing. > > What is Shen Hui's double negative? > > In brief: absence of (the absence which is) the counterpart of > presence, and absence of (the presence which is) the counterpart of > absence. Or, if you prefer: absence of the concepts of absence of > presence and of presence of absence. > > Then what are object? > > Objects are I. The whole sensorially perceptible, knowable and > imaginable universe is I. > > So you are the universe? > > Not at all: the universe is 'I'. > > Pantheism maintains that God is the universe. > > God is not the universe: the universe is God. > > What is the difference? > > In physics- none: in metaphysics – absolute difference, the > difference between subject and object. The universe is not the > subject of God. > > Then the universe is both God and you? > > Certainly not: it may be both God and 'I'. > > So you are God? > > Not at all: 'God' is an object, your concept, and so are 'you'. As > for me, this –which-I-am is not any thing at all. > > Then nor is God? > > Every concept is a thing but, as such, is not. Neither 'God' nor 'I' > is as an object. > > You say that the universe is in you. How do you know that? > > I said that the universe is I. You can say it, every beetle, every > sentient being can say it – what else is there that it could be, > where else is there for it to be? Movement, space and time are only > concepts. There can only be 'I'- and I am not, no matter who says it. > > Then why are the beetle, you and I different? > > We are not different: we only appear to be different. Noumenally we > are one: as phenomena (appearance), as one another's objects, we > sensorially perceive and mentally interpret one another as the > beetle, you and I. But as what we are, we are not. > > So we are not – either phenomenally or noumenally? > > Phenomenally we are not as entities, noumenally we are not as > concepts – which also are objects. what we are is not entity or > concept, objectivity of any kind, therefore we cannot either think or > say that we are any thing – for that is what we are not. > > Then can we not know ourselves at all? > > We cannot 'know' our selves at all, for we are not any thing to be > known: we can only be ourselves- 'our selves' being what-we-are. > > And how is that to be done? > > It is not to be done. It is. Everything is as it is. > > Is there any authority for that? > > Yes indeed. But, as it is liable to be misunderstood, it has usually > been implied rather than stated. > > Then, regarding ourselves as some thing is the hindrance? > > That alone is 'bondage'. > > And the remedy? > > To cease regarding the universe as an object (since it is I), objects > as entities (since there are none), 'yourself' and 'others' as such > (for neither ever was)! To look in the right direction, look up and > look in, where there is no longer any direction at all – where no > longer is there any thing to be measured from any where (nor any > looking). Who then is there to be bound, to what then could there be > any binding? > > So that is Liberation? > > Liberation for whom? From what? There has never been either. > > And then you see that & ldots;? > > 'It is as it is. That is all you can say', and they are Maharishi's > words. > > Which means that there is no entity or object at all as such, not > ever ourselves, not even 'I'. > > Not ever 'Not-I'! How could there be? Think, man, think! Does not > thought unite with intuition in this ultimate insight? > How & ldots;could & ldots;there & ldots;be? > > Ha-ha-ha! > > That is the answer, the answer which dualistic language cannot give, > which an only be apperceived noumenally, that is by intuitive > apprehension. Heartily I agree – Ha-ha-ha-ha! > > But is laughter the correct reaction to this understanding? > > Many have laughed, some have cried, a few have prayed. Bodhidharma > told the Emperor that there was no doctrine and nothing holy about > it, but the Emperor was too earnest a man even to understand. > > And that is all it is? > > One monk is reported as having said that too. The phenomenal reaction > is correct as laughter, but the final noumenal living of it is > usually describes as Bliss, and it expresses itself as Universal > Benediction. Werner, I know all that you wrote - you are barking at the moon. Yaaaaaawn ... Willy_de_fox PS: Werner, the devil made me do it. I joined just to post this. I am sure you recognize your words to Aleks. Tee Hee & See Ya' (I'll be unjoined before you read this)! 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.