Guest guest Posted September 13, 2002 Report Share Posted September 13, 2002 Dan, I'm looking for " I Am " and thought Aziz had some useful words to guide me. I'm not " looking " for a particular response just feedback. I'm just a beginner on this path still suffering from " spiritual " insecurity. Shawn > Were you looking for " what he > says is most excellent, accept > it without further inquiry; it is the truth " > as the response? " > > He comes across to me as unnecessarily > flowery, mysterious, and special ... > but that's just my take on it ... > > Whether one enjoys a speaker or not, seems > to be largely a matter of taste ... > > Peace, > Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 14, 2002 Report Share Posted September 14, 2002 At 14.09.02-08:09 AM Shawn wrote: >Dan, > >I'm looking for " I Am " and thought Aziz had some useful words to >guide me. I'm not " looking " for a particular response just feedback. >I'm just a beginner on this path still suffering from " spiritual " >insecurity. > >Shawn Let me first state that Aziz's writings gave me a huge breakthrough. However I also agree with what Dan is saying. Forget about all the concepts. However Aziz's explanations about the state of presence and how to progress from there helped me stay in awareness without consciousness a whole night. His methods are very simple. Also, I have seen the 'souls' of my workers in a mystical experience. However I don't know how to fit that in with Nisargadatta's teachings. [Nisargadatta being my no.1 Guru] If you want 'concepts' than Ramana and Nisargadatta are the best. The 'thorns' they give you to remove other 'thorns' are themselves very easy to remove. As for Dan. I don't think he is the right guru for beginners! Love Jan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 14, 2002 Report Share Posted September 14, 2002 Jan, Could you explain what you mean by awareness without consciousness? Mark Let me first state that Aziz's writings gave me a huge breakthrough. However I also agree with what Dan is saying.Forget about all the concepts. However Aziz's explanations about the state of presence and how to progress from there helped me stay in awareness without consciousness a whole night.His methods are very simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 14, 2002 Report Share Posted September 14, 2002 >Mark Hovila <hovila@a...> >Sat Sep 14, 2002 7:42pm >Re: Re: For Dave S. on Aziz (Dan) >Jan, Could you explain what you mean by awareness without consciousness? Mark > >>Let me first state that Aziz's writings gave me a huge breakthrough. >>However I also agree with what Dan is saying. >>Forget about all the concepts. However Aziz's explanations about the state >>of presence and how to progress from there helped me stay in awareness >>without consciousness a whole night. >>His methods are very simple. It means there was an awareness but no consciousness of any objects. No thoughts, no volition, nothing. Just being. I think Ken Wilber explains it better ... there is an article on his site. Or you can search NDhighlights. It had been selected there after I posted it somewhere. Jan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 14, 2002 Report Share Posted September 14, 2002 Nisargadatta, " Shawn " <shawnregan> wrote: > Dan, > > I'm looking for " I Am " and thought Aziz had some useful words to > guide me. I'm not " looking " for a particular response just feedback. > I'm just a beginner on this path still suffering from " spiritual " > insecurity. > > Shawn Hi Shawn, There is nowhere for a beginner to go, except to remain with the beginning, and what is prior to beginning... Some questions arise at the beginning ... Why are you looking for " I Am " ? How will you know " I Am " when you find it? How do you know this isn't it, right now and here, just like this? What do you imagine " I Am " to be, and where did you get that idea from? What is the difference between " I Am " and what is not " I Am " ...? Space, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 14, 2002 Report Share Posted September 14, 2002 > As for Dan. I don't think he is the right guru for beginners! > > Love > Jan Hi Jan -- Me, either. I don't think he's the right guru for anyone -- not even for me ... :-) -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 16, 2002 Report Share Posted September 16, 2002 Dan, I wan't sure if I was to ask myself these questions or you were asking. Anyway I'll answer to both here. > Why are you looking for " I Am " ? Freedom from myself > How will you know " I Am " when you find it? When I have this freedom > How do you know this isn't it, right now and here, > just like this? From what I've read about the state I am still identified with the mind. I have no center, no continuity of consciousness. > What do you imagine " I Am " to be, and where > did you get that idea from? Having a center will free me from the mind, from the minds conditioning via memory. > What is the difference between " I Am " and > what is not " I Am " ...? Being awake and being asleep. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 17, 2002 Report Share Posted September 17, 2002 Hi Shawn -- > I wan't sure if I was to ask myself these questions or you were > asking. Anyway I'll answer to both here. > > > Why are you looking for " I Am " ? > > Freedom from myself Perceptive answer. Can't be done. The one getting away, is that from which one is trying to get away. > > How will you know " I Am " when you find it? > > When I have this freedom That freedom is an idea, a concept. You attempt to hold that concept, in the hope of getting there at some point in the future. The concept of the future, is a concept you imagine now, hold now. You are an idea, trying to use an idea, to get away from an undesirable " you, " which is the same " you " that thinks it will later experience freedom. I can't get away, because there is nowhere to get away to. That future perfection is simply my imagination trying to hold its own image, now. > > How do you know this isn't it, right now and here, > > just like this? > > From what I've read about the state I am still identified with the > mind. I have no center, no continuity of consciousness. You are using readings to manufacture concepts, which you think you can experience as a state. One thinks one is a something, which can move from one state to another -- an experiencer which moves from an undesirable experiencer to a more highly valued experience. This is " mind trickery " which also includes " emotional splitting " -- attempting to split off what I don't want to feel or be, and get to where I'll be and feel what I hope will be much better, even " perfect " or " realized. " > > What do you imagine " I Am " to be, and where > > did you get that idea from? > > Having a center will free me from the mind, from the minds > conditioning via memory. How do you know this to be true? > > What is the difference between " I Am " and > > what is not " I Am " ...? > > Being awake and being asleep. How do you think it is possible for unconditioned awareness without memory (which you described above) to fall asleep? Where would something come along from outside of itself which could put it to sleep, or into which it could go to leave its " being awake " behind somewhere? Space, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 17, 2002 Report Share Posted September 17, 2002 Dan, I just re-read chapter 12 from " Eye of he Spirit " and I think I know what you're telling me here. I need to accept myself now. What I'm looking for is already here now. By looking for it in the future as a concept I can't see that it's already here now. What Wilber calls the " Great Search " . > How do you think it is possible for > unconditioned awareness without > memory (which you described above) > to fall asleep? I thought that's what incarnation is? Shawn Nisargadatta, " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > Hi Shawn -- > > > I wan't sure if I was to ask myself these questions or you were > > asking. Anyway I'll answer to both here. > > > > > Why are you looking for " I Am " ? > > > > Freedom from myself > > Perceptive answer. > > Can't be done. > > The one getting away, is that > from which one is trying to get away. > > > > How will you know " I Am " when you find it? > > > > When I have this freedom > > That freedom is an idea, a concept. > > You attempt to hold that concept, in > the hope of getting there at some > point in the future. > > The concept of the future, is a concept > you imagine now, hold now. > > You are an idea, trying to use an idea, > to get away from an undesirable " you, " > which is the same " you " that thinks > it will later experience freedom. > > I can't get away, because there is nowhere to > get away to. That future perfection is > simply my imagination trying to hold its > own image, now. > > > > How do you know this isn't it, right now and here, > > > just like this? > > > > From what I've read about the state I am still identified with the > > mind. I have no center, no continuity of consciousness. > > You are using readings to manufacture concepts, > which you think you can experience as a state. > > One thinks one is a something, which can move > from one state to another -- an experiencer > which moves from an undesirable experiencer > to a more highly valued experience. > > This is " mind trickery " which also includes > " emotional splitting " -- attempting to split > off what I don't want to feel or be, and get > to where I'll be and feel what I hope will > be much better, even " perfect " or " realized. " > > > > What do you imagine " I Am " to be, and where > > > did you get that idea from? > > > > Having a center will free me from the mind, from the minds > > conditioning via memory. > > How do you know this to be true? > > > > What is the difference between " I Am " and > > > what is not " I Am " ...? > > > > Being awake and being asleep. > > How do you think it is possible for > unconditioned awareness without > memory (which you described above) > to fall asleep? > > Where would something come along from outside > of itself which could put it to sleep, or > into which it could go to leave its > " being awake " behind somewhere? > > Space, > Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 18, 2002 Report Share Posted September 18, 2002 Hi Shawn -- > I just re-read chapter 12 from " Eye of he Spirit " and I think I know > what you're telling me here. If you know, then you know. The most that reading a book could do, is give words that fit with what you know. But the knowing comes from you, not the book. >I need to accept myself now. Do you accept yourself, or don't you? If you don't accept yourself, and are telling yourself you need to accept yourself, then the actuality is non-acceptance, and the added telling to oneself that I need to accept myself, actually compounds the non-acceptance, does it not? So -- can one know deeply what non-acceptance is -- what is going on there when there is non-acceptance. Telling oneself " I need to accept myself " just gives one something to try to do, an image to try to fit in the future, does it not? And, one isn't looking fully into the actuality of non-acceptance, while one is trying to get to the image of acceptance one thinks one needs - no? > What I'm > looking for is already here now. That's just an idea -- a teaching tool. It's only helpful in certain situations -- in other situations, it's not helpful at all - may be counterproductive, as noted above -- can give an image, a belief, to try to maintain ... dishonesty, in other words By looking for it in the future as a > concept I can't see that it's already here now. How could you possibly know that it's already here now? All that you can know is that by looking for it in the future, you are placing it ahead of yourself in time. If looking into/as " what is " ... one can only inquire what is? what is the case now? If there is nonacceptance now, one can look into: what is this nonacceptance. To say " I am what I'm looking for, " or " It is here now, " easily becomes a placebo - a belief to placate one's anxiety -- push it away, deny it ... > What Wilber calls > the " Great Search " . The " great fire " consumes Wilber, all his writings, even all the beings in the universe, and everything they ever thought was so. > > How do you think it is possible for > > unconditioned awareness without > > memory (which you described above) > > to fall asleep? > > I thought that's what incarnation is? They key words being " I thought " -- and you're right -- it's a story that thought has told itself ... and that's all it is ... not necessarily any better or more useful than any of thought's other stories ... each of which have a time and place ... Space, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 18, 2002 Report Share Posted September 18, 2002 What entity is there to either accept itself or not-accept itself?Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: Click Here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 18, 2002 Report Share Posted September 18, 2002 The most enduring truth is that there is no entity. []Tuesday, September 17, 2002 7:17 PMNisargadatta Subject: Re: Re: For Dave S. on Aziz (Dan) What entity is there to either accept itself or not-accept itself? Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: Click Here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 18, 2002 Report Share Posted September 18, 2002 >What entity is there to either accept itself or not-accept itself? Mickey Mouse -- the true nonentity for you and me! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 18, 2002 Report Share Posted September 18, 2002 Nisargadatta, " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote: > The most enduring truth is that there is no entity. Who measured all the truths, and found this to be the most enduring one of all? <s> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 19, 2002 Report Share Posted September 19, 2002 Who is asking? dan330033 [dan330033] Wednesday, September 18, 2002 2:45 PM Nisargadatta Re: For Dave S. on Aziz (Dan) Nisargadatta, " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote: > The most enduring truth is that there is no entity. Who measured all the truths, and found this to be the most enduring one of all? <s> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 19, 2002 Report Share Posted September 19, 2002 >The most enduring truth is that there is no entity. Only an objective truth can be enduring. For only objects require time in order to exist. There is of course as you know, no objective truth so how can it be enduring? Much less the "most" enduring? Are there any other truths that are not so enduring? smarten up man. no-entity is as much conceptual thinking as is entity. SO what entity is there to either be or not to be. To be or not to be---- that is not the question! -MarkMSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: Click Here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 19, 2002 Report Share Posted September 19, 2002 > >What entity is there to either accept itself or not-accept itself? > >Mickey Mouse -- the true nonentity for you and me! > smarten up. had nothing been said....music MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: Click Here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 19, 2002 Report Share Posted September 19, 2002 Nisargadatta, " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote: > Who is asking? If you don't know -- from where will you get your answer? And if you do know -- why would you ask? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 19, 2002 Report Share Posted September 19, 2002 Nisargadatta, " " <@h...> wrote: > >The most enduring truth is that there is no entity. >Only an objective truth can be enduring. For only objects require time in order to exist. There is of course as you know, no objective truth so how can it be enduring? Much less the " most " enduring? Are there any other truths that are not so enduring? smarten up man. no- entity is as much conceptual thinking as is entity. SO what entity is there to either be or not to be. To be or not to be---- that is not the question! -Mark Exactamundo. Only an entity would want to know that there is an enduring truth of no entity. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 19, 2002 Report Share Posted September 19, 2002 Nisargadatta, " " <@h...> wrote: > >What entity is there to either accept itself or not-accept itself? > >Mickey Mouse -- the true nonentity for you and me! > smarten up. had nothing been said....music oh, you must be the one who's shit don't stink, I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 19, 2002 Report Share Posted September 19, 2002 >Nisargadatta, "" wrote: > > > >What entity is there to either accept itself or not-accept itself? > > > >Mickey Mouse -- the true nonentity for you and me! > > >smarten up. had nothing been said....music > >oh, you must be the one who's shit don't stink, I guess. > For shit not to stink it would first require both a shitter and a shit. I am neither nor both. Second, it would require both an object with a non-offending odour and a subject with a nose. A subject with a nose. How funny a concept! I am neither nor both. Friend, if i have offended or in anyway caused your subject-object any suffering i apologize. It was just a silly form of humour. i did not intend it as an insult. apologies.Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: Click Here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 19, 2002 Report Share Posted September 19, 2002 Nisargadatta, " " <@h...> wrote: > > > > >What entity is there to either accept itself or not-accept itself? > > > >Mickey Mouse -- the true nonentity for you and me! > > >smarten up. had nothing been said....music > >oh, you must be the one who's shit don't stink, I guess. > For shit not to stink it would first require both a shitter and a shit. I am neither nor both. Second, it would require both an object with a non-offending odour and a subject with a nose. A subject with a nose. How funny a concept! I am neither nor both. Friend, if i have offended or in anyway caused your subject-object any suffering i apologize. It was just a silly form of humour. i did not intend it as an insult. apologies. ********* No insult was taken, and none offered. Only humor... Thanks for checking. Mickey's nose can't smell anything other than Mickey's shit, so who could be offended? And by the way, I hope you can come out of this no-subject no-object mindplay, when it's time to relieve yourself. Wouldn't want constipation to set in, in the body that isn't there ... Always enjoying laughter, Dan 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.