Guest guest Posted November 19, 2004 Report Share Posted November 19, 2004 Nisargadatta , Dave Sirjue <davesirjue> wrote: > > hya dan, > > --- dan330033 <berkowd@u...> wrote: > > >> How can you be absolutely sure your body will die > >> when you have not experienced that yourself??? > [cut] > > > /AL > > > >You can define yourself however you want, if it > >makes you happy. As indestructible, infinite, > >whatever floats your boat. Or you can say your a > >descendent from a long line of royalty, or possessed > >by the archangel Gabriel. Whatever makes you happy. > >Still, it's just you using flowery-sounding words to > >create a happy image for yourself. > > > >Painting pictures with words that really can't do a > >damn thing for you, except make you temporarily > >satisfied with your ability to paint word pictures. > > > > -- Dan > > Welcome back from .....(the dead?) > How's your (closed) forum going ? > Sandeep's (closed) " Yearning " seems to have been shut > down ...or did it self-destruct as in " mission > impossible " . > > You're correct from a biased standpoint though. > Dialectically speaking, words used effectively(what > the bedi dude Nisargadatta calls - mantric, mahavakyas > or pointers-) root out false or distorted concepts, > finally discarding itself in the process...clarity > revealed...the wordless source. > > Ask William " Words-worth " for a second opinion. > > -dave Like I said, Dave, painting pictures with words just gives a temporary satisfaction with self. And has nothing at all to do with using words effectively to dissolve concepts to which one is attached. In fact, what painting clever pictures does is set up concepts to which one can be all the more attached. I'll give you a place to start: Your body does, in fact, die. Take it from there, without making pretty pictures for yourself. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2004 Report Share Posted November 22, 2004 Dan, --- dan330033 <berkowd wrote: > I'll give you a place to start: Your body does, in > fact, > die. > > Take it from there, without making pretty pictures > for yourself. > > -- Dan Could you run that again, Dan. " Whose " body ? You're assuming I own a body that is born and will die. ....or does the body(ies) at some point of exhaustion simply recycle itself ? The cycle of Energy->Matter->Energy is simply the case- none of your or my business. Now you see, now you don't...the sub-atomic particles are forever dancing in and out of existence, just as Dan(cero). -dave Meet the all-new My - Try it today! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2004 Report Share Posted November 22, 2004 Nisargadatta , Dave Sirjue <davesirjue> wrote: > Dan, > > --- dan330033 <berkowd@u...> wrote: > > > I'll give you a place to start: Your body does, in > > fact, > > die. > > > > Take it from there, without making pretty pictures > > for yourself. > > > > -- Dan > > Could you run that again, Dan. > " Whose " body ? You're assuming I > own a body that is born and will die. No I'm not, Dave. And all your beliefs and ideas won't keep you or your body alive when it's time for you to die. But good luck with talking the talk. > ...or does the body(ies) at some point > of exhaustion simply recycle itself ? Answering such questions will avail you nothing. You either are ready and able to look into the efforting that is " Dave's " continuity -- or not. > The cycle of Energy->Matter->Energy > is simply the case- none of your or > my business. Now you see, now > you don't...the sub-atomic particles > are forever dancing in and out of > existence, just as Dan(cero). Dave, you were more sincere before, when you were able to be honest about being stuck. " Whose " body ... Now, that's funny. Keep running that advaita stuff 'round and 'round -- 'there's no one owning any body, no one's home, blah, blah.' The typical use of advaita talk in service of avoidance. 'What self? There's no self ... Everyone knows that. " Funny stuff! -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 23, 2004 Report Share Posted November 23, 2004 --- dan330033 <berkowd wrote: > >Dave, you were more sincere before, when you >were able to be honest about being stuck. > > " Whose " body ... > > Now, that's funny. > > Keep running that advaita stuff 'round and 'round -- > 'there's no one owning any body, no one's home, > blah, blah.' > > The typical use of advaita talk in service > of avoidance. > > 'What self? There's no self ... Everyone knows > that. " > > Funny stuff! > > -- Dan Yeah, very funny stuff Dan... I sense that the patients' butterflies have started to cloud around the therapist. I suspect that your " closed " forum isn't satisfying your expected objectives whatever it is or was. I'm seeing suddenly, the re-appearance of the likes the Ken's, Greg's, Eric's back online with this forum... or were they lurking in the background waiting for the 'chief' to launch out once more. You have a history of dismissiveness and outright downplay of others to look good Dan, but may I point out- neither you nor your likes will ever be able to undermine or dismiss the foundational utterances of the bedi dude Nisargadatta...a rare occurence indeed, a gem among sages..nor are these utterances dead or static; everyone is welcomed to improvise and adapt to particular living circumstances without loosing the central thread. ...and where did you get the impression that I'm pushing advaita stuff 'round here ? that there's no self and so on...in fact, very recently I was emphasing the tantric view point ...not that I'm tantric or identified exclusively with any particular school nor am I antagonistic towards these perspectives. For the records, the apparent self, the conceptional self, in my book, is neither real nor unreal nor both nor the same.... Come good. -dave Meet the all-new My - Try it today! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 23, 2004 Report Share Posted November 23, 2004 Nisargadatta , Dave Sirjue <davesirjue> wrote: > > --- dan330033 <berkowd@u...> wrote: > > > > >Dave, you were more sincere before, when you > >were able to be honest about being stuck. > > > > " Whose " body ... > > > > Now, that's funny. > > > > Keep running that advaita stuff 'round and 'round -- > > 'there's no one owning any body, no one's home, > > blah, blah.' > > > > The typical use of advaita talk in service > > of avoidance. > > > > 'What self? There's no self ... Everyone knows > > that. " > > > > Funny stuff! > > > > -- Dan > > Yeah, very funny stuff Dan... > I sense that the patients' butterflies have > started to cloud around the therapist. > > I suspect that your " closed " forum isn't satisfying > your expected objectives whatever it is or was. > > I'm seeing suddenly, the re-appearance of the likes > the Ken's, Greg's, Eric's back online with this > forum... or were they lurking in the background > waiting for the 'chief' to launch out once more. > > You have a history of dismissiveness and outright > downplay of others to look good Dan, but may I point > out- neither you nor your likes will ever be able to > undermine or dismiss the foundational utterances of > the bedi dude Nisargadatta...a rare occurence indeed, > a gem among sages..nor are these utterances dead or > static; everyone is welcomed to improvise and adapt to > particular living circumstances without loosing the > central thread. > > ..and where did you get the impression that I'm > pushing advaita stuff 'round here ? that there's no > self and so on...in fact, very recently I was > emphasing the tantric view point ...not that I'm > tantric or identified exclusively with any particular > school nor am I antagonistic towards these > perspectives. > > For the records, the apparent self, the conceptional > self, in my book, is neither real nor unreal nor both > nor the same.... > > Come good. > -dave Self-defensive maneuvers of character known as " Dave " are noted. " Dave " has answered his own question about " who owns the body " if he has ears to hear himself and eyes to look to himself. Good luck answering your other questions, Dave. I suggest looking into the defenses known as " Dave " prior to asserting to others what they are supposedly up to. That is, if you are serious about inquiry. Otherwise, you can continue to regurgitate stuff like " the apparent self, the conceptual self, in my book is neither real nor unreal nor both nor the same " as if that had something to do with what we were saying to each other. And let us know about all the fine tantric stuff you're into, on and on and on. As the adventure known as " Dave " continues to try to continue ... -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 23, 2004 Report Share Posted November 23, 2004 Nisargadatta , Dave Sirjue <davesirjue> wrote: Hey Dave - Here's a question for you: Who are you trying to sell on all this stuff below? You? It's not very convincing to me. I guess you're an easier sell to yourself than I am. Yes, yes, I know, you're not trying to sell anyone, it's just the simple truth, and if I don't buy it, that's my problem, because you've observed me for years, etc. You're quite eager to point out to me what I'm doing. But you haven't put that same energy into the doing of " Dave " -- and he's the answer to your question about who's body it is. Dave. And you're going to die, rest assured of that. And you won't have looked into it when/as you indeed die. You'll have a lot of self-reassuring statements floating around in your head for whatever good that does you, and however long you can maintain them: " I fully accept and embrace, from this spacious condition blah, I have no pretensions, blah, blah. " It's all pretensions, my friend. Maybe you ought to grind your axe. It's not cutting very sharply. -- Dan (nothing new below) > You're not making sense to me, Dan. > I have no axe to grind nor any belief to defend. As > you mentioned before, I clearly see my limitations, my > conditioned reflexes, without the least pretention or > desire to change my condition. I am what I am, fully > loaded with my roles, profession and responsibilities > just as each to his own. Truth can never be > experienced. > > In fact I accept gladly and embrace my mortal > condition fully from this accomodative spaciousness > and clarity. There is no desire to protect it nor > perpetuate it's continuity. > > What I'm pointing out is based on years of observation > regarding your impulsive, habitual modus operandi; > you're always lashing out at others, trying to shut > them up. By this you're stifling their growth and > crippling their intelligence and expression, even > before they are capable of " walking " . > > You see what I'm saying ? Are you conscious of your > usual mechanism or stuck behind your blind spot ? > > come good > -dave > > > > > > > Meet the all-new My - Try it today! > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 23, 2004 Report Share Posted November 23, 2004 --- dan330033 <berkowd wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Dave Sirjue > <davesirjue> > wrote: > > Hey Dave - > > Here's a question for you: > > Who are you trying to sell on all this > stuff below? > > You? > > It's not very convincing to me. > > I guess you're an easier sell to yourself > than I am. > > Yes, yes, I know, you're not trying to sell > anyone, it's just the simple truth, > and if I don't buy it, that's my problem, > because you've observed me for years, etc. > > You're quite eager to point out to me > what I'm doing. But you haven't > put that same energy into > the doing of " Dave " -- > and he's the answer to your > question about who's body it is. > > Dave. > > And you're going to die, rest assured of that. > > And you won't have looked into it when/as you > indeed die. > > You'll have a lot of self-reassuring statements > floating around in your head for whatever good > that does you, and however long you can maintain > them: > > " I fully accept and embrace, from this spacious > condition blah, > I have no pretensions, blah, blah. " > > It's all pretensions, my friend. > > Maybe you ought to grind your axe. > > It's not cutting very sharply. > > -- Dan To answer your question Dan, I'm not a salesman never has been, and nothing to sell in that line and not interested in promoting myself. It just so happens that today I conversing with you about this particular issue...if there is any merit in it. I've started that I perfectly comfortable with my pretentions, since I accept the world and others as they are. The one who is trying to be without pretension is itself the pretender. Now, my question to you... a) You on the other hand seems to be without pretentions. Is that correct ? Can someone be without pretention, without fiction, without limitation. Secondly, b) You state that I or X is going to die. Were you around to experience your birth ? Will you be there to experience your death ? If answer to b) is no then your statement about someones death, of which you appear to be currently obssesed, is pointless and this conversation is taking us nowhere. -dave The all-new My - Get yours free! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 23, 2004 Report Share Posted November 23, 2004 Nisargadatta , Dave Sirjue <davesirjue> wrote: > To answer your question Dan, I'm not a salesman > never has been, and nothing to sell in that line and > not interested in promoting myself. Why bother with this, Dave? I already said I knew you'd respond that way. > It just so happens that today I conversing with you > about this particular issue...if there is any merit in > it. Sure, sure. > I've started that I perfectly comfortable with my > pretentions, since I accept the world and others as > they are. The one who is trying to be without > pretension is itself the pretender. > > Now, my question to you... > > a) You on the other hand seems to be without > pretentions. Is that correct ? Can someone be > without pretention, without fiction, without > limitation. That's not the point, Dave. The point is that because Dave is pretense, the world in which Dave is interacting, is a world formed in relation to a pretense, and thus, itself is pretense. That includes the Dan with which Dave is interacting. It doesn't mean that there's no point to us interacting. But if you understand the pretense of it, you understand what can and can't be accomplished in the world of pretense. And you know damn well that you die, and you know who the owner of the body is. And I can't give you this, Dave, because it has to come from you and you alone. Not from your sparring with me, and not from all the cool things you so unpretentiously know about tantra, and being perfectly accepting of everything, and all the blah, blah. I'm saying this for whatever it's worth, probably more for other readers, not assuming that it will get through to you. Because you already know it all. <s> And I'm not interested in the sparring efforts of someone who already knows it all about how no one owns the body, and who is accepting everything even though he's not there, and noticing all his conditioning, blah, blah, blah. But enjoy what you're selling yourself. Including that you're not selling yourself anything. > Secondly, > > b) You state that I or X is going to die. > Were you around to experience your birth ? I was born. > Will you be there to experience your death ? I die. > If answer to b) is no then your statement about > someones death, of which you appear to be > currently obssesed, is pointless and this > conversation is taking us nowhere. You won't know anything as long as you think you know all the things you think you know. And you know so damn much. <s> Be well, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 23, 2004 Report Share Posted November 23, 2004 --- dan330033 <berkowd wrote: > > Secondly, > > > > b) You state that I or X is going to die. > > Were you around to experience your birth ? > > I was born. Sure, the statement " I was born " is made in retrospect, by deduction, from reasoning and memory. What was born was a concept, at a certain biological stage. ...and this concept, lacking substance, is a belief adopted from society, your parents perhaps..that has become an exclusive identification called Dan. Again I'm suggesting to you Dan, the event of the birth of your body was never your direct immediate experience. " You " -the concept-was not around at that point. Stick to the facts, my friend. > > Will you be there to experience your death ? > > I die. Sure, if you believe that about yourself, then it is clear that all concepts that arise will inevitably cease....but a word of precaution... don't go pushing your ideas and beliefs down the throat of others. You could easily go bankrupt of your hard earned green-backs for violating human rights under constitutional law. -dave The all-new My - Get yours free! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 23, 2004 Report Share Posted November 23, 2004 Nisargadatta , Dave Sirjue <davesirjue> wrote: > > --- dan330033 <berkowd@u...> wrote: > > > > Secondly, > > > > > > b) You state that I or X is going to die. > > > Were you around to experience your birth ? > > > > I was born. > > Sure, the statement " I was born " is made in > retrospect, by deduction, from reasoning and memory. > What was born was a concept, at a certain biological > stage. Give me a break, Dave. Every statement is made in retrospect. Including statements about ideas of a future. Your analysis applies to anything said, so is of no particular relevance to the statement " I was born. " It's just as true for saying " Here comes a truck, " or " Frogs are green. " > ..and this concept, lacking substance, is a belief > adopted from society, your parents perhaps..that has > become an exclusive identification called Dan. No, Dan can't be made less real than any of the rest of the ball of wax, including all the other concepts, feelings, memories, sensations. It all goes together, forming pictures, leading to statements, like yours here and mine. > Again I'm suggesting to you Dan, the event of the > birth of your body was never your direct immediate > experience. Wrong. > " You " -the concept-was not around at that point. Stick > to the facts, my friend. You're distorting things, because you're taking your ideational process as if it refers to facts. That concept doesn't have to be around for something to be experienced. It's a linguistic concept. So what? It doesn't have any power to keep something from being experienced. > > > Will you be there to experience your death ? > > > > I die. > > Sure, if you believe that about yourself, then it is > clear that all concepts that arise will inevitably > cease....but a word of precaution... don't go pushing > your ideas and beliefs down the throat of others. You > could easily go bankrupt of your hard earned > green-backs for violating human rights under > constitutional law. Dave, *this* is not the product of an intellectual analysis, although that is what you make of it. So, you get the results you want from your analysis: " I don't ever have to die " and are satisfied. Unfortunately, it's all nonsense. You indeed die, and you're evading the issue. You haven't confronted death anxiety, which is what constitutes " Dave " -- and thus evade going through the dying involved to understand timeless truth. So, " Dave " goes around giving the results of his analysis, and feels good about himself because he supposedly knows he won't die now. Don't worry, you and about three or four billion other people are satisfied to have found ways to reassure themselves that they won't die, in one way or another. So, keep repeating these statements to yourself and see if you can evade dying that way. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 23, 2004 Report Share Posted November 23, 2004 Nisargadatta , Dave Sirjue <davesirjue> wrote: > Nice sparring with you once again, Dan. I'm not sparring, Dave. I'm having a dialogue with you on an open list, for the sake of any who may read it and hear what I'm saying. I understand from the way you're responding that you aren't hearing. But thanks for the dialogue, Dave. As I'm not interested in sparring and don't think it's " nice, " to use your word for it, I'll leave off at this point. It's clear where you're going with this, into self-validation land. Truth is not about your self-validating. It's quite alone. -- Dan (nothing new below) > I maintain that " you " , the experiencing structure, are > not present even during deep-sleep muchless present > during the " fearful " event of " death " . > > As such it is pointless and ridiculus to speak of > " experiencing " death. It will never become part of > yours, mine or anyone else's experience.... What is > there to evade if it cannot be experienced ? It might > me more correct to state that others will experience > the " death " of your body but certainly not " you " . It's > a non-issue, as far as I'm concerned. > > One who truly understands this, not merely > intellectually, abides *AS* the deathless. > > You on the other hand seem to have investigated this > subject from your angle and formed a firm conviction; > you will probably remain enclosed by your conclusions. > ...Nothing can penetrate your defensive armour > at the moment. > > So let's not labour the point, wasting each other > time. Maybe we should continue this topic during > another episode. > > One more point below... > > --- dan330033 <berkowd@u...> wrote: > > > You're distorting things, because you're taking > > your ideational process as if it refers to facts. > > > > That concept doesn't have to be around for something > > to be experienced. It's a linguistic concept. > > So what? It doesn't have any power to keep > > something from being experienced. > > Describe to me one single thing you experienced > without thought, without concept, without words ? > > -dave > > > > > > 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.