Guest guest Posted April 6, 2004 Report Share Posted April 6, 2004 My family, my wife and precious children, were held at gunpoint. Michael, my five year old son, was white-faced but brave; his kid sister, Cecilia, was sobbing. Angie, my wife, my sweet-natured and loving wife, was cut, bleeding and bruised. Who knows what had been done to her. The gun looked like a fake, it was hard to tell. "OK" I said, "you can take the car and whatever money we hold." I opened the safe and gave him the contents then handed him the keys. "This is the transmitter; press these buttons to open the doors." "Which ones? " "The blue ones, here." With his attention on the buttons, I slashed his wrist with a Stanley knife, slashed the tendons and slashed the arteries. The gun fell and he looked dazed, so I slashed his throat. He collapsed in a heap, rivers of blood pumping from his dying body, spreading in a pool over the floor. Now, awake, I see that the floor is without stain. There was no intruder, no wife, no children, and no-one had ever been in danger -- all were creations of the one sleeping man. And he whose fingers type this message, he also is a dream character in great dream created by the One formless consciousness. He will never awake -- he has no reality -- but consciousness will one tire of this game-in-time, and, after finding ever more subtle thoughts and feelings, find those which are willing to die into the great luminous One, where no persons and no dramas have ever existed. Their captors eyes glistened with menace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 6, 2004 Report Share Posted April 6, 2004 Dear Warwick thank you great all the best michael - Warwick Wakefield Wednesday, April 07, 2004 3:49 AM To do or not to do My family, my wife and precious children, were held at gunpoint. Michael, my five year old son, was white-faced but brave; his kid sister, Cecilia, was sobbing. Angie, my wife, my sweet-natured and loving wife, was cut, bleeding and bruised. Who knows what had been done to her. The gun looked like a fake, it was hard to tell. "OK" I said, "you can take the car and whatever money we hold." I opened the safe and gave him the contents then handed him the keys. "This is the transmitter; press these buttons to open the doors." "Which ones? " "The blue ones, here." With his attention on the buttons, I slashed his wrist with a Stanley knife, slashed the tendons and slashed the arteries. The gun fell and he looked dazed, so I slashed his throat. He collapsed in a heap, rivers of blood pumping from his dying body, spreading in a pool over the floor. Now, awake, I see that the floor is without stain. There was no intruder, no wife, no children, and no-one had ever been in danger -- all were creations of the one sleeping man. And he whose fingers type this message, he also is a dream character in great dream created by the One formless consciousness. He will never awake -- he has no reality -- but consciousness will one tire of this game-in-time, and, after finding ever more subtle thoughts and feelings, find those which are willing to die into the great luminous One, where no persons and no dramas have ever existed. Their captors eyes glistened with menace. /join "Love itself is the actual form of God."Sri RamanaIn "Letters from Sri Ramanasramam" by Suri Nagamma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2004 Report Share Posted April 7, 2004 , "Warwick Wakefield" <formandsubstance@t...> wrote: > My family, my wife and precious children, > were held at gunpoint. > > Michael, my five year old son, > was white-faced but brave; > his kid sister, Cecilia, was sobbing. > > Angie, my wife, my sweet-natured and loving wife, > was cut, bleeding and bruised. > Who knows what had been done to her. > > The gun looked like a fake, > it was hard to tell. > > "OK" I said, "you can take the car and whatever money we hold." > I opened the safe and gave him the contents > then handed him the keys. > > "This is the transmitter; press these buttons to open the doors." > "Which ones? " > "The blue ones, here." > > With his attention on the buttons, I slashed his wrist with a Stanley knife, > slashed the tendons and slashed the arteries. > > The gun fell and he looked dazed, so I slashed his throat. > He collapsed in a heap, rivers of blood pumping from his dying body, > spreading in a pool over the floor. > > Now, awake, I see that the floor is without stain. > There was no intruder, no wife, no children, > and no-one had ever been in danger -- > all were creations of the one sleeping man. > > And he whose fingers type this message, > he also is a dream character in great dream > created by the One formless consciousness. > He will never awake -- he has no reality -- > but consciousness will one tire of this game-in-time, and, > after finding ever more subtle thoughts and feelings, > find those which are willing to die into the great luminous One, > where no persons and no dramas have ever existed. Namaste, Thank you Quentin Tarantino.........ONS..Tony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2004 Report Share Posted April 7, 2004 > where no persons and no dramas have ever existed. Hi Since persons and dramas are characters and stories, imaginary creations, isn't it unnecessary to say that they have never existed? Or imagine a place other than here where they don't exist? The content of Illusions, or imaginary mentations, by definition does not exist. The difficulty comes when one notices oneself and retains the sense that one is a character in a story instead of realizing one is that which knows that character. Just a thought Love Bobby G. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2004 Report Share Posted April 7, 2004 Hi Bobby G. You are right, of course; the place where characters and stories don't exist is now. But there are difficulties connected with the usage of words. The word "now" is generally used to place doings, happenings and the existence of forms in a temporal context. And that's fair enough, in a rough sort of way, because doings and forms of all sorts DO exist in time; they require time for their existence. But if you look at the word "now" a little closely, difficulties emerge. How long is now? Two minutes? Two seconds? Half a second? If "now" is considered to exist in the continuum of time, then it must have zero length. It has to be the zero-length point between the past and the future. As is obvious, nothing can be observed in zero time. And still it would be constantly moving, which somehow violates the essence of what we are getting at by using the word "now." But all the things that we usually consider ourselves to be, all the forms and functionings of our bodies, our eating and drinking and defecating, our walking and talking and smelling flowers, our sending gifts to those whom we love, our smiling with and our embracing of those whom we love, all take time -- time is an essential ingredient in all those events. Even the observing of things that might be thought static, stones and cupboards and books, this observation takes time. And even if stones and cupboards and books can be seen to be relatively static if our terms of reference are narrow enough; that is, a few thousand years, still, seen from a longer perspective, from a perspective of millions and billions of years, the continents are drifting like boats on a sea of magma and the solar system, which was once a great incandescent ball of gas, is gradually losing heat and will eventually be a cold, inert mass incapable of sustaining any life at all. Is there anything, or any non-thing, which is not subject to time? Yes, pure consciousness. Pure consciousness is immaterial and changeless. The mind, using that term i n its broadest sense to include emotions and sense perceptions as well as conceptual thinking, is constantly changing. But consciousness, pure consciousness, is unchanging. >From the viewpoint of addiction to the dream, to the realm of things, characters and events - from this viewpoint pure consciousness is incomprehensible and possibly unreal. >From the viewpoint of pure consciousness, the things, forms, characters and events of time, the realm of the daytime-dream, are seen to be totally unreal, as unreal as the winged dog that once flew over New York City in a night-dream. And, referring to this pure consciousness, the sages have declared, that is my Self. So this Self, this pure consciousness, exists Now. This is the meaning of eternity; eternity is not time going on and on and on without end; eternity is consciousness not going anywhere. "Consciousness", "now" and "eternity" can be seen as synonyms. Perhaps it could be said that we exist in two dimensions simultaneously - the dimension of consciousness and the dimension of time. Or we could say that we exist simultaneously in the dimension of the immaterial, consciousness, and the dimension of things. But I am not too happy with that formulation - it gives too many hostages to materialism. Or we could say that we, who are in fact One, exist simultaneously in the realm of consciousness-without-objects and also in the realm of consciousness-with-objects, provided we are clear that the "objects" in the former realm are dream-entities. And I would like to suggest that a very crucial point is to see that I-as-a-character is also a dream object, a complicated dream-object, perceived by I-as-pure-consciousness. Does the character perceive, or is the character a set of perceived objects? Does the set of perceived objects "have" consciousness, or does the set of dream objects arise and fall within consciousness? Is the set of perceived objects, the dream-character, an autonomous entity in charge of its life? Is it the "doer"? And finally, although it is clear that pure consciousness, the perceiver, can never be seen as a form, a visual form or a sound form, can consciousness be immersed in itSelf? And, if this has been glimpsed, can it become stabilized? Much love Warwick - "texasbg2000" <Bigbobgraham <> Thursday, April 08, 2004 4:24 AM Re: To do or not to do > > > where no persons and no dramas have ever existed. > > Hi > > Since persons and dramas are characters and stories, imaginary > creations, isn't it unnecessary to say that they have never existed? > Or imagine a place other than here where they don't exist? > > The content of Illusions, or imaginary mentations, by definition does > not exist. > > The difficulty comes when one notices oneself and retains the sense > that one is a character in a story instead of realizing one is that > which knows that character. > > Just a thought > Love > Bobby G. > > > > > > /join > > > > > > "Love itself is the actual form of God." > > Sri Ramana > > In "Letters from Sri Ramanasramam" by Suri Nagamma > Links > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2004 Report Share Posted April 7, 2004 Hi Bobby G. You are right, of course; the place where characters and stories don't exist is now. But there are difficulties connected with the usage of words. The word "now" is generally used to place doings, happenings and the existence of forms in a temporal context. And that's fair enough, in a rough sort of way, because doings and forms of all sorts DO exist in time; they require time for their existence. But if you look at the word "now" a little closely, difficulties emerge. How long is now? Two minutes? Two seconds? Half a second? If "now" is considered to exist in the continuum of time, then it must have zero length. It has to be the zero-length point between the past and the future. As is obvious, nothing can be observed in zero time. And still it would be constantly moving, which somehow violates the essence of what we are getting at by using the word "now." But all the things that we usually consider ourselves to be, all the forms and functionings of our bodies, our eating and drinking and defecating, our walking and talking and smelling flowers, our sending gifts to those whom we love, our smiling with and our embracing of those whom we love, all take time -- time is an essential ingredient in all those events. Even the observing of things that might be thought static, stones and cupboards and books, this observation takes time. And even if stones and cupboards and books can be seen to be relatively static if our terms of reference are narrow enough; that is, a few thousand years, still, seen from a longer perspective, from a perspective of millions and billions of years, the continents are drifting like boats on a sea of magma and the solar system, which was once a great incandescent ball of gas, is gradually losing heat and will eventually be a cold, inert mass incapable of sustaining any life at all. Is there anything, or any non-thing, which is not subject to time? Yes, pure consciousness. Pure consciousness is immaterial and changeless. The mind, using that term in its broadest sense to include emotions and sense perceptions as well as conceptual thinking, is constantly changing. But consciousness, pure consciousness, is unchanging. >From the viewpoint of addiction to the dream, to the realm of things, characters and events - from this viewpoint pure consciousness is incomprehensible and possibly unreal. >From the viewpoint of pure consciousness, the things, forms, characters and events of time, the realm of the daytime-dream, are seen to be totally unreal, as unreal as the winged dog that once flew over New York City in a night-dream. And, referring to this pure consciousness, the sages have declared, that is my Self. So this Self, this pure consciousness, exists Now. This is the meaning of eternity; eternity is not time going on and on and on without end; eternity is consciousness not going anywhere. "Consciousness", "now" and "eternity" can be seen as synonyms. Perhaps it could be said that we exist in two dimensions simultaneously - the dimension of consciousness and the dimension of time. Or we could say that we exist simultaneously in the dimension of the immaterial, consciousness, and the dimension of things. But I am not too happy with that formulation - it gives too many hostages to materialism. Or we could say that we, who are in fact One, exist simultaneously in the realm of consciousness-without-objects and also in the realm of consciousness-with-objects, provided we are clear that the "objects" in the former realm are dream-entities. And I would like to suggest that a very crucial point is to see that I-as-a-character is also a dream object, a complicated dream-object, perceived by I-as-pure-consciousness. Does the character perceive, or is the character a set of perceived objects? Does the set of perceived objects "have" consciousness, or does the set of dream objects arise and fall within consciousness? Is the set of perceived objects, the dream-character, an autonomous entity in charge of its life? Is it the "doer"? And finally, although it is clear that pure consciousness, the perceiver, can never be seen as a form, a visual form or a sound form, can consciousness be immersed in itSelf? And, if this has been glimpsed, can it become stabilized? Much love Warwick - "texasbg2000" <Bigbobgraham <> Thursday, April 08, 2004 4:24 AM Re: To do or not to do > > > where no persons and no dramas have ever existed. > > Hi > > Since persons and dramas are characters and stories, imaginary > creations, isn't it unnecessary to say that they have never existed? > Or imagine a place other than here where they don't exist? > > The content of Illusions, or imaginary mentations, by definition does > not exist. > > The difficulty comes when one notices oneself and retains the sense > that one is a character in a story instead of realizing one is that > which knows that character. > > Just a thought > Love > Bobby G. > > /join > > > > > > "Love itself is the actual form of God." > > Sri Ramana > > In "Letters from Sri Ramanasramam" by Suri Nagamma > Links > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2004 Report Share Posted April 7, 2004 , "Warwick Wakefield" <formandsubstance@t...> wrote: > Hi Bobby G. > > You are right, of course; the place where characters and stories don't exist > is now. Dear Warwick: Your drama was a good and thoughtful one. It made me think. I reacted to the inplication that one might think that there is another thing called reality where there are no stories. Life and existence unfold as stories. The violence that you point to in your drama brings up a question we all ask ourselves. I know I would fight for my family. But there is no necessity to become a character in the story to do that. The actions are taken and consciousness, or the Real Self, is not affected by them. No matter what they are. > > But there are difficulties connected with the usage of words. > The word "now" is generally used to place doings, happenings and the > existence of forms in a temporal context. > And that's fair enough, in a rough sort of way, because doings and forms of > all sorts DO exist in time; they require time for their existence. > > But if you look at the word "now" a little closely, difficulties emerge. How > long is now? Two minutes? Two seconds? Half a second? > If "now" is considered to exist in the continuum of time, then it must have > zero length. It has to be the zero-length point between the past and the > future. > As is obvious, nothing can be observed in zero time. And still it would be > constantly moving, which somehow violates the essence of what we are getting > at by using the word "now." > > But all the things that we usually consider ourselves to be, all the forms > and functionings of our bodies, our eating and drinking and defecating, > our walking and talking and smelling flowers, our sending gifts to those > whom we love, our smiling with and our embracing of those whom we love, all > take time -- time is an essential ingredient in all those events. > > Even the observing of things that might be thought static, stones and > cupboards and books, this observation takes time. > And even if stones and cupboards and books can be seen to be relatively > static if our terms of reference are narrow enough; that is, a few thousand > years, still, seen from a longer perspective, from a perspective of millions > and billions of years, the continents are drifting like boats on a sea of > magma and the solar system, which was once a great incandescent ball of gas, > is gradually losing heat and will eventually be a cold, inert mass incapable > of sustaining any life at all. The Nobel Laureate, Henri Bergson, had an interesting viewpoint on time. In a nutshell; he proposed that the present lasts as long as the current event. After the event, say shopping, is over, then it is the past and not now, i.e., the present. His great example is the fellow falling from the cliff. The present moment is dying. The past moment or event was his entire life. > > Is there anything, or any non-thing, which is not subject to time? > > Yes, pure consciousness. > > Pure consciousness is immaterial and changeless. The mind, using that term i > n its broadest sense to include emotions and sense perceptions as well as > conceptual thinking, is constantly changing. But consciousness, pure > consciousness, is unchanging. So the character in the story, I, has characteristics. But these characteristics can change at any moment. I might make a different decision about a circumstance if I have to make it after I have been through some new event. The thing that has attributes that change, must be attributless (pure) to have that ability. So the illusion is that the mind changes its form, when in reality mind is never a thing at all. Thus there is no thing called a mind but only consciousness of change. > > From the viewpoint of addiction to the dream, to the realm of things, > characters and events - from this viewpoint pure consciousness is > incomprehensible and possibly unreal. > From the viewpoint of pure consciousness, the things, forms, characters and > events of time, the realm of the daytime-dream, are seen to be totally > unreal, as unreal as the winged dog that once flew over New York City in a > night-dream. > > And, referring to this pure consciousness, the sages have declared, that is > my Self. > > So this Self, this pure consciousness, exists Now. This is the meaning of > eternity; eternity is not time going on and on and on without end; eternity > is consciousness not going anywhere. "Consciousness", "now" and "eternity" > can be seen as synonyms. > > Perhaps it could be said that we exist in two dimensions simultaneously - > the dimension of consciousness and the dimension of time. > > Or we could say that we exist simultaneously in the dimension of the > immaterial, consciousness, and the dimension of things. But I am not too > happy with that formulation - it gives too many hostages to materialism. > > Or we could say that we, who are in fact One, exist simultaneously in the > realm of consciousness-without-objects and also in the realm of > consciousness-with-objects, provided we are clear that the "objects" in the > former realm are dream-entities. > > And I would like to suggest that a very crucial point is to see that > I-as-a-character is also a dream object, a complicated dream-object, > perceived by I-as-pure-consciousness. When "I as pure consciousness" is seen by the mind. That is, when "I am" is known there can be no "I" as a character present. Illusion is dispelled by "I am". It is discrimination of self and sattva. (Patanjali, IV.25 For him who sees the distinction between Self and Sattva there comes about the discontinuation of the projection of the false self-sense.-Feuerstein) > > Does the character perceive, or is the character a set of perceived objects? > Does the set of perceived objects "have" consciousness, or does the set of > dream objects arise and fall within consciousness? > Is the set of perceived objects, the dream-character, an autonomous entity > in charge of its life? Is it the "doer"? > > And finally, although it is clear that pure consciousness, the perceiver, > can never be seen as a form, a visual form or a sound form, can > consciousness be immersed in itSelf? > > And, if this has been glimpsed, can it become stabilized? Since the Self is the subject of any glimpsing, that is I am always doing the seeing, then I would have to simultaneously be an object to be seen. This would be making consciousness exist as two things simultaneously. Thus we say everything is "one" or the "Self" to remind us we are only the Self and not the illusion, which can be made an object by perception and memory. > > Much love > > Warwick I did not reply to a lot of what you said. The conversation is good though and I thank you for your reply. Love Bobby G. > > - > "texasbg2000" <Bigbobgraham@a...> > <> > Thursday, April 08, 2004 4:24 AM > Re: To do or not to do > > > > > > > where no persons and no dramas have ever existed. > > > > Hi > > > > Since persons and dramas are characters and stories, imaginary > > creations, isn't it unnecessary to say that they have never existed? > > Or imagine a place other than here where they don't exist? > > > > The content of Illusions, or imaginary mentations, by definition does > > not exist. > > > > The difficulty comes when one notices oneself and retains the sense > > that one is a character in a story instead of realizing one is that > > which knows that character. > > > > Just a thought > > Love > > Bobby G. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2004 Report Share Posted April 7, 2004 Hi Bob, yes, a good conversation. Didn't see "I" to "I" on everything, but a good conversation. All open enquiry into who "I" is, at all levels, is good. It is interesting that there is so much difficult speculation about time, because time is really very simple. Time is the word that is used to talk about movement and change. And if you examine it closely it becomes clear that movement is a subcategory of change. Think of it - if all change (and movement) were to stop, time would have no meaning. I think that this is why Ramana set people to searching, "Who (or what) am I?" And if you read the conversations it is clear that he intended the enquiry to take place, in the first instance, in the realm of the body and the mind. (Yes, I know that, when viewed from a very different level, there is no mind, but first things first.) And it is clear to any enquiry that every aspect of the body, the material body, and the mind, is subject to change. Then he used to stress that the Real "I" is changeless. So then the seeker is ready for the question, "Are you the changing body and mind, or are you that changeless "I" which perceives all of that?" Then it becomes possible to see that "I" is the changeless consciousness. You make the point that for consciousness to perceive itself it would have to be divided. That is certainly logical enough, but I can assure you that that is not how it works. Consciousness is immersed in itself. No thoughts, feelings or sense perceptions, just consciousness knowing itself. It can be a glimpse; it can be Nirvikalpa Samadhi or it can be Sahaja Samadhi. It is from this perspective that it is seen that the world, the body and the mind, and all the events and happenings that occur within, are just a dream. Truly. And there are thoughts and feelings which gladly die into that pure consciousness. Much love Warwick - texasbg2000 Thursday, April 08, 2004 2:04 PM Re: To do or not to do , "Warwick Wakefield" <formandsubstance@t...> wrote:> Hi Bobby G.> > You are right, of course; the place where characters and stories don't exist> is now.Dear Warwick:Your drama was a good and thoughtful one. It made me think. I reacted to the inplication that one might think that there is another thing called reality where there are no stories. Life and existence unfold as stories. The violence that you point to in your drama brings up a question we all ask ourselves. I know I would fight for my family. But there is no necessity to become a character in the story to do that. The actions are taken and consciousness, or the Real Self, is not affected by them. No matter what they are.> > But there are difficulties connected with the usage of words.> The word "now" is generally used to place doings, happenings and the> existence of forms in a temporal context.> And that's fair enough, in a rough sort of way, because doings and forms of> all sorts DO exist in time; they require time for their existence.> > But if you look at the word "now" a little closely, difficulties emerge. How> long is now? Two minutes? Two seconds? Half a second?> If "now" is considered to exist in the continuum of time, then it must have> zero length. It has to be the zero-length point between the past and the> future.> As is obvious, nothing can be observed in zero time. And still it would be> constantly moving, which somehow violates the essence of what we are getting> at by using the word "now."> > But all the things that we usually consider ourselves to be, all the forms> and functionings of our bodies, our eating and drinking and defecating,> our walking and talking and smelling flowers, our sending gifts to those> whom we love, our smiling with and our embracing of those whom we love, all> take time -- time is an essential ingredient in all those events.> > Even the observing of things that might be thought static, stones and> cupboards and books, this observation takes time.> And even if stones and cupboards and books can be seen to be relatively> static if our terms of reference are narrow enough; that is, a few thousand> years, still, seen from a longer perspective, from a perspective of millions> and billions of years, the continents are drifting like boats on a sea of> magma and the solar system, which was once a great incandescent ball of gas,> is gradually losing heat and will eventually be a cold, inert mass incapable> of sustaining any life at all.The Nobel Laureate, Henri Bergson, had an interesting viewpoint on time. In a nutshell; he proposed that the present lasts as long as the current event. After the event, say shopping, is over, then it is the past and not now, i.e., the present. His great example is the fellow falling from the cliff. The present moment is dying. The past moment or event was his entire life.> > Is there anything, or any non-thing, which is not subject to time?> > Yes, pure consciousness.> > Pure consciousness is immaterial and changeless. The mind, using that term i> n its broadest sense to include emotions and sense perceptions as well as> conceptual thinking, is constantly changing. But consciousness, pure> consciousness, is unchanging.So the character in the story, I, has characteristics. But these characteristics can change at any moment. I might make a different decision about a circumstance if I have to make it after I have been through some new event. The thing that has attributes that change, must be attributless (pure) to have that ability. So the illusion is that the mind changes its form, when in reality mind is never a thing at all. Thus there is no thing called a mind but only consciousness of change.> > From the viewpoint of addiction to the dream, to the realm of things,> characters and events - from this viewpoint pure consciousness is> incomprehensible and possibly unreal.> From the viewpoint of pure consciousness, the things, forms, characters and> events of time, the realm of the daytime-dream, are seen to be totally> unreal, as unreal as the winged dog that once flew over New York City in a> night-dream.> > And, referring to this pure consciousness, the sages have declared, that is> my Self.> > So this Self, this pure consciousness, exists Now. This is the meaning of> eternity; eternity is not time going on and on and on without end; eternity> is consciousness not going anywhere. "Consciousness", "now" and "eternity"> can be seen as synonyms.> > Perhaps it could be said that we exist in two dimensions simultaneously -> the dimension of consciousness and the dimension of time.> > Or we could say that we exist simultaneously in the dimension of the> immaterial, consciousness, and the dimension of things. But I am not too> happy with that formulation - it gives too many hostages to materialism.> > Or we could say that we, who are in fact One, exist simultaneously in the> realm of consciousness-without-objects and also in the realm of> consciousness-with-objects, provided we are clear that the "objects" in the> former realm are dream-entities.> > And I would like to suggest that a very crucial point is to see that> I-as-a-character is also a dream object, a complicated dream-object,> perceived by I-as-pure-consciousness.When "I as pure consciousness" is seen by the mind. That is, when "I am" is known there can be no "I" as a character present. Illusion is dispelled by "I am".It is discrimination of self and sattva. (Patanjali, IV.25 For him who sees the distinction between Self and Sattva there comes about the discontinuation of the projection of the false self-sense.-Feuerstein)> > Does the character perceive, or is the character a set of perceived objects?> Does the set of perceived objects "have" consciousness, or does the set of> dream objects arise and fall within consciousness?> Is the set of perceived objects, the dream-character, an autonomous entity> in charge of its life? Is it the "doer"?> > And finally, although it is clear that pure consciousness, the perceiver,> can never be seen as a form, a visual form or a sound form, can> consciousness be immersed in itSelf?> > And, if this has been glimpsed, can it become stabilized?Since the Self is the subject of any glimpsing, that is I am always doing the seeing, then I would have to simultaneously be an object to be seen. This would be making consciousness exist as two things simultaneously. Thus we say everything is "one" or the "Self" to remind us we are only the Self and not the illusion, which can be made an object by perception and memory. > > Much love> > WarwickI did not reply to a lot of what you said. The conversation is good though and I thank you for your reply.LoveBobby G.> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 8, 2004 Report Share Posted April 8, 2004 , "Warwick Wakefield" <formandsubstance@t...> wrote: > Hi Bob, > > yes, a good conversation. > Didn't see "I" to "I" on everything, but a good conversation. > All open enquiry into who "I" is, at all levels, is good. > > It is interesting that there is so much difficult speculation about time, because time is really very simple. > Time is the word that is used to talk about movement and change. > And if you examine it closely it becomes clear that movement is a subcategory of change. > Think of it - if all change (and movement) were to stop, time would have no meaning. Hi Warwick: It is good to know you. "Being" entrenched in the present moment sees the concept of time as a passing thought which leads to no other speculation. It is only when "being" is clouded by the thought process that time is taken as real. > > I think that this is why Ramana set people to searching, "Who (or what) am I?" > And if you read the conversations it is clear that he intended the enquiry to take place, in the first instance, in the realm of the body and the mind. (Yes, I know that, when viewed from a very different level, there is no mind, but first things first.) I agree, enquiry is a mental act. I see it as intended to halt mentation by centering on the first thought, the aham vritti, or "I am". By that centering or 'self enquiry', the first thought becomes the last thought. "I" is necessary as a subject for actions to occur so they can be remembered and thought about. It is easy enough to note in one's own life that whenever the thought chain stops, the "I am" is current. It is one or the other at all times. One is either lost in thought or conscious of oneself. > > And it is clear to any enquiry that every aspect of the body, the material body, and the mind, is subject to change. > > Then he used to stress that the Real "I" is changeless. > > So then the seeker is ready for the question, "Are you the changing body and mind, or are you that changeless "I" which perceives all of that?" > > Then it becomes possible to see that "I" is the changeless consciousness. A good philosophical point. > > You make the point that for consciousness to perceive itself it would have to be divided. That is certainly logical enough, but I can assure you that that is not how it works. Consciousness is immersed in itself. No thoughts, feelings or sense perceptions, just consciousness knowing itself. It can be a glimpse; it can be Nirvikalpa Samadhi or it can be Sahaja Samadhi. It is from this perspective that it is seen that the world, the body and the mind, and all the events and happenings that occur within, are just a dream. Truly. Truly. My point was not to try and divide Consciousness. Logically, if one 'is' consciousness no perception of it is necessary. The dream of perceiving consciousness requires an illusory subject. > And there are thoughts and feelings which gladly die into that pure consciousness. And the mind is submerged. Rebirth is the indication of additional obstacles and tendencies. Faith and Love overcome all. > > Much love > > Warwick Love Bobby G. > - > texasbg2000 > > Thursday, April 08, 2004 2:04 PM > Re: To do or not to do > > > , "Warwick Wakefield" > <formandsubstance@t...> wrote: > > Hi Bobby G. > > > > You are right, of course; the place where characters and stories > don't exist > > is now. > > Dear Warwick: > > Your drama was a good and thoughtful one. It made me think. I > reacted to the inplication that one might think that there is another > thing called reality where there are no stories. Life and existence > unfold as stories. > > The violence that you point to in your drama brings up a question we > all ask ourselves. I know I would fight for my family. But there is > no necessity to become a character in the story to do that. The > actions are taken and consciousness, or the Real Self, is not > affected by them. No matter what they are. > > > > > But there are difficulties connected with the usage of words. > > The word "now" is generally used to place doings, happenings and the > > existence of forms in a temporal context. > > And that's fair enough, in a rough sort of way, because doings and > forms of > > all sorts DO exist in time; they require time for their existence. > > > > But if you look at the word "now" a little closely, difficulties > emerge. How > > long is now? Two minutes? Two seconds? Half a second? > > If "now" is considered to exist in the continuum of time, then it > must have > > zero length. It has to be the zero-length point between the past > and the > > future. > > As is obvious, nothing can be observed in zero time. And still it > would be > > constantly moving, which somehow violates the essence of what we > are getting > > at by using the word "now." > > > > But all the things that we usually consider ourselves to be, all > the forms > > and functionings of our bodies, our eating and drinking and > defecating, > > our walking and talking and smelling flowers, our sending gifts to > those > > whom we love, our smiling with and our embracing of those whom we > love, all > > take time -- time is an essential ingredient in all those events. > > > > Even the observing of things that might be thought static, stones > and > > cupboards and books, this observation takes time. > > And even if stones and cupboards and books can be seen to be > relatively > > static if our terms of reference are narrow enough; that is, a few > thousand > > years, still, seen from a longer perspective, from a perspective of > millions > > and billions of years, the continents are drifting like boats on a > sea of > > magma and the solar system, which was once a great incandescent > ball of gas, > > is gradually losing heat and will eventually be a cold, inert mass > incapable > > of sustaining any life at all. > > The Nobel Laureate, Henri Bergson, had an interesting viewpoint on > time. In a nutshell; he proposed that the present lasts as long as > the current event. After the event, say shopping, is over, then it > is the past and not now, i.e., the present. > > His great example is the fellow falling from the cliff. The present > moment is dying. > > The past moment or event was his entire life. > > > > > Is there anything, or any non-thing, which is not subject to time? > > > > Yes, pure consciousness. > > > > Pure consciousness is immaterial and changeless. The mind, using > that term i > > n its broadest sense to include emotions and sense perceptions as > well as > > conceptual thinking, is constantly changing. But consciousness, > pure > > consciousness, is unchanging. > > So the character in the story, I, has characteristics. But these > characteristics can change at any moment. I might make a different > decision about a circumstance if I have to make it after I have been > through some new event. > > The thing that has attributes that change, must be attributless > (pure) to have that ability. So the illusion is that the mind > changes its form, when in reality mind is never a thing at all. > > Thus there is no thing called a mind but only consciousness of change. > > > > > From the viewpoint of addiction to the dream, to the realm of > things, > > characters and events - from this viewpoint pure consciousness is > > incomprehensible and possibly unreal. > > From the viewpoint of pure consciousness, the things, forms, > characters and > > events of time, the realm of the daytime-dream, are seen to be > totally > > unreal, as unreal as the winged dog that once flew over New York > City in a > > night-dream. > > > > And, referring to this pure consciousness, the sages have declared, > that is > > my Self. > > > > So this Self, this pure consciousness, exists Now. This is the > meaning of > > eternity; eternity is not time going on and on and on without end; > eternity > > is consciousness not going anywhere. "Consciousness", "now" > and "eternity" > > can be seen as synonyms. > > > > Perhaps it could be said that we exist in two dimensions > simultaneously - > > the dimension of consciousness and the dimension of time. > > > > Or we could say that we exist simultaneously in the dimension of > the > > immaterial, consciousness, and the dimension of things. But I am > not too > > happy with that formulation - it gives too many hostages to > materialism. > > > > Or we could say that we, who are in fact One, exist simultaneously > in the > > realm of consciousness-without-objects and also in the realm of > > consciousness-with-objects, provided we are clear that > the "objects" in the > > former realm are dream-entities. > > > > And I would like to suggest that a very crucial point is to see that > > I-as-a-character is also a dream object, a complicated dream- object, > > perceived by I-as-pure-consciousness. > > When "I as pure consciousness" is seen by the mind. That is, when "I > am" is known there can be no "I" as a character present. Illusion is > dispelled by "I am". > > It is discrimination of self and sattva. > > (Patanjali, IV.25 For him who sees the distinction between Self and > Sattva there comes about the discontinuation of the projection of the > false self-sense.-Feuerstein) > > > > > Does the character perceive, or is the character a set of perceived > objects? > > Does the set of perceived objects "have" consciousness, or does the > set of > > dream objects arise and fall within consciousness? > > Is the set of perceived objects, the dream-character, an autonomous > entity > > in charge of its life? Is it the "doer"? > > > > And finally, although it is clear that pure consciousness, the > perceiver, > > can never be seen as a form, a visual form or a sound form, can > > consciousness be immersed in itSelf? > > > > And, if this has been glimpsed, can it become stabilized? > > Since the Self is the subject of any glimpsing, that is I am always > doing the seeing, then I would have to simultaneously be an object to > be seen. This would be making consciousness exist as two things > simultaneously. > > Thus we say everything is "one" or the "Self" to remind us we are > only the Self and not the illusion, which can be made an object by > perception and memory. > > > > > > Much love > > > > Warwick > > I did not reply to a lot of what you said. The conversation is good > though > and I thank you for your reply. > > Love > Bobby G. > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 8, 2004 Report Share Posted April 8, 2004 Congratulations. Warmest regards, michael --- Warwick Wakefield <formandsubstance wrote: > My family, my wife and precious children, > were held at gunpoint. > > Michael, my five year old son, > was white-faced but brave; > his kid sister, Cecilia, was sobbing. > > Angie, my wife, my sweet-natured and loving wife, > was cut, bleeding and bruised. > Who knows what had been done to her. > > The gun looked like a fake, > it was hard to tell. > > "OK" I said, "you can take the car and whatever > money we hold." > I opened the safe and gave him the contents > then handed him the keys. > > "This is the transmitter; press these buttons to > open the doors." > "Which ones? " > "The blue ones, here." > > With his attention on the buttons, I slashed his > wrist with a Stanley knife, > slashed the tendons and slashed the arteries. > > The gun fell and he looked dazed, so I slashed his > throat. > He collapsed in a heap, rivers of blood pumping from > his dying body, > spreading in a pool over the floor. > > Now, awake, I see that the floor is without stain. > There was no intruder, no wife, no children, > and no-one had ever been in danger -- > all were creations of the one sleeping man. > > And he whose fingers type this message, > he also is a dream character in great dream > created by the One formless consciousness. > He will never awake -- he has no reality -- > but consciousness will one tire of this > game-in-time, and, > after finding ever more subtle thoughts and > feelings, > find those which are willing to die into the great > luminous One, > where no persons and no dramas have ever existed. > > > > Their captors eyes glistened with menace. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 9, 2004 Report Share Posted April 9, 2004 Dear Warwick Dear Bobby thank you for this mail, for this "discussion". the following "sentence" is IT you are right but easy????? for us yes but for the most no!!! and even if it is "easy" living accordingly 24hours for 24hours I would not call this easy....... you????? thanks again your work was the reason I joined our group this is help----- be embraced with joy and sunshine in my heart michael It is easy enough to note in one's own life that whenever the thought > chain stops, the "I am" is current. It is one or the other at all > times. One is either lost in thought or conscious of oneself. - "texasbg2000" <Bigbobgraham <> Thursday, April 08, 2004 5:11 PM Re: To do or not to do > , "Warwick Wakefield" > <formandsubstance@t...> wrote: > > Hi Bob, > > > > yes, a good conversation. > > Didn't see "I" to "I" on everything, but a good conversation. > > All open enquiry into who "I" is, at all levels, is good. > > > > It is interesting that there is so much difficult speculation about > time, because time is really very simple. > > Time is the word that is used to talk about movement and change. > > And if you examine it closely it becomes clear that movement is a > subcategory of change. > > Think of it - if all change (and movement) were to stop, time would > have no meaning. > > Hi Warwick: > > It is good to know you. > > "Being" entrenched in the present moment sees the concept of time as > a passing thought which leads to no other speculation. It is only > when "being" is clouded by the thought process that time is taken as > real. > > > > > I think that this is why Ramana set people to searching, "Who (or > what) am I?" > > And if you read the conversations it is clear that he intended the > enquiry to take place, in the first instance, in the realm of the > body and the mind. (Yes, I know that, when viewed from a very > different level, there is no mind, but first things first.) > > I agree, enquiry is a mental act. I see it as intended to halt > mentation by centering on the first thought, the aham vritti, or "I > am". By that centering or 'self enquiry', the first thought becomes > the last thought. "I" is necessary as a subject for actions to occur > so they can be remembered and thought about. > > It is easy enough to note in one's own life that whenever the thought > chain stops, the "I am" is current. It is one or the other at all > times. One is either lost in thought or conscious of oneself. > > > > > And it is clear to any enquiry that every aspect of the body, the > material body, and the mind, is subject to change. > > > > Then he used to stress that the Real "I" is changeless. > > > > So then the seeker is ready for the question, "Are you the changing > body and mind, or are you that changeless "I" which perceives all of > that?" > > > > Then it becomes possible to see that "I" is the changeless > consciousness. > > A good philosophical point. > > > > > You make the point that for consciousness to perceive itself it > would have to be divided. That is certainly logical enough, but I can > assure you that that is not how it works. Consciousness is immersed > in itself. No thoughts, feelings or sense perceptions, just > consciousness knowing itself. It can be a glimpse; it can be > Nirvikalpa Samadhi or it can be Sahaja Samadhi. It is from this > perspective that it is seen that the world, the body and the mind, > and all the events and happenings that occur within, are just a > dream. Truly. > > Truly. My point was not to try and divide Consciousness. Logically, > if one 'is' consciousness no perception of it is necessary. The dream > of perceiving consciousness requires an illusory subject. > > > And there are thoughts and feelings which gladly die into that pure > consciousness. > > And the mind is submerged. Rebirth is the indication of additional > obstacles and tendencies. Faith and Love overcome all. > > > > > Much love > > > > Warwick > > Love > Bobby G. > > > > > - > > texasbg2000 > > > > Thursday, April 08, 2004 2:04 PM > > Re: To do or not to do > > > > > > , "Warwick Wakefield" > > <formandsubstance@t...> wrote: > > > Hi Bobby G. > > > > > > You are right, of course; the place where characters and > stories > > don't exist > > > is now. > > > > Dear Warwick: > > > > Your drama was a good and thoughtful one. It made me think. I > > reacted to the inplication that one might think that there is > another > > thing called reality where there are no stories. Life and > existence > > unfold as stories. > > > > The violence that you point to in your drama brings up a question > we > > all ask ourselves. I know I would fight for my family. But > there is > > no necessity to become a character in the story to do that. The > > actions are taken and consciousness, or the Real Self, is not > > affected by them. No matter what they are. > > > > > > > > But there are difficulties connected with the usage of words. > > > The word "now" is generally used to place doings, happenings > and the > > > existence of forms in a temporal context. > > > And that's fair enough, in a rough sort of way, because doings > and > > forms of > > > all sorts DO exist in time; they require time for their > existence. > > > > > > But if you look at the word "now" a little closely, > difficulties > > emerge. How > > > long is now? Two minutes? Two seconds? Half a second? > > > If "now" is considered to exist in the continuum of time, then > it > > must have > > > zero length. It has to be the zero-length point between the > past > > and the > > > future. > > > As is obvious, nothing can be observed in zero time. And still > it > > would be > > > constantly moving, which somehow violates the essence of what > we > > are getting > > > at by using the word "now." > > > > > > But all the things that we usually consider ourselves to be, > all > > the forms > > > and functionings of our bodies, our eating and drinking and > > defecating, > > > our walking and talking and smelling flowers, our sending gifts > to > > those > > > whom we love, our smiling with and our embracing of those whom > we > > love, all > > > take time -- time is an essential ingredient in all those > events. > > > > > > Even the observing of things that might be thought static, > stones > > and > > > cupboards and books, this observation takes time. > > > And even if stones and cupboards and books can be seen to be > > relatively > > > static if our terms of reference are narrow enough; that is, a > few > > thousand > > > years, still, seen from a longer perspective, from a > perspective of > > millions > > > and billions of years, the continents are drifting like boats > on a > > sea of > > > magma and the solar system, which was once a great incandescent > > ball of gas, > > > is gradually losing heat and will eventually be a cold, inert > mass > > incapable > > > of sustaining any life at all. > > > > The Nobel Laureate, Henri Bergson, had an interesting viewpoint > on > > time. In a nutshell; he proposed that the present lasts as long > as > > the current event. After the event, say shopping, is over, then > it > > is the past and not now, i.e., the present. > > > > His great example is the fellow falling from the cliff. The > present > > moment is dying. > > > > The past moment or event was his entire life. > > > > > > > > Is there anything, or any non-thing, which is not subject to > time? > > > > > > Yes, pure consciousness. > > > > > > Pure consciousness is immaterial and changeless. The mind, > using > > that term i > > > n its broadest sense to include emotions and sense perceptions > as > > well as > > > conceptual thinking, is constantly changing. But > consciousness, > > pure > > > consciousness, is unchanging. > > > > So the character in the story, I, has characteristics. But these > > characteristics can change at any moment. I might make a > different > > decision about a circumstance if I have to make it after I have > been > > through some new event. > > > > The thing that has attributes that change, must be attributless > > (pure) to have that ability. So the illusion is that the mind > > changes its form, when in reality mind is never a thing at all. > > > > Thus there is no thing called a mind but only consciousness of > change. > > > > > > > > From the viewpoint of addiction to the dream, to the realm of > > things, > > > characters and events - from this viewpoint pure consciousness > is > > > incomprehensible and possibly unreal. > > > From the viewpoint of pure consciousness, the things, forms, > > characters and > > > events of time, the realm of the daytime-dream, are seen to be > > totally > > > unreal, as unreal as the winged dog that once flew over New > York > > City in a > > > night-dream. > > > > > > And, referring to this pure consciousness, the sages have > declared, > > that is > > > my Self. > > > > > > So this Self, this pure consciousness, exists Now. This is the > > meaning of > > > eternity; eternity is not time going on and on and on without > end; > > eternity > > > is consciousness not going anywhere. "Consciousness", "now" > > and "eternity" > > > can be seen as synonyms. > > > > > > Perhaps it could be said that we exist in two dimensions > > simultaneously - > > > the dimension of consciousness and the dimension of time. > > > > > > Or we could say that we exist simultaneously in the dimension > of > > the > > > immaterial, consciousness, and the dimension of things. But I > am > > not too > > > happy with that formulation - it gives too many hostages to > > materialism. > > > > > > Or we could say that we, who are in fact One, exist > simultaneously > > in the > > > realm of consciousness-without-objects and also in the realm of > > > consciousness-with-objects, provided we are clear that > > the "objects" in the > > > former realm are dream-entities. > > > > > > And I would like to suggest that a very crucial point is to see > that > > > I-as-a-character is also a dream object, a complicated dream- > object, > > > perceived by I-as-pure-consciousness. > > > > When "I as pure consciousness" is seen by the mind. That is, > when "I > > am" is known there can be no "I" as a character present. > Illusion is > > dispelled by "I am". > > > > It is discrimination of self and sattva. > > > > (Patanjali, IV.25 For him who sees the distinction between Self > and > > Sattva there comes about the discontinuation of the projection of > the > > false self-sense.-Feuerstein) > > > > > > > > Does the character perceive, or is the character a set of > perceived > > objects? > > > Does the set of perceived objects "have" consciousness, or does > the > > set of > > > dream objects arise and fall within consciousness? > > > Is the set of perceived objects, the dream-character, an > autonomous > > entity > > > in charge of its life? Is it the "doer"? > > > > > > And finally, although it is clear that pure consciousness, the > > perceiver, > > > can never be seen as a form, a visual form or a sound form, can > > > consciousness be immersed in itSelf? > > > > > > And, if this has been glimpsed, can it become stabilized? > > > > Since the Self is the subject of any glimpsing, that is I am > always > > doing the seeing, then I would have to simultaneously be an > object to > > be seen. This would be making consciousness exist as two things > > simultaneously. > > > > Thus we say everything is "one" or the "Self" to remind us we are > > only the Self and not the illusion, which can be made an object > by > > perception and memory. > > > > > > > > > > Much love > > > > > > Warwick > > > > I did not reply to a lot of what you said. The conversation is > good > > though > > and I thank you for your reply. > > > > Love > > Bobby G. > > > > > > > > > > > /join > > > > > > "Love itself is the actual form of God." > > Sri Ramana > > In "Letters from Sri Ramanasramam" by Suri Nagamma > Links > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 9, 2004 Report Share Posted April 9, 2004 , "Michael Bindel" <michaelbindel@t...> wrote: > Dear Warwick > Dear Bobby > > thank you for this mail, for this "discussion". > > the following "sentence" is IT > you are right > but easy????? > for us yes but for the most no!!! > and even if it is "easy" > living accordingly 24hours for 24hours I would not call this easy....... > you????? No Michael, you are right, it is not easy. The phrase 'easy enough' is sort of a disclaimer. It is recognised as not easy but not so difficult that anyone cannot know it. But then, what else is there to do? The matter of being here continually without interruption, like oil flowing down a hill, is seen as difficult when considered. Of course that consideration is a thought chain and is not important. Remaining in the heart with love is not difficult OR easy for that matter. It is a gift. Love Bobby G. > > > thanks again your work was the reason I joined our group > this is help----- > > > > be embraced with joy and sunshine in my heart > > michael It is easy enough to note in one's own life that whenever the thought > > chain stops, the "I am" is current. It is one or the other at all > > times. One is either lost in thought or conscious of oneself. > > > > - > "texasbg2000" <Bigbobgraham@a...> > <> > Thursday, April 08, 2004 5:11 PM > Re: To do or not to do > > > > , "Warwick Wakefield" > > <formandsubstance@t...> wrote: > > > Hi Bob, > > > > > > yes, a good conversation. > > > Didn't see "I" to "I" on everything, but a good conversation. > > > All open enquiry into who "I" is, at all levels, is good. > > > > > > It is interesting that there is so much difficult speculation about > > time, because time is really very simple. > > > Time is the word that is used to talk about movement and change. > > > And if you examine it closely it becomes clear that movement is a > > subcategory of change. > > > Think of it - if all change (and movement) were to stop, time would > > have no meaning. > > > > Hi Warwick: > > > > It is good to know you. > > > > "Being" entrenched in the present moment sees the concept of time as > > a passing thought which leads to no other speculation. It is only > > when "being" is clouded by the thought process that time is taken as > > real. > > > > > > > > I think that this is why Ramana set people to searching, "Who (or > > what) am I?" > > > And if you read the conversations it is clear that he intended the > > enquiry to take place, in the first instance, in the realm of the > > body and the mind. (Yes, I know that, when viewed from a very > > different level, there is no mind, but first things first.) > > > > I agree, enquiry is a mental act. I see it as intended to halt > > mentation by centering on the first thought, the aham vritti, or "I > > am". By that centering or 'self enquiry', the first thought becomes > > the last thought. "I" is necessary as a subject for actions to occur > > so they can be remembered and thought about. > > > > It is easy enough to note in one's own life that whenever the thought > > chain stops, the "I am" is current. It is one or the other at all > > times. One is either lost in thought or conscious of oneself. > > > > > > > > And it is clear to any enquiry that every aspect of the body, the > > material body, and the mind, is subject to change. > > > > > > Then he used to stress that the Real "I" is changeless. > > > > > > So then the seeker is ready for the question, "Are you the changing > > body and mind, or are you that changeless "I" which perceives all of > > that?" > > > > > > Then it becomes possible to see that "I" is the changeless > > consciousness. > > > > A good philosophical point. > > > > > > > > You make the point that for consciousness to perceive itself it > > would have to be divided. That is certainly logical enough, but I can > > assure you that that is not how it works. Consciousness is immersed > > in itself. No thoughts, feelings or sense perceptions, just > > consciousness knowing itself. It can be a glimpse; it can be > > Nirvikalpa Samadhi or it can be Sahaja Samadhi. It is from this > > perspective that it is seen that the world, the body and the mind, > > and all the events and happenings that occur within, are just a > > dream. Truly. > > > > Truly. My point was not to try and divide Consciousness. Logically, > > if one 'is' consciousness no perception of it is necessary. The dream > > of perceiving consciousness requires an illusory subject. > > > > > And there are thoughts and feelings which gladly die into that pure > > consciousness. > > > > And the mind is submerged. Rebirth is the indication of additional > > obstacles and tendencies. Faith and Love overcome all. > > > > > > > > Much love > > > > > > Warwick > > > > Love > > Bobby G. > > > > > > > > > - > > > texasbg2000 > > > > > > Thursday, April 08, 2004 2:04 PM > > > Re: To do or not to do > > > > > > > > > , "Warwick Wakefield" > > > <formandsubstance@t...> wrote: > > > > Hi Bobby G. > > > > > > > > You are right, of course; the place where characters and > > stories > > > don't exist > > > > is now. > > > > > > Dear Warwick: > > > > > > Your drama was a good and thoughtful one. It made me think. I > > > reacted to the inplication that one might think that there is > > another > > > thing called reality where there are no stories. Life and > > existence > > > unfold as stories. > > > > > > The violence that you point to in your drama brings up a question > > we > > > all ask ourselves. I know I would fight for my family. But > > there is > > > no necessity to become a character in the story to do that. The > > > actions are taken and consciousness, or the Real Self, is not > > > affected by them. No matter what they are. > > > > > > > > > > > But there are difficulties connected with the usage of words. > > > > The word "now" is generally used to place doings, happenings > > and the > > > > existence of forms in a temporal context. > > > > And that's fair enough, in a rough sort of way, because doings > > and > > > forms of > > > > all sorts DO exist in time; they require time for their > > existence. > > > > > > > > But if you look at the word "now" a little closely, > > difficulties > > > emerge. How > > > > long is now? Two minutes? Two seconds? Half a second? > > > > If "now" is considered to exist in the continuum of time, then > > it > > > must have > > > > zero length. It has to be the zero-length point between the > > past > > > and the > > > > future. > > > > As is obvious, nothing can be observed in zero time. And still > > it > > > would be > > > > constantly moving, which somehow violates the essence of what > > we > > > are getting > > > > at by using the word "now." > > > > > > > > But all the things that we usually consider ourselves to be, > > all > > > the forms > > > > and functionings of our bodies, our eating and drinking and > > > defecating, > > > > our walking and talking and smelling flowers, our sending gifts > > to > > > those > > > > whom we love, our smiling with and our embracing of those whom > > we > > > love, all > > > > take time -- time is an essential ingredient in all those > > events. > > > > > > > > Even the observing of things that might be thought static, > > stones > > > and > > > > cupboards and books, this observation takes time. > > > > And even if stones and cupboards and books can be seen to be > > > relatively > > > > static if our terms of reference are narrow enough; that is, a > > few > > > thousand > > > > years, still, seen from a longer perspective, from a > > perspective of > > > millions > > > > and billions of years, the continents are drifting like boats > > on a > > > sea of > > > > magma and the solar system, which was once a great incandescent > > > ball of gas, > > > > is gradually losing heat and will eventually be a cold, inert > > mass > > > incapable > > > > of sustaining any life at all. > > > > > > The Nobel Laureate, Henri Bergson, had an interesting viewpoint > > on > > > time. In a nutshell; he proposed that the present lasts as long > > as > > > the current event. After the event, say shopping, is over, then > > it > > > is the past and not now, i.e., the present. > > > > > > His great example is the fellow falling from the cliff. The > > present > > > moment is dying. > > > > > > The past moment or event was his entire life. > > > > > > > > > > > Is there anything, or any non-thing, which is not subject to > > time? > > > > > > > > Yes, pure consciousness. > > > > > > > > Pure consciousness is immaterial and changeless. The mind, > > using > > > that term i > > > > n its broadest sense to include emotions and sense perceptions > > as > > > well as > > > > conceptual thinking, is constantly changing. But > > consciousness, > > > pure > > > > consciousness, is unchanging. > > > > > > So the character in the story, I, has characteristics. But these > > > characteristics can change at any moment. I might make a > > different > > > decision about a circumstance if I have to make it after I have > > been > > > through some new event. > > > > > > The thing that has attributes that change, must be attributless > > > (pure) to have that ability. So the illusion is that the mind > > > changes its form, when in reality mind is never a thing at all. > > > > > > Thus there is no thing called a mind but only consciousness of > > change. > > > > > > > > > > > From the viewpoint of addiction to the dream, to the realm of > > > things, > > > > characters and events - from this viewpoint pure consciousness > > is > > > > incomprehensible and possibly unreal. > > > > From the viewpoint of pure consciousness, the things, forms, > > > characters and > > > > events of time, the realm of the daytime-dream, are seen to be > > > totally > > > > unreal, as unreal as the winged dog that once flew over New > > York > > > City in a > > > > night-dream. > > > > > > > > And, referring to this pure consciousness, the sages have > > declared, > > > that is > > > > my Self. > > > > > > > > So this Self, this pure consciousness, exists Now. This is the > > > meaning of > > > > eternity; eternity is not time going on and on and on without > > end; > > > eternity > > > > is consciousness not going anywhere. "Consciousness", "now" > > > and "eternity" > > > > can be seen as synonyms. > > > > > > > > Perhaps it could be said that we exist in two dimensions > > > simultaneously - > > > > the dimension of consciousness and the dimension of time. > > > > > > > > Or we could say that we exist simultaneously in the dimension > > of > > > the > > > > immaterial, consciousness, and the dimension of things. But I > > am > > > not too > > > > happy with that formulation - it gives too many hostages to > > > materialism. > > > > > > > > Or we could say that we, who are in fact One, exist > > simultaneously > > > in the > > > > realm of consciousness-without-objects and also in the realm of > > > > consciousness-with-objects, provided we are clear that > > > the "objects" in the > > > > former realm are dream-entities. > > > > > > > > And I would like to suggest that a very crucial point is to see > > that > > > > I-as-a-character is also a dream object, a complicated dream- > > object, > > > > perceived by I-as-pure-consciousness. > > > > > > When "I as pure consciousness" is seen by the mind. That is, > > when "I > > > am" is known there can be no "I" as a character present. > > Illusion is > > > dispelled by "I am". > > > > > > It is discrimination of self and sattva. > > > > > > (Patanjali, IV.25 For him who sees the distinction between Self > > and > > > Sattva there comes about the discontinuation of the projection of > > the > > > false self-sense.-Feuerstein) > > > > > > > > > > > Does the character perceive, or is the character a set of > > perceived > > > objects? > > > > Does the set of perceived objects "have" consciousness, or does > > the > > > set of > > > > dream objects arise and fall within consciousness? > > > > Is the set of perceived objects, the dream-character, an > > autonomous > > > entity > > > > in charge of its life? Is it the "doer"? > > > > > > > > And finally, although it is clear that pure consciousness, the > > > perceiver, > > > > can never be seen as a form, a visual form or a sound form, can > > > > consciousness be immersed in itSelf? > > > > > > > > And, if this has been glimpsed, can it become stabilized? > > > > > > Since the Self is the subject of any glimpsing, that is I am > > always > > > doing the seeing, then I would have to simultaneously be an > > object to > > > be seen. This would be making consciousness exist as two things > > > simultaneously. > > > > > > Thus we say everything is "one" or the "Self" to remind us we are > > > only the Self and not the illusion, which can be made an object > > by > > > perception and memory. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Much love > > > > > > > > Warwick > > > > > > I did not reply to a lot of what you said. The conversation is > > good > > > though > > > and I thank you for your reply. > > > > > > Love > > > Bobby G. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > /join > > > > > > > > > > > > "Love itself is the actual form of God." > > > > Sri Ramana > > > > In "Letters from Sri Ramanasramam" by Suri Nagamma > > Links > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 11, 2004 Report Share Posted April 11, 2004 Dear Bobby G I really like to "talk" to you. Yes - remaining in the heart with love - despite all "egoproblems" is a gift and can - even if "i" give "my" best only be achieved by Grace. Thanks to this Grace I "better half" (a german expression) Sylvie is gifted by this Grace and I see how difficult it is to live with this grace in this world. Because of this gift she has to learn so hard to tackle all the nasty things live has to offer.... I hope you can understand me.... And this being much younger than I am - I am 64 and she 41. Be embraced with a h u g e inner and even outer smile.... michael bindel - "texasbg2000" <Bigbobgraham <> Friday, April 09, 2004 5:25 PM Re: To do or not to do > , "Michael Bindel" > <michaelbindel@t...> wrote: > > Dear Warwick > > Dear Bobby > > > > thank you for this mail, for this "discussion". > > > > the following "sentence" is IT > > you are right > > but easy????? > > for us yes but for the most no!!! > > and even if it is "easy" > > living accordingly 24hours for 24hours I would not call this > easy....... > > you????? > > No Michael, you are right, it is not easy. The phrase 'easy enough' > is sort of a disclaimer. It is recognised as not easy but not so > difficult that anyone cannot know it. > > But then, what else is there to do? > > The matter of being here continually without interruption, like oil > flowing down a hill, is seen as difficult when considered. Of course > that consideration is a thought chain and is not important. > > Remaining in the heart with love is not difficult OR easy for that > matter. It is a gift. > > Love > Bobby G. > > > > > > > thanks again your work was the reason I joined our group > > this is help----- > > > > > > > > be embraced with joy and sunshine in my heart > > > > michael > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is easy enough to note in one's own life that whenever the > thought > > > chain stops, the "I am" is current. It is one or the other at > all > > > times. One is either lost in thought or conscious of oneself. > > > > > > > > - > > "texasbg2000" <Bigbobgraham@a...> > > <> > > Thursday, April 08, 2004 5:11 PM > > Re: To do or not to do > > > > > > > , "Warwick Wakefield" > > > <formandsubstance@t...> wrote: > > > > Hi Bob, > > > > > > > > yes, a good conversation. > > > > Didn't see "I" to "I" on everything, but a good conversation. > > > > All open enquiry into who "I" is, at all levels, is good. > > > > > > > > It is interesting that there is so much difficult speculation > about > > > time, because time is really very simple. > > > > Time is the word that is used to talk about movement and change. > > > > And if you examine it closely it becomes clear that movement is > a > > > subcategory of change. > > > > Think of it - if all change (and movement) were to stop, time > would > > > have no meaning. > > > > > > Hi Warwick: > > > > > > It is good to know you. > > > > > > "Being" entrenched in the present moment sees the concept of time > as > > > a passing thought which leads to no other speculation. It is > only > > > when "being" is clouded by the thought process that time is taken > as > > > real. > > > > > > > > > > > I think that this is why Ramana set people to searching, "Who > (or > > > what) am I?" > > > > And if you read the conversations it is clear that he intended > the > > > enquiry to take place, in the first instance, in the realm of the > > > body and the mind. (Yes, I know that, when viewed from a very > > > different level, there is no mind, but first things first.) > > > > > > I agree, enquiry is a mental act. I see it as intended to halt > > > mentation by centering on the first thought, the aham vritti, > or "I > > > am". By that centering or 'self enquiry', the first thought > becomes > > > the last thought. "I" is necessary as a subject for actions to > occur > > > so they can be remembered and thought about. > > > > > > It is easy enough to note in one's own life that whenever the > thought > > > chain stops, the "I am" is current. It is one or the other at > all > > > times. One is either lost in thought or conscious of oneself. > > > > > > > > > > > And it is clear to any enquiry that every aspect of the body, > the > > > material body, and the mind, is subject to change. > > > > > > > > Then he used to stress that the Real "I" is changeless. > > > > > > > > So then the seeker is ready for the question, "Are you the > changing > > > body and mind, or are you that changeless "I" which perceives all > of > > > that?" > > > > > > > > Then it becomes possible to see that "I" is the changeless > > > consciousness. > > > > > > A good philosophical point. > > > > > > > > > > > You make the point that for consciousness to perceive itself it > > > would have to be divided. That is certainly logical enough, but I > can > > > assure you that that is not how it works. Consciousness is > immersed > > > in itself. No thoughts, feelings or sense perceptions, just > > > consciousness knowing itself. It can be a glimpse; it can be > > > Nirvikalpa Samadhi or it can be Sahaja Samadhi. It is from this > > > perspective that it is seen that the world, the body and the > mind, > > > and all the events and happenings that occur within, are just a > > > dream. Truly. > > > > > > Truly. My point was not to try and divide Consciousness. > Logically, > > > if one 'is' consciousness no perception of it is necessary. The > dream > > > of perceiving consciousness requires an illusory subject. > > > > > > > And there are thoughts and feelings which gladly die into that > pure > > > consciousness. > > > > > > And the mind is submerged. Rebirth is the indication of > additional > > > obstacles and tendencies. Faith and Love overcome all. > > > > > > > > > > > Much love > > > > > > > > Warwick > > > > > > Love > > > Bobby G. > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > texasbg2000 > > > > > > > > Thursday, April 08, 2004 2:04 PM > > > > Re: To do or not to do > > > > > > > > > > > > , "Warwick Wakefield" > > > > <formandsubstance@t...> wrote: > > > > > Hi Bobby G. > > > > > > > > > > You are right, of course; the place where characters and > > > stories > > > > don't exist > > > > > is now. > > > > > > > > Dear Warwick: > > > > > > > > Your drama was a good and thoughtful one. It made me think. > I > > > > reacted to the inplication that one might think that there is > > > another > > > > thing called reality where there are no stories. Life and > > > existence > > > > unfold as stories. > > > > > > > > The violence that you point to in your drama brings up a > question > > > we > > > > all ask ourselves. I know I would fight for my family. But > > > there is > > > > no necessity to become a character in the story to do that. > The > > > > actions are taken and consciousness, or the Real Self, is not > > > > affected by them. No matter what they are. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But there are difficulties connected with the usage of > words. > > > > > The word "now" is generally used to place doings, > happenings > > > and the > > > > > existence of forms in a temporal context. > > > > > And that's fair enough, in a rough sort of way, because > doings > > > and > > > > forms of > > > > > all sorts DO exist in time; they require time for their > > > existence. > > > > > > > > > > But if you look at the word "now" a little closely, > > > difficulties > > > > emerge. How > > > > > long is now? Two minutes? Two seconds? Half a second? > > > > > If "now" is considered to exist in the continuum of time, > then > > > it > > > > must have > > > > > zero length. It has to be the zero-length point between the > > > past > > > > and the > > > > > future. > > > > > As is obvious, nothing can be observed in zero time. And > still > > > it > > > > would be > > > > > constantly moving, which somehow violates the essence of > what > > > we > > > > are getting > > > > > at by using the word "now." > > > > > > > > > > But all the things that we usually consider ourselves to > be, > > > all > > > > the forms > > > > > and functionings of our bodies, our eating and drinking and > > > > defecating, > > > > > our walking and talking and smelling flowers, our sending > gifts > > > to > > > > those > > > > > whom we love, our smiling with and our embracing of those > whom > > > we > > > > love, all > > > > > take time -- time is an essential ingredient in all those > > > events. > > > > > > > > > > Even the observing of things that might be thought static, > > > stones > > > > and > > > > > cupboards and books, this observation takes time. > > > > > And even if stones and cupboards and books can be seen to > be > > > > relatively > > > > > static if our terms of reference are narrow enough; that > is, a > > > few > > > > thousand > > > > > years, still, seen from a longer perspective, from a > > > perspective of > > > > millions > > > > > and billions of years, the continents are drifting like > boats > > > on a > > > > sea of > > > > > magma and the solar system, which was once a great > incandescent > > > > ball of gas, > > > > > is gradually losing heat and will eventually be a cold, > inert > > > mass > > > > incapable > > > > > of sustaining any life at all. > > > > > > > > The Nobel Laureate, Henri Bergson, had an interesting > viewpoint > > > on > > > > time. In a nutshell; he proposed that the present lasts as > long > > > as > > > > the current event. After the event, say shopping, is over, > then > > > it > > > > is the past and not now, i.e., the present. > > > > > > > > His great example is the fellow falling from the cliff. The > > > present > > > > moment is dying. > > > > > > > > The past moment or event was his entire life. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is there anything, or any non-thing, which is not subject > to > > > time? > > > > > > > > > > Yes, pure consciousness. > > > > > > > > > > Pure consciousness is immaterial and changeless. The mind, > > > using > > > > that term i > > > > > n its broadest sense to include emotions and sense > perceptions > > > as > > > > well as > > > > > conceptual thinking, is constantly changing. But > > > consciousness, > > > > pure > > > > > consciousness, is unchanging. > > > > > > > > So the character in the story, I, has characteristics. But > these > > > > characteristics can change at any moment. I might make a > > > different > > > > decision about a circumstance if I have to make it after I > have > > > been > > > > through some new event. > > > > > > > > The thing that has attributes that change, must be > attributless > > > > (pure) to have that ability. So the illusion is that the > mind > > > > changes its form, when in reality mind is never a thing at > all. > > > > > > > > Thus there is no thing called a mind but only consciousness > of > > > change. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From the viewpoint of addiction to the dream, to the realm > of > > > > things, > > > > > characters and events - from this viewpoint pure > consciousness > > > is > > > > > incomprehensible and possibly unreal. > > > > > From the viewpoint of pure consciousness, the things, > forms, > > > > characters and > > > > > events of time, the realm of the daytime-dream, are seen > to be > > > > totally > > > > > unreal, as unreal as the winged dog that once flew over New > > > York > > > > City in a > > > > > night-dream. > > > > > > > > > > And, referring to this pure consciousness, the sages have > > > declared, > > > > that is > > > > > my Self. > > > > > > > > > > So this Self, this pure consciousness, exists Now. This is > the > > > > meaning of > > > > > eternity; eternity is not time going on and on and on > without > > > end; > > > > eternity > > > > > is consciousness not going anywhere. "Consciousness", "now" > > > > and "eternity" > > > > > can be seen as synonyms. > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps it could be said that we exist in two dimensions > > > > simultaneously - > > > > > the dimension of consciousness and the dimension of time. > > > > > > > > > > Or we could say that we exist simultaneously in the > dimension > > > of > > > > the > > > > > immaterial, consciousness, and the dimension of things. But > I > > > am > > > > not too > > > > > happy with that formulation - it gives too many hostages > to > > > > materialism. > > > > > > > > > > Or we could say that we, who are in fact One, exist > > > simultaneously > > > > in the > > > > > realm of consciousness-without-objects and also in the > realm of > > > > > consciousness-with-objects, provided we are clear that > > > > the "objects" in the > > > > > former realm are dream-entities. > > > > > > > > > > And I would like to suggest that a very crucial point is to > see > > > that > > > > > I-as-a-character is also a dream object, a complicated > dream- > > > object, > > > > > perceived by I-as-pure-consciousness. > > > > > > > > When "I as pure consciousness" is seen by the mind. That is, > > > when "I > > > > am" is known there can be no "I" as a character present. > > > Illusion is > > > > dispelled by "I am". > > > > > > > > It is discrimination of self and sattva. > > > > > > > > (Patanjali, IV.25 For him who sees the distinction between > Self > > > and > > > > Sattva there comes about the discontinuation of the > projection of > > > the > > > > false self-sense.-Feuerstein) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does the character perceive, or is the character a set of > > > perceived > > > > objects? > > > > > Does the set of perceived objects "have" consciousness, or > does > > > the > > > > set of > > > > > dream objects arise and fall within consciousness? > > > > > Is the set of perceived objects, the dream-character, an > > > autonomous > > > > entity > > > > > in charge of its life? Is it the "doer"? > > > > > > > > > > And finally, although it is clear that pure consciousness, > the > > > > perceiver, > > > > > can never be seen as a form, a visual form or a sound form, > can > > > > > consciousness be immersed in itSelf? > > > > > > > > > > And, if this has been glimpsed, can it become stabilized? > > > > > > > > Since the Self is the subject of any glimpsing, that is I am > > > always > > > > doing the seeing, then I would have to simultaneously be an > > > object to > > > > be seen. This would be making consciousness exist as two > things > > > > simultaneously. > > > > > > > > Thus we say everything is "one" or the "Self" to remind us we > are > > > > only the Self and not the illusion, which can be made an > object > > > by > > > > perception and memory. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Much love > > > > > > > > > > Warwick > > > > > > > > I did not reply to a lot of what you said. The conversation > is > > > good > > > > though > > > > and I thank you for your reply. > > > > > > > > Love > > > > Bobby G. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > /join > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Love itself is the actual form of God." > > > > > > Sri Ramana > > > > > > In "Letters from Sri Ramanasramam" by Suri Nagamma > > > Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > /join > > > > > > "Love itself is the actual form of God." > > Sri Ramana > > In "Letters from Sri Ramanasramam" by Suri Nagamma > Links > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 11, 2004 Report Share Posted April 11, 2004 , "Michael Bindel" <michaelbindel@t...> wrote: > Dear Bobby G > > I really like to "talk" to you. > Yes - remaining in the heart with love - despite all "egoproblems" is a > gift and can - even if "i" give "my" best only be achieved by Grace. > Thanks to this Grace I "better half" (a german expression) Sylvie is gifted > by this Grace and I see how difficult it is to live with this grace in this > world. Because of this gift she has to learn so hard to tackle all the nasty > things live has to offer.... > I hope you can understand me.... > And this being much younger than I am - I am 64 and she 41. > Be embraced with a h u g e inner and even outer smile.... > > michael bindel I do feel embraced Michael. Thanks. Your better half, "the old ball and chain" (an american phrase for wife), sounds like a great person to be around. So you think it would be better without the gift. I am kidding you a little here. I know you do not believe that. It sounds like you would like to spare a beautiful person the pains of life in the world. But I think you may be just griping (complainting) a little. I have a son that was born to gentleness and it is hard to see him be pushed around. I always need to stop myself from telling him to assert himself. He beats himself up enough about it already. But of course one of the rewards is that people like to be around him a lot. Love Bobby G. > - > "texasbg2000" <Bigbobgraham@a...> > <> > Friday, April 09, 2004 5:25 PM > Re: To do or not to do > > > > , "Michael Bindel" > > <michaelbindel@t...> wrote: > > > Dear Warwick > > > Dear Bobby > > > > > > thank you for this mail, for this "discussion". > > > > > > the following "sentence" is IT > > > you are right > > > but easy????? > > > for us yes but for the most no!!! > > > and even if it is "easy" > > > living accordingly 24hours for 24hours I would not call this > > easy....... > > > you????? > > > > No Michael, you are right, it is not easy. The phrase 'easy enough' > > is sort of a disclaimer. It is recognised as not easy but not so > > difficult that anyone cannot know it. > > > > But then, what else is there to do? > > > > The matter of being here continually without interruption, like oil > > flowing down a hill, is seen as difficult when considered. Of course > > that consideration is a thought chain and is not important. > > > > Remaining in the heart with love is not difficult OR easy for that > > matter. It is a gift. > > > > Love > > Bobby G. > > > > > > > > > > > thanks again your work was the reason I joined our group > > > this is help----- > > > > > > > > > > > > be embraced with joy and sunshine in my heart > > > > > > michael > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is easy enough to note in one's own life that whenever the > > thought > > > > chain stops, the "I am" is current. It is one or the other at > > all > > > > times. One is either lost in thought or conscious of oneself. > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > "texasbg2000" <Bigbobgraham@a...> > > > <> > > > Thursday, April 08, 2004 5:11 PM > > > Re: To do or not to do > > > > > > > > > > , "Warwick Wakefield" > > > > <formandsubstance@t...> wrote: > > > > > Hi Bob, > > > > > > > > > > yes, a good conversation. > > > > > Didn't see "I" to "I" on everything, but a good conversation. > > > > > All open enquiry into who "I" is, at all levels, is good. > > > > > > > > > > It is interesting that there is so much difficult speculation > > about > > > > time, because time is really very simple. > > > > > Time is the word that is used to talk about movement and change. > > > > > And if you examine it closely it becomes clear that movement is > > a > > > > subcategory of change. > > > > > Think of it - if all change (and movement) were to stop, time > > would > > > > have no meaning. > > > > > > > > Hi Warwick: > > > > > > > > It is good to know you. > > > > > > > > "Being" entrenched in the present moment sees the concept of time > > as > > > > a passing thought which leads to no other speculation. It is > > only > > > > when "being" is clouded by the thought process that time is taken > > as > > > > real. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think that this is why Ramana set people to searching, "Who > > (or > > > > what) am I?" > > > > > And if you read the conversations it is clear that he intended > > the > > > > enquiry to take place, in the first instance, in the realm of the > > > > body and the mind. (Yes, I know that, when viewed from a very > > > > different level, there is no mind, but first things first.) > > > > > > > > I agree, enquiry is a mental act. I see it as intended to halt > > > > mentation by centering on the first thought, the aham vritti, > > or "I > > > > am". By that centering or 'self enquiry', the first thought > > becomes > > > > the last thought. "I" is necessary as a subject for actions to > > occur > > > > so they can be remembered and thought about. > > > > > > > > It is easy enough to note in one's own life that whenever the > > thought > > > > chain stops, the "I am" is current. It is one or the other at > > all > > > > times. One is either lost in thought or conscious of oneself. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And it is clear to any enquiry that every aspect of the body, > > the > > > > material body, and the mind, is subject to change. > > > > > > > > > > Then he used to stress that the Real "I" is changeless. > > > > > > > > > > So then the seeker is ready for the question, "Are you the > > changing > > > > body and mind, or are you that changeless "I" which perceives all > > of > > > > that?" > > > > > > > > > > Then it becomes possible to see that "I" is the changeless > > > > consciousness. > > > > > > > > A good philosophical point. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You make the point that for consciousness to perceive itself it > > > > would have to be divided. That is certainly logical enough, but I > > can > > > > assure you that that is not how it works. Consciousness is > > immersed > > > > in itself. No thoughts, feelings or sense perceptions, just > > > > consciousness knowing itself. It can be a glimpse; it can be > > > > Nirvikalpa Samadhi or it can be Sahaja Samadhi. It is from this > > > > perspective that it is seen that the world, the body and the > > mind, > > > > and all the events and happenings that occur within, are just a > > > > dream. Truly. > > > > > > > > Truly. My point was not to try and divide Consciousness. > > Logically, > > > > if one 'is' consciousness no perception of it is necessary. The > > dream > > > > of perceiving consciousness requires an illusory subject. > > > > > > > > > And there are thoughts and feelings which gladly die into that > > pure > > > > consciousness. > > > > > > > > And the mind is submerged. Rebirth is the indication of > > additional > > > > obstacles and tendencies. Faith and Love overcome all. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Much love > > > > > > > > > > Warwick > > > > > > > > Love > > > > Bobby G. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > texasbg2000 > > > > > > > > > > Thursday, April 08, 2004 2:04 PM > > > > > Re: To do or not to do > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , "Warwick Wakefield" > > > > > <formandsubstance@t...> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Bobby G. > > > > > > > > > > > > You are right, of course; the place where characters and > > > > stories > > > > > don't exist > > > > > > is now. > > > > > > > > > > Dear Warwick: > > > > > > > > > > Your drama was a good and thoughtful one. It made me think. > > I > > > > > reacted to the inplication that one might think that there is > > > > another > > > > > thing called reality where there are no stories. Life and > > > > existence > > > > > unfold as stories. > > > > > > > > > > The violence that you point to in your drama brings up a > > question > > > > we > > > > > all ask ourselves. I know I would fight for my family. But > > > > there is > > > > > no necessity to become a character in the story to do that. > > The > > > > > actions are taken and consciousness, or the Real Self, is not > > > > > affected by them. No matter what they are. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But there are difficulties connected with the usage of > > words. > > > > > > The word "now" is generally used to place doings, > > happenings > > > > and the > > > > > > existence of forms in a temporal context. > > > > > > And that's fair enough, in a rough sort of way, because > > doings > > > > and > > > > > forms of > > > > > > all sorts DO exist in time; they require time for their > > > > existence. > > > > > > > > > > > > But if you look at the word "now" a little closely, > > > > difficulties > > > > > emerge. How > > > > > > long is now? Two minutes? Two seconds? Half a second? > > > > > > If "now" is considered to exist in the continuum of time, > > then > > > > it > > > > > must have > > > > > > zero length. It has to be the zero-length point between the > > > > past > > > > > and the > > > > > > future. > > > > > > As is obvious, nothing can be observed in zero time. And > > still > > > > it > > > > > would be > > > > > > constantly moving, which somehow violates the essence of > > what > > > > we > > > > > are getting > > > > > > at by using the word "now." > > > > > > > > > > > > But all the things that we usually consider ourselves to > > be, > > > > all > > > > > the forms > > > > > > and functionings of our bodies, our eating and drinking and > > > > > defecating, > > > > > > our walking and talking and smelling flowers, our sending > > gifts > > > > to > > > > > those > > > > > > whom we love, our smiling with and our embracing of those > > whom > > > > we > > > > > love, all > > > > > > take time -- time is an essential ingredient in all those > > > > events. > > > > > > > > > > > > Even the observing of things that might be thought static, > > > > stones > > > > > and > > > > > > cupboards and books, this observation takes time. > > > > > > And even if stones and cupboards and books can be seen to > > be > > > > > relatively > > > > > > static if our terms of reference are narrow enough; that > > is, a > > > > few > > > > > thousand > > > > > > years, still, seen from a longer perspective, from a > > > > perspective of > > > > > millions > > > > > > and billions of years, the continents are drifting like > > boats > > > > on a > > > > > sea of > > > > > > magma and the solar system, which was once a great > > incandescent > > > > > ball of gas, > > > > > > is gradually losing heat and will eventually be a cold, > > inert > > > > mass > > > > > incapable > > > > > > of sustaining any life at all. > > > > > > > > > > The Nobel Laureate, Henri Bergson, had an interesting > > viewpoint > > > > on > > > > > time. In a nutshell; he proposed that the present lasts as > > long > > > > as > > > > > the current event. After the event, say shopping, is over, > > then > > > > it > > > > > is the past and not now, i.e., the present. > > > > > > > > > > His great example is the fellow falling from the cliff. The > > > > present > > > > > moment is dying. > > > > > > > > > > The past moment or event was his entire life. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is there anything, or any non-thing, which is not subject > > to > > > > time? > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, pure consciousness. > > > > > > > > > > > > Pure consciousness is immaterial and changeless. The mind, > > > > using > > > > > that term i > > > > > > n its broadest sense to include emotions and sense > > perceptions > > > > as > > > > > well as > > > > > > conceptual thinking, is constantly changing. But > > > > consciousness, > > > > > pure > > > > > > consciousness, is unchanging. > > > > > > > > > > So the character in the story, I, has characteristics. But > > these > > > > > characteristics can change at any moment. I might make a > > > > different > > > > > decision about a circumstance if I have to make it after I > > have > > > > been > > > > > through some new event. > > > > > > > > > > The thing that has attributes that change, must be > > attributless > > > > > (pure) to have that ability. So the illusion is that the > > mind > > > > > changes its form, when in reality mind is never a thing at > > all. > > > > > > > > > > Thus there is no thing called a mind but only consciousness > > of > > > > change. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From the viewpoint of addiction to the dream, to the realm > > of > > > > > things, > > > > > > characters and events - from this viewpoint pure > > consciousness > > > > is > > > > > > incomprehensible and possibly unreal. > > > > > > From the viewpoint of pure consciousness, the things, > > forms, > > > > > characters and > > > > > > events of time, the realm of the daytime-dream, are seen > > to be > > > > > totally > > > > > > unreal, as unreal as the winged dog that once flew over New > > > > York > > > > > City in a > > > > > > night-dream. > > > > > > > > > > > > And, referring to this pure consciousness, the sages have > > > > declared, > > > > > that is > > > > > > my Self. > > > > > > > > > > > > So this Self, this pure consciousness, exists Now. This is > > the > > > > > meaning of > > > > > > eternity; eternity is not time going on and on and on > > without > > > > end; > > > > > eternity > > > > > > is consciousness not going anywhere. "Consciousness", "now" > > > > > and "eternity" > > > > > > can be seen as synonyms. > > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps it could be said that we exist in two dimensions > > > > > simultaneously - > > > > > > the dimension of consciousness and the dimension of time. > > > > > > > > > > > > Or we could say that we exist simultaneously in the > > dimension > > > > of > > > > > the > > > > > > immaterial, consciousness, and the dimension of things. But > > I > > > > am > > > > > not too > > > > > > happy with that formulation - it gives too many hostages > > to > > > > > materialism. > > > > > > > > > > > > Or we could say that we, who are in fact One, exist > > > > simultaneously > > > > > in the > > > > > > realm of consciousness-without-objects and also in the > > realm of > > > > > > consciousness-with-objects, provided we are clear that > > > > > the "objects" in the > > > > > > former realm are dream-entities. > > > > > > > > > > > > And I would like to suggest that a very crucial point is to > > see > > > > that > > > > > > I-as-a-character is also a dream object, a complicated > > dream- > > > > object, > > > > > > perceived by I-as-pure-consciousness. > > > > > > > > > > When "I as pure consciousness" is seen by the mind. That is, > > > > when "I > > > > > am" is known there can be no "I" as a character present. > > > > Illusion is > > > > > dispelled by "I am". > > > > > > > > > > It is discrimination of self and sattva. > > > > > > > > > > (Patanjali, IV.25 For him who sees the distinction between > > Self > > > > and > > > > > Sattva there comes about the discontinuation of the > > projection of > > > > the > > > > > false self-sense.-Feuerstein) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does the character perceive, or is the character a set of > > > > perceived > > > > > objects? > > > > > > Does the set of perceived objects "have" consciousness, or > > does > > > > the > > > > > set of > > > > > > dream objects arise and fall within consciousness? > > > > > > Is the set of perceived objects, the dream-character, an > > > > autonomous > > > > > entity > > > > > > in charge of its life? Is it the "doer"? > > > > > > > > > > > > And finally, although it is clear that pure consciousness, > > the > > > > > perceiver, > > > > > > can never be seen as a form, a visual form or a sound form, > > can > > > > > > consciousness be immersed in itSelf? > > > > > > > > > > > > And, if this has been glimpsed, can it become stabilized? > > > > > > > > > > Since the Self is the subject of any glimpsing, that is I am > > > > always > > > > > doing the seeing, then I would have to simultaneously be an > > > > object to > > > > > be seen. This would be making consciousness exist as two > > things > > > > > simultaneously. > > > > > > > > > > Thus we say everything is "one" or the "Self" to remind us we > > are > > > > > only the Self and not the illusion, which can be made an > > object > > > > by > > > > > perception and memory. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Much love > > > > > > > > > > > > Warwick > > > > > > > > > > I did not reply to a lot of what you said. The conversation > > is > > > > good > > > > > though > > > > > and I thank you for your reply. > > > > > > > > > > Love > > > > > Bobby G. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > /join > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Love itself is the actual form of God." > > > > > > > > Sri Ramana > > > > > > > > In "Letters from Sri Ramanasramam" by Suri Nagamma > > > > Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > /join > > > > > > > > > > > > "Love itself is the actual form of God." > > > > Sri Ramana > > > > In "Letters from Sri Ramanasramam" by Suri Nagamma > > Links > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 12, 2004 Report Share Posted April 12, 2004 Bobby Michael: reading your answer: joy laughter happiness thats a GOODIE > I do feel embraced Michael. Thanks. Michael great that it arrives thousand of miles around the globe > > Your better half, "the old ball and chain" (an american phrase for > wife), sounds like a great person to be around. Michael: RIGHT YOU ARE allways happy to learn americans phrases > > So you think it would be better without the gift. I am kidding you a > little here. I know you do not believe that. > > It sounds like you would like to spare a beautiful person the pains > of life in the world. Michael: RIGHT YOU ARE AGAIN sure I would like this but knowing its of no use this wanting makes "me" I mean my egostuff suffering which I do not like no thanks not any more > > But I think you may be just griping (complainting) a little. Michael right again sometimes I like to "complain" LOL we have son Gavriel who is no 13 precious gift too.. I have a son that was born to gentleness and it is hard to see him be pushed > around. I always need to stop myself from telling him to assert > himself. He beats himself up enough about it already. > Michael: thanks for telling me this I am "warming up" for you LOL > But of course one of the rewards is that people like to be around him > a lot. Michael my opinion too > Love > Bobby G. > > Bobby coming from you I do accept this wonderful energy..... am with you sunshine joy peace of mind HAPPINESS IN YOURSELF MICHAEL > > > - > > "texasbg2000" <Bigbobgraham@a...> > > <> > > Friday, April 09, 2004 5:25 PM > > Re: To do or not to do > > > > > > > , "Michael Bindel" > > > <michaelbindel@t...> wrote: > > > > Dear Warwick > > > > Dear Bobby > > > > > > > > thank you for this mail, for this "discussion". > > > > > > > > the following "sentence" is IT > > > > you are right > > > > but easy????? > > > > for us yes but for the most no!!! > > > > and even if it is "easy" > > > > living accordingly 24hours for 24hours I would not call this > > > easy....... > > > > you????? > > > > > > No Michael, you are right, it is not easy. The phrase 'easy > enough' > > > is sort of a disclaimer. It is recognised as not easy but not so > > > difficult that anyone cannot know it. > > > > > > But then, what else is there to do? > > > > > > The matter of being here continually without interruption, like > oil > > > flowing down a hill, is seen as difficult when considered. Of > course > > > that consideration is a thought chain and is not important. > > > > > > Remaining in the heart with love is not difficult OR easy for that > > > matter. It is a gift. > > > > > > Love > > > Bobby G. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thanks again your work was the reason I joined our group > > > > this is help----- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be embraced with joy and sunshine in my heart > > > > > > > > michael > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is easy enough to note in one's own life that whenever the > > > thought > > > > > chain stops, the "I am" is current. It is one or the other at > > > all > > > > > times. One is either lost in thought or conscious of oneself. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > "texasbg2000" <Bigbobgraham@a...> > > > > <> > > > > Thursday, April 08, 2004 5:11 PM > > > > Re: To do or not to do > > > > > > > > > > > > > , "Warwick Wakefield" > > > > > <formandsubstance@t...> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Bob, > > > > > > > > > > > > yes, a good conversation. > > > > > > Didn't see "I" to "I" on everything, but a good > conversation. > > > > > > All open enquiry into who "I" is, at all levels, is good. > > > > > > > > > > > > It is interesting that there is so much difficult > speculation > > > about > > > > > time, because time is really very simple. > > > > > > Time is the word that is used to talk about movement and > change. > > > > > > And if you examine it closely it becomes clear that > movement is > > > a > > > > > subcategory of change. > > > > > > Think of it - if all change (and movement) were to stop, > time > > > would > > > > > have no meaning. > > > > > > > > > > Hi Warwick: > > > > > > > > > > It is good to know you. > > > > > > > > > > "Being" entrenched in the present moment sees the concept of > time > > > as > > > > > a passing thought which leads to no other speculation. It is > > > only > > > > > when "being" is clouded by the thought process that time is > taken > > > as > > > > > real. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think that this is why Ramana set people to > searching, "Who > > > (or > > > > > what) am I?" > > > > > > And if you read the conversations it is clear that he > intended > > > the > > > > > enquiry to take place, in the first instance, in the realm of > the > > > > > body and the mind. (Yes, I know that, when viewed from a very > > > > > different level, there is no mind, but first things first.) > > > > > > > > > > I agree, enquiry is a mental act. I see it as intended to > halt > > > > > mentation by centering on the first thought, the aham vritti, > > > or "I > > > > > am". By that centering or 'self enquiry', the first thought > > > becomes > > > > > the last thought. "I" is necessary as a subject for actions > to > > > occur > > > > > so they can be remembered and thought about. > > > > > > > > > > It is easy enough to note in one's own life that whenever the > > > thought > > > > > chain stops, the "I am" is current. It is one or the other at > > > all > > > > > times. One is either lost in thought or conscious of oneself. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And it is clear to any enquiry that every aspect of the > body, > > > the > > > > > material body, and the mind, is subject to change. > > > > > > > > > > > > Then he used to stress that the Real "I" is changeless. > > > > > > > > > > > > So then the seeker is ready for the question, "Are you the > > > changing > > > > > body and mind, or are you that changeless "I" which perceives > all > > > of > > > > > that?" > > > > > > > > > > > > Then it becomes possible to see that "I" is the changeless > > > > > consciousness. > > > > > > > > > > A good philosophical point. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You make the point that for consciousness to perceive > itself it > > > > > would have to be divided. That is certainly logical enough, > but I > > > can > > > > > assure you that that is not how it works. Consciousness is > > > immersed > > > > > in itself. No thoughts, feelings or sense perceptions, just > > > > > consciousness knowing itself. It can be a glimpse; it can be > > > > > Nirvikalpa Samadhi or it can be Sahaja Samadhi. It is from > this > > > > > perspective that it is seen that the world, the body and the > > > mind, > > > > > and all the events and happenings that occur within, are just > a > > > > > dream. Truly. > > > > > > > > > > Truly. My point was not to try and divide Consciousness. > > > Logically, > > > > > if one 'is' consciousness no perception of it is necessary. > The > > > dream > > > > > of perceiving consciousness requires an illusory subject. > > > > > > > > > > > And there are thoughts and feelings which gladly die into > that > > > pure > > > > > consciousness. > > > > > > > > > > And the mind is submerged. Rebirth is the indication of > > > additional > > > > > obstacles and tendencies. Faith and Love overcome all. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Much love > > > > > > > > > > > > Warwick > > > > > > > > > > Love > > > > > Bobby G. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > texasbg2000 > > > > > > > > > > > > Thursday, April 08, 2004 2:04 PM > > > > > > Re: To do or not to do > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , "Warwick Wakefield" > > > > > > <formandsubstance@t...> wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Bobby G. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You are right, of course; the place where characters and > > > > > stories > > > > > > don't exist > > > > > > > is now. > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Warwick: > > > > > > > > > > > > Your drama was a good and thoughtful one. It made me > think. > > > I > > > > > > reacted to the inplication that one might think that > there is > > > > > another > > > > > > thing called reality where there are no stories. Life and > > > > > existence > > > > > > unfold as stories. > > > > > > > > > > > > The violence that you point to in your drama brings up a > > > question > > > > > we > > > > > > all ask ourselves. I know I would fight for my family. > But > > > > > there is > > > > > > no necessity to become a character in the story to do > that. > > > The > > > > > > actions are taken and consciousness, or the Real Self, is > not > > > > > > affected by them. No matter what they are. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But there are difficulties connected with the usage of > > > words. > > > > > > > The word "now" is generally used to place doings, > > > happenings > > > > > and the > > > > > > > existence of forms in a temporal context. > > > > > > > And that's fair enough, in a rough sort of way, because > > > doings > > > > > and > > > > > > forms of > > > > > > > all sorts DO exist in time; they require time for their > > > > > existence. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But if you look at the word "now" a little closely, > > > > > difficulties > > > > > > emerge. How > > > > > > > long is now? Two minutes? Two seconds? Half a second? > > > > > > > If "now" is considered to exist in the continuum of > time, > > > then > > > > > it > > > > > > must have > > > > > > > zero length. It has to be the zero-length point between > the > > > > > past > > > > > > and the > > > > > > > future. > > > > > > > As is obvious, nothing can be observed in zero time. And > > > still > > > > > it > > > > > > would be > > > > > > > constantly moving, which somehow violates the essence of > > > what > > > > > we > > > > > > are getting > > > > > > > at by using the word "now." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But all the things that we usually consider ourselves to > > > be, > > > > > all > > > > > > the forms > > > > > > > and functionings of our bodies, our eating and drinking > and > > > > > > defecating, > > > > > > > our walking and talking and smelling flowers, our > sending > > > gifts > > > > > to > > > > > > those > > > > > > > whom we love, our smiling with and our embracing of > those > > > whom > > > > > we > > > > > > love, all > > > > > > > take time -- time is an essential ingredient in all > those > > > > > events. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Even the observing of things that might be thought > static, > > > > > stones > > > > > > and > > > > > > > cupboards and books, this observation takes time. > > > > > > > And even if stones and cupboards and books can be seen > to > > > be > > > > > > relatively > > > > > > > static if our terms of reference are narrow enough; that > > > is, a > > > > > few > > > > > > thousand > > > > > > > years, still, seen from a longer perspective, from a > > > > > perspective of > > > > > > millions > > > > > > > and billions of years, the continents are drifting like > > > boats > > > > > on a > > > > > > sea of > > > > > > > magma and the solar system, which was once a great > > > incandescent > > > > > > ball of gas, > > > > > > > is gradually losing heat and will eventually be a cold, > > > inert > > > > > mass > > > > > > incapable > > > > > > > of sustaining any life at all. > > > > > > > > > > > > The Nobel Laureate, Henri Bergson, had an interesting > > > viewpoint > > > > > on > > > > > > time. In a nutshell; he proposed that the present lasts > as > > > long > > > > > as > > > > > > the current event. After the event, say shopping, is > over, > > > then > > > > > it > > > > > > is the past and not now, i.e., the present. > > > > > > > > > > > > His great example is the fellow falling from the cliff. > The > > > > > present > > > > > > moment is dying. > > > > > > > > > > > > The past moment or event was his entire life. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is there anything, or any non-thing, which is not > subject > > > to > > > > > time? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, pure consciousness. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pure consciousness is immaterial and changeless. The > mind, > > > > > using > > > > > > that term i > > > > > > > n its broadest sense to include emotions and sense > > > perceptions > > > > > as > > > > > > well as > > > > > > > conceptual thinking, is constantly changing. But > > > > > consciousness, > > > > > > pure > > > > > > > consciousness, is unchanging. > > > > > > > > > > > > So the character in the story, I, has characteristics. > But > > > these > > > > > > characteristics can change at any moment. I might make a > > > > > different > > > > > > decision about a circumstance if I have to make it after I > > > have > > > > > been > > > > > > through some new event. > > > > > > > > > > > > The thing that has attributes that change, must be > > > attributless > > > > > > (pure) to have that ability. So the illusion is that the > > > mind > > > > > > changes its form, when in reality mind is never a thing at > > > all. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus there is no thing called a mind but only > consciousness > > > of > > > > > change. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From the viewpoint of addiction to the dream, to the > realm > > > of > > > > > > things, > > > > > > > characters and events - from this viewpoint pure > > > consciousness > > > > > is > > > > > > > incomprehensible and possibly unreal. > > > > > > > From the viewpoint of pure consciousness, the things, > > > forms, > > > > > > characters and > > > > > > > events of time, the realm of the daytime-dream, are > seen > > > to be > > > > > > totally > > > > > > > unreal, as unreal as the winged dog that once flew over > New > > > > > York > > > > > > City in a > > > > > > > night-dream. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And, referring to this pure consciousness, the sages > have > > > > > declared, > > > > > > that is > > > > > > > my Self. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So this Self, this pure consciousness, exists Now. This > is > > > the > > > > > > meaning of > > > > > > > eternity; eternity is not time going on and on and on > > > without > > > > > end; > > > > > > eternity > > > > > > > is consciousness not going > anywhere. "Consciousness", "now" > > > > > > and "eternity" > > > > > > > can be seen as synonyms. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps it could be said that we exist in two dimensions > > > > > > simultaneously - > > > > > > > the dimension of consciousness and the dimension of > time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or we could say that we exist simultaneously in the > > > dimension > > > > > of > > > > > > the > > > > > > > immaterial, consciousness, and the dimension of things. > But > > > I > > > > > am > > > > > > not too > > > > > > > happy with that formulation - it gives too many > hostages > > > to > > > > > > materialism. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or we could say that we, who are in fact One, exist > > > > > simultaneously > > > > > > in the > > > > > > > realm of consciousness-without-objects and also in the > > > realm of > > > > > > > consciousness-with-objects, provided we are clear that > > > > > > the "objects" in the > > > > > > > former realm are dream-entities. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And I would like to suggest that a very crucial point > is to > > > see > > > > > that > > > > > > > I-as-a-character is also a dream object, a complicated > > > dream- > > > > > object, > > > > > > > perceived by I-as-pure-consciousness. > > > > > > > > > > > > When "I as pure consciousness" is seen by the mind. That > is, > > > > > when "I > > > > > > am" is known there can be no "I" as a character present. > > > > > Illusion is > > > > > > dispelled by "I am". > > > > > > > > > > > > It is discrimination of self and sattva. > > > > > > > > > > > > (Patanjali, IV.25 For him who sees the distinction > between > > > Self > > > > > and > > > > > > Sattva there comes about the discontinuation of the > > > projection of > > > > > the > > > > > > false self-sense.-Feuerstein) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does the character perceive, or is the character a set > of > > > > > perceived > > > > > > objects? > > > > > > > Does the set of perceived objects "have" consciousness, > or > > > does > > > > > the > > > > > > set of > > > > > > > dream objects arise and fall within consciousness? > > > > > > > Is the set of perceived objects, the dream-character, an > > > > > autonomous > > > > > > entity > > > > > > > in charge of its life? Is it the "doer"? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And finally, although it is clear that pure > consciousness, > > > the > > > > > > perceiver, > > > > > > > can never be seen as a form, a visual form or a sound > form, > > > can > > > > > > > consciousness be immersed in itSelf? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And, if this has been glimpsed, can it become > stabilized? > > > > > > > > > > > > Since the Self is the subject of any glimpsing, that is I > am > > > > > always > > > > > > doing the seeing, then I would have to simultaneously be > an > > > > > object to > > > > > > be seen. This would be making consciousness exist as two > > > things > > > > > > simultaneously. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus we say everything is "one" or the "Self" to remind > us we > > > are > > > > > > only the Self and not the illusion, which can be made an > > > object > > > > > by > > > > > > perception and memory. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Much love > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Warwick > > > > > > > > > > > > I did not reply to a lot of what you said. The > conversation > > > is > > > > > good > > > > > > though > > > > > > and I thank you for your reply. > > > > > > > > > > > > Love > > > > > > Bobby G. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > /join > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Love itself is the actual form of God." > > > > > > > > > > Sri Ramana > > > > > > > > > > In "Letters from Sri Ramanasramam" by Suri Nagamma > > > > > Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > /join > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Love itself is the actual form of God." > > > > > > Sri Ramana > > > > > > In "Letters from Sri Ramanasramam" by Suri Nagamma > > > Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > /join > > > > > > "Love itself is the actual form of God." > > Sri Ramana > > In "Letters from Sri Ramanasramam" by Suri Nagamma > Links > > > > > > 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.