Guest guest Posted March 19, 2001 Report Share Posted March 19, 2001 A NET of JEWELS March 18 RAMESH S. BALSEKAR It is important to ponder on what you hear, and infinitely more important to ponder on who hears it. Consciousness must first be there before anything else can BE. All inquiry of the seeker of truth must therefore relate to this consciousness, this sense of conscious presence which as such has no personal reference to any individual. ---- Daniel Berkow Date: Mon Mar 19, 2001 Subject: Re: A Net of Jewels March 18 Then how can you know about it? How can you talk about it? What is it before there is the being of consciousness? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 19, 2001 Report Share Posted March 19, 2001 Daniel Berkow Mon Mar 19, 2001 Re: A Net of Jewels March 18 Then how can you know about it? San: " You " cannot and yet knowingness may occur How can you talk about it? San: " You cannot and yet talking may happen. What is it before there is the being of consciousness? San: Not beingness AND not, not-beingness. Micky Mouse going Ladeeee daaaa deeeee Sandeep Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 20, 2001 Report Share Posted March 20, 2001 Hi El! Nice hearing from you -- Namaste, and enjoying your posts here. Since the Dan of yesterday asked these questions which you post, the Dan of today, who is not the Dan of yesterday, will answer. A NET of JEWELS March 18 RAMESH S. BALSEKAR It is important to ponder on what you hear, and infinitely more important to ponder on who hears it. Consciousness must first be there before anything else can BE. All inquiry of the seeker of truth must therefore relate to this consciousness, this sense of conscious presence which as such has no personal reference to any individual. ---- Dan: Then how can you know about it? You can only know about it, because you transcend it. How can you talk about it? You can only talk about it because you've made it into something with qualities and a name, about which discourse can occur. What is it before there is the being of consciousness? It is in no way an it, isn't subject to time or becoming, certainly not being, nor exhibiting consciousness. Saying " what it is not " is possible, but that only takes away what isn't the case. Saying what it is, isn't possible, because anything said will be named, assigned a quality or anti-quality, and will occur as a statement in time, given to an observer. Love, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 20, 2001 Report Share Posted March 20, 2001 D: Then how can you know about it? San: " You " cannot and yet knowingness may occur D: What may occur and what may not occur share a common root. I don't know anything about that root, because anything I know about, is just something that " may occur " ... How can you talk about it? San: " You cannot and yet talking may happen. D: Yes, a thousand languages, a million exclamations, a trillion sets of circumstances in which speech may happen! What is it before there is the being of consciousness? San: Not beingness AND not, not-beingness. D: <bow> and not " not " ... Micky Mouse going Ladeeee daaaa deeeee Minnie Mouse going Tra La Laaaaaaaa! And Goofy going, " duh " ... LOL! Love, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 23, 2004 Report Share Posted March 23, 2004 So lemme get this straight, because its been confusing the hell outta me for some time now... Hold onto the 'I AM'... this means to abide in the 'I AM'.... and since the 'I AM' is not 'I AM this or that'- this means to hold onto the gestalt- consciousness as an impersonal whole... am I right? So the consciousness in each immediate moment, or rather, all that I am aware of, including the sense of presence is what I should identify with.... do I have this correct? There is no separation, and no thought involved, so 'I' dont get distracted and start identifying with parts of this gestalt, its as if everything is identified with as a whole, even though there are phenominal changes and movement etc occuring within this whole...?... Please, someone throw me a bone... any advise, flames or nods of approval will be greatly appreciated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 23, 2004 Report Share Posted March 23, 2004 > Hold onto the 'I AM'... > this means to abide in the 'I AM'.... This advise is not for everyone. For someone with a job, or a student . . . even if one could be successful at holding on to 'I AM' - - it will inevitably lead to dullness and fustration, or worse yet, delusion or merely a mood of detachment. You will fail to accumulate riches in the external world, and you will be left with arms flaying for 'I AM I AM' This has been tried for thousands of years - recently by Niz. who has 'appeared' to break from tradition, but who has merely substituted abruptness for compassion. Here's the good news - YOU EXIST. Well, not your body because it's always changing - your mind is always changing as well. What happened if you got one severe case of amnesia and everything you thought was you would be gone - but you would still exist. Is what is left over after a crack on the head closer to 'I AM'? No - if you take all the furniture out of a dark room - the room is still dark. If you smash your ego to bits you still have an ego but now you are just a wimp and a failure to boot. Culture the nervous system - there is no way around it. L > and since the 'I AM' is not 'I AM this or that'- this means to > hold onto the gestalt- consciousness as an impersonal whole... > am I right? > > So the consciousness in each immediate moment, or rather, all that I > am aware of, including the sense of presence is what I should > identify with.... do I have this correct? > > There is no separation, and no thought involved, so 'I' dont get > distracted and start identifying with parts of this gestalt, its as > if everything is identified with as a whole, even though there are > phenominal changes and movement etc occuring within this whole...?... > > Please, someone throw me a bone... any advise, flames or nods of > approval will be greatly appreciated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 23, 2004 Report Share Posted March 23, 2004 Hi, Intellectually, you've got it more or less right. The problem of course is to be able to maintain that separateness from the mind which does the thinking and gets nvolved in the daily world. Aldous Huxley put it very well in his Perennial Philosophy when he said that the I AM is like a flim pasted ont a sheet of glass(the mind). The trick is to unpaste the film from the glass. All of us understand this itellectually. One of the ways of going about tis is to observe the mind - again, you can do this for brief periods of time, a few seconds maybe, but every time the mind gets agitated or distracted, it pulls you in. Many Masters suggest meditation as a way to first quieten the mind , so that you are able to become more aware of the I AM. I have been meditating for seeral years now and I find that this makes a big difference. The most significant impact I have found is that sometimes, when something upsets my mind , I am able to stand back and watch my mind as if it were a third person. On rare occasions, I am able to watch, almost with detached amusement as my mind goes through all kinds of emotions. Most of the time, however, I can strongly feel the emotion, anger, depression or whatever and I have to keep reminding myself that it is only my mind. I believe this is a long term process - if I contiue to meditate for several years, I think I will increasingly be able to observe my mind as a third person,AND REMAIN UNAFFECTED. I don't think there are any shortcuts.Its a long term process and may take the rest of your life, if you keep at it all the time. I've found Eckhart Tolle's books, The Power of Now, and Stillness Speaks as among the clearest elucidations of this process. His explanations are very simple and easy to understand and he also gives several spiritual exercises. I hope that you find what I have written of some use. Bye Gads joeelberti <joeelberti wrote: So lemme get this straight, because its been confusing the hell outta me for some time now... Hold onto the 'I AM'... this means to abide in the 'I AM'.... and since the 'I AM' is not 'I AM this or that'- this means to hold onto the gestalt- consciousness as an impersonal whole... am I right? So the consciousness in each immediate moment, or rather, all that I am aware of, including the sense of presence is what I should identify with.... do I have this correct? There is no separation, and no thought involved, so 'I' dont get distracted and start identifying with parts of this gestalt, its as if everything is identified with as a whole, even though there are phenominal changes and movement etc occuring within this whole...?... Please, someone throw me a bone... any advise, flames or nods of approval will be greatly appreciated. ** If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: /mygroups?edit=1 Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 23, 2004 Report Share Posted March 23, 2004 Nisargadatta , " joeelberti " <joeelberti> wrote: > So lemme get this straight, because its been confusing the hell > outta me for some time now... > > Hold onto the 'I AM'... > this means to abide in the 'I AM'.... > and since the 'I AM' is not 'I AM this or that'- this means to > hold onto the gestalt- consciousness as an impersonal whole... > am I right? > > So the consciousness in each immediate moment, or rather, all that I > am aware of, including the sense of presence is what I should > identify with.... do I have this correct? P: What do you mean by identify? It takes only a second to glance at what's going on, and sort the presence out. Do that everytime you remember the " I Am. " No need to label it. Set aside a period to be as still as you can. That's all. Don't expect results. Just do it. Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 23, 2004 Report Share Posted March 23, 2004 Nisargadatta , " trem23 " <inmadison@h...> wrote: > > Hold onto the 'I AM'... > > this means to abide in the 'I AM'.... > > This advise is not for everyone. For someone with a job, or a > student . . . even if one could be successful at holding on to 'I > AM' - - it will inevitably lead to dullness and fustration, or worse yet, delusion or merely a mood of detachment. sk: This is possible. A very good advice. You will fail to > accumulate riches in the external world, and you will be left with > arms flaying for 'I AM I AM' sk: Possible, too. It depends on how much " riches in the external world " mean to you. Accumulate, if you like to and take care of it. The more you accumulate the more time you will spend in taking care of it. > > This has been tried for thousands of years - recently by Niz. who > has 'appeared' to break from tradition, but who has merely > substituted abruptness for compassion. sk: What has been tried? > > Here's the good news - YOU EXIST. Well, not your body because it's > always changing - your mind is always changing as well. sk: If you say I exist, I exist. And, I exist, like you want me to exist. I respect this. What > happened if you got one severe case of amnesia and everything you > thought was you would be gone - but you would still exist. Is what > is left over after a crack on the head closer to 'I AM'? sk: I don't know. Do you know? > > No - if you take all the furniture out of a dark room - the room is still dark. sk: Where is this dark room with furniture? > If you smash your ego to bits you still have an ego but now you are > just a wimp and a failure to boot. sk: How much egos do exist? What would happen if you smash the other one, too? > Culture the nervous system - there is no way around it. sk: Yes. Get smart, live intelligently. Do the next adequate thing, moment to moment. Be compassionate. Be kind. Take your time to decide and do things. Be mindfull. Take care of yourself and of your responsabilities and duties. Live dynamically and without fear. Fight!!! Niz referes often to Arjuna's dialogue with Krishna... I think you have missunderstood several things and, perhaps, life itself, too. a bow to you sk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 23, 2004 Report Share Posted March 23, 2004 Yoooohooo Joe, - " joeelberti " <joeelberti <Nisargadatta > Wednesday, March 24, 2004 02:58 AM Re: On Solving RIDDLE OF " I AMNESS' > So lemme get this straight, because its been confusing the hell > outta me for some time now... > > Hold onto the 'I AM'... > this means to abide in the 'I AM'.... > and since the 'I AM' is not 'I AM this or that'- this means to > hold onto the gestalt- consciousness as an impersonal whole... > am I right? Nope. In the gestalt-consciousness as an impersonal whole(using your words),.............who is left to hold onto it? > > So the consciousness in each immediate moment, or rather, all that I > am aware of, including the sense of presence is what I should > identify with.... do I have this correct? Nope. The end of all identities, including the identity which holds that identities are substantial enough to be ended,........ .......is .............. (not the dots either) > > There is no separation, and no thought involved, so 'I' dont get > distracted and start identifying with parts of this gestalt, its as > if everything is identified with as a whole, even though there are > phenominal changes and movement etc occuring within this whole...?... Which is a thought is it not? > > Please, someone throw me a bone... any advise, flames or nods of > approval will be greatly appreciated. The I AM is a concept, to negate the sense/ the concept of............. I AM " this " . What you truly are, is the absence of the presence of both the concepts,............ ...........AND..... ...........the absence of the absence of the presence of both the concepts. In short,...................after the negations of all that the mind throws up, of all sense of all identities,........ ..........the negation of the negator. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 24, 2004 Report Share Posted March 24, 2004 << Hold onto the 'I AM'... this means to abide in the 'I AM'.... >> If you know what " I AM " is then you would never hold onto it, would you? That would be " I AM " holding onto " I AM " , which would obviously be unnecessary... if you know what " I AM " is. If you do not know what " I AM " is, then how can you hold onto it? Therefore the notion of holding onto " I AM " is a spurious, confused notion. << and since the 'I AM' is not 'I AM this or that'- this means to hold onto the gestalt- consciousness as an impersonal whole... am I right? >> No. " gestalt-consciousness as an impersonal whole " is just a notion... There is nothing to *get* about " I Am " . The point of the " I Am " inquiry is just the stripping away of everything that is not pure beingness. This is what Nisargadatta means when he talks about gold versus gold jewelry. He means to realize the beingness that is always the case, regardless of the form that it takes. Forget the notion " I Am " . Rather inquire into: " What never changes? " " What is always there/here? " Anything that can change is not you. Because thought is a form, thought can never express that which is always there/here. So inquiry is needed. Silent attention to what is. Bill - joeelberti Nisargadatta Tuesday, March 23, 2004 1:28 PM Re: On Solving RIDDLE OF " I AMNESS' So lemme get this straight, because its been confusing the hell outta me for some time now...Hold onto the 'I AM'... this means to abide in the 'I AM'.... and since the 'I AM' is not 'I AM this or that'- this means to hold onto the gestalt- consciousness as an impersonal whole...am I right?So the consciousness in each immediate moment, or rather, all that I am aware of, including the sense of presence is what I should identify with.... do I have this correct?There is no separation, and no thought involved, so 'I' dont get distracted and start identifying with parts of this gestalt, its as if everything is identified with as a whole, even though there are phenominal changes and movement etc occuring within this whole...?...Please, someone throw me a bone... any advise, flames or nods of approval will be greatly appreciated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 24, 2004 Report Share Posted March 24, 2004 > Set aside a period to be as still as you can. > That's all. Don't expect results. Just do it. To not expect results is to surrender. To surrender is to just be. Bill - seesaw1us Nisargadatta Tuesday, March 23, 2004 7:25 PM Re: On Solving RIDDLE OF " I AMNESS' Nisargadatta , " joeelberti " <joeelberti> wrote: > So lemme get this straight, because its been confusing the hell > outta me for some time now... > > Hold onto the 'I AM'... > this means to abide in the 'I AM'.... > and since the 'I AM' is not 'I AM this or that'- this means to > hold onto the gestalt- consciousness as an impersonal whole... > am I right? > > So the consciousness in each immediate moment, or rather, all that I > am aware of, including the sense of presence is what I should > identify with.... do I have this correct? P: What do you mean by identify? It takes only a second to glance at what's going on, and sort the presence out. Do that everytime you remember the " I Am. " No need to label it. Set aside a period to be as still as you can. That's all. Don't expect results. Just do it. Pete ** If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: /mygroups?edit=1 Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 24, 2004 Report Share Posted March 24, 2004 > sk: What has been tried? What has been tried is an intellectual or emotional renunciation or withdrawl from life. If successful, it results in a 'mood' of withdrawl or separation. > > > > No - if you take all the furniture out of a dark room - the room > is still dark. > > sk: Where is this dark room with furniture? It's a metaphor (or is that simile? ) A life without pure awareness or being -- stripped of desires (even if possible), sustained mood of detachment, diminished ego -- is still a life without pure awareness or being. Take care, my friend Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 25, 2004 Report Share Posted March 25, 2004 In Nisargadatta , " trem23 " <inmadison@h...> wrote: >> sk: What has been tried? >> What has been tried is an intellectual or emotional renunciation or withdrawl from life. If successful, it results in a 'mood' of withdrawl or separation. sk: Yes, I don't know who has been trying this, but what you say is correct. The attempt to withdraw oneself from life is a harebrained undertaking, senseless and futile. It can result in what you say and probably in other more imbecil attitudes or moods. This can only be an episod and does not constitute the point, L. To accept some inherent truths of life enables actually someone, to do the things which has to be done, in the way they have to be done. >> No - if you take all the furniture out of a dark room - the room is still dark. >> sk: Where is this dark room with furniture? > It's a metaphor (or is that simile? ) A life without pure > awareness or being -- stripped of desires (even if possible), > sustained mood of detachment, diminished ego -- is still a life > without pure awareness or being. sk: Indeed. meditate, my friend Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 25, 2004 Report Share Posted March 25, 2004 both of you use the word 'life' many times. what is 'life' ? d - " sk000005 " <raav1 <Nisargadatta > Thursday, March 25, 2004 10:33 AM Re: On Solving RIDDLE OF " I AMNESS' > In Nisargadatta , " trem23 " <inmadison@h...> wrote: > > >> sk: What has been tried? > > > >> What has been tried is an intellectual or emotional renunciation > or withdrawl from life. If successful, it results in a 'mood' of > withdrawl or separation. > > > sk: Yes, I don't know who has been trying this, but what you say is > correct. The attempt to withdraw oneself from life is a harebrained > undertaking, senseless and futile. It can result in what you say and > probably in other more imbecil attitudes or moods. > > This can only be an episod and does not constitute the point, L. To > accept some inherent truths of life enables actually someone, to do > the things which has to be done, in the way they have to be done. > > > > > >> No - if you take all the furniture out of a dark room - the room > is still dark. > > > >> sk: Where is this dark room with furniture? > > > > It's a metaphor (or is that simile? ) A life without pure > > awareness or being -- stripped of desires (even if possible), > > sustained mood of detachment, diminished ego -- is still a life > > without pure awareness or being. > > > sk: Indeed. > > > > meditate, > my friend > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 26, 2004 Report Share Posted March 26, 2004 Nisargadatta , " dabo " <dscasta> wrote: > > both of you use the word 'life' many times. > > what is 'life' ? I am not sure if I am one of the two you are refering to but here goes. There are many answers to your question > what is 'life' ? Here goes but one: Extracted from the vast full range of what a human being can experience, including the fullness of the material world and the undifferentiated unboundedness of pure awareness, for each of us, our Reality, or our Life is what is exposed to us based on the method and quality of our inquiry. Want a different Life? -> change the quality or method of the inquiry. L 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.