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

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " gray452 " <gby> wrote:

>

>

> 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 :-)

 

snip

 

> 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).

 

snip

 

> 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 "

 

> > > ... 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.

 

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.

 

> > > 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.

 

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. "

 

> > > 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.

 

> > 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.

 

> > > 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.

 

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. "

 

> > > ...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?

 

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.

 

> > > ... 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,

 

Yes, which one of us am I, anyway?

 

Love,

Dan

[Guest guest]

Hi Gray --

 

> 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...

 

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.

 

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?

 

>

> > 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.

 

Yes, everything that has been built, collapses.

 

Anything constructed is deconstructed.

 

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

the constructing.

 

>

> > 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.

 

Yes, it could. An elaboration of a theme, the theme of form,

which involves inside/outside, perception, interaction

and interpenetration, time.

 

> > 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.

 

True. It gives " dimensionality " through time and perception.

 

The original idea: that there could " be " -- which required

" one who perceives things that are -- an experience of

being. "

 

The original idea requiring " a point of origin " -- birth,

beginning.

 

>

> > 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.

 

An interesting way to take it, Gray.

 

Endless births and deaths, endless points of view

and perceptions of moments in time -- to protect

the original idea aka " me " which required " not me. "

 

>

> > 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...

 

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

the " original idea " is violent.

 

>

> > 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.

 

Funny!

 

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

depends on ways to convince itself that it is happening.

 

As you said above, it gets very convincing.

 

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.

 

> 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 :-)

 

Love,

Dan