Guest guest Posted December 11, 2003 Report Share Posted December 11, 2003 Hi Dan, You said: 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? Steve: Yes there is something immediate.. but I have to use words to explain it.... I can observe that there is " existence " .. then comes the feeling of existing via the body..This sequence almost instantanious. Then comes the observations of breath, feeling the body parts. .. Then comes the analazation by the mind.. 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 " . 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? 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 " . This " s of i " is almost instantaneous and I only re-cognized it because you asked me if there was an immediate truth. If I could only find that microgap between " existence " and the " S of I " and stay there. But then, would I be able to work, communicate with family, etc? Would I even appear? hmmm 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. 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. 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. This of course, all within the " s of i " . 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 " .. 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. 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. All very instantanious, but I can notice that " s of i " rush into the microgap between the existence. 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. 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 " . Kinda like a binary open/close thing happening. But very lopsided with the self-image operating with the " s of i " taking up more " presence " .. false, no doubt. And definately second hand as opposed to the flash of awarness that " I exist " that gets instantly colored, yet still remains in the background. 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 " . > 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. > > 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 " 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.. > > 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.. you said: Nice discussing this with you. Steve: the pleasure is mine... ;-) .. thanks for Being.... here Steve > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > 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 14, 2003 Report Share Posted December 14, 2003 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 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > 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...
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.