Guest guest Posted November 26, 2003 Report Share Posted November 26, 2003 Hi Steve -- > During my immediate study of the loop after I read your comments I > noticed that, when it comes to what I see with my eyes I can not > detect a moving away. For example: I looked out the window and saw a > tree. I did not think this is a tree (if I did it happened so fast > that it slipped by my obeservation) but rather tried to think > that, " the tree see is just part of the loop. This is fictional. " > However I observed this mental comment as just my mind trying to > believe it is fictional because I was told that it was and I liked > what the idea of the tree or the world as being fictional. I tried > to observe the moving away but I could not. I just see the tree and > it is there and could not understand it as being fictional. The moving away is how you place yourself " in here " looking at a tree " out there. " It may seem like an immediate experience, but it's not. The immediate experience has no located being which is aware of something out there. So, if there is no distance apart, what is it to be looking at a tree that is say, twenty yards away? What is that experience with no located observer, no place apart from which to view? The thought process you describe involves the located observer imagining that thoughts can be a device that manufacture a desired perception. Of course, if the observer isn't located, that process wouldn't amount to much of anything at all. > However, > where I can verify the fiction is when I observe my likes and > dislikes, my moods, etc. > I see these wax and wane. Like the > Ouspensky/Gurdjieff concept of so many " I's " . As for the external > world I am having trouble applying this inquiry. I will say that > when I tried to look into the inquiry the moment I read your > instructions to do so in the first scentence it took quite a bit of > energy and made me tired trying to see the external world as > fictional. What I'm looking into here, isn't to try to see the external world as fictional. It's to see how locating an observer in here, locates an external world out there. Each is dependent on the other. If I catch that happening, this instant, then it is clear that there is no in here without an out there, and vice versa. So neither can be placed, located. What then happens to the " whole scene " of me being here, experiencing this? > I even went and took an afternoon nap thinking that I'd > try again when I woke up. I did and came up with the same results. It's not a matter of trying as much as it's a matter of noticing what's going on this moment. You can't decide to do it. It happens prior to your decision, and is how you can have the experience that " I'm here making a decision. " > I can only inquire on the personal and not on the external. Maybe > this is going to take more practice You can't practice this. It's now or never, unexpected. > but I am willing to be steadfast > in the inquiry, so long as I know I am understanding you correctly > and performing it correctly. You can't take in something I'm saying, then apply it, and get a desired result. What I'm saying is only useful if it catalyzes instantaneous clarity. Which you get only directly, from " this " which is " who you are *now* " -- not by taking in word meanings and then applying them in a predetermined way. > Your help is GREATLY appreciated and I do want to observe the moving > away. Who is this who wants to observe the moving away? I am tacking > this " who is this " on to everything and just waiting to see what > arises.. so far just more mental commentary. The mental commentary has already happened by the time you observe it. So, it's already past. I gues you could say, one will never be " quick enough " to catch *this.* No matter how fast you are, you will only get the past -- even the past of one millisecond ago is the past. The nowness that is who you are, you won't catch. The one trying to catch it is the " movement away " -- the self that is always only an attempt. > I will say it does take > a bit of energy... so much more than just regular thinking. Yes, it takes everything. It takes more than " I've " got. So, it's the end of me. This moment is the end of me. I don't know it, because my knowledge is of thought, which is the past. Like the title of the movie " Walking Dead Man. " What is alive, isn't the image formed of the past, of what's been experienced previously. > Thanks again. I am enjoying myself and not letting frustration get to > me. Great. Frustration can be observed in clarity, just as any emotional state, state of thought, experiential state, can be observed. It's not that you're observing any of this from a distance. And with no distance, you aren't in any state that you're observing. You are what you're observing. The observer has no distance from the observed. So, here, any way to locate self dissolves. Another way to say this, is " choicelessly aware, simply, as this. " -- Dan > > Happy Thanksgiving to you as well, > Steve > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> > wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " yacobyisrael " > > <yacobyisrael> wrote: > > > Thanks again, Dan, for your timely comments. I realize my last > > post > > > was some attempt to justify the loop, which is another way to > > > perpetuate the loop. Since no effort can bring about " attainment " > I > > > can see that my efforts must focus on this loop to truly verify > > it's > > > fictional existence. I can see my double-mindedness on this > matter > > so > > > I will dig deeper on studying this loop and it's fictional > nature. > > > AS you said to Vert... the hour is late... > > > > > > Steve > > > > Steve -- look into this immediately, now, here. > > > > Can you detect the first instant of an attempt to > > move away? > > > > By move away, I mean move to a position of knower, > > of one who had an experience and will now decide > > what to do with it? > > > > Now, that movement away isn't volitional -- it > > leads to the sensation of volition. > > > > Can you detect the nonvolitional spontaneous attempt > > to move to a position of self? > > > > If you can, you notice that this instant, there is > > no separation of the movement and that from which > > it " wants " to move. > > > > That destroys the entire configuration of self as > > a being with its own existence in time, dissolves > > the attempt to manufacture a loop of perception. > > > > The self position as the knower, the haver, the doer, > > the experiencer, the one who has a continuing being. > > > > This acuity of awareness, this spontaneous clarity, > > isn't a product of anything you intend, wish, > > aim for, and so on. > > > > Yet, it includes an intense desire for truth that > > overcomes the ingrained tendency to try to > > " come from the past " -- to try to exist as a being > > formed of memory, a collection of experiences and > > tendencies to react from a position. > > > > The way that tendency to try to come from the past > > is overcome is simply by not doing anything. > > Not the kind of not doing that people mean, when > > they say, " I'm not going to do that. " But nondoing > > as the fullness of the energy you are, without an > > intent to make anything be the case. > > > > There is no intent to get rid of the tendency -- such > > intent is, in fact, the operation of that tendency. > > > > So, there is simply observation that doesn't depend on > > having a point of view, a predetermined outcome for > > what will be seen or known, or even a template for > > knowing. > > > > Just " what is " as is ... > > > > -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 27, 2003 Report Share Posted November 27, 2003 Dan - Thanks once again for another installment of fine tuning. I have a few more questions about a statement you wrote. You Said: The moving away is how you place yourself " in here " looking at a tree " out there. " It may seem like an immediate experience, but it's not. Me: So there is an ever present " micro-lag " happening? If so then at anytime this " moving away " may reveal " itself " presenting an a constant chance for a realization? For lack of a better explaination, *now* happens in this " micro-lag " ... I do realize these are just labels and can not truly express the real.. but I want to at least make sure I am as clear as one could be on what you are saying. Steve Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > Hi Steve -- > > > During my immediate study of the loop after I read your comments I > > noticed that, when it comes to what I see with my eyes I can not > > detect a moving away. For example: I looked out the window and saw > a > > tree. I did not think this is a tree (if I did it happened so fast > > that it slipped by my obeservation) but rather tried to think > > that, " the tree see is just part of the loop. This is fictional. " > > However I observed this mental comment as just my mind trying to > > believe it is fictional because I was told that it was and I liked > > what the idea of the tree or the world as being fictional. I tried > > to observe the moving away but I could not. I just see the tree > and > > it is there and could not understand it as being fictional. > > The moving away is how you place yourself " in here " looking > at a tree " out there. " > > It may seem like an immediate experience, but it's not. > > The immediate experience has no located being which is > aware of something out there. > > So, if there is no distance apart, what is it to be > looking at a tree that is say, twenty yards away? > > What is that experience with no located observer, > no place apart from which to view? > > The thought process you describe involves the located > observer imagining that thoughts can be a device > that manufacture a desired perception. > > Of course, if the observer isn't located, that process > wouldn't amount to much of anything at all. > > > However, > > where I can verify the fiction is when I observe my likes and > > dislikes, my moods, etc. > > I see these wax and wane. Like the > > Ouspensky/Gurdjieff concept of so many " I's " . As for the external > > world I am having trouble applying this inquiry. I will say that > > when I tried to look into the inquiry the moment I read your > > instructions to do so in the first scentence it took quite a bit of > > energy and made me tired trying to see the external world as > > fictional. > > What I'm looking into here, isn't to try to see the external > world as fictional. > > It's to see how locating an observer in here, locates > an external world out there. > > Each is dependent on the other. > > If I catch that happening, this instant, then it is > clear that there is no in here without an out there, > and vice versa. So neither can be placed, located. > > What then happens to the " whole scene " of me being here, > experiencing this? > > > I even went and took an afternoon nap thinking that I'd > > try again when I woke up. I did and came up with the same > results. > > It's not a matter of trying as much as it's a matter of > noticing what's going on this moment. > > You can't decide to do it. > > It happens prior to your decision, and is how you > can have the experience that " I'm here making a decision. " > > > I can only inquire on the personal and not on the external. Maybe > > this is going to take more practice > > You can't practice this. It's now or never, unexpected. > > > but I am willing to be steadfast > > in the inquiry, so long as I know I am understanding you correctly > > and performing it correctly. > > You can't take in something I'm saying, then apply it, > and get a desired result. > > What I'm saying is only useful if it catalyzes instantaneous > clarity. Which you get only directly, from " this " which is > " who you are *now* " -- not by taking in word meanings > and then applying them in a predetermined way. > > > Your help is GREATLY appreciated and I do want to observe the > moving > > away. Who is this who wants to observe the moving away? I am > tacking > > this " who is this " on to everything and just waiting to see what > > arises.. so far just more mental commentary. > > The mental commentary has already happened by the time you > observe it. So, it's already past. > > I gues you could say, one will never be " quick enough " to > catch *this.* No matter how fast you are, you will > only get the past -- even the past of one millisecond > ago is the past. > > The nowness that is who you are, you won't catch. > > The one trying to catch it is the " movement away " -- the > self that is always only an attempt. > > > I will say it does take > > a bit of energy... so much more than just regular thinking. > > Yes, it takes everything. > > It takes more than " I've " got. > > So, it's the end of me. > > This moment is the end of me. > > I don't know it, because my knowledge is of thought, > which is the past. > > Like the title of the movie " Walking Dead Man. " > > What is alive, isn't the image formed of the past, > of what's been experienced previously. > > > Thanks again. I am enjoying myself and not letting frustration get > to > > me. > > Great. > > Frustration can be observed in clarity, > just as any emotional state, state of thought, > experiential state, can be observed. > > It's not that you're observing any of this from a distance. > > And with no distance, you aren't in any state that you're > observing. > > You are what you're observing. > > The observer has no distance from the observed. > > So, here, any way to locate self dissolves. > > Another way to say this, is " choicelessly aware, > simply, as this. " > > -- Dan > > > > > Happy Thanksgiving to you as well, > > Steve > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> > > wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " yacobyisrael " > > > <yacobyisrael> wrote: > > > > Thanks again, Dan, for your timely comments. I realize my last > > > post > > > > was some attempt to justify the loop, which is another way to > > > > perpetuate the loop. Since no effort can bring > about " attainment " > > I > > > > can see that my efforts must focus on this loop to truly verify > > > it's > > > > fictional existence. I can see my double-mindedness on this > > matter > > > so > > > > I will dig deeper on studying this loop and it's fictional > > nature. > > > > AS you said to Vert... the hour is late... > > > > > > > > Steve > > > > > > Steve -- look into this immediately, now, here. > > > > > > Can you detect the first instant of an attempt to > > > move away? > > > > > > By move away, I mean move to a position of knower, > > > of one who had an experience and will now decide > > > what to do with it? > > > > > > Now, that movement away isn't volitional -- it > > > leads to the sensation of volition. > > > > > > Can you detect the nonvolitional spontaneous attempt > > > to move to a position of self? > > > > > > If you can, you notice that this instant, there is > > > no separation of the movement and that from which > > > it " wants " to move. > > > > > > That destroys the entire configuration of self as > > > a being with its own existence in time, dissolves > > > the attempt to manufacture a loop of perception. > > > > > > The self position as the knower, the haver, the doer, > > > the experiencer, the one who has a continuing being. > > > > > > This acuity of awareness, this spontaneous clarity, > > > isn't a product of anything you intend, wish, > > > aim for, and so on. > > > > > > Yet, it includes an intense desire for truth that > > > overcomes the ingrained tendency to try to > > > " come from the past " -- to try to exist as a being > > > formed of memory, a collection of experiences and > > > tendencies to react from a position. > > > > > > The way that tendency to try to come from the past > > > is overcome is simply by not doing anything. > > > Not the kind of not doing that people mean, when > > > they say, " I'm not going to do that. " But nondoing > > > as the fullness of the energy you are, without an > > > intent to make anything be the case. > > > > > > There is no intent to get rid of the tendency -- such > > > intent is, in fact, the operation of that tendency. > > > > > > So, there is simply observation that doesn't depend on > > > having a point of view, a predetermined outcome for > > > what will be seen or known, or even a template for > > > knowing. > > > > > > Just " what is " as is ... > > > > > > -- 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.