Guest guest Posted February 8, 2005 Report Share Posted February 8, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@c...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@c...> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Hmm, hmm, > > > > > > > > And you, Anders, have always an answer - even if one hasn't > asked > > > you > > > > for one. > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > Other than others on this list, dear Werner, he formulates his > > ideas > > > as suggestions, and does not let them appear as the only truth. > > > > Stephen - > > > > I guess you're caught up in how politely someone presents > > his ideas. Seems a silly criterion to me. > > You completely missed my point. I prefer people who are questioning, > who are leaving things open because they know that there might not > even be an ultimate answer. I prefer these from those who pretend that > they are representing the ultimate truth but in reality are simply > confused and afraid of this confusion. > > Besides that, I value respectfullness and sometimes even politeness. > When you think masters who are hitting someone out of compassion are > disrespectful you are way off. And moreover it does not give you the > right to hit others... you will just create unnecessary bad feelings. > > Have you ever lived with a master? When one decides to live with an > enlightened master one surrenders the ego to him, because he WANTS to > be hit. > > Come down a little, Dan. > > All the best > Stefan Not searching to have or be an ultimate answer doesn't require one to be tentative. Not at all. Indeed, it's clarity and allows an unsplit being. But if there's no ultimacy, it sounds funny to me to elevate someone to a master status and insist you are going to surrender your ego to the master. What could be more egotistical? Well, anyway -- I'm just living life day by day, Stefan, and don't consider myself to be on any elevated plane. And probably, like you say, some people want to get hit. So, they elevate a guru to an idealized position and say, " please hit me, master. " I don't have anything against a game like that, as long as both participants enjoy it, and as long as they are consenting adults. It just doesn't seem to me that a game like that is any less egotistical than most of the games people play, and probably moreso than most. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 8, 2005 Report Share Posted February 8, 2005 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: >Not searching to have or be an ultimate answer doesn't require >one to be tentative. Not at all. Indeed, it's clarity >and allows an unsplit being. There is nothing like clarity. The functioning of the mind is the result of rather chaotic and random biological incidents. The mind cannot be unsplit. Clarity can only be found in the ceasing of the minds functioning. But who will find it, since the " I " is part of the mind? Now... you can see how thin the ice is, on which we are walking day in day out. When you drink tea with someone who is successful on the Wall Street you can maybe catch some of his tricks. When you drink tea with a friend who lives in unsplit clarity you can be transformed. When I say to my friend " hit me, if it helps me " I am not asking for disrespect or unpoliteness, as you have put it in your previous post. I am showing my eagerness to learn, I am showing that there is no other way for me than to let go of the mind and the ego. >But if there's no ultimacy, it sounds funny to me to >elevate someone to a master status >and insist you are going to surrender your ego to the master. >What could be more egotistical? If you dont believe in ultimacy it is your problem. The nature of drinking tea with the master is not of the mind. The ultimate state is not of the mind. The mind cannot know any ultimate truth. Or can you or someone else post it here? >Well, anyway -- >I'm just living life day by day, Stefan, and don't consider >myself to be on any elevated plane. This you have put nicely and it shows a certain kind of humbleness that I like. >And probably, like you say, some people want to get hit. >So, they elevate a guru to an idealized position and >say, " please hit me, master. " Admitting that you can learn something from somebody does not mean that you elevate this person. Not at all. >I don't have anything against a game like that, as long >as both participants enjoy it, and as long as they >are consenting adults. >It just doesn't seem to me that a game like that is any >less egotistical than most of the games people play, >and probably moreso than most. Yes, those games create bad feelings, I have told you so. You are intelligent and you are observing very well. Yes, even the relationship with a master is a game. Games are there to be played and who searches for the real has to recognize the endless games of existence first. Still I advocate respectfulness and even politeness. We are all so fragile beings, nobody knows who will still be around tomorrow. Greetings " S " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 8, 2005 Report Share Posted February 8, 2005 > > Still I advocate respectfulness and even politeness. We are all so > fragile beings, nobody knows who will still be around tomorrow. That is only a survival strategy....based on fear. Get on in there and kick some ass...........eggs and omlets...... ya know......... Don't worry about others.... God had already killed them. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 8, 2005 Report Share Posted February 8, 2005 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: >>Still I advocate respectfulness and even politeness. We are all so >>fragile beings, nobody knows who will still be around tomorrow. >That is only a survival strategy....based on fear. Of course. Fear is what keeps us together. s Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 8, 2005 Report Share Posted February 8, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@c...> wrote: > > > If you dont believe in ultimacy it is your problem. The nature of > drinking tea with the master is not of the mind. The ultimate state is > not of the mind. The mind cannot know any ultimate truth. Or can you > or someone else post it here? Your words are as much from the mind as anyone else's, and when you separate a master from a nonmaster, that also is a mental division. Therefore, for you to say " If you don't believe in ultimacy it is your problem " is simply mental self-assertion, in my view. There is no ultimacy in mind, you say, and yet you insist on having a belief in ultimacy, and suggesting it's a problem not to have such a belief. I have no idea if you're capable of understanding the self- contradiction involved in adhering to such a position -- but from my perspective, it's just more mental self-contradiction. If freedom is not of the mind, then be clear now, be not of the mind now. Is there any such thing really existing as " a mind " and " the world perceived by a mind " ? In what way is placing an idealized superiority in a master any less of a mental activity of projection and splitting than any other version of such activity. One is either aware now, or not. One is either holding to belief and mind now, or not. If there is no mind existing here, then there is no mind existing anywhere. And no master is needed to clear up the situation. Asking an imagined cure to fix an imagined split, only can lead to an imaginary solution. There is no solution, and no strategy. Even your own words indicate this -- for solutions and strategies can only be of and for the mind, or the self (as the term I'd prefer). And following and surrendering to a master projected to have ideal qualities that I lack (such as a no-mind awareness) is just another self-based strategy. Certainly, I'm aware that what I've expressed above is one person's opinion. Just because I stated it in direct terms doesn't blind me to the fact that I'm using words, conveying opinions, and I understand that there's no ultimate or absolute truth in anything either of us is saying on this topic. :-) -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 9, 2005 Report Share Posted February 9, 2005 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: >Your words are as much from the mind as anyone else's, >and when you separate a master from a nonmaster, that >also is a mental division. Yes. >Therefore, for you to say " If you don't believe in ultimacy it >is your problem " is simply mental self-assertion, in my view. Yes. >There is no ultimacy in mind, you say, and yet you insist >on having a belief in ultimacy, and suggesting it's >a problem not to have such a belief. Yes. >I have no idea if you're capable of understanding the self- >contradiction involved in adhering to such a position -- >but from my perspective, it's just more mental >self-contradiction. Yes. The mind cannot be not self-contradicting. >If freedom is not of the mind, then be clear now, be >not of the mind now. Yes. >Is there any such thing really existing as " a mind " and > " the world perceived by a mind " ? No, those are just ideas. >In what way is placing an idealized superiority in a master >any less of a mental activity of projection and splitting >than any other version of such activity. It is the same. >One is either aware now, or not. True. >One is either holding to belief and mind now, or not. Wow, yes. >If there is no mind existing here, then there is no mind >existing anywhere. And no master is needed to clear >up the situation. Asking an imagined cure to fix >an imagined split, only can lead to an imaginary solution. Things are not always ideal, you see? Why are you spending your time writing this email? Is this the ideal? Your ideas are very good, but what do you experience? Have your ideas been the same ten years ago? Twenty years ago? What has brought you to your current way of thinking? And how does it influence your ever changing way of living? My love to a master has changed my life. I have learned to walk from my parents. I have learned to love from my first woman. I have learned to play violin from my violin teacher. I have learned to spread my wings from my master. It is a quite normal thing in the east, not an issue at all. Strangely, in the western world people seem to have a big problem with this kind of intimate relationship. >There is no solution, and no strategy. True. >Even your own words indicate this -- for solutions and strategies >can only be of and for the mind, or the self (as the term >I'd prefer). Yes. >And following and surrendering to a master projected to have >ideal qualities that I lack (such as a no-mind awareness) >is just another self-based strategy. Yes. But this " self " maybe can be transcended. It is a paradoxon for the minds logic, but it is the crack in the wall. >Certainly, I'm aware that what I've expressed above is one >person's opinion. Just because I stated it in direct >terms doesn't blind me to the fact that I'm using words, >conveying opinions, and I understand that there's no >ultimate or absolute truth in anything either of us >is saying on this topic. :-) So, lets experience the crack (the one in the wall) and dance our dance and sing our melody... S. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 9, 2005 Report Share Posted February 9, 2005 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: >>Things are not always ideal, you see? Why are you spending your >>time >>writing this email? > >Why not? good :-) ... I had the feeling that you are trying to defend something, but I was not sure. Hence my question. >The experience is that experience is as is. > >Any and all experience is subsumed, without exception. > >Not subsumed into something, but subsumed into/as what >might be called " timeless nondividedness. " Hmm, I dont think there is space for an experiencer in timeless nondividedness. Who is experiencing? The same one who gets up every morning and has a cup of coffee? >It is now, now, now. Not a process, not one particular >kind of experience and not another. Nothing is excluded, >nothing left out (from/as this no-thingness). You are going as far as one can go with words. Should it be called " experience " ? It seems you are talking about pure being itself. The experiencer disappears. .... >Thus, we dance as it is given to us to dance, the dance >that was danced, that is perceived as past, >and the undanced truth is all that is, the unheard >song is the only melody playing. <smile> Greetings S. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 9, 2005 Report Share Posted February 9, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@c...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> > wrote: > > >>Things are not always ideal, you see? Why are you spending your > >>time > >>writing this email? > > > >Why not? > > good :-) ... I had the feeling that you are trying to defend > something, but I was not sure. Hence my question. > > >The experience is that experience is as is. > > > >Any and all experience is subsumed, without exception. > > > >Not subsumed into something, but subsumed into/as what > >might be called " timeless nondividedness. " > > Hmm, I dont think there is space for an experiencer in timeless > nondividedness. Who is experiencing? The same one who gets up every > morning and has a cup of coffee? When you negate one thing having an existence and qualities of its own, such as an experiencer, then you likewise negate anything else that could have an existence and qualities of its own - such as experience. Or anything else. Cup, coffee. Anything named is implied to have an identifiable existence that continues, associated with qualities (such as solid, able to hold liquid, or hot, brown-colored). If you can have any experience able to be named, you can have an experiencer also named, such as Dan, Stefan, whomever. It's the name-game. :-) > >It is now, now, now. Not a process, not one particular > >kind of experience and not another. Nothing is excluded, > >nothing left out (from/as this no-thingness). > > You are going as far as one can go with words. Should it be called > " experience " ? It seems you are talking about pure being itself. The > experiencer disappears. > > ... Yes, and the experience. And dissapearing also " disappears " - because with nothing having appeared, no disappearance is possible. Wordless wonder... And now, if named events, thoughts, feelings occur -- the wordless truth nonetheless is not disturbed. > >Thus, we dance as it is given to us to dance, the dance > >that was danced, that is perceived as past, > >and the undanced truth is all that is, the unheard > >song is the only melody playing. > > <smile> > > Greetings > S. Greetings to you, too, Stefan. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 9, 2005 Report Share Posted February 9, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@c...> wrote: Stefan -- Good talking to you and finding there is a lot we agree on. Let me skip to this: > Things are not always ideal, you see? Why are you spending your time > writing this email? Why not? > Is this the ideal? Your ideas are very good, but > what do you experience? The experience is that experience is as is. Any and all experience is subsumed, without exception. Not subsumed into something, but subsumed into/as what might be called " timeless nondividedness. " It is now, now, now. Not a process, not one particular kind of experience and not another. Nothing is excluded, nothing left out (from/as this no-thingness). > Have your ideas been the same ten years ago? > Twenty years ago? What has brought you to your current way of > thinking? And how does it influence your ever changing way of living? There was, experientially, a release of the known, of the past, of the accumulated identity and orientation. And simultaneously, a reintegration, which plays out as " my life experience " -- yet knowing this playing out is timeless, choiceless, undivided. Yet senses function, I can tell an apple from an orange, can experience pain and pleasure. > So, lets experience the crack (the one in the wall) and dance our > dance and sing our melody... Sure. And the entire omindimensional unbounded " manifestation " is seamlessly manifesting, and thus, is not other than the " unmanifest " (which is the seamlessness). Thus, we dance as it is given to us to dance, the dance that was danced, that is perceived as past, and the undanced truth is all that is, the unheard song is the only melody playing. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 9, 2005 Report Share Posted February 9, 2005 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: >>Things are not always ideal, you see? Why are you spending your >>time >>writing this email? > >Why not? good :-) ... I had the feeling that you are trying to defend something, but I was not sure. Hence my question. >The experience is that experience is as is. > >Any and all experience is subsumed, without exception. > >Not subsumed into something, but subsumed into/as what >might be called " timeless nondividedness. " Hmm, I dont think there is space for an experiencer in timeless nondividedness. Who is experiencing? The same one who gets up every morning and has a cup of coffee? >It is now, now, now. Not a process, not one particular >kind of experience and not another. Nothing is excluded, >nothing left out (from/as this no-thingness). You are going as far as one can go with words. Should it be called " experience " ? It seems you are talking about pure being itself. The experiencer disappears. .... >Thus, we dance as it is given to us to dance, the dance >that was danced, that is perceived as past, >and the undanced truth is all that is, the unheard >song is the only melody playing. <smile> Greetings S. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 9, 2005 Report Share Posted February 9, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@c...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> > wrote: > > >>Things are not always ideal, you see? Why are you spending your > >>time > >>writing this email? > > > >Why not? > > good :-) ... I had the feeling that you are trying to defend > something, but I was not sure. Hence my question. > > >The experience is that experience is as is. > > > >Any and all experience is subsumed, without exception. > > > >Not subsumed into something, but subsumed into/as what > >might be called " timeless nondividedness. " > > Hmm, I dont think there is space for an experiencer in timeless > nondividedness. Who is experiencing? The same one who gets up every > morning and has a cup of coffee? When you negate one thing having an existence and qualities of its own, such as an experiencer, then you likewise negate anything else that could have an existence and qualities of its own - such as experience. Or anything else. Cup, coffee. Anything named is implied to have an identifiable existence that continues, associated with qualities (such as solid, able to hold liquid, or hot, brown-colored). If you can have any experience able to be named, you can have an experiencer also named, such as Dan, Stefan, whomever. It's the name-game. :-) > >It is now, now, now. Not a process, not one particular > >kind of experience and not another. Nothing is excluded, > >nothing left out (from/as this no-thingness). > > You are going as far as one can go with words. Should it be called > " experience " ? It seems you are talking about pure being itself. The > experiencer disappears. > > ... Yes, and the experience. And dissapearing also " disappears " - because with nothing having appeared, no disappearance is possible. Wordless wonder... And now, if named events, thoughts, feelings occur -- the wordless truth nonetheless is not disturbed. > >Thus, we dance as it is given to us to dance, the dance > >that was danced, that is perceived as past, > >and the undanced truth is all that is, the unheard > >song is the only melody playing. > > <smile> > > Greetings > S. Greetings to you, too, Stefan. -- 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.