Guest guest Posted July 13, 2006 Report Share Posted July 13, 2006 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > > > >D: I am not assuming a separated or separably existing being that has > > a > > > nature of and to itself. > > ok... > > > So, I am not assuming a separately existing " me " or a " you " that > > has a > > > point of view belonging to it, which " me " or " I " is supposed to get > > > free from the point of view. The " I " is included in, and is the > > point > > > of view. > > > I: you say that the I is the point of view itself...yes ? > > is this by your understanding the ego-I-point-of-view or the > > openness-I-point-of-view...? hehe sorry...but this is entertaining.. > > Glad you're enjoying it. Me, too. > > To me, " openness " as we're using that term is not referring to > something outside of itself, to some other reality or truth. Any > instruction, like, " be here now " is erroneous and misleading. Even to > say, " it always already is so " is misleading, as it implies that some > kind of affirmation of it can be provided, as if everything as is, is > not already fully *this* and something should be conveyed to someone. > > so, the " I-as-point-of-view " is a way to say that a construction comes > together. you can call this construction a point of view, or I, or my > history, or my life. that construction seems to be referring to > something outside of itself, like words seem to refer to states of > being for example, or to objects, or to relations with people. and > like I seem to refer to you, and to actions I took, or take, or will > take, and so on. > > > Therefore, presenting a point of view about an " I " that has > > > no point of view, is contradictory. > > > exactly what are you saying here ? > > That it's contradictory to propose a construct that has no constructs. > > Do not the " I " which perceives, which knows, and " that " which is > perceived and known arise together as " perception " -- > > and the perception is only validated in terms of the " I " experiencing > it and the object, state, or quality being experienced and known. > > so, it breaks down if observed closely and can't be validated - > including the " knower " of it. > > which isn't saying that it's unreal. because the term " unreal " is > also validated perceptually, and through a knower of the term. > > > > > I don't assume, as you seem to, that there is such a thing as a > > > now-moment that can go against its own nature. > > > -- D. > > you could say that there is the dream...and if not seen for what it > > is(mind)...it can be taken for the real...and if taken for the > > real...then you take yourself for what you are not.... > > and if you take yourself for what you are not > > then youre in the dream fisching for the fantasy-fish...from your > > dream-boat...in the fantasy-sea... > > ...iietsa > > this is similar to what I'm saying above about " perception. " > > so, we are in the funny position of speaking as if we could speak in a > dream about the dream being a dream -- as if we were not an aspect of > it, as if we were in a position to give a description of what it is. > > -- D. > You wrote: " so, we are in the funny position of speaking as if we could speak in a dream about the dream being a dream -- as if we were not an aspect of it, as if we were in a position to give a description of what it is. " It was Einstein that pointed out that it is not possible to give a description of the system from " outside " if the observer is part of the system described. But when you say: > To me, " openness " as we're using that term is not referring to > something outside of itself, to some other reality or truth. Any > instruction, like, " be here now " is erroneous and misleading. Even to > say, " it always already is so " is misleading, as it implies that some > kind of affirmation of it can be provided, as if everything as is, is > not already fully *this* and something should be conveyed to someone. your comments only apply to *giving an objective description of the system*. An injunction such as " be here now " is not a description of the system. When seen in terms of programming, the injunction " be here now " is a programming of the listener to " activate " in some way (which may be widely variably interpreted by the listener). To say the injunction is " erroneous " is to interpret it as a description, which it is not. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2006 Report Share Posted July 13, 2006 --- dan330033 <dan330033 wrote: > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart > wrote: > > Hi Bill -- > > You wrote: > > > You wrote: > > " so, we are in the funny position of speaking as if we could speak in > > a > > dream about the dream being a dream -- as if we were not an aspect of > > it, as if we were in a position to give a description of what it is. " > > > > It was Einstein that pointed out that it is not possible to give > > a description of the system from " outside " if the observer is > > part of the system described. > > The observer is not apart from the observed. > > The describer isn't apart from the described. > > > But when you say: > > > To me, " openness " as we're using that term is not referring to > > > something outside of itself, to some other reality or truth. Any > > > instruction, like, " be here now " is erroneous and misleading. Even > > to > > > say, " it always already is so " is misleading, as it implies that > > some > > > kind of affirmation of it can be provided, as if everything as is, > > is > > > not already fully *this* and something should be conveyed to > > someone. > > > > your comments only apply to *giving an objective description of the > > system*. > > Those comments were about instructions to do something a certain way, > as well as about attempts to describe. > > > An injunction such as " be here now " is not a description of the > > system. > > It's an instruction to do something a certain way. > > > When seen in terms of programming, the injunction " be here now " is > > a programming of the listener to " activate " in some way (which may > > be widely variably interpreted by the listener). To say the injunction > > is " erroneous " is to interpret it as a description, which it is not. > > No, I'm interpreting it as an instruction, which is what I said. > > The listener you are referring to is the observer is the observed is > the speaker. > > The doer is the done to is the doing. > > An injuncton to do something presupposes that there is some change > that needs to occur, as if somehow something would make it more of > what it already is. > > The observer already always is the observed. > > Saying that " this is the way it is, " doesn't add anything to the > (noverbalizable) situation. Saying " do this " or " don't do that " > doesn't change anything about what is immediately always already the case. > > This includes everything that I am saying about it, and you are saying > about it, and Joe Blow down the street is saying about it. > > -- Dan > Consider ten different statements to a person in a given context all with the same words " be here now " but each with different non-verbal qualities, i.e. different tones of voice, different body language, etc. Those ten statements are not all instructions to do a certain thing a certain way. They are all " environmental effects " on the listener. You might say that the verbalizations " massage " the listener in different ways. You can't take the statement out of the context of its use and determine its meaning. Its meaning is really its " organic effect " in the actuality of its occurance. Or consider an hypnotist that says to a client that has just come into his office for an appointment, " Just sit down and relax for a moment, we will get started in a few minutes. " He is giving an injunction (a hypnotic suggestion to relax etc). But it is not to do a certain thing in a certain way. Each different client will respond uniquely, and even the same client differently on different days. But the tone of giving suggestions is already set. And that is what the hypnotist is really after. He doesn't care that different individuals will respond differently. What he is really after (in my imaginary example) is setting up the " suggestion relationship " . Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2006 Report Share Posted July 13, 2006 Nisargadatta , pliantheart <pliantheart wrote: > Consider ten different statements to a person in a given context > all with the same words " be here now " but each with different > non-verbal qualities, i.e. different tones of voice, different > body language, etc. Those ten statements are not all instructions > to do a certain thing a certain way. They are all " environmental > effects " on the listener. You might say that the verbalizations > " massage " the listener in different ways. You can't take the > statement out of the context of its use and determine its meaning. > Its meaning is really its " organic effect " in the actuality of > its occurance. > > Or consider an hypnotist that says to a client that has just > come into his office for an appointment, " Just sit down and > relax for a moment, we will get started in a few minutes. " > He is giving an injunction (a hypnotic suggestion to relax > etc). But it is not to do a certain thing in a certain way. > Each different client will respond uniquely, and even the same > client differently on different days. But the tone of giving > suggestions is already set. And that is what the hypnotist is > really after. He doesn't care that different individuals will > respond differently. What he is really after (in my imaginary > example) is setting up the " suggestion relationship " . > > Bill Hi Bill -- Thanks for your observations here. A suggestion relationship as you're discussing involves an implication of distance and separation. You have two beings, one of which influences the other, presumably but not necessarily, in a desired direction. Or you have an environment influencing a being. In hypnosis, there would be a desired direction, hopefully toward health and well-being if it is a professional hypnotist consulted about a difficulty, although certainly these kinds of techniques can (and often are) used for personal aggrandisement of various sorts. And one observes this dynamic is going on all the time, through advertisements, religious practices and icons, music, in business relationships, when shopping, etc. You have the desired direction vs. the undesired direction or perhaps the undesired lack of direction. You have the use of means to obtain a result. You have one being which is conditioned supposedly affecting the conditioning of another conditioned being toward a " beneficial " (we hope) end result. None of this can show, demonstrate, make experiential, or otherwise verify or validate " the unconditioned and unconditional. " Yet, if we are discussing experiences within conditionality, that implies the nonconditional. Just discussing " events within time " implies a timeless being that can't be discussed, " conditioning received from environmental cues " implies the unconditional being. and yes, being and non-being co-arise and mutually co-define. or should I say, no, being and non-being don't co-arise and don't co-define? Anyway, back to the issue of environmental influence. At the point where there is no separative division between subject and object, you can't define a being apart from the environment. So, this, then is the unconditional. Samsara is nirvana, and the unconditional is right in the midst of the conditional, conditions, and conditioning. Nothing to communicate, no way to evaluate influencing (influence upon what or whom, from where or whence) -- yet here it is. -- D. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 14, 2006 Report Share Posted July 14, 2006 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , pliantheart <pliantheart@> wrote: > > > Consider ten different statements to a person in a given context > > all with the same words " be here now " but each with different > > non-verbal qualities, i.e. different tones of voice, different > > body language, etc. Those ten statements are not all instructions > > to do a certain thing a certain way. They are all " environmental > > effects " on the listener. You might say that the verbalizations > > " massage " the listener in different ways. You can't take the > > statement out of the context of its use and determine its meaning. > > Its meaning is really its " organic effect " in the actuality of > > its occurance. > > > > Or consider an hypnotist that says to a client that has just > > come into his office for an appointment, " Just sit down and > > relax for a moment, we will get started in a few minutes. " > > He is giving an injunction (a hypnotic suggestion to relax > > etc). But it is not to do a certain thing in a certain way. > > Each different client will respond uniquely, and even the same > > client differently on different days. But the tone of giving > > suggestions is already set. And that is what the hypnotist is > > really after. He doesn't care that different individuals will > > respond differently. What he is really after (in my imaginary > > example) is setting up the " suggestion relationship " . > > > > Bill > > Hi Bill -- > > Thanks for your observations here. > > A suggestion relationship as you're discussing involves an implication > of distance and separation. You have two beings, one of which > influences the other, presumably but not necessarily, in a desired > direction. Or you have an environment influencing a being. In > hypnosis, there would be a desired direction, hopefully toward health > and well-being if it is a professional hypnotist consulted about a > difficulty, although certainly these kinds of techniques can (and > often are) used for personal aggrandisement of various sorts. And one > observes this dynamic is going on all the time, through > advertisements, religious practices and icons, music, in business > relationships, when shopping, etc. Expanding further then, the " desired direction " can be unconscious, it can be " open " . For example, I have encountered a chimpanzee in the wild (suppose I am a professional primatologist) and standing face to face in a clearing there is an air of mutual curiosity. There are gestures, movements, sounds by both parties. One could *say* that the interactions are " exploratory " , but that is not explicitly the case. I am just " going with the flow " , it is an adventure. Suppose further that the relationship develops and the chimp and I engage in various " communicative exchanges " . Things I was doing at the outset certainly contributed to the outcome. Yet there was no explicit " desired outcome " , no " desired direction " except in the vaguest sense. Something deeper was going on. Or alternatively, I have encountered another human being, say in a coffee shop, a discussion develops, a sense of " kindredness " , even of a " deep connection " (which means what? consciously only very vague, but WHAT IT MEANS CONSCIOUSLY DOES NOT CONSTRAIN WHAT IT IS), and so a meaningful relationship develops. Again various " suggestive " expressions of body language, tone of voice, and words used would have been involved. But nothing *explicit* in the way of a " desired direction* need be entailed. And in both cases to analyze it as " two beings " interacting with objectives is not a good fit, as I see it. I can better see it as the " whole " of What Is interacting with itself, as it were. In the end it all -- whatever it is -- dissolves into oneness. There is no analytical breakdown of " what is going on " that is real in any fundamental sense, including even the notion of " oneness " . And my point is that a statement such as " be here now " *could be* just a " massage " statement, an outflow of words that has no explicit aim, is simply intuitively felt as " to be said " and is thus spoken. Nothing need be *read into* such a statement, any more than anything need be read into the fall of a leaf from a tree. > You have the desired direction vs. the undesired direction or perhaps > the undesired lack of direction. You have the use of means to obtain a > result. You have one being which is conditioned supposedly affecting > the conditioning of another conditioned being toward a " beneficial " > (we hope) end result. > > None of this can show, demonstrate, make experiential, or otherwise > verify or validate " the unconditioned and unconditional. " > > Yet, if we are discussing experiences within conditionality, that > implies the nonconditional. > > Just discussing " events within time " implies a timeless being that > can't be discussed, " conditioning received from environmental cues " > implies the unconditional being. > > and yes, being and non-being co-arise and mutually co-define. > > or should I say, no, being and non-being don't co-arise and don't > co-define? > > Anyway, back to the issue of environmental influence. > > At the point where there is no separative division between subject and > object, you can't define a being apart from the environment. > > So, this, then is the unconditional. > > Samsara is nirvana, and the unconditional is right in the midst of the > conditional, conditions, and conditioning. > > Nothing to communicate, no way to evaluate influencing (influence upon > what or whom, from where or whence) -- yet here it is. I like your " yet here it is " Conditional and unconditional are " ways of describing " . But description is not what prevails, in my view. The examples of language I have been giving can not be charaterized as giving descriptions. I prefer to view instances of language expression as " speech acts " , the interlocutors as largely imaginary (hypothetical), and what is going on in any " exchange " as simply What Is seeming to be very self-engaged. And the term " seeming " there is operative! At the moment I have no idea what I just wrote to you above. The words seem to " feel their way " ... appearing magically as if emerging from darkness, and as if already formed long in advance. There is no sense here of what this discussion is " about " . From here, anyway, it really is just as if What Is is having fun with itself... Bill > -- 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.