Guest guest Posted April 3, 2005 Report Share Posted April 3, 2005 Seeker: If both dream and escape from dream are imaginings, what is the way out? Maharaj Nis: There is no need of a way out! Don't you see that a way out is also part of the dream? All you have to do is to see the dream as dream. Seeker: If I start the practice of dismissing everything as a dream, where will it lead me? Maharaj Nis: Wherever it leads you, it will be a dream. The very idea of going beyond the dream is illusory. Why go anywhere? Just realize that you are dreaming a dream you call the world, and stop looking for ways out. The dream is not your problem. Your problem is that you like one part of the dream and not another. When you have seen the dream as a dream, you have done all that needs be done. -from " I am That " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 3, 2005 Report Share Posted April 3, 2005 Nisargadatta , " sam_t_7 " <sam_t_7> wrote: > > Seeker: > If both dream and escape from dream are imaginings, what is the way > out? > > Maharaj Nis: > There is no need of a way out! Don't you see that a way out is also > part of the dream? All you have to do is to see the dream as dream. > > Seeker: > If I start the practice of dismissing everything as a dream, where > will it lead me? > > Maharaj Nis: > Wherever it leads you, it will be a dream. The very idea of going > beyond the dream is illusory. Why go anywhere? Just realize that you > are dreaming a dream you call the world, and stop looking for ways > out. The dream is not your problem. Your problem is that you like > one part of the dream and not another. When you have seen the dream > as a dream, you have done all that needs be done. > > -from " I am That " Remove the no and only yes remains. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 3, 2005 Report Share Posted April 3, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " sam_t_7 " <sam_t_7> wrote: > > > > Seeker: > > If both dream and escape from dream are imaginings, what is the way > > out? > > > > Maharaj Nis: > > There is no need of a way out! Don't you see that a way out is also > > part of the dream? All you have to do is to see the dream as dream. > > > > Seeker: > > If I start the practice of dismissing everything as a dream, where > > will it lead me? > > > > Maharaj Nis: > > Wherever it leads you, it will be a dream. The very idea of going > > beyond the dream is illusory. Why go anywhere? Just realize that you > > are dreaming a dream you call the world, and stop looking for ways > > out. The dream is not your problem. Your problem is that you like > > one part of the dream and not another. When you have seen the dream > > as a dream, you have done all that needs be done. > > > > -from " I am That " > Al: Remove the no and only yes remains. Sam: which seems to bring -it- back to full circle. This reminds me of an old zen saying, which is worth repeating again under this context. (paraphrasing) The non-seeker calls a river and a mountain a river and a mountain. When she becomes a seeker she says there is no mountain and river. When he becomes a realized non-seeker he goes back to calling it - a river and a mountain. Full circle with a twist? hmmm kind regards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 3, 2005 Report Share Posted April 3, 2005 Nisargadatta , " sam_t_7 " <sam_t_7> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " sam_t_7 " <sam_t_7> > wrote: > > > > > > Seeker: > > > If both dream and escape from dream are imaginings, what is the > way > > > out? > > > > > > Maharaj Nis: > > > There is no need of a way out! Don't you see that a way out is > also > > > part of the dream? All you have to do is to see the dream as > dream. > > > > > > Seeker: > > > If I start the practice of dismissing everything as a dream, > where > > > will it lead me? > > > > > > Maharaj Nis: > > > Wherever it leads you, it will be a dream. The very idea of > going > > > beyond the dream is illusory. Why go anywhere? Just realize that > you > > > are dreaming a dream you call the world, and stop looking for > ways > > > out. The dream is not your problem. Your problem is that you > like > > > one part of the dream and not another. When you have seen the > dream > > > as a dream, you have done all that needs be done. > > > > > > -from " I am That " > > > > Al: Remove the no and only yes remains. > > Sam: which seems to bring -it- back to full circle. > This reminds me of an old zen saying, which is worth repeating > again under this context. > > (paraphrasing) > The non-seeker calls a river and a mountain a river and a mountain. > When she becomes a seeker she says there is no mountain and river. > When he becomes a realized non-seeker he goes back to calling it - a > river and a mountain. > > Full circle with a twist? hmmm > kind regards. First there is yes and no. Then there is only yes. Then there is yes and no. And finally, I guess, there is only yes. " Your problem is that you like one part of the dream (that which you say yes to) and not another (that which you say no to) " -- Niz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 3, 2005 Report Share Posted April 3, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " sam_t_7 " <sam_t_7> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " sam_t_7 " <sam_t_7> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Seeker: > > > > If both dream and escape from dream are imaginings, what is the > > way > > > > out? > > > > > > > > Maharaj Nis: > > > > There is no need of a way out! Don't you see that a way out is > > also > > > > part of the dream? All you have to do is to see the dream as > > dream. > > > > > > > > Seeker: > > > > If I start the practice of dismissing everything as a dream, > > where > > > > will it lead me? > > > > > > > > Maharaj Nis: > > > > Wherever it leads you, it will be a dream. The very idea of > > going > > > > beyond the dream is illusory. Why go anywhere? Just realize that > > you > > > > are dreaming a dream you call the world, and stop looking for > > ways > > > > out. The dream is not your problem. Your problem is that you > > like > > > > one part of the dream and not another. When you have seen the > > dream > > > > as a dream, you have done all that needs be done. > > > > > > > > -from " I am That " > > > > > > > Al: Remove the no and only yes remains. > > > > Sam: which seems to bring -it- back to full circle. > > This reminds me of an old zen saying, which is worth repeating > > again under this context. > > > > (paraphrasing) > > The non-seeker calls a river and a mountain a river and a mountain. > > When she becomes a seeker she says there is no mountain and river. > > When he becomes a realized non-seeker he goes back to calling it - a > > river and a mountain. > > > > Full circle with a twist? hmmm > > kind regards. > > > First there is yes and no. > Then there is only yes. > Then there is yes and no. > And finally, I guess, there is only yes. > > " Your problem is that you like one part of the dream (that which you > say yes to) and not another (that which you say no to) " -- Niz sam: But getting to that -yes- is what appears to feed the/your turmoil. The no splinters or splits you (your own terminology used). Lahiri Mahasaya said, " I do not want what I do not have. " That statement pretty much grinds Wilbur's adventure to a screech. At the end of it all it still remains ----- a dream. kind regards and warm fuzzies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 3, 2005 Report Share Posted April 3, 2005 > > al: First there is yes and no. > > Then there is only yes. > > Then there is yes and no. > > And finally, I guess, there is only yes. > > > > " Your problem is that you like one part of the dream (that which > you > > say yes to) and not another (that which you say no to) " -- Niz > > > sam: But getting to that -yes- is what appears to feed the/your > turmoil. The no splinters or splits you (your own terminology > used). > > Lahiri Mahasaya said, " I do not want what I do not have. " That > statement pretty much grinds Wilbur's adventure to a screech. At > the end of it all it still remains ----- a dream. > > kind regards and warm fuzzies. Sam: So, Dream On! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 3, 2005 Report Share Posted April 3, 2005 Nisargadatta , " sam_t_7 " <sam_t_7> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " sam_t_7 " <sam_t_7> > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " sam_t_7 " <sam_t_7> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Seeker: > > > > > If both dream and escape from dream are imaginings, what is > the > > > way > > > > > out? > > > > > > > > > > Maharaj Nis: > > > > > There is no need of a way out! Don't you see that a way out > is > > > also > > > > > part of the dream? All you have to do is to see the dream as > > > dream. > > > > > > > > > > Seeker: > > > > > If I start the practice of dismissing everything as a dream, > > > where > > > > > will it lead me? > > > > > > > > > > Maharaj Nis: > > > > > Wherever it leads you, it will be a dream. The very idea of > > > going > > > > > beyond the dream is illusory. Why go anywhere? Just realize > that > > > you > > > > > are dreaming a dream you call the world, and stop looking > for > > > ways > > > > > out. The dream is not your problem. Your problem is that you > > > like > > > > > one part of the dream and not another. When you have seen > the > > > dream > > > > > as a dream, you have done all that needs be done. > > > > > > > > > > -from " I am That " > > > > > > > > > > Al: Remove the no and only yes remains. > > > > > > Sam: which seems to bring -it- back to full circle. > > > This reminds me of an old zen saying, which is worth repeating > > > again under this context. > > > > > > (paraphrasing) > > > The non-seeker calls a river and a mountain a river and a > mountain. > > > When she becomes a seeker she says there is no mountain and > river. > > > When he becomes a realized non-seeker he goes back to calling > it - a > > > river and a mountain. > > > > > > Full circle with a twist? hmmm > > > kind regards. > > > > > > First there is yes and no. > > Then there is only yes. > > Then there is yes and no. > > And finally, I guess, there is only yes. > > > > " Your problem is that you like one part of the dream (that which > you > > say yes to) and not another (that which you say no to) " -- Niz > > > sam: But getting to that -yes- is what appears to feed the/your > turmoil. The no splinters or splits you (your own terminology > used). > > Lahiri Mahasaya said, " I do not want what I do not have. " That > statement pretty much grinds Wilbur's adventure to a screech. At > the end of it all it still remains ----- a dream. > > kind regards and warm fuzzies. My idea is that I must understand how to desire this moment _more_ than the future. No only intellectually. By using rational thought we can easily see that this moment is more solid than any future, but our feelings are not saying the same thing. There is a nervous emotional field that often makes us jittery and not at ease with the flow of time. A simple idea such as being anxious about not wasting time is an extremely neurotic position, even though most people take such a stance as being normal common human behaviour. Being restless when waiting for something is also neurotic behaviour. Being bored means being in conflict with this moment. Being irritated because of noise, what someone does or says e t c is neurotic behavior. We normally take these kinds of things as being acceptable human conditions, but when your sensitivity increases by self-observation you see very clearly the enormous conflict which are involved in these so-called ordinary daily life human states. These states are from a perspective of peace not normal at all, but rather insane states. These states are the 'no' to life, and they all have to do with psychological time, which J. Krishnamurti called the enemy of humanity. al. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 3, 2005 Report Share Posted April 3, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > >My idea is that I must understand how to desire this moment _more_ than the future. No only intellectually. By using rational thought we can easily see that this moment is more solid than any future, but our feelings are not saying the same thing. There is a nervous emotional field that often makes us jittery and not at ease with the flow of time. A simple idea such as being anxious about not wasting time is an extremely neurotic position, even though most people take such a stance as being normal common human behaviour. Being restless when waiting for something is also neurotic behaviour. Being bored means being in conflict with this moment. Being irritated because of noise, what someone does or says e t c is neurotic behavior. We normally take these kinds of things as being acceptable human conditions, but when your sensitivity increases by self-observation you see very clearly the enormous conflict which are involved in these so-called ordinary daily life human states. These states are from a perspective of peace not normal at all, but rather insane states. These states are the 'no' to life, and they all have to do with psychological time, which J. Krishnamurti called the enemy of humanity. al. Sam: given your above statement, what is your next proposal? kind regards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 3, 2005 Report Share Posted April 3, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > al: My idea is that I must understand how to desire this moment _more_ than the future. No only intellectually. By using rational thought we can easily see that this moment is more solid than any future, but our feelings are not saying the same thing. sam: this is going to be a very difficult proposition for you on this board. I have read messages from Gary stating **Understanding** is to be despised and then a few threads down he contradicts himself and admonishes understanding. If you are counting on help from this board it may well end up confusing you even further. Or, it may end up confusing you to the point that your end goal of understanding is adaquately achieved -- perhaps? Good luck. kind regards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 3, 2005 Report Share Posted April 3, 2005 Nisargadatta , " sam_t_7 " <sam_t_7> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > >My idea is that I must understand how to desire this moment _more_ > than the future. No only intellectually. By using rational thought we > can easily see that this moment is more solid than any future, but > our > feelings are not saying the same thing. There is a nervous emotional > field that often makes us jittery and not at ease with the flow of > time. A simple idea such as being anxious about not wasting time is > an > extremely neurotic position, even though most people take such a > stance as being normal common human behaviour. Being restless when > waiting for something is also neurotic behaviour. Being bored means > being in conflict with this moment. Being irritated because of noise, > what someone does or says e t c is neurotic behavior. We normally > take > these kinds of things as being acceptable human conditions, but when > your sensitivity increases by self-observation you see very clearly > the enormous conflict which are involved in these so-called ordinary > daily life human states. These states are from a perspective of peace > not normal at all, but rather insane states. These states are > the 'no' > to life, and they all have to do with psychological time, which J. > Krishnamurti called the enemy of humanity. > > al. > > Sam: given your above statement, what is your next proposal? > kind regards. These painful states must be replaced by a deep trust in life itself. But that trust cannot be a pretended trust, because that will only make the problem even worse, and you would be more scared than ever under the pretended surface of trust. My idea is that trust can come only by recognizing that the present moment really _is_ more important than the future and that the future really is the 'enemy' as long as this future is taken to be more important than the present moment. So, to stay in the present moment more and more will hopefully, but there is of course no guarantee, make the future be recognized as more and more shallow. Some people spend 30+ years on the spiritual path and still do not found profound peace, so I guess the process will not be easy, if at all possible. But by combining rational logic with faith and practice, who knows... al. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 3, 2005 Report Share Posted April 3, 2005 Nisargadatta , " sam_t_7 " <sam_t_7> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > al: My idea is that I must understand how to desire this moment _more_ > than the future. No only intellectually. By using rational thought we > can easily see that this moment is more solid than any future, but our > feelings are not saying the same thing. > > > sam: this is going to be a very difficult proposition for you on this > board. I have read messages from Gary stating **Understanding** is > to be despised and then a few threads down he contradicts himself and > admonishes understanding. If you are counting on help from this board > it may well end up confusing you even further. Or, it may end up > confusing you to the point that your end goal of understanding is > adaquately achieved -- perhaps? > > Good luck. kind regards. The understanding I am talking about is to _really_ want the present moment more than the future, and then it is really no longer any understanding needed at all. If I feel good I feel good. Why are you happy, people will then ask me, and I will answer: why not? )))) 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.