Guest guest Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 Beware of anchor words floating like buoys. The mind is a scared octopus always trying to cling to those. The mind suffers from vacuum phobia, and will use words such As " I " Self, God, or even Being to give itself substance and weight. If you already had a taste of floating, then anchor words are no longer needed, and must be examined, and made light because the timid octopus will hold to them for dear life. Mind is a contraction, a coagulation of what is. The essence of this contraction is identification and preoccupation. The mind seeks substantiality by identification with anchor words such as " Being. " The first thing to point out is that grammatically no such noun exist to designate a primary existential condition. Being is the present participle of the verb to be. Some even use words such as Beingness, or Isness which are also grammatically incorrect. IMO, the word existence is preferable, not only it's grammatically correct, but it offers less support for identification. Can the mind be used when needed, and then let go to float without holding on to anchor words? Surely it can, if we rigorously examine such terms to clearly see that they lack the substance which the mind craves. Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 Nisargadatta , Pete S <pedsie4@e...> wrote: > > Beware of anchor words floating like buoys. > The mind is a scared octopus always > trying to cling to those. The mind suffers > from vacuum phobia, and will use words > such As " I " Self, God, or even Being to give > itself substance and weight. > > If you already had a taste of floating, then > anchor words are no longer needed, and > must be examined, and made light because > the timid octopus will hold to them for dear > life. Mind is a contraction, a coagulation of > what is. The essence of this contraction is > identification and preoccupation. The mind > seeks substantiality by identification with > anchor words such as " Being. " > > The first thing to point out is that grammatically > no such noun exist to designate a primary > existential condition. Being is the present > participle of the verb to be. Some even use > words such as Beingness, or Isness which > are also grammatically incorrect. IMO, the > word existence is preferable, not only it's > grammatically correct, but it offers less support > for identification. > > Can the mind be used when needed, and then > let go to float without holding on to anchor words? > Surely it can, if we rigorously examine such terms > to clearly see that they lack the substance which > the mind craves. > > Pete > Hi Pete, Yes, any*thing* if used for *identification* makes wrong identification. When God, being, Self, I AM, I, Infiniti, Existence, Awareness is seen as a *thing* that someone can identify with then, that too becomes a means for wrong identification. These words are only used as pointers to the Reality that can be felt within but can not be expressed via words. Once we know it, we also know all these words point to it. If we don't know it... going within is the only way and any word used as a *substitute* for the *direct experience* will simply serve as another obstacle! That goes for any word used! Yet, the verbal communication can not happen without using words in spite of the limitation that the words have. People use words that they find closer to what they want to express. Some use words like nothing, void, Infiniti... some use existence, being, Life, Truth... some use Self, I, I AM! .... It is not really possibly to conclude form use of one *word* such as Self, I, I AM, Being, Existence that the speaker must be latching for *support*. Neither is it possible to conclude from the use of another *word* such as void, nothingness, no-existence, I am not, " I know I am not " that the speaker is completely free, liberated and surrendered! Often, it is also unnecessary and hazardous! Whether the speaker is free or not is often less relevant than the state of *reader*! If reader is free... he/she knows what is being talked about. Even if the reader has had a glimpse of TRUTH... he/she still knows what is being talked about! Words become far less important in that case as the reader *too* knows that the TRUTH can not be fully expressed via language and in the end; all means of communication are inadequate. Going within is the only way to Know! No reading of words can really compensate the lack of direct experience! Once we know... any word form Self, I, I AM, God, Existence, Void, Nothingness, Infiniti can point to it. If we don't know it... and, try to *understand* it via *reading* alone... any word can become a hindrance and wrong identification - be it God, Allah, Vishnu or Self, I, Nothing... Existence! If reader knows the truth... he knows it and he knows too the words are not it. If he/she is still unaware of TRUTH... going within is the only way, practice is the way, meditation is the way, and inquiry is the way... and, the words are just pointers! Discussion about specific terms and words are often not that necessary and when it comes to expressing TRUTH no word can express it fully. People use what they find closer or more direct or more useful and to large extent, it depends on the speaker's own experience with and understanding of these words. For example, for someone *nothing* can denote *lack of thing* and thus, he might find it a *wrong* word to express TRUTH that doesn't *lack anything for someone else *nothing* might simply mean *not a thing*... the formless! Same goes for other words like mind, MIND, consciousness, Consciousness, self, Self, I, I AM ... regards, ac. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 Nisargadatta , Pete S <pedsie4 wrote: > > > Can the mind be used when needed, and then > let go to float without holding on to anchor words? > Surely it can, if we rigorously examine such terms > to clearly see that they lack the substance which > the mind craves. > > Pete > SamanthaT7: Pete, your words have often confused me and maybe you could explain - or not - whatever. Getting to this " space " your speaking of, is it not just another goal or thing? Is the purpose to rid oneself of this dual nature or to manipulate it in some way while while still somehow **in** it or experiencing it? I have used the " I AM " method which can help bring one out of the anchoring of " i " and into a different sense. And have used questions to help clarify but they come from a decidedly phsycologically based motive space (perhaps that label isn't correct.) Your question, " Can the mind be used when needed, and then let go to float without holding on to anchor words? " It seems that is the big " game " much that Silver doesn't care for that word even though the playground word is acceptable (confusing based on definitions) is what has propelled the seeking world and the duality. The *act* figuring out if _____ can be done during ______. Or the act of perceiving or observing it all or being focused on either an experiencer or the one observing the experience. And what else is there than variations of this? This is the thing the non-duality hopefuls seem to rush to get rid of (by needing to label it as illusion or dream and therefore non-real) at the same time attempting to observe. It's the long held game to stay in this witness state *while* being in a non-dual type of environment such as humanity. (who cares if it is a dream, consciousness knows it's a dream and doesn't care). You are playing into the old challenge. Which is fine, are you aware that your comment is just this? The same thing that you have often dissed, slammed (criticized) others for doing? The confusing part is that you talk of rigorously examining. How do you propose to do that when you clearly stated in the past that you are not pro psychology. However your non-duality philosophy board is pro philosophy yes? What's the difference. Is there a difference for you? How do you examine if not using some base of psyche wherein to examine with/from? The point of both is man-made ideas and yet you prefer one while poo-pooing on the other. Do you have a reason for this? I personally say that whatever works for a person is fine, given the goal you've set up, which you've stated a fascination for in the above paragraph, yet you have clearly taken a hard stance against the one. awaiting clarification if you have any. Samantha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2006 Report Share Posted February 2, 2006 On Feb 1, 2006, at 2:42 PM, Nisargadatta wrote: > SamanthaT7: Pete, your words have often confused me and maybe you > could explain - or not - whatever. P; Hi Sam, I don't mind mind, explaining my words, once. > S: Getting to this " space " your speaking of, is it not just another > goal or thing? P; The word space was used metaphorically. The mind senses that it is only activity, and fears to stop. It tries to solidify itself by identification with words such as I, or Being, or Consciousness. > Is the purpose to rid oneself of this dual nature or > to manipulate it in some way while while still somehow **in** it or > experiencing it? P: Nothing is needed but, seeing that the mind is just this constant thinking, planning, remembering, protecting, attacking, fearing desiring, hoping etc. And that when that stops nothing bad happens, on the contrary. And that all those activities could be resumed whenever they are needed > > S: I have used the " I AM " method which can help bring one out of the > anchoring of " i " and into a different sense. And have used questions > to help clarify but they come from a decidedly phsycologically based > motive space (perhaps that label isn't correct.) P: How did that go? > > S: It's the long held game to stay in this witness state *while* being > in a non-dual type of environment such as humanity. (who cares if > it is a dream, consciousness knows it's a dream and doesn't care). > You are playing into the old challenge. Which is fine, are you > aware that your comment is just this? The same thing that you have > often dissed, slammed (criticized) others for doing? P: I didn't mention any effort to witness. I didn't mentioned dreams either. I didn't give any advise to witness ( not that it's not a good idea for beginners) I just addressed the looking into identification with words, and why the mind is afraid to stop. > > S: The confusing part is that you talk of rigorously examining. How do > you propose to do that when you clearly stated in the past that you > are not pro psychology. P; Rigorously examining words is semantics, not psychology. I'm not pro psychoanalysis for healthy people; but I'm for studying how the mind works which is a subject of both neurology and psychology. > However your non-duality philosophy board > is pro philosophy yes? What's the difference. P: NDP doesn't mention psychology as one of its topics. Brief discussions of it are not discouraged, and of course, from time to time people try to psychoanalyze each other. Like have you notice that AC is going thru one of his bipolar hyperposting periods. Posting more than five long tirades a day is something I try to discourage. > 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.