Guest guest Posted June 9, 2006 Report Share Posted June 9, 2006 Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart wrote: > > <snip> > > > > > > > > > > > Yo! Bro! > > > > > > > > > > thazit! > > > > > > > > > > and maybe that is what you mean by " choosing " ... > > > > > > > > > > the step into the center of that cyclone > > > > > > > > > > and saying YES! to it all > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, because " choosing " is the experience of freedom, right? And > > > > that experience of freedom is like flight, like being above it all, > > > > like perfect perspective. And that IS what " you " are, we are, etc. > > > > > > > > When you say, > > > > > > > > " and so then, what is interesting -- from my view -- is to > > > > dissolve focus altogether... let focus get totally soft and to > > > > totally expand... so that focus encompasses all there is. > > > > And so the observer, the witness is as a melted goo folded back > > > > into the batter of Life. The witness has lost its distinction > > > > as witness because focus is no longer defining a 'that' vs. 'this'. > > > > > > > > In other words, I love to let the witness dissolve through its > > > > own process of witnessing... back into the murky primal beginnings > > > > from which it arose. > > > > > > > > When I was quite young and had a chance to play with a TV camera > > > > I found delight in pointing the camera into the monitor. Much fun! > > > > I love to loop things back into themselves so that they undergo > > > > wierd, crazy fusions. I like to break the rules, undercut the > ground, > > > > push the system to a kind of melt-down. " > > > > > > > > Who or what is it that has all that perspective and clarity? > It's the > > > > uber or super or higher witness, the one you really are. The > one that > > > > experienced no melt-down at all, could see it quite clearly. > > > > > > > > Right? > > > > > > > > ~*~ > > > > > > > > > > > > > I notice that the fundamental line in what you write there > > > is the " seeing of " ... (hence the witness notion as primary) > > > > > > But on my end... it is the *dynamic* that is primary. > > > > > > I continually reject concerns about what-is-the-case > > > as stagnant, stale, static. > > > > > > The YES! above has that dynamic. > > > > > > To me the fundmental is Life, not observation, > > > and not any what-is-the-case. > > > > > > To your: > > > " Who or what is it that has all that perspective and clarity? " > > > my reply is, why assume there's a " who " behind it all? > > > I am not compelled by any assumption that there must > > > be an agent behind it all. > > > > > > It's just Life. > > > > > > And Life needs no higher uber-Life to explain it. > > > > > > The perspective and clarity is not " owned " by anything... > > > it is just an emergent property... > > > > > > Life is just dancing... > > > > > > and any qualities that seem to come out of that > > > just seem to come out of that... > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > I'm not disputing any of that. I'm just saying, that it's still you > > observing everything you've just said. > > > > There is the " life is just dancing... " and there is the One that > > notices that. No need to privilege one over the other, the seen over > > the seer nor the seer over the seen. > > > > I'm just asking for acknowledgment that the seeing is seeing, > > You have conveyed the notion of " I am " in a way that I haven't > encountered before. I have been considering it in " the lab " . I > find it quite interesting. My curiousity is piqued. > > But I don't see it as a matter of acknowledgement that the > seeing is seeing. > > Really it is a matter of all of this being absorbed and coming out > in its own way. > > There is no " I " here that has control of any of this. > > I'll just have to get back to you. > > For now it is a matter of digesting. > > > not that > > the seen is the seeing. Otherwise, I feel, we're getting ahead of > > ourselves. > > I wonder what you mean. > > Bill > > > ~*~ > > > OK, let's return to it when you want. But at this point I just want to ask, again, really (you already know my answer): Who or what is saying, " There is no 'I' here that has control of any of this " ? ~*~ > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 9, 2006 Report Share Posted June 9, 2006 <snip> > > > > I notice that the fundamental line in what you write there > > is the " seeing of " ... (hence the witness notion as primary) > > > > But on my end... it is the *dynamic* that is primary. > > > > I continually reject concerns about what-is-the-case > > as stagnant, stale, static. > > > > The YES! above has that dynamic. > > > > To me the fundmental is Life, not observation, > > and not any what-is-the-case. > > > > To your: > > " Who or what is it that has all that perspective and clarity? " > > my reply is, why assume there's a " who " behind it all? > > I am not compelled by any assumption that there must > > be an agent behind it all. > > > > It's just Life. > > > > And Life needs no higher uber-Life to explain it. > > > > The perspective and clarity is not " owned " by anything... > > it is just an emergent property... > > > > Life is just dancing... > > > > and any qualities that seem to come out of that > > just seem to come out of that... > > > > > > Bill > > > > > I'm not disputing any of that. I'm just saying, that it's still you > observing everything you've just said. > > There is the " life is just dancing... " and there is the One that > notices that. No need to privilege one over the other, the seen over > the seer nor the seer over the seen. > > I'm just asking for acknowledgment that the seeing is seeing, not that > the seen is the seeing. Otherwise, I feel, we're getting ahead of > ourselves. > > ~*~ > After some reflection I am revisiting this: re: > I'm just asking for acknowledgment that the seeing is seeing... Do you see how loaded the language is there? Would it be any different for you so say: " I'm just asking for you to *admit*...etc. " ? To you it seems obvious and that I am just refusing to admit the obvious. But it is not only not obvious, it is not even true, in my view. I will try to explain. This is actually a very important point of discussion. It comes up again and again, and what I would like to see in our discussion of this is a *clean*, thorough discussion of it. Passions to the sides. Detached objectivity to the fore. You write: > There is the " life is just dancing... " and there is the One that > notices that. So obvious to you it seems. I have already addressed that, but what I said didn't sink in. How can one *observe* that " life is just dancing " and not acknowledge there is that which so observes! I can see how that seems a pat argument to you. And I don't see a simple way to show you otherwise. So I will have to chip away around the edges at first. To start I will say that I only count what is evident directly. If any inference is involved, then that is not an allowable basis for a conclusion. What you are saying is based on inference. So my first step is to show you how inference is involved. You say: > There is the " life is just dancing... " and there is the One that > notices that. How do you know there is the One that observes it? By direct observation? Of course you can't. Therefore you are inferring that there *must be* One who observes it. As I said, I do not accept inference, hence I do not go along with you on your conclusion. Residing simply in this moment, what *is* directly evident? For me what is directly evident is a brimmingness, an aliveness. I call that brimming aliveness Life. And hence I say there is just Life here. Further, the Reality is beyond language (in my view anyhow). How can a linguistic term ( " I am " ) define what is beyond language. Here is a piece I wrote about " I am " several years ago: In meditating on " I am " , it strikes me that simply " I " is more fundamental than " I am " . There must be an " I " before there can be an " I am " . I meditate on " I " . I say " I " to myself and observe. But I am seeking the source, the deepest origination of this " I " . So I say to myself not " I " , but the tiniest, fractional initial syllable of " I " . I say to myself just the initial aspirant breath of speaking " I " . I witness in myself just the initial *intent* of speaking " I " . Over and over, as an endless string of beads, this initial spark of intent streams out. And I witness that stream. And I know that whatever I am is beyond that stream. What I am ultimately is beyond even the intent. That is a description that goes into it deeply enough that the linguistic terms break down. Ultimately the term " I am " must be left behind. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 9, 2006 Report Share Posted June 9, 2006 Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart wrote: > > <snip> > > > > > > > I notice that the fundamental line in what you write there > > > is the " seeing of " ... (hence the witness notion as primary) > > > > > > But on my end... it is the *dynamic* that is primary. > > > > > > I continually reject concerns about what-is-the-case > > > as stagnant, stale, static. > > > > > > The YES! above has that dynamic. > > > > > > To me the fundmental is Life, not observation, > > > and not any what-is-the-case. > > > > > > To your: > > > " Who or what is it that has all that perspective and clarity? " > > > my reply is, why assume there's a " who " behind it all? > > > I am not compelled by any assumption that there must > > > be an agent behind it all. > > > > > > It's just Life. > > > > > > And Life needs no higher uber-Life to explain it. > > > > > > The perspective and clarity is not " owned " by anything... > > > it is just an emergent property... > > > > > > Life is just dancing... > > > > > > and any qualities that seem to come out of that > > > just seem to come out of that... > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > I'm not disputing any of that. I'm just saying, that it's still you > > observing everything you've just said. > > > > There is the " life is just dancing... " and there is the One that > > notices that. No need to privilege one over the other, the seen > over > > the seer nor the seer over the seen. > > > > I'm just asking for acknowledgment that the seeing is seeing, not > that > > the seen is the seeing. Otherwise, I feel, we're getting ahead of > > ourselves. > > > > ~*~ > > > > After some reflection I am revisiting this: > > re: > > I'm just asking for acknowledgment that the seeing is seeing... > Do you see how loaded the language is there? > Would it be any different for you so say: > " I'm just asking for you to *admit*...etc. " ? > > To you it seems obvious and that I am just refusing > to admit the obvious. But it is not only not obvious, > it is not even true, in my view. I will try to explain. > > This is actually a very important point of discussion. > It comes up again and again, and what I would like > to see in our discussion of this is a *clean*, thorough > discussion of it. Passions to the sides. Detached > objectivity to the fore. > > You write: > > There is the " life is just dancing... " and there is the One that > > notices that. > > So obvious to you it seems. I have already addressed that, > but what I said didn't sink in. How can one *observe* that > " life is just dancing " and not acknowledge there is that which > so observes! > > I can see how that seems a pat argument to you. And I don't > see a simple way to show you otherwise. So I will have to > chip away around the edges at first. > > To start I will say that I only count what is evident directly. > If any inference is involved, then that is not an allowable > basis for a conclusion. What you are saying is based on > inference. So my first step is to show you how inference is > involved. > > You say: > > There is the " life is just dancing... " and there is the One that > > notices that. > How do you know there is the One that observes it? By direct > observation? Of course you can't. Therefore you are inferring > that there *must be* One who observes it. > > As I said, I do not accept inference, hence I do not go along > with you on your conclusion. > > Residing simply in this moment, what *is* directly evident? > For me what is directly evident is a brimmingness, an aliveness. > I call that brimming aliveness Life. And hence I say there is > just Life here. > > Further, the Reality is beyond language (in my view anyhow). > How can a linguistic term ( " I am " ) define what is beyond language. > > Here is a piece I wrote about " I am " several years ago: > > In meditating on " I am " , it strikes me that simply " I " > is more fundamental than " I am " . There must be an " I " > before there can be an " I am " . > > I meditate on " I " . I say " I " to myself and observe. > > But I am seeking the source, the deepest origination of > this " I " . So I say to myself not " I " , but the tiniest, > fractional initial syllable of " I " . I say to myself just > the initial aspirant breath of speaking " I " . I witness > in myself just the initial *intent* of speaking " I " . > > Over and over, as an endless string of beads, this > initial spark of intent streams out. And I witness that > stream. > > And I know that whatever I am is beyond that stream. > What I am ultimately is beyond even the intent. > > That is a description that goes into it deeply enough > that the linguistic terms break down. > > Ultimately the term " I am " must be left behind. > > Bill > Cool! I know exactly what you mean. Very good points. Nevertheless.... OK, let's be thorough (I love it). Let's start with " To start I will say that I only count what is evident directly. > If any inference is involved, then that is not an allowable > basis for a conclusion. What you are saying is based on > inference. So my first step is to show you how inference is > involved. " Yeah, I was afraid you'd say that. Damn! OK, let's dissect that. And I LOVE your skepticism, by the way. What is inference? (Without inferring anything about inference.) Is it based on a fully fleshed out experience of certainty, or is it a kind of ethereal and passing speculation lacking permanence, fleeting? Seems to me that it's a fully fleshed out experience of certainty... (hold on) .... that speculation about the very possibility -- that something may eventually lead to -- a more fully fleshed out experience of certainty. (Is this too obvious, or is there some uncertainty about it?) There seems to be a present and immediate sense that inference will, or can, or has, lead to something fuller, relatively speaking. Because it's happened " before " that it has. There's a present trace of something " past. " But there is a present trace that it has also happened before that it hasn't lead to anything fully fleshed, that it's been just a mirage leading into nothing " significant, substantial. " There's a present sense that both possibilities coexist. Can we say that we're on the same page with that, so far? (I just don't want to pick up anything heavy. Hell, I don't want to pick anything up at all! I just want to be free as a bird. Wait a minute, I AM That!) ~*~ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 9, 2006 Report Share Posted June 9, 2006 <snip> > > > > After some reflection I am revisiting this: > > > > re: > > > I'm just asking for acknowledgment that the seeing is seeing... > > Do you see how loaded the language is there? > > Would it be any different for you so say: > > " I'm just asking for you to *admit*...etc. " ? > > > > To you it seems obvious and that I am just refusing > > to admit the obvious. But it is not only not obvious, > > it is not even true, in my view. I will try to explain. > > > > This is actually a very important point of discussion. > > It comes up again and again, and what I would like > > to see in our discussion of this is a *clean*, thorough > > discussion of it. Passions to the sides. Detached > > objectivity to the fore. > > > > You write: > > > There is the " life is just dancing... " and there is the One that > > > notices that. > > > > So obvious to you it seems. I have already addressed that, > > but what I said didn't sink in. How can one *observe* that > > " life is just dancing " and not acknowledge there is that which > > so observes! > > > > I can see how that seems a pat argument to you. And I don't > > see a simple way to show you otherwise. So I will have to > > chip away around the edges at first. > > > > To start I will say that I only count what is evident directly. > > If any inference is involved, then that is not an allowable > > basis for a conclusion. What you are saying is based on > > inference. So my first step is to show you how inference is > > involved. > > > > You say: > > > There is the " life is just dancing... " and there is the One that > > > notices that. > > How do you know there is the One that observes it? By direct > > observation? Of course you can't. Therefore you are inferring > > that there *must be* One who observes it. > > > > As I said, I do not accept inference, hence I do not go along > > with you on your conclusion. > > > > Residing simply in this moment, what *is* directly evident? > > For me what is directly evident is a brimmingness, an aliveness. > > I call that brimming aliveness Life. And hence I say there is > > just Life here. > > > > Further, the Reality is beyond language (in my view anyhow). > > How can a linguistic term ( " I am " ) define what is beyond language. > > > > Here is a piece I wrote about " I am " several years ago: > > > > In meditating on " I am " , it strikes me that simply " I " > > is more fundamental than " I am " . There must be an " I " > > before there can be an " I am " . > > > > I meditate on " I " . I say " I " to myself and observe. > > > > But I am seeking the source, the deepest origination of > > this " I " . So I say to myself not " I " , but the tiniest, > > fractional initial syllable of " I " . I say to myself just > > the initial aspirant breath of speaking " I " . I witness > > in myself just the initial *intent* of speaking " I " . > > > > Over and over, as an endless string of beads, this > > initial spark of intent streams out. And I witness that > > stream. > > > > And I know that whatever I am is beyond that stream. > > What I am ultimately is beyond even the intent. > > > > That is a description that goes into it deeply enough > > that the linguistic terms break down. > > > > Ultimately the term " I am " must be left behind. > > > > Bill > > > > > > > Cool! > > I know exactly what you mean. Very good points. Nevertheless.... > > OK, let's be thorough (I love it). Let's start with > > " To start I will say that I only count what is evident directly. > > If any inference is involved, then that is not an allowable > > basis for a conclusion. What you are saying is based on > > inference. So my first step is to show you how inference is > > involved. " > > Yeah, I was afraid you'd say that. Damn! OK, let's dissect that. > And I LOVE your skepticism, by the way. > > What is inference? (Without inferring anything about inference.) > > Is it based on a fully fleshed out experience of certainty, or is it a What's an " experience of certainty " ? Seems like a dubious notion to me. I can have a experience that seems real, actual. But experience of " certainty " ... an experience of an abstraction? Like and experience of " truth " ? Doesn't make sense to me, Sky. > kind of ethereal and passing speculation lacking permanence, fleeting? > > Seems to me that it's a fully fleshed out experience of certainty... this moment I can attune to the vibrant aliveness of what is... there is no *question* of that... how does that relate to what you are talking about? > (hold on) > > ... that speculation about the very possibility -- that something may > eventually lead to -- a more fully fleshed out experience of > certainty. (Is this too obvious, or is there some uncertainty about it?) speculation is out, as far as I am concerned. that's a head trip, right? > There seems to be a present and immediate sense that inference will, > or can, or has, lead to something fuller, relatively speaking. Oh no... a *projection* is what you are talking about? No such projections for me. Only what is, what consciousness can *taste*. > Because it's happened " before " that it has. There's a present trace No, can not go there with you... you want to go there then go there... but I cannot accompany you. Will stop at this point, as expect I have disappointed you enough already. Bill > of something " past. " But there is a present trace that it has also > happened before that it hasn't lead to anything fully fleshed, that > it's been just a mirage leading into nothing " significant, substantial. " > > There's a present sense that both possibilities coexist. > > Can we say that we're on the same page with that, so far? > > (I just don't want to pick up anything heavy. Hell, I don't want to > pick anything up at all! I just want to be free as a bird. Wait a > minute, I AM That!) > > ~*~ > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 9, 2006 Report Share Posted June 9, 2006 Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart wrote: > > <snip> > > > > > > > After some reflection I am revisiting this: > > > > > > re: > > > > I'm just asking for acknowledgment that the seeing is seeing... > > > Do you see how loaded the language is there? > > > Would it be any different for you so say: > > > " I'm just asking for you to *admit*...etc. " ? > > > > > > To you it seems obvious and that I am just refusing > > > to admit the obvious. But it is not only not obvious, > > > it is not even true, in my view. I will try to explain. > > > > > > This is actually a very important point of discussion. > > > It comes up again and again, and what I would like > > > to see in our discussion of this is a *clean*, thorough > > > discussion of it. Passions to the sides. Detached > > > objectivity to the fore. > > > > > > You write: > > > > There is the " life is just dancing... " and there is the One that > > > > notices that. > > > > > > So obvious to you it seems. I have already addressed that, > > > but what I said didn't sink in. How can one *observe* that > > > " life is just dancing " and not acknowledge there is that which > > > so observes! > > > > > > I can see how that seems a pat argument to you. And I don't > > > see a simple way to show you otherwise. So I will have to > > > chip away around the edges at first. > > > > > > To start I will say that I only count what is evident directly. > > > If any inference is involved, then that is not an allowable > > > basis for a conclusion. What you are saying is based on > > > inference. So my first step is to show you how inference is > > > involved. > > > > > > You say: > > > > There is the " life is just dancing... " and there is the One that > > > > notices that. > > > How do you know there is the One that observes it? By direct > > > observation? Of course you can't. Therefore you are inferring > > > that there *must be* One who observes it. > > > > > > As I said, I do not accept inference, hence I do not go along > > > with you on your conclusion. > > > > > > Residing simply in this moment, what *is* directly evident? > > > For me what is directly evident is a brimmingness, an aliveness. > > > I call that brimming aliveness Life. And hence I say there is > > > just Life here. > > > > > > Further, the Reality is beyond language (in my view anyhow). > > > How can a linguistic term ( " I am " ) define what is beyond language. > > > > > > Here is a piece I wrote about " I am " several years ago: > > > > > > In meditating on " I am " , it strikes me that simply " I " > > > is more fundamental than " I am " . There must be an " I " > > > before there can be an " I am " . > > > > > > I meditate on " I " . I say " I " to myself and observe. > > > > > > But I am seeking the source, the deepest origination of > > > this " I " . So I say to myself not " I " , but the tiniest, > > > fractional initial syllable of " I " . I say to myself just > > > the initial aspirant breath of speaking " I " . I witness > > > in myself just the initial *intent* of speaking " I " . > > > > > > Over and over, as an endless string of beads, this > > > initial spark of intent streams out. And I witness that > > > stream. > > > > > > And I know that whatever I am is beyond that stream. > > > What I am ultimately is beyond even the intent. > > > > > > That is a description that goes into it deeply enough > > > that the linguistic terms break down. > > > > > > Ultimately the term " I am " must be left behind. > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cool! > > > > I know exactly what you mean. Very good points. Nevertheless.... > > > > OK, let's be thorough (I love it). Let's start with > > > > " To start I will say that I only count what is evident directly. > > > If any inference is involved, then that is not an allowable > > > basis for a conclusion. What you are saying is based on > > > inference. So my first step is to show you how inference is > > > involved. " > > > > Yeah, I was afraid you'd say that. Damn! OK, let's dissect that. > > And I LOVE your skepticism, by the way. > > > > What is inference? (Without inferring anything about inference.) > > > > Is it based on a fully fleshed out experience of certainty, or is > it a > > What's an " experience of certainty " ? > Seems like a dubious notion to me. > I can have a experience that seems real, actual. > But experience of " certainty " ... an experience of an abstraction? > Like and experience of " truth " ? > Doesn't make sense to me, Sky. > > > kind of ethereal and passing speculation lacking permanence, > fleeting? > > > > Seems to me that it's a fully fleshed out experience of certainty... > > this moment I can attune to the vibrant aliveness of what is... > there is no *question* of that... > > how does that relate to what you are talking about? > > > (hold on) > > > > ... that speculation about the very possibility -- that something > may > > eventually lead to -- a more fully fleshed out experience of > > certainty. (Is this too obvious, or is there some uncertainty > about it?) > > speculation is out, as far as I am concerned. > that's a head trip, right? > > > There seems to be a present and immediate sense that inference will, > > or can, or has, lead to something fuller, relatively speaking. > > Oh no... a *projection* is what you are talking about? > No such projections for me. > Only what is, what consciousness can *taste*. > > > Because it's happened " before " that it has. There's a present trace > > No, can not go there with you... > you want to go there then go there... > but I cannot accompany you. > > Will stop at this point, as expect I have > disappointed you enough already. > > Bill > > > of something " past. " But there is a present trace that it has also > > happened before that it hasn't lead to anything fully fleshed, that > > it's been just a mirage leading into nothing " significant, > substantial. " > > > > There's a present sense that both possibilities coexist. > > > > Can we say that we're on the same page with that, so far? > > > > (I just don't want to pick up anything heavy. Hell, I don't want to > > pick anything up at all! I just want to be free as a bird. Wait a > > minute, I AM That!) > > > > ~*~ > > > Since there's no appointment, There's no disappointment Now who's projecting? :-))) ~*~ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 9, 2006 Report Share Posted June 9, 2006 Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords wrote: > > > > > Because it's happened " before " that it has. There's a present trace > > > > No, can not go there with you... > > you want to go there then go there... > > but I cannot accompany you. > > > > Will stop at this point, as expect I have > > disappointed you enough already. > > > > Bill > > > > Since there's no appointment, > There's no disappointment > > Now who's projecting? > > :-))) > > ~*~ It doesn't matter, as the sense of " I am " is itself projection. If the projection dissolves in disappointment, then disappointment need not be deferred. And as disappointment dissolves, no trace remains. -- D. 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.