Guest guest Posted September 23, 2002 Report Share Posted September 23, 2002 Nisargadatta, " Shawn " <shawnregan> wrote: > " Being is a very mysterious state. it's only mysterious for " me. " only me finds it mysterious and fascinating. this fascination is similar to the awe that a holographic figure feels inside the holo deck at the star trek ship. step outside the holodeck and the figure disappears. a self-aware holographic figure knows that s/he is not merely the holodeck image but the self-programming itself. > It is not a simple state, for in > this state you encounter your own absence. *you* cannot encounter your own absence. you can imagine what it'd be like without you or you can experience a neurological glitch where the consciousness program runs without the sense of me. sorry i could not resist the view from the nondual window. it's really ok to view things from the dual window or get confused with different views. this is what we do here. like children we adjust each other's position in the play. hur Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 23, 2002 Report Share Posted September 23, 2002 Hi Hur -- > > *you* cannot encounter your own absence. you can imagine what it'd > be like without you or you can experience a neurological glitch where > the consciousness program runs without the sense of me. Very true. Words about " no me " are just pointers. When what they are pointing to is grasped, the words have no relevance. It has nothing to do with encountering your own absence. > sorry i could not resist the view from the nondual window. it's > really ok to view things from the dual window or get confused with > different views. When there isn't a window or a view, no one will be commenting about what is being seen. > this is what we do here. like children we adjust each other's > position in the play. It can only be play. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 2002 Report Share Posted September 24, 2002 Note that the statement: " *you* cannot encounter your own absence. " is effectively stating: " *you " cannot encounter the absence of *you " . Stating it this way emphasises the tautological nature of the statement. > Words about " no me " are just pointers. > When what they are pointing to is grasped, > the words have no relevance. Excellent and important. -Bill dan330033 [dan330033] Monday, September 23, 2002 2:37 PM Nisargadatta Re: Aziz answered my question (To be AND not to be) Hi Hur -- > > *you* cannot encounter your own absence. you can imagine what it'd > be like without you or you can experience a neurological glitch where > the consciousness program runs without the sense of me. Very true. Words about " no me " are just pointers. When what they are pointing to is grasped, the words have no relevance. It has nothing to do with encountering your own absence. > sorry i could not resist the view from the nondual window. it's > really ok to view things from the dual window or get confused with > different views. When there isn't a window or a view, no one will be commenting about what is being seen. > this is what we do here. like children we adjust each other's > position in the play. It can only be play. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 2002 Report Share Posted September 24, 2002 --- Hur Guler <hurg wrote: > Nisargadatta, " Shawn " <shawnregan> > wrote: > > > > > *you* cannot encounter your own absence. you can > imagine what it'd > be like without you or you can experience a > neurological glitch where > the consciousness program runs without the sense of > me. Yes, exactly, a neurological glitch. All these confusion would dissipate if we'd view every experience as the response of a different brain center. Mystical experiences are no exception. This, of course, is not a popular view in spiritual circles, which consider matter a dirty word. Pete New DSL Internet Access from SBC & http://sbc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 2002 Report Share Posted September 24, 2002 Nisargadatta, " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote: > Note that the statement: " *you* cannot encounter your own absence. " > is effectively stating: " *you " cannot encounter the absence of *you " . > Stating it this way emphasises the tautological nature of the statement. Yes, it's a bind all right. The you wants its own absence as an encounter, so it can be free of itself. Not possible. The " you " affirms itself by claiming itself as the observer, experiencer, knower, one who has -- yet this position can never be observed, experienced, known, or had. Whoops, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 2002 Report Share Posted September 24, 2002 You not only cannot encounter your own absence. You can't encounter your own presence. Otherwise, you could encounter your absence. Since you can't encounter your own presence, every experience that requires your presence to be known, felt, thought -- cannot be validated. Realizing that you cannot claim to exist or not exist, and that the world you perceive is the same, one releases one's hold on wanting to exist or not exist, or believing that certain existing things are desirable, whereas others should be gotten rid of. Meanwhile, everyone in the world is involved with promoting amd securing themselves or hating themselves, promoting their friends and diminishing their enemies. Such is life, Dan Nisargadatta, pete seesaw <seesaw1us> wrote: > --- Hur Guler <hurg> wrote: > > Nisargadatta, " Shawn " <shawnregan> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > *you* cannot encounter your own absence. you can > > imagine what it'd > > be like without you or you can experience a > > neurological glitch where > > the consciousness program runs without the sense of > > me. > > Yes, exactly, a neurological glitch. All these > confusion would dissipate if we'd view every > experience as the response of a different brain > center. Mystical experiences are no exception. This, > of course, is not a popular view in spiritual circles, > which consider matter a dirty word. > > Pete > > > > > > New DSL Internet Access from SBC & > http://sbc. 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.