Guest guest Posted January 15, 2005 Report Share Posted January 15, 2005 What a performance! A round dance of transferences and countertransferences! One step more and, you are taking yourselves deadly serious enough to impersonate actors on a mockery.....Gosh, I shouldn't have said that. I guess, I am in danger of becoming truly compassionate. :0)) (if someone was missing Odysseus) Kip Almazy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2005 Report Share Posted January 15, 2005 Section XXV. The Illusion of Self Subhuti, what do you think? Let no one say the Tathagata cherishes the idea: I must liberate all living beings. Allow no such thought, Subhuti. Wherefore? Because in reality there are no living beings to be liberated by the Tathagata. If there were living beings for the Tathagata to liberate, He would partake in the idea of selfhood, personality entity, and separate individuality. Subhuti, though the common people accept egoity as real, the Tathagata declares that self is not different from no-self. Subhuti, those whom the Tathagata referred to as " common people " are not really common people; such is merely a name. - diamond cutter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2005 Report Share Posted January 15, 2005 kipalmazy wrote: > > > > What a performance! A round dance of transferences and > countertransferences! > One step more and, you are taking yourselves deadly serious enough > to impersonate actors on a mockery.....Gosh, I shouldn't have said > that. I guess, I am in danger of becoming truly compassionate. > > :0)) (if someone was missing Odysseus) > > > Kip Almazy Lovely, wasn't it. Yes Lovely! Transferences and Countertransference, Kip? How could that happen no one was there and nothing was said! Get a grip, Kip! Odysseus is here! :0) Lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2005 Report Share Posted January 15, 2005 kipalmazy wrote: > > Section XXV. The Illusion of Self > > Subhuti, what do you think? Let no one say the Tathagata cherishes > the idea: I must liberate all living beings. Allow no such thought, > Subhuti. > > Wherefore? Because in reality there are no living beings to be > liberated by the Tathagata. If there were living beings for the > Tathagata to liberate, He would partake in the idea of selfhood, > personality entity, and separate individuality. > > Subhuti, though the common people accept egoity as real, the > Tathagata declares that self is not different from no-self. Subhuti, > those whom the Tathagata referred to as " common people " are not > really common people; such is merely a name. - diamond cutter Metta Sutta This is what should be done By one who is skilled in goodness, And who knows the path of peace: Let them be able and upright, Straightforward and gentle in speech. Humble and not conceited, Contented and easily satisfied. Unburdened with duties and frugal in their ways. Peaceful and calm, and wise and skillful, Not proud and demanding in nature. Let them not do the slightest thing That the wise would later reprove. Wishing: In gladness and in saftey, May all beings be at ease. Whatever living beings there may be; Whether they are weak or strong, omitting none, The great or the mighty, medium, short or small, The seen and the unseen, Those living near and far away, Those born and to-be-born, May all beings be at ease! Let none deceive another, Or despise any being in any state. Let none through anger or ill-will Wish harm upon another. Even as a mother protects with her life Her child, her only child, So with a boundless heart Should one cherish all living beings: Radiating kindness over the entire world Spreading upwards to the skies, And downwards to the depths; Outwards and unbounded, Freed from hatred and ill-will. Whether standing or walking, seated or lying down Free from drowsiness, One should sustain this recollection. This is said to be the sublime abiding. By not holding to fixed views, The pure-hearted one, having clarity of vision, Being freed from all sense desires, Is not born again into this world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2005 Report Share Posted January 15, 2005 In a message dated 1/14/05 11:59:25 PM, lbb10 writes: Gentlemen, gentlemen! Here I have a golden opportunity to bring reconciliation to the views of 3 of my favorite Internet sages. LOL, Pete the peacemaker, will wonders never cease! This is really a fascinating topic. First, could we say the two posts below are by the same author? Probably not. Secondly, Are they contradictory? They seem to be, but not really. One says, there is no beings to be saved, the other advises compassion to all beings, including working for their salvation as promised in the boddhisatva's vow. This seems to encapsulate the Sandy/Lewis debate. How can this gap be bridged? Allow me an example/metaphore from the neurological annals. A man is afflicted with a rare case of amnesia due to brain injury. He forgets everything that happens during the day after he goes to sleep at night. Sleeps wipes his brain clean. So he keeps a dairy in which he writes everything that happened during the day and that he thinks he must know next day. Each day on waking up he reads the dairy, which gets progressively longer. Each day, he must save the man he will be, from not knowing who he was! And that is exactly the situation you are debating. There is no one to be saved, we are all the same X, but this X doesn't recognize itself as X while being a, b, c, etc. So 'a' on realizing itself to be 'X', feels it must save the rest of the alphabet from this ''not knowing' they, are X. I wrote a somewhat tongue in cheek piece on this, entitled " At the Philosophical Saloon " and is posted here. So, Sandy speaks as an X who knows he is X in his sleep. He knows the other characters in the dream are only himself, the error if any, is to project from this knowing, that the dream is over, and you as the other do not know you... are you. The dream is never completely over while in the flesh. The alphabet soup keeps boiling. So the moral of the story is.... Be good to yourself! Sip da du la la... and drink deeply from.... Da Soup! ) Pete > > > > kipalmazy wrote: > > > > > Section XXV. The Illusion of Self > > > > Subhuti, what do you think? Let no one say the Tathagata cherishes > > the idea: I must liberate all living beings. Allow no such thought, > > Subhuti. > > > > Wherefore? Because in reality there are no living beings to be > > liberated by the Tathagata. If there were living beings for the > > Tathagata to liberate, He would partake in the idea of selfhood, > > personality entity, and separate individuality. > > > > Subhuti, though the common people accept egoity as real, the > > Tathagata declares that self is not different from no-self. Subhuti, > > those whom the Tathagata referred to as " common people " are not > > really common people; such is merely a name. - diamond cutter > > > > Metta Sutta > > This is what should be done > By one who is skilled in goodness, > And who knows the path of peace: > Let them be able and upright, > Straightforward and gentle in speech. > Humble and not conceited, > Contented and easily satisfied. > Unburdened with duties and frugal in their ways. > Peaceful and calm, and wise and skillful, > Not proud and demanding in nature. > Let them not do the slightest thing > That the wise would later reprove. > Wishing: In gladness and in saftey, > May all beings be at ease. > Whatever living beings there may be; > Whether they are weak or strong, omitting none, > The great or the mighty, medium, short or small, > The seen and the unseen, > Those living near and far away, > Those born and to-be-born, > May all beings be at ease! > > Let none deceive another, > Or despise any being in any state. > Let none through anger or ill-will > Wish harm upon another. > Even as a mother protects with her life > Her child, her only child, > So with a boundless heart > Should one cherish all living beings: > Radiating kindness over the entire world > Spreading upwards to the skies, > And downwards to the depths; > Outwards and unbounded, > Freed from hatred and ill-will. > Whether standing or walking, seated or lying down > Free from drowsiness, > One should sustain this recollection. > This is said to be the sublime abiding. > By not holding to fixed views, > The pure-hearted one, having clarity of vision, > Being freed from all sense desires, > Is not born again into this world. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2005 Report Share Posted January 15, 2005 In a message dated 1/15/05 12:14:33 PM, lbb10 writes: > > L: >Your solution equals what Buddha (who has no self) did as example in > word and deed in coventional reality and ultimate reality. It is the > >way of Nargajuna (who has no self) who never denied outreach. > > >The existence of the self is not necessary for the appearance or > expression of compassion nor is there a need to consider its > existence or non-existence. This is clear by the understanding of > the tetralemma and dependent origination. This knowledge has been > >demonstrated. These matters are clearly known. > > >So why try to make compassion and wanderers disappear? Shall we use > the tetralemma to discard the Metta Sutta from the corpus of those > >teachings at our whim? One may do so or not as predisposed. > > >Any one reading the Diamond Sutra and the Metta Sutta as one, can > see the fakery and misuse of the tetralemma for no other purpose but > to silence a voice for unstated reasons as witnessed in those > >exchanges. > P; Yes, I'm with you. Sandy's position, in my view, has a categorical negative tone, which smells too strongly of belief: Sandy: " There is compassion-ing in the moment......which creates durational appearances, aka the sense of " the compassionate " and the notionally separated..... ...the sense of " the compassionated " . Both the durational appearances..... are a " sense of " ,.....there is not whit of existential reality to either of the appearing manifested biological objects. " There would be nothing wrong with the above statement if he would qualify it thus: " Both the durational appearances..... are a " sense of " ,.....[there is no prove] of existential reality to either of the appearing manifested biological objects, [as there cannot be prove of their non-existence.] " He could be making categorical statements for didactic purposes, but that sometimes backfires leaving people like Toom stuck in a nihilistic limbo. That is only my opinion, and I could be wrong. Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2005 Report Share Posted January 15, 2005 Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > In a message dated 1/14/05 11:59:25 PM, lbb10@c... writes: > > Gentlemen, gentlemen! Here I have a golden opportunity to bring > reconciliation to the views of 3 of my favorite Internet sages. > LOL, Pete the peacemaker, will wonders never cease! > > This is really a fascinating topic. > > First, could we say the two posts below are by the same author? > Probably not. > > Secondly, Are they contradictory? They seem to be, but not really. > One says, there is no beings to be saved, the other advises compassion > to all beings, including working for their salvation as promised in the > boddhisatva's vow. This seems to encapsulate the Sandy/Lewis > debate. How can this gap be bridged? > > Allow me an example/metaphore from the neurological annals. > A man is afflicted with a rare case of amnesia due to brain injury. > He forgets everything that happens during the day after he goes > to sleep at night. Sleeps wipes his brain clean. So he keeps a dairy > in which he writes everything that happened during the day and that he > thinks he must know next day. Each day on waking up he reads > the dairy, which gets progressively longer. Each day, he must save > the man he will be, from not knowing who he was! > > And that is exactly the situation you are debating. There is no one > to be saved, we are all the same X, but this X doesn't recognize itself > as X while being a, b, c, etc. So 'a' on realizing itself to be 'X', > feels > it must save the rest of the alphabet from this ''not knowing' they, > are X. I wrote a somewhat tongue in cheek piece on this, entitled > " At the Philosophical Saloon " and is posted here. > > So, Sandy speaks as an X who knows he is X in his sleep. He knows > the other characters in the dream are only himself, the error if any, > is to project from this knowing, that the dream is over, and you as the other > do not know you... are you. The dream is never completely over while > in the flesh. The alphabet soup keeps boiling. So the moral of the story > is.... Be good to yourself! > > Sip da du la la... and drink deeply from.... Da Soup! ) > > Pete Maybe the opposite of amnesia could happen. When I wake up I am Anders Lindman, and I remember myself as such, but yesterday I was perhaps another person believing to be (and actually being) him or her! )))) Another, more spooky idea is: I wake up on the same day every day! /AL > > > > > > > > kipalmazy wrote: > > > > > > > > Section XXV. The Illusion of Self > > > > > > Subhuti, what do you think? Let no one say the Tathagata cherishes > > > the idea: I must liberate all living beings. Allow no such thought, > > > Subhuti. > > > > > > Wherefore? Because in reality there are no living beings to be > > > liberated by the Tathagata. If there were living beings for the > > > Tathagata to liberate, He would partake in the idea of selfhood, > > > personality entity, and separate individuality. > > > > > > Subhuti, though the common people accept egoity as real, the > > > Tathagata declares that self is not different from no-self. Subhuti, > > > those whom the Tathagata referred to as " common people " are not > > > really common people; such is merely a name. - diamond cutter > > > > > > > > Metta Sutta > > > > This is what should be done > > By one who is skilled in goodness, > > And who knows the path of peace: > > Let them be able and upright, > > Straightforward and gentle in speech. > > Humble and not conceited, > > Contented and easily satisfied. > > Unburdened with duties and frugal in their ways. > > Peaceful and calm, and wise and skillful, > > Not proud and demanding in nature. > > Let them not do the slightest thing > > That the wise would later reprove. > > Wishing: In gladness and in saftey, > > May all beings be at ease. > > Whatever living beings there may be; > > Whether they are weak or strong, omitting none, > > The great or the mighty, medium, short or small, > > The seen and the unseen, > > Those living near and far away, > > Those born and to-be-born, > > May all beings be at ease! > > > > Let none deceive another, > > Or despise any being in any state. > > Let none through anger or ill-will > > Wish harm upon another. > > Even as a mother protects with her life > > Her child, her only child, > > So with a boundless heart > > Should one cherish all living beings: > > Radiating kindness over the entire world > > Spreading upwards to the skies, > > And downwards to the depths; > > Outwards and unbounded, > > Freed from hatred and ill-will. > > Whether standing or walking, seated or lying down > > Free from drowsiness, > > One should sustain this recollection. > > This is said to be the sublime abiding. > > By not holding to fixed views, > > The pure-hearted one, having clarity of vision, > > Being freed from all sense desires, > > Is not born again into this world. > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2005 Report Share Posted January 15, 2005 Hi Pete, - Pedsie2 Nisargadatta Sunday, January 16, 2005 12:07 AM Re: Re: The Self-Inquiry Revolution/Lewis & Sandeep In a message dated 1/14/05 11:59:25 PM, lbb10 writes: Gentlemen, gentlemen! Here I have a golden opportunity to bring reconciliation to the views of 3 of my favorite Internet sages. LOL, Pete the peacemaker, will wonders never cease! -------- LOL ---------- This is really a fascinating topic. First, could we say the two posts below are by the same author? Probably not. ---------- :-) Not-two -------- Secondly, Are they contradictory? They seem to be, but not really. One says, there is no beings to be saved, the other advises compassion to all beings, including working for their salvation as promised in the boddhisatva's vow. This seems to encapsulate the Sandy/Lewis debate. How can this gap be bridged? ------- There is compassion-ing in the moment......which creates durational appearances, aka the sense of " the compassionate " and the notionally separated..... ...the sense of " the compassionated " . Both the durational appearances..... are a " sense of " ,.....there is not whit of existential reality to either of the appearing manifested biological objects. Through the Buddha.......it was this that was taught to Subhuti.... ....AND..in that very teaching... .there was no teacher as " Buddha " and no taught as " Subhuti " ---- Allow me an example/metaphore from the neurological annals. A man is afflicted with a rare case of amnesia due to brain injury. He forgets everything that happens during the day after he goes to sleep at night. Sleeps wipes his brain clean. So he keeps a dairy in which he writes everything that happened during the day and that he thinks he must know next day. Each day on waking up he reads the dairy, which gets progressively longer. Each day, he must save the man he will be, from not knowing who he was! And that is exactly the situation you are debating. There is no one to be saved, we are all the same X, but this X doesn't recognize itself as X while being a, b, c, etc. So 'a' on realizing itself to be 'X', feels it must save the rest of the alphabet from this ''not knowing' they, are X. ------- And I am suggesting Pete.......that so long for a " realized-a " .....there still exists un-realized- " b " , " c " , " d " .... ....no awakening has taken place. Again " no-awakening-taken-place " .......in a manner of speaking...for awakening is the awakening of that which was never asleep and that put to rest which never was. Now to the immediate question " Why say this to Pete " , when Pete has no existential reality.. ..like signatures of flowing waters,.. ....in the eruption of this very saying..... .....there is none to have said..... and none to have been said-to. -------- I wrote a somewhat tongue in cheek piece on this, entitled " At the Philosophical Saloon " and is posted here. So, Sandy speaks as an X who knows he is X in his sleep. He knows the other characters in the dream are only himself, the error if any, is to project from this knowing, that the dream is over, and you as the other do not know you... are you. The dream is never completely over while in the flesh. ------- Is the dream over? Is the dream not over? Both are no longer issues, when the essence is apperceived. Yes, apperception does not necesessarily mean the end of functioning..... ....which contines so long a durational appearance...continues to hoop. Zip-A-Dee-Dah-Doo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2005 Report Share Posted January 15, 2005 Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > In a message dated 1/14/05 11:59:25 PM, lbb10@c... writes: > > Gentlemen, gentlemen! Here I have a golden opportunity to bring > reconciliation to the views of 3 of my favorite Internet sages. > LOL, Pete the peacemaker, will wonders never cease! > > This is really a fascinating topic. > > First, could we say the two posts below are by the same author? > Probably not. > > Secondly, Are they contradictory? They seem to be, but not really. > One says, there is no beings to be saved, the other advises compassion > to all beings, including working for their salvation as promised in the > boddhisatva's vow. This seems to encapsulate the Sandy/Lewis > debate. How can this gap be bridged? > > Allow me an example/metaphore from the neurological annals. > A man is afflicted with a rare case of amnesia due to brain injury. > He forgets everything that happens during the day after he goes > to sleep at night. Sleeps wipes his brain clean. So he keeps a dairy > in which he writes everything that happened during the day and that he > thinks he must know next day. Each day on waking up he reads > the dairy, which gets progressively longer. Each day, he must save > the man he will be, from not knowing who he was! > > And that is exactly the situation you are debating. There is no one > to be saved, we are all the same X, but this X doesn't recognize itself > as X while being a, b, c, etc. So 'a' on realizing itself to be 'X', > feels > it must save the rest of the alphabet from this ''not knowing' they, > are X. I wrote a somewhat tongue in cheek piece on this, entitled > " At the Philosophical Saloon " and is posted here. > > So, Sandy speaks as an X who knows he is X in his sleep. He knows > the other characters in the dream are only himself, the error if any, > is to project from this knowing, that the dream is over, and you as the other > do not know you... are you. The dream is never completely over while > in the flesh. The alphabet soup keeps boiling. So the moral of the story > is.... Be good to yourself! > > Sip da du la la... and drink deeply from.... Da Soup! ) > > Pete Your solution equals what Buddha (who has no self) did as example in word and deed in coventional reality and ultimate reality. It is the way of Nargajuna (who has no self) who never denied outreach. The existence of the self is not necessary for the appearance or expression of compassion nor is there a need to consider its existence or non-existence. This is clear by the understanding of the tetralemma and dependent origination. This knowledge has been demonstrated. These matters are clearly known. So why try to make compassion and wanderers disappear? Shall we use the tetralemma to discard the Metta Sutta from the corpus of those teachings at our whim? One may do so or not as predisposed. Any one reading the Diamond Sutra and the Metta Sutta as one, can see the fakery and misuse of the tetralemma for no other purpose but to silence a voice for unstated reasons as witnessed in those exchanges. And so I say it, not in defense of a position that I hold or a status struck down or some imagined stupidty, for there are no beliefs, Buddhist or otherwise, and no status to defend or lack of knowledge in these matters, but because it is fakery done not for teaching or edification or what we do in conventional reality to experience nonduality, but for other reasons. The opportunity was given to state those reasons and it was evaded with using the tetralemma as a parlor trick. For those who take this forum as a place to learn, to experience, to pursue that which was stated in the guide, this is a lesson stated clearly. Pete, there was and is no debate. There were pronouncements to procure silence, questions without answers as to why this was attempted and parlor tricks as answers. So what? It is the denial of one voice for sake of the other and to switch back and forth for the sake of an unstated reasons, to reflect an emptiness, not of sunyata, that is what occurred. It is a frequent happening here. It is allowed. One can learn. That is understood. But, see clearly fakery as it is and call it straight. This will continue as is the want of those who do it, but it will not be whisked away, disappeared as easily as it is has before. > > kipalmazy wrote: > > > > > > > > Section XXV. The Illusion of Self > > > > > > Subhuti, what do you think? Let no one say the Tathagata cherishes > > > the idea: I must liberate all living beings. Allow no such thought, > > > Subhuti. > > > > > > Wherefore? Because in reality there are no living beings to be > > > liberated by the Tathagata. If there were living beings for the > > > Tathagata to liberate, He would partake in the idea of selfhood, > > > personality entity, and separate individuality. > > > > > > Subhuti, though the common people accept egoity as real, the > > > Tathagata declares that self is not different from no-self. Subhuti, > > > those whom the Tathagata referred to as " common people " are not > > > really common people; such is merely a name. - diamond cutter > > > > > > > > Metta Sutta > > > > This is what should be done > > By one who is skilled in goodness, > > And who knows the path of peace: > > Let them be able and upright, > > Straightforward and gentle in speech. > > Humble and not conceited, > > Contented and easily satisfied. > > Unburdened with duties and frugal in their ways. > > Peaceful and calm, and wise and skillful, > > Not proud and demanding in nature. > > Let them not do the slightest thing > > That the wise would later reprove. > > Wishing: In gladness and in saftey, > > May all beings be at ease. > > Whatever living beings there may be; > > Whether they are weak or strong, omitting none, > > The great or the mighty, medium, short or small, > > The seen and the unseen, > > Those living near and far away, > > Those born and to-be-born, > > May all beings be at ease! > > > > Let none deceive another, > > Or despise any being in any state. > > Let none through anger or ill-will > > Wish harm upon another. > > Even as a mother protects with her life > > Her child, her only child, > > So with a boundless heart > > Should one cherish all living beings: > > Radiating kindness over the entire world > > Spreading upwards to the skies, > > And downwards to the depths; > > Outwards and unbounded, > > Freed from hatred and ill-will. > > Whether standing or walking, seated or lying down > > Free from drowsiness, > > One should sustain this recollection. > > This is said to be the sublime abiding. > > By not holding to fixed views, > > The pure-hearted one, having clarity of vision, > > Being freed from all sense desires, > > Is not born again into this world. > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 16, 2005 Report Share Posted January 16, 2005 Pedsie2 wrote: > > In a message dated 1/15/05 12:14:33 PM, lbb10 writes: > > > > > > L: >Your solution equals what Buddha (who has no self) did as example in > > word and deed in coventional reality and ultimate reality. It is the > > >way of Nargajuna (who has no self) who never denied outreach. > > > > >The existence of the self is not necessary for the appearance or > > expression of compassion nor is there a need to consider its > > existence or non-existence. This is clear by the understanding of > > the tetralemma and dependent origination. This knowledge has been > > >demonstrated. These matters are clearly known. > > > > >So why try to make compassion and wanderers disappear? Shall we use > > the tetralemma to discard the Metta Sutta from the corpus of those > > >teachings at our whim? One may do so or not as predisposed. > > > > >Any one reading the Diamond Sutra and the Metta Sutta as one, can > > see the fakery and misuse of the tetralemma for no other purpose but > > to silence a voice for unstated reasons as witnessed in those > > >exchanges. > > > P; Yes, I'm with you. Sandy's position, in my view, has a categorical > negative tone, which smells > too strongly of belief: > > Sandy: " There is compassion-ing in the moment......which creates durational > appearances, aka the sense of " the compassionate " and the notionally > separated..... > > ...the sense of " the compassionated " . > > Both the durational appearances..... are a " sense of " ,.....there is not > whit of existential reality to either of the appearing manifested > biological > objects. " > > There would be nothing wrong with the above statement if he would > qualify it > thus: > > " Both the durational appearances..... are a " sense of " ,.....[there is no > prove] of existential reality to either of the appearing manifested > biological > objects, [as there cannot be prove of their non-existence.] " > > He could be making categorical statements for didactic purposes, but that > sometimes backfires > leaving people like Toom stuck in a nihilistic limbo. > > > That is only my opinion, and I could be wrong. > > Pete The tetralemma and dependent origination do not end in nihilism, to absolute nothingness as Nagarjuna has shown in his writings. The power of these to dissolve all explanations of reality made in language and concepts including itself has the single purpose of demonstrating the futility of depending on thought, language and concepts for liberation, for Self-realization. In the Advaita tradition there is transition to I am That and then to the loss of that. The end is the same. As you have pointed out, Pete, we are in the flesh and, in being so, whether in sunyata or not, Self-realized or not, in union with God or not, we face conventional reality as daily experience here and elsewhere. This cannot be disappeared with word play and the misuse of the tetralemma for unstated purposes. If there are two or more who understand this there is no need for fakery, parlor tricks, mystification. All is clear. The final limit of language and concept is recognized. We meet face to face (with selves and without them) as it is done. If we are fearless in showing our understanding as it is and facing each other as we are, without imagining the other but understanding as best we can, much can be accomplished. The battles between Advaita Vedantists and Madhyamikas, of whatever coloration and sect, as well as with others in bhakti and raja yoga, all the other traditions that express little here, and those without any beliefs or systems of thought at all, are unnecessary if it is clearly seen what each system or appearance assumes and what each then entails. Knowing each other in this way, we learn, we share, we experience each in the way we are in the way that we go and go. There are no masters and disciples here at least that is what it has seemed to be. But, if one wants to be that, a master or a disciple, than be that openly and unreservedly and call your followers to you, let them identify themselves to you and teach them as you see fit. Be a disciple to a master if that suits you. There is no need to be cloaked, speaking from hidden positions. There is no need to be master or a disciple as well. We do as we are. I say it, because the air is clouded. I can say it because I see it, experience it. Each of us can only do as we are. It can be done without fear of exposure or with it or in any way that comes. I am unable to have beliefs, Madhyamika, Advaita Vedanta or other wise. This is what I am. I am unable to adhere to concepts of any kind, practices of any kind. I am here to learn and to experience; to have experiences that explode all assumptions and attachments present in my appearance. I experience and learn what others think and practice so that I can be a part to participate in this enterprise that I do not understand, that is, how it moves and where it is going. But the experiences with others are important for the purpose stated. So I am here for that sharing and nothing more. I am able to assume all beliefs, concepts, assumptions so to understand and to experience what they entail in me and so to understand others and to share these experiences. Yet I am unable to keep them. I am helpless in this. So, I may appear as a chameleon but that is the surface, and as a chameleon is what is, regardless of its changes in external appearance, so am I. There is me as a conditioned appearance that is able to do some things and unable to do others for reasons not understood as it is. So understand me as I am. I say it you. You do as you are and I am unable to say what that is. We do as we do. Lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 16, 2005 Report Share Posted January 16, 2005 > > Lewis, I view all posters in these lists as workers bees in a ciber-guru beehive. This beehive has no queen. We all are equally workers, gathering honey, and feeding each other, and whatever larvae might be lurking. There is no master, we are all needed, I no less than you, or even Stephan, Toom, Alberto, all contribute their work. If I say something which is true, it's helpful, if I say something false, someone else will object, get people thinking, posting, the correct answer might emerge. Ultimately, there is no correct answer. No one knows what will trigger a deep insight. The words of a sage might, The sound of a stone hitting a rusting can could. I, as you, hold to no special belief, and say what I'm moved to say, or say what other voices prompt me to say. No one should expect a consistent line out me. I sing the lines I'm given. Out of the cacophony of all our voices a hymn, a mantra emerge. Crickets singing in a summer night, dogs howling at the moon, such are we. Good to howl with you, Pete > > In a message dated 1/15/05 9:44:49 PM, lbb10 writes: > Lewis: " There are no masters and disciples here at least that is what it > has > seemed to be. But, if one wants to be that, a master or a disciple, than > be that openly and unreservedly and call your followers to you, let them > identify themselves to you and teach them as you see fit. Be a disciple > to a master if that suits you. There is no need to be cloaked, speaking > from hidden positions. There is no need to be master or a disciple as > well. We do as we are. " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 16, 2005 Report Share Posted January 16, 2005 Hi Pete, Pedsie2@a... Sun Jan 16, 2005 3:56 am Re: Re: The Self-Inquiry Revolution/Lewis & Sandeep P; Yes, I'm with you. Sandy's position, in my view, has a categorical negative tone, which smells too strongly of belief: ----- :-) Whatever you say, Pete. ------- Sandy: " There is compassion-ing in the moment......which creates durational appearances, aka the sense of " the compassionate " and the notionally separated..... ...the sense of " the compassionated " . Both the durational appearances..... are a " sense of " ,.....there is not whit of existential reality to either of the appearing manifested biological objects. " There would be nothing wrong with the above statement if he would qualify it thus: " Both the durational appearances..... are a " sense of " ,.....[there is no prove] of existential reality to either of the appearing manifested biological objects, [as there cannot be prove of their non-existence.] " ---------- Anything said, stated or conveyed by any means, at any time, at any place, through anybody, apparently to somebody.............ever........ ....only a qualification has come to birth,........ in that moment. Both existence and non-existence are meaningless relative to durational appearances. However since the identification results the belief of the existential reality of the " self " and " the-other-than-self " .........it is this identification which is negated in the uttering, in the qualification. In the apperception of the notionality of what was hereto identified with, is the apperception of the notionality of the identifier. The negation of the " negator " . Leaving the need of proofs as moot, ........whether of existence or of non-existence. --------- He could be making categorical statements for didactic purposes, but that sometimes backfires leaving people like Toom stuck in a nihilistic limbo. ----- LOL Toom and nihilistic limbo. Nihilism is an interesting belief structure. And has been coming up........ as an apprehension of an apparent logical end to the pointing. Nihilism , I am told.............. typically connotes the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. A belief that condemns existence. ....Every belief, every considering something-true, " Nietzsche writes, " is necessarily false because there is simply no true world He further adds " Nihilism requires a radical repudiation of all imposed values and meaning: " Nihilism is . . . not only the belief that everything deserves to perish; but one actually puts one's shoulder to the plough; one destroys " . That all values are baseless.......still assumes the existential reality of an individual self...........FOR WHOM ..........all values are baseless. Condemns existence........can only arise on the premise that there is an existence to be condemned, ........apart or separate to the " condemner " To plough, to destroy?.......what is a notion.<LOL> There is no " true world " ,....... as compared to what? Nihilism is no different to a faith-based sense of entitification, ................one embraces.... the other rejects,.......both believing in the reality of what perception displays. The condemning of something is as much an acceptance of it's reality,......... as much is a craving of the same. No,............. it is not nihilism that is being pointed. ----------- That is only my opinion, and I could be wrong. ------- :-) No wrong. No right either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 16, 2005 Report Share Posted January 16, 2005 Nisargadatta , " sandeep " <sandeepc@b...> wrote: .... > Nihilism is an interesting belief structure. > > And has been coming up........ as an apprehension of an apparent logical end to the pointing. > > > Nihilism , I am told.............. typically connotes the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. > > A belief that condemns existence. > > ....Every belief, every considering something-true, " Nietzsche writes, " is necessarily false because there is simply no true world > He further adds " Nihilism requires a radical repudiation of all imposed values and meaning: " Nihilism is . . . not only the belief that everything deserves to perish; but one actually puts one's shoulder to the plough; one destroys " . That all values are baseless.......still assumes the existential reality of an individual self...........FOR WHOM ..........all values are baseless. .... and perfectly so, Toom has often given this impression on the audience, but Sandeep has no part in that, Toom is stalking Sandeep's meanings. (it is already hard enough to know when one is stalked, even harder when something one has left behind like an old hide is stalked by an archeologist) Toom has a Master degree in Sandeepship :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 16, 2005 Report Share Posted January 16, 2005 Eric Paroissien wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " sandeep " <sandeepc@b...> wrote: > > ... > > > Nihilism is an interesting belief structure. > > > > And has been coming up........ as an apprehension of an apparent > logical end to the pointing. > > > > > > Nihilism , I am told.............. typically connotes the belief > that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or > communicated. > > > > A belief that condemns existence. > > > > ....Every belief, every considering something-true, " Nietzsche > writes, " is necessarily false because there is simply no true world > > He further adds " Nihilism requires a radical repudiation of all > imposed values and meaning: " Nihilism is . . . not only the belief > that everything deserves to perish; but one actually puts one's > shoulder to the plough; one destroys " . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That all values are baseless.......still assumes the existential > reality of an individual self...........FOR WHOM ..........all values > are baseless. > > ... > > and perfectly so, Toom has often given this impression on the > audience, but Sandeep has no part in that, Toom is stalking Sandeep's > meanings. (it is already hard enough to know when one is stalked, even > harder when something one has left behind like an old hide is stalked > by an archeologist) > Toom has a Master degree in Sandeepship :-) And that hide still had movement in it it seems as it wiggled in response to probings with a stick. :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 16, 2005 Report Share Posted January 16, 2005 Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > Eric Paroissien wrote: > > > > > Nisargadatta , " sandeep " <sandeepc@b...> wrote: > > > > ... > > > > > Nihilism is an interesting belief structure. > > > > > > And has been coming up........ as an apprehension of an apparent > > logical end to the pointing. > > > > > > > > > Nihilism , I am told.............. typically connotes the belief > > that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or > > communicated. > > > > > > A belief that condemns existence. > > > > > > ....Every belief, every considering something-true, " Nietzsche > > writes, " is necessarily false because there is simply no true world > > > He further adds " Nihilism requires a radical repudiation of all > > imposed values and meaning: " Nihilism is . . . not only the belief > > that everything deserves to perish; but one actually puts one's > > shoulder to the plough; one destroys " . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That all values are baseless.......still assumes the existential > > reality of an individual self...........FOR WHOM ..........all values > > are baseless. > > > > ... > > > > and perfectly so, Toom has often given this impression on the > > audience, but Sandeep has no part in that, Toom is stalking Sandeep's > > meanings. (it is already hard enough to know when one is stalked, even > > harder when something one has left behind like an old hide is stalked > > by an archeologist) > > Toom has a Master degree in Sandeepship :-) > > And that hide still had movement in it it seems as it wiggled in > response to probings with a stick. :-) As long note: Nagarjuna's philosophy does not in any way equal to nihilism of any variety. Nagarjuna and well studied students or adherents of that analytic philosophy of language and concept, of conventional reality, assert that there is no relation between language and concept and an ultimate reality. The domains as conceived emptiness - convetional reality) are entirely separate so that there is no relative nothingness (Nihilism as proposed by Nietzsche and all western versions of this) and no absolute nothingness (as proposed by Nishida kitaro and Nishitani Keiji) since both assume a self of one sort or another as Sandeep points out in his way. So, the emptiness of Buddha and Nagarjuna are not equal to in any to conceptions of relative nothingness or absolute nothingness and emptiness itself as concept is dissolved in the tetralemma and dependent origination so there is no pointing at all; for the Buddha and Nagarjuna, and well studied and experienced adherents, everything in conventional reality can exist, not exist, exist and not exist and neither exist nor not exist. Add dependent origination as the means of the arising of the appearances of conventional reality and there is then the realization that there is no way that a coherent explanation or meaning can be made of how ultimate is. This is the long way to simple goal. Experience can teach and this could be reached by simply asserting it from experience. No need to direclty use the mind at all to know this as it is. So, in this sense, one can never speak from what is. It is Buddha's and Nagarjuna's view that this is impossible. Yet they speak and teach and all of what they and what they teach is dissolvable. And so it is. This means throw it away. It is nothing. So why do people adhere to a teaching that says teach four lines and throw it away? Why is it not thrown away? Why does it appear here? To speak means to enter conventioanl reality, where appearances and concepts are subject to the tetralemma and dependent origination. Wielding these tools we can obliterate any conversation or argument, one side or the other, or both or neither. Any concept, is dissolved, any thought system is dissolved. All of science is dissolved, Advaita Vedanta, dissolved, this forum and its members, dissolved, the wielder of the tool dissolved. Nothing can stand before it. Or can something stand? Those who use it to make themselves hold the last word or to be a master or whatever imagination is occurring, and this is apparent since the no self does not see fit to explain what it is that is being done, as if the understanding and use of these of tools is beyond the ken of others. It is not. It is simple and understanding it places us on the same plain of conventional reality. If we truly apply this always, we are speechless, without concept for there is no solution in concepts and words. One possible reason, it is not done is because of attachment to it. It is " my precious. " Madhyamika, Advaita Vedanta, bhakti yoga and raja yoga, the mystical union traditions, deconstructionism, those with nothing of these, or composites of these or whatever is done, is not about concepts and language. It is about life lived and experienced and this life and experiencing is not dissolved in any way by the tetralemma and dependent origination or other conceptualization. We are doing and dealing. The sensations and qualia underlying rocketing to the moon, eating a meal, riding a bike, painting a house or a portrait, making a model, doing homework, programming a computer, singing a song are not dissolved in the moment they are experienced. Neither are the sensations underlying what is called pain, suffering, and horror. These experiences are not dissolvable as they are undergone in the moment or the now. It is in the doing of these in the way that we do that that we are here in some way or another. Something here is taken in and something happens so that it happens again and again. We are eating and drinking something. Madhyamika blows itself away as it was intentioned by Nagarjuna. Perhaps, there is no need to argue with it or perhaps there is a need to to do so or perhaps one needs to argue and not argue with it or perhaps neither argue or not argue. We do as we do. I do as I do here. They who still wield it in their way are sometimes finished off and, perhaps, (for I don't know at all with certitude) for some unknown something or other discuss as if all should finish as they do or without any concern at all for the other side of the conversation since there is no one there or here. Others use it to share and teach. Others do not understand what they do... Others.... Those who still wield it awkwardly and perhaps not enough in reverse have reached a conclusion, an ultimate truth that there is no ultimate truth in words or concepts or otherwise and think that others cannot realize this simple matter in other ways because of language and concept use. If a small monkey or cat or dog is my mentor as I do with it, one who I consult everday on the doings of my life, and it works for me as it does, this relationship (attached or not), perhaps, can lead to the fabled states of being in more effective ways than being attached to any well conceived philosophy, religion, science or what there is to be attached to. On the other hand there is karma, destiny fate, and on the left foot is free will and on the right foot is conditioning and in the left eye a mote and the right eye a plank....in the nose there is... Scented vapors all, but that scent may have some effect however momentary for something else. 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.