Guest guest Posted April 25, 2005 Report Share Posted April 25, 2005 Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...: > > > > Nisargadatta , " fuzzie_wuz " <fuzzie_wuz > wrote: > > > > Greetings, Dan: > > > > To say there is no one saying anything implicitly contradicts itself. > > That's what I was trying to point out. To say there is no one who > > knows also contains an implied contradiction. It's absurd. It's a > > position reminiscent of the old Zen metaphor of a man immersed > > inwater dying of thirst. > > > > Yours, > > > > fuzzie > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > Hi Fuzzie, > > > > Yes, what to say? > > > > If water is inside, and water is outside, and there is no skin in > > between, how could you say " wet " ? > > > > -- Dan > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > Dear Fuzzie, > > > > It seems that you have not encountered the concept of " no one " and " no > > doer " and similar conceptualizations of non-identity. These metaphors > > that are commonly professed by some on this list refers to " egoless " > > or " selfless " existence or being. The " ego " and " self " are body/mind > > reifications and are dissolvable since they are merely composed of > > knots and tangles of this and that, the very " things " that > > self-inquiry, neti, neti, dependent origination and other practices > > untie and release. > > > > When the ego/self is dissolved (and there is great and perhaps useless > > debate on this) there supposedly remains a Self or Atman or the One or > > I AM or Being all commonly described as " awareness with no second. " > > However, this identification is also dissolvable, though for many it > > seems like the last stop of realization. For others, it is an > > impediment to realization. That is, to refer to these, to speak of > > them or to use the label as fact is simply another reification, a > > false identification that a partially realized person clings to > > preserve ontological security, to " stay alive " and to avoid the > > sometimes fear full complete shattering of false delusional being or > > " death. " This may or may not be so and is case by case. > > > > An interior examination of the sense " I AM " or " Self " shows that both > > are utterly indescribable and all the capacities and incapacities > > present in the human appearance are such that they emerge from > > " complete unknowableness " or " utter darkness " or " blinding light " or > > " undisturbed silence " or some other metaphor. Nothing can be known of > > this. What appears in " the conscious mind " is superficial and > > secondary to that which is unknowable and from whence those > > superificalities originate, arise, operate, and dissipate and repeat. > > > > This being so, there is no identifiable " person " or " self, " or Self, > > only emergent capacities and incapacities that arise and fall, engage, > > disengage or remain quiescent according to demand. The use of pronouns > > and names are not problematic if they are empty of identifications and > > used conventionally to communicate and act. In essence, in this sense, > > there are no persons, no doers as is commonly perceived and thought > > about, just capacities and incapacities expressing and interacting > > with the same in " unknowableness, " from " mystery. " > > > > The sense of awareness is nothing significant and is a superficial > > capacity compared to the unknowable capacities that give origin to > > awareness. In one sense, when awareness is functioning properly, > > " awareness " as an isolated capacity (which it is not) allows the > > realization of complete ignorance, which is the source of wisdom and > > learning. Those who " know " or who are " aware " are neither wise nor do > > they learn since their cup is full of awareness of things, including > > awareness itself. Put a hole in the cup and all flows in and through. > > Based on this experience or something similar, there is encouragement > > to drop, dissolve and otherwise go beyond the " I AM, " beyond awareness > > and other limitations, etc., if it is believed in or serves as an > > identification, a reification, a concept. If that is so, it is seen as > > an impediment. If it is not so, then this writing is of no consequence. > > > > In the end, regardless, we, the human appearances, do as we are. > > > > Love, > > > > Lewis > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > Hi, Lewis: > > > > I am aware of the " no one " and " no doer " concepts. In the Gita and the > > works of Ramana Maharshi and Nisargadatta Maharaj, these refer to the > > fictional egoic entity of the mind and not the Self. > > > > > > > > Lewis: Yes. The fictional egoic entity is experiential and is > > dissolvable. The Self, as a word and concept, an object of thought is > > used by them as a conceptual pointer and is no different than other > > pointers. Reification of the " Self " is just as common as the > > reification of " God. " Is this not so? > > > > > > > > Fuzzie: You wrote: " Based on this experience or something similar, > > there is encouragement to drop, dissolve and otherwise go beyond the > > " I AM, " beyond awareness and other limitations, etc., if it is > > believed in or serves as an identification, a reification, a concept. " > > > > Who is it that " goes beyond " these things you mention? Someone or > > something has to exist in order to " go beyond " . Again, as I have tried > > to point out in previous posts to others on this forum, your denial of > > your existence contains an inherent contradiction. You appear to be > > caught in a nihilistic spiral of infinite regress. > > > > Yours, > > > > fuzzie > > > > Lewis: There is no acceptance or denial of existence or the Self, > > Fuzzie. It is a metaphor. What is meant above is message, an alert > > about reification and a description of the no-self or no person > > position. In this, " no one " goes beyond. " No one " is aware. > > " Awareness " itself is conceptual entity. Nihilism or a nihilistic > > spiral is an interpretation of " non-identity " and " unknowableness. " > > Such an interpretation has nothing to do with what was presented. > > > > Is a terminus necessary to end infinite regress or is identification > > of infinite regress simply human logic failing to accept and > > comprehend " that " which is unknowable with reason or words? > > Alternatively, I AM or Self, if not used as a pointer, is also clearly > > used an artificial conceptual terminus similar to Aristotle's " Unmoved > > Mover " and like it was for him it serves only to allow analysis and > > communication to go forward and not to question each premise as to its > > ground. As a pointer and artificial terminus, I AM or Self serves. To > > believe in the pointer or artificial terminus as " real, " to reifiy it > > is another matter. > > > > So what puzzles is who writes this and to whom these messages > > directed? The capacity to express in many ways is common is it not? > > Also the capacity to move, to be silent and quiescent are basic > > capacities that are rather unavoidable. To perceive, emote, think, > > plan, imagine, abstract, reify, to experience states of consciousness > > and so on are all capacities of the human appearance. The inability to > > do these at times are incapacities. How do these capacities and > > incapacities, which arise and become quiescent or become out of hand, > > etc. form a person, a doer? And how if there is no person or doer as > > is commonly thought does this lead to Nihilism or nothingness? I can > > say I wrote this without feeling strange or out of order but the use > > of " I " is merely a convention. There is " me " and this " me, " or " I am " > > is indescribable, formless, unknowable and so how can " me " that writes > > " you " be called a person or a reified Self? The " I " or " me " is a > > momentary appearance used in expression and communication. > > > > Examine carefully how a response to a post is formed and typed and > > sent. How do the emotions and thoughts arise in reaction to a post? > > How are the words comprehended? How do the words, thoughts put in the > > response emerge and form into a response? How is typing done? How is > > it that it is sent? How is it that any of this is done? It can be > > done, but how? There are no definitive answers and it is not possbile > > to reach such answers. It does not arise from a " you " or a describable > > " Being. " This does not mean there is nothingness. It also does not > > mean that " you " are used by a " Self. " > > > > None of it can be explained precisely in words. It is all > > " unknowable. " The best that can be done is make a story that > > approximates and this is good enough for communicating and for > > pragmatic uses. That is all that is done here. To believe the stories > > as real is error. There is no one to one correspondence in anyway > > between a story and " what is. " Such approximations allow going on. > > They are only that. > > > > To whom is a post directed? Conventionally, it is directed to " Fuzzie " > > a label that stands for.........I AM or ? And what is that I AM? I ask > > you, please describe I AM. If you cannot describe I AM other than to > > say " it is " or " I AM " what does that say to you? Is I AM a person or > > personal? Then please describe it? I AM stands for.....? > > > > Of course, a reified I AM feels better than the sensation of > > unknowableness, that is neither being nor non-being, but is this about > > feelings or security or what is right. > > > > To describe I AM is to undo neti, neti. Being unknowable and > > indescribable and impersonal, " I AM " is not nothingness or Nihilism. > > Believing I AM to be otherwise can amount to self-idolatry. Pronouns > > are only that and stand in for that which unknowable and makes > > expression and communication possible. There is no difference in > > positions if it is not imagined that nihilism or nothingness is held > > by those who say there is no doer and that reification of the Self or > > Nirguna Brahman is not done. > > > > Love, > > > > Lewis > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > Hello, Lewis: > > > > Good to hear from you again. > > > > As per our discussion, of course, I was not talking about reifying the > > words or concepts " I AM " , or, " being " , etc., when I use this > > terminology. I assumed beforehand that it was a given that words act > > as signs or symbols for that to which they refer; a " representamen " , > > as Peirce would call them. > > > > It is becoming more readily apparent, as I continue posting on these > > forums, that what I am trying to discuss has a tendency to be > > dramatically misunderstood. Perhaps I am not articulating it very > > well. It can be somewhat frustrating, at times. > > > > You asked me to describe I AM. It can only be described through > > self-realization, as I AM is the self. So, I have to ask you: Do you > > exist? > > > > This seems to be a difficult question for the regulars on this forum, > > and, usually results in evasive rambling or various forms of denial or > > completely ignoring it (i.e. ignorance). So, take your time, if you > > need it. > > > > > > > > Yours, > > > > fuzzie > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > Dear fuzzie, > > > > And it is good to hear from you too. We are moving along. > > > > Yes, it is clear that you are not speaking of reification. It is also > > not always clear what is being said and what is experienced or > > realized. And therefore there will be conversations at cross purposes > > and this can be worked through to mutual understanding without > > assumptions. It is not useful to assume, to imagine what is being > > said. So we try to open it up to reveal what is being said. This is > > what is being done in these conversations. > > > > It is not always apparent that the use of " Self " or " I AM " or " no one " > > or " no doer " in conversation is used and understood by the writer (s) > > as symbol or concept standing for something else or as a belief or > > reification or as fact or as a pointer pointing to.... There are those > > who assert they are I AM period versus pointing to it or noticing it > > as a beginning point and not a terminus or some other way of using it. > > For example, Nisargadatta speaks of " I AM " and " I AMness " and there > > are many clear expressions that these are points to pass through and > > into that, which is neither being nor non-being...So, questions are > > asked requests are made to clarify what is meant. > > > > As it is found in your answer, I AM is indescribable and ordinary > > reason, logic, and description crumbles in that and that defies > > explication, description of any kind. Yet, there is an " unknowing > > knowing " of that, that is, that is as it is without any support of any > > kind and there is only a " quiet dumbfoundedness. " No answer can be > > made beyond what was made above which is not an answer or description > > of I AM only inexplicable recognition. Here is well met. To the > > question " do I exist, " the same answer that is no answer applies and > > the " unknowing knowing " of that is, perhaps, mutual. What can be said > > Fuzzie? Is there a difference between the labels " I AM " and " no one? " > > There seems that none to be found, both are inexplicable and > > indescribable and neither implies nothingness. There seems to be only > > a different approach to the same. And there are others. None is > > superior to the other, just different labels and pointings. Is that > > place of quiet dumbfoundedness about this mutual? > > > > Love, > > > > Lewis > > > Hello, Lewis: > > You are an excellent pen pal. > > Yes, I think we're on the same page, but, coming at it from different > verbal angles. I generally tend to use the old vernacular that > Nisargadatta and his cohorts used, as opposed to the more trendy > 'guru-speak' of the postmodern neo-Advaitin school. But, to clarify, > the expression " I AM " does not refer to a thing; it is what is, > whatever that is. > > > > You wrote: " It is not useful to assume, to imagine what is being said. > So we try to open it up to reveal what is being said. This is what is > being done in these conversations. " > > My weakness is assuming that others are already enlightened (which > they are, but, most don't know it, yet). So, I use a phrase like " I > AM " in discussion, and, most everyone assumes I am sitting here > chanting " I AM, I AM " over and over in some kind of deranged, hypnotic > reverie, or, something to that effect. And, that's not what I'm > talking about at all. And, often it is difficult to clarify these > matters as many will resort to knee jerk reactions, and, then, > typecast and label you accordingly. Often, I just give up in > continuing the dialogue out of frustration. > > But, it's been a pleasure dialoguing with you, Lewis Burgess. You have > brought to my attention some of the flaws and weaknesses in my > communication skills. You have also given me more insight into how to > discuss that which cannot be discussed (cf. the " Tao Te Ching " for > more details on that). > > > > Yours truly, > > fuzzie>> This is a great dialogue. Let's keep it going. C'mon everybody, put your hands together for fuzzie and Lewis! C'mon, Give it up!!! Mr. emcEee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.