Guest guest Posted February 7, 2005 Report Share Posted February 7, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " > > <adithya_comming> wrote: > > > > > > [........] > > > > > > > > > >>> BTW, what and `why' are you still `debating', Dan ? > > > > > > This is why, I asked you this question, Dan. > > > > > > About 3 messages ago in the same thread, I asked you perhaps, a > > Very > > > Simple question and then I even repeated it. > > > > > > You haven't answered it. Yet, you have been presenting your ideas > > > on ...assumes sense, inability of words ... > > > > > > Whereas, answer to the question might be pretty simple and > > straight > > > and might require No elaborate logic. Just little Courage should > > be > > > enough. > > > > > > If you can NOT try to honestly and sincerely this question in > > > straight and simple terms, I ask ....Why, you are still > > `debating', > > > Dan. Here is the question again: > > > > > > ============ > > > > > > It is quite easy, Dan! > > > ....for anybody who can take courage to be HONEST, Sincere and > > Open > > > for a Moment. > > > > > > What any assuming, thinking requires ? > > > > > > What is ...ALWAYS ...Present ? > > > > > > What you can ...NEVER ...get rid of ? > > > > > > WHAT ...IS ...ALWAYS ? > > > > > > =========== > > > > > > [........] > > > > I'm not debating Arvind. > > > > I'm simply inviting you to look at the one who > > holds the belief and why, rather than repeating > > the belief over and over. > > > > Why the need to believe there is something you have > > that is always present, some IS that never changes? > > > > What do you get out of that? > > > > > > Perhaps, " he gets " the same thing " you get " out what you hold. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ It's not a matter of someone getting something. That is not the silence speaking into and through the words. In and through this silence, there is no one getting or having anything. " The movement of the shadow on the stairs, disturbs not one mote of dust. " It is not, as you seem to suggest below, a debate about terminology. It is a matter of clear seeing, understanding, that doesn't depend on terminology. -- D. (nothing new below) > Dan: Indeed, this intelligence is immediate, not dependent > on words or structures, yet can " use " the structurings > and words. > > It is total, timeless, nonlocal. > > Neither absolute, nor relative -- but allowing > us to make sense of the distinction and > relation of concepts of absoluteness and relativity. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > Arvind seems to call this you describe as " I AM. " You seem to agree to > name it " intelligence. " The difference is obscured if Arvind sees I AM > as total, timeless, nonlocal. > > What does Arvind say? Arvind? > > > > > Obviously, you get security, you get permanence. > > > > So, you could, instead of repeatedly saying, " I AM " - > > look into the insecurity that wants to hold onto > > something permanent and absolute as a means to > > have something to count on. > > > > And then, you might surprise yourself. > > > > -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 7, 2005 Report Share Posted February 7, 2005 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " > > > <adithya_comming> wrote: > > > > > > > > [........] > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> BTW, what and `why' are you still `debating', Dan ? > > > > > > > > This is why, I asked you this question, Dan. > > > > > > > > About 3 messages ago in the same thread, I asked you perhaps, > a > > > Very > > > > Simple question and then I even repeated it. > > > > > > > > You haven't answered it. Yet, you have been presenting your > ideas > > > > on ...assumes sense, inability of words ... > > > > > > > > Whereas, answer to the question might be pretty simple and > > > straight > > > > and might require No elaborate logic. Just little Courage > should > > > be > > > > enough. > > > > > > > > If you can NOT try to honestly and sincerely this question in > > > > straight and simple terms, I ask ....Why, you are still > > > `debating', > > > > Dan. Here is the question again: > > > > > > > > ============ > > > > > > > > It is quite easy, Dan! > > > > ....for anybody who can take courage to be HONEST, Sincere and > > > Open > > > > for a Moment. > > > > > > > > What any assuming, thinking requires ? > > > > > > > > What is ...ALWAYS ...Present ? > > > > > > > > What you can ...NEVER ...get rid of ? > > > > > > > > WHAT ...IS ...ALWAYS ? > > > > > > > > =========== > > > > > > > > [........] > > > > > > I'm not debating Arvind. > > > > > > I'm simply inviting you to look at the one who > > > holds the belief and why, rather than repeating > > > the belief over and over. > > > > > > Why the need to believe there is something you have > > > that is always present, some IS that never changes? > > > > > > What do you get out of that? > > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps, " he gets " the same thing " you get " out what you hold. > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > It's not a matter of someone getting something. Since Arvind was asked " What do you get out of that? " I assumed that is what you meant. > > That is not the silence speaking into and through the words. > > In and through this silence, there is no one getting or > having anything. Then it is a wonder why Arvind was questioned in that way. > > " The movement of the shadow on the stairs, disturbs not > one mote of dust. " > > It is not, as you seem to suggest below, a debate about > terminology. It is a matter of clear seeing, understanding, > that doesn't depend on terminology. > > -- D. > > That is a conclusion made without Arvind's response. Is it certain that Arvind does not experience it in the way you describe? There is enough silence between his words overall to indicate that Arvind's words and Dan's word's below are not much different and it seems that it is the affirming presentation and the negating one that has this at odds. When Dan affirmed intelligence as it was done below, it seemed possible that the same is being held by Arvind, as that is the traditional view and reported experience of " I AM. " It seems moot until Arvind responds and a " conclusion, " if one needs to make one, may be best held in abeyance until Arvind is heard or not, as each does so in that way we do. And Arvind has yet to answer clearly and with elaboration to those matters put out in the numerous posts made on this. Is the " I AM " that is referred to simply a self-constructed mind entity maintained by repeatedly affirming and reaffirming an experience coupled with a rigid belief in it, which allows it to be frozen in place as a mental conceptual filter that vigilantly scans all incoming sensations and words and so on declaring them to be objects and is unable to see itself as the object it is? Or is I AM something else. It has been the experience of many that I AM can speak for itself and needs no affirmation from others or realization by others. So let us hear I AM speak as it is without reservation or the asking of questions or simple affirmations. This seems possible and if not how is that so? > > > Dan: Indeed, this intelligence is immediate, not dependent > > on words or structures, yet can " use " the structurings > > and words. > > > > It is total, timeless, nonlocal. > > > > Neither absolute, nor relative -- but allowing > > us to make sense of the distinction and > > relation of concepts of absoluteness and relativity. > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > Arvind seems to call this you describe as " I AM. " You seem to > agree to > > name it " intelligence. " The difference is obscured if Arvind sees > I AM > > as total, timeless, nonlocal. > > > > What does Arvind say? Arvind? > > > > > > > > > Obviously, you get security, you get permanence. > > > > > > So, you could, instead of repeatedly saying, " I AM " - > > > look into the insecurity that wants to hold onto > > > something permanent and absolute as a means to > > > have something to count on. > > > > > > And then, you might surprise yourself. > > > > > > -- 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.