Where's the spirit of Nisargadatta here? (Practice)

[Guest guest]

Dan,

 

Your response, below, I'll be blunt, is a rather ordinary and typical post --

dime a dozenish -- many here can put out post after post that reveals that they

think they are the incarnation of certainty when they resort to the hackney and

trite methodology of derision with something like: " it's all non-dual -- hey,

gang, lookit the 'tard trying to keep up with us giants of discrimination. " To

me, that's how you're presenting yourself here. Surely I'm wrong and seeing you

two dimensionally. Yes?

 

I still don't get it why slapping folks around is seen as anything but a

bankrupt spirituality. Not that it's your job to teach me or explain yourself

to me or be a priest, but that I'm seeing a glimmer of heart and want more of

that from you. More heart from you would be a gift to all here, yes?

 

I would love to know which posters here have actually studied Nisargadatta's

statements -- with a fine toothed comb -- with a scholarly intent. It seems

that this site seldom is dwelling in the same headspace that he had going on

inside him.

 

Had Nisargadatta been a poster here, it is certain that there'd be a gaggle of

honkers deriding his statements here. I don't get this mean-assed,

pile-on-the-dummy, clobbering of folks who come here to see if anyone can help

them get some things explained. I was a teacher of special education, long ago,

and how tawdry would it have been for me to make jokes about my students'

intellectual discrepancies. I have my hat in my hand here asking sincere

questions and my sincerity is spitwadded. Yet Nisargadatta is on record umpteen

times saying that relentlessness is key -- he was fierce but he never had an

intent to drive a seeker away.

 

Are seekers not welcomed here? Are all of you enlightened, and I just don't get

it that I've crashed your party?

 

I have made a serious attempt to show that most of the banter here is solely

concerning the ultimate " truth " of non-duality and that, largely ignored here,

there is a huge expanse of conceptuality that necessarily must be processed by a

seeker to quiet the mind's doubts and shore up motivation to do inquiry. Yet,

here, any discussion of the mechanics of the mind is targeted and

rat-a-tat-tatted with non-duality sloganizing used almost always with a snide,

understood-between-the-lines, smarmy vibe.

 

Is that really all that anyone wants to do here -- merely shoot spitwads at

anyone who is still buying into " I? " I see no attempt here to do what

Nisargadatta would have done here -- that is: show great heart and willingness

to " dig in " with each and all who seek conceptutal clarity -- even though

ultimately Nisargadatta would claim that nothing was real -- that is: no

thingness is the only reality. A mirage may not be real, but Nisargadatta

always was the first to roll up his sleeves and dwell in the headspace of a

seeker in order to help them walk out of that mirage. Nisargadatta didn't

eschew talking about the mirage -- he knew that all who see it can try to agree

about the number of trees they think they see in the mirage, etc., and this

sharing can lead to clarity as the points of view of others is processed.

 

Where's the spirit of Nisargadatta here? I see folks being caustic and abrasive

and thinking that they are " like Nisargadatta, " but he was consistently able to

apply a precision jargon to each questioner. He didn't resort to a wildass

poetic flinging of non-duality words at someone -- nay, it was no shotgun he

aimed, but instead it was a surgeon's scalpel he wielded upon a seeker's mind.

 

Can I start with one simple request of you? Tell me what your definition of

Being is in such a way that I can grasp how you would compare it to the

Absolute. To me this is a key comparison.

 

If you find my request tiresome or whatever, okay, I'll accommodate, and we can

be in 100% agreement to just not talk -- I'm not here to rile anyone up. And, I

don't expect that it would be easy to get jiggy with your definitions, but at

least we can explore that and see what kind of oomph it would take to walk that

road's entire length.

 

Hopefully,

Edg

 

 

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " duveyoung " <edg@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Even the ultimate samadhi -- that of a saint that is in perfect harmony

with ALL THIS -- is but a doorway outside of which one waits until the

Absolute's Grace descends and suddenly -- then the last step is taken, and this

step is the " forever step " from which there is not a possibility of a return to

attachingness. Identity is realized as separate and real and not " a soul in

samadhi. " That's the final step.

> > > -edg-

> > >

> > > Harmony with all this is crap!! Sorry to express it this way. Means

nothing. Either there is ALL THIS only or....fragmentation. No other

possibilities. Waiting for absolute grace is waaaay tooo romantic. When what is

is THIS-ing, nothing excluded, there is no absolute outside to give one grace.

One must look at all this without a trace of concept - like a new-born child.

> > > -geo-

> >

> > Edg: Sorry, Geo, but I must insist that my reading of Nisargadatta is

correct and that my notion about the Absolute and Grace are congruent with his

notion. Let me take a chance here by saying I don't think you've read his books

enough yet. I had to reread I Am That several times before something clicked

for me and suddenly Nisargadatta was talking about freedom from being instead of

glorifying being's seamlessness and unity -- qualities, ya see?

> >

> > I think you're attached to glorifying seamlessness....unity of the gunas,

samadhi's buzz of OM. No harm if that glorification is the carrot with which to

allure the ego into move forward towards dissolving, but definitely wrong-headed

if one espouses that unity as the ultimate state.

> >

> > I don't know how to get you to where I'm at -- I had to saturate myself with

Nisargadatta's notions until at least my intellect adopted them as my own point

of view. Until that happened I was happy with my interpretations of his words,

but now, I just cannot logically go back to my old processes -- they aren't big

enough to allure me. They didn't include non-being. Now, I can't be satisfied

with less. Inquiry immerses me in that non-beingness whereas residing in being

by entering samadhi is living in a small room in a castle.

>

>

> It's way smaller than that.

>

> Infinitesimal, in fact.

>

> Not room for even one concept to attach.

>

> Let alone a lot of someone else's concepts.

>

> Preparation for no-time?

>

> I dun' thin' so ...

>

> - D -

>