Guest guest Posted April 19, 2006 Report Share Posted April 19, 2006 In a message dated 4/19/2006 10:34:53 AM Pacific Daylight Time, dan330033 writes: > Inquiry is into the agitation and the self which constitutes as agitation. > With a target for one's agitation, energy moves into dramas, and away > from inquiry. > Without a target, there is only the agitation one is, and > self-confrontation. > There is no other " course " for inquiry. > Validating one's self through dramas requiring the other is not inquiry. > > -- Dan > > L.E: If I understand you, the self is agitation which is movement which occurrs in time. Is that correct? And one target for agitation or self is another self that is also agitation. When two selves interact, they are agitating each other more than the agitation that occurrs when they are alone. Is that correct? And when this happens, drama or the events of that interaction stops inquiry or self understanding. Right? Without a target, or involvement with another, or probably any situation self-confrontation stops. The first problem is, what is self-confrontation? To confront is to stand in front of or oppose, so who or what confronts who or what? The self confronts the ego? The agitated self is confronts the non-agitated self, the ego confronts the mind, the mind confronts the ego? What is this confrontation? Then there is the question of inquiry. Who or what is inquiring? Are you inquiring or questioning the contents of the mind, or feelings or what? Does the ego start to examine or ask the mind about its nature? How does an inquiry take place without someone who asks and someone who answers? And even if there are two, one of whom is inquiring about the other, how do you know if what you understand as you inquire is true or honest or valid? Larry Epston Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 19, 2006 Report Share Posted April 19, 2006 In a message dated 4/19/2006 3:23:23 PM Pacific Daylight Time, dan330033 writes: > But it's not that you have some other kind of knowing in another > sphere. It's simultaneous with the movement we construe as time and > relationship. It's just that nothing is being " held " here, so to > speak. And that differentiates it from the usual kind of self-knowing > through interacting with an other, which involves holding the image of > other with self, in relation, comparing and contrasting, having > feelings, making and losing contacts, and so on. > > You don't make contact with who you are. > > That is what is " timeless " about this knowing. > > -- Dan > > L.E: Well Dan, you are very generous with you efforts to offer further explanation. Will you do one thing for me? Please mark my statements with my initials so it is easier to read what I said as distinct from what you said, even if you don't want to mark what you wrote with your own initials. Aside from that, I could only understand small parts of what you wrote but I'm sure your words will be helpful to others who read your post. Is it really that complex, that complicated that it takes so many words to describe. I guess so. I mean a statement like " ALL LIFE IS ONE ORGANISM " seems rather barren compared to your writings. I'll read it again to see if I can extract more, but is it possble to give a simpler explanation? Is your statement an intellectual description of a natural process, like it could take thousands of words just to describe an apple. Where one can say, an apple in your hand and mouth is better than one hundred thousand words trying to describe an apple. Larry Epston Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 20, 2006 Report Share Posted April 20, 2006 Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > > In a message dated 4/19/2006 10:34:53 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > dan330033 writes: > > > Inquiry is into the agitation and the self which constitutes as agitation. > > With a target for one's agitation, energy moves into dramas, and away > > from inquiry. > > Without a target, there is only the agitation one is, and > > self-confrontation. > > There is no other " course " for inquiry. > > Validating one's self through dramas requiring the other is not inquiry. > > > > -- Dan > > > > > L.E: If I understand you, the self is agitation which is movement which > occurrs in time. Is that correct? The fragmentation of an observer from the observed is the basis for time, and the movement of a self through time. That division is also the basis for agitation, that is, for frustration through innumerable kinds of potential conflict. And one target for agitation or self is another > self that is also agitation. The self is an imagined division and fragmentation. This division is the basis for perceptiving an externally existent agitated self in conflict with an internally existent agitated self ( " you " with " me " ). When two selves interact, they are agitating > each other more than the agitation that occurrs when they are alone. Is that > correct? Not necessarily. And their mutual agitation of each other isn't able to occur except for the individual agitation of self imagined as divided apart from the other. And when this happens, drama or the events of that interaction stops > inquiry or self understanding. Right? It is the investment in the drama that is actually an avoidance of inquiry. Inquiry isn't wanted because it generates increased anxiety for the self. Ultimately, the anxiety is based on the awareness that the self has no ground on which to stand. Without a target, or involvement with > another, or probably any situation self-confrontation stops. > The first problem is, what is self-confrontation? To confront is to stand in > front of or oppose, so who or what confronts who or what? One confronts one's own groundlessness, I suppose you could say. Not as something apart from oneself, but as the awareness that one's self is avoidance, and nothing but avoidance. That is, the division of self from other requires an avoidance of what actually is so, which is non-division. The self confronts > the ego? The agitated self is confronts the non-agitated self, the ego > confronts the mind, the mind confronts the ego? What is this confrontation? See above. > Then there is the question of inquiry. Who or what is inquiring? Are you > inquiring or questioning the contents of the mind, or feelings or what? All of that. Anything that can be experienced as " had " ... as " me. " Does the > ego start to examine or ask the mind about its nature? The beginning and the end are simultaneous. The inquirer, that which is being inquired into, and the end of inquiry are simultaneous (i.e., timeless knowing). > How does an inquiry > take place without someone who asks and someone who answers? There isn't a lack of someone; there isn't someone missing, someone who isn't there. Nor is there someone who is there, someone who is " had " as " me. " If an assumed someone in time isn't there, that isn't a lack or someting missing. It's just the end of an attempted assumption that doesn't work. And even if there > are two, one of whom is inquiring about the other, how do you know if what > you understand as you inquire is true or honest or valid? The honesty, validity, and integrity are simultaneous with the non-attachment to or as " self. " There is no other involved or postulated, hence no self to know itself by and through the other. So, it's a different order of knowing than the usual way we believe we know ourselves, which is in relation to and with others who give us feedback about ourselves, and vice versa -- which of course all depends on a situational point of view and experience construed in time. But it's not that you have some other kind of knowing in another sphere. It's simultaneous with the movement we construe as time and relationship. It's just that nothing is being " held " here, so to speak. And that differentiates it from the usual kind of self-knowing through interacting with an other, which involves holding the image of other with self, in relation, comparing and contrasting, having feelings, making and losing contacts, and so on. You don't make contact with who you are. That is what is " timeless " about this knowing. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 20, 2006 Report Share Posted April 20, 2006 Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > L.E: Well Dan, you are very generous with you efforts to offer further > explanation. Will you do one thing for me? > Please mark my statements with my initials so it is easier to read what I > said as distinct from what you said, even if you don't want to mark what you > wrote with your own initials. Aside from that, I could only understand small > parts of what you wrote but I'm sure your words will be helpful to others who read > your post. Is it really that complex, that complicated that it takes so many > words to describe. I guess so. I mean a statement like " ALL LIFE IS ONE > ORGANISM " seems rather barren compared to your writings. I'll read it again to > see if I can extract more, but is it possble to give a simpler explanation? Is > your statement an intellectual description of a natural process, like it > could take thousands of words just to describe an apple. Where one can say, an > apple in your hand and mouth is better than one hundred thousand words trying to > describe an apple. > > Larry Epston Yes, Larry -- the apple one eats, or which eats one, is a timeless now-moment that doesn't come from somewhere else into this. And that isn't the apple as described or explained. It already includes and is all that is. Unspeakable suchness or thusness. There isn't really any explanation, because an explantion requires a separated explainer and explained-to, the explained about and the explanation about it, which is offered separate from it. As a human being one offers words to communicate, or perhaps gestures or postures -- but these modes of communicating or being can't give totality - if totality could be given, or expressed (or meditated upon, or gestured), it would be something less than what it is. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 20, 2006 Report Share Posted April 20, 2006 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > In a message dated 4/19/2006 10:34:53 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > > dan330033@ writes: > > > > > Inquiry is into the agitation and the self which constitutes as > agitation. > > > With a target for one's agitation, energy moves into dramas, and away > > > from inquiry. > > > Without a target, there is only the agitation one is, and > > > self-confrontation. > > > There is no other " course " for inquiry. > > > Validating one's self through dramas requiring the other is not > inquiry. > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > > > L.E: If I understand you, the self is agitation which is movement > which > > occurrs in time. Is that correct? > > The fragmentation of an observer from the observed is the basis for > time, and the movement of a self through time. > > That division is also the basis for agitation, that is, for > frustration through innumerable kinds of potential conflict. > > And one target for agitation or self is another > > self that is also agitation. > > The self is an imagined division and fragmentation. > > This division is the basis for perceptiving an externally existent > agitated self in conflict with an internally existent agitated self > ( " you " with " me " ). > > When two selves interact, they are agitating > > each other more than the agitation that occurrs when they are alone. > Is that > > correct? > > Not necessarily. > > And their mutual agitation of each other isn't able to occur except > for the individual agitation of self imagined as divided apart from > the other. > > And when this happens, drama or the events of that interaction stops > > inquiry or self understanding. Right? > > It is the investment in the drama that is actually an avoidance of > inquiry. > > Inquiry isn't wanted because it generates increased anxiety for the > self. Ultimately, the anxiety is based on the awareness that the self > has no ground on which to stand. > > Without a target, or involvement with > > another, or probably any situation self-confrontation stops. > > The first problem is, what is self-confrontation? To confront is to > stand in > > front of or oppose, so who or what confronts who or what? > > One confronts one's own groundlessness, I suppose you could say. > > Not as something apart from oneself, but as the awareness that one's > self is avoidance, and nothing but avoidance. > > That is, the division of self from other requires an avoidance of what > actually is so, which is non-division. > > The self confronts > > the ego? The agitated self is confronts the non-agitated self, the ego > > confronts the mind, the mind confronts the ego? What is this > confrontation? > > See above. > > > Then there is the question of inquiry. Who or what is inquiring? > Are you > > inquiring or questioning the contents of the mind, or feelings or > what? > > All of that. Anything that can be experienced as " had " ... as " me. " > > Does the > > ego start to examine or ask the mind about its nature? > > The beginning and the end are simultaneous. > > The inquirer, that which is being inquired into, and the end of > inquiry are simultaneous (i.e., timeless knowing). > > > How does an inquiry > > take place without someone who asks and someone who answers? > > There isn't a lack of someone; there isn't someone missing, someone > who isn't there. Nor is there someone who is there, someone who is > " had " as " me. " > > If an assumed someone in time isn't there, that isn't a lack or > someting missing. It's just the end of an attempted assumption that > doesn't work. > > And even if there > > are two, one of whom is inquiring about the other, how do you know > if what > > you understand as you inquire is true or honest or valid? > > The honesty, validity, and integrity are simultaneous with the > non-attachment to or as " self. " > > There is no other involved or postulated, hence no self to know itself > by and through the other. > > So, it's a different order of knowing than the usual way we believe we > know ourselves, which is in relation to and with others who give us > feedback about ourselves, and vice versa -- which of course all > depends on a situational point of view and experience construed in time. > > But it's not that you have some other kind of knowing in another > sphere. It's simultaneous with the movement we construe as time and > relationship. It's just that nothing is being " held " here, so to > speak. And that differentiates it from the usual kind of self-knowing > through interacting with an other, which involves holding the image of > other with self, in relation, comparing and contrasting, having > feelings, making and losing contacts, and so on. > > You don't make contact with who you are. > > That is what is " timeless " about this knowing. > > -- Dan > " You don't make contact with who you are. " Nice one! Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 20, 2006 Report Share Posted April 20, 2006 > > > > That is what is " timeless " about this knowing. > > > > -- Dan > > > All knowing is within time. > You don't make contact with who you are. Quite simply..........because there is no you. toombaru > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 20, 2006 Report Share Posted April 20, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > > > > > > > That is what is " timeless " about this knowing. > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > All knowing is within time. > > All knowledge occurs within illusory........conceptual separation. Knowing that......is enlightenment. > > > > > You don't make contact with who you are. > > > > Quite simply..........because there is no you. > > > > > toombaru > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 20, 2006 Report Share Posted April 20, 2006 In a message dated 4/19/2006 4:57:55 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 22:20:58 -0000 " dan330033 " <dan330033 Re: Self Confrontation and Self Inquiry Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > > In a message dated 4/19/2006 10:34:53 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > dan330033 writes: > > > Inquiry is into the agitation and the self which constitutes as agitation. > > With a target for one's agitation, energy moves into dramas, and away > > from inquiry. > > Without a target, there is only the agitation one is, and > > self-confrontation. > > There is no other " course " for inquiry. > > Validating one's self through dramas requiring the other is not inquiry. > > > > -- Dan > > > > > L.E: If I understand you, the self is agitation which is movement which > occurrs in time. Is that correct? The fragmentation of an observer from the observed is the basis for time, and the movement of a self through time. That division is also the basis for agitation, that is, for frustration through innumerable kinds of potential conflict. And one target for agitation or self is another > self that is also agitation. The self is an imagined division and fragmentation. This division is the basis for perceptiving an externally existent agitated self in conflict with an internally existent agitated self ( " you " with " me " ). When two selves interact, they are agitating > each other more than the agitation that occurrs when they are alone. Is that > correct? Not necessarily. And their mutual agitation of each other isn't able to occur except for the individual agitation of self imagined as divided apart from the other. And when this happens, drama or the events of that interaction stops > inquiry or self understanding. Right? It is the investment in the drama that is actually an avoidance of inquiry. Inquiry isn't wanted because it generates increased anxiety for the self. Ultimately, the anxiety is based on the awareness that the self has no ground on which to stand. Without a target, or involvement with > another, or probably any situation self-confrontation stops. > The first problem is, what is self-confrontation? To confront is to stand in > front of or oppose, so who or what confronts who or what? One confronts one's own groundlessness, I suppose you could say. Not as something apart from oneself, but as the awareness that one's self is avoidance, and nothing but avoidance. That is, the division of self from other requires an avoidance of what actually is so, which is non-division. The self confronts > the ego? The agitated self is confronts the non-agitated self, the ego > confronts the mind, the mind confronts the ego? What is this confrontation? See above. > Then there is the question of inquiry. Who or what is inquiring? Are you > inquiring or questioning the contents of the mind, or feelings or what? All of that. Anything that can be experienced as " had " ... as " me. " Does the > ego start to examine or ask the mind about its nature? The beginning and the end are simultaneous. The inquirer, that which is being inquired into, and the end of inquiry are simultaneous (i.e., timeless knowing). > How does an inquiry > take place without someone who asks and someone who answers? There isn't a lack of someone; there isn't someone missing, someone who isn't there. Nor is there someone who is there, someone who is " had " as " me. " If an assumed someone in time isn't there, that isn't a lack or someting missing. It's just the end of an attempted assumption that doesn't work. And even if there > are two, one of whom is inquiring about the other, how do you know if what > you understand as you inquire is true or honest or valid? The honesty, validity, and integrity are simultaneous with the non-attachment to or as " self. " There is no other involved or postulated, hence no self to know itself by and through the other. So, it's a different order of knowing than the usual way we believe we know ourselves, which is in relation to and with others who give us feedback about ourselves, and vice versa -- which of course all depends on a situational point of view and experience construed in time. But it's not that you have some other kind of knowing in another sphere. It's simultaneous with the movement we construe as time and relationship. It's just that nothing is being " held " here, so to speak. And that differentiates it from the usual kind of self-knowing through interacting with an other, which involves holding the image of other with self, in relation, comparing and contrasting, having feelings, making and losing contacts, and so on. You don't make contact with who you are. That is what is " timeless " about this knowing. -- Dan It's nice to have you here, Dan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 20, 2006 Report Share Posted April 20, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > > > > > > > That is what is " timeless " about this knowing. > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > All knowing is within time. Then how is what you say there known? I'm not playing word games. It seems an open question... Perhaps a totally open, complete attention is itself a kind of knowing, a knowing utterly distinct from " ordinary knowing " , a knowing not *of* anything in particular, but a dynamic knowing of What Is. I went back to the original message from which you clipped the bit you responded to. Interestingly, Dan explicitly addresses the point of a " different kind of knowing " : So, it's a different order of knowing than the usual way we believe we know ourselves, which is in relation to and with others who give us feedback about ourselves, and vice versa -- which of course all depends on a situational point of view and experience construed in time. But it's not that you have some other kind of knowing in another sphere. It's simultaneous with the movement we construe as time and relationship. It's just that nothing is being " held " here, so to speak. And that differentiates it from the usual kind of self-knowing through interacting with an other, which involves holding the image of other with self, in relation, comparing and contrasting, having feelings, making and losing contacts, and so on. You don't make contact with who you are. That is what is " timeless " about this knowing. It isn't fair, really, to take on his last statement there out of context of all that wonderful clarification he has provided around the special sense of " knowing " that he is using, and which is not at all addressed by your remark. Realizing that " Now is the case " is a distinct kind of knowing in itself. But it isn't the *end*. It is just a beginning... of something very very new. And yes, a *beginning* within timelessness... > > You don't make contact with who you are. > > Quite simply..........because there is no you. > Or is it that there is no " you " because there is no contact? Works equally well both ways it seems, provided " no contact " is allowed to stand for " evidence " in general. I.e.: " Is it that there is no 'you' because there is no evidence? " Also, is the statement: " You don't make contact with who you are. " any different from: " You don't make contact with what you are. " Comparable to asking if God is personal or impersonal. Bill PS: Good to hear from you again Toombaru. I was *just thinking today* that it would be nice should you appear and Shazam! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 20, 2006 Report Share Posted April 20, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > > > > > > > That is what is " timeless " about this knowing. > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > All knowing is within time. > All Poohs like honey. > > > You don't make contact with who you are. > > > > Quite simply..........because there is no you. There is no you that is missing, that isn't there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 20, 2006 Report Share Posted April 20, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > That is what is " timeless " about this knowing. > > > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All knowing is within time. > > > > > All knowledge occurs within illusory........conceptual separation. > > > > Knowing that......is enlightenment. This is timeless knowing. And being timeless knowing ...... enlightenment is illusory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 20, 2006 Report Share Posted April 20, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > I went back to the original message from which you > clipped the bit you responded to. Interestingly, > Dan explicitly addresses the point of a " different > kind of knowing " : > > So, it's a different order of knowing than the usual > way we believe we know ourselves, which is in relation > to and with others who give us feedback about > ourselves, and vice versa -- which of course all > depends on a situational point of view and experience > construed in time. > > But it's not that you have some other kind of knowing > in another sphere. It's simultaneous with the > movement we construe as time and relationship. It's > just that nothing is being " held " here, so to speak. > And that differentiates it from the usual kind of > self-knowing through interacting with an other, which > involves holding the image of other with self, in > relation, comparing and contrasting, having feelings, > making and losing contacts, and so on. > > You don't make contact with who you are. > > That is what is " timeless " about this knowing. > > It isn't fair, really, to take on his last statement > there out of context of all that wonderful clarification > he has provided around the special sense of " knowing " > that he is using, and which is not at all addressed > by your remark. Yes, you're right, Bill. That's why I bothered to provide the clarification you cite. Thanks for reading my remark within its context, as presented. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 21, 2006 Report Share Posted April 21, 2006 --- dan330033 <dan330033 a écrit : Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > > > > > > > That is what is " timeless " about this knowing. > > > > > > -- Dan > > > > > > All knowing is within time. > All Poohs like honey. > > > You don't make contact with who you are. > > > > Quite simply..........because there is no you. There is no you that is missing, that isn't there. ...................................... Toombaru, are you a chess player? Patricia ** If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: /mygroups?edit=1 Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. 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.