Guest guest Posted January 14, 2005 Report Share Posted January 14, 2005 L: The middle path is through " letting go " of all that arises in the mind toward sunyata. This " letting go " is achieved " without effort " that is you cannot let go by trying to let go (that is effort) and it is a difficult art to master. So you can see why self-inquiry practices are somewhat anti-thetical to the practices of the middle path. D: Zen koan practice can involve intense self-inquiry and isn't antithetical to the middle way. The self-inquiry is the middle way. The self-inquiry keeps bringing you back to your self-contradiction, until (now) you are clear on this truth of non-separation, which is the middle way. To me, the deepest koan practice isn't a practice at all -- it's direct, spontaneous, urgent self-observation unmediated by religion or expert. The koan is me, my life, the self-contradiction I am attempting to live. That is the inquiry, that is where the middle way is comprehended -- right now, where the self-contradiction is trying to have a separate existence that it can't have. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 14, 2005 Report Share Posted January 14, 2005 dan330033 wrote: > > L: > The middle path is through " letting go " of all that arises in the > mind > toward sunyata. This " letting go " is achieved " without effort " that > is > you cannot let go by trying to let go (that is effort) and it is a > difficult art to master. So you can see why self-inquiry practices > are > somewhat anti-thetical to the practices of the middle path. > > D: Zen koan practice can involve intense self-inquiry and > isn't antithetical to the middle way. > > The self-inquiry is the middle way. It is somewhat anti-thetical. And it is part and only a beginning of the middle way. The entrance so to speak to it. There is more. > > The self-inquiry keeps bringing you back > to your self-contradiction, until (now) you > are clear on this truth of non-separation, > which is the middle way. You say it. It is a beginning, where you see the path and then step onto the path. You must find the path before you walk it. That is why it is difficult to enter. > > To me, the deepest koan practice isn't a practice at > all -- it's direct, spontaneous, urgent > self-observation unmediated > by religion or expert. That is the beginning before the path. Self-observation is a beginning to see the middle path. > > The koan is me, my life, the self-contradiction I am > attempting to live. Yes. That is the inquiry, that is > where the middle way is comprehended -- right now, > where the self-contradiction is trying to have > a separate existence that it can't have. > > -- Dan Again you say it. Inquiry leads to comprehension of the middle way. But is comprehension of the middle way, the middle way? Once such inquiry and self-observation is made what is done? When there is comprehension of the middle way what occurs? More self-observation and self-inquiry in an endless cycle of such? What is done when " self-contradiction is trying to have a separate existence that it can't have? " Is it simply more " direct, spontaneously urgent, self-observation unmediated by religion or expert? " Could that be the same as endless cycling of thought? Is this the middle way? These are not rhetorical questions. Please tell your experience of what it is like being on the middle way or out of it so that we may learn more than what appears to be the door to it. Standing at the door to meet you, Lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 14, 2005 Report Share Posted January 14, 2005 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > > L: > The middle path is through " letting go " of all that arises in the > mind > toward sunyata. This " letting go " is achieved " without effort " that > is > you cannot let go by trying to let go (that is effort) and it is a > difficult art to master. So you can see why self-inquiry practices > are > somewhat anti-thetical to the practices of the middle path. > > D: Zen koan practice can involve intense self-inquiry and > isn't antithetical to the middle way. > > The self-inquiry is the middle way. > > The self-inquiry keeps bringing you back > to your self-contradiction, until (now) you > are clear on this truth of non-separation, > which is the middle way. > > To me, the deepest koan practice isn't a practice at > all -- it's direct, spontaneous, urgent > self-observation unmediated > by religion or expert. > > The koan is me, my life, the self-contradiction I am > attempting to live. That is the inquiry, that is > where the middle way is comprehended -- right now, > where the self-contradiction is trying to have > a separate existence that it can't have. > > -- Dan Here's a koan for you: what was your face like when you were ten years old? Or if you are younger that ten years: how will your face feel like at that time? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 14, 2005 Report Share Posted January 14, 2005 Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > dan330033 wrote: > > > > L: > > The middle path is through " letting go " of all that arises in the > > mind > > toward sunyata. This " letting go " is achieved " without effort " that > > is > > you cannot let go by trying to let go (that is effort) and it is a > > difficult art to master. So you can see why self-inquiry practices > > are > > somewhat anti-thetical to the practices of the middle path. > > > > D: Zen koan practice can involve intense self-inquiry and > > isn't antithetical to the middle way. > > > > The self-inquiry is the middle way. > > > It is somewhat anti-thetical. And it is part and only a beginning of the > middle way. The entrance so to speak to it. There is more. > > > > > > The self-inquiry keeps bringing you back > > to your self-contradiction, until (now) you > > are clear on this truth of non-separation, > > which is the middle way. > > > > You say it. It is a beginning, where you see the path and then step onto > the path. You must find the path before you walk it. That is why it is > difficult to enter. Hi Lewis - One can't enter what already is so. Thus, because one can't enter it, one thinks it is difficult. One thinks up all kinds of explanations about a path, how it has to be walked, and so on. But none of that thinking has any relevance to *this*, the middle way. > > To me, the deepest koan practice isn't a practice at > > all -- it's direct, spontaneous, urgent > > self-observation unmediated > > by religion or expert. > > > That is the beginning before the path. Self-observation is a beginning > to see the middle path. The middle way isn't a path. The way that can be indicated, isn't the way, as my good buddy Lao Tzu said. Self-observation *is* the middle way. Only as no other is located, no self is involved in the observing. That there is no observer and nothing to observe, that no self is doing it -- this *is* self-observation, this *is* the middle way. > > The koan is me, my life, the self-contradiction I am > > attempting to live. > > > Yes. > > > > That is the inquiry, that is > > where the middle way is comprehended -- right now, > > where the self-contradiction is trying to have > > a separate existence that it can't have. > > > > -- Dan > > > Again you say it. Inquiry leads to comprehension of the middle way. But > is comprehension of the middle way, the middle way? The middle way is the mutual co-arising and co-defining of all events, including birth, existence, death. It already always is so. If you think there is something for you to comprehend, you are already imbalancing yourself. > Once such inquiry and self-observation is made what is done? When there > is comprehension of the middle way what occurs? More self- observation > and self-inquiry in an endless cycle of such? How can there be an endless cycle of anything, when there is no thing that persists anywhere? > What is done when " self-contradiction is trying to have a separate > existence that it can't have? " Is it simply more " direct, spontaneously > urgent, self-observation unmediated by religion or expert? " Could that > be the same as endless cycling of thought? Is this the middle way? One must be clear that any use of words involves a process over time, including your words and mine. This insight doesn't take time, so it's not in the words. The words are only pointers to an understanding that doesn't depend on words. And, of course, words about the middle way are included. > These are not rhetorical questions. Please tell your experience of what > it is like being on the middle way or out of it so that we may learn > more than what appears to be the door to it. I like middle way teachings. To me, they interconnect well with teachings from Jesus and Lao Tzu. All of which accords with my experience. My experience is of a falling away of everything to do with identity and identification as an existing being with its own selfhood, then reintegrating into day to day human life. What I like about middle way teachings is that they don't lead themselves to reification (that is, to taking words as representing some existing thing, as tends to happen, but needn't happen, with concepts about god.). Also, Lao Tzu's use of " the way " seems to involve awareness of non-reification. The middle way is clarity that there is neither permanence nor absence of anything, and that meaning (including the meaning of 'middle way') has no absolute or fixed status, nor is it annihilated. > Standing at the door to meet you, There is no other here to meet me. Hence no self to present. With nothing having its own continuing existence, nonetheless, a tree is a tree, a cloud is a cloud. Life is as it is. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 14, 2005 Report Share Posted January 14, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > > > > L: > > The middle path is through " letting go " of all that arises in the > > mind > > toward sunyata. This " letting go " is achieved " without effort " that > > is > > you cannot let go by trying to let go (that is effort) and it is a > > difficult art to master. So you can see why self-inquiry practices > > are > > somewhat anti-thetical to the practices of the middle path. > > > > D: Zen koan practice can involve intense self-inquiry and > > isn't antithetical to the middle way. > > > > The self-inquiry is the middle way. > > > > The self-inquiry keeps bringing you back > > to your self-contradiction, until (now) you > > are clear on this truth of non-separation, > > which is the middle way. > > > > To me, the deepest koan practice isn't a practice at > > all -- it's direct, spontaneous, urgent > > self-observation unmediated > > by religion or expert. > > > > The koan is me, my life, the self-contradiction I am > > attempting to live. That is the inquiry, that is > > where the middle way is comprehended -- right now, > > where the self-contradiction is trying to have > > a separate existence that it can't have. > > > > -- Dan > > Here's a koan for you: what was your face like when you were ten years > old? Or if you are younger that ten years: how will your face feel > like at that time? What was your face like when you were star shine? What is the sound of one hand sticking its middle finger in the air? (Just kidding :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2005 Report Share Posted January 15, 2005 dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> > wrote: > > > > > > dan330033 wrote: > > > > > > L: > > > The middle path is through " letting go " of all that arises in the > > > mind > > > toward sunyata. This " letting go " is achieved " without effort " > that > > > is > > > you cannot let go by trying to let go (that is effort) and it is > a > > > difficult art to master. So you can see why self-inquiry > practices > > > are > > > somewhat anti-thetical to the practices of the middle path. > > > > > > D: Zen koan practice can involve intense self-inquiry and > > > isn't antithetical to the middle way. > > > > > > The self-inquiry is the middle way. > > > > > > It is somewhat anti-thetical. And it is part and only a beginning > of the > > middle way. The entrance so to speak to it. There is more. > > > > > > > > > > The self-inquiry keeps bringing you back > > > to your self-contradiction, until (now) you > > > are clear on this truth of non-separation, > > > which is the middle way. > > > > > > > > You say it. It is a beginning, where you see the path and then > step onto > > the path. You must find the path before you walk it. That is why > it is > > difficult to enter. > > Hi Lewis - > > One can't enter what already is so. Yes you can. And who says one cannot? When you speak from what is already so, we can see those who are wandering in what is already so, not knowing they are in it blinded by that which they do not yet understand. So with compassion we help them to open their eyes to see what they are in. When we see we " enter. " This is like the compassion of the Buddha who could not directly take the scales off the eyes of the wanderers but offered solace and guidance speaking from what is already so and showing them the middle path. It is a way to take the scales off and then when they do, they see what was in plain sight all along. However, as we do this we feel as if we are on a journey, progressing step by step towards that we learned and when we realize it was there along we no longer talk of the path. But when we look, we see others and compassion arises and so we give us to them, we give them the middle path or Advaita Vedanta or other things to help them along with what they perceive as a way to what is. It is a dream path or way but compassionate aid is provided to navigate, not mystification. > > Thus, because one can't enter it, one thinks it is difficult. You say it your self " because one can't enter it. " Enter what? What is already so? You say we cannot enter it because it is already so? Which way is it, Dan? > > One thinks up all kinds of explanations about a path, how > it has to be walked, and so on. > > But none of that thinking has any relevance to *this*, the > middle way. There have been no explanations about a path. No one says one has to do anything. There was my statement that " The middle path is through " letting go " of all that arises in the mind toward sunyata. " I never described a path, only pointed briefly to a practice that is done throughout the Buddhist universe regardless of sect and that such a practice is somewhat anti-thetical to the self-inquiry practiced of Advaita Vedanta. to *this,* the middle way? What is *this.* You have concept on top of concept that ends in an absurdity. One concept points to an indescribable and links to another concept making it indescribable. So now the middle way is indescribable and so we are silenced on what is said or are we. This is a parlor trick like Nagarjuna played on his opponents. But why play it here, Dan? > > > > To me, the deepest koan practice isn't a practice at > > > all -- it's direct, spontaneous, urgent > > > self-observation unmediated > > > by religion or expert. > > > > > > That is the beginning before the path. Self-observation is a > beginning > > to see the middle path. > > The middle way isn't a path. The way that can be indicated, > isn't the way, as my good buddy Lao Tzu said. Regardless of what you think Lao Tzu said, he gave all the side pointers necessary to hem you into what he thought the way was. Such a statement is simply meant to keep you from solidifying a way since the natural person needs no such guidelines. You mean to change the notion of way to something indescribable but understandable but you are not making it clear. Let's look at what happened, so it can be seen. Did I delineate a path, Dan? None was delineated. I made a simple statement about letting go without effort as simple practice in the conventional reality of a generalized notion of the middle way or path and that that was somewhat anti-thetical to self-inquiry. Nothing more. No description was proffered. You asserted in turn that it was not that. You did not see or ignored the " somewhat, " threw away letting go without effort and asserted with finality. " The self-inquiry is the middle way. " I returned to challenge your assertion as it was done with self-observation and self-inquiry as a door or entrance to the middle path and not the middle path. You return without addressing the statements challenged and in turn try to make the middle path disappear, and appear as necessary for your argument. So it is there, then not, then it is, then not. Then not again. You are trying to say something but there is a webbing you seem to be caught in. Let's look, again > > Self-observation *is* the middle way. Only as no other > is located, no self is involved in the observing. > That there is no observer > and nothing to observe, that no self is doing it -- this > *is* self-observation, this *is* the middle way. Here you are back to your middle way making it appear again and against the advice of Lao Tzu who you invoked to say it cannot be indicated. By removing the observer or observed you do nothing for your presentation. It is a play with words and concepts that perhaps you do not intend since what you wrote above should read, based on your assumption of no observer and no observed and therefore conceptually no self-observation. " is " the middle way. What could this mean? I feel you and you perhaps mean something else; perhaps that self-observation is observing without an observer or object of observation. But that is a conceptual and linguistic confusion. Or Perhaps you mean awareness that is not aware of itself or " apperception " So we could say your formulation is: Awareness that is not aware of itself " is " the middle way. " Apperception " " is " the middle way. Perhaps you may want to reconsider the use of the word " way' because of its denotations and connotations (see below.) which would not fit what is on the left side of the predicate. Too dissimilar in concept. Way - the course traveled from one place to another; a course (as a series of actions or sequence of events) leading in a direction or toward an objective; manner or method of doing or happening; method of accomplishing; a journey or passage; and so on > > > The koan is me, my life, the self-contradiction I am > > > attempting to live. > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > > That is the inquiry, that is > > > where the middle way is comprehended -- right now, > > > where the self-contradiction is trying to have > > > a separate existence that it can't have. > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > Again you say it. Inquiry leads to comprehension of the middle > way. But > > is comprehension of the middle way, the middle way? > > The middle way is the mutual co-arising and co-defining > of all events, including birth, existence, death. > It already always is so. Are you defining conventional reality as the middle way? Nagarjuna would have your head for that statement since statements of any sort have no relation to what is or what is already so. If you think > there is something for you to comprehend, you are already > imbalancing yourself. You said that, Dan. I did not. Read your words three Dan's up. You are standing on one leg now. > > > Once such inquiry and self-observation is made what is done? When > there > > is comprehension of the middle way what occurs? More self- > observation > > and self-inquiry in an endless cycle of such? > > How can there be an endless cycle of anything, when there > is no thing that persists anywhere? Self-observation and self-inquiry are experiencing are they not? They do not need an experiencer or an object of experience as you say is that not correct? But something is happening as you say, but now it is not? So what is this? This may be a dodge since you suddenly forget your life as a koan. But perhaps you mean the human appearances and all the appearances are an " apperceiving " spinning mass of appearing and disappearing subatomic particles going in no direction. I can do that. That is quite an experience, if you really assume the concepts. Or you may mean something else by the statement " there is no thing that persists anywhere? " Here again Nagarjuna would have your head. > > > What is done when " self-contradiction is trying to have a separate > > existence that it can't have? " Is it simply more " direct, > spontaneously > > urgent, self-observation unmediated by religion or expert? " Could > that > > be the same as endless cycling of thought? Is this the middle way? > > One must be clear that any use of words involves a process > over time, including your words and mine. That seems so, if you assume the concepts of " process over time and your words and mine. " > > This insight doesn't take time, so it's not in the words. > > The words are only pointers to an understanding that doesn't > depend on words. And, of course, words about the middle > way are included. Yes. > > > These are not rhetorical questions. Please tell your experience of > what > > it is like being on the middle way or out of it so that we may > learn > > more than what appears to be the door to it. > > I like middle way teachings. To me, they interconnect well > with teachings from Jesus and Lao Tzu. All of which accords > with my experience. > > My experience is of a falling away of everything to do with > identity and identification as an existing being with > its own selfhood, then reintegrating into day to day human life. > > What I like about middle way > teachings is that they don't lead themselves to reification > (that is, to taking words as representing some existing thing, > as tends to happen, but needn't happen, > with concepts about god.). Also, Lao Tzu's use of " the way " > seems to involve awareness of non-reification. > > The middle way is clarity that there is neither permanence > nor absence of anything, and that meaning (including > the meaning of 'middle way') has no absolute or fixed status, > nor is it annihilated. Thank you Dan, this is lovely. This is understood intellectually by most if not all here and in experience too. > > > Standing at the door to meet you, > > There is no other here to meet me. Hence no self to present. You have presented a lot of your " self " as evidenced by all that you wrote, that is, what you have assumed by way of concept and identity in order to talk with me. So perhaps you mean to say something different and are having a hard time doing that. You fade in and out of one state to another intentionally or not but that is as you are and I can drink you like that and a long drink you are Dan. > > With nothing having its own continuing existence, nonetheless, > a tree is a tree, a cloud is a cloud. > > Life is as it is. > > -- Dan Yes. Life is as it is. Lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2005 Report Share Posted January 15, 2005 Hi Lewis, Two bits on one of the observations.......... - Lewis Burgess Nisargadatta Saturday, January 15, 2005 4:48 AM Re: Re: The Self-Inquiry Revolution > > Hi Lewis - > > One can't enter what already is so. Yes you can. And who says one cannot? When you speak from what is already so, we can see those who are wandering in what is already so, not knowing they are in it blinded by that which they do not yet understand. So with compassion we help them to open their eyes to see what they are in. When we see we " enter. " ------- In.....seeing, knowing, apperceiving, the blooming Enlightened state or whatever temn is fancied... ..in that.... there is no " other " who are either wandering about blind....... OR....enlightened. One of the characters in the last night sleep dream was deeply afflicted, was in sever pain, suffering et al. Today morning, awake. sipping from a hot cup of tea, out of compassion, if I am looking to locate a specific balm which I believe will help, aid that ailing character, has the last night-sleep dream ended.........as yet? So what was the case for the Buddhas, the Nisargadattas, the Ramanas. Responded below your further comments. ---------- This is like the compassion of the Buddha who could not directly take the scales off the eyes of the wanderers but offered solace and guidance speaking from what is already so and showing them the middle path. It is a way to take the scales off and then when they do, they see what was in plain sight all along. ---- The Buddha, the Ramana, the Nisargadatta did nothing. There is no compassion of Buddha, there were none to be compassionated either. A nuance of functioning which is termed as compassion,.......... at its highest intensity.........got to be actualized in the milieu of the moment, through such durational appearances which came to be known as Buddha, Ramana, Nisargadatta. There was no Buddha seeing wandering suffering souls, such that he could be compassionate and show them what is what. That is why it is said that Buddha spoke for 40 years and not a single utterance left his lips. Likewise, the case Ramana and the case of the Beedi dude. In the case of Ramana there is an anecdote when he was asked 'Since you are already enlightened, why don't you just wave your hand or something and enlighten everybody, every suffering being, in one go? " The dude replied " When you wake from a dream, where is left the dreamed-up characters, such that they can be awakened?' What is already so........remains so..... ......even if it transmutes itself into myriad of forms, hues, shapes , drama, ados...gestalts of duality, in which all conceptualizations of duality and non-duality erupt......... ............aka the hoopla of phenomenal reality. The arising and dissipating of the hoopla, in no way affects, alters what is already so. A waking horse is always on its feet. That same horse, while asleep is also on its feet. The waking or the asleep conditions, and the inter-alia transition between the states, in no way affects the intrinsic standing state of the horse. ----------------- However, as we do this we feel as if we are on a journey, progressing step by step towards that we learned and when we realize it was there along we no longer talk of the path. But when we look, we see others and compassion arises and so we give us to them, we give them the middle path or Advaita Vedanta or other things to help them along with what they perceive as a way to what is. It is a dream path or way but compassionate aid is provided to navigate, not mystification. --- The distinction between something as compassionate and something as mystification, .... ....as any sense of distinction is only of relevance...... for a conditioned self, isn't it? There is compassion-ing.......... as the very moment, ........none being compassionate...... .........and none being compassionated in that moment. In the same vein,................there is this posting over cyber space.......... as the very moment..... .....no author thereof ......and none to be explained, convinced or compassionated through such hoopla in that moment. Laaaadeeee daaaaa daaaaaa deeeeee. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2005 Report Share Posted January 15, 2005 Hi Sandeep, Here is my drink of you. Lewis sandeep wrote: > Hi Lewis, > > Two bits on one of the observations.......... > > > - > Lewis Burgess > Nisargadatta > Saturday, January 15, 2005 4:48 AM > Re: Re: The Self-Inquiry Revolution > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Lewis - > > > > One can't enter what already is so. > > > > > Yes you can. And who says one cannot? > > When you speak from what is already so, we can see those who are > wandering in what is already so, not knowing they are in it blinded by > that which they do not yet understand. So with compassion we help them > to open their eyes to see what they are in. When we see we " enter. " > > ------- > > In.....seeing, knowing, apperceiving, the blooming Enlightened state > or whatever temn is fancied... > > ..in that.... there is no " other " who are either wandering about > blind....... OR....enlightened. > > One of the characters in the last night sleep dream was deeply > afflicted, was in sever pain, suffering et al. > Today morning, awake. sipping from a hot cup of tea, out of > compassion, if I am looking to locate a specific balm which I believe > will help, aid that ailing character, > > has the last night-sleep dream ended.........as yet? > > So what was the case for the Buddhas, the Nisargadattas, the Ramanas. > One will only imagine things unless you are as they and if that is so, there is nothing to say or look for for themselves, for you. Speaking as Nagarjuna, so there is no misapprehension, as long as conventional reality is held as a focus, the dream continues. Using conventional reality to allay what came about them is what they spent their lives doing. Otherwise they would have remained silent. They were not silent but taught using conventional reality as tool. As you attempt to do. The tetralemma removes any concept of self so we need not think of personalities and the like nor imagine what the voices and writings they left meant or how they were misperceived because they knew not dependent origination. It happened and the stories remain, conventional as they are. But if you are fully blown, die hard version of a Madhyamika why do you say it? Or if you are something else? why do you say it? > Responded below your further comments. > > ---------- > > > This is like the compassion of the Buddha who could not directly take > the scales off the eyes of the wanderers but offered solace and guidance > speaking from what is already so and showing them the middle path. It is > a way to take the scales off and then when they do, they see what was in > plain sight all along. > > ---- > > The Buddha, the Ramana, the Nisargadatta did nothing. > > There is no compassion of Buddha, there were none to be compassionated > either. You say that for what reason? To teach me, Sandeep? We are in conventional reality and we use language as such for the purposes proposed. Your pronouncements and mine and all the sages and saints fall to the ground by the tetralemma. Please do not use your imagination to know me. And why do you say it? > > A nuance of functioning which is termed as compassion,.......... at > its highest intensity.........got to be actualized in the milieu of the > moment, through such durational appearances which came to be known as > Buddha, Ramana, Nisargadatta. Geesh! In conventional reality, in plain English, we say they (who have no selves) had compassion. There is no need here to try to speak from an imagined sunyata. Again the tetralemma calls you to account. Why speak? Why respond? Why do you say it? > > There was no Buddha seeing wandering suffering souls, such that he > could be compassionate and show them what is what. And so it continues. Why do you say it? > > That is why it is said that Buddha spoke for 40 years and not a single > utterance left his lips. > > Likewise, the case Ramana and the case of the Beedi dude. Is this a mystery in the light of the tetralemma? There is no secret in this or confusion. Why do you say it? > > In the case of Ramana there is an anecdote when he was asked 'Since > you are already enlightened, why don't you just wave your hand or > something and enlighten everybody, every suffering being, in one go? " > > The dude replied " When you wake from a dream, where is left the > dreamed-up characters, such that they can be awakened?' Is this something to think about? The tetralemma silences all. Why do you say it? > > What is already so........remains so..... > > ......even if it transmutes itself into myriad of forms, hues, shapes > , drama, ados...gestalts of duality, in which all conceptualizations of > duality and non-duality erupt......... > > ............aka the hoopla of phenomenal reality. > Your words are vapor they rise and dissipate so why do you say it? > The arising and dissipating of the hoopla, in no way affects, alters > what is already so. You swim upstream for no reason and so why do you say it? > > > A waking horse is always on its feet. > > That same horse, while asleep is also on its feet. > > The waking or the asleep conditions, and the inter-alia transition > between the states, in no way affects the intrinsic standing state of > the horse. Some can run fast too but why do you say it? > > ----------------- > > > > However, as we do this we feel as if we are on a journey, progressing > step by step towards that we learned and when we realize it was there > along we no longer talk of the path. But when we look, we see others and > compassion arises and so we give us to them, we give them the middle > path or Advaita Vedanta or other things to help them along with what > they perceive as a way to what is. > > It is a dream path or way but compassionate aid is provided to navigate, > not mystification. > > --- > > The distinction between something as compassionate and something as > mystification, .... > ....as any sense of distinction is only of relevance...... for a > conditioned self, isn't it? > Yes. That is as it is. There is help and hindrance in conventional reality. Is there not? Why do you say it? > > > > > There is compassion-ing.......... as the very moment, ........none > being compassionate...... > > .........and none being compassionated in that moment. > > > In the same vein,................there is this posting over cyber > space.......... as the very moment..... > > .....no author thereof ......and none to be explained, convinced or > compassionated through such hoopla in that moment. > You are what you are and speak as you do inside conventional reality appearing as if you were on a ......fluffy cloud.............lying on your side...... .beatific smile........making these statement...... repeated from elsewhere...... You say nothing. You know it. So why do you say it? I drink it all as it is. > Laaaadeeee daaaaa daaaaaa deeeeee. A Sandeep song of life? I wonder if there is " a nuance of functioning which is termed as compassion " in this song? Please tell me if there is. I do not imagine you at all. And be careful not to violate the tetralemma, Sandeep. Lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2005 Report Share Posted January 15, 2005 :-) Lewis.........have a re-look. All the " why " (s) were answered even before their articulation. - Lewis Burgess Nisargadatta Saturday, January 15, 2005 11:23 AM Re: Re: The Self-Inquiry Revolution Hi Sandeep, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2005 Report Share Posted January 15, 2005 Nisargadatta , " sandeep " <sandeepc@b...> wrote: > > :-) > > Lewis.........have a re-look. > > All the " why " (s) were answered even before their articulation. > - > Lewis Burgess > Nisargadatta > Saturday, January 15, 2005 11:23 AM > Re: Re: The Self-Inquiry Revolution > > > Hi Sandeep, As it reflects the existence of Sandeep; empty, without distinction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2005 Report Share Posted January 18, 2005 If you post here, you have entered conventional reality. ----- Nope. 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.