share with me/Bill

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart

wrote:

 

in part:

 

> 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.

 

This seems to me to be where we differ.

 

As I'm understanding this, there is no such thing as what is

interacting with itself.

 

Whereas people want interaction, enjoy the stimulation, enjoy the

contact (although not always!).

 

But to have no possibility of contact whatsoever -- this is anathema

to the human being. It is why solitary confinement is such a

difficult state for a human being (and I am no exception!)

 

This is why, in my opinion, the concept of " transcendence " has tended

to accompany the various ways that humans have expressed understanding

what is, as is.

 

And why the motif of " die and be reborn " has tended also to always be

included in such expression.

 

Because contactlessness is associated with death, with loss.

 

> 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 " .

 

You might even say, including *particularly* the idea of oneness,

which tends to have a strong attraction as a way to resolve

differences. For me, the deepest teachings have been negative, as in

neti, neti type stuff. Yet, even those dissolve, of course.

 

> 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.

 

Sure. But then, why are we focusing on that statement? If all words

are equal in terms of *this* -- there is no particular statement to

privilege in terms of understanding or explaining or resolving.

 

snip

 

> Conditional and unconditional are " ways of describing " .

> But description is not what prevails, in my view.

 

It can't.

 

> The examples of language I have been giving can not be

> charaterized as giving descriptions.

 

Language of any sort doesn't " prevail " to use your term.

 

It doesn't matter how you characterize the language.

 

It can't " prevail. "

 

> 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.

 

If you look into language it always involves assumptions.

 

One assumption is that meaning is communicated from point a to point b

by using the language.

 

That assumes a differentiation of the speaker and the hearer, and

assumes that meaning affects states of being.

 

Language assumptions are trancended as *what is*.

 

There are repercussions to transcendence, and they include

the nonfixity of meaning, and the nondivision of any point from any

other point.

 

Language doesn't pertain.

 

Yet, of course, as humans we freely use language to communicate.

 

And humans can have different ways of defining the language they are

using. Your way is valid for you, Joe Blow down the street has his

way that works for him, I have my way, and there must be sufficient

mutuality in our understanding of how words work for us to exchange words.

 

> And the term " seeming " there is operative!

 

The more operative that " seeming " is, the less investment in the

" seeming " interactions.

 

> 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 " .

 

That's fine with me.

 

> From here, anyway, it really is just as if What Is is

> having fun with itself...

 

Well, I get where you're coming from.

 

And I enjoy these exchanges too.

 

At the same time, there is something very, dare I say, " serious " to this.

 

Oh no, I said the taboo word!

 

But if you look at what's going on in the world, it's the

repercussions of misunderstanding -- amplified by centures and

millions of misunderstanders, so to speak.

 

And coming to terms with the misunderstanding is indeed " serious " - it

means loss.

 

Yet, having fun is essential, and deeper fun opens into joy which

opens into awe.

 

Play is essential.

 

There is no understanding if there is no play, but there is no

understanding if there is not seriousness as well.

 

-- D.