For Dave S. on Aziz (pete)

[Guest guest]

>What is a soul for you?

 

For me the Soul would be a consciousness gestalt between what I call

me and what I call everything/God. Perhaps a bunch of me's or every

conceivable combination of me's in between me and God.

 

> For me it is just a concept people use to reassure

> themselves of personal survival.

 

I understand the " I have an eternal soul " thing. It's more like the

soul has me.

 

Shawn

 

Nisargadatta, pete seesaw <seesaw1us> wrote:

>

> & gt;

> & gt; It seems that there is either us or God but no

> & gt; levels in between? A

> & gt; Soul would be at that level, there could be

> infinite

> & gt; levels of

> & gt; conscious complexity between the human and God.

> & gt;

> & gt; Shawn

>

> Hi Shawn,

>

> Before we get into the question whether a soul exist

> or not we have define what is a soul. What is a soul

> for you?

> For me it is just a concept people use to reassure

> themselves of personal survival.

>

> Pete

>

>

> - We Remember

> 9-11: A tribute to the more than 3,000 lives lost

> http://dir.remember./tribute

[Guest guest]

> >What is a soul for you?

>

> For me the Soul would be a consciousness gestalt

> between what I call

> me and what I call everything/God. Perhaps a bunch

> of me's or every

> conceivable combination of me's in between me and

> God.

 

Why do you need all that multiple insurance?

Aren't you painting legs on a snake?

Ask yourself who are all your beliefs protecting?

Will the universe collapse if you stop believing?

 

It's your self-image that needs all that scaffolding

to keep it up. The scafloding is obstructing the view.

Reality ( the real you) accepts no tags, gives no

explanations, offers no apologies and has no meaning.

 

You take it as is, or you create your fantasy world.

Is up to you. But a fantasy world needs constance

maintanence, lots of work, constant anxiety because

no matter how hard you try you can't fool yourself

a 100% all the time.

 

Love,

Pete

 

 

 

 

> I understand the " I have an eternal soul " thing.

> It's more like the

> soul has me.

>

> Shawn

>

> Nisargadatta, pete seesaw

> <seesaw1us> wrote:

> >

> > & gt;

> > & gt; It seems that there is either us or God but

> no

> > & gt; levels in between? A

> > & gt; Soul would be at that level, there could be

> > infinite

> > & gt; levels of

> > & gt; conscious complexity between the human and

> God.

> > & gt;

> > & gt; Shawn

> >

> > Hi Shawn,

> >

> > Before we get into the question whether a soul

> exist

> > or not we have define what is a soul. What is a

> soul

> > for you?

> > For me it is just a concept people use to reassure

> > themselves of personal survival.

> >

> > Pete

> >

> >

> > - We Remember

> > 9-11: A tribute to the more than 3,000 lives lost

> > http://dir.remember./tribute

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Pete,

 

I'm trying to figure out what the " I " is. Is there a greater " I "

(higher self) that I am a part of? A higher self which is not yet

God? The path to Enlightenment once beyond the consciousness into the

absolute, is this truly the absolute or the higher self that is

experienced?

 

I understand that the push for my spiritual search is the fear of

death and the fact that I'm getting to the breaking point with my ego

self. From such an insecure vantage it's hard to know how to proceed.

 

I'm convinced the next step is to remember myself

(http://www.nirvikalpa.com/iam.htm).

 

Any suggestions?

 

Shawn

 

Nisargadatta, pete seesaw <seesaw1us> wrote:

> > >What is a soul for you?

> >

> > For me the Soul would be a consciousness gestalt

> > between what I call

> > me and what I call everything/God. Perhaps a bunch

> > of me's or every

> > conceivable combination of me's in between me and

> > God.

>

> Why do you need all that multiple insurance?

> Aren't you painting legs on a snake?

> Ask yourself who are all your beliefs protecting?

> Will the universe collapse if you stop believing?

>

> It's your self-image that needs all that scaffolding

> to keep it up. The scafloding is obstructing the view.

> Reality ( the real you) accepts no tags, gives no

> explanations, offers no apologies and has no meaning.

>

> You take it as is, or you create your fantasy world.

> Is up to you. But a fantasy world needs constance

> maintanence, lots of work, constant anxiety because

> no matter how hard you try you can't fool yourself

> a 100% all the time.

>

> Love,

> Pete

>

>

>

>

> > I understand the " I have an eternal soul " thing.

> > It's more like the

> > soul has me.

> >

> > Shawn

> >

> > Nisargadatta, pete seesaw

> > <seesaw1us> wrote:

> > >

> > > & gt;

> > > & gt; It seems that there is either us or God but

> > no

> > > & gt; levels in between? A

> > > & gt; Soul would be at that level, there could be

> > > infinite

> > > & gt; levels of

> > > & gt; conscious complexity between the human and

> > God.

> > > & gt;

> > > & gt; Shawn

> > >

> > > Hi Shawn,

> > >

> > > Before we get into the question whether a soul

> > exist

> > > or not we have define what is a soul. What is a

> > soul

> > > for you?

> > > For me it is just a concept people use to reassure

> > > themselves of personal survival.

> > >

> > > Pete

> > >

> > >

> > > - We Remember

> > > 9-11: A tribute to the more than 3,000 lives lost

> > > http://dir.remember./tribute

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Hi Shawn,

 

 

> I'm trying to figure out what the " I " is.>

 

Pete: A conglomerate of thoughts and memories. When

you

are sound asleep there is no I. When you are paying

complete attention to something else there is no I.

 

When you realize your self is nothing but a set of

ideas, you could abandon all ideas about self, or you

could adopt another set of ideas: I'm not Shawn, I'm

Consciousness, I'm the Absolute, etc. Is that a

greater 'I', or a better set of ideas?

 

> Is there a

> greater " I "

> (higher self) that I am a part of? A higher self

> which is not yet

> God?

 

All that is there, is ideas about an indivisible

reality. When we stop chasing ideas, meaning etc. our

consciousness is no different from that.

 

 

>The path to Enlightenment once beyond the

> consciousness into the

> absolute.

 

 

There is no path beyond consciousness. Consciousness

paying attention to consciousness is the path and the

goal.

 

is this truly the absolute or the higher

> self that is

> experienced?

 

The absolute can't be experienced, when you stop

trying

to explain the finite, the infinite is there and you

are it. It can't be explained or possessed. Trying to

experience it, is like trying to feel your brain. It

can't be done.

 

> I understand that the push for my spiritual search

> is the fear of

> death and the fact that I'm getting to the breaking

> point with my ego

> self. From such an insecure vantage it's hard to

> know how to proceed.

 

Are you happy? Are you unhappy enough to want to do

this? This is brain surgery. It could go very wrong.

 

 

>

> I'm convinced the next step is to remember myself

> (http://www.nirvikalpa.com/iam.htm).

 

Remembering your self is remembering an idea. Pay

attention to consciousness.

 

> Any suggestions?

 

Yeah, be sure this is the way for you, and then pay

attention. That which pays attention is it. Pay

special attention to your controlling ideas.

Controlling ideas are ideas that demand action of

whatever kind. Try to delay your reactions to that

kind

of ideas till you are sure of their effect. Unless a

car is coming your way. But that isn't an idea, is it?

 

Look, I had a tooth pulled this morning. My jaw is

hurting like hell, but instead of fighting the pain,

I'm paying attention to it. The pain is what's

happening now. There isn't a self here who wishes it

will go away. There is a jaw feeling pain, but no

mental anguish or resistance. I could take a couple

of pain killers, but I won't. It's no big deal.

Pleasure is no big deal either. I'm very peaceful and

happy but there is no excitement any more. There are

no fears and no thrills. Is that what you want?

 

Be sure about what you're getting before you jump. Get

as many second opinions as you can.

 

Love,

 

Pete

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

News - Today's headlines

http://news.

[Guest guest]

> > I understand that the push for my spiritual search

> > is the fear of

> > death and the fact that I'm getting to the breaking

> > point with my ego

> > self. From such an insecure vantage it's hard to

> > know how to proceed.

>

> Are you happy? Are you unhappy enough to want to do

> this? This is brain surgery. It could go very wrong.

 

I'm not happy the way things are. I know that even if I had the most

favorable conditions in this physical life that wouldn't help. The

problem is with me.

 

 

> > Any suggestions?

>

> Yeah, be sure this is the way for you, and then pay

> attention. That which pays attention is it. Pay

> special attention to your controlling ideas.

> Controlling ideas are ideas that demand action of

> whatever kind. Try to delay your reactions to that

> kind of ideas till you are sure of their effect.

 

Yes, I will.

 

> Pleasure is no big deal either. I'm very peaceful and

> happy but there is no excitement any more. There are

> no fears and no thrills. Is that what you want?

 

Yes, I want out of the theme park. I had an experience recently

of " all is a dream " . I would call it the opposite of a lucid dream

where one takes his waking consciousness into the dream world. I

would say I took my dream consciousness into the waking world.

Everything was flat, all was a dream, anything I did or did not do

didn't matter. Was that a taste of this state?

 

> Be sure about what you're getting before you jump. Get

> as many second opinions as you can.

 

I have been looking into that also. Sometimes I feel like I'm damned

if I do and damned if I don't.

 

Shawn

[Guest guest]

>> Everything was flat, all was a dream, anything I

did

> or did not do

> didn't matter. Was that a taste of this state?

 

Flatness, unreality comes from inattention. Depressed

people see a flat, unreal world because they have no

energy to pay attention to anything else, but their

problem. Attention is the giver of reality. If

you're unaware of something, it doesn't exist for you.

 

If you are walking along immerse in a problem, the

street is merely a background, but if a beautiful

woman jogging toward you catches your attention, she

becomes very real and the street is no longer a flat

background. So no, things are not flat, they are very

real and there is unlimited space because there is

only attention without an observer.

 

Love,

Pete

 

> 4 DVDs Free +s & p Join Now

>

http://us.click./pt6YBB/NXiEAA/MVfIAA/UlWolB/TM

>

---~->

>

>

[Guest guest]

> there is unlimited space because there is

> only attention without an observer.

 

What you refer to here as " unlimited space "

I regard as awareness. I have noticed that

awareness has no boundaries. It is unconditional.

It expands endlessly. So it also has the qualities

of space.

 

Of course unlimited space, or awareness, is always

available. It is when my consciousness melts

into it (through humility, Grace) that I am able

to realize it as such (which I believe corresponds

to your " attention without an observer " ).

 

-Bill

[Guest guest]

> > there is unlimited space because there is

> > only attention without an observer. > >What you refer to here as "unlimited space" >I regard as awareness. I have noticed that >awareness has no boundaries. It is unconditional. >It expands endlessly. So it also has the qualities >of space. > >Of course unlimited space, or awareness, is always >available. It is when my consciousness melts >into it (through humility, Grace) that I am able >to realize it as such (which I believe corresponds >to your "attention without an observer").

>

--------

There is neither limited space nor unlimited space. Both are concepts which have no existence as such. Time is likewise. Both concepts are dual counterparts of the same ineffable whole. They are schematic conceptual frameworks accompanying phenomenon that those phenomenon might be perceived. We all know however that there are neither percepts nor a peceptor. There is neither space nor no-space, just as there is neither an entity to exist within that space nor a non-entity to not exist withing that no-space. There is only a perceiving. A phenomenoligical reality which is not as such. An attention without an observer is a beautiful way of putting it, but it is not the cause of unlimited space. Something which has no qualities can not have volition. Awareness has no qualities.

My name is Mark. I am new to the group. Nice to meet you all.MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: Click Here

[Guest guest]

If things have any quality whatsoever in and of themselves then you have not found what you are looking for. If there was an "I" doing anything whatsoever then you have not found what you are looking for.

 

MarkChat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: Click Here

[Guest guest]

If you're there, you're there. Does it matter what you

call it? Or how you arrived?

I don't think so.

 

Pete

 

 

--- Bill Rishel <plexus wrote:

> > there is unlimited space because there is

> > only attention without an observer.

>

> What you refer to here as " unlimited space "

> I regard as awareness. I have noticed that

> awareness has no boundaries. It is unconditional.

> It expands endlessly. So it also has the qualities

> of space.

>

> Of course unlimited space, or awareness, is always

> available. It is when my consciousness melts

> into it (through humility, Grace) that I am able

> to realize it as such (which I believe corresponds

> to your " attention without an observer " ).

>

> -Bill

>

 

[Guest guest]

Of course it doesn't matter.

 

-Bill

 

 

pete seesaw [seesaw1us]

Tuesday, September 17, 2002 7:32 PM

Nisargadatta

RE: Re: For Dave S. on Aziz (pete)

 

 

If you're there, you're there. Does it matter what you

call it? Or how you arrived?

I don't think so.

 

Pete

 

 

--- Bill Rishel <plexus wrote:

> > there is unlimited space because there is

> > only attention without an observer.

>

> What you refer to here as " unlimited space "

> I regard as awareness. I have noticed that

> awareness has no boundaries. It is unconditional.

> It expands endlessly. So it also has the qualities

> of space.

>

> Of course unlimited space, or awareness, is always

> available. It is when my consciousness melts

> into it (through humility, Grace) that I am able

> to realize it as such (which I believe corresponds

> to your " attention without an observer " ).

>

> -Bill

>

 

[Guest guest]

[]> An attention without an observer is a beautiful way of > putting it, but it is not the cause of unlimited space.> Something which has no qualities can not have volition.> Awareness has no qualities.

 

What I call "awareness" is a term I use for what I experience when I-am-in-my-heart. The experience ofbeing in my heart is the single reliable reality forme. The term awareness seems -- for me -- to be anappropriate one for this experience of being in myheart. But the terms are not important to me. Thisexperience of being in my heart is all that is important to me.

 

Regarding awareness, I would describe it as unboundedand unconditioned.

 

You say that awareness has no qualities. Perhaps thatis a way of saying that awareness cannot be on objectof perception.

 

-Bill

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

And yet words may issue forth.

Deep unspeakable peace gives rise to

compassion. It is not my choice. How

could I have a choice? Yet I feel Grace

moving me, stirring me, like fingers of

light moving out.

 

There is no rational goverance here, I

assure you.

 

-Bill

 

 

 

Bill Rishel [plexus]

Tuesday, September 17, 2002 9:29 PM

Nisargadatta

RE: Re: For Dave S. on Aziz (pete)

 

 

Of course it doesn't matter.

 

-Bill

 

 

pete seesaw [seesaw1us]

Tuesday, September 17, 2002 7:32 PM

Nisargadatta

RE: Re: For Dave S. on Aziz (pete)

 

 

If you're there, you're there. Does it matter what you

call it? Or how you arrived?

I don't think so.

 

Pete

 

 

--- Bill Rishel <plexus wrote:

> > there is unlimited space because there is

> > only attention without an observer.

>

> What you refer to here as " unlimited space "

> I regard as awareness. I have noticed that

> awareness has no boundaries. It is unconditional.

> It expands endlessly. So it also has the qualities

> of space.

>

> Of course unlimited space, or awareness, is always

> available. It is when my consciousness melts

> into it (through humility, Grace) that I am able

> to realize it as such (which I believe corresponds

> to your " attention without an observer " ).

>

> -Bill

>

 

[Guest guest]

Bill, I just joined this group tonight thinking I would be able to chat

online. I was unable to do that. Now I get this message from you. How

does this all work? I have been reading I AM THAT for a year now. I have

read the book several times and am curious about how others are doing as

they work with the material. Please advise. Angela

-

" Bill Rishel " <plexus

<Nisargadatta >

Tuesday, September 17, 2002 10:21 PM

RE: Re: For Dave S. on Aziz (pete)

 

 

> And yet words may issue forth.

> Deep unspeakable peace gives rise to

> compassion. It is not my choice. How

> could I have a choice? Yet I feel Grace

> moving me, stirring me, like fingers of

> light moving out.

>

> There is no rational goverance here, I

> assure you.

>

> -Bill

>

>

>

> Bill Rishel [plexus]

> Tuesday, September 17, 2002 9:29 PM

> Nisargadatta

> RE: Re: For Dave S. on Aziz (pete)

>

>

> Of course it doesn't matter.

>

> -Bill

>

>

> pete seesaw [seesaw1us]

> Tuesday, September 17, 2002 7:32 PM

> Nisargadatta

> RE: Re: For Dave S. on Aziz (pete)

>

>

> If you're there, you're there. Does it matter what you

> call it? Or how you arrived?

> I don't think so.

>

> Pete

>

>

> --- Bill Rishel <plexus wrote:

> > > there is unlimited space because there is

> > > only attention without an observer.

> >

> > What you refer to here as " unlimited space "

> > I regard as awareness. I have noticed that

> > awareness has no boundaries. It is unconditional.

> > It expands endlessly. So it also has the qualities

> > of space.

> >

> > Of course unlimited space, or awareness, is always

> > available. It is when my consciousness melts

> > into it (through humility, Grace) that I am able

> > to realize it as such (which I believe corresponds

> > to your " attention without an observer " ).

> >

> > -Bill

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

eina [eina]

 

> Bill, I just joined this group tonight thinking I would be able to chat

> online. I was unable to do that. Now I get this message from you. How

> does this all work? I have been reading I AM THAT for a year now. I have

> read the book several times and am curious about how others are doing as

> they work with the material. Please advise. Angela

 

 

Angela,

 

I can't say " how it all works " .

But I will speak of my experience.

 

Something from Nisargadatta that really struck me was when

pointed out that anything I perceive is not me. This led

to a very abstracted, " removed " sense of experience for me.

 

However during the last 6 months I went through a very challenging

period in my life. I began to ask myself really deeply what my

life was about. I began to see how my life wasn't as fully

committed spiritually as I had imagined.

 

It was during this period that I made a vow to live totally in

my heart each day. Even if I couldn't totally do that it was

my commitment to make every effort to always be in my heart.

This meant, for example, if I was talking to someone on the

phone then I would try to remember to speak from my heart, and

not from my head. This was very hard to do. When I took my walk

each day that was when I seemed most able to be in my heart.

But when talking to people, or in the midst of activities, then

I would seem to almost always forget.

 

But miraculously, with time " being in my heart " started to be

more habitual. And then, only a few weeks ago, I had an

overwhelming experience of Grace flowing into my heart.

It was as if two oceans flowing together. Ever since, this

experience of Grace in my heart has become my life.

 

So for me the practice of being-in-my-heart was what put me

at Mercy's door. But I was only really changed by Grace.

 

It occurs to me that some/many people may not know what I

mean when I speak of " being in my heart " . This is difficult

to answer, but I offer these suggestions:

1. Allow oneself to be vulnerable, both alone and with others.

2. Allow oneself to feel one's pain, one's vulnerability,

sensitivity, sorrow.

3. Also allow onself to feel one's desire, the ache in one's

heart.

4. Allow oneself to feel the pain, the fragility, the tenderness

of others.

 

In other words, really, really stay in one's feelings.

 

 

Again, I don't know " the answer " .

I can only share my experience.

 

And whether my words are of any help to you or not,

I am sure you will find your way, for you sound

utterly sincere.

 

All the best,

Bill

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta, " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote:

> So who's looking for something?

 

Mickey Mouse -- you know, the one who

has found the most enduring truth of all ...

[Guest guest]

So what is Mickey looking for now,

after finding the most enduring truth?

 

Perhaps Mickey is just looking for his

own looking to come to an end. What a

vicious loop. Poor Mickey!

 

 

 

dan330033 [dan330033]

Wednesday, September 18, 2002 2:45 PM

Nisargadatta

Re: For Dave S. on Aziz (pete)

 

 

Nisargadatta, " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote:

> So who's looking for something?

 

Mickey Mouse -- you know, the one who

has found the most enduring truth of all ...

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Bill, I find your words very encouraging. There are things in NM's

teachings that appear - most probably due to my misunderstanding -

contradictory. You have read I AM THAT but you give your feelings utmost

importance. Doesn't it say that feelings are just feelings and to witness

them but let them flow fly. My goal is to not think at all. To find that

quiet space for more than a couple of seconds. This is most difficult.

 

I have to tell you that when I asked " how does this work? " I was asking

about this Nisargadatta " chat room. " I turned on my computer tonight to

find over 20 messages regarding this. I am overwhelmed. I thought a chat

room was where we could all talk online to each other about this topic. I

know I don't want to get all these messages all the time. I may

UN. Make sure to put " Bill " on the subject if you respond.

 

When I read your message about not knowing how it all works, I had to laugh

because I was misunderstood.

 

Take care. Angela

-

" Bill Rishel " <plexus

<Nisargadatta >

Wednesday, September 18, 2002 12:05 AM

RE: Re: For Dave S. on Aziz (pete)

 

 

>

>

> eina [eina]

>

> > Bill, I just joined this group tonight thinking I would be able to chat

> > online. I was unable to do that. Now I get this message from you. How

> > does this all work? I have been reading I AM THAT for a year now. I

have

> > read the book several times and am curious about how others are doing as

> > they work with the material. Please advise. Angela

>

>

> Angela,

>

> I can't say " how it all works " .

> But I will speak of my experience.

>

> Something from Nisargadatta that really struck me was when

> pointed out that anything I perceive is not me. This led

> to a very abstracted, " removed " sense of experience for me.

>

> However during the last 6 months I went through a very challenging

> period in my life. I began to ask myself really deeply what my

> life was about. I began to see how my life wasn't as fully

> committed spiritually as I had imagined.

>

> It was during this period that I made a vow to live totally in

> my heart each day. Even if I couldn't totally do that it was

> my commitment to make every effort to always be in my heart.

> This meant, for example, if I was talking to someone on the

> phone then I would try to remember to speak from my heart, and

> not from my head. This was very hard to do. When I took my walk

> each day that was when I seemed most able to be in my heart.

> But when talking to people, or in the midst of activities, then

> I would seem to almost always forget.

>

> But miraculously, with time " being in my heart " started to be

> more habitual. And then, only a few weeks ago, I had an

> overwhelming experience of Grace flowing into my heart.

> It was as if two oceans flowing together. Ever since, this

> experience of Grace in my heart has become my life.

>

> So for me the practice of being-in-my-heart was what put me

> at Mercy's door. But I was only really changed by Grace.

>

> It occurs to me that some/many people may not know what I

> mean when I speak of " being in my heart " . This is difficult

> to answer, but I offer these suggestions:

> 1. Allow oneself to be vulnerable, both alone and with others.

> 2. Allow oneself to feel one's pain, one's vulnerability,

> sensitivity, sorrow.

> 3. Also allow onself to feel one's desire, the ache in one's

> heart.

> 4. Allow oneself to feel the pain, the fragility, the tenderness

> of others.

>

> In other words, really, really stay in one's feelings.

>

>

> Again, I don't know " the answer " .

> I can only share my experience.

>

> And whether my words are of any help to you or not,

> I am sure you will find your way, for you sound

> utterly sincere.

>

> All the best,

> Bill

 

[Guest guest]

So many things come to mind when I read this. A blackhole. You can go

round and round about things and then when you least expect it you are out

of it, into another space or place, or state of being, altogether. I don't

know much about blackholes but I do know about being (temporarily) in

another space altogether and not knowing how I got there really. I keep

looking for ... something. I am following my senses. I'd like my own

looking to come to an end. Am I chasing my tail? (the vicious loop). I am

attracted to Nisargadtta because he says that the way out is to be out of

your thinking altogether. Angela

-

" Bill Rishel " <plexus

<Nisargadatta >

Wednesday, September 18, 2002 3:33 PM

RE: Re: For Dave S. on Aziz (pete)

 

 

> So what is Mickey looking for now,

> after finding the most enduring truth?

>

> Perhaps Mickey is just looking for his

> own looking to come to an end. What a

> vicious loop. Poor Mickey!

>

>

>

> dan330033 [dan330033]

> Wednesday, September 18, 2002 2:45 PM

> Nisargadatta

> Re: For Dave S. on Aziz (pete)

>

>

> Nisargadatta, " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote:

> > So who's looking for something?

>

> Mickey Mouse -- you know, the one who

> has found the most enduring truth of all ...

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

> >What I call "awareness" is a term I use for what I

>experience when I-am-in-my-heart. The experience of >being in my heart is the single reliable reality for >me. The term awareness seems -- for me -- to be an >appropriate one for this experience of being in my >heart. But the terms are not important to me. This >experience of being in my heart is all that is >important to me. > >Regarding awareness, I would describe it as unbounded >and unconditioned. > >You say that awareness has no qualities. Perhaps that >is a way of saying that awareness cannot be on object >of perception. > > >-Bill

If the terms are not important why is there so much talking? Awareness is neither an object of perception nor a perceiver. What remains is what awareness neither is nor is not. Unbound and unconditioned are both concepts. Negative ones yes, but concepts nonetheless.

 

-markMSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: Click Here

[Guest guest]

> If things have any quality whatsoever in and of themselves then you have

>not found what you are looking for. If there was an "I" doing anything >whatsoever then you have not found what you are looking for. > > Mark > >

>So who's looking for something?

 

 

>Who is looking for something indeed!MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: Click Here

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta, " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote:

> So what is Mickey looking for now,

> after finding the most enduring truth?

>

> Perhaps Mickey is just looking for his

> own looking to come to an end. What a

> vicious loop. Poor Mickey!

 

The most enduring truth gives way

to the truth that has no duration.

 

Mickey can't look for anything, only

you can imagine Mickey as looking

for something.

[Guest guest]

If the terms are not important why is there so much talking?

Awareness is neither an object of perception nor a perceiver. What

remains is what awareness neither is nor is not. Unbound and

unconditioned are both concepts. Negative ones yes, but concepts

nonetheless.

 

-mark

 

Mark --

 

A million volumes written over thousands of years,

and nothing has been said.

 

The idea of something being a concept only has

meaning, as/through the non-conceptual.

 

In terms of concepts and words, this truth

will most clearly be given as negative

concept --

 

Yet, the reality is not the negative

concept, for it truly is not-a-concept --

and here is where any pointing of words,

images, sensations (positive

or negative) -- dissolves.

 

It is only because of this non-conceptual,

that there is any understanding of what is

concept.

 

It is only as this non-conceptual, that clarity

is that the knower and the known are concept.

 

-- Dan

[Guest guest]

The most enduring truth gives way

to the truth that has no duration.

Nice.

 

Mickey can't look for anything, only

you can imagine Mickey as looking

for something.

Ah. That means that Mickey doesn't need

any help.

 

Yet there are so many Mickeys that seem

to be suffering, that complain of not

being able to stop their thoughts, of

needing to be alert to the dangers of ego,

of needing to watch out for duality,

illusion etc. These Mickeys appear to be

suffering.

 

When such a Mickey speaks to me aboout a

desire to " stop his thoughts " , for example,

I will say, in various ways, to simply

abide in the heart and witness.

 

Your comment above suggests to me that

it is only my imagination that the person

trying to " stop his thoughts " is not free.

If I try to help him stop trying to help

himself I am really in contradiction.

 

Ah! That feels better!

 

-Bill

[Guest guest]

>A million volumes written over thousands of years,

> and nothing has been said. > >The idea of something being a concept only has > meaning, as/through the non-conceptual. > >In terms of concepts and words, this truth > will most clearly be given as negative > concept -- > >Yet, the reality is not the negative > concept, for it truly is not-a-concept -- > and here is where any pointing of words, > images, sensations (positive > or negative) -- dissolves. > >It is only because of this non-conceptual, > that there is any understanding of what is > concept. > >It is only as this non-conceptual, that clarity > is that the knower and the known are concept. > >-- Dan > Very nicely expressed Dan. Thank you for the insight. The point attempted was to reify the idea that over a multitude of years and within a multitude of texts nothing has been said. Yes the conceptual and the non-conceptual are both "one half of a pair," as Huang Po said. To express the ineffable however, neither can be used. I know you agree.

 

M.Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: Click Here