WWW

[Guest guest]

THE TENTH MAN : 32

 

 

 

 

The Poor Joke

 

 

 

Bondage is being dependent, tied up, limited. On, to, by, what? Is it not

attachment to a

supposed 'will', which is the exercise of personal, independent choice by

that supposition

with which what-I-am is identified and which is called 'me'?

 

 

This merely means that I use the pronoun 'I' wrongly. I use it as though th=

is

objectivisation

here were free to do as 'it' wished, whenever 'it' wished, and wherever 'it=

'

wished. But such

a possibility has never arisen, and never could arise: there is no such

possibility - for an

objectivisation can do nothing of itself, any more than any piece of

mechanism can act

autonomously.

 

 

How has it been possible to avoid seeing the absurdity of this notion? It h=

as

only been

possible by imagining or assuming an invisible, imponderable, untraceable

'entity' which

takes charge of this mechanism, like the driver of an automobile, and which=

 

refers to the

machine and its driver together as 'I' and 'me', identifying itself entirel=

y with

the apparatus.

Is it difficult to recognise that this assumed personality is factually

inexistent, that this

supposed 'entity' is just a concept?

 

 

This exercise of supposed choice and decision, this series of perpetual act=

s

of will or of

wilfulness, called 'volition', is what constitutes bondage, and the ensuing=

 

conflict,

experienced as suffering, is due to the supposed need to act volitionally.

 

 

The abandonment of this nonsense must abolish the cause of bondage,

bondage being

bondage to volition expressed as 'I', and implying the phenomenal object

concerned. With

the understanding of the incongruity of this notion nothing is left to be

bound, and

nothing is left that can suffer as 'me'.

 

 

For I - as what I am, as all I am - am no object. The word 'I' says it. So =

what

is there to be

bound, where is there any me-object to suffer, when could there be any

conflict and with

what?

 

 

This assumed 'entity', unidentifiable and an unfounded supposition, acts

only as 'volition'.

I, as what I am, have none - for I am no object that could have 'volition'.=

I do

not act, there

is no actor - for an 'actor' is a concept in mind which could not act as su=

ch.

What I am is

devoid of any trace of objectivity. In short, and once again - in no

circumstances am I any

sort or kind of 'entity'.

 

 

What I am is expressed phenomenally as see-ing, hear-ing, feel-ing, taste-

ing, smell-ing,

think-ing, but there is no objective 'I' that sees, hears, feels, tastes, =

smells

or thinks. How

then could I exercise 'volition', choose, decide, accept, refuse, or play t=

he

clown in any

such phenomenal performance?

 

 

Objects 'live' sensorially or are 'lived' sensorially, and what I am is the=

ir

sentience. If I so

function, objects live as they must - and there is no need for the notions =

of

bondage,

conflict, or suffering - since I do not, and can not, exercise 'volition' w=

hich

alone is

responsible for these.

 

 

What absurd clowns 'we' are whose joke is to 'want', to 'wish', to 'desire'=

,

'hope', 'regret'!

No wonder clowns are notoriously tragic figures at heart!

 

(© HKU Press, 1966)

home/next

 

 

* * * * *

 

 

 

In order for even the tiniest wish to be granted to an entity........the en=

tire

future of the entire universe would have to be adjusted to accommodate the =

 

changes...........

 

 

Be careful what you ask for.............

 

toombaru

[Guest guest]

there was a pseudo entity named terence gray who wanted to hide his

pseudo entity identity so strongly that he took the pseudonym www

then later the further O.O.O

 

so what does it come to..

 

there was a pseudo entity which took a pseudonym and then took a

further pseudonym!!!!so mathemetically-

 

pseudo entity * pseudonym / pseudonym=???

 

did he remain a pseudo entity or entity or pseudo or did he discover

his true identity????

 

rgds,

devendra

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " coolasafool " <coolasafool> wrote:

> there was a pseudo entity named terence gray who wanted to hide his

> pseudo entity identity so strongly that he took the pseudonym www

> then later the further O.O.O

>

> so what does it come to..

>

> there was a pseudo entity which took a pseudonym and then took a

> further pseudonym!!!!so mathemetically-

>

> pseudo entity * pseudonym / pseudonym=???

>

> did he remain a pseudo entity or entity or pseudo or did he discover

> his true identity????

>

> rgds,

> devendra

 

 

 

 

There is no " true identity " .