Existence, nonexistence, and reading between the lines / Fuzzy

[Guest guest]

[.....]

 

 

>

> You wrote:

>

> " ...Others may not see that " tree " for the " forest " hides it and it

> needs to be " cut down, " cleared enough so that that tree appears

> unmistakenly and then there is the attempt to cut that which cannot

be

> cut and it is then suddenly apparent...... "

>

> I thought the old saw went: " One can't see the forest for the

trees " .

>

>

>

> The Self is not the metaphorical " tree " nor is it the " forest " . It

> would be more analogous to say that the Self is the " ground " in

which

> the " trees " take root.

 

>So, instead of cutting the forest down, Lewis,

> simply locate the " ground " in which your metaphorical " trees " are

> arising. Then, you can enjoy the beauty and grandeur of the forest

> while remaining as I AM. Besides, anyhow, cutting the forest down

>can be exhausting.

 

especially, if the Ground *Always* has

Potential to give birth to more trees

and ...thereby Forest.

 

 

It might become akin to trying to kill

shadows ...

 

....or, trying to kill the waves when

ocean and wind, gravity and moon and

sun are still Untouched and unaffected !

 

 

[....]

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz> wrote:

Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz>

wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > > .....how to discuss that which cannot be discussed (cf. the " Tao Te

> > > Ching " for more details on that).

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Yours truly,

> > >

> > > fuzzie

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Dear fuzzie,

> > >

> > > Here are two chapters from the Tao Te Ching that refers to what was

> > > discussed. This translation can be found at:

> > > http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/gthursby/taoism/ttcmerel.htm

> > >

> > > Other translations that vary widely can be found at:

> > > http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/gthursby/taoism/ttc-list.htm

> > > http://www.wam.umd.edu/~stwright/rel/tao/TaoTeChing.html

> > >

> > > Language and dialogue can be made more adequate to the task though

> > > never sufficient. " Sitting " at the 'opening of " mystery, " '

rather than

> > > in senseless immersion in it so that the operation of the expressive

> > > capacities are not naturally muted, the emergence of consciouseness

> > > and the superficial mind can be experienced, " observed " as these

take

> > > formation, produce their products and then dissipate. This

> > > observational experience is used to find the words that better suit

> > > " my " appearance. The venerated appearances of the past that describe

> > > these matters derive them from such observations all different

as each

> > > is. Each appearance's observations are different than another due to

> > > the expressing body/mind. Each find its way. The sooner alone and

> > > vanished the better it seems. What do you experience fuzzie, at the

> > > opening?

> > >

> > > Love,

> > >

> > > Lewis

> >

> >

> > Dear, Lewis:

> >

> > I had a hunch you were into Taoism. Your writing style revealed a

> > poise and a reserve that was reminiscent of a Taoist fluency. Thank

> > you for the links to the Taoist websites. I noticed the quotes you

> > used were from the James Legge translation. He was the guy that did

> > the old classic " I Ching " that was popular back when I was growing up

> > (late '60's, early '70's). Good to see old Legge is still holding

up.

> >

> >

> > Lewis: Fuzzie, the move to Taoism followed the lead given. There is

> > not much interest in the Tao Te Ching beyond those two chapters among

> > the 81 that comprise the text. The translation I used was an

> > interpolation of many different version by another author, Peter

> > Merel, and the alternative translation was Legge, which is a very

> > sensitive one, that is, it is not so much a reinterpretation from

> > various positions or translated in stilted English as others. Peter

> > Merel did not translate the text. He used several well respected

> > translations and worked out a useful presentation.

> >

> >

> > You wrote: " Each appearance's observations are different than another

> > due to the expressing body/mind. Each find its way. The sooner alone

> > and vanished the better it seems. What do you experience fuzzie, at

> > the opening? "

> >

> > What do I experience, " Sitting " at the 'opening of " mystery " ', you

> > ask? My experience is that I am aware that I am; indefinable,

> > indescribable being-awareness. I know, that is a hackneyed cliche' in

> > the Advaita circles these days, but, I don't know anything else but

> > that, hackneyed or not. I AM; no experience necessary. As you seem to

> > be aware, everything which is generally considered to be experiential

> > is but an apparency and the expression thereof. The appearances, or,

> > experiences, are but waves upon the deep, so to speak. Like any other

> > sentient body/mind, I experience these waves of appearances,

> > modulating in and out, apparencies which can be re-membered and

> > re-counted as experiences in seemingly endless variations and

> > combinations. But, I really know nothing about any of it. I am

> > ignorant, really. There is the joy in just being, though. That's my

> > experience. There's no need to know anything in order to know

> > yourself. Self-realization is inherent; natural. The old saw

> > " ignorance is bliss " appears to be accurate, in this case.

> > Self-realization is so blunt simple, that that is why it is so

> > difficult. And, as the Taoists and Buddhists and Vedantists have all

> > so aptly reiterated, it cannot be verbalized or thought. One can only

> > gesture. The rest is up to grace or fate or the infinite wisdom of all

> > things or whatever anyone wants to call it.

> >

> >

> > Lewis: Yes. It is simple.

> >

> > And that is an experience at the " opening. " If not at the " opening "

> > and simply and fully immersed in it there is " senselessness sense " and

> > utter ignorance, where indeed " ignorance is bliss. " As you say,

> > nothing can be said of this. It may be supposed that such is how it

> > can be and is said that " nothing ever happened. "

> >

> > Facing and peering outward at the opening and not fully immersed in it

> > there appear the " waves upon the deep, " the " waves of the

> > appearances. " Without doing this, that is " being in 'oblivion' " with

> > out full immersion, there is no way to carry on work, play, rest,

> > creating, and otherwise doing and living. Has this been your

experience?

> >

> > My interest at the moment Fuzzie, is in expressions of the emergence,

> > formation and appearance and change in the capacities and the products

> > " the waves of the appearances. " It seems that language can be used to

> > better and more sensitively to express these so that it is realized.

> > The common ways to nudge to it is, to engage ascetism, to deny assumed

> > realities and inherent independent existence (neti, neti, issuing

> > blanket statements - " it is all a dream or illusion, " asserting

> > impermanence, sunyata, dependent origination, etc.) to undermine

> > ego/self and reification by denying, challenging, ridiculing,

> > harassing and otherwise making it difficult to hold on to impeding

> > assumptions and ignorance of self, to seek " direct perception " and

> > various samadhis through various methods and practices, to eliminate

> > mental and physical predispositions (vasanas), habits, " clinging " and

> > other things perceived as impediments, " to do nothing, " " to let go, "

> > " to have it come as it may, " " grace, " and so on. These all seem to be

> > rather " complicated " for understanding and dealing with the

> > appearances, for what appears to be simple. What can be said, Fuzzie?

> >

> >

> > Well, I've rambled on enough here. Most people think I'm crazy and/or

> > deluded, etc., anyhow. Maybe they're right. I don't know. It wouldn't

> > make any difference, either way, would it, Lewis?

> >

> >

> > Lewis: No. It it does not in any way. And would it help or make a

> > difference knowing that I am touched, totally insane, crazy as a loon,

> > a nutter, an ignorant defective?

> >

> > :-)

> >

> >

> > As usual, it's been a pleasure. Thanks so much for your consideration.

> > You are a gentleman and a scholar. I appreciate it.

> >

> > Yours,

> >

> > fuzzie

> >

> > It is a pleasure to communicate with you Fuzzie, to be with you like

> > this. It is enjoyable and stimulating.

> >

> >

> > Love,

> >

> > Lewis

>

>

> Hello, Lewis:

>

> I should have said you have an affinity with Taoist philosophy. I

> think most do who are also drawn to Vedanta or Buddhism, particularly

> Ch'an/Zen Buddhism, where Taoist philosophy is a heavy influence in

> the formative period of the various Ch'an Buddhist sects of the T'ang

> Dynasty era.

>

>

> Lewis: Yes.

>

>

> You wrote: " Facing and peering outward at the opening and not fully

> immersed in it there appear the " waves upon the deep, " the " waves of

> the appearances. " Without doing this, that is " being in 'oblivion' "

> without full immersion, there is no way to carry on work, play, rest,

> creating, and otherwise doing and living. Has this been your

experience? "

>

> My 'experience', Lewis, for lack of a better word, is that the " being

> in 'oblivion' " and carrying on with living, working, playing, etc.,

> are concurrent. There really is no separation. In the Self, there is

> no subject/object, binary opposition. There is only being-awareness; I

> AM. And, accompanying this being-ness is a sense of joy. Not that

> there is never any pain, but, just an enjoyment of being itself.

>

> But, granted I don't get much work done, Lewis. If something needs

> doing, then, I do it, but, if not, I don't look for things to do. I

> live by the maxim " let it be " , and, I'm not necessarily talking about

> the Beatles (although, I like the Beatles, generally speaking).

>

>

>

>

> Lewis: Yes. There is never separation and it is always is. Separation

> and discontinity are impossibilities. One way to understand what was

> intended to be said about " oblivion " is to consider daily life with

> deep sleep, waking and calm, doing the morning things, being involved

> in this and that like posting, eating, excreting and such, moving

> around here to there, relating with others, resting and deep sleep.

> During these artificial segments of daily activities, which can be

> filled and ordered in any way desired from memory, there are changes

> in the content of the appearances from none to few, to many, to few to

> none, to few and so on. During an active day, oblivion remains

> background as the appearances occupy attention. The non-separation

> continues and the appearances are dealt with and unlike that done in

> deep sleep, or rest or contemplation. Is this not so?

>

> When the name used is called or seen, is there a response? If there is

> a response, one cannot be fully immersed in oblivion since experience

> informs that being total oblivion is sense-less, as in deep sleep or

> even with eyes closed or open. The " state " referred to is a waking

> state where oblivion is present and not overwhelming the appearances

> making them indistinct and incomprehensible, though it does happen

> during the day sometimes. There is a moving through various states in

> a day. There is not a " steady state " as the demands and callings

> change and alter. Close examination shows that there are changes of

> all sorts. Recapitulating and assessing memories may make it seem like

> it is one state but that is not possible since one's appearance and

> its contents fluctutates and changes continuously during a day and so

> on. The contents are enormous, always changing and most of it goes

> unnoticed. The isolated capacities of " awareness " and/or

> " consciousness " (they are not equivalent concepts or experiences)

> fluctuate as well since their expression and operations are dependent

> on other things such as memory, brain functioning, enviromental

> conditions, others and so on.

>

>

> Also, as you do, I respond to the call and flow of experiences. Doing

> that is enough and the plate is always full.

>

>

> You also wrote, concerning language or methodology used to induce

> realization:

>

> " The common ways to nudge to it is, to engage ascetism, to deny

> assumed realities and inherent independent existence (neti, neti,

> issuing blanket statements - " it is all a dream or illusion, "

> asserting impermanence, sunyata, dependent origination, etc.) to

undermine

> > ego/self and reification by denying, challenging, ridiculing,

> > harassing and otherwise making it difficult to hold on to impeding

> > assumptions and ignorance of self, to seek " direct perception " and

> > various samadhis through various methods and practices, to eliminate

> > mental and physical predispositions (vasanas), habits, " clinging " and

> > other things perceived as impediments, " to do nothing, " " to let go, "

> > " to have it come as it may, " " grace, " and so on. These all seem to be

> > rather " complicated " for understanding and dealing with the

> > appearances, for what appears to be simple. What can be said, Fuzzie? "

>

> My response is that all of these things are aids to alter

> consciousness or to induce various psychophysical effects upon the

> body/mind, but, they are not necessary at all in realizing the Self.

>

>

>

> Lewis: Agreed.

>

>

> I agree with Nisargadatta and Ramana on this. They both taught to

> simply know yourself and that is all.

>

>

> Lewis: Do not forget Fuzzie that self-inquiry (neti, neti) as a

> specific method was taught by both.

>

>

> It is tried and true. Attested to throughout the annals of history

> (the admonition " Know Thyself " was inscribed upon the Delphic Oracle).

> It's so simple, so obvious, almost everyone overlooks it. The Self;

> you are It. Taking up all of these methods and practices might be

> helpful in some ways, but, none of them are necessary. That's why

> there's such a proliferation of " methods and practices " , because, in

> and of themselves, none of them work. One realizes the Self as if by

> accident, by intuition.

>

>

> Lewis: Yes, that seems to be the case. For some methods and practices

> are helpful, even " necessary. " If one speaks from realization one may

> say nothing is necessary since the simplicity is seen. Others may not

> see that " tree " for the " forest " hides it and it needs to be " cut

> down, " cleared enough so that that tree appears unmistakenly and then

> there is the attempt to cut that which cannot be cut and it is then

> suddenly apparent...... Methods and practices can, but not

> necessarily, help in the clearing and positioning and nothing more

> than that. It just happens.

>

>

> I'm not putting any methods or practices down, though, Lewis. I used

> to try different methods and practices. I meditated for decades. I got

> into various religions. I practiced atma vichara 24/7 until I couldn't

> think of anything else. Then, one afternoon, all of the sudden, out of

> nowhere, I realized I AM. I was in a very ecstatic state for several

> days, afterwards, and, now, it has mellowed out into the simple joy of

> just being. I don't know how else to put it. Some tell me I'm not

> " there " , yet. Others say I've gone too far. I don't know. It isn't

> really an issue for me, anymore.

>

>

> Yes. A " clearing " is made so it unmistakenly appears without effort.

> It goes that way.

>

> The point about the language is that if used well perhaps the trees

> need not be cut (most of the harmless ones grow back anyway) with

> elaborate methods practices which do indeed take many years many years

> and instead a simple " navigational device " can be used to do a little

> more than to vaguely point, a sort of GPS language unit. If it can be

> spoken about as it is being done here it can be done. Nothing fancy

> just some notes on how the capacities operate to produce the

> appearances so the " trees " the appearances can be seen around and

> through so it is clearly seen. There is so much talk about it, so

> there is no one to object to it?

>

>

> But, I will say one thing: It sure is fun talking to you, Lewis. And,

> who has more fun than people? (River otters, maybe?)

>

>

>

> Yours,

>

> fuzzie

>

>

> Yes, joy is and be careful Fuzzie, that sort of statement will get the

> exorcising crew working - there are no people, so it is said.

>

> :-D

>

> Love,

>

> Lewis

 

 

Hi, there, Lewis:

 

You wrote:

 

fuzzie: " ...During an active day, oblivion remains background as the

appearances occupy attention. The non-separation continues and the

appearances are dealt with and unlike that done in deep sleep, or rest

or contemplation. Is this not so? "

 

Deep sleep, dreaming and waking are all the same in the Self. This

" oblivion vs. apparency " dichotomy you are wrestling with is an

invention of the mind, of thought; (it's as if one thinks oneself into

an imaginary bottle and, then, one tries to think oneself back out,

again; the whole affair is imaginary; let it go).

 

 

Lewis: The question is not answered, Fuzzie. Playing the piano does

not, nor anything else, occur in deep dreamless sleep. There is no

dichotomy and there is no wrestling. It is a manner of expression and

all of it is an invention, as is the Self concept. There is no need to

let go of word invention like oblivion, appearances or Self, they all

are like air, ungraspable. They are no thing.

 

If it is possible, read between the words. The concepts are not what

it is about. You are reading the concepts as separate and trying to

put them all or dissolve them all in the concept of Self, which you

are using as an object fact. The Self concept is only that, a concept,

as is oblivion and appearances. These concepts can be broken apart and

put back togehter or simply discarded. When using concepts it is

easier to stick with them until you are finished with them and then

put them down. But to use concepts as if they are real confuses

discussion. Self, oblivion and appearances are equal fictitious

concepts.

 

 

fuzzie: In the Self, neither oblivion nor apparency exist, but are

fictions of the mind (one could say, though, they " exist " in an

imaginary sense). The Self always Is, regardless of what the body/mind

" experiences " or where the attention of the mind wanders. It is just

being and no other. You are That.

 

 

Lewis: This is where trouble comes in Fuzzie and others may have at

you because of it. The Self is a word, concept that refers to..... The

word, the concept, is a fiction and it is no different than the

concept of oblivion or the appearances. What the concept Self refers

to has no embodiment in that word, there is nothing embodied in words

or concepts. To use it as if it is embodied will hamstring

conversations. For example, can you make the Self an object? Can you

see the Self and examine the Self in any way? This is not possible but

you are doing it by saying:

 

" The Self always Is, regardless of what the body/mind " experiences " or

where the attention of the mind wanders. It is just being and no other. "

 

Here you have made the Self an object to you and to others by

describing it in words as if you can do such an impossibility and then

insisting on the veracity of the concpet and discarding other concepts

saying they do not apply. This may be seen by some as belief and

reification and the behavior that comes with that. To continue to do

so means that all is must be packed in favor of your version. No

discussion is possible because all is resolved to the your linguistic

concept of Self. I understand what you say and the point of the

discussion was about experience. The experience is a fiction in that

it is abstracted from a larger one, as are the segments described.

That was being shared as if it were a sandwich. So it seemed.

 

When concepts are employed there are limitations. One of those

limitations is understanding what the other means by their concepts.

To tell an experience is to fragment it, but such fragementation is

artificial, so we read between the words. If one does not have similar

experiences then there are immediate problems. Assumptions rise and

then off we go into no, no, and yes, but insted of exploring

experiences for the fun of it.

 

 

fuzzie: You wrote, regarding Nisargadatta and Ramana:

 

" Do not forget Fuzzie that self-inquiry (neti, neti) as a specific

method was taught by both. "

 

" Neti, neti " may be a by-product of self-inquiry, but, it is not

self-inquiry proper. Self-inquiry is an investigation into oneself.

Nisargadatta and Ramana emphasized a continuous looking into oneself,

turning the flow of attention back onto the self and realizing who or

what that may be. Nisargadatta said stay with the sense of " I am " and

Ramana always turned the question back onto the questioner ( " Who am

I? " ). This is not neti-neti in the classical sense, but, it does

entail a weeding out of that which is superficial to the quest.

 

In my opinion, (and, I am not an authority on anything), I found the

neti-neti process to be mainly intellectual. This can be helpful,

though, but, it does not take one beyond the body/mind, which is the

greatest hindrance to self-realization. But, having an intellectual

understanding of the process in question is useful, and, so, neti-neti

has its place in the overall scheme of things.

 

 

Lewis: Yes. The method of self-inquiry is a method and neti, neti is

an aid in it and not central. Here is Ramana's method in his words and

it includes neti, neti as an aid.

 

 

" 29. The only enquiry leading to Self-realization is seeking the

Source of the 'I' with in-turned mind and without uttering the word

'I'. Meditation on 'I am not this; I am That' may be an aid to the

enquiry but it cannot be the enquiry. "

 

 

fuzzie: You wrote:

 

" ...Others may not see that " tree " for the " forest " hides it and it

needs to be " cut down, " cleared enough so that that tree appears

unmistakenly and then there is the attempt to cut that which cannot be

cut and it is then suddenly apparent...... "

 

I thought the old saw went: " One can't see the forest for the trees " .

 

 

Lewis: Of course, but it can be used in any way.

 

 

fuzzie: The Self is not the metaphorical " tree " nor is it the

" forest " . It would be more analogous to say that the Self is the

" ground " in which the " trees " take root. So, instead of cutting the

forest down, Lewis, simply locate the " ground " in which your

metaphorical " trees " are arising. Then, you can enjoy the beauty and

grandeur of the forest while remaining as I AM. Besides, anyhow,

cutting the forest down can be exhausting.

 

 

 

Yours,

 

fuzzie

 

 

Lewis: Ok. That story works with the concept. The other tree metaphor

was derived from the conceptualizations of Self and the common methods

and practices used to reach the " Self. " Most of these methods have to

do with " clearing " and they are exhausting I suppose for those who to

do them.

 

You should know that I do not consider at all the concept of the Self

or self-realization nor engage in any practices related to it. The I

AM/Self/Atman/Nirguna Brahman complex are understood as concepts,

which is related to the enormous and diverse amount of Vedantic

scripture and complicated commentary connected with it. The same goes

for Buddhism, Taoism, Christianity, all religions, and the mystic

traditions ad the occult, sciences, hard and soft, and the humanities.

Have I left out something? I to none of it and believe none

of it. These are not of any interest whatsoever beyond the meanings

provided, what they mean to others, and what uses can be made of them.

These are all stories and guidebooks of others experiences and

practices writ large.

 

In the spiritual realm, Ramana talks about his experiences.

Nisargadatta, his and so on with the many others. They are

interesting. What they say seems like common sense. They are not

impressive. Perhaps, if they were read earlier, there would be

something significant and impressive in what they say. Coming to them

late in life, they seem just like they enjoy spending all their time

talking about what I find ordinary in my daily experience. I do not

see anything extraordinary in what they say or what they did.

 

The time spent here in conversations like the one now engaged in is

for exploring what is in this appearance and in others. It is a

curiosity and it is fun, enjoyable and sometimes not and all of it is

as it is. Like life. Breathe it in and let out. I have nothing to

teach nor anything extraordinary to report. Enlightenment and seeking

it is meaningless to me, though it is important to others. Some like

cake others steak, some both, others neither. No reason for

conversations not to be had though. After all if someone is realized

or enlightened, as those concepts are usually described, such persons

are fearless and open and universal and it would seem that " pagans "

and the " unenlightened " and the " partially or crippled enlightened "

can hang out without being dipped in the roiling scriptures and dogma.

 

Love,

 

Lewis

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...>

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz>

wrote:

> Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...>

wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz "

<fuzzie_wuz>

> wrote:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > .....how to discuss that which cannot be discussed (cf.

the " Tao Te

> > > > Ching " for more details on that).

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Yours truly,

> > > >

> > > > fuzzie

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Dear fuzzie,

> > > >

> > > > Here are two chapters from the Tao Te Ching that refers to

what was

> > > > discussed. This translation can be found at:

> > > > http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/gthursby/taoism/ttcmerel.htm

> > > >

> > > > Other translations that vary widely can be found at:

> > > > http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/gthursby/taoism/ttc-list.htm

> > > > http://www.wam.umd.edu/~stwright/rel/tao/TaoTeChing.html

> > > >

> > > > Language and dialogue can be made more adequate to the task

though

> > > > never sufficient. " Sitting " at the 'opening of " mystery, " '

> rather than

> > > > in senseless immersion in it so that the operation of the

expressive

> > > > capacities are not naturally muted, the emergence of

consciouseness

> > > > and the superficial mind can be experienced, " observed " as

these

> take

> > > > formation, produce their products and then dissipate. This

> > > > observational experience is used to find the words that

better suit

> > > > " my " appearance. The venerated appearances of the past that

describe

> > > > these matters derive them from such observations all different

> as each

> > > > is. Each appearance's observations are different than another

due to

> > > > the expressing body/mind. Each find its way. The sooner alone

and

> > > > vanished the better it seems. What do you experience fuzzie,

at the

> > > > opening?

> > > >

> > > > Love,

> > > >

> > > > Lewis

> > >

> > >

> > > Dear, Lewis:

> > >

> > > I had a hunch you were into Taoism. Your writing style

revealed a

> > > poise and a reserve that was reminiscent of a Taoist fluency.

Thank

> > > you for the links to the Taoist websites. I noticed the quotes

you

> > > used were from the James Legge translation. He was the guy that

did

> > > the old classic " I Ching " that was popular back when I was

growing up

> > > (late '60's, early '70's). Good to see old Legge is still

holding

> up.

> > >

> > >

> > > Lewis: Fuzzie, the move to Taoism followed the lead given.

There is

> > > not much interest in the Tao Te Ching beyond those two chapters

among

> > > the 81 that comprise the text. The translation I used was an

> > > interpolation of many different version by another author, Peter

> > > Merel, and the alternative translation was Legge, which is a

very

> > > sensitive one, that is, it is not so much a reinterpretation

from

> > > various positions or translated in stilted English as others.

Peter

> > > Merel did not translate the text. He used several well respected

> > > translations and worked out a useful presentation.

> > >

> > >

> > > You wrote: " Each appearance's observations are different than

another

> > > due to the expressing body/mind. Each find its way. The sooner

alone

> > > and vanished the better it seems. What do you experience

fuzzie, at

> > > the opening? "

> > >

> > > What do I experience, " Sitting " at the 'opening of " mystery " ',

you

> > > ask? My experience is that I am aware that I am; indefinable,

> > > indescribable being-awareness. I know, that is a hackneyed

cliche' in

> > > the Advaita circles these days, but, I don't know anything else

but

> > > that, hackneyed or not. I AM; no experience necessary. As you

seem to

> > > be aware, everything which is generally considered to be

experiential

> > > is but an apparency and the expression thereof. The

appearances, or,

> > > experiences, are but waves upon the deep, so to speak. Like any

other

> > > sentient body/mind, I experience these waves of appearances,

> > > modulating in and out, apparencies which can be re-membered and

> > > re-counted as experiences in seemingly endless variations and

> > > combinations. But, I really know nothing about any of it. I am

> > > ignorant, really. There is the joy in just being, though.

That's my

> > > experience. There's no need to know anything in order to know

> > > yourself. Self-realization is inherent; natural. The old saw

> > > " ignorance is bliss " appears to be accurate, in this case.

> > > Self-realization is so blunt simple, that that is why it is so

> > > difficult. And, as the Taoists and Buddhists and Vedantists

have all

> > > so aptly reiterated, it cannot be verbalized or thought. One

can only

> > > gesture. The rest is up to grace or fate or the infinite wisdom

of all

> > > things or whatever anyone wants to call it.

> > >

> > >

> > > Lewis: Yes. It is simple.

> > >

> > > And that is an experience at the " opening. " If not at

the " opening "

> > > and simply and fully immersed in it there is " senselessness

sense " and

> > > utter ignorance, where indeed " ignorance is bliss. " As you say,

> > > nothing can be said of this. It may be supposed that such is

how it

> > > can be and is said that " nothing ever happened. "

> > >

> > > Facing and peering outward at the opening and not fully

immersed in it

> > > there appear the " waves upon the deep, " the " waves of the

> > > appearances. " Without doing this, that is " being in 'oblivion' "

with

> > > out full immersion, there is no way to carry on work, play,

rest,

> > > creating, and otherwise doing and living. Has this been your

> experience?

> > >

> > > My interest at the moment Fuzzie, is in expressions of the

emergence,

> > > formation and appearance and change in the capacities and the

products

> > > " the waves of the appearances. " It seems that language can be

used to

> > > better and more sensitively to express these so that it is

realized.

> > > The common ways to nudge to it is, to engage ascetism, to deny

assumed

> > > realities and inherent independent existence (neti, neti,

issuing

> > > blanket statements - " it is all a dream or illusion, " asserting

> > > impermanence, sunyata, dependent origination, etc.) to undermine

> > > ego/self and reification by denying, challenging, ridiculing,

> > > harassing and otherwise making it difficult to hold on to

impeding

> > > assumptions and ignorance of self, to seek " direct perception "

and

> > > various samadhis through various methods and practices, to

eliminate

> > > mental and physical predispositions (vasanas),

habits, " clinging " and

> > > other things perceived as impediments, " to do nothing, " " to let

go, "

> > > " to have it come as it may, " " grace, " and so on. These all seem

to be

> > > rather " complicated " for understanding and dealing with the

> > > appearances, for what appears to be simple. What can be said,

Fuzzie?

> > >

> > >

> > > Well, I've rambled on enough here. Most people think I'm crazy

and/or

> > > deluded, etc., anyhow. Maybe they're right. I don't know. It

wouldn't

> > > make any difference, either way, would it, Lewis?

> > >

> > >

> > > Lewis: No. It it does not in any way. And would it help or make

a

> > > difference knowing that I am touched, totally insane, crazy as

a loon,

> > > a nutter, an ignorant defective?

> > >

> > > :-)

> > >

> > >

> > > As usual, it's been a pleasure. Thanks so much for your

consideration.

> > > You are a gentleman and a scholar. I appreciate it.

> > >

> > > Yours,

> > >

> > > fuzzie

> > >

> > > It is a pleasure to communicate with you Fuzzie, to be with you

like

> > > this. It is enjoyable and stimulating.

> > >

> > >

> > > Love,

> > >

> > > Lewis

> >

> >

> > Hello, Lewis:

> >

> > I should have said you have an affinity with Taoist philosophy. I

> > think most do who are also drawn to Vedanta or Buddhism,

particularly

> > Ch'an/Zen Buddhism, where Taoist philosophy is a heavy influence

in

> > the formative period of the various Ch'an Buddhist sects of the

T'ang

> > Dynasty era.

> >

> >

> > Lewis: Yes.

> >

> >

> > You wrote: " Facing and peering outward at the opening and not

fully

> > immersed in it there appear the " waves upon the deep, " the " waves

of

> > the appearances. " Without doing this, that is " being

in 'oblivion' "

> > without full immersion, there is no way to carry on work, play,

rest,

> > creating, and otherwise doing and living. Has this been your

> experience? "

> >

> > My 'experience', Lewis, for lack of a better word, is that

the " being

> > in 'oblivion' " and carrying on with living, working, playing,

etc.,

> > are concurrent. There really is no separation. In the Self, there

is

> > no subject/object, binary opposition. There is only being-

awareness; I

> > AM. And, accompanying this being-ness is a sense of joy. Not that

> > there is never any pain, but, just an enjoyment of being itself.

> >

> > But, granted I don't get much work done, Lewis. If something needs

> > doing, then, I do it, but, if not, I don't look for things to do.

I

> > live by the maxim " let it be " , and, I'm not necessarily talking

about

> > the Beatles (although, I like the Beatles, generally speaking).

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Lewis: Yes. There is never separation and it is always is.

Separation

> > and discontinity are impossibilities. One way to understand what

was

> > intended to be said about " oblivion " is to consider daily life

with

> > deep sleep, waking and calm, doing the morning things, being

involved

> > in this and that like posting, eating, excreting and such, moving

> > around here to there, relating with others, resting and deep

sleep.

> > During these artificial segments of daily activities, which can be

> > filled and ordered in any way desired from memory, there are

changes

> > in the content of the appearances from none to few, to many, to

few to

> > none, to few and so on. During an active day, oblivion remains

> > background as the appearances occupy attention. The non-separation

> > continues and the appearances are dealt with and unlike that done

in

> > deep sleep, or rest or contemplation. Is this not so?

> >

> > When the name used is called or seen, is there a response? If

there is

> > a response, one cannot be fully immersed in oblivion since

experience

> > informs that being total oblivion is sense-less, as in deep sleep

or

> > even with eyes closed or open. The " state " referred to is a waking

> > state where oblivion is present and not overwhelming the

appearances

> > making them indistinct and incomprehensible, though it does happen

> > during the day sometimes. There is a moving through various

states in

> > a day. There is not a " steady state " as the demands and callings

> > change and alter. Close examination shows that there are changes

of

> > all sorts. Recapitulating and assessing memories may make it seem

like

> > it is one state but that is not possible since one's appearance

and

> > its contents fluctutates and changes continuously during a day

and so

> > on. The contents are enormous, always changing and most of it goes

> > unnoticed. The isolated capacities of " awareness " and/or

> > " consciousness " (they are not equivalent concepts or experiences)

> > fluctuate as well since their expression and operations are

dependent

> > on other things such as memory, brain functioning, enviromental

> > conditions, others and so on.

> >

> >

> > Also, as you do, I respond to the call and flow of experiences.

Doing

> > that is enough and the plate is always full.

> >

> >

> > You also wrote, concerning language or methodology used to induce

> > realization:

> >

> > " The common ways to nudge to it is, to engage ascetism, to deny

> > assumed realities and inherent independent existence (neti, neti,

> > issuing blanket statements - " it is all a dream or illusion, "

> > asserting impermanence, sunyata, dependent origination, etc.) to

> undermine

> > > ego/self and reification by denying, challenging, ridiculing,

> > > harassing and otherwise making it difficult to hold on to

impeding

> > > assumptions and ignorance of self, to seek " direct perception "

and

> > > various samadhis through various methods and practices, to

eliminate

> > > mental and physical predispositions (vasanas),

habits, " clinging " and

> > > other things perceived as impediments, " to do nothing, " " to let

go, "

> > > " to have it come as it may, " " grace, " and so on. These all seem

to be

> > > rather " complicated " for understanding and dealing with the

> > > appearances, for what appears to be simple. What can be said,

Fuzzie? "

> >

> > My response is that all of these things are aids to alter

> > consciousness or to induce various psychophysical effects upon the

> > body/mind, but, they are not necessary at all in realizing the

Self.

> >

> >

> >

> > Lewis: Agreed.

> >

> >

> > I agree with Nisargadatta and Ramana on this. They both taught to

> > simply know yourself and that is all.

> >

> >

> > Lewis: Do not forget Fuzzie that self-inquiry (neti, neti) as a

> > specific method was taught by both.

> >

> >

> > It is tried and true. Attested to throughout the annals of history

> > (the admonition " Know Thyself " was inscribed upon the Delphic

Oracle).

> > It's so simple, so obvious, almost everyone overlooks it. The

Self;

> > you are It. Taking up all of these methods and practices might be

> > helpful in some ways, but, none of them are necessary. That's why

> > there's such a proliferation of " methods and practices " , because,

in

> > and of themselves, none of them work. One realizes the Self as if

by

> > accident, by intuition.

> >

> >

> > Lewis: Yes, that seems to be the case. For some methods and

practices

> > are helpful, even " necessary. " If one speaks from realization one

may

> > say nothing is necessary since the simplicity is seen. Others may

not

> > see that " tree " for the " forest " hides it and it needs to be " cut

> > down, " cleared enough so that that tree appears unmistakenly and

then

> > there is the attempt to cut that which cannot be cut and it is

then

> > suddenly apparent...... Methods and practices can, but not

> > necessarily, help in the clearing and positioning and nothing more

> > than that. It just happens.

> >

> >

> > I'm not putting any methods or practices down, though, Lewis. I

used

> > to try different methods and practices. I meditated for decades.

I got

> > into various religions. I practiced atma vichara 24/7 until I

couldn't

> > think of anything else. Then, one afternoon, all of the sudden,

out of

> > nowhere, I realized I AM. I was in a very ecstatic state for

several

> > days, afterwards, and, now, it has mellowed out into the simple

joy of

> > just being. I don't know how else to put it. Some tell me I'm not

> > " there " , yet. Others say I've gone too far. I don't know. It isn't

> > really an issue for me, anymore.

> >

> >

> > Yes. A " clearing " is made so it unmistakenly appears without

effort.

> > It goes that way.

> >

> > The point about the language is that if used well perhaps the

trees

> > need not be cut (most of the harmless ones grow back anyway) with

> > elaborate methods practices which do indeed take many years many

years

> > and instead a simple " navigational device " can be used to do a

little

> > more than to vaguely point, a sort of GPS language unit. If it

can be

> > spoken about as it is being done here it can be done. Nothing

fancy

> > just some notes on how the capacities operate to produce the

> > appearances so the " trees " the appearances can be seen around and

> > through so it is clearly seen. There is so much talk about it, so

> > there is no one to object to it?

> >

> >

> > But, I will say one thing: It sure is fun talking to you, Lewis.

And,

> > who has more fun than people? (River otters, maybe?)

> >

> >

> >

> > Yours,

> >

> > fuzzie

> >

> >

> > Yes, joy is and be careful Fuzzie, that sort of statement will

get the

> > exorcising crew working - there are no people, so it is said.

> >

> > :-D

> >

> > Love,

> >

> > Lewis

>

>

> Hi, there, Lewis:

>

> You wrote:

>

> fuzzie: " ...During an active day, oblivion remains background as the

> appearances occupy attention. The non-separation continues and the

> appearances are dealt with and unlike that done in deep sleep, or

rest

> or contemplation. Is this not so? "

>

> Deep sleep, dreaming and waking are all the same in the Self. This

> " oblivion vs. apparency " dichotomy you are wrestling with is an

> invention of the mind, of thought; (it's as if one thinks oneself

into

> an imaginary bottle and, then, one tries to think oneself back out,

> again; the whole affair is imaginary; let it go).

>

>

> Lewis: The question is not answered, Fuzzie. Playing the piano does

> not, nor anything else, occur in deep dreamless sleep. There is no

> dichotomy and there is no wrestling. It is a manner of expression

and

> all of it is an invention, as is the Self concept. There is no need

to

> let go of word invention like oblivion, appearances or Self, they

all

> are like air, ungraspable. They are no thing.

>

> If it is possible, read between the words. The concepts are not what

> it is about. You are reading the concepts as separate and trying to

> put them all or dissolve them all in the concept of Self, which you

> are using as an object fact. The Self concept is only that, a

concept,

> as is oblivion and appearances. These concepts can be broken apart

and

> put back togehter or simply discarded. When using concepts it is

> easier to stick with them until you are finished with them and then

> put them down. But to use concepts as if they are real confuses

> discussion. Self, oblivion and appearances are equal fictitious

> concepts.

>

>

> fuzzie: In the Self, neither oblivion nor apparency exist, but are

> fictions of the mind (one could say, though, they " exist " in an

> imaginary sense). The Self always Is, regardless of what the

body/mind

> " experiences " or where the attention of the mind wanders. It is just

> being and no other. You are That.

>

>

> Lewis: This is where trouble comes in Fuzzie and others may have at

> you because of it. The Self is a word, concept that refers to.....

The

> word, the concept, is a fiction and it is no different than the

> concept of oblivion or the appearances. What the concept Self refers

> to has no embodiment in that word, there is nothing embodied in

words

> or concepts. To use it as if it is embodied will hamstring

> conversations. For example, can you make the Self an object? Can you

> see the Self and examine the Self in any way? This is not possible

but

> you are doing it by saying:

>

> " The Self always Is, regardless of what the body/mind " experiences "

or

> where the attention of the mind wanders. It is just being and no

other. "

>

> Here you have made the Self an object to you and to others by

> describing it in words as if you can do such an impossibility and

then

> insisting on the veracity of the concpet and discarding other

concepts

> saying they do not apply. This may be seen by some as belief and

> reification and the behavior that comes with that. To continue to do

> so means that all is must be packed in favor of your version. No

> discussion is possible because all is resolved to the your

linguistic

> concept of Self. I understand what you say and the point of the

> discussion was about experience. The experience is a fiction in that

> it is abstracted from a larger one, as are the segments described.

> That was being shared as if it were a sandwich. So it seemed.

>

> When concepts are employed there are limitations. One of those

> limitations is understanding what the other means by their concepts.

> To tell an experience is to fragment it, but such fragementation is

> artificial, so we read between the words. If one does not have

similar

> experiences then there are immediate problems. Assumptions rise and

> then off we go into no, no, and yes, but insted of exploring

> experiences for the fun of it.

>

>

> fuzzie: You wrote, regarding Nisargadatta and Ramana:

>

> " Do not forget Fuzzie that self-inquiry (neti, neti) as a specific

> method was taught by both. "

>

> " Neti, neti " may be a by-product of self-inquiry, but, it is not

> self-inquiry proper. Self-inquiry is an investigation into oneself.

> Nisargadatta and Ramana emphasized a continuous looking into

oneself,

> turning the flow of attention back onto the self and realizing who

or

> what that may be. Nisargadatta said stay with the sense of " I am "

and

> Ramana always turned the question back onto the questioner ( " Who am

> I? " ). This is not neti-neti in the classical sense, but, it does

> entail a weeding out of that which is superficial to the quest.

>

> In my opinion, (and, I am not an authority on anything), I found the

> neti-neti process to be mainly intellectual. This can be helpful,

> though, but, it does not take one beyond the body/mind, which is the

> greatest hindrance to self-realization. But, having an intellectual

> understanding of the process in question is useful, and, so, neti-

neti

> has its place in the overall scheme of things.

>

>

> Lewis: Yes. The method of self-inquiry is a method and neti, neti is

> an aid in it and not central. Here is Ramana's method in his words

and

> it includes neti, neti as an aid.

>

>

> " 29. The only enquiry leading to Self-realization is seeking the

> Source of the 'I' with in-turned mind and without uttering the word

> 'I'. Meditation on 'I am not this; I am That' may be an aid to the

> enquiry but it cannot be the enquiry. "

>

>

> fuzzie: You wrote:

>

> " ...Others may not see that " tree " for the " forest " hides it and it

> needs to be " cut down, " cleared enough so that that tree appears

> unmistakenly and then there is the attempt to cut that which cannot

be

> cut and it is then suddenly apparent...... "

>

> I thought the old saw went: " One can't see the forest for the

trees " .

>

>

>

> Lewis: Of course, but it can be used in any way.

>

>

> fuzzie: The Self is not the metaphorical " tree " nor is it the

> " forest " . It would be more analogous to say that the Self is the

> " ground " in which the " trees " take root. So, instead of cutting the

> forest down, Lewis, simply locate the " ground " in which your

> metaphorical " trees " are arising. Then, you can enjoy the beauty and

> grandeur of the forest while remaining as I AM. Besides, anyhow,

> cutting the forest down can be exhausting.

>

>

>

>

> Yours,

>

> fuzzie

>

>

> Lewis: Ok. That story works with the concept. The other tree

metaphor

> was derived from the conceptualizations of Self and the common

methods

> and practices used to reach the " Self. " Most of these methods have

to

> do with " clearing " and they are exhausting I suppose for those who

to

> do them.

>

> You should know that I do not consider at all the concept of the

Self

> or self-realization nor engage in any practices related to it. The I

> AM/Self/Atman/Nirguna Brahman complex are understood as concepts,

> which is related to the enormous and diverse amount of Vedantic

> scripture and complicated commentary connected with it. The same

goes

> for Buddhism, Taoism, Christianity, all religions, and the mystic

> traditions ad the occult, sciences, hard and soft, and the

humanities.

> Have I left out something? I to none of it and believe

none

> of it. These are not of any interest whatsoever beyond the meanings

> provided, what they mean to others, and what uses can be made of

them.

> These are all stories and guidebooks of others experiences and

> practices writ large.

>

> In the spiritual realm, Ramana talks about his experiences.

> Nisargadatta, his and so on with the many others. They are

> interesting. What they say seems like common sense. They are not

> impressive. Perhaps, if they were read earlier, there would be

> something significant and impressive in what they say. Coming to

them

> late in life, they seem just like they enjoy spending all their time

> talking about what I find ordinary in my daily experience. I do not

> see anything extraordinary in what they say or what they did.

 

 

How what is Most Basic, the most

fundamental, the most raw, ...the

Unmanifested can be ... 'extra

ordinary', 'special', 'Startling' ?

 

is not that in the realm of

.... " things " , " manifestations " ?

 

Can you call SPACE ... 'Special' ?

Is NOT that reserved for the things

that emerge in it ?

 

Would it be right to call the

'potential', the 'possibility' ...

special ?

is not it 'special' or 'ordinary' is

better used for ... " what it becomes "

rather than for ... " what it is " ...the

potential, the possibility ?

 

 

How can " what always is " be any

Special ?

 

 

 

How can what you are be ...'special'

to 'you' ?

 

Is not 'special' reserved for the

'things' that you hold or might be ware

of ....even if that thing is an 'image'

of yourself ?

 

 

>

> The time spent here in conversations like the one now engaged in is

> for exploring what is in this appearance and in others. It is a

> curiosity and it is fun, enjoyable and sometimes not and all of it

is

> as it is. Like life. Breathe it in and let out. I have nothing to

> teach nor anything extraordinary to report. Enlightenment and

seeking

> it is meaningless to me, though it is important to others. Some like

> cake others steak, some both, others neither. No reason for

> conversations not to be had though. After all if someone is realized

> or enlightened, as those concepts are usually described, such

persons

> are fearless and open and universal and it would seem that " pagans "

> and the " unenlightened " and the " partially or crippled enlightened "

> can hang out without being dipped in the roiling scriptures and

dogma.

>

> Love,

>

> Lewis

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming "

<adithya_comming> wrote:

>

 

 

Would it be right to call the

'potential', the 'possibility' ...

special ?

is not it 'special' or 'ordinary' is

better used for ... " what it becomes "

rather than for ... " what it is " ...the

potential, the possibility ?

 

 

How can " what always is " be any

Special ?

 

 

 

How can what you are be ...'special'

to 'you' ?

 

Is not 'special' reserved for the

'things' that you hold or might be ware

of ....even if that thing is an 'image'

of yourself ?

 

 

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

What difference does it make? You raise non-sense.

 

 

" Special " and " ordinary " are words of distinction. Any one can use them.

 

If you want something to be " special " " ordinary " make it so. How? Say

" This is special " or " This is ordinary " and it is as you say. Simple.

Can you accept that?

 

Now, someone will come along and say " No, that is not special and that

is not ordinary. " And now we have difference. Oh my! What shall I do?

And another comes along and says " You are both mistaken since neither

is ordinary nor special because both are ordinary and special. " And

still another comes along and says, " You three are all deluded,

because there is no such thing as ordinary or special there is only

THAT. " They begin to argue and another comes along seeing their

foolishness and says, " All of you are deluded because there is no

ordinary or special or THAT there is only THIS. " So they fall into

further arguments and debates and another arrives on the scene and

declares, " The scriptures say that THAT is this and THIS is that and

waht you said about THAT and THIS and special and ordinary is all

wrong. So they all turn to denounce the scripture quoter. And another

one comes and says with a knowing smile, " Boodoonkus the great mystic

said that THAT and THIS and special and ordinary is a mystery so you

all are wrong, for it cannot be known. " And they tear out their hair

and crying skeptic! And one more comes and says, " Boodoonkus was a

pediphile so he can't be right. " And all but the the folower is

pleased. And they keep coming, another and another.

 

Because of this, called by some " mithya " or others as " relativism, "

unstable appearances seek to have one truth, one reality that

underlies all the impermanence and temporality of the world of

appearances so they can feel stabiltiy and security that the world is

comprehensible and not be buffeted about by all the transitory

phenomena. So they create God, Self, Nirguna Brahman, Divine Darkness,

Sunyata and all sort of devices to support themselves. The spend time

immersed in it in one way or another.

 

The world and you are made from what you do and you do what you are.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...>

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming "

> <adithya_comming> wrote:

> >

>

>

> Would it be right to call the

> 'potential', the 'possibility' ...

> special ?

> is not it 'special' or 'ordinary' is

> better used for ... " what it becomes "

> rather than for ... " what it is " ...the

> potential, the possibility ?

>

>

> How can " what always is " be any

> Special ?

>

>

>

> How can what you are be ...'special'

> to 'you' ?

>

> Is not 'special' reserved for the

> 'things' that you hold or might be ware

> of ....even if that thing is an 'image'

> of yourself ?

>

>

>

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>

> What difference does it make? You raise non-sense.

>

>

> " Special " and " ordinary " are words of distinction. Any one can use

them.

>

> If you want something to be " special " " ordinary " make it so.

 

 

But, aren't they ( Ramana and all )

talking of that, ... which requires " no making " ?

 

 

 

>How? Say

> " This is special " or " This is ordinary " and it is as you say.

Simple.

> Can you accept that?

>

> Now, someone will come along and say " No, that is not special and

that

> is not ordinary. " And now we have difference. Oh my! What shall I

do?

> And another comes along and says " You are both mistaken since

neither

> is ordinary nor special because both are ordinary and special. " And

> still another comes along and says, " You three are all deluded,

> because there is no such thing as ordinary or special there is only

> THAT. " They begin to argue and another comes along seeing their

> foolishness and says, " All of you are deluded because there is no

> ordinary or special or THAT there is only THIS. " So they fall into

> further arguments and debates and another arrives on the scene and

> declares, " The scriptures say that THAT is this and THIS is that

and

> waht you said about THAT and THIS and special and ordinary is all

> wrong. So they all turn to denounce the scripture quoter. And

another

> one comes and says with a knowing smile, " Boodoonkus the great

mystic

> said that THAT and THIS and special and ordinary is a mystery so you

> all are wrong, for it cannot be known. " And they tear out their hair

> and crying skeptic! And one more comes and says, " Boodoonkus was a

> pediphile so he can't be right. " And all but the the folower is

> pleased. And they keep coming, another and another.

>

> Because of this, called by some " mithya " or others as " relativism, "

> unstable appearances seek to have one truth, one reality that

> underlies all the impermanence and temporality of the world of

> appearances so they can feel stabiltiy and security that the world

is

> comprehensible and not be buffeted about by all the transitory

> phenomena. So they create God, Self, Nirguna Brahman, Divine

Darkness,

> Sunyata and all sort of devices to support themselves. The spend

time

> immersed in it in one way or another.

>

> The world and you are made from what you do and you do what you are.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming "

<adithya_comming> wrote:

Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...>

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming "

> <adithya_comming> wrote:

> >

>

>

> Would it be right to call the

> 'potential', the 'possibility' ...

> special ?

> is not it 'special' or 'ordinary' is

> better used for ... " what it becomes "

> rather than for ... " what it is " ...the

> potential, the possibility ?

>

>

> How can " what always is " be any

> Special ?

>

>

>

> How can what you are be ...'special'

> to 'you' ?

>

> Is not 'special' reserved for the

> 'things' that you hold or might be ware

> of ....even if that thing is an 'image'

> of yourself ?

>

>

>

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>

> What difference does it make? You raise non-sense.

>

>

> " Special " and " ordinary " are words of distinction. Any one can use

them.

>

> If you want something to be " special " " ordinary " make it so.

 

 

 

 

But, aren't they ( Ramana and all )

talking of that, ... which requires " no making " ?

 

 

 

Lewis: Do wish to say it that way as Ramama and all say? Then it is so.

 

 

 

 

>How? Say

> " This is special " or " This is ordinary " and it is as you say.

Simple.

> Can you accept that?

>

> Now, someone will come along and say " No, that is not special and

that

> is not ordinary. " And now we have difference. Oh my! What shall I

do?

> And another comes along and says " You are both mistaken since

neither

> is ordinary nor special because both are ordinary and special. " And

> still another comes along and says, " You three are all deluded,

> because there is no such thing as ordinary or special there is only

> THAT. " They begin to argue and another comes along seeing their

> foolishness and says, " All of you are deluded because there is no

> ordinary or special or THAT there is only THIS. " So they fall into

> further arguments and debates and another arrives on the scene and

> declares, " The scriptures say that THAT is this and THIS is that

and

> waht you said about THAT and THIS and special and ordinary is all

> wrong. So they all turn to denounce the scripture quoter. And

another

> one comes and says with a knowing smile, " Boodoonkus the great

mystic

> said that THAT and THIS and special and ordinary is a mystery so you

> all are wrong, for it cannot be known. " And they tear out their hair

> and crying skeptic! And one more comes and says, " Boodoonkus was a

> pediphile so he can't be right. " And all but the the folower is

> pleased. And they keep coming, another and another.

>

> Because of this, called by some " mithya " or others as " relativism, "

> unstable appearances seek to have one truth, one reality that

> underlies all the impermanence and temporality of the world of

> appearances so they can feel stabiltiy and security that the world

is

> comprehensible and not be buffeted about by all the transitory

> phenomena. So they create God, Self, Nirguna Brahman, Divine

Darkness,

> Sunyata and all sort of devices to support themselves. The spend

time

> immersed in it in one way or another.

>

> The world and you are made from what you do and you do what you are.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz>

wrote:

> Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz>

> wrote:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > .....how to discuss that which cannot be discussed (cf. the

" Tao Te

> > > > Ching " for more details on that).

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Yours truly,

> > > >

> > > > fuzzie

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Dear fuzzie,

> > > >

> > > > Here are two chapters from the Tao Te Ching that refers to

what was

> > > > discussed. This translation can be found at:

> > > > http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/gthursby/taoism/ttcmerel.htm

> > > >

> > > > Other translations that vary widely can be found at:

> > > > http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/gthursby/taoism/ttc-list.htm

> > > > http://www.wam.umd.edu/~stwright/rel/tao/TaoTeChing.html

> > > >

> > > > Language and dialogue can be made more adequate to the task though

> > > > never sufficient. " Sitting " at the 'opening of " mystery, " '

> rather than

> > > > in senseless immersion in it so that the operation of the

expressive

> > > > capacities are not naturally muted, the emergence of

consciouseness

> > > > and the superficial mind can be experienced, " observed " as these

> take

> > > > formation, produce their products and then dissipate. This

> > > > observational experience is used to find the words that better

suit

> > > > " my " appearance. The venerated appearances of the past that

describe

> > > > these matters derive them from such observations all different

> as each

> > > > is. Each appearance's observations are different than another

due to

> > > > the expressing body/mind. Each find its way. The sooner alone and

> > > > vanished the better it seems. What do you experience fuzzie,

at the

> > > > opening?

> > > >

> > > > Love,

> > > >

> > > > Lewis

> > >

> > >

> > > Dear, Lewis:

> > >

> > > I had a hunch you were into Taoism. Your writing style revealed a

> > > poise and a reserve that was reminiscent of a Taoist fluency. Thank

> > > you for the links to the Taoist websites. I noticed the quotes you

> > > used were from the James Legge translation. He was the guy that did

> > > the old classic " I Ching " that was popular back when I was

growing up

> > > (late '60's, early '70's). Good to see old Legge is still holding

> up.

> > >

> > >

> > > Lewis: Fuzzie, the move to Taoism followed the lead given. There is

> > > not much interest in the Tao Te Ching beyond those two chapters

among

> > > the 81 that comprise the text. The translation I used was an

> > > interpolation of many different version by another author, Peter

> > > Merel, and the alternative translation was Legge, which is a very

> > > sensitive one, that is, it is not so much a reinterpretation from

> > > various positions or translated in stilted English as others. Peter

> > > Merel did not translate the text. He used several well respected

> > > translations and worked out a useful presentation.

> > >

> > >

> > > You wrote: " Each appearance's observations are different than

another

> > > due to the expressing body/mind. Each find its way. The sooner alone

> > > and vanished the better it seems. What do you experience fuzzie, at

> > > the opening? "

> > >

> > > What do I experience, " Sitting " at the 'opening of " mystery " ', you

> > > ask? My experience is that I am aware that I am; indefinable,

> > > indescribable being-awareness. I know, that is a hackneyed

cliche' in

> > > the Advaita circles these days, but, I don't know anything else but

> > > that, hackneyed or not. I AM; no experience necessary. As you

seem to

> > > be aware, everything which is generally considered to be

experiential

> > > is but an apparency and the expression thereof. The appearances, or,

> > > experiences, are but waves upon the deep, so to speak. Like any

other

> > > sentient body/mind, I experience these waves of appearances,

> > > modulating in and out, apparencies which can be re-membered and

> > > re-counted as experiences in seemingly endless variations and

> > > combinations. But, I really know nothing about any of it. I am

> > > ignorant, really. There is the joy in just being, though. That's my

> > > experience. There's no need to know anything in order to know

> > > yourself. Self-realization is inherent; natural. The old saw

> > > " ignorance is bliss " appears to be accurate, in this case.

> > > Self-realization is so blunt simple, that that is why it is so

> > > difficult. And, as the Taoists and Buddhists and Vedantists have all

> > > so aptly reiterated, it cannot be verbalized or thought. One can

only

> > > gesture. The rest is up to grace or fate or the infinite wisdom

of all

> > > things or whatever anyone wants to call it.

> > >

> > >

> > > Lewis: Yes. It is simple.

> > >

> > > And that is an experience at the " opening. " If not at the " opening "

> > > and simply and fully immersed in it there is " senselessness

sense " and

> > > utter ignorance, where indeed " ignorance is bliss. " As you say,

> > > nothing can be said of this. It may be supposed that such is how it

> > > can be and is said that " nothing ever happened. "

> > >

> > > Facing and peering outward at the opening and not fully immersed

in it

> > > there appear the " waves upon the deep, " the " waves of the

> > > appearances. " Without doing this, that is " being in 'oblivion' " with

> > > out full immersion, there is no way to carry on work, play, rest,

> > > creating, and otherwise doing and living. Has this been your

> experience?

> > >

> > > My interest at the moment Fuzzie, is in expressions of the

emergence,

> > > formation and appearance and change in the capacities and the

products

> > > " the waves of the appearances. " It seems that language can be

used to

> > > better and more sensitively to express these so that it is realized.

> > > The common ways to nudge to it is, to engage ascetism, to deny

assumed

> > > realities and inherent independent existence (neti, neti, issuing

> > > blanket statements - " it is all a dream or illusion, " asserting

> > > impermanence, sunyata, dependent origination, etc.) to undermine

> > > ego/self and reification by denying, challenging, ridiculing,

> > > harassing and otherwise making it difficult to hold on to impeding

> > > assumptions and ignorance of self, to seek " direct perception " and

> > > various samadhis through various methods and practices, to eliminate

> > > mental and physical predispositions (vasanas), habits,

" clinging " and

> > > other things perceived as impediments, " to do nothing, " " to let go, "

> > > " to have it come as it may, " " grace, " and so on. These all seem

to be

> > > rather " complicated " for understanding and dealing with the

> > > appearances, for what appears to be simple. What can be said,

Fuzzie?

> > >

> > >

> > > Well, I've rambled on enough here. Most people think I'm crazy

and/or

> > > deluded, etc., anyhow. Maybe they're right. I don't know. It

wouldn't

> > > make any difference, either way, would it, Lewis?

> > >

> > >

> > > Lewis: No. It it does not in any way. And would it help or make a

> > > difference knowing that I am touched, totally insane, crazy as a

loon,

> > > a nutter, an ignorant defective?

> > >

> > > :-)

> > >

> > >

> > > As usual, it's been a pleasure. Thanks so much for your

consideration.

> > > You are a gentleman and a scholar. I appreciate it.

> > >

> > > Yours,

> > >

> > > fuzzie

> > >

> > > It is a pleasure to communicate with you Fuzzie, to be with you like

> > > this. It is enjoyable and stimulating.

> > >

> > >

> > > Love,

> > >

> > > Lewis

> >

> >

> > Hello, Lewis:

> >

> > I should have said you have an affinity with Taoist philosophy. I

> > think most do who are also drawn to Vedanta or Buddhism, particularly

> > Ch'an/Zen Buddhism, where Taoist philosophy is a heavy influence in

> > the formative period of the various Ch'an Buddhist sects of the T'ang

> > Dynasty era.

> >

> >

> > Lewis: Yes.

> >

> >

> > You wrote: " Facing and peering outward at the opening and not fully

> > immersed in it there appear the " waves upon the deep, " the " waves of

> > the appearances. " Without doing this, that is " being in 'oblivion' "

> > without full immersion, there is no way to carry on work, play, rest,

> > creating, and otherwise doing and living. Has this been your

> experience? "

> >

> > My 'experience', Lewis, for lack of a better word, is that the " being

> > in 'oblivion' " and carrying on with living, working, playing, etc.,

> > are concurrent. There really is no separation. In the Self, there is

> > no subject/object, binary opposition. There is only being-awareness; I

> > AM. And, accompanying this being-ness is a sense of joy. Not that

> > there is never any pain, but, just an enjoyment of being itself.

> >

> > But, granted I don't get much work done, Lewis. If something needs

> > doing, then, I do it, but, if not, I don't look for things to do. I

> > live by the maxim " let it be " , and, I'm not necessarily talking about

> > the Beatles (although, I like the Beatles, generally speaking).

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Lewis: Yes. There is never separation and it is always is. Separation

> > and discontinity are impossibilities. One way to understand what was

> > intended to be said about " oblivion " is to consider daily life with

> > deep sleep, waking and calm, doing the morning things, being involved

> > in this and that like posting, eating, excreting and such, moving

> > around here to there, relating with others, resting and deep sleep.

> > During these artificial segments of daily activities, which can be

> > filled and ordered in any way desired from memory, there are changes

> > in the content of the appearances from none to few, to many, to few to

> > none, to few and so on. During an active day, oblivion remains

> > background as the appearances occupy attention. The non-separation

> > continues and the appearances are dealt with and unlike that done in

> > deep sleep, or rest or contemplation. Is this not so?

> >

> > When the name used is called or seen, is there a response? If there is

> > a response, one cannot be fully immersed in oblivion since experience

> > informs that being total oblivion is sense-less, as in deep sleep or

> > even with eyes closed or open. The " state " referred to is a waking

> > state where oblivion is present and not overwhelming the appearances

> > making them indistinct and incomprehensible, though it does happen

> > during the day sometimes. There is a moving through various states in

> > a day. There is not a " steady state " as the demands and callings

> > change and alter. Close examination shows that there are changes of

> > all sorts. Recapitulating and assessing memories may make it seem like

> > it is one state but that is not possible since one's appearance and

> > its contents fluctutates and changes continuously during a day and so

> > on. The contents are enormous, always changing and most of it goes

> > unnoticed. The isolated capacities of " awareness " and/or

> > " consciousness " (they are not equivalent concepts or experiences)

> > fluctuate as well since their expression and operations are dependent

> > on other things such as memory, brain functioning, enviromental

> > conditions, others and so on.

> >

> >

> > Also, as you do, I respond to the call and flow of experiences. Doing

> > that is enough and the plate is always full.

> >

> >

> > You also wrote, concerning language or methodology used to induce

> > realization:

> >

> > " The common ways to nudge to it is, to engage ascetism, to deny

> > assumed realities and inherent independent existence (neti, neti,

> > issuing blanket statements - " it is all a dream or illusion, "

> > asserting impermanence, sunyata, dependent origination, etc.) to

> undermine

> > > ego/self and reification by denying, challenging, ridiculing,

> > > harassing and otherwise making it difficult to hold on to impeding

> > > assumptions and ignorance of self, to seek " direct perception " and

> > > various samadhis through various methods and practices, to eliminate

> > > mental and physical predispositions (vasanas), habits,

" clinging " and

> > > other things perceived as impediments, " to do nothing, " " to let go, "

> > > " to have it come as it may, " " grace, " and so on. These all seem

to be

> > > rather " complicated " for understanding and dealing with the

> > > appearances, for what appears to be simple. What can be said,

Fuzzie? "

> >

> > My response is that all of these things are aids to alter

> > consciousness or to induce various psychophysical effects upon the

> > body/mind, but, they are not necessary at all in realizing the Self.

> >

> >

> >

> > Lewis: Agreed.

> >

> >

> > I agree with Nisargadatta and Ramana on this. They both taught to

> > simply know yourself and that is all.

> >

> >

> > Lewis: Do not forget Fuzzie that self-inquiry (neti, neti) as a

> > specific method was taught by both.

> >

> >

> > It is tried and true. Attested to throughout the annals of history

> > (the admonition " Know Thyself " was inscribed upon the Delphic Oracle).

> > It's so simple, so obvious, almost everyone overlooks it. The Self;

> > you are It. Taking up all of these methods and practices might be

> > helpful in some ways, but, none of them are necessary. That's why

> > there's such a proliferation of " methods and practices " , because, in

> > and of themselves, none of them work. One realizes the Self as if by

> > accident, by intuition.

> >

> >

> > Lewis: Yes, that seems to be the case. For some methods and practices

> > are helpful, even " necessary. " If one speaks from realization one may

> > say nothing is necessary since the simplicity is seen. Others may not

> > see that " tree " for the " forest " hides it and it needs to be " cut

> > down, " cleared enough so that that tree appears unmistakenly and then

> > there is the attempt to cut that which cannot be cut and it is then

> > suddenly apparent...... Methods and practices can, but not

> > necessarily, help in the clearing and positioning and nothing more

> > than that. It just happens.

> >

> >

> > I'm not putting any methods or practices down, though, Lewis. I used

> > to try different methods and practices. I meditated for decades. I got

> > into various religions. I practiced atma vichara 24/7 until I couldn't

> > think of anything else. Then, one afternoon, all of the sudden, out of

> > nowhere, I realized I AM. I was in a very ecstatic state for several

> > days, afterwards, and, now, it has mellowed out into the simple joy of

> > just being. I don't know how else to put it. Some tell me I'm not

> > " there " , yet. Others say I've gone too far. I don't know. It isn't

> > really an issue for me, anymore.

> >

> >

> > Yes. A " clearing " is made so it unmistakenly appears without effort.

> > It goes that way.

> >

> > The point about the language is that if used well perhaps the trees

> > need not be cut (most of the harmless ones grow back anyway) with

> > elaborate methods practices which do indeed take many years many years

> > and instead a simple " navigational device " can be used to do a little

> > more than to vaguely point, a sort of GPS language unit. If it can be

> > spoken about as it is being done here it can be done. Nothing fancy

> > just some notes on how the capacities operate to produce the

> > appearances so the " trees " the appearances can be seen around and

> > through so it is clearly seen. There is so much talk about it, so

> > there is no one to object to it?

> >

> >

> > But, I will say one thing: It sure is fun talking to you, Lewis. And,

> > who has more fun than people? (River otters, maybe?)

> >

> >

> >

> > Yours,

> >

> > fuzzie

> >

> >

> > Yes, joy is and be careful Fuzzie, that sort of statement will get the

> > exorcising crew working - there are no people, so it is said.

> >

> > :-D

> >

> > Love,

> >

> > Lewis

>

>

> Hi, there, Lewis:

>

> You wrote:

>

> fuzzie: " ...During an active day, oblivion remains background as the

> appearances occupy attention. The non-separation continues and the

> appearances are dealt with and unlike that done in deep sleep, or rest

> or contemplation. Is this not so? "

>

> Deep sleep, dreaming and waking are all the same in the Self. This

> " oblivion vs. apparency " dichotomy you are wrestling with is an

> invention of the mind, of thought; (it's as if one thinks oneself into

> an imaginary bottle and, then, one tries to think oneself back out,

> again; the whole affair is imaginary; let it go).

>

>

> Lewis: The question is not answered, Fuzzie. Playing the piano does

> not, nor anything else, occur in deep dreamless sleep. There is no

> dichotomy and there is no wrestling. It is a manner of expression and

> all of it is an invention, as is the Self concept. There is no need to

> let go of word invention like oblivion, appearances or Self, they all

> are like air, ungraspable. They are no thing.

>

> If it is possible, read between the words. The concepts are not what

> it is about. You are reading the concepts as separate and trying to

> put them all or dissolve them all in the concept of Self, which you

> are using as an object fact. The Self concept is only that, a concept,

> as is oblivion and appearances. These concepts can be broken apart and

> put back togehter or simply discarded. When using concepts it is

> easier to stick with them until you are finished with them and then

> put them down. But to use concepts as if they are real confuses

> discussion. Self, oblivion and appearances are equal fictitious

> concepts.

>

>

> fuzzie: In the Self, neither oblivion nor apparency exist, but are

> fictions of the mind (one could say, though, they " exist " in an

> imaginary sense). The Self always Is, regardless of what the body/mind

> " experiences " or where the attention of the mind wanders. It is just

> being and no other. You are That.

>

>

> Lewis: This is where trouble comes in Fuzzie and others may have at

> you because of it. The Self is a word, concept that refers to..... The

> word, the concept, is a fiction and it is no different than the

> concept of oblivion or the appearances. What the concept Self refers

> to has no embodiment in that word, there is nothing embodied in words

> or concepts. To use it as if it is embodied will hamstring

> conversations. For example, can you make the Self an object? Can you

> see the Self and examine the Self in any way? This is not possible but

> you are doing it by saying:

>

> " The Self always Is, regardless of what the body/mind " experiences " or

> where the attention of the mind wanders. It is just being and no

other. "

>

> Here you have made the Self an object to you and to others by

> describing it in words as if you can do such an impossibility and then

> insisting on the veracity of the concpet and discarding other concepts

> saying they do not apply. This may be seen by some as belief and

> reification and the behavior that comes with that. To continue to do

> so means that all is must be packed in favor of your version. No

> discussion is possible because all is resolved to the your linguistic

> concept of Self. I understand what you say and the point of the

> discussion was about experience. The experience is a fiction in that

> it is abstracted from a larger one, as are the segments described.

> That was being shared as if it were a sandwich. So it seemed.

>

> When concepts are employed there are limitations. One of those

> limitations is understanding what the other means by their concepts.

> To tell an experience is to fragment it, but such fragementation is

> artificial, so we read between the words. If one does not have similar

> experiences then there are immediate problems. Assumptions rise and

> then off we go into no, no, and yes, but insted of exploring

> experiences for the fun of it.

>

>

> fuzzie: You wrote, regarding Nisargadatta and Ramana:

>

> " Do not forget Fuzzie that self-inquiry (neti, neti) as a specific

> method was taught by both. "

>

> " Neti, neti " may be a by-product of self-inquiry, but, it is not

> self-inquiry proper. Self-inquiry is an investigation into oneself.

> Nisargadatta and Ramana emphasized a continuous looking into oneself,

> turning the flow of attention back onto the self and realizing who or

> what that may be. Nisargadatta said stay with the sense of " I am " and

> Ramana always turned the question back onto the questioner ( " Who am

> I? " ). This is not neti-neti in the classical sense, but, it does

> entail a weeding out of that which is superficial to the quest.

>

> In my opinion, (and, I am not an authority on anything), I found the

> neti-neti process to be mainly intellectual. This can be helpful,

> though, but, it does not take one beyond the body/mind, which is the

> greatest hindrance to self-realization. But, having an intellectual

> understanding of the process in question is useful, and, so, neti-neti

> has its place in the overall scheme of things.

>

>

> Lewis: Yes. The method of self-inquiry is a method and neti, neti is

> an aid in it and not central. Here is Ramana's method in his words and

> it includes neti, neti as an aid.

>

>

> " 29. The only enquiry leading to Self-realization is seeking the

> Source of the 'I' with in-turned mind and without uttering the word

> 'I'. Meditation on 'I am not this; I am That' may be an aid to the

> enquiry but it cannot be the enquiry. "

>

>

> fuzzie: You wrote:

>

> " ...Others may not see that " tree " for the " forest " hides it and it

> needs to be " cut down, " cleared enough so that that tree appears

> unmistakenly and then there is the attempt to cut that which cannot be

> cut and it is then suddenly apparent...... "

>

> I thought the old saw went: " One can't see the forest for the trees " .

>

>

>

> Lewis: Of course, but it can be used in any way.

>

>

> fuzzie: The Self is not the metaphorical " tree " nor is it the

> " forest " . It would be more analogous to say that the Self is the

> " ground " in which the " trees " take root. So, instead of cutting the

> forest down, Lewis, simply locate the " ground " in which your

> metaphorical " trees " are arising. Then, you can enjoy the beauty and

> grandeur of the forest while remaining as I AM. Besides, anyhow,

> cutting the forest down can be exhausting.

>

>

>

>

> Yours,

>

> fuzzie

>

>

> Lewis: Ok. That story works with the concept. The other tree metaphor

> was derived from the conceptualizations of Self and the common methods

> and practices used to reach the " Self. " Most of these methods have to

> do with " clearing " and they are exhausting I suppose for those who to

> do them.

>

> You should know that I do not consider at all the concept of the Self

> or self-realization nor engage in any practices related to it. The I

> AM/Self/Atman/Nirguna Brahman complex are understood as concepts,

> which is related to the enormous and diverse amount of Vedantic

> scripture and complicated commentary connected with it. The same goes

> for Buddhism, Taoism, Christianity, all religions, and the mystic

> traditions ad the occult, sciences, hard and soft, and the humanities.

> Have I left out something? I to none of it and believe none

> of it. These are not of any interest whatsoever beyond the meanings

> provided, what they mean to others, and what uses can be made of them.

> These are all stories and guidebooks of others experiences and

> practices writ large.

>

> In the spiritual realm, Ramana talks about his experiences.

> Nisargadatta, his and so on with the many others. They are

> interesting. What they say seems like common sense. They are not

> impressive. Perhaps, if they were read earlier, there would be

> something significant and impressive in what they say. Coming to them

> late in life, they seem just like they enjoy spending all their time

> talking about what I find ordinary in my daily experience. I do not

> see anything extraordinary in what they say or what they did.

>

> The time spent here in conversations like the one now engaged in is

> for exploring what is in this appearance and in others. It is a

> curiosity and it is fun, enjoyable and sometimes not and all of it is

> as it is. Like life. Breathe it in and let out. I have nothing to

> teach nor anything extraordinary to report. Enlightenment and seeking

> it is meaningless to me, though it is important to others. Some like

> cake others steak, some both, others neither. No reason for

> conversations not to be had though. After all if someone is realized

> or enlightened, as those concepts are usually described, such persons

> are fearless and open and universal and it would seem that " pagans "

> and the " unenlightened " and the " partially or crippled enlightened "

> can hang out without being dipped in the roiling scriptures and dogma.

>

> Love,

>

> Lewis

 

Hi, Lewis:

 

The dialogue continues:

 

Lewis: The question is not answered, Fuzzie. Playing the piano does

not, nor anything else, occur in deep dreamless sleep. There is no

dichotomy and there is no wrestling. It is a manner of expression and

all of it is an invention, as is the Self concept. There is no need to

let go of word invention like oblivion, appearances or Self, they all

are like air, ungraspable. They are no thing.

 

Fuzzie: I gave you an answer. You simply didn't like it. You asked

about the self, not whether or not you could play the piano in your

sleep. I said the self is always the same, whether sleeping, waking or

dreaming. This is my understanding. If the answer is wrong, then, make

your case.

 

All I know is I am. You say that that is a concept. Well, the sentence

" I am " is a concept. But, it is also referring to what I am. I am;

that which is; beyond concepts. It is not conceptual. That is why it

is so difficult to understand.

 

Lewis: If it is possible, read between the words. The concepts are not

what it is about.

 

Fuzzie: Exactly. That's what I've been saying all along.

 

Lewis: You are reading the concepts as separate and trying to

put them all or dissolve them all in the concept of Self, which you

are using as an object fact...

 

Fuzzie: You are making a strawman, here, and, then, tearing it apart.

As I explained above, I am not conceptual. I exist. No kidding. Here I

am.

 

Lewis: ...if someone is realized or enlightened, as those concepts are

usually described, such persons are fearless and open and universal

and it would seem that " pagans "

and the " unenlightened " and the " partially or crippled enlightened "

can hang out without being dipped in the roiling scriptures and dogma.

 

Fuzzie: I hang out with pagans and cripples all the time, Lewis. I got

no dogma to lay on anyone. I am self-realized. Some call that

enlightenment. It's really not enlightenment at all, but, it is

commonly referred to as such. It all kind of happened by accident,

anyway. What can I tell you? You think existence is a concept. But,

who or what is it that conceptualizes? Tell me about that, Lewis, or,

have you got that all conceptualized away in a nice, neat little box

somewhere, along with all your other conceptual baggage?

 

It's been real, Lewis. Thanks for your consideration.

 

Yours truly,

 

fuzzie

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz> wrote:

 

Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz>

wrote:

> Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz>

> wrote:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > .....how to discuss that which cannot be discussed (cf. the

" Tao Te

> > > > Ching " for more details on that).

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Yours truly,

> > > >

> > > > fuzzie

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Dear fuzzie,

> > > >

> > > > Here are two chapters from the Tao Te Ching that refers to

what was

> > > > discussed. This translation can be found at:

> > > > http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/gthursby/taoism/ttcmerel.htm

> > > >

> > > > Other translations that vary widely can be found at:

> > > > http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/gthursby/taoism/ttc-list.htm

> > > > http://www.wam.umd.edu/~stwright/rel/tao/TaoTeChing.html

> > > >

> > > > Language and dialogue can be made more adequate to the task though

> > > > never sufficient. " Sitting " at the 'opening of " mystery, " '

> rather than

> > > > in senseless immersion in it so that the operation of the

expressive

> > > > capacities are not naturally muted, the emergence of

consciouseness

> > > > and the superficial mind can be experienced, " observed " as these

> take

> > > > formation, produce their products and then dissipate. This

> > > > observational experience is used to find the words that better

suit

> > > > " my " appearance. The venerated appearances of the past that

describe

> > > > these matters derive them from such observations all different

> as each

> > > > is. Each appearance's observations are different than another

due to

> > > > the expressing body/mind. Each find its way. The sooner alone and

> > > > vanished the better it seems. What do you experience fuzzie,

at the

> > > > opening?

> > > >

> > > > Love,

> > > >

> > > > Lewis

> > >

> > >

> > > Dear, Lewis:

> > >

> > > I had a hunch you were into Taoism. Your writing style revealed a

> > > poise and a reserve that was reminiscent of a Taoist fluency. Thank

> > > you for the links to the Taoist websites. I noticed the quotes you

> > > used were from the James Legge translation. He was the guy that did

> > > the old classic " I Ching " that was popular back when I was

growing up

> > > (late '60's, early '70's). Good to see old Legge is still holding

> up.

> > >

> > >

> > > Lewis: Fuzzie, the move to Taoism followed the lead given. There is

> > > not much interest in the Tao Te Ching beyond those two chapters

among

> > > the 81 that comprise the text. The translation I used was an

> > > interpolation of many different version by another author, Peter

> > > Merel, and the alternative translation was Legge, which is a very

> > > sensitive one, that is, it is not so much a reinterpretation from

> > > various positions or translated in stilted English as others. Peter

> > > Merel did not translate the text. He used several well respected

> > > translations and worked out a useful presentation.

> > >

> > >

> > > You wrote: " Each appearance's observations are different than

another

> > > due to the expressing body/mind. Each find its way. The sooner alone

> > > and vanished the better it seems. What do you experience fuzzie, at

> > > the opening? "

> > >

> > > What do I experience, " Sitting " at the 'opening of " mystery " ', you

> > > ask? My experience is that I am aware that I am; indefinable,

> > > indescribable being-awareness. I know, that is a hackneyed

cliche' in

> > > the Advaita circles these days, but, I don't know anything else but

> > > that, hackneyed or not. I AM; no experience necessary. As you

seem to

> > > be aware, everything which is generally considered to be

experiential

> > > is but an apparency and the expression thereof. The appearances, or,

> > > experiences, are but waves upon the deep, so to speak. Like any

other

> > > sentient body/mind, I experience these waves of appearances,

> > > modulating in and out, apparencies which can be re-membered and

> > > re-counted as experiences in seemingly endless variations and

> > > combinations. But, I really know nothing about any of it. I am

> > > ignorant, really. There is the joy in just being, though. That's my

> > > experience. There's no need to know anything in order to know

> > > yourself. Self-realization is inherent; natural. The old saw

> > > " ignorance is bliss " appears to be accurate, in this case.

> > > Self-realization is so blunt simple, that that is why it is so

> > > difficult. And, as the Taoists and Buddhists and Vedantists have all

> > > so aptly reiterated, it cannot be verbalized or thought. One can

only

> > > gesture. The rest is up to grace or fate or the infinite wisdom

of all

> > > things or whatever anyone wants to call it.

> > >

> > >

> > > Lewis: Yes. It is simple.

> > >

> > > And that is an experience at the " opening. " If not at the " opening "

> > > and simply and fully immersed in it there is " senselessness

sense " and

> > > utter ignorance, where indeed " ignorance is bliss. " As you say,

> > > nothing can be said of this. It may be supposed that such is how it

> > > can be and is said that " nothing ever happened. "

> > >

> > > Facing and peering outward at the opening and not fully immersed

in it

> > > there appear the " waves upon the deep, " the " waves of the

> > > appearances. " Without doing this, that is " being in 'oblivion' " with

> > > out full immersion, there is no way to carry on work, play, rest,

> > > creating, and otherwise doing and living. Has this been your

> experience?

> > >

> > > My interest at the moment Fuzzie, is in expressions of the

emergence,

> > > formation and appearance and change in the capacities and the

products

> > > " the waves of the appearances. " It seems that language can be

used to

> > > better and more sensitively to express these so that it is realized.

> > > The common ways to nudge to it is, to engage ascetism, to deny

assumed

> > > realities and inherent independent existence (neti, neti, issuing

> > > blanket statements - " it is all a dream or illusion, " asserting

> > > impermanence, sunyata, dependent origination, etc.) to undermine

> > > ego/self and reification by denying, challenging, ridiculing,

> > > harassing and otherwise making it difficult to hold on to impeding

> > > assumptions and ignorance of self, to seek " direct perception " and

> > > various samadhis through various methods and practices, to eliminate

> > > mental and physical predispositions (vasanas), habits,

" clinging " and

> > > other things perceived as impediments, " to do nothing, " " to let go, "

> > > " to have it come as it may, " " grace, " and so on. These all seem

to be

> > > rather " complicated " for understanding and dealing with the

> > > appearances, for what appears to be simple. What can be said,

Fuzzie?

> > >

> > >

> > > Well, I've rambled on enough here. Most people think I'm crazy

and/or

> > > deluded, etc., anyhow. Maybe they're right. I don't know. It

wouldn't

> > > make any difference, either way, would it, Lewis?

> > >

> > >

> > > Lewis: No. It it does not in any way. And would it help or make a

> > > difference knowing that I am touched, totally insane, crazy as a

loon,

> > > a nutter, an ignorant defective?

> > >

> > > :-)

> > >

> > >

> > > As usual, it's been a pleasure. Thanks so much for your

consideration.

> > > You are a gentleman and a scholar. I appreciate it.

> > >

> > > Yours,

> > >

> > > fuzzie

> > >

> > > It is a pleasure to communicate with you Fuzzie, to be with you like

> > > this. It is enjoyable and stimulating.

> > >

> > >

> > > Love,

> > >

> > > Lewis

> >

> >

> > Hello, Lewis:

> >

> > I should have said you have an affinity with Taoist philosophy. I

> > think most do who are also drawn to Vedanta or Buddhism, particularly

> > Ch'an/Zen Buddhism, where Taoist philosophy is a heavy influence in

> > the formative period of the various Ch'an Buddhist sects of the T'ang

> > Dynasty era.

> >

> >

> > Lewis: Yes.

> >

> >

> > You wrote: " Facing and peering outward at the opening and not fully

> > immersed in it there appear the " waves upon the deep, " the " waves of

> > the appearances. " Without doing this, that is " being in 'oblivion' "

> > without full immersion, there is no way to carry on work, play, rest,

> > creating, and otherwise doing and living. Has this been your

> experience? "

> >

> > My 'experience', Lewis, for lack of a better word, is that the " being

> > in 'oblivion' " and carrying on with living, working, playing, etc.,

> > are concurrent. There really is no separation. In the Self, there is

> > no subject/object, binary opposition. There is only being-awareness; I

> > AM. And, accompanying this being-ness is a sense of joy. Not that

> > there is never any pain, but, just an enjoyment of being itself.

> >

> > But, granted I don't get much work done, Lewis. If something needs

> > doing, then, I do it, but, if not, I don't look for things to do. I

> > live by the maxim " let it be " , and, I'm not necessarily talking about

> > the Beatles (although, I like the Beatles, generally speaking).

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Lewis: Yes. There is never separation and it is always is. Separation

> > and discontinity are impossibilities. One way to understand what was

> > intended to be said about " oblivion " is to consider daily life with

> > deep sleep, waking and calm, doing the morning things, being involved

> > in this and that like posting, eating, excreting and such, moving

> > around here to there, relating with others, resting and deep sleep.

> > During these artificial segments of daily activities, which can be

> > filled and ordered in any way desired from memory, there are changes

> > in the content of the appearances from none to few, to many, to few to

> > none, to few and so on. During an active day, oblivion remains

> > background as the appearances occupy attention. The non-separation

> > continues and the appearances are dealt with and unlike that done in

> > deep sleep, or rest or contemplation. Is this not so?

> >

> > When the name used is called or seen, is there a response? If there is

> > a response, one cannot be fully immersed in oblivion since experience

> > informs that being total oblivion is sense-less, as in deep sleep or

> > even with eyes closed or open. The " state " referred to is a waking

> > state where oblivion is present and not overwhelming the appearances

> > making them indistinct and incomprehensible, though it does happen

> > during the day sometimes. There is a moving through various states in

> > a day. There is not a " steady state " as the demands and callings

> > change and alter. Close examination shows that there are changes of

> > all sorts. Recapitulating and assessing memories may make it seem like

> > it is one state but that is not possible since one's appearance and

> > its contents fluctutates and changes continuously during a day and so

> > on. The contents are enormous, always changing and most of it goes

> > unnoticed. The isolated capacities of " awareness " and/or

> > " consciousness " (they are not equivalent concepts or experiences)

> > fluctuate as well since their expression and operations are dependent

> > on other things such as memory, brain functioning, enviromental

> > conditions, others and so on.

> >

> >

> > Also, as you do, I respond to the call and flow of experiences. Doing

> > that is enough and the plate is always full.

> >

> >

> > You also wrote, concerning language or methodology used to induce

> > realization:

> >

> > " The common ways to nudge to it is, to engage ascetism, to deny

> > assumed realities and inherent independent existence (neti, neti,

> > issuing blanket statements - " it is all a dream or illusion, "

> > asserting impermanence, sunyata, dependent origination, etc.) to

> undermine

> > > ego/self and reification by denying, challenging, ridiculing,

> > > harassing and otherwise making it difficult to hold on to impeding

> > > assumptions and ignorance of self, to seek " direct perception " and

> > > various samadhis through various methods and practices, to eliminate

> > > mental and physical predispositions (vasanas), habits,

" clinging " and

> > > other things perceived as impediments, " to do nothing, " " to let go, "

> > > " to have it come as it may, " " grace, " and so on. These all seem

to be

> > > rather " complicated " for understanding and dealing with the

> > > appearances, for what appears to be simple. What can be said,

Fuzzie? "

> >

> > My response is that all of these things are aids to alter

> > consciousness or to induce various psychophysical effects upon the

> > body/mind, but, they are not necessary at all in realizing the Self.

> >

> >

> >

> > Lewis: Agreed.

> >

> >

> > I agree with Nisargadatta and Ramana on this. They both taught to

> > simply know yourself and that is all.

> >

> >

> > Lewis: Do not forget Fuzzie that self-inquiry (neti, neti) as a

> > specific method was taught by both.

> >

> >

> > It is tried and true. Attested to throughout the annals of history

> > (the admonition " Know Thyself " was inscribed upon the Delphic Oracle).

> > It's so simple, so obvious, almost everyone overlooks it. The Self;

> > you are It. Taking up all of these methods and practices might be

> > helpful in some ways, but, none of them are necessary. That's why

> > there's such a proliferation of " methods and practices " , because, in

> > and of themselves, none of them work. One realizes the Self as if by

> > accident, by intuition.

> >

> >

> > Lewis: Yes, that seems to be the case. For some methods and practices

> > are helpful, even " necessary. " If one speaks from realization one may

> > say nothing is necessary since the simplicity is seen. Others may not

> > see that " tree " for the " forest " hides it and it needs to be " cut

> > down, " cleared enough so that that tree appears unmistakenly and then

> > there is the attempt to cut that which cannot be cut and it is then

> > suddenly apparent...... Methods and practices can, but not

> > necessarily, help in the clearing and positioning and nothing more

> > than that. It just happens.

> >

> >

> > I'm not putting any methods or practices down, though, Lewis. I used

> > to try different methods and practices. I meditated for decades. I got

> > into various religions. I practiced atma vichara 24/7 until I couldn't

> > think of anything else. Then, one afternoon, all of the sudden, out of

> > nowhere, I realized I AM. I was in a very ecstatic state for several

> > days, afterwards, and, now, it has mellowed out into the simple joy of

> > just being. I don't know how else to put it. Some tell me I'm not

> > " there " , yet. Others say I've gone too far. I don't know. It isn't

> > really an issue for me, anymore.

> >

> >

> > Yes. A " clearing " is made so it unmistakenly appears without effort.

> > It goes that way.

> >

> > The point about the language is that if used well perhaps the trees

> > need not be cut (most of the harmless ones grow back anyway) with

> > elaborate methods practices which do indeed take many years many years

> > and instead a simple " navigational device " can be used to do a little

> > more than to vaguely point, a sort of GPS language unit. If it can be

> > spoken about as it is being done here it can be done. Nothing fancy

> > just some notes on how the capacities operate to produce the

> > appearances so the " trees " the appearances can be seen around and

> > through so it is clearly seen. There is so much talk about it, so

> > there is no one to object to it?

> >

> >

> > But, I will say one thing: It sure is fun talking to you, Lewis. And,

> > who has more fun than people? (River otters, maybe?)

> >

> >

> >

> > Yours,

> >

> > fuzzie

> >

> >

> > Yes, joy is and be careful Fuzzie, that sort of statement will get the

> > exorcising crew working - there are no people, so it is said.

> >

> > :-D

> >

> > Love,

> >

> > Lewis

>

>

> Hi, there, Lewis:

>

> You wrote:

>

> fuzzie: " ...During an active day, oblivion remains background as the

> appearances occupy attention. The non-separation continues and the

> appearances are dealt with and unlike that done in deep sleep, or rest

> or contemplation. Is this not so? "

>

> Deep sleep, dreaming and waking are all the same in the Self. This

> " oblivion vs. apparency " dichotomy you are wrestling with is an

> invention of the mind, of thought; (it's as if one thinks oneself into

> an imaginary bottle and, then, one tries to think oneself back out,

> again; the whole affair is imaginary; let it go).

>

>

> Lewis: The question is not answered, Fuzzie. Playing the piano does

> not, nor anything else, occur in deep dreamless sleep. There is no

> dichotomy and there is no wrestling. It is a manner of expression and

> all of it is an invention, as is the Self concept. There is no need to

> let go of word invention like oblivion, appearances or Self, they all

> are like air, ungraspable. They are no thing.

>

> If it is possible, read between the words. The concepts are not what

> it is about. You are reading the concepts as separate and trying to

> put them all or dissolve them all in the concept of Self, which you

> are using as an object fact. The Self concept is only that, a concept,

> as is oblivion and appearances. These concepts can be broken apart and

> put back togehter or simply discarded. When using concepts it is

> easier to stick with them until you are finished with them and then

> put them down. But to use concepts as if they are real confuses

> discussion. Self, oblivion and appearances are equal fictitious

> concepts.

>

>

> fuzzie: In the Self, neither oblivion nor apparency exist, but are

> fictions of the mind (one could say, though, they " exist " in an

> imaginary sense). The Self always Is, regardless of what the body/mind

> " experiences " or where the attention of the mind wanders. It is just

> being and no other. You are That.

>

>

> Lewis: This is where trouble comes in Fuzzie and others may have at

> you because of it. The Self is a word, concept that refers to..... The

> word, the concept, is a fiction and it is no different than the

> concept of oblivion or the appearances. What the concept Self refers

> to has no embodiment in that word, there is nothing embodied in words

> or concepts. To use it as if it is embodied will hamstring

> conversations. For example, can you make the Self an object? Can you

> see the Self and examine the Self in any way? This is not possible but

> you are doing it by saying:

>

> " The Self always Is, regardless of what the body/mind " experiences " or

> where the attention of the mind wanders. It is just being and no

other. "

>

> Here you have made the Self an object to you and to others by

> describing it in words as if you can do such an impossibility and then

> insisting on the veracity of the concpet and discarding other concepts

> saying they do not apply. This may be seen by some as belief and

> reification and the behavior that comes with that. To continue to do

> so means that all is must be packed in favor of your version. No

> discussion is possible because all is resolved to the your linguistic

> concept of Self. I understand what you say and the point of the

> discussion was about experience. The experience is a fiction in that

> it is abstracted from a larger one, as are the segments described.

> That was being shared as if it were a sandwich. So it seemed.

>

> When concepts are employed there are limitations. One of those

> limitations is understanding what the other means by their concepts.

> To tell an experience is to fragment it, but such fragementation is

> artificial, so we read between the words. If one does not have similar

> experiences then there are immediate problems. Assumptions rise and

> then off we go into no, no, and yes, but insted of exploring

> experiences for the fun of it.

>

>

> fuzzie: You wrote, regarding Nisargadatta and Ramana:

>

> " Do not forget Fuzzie that self-inquiry (neti, neti) as a specific

> method was taught by both. "

>

> " Neti, neti " may be a by-product of self-inquiry, but, it is not

> self-inquiry proper. Self-inquiry is an investigation into oneself.

> Nisargadatta and Ramana emphasized a continuous looking into oneself,

> turning the flow of attention back onto the self and realizing who or

> what that may be. Nisargadatta said stay with the sense of " I am " and

> Ramana always turned the question back onto the questioner ( " Who am

> I? " ). This is not neti-neti in the classical sense, but, it does

> entail a weeding out of that which is superficial to the quest.

>

> In my opinion, (and, I am not an authority on anything), I found the

> neti-neti process to be mainly intellectual. This can be helpful,

> though, but, it does not take one beyond the body/mind, which is the

> greatest hindrance to self-realization. But, having an intellectual

> understanding of the process in question is useful, and, so, neti-neti

> has its place in the overall scheme of things.

>

>

> Lewis: Yes. The method of self-inquiry is a method and neti, neti is

> an aid in it and not central. Here is Ramana's method in his words and

> it includes neti, neti as an aid.

>

>

> " 29. The only enquiry leading to Self-realization is seeking the

> Source of the 'I' with in-turned mind and without uttering the word

> 'I'. Meditation on 'I am not this; I am That' may be an aid to the

> enquiry but it cannot be the enquiry. "

>

>

> fuzzie: You wrote:

>

> " ...Others may not see that " tree " for the " forest " hides it and it

> needs to be " cut down, " cleared enough so that that tree appears

> unmistakenly and then there is the attempt to cut that which cannot be

> cut and it is then suddenly apparent...... "

>

> I thought the old saw went: " One can't see the forest for the trees " .

>

>

>

> Lewis: Of course, but it can be used in any way.

>

>

> fuzzie: The Self is not the metaphorical " tree " nor is it the

> " forest " . It would be more analogous to say that the Self is the

> " ground " in which the " trees " take root. So, instead of cutting the

> forest down, Lewis, simply locate the " ground " in which your

> metaphorical " trees " are arising. Then, you can enjoy the beauty and

> grandeur of the forest while remaining as I AM. Besides, anyhow,

> cutting the forest down can be exhausting.

>

>

>

>

> Yours,

>

> fuzzie

>

>

> Lewis: Ok. That story works with the concept. The other tree metaphor

> was derived from the conceptualizations of Self and the common methods

> and practices used to reach the " Self. " Most of these methods have to

> do with " clearing " and they are exhausting I suppose for those who to

> do them.

>

> You should know that I do not consider at all the concept of the Self

> or self-realization nor engage in any practices related to it. The I

> AM/Self/Atman/Nirguna Brahman complex are understood as concepts,

> which is related to the enormous and diverse amount of Vedantic

> scripture and complicated commentary connected with it. The same goes

> for Buddhism, Taoism, Christianity, all religions, and the mystic

> traditions ad the occult, sciences, hard and soft, and the humanities.

> Have I left out something? I to none of it and believe none

> of it. These are not of any interest whatsoever beyond the meanings

> provided, what they mean to others, and what uses can be made of them.

> These are all stories and guidebooks of others experiences and

> practices writ large.

>

> In the spiritual realm, Ramana talks about his experiences.

> Nisargadatta, his and so on with the many others. They are

> interesting. What they say seems like common sense. They are not

> impressive. Perhaps, if they were read earlier, there would be

> something significant and impressive in what they say. Coming to them

> late in life, they seem just like they enjoy spending all their time

> talking about what I find ordinary in my daily experience. I do not

> see anything extraordinary in what they say or what they did.

>

> The time spent here in conversations like the one now engaged in is

> for exploring what is in this appearance and in others. It is a

> curiosity and it is fun, enjoyable and sometimes not and all of it is

> as it is. Like life. Breathe it in and let out. I have nothing to

> teach nor anything extraordinary to report. Enlightenment and seeking

> it is meaningless to me, though it is important to others. Some like

> cake others steak, some both, others neither. No reason for

> conversations not to be had though. After all if someone is realized

> or enlightened, as those concepts are usually described, such persons

> are fearless and open and universal and it would seem that " pagans "

> and the " unenlightened " and the " partially or crippled enlightened "

> can hang out without being dipped in the roiling scriptures and dogma.

>

> Love,

>

> Lewis

 

Hi, Lewis:

 

The dialogue continues:

 

** new stuff

 

Lewis: The question is not answered, Fuzzie. Playing the piano does

not, nor anything else, occur in deep dreamless sleep. There is no

dichotomy and there is no wrestling. It is a manner of expression and

all of it is an invention, as is the Self concept. There is no need to

let go of word invention like oblivion, appearances or Self, they all

are like air, ungraspable. They are no thing.

 

Fuzzie: I gave you an answer. You simply didn't like it. You asked

about the self, not whether or not you could play the piano in your

sleep. I said the self is always the same, whether sleeping, waking or

dreaming. This is my understanding. If the answer is wrong, then, make

your case.

 

**Lewis: There is nothing to like or dislike. What was asked was this:

~~~~~~~~~~

" Lewis: Yes. There is never separation and it is always is. Separation

and discontinity are impossibilities. One way to understand what was

intended to be said about " oblivion " is to consider daily life with

deep sleep, waking and calm, doing the morning things, being involved

in this and that like posting, eating, excreting and such, moving

around here to there, relating with others, resting and deep sleep.

During these artificial segments of daily activities, which can be

filled and ordered in any way desired from memory, there are changes

in the content of the appearances from none to few, to many, to few to

none, to few and so on. During an active day, oblivion remains

background as the appearances occupy attention. The non-separation

continues and the appearances are dealt with and unlike that done in

deep sleep, or rest or contemplation. Is this not so? "

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

**So again here is the question differently worded: Do you experience

changes in the appearances during daily activites including deep

sleep, rest and contemplation and are they dealt with variously in

those different activities and states? There is no mention of the Self

at all. You did not answer the questions as asked. That is ok and the

question still remains unanswered.

 

Fuzzie: All I know is I am. You say that that is a concept. Well, the

sentence " I am " is a concept. But, it is also referring to what I am.

I am; that which is; beyond concepts. It is not conceptual. That is

why it is so difficult to understand.

 

**Lewis: There is no difficulty in understanding what you say. It is

simple. It is a simple experience, quite ordinary. Even my kids

experience it. And words and concepts can't get it exactly right. As

you say beyond concepts not conceptual, unspeakable.

 

Lewis: If it is possible, read between the words. The concepts are not

what it is about.

 

Fuzzie: Exactly. That's what I've been saying all along.

 

**Lewis: Was that not always the case?

 

Lewis: You are reading the concepts as separate and trying to

put them all or dissolve them all in the concept of Self, which you

are using as an object fact...

 

Fuzzie: You are making a strawman, here, and, then, tearing it apart.

As I explained above, I am not conceptual. I exist. No kidding. Here I

am.

 

**Lewis: No straw man. You are not words or concepts or are you? " I am

not conceptual. " " I exist, " " Here I am " does not contain you. These

are assertions typed in words. You are not joined to these words on

the screen that appear in front of me are you? They only represent

you, fleeting images, fictions of you. Do you think you are these

words? If I delete these words are you deleted? If I say something

about these words are you damaged or hurt? These words are objects

not, I AM. Is this not so? Or are you attached to these word objects

and believe them to be I AM?

 

Lewis: ...if someone is realized or enlightened, as those concepts are

usually described, such persons are fearless and open and universal

and it would seem that " pagans " and the " unenlightened " and the

" partially or crippled enlightened " can hang out without being dipped

in the roiling scriptures and dogma.

 

Fuzzie: I hang out with pagans and cripples all the time, Lewis. I got

no dogma to lay on anyone. I am self-realized.

 

**Lewis: Nice.

 

Fuzzie: Some call that enlightenment. It's really not enlightenment at

all, but, it is commonly referred to as such. It all kind of happened

by accident, anyway. What can I tell you?

 

**Lewis: No need to say anything. You say it is so, then it is so. It

is not denied.

 

Fuzzie: You think existence is a concept.

 

**Lewis: If written or spoken of in words, yes, it is indeed a

concept. Just as " you " are a concept when you refer to Self or I AM or

fuzzie in words. You say so above. What " you " is, is unspeakable.

Existence is also unspeakable. Self is unspeakable. Everything is

truly unspeakable. Words are words. They are symbols, images,

representations, fragments, fictions, stand in-s, they never

suffice... Some people struggle with mind/body identification others

struggle with word identification. They think they are what they write

or speak.

 

Fuzzie: But, who or what is it that conceptualizes? Tell me about

that, Lewis,

 

**Lewis: That was clearly spoken of before. " I " do it, " me "

" indescribable me " the " capacities " and so on. Don't you remember?

 

Fuzzie: or, have you got that all conceptualized away in a nice, neat

little box somewhere, along with all your other conceptual baggage?

 

**Lewis: Concepts have their place. You use concepts everyday of your

life in the hidden assumptions you use to carry out your daily life,

to speak, to write and communicate to think, feel and do. Did you ever

fully realize the enormous conceptual baggage you carry around with

you? How is it that you type a post or get on a bus and pay the fare,

sit or stand, reach a destination and get off and go.

 

Think of all the concepts needed and used to carry out those simple

tasks and all the other doings done. It is all taken for granted,

hidden from awareness, embedded in habits, below conscious awareness

of the appearance. You must " know " what those things are to use them,

whether consciously aware of them or not. This does not change because

of self-realization. And there are many hidden assumptions and

concepts that inform responses and how one perceives and misperceives.

Self-realization changes little of the conceptual baggage that daily

life requires. Shed completely all the conceptual baggage and there

will appear a non-functioning blithering idiot. Concepts are harmless

if they are understood, used and put away. Have you checked thoroughly

the full extent of your conceptual baggage?

 

Fuzzie: It's been real, Lewis. Thanks for your consideration.

 

Yours truly,

 

fuzzie

 

 

Same here, Fuzzie.

 

Love,

 

Lewis

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> wrote:

> Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz>

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz>

> wrote:

> > Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...>

wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz>

> > wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > .....how to discuss that which cannot be discussed (cf. the

> " Tao Te

> > > > > Ching " for more details on that).

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Yours truly,

> > > > >

> > > > > fuzzie

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear fuzzie,

> > > > >

> > > > > Here are two chapters from the Tao Te Ching that refers to

> what was

> > > > > discussed. This translation can be found at:

> > > > > http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/gthursby/taoism/ttcmerel.htm

> > > > >

> > > > > Other translations that vary widely can be found at:

> > > > > http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/gthursby/taoism/ttc-list.htm

> > > > > http://www.wam.umd.edu/~stwright/rel/tao/TaoTeChing.html

> > > > >

> > > > > Language and dialogue can be made more adequate to the task

though

> > > > > never sufficient. " Sitting " at the 'opening of " mystery, " '

> > rather than

> > > > > in senseless immersion in it so that the operation of the

> expressive

> > > > > capacities are not naturally muted, the emergence of

> consciouseness

> > > > > and the superficial mind can be experienced, " observed " as these

> > take

> > > > > formation, produce their products and then dissipate. This

> > > > > observational experience is used to find the words that better

> suit

> > > > > " my " appearance. The venerated appearances of the past that

> describe

> > > > > these matters derive them from such observations all different

> > as each

> > > > > is. Each appearance's observations are different than another

> due to

> > > > > the expressing body/mind. Each find its way. The sooner

alone and

> > > > > vanished the better it seems. What do you experience fuzzie,

> at the

> > > > > opening?

> > > > >

> > > > > Love,

> > > > >

> > > > > Lewis

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Dear, Lewis:

> > > >

> > > > I had a hunch you were into Taoism. Your writing style

revealed a

> > > > poise and a reserve that was reminiscent of a Taoist fluency.

Thank

> > > > you for the links to the Taoist websites. I noticed the quotes you

> > > > used were from the James Legge translation. He was the guy

that did

> > > > the old classic " I Ching " that was popular back when I was

> growing up

> > > > (late '60's, early '70's). Good to see old Legge is still holding

> > up.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Lewis: Fuzzie, the move to Taoism followed the lead given.

There is

> > > > not much interest in the Tao Te Ching beyond those two chapters

> among

> > > > the 81 that comprise the text. The translation I used was an

> > > > interpolation of many different version by another author, Peter

> > > > Merel, and the alternative translation was Legge, which is a very

> > > > sensitive one, that is, it is not so much a reinterpretation from

> > > > various positions or translated in stilted English as others.

Peter

> > > > Merel did not translate the text. He used several well respected

> > > > translations and worked out a useful presentation.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > You wrote: " Each appearance's observations are different than

> another

> > > > due to the expressing body/mind. Each find its way. The sooner

alone

> > > > and vanished the better it seems. What do you experience

fuzzie, at

> > > > the opening? "

> > > >

> > > > What do I experience, " Sitting " at the 'opening of " mystery " ', you

> > > > ask? My experience is that I am aware that I am; indefinable,

> > > > indescribable being-awareness. I know, that is a hackneyed

> cliche' in

> > > > the Advaita circles these days, but, I don't know anything

else but

> > > > that, hackneyed or not. I AM; no experience necessary. As you

> seem to

> > > > be aware, everything which is generally considered to be

> experiential

> > > > is but an apparency and the expression thereof. The

appearances, or,

> > > > experiences, are but waves upon the deep, so to speak. Like any

> other

> > > > sentient body/mind, I experience these waves of appearances,

> > > > modulating in and out, apparencies which can be re-membered and

> > > > re-counted as experiences in seemingly endless variations and

> > > > combinations. But, I really know nothing about any of it. I am

> > > > ignorant, really. There is the joy in just being, though.

That's my

> > > > experience. There's no need to know anything in order to know

> > > > yourself. Self-realization is inherent; natural. The old saw

> > > > " ignorance is bliss " appears to be accurate, in this case.

> > > > Self-realization is so blunt simple, that that is why it is so

> > > > difficult. And, as the Taoists and Buddhists and Vedantists

have all

> > > > so aptly reiterated, it cannot be verbalized or thought. One can

> only

> > > > gesture. The rest is up to grace or fate or the infinite wisdom

> of all

> > > > things or whatever anyone wants to call it.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Lewis: Yes. It is simple.

> > > >

> > > > And that is an experience at the " opening. " If not at the

" opening "

> > > > and simply and fully immersed in it there is " senselessness

> sense " and

> > > > utter ignorance, where indeed " ignorance is bliss. " As you say,

> > > > nothing can be said of this. It may be supposed that such is

how it

> > > > can be and is said that " nothing ever happened. "

> > > >

> > > > Facing and peering outward at the opening and not fully immersed

> in it

> > > > there appear the " waves upon the deep, " the " waves of the

> > > > appearances. " Without doing this, that is " being in

'oblivion' " with

> > > > out full immersion, there is no way to carry on work, play, rest,

> > > > creating, and otherwise doing and living. Has this been your

> > experience?

> > > >

> > > > My interest at the moment Fuzzie, is in expressions of the

> emergence,

> > > > formation and appearance and change in the capacities and the

> products

> > > > " the waves of the appearances. " It seems that language can be

> used to

> > > > better and more sensitively to express these so that it is

realized.

> > > > The common ways to nudge to it is, to engage ascetism, to deny

> assumed

> > > > realities and inherent independent existence (neti, neti, issuing

> > > > blanket statements - " it is all a dream or illusion, " asserting

> > > > impermanence, sunyata, dependent origination, etc.) to undermine

> > > > ego/self and reification by denying, challenging, ridiculing,

> > > > harassing and otherwise making it difficult to hold on to impeding

> > > > assumptions and ignorance of self, to seek " direct perception " and

> > > > various samadhis through various methods and practices, to

eliminate

> > > > mental and physical predispositions (vasanas), habits,

> " clinging " and

> > > > other things perceived as impediments, " to do nothing, " " to

let go, "

> > > > " to have it come as it may, " " grace, " and so on. These all seem

> to be

> > > > rather " complicated " for understanding and dealing with the

> > > > appearances, for what appears to be simple. What can be said,

> Fuzzie?

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Well, I've rambled on enough here. Most people think I'm crazy

> and/or

> > > > deluded, etc., anyhow. Maybe they're right. I don't know. It

> wouldn't

> > > > make any difference, either way, would it, Lewis?

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Lewis: No. It it does not in any way. And would it help or make a

> > > > difference knowing that I am touched, totally insane, crazy as a

> loon,

> > > > a nutter, an ignorant defective?

> > > >

> > > > :-)

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > As usual, it's been a pleasure. Thanks so much for your

> consideration.

> > > > You are a gentleman and a scholar. I appreciate it.

> > > >

> > > > Yours,

> > > >

> > > > fuzzie

> > > >

> > > > It is a pleasure to communicate with you Fuzzie, to be with

you like

> > > > this. It is enjoyable and stimulating.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Love,

> > > >

> > > > Lewis

> > >

> > >

> > > Hello, Lewis:

> > >

> > > I should have said you have an affinity with Taoist philosophy. I

> > > think most do who are also drawn to Vedanta or Buddhism,

particularly

> > > Ch'an/Zen Buddhism, where Taoist philosophy is a heavy influence in

> > > the formative period of the various Ch'an Buddhist sects of the

T'ang

> > > Dynasty era.

> > >

> > >

> > > Lewis: Yes.

> > >

> > >

> > > You wrote: " Facing and peering outward at the opening and not fully

> > > immersed in it there appear the " waves upon the deep, " the " waves of

> > > the appearances. " Without doing this, that is " being in 'oblivion' "

> > > without full immersion, there is no way to carry on work, play,

rest,

> > > creating, and otherwise doing and living. Has this been your

> > experience? "

> > >

> > > My 'experience', Lewis, for lack of a better word, is that the

" being

> > > in 'oblivion' " and carrying on with living, working, playing, etc.,

> > > are concurrent. There really is no separation. In the Self, there is

> > > no subject/object, binary opposition. There is only

being-awareness; I

> > > AM. And, accompanying this being-ness is a sense of joy. Not that

> > > there is never any pain, but, just an enjoyment of being itself.

> > >

> > > But, granted I don't get much work done, Lewis. If something needs

> > > doing, then, I do it, but, if not, I don't look for things to do. I

> > > live by the maxim " let it be " , and, I'm not necessarily talking

about

> > > the Beatles (although, I like the Beatles, generally speaking).

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Lewis: Yes. There is never separation and it is always is.

Separation

> > > and discontinity are impossibilities. One way to understand what was

> > > intended to be said about " oblivion " is to consider daily life with

> > > deep sleep, waking and calm, doing the morning things, being

involved

> > > in this and that like posting, eating, excreting and such, moving

> > > around here to there, relating with others, resting and deep sleep.

> > > During these artificial segments of daily activities, which can be

> > > filled and ordered in any way desired from memory, there are changes

> > > in the content of the appearances from none to few, to many, to

few to

> > > none, to few and so on. During an active day, oblivion remains

> > > background as the appearances occupy attention. The non-separation

> > > continues and the appearances are dealt with and unlike that done in

> > > deep sleep, or rest or contemplation. Is this not so?

> > >

> > > When the name used is called or seen, is there a response? If

there is

> > > a response, one cannot be fully immersed in oblivion since

experience

> > > informs that being total oblivion is sense-less, as in deep sleep or

> > > even with eyes closed or open. The " state " referred to is a waking

> > > state where oblivion is present and not overwhelming the appearances

> > > making them indistinct and incomprehensible, though it does happen

> > > during the day sometimes. There is a moving through various

states in

> > > a day. There is not a " steady state " as the demands and callings

> > > change and alter. Close examination shows that there are changes of

> > > all sorts. Recapitulating and assessing memories may make it

seem like

> > > it is one state but that is not possible since one's appearance and

> > > its contents fluctutates and changes continuously during a day

and so

> > > on. The contents are enormous, always changing and most of it goes

> > > unnoticed. The isolated capacities of " awareness " and/or

> > > " consciousness " (they are not equivalent concepts or experiences)

> > > fluctuate as well since their expression and operations are

dependent

> > > on other things such as memory, brain functioning, enviromental

> > > conditions, others and so on.

> > >

> > >

> > > Also, as you do, I respond to the call and flow of experiences.

Doing

> > > that is enough and the plate is always full.

> > >

> > >

> > > You also wrote, concerning language or methodology used to induce

> > > realization:

> > >

> > > " The common ways to nudge to it is, to engage ascetism, to deny

> > > assumed realities and inherent independent existence (neti, neti,

> > > issuing blanket statements - " it is all a dream or illusion, "

> > > asserting impermanence, sunyata, dependent origination, etc.) to

> > undermine

> > > > ego/self and reification by denying, challenging, ridiculing,

> > > > harassing and otherwise making it difficult to hold on to impeding

> > > > assumptions and ignorance of self, to seek " direct perception " and

> > > > various samadhis through various methods and practices, to

eliminate

> > > > mental and physical predispositions (vasanas), habits,

> " clinging " and

> > > > other things perceived as impediments, " to do nothing, " " to

let go, "

> > > > " to have it come as it may, " " grace, " and so on. These all seem

> to be

> > > > rather " complicated " for understanding and dealing with the

> > > > appearances, for what appears to be simple. What can be said,

> Fuzzie? "

> > >

> > > My response is that all of these things are aids to alter

> > > consciousness or to induce various psychophysical effects upon the

> > > body/mind, but, they are not necessary at all in realizing the Self.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Lewis: Agreed.

> > >

> > >

> > > I agree with Nisargadatta and Ramana on this. They both taught to

> > > simply know yourself and that is all.

> > >

> > >

> > > Lewis: Do not forget Fuzzie that self-inquiry (neti, neti) as a

> > > specific method was taught by both.

> > >

> > >

> > > It is tried and true. Attested to throughout the annals of history

> > > (the admonition " Know Thyself " was inscribed upon the Delphic

Oracle).

> > > It's so simple, so obvious, almost everyone overlooks it. The Self;

> > > you are It. Taking up all of these methods and practices might be

> > > helpful in some ways, but, none of them are necessary. That's why

> > > there's such a proliferation of " methods and practices " , because, in

> > > and of themselves, none of them work. One realizes the Self as if by

> > > accident, by intuition.

> > >

> > >

> > > Lewis: Yes, that seems to be the case. For some methods and

practices

> > > are helpful, even " necessary. " If one speaks from realization

one may

> > > say nothing is necessary since the simplicity is seen. Others

may not

> > > see that " tree " for the " forest " hides it and it needs to be " cut

> > > down, " cleared enough so that that tree appears unmistakenly and

then

> > > there is the attempt to cut that which cannot be cut and it is then

> > > suddenly apparent...... Methods and practices can, but not

> > > necessarily, help in the clearing and positioning and nothing more

> > > than that. It just happens.

> > >

> > >

> > > I'm not putting any methods or practices down, though, Lewis. I used

> > > to try different methods and practices. I meditated for decades.

I got

> > > into various religions. I practiced atma vichara 24/7 until I

couldn't

> > > think of anything else. Then, one afternoon, all of the sudden,

out of

> > > nowhere, I realized I AM. I was in a very ecstatic state for several

> > > days, afterwards, and, now, it has mellowed out into the simple

joy of

> > > just being. I don't know how else to put it. Some tell me I'm not

> > > " there " , yet. Others say I've gone too far. I don't know. It isn't

> > > really an issue for me, anymore.

> > >

> > >

> > > Yes. A " clearing " is made so it unmistakenly appears without effort.

> > > It goes that way.

> > >

> > > The point about the language is that if used well perhaps the trees

> > > need not be cut (most of the harmless ones grow back anyway) with

> > > elaborate methods practices which do indeed take many years many

years

> > > and instead a simple " navigational device " can be used to do a

little

> > > more than to vaguely point, a sort of GPS language unit. If it

can be

> > > spoken about as it is being done here it can be done. Nothing fancy

> > > just some notes on how the capacities operate to produce the

> > > appearances so the " trees " the appearances can be seen around and

> > > through so it is clearly seen. There is so much talk about it, so

> > > there is no one to object to it?

> > >

> > >

> > > But, I will say one thing: It sure is fun talking to you, Lewis.

And,

> > > who has more fun than people? (River otters, maybe?)

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Yours,

> > >

> > > fuzzie

> > >

> > >

> > > Yes, joy is and be careful Fuzzie, that sort of statement will

get the

> > > exorcising crew working - there are no people, so it is said.

> > >

> > > :-D

> > >

> > > Love,

> > >

> > > Lewis

> >

> >

> > Hi, there, Lewis:

> >

> > You wrote:

> >

> > fuzzie: " ...During an active day, oblivion remains background as the

> > appearances occupy attention. The non-separation continues and the

> > appearances are dealt with and unlike that done in deep sleep, or rest

> > or contemplation. Is this not so? "

> >

> > Deep sleep, dreaming and waking are all the same in the Self. This

> > " oblivion vs. apparency " dichotomy you are wrestling with is an

> > invention of the mind, of thought; (it's as if one thinks oneself into

> > an imaginary bottle and, then, one tries to think oneself back out,

> > again; the whole affair is imaginary; let it go).

> >

> >

> > Lewis: The question is not answered, Fuzzie. Playing the piano does

> > not, nor anything else, occur in deep dreamless sleep. There is no

> > dichotomy and there is no wrestling. It is a manner of expression and

> > all of it is an invention, as is the Self concept. There is no need to

> > let go of word invention like oblivion, appearances or Self, they all

> > are like air, ungraspable. They are no thing.

> >

> > If it is possible, read between the words. The concepts are not what

> > it is about. You are reading the concepts as separate and trying to

> > put them all or dissolve them all in the concept of Self, which you

> > are using as an object fact. The Self concept is only that, a concept,

> > as is oblivion and appearances. These concepts can be broken apart and

> > put back togehter or simply discarded. When using concepts it is

> > easier to stick with them until you are finished with them and then

> > put them down. But to use concepts as if they are real confuses

> > discussion. Self, oblivion and appearances are equal fictitious

> > concepts.

> >

> >

> > fuzzie: In the Self, neither oblivion nor apparency exist, but are

> > fictions of the mind (one could say, though, they " exist " in an

> > imaginary sense). The Self always Is, regardless of what the body/mind

> > " experiences " or where the attention of the mind wanders. It is just

> > being and no other. You are That.

> >

> >

> > Lewis: This is where trouble comes in Fuzzie and others may have at

> > you because of it. The Self is a word, concept that refers to..... The

> > word, the concept, is a fiction and it is no different than the

> > concept of oblivion or the appearances. What the concept Self refers

> > to has no embodiment in that word, there is nothing embodied in words

> > or concepts. To use it as if it is embodied will hamstring

> > conversations. For example, can you make the Self an object? Can you

> > see the Self and examine the Self in any way? This is not possible but

> > you are doing it by saying:

> >

> > " The Self always Is, regardless of what the body/mind " experiences " or

> > where the attention of the mind wanders. It is just being and no

> other. "

> >

> > Here you have made the Self an object to you and to others by

> > describing it in words as if you can do such an impossibility and then

> > insisting on the veracity of the concpet and discarding other concepts

> > saying they do not apply. This may be seen by some as belief and

> > reification and the behavior that comes with that. To continue to do

> > so means that all is must be packed in favor of your version. No

> > discussion is possible because all is resolved to the your linguistic

> > concept of Self. I understand what you say and the point of the

> > discussion was about experience. The experience is a fiction in that

> > it is abstracted from a larger one, as are the segments described.

> > That was being shared as if it were a sandwich. So it seemed.

> >

> > When concepts are employed there are limitations. One of those

> > limitations is understanding what the other means by their concepts.

> > To tell an experience is to fragment it, but such fragementation is

> > artificial, so we read between the words. If one does not have similar

> > experiences then there are immediate problems. Assumptions rise and

> > then off we go into no, no, and yes, but insted of exploring

> > experiences for the fun of it.

> >

> >

> > fuzzie: You wrote, regarding Nisargadatta and Ramana:

> >

> > " Do not forget Fuzzie that self-inquiry (neti, neti) as a specific

> > method was taught by both. "

> >

> > " Neti, neti " may be a by-product of self-inquiry, but, it is not

> > self-inquiry proper. Self-inquiry is an investigation into oneself.

> > Nisargadatta and Ramana emphasized a continuous looking into oneself,

> > turning the flow of attention back onto the self and realizing who or

> > what that may be. Nisargadatta said stay with the sense of " I am " and

> > Ramana always turned the question back onto the questioner ( " Who am

> > I? " ). This is not neti-neti in the classical sense, but, it does

> > entail a weeding out of that which is superficial to the quest.

> >

> > In my opinion, (and, I am not an authority on anything), I found the

> > neti-neti process to be mainly intellectual. This can be helpful,

> > though, but, it does not take one beyond the body/mind, which is the

> > greatest hindrance to self-realization. But, having an intellectual

> > understanding of the process in question is useful, and, so, neti-neti

> > has its place in the overall scheme of things.

> >

> >

> > Lewis: Yes. The method of self-inquiry is a method and neti, neti is

> > an aid in it and not central. Here is Ramana's method in his words and

> > it includes neti, neti as an aid.

> >

> >

> > " 29. The only enquiry leading to Self-realization is seeking the

> > Source of the 'I' with in-turned mind and without uttering the word

> > 'I'. Meditation on 'I am not this; I am That' may be an aid to the

> > enquiry but it cannot be the enquiry. "

> >

> >

> > fuzzie: You wrote:

> >

> > " ...Others may not see that " tree " for the " forest " hides it and it

> > needs to be " cut down, " cleared enough so that that tree appears

> > unmistakenly and then there is the attempt to cut that which cannot be

> > cut and it is then suddenly apparent...... "

> >

> > I thought the old saw went: " One can't see the forest for the trees " .

> >

> >

> >

> > Lewis: Of course, but it can be used in any way.

> >

> >

> > fuzzie: The Self is not the metaphorical " tree " nor is it the

> > " forest " . It would be more analogous to say that the Self is the

> > " ground " in which the " trees " take root. So, instead of cutting the

> > forest down, Lewis, simply locate the " ground " in which your

> > metaphorical " trees " are arising. Then, you can enjoy the beauty and

> > grandeur of the forest while remaining as I AM. Besides, anyhow,

> > cutting the forest down can be exhausting.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Yours,

> >

> > fuzzie

> >

> >

> > Lewis: Ok. That story works with the concept. The other tree metaphor

> > was derived from the conceptualizations of Self and the common methods

> > and practices used to reach the " Self. " Most of these methods have to

> > do with " clearing " and they are exhausting I suppose for those who to

> > do them.

> >

> > You should know that I do not consider at all the concept of the Self

> > or self-realization nor engage in any practices related to it. The I

> > AM/Self/Atman/Nirguna Brahman complex are understood as concepts,

> > which is related to the enormous and diverse amount of Vedantic

> > scripture and complicated commentary connected with it. The same goes

> > for Buddhism, Taoism, Christianity, all religions, and the mystic

> > traditions ad the occult, sciences, hard and soft, and the humanities.

> > Have I left out something? I to none of it and believe none

> > of it. These are not of any interest whatsoever beyond the meanings

> > provided, what they mean to others, and what uses can be made of them.

> > These are all stories and guidebooks of others experiences and

> > practices writ large.

> >

> > In the spiritual realm, Ramana talks about his experiences.

> > Nisargadatta, his and so on with the many others. They are

> > interesting. What they say seems like common sense. They are not

> > impressive. Perhaps, if they were read earlier, there would be

> > something significant and impressive in what they say. Coming to them

> > late in life, they seem just like they enjoy spending all their time

> > talking about what I find ordinary in my daily experience. I do not

> > see anything extraordinary in what they say or what they did.

> >

> > The time spent here in conversations like the one now engaged in is

> > for exploring what is in this appearance and in others. It is a

> > curiosity and it is fun, enjoyable and sometimes not and all of it is

> > as it is. Like life. Breathe it in and let out. I have nothing to

> > teach nor anything extraordinary to report. Enlightenment and seeking

> > it is meaningless to me, though it is important to others. Some like

> > cake others steak, some both, others neither. No reason for

> > conversations not to be had though. After all if someone is realized

> > or enlightened, as those concepts are usually described, such persons

> > are fearless and open and universal and it would seem that " pagans "

> > and the " unenlightened " and the " partially or crippled enlightened "

> > can hang out without being dipped in the roiling scriptures and dogma.

> >

> > Love,

> >

> > Lewis

>

> Hi, Lewis:

>

> The dialogue continues:

>

> ** new stuff

>

> Lewis: The question is not answered, Fuzzie. Playing the piano does

> not, nor anything else, occur in deep dreamless sleep. There is no

> dichotomy and there is no wrestling. It is a manner of expression and

> all of it is an invention, as is the Self concept. There is no need to

> let go of word invention like oblivion, appearances or Self, they all

> are like air, ungraspable. They are no thing.

>

> Fuzzie: I gave you an answer. You simply didn't like it. You asked

> about the self, not whether or not you could play the piano in your

> sleep. I said the self is always the same, whether sleeping, waking or

> dreaming. This is my understanding. If the answer is wrong, then, make

> your case.

>

> **Lewis: There is nothing to like or dislike. What was asked was this:

> ~~~~~~~~~~

> " Lewis: Yes. There is never separation and it is always is. Separation

> and discontinity are impossibilities. One way to understand what was

> intended to be said about " oblivion " is to consider daily life with

> deep sleep, waking and calm, doing the morning things, being involved

> in this and that like posting, eating, excreting and such, moving

> around here to there, relating with others, resting and deep sleep.

> During these artificial segments of daily activities, which can be

> filled and ordered in any way desired from memory, there are changes

> in the content of the appearances from none to few, to many, to few to

> none, to few and so on. During an active day, oblivion remains

> background as the appearances occupy attention. The non-separation

> continues and the appearances are dealt with and unlike that done in

> deep sleep, or rest or contemplation. Is this not so? "

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> **So again here is the question differently worded: Do you experience

> changes in the appearances during daily activites including deep

> sleep, rest and contemplation and are they dealt with variously in

> those different activities and states? There is no mention of the Self

> at all. You did not answer the questions as asked. That is ok and the

> question still remains unanswered.

>

> Fuzzie: All I know is I am. You say that that is a concept. Well, the

> sentence " I am " is a concept. But, it is also referring to what I am.

> I am; that which is; beyond concepts. It is not conceptual. That is

> why it is so difficult to understand.

>

> **Lewis: There is no difficulty in understanding what you say. It is

> simple. It is a simple experience, quite ordinary. Even my kids

> experience it. And words and concepts can't get it exactly right. As

> you say beyond concepts not conceptual, unspeakable.

>

> Lewis: If it is possible, read between the words. The concepts are not

> what it is about.

>

> Fuzzie: Exactly. That's what I've been saying all along.

>

> **Lewis: Was that not always the case?

>

> Lewis: You are reading the concepts as separate and trying to

> put them all or dissolve them all in the concept of Self, which you

> are using as an object fact...

>

> Fuzzie: You are making a strawman, here, and, then, tearing it apart.

> As I explained above, I am not conceptual. I exist. No kidding. Here I

> am.

>

> **Lewis: No straw man. You are not words or concepts or are you? " I am

> not conceptual. " " I exist, " " Here I am " does not contain you. These

> are assertions typed in words. You are not joined to these words on

> the screen that appear in front of me are you? They only represent

> you, fleeting images, fictions of you. Do you think you are these

> words? If I delete these words are you deleted? If I say something

> about these words are you damaged or hurt? These words are objects

> not, I AM. Is this not so? Or are you attached to these word objects

> and believe them to be I AM?

>

> Lewis: ...if someone is realized or enlightened, as those concepts are

> usually described, such persons are fearless and open and universal

> and it would seem that " pagans " and the " unenlightened " and the

> " partially or crippled enlightened " can hang out without being dipped

> in the roiling scriptures and dogma.

>

> Fuzzie: I hang out with pagans and cripples all the time, Lewis. I got

> no dogma to lay on anyone. I am self-realized.

>

> **Lewis: Nice.

>

> Fuzzie: Some call that enlightenment. It's really not enlightenment at

> all, but, it is commonly referred to as such. It all kind of happened

> by accident, anyway. What can I tell you?

>

> **Lewis: No need to say anything. You say it is so, then it is so. It

> is not denied.

>

> Fuzzie: You think existence is a concept.

>

> **Lewis: If written or spoken of in words, yes, it is indeed a

> concept. Just as " you " are a concept when you refer to Self or I AM or

> fuzzie in words. You say so above. What " you " is, is unspeakable.

> Existence is also unspeakable. Self is unspeakable. Everything is

> truly unspeakable. Words are words. They are symbols, images,

> representations, fragments, fictions, stand in-s, they never

> suffice... Some people struggle with mind/body identification others

> struggle with word identification. They think they are what they write

> or speak.

>

> Fuzzie: But, who or what is it that conceptualizes? Tell me about

> that, Lewis,

>

> **Lewis: That was clearly spoken of before. " I " do it, " me "

> " indescribable me " the " capacities " and so on. Don't you remember?

>

> Fuzzie: or, have you got that all conceptualized away in a nice, neat

> little box somewhere, along with all your other conceptual baggage?

>

> **Lewis: Concepts have their place. You use concepts everyday of your

> life in the hidden assumptions you use to carry out your daily life,

> to speak, to write and communicate to think, feel and do. Did you ever

> fully realize the enormous conceptual baggage you carry around with

> you? How is it that you type a post or get on a bus and pay the fare,

> sit or stand, reach a destination and get off and go.

>

> Think of all the concepts needed and used to carry out those simple

> tasks and all the other doings done. It is all taken for granted,

> hidden from awareness, embedded in habits, below conscious awareness

> of the appearance. You must " know " what those things are to use them,

> whether consciously aware of them or not. This does not change because

> of self-realization. And there are many hidden assumptions and

> concepts that inform responses and how one perceives and misperceives.

> Self-realization changes little of the conceptual baggage that daily

> life requires. Shed completely all the conceptual baggage and there

> will appear a non-functioning blithering idiot. Concepts are harmless

> if they are understood, used and put away. Have you checked thoroughly

> the full extent of your conceptual baggage?

>

> Fuzzie: It's been real, Lewis. Thanks for your consideration.

>

> Yours truly,

>

> fuzzie

>

>

> Same here, Fuzzie.

>

> Love,

>

> Lewis

 

Hi, there, Lewis Burgess:

 

Here we go one mo' again:

 

L: **So again here is the question differently worded: Do you experience

> changes in the appearances during daily activites including deep

> sleep, rest and contemplation and are they dealt with variously in

> those different activities and states? There is no mention of the Self

> at all. You did not answer the questions as asked. That is ok and the

> question still remains unanswered.

 

 

F: I answered that a few posts back. Remember when I spoke of the

various " waves " of experience? I thought you were referring to the

self in the last post. My bad. Sorry.

 

L: > **Lewis: There is no difficulty in understanding what you say. It is

> simple. It is a simple experience, quite ordinary. Even my kids

> experience it. And words and concepts can't get it exactly right. As

> you say beyond concepts not conceptual, unspeakable.

 

F: That's what I said at the outset of this dialogue. I speak to

everyone as if they're enlightened, because, they are. Most just

haven't realized it, yet.

 

> **Lewis: No straw man. You are not words or concepts or are you? " I am

> not conceptual. " " I exist, " " Here I am " does not contain you. These

> are assertions typed in words. You are not joined to these words on

> the screen that appear in front of me are you? They only represent

> you, fleeting images, fictions of you. Do you think you are these

> words? If I delete these words are you deleted? If I say something

> about these words are you damaged or hurt? These words are objects

> not, I AM. Is this not so? Or are you attached to these word objects

> and believe them to be I AM?

>

 

F: I think we've gone over this topic, haven't we? Words or signs,

etc., are used as references, pointers, signifiers, etc. I think we've

covered that. There are books and websites on semiotics if you are

more interested in this topic. Peirce and Saussure are the two most

noted authorities on the subject. Check them out.

 

If you have anymore questions, let me know. I'll respond the best I

can. Thank you.

 

As always,

 

fuzzie

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz> wrote:

> Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> wrote:

> > Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz>

> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz>

> > wrote:

> > > Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...>

> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz>

> > > wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > .....how to discuss that which cannot be discussed (cf. the

> > " Tao Te

> > > > > > Ching " for more details on that).

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Yours truly,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > fuzzie

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear fuzzie,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Here are two chapters from the Tao Te Ching that refers to

> > what was

> > > > > > discussed. This translation can be found at:

> > > > > > http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/gthursby/taoism/ttcmerel.htm

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Other translations that vary widely can be found at:

> > > > > > http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/gthursby/taoism/ttc-list.htm

> > > > > > http://www.wam.umd.edu/~stwright/rel/tao/TaoTeChing.html

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Language and dialogue can be made more adequate to the task

> though

> > > > > > never sufficient. " Sitting " at the 'opening of " mystery, " '

> > > rather than

> > > > > > in senseless immersion in it so that the operation of the

> > expressive

> > > > > > capacities are not naturally muted, the emergence of

> > consciouseness

> > > > > > and the superficial mind can be experienced, " observed " as these

> > > take

> > > > > > formation, produce their products and then dissipate. This

> > > > > > observational experience is used to find the words that better

> > suit

> > > > > > " my " appearance. The venerated appearances of the past that

> > describe

> > > > > > these matters derive them from such observations all different

> > > as each

> > > > > > is. Each appearance's observations are different than another

> > due to

> > > > > > the expressing body/mind. Each find its way. The sooner

> alone and

> > > > > > vanished the better it seems. What do you experience fuzzie,

> > at the

> > > > > > opening?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Love,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Lewis

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear, Lewis:

> > > > >

> > > > > I had a hunch you were into Taoism. Your writing style

> revealed a

> > > > > poise and a reserve that was reminiscent of a Taoist fluency.

> Thank

> > > > > you for the links to the Taoist websites. I noticed the quotes you

> > > > > used were from the James Legge translation. He was the guy

> that did

> > > > > the old classic " I Ching " that was popular back when I was

> > growing up

> > > > > (late '60's, early '70's). Good to see old Legge is still holding

> > > up.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Lewis: Fuzzie, the move to Taoism followed the lead given.

> There is

> > > > > not much interest in the Tao Te Ching beyond those two chapters

> > among

> > > > > the 81 that comprise the text. The translation I used was an

> > > > > interpolation of many different version by another author, Peter

> > > > > Merel, and the alternative translation was Legge, which is a very

> > > > > sensitive one, that is, it is not so much a reinterpretation from

> > > > > various positions or translated in stilted English as others.

> Peter

> > > > > Merel did not translate the text. He used several well respected

> > > > > translations and worked out a useful presentation.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > You wrote: " Each appearance's observations are different than

> > another

> > > > > due to the expressing body/mind. Each find its way. The sooner

> alone

> > > > > and vanished the better it seems. What do you experience

> fuzzie, at

> > > > > the opening? "

> > > > >

> > > > > What do I experience, " Sitting " at the 'opening of " mystery " ', you

> > > > > ask? My experience is that I am aware that I am; indefinable,

> > > > > indescribable being-awareness. I know, that is a hackneyed

> > cliche' in

> > > > > the Advaita circles these days, but, I don't know anything

> else but

> > > > > that, hackneyed or not. I AM; no experience necessary. As you

> > seem to

> > > > > be aware, everything which is generally considered to be

> > experiential

> > > > > is but an apparency and the expression thereof. The

> appearances, or,

> > > > > experiences, are but waves upon the deep, so to speak. Like any

> > other

> > > > > sentient body/mind, I experience these waves of appearances,

> > > > > modulating in and out, apparencies which can be re-membered and

> > > > > re-counted as experiences in seemingly endless variations and

> > > > > combinations. But, I really know nothing about any of it. I am

> > > > > ignorant, really. There is the joy in just being, though.

> That's my

> > > > > experience. There's no need to know anything in order to know

> > > > > yourself. Self-realization is inherent; natural. The old saw

> > > > > " ignorance is bliss " appears to be accurate, in this case.

> > > > > Self-realization is so blunt simple, that that is why it is so

> > > > > difficult. And, as the Taoists and Buddhists and Vedantists

> have all

> > > > > so aptly reiterated, it cannot be verbalized or thought. One can

> > only

> > > > > gesture. The rest is up to grace or fate or the infinite wisdom

> > of all

> > > > > things or whatever anyone wants to call it.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Lewis: Yes. It is simple.

> > > > >

> > > > > And that is an experience at the " opening. " If not at the

> " opening "

> > > > > and simply and fully immersed in it there is " senselessness

> > sense " and

> > > > > utter ignorance, where indeed " ignorance is bliss. " As you say,

> > > > > nothing can be said of this. It may be supposed that such is

> how it

> > > > > can be and is said that " nothing ever happened. "

> > > > >

> > > > > Facing and peering outward at the opening and not fully immersed

> > in it

> > > > > there appear the " waves upon the deep, " the " waves of the

> > > > > appearances. " Without doing this, that is " being in

> 'oblivion' " with

> > > > > out full immersion, there is no way to carry on work, play, rest,

> > > > > creating, and otherwise doing and living. Has this been your

> > > experience?

> > > > >

> > > > > My interest at the moment Fuzzie, is in expressions of the

> > emergence,

> > > > > formation and appearance and change in the capacities and the

> > products

> > > > > " the waves of the appearances. " It seems that language can be

> > used to

> > > > > better and more sensitively to express these so that it is

> realized.

> > > > > The common ways to nudge to it is, to engage ascetism, to deny

> > assumed

> > > > > realities and inherent independent existence (neti, neti, issuing

> > > > > blanket statements - " it is all a dream or illusion, " asserting

> > > > > impermanence, sunyata, dependent origination, etc.) to undermine

> > > > > ego/self and reification by denying, challenging, ridiculing,

> > > > > harassing and otherwise making it difficult to hold on to impeding

> > > > > assumptions and ignorance of self, to seek " direct perception " and

> > > > > various samadhis through various methods and practices, to

> eliminate

> > > > > mental and physical predispositions (vasanas), habits,

> > " clinging " and

> > > > > other things perceived as impediments, " to do nothing, " " to

> let go, "

> > > > > " to have it come as it may, " " grace, " and so on. These all seem

> > to be

> > > > > rather " complicated " for understanding and dealing with the

> > > > > appearances, for what appears to be simple. What can be said,

> > Fuzzie?

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Well, I've rambled on enough here. Most people think I'm crazy

> > and/or

> > > > > deluded, etc., anyhow. Maybe they're right. I don't know. It

> > wouldn't

> > > > > make any difference, either way, would it, Lewis?

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Lewis: No. It it does not in any way. And would it help or make a

> > > > > difference knowing that I am touched, totally insane, crazy as a

> > loon,

> > > > > a nutter, an ignorant defective?

> > > > >

> > > > > :-)

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > As usual, it's been a pleasure. Thanks so much for your

> > consideration.

> > > > > You are a gentleman and a scholar. I appreciate it.

> > > > >

> > > > > Yours,

> > > > >

> > > > > fuzzie

> > > > >

> > > > > It is a pleasure to communicate with you Fuzzie, to be with

> you like

> > > > > this. It is enjoyable and stimulating.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Love,

> > > > >

> > > > > Lewis

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Hello, Lewis:

> > > >

> > > > I should have said you have an affinity with Taoist philosophy. I

> > > > think most do who are also drawn to Vedanta or Buddhism,

> particularly

> > > > Ch'an/Zen Buddhism, where Taoist philosophy is a heavy influence in

> > > > the formative period of the various Ch'an Buddhist sects of the

> T'ang

> > > > Dynasty era.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Lewis: Yes.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > You wrote: " Facing and peering outward at the opening and not fully

> > > > immersed in it there appear the " waves upon the deep, " the " waves of

> > > > the appearances. " Without doing this, that is " being in 'oblivion' "

> > > > without full immersion, there is no way to carry on work, play,

> rest,

> > > > creating, and otherwise doing and living. Has this been your

> > > experience? "

> > > >

> > > > My 'experience', Lewis, for lack of a better word, is that the

> " being

> > > > in 'oblivion' " and carrying on with living, working, playing, etc.,

> > > > are concurrent. There really is no separation. In the Self, there is

> > > > no subject/object, binary opposition. There is only

> being-awareness; I

> > > > AM. And, accompanying this being-ness is a sense of joy. Not that

> > > > there is never any pain, but, just an enjoyment of being itself.

> > > >

> > > > But, granted I don't get much work done, Lewis. If something needs

> > > > doing, then, I do it, but, if not, I don't look for things to do. I

> > > > live by the maxim " let it be " , and, I'm not necessarily talking

> about

> > > > the Beatles (although, I like the Beatles, generally speaking).

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Lewis: Yes. There is never separation and it is always is.

> Separation

> > > > and discontinity are impossibilities. One way to understand what was

> > > > intended to be said about " oblivion " is to consider daily life with

> > > > deep sleep, waking and calm, doing the morning things, being

> involved

> > > > in this and that like posting, eating, excreting and such, moving

> > > > around here to there, relating with others, resting and deep sleep.

> > > > During these artificial segments of daily activities, which can be

> > > > filled and ordered in any way desired from memory, there are changes

> > > > in the content of the appearances from none to few, to many, to

> few to

> > > > none, to few and so on. During an active day, oblivion remains

> > > > background as the appearances occupy attention. The non-separation

> > > > continues and the appearances are dealt with and unlike that done in

> > > > deep sleep, or rest or contemplation. Is this not so?

> > > >

> > > > When the name used is called or seen, is there a response? If

> there is

> > > > a response, one cannot be fully immersed in oblivion since

> experience

> > > > informs that being total oblivion is sense-less, as in deep sleep or

> > > > even with eyes closed or open. The " state " referred to is a waking

> > > > state where oblivion is present and not overwhelming the appearances

> > > > making them indistinct and incomprehensible, though it does happen

> > > > during the day sometimes. There is a moving through various

> states in

> > > > a day. There is not a " steady state " as the demands and callings

> > > > change and alter. Close examination shows that there are changes of

> > > > all sorts. Recapitulating and assessing memories may make it

> seem like

> > > > it is one state but that is not possible since one's appearance and

> > > > its contents fluctutates and changes continuously during a day

> and so

> > > > on. The contents are enormous, always changing and most of it goes

> > > > unnoticed. The isolated capacities of " awareness " and/or

> > > > " consciousness " (they are not equivalent concepts or experiences)

> > > > fluctuate as well since their expression and operations are

> dependent

> > > > on other things such as memory, brain functioning, enviromental

> > > > conditions, others and so on.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Also, as you do, I respond to the call and flow of experiences.

> Doing

> > > > that is enough and the plate is always full.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > You also wrote, concerning language or methodology used to induce

> > > > realization:

> > > >

> > > > " The common ways to nudge to it is, to engage ascetism, to deny

> > > > assumed realities and inherent independent existence (neti, neti,

> > > > issuing blanket statements - " it is all a dream or illusion, "

> > > > asserting impermanence, sunyata, dependent origination, etc.) to

> > > undermine

> > > > > ego/self and reification by denying, challenging, ridiculing,

> > > > > harassing and otherwise making it difficult to hold on to impeding

> > > > > assumptions and ignorance of self, to seek " direct perception " and

> > > > > various samadhis through various methods and practices, to

> eliminate

> > > > > mental and physical predispositions (vasanas), habits,

> > " clinging " and

> > > > > other things perceived as impediments, " to do nothing, " " to

> let go, "

> > > > > " to have it come as it may, " " grace, " and so on. These all seem

> > to be

> > > > > rather " complicated " for understanding and dealing with the

> > > > > appearances, for what appears to be simple. What can be said,

> > Fuzzie? "

> > > >

> > > > My response is that all of these things are aids to alter

> > > > consciousness or to induce various psychophysical effects upon the

> > > > body/mind, but, they are not necessary at all in realizing the Self.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Lewis: Agreed.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > I agree with Nisargadatta and Ramana on this. They both taught to

> > > > simply know yourself and that is all.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Lewis: Do not forget Fuzzie that self-inquiry (neti, neti) as a

> > > > specific method was taught by both.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > It is tried and true. Attested to throughout the annals of history

> > > > (the admonition " Know Thyself " was inscribed upon the Delphic

> Oracle).

> > > > It's so simple, so obvious, almost everyone overlooks it. The Self;

> > > > you are It. Taking up all of these methods and practices might be

> > > > helpful in some ways, but, none of them are necessary. That's why

> > > > there's such a proliferation of " methods and practices " , because, in

> > > > and of themselves, none of them work. One realizes the Self as if by

> > > > accident, by intuition.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Lewis: Yes, that seems to be the case. For some methods and

> practices

> > > > are helpful, even " necessary. " If one speaks from realization

> one may

> > > > say nothing is necessary since the simplicity is seen. Others

> may not

> > > > see that " tree " for the " forest " hides it and it needs to be " cut

> > > > down, " cleared enough so that that tree appears unmistakenly and

> then

> > > > there is the attempt to cut that which cannot be cut and it is then

> > > > suddenly apparent...... Methods and practices can, but not

> > > > necessarily, help in the clearing and positioning and nothing more

> > > > than that. It just happens.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > I'm not putting any methods or practices down, though, Lewis. I used

> > > > to try different methods and practices. I meditated for decades.

> I got

> > > > into various religions. I practiced atma vichara 24/7 until I

> couldn't

> > > > think of anything else. Then, one afternoon, all of the sudden,

> out of

> > > > nowhere, I realized I AM. I was in a very ecstatic state for several

> > > > days, afterwards, and, now, it has mellowed out into the simple

> joy of

> > > > just being. I don't know how else to put it. Some tell me I'm not

> > > > " there " , yet. Others say I've gone too far. I don't know. It isn't

> > > > really an issue for me, anymore.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Yes. A " clearing " is made so it unmistakenly appears without effort.

> > > > It goes that way.

> > > >

> > > > The point about the language is that if used well perhaps the trees

> > > > need not be cut (most of the harmless ones grow back anyway) with

> > > > elaborate methods practices which do indeed take many years many

> years

> > > > and instead a simple " navigational device " can be used to do a

> little

> > > > more than to vaguely point, a sort of GPS language unit. If it

> can be

> > > > spoken about as it is being done here it can be done. Nothing fancy

> > > > just some notes on how the capacities operate to produce the

> > > > appearances so the " trees " the appearances can be seen around and

> > > > through so it is clearly seen. There is so much talk about it, so

> > > > there is no one to object to it?

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > But, I will say one thing: It sure is fun talking to you, Lewis.

> And,

> > > > who has more fun than people? (River otters, maybe?)

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Yours,

> > > >

> > > > fuzzie

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Yes, joy is and be careful Fuzzie, that sort of statement will

> get the

> > > > exorcising crew working - there are no people, so it is said.

> > > >

> > > > :-D

> > > >

> > > > Love,

> > > >

> > > > Lewis

> > >

> > >

> > > Hi, there, Lewis:

> > >

> > > You wrote:

> > >

> > > fuzzie: " ...During an active day, oblivion remains background as the

> > > appearances occupy attention. The non-separation continues and the

> > > appearances are dealt with and unlike that done in deep sleep, or rest

> > > or contemplation. Is this not so? "

> > >

> > > Deep sleep, dreaming and waking are all the same in the Self. This

> > > " oblivion vs. apparency " dichotomy you are wrestling with is an

> > > invention of the mind, of thought; (it's as if one thinks oneself into

> > > an imaginary bottle and, then, one tries to think oneself back out,

> > > again; the whole affair is imaginary; let it go).

> > >

> > >

> > > Lewis: The question is not answered, Fuzzie. Playing the piano does

> > > not, nor anything else, occur in deep dreamless sleep. There is no

> > > dichotomy and there is no wrestling. It is a manner of expression and

> > > all of it is an invention, as is the Self concept. There is no need to

> > > let go of word invention like oblivion, appearances or Self, they all

> > > are like air, ungraspable. They are no thing.

> > >

> > > If it is possible, read between the words. The concepts are not what

> > > it is about. You are reading the concepts as separate and trying to

> > > put them all or dissolve them all in the concept of Self, which you

> > > are using as an object fact. The Self concept is only that, a concept,

> > > as is oblivion and appearances. These concepts can be broken apart and

> > > put back togehter or simply discarded. When using concepts it is

> > > easier to stick with them until you are finished with them and then

> > > put them down. But to use concepts as if they are real confuses

> > > discussion. Self, oblivion and appearances are equal fictitious

> > > concepts.

> > >

> > >

> > > fuzzie: In the Self, neither oblivion nor apparency exist, but are

> > > fictions of the mind (one could say, though, they " exist " in an

> > > imaginary sense). The Self always Is, regardless of what the body/mind

> > > " experiences " or where the attention of the mind wanders. It is just

> > > being and no other. You are That.

> > >

> > >

> > > Lewis: This is where trouble comes in Fuzzie and others may have at

> > > you because of it. The Self is a word, concept that refers to..... The

> > > word, the concept, is a fiction and it is no different than the

> > > concept of oblivion or the appearances. What the concept Self refers

> > > to has no embodiment in that word, there is nothing embodied in words

> > > or concepts. To use it as if it is embodied will hamstring

> > > conversations. For example, can you make the Self an object? Can you

> > > see the Self and examine the Self in any way? This is not possible but

> > > you are doing it by saying:

> > >

> > > " The Self always Is, regardless of what the body/mind " experiences " or

> > > where the attention of the mind wanders. It is just being and no

> > other. "

> > >

> > > Here you have made the Self an object to you and to others by

> > > describing it in words as if you can do such an impossibility and then

> > > insisting on the veracity of the concpet and discarding other concepts

> > > saying they do not apply. This may be seen by some as belief and

> > > reification and the behavior that comes with that. To continue to do

> > > so means that all is must be packed in favor of your version. No

> > > discussion is possible because all is resolved to the your linguistic

> > > concept of Self. I understand what you say and the point of the

> > > discussion was about experience. The experience is a fiction in that

> > > it is abstracted from a larger one, as are the segments described.

> > > That was being shared as if it were a sandwich. So it seemed.

> > >

> > > When concepts are employed there are limitations. One of those

> > > limitations is understanding what the other means by their concepts.

> > > To tell an experience is to fragment it, but such fragementation is

> > > artificial, so we read between the words. If one does not have similar

> > > experiences then there are immediate problems. Assumptions rise and

> > > then off we go into no, no, and yes, but insted of exploring

> > > experiences for the fun of it.

> > >

> > >

> > > fuzzie: You wrote, regarding Nisargadatta and Ramana:

> > >

> > > " Do not forget Fuzzie that self-inquiry (neti, neti) as a specific

> > > method was taught by both. "

> > >

> > > " Neti, neti " may be a by-product of self-inquiry, but, it is not

> > > self-inquiry proper. Self-inquiry is an investigation into oneself.

> > > Nisargadatta and Ramana emphasized a continuous looking into oneself,

> > > turning the flow of attention back onto the self and realizing who or

> > > what that may be. Nisargadatta said stay with the sense of " I am " and

> > > Ramana always turned the question back onto the questioner ( " Who am

> > > I? " ). This is not neti-neti in the classical sense, but, it does

> > > entail a weeding out of that which is superficial to the quest.

> > >

> > > In my opinion, (and, I am not an authority on anything), I found the

> > > neti-neti process to be mainly intellectual. This can be helpful,

> > > though, but, it does not take one beyond the body/mind, which is the

> > > greatest hindrance to self-realization. But, having an intellectual

> > > understanding of the process in question is useful, and, so, neti-neti

> > > has its place in the overall scheme of things.

> > >

> > >

> > > Lewis: Yes. The method of self-inquiry is a method and neti, neti is

> > > an aid in it and not central. Here is Ramana's method in his words and

> > > it includes neti, neti as an aid.

> > >

> > >

> > > " 29. The only enquiry leading to Self-realization is seeking the

> > > Source of the 'I' with in-turned mind and without uttering the word

> > > 'I'. Meditation on 'I am not this; I am That' may be an aid to the

> > > enquiry but it cannot be the enquiry. "

> > >

> > >

> > > fuzzie: You wrote:

> > >

> > > " ...Others may not see that " tree " for the " forest " hides it and it

> > > needs to be " cut down, " cleared enough so that that tree appears

> > > unmistakenly and then there is the attempt to cut that which cannot be

> > > cut and it is then suddenly apparent...... "

> > >

> > > I thought the old saw went: " One can't see the forest for the trees " .

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Lewis: Of course, but it can be used in any way.

> > >

> > >

> > > fuzzie: The Self is not the metaphorical " tree " nor is it the

> > > " forest " . It would be more analogous to say that the Self is the

> > > " ground " in which the " trees " take root. So, instead of cutting the

> > > forest down, Lewis, simply locate the " ground " in which your

> > > metaphorical " trees " are arising. Then, you can enjoy the beauty and

> > > grandeur of the forest while remaining as I AM. Besides, anyhow,

> > > cutting the forest down can be exhausting.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Yours,

> > >

> > > fuzzie

> > >

> > >

> > > Lewis: Ok. That story works with the concept. The other tree metaphor

> > > was derived from the conceptualizations of Self and the common methods

> > > and practices used to reach the " Self. " Most of these methods have to

> > > do with " clearing " and they are exhausting I suppose for those who to

> > > do them.

> > >

> > > You should know that I do not consider at all the concept of the Self

> > > or self-realization nor engage in any practices related to it. The I

> > > AM/Self/Atman/Nirguna Brahman complex are understood as concepts,

> > > which is related to the enormous and diverse amount of Vedantic

> > > scripture and complicated commentary connected with it. The same goes

> > > for Buddhism, Taoism, Christianity, all religions, and the mystic

> > > traditions ad the occult, sciences, hard and soft, and the humanities.

> > > Have I left out something? I to none of it and believe none

> > > of it. These are not of any interest whatsoever beyond the meanings

> > > provided, what they mean to others, and what uses can be made of them.

> > > These are all stories and guidebooks of others experiences and

> > > practices writ large.

> > >

> > > In the spiritual realm, Ramana talks about his experiences.

> > > Nisargadatta, his and so on with the many others. They are

> > > interesting. What they say seems like common sense. They are not

> > > impressive. Perhaps, if they were read earlier, there would be

> > > something significant and impressive in what they say. Coming to them

> > > late in life, they seem just like they enjoy spending all their time

> > > talking about what I find ordinary in my daily experience. I do not

> > > see anything extraordinary in what they say or what they did.

> > >

> > > The time spent here in conversations like the one now engaged in is

> > > for exploring what is in this appearance and in others. It is a

> > > curiosity and it is fun, enjoyable and sometimes not and all of it is

> > > as it is. Like life. Breathe it in and let out. I have nothing to

> > > teach nor anything extraordinary to report. Enlightenment and seeking

> > > it is meaningless to me, though it is important to others. Some like

> > > cake others steak, some both, others neither. No reason for

> > > conversations not to be had though. After all if someone is realized

> > > or enlightened, as those concepts are usually described, such persons

> > > are fearless and open and universal and it would seem that " pagans "

> > > and the " unenlightened " and the " partially or crippled enlightened "

> > > can hang out without being dipped in the roiling scriptures and dogma.

> > >

> > > Love,

> > >

> > > Lewis

> >

> > Hi, Lewis:

> >

> > The dialogue continues:

> >

> > ** new stuff

> >

> > Lewis: The question is not answered, Fuzzie. Playing the piano does

> > not, nor anything else, occur in deep dreamless sleep. There is no

> > dichotomy and there is no wrestling. It is a manner of expression and

> > all of it is an invention, as is the Self concept. There is no need to

> > let go of word invention like oblivion, appearances or Self, they all

> > are like air, ungraspable. They are no thing.

> >

> > Fuzzie: I gave you an answer. You simply didn't like it. You asked

> > about the self, not whether or not you could play the piano in your

> > sleep. I said the self is always the same, whether sleeping, waking or

> > dreaming. This is my understanding. If the answer is wrong, then, make

> > your case.

> >

> > **Lewis: There is nothing to like or dislike. What was asked was this:

> > ~~~~~~~~~~

> > " Lewis: Yes. There is never separation and it is always is. Separation

> > and discontinity are impossibilities. One way to understand what was

> > intended to be said about " oblivion " is to consider daily life with

> > deep sleep, waking and calm, doing the morning things, being involved

> > in this and that like posting, eating, excreting and such, moving

> > around here to there, relating with others, resting and deep sleep.

> > During these artificial segments of daily activities, which can be

> > filled and ordered in any way desired from memory, there are changes

> > in the content of the appearances from none to few, to many, to few to

> > none, to few and so on. During an active day, oblivion remains

> > background as the appearances occupy attention. The non-separation

> > continues and the appearances are dealt with and unlike that done in

> > deep sleep, or rest or contemplation. Is this not so? "

> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> > **So again here is the question differently worded: Do you experience

> > changes in the appearances during daily activites including deep

> > sleep, rest and contemplation and are they dealt with variously in

> > those different activities and states? There is no mention of the Self

> > at all. You did not answer the questions as asked. That is ok and the

> > question still remains unanswered.

> >

> > Fuzzie: All I know is I am. You say that that is a concept. Well, the

> > sentence " I am " is a concept. But, it is also referring to what I am.

> > I am; that which is; beyond concepts. It is not conceptual. That is

> > why it is so difficult to understand.

> >

> > **Lewis: There is no difficulty in understanding what you say. It is

> > simple. It is a simple experience, quite ordinary. Even my kids

> > experience it. And words and concepts can't get it exactly right. As

> > you say beyond concepts not conceptual, unspeakable.

> >

> > Lewis: If it is possible, read between the words. The concepts are not

> > what it is about.

> >

> > Fuzzie: Exactly. That's what I've been saying all along.

> >

> > **Lewis: Was that not always the case?

> >

> > Lewis: You are reading the concepts as separate and trying to

> > put them all or dissolve them all in the concept of Self, which you

> > are using as an object fact...

> >

> > Fuzzie: You are making a strawman, here, and, then, tearing it apart.

> > As I explained above, I am not conceptual. I exist. No kidding. Here I

> > am.

> >

> > **Lewis: No straw man. You are not words or concepts or are you? " I am

> > not conceptual. " " I exist, " " Here I am " does not contain you. These

> > are assertions typed in words. You are not joined to these words on

> > the screen that appear in front of me are you? They only represent

> > you, fleeting images, fictions of you. Do you think you are these

> > words? If I delete these words are you deleted? If I say something

> > about these words are you damaged or hurt? These words are objects

> > not, I AM. Is this not so? Or are you attached to these word objects

> > and believe them to be I AM?

> >

> > Lewis: ...if someone is realized or enlightened, as those concepts are

> > usually described, such persons are fearless and open and universal

> > and it would seem that " pagans " and the " unenlightened " and the

> > " partially or crippled enlightened " can hang out without being dipped

> > in the roiling scriptures and dogma.

> >

> > Fuzzie: I hang out with pagans and cripples all the time, Lewis. I got

> > no dogma to lay on anyone. I am self-realized.

> >

> > **Lewis: Nice.

> >

> > Fuzzie: Some call that enlightenment. It's really not enlightenment at

> > all, but, it is commonly referred to as such. It all kind of happened

> > by accident, anyway. What can I tell you?

> >

> > **Lewis: No need to say anything. You say it is so, then it is so. It

> > is not denied.

> >

> > Fuzzie: You think existence is a concept.

> >

> > **Lewis: If written or spoken of in words, yes, it is indeed a

> > concept. Just as " you " are a concept when you refer to Self or I AM or

> > fuzzie in words. You say so above. What " you " is, is unspeakable.

> > Existence is also unspeakable. Self is unspeakable. Everything is

> > truly unspeakable. Words are words. They are symbols, images,

> > representations, fragments, fictions, stand in-s, they never

> > suffice... Some people struggle with mind/body identification others

> > struggle with word identification. They think they are what they write

> > or speak.

> >

> > Fuzzie: But, who or what is it that conceptualizes? Tell me about

> > that, Lewis,

> >

> > **Lewis: That was clearly spoken of before. " I " do it, " me "

> > " indescribable me " the " capacities " and so on. Don't you remember?

> >

> > Fuzzie: or, have you got that all conceptualized away in a nice, neat

> > little box somewhere, along with all your other conceptual baggage?

> >

> > **Lewis: Concepts have their place. You use concepts everyday of your

> > life in the hidden assumptions you use to carry out your daily life,

> > to speak, to write and communicate to think, feel and do. Did you ever

> > fully realize the enormous conceptual baggage you carry around with

> > you? How is it that you type a post or get on a bus and pay the fare,

> > sit or stand, reach a destination and get off and go.

> >

> > Think of all the concepts needed and used to carry out those simple

> > tasks and all the other doings done. It is all taken for granted,

> > hidden from awareness, embedded in habits, below conscious awareness

> > of the appearance. You must " know " what those things are to use them,

> > whether consciously aware of them or not. This does not change because

> > of self-realization. And there are many hidden assumptions and

> > concepts that inform responses and how one perceives and misperceives.

> > Self-realization changes little of the conceptual baggage that daily

> > life requires. Shed completely all the conceptual baggage and there

> > will appear a non-functioning blithering idiot. Concepts are harmless

> > if they are understood, used and put away. Have you checked thoroughly

> > the full extent of your conceptual baggage?

> >

> > Fuzzie: It's been real, Lewis. Thanks for your consideration.

> >

> > Yours truly,

> >

> > fuzzie

> >

> >

> > Same here, Fuzzie.

> >

> > Love,

> >

> > Lewis

>

> Hi, there, Lewis Burgess:

>

> Here we go one mo' again:

>

> L: **So again here is the question differently worded: Do you experience

> > changes in the appearances during daily activites including deep

> > sleep, rest and contemplation and are they dealt with variously in

> > those different activities and states? There is no mention of the Self

> > at all. You did not answer the questions as asked. That is ok and the

> > question still remains unanswered.

>

>

> F: I answered that a few posts back. Remember when I spoke of the

> various " waves " of experience? I thought you were referring to the

> self in the last post. My bad. Sorry.

>

> L: > **Lewis: There is no difficulty in understanding what you say. It is

> > simple. It is a simple experience, quite ordinary. Even my kids

> > experience it. And words and concepts can't get it exactly right. As

> > you say beyond concepts not conceptual, unspeakable.

>

> F: That's what I said at the outset of this dialogue. I speak to

> everyone as if they're enlightened, because, they are. Most just

> haven't realized it, yet.

>

> > **Lewis: No straw man. You are not words or concepts or are you? " I am

> > not conceptual. " " I exist, " " Here I am " does not contain you. These

> > are assertions typed in words. You are not joined to these words on

> > the screen that appear in front of me are you? They only represent

> > you, fleeting images, fictions of you. Do you think you are these

> > words? If I delete these words are you deleted? If I say something

> > about these words are you damaged or hurt? These words are objects

> > not, I AM. Is this not so? Or are you attached to these word objects

> > and believe them to be I AM?

> >

>

> F: I think we've gone over this topic, haven't we? Words or signs,

> etc., are used as references, pointers, signifiers, etc. I think we've

> covered that. There are books and websites on semiotics if you are

> more interested in this topic. Peirce and Saussure are the two most

> noted authorities on the subject. Check them out.

>

> If you have anymore questions, let me know. I'll respond the best I

> can. Thank you.

>

> As always,

>

> fuzzie

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

^

o

O

LL

 

 

 

 

 

Jesus Christ!

 

 

Look how many words I got over my head.

 

 

 

:-0

 

 

 

 

toombaru

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote:

> Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz>

wrote:

> > Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...>

wrote:

> > > Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz>

> > wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess "

<lbb10@c...> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz "

<fuzzie_wuz>

> > > wrote:

> > > > Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...>

> > wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz "

<fuzzie_wuz>

> > > > wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > .....how to discuss that which cannot be discussed (cf. the

> > > " Tao Te

> > > > > > > Ching " for more details on that).

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Yours truly,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > fuzzie

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear fuzzie,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Here are two chapters from the Tao Te Ching that refers to

> > > what was

> > > > > > > discussed. This translation can be found at:

> > > > > > > http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/gthursby/taoism/ttcmerel.htm

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Other translations that vary widely can be found at:

> > > > > > > http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/gthursby/taoism/ttc-list.htm

> > > > > > > http://www.wam.umd.edu/~stwright/rel/tao/TaoTeChing.html

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Language and dialogue can be made more adequate to the task

> > though

> > > > > > > never sufficient. " Sitting " at the 'opening of " mystery, " '

> > > > rather than

> > > > > > > in senseless immersion in it so that the operation of the

> > > expressive

> > > > > > > capacities are not naturally muted, the emergence of

> > > consciouseness

> > > > > > > and the superficial mind can be experienced, " observed "

as these

> > > > take

> > > > > > > formation, produce their products and then dissipate. This

> > > > > > > observational experience is used to find the words that

better

> > > suit

> > > > > > > " my " appearance. The venerated appearances of the past that

> > > describe

> > > > > > > these matters derive them from such observations all

different

> > > > as each

> > > > > > > is. Each appearance's observations are different than

another

> > > due to

> > > > > > > the expressing body/mind. Each find its way. The sooner

> > alone and

> > > > > > > vanished the better it seems. What do you experience fuzzie,

> > > at the

> > > > > > > opening?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Love,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Lewis

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear, Lewis:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I had a hunch you were into Taoism. Your writing style

> > revealed a

> > > > > > poise and a reserve that was reminiscent of a Taoist fluency.

> > Thank

> > > > > > you for the links to the Taoist websites. I noticed the

quotes you

> > > > > > used were from the James Legge translation. He was the guy

> > that did

> > > > > > the old classic " I Ching " that was popular back when I was

> > > growing up

> > > > > > (late '60's, early '70's). Good to see old Legge is still

holding

> > > > up.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Lewis: Fuzzie, the move to Taoism followed the lead given.

> > There is

> > > > > > not much interest in the Tao Te Ching beyond those two

chapters

> > > among

> > > > > > the 81 that comprise the text. The translation I used was an

> > > > > > interpolation of many different version by another author,

Peter

> > > > > > Merel, and the alternative translation was Legge, which is

a very

> > > > > > sensitive one, that is, it is not so much a

reinterpretation from

> > > > > > various positions or translated in stilted English as others.

> > Peter

> > > > > > Merel did not translate the text. He used several well

respected

> > > > > > translations and worked out a useful presentation.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > You wrote: " Each appearance's observations are different than

> > > another

> > > > > > due to the expressing body/mind. Each find its way. The sooner

> > alone

> > > > > > and vanished the better it seems. What do you experience

> > fuzzie, at

> > > > > > the opening? "

> > > > > >

> > > > > > What do I experience, " Sitting " at the 'opening of

" mystery " ', you

> > > > > > ask? My experience is that I am aware that I am; indefinable,

> > > > > > indescribable being-awareness. I know, that is a hackneyed

> > > cliche' in

> > > > > > the Advaita circles these days, but, I don't know anything

> > else but

> > > > > > that, hackneyed or not. I AM; no experience necessary. As you

> > > seem to

> > > > > > be aware, everything which is generally considered to be

> > > experiential

> > > > > > is but an apparency and the expression thereof. The

> > appearances, or,

> > > > > > experiences, are but waves upon the deep, so to speak.

Like any

> > > other

> > > > > > sentient body/mind, I experience these waves of appearances,

> > > > > > modulating in and out, apparencies which can be

re-membered and

> > > > > > re-counted as experiences in seemingly endless variations and

> > > > > > combinations. But, I really know nothing about any of it. I am

> > > > > > ignorant, really. There is the joy in just being, though.

> > That's my

> > > > > > experience. There's no need to know anything in order to know

> > > > > > yourself. Self-realization is inherent; natural. The old saw

> > > > > > " ignorance is bliss " appears to be accurate, in this case.

> > > > > > Self-realization is so blunt simple, that that is why it is so

> > > > > > difficult. And, as the Taoists and Buddhists and Vedantists

> > have all

> > > > > > so aptly reiterated, it cannot be verbalized or thought.

One can

> > > only

> > > > > > gesture. The rest is up to grace or fate or the infinite

wisdom

> > > of all

> > > > > > things or whatever anyone wants to call it.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Lewis: Yes. It is simple.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > And that is an experience at the " opening. " If not at the

> > " opening "

> > > > > > and simply and fully immersed in it there is " senselessness

> > > sense " and

> > > > > > utter ignorance, where indeed " ignorance is bliss. " As you

say,

> > > > > > nothing can be said of this. It may be supposed that such is

> > how it

> > > > > > can be and is said that " nothing ever happened. "

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Facing and peering outward at the opening and not fully

immersed

> > > in it

> > > > > > there appear the " waves upon the deep, " the " waves of the

> > > > > > appearances. " Without doing this, that is " being in

> > 'oblivion' " with

> > > > > > out full immersion, there is no way to carry on work,

play, rest,

> > > > > > creating, and otherwise doing and living. Has this been your

> > > > experience?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > My interest at the moment Fuzzie, is in expressions of the

> > > emergence,

> > > > > > formation and appearance and change in the capacities and the

> > > products

> > > > > > " the waves of the appearances. " It seems that language can be

> > > used to

> > > > > > better and more sensitively to express these so that it is

> > realized.

> > > > > > The common ways to nudge to it is, to engage ascetism, to deny

> > > assumed

> > > > > > realities and inherent independent existence (neti, neti,

issuing

> > > > > > blanket statements - " it is all a dream or illusion, "

asserting

> > > > > > impermanence, sunyata, dependent origination, etc.) to

undermine

> > > > > > ego/self and reification by denying, challenging, ridiculing,

> > > > > > harassing and otherwise making it difficult to hold on to

impeding

> > > > > > assumptions and ignorance of self, to seek " direct

perception " and

> > > > > > various samadhis through various methods and practices, to

> > eliminate

> > > > > > mental and physical predispositions (vasanas), habits,

> > > " clinging " and

> > > > > > other things perceived as impediments, " to do nothing, " " to

> > let go, "

> > > > > > " to have it come as it may, " " grace, " and so on. These all

seem

> > > to be

> > > > > > rather " complicated " for understanding and dealing with the

> > > > > > appearances, for what appears to be simple. What can be said,

> > > Fuzzie?

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Well, I've rambled on enough here. Most people think I'm crazy

> > > and/or

> > > > > > deluded, etc., anyhow. Maybe they're right. I don't know. It

> > > wouldn't

> > > > > > make any difference, either way, would it, Lewis?

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Lewis: No. It it does not in any way. And would it help or

make a

> > > > > > difference knowing that I am touched, totally insane,

crazy as a

> > > loon,

> > > > > > a nutter, an ignorant defective?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > :-)

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > As usual, it's been a pleasure. Thanks so much for your

> > > consideration.

> > > > > > You are a gentleman and a scholar. I appreciate it.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Yours,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > fuzzie

> > > > > >

> > > > > > It is a pleasure to communicate with you Fuzzie, to be with

> > you like

> > > > > > this. It is enjoyable and stimulating.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Love,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Lewis

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Hello, Lewis:

> > > > >

> > > > > I should have said you have an affinity with Taoist

philosophy. I

> > > > > think most do who are also drawn to Vedanta or Buddhism,

> > particularly

> > > > > Ch'an/Zen Buddhism, where Taoist philosophy is a heavy

influence in

> > > > > the formative period of the various Ch'an Buddhist sects of the

> > T'ang

> > > > > Dynasty era.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Lewis: Yes.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > You wrote: " Facing and peering outward at the opening and

not fully

> > > > > immersed in it there appear the " waves upon the deep, " the

" waves of

> > > > > the appearances. " Without doing this, that is " being in

'oblivion' "

> > > > > without full immersion, there is no way to carry on work, play,

> > rest,

> > > > > creating, and otherwise doing and living. Has this been your

> > > > experience? "

> > > > >

> > > > > My 'experience', Lewis, for lack of a better word, is that the

> > " being

> > > > > in 'oblivion' " and carrying on with living, working,

playing, etc.,

> > > > > are concurrent. There really is no separation. In the Self,

there is

> > > > > no subject/object, binary opposition. There is only

> > being-awareness; I

> > > > > AM. And, accompanying this being-ness is a sense of joy. Not

that

> > > > > there is never any pain, but, just an enjoyment of being itself.

> > > > >

> > > > > But, granted I don't get much work done, Lewis. If something

needs

> > > > > doing, then, I do it, but, if not, I don't look for things

to do. I

> > > > > live by the maxim " let it be " , and, I'm not necessarily talking

> > about

> > > > > the Beatles (although, I like the Beatles, generally speaking).

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Lewis: Yes. There is never separation and it is always is.

> > Separation

> > > > > and discontinity are impossibilities. One way to understand

what was

> > > > > intended to be said about " oblivion " is to consider daily

life with

> > > > > deep sleep, waking and calm, doing the morning things, being

> > involved

> > > > > in this and that like posting, eating, excreting and such,

moving

> > > > > around here to there, relating with others, resting and deep

sleep.

> > > > > During these artificial segments of daily activities, which

can be

> > > > > filled and ordered in any way desired from memory, there are

changes

> > > > > in the content of the appearances from none to few, to many, to

> > few to

> > > > > none, to few and so on. During an active day, oblivion remains

> > > > > background as the appearances occupy attention. The

non-separation

> > > > > continues and the appearances are dealt with and unlike that

done in

> > > > > deep sleep, or rest or contemplation. Is this not so?

> > > > >

> > > > > When the name used is called or seen, is there a response? If

> > there is

> > > > > a response, one cannot be fully immersed in oblivion since

> > experience

> > > > > informs that being total oblivion is sense-less, as in deep

sleep or

> > > > > even with eyes closed or open. The " state " referred to is a

waking

> > > > > state where oblivion is present and not overwhelming the

appearances

> > > > > making them indistinct and incomprehensible, though it does

happen

> > > > > during the day sometimes. There is a moving through various

> > states in

> > > > > a day. There is not a " steady state " as the demands and callings

> > > > > change and alter. Close examination shows that there are

changes of

> > > > > all sorts. Recapitulating and assessing memories may make it

> > seem like

> > > > > it is one state but that is not possible since one's

appearance and

> > > > > its contents fluctutates and changes continuously during a day

> > and so

> > > > > on. The contents are enormous, always changing and most of

it goes

> > > > > unnoticed. The isolated capacities of " awareness " and/or

> > > > > " consciousness " (they are not equivalent concepts or

experiences)

> > > > > fluctuate as well since their expression and operations are

> > dependent

> > > > > on other things such as memory, brain functioning, enviromental

> > > > > conditions, others and so on.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Also, as you do, I respond to the call and flow of experiences.

> > Doing

> > > > > that is enough and the plate is always full.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > You also wrote, concerning language or methodology used to

induce

> > > > > realization:

> > > > >

> > > > > " The common ways to nudge to it is, to engage ascetism, to deny

> > > > > assumed realities and inherent independent existence (neti,

neti,

> > > > > issuing blanket statements - " it is all a dream or illusion, "

> > > > > asserting impermanence, sunyata, dependent origination, etc.) to

> > > > undermine

> > > > > > ego/self and reification by denying, challenging, ridiculing,

> > > > > > harassing and otherwise making it difficult to hold on to

impeding

> > > > > > assumptions and ignorance of self, to seek " direct

perception " and

> > > > > > various samadhis through various methods and practices, to

> > eliminate

> > > > > > mental and physical predispositions (vasanas), habits,

> > > " clinging " and

> > > > > > other things perceived as impediments, " to do nothing, " " to

> > let go, "

> > > > > > " to have it come as it may, " " grace, " and so on. These all

seem

> > > to be

> > > > > > rather " complicated " for understanding and dealing with the

> > > > > > appearances, for what appears to be simple. What can be said,

> > > Fuzzie? "

> > > > >

> > > > > My response is that all of these things are aids to alter

> > > > > consciousness or to induce various psychophysical effects

upon the

> > > > > body/mind, but, they are not necessary at all in realizing

the Self.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Lewis: Agreed.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > I agree with Nisargadatta and Ramana on this. They both

taught to

> > > > > simply know yourself and that is all.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Lewis: Do not forget Fuzzie that self-inquiry (neti, neti) as a

> > > > > specific method was taught by both.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > It is tried and true. Attested to throughout the annals of

history

> > > > > (the admonition " Know Thyself " was inscribed upon the Delphic

> > Oracle).

> > > > > It's so simple, so obvious, almost everyone overlooks it.

The Self;

> > > > > you are It. Taking up all of these methods and practices

might be

> > > > > helpful in some ways, but, none of them are necessary.

That's why

> > > > > there's such a proliferation of " methods and practices " ,

because, in

> > > > > and of themselves, none of them work. One realizes the Self

as if by

> > > > > accident, by intuition.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Lewis: Yes, that seems to be the case. For some methods and

> > practices

> > > > > are helpful, even " necessary. " If one speaks from realization

> > one may

> > > > > say nothing is necessary since the simplicity is seen. Others

> > may not

> > > > > see that " tree " for the " forest " hides it and it needs to be

" cut

> > > > > down, " cleared enough so that that tree appears unmistakenly and

> > then

> > > > > there is the attempt to cut that which cannot be cut and it

is then

> > > > > suddenly apparent...... Methods and practices can, but not

> > > > > necessarily, help in the clearing and positioning and

nothing more

> > > > > than that. It just happens.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > I'm not putting any methods or practices down, though,

Lewis. I used

> > > > > to try different methods and practices. I meditated for decades.

> > I got

> > > > > into various religions. I practiced atma vichara 24/7 until I

> > couldn't

> > > > > think of anything else. Then, one afternoon, all of the sudden,

> > out of

> > > > > nowhere, I realized I AM. I was in a very ecstatic state for

several

> > > > > days, afterwards, and, now, it has mellowed out into the simple

> > joy of

> > > > > just being. I don't know how else to put it. Some tell me

I'm not

> > > > > " there " , yet. Others say I've gone too far. I don't know. It

isn't

> > > > > really an issue for me, anymore.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Yes. A " clearing " is made so it unmistakenly appears without

effort.

> > > > > It goes that way.

> > > > >

> > > > > The point about the language is that if used well perhaps

the trees

> > > > > need not be cut (most of the harmless ones grow back anyway)

with

> > > > > elaborate methods practices which do indeed take many years many

> > years

> > > > > and instead a simple " navigational device " can be used to do a

> > little

> > > > > more than to vaguely point, a sort of GPS language unit. If it

> > can be

> > > > > spoken about as it is being done here it can be done.

Nothing fancy

> > > > > just some notes on how the capacities operate to produce the

> > > > > appearances so the " trees " the appearances can be seen

around and

> > > > > through so it is clearly seen. There is so much talk about

it, so

> > > > > there is no one to object to it?

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > But, I will say one thing: It sure is fun talking to you, Lewis.

> > And,

> > > > > who has more fun than people? (River otters, maybe?)

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Yours,

> > > > >

> > > > > fuzzie

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Yes, joy is and be careful Fuzzie, that sort of statement will

> > get the

> > > > > exorcising crew working - there are no people, so it is said.

> > > > >

> > > > > :-D

> > > > >

> > > > > Love,

> > > > >

> > > > > Lewis

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Hi, there, Lewis:

> > > >

> > > > You wrote:

> > > >

> > > > fuzzie: " ...During an active day, oblivion remains background

as the

> > > > appearances occupy attention. The non-separation continues and the

> > > > appearances are dealt with and unlike that done in deep sleep,

or rest

> > > > or contemplation. Is this not so? "

> > > >

> > > > Deep sleep, dreaming and waking are all the same in the Self. This

> > > > " oblivion vs. apparency " dichotomy you are wrestling with is an

> > > > invention of the mind, of thought; (it's as if one thinks

oneself into

> > > > an imaginary bottle and, then, one tries to think oneself back

out,

> > > > again; the whole affair is imaginary; let it go).

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Lewis: The question is not answered, Fuzzie. Playing the piano

does

> > > > not, nor anything else, occur in deep dreamless sleep. There is no

> > > > dichotomy and there is no wrestling. It is a manner of

expression and

> > > > all of it is an invention, as is the Self concept. There is no

need to

> > > > let go of word invention like oblivion, appearances or Self,

they all

> > > > are like air, ungraspable. They are no thing.

> > > >

> > > > If it is possible, read between the words. The concepts are

not what

> > > > it is about. You are reading the concepts as separate and

trying to

> > > > put them all or dissolve them all in the concept of Self,

which you

> > > > are using as an object fact. The Self concept is only that, a

concept,

> > > > as is oblivion and appearances. These concepts can be broken

apart and

> > > > put back togehter or simply discarded. When using concepts it is

> > > > easier to stick with them until you are finished with them and

then

> > > > put them down. But to use concepts as if they are real confuses

> > > > discussion. Self, oblivion and appearances are equal fictitious

> > > > concepts.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > fuzzie: In the Self, neither oblivion nor apparency exist, but are

> > > > fictions of the mind (one could say, though, they " exist " in an

> > > > imaginary sense). The Self always Is, regardless of what the

body/mind

> > > > " experiences " or where the attention of the mind wanders. It

is just

> > > > being and no other. You are That.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Lewis: This is where trouble comes in Fuzzie and others may

have at

> > > > you because of it. The Self is a word, concept that refers

to..... The

> > > > word, the concept, is a fiction and it is no different than the

> > > > concept of oblivion or the appearances. What the concept Self

refers

> > > > to has no embodiment in that word, there is nothing embodied

in words

> > > > or concepts. To use it as if it is embodied will hamstring

> > > > conversations. For example, can you make the Self an object?

Can you

> > > > see the Self and examine the Self in any way? This is not

possible but

> > > > you are doing it by saying:

> > > >

> > > > " The Self always Is, regardless of what the body/mind

" experiences " or

> > > > where the attention of the mind wanders. It is just being and no

> > > other. "

> > > >

> > > > Here you have made the Self an object to you and to others by

> > > > describing it in words as if you can do such an impossibility

and then

> > > > insisting on the veracity of the concpet and discarding other

concepts

> > > > saying they do not apply. This may be seen by some as belief and

> > > > reification and the behavior that comes with that. To continue

to do

> > > > so means that all is must be packed in favor of your version. No

> > > > discussion is possible because all is resolved to the your

linguistic

> > > > concept of Self. I understand what you say and the point of the

> > > > discussion was about experience. The experience is a fiction

in that

> > > > it is abstracted from a larger one, as are the segments described.

> > > > That was being shared as if it were a sandwich. So it seemed.

> > > >

> > > > When concepts are employed there are limitations. One of those

> > > > limitations is understanding what the other means by their

concepts.

> > > > To tell an experience is to fragment it, but such

fragementation is

> > > > artificial, so we read between the words. If one does not have

similar

> > > > experiences then there are immediate problems. Assumptions

rise and

> > > > then off we go into no, no, and yes, but insted of exploring

> > > > experiences for the fun of it.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > fuzzie: You wrote, regarding Nisargadatta and Ramana:

> > > >

> > > > " Do not forget Fuzzie that self-inquiry (neti, neti) as a specific

> > > > method was taught by both. "

> > > >

> > > > " Neti, neti " may be a by-product of self-inquiry, but, it is not

> > > > self-inquiry proper. Self-inquiry is an investigation into

oneself.

> > > > Nisargadatta and Ramana emphasized a continuous looking into

oneself,

> > > > turning the flow of attention back onto the self and realizing

who or

> > > > what that may be. Nisargadatta said stay with the sense of " I

am " and

> > > > Ramana always turned the question back onto the questioner

( " Who am

> > > > I? " ). This is not neti-neti in the classical sense, but, it does

> > > > entail a weeding out of that which is superficial to the quest.

> > > >

> > > > In my opinion, (and, I am not an authority on anything), I

found the

> > > > neti-neti process to be mainly intellectual. This can be helpful,

> > > > though, but, it does not take one beyond the body/mind, which

is the

> > > > greatest hindrance to self-realization. But, having an

intellectual

> > > > understanding of the process in question is useful, and, so,

neti-neti

> > > > has its place in the overall scheme of things.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Lewis: Yes. The method of self-inquiry is a method and neti,

neti is

> > > > an aid in it and not central. Here is Ramana's method in his

words and

> > > > it includes neti, neti as an aid.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > " 29. The only enquiry leading to Self-realization is seeking the

> > > > Source of the 'I' with in-turned mind and without uttering the

word

> > > > 'I'. Meditation on 'I am not this; I am That' may be an aid to the

> > > > enquiry but it cannot be the enquiry. "

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > fuzzie: You wrote:

> > > >

> > > > " ...Others may not see that " tree " for the " forest " hides it

and it

> > > > needs to be " cut down, " cleared enough so that that tree appears

> > > > unmistakenly and then there is the attempt to cut that which

cannot be

> > > > cut and it is then suddenly apparent...... "

> > > >

> > > > I thought the old saw went: " One can't see the forest for the

trees " .

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Lewis: Of course, but it can be used in any way.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > fuzzie: The Self is not the metaphorical " tree " nor is it the

> > > > " forest " . It would be more analogous to say that the Self is the

> > > > " ground " in which the " trees " take root. So, instead of

cutting the

> > > > forest down, Lewis, simply locate the " ground " in which your

> > > > metaphorical " trees " are arising. Then, you can enjoy the

beauty and

> > > > grandeur of the forest while remaining as I AM. Besides, anyhow,

> > > > cutting the forest down can be exhausting.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Yours,

> > > >

> > > > fuzzie

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Lewis: Ok. That story works with the concept. The other tree

metaphor

> > > > was derived from the conceptualizations of Self and the common

methods

> > > > and practices used to reach the " Self. " Most of these methods

have to

> > > > do with " clearing " and they are exhausting I suppose for those

who to

> > > > do them.

> > > >

> > > > You should know that I do not consider at all the concept of

the Self

> > > > or self-realization nor engage in any practices related to it.

The I

> > > > AM/Self/Atman/Nirguna Brahman complex are understood as concepts,

> > > > which is related to the enormous and diverse amount of Vedantic

> > > > scripture and complicated commentary connected with it. The

same goes

> > > > for Buddhism, Taoism, Christianity, all religions, and the mystic

> > > > traditions ad the occult, sciences, hard and soft, and the

humanities.

> > > > Have I left out something? I to none of it and

believe none

> > > > of it. These are not of any interest whatsoever beyond the

meanings

> > > > provided, what they mean to others, and what uses can be made

of them.

> > > > These are all stories and guidebooks of others experiences and

> > > > practices writ large.

> > > >

> > > > In the spiritual realm, Ramana talks about his experiences.

> > > > Nisargadatta, his and so on with the many others. They are

> > > > interesting. What they say seems like common sense. They are not

> > > > impressive. Perhaps, if they were read earlier, there would be

> > > > something significant and impressive in what they say. Coming

to them

> > > > late in life, they seem just like they enjoy spending all

their time

> > > > talking about what I find ordinary in my daily experience. I

do not

> > > > see anything extraordinary in what they say or what they did.

> > > >

> > > > The time spent here in conversations like the one now engaged

in is

> > > > for exploring what is in this appearance and in others. It is a

> > > > curiosity and it is fun, enjoyable and sometimes not and all

of it is

> > > > as it is. Like life. Breathe it in and let out. I have nothing to

> > > > teach nor anything extraordinary to report. Enlightenment and

seeking

> > > > it is meaningless to me, though it is important to others.

Some like

> > > > cake others steak, some both, others neither. No reason for

> > > > conversations not to be had though. After all if someone is

realized

> > > > or enlightened, as those concepts are usually described, such

persons

> > > > are fearless and open and universal and it would seem that

" pagans "

> > > > and the " unenlightened " and the " partially or crippled

enlightened "

> > > > can hang out without being dipped in the roiling scriptures

and dogma.

> > > >

> > > > Love,

> > > >

> > > > Lewis

> > >

> > > Hi, Lewis:

> > >

> > > The dialogue continues:

> > >

> > > ** new stuff

> > >

> > > Lewis: The question is not answered, Fuzzie. Playing the piano does

> > > not, nor anything else, occur in deep dreamless sleep. There is no

> > > dichotomy and there is no wrestling. It is a manner of

expression and

> > > all of it is an invention, as is the Self concept. There is no

need to

> > > let go of word invention like oblivion, appearances or Self,

they all

> > > are like air, ungraspable. They are no thing.

> > >

> > > Fuzzie: I gave you an answer. You simply didn't like it. You asked

> > > about the self, not whether or not you could play the piano in your

> > > sleep. I said the self is always the same, whether sleeping,

waking or

> > > dreaming. This is my understanding. If the answer is wrong,

then, make

> > > your case.

> > >

> > > **Lewis: There is nothing to like or dislike. What was asked was

this:

> > > ~~~~~~~~~~

> > > " Lewis: Yes. There is never separation and it is always is.

Separation

> > > and discontinity are impossibilities. One way to understand what was

> > > intended to be said about " oblivion " is to consider daily life with

> > > deep sleep, waking and calm, doing the morning things, being

involved

> > > in this and that like posting, eating, excreting and such, moving

> > > around here to there, relating with others, resting and deep sleep.

> > > During these artificial segments of daily activities, which can be

> > > filled and ordered in any way desired from memory, there are changes

> > > in the content of the appearances from none to few, to many, to

few to

> > > none, to few and so on. During an active day, oblivion remains

> > > background as the appearances occupy attention. The non-separation

> > > continues and the appearances are dealt with and unlike that done in

> > > deep sleep, or rest or contemplation. Is this not so? "

> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> > > **So again here is the question differently worded: Do you

experience

> > > changes in the appearances during daily activites including deep

> > > sleep, rest and contemplation and are they dealt with variously in

> > > those different activities and states? There is no mention of

the Self

> > > at all. You did not answer the questions as asked. That is ok

and the

> > > question still remains unanswered.

> > >

> > > Fuzzie: All I know is I am. You say that that is a concept.

Well, the

> > > sentence " I am " is a concept. But, it is also referring to what

I am.

> > > I am; that which is; beyond concepts. It is not conceptual. That is

> > > why it is so difficult to understand.

> > >

> > > **Lewis: There is no difficulty in understanding what you say. It is

> > > simple. It is a simple experience, quite ordinary. Even my kids

> > > experience it. And words and concepts can't get it exactly right. As

> > > you say beyond concepts not conceptual, unspeakable.

> > >

> > > Lewis: If it is possible, read between the words. The concepts

are not

> > > what it is about.

> > >

> > > Fuzzie: Exactly. That's what I've been saying all along.

> > >

> > > **Lewis: Was that not always the case?

> > >

> > > Lewis: You are reading the concepts as separate and trying to

> > > put them all or dissolve them all in the concept of Self, which you

> > > are using as an object fact...

> > >

> > > Fuzzie: You are making a strawman, here, and, then, tearing it

apart.

> > > As I explained above, I am not conceptual. I exist. No kidding.

Here I

> > > am.

> > >

> > > **Lewis: No straw man. You are not words or concepts or are you?

" I am

> > > not conceptual. " " I exist, " " Here I am " does not contain you. These

> > > are assertions typed in words. You are not joined to these words on

> > > the screen that appear in front of me are you? They only represent

> > > you, fleeting images, fictions of you. Do you think you are these

> > > words? If I delete these words are you deleted? If I say something

> > > about these words are you damaged or hurt? These words are objects

> > > not, I AM. Is this not so? Or are you attached to these word objects

> > > and believe them to be I AM?

> > >

> > > Lewis: ...if someone is realized or enlightened, as those

concepts are

> > > usually described, such persons are fearless and open and universal

> > > and it would seem that " pagans " and the " unenlightened " and the

> > > " partially or crippled enlightened " can hang out without being

dipped

> > > in the roiling scriptures and dogma.

> > >

> > > Fuzzie: I hang out with pagans and cripples all the time, Lewis.

I got

> > > no dogma to lay on anyone. I am self-realized.

> > >

> > > **Lewis: Nice.

> > >

> > > Fuzzie: Some call that enlightenment. It's really not

enlightenment at

> > > all, but, it is commonly referred to as such. It all kind of

happened

> > > by accident, anyway. What can I tell you?

> > >

> > > **Lewis: No need to say anything. You say it is so, then it is

so. It

> > > is not denied.

> > >

> > > Fuzzie: You think existence is a concept.

> > >

> > > **Lewis: If written or spoken of in words, yes, it is indeed a

> > > concept. Just as " you " are a concept when you refer to Self or I

AM or

> > > fuzzie in words. You say so above. What " you " is, is unspeakable.

> > > Existence is also unspeakable. Self is unspeakable. Everything is

> > > truly unspeakable. Words are words. They are symbols, images,

> > > representations, fragments, fictions, stand in-s, they never

> > > suffice... Some people struggle with mind/body identification others

> > > struggle with word identification. They think they are what they

write

> > > or speak.

> > >

> > > Fuzzie: But, who or what is it that conceptualizes? Tell me about

> > > that, Lewis,

> > >

> > > **Lewis: That was clearly spoken of before. " I " do it, " me "

> > > " indescribable me " the " capacities " and so on. Don't you remember?

> > >

> > > Fuzzie: or, have you got that all conceptualized away in a

nice, neat

> > > little box somewhere, along with all your other conceptual baggage?

> > >

> > > **Lewis: Concepts have their place. You use concepts everyday of

your

> > > life in the hidden assumptions you use to carry out your daily life,

> > > to speak, to write and communicate to think, feel and do. Did

you ever

> > > fully realize the enormous conceptual baggage you carry around with

> > > you? How is it that you type a post or get on a bus and pay the

fare,

> > > sit or stand, reach a destination and get off and go.

> > >

> > > Think of all the concepts needed and used to carry out those simple

> > > tasks and all the other doings done. It is all taken for granted,

> > > hidden from awareness, embedded in habits, below conscious awareness

> > > of the appearance. You must " know " what those things are to use

them,

> > > whether consciously aware of them or not. This does not change

because

> > > of self-realization. And there are many hidden assumptions and

> > > concepts that inform responses and how one perceives and

misperceives.

> > > Self-realization changes little of the conceptual baggage that

daily

> > > life requires. Shed completely all the conceptual baggage and there

> > > will appear a non-functioning blithering idiot. Concepts are

harmless

> > > if they are understood, used and put away. Have you checked

thoroughly

> > > the full extent of your conceptual baggage?

> > >

> > > Fuzzie: It's been real, Lewis. Thanks for your consideration.

> > >

> > > Yours truly,

> > >

> > > fuzzie

> > >

> > >

> > > Same here, Fuzzie.

> > >

> > > Love,

> > >

> > > Lewis

> >

> > Hi, there, Lewis Burgess:

> >

> > Here we go one mo' again:

> >

> > L: **So again here is the question differently worded: Do you

experience

> > > changes in the appearances during daily activites including deep

> > > sleep, rest and contemplation and are they dealt with variously in

> > > those different activities and states? There is no mention of

the Self

> > > at all. You did not answer the questions as asked. That is ok

and the

> > > question still remains unanswered.

> >

> >

> > F: I answered that a few posts back. Remember when I spoke of the

> > various " waves " of experience? I thought you were referring to the

> > self in the last post. My bad. Sorry.

> >

> > L: > **Lewis: There is no difficulty in understanding what you

say. It is

> > > simple. It is a simple experience, quite ordinary. Even my kids

> > > experience it. And words and concepts can't get it exactly right. As

> > > you say beyond concepts not conceptual, unspeakable.

> >

> > F: That's what I said at the outset of this dialogue. I speak to

> > everyone as if they're enlightened, because, they are. Most just

> > haven't realized it, yet.

> >

> > > **Lewis: No straw man. You are not words or concepts or are you?

" I am

> > > not conceptual. " " I exist, " " Here I am " does not contain you. These

> > > are assertions typed in words. You are not joined to these words on

> > > the screen that appear in front of me are you? They only represent

> > > you, fleeting images, fictions of you. Do you think you are these

> > > words? If I delete these words are you deleted? If I say something

> > > about these words are you damaged or hurt? These words are objects

> > > not, I AM. Is this not so? Or are you attached to these word objects

> > > and believe them to be I AM?

> > >

> >

> > F: I think we've gone over this topic, haven't we? Words or signs,

> > etc., are used as references, pointers, signifiers, etc. I think we've

> > covered that. There are books and websites on semiotics if you are

> > more interested in this topic. Peirce and Saussure are the two most

> > noted authorities on the subject. Check them out.

> >

> > If you have anymore questions, let me know. I'll respond the best I

> > can. Thank you.

> >

> > As always,

> >

> > fuzzie

>

^

> o

> O

> LL

>

>

>

>

>

> Jesus Christ!

>

>

> Look how many words I got over my head.

>

>

>

> :-0

>

>

>

>

> toombaru

 

 

Toomb:

 

I'm hip. My eyes were wigging out on me trying to decipher Lewis's

last post. Methinks we are going 'round in circles.

 

 

fuzzie

[Guest guest]

> >

> > Jesus Christ!

> >

> >

> > Look how many words I got over my head.

> >

> >

> >

> > :-0

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > toombaru

>

>

> Toomb:

>

> I'm hip. My eyes were wigging out on me trying to decipher Lewis's

 

 

 

> last post. Methinks we are going 'round in circles.

>

>

 

>

> fuzzie

 

 

 

 

 

 

I just erased all those words fuzz.

 

 

Look.........nothin's there......poof...........all gone

 

 

 

Isn't that better?

 

 

 

 

 

I'm off to Strawberry Canyon....you wanna go?

 

 

 

toombaru

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote:

>

> > >

> > > Jesus Christ!

> > >

> > >

> > > Look how many words I got over my head.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > :-0

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > toombaru

> >

> >

> > Toomb:

> >

> > I'm hip. My eyes were wigging out on me trying to decipher Lewis's

>

>

>

> > last post. Methinks we are going 'round in circles.

> >

> >

>

> >

> > fuzzie

I just erased all those words fuzz.

>

>

> Look.........nothin's there......poof...........all gone

>

>

>

> Isn't that better?

>

>

>

>

>

> I'm off to Strawberry Canyon....you wanna go?

>

>

>

> toombaru

 

 

Thanks for erasing that. It was giving me a headache.

 

I'd love to go to Strawberry Canyon. But, it's a long ways from where

I am, that is, if I existed.

 

 

(nothing is real) Strawberry Fields Forever

 

yours,

 

fuzzie

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz> wrote:

 

 

Hi, there, Lewis Burgess:

 

Here we go one mo' again:

 

*** new stuff

 

L: **So again here is the question differently worded: Do you

experience changes in the appearances during daily activites including

deep sleep, rest and contemplation and are they dealt with variously

in those different activities and states? There is no mention of the

Self at all. You did not answer the questions as asked. That is ok and

the question still remains unanswered.

 

F: I answered that a few posts back. Remember when I spoke of the

various " waves " of experience? I thought you were referring to the

self in the last post. My bad. Sorry.

 

***L: Waves of experiences is " vague " unspecific and was not

" intended " or used to address this question and because of the lack of

specificity, the questions was raised.

 

The question is about specific changes in the content and quantity of

the appearances, dealing with them and dealing with them in changing

activities and states. For example, you responded to the previous post

by reading it, thinking it, drawing meaning, recollecting from memory

of previous things written, reconsidering previous statements made,

addressing issues in the way you do and so forth and typing and

sending the response above with all that that requires. Walking down a

street crowded with pedestrians is another activity requiring another

set of capacities. Eating another set. Making love another set. Are

all these sort of things experienced and dealt with in the same

fashion, using the same set of capacities? If different, how so? If

not, how so?

 

Lewis

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> wrote:

> Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz>

wrote:

>

>

> Hi, there, Lewis Burgess:

>

> Here we go one mo' again:

>

> *** new stuff

>

> L: **So again here is the question differently worded: Do you

> experience changes in the appearances during daily activites including

> deep sleep, rest and contemplation and are they dealt with variously

> in those different activities and states? There is no mention of the

> Self at all. You did not answer the questions as asked. That is ok and

> the question still remains unanswered.

>

> F: I answered that a few posts back. Remember when I spoke of the

> various " waves " of experience? I thought you were referring to the

> self in the last post. My bad. Sorry.

>

> ***L: Waves of experiences is " vague " unspecific and was not

> " intended " or used to address this question and because of the lack of

> specificity, the questions was raised.

>

> The question is about specific changes in the content and quantity of

> the appearances, dealing with them and dealing with them in changing

> activities and states. For example, you responded to the previous post

> by reading it, thinking it, drawing meaning, recollecting from memory

> of previous things written, reconsidering previous statements made,

> addressing issues in the way you do and so forth and typing and

> sending the response above with all that that requires. Walking down a

> street crowded with pedestrians is another activity requiring another

> set of capacities. Eating another set. Making love another set. Are

> all these sort of things experienced and dealt with in the same

> fashion, using the same set of capacities? If different, how so? If

> not, how so?

>

> Lewis

 

 

Hi, Lewis:

 

I don't know if I yet understand your question. But, for me, things

happen, and, I just go along with it. Like, I went to the post office

to mail stuff and then I went to the bank to make a withdrawal and

then I made some phone calls and did some emails and then I went and

got some Chinese food and so on and so forth. This stuff just happens.

You know: shit happens. You don't have to think about it. It does

itself. It's like breathing. You don't think about breathing or

keeping your heart beating and so on. It does itself. It's not a

problem. Eating and f**king are the same way. You get hungry, you eat.

You get horny, you get laid (or, a facsimile thereof).

 

Does that make any sense to you? I apologize if I am not understanding

you correctly.

 

Yours,

 

fuzzie

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz> wrote:

> Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> wrote:

> > Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz>

> wrote:

> >

> >

> > Hi, there, Lewis Burgess:

> >

> > Here we go one mo' again:

> >

> > *** new stuff

> >

> > L: **So again here is the question differently worded: Do you

> > experience changes in the appearances during daily activites including

> > deep sleep, rest and contemplation and are they dealt with variously

> > in those different activities and states? There is no mention of the

> > Self at all. You did not answer the questions as asked. That is ok and

> > the question still remains unanswered.

> >

> > F: I answered that a few posts back. Remember when I spoke of the

> > various " waves " of experience? I thought you were referring to the

> > self in the last post. My bad. Sorry.

> >

> > ***L: Waves of experiences is " vague " unspecific and was not

> > " intended " or used to address this question and because of the lack of

> > specificity, the questions was raised.

> >

> > The question is about specific changes in the content and quantity of

> > the appearances, dealing with them and dealing with them in changing

> > activities and states. For example, you responded to the previous post

> > by reading it, thinking it, drawing meaning, recollecting from memory

> > of previous things written, reconsidering previous statements made,

> > addressing issues in the way you do and so forth and typing and

> > sending the response above with all that that requires. Walking down a

> > street crowded with pedestrians is another activity requiring another

> > set of capacities. Eating another set. Making love another set. Are

> > all these sort of things experienced and dealt with in the same

> > fashion, using the same set of capacities? If different, how so? If

> > not, how so?

> >

> > Lewis

>

>

> Hi, Lewis:

>

> I don't know if I yet understand your question. But, for me, things

> happen, and, I just go along with it. Like, I went to the post office

> to mail stuff and then I went to the bank to make a withdrawal and

> then I made some phone calls and did some emails and then I went and

> got some Chinese food and so on and so forth. This stuff just happens.

> You know: shit happens. You don't have to think about it. It does

> itself. It's like breathing. You don't think about breathing or

> keeping your heart beating and so on. It does itself. It's not a

> problem. Eating and f**king are the same way. You get hungry, you eat.

> You get horny, you get laid (or, a facsimile thereof).

>

> Does that make any sense to you? I apologize if I am not understanding

> you correctly.

>

> Yours,

>

> fuzzie

 

That is a report. No apologies necessary. The question and what was

realted to it was not understood. The question was to explore your

experience as a self-realized person. Below are Ramana's words related

to the question. Your answer above indicates what has been realized

according to Ramana teachings. Notice that no one does anything. This

is the common meaning of no doer in Advaita Vedanta. Do you believe in

Ramana teachings? I do not. But he makes a little sense in this.

 

 

Spiritual Instruction

Sri Ramana Maharshi

 

 

Chapter II

 

Practice (Abhyasa)

 

 

4. Is the state of 'being still' a state involving effort or effortless?

 

It is not an effortless state of indolence. All mundane activities

which are ordinarily called effort are performed with the aid of a

portion of the mind and with frequent breaks. But the act of communion

with the Self (atma vyavahara) or remaining still inwardly is intense

activity which is performed with the entire mind and without break.

 

23. It is an established rule that so long as there is the least idea

of I-am-the-doer, Self-knowledge cannot be attained, but is it

possible for an aspirant who is a householder to discharge his duties

properly without this sense?

 

As there is no rule that action should depend upon a sense of being

the doer it is unnecessary to doubt whether any action will take place

without a doer or an act of doing. Although the officer of a

government treasury may appear, in the eyes of others, to be doing his

duty attentively and responsibly all day long, he will be discharging

his duties without attachment, thinking 'I have no real connection

with all this money' and without a sense of involvement in his mind.

In the same manner a wise householder may also discharge without

attachment the various household duties which fall to his lot

according to his past karma, like a tool in the hands of another.

Action and knowledge are not obstacles to each other.

 

25. How can cessation of activity (nivritti) and peace of mind be

attained in the midst of household duties which are of the nature of

constant activity?

 

As the activities of the wise man exist only in the eyes of others and

not in his own, although he may be accomplishing immense tasks, he

really does nothing. Therefore his activities do not stand in the way

of inaction and peace of mind. For he knows the truth that all

activities take place in his mere presence and that he does nothing.

Hence he will remain as the silent witness of all the activities

taking place.

 

 

Also, here are Ramana's words on asserting and not asserting the

reality or unreality of Self. Something that could be better

understood by I AM ers. It is not a toy or tool to play or work with.

 

Chapter III

 

Experience (Anubhava)

 

 

10. As the Self is existence and consciousness, what is the reason for

describing it as different from the existent and the non-existent, the

sentient and the insentient?

 

Although the Self is real, as it comprises everything, it does not

give room for questions involving duality about its reality or

unreality. Therefore it is said to be different from the real and the

unreal. Similarly, even though it is consciousness, since there is

nothing for it to know or to make itself known to, it is said to be

different from the sentient and the insentient.

 

An old conceptualization. Preceded by centuries of others.

 

Catch up, Fuzzie.

 

Good luck.

 

 

Love,

 

Lewis

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> wrote:

> Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz>

wrote:

> > Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...>

wrote:

> > > Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz>

> > wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > > Hi, there, Lewis Burgess:

> > >

> > > Here we go one mo' again:

> > >

> > > *** new stuff

> > >

> > > L: **So again here is the question differently worded: Do you

> > > experience changes in the appearances during daily activites

including

> > > deep sleep, rest and contemplation and are they dealt with variously

> > > in those different activities and states? There is no mention of the

> > > Self at all. You did not answer the questions as asked. That is

ok and

> > > the question still remains unanswered.

> > >

> > > F: I answered that a few posts back. Remember when I spoke of the

> > > various " waves " of experience? I thought you were referring to the

> > > self in the last post. My bad. Sorry.

> > >

> > > ***L: Waves of experiences is " vague " unspecific and was not

> > > " intended " or used to address this question and because of the

lack of

> > > specificity, the questions was raised.

> > >

> > > The question is about specific changes in the content and

quantity of

> > > the appearances, dealing with them and dealing with them in changing

> > > activities and states. For example, you responded to the

previous post

> > > by reading it, thinking it, drawing meaning, recollecting from

memory

> > > of previous things written, reconsidering previous statements made,

> > > addressing issues in the way you do and so forth and typing and

> > > sending the response above with all that that requires. Walking

down a

> > > street crowded with pedestrians is another activity requiring

another

> > > set of capacities. Eating another set. Making love another set. Are

> > > all these sort of things experienced and dealt with in the same

> > > fashion, using the same set of capacities? If different, how so? If

> > > not, how so?

> > >

> > > Lewis

> >

> >

> > Hi, Lewis:

> >

> > I don't know if I yet understand your question. But, for me, things

> > happen, and, I just go along with it. Like, I went to the post office

> > to mail stuff and then I went to the bank to make a withdrawal and

> > then I made some phone calls and did some emails and then I went and

> > got some Chinese food and so on and so forth. This stuff just happens.

> > You know: shit happens. You don't have to think about it. It does

> > itself. It's like breathing. You don't think about breathing or

> > keeping your heart beating and so on. It does itself. It's not a

> > problem. Eating and f**king are the same way. You get hungry, you eat.

> > You get horny, you get laid (or, a facsimile thereof).

> >

> > Does that make any sense to you? I apologize if I am not understanding

> > you correctly.

> >

> > Yours,

> >

> > fuzzie

>

> That is a report. No apologies necessary. The question and what was

> realted to it was not understood. The question was to explore your

> experience as a self-realized person. Below are Ramana's words related

> to the question. Your answer above indicates what has been realized

> according to Ramana teachings. Notice that no one does anything. This

> is the common meaning of no doer in Advaita Vedanta. Do you believe in

> Ramana teachings? I do not. But he makes a little sense in this.

>

>

> Spiritual Instruction

> Sri Ramana Maharshi

>

>

> Chapter II

>

> Practice (Abhyasa)

>

>

> 4. Is the state of 'being still' a state involving effort or effortless?

>

> It is not an effortless state of indolence. All mundane activities

> which are ordinarily called effort are performed with the aid of a

> portion of the mind and with frequent breaks. But the act of communion

> with the Self (atma vyavahara) or remaining still inwardly is intense

> activity which is performed with the entire mind and without break.

>

> 23. It is an established rule that so long as there is the least idea

> of I-am-the-doer, Self-knowledge cannot be attained, but is it

> possible for an aspirant who is a householder to discharge his duties

> properly without this sense?

>

> As there is no rule that action should depend upon a sense of being

> the doer it is unnecessary to doubt whether any action will take place

> without a doer or an act of doing. Although the officer of a

> government treasury may appear, in the eyes of others, to be doing his

> duty attentively and responsibly all day long, he will be discharging

> his duties without attachment, thinking 'I have no real connection

> with all this money' and without a sense of involvement in his mind.

> In the same manner a wise householder may also discharge without

> attachment the various household duties which fall to his lot

> according to his past karma, like a tool in the hands of another.

> Action and knowledge are not obstacles to each other.

>

> 25. How can cessation of activity (nivritti) and peace of mind be

> attained in the midst of household duties which are of the nature of

> constant activity?

>

> As the activities of the wise man exist only in the eyes of others and

> not in his own, although he may be accomplishing immense tasks, he

> really does nothing. Therefore his activities do not stand in the way

> of inaction and peace of mind. For he knows the truth that all

> activities take place in his mere presence and that he does nothing.

> Hence he will remain as the silent witness of all the activities

> taking place.

>

>

> Also, here are Ramana's words on asserting and not asserting the

> reality or unreality of Self. Something that could be better

> understood by I AM ers. It is not a toy or tool to play or work with.

>

> Chapter III

>

> Experience (Anubhava)

>

>

> 10. As the Self is existence and consciousness, what is the reason for

> describing it as different from the existent and the non-existent, the

> sentient and the insentient?

>

> Although the Self is real, as it comprises everything, it does not

> give room for questions involving duality about its reality or

> unreality. Therefore it is said to be different from the real and the

> unreal. Similarly, even though it is consciousness, since there is

> nothing for it to know or to make itself known to, it is said to be

> different from the sentient and the insentient.

>

> An old conceptualization. Preceded by centuries of others.

>

> Catch up, Fuzzie.

>

> Good luck.

>

>

> Love,

>

> Lewis

 

 

Hi, Lewis:

 

I think Ramana was a sweet old man. He was a little whacky, but,

hey... we all have our idiosyncracies, right?

 

I never read that much of Ramana. I read " Talks with... " , but, I

skimmed over alot of it; too much Hindu superstition and what not.

But, I did get into looking for the self, to see if it could be

realized. I read Nisargadatta, too; " I Am That " . That's a good one;

you might like that one; there's very little Hindu quackery in that

one. He was of the same inclination, i.e., try to find out what the

self is. I did it obsessively for about 2 years. Then, I realized I

am. And, that's all she wrote.

 

I don't read books anymore. Don't need 'em.

 

I'm sorry I can't understand your line of questioning in the previous

posts. I never claimed to be smart or anything like that. I'm lucky if

I know what day it is.

 

Thanks for your time.

 

Yours,

 

fuzzie

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz> wrote:

> Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> wrote:

> > Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz>

> wrote:

> > > Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...>

> wrote:

> > > > Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz "

<fuzzie_wuz>

> > > wrote:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Hi, there, Lewis Burgess:

> > > >

> > > > Here we go one mo' again:

> > > >

> > > > *** new stuff

> > > >

> > > > L: **So again here is the question differently worded: Do you

> > > > experience changes in the appearances during daily activites

> including

> > > > deep sleep, rest and contemplation and are they dealt with

variously

> > > > in those different activities and states? There is no mention

of the

> > > > Self at all. You did not answer the questions as asked. That is

> ok and

> > > > the question still remains unanswered.

> > > >

> > > > F: I answered that a few posts back. Remember when I spoke of the

> > > > various " waves " of experience? I thought you were referring to the

> > > > self in the last post. My bad. Sorry.

> > > >

> > > > ***L: Waves of experiences is " vague " unspecific and was not

> > > > " intended " or used to address this question and because of the

> lack of

> > > > specificity, the questions was raised.

> > > >

> > > > The question is about specific changes in the content and

> quantity of

> > > > the appearances, dealing with them and dealing with them in

changing

> > > > activities and states. For example, you responded to the

> previous post

> > > > by reading it, thinking it, drawing meaning, recollecting from

> memory

> > > > of previous things written, reconsidering previous statements

made,

> > > > addressing issues in the way you do and so forth and typing and

> > > > sending the response above with all that that requires. Walking

> down a

> > > > street crowded with pedestrians is another activity requiring

> another

> > > > set of capacities. Eating another set. Making love another

set. Are

> > > > all these sort of things experienced and dealt with in the same

> > > > fashion, using the same set of capacities? If different, how

so? If

> > > > not, how so?

> > > >

> > > > Lewis

> > >

> > >

> > > Hi, Lewis:

> > >

> > > I don't know if I yet understand your question. But, for me, things

> > > happen, and, I just go along with it. Like, I went to the post

office

> > > to mail stuff and then I went to the bank to make a withdrawal and

> > > then I made some phone calls and did some emails and then I went and

> > > got some Chinese food and so on and so forth. This stuff just

happens.

> > > You know: shit happens. You don't have to think about it. It does

> > > itself. It's like breathing. You don't think about breathing or

> > > keeping your heart beating and so on. It does itself. It's not a

> > > problem. Eating and f**king are the same way. You get hungry,

you eat.

> > > You get horny, you get laid (or, a facsimile thereof).

> > >

> > > Does that make any sense to you? I apologize if I am not

understanding

> > > you correctly.

> > >

> > > Yours,

> > >

> > > fuzzie

> >

> > That is a report. No apologies necessary. The question and what was

> > realted to it was not understood. The question was to explore your

> > experience as a self-realized person. Below are Ramana's words related

> > to the question. Your answer above indicates what has been realized

> > according to Ramana teachings. Notice that no one does anything. This

> > is the common meaning of no doer in Advaita Vedanta. Do you believe in

> > Ramana teachings? I do not. But he makes a little sense in this.

> >

> >

> > Spiritual Instruction

> > Sri Ramana Maharshi

> >

> >

> > Chapter II

> >

> > Practice (Abhyasa)

> >

> >

> > 4. Is the state of 'being still' a state involving effort or

effortless?

> >

> > It is not an effortless state of indolence. All mundane activities

> > which are ordinarily called effort are performed with the aid of a

> > portion of the mind and with frequent breaks. But the act of communion

> > with the Self (atma vyavahara) or remaining still inwardly is intense

> > activity which is performed with the entire mind and without break.

> >

> > 23. It is an established rule that so long as there is the least idea

> > of I-am-the-doer, Self-knowledge cannot be attained, but is it

> > possible for an aspirant who is a householder to discharge his duties

> > properly without this sense?

> >

> > As there is no rule that action should depend upon a sense of being

> > the doer it is unnecessary to doubt whether any action will take place

> > without a doer or an act of doing. Although the officer of a

> > government treasury may appear, in the eyes of others, to be doing his

> > duty attentively and responsibly all day long, he will be discharging

> > his duties without attachment, thinking 'I have no real connection

> > with all this money' and without a sense of involvement in his mind.

> > In the same manner a wise householder may also discharge without

> > attachment the various household duties which fall to his lot

> > according to his past karma, like a tool in the hands of another.

> > Action and knowledge are not obstacles to each other.

> >

> > 25. How can cessation of activity (nivritti) and peace of mind be

> > attained in the midst of household duties which are of the nature of

> > constant activity?

> >

> > As the activities of the wise man exist only in the eyes of others and

> > not in his own, although he may be accomplishing immense tasks, he

> > really does nothing. Therefore his activities do not stand in the way

> > of inaction and peace of mind. For he knows the truth that all

> > activities take place in his mere presence and that he does nothing.

> > Hence he will remain as the silent witness of all the activities

> > taking place.

> >

> >

> > Also, here are Ramana's words on asserting and not asserting the

> > reality or unreality of Self. Something that could be better

> > understood by I AM ers. It is not a toy or tool to play or work with.

> >

> > Chapter III

> >

> > Experience (Anubhava)

> >

> >

> > 10. As the Self is existence and consciousness, what is the reason for

> > describing it as different from the existent and the non-existent, the

> > sentient and the insentient?

> >

> > Although the Self is real, as it comprises everything, it does not

> > give room for questions involving duality about its reality or

> > unreality. Therefore it is said to be different from the real and the

> > unreal. Similarly, even though it is consciousness, since there is

> > nothing for it to know or to make itself known to, it is said to be

> > different from the sentient and the insentient.

> >

> > An old conceptualization. Preceded by centuries of others.

> >

> > Catch up, Fuzzie.

> >

> > Good luck.

> >

> >

> > Love,

> >

> > Lewis

>

>

> Hi, Lewis:

>

> I think Ramana was a sweet old man. He was a little whacky, but,

> hey... we all have our idiosyncracies, right?

>

> I never read that much of Ramana. I read " Talks with... " , but, I

> skimmed over alot of it; too much Hindu superstition and what not.

> But, I did get into looking for the self, to see if it could be

> realized. I read Nisargadatta, too; " I Am That " . That's a good one;

> you might like that one; there's very little Hindu quackery in that

> one. He was of the same inclination, i.e., try to find out what the

> self is. I did it obsessively for about 2 years. Then, I realized I

> am. And, that's all she wrote.

 

Lewis: I read it. Same stuff. Less refined, more blunt.

 

>

> I don't read books anymore. Don't need 'em.

>

> I'm sorry I can't understand your line of questioning in the

previous posts. I never claimed to be smart or anything like that. I'm

lucky if I know what day it is.

 

Lewis: It doesn't matter. We met, sustained a conversation beyond

chatter, expressed openly and I gained from your effort.

 

> Thanks for your time.

>

> Yours,

>

> fuzzie

 

Thank you for taking the time to correspond. It was stimulating and

expanding.

 

Love,

 

Lewis

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> wrote:

> Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz>

wrote:

> > Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...>

wrote:

> > > Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz>

> > wrote:

> > > > Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...>

> > wrote:

> > > > > Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz "

> <fuzzie_wuz>

> > > > wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Hi, there, Lewis Burgess:

> > > > >

> > > > > Here we go one mo' again:

> > > > >

> > > > > *** new stuff

> > > > >

> > > > > L: **So again here is the question differently worded: Do you

> > > > > experience changes in the appearances during daily activites

> > including

> > > > > deep sleep, rest and contemplation and are they dealt with

> variously

> > > > > in those different activities and states? There is no mention

> of the

> > > > > Self at all. You did not answer the questions as asked. That is

> > ok and

> > > > > the question still remains unanswered.

> > > > >

> > > > > F: I answered that a few posts back. Remember when I spoke

of the

> > > > > various " waves " of experience? I thought you were referring

to the

> > > > > self in the last post. My bad. Sorry.

> > > > >

> > > > > ***L: Waves of experiences is " vague " unspecific and was not

> > > > > " intended " or used to address this question and because of the

> > lack of

> > > > > specificity, the questions was raised.

> > > > >

> > > > > The question is about specific changes in the content and

> > quantity of

> > > > > the appearances, dealing with them and dealing with them in

> changing

> > > > > activities and states. For example, you responded to the

> > previous post

> > > > > by reading it, thinking it, drawing meaning, recollecting from

> > memory

> > > > > of previous things written, reconsidering previous statements

> made,

> > > > > addressing issues in the way you do and so forth and typing and

> > > > > sending the response above with all that that requires. Walking

> > down a

> > > > > street crowded with pedestrians is another activity requiring

> > another

> > > > > set of capacities. Eating another set. Making love another

> set. Are

> > > > > all these sort of things experienced and dealt with in the same

> > > > > fashion, using the same set of capacities? If different, how

> so? If

> > > > > not, how so?

> > > > >

> > > > > Lewis

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Hi, Lewis:

> > > >

> > > > I don't know if I yet understand your question. But, for me,

things

> > > > happen, and, I just go along with it. Like, I went to the post

> office

> > > > to mail stuff and then I went to the bank to make a withdrawal and

> > > > then I made some phone calls and did some emails and then I

went and

> > > > got some Chinese food and so on and so forth. This stuff just

> happens.

> > > > You know: shit happens. You don't have to think about it. It does

> > > > itself. It's like breathing. You don't think about breathing or

> > > > keeping your heart beating and so on. It does itself. It's not a

> > > > problem. Eating and f**king are the same way. You get hungry,

> you eat.

> > > > You get horny, you get laid (or, a facsimile thereof).

> > > >

> > > > Does that make any sense to you? I apologize if I am not

> understanding

> > > > you correctly.

> > > >

> > > > Yours,

> > > >

> > > > fuzzie

> > >

> > > That is a report. No apologies necessary. The question and what was

> > > realted to it was not understood. The question was to explore your

> > > experience as a self-realized person. Below are Ramana's words

related

> > > to the question. Your answer above indicates what has been realized

> > > according to Ramana teachings. Notice that no one does anything.

This

> > > is the common meaning of no doer in Advaita Vedanta. Do you

believe in

> > > Ramana teachings? I do not. But he makes a little sense in this.

> > >

> > >

> > > Spiritual Instruction

> > > Sri Ramana Maharshi

> > >

> > >

> > > Chapter II

> > >

> > > Practice (Abhyasa)

> > >

> > >

> > > 4. Is the state of 'being still' a state involving effort or

> effortless?

> > >

> > > It is not an effortless state of indolence. All mundane activities

> > > which are ordinarily called effort are performed with the aid of a

> > > portion of the mind and with frequent breaks. But the act of

communion

> > > with the Self (atma vyavahara) or remaining still inwardly is

intense

> > > activity which is performed with the entire mind and without break.

> > >

> > > 23. It is an established rule that so long as there is the least

idea

> > > of I-am-the-doer, Self-knowledge cannot be attained, but is it

> > > possible for an aspirant who is a householder to discharge his

duties

> > > properly without this sense?

> > >

> > > As there is no rule that action should depend upon a sense of being

> > > the doer it is unnecessary to doubt whether any action will take

place

> > > without a doer or an act of doing. Although the officer of a

> > > government treasury may appear, in the eyes of others, to be

doing his

> > > duty attentively and responsibly all day long, he will be

discharging

> > > his duties without attachment, thinking 'I have no real connection

> > > with all this money' and without a sense of involvement in his mind.

> > > In the same manner a wise householder may also discharge without

> > > attachment the various household duties which fall to his lot

> > > according to his past karma, like a tool in the hands of another.

> > > Action and knowledge are not obstacles to each other.

> > >

> > > 25. How can cessation of activity (nivritti) and peace of mind be

> > > attained in the midst of household duties which are of the nature of

> > > constant activity?

> > >

> > > As the activities of the wise man exist only in the eyes of

others and

> > > not in his own, although he may be accomplishing immense tasks, he

> > > really does nothing. Therefore his activities do not stand in

the way

> > > of inaction and peace of mind. For he knows the truth that all

> > > activities take place in his mere presence and that he does nothing.

> > > Hence he will remain as the silent witness of all the activities

> > > taking place.

> > >

> > >

> > > Also, here are Ramana's words on asserting and not asserting the

> > > reality or unreality of Self. Something that could be better

> > > understood by I AM ers. It is not a toy or tool to play or work

with.

> > >

> > > Chapter III

> > >

> > > Experience (Anubhava)

> > >

> > >

> > > 10. As the Self is existence and consciousness, what is the

reason for

> > > describing it as different from the existent and the

non-existent, the

> > > sentient and the insentient?

> > >

> > > Although the Self is real, as it comprises everything, it does not

> > > give room for questions involving duality about its reality or

> > > unreality. Therefore it is said to be different from the real

and the

> > > unreal. Similarly, even though it is consciousness, since there is

> > > nothing for it to know or to make itself known to, it is said to be

> > > different from the sentient and the insentient.

> > >

> > > An old conceptualization. Preceded by centuries of others.

> > >

> > > Catch up, Fuzzie.

> > >

> > > Good luck.

> > >

> > >

> > > Love,

> > >

> > > Lewis

> >

> >

> > Hi, Lewis:

> >

> > I think Ramana was a sweet old man. He was a little whacky, but,

> > hey... we all have our idiosyncracies, right?

> >

> > I never read that much of Ramana. I read " Talks with... " , but, I

> > skimmed over alot of it; too much Hindu superstition and what not.

> > But, I did get into looking for the self, to see if it could be

> > realized. I read Nisargadatta, too; " I Am That " . That's a good one;

> > you might like that one; there's very little Hindu quackery in that

> > one. He was of the same inclination, i.e., try to find out what the

> > self is. I did it obsessively for about 2 years. Then, I realized I

> > am. And, that's all she wrote.

>

> Lewis: I read it. Same stuff. Less refined, more blunt.

>

> >

> > I don't read books anymore. Don't need 'em.

> >

> > I'm sorry I can't understand your line of questioning in the

> previous posts. I never claimed to be smart or anything like that. I'm

> lucky if I know what day it is.

>

> Lewis: It doesn't matter. We met, sustained a conversation beyond

> chatter, expressed openly and I gained from your effort.

>

> > Thanks for your time.

> >

> > Yours,

> >

> > fuzzie

>

> Thank you for taking the time to correspond. It was stimulating and

> expanding.

>

> Love,

>

> Lewis

 

 

Right back atcha, there, Mr. Lewis:

 

I've recently learned to simplify my language when trying to write to

others. You taught me how to communicate more efficiently. I

appreciate it. I'm kind of new with these forums and so on. I had a PC

a few years ago. I'd get online but it was usually just alot of

confusion and misunderstanding, etc. Then, the computer burned up or

something and I gave it to the Salvation Army. I went without one for

a couple of years. Then, a guy gave me this one a few weeks ago. It's

been fun.

 

Thanks for putting up with me and not yelling or getting mad. Anytime

you wanna write to me, feel free.

 

Yours truly,

 

fuzzie

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz> wrote:

> Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> wrote:

> > Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz>

> wrote:

> > > Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...>

> wrote:

> > > > Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz "

<fuzzie_wuz>

> > > wrote:

> > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess "

<lbb10@c...>

> > > wrote:

> > > > > > Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz "

> > <fuzzie_wuz>

> > > > > wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Hi, there, Lewis Burgess:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Here we go one mo' again:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > *** new stuff

> > > > > >

> > > > > > L: **So again here is the question differently worded: Do you

> > > > > > experience changes in the appearances during daily activites

> > > including

> > > > > > deep sleep, rest and contemplation and are they dealt with

> > variously

> > > > > > in those different activities and states? There is no mention

> > of the

> > > > > > Self at all. You did not answer the questions as asked.

That is

> > > ok and

> > > > > > the question still remains unanswered.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > F: I answered that a few posts back. Remember when I spoke

> of the

> > > > > > various " waves " of experience? I thought you were referring

> to the

> > > > > > self in the last post. My bad. Sorry.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > ***L: Waves of experiences is " vague " unspecific and was not

> > > > > > " intended " or used to address this question and because of the

> > > lack of

> > > > > > specificity, the questions was raised.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > The question is about specific changes in the content and

> > > quantity of

> > > > > > the appearances, dealing with them and dealing with them in

> > changing

> > > > > > activities and states. For example, you responded to the

> > > previous post

> > > > > > by reading it, thinking it, drawing meaning, recollecting from

> > > memory

> > > > > > of previous things written, reconsidering previous statements

> > made,

> > > > > > addressing issues in the way you do and so forth and

typing and

> > > > > > sending the response above with all that that requires.

Walking

> > > down a

> > > > > > street crowded with pedestrians is another activity requiring

> > > another

> > > > > > set of capacities. Eating another set. Making love another

> > set. Are

> > > > > > all these sort of things experienced and dealt with in the

same

> > > > > > fashion, using the same set of capacities? If different, how

> > so? If

> > > > > > not, how so?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Lewis

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Hi, Lewis:

> > > > >

> > > > > I don't know if I yet understand your question. But, for me,

> things

> > > > > happen, and, I just go along with it. Like, I went to the post

> > office

> > > > > to mail stuff and then I went to the bank to make a

withdrawal and

> > > > > then I made some phone calls and did some emails and then I

> went and

> > > > > got some Chinese food and so on and so forth. This stuff just

> > happens.

> > > > > You know: shit happens. You don't have to think about it. It

does

> > > > > itself. It's like breathing. You don't think about breathing or

> > > > > keeping your heart beating and so on. It does itself. It's not a

> > > > > problem. Eating and f**king are the same way. You get hungry,

> > you eat.

> > > > > You get horny, you get laid (or, a facsimile thereof).

> > > > >

> > > > > Does that make any sense to you? I apologize if I am not

> > understanding

> > > > > you correctly.

> > > > >

> > > > > Yours,

> > > > >

> > > > > fuzzie

> > > >

> > > > That is a report. No apologies necessary. The question and

what was

> > > > realted to it was not understood. The question was to explore your

> > > > experience as a self-realized person. Below are Ramana's words

> related

> > > > to the question. Your answer above indicates what has been

realized

> > > > according to Ramana teachings. Notice that no one does anything.

> This

> > > > is the common meaning of no doer in Advaita Vedanta. Do you

> believe in

> > > > Ramana teachings? I do not. But he makes a little sense in this.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Spiritual Instruction

> > > > Sri Ramana Maharshi

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Chapter II

> > > >

> > > > Practice (Abhyasa)

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > 4. Is the state of 'being still' a state involving effort or

> > effortless?

> > > >

> > > > It is not an effortless state of indolence. All mundane activities

> > > > which are ordinarily called effort are performed with the aid of a

> > > > portion of the mind and with frequent breaks. But the act of

> communion

> > > > with the Self (atma vyavahara) or remaining still inwardly is

> intense

> > > > activity which is performed with the entire mind and without

break.

> > > >

> > > > 23. It is an established rule that so long as there is the least

> idea

> > > > of I-am-the-doer, Self-knowledge cannot be attained, but is it

> > > > possible for an aspirant who is a householder to discharge his

> duties

> > > > properly without this sense?

> > > >

> > > > As there is no rule that action should depend upon a sense of

being

> > > > the doer it is unnecessary to doubt whether any action will take

> place

> > > > without a doer or an act of doing. Although the officer of a

> > > > government treasury may appear, in the eyes of others, to be

> doing his

> > > > duty attentively and responsibly all day long, he will be

> discharging

> > > > his duties without attachment, thinking 'I have no real connection

> > > > with all this money' and without a sense of involvement in his

mind.

> > > > In the same manner a wise householder may also discharge without

> > > > attachment the various household duties which fall to his lot

> > > > according to his past karma, like a tool in the hands of another.

> > > > Action and knowledge are not obstacles to each other.

> > > >

> > > > 25. How can cessation of activity (nivritti) and peace of mind be

> > > > attained in the midst of household duties which are of the

nature of

> > > > constant activity?

> > > >

> > > > As the activities of the wise man exist only in the eyes of

> others and

> > > > not in his own, although he may be accomplishing immense tasks, he

> > > > really does nothing. Therefore his activities do not stand in

> the way

> > > > of inaction and peace of mind. For he knows the truth that all

> > > > activities take place in his mere presence and that he does

nothing.

> > > > Hence he will remain as the silent witness of all the activities

> > > > taking place.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Also, here are Ramana's words on asserting and not asserting the

> > > > reality or unreality of Self. Something that could be better

> > > > understood by I AM ers. It is not a toy or tool to play or work

> with.

> > > >

> > > > Chapter III

> > > >

> > > > Experience (Anubhava)

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > 10. As the Self is existence and consciousness, what is the

> reason for

> > > > describing it as different from the existent and the

> non-existent, the

> > > > sentient and the insentient?

> > > >

> > > > Although the Self is real, as it comprises everything, it does not

> > > > give room for questions involving duality about its reality or

> > > > unreality. Therefore it is said to be different from the real

> and the

> > > > unreal. Similarly, even though it is consciousness, since there is

> > > > nothing for it to know or to make itself known to, it is said

to be

> > > > different from the sentient and the insentient.

> > > >

> > > > An old conceptualization. Preceded by centuries of others.

> > > >

> > > > Catch up, Fuzzie.

> > > >

> > > > Good luck.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Love,

> > > >

> > > > Lewis

> > >

> > >

> > > Hi, Lewis:

> > >

> > > I think Ramana was a sweet old man. He was a little whacky, but,

> > > hey... we all have our idiosyncracies, right?

> > >

> > > I never read that much of Ramana. I read " Talks with... " , but, I

> > > skimmed over alot of it; too much Hindu superstition and what not.

> > > But, I did get into looking for the self, to see if it could be

> > > realized. I read Nisargadatta, too; " I Am That " . That's a good one;

> > > you might like that one; there's very little Hindu quackery in that

> > > one. He was of the same inclination, i.e., try to find out what the

> > > self is. I did it obsessively for about 2 years. Then, I realized I

> > > am. And, that's all she wrote.

> >

> > Lewis: I read it. Same stuff. Less refined, more blunt.

> >

> > >

> > > I don't read books anymore. Don't need 'em.

> > >

> > > I'm sorry I can't understand your line of questioning in the

> > previous posts. I never claimed to be smart or anything like that. I'm

> > lucky if I know what day it is.

> >

> > Lewis: It doesn't matter. We met, sustained a conversation beyond

> > chatter, expressed openly and I gained from your effort.

> >

> > > Thanks for your time.

> > >

> > > Yours,

> > >

> > > fuzzie

> >

> > Thank you for taking the time to correspond. It was stimulating and

> > expanding.

> >

> > Love,

> >

> > Lewis

>

>

> Right back atcha, there, Mr. Lewis:

>

> I've recently learned to simplify my language when trying to write to

> others. You taught me how to communicate more efficiently. I

> appreciate it. I'm kind of new with these forums and so on. I had a PC

> a few years ago. I'd get online but it was usually just alot of

> confusion and misunderstanding, etc. Then, the computer burned up or

> something and I gave it to the Salvation Army. I went without one for

> a couple of years. Then, a guy gave me this one a few weeks ago. It's

> been fun.

>

> Thanks for putting up with me and not yelling or getting mad. Anytime

> you wanna write to me, feel free.

>

> Yours truly,

>

> fuzzie

 

 

Thanks, Fuzzie.

 

Love,

 

Lewis