Guest guest Posted September 28, 2004 Report Share Posted September 28, 2004 When we ask another are you enlightened? What are we really asking? a) Do you fit all my requirements to judge you realized? In which case we should provide such list. b) Do you consider that you fit all your requirements to consider yourself enlightened? Maybe, we are even asking have you attained a state, a vision beyond description? Or have you transcended selfhood? Is there any chance, that any answer will match such question? Would not it be better to understand the reason behind the question? Are we asking because we are searching for authority? Because we want to be relieved of the burden of verifying each statement a teacher makes. Are we asking because we want someone to imitate? Or because we know that any affirmative answer will unmask an impostor? So the question always reveals a duality, and a duplicity of intent. Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 28, 2004 Report Share Posted September 28, 2004 Hi again Pete, >>> When we ask another are you enlightened?>> Asking another person if they are enlightened is an ignorant question, or it is a question of ignorance. >>>>> What are we really asking? > > a) Do you fit all my requirements to > judge you realized? In which case > we should provide such list. > > b) Do you consider that you fit all > your requirements to consider yourself > enlightened? > > Maybe, we are even asking have you attained > a state, a vision beyond description? Or > have you transcended selfhood? > > Is there any chance, that any answer will > match such question?>>>> If the question and answer are one who asks and who answers? >>> Would not it be better to understand the > reason behind the question?>>> *Yes* >>> Are we asking because we are searching for > authority? Because we want to be relieved > of the burden of verifying each statement > a teacher makes. > Are we asking because we want someone to > imitate? Or because we know that any > affirmative answer will unmask an impostor? > So the question always reveals a duality, > and a duplicity of intent>>>> Yes, again it is the *intent* or reason. Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 28, 2004 Report Share Posted September 28, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi again Pete, > > > >>> When we ask another are you enlightened?>> > > > Asking another person if they are enlightened is an ignorant > question, or it is a question of ignorance. > > > > >>>>> What are we really asking? > > > > a) Do you fit all my requirements to > > judge you realized? In which case > > we should provide such list. > > > > b) Do you consider that you fit all > > your requirements to consider yourself > > enlightened? > > > > Maybe, we are even asking have you attained > > a state, a vision beyond description? Or > > have you transcended selfhood? > > > > Is there any chance, that any answer will > > match such question?>>>> > > > If the question and answer are one who asks and who answers? > > > >>> Would not it be better to understand the > > reason behind the question?>>> > > > *Yes* > > > >>> Are we asking because we are searching for > > authority? Because we want to be relieved > > of the burden of verifying each statement > > a teacher makes. > > Are we asking because we want someone to > > imitate? Or because we know that any > > affirmative answer will unmask an impostor? > > So the question always reveals a duality, > > and a duplicity of intent>>>> > > > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. --- I enjoy the perspectives you both offer here. Pete offers: > > b) Do you consider that you fit all > > your requirements to consider yourself > > enlightened? > > > > Maybe, we are even asking have you attained > > a state, a vision beyond description? Or > > have you transcended selfhood? > > > > Is there any chance, that any answer will > > match such question?>>>> Just some thoughts: Yes, and wouldn't that description or definition be only a feeble attempt to try to limit *it* in order to put it in a box that we can understand and wrap our brains around. We have such a need to understand this all. And then, when we understand that (whatever we think 'that' is), we come up with different definitions or ideas of transcended selfhood. Just like when we were kids our ideas were always changing the more we evolved. Shri Ramana Maharshi offers the question: " To whom has this thought arisen? " Shri Nis offers the answer: " I am That. " I always thought there are no questions - only answers. Taking a scientist approach, when you put stimuli in a petri dish and are looking for effect you start out with an intent/motive, as Scott stated, and it's not so much about questions, b/c questions in their very nature tend to make the observer look for a result that may be colored or influenced by the question, rather than observing what the stimuli is " doing " and how it is reacting, in other words, just looking for answers. Maybe that's why Nisagardattas approach/technique appeals to me most. Now I'm wondering if they both/all aren't the same ends to a means. If it isn't all the same thing with no real distinction. That would certainly embrace the non-duality theme. Doesn't both the question and the answer serve the purpose? So, how can there be purpose if in non-duality there isn't any goal. Then, wouldn't that stand to reason why the " whole/unified state " split off and altered in order to take on a persona that allowed it to view things from an angle or perspective which it's current state couldn't do? Questions/answers/observations may not be separated after all, but rather different parts of the whole all along. We just can't see it as a whole. Could duality like: " there is no questions and answers -- and all there is is questions and answers. " actually be non- duality?? What once was thought 'dual' actually opposite sides of one coin and not separate at all? I wonder if we aren't looking more for purpose rather than questions or answers. Purpose in the project of humanity we find ourselves involved in, and understanding how to fit ourselves into that purpose. I guess that's a question isn't it. If that is the case, then how could duality be wrong? I just don't see it as wrong, or something to try to overcome, like some kind of diseace. I see the overcoming as a purpose and a 'blessing/gift' for lack of a better word, rather then some kind of diseace to overcome. Hence, the struggle really disappears. The hand stops fighting to be a part of the entire body when it realizes it was all along, but was a very important part of the body which was necessary in order for the body to function. Years ago I had a personal experience which made me understand that the dark side and the light side isn't separate and conflicting at all, but rather to be part of one whole purpose, working together, just as the night time and the day time only appear to be separate aspects, but actually aren't separate, they join together to form a whole complete cycle we call 'day'. I saw this clearly, when in a time of intense emotional life drama a dark entity came to my rescue and helped me out. The dark and light shake hands at dusk and dawn. They don't work on different sides at all -- there is no separation at all. They are all playing for the same team, they just have different ways of approaching the game. I'm thinking that this life may not be in conflict with non-duality, but rather in harmony with it in a way that just isn't understood. For me it seems to be about understanding purpose and my role in it. Thanks for allowing a place to tickle one's brain with ideas. My mind tends toward thought, so I'd rather have it focused on thoughts of my conscious choosing, such as one's offered on this board. I'm not sure if these ideas are transferring on paper in a coherant/understandable way. I have difficulty explaining myself and didn't talk much until I was in my 30's, so please bear with me. thanks for all your insights and views as I work my way through this thing called human life, and 'my' place in it. I appreciate responses that are no nonsense blunt and to the point. much love, warm smiles, ~*~ Donny ~*~ ----------------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 28, 2004 Report Share Posted September 28, 2004 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote: > When we ask another are you enlightened? > What are we really asking? > > a) Do you fit all my requirements to > judge you realized? In which case > we should provide such list. My idea of enlightenment is to be: fearless, which means being selfless, which means being choiceless, which means being conflictless. > > b) Do you consider that you fit all > your requirements to consider yourself > enlightened? No. When I am fearless, then I will be enlightened. :-) /AL > > Maybe, we are even asking have you attained > a state, a vision beyond description? Or > have you transcended selfhood? > > Is there any chance, that any answer will > match such question? > > Would not it be better to understand the > reason behind the question? > > Are we asking because we are searching for > authority? Because we want to be relieved > of the burden of verifying each statement > a teacher makes. > Are we asking because we want someone to > imitate? Or because we know that any > affirmative answer will unmask an impostor? > So the question always reveals a duality, > and a duplicity of intent. > > Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 28, 2004 Report Share Posted September 28, 2004 Hi Alberto, glad you came back, said the cat in the hat :-) " Don't look a gift horse in the mouth " " A caballo regalado no se le mira el diente " It is/was considered an insult if you would closely examine a horse given as a gift. Even if you felt the horse was older than claimed by the giver. This could be intepreted by some, due to your close examination of the gift seeking 'truth' or defects, that you did not feel the person would give you something of worth. ~freyja <<Two men went by a village and saw Gautama buddha. One man asked the other we should go ask him ourselves if he really is awakended! We don't believe such statements hein!!! and they laugh! Arriving at him they asked him. Are you awaken??? are you enlighten?? The buddha smiled at them and left the place. Ha! You see! He is not! One said: If he was, I would immediatly be transformed into light! the other said; just with his glance I would have seeing Nirvana!!! He is such a crap!! ha ha ha! We know that don't we!! and you know what? said one to the other? If he would have answer " I am " . The answer itself is the prof that he is not awaken!!! you see!! ha ha ha! They left the village happy. It is soo sad. They let the Buddha go away!!! Alberto,>> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 28, 2004 Report Share Posted September 28, 2004 Nisargadatta , " goldenrainbowrider " <laughterx8@h...> wrote: >Thanks for allowing a place to tickle one's brain with ideas. My >mind tends toward thought, so I'd rather have it focused on thoughts >of my conscious choosing, such as one's offered on this board. I'm >not sure if these ideas are transferring on paper in a >coherant/understandable way. I have difficulty explaining myself >and didn't talk much until I was in my 30's, so please bear with >me. Thanks so much for sharing all this. You are honest, open and trustful. What more do you want???!!! :-)) >I'm thinking that this life may not be in conflict with non-duality, >but rather in harmony with it in a way that just isn't understood. At first I was almost tempted to go into an advaitic loop with this statement. Better not!!! lol! It is a beutiful thought, the same (I suppose) like: If non-duality is ultimate harmony, how can duality - which is a manifestation of non-duality - be not harmonic? Haha... ! I would say: if it is all one, does the question of harmony arise at all?! May I share some more mind bubbles that arose when I read your post: Questions and answers: every answer is creating a new question. Will we finally end up with a question or with an answer? I prefer to be receptive without expecting answers. Right or wrong: how does it help in any way if I call this right or that wrong? If it is there I have to see if/how I have to act. But why taking the thing to court first and give it a label... Desease: ... from the standpoint of one who has recovered from the illusions of duality, maybe it will be seen like a desease? I don't know... Have to ask a doctor... lol All the best Stefan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 28, 2004 Report Share Posted September 28, 2004 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote: > When we ask another are you enlightened? > What are we really asking? > > a) Do you fit all my requirements to > judge you realized? In which case > we should provide such list. > > b) Do you consider that you fit all > your requirements to consider yourself > enlightened? > > Maybe, we are even asking have you attained > a state, a vision beyond description? Or > have you transcended selfhood? > > Is there any chance, that any answer will > match such question? > > Would not it be better to understand the > reason behind the question? > > Are we asking because we are searching for > authority? Because we want to be relieved > of the burden of verifying each statement > a teacher makes. > Are we asking because we want someone to > imitate? Or because we know that any > affirmative answer will unmask an impostor? > So the question always reveals a duality, > and a duplicity of intent. > > Pete Two men went by a village and saw Gautama buddha. One man asked the other we should go ask him ourselves if he really is awakended! We don't believe such statements hein!!! and they laugh! Arriving at him they asked him. Are you awaken??? are you enlighten?? The buddha smiled at them and left the place. Ha! You see! He is not! One said: If he was, I would immediatly be transformed into light! the other said; just with his glance I would have seeing Nirvana!!! He is such a crap!! ha ha ha! We know that don't we!! and you know what? said one to the other? If he would have answer " I am " . The answer itself is the prof that he is not awaken!!! you see!! ha ha ha! They left the village happy. It is soo sad. They let the Buddha go away!!! Alberto, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 28, 2004 Report Share Posted September 28, 2004 > > > > Alb: :0 Smiless! Alberto, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 28, 2004 Report Share Posted September 28, 2004 Nisargadatta , " ilikezen2004 " <ilikezen2004> wrote: > > > > > > > Alb: :0 Smiless! > > Alberto, ************************************** See Pete I erase all what Freyja said to me in the last posting. As you asked me. Well now, reading my self, It is like I'm answering to no one! ha ha ha! I'm not really at ease with the postings. I'm learning how to use this %$$% computer!! Smilesss :0)) While perfecting the art of communication. You guys are great not to laugh at me!! ha ha ha! Well I do! I'm such a clown!!! :0) Alberto, :0) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 28, 2004 Report Share Posted September 28, 2004 Nisargadatta , " ilikezen2004 " <ilikezen2004> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " ilikezen2004 " > <ilikezen2004> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Alb: :0 Smiless! > > > > Alberto, > > ************************************** > > See Pete I erase all what Freyja said to me in the last posting. As > you asked me. Well now, reading my self, It is like I'm answering to > no one! ha ha ha! I'm not really at ease with the postings. I'm > learning how to use this %$$% computer!! Smilesss :0)) > While perfecting the art of communication. You guys are great not to > laugh at me!! ha ha ha! Well I do! I'm such a clown!!! :0) > > Alberto, :0 P: Sorry, I thought you knew. We do laugh at you. At your naive attempts to disguise your true intentions with lame humor. If you think something unpleasant needs to be say, don't be a hypocrite, say it plainly, don't try to soften the blow. By trying to disguise it as a joke, you are doubly insulting the person. You are in fact saying, I'm telling you X, but I also think you are so dumb, you will think I don't mean it because I added this smiling face. I do that too, sometimes. So this message is for me also. As Donny said, if it needs to be said, say it bluntly, you bush beater. ? No? OK :X) This new symbol means: screw smiling faces. Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 28, 2004 Report Share Posted September 28, 2004 > P: Sorry, I thought you knew. We do laugh at you. At your naive > attempts to disguise your true intentions with lame humor. If you > think something unpleasant needs to be say, don't be a hypocrite, > say it plainly, don't try to soften the blow. By trying to disguise > it as a joke, you are doubly insulting the person. You are in fact > saying, I'm telling you X, but I also think you are so dumb, you will > think I don't mean it because I added this smiling face. I do that > too, sometimes. So this message is for me also. As Donny said, if it > needs to be said, say it bluntly, you bush beater. > ? No? OK :X) This new symbol means: screw smiling faces. > > > Pete All do my best Pete " Well I like your honesty. We need that here of course! Am I naive!! Of course and I love that!! disguise your true intentions with lame humor? Well not really! I'm just trying to be polite with you guys! As Polite as I can be! My smiling face after my speach is often because I like to laugh. I laugh at death and I laugh at life! Is as simple as that! don't be a hypocrite; well I'm not! Well when I say to someone I like you and I put a Smile :0) that doesn't mean that I'm laughing at that person! I laugh all the time man!! Not at you guys!! Come on!! You baby Pete! :0) I'm not laughing at you! even though it is true that you sometimes act like a child? :0) am I your father to tell you what you are or what you are not?? :0) Am I your master for me to push you over the edge!! No! P.S. you said above as Donny said! Let my tell you something young punk!!! Donny is a sweetheart!!, Donny is a sweetheart!!!! :oo Can I think that, Mr. Big head! You talk too much! :0)) a smile because it doesn't matter you see, I like you anyway!! :0)) You are truly a sweatheart Donny! :0) Love, Alberto, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 29, 2004 Report Share Posted September 29, 2004 Hi Donny, Pete, all, > > >>> When we ask another are you enlightened?>> > > > > > > Asking another person if they are enlightened is an ignorant > > question, or it is a question of ignorance. > > > > > > > > >>>>> What are we really asking? > > > > > > a) Do you fit all my requirements to > > > judge you realized? In which case > > > we should provide such list. > > > > > > b) Do you consider that you fit all > > > your requirements to consider yourself > > > enlightened? > > > > > > Maybe, we are even asking have you attained > > > a state, a vision beyond description? Or > > > have you transcended selfhood? > > > > > > Is there any chance, that any answer will > > > match such question?>>>> > > > > > > If the question and answer are one who asks and who answers? > > > > > > >>> Would not it be better to understand the > > > reason behind the question?>>> > > > > > > *Yes* > > > > > > >>> Are we asking because we are searching for > > > authority? Because we want to be relieved > > > of the burden of verifying each statement > > > a teacher makes. > > > Are we asking because we want someone to > > > imitate? Or because we know that any > > > affirmative answer will unmask an impostor? > > > So the question always reveals a duality, > > > and a duplicity of intent>>>> > > > > > > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > Scott. > --- > > > I enjoy the perspectives you both offer here. > > > Pete offers: > > > b) Do you consider that you fit all > > > your requirements to consider yourself > > > enlightened? > > > > > > Maybe, we are even asking have you attained > > > a state, a vision beyond description? Or > > > have you transcended selfhood? > > > > > > Is there any chance, that any answer will > > > match such question?>>>> > > >>> Just some thoughts: > > Yes, and wouldn't that description or definition be only a feeble > attempt to try to limit *it* in order to put it in a box that we can > understand and wrap our brains around>>>> Yes, to try and understand what cannot be understood. And any understanding or trying to understand '''''this''''' intellectually is pushing 'IT' away impossibly far. Any trying to understand binds a ME. >>>>We have such a need to > understand this all>>>>> *Yes*, a ME impossibly seeks. >>>>And then, when we understand that (whatever we > think 'that' is)we come up with different definitions or ideas of > transcended selfhood. Just like when we were kids our ideas were > always changing the more we evolved.>>>>> Yes. We can never *know*. Any understanding comes about from a thinking ( and bound ) ME. >>> Shri Ramana Maharshi offers the question: > " To whom has this thought arisen? " > > Shri Nis offers the answer: > " I am That. " >>>> >>>>>> I always thought there are no questions - only answers. Taking a > scientist approach, when you put stimuli in a petri dish and are > looking for effect you start out with an intent/motive, as Scott > stated, and it's not so much about questions, b/c questions in their > very nature tend to make the observer look for a result that may be > colored or influenced by the question, rather than observing > what the stimuli is " doing " and how it is reacting, in other words, > just looking for answers. Maybe that's why Nisagardattas > approach/technique appeals to me most.>>>> Every ME subjectifies every-thing, including the whole. >>>> Now I'm wondering if they both/all aren't the same ends to a means>>> The 'goal' is illusionary TO a ME. There is no path, there is no goal. >>>> If it isn't all the same thing with no real distinction. That would > certainly embrace the non-duality theme>>>> But what is this 'thing' called 'non-duality' that we ( MEs ) are '*looking for*'? >>>> Doesn't both the > question and the answer serve the purpose?>>>> A dog barking could also serve the purpose, or a kettle boiling, or 20 years of spiritual pursuit, 30 years of meditation, one second of insight, 1 year of contemplation, prayer, and so on. >>>>So, how can there be > purpose if in non-duality there isn't any goal>>>> Any conceptualizing about purpose 'in' non-duality is an expectation of a thinking ME. This is only a question that applies and can only be applied by a thinking ME; The same ME that asks is the same ME ( and the only *thing* that can give meaning ); meaning can only be derived from a thinking participating ME. A tree does not concern itself with such questions of meaning, nor a dog. These questions only occurr can only occurr and can only be *answered* by a reflected self ME. However in saying that, it is up to YOU to explore your personal meaning of your own life, we cannot really ask another to derive our own personal meaning for our own lives. But, life takes us by the hand every single moment of our lives and teaches us, we have but to listen and not be so distorted by the static ( that we create ) to miss the message. *Don't smudge the painting half way through if you are not happy with the results so far* >>>>Then, wouldn't that > stand to reason why the " whole/unified state " split off and altered > in order to take on a persona that allowed it to view things from an > angle or perspective which it's current state couldn't do?>>>> No. The whole doesn't DO, this is only a conception of a ME to explain a belief. >>>> Questions/answers/observations may not be separated after all, but > rather different parts of the whole all along. We just can't see it > as a whole>>>>> There is nothing that is not a 'part of the whole'. Even your thoughts, emotions etc. What WE are is also a part of the whole. >>>Could duality like: " there is no questions and answers > and all there is is questions and answers. " actually be non- > duality?? What once was thought 'dual' actually opposite sides of > one coin and not separate at all?>>> What is 'non-duality' but a concept you are looking to explain or to fit something to? A ME can search for 'non-duality' for the end of all time and it will remain a bound ME. >>>I wonder if we aren't looking > more for purpose rather than questions or answers. Purpose in the > project of humanity we find ourselves involved in, and understanding > how to fit ourselves into that purpose>>>>> Yes. And again any purpose comes from a thinking personal self and each must discover this uniqueness for themselves. >>>>I guess that's a question > isn't it. If that is the case, then how could duality be wrong? I > just don't see it as wrong, or something to try to overcome, like > some kind of diseace. >>> But what is 'duality' and 'non-duality' to be right or wrong? These are expectations or beliefs you have about *concepts* you have which you don't know the meaning of outside of the concepts used to explain. I don't mean the above as a criticism but am trying to point out the meaninglessness of badging the *concepts* of 'non-duality' good and 'duality' bad or right or wrong etc. 'From the discrimination between this and that a host of demons arise' >>>I see the overcoming as a purpose and > a 'blessing/gift' for lack of a better word, rather then some kind > of diseace to overcome. Hence, the struggle really disappears. The > hand stops fighting to be a part of the entire body when it realizes > it was all along, but was a very important part of the body which > was necessary in order for the body to function>>>>>. These questions only occurr because there is an expectation of what 'non-duality' and 'duality' as concepts mean and entail in terms of causes and effects on a ME. >>>> Years ago I had a personal experience which made me understand > that the dark side and the light side isn't separate and > conflicting at all, but rather to be part of one whole purpose, > working together, just as the night time and the day time only > appear to be separate aspects, but actually aren't separate, they > join together to form a whole complete cycle we call 'day'. I saw > this clearly, when in a time of intense emotional life drama a dark > entity came to my rescue and helped me out. The dark and light > shake hands at dusk and dawn. They don't work on different sides at > all -- there is no separation at all. They are all playing for the > same team, they just have different ways of approaching the game. >>> Maybe there is no need to think in this way, i,e that duality is dark and that non-duality is light etc positive and negative etc? *You* don't need to *explain* OR *understand* 'non-duality' or 'duality'. >>> I'm thinking that this life may not be in conflict with non- duality, > but rather in harmony with it in a way that just isn't understood. > For me it seems to be about understanding purpose and my role in > it. >>>> Again, these are conceptions about what non-duality entails TO you. >>>> thanks for all your insights and views as I work my way through this > thing called human life, and 'my' place in it. I appreciate > responses that are no nonsense blunt and to the point. >>> I hope mine were not too blunt. Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 29, 2004 Report Share Posted September 29, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi Donny, Pete, all, > > > > > >>> When we ask another are you enlightened?>> > > > > > > > > > Asking another person if they are enlightened is an ignorant > > > question, or it is a question of ignorance. > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> What are we really asking? > > > > > > > > a) Do you fit all my requirements to > > > > judge you realized? In which case > > > > we should provide such list. > > > > > > > > b) Do you consider that you fit all > > > > your requirements to consider yourself > > > > enlightened? > > > > > > > > Maybe, we are even asking have you attained > > > > a state, a vision beyond description? Or > > > > have you transcended selfhood? > > > > > > > > Is there any chance, that any answer will > > > > match such question?>>>> > > > > > > > > > If the question and answer are one who asks and who answers? > > > > > > > > > >>> Would not it be better to understand the > > > > reason behind the question?>>> > > > > > > > > > *Yes* > > > > > > > > > >>> Are we asking because we are searching for > > > > authority? Because we want to be relieved > > > > of the burden of verifying each statement > > > > a teacher makes. > > > > Are we asking because we want someone to > > > > imitate? Or because we know that any > > > > affirmative answer will unmask an impostor? > > > > So the question always reveals a duality, > > > > and a duplicity of intent>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > > > Scott. > > --- > > > > > > I enjoy the perspectives you both offer here. > > > > > > Pete offers: > > > > b) Do you consider that you fit all > > > > your requirements to consider yourself > > > > enlightened? > > > > > > > > Maybe, we are even asking have you attained > > > > a state, a vision beyond description? Or > > > > have you transcended selfhood? > > > > > > > > Is there any chance, that any answer will > > > > match such question?>>>> > > > > > >>> Just some thoughts: > > > > Yes, and wouldn't that description or definition be only a feeble > > attempt to try to limit *it* in order to put it in a box that we > can > > understand and wrap our brains around>>>> > > > Yes, to try and understand what cannot be understood. > > And any understanding or trying to understand '''''this''''' > intellectually is pushing 'IT' away impossibly far. > > Any trying to understand binds a ME. > > > >>>>We have such a need to > > understand this all>>>>> > > > *Yes*, a ME impossibly seeks. > > > > >>>>And then, when we understand that (whatever we > > think 'that' is)we come up with different definitions or ideas of > > transcended selfhood. Just like when we were kids our ideas were > > always changing the more we evolved.>>>>> > > > Yes. > We can never *know*. > > Any understanding comes about from a thinking ( and bound ) ME. > > > > >>> Shri Ramana Maharshi offers the question: > > " To whom has this thought arisen? " > > > > Shri Nis offers the answer: > > " I am That. " >>>> > >>>>>> I always thought there are no questions - only answers. > Taking a > > scientist approach, when you put stimuli in a petri dish and are > > looking for effect you start out with an intent/motive, as Scott > > stated, and it's not so much about questions, b/c questions in > their > > very nature tend to make the observer look for a result that may be > > colored or influenced by the question, rather than observing > > what the stimuli is " doing " and how it is reacting, in other words, > > just looking for answers. Maybe that's why Nisagardattas > > approach/technique appeals to me most.>>>> > > > Every ME subjectifies every-thing, including the whole. > > > >>>> Now I'm wondering if they both/all aren't the same ends to a > means>>> > > > The 'goal' is illusionary TO a ME. > > There is no path, there is no goal. > > > >>>> If it isn't all the same thing with no real distinction. That > would > > certainly embrace the non-duality theme>>>> > > > But what is this 'thing' called 'non-duality' that we ( MEs ) > are '*looking for*'? > > > > >>>> Doesn't both the > > question and the answer serve the purpose?>>>> > > > A dog barking could also serve the purpose, or a kettle boiling, or > 20 years of spiritual pursuit, 30 years of meditation, one second of > insight, 1 year of contemplation, prayer, and so on. > > > >>>>So, how can there be > > purpose if in non-duality there isn't any goal>>>> > > > Any conceptualizing about purpose 'in' non-duality is an expectation > of a thinking ME. > > This is only a question that applies and can only be applied by a > thinking ME; > The same ME that asks is the same ME ( and the only *thing* that can > give meaning ); meaning can only be derived from a thinking > participating ME. > > A tree does not concern itself with such questions of meaning, nor a > dog. > > These questions only occurr can only occurr and can only be > *answered* by a reflected self ME. > > However in saying that, it is up to YOU to explore your personal > meaning of your own life, we cannot really ask another to derive our > own personal meaning for our own lives. > > But, life takes us by the hand every single moment of our lives and > teaches us, we have but to listen and not be so distorted by the > static ( that we create ) to miss the message. > > *Don't smudge the painting half way through if you are not happy with > the results so far* > > > > >>>>Then, wouldn't that > > stand to reason why the " whole/unified state " split off and > altered > > in order to take on a persona that allowed it to view things from > an > > angle or perspective which it's current state couldn't do?>>>> > > > No. > The whole doesn't DO, this is only a conception of a ME to explain a > belief. > > > >>>> Questions/answers/observations may not be separated after all, > but > > rather different parts of the whole all along. We just can't see it > > as a whole>>>>> > > > There is nothing that is not a 'part of the whole'. > > Even your thoughts, emotions etc. > > What WE are is also a part of the whole. > > > >>>Could duality like: " there is no questions and answers > > and all there is is questions and answers. " actually be non- > > duality?? What once was thought 'dual' actually opposite sides of > > one coin and not separate at all?>>> > > > What is 'non-duality' but a concept you are looking to explain or to > fit something to? > > A ME can search for 'non-duality' for the end of all time and it will > remain a bound ME. > > > >>>I wonder if we aren't looking > > more for purpose rather than questions or answers. Purpose in the > > project of humanity we find ourselves involved in, and > understanding > > how to fit ourselves into that purpose>>>>> > > > Yes. > > And again any purpose comes from a thinking personal self and each > must discover this uniqueness for themselves. > > > >>>>I guess that's a question > > isn't it. If that is the case, then how could duality be wrong? I > > just don't see it as wrong, or something to try to overcome, like > > some kind of diseace. >>> > > > But what is 'duality' and 'non-duality' to be right or wrong? > These are expectations or beliefs you have about *concepts* you have > which you don't know the meaning of outside of the concepts used to > explain. > > I don't mean the above as a criticism but am trying to point out the > meaninglessness of badging the *concepts* of 'non-duality' good > and 'duality' bad or right or wrong etc. > > 'From the discrimination between this and that a host of demons arise' > > > >>>I see the overcoming as a purpose and > > a 'blessing/gift' for lack of a better word, rather then some kind > > of diseace to overcome. Hence, the struggle really disappears. > The > > hand stops fighting to be a part of the entire body when it > realizes > > it was all along, but was a very important part of the body which > > was necessary in order for the body to function>>>>>. > > > These questions only occurr because there is an expectation of > what 'non-duality' and 'duality' as concepts mean and entail in terms > of causes and effects on a ME. > > > >>>> Years ago I had a personal experience which made me understand > > that the dark side and the light side isn't separate and > > conflicting at all, but rather to be part of one whole purpose, > > working together, just as the night time and the day time only > > appear to be separate aspects, but actually aren't separate, they > > join together to form a whole complete cycle we call 'day'. I saw > > this clearly, when in a time of intense emotional life drama a dark > > entity came to my rescue and helped me out. The dark and light > > shake hands at dusk and dawn. They don't work on different sides > at > > all -- there is no separation at all. They are all playing for the > > same team, they just have different ways of approaching the game. > >>> > > > Maybe there is no need to think in this way, i,e that duality is dark > and that non-duality is light etc positive and negative etc? > > *You* don't need to *explain* OR *understand* 'non-duality' > or 'duality'. > > > >>> I'm thinking that this life may not be in conflict with non- > duality, > > but rather in harmony with it in a way that just isn't > understood. > > For me it seems to be about understanding purpose and my role in > > it. >>>> > > Again, these are conceptions about what non-duality entails TO you. > > > >>>> thanks for all your insights and views as I work my way through > this > > thing called human life, and 'my' place in it. I appreciate > > responses that are no nonsense blunt and to the point. >>> > > I hope mine were not too blunt. > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. ----- hi my love, Thank you very much. No you weren't blunt at all. I get what you said. Thanks SOOO much for your time. Although my messages may not reflect this, I do believe exactly as you wrote. You express things so consicely in a way that I get. The mind seems to want to understand that which has no real base, and thereby creating it's own forms of 'reality'. Then the mind says, 'there, it is thus, and it is so.' And, I guess for all intents it is that way. Like a painting it starts with only a blank canvas and takes on the picture we want it to. Then we say, there is the picture, that is what it is, it is a picture of a tree. But another person says, I started with a blank canvas and painted a picture of a dog. There, it is a picture of a dog. Neither the dog or tree is 'real', but it's all talked about in a way of understanding what we're doing with the blank canvas. For some reason, people don't hang blank canvases on their walls. Is it the same with non-duality? We never were separate, but there we have people say, no! no! you'll never achieve unification if you do this and that. When in fact, we never were separated to begin with. We were just looking at painting the blank canvas with different pictures. I don't explain myself well as you do. I guess it's my way of saying what you just said, about how we describe things, or paint things in a way that we will see a certain picture and understand things in a certain way to fit into ideas we want, or already hold. Maybe we aren't really trying to understand, as Alberto says we will never understand if we keep thinking and such and such is the only way. Maybe we all want to paint our own pictures, and Alberto's is that, and mine is this, and yours is yours. Others want to get rid of the painting, or don't like it and want something different. Others just want to stare at a blank canvas. I guess it only matters if we want it to matter. much love, ~*~ Donny ----------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 29, 2004 Report Share Posted September 29, 2004 Hi again Donny, > Thank you very much. No you weren't blunt at all. I get what you > said. Thanks SOOO much for your time. Although my messages may > not reflect this, I do believe exactly as you wrote. > > You express things so consicely in a way that I get. Ok, great! >>The mind seems > to want to understand that which has no real base, and thereby > creating it's own forms of 'reality'. Then the mind says, 'there, > it is thus, and it is so.'>>>> As MEs we subjectify everything, 'God', the whole, all that is, our favourite movie, other people. So long as there is a participating ME there will be subjectification of WHAT IS. >And, I guess for all intents it is that > way. Like a painting it starts with only a blank canvas and takes > on the picture we want it to. Then we say, there is the picture, > that is what it is, it is a picture of a tree. But another person > says, I started with a blank canvas and painted a picture of a dog. > There, it is a picture of a dog. Neither the dog or tree is 'real', > but it's all talked about in a way of understanding what we're doing > with the blank canvas. For some reason, people don't hang blank > canvases on their walls.>>>> What I meant by the painting is *your life*, you as a ME, and what you do with your life. It is only a personal self that can derive meaning and create what they want with their life. >>>Is it the same with non-duality? We never > were separate, but there we have people say, no! no! you'll never > achieve unification if you do this and that. When in fact, we never > were separated to begin with>>>> *Nothing exists in separation* True separation is not possible. *We* are all 'in this' together. 'Unification' is another ME generated concept to either explain a belief or an expectation of what a ME thinks will happen TO IT. A ME never anticipates that it will vanish or cease to BE what *it thought it was* >>>>>> Maybe we aren't really trying to understand, as Alberto says we will > never understand if we keep thinking and such and such is the only > way>>>>> Yes, we can never know. If we keep trying to *understand* 'non-duality' or 'unitive consciousness' or any other concepts, then a ME is bound. We cannot come to *understand* God. >>>Maybe we all want to paint our own pictures, and Alberto's is > that, and mine is this, and yours is yours. Others want to get rid > of the painting, or don't like it and want something different. > Others just want to stare at a blank canvas. I guess it only > matters if we want it to matter. >>>>> The painting we paint is our own lives and each is different and unique as that ME. It does not matter whether the life or reality is denied, accepted or embraced in all cases it is a bound ME asserting a belief it has. Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 28, 2005 Report Share Posted October 28, 2005 My idea of enlightenment is that is a state that is free from fear, pain and other forms of sufferings and brings tremendous clarity and peace (joy/love) and a sense of profound limitless freedom in body (including the rest of the universe) and mind. al. Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " <adithya_comming> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Pete S <pedsie4@e...> wrote: > > > > Are you enlightened? > > what a dumb question, > > like leaning in an open > > grave and shouting: " Is > > anyone there? " If the > > gravedigger is in, a > > shovelful of dirt will be > > your answer. If he is gone, > > no answer is possible. > > Can an absence, give > > an answer? > > > > Pete > > > > Resting... > > Relaxing... > > Playing with your kid... > > Listening to a melodious music... > > > do you miss something? > > Do you miss something called > 'enlightenment'? > > > ... > > > What is enlightenment other than a > mental concept that many times, you use > to destroy a perfectly peaceful, calm, > serene moment... and get lost again in > the mental concepts? > > Imaginations, dreams, thoughts, > questions, confusions... > > Am I enlightened? > > Am I not enlightened? > > is he enlightened? > > Is x enlightened? > > > ... > > > ...and, the mind is busy again! > > The peace is forsaken... > > The heaven is Lost! > > > .... > > Maybe, that's why someone honest and > truthful like Ramana simply says: > > There is no realization event. > > ***** > > Peace is realization. > > ...but, that can never be enough for > mind. > > > Because, a mind is never content with > easy, simple, direct... > > a mind is never content with what > already ...IS. > > ...with what is Now! > > > The mind is never content... > > It needs something to seek for... > something to hanker for.... > > Something to use an excuse for.... > not being at ease, peace, > relaxation... still! > > > It has to move... > ...and, it needs an Object! > > When many other objects fail... > enlightenment might 'still' serves as > one 'missing' Object! > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 28, 2005 Report Share Posted October 28, 2005 Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " <adithya_comming> wrote: Sorry for disturbing you, but... Let me put my two cents In favour of Enlightenment >Resting... >Relaxing... >Playing with your kid... >Listening to a melodious music... Life is not like this The kid will be taken away The music will lose its melody And you are alone in the mud Life does everything to live Whilst death is hanging over you Like a sword on a thin string And you ask: " do you miss something? " Ask your stomach When you have not eaten for a few hours only... And you ask: " Do you miss something called 'enlightenment'? " The day might come And you will be ready To give everything For truth Because you finally come to see That you have nothing more to lose No playing no kid no melody No resting, no relaxation Even no peace Only a dream That has not kept its promises LoLiLa Stefan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 28, 2005 Report Share Posted October 28, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@o...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " > <adithya_comming> wrote: > > Sorry for disturbing you, but... > Let me put my two cents > In favour of Enlightenment > > >Resting... > >Relaxing... > >Playing with your kid... > >Listening to a melodious music... > > Life is not like this > The kid will be taken away So will the 'Stefan' and his 'intellect' that wrote this message. What comes... goes. If realizataion can 'come'... it can also go. What has a 'beginning' also has its 'end' in itself. ...... But, if it has No beginning or end, then, what are we talking about? Did it ever happen? Is it an 'event'? [NNB] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 28, 2005 Report Share Posted October 28, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > My idea of enlightenment Yes, that is an 'idea'! ....even more, it is 'Ander's' idea! Like any 'idea' it arises... only when Anders start 'thinking'! When the 'thinking' starts the " thoughtless " calm and peace has already been destroyed! IOW, it can be said that the 'thought', idea and concept of 'enlightenemnt' [along with its seeking] takes you away from the paece that naturally exists... That natural Peace is also called realization by some. ..... However, as long as you know that 'enlightenemnt' is just 'your' 'idea' , there is no problem. You know, it is an idea and you know... ....it gives you some mental 'business' when you think, you need it. [When you prefer mental business above peace.] > is that is a state that is free from fear, > pain and other forms of sufferings and brings tremendous clarity and > peace (joy/love) and a sense of profound limitless freedom in body > (including the rest of the universe) and mind. > > al. > > Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " > <adithya_comming> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , Pete S <pedsie4@e...> wrote: > > > > > > Are you enlightened? > > > what a dumb question, > > > like leaning in an open > > > grave and shouting: " Is > > > anyone there? " If the > > > gravedigger is in, a > > > shovelful of dirt will be > > > your answer. If he is gone, > > > no answer is possible. > > > Can an absence, give > > > an answer? > > > > > > Pete > > > > > > > Resting... > > > > Relaxing... > > > > Playing with your kid... > > > > Listening to a melodious music... > > > > > > do you miss something? > > > > Do you miss something called > > 'enlightenment'? > > > > > > ... > > > > > > What is enlightenment other than a > > mental concept that many times, you use > > to destroy a perfectly peaceful, calm, > > serene moment... and get lost again in > > the mental concepts? > > > > Imaginations, dreams, thoughts, > > questions, confusions... > > > > Am I enlightened? > > > > Am I not enlightened? > > > > is he enlightened? > > > > Is x enlightened? > > > > > > ... > > > > > > ...and, the mind is busy again! > > > > The peace is forsaken... > > > > The heaven is Lost! > > > > > > .... > > > > Maybe, that's why someone honest and > > truthful like Ramana simply says: > > > > There is no realization event. > > > > ***** > > > > Peace is realization. > > > > ...but, that can never be enough for > > mind. > > > > > > Because, a mind is never content with > > easy, simple, direct... > > > > a mind is never content with what > > already ...IS. > > > > ...with what is Now! > > > > > > The mind is never content... > > > > It needs something to seek for... > > something to hanker for.... > > > > Something to use an excuse for.... > > not being at ease, peace, > > relaxation... still! > > > > > > It has to move... > > ...and, it needs an Object! > > > > When many other objects fail... > > enlightenment might 'still' serves as > > one 'missing' Object! > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 28, 2005 Report Share Posted October 28, 2005 Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " <adithya_comming> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@o...> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " > > <adithya_comming> wrote: > > > > Sorry for disturbing you, but... > > Let me put my two cents > > In favour of Enlightenment > > > > >Resting... > > >Relaxing... > > >Playing with your kid... > > >Listening to a melodious music... > > > > Life is not like this > > The kid will be taken away > > So will the 'Stefan' > and his 'intellect' that > wrote this message. > > What comes... goes. > > If realizataion can 'come'... it can also go. > > What has a 'beginning' also has its 'end' in itself. > > > ..... > > But, if it has No beginning or end, > then, what are we talking about? > > Did it ever happen? > > Is it an 'event'? Can it 'ever' happen? If it can... can it then, be 'eternal'? If it is not eternal... > > > > [NNB] > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 28, 2005 Report Share Posted October 28, 2005 Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " <adithya_comming> wrote: >>The kid will be taken away > >So will the 'Stefan' >and his 'intellect' that >wrote this message. Yes, what is born will die No more beautiful melodies >What comes... goes. >If realizataion can 'come'... it can also go. >What has a 'beginning' also has its 'end' in itself. >But, if it has No beginning or end, >then, what are we talking about? >Did it ever happen? >Is it an 'event'? When it happens, my friend, Then will you know That nothing ever has happened LoLiLa Stefan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 28, 2005 Report Share Posted October 28, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@o...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " > <adithya_comming> wrote: > > >>The kid will be taken away > > > >So will the 'Stefan' > >and his 'intellect' that > >wrote this message. > > Yes, what is born will die > No more beautiful melodies > > >What comes... goes. > >If realizataion can 'come'... it can also go. > >What has a 'beginning' also has its 'end' in itself. > >But, if it has No beginning or end, > >then, what are we talking about? > >Did it ever happen? > >Is it an 'event'? > > When it happens, my friend, > Then will you know > That nothing ever has happened I AM Enlightened... Stefan! What you say? > > LoLiLa > Stefan > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 28, 2005 Report Share Posted October 28, 2005 Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " <adithya_comming> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > My idea of enlightenment > > Yes, that is an 'idea'! > > ...even more, it is 'Ander's' idea! > > Like any 'idea' it arises... only > when Anders start 'thinking'! > > When the 'thinking' starts the " thoughtless " > calm and peace has already been destroyed! > > IOW, it can be said that the 'thought', > idea and concept of 'enlightenemnt' > [along with its seeking] takes you > away from the paece that naturally exists... > > That natural Peace is also called realization > by some. > > > > .... > > However, as long as you know > that 'enlightenemnt' is just 'your' 'idea' > , there is no problem. > > You know, it is an idea and you know... > ...it gives you some mental 'business' when > you think, you need it. > > [When you prefer mental business above peace.] > > I agree that the state of thinking hinders true peace from flowering. It is not the thinking itself, but the constant state of " thinking " which is a conflict with the flow of life, the Tao of existence. The rigid structure which we call memory must function properly, sanely and fearlessly, but should not be in a constant state of ON, because that is the cause of all conflict, inner and outer. al. 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.