Guest guest Posted December 8, 2003 Report Share Posted December 8, 2003 Hi Steve, > You said: Is there truth that is immediate? > > > > Is there truth that doesn't require or involve any > > mediating variables (such as symbols or another person)? > > > This is the quandry. From studying second hand the words and symbols > on this list and in the books I am reading it seems that, yes, there > is Truth available immediatly but this self-image of " me " can't get > it. What about when you don't look to the words? Is there truth that is immediate for you, now? Right now -- not having to do with any " languicizing " of reality, not dependent on memory to regurgitate something that was read? Not dependent on splitting one into the words being contemplated and the contemplator of the words? > This " me " has to die in order to realize the Truth of now. The self-image has never actually been a " knower " at all. It doesn't matter that language and thought can be constructed as if refering to a knower that can be given an image as " me. " Language and thought involve conventions, but all those conventions do, is allow for consensus agreements about speaking, acting, evaluating through language formats. So, *knowing* is being able to separate what is conventional truth, from what is aconventional truth, what doesn't depend on cultural interpretation, memory forms, sensory formulations which are conditioned by the past. > However, I have read that no amount of effort on my part can achieve > it. > No effort in the receiving of the Truth or the death of " me " . > This seems correct only because of past short comings in the various > phases in the trying game.. Ah -- this is your experience then, that comes from your present understanding. That trying hasn't worked. But then again -- neither has not-trying! :-) > However, there is an element of faith > involved because of the second hand nature of the information. Of > course, I am always open to hearing any second hand information from > you or any other who has been around the block in this arena. Perhaps > this attitude is a hinderence? Can you see the hindrance involved? Not because someone else explained it, but because directly it is clear to you what the hindrance is? Can you notice that you bring in time, memory, speculation, as soon as you involve the second-hand information? Can you notice that prior to moving toward something that someone else supposedly knows and communicates, prior to any such movement, there is understanding that doesn't require time, memory, speculation, imagery? > You said: > > Then, who is having the faith that Steve is false? > > > > It can't be Steve, because if it were Steve, then > > that wouldn't be honest faith at all, just some > > kind of trick to keep Steve going as a center of > > knowing and believing. > > I was just pondering this point today while on a long drive. My > question is, is Steve capable of honest Faith? I can't tell but you > may very well be right on the trick. However when I pondered this I > concluded that the mind's very nature is to trick, no? This I have > verified because in the past I had seen this happen to me.. many > times.. the conclusion was.. expect tricks. Is it possible to have > any conclusions that are not of the mind.. Who says that truth is a conclusion? > if not, then the > conclusion 'expect tricks' is itself a trick? round and round it > goes.. trick or treat. Okay. This makes sense to me. So, where are you as you're observing the mind? The mind can't observe the mind? So where are you, and who is observing the mind? If the loop is going 'round and 'round, there is awareness that is not in and of that loop -- otherwise the loop couldn't be understood as going 'round and 'round. > And if there is clarity that who you are isn't " Steve " > > then what faith is needed at this point? > > Yes, I determined that this clarity, if you can call it that, is > itself a concept.. I had to question the honesty of this attitude. > I just kept coming back to Faith and the words I read concering Trust > from Niz. and also Ranjit Maharaj. It seems they ask for Trust on > these issues that can't be verified by the questioning individual. Consider please that there is no " they " asking something of you. Please consider that there is only the image of " Steve " being conceptualized as someone existing and capable of manufacturing faith, and the images formed of Niz and Ranjit which are part of the same conceptual system. Those images are being used to verify for Steve that there is something he can have faith in, therefore allowing Steve to be continued as a faith-having being. These images arise together and die together. You talked about death earlier. There is no such death without the death of Steve the faith-carrying knower, and the images being associated with Steve as those in whom he has faith, or who have asked him to keep faith. No doubt this is difficult. At this point, the entire spiritual pursuit, all its institutions, all its avatars, teachers, promoters, saints, ecstatic worshippers, etc., etc., are understood as images, along with the imaged teachings and imaged forms of knowing, worshipping, being in ecstacy, and so on. For this all to die, is the death of self. There is no other way for self to die, except with all its accouterments, its supports, its beliefs, its cherished desires, ambitions, loves, hates, fears, wishes, and ideals. > You said: > > > Here is where I get hung up.. I may have this all wrong... but it > > > seems Absolute " i " can't know anyway... > > > > What makes it seem like that? > > Because these words I am Trusting in that tell me Steve can't > experience the now are mixed in with the same clarity as the thoughts > which include my likes and dislikes of the moment.. How can you have faith in your death, when such faith is the attempted avoidance of dying? > > And what do you mean by the term " Absolute " ? > > The now that we know we can't discuss but try to anyway. Whatever we are trying to discuss, has nothing to do with the truth that can't be communicated. > You said: How do you " verify the false " ? > > By noticing the ever-changing likes,dislikes and moods of me. > I'd like to know of better observation tecniques.. No way, Jose! :-) You have too many as it is. Of course, these die along with the one using them to try to get an insight! Nice discussing this with you. Be well, Danielsan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 11, 2003 Report Share Posted December 11, 2003 Hi Steve, You wrote: > Steve: Yes there is something immediate.. but I have to use words to > explain it.... True. And what it is as immediate isn't put into the words, is just suggested by the words, at best. > I can observe that there is " existence " .. then comes > the feeling of existing via the body..This sequence almost > instantanious. I like the way you describe this. I observe that there is something even before " existence " that doesn't have the static quality that the word " existence " suggests to me. Something like " boundless flux " or " indeterminacy " ... then comes the awareness of " existence " or " being " then the awareness of " bodily feelings and sensation " Interesting that you say " almost instantaneous " -- that's like being " a little bit pregnant. " But I know what you mean, and you're on target with that. What is truly instantaneous is timeless, and can't be put into words at all, because it takes time to associate a perception with a word, and it takes time even for a perception to register -- even a basic sensation takes time. Even words like " timeless " or " instantaneous " aren't adequate. What's intriguing to me is that the timeless can't become time. Because to become time (including awareness of flux, of existence, of bodily sensation) requires time. Becoming and being involve time. So, the immediacy is the intersection of timelessness and time, is where they meet, and yet doesn't involve the one becoming the other. Thus, as immediacy, the timelessness that is who you are includes the timing of the events which are your being, perception, experience, just as you describe. Includes it, without becoming it. The " you " which is in time therefore can't move into the timelessness that is who you are. This is what you meant (as far as I'm concerned) by saying that " Steve " can't know " this. " Thus, the *knowing* of this, is the *being* of this, which is prior to being, prior to " existence " -- just as you're describing above -- and well said! > Then comes the observations of breath, feeling the > body parts. .. Then comes the analazation by the mind.. Agreed. > I exist, O > breath..etc.. I can not stop this sequence. It just happens in > series. I will refer to this as " sequence of identification " or " s > of i " . Okay. You can't stop it because you're not there to stop it. You appear in it, through it having already happened. It is spontaneous yet inevitable. > You said: So, *knowing* is being able to separate what is > conventional > > truth, from what is aconventional truth, what doesn't > > depend on cultural interpretation, memory forms, > > sensory formulations which are conditioned by the past. > > Steve: So to be clear on this. It does not matter that I can not > control the series of identification, but rather being able to > separate this awarness of existence vs. " the sequence of > identification " that fills in the body/mind structure? Yes - only I would use the word " discriminate " rather than separate. One doesn't happen separately from the other, yet I can discriminate the one from the other. One is timeless, even prior to existence, is no-thing, the no-thing that is " nowness. " The other is time, experience, my being -- never separate, yet certainly not to be mistaken for timeless nowness. This discrimination is clear to me experientially, always there when there is the " happening " as moments of time being experienced. > Dan said: Can you see the hindrance involved? > > > > Not because someone else explained it, but because > > directly it is clear to you what the hindrance is? > > > Steve: Yes, I can see now that the hinderance is the " sequence of > identification " . It is believing that " I " have been placed within that sequencing of identification, when nothing has been placed within it. That sequence is sort of like the trail left in the air when you move a glowing stick through the air. It's like an after-image. > This " s of i " is almost instantaneous and I only > re-cognized it because you asked me if there was an immediate truth. Cool! Yes, you sound like you looked into this in a first-hand way. > If I could only find that microgap between " existence " and the " S of > I " and stay there. You don't have to. You're never not there. You don't recognize that you're always already there, because recognition involves time. The " nowness " that is prior to fluxing, to movement, to existence, to time, is never not the case. The movement of nowness can't be detected, because it is all-encompassing and simultaneous to everything that can be sensed, experienced. Its movement is totality, and thus is stillness. > But then, would I be able to work, communicate > with family, etc? Would I even appear? hmmm Of course. Everything goes on just as it goes on. You are just clear about the " how " of it. You are clear that the after-image is an after-image. > You said: Can you notice that you bring in time, memory, > > speculation, as soon as you involve the second-hand > > information? > > Steve: Yes. I can now notice this for the first time. Before when I > was telling you about observing the tree days ago, I was not > noticing the " s of i " like I am now. Maybe because I was focusing > on something external. It makes sence that anything that happens > after the " s of i " is operating on memory and thought. Yes, exactly. You are clear about the realm of memory and thought, and discriminate that realm from this which can't be included in that realm. Yet, the realm of memory and thought is included always already in this. That is, any memory always occurs " now, " every thought is " now, " every perception, and so on. Yet this, which I'm calling " nowness " even though it's unnameable, can't itself be sensed, felt, conceptualized, or experienced. > You said: Can you notice that prior to moving toward something > > that someone else supposedly knows and communicates, > > prior to any such movement, there is understanding > > that doesn't require time, memory, speculation, imagery? > > Steve: Yes, but the " s of i " colors it almost immediatly, yet that > existence is still there at the root. I can make this observation > quite easily now..but the " s of i " rushes in as well... it makes me > wonder if I was complicating your previous instructions when I got > real tired days ago. Instructions can only take place in the after-image. So, the one who instructs, and the one who is instructed, can only be after-images. The " nowness " can't be discovered by an after-image of the " nowness " regardless of instructions, or no instructions. > You said: > Who says that truth is a conclusion? > > Steve: I see that this " existence " is not a conclusion.. but for > some reason I feel the need to " do something with it " or control it. Yes. The after-image seems as if it has an " I " involved, that wants control. Yet, that desire for control isn't an indication of an " I " that does anything or wants anything. It is just an after-image, like anything that is perceived or sensed. > This of course, all within the " s of i " . Indeed. > I can observe the " s of i " > working where as before I just noticed my many moods, likes and > dislikes.. now I can see " they " are part of a bigger construct which > is this almost instantaneous " s of i " .. Yes. Well-said, that is, you stated that clearly. > You said: So, where are you as you're > > observing the mind? The mind can't observe the mind? > > So where are you, and who is observing the mind? > > Steve: It seems that when I am observing the mind (the fully > uploaded " s of i " ) that I kind of have, for lack of a better > discription, one foot in the existence awareness and one foot in the > mind. True. That is what discrimination implies. > When I say to myself, " ah.. look at your changing moods and > likes/dis-likes " I have already gone back to the mind and " the > critic " steve steps in to anal-ize the observation. Yes. The self-image appearing in the after-image, as if able to analyze things, manipulate things, get things to be a certain way. Like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic! :-) > All very > instantanious, but I can notice that " s of i " rush into the microgap > between the existence. Sure. What's rushing in is an after-image. And why and how that would be is intriguing. Because there isn't any real gap. From one side, there seems to be a gap, as seen by an observer " within " the after-image. From the other side (which is really the same side just without the observer) there is no gap. > You said: If the loop is going 'round and 'round, there is awareness > > that is not in and of that loop -- otherwise the loop > > couldn't be understood as going 'round and 'round. > > > > > And if there is clarity that who you are isn't " Steve " > > > > then what faith is needed at this point? > > Steve: I guess the faith that I will be able to " stand in the gap " > somehow before the " s of i " colors the " existence " .. but now even as > I write this line it seems kind of silly because I have observed > this immediate existence, and can observe it at any moment... > however.. there is no control over the flood of the " s of i " .. in > fact I notice the first feeling of identification of my body in the > area at the bottom of my rib cage and the spine of that area.. so.. > I can observe, even in detail it seems.... but not stop the " s of i " > that fills " me " in. True. It is spontaneous and inevitable. " You " aren't there to do anything about it. You describe this well. > You said: > > Consider please that there is no " they " asking something of you. > > > > Please consider that there is only the image of " Steve " being > > conceptualized as someone existing and capable of manufacturing > > faith, and the images formed of Niz and Ranjit which are > > part of the same conceptual system. Those images are being > > used to verify for Steve that there is something he can > > have faith in, therefore allowing Steve to be continued > > as a faith-having being. These images arise together and die > > together. > > Steve: I see that all of this exists post " s of i " .. very subtle... > What you say about the images arise and die together.. this makes > sense in relation to my observing the microgap between the > simple " existence " observation and the subtle rush of the " s of i " . Yes. From the one side, there is a space being filled with images, the images seeming to interact, have feelings, do things. From the other side (which is the same side) there is no space, hence nothing to come in, hence the image dies, and with it, its images, and the images it used to be images of images :-) This is always " happening " -- without happening. That is, it is choiceless, doesn't depend on being experienced or perceived, is never not the case. This death is always taking place (without occurring). So, anything that occurs, happens, is experienced, is dissolved the instant it occurs. It's like what you were saying about how " it's almost instantaneous. " I has to be " almost instantaneous " or nothing would be perceived. If it were instantaneous, there would be no perception, no imaging, no thought. > Kinda like a binary open/close thing happening. Yes, exactly. But very lopsided > with the self-image operating with the " s of i " taking up > more " presence " .. false, no doubt. No doubt. False only in the sense of being an after-image. But that's no problem. One doesn't try to get rid of an after-image, it's not there to get rid of. One needn't disprove it, escape it, do something about it. It has never been the case. That of which it is an after-image is never not the case. > And definately second hand as > opposed to the flash of awarness that " I exist " that gets instantly > colored, yet still remains in the background. Actually, it is only in the background for " we " who are discussing events as experiencers of events. Which is how it must be for " us " -- it's the only way we could " be " -- by it being background. When in truth, it can never be background. There is nothing for it to be background to. Hence, to know/be truth, is to die to self, dying to self by virtue that self has never been, never had an existence. Its entire world of experience is after-image only. > You said: You talked about death earlier. > > > > There is no such death without the death of Steve the faith- > carrying > > knower, and the images being associated with Steve as those > > in whom he has faith, or who have asked him to keep faith. > > > > No doubt this is difficult. > > > Steve: yes, tricky..it seems this death could happen if the gap did > not get filled with the " s of i " .. actually if the gap did not get > filled there would be no death because the " s of i " never > happened... oh... yeah... " nothing ever happened " .. that line makes > sense now in relation to the " s of i " which exists in " time " . Exactly. Identity is only wanting to be able to have an existence, it's never actually there having an existence. > You said: > > At this point, the entire spiritual pursuit, all its institutions, > > all its avatars, teachers, promoters, saints, ecstatic > worshippers, > > etc., etc., are understood as images, along with the imaged > > teachings and imaged forms of knowing, worshipping, being > > in ecstacy, and so on. > > Steve: I can see that these exist post existence in the " s of i " > construct. Yes. > > For this all to die, is the death of self. There is no > > other way for self to die, except with all its accouterments, > > its supports, its beliefs, its cherished desires, ambitions, > > loves, hates, fears, wishes, and ideals. > > Steve: yeah.. they would have no " place " to exist if " me " never got > constructed from the " sequence of identification " Indeed. And it never has. That is, it's never been anything more than a fluctuating after-image within an after-image, a reflection that reflects reflections. It has its life of sorts within that arena, just as a movie character has its life of sorts on the screen while the images are playing out according to the rules by which those images play out. > You said: > What makes it seem like that? > > > > > > Because these words I am Trusting in that tell me Steve can't > > > experience the now are mixed in with the same clarity as the > > thoughts > > > which include my likes and dislikes of the moment.. Okay. > > How can you have faith in your death, when such faith > > is the attempted avoidance of dying? > > Steve: if I have this right... what you say here finally makes sense > because faith, etc. all needs the " s of i " to happen thus imprinting > the orignal " existence " .. that this " existence " is not in time/space > makes sense. How very clever that faith can be the avoidance of > death because with out the " s of i " there would be no construct in > which to have the faith.. and me wanting to control the " s of i " is > a subtle trick of the " s of i " .. more subtle than any beast of the > field.. the " s of i " can nip my heal but I AM can crush it's head.. And even I AM is a construction from the flux, the indeterminacy, which is still an after-image (almost instantaneous) of this which moves without moving, whose movement is stillness, which is beyond movement or stillness. > you said: Nice discussing this with you. > > Steve: the pleasure is mine... ;-) .. thanks for Being.... here Where else? :-) Enjoying the discussion, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 12, 2003 Report Share Posted December 12, 2003 Hello Dan, You said: And even I AM is a construction from the flux, the indeterminacy, which is still an after-image (almost instantaneous) of this which moves without moving, whose movement is stillness, which is beyond movement or stillness. Steve: Yes, I am seeing that these concepts all appear after the " sequence of identification " in the after-image. Also, you and Sandeep's reference to images dancing on a screen is quite fitting. This fits in with the mechanical-ness of what happens in the after- image. I can observe that as well to some extent. BUT when I apply the " who is that which observes the after-image " question.. it does not make much sense because I can now 'understand' that question (and all questions) rise up after the 's of i'. Damn... Dog + tail + chase = questions.. especially since questions appear post 's of i'... hmmm Very much enjoying our discussion, Steve Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > Hi Steve, > > You wrote: > > > Steve: Yes there is something immediate.. but I have to use words > to > > explain it.... > > True. And what it is as immediate isn't put into the words, > is just suggested by the words, at best. > > > I can observe that there is " existence " .. then comes > > the feeling of existing via the body..This sequence almost > > instantanious. > > I like the way you describe this. > > I observe that there is something even before " existence " > that doesn't have the static quality that the word > " existence " suggests to me. Something like " boundless flux " > or " indeterminacy " ... then comes the awareness of " existence " > or " being " then the awareness of " bodily feelings and sensation " > > Interesting that you say " almost instantaneous " -- that's like > being " a little bit pregnant. " But I know what you mean, > and you're on target with that. > > What is truly instantaneous is timeless, and can't be put into > words at all, because it takes time to associate a perception > with a word, and it takes time even for a perception to > register -- even a basic sensation takes time. > > Even words like " timeless " or " instantaneous " aren't adequate. > > What's intriguing to me is that the timeless can't become > time. Because to become time (including awareness of flux, > of existence, of bodily sensation) requires time. > Becoming and being involve time. > > So, the immediacy is the intersection of timelessness and time, > is where they meet, and yet doesn't involve the one becoming > the other. > > Thus, as immediacy, the timelessness that is who you are > includes the timing of the events which are your being, perception, > experience, just as you describe. Includes it, without > becoming it. > > The " you " which is in time therefore can't move into the timelessness > that is who you are. This is what you meant (as far as I'm > concerned) by saying that " Steve " can't know " this. " > > Thus, the *knowing* of this, is the *being* of this, which is > prior to being, prior to " existence " -- just as you're > describing above -- and well said! > > > Then comes the observations of breath, feeling the > > body parts. .. Then comes the analazation by the mind.. > > Agreed. > > > I exist, O > > breath..etc.. I can not stop this sequence. It just happens in > > series. I will refer to this as " sequence of identification " or " s > > of i " . > > Okay. You can't stop it because you're not there to stop it. > You appear in it, through it having already happened. > > It is spontaneous yet inevitable. > > > You said: So, *knowing* is being able to separate what is > > conventional > > > truth, from what is aconventional truth, what doesn't > > > depend on cultural interpretation, memory forms, > > > sensory formulations which are conditioned by the past. > > > > Steve: So to be clear on this. It does not matter that I can not > > control the series of identification, but rather being able to > > separate this awarness of existence vs. " the sequence of > > identification " that fills in the body/mind structure? > > Yes - only I would use the word " discriminate " rather than > separate. One doesn't happen separately from the other, > yet I can discriminate the one from the other. One is timeless, > even prior to existence, is no-thing, the no-thing that is > " nowness. " The other is time, experience, my being -- > never separate, yet certainly not to be mistaken for timeless > nowness. > > This discrimination is clear to me experientially, always > there when there is > the " happening " as moments of time being experienced. > > > Dan said: Can you see the hindrance involved? > > > > > > Not because someone else explained it, but because > > > directly it is clear to you what the hindrance is? > > > > > > Steve: Yes, I can see now that the hinderance is the " sequence of > > identification " . > > It is believing that " I " have been placed within that sequencing > of identification, when nothing has been placed within it. > > That sequence is sort of like the trail left in the air when > you move a glowing stick through the air. It's like an > after-image. > > > This " s of i " is almost instantaneous and I only > > re-cognized it because you asked me if there was an immediate truth. > > Cool! Yes, you sound like you looked into this > in a first-hand way. > > > If I could only find that microgap between " existence " and the " S > of > > I " and stay there. > > You don't have to. > > You're never not there. > > You don't recognize that you're always already there, > because recognition involves time. > > The " nowness " that is prior to fluxing, to movement, to > existence, to time, is never not the case. > > The movement of nowness can't be detected, because it is > all-encompassing and simultaneous to everything that > can be sensed, experienced. Its movement is totality, > and thus is stillness. > > > But then, would I be able to work, communicate > > with family, etc? Would I even appear? hmmm > > Of course. Everything goes on just as it goes on. > > You are just clear about the " how " of it. > > You are clear that the after-image is an after-image. > > > You said: Can you notice that you bring in time, memory, > > > speculation, as soon as you involve the second-hand > > > information? > > > > Steve: Yes. I can now notice this for the first time. Before when > I > > was telling you about observing the tree days ago, I was not > > noticing the " s of i " like I am now. Maybe because I was focusing > > on something external. It makes sence that anything that happens > > after the " s of i " is operating on memory and thought. > > Yes, exactly. You are clear about the realm of memory and > thought, and discriminate that realm from this which can't > be included in that realm. Yet, the realm of memory and > thought is included always already in this. That is, > any memory always occurs " now, " every thought is " now, " > every perception, and so on. Yet this, which I'm calling > " nowness " even though it's unnameable, can't itself be > sensed, felt, conceptualized, or experienced. > > > You said: Can you notice that prior to moving toward something > > > that someone else supposedly knows and communicates, > > > prior to any such movement, there is understanding > > > that doesn't require time, memory, speculation, imagery? > > > > Steve: Yes, but the " s of i " colors it almost immediatly, yet that > > existence is still there at the root. I can make this observation > > quite easily now..but the " s of i " rushes in as well... it makes me > > wonder if I was complicating your previous instructions when I got > > real tired days ago. > > Instructions can only take place in the after-image. > > So, the one who instructs, and the one who is instructed, > can only be after-images. > > The " nowness " can't be discovered by an after-image > of the " nowness " regardless of instructions, or no > instructions. > > > You said: > Who says that truth is a conclusion? > > > > Steve: I see that this " existence " is not a conclusion.. but for > > some reason I feel the need to " do something with it " or control it. > > Yes. > > The after-image seems as if it has an " I " involved, that wants > control. > > Yet, that desire for control isn't an indication of an " I " that > does anything or wants anything. It is just an after-image, > like anything that is perceived or sensed. > > > This of course, all within the " s of i " . > > Indeed. > > > I can observe the " s of i " > > working where as before I just noticed my many moods, likes and > > dislikes.. now I can see " they " are part of a bigger construct which > > is this almost instantaneous " s of i " .. > > Yes. Well-said, that is, you stated that clearly. > > > You said: So, where are you as you're > > > observing the mind? The mind can't observe the mind? > > > So where are you, and who is observing the mind? > > > > Steve: It seems that when I am observing the mind (the fully > > uploaded " s of i " ) that I kind of have, for lack of a better > > discription, one foot in the existence awareness and one foot in > the > > mind. > > True. That is what discrimination implies. > > > When I say to myself, " ah.. look at your changing moods and > > likes/dis-likes " I have already gone back to the mind and " the > > critic " steve steps in to anal-ize the observation. > > Yes. The self-image appearing in the after-image, as if able > to analyze things, manipulate things, get things to be > a certain way. Like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic! :-) > > > All very > > instantanious, but I can notice that " s of i " rush into the microgap > > between the existence. > > Sure. > > What's rushing in is an after-image. > > And why and how that would be is intriguing. > > Because there isn't any real gap. > > From one side, there seems to be a gap, as seen > by an observer " within " the after-image. > > From the other side (which is really the same side > just without the observer) there is no gap. > > > You said: If the loop is going 'round and 'round, there is awareness > > > that is not in and of that loop -- otherwise the loop > > > couldn't be understood as going 'round and 'round. > > > > > > > And if there is clarity that who you are isn't " Steve " > > > > > then what faith is needed at this point? > > > > Steve: I guess the faith that I will be able to " stand in the gap " > > somehow before the " s of i " colors the " existence " .. but now even > as > > I write this line it seems kind of silly because I have observed > > this immediate existence, and can observe it at any moment... > > however.. there is no control over the flood of the " s of i " .. in > > fact I notice the first feeling of identification of my body in the > > area at the bottom of my rib cage and the spine of that area.. so.. > > I can observe, even in detail it seems.... but not stop the " s of > i " > > that fills " me " in. > > True. It is spontaneous and inevitable. > > " You " aren't there to do anything about it. > > You describe this well. > > > You said: > > > > Consider please that there is no " they " asking something of you. > > > > > > Please consider that there is only the image of " Steve " being > > > conceptualized as someone existing and capable of manufacturing > > > faith, and the images formed of Niz and Ranjit which are > > > part of the same conceptual system. Those images are being > > > used to verify for Steve that there is something he can > > > have faith in, therefore allowing Steve to be continued > > > as a faith-having being. These images arise together and die > > > together. > > > > Steve: I see that all of this exists post " s of i " .. very subtle... > > What you say about the images arise and die together.. this makes > > sense in relation to my observing the microgap between the > > simple " existence " observation and the subtle rush of the " s of i " . > > Yes. From the one side, there is a space being filled > with images, the images seeming to interact, have feelings, > do things. > > From the other side (which is the same side) there is no space, > hence nothing to come in, hence the image dies, and with it, > its images, and the images it used to be images of images :-) > > This is always " happening " -- without happening. > > That is, it is choiceless, doesn't depend on being experienced > or perceived, is never not the case. > > This death is always taking place (without occurring). > > So, anything that occurs, happens, is experienced, > is dissolved the instant it occurs. > > It's like what you were saying about how " it's almost > instantaneous. " I has to be " almost instantaneous " > or nothing would be perceived. If it were instantaneous, > there would be no perception, no imaging, no thought. > > > Kinda like a binary open/close thing happening. > > Yes, exactly. > > But very lopsided > > with the self-image operating with the " s of i " taking up > > more " presence " .. false, no doubt. > > No doubt. False only in the sense of being an after-image. > > But that's no problem. One doesn't try to get rid of an > after-image, it's not there to get rid of. One needn't > disprove it, escape it, do something about it. It has > never been the case. That of which it is an after-image > is never not the case. > > > And definately second hand as > > opposed to the flash of awarness that " I exist " that gets instantly > > colored, yet still remains in the background. > > Actually, it is only in the background for " we " who are discussing > events as experiencers of events. Which is how it must be > for " us " -- it's the only way we could " be " -- by it being > background. > > When in truth, it can never be background. There is nothing > for it to be background to. Hence, to know/be truth, > is to die to self, dying to self by virtue that self has > never been, never had an existence. Its entire world of > experience is after-image only. > > > You said: You talked about death earlier. > > > > > > There is no such death without the death of Steve the faith- > > carrying > > > knower, and the images being associated with Steve as those > > > in whom he has faith, or who have asked him to keep faith. > > > > > > No doubt this is difficult. > > > > > > Steve: yes, tricky..it seems this death could happen if the gap did > > not get filled with the " s of i " .. actually if the gap did not get > > filled there would be no death because the " s of i " never > > happened... oh... yeah... " nothing ever happened " .. that line makes > > sense now in relation to the " s of i " which exists in " time " . > > Exactly. > > Identity is only wanting to be able to have an existence, > it's never actually there having an existence. > > > You said: > > > > At this point, the entire spiritual pursuit, all its institutions, > > > all its avatars, teachers, promoters, saints, ecstatic > > worshippers, > > > etc., etc., are understood as images, along with the imaged > > > teachings and imaged forms of knowing, worshipping, being > > > in ecstacy, and so on. > > > > Steve: I can see that these exist post existence in the " s of i " > > construct. > > Yes. > > > > > For this all to die, is the death of self. There is no > > > other way for self to die, except with all its accouterments, > > > its supports, its beliefs, its cherished desires, ambitions, > > > loves, hates, fears, wishes, and ideals. > > > > Steve: yeah.. they would have no " place " to exist if " me " never got > > constructed from the " sequence of identification " > > Indeed. And it never has. > > That is, it's never been anything more than a fluctuating > after-image within an after-image, a reflection that reflects > reflections. It has its life of sorts within that arena, > just as a movie character has its life of sorts on the screen > while the images are playing out according to the rules > by which those images play out. > > > You said: > What makes it seem like that? > > > > > > > > Because these words I am Trusting in that tell me Steve can't > > > > experience the now are mixed in with the same clarity as the > > > thoughts > > > > which include my likes and dislikes of the moment.. > > Okay. > > > > How can you have faith in your death, when such faith > > > is the attempted avoidance of dying? > > > > Steve: if I have this right... what you say here finally makes > sense > > because faith, etc. all needs the " s of i " to happen thus > imprinting > > the orignal " existence " .. that this " existence " is not in > time/space > > makes sense. How very clever that faith can be the avoidance of > > death because with out the " s of i " there would be no construct in > > which to have the faith.. and me wanting to control the " s of i " is > > a subtle trick of the " s of i " .. more subtle than any beast of the > > field.. the " s of i " can nip my heal but I AM can crush it's head.. > > And even I AM is a construction from the flux, the indeterminacy, > which is still an after-image (almost instantaneous) of > this which moves without moving, whose movement is stillness, > which is beyond movement or stillness. > > > you said: Nice discussing this with you. > > > > Steve: the pleasure is mine... ;-) .. thanks for Being.... here > > > Where else? > > :-) > > Enjoying the discussion, > Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 12, 2003 Report Share Posted December 12, 2003 Nisargadatta , " yacobyisrael " <yacobyisrael> wrote: > Hello Dan, > You said: And even I AM is a construction from the flux, the > indeterminacy, > which is still an after-image (almost instantaneous) of > this which moves without moving, whose movement is stillness, > which is beyond movement or stillness. > > Steve: Yes, I am seeing that these concepts all appear after the > " sequence of identification " in the after-image. Also, you and > Sandeep's reference to images dancing on a screen is quite fitting. > This fits in with the mechanical-ness of what happens in the after- > image. I can observe that as well to some extent. BUT when I apply > the " who is that which observes the after-image " question.. it does > not make much sense because I can now 'understand' that question > (and all questions) rise up after the 's of i'. Damn... Dog + tail > + chase = questions.. especially since questions appear post 's of > i'... hmmm > > Very much enjoying our discussion, > Steve Hi Steve -- What you're saying seems on-target to me. So, if you're clear on this, then there's nothing to do or be done, or not to be done. Any doing or failing to do, would just be part of the after-image sequence of identification, no? There is no question *here* about " who " -- as a question requires a questioner, does it not? -- and, thus, certainly no answer to be had *here*. This is peace without opposition, peace which is not disturbed by chaos -- this being the source of peace and chaos, having no self-qualities, nor any lack of self. Thanks for the clarity of your statements about what you're experiencing. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 14, 2003 Report Share Posted December 14, 2003 Nisargadatta , " yacobyisrael " <yacobyisrael> wrote: > Hello Dan, > > Just to be clear would you agree that: > > 'everything that happens in the after-image, after the 'sequence of > identification' unfolds, is based on assumption' > > This keeps 'ringing in the background'. > > Steve Yes. And I'd say the assumption is itself " afterimage. " And also, the one who understands that assumption is what maintains the after-image, is also " afterimage. " Thus: choicelessly aware. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 15, 2003 Report Share Posted December 15, 2003 Thank You Dan. Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " yacobyisrael " > <yacobyisrael> wrote: > > Hello Dan, > > > > Just to be clear would you agree that: > > > > 'everything that happens in the after-image, after the 'sequence of > > identification' unfolds, is based on assumption' > > > > This keeps 'ringing in the background'. > > > > Steve > > Yes. > > And I'd say the assumption is itself " afterimage. " > > And also, the one who understands that assumption > is what maintains the after-image, is also > " afterimage. " > > Thus: choicelessly aware. > > -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 2, 2004 Report Share Posted January 2, 2004 Greetings Everyone, During " my " observations of the " after-image " there has been this narrative going on which has kind of been the commentary on what I am seeing as confirmation that, yes, all that I am thinking, feeling, etc. is based on assumption. I had been taking this just simply to be the " witness " , make note that it too is in the after- image, and just continue to observe the " doing " just as one watches a movie..Now, just recently, this same narrative/commentator 'witness' has begun " saying " , while sitting in the allegorical movie theater, " this is too simple, this peace you have been enjoying is just a rationalization " .. Even as I write this post I see how irrelevant this question is (seeing as all this is occuring in the after-image), but I gotta ask... was this narrator ever the 'witness' to begin with or is this more like a 'quality control agent' or something? Thanks for suffering yet another question (I will admit there are a lot less questions now but this one seems to keep cropping up)! Steve Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " yacobyisrael " > <yacobyisrael> wrote: > > Hello Dan, > > > > Just to be clear would you agree that: > > > > 'everything that happens in the after-image, after the 'sequence of > > identification' unfolds, is based on assumption' > > > > This keeps 'ringing in the background'. > > > > Steve > > Yes. > > And I'd say the assumption is itself " afterimage. " > > And also, the one who understands that assumption > is what maintains the after-image, is also > " afterimage. " > > Thus: choicelessly aware. > > -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 2, 2004 Report Share Posted January 2, 2004 Now, just recently, this same > narrative/commentator 'witness' has begun " saying " , while sitting in > the allegorical movie theater, " this is too simple, this peace you > have been enjoying is just a rationalization " .. Even as I write this > post I see how irrelevant this question is (seeing as all this is > occuring in the after-image), but I gotta ask... was this narrator > ever the 'witness' to begin with or is this more like a 'quality > control agent' or something? > Steve > Hi Steve, it's just the mind....typical of what it does. witness everything without judgement or labeling and notice(witness) when judgement and labeling arise...(but witnessing will also eventually drop). happy new year. jess Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 2, 2004 Report Share Posted January 2, 2004 - " yacobyisrael " <yacobyisrael <Nisargadatta > Friday, January 02, 2004 10:17 PM Re: Nothing to " do " / Steve > Greetings Everyone, > During " my " observations of the " after-image " there has been this > narrative going on which has kind of been the commentary on what I > am seeing as confirmation that, yes, all that I am thinking, > feeling, etc. is based on assumption. I had been taking this just > simply to be the " witness " , make note that it too is in the after- > image, and just continue to observe the " doing " just as one watches > a movie..Now, just recently, this same > narrative/commentator 'witness' has begun " saying " , while sitting in > the allegorical movie theater, " this is too simple, this peace you > have been enjoying is just a rationalization " .. Even as I write this > post I see how irrelevant this question is (seeing as all this is > occuring in the after-image), but I gotta ask... was this narrator > ever the 'witness' to begin with or is this more like a 'quality > control agent' or something? If there is a sense of an arising question,.......then it's all hoopla. 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.