The Universe as an understanding that has passed ... Dan

[Guest guest]

> It moves only in relation.

>

> Without having set up a point of view,

> no movement can be ascertained.

>

> " The universe moves by my window. " -- Dan

 

 

 

Wow, I like this quote Dan. It denotes tremendous power here. I can

take it as: " I am moving the universe when I take a position " or " I

can choose any postion and watch the movement generated from/as that

position " or ...

 

.... but then I had trouble starting the car this morning... (perhaps

if I'd put my window on the end of the crankshaft it would have

moved )

 

I guess this trouble just shows that it was my window that was moving.

 

I guess moving needn't be from place to place - moving can be still.

 

Perhaps still movement or moving stillness can be seen as power?

 

....but then, - uh oh - another window...

 

....Geez Dan I don't recall having windows before you mentioned

them...

 

.... but I had a before and a ...

 

but then that's just me,

with appreciations,

Gray

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " gray452 " <gby> wrote:

>

>

>

>

> > It moves only in relation.

> >

> > Without having set up a point of view,

> > no movement can be ascertained.

> >

> > " The universe moves by my window. " -- Dan

>

>

>

> Wow, I like this quote Dan. It denotes tremendous power here.

 

Cool, Gray. It is only letters appearing in sequence.

You " supply " the power :-)

 

> I can

> take it as: " I am moving the universe when I take a position " or " I

> can choose any postion and watch the movement generated from/as

that

> position " or ...

 

Those are both good!

 

Or ... I create the universe when I position a window.

 

Or ... The universe must create my window, so it can move.

 

>

> ... but then I had trouble starting the car this morning...

(perhaps

> if I'd put my window on the end of the crankshaft it would have

> moved )

 

Ha! " You " " your car " and " trouble starting the car " all

spontaneously appeared, moving by your window!

 

> I guess this trouble just shows that it was my window that was

moving.

 

Windows move within a nonmoving crystal ball.

 

> I guess moving needn't be from place to place - moving can be still.

 

Yes, exactly! Movement is utterly still.

 

Movement contrasts one moment and another, makes a comparison,

finds change. Change is movement. Yet, to contrast one

moment and another, images of two moments must be " held "

within a present moment. That present moment never moves.

So, the comparison, and the movement experienced, is

always illusory.

 

> Perhaps still movement or moving stillness can be seen as power?

 

Indeed, totality-power, power with nothing to have power over,

power which can't be opposed, already all-that-is.

 

> ...but then, - uh oh - another window...

>

> ...Geez Dan I don't recall having windows before you mentioned

> them...

 

I know what you mean. You must be seeing your window

through another window, through which you observe

yourself noticing a window. Is that even possible?

Is it even happening except as a mirage?

 

> ... but I had a before and a ...

>

> but then that's just me,

> with appreciations,

 

Great talking with you in this hall of mirrors, Gray!

 

Appreciations to you, too,

Dan

[Guest guest]

Thanks for the informative reply Dan. Hope you are not where the

cyclone is/was in the US (I am in New Zealand); my thoughts go to all

those who are/were.

 

> > > It moves only in relation.

> > >

> > > Without having set up a point of view,

> > > no movement can be ascertained.

> > >

> > > " The universe moves by my window. " -- Dan

> >

> >

> >

> > Wow, I like this quote Dan. It denotes tremendous power here.

>

> Cool, Gray. It is only letters appearing in sequence.

> You " supply " the power :-)

 

So it is always me who supplies the power, including the power to

identify (as a me).

 

> > I can

> > take it as: " I am moving the universe when I take a position "

or " I

> > can choose any postion and watch the movement generated from/as

> that

> > position " or ...

>

> Those are both good!

>

> Or ... I create the universe when I position a window.

>

> Or ... The universe must create my window, so it can move.

 

Or... Windows arise and I am on one side and the view is on the other.

 

> > ... but then I had trouble starting the car this morning...

> (perhaps

> > if I'd put my window on the end of the crankshaft it would have

> > moved )

>

> Ha! " You " " your car " and " trouble starting the car " all

> spontaneously appeared, moving by your window!

 

Um.. OK... Not sure what is moving in this scene, but I sense it is

not me.

 

> > I guess this trouble just shows that it was my window that was

> moving.

>

> Windows move within a nonmoving crystal ball.

 

Where do I fit in here... I guess I can be the ball or a facet of the

crystal. Once a facet is chosen the window is that facet and gives

the view... and it is simply a view that I fit in.

 

> > I guess moving needn't be from place to place - moving can be

still.

>

> Yes, exactly! Movement is utterly still.

 

Wow... what a 'place' to be!

 

> Movement contrasts one moment and another, makes a comparison,

> finds change. Change is movement. Yet, to contrast one

> moment and another, images of two moments must be " held "

> within a present moment. That present moment never moves.

> So, the comparison, and the movement experienced, is

> always illusory.

 

Or, using the crystal ball metaphor. Movement would be comparing one

facet of the crystal with another; stillness is 'being the ball'?

 

> > Perhaps still movement or moving stillness can be seen as power?

>

> Indeed, totality-power, power with nothing to have power over,

> power which can't be opposed, already all-that-is.

 

So if I talk of my power as a human being, that is a reflection of

totality-power?

 

> > ...but then, - uh oh - another window...

> >

> > ...Geez Dan I don't recall having windows before you mentioned

> > them...

>

> I know what you mean. You must be seeing your window

> through another window, through which you observe

> yourself noticing a window. Is that even possible?

> Is it even happening except as a mirage?

 

So I am looking through a number of (crystal ball) windows/facets at

the same time? This only being possible if I have split mysellf

(funny how I naturally misspelt this - sold myself); the splitting is

the creation of a haze, confusion - a mirage?

 

> > ... but I had a before and a ...

> >

> > but then that's just me,

> > with appreciations,

>

> Great talking with you in this hall of mirrors, Gray!

 

Thanks for being there/here Dan,

Gray

[Guest guest]

Hi Dan,

 

> > Thanks for the informative reply Dan. Hope you are not where the

> > cyclone is/was in the US (I am in New Zealand); my thoughts go to

> all

> > those who are/were.

>

> Yup, that would be me -- and not a scratch to show for it

> either. Isabel veered to the north when she saw me coming

> at -- wasn't up to handling my mojo :-)

 

Seems Isabel stormed down here with your post. The dust has begun to

settle now. Nothing like a good stirring of the air to shake these

points-of-view.

 

> > So it is always me who supplies the power, including the power to

> > identify (as a me).

>

> Including the whole idea of identifying and disidentifying,

> including something with which to identify, and including

> the context in which that something appears (is cognized).

 

Wow, that's some power.

 

> > Or... Windows arise and I am on one side and the view is on the

> other.

>

> Or ... the window arises in me, and I am on both sides of the

window,

> but appear to myself by " seeing a difference " aka " subject/object "

> and " experiencer/experience "

 

Seeing the difference that is no difference... musing here...

 

snip

 

> > Um.. OK... Not sure what is moving in this scene, but I sense it

is

> > not me.

>

> Yes. The sensing of something that is " not me " is key -- otherwise

> there wouldn't be any sensing. In other words, the instant

> there is no " not-me " there isn't anything being sensed, nor

> anything to think about. The " not-me " gives, not only identity,

> but time and experience.

 

Key?... so every time a " not-me " appears, that is illusion; ie, I

have 'gone into wonderland' through a sense door...

 

I cannot imagine when there " isn't anything being sensed, nor

anything to think about " , but then imagining, thinking, (sensing?),

is 'living in wonderland' , but 'living there' is not separate.

 

> > Where do I fit in here... I guess I can be the ball or a facet of

> the

> > crystal. Once a facet is chosen the window is that facet and

gives

> > the view... and it is simply a view that I fit in.

>

> You are the crystal, and all the facets, simultaneously including

> all the views from all the facets, yet -- each view has to

> arise as if discrete, as if having its own position and

> perspective -- otherwise known as " life and death. "

 

Position and perspective - life and death. Life being the duration or

holding of the position/perspective; death being the changing of it.

 

> > > > I guess moving needn't be from place to place - moving can be

> > still.

> > >

> > > Yes, exactly! Movement is utterly still.

> >

> > Wow... what a 'place' to be!

>

> It's all that actually is, all that ever is.

 

All movement being 'in the mind'; all movement being thought; but not

separate from 'stillness'.

 

> > > Movement contrasts one moment and another, makes a comparison,

> > > finds change. Change is movement. Yet, to contrast one

> > > moment and another, images of two moments must be " held "

> > > within a present moment. That present moment never moves.

> > > So, the comparison, and the movement experienced, is

> > > always illusory.

> >

> > Or, using the crystal ball metaphor. Movement would be comparing

> one

> > facet of the crystal with another; stillness is 'being the ball'?

>

> Sure. The ball has no form, no movement, so doesn't even have

> the quality of " stillness. " Yet, because of the ball, through

> the ball, all beings and experiences take place, have their

> own unique time and space -- which includes all of the rest

> of the appearances in the ball -- interwoven, never separated.

 

Having a ball! - never being separate!

 

> > > > Perhaps still movement or moving stillness can be seen as

power?

> > >

> > > Indeed, totality-power, power with nothing to have power over,

> > > power which can't be opposed, already all-that-is.

> >

> > So if I talk of my power as a human being, that is a reflection

of

> > totality-power?

>

> You have no power as a human being, except for attributions of

> the mind which locate power in certain places, and not in

> other places.

 

Thanks for putting me in my place Dan :-)

 

> Since what is taking place is an interwoven totality, there is

> no location for the power of it -- just mind-imagined

> ways of placing power here as opposed to there -- which is

> how the game of " life and death " gets played, and the

> ever-popular game of " forming relationships. "

 

Switching the power switch:

on - off;

life - death;

in-relationship - not-in -relationship...

 

snip

 

> > So I am looking through a number of (crystal ball) windows/facets

> at

> > the same time? This only being possible if I have split mysellf

> > (funny how I naturally misspelt this - sold myself); the

splitting

> is

> > the creation of a haze, confusion - a mirage?

>

> Otherwise known as time, life-death, experience, identity.

>

> But, if you see through it -- it's a beautiful illusion,

> which is never separate or separable from reality.

>

> Reality is never apart from illusion, and illusion

> couldn't take place except that it is reality -- as soon as who

> you are is clear.

 

The who that I am is somewhat clearer here now. I have glimses/spells

of seeing through it, and it's a big it, so big that I can't see the

end of it; and seeing the end of it, being the end of it, is seeing

through it.

 

snip

 

> > > Great talking with you in this hall of mirrors, Gray!

> >

> > Thanks for being there/here Dan,

>

> Yes, which one of us am I, anyway?

>

> Love,

> Dan

 

I'm the one who is in wonderland.

 

In loving gratitude,

Gray

[Guest guest]

Hi Gray --

 

snip

 

> > Including the whole idea of identifying and disidentifying,

> > including something with which to identify, and including

> > the context in which that something appears (is cognized).

>

> Wow, that's some power.

 

It is. And no one else has it.

 

But until one is clear, we " see through a glass darkly "

as if outside events and people are affecting us, we who

are alive and aware separately, over here, while they

are over there, each side aware of the other as an object.

 

snip

 

> > Or ... the window arises in me, and I am on both sides of the

> window,

> > but appear to myself by " seeing a difference "

aka " subject/object "

> > and " experiencer/experience "

>

> Seeing the difference that is no difference... musing here...

 

Yes. What makes it a difference is that I see it as a difference.

 

Otherwise, there's no difference.

 

> > Yes. The sensing of something that is " not me " is key --

otherwise

> > there wouldn't be any sensing. In other words, the instant

> > there is no " not-me " there isn't anything being sensed, nor

> > anything to think about. The " not-me " gives, not only identity,

> > but time and experience.

>

> Key?... so every time a " not-me " appears, that is illusion; ie, I

> have 'gone into wonderland' through a sense door...

 

True. And without the impression of " not-me " -- the senses

don't deceive.

 

I have to remove myself from myself, or I have to swallow

part of myself to make a " me " -- either way you look at it,

I have to make a not-me of me, and then I can sense things,

have experiences, deal with conflicts, live and die.

 

Not that I choose to have me and not-me. Whenever I choose

anything, that division already has been made.

 

> I cannot imagine when there " isn't anything being sensed, nor

> anything to think about " , but then imagining, thinking, (sensing?),

> is 'living in wonderland' , but 'living there' is not separate.

 

Indeed, it's not imaginable, because imagination is " my "

use of fantasy, based on my ideas and wishes.

 

Without a me constructed against a not-me, who would imagine,

and for what purpose, to gain what?

 

The not-me forms against me, and me against not-me ...

so neither really has formed.

 

I have to ignore that, in order to experience things and

beings. It's a matter of life and death, so cultures

indoctrinate ignorance -- so there will be a motive

to survive, build, fight, expand the culture, and so on.

But it's more than culture. It's in the neurological

structuring.

 

And yet, it is seen through. Very simply, neatly, immediately.

Because " what is " can't fool itself indefinitely into

believing it has divided itself into a part of itself that

is here separate from another part that is there.

 

snip

>

> Position and perspective - life and death. Life being the duration

or

> holding of the position/perspective; death being the changing of it.

 

I like that. Well-said.

 

snip

 

> All movement being 'in the mind'; all movement being thought; but

not

> separate from 'stillness'.

 

And " thought " being the cognizing of this against what is not-this.

 

Same as the me and the not-me.

 

So, nothing moves, except once there is me and not-me, this

and not-this -- something to move and something to remain

where it is.

 

snip

 

> Having a ball! - never being separate!

 

And never having been separate.

 

Separation, whatever was experienced as separation

(hurt, death, rejection, fear, rage, loss), never having

actually involved something being divided from something

else that was other.

 

As painful as perceived separation is, and all the emotions

that go with it, nothing ever really detached from something

else.

 

The perception of loss being based on the cognitive conclusion

that different things have existence apart from each other.

 

snip

 

> Thanks for putting me in my place Dan :-)

 

Funny, Gray! As you put me in mine, so we can have

a dialogue.

 

snip

 

> Switching the power switch:

> on - off;

> life - death;

> in-relationship - not-in -relationship...

 

Yes.

 

> The who that I am is somewhat clearer here now. I have

glimses/spells

> of seeing through it, and it's a big it, so big that I can't see

the

> end of it; and seeing the end of it, being the end of it, is seeing

> through it.

 

Glimpses come and go, and so involve the perception of

loss and change.

 

Yet, nothing really comes and goes.

 

You already always are this, know this all the

time, without knowing anything about it.

 

So, the ignoring of this isn't really possible,

but there is the configuration of ons and offs

that gives the impression of ignoring, as if

differences could really separate one being and

another, could really give an inside and an outside

to someone.

 

snip

 

> I'm the one who is in wonderland.

 

Ah. Then you also are the wonderland you're in.

 

You are all of the outside by which the inside

seems to be forming in contrast.

 

> In loving gratitude,

 

Hey, you're pretty cool yourself!

 

Love,

Dan

[Guest guest]

Hi Dan ---

 

snip

 

> Not that I choose to have me and not-me. Whenever I choose

> anything, that division already has been made.

 

So choosing is adding to the illusion so to speak. I compound the

illusion by differentiating and then 'adopting' one aspect

and 'rejecting' the other.

 

> > I cannot imagine when there " isn't anything being sensed, nor

> > anything to think about " , but then imagining, thinking,

(sensing?),

> > is 'living in wonderland' , but 'living there' is not separate.

>

> Indeed, it's not imaginable, because imagination is " my "

> use of fantasy, based on my ideas and wishes.

 

The world is my fantasy. At one level of consciousness it is the

division/creation of 'physical reality'. At another level it is my

ideas, wishes, wonderings, longings... including the idea of

levels... All this fantasy is the splitting of awareness.

 

> Without a me constructed against a not-me, who would imagine,

> and for what purpose, to gain what?

 

This looks a tricky one - lets have a go at it: There is no who to

imagine. Imagination is the postulation of a who. Imagination

imagines its own purpose, eg: meaning, enjoyment, learning...

Imagination gains (and loses) frequently, such things as fame,

fortune, health, friends... With no imagination, no me or not-me

there is no who, purpose, gaining or losing...

 

snip

 

> I have to ignore that, in order to experience things and

> beings. It's a matter of life and death, so cultures

> indoctrinate ignorance -- so there will be a motive

> to survive, build, fight, expand the culture, and so on.

> But it's more than culture. It's in the neurological

> structuring.

 

Is it about the survival of ideas - neurological structuring being an

idea?

 

> And yet, it is seen through. Very simply, neatly, immediately.

> Because " what is " can't fool itself indefinitely into

> believing it has divided itself into a part of itself that

> is here separate from another part that is there.

 

As an indefinite fool I feel qualified to speak to this point. As

such, I don't know what to say, so I'll just say what I don't know

which is this: It is fine to be an indefinite fool as long as one is

definitely not defined. However it can be problematic when one is a

definite fool. Sometimes I am a definite fool and that is when I see

some times. In these times I believe I am and that someone else is.

When I am not in these times, I am not in time at all...

 

snip

 

> As painful as perceived separation is, and all the emotions

> that go with it, nothing ever really detached from something

> else.

 

What about perceived physical pain? There is a split/difference here

between imagined pain, ie emotional pain, pain in the mind and actual

pain, ie physical pain.

 

Lets have a look at this. I had believed that there was a my mind ad

the mind and that my mind was in my head. Now I see that my mind

includes the physical and is in fact the mind. Hence there is no

difference between physical and emotional pain.

 

The mind also being known as consciousness? ie, when there is a split

me/not-me, there is a me conscious of a not-me. Awareness is when

there is no splits - including the splits when/no-when and

location/no-location?

 

snip

 

> Glimpses come and go, and so involve the perception of

> loss and change.

>

> Yet, nothing really comes and goes.

>

> You already always are this, know this all the

> time, without knowing anything about it.

 

Wonderful.... So when I say " I know " or " I don't know " there is a

split me/not-me in the mind, in thought, between the known and the

not known, between the conscious and the unconscious?

 

But when " I know this all the time, without knowing anything about

it " , that is a definition of me as the conscious plus the unconscious?

 

snip

 

Enjoying the exercise,

Gray

[Guest guest]

Hi Gray -

 

> > Not that I choose to have me and not-me. Whenever I choose

> > anything, that division already has been made.

>

> So choosing is adding to the illusion so to speak. I compound the

> illusion by differentiating and then 'adopting' one aspect

> and 'rejecting' the other.

 

True. I get more deeply invested, by investing in my choices

having the desired outcomes for " me " by " getting the other

to do what I want, give me what I want " and so on.

The other may be the environment, another person, my body,

or my mind. Constantly shifting scenarios, because

there is no real basis for " me " and " not me " to be established.

 

All choices and outcomes involve time transpiring, and me and

not me have to be established for a sense of time to be

established.

 

> > > I cannot imagine when there " isn't anything being sensed, nor

> > > anything to think about " , but then imagining, thinking,

> (sensing?),

> > > is 'living in wonderland' , but 'living there' is not separate.

> >

> > Indeed, it's not imaginable, because imagination is " my "

> > use of fantasy, based on my ideas and wishes.

>

> The world is my fantasy. At one level of consciousness it is the

> division/creation of 'physical reality'. At another level it is my

> ideas, wishes, wonderings, longings... including the idea of

> levels... All this fantasy is the splitting of awareness.

 

True. And any sense of awareness and something of which to

be aware (even " awareness " as its own object) is splitting.

 

> > Without a me constructed against a not-me, who would imagine,

> > and for what purpose, to gain what?

>

> This looks a tricky one - lets have a go at it: There is no who to

> imagine. Imagination is the postulation of a who. Imagination

> imagines its own purpose, eg: meaning, enjoyment, learning...

> Imagination gains (and loses) frequently, such

 

True. Imagination in the sense of imaging. With no image

formed whatsoever, no sense of a who.

 

> things as fame,

> fortune, health, friends... With no imagination, no me or not-me

> there is no who, purpose, gaining or losing...

 

Yes. Can I notice how the sense of not-me begins? It begins

with me distancing and making something not-me,

or conversely, making something me by holding on to

something that is not-me. They arise together, as a mutually

reinforcing tensioning. Can I notice that it is this

activity, this tensioning, that underlies all versions

of the me/not-me polarity, on which the entirety of

the imagined world of sensed objects and experiences depends?

Can I notice that the tensioning has no experiential form,

until me and not-me differentiate?

This is similar to what Otto Rank called " the trauma of

birth " -- the primal sense of an existing being involved

in an experience (which gets more and more differentiated

as development continues, and changes with awareness of

the life/death dichotomy).

 

> snip

>

> > I have to ignore that, in order to experience things and

> > beings. It's a matter of life and death, so cultures

> > indoctrinate ignorance -- so there will be a motive

> > to survive, build, fight, expand the culture, and so on.

> > But it's more than culture. It's in the neurological

> > structuring.

>

> Is it about the survival of ideas - neurological structuring being

an

> idea?

 

What makes an idea and idea, except that there's already a

sense of inside and outside, an idea being a formulation

of an awareness that experiences and keeps its own representations

as memories and ideas?

 

With no me or not-me, what basis for any idea?

 

Is me/not-me an idea, or the basis for ideas forming

as ideas? Is me/not me a concept, or the basis for inside/outside

on which all conceptualization depends?

 

In other words, when there is no division between a thing

and its representation, there is no basis to have

an understanding of something as a concept or idea.

 

> > And yet, it is seen through. Very simply, neatly, immediately.

> > Because " what is " can't fool itself indefinitely into

> > believing it has divided itself into a part of itself that

> > is here separate from another part that is there.

>

> As an indefinite fool I feel qualified to speak to this point. As

> such, I don't know what to say, so I'll just say what I don't know

> which is this: It is fine to be an indefinite fool as long as one

is

> definitely not defined. However it can be problematic when one is a

> definite fool. Sometimes I am a definite fool and that is when I

see

> some times. In these times I believe I am and that someone else is.

> When I am not in these times, I am not in time at all...

 

Okay.

 

There is an identity built up from experiences of self with

an other, my being in relationships in time.

 

To lose that identity is to lose the entire universe of

relationship experiences of self with other.

 

Once that sense of an identity is built, there is a huge

defensive structure involved in keeping it going,

with all kinds of suffering, desiring, hoping, clinging,

controlling, and fearing involved.

 

> snip

>

> > As painful as perceived separation is, and all the emotions

> > that go with it, nothing ever really detached from something

> > else.

>

> What about perceived physical pain? There is a split/difference

here

> between imagined pain, ie emotional pain, pain in the mind and

actual

> pain, ie physical pain.

>

> Lets have a look at this. I had believed that there was a my mind

ad

> the mind and that my mind was in my head. Now I see that my mind

> includes the physical and is in fact the mind. Hence there is no

> difference between physical and emotional pain.

 

Very true. And they depend on intrusions of the not-me

into the me, in ways that aren't wanted. Absolutely.

 

> The mind also being known as consciousness? ie, when there is a

split

> me/not-me, there is a me conscious of a not-me. Awareness is when

> there is no splits - including the splits when/no-when and

> location/no-location?

 

Yes, only it is no longer an it, hence can't be understood

with any of the known qualities associated (in time,

through experience) as " awareness. "

 

>

> > Glimpses come and go, and so involve the perception of

> > loss and change.

> >

> > Yet, nothing really comes and goes.

> >

> > You already always are this, know this all the

> > time, without knowing anything about it.

>

> Wonderful.... So when I say " I know " or " I don't know " there is a

> split me/not-me in the mind, in thought, between the known and the

> not known, between the conscious and the unconscious?

 

True.

 

> But when " I know this all the time, without knowing anything about

> it " , that is a definition of me as the conscious plus the

unconscious?

 

Or, you could say as " primordial awareness " that doesn't

require time, a sense of self or being, or any feeling or

perception of awareness, such as " I am " or " I am aware "

or " something is happening " or " something isn't happening "

or " I am not. "

 

Great conversing with you about this Gray -- your comments

come across to me as very much " on the money. "

 

-- Dan

[Guest guest]

Hi Dan,

 

snip

 

> The other may be the environment, another person, my body,

> or my mind. Constantly shifting scenarios, because

> there is no real basis for " me " and " not me " to be established.

 

I had not appreciated that my mind may be an other. But I guess it

is, such as when I cannot make up my mind...

 

snip

 

> Yes. Can I notice how the sense of not-me begins? It begins

> with me distancing and making something not-me,

> or conversely, making something me by holding on to

> something that is not-me. They arise together, as a mutually

> reinforcing tensioning. Can I notice that it is this

> activity, this tensioning, that underlies all versions

> of the me/not-me polarity, on which the entirety of

> the imagined world of sensed objects and experiences depends?

> Can I notice that the tensioning has no experiential form,

> until me and not-me differentiate?

 

Now this is pointed out Dan, I see it quite clearly. I see that there

are/have been understandings or awarenesses here in various stages of

definition or clarity; and when something is pointed out there is a

collapsing/coalescing of understandings/awarenesses into greater

understanding or awareness.

 

> This is similar to what Otto Rank called " the trauma of

> birth " -- the primal sense of an existing being involved

> in an experience (which gets more and more differentiated

> as development continues, and changes with awareness of

> the life/death dichotomy).

 

This birthing or growing process could be seen as the expansion of

the universe. As more forms are generated this information occupies

more of the space of awareness.

 

snip

 

> What makes an idea and idea, except that there's already a

> sense of inside and outside, an idea being a formulation

> of an awareness that experiences and keeps its own representations

> as memories and ideas?

>

> With no me or not-me, what basis for any idea?

>

> Is me/not-me an idea, or the basis for ideas forming

> as ideas? Is me/not me a concept, or the basis for inside/outside

> on which all conceptualization depends?

>

> In other words, when there is no division between a thing

> and its representation, there is no basis to have

> an understanding of something as a concept or idea.

 

There is no basis. A basis being an idea, a concept, an

understanding, a representation; an idea that is the ground for other

ideas. The original idea - the idea that there is a beginning/ground -

is the notion of inside/outside. All this is, this 'what is' is an

idea, an illusion, a very realistic looking illusion. There is no me

nor not-me, only ideas of such - again, very realistic looking ones.

 

snip

 

> Once that sense of an identity is built, there is a huge

> defensive structure involved in keeping it going,

> with all kinds of suffering, desiring, hoping, clinging,

> controlling, and fearing involved.

 

The huge defensive structure being the universe.

 

snip

 

> Very true. And they depend on intrusions of the not-me

> into the me, in ways that aren't wanted. Absolutely.

 

Ah... this intrusion being the notion of violence in all its forms...

 

snip

 

> Great conversing with you about this Gray -- your comments

> come across to me as very much " on the money. "

 

The bet is, sitting on this pile of unstable coins, if I make the

slightest movement, I am off again.

 

Thanks for the tips Dan.

 

-- Gray

[Guest guest]

Hi Dan,

 

snip

 

> The other can only be imagined, and self imagined in relation.

>

> So, yes, mind is part of that scenario.

>

> Mind may be portrayed as self, often is -- but may switch

> to other -- as " my thought processes led me astray " and

> so on.

>

> Indeed -- what is this, when the entire scenario of

> me and you, my mind and its contents, my experience

> and history -- all of it is " other " in the sense of

> fabrication? Even the fabricator, the imaginer, is

> part of the scenario that is " other " part of the fabrication.

 

I like this idea of being an 'other' part of the fabrication. What a

fabrication has been drempt up here :-)

 

> Who then am I? Or a better way to say it is: Clear now

> that " I " am an aspect of the fabrication that includes

> all experience and " others " and all the " relationships " --

> what now is so?

 

Indeed, a good question - what is so? This reminds me of when I was a

kid and used to 'blow' my mind trying to find the end of the

universe.

 

So, nothing is so, you so and so :-), and so on I go as a so and so

sewing this so as I go; making this so into quite a big so until it

is so big it is everything and then it bursts into nothing; and so on

I go... what a so and so... or perhaps... sew and sow... a never

ending story....

 

snip

 

> Yes, everything that has been built, collapses.

>

> Anything constructed is deconstructed.

>

> The me/not-me being the " center " for the imagining,

> the constructing.

 

Talking of deconstructing... At intervals, after having some thought

or realization, I have observed tingling sensations in various parts

of the body - mainly in/on the skin. I now see this as part of the

deconstruction, or loosening the sense of identity, or transferring

body matter back into energy, or .....

 

snip

 

> > Ah... this intrusion being the notion of violence in all its

> forms...

>

> True. So violence began with the division of me and not-me --

> the " original idea " is violent.

 

Peace being without an idea. Not even the idea of peace.

 

snip

 

> As the original idea has no real place to " happen " - it

> depends on ways to convince itself that it is happening.

 

No wonder I have trouble getting myself out of bed some mornings.

 

snip

 

> The universe defends the original idea by increasingly

> elaborating various inter-involved forms -- and so

> is highly " believable. "

>

> So, the truth is only when there is no belief, no thing

> to know or be.

 

Beautiful.

 

> > Thanks for the tips Dan.

>

> Yes, we're at the tip of one hair of the tiger,

> but with that tip, comes the entire tiger :-)

 

Look Out Dan! The tiger is washing...

 

From the tiger's mouth,

Gray

[Guest guest]

Hi Gray --

 

> > > Thanks for the tips Dan.

> >

> > Yes, we're at the tip of one hair of the tiger,

> > but with that tip, comes the entire tiger :-)

>

> Look Out Dan! The tiger is washing...

 

Nothing can stop it!

 

> From the tiger's mouth,

> Gray

 

Yum!