The ground of being: just contemplation of changes?

[Guest guest]

Seems clear to many of us that there is no way to point to the ground, no way to refer to it in any manner, because of the inherent splitting, duality, objectifying. Usually this is recognized in dialogues, conversations, where one tries to speak of the absolute. But how about ones own life? What is the meaning of "realization" of the ground?

What is the nature of the action - if any - or inaction - if any - that can make a life touch such ground? Any attempt to "be it" seems futile. Attempts to reach it, also.

So I question: could it be that the only way to assert the changeless is full contemplation of the changes? The perception of the evanescent is the assertion of the solid being? Seeing the false is the non-false?

 

-geo-

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> Seems clear to many of us that there is no way to point to the ground, no way

to refer to it in any manner, because of the inherent splitting, duality,

objectifying. Usually this is recognized in dialogues, conversations, where one

tries to speak of the absolute. But how about ones own life? What is the meaning

of " realization " of the ground?

> What is the nature of the action - if any - or inaction - if any - that can

make a life touch such ground? Any attempt to " be it " seems futile. Attempts to

reach it, also.

> So I question: could it be that the only way to assert the changeless is full

contemplation of the changes? The perception of the evanescent is the assertion

of the solid being? Seeing the false is the non-false?

>

> -geo-

 

I can tell you what happened 'here'.

 

I just remained 'in the here and now', without thinking about either " there " or

" then " , for long, extreme, extended periods of time.

 

Everything else took care of itself.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> Seems clear to many of us that there is no way to point to the ground, no way

to refer to it in any manner, because of the inherent splitting, duality,

objectifying. Usually this is recognized in dialogues, conversations, where one

tries to speak of the absolute. But how about ones own life? What is the meaning

of " realization " of the ground?

> What is the nature of the action - if any - or inaction - if any - that can

make a life touch such ground? Any attempt to " be it " seems futile. Attempts to

reach it, also.

> So I question: could it be that the only way to assert the changeless is full

contemplation of the changes? The perception of the evanescent is the assertion

of the solid being? Seeing the false is the non-false?

>

> -geo-

 

The only way understanding " what is " is actuality, is directly. One doesn't

apply words to what is (that involves time), one doesn't develop an idea and

then realize the idea (or ideal).

 

One is in the presence, not of " what is, " but as " what is. "

 

There is no two ways about it.

 

Even one hair of division is as good as a million miles of separation.

 

Any " way " or " action " at all involves division (this is probably clear, so I

won't explain why).

 

Even " no way " or " nonaction " involves a division (that is, there are those who

understand that no way, no action is involved, and those who falsely believe

that there is a way, a teaching, or a practice involved).

 

If this is a matter of philosophy or speculation, it won't amount to much.

 

If it " consumes one's being, " one can't help but be consumed as " what is. "

 

I guess you could call it " spontaneous combustion " as what is.

 

Not a matter of will, effort, or ideation. More like the collapse of will,

effort, and the collapse of any basis for ideation and identity. But not a

half-way collapse, as in " depression, " in which a sense of lack becomes an

identity. But a full-blown collapse that is immediate and not a continuity of

any identity.

 

- D -