Larry's Correction

[Guest guest]

On Dec 31, 2005, at 11:14 PM, Nisargadatta wrote:

 

> epston

> Re: Larry's Corrections

>

> In a message dated 12/31/2005 9:42:22 AM Pacific Standard Time,

> pedsie4 writes:

>

>> To become 'What is'

>> all beliefs must be dropped, dig?

>>

>

> L.E. You're still in the before stage,

> I'm in the after stage.

 

 

P: That's, definitely, a belief your ego

feeds on. Plainly, you believe the words

of others can insult you, and cause

you discomfort.

>

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/31/2005 9:42:22 AM Pacific Standard Time,

pedsie4@e... writes:

> > > Pete: To become 'What is' all beliefs must be dropped, dig?

 

> > Larry E.: You're still in the before stage, I'm in the after

> > stage.

 

> Pete: That's, definitely, a belief your ego feeds on. Plainly,

> you believe the words of others can insult you, and cause you

> discomfort.

 

Hi Pete,

 

Your assumption that according to you Larry apparently CAN and DOES

" believe that words of others can insult " , also speaks to the

conclusion that you - possibly underhandedly and possibly unbeknownst

to you - also still believe that very same belief, the only difference

being that you may profess not to be affected by that belief, thus

being uninsultable or some such.

That is not at all the same though as having " dropped the belief "

altogether. When the belief is dropped radically altogether, suddenly

a deep insight into suffering and insult results... an insight

accompanied and exemplified by what we tend to recognize as

'compassion' in bodhisattvic beings.

 

Hence, Pete, might it not be good to inquire for yourself if you

yourself have actually really fully " dug, " applied and realized your

own statement that " all beliefs must be dropped to become 'What is'?!

 

Of course the statement " ...to BECOME 'What is'... " is in itself

somewhat flawed, you might as well also inquire into that also.

 

Obviously one cannot " ...become 'what is'... " , one just simply

recognizes that 'what is' is already. Hence 'tat tuam asi' & 'tat sat'.

 

On another forum, a few months ago (you might remember) I already

pointed to the fact that in Sanskrit root words such as 'BHU' or 'BU'

(the original Sanskrit roots from which the English words 'being', the

German 'bin' and 'bist') that in those early roots (BHU and BU) the

notions of 'being' and 'becoming' had not separated out yet.

If anything, initially BHU or BU expressed both (later derived)

notions simultaneously and indistinguishably.

It shows that the 'wise ones of yore' recognized an a priori oneness

in the energetics of being: 'stasis' and 'dynamis' were not separated

out -- in their realization of pure unadulterated being there was no

need for that.

The need for that subsequent separation of meaning (e.g. 'being' vs.

'becoming') became relevant after 's e e m i n g l y' successful

attempts at 'adulteration of being' by those exploiting illusive power

over others; an exploitation that produced various dualist

distinctions and divergences such as 'being vs. becoming', 'essence

vs. existence', 'us vs. them', 'me vs. you', 'good vs. bad', 'I vs.

ego', even 'punishment vs. reward', etc. -- ergo: anything to do with

the affliction of conflict.

Purposely, those distinctions got rationally identified and justified

by those perusing them, and henceforth they became engrammatically

imprinted into minds made 'fallow' and 'dependant'.

When in that manner 'illusive estrangement from direct reality'

(showing up as inner and outer conflict) had been brought about by the

ploys of manipulating and maneuvering power abusers, the illusion of

separation between 'being' (compare Niz's " I am That " ) and 'becoming'

(in the sense of not staying who you are but becoming what you ought

to be), was made to appear more real than the reality of unmediated

unconditional being itself. ('tat tuam asi', 'tat sat')

Only after the 'illusive estrangement from direct unconditional and

immediate being' (the affliction of conflict in suffering) was

artificially forced into the minds of those manipulated and 'c o n

d i t i o n a l l y' conditioned that way, became it important to

point at the 'rip', the 'tear', the 'separation' and thus 'becoming'

and 'being' took on distinct meanings.

Ever since, more recent 'wise ones' (one of them being the Buddha)

endeavored to help those who put themselves under their guidance, to

let go of that illusion by pointing at the dynamics of how that

illusion is brought about, thus gaining understanding and insight

(Vipassana) into what suffering or 'dukkha' is...

Etymologically 'dukkha' can be understood as being 'led astray or away

from oneself'. The Sanskrit root 'DU' means 'to go' or 'to lead'. One

can still find that root in English words like seduction, conduct,

production, etc. and in... the Italian 'Il Duce' (Mussolini)

The Sanskrit root KA means 'cut away' as in 'cathode' and

'catastrophe'. A connection between KA and -kkha is possible.

 

 

Wim

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Wim Borsboom "

<wim_borsboom> wrote:

 

>The need for that subsequent separation of meaning (e.g. 'being' vs.

>'becoming') became relevant after 's e e m i n g l y' successful

>attempts at 'adulteration of being' by those exploiting illusive

power over others; an exploitation that produced various dualist

>distinctions and divergences such as 'being vs. becoming', 'essence

>vs. existence', 'us vs. them', 'me vs. you', 'good vs. bad', 'I vs.

>ego', even 'punishment vs. reward', etc. -- ergo: anything to do

>with the affliction of conflict.

 

Very interesting.

 

I have also heard the idea that the separation between " me " and " God "

is the result of the separation process that you have just described.

According to them (i.e. Barry Long) " God " means originally " human

being " . Consequently the attributes of a God are the attributes that

man/women have used to describe themselves, as beings who are not

separated from being. The new priests in the process of developing

their power, have projected the Gods to another, external, mythical

world. And monotheism still places God as an external, omnipotent

power, external from " me " , who is the sinner.

 

The idea that we are sinners, opposed to externally projected romantic

ideals like God, Mother Earth, Nature or whatever, seems to be so

deeply rooted, that my (admittedly provocative) statement " we are the

emperors " even here provoked furious protest.

 

I do not have linguistic or historic evidence for what I said, but

maybe, as you seem to know a lot about linguistic connections, can you

confirm or correct what I suspect?

 

Best wishes

Stefan

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@o...> wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " Wim Borsboom "

> <wim_borsboom> wrote:

>

> >The need for that subsequent separation of meaning (e.g. 'being' vs.

> >'becoming') became relevant after 's e e m i n g l y' successful

> >attempts at 'adulteration of being' by those exploiting illusive

> power over others; an exploitation that produced various dualist

> >distinctions and divergences such as 'being vs. becoming', 'essence

> >vs. existence', 'us vs. them', 'me vs. you', 'good vs. bad', 'I vs.

> >ego', even 'punishment vs. reward', etc. -- ergo: anything to do

> >with the affliction of conflict.

>

> Very interesting.

>

> I have also heard the idea that the separation between " me " and " God "

> is the result of the separation process that you have just described.

> According to them (i.e. Barry Long) " God " means originally " human

> being " . Consequently the attributes of a God are the attributes that

> man/women have used to describe themselves, as beings who are not

> separated from being. The new priests in the process of developing

> their power, have projected the Gods to another, external, mythical

> world. And monotheism still places God as an external, omnipotent

> power, external from " me " , who is the sinner.

>

> The idea that we are sinners, opposed to externally projected romantic

> ideals like God, Mother Earth, Nature or whatever, seems to be so

> deeply rooted, that my (admittedly provocative) statement " we are the

> emperors " even here provoked furious protest.

>

> I do not have linguistic or historic evidence for what I said, but

> maybe, as you seem to know a lot about linguistic connections, can you

> confirm or correct what I suspect?

>

> Best wishes

> Stefan

>

 

Thanks Stefan for picking up on this.

 

Yes, there is linguistic evidence for " God " or " divine " to mean

" human " (Notice I'm not saying 'man').

Apart from linguistic evidence there are of course:

(1)Jesus of Nazareth who was seen and realized as being

god/(hu)man..., too bad that the ecclesiastical tradition that

followed him only allowed his followers to assign that

designation/identification only to him and not to

themselves/cum/others...

(2) God/Princes/Kings as in (amongst many others!) the early Indian,

Indo-Chinese and Chinese princedoms and kingdoms. (Certain Chinese

dynasties, Khmer lands now being Cambodia, Thailand, Cham, Laos,

Vietnam, various Indonesian Islands). Too bad (again) also that

divinity became too concentrated in the king/prince/ruler although

certain Hinayana/Theravada traditions allowed for the human to recover

their divinity)

Ah, these are very broad brush strokes

(3), etc, etc.

 

About linguistic evidence- just a few quick (somewhat oblique)

strokes...

(a) Have you ever picked up one those tiny, cheap brass mini-statues

of various Tibetan deities? (Using the word 'deity' on purpose.) When

you turn them upside down and look at the base, you are supposed to

find a small round red copper insert. (Although, the recent cheap ones

don't have it anymore.) If you are lucky (as the less previous cheap

ones don't have that anymore either) you will find a tiny mark stamped

into that copper dot, it is the Sanskrit letter " da " and it stands for

" giver " : giver of life... father... daddy. (Interesting that the name

Jupiter derives from Deus/Pater or Zeus/Pater, the primeval father,

life giver and provider) Well, as every male child can become a

father, fatherhood exemplifies identification with and participation

in the divinity of the primeval father. So the son is god as well

(compare Jesus the God/Man being the Son of God) etc.

 

(OK OK, this is very masculine, feminine evidence is as strong..., the

goddess/woman culture. Devi, diva... and so on.

(Adi Da, alias Da Free John, alias Franklin Jones used this titelature

very cleverly... too bad that he and his followers... etc., etc... :-)

 

Anyway, that mark, the letter 'da', is the same 'da' that gave rise to

the Sanskrit root DA from which eventually Latin words like do or dare

(to give) derived. Now we have English words like datum, donation,

data (givens).

 

(b) Then there are the old ancient names like Adama and Adapa, Adam,

etc. - names pointing to the first human(s) who was (were) able to

reflect on... you guessed it: 'intrinsic divinity'.

Remember Adam in Eden, who discoverd to be equal to God?!

Too bad that his birth father (probably a jealous man, a tribal leader

from a hunter/gatherer clan who was losing his power base who might

even have been a Peeping Tom or am I too naughty now :-), too bad that

this man was peeking in on the pastoral life that Adam and his mate

and friends had invented and were developing (husbandry and

agriculture) therefore he cursed his son and wife and their offspring

into perpetuity " per omnia saecula saeculorum " (Good thing curses do

not stick forever...) It looks like it went kind of downhill from

there for humankind, losing sight of its innate human/divine nature,

having it degrade to some kind of inhumane nature (non-human nature)

that was not kind to humankind nor the environment in which it

lived... were it not !!! that subsequent humans were able to pick up

from were Adam/Eve were seemingly (but not really) forced to leave off...

© Etc, Etc....

 

Gosh... :-)))

 

Wim