Guest guest Posted January 27, 2004 Report Share Posted January 27, 2004 Hi Jim... Man you are tough! Put up or shut up. LOL Jim: > I'd really love to read of your own personal experiences instead of your ideas about my experiences and others. You have offered many "you statements" and very few "I statements". My orininal post asked for folk's own personal experiences (as I statements), not opinions of others reality/process. TG: My personal experiences have been posted previously and I didn't want to bore others; so I just answered your questions based on my experiences, not as an opinion of your process. I have no idea what is your process! Jim: > > I need to ask some of you with experience about the formula: To whom does this thought, etc. arise? The answer will be: To me! Then one asks: Who am I? The mind will turn back to it's source (the Self) and the arisen thought will also subside. TG: > > It's not that the thought subsides, but that the thought then becomes a part of the whole, instead of a part of the part. The thought is there, but not in your own mind, but in the mind of the whole. TG, if this is how you experience it, why not write: ---but not in MY mind----? Jim: > > What, in your own personal or otherwise experience, happens after the final question: Who am I? Where do you or your attention go? TG:> > As you are now a part of the whole mind, your attention goes to the whole of all things. Thoughts are seen outside yourself (you, as Jim). Jim's mind is now quiet so there is nothing inside of your own mind to put your attention to, except the knowledge of how quiet and peaceful your mind is! Again, how is it that you can't write all that about yourself instead of me or some other person.....How is it that you can't/won't speak for your self here? You're just as good as anyone else and you have my permission to speak of your own personal experiences in `I' statements. Jim: > What about your mind? Or is this a description of your experience presented as my experience? Did I ask for a commentary on my experience? TG: Hey buddyJim, lighten up! You didn't ask for a commentary on your experience. You asked for my experience. (which I gave you). Personally though, I never asked the question 'Who Am I" as this is not my path. I did ask "Who are you?" (in a sense). Since you like particulars, I literally asked "Please help me see (this person) differently." Now that's an interesting approach. I did that myself once. The thing/being/entity I asked "Who are you?" said "I am THEE!" It's a rather long story though! Jim: > > What exactly do you experience - assuming it's describeable? TG> > It is describeable, although I guess you could compare the description as if I were describing how wonderful and beautiful the Grand Canyon is -- I could even show you pictures of it -- but, to truly experience and appreciate the Grand Canyon, and get the whole gist of it, you just have to be there. It's not that it is beyond description. It's just that describing it cannot do it justice, if that makes sense. Jim: > No it doesn't "make sense"! The question is not: What is the grand canyon like? The question is: What is your own personal experience of the grand canyon.....get the difference? If it is describeable....describe it in your own words and from your own personal experience with 'I' statements....that's all. How about: "I saw the grand canyon as.........." and "felt that it was....." , etc. TG: Hey, I thought that was a great description of why it could be difficult to describe! LOL Bless your heart, I apologize for not giving you what you asked for in the beginning. I'm sending you my story offline as it has been posted here before. If you have any questions about anything, please let me know. I look forward to reading your story.....might even offer you mine. Jim: > > What happens to 'you'? What do you become or go into, etc.? TG:> > 'You' become a part of the whole mind. Imagine for a second 'you' as a body. You have your brain, your thoughts, your arms, legs, etc. You are always a part of the whole mind, but now you can only see from your eyes, think from your mind, etc. > Jim: > OK, but what about your own experience? What do you become.....? Start with: I become....... or I don't become...... I have no idea what I became -- I didn't look at myself! It never occurred to me and it didn't really matter at the time. Since everything was only light, maybe I was light too? If you reread the paragraphs I wrote, replace 'you' with 'I'. Why not simply use `I' to begin with – unless there are issues of shame and fear in speaking from `I' statements? JIm: > > Assuming you go into the Source as Ramana claims, how long do you stay there? TG: > > The thing is, we are always there. Jim: > > If you come out again, how does it occur and (in your opinion) why? TG: > > Fear, doubt, some kind of fear, must pop in to come out of the > > awareness. Having to get on with life here on Planet Earth. > Jim: > Is that your own personal experience of Planet Earth? TG: Yep. Jim: > > Have you gone to the Source never to return? TG: > > One couldn't live > Jim: > Are you this One? How about you - just you yourself - what have you yourself experienced with this? TG: Yes, I was describing my own experience. As the years went by and my experiences were being integrated, my mind became quieter and quieter, more and more peaceful. That is one of the wonderful benefits of this path! I have my moments tho. :-) For years though, I have to admit I wanted to stay in this light forever. But as my mind became more peaceful, I found it didn't really matter. When you have peace, what else is there? To have `peace' after years of struggle/unhappiness/fear/discomfort is about as good as it gets, IMO and I'm glad you have peace. TG> long in a body like that unless you were to be > > taken care of. And this is my personal opinion, so take it with a > > grain of salt. It is possible in this body to have a quiet mind > > though. And again, allowing fear/doubt/fantasy to grasp onto, > brings > > that to a halt. > > Jim: > > Is there a way to stay in/as the Source/Self and yet do your job, attend your spouse and kids, pay the bills, use the restroom, fix dinner, etc.? TG: > > I love your mind and the way it contemplates all these things. These are just fears. Look at them, ask yourself if you want to keep them, and if not, let them go. Don't seek for Love/God, but eliminate all the things blocking the way for Love's presence. Jim: > You needn't preach to me or assume that my questions are pleas for help. TG: Oh Jim, I didn't think I was preaching -- so sorry! I was sincerely trying to answer your questions to the best of my knowledge, based on my experiences. You asked a question about being able to live life, and I answered. That still is the only answer I can give you. Look at Harsha -- he has a beautiful family, a new baby, a great job. Jim: All you need to do is honestly and sincerely offer your > experiences on the questions or decline to respond...no sermons, > judgments, opinions about others reality, or sage pronouncements > which were not requested. TG: Yessiree! Now play nice. Yes, let's play nice ----LOL. > Jim: > thanks anyway and I look forward to either your responses to the questions of your own experience or a refusal to respond. TG: You are most welcome. Love, xxxtg Thanks TG, Jim , "teegee555" <Teegee555@a...> wrote: > > Hi Jim... > > Man you are tough! Put up or shut up. LOL > > Jim: > I'd really love to read of your own personal experiences > instead of your ideas about my experiences and others. You have > offered > many "you statements" and very few "I statements". My orininal > post asked for folk's own personal experiences (as I statements), > not > opinions of others reality/process. > > TG: My personal experiences have been posted previously and I didn't > want to bore others; so I just answered your questions based on my > experiences, not as an opinion of your process. I have no idea what > is your process! > > > Jim: > > I need to ask some of you with experience about the formula: > To whom does this thought, etc. arise? The answer will be: To me! > Then one asks: Who am I? The mind will turn back to it's source (the > Self) and the arisen thought will also subside. > > TG: > > It's not that the thought subsides, but that the thought then > becomes a part of the whole, instead of a part of the part. The > thought is there, but not in your own mind, but in the mind of the > whole. > > Jim: > > What, in your own personal or otherwise experience, happens > after the final question: Who am I? Where do you or your attention > go? > > TG:> > As you are now a part of the whole mind, your attention goes > to the whole of all things. Thoughts are seen outside yourself (you, > as Jim). Jim's mind is now quiet so there is nothing inside of your > own mind to put your attention to, except the knowledge of how quiet > and peaceful your mind is! > > Jim: > What about your mind? Or is this a description of your > experience presented as my experience? Did I ask for a commentary > on my experience? > > TG: Hey buddyJim, lighten up! You didn't ask for a commentary on > your experience. You asked for my experience. (which I gave you). > Personally though, I never asked the question 'Who Am I" as this is > not my path. I did ask "Who are you?" (in a sense). Since you > like particulars, I literally asked "Please help me see (this person) > differently." > > Jim: > > What exactly do you experience - assuming it's describeable? > > TG> > It is describeable, although I guess you could compare the > description as if I were describing how wonderful and beautiful the > Grand Canyon is -- I could even show you pictures of it -- but, to > truly experience and appreciate the Grand Canyon, and get the whole > gist of it, you just have to be there. It's not that it is beyond > description. It's just that describing it cannot do it justice, if > that makes sense. > > Jim: > No it doesn't "make sense"! The question is not: What is the > grand canyon like? The question is: What is your own personal > experience of the grand canyon.....get the difference? If it is > describeable....describe it in your own words and from your own > personal experience with 'I' statements....that's all. How > about: "I > saw the grand canyon as.........." and "felt that it was....." , etc. > > > TG: Hey, I thought that was a great description of why it could be > difficult to describe! LOL Bless your heart, I apologize for not > giving you what you asked for in the beginning. > > I'm sending you my story offline as it has been posted here before. > If you have any questions about anything, please let me know. > > Jim: > > What happens to 'you'? What do you become or go into, > etc.? > > TG:> > 'You' become a part of the whole mind. Imagine for a > second 'you' as a body. You have your brain, your thoughts, your > arms, legs, > etc. You are always a part of the whole mind, but now you can only > see from your eyes, think from your mind, etc. > > > Jim: > OK, but what about your own experience? What do you > become.....? Start with: I become....... or I don't become...... > > I have no idea what I became -- I didn't look at myself! It never > occurred to me and it didn't really matter at the time. Since > everything was only light, maybe I was light too? If you reread > the paragraphs I wrote, replace 'you' with 'I'. > > JIm: > > Assuming you go into the Source as Ramana claims, how long > do you stay there? > > TG: > > The thing is, we are always there. > > Jim: > > If you come out again, how does it occur and (in your > opinion) why? > > TG: > > Fear, doubt, some kind of fear, must pop in to come out of > the > > > awareness. Having to get on with life here on Planet Earth. > > > Jim: > Is that your own personal experience of Planet Earth? > > TG: Yep. > > Jim: > > Have you gone to the Source never to return? > > TG: > > One couldn't live > > > Jim: > Are you this One? How about you - just you yourself - what > have you yourself experienced with this? > > TG: Yes, I was describing my own experience. As the years went by > and my experiences were being integrated, my mind became quieter and > quieter, more and more peaceful. That is one of the wonderful > benefits of this path! I have my moments tho. :-) For years > though, I have to admit I wanted to stay in this light forever. But > as my mind became more peaceful, I found it didn't really matter. > When you have peace, what else is there? > > TG> long in a body like that unless you were to be > > > taken care of. And this is my personal opinion, so take it with > a > > > grain of salt. It is possible in this body to have a quiet mind > > > though. And again, allowing fear/doubt/fantasy to grasp onto, > > brings > > > that to a halt. > > > > Jim: > > Is there a way to stay in/as the Source/Self and yet do > your job, attend your spouse and kids, pay the bills, use the > restroom, fix dinner, etc.? > > TG: > > I love your mind and the way it contemplates all these > things. > These are just fears. Look at them, ask yourself if you want to > keep them, and if not, let them go. Don't seek for Love/God, but > eliminate all the things blocking the way for Love's presence. > > > Jim: > You needn't preach to me or assume that my questions are > pleas for help. > > TG: Oh Jim, I didn't think I was preaching -- so sorry! I was > sincerely trying to answer your questions to the best of my > knowledge, based on my experiences. You asked a question about > being able to live life, and I answered. That still is the only > answer I can give you. Look at Harsha -- he has a beautiful family, > a new baby, a great job. > > Jim: All you need to do is honestly and sincerely offer your > > experiences on the questions of decline to respond...no sermons, > > judgments, opinions about others reality, or sage pronouncements > > which were not requested. > > TG: Yessiree! Now play nice. > > > Jim: > thanks anyway and I look forward to either your responses to > the questions of your own experience or a refusal to resond. > > TG: You are most welcome. > > Love, > xxxtg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2004 Report Share Posted January 27, 2004 , "jim37rich" <jim37rich> wrote: Hi Jim, Ok, you got a wee bit nicer as we went along. I'm out of estrogen so you're very lucky I'm in a good mood. :-) > TG: > > It's not that the thought subsides, but that the thought then > becomes a part of the whole, instead of a part of the part. The > thought is there, but not in your own mind, but in the mind of the > whole. > > Jim: TG, if this is how you experience it, why not write: --- but not > in MY mind----? You are too funny. I have no idea why -- it never occurred to me! Are you this picky with everything?! LOL Must be a Virgo. Must I show you how to chill???!!@#$!@#% But should we ever talk again, you can rest assured I will use proper I's My's You's We's Us'n's. > TG:> > As you are now a part of the whole mind, your attention goes > to the whole of all things. Thoughts are seen outside yourself (you, > as Jim). Jim's mind is now quiet so there is nothing inside of your > own mind to put your attention to, except the knowledge of how quiet > and peaceful your mind is! > Jim: > Again, how is it that you can't write all that about yourself > instead of me or some other person.....How is it that you can't/won't > speak for your self here? You're just as good as anyone else and you > have my permission to speak of your own personal experiences in `I' statements. TG: Hey, thanks for your permission! I could never have used 'I' if you didn't come along. Actually, I was following your lead. You kept using 'you', and I mistakenly assumed you meant like the little 'you' (ego).... not (me) literally. Usually here on the net (and please don't take this as preaching or sage advice) (LOL), those type words are emphasized with astericks. I mistakenly saw them as astericks. Blonde here. My bad. > TG: Hey buddyJim, lighten up! You didn't ask for a commentary on > your experience. You asked for my experience. (which I gave you). > Personally though, I never asked the question 'Who Am I" as this is > not my path. I did ask "Who are you?" (in a sense). Since you > like particulars, I literally asked "Please help me see (this person) > differently." > >Jim: Now that's an interesting approach. I did that myself once. > The thing/being/entity I asked "Who are you?" said "I am THEE!" It's a rather long story though! TG: Would love to hear it if you ever get the time. Hey, that's the first non-stifling paragraph you wrote me! You're getting better. Am I? :-) Jim:> I look forward to reading your story.....might even offer you > mine. TG: I sent to you offlist yesterday. Let me know if you didn't receive it as I used the url to send you private mail. I look forward to reading yours, too. > Jim: > > What happens to 'you'? What do you become or go into, > etc.? TG: Now here's a perfect example of what I was talking about. It looks as if you are saying, what happens to *the little you*. But I promise to take you more literally from now on. Maybe. If you get nicer. If not, forgetaboutit. Jim: > Why not simply use `I' to begin with – unless there are issues of shame and fear in speaking from `I' statements? TG: I probably have lots of shame and fear, but I don't think from 'I' statements. If you keep this up, I will never use 'I' again! Just to piss you off!! It's been fun. Love, xxxtg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2004 Report Share Posted January 27, 2004 , "teegee555" <Teegee555@a...> wrote: > , "jim37rich" <jim37rich> > wrote: > > Hi Jim, > > Ok, you got a wee bit nicer as we went along. I'm out of estrogen > so you're very lucky I'm in a good mood. :-) > > > TG: > > It's not that the thought subsides, but that the thought > then > > becomes a part of the whole, instead of a part of the part. The > > thought is there, but not in your own mind, but in the mind of the > > whole. > > > > Jim: TG, if this is how you experience it, why not write: --- > but not > > in MY mind----? > > You are too funny. I have no idea why -- it never occurred to me! > Are you this picky with everything?! LOL Must be a Virgo. Must I > show you how to chill???!!@#$!@#% > > But should we ever talk again, you can rest assured I will use proper > I's My's You's We's Us'n's. > > > TG:> > As you are now a part of the whole mind, your attention goes > > to the whole of all things. Thoughts are seen outside yourself (you, > > as Jim). Jim's mind is now quiet so there is nothing inside of your > > own mind to put your attention to, except the knowledge of how quiet > > and peaceful your mind is! > > > Jim: > Again, how is it that you can't write all that about > yourself > > instead of me or some other person.....How is it that you > can't/won't > > speak for your self here? You're just as good as anyone else and > you > have my permission to speak of your own personal experiences in > `I' statements. > > TG: Hey, thanks for your permission! I could never have used 'I' > if you didn't come along. OK, how about responding to the questions: What, in your own personal or otherwise experience, happens after the final question: Who am I? Where do you or your attention go? What exactly do you experience - assuming it's describeable? What happens to you? What do you become or go into, etc.? Assuming you go into the Source as Ramana claims, how long do you stay there? If you come out again, how does it occur and (in your opinion) why? Have you gone to the Source never to return? Is there a way to stay in/as the Source/Self and yet do your job, attend your spouse and kids, pay the bills, use the restroom, fix dinner, etc.? I'd really love to read about other's actual, real experiences with the fruits of working with Ramana's formula for Self-realization. thanks, jim > > Actually, I was following your lead. You kept using 'you', and I > mistakenly assumed you meant like the little 'you' (ego).... not (me) > literally. Usually here on the net (and please don't take this as > preaching or sage advice) (LOL), those type words are emphasized with > astericks. I mistakenly saw them as astericks. Blonde here. My > bad. > > > TG: Hey buddyJim, lighten up! You didn't ask for a commentary on > > your experience. You asked for my experience. (which I gave you). > > Personally though, I never asked the question 'Who Am I" as this is > > not my path. I did ask "Who are you?" (in a sense). Since you > > like particulars, I literally asked "Please help me see (this > person) > > differently." > > > >Jim: Now that's an interesting approach. I did that myself > once. > > The thing/being/entity I asked "Who are you?" said "I am THEE!" > It's a rather long story though! > > TG: Would love to hear it if you ever get the time. Hey, that's > the first non-stifling paragraph you wrote me! You're getting > better. Am I? :-) > > Jim:> I look forward to reading your story.....might even offer > you > > mine. > > TG: I sent to you offlist yesterday. Let me know if you didn't > receive it as I used the url to send you private mail. > I look forward to reading yours, too. > > > Jim: > > What happens to 'you'? What do you become or go into, > > etc.? > > TG: Now here's a perfect example of what I was talking about. It > looks as if you are saying, what happens to *the little you*. But I > promise to take you more literally from now on. Maybe. If you get > nicer. If not, forgetaboutit. > > Jim: > Why not simply use `I' to begin with – unless there are > issues of shame and fear in speaking from `I' statements? > > TG: I probably have lots of shame and fear, but I don't think > from 'I' statements. If you keep this up, I will never use 'I' > again! Just to piss you off!! > > It's been fun. > > Love, > xxxtg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 28, 2004 Report Share Posted January 28, 2004 Jim... Hi! Lovely hearing from you again. > > TG: Hey, thanks for your permission! I could never have used 'I' > > if you didn't come along. Jim: > OK, how about responding to the questions: TG: Alrightey. More than happy to. > What, in your own personal or otherwise experience, happens after the > final question: Who am I? > Where do you or your attention go? As you are now a part of the whole mind, your attention goes to the whole of all things. Thoughts are seen outside yourself. Your mind is now quiet so there is nothing inside of your own mind to put your attention to, except the knowledge of how quiet and peaceful your mind is! > What exactly do you experience - assuming it's describeable? It is describeable, although I guess you could compare the description as if I were describing how wonderful and beautiful the Grand Canyon is -- I could even show you pictures of it -- but, to truly experience and appreciate the Grand Canyon, and get the whole gist of it, you just have to be there. It's not that it is beyond description. It's just that describing it cannot do it justice, if that makes sense. As for an actual experience, I've sent you an offlist post of this. > What happens to you? > What do you become or go into, etc.? You' become a part of the whole mind. Imagine for a second 'you' as a body. You have your brain, your thoughts, your arms, legs, etc. You are always a part of the whole mind, but now you can only see from your eyes, think from your mind, etc. If you want to see it on paper, draw a big circle. Put a small stick figure (you) inside it. Now draw a circle inside your stick mind/brain to represent 'your' mind. With that pix, all your thoughts seem to be coming from your mind. You can't see the whole, because you are still (thinking) you are a body. Now, with this big circle picture, imagine now you are seeing from the whole mind. Go outside your stick body's mind and look at the big picture. Put pretend eyes on the big mind. Your thoughts will now be seen and not heard in your mind, if you are seeing/hearing from the whole. If you are only hearing from the whole mind, your thoughts will seem to have disappeared. > Assuming you go into the Source as Ramana claims, how long do you > stay there? The thing is, we are always there. > If you come out again, how does it occur and (in your opinion) why? Fear, doubt, some kind of fear, must pop in to come out of the awareness. Having to get on with life here on Planet Earth. > Have you gone to the Source never to return? One couldn't live long in a body like that unless you were to be taken care of. And this is my personal opinion, so take it with a grain of salt. It is possible in this body to have a quiet mind though. And again, allowing fear/doubt/fantasy to grasp onto, brings that to a halt. > Is there a way to stay in/as the Source/Self and yet do your job, > attend your spouse and kids, pay the bills, use the restroom, fix > dinner, etc.? These are just fears. Look at them, ask yourself if you want to keep them, and if not, let them go. Don't seek for Love/God, but eliminate all the things blocking the way for Love's presence. ******* Hope this helps! Please don't take any you's you see written personally. They have nothing to do with you, as these were my experiences. The 'you's' are meant generally. > thanks, You're welcome. Have a great day! Love, xxxtg , "jim37rich" <jim37rich> wrote: > , "teegee555" <Teegee555@a...> > wrote: > > , "jim37rich" <jim37rich> > > wrote: > > > > Hi Jim, > > > > Ok, you got a wee bit nicer as we went along. I'm out of estrogen > > so you're very lucky I'm in a good mood. :-) > > > > > TG: > > It's not that the thought subsides, but that the thought > > then > > > becomes a part of the whole, instead of a part of the part. The > > > thought is there, but not in your own mind, but in the mind of the > > > whole. > > > > > > Jim: TG, if this is how you experience it, why not write: -- - > > but not > > > in MY mind----? > > > > You are too funny. I have no idea why -- it never occurred to > me! > > Are you this picky with everything?! LOL Must be a Virgo. Must > I > > show you how to chill???!!@#$!@#% > > > > But should we ever talk again, you can rest assured I will use > proper > > I's My's You's We's Us'n's. > > > > > TG:> > As you are now a part of the whole mind, your attention > goes > > > to the whole of all things. Thoughts are seen outside yourself > (you, > > > as Jim). Jim's mind is now quiet so there is nothing inside of > your > > > own mind to put your attention to, except the knowledge of how > quiet > > > and peaceful your mind is! > > > > > Jim: > Again, how is it that you can't write all that about > > yourself > > > instead of me or some other person.....How is it that you > > can't/won't > > > speak for your self here? You're just as good as anyone else and > > you > have my permission to speak of your own personal experiences > in > > `I' statements. > > (clipped to top) > > > > Actually, I was following your lead. You kept using 'you', and I > > mistakenly assumed you meant like the little 'you' (ego).... not > (me) > > literally. Usually here on the net (and please don't take this as > > preaching or sage advice) (LOL), those type words are emphasized > with > > astericks. I mistakenly saw them as astericks. Blonde here. My > > bad. > > > > > TG: Hey buddyJim, lighten up! You didn't ask for a commentary on > > > your experience. You asked for my experience. (which I gave you). > > > Personally though, I never asked the question 'Who Am I" as this > is > > > not my path. I did ask "Who are you?" (in a sense). Since you > > > like particulars, I literally asked "Please help me see (this > > person) > > > differently." > > > > > >Jim: Now that's an interesting approach. I did that myself > > once. > > > The thing/being/entity I asked "Who are you?" said "I am THEE!" > > It's a rather long story though! > > > > TG: Would love to hear it if you ever get the time. Hey, that's > > the first non-stifling paragraph you wrote me! You're getting > > better. Am I? :-) > > > > Jim:> I look forward to reading your story.....might even > offer > > you > > > mine. > > > > TG: I sent to you offlist yesterday. Let me know if you didn't > > receive it as I used the url to send you private > mail. > > I look forward to reading yours, too. > > > > > Jim: > > What happens to 'you'? What do you become or go into, > > > etc.? > > > > TG: Now here's a perfect example of what I was talking about. It > > looks as if you are saying, what happens to *the little you*. But > I > > promise to take you more literally from now on. Maybe. If you get > > nicer. If not, forgetaboutit. > > > > Jim: > Why not simply use `I' to begin with – unless there > are > > issues of shame and fear in speaking from `I' statements? > > > > TG: I probably have lots of shame and fear, but I don't think > > from 'I' statements. If you keep this up, I will never use 'I' > > again! Just to piss you off!! > > > > It's been fun. > > > > Love, > > xxxtg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 28, 2004 Report Share Posted January 28, 2004 > You' become a part of the whole mind. Imagine for a second 'you' as > a body. You have your brain, your thoughts, your arms, legs, etc. > You are always a part of the whole mind, but now you can only see > from your eyes, think from your mind, etc. > > If you want to see it on paper, draw a big circle. Put a small stick > figure (you) inside it. Now draw a circle inside your stick > mind/brain to represent 'your' mind. > > With that pix, all your thoughts seem to be coming from your mind. > You can't see the whole, because you are still (thinking) you are a > body. > > Now, with this big circle picture, imagine now you are seeing from > the whole mind. Go outside your stick body's mind and look at the > big picture. Put pretend eyes on the big mind. > > Your thoughts will now be seen and not heard in your mind, if you are > seeing/hearing from the whole. If you are only hearing from the > whole mind, your thoughts will seem to have disappeared. > This is really a good idea TeeGee. Drawing the picture allows the person to see the ordinary thinking self as a symbol. I actually did this very thing a few days ago. I drew a circle representing the 'world' and put a stick figure representing the thinking me standing on it. Then I drew a 'balloon' circle around this. This became the balloon thought for another stick figure which represents me now. The reason all this is important to do is that it is hard to describe verbally why I cannot place myself in the landscape, so to speak. I can picture the body there but not the thinking person. The thinking person in the 'Now' cannot be seen by that same person without becoming both subject and object simultaneously. Actually taking the time to draw the picture is a good idea IMO. This thrusts the mind into realizing the difference between Me and the thought me. (Discerning between self and sattva. Patanjali III.49) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 28, 2004 Report Share Posted January 28, 2004 , "texasbg2000" <Bigbobgraham@a...> wrote: Hey BobbyG! > > You' become a part of the whole mind. Imagine for a second 'you' as > > a body. You have your brain, your thoughts, your arms, legs, etc. > > You are always a part of the whole mind, but now you can only see > > from your eyes, think from your mind, etc. > > > > If you want to see it on paper, draw a big circle. Put a small stick > > figure (you) inside it. Now draw a circle inside your stick > > mind/brain to represent 'your' mind. > > > > With that pix, all your thoughts seem to be coming from your mind. > > You can't see the whole, because you are still (thinking) you are a > > body. > > > > Now, with this big circle picture, imagine now you are seeing from > > the whole mind. Go outside your stick body's mind and look at the > > big picture. Put pretend eyes on the big mind. > > > > Your thoughts will now be seen and not heard in your mind, if you > are > > seeing/hearing from the whole. If you are only hearing from the > > whole mind, your thoughts will seem to have disappeared. > > > > This is really a good idea TeeGee. Drawing the picture allows the > person to see the ordinary thinking self as a symbol. > > I actually did this very thing a few days ago. I drew a circle > representing the 'world' and put a stick figure representing the > thinking me standing on it. Then I drew a 'balloon' circle around > this. This became the balloon thought for another stick figure > which represents me now. > > The reason all this is important to do is that it is hard to describe > verbally why I cannot place myself in the landscape, so to speak. I > can picture the body there but not the thinking person. The thinking > person in the 'Now' cannot be seen by that same person without > becoming both subject and object simultaneously. > > Actually taking the time to draw the picture is a good idea IMO. > > This thrusts the mind into realizing the difference between Me and > the thought me. (Discerning between self and sattva. Patanjali > III.49) Thanks BG... I bet it's been awhile since your artwork has gone back to stick figures! LOL For those of you who haven't visited BobbyG's artwork, it is quite an experience! This guy is not only good, he is a Master Artist Extraordinaire. His art will take your breath away. Here's the link: http://mentaltree.com/Murals.htm Love, xxxtg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 28, 2004 Report Share Posted January 28, 2004 Dear TeeGee: You are way too kind but thanks for the plug. I thought it was neat that you described something I was dweling on for about 12 hours or so three days ago. What I was thinking about was how difficult it is to say what you said and how it would only (?) be possible with a visual. The non-temporal aspect of the visual makes it uniquely appropriate for living in the now. Other art forms, music, literary, dance, theatre, etc., are all temporal and require a span of time to reveal a message to the viewer. Love Bobby G. 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.