Larry: Questions and Answers

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , epston wrote:

>

> L.E: Thank you for the patience and generosity of your answer.

Not easy to understand, but I'll try if trying will help.

> You must be carrying a huge bubble of thinking energy around

your head. Everything you write may be accurate and true, but

there is massive intellectual complexity in your expression.

Quite amazing. Where or how do you store it all when you are

not using it? Does it ever all give you a headache or pull your

head down to your knees? I mean, it must weigh something,

your thinking is soooo heavy.

 

Not at all. It's very light. I just express as clearly as I can in

words, what is not confinable within words. So, perhaps, it

seems complex and heavy if you're trying to figure it out.

Because it can't be figured out. And I'm not trying to imply that

one could figure it out. So, take the words lightly (or not, as the

case may be :-)

 

> I really respect what you have developed or accomplished.

Perhaps Bill has a greater affinity to your style of expression.

Have you read Michael Adamson's postings? He's very complex

and detailed. As I said, I find your ideas complex, rich in

meaning, but hard for me to understand. I kind of look at the

page and say, WOW! Look at that!

 

That's cool. I like that! (Now the nondual police will descend

and say: You are so dual, Dan, you said you like something

someone said, you enjoy someone praising what you wrote --

you are so, so dual... lol)

 

If someone is astonished and says " wow " that's cool with me.

Being astonished, and saying " awesome " (only not in words

necessarily) - what could be finah?

 

> My inner experience is very clear and simple although words

pour out at times when stimulated, but mostly it is only the

outside that is inside. The room, the tree, the house, the car.

There it is, here inside. But thinking, ideas, words, and pictures

do pour out. I don't know where it comes from, it just happens by

itself it seems.

 

Where does anything come from?

 

The same place, some other place -- where oh where?

 

And while we're on this topic - who put the bop in the bop she

bop shee bop - who put the ram in the ram-a-lama-ding dong?

 

> What needs to come forth, comes forth. All of this is hidden

from observation except when it pours out, and then I also say,

Amazing! How strange it all is.

 

What is infinitely complex is awesomely simple.

 

Too clearly simple for words, too amazingly complex for words.

 

-- Dan

[Guest guest]

On 5/9/06, dan330033 <dan330033 wrote:

> Nisargadatta , epston wrote:

> >

> > L.E: Thank you for the patience and generosity of your answer.

> Not easy to understand, but I'll try if trying will help.

> > You must be carrying a huge bubble of thinking energy around

> your head. Everything you write may be accurate and true, but

> there is massive intellectual complexity in your expression.

> Quite amazing. Where or how do you store it all when you are

> not using it? Does it ever all give you a headache or pull your

> head down to your knees? I mean, it must weigh something,

> your thinking is soooo heavy.

>

> Not at all. It's very light. I just express as clearly as I can in

> words, what is not confinable within words. So, perhaps, it

> seems complex and heavy if you're trying to figure it out.

> Because it can't be figured out. And I'm not trying to imply that

> one could figure it out. So, take the words lightly (or not, as the

> case may be :-)

>

> > I really respect what you have developed or accomplished.

> Perhaps Bill has a greater affinity to your style of expression.

> Have you read Michael Adamson's postings? He's very complex

> and detailed. As I said, I find your ideas complex, rich in

> meaning, but hard for me to understand. I kind of look at the

> page and say, WOW! Look at that!

>

> That's cool. I like that! (Now the nondual police will descend

> and say: You are so dual, Dan, you said you like something

> someone said, you enjoy someone praising what you wrote --

> you are so, so dual... lol)

 

Such an important point.

" Immersion in Now " (one way of many for referring to experience

that is nondual) does not mean what there are no thoughts,

that there are no feelings, that there is no experience.

 

Most anyone who has lost the sense of self-consciousness such

as to dissolve into Now knows this (I did say " most " ... as there

can be exceptions).

 

The kind of freedom embraced as " doing whatever one wants " does

not necessary mean a dissolution of self-consciousness and a

melting into undifferentiated Nowness.

 

It does work the other way, however: dissolution of

self-consciousness and a melting into undifferentiated Nowness

*does entail* a " doing whatever one wants " .

 

There are those that embrace the freedom of " doing whatever one

wants " and believe they are self-realized.

 

But with immersion in Now there is no belief about whether one is

self-realized or any other " state " . And a complete indifference

about the matter. It is seen as an " old topic " , no longer relevant.

 

[no I don't think you don't already know all of this. but it

is helpful to me to put some of these things into words.

an perhaps you will be able to comment on what strikes you

as particularly clear, or muddy!]

 

> If someone is astonished and says " wow " that's cool with me.

> Being astonished, and saying " awesome " (only not in words

> necessarily) - what could be finah?

>

> > My inner experience is very clear and simple although words

> pour out at times when stimulated, but mostly it is only the

> outside that is inside. The room, the tree, the house, the car.

> There it is, here inside. But thinking, ideas, words, and pictures

> do pour out. I don't know where it comes from, it just happens by

> itself it seems.

 

Some members here have trouble with the notion that

the words " just come " , that there is not " someone "

that is doing the writing.

 

I occurred to me recently that reality of that might

be gotten across by pointing out how speaking in

real time with a " live person " can flow very

spontaneously, that it is clear that words arise to

be spoken, and *are* spoken, without any intentional

effort in the matter. And then, by analogy, perhaps

they can then see it is at least possible for words

to so present in writing (even if they haven't

experienced such themselves! (ouch!)).

 

> Where does anything come from?

>

> The same place, some other place -- where oh where?

>

> And while we're on this topic - who put the bop in the bop she

> bop shee bop - who put the ram in the ram-a-lama-ding dong?

 

Such a good question!

 

It is the same " one " that has no name, and can be found nowhere.

 

It is the same " one " that invented the smile.

 

It is the same " one " that first cried on beholding

unbearable beauty.

 

 

> > What needs to come forth, comes forth. All of this is hidden

> from observation except when it pours out, and then I also say,

> Amazing! How strange it all is.

>

> What is infinitely complex is awesomely simple.

>

> Too clearly simple for words, too amazingly complex for words.

 

indeed

 

you've put it very succintly in that little nutshell.

 

Larry is right that I do enjoy your postings such as this.

 

It can be very interesting to strip away the layers, one

by one, much like an archaeologist dusting away layers of

soil.

 

But it takes a very detached, distilled way of looking and

writing to do so. And it also takes a penchant for this

type of analysis.

 

I've known you as long as anyone in . I still

remember the first great Aha! that I ever got from

participating on a list group, and it was from something

you said to me. I had had a transformative experience and

was anxious to share about that with others. Your words

brought me to see that the same detached allowing I was

concerned to discuss applied also to the process of

discussing that. Aha!

 

While I have enjoyed innumerable insights from comments

of others over the years since, that first one retains

a special place.

 

And it also correlates with the area of special value I

find in our exchanges: skill in means

 

That first Aha! from you was about skill in means.

And exchanges such as this one are for me about skill in

means as well. You will put something differently than I

will, and in comparing the two I get a higher-dimension

insight into how that can be talked about.

 

If there is anything I am passionate about it is skill in

means. I do long to reach out across the Great Void

to those who are just fictions but, nevertheless...

 

Bill

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <illusyn wrote:

 

Hi Bill --

 

You wrote, in part:

 

> I've known you as long as anyone in . I still

> remember the first great Aha! that I ever got from

> participating on a list group, and it was from something

> you said to me. I had had a transformative experience and

> was anxious to share about that with others. Your words

> brought me to see that the same detached allowing I was

> concerned to discuss applied also to the process of

> discussing that. Aha!

>

> While I have enjoyed innumerable insights from comments

> of others over the years since, that first one retains

> a special place.

>

> And it also correlates with the area of special value I

> find in our exchanges: skill in means

>

> That first Aha! from you was about skill in means.

> And exchanges such as this one are for me about skill in

> means as well. You will put something differently than I

> will, and in comparing the two I get a higher-dimension

> insight into how that can be talked about.

 

Yes, there's a skill involved, and a co-participation in the

constructing. Why does one construction give a sense of opening,

clarity, or " boom! this is it " -- and another doesn't? Who knows?

Call it skill, awareness of context, co-participation in meaning

construction (and deconstruction).

 

The co-participation seems key - without that ... nada.

 

> If there is anything I am passionate about it is skill in

> means. I do long to reach out across the Great Void

> to those who are just fictions but, nevertheless...

 

Yes, there is no " other " involved - hence no " self " to get something

out of the exchange.

 

It is as it is.

 

-- Dan

[Guest guest]

On 5/11/06, dan330033 <dan330033 wrote:

> Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <illusyn wrote:

>

> Hi Bill --

>

> You wrote, in part:

>

> > I've known you as long as anyone in . I still

> > remember the first great Aha! that I ever got from

> > participating on a list group, and it was from something

> > you said to me. I had had a transformative experience and

> > was anxious to share about that with others. Your words

> > brought me to see that the same detached allowing I was

> > concerned to discuss applied also to the process of

> > discussing that. Aha!

> >

> > While I have enjoyed innumerable insights from comments

> > of others over the years since, that first one retains

> > a special place.

> >

> > And it also correlates with the area of special value I

> > find in our exchanges: skill in means

> >

> > That first Aha! from you was about skill in means.

> > And exchanges such as this one are for me about skill in

> > means as well. You will put something differently than I

> > will, and in comparing the two I get a higher-dimension

> > insight into how that can be talked about.

>

> Yes, there's a skill involved, and a co-participation in the

> constructing. Why does one construction give a sense of opening,

> clarity, or " boom! this is it " -- and another doesn't? Who knows?

> Call it skill, awareness of context, co-participation in meaning

> construction (and deconstruction).

>

> The co-participation seems key - without that ... nada.

 

Once in a while a message on this list will have an " arresting "

quality. It is as if there is electricity shooting through me

when I read it (with your " boom! " you perhaps mean a similar

sort of thing).

 

What you just wrote there is an example.

 

And the key word is " co-participation " .

 

I've often used the term co-creation, but I might like

co-participation even better.

 

Openness and vulnerability are essential whether alone

or with " others " . But to really create something meaningful

beyond " oneself " means engaging with others. And when engaging

with others there must be really hearing the other (and I

don't mean just words) and really speaking authentically.

And there must be openness to the implications of what is

heard and spoken. There cannot be artificial borders drawn

that pretend to anticipate the possibilities.

 

It is that rich dynamic of open engagement that your

term co-participation speaks to so richly.

 

And when engagement with an " other " is involved, there is

another key ingredient: trust.

 

For example, if I did not trust you then I most likely

would not have written what I wrote in my previous message.

And it seems to me that trust in this sense cannot be

automatic, universal, and generic. Perhaps for the Dali

Lama that is the case. I don't know. But it certainly is

not for me. I am willing to give someone a try. But if

they show themselves unworthy of trust... then I will not

be able to engage in a co-participative process with them.

It will instead be rather limited.

 

If someone could enlighten me on this matter, I would love

to hear. But it seems to me that trust is not something

that can be unconditional (even if love can be).

 

Bill

 

 

 

> > If there is anything I am passionate about it is skill in

> > means. I do long to reach out across the Great Void

> > to those who are just fictions but, nevertheless...

>

> Yes, there is no " other " involved - hence no " self " to get something

> out of the exchange.

>

> It is as it is.

>

> -- Dan

>

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <illusyn wrote:

 

> Openness and vulnerability are essential whether alone

> or with " others " . But to really create something meaningful

> beyond " oneself " means engaging with others. And when engaging

> with others there must be really hearing the other (and I

> don't mean just words) and really speaking authentically.

> And there must be openness to the implications of what is

> heard and spoken. There cannot be artificial borders drawn

> that pretend to anticipate the possibilities.

 

True. An openness to the movement of life energy, as it is.

 

> It is that rich dynamic of open engagement that your

> term co-participation speaks to so richly.

>

> And when engagement with an " other " is involved, there is

> another key ingredient: trust.

>

> For example, if I did not trust you then I most likely

> would not have written what I wrote in my previous message.

> And it seems to me that trust in this sense cannot be

> automatic, universal, and generic. Perhaps for the Dali

> Lama that is the case. I don't know. But it certainly is

> not for me.

 

Anyone who trusts all people blindly, equally, will not last very long

in this world as it is.

 

At the same time, people seem to have a basic orientation of trust or

mistrust. If the sense of mistrust is deeply held, it can make

everything seem black and white, me against everyone else, no one can

be trusted. If there is basic trust, a person allows for

opportunities to trust, although this isn't blind or unreal trust.

 

 

> I am willing to give someone a try. But if

> they show themselves unworthy of trust... then I will not

> be able to engage in a co-participative process with them.

> It will instead be rather limited.

 

Sure. I agree. So, we co-participate at all times, but our

co-participation may involve a withdrawal. If I withdraw from someone

else, that doesn't mean that any ultimate separation in the fabric of

reality occurred. We had spoken of " contact " before. So, what you

are talking about is the degree of contact between two people, based

on trust or mistrust. The contactless truth remains as is, undisturbed.

 

> If someone could enlighten me on this matter, I would love

> to hear. But it seems to me that trust is not something

> that can be unconditional (even if love can be).

 

Talking about whether to trust another or not trust the other - one is

in the realm of making contact or moving away from contact. The

unconditional isn't making contact with anything or moving away from

contact with anything.

 

These two apparently different truths or realms are not separate from

each other -- yet they sure sound separate once we talk about them,

think about them, communicate regarding what they (supposedly) mean!

 

-- Dan

[Guest guest]

On 5/11/06, dan330033 <dan330033 wrote:

> Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <illusyn wrote:

>

> > Openness and vulnerability are essential whether alone

> > or with " others " . But to really create something meaningful

> > beyond " oneself " means engaging with others. And when engaging

> > with others there must be really hearing the other (and I

> > don't mean just words) and really speaking authentically.

> > And there must be openness to the implications of what is

> > heard and spoken. There cannot be artificial borders drawn

> > that pretend to anticipate the possibilities.

>

> True. An openness to the movement of life energy, as it is.

>

> > It is that rich dynamic of open engagement that your

> > term co-participation speaks to so richly.

> >

> > And when engagement with an " other " is involved, there is

> > another key ingredient: trust.

> >

> > For example, if I did not trust you then I most likely

> > would not have written what I wrote in my previous message.

> > And it seems to me that trust in this sense cannot be

> > automatic, universal, and generic. Perhaps for the Dali

> > Lama that is the case. I don't know. But it certainly is

> > not for me.

>

> Anyone who trusts all people blindly, equally, will not last very long

> in this world as it is.

>

> At the same time, people seem to have a basic orientation of trust or

> mistrust. If the sense of mistrust is deeply held, it can make

> everything seem black and white, me against everyone else, no one can

> be trusted. If there is basic trust, a person allows for

> opportunities to trust, although this isn't blind or unreal trust.

 

yes... good point

 

>

> > I am willing to give someone a try. But if

> > they show themselves unworthy of trust... then I will not

> > be able to engage in a co-participative process with them.

> > It will instead be rather limited.

>

> Sure. I agree. So, we co-participate at all times, but our

> co-participation may involve a withdrawal. If I withdraw from someone

> else, that doesn't mean that any ultimate separation in the fabric of

> reality occurred. We had spoken of " contact " before. So, what you

> are talking about is the degree of contact between two people, based

> on trust or mistrust. The contactless truth remains as is, undisturbed.

 

wow... I like the way you bring contact in here...

beautiful

 

> > If someone could enlighten me on this matter, I would love

> > to hear. But it seems to me that trust is not something

> > that can be unconditional (even if love can be).

>

> Talking about whether to trust another or not trust the other - one is

> in the realm of making contact or moving away from contact. The

> unconditional isn't making contact with anything or moving away from

> contact with anything.

>

> These two apparently different truths or realms are not separate from

> each other -- yet they sure sound separate once we talk about them,

> think about them, communicate regarding what they (supposedly) mean!

 

yes... you have captured something in a thimble there...

 

and so many conversations that run off into the ditch

can be seen in that subtle distinction, where one party

is talking about the one the the second party responds in

terms of the other.

 

and this is where co-paricipation is vital. if the listening

to the other is not a sympathetic listening... it just is not

going to be a good conversation.

 

co-participation means trying to understand what the other

*is* saying, not finding an interpretation that does not

makes sense and so ridiculing the other for speaking

nonsense.

 

but that pattern of no-participation runs rife on this list,

it seems to me.

 

 

Bill