Guest guest Posted February 1, 2005 Report Share Posted February 1, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > Hi Josesiem, > > I am pleased that in some way this topic is interesting for you. > > Well, it was me who has chosen that word " contamination " , it is not > original K. > > But this idea to let the moment pass, no matter how strong its > impression and impact is, without grasping or resistance (aversion) > is interesting. > > But can we let go without a motivation, just letting go without > profitting ? Maybe thats what we really could call dying: To let go > without a reward or profit. Death also doesn't come to us and says: > Hey, if you come with me you will get a chocolate in return. > > Werner " I " can't let go. All " I " am is the attempt to have an existence as a center which can't actually be there. So, as long as the attempt is based on a belief that I exist, can maintain and enhance my existence, that attempt can even be continued as: " I resolve not to grasp or have aversion. " Or: " I'm very spiritual, I'm dying each moment. " The " I " isn't just an artifact of thought. It's the collectively pooled intent to exist, reciprocally reinforced and invested, going around in loops with all the feelings and motives involved, along with the thoughts. I can't let it go, but " I " can be let go of. How to describe the insight by which clarity is, that no separation of existence and nonexistence ever occurred, hence no separately existing things or beings? Any description affirms a describer and one who benefits from getting the description. Hence, it may be more " useful " to talk about death, or dying this moment. But even that becomes a description. As if there were someone who could do or not do the dying. You could even flip this on its head and talk about " no death, no birth. " -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 1, 2005 Report Share Posted February 1, 2005 Hi Dan, Ok, what you wrote is fairly clear and I have no problems with that. When it comes to " I " , I already since longer was suspecting that the " I " not only was created by conditioning but that there already beforehand had to exist a counterpart, a kind of matrix which allowed that conditioning or even was waiting for its arrival. Werner Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > wrote: > > > > Hi Josesiem, > > > > I am pleased that in some way this topic is interesting for you. > > > > Well, it was me who has chosen that word " contamination " , it is > not > > original K. > > > > But this idea to let the moment pass, no matter how strong its > > impression and impact is, without grasping or resistance > (aversion) > > is interesting. > > > > But can we let go without a motivation, just letting go without > > profitting ? Maybe thats what we really could call dying: To let > go > > without a reward or profit. Death also doesn't come to us and > says: > > Hey, if you come with me you will get a chocolate in return. > > > > Werner > > > " I " can't let go. > > All " I " am is the attempt to have an existence > as a center which can't actually be there. > > So, as long as the attempt is based on a belief that > I exist, can maintain and enhance my existence, > that attempt can even be continued as: > " I resolve not to grasp or have aversion. " > > Or: " I'm very spiritual, I'm dying each moment. " > > The " I " isn't just an artifact of thought. > > It's the collectively pooled intent to exist, reciprocally > reinforced and invested, going around in loops with > all the feelings and motives involved, along with > the thoughts. > > I can't let it go, but " I " can be let go of. > > How to describe the insight by which clarity is, > that no separation of existence and nonexistence > ever occurred, hence no separately existing things > or beings? > > Any description affirms a describer and one who benefits > from getting the description. > > Hence, it may be more " useful " to talk about death, > or dying this moment. > > But even that becomes a description. > > As if there were someone who could do or not do the dying. > > You could even flip this on its head and talk about > " no death, no birth. " > > -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 1, 2005 Report Share Posted February 1, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > Hi Dan, > > Ok, what you wrote is fairly clear and I have no problems with that. > > When it comes to " I " , I already since longer was suspecting that > the " I " not only was created by conditioning but that there already > beforehand had to exist a counterpart, a kind of matrix which allowed > that conditioning or even was waiting for its arrival. > > Werner That's a good metaphor, Werner. A matrix that predetermines a conditioning process because providing a " place " for its attaching. The 'attaching' and the 'attached to' mutually co-define. Psychological roots in infancy. Even a " matrix " is something to attach to. " Place " is a huge assumption. A place for us to exchange our words. A place to be. " Place " is undermined when one realizes that location assumes observation, and observation assumes location. The noplace I'm discussing, is noneother than here, where " place " is usually assumed. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 1, 2005 Report Share Posted February 1, 2005 Hi Dan, I have some problems now with the way you are using words or statements. D: " Place " is a huge assumption. W: For whom is it a assumption and " huge " relative to what ? A place for us to exchange our words. A place to be. D: " Place " is undermined when one realizes that location assumes observation, and observation assumes location. W: I don't see what your are at, but ok I take it for the moment, then what is the undermining factor, intelligence ? If yes then I don't ownn that intelligence. And what is that which in your understanding gets undermined, the matter of course we are used to some everyday words ? D:The noplace I'm discussing, is noneother than here, where " place " is usually assumed. W: Aha, and does it help you to find a home there ? To discuss with me " noplaces " I fear I will fall asleep soon, but maybe you can describe it in a more fascinating, lively way, a way which lets shiver ? Werner Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > wrote: > > > > Hi Dan, > > > > Ok, what you wrote is fairly clear and I have no problems with > that. > > > > When it comes to " I " , I already since longer was suspecting that > > the " I " not only was created by conditioning but that there > already > > beforehand had to exist a counterpart, a kind of matrix which > allowed > > that conditioning or even was waiting for its arrival. > > > > Werner > > That's a good metaphor, Werner. > > A matrix that predetermines a conditioning process > because providing a " place " for its attaching. > > The 'attaching' and the 'attached to' mutually co-define. > > Psychological roots in infancy. > > Even a " matrix " is something to attach to. > > " Place " is a huge assumption. > > A place for us to exchange our words. > > A place to be. > > " Place " is undermined when one realizes that location > assumes observation, and observation assumes location. > > The noplace I'm discussing, is noneother than here, where > " place " is usually assumed. > > -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 1, 2005 Report Share Posted February 1, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: Hi Werner - > I have some problems now with the way you are using words or > statements. Good! :-) > D: " Place " is a huge assumption. > W: For whom is it a assumption and " huge " relative to what ? I said that in the context of our previous discussion, which you didn't reproduce. Taken out of context, I'd say that place is an assumption for whomever is placed, has a place. Huge relative to a hot dog. A hot dog has to have a place to be a hot dog. Place doesn't need a hot dog to function as place, just something located, and a located observer. > A place for us to exchange our words. > > A place to be. > > D: " Place " is undermined when one realizes that location > assumes observation, and observation assumes location. > W: I don't see what your are at, but ok I take it for the moment, > then what is the undermining factor, intelligence ? D: That word will do, it seems to fit. I might use the word " being-aware. " W: If yes then I > don't ownn that intelligence. D: No one owns it. How can they? They are placed, located. That which gives place also gives the " who's " you were asking about -- the located observers. W: And what is that which in your > understanding gets undermined, the matter of course we are used to > some everyday words ? D: No. It is your own " being-aware " that is undermined, in terms of its identifications, its assumed continuity, its assumed " ownership " to use your word. > D:The noplace I'm discussing, is noneother than here, where > " place " is usually assumed. > W: Aha, and does it help you to find a home there ? D: Well, that's the point I'm making, isn't it? That there's no home to be had, no place to rest. W: To discuss with > me " noplaces " I fear I will fall asleep soon, but maybe you can > describe it in a more fascinating, lively way, a way which lets > shiver ? D: It doesn't bother me if you fall asleep. I'm not responsible for making you shiver. But, you'll shiver all right if all sense of place dissolves. :-) And, when located things now appear, they will appear all-together, inseparably, and each moment in time, will also be a moment of time, as time -- complete, undisturbed. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 1, 2005 Report Share Posted February 1, 2005 Hi Dan, And now ? I don't quite get you, what do you want ? Why did you explain a so simple thing which already was known to me in such a complicated way ? If it is your way of thinking and you can't help to explain it in a different way, ok, accepted, but in the meantime I also have read posts of you which were finger licking good, direct and simple, without any digression. Werner Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > wrote: > > Hi Werner - > > > I have some problems now with the way you are using words or > > statements. > > Good! :-) > > > D: " Place " is a huge assumption. > > W: For whom is it a assumption and " huge " relative to what ? > > I said that in the context of our previous discussion, which > you didn't reproduce. > > Taken out of context, I'd say that place is an assumption > for whomever is placed, has a place. > > Huge relative to a hot dog. > > A hot dog has to have a place to be a hot dog. > > Place doesn't need a hot dog to function as place, > just something located, and a located observer. > > > A place for us to exchange our words. > > > > A place to be. > > > > D: " Place " is undermined when one realizes that location > > assumes observation, and observation assumes location. > > > W: I don't see what your are at, but ok I take it for the moment, > > then what is the undermining factor, intelligence ? > > D: That word will do, it seems to fit. I might use the > word " being-aware. " > > W: If yes then I > > don't ownn that intelligence. > > D: No one owns it. How can they? They are placed, located. > That which gives place also gives the " who's " you were > asking about -- the located observers. > > W: And what is that which in your > > understanding gets undermined, the matter of course we are used to > > some everyday words ? > > D: No. It is your own " being-aware " that is undermined, > in terms of its identifications, its assumed continuity, > its assumed " ownership " to use your word. > > > D:The noplace I'm discussing, is noneother than here, where > > " place " is usually assumed. > > > W: Aha, and does it help you to find a home there ? > > D: Well, that's the point I'm making, isn't it? That there's > no home to be had, no place to rest. > > W: To discuss with > > me " noplaces " I fear I will fall asleep soon, but maybe you can > > describe it in a more fascinating, lively way, a way which lets > > shiver ? > > D: It doesn't bother me if you fall asleep. I'm not responsible > for making you shiver. But, you'll shiver all right if all > sense of place dissolves. > > :-) > > And, when located things now appear, they will appear all-together, > inseparably, and each moment in time, will also be a moment > of time, as time -- complete, undisturbed. > > -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2005 Report Share Posted February 2, 2005 Hi Werner - > Hi Dan, > > And now ? > > I don't quite get you, what do you want ? A new car? Why did you explain a so > simple thing which already was known to me in such a complicated > way ? I didn't explain anything. If it is your way of thinking and you can't help to explain it > in a different way, ok, accepted, but in the meantime I also have > read posts of you which were finger licking good, direct and simple, > without any digression. Hey, cool! Those were the chocolate ones! -- Dan 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.